Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2002, 2E - CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION FUND REVIEW FOR 2002-03 1 COUnCll 'eti I oa j ac Enba 1 PORt Item 2Er CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O 2 FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared By: David Elliott, Administrative Analyst , j SUBJECT: CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION FUND REVIEW FOR 2002-03 CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution establishing a new Creek and Flood Protection Fund and enacting fee schedules to take effect July 1, 2002 2. Approve a significant operating program change request for Creek and Flood Protection Pro- gram coordination(cost: $36,400 in 2002-03 and about$76,000 annually thereafter) 3. Approve a CIP project request to move the Laguna Lake Prefumo Arm Silt Removal project from 2003-04 to 2002-03 (one time cost: $70,000) REPORT IN BRIEF On March 19, 2002 the Council reviewed a proposal to begin several new creek and flood protec- tion*initiatives in fiscal year 2002-03. These initiatives have been prompted by persistent ongo- ing flood control problems and by federal requirements to prevent pollution of waterways through storm water. To pay for these new initiatives, the Council conceptually approved a plan to establish a new Creek and Flood Protection Fund and gradually introduce regulatory fees. These fees were to be based on the principle that creek and flood protection problems are caused by the development and use of property, which increases storm water runoff. In response to the Council's request for an active public information campaign, the Public Works Director met with several community groups to brief them about creek and flood protection plans and the fees needed to implement them. The City also mailed out over 10,000 public informa- tion fliers to virtually all potential ratepayers. Public Works prepared detailed responses to all pub- lic comments. A group of employees from various departments looked into ways of correcting perceived ineq- uities between fees for similarly situated properties. They concluded that trying to resolve minor inequities would create other inequities, make the process more arbitrary, and complicate the rate structure. From the worksheet of financial projections for the Creek and Flood Protection Fund, Public Works has concluded that proposed fees will not cover all planned operating expenses and capi- tal outlays from 2002-03 through 2006-07 and that the fund will require temporary operating transfers from the General Fund. These planned shortfalls are deliberate and are the result of gradually phasing in fees to cushion their impact on ratepayers. 2E-1 Council Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 2 DISCUSSION Background At its meeting on March 19, 2002 the Council conceptually approved: 1. an advanced level of creek and flood protection services, including new initiatives to a) educate citizens about the need to protect the creek from pollutants b) prevent polluted discharges from reaching the creek system c) replace deteriorating storm drain facilities d) improve flood protection by increasing flow capacity in the creek and e) improve creek habitat for all species that depend on it 2. a user fee structure to cover the costs of this advanced service level for creek and flood protection 3. a strategy for gradually phasing in the following creek and flood protection fees while phasing out general fund transfers to the Creek and Flood Protection Fund as shown below: Flat Fee per Month 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Single-Family Residential $1.00 $1.75 $2.50 $3.25 $4.00 $4.50 Multi-Family Residential* $0.23 $0.41 $0.59 $0.76 $0.94 $1.05 Fee per Month per 1,000 Square Feet of Parcel Area 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Educational $0.03 $0.05 $0.08 $0.10 $0.12 $0.14 Other Non-Residential $0.15 $0.26 $0.38 $0.49 $0.60 $0.68 *per unit; includes mobile home parks Proposed fees would not be increased after the sixth year except for adjustments due to inflation. At the same meeting, the Council directed staff to conduct an active public information campaign and look into correcting a potential inequity between single-family and multi-family residential ratepayers. Public Information and Outreach Before the March 19`h Council meeting, the City Administrative Officer had three opportunities to speak with business and government leaders about the proposed Creek and Flood Protection Fund and the fees that would be assessed. On March 5, 2002 he addressed the Chamber of Commerce "Big Committee" meeting. On March 8, 2002 he met with superintendents from the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, and on March 15, 2002 he met with the County Administrative Officer. Also before March 19`h, The Public Works Director met with the Director of ECOSLO, the Director of the Chamber of Commerce, the public liaison for the Manufacturers Association, 2E-2 Council Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 3 and the Administrator of the Downtown Association. Feedback from these meetings was generally positive. Since the March 19th meeting, the Public Works Director has spoken to the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers Association, the Morning Kiwanis Club, and the Downtown Association Board of Directors to brief these organizations about the City's plans to establish a new Creek and Flood Protection Fund and begin charging fees to pay for creek and flood protection activities. On May 1, 2002 the City mailed out 10,738 public information fliers about the Creek and Flood Protection Fund and fees to all water and sewer ratepayers within the City— essentially everyone who will eventually receive a bill for Creek and Flood Protection fees. A copy of that flier is attached(Attachment 2). Readers of the flier were referred to either the City Engineer or the City's website for more information. A specially created page reiterated information from the flier and included links to the 23-page agenda report from the March 19th Council meeting,the slide show from the same meeting, and a four-page response to frequently asked questions(FAQ). Copies of this flier were placed in the lobbies of all City offices. They were also distributed to all Public Works and Utilities operations crews so employees would be prepared to answer questions from people as they worked in the field. As of May 8h, of the 10,738 fliers mailed, the City had received 32 comments—26 phone calls and six e-mail messages. Of these 32 comments, five were favorable, 18 were unfavorable, and nine were neutral, simply asking for additional information without expressing an opinion. The favorable comments focused on the need to finally convect long-simmering flooding problems, the wisdom in gradually phasing in the fees;and the likelihood of better flood insurance ratings in the future. The following section of this report responds to the unfavorable comments, which in some cases have been consolidated into summary comments. Responses to Unfavorable Public Comments Comment: "We don't understand the sudden need for stepped-up creek and flood protection along with fees to pay for it." Response: The need for increased flood protection is not new. The San Luis Obispo community has a long history of chronic flood damage and expensive cleanup efforts. Most recently, heavy rainstorms in 1995 and 1997 showed that the community was still vulnerable to flood damage, despite implementation of many flood protection improvements over the previous 20 years. Then in 1999 the City learned that it would be subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations that require significant ongoing activities to reduce the level of pollutants discharged from storm drainage systems into natural waterways. Most of the new creek and flood protection initiatives are being proposed in order to comply with NPDES requirements. 2E-3 Council Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 4 One possible option would be to do the absolute bare minimum necessary for compliance with NPDES regulations. But given the environmental sensitivity of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and the role that this watershed plays in defining the quality of life for San Luis Obispo, a higher service level is appropriate for the community. This conclusion was confirmed during public outreach meetings in Winter 2001, where community members expressed a strong desire to reduce creek pollution, exercise good stewardship over the creek watershed, and thereby maintain a high quality of life. Comment: "We don't live near a creek, so we won't benefit from additional creek and flood protection activities. We don't think we should pay for something that doesn't benefit us." Response: It is true that the primary beneficiaries of flood protection activities will be the community and those property owners who are most affected by flooding. But it is important to remember where creek and flood protection problems originate. What creates the need for creek and flood protection is development and use of buildings, driveways, parking lots, and other features that cause storm water to run off parcels rather than be absorbed through the soil. Therefore, every occupant of developed property is contributing to the problem and should participate in the solution. In addition, everyone will benefit —for generations —from a creek system that is made sustainable by good stewardship,just as everyone throughout the City will benefit when streets don't collapse because repairs have been made to underlying storm drains. Comment: "We object to this new tax being imposed on us. This tax should not be enacted without putting it to a public vote. That was the purpose of Proposition 13." Response: The purpose of Proposition 13 was to ensure that no new taxes would be imposed without a public vote. Proposition 218 strengthened this principle by attempting to clary when new fees are subject to voter approval. Proposition 218 distinguished between "regulatory fees" charged to mitigate the adverse effects of using property and "property-related fees imposed on all properties based simply on ownership of the property. Regulatoryfees are not subject to owner or voter approval. Because the proposed creek and flood protection fees will be collected to correct problems caused by development and use of property (and will not be collected from the owners of undeveloped property), they are classified as regulatoryfees and are not subject to voter approval. Comment: "The City should pay for these new creek and flood protection initiatives with existing tax revenues. This is not the same as a sewer system." Response: Actually, this is conceptually the same as the City's sewer system, an operation that is paid for entirely through fees. With the sewer system, occupants of developed property discharge harmful substances (in the form of sewage) and pay fees to the City to make sure these harmful substances do not threaten life, property, or the environment. Likewise with the creek and flood protection system, occupants of developed property discharge harmful substances (in the form of polluted storm water) and will pay fees to the City to make sure these harmful substances do not threaten life,property, or the environment. 2E-4 r Council Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 0 Experience in other communities has shown that the cyclical nature of storm water problems (particularly flooding) leads to procrastination in trying to solve them with general tax revenues. The only way to effectively resolve these problems is to create a dedicated revenue source, typically in the form of a fee. Comment: "Don't our taxes already take care of replacing old, deteriorating storm drain facilities? Doesn't Public Works already handle improving flow capacity in the creek? Can't creek and flood protection be taken care of by the City's Natural Resources Manager and Biologist and their existing budget?" Response: Property taxes contribute about 15 percent of the City's General Fund revenues. The City's General Fund now pays for a minimum level of storm sewer replacement, and deteriorating storm drain facilities are failing faster than they can be replaced These failures are leaving adjacent areas vulnerable to flood damage. Public Works has not recently constructed any projects to increase creek flow capacity, because efforts are now focused on maintaining what capacity already exists. Future initiatives to improve flow capacity in the creeks will require expensive, long-term projects that are well beyond the capacity and capability of Public Work maintenance crews. The Natural Resources Manager and the Biologist will take an active roll in some of the new creek and flood protection activities,particularly those involving public education and outreach. But this is only a small part of the overall effort needed to solve storm water problems and comply with NPDES regulations. Potential Inequity between Single-Family and Multi-family Residential Ratepayers At the March 19'h Council meeting, Councilmember Ewan pointed out a potential inequity between single-family and multi-family residential ratepayers. Under the proposed rate structure,the fee for a single-family residential parcel would be $1.00 per month, while the combined fees for a similarly-situated duplex right next door would be only $0.46 per month (two units times.$0.23). Similarly, the fees for a triplex would be only $0.69 per month. The Council asked staff to see if there might be a way to prevent this potential inequity. Representatives from Administration, Finance, and Public Works met to discuss this issue and try to resolve it. Possible solutions included: 1. Billing the first customer within a multi-family residential complex a fee equal to the single- family residential rate. In the example given, this approach would result in combined fee of $1.23 for the duplex ($1.00 for the first customer plus$0.23 for the second customer). 