CC - Item 5B - Water Quality Funding InitiativeROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2013
SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY FUNDING INTIATIVE
SUMMARY
Since 1991, the City of Rosemead has participated as co- permitees with Los Angeles
County and 84 cities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. Since that time, the
City has actively participated with cities in the region to adopt practices to address water
quality issues. Recently, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (State
of California agency) approved a new permit format that will require each agency to
prepare individual MS4 permits. This effort, combined with other new requirements, is
anticipated to be quite costly to implement, and could have significant potential impacts
on the City's financial resources.
In response to these new mandates, the County has developed the Water Quality
Funding Initiative (WFI, also referred to as the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Protection
Measure), a proposed parcel fee that would be used to offset the costs associated with
new MS4 permit requirements. The WFI is a Proposition 218 parcel fee that as
proposed, will be subject to approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
in January, and then to a vote of property owners in the Spring of 2013. All funding
through the WFI would be used to offset the new unfunded mandates associated with
the new MS4 permit developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Provide input on mandated water quality projects and costs to the City; and
2. Receive and file this report.
DISCUSSION
Several segments of the Los Angeles River (LA River) and its tributaries were identified
as impaired water bodies per §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. As such, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) via the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional
Board) were directed to prepare clean up plans — called Total Maximum Daily Loads
ITEM NO.
City Council Meeting
January 8, 2013
Page 2 of 4
(TMDLs) — for affected waters. TMDLs attempt to eliminate water quality impairments
within a certain amount of time. These TMDLs contain requirements for studies,
monitoring and the development of programs to attain TMDL contaminant reduction
targets over multi -year periods and are incorporated into the National NPDES Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. TMDLs are anticipated to be quite costly
to implement, and could have significant potential impacts on the City's financial
resources.
In order to understand the NPDES MS4 Permit and current storm water issues facing
cities, it is important to review the history of clean water activities. Some key dates and
events include the following:
• Initial MS4 Permit— 1991
o Permit issued to LA County and 84 cities (including Rosemead)
0 5 year permit period duration
o Contained 13 Best Management Practices to address water quality issues
• MS4 Permit Renewal — 1996
o Required the County /Cities to develop a storm water management plan
(SWMP) for LA County
o Implementation of SWMP activities
o 5 year permit period duration
• Clean Water Act Lawsuit — 1999
• The National Resources Defense Council sued the USEPA over a little
understood provision of the Clean Water Act known as Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs)
• Required the EPA to establish maximum daily levels of pollutants that
could be discharged to a waterway
• Settlement called for the EPA to prepare 135 TMDLs within California by
2011
• Set in motion costly clean water activities causing the cost of NPDES
program to skyrocket
MS4 Permit Renewal - 2001
• Permit remained largely unchanged from previous permit
• Required commercial /industrial businesses to improve operations by
implementing activities to reduce pollutant discharges
• Implementation of TMDLs
• New Permit - 2013
o Expected implementation of new permit in 2013/14
o Implementation of individual permits for cities instead of cooperative
City Council Meeting
January 8, 2013
Page 3 of 4
approach
o Continued Implementation of TMDLs
City Activities Related to TMDLs
While Rosemead is not directly adjacent to the LA River, we are adjacent to other water
bodies that flow into it (including the Rio Hondo River and Alhambra Wash). Because
the LA River's impairments involve pollutants that originate throughout the watershed,
the duty to adhere to the TMDLs applies to many agencies like us that are within the
watershed area.
In accordance with mandated activities, the City has continued its participation in efforts
related to the MS4 Permit and implementation of TMDLs. Each year, the City
completes an annual report of water quality efforts. This includes participation in
stakeholder meetings, funding contributions to public outreach efforts led by LA County,
and funding contributions towards required TMDL activities. The City currently budgets
$75,000 annually to complete these activities (membership dues for the Coalition for
Practical Regulation, preparation of MS4 Annual Report, staff training for City
employees, MS4 permit costs, and expert consultant assistance).
Over the foreseeable future, the City will be faced with ever increasing mandates
related to TMDL and water quality efforts. Attachment 1 includes a table that
summarizes programs and costs required with both existing and new mandates.
County Water Quality Funding Initiative
Given these mandated water quality activities and their financial impacts, it is important
that the City continue to advocate for cost - effective ways to address water quality. In
September 2010, AB 2554 was approved which allows the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District to establish a fee to be levied and collected for water quality purposes.
