Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04242001 - C.62 Tlx: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: APRI[, 9, 2001 SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, AB 104 (NATION) THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN WATER, AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUS I-IFICATION I. Recommended Action: SUPPORT, with suggested amendment, Assembly Bill 104 by Assemblymember Nation, the Transportation Fund for Clean Water, PROVIDE comments and direction to Staff to prepare a letter of support, with suggested amendments, and AUTHORIZE the Board Chair to execute the letter. II. Financial lmpact: It is anticipated that Assembly Bill 104 will result in approximately $3,600,000 per year for Contra Costa County if the County elects to participate. Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE , APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 24, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_2QL OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS RX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT IV — — — ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of RMA mw the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. \\PWS4\SIIARDATA\GrpDntalAdmin\Miich\bo\?001\BOAR 104.doc Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs) COnlael: Mitch Avalon(313-2203) c: J.sweeten.County AdministratorATTESTED: April 24, 2001 S.J.Kochik,CnninnityDevelopm John Sweeten Clerk of the Board of Supervisors J.ICopchik,Community Development s p M.ShieFl Works Director and County Administrator D.Eckerson, son,on,Flood Control D.Freitas.Clean Water Program By , Deputy +�+i" SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, AB 104 (NATION) THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN WATER, AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT DATE: APRIL 9, 2001 PAGE 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Back round: The overall objective of the Clean Water Act is to improve water quality. When the act went into effect in 1972, agencies focused their attention on point-source pollution. This was pollution from stationary, fixed sources such as industrial plants and wastewater treatment plants. For the most part these pollution sources are under control, and about 10 years ago agencies began to focus on non-point source pollution. The State Water Resources Control Board and its regional boards are responsible for administering this program, and they issued Contra Costa County our first NPDES permit in 1993. This permit required the County and Cities to implement actions towards the goal of improving water quality. The County and Cities are co-permittees under the NPDES permit and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program administers the joint program activities. In 1993, the County and cities adopted a parcel tax to fund the Program costs. Each jurisdiction approved the parcel tax with a range of values. The parcel tax for Contra Costa County, for example, was approved with a range of$16.20 to $30 per parcel. In the beginning, each jurisdiction started out at the bottom of the range. Each year the program costs have increased and the jurisdictions have slowly increased their parcel tax. Today, several cities are at the maximum rate. Last year the County increased our parcel tax to $25.20. Contra Costa is currently in its second 5-year NPDES permit. In three years, our permit will be up for renewal. We already know the state standard for new permits contains requirements that are much more expensive than our current permit requirements. We will have to look for new funding sources. Assembly Bill 104 is a way to add new funding to improve water quality. The funding will not come directly to the County Clean Water Program, but will be available as a grant program to various parties within the County for improved water quality. The largest source of non-point pollution is motor vehicles. Assembly Bill 104 sets up a $4 charge per vehicle registration or renewal to be put into an account administered by the Coastal Conservancy. The vehicle registration fee is set up only if requested by the County. Four percent of the funds are set aside to cover administrative costs of the Conservancy and the Department of Motor Vehicles and 10% is set aside for the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) for research and education projects. 86%would be available for projects within Contra Costa County. Projects eligible to receive funding include creek restoration, bank stabilization and erosion reduction, wetland and watershed revegetation, restoration and enhancement, and acquisition of waterway and watershed land. Staff has two primary issues and several secondary issues with the bill as drafted. Both primary issues deal with the control of expenditures in the County. The first issue concerns the 10%of funds set aside for the RWQCB. We would like to see these funds set up as a grant program, administered by the regional boards, to fund education and research projects. Counties could each apply for projects irPtheir County, or apply collectively through the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association for regional projects. If the funds are to remain with the regional boards for their projects, then we would like to have some input and oversight on the research and work product the Regional Board will be producing with funds originating from our County. There is currently no process in the bill by which the RWQCB determines what type of research they will be conducting with the funds collected in each County. Perhaps the RWQCB could submit their list of proposed research and education projects to the County for comment and concurrence or perhaps regional projects could be reviewed by Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. The Clean Water Program in each County is probably the entity most knowledgeable on the stormwater quality research needs in that County. SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, AB 104 (NATION) THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN WATER, AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT DATE: APRIL 9, 2001 PAGE 3 The second issue concerns the process for determining how the grant funds are allocated. As drafted, the funds would be allocated by the Coastal Conservancy through their grant system. We have worked with the Conservancy and have a good relationship with them,but in this case there would be no input from the County on what types of projects get funded. There will be three types of projects applying for funds; open space, creeks, and water quality. The conservancy may have different priorities than the County for allocating funds. It can take quite a lot of staff time to put together a grant application,which doesn't make too much sense if the funds will be allocated within the County. Who knows better what the watershed, clean water,creek restoration and open space needs are in each County than that County. There are several ways that Counties could have input on project priorities. On one end of the spectrum,the Board of Supervisors could approve the projects for each County and forward it on to the Conservancy for allocation and administration. We could also use our Contra Costa Clean Water Program or our Contra Costa Watershed Forum to review or approve a project list. On the other end of the spectrum, we could review the biannual audit required in the bill to see if funding allocations are consistent with County priorities and provide comments to the Conservancy as needed. Another way to provide some control by the Counties is to include a sunset clause in the bill so that AB 104, if enacted, becomes law for six years(3 audit cycles)and then sunsets unless reenacted. This will allow the Counties to see how effective the interaction with the Conservancy is and determine whether to continue the program or not. Of course, not all Bay Area counties are structured the same, so an amendment would have to be written broad enough to work for everyone. Other issues with AB 104 include the following: ♦ What is the process for the counties to elect to participate in the program. Does the Board of Supervisors approve program participation? ♦ What will happen to funds that are un-programmed by the County; do the funds accumulate in a County account at the Conservancy? ♦ What triggers the Conservancy to initiate the program in a County, is the fee collected in all nine counties when only three want to participate? ♦ If there is control at the local level for allocation of the funds, then it may be better to not have the specifics outlined in Section 31165.b.4. ♦ Maintenance projects and monitoring costs are not eligible for funding. Projects required as part of the NPDES permit, such as sediment source studies or sedimentation budget studies, TMDL plan development and monitoring, BMP development and monitoring, and desilt projects, etc., should also be eligible. ♦ The bill disallows funding projects required as part of a permit (like mitigation), but what about enhancements to project mitigation? ♦ There are more than one RWQCB governing the nine Bay Area counties. It is not clear how the 10% funds are distributed among them. ♦ The bill should require a "maintenance of effort" for the 10% funds set aside for the RWQCB, so the RWCQB will not be able to use the funds to pay for programs or projects they are currently paying for. Assembly Bill 104 provides a new and much needed source of funding for improving water quality in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Assembly Bill 104 also links the cost of pollution clean up with the leading source of pollution, the motor vehicle. V. Consequences of Negative Action: Board support and comments on Assembly Bill 104 would not be sent to the legislature.