CC SR 20151117 02 - Master Plan of Drainage and EngineersCITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEBORAH CULLEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND ENGINEER'S
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR STORM DRAIN USER
FEE 2016 RENEWAL
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER t'l/V\)
Staff Coordinators : Kathryn Downs, Deputy Director of Fina3 ce rt/)
Andy Winje, PE, Senior Engineer ~'V
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive and file a summary of the 2015 Master Plan of Drainage (on the City's
website since October 1, 2015), and the Draft Preliminary Report for the Water
Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm Drain User Fee, 2016 Renewal
(attachment A).
2 . Schedule a public hearing for January 19, 2016; to consider whether the City
should conduct a mail-ballot election of affected property owners, for a 10 -year
extension of the storm drain user fee with the same fee structure and methodology .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City's Storm Drain User Fee (Fee) was established in 2005, and is paid by about
80% of property owners. In 2007, the City's voters imposed a 10-year sunset on the Fee,
and FY15-16 is the last year of collection. The City collects about $1.3 million annually
from the Fee, which is restricted to the storm drain system. Staff is recommending the
City conduct a mail-ballot election of property owners to determine whether the Fee
should be extended for another 1 O years. After reviewing the Rate Engineer's Report
indicating the Fee assumptions, methodology and structure are still valid and compliant
with law , Staff proposes no changes to the structure of the Fee.
1
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL
November 17, 2015
Page 2 of 6
The information in this report was presented to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee on
October 29th, the Finance Advisory Committee on November gth, and the Infrastructure
Management Advisory Committee on November 12th.
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
A straw vote indicated that 3 members supported Staff's recommendation to move
forward with a mail-ballot election (Kim, Lyon and Sala), 1 member opposed at this time
(Radich), and 1 member was undecided (Johnson). All members appeared to recognize
the scope of the City's storm drain needs. Members in support of a mail-ballot election
noted the quantified storm drain need, a desire to balance the City's available resources
with other infrastructure needs, and the range of potential expenditures for water quality
compliance. Noting the City's fund balances, Member Radich opined the City has
accumulated enough General Fund money for the first 4-5 years of the program; and
depending on its financial condition at the end of that period, the City could consider
asking the voters for another user fee. Member Johnson was in favor of a dedicated
revenue source for storm drains; but unsure if the user fee is the most appropriate choice.
Member Johnson indicated that storm drains will compete with other demands for the
City's limited resources (e.g. MS4 permit compliance, landslide management, other
infrastructure); but noted the other demands have not been fully quantified.
Finance Advisory Committee (FAC)
The FAC provided excellent feedback regarding presentation of information to the public,
and unanimously approved the following statement prepared by the Committee.
"Considering the potential costs of storm drain needs, absent a dedicated revenue source,
the ability to continue to fund the City's ongoing infrastructure needs would be in jeopardy.
The FAG recommends the City Council set the public hearing for February 2016."
The FAC discussed risk associated with the storm drain program, noting the
consequences of a failed storm drain may be much more significant than the
consequences of a failed roadway. The FAC considered whether the City should bear
the potential risk of storm drain failure without having asked the voters.
Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC)
Due to the timing of the IMAC meeting and City Council agenda distribution, a summary
of the IMAC discussion and any recommendations will be provided to the City Council as
late correspondence.
BACKGROUND
The City's storm drain program results include:
2
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL
November 17, 2015
Page 3 of 6
• Completion of San Ramon Canyon stabilization and Mccarrell Canyon drainage
improvements;
• Completion of: drainage projects at Sunnyside Ridge, PVDE and La Vista Verde,
the PVDE Switchbacks, Via Colinita, Miraleste Plaza, Seacove, Palos Verdes Bay
Club, and Mossbank;
• Rehabilitating and lining of more than 15,000 linear feet of corrugated metal pipe
(through 2015 for a cost of about $4.8 million), extending the life of those pipes for
another 25 years; and
• Performing cleaning and video inspection of all accessible and known City-owned
storm drains. Some locations received multiple cleanings and inspections.
