AgdaPkt 2002-09-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Arthur Baggett September 17, 2002 Page 2 · Equity Issues Currently there is one Permittee for STOPPP. The Regional Board has one contact for the general STOPPP issues, which provides efficiency to both the Regional Board staff and to STOPPP. This efficiency must be recognized and reflected in the fee schedule, if it is to be adopted. As written, fees could double, triple or more for multiple agencies reflecting the same population. This is inherently unfair. · Other Revenues/Cost Savings The State should assess whether the additional cost imposed on municipalities will result in improved water quality. We think not. In fact, we believe just the opposite is true; it will be a detriment to improving water quality. What other water quality facilities, such as non-permitted industrial facilities, are being charged? That in its self could be a revenue source not currently being tapped. What additional benefits should we expect from the State in the way of cost savings to offset the increased and new fees? Again, the cost/benefit analysis has not been addressed. At a time when STOPPP is experiencing a steady increase in pressure by the Regional Board to do more and is attempting to respond to additional requirements imposed on our Progyam, which have stretched the limits of our revenue, we are now threatened with increased and new fees. There must be recognition of the fact that we can do only so much with a capped revenue source. We have reached that point. STOPPP believes the proposed fee revisions need much more work and discussion before a serious consideration of approval can be undgrtaken. We urge the Governor to decline to sign AB3000, and we remain available to work with the State Board in the development of a reasonable fee structures. Sincerely; Robert M. Davidson STOPPP Program Coordinator CC Governor Gray Davis Richard Napier, C/CAG SWQTF