HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10221996 - C73 sE L Contra
011
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
t
a al r '$
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson x _ = o County
T'9`COOtl�
DATE: October 22, 1996
SUBJECT: REFER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE THE ISSUE OF A REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND C.C.C.
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR DETENTION BASIN FACILITY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the Finance Committee the issue of a reimbursement agreement with
the Liberty Union High School District and Contra Costa County Flood Control for a detention basin facility.
Request that the Finance Committee consider at their October 29 meeting a proposal by the Flood Control
District which provides for 50% of the total reimbursement amount of$303,234.17 to be paid over three years,
as well as consider the concept of additional funding to cover the remaining 50% over years two and three. In
addition, request that answers be provided at the October 29 Finance Committee meeting to the questions
outlined in my memo to the County Administrator (attached, dated September 30) on this same issue.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Negotiations between the County's Flood Control District and the Liberty
Union High School District have resulted in an agreed upon reimbursement amount of$303,234.17 for the
detention basin facility constructed in conjunction with the building of Freedom High School in Oakley. Flood
Control has proposed that one-half of the reimbursement be paid in the following increments:
Year One 20% of total $ 60,646.83
Year Two 15% of total 45,385.13
Year Three 15% of total 45,385.13
50% of Total $151,617.08
In order to accommodate payment of the remaining 50%, 1 am proposing that a 30% payment (approximately
$91,000) be paid in Year Two, with a final payment equivalent to 20% (approximately $60,600) be paid in Year
Three. It only seems fair that these funds could be paid from revenue obtained due to a County policy of
collecting reimbursement for some portion or all of advance planning work done by the Flood Control District
for significant projects. Currently, the Flood Control does somewhere between $50,000 - $100,000 a year of
staff work for major proposed developments in the county and cities which other special districts and agencies
bill for as costs are expended. Since our own Community Development Department has such a policy, it
seems overdue for Flood Control to employ some similar mechanism especially since they lost a major part of
their funding with the take-away of the Special District Augmentation fund.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE�p
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 22, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: X OTHER:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS:
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ----------- )
AYES: NOES:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
October 22, 1996
PHIL CLOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD O
'PaSAND COUNTY MINIST OR
BY
TY
cc: M. Kubicek/P. Harrington-Flood Control
Tom Torlakson
300 East Leland Road
Supervisor, District Five Suite 100
Contra Costa County Pittsburg,California 94565-4961
Board of Supervisors "�, `� (510) 427-8138
Sr'4 COUNT
DATE: 30 September 1996
TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
SUBJECT: ISSUES SURROUNDING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR DETENTION BASIN
FACILITY
A revolving loan fund had been established in the 1980's to assist in delivering flood control
projects in a timely fashion. Funds were loaned between drainage areas and advanced to
complete projects. When necessary, • Special District Augmentation funds were used to
replenish the revolving fund or to repay loans.
As it relates to the reimbursement agreement for $300,000 between Liberty Union High School
District-(Freedom High School project) and the County's Flood Control District, I am inquiring as
to what tax rate transfer considerations, if any, were given to the Flood Control District. It is
clear that the library district, police districts and fire districts were granted transfer of tax
revenues.
I am exploring with the Flood Control district means by which their central operating budget can
assist in meeting the Liberty Union School District's financial needs for having this
reimbursement agreement executed in the near future. While $150,000 has been identified,
this figure falls short of the immediate needs of the School District.
I have some questions (as follows):
(1) If there is any special Flood Control set-aside or tax transfer (ERAF), where has that
been budgeted?
(2) Since we are doing a joint venture with Freedom High School to provide additional
library services (which the Board approved in concept on July 23, 1996 and again on
September 10, 1996), is it possible that some additional funding could be earmarked from the
Library District for this reimbursement agreement?
cc: J. M.Walfor - ub is Warks
M. Kubice P. Harrington-Flood Control
Tom Torlakson
i•, 300 East Leland Road
i Supervisor, District Five Suite 100
Contra Costa County Pittsburg,California 94565-4961
Board of Supervisors y,4 (510) 427-8138
-----------
DATE:
countDATE: 30 September 1996
TO: J. Michael Walford, Director- Public Works a
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson�0
SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COSTS RELATED
TO LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
It has come to my attention that the Flood Control planning budget is extremely
overburdened due to demands for current planning needs as well. as planning for
projects and general plans not yet approved. I believe that the County's Community
Development Department and other special districts (i.e. irrigation districts) have their
staff and other expenses paid for by the applicant as the costs are incurred. This
approach should be considered as a means to address Flood Control budget shortfalls.
Additionally, since Flood Control has lost the ability to apply for an annual allocation of
Special District Augmentation funds, and has many drainage areas that are deeply in
debt due to the revolving loan fund and outstanding loans which cannot be repaid due
to the slowdown of growth, the recovery of costs for efforts expended by Flood Control
on projects during the pre-entitlement planning process should be actively pursued.
The Cowell Project alone may be costing Flood Control $50,000 per year.
I would be interested in your thoughts on the recovery of these costs.
TT:kmg
cc: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator
M. Kubicek/P. Harrington,Flood Control