Encinitas coffers flush despite clean-water costs
By: ADAM KAYE - Staff Writer | ∞
ENCINITAS -- One year go, as the city headed into election season, Encinitas officials warned voters that without subsidies from property owners, a state-mandated clean-water program could cost them services.
The prediction, however, has not materialized.
Last week, the city's Finance Department unveiled a $53.4 million spending plan for the coming fiscal year that absorbs increased costs that Encinitas must pay to test and treat the water that flushes from its storm drains.
The budget would provide money for new programs and employees and build cash reserves to an all-time high.
General fund revenues in 2007-08 are estimated to grow by $2.4 million, or 4.7 percent. And at the end of the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, a $4.1 million surplus is projected.
Looking ahead, a six-year financial forecast shows continued surpluses in the operating budget despite increased costs of the clean-water program.
New programs and people
Finance Manager Jay Lembach said that during the build-up to Proposition C last year, the city underestimated its income projections.
The proposition asked property owners whether they would pay $5 a month to offset the costs of the clean-water program mandated, but not funded, by state and federal authorities.
Voters answered with a resounding no. Sixty-one percent of them in March 2006 rejected Prop. C.
After the tally, former Mayor Christy Guerin said the program would be stripped to its leanest components to assure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.
"Needless to say," former City Manager Kerry Miller said at the time, "we'll be tightening our belts."
Instead, Lembach said last week, "property tax revenue has been growing at historically high rates. Higher than we expected."
As a result, the 2007-08 spending plan shows that the city can afford increased law enforcement services and a satellite-based mapping of the city. Also proposed is $100,000 to contract a coordinator for three existing Highway 101 merchant groups and a one-time payment of $91,000 for the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce to furnish a new visitors center.
The projected revenue increase follows a recent pattern: from fiscal years 2004-05 to 2005-06, the budget increased by $1.4 million, or 3 percent, from $46.5 million to $47.9 million; from 2005-06 to 2006-07, it increased by $3.1 million, or 3.1 percent, from $47.9 million to $51 million.
The operating budget, or general fund, pays for employee salaries and benefits, materials and supplies, contract services and debt payments.
It also pays for increasing costs of the clean-water program. Next year, the city expects to pay $1.6 million to meet the state and federal mandates. That's a $326,000, or 26 percent, increase from the present year's costs.
Much of the growing cost would be tied to salaries for two new city employees, as well as one full-time and one part-time contract employee, assigned to the clean-water program.
The budget also earmarks $29,000 to pay for a new, off-road vehicle so that the proposed "stormwater environmental specialist" can complete his or her job requirements.
"We want to keep our oceans clean," said taxpayer advocate Bob Bonde, one of Prop. C's most vocal opponents. "But I wonder if we need all of the positions or if this is just leading us down the pike so they can justify asking us for more taxes in the future."
A leading supporter of the measure, Steve Aceti of the California Coastal Coalition advocacy group, said he and other backers anchored their campaign to income projections that showed the city would need the fee to meet clean-water requirements.
"If the city hadn't been so fortunate (with its property tax receipts) there would have been a need for the clean-water fee," Aceti said.
Flowing costs
With or without the fee, ever-increasing clean-water requirements are driving the need for more employees and equipment, said Kathy Weldon, the city's stormwater manager.
"We have to do it," Weldon said of expanding the program. "There's no debate about it."
The mandates Encinitas faces are spelled out in a permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
To comply, the city must ensure that runoff washing from streets and storm drains meets purity standards before entering lagoons, creeks or the ocean.
A city report outlines the new clean-water requirements:
The mandates come on top of existing pollution-monitoring, reporting and cleanup requirements.
Every workday, city workers fan out to maintain and inspect the city's 22 miles of channels and 180 miles of storm drains. A specialized truck equipped with high-pressure hoses power-washes storm drains and sucks the wastewater into its holding tank for disposal at a treatment plant.
The city also owns a truck equipped with wheeled cameras that search the insides of drain and sewer pipes for debris and damage.
Street sweepers collect waste and silt before it washes into storm drains, and technicians collect samples of creek, lagoon and ocean waters and send them to laboratories for testing.
"All we're trying to do is get into the city budget what the permit is telling us to do," Weldon said.
-- Contact staff writer Adam Kaye at (760) 943-2312 or akaye@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Adam wrote on Apr 29, 2007 6:15 AM:heaven forbid! You aren't saying that our elected officials lied to us, are you?
Leucadian wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:02 AM:During the last few years Dalager, Stocks, Bond, and Houlihan have cycled back and forth between crying about the city being too broke to keep street lights on, keep the tap water flowing, and the street sweepers on the road, then they turn around and say the city is so flush with money they don't know what to do with expect toss the money at huge salary and benefit increases for staff, build an extravagant library and decked out fire stations, and birthday parties for councilmen. Is the city broke or are they swimming in our taxdollars?
Toast wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:58 AM:Maggie Houlihan voted to IMPOSE that illegal tax. Jerome Stocks and James Bond voted against it and the voters agreed with them. Christy Guerin and former City Manager Miller are gone... Houlihan should be shown the door as well.
Bob can do it wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:00 AM:Maybe Mr. Bonde should volunteer to fill out all the state mandated paperwork if he doesn't think employees are required to do the work!
more employees wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:47 AM:The city department has a consultant company working for them for the past three years. Does this mean that the consultant or contract employee will become a city employee? The contract employee or consultant fills out the paperwork.
Encinitas voter wrote on Apr 29, 2007 10:32 AM:Maggie Houlihan and Steve Aceti worked arm in arm to sell us an unneeded tax. Thank goodness they failed to fool us. I'll never vote for either of them again.
selective memory? wrote on Apr 29, 2007 2:53 PM:Hey Encinitas voter, don't forget who's name was signed on all the prop c city propaganda. City Manager Miller and Danny Dalager. Who voted to spend the 100k on prop C? It was the entire council. No one on the council at the time would address the serious questions that the public were asking about Prop C. The only one on the council now to have opposed that waste was Barth. 4 vs. 1 is not good odds for Barth. I hope encinitas voter remembers that in the next election and sweeps Stocks Bond and Houlihan out!
Get Real wrote on Apr 29, 2007 6:56 PM:Sorry kids, but no conspiracies here. The city had an unanticipated windfall because older properties downtown, that were formerly assessed at low rates, have been selling for millions and getting re-assessed. There is no way to accurately predict this kind of activity. If Prop C had passed, the city could have started to do StretScape Phase II in phases, among other things. You can't live and/or own a business in a coastal city and not expect to help pay for clean ocean water and healthy beaches.
All in good time wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:43 PM:Houlihan should be dumped in 2008. Stocks correctly voted against the tax and Bond should retire. Dalager is not up until 2010 and should be replaced. We need decent replacements for Houlihan and Bond in 2008.
to get real wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:48 PM:What a bunch of hooey about no conspiracies. The council had been discussing the fee in closed sessions for more than a year before they brought it out to a public council meeting. The council wanted to get around Prop 218 and force a fee on property owners without a vote of the people.
get more real wrote on Apr 30, 2007 9:35 AM:The reason the budget looks so good is the 10 million dollar loan the city just took out. As for street scape part II, you provide the exact reason that the "clean water fee" was shot down. It wasn't a fee for clean water. It was a fee to help balance the budget because the city has over extended itself! Street scape II was suppose to be done already but the city ran out of money, thus we see the real reason for the "clean water" fee. Prop C would not have made the water cleaner because it wasn't about water quality. Stock voted to spend 100K to trick the voters like you.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9980)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6082)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4916)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4625)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4417)
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement





