HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01141992 - 2.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: January 14, 1992
SUBJECT: ACCEPT STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM AND REFER TO BOARD COMMITTEES FOR BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
ACCEPT status report of the Stormwater Pollution Control Program and DIRECT the Public
Works Director to meet with the Board of Supervisors' Finance, Internal Operations, Environmen-
tal Affairs and Water Committees to review the Program's goals and objectives and determine
the proper financing mechanism for Contra Costa County's participation.
II. Financiallmpact:
Obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is a three step
process. Part I of the application will cost Contra Costa County $110,000. This was approved
by the Board of Supervisors on May 7, 1991. These funds are for fiscal year 1991/92. Part II
estimated costs for Contra Costa County total approximately $225,000. This will be for fiscal
year 1992/93. Once the NPDES Permit has been obtained, the financial burden to Contra Costa
County may range between $500,000 to $1 million annually. No permanent revenue source
presently exists for this Program except general fund financing.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency issued the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for stormwater discharges on November 16, 1990.
These regulations require Contra Costa County, its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to obtain a NPDES Permit for stormwater
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: ,
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON / lcl-7 ZAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
DPF:fp I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
c:BO14.t1 an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Orig. Div: Public Works (FC) ATTESTED: y Z__
PHIL JFATCHELOR,CI of the Board
CC: County Administrator of Supervisors and County Administrator
Finance Committee
Internal Operations Committee By �Z� ,Deputy
Director, Community Development
Environmental Affairs Committee
Water Committee
THE STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
BOARD COMMITTEES FOR BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
January 14, 1992
Page Two
discharges. The Permit seeks to significantly reduce or eliminate all pollutants from entering the
water of the San Francisco Bay - Delta Region.
An organization consisting of Contra Costa County, its 18 incorporated cities and the Contra
Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has been formed in order to obtain
an area-wide NPDES Permit. All 20 entities are collectively applying for Part I of the NPDES
Permit. Approximately$200,000 has been funded for these activities. The Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District is underwriting the staff necessary to manage and
coordinate these functions. The consulting engineering firm of Woodward-Clyde, Inc. has been
hired to provide the technical expertise for the Part I application. The Board of Supervisors
approved their contract on July 23, 1991. The group costs represent only a portion of the
financial commitments for the 20 entities. Each jurisdiction must also fund separate activities
needed to comply with the Part I requirements. Most of the funding has been derived from the
jurisdictions' general revenues.
The estimated 1992/93 fiscal year budget for Part II group costs is approximately $1,120,000.
Contra Costa County's anticipated share totals $225,000. Financing this and future obligations
once the NPDES Permit has been granted needs to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors'
appropriate Board committees including the Finance, Water and Environmental Affairs
Committees. The Public Works Director will provide various financing options for consideration.
Once the Boards' committee review has been concluded, then a final recommendation will be
brought before the Board of Supervisors for consideration. The cost to finance the County's
Stormwater Pollution Control Management activities once the NPDES Permit is granted range
from $500,000 to $1 million. Immediate steps need to be undertaken in order to meet the
financial challenge the Stormwater Pollution Control Program requires.
As of this date, funding for the 1992/93 cost of $225,000 has not been identified.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
If Contra Costa County does not attain a NPDES Permit it will be in non-compliance and subject
to regulatory fines totalling approximately $25,000 per day.
CONTRA COSTA CITIES i COUNTY i DISTRICT
STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
January 14, 1992
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contra Costa County, its eighteen incorporated cities and the Contra Costa County Flood
and Water Conservation District joined together in February, 1991 in response to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency promulgation of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System(NPDES)Permit Application Regulation for Stormwater Discharges and
the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's Amended San Francisco Bay
Basin Plan for Urban Runoff Management Programs. The Federal and State's regulations
mandated each jurisdiction within Contra Costa County that owns, operates or maintains a
storm sewer system to have a Stormwater Management Prevention Program. The intent of
these regulations was to radically reduce or eliminate all pollutants from stormwater.
