The URL can be used to link to this page

Letters to and from the Mayor Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GilROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR February 25, 1986 ... Mr. Pete Welton 6515 Princevalle Street Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Mr. Welton: I received your letter this morning listing questions and concerns about the flood in Gilroy last week, generated at your meeting of affected citizens on Sunday, February 23, 1986. What a tremendous help to have all those questions in hand so that the City Council and City staff can respond in a timely and constructive way. By now, I hope you have received a copy of the prepared statement for yesterday's news conference as well as a copy of the additional questions and answers from that. conference. We have distributed those documents throughout the neighborhoods affected by the flood, and the material in them should answer many of your questions and concerns. We will expand on that material as well as answer more of your questions at a City Council meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, March 3 in the City Council Chambers. We will probably never have all the answers to all the questions; that's the nature of a disaster. The Council Chambers will seat almost 200 people with room for another 50 in the lobby where the proceedings are broadcast. We did investigate moving the meeting to another location, but this did not turn out to be feasible. I share the hope expressed in your letter that it will not be necessary for each ,individual to directly present hiS/her concerns to the Council; I suggest you select several spokespersons. However, the Council is interested in hearing constructive suggestions that can be considered when the disaster council updates our emergency operations plan. We have made arrangements to continue our regular agenda to Tuesday night, as necessary. This will allow ample time for the exchange of information on the flood situation that we have placed first on our agenda. Yours truly, RHH:ec cc: Jay Baksa Councilmembers - Roberta H. Hughan Mayor Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR February 25, 1986 ... Ms. Page Welton 6515 Princevalle Street Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Page: Thank you very much for your letter chronicling your experiences on the night of the flood in Gilroy. I appreciate the time and effort that went into such a detailed account. We will use the information and questions from your letter in preparing records of the flood and when the disaster council updates our emergency operations plan. We do need to gather suggestions such as yours from citizens relating to their needs in a disaster such as the flood. We also want to give out data about the nature of the flash flood that occured and events since then. To accomplish those goals, we have scheduled such an exchange of information at a Council meeting at 7:00 p.m., Monday, March 3, in the Council Chambers. Your description of the communi~ spirit of Gilroy, particularly during this disaster, was very moving. And thank you, Page, for your personal help in your neighborhood and for your offer of help now to the City Council. I am enclosing a copy of a very timely letter from Governor Deukmejian requesting nominations for the 1985 Young American. Medals of Bravery. Perhaps you, or someone you know, knows of a young man or woman whose bravery the night of the flood should be recognized. Yours truly, Roberta H. Hughan Mayor RHH:ec t:On(,1, cc: City Council GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN GOVERNOR %tat.e of QIat Hornia GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SACRAMENTO 95814 TELEPHONE (916) 445-2841 ~ February 21, 1986 Dear Mayor: You are invited to participate in the selection of candidates for the 1985 Young American Medals for Bravery and Service. These awards are given annually to individ- uals under the age of 19 who have performed outstanding acts of courage or service during the previous calendar year. I would be pleased if you would consider forwarding to me the names of young people whom you believe are de- serving of this honor. All nominations must include a birth certificate fac- simile, a complete description of the achievement as well as a supporting statement by a witness or individual having personal knowledge of the nominee's achievement. A fact sheet explaining the program in greater detail is enclosed. Nominations with complete documentation should be sent to my office by April 15, 1986, in care of Colonel Jack Horrall, my Military Aide. His telephone number is (916) 920-6531. Nominations will then be forwarded to the Attor- ney General of the United States for final selection. Thank you for your thoughtful assistance in saluting our outstanding young citizens. Most cordially, t--y- George Deukmejia Enclosure FACT SHEET ~ PROCEDURE: All recommendations for nominees and accompanying documents and papers should be submitted to the Governor through Mayors and Chairmen of Boards of Supervisors. Recommendations must be accompanied by the following supporting documents: 1. Description of the courageous act or exceptional service. 2. Parents' or guardians' full name, current address and phone number. 3. Recent photograph of the nominee. 4. Birth certificate facsimile. 5. Autobiography of nominee. 6. Statements of witnesses to the courageous act or documented support, newspaper articles, etc. 7. Statement of character by ~erson nominating, neighbors or teachers. The Governor will receive the outstanding nominees based upon the selection by the Selection Committee. The Governor will nominate the candidates for the Young American Medal for Bravery and the Young American Medal for Service who, in his opinion, are shown by the facts and circumstances to be the most worthy and qualified candidates. In addition to age limit of 18 years, the specified in the statute applies to Medal must be citizens of the United States. nominees need only habitually reside in its territories or possessions. other restriction for Service; nominees Medal for Bravery the United States or (over) YOUNG CALIFORNIAN MEDALLION FOR BRAVERY & SERVICE and YOUNG CALIFORNIAN MERIT AWARD FOR BRAVERY & SERVICE ... YOUNG CALIFORNIAN MEDALLION FOR BRAVERY & SERVICE The Governor, based upon advice of the Selection Committee, will forward recommendations for the award of the Young American Medal for Bravery and Service to the Attorney General of the United States for his consideration. Those individuals whose act or service has been deemed worthy of consideration by the Attorney General will be recognized by the Governor by awarding of the Young Californian Medallion for Bravery and Service. The Governor personally makes these presentations. YOUNG CALIFORNIAN MEDALLION FOR BRAVERY & SERVICE Those individuals whose act or ser~ice has not been selected for consideration by the Attorney General for award of the Young American Medals and the Young Californian Medals will be awarded the Young Californian Merit Award. This is a certificate bearing the Governor's signature. 6515 Princeva11e Street ~ ~r~y, Ca:iforniE 95020 feu.uary 20, 1986 Gilroy City Officials c/o Roberta Hughan, Mayor Gilroy City Hall Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 Dear City Officials: After a good deal of thought and consideration, it is my civic responsibility to set to paper the facts, as I know them, concerning the disaterous events of this week. Inorder for you to verify these facts, I respectfully request that you listen to (and save) the "911" tape starting Monday February 17, 1986 after approximately 3:00 p.m.. Having lived here during the Winters of 1982 and 1983, we have learned to watch and respect the Uvas Creek, and to know what it can do and where its short comings are located. Honday, February 17, 1986 Between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. - I called "911" to advise them that there was approximately 12"inches before the river over flowed its banks. We had not seen anyone watching and we asked that some- one be sent. Between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. - I called "911" to advise them that we had yet to see anyone watching the situation and that the river was now within 6 inches of over running its banks. I was told this time that the City was aware of the problem and would take care of it. Between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. - I called again asking for a sand bag crew as the river had over run its banks on the south side of Thomes Road and the current was flooding east on Thomas Road, soon to reaph the Church Street area. Exactly as it did in 1982. Soon thereafter a man from Parks and Rec. was sent with no sand bags and no crew. His sole purpose at that point must have been to direct traffic, which was being taken care of by residents. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. is when we discovered the breech higher on the levee which was~filling Antonio Court. In gathering as much help from the men in the immediate area, they waded chest deep in water, to evacuate the court, carrying women and small child- ren to higher ground. By this time the water had risen to above to over vehicle level and was soon running North on Princeval1e. Gilroy Disaster - Page Two It is important that you know that to this point, almost five hours since my first call to "911", we had not seen.a Police- man, heard a siren, or been given any type of warning what so ever, of any impending danger. The accounts in THE GILROY DISPATCH of this time period is certainly different than what I would have to testify to, if called upon to do so. Likewise, if you look at the picture being published, Councilman Gage, Harold Ritter, etc. at the EMERGENCY CENTER, you will note it is ten minutes to midnight. Between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. is when we found families trying to flee to higher ground from the 6600 block of Princeva11e. My nieghbors and I took in as many of these families ..as we could, moving their cars to higher ground if it was still possible, giv- ing them dry clothes, and a place to sleep. They too will tell you of no warning. Of thier calls to ';'911" and of being hung-up on, or of getting no help at all. The family that stayed with me (2 adults, 2 boys approximately 12+, 2 girls 4 + 6, and 3 Foster Children under 2 years of age) had moved into 6695 Princeva11e on Monday morning. When they called and asked which direction to go, they were told "you are on your own . " . I have been told that"Hr. Baksa left his home in the Hesa Ranch area at approximately 6:30 p.m. to go to dinner and since the creek was eighteen inches under the bridge, there was nothing to ~vorry about yet." Whether or not this statement is correct, I have no way of verifying. But I can tell you that by 6:30 p.m. my husband and other concerned fathers were watching from the intersection of Thomas and Princeva11e, and knew we had a very real problem. As for the accounts of sirens and warnings, we never once saw a policeman, or heard a siren. We were all outside from approximately 7:00 p.m. to near midnight. ~Vhen the man from the National Guard rang my bell at 6:15 a.m. Tuesday, February 18, 1986, my first response was to laugh and ask him where he was when we needed him. Closing the barn door after the horse was gone, was totally ridiculous. The waters had started'to receed by 3:00 a.m.. The evacuation exercise at 4:00 a.m. Wednesday, February 19, 1986 was even more ridiculous and certainly did not impress any of us, coming approximately 36 hours too late. Though the narrative is lengthy, it is imparative that you understand exactly what we went through. The EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM for the City of Gilroy, if there is one, failed misserab1y. I have been told also that Harold Ritter, Fire Chief, was not even informed until 9:30 p.m. or so that we had a flood. Do you have any idea the difference it would have made to hear those sirens and had those trucks to evacuate women and children? - Gilroy Disaster - Page Three Oh yes, and there was no traffic control I The youths of the area and their 4-vmee1ers did wonders. They were able to clog ever street on the south side of town. They were able to swamp men and boats trying to get women and children to safety. A few helped, but the majority were out sight seeing. Ant the traffic control and area security on Tuesday was totally none existant. It is really too bad you did not count our streets, or Thomas Road on Tuesday. People for miles around were allowed in the area to enjoy the misseries of others. It had to be second only to Garlic Festival and there was not one person controlling or securing the area, The facts are evident: 1. "911" did not respond to our calls in an acceptable manner during the crisis. 2. The Gilroy City EMERGENCY ALERT PROGRM1 must be totally re-organized, if there is one, or totally formed if there isn't one. This town still has AIR-P~ID SIP~NS and no one threw the switch. 3. Response by City Officials was totally unacceptable to the initial crisis. The clean-up effort is totally after the fact. 4. Something must be done concerning the levees of the Uvas Creek Through the complete length of the City of Gilroy (from the Santa Theresa Bridge to and maybe beyond the 101 Bridge). 5. The trash, under growth, fallen trees, etc. must be removed from the Uvas Creek bottom yearly, without fail. This must be done so that it does not form a dam or back up as it did in 1982 or again this year. Let the National Guard have their manuvers in the creek, what ever it takes. 6. \{hen the creek receeds this year, the creek bottom must be cleared of fallen trees and debris so that this does not happen again. Let the people of Gilroy cut firewood, under supervision, let the Youth Groups bag trash, let the Weekend Probationers hau1.trash, whatever it takes, get it done and get it done right. 7. I must point out that if the creek rises again this year, the sand bagging that has been done on the levee just north of the Thomas Road Bridge will allow any overflow to move directly east along Thomas Road in greater pro- portions than it did this time. It may even washout the bridge. .... Gilroy Disaster - Page Four 8. Additionally, the mud,~si1t, and garbage which is being hauled to the Thomas Road-Princeva11e Street intersection is now forming a dam which will divert any flood waters back to the Antonio Court-Fi1bro-Imperia1 area, also yepardizing my own home which acted as a shelter for those residents. If it should washover the first new levee, it will also be directed directly north on Princeva11e. I must commend Pacific Gas and Electric and Continental Telephone. Not once through all of this mess did we loose lights, gas or telephone. This allowed people to stay warm, see what they were up against, and communicate with friends and relatives far and wide. The saving grace of all of this tragedy was that not one single human being was seriously hurt or died. We do have a10t to be thankful for. As a resident of Gilroy, a professional woman, and a mother, I imp10y you to see that a disaster such as this never again is allowed to happen to this community. This community is made up of loving, caring, giving human beings that gave their all for people they did not even know during this crisis. They reacted in a manner which reflects the standard of life in the City of Gilroy, above and far beyond any norma1rstandard for the quality of life. They will give you all of their assistance to remedy these problems, They will do anything and everything they can to support you in a logical effort to protect their families, their homes, their neighbors, their community and their city. The shock is wearing off. The people of Gilroy are angery. Use their anger, their love, and their energy to insure the well being of this community, this family, this city. I am personally always available to you. Hy support, my energy, my love, and my time are available to you, Please feel free to call me at any time. Sin#y, ~on (Mrs. Henry P. Welton III) ~ ~~~1~f,In4~A~~. . ~1>1~~_~~L~Jwf~ .~~~~~~-~r:L.q. _ /. -I ~ '/11 ~ 4:0() ~ <G;(;C /t; ~~ 1/.I1f-~ ~ /}" ~,/~ -tr;1' Q ~ ~, y uN... ~ b-t,~ S' -(PI ~ WArJ j,..u w..e. ~ wu. ~ '6 ~ flHJMu-v.-. ~ ~ I~ I fU, ~:~r~ s~ 1 tC~~ j:::t-'J~ ~~~. . -&J;ot;. (.()4. ~~ fU ~ ~) /MJ ~"fV.... =-.I~-.~4.~~..?_~ir= .:; _ .. .. M<--f.dM~ '/4 ~.() . .. bktp, Om ~, Y'-- IUMt ~..~ w4Ju.1.ed--'1I/ ~~...~ .~~..... vr- (}t(., )--7<-* 1J;.~_#1n'ce-- O'lL-AdfI-~-~' k . ...-- 3.~;:;:~~~~;;'~_j~~Q}\.'6]JiJ'1~IIe.._~~= __, /.AM,__yJwt1A-M---~_k ; 20~~-;--~- ~- &,__1jA.,l~~A._--- --- -f.J#;...Lh- ~-~-- ~<fk-fh-' ? /()~-~--- 4~-.~~~t;;:::..;;1-~~:~7t::1~--. ~_..~d-_~._~.dHv ~._6.,'/S:~14-t ?(y-~~4#t..). 44.--~_-~--~4 ~_~_~~"--_~__4:4-~__-~-- ~b__~--_- .....Ld<. ,nTfAt.}',~MIc-.1; !u~ ~~.~~. rit4'~ - - .... ,7 ~ ~ ~ -., ~~.~-~~'1sk-~~!zJ~ 'fr.~--t=--- .....-~1;'-%tIir--.~~_._- J-fk-en ~~_Mt__~ _____Mf,{tuL---~,...--1!.-----~.~-&-~~--5~--~--n-- ~-- JlI#IL...t~_&.~...~~ ~..-Io~k___. _____dv1!~?--n ____u_________~________________n_______n_______ - -- (j) ~. ..---~-_..-,_.-_.-._--- -.-----.-..------- -_._------------------~"..-----,.__.~- -----_.._.~-'-- ---. -_..-.--~._---_._- -~-_._---- ---_._--_.~-,-- ----- --- t9 " h. .~_~. ~ ~.. ~ ~1cHuJ/ I f!'1J k ~ _5huAs}5~ J11t+v aMJI- f:;.f;,..h ~ k P _~ PAM-_u,j'l~ Ie SA.-4h-. t'/~,(/UHU~-r .......f:"ffil-' U}1A..fyd._?'_~ K.jtw 1~~~' r .... 1._~. -r/.1f:h~ ;CMw.,.-fu/w- I<.tt.. ffh, Iv 5~ Af HA4 :::-~~:~:~::~ -..--:.------- ~,_ ___________ ___,_, ,_,__,________,_,_______,,____,____________________'____'__,_____,_'__'_ ,______,_,_ _,____ __ __,___,__' n'__' , __ ,___,_____ ..,,- ,-,---,-, /td.--/~-t:~Io~Mf----~-~Lp-~--h:.ck.k~. ? _.'.~-_ ..1-'L... 'fU-~~Scmt-ft.,.'(f-~PH.t::.~-. -.- ___~_ __ __ __~--~-~~-~-------------------u-~~------- ______m___ _y._ ~-'-jkIf~-d.ft4;-l~~rl?,l1M.~ ._... ..... "7'--71--A-1 ~ck.-JY;$~~~-t,- *"u'HLL-? _ 4._%~M-"&_~-t2A-...I./~-~-1..,y~L~~&.- "8 y;, t<.y-~___k___f!SL~l.l_____________________________ --- --.~-~-~-.@~t:::.. {)V?-L?ud-74.~..~-..---.- --~n~;;;:1;:::A-. ~~_~A~-/Ud cwL----- ________,~n------ __c_ ~ __ __ _~------------m----------~-n-------------- ___~_'_7~ PWt Yk.._. $~6;&f'O-~-T-' ~~f; '!""-~- --- ._ __.Lwu_IWt-'ft..;- O~~--~. ...u_~-, _'tzu;..._tV>IL. .-- ---t/MM.L .~.. 4-~dj~w.t-~--~-RupL,. ___ ~ .iW.J!'! ~-~ Q:14- 'ft<.L_6~ry.e.-- --------- u. ,__1L!~.Q~;.L'&~J-7ilt.~n . .. .~:!'J{~_-n--- m________ /r;-Yfv.,- ~_ ((rH14.IB-- AM. ~>_uJ;'ftJ1.. · ~-------------- . ... ~J:;X t::t:::::I7;rfl:t~~ - ...._n _______ 't---n i7- .^0- ~---- .-. ....__~.td ~.k~k~. NJ14~s_~ w~~-h ; ~ . ,~:.. N--g' -..... '." :.:.'.. ,:~.:,,::..:::':...' ~ ~- "7 , ;'. ~."- .." ~ ", ,. ,......;, .'. ':'" . ..,'- .... . ',' ,.:",' . .__..:. ,',.'....___ .'i....j" , "', SUiiIJl1Y.B:B....... . . - .. . . '.. :." "';,_~:..':_~~'~_._.._..._,___.._.~ ~..___ ,.,__~:~~~~~.~;;/(::,~ '\:.~i_. ___ '___!.. SUNDAYJ FEBRUARY 23J 1986 5:00 P.M. 5 EAST VICTORIA DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC NEAR MONTEREY ROAD PETE WELTONJ PRESIDENTJ GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE QUEST IONS TO BE DEA[T 'wnnu: WHERE WERE THE RESCRUE CREWS? WHY WAS THERE NO WARNING? FLOOD ZONE .OR NOT??? Do WE NEED FLOOD INSURANCE?? WHY DID "911" HANG-UP ON US??? LEGAL RECOURSE!!! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! -, KWSS-FM/94.5 NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INC. Main Studio: p.o. Box 2033 Gilroy. CA 95020 Business Office: P,O, Box 9686 San Jose. CA 95157 408/866-5886 February 21, 1986 The Honorable Roberta Hughan, Mayor City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Mayor Hughan, Now that the rain has subsided, and Gilroy is starting to dry out a bit, I just wanted to write to you to recognize the efforts of some City and South County employees who were helpful to KWSS' recent coverage of the storms. First of all, Chuck Myer, who was put in the difficult position of Public Information Officer, did an outstanding job. Not only was he available every time we called for information, he also called ~ a few times with the latest information. Commander VernGardner was an excellent spokesman for the Gilroy Po1ice Department on the first morning of the floods. And finally, the South County Communications dispatchers, who were always willing to give us the latest information...and if they didn't have it, they found the people who did. I know them only as Jeff, Cameron, Patty and Roy...but I'm sure there are others. ::L~-:Pr 2.,,~. h KWSS- FM/94.5 NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INC. Main Studio: PO. Box 2033 Gilroy, CA 95020 Business Office: P.O, Box 9686 San Jose, CA 95157 408/866-5886 Despite whatever criticism is received from the public, I think the City of Gilroy can be proud of the efforts of it's entire staff in general, and the above-named individuals in particular, during our recent disaster. Let's all hope this situation does not arise again...but if it does, we can rest assured that we're in good hands!! Si~J~ Steve Scott, News Director KWSS Radio P.O. BOX 2033 Gilroy, CA 95Q21 (408) 847-0330 SS:mr CC: Greg Cowart, Gilroy Chief of Police Suzanne Wilson. Santa Clara County Supervisor Telephone (408) 842-3191 Ql it~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 21, 1986 The Honorable Ed Zschau 429 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Congressman Zschau: As you know, the devastating Flood of 1986 caused over $4 million worth of damage 'in the City of Gilroy. But more importantly, lives have been disrupted and businesses have been severely affected by the rampaging flood waters that escaped the Uvas Creek. The amount of damage had the U. S. Army Corps of been completed as planned. have kept this vital levee would have been drastically reduced, if not eliminated, Engineers' Uvas-Carnadero Levee Improvement Project Unfortunately, fifteen years of federal budget cuts from being cOnstructed. On a brighter side, the Soil Conservation Service's partially completed 566 Project along the Llagas Creek did help reduce the damage in our northern sections of town. The completion of the 566 Project and construction of the Uvas- Carnadero.Project are essential to insure that the citizens of Gilroy will not contintle to be victimized by the threat of future flooding. I urge you to use whatever influence you have to see that complete funding of these two crucial projects are in the 1986-87 Federal Budget. The safety of our constituents depends on it. Sincerely, II Roberta H. Hughan Mayor RHH: JB: ec Telephone (408) 842-3191 Ql it~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 21, 1986 The Honorable Alan Cranston 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Cranston: . As you know, the devastating Flood of 1986 caused over $4 million worth of damage in the City of Gilroy. But more importantly, lives have been disrupted and businesses have been severely affected by the rampaging flood waters that escaped the Uvas Creek. The amount of damage had the U. S. Army Corps of been completed as planned. have kept this vital levee would have been drastically reduced, if not eliminated, Engineers' Uvas-Carnadero Levee Improvement Project Unfortunately, fifteen years of federal budget cuts from being constructed. On a brighter side, the Soil Conservation Service's partially completed 566 Project along the Llagas Creek did help reduce the damage in our northern sections-of town. The completion of the 566 Project and construction of the Uvas- Carnadero Project are essential to insure that the citizens of Gilroy will not continue to be victimized by the threat of future flooding. I urge you to use whatever influence you have to see that complete funding of these two crucial projects are in the 1986-87 Federal Budget. The safety of our constituents depends on it. Sincerely, Roberta H. Hughan Mayor RHH:JB:ec Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 21, 1986 The Honorable Pete Wilson 720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Wilson: As you know, the devastating Flood of 1986 caused over $4 million worth of damage in the City of Gilroy. But more importantly, lives have been disrupted and businesses have been severely affected by the rampaging flood waters that escaped the Uvas Creek. The amount of damage had the U. S. Army Corps of been completed as planned. have kept this vital levee would have been drastically reduced, if not eliminated, Engineers' Uvas-Carnadero Levee Improvement Project Unfortunately, fifteen years of federal budget cuts from being constructed. On a brighter side, the Soil Conservation Service's partially completed 566 Project along the Llagas Creek did help reduce the damage in our northern sections of town. The completion of the 566 Project and construction of the Uvas- Carnadero Project are essential to insure that the citizens of Gilroy will not continue to be victimized by the threat of future flooding. I urge you to use whatever influence you have to see that complete funding of these two crucial projects are in the 1986-87 Federal Budget. The safety of our constituents depends on it. Sincerely, If, Roberta H. Hughan Mayor RHH:JB:ec ,-, I t '- /' ~ M~ National Association of Conservation Districts 1f )r~ T.S-:r- fJtfJ :~ Tuesday Letter <C Vol. 36, NO.6 February 11, 1986 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS CUT BY PRESIDENT'S BUDGET (-'\ '_I Cuts of $209.1 million in the FY 1987 budget proposed forthe Soil Conservation Service were sent to Congress by the White House on February 5. The total proposed 1987 budget for the SCS is $457.7 million (compared to $666.8 million in FY 1986) with only $350.6 million allocated to continuing programs. The remaining 1987 funds, $107.1 million, would be for phase-out costs. SCS personnel would be cut by 3939 (full-time equivalent), from 13,612 equivalent in FY 1986 to 9,673 in FY 1987. Other program changes include: * conservation operations spending down $14.5 million * terminate all National Resource Inventory (NRI) activities * terminate all Resource Conservation Act (RCA) activities * terminate river basin surveys ~ terminate watershed planning, emergency watershed protections and PL 566 operations * terminate Resource Conservation & Development (RC&O) activities * terminate the Great Plains Conservation Program * terminate the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), the Forestry tncentive Program (FIP), and the Water Bank program * Reduce the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) to $0.8 million The NACO Council, meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, has said that it will not accept budget cuts past the current 1986 levels. More details on its budget resolutions will be published in the next Tuesday Letter. DURBAN, WETHERBEE UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED President Clarence Durban and Vice President Robert Wetherbee were unanimously elected to their first full terms by the NACO Board of Directors, meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Both Durban and Wetherbee had previously been filling unexpired terms created in June, 1985 by the resignation of former NACO President Bud Mekelburg. (All the NACO officers and directors are pictured on page 3 of this newsletter.) Durban outlined key issues for 1986 to the NACO Board at that meeting. They include implementation of the conservation reserve, ensuring that the federal government provides technical assistance in every conservation district, strengthening state conservation agencies, increasing the recognition of district officials, interacting with other national interest groups, and encouraging the business community to take a more active role in soil conservation issues. ("", ,~,/ WILDER, JONES TELL NACO TO WORK ON CONGRESS Both Congressman Ed Jones and Lt. Governor John Wilder challenged attendees at NACO's opening convention session to let Congress and the Administration know that conservation issues will continue to be as important in the future as they have been in the past. "NACO's long-term presence in Washington has given great strength, great stability, and great credibility to our legislative efforts" on behalf of conservation, Jones said. "We must continue to develop programs that permit the use of the land while making it better for the future," Wilder told the audience in his keynote address. Highlights of the convention included a record first-day registration of over 2,000 people, workshops on computers, a 24-state meeting to discuss drainage concerns, release of the 1985 conservation tillage survey by the Conservation Tillage Information Center, and an inspirational soil stewardship meeting. Pubtlsheij f.'>'€ry 1 uesday by the NatIOnal Assoctatlon of Conser~atl(Hl Dlqtn-cts for subscnptlons (S50 00 anll,-,a " acar(;~", ( t W gt"<, ana dC1jus.lmt'nfs wrIt€' NACO SHV ~e Of'p,;vtr"lp" POBox 855 league en)" TX 77573..9989 {713J332-3402 for changeof address provIde old and ne\f;addres~esa""\1 z'i (:.>jes ro' t, lIt AllOW s'x. w('(~~5. f,). ct d'1Q", A~ljc.les p',oiog',lf" ~ and other matenafs'forcO-ntflderattoo In TUESDAY LETTER shou.f.d b€' subm~ttea to Tuesday LeUer Ed'tor NACC ,o~r, Jp:rrr, ,nl A'l/l N W >>7,~C Wastl.r'Qt,op DC 2 lODf) 2C\'-') j4;- Jq~. ~ .a National Association of Conservation Districts Tuesday Letter , ' ~t fr?Jl ~:1 Ad 'fL- , -, I I '- /' r--' '_J "-" ( , ,_/ Volume 36, NO.4 January 28, 1986 WATERSHED PROGRAMS CUT A $60.4 million cut will be made in the watershed program budget for the current year, effectively eliminating any new contracts for watershed-related conservation measures, NACD has learned. The cut is part of the federal Administration plan to lower spending in the current fiscal year. Earlier in January, NACD reported on Administration plans to rescind $7 million in funding for the Great Plains Conservation Program in 1986, a move that also halts signing of any new contracts. The Soil Conservation Service can continue to supply technical assistance for watersheds, USDA officials say. But if financial assistance is frozen, the availability of technical assistance may be of little use, officials ~gree. Congress must approve the rescission within 45 days or the funds again become available for use. "If the Administration gets its way, we will continue to see similar assaults on the national conservation program," NACD President Clarence Durban has warned. The national small watershed program, authorized by legislation in 1956, was a response to the ideas of more than 300 watershed associations, most of them sparked by district leadership. These people believed deeply that the attack on flood prevention must start where the rains fall and runoff begins--in the fields and pastures and