HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-129l
2'
3
4
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 92-129
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING THE
AMOUNT OF A MONTHLY SERVICE FEE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California (the
"City") on April 6, 1992, gave the final reading to an ordinance
which establishes and authorizes the levy of a monthly service
fee for the purpose of operation and maintenance of drainage
facilities as more fully described in the April ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused a preparation of certain
engineer's report entitled, "Engineer's Report -- Storm Drain as
Utility - City Wide - Monthly Fee Proposal," (the "Engineer's
Report") which sets forth the purpose and methodology as well as
the analysis for determination of the costs associated with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process;
and
WHEREAS, the City is currently in the process of amending
the San Bernardino Municipal Code in order to establish a
permanent declaration of all publicly owned drainage facilities
in the City being declared a public utility; and
WHEREAS, the City deems it desirable to adopt this
Resolution in order to set the storm drain utility fee as
authorized pursuant to the Ordinance and provide for any
subsequent adjustments in the amount of the storm drain utility
fee.
/ / / /
////
/ / / /
/ / / /
3/23/92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESO:
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SERVICE FEE FOR OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE. CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE
AND ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Storm Drain Utility Fee. The initial amount
of the storm drain utility fee shall be $0.0145 per hundred cubic
feet (hcf) of water delivery as determined by water purveyor
metering systems. Said storm drain utility fee shall be subject
to increase pursuant to the terms of any subsequent resolutions
to be adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, which resolutions
shall provide for adjustments to the storm drain service fee in
order to cover any changes in costs or any administrative and
carrying costs incurred in connection with compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process,
and maintenance of the City's storm drainage system.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
- z -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESO:
ESTABLTSHING AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SERVICE FEE FOR OPERATION'
AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE.CITY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
6th day of April 1992, by the following vote, to-wit:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA x __
REILLY R
HERNANDEZ x
MAUDSLEY %
MINOR x
POPE-LUDLAM x
MILLER x
Ra~~ asney~ erk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this g~
day of G 1992.
/,~~
`~~° .'=R. olc mb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
- 3 -
~-
City of S Bdno Res. 92-129 adopted 4/6/92
ENGINEER'S REPORT
STORM DRAIN AS UTILITY
CITY WIDE
MONTHLY FEE PROPOSAL
MARCH 18, 1992
Prepared By
Department of Public Works
City of San Bernardino
INTRODUCTION
Congress in 1987 amended Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C.A 1342(p)) to require the federal Environmental
Protection Agency to promulgate regulations for applications for
permits for storm water discharges. In general terms these
regulations require the control of pollutants from storm water
discharges by requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of stormwaters into waters
of the United States.
These EPA regulations require NPDES permits for discharges from
municipal storm sewers on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide basis.
The EPA delegated its responsibility to the State and the State in
turn delegated to the Regional Water Quality Control Board the
responsibility for management and administration of this program.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), after review of
the surrounding area, determined that it would process one permit
for the County and 15 cities with each being co-permittees on the
permit.
The permit sets forth requirements for reporting on the existing
system, land uses, maintenance and changes to the system on a
yearly basis. The permit also requires a testing program, a Best
Management Practices (BMP), and Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP)
and regular updates on inspections for illegal connections and
condition of the system. This is an ongoing program and has
several other requirements and conditions as detailed in NPDES
permit No. CA 8000200.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed utility fee for storm drains is to
recover the cost of operation of the permit and meeting the
requirement of the EPA mandate. No funding source was allowed in
the action taken by congress and each agency must fund its own
portion of the compliance efforts.
The permit has been issued and was mandated for our size city for
the current year. Failure to meet the requirements or comply with
the permit are punishable by fines of up to $25,000.00 per day for
each and every day of infraction. The concept of co-permittees was
deemed to be the most cost effective method of compliance as it
allows shared costs for the basic permit and the testing
required.The permit application fee is presently $50,000.00 per
year.
The city must participate, along with its co-permittees and must
meet the requirements of the permit. Preliminary estimates place
the first year costs at $265,000.00 for the testing, inspection,
monitoring, permit and reporting required. Existing law allows for
the storm drainage system to be determined to be a utility and
subject to a monthly service fee for maintenance and operations.
The concept of a monthly service fee for generation of funds
appears to be the most reasonable method of funding, equally shares
the cost among the users and provides for a monthly collection of
costs as opposed to a once a year billing.
METHODOIAGY
How should the costs of meeting permit requirements be distributed?
How should the funds be collected? What methods of cost allocation
would best distribute the costs fairly and equally to the residents
and businesses within the community?
Within the existing Municipal Code it has been reasonably
determined that the city is a single entity. That is, there are
functions, services and dangers that affect the community as a
whole and all those within the city limits must be expected to
share responsibility for the costs whether they use the service or
not. Such things as police services, fire services, parks,
libraries, street maintenance, street lighting, trash, water and
storm drain fees are collected in various ways but are funded by
all those within the city limits even if they have not used the
specific service. Following the doctrine of a common enemy, each
resident or business suffers when any part of the whole community
is damaged. In this respect, pollution of waters of the United
States damages all the citizens of the Unites States and the
responsibility for insuring clean waters entering the system
belongs to each member of society.
Within the NPDES permit and attached to this report, is appendix A,
which is the method by which each co-permittee will be assessed
their portion of all shared costs. In general terms, undeveloped
land is excluded, the percentage of developed area by land use is
compared with the total area covered by the permit, again by land
use and multiplied by a coefficient of run off for each of the
listed types of development. By this methodology, area and amount
of runoff is accounted for although no allowance is made for
quality of runoff. Again, the theory of common enemy comes into
play. Any time hazardous materials enter the storm water
discharge, the entire community suffers and each person in their
own way contributes to these discharges. Each person who drives a
car for example contributes rubber, lead, oil, gas and other toxic
material to the roads on which they travel, they contribute to the
local gasoline station operations,the tire shop and all other
support services for vehicle maintenance/repair and any pollution
problems they may cause.
Presently, there is no complete documentation on the land use
types, areas of land and ownership of such lands available on which
to build a direct cost linkage. However, after careful study and
review with the City Water Department, it appears that the water
usage bill provides a similar and fair distribution methodology.
Under present city code provisions, each water user is billed for
the amount of water used. Additionally, each user is billed a
monthly sewer charge based on the amount of water provided.
There have been several studies that associate sewer usage with
water consumption. Naturally, not all water used in the home goes
into the sewer collection system. Much is used for irrigation, car
washing, pool needs and other cleaning operations. It is therefore
reasonable that the water not entering the sewer collection system
is or can be runoff from the site. Rates are determined based on
these factors.
The proposed methodology is for each water user in the city to be
billed a storm drainage utility fee based on the amount of water
delivered to the site. One concern in any such system is the
fairness of allocation of cost. However, a close review of
appendix A supports such a cost allocation plan. As an example,
consider the single family lot. The large lots with significant
amount of undeveloped open space have a lower coefficient of runoff
(0.594) than do typical residential lots of 3-4 dwelling per acre
(0.695). As the lots get smaller, the lot coverage goes up and
therefore the amount of runoff goes up. However, if two identical
families were studied with one living on a 2.5 acre lot and the
other living on a lot that is 3-4 to the acre, each would have the
same water usage within the home (identical families). The
difference in actual water billing rates would take into account
the amount of landscaped area and would be higher on the larger
lot. Similarly the larger lot would produce more runoff but not in
a direct line relationship with area (different runoff
coefficients). The 2.5 acre lot would equal l0 of the smaller lots
but would likely generate only 6 times the run off due to less
developed area.
In similar analysis, commercial/retail centers and users have much
larger percentages of impervious area and therefore generate much
more runoff but again, their usage in generally higher due to the
nature of their facility. One exception does however exist. There
is the occasional user that has significant water usage for the
creation of a product that contains the water used or is related to
a water intensive process method. In this instance, the proposal
is to make adjustments to the rate when water usage exceeds certain
minimum amounts that are indicative of such types of usage.
The City of San Bernardino does not supply all of the water used
within the City limits. Other water purveyors do supply
approximately 7.5$ of all city residents with water. However,
these suppliers are willing to include the billing for storm drains
and to supply the total water consumption amounts to the city.
COST ALLOCATION
Staff has contacted the Water Department for the City of San
Bernardino as well as East Valley Water Department. These two
agencies represent 99$ of all water supplied within the city
limits. Staff considered the 1991 calendar year as representative
of the water usage in the area. Naturally, monthly variations as
well as yearly variations are to be expected. The water
departments report water usage in hundred cubic feet (hcf) in all
of their data. 1 hcf equals 748 gallons of water used.
Water usage for 1991 are as follows:
San Bernardino Municipal Water 17,330,000 hcf
East Valley Water (within City) 1,301,844 hcf
Total 18,631,844 hcf
Each agency has express a willingness to add the billing to their
regular billing cycle but at a cost of 2$ of the amount billed.
This covers programming costs, printing, mailing and related
charges.
