Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Flood Control topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Alameda County staff propose $373 million 20‑year benefit assessment to fund flood control projects in three zones

Alameda County Board of Supervisors — Unincorporated Services Committee · September 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County flood control staff told supervisors the district faces roughly $600–700 million in unmet capital needs and proposed about $373 million in benefit assessments over 20 years covering Zones 2, 4 and 9; staff said outreach and an educational ballot mailing to about 60,000 property owners would follow.

Alameda County flood control staff on Sept. 25 told the Board of Supervisors’ Unincorporated Services Committee that the district faces decades of deferred maintenance and large capital needs and is proposing a countywide benefit assessment focused on three high‑need zones.

Moses Sang, deputy director of the Alameda County Flood Control Program, and consultant Sybil Hatch said the district has identified roughly $600–700 million in unmet capital projects across the zones and is proposing about $373 million in assessments spread over 20 years to fund critical repairs and capital projects. "We are facing a perfect storm of resource needs," Hatch said, noting aging infrastructure, more extreme storms and rising construction costs.

Staff told supervisors that the benefit assessment for Zones 2, 4 and 9 has not increased since 1993 and that combined annual revenues for those zones now total about $10 million. Under the proposal, typical residential assessments in the affected zones would rise from about $20–$25 per year to an estimated $50–$90 per year; commercial parcels would be larger. Staff also said they recommend adding a CPI escalator so future increases are smaller and more predictable.

Hatch described a property‑owner poll of 605 respondents: initial support for an assessment was about 38 percent but rose to about even after the poll included more information about risks and how funds would be used. Staff said ballots would be mailed to roughly 60,000 property owners in the affected zones and that each zone would vote independently. A majority protest (50%+1) in a zone would prevent that zone’s increase, staff said.

Members of the public urged investment but also pressed for more transparency. Bruce King of Friends of San Lorenzo Creek said he supports repairs but asked for a clear project list and for environmental measures — including fish passage and habitat improvements — to be included in planning. Staff responded that the engineers report, the official project list and outreach materials will be posted online and shared with community groups and elected officials as the process advances.

Next steps outlined by staff include finalizing the engineers report (targeting board approval in November), mailing protest ballots in February and holding a public hearing in March 2025 to count ballots. If no majority protest occurs in a zone, the board may adopt the assessment for that zone.