HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTIION FEE REDUCTION AND (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
Agenda Item: r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
March l0, 2009
L
Travis Lange
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION FEE REDUCTION
AND METHODOLOGY ADJUSTMENT
Public Works
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a Resolution preliminarily accepting report respecting proposed restructuring of the
City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee, designating a time and place for the public
hearing of protests in connection with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee, approving
procedures in connection therewith, and taking certain other actions.
2. Award a contract for the establishment of the proposed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Adjustment process to Harris and Associates, in an amount not to exceed $60,0001 and
authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any documents, subject to City Attorney
approval.
3. Appropriate $110,000 from Stormwater Utility fund balance to expenditure account
14600-5161.002.
ti
BACKGROUND
The actions recommended herein would commence the updating of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Fee (the "Fee"). The update would include a 10.4% reduction in the Fee rate from
$24 to $21.50 per equivalent residential unit. This decrease would benefit 86% of all City
property owners. The update would also provide for a change in the methodology for calculating
surface water runoff by incorporating the recently updated Hydrology Manual prepared by the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District and including a consumer price index (CPI) adjuster
to ensure current levels of stormwater pollution prevention service is maintained in the future.
ikda�� PamcD -�
NPDES Permit History
In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (Act), the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is required to establish regulations setting forth National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards. The enactment of 1987 amendments
to the Federal Clean Water Act (Act) of 1972 imposes permit requirements for discharge of
stormwaters. The Act allows the EPA to delegate its NPDES permitting authority to states with
an approved environmental regulatory program. The State of California is one of the delegated
states. The responsibility for implementing various NPDES permits in the State of California has
been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB
administers NPDES authority through its nine Regional Boards, including the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (LA-RWQCB).
City NPDES Perm i t
Since May 1992, the City of Santa Clarita has been a co—permittee under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the County of Los Angeles. Since then, there
have been three NPDES Permits issued, the most recent in 2001. A new NPDES Permit is
anticipated to be issued in 2009.
In order to provide for the continued safety of City residents, protect property, and to meet
federally regulated water quality requirements of the NPDES permit, it is necessary to maintain,
improve, and replace storm drainage facilities. It is also necessary to inspect, monitor, and take
enforcement action related to illegal dumping, illicit discharges, and various water quality
concerns and implement educational outreach programs. In order to properly fund such facilities
and activities, the City Council previously made findings that it was necessary to impose on all
properties in the City, a user charge for these storm drainage service.
New NPDES Permit
A new NPDES Permit for the stormwater program in Los Angeles County is anticipated to be
issued in 2009 by the LA-RWQCB. In addition to existing costs, the City anticipates significant
increased costs for compliance with the new NPDES Permit. It is anticipated the increased costs
will come from more stringent requirements, more monitoring, and additional programs.
Proposed Rate Reduction and Methodology Update
The purpose of the restructured fee is to better calculate actual water run-off conditions on an
individual parcel basis, as well as to continue to fund ongoing water quality requirements for the
drainage facilities serving properties within the City of Santa Clarita, to maintain compliance
with the NPDES permit, and to protect the environment. This will be accomplished under a new
methodology and will result in a reduction to the fee rate by 10.4% from $24 to $21.50 per
equivalent residential unit.
A Rate Analysis Report for the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee dated February 23, 2009,
was prepared by Harris & Associates. The Rate Analysis Report contains.
• Proposition 218 requirements
• Review of NPDES Stormwater Runoff Charge and improvements being funded
10_�2, wa-
Rate structure analysis
Sample Storm Drain User Fee calculations
Overview of the proposed appeals process
The Rate Analysis Report updated the stormwater fee methodology to incorporate new hydrology
data and an annual CPI adjustment.
By definition, all properties that shed stormwater into the drainage system use, or are served by,
the City's stormwater drainage 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, the more
demand placed on the storm drain system. This update uses the typical percent impervious for
designated land uses from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual,
updated January 2006. These impervious percentages have been applied to the City for the
purposes of estimating the runoff generated by each property.
The proposed annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee is $21.50 per equivalent residential
unit (ERU). The maximum rate may be adjusted each subsequent fiscal year by the annual
change in the CPI, during the preceding year, for all urban consumers, for the Los Angeles,
Riverside, and Orange County areas, published by the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The actual rate to be levied each year must be as approved by a vote of the City Council at a
public' hearing after they consider an Annual Fee Report outlining the estimated annual costs- of
the program.
The update fee calculation methodology and 10.4% reduction in the annual Stormwater Fee rate
would result in the following:
* 46,674 parcels in the City (86% of all parcels) would see their annual stormwater fee
reduced. Due to the changes made in the updated Hydrology Manual prepared by the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the remaining parcels would experience an
increase.
• 527 parcels (.97% of all parcels) would see a decrease of $100 or more
■ 5,780 parcels (10.7% of all parcels) would see a decrease of $10 - $100
0 36,090 parcels (66.3 % of all parcels) would see a decrease of $1 - $10
• 4,277 parcels (7.9% of all parcels) would see a decrease of $1 or less
• 7,735 parcels in the City (14% of all parcels) would see their annual stormwater fee
increase as follows:
• 437 parcels (0.8% of all parcels) would see an increase of $100 or more
--- 3'
■ 4,009 parcels (7.3% of all parcels) would see an increase of $10 - $ 100
2,604 parcels (4.7% of all parcels) would see an increase of $1 - $10
685 parcels (1.2% of all parcels) would see an increase of $1 or less
The California Constitution (Proposition 218) requires that' the proposed restructured fee go
through a two-step approval process. The first step is a Public Hearing that is noticed to all
property owners. 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 opposed to
the subject Fee (in other words, written protest against the fee decrease and methodology change
from 27,000 of the City's 54,000 parcels), the process will stop. The second step is a property
owner election. In such an election, one ballot will be provided for each parcel subject to the
updated fee. If authorized by Council, ballots would be mailed on or around July 10, 2009 to all
property owners, with the tabulation of the ballots scheduled for August 25, 2009. This date (the
fourth Tuesday of August) is prescribed by State Law. The Council may implement the reduced
and updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee if it is approved by a majority vote of the ;
property owners returning ballots.
Proposition 218 Requirements
This fee must comply with the provisions of Article XIIID 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."
a
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."
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
r
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."
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.
b. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question.
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.
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 City Engineer. 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 City Engineer 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 owner of any parcel shall have reason to feel that the computation of the ERU count
for his/her parcel is not correct, that person may file an appeal with the City Engineer in
the manner prescribed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will consider all data
provided by the appellant and shall render a decision in writing. The decision of the City
Engineer will be final with respect to City action on the appeal.
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 or the City
Engineer 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 for such
fiscal year.
W_�4S_
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
L' Do not proceed with restructuring the City's existing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
2. other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee will continue to provide funding for the
ongoing water quality requirements for the drainage facilities serving the properties within the
City of Santa Clarita. Per the requirements of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), the
fee is revenue neutral and does not exceed the funds required to provide the service. Appropriate
$110,000 from Stormwater Utility fund balance to expenditure account 14600-5161.002 for the
establishment process of the proposed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee Adjustment.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution T
Exhibit A
Rate Analysis Report
4
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY
ACCEPTING A REPORT RESPECTING PROPOSED
RESTRUCTURING OF THE CITY' S STORM DRAINAGE
USER FEE, DESIGNATING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING PROTESTS IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION FEE,
APPROVING PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita (the "City") is empowered by Health and Safety
Code Section 5471, Government Code Section 54300 et sect., Government Code Section 54999
et sect. and Chapter 15.50 of Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code (the "Code") to prescribe and
collect rates and charges, including storm drainage user charges and fees for services and
facilities furnished by the City in connection with its stormwater drain system; and
WHEREAS, in order to better provide for storm drainage and flood control services,
including pollution prevention, for the City, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (the
"City Council") is considering a proposal to restructure its storm drainage pollution abatement
charge to be known as the "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee" (the "Fee"); and 1-1
WHEREAS, a written report entitled, "Rate Analysis Report" and dated February 23,
2009, (the "Report") has been prepared for the City by Harris & Associates and filed with the
City Clerk relating to the Stormwater Drainage Utility (the "Program"), containing (1) the
identification of the parcels of land within the City upon which the Fee should be imposed (the
"Identified Parcels"), (2) the method for determining the amount of the Fee (the "Fee Schedule")
to be imposed each year upon the Identified Parcels as a source of funding for such storm
drainage and flood control services, including but not limited to services with which to manage
storm Water runoff so, as to better protect life and property within the City, and (3) the proposed
amount of the Fee for 2009-10 and the maximum annual amount thereafter to be imposed on the
Identified Parcels (the "Fee Amount"); and
WHEREAS, the Report is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is available for public
inspection; and
WHEREAS, the Fee would continue to be collected on the County of Los Angeles tax
roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not
separately from, the general taxes of the City in the manner prescribed by Sections 5473 et sec .
of the California Health and Safety Code, as provided in Chapter 15.050 of the Code.
WHEREAS, in compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of Article XIIID of the
California Constitution ("Section 6" and `Article XHID," respectively), the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act (Govemment,Code Section 53750, et sec .) (the "Implementation
yr7r
Act") and the Code, the City Council wishes to conduct a public hearing to hear public testimony
about the Report and any related matters respecting the Program, including but not limited to the
Identified Parcels, the Fee Schedule, and the Fee Amount, and to receive written protests and
consider all protests against the proposed Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Hearing Bate, Time, and Place. The City Council hereby establishes
Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 6 o'clock p.m., or as soon as thereafter as may be heard, in the
Chambers of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, located at Santa Clarita City Hall, at
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196, as the date, time, and place for
a public hearing to consider the recommendations set forth in the Report and any related matters
respecting the Program, Identified Parcels, the Fee Schedule and the Fee Amount, and to receive
written protests and consider all protests against the proposed Fee.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Notice and Hearing Procedures. Section 6 imposes certain
procedural requirements relating to the imposition of property -related fees and charges (as
defined in Article XIII D), such as the Fee, including the requirement to conduct a public hearing
for consideration of all protests against the proposed Fee. In furtherance of assuring compliance
with the requirements of Section 6 as applied to the proposed imposition of the Fee, and in
furtherance of providing full notice to interested persons as to the procedures the City Council
intends to follow with respect to the public hearing established by this resolution and the notices
of hearing to be published and mailed to the owners of the Identified Parcels, the City Council
hereby approves the "Procedures for Mailed and Published Notices of Hearing; Conduct of the
May 26, 2009, Public Hearing; and Count of Written Protests Relating to the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Fee," as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference (the "Notice and Hearing Procedures").