forests. From the beginning, NACO has supported the idea that the watershed concept is the best basis on which to address many conservation and development problems. DAVID STEWART NAMED NACO INTERIM EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT David Stewart, Jr., of League City, Texas, has been named Interim Executive Vice President for the National Association of Conservation Districts. He was named to the position by NACD President Clarence Durban following the resignation of Charles l. Boothby of Wash- ington, D.C. Stewart first joined NACD in 1961 as Assistant Manager of the Service Department, served as NACO South Central Repre- sentative for several years, and has been Manager of the Service Department since 1962. Priorto joining NACO, he had worked forthe Louisiana State University Experiment Station, the Extension Service and the Soil Conservation Service. A native of Minden, Louisiana, Stewart is a graduate of Louisiana State University. He served with the Navy during World War II and has been active in civic and conservation organizations. CTIC CONSERVATION TillAGE EXPO A GREAT SUCCESS Over 1200 farmers, USDA personnel, scientists and researchers took part in the Great Lakes States Conservation Tillage Expo on January 22-23 in Fort Wayne, Indiana, announces James lake, Director of the Conservation Tillage Information Center. The Expo was a culmination of a 5-year demonstration project co-sponsored by NACD and the Environmental Protection Agency that involved conservation districts in 33 Great Lakes counties in showing that conservation tillage techniques can help cut pollution in the Great Lakes. Overflow crowds attended sessions on the identification and use of different conservation tillage systems, the economics of conservation tillage, and the water quality aspects of these systems. District supervisors and farmers from as far away as North Carolina and Colorado were on hand to discuss practices related to their particular region. Marlin Edwards, CTIC Executive Committee Chairman, gave the keynote address on January 23 replac.ing scheduled speaker, NACD President Clarence Durban, who could not speak due to laryngitis. ~ubl'Shed e~efy Tuesday by the NatIonal ASSOciation of Conservation Dlstflcts for subSCriptions ($50 00 annually add't~SS (. dPqf rl"d ~a j<.t'11t "1 ~!I" NACO (H.'f\i t t It. ~ artfTH ' 1 o Bo.B~;J LeagueCttv rX77573-9989 (713,332-3402 for change of address provHjeoldandnewaddresse~and.l11 rodf"jo~t-.)jI A L","Slo'.""f>f'lo,':-' f::.t,d"q. Ar~Cl<H ~:.d'OIO;)fa~tjs and other mateflalsforconSl(~eratlon tn TUESDA Y LETTER ShOUld be submitted to Tuesday Letter EdItor NACO '025 V~'mon1 AI.'" N IJ\ OJ730 \.\asr f qtf)r Dr 1')005 '?C 2l ,,4- 59Cj 4 , I .. Date: March 7, 1986 From: Jim Cunneen Congressman Ed Zschau's Office Washington, D. C. (202) 225-5411 1986 F -lI' Budget , L n \ T ~ 'a I ",,', III 0.... ~ ~ i Cf ,.;..,. A 0 0 e\~ & Approved $60 Million~ 56? Projects of SoilMConservation to Ll agas Creek Proj ect~ Flle..u C \JT #I f~3 h", . President in 1987 F.Y. Budget recommended that $60 Million be frozen. If no action by Con~ress in ~~~~~~ng c~l. ,Opinion is Congress will not act; therefore, back to buslness as us~T'ln lale-~~~ll. Service, $1. 5 Mi 11 ion 1987 F. Y. Budget .-. t!) l6.. RlI?Oj E' elS , 1;:"0,1._ _ President wants to phase out 566 Projects f-j--.c" fiRis~ ale PY'Qj~cti\ 1,0 IIt:W !>Ld,otS ~03S i b 1 e sc:e"ciI-i ~) . Will double check, but thought that about the same amount of money was budgeted in F.Y. 1987 (~. No di~ct <!9l1ars to Llagas (S.C.S. makes that detennination). S "., i: ('1\ ~;Tv ~ I Q A f'YV P ""O~Q ~ ' $500,000 in 1987 F.Y. Budget for start of Uvas-Carnadero (President's Budget). Must go through House, Senate and Conference Burlgets. Last year, lost it at Senate level. Opinion: Senate the key. Put pressure on Senators. Key People: Vic Fazio John ~~eyers Pete Wilson Alan Cranston All this information should be checked with S.C.V.W.D. lObbying and legislative people to confirm data. n _ 1- S TL S.c . V. U.J . ~ ~ Q b $' - ~ boo ~ 0 r-r... " I '" '-J e )C. T. 3 ~ b Telephone (408) 842-3191 QHt~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 6,1986 .... Mrs. Diane Stephens 650 Antonio Court Gilroy, .California 95020 Dear Mrs. Stephens: In reference to your request for an appointment of a public member to the Disaster Council~ I want to encourage you to act promptly. I will need the name and informal resume of several qualified people as soon as possible, as the Disaster Council has set its meeting schedule. Whomever would be appointed would have to be able to meet this schedule. Their first meeting will be a breakfast meeting at 7:00 a.m. on March 12. Their subsequent meetings, starting on March 18, will be from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. every Tuesday evening. The updating of the section of the Emergency Operations Plan'dealing with emergencies caused by floods should take approxi- mately three months. Updating the entire Plan will be ~n ongoing project with monthly or quarterly meetings. _Because of the complexity of this task, it is very important that the public member of tre Disaster Council be someone with previous training in disaster preparedness. Also, the persOn appointed must be ready to approach this task in a positive and constructive way if w~'are to accomplish the goal of being better prepared for a disaster in our corrmunity. It is a good idea to have a member of the community on the Disaster Council. Thanks for your help in securing names of some qualified people. Yours truly, ~~11~ Roberta H. Hughan Mayor RHH:ec cc: Paul Kloecker Pete Welton Telephone (408) 842-3191 ([ it~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 1], 1986 .. .. Mrs. Diane Stephens 650 Antonio Court Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Mrs. Stephens: You will be glad to know that as a result of your request and that of others, I will recommend to the City Council Monday night the appointment of a victim. of February1s flooding to the Disaster Council mandated by the City.s Emergency Operations Plan. That person is Ski p Kover, who 1 i ves on Johnson Way', where the homes were heavily impacted by flood waters. He meets all the criteria set forth in my letter to you and then some. He is trained as a geologist, so will have insight into causes and results of natural disasters. He is familiar with emergency preparedness procedures and is employed locally at the administration offices of Nob Hill Foods, so can easily make the scheduled meetings. He . demonstrated his commitment to the betterment of our community by last year running successfully for election to the Gavilan Water Conservation District Board of Directors. This is a real plus, as he can ser-ve as liaison to that District in developing cooperative emergency prepareoness plans based on ,real life exper- iences in a disaster. Thank you for submitting names for consideration and several resumes. Yours truly, H. HU~~~ RHH:ec cc: Skip Kover Pete Welton Gilroy City Councilmembers Jay Baksa Teiephone -(408) 842-3191 ([ift! af ~iIrat! ~ ~ 7351 Roscnno Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 13, 1986 Mr. Gary Thomas 95 Victoria Drive Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Mr. Thomas: As a result of requests from several people living in the neighborhoods that were flooded in February, I will recommend to the City Council Monday night the appointment of a victim of the flooding to the Disaster Council as mandated by the City's Emergency Operations Plan. Thank you for volunteering your services to the City as a member of the Council. Because of his unique qualifications, I will recommend appointment of Skip Kover, a Johnson Way resident. He is trained as a geologist, so will have insiaht into causes and results of natural disasters. He is familiar with emergency preparedness procedures, and is employed locally at the corporate offices of Nob Hill Foods, so caneasiliy make the scheduled meetings. He demonstrated his commitment to the betterment of our community last year by running successfully for election to the Gavilan Water Conservation Board of Di rectors. This is a real advantage, as he can serve as liaison to that district in developing cooperative emergency preparedness plans based on real life experiences in a disaster. Thank you again for offering to help. RHH:ec Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGH AN MAYOR March 18, 1986 Mr. Gregg Chisolm 375 Victoria Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr, Chisolm: Thank you for writing to express your op~n~on that the City of Gilroy should accept the six million dollar settlement to an insurance claim filed by Ray Bourhis, Attorney for some of the people whose homes and possessions were damaged or lost during the February 17th flood. Our agreement with our insurance company is similar to what yours must be with your insurer. We cannot spend their money up front. Extent of lia- bility, if any, must be determined before any money could be committed, parti- cularly when we are acting on behalf of taxpayers. Please keep in mind Mr. Bourhis does not represent every person who in any way, has or will be found to have, suffered flood damage. I am advised that any premature settlement on our part could deprive the rest of the citizens of Gilroy of insurance protec- tion. Within 45 days the City Council must act on the claim for eighty million dollars in damages filed by Ray Bourhis on behalf of his clients. We customari- ly deny large claims, in accordance with procedures as provided for in the Government Code. Then we will refer the claim to representatives of our claims adjustor and insurance carrier, again what anyone would have to do. Any further communi- cations will be made by insurance company representatives to legal representa- tives. Even now members of City government are limited as to what we can say or write by our attorneys. Any settlement negotiations could then begin and then Mr. Bourhis' pre- mature settlement offer could be considered. During this process the extent of the City's liability, if any, and for what, if anything, will be determined. The Councilmembers are very sensitive to this issue and in my opinion are committed to do what is just and equitable, and