2. Billing the first customer within a multi-family residential complex a fee that combined with the fee for the second customer would equal the single-family residential rate. In the example, the combined fee for the duplex would be $1.00 ($0.67 for the first customer plus $0.23 for the second customer). 2E-5 Council.Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 6 3. Billing the first and second customers within a multi-family residential complex a fee of$0.50 per month. In the example,the combined fee for the duplex would be $1.00. 4. Assessing a combined fee of$1.00 for a multi-family residential complex with fewer than five units and dividing that fee equally among customers. 5. Establishing a minimum fee of$1.00 for every account. As the group reviewed each of these options, it became clear that addressing the potential inequity would create more problems than it would solve. Options one through four would result in other inequities within the multi-family residential rate class. The first three options would create inequities within the same multi-family residential complex. Option four would not be feasible with the existing utility billing system. By injecting more arbitrariness into the process, all the options would make the rate structure more like a tax and less like a fee and would invite possible challenges under provisions of Proposition 218. Also, any approach would contradict two of the objectives in creating the new fee structure: keeping the fee structure easy to understand and keeping the billing system easy to administer. Past experience with minimum water and sewer fees has shown that they tend to continually raise questions requiring complicated explanations. In short,the proposed system is not perfect but it is the most fair of all systems studied. In summary, to keep the rate structure simple for ratepayers and to ensure full compliance with Proposition 218, staff is recommending that no changes be made to the proposed fees. FISCAL IMPACT Assumptions The attached worksheet, "Changes in Working Capital — Creek and Flood Protection Fund", projects sources of revenue and uses of revenue for the Creek and Flood Protection Fund over the five-year period from 2002-03 to 2006-07. Worksheet projections are based on the following assumptions: 1. Fees will start out low and gradually increase each year as shown in table at the beginning of this report. Also, fees will not increase after the sixth year except for adjustments due to in- flation. 2. The City will continue to receive Zone 9 revenue at a minimum level of$100,000 each year. 3. Ongoing operations appropriations will increase by three percent each year. 4. Direct costs will include the following existing program activities: • . Annually Cleaning Storm Drain Inlets in the Downtown Core • Annually Clearing Creek Channels • Sweeping Streets at Existing Frequencies • Annually Replacing 12 to 15 Catch Basins 5. Direct costs will include the following new initiatives: • Eliminating Illicit Discharges and Controlling Site Runoff • Encouraging Public Participation in Creek Protection Activities • Educating the Public about Creek Protection 2E-6 Council Agenda Report-Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 7 • Annually Inspecting and Cleaning all Catch Basins and Storm Sewers 6. New direct costs in 2002-03 will include Creek and Flood Protection Program coordination. (See the attached significant operating program change request.) 7. Indirect costs will amount to 36.6 percent of direct costs plus one-half of the utility billing_ expenses now charged to the Sewer Fund. 8. Capital project appropriations will include: • Johnson Underpass Lift Station @ $75,000 in 2002-03 (carried forward from 2001-02) • Monterey at Morro Storm Sewer Construction @ $110,000 in 2002-03 (carried forward from 2001-02) • Tank Farm Road Bridge Silt Removal @ $31,000 in.2002-03 • Laguna Lake Perfumo Arm Silt Removal @ $70,000 in 2002-03 (Previously scheduled for 2003-04. Seethe attached CIP project request.) • Bridge (Beebee-Higuera) Storm Sewer Construction @$264,000 in 2003-04 • El Cerrito Storm Sewer Construction @ $6,000 in 2003-04 and $83,000 in 2004-05 • Johnson at Bishop Storm Sewer Construction @ $6,000 in 2003-04 and $46,000 in 2004- 05 e Murray (Santa Rosa-Chorro) Storm Sewer Construction @ $6,000 in 2003-04 and $184,000 in 2004-05 • New Vacuum Flusher Truck Acquisition @ $150,000 in 2004-05 • Existing Street Sweeper Replacement @ $125,000 in 2005-06 • Replacement and Improvement of Inadequate Storm Sewers @ $350,006 each year start- ing in 2005-06 • Creek Improvement and Enhancement Projects @ $230,000 in 2005-06 and $350,000 each year starting in 2006-07 Observations From the worksheet Public Works has concluded that proposed fees will not cover all planned operating expenses and capital outlays from 2002-03 through 2006-07 and that the Creek and Flood Protection Fund will require operating transfers from the General Fund. Planned shortfalls are deliberate and are the result of gradually phasing in fees to cushion their impact on ratepayers. Further projections not included on this worksheet show that General Fund operating transfers can be phased out and will no longer be needed by 2007-08. Also, from 2002-03 through 2006-07 proposed fees will not be high enough to comply with the City's adopted minimum working capital balance policy considered necessary to maintain credit worthiness, provide for contingencies, and cover cash flow requirements. Nonetheless, further projections indicate that in 2007-08 the fund will begin to accumulate working capital reserves that will meet minimum requirements (at least 20 percent of operating expenditures)by 2008-09. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Establishing a New Creek and Flood Protection Fund and Enacting Fee Schedules 2. Public information flier 3. Changes in Working Capital—Creek and Flood Protection Fund 2E-7 Council Agenda Report—Creek and Flood Protection Fund Review for 2002-03 Page 8 4. Significant Operating Program Change Request, Creek and Flood Protection Program Coordination 5. CIP Project Request, Silt Removal—Laguna Lake Prefumo Arm I:\Council Agenda Reports\CFP Fund Review 02-03 2E-8 r ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING A NEW CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION FUND AND ENACTING FEE SCHEDULES WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo community has a long history of chronic flood damage and expensive repair efforts; and WHEREAS, heavy rainstorms in 1995 and 1997 showed that the San Luis Obispo commu- nity was still vulnerable to flood damage, despite implementation of many flood protection im- provements over the previous twenty years; and WHEREAS, the City will be subject to federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations that require significant ongoing activities to reduce the level of pol- lutants discharged from storm drainage systems into natural waterways; and WHEREAS, since 1995 the City has been actively planning for several new initiatives to correct flooding problems and comply with NPDES regulations; and WHEREAS, the environmental sensitivity of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and the importance of this watershed in defining the quality of life for San Luis Obispo justify an ad- vanced level of creek and flood protection; and WHEREAS, these new creek and flood protection initiatives cannot be fully implemented using existing City revenues because it would compromise other important program activities; and WHEREAS, new initiatives and fees for creek and flood protection should be phased in over a five-year period to ease the impact on ratepayers; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that: 1. A new Creek and Flood Protection Fund for creek and flood protection program activities and projects is hereby established. 2. The following fee schedule for residential accounts is hereby effective July 1, 2002: Flat Fee per Month 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Single-Family Residential $1.00 $1.75 $2.50 $3.25 $4.00 $4.50 Multi-Family Residential* $0.23 $0.41 $0.59 $0.76 $0.94 $1.05 2E-9 I I ATTACH EE'A" m 1 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 3. The following fee schedule for non-residential accounts is hereby effective July 1, 2002: Fee per Month per 1,000 Square Feet of Parcel Area 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Educational $0.03 $0.05 $0.08 $0.10 $0.12 $0.14 Other Non-Residential $0.15 $0.26 $0.38 $0.49 $0.60 $0.68 Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21S`day of May, 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: effrey G. Jorgensen, City A rney 2E-10 TA V O w aqia � '� p 4 o er 4 N o c ►. w^' ° '° " Ba� .S moo, oees506 w ofin066 co a'� di N *0 N U .a Go y U O ° gyp+ 4p Gam+ `+Oy tT y `O �O .0 +� O !ir' N1 Q. N rA wwaoi � 0Gnu ,3o edchUa �n O o � o °K°, N (A 606 66 N 506 GA, a _ 0 0 O1.0 O O O C O • N69d4 L N 6668 U too C GM U M e>'0 U >> bA .S G ,��, ..,•. N O N 4. � ° C C •� :_ ` N 56 56 N 66 66 •b ° N •{•"„ to cE p ° .r Go -0y m Fri b U N .U. Cc cc L= Cd 0 3 o :� • oaodCC* o ri ca cd o u oE o • •;, � z y 7 '�r� y • S 'd � o. ra � � � o � � w � -be 0cc S ° w `" o o c. 9 > o .S M p O o y =w O �S,GL ai q eo a 1.. p V >% O > = .., w a� o o ° .S ° � o ci eo.n •y Cd l0 4 VJ 7.+ V?" U � � ��" � U .� ^p ca ' �' +rye Q•� .; U w i .. 03owlac 3 Q � °� � o. � a. 17 U - AMF a - - - ; �. 1• Y w h�+Fw ti J �, 1L`T ; 4' S J VL t,i�• • " 1 •) \4.. � ♦ [��e • � .v I acv+ 1`~ I[ S v," G Z ��V'h� P}sf • e �i. ♦: ATTACHMENT 3 00 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 C. 0 0 O O O O O O O r y' M — O �o T M N O N �o �O C~i N �c N V 0 7 r v iV O N r r C .d 7 — 0000 O N M oc o N V N l O 0 — 1' N 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cW 000 00 000000 0 0 W C V O) R D\ Q O 00 00 cr�w r 0 N 7 W) M r oo 7 7 �n u a cr o >o O r M M M 'n r N N N lJ\ O L N Qn 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O V1 Q M %0 O \O Q 'n Ov1 a, T O +• �6 Nn In O — 06 4 N M W M M r M ONO M - W) 7 O O N. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 00 O O O OO O O O y 7 Oo M O O O O rj M O Wn 'n O 'n — 00 0� N' ^- �o so N O_ CD O — 7 N �M _ M N 0. n 0 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O' O O O e y IT 00 0 �0 0 00 00 r 'n o, 'n r r u a0OM4ov; - oo0 �c �o 0 0 N u 0 c1 c000 tnmcl or as as 00.;•Q — - - M N — M N �o r N N L 0. Z0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lz. p Z � u O o a F N m U F., 000000 00000 0 0 0 0 O _ O N a p z a � „ Y o 0 c � � Gs7 > > c y � m U aoi v u to Lr. O O a w v o > .� � .c a y u p a � .� � � °' mcd U � L o' er L n E a e o Uo! L ai c 0 a0i O T yi u vl > c G L io O •C O Y y a R o o tG y m � � 5 E v1 R ami e CIDL cL z O� 7 p o. ' y i 0) 'R i O �. m Y 6� m m C C 4• w L .. Z Luo N u = [= U 9 R 2 u _ ? o o L a a ;? e u F R m R L Lz1 y y o °. a R y a c 00 00 2E-13 - ATT/gGHME7pgT 2001-03 Financial Plan-Supplement: 2002-03 Budges SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE PROGRAM: Creek and Flood Protection REQUEST TITLE: Creek and Flood Protection Program Coordination Request Summary ■ Adding one Engineering Associate to the regular staff of the Creek and Flood Protection Program to coordinate all program activities will cost $36,400 in 2002-03. (Annual ongoing cost will be about $76,000.) ■ Buying a telephone, pager,and other equipment needed for this employee will cost$1,000 in 2002-03. ■ Adding one new desktop computer to the City's inventory will cost$2,500 in 2002-03. Key Objectives ■ Protect life and property from flood damage ■ Comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations ■ Restore and enhance wildlife habitat in the creek watershed Factors Driving the Request for Change Over the last seven years,two major challenges have arisen with the City's creek and flood protection systems. First,heavy rainstorms in 1995 and 1997 showed that the community was still vulnerable to flood damage,despite implementation of many flood protection improvements recommended in the 1983 Flood Management Policy. And second,the City learned that it would be subject to NPDES regulations that require significant ongoing activities to reduce the level of pollutants discharged from storm drainage systems into natural waterways. Since 1995 the City has been actively planning for several new initiatives to correct flooding problems and comply with NPDES regulations. These initiatives include: ■ Eliminating illicit discharges to the creek system ■ Controlling construction site runoff ■ Encouraging public participation in creek protection activities ■ Educating the public about creek protection E Inspecting and cleaning catch basins and storm sewers ■ Increasing the replacement and improvement of inadequate storm sewers ■ Constructing creek flow capacity improvement projects In addition,there will be several administrative tasks such as: ■ Preparing ordinances, operations manuals, inspection procedures, and other documents needed to implement expanded program activities Preparing the NPDES permit application, goals, and annual compliance reports ® Training City maintenance crews about how to reduce pollution discharges and control erosion in creeks ■ Coordinating the creek protection activities to be conducted in Public Works, Utilities, Fire, Community Development, and Administration Departments Coordinating all these activities will require the abilities, knowledge, and skills of an Associate Engineer. 