Through FY15-16, total program expenses are expected to total $42.1 million.
Spent through FY13-14
Spent FY14-15
Budget FY15-16 (includes carryovers from FY14-15)
Total Program Expenses
$ 34, 245, 934
3,394,327
4,457,021
$42,097,282
Through FY15-16, total program resources are expected to total $44.4 million.
Fee revenue (lOyears, including FY15-16estimate)
Grant Revenue
Interest Earnings (including FY15-16estimate)
General Fund Contributions
Total Program Resources
Estimated Ending Fund Balance June 30, 2016
Total Program Expenses
$12,983,468
9,464,727
562,057
21,355,734
$44,365,986
2,268,704
$42,097,282
As illustrated above, the program's ending fund balance at June 30, 2016 is estimated to
be $2,268,704.
DISCUSSION
Master Plan of Drainage & Condition Assessment
On October 1, 2013 the City Council awarded a contract to RBF Consulting (now Michael
Baker International) to develop a Master Plan of Drainage for the storm water drainage
system in the City. This effort involved desk top and field studies to inventory the city's
storm drain system, develop a GIS layer based on all known data, and model the system
under prescribed rainfall events to determine where capacity deficiencies in the system
may be present. The deficient areas are further studied to develop a conceptual level
"project" that would correct the deficiency. The costs for these conceptual projects are
estimated using rough, industry-wide, unit costs to determine an order of magnitude
3
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL
November 17, 2015
Page 4 of 6
estimate to correct all the capacity deficiencies in the City. To conclude the master plan,
a prioritization scheme is developed, based on risk, to determine an implementation
program and schedule for implementation of the conceptual projects.
The 2015 Master Plan of Drainage has been completed and posted to the City's website
(as of October 1, 2015 at http://www.rpvca.gov/901 /Master-Plan-of-Drainage). The Plan
includes recommendations to correct hydrologic (direction of movement) and hydraulic
(flow capacity) deficiencies in the City's storm drain system. Estimated project costs total
$17,614,000 (in 2015 dollars). This list does not include projects for new infrastructure
(e.g. San Ramon Canyon stabilization was new infrastructure). The $17.6 million
estimate does not include additional work that may be necessary due to the unique
characteristics of the City (e.g. geotechnical studies and utility surveying), nor does it
include storm drain lining.
The 2014-15 closed circuit television condition assessment of the City's entire storm drain
pipeline indicates that 18,352 of pipe is in "urgent" need of lining (average through severe
defects of corrugated metal pipe), at an estimated cost of about $10 million.
Storm drain improvements over the last ten years are considered to be in good condition,
and are not are not a part of these estimated costs.
Proposed New Infrastructure -Unfunded
The 2015 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan identified storm drain projects for new
infrastructure, but did not identify funding. These projects were identified by Staff based
on the age of the existing infrastructure, landslide area and requirements relating to the
Municipal Storm Sewer System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MS4
Permit). Estimates of minimum and maximum project costs are listed below.
Project Minimum
Altamira Canyon Drainage $ 1,600,000
Paintbrush Canyon Drainage 2,568,000
Miraleste Canyon Drainage 2,500,000
San Pedro Canyon & Averill Canyon Drainage 2,700,000
Catch Basin Screen Installation 600,000
Totals $ 9,968,000
Summary of Storm Drain System Needs
Correct Storm Drain Deficiencies
Unfunded New Storm Drains (midpoint)
Storm Drain Lining
Estimated Total Costs
Maximum
$ 5,350,000
2,568,000
3,200,000
3,300,000
900,000
$ 15,318,000
$ 17,614,000
12,643,000
10,000,000
$ 40,257,000
Midpoint
$ 3,475,000
2,568,000
2,850,000
3,000,000
750,000
$ 12,643,000
4
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL
November 17, 2015
Page 5 of 6
The $40.3 million estimated cost spread over a 10-year program results in a spending
plan of about $4 million annually (excluding ongoing maintenance). The City's transient
occupancy tax revenue transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund is
about $5 million annually. The City has accumulated reserves, which include about $15.2
million in the General Fund and $13.3 million in the CIP Fund at June 30, 2015
(unaudited). However, the City has other demands on its resources.
