Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1994-05-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - STORMWATER UTILITY NPDES PGM
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND AGENDA REPORT May 24, 1994 City Manager Item to be presented bf: `�jti�"\ Anthony J. NisiclhA PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 94-7, CREATING A STORMWATER UTILITY TO FUND THE FEDERALLY -MANDATED NPDES PROGRAM Community Development At the May 10, 1994 Council Meeting, Ordinance No. 94-7 was introduced, and the City Council ordered a public hearing on the Ordinance to be held in conjunction with the May 24, 1994 City Council meeting. The required public notices of the hearing were published by the City Clerk. In addition, a press release was prepared and distributed to all media serving Santa Clarita residents. An advertisement was purchased in the Sunday Signal and Daily News, and a public service announcement was prepared for Channel 6, KMGX and KBET regarding the public hearing. The Council is being asked to consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 94-7 following the public hearing. By taking action at this meeting, the Ordinance can become effective before the July 1 fiscal year begins. This will allow the proposed stormwater service charge to be adopted by resolution at the time the 1994-95 City budget is adopted. This, in turn, will provide time for staff to place the stormwater service charge on the 1994-95 Los Angeles County tax statement. The adoption of the Ordinance is the conceptual approval for the Utility and does not establish a fee amount. The fee will be established by a resolution which will be submitted at a future meeting for approval along with the City budget. The two will be reviewed and approved concurrently due to the fiscal impacts of the NPDES requirements. If the Council chooses not to adopt a service charge, the Ordinance will have little impact. It is important for the Ordinance to be adopted at this meeting to preserve the City's option to fully implement this program in FY 94-95. Also, it is important for the Council and the public to be aware that the proposed 1994-95 City budget is based on an annual stormwater service charge of $24.00 for each single-family residence in the City with proportional charges to all other properties. A draft of the proposed resolution that is proposed with the budget resolution is attached for the Council's information. Also attached is a brief summary of the issues raised at the May 10 Council meeting and copies of some recent information on what other cities are doing. The staff would appreciate receiving Council input regarding any additional questions or issues which should be addressed in the Ordinance, the rate resolution and at the public hearing. Adopted: LAV Agen4.i Item: PUBLIC HEARING & ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 94-7 May 24, 1994 - Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Conduct the scheduled public hearing, consider public testimony and adopt Ordinance No. 94-7, or continue to June 14 for further consideration. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Stormwater Utility Rate Resolution • Summary of Council issues from the May 10 meeting. • Copies of recent information on other cities. • Copies of the overheads used at the May 10 presentation and proposed for the public hearing on May 24. Public Hearina Procedure 1. Mayor Opens Hearing • States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff Report • City Manager or • City Attorney or • RP Staff 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) • Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony S. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-7 WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY TO FUND THE FEDERALLY MANDATED NPDES PROGRAM AS REQUIRED FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita for the adoption of an ordinance establishing a Stormwater Utility Program to comply with the Federally mandated NPDES program. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive and consider public testimony regarding the proposed stormwater utility. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1st floor, Santa Clarita, the 24th day of May 1994, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to the public hearing. Date: May 11, 1994 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: May 13, 1994 NED d1e 1 PpnWDES.ned ORDINANCE No. 94-7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 15.50 TO TITLE 15 ESTABLISHING STORM DRAINAGE SERVICES AS AN UTILITY ENTERPRISE OF THE CITY. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 15.50 of Title 15 of the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: CHAPTER 15.50 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND 15.50.010 Findings and Intent 15.50M Definition of Terms 15.50.030 Storm Drainage Utility Enterprise Fund Created 15.50.040 Setting of Fees and Charges 15.50.050 Billing of User Charges 15,50.060 Collection of User Charges 15,50.070 Statutory Public Meeting 15 50.080 Provision of Data 15.50.090 Appeal to City Council Section 15.50.010. Findings and Intent (a) The City of Santa Clarita is faced with increasing costs for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of water quality related to its storm drainage facilities. IAX:89098.2 .I (b) The City is required to undertake an extensive program to improve the water quality of its runoff in the near future under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting process (NPDES). (c) The City Council finds that current economic conditions will reduce funding for storm drain maintenance, thereby subjecting property within the City to damage from the storm and surface water runoff. (d) An improperly maintained storm drainage system can create problems such as increased risk of flooding, personal injury and property damage. (e) All developed real property and, to a lesser extent, undeveloped property, benefits from the existence of the City's storm drainage system because these categories of property contribute storm and surface water runoff to the City's storm drainage system as a result of the impervious and semi -impervious nature of the property. (f) Existing City funds and funding sources are insufficient to fund the identified needs for operation and maintenance of the storm drainage system, (g) Municipalities are authorized under California Government Code SECTION 54300 el seq. (the State Revenue Bond Law of 1941) to establish fees and charges for funding storm drainage improvements and the operation and maintenance thereof. Fees for storm drainage maintenance and, improvement are also authorized under the California Health and Safety Code, SECTION 5471. (h) The City Council finds that a need exists for additional funding for the storm and surface water management program of the City and that the establishment of a storm drainage utility enterprise with user fees and charges is the most equitable method of providing this funding. (i) The amount of the proposed storm drainage utility enterprise user fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services, facilities or regulatory activity for which the fee is charged. 0) 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 the water quality requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City by the California Water Quality Control Board, 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. 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. Uix:8"8.z 2 Section 15,50.020. Definition of Terms For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the ascribed meanings: (a)"User" shall mean the person obligated to pay the Storm Drainage User Charge or other fees. (b) "City„ shall mean the City of Santa Clarita. (c) "Engineer" shall mean the City Engineer of the City of Santa Clarita or his or her designee. (d) "Developed Parcel" shall mean any lot or parcel of land which has been altered from its natural state by the construction, creation, or addition of Impervious Area, except public streets and highways. (e) "Equivalent Drainage Residential Unit (DRU)" shall mean the basic unit for the computation of the Fee, and is based upon the average amount of Impervious Area of a Single Family Residential Parcel. (f) "Impervious Area" shall mean any part of any Parcel that has been modified by the action of any person in a manner which reduces the land's natural ability to absorb and hold Storm and Surface Water. This includes the grading of the property and/or creation of any hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle, and/or the hardening of an existing surface which causes water to flow at an increased rate. By way of example, common Impervious Areas include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walk -ways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, or any cleared, graded, paved, graveled, or compacted surface or paved earthen materials used for vehicular travel, or areas covered with surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water into soil mantle. (g) "Multi -Family Residential Property" shall mean all residentially zoned, Developed Parcels contained two (2) or more dwelling units. This includes apartments, condominiums, timeshares, hotels and motels. (h) "Non -Residential Property" shall mean all Developed Parcels zoned or used for commercial, industrial, retail, governmental or institutional uses. (i) "Parcel" shall mean the smallest separately segregated lot, unit, or plot of land having an identified owner, boundaries, and surface area which is documented for property tax purposes and given an Assessors' parcel number by the Los Angeles County Assessor. IAX:89098.2 0) "Land Use Code" shall mean the land use code utilized by the Los Angeles County Assessor for the purpose of identifying the existing land use for each "Parcel' of land identified in the Assessor's property records. (k) "Single -Family Residential Propgrdy: shall include all Developed Parcels developed with one single-family detached housing unit. (1) "Storm and Surface Water" shall mean water, occurring on the surface of the land from natural conditions such as rainfall, regardless of whether such water is falling or flowing onto the land in question. (m) "Storm and Surface Water Control Facilities" shall mean all manmade structures or natural watercourse facility improvements, developments, properties or interest therein, which are or have been made, constructed or acquired for the conveyance of Storm and Surface Water runoff to improve the quality of controlling, or protecting life or property from any storm, flood, or surplus waters. (n) "Storm Drainage Facilities" shall mean the Storm and Surface Water drainage systems comprised of Storm and Surface Water Control Facilities and any other natural features which store, control, treat, and/or convey Storm and Surface Water. Storm Drainage Facilities shall include all natural and manmade elements used to convey storm water from the first point of impact with the surface of the earth to a suitable receiving body of water or location internal or external to the boundaries of the City. Storm Drainage Facilities include all pipes, appurtenant features, culverts, streets, curbs, gutters, pumping stations, channels, streams, ditches, wetlands, detention/retention. basins, ponds and other Storm and Surface Water conveyance and treatment facilities, whether public or private. (o) "Runoff Factor" shall mean the factor identified for each "Parcel" of land by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for purposes of assigning a degree of imperviousness to said parcel. Section 15,50.030 Storm Drainage Utility Enterprise Fund Created (a) Pursuant to State law the City hereby declares its intention to designate the City's storm drainage system as a utility, enterprise activity of the City to be supported all or in part by the imposition of user charges on all parcels of property within the City which discharge storm water to the City's storm drainage facilities or are otherwise served by the City's storm drainage facilities. (b) The City hereby establishes a special fund within the City's fiscal system to be known as "The Storm Drainage Utility Enterprise Fund," herein after referred to as the Fund. IAX:89098.2 4 (c) All revenues from storm drainage user charges and other storm drainage related fees and charges as may be adopted by Resolution shall be deposited to the Fund. (d) Expenditures from the Fund shall be limited to those expenditures for the improvement, repair, operation, maintenance and administration of the storm drainage facility as defined by the City Engineer and pursuant to the terms of the City's NPDES permit. Provided that, the Fund may transfer to the General Fund of the City, the cost of the Storm Drainage Utility's reasonable and proportionate share of the cost of general city government support of the utility not covered by direct payments from the Fund. Section 15,50,040 Setting of Fees and Charges (a) The City Council shall by resolution establish a system of user charges for all parcels in the City. (b) To the extent practicable, user charges shall be based on each parcel's expected rate and volume of storm water runoff. The runoff factors established by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District shall be an acceptable measure of the expected rate and volume of storm water runoff from a parcel. Said fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services, facilities or regulatory activity for which the fee is charged. (c) The City Council may by resolution establish a charge for the connection of any parcel to the City's storm drainage facilities to reflect that parcel's fair share of the cost of the existing City storm drainage facilities serving the parcel. (d) The City Manager shall establish, in accordance with Chapter 3.32 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, appropriate fees for the review and inspection of storm drainage facilities proposed and constructed by private development. (e) The City Council may by resolution establish a system of charges and fees for the inspection of non-residential parcels for purposes of establishing compliance with the City Code and NPDES requirements related to the protection of storm water quality and may also establish a system of fines and/or penalties for the violation of the City's storm water quality standards. Section 15,50,050 Billing of User Charges (a) The initial billing of storm drainage utility user charges shall be by means of the Los Angeles County Treasurer -Tax Collector tax statement and shall be a single annual charge based on the user charge for each parcel. IAX:89098.2 5 (b) The City Council may at any time elect to bill all or part of the parcels in the City on a City utility billing statement at such time and frequency as the City Council may deem appropriate. Section 15,50,060 Collection of User Charges (a) The storm drainage user charge shall be an obligation of the record owner of each parcel billed for storm drainage service. The charges shall be due and payable on the date the bill is issued, and shall be considered delinquent if payment is not received within thirty (30) days of the date the payment is due and payable. The City shall impose a ten percent (10%) non-payment penalty on all delinquent accounts. An additional one percent (1 %) penalty shall be imposed for each additional thirty (30) day period the amount remains unpaid. If the bill is not paid within