HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1991, 3 - ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL USERS PERMIT FEES FOR THOSE INDUSTRIAL USERS DISCHARGING TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER SYSTEM. Ill�lylll�IIIIInIIII�=Ilullll MEETING DATE:
'°I II _Ilul C�Ty of san Lws oBispo May 21 1991.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: William T. Hetland . , Prepared By: John E. Moss
Utilities Director Wastewater Division Manag
SUBJECT: Establishment of Industrial Users Permit Fees for Tho e
Industrial Users Discharging to the City's Wastewater
System.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, adopt a resolution setting Industrial Users
Permit Fees for discharge to the City's Wastewater System
which includes the following:
1. Significant and Categorical Users
Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 680.00
2. Class 1 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . $ 210.00
3. Class 2 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . $ 64 .00
4. Monthly Compliance Monitoring, sampling and
Follow-up Inspections for Noncompliance/Violations
to be billed at the hourly rates established in
the Public Works Department "Labor and Equipment
Rates" document.
5. Annual permit fees to become effective and due
July 1, 1991 with the proportionate amount
included with the City's bi-monthly utility
billing.
REPORT IN BRIEF
In 1982 the City established a federally mandated pretreatment
program for monitoring and control of industrial users
discharging waste to the City's wastewater collection and
treatment systems. Based on Council direction, staff has
developed a system of industrial user permit fees designed to
recover only that portion of the program costs directly related
to industrial user monitoring and inspection. This fee program
is based on the average inspection time required per class of
industry, the minimum number of monitoring events (inspections
and sampling) required to insure industry compliance with Local,
State and Federal regulations, and 35% of the program cost being
directly related to inspection and monitoring activities. . The
proposed fees are detailed above in the recommendation.
3 - I
���n���N►I�IIIII�IIINII�I11 city of sa►n Luis oBispo
am-MM i-42 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 2
Meeting of May 7, ' 1991
The pretreatment program is currently being funded through the
sewer fund. Estimated annual cost of the program, including
direct and indirect costs, is $136, 000. Council direction is to
fund only that portion of the program related to industrial user
inspection activities through a system of user fees. The
inspection portion of the program has been determined to account
for 35% of the total program time and cost ($47,556) . Council
has previously approved an upgrade of the pretreatment program
contingent upon establishment of industrial user fees. The
previously approved program upgrade is essential in meeting State
and Federal requirements for the program as well as insuring
maximum potential for reclamation of wastewater effluent and
sludge (see page A-25 of Appendix A. 1989-91 Financial Plan
Supplement) . The costs associated with the program upgrade have
been included in the proposed fee structure. The proposed fee
program would result in an increase in revenue of approximately
$47,500.
Staff has presented the revised fee program to those industrial
users responding to the earlier proposed program in a letter
mailed April 10, 1991. Only one telephone response was received.
This response was from Higuera Autobody and they felt the revised
fee program was reasonable. A comparison of the proposed fee
program with that of other cities shows these fees to be in the
low mid-range of other city's industrial user permit fees. The
proposed fee program does not affect the retail/commercial and
non-industrial businesses within the City.
The alternative to establishing the proposed fee program would be
to continue to fund the entire program through the sewer fund.
This would continue to place the burden for funding the program
on the non-industrial users in the City and would not provide a
funding mechanism for the required program upgrade.
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
In 1982 the City established a Pretreatment Program for
monitoring and control of industrial users discharging waste to
the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. The
City's Pretreatment Program is a federally mandated program under
the provisions of the Clean Water Act and is currently being
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) . The
City is required under Federal regulation (40 CFR 403.8 (f.) (3) ]
to provide adequate resources (funding and personnel) to carry
out the requirements of the program as identified in 40 CFR 403 .
3 � �
�,►�i�i►�Illll�lllf � 11 city of San a..Ais osispo
MIN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 3
Meeting of May 7, 1991
The objectives of the Pretreatment Program, as defined under 40
CFR 403.2, are to monitor and control industrial discharges to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to:
(a) Prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will
interfere with the operation of the �POTW, including interference
with its use or disposal of municipal sludge;
(b) Prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will
pass through the treatment works or otherwise be incompatible
with such works; and
(c) Improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and
industrial wastewaters and .sludges.
Staff had originally developed a system of Industrial Users
Permit Fees which would fully cover the cost of the City's
Pretreatment Program. This recommendation was brought to' Council
on February 5, 1991. Council denied staff's recommendation to
fund the entire program through a system of permit fees and
directed staff to return with a fee program which reflected only
the inspection portion of the program directly attributable to
the industrial users.
Current Fundinc
Since 1982 the City has funded it's Pretreatment Program through
the Sewer Fund. The sewer fund is an enterprise fund consisting
of rates and fees sufficient to fully cover the direct and
indirect costs of the wastewater programs. Initially the
Pretreatment Program was included as part of the Wastewater
Treatment Program and was operated out of the Wastewater
Treatment Budget. In the 1989-91 Financial Plan and Approved
1989-90 Budget, the Pretreatment Program was separated from
Wastewater Treatment and its own budget identified and
established (Pg. D-31, 1989-91 Financial Plan and Approved 1989-
90 Budget) . This was done to more accurately identify the
required resources of the Pretreatment Program and provide a
basis for establishing Industrial Users Fees. The need to
establish Industrial User Fees was identified in the 1989-91
Financial Plan (Supporting Documentation pg. C-19 (a) ] .
Proposed Fundinct
The City currently has 328 total permitted industries made up of
significant and federal categorical industries such as metal
plating shops and printed circuit board manufacturers, class 1
industries such as service stations, dry cleaners and photo
finishing shops, and class 2 industries which are primarily
restaurants. The classification applied to individual industries
��IN@�N►��IIIIp�P° �11 CTCy Of San ItAIS OBISPO
malbmm
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees . 4
Meeting of May 7, - 1991
is primarily based on their potential to cause interference or
pass-through. Those types of industries under the federal
categorical industry classification have been identified by the
EPA and are governed not only by local discharge limits, but by
federal categorical pretreatment standards as well.
Based on Council direction, staff has developed a system of
Industrial User Permit Fees based on the cost of inspection
related activities directly attributable to the industrial users.
Inspection related activities are determined by the amount and
type of monitoring and inspection required to insure industry
compliance with Federal, State and Local discharge limits. The
amount of required monitoring is governed by the classification
of the industry and its potential to interfere with the operation
of the POTW. Because of their potential to interfere with the
POTW, significant and federal categorical industries require a
minimum monitoring frequency of 4 times per year, class 1
industries - 2 times per year, and class 2 industries - 1 time
per year.
In order to provide equitable distribution of the fees, staff has
developed a fee program which incorporates not only the frequency
of inspection per class of user, but also the average time spent
performing the inspection and related activities per class of
user. From this, staff has determined that approximately 35% of
the program operation can be directly attributed to industrial
user inspection related activities. Therefore, as. per Council
direction, this fee program is based on a cost recovery of only
35% of the total program cost.
In order to standardize the time factor in determining the
appropriate permit fees, staff developed a Minimum Inspection
Time (MIT) equivalent factor. One (1) MIT is equal to the
average time spent on inspection and related activities for the
lowest class (2) of user. Staff then determined the total number
of program MIT equivalents per year and divided this into the
program cost to achieve a $/MIT figure. This $/MIT figure is
multiplied by the MIT equivalents and number of required
inspections for each class of user to determine the appropriate
permit fee.
By basing the permit fees on the minimum number of monitoring
events required per year and the time equivalents required for
monitoring each class of user, the rates will most accurately
reflect the demands placed .on the Pretreatment Program by each
industrial user classification. A detailed breakdown of the
derivation of the Permit Fees is provided 'in Table 1.
