Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_01_08_01_Both_Discussion_ItemsSACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE TOUR JANUARY 12-13, 2015 MS4 Permit — Talking Points The additional costs to implement the monitoring plans and the watershed management plans are enormous, both as a whole and in comparison to the costs to implement the requirements of the previous permits. While we can't make real budget estimates until the plans are approved by the Regional Board, early speculation is that the cost will be in the mid to high tens of millions for the LA County permittees (that is, per permittee). This is a completely new burden and will be an increase of many orders of magnitude over cost to implement the previous three permits. 2. There are also new and extensive monitoring requirements going into effect. Previously, the Los Angeles County Flood Control or the Sanitation Districts conducted monitoring on behalf of the cities. Now this burden is increasingly falling on cities. Annual costs are anticipated to be well into the six figures for each watershed group. 3. The permit process is long and contentious. The 2012 permit should have been delivered in 2006 and is still being contested. Consider extending the permit cycle, or limit the scope of changes the Regional Board can make in the 5 -year cycle. Cities are also being forced to monitor for and assume responsibility for pollutant levels that are naturally occurring, and for which they have no ability to control or regulate. 4. Many of the mandates placed on the permit holders to "prove their innocence" in matters of compliance are very costly, on technical, legal and administrative terms. Consider non-competitive state funding for meeting these requirements, especially those that place the burden on the permittee to show that it is not contributing to a pollution issue. Permittees should be required to manage their pollution, certainly, but not to prove they're not polluting to the excessive standards of a hyper -vigilant and litigious environmental community. Consider placing this burden elsewhere, perhaps on the Regional Board itself. SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE TOUR JANUARY 12-13, 2015 City Loan to Former Redevelopment Agency — Talking Points Summary of Issue • Funding for redevelopment projects included loans from sponsoring agencies. • The RPV Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was formed in 1984 to mitigate an active coastal landslide in the project area. • The City of RPV loaned total principal of $6.7 million over the course of 13 years (1990 through 2012). This money was used for landslide mitigation projects. • The RPV Oversight Board found that the loan was an enforceable obligation, and RPV has received a Finding of Completion from the California Department of Finance (DOF). • Dissolution law states "the accumulated interest on the remaining principal amount of the loan shall be recalculated from origination at the interest rate earned by funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund" (LAIF). • Using LAIF rates since the loan's inception in 1990, the RPV loan has accrued $5.3 million of interest. • The DOF interpretation of dissolution law requires accrued interest calculations for sponsoring -agency loans to be based upon the LAIF rate earned for the calendar -year quarter during which the local Oversight Board approved the loan. • For RPV, that interest rate was 0.264% (4th quarter 2013). The total accrued interest would be calculated as $324,000 (vs. $5.3 million). • The loan was made from the City's General Fund, in good faith that it would eventually be repaid from property tax generated within the project area. • If the City were to accept a lower interest rate on its loan, the City would be subsidizing other state and local agencies that receive property tax from our project -area. • We have no other example of a current interest rate being applied to a historical financial event. The DOF interpretation does not make sense. Current Status of Citv Loan Even though RPV disagrees with the DOF interpretation for accrued interest, repayments of the RPV Loan (beginning in the current fiscal year) have been approved by the DOF; only because the repayment amount (calculated per formula outlined in dissolution law) is so much less than the principal amount owed. The calculated repayment for FY14-15 is $72,915. Proposed Legislation AB -1582 was introduced by Assembly Member Mullin in February 2014. The bill was amended by both the Senate & Assembly, and referred to the Committee on Rules during the 2013-14 regular session. Rancho Palos Verdes sent a letter of support to Senator Steinberg in August. Summary of Position • Other agencies agree with our position. RPV Staff has been contacted by two cities (Fresno & Glendale), and a law corporation representing other cities (Enterprise Counsel Group) that disagree with the DOF interpretation. • Adopt state legislation clarifying that historical LAIF earnings rates should be used to calculate accrued interest for historical periods.