sixty (60) days of the date the payment is deemed delinquent, the amount owning shall constitute a lien against the Parcel receiving the service, and the City shall include a statement on the bill notifying the Assessee of the lien as provided for in Health and Safety Code Section 5473.11. The lien shall remain in effect for three (3) years unless extended, and shall be released upon payment of the delinquent amount plus all penalties associated therewith. Provided that, so long as the City shall bill the storm drainage user charges on the Los Angeles County tax statement the date when payment is due shall correspond to the due date of County tax payments. Section 15.50,070, Statutory Public Meeting, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66018, the City Clerk shall cause notice to be provided as set out in Government Code Section 6062a, and the City Council periodically, at least annually, shall receive at a regularly scheduled meeting oral and written presentations concerning fees and charges proposed to be increased or added. Such notice, oral and written presentation, and public meeting shall be provided prior to the City Council taking any action on any new or increased fees or charges. At least one such public hearing shall be held annually, in conjunction with the City annual budget process and hearing. LAX:89098.2 6 Section 15,50,080. Provision of Data. Pursuant to the California Government Code, at least ten (10) days prior to the required public hearing set out herein, the City Manager shall make available to the public appropriate data indicating the cost, or estimated cost required to support the fees and charges for which changes are proposed to be made or fees or charges imposed. The City Manager also shall provide a summary of the present fee and charge schedules and those proposed at such annual public hearing. A general explanation of such changes also shall be published per the requirements of Government. Code Section 6062a. (a) Any person who feels that any fee or charge determined and set is in excess of the costs reasonably to be borne by their property, or that such fee or charge has been reviewed prior to or has not been reviewed within the review schedule as set out herein, may appeal in writing to the City Council. (b) Such appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the next available Council meeting after receipt of such appeal and heard at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Any changes to any fees or charges approved by the City Council shall take effect immediately upon hearing by the City Council unless ordered otherwise by the City Council. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Chapter is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Chapter regardless of the absence of any such invalid part. SECTION 3. FEES AND CHARGES SUPERSEDED. The fees and charges established by this Chapter shall supersede all previously established fees or charges for the same regulation, product or service, and all such previous fees and charges are superseded on the effective date of the adoption of the Resolution of Fees and charges as provided in Section 15.50.040 hereof. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the same manner prescribed by law. IAX:89098.2 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 94'-h day of M�3, , 1994.. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, Doppa M crinAoz , City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No9L-L was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the loth_ day of May , 19_24 That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of May , 19 94, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy, Boyer, Heidt, Pederson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK ux;avovss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Anthony J. Nisich, City Engineer DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ISSUES ORDINANCE NO. 94-7, STORM WATER UTILITY FORMATION At the May 10,1994 City Council meeting, Ordinance No. 94-7 was introduced and briefly discussed by Council. Several questions and issues were raised by the Council and the two members of the public. This summary is an attempt to respond to these questions and issues. ISSUE: Deferral of charges for low income and elderly. Los Angeles County has a program for deferral of property taxes and assessments based on certain qualifying criteria. It is proposed that the stormwater service charge also be subject to the same deferral condition. This will be provided for in the forthcoming rate resolution. This provision is not in the first draft of the resolution but can be added if directed by the Council. ISSUE: Regulation of illicit dumping. Fines and penalties. Establishing regulations to control illicit dumping of pollutants into the drainage system is a specific requirement of the City's NPDES permit. This is to include a system of fines and enforcement. Once the stormwater budget is approved, the staff will be developing a coordinated set of regulations to protect water quality. ISSUE: Isn't the proposed stormwater service charge just another tax? There is no question that the proposed stormwater service charge is an additional cost to City residents and property owners. Under state law, however, the service charge is not a property tax. The service charge is not based on property value. The lien provision of the ordinance is for the collection of delinquent service charges. This is the standard provision of state law applicable to all municipally owned utilities. ISSUE: Since streets are a major source of pollutants, why aren't the stormwater charges based on vehicles or some other factors? Is certainly true that vehicles cause a great deal of the pollution associated with stormwater. But streets also collect wastes from pets, yards, litter and dumping. The City is not permitted to license vehicles or enact local gas taxes. Consequently, a broad based methodology that spreads the cost among all properties within the City in proportion to their contribution to the urban runoff problem appears to be the most reasonable approach. MEMORANDUM Discussion of Issues Ordinance No. 94-7, Storm Water Utility Formation Page 2 ISSUE: Those outside the City use City streets and should pay something. Unfortunately, there is no legal authority for the City to charge stormwater source charges outside of the City limits. As part of a long-range program, the staff will explore the possibility of an agreement with Los Angeles County to see if some cost sharing may be possible. This is going to take considerable time and cannot be accomplished in time to deal with the City's immediate NPDES requirements. Any outside funding received, including future grants, will be reflected in each proposed annual budget. ISSUE: What can be done to keep our streets cleaner? The issue of yard blowers, dumping and pet wastes were raised. The stormwater regulations required by the NPDES program will address these and other water quality issues. The proposed stormwater utility program will provide staff to direct a public education program as well as provide enforcement of regulations, abatement of problems and to help citizens and businesses avoid pollution problems. ISSUE: Has the staff really explored other funding options? The City has been participating for over two years in a regional committee of NPDES copermittees. We have been able to discuss NPDES regulations and funding with the other copermittees. In addition, our consultants Kato and Warren have and are working with cities all across the country on stormwater funding. As of this time, we believe we have explored all known funding options. The use of stormwater utility service charges has become the standard funding mechanism for NPDES compliance both in California and across the country. At some future time, the City staff would like to explore some cost sharing with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, but at this time, the County policy does not provide for such cost sharing. We have talked directly with both the County and the Flood Control District to no avail. Resolution of cost sharing will require extensive negotiations and perhaps possible legal action. None of the agencies under NPDES permits are anticipating any state or federal funds being available for this program. ISSUE: The proposed year three budget is higher than the anticipated $2,200,000 revenue from the proposed $24 per year service charge. Won't rates have to go up? Longer term rates are preferable to frequent charges. The proposed $24 per EDU rate is anticipated to be adequate for at least three years. At the end of that time, the NPDES permit will have been renewed. (This is to be issued by the state in 1995). Also a storm drainage master plan will have been completed and the City's capital improvements needs will be better defined. MEMORANDUM Discussion of Issues Ordinance No. 94-7, Storm Water Utility Formation Page 3 After year three, the stormwater utility start-up costs will have been satisfied so it is possible that the initial service charge could continue into year four. However, based on the experience of other agencies, we can expect that over time stormwater service charges may have to increase depending on future changes to the federal law or permit requirements. The City Council controls the stormwater service charge rates. Each year decisions will be made during the budget process as to the extent of the stormwater program, priorities for capital improvements and the rates. NED:dls councllbtmmt.ned RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTI'A ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita has had a study conducted by an outside consultant of the options available for funding the City's storm drainage program in light of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to the City by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT'S report identifies a need for average annual expenditures to meet the NPDES permit requirements of $2,170,000; and, WHEREAS, funds in this amount are not available to the City without drastically curtailing current city services for parks, public safety and other vital public services; and, WHEREAS, the Consultants report indicated the feasibility and equity of funding the City's storm drainage program by the formation of a storm drainage utility supported by user charges against all property in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council after careful study of the Consultant's report did hold hearings as required by Government Code Section 66018 and did after due process enact Ordinance establishing the storm drainage activity of the City as a utility enterprise; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance _ directs that the user charges for storm drainage service be enacted by City Council resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council intends that storm drainage user charges be in effect for fiscal year 1994-95; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the storm drainage user charge included on the 1994-95 Los Angeles County tax statement; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66018, the specific fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by Resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, notice of public hearing has been provided per Government Code Sections 66018 and 6062a, oral and written presentations made and received, and the required public hearing held, and, ux:as4s2.2 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6062a, a general explanation of the hereinafter contained schedule of fees and charges has been published as required; and, WHEREAS, all requirements of California Government Section 66018 are hereby found to have been complied with; and, WHEREAS, the City intends by the enactment of the fees and charges set forth herein to fund compliance with the stormwater NPDES requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act therefore the storm drainage user charge shall herein and henceforth be known as the "Storm Drainage Pollution Abatement Charge"; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Storm Drainage Pollution Abatement Charge Adopted A storm drainage pollution abatement charge shall be billed to all parcels of property in the City in accordance with the computation formulas set forth in this resolution. SECTION 2: Definitions In addition to the definitions set forth in Ordinance , incorporated herein by reference, the following definitions of terms shall apply: A. "Base Charge." The annual storm drainage pollution abatement charge to be paid by the average —single family residential parcel, hereinafter known as the Equivalent Drainage Residential Unit (1 DRU). B. "Basic Assessment Unit." The Equivalent Drainage Residential Unit is the Basic Assessment Unit for purposes of computing the Storm Drainage Pollution Abatement Charge for each parcel in the City. The Equivalent Drainage Residential Unit is defined as an impervious area per parcel of 2,777 square feet. SECTION 3: Computation of User Charges All properties in the City are assumed to be responsible for paying their fair and equitable share of the cost of storm drainage pollution abatement based on the following formulas and computations: A. DRU Computation, The DRU on a parcel shall be computed by the following formula: DRU Count = (Parcel Area in Square Feet) x (Parcel Runoff Factor) 2777 LAX:94432.2 2 B. Parcel Area. The gross area of each parcel shall be determined from the data contained in the records of the :Los Angeles County Assessor or by direct measurement, or by such other means as the City Engineer may select. C. Parcel Runoff Factor. The runoff factor for each parcel shall be the same factor as determined by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the type of land use code listed for each parcel in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor. A copy of the published runoff factors is attached to this resolution and made a part hereof. D. Computation of User Charge, The annual storm drainage pollution abatement charge to be billed to each parcel shall be based on the following formula: 1. Annual charge per DRU shall be $24.00. 2. Annual user charge per parcel shall be: Annual Charge = $24.00 x Number of DRU for Parcel SECTION 4: Billing of User CharSe The Storm Drainage Pollution Abatement Charge shall be billed on the property tax statement billed annually by the Los Angeles County Assessor. The Charge shall appear • as a separate listing on the tax statement. SECTION 5: Collection and Enforcement A. The Stormwater Pollution Abatement Charge for each parcel shall be collected by and be payable to the Los Angeles County Treasurer -Tax Collector for the 1994-95 tax year along with the general taxes levied for city and county purposes and shall be subject to the same penalties and enforcement provision relating to general taxes. B. If any portion of the levy, collection or expenditure of the Stormwater Pollution Abatement Charge provided for herein is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remain levy, collection or expenditure of the Stormwater Pollution Abatement Charge shall not be affected but remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6: User Charge Limitation The Storm Drainage Pollution Abatement Charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services, facilities or regulatory activity for which the fee is charged. wc:89432.2 3 SECTION 7: Adjustments and Appeals If the owner of any parcel shall have reason to feel that the computation of the DRU 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. SECTION 8: Annual Review of User Charges It is the intention of the City Council to review the fees and charges as determined and set out herein based on the City's next Annual Budget and all storm drainage costs and, as and if warranted, to revise such fees and charges based thereon. SECTION 9: Constitutionality If any portion of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then it is the intention of the City Council to have passed the entire Resolution and all its component parts, and all other sections of this Resolution shall remain in full force and affect. SECTION 10: Repealer All resolutions and other actions of the City Council in conflict with the contents of this Resolution are hereby repealed. SECTION It: Effective Date This Resolution shall go into full force and effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 44-- , and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of said Ordinance No. 94- . ux:svasz.z 4 Resolution No. 94- ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 1994. City Clerk Mayor I 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 _ day of _, 1994 by the following vote of the Council: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS City Clerk UK89432.2 5 IRE: Ken Mandela picket as president of S. Africa I I MAIN NEWS rs proposes adding insurance choices to Clinton plan/MMN NEWS TxE loom Wilson calls for review I of CLAS exam MAIN NEWS 25 CENTS CENGF.TED MEA HIGHER storrrri water runoff Council study favors ,$27 annual payment from property owners to battle pollution By Michael Coit _. face up to $25,000 in daily fines. A study prepared for the City $27 based on estimated annual up with a way to pay for it. It's a big Dash•News Siol nYue. _ "Our decision is not whether we Council recommends $6.5 million costs of nearly $2.2 million and the program and reaches into a lot of do it. The decision is how to pay for in cleanup projects over the next number of residential and commer- :.areas; `said Brian Hooper, a county SANTA CLARITA T Property it," said Mayor George Pederson, three years. The council is expected cial properties in the city -Large ` public works official overseeing the. owners should pay as rrnch as $27 "We don't have an option. We can to make adecision on the proposal commercial properties could be program. a year to keep polluted sorm water ignore it and be sued or we can pay in June. charged more compared with single To avoid daily fines of as much out of the Santa Clara Rver and its for it on the backs of the taxpay- The study, which was released residences.. as $25,000, cities and counties tributaries. according o a study er." Monday, recommended than the Santa Clarita paid consultants must undertake sculled best man - prepared for the City Coincil. With a major river running city establish a utility district to ,$65,OW in August to complete the age ment•pract ices proven to keep Stringent federal waer quality through Santa :Clarita, the city must oversee storm water projects. Resi- study, The council is expected to oil, chemicals, trash and other ma - laws require cities and ounties to. pay for costly projects ranging from dents would pay for the service decide on a plan and submit it to serial out of creeks and rivers. - reduce pollution discharges from increased street sweeping to moni- through assessments on property regional water quality officials this Therecommended projects in- roads, sewers and otheriources in- toring commercial and industrial tax bills. summer, to creeks and rivers by next year or waste disposal. Annual assessments would total "Every jurisdiction has to come. See WATER t Back Page Canyon High's ace m hanics to compete All lanes op7e�n on C lJ s�l�/1=srAtT ,ei6g laid in Santa Cl , ariti ..,with your hands." "And -During' -ompetition, the stu- good te( dents will L-,,jven a vague d iescnP- :� what N tion of car trouble and will be point it timed on how long they take to de -.,'engine I termine, and correct the problem aren't di using the latest computer. technol- Borre, -.09Y.- t 15ein Gru�ng'-up.aruund cars gi� to. WATERY F clude: ra A, in . unities in, -San Bernardino and handle Metrolink trains. teach re Ventura counties tants ot Metrolink also has established Planners made a test ran on Met- systems. lines serving &range and Riverside rolink trains in"S16ptember 1993, MAI counties. noting speeds and times.,The. time Practice Althougb_th;.�Outhern Pacific needed to make the run from Santa trial bus Provided right of way for the San- Clarita to Lancaster was the prima- 0 Am to Clarita-to-Lancaster run, the cen- ry shortcoming figured in getting city Ord tury-old track was not designed to commuters to ride the train. And gr ZYht. TU om Page I ed trash`go11C I es su'sefioi10.06. he key to being a — to think about 6 could be and pin- �riai)inlx aDart the i nicens, Deing a mechanic a surgeon. re both -morkingon-real ited systeril, that bavQ to d out," he said.' if.L We scrow.up," added we can kill the car.". off of storms projects hirisdiction is different I y -------- I--,- .- idefits how to kecg�pollu.� .. .,indicating where flows are. dis- of storm Water drainage : charged into. creeks and rivers and areas.where monitoring is needed totrack sources of.pollutants. , - Ograin to inspect disposal "That's going to be a bear. I don't' Of commercial and. indus-, think the p L eople realize what an lesses impact that: . is; 'Pederson said. increased, enforcement of ',".We're penalized because nature iances regulating erosion has given us all the hills and the ding on construction' valley and this big river." is" sometivnr; you donI LUl of Pi jai LA le4, F( va Ar F' Atill'b"St l 'a - f V rew part ' of -A fileld'filio. "fr6ir High S&iboi,'Psge b'( Column Anna Aged i humble woman with th a lion. NWedes Den nis' McCarthy. Rage 3 BUSIN&r Cornmunicatiom S Arabia selected AT&T modemize its entire, telecommunications a) a deal the company s4 be worth $4 billion ov( six. years.-P6ge .1 Electric vehicles: Fi California utilities, inch Southern California Ed and the Los Angeles - 2epartmentof Waters t C C C more nousenownazaraous-waste iep�eritxtivm in'C collections; a public -education pro- want'relief from the gram; inspections of commercial, federal policy. A v a ala;j 11! ; a! ,p Ire. pemi- 11his big is f b g prob use a loon the federal - ias little mhappy to their §'if they ;ive new Facihtiesl Experience, and ROUTE TO: RETURN TO: An Informational Bulletin for Public Officials s the battle heats up between envi- ronmental orga- nizations and cities for alleged non-compliance with the federally -man- dated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit, fgmting a sormw'ater unlit v can become a viable funding alternative to already depleted general funds and otter limit- ed fiscal resources.. Counties and municipalities have all opportunity to fund their NPDES activities by creating a storrtiwater utility. In addi- tion, funds from a stormwater IeIfile ct IIIecrnn III JdIlIIIOu, the limit, collc. ed lun _t' rowkald debt ,cmcc nn bond, t„Ued Iin`enlhfl llcllnll ICI feconsli ucuon It the .nc, IaCihtics. The sktnnw alit ��ilin u,u:dlt take, e ce,q nt rnl '.ru to implement- linpurlant I-Oulpo rent,, in dcrefuping Ili{ utihlt include a Ma,ter Platt .d. Dcrnagc, a cou,idcrlh1,, poll, he Coll I).unC:1uo11 CHIC, de%elopmcnt tit an ell,mrerntg Kcport indicating item,. to be funded and the chartic furl hudol tu, cellit, a ail ordinance, drd ileicldpnient of ii billing data h:hc_ On Aocenther 16- ]0')(1. the linal Federal,lOillWale rc"ulations were I11LICJ, int)lc- uleulln6 the Federal Clean Overthe past several months, : A;ci. couotres and municipalities have , received''a loud:wake-up call from the - hturaLLResources Defense Council. utility can be used to improi o a current storm drain system. develop a drainage master plan and establish a Geographic Information System (GIS). A %tortnwater utility is ]CI up under the Health X satcll Code Section S470 "inch allows the collection of --fee,. [lilt,, mites- rental, brother chargeti'for the acquisition. conNinl Ctl Utt, reCult,tra Ctiont cauncnrnce and oper;nwn of walcl N\Stem, and >.mn;won. -dofnt Brun-i eC of ,ewe'r lactF lie,, ruludmo u.uh,,Ie.wd water Ql.udun .act of I Y) tIld idcufikjn_ mo ckts,c, of UPDES pemr, lot >tom"va ter disch;uee: I) stortnwaler discharge, is,ociated %kith mtrr.tiwl ucticinr,;:unl _1 ,thin ,ucr di,cLu,cs tioin nhilucipul ,Inmi di'lln ,l,Irnl,. 'fhe pernuuut pnscc,s till' the,e mete I cdccil rr ^_uluni�ms .trc brute carnet our -b\ The State w:uci R,,ourcc, C otttntl Board (SbA RCBI and the Ioc;d Re, tonal ll'ato Quald, Control Humid, nit 1,ch"11 of continued on back `fhe dppmachlo inlplcmcnt- illo a tolrlmateddl,lulaltc ulllut IN liolina11, aca+nl- pl1>hed In the toll(wlne foul phn,e,. Phase 1) 45-90 days 1n ulmal aide TO pmc ide ciccled oltieml, with utlit nunitnl lot I deLi,ioll To inplenlent u,cr tee,_ Tht, Mien include, 'subsmnt al public intolnuiron ellorIN. Phase 2) 60-160 days A ,hurt but iniemc effort to dccclop the hllhm, claia h.i,e .nil plep;irc `I toolun lit uetu,ll hlll,- A conuiliuft� effort at :public intor m (ion and (all trilling Is ptml 01 thn phase. - Phase 3) 60.120 days Dec elopnlent or a stollukkan lei matter plain and capital t llplulytrnent plo,nun. Phis ph,t,c m;tv ;dreadv have hccn pccompl,Ited prior to iinplemm�l.Ition of u,cr fee, but nui,t be adapted to the acuud acail.ibilny ill guilds. Phase 4) 60-90 days Dc%elupitenI of the f dial pro `rain. of tees. budget, and ttrdivan.es tm inlPlennenl the Ionnwrlcr/drninucc. uulm.,,ineludin IceNIZuicc cneelnlcnt Of the prod -till. Ph.nc, can occrlap dcpcnJ- ul,_ on the ploiccl- -the trill unroll (titre required loll nttplenlenlnnon }s appntsl tnatck ,Is Itnmth,, v City may By John Buzbee S I AVE 'h'R'IIR impose new tee to treat storm water SM COUNCIL 3arita I�lonua i3 �un,idering charging property owners zt Ile" fee that u.Lu ld v%entually raise more than $1.7mlllwn a,year to help keep Pollutants out 01 Santa Monica Bay.. Homeowners would pay an average 555.55 ;a year to fund a new utility to treat storm water before it runs Into the bay. Owners of iximmercial land would pay an average $199.21- The plan would onl} treat storm water runnin, through Santa Monica, a small portion of the water that runs through city streets into the bavz Councilman Robert Holbrook said he was leery of charging Santa Monica residents a new fee when other beach cities would not participate, but City Manager John Jahli said the program could serve as a model for utl'rP cUn`, Sarramc'ntll h l'tlr'llllly Tilt esnl} t'alilorun. tiiy wltII a storm weter utIIIIN ,lnd itis primarily concerned with flood control. Discussions in June Santa Monica city staff mem- bers presented the. plan to the City Council on Tuesday night.. The council will consider the plan during budget discussions in June_ If the newcharges are approved, they would appear oil jimpt rly lax bills a the end nl the %ii In i,tiler busine,5, the eouncll approved a zommunity celebrr- tiorr for the Fourth of July, at tire newly renovated suuthend of' Palisades Park_ The afternoon festival will not include fireworks, which prior celebrations had had. The city canceled the Dawn's Early Light fireworks show in 1992 and 1993 because of concerns; FEE/BACK PAGE INSIDE TODAY ® Quick work restores qrn tnnce,5 ..E11 Bloc eAi SMC science program B,�rness. B7-11 Cas, ec!. l,it�S S niY+: l 000 - . Hor(,SCopE L M., Boyd Lottery :Movies . .. Obituaries . -. on,tuanes Tea'.0) _- People spons., .. iel?vis,ori .. Weather PJnmorl, ELS 612 E5 Cl-D11 Bit ,,611 ... __.A2 .. ..,.Ell A5 _E1 .Alo A2 ..... B 1-6 .,,. . Elo -,.E8 .A4 By Lisa Mascaro doll wRIIIII Portable" buildings have been en- juying a hearty welcome all over town since they slarLed bringing re- lief for Santa Monica's earthquake• shattered buildings. But nowhere did they receive the strawberries -and -grapes, cheese -and - cracker, piped -in -jazz reception ten- dered Tuesday at Santa Monica Col- lege, "We're about two-thirds of the way moved in and can find about looking I"F:, "116 IWth Logan, Chair- wouuul of Ike Infe ti(wnres 1)epart- nient. "Wu're- so gIad to have a home. The fanfare heralded the grand opening of.Science Village, .a.$3-mih lion'; post earthquake complex of 27 modular buildings, that to the undis- cerning eye looks like part of a typi- cal college campus. There are chemistry experiments . going. on: in some, biology lectures in others and flora and fauna being studied in more- In fact, everything cnec?aq Iuwre forallhis cot black and white -- bow nation at peat and the world." The nation and elgn visitors wil swearing -in ceremu ruosphere of no, able to forget at le, the social divisio nunlic mequaiet C must confront. The beginning „ Istration coincides many South Afril Ile birth of their I'hc second Soul I public:" was how commentator pill I Watched by into itors including %'I Al Gore, Palestinian ser Arafat and Cul Fidel Castro, Mani deep, measured swore allegiance to public and its com As he said, MI SCIENCE VI y tt City of Santa Clarita ............ Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study i Why is stormwater an issue at this time? • The City is under a Federal and State Mandate. • The City is operating under an NPDES permit at this time. • Increased stormwater management is required to satisfy the NPDES permit. • No State or Federal funds are provided. • There are substantial fines for non-compliance. 4t �A3f TA Ct1 City of Santa Clarita a Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study What is the City.yequired to do to satisfy NPDES permit? • Increase Management of Drainage • Mapping • Master Plan • Control of Development • Pollution Prevention • Increased Maintenance • Water Quality Monitoring • Public Education • Provide Finding • Report Progress at �sxra ct� City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study sera i. ern+•P` How Much Will This Cost? The City's cost for personnel and equipment is estimated to average $2,170,000 over the next three years. Annul Costs One Time Costs (1) Total Budget 1 st Budget Year 900;000:00 600,000.00 1,500,000.00 2nd Budget Year 1,700;000.00 300,000.00 2,000,000.00 3rd Budget Year 2;900;000.00 -_ 100 000.00 3,000,000.00 3 Y_ear_ Total _ 5 500,000 00 1,000,000.00 6,500,000:00 Annual Average Budget,1b,00A,00 City of Santa Clarita n Feasibility Stormwater Utility >> y Study How can the City pay for this Program? FUNDING OPTIONS: • City General Fund • Shared revenue from. LA County Flood Control • Special Asse-ssment District • Stormwater Utility 0t SANTA 04 City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study a,`er. raat+.Pa` What is recommended? • Formation of a Stormwater Utility • An annual stormwater service charge of $24.00 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) • Billing the stormwater service charge on the LA County tax statement 1 Establishing stormw-ater fees and charges for new ��velopment review and permitting. A;or City of Santa Clarita z Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study J'°re n en.a• Why is a stormwater service charge recommended? • will raise the needed funds It is the most equitable approach • All rate decisions are by City Council action • It has become the national standard for funding NPDES requirements ICity of Santa Clarita Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study How will the stormwater service charge fee be computed? • Single family residences will pay $24.00 per year, 1 EDU • Commercial and other properties will pay based on the number of EDU on the property. • 1 EDU is defined as the amount of impervious surface on the average single family property. In Santa Clarita, this is 2,777 square feet. City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study What action is required to implement stormwater service charges? • Conduct all required hearings • Inform the public of the proposed charges • Pass an ordinance creating a stormwater utility enterprise • Pass a resolution setting stormwater service charge rates and other storm water fees or charges City of Santa Clarita 0. �EfE q n!