01►11IIIII1IIP01°9�U�U city of san L.4Is osispo
Al
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 5
Meeting of May 7, 1991
TABLE 1
1991-92 Pretreatment Program Budget. . . . . . . . . $108,700
Inspection = 35% of program total . . . . . . . . . . $ 38,045
Overhead = 25% additional . . S 9 .511
TOTAL INSPECTION RELATEDCOST . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47,556
Minimum Inspection Time (1.5 hrs) = 1 MIT
MIT Equivalents for User Classifications
Class 2 - 1.5 hrs/inspection = 1 MIT
Class 1 - 2.5 hrs/inspection = 1.66 MIT
Sig/Cat - 4 hrs/inspection = 2. 66 MIT
Total Program MIT's = # in class. * MIT * insp./yr.
Class 2 = 164 * 1 * 1 = 164
Class 1 = 160 * 1.66 * 2 = 531
Sia/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 4 = 43
TOTAL PROGRAM MIT's /yr. = 738
Program Cost / MIT = $47,556 / 738 = $64. 00 / MIT
Annual Permit Fee = # Insp. /yr. * MIT * $/MIT
Class 2 = 1 * 1 * 64 = $ 64.00/yr. ($ 64. 00)
Class 1 = 2 * 1.66 * 64 = $212 .00/yr. ($210.00)
Sig/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 64 = $681. 00/yr. ($680.00)
In determining the MIT equivalents for each class of industry,
staff first identified all inspection related activities that
must be performed with each inspection. Based on past experience
in performing these activities, an average inspection time was
established. The average inspection time per class of industry
and inspection related activities are identified in Table 2.
3 .�
�►��►�� ��IIIlI��p��u����llll city Of San WI s OBISPO
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 6
,.Meeting of May 7, 1991
Table 2
Class 2 Users - (average inspection time = 1.5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of grease trap.
Issuance of receipt to manager.
Review and update of file after inspection.
Database update.
Refile.
Class 1 Users - (average inspection time = 2.5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
Significant/Categorical Users -(average inspection time = 4
hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review. (previous inspections and required
documents)
Permit review.
Discharge concentration data review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of waste and materials storage.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits with mgr.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
�u i�i��Illll�flpaN►ui���N city of san L.AS oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 7
Meeting of May 7, 1991
In addition, staff is recommending establishing a system of fees
for monthly compliance monitoring and sampling, and follow-up
monitoring and inspection resulting from industry non-compliance.
These fees will be based on the hourly rate established in the
Public Works Department Labor and Equipment Rates document dated
January 1990. The current labor rate for the Industrial Waste
Inspector is $35.65 per hour. These fees will be billed through
use of the Public Works Billing Statement. Assessment of
additional inspection fees resulting from non-compliance will
provide additional incentive for compliance as well as insure
equitable distribution of program costs to those industrial users -
placing the most demand on the program resources.
Comparison With other Cities
Staff has investigated the industrial user fee programs for other
cities and has found them to be greatly variable. Fees were
found to range from $25.00 per permit for all industries
regardless of classification, to $3, 000 for significant and
categorical industries. There was also some indication that
industrial users fees were often an indication of local policy
towards industrial growth. That is, low fees to encourage
industrial growth and high fees to discourage industrial growth.
The fees being recommended at this time fall in the low-mid range
of those surveyed.
Citizen Participation
In order to evaluate industry response to the proposed fees,
letters were mailed to those industrial users who responded to
the previously proposed fee program which was presented to
Council on February 5, 1991. The letters identified the basis of
the proposed fee program, the proposed fees, and requested their
response. Only one telephone response was received from this
mailing. The response was received from Higuera Autobody and
they felt the revised fee program was reasonable.
A separate mailing has also been completed notifying all
currently permitted industrial users of the public hearing and
presenting the proposed fees and the basis of the program.