As a result, the Water Quality Funding Initiative (WFI, also referred to as the Clean
Water, Clean Beaches Protection Measure) was developed to provide a stable,
dedicated, long -term funding source for the implementation, construction, and
operations and maintenance of water quality improvements through a property - related
fee. The Flood Control District has worked extensively with municipalities and other
stakeholders to draft the proposed Ordinance. The Ordinance would codify the
governance, administration, and use of the fee, if and when the fee is approved by
voters.
The proposed Ordinance will allocate fee revenues and establish a governance
structure in accordance with AB 2554 and the requirements of Proposition 218. It
divides anticipated revenues among the Municipalities (40 %), Watershed Area Groups,
comprised of Municipalities within the watershed (50 %), and the Flood Control District
(10 %). Based on this formula, the City of Rosemead is expected to annually receive
approximately $614,000 of the collected revenues. Expenditures can include costs
associated with the NPDES permit, education, outreach, and water quality projects and
programming costs.
City Council Meeting
January 8, 2013
Page 4 of 4
The proposed fee would be calculated based upon the size of the property, impervious
area (e.g., roof, patio, etc) as determined by the property's land use, and the total cost
of the improvements to be financed by the proposed fee. Fee amounts for single family
residential homes will range between $8 and $83 annually, with the majority of
homeowners paying $54 annually. Commercial and industrial parcels, which typically
have much more impervious area, will be assessed larger amounts. Government
parcels must also be assessed since they contribute runoff as well. It is estimated that
the City of Rosemead's costs would total $12,000 annually.
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District staff has developed the following
schedule subject to the Approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors:
• January 15, 2012: Proposition 218 mandated public hearing for the Water Quality
Funding Initiative Fee
March — May 2013: Property owner mail - ballot election for the Water Quality
Funding Initiative Fee
A summary of the anticipated revenue estimate and City share are included in
Attachment 2.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The WFI could provide a dedicated funding source for the City to meet new, unfunded
mandates related to water quality efforts.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines.
Submitted by:
UMA�
Chris Marcarello
Director of Public Works
Attachments:
1. Program Summary and Estimated Costs
2. Water Quality Funding Initiative Breakdown
3
m
E
E
3
E
R
O
IL
I
c
d
E
r
v
Y
Q
i
O
O
0
O
a
O
O
O
O
M
O
0
0
N
N
m
w
0
° o
La
4A
V
c
d
`f
v
d
Z
N
Y
r
C
N
E
N
E
m
O
C
Mn
N
c
c
°
U
O
O
0 -
r
to
l0
c
°
'm
O N
Q O)
Y C
U) N N O
EH m
N
C U rx
a
J N N p
c m
- W
w0
LUZM
O
O
O
Y
c
d
E
d
K
rn
N
W
N
V
O
V
O
w
d
d
.
a
v
N
O
O
V
m
L.
O
0
V
O
:7
Q
g
g
a"
V
0
C
0
a
w
0
O
V
e
VI
G
0
M
to
M y
W
O
V
g
a
V
0
d
>a
Evo
a°i
a)
m
3 0-''
v
N
CI
(n
O O
N T
CL
N
m
o m
o c
>,C) C
(0
.N.
a)
- E
rn°
c�
m
W
N
>
°
>+ C
?) p �
Y
'9
N
_ - -_- c
- -
-_ -
c o
o
a
a c
°
v.3
E
ro
— — 0
— U
N y
C
an d
(h
o0 c
ma
v
v
c��o
>o
E
N N
N N
Q
C h—
N
N M V"
C
O
a N
O E
N
i0 O O
E N N
_= L
N c"NC�M
+. N N
LO
p
c
N
N V CL
C
a°
0 0 - -
°
mgd
�o
_=
°= N�"j
w0-°L
UC
°
�ac
�N
N `
o N
N
d a°
y U " N
o (OD) E
c c�
o m°
Q C
E c
CL
o Qm
- E -
r c
UU
Utowm`�
QoE
Qa
O
C
O
C
O
O
O
O
—
m
O
C
C
Z
Z
° o
-
_ --
O
0
0
o
10
t
N
O
O
C
l<
a_
C)
o°
O
N
p
Y
Z
Z
-
�
O
Z
_
- - o
- O
- o
0
N
N
0
o
m
o
0
BEN N
N
N
N
— 9C
N
O
N
- - a)
N
N
N
L
=_
(`p
U
(p l0 N
ca
N
U
N
W N
`)
3 'X
m m
p
O
•= 6
O
(D W
m
v v y m
a Z _
°
U
a N L L
a O
'
U
m
m
�'3
° c N
o ad
d�
N
O_ d
a
a
�
E030a>
E O
N
3
O C N°
N O O
c
CD
(%J
UQZ `
U SDa
J
C
as o
toga s
N
aNa,
°d E
N
70
0 cc
v0
V O_c
V QQ
i
O
O
0
O
a
O
O
O
O
M
O
0
0
N
N
m
w
0
° o
La
4A
V
c
d
`f
v
d
Z
N
Y
r
C
N
E
N
E
m
O
C
Mn
N
c
c
°
U
O
O
0 -
r
to
l0
c
°
'm
O N
Q O)
Y C
U) N N O
EH m
N
C U rx
a
J N N p
c m
- W
w0
LUZM
O
O
O
Y
c
d
E
d
K
rn
N
W
N
V
O
V
O
w
d
d
.