2E-14 ATTACHMENT 4 Creek and Flood Protection Pram Coordination Page 2 of 2 Alternatives ■ Continue the status quo. Without the requested program coordinator, the City would have to divert resources from other important program activities(probably CIP project design)to at least implement the minimum efforts required to comply with NPDES regulations. Creek and flood protection service levels would continue at a minimum level, and problems with aging infrastructure would go unresolved. ® Defer or re phase the request. Postponing the needed program coordination would jeopardize the City's ability to meet deadlines for submitting the NPDES permit application and implementing NPDES compliance activities. ■ Contract out the program activities. In general, contracting out the program coordination activities would be problematic because so much day-to-day interaction with other departments and programs will be required. Contracting out some public education and outreach activities may be advantageous, particularly if advanced technical or public relations skills are needed. Implementation Date Submit . - Submit a requisition for one new engineer September 2001 Advertise for applicants' October 2001 Order a desktop computer through Information Systems November 2001 Receive applications November 2001 Interview applicants and select one candidate December 2002 Receive the computer and set up an additional workstation December 2002 Begin orientation January 2003 Cost Summary Line Item Description Account No.1 2002-03 Staffing 361400 Salaries-Regular 550.50320.7010 29,600 Retirement Contributions 550.50320.7040 2,100 Health and Disability Insurance 550.50320.7042 2,900 Medicare 550.50320.7044 1,200 Unemployment Insurance 550.50320.7046 100 Workers Compensation Insurance 550.50320.7048 500 Other Operating Ex endiures _..:..r --- 1,000 Operating Materials and Supplies 1550.503203843 1,000 Minor Capital Computer Acquisitions 1550.50320.7951 2,500 Total Operating Costs 39,900 2E-15 ATEpI—r S 2001-03 Financial Plan Supplement: 2002-03 Budget CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAM: Flood Control REQUEST TITLE: Silt Removal—Laguna Lake Prefumo Arm Project Summary Removing sediment from Prefumo Creek at its outlet to Laguna Lake will cost$70,000 in 2002-03. Project Objectives •■ Reduce the flood danger for properties adjacent to Laguna Lake by maintaining adequate capacity in the upper lake channel ■ Keep siltation from filling up Laguna Lake Existing Situation The 1981 Laguna Lake Management Plan envisioned the Prefumo Creek Inlet as asiltation basin which would collect.most sediment before it reached the lake. The plan recommended removing collected silt periodically to preserve the inlet's function as a siltation basin. The City has removed the following quantities of silt since 1977: Year Cubic.Yards 1977 20,000 1983 14,000 1986 4,000 1990 7,000 1995 10,000 1999 11,000 During late summer or early fall,when the channel is dry,the City should remove about 10,000 cubic yards from the delta area. The City has received permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowing the inlet to be cleared every three years. The permit is good until 2007. This project was originally proposed for 2002-03 with the general fund as the funding source, but in order to balance general fund revenues and expenditures for 2002-03, it was moved to 2003-04. With new Creek and Flood Protection Fund revenues available,this project can now be moved back to 2002-03 as originally planned. This scheduling would maintain a three-year siltation removal period, which is the optimum cycle calculated by the CIP Project Engineering staff and approved by the Corps of Engineers. Goal and Policy Links ■ 1999-01 Financial Plan, pages E-9 and E-32 ■ 1981 Laguna Lake Management Plan ■ 1983 Flood Management Plan E Adopted flood control program goal: an effective storm drainage system which prevents loss of life and minimizes damage from flooding Project Work Completed This project can be rapidly accomplished because all of the permitting work has been done. 2E-16 r ATTACHMENT Silt Removal—Laguna Lake Prwumo Arm Page 2 of 2 Environmental Review Environmental work for this project has been completed. Project Phasing and Funding Sources Pro'ect Costs bv Tvpe Project Costs To-Date 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-051 Total Design 70,000 1 1 70,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Project Funding Source:Creek and Flood Protection Fund Department Coordinator and Project Support ■ Department Coordinator: Barbara Lynch ■ Project Support: Project management—CIP Project Engineering Program Alternatives Deny or defer the project If this project does not proceed, the Prefumo Arm will fill up and no longer function as a siltation basin. This situation will increase the risk of flooding for the adjacent properties. Also, completed environmental and permitting work will allow two silt removal projects before 2007. Failing to proceed would waste the time and effort spent to accomplish environmental clearances and receive permits. Project Effect on the Operating Budget Staff Resources: CIP Project Engineering Program 100 hours for design CIP Project Engineering Program: 40 hours for inspection 2E-17 ,n arf U4- A6E459kAm L 919 G� D AGE DA. g �.(G t fid' 174 z. DATE ITE #ZZ The City Council all ©Z Phil Ashle City of San Luis Obispo 5 Canyons And Streams Alliance 990 Palm Street 1586 La Cita Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 21, 2002 756-2505(work); 544-9741(home) Subject: My comments on behalf of Canyons And Streams Alliance in opposition to City Staffs proposed assessment on City citizens for the Flood Protection Plan on the Council's Agenda tonight. Dear Council Members: I whole heartedly agree with Richard Schmidt's letter to you yesterday (May 20, 2002) on the above Subject assessment, which is a public hearing item for your Council meeting tonight. It is disingenuous for Staff to indicate to the Public, such as in the New Times article last week (May 16 - May 23 edition) titled "City to Levy New Fee", that this assessment on City citizens is mandated by Federal NPDES requirements. The NPDES means exactly what it says— National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. It is appropriate for the City or any agency to seek funds, although not necessarily in an assessment against citizens, to eliminate pollution discharge to waterways. But eliminating pollution discharge to streams, which is what the NPDES mandates, is entirely different from channelization of streams, which is what much of Staffs proposed assessment is for. Staff make this clear when they state in their Creek And Flood Protection Plan brochure (attached) this assessment is partly for "Improving flow capacity in the creek" and in the aforementioned New Times article it is partly for "Construction of creek flow capacity improvement projects, primarily widening of San Luis Obispo Creek". Channelization of streams by any other name, as "improving flow capacity in the creek" and "creek flow capacity improvement projects", is still channelization. And a 50-year record on channelization projects attests to them being without question enormously damaging to stream and riparian ecosystem_ s and the species relying on them for su CIL Z CDD DIR :1.;AO M FIN DIR RECEIVED 2'ATTO;AO G CHIEF �ERK/R G ❑ POLICE CHF RNEY E�-Pw DIR MAY L ZOO2 DE DS ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ` SLO CITY COUNCIL :7 7� -? ❑ HR DIR 2 This is a major reason why it is very difficult for jurisdictions to obtain channelization funds. But this assessment would inappropriately guarantee Staff an ever increasing fund for future environmentally harmful channelization projects. I am absolutely opposed to being billed in my monthly water bill or in any other way an assessment, fee, tax, or whatever Staff call it, for the channelization of City creeks! And I am opposed to being further assessed for Staffs so-called "Improving creek habitat for all species that depend on it" (see attached brochure; bullet 5) when this has nothing to do with the NPDES mandate and the best habitat by far for these species is the uncha.nnelized creek habitat that exists there now! I urge the Council tonight to vote against this environmentally unacceptable and inappropriate assessment against City citizens for the channelization of City creeks! Thankyou and Sincerely, Phil As ley tv LZ g o y coo „ `� cod ° p0 y cD C (D O af a s N C O. ° o d fOi O O K7S• o a � �. o n Ma< w p * o c� 0Cn cb� E0o CL� � ro' o �' �. � y o• � r W r CD co 1t 'CA n GO n o g o T V aGQ UQ S m ca CD W (1R. r. 7C• .