I . IGEO
I N C O R P O R A T E D
VI. ASSESSMENT METHOD
The improvements described in Section V are distributed within the GMMD boundaries.
Maintenance and protection of these improvements provide a special benefit to all property owners within the GMMD. The District Engineer hereby finds that the properties within the District receive approximately equal special benefit from the work and improvements within the ` GMMD. As a result, the GMMD assessment is distributed among all property owners within the GMMD.
As planned, Area "K' will include 150 single-family residential lots on 69.7 acres. The zoning for Area "K" is identified as residential low density. Site plans prepared for Areas "I" and "L" show a total of 230 townhomes are to be developed on 8.5 and 9.7 acres, respectively. Although the site plans for Areas "I" and "L" show a total of 230' units, it is our understanding that Areas "I" and "L" may have as few as eight units per acre based on the current zoning (Residential Medium Density). For calculations within the Engineer's Report, we have used the lowest possible density for Areas "I" and "L", a total of 145 units. Each of the three development areas abut uphill open space areas where it is anticipated that a majority of the GHAD's maintenance, monitoring and repair activities will occur. We estimate that Area "K" abuts approximately 2,300 lineal feet of uphill open space and Areas "I" and "L" are adjacent to 545 and 860 lineal feet of uphill open space, respectively.
To estimate the proportional special benefit for each of the residential unit types, low -density single-family residence, (Area "K") and medium density units (Areas "I" and "L"), two factors were identified as significant. In our opinion, the primary factor is the frontage of open space that abuts the individual development areas. As stated above, this follows since the interface at the open space is where the majority of the GHAD activities are anticipated to occur. A significant but lesser factor in identifying a special benefit is the average acreage occupied by an individual residential unit for the residential unit types.
Single-family residential lots (Area "K", low density) will be equally assessed as one unit.
Medium -density units (Areas ""I" and "L") are to be assessed at a lower rate as compared to the low -density lots. Based on the factors identified above, the medium -density units within the GHAD will be assessed at one-third to one-half of one unit each depending on the final number of units developed within Areas "I" and "U. For example, if 230 units are developed within Areas "I" and "L", we anticipate that the assessment necessary to provide the estimated benefits would be one-third of one unit. If 145 units are developed within Areas "I" and "L", we anticipate that the assessment necessary to provide the estimated benefits would be one-half of one unit. The annual assessment identified below is based on the development of a total of 145 units within Areas "I" and "U. When the total number of units is determined for Areas "I" and "L", the GHAD Board of Directors may choose to review the assessment amount for these two areas.
5698.100.101
July 22, 2010 5
GEO
I N C O R P O R A T E D
To develop the annual assessment amount for the Paradise Valley GMMD, a pro -forma budget (Exhibit 4) was prepared. The pro -forma budget includes estimated income, projected expenses and an appropriate reserve. The assessment levels for the single- and higher -density residential units were set at a level that provides for the budgeted GMMD expenses. In preparation of the budget, several factors were considered including:
• Site geology.
• Proposed remedial grading.
• Proximity of geologic hazards to proposed residences. • Site access considerations.
• Elements requiring routine maintenance including:
1. Surface drainage facilities
2. Graded slopes
3. Sedimentation basins
4. Deflection walls
5. Maintenance roads
Given the political difficulty of raising assessment levels once they are set, it was assumed that the annual assessment level must be set at a level which will fund the GHAD's activities in perpetuity, and which will only increase each year in accordance with inflation.
VII. ASSESSMENT LIMIT - BUDGET
The purpose of this initial Engineer's Report is to establish the assessment level and the apportionment of the assessment within the GMMD as required under Proposition 218. Although the recommended assessment levels will not change, the annual Engineer's Report in each subsequent fiscal year will apprise the GHAD Board of Directors of the estimated GMMD budget for the upcoming year.
Based on the estimated expenses for on -going operations, and allowing for larger (approximately $200,000) geologic events at 10-year intervals, a budget was prepared for the purpose of estimating initial assessment levels (Exhibit 3).
The Engineer recommends an annual assessment limit for the Paradise Valley GMMD of $940.00 per detached single -residential unit within Area "K", and $470.00 per each unit within Areas "I" and "L" (Fiscal Year 2010/2011 dollars). The proposed initial assessment level for detached single-family and multi -family units will be adjusted annually on June 30 to reflect the percentage change in the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
5698.100.101
July 22, 2010 6
U�p
Fairfield Geologic Hazard Abatement District Paradise Valley Maintenance and fAon o F%c Dii, 5698.002.021 l n;ii e: ! :7 is ; ,r,
6. Elements requiring routine maintenance, including, but not limited to • Surface drainage facilities
• Graded slopes
• Sedimentation basins and deflection wall
• Fire breaks
Based on the estimated expenses for ongoing operations, and allowing for larger (approximately $270,000) geologic events at 20-year intervals and maintenance of a reserve of $1,570,000 by 2051 (Fiscal Year 2022/2023 dollars), a budget was prepared for the purpose of estimating FY 2022/23 assessment levels (Exhibit B). Based on a review of the potential future allocation of the reserve funds, 75 percent was allocated to be a special benefit conferred on the Slope Mitigation Parcels and 25 percent was allocated to other geologic hazard abatement efforts within all of the assessed parcels.
