HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2009 1216 CC REG ITEM 10J ITEM 1_
OF MOORPARK,
City Council tweeting
�s a
ACTION: /.I�L�•�-� ,0.�//
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council Vor FROM: Yugal K. Lail, City Engineer/Public Works Dir
Prepared By: Shaun Kroes, Senior Management Analyst
DATE: December 3, 2009 (CC Meeting of 12/16/09)
SUBJECT: Consider Third Amendment to Implementation Agreement for
Countywide Stormwater Program
SUMMARY
The proposed amendment (Attachment 2) to the existing Stormwater Program
Implementation Agreement (Implementation Agreement) delineates responsibilities and
creates a formula for each agency's share of administrative expenses. The proposed
amendment is between the Ventura County Watershed Protection District(District),the ten
Ventura County cities and Ventura County (Co-permittees).
BACKGROUND
The Ventura Countywide Co-permittees have established a working relationship with each
other through the Countywide Stormwater Program (Program). Since its inception in 1992,
the Program has been partially funded by a benefit assessment (BA) collected by the
District under an Implementation Agreement between the District and Co-permittees. The
BA is collected by the District and is based on a Basic Assessment Unit(BAU)benchmark.
All Cities and the County have a designated number of BAUs, Moorpark's BAU is 13,332.
The County and the cities within the County, with the exception of Moorpark, collect BA
funds through the District tax assessment for their individual stormwater programs. The
Implementation Agreement delineates the responsibilities and funding mechanism for all
Co-permittees and the Principal Permittee under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit(Permit). There were four separate 1992
Implementation Agreements that were divided by watershed zones. Moorpark approved
the agreement for Zone 3 (Attachment 1).
The District is designated as the "Principal Permittee" in the current Permit and the
Implementation Agreement. The Principal Permittee is responsible for the administration
SAPublic Works\Everyone\Reports\Staff Reports\2009\December\12-16-2009(Strmwtr Impl Agrmnt)doc 272
Honorable City Council
December 16, 2009
Page 2
of the Permit and other duties which include, but are not limited to, coordinate required
management and subcommittee meetings, serve as liaison between the Co-permittees and
Regional Water Quality Control Board, prepare annual reports and monitoring reports,
conduct water quality monitoring and conduct public outreach on behalf of the Program.
DISCUSSION
Under the previous Permit, Principal Permittee costs were approximately $1.4 million
annually. In Fiscal Year 2007/08, the District stated that due to funding constraints, it could
no longer shoulder the entire Principal Permittee budget without assistance from the Co-
permittees. The Co-permittees agreed to a requested amendment to the Implementation
Agreements, which was approved by Moorpark's Council February 6, 2008. The
amendment was only for FY 2007/08. The District then again requested a second
amendment for FY 2008/09. Council approved the second amendment on December 3,
2008. The City is now being asked to approve the third amendment to fund FY 2009/10
expenses. It should be noted that the 1992 Implementation Agreements allow for cost
sharing for joint activities such as:
1. Consultant fees for watershed wide Permit related work.
2. Legal fees for watershed wide Permit related work.
3. Penalties of watershed wide nature.
4. Best Management Practices of watershed wide impact or benefit.
The proposed third amendment maintains the first amendment's redefinition of the fiscal
responsibilities of all collective parties to the Permit and will continue to require that all Co-
permittees pay for a portion of the District's Permit requirements in addition to costs
already borne by the City to comply with Co-permittee responsibilities designed by the
Permit.
Moorpark's cost for the third amendment is $58,336, an increase of 155% compared to FY
2008/09's cost of$22,898. All of the jurisdictions had an increase of 155% as well. Costs
are significantly higher than in previous years because of the new NPDES Permit that
became effective on August 5, 2009. The previous NPDES Permit was focused more on
public education, inspection programs for food and automotive facilities, illicit discharge
prevention and construction best management practices. The new NPDES Permit requires
many new programs for jurisdictions in Ventura County as it continues to work towards
reducing pollution that enters the watershed. New countywide programs that are being
implemented in FY 2009/10 include updating the Countywide Technical Guidance Manual
(for development); creating a new Annual Report format; beginning Special Studies and
Reports; increasing public outreach; and constructing new monitoring stations (including
one station in Moorpark).
