Bradford Island 2059
Meeting Minutes
For a Special Meeting held on
June 17, 2015
1.The meeting is called to order at 4:26 PM - There is a quorum and present are the following people: President Kuhne, Trustees: Orozco and Craig. The District's Attorney is present Mia Brown. Engineerpresent Blake Johnson. Trustee Davies and Trustee Hall are not present. The District Administrator Angelia Tant is present and is taking the meeting minutes. The District's Levee Superintendent Smith Cunningham is present. Landowner's present is Karen Cunningham, New Landowner Esza, Linda Orozco, Gene and Esther Lewis. Locations of the Meeting: Antioch Fair Grounds
2.Trustee Comments: Trustee Michael Craig expresses that there are a few new faces in attendance that he has never seen. The new landowner introduces himself and President Kuhne welcomes him to the meeting.
3.Public Comments: Landowner Karen Cunningham has brought a piece of her dock to show the board of trustees the damage that the new barrier has caused. Karen expresses that her grandkids cannot even swim in the water. Karen expresses that DWR is out there measuring the tides at ebb tide. Landowner Gene Lewis inquires with the board on if they can hire a new hydrologist. President Kuhne expresses that this is not an agenda item and it will be placed on the next agenda.
4.Proposed New Assessment: Scott and Megan from Larsen and Wurzel are present to give a presentation. Scott hands out some bounded copies of the Engineer’s report to various landowners in the audience. Scott expresses that he wants to go through the report from front to back and outlined the changes he has made and the methodology. Scott outlines that the report is broken down into five different sections and outlines what those are. The authority section outlines that this is a supplemental O & M assessment and this does not replace the old assessment that reverts back to the 9/10 rates. Scott outlines that he cannot change this because it will be in violation due to the ad volurum. Scott again outlines that this is a supplement to the old assessment. Scott expresses that section three outlines the funding plan. Scott expresses that we scrubbed the budget a little and dropped the costs down. Scott outlines that we looked at the delinquent assessments anticipated to collect and the debt assessment. They anticipate to retire the outstanding debt that is on the books at this time in ten years. The board will have the discretion to evaluate where they are and they have the discretion to go below that. There is a cash flow analysis in this report and there was a revision made to this and it outlays the next 11 years. This report outlines costs and revenues. There are a few items in there that are labor driven in which will be escalated at 3% a year and this is set at the maximum. Scott expresses that section 4 is really the meat of the report. This section outlines the maximum assessment rate and for next year it is set at $237,000 for the district to collect in revenue. This assessment will be on top of the 9/10 assessment. A portion of this report outlines how each landowner is assessed. Maintenance of access roads that the district maintains and other access roads, the district’s portion of the ferry authority, drainage, collecting run off and seepage, collection it and pumping it back out, the last one is flood damage. Based on the level of effort it appeared that 5% went to the land access benefit. 70% of the special benefit went towards the drainage benefit to maintain ditches. 25% towards the reduction of flood damage of potential levee breaks. Land use codes where used based on the county’s records. The three codes are Ag, residential, mineral rights and government properties. Tr. Orozco inquires on if vacant land was left out. Scott expresses that they did not appear to have any difference between other adjacent properties that were identified as ag. Scott expresses that they did not see any distinguishing difference between the ag. Properties and vacant. Tr. Criag inquires with Scott there is really no difference between an ag. Property and an adjacent property that was vacant. Scott expresses that this is correct and there is really no difference in the benefit. Scott expresses that the government properties were identified as being the district’s property and expresses that those where eliminated. They look at the difference between ag and residential property and the only difference appeared to be size. The underlining land use was review, they did not see a 20 residential acre vs. a 200 acre ag. They saw no difference. They looked at the gas leased parcels and those are identified on a map and the benefit they see is ½ of the benefit of the surface parcel. When they looked at the special benefits, ag and residential are equally treated and mineral rights is ½. The special benefit fir the access benefit, was apportioned on parcel count regardless of what land use category it was. The drainage was apportioned on acreage. Ag and residential where treated as the same weight and the mineral rights is considered to be ½. Scott is on page five and is outlining the calculations that he used to determine the apportionment per acre. The flood risk reduction benefit has two components.
