The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0406 CC REG ITEM 11FME FROM: DATE: AGENDA I2EPORrV City of Moorpark The Honorable City Council Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works March 25, 1994 (Council Meeting 4 -6 -94) SUBJECT: Consider Intent o Properties within Storm Water Permit BACKGROUND ITEM ��•r• A "K. CAUFO'Z%:- Coin Mee:.:ng `Yy� 19q�F CTION: gM - f VCFCD to Levy an NPDES Assessment on the City for the Purpose of Recovering Application Preparation Costs On March 16, 1994, the City Counc.iL approved Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the NPDES Permit Application, for submittal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. At that meeting the City Council deferred taking action on the subject additional assessment proposed by VCFCD. DISCUSSION As discussed in prior reports, each of the Co- Permittees have incurred costs related to the preparation of the NPDES Permit Application. In addition, the VCFCD has also incurred costs on behalf of each of the Co- Permittees, for some of these costs. It was recently brought to the attention of staff that it is the intent of the VCFCD to pass on to each Co- Permittees a certain portion of the permit application preparation costs on the basis of the number of BAUs within the jurisdiction of each of the Co- Permittees. This action is beinq taken pursuant to certain provisions set forth in the Implementation Aqreements between the VCFCD and each of the Co- Permittee Attached as Exhibit 1 is a chart showing the total VCFCD costs for FY 1993/94 to be passed on to each Co- Permittee. The amount to be passed on to the City of Moorpark is $17,818, or $1.93 per BAU. In addition, staff was recently advised that during FY 1994/95, the VCFCD anticipates that it will incur additional NPDES permit application and /or implementation costs on behalf of each of the Co- Permittees in the amount of $1.50 per BAU. For the City of Moorpark the total cost would be $13,848. The total amount for both Fiscal Years comes to $31,666 or $3.43 per BAU. The intent of the VCFCD to pass these costs on to each Co- Permittee was not clearly defined at the on -set of this process. It was the understanding of many, including city staf f , that these costs would be assumed by the VCFCD and recovered by the VCFCD Zone -wide NPDES NPDES Permit April 1994 Page 2 assessment. This matter was first brought to the attention of staff on February 23, 1994, subsequent to the February 16th public hearing before the City Council tc- consider the levy of an NPDES assessment. To recover the above described Co- Permittee costs, it is the intent of the VCFCD to withhold a portion of the assessments levied by the VCFCD on behalf of each of the Co- Permittees. In that the City of Moorpark did not authorize any NPDES assessment and there are no assessment revenues to withhold, it is the intent of the VCFCD to add $3.43 to the FY 1994/95 per BAU assessment that the VCFCD intends to levy on the properties in the City of Moorpark. The total amount of the NPDES assessment for FY 1994/95 which the VCFCD intends to levy on the properties within the City of Moorpark is summarized as follows: District Costs (FY District's Portion Moorpark's Portion - FY 1993/94.. .. - FY 1994/95.. .. 1994/95) $6.13 of Shared Costs (FY 1994/95).. .37 Sub- Total...... $6.50 ** of Shared Costs .. .. ..... $1.93 ..... $1.50. 3.43 • City of Moorpark Assessment 0 'Dotal ......... $9.93 Note: ** Fy 1993/94 VCFCD Assessment was $2.75 Staff has been advised that the revised deadline for adding a municipal assessment to the above proposed assessment amount is April 7, 1994. If the City Council were to elect to request such an additional assessment, it would be necessary to hold another public hearing in the near future to again receive testimony on that proposed action. Subsequent to said hearing, the requested municipal assessment could be withdraw. Should the City Council elect to reimburse the VCFCD for the above described costs ($31,666), the VCFCD would not be required to levy the proposed supplemental assessment )f $3.43 per BAU. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council take no action regarding the supplemental assessment of $3.43 per BAU proposed by VCFCD. rpt \npdns22 t Co- perstittee eraeut of - Estimated Receipt share ($)•• Co- permittees �•Kc- Fir ;- :a:r;i • Ei U ($1,502) $8,378. 22.70% ($39, 792) $225 1993 -94 DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FUNDS $10.365 45 19k $376,909 00 C0:k ;$6,451) COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF CO- PERMITTEES FOR NPDES $43,843 32.03f Rol Total -- Required Collected District's I Cope atittte I Total Neede- d - ReimEurse Total Co- permittee Total- - - as Behalf Requested I Requested Assessed b1 I District Required share BAU s Assmsed Estimated by District of t Share Shays ( per EAU District j Test B• by Dishiei I (REQUESTDi Cities Behalf Collected 93/94 ONE I '4 -41 U}ai $0.00 1.55 $1.551 $1.93 $1.931 ($0.38)' 3,953' 6,127 5,545 7629 '4-45 San Buenaventura 3.17 1.09 4 26. 1.93. 1.05 2.98 $1.09 9,572 40,777 36,903 28525 X County of Ventura X 1.93 0.96. 2.89 ($2.89 13.769 , • 0 0 39792 )v'E2 - 48 (•amarilio 466 1 5.66 1.93 1.93 $1.00 249 1.409 1.275 481 - 4C Ftilmore 3.82 3 15' 6.97 1.93 1 .52 345 $3.15 3,636 25,343 22.935 12544 4 -42 :)tuar;l 0.00 1028 10.28 0.00 $10.28 40,513 416,474 376.909 0 4 -47 i'or, fiucr.r tr 3.82 0 3 82 1 93 3 18 5 11 ' ($1 29) 5,001 19,104 17.289 25555 4 -44 Santa 'aW'a 3.82 0 3.82 1 93 0.62' 2.55 $0.001 8,849: 33,803 30.592 22565 14 -46 San Buenaventura. 3.82 1.09 4.91 1.93 1.05 2.98' $1.09 27,862' 136,802' 123,806 83029 14-55 Count) of \ ent LL, a 3.82 1.8 5.62 1.93! 0.96: 2.89 $1.80' 26,914 151,257 136,887 77781 ONE 3 4 -49 '4-52 Camarillo 4.66 1 5.66 1.93 1.931 $1.00 22,837 129,257 116,978 44075 Stnu Vailcy 4.66 059 5.25 1.93 1 93. $0.59! 37,751 198,193 179,364 72859 -1-50 :bousand Oaks 4.65 0 4.65 1.93 1.93 $0.001 40,155 186 721 168.982 77499 X Moorpark 0 X 1.93 1.93 ($1.93) 9,232 C 0 ' 7818 " 5E v "^ <f �rnnra 4 56 22 6 88 93 96 89 $222 _' 98C -' 222 .:6 856 23522 JNE 4 5' Lousaud v)axs 0.00 4.94 4.94. 0.00 $4.94 6.789 33,538 30.352 0 - 5 7 c x my of Ventura 10.00 10 10.00' 0.00. $10.00 6,670 66.700 60.364 0 _ ` �: "v�TED COLLECTED a 90.5% - -- - - -- - 285,732 1,596,727 4445- - 1,445.038 573,675 - 1,445,038 s tit i asi B arc not - to- exceed amounts for co- permitlee services within the CD.M Contract and include: share is 90.517, of the amount they requested as long as that amount does not exceed the est. collected less tthc required by district. rei bLh r ement to Distnct include a 90.5% factor for amount actually collected vs assessed. Semces for Fillmore - S5,000 Jwtylcts for Santa Dula - S5.000 Services for San Buenaventura - S35,600 Sc. ices for Part Hueneme - S14,400 County of Ventura - 40.460 + 14.000 Co- perstittee eraeut of - Estimated Receipt share ($)•• Co- permittees �•Kc- Fir ;- :a:r;i • Ei U ($1,502) $8,378. 22.70% ($39, 792) $225 17 67'iz $10.365 45 19k $376,909 00 C0:k ;$6,451) $0 $27,484 22.20 k $43,843 32.03f $20.667 7 67k $20.157 24-k $0 1,.,($17.818j S44,160 $30352 ' 1)C OC +- $60 364 + r,,n nn t 577,341 - DIS - J.A'nl H. r• rt