�.. .O+ ��.. �y, �,1'• G CCD to OCL CD � cmi rA:. a m C Q d C�D O O p O � O '' � '� � y �, � .O•' ,b . rA 0 w eD 6A 6A N "moi 6A b9 N 0000 y� O � � vOi 0 A � A O O O !IJ N O m WOA O NN "17 00 0o U C �D O eq ►*� rA to ri OCD .G n0„ �. O.Q N O N q ti A CD Cf (� .(OD O O .�_• m C7 co 064 6e00 ,� °, vNi d `� Q G-�, ~ m ' cp�o � �' g O\ �p 0�� ry O 'O m 00 Ow �p 7p CD CD p COC N G' o�+ G' t : �J Q `� f!9 69 Q a co C3 O 606S "� OOQv` nd O ? v 9 S. Cp '• �' O C ' `yyy O. ONO A 0 0 O A+ f<D O n.' C O "CCL v� co fCOO m � � � . � CD � CD w � A d o � moo � � o• � 5ra •' �i 4 � h r } Air- Tt9t-TOVE6 KO OdSIHO SIII'I NNS ZO VZIO V'I 98SI 7,3'IHSV 'IIHCI LOM vo omgo am uos 617l£-L 01F£6 VO'OdSI4O slrl UCS•P94 U4N 066 L md aws•n odsigO siM uvs A p,opuotG ceuosew f O ILIO h' b 70 0 � T uJ �0 -0 O O co o ..,mow oo 0 m U oo caw � � o0 " ' w N OO n 0 O C O b �N a ' I bq w A+C +-g N VN -- 0 9 o0 N vii w v� O + _ N O O C W 0 V Q.0 Richard Schmidt 1T 544-4247 Ma 5/20/2 G3:26PM D1/5 - KL- FILE RICHARD SCHMIDT MEETING AGENDA. a IF DAA 5-.Z l-02 PTe I I L.In V 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu May 20, 2002 Re: CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION FUND agenda item. CP77 CDD DIRThe City Council FIN DIRFIRE CHIEFCity of San Luis Obispo VIA FAX PW DIR990 Palm Street ❑ CLOLICE CHFSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 EC DIR' TIL DIRR DIR Dear Council Members: I am shocked that a new tax/fee/assessment so shoddy in its conception would be brought before the Council for its consideration. At the very least, it is premature for the Council to consider this new tax. (And please, let's quit splitting legalistic hairs over what to call it; it is a tax, and your constituents will recognize it as such.) TherLoogram as presented in your agenda packet does not hold up against reasonable standards of Iodic aoo"overnment, or ec[uity. In summary, it is premature to consider because: A. The program as designed at present • is toque as to how money will be spent. The authorizing resolution is a blank check for any expenditures whatsoever. • is without focus ors ep cficity_ on its alleged purpose: "creek and flood protection" or NPDES compliance. • lists enumerated initial expenditures that are almost entirely general and on--Q*p 1 operational functions of any municipal govemment properly paid for from the city's General Fund. • is without nexus between purpose and its fee-charging system. There is no reasonable nexus between being a water bill payer and impacting the creek. • has a fee structure that is inequibale in dividing charges between residential and business payers, and between single family and other residential payers. The largest assessments fall on single family payers which arguably have a lesser impact upon creeks than either of the other payer classes. • entirely excuses the city from paying its fair share of the cost of impacts to creeks caused by its own operations (herbicide and pesticide use -- including on hard surfaces near creeks --, petrochemical spillage on hard surfaces, street operation and construction residues, massive amounts of pavement created and operated by the city -- like streets --, faulty city-owned storm drainage systems, it -advised past RECEIVED Creek Enterprise Fund, Schmidt to Council, Page 1 P'IAY 4 0 2002 SLO CITY CLERK Richard Schmidt 'r 5444247 M5/20/2 03:27 PM D2/5 interventions in the creek system which cause flooding and creek degradation, failure to enforce existing pollution regulations, etc.). The lion's share of creek impact costs are rightfully the city's, not residents'. • continues the city's arrogant and inequitable treatment of the private owners of the city's storm discharge sWem; i.e., those who own the creeks into which the city dumps ever-increasing quantities of effluent. By rights, rather than be taxed, these individuals should be compensated by the city for its appropriation of ever-increasing portions of the value of their properties, as well as for the property damage increased discharge and water velocity do (in the form of erosion, for example). B. The net effect of the presently-proposed program is to transfer normal and ordinary government functions out of the city's General Fund and into a special fund operated from a special tax. Since these are normal and ordinary-governmental functions, they should be paid for from the General Fund. The special program fee is simply a ruse to accomplish an improper fiscal end. This is not good government. C. If this is to be considered further, • all of the above need resolution prior to council action. • the focus must be clear and limited to tightly defined purposes consistent with the stated purpose. • a better rationale must be presented to justify a fee structure, or even the need for a fee. • If all of the above pass muster, the program must include specific limitations on how the money will be spent to accomplish only the program's purposes: "creek and flood protection" and NPDES compliance, and include a sunset provision rather than an ever-increasing permanent fee indexed to inflation. Some more detailed comments on the program as described in the staff packet follow. I'll go page by page through the report. D. Page 2E-1 asserts an underlying princi� for the fee: "These fees were to be based on the principe that creek and flood protection problems are caused by the development and use of property, which increases storm runoff." While that assertion in itself is questionable and incomplete, let's accept it for argument's sake, and then ask: Why, then, does the city as the largest owner of paved/developedrho em in the community, exempt itself from1tlg these fees and shift the burden entirely to others? E. Page 2E-2, fee structure. The rationale for this fee structure goes unexplained. It is clear from the chart that those who propose this fee plan to stick single family residences the hardest. Looking at the full fee (2007), it is clear that on a square footage basis of developed property, the fees are inequitable. Standardizing ever king to 6.000 SF of developed property -- the size of a single family lot -- we get the following