HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06151993 - H.6 MR "
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: June 15, 1993 MATTER OF RECORD
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 1993 , the Board of Supervisors continued to this
date the public meeting and the public hearing on the
implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act' s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System requirements for storm water utility
areas and assessments covering sixteen cities and the
unincorporated area of the County.
There being a lack of a quorum due to scheduling conflicts,
only Chairman Torlakson being present, he announced that on behalf
of the Board the Chair would hear testimony and the hearing would
be continued to June 22 , 1993 at 10 : 30 a.m. in the Board chambers .
Chairman Torlakson presented background information on the
matter for consideration today and he commented on a letter he had
written at the Board' s request to Congressman Miller, Congressman
Baker, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Diane Fienstein, Assemblyman
Rainey, Assemblyman Campbell, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and every agency involved in telling the Board that they
must carry out this program requesting urgency and emergency
relief in this time of recession. Supervisor Torlakson advised
that the answer basically was that nothing could be done about it,
that the program is a Federal mandate.
Supervisor Torlakson also advised the audience that today the
Board did implement the Ordinance Measure A and directed County
Counsel to do everything possible to legally stop the State from
taking more of the property tax, and that also today the Board had
replaced the representative to the Mosquito Abatement District
Board.
Milt Kubisek, Assistant Public Works Director, introduced Don
Freitas, Public Works Department, to give the staff presentation.
Mr. Freitas commented on the attached report and presented a
slide show with material developed by the Lindsay Museum in Walnut
Creek.
The following persons appeared to give testimony:
Mayor Bill Dable, City of Orinda;
Mayor Nancy Gore, City of Concord;
Mayor Kim Brandt, City of Pleasant Hill;
Mayor Gretchen Mariotti, City of Pinole;
Mayor Jane Bartke, 1315 Devonshire Court, El Cerrito, City of
El Cerrito;
Frank Kennedy, 2586 Comistas Drive, Walnut Creek, City of
Walnut Creek;
Larry Norton, 808 Sandy Cove Drive, Rodeo;
Gary C. Sheppard, One California Street, #1200, San
Francisco, representing St . Mary' s College, Moraga;
Patricia A. Taulbee, 195 W. Bolton Road, Okaley;
Frank E. Lehmkuhl, 1731 Claycord Avenue, Concord;
Joyce Kurasaki, City of San Ramon;
Bird Morningstar, 1911 Nanadem, Concord;
John Goeri, 296 Livorna Heights Road, Alamo;
Louis T. Marracci, 3140 Old Tunnel Road, Lafayette;
Gaye Girdler, 55 West Wind Road, Lafayette;
Harold Carter, 2861 Buena Vista Avenue, Walnut Creek;
Herb Hollander, 1566 American Beauty Drive, Concord;
Leo Goch, 1329 Milton Avenue, Walnut Creek;
David Custodio, 3410 Gregory Drive, West Pittsburg;
Jonathan Brown, 1100 11th Street, Suite 315, Sacramento,
representing the Association of Independent California Colleges;
A. Dopson, 724 Graymont, Concord;
John Whalen, 1000 RidgePark Drive, Concord;
John Roscoe, 391 Castle Court, Walnut Creek;
Bob Leffmann, 3141 Withers Avenue, Lafayette;
The Chair read comments from the following persons :
Glen and Evelyn Norton, 1668 Dorchester Place, Concord;
Maudellen and Robert Greenhood, 3650 Mt . Diablo Boulevard,
Lafayette .
Supervisor Torlakson and staff responded to citizen concerns
as they arose during the testimony and he requested that staff
respond individually to some who had requested information.
Supervisor Torlakson also commented on the attached
statistical data on budget, revenues, staffing and related issues
that had been made available this evening, and he advised the
public of further reductions and economies that are being
implemented.
Mr. Torlakson requested staff to try to find a ten percent
reduction in the County' s share of the program and to consider a
citizens advisory committee to review the annual report relative
to the progress of the program.
Mr. Torlakson also requested that staff quantify the
administration percentages in a written report to the Board on
June 22, 1993 .
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would be recommending in
favor of the program if concerns could be addressed including the
ten percent reduction.
Supervisor Torlakson adjourned the meeting to the Capital
steps in Sacramento, June 16, 1993 at 11 : 00 a.m.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
H6
l a
C� 0 �1 �1 G3Q
♦ C� ONJM � �I ♦ D � � � G3 � � �
� � OQM � Q � C� G3 pOd � NJ � 00 �1
C� OM � G30d pG,30C� G3pf�
BOARD off suprnflsans
JUNE W oCl 40 0
�
GOALS OF PUBLIC HFARINGS
JUNE 10 & JUNE 151, 1993
• Provide Explanation of Program
• Receive Public Input
• Receive Written Protests
• Respond to Board and Public Questions/Concerns
• Make Determinations (June 15, 1993)
- Majority Protest
- Establish Stormwater Utility Areas (17)
- Establish Stormwater Utility Assessments ($14 to $33)
PAGE 1
PROGRAM .DIRECIWES
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (referred to
as the Clean Water Act) as amended in, 1987.
Implement Section 402(p) requiring a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for stormwater discharges for
municipal, industrial and construction
activities.
• California State Water Resources Control Board's
Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries.
Implement Section 13225(c) of the California
Water Code mandating an urban runoff
management program to reduce pollutants in
runoff to the maximum extent practicable for
commercial, residential and industrial areas.
PAGE 2
S'TORMWATER RUNOFF FACTS
• Storm runoff is the largest uncontrolled source of
pollution into San Francisco Bay, accounting for 20
percent to 90 percent of pollutants entering the Bay.
• Many fish and other aquatic creatures died in large
numbers when exposed to Bay Area storm runoff in
laboratory tests.
• State health officials advise against swimming in San
Francisco . Bay after a heavy rain because of the
pollutants in storm runoff.
• Storm runoff from cooper-containing products such as
brake linings, herbicides and algae killers accounts for
11,000 pounds of copper discharged each year into the
Bay. Copper in storm runoff is more than three times
the volume discharged through sewer and industrial
treatment plants.
• Every year, Americans illegally dump 120 million gallons
of used motor oil - 11 times the size of the Valdez oil
spill - down storm drains, on the ground and in the trash.
• Many household gardeners use pesticides at 20 times the
rate farmers do, adding poisons to runoff.
Source: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
PAGE 3
PROGRAM OBJECMVES
• 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 Pollution Prevention Program.
• The intent of these regulations is to radically reduce or
eliminate all pollutants from stormwater.
• Implementation of the NPDES Program will enhance the
water.quality of the Bay/Delta Estuary.
PAGE 4
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
• April 12, 1991 letter from the Executive Officer of the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"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 Countv, the Contra Costa
County Flood Control District, and all cities in Contra
Costa County to develop and implement a storm water
management program."
• Participants Include:
Antioch Moraga
Clayton Orinda
Concord Pinole
Danville Pittsburg
El Cerrito Pleasant Hill
Hercules San Pablo
Lafayette San Ramon
Martinez Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District
PAGE 5
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
• Part I - Reconnaissance Level Activities
Submitted on May 18, 1992.
• Part II - Stormwater Management Plan
Submitted on May 17, 1993.
• Part III - Implementation of the Joint
Municipal NPDES Permit (1993 -
1998).
• Philosophy - Minimal Compliance Meeting
Regulatory Requirements.
Low cost, but effective.
Target specific city/town/county
problems/concerns.
PAGE 6
PRO GRAM ACTIV=S
• Illegal discharge & illicit connection inspection
program.
• Regular street sweeping.
• Storm drain maintenance including catch basin
cleaning.
• Water quality monitoring in wet & dry weather.
• Detection & clean-up program.
• Public education program informing citizens of the
direct harmful effect of dumping oil, paints,
solvents, herbicides, pesticides, etc. down the storm
sewer system.
• Sedimentation and erosion control program.
• Industrial outreach program.
PAGE 7
PROGRAM. FUNDING..
• Dedicated source of funding.
• Pay only NPDES implementation costs.
• Exclude construction of capital improvements.
• Based on impervious surfaces generated by various
types of land uses.
• Be as fair and equitable as possible.
• Locally determined by each participating
municipality.
PAGE 8
STORMWATER UTILITY AREAS
ASSESSMENTS
• AB 2768 provides a financing oon .
• Form a stormwater utility area which is the area
within an incorporated jurisdiction or the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
• Establish a stormwater utility assessment based on
an approved stormwater management plan by a
majority of the governing board per jurisdiction.
• Assessment is based on an "equivalent runoff unit"
or an ERU. Each ERU represents 3,300 square
feet of impervious surface.
• Provides protest provisions - more than 50 percent
of the area in a stormwater utility area.
• Provides an appeal procedure.
• SB 1977 requires public notice to each affected
parcel notice prior to consideration by the
governing board.
PAGE 9
STORMWATER UTILITY AREAS
ASSESSMENTS (Proposed)
Antioch $20.00
Clayton $23.00
Concord $26.00
Danville. $22.00
El Cerrito $14.00
Hercules $26.00
Lafayette $15.00
Martinez $20.00
Moraga $25.00
Orinda $23.00
Pinole $29.40
Pittsburg $24.00
Pleasant Hill $25.00
San Pablo $33.00
San Ramon $23.00
Walnut Creek $27.50
Unincorporated areas $18.00
PAGE 10
STORMWATER UTILITY ASSESSMENT
FOR OT]HER JURISDICTIONS
JURISDICTION PER HOUSEHOLD
Berkeley $50.00
Modesto $42.00
Palo Alto $39.00
Richmond $32.00
Hayward $30.00
City of Sacramento $30.00
Santa Clara County $26.85
(Unincorporated)
City of Alameda $20.00
Livermore $18.00
PAGE 11
PUBLIC NOVICE
• Mailed 238,23.4 notices to affected parcel owners based
on the 1992 equalized tax roll.