During the first amendment, staff expressed concerns about the precedent that the
amendment would set. The amendment essentially requires that the City fund a portion of
SAPublic Works\Everyone\Reports\Staff Reports\2009\Oecember\12-16-2009(Strmwtr Impl Agrmnt).doc 273
Honorable City Council
December 16, 2009
Page 3
the District's expenses that are a requirement of being a Principal Permittee. The Co-
permittees, on the other hand, will continue to fund their own Permit requirements without
the benefit of receiving funds from the District. The Co-permittees essentially diverted their
already limited stormwater funds without a readily available funding mechanism to
supplement that expense. The original 1992 Agreement allowed for an amendment to
become effective with a two-thirds majority approval,which was achieved before the City of
Moorpark approved the amendment. The following are highlights of the proposed third
amendment to the Implementation Agreement.
• Fifty percent of the District's annual NPDES BA will be used to finance a portion of
the Principal Permittee costs. The remaining 50 percent will be used for the
District's remaining Co-permittee costs.
• The remaining Principal Permittee costs will be financed by the District paying 15
percent of the costs and the County and other Co-permittees paying a percentage
of the costs based upon the number of BAUs in their respective jurisdiction. For FY
2009/10, Moorpark's share of the Principal Permittee costs is $58,336 which is
3.883% of the total BAUs.
It is still in the City's best interest to remain in a cooperative agreement with the Co-
permittees and the District to work towards complying with the Permit. It would be more
expensive for the City to separate from the Program and attempt to comply with the
Permit's requirements on its own.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the MOA for the City is $58,336. Sufficient funds are available for the
expenditure after an internal budget line item transfer of $33,336 is performed between
NPDES budget lines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Amendment subject to final language approval by
City Manager and City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 1992 Implementation Agreement
2. Implementation Agreement Third Amendment
S.\Public Works\Everyone\Reports\Staff Reports\2009\DecemberAl2-16-2009(Strmwtr Impl Agrmnt).doc 274
Attachment 1
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
STORMWATER REGULATION PROGRAM
CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
This AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the County of Ventura
hereinafter referred to as COUNTY, the Ventura County Flood Control
DISTRICT hereinafter referred to as DISTRICT, and the Cities of
Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks hereinafter
collectively referred to as CITIES, establishes the
responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater
regulations administered by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Los Angeles Region (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
applications for Permits for stormwater discharges; and
Whereas, these Permit regulations will 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, these EPA regulations require PERMITs for discharges
from municipal storm drains on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide
basis; and
Wheras, the CITIES and the COUNTY have land use regulation
authority within their jurisdictional boundaries with associated
powers to require mangement practices consistent with EPA
regulations; and
Whereas, the DISTRICT has no land use regulation authority,
but only owns, operates and has regulatory jurisdiction over
improved and natural channels to which CITIES' and COUNTY 's storm
drains are tributary; and
Whereas, the Legislature, in enacting the Ventura County Flood
Control Act, created the DISTRICT to provide for the control of
flood and storm waters; and
Whereas, the Powers granted to the DISTRICT include carrying
on technical and other investigations, examinations or tests of all
kinds, making measurements, collecting data, and making analyses,
275
Contract No. 2151-92
studies, and inspections pertaining to water supply, control of
floods, prevention of contamination and pollution of surface waters
within the DISTRICT; and
Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT desire to
develop an integrated stormwater discharge management program with
the objective of improving water quality in the Calleguas Creek
Watershed; and
Whereas, cooperation between the CITIES, the COUNTY and the
DISTRICT to jointly file application for PERMIT is in the best
interests of the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT; and
Whereas, the DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITIES have been jointly
designated as Permittees by the LARWQCB; and
Whereas, the DISTRICT has been designated as the Principal
Permittee in the PERMIT; and
Whereas, the COUNTY and the CITIES have been designated as the
Co-Permittees in the PERMIT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
I. FILING STATUS. The COUNTY, DISTRICT and CITIES will file
the applications for PERMIT as Permittees. The COUNTY,
the DISTRICT and each individual City will be a
Permittee.
II . INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. The terms of all
applicable Federal and State permit applicaion
guidelines, as presently written or as changed during the
life of this AGREEMENT are hereby incorporated by
reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT and take
precedence over any inconsistent terms of this AGREEMENT.
III. STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. All Permittees (Principal Permittee and Co-
Permittees) are independently responsible for
complying with the requirements of the PERMIT
within their own jurisdictional boundaries. For
storm drains owned and operated by the DISTRICT,
including those located within the jurisdiction of
the Co-Permittees, the Principal Permittee will be
responsible for facility operation and maintenance.
B. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for
the following:
(a) Coordination of PERMIT activities, including
establishing a uniform mapping and data
2
276
Contract No. 2151-92
presentation format, to be used by all
Permittees.
