The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About41-Public Works 41' w ~ ~ ~ - . o;lTY OF SAN BE~ARDINOo- MEMORANDU~ To RAY SCHWEITZER Acting City Administrator Continued Item No. 37, Agenda of 10-20-86 Recommendation from Legislative Review Committee on Waiver of Storm Drain Fees From ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer October 27, 1986 File No. 4.01 Subject Date Approved Date This item was continued to allow a survey to be done of surrounding cities to determine their policies and the dollar impact. Attached is a memo from Gene Klatt, Assistant City Engineer, summarizing the results of the survey of other cities. There does not appear to be a consistent pattern, but the larger agencies have some type of reimbursement procedure. ' The proposed guidelines were drafted to be fairly restrictive. These guide- lines only apply to large master planned storm drain facilities (60-inch or larger) and for which the City has no downstream drainage facilities. The relief of downstream drainage construction responsibilities will occur when the facility installed by a development discharges directly into a channel or basin under another agency's jurisdiction; also, if the entire master plan has been constructed between a development and channel or basin under another agency's jurisdiction. Due to the rather restrictive language of the guidelines, we feel the average annual participation will not exceed $50,000. We feel the guidelines will provide a more equitable method of financing urgently needed storm drain projects, and recommend that they be adopted. There has been some discussion relative to adjusting our storm drainage fee to replace the funds expended for participation in those projects that meet the guidelines. A copy of the proposed gui ines is attached for reference. R~RDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer RGH:rs Attach. /j/ 611 y Ut- ::SAN ~I:~AHUINVO- ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Director To Public Works/City Engineer Subject Drainage Fees and Cost Participation as Proposed by Legislative Review Committee M~MVnANLJU(j ~ GENE R. KLATT From Asst. Ci ty Engineer Date October 17, 1986 File No. Approved Date We have looked into the proposed guidelines as ,suggested by the Legislative Review Committee and the methods usedlby other cities in the area. We have checked wi th Riverside, Col to.1l, Fontana... Ontario and with the County (San Bernardino) -to see how they 'settle the matter of Master-planned Storm Drain/' Facilities and the funding. There is no general rule that is applied. The larger and more sophisticated agencies do have some form of .payback" in whiGh the developer may ask the Mayor and Council to contribute ~he normal storm drain fees to the cost of the project (as proposed by Leg i s 1 a t i v eRe vi e w ) , but others have no method of reimbursement or cost sharing and the developer pays the entire cost of the drain. In the case where payback is provided, only a proportionate share is allowed against the fees. That is, if the development generates 90S of the water, it must pay for 90S of the cost even if fees collected would amount to 50S of the cost. The exce s s fees are used for other dra 1 n s' the City may re qui reo Present City policy is to require the developer to pay the cost of the storm drain as required or shown on the Master Plan. In addition, they would pay $2,178 per acre to the City. If the plan proposed is adopted, the City would "lctse" . the $2,178 per acre of development if the required storm drains met the criteria for fee waiver. The vast majority of undeveloped land within the City is in need of major storm drain construction, and that is one of the reasons it remains undeveloped. If the policy is established, costs would still be considered, ~ut the average developer would see a net savings on the development of $2,178 per acre, and the amount of development would very likely increase. While the major drains would be built, the loss of approximately $2,100 per acre for storm'drain construction would have an impact on drains in fully developed areas and on the ability to participate in other drainage projects. 1 . o ROGER G. HAR DGRA VE October 17, 1986 File No. Re: Drainage Fees and Cost Participation as Proposed by Legislative Review Committee o 0' o Additionally, if the fee structure were modified and increased, the dollar loss would be greater. Some agenc1e$ have made the requirement that the developer participate' in a benefit assessment district to fund all drains, but this system does not allow construction at the time of deveJopment. Rather, as funds are collected projects are completed. This could give rise to liability problems if development is scattered and spread over a number of years leaving the area witho~t adequate storm drainage systems in the interi m. Loss of the storm drainage fee would seriously impact the construction of storm drains in the older, developed portions of the City, and in the required maintenance and upgrading of the system already in place. It would reasonably stimulate additional development in the undeveloped areas of the community and perhaps contribute to the construction of some of the major drains that are needed. A good case can be made both for and against the proposed plan. A partial listing is made below: JUSTIFICATION IQ! PROPOSED PLAN: 1. Lower development costs to buil~er 2. Increased development in presently undeveloped areas 3. Construction of more of the Master-Planned drains 4. Preceived as a more "fair" policy by development community 5. No out of pocket expense to the City 6. Less appeals to Council concerning costs and/or cost sharing JUSTIFICATION AGAINST PROPOSED PLAN: 1. Loss of revenue for drain construction in developed areas 2. Loss of revenue for maintenance of existing systems 3. Unfair to all previous developers who paid both costs 2 ~ . o ROGER G. HAR DGRA VE October 17, 1986 File No. Re: Drainage Fees and CO$t Participation as Proposed by Leg i s lathe Rev iew Commi ttee o o o ~~ 4. Increased impact on downstream system without funding source 5. Loss of revenue to participate in other drainage studies or improvement$ 6. If fees increase, non-qualifying developments suffer great~ costs while qualifying developments reap grea tV benefi ts. . . ~d ~/tzJ- GENE R. KLATT Assistant City Engineer GRK:pa 3 . o o 0 GUIDELINES for PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF MASTER PLAN STORM DRAIN FACILITIES BY DEVELOPERS 0' I. PURPOSE--To provide for participation by the City in the cost for construction of inordinately large Master Plan Storm Drain facilities, where the City has no downstream responsibilities. Il.DESCRIPTION nIt is the intent of the City of San Bernardino that Master Plan Storm Drain facilities ,be constructed in order to provide protection from flooding. These facilities are normally constructed by developers, or by City Public Works contracts financed with storm drainage fees paid when building permits are issued. It is recognized that on occasion developers are required to install facilities larger than usually considered necessary for local drainage, and the City has no downstream responsibilities by virtue of the fact that these facilities discharge into a channel or basin under another agency's jurisdiction. Ill. PROCEDURE--Any developer required to install a Master Plan Storm Drain facility of a secondary nature (60 inch or larger pipe), may submit a request for participation by the City to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Upon making and finding that the required facil ity is of a secondary nature, and that the City has no downstream drainage responsibilities, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer will submit an agreement for participation by the City to the Mayor and Council for approval. Any such participation shall not exceed the amount of the storm drainage fees paid by the-developer. ~