The City must comply with new federal and state mandates for clean storm-water runoff.
Information presented in May 2015 to the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicates
that the City may be responsible for $36 million to $58.5 million of projects to achieve
storm water quality compliance. Detailed information is posted on the City's website.
The City must balance the use of its resources. In addition to unfunded storm drain
improvements, there are many other recommended infrastructure projects identified in
the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan with estimated costs ranging from a total of $20
million to $27 million that remain unfunded. Many of these projects address safety and
access issues; and include improvements in the public right-of-way, City park sites, and
City-owned buildings. Detailed information is posted on the City's website, and is an
appendix of the City's FY15-16 Budget Document.
As we all know, there is also an active landslide in the City; and the impacts of that
landslide must be managed. The City Council has funded a series of new dewatering
wells, and has planned for relocation of the roadway back into the City's right-of-way;
however, more infrastructure projects may be needed to protect human safety and
regional access. The FY15-16 budget includes an allocation of $75,000 to develop a
strategic plan to articulate the City's short and long-term goals related to groundwater
pumping, public safety, emergency response, and roadway maintenance/replacement.
If we combine the estimated storm drain needs with other demands for City resources, as
illustrated below, it becomes clear that the City's $5 million revenue stream and
accumulated reserves can pay for some of the City's needs, but not all.
Estimated storm drain needs, spread over lOyears
Estimated other infrastructure funded with General Fund money,
per 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):
Residential street rehabilitation
Other infrastructure (Landslide, Park lmpr, Roadways, etc.)
Midpoint of estimated water quality compliance, spread over 10
years
Midpoint of other unfunded infrastructure (per 2015 CIP), spread
over lOyears
Potential Infrastructure Demands on General Fund
Annual
$ 4,025,700
1,720,000
3,049,406
4,725,000
2,350,000
$ 15,870, 106
5
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
STORM DRAIN USER FEE RENEWAL
November 17, 2015
Page 6 of 6
CONCLUSION
The success of the first ten years of the program, along with the information presented
above, is the basis for Staff's recommendation to extend the Fee for another ten years.
Process to Extend the Fee
The required proceedings for an extension of the Fee are very similar to the proceedings
undertaken by the City in 2005 to establish the Fee. An election is required, and the City
Council has the option of holding a registered voter election or conducting a mailed ballot
election of the affected property owners. The extension of the Fee must be approved by
a two-thirds vote if the election is by the registered voters, and by a majority vote if the
election is by the property owners. Staff recommends that the City conduct a property
owner mailed ballot election as was done in connection with the approval of the existing
Fee, because the property owners pay the Fee.
On June 2, 2015, the City Council authorized the Fee Rate Engineer to analyze the Fee
structure and methodology to ensure assumptions are still valid and compliant with
changes in the law over the last ten years. The Rate Engineer's analysis has been
completed, and the attached report indicates that assumptions are still valid and
compliant with the law.
The process to extend the Fee via a mail-ballot election in spring 2016 can be
summarized as follows.
• City Council decision whether to conduct a public hearing in February -tonight's
agenda item.
• Mail Notices of Public Hearing -December 2015.
• Conduct Public Hearing -February 2016.
• Ballot Period -February-March 2016.
• City Council adopts results of election; and, if the results are favorable, considers
ordinance to extend the Fee -April 2016.
Attachment
A -Draft Preliminary Report for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Storm
Drain User Fee (2016 Renewal) -page 7
6
DRAFT
Preliminary Report
for the
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee
{2016 Renewal)
For the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Los Angeles County, California
October 21, 2015
7
City of Rancho Palos Ve.rdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificates ................................................................. Pg. 1
Introduction ............................................................... Pg. 2
Cost Estimates ............................................................ Pg. 5
Annual Fee Rate Calculations .................................... Pg. 6
Sample Calculations ................................. Pg. 10
Approval Process Flow Chart ............................... Exhibit A
Assessment Roll .............................. Under Separate Cover
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
11 I Harris & Associates
8
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Preliminary Report
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Storm Drain User Fee
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 1
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.
