Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0119 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM q.8. CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting Of- l - i9-aoo� ACTION: Moorpark City Counci . _"., � „4i Agenda Report BY: �' . ,Moen TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: January 20, 2005 (Council Meeting _) /- ✓�% SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Efforts to Establish a New Stormwater Quality Property - Related Fee and Approval of a New Countywide Implementation Agreement Related Thereto DISCUSSION A. Background 1. Existing Agreement: In 1992, the City approved an Implementation Agreement, joining with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (DISTRICT), the County of Ventura, and other cities in the County, to apply for a single National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater discharge permit. Together the District, the County of Ventura and the ten (10) cities (CO- PERMITTEES), developed and implemented the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (PROGRAM) under the requirements of the State issued NPDES permit. 2. Joint Efforts: This "Countywide” effort has been found to be a cost - effective and efficient means of obtaining and complying with the NPDES permit, including consolidating and streamlining costs, administrative functions, and monitoring activities, as well as developing and implementing a program that is consistent and equitable among all the co- permittees' jurisdictions. The DISTRICT is designated the Principal Co- permittee and performs most administrative functions, sampling and monitoring activities. This Countywide Program has endured through nearly two permit terms, the current one is scheduled to expire in July 2005. The group is now working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on an application for a permit renewal. NPDES Agreement 0501 'w09G NPDES Implementation Agreement January 19, 2005 Page 2 3. Benefit Assessment Program: The DISTRICT had a Benefit Assessment District for flood control in place before the establishment of the Countywide Stormwater Quality Program. The DISTRICT allowed each of the co- permittees to add an additional assessment to that levied by the DISTRICT, to fund all or a portion of the local costs for this federally- mandated program. The City of Moorpark was the only City which declined this opportunity to secure an additional funding source for its program costs. The City of Moorpark currently funds its PROGRAM costs from the Gas Tax Fund and the General Fund. 4. Proposition 218: Prior to the adoption of Proposition 218 in 1996, those participating in the DISTRICT'S Assessment District could increase the amount of their assessment each year to keep pace with the rising cost of ever - increasing permit requirements. With the passage of that measure, the assessment amounts were frozen. 5. Funding Shortfall: In recent years, the DISTRICT and all of the Co- permittees receiving Assessment District revenues, have found that these revenues are not sufficient to fund the cost of the PROGRAM. Increasing PROGRAM requirements and costs have required those agencies to draw form other sources to fund the PROGRAM. Of course, in the case of Moorpark, these increasing costs pose an increasing burden upon City General Fund and Gas Tax Fund. The current estimated annual cost of the City's needed program is over $350,000. B. Additional Revenues Needed 1. Assessment Increase: In July of 2003, efforts began to investigate options to increase revenues for the PROGRAM. One option considered was a "Mail- Ballot" to increase the amount of the existing assessment. The DISTRICT disclosed that it had funding available to hire a consultant, develop a needs assessment (or "Nexus Report ") and pay the expenses to complete a ballot measure. The City, as well as all the co- permittees, prepared a memorandum in support of moving forward with investigations of funding mechanisms, Co- permittee costs, anticipated new permit requirements, and a potential ballot measure to recover costs of the PROGRAM. 2. Consultant: The DISTRICT hired Shilts Consulting and Larry Walker Associates to complete studies, surveys and evaluations to determine whether or not increasing PROGRAM funding would be feasible. This contract includes the preparation of an "Engineer's Nexus Study ". NPDES Agreement 0501 1)U0064. NPDES Implementation Agreement January 19, 2005 Page 3 3. Property - Related Fee: On the basis of the Consultant's findings, the DISTRICT is proposing to establish a separate new property- related fee, "the Clean Water Fee" (CWF), rather than increase the existing Benefit Assessment. The existing Benefit Assessment would remain in place, unchanged. A new Clean Water Fee would be assessed at one rate countywide, collecting funds for both the DISTRICT'S Co- permittee costs as well as for the other Co- permittees. The proposed CWF requires a ballot measure, which is proposed for June 2005. If successful, funding would first be distributed from this source in January 2006. 