will make every effort to do so. -1- Mr. Chisolm March 18, 1986 Mayor Hughan You should also know that there is not six million dollars available for any possible settlement as our insurance coverage is an aggregate of six million dollars maximum per year. This year, there is almost 3.5 million dollars worth of claims, of varying degrees of legitimacy, already filed against the City which have not been settled. Any monies paid out in insurance claims above the aggregate sum of six million dollars would have to come from the City's general fund. Obviously, severe cutbacks in City services could result if funds were diverted. As for funding for construction of the Uvas-Carnadero Creeks levee project, we have a thick file of letters to Washington officials requesting each year that funding not be cut from the Corp. of Engineers' Federal Budget. In fact, this year the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors went to the extent of hiring a Washingto~ lobbyist to attempt to secure the funding. This project is stated to have one of the best cost-benefit ratios of any proposed flood con- trol project in the nation. Letters sent from individuals to their elected representatives in Wash- ington could make a real difference. We have supplied Ms. Diane Stephens of 650 Antonio Court with 500 copies of an information sheet about the levee project and the names of our Washington representatives which she is distributing in your neighborhood and others. Perhaps you would like to help her and encourage your neighbors to write. As to your oplnlons about the City's failure to perform its obligations, its gross negligence, mistakes, lack of concern or respect, inabilities and other inadequacies, I must respond that City Staff, appointed and elected officials did the best we could on the night of the flash flood and subsequently. If we did not meet your needs or expectations I am truly sorry. In City government we work hard to meet the needs of our citizens. Please consider that the quality of life in Gilroy that longtime residents want to pro- tect and that attracts new residents and new jobs is not accidental but based in large part on the longterm design and execution of good City policies. A few examples follow: The way the City's growth has been planned contributes greatly to the sense of community we value. We manage our growth so that new development is required to pay its own way and add amenities to the City. We have acres of parks which consistently win State awards for design. They accommodate our soft- ball programs in which 2,000 adults and 700 Little League youngsters participate. We have many other recreation programs such as the Special Olympics, Pre-School, Adult and Youth Basketball, Playground Programs, Aquatics and Gymnastics Club. We have an exemplary program for senior citizens located in their own facility. -2- e Mr. Chisolm March 18, 1986 Mayor Hughan Our Public Works Department keeps on top of our water supply, roads and new development. We have three employees charged with the protection of our underground water supply. In design of the wastewater treatment plant we did fail to provide for the effects of two consecutive years of very heavy rainfall with the subsequent overflows and odors. We learned fraT. our mistakes and those problems have been corrected and plans for a new, better plant are underway. We are continually expanding and upgrading our police and fire depart- ments to insure protection for our citizens. We have cooperative agreements with Gilroy School District and Gavilan College that are examples for other cities to follow. Gilroy Staff and elected officials are chosen to represent Santa Clara County regionally and even Statewide; we have earned the respect of our peers. City government is fiscally sound; we have no bonded indebtedness; we spend your tax dollars carefully. We have adequate and well maintained City buildings. Many of the City employees are long-time eTlployees; many were born in Gilroy. They have the well being of the community at heart and are proud of their service to the citizens of Gilroy. Through our cooperation and/or joint sponsorship with many local volun- teer groups representing a variety of ethnic, cultural, athletic, and educa- tional interests, as well as with the two Chambers of Commerce, the new Visi- tors' Bureau and the Garlic Festival Association, we foster the commitment to volunteerism and service that is the heart of the Gilroy spirit. Again, I appreciate your taking time to write on behalf of your neigh- bors; that's truly the Gilroy spirit. I also want you to know that daily we are receiving calls, letters and visits relating to the February flood, from people who live in the neighborhood south of Tenth Street that express grati- tude and support for City actions and, best of all, volunteering help, also in the Gilroy spirit. Yours truly, '1 . ~ I d/ i~/.,l'-t(;chc h IIL/ ;~L,? ;;~"-'~_, Roberta H. Hughan ) Mayor '-.j I RHH : s s cc: Jay Baksa Pete Welton Councilmembers ..-. -3- To: ,L::\y From: Dan Palmerlee Subject: February flood Ih2ay" c!<:,:\y, These are a few random thoughts on what I see as some Ii!f'f" are6:o.S o.f ccmcern for GilY"oy. I 'm sur~? these are all things that you have hashed over by the hour, but I see them as ~QQ~C~Dt unanswered questions, at least publicly unanswered. People think we are not addressing their questions, and I don't know what we can and can't say. I find it very frustrating, and feel that the litigation possibilities actually inhibit making progress on these i ~':;~S.LlE"~'; a A. DEVELOPMENT OF FLOODED LAND 1. Approval of FEMA maps without more critical revue. 2. Use of FEMA fnaps and apparent non-use of SCVWD maps in designing maps for Arcadia and other developments in the area of the flood. 3. Allowing development to take place without completion of I r::~Ve€~ proj €~ct. B. CITY DISASTER PLAN AND RESPONSE TO CRISIS 1. Lack of detailed disaster plan for potential flooding. 2. Lack of sufficient response during initial phase of .f I ood . C. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE 1. Revision of disaster plan <in progress) 2. Answer all questions asked verbally and in writing by flood victims. (Submit these to our attorneys to make decision what can be answered immediately?) 3. Press release in NEAR future with details of what has been done since the flood. I really appreciated your calm and patient manner the night of the public hearing, and I think the whole City staff has given more than 100% during the weeks since the flood. I hope all the men and women who have helped out since then know how much we on the Council appreciate their efforts. I'm personally proud to be associated with all of you. 8i nC:f-:?r-ey-; D;::\\"l 1t>L-~ March 9, 1986 Dal'"l Palmerlee 7351 Rosal'"ly.a St. Gilroy, Calif. 95020 Dear Day.: I aopreciate the fact that you came to il'"lspect the situation after the flood al'"ld I was glad I could share some of the facts with you. I feel bad that 1 fil'"ld myself il'"l this adversarial oosi t ion with you. Fc.rt lmately, I doy.' t feel that you are persol'"lally resool'"lsible, it's Just that you are il'"l the Ul'"lfortunate oositiol'"l of being a coul'"lcil member at this time. However, I believe that oftel'"l times good thil'"lgs come from bad situatiol'"ls. At least I cal'"l feel that someol'"le Ol'"l the council has my interests in mind. Evel'"lthough my house did not sustail'"l al'"lY damage, I strol'"lgly urge the City Council to acceot the $6 million dollar settlemel'"lt oroposed by home owners of this neighborhood. It is very importal'"lt that the people who were damaged by the flood be comoel'"lsated so that their lives might begin to return to some state of order. I honestly believe that the City did l'"Iot oerform its obligations to protect the peoole of this area before the ~lood. By obligations I mean the allowance by the city of develooment knowing that this area has flooded for years and years. I also meal'"l that the City officials did l'"Iot resoond Ol'"l the night of the flood. Steohanie al'"ld I were actually at Thomas Road al'"ld Pril'"lcevalle at 8:50 and remail'"led there until shortly after 9:00. At that time, there was a police- officer there when I realized that Antonio Ct. had flooded. As I got il'"l my car to go home to begin takil'"lg prevel'"ltive measures, the officer got in his car and drove away too. As I was driving away Princevalle was now a river. He did l'"Iot make any attempt to warn people of the area. Common sel'"lse told me to do this al'"ld I began to warl'"l my neighbors that Pril'"lcevalle was now a river and to preoare for a flood. Even if you didl'"l't have a plan, commol'"l sense by this officer could have made a major d i fferey.ce. I sincerely believe that there was gross negligence on the part of the City that l'"Iight and therefore the City Government must assume much of the blame. At this time I am l'"Iot a litigal'"lt il'"l this suit, but if I find that the property value of my home has drooped significantly, I am sure that I will Join the rest of my neighbors. I believe that the city also made a major mistake when the Council refused to move Monday's meeting to Wheeler Hall. It was very irritating when I was unable to see or hear the people soeaking. All this did was make people more angry than they already were and it also showed a lack of concern and resoect. I was also amazed at the inability of the city leaders to answer most of the questions which were asked. You had one week to preoare for this. I do believe that simoly changing this area to Zone A is not the answer to our problem. I do not look forward to paying at least $200 per year for flood insurance for the rest of my life. A levee must be built and the city must be agre~5ive in aoolying pre~sure to the people who make decisions. At the time Arcadia Development Comoany was given the go ahead to build here, the City made a major mistake assuming that the Federal Government would follow through. The City of Gilroy gambled and lost. So have the oeoole who own these homes. You and your insurance carrier can make a major impact on the victims of this flood by agreeing to pay the $6 million dollars now and also not make all the oeople of this community open to greater monetary damages through costly and time consuming legal battles. The City is aoparently responsible for this fiasco and the piper is playing his sad tune. I strongly urge you to accept the proposal and wioe your hands and the peoole you reoresen~ free of any more liabilty. Sincerely, Gregg Chisolm 375 Victoria Dr. Gilroy, Calif. 