• Developed computer generated database using Land
Information and Geographic Information Systems.
• Maintained two telephone "hot lines" to handle
inquiries. Staffed by two trained operators.
• Flood Control District has provided personnel to
resolve assessment problems (e.g., area, land use code,
property ownership, etc.).
PAGE 12
STORMWATER UTE ITY ASSESSMENT
STATUS REPORT
TUESDAY JUNE 15, 1993
PARCEL OWNERS:
Public Notices Sent - 238,234
Recorded Protests - 28,100
ACREAGE:
Tax Rate Area Area Protested Total Assessable Percentage'
Area
01 City of Antioch 806 5,542 14.5
02 City of Concord 1,273 8,235 15.4
03 City of El Cerrito 150 1,801 83
04 City of Hercules 165 1,3W 12.0
05 City of Martinez 527 3,392 15.5
06 City of Pinole 191 1,570 12.2
07 City of Pittsburg 775 3,964 19.5
09 City of Walnut Creek 784 5,979 13.1
11 City of San Pablo 194 1,408 13.8
12 City of Pleasant Hill 418 2,830 14.7
13 City of Clayton 138 1,307 10.5
14 City of Lafayette 587 4,833 12.1
15 Town of Moraga 599 2,386 25.1
16 Town of Danville 500 4,548 11.0
17 City of San Ramon 577 3,677 15.7
18 City of Orinda 361 3,440 10.4
50 Unincorporated County 5,308 31,050 17.0
6
PROTEST REQUIREMENT: A majority protest by the owners of more than 50% in area of the territory proposed
to be included in the stormwater utility area would cause the assessment to be abandoned in that area.
' Total includes valid and potentially valid protests.
PAGE 13
NONCOMPLIANCE
i
C
• Daily fine of $10,000
• Daily fine of $20 per gallon of discharge
• Issue "cease and desist" orders:
Construction projects
Redevelopment projects
Transportation projects
6
PAGE 14
PNTOCI� CIS 94509
(510) 779-7050 CITY HALL THIRD AND H PO 130
June 11, 1993
Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Formation
of Storm Water Utility Area/PW616
Members of the Board:
Although I am unable to personally attend your June 15, 1993 public
hearing on the formation of a Storm Water Utility Area to fund the
local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, I
take this opportunity. to express the support of the City of Antioch
for your approval of that Utility Area. Your approval is
considered critical to the successful implementation of this State
and Federally mandated, but unfunded program.
Zce ly, (�
Jo Keller
Mayor
JK:jb
O
CITY OF COMA MI) 0171'O)UNCI1.
1950 Parkside Drive,N4S/O1
Concord,('aliibrnia 94519-2578 Nancy Gore.Mayor
rnx:(514)198-11636 Mark DeSatltnier,Vic(.s14av0)r
Byron Campbell
*— - <olleen CA1
OFFICE OF WE MAYOR ��� Uoyd D.N-lashorc.
Telephone: (510)671-:3158 151rrr1 A.Stewart,t.ity�l:uclger
June 8, 1993
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Tom:
This letter is to confirm that both Bud Stewart and I will attend the June 15, 1993 public hearing
where the Board of Supervisors will consider imposing a storm water utility fee to finance the
countywide response to the federally mandated NPDES program.
The Board has already received a resolution from the Concord City Council requesting the Board
to impose and collect the storm water utility fee through the Flood Control District. The
collection of this fee is vital to Concord's response to this newly imposed federal mandate.
Without this new funding source Concord would be forced to reduce even further other existing
programs which are already threatened by the poor economy and Governor Wilson's proposed
tax shift.
Contra Costa County and the City of Concord are both in a rather unique position since we are
the only public agencies named in the federal regulations. As identified agencies, Concord and
the County would probably receive immediate attention from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board if we fail to effectively implement our comprehensive Storm Water Management Plans.
I for one would not like to see my city singled out for enforcement action.
My staff has assured me that Concord's program and the associated parcel fee has been reduced
to the lowest level which will allow Concord to reasonably comply with the.mandates of the
NPDES program. Although my City Engineer is optimistic that there may be savings realized
within the Group Program, there is also a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the Regional
Board will accept our plan. Since a response to our plan by the Regional Board will not be
available until after you and the Board have considered, and hopefully adopted, the storm water
utility fee, I'm convinced that the current program and fee have been established at the
appropriate levels. If any savings are realized in the early years of this program, they can be
utilized to postpone as long as possible any future fee increases.
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
June 8, 1993
Page 2
In closing, I urge both you and your fellow Board members to support the storm water utility
fee at the public hearing on June 15, and look forward to seeing you there.
Sincerely
Nancy ore
Mayor
nx:oi
cc: City Council
F.A. Stewart, City Manager
Michael Martello' City Attorney
Steve Jepsen, Assistant City Manager
Lydia Du Borg, Deputy City Manager
Mike Vogan, Public Works Director
John L. Fuller, City Engineer
Lynnet Keihl, City Clerk
Donald P. Freitas, Storm Water Control Manager, Contra Costa County Flood Control,
255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4897
J
mon arc 'Gown of Morac�a RECEIVED
� -•\ �; `mow 2100 DONALD DRIVE r
SY} ' P.O.BOX 188 i ,Uri — 1 1993
-= MORAGA. CA 94556
(510)376-2590�
QTT7bet� CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.,? CONTRA COSTA CO.
May 26, 1993
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor .To akson,
Thank you for your' letter of May 12, 1993 concerning
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) . As the dates set for the Public Hearings by the
Board are already scheduled for Town business, please
accept this letter as our response.
At the inception of the NPDES mandate discussions
within the County, Moraga took the position that the cities
and County should do only those tasks which are required by
Federal. mandates . We have attempted to reduce costs of the
program both as a member of the group of participants and
at the local level. These efforts have been successful in
that locally we have been able to reduce the budgeted costs
for the current fiscal year from $60,000 to $30,000. This
was done by instilling within our staff the basic premise
to do minimal work to accomplish the task. We have also
incorporated some of the required Best Management Practices
into our daily public works routine, have placed items in
our current Town-wide newsletters to help inform the
public, have shared costs with other communities, have
prepared maps in-house rather than through County (costly)
staffing, and have worked with the Eastbay Municipal
Utility District to coordinate some of our efforts with the
utility's efforts, as most of our drainage flows to the
Upper San Leandro Reservoir.
Despite these efforts, the costs of the NPDES mandates
cannot be funded out of the Town's dwindling general fund.
To date, general fund monies have been used for all NPDES
expenditures . This is during a time when the General Fund
has been reduced, as you well know.
Therefore, the Town Council of Moraga reluctantly
approved the formation of an assessment district to fund
the NPDES activities. In preparation for adoption of our
Resolution 8-93, staff prepared a bare bones budget for the
NPDES program for the 1993-94 fiscal year through the
1997-98 fiscal year. The budget -prepared calls for a $20
assessment per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for the
1993-94 budget year, with a maximum of $35 during the five
year program. We hope to reduce the need for these funds
through the years as we have with our lighting assessment
district within the Town. The lighting district has had
several years where the assessment was zero.
Rest assured that the Town Council of the Town of
Moraga will continue to be as frugal with the taxpayers
funds as we have during the past nineteen years, since
incorporation, and that no dollar will be spent on this
program unless itbenefits our citizenry.
Thank you for your support in this program.
Sincerely,
Za�n L. Noe
Mayor
Com• � � (Y�E 'S
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
n
i
n
O
June ii, 1993 C
Z
--1
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson -C
Board of Supervisors f-n
Contra Costa County „ 1
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Z
Martinez, CA 94.553 'n
Z
Dear Supervisor Torlakson: m
M
At the June 15, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting the Board will Z
consider imposing a storm water utility fee to finance the O
countywide response to the federally mandated NPDES program. At
it's regular meeting on June 5 the City/County Engineering Advisory D
Committee membership expressed it's unanimous support of this
proposed parcel fee as the most acceptable way of financing this C
federally mandated program and requested that I prepare a letter to
the Board summarizing our position. O
The Board has already received a resolution from every city in the -C
county, (except Richmond which has .already adopted its own fee) , ^
requesting the Board to impose and collect the storm water utility
fee through the Flood Control District. The collection of this fee O
is vital to the Cities/County response to this newly imposed 3
federal mandate. Without this new funding source, all affected 3
agencies would be force to reduce even further other existing -1
programs which are already threatened by the. poor economy and the m
state's proposed tax shift. m
The CCEAC membership, many of whom serve as representatives to the
Cities-County-District Stormwater Pollution Control Program, are
confident that this program and the associated parcel fee has been
reduced to the lowest level which will allow participating agencies
to reasonably comply with the mandates 'of the NPDES program. The
primary objective of the city/county effort was to respond to this
new federal mandate with the least costly program possible. The
response effort outlined in the group program application
represents a level of effort very much below that which was called
for in the federal regulations. The program staff has utilized
every available resource to negotiate a very favorable initial
response from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Although several of our members are optimistic that there will be
savings realized within the Group Program, there it also a high
degree of uncertainty as to whether the Regional Board will accept
our plan. It is conceivable, that in the course of reviewing the
plan the Regional Board may request more than our plan offers. We
� t
would certainly pursue all avenues to limit the scope to our
assumed available funding. A response to our plan by the Regional
Board will not be available until after you, and the Board have
considered, and hopefully adopted, the storm water utility fee.
We at the CCEAC remain convinced that the current program and fee
have� been established at the appropriate levels and we urge both
you and your fellow Board members to support the storm water
utility fee at the public hearing on June 15.
Y=rs truly,
rs truly,
John Lisenko
.Chairman, CCEAC
c cc.
0 3P.
c: Donald IP.. Freitas, Storm Water Control Manager, Contra Costa
Flood Control, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
e:\wp\group\jlnpdes. ltr
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
STATISTICAL DATA ON BUDGET, REVENUES
STAFFING AND RELATED ISSUES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageNumber
Staffing Level Comparisons CCC and State of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Discretionary Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Mandated Use of General Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CCC Doing More with Fewer Employees — Per 1000 Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Total Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cutting Management and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Shortfall Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Workload Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Initiatives in Cost Control & Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Comparison of Budget Data: 91-92 to 92-93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Summary of State Population, Employees and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Property Tax Losses Due to Redevelopment Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Loss of Property Tax Revenues from Fire Districts to Redevelopment Agencies . . . 17
Chronology of Development of Fire Benefit Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Existing Fire Benefit Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
History of Special District Augmentation Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Special District Augmentation Fund Legislative Intent Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Library Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 28
FY 1992-93 Final Budget: County and Independent Special Districts . . . . . . . . . . 29
County and Independent Fire District Revenue Losses to the State . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Benefit Assessment Revenue vs Property Tax Loss to the State . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 38
Retirement Salary Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fire District Organizational Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISONS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Contra Costa County has been cutting its budget for years, while the State of California
has been adding positions.
Contra Costa State*
FY 89-90 104 positions cut 6,416 positions added
FY 90-91 146 positions cut 6,033 positions added
FY 91-92 145 positions cut 1,081 positions added
FY 92-93 606 positions cut 6,706 positions added
TOTAL 1001 positions cut 20,236 positions added
*Source: Governor's Budget Summary 1993-94
1
•
r: •
Lt� •
z}5NIS
j p�
y
Li+4{� It
`
y��4.,.1 v.
y^�:Y.yv..v..��
S` V
4.
J.4
i:-
s.• tea::
F„
J C
t
Q l
•
T••
t
its}. S;'�°-a�n•-?,�} i
ra:
v •
yLi}yi,
C-.
i
+'b
LT{
}:La{}
v:t
$ ><:.
{ h
iii'.'T}�if•'tiY:2:y}Xi'•y <J L
*...tit, :.:.:�::- .: ''- •
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Examples of Mandated Use of General Funds
Foster Care Program
The Foster Care Program provides for the placement costs for children removed from their homes due
to abuse or neglect. The County must pay 30°x6 of the cost of placement for children eligible for federal
participation and 60% of the cost of placement for children not eligible for federal participation. The
table below provides some current statistics on Contra Costa's Foster Care Program.
Average monthly number
of children in Foster Care Total Expenditures Net County Cost
FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93'
2,233 2,171 $29,017,202 $27,116,693 1 $11,894,241 $10,765,000
11
Adoption Assistance Program.
The Adoption Assistance Program provides supplemental assistance to adoptive parents who adopt
difficult-to-place children who might otherwise have to remain in more expensive foster care. The
County is required to pay 25°x6 of the cost for children not eligible for federal participation and 12.5%
of the cost for children eligible for federal participation. This expenditure helps prevent expenditures
in the more expensive Foster Care Program.
Average monthly number of
children in Adoption Assistance Total Expenditures Net County Cost
FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93'
308 352 $1,306,036 $1,586,716 $211,557 $255,000j
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) provides income support to families with either
unemployed or absent parents. The County's mandated share is 2.5°x6 of costs for federally eligible
cases and 5% for non-federally eligible cases.
Average monthly number
of cases in AFDC Total Expenditures Net County Cost
FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93' FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93'
15,800 16,204 $102,229,839 $100,287,120 $2,507,257 $2,518,000
' Projected
geMund.flr
May4,lm
3
N
a,
a�
t-
N
T
O• �
i
ul it
W
cc
O � W
o
eo
C?
cV
r
4
N
r- 0)
LC) r'—
r— O>
(D
N
N
d
O 0
C E a
= w a
UW
u j
U-
0
'L ,
Um ri
cd Z
a `oli
U 2 o
CD
c
0
0
Go
Lo r;
o O O o a O Q Cl O a O
0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a o
C) rn ao r- co ul) 1* (n N o
r". c0 w t0 tp w 0 0 w c0 cD
5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CUTTING MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
In its efforts to streamline County government and to preserve services to the maximum
extent for citizens, Contra Costa County has,been cutting management and administrative
positions for the past several years. Some examples:
Sheriff-Coroner
Fiscal Year 1992-93: 17 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Since 1989-90: 21 total Management/Admin. positions eliminated
(including 40% of the Division Commanders)
Social Service Department
Since May 1992: 30 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Since Fiscal Year 1986-87: 45 total Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Health Services Department
Fiscal Year 1992-93: 14 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Since 1989: 31 total Management/Admin. positions eliminated
District Attorney's Office
Fiscal Year 1992-93: 11 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Fiscal Year 1990-91 : 12 total Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Public Defender
Fiscal Year 1992-93: 5 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Since 1991-92: 6 total Management/Admin. positions eliminated
Agriculture Department
Fiscal Year 1992-93: 2 Management/Admin. positions eliminated
(from 25 total department staff)
CUTS IN JUST THESE FEW EXAMPLES EQUAL
113 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
5/26/93
6
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CUTTING MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The tables below illustrates the change in management and administration since 1986-87 in
two departments.
Social Service Department
Actual Current Percent Change
1986-87 1992-93 Difference Since 1986-87
Management 37.0 20.0 -17.0 -46%
Administrative 63.7 40.0 -23.7 -37%
TOTAL 100.7 60.0 -40.7 -40%
Probation Department
Actual Current Percent Change
1986-87 1992-93 Difference Since 1986-87
Management 67 41 -28 -42%
Administrative 3 1 -2 -67%
TOTAL 70 42 -30 -43%
"gWdmin.flr
7
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IS FACING A BUDGET SHORTFALL
x
OF $72 - $106 MILLION..
.... AND ALL CITIZENS WILL BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES
The State of California is proposing to seize $2.6 billion of local government taxes to balance
its budget. Last year, the State cut $1.3 billion from local government and Contra Costa
eliminated 606 positions, cut over$55 million from its budget. This year the County is faced
with difficult choices . . . cutting fire protection, police protection, jails, criminal prosecution and
services to protect children, seniors, the disabled and mentally ill.
WRITE THE GOVERNOR & LEGISLATORS
= DONT take $2.6 billion from local government.
= STOP micro-managing County government - Counties need mandate relief to
institute services that are more cost-effective.
= EXTEND the current 1/20 sales tax beyond the June 30, 1993 sunset date to help
balance the State budget.
JOIN THE PROTEST MARCHES
= MAY 5, 1993 - a "tea party" revolt in Richmond, Martinez and Antioch.
Call 427-8138 for information.
= MAY 19, 1993 - march in Sacramento to get the Legislature's attention.
Call 228-4400 for information.
VOTE IN JUNE
= Vote on June 8th on Measure A. This advisory measure was placed on the ballot
by the Board of Supervisors to ask Contra Costa citizens their opinion on the
proposed County ordinance to direct the Auditor-Controller to keep local property
taxes for local priorities, not to allow Sacramento to redistribute our taxes.
PLEASE HELP STOP THE STATE FROM TAKING OUR LOCAL PROPERTY
TAXES TO BALANCE ITS BUDGET!!
8
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WORKLOAD STATISTICS
CERTAIN COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Department 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Animal Control
Dog Bites Reported iflig 1,112 1,140 1,033
Citation Iss/Officer 318 308 304 265
Impounds/Officer 1,208 1,233 1,237 936
Dogs Licensed 82,133 91,345 97,255 96,971
Calls/Officer 3,675 3,233 3,310 3,360
Assessor
Total Roll Units 322,551 337,789
County Clerk
Superior Court
Filings 24,786 24,926 25,993 28,323
Title Documents 263,018 295,187 301,860 309,629
District Attorney
Jury Trials 502 N/A 458 503
Family Support
Collections $15,218,000 $17,063,000 $18,087,000 $20,021,000
Misdemeanor
Complaints Filed 29,135
Felony Complaints
Filed 3,750
Health Services
Births-Average Per Mo. 97 129 145.3 148.4 135
Outpatient Visits-
Hospital 13,524 15,486 16,754 18,205 180*772
Outpatient Visits-
Clinics 6#301 6,736 7,291 7,820 7,848
Average Daily Census-
Hospital 135 142 145 133 134
Probation
New Cases-Juvenile 5,157 4,592 5,305 5,006
Total Cases-Juvenile 9,304 8,701 9,785 9,104
Criminal Invest.-
Adult 8,412 6,966 4,596 5,328
Probation Super-
vision-Adult 7,294 7, 189 7, 154 7,998
Public Defender
Cases Opened 26,124 25,582 27, 194 25,345
Jury Trials-Felony 155 127 172 118
Average Days/Trial 5.2 4.9 5.0 6.0
Jury Trials-Misdem. 150 165 172 188
Average Days/Trial 1.9 2. 1 2 .0 2 .4
9
i
Department 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ;
Sheriff
Dispatch Incidents 251,988 317, 163 374,316
Social Services
Eligibility Cases 34,356 39,749 46,501 44,791
Social Service Cases 7,525 7,640 7,774 9,756
Employment Services Cases 2,418 5,776 5,699 6, 144
Superior Court
Filings 24,926 25,933 28,323
Dispositions 23,778 24,529 24,875
10
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Contra
Costa
INITIATIVES IN
COST CONTROL AND EFFICIENCY County
• Prudent Budgeting. Contra Costa County has the highest credit
I rating in the State for short-
term borrowing.
Enhanced Earnings: $600,000 in FY 92-93.
• County Telephone System. Prepayed telephone system for 10 years at a fixed rate.
Yearly Savings: $2 million.
• Welfare Fraud Prevention. Instituted early fraud investigative team for AFDC, Food Stamps
and General Assistance.
Yearly Savings: $4 million in welfare costs.
• Inmate Baking Program. Instituted baking training program in the jail, to reduce costs for
baked goods from outside vendors and teach work place skills.
Yearly Savings: $100,000.
0 Family Preservation Program. Created prevention program to keep children in their homes.
Yearly Savings: $1 million in foster home placement costs.
0 Courtroom Video Recording System. Participated in statewide pilot program to make the
official court record through video recordings in five courtrooms.
Yearly Savings: $150,000.
• Sales Tax Recovery. Instituted on-going monitoring system to ensure Contra Costa receives
its proper share of sales taxes.
Average Yearly Enhanced Revenue: $300,000.
Fire District Administration. Streamlined administration of fire districts governed by the Board
of Supervisors and eliminated 7 of 11 top administrative positions.
Yearly Savings: $800,000.
SSI Recovery. Developed programs to assist mentally and physically disabled adults on
General Assistance to qualify for federally-funded Supplemental Security Income.
Yearly Savings: $1.2 million in General Assistance expenditures.
Hospital Food Service. Replaced dietary food service contract for Merrithew Memorial
Hospital with lower-cost County employees.
Yearly Savings: $200,000.
• Medical Waste Sorting. Instituted program at Merrithew Memorial Hospital to separate bio-
hazardous from non-hazardous medical waste.
Yearly Savings: $100,000 in bio-hazardous waste disposal costs.
THESE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF COUNTY EFFICIENCIES TO SAVE TAXPAYERS' MONEY.
LIKE THE PRIVATE SECTOR, YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS WORKING HARDER AND
SMARTER, WITH FEWER RESOURCES. CALL 646-4077 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
0) 0) CD CD CD Im CM
CO) r- 40 a 40 C14
V) a co
M 4) 4) 0 cCM o V- 40 to
A a C, cm IV N to
0) 010
Wf C; I.:C6 C6
0) 'a 0 v �r- co C)
40
V
CV) 4)
0) 'n 0) 0 0)
CvC) CM I* C)
(3) M"o 6 C6
0
L-
CL
a 0) CD C� 0
f- 04 CD 0 0 cr-
o
C14 "D C6 cl0)i 406&n-
T- Go co c1r) co
cm CD v- C*4 co Go
0) 0
60
c1r) 69
0)
CN
c
0)
2
4)
co V a V U)
c to co EL a
C13 4) a) — 49)
aci
06 = ca CL 4) CL
0 4)a co wx
to *0
ccl > c
c
"a cn
om V— 0) - cm (D
M *R z z LL W LL= M .,= z os z
O CL
0
0 0 0
U) 0 'a LL
U)
U-
-r_ E
0 0 0 w U.
12
• r
' r
SCHEDULES
SUMMARY OF,.STATE POPULATION, EMPLOYEES,AND EXPENDITURES
' Expenditures per
sloo
' Revenue Expenditures Expenditures per orpersonal
Employees Personal General General CLpita Income
iPopulationPer 1,000 income F rad Total Fund 2 Total' General General
year (Thousands) Employees Population (Billions) (Millrons) (MiOions) (Millions) (Millions) Fund' Total' Fund 2 Total
1950-51................ 10,643 61,000 5.7 $19.8 $672 $994 5587 51,006 $55.15 594.52 $2.96 $5.08
1951-52................ 11,130 63,860 5.7 22.8 734 1,086 635 1,068 57.05 95.% 2.79 4.68,.
1952-53............... 11,638 65,720 5.6 25.4 774 1,151 714 1,177 61.35 .101.13 2.81 4.63
1953-34....._......... 12,101 69,928 5.8 27.2 798 1,271 809 1,381 66.85 114.12 2.97 5.08
t
1954-55................ 12,517 74,099 5.9 28.1 879 1,434 852 1,422 68.07 113.61 3.03 5.06
1955-56....._......... 13,004 77,676 6.0 30.9 1,005 1,578 923 1,533 70.98 117.89 2.99 4.%
1956-57................ 13,581 88,299 6.5 33.8 1,079 1,834 1,030 1,732 75.84 127.53 3.05 5.12
1957-58................ 14,177 98,015 6.9 36.4 1,111 1,751 1,147 1,891 80.91 133.39 3.15 5.20
195&59................ 14,741 101,982 6.9 38.1 1,210 1,925 1,246 1,932 84.33 131.06 327 5.07
1959-60................ 15,288 108,423 7.1 41.8 1,491 2,198 1,435 2,086 93.86 136.45 3.43 4.99
1960-61................ 15,863 115,737 7.3 *4.2 1,598 2,338 1,678 2,525 105.78 159.18 3.80 5.71
1961-62................ 16,412 122,339 7.5 46.9 1,728 2,451 1,697 2,406 103.40 146.60 3.62 5.13
'! 1%2.63................. 16,951 128,981 7.6 50.6 1,866 2,668 1,881 2,703 110.97 159.46 3.72 5.34
1%3--64................ 17,530 134,721 7.7 54.1 2,137 3,057 2,064 3,182 117.74 181.52 3.82 5.88
1964-65................ 18,026 143,896 8.0 58.7 2,245 3,295 2,345 3,652 130.09 202.60 3.99 6.22
1%5-66................ 18,464 151,199 8.2 62.8 2,509 3,581 21580 4,059 139.73 219.83 4.11 6.46
t 1966-67................ 18,831 158,404 8.4 68.3 2,895 4,073 3,017• 4,659 160.21 247.41 4.42 6.82
1967-68................ 19,175 162,677 8.5 73.6 3,682 4,927 3,273 5,014 170.69 261.49 4.45 6.81
1%849................ 19,432 171,655 8.8 80.6 4,136 5,450 3,909 5,673 201.16 291.94 4.85 7.04
1969-70................ 19,745 179,583 9.1 88.6 4,330 5,743 4,456 6,302 225.68 319.17 5.03 7.12
1970-71................ 20,039 181,581 9.1 95.0 4,534 3,919 4,854 6,556 242.23 327.16 5.11 6.90
1971-72................ 20,346 181,912 8.9 100.8 5,395 6,897 5,027 6,684 247.08 328.52 4.99 6.63
1972-73................ 20,585 188,460 9.2 110.2 5,780 7,366 5,616 7,422 272.82 360.55 5.09 6.73
1973-74................ 20,869 192,918 9.2 121.6 6,978 8,715 7,299 9,311 349.75 446.16 6.00 7.66
1974-75................ 21,174 203,548 9.6 136.0 8,630 10,405 8,349 10,276 394.30 485.31 6.14 7.55
1975-76................ 21,538 206,361 9.6 149.4 9,639 11,567 9,518 11,452 441.92 531.71 6.37 7.67
1976-77................ 21,936 213,795 9.7 167.4 11,381 13,463 10,467 12,632 477.16 575.86 6.25 7.54
1977-78................ 22,352 221,251 9.9 186.5 13,695 15,962 11,686 14,003 522.82 626.48 6.27 7.51
1978-79................ 22,836 218,530 9.6 213.9 15,219 17,711 16,251 18,745 711.64 820.85 7.60 8.76
1
1979-80................ 23,257 220,193 9.5 244.8 17,985 20,919 18,534 21,488 796.92 923.94 7.57 8.78
1980-81................ 23,782 225,567 9.5 278.1 19,023 22.104 21,105 24,511 887.44 1,030.65 7.59 8.81
1981-82................ 24,278 228,813 9.4 311.9 20,960 23,601 21,693 25,022 893.53 1,030.65 6.95 8.02
1982-83................ 24,805 228,489 9.2 332.8 21,233 24,291 21,751 25,330 876.88 1,021.17 6.53 7.61
1983-84................ 25,336 226,695 8.9 358.0 23,809 27,626 22,869 26,797 902.63 1,057.66 6.39 7.49
1984-85................ 25,816 229,845 8.9 397.6 26,536 31,570 25,722 30,961 996.36 1,199.30 6.47 7.79
1985-86................ 26,402 229,641 8.7 431.2 28,072 33,558 28,841 34,977 1,092.38 1,324.79 6.69 8.11
+: 1986-87................ 27,052 232,927 8.6 463.6 32,519 37,767 31,469 38,079 1,163.28 1,407.62 6.79 8.21
1987-88 .............. 27,717 237,761 8.6 497.3 32,534 38,773 33,021 40,452 1,191.36 1,459.47 6.64 8.13
1988-89................ 28,393 248,173 8.7 534.5 36,953 43,322 35,897 44,634 1,264.29 1,572.01 6.72 8.35
1989-90................ 29,142 254,589 8.7 575.6 38,750 46,453 39,456 48,594 1,353.92 1,667.49 6.85 8.44
1990-91................ 29,976 260,622 8.7 616.7 38,214 47,024 40,264 51,446 1,343.21 1,716.24 6.53 8.34
1991-92................ 30,646 261,713 8.5 624.5 42,026 53,117 43,327 56.280 1,413.79 1,836.46 6.94 9.01
1992-93................ 31,283 268,419 8.6 640.8 40.942 52,435 40,822 57,490 1.304.93 1,837.74 6.37 8.97
1993-94................ 31,927 269,221 8.4 663.5 39,875 51,975 37,333 51,161 1,169.32 1,602.44 5.63 7.71
'Population as of July 1,the be inning of the fiscal year.
¢Includes Special Accounts in General Fund from 1973-74 to 1976-77.
Expenditures include payments from General Fund,Special Funds and Selected Bond Funds beginning in 1963-64.
X13
Appendix 18
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM:
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa
DATE: March 30, 1993 Uounty
suejicr: PROPERTY TAX LOSSES DUE TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SPECIFIC REGUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the report of County property tax losses to Redevelopment
Agencies.
BACKGROUND:
There are 15 redevelopment agencies in the County which receive all
or part of the annual property tax increases within their
respective jurisdictions. If these redevelopment agencies did not
exist, the County and other taxing agencies would receive the
annual increase in property tax revenues.
The amount of revenue loss to the General Fund over the last nine
years is presented in attachment A. Note that the County General
Fund will lose $12.6 million this fiscal year. Moreover, the
annual rate of losses to redevelopment agencies has generally
exceeded the annual rate of Increases for the County General Fund.
Attachment B presents the property tax losses to redevelopment
agencies from all taxing agencies in fiscal year 1992-93. Note
that over $53 million will be allocated to redevelopment agencies
this fiscal year, of which 358 or over $18 million will come from
the County and County Special Districts.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT., -YES SIGNATURE: �7q _�Y
-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECommENDATIONOF90AROCOMMITTEE
._APPROVE -OTHER
$IGNATUOIE(SI:
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 30, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
MUESTM the County Administrator to send letters to all cities that are using the tax
increments that had gone to fire districts to identify when they may be able to begin repaying
or contributing back to the base fire district budgets where those tax increments originated;
and REQUESTED the inclusion of a footnote on the Auditor's Report (Attachment B) to reflect
that the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County has held harmless those special districts
providing vital services and to distribute that report to the fire districts and cities.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
XX UNANIMOUS(ASSENT - - - AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ASSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: --"County Administrator ATTESTED March 30, 1993
Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/a) By R ,0. Z,, ,
DEPUTY
V
14
O
N
o t 11N
r �p Ci3
Co CA
�� •!� U) M
0 GO 00
co
Ci
o p4loo. 00
00
Ci
LO o
co 00
LO
u 00cvi Lo
CO
u0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Ci o C6 co 4 c-i o
r r r 61% 69.
�uamvv��zH 15
Office of
RECEIVED
COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
Contra Costa County
625 Court St., Room 103 O v 1992
Martinez, California Off1C@ of
94553 -�tv Administratr
November 10, 1992
TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Attentions Antnony Enea, Senior Deputy - General Government
FROM: Kenneth J. Corcoran, Auditor-Controller
Sys Stephen Ybarra, Property Tax Manager
SUBJECT: 1992-93 Redevelopment Agency Increments/Losses`to Agencies (Estimated)
The following are being provided regarding redevelopment agency, tax increments
and the corresponding taxing agency tax losses.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment
Antioch $4,475,767
Brentwood 1,199,972
Clayton 1,346,221
Concord 9,604,886
Danville 469,357
El Cerrito 1,491,136
Hercules 1,158,447
Pleasant Hill 1,101,056
Pinole 4,039,414
Pittsburg 11,121,862
Richmond 6,459,713
San Pablo 4,693,710
San Ramon 1,045,425
Walnut Creek 805,304
Contra Costa County 4,473,627
Total 53,485,897
Estimated
Taxing Agency Property Tax Loss
County General $12,635,134
County Library 664,524
West County Fire Protection District 687,574
Riverview Fire Protection District 1,938,965
East Diablo.Fire Protection District 50,401
Contra Costa Fire District 2,156,900
Rodeo Fire Protection District 99,266
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 261,410
Other County Special Districts 378,671
All Others 34,613,052
Total 53,485,897
The above calculations are based only on the equalized (beginning) assessment
roll and do not include supplemental roll tax increments and unitary and operating
non-unitary (UAONU) tax revenues.
16
--G�atiorfs'aftne iowest cost pussinle.
Nval I Lliv OLUI I I MiaWt ruoution ieg
Compliance will greatly ci- itribute to the task of ridding pollution to the waters in our local creeks, the San Francisco Bay
and the Deft& Estuary. Wn-compliance..Oy-any city or the county could result in substantial fines. For more c*omple't'e"
information, see the Engineer's_Report referred to in the notice.
PRO --- ----- ---- - --- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- --- - ----- --- - - - --- - --- ----
��S�:
I/We, 10,6, protest the formation of the stormwa,ter utility area and
assessment proposed to be levied on the property assigned parcel I number .//0 located
I A
at 6/'46 .
(address) in the City/Town/County of
lam e th w r(s) of the above parcel.
Signatures) of Property Owners
If not listed as owners on the last equalized roll, you must provide written evidence with this protest that you are owners
of the property and would be liable to pay the proposed assessment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
I/We, ,QUb41-1-s=w , � ,f'f `1'Q��N� test the formation of the stormwater utility area and
assessment proposed to be levied on the property assigned parcel number a - ®b O -6azo located
at �,� /y7�.�i��8.�0 �� v� (address) in the City/Town/County of
i
I am/We are the owner(s) of the above parcel,
i
ig ature(s) of Pro erty Owners
If not listed as owners on the last equalized roll, you must provide written evidence with this protest that you are owners
of the property and would be liable to pay the proposed assessment.
i
I
I
RESOLUTION NO:93-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON
AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DIRECT THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL PARCEL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM AND
SETTING A RANGE FOR THE PER UNIT ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, prescribed discharges
of storm water require a permit from the appropriate California regional water quality
board under the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) program; and
WHEREAS, each public entity is developing a storm water management plan; and
WHEREAS, under the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District Act, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(District) has specified duties and powers; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2768, Campbell, (AB 2768) authorizes the District to
establish, by resolution, storm water utility areas within the District, as prescribed, and to
impose, except as specified within AB 2768, an annual assessment within a storm water
utility area and in conjunction with the NPDES program; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the District to establish a parcel assessment to pay for
the implementation of the NPDES program and storm water management plan for each
public entity so requesting; and
WHEREAS,prior to imposing any assessments within any public entity, the Board of
Supervisors must have authorization from the public entity as described in AB 2768.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Ramon hereby
authorizes the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to direct the District to prepare the
necessary reports,resolutions,and ordinances,to schedule the necessary public hearings,and
to give the required legal notices for the establishment of a stormwater utility for the City
of San Ramon and the adoption of utility fees for fiscal year 1993-94.
RECEIVED
• ctf�r that tli:• is a JUN
�r 1 5 1993
.,d i f-y ts►
Llty t4i C'uy of CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.t ��a1n1J1 Jn
23. 3 Page 1 of 2 CONTRA COSTA CO.
r % G-
t
eery Ccs
Resolution No. 93-15
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the establishment of the utility area for the City
of San Ramon shall specify a maximum fee amount of Thirty-five Dollars ($35.00) per
Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) and the fee for one ERU for FY 1993-94 shall be set at
twenty-three dollars ($23.00).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of San Ramon will reimburse the
District for actual costs incurred in completing the above tasks with the understanding that
the. total cost will not exceed Two Dollars-($2.00) per parcel proposed for assessment
contained in the City of San Ramon's utility area.
,PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 23, 1993 by the
following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers Blickenstaf,,, Carr, Oliver, Welm & Mayor Boom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Patricia Boom, Mayor
ST:
)Qd/4-
Vdy M arlane, Ci Clerk
- , 4 _-J
era,
Page 2 of Z
4*(.aavKr;Sggyy.>..:.,.e......,...5,5+n^..;w,......,.........sw....,wva.w.
}
r X
DATE: /C��/ 3
,REQUEST TO, SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. ]
NAME: Ia,LEM .a� EVELYk NORTO 14 PHONE: SK5-- :v2O I
ADDRESS: ��� 02Cc � T�� VL CITY: CO NCaf-
I am speaking formyself t-/' OR organization:
Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 54ory1 wx,�er' rwy—°f f• "°�l`` ' °-"'��
My comments will be: general for against .
I wish to speak on the subject of
_ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
t .2 04- owtC w►�tt� at.f, i -1 o c�� ,�,•c/ �Pi��cL f
Cl- Lztv :,f � came
PRO TE15 -F
FO(?m/-)7-/O /\/ C)F /� ST6PMWA-F&-P, OTtLt—( '�
AND THE- A.55E5-SMENTS
UPON -F(-fE- eF- CONTRA COSTS Co()N-F)l
i, Nov-bovl d Lvelyo I-, tVov-i7oVi , pr-6-6(fs�-
fo V- of Qrr-a awd Q55;e'-5men-t
froros&
ooh lev 'eJ ov) ouv- pr -i-/ PARCEL No. 1111-310-037--
joco -�-ecj a-E 16 (6 -Dorctle5tey- PI, Covicou-J. CA, 9q,51T, We
are tie OwPek--s 4 �kcs
Jctk)e,,
/Y
RECE,
J W4
CLERI�Kljl�oA,,.