<MP�•. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study What are others doing? • Compliance with NPDES Requirements • Los Angeles County • Other California Areas and Cities • Nationally • Use of the Stormwater Utility Approach • Sacramento • San Clemente • Palo Alto • Los Angeles • National Average • .:. ,• Date/EDU/Year 91.00 52.00 60.00 23.00 ': 11 •1 11 - R City of Santa Clarita n Stormwater Utility Feasibility Stud Y Y Kira n eay.r« r Consequences of no action • Mandate of NPDES Action Experience of Other California Cities • Legal Actions Fines • .Individual Responsibility • Effects on Quality of Life RECEIVED AND MADE A r PART OF THE RECORD AT �J Letter to the City Council of Santa Clarita MEETING For Public Hearing to create Ordinance I M "' Dear City Council members, The proposal before you is an attempt to mislead you and the citizens of Santa Clarita. If you act on the recommendations given by staff, you will create another bloated bureaucracy which is unnecessary and is reminiscent of the government that we chafed under for so many years. The citizens of Santa Clarita are being misinformed as to the scope of this new tax, the need for this tax, and the reasons that this tax is being enacted. This is not a "gripe" letter , but rather a report based on many hours of research, interviews, and study. I will point out the falsehoods, the contradictions, and the misleading statements made by the various documents which I have researched. Thank you for your time in reading this. Let us began by looking at the way this new tax is being "sold" to the public. This is from the notice published in the Signal. "To comply with a new federal mandate to reduce pollutants in our rivers, oceans and groundwater, a series of actions must be taken within the next year, at a cost of more than $3 million" This is not true. This $3 million dollar figure includes moneys that will fund existing programs, and new and creative shifting of funds, or name changing will allow many programs to come on board and relieve the general fund, so that the City has more money to spend. The May 10,1994 Agenda Report states this on page 2 " The stormwater fund could participate in the Santa Clara River project, City parks, and a number of other city activities now exclusively funded by the General Fund." So the question dS how many of the new tax dollars will be used for things that are not a direct result of trying to comply with the federal mandate? This is a question that the Budget officer of Santa Clarita did not have an answer to. We can see by looking into the Kato and Warren report that many of the costs deal with Stormwater management,not just costs associated with NPDES compliance. "Some of the staff time includes the time of existing City personnel, i.e.: the City Engineer.... charges for certain existing city staff performing service for the stormwater utility would be charged to the stormwater utility fund."Page 13 . Also paragraph one on page 16 indicates at least six full time staff not working on NPDES requirements. And page 18 of the report indicates $116,000 of administrative overhead for the City will be paid out of the fund, as well as two engineers at a cost of $144,000 "2 FTE are added here to reflect the need for increased development and CIP support that are needed regardless of NPDES" The Kato Warren Inc report does not give the total dollar figure that is being asked for for non-NPDES uses. The Kato Warren report also points out that when enacted, this new method of taxing the Citizens could be the used to raise not just the $3 million per year that is cited by the briefs, but an additional $24 million in capital improvements that have been identified and who knows how many millions additional dollars that have not been identified. This is from page 10 of the report "If a stormwater utility is adopted by the City it would be possible for the City to issue stormwater utility revenue bonds to fund all,or part of the identified stormwater capital improvement needs" This is presently a function of the LACFCD to which the citizens already pay millions of dollars in taxes. The City staff seems anxious to bulldoze this proposal through, even if it means misleading the public and the City Council. The Agenda Report for the Public Hearing states that "it is important for the Council and the public to be aware that the proposed 1994-1995 City Budget is based on an annual stormwater service charge of $24.00 for each single-family residence..." When I inquired at'the City as to how the City could be making prudent budget choices based on the premise that $3 million additional tax dollars were available, I was told by the City budget officer Dennis Luppens that the statement was "erroneous" Also the figure of a $25,000 or $50,000 a day fine is brought up every time this new tax is discussed . In all of my research I can find no information'on any cities in California that have paid this fine. This is a scare tactic being used to ram this new tax through. There are some cities that have been sued, and there are some cities that have have been given letters of intent to sue, but the Cities in these categories are the worst case offenders, and have done very little in regards to compliance. This is not the case with Santa Clarita. So the question becomes, how much money do we really have to spend to be in compliance? The figure of $3 million is arrived at by using the study of Kato & Warren Inc.(hereinafter referred to as the KW report). Although the City Council might be unhappy with the thought of having spent $65,000 dollars on a report that doesn't truly reflect the choices that the Council has, we cannot dismiss the possibility that it may be incomplete and misleading. And it is. How much money must be spent to be in compliance with the NPDES requirements? That depends on the City, its size, location, possible pollutants, and its approach to the BMPs. One of the things that is very misleading is the City staffs position that the 13 BMPs require the level of funding that the KW report states. According to Don Owen of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board , (the Agency of the State that wrote the BMPs), not even the method of compliance, let alone the levels of funding can be dictated. It is against California Law Water Code Section 13360. Instead, the fulfillment of the BMPs is "performance based". In other words, you must show that you are taking steps to use the Best Management Practices.. So how much does that cost? The city of Redondo Beach is complying with the same 13 BMPs. There is no active pending litigation against them. Their NPDES program has one person who works about four hours a month. How does she do it? She says she does the the best that she can with what she has to work with. The citizens have pitched in and helped in many areas, and education in the schools is a large part of their program. To be sure, more could be done, according to their program director, and they would do more if they had more money. It is the nature of government to spend the money given to it, so again the question of how much is to be given to it for this program? The KW report does not give us the answer. To get an idea of how large the program needs to be we need to address the BMPs (found on pages 3 and 4 of the KW report). We will deal with all 13 items.Nine of the 13 BMPs deal with public education. It seems reasonable that a program coordinator/education officer position be assigned on a full time basis. Their duties would include interface with the WQCB,education issues,and reports required to show compliance of the NPDES. The stenciling of the catch basis is the next issue. If the City is going to pay $50,000 a year (KW report page 14)to someone to spray paint stencils then give me an application. I would suggest that the City use the same method as Los Angeles which is stencilling 110,000 catch basins as opposed to our 7000, and it is being done by volunteer labor. This option is, not even discussed in the KW report. The next BMP issue is catch basin cleaning. It is to be provided when and where it is needed. The citizens of Santa Clarita already pay millions of dollars to the LACFCD to perform this function. They clean out 68,000 catch basins each year. The KW report states that "Many of the privately maintained storm drains will probably become the City's at some future time."(page 2) and that the LACFCD is not transferring title requests in a timely manner(page 2). This leads one to believe that the City needs to increase their staff to handle all these basins and drains. Wrong. Stan Dixon and Gary Hildibrand of the LAFCD beg to differ. The LACFCD is accepting any and all storm drains and basins as long as they meet the standards of the county. The City simply needs to process the paperwork and turn them over to the County. The City does not need to buy Vactor equipment to clean the catch basins, let the LACFCD do it. They apparently do a better job anyway, as the KW report page 8 says that the City work "does not meet water quality requirements", but according to Mr. Dixon of the LACFCD the county work does. The next BMP states (KW report page 3) that "Increase cleaning frequency of and number of roadside trash receptacles in areas where needed�� The "where needed" part of this BMP is of course subjective, and the issue needs to be addressed by the Cities existing solid waste staff. When the needs have been identified, the waste disposal can be contracted out, or better still arranged as part of the Waste haulers contract, as a prerequisite or a community service. The last BMP is also a subjective one (KW report page 4) "Increase street sweeping in areas where needed" The City is r planning, according to the budget office to increase their street sweeping from $175,000 to $300,000 this year without this tax being enacted. This is far and above what appears to beineeded. The only other person which might be utilized on a full'time basis would be an inspector whose emphases would be commercial inspections, but would also respond to hotline calls oflillegal dumping, and would do grab sampling of suspected dumpings. Extensive sampling is not required at this time, as thelCounty is doing our outflow sampling for the valley at the Old Road station. The permit has no numerical standards that must be met, because the Federal government has not set guidlines for this part of the country. Because we have very little regular flows we are looked at differently than the east coast. The last issue to be looked at is enforcement. If the inspector finds illegal or toxic dumping then the power of law needs to be brought to bear. An Ordinance needs to be enacted by the City eventually. At the present, the City can use The Federal Clean Water Act as its authority. Many cities have enacted Ordinances already, and the City may want to adopt one already written, as Malibu may be doing by using the San Francisco Ordinance. Existing staff could be used for this. The program that I have outlined above would require only two full time employees, the same number as the KW report states are presently being used to insure compliance of the BMPs. Of course some staff cooperation and support are needed, as is now being supplied by various departments. The funding requirements will remain the same then, with a small increase due to programs of education, advertising, and paint , stencils etc, probably in the region next year of $50,000. The General fund can continue to fund this program . Thank you for your time in reading and considering these facts. I urge you to vote no on this proposal. Otherwise you will be approving a new tax which will increase the size of the City government by almost 10%. You will be misleading the citizens. And you will be asking for more money in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s. Please vote no. Thank you. A concerned citizen. Tim Boyds on May 24, 1994 SToe.mWflz"e2 �tc..(ty Corn rn �-cr�S Pas o �n ip .4 E /s !;;�XCC-5S ✓E `-P,4',0' PCy,004L4 McZO Ai2.E Nrrr MA ZrO2 Co ertlf i t rr© rrs —tic rs i I r I II CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0.1 STORMWATER PROGRAM FUNDING Prepared By: KATO & WARREN, INC. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON In Association With: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES VENTURA, CALIFORNIA April 4, 1994 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. I — STORMWATER PROGRAM FUNDING TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1 2.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS .... 1 2.1 Background ........ .................. ...................... 1 22 NPDES Requirements .... - .... _ - 2.3 Stormwater Management ......... . .... ... ... , _ ..... , ... 5 2.3.1Management .... .,...._.... ....................... 7 2.3.2 Regulation of Development ... ........ ........ .. . .... . .. 7 2.3.3 Operation and Maintenance .......... . ...... .. . . .... .. 8 2.3.4 Capital Improvements ............ ........ . ...... . ..... `) 2.3.5 Water Quality/NPDES .......... . . ........ . . ........... . 10 2.4 Stormwater Funding Requirements :....... . ....... .. ............... 11 2.4.1 Introduction . . . ......: . ............. . ...... . . .:..... 11 2.4.2 Personnel .... , ._ ......................... ; .......... 11 2.4.3 NPDES Requirements . _ ._ .. . • . • ..... • . • . . 13 2.4.4 Total Funding Requirements ... :.................... ...... 16 3.0 STORMWATER FUNDING OPTIONS .............. . ................. 19 3.1 General Fund ............ .,._........ ,.---- ......., t9 3.2 Shared Review with the Los Angeles Flood Control District .. ........ 20 3.3 Creation of.an Assessment District .... . ... . ... . ........ ....... .. 2l 3.4 Creation of a Stormwater Utility .................................. 21 4.0 STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS ... ...... . . . .... . ............. . . 22 4.1 Description ........ . . . . . .... . . . ........................... 22 4.2 Sources of Funding .............................. . ..... I . I .. 23 4.2.1 Service Charges ,.... :...................... ..... .. 23 4.2.2 Permitting and Inspection Fees 4.2.3 System Development Charges :.... , ... _ .. . ...... . ......... 24 4.2.4 Exactions ........ _ .:. , ...... _ ..................... , . 24 4.3 Computation of Service Charges ...... . ................. I ........ 25 4.3.1 Basis of Charges .......... .2 4.3.2 Determining Impervious Area ....... 25 4.3.3 Estimated Service Billing Units ...:I .:....:. I ...... . ....... 25 4.3.4 Service Charge Rates ..... . .................... . ....... 27 4.4 Method of Billing . . ............... .................. I . I ... 27 4.4.1 Placing Service Charge on the County Tax Statement ........... 