SECTION 3. Conduct of Public Hearing. At the above --described public hearing, all
interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard, and the City Council shall
consider all protests against the Identified Parcels, the Fee Schedule, the Fee Amount, or any
other aspect of the Report or the Program. If written protests (as defined in the Notice and
Hearing Procedures) against the Fee are presented by a majority of owners of the Identified
Parcels, the City Council shall not impose the Fee. In the absence of a majority protest, the City
Council may submit the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fees to a vote of the property owners
in accordance with Article XIIID .
SECTION 4. Notice of Public Hearing. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to cause the preparation, mailing, and publication of notice of 'hearing in accordance
with the Notice and Hearing Procedures, and upon completion of same, shall cause the
preparation and filing in the City Clerk's official records of these proceedings of suitable
affidavits or certificates of compliance respecting the same.
SECTION 5. Report. Reference is hereby made to the Report, which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk and is hereby made a part hereof and incorporated herein in its entirety,
r-
2
_g_
for a list of the Identified Parcels, a full and detailed description of the Fee Schedule and the Fee
Amount.
SECTION 6. Effectiveness. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED 'this day of , 2009.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA }
I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clanta, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the W��, day of **M, 2009, by the following vote:
r
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS :
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS :
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
3 %� 17—
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution 09-;. adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on * *" , 2009, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of
52009.
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
I
4 .-.-- Q D - .
I M9 INIIDal IW_I
PROCEDURES FOR MAILED AND PUBLISHED NOTICES
OF HEARING, CONDUCT OF THE MAY 26, 2009, PUBLIC HEARING,
AND COUNTING OF WRITTEN PROTESTS RELATING TO THE
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION FEE
Tn trndiwti nn
These Notice and Hearing Procedures are adopted for the purposes of assuring compliance with
the requirements of Section 6 as applied to the proposed restructuring and imposition of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee (the `Fee") on the Identified Parcels within the City and In
furtherance of providing full notice to interested persons as to the procedures the City Council
intends to follow with respect to a) the mailed and published notices of hearing respecting the
public hearing being held on May 26, 2009 (the "Public Hearing"), b) the conduct of the Public
Hearing, and c) the counting of written protests following the close of the Public Hearing
(including any continuances of the Public Hearing, if any) to determine whether or not there is a
majority protest respecting the Fee.
All capitalized terms in this Exhibit A not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
given them in Article XIIID or in the resolution of the City to which this Exhibit A is attached.
Notices of Hearing
Mailed Notices. Notice of the Public Hearing shall be sent, postage prepaid, by first class mail at
least forty-five (45) days prior to May 26, 2009, to the Record Owner (as defined in Article
XIIID) of each Identified Parcel; provided that, in measuring the 45-day period, the day on
which mailing is completed may not be counted, but the date of May, 26 may be counted.
Notices shall be mailed to the Record owners of the Identified Parcels, as said names and
addresses appear on the Assessment Roll, and, in the case of any public entity, the State of
California, or the United States, addressed to the public entity at the address of that entity known
to the City. In addition, notices shall be mailed to owners of the Identified Parcels, addressed to
the names and addresses known to the City Clerk, if different than shown on the Assessment
Roll.
Each mailed notice shall contain all of the following:
❑ A reference to filing of the Report.
❑ The date, time, and place of the Public Hearing.
❑ The amount of the proposed Fee for fiscal year 2009-10, and a formula to determine the
maximum annual amount thereafter to be imposed upon the Identified Parcel covered by
the notice.
A-1
t(
❑ A statement of the basis upon which the amount of the proposed Fee was calculated.
❑ A statement of the reason for the proposed Fee.
❑ A statement that the proposed Fee will be collected on the County of Los Angeles tax roll
each year.
The City Clerk, or the designee of the City Clerk, may certify the proper mailing of notices by an
affidavit, which shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud.
Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings.
Published Notice. Notice of the filing of the Report and the Public Hearing shall be published
once a week for two successive weeks in The Sim newspaper, with the first publication at least
fourteen (14) days prior to the Public Hearing, and with at least five (5) days intervening
between the first and second publications.
Eligibility to File a Written Protest
The Assessment Roll shall be presumptive evidence of ownership of an Identified Parcel for
written protest purposes.
If an owner of any Identified Parcel is not shown on the Assessment Roll, such owner may
establish eligibility to file a written protest for such parcel by filing with the City Clerk a proxy
from the Record owner in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney of the City ("`City Attorney"),
or evidence of ownership satisfactory to the City Attorney. Any such proxy or evidence must be
received by the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing.
s
When an Identified Parcel is held by a partnership, as community property, in joint tenancy, or as
a tenancy in common, any partner, spouse, joint tenant, or tenant in common, as the case may be,
may file a written protest for such parcel.