COCA COSrq PEfi\tl ORS
V- 1
ffCLERKBO�ARID
CEIVED
! 5 i. m
W Inut
{� OF S�JAERVISORS i.0S7a^�CC,.
June 11, 1993
Mr. Tom Torlakson, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine St. , Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: NPDES Storm Water Fee
Dear Tom:
For the past two years the City of Walnut Creek has joined efforts with
the County and the other cities within our county to develop a Stormwater
Pollution Control Plan. While the City supports the goals of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water act and specifically the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program we have
resisted mandatory participation in the program. However, the SbBIWQCB
has recently circumvented our opposition by amending their "Basin Plan" to
require NPDES permits of all cities within their jurisdiction.
The time to fight these regulations is now behind us. On March 2, 1993
the Walnut Creek City Council made the difficult decision to adopt a
resolution setting a fee amount and authorizing the County to form a
utility district through the Flood Control District to pay for our Storm-
water Pollution Control Plan. Because of the reduction in City revenue
due to the recession and the State reducing property tax, the City of
Walnut Creek has no other options for funding this program.
We now call upon you and your colleagues to adopt the resolution before
you. Failure to do so will jeopardize the implementation of our program
and continued participation in the group effort to comply with state and
federal clean water regulations.
Very Truly Yours,
..i �(1 /L
Gene Wolfer Rayor
[tt] 301
P.O. Box 8039 0 1666 North Main Street 0 Walnut Creek, California 94596 0 (510) 943-5800
COnsiate• C04;;-A- 14, (P
204 7 Olympic Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(510)229-5705
10 June 1993 A4.,; � IVE
County Board of Supervisors
Office of the Clerk J 1993
Room 106
651 Pine Street C 8 DOFSUpegVIS
Martinez, CA 94553 �q cosrq pft,co
RE: Formation of Stormwater Utility Area and Service Charge (Assessment)
proposed, 1993
Dear Board:
I spoke at tonight's public hearing and would like to make my comments in
writing as well as respond to some of the references made by the Board of
Supervisors.
First, attached please find a copy of our formal protest letter AGAINST this
assessment directed to the CCC Flood Control & Water Conservation District.
I am very upset that each time we turn around a new tax is being proposed.
I commented on the poor management of the process, as only now are new
and apparently good suggestions for alternatives to (the parcel assessment
are coming out. This is outrageous as we have apparently known about this
mandate since 1991. Supervisor Smith indicated that hearings were held
during the past year or so, but no one attended. This would not be the case
if the importance was publicized by the Board and other governing bodies. I
feel that many times government hides issues as not important and never
gets the public comment until the media finally gets a hold of an issue when
money is involved. Be Open. Do NOT Hide Behind Your Mis-Management.
Also, I was under the impression that if more than 50% of the utility area
protested, then no new tax would be made. Figures quoted today indicate
that less than 20% protests were registered. This is of the total parcels
involved. However, this appears to be unlike a democratic election. The
question really, is how many protests were registered of all responses? My
bet is that a majority of the responses were negative protests. Think about
what you are doing. This is a double standard. If you put this to a vote, you
would get the same result that you got for the Fire Assessment. You would
not have an assessment.
I .also find it amusing that this proposal, although initiated under the
direction of the CCC Flood Control & Water Conservation District is now in
the Board of Supervisor's hands. It is very confusing to the average citizen to
figure out that these proposals are one in the same. If you are going to
proceed with measures like this (which don't even have to go to the citizens
for a vote) then at least make sure that announcements are clear to the
- 2 -
public.
I also find it interesting that the tax roles are always the place one goes to
increase revenue rather than the source of the problem. The Stormwater
Utility District wants to go to the source to eliminate pollution, so why don't
you go to the source of the pollutants (manufacturers and users) to collect
the funds, if they are actually necessary, to rectify the problem. Seriously
think about the "user fees" suggested tonight even if it means going to the
public for a vote.
Please, do your jobs and give us the services we need and want with the
dollars we already pay in taxes. We already have many districts dealing with
similar issues including sewage. Maybe if you put your minds to it, you would
be able to give us our money's worth. As was pointed out at the public
hearing, we have increased our income from property taxes substantially
since Proposition 13. I believe that government has just grown faster with
fewer results. Think about what you do with this and other "Tax" issues.
Your Jobs Are On The Line.
If any of these new taxes pass, do not expect my vote in your re-election bid.
Sincerely,
r
Samuel E. Lipson
2047 O[ympic Drive
Martinez, California 94553
(510)229-5705
21 April 1993
Contra Costa County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Formation of Stormwater Utility Area and Service Charge (Assessment)
proposed, 1993 '
Dear Board:
We (Samuel E. Lipson and Sabiha A. Gokcen), owners of the property at
2047 Olympic Drive (APN 155-235-007) protest your attempt to apply a
service charge based on our ownership of property.
We are tired of being told that our tax dollars suddenly do not cover the
costs of our government. After hearing from the County for Fire Protection,
the Mosquito Abatement District, your board (the Flood Control District),
and who knows what other group we will hear from, we must protest any
attempt to raise our taxes to cover mis-management to cover mandated
programs.
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL FOR AN APPROVAL VOTE.
To quote your protest statement exactly as worded on the notice sent to us:
We, Samuel E. Lipson and Sabiha A. Gokcen, protest the formation of the
stormwater utility area and assessment proposed to be levied on the
property assigned parcel number 155-235-007 located at 2047 Olympic
Drive in the City of Martinez.
We (whose,signatures appear below) are the owners of the above parcel.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Samuel E. Lipson& Sabiha A. Gokcen
C� oo P V
C oylS;der cvL4k
June 9, 1993 1 L993
CORK BOgAD
Contra Costa County CONrgq Oos AP6R ISORS
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street `--�
Martinez CA 94553
Subject: Proposed Property Tax Assessment
Reference: Parcel No. 120-164-002
Gentlemen:
I very strongly oppose a special assessment by the Public Works
Department.
In these difficult financial times,I feel it is irresponsible for a public agency to increase
taxes. Your job should be to manage the money which taxpayers generously provide. It
should not be to dream up new taxes. Everyone is hurting financially these days; especially
the homeowners. You are killing the goose that used to lay golden eggs!
Don't take this personally,I feel the same way about each of the half dozen public agencies
which has recently notified me of their intent to impose a special assessment. I consider
each and every one of you irresponsible and unfit for public service.
The"benefit received" discussion in the Public Works Department letter was very weak and
inconclusive. It addressed the PG&E bill as well as a reserve fund and unforeseen
expenses. It did not come close to justifying any additional assessments.
I hope the Supervisors realize that property owners are not an endless supply of cash which
irresponsible bureaucrats can tap as they choose.
Do not approve an additional assessment.
Very truly yours,
rohn Lee
� RECE ME®
�o JUN 1 1 1993
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR,
U CONTRA COSTA CO.
Z7 d,"� �e
Z�I�.GCC'J ���'Ji�C=-�C� �L.� /�t+L� � ��iC/' �/� r ✓ t p' / /
�f
309 ARLINGTON , EL CERRITO .
3RD , JUNE , � 93• JUN - 71993
C` s;der w
S I R S , CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
SII T I N TJ'0"V-XTS—LE"f 0 S Q U 1 70 A13ATE`AENT AND FLOOD CONTROL WERE RECEI VED
AT THIS ADDRESS , APN 505-282-013 , AND a' ISH TO REPLY TO BOTH AGENCIES FOR THE THREE
PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNED . ALSO WISH THIS LETTER TO BE READ PUBLICam AND IN FULL
AT THE SCHEDULED HEARINGS , EVEN THOUGH I REALISE THE WHOLE THING IS A TOTAL PRETENSE
SOLELY TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF SOME DEMOCRATIC PROCESS .
'REGARDING MOSQUITO CONTROL, I DONT KNOW HOW MANY --PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED BUT
IN EL CERRITO ALONE IT MUST BE SEVERAL THOUSAND , HENCE THE REVENUE INCREASE INVOLVED
WOULD TYPICALLY BE 100, 000$. CONTROL OF MOSQUITOS IS A SIMPLE MATTER OF PREVENTING
LARVAE HATCHING BY . PUTTING AN OILY CHEMICAL ON THE STAGNANT . WATERS THEY' BREED IN. T
IS CHEAP AND SPREADS ONLY A FEW MOLECULES THICK , SO A TEASPOONFUL WILL COVER ABOUT
1000 SQ. YDS. , SO THE TRUE COST IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF PAYING SOMEONE TO TREAT ALL THE
Q,tea„
SIGNIFICANT WATER SURFACES IN THE AREA. ONE COULD _ COVER 100 SQ . MILES, THIS LOCAL
.A
DISTRICT WITH ITS 100 ,000$ A-SSESSMENT , IN A COUPLE OF WORKING DAYS. NOT ONLY THAT,
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT STRETCH OF BRACKISH WATER LOCALLY IS ARLINGTON PARK POOL , AND IT
COULD WELL BE PUMPED OUT FOR ALL THE GOOD IT IS APART FROM ITS BEING THE RESPONSIBIL-
ITY OF THE OWNERS, PRESUMABLY EL CERRITO , HENCE LET IT BE DONE BY ,THE ADMINISTRATORS
WHO DISPOSE OF IT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THEPEOPLE NOW BEING ASKED TO PAY) . ONE CANT
TAKE KIDS SINCE THE TOILETS ARE CLOSED , ONE ISN ' T SUPPOSED TO TAKE DOGS TO PLAY, MUCH
OF THE TIME IT ISN ' T SUPPOSED TO BE ENTERED , NO ONE PLANTS FLOWERS . . . WHY USE IT TO
BREED MOSQUITOS ? FURTHER , MOSQUITOS DO NOT CARRY DISEASE LOCALLY IN FACT; POTENTIALL7
THEY COULD , PRIMARILY MALARIA — WHEN WAS THE LAST CASE OF INFECTION REPORTED HERE ?