28 4.4.2 Establish a City Billing System .:.. > .................. . • - . , 29 4.4.3 Conclusion ............ . .................. - . ......... 31 4.5 Implementation .......... . . . :. . ....... _ ...... _ ..... , ...... 31 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. I — STORMWATER PROGRAM FUNDING TABLES Table L Stonnwater Management Work Program Assessment - Existing Level of Effort .-....... ;I.... ...:.,,.............. ..:.,,..II..._..,.I.........- . 6 _. Table 2. Stormwater Capital Improvement Needs . .... . ................. . ... . 10 Table 3. Stonnwater Management Work Program Assessment - Suggested Level of Effort 12 Table 4. NPDES Compliance Requirements .. , . , . ......... 14 Table 5. Stonnwater Funding Requirements at Full Implementation .. , ... 17 Table 6. Estimated Stormwater Annual Costs .. , ........ , . ly Table 7. Cost to Bill Stormwater Utility - Charges on County Tax Statement . _ ...... 24 Table S. Cost to Bill Stormwater Utility - Charges by Means of a New City Billing System30 LO INTRODUCTION This Technical Memorandum No. l incorporates the findings and conclusions, to date, from the work accomplished under Task I, 2, 3 and 4 of the study scope of services. The study work plan calls for a series of discussions based on issues raised in this Technical Memorandum No. I after which an ordinance will be prepared for Council action in implementing the recommendations of this study and the City staff. In this Technical Memorandum No. I three basic topics are discussed: Stormwater management and funding requirements Funding options for Stormwater Applicability of the Stormwater utility concept. The following discussion is intended as a summary of the findings and conclusions developed during the study. For certain issues addressed in the memorandum, separate issue papers have been developed that provide additional detail. 2.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Background 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 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 Department of Water Resources. The State administrates 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 other cities, applied to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) 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 cities and other entities with large and/or significant drainage areas under their control being given the opportunity to become Co-Permittees. Kai. & Warren, Inc. - 4/1/94 h:\ anladantaVedmo 1. Ird 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 an NPDES permit. The City of Santa Clarita is one of 45 other co-permittee agencies that have filed a letter of intention to participate in the County's NPDES Permit No. CA0061654. 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 the ownership of drainage facilities, once constructed, have been transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). However, in the past two years the LACFCD has not been processing title transfer requests in a timely manner. As a result, there are 228 storm drains, in the City, which are maintained by the County and 45 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 City streets, which are a part of the primary storm drainage system, are City property. The City contracts with Los Angeles County and private contractors for much of the maintenance of the streets. 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. City crews perform maintenance on the majority of these catch basins. The national stormwater permitting program (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; or NPDES) is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (WQCB). The WQCB has issued an NPDES permit to Los Angeles County as the lead agency for the Cities within the County. The NPDES permit provides fora phasing in of permit requirements. Santa Clarita is in a category shown as Phase III which took effect on July 1, 1993. Concern over the cost of compliance with the NPDES requirements prompted the City to undertake this stormwater utility feasibility study. 2.2 NPDES Requirements Los Angeles County and the WQCB have agreed to a five year NPDES permit and work program. The activities to be perforated by each agency within the County are as follows: Year One Beginning July 1, 1993 Define drainage areas and prepare snapping and database. Determine existing best management practices (BMPs) to enhance quality of stormwater. Develop early action BMPs. Plan for development of Stormwater/Urban Runoff Monitoring Program in coordination with the County. Year Two Implement monitoring Program. Implement early action BMPs Develop additional BMPs Kato &. Wan -en, Inc. - 411194 2 b N,wnacfania\teclmo I .? rd Year Three Develop procedures to detect and eliminate illegal discharges and disposal practices to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Develop measures to control pollutants in runoff from construction sites, Evidence of progress in implementing early action BMPs and additional BMPs. Evidence of progress in detecting and eliminating illegal discharges and illicit disposal practices. Evidence in progress in controlling pollutants in surface runoff from construction sites. Compliance with these permit requirements will certainly require an expenditure of .staff and resources on the part of the City. In certain cases additional code provisions will need to be adopted in order to allow the City to enforce control provisions and best management practices (BMPs). In order to clarify what level of effort regarding BMPs would be considered as compliance with the NPDES permit the WQCB issued a letter of January 11, 1993 that listed 13 BMPs as a minimum requirement for all agencies. These were: Establish or improve an areawide catch basin stenciling program with a universal stencil to discourage dumping, discarding, and/or discharge of pollutants, carriers,. and/or debris into storm drainage systems countywide. A universal stencil will be most effective, The City of Los Angeles intends to develop a public service announcement with the universal stencil to be shown countywide. This would prevent any possible confusion from seeing different stencils as one travels from municipality to municipality within the county, 2, Develop programs to promote, publicize and facilitate public reporting of illegal discharges and/or dumping. An (800) telephone number may be beneficial.. This telephone number should be put into operation as soon as possible. 3. Adopt a runoff control ordinance requiring the use of BMPs during and after construction such as that of the City of Santa Monica for the reduction of runoff and pollutants leaving a property or properties. 4. Augment public education and outreach programs with regard to catch basins and storm drainage systems and their intended purpose. 5, Provide regular catch basin cleaning when and where needed. 6. Increase cleaning frequency of and number of roadside trash receptacles in areas where needed. Kaw. k Warren. Inc.. - 411194 3 b:\.uvaelantzkd cdmoI 3rd 7. Increase street sweeping. in areas where. needed. Discourage the improper disposal of litter, lawn/garden clippings, and pet feces into the street or areas where runoff may carry these pollutants to the storm drainage system. 9. Implement facility inspections of auto repair shops,, auto body shops, auto parts and accessory shops, gasoline stations, and restaurants as the accumulation of pollutants, garbage, and/or debris tends to concentrate in these areas. These inspections may effectively prevent the discharge of chemicals, materials, and/or debris into the street and/or storm drainage system. 10. Encourage owners and persons in control of homes or businesses to remove dirt, rubbish, and debris from their sidewalks and alleys which may contribute pollutants to urban runoff. I L Encourage recycling of oil, glass, plastic, and other materials to prevent their improper disposal into the storm drainage system. Each municipality should insure that receptacles are provided in strategic areas. 12. Encourage the proper disposal of Household Hazardous Wastes to prevent the improper disposal of such materials to the storm drainage system. Each municipality should establish disposal centers in strategic areas. 13. Encourage the proper use and conservation of water. Except for items 1, S, 5, and 7, which are maintenance activities, all of the other listedBMPs° involve public education and outreach to homes and businesses in the City, Based on experience in cities that have had active stormwater management and water quahty programs in effect for some years, this public education and outreach program is a significant effort since it ultimately involves direct contact with most businesses on a routine basis to insure that they are not only informed but also comply with BMPs and City Codes related to stormwater quality. One of the unknowns at this time is the degree of water quality monitoring the City will be required to undertakebeginning in Year Two. In accordance with the PIPDES permit, the County is responsible for providing water quality monitoring for County unincorporated areas,, as well as for the various agencies. The County's approved Water Quality .Monitoring Plan only addresses the quality of runoff on a large scale. This proposed monitoring will not be sufficient for the City to detect, identify and abate illegal and illicit discharges to the City's storm drainage system. In order to implement future Best Management Practices, the City will need to develop and implement some type of monitoring system. Levels of stormwater monitoring range from elaborate fixed location sampling facilities down to simple visual observations by existing and/or supplemental field staff. For the purposes of the City's NPDES program, it is highly Kato & warten. Inc. - 4/1/94 4. h:\ a,t tadarita4echno I , 7 rd recommended that a system of visual monitoring as well as a grab sample testing be developed as part of the City's NPDES compliance efforts. It is hoped that the monitoring now underway by Los Angeles County will be sufficient to satisfy current NPDES requirements. There is also some discussion underway between EPA and the WQCB to modify and/or reduce monitoring requirements. Much of the work involved in NPDES compliance is considered simply good stormwater management. The costs associated with good stormwater management and NPDES compliance are detailed in the following sections. 2.3 Stormwater Management Stormwater Management even without NPDES requirements reduces a level of effort very similar to the management of other public utilities, i-e.; water, sewers, solid waste. However. since Santa Clarity does not provide utility services at this time not all of the normal utility' functions are in place in the City organization. Stormwater management functions can be divided into five categories:. Management Regulation of Development Operation and Maintenance Capital Improvements Water Quality (NPDES) Table I Lists some of the program elements or services provided under each category and an estimated level of effort currently budgeted for stormwater management including early NPDES permit compliance efforts. Kato & Warren. Inc- 411/A 5 b:\wnladamaVedmol in1 Table I City of Santa Clarita - Stormwater Management Work Program ASsessment Existing Level of Effort Service Current Staff Program Added Total Category Activity (FT E) Additi.ns StafT(ETEj Slaff(FTE) MAN'A(IE.MENT POlicv UevzloPanzttt Prngranl Planning City Engr, PT 0.25 NPUES Compliance Pen'onnel hevelopmmit I Staff, PT 0,25 Scheduling _ Budgeting. 0.5 Funding/(;rant; REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT Standards/Procedures Engineering Suppon in Maintenance City Engr, PT 0.25. Plan Review Public Interface Comm Pennnnng Developnhent 0.5 Inspection Enforcement 0.75 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Planning Foreman, PT 0.5 Inventory Crew, PT 1.5 Inspection Supenntendent 025 Testing Support 0.25 Scheduling Surface Cleating. Open System Closed System Pmmt Uetzmion Systems Minor COnft ucnon Repair/Replaeenhent Training _ Emergency Resp(mse. 2.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Comprehensive. Basin Plans. City Engr. PT 0.5 Basin Water Quality Plammg Engrs. PT 0.5 Public Involvement. Technician, PT Engineering/Dcsign Environmental Assessment Project Management Construction Bidding Construction Matagenlem Right-of-way _ Capital Construction O) WATER QUALITY/PUBLIC" INFORMATION Planning C'i(y Engr, PT 0.1 NPDES Compliance I Staff.. PT 0.15 Monitoring/Testing Inspection Enforcement Public Education '? Public Contact Training _ Emergency Response 0: 55 Hazardous Material Programs STORM WATER STAFFING (FTE) 5.0. Kai,, do Warren. Inc. - 4/1/94 6 In the following pages we will address each stormwater management category in terms of existing activity, desirable levels of activity and suggested changes to existing efforts, 2.3.1 Management Current Level of Activity During this first year of the NPDES permit period, the City of Santa Clarita stormwater management activity has been focused in the City Engineer's office and involves time of the city engineer and of an associate engineer part-time. Since much of the drainage system is owned and maintained by the LACFCD, the City has not had to exert the same level of supervision that would normally be required. This is changing with the advent of the NPDES requirements. The City is facing a greatly increased need for stormwater management. Desirable Level of Activity If the City were to adopt a more proactive stormwater management program, it would appear to be desirable to have someone assigned as the City's Stormwater Engineer or Manager. Such a person would then be able to direct and organize all planning, NPDES permit compliance and other activities related to the stormwater system to ensure a focused effort. For the activity anticipated for Santa Clarita short of the City assuming the facilities currently owned by the LACFCD this is probably the extent of the management structure which would be necessary together with perhaps a technician or an assistant to work on other aspects of stormwater as they do pertain to the City. The same staff assigned to management tasks for stormwater would be able to function to directly manage and be involved in other categories. Suggested Activity Level Assuming a stormwater program is to be adopted it would be our suggestion that a full-time drainage engineer be assigned to the City Engineer's staff together with one assistant and the necessary secretarial support, 2.3.2 Regulation of Development Current Level of Activity The review of development proposals and the work with development regarding drainage is the responsibility of the Community Development Department, again focused in the City Engineer's and Building and Safety offices and in Planning. No one is assigned full time as the stormwater reviewer per se, but several people share the duties depending on the workload.. Kato & warren. Inc, - 4/1/94 % h \aniadanraVechno 1.l N ' Desirable Level of Activity One of the key areas that will require additional work in the future under the NPDES program will be the control of runoff and erosion from new development. In this regard there would certainly seem to be a need for a full-time engineer who could work with development on drainage planning and for at least one and perhaps two field inspectors who could regularly inspect work under construction, both development and general construction including streets to insure that the water quality controls implicit in the NPDES permit are being properly enforced. It is still possible that additional engineering support and technician support will be necessary from time to time but it is assumed that if so most of this cost would be paid for by the development industry as part of their permitting and consequently would not be considered a cost to the stormwater program. Suggested Activity Level It would be our suggestion that the City designate an individual as the stormwater review person and that person would report to the stormwater program manager. In addition at least one field inspector should be on staff and available. This person might work in both regulation of development and in operations and maintenance. 