RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_12_18_07_LA_Cnty_Flood_Control_Dist_Water_Quality_Funding_InitiativeCrrvOF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JIM HENDRICKSON,INTERIM DIRECTOR OF P
WORKS
DECEMBER 18,2012
CONSIDERATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT'S WATER QUALITY FUNDING
INITIATIVE
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Andy Winje,Associate Civil Engineer~
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to Staff on whether to communicate any,or no,response to the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District's proposed Water Quality Funding Initiative.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District)is proposing to impose a parcel fee
upon Los Angeles County property owners to improve water quality and reduce pollution
from stormwater and urban runoff.If approved by the property owners county wide,the fee
will apply to all parcels within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City),including the ninety-
nine parcels owned by the City.
The fee revenue is deemed necessary to offset the anticipated significant increase in costs
to address water quality issues required by new state and federal regulations.These
regulations,recently adopted,will significantly increase the cost of implementing water
quality programs in the City.The revenue generated from the parcels within the City
borders will be used to address both local and regional projects.The fee ordinance
provides that 40%of the fee collected from parcels in a city will be used to address local
projects in that city.The remaining 60%will be split between regional projects (50%)and
administration and technical support (10%).At this stage in the process,based on
information provided by the experts,Staff fully anticipates the City's costs to fulfill the
7-1
MEMORANDUM:Consideration of Water Quality Funding Initiative
December 18,2012
Page 2
increased water quality programming required by the new regulations will certainly exceed
the revenues generated by this fee,perhaps by orders of magnitude.
A protest hearing,required prior to a vote of the public,is scheduled for January 15,2013
before the County's Board of Supervisors.While the fate of the fee is in the hands of
voters county-wide,the City has the opportunity to protest the fee on behalf of each of the
parcels it owns,publicly support the fee,or take no position at this time.
BACKGROUND
Recent Public Notice
Land owners in the City,including the City government itself,have recently received
notices of a public hearing for the "Los Angeles County Clean Water,Clean Beaches
Measure."The mailer,a sample of which is attached as Attachment A,highlights the need
to pay for clean water programs to reduce and prevent storm water and urban runoff from
polluting LA County waterways.While no direct causal relationship between federal/state
regulation and the fee is drawn in the mailed material,the recent adoption of the state-
regulated municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)permit,along with ever increasing
awareness of the need to protect and restore our rivers,lakes and ocean waters has led
the District to initiate this fee.
Rigorous New Regulation
The MS4 permit is the State's implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)program,which was developed and is continuously enhanced
in response to the Clean Water Act.It is enforced by the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Board,(Regional Board).The latest permit,adopted by the Regional Board on
November 8,2012 took over six years to write,vet and adopt and the process was very
contentious.The strain to complete the permit was due in large part to the rigorous and
excessive demands placed upon municipalities to address over 140 potential pollutants in
stormwater and urban runoff,the requirement of unfaltering compliance with numerical
effluent limits,the prevention of activities often beyond the control of municipal resources
or authority and the anticipated ballooning financial burden of these many demands on the
local governments.
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District's Engineering Report prepared in support of
the fee argues,
"Based on overall evaluation of the District's storm drain system and in part to
comply with the water quality regulations mandated by provisions of the Clean
Water Act and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act,the cost ...is estimated to be in
the billions of dollars district-wide.Neither the cities within the District,the County,
nor the District have current funding sources sufficient to address these costs and
new funding sources are necessary to reduce and/or mitigate stormwater and urban
runoff pollution to meet increasing state and federal regulation for water quality"
7-2
MEMORANDUM:Consideration of Water Quality Funding Initiative
December 18,2012
Page 3
The District has estimated the total district-wide cost to address the water quality needs to
be $37 billion,although the process used to arrive at that number is vague.
Costs Anticipated in the City
The City currently budgets about $180,000 per year from the General Fund to address
ongoing annual activities to comply with water quality regulations under the old permit.
