Stormy Waters: Update on L.A. County Storm Water Funding Initiative - Ken Farfsing

Stormy Waters: Update on L.A. County Storm Water Funding Initiative - Ken Farfsing

• 2.
  • NPDES Permit& TMDL Programs • Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure • Protest Hearing Process • Board Direction • Parcel Tax vs. Parcel Fee/ Other Options • Future Actions Summary
• 3.
  • New permitis complex • New water quality monitoring requirement • EWMP or WMP by June 28, 2013 • Significant Funding Commitment • Non-compliance risk is real NPDES Permit and TMDL
• 4.
  Background • Original focusof enforcement of Clean Water Act was aimed at point- sources of water pollution (i.e. factories, sanitary sewer treatment plants) • Since mid-1990’s enforcement focus has moved to urban runoff – through municipal NPDES Permits • Unique problems with urban runoff: • Sources of pollution are diverse • “Legacy” pollutants • No dedicated funding source/fees governed by Proposition 218 • Federal and State funds are limited • Limited public awareness of pollution problems/solutions • Unresolved scientific, technical, and legal issues require solutions • Unprecedented level of involvement by the cities in new permit
• 5.
  Development of aRegional Funding Source • ASCE 2002 • LA County sponsored AB 2554 to address Proposition 218 issues • AB 2554 was based on “situs” parcel fee • Regional, local and FCD “return” • Clean Water Clean Beaches Initiative • Typical residential parcel fee $54 LACFCD 10% Watershed Groups 50% Cities 40% Fee Distribution
• 6.
  Clean Water, CleanBeaches Measure • Board of Supervisors opened protest hearing from January 15 to March 12, 2013 • Protesters included individuals, public schools, businesses, and some cities • Supporters included individuals, some cities, and environmental organizations • 113,696 (5.16%) protests
• 7.
  Major Unresolved Issues •School exemption • Exemption for cities with existing fees • Religious & Non-profit exemption • Business concerns • Lack of Sunset Clause • Inadequate recognition of existing improvements • Many cities failed to provide specific projects • No hardship exemptions
• 8.
  Proposed Changes • SchoolEducation as “in-kind” services • “Sunset” and “Dusk” Clause alternatives • Credit Program
• 9.
  Board Direction • Additionaloutreach to stakeholders • Investigate Options • Report due in 90 days (June 2013)
• 10.
  Comments • Board understandsthe high cost of stormwater programs • Process needs to start from Cities • County is exploring all options • Cities need to be involved • City customization • Educate elected officials and the community • Election issues/timing
• 11.
  Future Actions • Involvementof Government Stakeholders - Cities, Schools & Community Colleges • Involvement of Additional Stakeholders – BIZ Fed, Environmental Community, etc. • City Managers/Public Works Officials Meeting - Contract Cities and LA Division of the League June 27 at 12 PM • Develop issues, form CM Task Force, with report & recommendations
• 12.
  LA County Websitefor Clean Water, Clean Beaches Initiative www.lacountycleanwater.org/ Draft Ordinance www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume nt/727/Ordinance%20V3.5pdf Draft Implementation Manual www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume nt/728/Implementation%20Manual%20V3.5pdf Resources
• 13.
  Engineer’s Report: www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume nt/623/Fee%Methodology/pdf Sample Projects www.lacountycleanwater.org/pages/map Contacts: PhilDoudar, LA County DPW, [email protected] Ken Farfsing, City of Signal Hill [email protected] Resources