Although staff received only one comment on the first mailing,
Council may anticipate some additional response at the public
hearing. A copy of the letters mailed are attached.
Staff had met with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the
previously proposed fee program. At that time, the Chamber
understood the need for the pretreatment program and felt the
basis of the previously proposed fees was reasonable, however,
were reluctant to either support or oppose the fee program.
3 - 7
„H�►����IIIII�p� u� �N city of san Luis oBl spo
NMI COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Industrial User Permit Fees 8
Meeting of May 7, 1991
CONCURRENCES
The City Finance department has reviewed the recommended fee
program and concurs with the recommendations herein. In
addition, staff has discussed the basis of the proposed fee
program with the State Water Resources Control Board and they
concur with the fees being based on inspection frequency.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended fee program will result in an increase in revenue
of approximately $47,500 to the sewer fund. This increase in
revenue reflects the cost of operation of the inspection portion
of the City's Pretreatment Program. It is recommended that the
fees be reviewed and adjusted annually if necessary to reflect
any increase or decrease in cost of the inspection program.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Take no action and continue to fund the Pretreatment Program
through the current system of sewer rates. This option does
not place the cost of that portion of the program directly
attributable to industrial users on those users and places
an additional burden on the non-industrial users. The
demands on the pretreatment program will continue to grow
and as such, so will the cost for operation of the program.
On June 12, 1990 Council approved an upgrade of the
Pretreatment Program contingent upon establishment of
industrial user permit fees. Previously established goals
for the program will not be achieved if the permit fees are
not established. This will result in the City not achieving
compliance with the requirements for the pretreatment
program as set by the State and Federal regulatory agencies
and may result in not achieving compliance with the
wastewater discharge requirements as a result of inadequate
pretreatment program enforcement. This alternative is not
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, adopt a resolution setting Industrial Users
Permit Fees for discharge to the City's Wastewater System
which includes the following:
1. Significant and Categorical Users
Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 680. 00
2. Class 1 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . . $ 210. 00
. 3'8
�►►►► IIIUIIIIIIIIIPI��u�I���h city of san L,Ais o$1spo
= COUNCIL ^GENOA REPORT
. Industrial User Permit Fees 9
Meeting of May 7, 1991
3. Class 2 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . .$ 64.00
4. Monthly Compliance Monitoring, Sampling and
Follow-up Inspections for Noncompliance/Violations
to be billed at the hourly rates established in
the Public Woks Department "Labor and Equipment
Rates" document.
5. Annual permit fees to become effective and due
July 1, 1991 with the proportionate amount
included with the City's bi-monthly utility
billing.
Attachments:
Resolution
Letters to Industrial Users
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS
OF THE CITY WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State
of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
require the City to establish and operate an Industrial
Pretreatment Program to control and monitor industrial discharge
to the City's wastewater treatment systems, and
WHEREAS, the City has established a pretreatment program that
complies with the State and Federal requirements as defined in
Part 403 of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) , and
WHEREAS, CFR 403.8(f) (3) requires the City to have sufficient
resources (funding and personnel) to carry out the requirements
of the program, and
WHEREAS, 13.08.250 of the City Municipal Code provides the legal
authority to establish a system of charges and fees, and
WHEREAS, the cost of the pretreatment program directly
attributable to the industrial users shall be equitably
distributed to the industrial users through a system of
industrial user permit fees which reflect the actual demands
placed on the program by each classification of industrial user.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of
San.. Luis Obispo does hereby adopt the following schedule of
Industrial User Permit Fees:
1. Significant and Categorical Users
Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 680.00
2. Class 1 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . $ 210. 00
3. Class 2 Users Annual Permit Fees . . . . . . $ 64. 00
4. Monthly Compliance Monitoring, sampling and
Follow-up Inspections for Noncompliance/Violations
to be billed at the hourly rates established in
the Public Works Department "Labor and Equipment
Rates" document.