There has been only a small need,about $50,000,for capital improvements over the last
three years.Costs to meet requirements of the new permit are harder to determine
because the implementation plans have yet to be developed or approved and monitoring
results identifying any pollutants have yet to be analyzed.The newly granted powers ofthe
Regional Board to determine the intensity of compliance activities required of each city or
watershed group are broad and untested.However,according to the City's storm water
consultant,John Hunter &Associates,the City should expect an initial doubling of
annual costs at a minimum.Furthermore,the City should anticipate capital outlay in
the millions to the tens of millions of dollars over the next ten to twenty years,
depending on the concentrations of pollutants found in the City's storm drain outfalls.
The City's Role
The City Council has addressed the technical merits of the proposed fee at its meeting on
October 4,2011.At that time,Council adopted Staff's recommendation to provide
comments addressing the engineering,structural and consequential inadequacies of the
proposed fee ordinance.A copy of the City's letter,signed by then Public Works Director
Tom Odom,is included as Attachment B.It does not appear the proposed ordinance,as
currently written,includes any of the City's recommendations.The City does not have an
opportunity to "opt out"or change the details of the fee ordinance at this time.Whether or
not the fee is imposed on property owners in the City is subject to 1)approval of the
County Board of Supervisors on January 15th and 2)the results of a future vote of property
owners county-wide.
DISCUSSION
Fee Determination
The new fee would be collected with the property tax from all parcels within the District,
regardless of ownership,and redistributed for programs and projects that seek to improve
water quality in the environment.The fee is calculated from a constant fee rate,parcel size
and land use.The assumption is that contribution of pollutants to the storm drains and
waterways is proportional to the amount of impervious area on a parcel.Imperviousness
of a parcel is assumed based on land use.
The funds generated will be dispersed in three ways.Cities will receive back directly 40%
of the fees generated by parcels within their borders.Watershed Area Groups (WAGs),
which are regional collectives of municipalities grouped by watershed,will receive 50%of
the fees collected from City parcels within those watersheds.The City spans two
7-3
MEMORANDUM:Consideration of Water Quality Funding Initiative
December 18,2012
Page 4
watersheds (and thus two WAGs)and each City parcel will contribute to one orthe other.
The remaining 10%of fees collected from parcels within the City will be retained by the
District for technical support and administration of the funding.
The District estimates revenues from this new fee program to be on the order of $295
million annually from about 2.2 million parcels.Of that,the District estimates about $1.48
million will be generated by parcels in the City.The City will have to pay into the fee
program for the ninety-nine parcels it owns.That amount is currently estimated to be about
$172,000 annually.From the approximate $1.48 million generated in the City,about
$575,000 (40%)will come directly back to the City,resulting in a net gain to the City of
about $403,000 annually ($575,000 less $172,000 equals $403,000).The amount going to
the WAGs in which the City is a part (Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez
Channel'Watershed)is currently estimated to be about $718,000.In that the WAG
organization and mechanism for prioritizing projects is yet to be formed,it is unclear what
benefit the City or its residents will receive from future WAG projects and programs.Staff
anticipates that the major share of WAG funding will support projects in the most polluted
areas or their sources,which do not currently occur within City limits.
The Approval Process
The District is now at the point of holding a Protest Hearing,which is one of two
opportunities the public has to affect the adoption of the ordinance.In this first part,if a
majority protest is determined,the process will stop and the ordinance will rejected by the
District's governing body.A majority protest would be achieved by a negative response
from 50%plus 1 of the owners of the 2.2 million parcels in the district,each parcel having
one vote regardless of size,ownership or land use.A negative response could be made in
person or by mail.The City has ninety-nine opportunities to protest,one for each of its
parcels,if it so desires.
