The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06141994 - FC.3 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS sL Contra Finance Committee, Tom Torlakson FROM: Gayle Bishop �` '< Costa ^( . : � Count PATE: June 14, 1994 Y c'UUs SUBJECT: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PROGRAM EXPENDITURES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report from the Public Works Director on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Expenditures. BACKGROUND: The NPDES Program in Contra Costa County is still in it's first year under the State issued permit. The first annual report will be completed this fall. A brief summary of the program costs for the past three years (two years to complete application process) is shown on Attachment A. The cost category, "group costs", represents the expenditures by the Flood Control District on behalf of the seventeen cities and the County. Most of the organizational work is being done as a cooperative venture by all participants at a considerable cost savings over each agency proceeding alone. The program staff provided by the Public Works Department currently consists of 3 1/2 persons (shared clerical). On June 7, 1994, the Board approved an additional planner position, and the department will be asking for a full-time clerical position in the near future. However, we will be deleting a temporary position in October; these changes will result in a staffing level of four. The program also has a contract employee handling the Oil Recycling Program funded by the State. For fiscal year 1993-94, the County labor costs for the group activities represent 37% of the group costs and 4% of the total program funding of approximately $8,000,000. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ..APPROVE OTHER SIGNgTURE(S): Tom Torlakson Gayle Bishop ACTIGN OF BOARD ON •J—m—14. 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER The Board heard this report in conjunction with the public hearing on the same matter. Wilhelmina Andrade, 1814 Geneva Lane, Antioch, appeared and objected to the drainage fees, the Stormwater Utility District and property taxes going for Redevelopment purposes. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I & V ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED .Time 14, 1994 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works BY ,DEPUTY Page 2 The County's NPDES Program (and the programs of all of the cities) are behind schedule in implementation. However, in comparison with other counties that started years before, we have closed the time difference between our programs. To facilitate a timely implementation of the County's program, we will be requesting the addition of another Storm Water Pollution Control Planner position to the Public Works Department staff. Currently, we are using a senior Civil Engineer to implement the program while also doing her normally assigned duties. The requested planner position will much improve the implementation time frame while freeing-up the Senior Civil Engineer. The District in addition to providing management and staff to the group, has funded some of the start up costs for the group and the completion of the pollutant loading analysis required by the permit. The District, at a group cost, is handling the stormwater sampling program required by the permit. • ATTACHMENT A - COST SUMMARY FOR NPDES PROGRAM FY 1991-92 TH R U FY 1993-94 Cost Activity Groups F►scal Year (Cost iri $1,00) Categories 91-92 92-93 93-94 Group Costs County Labor (7) (7) $310 (1) Consultants $149 $293 $350 Other (2) 30 JL2 180 Total $46 $305 $840 City Costs Labor, Drainage (3) (3) $7,780 County (5) (6) Labor $47 $71 $125 Drainage/Mtce N/A N/A $260 BMPs N/A N/A 450 Total $47 $71 $835 Flood Control Labor $291 $256 $98 District 1) Cost incurred doing group tasks for 17 cities and county. F 1993-94 costs are estimated based on 10 months. 2) Includes fees paid to State for permit. 3) City costs are not available until completion of annual report, due in October 1994. Amount reflected in F 1993-94 is total stormwater utility assessment revenue already disbursed to cities. 4) Best Management Practices (BMP) for eliminating pollution from stormwaters. 5) Costs for County's program in unincorporated area. Expenditures are less than originally projected due to delay in permit issuance and program start up problems. 6) Costs for F 1993-94 are estimated. 7) Funded by District. c:feetable Public Hearing JUNE 14, 1994 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISORS Chairman &Members; I oppose the drainage fees set for the 17 cities in Contra Costa County yet excluding City of Richmond and City of Brentwood. Isn't this politic- al? I oppose the so-called Stormwater Utility District area that was established on June 22, 1993 under Contra Costa County Flood, Control & Water Conservation District Act, which was formed under the unfair A.B. 2768 (Campbell) who excluded his own City of Richmond from the combining with the 17 cities ' new Utility Taxing District. Well, my question to the County Counsul under what other law was this Water Conservation District formed? I know that A.B. 2768 sa s that the assessments has -to be by the assessed value method. Quote : here are W no provisions to tax us under the E.R.U. method where a 4 million dollar home owner pays the same unit cost as a small cottage. Certainly a roof over a large home results in more drainages than a small home. I ask this board to amend A.B. 2768 bill and allow everyone in the State to comply, not only the hard working people of Contra Costa County to clean our riv- er. There is also another Bob Campbell A.B. 1905 which will steal reven- ues from the water districts and sewer districts and then allow those di.s tricts to charge extra to` the rate payers. This is another rotten scheme which will hasten the dumping of the politicians. Once before in history the people threw tea into the ocean and I believe they are ready to throw the politicians over, whose aim is to tax us un- fairly. I ask this board to come back to common sense. Abolish all the redevelopment schemes now by placing a freeze, so that no more property taxes goes into Ferry-boats and gifts of public funds to developers. This county already made a mess of our fire district 's revenues and are now playing a shell game of our county property taxes, such as library, mos- quito, fire and regional park taxes and drainage taxes. I day plaae° th,er�dw�lopm�s��,p�:op8r�g taxes' Luck into the County/0-1�t�t aa:dg41?d and `<_'_ a�' general fun"Aso that our people can go back into trust- ing our officials. Your children deserve a better Contra Costa County government . Amend A.B.2768. Stop A.B. 1905 and freeze all redevelopment agencies funds for all services including drainages. Thank you. Wilhelmina Andrade (510) 757-5202 1814 Geneva Dane Antioch, Ca. 94509 p.s. It can be done by amending all redevelopment plans now and allow anual property tax growth to go back into general fundsj': kt Vdca=ty Budgets; for services. A.B. 2768 definately says the assessed value method not the E.R.U. method.