Using an estimated first year cost for the permit requirements of
$265,000.00 (see PURPOSE section) and adding the 2~ billing costs
yields a cost to the city of $270,300.00. By dividing this number
by the total volume of water delivered yields the billing rate per
hcf
$270.300.00
18,631,844 equals $0.0145/hcf
The typical single family residential unit uses 21 hcf per month
over the year. The proposed billing rate would add an additional
$0.3047 per month to the bill or $3.66 total charge per year for
the protection of the Waters of the United States from pollution.
As previously discussed, large commercial users that use the water
in the product or process have not been addressed. The above
formula is based on total water delivered with no adjustment. It
is recommended that such users be required to submit the request
for reduction in fees to the Director of Public Works for
verifications and recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council.
In this manner, the actual numbers and effect can be determined and
the size, location of the site, actual process and water usage can
be better addressed. It is anticipated that very few users will
meet the minimum requirements of process water or consumed water in
the product being produced.
CONCLUSION
Congress, in an effort to address pollution of the water of the
United State, has mandated compliance with NPDES permit
requirements. They provided no funding source other than the local
agency for such compliance. Existing law allows for the storm
drain system to be treated as any other utility in that fees may be
collected for the operation and maintenance of the system. Staff,
is recommending that a monthly service charge be placed on all
water users to fairly collect the monies related to the operation
and maintenance of the system. Costs are presently estimated only
for the NPDES permit requirements. Adjustment may be made in the
future to reflect actual costs for operations and maintenance.
As presently proposed, the typical home will average approximately
$0.30 per month in additional fees. The relationship of water
usage to potential storm water discharge has been reasonably
determined and explained in this report.
APPENDIX A
The following formula will be used by the District to determine the shaze costs as required in the
"National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System Stormwater Pemvt Implementation Agreement,
Santa Ana Region", Section N.
Total Program Costs will be detemvned by the DISTRICT and allocated to the CITIES
and the COUNTY by the following formula:
~ency AA* x (annual cost x 0.95) =Agency's Contribution Total
,e, q**
AA = Adjusted Acreage
* = Each agency as listed below
** = Total adjusted acreage
AGENCY:
ounty o an Bemazdrno
Cities of: Big Bear Lake Chino
Chino Hills Colton
Fontana Grand Terrace
Highland Loma Linda
Montclair Ontario
Rancho Cucamonga Redlands
Rialto San Bernardino
Upland Yucaipa
2. The Agency Adjusted Acreage will be determined by the DISTRICT using the
following formula:
[(Ilu 1 -Ulu 1) x Clu 11 + [(Ilu 2 -Ulu 2) x Clu 2l +...+[(U 1 - 13) x Cl =
Adjusted Acreage
I - Improved acreage for each landuse as defined below
U - Unimproved acreage for each landuse as defined below
lu - landuse as defined in the following table
C - Runoff coefficient as derived from the San Bernardino County Hydrology
Manual
Appendix A
(continued)
Landuse Formula
Desi nation Runoff
Coefficient (C)
mgle amtly
Residential
2.5 acre lots lu 1 .5 4
1 acre lots lu 2 .5 4
dwellings/acre lu 3 .6 5
-4 dwellings/acre lu 4 .695
-7 dwellings/acre lu 5
-1 dwellings/acre lu 6 •~
>10 dwellings/acre lu 7 •~
ulhple amrly
Residential
ondomintums lug 0•~
Apartments lu 9
obtle ome arks lu 10 •~ 5
ommercral, owntown
Business or Industrial lu 11 0.820
chool lu 12
ublrc ark Agrrcultural lu 13 .5 4
ndeveloped 1-13 0.54
Reference: San Bernardln0 County Hydrology Manual and SC;ACi modrIled Anderson Landuse
classification (1992)
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED 1992/93 BUDGET
EXPENDITURES AS CO-PERMITTEE FOR NPDES PERMIT
I. Proportionate share of cost incurred by Flood Control as lead
agency comprised of - Permit reporting, testing of approximately 30
locations, Administration, Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and
Best Management Practices (BMP) manuals and basic yearly Permit fee
$64,200.00
II. Additional testing of outflows within the City as necessary to
isolate specific illegal discharge. Estimated to be S sights at
$6,500 per site
$52,000.00
III. Inspection of Storm drainage System
1. Inspector - 1000 hours @ $40 $40,000.00
2. Video taping System (Private
Contractor) $60,000.00
3. Clean Up at contaminated locations
and disposal of material $10,000.00
IV. Annual Updating of Permit Exhibits (maps, drainage system
improvements, land usage and area)
1. Public Works Department $16,300.00
2. Planning Department $12,000.00
3. Clerical Support for reports
and data $10,500.00
Subtotal $265,000.00
Billing Fee (2$) $ 5,300.00
TOTAL $270,300.00