Implementation of the NPDES Program would enhance the water quality of the Bay/Delta
Estuary.
The City ♦ County ♦ District organization has progressed rapidly in order to comply with the
NPDES regulations. All twenty entities are presently applying for an area-wide NPDES
Permit which is a three step process. Part I constitutes the reconnaissance level activity; Part
II is the development of the Stormwater Management.Prevention Plan; and, Part III is the
actual granting of the NPDES Permit for a five year period. The State Water Resources
Control Board, through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, is responsible for
implementing the NPDES Program in California. The San Francisco Regional Board has
been extremely flexible with our efforts. We do not anticipate this to diminish in the
foreseeable future. Part I of the application due by May 18, 1992 is well underway.
Planning for Part II is presently being discussed and coordinated which is due by May 17,
1993. The NPDES Permit should be granted in the fall of 1993.
An area-wide NPDES Permit is the preferred alternative to twenty individual NPDES
Permits. The area-wide Permit is easier to monitor for the San Francisco Regional Board
and implement for the twenty entities. The primary objective of the collective effort is to
reduce costs and redundancies. So far, this has been achieved. The greatest challenge
facing the City ♦ County ♦ District effort is financing Part II and the actual implementation
of the NPDES Permit. These efforts are on-going and will hopefully be resolved in the
— . foreseeable future. The attitude of the City ♦ County ♦ District organization is to
cooperatively work with the regulators making them aware of Contra Costa County's unique
characteristics. We want a Program that meets the Federal and State regulations, but not
create an undue financial hardship for each jurisdiction. So far, the efforts have been
successful.
DPF:sj
ampdessum.tl
�_ fl C>
��"` Q T•
J �ww �ww mss 40W
� a
LH 1 c/a► C/? tJ3
� o 0 0
c�or W g
AM CL
� J d J J J
ca 'M'
J iii a1—
�ti+sa� G o 0 V o
CD
Nil
= u W U U
ii■ i LLI G_
"�► O>
CC J t/7
d
t' r
f LU IO co
W
cr>
fioq� ,rs ,cA mss
LU O
Cl> c/� cn cry
♦ N ' Q 4 4 4
cnJ �,' Q O
W
Q
tu
f•-
ui
to
�
V � Q
J CPQ
V p
• u
r Z OW Gy N N
CC >= OQ W O <> C%t- M
VN -,-,i cv r—
• Q u, 40. ts"�
{�
Co .. .. .. ..�' ac U CIOCIOcn C.0�— F—
{.� c� o c-coc cn cn cn cn
o 0 0 0
U Uuj
U U
co
Q
C>
ul
Z
� GC V ta►
Z
Z W U. VE � Q
J tl>
PROGRAM"QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. What is the "NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM"
(NPDES) Permit Program.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (referred to as the "Clean Water
Act") prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to "navigable waters" from a
point source unless the discharge is authorized by an NPDES Permit. The
Clean Water Act was amended in 1987 and requires the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish regulations for stormwater discharges
associated with municipal, industrial and construction activities. The primary
intent of the NPDES Permit Program is to radically reduce or eliminate all
pollutants from stormwater. Any jurisdiction that owns, operates or maintains
a storm sewer system must have an NPDES Permit.
2. Is the NPDES Permit Program voluntary or mandatory? Do cities with a population
under 100,000 have to participate?
ITS MANDATORY! The United States Environmental Protection Agency
issued the NPDES Application Regulations for Stormwater Discharges (40
CFR Parts 122, 123 and 124) on November 16, 1990. Contra Costa County
and the City of Concord were specially identified in the Regulations as
requiring a Stormwater Discharge Permit, but the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board has directed that all cities regardless of size and
the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District shall
also be required to obtain a Permit. The Water Quality Control Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Basin fulfills requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act that
calls for water quality control plans throughout California. Therefore, Federal
and State laws mandate that all jurisdictions within Contra Costa County shall
have an urban runoff management program. Steve Ritchie,Executive Officer
of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 12,
1991 directed that ..."Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Flood
Control District, and all cities in Contra Costa County... develop and
implement a Stormwater Management Program."