DATED: October 21, 2015
BY: K. Dennis Klingelhofer
R.C.E. No. 50255
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll thereto attached,
was filed with me on the __ day of , 2015.
Carla Morreale, City Clerk,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Los Angeles County, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll thereto attached
was finally adopted and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on
the __ day of , 2015.
Carla Morreale, City Clerk,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Los Angeles County, California
11 J Harris & Associates
9
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DR!'kFr
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
INTRODUCTION
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 2
To ensure dedicated funding for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes established a user fee in September 2005. Fiscal Year 2015-16 was the final
year of the original fee, however with the additional projects as recommended by the update to the
Master Plan of Drainage it is necessary to consider continuing the fee. The purpose of this report is
to:
• Review the requirements of Article XlllD of the State Constitution (Proposition 218)
relating to requirements for apportioning the costs associated with the storm drain
system.
• Ensure that the fee rate structure established is fair and equitable for the levying of the
costs of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program.
• Identify changes in impervious factors for residential properties that were previously
capped in the original fee.
• Outline the process to continue the Fee based on Proposition 218.
Proposition 218 Requirements
All fees must comply with the provisions of Article XlllD of the California Constitution (Proposition
218). Section 6.b of Proposition 218 has the following requirements for all "new, extended,
imposed or increased" fees and charges:
1) "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the
property-related service."
2) "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for
which the fee or charge was imposed.11
3) "The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property
ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel."
4) "No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or
immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on
potential or future use of service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as
charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without
compliance with [the assessment section of this code]."
5) "No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited
to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the public at large
in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.11
11 I Harris & Associates
10
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DFU\FT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 3
There have been a number of court cases related to property-related fees in the last few years;
however they have all focused on water rates or groundwater charges. The only substantive part of
these cases that related to storm water fees is the requirement that the fees be based on the cost
of service and that they must be proportional. The City's current rate structure complies with this
requirement.
Rate Structure Analysis
Within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes there are many separate watersheds of various terrain and
with inlets, pipes and channels made of various materials and in various conditions. Some of these
watersheds flow directly to the ocean and others flow through other cities or into the
unincorporated county areas.
All parcels draining into City-maintained drainage infrastructure are proposed to be charged the
same user fee rate per ERU for storm drain renewal and maintenance. The Water Quality and Flood
Protection Fee is proposed to be extended for an additional ten years and the storm drain
improvement program that is being funded is anticipated to upgrade the entire City's storm drain
system to a uniform level of maintenance needs in the future.
Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out of the City without going through any City-
maintained drainage infrastructure are not included in this fee. There are also a number of County-
maintained pipes within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these pipes and the pipe system
does not include any City-maintained infrastructure, then they are not included in the fee.
The current Hydrology Manual and adopted impervious percentages have been reviewed for
consistency with current case law and Proposition 218 requirements. There were not any changes
that would have significant bearing on the current methodology.
Impervious Factor Changes
At the time of the original formation, one of the changes incorporated from the early appeals and
property owner concerns during the balloting timeframe was for the properties larger than 0.75
acres. It was determined those properties would be reviewed for actual imperviousness because
there was a greater potential for a portion of the property to consist of slopes therefore limiting the
amount of buildable area and therefore impervious area. That review resulted in several properties
having a reduced impervious percentage and fee.
Going forward, the properties that were capped in the original SFR5 category were reviewed to
confirm their actual impervious percentage and are now included in the SFR6 category which has
been changed to include all SFR properties 0.75 acres and greater.
Approval Process
The Article XIII D of the California Constitution requires that the proposed Fee must go through a
two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing, and the second step is a property
owner election.
111 I Harris & Associates
11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Public Hearing
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page4
All property owners subject to the proposed Fee will be given the opportunity to protest the Fee at
the Public Hearing scheduled for January 19, 2016. If at the conclusion of the Public Hearing,
written protests against the proposed Fee have been filed (and not withdrawn) by the owners of a
majority of the parcels subject to the Fee, then the process will stop and the Fee will not be
imposed.
A written protest must identify the property and be signed. The City cannot accept electronic
protests, such as email or texting. In order to be counted in determining whether there is a
majority protest, written protests must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the
Public Hearing. Written protests may be delivered to the City Clerk at the Public Hearing or mailed
or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall at the address shown on the front of this notice. Protests
which are mailed or delivered to City Hall must arrive at City Hall by 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2016
to be counted. Only one written protest will be counted per parcel.
Property Owner Election
If there is an absence of a majority protest, the City Council may order an election on the proposed
Fee. One ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the proposed Fee. Ballots will be mailed
to the record owner(s) of the parcels and property owners will be given 45 days to return their
ballot. Property owners will be informed of the date and time tabulation of the ballots will occur
and they will have the opportunity to view the tabulation process. The results will be presented to
the City Council at the next regular Council Meeting following the completion of the tabulation and
the Council may impose the Fee if the Fee is approved by the majority of the returned ballots. If
approved, the fee will be collected on the annual County Property Tax Bills for ten years
commencing with FY 2016-17. The mailed ballot election is expected to occur in spring of 2016.
A flowchart of the Approval Process is provided in Exhibit A.
H I Harns & Associates
12
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRl\Ff
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
COST ESTIMATE
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 5
The estimated annual costs to fund the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program are provided
below in Table 1.
Table 1-Estimated Annual Costs
Budget
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (7/1/15) $863,848
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Annual Fee Levy $1,439,785
Interest Earnings $7,800
$1,447,585
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Point Repairs $900,000
Pipe Lining $340,836 -----
~iscellan.E;!OUS Repairs & __ Maintenance $245,544
_Reserve for Anticipated Ad~itional Costs
Administration (contract/staff engineer) $79,736
$1,566,116
ESTIMATED ENDING FUND BALANCE (6/30/16) $745,317
The ending fund balance constitutes a Reserve for Future Projects.
11 J Harris & Associates
13
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
ANNUAL FEE RATE CALCULATIONS
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 6
By definition, all properties that drain into the City's storm drain system use the storm drain system.
The amount of use attributed to each parcel is measurable by the amount of storm runoff
contributed by the property, which is directly proportional to the amount of impervious area on a
parcel (such as buildings and concrete). The more impervious area on a property, the more storm
runoff the property generates. Vacant, unimproved parcels are still in their natural states and do
not contribute any additional runoff to burden the system, therefore these parcels are not charged
a storm drain fee.
Table 2 shows the estimated Impervious Percentages for single-family residential (SFR) properties
of various size ranges. These Impervious Percentages are the estimated percent impervious cover
on a property based on a ten percent data sampling of SFR parcels within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes when the fee was initially adopted. For the renewal process we reviewed all the appeals
that have been filed since the district was formed. Of the 75 appeals that were received, 65 were
approved. Because the percentages of appeals compared to the total number of parcels for each
land use was small, the only trend identified was for SFRs on larger lots. The lots 0.75 acres and
greater were moved to the SFR6 category and actual impervious area was calculated for each.
Looking at the aerials of the properties where multiple appeals were in the same tract verified the
appealed properties were the anomalies in that tract.
Because of the variations in condominiums and non-SFR properties, which include: multi-family
residential, institutional (such as churches and private schools) and government-owned properties,
these properties are reviewed individually using the GIS and Aerial photography to determine the
actual Impervious cover for each parcel.
Table 2 -SFR Impervious Percentages
Land Impervious
Use Percentage SFR Size Ranges
SFR1 74.0% 0.01 -0.16acres(-1 sf--7,012sf)
SFR2 58.0% 0.161 -0.20 acres (-7 ,013 sf --8,755 sf)
SFR3 48.5% 0.201 -0.28 acres (-8,756 sf --12,239 sf)
-----·----------···---. ---. ----·----------------··---------------------------""-------
SFR4 41.0% 0.281 -0.54 acres (-12,240 sf--23,565 sf)
SFR5 34.5% 0.541 -0.74 acres (-23,566 sf --32,669 sf) --
SFR6 n/a* 0.75 acres and greater
* the actual impervious percentage is used for each parcel.
The amount each parcel uses the storm drain system is computed by the following formula:
(Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage)= Drainage Units
The more Drainage Units a parcel has, the more storm run-off it generates, and the more it uses the
storm drain system.
It is often convenient to relate other land uses to a developed single family home, instead of
working exclusively with Drainage Units. Since 83% of the parcels within the City are designated as
11 I Harris & Associates
14
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 7
Single Family Residential (SFR) parcels, and the median number of Drainage Units is 0.118 for all SFR
parcels, it makes sense to relate all parcels to this median residential property. Therefore, 0.118
Drainage Units is set equal to one Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU}.
Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out of the City without going through any City-
maintained drainage infrastructure are not included in this fee. There are also a number of County-
maintained pipes within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these pipes and the pipe system
does not include any City-maintained infrastructure, then they are not included in the fee. These
areas, which consist of approximately 3,047 parcels, are excluded from the Storm Drain User Fee.
For the purposes of this report, City-maintained infrastructure includes pipes, inlets, outlets, and
natural drainage courses, and is also referred to as the "City's storm drain system."
Inventory of Parcels
Table 3, below, provides a summary of parcels by land use and shows the current estimated
Drainage Units compared to the FY 2015-16 final roll.
Table 3 -Drainage Unit Comparison Table
Percent
Current Change in
Land lmperv. Drainage Prior Drain Drain Units
Use Parcels Acreage Percent Units Units over Prior Yr
SFR1 1, 114 162.569 74.0% 120.055 120.055 0.00%
SFR2 1,899 349.683 58.0% 202.669 202.669 0.00%
f-----
SFR3 3,097 736.832 48.5% 357.420 357.420 0.00%
SFR4 2,811 1,108.431 41.0% 451.424 451.424 0.00%
SFR5 587 366.114 34.5% 123.705 123.705 0.00%
SFR6 376 430.965 actual* 100.612 94.956 5.96%
CNDO 1,845 139.458 actual* 95.708 95.708 0.00%
MFR 39 53.690 actual* 41.736 41.736 0.00%
COM 47 144.935 actual* 75.717 75.717 0.00%
INST 20 114.240 actual* 64.669 64.669 0.00%
GOV 48 490.258 actual* 120.473 120.473 0.00%
11,883 4,097.175 1,754.188 1,745.225 0.51%
Table 4 provides a summary of ERU for each land use based on the current Drainage Units.
11 I Harns & Associates
15
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DR!\FT
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report Page 8
S_FR_1 __ 1~,1_14 __ 162.569 1,017.4233 SFR: 0.01 -0.16 acres (-0 sf--7,012 sf)
srn2 ___ 1,899 ___ 349.683 1,zE_.!5_829 §f~: o.1(3_1_-:0.2Q§.c;_r_es_(:-:ZJQ1~ s_f_-_:8J§5_sfl
SFR3 3,097 736.832 3,029.0239 SFR: 0.201 -0.28 acres (-8,756 sf--12,239 s
SFR4 2,811 1, 108.431 3,825.6320 SFR: 0.281 -0.54 acres (-12,240 sf --23,565 sf)
S_F_R_5 ____ 58_7 __ 36_6_.1_1_4 __ 1~,0_4_8_.3_47_8_S_F_R_:o_._54_1_-_o_.7_4_9 __ a_cr_e_s~(-_2_3~,5_66_s_f_-_-_32~,6_6_9_s~f) _ ___,
SFR6 376 __ 4_3_0_.9_6_5 ___ 8_5_2_.6_4_45_S_F_R_:_0_.7_5_a_c_re_s_a_nd~gr_e_at_e_r ________ ,
CNDO __ 1J845 1 ~~·~§? ---~1_1:111(3 _ _9on{j()Jl1il1iurns _______ _
MFR 39 53.690 353.6949 Multi-Family Residenti(:l_I ________ _____,
COM 4 7 144.935 641.6693 Commercial
,___IN_S_T ___ 2_0 __ 11_4_.2_4_0 ___ 54_8_. 0_4_2_2 _C_h_u_rc_h_e~s, _private Schools, Institutions
GOV 48 490.258 1,020.9573 Government-owned arcels
11,883 4,097.175 14,866.1297
The parcel areas for condominiums are calculated by dividing the total area of the condominium
complex (which includes the common area) by the number of condominium units, and the total
imperviousness of the entire complex is attributed to each individual condo parcel in the complex.
(This divides the runoff of the entire complex to each of the individual units.) Because the
condominium common areas are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the
charge.
HI Harris & Associates
16
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Annual Fee Rate
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 9
Table 5 provides the calculation of the Maximum Annual Fee Rate for the first ten years of the
program.
FY 2007-08 3.8% $89.27 $87.72 $87.72 $87.72
FY 2008-09 3.3% $90.61 $89.47 $89.47 $89.47
FY 2009-10 0.0% $89.47 $91.26 $89.47 $89.47
FY 2010-11 1.4% $90.72 $91.26 $90.72 $90.72
FY 2011-12 2.3% $92.81 $92.53 $92.53 $92.53
FY 2012-13 2.1% $94.47 $94.38 $94.38 $92.53
FY 2013-14 2.2% $96.46 $96.27 $96.27 $96.27
FY 2014-15 0.5% $96.75 $98.20 $96.75 $96.75
FY 2015-16 0.1% $96.85 $98.69 $96.85 $96.85
The proposed extension of the Fee will provide for the maximum rate to increase automatically on
an annual basis by an amount equal to the annual change in Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers (CPI} for the Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange County Areas including all items as
published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each year (12 months ended
February}, not to exceed a maximum increase of two percent (2%} per year.
The actual rate to be levied each year will be as approved by the City Council at a public hearing,
after they consider an Annual Fee Report outlining the estimated annual costs of the program.
Table 6 provides sample fee calculations for various land uses and parcel sizes based on the
proposed Actual Fee Rate.
II \ Harris & Associates
17
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAfT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
Table 6 -Sample Calculations
Est.
Land Use Parcel Parcel lmperv. Drainage
Designation Area (sf) Area (ac) x Percent = Units I
SFRl 3,500 0.08 x 0.740 = o.059 I
!--------
SFR2 7,400 0.17 x 0.580 = 0.099 I
SFR2 8,300 0.19 x 0.580 = 0.110 I
SFR3 9,200 0.21 x 0.485 = 0.102 I
SFR3 10,000 0.23 x 0.485 = 0.112 I
SFR3 11,300 0.26 x 0.485 = 0.125 I
SFR4 13,500 0.31 x 0.410 = 0.121 I
SFR4 17,000 0.39 x 0.410 = 0.160 I
SFR4 21,400 0.49 x 0.410 = 0.201 I
-
SFR5 30,500 0.70 x 0.345 = o.242 I
-·
CNDO* 1,307 0.03 x 0.800 = 0.024 I
CNDO* 3,049 0.07 x 0.850 = 0.060 I
-----------· -· -------------··-·-·----........ _____
Non-SFR 13,068 0.30 x 0.820 = o.246 I
-·
Non-SFR 13,068 0.30 x 0.700 = 0.210 I
Non-SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.350 = o.235 I
0.118 = ERU's
0.118 = 0.5000
0.118 = 0.8390
0.118 = 0.9322
0.118 = 0.8644
0.118 = 0.9492
0.118 = 1.0678
0.118 = 1.0763
0.118 = 1.3559
0.118 = 1.7034
0.118 = 2.0508
0.118 = 0.2034
0.118 = 0.5085
-------·--·-----
0.118 = 2.0847
0.118 = 1.7797
0.118 = 1.9915
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 10
FY 15-16 Annual
Fee Rate/ERU
$96.85
$48.43
$81.26
$90.28
$83.72
$91.93
$103.42
$104.24
$131.32
$164.97
·----
$198.62
$19.70
··-
$49.25
------------------------
$201.90
$172.36
$192.88
----------------·-·----·----·-------·--~-----.. ---------------.. ---------~------·---------·--------------------------··-----~
Non-SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.700 = 0.469 I 0.118 = 3.9746 $384.94
Non-SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.650 = 1.073 I 0.118 = 9.0932 $880.68
Non-SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.850 = 1.403 I 0.118 = 11.8898 $1,151.53
Non-SFR 135,907 3.12 x 0.400 = 1.248 I 0.118 = 10.5763 $1,024.31
Non-SFR 135,907 3.12 x 0.600 = 1.872 I 0.118 = 15.8644 $1,536.47
0.118 =Drainage Units per median SFR ERU =Equivalent Residential Unit
*Condominium parcel areas= the area of the entire complex divided by the total number of units in the complex.
