Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01072003 - C129 C.129 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 7, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover& Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting the Regional Board not amend Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit at this time,but to wait until the permit is to be renewed in 2004. RELISTED to undetermined date. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: January 7, 2003 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and County Administrator Deputy Clerk TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V.! FROM: SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA,DISTRICT I DATE: JANUARY 7, 2003 SUBJECT: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT AMENDMENT I. Recommendation: AUTHORIZE the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.(NPDE$),permit not be mended at this time but to wait until the permit is to be reissued in July 2004. U. Financiallmpact: The amendment of Contra Costa County's NPDES permit to include new development standards that will have a significant financial impact on the County and the cities in the County. The exact cost implication to the County is not known, although experience in other counties in Southern California has indicated the costs to be significant. These permit requirements were first required in Southern California in the last two years and communities have been trying to estimate what the costs will be. Earlier this year the City of San Diego estimated that the cost to comply with their new permit requirements for the first five years would be 27 million the first year, $55 million the second year,and about$50 million for each of the next three years. The City of Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: ��A74n= _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY 75MINIST14ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): - ACTION OF BO2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x_OTHER I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action takers and entered on the minutes of the Board VOTE OF SUPERVISORS of supervisors on the date shown. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: �Ta tam 7,_ tong -- % AAz JOHN SWEETEN Cleric of the G:\GrpDatolAdmin\Mftch\bo120031Ctean'4Water Permit-410CS Ori%.Div: Public Works(Adttvn Services) Board of Supervisors and County Contact: Mitch Avalon(3-2203) Administrator cc: Don Freitas,Clean Water John Sweeten,CAD Dennis Barry,Cbt) Carlos Baltodano,SiD Jinn Kennedy,Radevelopment Ken Stuart,Environmental Stealth By � Deputy Ed Meyers,Agriculture JJ Silvano Marchesi.County rnusei Stan Matsurmto,Flood Control Joe Calabrigo,Danville Town Manager John Wolfe,Taxpayers Association SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER.QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT DATE; JANUARY 7, 2003 PAGE 2 San Clemente experienced almost a ten-fold increase in costs. Before the new requirements were adapted,the City's share of their countywide program was$30,000 per year. After the new requirements were adopted,the City's share of the countywide casts went up to$270,000 per year. Before the new requirements were adopted the cost of the City's local clean water program was $254,000 per year. After the new requirements were adopted the City's annual cost for their local program increased to $2 million per year. The ether aspect of increased costs will be monitoring and maintenance of clean water facilities installed pursuant to the new requirements. These clean water facilities will be on two different levels. Some facilities will be constructed within a development and ether facilities will be constructed',as regional facilities. Bath types of facilities must be monitored and managed for effectiveness to provide flood control protection and improve water duality while at the same time not create mosquito breeding habitat. As an example of the potential costs to homeowners for maintaining a private facility,a detention basin was constructed for a 25-lot project in San Diego that will cost an estimated$22,000 per year to maintain. That equates to$880 per unit per year to maintain the development's clean water facility. As we gain more experience with these clean water facilities,we may find that regional facilities are more efficient and cost effective to maintain than a myriad of on-site clean water facilities.However,establishing funding to maintain regional facilities maybe more difficult than requiring homeowners to maintain on-site facilities. The Clean Water Program is an unfunded Federal mandate. We fund our Clean Water activities in the unincorporated County,and fund our share of the Joint Municipal permit costs,through a local assessment paid by the property owners in the unincorporated County. The statutory authority to establish and collect the assessment for the County and the cities is through the County's Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The County is currently at the maximum assessment that we can charge,and the program costs associated with the new requirements will require us to increase our existing assessments or develop other revenue sources. The assessment for a standard residential unit is currently$30 per year. Most ofthe cities in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program are also at or near their maximum assessments. Increasing the existing assessment will require a vote in accordance with Proposition 218. The assessment may have to be doubled or tripled(or maybe higher) to fund the new clean water requirements. If the voters refuse to increase the assessment,then the County will have to fund the increased casts from another source. Since restricted funds can't be used,as they are restricted to specific programs,unrestricted revenue would have to be used. This would mean using the County's General Fund or applying for grant monies. Grant revenue is unpredictable at best, so the primary reliance for funding would be the General Fund. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background In October of 2001 the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(SFBR.WQCB)renewed Santa Clara Valley's NPDES permit. This permit included new development standards. Contra Costa County's current NPDES permit is not scheduled to be renewed for two more years. However,Santa Clara claimed that there was an uneven playing field in the Bay Area if they were the only county to have these new clean water requirements. As a result,the Regional Board is proposing to amend our NPDES permit to include these new development standards for clean water. SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT DATE: JANUARY 7, 2003 PAGE 3 The Regional Board prepared and submitted to Contra Costa County a tentative order for an amendment to our permit. The Regional Board conducted a hearing on our tentative order on December 18,2002. There were 36 people who commented on our permit amendment. Many of the comments from the cities and the County stressed the costs associated with these new requirements and concern over the Regional Beard not knowing the full extent of the financial impacts that would be associated with these new requirements. At the time we were giving testimony on December 18,2002,the budget deficit at the State was understood to be 21 billion dollars and the County's budget projections were based upon that amount. Governor Davis has recently announced that the deficit has increased to 35 billion dollars. This will greatly impact the County's already dismal budget forecast. Given this tremendous increase in the State deficit, and the certainty that the solution to solving the State's deficit will fall partly on local government, it would be prudent not to increase costs for cities and counties at this time. Attached is a letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting that they not amend our permit at this time and that they renew our permit when it is up for renewal in 2004. It should be pointed out that the Regional Board is under no obligation to amend our permit at this time. The amendment is simply to honor a commitment to Santa Clara County to even the playing field in the Bay Area. If the Regional Board does not amend our permit at this time,the County will commit to the following activities between now and the time our permit is due for renewal. 1. Santa.Clara County Coordination: We will work with Santa Clara County in their efforts to develop a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan and other activities they are pursuing to address the new clean water requirements. 2. Hydrograph Modification Management Plan:The County will apply for a grant to perform a Hydrograph :Modification Management Plan on at least one watershed in the County. Development of this Hydrograph Modification Management Plan and any lessons that we learn along the way will be shared with the other counties in the Bay Area. Developing a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan for one of Contra Costa County's watersheds will greatly facilitate the development of more meaningful permit requirements with the Regional Board when our permit is up for renewal. 3, Developer Fees: Some of the new permit requirement costs can be passed on in the form of developer fees. The County will identify what activities can legally be charged against the development of property and prepare a report to amend developer fees to help fund the new clean water requirements. In the past it has taken twelve months to go through the process to revise development fees,so the report will be completed in time for the permit renewal. Once the permit is renewed,the revised fees can immediately be put into place. 4. Program Funding: The County will continue to advocate for and participate in efforts to identify new sources of funding for clean water activities. Legislation, such as Assembly Bill 104 by Assemblyman Joe Nation,may provide opportunities to fund clean water activities. IV.Consequences of Negative Action A letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board expressing the Board's position on the County's NPDES permit amendment would not be sent. _. . . ........................................ DRAFT ##2 December 31, 2002 (Note: setter will be finaled after receiving comments from cities since any action we commit to will be expected of the cities too) January 7, 2003 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612 SUBJECT: Contra Costa County's NPDES Permit Amendment Dear Regional Board: This letter is to formally request that the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board delay amending Contra Costa County's NPDES permit to add the proposed new development standards (Section C3). Contra Costa County respectfully requests the Regional Board consider adopting the new development standards when our current permit is scheduled for re-issuance in July of 2004. As you are aware,Contra Costa County's current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit is scheduled to be re-issued in 2004. The Regional Board is currently considering an amendment to Contra Costa County's permit to include new development standards(Section C3). The intent is to make the current Contra Costa permit consistent with the development standards required in the permit issued to Santa Clara County last year. Contra Costa County has funded its Clean Water Program through an assessment on each parcel in the County since 1993.The Flood Control District established this parcel assessment in cooperation with the County and the incorporated cities to fund the requirements of the Phase I NPDES permit issued by the San Francisco and Central Valley Regional Boards. The Flood Control District established the parcel assessment with a range of assessments that could be assessed on the parcels within each city and the County. The parcel assessments for the first year for each city and the County were the lowest assessment in the assessment range. Since its inception in 1993, each city and the County have increased the parcel assessments in their communities to accommodate the increased costs of the joint program and the increased costs of individual program as a result of the continually escalating requirements established by the Regional Board and its staff. Today the County and the cities in the County are at or near their maximum assessment($30 per parcel in the County). Any new increase in costs to the program as a result of the proposed permit amendment will need to be funded from some other source. It should be remembered that the County's parcel assessment was established prior to the passage ofProposition 218 in 1996.Any subsequent increase in our parcel assessments would have to be approved by the voters. Given the current economy it is almost certain that any effort to secure voter approval to increase the parcel assessment would be unsuccessful. When the Regional Board opened the public hearing on the proposed amendment to Contra Costa County's permit on December 18,2002,the State budget deficit was estimated to be$21 billion.The current budget deficit for Contra Costa County stands at $50 million. When the last budget crisis occurred in California,the State implemented the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF) and began raiding local government revenue to meet State requirements for funding education programs. This began in 1993 and has resulted in the State taking hundred million in revenue from Contra Costa County over the last ten years. We anticipate that to resolve the current State budget crisis, the State will again institute an "appropriation"of local government revenue to finance State programs. If it is the same magnitude as it was 1992, it will double the losses the County has suffered since then. The Governor has recently announced that the State budget deficit has risen from $21 billion to $35 billion. At the December 18, 2002 bearing before the Regional Board, Contra Costa County and the cities were extremely concerned about the State budget impact on their city and County finances.The Regional Board heard a great deal of concern about the costs implicit with the new development standards required of the NPDES amendment.Now with the State budget deficit almost doubling,the County and cities have absolutely no flexibility to add any program that increases cost whatsoever,regardless of hover noble a program it might be. .The Flood Control District,which is a major participant in the County's Stormwater Management Programs,can serve as an example of how the vagaries of California fiscal policies can effect local program funding. When Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, the District's annual revenue was reduced by 58%, as the tax rates were reduced to accommodate a 1% ceiling on the assessed valuation of property. In 1992 when the State instituted the ERAF program, the District's annual revenue was reduced by$500,00(}.The District's annual revenue at that time was ,so the ERAF"appropriation"represented a %reduction in annual revenue.The Flood Control District currently receives approximately$4,400,000 in property tax revenue each year for the District and its Flood Control Zones.If the State institutes an"appropriation"of local revenue equivalent to ERAF to deal with the current budget crisis, then the District will see an additional $ reduction in annual revenue. The next two years will be extremely difficult for the County, the cities, and the State to work through the budget crisis. Given the evolving climate in the State budget and its implications for local government finances, it is imperative that the Regional Board not amend Contra Costa County's NPDES permit at this time but instead to consider adding the new development standards to the permit when it is up for re-issuance in 2004. This sentiment is also shared by the cities in the County. At the hearing on December 18,2002,the Regional Board asked what the cities and County would cut in their budget if they had to reallocate funds to pay for the cost of these new clean water requirements. For Contra Costa County,the cuts would primarily occur in the Health Services and Social Services budget,which provides services to the neediest people in the County.This will be on 2 top of lay offs and program reductions that will need to occur in these areas to accommodate a more than $50 million projected shortfall in Contra Costa County for fiscal year 2003-2004. For our various cities, you heard testimony that an increase in NPDES program funding would result in budget cuts in police and fire services. We request that our permit not be amended at this time, however, we realize the Regional Board would expect the County to make some progress towards the eventual implementation of the new development standards. In the meantime, between now and the time our permit is to be reissued, Contra Costa County will commit to the following: • Santa Clara County Coordination: We will work with Santa Clara County in their efforts to develop a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan and other activities they are pursuing to address the new clean water requirements. • Hydrograph Modification Management Plan.The County will apply for grant to perform a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan on at least one watershed in the County. Development of this Hydrograph Modification Management Plan and any lessons that we learn along the way will be shared with the other counties in the Bay.Area.Developing a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan for one of Contra Costa County's watersheds will greatly facilitate the development of more meaningful permit requirements with the Regional Board. when our permit is up for renewal. • Developer Fees. Some of the new permit requirement costs can be passed on in the form of developer fees. The County will identify what activities can legally be charged against the development ofproperty and prepare a report to amend developer fees to help fund the new clean water requirements. In the past, it has taken twelve months to go through the process to revise development fees, so the report will be completed in time for the permit',renewal. Once the permit is renewed,the revised fees can immediately be put into place. • Program Funding: The County will continue to advocate for and participate in efforts to identify new sources of funding for clean water activities. Legislation, such as Assembly Bill 104 by Assemblyman Joe Nation, may provide opportunities to fund clean water activities. The County would like to work with Regional Board staff on the above activities between now and our permit renewal.This will allow the Regional Board to have much more pertinent information in 2044 when it considers Contra Costa County's permit reissuance. Very truly yours, John Gioia 3 Supervisor District I JG:RMA:lz:mw G:\CxrpDatalA.dmin\Mitch\Clcan Water RequirementswDES permit.doc c: John Sweeten,County Administrator Dennis Barry,Community Development Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Ken Stuart,.Environmental Health Maurice Shiu,Public Works Director Mitch Avalon,Public Warks Deputy Director Stan Matsumoto,Flood Control Don Freitas,Clean Water Program Tom Dalziel,Clean Water Program Joe Calabrigo,Danville Town Manager Clean Water Program members