- Reduction to damages to land
- Reduction to damages to structure
One of the more challenging pieces to allocate was damages to structures. Scott expressed that after using Ariel photos that things would come and go. Scott expresses that at the end they ended up using the Contra Costa Counties data. Scott expressed that that didn’t want to walk the island and look at each structure and determine what each benefit was. Scott expresses that each landowner can go to the county and dispute any in corrections they may have. Scott expresses that there are gas wells on the island and they looked at from a square foot basis what is the damages. Scott expresses that they assume that a gas well has 500 square feet. They decided to use this square feet and use a multiplies on this of 10. Scott outlines an error on page 15 and expresses that it should show $237,000.00 error in revisions to the report. Scott outlines that the $237,000 is multiplied by the percentage on the table that is outlined on page 15 and this is the amount used. Scott begins to read off each scenario on the page. Scott outlines that there is a section in the report that will discuss on how the process will be administrated and also an appeals process. Scott outlines that this report is on the website. Scott outlines that the cash flow analysis has been amended. Scott expresses that the escalation factor that the district can use if they need to and it is tied to the CPI for urban wage earners. Scott outlines that there is a cap that it will not go down and it will not go up past 3%. Scott begins to outline the changes:
- Typo on page 15 $265,000 to $267,000
- There are a number of items in flux – past due assessments (That drove the need or ability to collect debt), the ferry is getting an over haul (This could affect the assessment) There are a number of other unknowns. Scott outlines that the district was looking into other revenue sources and outlines that Cate is looking into the mitigation site.
- Scott outlines that it may be prudent to have a five year report. We can re-evaluate everything in five years and take into consideration numerous factors that Scott is outlining. The report clarifies that this is a five year duration. This is found in Section 5 and it takes us to fiscal year 2020. Scott made the clarification in the report as to why they determined to do this.
- There was a change on the Cash flow to Income from Proposed Assessment. Scott outlines that they have eliminated that revenue starting in 2021 and they have identified a new income such as a new assessment due to the five year sunset.
Sunset – Landowner Smith Cunningham inquires about another sunset in five years.
Craig – The board has the ability to call for a new Prop. 218 at any time and he would like to know why we are picking five. After assessing they felt that 3 years was too short, they thought in ten years and that seemed too long. Therefore, they felt somewhere in the middle and five years would be prudent to take another look. The decision is at the board level expresses Scott and expresses that we should probably allow the landowners to have some input. Mia outlines that the law outlines five years. Tr. Craig inquires on why not just leave it to the board to see when they feel its in need. Scott outlines that CRC brought up this issue and Pr. Kuhne outlines that a landowner at the last meeting requested 2 years. Pr. Kuhne expresses that if you go past five years, it gets harder to be accurate. Pr. Kuhne expresses that she feels that 5 years is a natural cycle and expresses that there is a five year plan etc… Landowner Gene Lewis gives some input and expresses what his concerns are. Gene expresses that he does not want to take away the discretion of the board and wants to know what will happen at the five years. Mia expresses at the end of the five years, the prop. 218 will sunset and revert back. Mia expresses that a new vote will come out and the assessments may be raised. Scott expresses that the current assessment will be in place for 5 years and will go away unless another 218 election approves it to continue on. The 2009/2010 assessment will stay however this new layer of assessment will go away. Scott outlines that the 2011 assessment had a sunset clause that put the assessment back to the 2009/2010 rates. Landowner Gene Lewis inquires about if the island flooded is this amount incorporated into these rates. The answer is no. Pr. Kuhne outlines that OES (The Office of Emergency Services) will also come in. Tr. Craig inquires on if the boar can call for another Prop. 218 before the five years. The answer to Tr. Craig’s questions is yes. Landowner Gene Lewis at any time n the next five years the board can raise the assessment or call for a new Prop. 218. Mia expresses that if an emergency occurs and the current figures are found to be inadequate then the board can call for a new Prop. 218. Mia outlines that the new Prop. 218 would have to be voted on by the landowners and if it wasn’t voted on then it wouldn’t pass. Mia expresses that the district could have a special assessment for a special Project as has been done in the past. Mia explains that this particular assessment is for O & M. Trustee Craig asks a question to the board of trustees. Mia responds and outlines that the prop. 218 could be to add a layer or have a prop 218 to adjust layer number 2. President Kuhne outlines that the district may not be around in five years. President Kuhne points out also that there is no more income from ferry ticket income. Landowner Folsom inquires on where this income went. President Kuhne outlines that this income has been apportioned into the layer. Scott expresses that he feels that it was a good idea to put in the sunset clause for the landowners to express their voice. Trustee Criag agrees with this plan. Mia expresses that the five year is there to make it palatable and if this fails, the district is un funded. Mia expresses that at a district perspective they are dangerous but from a landowners perspective they are wonderful. Landowner Jim Folsom inquires with Mia on if a small group of landowners of 40 can they vote to increase amongst themselves. Mia’s response is not for assessments or things that are collected on the county tax rolls. Mia gives an example of another district and expresses that there are some districts with one or two landowners and they charge themselves and it is structured a little differently. Landowner Jim Folsom has a question on the last page on the budget about when the old assessment kicked in and when the new rates would kick in. Scott answers his question. Landowner Jim Folsom inquires on how and when this would show up on the tax bill. Scott outlines that the tax bill will have two line items. Scott outlines on the 15/16 tax bill will show two rates. 16/17 you would have the 09/2010 + if this passes this rate. The 09/10 rate will be what it is and this one can be up to this amount the 3% option is there to vote to increase up to 3% however not anymore. There is a cushion built in that will allow for the district to reduce the assessment. Landowner Gene Lewis inquires with regards to gas rights vs. landowner assessments rights. Gene would like to know if the math was run. Scott expresses yes, and that once the rates roll back to 9/10. The gas leases + the maximum on the roll will = a reduction in their assessment by approximately $10,000 by approximately 5-10%. Gene inquires on what happens and what the collection process for delinquent assessments. It is expressed to Gene that the current rolls are no longer an issue due to the fact that they are teetered. Mia stands to be corrected and announces that she has confused the law with her water district and expresses that there is no five year cap on this prop. 218. There is an announcement to the public in the meeting that the royalty for the sand from DWR was paid and the amount for the royalty is announced. The District Manager also expresses that $202,707.00 will be used this week to pay down the warrants for the pump station at the Bank of Stockton. Gene inquires on the budget pro forma and President Kuhne expresses that this subject is on the agenda.
M/S/P by Craig/Orozco with all in favor and zero opposed to hold the Public hearing as follows:
- Public Hearing Date: 8/4/2015 (This is a Tuesday)
- Time: 11:00 A.M.
- Location: Antioch Fair Grounds – 1201 West 10th Street Antioch, CA 94509
M/S/P by Craig/Orozco with all and favor and zero opposed to adopt the resolution to approve and adopt the preliminary with the two revisions as follows:
- Page 15 $237,000
- Duration of the prop. 218 is for five years at which this time the district will reevaluate the O&M and see the position for a new prop. 218
Notices will go out, ballots will go out and information will be contained in this ballot. A commission will be appointed however it will be tabled until the next meeting.
5.Mailing Address: The board President outlines that we have a need to get a new mailing addresses due to the fact that our mail was being returned including a $150k check from the DWR.
M/S/P by Orozco/Craig with all in favor and zero opposed to change the district’s mailing address and notify the Board of Supervisors.
6.Smith Cunningham expressed that they invited him to Stockton to look at their emergency supplies. There is a product called muscle wall. They came to the island and looked at the weirs at the low end. OES appeared to be concerned and expressed it is a very serious problem. The OES will provide the muscle wall and they will have the California Conservation Corps come out and install this. Smith outlines that there is an issue at the Blue house as well. Smith expresses that with the board’s approval they will go ahead and do the work. Mia expresses that the county acts on the District’s behalf and the materials come from the flood control center division of DWR. Pr. Kuhne expresses that at the time of the discussion that Mia was concerned about some environment issues and under whose CEQA permit this would be under. Mia obtained responses to these questions and it was concluded that there was no environmental concerns regarding this. Pr. Kuhne expresses that if this is approved, they are ready to come out and start the work. Smith expresses that each K-rale is approximately $450.00.
M/S/P Orozco/Criagauthorizing an application with the OES to allow for the installation of these K-rales and the DWR will pay for 800 feet of muscle wall, sand bags, equipment and resources in the four low areas in the district’s in the levee system.
7.Engineering RFPS - The RFPs will be awarded at the July 7th meeting
8.Porta Potty for Project - Nothing to report
9.Attorney’s Report - Nothing to report
10.The next meeting will be held on July 7th @ 11 A.M. the meeting is adjourned at 6:29 PM
June 17, 2015Prop. 218 – PFA Meeting Minutes