95020 ~(€. ffcod ~ CO~ ..- Telephone (408] 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR April 8, 1986 Mr. Mike Venuti 385 London Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr. Venuti: At the City Council Meeting of March 3, 1986 it was not possible to adequately answer your questions relating to local funding of the Uvas-Carnadero Creek Levee within the City of Gilroy. I want to explain briefly City financing restrictions and options. The total City Budget this year is about $22 million. By law about $14 million of that can only be spent for specific purposes. For example, money raised through water development and use fees can only be used to operate, main- tain or construct the municipal water system. The remaining approximately seven million dollars is in the City's General Fund and the City Council allocates that to pay for such things as the operation of the police and fire departments, main- tenance of buildings and parks, long-range land use planning, street maintenance, and recreation and senior citizen programs. Our main sources of income are the sales tax (one cent per taxable dollar spent in Gilroy), a portion of the property tax, and the utility tax. We have other smaller sources of revenue; we receive some State monies for specific programs. Federal revenue sharing funds were drastically reduced this year and will be eliminated this fall. In any case, there is never enough money to provide all the services to our citizens that you and we would like. Historically, capital projects such as schools, libraries, jails, and public works projects were paid for by local jurisdictions through sale of long term bonds. In an election, voters would approve a bond issue and the bond issue would be paid off through a levy added to our property taxes for 15-25 years. This is no longer possible in California since the passage of State Proposition 13; this is unfortunate as it was a very cost effective way of paying for capital projects. We can still issue revenue bonds; this is a method whereby cities raise money for capital projects which are revenue producing. For instance, we can fund the construction of a new sewer plant with revenue bonds; in that case the bond would be redeemed with monies raised from development fees and monthly charges for -1- ~ Mr. Venuti -2- Mayor Hughan wastewater disposal. Under the law no voter approval process is necessary. However, there is a method that a very few California jurisdictions have successfully used to raise funds for non-revenue producing operation and/or construction. Failing Federal funding this year, it will be investigated as a way to raise the money for the purchase of property and the building of a levee along the Uvas/Carnadero Creek within the City limits. This method is a Proposition 13 Override Tax on land parcels. In a city-wide election two-thirds (2/3) of the voters would have to approve the tax override. Then municipal bonds would be sold to raise the money to build the levee. The bonds would be paid off by levying a tax each year for 20 years, of a predetermined fixed amount, on each individual parcel of land in the Gilroy City limits. The amount levied on each lot would vary according to its use, i.e. residential, commercial, etc. For instance, under an unsuccessful attempt by the County of Santa Clara to pass an override tax for jail construction, resi- dential, vacant and agricultural parcels would have been taxed $20 per year and all other parcels $150 per year. These amounts cannot be determined for our project until we do con- siderable research. We will need to know the exact amount of money to be raised; the level of financial participation, if any, by Santa Clara County government, the State of California, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District; the number of land parcels in each category; and the current rate of interest on bond issues. There are several other methods to raise money, also involving voter approval, that can be investigated. At this time the State Proposition 13 Over- ride seems more feasible than an Assessment District or a Mello-Roos District. Currently, we are doing everything we can to secure the long promised Federal funding for the Corps of Engineers levee construction project. I am ]Olnlng officials from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the State of California in a trip to Washington, D.C. this month. We will meet with area legislators, officials in several federal government agencies, and testify at both the House of Representatives and Senate Committee Hearings on water project appropriations. I hope you and your neighbors are writing to our federal repre- sentatives and The President requesting funding. Unfortunately, this funding may still not be in the federal budget when it is passed by Congress and signed by The President in the fall. In that case, in my opinion, the City Council will seriously consider putting a proposal on the ballot in November for a Proposition 13 Override Tax for fund- ing of the levee project. Obviously, the big issue will be: Is the amount that must be levied on each parcel to pay for the levee construction an amount that local taxpayers will be willing to pay? . Mr. Venuti -3- Mayor Hughan If this tax measure goes on the ballot it will be imperative that citizens from the neighborhoods where the flooding occurred campaign actively to get two thirds of the Gilroy voters to vote yes. City governments by law cannot spend illoney on campaigns, so citizens' committees are the key. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Yours truly, /1 RHH: ss cc: City Councilmembers ..-1'ay Baksa Pete Welton John Booth Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 May 5, 19~ ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR Mr. James Warfield 85 Victoria Drive Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Mr. Warfield: On behalf of the Gilroy City Council, I am responding to your request to enumerate measures that the City is taking, or will take, to prevent another disastrous flood in your neighborhood. We want you and your neighbors to know that we do care about your situation and, therefore, are actively seeking preventative measures. Following are explanations of those measures. At the City, we are working on at least six fronts. These include the updating of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which will be based on the recommendations of the Disaster Council; intensifying interaction and cooperation with the local flood control and water conservation districts; working to secure federal funding for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' pajaro River Basin Uvas Carnadero Creek levee construction project; developing a fallback local funding scheme for that project; investigating interim flood control measures; and requesting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsideration of flood zone designation in Gilroy. Following a serious emergency in the community, the EOP calls for the formation of a Disaster Council. The Council is studying sections of the plan relating to floods. They are reviewing staff critiques and are considering additions or alterations to the plan that will reflect firsthand knowledge gained. Any necessary changes will be recommended to the City Council for action. I appointed Councilman Paul Kloecker Chairperson of the Disaster Council. He has had experience compiling and executing an EOP as a naval officer. Other members are Councilmembers Larry Mussallem and Don Gage, City Administrator Jay Baksa, Gavilan Water Conservation District Boardmember and flood victim, Skip Kover, and other city department directors as appropriate. They are meeting weekly and expect to make their formal recommendations on issues related to flooding in about three months. Following that, they will continue to work on other aspects of the plan. Mr. James Warfield Page Two May 5, 1986 Without waiting for a final Disaster Council report, several measures relating to emergency warning plans have already been adopted. As you know, the Thomas Road bridge has been marked to indicate water levels, and a diagram tying water levels to city emergency response procedures has been prepared and distributed to residents of the affected area. We have to depend on the Gavilan Water Conservation District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for flood control and water conservation measures countywide. The SCVWD flood control manager, Bob Smith, has met with the Disaster Council to find ways to improve cooperative action. He clarified the role of SCVWD in streambed maintenance on property in public ownership, on private property where the SCVWD has been granted easements, and where they have no legal access. Their right to enter private property is very limited. We have offered to aggressively help them in gaining access to land in, or adjacent to, the city limits. I understand the SCVWD is placing on the November ballot a measure to increase substantially the tax benefit assessment we pay to the District on each piece of property in South County. If approved, this could greatly increase their ability to maintain the streambeds and do other necessary work. If this goes on the ballot, the Gilroy City Council will consider endorsement of the measure. Citizen involvement would be a vital necessity, too. We have gained access by telephone to the readings on the gauges SCVWD maintains on Uvas Dam, a Gavilan Water Conservation District facility. This will allow us to monitor, at critical times, the water level changes at the dam and the release of water. The SCVWD is the lead agency for three current flood control projects in South County for which Gilroy City Councils have aggressively worked over the years. Their Central Valley Project, San Felipe Division, is designed to import water to our valley; it will be completed in 1988. Their Bureau of Reclamation PL 566 Project is the channelizing and improving of the streambeds of Llagas Creek and its tributaries in a phased program. Improvements already made were certainly instrumental in protecting from flooding, last February, homes and industries on the north and east sides of Gilroy. Mr. James Warfield Page Three May 5, 1986 Their other project, the Corps of Engineers' Uvas Carnadero Creek levee construction project, was authorized by Congress in 1944. Already, $190,000 has been spend by SCVWD in design of the project. The total estimated cost remaining is $5,463,000 with $1,875,000 the federal share. The SCVWD cost of $3,360,000 will be reimbursed by the State of California but will not be authorized by the state until the federal construction funds are available. A local recreation element cost of $80,000 is provided for in our Capital Improvement Plan. The County of Santa Clara is also involved as it plans to purchase land for recreation on the west side of the Uvas Creek, north of Christmas Hill Park. Under the Corps project, the two-lane Thomas Road bridge will be realigned. As more lanes become necessary, an assessment district will probably be formed by property owners on the west side of the creek to pay to widen the bridge. We are working to get federal funding for the Uvas Creek project and continued funding for the Llagas Creek project. Recently, I spent four days in Washington, D.C., as did a Santa Clara Valley Water District Director, their general manager, assistant general manager, and counsel. I testified at two House of Representatives Appropriation Subcommittee Hearings and a Senate Appropriation Subcommittee Hearing, as did they. Meetings were held with Congressmen Norman Mineta, Don Edwards and Ed Zschau. They indicated their continued support of our projects to us, and to the Subcommittees by letter, or in person. We also had meetings with officials of the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Recently, Larry Mussallem and Jay Baksa gave Representative Zschau a tour of the areas in our city that were flooded. Your letters to Congressmen and women have also indiacted support of these projects to the decisionmakers. The Gilroy Unified School District and the City of Morgan Hill are also actively supporting our efforts. As he did last year, President Reagan has approved funding of $500,000 for startup work on the levee project in the Corps of Engineers' budget. Once the project is started, we can reasonably expect the remaining federal funding to be in the budget next year. Mr. James Warfield Page Four May 5, 1986 How I wish we knew when all the federal decisions will be made. The first step will be the submission of the three Subcommittees' recommenda- tions to the two Appropriations Committees. They will then act on the proposals; this could happen in several weeks. Following will be meetings of the Congressional Conference Committees to resolve any differences in the House and Senate bills. The fiscal year ends in September, and the final budget adopted shortly before. I learned in Washington that anything can happen between now and then. The firm of Linton, Mields, Reisler and Cottone, Ltd. are the lobbyists hired by the SCVWD to watchdog progress of our projects. Should the funding be approved by Congress, the Santa Clara Valley Water District calendar currently indicates completion of plans and specifications by December of 1986, beginning of rights-of-way acquisition this summer, beginning of construction in summer of 1987, and completion in November 1988. In my opinion, the City Council must develop an alternative source of funding if no federal funding is forthcoming. The City of Gilroy does not have the funds to purchase land, construct a levee, relocate utilites, or replace the Thomas Road bridge. There is a method that very few California jurisdictions have successfully used to raise funds for non-revenue producing operation and/or construction. Failing federal funding this year, it will be investigated as a way to raise money for the levee project. This method is a Proposition 13 Override Tax on land parcels. In a citywide election, two-thirds (2/3) of the voters would have to approve the tax override. Then municipal bonds would be sold to raise the money to build the levee. The bonds would be paid off by levying a tax each year for 20 years, of a predetermined fixed amount, on each individual parcel of land in the Gilroy city limits. The amount levied on each lot would vary according to its use; i.e., residential, commercial, etc. For instance, under an unsuccessful attempt by the County of Santa Clara to pass an override tax for jail construction, residential, vacant and agricultural parcels would have been taxed $20 per year and all other parcels $150 per year. Mr. James Warfield Page Five May 5, 1986 These amounts cannot be determined for our project until we do considerable research. We will need to know the exact amount of money to be raised; the level of financial participation, if any, by Santa Clara County, the State of California, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District; the number of land parcels in each category; and the current rate of interest on bond issues. There are several other methods to raise money also involving voter approval, that can be investigated. At this time, the State Proposition 13 Override seems more feasible than an assessment district or a Mello-Roos district. If any tax measure goes on the ballot, it will be imperative that citizens from the neighborhoods where the flooding occurred campaign actively to get two-thirds (2/3) of the Gilroy voters to vote yes. City governments, by law, cannot spend money on campaigns, so citizens' committees are the key. If we wanted to build an interim flood control measure, the same State Proposition 13 Override method could be used to secure funding. However, the Santa Clara Valley Water District calendar could not be substantially speeded up because even a less ambitious levee would require a hydraulic study to determine the amount of flooding it would induce up and down stream, engineering design, possible Environmental Impact Report certification, purchase of land or easements, etc. before construction could start. Building a makeshift structure such as the one built on February 18 is not feasible. The force of a flash flood such as we had on February 17 would surely smash it. Also, no interim barrier could be built higher than the bottom of Thomas Road bridge, or the bridge would just act as a dam, raising the water level upstream or, alternately, the bridge could be washed out. We are continuing investigation with various engineers of a temporary water barrier, so far with no positive results. Because the temporary structure built the day after the flooding of your neighborhood is on private property and is obstructing the property owners' access to their home, the City has been requested to remove it as soon as the rainy season ends; we must comply. When the state monies for the levee are secured, this property will be purchased by the SCVWD. Mr. James Warfield Page Six May 5, 1986 We have been removing debris and growth in the Uvas Carnadero Creek bed within the city limmits since we leased that land from Santa Clara County and will continue to do so. We plan to schedule a community workday this summer to get help with that job. Because of the way Christmas Hill Park was planned, those lands provided an outlet for much of the floodwater. Lastly, on behalf of the City Council, I have written to the State Coordinator of the Flood Plain Management Program and FEMA requesting a study, and consideration of flood zone reclassification, of the areas of Gilroy which were flooded. However, because of the engineering studies required, we have been advised this could take two years. The result of reclassification of developed areas would be, as I understand it, that home mortgage holders would require borrowers to buy flood insurance. When Mrs. Kathy Haney spoke before the City Council earlier this month, we indicated to her that we are truly sympathetic to concerns about future flooding and are working to avoid another disaster. I want you to know both the City Council and staff are doing everything we can. The Disaster Council is working hard, and I feel my Washington D.C. trip will have very positive results. yourll dw~ H. Hughan I / U RHH:ec cc: Kathy Haney Pete Welton John Booth Jay Baksa City Councilmembers Editor, The Dispatch Telephone (408] 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR March 21, 1986 Ms. Tabbetha Bennett 435 Victoria Drive Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Ms. Bennett: On behalf of the Gilroy City Council, I will do my best, based on my current knowledge, to respond to your questions; if I can clear up any issues I am happy to help. However, because of the insurance claim, filed against the City of Gilroy by individuals affected by the flooding of your area of town on February 17th, I am limited by our insurance carriers and their attorneys to answers based purely on documented fact - no opinions or interpretations except where quoting outside sources. In your first question you ask who initiated the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain designation study that led to the changing of flood zones south of Tenth Street. We have not asked FEMA officials why they started a study of the entire Santa Clara County in the mid-seventies. They did hire George S. Nolte and Associates to perform this study, and that process result- ed in flood zone designations being promulgated for Gilroy in August 1980. In our files there is a letter written in 1976 from the then Gilroy City Administrator to FEMA engineers. In that letter he objected to a flood hazard area designation for the central area of Gilroy. He submitted with his letter a Santa Clara Valley Water District map which showed no projected flooding for central Gilroy north of Sixth Street. In questions 2 and 3 you ask if there were any stipulations made as to levee improvement work when there was a change in flood zone designation south of Tenth Street, and, if so, was such stipulated work completed. We have con- tacted FEMA officials and our understanding is that their policy dictates that no anticipated or proposed flood