2.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Current Level of Activity The City currently uses their small maintenance group to perform all services related to small street repairs and the cleaning of catch basins and ditches as well as response to any problems created during rainfall events. Since the City does not have motorized equipment for the cleaning of catch basins at this time, such as a vactor, all work in this regard is done by hand which is a time consuming process and does not meet water quality requirements. The City contracts for street cleaning services. A new contract has recently been negotiated that will increase street cleaning frequency to weekly in commercial areas. Desirable Level of Activity Together with the inspection that would be undertaken either in operation and maintenance or under regulation of development there is also a need for someone to inspect the drainage system to be sure that it is fully capable of operating into its full capacity in the event of a storm condition. While it can be assumed that the LACFCD is doing this, the truth of the matter is that experience has shown that more needs to be done. Within the City's current maintenance operations it would be desirable to be able to create a drainage crew that would have the necessary equipment to clean catch basins on a much more frequent basis and to also inspect and clean culverts and road crossings and also pipes and ditches. Kaw & wanen. Inc. - 4/04 b:\<antaclanta\iechno1.3 rd As a part of this activity the, issue of street cleaning also needs to be considered. Surface cleaning is one of the 13 BMP requirements of the NPDES permit. The new City street sweeping contract improves on the frequency of sweeping but does not specify the use of vacuum ~weeping equipment. To achieve. NPDES surface cleaning levels the contract will eventually have to be modified to specify vacuum equipment. This will add costs to this activity. Suggested Activity Level It would be our suggestion that additional street sweeping be implemented and charged to the stonnwater program. Since the City currently contracts for this service, it is assumed that this would mean an additional cost to the contract and would involve, the use of vacuum sweeping equipment, rather than simply the broom type equipment now in use. In terms of general system maintenance, the acquisition of a vactor truck would seem to be a minimum requirement to properly service catch basins and other drainage facilities with the addition of a two -person crew as a minimum to operate this equipment. 2.3.4 Capital Improvements Current Level of Activity The City currently expends very little money on storm drainage capital facilities. Tablet. lists the projects; that are in the current CityCIP, In addition to, fully identified projects in the normal City CIP there is also a need as a part of operations and maintenance to make minor improvements andreplacements from time to time and an allowance is provided for this activity, The City does not have a storm drainage comprehensive plan at this time, Desirable Level of Activity Given the fact that the principal drainage system is the property of the LACFCD it might be questioned as how much effort the, City needs to make in the terms of capital improvements. However, the City must still be concerned with the open drainage system and localized areas of flooding and potential property damage. As a result the City needs an updated comprehensive storm drainage plan that identifies existing problems and improvements needed to meet future growth, Once capital needs are identified it still take staffs time to implement the capital program, even if the design is undertaken by consultants. Certainly in any significant program at least one engineer and a technician and perhaps a field inspector would be desirable in this area. The City staff is aware of certain needed storm drainage improvements that have not yet been incorporated into the City's capital improvement program. Table 2 lists known stonnwater capital improvement needs. It can be anticipated that once a Comprehensive Plan is completed a more extensive capital program will be identified. Table 2 Kato & Warren.. tne: - 4/1194 9 h N,amaclantaV edmo 1.3 rd City of Santa Clarita Identified Storinwater Capital Needs Project Estiriwcd C',,si Funding S... ucm Identif,,d 1. LivC Oak Springs Cyn (6) Sand Cyn $ 1750,000 L.A.C.F.C.D. 2. Sand Cyn Wash -Lint Cyn to Placenta $10,2SOPM to he detennined I Iron Canyon (a) Sand Canyon Wash $-3,175.000 to he detennined 4_ Newhall creek (N l7th Street $.3,M),000 to be dctemtined $. San Fernando. Road (N Pine Sir i S 2,275,000 to he detemtined 6. Santa Clara River (a) Drayton $ 3,(M,000 to be detennined 7, Santa Clara River (i� Dougherty .$ 1.925.000 to he determined $, Santa Clara River (o) Lost Canyon $ 4(1),000 to be detennined TOTAL $25.775,M) Suggested Activity Level At this time the primary activity to be considered would be the development of it Comprehensive storm drainage plan for the City which would probably be undertaken by consultants. The management of consultant contracts for this work could probably be accomplished using the program manager and the engineers assigned to regulation of development and no additional staff is shown for this staff at this time. If a stormwater utility is adopted by the City it would be possible for the City to issue stormwater utility revenue, bonds to fund all or part of the identified stormwater capital improvement needs. A decision on this approach to capital funding should be deferred until a Stormwater Comprehensive Plan can be, completed 2.3.5 Water Quality/NPDES/Public Education This is an area that will have an increasing requirement over the next several years as the City complies with the NPDES permit. The public education and information program both for residential and commercial properties involves a substantial effort. Current Level of Activity At this time the City has assigned one person part time ffom the City's Engineer office as the Liaison with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works staffregarding the NPDES permit, It is recognized that this person will not be able to do all of the work required but would primarily act to monitor the City's compliance efforts. Kato & Warren, Inc. - 4/1 P)4 I I) le\aantneLuita\leuhno L7rJ Desirable Level of Activity To truly be in compliance with the NPDES program it would seem necessary to have a lead and secretarial support for a general public education program and in addition to have at least one inspector assigned to the task of monitoring water quality issues emanating from development within the City. Suggested Activity Level As a minimum the City should add a full-time public information and education staff person to the existing City information office with an assignment to contact and work with residential and commercial properties to achieve the BMP compliance implied in the NPDES permit. An additional support staff position will probably be needed to assist in this effort. It isassumed that these two staff positions would replace the existing part-time position currently assigned from City Engineers office. This public information and education effort should be coordinated with the City's general public information efforts and with the fairly extensive effort underway by the solid waste section of public works. 2.4 STt)RMWATER FUNDING REQUIREMENTS 2.4.1 Introduction The estimates that follow are based on the suggested level of effort for each element of stormwatec management. Much of the added cost over present levels of effort are due to the mandates of the NPDES permit the City most now satisfy. The staffing levels and expenditures indicated are expected to be phased in over at least a three year period. The estimates represent the probable activity level at the end of the first three years of the NPDES permit period: 2.4.2 Personnel Table 3 compares existing staffing commitments with the suggested level of activity, including NPDES requirements. ., Kaw k Warren, Inc - 4/1/94 I I h:A.,arnacla6taVachno13rd Table 3 City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Management Work Program Assessment - Suggested Level of Effort Service I:urrent Stag Program Added Tat:d Category Activity (FT E) I Additions Staff (FTE) Staff(FTE) MANAGEMENT Policy Develorniem - L'mgram Prograiu Planning City Engr, PT 0.25 Mgr E0 NPDES Compliance Personnel Development I Staff. PT 0.25 Technician (15. Scheduling fludgenng C lencal 1.0 Fundingl(4ants ),5 Public Educanon/Infonnafion I}.i Pubic Contact Pt U _ RE(7ULATRIN OF DEVELOPMENT Standards/Procedures Engineering Support to Maintenance Coy Engr. PT 0.25 Engr LO Plan Review htsp LO Public Interface Pemtining Engr (1.5 Inspection Enforcement O.7i 2,0 275 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. Planning Ferman, PT (I.5 Foreman Lo Inventory Crew, PT L_ CYe e 1,0 Inspection Superintendent 0.25 Support ,75 "Prating support 4.23 Scheduling Surface Cleaning Open System Closed system Private Detention Sysrents Minor Construction Repair/Replacement Training _ Emergency Response 2.5 4.75 7:25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Comprehensive Basin Plans City Engr, PT 0.25 Engr 0.5 Basin Water Quality Planning Engrs.,. PT 0.5 Tech 1.0 Public Involvement Technician, PT 0,2< Enmeering(Design Environmental Assessment Project Management Consvuction Bidding Constmetion Management - Right-uf-Way C'alotal Construction 1.(1 1.5 25 WATER QUALITY Planning City Engr. PT 0.1 Tech 1.0 NPDES Compliance l Support, PT 0.15 Insp. 1.0 Mon noring/resting Inspection Enforcement Training Emergency Response Hazardous Waste Programs _ (1.25 2.0 2.25 STORM WATER STAFFING(FrE) 5.0 13.25 IH.S Kato & Warren, Inc, - 411194 12 Some of the staff time includes the time of existing City personnel, i.e: the City Engineer, However, assulrting stormwater is a City Utility and separate fund the charges for certain existing city staff performing service for the stor nwaterutility would be charged to the stormwater utility fund. Theestimates are budget estimates for this fund., 2.4.3 NPDES Requirements The basic management requirements of NPDES compliance are included in the personnel estimates indicated in Table 3. Responding to the 13 minimum NPDES requirements in the previously referenced WQCB letter will result in added efforts and costs as detailed in Table 4. Some of the NPDES requirements are, being partially met by current City activities using existing staff, However, the actual total FTE,'s expended probably is no more than two or three at the most. Most of the staffing shown in Table 4 will be new staff added to perform both the NPDES requirements as well as enhanced stormwater management (Table 3). The resultant total ,staff requirements will not be the -sum of Tables 3 and 4 but composite of the two. K,,w & Warmq: Inc. - 4(1(94 13 h:\vamxiarilaVechno Ll rd Table 4. City of Santa Clarita NPDES Compliance Requirements Program Element FTE Added Activity Annual Cost one Time Cost 1.. Caldr Basin penciling .tl Techmnans 5O.O() roll unInnleerf — -- Pick Up 10.000.00 251I(K).U0 Stencils L000.(K) 2,00or" Paint 500.w Safety 1,M)AX) 1IKOUX) subtotal 62,500.00 28,000.00 2...Prognnt for Mic t Discharges 05 Public Info 36,0(KI.00 Inspeclion 25,(HKr(X) Pick Up I(V O) 00 25SKK).U0 (800) Clrcmt 1,0(K).(X) I,UIKLIMI subtotal 72,00(1.00 26,000.00 1., Runoff Ordinance. 11_ Engineer 36.00000 Consultant — — — 1(I,(HH L(10 .subtotal 36,000.00 10,000.00 4. Pubhc Information and Education 0.5 Public Info '16.000.00 Printing IWK).00 5,(KKL(Kt Mailing 30.000.(10 Advertising, 10,000,00 subtotal 86,000.00 5,000.00 5.. Catch Basin Cleaning 1.O Tuh/C'rtw 150,0(K).00 s0.5 Supervisor '?(1AROO Vactor Track '25,(W.00 15QIX10.0(I Pick -Up 10.000,00 25O(KlOO Vactor Decant System 2.OW.(XI 30.(KX)JX1 .Safety 5,()()(I.(CL 2A)(i_(KI subtotal 222,000.00 207,000.00 Kato & Warren, Inc. , 41M4 14 h:\anlacla ❑mzV edmo I.3 rd Program Element FTE Added Activity Annual Cost One -Time ('oA 6. Tmsh Collection Ctmtract C..t. lIH1,lN1(1.11(I I.0 Crew 50,0(x).00 Pick Up I0,0(%Ui0 25.01 100 subtotal 160,000.00 2$,O()().00 7, Increa.ed Street Sweepmg Comract C'opiy 4(X1,(xXi00 0,5 Supervi... r L(1 Tech/Cm. 50,M),00 subtotal 490,000-00 X. Late,, illicit dumping,. etc. See 4 Sae 4 subtotal 9. IMI)eC000 of Commercial Activity Actwav LO Inspector Pick Up IQ,fHXI.(HI 25.11(%).00 0.5 Support IS (H70.(10 Mailing. 20.0(%).00 subtotal 98,000.00 25,000.00 10. Control of Household Po0utatvs Sep 4 See 4 11, Recycling L(I Coordinator 72,(X)O.(X) I.0 Support 36,0(xWO Contract Costs Public In o See.4 subtotal 108,000.00 12. Hazardous Waste Disposal See II Sae 11 11. Water Conservation Se 4 See 4 TOTALS 12.5 1,322,500.00 (1) 326,01)(I.00 Note (1) These one time costs would be incurred during the first two years of the NPDES permit period. Some of the equipment purchase costs may be funded from other sources and repaid from the Stornwater Utility fund through annual lease payments. Kam & Warren, Inc.. - 4/IN4 15 1,:\antaclanta\technol.7rd Table 3 projected 'a total staffing requirement of 1$,25 FTE at full operation of the stormwater program, Of this total, 13.25 FTE were additional staff beyond current efforts. Table 4 indicates a staffing requirement, dust to meet NPDES requirements, of 12.5 FTE, plus a program manager. Itissafe to assume that over the next three to five year period an added staff commitment of 10 - 15 FTE will be necessary. In -arriving at a total stormwater utility budget- the costs- of existing staff and equipment efforts must be added to the totals indicated in Table 4. This is summarized in Table 5. In addition to the staffing and costs indicated in Tables 3 and 4 the City is required to develop mapping. of the storm drainage system that indicates all elements of the system plus points of discharge to either surface waters or ground water, sources of potential pollutants and land use data, Much of the, information required for this mapping already exists in City records or the records of the LACFCD. However, no coordinated mapping exists and the City may want to consider meeting this mapping requirement by beginning the development of an electronic mapping system using Geographic: Information System (GIS) 'software rather than the existing autocad software available in Engineering. GIS mapping allows the manipulation and retrieving of physical data that will, be valuable for all City departments. Once established, each City department will find other uses for the GIS mapping capability. GIS mapping and database systems are becoming the standard for cities in California. The cost of purchasing a GIS system and initial database development in is the range of $250,000.00.. The cost of preparing a Comprehensive Storm Drainage Master Plan has been estimated at $300,000, The plan would cover all of the drainage system including the LACFCD ownership and would address both runoff quantity and water quality issues related to the NPDES permit. 