comparison: Creek Enterprise Fund, Schmidt to Council, Page 2 Richard Schmidt 11r 544-4247 85/20/2 03:28 PM p3/5 i I Single Family (6,000 SF) $4.50 Multi-Family (3,000 - 1,500 SF) $2.10-$4.20 Educational $0.84 Other Non-Res $4.08 This comparison, however, is only on a gross square footage basis, not on a square footage impact basis. Consulting the zoning code's maximum lot coverage standards results in a revised comparison, showing equivalents standardized according to the amount of hard surface allowed for each use: Single Family (40% + parking = 50%) $9.00 Multi-Family (50% + pkg = up to 75%) $3.15 to $6.30 Commercial (up to 100% coverage) $4.08 Thus it is clear that if, as staff asserts, "creek and flood protection problems are caused by the development and use of property, which increases storm runoff," then heaviest impacts of the FEE fall on rep cisely -- single family residences. This is unfair. It is inappropriate. When one further considers that commercial establishments, which often use toxic cleaners and chemicals on hard-surfaced areas from which runoff takes place, contribute more than their fair share to CREEK POLLUTION, the inequity becomes still more glaring. Commercial establishments should be the most heavily taxed not the least taxed. Perhaps this inequitable distribution is because staff met with many business stakeholder groups in drawing up this plan (Staff Report Page 2E-2 &3), but MET WITH NO ENVIRONMENTAL OR HOMEOWNER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, thus perpetuating the image of this administration as being beholden to business interests and indifferent to residents' interests. As a footnote, the educational institution fees make no sense. Many schools have extensive roof coverage and pavement, including acres of pollution-producing parking. Why are they are being given essentially a free ride? Like the city's fee exemption for itself, this seems yet another case of government looking out for government rather than practicing "good government." This further distorts the inequity of the proposed fees. F. Page 2E-4, staff comment responding to a citizen complaint this is not a legitimate enterprise fund: "Actually, this is conceptually the same as the city's sewer system." I beg to differ. The city owns its sewer system -- the complex spaghetti of mains in streets and easements which lead to the sewage treatment plant where poop is made pure, more or less. Creek Enterprise Fund, Schmidt to Council, Page 3 Richard Schmidt V 5444247 M5/20/2 03:29 PM p4/5 The city's storm drainage "system", on the other hand, is mooched from others and from nature. The city builds roads, which shed water, and then directs this water, untreated, onto private property where it does considerable damage and harm. This is what the city now claims is a "system" that it needs to create a special "enterprise" tax to "operate." Further, from my years of creek monitoring, flood control advising, and simply observing the portion of this "system" which I happen to own, it is entirely correct to say that most of the "flooding" problems which exist in this city stem from dumb things the city has done or allowed which interfere with the natural flow of water through the creek system. Should the city now come to residents and demand "enterprise funds" to correct these past dumb actions? To claim this "system" corresponds to the sewer system is ridiculous and nonsensical This simply indicates in one more way how improper it is to try to "enterprise fund" the creek system. G. Page 2E-5, staff comment: "The only wwaav_ to effectively resolve these problems is to create a dedicated revenue source." Any time staff tells the Council "the only way" to do something, your BS meter should ring loudly. This is perhaps the "only way" staff thought of, but it is certainly not the only way! Falling back on such assertions suggests this proposal was drawn up, and then means were sought to rationalize and promote it within the limited mindset of its creation. This same narrow approach is evidenced in the statement (Page 2E-1) that there is no M to improve the fee inequities of the proposal, the very unimaginative list of alternatives to inequities ties between single and multi residential fees on Page 2E-5 (I can think of all sorts of other unconsidered alternatives -- one is suggested by my own methodology in comparing fees based on impermeable lot coverage, above item E), culminating in the statement on Page 2E-6 that this "is the most fair of all systems studied." But what of the myriad not studied? The "enterprise funding" of the creek system is unimaginatively constrained in-the-box thinking about a complex issue. The whole idea needs to go back to square one. H. Staff statement Page 2E-5: "Future initiatives to improve flow capacity in the creeks will require expensive. long-term proj . . ." Well, it certainly would be nice to know what sort of enain��g mischief we are going. to be funding with this unending slush fund. Typically, projects grow to consume the available funds. But what are we looking at? Are we going to get the Army Corps to channelize our creeks? Are we finally going to create financial momentum behind the Creek Enterprise Fund, Schmidt to Council, Page 4 Richard Schmidt Ir 5444247 M05/20/2 03:30 PM D 5/5 I, old Romero plans to turn the creek system into a version of the Mississippi River? Nowhere in this entire report do we have a clue what the city intends to do with an ever- enlarging annual pot of gold amounting to millions of dollars (due to that innocent little built-in inflation adjustment) within the foreseeable future. Shouldn't you tell theego Ip a up front what they're being asked to pay for instead of providing an unending blank check mechanism for funding massive flood control interventions in our creeks that most of your constituents would vehemently oppose? I. The Fiscal Impact analysis (Pages 2E-6 and 7) is perhaps the summation of this pathetic proposal. It is clear, both from the items listed and the staff commentary, that the creek enterprise fund is nothing more than a way to transfer normal and ordinary functi- irnment out of the General Fund. Existing normal and ordinary government expenses like cleaning storm drain inlets, "clearing" creek channels (verbiage which grossly exaggerates the minimal maintenance now done), sweeping streets, the routine replacement of debris catch basins, annual cleanout of catch basins and storm sewers, picking up half the utility bills now charged to the sewer fund (for what, pray tell?), construction of storm drains to replace faulty existing storm drains, purchasing a replacement street sweeper, etc. -- ALL OF THESE ARE NORMAL AND ORDINARY EXPENSES OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT (or of the sewer fund), AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSFERING THEM OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. This is the bottom line: This whole plan as presented in the staff report is nothing more than a financing scam. YOU ARE BEING TOLD WE NEED THIS ENTERPRISE FUND TO COMPLY WITH NPDES, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE LONG LIST OF ITEMS TO BE FUNDED? IT'S NOT THERE! What we do find is a long list of normal governmental functions, including (2E-15) a line item breakdown showing salaries, retirement contributions, health and disability insurance, medicare, unemployment insurance, workers comp, office supplies, and computer acquisitions as the destination for the first year fees. Wow! Maybe we could "enterprise fund" pensions for council members while we're at it!. Thank you for considering these points. Please either junk this program, or send it back for complete rethinking. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Creek Enterprise Fund, Schmidt to Council, Page 5 FROM : JU Ent PHONE NO. : 544 1099 May. 14 2002 09:41AM P1 RED 'FiL � MEETING AGENDA DATE 5' i-oz. ITEM # a May 14, 2002 The Honorable Alan Settle & City Council a'COUNCIL CDD DIR DIR Mayor ICIN AO El BRE CHIEF City Hall RATTORNEY FZOPW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 [TtC LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT.HEADS ❑ REC DIR p' . Riau ❑ UTIL DIR Dear Mayor Settle & City Council Members: dD.611` ❑HR DIR We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed Creek and Flood Protection Plan Fund to be considered by the City Council on May 21 st. We would attend the council meeting' in person, however, we will be in Washington, D.C. on business at that time. We have noted for some time that flooding has been curtailed by simple cleaning of the creek-beds as well as channel improvements recently undertaken. Creation of another fund to cope with events which only occur once a decade seems frivolous when simple maintenance can accomplish the same ends. We are reminded of the city council's actions in the 80's when we were experiencing a drought. They encouraged conservation and in fact imposed heavy fines for excess water use. Then, when water usage dropped, the water rates were increased to make up for the short-fall in revenue. After the drought was over, the rates were not reduced, and when we queried the city as to why, we were informed that the sewer plant improvements required the need for the increased funds from water. Interestingly, sewer rates also increased during that time period. Consequently, in view of past city behavior, we are very cauiious about any new fund creations or "problem-solving" activities which leaves the citizens holding the bag. Please vote no on the proposed creek and flood prx>tectiar) ,pjan. % ly: Ja & Joy Jones 2364 Flora San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED I iaY 1 200; SLO CITY CLERK 17 F► L_a NtETING AGENDA ► DATE 5 al-oz 'ITEM #� CHARLES I STORM 772 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93441 Telephone 1-805-544-8865 EHEADS L , DIR 9 May 2002 -✓=iPE CHIEF EY Civ DIR San Luis Obispo City Council RIG C POLICE CHF For 21 May 2002 meeting. ADS ❑ AEC DIR ^-� t� UTIL DIR r H❑ HR DIR Dear Council Members: " As I am not good at public speaking, I wish this letter to be considered at your 21 May 2002 City Council meeting when it concerns the Creek and Flood Protection Plan. I am a 73 year resident of San Luis. I guess I get a little emotional when things crop up in city management that I don't agree with. I like to think that my input is constructive and my concern at this time is the possibility that our General Fund might be supplemented with a new TAX on our citizens for the support of the city drainage system. I am totally against this tax. The Flood Situation: Everyone that owns property in the flood zone has been made aware by the city engineering department of the possible consequences of flooding on their property. In 1941 there was flood water all the way to Avila. Is this what you are planning to address?Repeated small floods have occurred on lower Higuera and Beebee St. over the . years. A couple of these have been caused or at least aggravated by the Marsh street bridge plugging up with debris because the State built the bridge too low. Is San Luis required to correct this problem? When flood damage occurs FEMA comes in with a pot full of money and takes care of repairs. I know where two fences were leveled and floor furnaces were flooded. FEMA made estimates on repairs and issued checks that were 50%to 100% over the actual cost of repairs. What are we as tax payers worried about? There may be some soil removal in the creek bed that would improve flow and there may some retaining wall work that would prevent further erosion of the bank near the Elks Club but the general fund should easily handle this. If you want to fix all the problems there are two possible fix's. Concrete the creek to look like the Los Angeles River or you move to an other city. Creek Habitat: If you are talking primarily about the steel head run, the city is thD=CEIVED primary culprit. I maintain that the city pumps south of town lower the water aqui er tabte-- NAY 1 J 200' SLO CITY CLERK 1Y t causing the water in the creek to percolate in to the aquifer at a greatly increased rate causing the creek to dry up for most of the year. There is no fix for this until you stop pumping entirely. Then perhaps placing treated sewer water in the creek can help maintain the flow. Educating citizens: This is now done at small cost from the general fund. Preventing Polluted Discharges From reaching the Creek: I think this is a greatly overblown issue. Every year after the first rain the runoff washes the streets with great quantities of water that quickly dilute all pollution, the effect on the creek is minimal. Now if someone drains antifreeze in to a storm drain that is a whole other issue. Do we have base line pollution information back to the 40s and 50s. With all the sophisticated measurement equipment available today we may be attempting to improve the purity of creek water to be much better than nature ever intended it. Some of the pollutants that reach storm drains are motor oil, tire rubber and diesel smoke (some from city buses), leaves from trees (some city trees),dirt and pollens, and waste from coons cows and cats(some city cats). Tourists and students leave pollutants on city streets that eventually wind up in the creek but they also spend money and a portion of that ends up in the general fund of this city. The fees that you propose are a tax that apparently is not protected under prop 13. Can you guarantee me that this fee will end in seven years? Will there come a time wages and equipment are included in the cost and the city will be in a position that they will have to continue the fee. I am sorry but I am totally offended at the thought of this fee and I do hope you reject it and never let it raise it's ugly head again. I called Jay Walter(city engineer) and he was very polite to me and gave me a chance to vent my frustration. I think we both learned something from the conversation and I do greatly appreciate his time. Thank you all for the generally fine job you are doing for the City of San Luis Obispo. Charles J. Storni .