5. Annual permit fees to become effective and due
July 1, 1991 with the proportionate amount
included with the City's bi-monthly utility
billing.
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Upon motion of seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,
1991.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
C' y to ne r
City Finance Director
City Utilities Director
3 - Il
.,,,,�i.,:�1�I�II'iil!l� li�lll ill I II I illi Ililll .. _
Q-ty Of San WIS OBN
`" LL 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
April 10, 1991
SUBJECT: REVISED INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT FEE PROGRAM
Dear Industrial User:
Thank you for responding to our request for input regarding the
proposed Industrial User Permit Fee Program. As you may
remember, the program was submitted to the San Luis Obispo City
Council for approval on February 19, 1991. At that time, the
program was intended to fully recover the cost for the City's
Industrial Waste Pretreatment program.
Numerous protests were filed and heard from the industrial
community regarding the basis of the proposed fee program and the
level of fees to be established. Council then rejected the
proposed fee program and directed staff to return with a program
which recovers only those program costs directly attributed to
inspection and permitting of the industrial users. Staff has re-
evaluated the proposed fee program and has developed a program
which is based on the Council's direction.
The propose fees for industrial user permits are as follows:
Significant and Categorical Users . . . . . . $680.00/year
Class 1 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210.00/year
Class 2 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 64. 00/year -
Attached you will find Tables 1 and 2 for you information. Table
1 provides a breakdown of the derivation of the proposed fees.
Table 2 identifies the inspection related activities, and
estimated completion times, for each class of industrial user.
These Tables are being provided to assist you in understanding
the basis of the proposed fee program.
Staff will be presenting this proposed fee program to Council for
approval in May 1991 and is requesting that you review the
3-I Z
III Fees letter
April 10, 1991
Page 2
attached information and respond in writing with your comments by
May 1, 1991.
Please send your responses to:
John E. Moss, Wastewater Division Manager
Utilities Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Your comments will be made available to Council and summarized in
the staff report.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed fee program you
may contact Mr. David Hix, Industrial Waste Inspector @ 549-
7241, or myself @ 549-7220.
This correspondence is being sent to only those industrial users
commenting on the previously proposed fee program. However, all
currently permitted industrial users will be notified of the time
and place of the public hearing before the City Council to
consider adoption of the proposed fee program.
Again, thank you for your input on the previously proposed fee
program. Your continued involvement is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely;
John E. Moss
Wastewater Division Manager
iufeeltr
TABLE 1
1991-92 Pretreatment Program Budget. . . . . . . . . $108,700
Inspection = 35% of program total . . . . . . . . . . $ 38, 045
Overhead = 25% additional . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . S 9,511
TOTAL INSPECTION RELATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47,556
Minimum Inspection Time (1.5 hrs) = 1 MIT
MIT Equivalents for User Classifications
Class 2 - 1.5 hrs/inspection = 1 MIT
Class 1 - 2.5 hrs/inspection = 1.66 MIT
Sig/Cat - 4 hrs/inspection = 2.66 MIT
Total Program MIT's = in class. * MIT * # insp. /yr.
Class 2 = 164 * 1 * 1 = 164
Class 1 = 160 * 1.66 * 2 = 531
Sia/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 4 = 43
TOTAL PROGRAM MIT's /yr. = 738
Program Cost / MIT = $47,556 / 738 = $64.00 / MIT
Annual Permit Fee = Insp./yr. * MIT * $/MIT
Class 2 = 1 * 1 * 64 = $ 64. 00/yr. ($65.00)
Class 1 = 2 * 1.66 * 64 = $212.00/yr. ($210.00)
Sig/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 64 = $681.00/yr. ($680. 00)
Table 2
Class 2 Users - (average inspection time = 1.5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of grease trap.
Issuance of receipt to manager.
Review and update of file after inspection.
Database update.
Refile.