control improvements or structures can be con- sidered when designating flood zones. It then follows there were no stipulated levee improvements. In question 4 you ask what persons approved the FEMA flood zone designa- tions that became affective in August 1980. To allow our residents to buy flood insurance we joined the FEMA program in 1980. In doing so the Gilroy Planning Commission and the Gilroy City Council acquiesced in the flood zone maps as pre- pared by FEMA. -1- Ms. Bennett March 21, 1986 Mayor Hughan Also in regard to questions #1-4, Jay Baksa, our City Administrator, is having a chronology of events prepared relating to the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) flood area designations for the City of Gilroy. This chrono- logy will be based on and supported by letters, public notices; Federal, State and local laws and ordinances; minutes of City Council and Planning Commission Meetings; and other relevant documents. I believe this work will be complete in about two weeks, and following review by the attorneys, will be available from the Planning Department to the public, press and legal representatives. In question #5 you ask what person or persons in the City of Gilroy government approves building permits for the City. Those authorized to do so are City employees in the Building Department, i.e. currently, the Chief Build- ing Inspector, other building inspectors, the Plan Review Technician, and other employees who might under special circumstances be authorized to do so. In response to question #6, relating to differing building requirements in different flood zones, I understand FEMA, not the building codes, dictates in Zone A only the minimum floor level of buildings relative to the FEMA-estab- 1ished flood plain elevations. There are no FEMA requirements relating to con- struction in Flood Zone B. The answer to question #7 is the same as to #5, i.e., employees in the Building Department issue building permits. The building codes as adopted by the State of California and all local jurisdictions are The National Electrical Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Administrative Code, and the State Titles 24 and 25. In reference to question #8, about flood zone building requirements, we are checking our maps for the elevations of the FEMA-estab1ished Zone A flood plain elevation relative to the approved floor level of the homes in the Arcadia and other housing tracts south of Tenth Street that were built in Zone A. Preliminary examination of approved grading plans indicates that the FEMA requirements were met. Also, we have recently been given a copy of a letter written in August, 1983, to a representative of a developer of homes south of Tenth Street from a FEMA official. This letter seems to exempt some of homeowners from the require- ments to carry flood insurance. A copy of it will be available. I have answered your questions as you asked, using the accurate defini- tion of the terms "building permits" and "building codes". However, issuance of permits by building department officials to construct homes in a tract is the culmination of a lengthy approval process required to satisfy federal, state, special district, county, and City laws, codes, and ordinances. Locally, this process involves, at least, our Planning Department, Public Works Department, -2- Ms. Bennett March 21, 1986 Mayor Hughan the Building Department, the City Administration, the Planning Commission, City Council, the School Districts and public participation. If I can be of any future help, please contact me. Very truly yours, .lJ . ~ . I II ~ ./ UfJ./Vltv If, /~.. / lLILt-- Roberta H. Hughan / .I Mayor / / l..--/ RHH: ss cc: City Councilmembers Jay Baksa Dick Cox Michael Dorn Insurance Company Claims Adjustor Bruce Jacobs -3- Tabbetha Bennett 435 Victoria Dr. Gilroy, Ca 95020 Mr. Donald Gage, Councilman Gilroy, Ca Dear Mr. Gage: I live in the heart of the area south of 10th street that was flooded the night of February 17, 1986. Since that evening, an effort was made by by Pete Welton to organize the neighborhood in expressing concerns about the flood event. This resulted in block captains being chosen. The purpose of the block captains is to disseminate information back to their designated areas, and also pose as spokesperson for their areas concerns and questions. I am the block captain for Victoria Drive from Thames Drive to Church Street. Below are questions from this area that are outstanding for a variety of reasons, (I.E. rumors, and newspaper reports have presented conflicting information). It would be greatly appreciated if you could clear up these issues. These questions pertain to the area south of 10th street which flooded February 17, 1986. 1. Who requested that FEMA initiate the study that led to re-zoning the area south of 10th street from flood zone A to flood zone B? 2. When the zone change was made from flood zone A to B, was it done with the stipulation that the Uvas Creek Levee Improvement Project should be completed, or was the zone change unrelated to the levee project? 3. If improvements to the Uvas Creek Levee were required to change the flood zone from A to B, were any of those modifications performed? 4. Which person or persons in the Gilroy City Government approved the flood zone change from A to B proposed by FEMA in 1980? 5. Which person or persons in the Gilroy City Government approves building permits for the city of Gilroy? 6. Are there requirements within the might change depending on the construction site falls in? building codes that flood zone that the Page 2 7. Which person or persons in the Gilroy City Government approved the Arcadia building permits and building codes for the area south of 10th street? 8. If building codes differ according to the flood zone, were the Arcadia residences south of 10th street built to zone B specifications or zone A specifications? I realize that research since the 1979 - 1981 time devoted to some of these questions may take some we are referencing events which happened in time frame. However, your attention and this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, -J--d~{uk {~t/l/%-- Tabbetha Bennett cc All other council members Mayor Hughan Vice Mayor Albert Telephone (408) 842-3191 Qlit~ of ~iIro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 ROBERTA H. HUGHAN MAYOR ... February 28, 1986 State of California Department of Water Resources c/o A.J. Brown State Coordinator of Flood Plain Management Program P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Dear Mr. Brown: As you know, the City of Gilroy suffered a great deal of damage during the recent floods. Although the flood has been described as a 25-year flood, most of our damage was sustained in areas in the southern part of our city shown on FEMA maps as "Flood Zone B," the 500-year flood plain. It is clear, then, that a restudy and reclassification of this area is necessary as soon as possible. . . To assist your staff and FEMA with this study and reclassification, the City of Gilroy will be happy to provide whatever data and documentation we have on past flooding as well as a complete synopsis of this year's flood, which we are now compiling. The population of Gilroy was estimated by the State Department of Finance at 26,132, as of January 1, 1985. Our General Plan projects the population to increase to 30,000 in 1990 and to 40,000 in the year 2000', and regional pro- jections show even higher projections. We do not want the people of Gilroy to be subjected to this type of disaster again in the future. Please assist us by scheduling this restudy as soon as possible. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, /J. Roberta H. Hughan Mayor cc: Assemblyman Rusty Areias Santa Clara Valley Water District -, Federal Emergency Management Agency Washmgton, D.C. 20472 June 25, 1986 IN REPLY REFER TO: IA-RA-TO (121) The Honorable Roberta Hughan Mayor, City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95060 Dear Mayor Hughan: This is in response to a Flood Insurance Rate Map inquiry as noted below: Inquirer: Richard L. Cox Director of Public Works Community: City of Gilroy, California Uvas Creek Levee Investigation We are reviewing the data used to prepare the map, and our consulting engi- neers will be contacting you to discuss flooding problems. Please make available to them any technical flood or topographic information you may have, and let them know about information that you believe may be available from other sources. After all technical data have been received and analyzed, the map will be revised, if necessary. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, h L. Matticks Acting Chief, Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration cc: Richard L. Cox, Director of Public Works Telephone (408) 842-9321 Qlit~ of ~ilro~ 7351 Rosanna Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 RICHARD L. COX DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS June 6, 1986 Brian K. Mrazik, Ph.D. Assistant Administrator Office of Risk Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington DC 20472 '. Dear Mr. Mrazik: The Uvas Creek Levee overtopping in Gilroy created many millions of dollars in losses to the area residents and local businesses. Flooding occured to depths of three to five feet in streets and up to two feet in homes. The B Zone designation for this area is very questionable and should be reassessed. The only changes to the area have been local subdivisions and minor creek cleaning since the original study was completed. No changes have been made in the Uvas Creek or the original levee configuration. I am including a copy of land use maps and the Army Corps of Engineers plans showing the existing levee and creek configurations and some inundation areas affected by the flood of 1986. Other data if required may be available from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Attached please find a list of contact persons and their addresses. Thank you, ~C{~ Richard L. Cox Director of Public Works RLC : kp . . " Project Manager Uvas Creek Flood Control Project Mike Bouner 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814-4794 Senior Engineer Santa Clara Valley Water District Randy Talley 5750 Almaden Expwy. San Jose, CA 95118