The Engineer recommends an annual assessment for the PVMMD as shown on Table VII-1 in Fiscal Year 2022/2023 dollars). The proposed initial assessment level will be automatically adjusted annually on June 30 to reflect the percentage change in the San Francisco -Oakland - Hayward Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
TABLE VII-1 — Recommended Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2022/23 ,DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
AREA NAME
PRODUCTTYPE
FY 2022123
Assessment
Number-0
The Ridge
Villas Apartments
$205
30 I The Ridge
Villas Apartments (Slope)
$529
20 The Ridge
Cottages
$254 _
14 I The Ridge
Cottages (Slope)
$533
6 K The Estates
Single -Family Residences
$499
124
K The Estates
Single -Family Residences
,�,__-,
$1,424
26 L Paradise 360 Single -Family Residences $254 58
L Paradise 360 Single -Family Residences $579 10
(Slope)
VIII. OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES
The owner of Area "I" ("Owner") is responsible for managing and maintaining PVMMD Area "I" until the PVMMD accepts responsibility for the PVMMD-maintained improvements as set forth in the Plan of Control. In addition, the Owner is responsible for funding any necessary PVMMD functions or business undertaken for the PVMMD within Area "I" that the PVMMD Officers or Board of Directors determine are necessary before the PVMMD accepts the PVMMD Improvements. If the Owner fails to fund all or a portion of these costs, the costs shall be covered by the funds generated by and for the PVMMD (i.e., through the assessment), and the Owner shall be required to reimburse the PVMMD for such costs before the PVMMD can accept monitoring and maintenance responsibilities for the PVMMD Improvements.
ENGEO Page i
Expe r rxcefienoe
City of Fairfield 5698.002.024
Paradise Valley Maintenance and Monitoring District May 29, 2025 RESPONSES TO PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS REGARDING Page 2
THE PARADISE VALLEY MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING DISTRICT ENGEO Response to Comment 1
There are two primary reasons methodology in the 2022 Engineer's Report evolved as compared to the 2010 Engineer's Report. In 2010, the Engineer's Report was prepared with the most recent, plans and information available at the time. This included plans for Area "K" (The Estates); however, construction of residences within Area "K" had not yet started. In addition, plans had not yet been prepared for Areas "I" (The Ridge) and "L" (Paradise 360), although the proposed minimum and maximum number of residences within these developments had been set by the City of Fairfield, and this information was used in the 2010 Engineer's Report to establish the assessment limits. By 2022, residential construction had been completed within all three development areas "I"; "K", and "L". We were able to use the available information on the proximity to open -space slopes, average actual lot size, and average habitable building square footage to determine the special benefit conferred on each of the residential parcels.
Secondly, in early 2020, a court's decision relating to another GHAD's Engineer's Report and assessment -was published. We reviewed the court's comments related to an Engineer's Report, for a Southern California GHAD and incorporated findings from the court's comments in the 2022 " PVMMD Engineer's Report.
Comment 2�:.
ENGEO's professional_ opinion on why the change.in methodology does not alter the original intent of the district or require a Proposition 218 vote.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2
Adoption of the 2022 Engineer's Report 'with revised assessment limits did not require a new Proposition 218 vote since the GHAD s sco0.,ofservices, as identified in the 2022 Plan of Control, was not significantly altered frome GHAD's responsibilities identified in the 2010 Plan of Control used to establish the 2010,-60sessmen`t. imit. In addition, the assessment limits proposed and adopted in the 2022 Engineer's Report were less than the inflation -adjusted assessment limits calculated in the 2010 Engineei's Report.
Comment 3
Confirmation that the target fund balance increases by the CPI each year.
ENGEO Response to Comment 3
Yes. As provided in the adopted Engineer's Report (Reference 2), the annual assessment limit is automatically adjusted annually by the San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward Consumers Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI). The annual CPI adjustment allows revenue to the GHAD to maintain a constant -dollar value and to fund the PVMMD's inflation -adjusted expenses, which includes maintaining a prudent target reserve, in perpetuity.
In addition, the 2022 Reserve Fund Study (Reference 3) identifies that the calculated target reserve amount of $1,570,000 is in fiscal year (FY) 2022/23 dollars. Also, the proforma budget attached to the Reserve Fund Study shows the inflation -adjusted amount for the target reserve balance in future years.
it
The court case of Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District v. 31506 Victoria Point LLC concerned a dispute over a special assessment imposed by the Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District (District) on parcels to fund a sand nourishment project and maintain a revetment to protect the beach from erosion.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment which invalidated the District's assessment.
Here's a breakdown of the key reasons for the ruling:
• Failure to quantify general benefits: The court held that the District failed to properly quantify and separate the "general benefits" of the project from the "special benefits" to the assessed parcels, as required by Proposition 218. The project provided recreational benefits to the general public from the widened beach, and the District was required to account for these general benefits, regardless of + whether they imposed additional costs or were mandated by state agencies. • Failure to consider special benefits from the revetment: The District also failed to iL, adequately consider the special benefits derived from the revetment, which specifically protected some homes on the beach, and to properly assess those benefits.
• Failure to assess county -owned parcels: The District did not assess county - owned parcels, which the court found to be an error under Prop. 218.
In essence, the court found that the District's methodology for levying the special assessment was inconsistent with the requirements of Proposition 218, which aims to ensure that property -related fees and assessments are directly related to the special benefits conferred on the assessed properties.