An executor, administrator, or guardian may file a written protest for an Identified Parcel on
behalf of the estate it represents. If such representative is shown on the Assessment Roll as
paying taxes levied against the parcel, that fact shall establish the right of such representative to
file the written protest. If such representative is not shown on the Assessment Roll, the
representative must file with the City Clerk written documentation satisfactory to the City
Attorney establishing the legal representation. Any such documentation must be filed with the
City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing.
When an Identified Parcel is held by a corporation or unincorporated association, a written
protest may be filed by any person authorized in writing by the board of directors or trustees or
other managing body thereof to take such actions. The corporation or unincorporated association
must file with the City Clerk written authorization satisfactory to the City Attorney. Any such
written authorization must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public
Hearing.
A-2 --� r Z
Submission of written Protests
Written protests may be mailed (via U.S. mail) to the City Clerk, in care of the City Clerk of the
City of Santa Clarita at City Hall or delivered in person to City Clerk at the office of the City
Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita at City Hall or at the Public Hearing.
Written protests delivered via e-mail will NOT be counted for purposes of determining whether
a majority protest exists, but the City Council may, in its discretion, consider such written
protests in making determinations regarding the proposed Fee.
Each written protest must identify the property covered by the protest and be signed.
No written protest received by the City Clerk after the close of the Public Hearing shall be
counted in determining the existence of a majority protest. To ensure that written protests which
are mailed or delivered to the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall are received by the City
Clerk prior to the close of the Public Hearing, such written protests must be received by the City
Clerk at the City Hall prior to five o'clock p.m. on the date scheduled for the Public Hearing.
The City Clerk shall endorse on each written protest the date it is filed. The City Clerk shall
identify any written protests which are received after the close of the Public Hearing.
Written protests may be withdrawn in writing at any time prior the close of the Public Hearing
by the person who submitted the written protest.
All written protests received by the City Clerk and not withdrawn prior to the close of the Public
Hearing shall be considered public records.
Conduct of the Public -Hearing; Determination of a Majority Protest
1. At the time, date, and place fixed for the Public Hearing, the City Council shall:
a) Hear a staff presentation pertaining to the Program and the Report.
b) Hear all persons interested in the matter of any aspect of the Program or the Report.
c) Receive all written communications regarding the Program or the Report.
2. -The Public Hearing may be continued from time to time, as the City Council determines is
necessary to complete its consideration of the Program and the Report.
3. If the City Council determines at the close of the Public Hearing that written protests have
been presented, and not withdrawn, by owners or authorized representatives of owners of a
majority of the Identified Parcels (i.e., there is a majority protest), the Program shall not be
approved, and the proposed Fee will not be imposed.
4. If the City Council determines at the close of the Public Hearing that there is not a majority
protest, the City Council may:
A-3
a) Remedy and correct any clerical error in the Report or otherwise modify the Report,
provided any such modification or correction shall not result in a Fee for any Identified
Parcel which is greater than the amount shown in the notice of the Public Hearing
pertaining to that Identified Parcel.
b) Confirm the Report, as originally filed or amended, in accordance with subparagraph a)
above.
c) Adopt a resolution calling for amailed-ballot election regarding the proposed Fee.
d) Subject to voter approval, adopt a resolution imposing the Fee.
f
Counting of Written Protests
For purposes of determining whether a majority protest exists, only one protest for each
Identified Parcel will be counted. In other words, one Identified Parcel, one protest.
In order to be counted in determining whether a majority protest exists, a protest must be a
written protest received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the Public Hearing, must identify
the Identified Parcel covered by the written protest, and must be signed by a person eligible to
submit a written protest with respect to the subject Identified Parcel.
A written protest from any person having an ownership interest or representing a person having
an ownership interest in an Identified Parcel will result in having that Identified Parcel counted
among the Identified Parcels for which a written protest has been received, irrespective of the
possibility that one or more other persons having an ownership interest or representing a person
having an ownership interest in the same Identified Parcel do not join in such written protest.
Written protests respecting multiple Identified Parcels which are combined into a single
` instrument ("Combined Protest") shall be accepted, and all Identified Parcels which are listed in
the Combined Protest and for which the signature of any person identified above under the
heading "Eligibility to File a Written Protest" as a person eligible to file a written protest is set
forth shall be counted.
A-4
2
a,tie
na,ly,s�ils
R 'A Report
. ....... . . . ........................... .
C*1ty
Santa,
' I, ;,,I(VCounty,
fifibrnia
City of Santa Clarita February 23, 2009
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report Page 1
Introduction
The City of Santa Clarita (City) is considering updating its current Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Fee, which is being levied per Chapter 15.50 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and the California
Health and Safety Code Section 5471 et seq.
The purpose of this Rate Analysis Report is to:
• Review the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee and improvements currently being funded.
• Review the requirements of Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) relating to
requirements for apportioning the costs associated with the City's stormwater runoff system.
• Analyze and recommend an appropriate rate structure and provide estimated rates based on cost
data information provided by the City.
Proposition 218 Requirements
This fee must comply with the provisions of Article XIIID 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."
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]."
S} "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."
Background Information
In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is required to establish regulations setting forth National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards. The enactment of 1987 amendments to the Federal
Clean Water Act (Act) of 1972 imposes permit requirements for discharge of storm waters. The Act
allows the EPA to delegate its NPDES permitting authority to states with an approved environmental
regulatory program. The State of California is one of the delegated states.
The responsibility for implementing various NPDES permits in the State of California has been
delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB administers NPDES
authority through its nine Regional Boards. In anticipation of the issuance of the Federal regulations,
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), together with 86 other cities,
R lsanta claritaldrainage feeTee ModificationVepor6drainage fee rpt final doc
City of Santa Clarita February 23, 2009
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report Page 2
applied to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LA-RWQCB) and SWRCB for
an "early" permit. On June 18, 1990, the NPDES permit for Stormwater/Urban Runoff Discharge in
Los Angeles County was issued. Los Angeles County is the designated "Principal Permittee" with
the 86 cities given the opportunity to become Co-Permittees. The City of Santa Clarita is the only
incorporated City in the Los Angeles County portion of the Santa Clara River watershed. The Santa
Clara River runs 86 miles from Acton to Ventura, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean. The City is
approximately 45 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Clara River provides habitat to hundreds
of plant and animal species, 16 of which are threatened or endangered. The Santa Clara River
provides roughly 50% of the water supply to the Santa Clarita Valley area.
In May 1992, the City provided the County with a letter of intention to participate as a Co-Permittee
with the County in the application of a NPDES permit. The City is one of 86 other co-permittee
agencies that filed a letter of intention to participate in the County's NPDES Permit No. CA006154
at that time. Since then, there have been three stormwater NPDES Permits issued to the group, the
most recent one issued in 2001. A new NPDES Permit for the stormwater program in Los Angeles
County is anticipated to be issued in 2009.
The City of Santa Clarita is in somewhat of a unique situation with regard to stormwater
management. Being a relatively new city, most of the street and drainage systems were developed
during the process of land development under the supervision of Los Angeles County. Both before
and after incorporation in 1987, the ownership of drainage facilities, once constructed, have been
transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). However, in the past few
years the LACFCD has not been processing title transfer requests in a timely manner. As a result,
there are currently approximately 230 storm drains in the City that are maintained by the County and
200 storm drains that are still the responsibility of the developer for maintenance. Many of the
privately maintained storm drains will probably become the City's at some future time. The public
streets, which are a part of the primary storm drainage system, are owned and maintained by the City.
The storm drainage catch basins in the street present a mix of ownership and responsibility with
some owned by LACFCD and others by the City.
In order to provide for the safety of the residents of the City and protect property in the City from the
damage associated with flooding and to meet water quality requirements of the NPDES permit issued
to the City by the LA-RWQCB and SWRCB, it is necessary to design, construct, operate, maintain,
improve and replace storm drainage facilities which collect storm and surface water runoff and
convey and treat such runoff in a safe manner to an acceptable point of discharge. It is also
necessary to inspect, monitor, and take enforcement action related to illegal dumping, illicit
discharges, and various water quality concerns. In order to properly fund such facilities and
activities, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to impose on all properties in the City
a user charge for storm drainage service.
In addition to existing costs, the City anticipates significant increased costs for compliance with the
new NPDES Permit to be issued by the LA-RWQCB and SWRCB in 2009. There is a significant
monitoring requirement anticipated. Currently, Los Angeles County pays for a single mass
emissions monitoring station on the Santa Clara River. The anticipated, new requirements will
increase the monitoring sites significantly. Los Angeles County has stated it will not pay for the
increased monitoring. Staff estimates the increased monitoring will likely cost $1.5 million during
the first year if the requirements are retained as written in the Ventura County NPDES Permit. If
significant pollution levels are found, monitoring costs will likely increase; if not, the monitoring
costs could decrease. Staff cannot anticipate the cost increase associated with significant pollution
levels. There are hundreds of pollutants to monitor for that the City has little experience with
mitigating. The expense of response largely depends on the type of pollutant, if any, found. For
R lsanta claritaldrainage fee\Fee Mod ificationlrepor6drainage fee rpt final doc
,1
City of Santa Clarita February 23, 2009
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report Page 3
example, bacteria requires disinfection, metals requires filtration, etc. However, treatment for certain
types of pollutants can be profoundly expensive.
Another anticipated, additional requirement are trash excluders. These are devices installed inside
catch basins to prevent trash, litter and debris on the streets from getting into the storm drain system.
Each device costs between $2,000 and $2,300 to install. Staff anticipates an additional cost of
$600,000 to retrofit all 264 catch basins if this requirement is retained. Other treatment best
management practices that may be required include creating infiltration rain gardens surrounding
catch basins and one or two large scale infiltration projects. Rain gardens essentially create planted
areas around catch basins to capture flows from the street before entering the storm drain system.