(b) Serving as the liaison agency between the Co-
Permittees and the LARWQCB. The
responsibility shall include:
(1) Establishment of time schedules and
notifying Co-Permittees regarding such
schedules for the performance of tasks
and activities per the requirements of
the PERMIT.
(2) Preparation of the quarterly progress
reports and annual reports on PERMIT
activities for submittal to the LARWQCB.
For the annual PERMIT report, a draft
will be circulated to each Co-Permittee
for their review and comment prior to
forwarding to the LARWQCB.
(3) Upon receiving information and materials
submitted by the Co-Permittees in
compliance with PERMIT requirements,
packaging and forwarding of these
submittals, on behalf of the Co-
Permittees, to the LARWQCB.
(4) Upon receipt of all proposed plans and
their implementation schedules from all
Co-Permittees, arranging for public
review of these documents. Communicating
with Co-Permittees regarding public
comments. Packaging and forwarding of
the revised final version of these
documents for LARWQCB approval.
(5) Keeping all Co-Permittees updated on
LARWCQB and/or (EPA) regulations which
may impact stormwater discharge
activities and PERMIT compliance.
(6) Arranging for the collection and payment
of all annual PERMIT renewal fees
required by the LARWQCB.
C. Upon concurrence and in coordination with Co-
Permittees, the Principal Permittee may secure the
services of consultants and administer contract for
consultant to prepare manuals, develop programs or
perform studies relevant to the Permitted area.
The cost of said consultant services will be shared
3
Contract No. 2151-92 277
in accordance with section IV D of this AGREEMENT.
D. For PERMIT submittals which do not involve the
public review process, each Co-Permittee shall be
responsible to submit these items, prepared in the
format specified by the Principal Permittee, to the
Principal Permittee 30 calendar days prior to the
deadlines specified in the PERMIT. This 30-day
period will enable the Principal Permittee to
package and forward these documents, on behalf of
all Permittees, to LARWQCB.
E. For PERMIT submittals which involve the public
review process, the Co-Permittee shall be
responsible to submit these items, prepared in the
format specified by the Principal Permittee, to the
Principal Permittee 90 calendar days prior to the
deadlines specified in the PERMIT. The Principal
Permittee shall schedule the submittals for public
input, route public comment back to Co-Permittees
for possible refinement of documents, arrange to
receive final documents, and package and forward
documents to the LARWQCB for their review and
approval.
F. Each Co-Permittee shall agree to prepare all
PERMIT-required submittals using the format
specified by the Principal Permittee.
G. Upon the execution of this AGREEMENT, each
Permittee shall develop a program to address the
following issues within its jurisdictional
boundaries that occur during the term of this
AGREEMENT:
(1) Implementation of controls to reduce pollution
from commercial and residential areas.
(2) Implementation of structural/nonstructural
controls on land development and construction
sites.
(3) Implementation of controls to reduce pollution
from maintenance activities.
(4) Elimination of illegal connections, improper
disposal, spill prevention, containment and
response.
(5) Inspection, monitoring and control programs
for industrial facilities.
4
278
(6) Implementation of public awareness and
training programs.
IV. EXPENDITURES
A. Each Co-Permittee shall be responsible for its own
costs of the implementation of the PERMIT
activities within its jurisdictional boundaries.
B. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for
the cost of its PERMIT implementation -efforts for
all storm drains and flood control facilities owned
and operated by DISTRICT.
C. The Principal Permittee shall also be responsible
for the cost of activities specified in Section
III-B.
D. The cost of all common or joint activities or
responsibilities shall be borne by Co-Permittees on
the basis of the ratio of the Benefit Assessment
Units (BAU)s within the Co-Permittee's boundaries
to the total BAUs in the watershed. Common or
joint activities and/or responsibilities may
include but shall not be limited to the following:
(1) Consultant fees for watershed wide Permit
related work.
(2) Legal fees for watershed wide Permit related
work.
(3) Penalties of watershed wide nature.
(4) Best Management Practices of watershed wide
impact or benefit.
V. FUNDING
A. The Co-Permittees may fund activities described in
IV A. through the DISTRICT's Benefit Assessment
Program. Co-Permittee wishing to do so shall:
(1) Submit to DISTRICT a complete program
description and activity budget and the
amount of assessment required to finance the
program.
(2) Prior to making the request for the levy of
the assessment, hold a public hearing as
required by Section 6066 of the Government
Code.
5
279
Contract No. 215:-92
(3) The hearing shall be on the program
description and budget, including the means of
financing.