Appeals Process
If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her fee, based on the parcel area and
estimated impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal
the calculation as follows:
1. Property owner must provide written documentation explaining the reason why the charge
should be changed. This documentation must include:
a. The name, phone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property
owner.
H I Harris & Associates
18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DRAFf
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
b. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question.
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
Page 11
c. To-scale drawings of the property in question and the impervious areas located on it with
accompanying calculations. The to-scale drawings shall include the square footage and
labels for each impervious area (i.e. house, garage, driveway, patio, tool shed, carport,
etc.).
2. If additional documentation is required or insufficient documentation was submitted, a
representative of the Public Works Department or his or her designee (Staff) will notify the
property owner in writing within two (2) weeks of receipt of the appeal.
3. Once Staff has determined that sufficient documentation has been submitted, Staff will
perform the initial review. Staff will notify the property owner in writing within four (4) weeks
from the time sufficient documentation was submitted as to whether or not the fee amount
will be changed.
a. If the determination is to change the fee amount, then the new fee amount will be
documented within the City's fee database.
b. If the determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal
Staff's decision to the Director of Public Works (Director). The appeal must be made in
writing and returned no later than four (4) weeks from the date of mailing of Staff's initial
review decision. The Director will notify the property owner in writing within four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal as to whether or not the fee amount will be
changed.
If the Director's determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner
can appeal this decision to the City Council. The appeal must be made in writing and
returned no later than four (4) weeks from the date of mailing of the Director's appeal
decision. The City Clerk shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal and shall give
notice in writing to the appellant in the manner prescribed in Section 3.16.090 for service
of notice of hearing. The City Council's determination on the appeal shall be final.
Appeals will be accepted annually up until June 30 for inclusion on the following fiscal year's
property tax roll submittal. However, if an appeal is granted by Staff, the Director or the City
Council that does not permit inclusion for the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal, a
reimbursement will be provided to the property owner by the City.
H I Harns & Associates
19
City of Rancho Palos Verdes DHAFT
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Preliminary Report
EXHIBIT A
Rate Structure Analysis Report
Set Public Hearing
Attachment A
October 21, 2015
!··p~;;;i~·Ed~;~1i;~ .. &·"C;~~~~ii; .. 1
! Outreach i
\, ..................................................................... :
Mail Notice of Public Hearing to each Property Owner
If Majority Protest,
Abandon Proceedings
••An assessment balloting is
allowed for this process.
Protest Hearing Conducted
._ ______ or-------
........................................
! • Protest is counted on a per !
i parcel basis, based on i ! written protest received.
i ................................................................. :
!"~·;·;~~~;·~·~··~~;~·;~~; .. ;~"]
l ...................................................... .!
If No Majority Protest*
received, Property Owner
balloting is required
r·····~;·i~;;;··~~·"d;;~· .. ··i
: ............................................. :
I
T
If Majority of Ballots
are Against**,
Abandon Proceedings
~ or __. If Majority of Ballots are not
Against**, Confirm Fees
11 I Harris & Associates
20