June 19, 2014 City Managers Meeting- Storm Water


Published on

Storm Water Presentation- City Managers Meeting-June 19, 2014- Ken Farfsing, Signal Hill

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

June 19, 2014 City Managers Meeting- Storm Water

  1. 1. Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County City Managers and Public Works Officials Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities And California Contract Cities Association June 19, 2014 Special Meeting LosAngelesCountyDivision Leagueof CaliforniaCities
  2. 2. MEETING AGENDA • Review of Major Recommendations • Comments from the Peer Review Panel – Kirsten James, Heal the Bay – Mike Lewis, BIZ Fed – Adi Liberman, Coalition for Our Water Future • Choices, Discussion and Comments • Approval of the Report/ Preliminary Work Plan
  3. 3. BACKGROUND • City Managers for the Los Angeles County Division of the League of Cities and the California Contract Cities authorized the formation of a Work Group to study the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure for “lessons learned” and to review stormwater funding options at the June 27, 2013 joint meeting • City Manager Work Group met from July to October 2013 to draft the funding report • Stakeholder Review was conducted on October 28, 2013 • Elected Officials Committee met from November 13, 2013 to April 3, 2014 (six meetings) to review and revise the report • Eight progress reports provided to various COGs, Public Works Officials and the CCCA and the League • The draft report distributed to Cities at the May 21st Countywide City Managers Meeting/ Mailed to cities that did not attend the meeting – 30 day comment period • Draft report is now ready for final approval
  4. 4. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS • Stormwater systems need to be viewed as a major utility, requiring dedicated operating revenues • The Working Group does not specifically recommend regional or local fees, but that the cities, County and stakeholders engage in a process to reach consensus on if a regional fee is viable • If a regional fee is to be successful it must include an initial “opt out” provision; options that don’t allow this flexibility should not be considered • Public education and outreach will be critical to success of a regional fee
  5. 5. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS • Funding urban runoff programs is so complex and dynamic, and the solutions so costly, that the County and the Cities cannot follow a single funding strategy at this time • The report is not advocating that any city, group of cities, or the County adopt stormwater fees at this time • This report suggests a voluntary framework through Contract Cities and the League to organize those communities that desire to engage in implementing the recommendations found in this report • Stormwater should be viewed as a resource that can recharge groundwater supplies via infiltration or be used directly
  6. 6. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS • Cities need to explore the formation of an “Urban Water Conservation District” under the 1931 Act with the County and the County Sanitation Districts as an option for the regional fee • Cities need to continue to engage in the State Water Bond discussions to ensure sufficient funding for stormwater compliance, capture and reuse projects • Cities need to support efforts to modify Proposition 218 to allow stormwater to be classified as a traditional utility subject to the notice and protest hearing process
  7. 7. ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS • CCCA and the League, LA County Division should approve the formation of core group of elected officials as a “Steering Committee” • The Steering Committee should form a Joint Stakeholder Committee, including members from the environmental community, the business community and other stakeholders to improve communication and to reach consensus on fee issues • The Steering Committee should engage the Sanitation Districts in a broad discussion of a possible role of the Districts in managing stormwater programs
  8. 8. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH • The Cities and the County need to improve public outreach efforts • The Stakeholder Committee can be very effective in communicating a “joint message” – Direct communications with the Governor and the Legislature on the funding needs – Direct communications with the area’s Congressional delegation – Encourage incorporation of best science into the Basin Plan – Participate in any future bond programs, including water and transportation bond measures
  9. 9. LEGISLATION • The Steering Committee and Joint Stakeholder Committee should pursue legislation in the following areas: – Schools and Public Facilities – Environmental liability waivers; State Architect guidance on schools – Stormwater Capture and Reuse – Provide a clear path to “monetize” the capture and use of stormwater – Source Control or Fee Legislation – Pursue reduction of Zinc in tires and/or a “per tire” Zinc reduction fee – Special Assessment Districts – Explore the special assessment district concept for funding stormwater projects
  10. 10. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS • Board of Supervisors should explore a property owner/voter sentiment survey based on new factors and changed circumstances, including a list of specific projects, optional fee amounts and an “opt out” provision • Participate with the cities in exploring the formation of the Urban Water Conservation District under the 1931 Act • Determine governance structure under 1931 Act – BOS, LACSD or other? • If BOS governance, conduct a protest hearing and vote for a stormwater capture and infiltration fee • Conduct a protest hearing and vote on stormwater fee to fund other program aspects not covered under the 1931 Act Water Conservation District • Protest hearing and or election for regional fee should be held after June of 2015, when EWMP projects will be submitted and fee amount can be calculated on planned projects and preliminary estimates
