Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03272012 - SD.6PDF Return SD. 6 To: Board of Supervisors From: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date: March 27, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:CONSIDER authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to vote for 2012 Community Clean Water Fee. Project No. 7517-6W7091 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/27/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact:Cece Sellgren (925) 313-2296 cc:J. Bueren, Public Works Director C. Sellgren, County Watershed Program C. Windham, Flood Control D. Louder, FPD S. Goetz, DCD I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 27, 2012 David Twa, BY:Carrie Del Bonta , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE a “yes” vote for the proposed property related fee to be assessed under the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative for all parcels owned by Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County in its capacity as successor agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency), the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Flood Control District), and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Fire Protection District), and DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee to fill-out, sign, and submit all ballots for Contra Costa County and Flood Control District owned parcels as identified in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director, or designee to fill-out, sign, and submit all ballots for Successor Agency owned parcels as identified in Exhibit C, and DIRECT the Fire Chief, or designee to fill-out, sign, and submit all ballots for Fire Protection District owned parcels as identified in Exhibit D. FISCAL IMPACT: If the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative passes, the total cost in property fees to the County would be $35,980. $14,380 of the proposed property related fees would be paid from General Funds. The remainder of the proposed property related fees would be paid from non-general fund funded Departments, Districts, and/or Enterprises (see Exhibits for details). (39.98% General Fund, 0.44% Road Fund, 1.16% Land Development Fund, 2.93% Library Fund, 3.45% Iron Horse Trail Fund, 27.96% Airport Fund, 3.97% Hospital Fund, 0.21% County Service Area M-16 Fund, 0.14% County Service Area M-17 Fund, 0.09% Richmond Pump Station Fund, 1.40% County Service Area R-7A Fund, 0.10% Countywide Lighting and Landscaping District – Bay Point Zones Fund, 0.17% Hill 310 Bay Point Fund, 4.34% Fire Protection District Fund, 10.43% Flood Control District Fund, and 3.23% Redevelopment Fund). If the proposed fee is approved by a majority of the property owners voting, the fee is expected to generate approximately $8,750,000 annually, countywide. The unincorporated County’s share would be approximately $1,225,000 to be spent to fund clean water and pollution control services and facilities, and implement federal and state mandated regulations for reducing pollution and harmful or toxic materials in water. BACKGROUND: In 1991, the incorporated cities within Contra Costa County, the County, and the Flood Control District formed the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) to work together to meet the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards’ (Water Boards) requirements to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Porter Cologne Act (Stormwater Permits). In 1993, the Program established a Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) to fund the clean water activities to comply with the Stormwater Permits. The fees were collected by the Flood Control District (except for the cities of Richmond and Brentwood) and disbursed to the incorporated cities and County. In the ensuing years, inflation and ever-expanding permit mandates have progressively increased the costs of the Stormwater Permit implementation. All municipalities now charge the maximum rate authorized by the SUA. In 2009, the Water Boards adopted the latest Stormwater Permits, known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The MRP is more prescriptive than previous Stormwater Permits, with ongoing pollution-prevention activities, greatly expanded stormwater monitoring requirements (implemented mostly on a countywide and regional basis), and trash controls (implemented mostly locally). This created a situation where the municipalities are mandated to perform activities well beyond their current funding capacity. The Program hired a consultant to assess the costs of Stormwater Permit compliance for each of the municipalities and investigate potential public financing mechanisms that the Program member municipalities could use to fulfill the requirements of the 2009 MRP. Countywide, the analysis showed a funding shortfall growing to over $82 million in the next few years. For example, in unincorporated County, the shortfall was $3.0 million in FY 10-11, and is expected to be $3.5 million in FY 11-12. The Program evaluated several funding options and chose to pursue a property related fee. In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, the State Court of Appeals held that storm drainage fees are property related fees that must comply with Proposition 218. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, acting as the governing board for the Flood Control District, voted on December 6, 2011, to accept the engineer’s report and begin the Prop 218 process for the property related fee. The fee is based upon the size of the parcel, and the amount of impervious surfaces on a parcel, irrespective of ownership or land use. For a typical single-family home on a ½ acre or less lot, the fee in unincorporated Contra Costa County will be $19.00 per year. On February 7, 2012, the Board held a public hearing on the matter with less than 0.2% protest, and the Board voted to proceed to the mail ballot phase. Ballots were mailed on February 21, 2012. Since a property related fee election is made by property owners, and not registered voters, the ballots are not sent to the Elections Department; instead, they will be sent to an independent accounting firm. Ballots must be received by the designated authority on or before April 6, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. The County owns 277 parcels that have received a ballot for the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative. 