Alameda County flood-control agency recommends smaller, more deliverable benefit assessment to close $373M funding gap

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ Transportation & Planning Committee received an update on July 1 from Public Works and a district consultant on options to raise revenue for flood-control work in Zones 2, 4 and 9.

Daniel Widesenbet, the county’s public‑works director, said the district identified about $706 million in capital and resiliency needs over 20 years and currently collects the equivalent of roughly $8 million a year for these zones. “We vetted a lot of these things to see if they're legally viable, or even feasible in terms of the capacity to generate revenue,” Widesenbet said as he introduced the consultant’s analysis.

Consultant Sybil (last name not specified in the record) told the committee the district narrowed its approach to two legal pathways: replacing and increasing the existing benefit assessment via the property‑owner protest process, or creating a new stormwater program fee subject to a multi‑step Proposition 218 process that could include a ballot. “We went ahead and did a lot of refining work, gathered data to support financial analysis and now we're presenting what we believe to be the most viable options,” she said.

Her analysis showed a roughly $550 million shortfall between the district’s current long‑term capacity and the identified needs. Sybil said about 70% of the project list is classed as “special benefits” (projects that can be funded by a benefit assessment, such as channel improvements and pump stations) and about 30% as “general benefits” (parks, trails, habitat) that require other revenue sources. Under a conservative scenario that leverages approximately $120 million in tax revenue for general benefits, the consultant estimated an adjusted, deliverable program of roughly $373 million over 20 years.

The consultant and Widesenbet recommended the smaller, more deliverable assessment because it is more likely to succeed in a community vote or property‑owner protest process and aligns better with the district’s capacity to deliver projects over two decades. Sybil described a phased outreach plan that includes a fall community survey, stakeholder briefings with local elected officials, mailers to property owners in the three zones, pop‑up events, and a formal engineer’s report slated for the board in November followed by protest notices in February 2025 and a public hearing in March 2025.

Supervisors pressed staff on whether the split between special and general benefits was fixed and asked what would be left undone if the smaller option were chosen. Widesenbet said the district would prioritize the most critical, deliverable projects and return to the community later to seek additional revenue for remaining needs if appetite and capacity permit. He also noted that the current benefit assessment has not been increased since 1993.

Public commentators urged more transparency and earlier sharing of a draft priority project list. Bruce King of Friends of San Lorenzo Creek said the public “should be seeing something rather than just, what do you think?” Dr. Maris, an unincorporated resident, suggested framing some work as public‑health investments and asked staff to explore other funding mechanisms. Several callers emphasized the need for robust, statistically valid polling and clearer information on private‑property impacts for projects that cross private land.

Next steps: staff plan to return to the board with an engineer’s report in November and begin targeted outreach in the fall. A protest process and public hearing are scheduled in early 2025; if no majority protest is registered the board would be positioned to approve an assessment at that time. If a majority protest occurs, staff said they would pause and expand outreach to attempt to build support.