They force the flows to infiltrate into the ground before entering the Santa Clara River. Large scale
infiltration projects divert flows that enter the storm drain system. These flows are treated and
infiltrated in large land areas, such as parks, preventing much of the flows from reaching the surface
water, such as rivers. Staff anticipates costs for rain gardens on inlets/streets at a cost of
approximately $2,000,000 annually for 20 years. The large scale infiltration projects may cost $10
million or more between 2009 and 2014.
Services Funded
Expenditures from the revenue generated from the Stormwater Utility fee are intended to comply
with the requirements set forth in the NPDES permit. The activities and services funded by this fee
include, but are not limited to:
1. Administration and oversight of the requirements set forth in the NPDES permit to various City
departments, developments, and local agencies.
2. Prepare ordinances and resolutions designed to remain in compliance with the rules and
regulations required by the NPDES permit, the Clean water Act, and the Porter -Cologne Act.
3. Respond to and investigate incidents of illicit discharges and illegal connections to the storm
drain system.
4. Periodically inspect facilities for proper handling of materials, chemicals, pollutants, garbage,
waste, and debris and prevent any discharges to the storm drain system..
5. Regularly clean and provide maintenance of catch basins, the flowline, and storm drainage
facilities.
6. Installation and maintenance of water quality devices required to keep pollutants out of the storm
drain system.
7. Discourage illegal dumping or discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system by stenciling
all City -owned catch basins with a "No Dumping" message.
8. Provide street sweeping to keep litter and debris from entering the storm drain system.
9. Augment public education and outreach programs in regards to the proper use and function of the
storm drainage system and the receiving waters.
10. Develop programs to promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges to the
storm drain system.
R Isanta claritaWrainage feeTee ModificationVepor6drainage fee rpt final doc r
i k r
City of Santa Clarita February 23, 2009
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report Page 4
11. Encourage the proper disposal of household hazardous waste (HfIW) to prevent the improper
disposal to the storm drain system or to the sewer system.
12. Discourage the improper disposal of litter, garden clippings, leaves, and pet waste into the street
or the storm drain system.
Rate Structure Analysis
Section 6.b of Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) states that:
"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."
and
"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."
By definition, all properties that shed stormwater into the City's Stormwater drainage system use, or
are served by, the City's stormwater drainage 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, the more demand placed on the
storm drain system.
The amount each parcel uses the stormwater drainage system is computed by the following formula:
(Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage) =Drainage Units
The typical percent impervious (% Impervious) for land uses in the City, as provided in the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual, updated January 2006, have been applied
for the purposes of estimating the runoff generated by each property. These are shown in Table I on
the following page.
The more Drainage Units a parcel has, the more storm run-off it generates, and the more it uses and
impacts the stormwater drainage system.
It is standard practice to relate other land uses to a developed single family home, instead of working
exclusively with Drainage Units. The City's parcel database shoves that over 60% of the parcels
within the City are designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) parcels, and the median size of a
SFR parcel is approximately 7,000 square feet (0. 16 acre). Therefore, it makes sense to relate all
parcels to this median residential property. Therefore, the runoff from a 0.16-acre SFR parcel is set
equal to one Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) and this base ERU is calculated as follows:
(0. 16 acres of area) x 42% = 0.0672 Drainage Units = 1 ERU
Table 1, below, provides a preliminary summary of Drainage Units and ERU's for the various land
uses in the City.
Usanta claritaWrainage feeTee ModificationVeportldrainage fee rpt final.doc ` I - r
{
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report
February 23, 2009
Page 5
Table 1 - Drainage Unit Summary
Table
f
Drainage
Drainage Land Use
Parcels
Acres
% Imp
Units
ERU's
Antenna
1
3.7810
2%
0.075620
1.1253^
Cemetery
1
17.7000
10%
1.770000
26.3393
Church 1 Inst
49
163.5735
82%
125.384943
1,865.8473
College
14
289.1198
47%
128.448106
17911.4301
Com Recreation
16
94.8034
90%
75.046497
13116.7635
Com Storage
24
74.7712
90%
67.294080
1,001.4000
Communications
8
51.8101
82%
42.484282
632.2066
Day Care
2
1.5800
68%
1.074400
15.9881
Dev Park
274
1,000.5589
10%
100.055890
17488.9269
Dump
2
1.2799
15%
0.191985
2.8569
EI-Hi School
64
599.5594
Actual
362.356110
51392.2039
Golf
15
643.3163
3%
19.299489
287.1948
High Density CNDO
41525
196.7444
90%
177.069960
2,634.9696
High Density MFR
157
236.4982
90%
212.848380
3,167.3866
Hotel/Motel
8
20.4990
96%
19.679040
292.8429
Light Industrial
656
17593.7965
91 %
11450.354815
217582.6609
Low Density CNDO
41993
863.4141
55%
474.877755
77066.6333
Low Density MFR
76
216.7250
55%
114.906300
19709.9150
Med Density CNDO
59498
409.0633
86%
351.794438
57235.0363
Med Density MFR
149
109.3529
86%
94.043494
17399.4568
Medical Facility
16
25.7734
74%
19.072316