a
v
N
O
O
V
m
L.
O
0
V
O
:7
Q
g
g
a"
V
0
C
0
a
w
0
O
V
e
VI
G
0
M
to
M y
W
O
V
g
a
V
0
d
LA County Flood Control District,
Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure
Revenues vs Fee Obligations
Municipality
Artesia
•
19
•
$ 3,000
Bell
72
$ 50,000
Bell Gardens
96
$ 15,000
Bellflower
84
$ 30,000
Cerritos
77
$ 97,000
Commerce
88
$ 50,000
Compton
188
$ 75,000
Cudahy
15
$ 14,000
Downey
116
$ 59,000
Hawaiian Gardens
51
$ 3,000
Huntington Park
95
$ 51,000
La Habra Heights
5
$ 2,000
La Mirada
39
$ 15,000
Lakewood
63
$ 57,000
Long Beach
1,423
$ 1,663,000
Lynwood
111
$ 36,000
Maywood
24
$ 9,000
Montebello
113
$ 44,000
Norwalk
46
$ 37,000
Paramount
95
$ 23,000
Pico Rivera
72
$ 23,000
Santa Fe Springs
117
$ 43,000
Signal Hill
182
$ 11,000
South Gate
122
$ 38,000
Vernon
49
$ 35,000
Whittier
257
$ 483,000
Agoura Hills
77
$ 41,000
Calabasas
125
$ 31,000
Hidden Hills
12
$ 11,000
Malibu
30
$ 42,000
Westlake Village
17
$ 7,000
Burbank
250
$ 326,000
Glendale
611
$ 887,000
San Fernando
96
$ 23,000
Santa Clarita
440
$ 461,000
Alhambra
118
$ 91,000
Arcadia
106
$ 77,000
Azusa
132
$ 70,000
Baldwin Park
77
$ 28,000
Bradbury
2
$ 1,000
Claremont
143
$ 102,000
Covina
75
$ 41,000
Diamond Bar
36
$ 30,000
Duarte
90
$ 13,000
LA County Flood Control District,
Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure
Revenues vs Fee Obligations
Municipality
El Monte
•
168
•
$ 47,000
Glendora
230
$ 79,000
Industry
214
$ 315
Irwindale
59
$ 60,000
La Canada Flintridge
20
$ 5,000
La Puente
36
$ 10,000
La Verne
137
$ 34,000
Monrovia
208
$ 74,000
Monterey Parts
65
$ 78,000
Pasadena
356
$ 163,000
Pomona
518
$ 332,000
Rosemead
40
$ 12,000
San Dimas
71
$ 76,000
San Gabriel
35
$ 15,000
San Marino
12
$ 6,000
Sierra Madre
77
$ 18,000
South El Monte
9
$ 30,000
South Pasadena
62
$ 62,000
Temple City
36
$ 22,000
Walnut
123
$ 32,000
West Covina
282
$ 89,000
Carson
162
$ 105,000
El Segundo
42
$ 52,000
Gardena
54
$ 37,000
Hawthorne
71
$ 84,000
Hermosa Beach
70
$ 29,000
Inglewood
206
$ 69,000
Lawndale
35
$ 4,000
Lomita
16
$ 6,000
Manhattan Beach
71
$ 54,000
Palos Verdes Estates
192
$ 157,000
Rancho Palos Verdes
99
$ 171,000
Redondo Beach
97
$ 68,000
Rolling Hills
5
$ 4,000
Rolling Hills Estates
22
$ 36,000
Torrance
210
$ 142,000
Beverly Hills
120
$ 75,000
Culver City
207
$ 52,000
Santa Monica
199
$ 204,000
West Hollywood
23
$ 5,000
County
6,661
$ 5,788,000
Los Angeles
6,6331
$ 4,597,000
Grand Total
24,029 1
$ 18,546,000