190 parcels are owned by Contra Costa County, 34 parcels by the Flood Control District, 25 parcels by the Successor Agency, and 28 parcels by the Fire Protection District. The board may either direct a yes vote, a no vote, or decide that no ballots should be cast. ELECTION QUESTIONS: During the property-related fee election so far, several questions have repeatedly been raised, mostly concerning the election process. The following are responses to the most commonly asked questions. Why is the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative needed? Each year, tons of harmful and dangerous pollutants, bacteria and trash are carried through our neighborhoods, into our local creeks, reservoirs, lakes, the Delta and the Bay. The stormwater permits require that public agencies take certain prescribed measures to keep pollutants from entering storm drain systems. These measures require funds that our cities and the County cannot afford. The 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative will allow our cities and the County to collect a modest fee (most homeowners will pay between $12 and $22 per year) to fund these cleanup measures. If the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative does not pass it would make protecting water quality more difficult in Contra Costa County and expose local jurisdictions to civil penalties, fines, Federal and State enforcement action, and third-party litigation. Civil penalties alone can reach $10,000 per day, per violation. Why was the Proposition 218 approach chosen? Faced with a severe funding challenge, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program evaluated a variety of alternatives for funding water quality and pollution control services and infrastructure including special taxes, property-related fees, assessments, regulatory fees, grants, legislative fees, and development fees. The Clean Water Program ultimately decided on the most commonly used approach for funding improved water quality in California - the balloted, property-related fee. Property related fees, not special taxes, are used to generate virtually all revenue for sewer, water and solid waste collection throughout California. This approach has been upheld by the courts (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas and Forde Green v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) as appropriate for clean water funding, and has been used successfully in recent years by the cities of Palo Alto, San Clemente, Solano Beach, Burlingame, Rancho Palos Verde and Santa Clarita, and probably others. Los Angeles County plans to conduct an owner-decided property- related fee process for water quality this fall, and Orange and Ventura counties will likely follow soon after. Article 13D of the California Constitution requires a Notice of Public Hearing be mailed to all property owners subject to the proposed fee, and that a Protest Hearing be conducted prior to the election. This “2-hurdles required approach” (protest hearing and election) is unique to California and was first implemented by Proposition 218, which was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and approved by California voters in 1996. Who will actually be counting the votes? The accuracy of the tabulation is of upmost importance and there are multiple layers of accountability to ensure the upmost transparency and accuracy of the tabulation. First, the tabulation will be performed by Carol Keene Associates in Walnut Creek, a professional accounting and auditing firm with extensive professional experience tabulating other similar ballot proceedings. Second, the ballots are being mailed directly to the tabulator with prepaid postage, which allows the Post Office to track the number of delivered returned ballots and ensures that other parties, including the County and Clean Water Program, do not have access to the ballots. Third, the ballots will remain sealed until the end of the balloting period and a log of mailed ballots received will be maintained by the professional tabulation firm. Fourth, the tabulation will be observed by the League of Women Voters and other groups, and can also be reviewed by other interested parties. And fifth, if desired, the ballot tabulation can be audited. Was consideration given to having the Elections Division of the County Clerk-Recorder conduct the election? Balloted property-related fee elections are regulated by different laws and codes than tax elections and, to our knowledge, have never been conducted by County Clerks in California. The County Clerk-Recorder does handle mail-in ballots for absentee ballots mailed in by registered voters, but not for property owner voter ballots. County elections officials work with registered voter processes and conduct elections for registered voters, they do not conduct elections where property-owners are the voters. Why no Pro and Con arguments nor independent analysis? Article 13D of the California Constitution (aka Proposition 218) and the supporting legislation outlines a process that does not include arguments or analysis on the ballot. The law stipulates that a minimum of 45 days must be provided so each property owner can obtain additional information as needed. The ballot design was intended to provide comparable amounts of information to property owners as that included with voter election ballots. The ballot also included a website and phone numbers to give all property owners ready access to more detailed information and provide a venue for any questions over the 45 day balloting period (and the preceding 45-day protest period). Why is a signature required on the ballots? Article 13D of the California Constitution and the supporting legislation and court cases have consistently concluded that a signature is required. The signature adds to the credibility and rigor of the process. Concern has been raised about privacy and security issues with property owner signatures on the ballot. The Clean Water Program has made every effort to follow a process that ensures the ballots are kept secure and secret. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Each property owner in Contra Costa County has the right to vote on the 2012 Community Clean Water Fee. Failure to approve this action would give up Contra Costa County’s, the Redevelopment Agency’s, the Flood Control District’s, and Fire Protection District’s right to vote. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AgendaQuick©2005 - 2022 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved