Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07132004 - C.40 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS GOVERNING BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT iAn FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER HATE: JULY 13, 2004 SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXPENDITURE POLICY AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CRITERIA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION($)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Recommended Action: REFER development of policy for the expenditure of Flood Control and Nater Conservation District funds and the development of criteria to establish project priorities for the District's Capital Improvement Program to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for discussion, review, and recommendation back to the Board. 11. Fiscal impact: The District's capital projects are all funded by the District funds on a watershed basis. There is also additional funding from the Army Corps of Engineers, grants, or partners, such as cities, agencies, or creek advocacy organizations. Adopting an expenditure policy or capital improvement program criteria may alter the prioritization of certain projects in relation hers. Continued on Attachment: XSIGNATURE: COMMENDATION OF OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE 4,,�<iPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOAJI<D N JULY 13� 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED Xx OTHER =t � VOTE OF SUPERVISORS xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NOME, } AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy ABSENT: ABSTAIN: of an action taken and entered can the minutes of MMS:RMA:sSAz O:\ Dat$tiAamin\N.,tctbo\2004v-wCDCapImptflvFrogCriteraBO7-,3-4adoz the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attachment Oris.Div: Public Works iAdmm Svcs) Contact: Mitch Ava!on(313.2203) ,.Sweeter.,CAO JULY 13 2004 1.Driscoll,CAt3 ATTESTED: L.Delaney,CAO John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors M.Avalon'PWD f7eputp County Counsel r' IoodContro' and County Administrator D.Bury,CDD S.Cxoetz'CDD 3.Soochik.CDD Fish&W;ldilife Comminee �ry Watershed Forum By � , Deputy SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CRITERIA BATE. JULY 1.3, 2004 PAGE: 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Backuround: Expenditure Policy The'District receives revenue each year from various sources including a portion of the property tax from each parcel in the County,a portion of the property tax from properties within certain Flood Control Zones and funding from development fees in formed drainage areas. All of this revenue goes towards the general purpose of planning, designing, implementing, and maintaining regional drainage infrastructure throughout the County, however, there has never been a formal policy adopted that provides guidance on the expenditures of District revenue. Staff recommends referring the development of a District expenditure policy to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for review and consideration and to bring a recommended policy back to the Board for approval. The following are some of the policy issues that are driving the need for and that could become part of a more comprehensive and formal District expenditure policy. • The District has extensive infrastructure that needs dedicated funding for maintenance. • The funding resources from watershed to watershed throughout the County varies greatly. • The District currently experiences a significant overall drop in funding since Proposition 13 (1978). • Regional watershed planning and project implementation will become ever more important. • There exists an increasing backlog of maintenance work in several watersheds throughout the County. • The District is providing a leadership role in environmental and water quality enhancements in watersheds. • The District currently has no reserve fund for emergencies or a capital replacement fund. • The District's process to develop a capital improvement program has not been an open process. • More agencies, non-profit groups, and other parties are interested in participating in the improvements and programs proposed by the District. • The District manages an infrastructure system that is a valuable resource and a key element in the County's eco-system and natural landscape. • Mitigation of development now is focused on water conservation,water quality and habitat preservation, in addition to flood control. • There is a need to develop additional and stable funding sources for the District and it's flood control zones and watersheds throughout the County. • Flood control projects require years of community based planning and coordination. • The environmental and regulatory costs to plan, design, implement and maintain a project has steadily increased with time and outpaced funding sources. Capital Improvement Program Criteria Each year the District prepares a Program Budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Program Budget represents goals for implementing specific tasks with regards to specific projects in various watersheds throughout the County. The District uses a list of projects from many adopted drainage plans to establish each years project list. The District would like to develop a formal five-year capital improvement plan as a long range planning document. The District does not, however, have a formal list of criteria for prioritizing projects within each watershed. This criteria will be needed in order to develop a long range capital improvement plan,as the project needs in each watershed far outstrip the revenue the District has available for capital projects. SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CRITERIA BATE: JULY 13, 2004 PAGE: 3 Staff recommends referring the development of criteria for prioritizing projects for developing the District's Capital Improvement Program to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee for review and consideration and to Tiring recommended criteria back to the Board for approval. The following are some criteria that could be used to prioritize projects in the development of a formal Capital Improvement Program. • Matching Funds + Project Readiness • Cost/Benefit Analysis • Associated with or on an Approved Plan + Environmentally Feasible • City/Community Support + Funding Availability • Multi-Objective Purposes • Multiple Partners IV. Consequences of Neeative Action: The District would not have an expenditure policy or an approved list of criteria for prioritizing projects in developing a formal Capital Improvement Program for each watershed.