FLIES (OF MANY VARIETIES) COULD CAUSE DISE>SE ANO .ARE FAR MOZE LIKELY TO ) , PLUS DEER
TICKS , THEN RISK OF ALLERGIC FATALITIES TO VARIOUS INSECT BITES, CROP DISASTERS FROM
JAPANESE BEETLES. . . WITH AT LEAST A MILLION KNOWN SPECIES OF INSECT THINK WHAT A TREM-
ENBOUS POTENTIAL YOU ARE EMBARKING UPON WITH SUCH CHARGES. LYME DISEASE COULD BE
TREATED WITH A CHEAP ANTIBIOTIC WITHIN TWO SEEKS OF BEING BITTEN ; I DONtT KNOW HOW MUCI
ENCEPHALITIS YOU HAVE PROVED DUE TO MOSQUITO BITES IN THE AREA , BUT IT WOULD SEEM
THOSE WHO GOT IT MUST HAVE A GOOD CASE FOR LITIGATION AGAINST THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT
ADMINISTRATORS, BASED UPON YOUR ADMISSION.
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THIS IS SHEER UNMITIGATED GREED BY THOSE WHO HAVE
SHEWN THEMSELVES INCAP&BLE OF RESPONSIBLE FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKING WITHIN A BUDG
— THE VERY THING PROPOSITUON 13 HAD TO ADDRESS WHEN THE JOYS OF SPENDING OTHER PEOPL'
MONEY THEN RAISING TAXES TO COVER THE PROFLIGACY GOT OUT OF HAND . . . AND THIS IS NO
MORE THAN AN ILLEGAL PROPERTY TAX SUPPLEMENT EVEN THE DIRECT TAX INCREASED 0. 37; ONE(
THE LZ GAL LIMIT , PROBABLY JUSTIFIED 9Y SONE OTHER DECEIPT SUCH AS CALLING 1T A LEVY Cl
SERVICE FEE OR SOMETHING RATHER THAN USIN; THE WORD TAX ) .
I THINK WE EXPRESS THE SENTIMENT OF EVERYONE IN THE COUNTY OTHER THAN YOURSELVES WHO
ARE AT THE SPENDING WITHER THAN PAYING END YOUR OWN EXTRA TAX .DOUBTLESS +.TORE THAN OFA
SET BY A SALARY INCREASE SNEAKED IN SOMEW-I_.RE) , THIS CONSTANT INCREASE 15 1NTOLERAB
YOU MENTION 10% OF THE TAXES DEDICATED TO MOSQUITO CONTROL BEING TAKEN BY THE STATE
' . . . JUSTHOW MUCH DOES THIS AMOUNT TO? HOW MUCH OF THE TAX BUDGET IS DEVOTED TO TH1
IMMENSE UNDERTAKING OF BATTLING MOSQUITOS IN EL CERRITO THAT 10n: OF IT IS SUCH AN OVER:
U o ? \\-Jp_—r ? I
WHELMING SUM ? IF YOU CUT YOUR 20 PEOPLE BY 10%, HOW MANY MORE CASES OF ENCEPHALITIS
WOULD THIS RESULT IN? THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST OUTRAGEOUS ANDI THINK WHAT WE REALLY
NEED IS PEOPLE WHO CAN MANAGE MONEY RESPONSIBLY .
HAVE ADDRESSED THE SAME LETTER TO FLOOD CONTROL, FOR IT IS REALLY JUST THE SAME
THING . FIRST THERE IS HERE THE SPECTRE OF IMPURE WATER (ESPECIALLY GRIM FOR THE ENCE
-ALITICS , PRESUMABLY) AND THEN THE MENTION OFfl14$ FEE, WHICH CAN THEN INCREASE AND
EVEN IN ANOTHER DROUGHT
DOUBTLESS WILL) TO 385 AUTOMATICALLY AND PRESUMABLY THE EXPENSIVE HOUSES IN THE HILL
WILL BE DEEMED AT GREATEST RSK OF FLOODING) . . . . THERE IS REALLY NO STOPPING YOU PEOPLE
IN YOUR LUST FORPUBLIC MONIES. THINGS ARE NEVER PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR, ARE ALWAYS,
DEVIOUSLY EXFLAINEO . EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS EL CERRITO SEEMS TO NEED A NEW FIRE-ENGIN
BUT THE COST OF A FIRE-ENGINE, AND WHERE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE HAS FAILED WITH THE
ERISTING ONES, AMD THAT IN ANY CASE MACHINES ARE SHARED WITH LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, IS
NEVER DETAILED . THERE ARE ALWAYS DANGEROUSLY DARK STREETS THAT NEED LIGHTS TO PREVEN
MUGGINGS , . . . AND ON AND ON. THEN ALTHOUGH THE ENVELOPE TO ALARM PEOPLE ABOUT THE NEEC
FOR THESE SERVICES COULD CONTAIN A BALLOT TO RETURN WITH YOUR CHOICE ON THE CHARGES
IT IS ALWAYS LEFT TO AN EVENING MEETING IN A ROOM THAT WOULDN' T HOLD EVEN 1% OF THE
CONCERNED PARTIES AND NO INDICATION THAT EVEN IF FILLED WITH DISSENTERS IT WOULD ALTER
ANYTHING , EVEN FOR THOSE WHO PROTESTED . AND AGAIN, WHAT IS NEEDED IS PEOPLE WHO CAN
LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS.
ALL THESE DEPR"ATIONS ON THE PROPERTY TAXES GET LISTED , BUT. WHAT OF ALL THE NEW
HOUSES, THE VASTLY INCREASED: ASSESSMENTS OF HOUSES ALWAYS BEING SOLD , THE INCREASED
TAX BASE WITH NEW BUSINESSES OR PEOPLE MOVING IN; WHAT OF THE INCREASE FOR A FIRE-ENGrq
WHICH IS NEVER REDUCED THE FOLLOWING YEAR WHEN THE THING HAS PRESUMABLY BEEN BOUGHT?
IT ' S JUST A PARKINSON ' S LAW NEED FOR MORE AND MORE MONEtj FROM TAX PAYERS.
SPECIFIC TO FLOOD CONTROL, HOW MUCH DID TAXES ®ROP IN THE SIX YEARS OF DROUGHT: WATER
RATES WENT UP OF COURSE SINCE IT WAS SCARCER , JUST AS IT COST TO SELL "LEADED GASOLIt
THEN COST AGAIN TO TAKE IT OUT JUST AS I SEEM TO RECALL BART CH ,,RGED 5oK$ TO PUT UP
A STATION ON ASHBY AVE. BERKELEYENID THEN 6K$ TO KNOCK IT DOWN. . . WHEN IT HAD NEVER
BEEN BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE . WHEN 'HILL PEOPLE WHO ADMINISTER PUBLIC MONEY BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE? IF THERE' S NO MONEY FOR AN UNEXPECTED NEED TO PURIFY WATER FOR WILD Lld
THOUGH I ' D THOUGHT FLOODS WERE COMPOSED OF RAIN, AND EVEN MUDDY WATER SEEMS OF LITTLE
THREAT TO BIRDS AND FISH , OR LIKELY TO DAMAGE RACOONS IT MEANS THE FLOOD CONTROL PEOI
HAVE SPENT ALL THEIR MONEY WITH NO CONTINGENCY FUND FFOR EMERGENCIES — AND WHAT RESPON;
p_-47'r-Gc iiA--
IBLE PERSON SPENDS HSR 14 ► NCOM.E ON RECEIPT TH4VN IS LOST 1M�'!i SOME" EXIGENCY LIKE SLIPPIN,
IN THE MUD LEAVES NO FUNBS TO COVER 1•T ? AS TO POLLUTION, ISN' T RICHMOND IN CONTRA ,
Y
COSTA , AND HAVE PUBLIC OFFICIALS BEEN AROUND THE REF INERY 4HERE BROWN SMOG CONSTANT,
KEEPS SUNSHINE FROM THE STREETS? 'NHV AREN ' T THE REAL CAUSES OF POLLUTION DEALT 'NITH ?
C"nl br
ANYWAY , GENTLEMEN, WE ALL PROTESTATHE FORMATION OF THESTORMWATER PROJECT AND C�HA
i�J). .PE.R.G
FOR, CONTROLLINGINSECTS THE TAXES IMPLICITLY COVER ANYHOW./ J.RALSTO vI.DEL R10
CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01
Concord,California 94519-2578 Nancy Gore,Mayor
FAx: (510) 798-0636 II Mark DeSaulnier,Vice Mayor
Ifll Byron Campbell
Colleen Coll
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ® �®� Lloyd D.Mashore
Telephone': `510 671-3158 Farrel A.Stewart,City Manager
June 8, 1993 RECEIVED
" 1 419M
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson CONTRA COSTA CO. „
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Tom:
This letter is to confirm that both Bud Stewart and I will attend the June 15, 1993 public hearing
where the Board of Supervisors will consider imposing a storm water utility fee to finance the
countywide response to the federally mandated NPDES program.
