The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About32-Public Services ;J-J CITY OF SAN BERVRDINO - REQUEST 1r~1~e,~~~~L ACTION From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Support for Formation of a 1913 Act Assessment District by County of San Bernardino - Improvement of San Timoteo Creek - '1t: Public Works Date: 5-3-95 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 05-02-94 - Consent given for adoption of a Resolution of Intention by the Board of Supervisors relative to establishment of a Benefit Assessment District to finance the unfunded portion of the local agency share .~j!l" . , 0'" ~'" of the improvement of San Timoteo Creek. 4 fL\' g 3 Recommended motion: Adopt resolution. cc: Shauna Clark Jim Penman tJA~~ Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5025 1 & 3 Contact person: Roqer G. Hardqrave Phone: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 6lthH..~~!;; S. /~-9S # S.l. ./ ~~~:) ~-'):J.-9~ -# /J- 75-0262 Agenda Item No. 32. .:,'~s.. Cf~ . - - - .- CITY OF SAN BER.RDINO - REQUEST eoR COUNCIL ACTIO~ STAFF REPORT A motion was adopted at the Council meeting of 5-2-94, giving consent to the formation of a Benefit Assessment District by the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors. This district was formed to finance the local agency share of the improvement of San Timoteo Creek, under the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers project to provide flooding protection for the Santa Ana River. The total estimated cost for the improvement of San Timoteo Creek is $58 Million. Seventy-Five (75)% of this amount will be financed by the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 25% ($14.5 Million) by the local interests. Due to several constraints in the Flood Control District Act, the County has decided to form the district under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. At their meeting of 4-18-95, a Resolution of Intention was adopted by the Board of Supervisors relative to formation of Assessment District No. 95-1 (San Timoteo Creek) . The County of San Bernardino has authority to establish this district under their legislative powers. However, they are requesting support from the cities that are partially included in the area of benefit. The City of San Bernardino has given consent to the for- mation of a Benefit Assessment District, under the Flood Control District Act. The impact upon property owners will be essentially identical, for either a Benefit Assessment District or a Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 District. Therefore, we recommend that support be given to the County's plan to establish Assessment District No. 95-1 under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. URGENCY CLAUSE: The Flood Control District has requested that the indications of support be provided by about 5-15-95, in order that they can conform to their schedule for forming the assessment district. 5-3-95 75-0264 . . 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPPORTING THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO'S PROPOSAL 3 TO FORM AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 TO FINANCE THE LOCAL AGENCY SHARE OF THE COST FOR THE 4 IMPROVEMENT OF SAN TIMOTEO CREEK BY THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, is proceeding with the improvement of San Timoteo Creek, as a part of the Santa Ana River Project; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost for the improvement of San Timoteo Creek is $58 Million, of which 75%, or ($43.5 r1illion) will be financed by the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 25%, or $14.5 Million, by local interests. WHEREAS, consent was given by the City of San Bernardino, at the regular Council meeting of May 2, 1994, for the establishment of a Benefit Assessment District to finance the unfunded portion of the local agency share of the project cost; and WHEREAS, due to several constraints in the Flood Control District Act, the County has made the decision to proceed under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; and WHEREAS, at their meeting of April 18, 1995, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intention to Order Acquisition and Improvements, under AssessQent District No. 95-1 (San Timoteo Creek); and WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino has requested support fer the formation of Assessment District No. 95-1 from 5-3-95 R.i:.;:,u: ::>u?POR'iIi,G FORNATION u<' A:':'~"':>1'JJ:.N'l Ul.,Tt<.l\...T BY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SAN TIMOTEO CREEK. . . 1 the cities that are within the area of benefit. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 3 SECTION 1. That the City of San Bernardino hereby 4 indicates support for the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the 5 San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on April 18, 1995, for 6 the formation of Assessment District No. 95-1, under the 7 Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, to finance the unfunded 8 portion of the 25% local agency share of the cost for the 9 improvement of San Timoteo Crep-k under the U.S. Corps of 10 Eng ineer I s proj ect. 11 IIII 12 I I I I 13 I I I I 14 I I I I 15 I I I I 16 I I I I 17 I I I I 18 I I I I 19 I I I I 20 I I I I 21 I I I I 22 IIII 23 I I I I 24 I I I I 25 IIII 26 I I I I 27 I I I I 28 I I I I - 2 - 1________ ..-,.............. 0..11.1. I. '-'I........ ........... ... ....;...~_~... ........., ..c, ..~.....'-'......-.- ..................... -.-- SAN BERNARDINO FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SAN TIMOTEO CREEK. . . 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 2 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 3 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 4 day of 5 Council Members: , 1995, by the following vote, to-wit: ABSENT ABSTAIN NAYS AYES 6 NEGRETE 7 CURLIN 8 HERNANDEZ 9 OBERHELMAN 10 DEVLIN 11 POPE-LUDLAM 12 HILLER 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rachel Clark, City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1995. Tom Minor, Mayor Ci ty of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: James F. Penman City Attorney By ~__~ J p-~~ / I / I I .' ,/ -- 3 - ,--- . . ~ SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITIEE May 30, 1995 ATIENDEES: Councilwoman Valerie Pope-Ludlam - Chairwoman Councilman Eddie Negrete Councilman David Oberhelman Dennis Barlow - Assistant City Attorney Peggy Ducey - Assistant to City Administrator Phil Arvizo - Council Executive Assistant Ken Miller - San Bernardino County Flood Control District Mina Gholy - San Bernardino County Flood Control District Roger Hardgrave - Director Public WorkslEngineering Elliott Shaw - Integra Engineering Inc. Richard Brooks - The Sun 1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SAN TIMOTEO CREEK COUNTY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - The Committee listened to a presentation by Mr. Ken Miller, Director of Transportation/Flood Control, County of San Bernardino. The Committee requested that the item be returned to the full Council without a recommendation at this time. Attached are questions and answers that were a part of the meeting. Meeting adjourned. ~. Councilwoman Valerie Pope-Ludlam Chairwoman VPL:fw 7F ]:u (p /) /1,) . . 1. What is the actual oercentaqe of oroiect in our City? - We are to be assessed 35% of the project and only .7 of the 7 mile creek is in our City. Mr. Miller admitted he was in error and passed out new information indicating it was only 20%. The basis of the assessment is not on the length but on the area impacted by 50 year flood and 100 year flood. Also, the actual length in San Bernardino City is about 1 mile. 2. Whose idea was this oroiect? - It has been pursued for last 25 years. Combined with Santa Ana Main Stem project. Referred to flood of 1969. The boundaries more or less follow Benefit Zone 1 (50 year) and Benefit Zone 2 (50 to 100 years) . 3. Has Lorna Linda oassed their resolution? - Yes, they are considering RDA funding to buy down the assessments. 4. What haooens if we don't oass Resolution? - Legally all cities must give support for us to move on 1913 Act process. We have a Flood Control Act that allows the board to assess but we don't have the authority to collect. Last option the project would not get built. It would initially be placed on hold. Corps of Engineers can't wait too long. Santa Ana project would be jeopardized. 5. Is concrete lined channel. sides and bottom. to be built? What haooens to oercolation if yOU out in a concrete bottom? - Basins up above will trap and percolate water. In the lower areas the water flows too rapidly and not much percolation occurs. Soft bottom channel would have to be wider, more in construction cost and more right of way. Cost is prohibitive. This is the most economic way. 6. Where are basins located? - All are at upstream end up in San Timoteo Canyon. 7. Anv of this flood area in our City flow into Mission Creek at all? - No. Mission Creek flows into Santa Ana and is different watershed. 8. Has the State come in with any fundinq? What are oroiections? - No, and the projections are not good. State could reimburse but it is out of money. The subvention fund has been reduced dramatically. Claims far exceed $100 million. Maybe we'd get 5 cents on the dollar. 9. If assessment district is aooroved. when would construction beqin? - The Reaches identified in your map show the time. Reach One is under construction and will be completed by early next year. Reach Two is 95% designed. If Assessment District is formed it would go later this fall and be completed within a year. Reach Three is starting design phase. It is to be advertised in mid-96. Two year construction would put it at mid-year 98. . . -2- 10. Building pads in Tri-City area all were built with extensive overflow studies, are elevated, and approved by Mr. Guidry of Flood Control. Whv are we beinq assessed when we met those requirements before? Some damage will occur regardless. FEMA and Corps of Engineers look at flooding versus living with an existing situation but the parameters shown on the maps have been studied and agreed to. 11. Is there a formula for identifvinq benefits or funds that will come from the oro;ect? - Nothing has been formulated but surely material, work and associated spending will occur in a project of this size - $58 million. 12. Who is oavinq most? Who is imoacted most? - Lorna Linda in both cases of course. A list is provided showing benefit units and the amount. Developed and undeveloped properties pay the same for "relief from flooding". 13. will insurance rates be affected? - Anyone paying flood insurance today will not have to pay any when project is complete. Even though they have taken other measures such as elevating the pads? They may. Mr. Shaw will advise as to his Tri-City area insurance impact. 14. What haooens to federal dollars and when? - Reach Two could be advertised soon, since there is federal money for this year. We may end up losing this assistance although it could possibly be replaced in the future if the project doesn't go forward now. 15. What residential 20 years. 16. Where will hearinqs be held? Supervisors Board Room. will a sinqle family residence pav? Most properties will be approximately $200 per year for At the Board of 17. Is IVDA suooortive? - Their recommendation was to have staff work with Flood Control and wait for City Council responses. 18. Is there ;ustification for a Third Zone north of the 1-10 Freeway on the basis that the newer develooment did some extensive flood oroofinq and they are afforded some measure of orotection by the 1-10 freeway embankment? - They don't qet the full force of the water like the uooer end? - No, not really. A Third Tier really hasn't been looked at. Area is subject to the same flooding. . . PROPOSED SAN TIMOTEO CREEK ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 95-1 Assessment % Colton $ 1,018,500 6.25 (, , San Bernardino $ 3,272,000 20.07 J--. - . Lorna Linda $ 8,280,000 50.80 Redlands $ 939,700 5.76 Unincorporated $ 2.789.800 17.12 $16,300,000 100.00 .. ~ ~ @ 0: ,. \.~ .. ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ll!i . . i I i i ~!I C') ii 0~ ~!~ <( '<t ~112 UJ' W'~ ex: '<t il~ . I r-- - -----~ . I , I , I i I '.18 _1\311 I , I . . I . I . . l_______n < C\I , i :c- ::; alIN1AJJ:1~~ o~ ~ ~ r-------7- 0> ...--... . : a: ,.- I . . I . . -~ ~ . 1-< 0- WZ a~ a:~ a..Ci! ::EO w - ~~ t;~ o~ ~::;l ~ r-: II( 0 ex:O :Z:o UJa: 0 z ~5 <~ Zz <a: <w I-Ul ~Z (J'.)~