Assuming no majority protest is reached at the January 15,2013 hearing,the District's
governing body may authorize a public ballot,presumably by mail,so that the public can
vote for approval or rejection of the ordinance.The ordinance would be deemed approved
or defeated by garnering a simple majority of "yes"or "no"votes,respectively,on the
returned ballots.If the ordinance is enacted,fees would be assessed on the FY 2013-14
property tax bills and revenues distributed as early as January 2014.
Opportunity for Response
The upcoming protest hearing provides the Council with an opportunity to respond to the
measure on behalf of the City.Staff has identified the following options Council might take
as it considers the merits of the fee.They are:
Option 1.The Council could oppose the fee and direct Staff to file a formal protest
for the ninety-nine City owned parcels.The "pro"side of this position is that
it is consonant with a philosophy expressed by the current Councilmembers to
limit the expense of government regulation,along with its associated costs and
7-4
MEMORANDUM:Consideration of Water Quality Funding Initiative
December 18,2012
Page 5
fees.The "con"side to this position is that Council may influence its residents
and neighboring agencies to defeat the measure,which would stymie a
potential source of City revenue to help offset costs of the programs we will be
required to implement.The new permit becomes effective December 28,2012
and the City will begin to experience increased costs as the permit
requirements are implemented.The City will be required to pay these
increased costs whether or not the measure passes.
Option 2.The Council could support the fee publicly and direct staff to announce its
position through typical channels.Additionally,Council could direct staff to
write a letter of support to the District's governing body.The up-side to this
position is that Council would signal to residents and neighbors the need for the
measure,despite the additional cost to property owners,due to the onerous
nature of the new permit requirements and the cost to implement them.If
successful county-wide,the measure would provide a significant source of
revenue to the City to address permit and other water quality program
implementation.The down side is that Council may alienate those constituents
who do not believe the City is receiving enough "bang for its buck"under the
fee ordinance or who do not agree with the fee at all.
Option 3.The Council could forgo taking a position at this time and direct staff to
refrain from returning any protest on behalf of the City owned parcels.
The positive side of this position is that Council would not necessarily influence
defeat of the measure,recognizing that the need for the revenue is justified,
while not departing from its overarching philosophy.The negative side it that
Council would leave it to others to influence the argument either for or against
the fee.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
More information on the parcel fee can be found at the proponent's website
www.LACountyCleanWater.org and additional published reports can be found at
http://www.lacountycleanwater.org/app pages/view/56.
CONCLUSION
The District's proposed fee has been developed in response to the increasing requirements
to mitigate and prevent stormwater and urban runoff pollution.The City will face increased
and sustained costs to meet these requirements and would directly and indirectly receive a
share of revenues collected from the fee.As a landowner and a political body the Council
has an opportunity to respond to the fee proposal prior to the District's upcoming public
hearing.While nothing can be determined in fact at this time,it seems unlikely that a
majority protest (needing over a million protests)will be achieved at the January 15th
hearing,meaning the measure will likely go to a vote of the County's property owners in the
7-5
MEMORANDUM:Consideration of Water Quality Funding Initiative
December 18,2012
Page 6
Spring of 2013.Council also has an opportunity to signal its support of or opposition to the
anticipated ballot measure,should itwish to do so.Staff recommends that Council provide
direction to Staff on how to proceed.
FISCAL IMPACT
The direct fiscal impacts of Council action to file the protest,to announce support for the
measure or to withhold comment are negligible.Indirectly,the Council's action may
influence the passage or rejection of the proposed fee,which would mean an estimated
gain or loss of new dedicated revenue currently estimated to be $403,000 annually.
Attachments:
A -Sample Notice of Public Hearing
B -Letter from Tom Odom to District,dated October 11,2011
7-6
ATTACHMENT A
County
UnintOrporatQd
CommunitiltS
Rlversand
Cn>eks
o
City 01 Los Angeles
f::
Citios
You own property in the Dominguez Channel Watershed,which drains to the Dominguez
Channel and includes all the cities and unincorporated communities shown on this map.
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District is".'","'.'."-'/Z"":,
proposing to adopt a Clean Water,Clean Beaches
Measure,which would establish an annual fee to
pay for clean water programs.The proposed clean
water fee would be imposed upon property owners
within the Los Angeles County Flood ContrC?1 District,
which includes most of Los Angeles County (with
the exception of portions of the Antelope Valley),for
the purpose of improving water quality and reducing
pollution from stormwater and urban runoff.
Stormwater and urban runoff flush bacteria,trash and
other pollutants into gutters in streets and into storm
drains and from there into lakes,rivers and the ocean
and onto beaches.Waterways throughout Los Angeles
County have been found to be polluted above acceptable
levels under the federal Clean Water Act and other
state and federal laws.
The proposed clean water fee would provide dedicated
funding for local and regional projects and programs to
help keep pollution out of stormwater and runoff,clean up
pollution that flows into our waterways,and use stormwater
and runoff to recharge groundwater supplies,which are
an important sourc~of drinking water.The fee could also be
combined with other funding such as state and federal
grants for multibenefit projects that improve water quality
and provide other public benefits as well.
(Continued on next page)
There are nine watersheds in the Los Angeles County Flood Control District in
which the proposed clean water fee would be collected annually.
www.LACountyCleanWater.org
7-7
Los Angeles County
clean water,clean beaches measure
THE PROBLEM
'{
~~t\
UNFILTERED 3
BACTERIA AND ~
POLLUTANTS
The Problem
On a typical rainy day,billions of gallons of untreated stormwater
flow directly into rivers,creeks,lakes,the bay,and coastal waters.
These polluted waters can contain toxic and other substances
that affect our health and the health of fish and marine life.
These pollutants can include:
•Industrial solvents,paints and chemicals
•Toxic metals,such as lead,mercury,chromium and arsenic
•Infection-causing bacteria and viruses
•Pesticides and fertilizers
•Trash,including plastics,cigarette butts,candy wrappers
and syringes
The polluted runoff that flows into the waterways can cause
a variety of problems.For example,high bacteria levels in
the waterways can indicate a health risk to swimmers and
sometimes result in beach closures.Trash in the waterways
and polluted runoff can also be toxic to aquatic life.
www.LACountyCleanWater.org
Solutions
Fee revenues collected in the Dominguez Channel Watershed
would be used by cities,the County of Los Angeles,and an
established watershed authority group for projects in the
Dominguez Channel Watershed that would help protect public
health and the environment by keeping toxic chemicals,harmful
bacteria,and trash out of waterways such as the Dominguez
Channel,including projects to increase local groundwater
supplies,which are an important source of drinking water.
The proposed fee would be used for projects that could
generate thousands of local jobs in construction,engineering,
landscaping,environmental work and other trades.By law,
fees collected within the Dominguez Channel Watershed will
be used for projects and programs to improve water quality
within that watershed.Fees collected in the other watersheds
will be used for water quality projects and programs within
those watersheds.
The measure does not earmark funds for specific projects and
programs,but establishes criteria for the use of the funds and
allows local jurisdictions to determine how best to use those
funds to achieve water quality benefits.
Over time,the projects that the fee pays for will significantly
reduce the degradation of waterways in Los Angeles County
and improve the quality of the water in thc;>se waterways.
The projects and programs that could be funded with the
fee include:
•Installation and maintenance of catch basin screens and
treatment devices to reduce trash,chemicals and other
harmful substances in stormwater and urban runoff;
•Street sweeping to keep trash out of storm drains;
•Diversion of stormwater and urban runoff before
it pollutes lakes,rivers,and the ocean;this water is
held,filtered and cleansed (both naturally and using
manmade filters)in groundwater basins,and used
to recharge underground drinking water sources;
•Programs to educate children and adults about keeping
trash and other pollutants out of streets and storm drains
and about reducing water runoff from their properties.
Multibenefit projects can combine fee revenues with other
funding sources to improve water quality and provide other
benefits to the public,such as:
•Increase local drinking water supplies;
•Provide recreational areas such as parks and ball fields;
•Protect open space and natural areas;
•Irrigate neighborhood parks,ball fields and school grounds;
•Create,restore and improve wetlands and habitat;and
•Protect public health and safety.
7-8
Notice to Property Owners of Public Hearing on
Proposed Clean Water,Clean Beaches Measure
Mail to:
Executive Officer
Board ofSupervisors
P.O.Box 866006
Los Angeles,CA 90086
Proposeci Fee
A clean water fee is proposed that would generate over $200 million
annually in dedicated funding for reducing pollution from
stormwater and urban runoff in Los Angeles County waterways.
The proposed fee would be paid by property owners within the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District,which includes most
of the County,excluding portions of the Antelope Valley.
All properties generate runoff,and the more impervious surfaces
that a parcel has (such as buildings and pavement),the more
runoff it generates.The fee is determined by the average amount
of runoff that properties generate,based on parcel size (but not
property value)and land use classification,such as whether the
property is residential,commercial,industrial or undeveloped,
because this is an indication of the percentage of the parcel that
has impermeable surfaces.
The fee for your property is shown on the tront page of this
brochure.An Engineer's Report explaining the fee calculations
for all properties can be found at:www.LACountyCleanWater.org.
As required by law,40 percent of the fee revenues collected will
be allocated to the city in which the properties are located,or
to the County of Los Angeles for the unincorporated areas,for
water quality improvement programs as determined by each city
or the County.Another 50 percent of the fee revenues collected
will be allocated to the watershed authority group established
for the watershed in which the properties are located for water
quality improvement programs in the watershed.The remaining
10 percent ofthe fee revenues must be used by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control Diatrict for water quality monitoring,
research,technical assistance and administration.
The fee will be collected every year with the property taxes and
will continue annually until terminated by the County of Los
Angeles Board of Supervisors.By law,fees cannot not be raised
without another public hearing and election.
Program Accountability
These funds could not be diverted or used for any other purpose.
All expenditures would be subject to independent annual audits,
and all project information would be available for pliblic review.
In addition,an independent Oversight Board will ensure that the
funds are only used for projects that meet established criteria.
Public Hearing
The California Constitution requires that the proposed fee go
through a two-step approval process,which includes both a public
hearing and an election.As the governing body of the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District,the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles will hold a public hearing on:
J.anuary 15,2013 at 9:80 a.m..
Board of Supervisors Hearing Room
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street,Los Angeles,CA 90012
Auxiliary aids and services for people with disabilities are
available with three business days notice by calling:800-218·0018
or TDD,626·282·7829.
At the public hearing,the Board of Supervisors will receive oral
and written testimony about the proposed clean water fee.Any
property owner may testify or file a written protest with the
Executive O$.cer of the Board of Supervisors at any time before
the end of the public hearing.A written protest must identify the
parcel address and assessor's parcel number,and must be signed
by the property owner or an authorized representative.
You may use the protest form included below or write a letter.
Or hand deliver to:
Executive Officer
Board of Supervisors
Kenneth Hahn Hall of
Administration,Room 383
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles,CA 90012
The Board of Supervisors may continue the hearing to a future
date.If the Board of Supervisors has 'not received written prote$ts
against the proposed fee by a majority of property owners before
the end of the public hearing,the Board of Supervisors may
authorize an election to approve the fee.
For more information,please:
•Visit www.LACountyCleanWater.org
•Or call 800-218-0018 (8am-5pm,M-Th)
•Or email water.info@dpw.lacounty.gov
Para el Aviso 0 informacion en Espanol,por favor
•visite www.LACountyCleanWater.org
• 0 llame 1-626-458-6981
DC2
••~"6o ,;.,;,••••,,,''''••••••••
Protest Form
Property owners or an authorized representative may complete this form or write a letter,and mail to the Executive
Officer of the Board of Supervisors,P.O.Box 866006,Los Angeles,CA 90086 or hand deliver at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of
Administration,Room 383,500 West Temple Street,Los Angeles,CA.To be counted as a protest,this form or your letter
must include the Assessor's Parcel Number and parcel address,be signed by the property owner or an authorized
representative and be delivered no later than the end of the public hearing.Only one protest per property will be
accepted and counted.(The barcode contains a parcel identifier.)
Assessor's Parcel Number:7589·013·907
o I protest the proposed clean water fee.
Parcel Address:N/A N/A
N/ACAN/A
Print name _Sign name _
7-9
Clean Water,Clean Beaches Program
County of Los Angeles Flood Control District
PO Box 861809
Los Angeles,CA 90086
ELECTRONIC SERVICE REQUESTED
*******************ALL FOR MDC 902
1111.111 111 ••1111.111111111111111111111111 ....111111111111.111111
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY
20940 HAWTHORNE BLVD
PALOS VERDES ESTATES CA 90274
PRESORTED
FIRST·CLASS MAIL
U.S.POSTAGE
PAID
LAC BOS
&iC
Los Angeles County Clean Water,Clean Beaches Measure 12-192830
Official Notice to Property Owners of Public Hearing,
90274$91399 IlllnIJIIIII11JlII,I.IIIII.I ••llln bl"l,lm 1111.1,lml./I
DC2
DC2
The Clean Water,Clean Beaches Measure would address water-related
challenges in Los Angeles County:
•Polluted water is flowing through Los Angeles area rivers and creeks and into lakes,the bay and coastal waters.
•The Los Angeles area needs more local sources of water to use for drinking water.
The Clean Water,Clean Beaches Measure would fund projects to reduce pollution in Los Angeles County
waterways,including projects that divert and cleanse stormwater and urban runoff to preserve and increase
supplies of groundwater that are usable as local sources of drinking water.
More Information:
www.LACountyCleanWater.org
1-800-218-0018 *Printed on paper containing a minimum of 30%post-consumer contenl 7-10
ATTACHMENT B
October 11,2011
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr.Phil Doudar
Watershed Management Division
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
P.O.Box 1460
Alhambra CA 91802-1460
Dear Mr.Doudar,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the County's proposed water
quality parcel fee.We appreciate the efforts being made to develop funding for
the ongoing and ever increasing mandates regarding water quality.
Our staff has reviewed the proposed ordinance and has a number of technical
concerns that are significant to us and to our support of the measure.They are
not independent of each other but are presented as separate items for clarity
purposes.Our City Council has reviewed these issues and directed us to
provide the following technical comments.Furthermore,the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes believes that addressing these issues early in the process will
improve the proposed ordinance and thereby encourage community support.
Our technical concerns are:
1.Potential for pollutant loading is grossly oversimplified.The WAGs
are too large and the needs too disparate to eqUitably benefit all cities in
the WAG.For instance,the Santa Monica Bay WAG addresses runoff
from coastal cities ranging from Malibu to RPV.While these cities do
drain ultimately to the Bay,the pollutant contributions range from septic
systems in rural areas,to dry weather runoff of densely populated urban
areas,to concentrated industrialized areas,to semi rural areas on a public
sewer system.The most obvious pollutant needs will be prioritized,
forcing the cities with less problematic runoff to pay for problems that they
would not otherwise need to address.The District should consider the
potential for pollutant contribution (not just volume of runoff)in its
calculation for cost sharing.This potential should not only be based on
parcel size and imperviousness,but on programs already in place,BMPs
in place,and the nature of potential pollutants.RPV benefits from
relatively low pollutant loading due to land use,setting and progressive
programming but will pay to overcome deficiencies of these in other cities
in its WAG.
30940 HAwrHor~NEBOULEVARD /r~NCHO f1\LOS VERDES.CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5252 I FAX (3101544-5292/WWWI'ALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON I-IECYCLED PAPER 7-11
Mr.Phil Doudsr,October 171 2011,pg.2
2.Program Budgeting.We understand the initial budget is targeted at
about $54 per parcel.However,the Prop 218 process requires a program
budget be developed to justify this number.Who will be developing the
overall budget?Or more importantly,whose budget will be driving the total
program budget.If a small city develops a small budget due to lower
needs but the WAG develops a big budget year after year,a city could
become over funded.By the current language,a city could be forced to
retum unspent money to the District after five years.Or the city may be
incentivized to spend on "make work"projects.Shouldn't that money
should go back to the taxpayers,or never have been collected at all?The
District should consider calculating the total fee per parcel specific to the
budgets prepared by each WAG project it benefits from and the city it is in,
.with a final percentage markup for County administration.
3.The power structure of the WAG favors the larger entities.Entities
encompassing more than 40%of the land area in a WAG have select
"veto"power to kill WAG programs.This is likely true of unincorporated
LA County in the Santa Monica Bay WAG and perhaps others.This is
unfair to a group of smaller agencies who may collectively outsize the
larger entity.The District should consider conferring "veto"power to any
collection of 40%entities.
4.It is unclear what happens if a WAG fails to form.The language now
requires participation of 60%of the municipalities to form a WAG.
However,it is not clear what happens if a WAG is not formed.Where
does that money go?Or if a municipality elects not to join a WAG,it is not
clear if its parcels will still be subject to that portion of the fee allocated to
the WAG.
5.The description of the fee determination process is vague,simplistic
and void of collaboration.The final language should include a process
for fairly developing the fee for each municipality that is included in the
program.As it is written,there is no maximum fee,there is no ability to
protest a fee decision,and there is no sun-setting of the fee if and when
the pollutant contributions are controlled or able to be paid for through
other measures.Municipalities should have more say in how they
participate in the fee program or at least a recourse process to challenge
the fee determination.The District should consider a formal process for
challenging the fee calculation.
6.The fee may have unintended negative consequences on
municipalities that currently have a similar fee in place.The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes has had a Storm Drain User Fee in place since
2005.The voter enacted ordinance allows funds to be collected from
parcels that contribute to the storm drain system,in proportion to their
contribution.Funds generated by this fee may be spent on water quality
7-12
Mr.Phil Doudar,October 17,2011,pg.3
issues as well as flood control and conveyance needs.Currently,only
15%of the program budget is used for water quality,but it is sufficient to
meet our current programming,which is in compliance with all current
mandates.Our fee will sunset in 2016 with several millions of dollars in
unfunded capital improvements remaining to be implemented.Our
citizens voted for a sunset clause to provide a check against unwarranted
government spending.It is unclear if they will vote to renew the storm
drain user fee to meet the remaining needs,or even if our City Council will
bring it forward.However,it is easy to imagine the impact the existence of
an addition fee,such as the county parcel fee,might have on a future
vote.This is especially true if voter sentiment is that they are not getting
much local bang for their buck a~discussed in earlier concerns.The
.creation of the County fee may impede our city's ability to renew our User
Fee.
Our User Fee is superior to the County Fee in that is provides 100%return
to our city.We have minimal administrative overhead and fund generated
go directly to programs.We have a citizen's oversight committee who
reviews our work annually and advises our Council on fee amounts for the
coming year,providing additional local accountability.Most importantly
we are able to use our fee for the work needed in our city,both on the
water quality side and on the conveyance and flood protection side.
Elimination of this User Fee would make it very difficult to provide the
attention to our storm drain infrastructure that out city needs.The district
should consider an "opt-out"option for municipalities that can demonstrate
a dedicated funding source that is sufficiently meeting its water quality
needs.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the ordinance and our staff is
available to further clarify these issues if needed.
d;;;a~
Tom A.Odom
Director of Public Works
7-13