The Board has already received a resolution from the Concord City Council requesting the Board
to impose and collect the storm water utility fee through the Flood Control District. The
collection of this fee is vital to Concord's response to this newly imposed federal mandate.
Without this new funding source Concord would be forced to reduce even further other existing
programs which are already threatened by the poor economy and Governor Wilson's proposed
tax shift.
Contra Costa County and the City of Concord are both in a rather unique position since we are
the only public agencies named in the federal regulations. As identified agencies, Concord and
the County would probably receive immediate attention from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board if we fail to effectively implement our comprehensive Storm Water Management Plans.
I for one would not like to see fny city Singled out for enforcelnen"i action.
My staff has assured me that Concord's program and the associated parcel fee has been reduced
to the lowest level which will allow Concord to reasonably comply with the mandates of the
NPDES program. Although my City Engineer is optimistic that there may be savings realized
within the Group Program, there is also a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the Regional
Board will accept our plan. Since a response to our plan by the Regional Board will not be
available until after you and the Board have considered, and hopefully adopted, the storm water
utility fee, I'm convinced that the current program and fee have been established at the
appropriate levels. If any savings are realized in the early years of this program, they can be
utilized to postpone as long as possible any future fee increases.
. �i d Mem-k v s
Coto
GD0- Lua4df Gdt
Pw
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
June 8, 1993
Page 2
In closing, I urge both you and your fellow Board members to support the storm water utility
fee at the public hearing on June 15, and look forward to seeing you there.
Sincerely
Nancy ore
Mayor
7LF:01
cc: City Council
F.A. Stewart, City Manager
Michael Martello, City Attorney
Steve Jepsen, Assistant City Manager
Lydia.Du Borg, Deputy City Manager
Mike Vogan, Public Works Director
John L. Fuller, City Engineer
Lynnet Keihl, City Clerk
Donald P. Freitas, Storm Water Control Manager, Contra Costa County Flood Control,
255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4897
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
n
RECEIVED C7
O
June 11, 1993a
JW 1 4 GM Z
Tom Torlakson, Chairperson CIERK BOARD OF 3uPERviSORv
1 , 1
T
Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA CO.
Contra Costa County "
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Z
Martinez, CA 94553
Z
Dear Supervisor Torlakson: m
M
At the June 15, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting the Board will
consider imposing a storm water utility fee to finance the O
countywide response to the federally mandated NPDES program. At
it's regular meeting on June 5 the City/County Engineering Advisory >
Committee membership expressed it's unanimous support of this o
proposed parcel fee as the most acceptable way of financing this <
federally mandated program and requested that I prepare a letter to N
the Board summarizing our position. O
The Board has already received a resolution from every city in the -<
county, (except Richmond which has already adopted its own fee) , ^
requesting the Board to impose and collect the storm water utility ` J
fee through the Flood Control District. The collection of this fee O
is vital to the Cities/County response to this newly imposed +T
federal mandate. Without this new funding source, all affected 3
agencies would be force to reduce even further other existing -1
programs which are already threatened by the poor economy and the m
state's proposed tax shift. m
The CCEAC membership, many of whom serve as representatives to the
Cities-County-District Stormwater Pollution Control Program, are
confident that this program and the associated parcel fee has been
reduced to the lowest level which will allow participating agencies
to reasonably comply with the mandates of the NPDES program. The
primary objective of the city/county effort was to respond to this
new federal mandate with the least costly program possible. The
response effort outlined in the group program application
represents a level of effort very much below that which was called
for in the federal regulations. The program staff has utilized
every available resource to negotiate a very favorable initial
response from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Although several of our members are optimistic that there will be
savings realized within the Group Program, there is also a high
degree of uncertainty as to whether the Regional Board will accept
our plan. It is conceivable, that in the course of reviewing the
plan the Regional Board may request more than our plan offers. We
GHo
GJ1b - I,JI,4e-r 04e
would certainly pursue all avenues to limit the scope to our
assumed available funding. A response to our plan by the Regional
Board will not be available until after you and the Board have
considered, and hopefully adopted, the storm water utility fee.
We at the CCEAC remain convinced that the current program and fee
have been established at the appropriate levels and we urge both
you and your fellow Board members to support the storm water
utility fee at the public hearing on June 15.
Y rs truly,
John Lisenko
Chairman, CCEAC
cc: Donald P.
Freitas, Storm Water Control Manager, Contra Costa
Flood Control, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
e: \wp\group\jlnpdes. ltr
city of orinda
26 orindo woY
orindc • colifornio • 94563
C6h51def Woo-, N: 6
- DArIVQ,�
June 7, 1993 RECEIVE®
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Chairperson JM 14 1�3,.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF�l1PERVISORS
221 Pine Street CONTRA COSTA CO.
Martinez, California 94553
Subject: Public Hearing for the NPDES Fee
Dear Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors Members:
Danville's Town Council has a regularly scheduled meeting on June 15, 1993. Because
of this commitment, we are unable to attend the public hearing scheduled by the Board
of Supervisors to consider the County-wide NPDES fee.
Like your Board, our Council has voiced continued objections at the imposition of yet
another mandate imposed upon cities and counties by our federal and state governments.
We feel very strongly that mandated federal programs, such as the NPDES program,
should be supported by federal, not local funding. Despite our requests, the program
will be implemented.
Because the Town of Danville supports clean water and is unable to support the cost of
such a program within its General Fund budget, the Town Council approved Resolution
No. 24-93 on March 2, 1993. This Resolution supports and authorizes Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District creation of a Storm Water Utility
Area for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program within the Town
ofDanville. We request your favorable consideration of this rata ter.
Sincerely,
Michael Shimansky
Mayor
MS:dlj
Attachments: Resolution No. 24-93
?jWrd. (16ke4 March 16, 1993 Letter to Regional Water Quality Control Board
C-M 0.
510 La lnda Way • Danville,California 94526-1722 (510)820-6337
- DAMMLE
March 16, 1993
Mr. Steven R. Ritchie
Executive Officer
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
2101 Webster Street, Suite 500
Oakland, California 94612
SUBJECT: FUNDINGY OF THE NPDES PROGRAM BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
On March 2, 1993, the Town of Danville Town Council adopted Resolution 24-93 in support of the
creation of a Storm Water Utility Fee in Contra Costa County. This resolution was adopted with some
reluctance with a vote of three in favor and two opposed.
NPDES is being mandated by the Clean Water Act. We support these Federal programs in that we
support clean water.
Unfortunately, these programs are creating a situation where the residents of the Town of Danville
are being asked to pay yet another fee to support a government program where no local support
exists. Mandated Federal programs should have Federal funding and not be dependent upon local
jurisdictions for support. The mandated NPDES program forces us to "tax" the residents of the Town
of Danville under the guise of a Federal program.
Local jurisdictions within Contra Costa County and the State of California are facing some very difficult
times in the midst of this economic crisis. The additional burden of the NPDES Program worsens our
economic conditions at a time when many cities are deliberately attempting to avoid new taxes and
assessments. For these reasons, Danville requests your consideration of deferring the full
improvement implementation of the NI'DES Program. We would further request that you review and
consider these mandates and non-point source regulations in the context of other priorities.
Sincerely,
Mike Shimansky
Mayor
MS:SL:sn
CC: George Sipel, City Manager
Steve Lake, City Engineer
Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager, Contra Costa Cities ♦ County ♦ District
Storm Water Pollution Control Program
Attachment LNPDESNS.SL File No. 810-06
510 La Gonda Wav 0 Danville. California 94526-1722 (510)820-63,17
RESOLUTION NO. 24-93
AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CON7,17ROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH A STORM WATER UTILITY AREA FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM AND SETTING DANFVILLE'S
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT FEE AMOUNT AT $22.00
WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires dischargers of storm water to obtain a permit
from the appropriate California Regional Water Quality Control Board under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program; and
WHEREAS, under the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, thc
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has specified duties, and
powers; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2768 authorizes the District,to establish, by resolution, Storm Water Utilin, Areas
to recover costs of activities undertaken, or to be undertaken, in connection with NPDES and to impose
ail annual assessment within the Storm Water Utility Area; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the District to establish a parcel assessment to pay for the implementation of'
the NPDES program and Storm Water Management Plan for the County of Contra Costa and each public
entity within the County; and
WHEREAS, prior to imposing any assessments within any public entity, the Board of Supervisors must have
authorization from the public entity as described in Ali 2768; and
WHEREAS, Danville has developed its Storm Water Management Plan and finds it necessary to establish
the rates to be assessed to parcels within its jurisdiction and to establish the maximum rate to be assessed
in future years; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Danville advocates support of a slower more rational
implementation of these clean water efforts in a time of fiscal crisis, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Danville that the Town of Danville does hereby support
and authorize Contra Costa County Flood Control arid Water Conservation District creation of a
Storm Water Utility Area within the Town of Danville; and, lie it further
RESOLVED, that the first yearly rate for the Storm Water Utilit-N, Area Fee for the Town of Danville shall
he set at $22.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERLJ) with a maximum permissible rate of$30.00 per FRU
to be`applied in the ftiture as established from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council of the
Town of Danville.
APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a Regular Meeting on March 2, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: RITCHEY, GREENBERG, LANE
NOES: SHIMANSKY DOYLE
ABSTAINED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
K.
YOR
APOVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
�'' ,.... �,...,,,,�, �7z��h.t- 'fit-'cam i�t'�'G's..C'�
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY