The document provides recommendations for sustainable stormwater quality funding in Los Angeles County. It recommends viewing stormwater systems as utilities requiring dedicated funding, and engaging cities, the county, and stakeholders to determine if a regional fee is viable. It also recommends continuing work on public education, pursuing legislation, and forming committees for elected officials and joint stakeholders to improve coordination and consensus building on funding solutions. The peer reviewers were asked for their perspectives on the recommendations and how best to proceed.

1. Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding
in Los Angeles County
City Managers and Public Works Officials
Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities
And
California Contract Cities Association
June 19, 2014 Special Meeting
LosAngelesCountyDivision
Leagueof CaliforniaCities

2. MEETING AGENDA
• Review of Major Recommendations
• Comments from the Peer Review Panel
– Kirsten James, Heal the Bay
– Mike Lewis, BIZ Fed
– Adi Liberman, Coalition for Our Water Future
• Choices, Discussion and Comments
• Approval of the Report/ Preliminary Work Plan

3. BACKGROUND
• City Managers for the Los Angeles County Division of the League of Cities and the California
Contract Cities authorized the formation of a Work Group to study the Clean Water, Clean
Beaches Measure for “lessons learned” and to review stormwater funding options at the
June 27, 2013 joint meeting
• City Manager Work Group met from July to October 2013 to draft the funding report
• Stakeholder Review was conducted on October 28, 2013
• Elected Officials Committee met from November 13, 2013 to April 3, 2014 (six meetings) to
review and revise the report
• Eight progress reports provided to various COGs, Public Works Officials and the CCCA and the
League
• The draft report distributed to Cities at the May 21st Countywide City Managers Meeting/
Mailed to cities that did not attend the meeting – 30 day comment period
• Draft report is now ready for final approval

4. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
• Stormwater systems need to be viewed as a major utility, requiring
dedicated operating revenues
• The Working Group does not specifically recommend regional or local
fees, but that the cities, County and stakeholders engage in a process to
reach consensus on if a regional fee is viable
• If a regional fee is to be successful it must include an initial “opt out”
provision; options that don’t allow this flexibility should not be considered
• Public education and outreach will be critical to success of a regional fee

5. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
• Funding urban runoff programs is so complex and dynamic, and the
solutions so costly, that the County and the Cities cannot follow a single
funding strategy at this time
• The report is not advocating that any city, group of cities,
or the County adopt stormwater fees at this time
• This report suggests a voluntary framework through Contract Cities and
the League to organize those communities that desire to engage in
implementing the recommendations found in this report
• Stormwater should be viewed as a resource that can recharge
groundwater supplies via infiltration or be used directly

6. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
• Cities need to explore the formation of an “Urban Water Conservation
District” under the 1931 Act with the County and the County Sanitation
Districts as an option for the regional fee
• Cities need to continue to engage in the State Water Bond discussions to
ensure sufficient funding for stormwater compliance, capture and reuse
projects
• Cities need to support efforts to modify Proposition 218 to allow
stormwater to be classified as a traditional utility subject to the notice
and protest hearing process

7. ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• CCCA and the League, LA County Division should approve the
formation of core group of elected officials as a “Steering Committee”
• The Steering Committee should form a Joint Stakeholder Committee,
including members from the environmental community, the business
community and other stakeholders to improve communication and to
reach consensus on fee issues
• The Steering Committee should engage the Sanitation Districts in a
broad discussion of a possible role of the Districts in managing
stormwater programs

8. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
• The Cities and the County need to improve public outreach efforts
• The Stakeholder Committee can be very effective in communicating a
“joint message”
– Direct communications with the Governor and the Legislature on the
funding needs
– Direct communications with the area’s Congressional delegation
– Encourage incorporation of best science into the Basin Plan
– Participate in any future bond programs, including water and
transportation bond measures

9. LEGISLATION
• The Steering Committee and Joint Stakeholder Committee should pursue
legislation in the following areas:
– Schools and Public Facilities – Environmental liability waivers; State
Architect guidance on schools
– Stormwater Capture and Reuse – Provide a clear path to “monetize”
the capture and use of stormwater
– Source Control or Fee Legislation – Pursue reduction of Zinc in tires
and/or a “per tire” Zinc reduction fee
– Special Assessment Districts – Explore the special assessment district
concept for funding stormwater projects

10. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS
• Board of Supervisors should explore a property owner/voter sentiment survey based on new
factors and changed circumstances, including a list of specific projects, optional fee amounts
and an “opt out” provision
• Participate with the cities in exploring the formation of the Urban Water Conservation
District under the 1931 Act
• Determine governance structure under 1931 Act – BOS, LACSD or other?
• If BOS governance, conduct a protest hearing and vote for a stormwater capture and
infiltration fee
• Conduct a protest hearing and vote on stormwater fee to fund other program aspects not
covered under the 1931 Act Water Conservation District
• Protest hearing and or election for regional fee should be held after June of 2015, when
EWMP projects will be submitted and fee amount can be calculated on planned projects and
preliminary estimates

11. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS
• Amend the Flood Control Act for “opt out” provisions
• Complete ordinance, guidelines and project criteria
prior to requesting support from stakeholders
• Measure should contain “dusk clause”
• Substantial credit/fee waiver program for properties that implement on
site stormwater capture, use/infiltration
• Credit/fee waiver program for public and private educational institutions –
infrastructure improvements and educational programs

12. CLEAN WATER CLEAN BEACHES RECOMENDATIONS
• Include a business community representative on the Oversight Committee
• Include a disadvantaged communities program
• Limit program administration to 5% of total revenues
• Require a Level of Effort above which cities could apply the funding to
existing city services
• Dedicate a portion of the fee to key scientific studies of water quality and
control issues
• The fee program should have the ability to fund regional and multi-
watershed programs and projects
• Cities with rent control ordinances should consider “pass through” of the
regional fee to renters
• Lessons learned can be applied to other regional and local fee initiatives

13. LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS
• Adoption of local fees
• Amendments to refuse and street sweeping contracts to provide NPDES
trash controls
• Proposition 218 fee for stormwater/trash controls
• Adoption of water conservation fees to provide funding for reducing
irrigated runoff to conserve water and reduce dry weather discharges
• Cities may consider adopting Stormwater Impact Fees
• Local, statewide or regional fees on car rentals to contribute to copper and
zinc clean-up costs
• Incorporate stormwater quality features into street and highway projects
funded by bonds and other street funds

14. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION BONDS AND PROJECTS
• Encourage MTA to include funding stormwater quality features, like Green
Streets, in future bonds
• Encourage COGs to develop Strategic Transportation
Plans that include mitigations designed to address water quality issues
from transportation projects

15. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD
• Key staff should be available to provide continual education to the cities
regarding the Board’s regulatory programs
• Request funding for a staff position that would be responsible to identify
and distribute information on the available federal, state, non-profit,
corporate and other sources of funds
• Establish an on-line resource center to assist the cities in complying with
the stormwater permit requirements

16. LEGAL ISSUES
• Election Requirements for the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure
• “Opting out” of the Clean Water Measure
• Other Approaches – Water Conservation Districts and Assessment Districts
• Local Stormwater Fees – Election Requirements
• Funding Multi-Purpose Projects with Water Funds (Majority Protest)
– League of Cities Implementation Guide
– AB 2403 (Rendon)

17. STAKEHOLDER REVIEWERS
• Kirsten James, Science and Policy Director, Water Quality, Heal the Bay
• Mike Lewis, President, Lewis and Company, representing BIZ Fed
• Adi Liberman, President, Adi Liberman & Associates, Coalition for Our
Water Future

18. STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS
• One year later, what is your organization’s perspective on the County fee?
• What is your organization’s perspective on the report’s recommendations?
• Have your concerns been addressed? If not, how would you address
them?
• What additional thoughts and advice for how best to proceed?
• Would your organization participate in the Joint Stakeholder Review
Committee?

19. DISCUSSION
• No major comments or concerns have been received since the report was
distributed
– No financial commitments by CCCA and the League (resources would include
attending meetings, e-mail notices, etc)
– What are the anticipated costs per city to provide support to the Elected Officials
Steering Committee?
• We provided a briefing to the BOS deputies. The main question from the
County is “What do the Cities want the County to do”?
• What concerns or questions do you have?
• Does your City generally support the Report’s recommendations?
• Depending on the amount, would your City help to financially support the
Joint Stakeholder Committee through Contract Cities?

20. PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN
Suggested Tasks
• Steering Committee – Finalize Work Plan, Funding Formula and Budget/
Meet with Cities
• Joint Stakeholder Committee – Decide on initial joint projects (i.e. water
bonds, potential legislation, public education and outreach)
• Meetings with the County Sanitation Districts/ LA County
• Legal Research on the 1931 Act – Urban Water Conservation Districts and
Assessment Districts
• Potential Legislation – State Facilities Stormwater Requirements; 218
Legislation; the “per tire fee” for Zinc reduction programs
• Coordination with CASQA on future tire reformulation to reduce/remove
Zinc

21. • Approval the report
• Recommend that the Boards of the CCCA and the League of
Cities, Los Angeles Division authorize the continuation/formation
of the Elected Officials Steering Committee, directing them to
report back on a work plan, budget and funding formula
ACTIONS