283.8142
Mineral Extract
18
258.7750
10%
25.877500
385.0818
Mobile Homes
30
347.6541
91 %
316.365231
41707.8159
Nurseries 1 Agr
10
32.7699
15%
4.915485
73.1471
Office
295
297.0540
91 %
270.319140
47022.6063
Open Storage
88
150.5060
66%
99.333960
11478.1839
Parking
156
216.7565
91 %
197.248415
21935.2443
Power Facilities
8
132.3674
47%
62.212678
925.7839
Ranch
8
26.6053
42%
9.202126
136.9364
Regnl Shopping Ctr
54
154.7115
95%
146.975925
25187.1417
Retail
550
731.0564
97%
709.124708
10,552.4510
SFR-0-5
30,972
59467.2074
42%
2,296.227108
34,170.0463
SFR-1
1,099
779.8717
formula
279.168057
47154.2866
SFR Rural
927
25233.6513
formula
422.670130
67289.7341
Undev Park
74
253.5892
2%
5.071784
75.4730
Vacant
3,572
10,547.4373
1 %
105.474373
19569.5591
54,409
285243.7333
8,788.314520
130,778.4896
SFR properties are separated into three (3) groups and their impervious percentage is calculated as
follows:
SFR Category
Drainaze
Unit Formula
SFR-4.5 - SFR parcels 0.5 acres
or less
acres x 42% (max = 0.21)
SFR-1 - SFR parcels 0.5 - 1 acres
(0.21) + (acres - 0.5) x
21 % (max = 0.315)
SFR-Rural - SFR parcels more
than 1 acre
(0.315)
+ (acres - 1.0)
x 10%
Usanta claritaWrainage feeTee ModificationVepor6drainage fee rpt final.doc
za __
City of Santa Clarita February 23, 2009
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report Page 6
Multi -Family Residential (MFR) and Condominium (CNDO) units are split into categories by the
density, or number of dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac) as follows:
. MFR or Condo Category Density % Impervious
High Density Greater than 18 DUTAc 90%
Med Density 10 — 18 DUTAc 86%
Low Density Less than 10 DUTAc 55%
Condominium unit parcel areas are calculated one of two ways:
1) either by using the sizes of the individual unit and the common area parcels separately, or
2) 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 these condominium common areas
are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the charge.
The latter calculation has been made when the individual unit areas are not readily available.
These two ways of calculating the charges are considered nearly equivalent when applied. With
the first method, the common area property is charged and paid by the Home Owner Associations
which are passed on to the individual units. With the second method, the common area property
is added into the individual units. Therefore, proportionality has been maintained.
Within the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clara River Watershed, there are many separate
drainage areas of various terrain and with inlets, pipes and channels made of various materials and in
various conditions. The storm drain system discharges to the Santa Clara River and its tributaries.
The Santa Clara River provides habitat to hundreds of plant and animal species. It also provides
about 50% of the area's water supply.
All parcels draining into City -maintained drainage infrastructure are proposed to be charged the same
user fee rate per ERU for stormwater runoff treatment. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee is
proposed in perpetuity.
For the purposes of this report, City -maintained drainage infrastructure includes streets, pipes, inlets,
outlets, and natural drainage courses, and is also referred to as the "City's stormwater drainage
system." Parcels related to these types of property uses are exempt from the runoff charge, as they
are part of the infrastructure being funded. Also exempt from the runoff charge is Caltrans right-of-
way, because Caltrans handles its own runoff under a separate NPDES permit.
Elementary through High Schools (El -Hi Schools) have been looked at on an individual basis to
determine the actual percent impervious for each property, as properties with this use had a wide
range of impervious percentages.
Properties that had previously submitted appeals to the charge have been reviewed and a
determination has been made on a parcel -by -parcel basis as to the applicability of the appeal to this
methodology.
RAsanta claritaWrainage fee\Fee Mod ificationVeportldrainage fee rpt final.doc .� r
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report
Cost Estimate
Table 2 -- FY 09-10 Estimated Expenditures and Revenues
FY 09-10 Expenditures
Personnel $8029500
Office, Equipment and Program Costs $206,000
Street Sweeping $$32,000
Professional and Contractual Services $304,800
Storm Drain Facility Repair $863000
General Fund Overhead Allocation $448,800
Subtotal 09-10 Expenditures: $2,680,100
Anticipated New Permit Expenditures (actual costs unknown)
New Permit - Increase in Monitoring $19500,000
New Permit - CIP - Trash Excluders $600,000
New Permit - Regional Water Quality Devices $2,000,000
Subtotal Anticipated New Permit Expenditures: $4,100,000
Reserves
50% Operating Reserve $3,3901050
(Less Site -Specific Reserve) ($1929370)
Equipment Replacement Reserve $392,072
Subtotal Reserves: $39589,752
Total Expenditures: $10,369,852
FY 09-10 Revenues
February 23, 2009
Interest
$1219180
Stormwater SUSMP
$7,650
Stormwater SW PPP
$4,080
Miscellaneous Revenue
$123,110
Operating Transfers in
$171,920
Site -Specific - Bridgeport
$24,050
Site -Specific - Creekside
$21,620
Site -Specific - Hidden Creek
$201200
Site -Specific - Hart Pony
$51790
Estimated Fund Balance - July 1, 2009
$3,6637326
Subtotal Revenues:
$4,162,926
City Contribution:
$3,395,226
Total Revenues:
$79558,152
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee Requirement:
$298119700
Fee Calculations
Page 7
The estimated annual costs for the proposed storm drain improvements are $2, 811, 700 in as shown
above. Dividing that by the total number of ERU's in the City, the estimated annual Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Fee rate is $21.50 per ERU.
This rate would be the proposed maximum fee rate for fiscal year 2009-10 (FY 09-10). The
maximum rate will be increased each subsequent Fiscal Year by the annual change in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI), during the preceding year, for All Urban Consumers, for the Los Angeles,
Riverside and Orange County areas, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics (or a reasonably equivalent index should the stated index be discontinued).
RAsanta claritaldrainage feeTee ModificationVepor6drainage fee rpt final.doc �..
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report
February 23, 2009
Page 8
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 3 provides sample fee calculations for various land uses and parcel sizes.
Table 3 - Sample Calculations
Land Use
Designation
Parcel
Area {sf
Parcel
Area tacj
x
Percent
Imperv.
Drainage
= Units 1
0.0672
= ERU's
FY 09-10
Max. Annual
Fee = $21.51ERU
SFR- 0.5
3,500
0.08
x
42%
= 0033600 /
00672
= 0.5000
$10.75
SFR- 0.5
5,000
0.11
x
42%
= 0.046200 1
0.0672
= 0.6875
$14.78
SFR- 0.5
7,000
0.16
x
42%
= 0.067200 1
00672
= 1.0000
$21.50
SFR- 0 5
12,000
028
x
42%
= 0.117600 1
00672
= 1 7500
$37 62
SFR- 0.5
21,500
049
x
42%
= 0205800 1
0.0672
= 30625
$65.84
SFR-1
22,000
0 51
0.21 +(ac-0.5)x21 %
= 0212100 1
0.0672
= 3.1563
$67 86
SFR-1
35,000
0.80
0.21 +(ac-0 5)x21 %
= 0273000 r
0.0672
= 40625
$87.34
SFR-Rural
87,120
2.00
0 315+(ac-1)x10%
= 0415000 1
0.0672
= 6.1756
$132 77
Low Density CNDO
7,100
016
x
55%
= 0.088000 1
0.0672
= 1.3095
$28 15
Low Density MFR
43,560
1.00
x
55%
= 0550000 1
00672
= 8.1845
$175 97
Med Density CNDO
3,150
007
x
86% =
0.060200 1
00672
= 0.8958
$19.26
Med Density MFR
43,560
1.00
x
86% =
0.860000 1
0.0672
= 127976
$275.15
High Density CNDO
1,800
004
x
90% =
0036000 1
0.0672
= 05357
$11 52
High Density MFR
43,560
1 00
x
90% =
0.900000 1
0.0672
= 133929
$287 95
Service Station
6,534
0.15
x
91 % =
0.136500 1
0.0672
= 20313
$43.67
Retail
21,780
0.50
x
96% =
0480000 1
00672
= 7.1429
$153 57
Business Park
21,780
0.50
x
91 % =
0455000 1
0.0672 =
6.7708
$145 57
Office
10,890
025
x
91 % =
0227500 1
0.0672 =
3.3854
$72 79
Light Industrial
43,560
1.00
x
91 % =
0.910000 1
0.0672 =
13.5417
$291.14
Church
32,670
0.75
x
85% =
0.637500 1
00672 =
94866
$203.96
EI-Hi School
43,560
1 00
x
82% =
0.820000 i
00672 =
122024
$262.35
Developed Parks
5.00
x
10% =
0.500000 1
00672 =
7.4405
$159 97
Golf Courses
1000
x
3% =
0300000 1
0.0672 =
4.4643
$95 98
Vacant
2.00
x
1 % =
0.020000 1
0.0672 =
02976
$6.40
SFR = Single Family Residential 0.0672 = Drainage Units per median SFR ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
Note: Condominium parcel areas include a prorata share of the common areas of the complex
It should be noted that 50% of all Single Family homes will have a charge equal to or less than the
median fee of $21.50.
The Preliminary Charge Roll, which is a listing of each parcel to be charged a fee and its proposed
maximum fee for FY 2009-10, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
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:
R:Isanta clantaWrainage fee\Fee ModificationVeportldrainage fee rpt f nal.doc -2-3 -
City of Santa Clarita
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Fee
Rate Analysis Report
February 23, 2009
Page 9
a. The name, phone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property
owner.
b. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question.
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
properly owner in writing.
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 City Engineer. 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
City Engineer 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 owner of any parcel shall have reason to feel that the computation of the ERL]U count
for his/her parcel is not correct, that person may file an appeal with the City Engineer in the
manner prescribed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will consider all data provided
by the appellant and shall render a decision in writing. The decision of the City Engineer
will be final with respect to City action on the appeal.
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 or the City Engineer 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.
Respectfully submitted:
Harris & Associates
Joan E. Cox, PE
Sr. Project Manager
RAsanta claritaWrainage feeTee ModificationVepor6drainage fee rpt final.doc -2, �(