  11. 11. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS • Amend the Flood Control Act for “opt out” provisions • Complete ordinance, guidelines and project criteria prior to requesting support from stakeholders • Measure should contain “dusk clause” • Substantial credit/fee waiver program for properties that implement on site stormwater capture, use/infiltration • Credit/fee waiver program for public and private educational institutions – infrastructure improvements and educational programs
  12. 12. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS • Include a business community representative on the Oversight Committee • Include a disadvantaged communities program • Limit program administration to 5% of total revenues • Require a Level of Effort above which cities could apply the funding to existing city services • Dedicate a portion of the fee to key scientific studies of water quality and control issues • The fee program should have the ability to fund regional and multi- watershed programs and projects • Cities with rent control ordinances should consider “pass through” of the regional fee to renters • Lessons learned can be applied to other regional and local fee initiatives
  13. 13. LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS • Adoption of local fees • Amendments to refuse and street sweeping contracts to provide NPDES trash controls • Proposition 218 fee for stormwater/trash controls • Adoption of water conservation fees to provide funding for reducing irrigated runoff to conserve water and reduce dry weather discharges • Cities may consider adopting Stormwater Impact Fees • Local, statewide or regional fees on car rentals to contribute to copper and zinc clean-up costs • Incorporate stormwater quality features into street and highway projects funded by bonds and other street funds
  14. 14. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION BONDS AND PROJECTS • Encourage MTA to include funding stormwater quality features, like Green Streets, in future bonds • Encourage COGs to develop Strategic Transportation Plans that include mitigations designed to address water quality issues from transportation projects
  15. 15. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD • Key staff should be available to provide continual education to the cities regarding the Board’s regulatory programs • Request funding for a staff position that would be responsible to identify and distribute information on the available federal, state, non-profit, corporate and other sources of funds • Establish an on-line resource center to assist the cities in complying with the stormwater permit requirements
  16. 16. LEGAL ISSUES • Election Requirements for the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure • “Opting out” of the Clean Water Measure • Other Approaches – Water Conservation Districts and Assessment Districts • Local Stormwater Fees – Election Requirements • Funding Multi-Purpose Projects with Water Funds (Majority Protest) – League of Cities Implementation Guide – AB 2403 (Rendon)
  17. 17. STAKEHOLDER REVIEWERS • Kirsten James, Science and Policy Director, Water Quality, Heal the Bay • Mike Lewis, President, Lewis and Company, representing BIZ Fed • Adi Liberman, President, Adi Liberman & Associates, Coalition for Our Water Future
  18. 18. STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS • One year later, what is your organization’s perspective on the County fee? • What is your organization’s perspective on the report’s recommendations? • Have your concerns been addressed? If not, how would you address them? • What additional thoughts and advice for how best to proceed? • Would your organization participate in the Joint Stakeholder Review Committee?
  19. 19. DISCUSSION • No major comments or concerns have been received since the report was distributed – No financial commitments by CCCA and the League (resources would include attending meetings, e-mail notices, etc) – What are the anticipated costs per city to provide support to the Elected Officials Steering Committee? • We provided a briefing to the BOS deputies. The main question from the County is “What do the Cities want the County to do”? • What concerns or questions do you have? • Does your City generally support the Report’s recommendations? • Depending on the amount, would your City help to financially support the Joint Stakeholder Committee through Contract Cities?
  20. 20. PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN Suggested Tasks • Steering Committee – Finalize Work Plan, Funding Formula and Budget/ Meet with Cities • Joint Stakeholder Committee – Decide on initial joint projects (i.e. water bonds, potential legislation, public education and outreach) • Meetings with the County Sanitation Districts/ LA County • Legal Research on the 1931 Act – Urban Water Conservation Districts and Assessment Districts • Potential Legislation – State Facilities Stormwater Requirements; 218 Legislation; the “per tire fee” for Zinc reduction programs • Coordination with CASQA on future tire reformulation to reduce/remove Zinc
  21. 21. • Approval the report • Recommend that the Boards of the CCCA and the League of Cities, Los Angeles Division authorize the continuation/formation of the Elected Officials Steering Committee, directing them to report back on a work plan, budget and funding formula ACTIONS