HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/2026 Item 7b, Ginder
dreidstudio@aol.com
Sent: 1:22 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Lehman, Chris; Scott, Shawna
Subject:Tonights council meeting regarding 7.b.
Attachments:04212026 letter to SLO City Council Members - Tonight's item 7.b..docx
I'm writing to you with concerns to tonight's agenda item 7.b.
Please see attached letter.
Thank you.
Dale Ginder
Property owner and developer in one of the city's I&I districts
1
April 21, 2026
San Luis Obispo City Council members
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear San Luis Obispo City Council members,
I’m writing to you with concerns about tonight’s agenda item 7.b.
Considerations Regarding Sewer
Ordinance Implementation
Background of the Current Ordinance
When the current ordinance was enacted a number of years ago, it was my understanding
that the council evaluated multiple options before making their decision. One of the
alternatives considered was to require individual property owners to take responsibility for
installing new sewer lines. Ultimately, this option was rejected in favor of placing the
obligation on developers.
Shift Burden to Developers
As a result, developers became responsible for managing the transition associated with
new sewer lines outside the property(s) they were developing. As a small developer with
property located in one of the I&I (Inflow and Infiltration) areas, I formally expressed my
opposition to the utility department. I advocated that each individual property owner
should be held accountable for their own sewer line upgrades.
Main Concerns Raised
1. The utility department faced increased staffing requirements to manage and
maintain records related to the ordinance, resulting in an excessively complex and
costly management process. This could have been avoided if the appropriate
alternative approach had been selected.
2. Responsibility for replacing private sewer lines should have rested with each
property owner. Owners could have been given a deadline to complete the
necessary replacements. If an owner failed to comply, the city could perform the
work and bill the owner, possibly spreading the replacement costs over ten years
through their tax roll to ease a repayment. Since the state mandated the upgrade,
this approach could have been pursued and made legally viable if any legal
challenges arose.
3. The current ordinance added extra expenses to the cost of building, compelling
developers to charge higher rents in areas that were already costly to live in.
4. If the program changes—as is currently being considered—or if it is deemed illegal
to place the burden of private property responsibilities on developers, the City will
face significant challenges. These include:
a. Clarification on the reimbursement process for developers who have credits
remaining on file.
b. Determining whether developers will be reimbursed for credits already
applied to other properties.
Recommendation and Next Steps
I believe that any changes to the ordinance should be postponed until legal issues
concerning past developers' responsibilities are resolved and formalized through a notice
of intent informing those developers on any recourse action that may be taken to mitigate
unnecessary financial burdens the past ordinance generated.
Further discussion is necessary to address the circumstances of those who have been
burdened by responsibilities that should have fallen to others, e.g. each individual property
owner.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Regards,
Dale Ginder
Developer of property within SLO City’s I&I district