2.4.4 Total Funding Requirements Table 5 surrunarizes the estimated cost of the suggested activity level at full "implementation. Full implementation would not occur at ounce but would be phased over at least three years as described in Section 2.5. Kalu & Warren, [tic.. 4/1/94 16 h:\a:u taclaniaVechri.l 7rd Table 5 City of Santa Clarita Stormwater Funding Requirements at Full Implementation ACTIVITY LABOR FTE RATE t1) _ TOTALS' Existing City Engtnecr 0.85 IOl (M .00 8(i0(X1 0 Engineer 1.0 72,0M).00 72l WAXi Technician, 0,5 5(,0MAK) 25,(XK),(M) Supenntendenl 0,25 60,000AK) 15,(KK).00 Foreman 0.5 50. )(1,00 25'OM.00 Field Crew 15 5t1,0(XLIH7 75 0MA10 (.lencal 0.4 16.0(X).00 14,0(M),N) subtotal 5.0 312,000.00 NPDES Requirements Program Manager IA 87.000.00 X7.0(X1lx1 Engineer (21 2.5 72,0(X).00 I$O,LX10.(X) Sol","., - LQ 60.0(X).(X) 6(WW(10 Crew 5.0 50'MIAX) 250.(XXI.i XI Techniciao L0 500)(1AX) q).()1X).00 Inspectors L5 50,000.00 75,0w,00 _ Public Itnio/Coordinmor (1) 2.0 72,000M l44,1Kx1(XI Uencal _ -' 1.5 16.OW.00 54,0f)( (l subtotals 900,000.00 Direct Clnsts Items Units Unit Cost Tout Pick Up 5.0 I4000.00 50.(W.00 .Street Cleaning (41 contract 400,W0.00 400,(XX).(Xl Filler/Trash/Recycle contract 100,000.00 10(1,(iIHLIXI Tack 1.0 14,0(M).(Hl 14.(KX).(X1 Vactor 1.0 25,000.00 25,0(1OAX) b Vactor Decant System IA. 30.000.00 10,0c)(im Safety Equipment LS 6,(X10.00 h,(XXI.(X) (80O) Phone Circuit 1.0 1 (K)OAH) 1.OW1 i Consulate LS 50,(H10.(1(7 5Opw(KI Printing PS Kato & Warren, Inc. - 4/IN4 17 b:\ anlaclania5lechno 13 of LABOR RATE(l) TOTALS Maih6g 50,(lIXl-($! i0j)(U.00 Advarticing r'r Sten'il,, LU( SX) I.00IIKI Killing Systaii C> (i) 200.(YX).(xl jll(l(KIU.(Ill subtotal 1,097,000-00 Told Aimual Co... without CIP 2309,000.00 Annwaise for Capital Improvements LS 5t1O,(Y,)0,00 (6) 5000I0,00 (Icneral and Administrative Overhead LS 5%,. (71 116,(XI(I.(XI Total Annual Cnst - (N1 S 2,925,O()-OO Notes: Rate includes 35% salary overhead plus 10% support costs. 2, 2 FTE are added here to reflect the need for increased development regulation and CIP support that are needed regardless of NPDES. 3. This includes both existing and projected needs, 4. A large part of this proposed cost is already under contract but since it is a normal stormwater and NPDES expense the total is included here. 5. See section 4.4 for details. Assume use of County tax rolls for billing. 6. The CIP allowance will be refined once a Master Plan has been developed. 7. This charge is an offset against general support provided by the administrative staff of the City, 1{. This total does not include the one-time charges for the following: GIS Development $ 250,000.00 Preparation of a Comprehensive Master Plan $ 300,000.00 Purchase of support equipment $ 450,000.00 $1,000,000.00 As indicated earlier, it would not be necessary to fully implement the recommended stormwater management program in the first year after the utility is formed.. For estimating purposes the following phase -in will be assumed: Kini &. Waircn, hrn. - 411194 18 I.\anlnclarita�ubnol Zrd Table 6 Estimated Stortriwater Annual Costs ..Annual Costs One Time Costs ( I I Total Budget (+1 ISudgA Yc,r 2nd Bud„el Year `Ird Budget Yaar V(XI (N XL00 1.700, Ml00. 2,900,000.00 41XIA10,00 YSItXXMK1 - 100,(X)0.00 1_S00,1X"J" ?tXX!I>tu�0n 3.0011000.00 -1 Year Total $5,500,000.00 $1,0001000.00 $L,StN1,000.011 Annual Average Budget $2,170,000.00 Notes: I. Includes certain capital expenditures from Table 4 plus the consultant costs for the utility billing database development, the Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan, development of a stormwater use ordinance and development of'a GIS mapping system. 3.0 STORMWATER FUNDING OPTIONS Given the need to provide additional funds for stormwater management the question becomes where these fundsare to come from. Four possible options have been identified: The City General Fund Shared revenue with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Creation of an assessment district Creation of a stormwater utility 3.1 General Fund The 1992-93 City budget projects $29,094,500 in revenue to the General Fund with projected expenditures of $28,638,300 leaving a reserve of $456,200. However, these funds are not considered an annual surplus since in fact the general City reserves have been reduced in recent years. Withig the. Community Development and Public Works portions of the General Fund expenditures are projected at $8,218,600, a large portion of which is allocated to contractual services for street maintenance and solid waste collection:. It may be possible to assign some of the additional stormwater work load to existing staff in Engineering and Public Works maintenance. However, interviews with these groups indicate that the current work load equals or exceeds available, staffing. Kato & warren. Bre.,- 411/94 19 1,:\amad.,n1a4cchn o I .? rd Conclusion Over time the General Fund would not appear to have the resources to fund the stormwater program without a corresponding reduction in other services funded by the General Fund. 3.2 Shared Revenue with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District The LACFCD levys annual assessments on all property within the district boundaries including all property in the City of Santa Clarita. Inquiries to the LACFCD reveal that the LACFCD collects $2,530,700 annually from property within the City, The funds collected by the LACFCD are used to pay for the construction, operation, and maintenance of all of the District's flood control and drainage system. Since most of the drainage systems within the City have been transferred to the LACFCD the District is assumed to be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the drainage system. While Los Angeles County is the lead agency for compliance with the regional NPDES permit, the LACFCD has not been named as a co-permittee and District funds are not used for NPDES compliance. If the LACFCD were to assume some portion of the NPDES compliance costs it would be possible that some City costs would be assumed by the District. This does not appear to be thedirection the County is taking with regard to the NPDES program. Another possibility would be direct rebate from the LACFCD to the City with the City continuing to be responsible for NPDES compliance, and perhaps certain maintenance activities currently the responsibility of the District. Discussions with LACFCD personnel do not lead to the conclusion that such rebates are likely without a major change in County policy, Conclusion The possibility of the City receiving funds from the LACFCD either as rebates or NPDES services would appear to be remote. Any such funding assistance would certainly not cover all City stormwater management costs. The issue has been raised of the City deannexing from the LACFCD. This would stop the present assessment against property in the City and in theory provide.$2,530,700 dollars to the City for the management and maintenance of the entire drainage system. However, the existing cost of maintenance would reduce the net dollars availabe to zero. We can find no case of'a similar withdrawal from the LACFCD. Another possibility might be an agreement to create a special assessment zone for Santa Clarita whereby City stormwater charges could be included in the LACFCD assessments. While this would probably be less objectionable to the District it may require extensive negotiations and procedures to implement. Kind & Warren, Inc. - 4/IN4 20 b:Aian�ncla niaVa;hnul,3 rd Our general conclusion is that this option would be difficult and time consuming to implement. It may be feasible as a long term goal but would not be a viable source of revenue for the first three years of the. NPDES permit process. 3.3 Creation of an Assessment District The City has the authority to form an assessment district covering all property in the City to raise the needed revenue for stormwater management. The City already has three special drainage assessment districts for groundwater dewatering and monitoring well sites. These assessment districts cover only the immediately benefited properties and should not be a factor if a city-wide assessment district were proposed. The stormwater assessments can be based on any rational formula that creates equity among the assessed properties. The formulas used by the LACFCD for their assessments are reasonably equitable and could also be used by the City with the appropriate rate factors. Assessment district law requires certain procedures for the formation of a district including The creation of a formal assessment roll. At least two public hearings. Mailed notice to all assessed properties. City Council action. The right of the public to remonstrate and stay City action. Once established the stormwater assessments would continue without further City Council action. However, if rates need to be increased in the future notices and hearings would be required just as for formation of the District. Collection of assessments would be performed by the County and the City would receive funds on a semi-annual basis. Conclusion An Assessment district would be an effective option for establishing the revenues needed for the City's stormwater program. This option is more feasible than the prior options but may be Jess desirable than the stormwater utility option due to the somewhat cumbersome procedures involved in assessment district law. 3.4 Creation of a Stormwater Utility A city may establish their stormwater system as a utility. Under Califomia State Law stormwater systems can be considered utilities the same as water and sewer service. As with other utilities a stormwater utility can issue service charges reflecting each properties use of the storm drainage Kato & Wanrcn: Inc. - 4/1/44 21 b:\iantaela nta'4echno l 3 rd system. This approach to stormwater management funding has been in use for only the last 20 years but it has now been recognized by the EPA as the desirable funding method to satisfy the requirements of the NPDES permit for a reliable and permanent source of stormwater funding. Most major cities across the country have adopted this approach. In California, because of the long history of special districts, such as the LACFCD, and the use of assessment districts the stormwater utility concept has been adopted by fewer cities than would have been expected. However, this is changing rapidly and cities such as Sacramento, Palo Alto, Los Angeles and many smaller cities now have stormwater utilities in effect. A stormwater utility is formed by the passage of an ordinance following standard City procedures. Once adopted the City has a number of options for issuing service charge bills. this is covered in more detail in Section 4 of this memorandum. Stormwater service charge rates are calculated in much the same manner as the LACFCD assessments. Some cities base the charges on more complex formulas and others add a water quality charge to the formulas. In fact, it is becoming popular to call the stormwater utility service charge a water quality or water quality protection charge. Once stormwater service charge rates are established they can be adjusted to meet annual budget requirements by passage of an ordinance or resolution following standard City policy. The stormwater utility approach is a powerful and flexible funding mechanism that has proven to be well accepted and effective in cities throughout the country including in California. Conclusion The stormwater utility approach or the assessment district option appear to be the only feasible methods of raising the funds needed to effect the required level of stormwater management dictated by the NPDES permit. Of the two options the stormwater utility's flexibility makes it more attractive of a city the size of Santa Clarita. 4.0 STORMWATER UTILITY ANALYSIS 4A Description . Acceptance of the fact that stormwater facilities and service are a indispensable part of the urban infrastructure has led to the concept of treating stormwater management as a municipal utility service on a par with water, sanitary sewer and other utilities. The stormwater utility concept has been authorized by state legislation in nearly every state in the country_ The California codes provide specific authorization for the concept including: Kaw & W.rzcn. lne. - 411/94 22 h:\.aniaclanta4cdmol zN General: powers of a Charter City Specific code sections in General Law Cities - Government Code Section 54300, Revenue Bond Act - Health and Safety Code Section 5470 While the legislative authority exists for establishing fees for stormwater service through the creation of a stormwater utility, enactment of the concept is a prerogative of local government. The rates to be charged for services and the organization and level of service to be provided are all local City Council decisions. As a utility function of the City stormwater utility funds are subject to strict audit requirements by State code. Stonnwater utility funds can only be expended for stormwater related activity which can include a reasonable charge for general city government overhead and support. 4.2 Sources of Funding A stormwater utility has several potential sources of revenue that are common to all types of municipal enterprise activities. These, are charges for services, pern-itting and inspection fees, system development charges and exactions from new development. 4.2.1 Service Charges Service charges are the primary source of revenue for all utilities. Service charges are based on the "use" a property makes of the service provided, In the, case of stormwater the courts have ruled that "use" is the same as "responsibility" for the runoff generated from a property. Section 4.3 will expand on the methods used to compute stormwater service charges. Stormwater service charges for a specific property, once established, only change when more impervious area is added on a property or when there is a general rate change. Consequently the revenue collected fora stormwater utility varies little from year to year and is quite predictable. This si nplifies budgeting and fiscal management of the stormwater utility. Service charge rates for a stormwater utility are set by the City Council by Ordinance. 4.2.2 Permitting and Inspection Fees With the requirement of the NPDES program all cities must consider establishing special permits for stormwater. These include permits for new development in order to more closely control and monitor the development process and ensure runoff quantity and quality controls are provided. It also includes annual stormwater use permits for commercial and industrial activities with regular inspections by the City to ensure that no illicit discharges are occurring and to ensure that materials are stored and handled in a manner that prevents the accidental discharge of pollutants on to surfaces subject to rainfall or washoff, Kato Re Warren,. Inc. - 41M4 23. h:\,antac1an1aVechno 1.3 rd The administration of this important stormwater activity costs money and the City should consider establishing separate fees and charges for this activity that cover all costs of administration and enforcement. 4.2.3 Svstem Development Charges System development charges are common in California for a variety of public services from water, sewer and transportation to stormwater and schools. The basis for such charges is the "buy -in" of new development to the facilities provided by existing properties that provide capacity enabling the new development to occur. Such charges are well established in case law and are a standard part of utility funding. System development charges require a careful analysis of the capacity of a particular system and the City's investment in the system. System development charges for stormwater systems vary widely. In California System development charges for storm drainage vary from $400,00 to $3,000.00 for a single family residence with proportional charges for other land uses. In the case of Santa Clarita the basis for the system development charges is lessened by the fact that most of the storm drainage facilities have been transferred to the LACFCD. A case could be made for some lower level of system development charge related to the street system which is the primary stormwater collector. System development charges must be spent for capital improvements and a reasonable nexus must be maintained between the expenditures and the new developments paying these charges. We would not anticipate stormwater system development charges providing significant revenues in Santa Clarita. 4.2.4 Exactions Most of the storm drainage facilities making up the Santa Clarita stormwater system were constructed through exactions. The term exaction refers to the requirement by a government that a new development construct storm drainage facilities to serve the new development. Often the required facilities include storm drainage facilities both within the development and downstream of the development. Direct cash contributions or construction by a development proponent are exactions. This approach can be quite effective in lowering the capital facility investment of a city. Exactions do not provide funds for the on -going maintenance and operation of the stormwater system. The City should continue to require exactions on a case by case basis. This source of funding is supplemental to the use of service charges. Kato do Wanrn,. Inc. - 4/04 24 - b:\�az tach rim\iechn o 1 and > 4.3 Computation of Service Charges 4.3.1 [basis of Charges Stor nwater service charges are most commonly based on the amount, or rate, of runoff that is generated from a property during a rainfall event. A ,standard equation for computing the rate of-runoffis what is known as the Rational Formula: Q=Ci,A Where: Q = Rate of runoff in cubic feet per second (cfs) C Percentage of impervious service i = Peak rainfall intensity (inches/hour) A = Acres of total area of a property Since rainfall intensity can be considered equal for all properties within a reasonable distance, what varies by property is the product of C times A, or the area of impervious surface on a property. This factor becomes the basis for thestormwater service charges. 4.3.2 Determining Impervious Area Determining the impervious area (C x A) on a specific property can be accomplished in two, ways: 1. By measurement using, a field survey or by take off from aerial photos 2. By imputing the impervious area by measuring the gross area of a property (A) and assigning a coefficient of imperviousness (C). The product of the two values is the imputed impervious area. The use of measured impervious area to establish service charges is the most equitable approach. The costs of the initial data base preparation is slightly higher than the imputed method but not prohibitively so. This method is used by more than half of all stormwater utilities. The imputed impervious area method is the method used by the LACFCD for computing its assessments_ It is the most common technique used by counties since the county assessor data base can be used for the computation and for billing. Since this data base exists for all properties in Santa Clarita this would be the easiest approach for computing stormwater service charges for the City. 4.3.3 Estimated Service [filling Units Since the City does not have a billing system in place that would give an accurate count of the total number and type of service accounts in the City, the computation of the potential stormwater billing units must be approximated from other data. Kato & Wwen,. Inc. - 411N4 25 b:\antadamz\ted,no l 3 rd A common approach to stormwater rate making is to set a fixed rate for all single family residential properties and to then charge all other properties on the basis of the ratio of impervious area on the property to a defined impervious area for a residential property. The LACFCD ordinance calls this single family area the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) which is assigned a base assessment. The assessments for all other properties are computed on the basis of the equation: Assessment = (Bate Rate) (Area of Parcel) (Runoff Factor) (Average EDU Area) This is the same approach used by other stormwater utilities and is the formula that we would reconunend for Santa Clarita. The LACFCD raises $2,530,700 from properties within the City of Santa Clarita, Their assessments are levied against both developed and undeveloped property, The EDU rate for the last year of record was $24.00 per year.. This has recently been raised although at a lower level than what had been recommended by the LACFCD staff. Using these figures the number of equivalent dwelling units, or billable units, can be computed: EDU = $2,530,700.00 = 105,445 $24.00 This figure does not include government property or tax exempt property. Both types of property are commonly charged stormwater service charges by cities. Cities normally do not charge vacant property. Consequently this figure for total billable units should be close for Santa Clarita. Based on experience in other cities and data provided by City planning another estimate can be computed: Total Single Family Units = 24,669 Total Multi -Family Units = 9,168 Conunercial Properties = 1,737 Using common EDU factors for these types of property and an allowance for government and other exempt properties we get: SF - 24,668 x 1.0 = 24,668 MF - 9,168 x 0.8 = 7,334 Comm 1,737 x 15.0 = 26,055 Gov/Ex- 200 x 10.0 = 2.000 Total Billable Units = 60,057 EDU Kato & Warren. Inc. - 4/1/94 26 b:\ :mtacUritaV rchno l 3 rd This number is considerably lower than the number of EDU obtained using LACFCD data. Another check is the experience of other stormwater utilities that for each $1.00 per month per EDU total revenues will approximate,SX-10.00 per year per capita population. Using a projected city population of 150,000 this would indicate a billable unit count of 150,000 x 8.00 = 100,000 EDU 12 150,000 x 10.00 = 125,000 EDU 12 For purposes of this analysis we propose to use an EDU count of 80,000 for computing required rates. Once a full billing data base can be assembled a precise EDU count will be available and the rates and/or revenues can beadjusted accordingly. 4.3.4 Service Charge Rates For purposes of computing a stormwater service charge rate we will assume an initial annual budget of $2,170,000.00 for the stormwater utility. This level of funding will permit the initial service charge rate to be held steady until the fourth year of operation, by which time the capital needs of the storm drainage system will be well defined and the NPDES requirements will be more completely defined by the State. With a total number of billing units of80,000 and a suggested initial annual revenue requirement of$2,170,000.00 the computation of the Equivalent Dwelling Unit Rate becomes straightforward: EDU Rate = $2.170,000.00 = $27.12/year 80,000 If the final database development yields an EDU count of 100,000 the annual service charge rate could be lowered to $21.70 per year for the average household. The City could decide to set an initial service charge rate at the higher or lower number or the initial utility ordinance could be adopted and the database development authorized after which a final service charge rate could be adopted by a separate ordinance. This is our recommended approach. For all property except single family residences the annual service charge rate would be computed using the LACFCD formula and runoff factors as modified. Larger commercial properties could have service charges that could be several times the basic EDU rate. 4.4 Method of Billing Several options are available to the City for billing stormwater service charges if a decision is made to create a stormwater utility: I. Place an annual charge on the County tax statement. Kato & warren, Inc. - 4/1/94 27 b:\aantaclariraV zchno I :1 rd 2. Have the LACFCD add the Cities charge to their annual assessment that appears on the County tax statement. I Contract with the Sanitation District to include the stormwater charges with the regular sewer service charges. 4. Contract with the several water companies service Santa Clarita to include the stormwater charges with their billings. 5. Establish a City utility billing System for stormwater with the possibility of adding other billings at a later date (re; solid waste).. Of these options only 1 and 5 are truly viable. The LACFCD and the Sanitation District already bill by means of the County tax statement and appear to be unwilling to co -mingle their billings with the City. Use of Water Company data and billing services would be cumbersome because of the different service areas involved and the fact that these are private, state regulated, utilities that appear to be unwilling to share data bases or services with a public entity. 4.4.1 Placing Service Charge on the County Tax Statement The County will accept stormwater charges by the City as a line, item on the tax statement. the cost to the City would be somewhat less than establishing a new City billing system but not a great deal less since the County charges for both the billing and collection of such charges. The estimated cost of this approach would be; Kato & Warren,. Inc. � 4/1/94 28 M:\aantaclari�a4ech no f .7 rJ Table 7 City of Santa Clarita Cost to Bill Stornwater Utility Charges on County Tax Statement Item titan -Op Annual I, hu119de Co>IS County Data Files Damhaxe Dcvelolmwnt IOO,IXx1.0(7 10.0W,lllJ Annual County Fee 5(),0CK).(H) l(I,(1l xllxl r. Facihtiex office Space ?.lull llNl Office Fumiture/Supplies S,[xl(1,(xl l jXX).(K) Personnel 4Qlxx!(HI I(ISMAXI Finance Supernsiat I Billing Clerk, l;nde 23 5ixi,[xI TOTALS $200,000.00 $116,000.00 To place the stormwater utility charge on the County tax statement will require an annual hearing before the City Council - Use of the County tax statement has several advantages: It, would be simple to establish the billing data files The cost would be lower The City would have less problem with collection and property owner inquiries 'There are also some disadvantages: Changes to the billing data base are more difficult Revenues are received only twice each year The City would not have as direct contact with the rate payers 4.4.2 Establish a City Billing System Since the City does not have a billing system or property owner data base in place at this time this option would require somewhat more work to implement. Once in place the operation of the billing system would be relatively straightforward. Discussions with the City Finance Department have provided the following estimated costs for creating a City billing system. There are both start-up costs and on -going annual costs involved in a City utility billing system. [nitially, all such costs would be bome by the storm drainage utility. However, if other utility functions were added later the annual operating costs could be shared by the various utility funds. Kam & warren, Inc: - 41M4 29 Table R City of Santa Clarita Cost to Bill Stormwater Utility Charges by Means of a New City Billing.System Item start -Up Annual L nu(s(de Cus(n - C'pmpuw SAI-ire iS,f7YX lIKI 7 (oo ix1 Insmllu mrV'rram ing 16,0(K I W 4 00R I X I Added Compute Menwx 2,000.(K) Suppori Equipment 4 500,(K) Prmung S.l)ll(S1K1 311,U(Xl,fl(t Postage (Quarterly hilting) 70 (XK) 01 Database Deve lalm(ent I M010:00 100 X) I 2.. Faolai" Office Spaca 8gow X1 Office Fumi tore/Supplies 15.00K),00 1000 (X) '3., Personnel 40,(X),O0 IfCOlKL In Finance: supervision L C'aehier.; (;,.de 23 30YX 100 I Billing C lcr , Grade 23 35.0(M,100 TOTALS 267,500.00 246,000.00 The advantages of a City utility billing system include: I: Billing system is fully under City control. 2. Contact with the public is direct. 3. A mailing system to all City property would be available in-house. 4. Collection of revenues would be direct and in-house, providing better control. 5. Customers would receive more direct responses and services. 6. Maintenance of the billing database would be easier and entirely in-house, 7. The City would be prepared for any future utility billing needs. The disadvantages of a City utility billing system include: I- The City would have to add personnel and equipment, 2. The start-up and annual cost are higher than if the County tax statement is utilized. 3.. The City would be fully responsible for billings and collection and would have to deal directly with the public. Ka(o 5e Warren. Inc. - 4/1/94 30 4.4.3 Conclusions Based on experience in other jurisdictions it would be our conclusion that establishing a City billing system would be advantageous in the long term since the City may eventually provide other services on an "enterprise" or utility basis. However, since the City does not have plans for billing additional services at this time the use of the County tax statement would be less costly and will result in less public concern. The decision will depend on the willingness of the City to create the direct contact with the user public that a new and separate City utility would imply. 4.5 Implementation Implementing the stormwater utility concept requires the adoption of an ordinance creating stormwater service as a utility function, of the City and establishing user charge rates. Preparation of a draft implementing ordinance is a task of this feasibility study. The adoption of a stormwater utility ordinance can be accomplished following normal City procedures with the, appropriate notices, and hearings. However, the adoption of stormwater utility would result in a new charge to Santa Clarita citizens and they obviously must be informed of the need for the increased revenues. This Stormwater UIility Feasibility Study is the, first step in the public information process. As the City Council reviews the findings and recommendations of the study information will reach the public through mews releases and media coverage. Once an ordinance is before the City Council special efforts should be made through the media and possibly mailings to inform the public. The ordinance hearing process will offer further opportunity for public input. If and when the Council acts by passage of the stormwater utility ordinance the need for public information efforts will continue. It is important to keep the public informed prior to issuance of the first bills and to provide a ready response to calls that can be anticipated during the first several billing cycles. Assuming the need for stormwater funding is accurate it does not appear that the program can be funded except by an assessment district or a utility. Whichever approach is adopted it's implementation should be considered as a normal Council action much like the annual budget adoption. Once a decision to proceed is made a one-time effort will be needed to develop the property database needed for either assessments or stormwater utility charges. z Kab R Wart,n. inr. - 4/1/94 31