4. Nexus Study: The Nexus Study prepared by the Consultant is the underlying document that supports the proposed clean water fee. This Study satisfies the requirements to impose the proposed clean water fee including the explanation of the reasons for the fees, a description of proposed services, costs, and budgets, "the basis upon which the amount for the proposed fee or charge was calculated," method of apportionment, maps and diagrams, and proposed fees for all parcels within the county. A sample of property owners was surveyed to identify the community - based support for improved stormwater and NPDES services. 5. Nexus Study Findings: The general findings of the Nexus Study is summarized as follows: • An investigation of the current costs and budgets for each of the Co- permittees, including predictive future revenue needs based on the 2005 NPDES permit, predicted revenue needs were significant for all the Co- permittees. • The survey analysis indicates community support for a clean water fee of $24.80 per year per single - family equivalent fee unit (SFE) . This clean water fee would generate approximately $8.9 million of revenue for NPDES and stormwater quality management activities. • A proposed equitable distribution of the fee revenue amongst the Co- permittees has been developed and is described in the proposed 2004 Implementation Agreement (Exhibit 2). • The reason for the clean water fee is to provide improved water quality through improved stormwater quality management, and satisfy the requirements of the NPDES permit, for properties and property- owners within Ventura County. • A direct and strong relationship exists between in increased stormwater quality management services and the proposed clean water fee. NPDES Agreement 0501 NPDES Implementation Agreement January 19, 2005 Page 4 The Nexus Study also described existing and anticipated new requirements and services that will impact the Co- permittees resources and found that those requirements and services may be funded, in part, by the clean water fee. The City of Moorpark will be required to participate in all these activities once the new permit is adopted. As mentioned above, these costs are expected to exceed $350,000 in FY 2005/06. 6. Moorpark: For the City of Moorpark, the expected revenue from the CWF would be $244,125, about seventy percent (700) of the projected program costs. This new fee revenue would significantly assist the City in its efforts to satisfy the existing and new stormwater quality management requirements. 7. Principal Permittee Costs: It should be noted that the Principal Co- permittee does not share a percentage of the revenue for these activities. Under the terms of the new Agreement (Exhibit 1) each Co- permittee will be required to pay a share of the Principal Co- permittee costs. The amount of those annual costs to be paid by Moorpark is estimated to be approximately $41,000. 8. Proposed Board Action: The proposed fee will be recommended to the Board of Supervisors in February 2005, at $24.80 per SFE. 9. Summary of Clean Water Fee: Item Amount Total fee (per single- family equivalent) $24.80 collected countywide Total Annual Revenue $8,878,024 Total Revenue to Moorpark $244,125 C. Cost of Engineerinq Studv & Ballot Measure 1. Funding Assumptions: The total cost for the Engineering Study, ballot measure and related costs (including public outreach efforts) is $475,520. As stated above, initially all of the Cities were advised that the DISTRICT would fund these costs. It was subsequently learned, however, that the funds the DISTRICT intended to use for these costs were actually collected from some of the Co- permittees. A determination was then made that the use of these funds for these purposes would not constitute an equitably distribution of the costs between the Co- permittees. It was decided that these costs should be shared by Co- Permittees at the same ratio as the benefits derived. NPDES Agreement 0501 1)00 0 NPDES Implementation Agreement January 19, 2005 Page 5 2. Cost Sharing: The new Implementation Agreement (Exhibit 2) includes language for the equitable distribution of the aforesaid costs. Approval of the Agreement constitutes approval of that cost sharing formula and the payment of any City costs related thereto. City of Moorpark costs have been established at $12,934. 3. City of Oxnard: As previously mentioned, the DISTRICT intends to fund these costs from certain monies it had previously received from the various Cities. Unfortunately, the amount in that Fund from the City of Oxnard, is insufficient to cover its share of the costs. The "Oxnard shortfall" is $40,285 [$58,204 - $17,919 = $40,40,285] . In recognition of the City of Oxnard's early contributions toward the development of the PROGRAM, the Implementation Agreement contains provisions which allocates this shortfall to the other Co- Permitees. The City of Moorpark's share of this additional cost is $2,417.08. 4. Refund: The total amount of "Moorpark" funds being held by the DISTRICT, is $23,300. With the payment of the City's share of these funding development costs ($12,934.14), and the payment of Moorpark's share of the "Oxnard shortfall" ($2,417.08), the City will still receive a refund of $7,948.78. 5. City Approval: Approval of the attached Implementation Agreement will authorize the above described expenditures. D. Ballot Measure The remaining procedural steps required to conduct the ballot measure are as follows: • Co- permittees to provide formal support for moving forward with the ballot measure by the close of January 2005 • DISTRICT reviews Nexus Study and calls for public hearing on proposed fees (February 9, 2005) • Notice of public hearing mailed to property owners • Public hearing on proposed fees (45 days after notice) • If no majority protest, ballots are mailed to all property owners • 45 -day balloting period • Public hearing to close balloting • Tabulation of ballots NPDES Agreement 0501 1,10, 006 ��� NPDES Implementation Agreement January 19, 2005 Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (Roll Call Vote) Adopt Resolution No. 2005- supporting the Ventura County Watershed Protection District's ballot measure for a Property - Related Fee to increase funding for the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program and approving a new Countywide NPDES Implementation Agreement, subject to final language approval by the City Manager and City Attorney. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Resolution Exhibit 2: Implementation Agreement NPDES Agreement 0501 10096S Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT'S CLEAN WATER FEE BALLOT MEASURE AND IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Congress in 1987 amended Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C.A. 1442 (p)] to Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations for applications for permits for stormwater discharges; and WHEREAS, these Permit regulations require the control of pollutants from stormwater discharges by requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (PERMIT) for the discharge of stormwater into waters of the United States; and WHEREAS, the CITIES, the COUNTY and DISTRICT have been issued a PERMIT and designated as Co- permittees by the LARWQCB; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to fund and implement an integrated stormwater discharge management program with the objective of improving water quality in Ventura County; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moorpark recognizes the increasing costs of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, both to the Principal Co- permittee and the Co- permittees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered certain findings and recommendations related to a proposed countywide ballot measure to assess a Clean Water Fee of $24.80 per single family equivalent (SFE) per year for the purpose of collecting a portion of the costs of the Program for the Co- permittees; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that an increase in revenue is required to meet the existing and future regulatory requirements of the PERMIT. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Moorpark supports the Ventura County Watershed Protection District's proposal to increase funding with a countywide fee of $24.80 per single family equivalent (SFE) per year for the purpose of collecting a portion of the costs of the Program for the Co- permittees. 1)00969 Resolution No. 2005 - Page 2 SECTION 2. The Implementation Agreement related to the development and implementation of that new fee and the administration of the Countywide Stormwater Quality Program is hereby approved, subject to final language approval by the city Manager and the City Attorney. SECTION 3. The City expenditures set forth in the aforesaid Implementation Agreement are hereby approved an authorized; and SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005. ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk Patrick Hunter, Mayor �x. 2 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT VENTURA COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This AGREEMENT is entered into by and among the County of Ventura hereinafter referred to as COUNTY, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District hereinafter referred to as DISTRICT and the Cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks hereinafter collectively referred to as CITIES and establishes the rights and responsibilities of each party with respect to funding and implementation of compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Stormwater regulations administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles (LARWQCB) by the authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its 1987 amendments and the Water Quality Act (WQA). RECITALS Whereas, 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 (EPA) to promulgate regulations for Permit applications for stormwater discharges; and Whereas, these Permit regulations require the control of pollutants from stormwater discharges by requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit (PERMIT) for the discharge of stormwaters into waters of the United States; and Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT desire to fund and develop an integrated stormwater discharge management program with the objective of improving water quality in Ventura County; and Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT cooperation in jointly filing application for PERMIT is in their best interests; and Whereas, NPDES permits presently have 5 year terms and reapplication must be made for each successive permit; and Whereas, the CITIES, COUNTY, and the DISTRICT have been issued a permit and designated as Co- permittees by LARWQCB; and Whereas, the DISTRICT has also been designated as the Principal Co- permittee in the PERMIT NPDES Agreement_0501 )001tr71 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: I. FILING STATUS The CITIES, COUNTY and the DISTRICT as Co- permittees will jointly file an application for a PERMIT. The COUNTY, DISTRICT and each individual City will each be Co- permittees under the PERMIT. II. FEDERAL AND STATE GUIDELINES This AGREEMENT is meant to be consistent with the terms of all applicable Federal and State permit application guidelines as presently written and as may be amended during the term of this AGREEMENT. If any provision of this AGREEMENT conflicts with any Federal or State permit application guideline, the guideline shall take precedence. All provisions, which remain consistent, shall remain in force and effect. III. INCORPORATION OF THE CURRENT NPDES PERMIT The NPDES PERMIT as amended to the CITIES, COUNTY and the DISTRICT by the LARWQCB pursuant to Board Order No. 00 -108 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Future PERMITS will supersede this permit as issued. IV. STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES The responsibilities of the CITIES, COUNTY and the DISTRICT shall be as described in the NPDES PERMIT and Stormwater Management Plan and are summarized as follows: A. Co- permittees are independently responsible for complying with the requirements of the PERMIT within their own jurisdictional boundaries and complying with any enforcement actions pertaining to permit violations issued by the LARWQCB, except with respect to facilities owned or operated by other Co- permittees. B. The DISTRICT, as Principal Co- permittee, shall be responsible for the following duties as set forth in the Permit and the Stormwater Management Plan (November 2001 Rev.2): i. Coordinate PERMIT activities; ii. Prepare the Principal Co- permittee annual budget for Co- penmittee review. At end of each fiscal year, prepare statement showing revenues, expenses and reserve balances. iii. Advise the Co- permittees of meetings with the LARWQCB and give them the option to attend the meetings. iv. After consultation with the Co- permittees, and representing the interests of the Co- permittees, serve as an advocate between the Co- permittees and the LARWQCB and perform Principal Co- permittee administrative functions including: Set time schedules for countywide meetings and submittals to LARWQCB; 2. Prepare, modify and submit regulatory reports such as the Annual Report, Monitoring Reports, Stormwater Management Plan and Technical Guidance Manual. 3. Forward Co- permittee information to the LARWQCB; 4. Arrange for public review, when needed; 2 NPDES Agreement 0501 5. Update Co- permittees on LARWQCB and EPA regulations; 6. Submit Report of Waste Discharge application and Stormwater Management Plan and negotiate new Permit in cooperation with and subject to the approval of the Co- permittees; 7. Secure services of consultants for Principal Co- permittee activities as needed; 8. Coordinate billing with County of Ventura Environmental Health Department (EHD) and other organizations that provide countywide services; 9. Provide standardized formats for countywide databases required to be submitted to LARWQCB and provide data to the Co- permittees. 10. Upon annual approval by the Co- permittees, pay membership fees and represent Co- permittees at Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) and share information with Co- permittees v. Manage and implement the stormwater quality monitoring program as required in the PERMIT; vi. Convene the Management Committee and subcommittee meetings. Chair and provide agendas, meeting minutes and handouts; vii. Attend subcommittee meetings; viii. Manage countywide educational outreach program as defined in the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP); C. DISTRICT, COUNTY, and CITIES, functioning as Co- permittees, shall be responsible for the following duties as set forth in the PERMIT and the Stormwater Management Plan (Nov. 2001 Rev 2): i. Comply with the requirements of the permit within their own jurisdictional boundaries; ii. Prepare and provide to the Principal Co- permittee permit- required submittals; iii. Oversee program development. Senior staff from all Co- permittee agencies will attend Management Committee Meetings; iv. Five subcommittees, composed of Co- permittee staff from various departments or contracted representatives will meet as needed to discuss program implementation activities, develop program materials, and advise and make recommendations to the Management Committee. Final decisions on subcommittee recommendations will be made by the Management Committee. v. Within its own jurisdiction, each Co- permittee is responsible for adoption and enforcement of storm water pollution prevention ordinances, NPDES Agreement 0501 3 1)oo'Y f'13� implementation of self - monitoring programs and Best Management Practices (BMPs), and conducting applicable inspections. vi. Each Co- permittee will serve on one or more subcommittee. The subcommittees currently include the following: - Programs for Residents - Programs for Industrial and Commercial /Illicit Discharges (one subcommittee covers two program areas) - Programs for Planning and Land Development - Programs for Construction Sites - Programs for Public Agency Activities vii. Each Co- permittee will be represented at the number of subcommittee meetings assigned to it by the Management Committee and/or the Permit. The Management Committee has currently assigned subcommittee attendance requirements as follows: Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, Simi Valley, and Camarillo will be represented at 5 out of 5 meetings. Moorpark, Santa Paula, and Fillmore will be represented at 4 out of 5 meetings. - Ojai and Port Hueneme will be represented at 3 out of 5 meetings. D. The Principal Co- permittee may secure at its discretion the services of consultants to facilitate meeting the requirements of the Permit set forth in IV- B after consultation with the Management Committee at a regular scheduled meeting and in conformance with its program budget. E.i For consultant services outside PERMIT requirements and where costs will be shared by all Co- permittees, concurrence of the Management Committee is required. The Principal Co- permittee will provide to Co- permittees, via fax, mail or e- mail, a proposal of work and estimated costs for consultant service and associated expenses. E.ii At the first Management Committee meeting, which occurs more than 10 days after the mailing date of the consultant service proposal, a vote on the proposal will be held, and concurrence will be obtained from a 2/3- majority vote of the Management Committee members. Individual Co- permittees may make agreements for cost sharing which do not include other Co- permittees. E.iii Upon a 2/3- majority vote of the Management Committee on a consultant service proposal pursuant to section IV -Eii, each Co- permittee shall pay its share of the estimated costs to the Principal Co- permittee within 120 days of the majority vote. The proportionate share of each Co- permittee will be determined pursuant to section VI -D. After completion of the contract for consultant service, the Principal Co- permittee will provide Co- permittees with a final accounting. Within 30 days of the final accounting, the Principal Co- permittee will reimburse each Co- permittee its proportionate share of any excess funds in the event the actual costs of consulting services and associated 4 NPDES Agreement 0501 expenses was less than the estimated costs. Within 30 days of receipt of the final accounting, each Co- permittee will pay the Principal Co- permittee its proportionate share of any additional funds needed to pay the actual cost of consulting services and associated expenses. F. As of June 30, 2004, the DISTRICT had $545,771 in account no. 6520 7885. The funds in this account are, and continuously have been, accruing interest. The funds resulted from monies withheld from NPDES assessments of various Co- permittees or paid by a Co- permittee in order to accomplish projects or services by the DISTRICT on behalf of those Co- permittees. The funds were originally intended to be used toward each Co- permittee's share of the Principal Co- permittee costs. At some intermediate time the DISTRICT undertook to provide those services without charge and without the explicit authorization of its governing board. The DISTRICT now intends to refund this money to the respective Co- permittees. The funds attributable to each individual Co- permittee are set forth in column I of Exhibit A. The funds in account no. 6520 -7885 will be spent by the DISTRICT to pay Shilts Consultants, Inc. (Shilts) for consulting services relating to a property related fee program. The DISTRICT, with approval of the Management Committee, has hired Shilts for services having a contractual price of $475,520. The DISTRICT will pay for 20% of the Shilts contract. The remaining Co- permittees will pay 80% of the Shilts contract. The individual Co- permittee's share will be based upon the percentage of the benefit assessment units (BAUs) within their jurisdiction to the total of the BAUs within Ventura County. Each Co- permittee's portion of account no. 6520 -7885 will be refunded after deducting the Co- permittee's share of the Shilts contract and adding any interest accumulated after June 30, 2004. In addition, the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks will share the cost of the City of Oxnard's share of the Shilts contract ($40,284.65). The cities shall pay a portion of Oxnard's share on the basis of the ratio of the benefit assessment units (BAUs) within each city's jurisdictional boundary to the total BAUs in those cities. If a Co- permittee's share of the Shilts contract cost exceeds its portion of account no. 6520 -7885, payment will be made to the DISTRICT within 30 days of billing by the DISTRICT for the amount owed. A June 30, 2004 computation of Co- permittee amounts payable to and from the DISTRICT is set forth on Exhibit A. G. Co- permittees will provide to the Principal Co- permittee PERMIT - required submittals. All information required to satisfy annual reporting requirements described in the PERMIT shall be submitted annually by the Co- permittees to the Principal Co- permittee on Principal Co- permittee approved forms no later than August 1. Fines incurred due to the lack of submittals will be the responsibility of the Co- permittee(s) whose lack of submittal resulted in the fine. H. For PERMIT submittals, which involve the public review process, the Co- permittees shall be responsible to provide the submittals to the Principal Co- permittee 90 calendar days prior to the deadlines specified in the PERMIT. The Principal Co- permittee shall include the submittals for public review, route public comments back to 5 NPDES Agreement_0501 i)() 0 97"s the Co- permittees for possible refinement of documents, arrange to receive final documents, and package and forward documents to LARWQCB for review and approval. I. Each Co- permittee shall develop and implement a program to meet PERMIT requirements within its jurisdictional boundaries. V. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE A. The Management Committee is composed of one member of each Co- permittee senior staff and is chaired by the Principal Co- permittee. Each Co- permittee shall have one vote. A 2/3 majority of the Co- permittee's votes is necessary for passing of any motion unless the property - related fee ballot is not adopted (see Section VIII). B. 100% attendance is required by each Management Committee member or representation by a qualified alternate. Regular Management Committee meetings will usually be held on the 3'd Thursday of each month. C. The Management Committee will review materials developed by the subcommittees, provide comments, and approve or reject Subcommittee Program activities and operate as defined in the Management Committee Charter, which will be developed at future Management Committee meetings to set forth the procedures for conduct of the meetings. VI. EXPENDITURES A. Each Co- permittee shall be responsible for costs of implementing the requirements of IV -C. B. The DISTRICT as a Principal Co- permittee shall also be responsible for the cost of the activities specified in Section IV- B. C. For costs not covered by Sections VI -A and VI -B where it is agreed that costs will be shared by all Co- permittees, the DISTRICT shall pay 20% percent of such costs. All other Co- permittees shall pay the remainder of the costs paid on the basis of the ratio of the BAUs within the Co- permittee's jurisdictional boundaries to the total BAUs in the County. One SFE is equivalent to one Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU). Unless otherwise specified, payment by Co- permittee's shall be made within 30 days of receipt of billing by the DISTRICT. VII. FUNDING A. The Co- permittees, including the DISTRICT as a Co- permittee, shall fund Co- permittee requirements described in IV- C through the DISTRICT's NPDES Property - related Fee Program and Benefit Assessment Program and may contribute funds from other sources. Funds resulting from the Property - related Fee Program shall only be spent on NPDES activities. NPDES Agreement_0501 6 1) 0 0 � ,_Irl C B. The DISTRICT's Board of Supervisors shall determine SFEs based on impervious land area for each jurisdiction in the County. C. Distribution to the DISTRICT shall be 18% of the Property - related fee for its NPDES Co- permittee expenses based upon the DISTRICT's demonstration of need. D. After distribution to the DISTRICT pursuant to VII -C, the remainder of the Property - related Fee shall be distributed to the remaining Co- permittees based upon the percentage of BAUs within their jurisdictions to the total BAUs within the County of Ventura. The DISTRICT shall distribute funds from the NPDES Property - related Fee Program to Co- permittees twice per fiscal year (approximately February and June). The estimated shares of the proposed NPDES Property- related Fee Program are set forth in Exhibit B. E. Principal Co- permittee costs shall be shared by all of the Co- permittees. The DISTRICT shall pay 20% of such costs. All other Co- permittees shall pay the remainder of the costs paid on the basis of the ratio of Benefit Assessment Units (BAUs) within the Co- permittee's jurisdictional boundaries to the total BAUs in the County. The Management Committee shall have annual review and approval over who provides Principal Co- permittee services and the scope and cost of these services with the exception of the DISTRICT's current monitoring program. A 2/3 majority of the Management Committee is necessary for approving Principal Co- permittee services and associated costs. F. On or before January 1 of each year, the DISTRICT will present its activities and budget for Principal Co- permittee expenditures for the following fiscal year to the Management Committee. On or before September 30 of each year, the DISTRICT as Principal Co- permittee, will present a fiscal statement showing revenues, expenses and reserve balances. Reserve balances may be carried over and included in the next year's budget or distributed back to the Co- permittees as approved by the Management Committee. G. The DISTRICT shall continue to administer and distribute funds from the DISTRICT's Benefit Assessment Program using the same procedures it has followed since the enactment of Proposition 218. But both the levy of the Benefit Assessment and the amount thereof remain within the sole discretion of the DISTRICT's Board of Supervisors. If a DISTRICT Property - related Fee is enacted, both the levy and the amount thereof will be within the sole discretion of the DISTRICT's Board of Supervisors. VIII. PROPERTY - RELATED FEE BALLOT MEASURE A. If the property- related fee ballot measure is unsuccessful, the DISTRICT shall continue to fund the current Principal Co- permittee's responsibilities as set forth in this agreement. The DISTRICT shall continue to administer and distribute funds from the DISTRICT's Benefit Assessment Program using the same procedures it has followed since the enactment of Proposition 218. NPDES Agreement 0501 7 B. Any increased permit requirements that result in additional costs to the Principal Co- permittee will be shared by the Co- permittees. These additional costs must be reviewed and approved by a 2/3 majority of the Management Committee. The DISTRICT shall pay 20% of such costs and the remaining Co- permittees shall pay the remainder of the costs paid on the basis of the ratio of the BAUs within the Co- permittees' jurisdictional boundaries to the total BAUs in the County. One SFE is equivalent to one Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU). Unless otherwise specified, payment by the Co- permittees shall be made within 60 days of receipt of billing by the DISTRICT. C. If the property - related fee ballot is unsuccessful -all Principal Co- permittee activities and budget shall be at the sole discretion of the DISTRICT. The Principal Co- permittee's duties shall be limited to only those activities and responsibilities required by the PERMIT. IX. NON COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT A. Any Co- permittee not in compliance with the PERMIT within its jurisdictional boundaries shall be liable for any resulting LARWQCB penalties. B. Common or joint penalties that cannot be allocated according to proportional faults shall be calculated and allocated in accordance with the percentage determined as set forth in VI -D. X. ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS A. Co- permittees will be responsible for meeting their TMDL requirements (monitoring, training, implementation, etc.) and associated costs for TMDLs defined within the watersheds of the Co- permittees' jurisdictional boundary. XI. ADDITIONAL PARTIES A. Any entity which officially becomes a Co- permittee subsequent to the signing of this AGREEMENT, shall comply with all the requirements of the PERMIT, except that the time frame and cost sharing for completion of tasks shall be adjusted by mutual agreement between the new Co- permittee, the Principal Co- permittee and LARWQCB. XII. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE AGREEMENT A. A Co- permittee may withdraw from the AGREEMENT on July 1 of any year by giving written notice of withdrawal to the Principal Co- permittee and LARWQCB on or before January 1 of that year. The Principal Co- permittee will notify the remaining Co- permittees within 10 business days of receipt of the notice. NPDES Agreement 0501 7Y0k't9'AS B. The withdrawing Co- permittee shall file a separate PERMIT prior to withdrawal and comply with all of the requirements established by LARWQCB. C. The withdrawing Co- permittee shall be responsible for any penalties assessed by the LARWQCB as a consequence of withdrawal. The DISTRICT will cease to levy a Benefit Assessment and /or Property - related Fee on behalf of any withdrawing Co- permittee except other than itself. The cost allocations to the remaining Co- permittees will be recalculated in the following budget year. XIII. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT A. This AGREEMENT may be amended by written consent of the parties when signed and approved by the governing bodies of the parties. B. Any amendment shall comply with the requirements and regulations set forth by LARWQCB. XIV. APPENDAGE OF AGREEMENT Any Co- permittee may negotiate a separate AGREEMENT with other Co- permittees or with all Co- permittees regarding stormwater /urban runoff discharge management issues. Such AGREEMENTs will not be appended to this AGREEMENT but will be regarded as a separate AGREEMENT. However, they may reference this AGREEMENT. XV. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this AGREEMENT commences on its execution by each of the governing bodies of the Permittees. The AGREEMENT shall terminate when a municipal permit regulating stormwater /urban runoff discharges encompassing Ventura County watersheds is no longer required. The Principal Co- permittee and a 2/3 majority of the Co- permittees can terminate this AGREEMENT by mutual written consent of the governing bodies. 9 NPDES Agreement_0501 XVI. NOTICES All notices and correspondences shall be deemed duly given, if (a) sent by certified U.S. mail; (b) delivered by hand; (c) deposited in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid and notice to the addresses of such mailing by phone immediately after deposit in the U.S. mail; or (d) faxed to the Principal Co- permittee and confirmation by phone immediately after sending the fax. All notices and correspondence shall be sent or delivered to the following respective addresses or phone numbers of the parties: Ventura County Watershed Protection District 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Attn: Director of Watershed Protection District Phone: (805) 654 -2040; Fax (805) 654 -3350 County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 654 -2073; Fax (805) 654 -3952 City of Camarillo 601 Carmen Dr. Camarillo, CA 93010 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 388 -5307; Fax (805) 388 -5318 City of Fillmore 250 Central Ave. Fillmore, CA 93015 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 524 -3701; Fax: (805) 524 -5707 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Ave Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 517 -6255; Fax: (805) 529 -7358 City of Ojai 401 South Ventura Street Ojai, CA 93023 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 646 -5581; Fax: (805) 646 -1980 NPDES Agreement 0501 10 4)oo oil SC City of Oxnard 305 West Third St. Oxnard, CA 93030 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 385 -8280; Fax: (805) 385 -7907 City of Port Hueneme 250 North Ventura Road Port Hueneme, CA 93041 Attn: Director of Utility Services Phone: (805) 986 -5000; Fax (805) 986 -6660 City San Buenaventura 501 Poll Street Ventura, CA 93001 Attn: Director of Public Works Phone: (805) 654 -7800; Fax: (805) 652 -0865 City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Rd. Simi Vallcv, CA 93063 Attn: Public Works Director Phone: (805) 583 -6786; Fax: (805) 583 -6300 City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Attn: Public Work Director Phone: (805) 449 -2457; Fax: (805) 449 -2475 XVII. GOVERNING LAW This AGPIFLMENT will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Statc of California. If any provision(s) of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be invalid. illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remainin< provisions shall not be in any way affected or impaired. XVIII. AUTHOIZILLD SIGNATORIES The Director of DISTRICT, the Public Works Director of COUNTY and the City Managers of CITIES (or their designees) shall be authorized to execute all documents and take all other procedural steps necessary to file for and obtain a PERMIT(s) or amendments thereto. 11 NPDES Agreement_0501 XIX. CONSENT TO BREACH NOT WAIVER No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless the Nvaiver or consent shall be writing and signed by the party waiving or consenting. Any consent by any party to, or waiver of, a breach by any other party, whether expressed or implied, shall not constitute a consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach. XX. APPLICAI3I LITY OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS This document constitutes the entire AGREEMENT between the parties with respect to the subject matter; all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings are superseded. XXI. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS This AGI', I ;I ;MENT may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts or copies by the parties hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at least one counterpart to the other partied hereto, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same AGREEMENT, which shall be binding and effective as to the parties hereto. 12 NPDES Agreement_0501 EXHIBIT A DISBURSEMENT OF VCWPD FUND 6520 -7885 AND PAYMENT OF SHILTS CONTRACT COSTS I II. III. IV. V. VI. $5,639.85 Co- permittee share of Co- permittee Cost Sharing of Final Co- Funds Held for Co- Shilts Contract Payment to Oxnard's Contract permittee Co- permittees permittees* Cost ** BAUs Co- permittee Refund * ** VCWPD Cost Refund $554,771 $475,520 $23,300 $12,934.14 3.4% VCWPD (20% of $2,417.08 $7,948.78 Ojai $28,626 VCWPD $0 $475,520) $95,104 $95,104 $805.69 $23,255.32 Co- permittee share Co- permittees (80% of $475,520) $380,416 Camarillo $66,850 $31,955 8.4% $34,895 $5,639.85 $29,255.21 County $0 $95,864.83 25.2% $95,864.83 Fillmore $11,706 $4,564.99 1.2% $7,141.01 $805.69 $6,335.32 Moorpark $23,300 $12,934.14 3.4% $10,365.86 $2,417.08 $7,948.78 Ojai $28,626 $4,564.99 1.2% $24,061.01 $805.69 $23,255.32 Oxnard $17,919 $58,203.65 15.3% $40,284.65 Port Hueneme $17,142 $5,325.82 1.4% $11,816.18 $966.83 $10,849.34 San Buenaventura $112,008 $45,649.92 12.0% $66,358.08 $8,056.93 $58,301.15 Santa Paula $25,797 $9,890.82 2.6% $15,906.18 $1,772.52 $14,133.66 Simi Valley $130,150 $49,454.08 13.0% $80,695.92 $8,782.05 $71,913.87 Thousand Oaks $121,273 $62,007.81 16.3% $59,265.19 $11,037.99 $48,227.20 $40,284.65 Total $554,771 $475,520 100% *Fund total includes all ** Co permittee share ** *Refund of money collected ** * *City share of interest accured through based on % BA Us to that exceeds %BAU Oxnard's contact cost June 2004 contract cost contribution of contract cost based on % BA Us <�1 vs� Exibit B Proposed Property- related Fee Allocation @ $24.80 Benefit Assessment Property Total Revenue Co- permittee SFE % SFE (BA) Revenue Related Fee (BA + PRF) (PRF) Revenue Camarillo 29,994 8.4% $145,744 $608,875 $754,619 County 90,208 25.2% $57,338 $1,831,225 $1,888,563 Fillmore 4,133 1.2% $16,244 $83,905 $100,149 Moorpark 12,026 3.4% $0 $244,125 $244,125 Ojai 4,363 1.2% $32,976 $88,579 $121,555 Oxnard 54,846 15.3% $527,807 $1,113,381 $1,641,188 Port Hueneme 4,968 1.4% $14,834 $100,858 $115,692 San Buenaventura 43,041 12.0% $242,104 $873,734 $1,115,838 Santa Paula 9,197 2.6% $59,039 $186,691 $245,730 Simi Valley 46,678 13.0% $173,228 $947,565 $1,120,793 Thousand Oaks 58,530 16.3% $288,426 $1,188,155 $1,476,581 VCWPD Copermittee - - $1,364,113 $1,610,932 $2,975,045 Total 357,985 100% $2,921,853 $8,878,024 $11,799,877 Total PRF at $24.80 $8,878,024 Total PRF less VCWPD Copermittee $7,267,093 ($4.5 of PRF)