Class 1 Users - (average inspection time = 2.5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
Significant/Categorical Users -(average inspection time = 4
hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review. (previous inspections and required
documents)
Permit review.
Discharge concentration data review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of waste and materials storage.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits with mgr.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
•I'7111;"III Yel ll,l 11 rr Irrl li 11 rl Ili •I ,r Ii ._ _
:Irl 1. i iiliIII I I ill I li rCl 11 ill Il it
cit' of SM lus .0
- 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: REVISED INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT FEE PROGRAM
Dear Industrial User:
A public hearing will be held by the City Council on May 21, 1991
at 7:00 pm, at the City Council chambers, 990 Palm Street, to
consider adoption of a revised industrial user fee program. As
you may remember, a fee program was previously submitted to the
San Luis Obispo City Council for approval on February 19, 1991.
At that time, the program was designed to fully recover the cost
of the City's Industrial Waste Pretreatment program. The City's
Industrial Waste Pretreatment program is required under federal
mandate. It's function is to monitor and control industrial
discharges to the City's wastewater collection and treatment
systems.
Numerous protests regarding the previously proposed fee program
were filed and heard from the industrial community. The protests
were largely based on the criteria used for development of the
proposed fee program (full program cost recovery) and the level
of fees to be established. Council rejected the proposed fee
program and directed staff to return with a program which
recovers only those program costs directly attributed to
inspection and permitting of the industrial users. Staff has re-
evaluated the proposed fee program and has developed a program
which is based on Council's direction.
The proposed fees for industrial user permits are as follows:
Significant and Categorical Users . . . . . . $680. 00/year
Class 1 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210. 00/year
Class 2 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 64.00/year
3- l�
III Fee Letter
May 1, 1991
Page 2
Attached you will find Tables 1 and 2 for your information.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the derivation of the proposed
fees. Table 2 identifies the inspection related activities, and
estimated completion times, for each class of industrial user.
These Tables are being provided to assist you in understanding
the basis of the proposed fee program.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed fee program you
may contact Mr. David Hix, Industrial Waste Inspector @ (805)
549-7241, or myself @ (805) 549-7220.
Sincerely;
John E. Moss
Wastewater Division Manager
iufeeltr.2
TABLE 1
1991-92 Pretreatment Program Budget. . . . . . . . . $108,700
Inspection = 35$ of program total . . . . . . . . . . $ 38,045
Overhead = 25% additional . . $ 9 ,511
TOTAL INSPECTION RELATEDCOST . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47,556
Minimum Inspection Time (1. 5 hrs) = 1 MIT
MIT. Equivalents for User Classifications
Class 2 - 1.5 hrs/inspection = 1 MIT
Class 1 - 2.5 hrs/inspection = 1. 66 MI.T
Sig/Cat - 4 hrs/inspection = 2 .66 MIT
Total Program MIT's = # in class. * MIT * # insp./yr.
Class 2 = 164 * 1 * 1 = 164
Class 1 = 160 * 1.66 * 2 = 531
Sia/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 4 = 43
TOTAL PROGRAM MIT' s /yr. = 738
Program Cost / MIT = $47,556 / 738 = $64 . 00 / MIT
Annual Permit Fee = # Insp. /yr. * MIT * $/MIT
Class 2 = 1 * 1 * 64 = $ 64.00/yr. ($65.00)
Class1 = 2 * 1.66 * 64 = $212 . 00/yr. ($210.00)
Sig/Cat = 4 * 2.66 * 64 = $681. 00/yr. ($680.00)
Table 2
Class 2 Users (average inspection time = 1.5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of grease trap.
Issuance of receipt to manager.
Review and update of file after inspection.
Database update.
Refile.
Class 1 Users - (average inspection time = 2 .5 hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
Significant/Categorical Users -(average inspection time = 4
hrs)
Inspection related activities:
File review. (previous inspections and required
documents)
Permit review.
Discharge concentration data review.
Report preparation.
Travel time.
Introduction.
Inspection of facility.
Inspection of waste and materials storage.
Inspection of receipts, manifests and permits with mgr.
Complete report.
Report review.
File review and update.
Database update.
Refile.
AUTO BODY. . .
MEMNG AGENDA
DATE S M #=
May 10, 1991
City of San Luis Obispo,
Subject:Revised Industrial User Permit Fee Program
I am in receipt of your letter dated May 1 , 1991.
The fees seem to be more in line on this revised letter
than on the original..
As with all businesses I am currentlywatching all .of my
expenses and costs. It would be wonderful if there was no
cost at all, but- I realize that everyone needs- to pay their
share. I feel comfortable with the new' amount . as being fair..
RECEIVED
MAY 2 1 .1991
COF. TO: Thank .Your.. .
❑•j)awtxs Athan ❑ FYI CfTY CLERK
a/ Q CMDUL . SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
i �LO ❑ FIN.DIR
r_ Ci,0 ❑ F�CFI
l� ATICWIJEY ElFW DIR
/:.-LEK/01UG. ❑ POLICE CFL
❑ :-r�AT.TFniv1 ❑� DIIt
❑ ADFILE Lam( mru D'.R .. -
sr— �'Cl e Cheri Medsker'
= Office ManagerE P 'i
Is
r1' SIV F i .'{ I.v
31 HIG.UERA STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA 93401 • ( 805 ) 54. 3 - 9505
FAX ( 805 ). 543 - 1559
ilhETING AGENDA
CALIFORNIA DATE
Automotive Service Councils of California
(Formerly Independent Garage Owners of California)
ABC San Luis Obispo Unit 17
�^ ^• •49P.O. Box 3216
PROFESSIONALS.. San Luis Obispo, California 93403
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
COPlFSTp:
January 22, 1991
❑ Action Fn
❑ CDD DIR
O ❑ FIN.DR
ACRO ❑ F�C�
ATTORNEY ❑ FW DUL
City of San Luis Obispo C4� LERK/ORIG. ❑ Po=C3-,
Attention: John E. Moss MAI ' "`' ❑ MG'4TTEA-M 11,RECD�
955 Morro Street ^�2 1 1§91 o,CRTEADFU �"
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O�,p �� Cil
Dear Mr. Moss:
S�ILlI1S 6l��CA
This letter is in response to the propcEed industrial user fees for the San
Luis Obispo' s water Pretreatment program. The members of the Automotive
Service Councils of California, San Luis Obispo Chapter 17 (60 businesses
county-wide, 2000 businesses statewide, over 10,000 businesses nationwide)
strongly oppose the proposed fee structure. Our association' s goal is clean
air and water, just as is yours. But we feel that it is unfair to charge us
for treatment and inspections, without any criteria or proof showing who ' s
doing the polluting. As we understand the fee structure, it is based on
inspection costs, yet you don't plan to actually perform the inspections.
This seems unfair.
Due to stringent hazardous waste regulations, our industry is probably
cleaner and contributes less to wastewater than most single dwellings or
businesses. We feel that without specific testing, all dwellings and
businesses should pay equally for this proposed treatment.
The City should consider taking the lead, as in the no-smoking ordinance,in
the regulation of motor oil, coolant, brake fluid, etc. sales. There is no
regulation for the do-it-yourselfers, who may be disposingof their waste oils
improperly and illegally. We propose that a substantial deposit be required
with the sale of any oils, coolants, or related fluids, which would be re-
turned when the customer brings in their waste oil. Any store not charging
his deposit would be prohibited from selling these fluids.
Please take our suggestions into consideration, and please contact us for
further discussion or information.
incerely,
Jeff Spevack Per Mathiesen
Continental Motor Works _ Mat's Brake and Alignment
SC 17 Representatitve "? , -`-•:ASC State Board
MAY � ��F1j i"1
t