Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Control Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Alameda County flood-control districts outline $272 million package and ballot plan for zones 2, 4 and 9
Summary
County flood-control staff presented a status update on a proposed benefit-assessment increase for Zones 2, 4 and 9, estimating roughly $272 million over 20 years, detailing projects (levees, pump stations, Doncaster work and fish ladders) and a ballot timeline with ballots mailed in April and hearings in May.
Get email alerts on the Flood Control Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County flood-control staff told the Transportation and Planning Committee on Feb. 3 that a proposed benefit-assessment increase covering flood-control Zones 2, 4 and 9 would fund levees, floodwalls, pump-station upgrades and other capital work across San Leandro, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo and parts of Hayward.
Sybil Hatch, a consultant to the district, summarized outreach and technical work completed since last fall and said the package includes a full project list, tax‑rule analysis and a nearly finished engineers report and ballot language. "About 38% said yes," Hatch said of raw poll responses, noting that support rises when the cost is framed by annual brackets (roughly 65% support for under $100/year; 51% for $100–$180/year).
The consultant provided sample homeowner impacts: for a single‑family parcel on an eighth of an acre, those outside FEMA flood zones might pay about $114 per year, while properties inside the flood zone might pay about $150 per year; Hatch estimated Zone 2 revenues at about $272,000,000 over 20 years for the proposed project set. She emphasized that larger commercial properties, schools and the airport would carry larger assessments.
The proposed projects include creek, channel and culvert enlargements, tide gates, levees, dam and spillway modifications at Doncaster Reservoir, pump-station upgrades and targeted fish-passage measures. Hatch stressed that under the district's legal framework and "Prop 218" constraints, only "special benefits" (direct flood-risk reduction: channels, pump stations, levees) are fundable by assessments, while general benefits such as trails or broader habitat restoration must be paid from other district revenues or grants.
Directors said the engineers report and a property-level appendix — showing each parcel’s estimated assessment — will be finalized for the Board's March meeting. Staff plan to mail ballots in April, allow 45 days for returns, and hold a Board public hearing in May. Ballots are weighted by assessment amount, meaning a property assessed at $1,000 carries $1,000 worth of vote weight; staff said an assessment passes if the weighted yes column exceeds the no column by $1.
Supervisors pressed staff on outreach and enforcement details. Supervisor Miley asked whether local groups (MACs, city councils) had raised opposition; staff said outreach produced questions but broad support for flood-risk reduction. On fish passage, staff confirmed fish ladders are considered a "general benefit" under the assessment rules and would likely rely on grants or other non‑assessment funding streams; staff noted prior investments ("we've spent over $60,000,000" on fish ladder work along Alameda Creek) and said the assessment funds could strengthen match capacity for grants.
Public commenters urged clearer fish‑passage goals and stronger equity and community‑benefit details. Bruce King of Friends of San Lorenzo Creek asked the district to adopt specific goals and funding pathways to mitigate fish barriers in engineered reaches; Dr. Anne Maris (a Castro Valley resident) urged staff to address community benefit and the disproportionate impact on priority populations and tenants who cannot vote on property ballots.
Next procedural steps: staff will bring the engineers report, the ballot package and outreach plan to the full Board in March. If ballots and hearings favor the assessments, the Board would have the option to adopt the assessments in subsequent meetings.
Authorities referenced in the briefing included Proposition 218 (assessment constraints) and the district’s governing act; staff said the engineers report will document the legal and technical bases for individual assessments.
Funding and implementation details remain subject to the engineers report and final board approval; staff said outreach materials and a short flood‑animation video will be posted and that the district intends to publish maintenance and inspection schedules online as projects are implemented.