3. How is a municipal NPDES Permit granted?
The NPDES Permit for municipalities consists of a three stage process. Part
I of the application due on May 18, 1992 constitutes reconnaissance level
activities. This phase of the process seeks to determine the resources
available to implement a stormwater management program as well as
specifically identifying through water monitoring tests potential problems
associated with stormwater pollutants. Part I.I of the application process is the
development of a Stormwater Management Prevention Program. The plan
seeks to distinguish the duties and responsibilities of all jurisdictions to
eventually eliminate or radically reduce pollutants in stormwater. The third
and final step of the application procedure is the actual granting of the
NPDES Permit. This Permit would be for a five year period which would
seek to implement all segments of the Stormwater Management Prevention
Program. Demonstratable results would.have to be certified.
As a result of the April 12, 1991 letter from Mr. Ritchie, referred to
previously, Contra Costa County, its eighteen incorporated cities and the
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
applying for an area-wide NPDES Permit. Once the Permit is granted, all
twenty entities would be considered co-permittees.
4. Can the County or any city drop out of the area-wide NPDES Program?
Technically yes. Contra Costa County or any city has the ability to apply for
a NPDES Permit individually. If one were to consider this option, then you
would need to determine if it is the most sensible and cost effective approach
for the jurisdiction. Essentially, the efforts that are presently on-going for the
area-wide NPDES Permit would have to be duplicated individually. Since
most cities do not have the resources to administer this Program, it would
seem most likely that a consultant would be hired. Why would the County or
a city want to pay 100 percent of a consultant's fee when they are only paying
a portion of the consultant's expenses now. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board has been extremely flexible with the on-going Program and is
very sensitive to the issue of cost. The Regional Board has strongly suggested
the area-wide effort as the preferred alternative. It's easier for them to
monitor and for us to administer. Thus far, it has proven to be the most cost
effective choice.
5. Is the perception true that the City ♦ County ♦ District Stormwater Pollution Control
Program is really a "County led" effort?
NOH Contra Costa County is one of twenty participants. It has a voice equal
to the smallest or largest city in the organization. The County pays its
proportional share of group costs. The Flood Control District has agreed to
underwrite most of the staffing costs for Parts I and II. The Stormwater
Pollution Control Manager is essentially an employee of all twenty
jurisdictions. The policy body known as the Technical Coordination
Committee composed of representatives from each of the jurisdictions
provides direction to staff.
Santa Clara and Alameda Counties both have area-wide NPDES Permits.
The experience gained from these entities indicate cities will be primarily
responsible for implementing the NPDES Permit requirements. Future
expense's may break down to one-third group costs and two-thirds individual
County/City costs once the Permit is granted.
2
6. Costs for Parts I and II are done on a population basis without any regard to a city's
primary land use characteristics (e.g., industrial vs. residential). Can the cost
allocation formula be changed?
Yes. When the City + County + District organization formed in February,
1991 cost allocation was a major topic. After considering several different
methodologies, the decision was made to use population as the easiest, most
administratively responsible method for sharing costs. If the present method
is unacceptable, then the Technical Coordination Committee could certainly
consider modifying or revamping the entire formula, but there is one word of
caution. Many of the City and County representatives indicate that a great
deal of time, energy and effort could be spent in trying to establish a "more
equitable" formula, but that it may not be worth the effort. The difference
may be negligible. What one jurisdiction gains, another may lose and vice
versa. A formula should be as fair as possible and be implemented as quickly
and efficiently as possible. Therefore, the population cost allocation method
has been the preferred device.
7. Will Contra Costa's. NPDES Permit be the same as Santa Clara and Alameda
Counties? Will the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board treat us
differently taking into consideration our unique characteristics?
There is a perception that the Santa Clara and Alameda Counties NPDES
Programs constitute the "Cadillac" level of effort, but it must be understood
-each jurisdiction had specific water quality problems that needed immediate
large scale.attention. This is not the case with Contra Costa County. The.San
-Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has_been extremely flexible
with our Program. If you were to follow the strict interpretation of EPA's
regulations for Part I, then the water monitoring costs could have escalated
ten to twenty times the actual expense. The Regional Board has permitted
us to use the data developed from Santa Clara and Alameda Counties for wet
and dry weather monitoring and delay some of these tests to Part IL The
Regional Board does not want to be in an adversarial position with Contra
Costa County, its eighteen incorporated cities and the County Flood Control
District. Therefore, they have gone to great lengths.to work cooperatively
with the Program participants and staff. Both the regulators and participants
are striving for a Program that meets the unique needs of Contra Costa
County.
There is no question, that a mind set exists with the Regional Board due to
their experiences with Santa Clara and Alameda Counties regarding a
successful NPDES, Program, but their actions have indicated a complete
willingness to work cooperatively with us and to be as flexible as possible while
meeting the goals and objectives of the NPDES Program.
3
8. Where will the revenue come from to finance Part II of the application and the
implementation of the NPDES Program?
The primary focus for the Technical Coordination Committee is the financing
of the NPDES application and permit. Many suggestions have been made and
the Finance Sub-committee is exploring various options. One consideration
is to have the County Flood Control District collect a fee countywide with
nineteen separate zones. Each zone would represent a city's specific needs
for the Stormwater Pollution Control Program. The. city would determine
what their budget needs were for the following year and have the Flood
Control District collect the fee. Each city may want to consider including in
their Stormwater Management Prevention Program expenses other than the
NPDES Program. This could include capital improvements and operation and
maintenance expenses. Staff is asldng County Counsel to render an opinion
to determine its feasibility.
The County and cities could determine individually how they wish to finance
this Program. In the next several months, this determination will be made so
that revenue could be generated for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. The
Technical Coordination Committee has indicated their preference to develop
an individual revenue source for the NPDES Program. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board representatives have also indicated that it may be
unacceptable to them to finance the NPDES Program through general
revenues. The reason is the volatility of general revenues and their desire to
have a dedicated funding source. This dedicated funding source could free up
revenue for other general service needs.
9. Are resources available to assist the County or any city to explain the Stormwater
Pollution Control Program to their own elected officials and/or staff?
The need to explain the NPDES Program to elected officials and senior city
staff is critical to the Program's overall success. Resources are available from
representatives of the Technical Coordination Committee, Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, the Stormwater Pollution Control Manager or representatives
from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. All of the
-- aforementioned representatives are more than happy to participate in any
effort the County or cities need to educate, inform or support the NPDES
Program.
OPF:sj
a:NPOESques.tt
01/06/91
4
STATc Of CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Phone: (415) 464-1255
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION FAX: ,(415)464-1380
2101 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 500
OAKLAND, CA 94612 �' MANt>(-3L
A F`. 1 +`En
April 12, 1991
File No. 1538.01(JDW)
To: Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and
Cities in Contra Costa County (List Attached)
Subject: NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges
The Regional Board considers storm water runoff a significant source of pollutants to
waters in the San Francisco Bay Region. Storm water runoff discharges contribute to
violations of water quality objectives in waters throughout the urban areas of the
Region. This letter is to inform you that the Regional Board is requiring Contra Costa
County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and all cities in Contra Costa
County to develop and implement a storm water management program.
The conceptual framework of the Regional Board's storm water runoff control
program was established with the 1986 amendments to the Basin Plan. The initial
focus of the Regional Board's program has been on Santa Clara and Alameda counties.
The Regional Board issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit in June 1990 requiring the implementation of a storm water
management plan developed by the local agencies in Santa Cara County. The local
agencies in Alameda County are required to submit a NPDES permit application by
June 1991 which includes a storm water management program plan. Proposed
amendments to the Basin Plan that the Regional Board will consider soon will require
Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and all cities in
Contra Costa County to develop a storm water management program.
The US Environmental Protection Agency recently issued NPDES Application
Regulations for Storm Water Discharges (40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124) on November
16, 1990. These regulations require cities and counties with a population of 100,000
and greater to apply for a NPDES permit for their storm water discharges. Contra
Costa County and the City of Concord were specifically named in the regulations as
requiring a storm water discharge permit. These regulations also allow the Regional
Board to require NPDES permits for storm water systems that interconnect with or are
within the same watershed as a system designated in the regulation. In addition, the
regulations state that a storm water discharge that contributes to a violation of water
quality standards or is a significant contributor of pollutants to receiving waters may
be required to obtain a permit. Consequently, the Regional Board's storm water
runoff control- program is consistent with the NPDES regulations.
Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and Cities in
Contra Costa County (List Attached)
April 12, 1991
Page 2
The NPDES regulations require a two-part application. Therefore, Contra Costa
County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and all cities in Contra Costa
County are required to submit a joint Part 1 Application by May 18, 1992. The Part 1
Application shall be equivalent to the requirements in the storm water regulation at 40
CFR Part 122.26(d). The equivalent of Part 2 of the application shall be submitted by
May 17, 1993.
One coordinated storm water management program in Contra Costa County
adrninistered by one NPDES pen-nit is essential from a technical and water quality
perspective and represents a sensible and cost-effective approach from a public policy
perspective. The local agencies in Santa Clara and Alameda counties have worked
pro-actively with the Regional Board. This approach has resulted in the effective
development of their storm water management Programs allowing for maximum
flexibility and consideration of local concerns and resource limitations. We encourage
a similar pro-active approach on your part We will work with you to ensure that you
benefit from the successes and avoid the failures of the Santa Clara and Alameda
programs. Your cooperation on this matter will result in the most efficient use of all
resources involved.
The portion of Contra Costa County east of approximately Morgan Territory Road and
Somerville Road including Antioch and Brentwood are in the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction. You are encouraged to submit the same
permit application to both the Central Valley Regional Board and to this Board so that
the storm water program will be consistent county-wide. We will coordinate our
permitting process with the Central Valley Regional Board to minimize any
duplication of effort between the portions of Contra Costa County in the separate
regions.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call John Wolfenden at (415)
464-0689 or Thomas Mumley at (415) 464-0962.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Ritchie
Executive Officer
Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control District, and Cities in
Contra Costa County (List Attached)
April 12, 1991
Page 3
cc: Harry`Seraydarian, Water Management Division Director, US EPA Region 9
James Baetge, Executive Director, State Water Resources Control Board
William H. Crooks, Executive Officer, Central Valley Regional Board
attachment
Mr. Phil Batchelor Ms. Marilyn Leuck
County Administrator City Manager
Contra Costa County City of Hercules
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor 555 Railroad Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553 Hercules, CA 94547
Mr. J. Michael Walford Mr. Robert Adams
Public Works Director City Manager
Contra Costa County City of Lafayette
255 Glacier Drive 251 Lafayette, CA 94549
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
Mr. Jim Jakel
Mr. Lee Walton City Manager
City Manager City of Martinez
City of Antioch 525 Henrietta Street
P. O. Box 130 - Martinez, CA 94553
Antioch, CA 94509
Mr: Ross Hubard
Mr. Don Russell City Manager
City Manager . City of Moraga
City of Brentwood P. O. Box 188
708 Third Street Moraga, CA 94556
Brentwood, CA 94513
Mr. Tom Sinclair
City Manager City Manager
City of Clayton City of Orinda
P. O. Box 280 26 Orinda Way
Clayton, CA 94517 Orinda, CA 94563
Ms. Rita Hardin Mr. Don Bradley
City Manager City Manager
City of Concord City of Pinole
1950 Parkside Drive 2131 Pear Street
Concord, CA 94519 Pinole, CA 94564
Mr. George Sipel Mr. Tony Donato
Town Manager City Manager
Town of Danville City of Pittsburg
510 La Gonda Way 2020 Railroad Avenue
Danville, CA 94526 Pittsburg, CA 94565
Mr. Gary Pokorny Mr. Joseph Tanner
City Manager City Manager
City of El Cerrito City of Pleasant Hill
10890 San Pablo Ave. 3300 N. Main Street
El Cerrito, CA 94530 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Mr. Lawrence Moore
City Manager
City of Richmond
Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Mr. Rory Robinson
City of San Pablo
One Alvarado Square
San Pablo, CA 94506
Mr. Herb Moniz
City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Mr. Don Blubaugh
City of Walnut Creek
1666 No. Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
PROPOSED 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR
ADMINISTRATIVE:
Program Manager $ 55,014
Secretary (half-time) $ 14,424
Benefits (29%) $ 24,320
Administrative Support (71%) $ 59,724
(telephones, accounting services,
furniture, lighting, etc.)
Travel & Training $ 3,000
TOTAL $141,876
Contra Costa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District Financial
Contribution* ($120,000)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS $221000
TECHNICAL:
NPDES PART II APPLICATION $647,000
(CONSULTANT)
A. Demonstrate appropriate
legal authorities for
enforcement activities
B. Characterize discharges
0
from municipal system
(combine wet and dry
weather sampling)
C. Propose management
program to control the
discharge of pollutants to
"the maximum extent
practicable"
D. Provide a financial analysis
estimating the cost for
implementing the
management program
E. Identify the roles and
responsibilities of co-
applicants
GENERAL SUPPORT SERVICES (e.g., studies - $ 40,000
BASMAA AHI, BAY BASIN, etc.)
FEES (NPDES Permit, Bay Protection, etc.) $100,000
TOTAL TECHNICAL COSTS 787,000
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH:
Consultant(s) Program Development $ 35,000
Educational Materials & Supplies $ 15,000
Industrial Outreach Program $ 25,000
TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH COSTS $ 75,000
GENERAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES:
Document Reproductions $ 15,000
Office Supplies $ 5,000
Postage $ 5,000
TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $ 25,000
CONTINGENCY (10%) $91,000
$ 91,000
SUB-TOTAL $1,000,000
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION $ 120,000
TOTAL PROJECTED BUDGET $1,120,000
*Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District acknowledges it Will
be a co-applicant in the area-wide NPDES Permit. Therefore, it agreed to financially assist
the initiation and development of the Stormwater Pollution Control Program through Parts
I and II of the application process by financing-staff costs instead of a pro-rata share based
on population. A determination will need to be made at the end of Part II indicating how
the Flood Control District will participate financially with the ongoing program.
DPF-si
a:92-93budget
01/03/92
STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
PROPOSED 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
GROUP COSTS
ENTIZ�' PRORATA SHARD PR.OPCISE,D SPL4]EZF
OF GR f3UP COSTS OF F�STIMATED
GROUP CASTS
Antioch 7.72% $ 77,200
Brentwood 0.94% $ 9,400
Clayton 0.92% $ 9,200
Concord 13.84% $ 138,400
County(unincorporated) 18.84% $ 188,400
Contra Costa County 0.00%(2) $ 120,000
Flood Control District
Danville 3.90% $ 39,000
El Cerrito 2.84% $ -28,400
Hercules 2.08% $ 20,800
Lafayette 2.94% $ 29,400
Martinez 3.96% $ 39,600
Moraga 1.98% $ 19,800
Orinda 2.06% $ 20,600
Pinole 2.18% $ 21,800
Pittsburg 5.92% $ 59,200
Pleasant Hill 3.92% $ 39,200
Richmond 10.90% $ 1097000
San Pablo 3.14% $ 312400
San Ramon 4.38% $ 43,800
Walnut Creek 7.54% $ 75,400
TOTAL 100.00% $1,120,000
(1) The allocation of Group Costs to the various entities is based on the 1990 census for
each entity.
(2) Prorata share not based on population, but as a direct financial contribution.
DPF:sj
a:92-93budget
09/27/91
Rev.01/03/92
W,,dw ard„Clyde
consultants 1
i 4t
al tl �o c aj
dR
cc
O G 3
R C U O p
tl p
R
cc
G fl
N R.a
Ln
°-
O
° � pGl E -tlo, � a� � .�c ap o `�.`'1• v u � .v-7 c o �i
N N tl
u N X p 9 N a a U R N y tl U C C E@
Q. R U = C U O N V C N _ U > x 0
. R tl E U
p p
G R U ^' t6 C x tl y 0 O, C p
U R 4 N C ul iC O y O R ° O r
fU
'A m G O `� m E cc
N a .r
x y G y U R O
N G Cy C d n 4 3 Q U.G V
104
Rp0 C .
R U a G R U U U O U
A N R U R m R
R a G 0.. C U C E C 3 tl R a CS CCj _ C
m @ ° wp Req} ° aN mGSR
N ° N ' cr. 4 G c p a*c tl S O
oc tl N0 a) dap Go E .� R uoica = p " N
s
c O a c G p r R E E x
m W c a R R G 3 ° ° m°
Q .cc p c u G = p
_. �. L
Q N R ..'„ C C `" O N 7 N U .p r tl R u
ri u t m
R a G C3 N Q u y
� ° -
'
•� {n N O R y UIn
U > x
a O
y C N E O x E R
N r C rC O ° <46 N p G O O tG4
R N .0 C 4
a d O
� r
c � r
° �„ tl m
� U � m m ° � 0
cr-
coo o U
ul c N
O
61 Or R 4 0 LU J N r d uy rZ
_ y U
m 2 ��' y COO E � z d _
r
us
a
rl
N r m c~•1
Q NNcl
N N N N N N �y N
Q
N
a i a r
O
A
•N i
!
5
�I�' •4i i � I ! � � ! j .
}
N
A —
w 14. i I i 4
}o t ; i i I i• 1 I f i 1 ( I i
1_
N
'' � ;3 tc 3 �e fi�i #s �C � � } �� c � • IN ^� "
C'. I- 3t� 1 "al.� � u'i-�
pp l ul r - kS u
� � � �_ � -: i J G;L "� N .7.• �ea I ap.Cl� 1 �
v L �? �- •� � }'� 31� V�� �: � i� kl'= IS I=° y � •�,3 'moi i u �i s a #' 31� �';I, 2t�i� c ^' ':
2:1 Cr ^ It ��y !_ - c•.,n ivr __ ?:: I� w;:.i 3 IQ .I;,; :T. z.� ° = 3
CJ In 1..: �.- #.� li`�!,C �C vl.: �� ',,i !_ C:
"� lev Fev ii t�. }e�+ :iv In le•a lav e�+ r+ r+ � �`t+ ` 'C: '�+e v v a IQ ii
I � -
� 1 w
I
N O i
N } i
' i a
�� '' ', - � '.9-_ �`_-�� � ...�r�--- ice'_ ( •,+ 1,' '�
a•� j j } i ` i � j ` 4 I � i I } � � � � .i
Vol
1 ,•c 'w ;3 1•' = x � ' it i ={ 33c �i- 'a •'3 ai i ^ �c�}� W.
_ = I
• {u ` '{3 :. �u �'�. ,z � t c:� �^' �i� `n !^.. 'c�''� u.:3 i Y j� u c� I y �._ t� 6 �;� Sri X+ ` �{ I
.:, i� =n.i•� '',� .e'�� 'r�'�� �' � "' iy �:ae t^• C�� t 3 �.� �'!� "i' I-•". a; it�� �,� �-',c,{ 1C ,C7 ''� � � I
i ;C •`i j u �„ ; '��,u ' 3'� IZ �. •a+�.moi .51'� i^t'i� i� �w�r• e•+ it-
a