(4) Upon adoption of the program and prior to the
first day of May of each calendar year, submit
a request to District for its inclusion in the
assessment. Said request shall be made by
resolution of the governing body of the Co-
Permittee.
The levying of the District's Benefit Assessment
Program and the amount thereof is within the sole
discretion of the District's Board of Supervisors.
B. All costs incurred by DISTRICT for processing for
the additional assessment (see Section V A. ) shall
be borne by Co-Permittee either by direct payment
to DISTRICT or by deduction from the proceeds of
the Benefit Assessment levied on its behalf.
C. Distribution of funds from the Flood Control
Benefit Assessment collections to Co-Permittee will
be made on a schedule established by the Ventura
County Auditor-Controller for such disbursements.
D. The Principal Permittee shall finance the
activities specified in Section IV B. and IV C.
through the use of its Benefit Assessment activity
throughout the entire watershed.
VI. NON COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT
A. Any Permittee not in compliance with the PERMIT
within its jurisdictional boundaries shall be
solely liable for any lawfully assessed penalties.
B. Common or joint penalties shall be calculated and
allocated in accordance with Section IV D.
VII. ADDITIONAL PARTIES.
A. Permittees executing this AGREEMENT shall, to the
extent allowed by law applicable to such entity,
comply with all provisions of this AGREEMENT.
B. Any entity which officially becomes a Co-Permittee
at a later date, subsequent to the signing of this
AGREEMENT, shall comply with all the requirements
of the PERMIT, except that the time frame for
completion of tasks shall be adjusted per mutual
s
280
Contract No. 2151
agreement between the new Co-Permittee in question,
the Principal Permittee, and the LARWQCB.
VIII. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE AGREEMENT.
A. A Co-Permittee may withdraw from the AGREEMENT 60
days subsequent to written notice to the Principal
Permittee and LARWQCB. The Principal Permittee
will notify the remaining Co-Permittees within ten
(10) business days of receipt of the withdrawal
notice.
B. The withdrawing Co-Permittee shall agree to file
for a separate PERMIT and to comply with all of the
requirements established by the LARWQCB. In
addition, withdrawal shall constitute forfeiture of
the said Co-Permittee's remaining funds collected
under the Benefit Assessment Program for the budget
year of withdrawal.
C. The withdrawing Co-Permittee shall be responsible
for all lawfully assessed penalties as a
consequence of withdrawal. The cost allocations to
the remaining Co-Permittees will be recalculated in
the following budget year.
IX. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT
A. This AGREEMENT may be amended by consent of the
Principal Permittee and a two-thirds majority of
the Co-Permittees.
B. Any amendment shall comply with the requirements
and regulations set forth by the LARWQCB.
C. No amendment to this AGREEMENT shall be effective
unless it is signed and approved by the governing
bodies of the majority of the parties.
X. APPENDAGE OF AGREEMENT
Any Permittee may negotiate a separate AGREEMENT with
other Permittees or with all 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.
XI. LIFE OF THE AGREEMENT
The term of this AGREEMENT commences on its execution by
7
Contract No. 2151-9r�81
each of the duly authorized representatives of the
Permittees. The life of the AGREEMENT shall extend as
long as a PERMIT regulating stormwater/urban runoff
discharges encompassing the Calleguas Creek Watershed is
required.
XII. NOTICES
All notices and correspondences shall be deemed duly
given, if (a) sent by certified U.S. mail; (b) delivered
by hand; (c) three (3) days after deposit in the U.S.
mail, postage prepaid and notice to the addressee of such
mailing by phone immediately after deposit in the U.S.
Mail, or faxed to the Principal Permittee and
confirmation by phone immediately after sending the fax.
XIII. GOVERNING LAW
This AGREEMENT will be governed and construed in
accordance with laws of the State 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 remaining provisions
shall not in any way be affected or impaired hereby.
XIV. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES
The Engineer-Manager 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.
XV. CONSENT TO BREACH NOT WAIVER
No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no
breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in
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.
XVI. APPLICABILITY 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 hereby.
8
282
Contract No. 215:-92
XVII. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
This AGREEMENT may be executed and delivered in any
number of counterparts or copies ("counterpart") by the
parties hereto. When each party has signed and delivered
at least one counterpart to the other parties 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.
9
283
IN WITNESS WHEREO_ , the parties hereto hL 3 executed this
agreement.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk of the
County of Ventura and ex officio
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Ventura and of the
Ventura County Flood Control DISTRICT
By:
Deputy Clerk CITIES:
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF THOUSANIA OAKS
Dated: By' Robert E. Lewis, Mayor
ATTEST:N c �. Dillon, City Clerk
d4�
Mark G. Sellers , City Attorney Grant R. Brimffa itv Manaae
IN WITNESS WHEREG. the parties hereto h, a executed this
agreement.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Dated: S ' By: t '
jr,' Board of Su ervisor
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
�'1 S. 9.Z y:
Dated: B
fi r, Board of S pervisvr
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk of the r MCI
County of Ventura and ex officio
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors c�
of the County of Ventura and of the
Ventura County Flood Control DISTRICT
By.
Deputy Clerk CITIES:
C Y OF CAMARILLO
21
Dated: C By' illiam Little, City Manager
ATTEST:
C y C k
CITY OF MOORPARK
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
285
Contract No. 2151-92
IN WITNESS WHEREG._ , the parties hereto h,- a executed this
agreement.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk of the
County of Ventura and ex officio
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Ventura and of the
Ventura County Flood Control DISTRICT
By:
Deputy Clerk CITIES:
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
TY MOORPARK
l
Dated: By:
ATTE
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
286
Contract No. 2151-42
• IN WITNESS WHEREG. , the parties hereto hL s executed this
agreement.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk of the
County of Ventura and ex officio
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Ventura and of the
Ventura County Flood Control DISTRICT
By:
Deputy Clerk CITIES:
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
AY regojrjyjatt0T'OF SIMI V L EY jaw
Dated: •Line 22. 199? By: Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
Contract No. 2151-92 287
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto ha- -- executed this
agreement.
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Dated: By:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk of the
County of Ventura and ex officio
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Ventura and of the
Ventura County Flood Control DISTRICT
By:
Deputy Clerk CITIES:
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF MOORPARK
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
CITY OF THOUSANA OAKS
Dated: 9 z y.
B •
Robert E. Lewis, Mayor
ATTEST:N c .`Dillon, City Clerk
288
Mar col lore ri +N, nt4'nrnPv grant R_ Rrim a _ itv M;4n'gC7P1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF THOUSAND OAKS DETERMINING AN ASSESSMENT FOR
THE CITY PART 1 NPDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE BENEFIT
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OF THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT
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 applications for permits for stormwater discharges; and
WHEREAS, these permit regulations will require the control
of pollutants from stormwater discharges by requiring a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the
discharge of stormwaters into waters of the United States from
municipal storm drains; and
WHEREAS, the City of Thousand Oaks has been identified as
having a population over 100,000 and is mandated to file a NPDES
permit; and
W RBAS, on April 21, 1992, the City Council approved an
Implementation Agreement with other cities, Ventura County and
the Ventura County Flood Control District, to develop an
integrated Stormwater Discharge Management Program with the
objective o g
f_ improving water quality in the Calleuas Creek
watershed and other watersheds; and
WHEREAS, the District's Benefit Assessment Program was
identified as a funding source for the City's NPDES permit
process; and
WHEREAS, the District has also indicated a willingness to do
the work for the City; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to do Part 1 is $189,000 for
Zone 3, and $34,400 for Zone 4, for the 44,704 Basic Assessment
Units in the City resulting in a unit cost of $5.00/BAU; and
WHEREAS, a Basic Assessment Unit is equivalent to a standard
tract home.
PW/ll Res. No. 92-92
289
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Thousand Oaks hereby determines
that $189, 000 for Zone 3, and $34,400 for Zone 4, shall be the
budget for the City's Part 1 NPDES permit process and recommends
to the Ventura County Flood Control District this amount for
inclusion into the total Benefit Assessment Program within the
City of Thousand Oaks.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th Day of May, 1992.
Robert E. Lewis, Mayor
City of Thousand Oaks, California
ATTEST:
Nan A Dillon, City Clerk
APPROVED BY:
Rark G. Sellers, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION
fi*�/ 6�!" XOL,
Gran R. Bri , City Manager
PW/11 -2- Res. No. 92-92
NPDES Pt1.CCA
290
C TICATION
STATE OF CALTFO[OUA
ODUM CIW OFT�O ss.
;
I, NANCY A. DIIIM, City Clerk of the City of Ttjot3saW ()a , RFSX
C 'UrUff that the fareyoing is a full, true and
92-92 which was duly and regularly Passed tru adopted e, and of No.
a r meeting held May 19, 1992, by the fo vote:said Ci Y Omm=il at
AXES: Om=ilmembers Zeanah, Lazar, Schi l lo, Fiore and Mayor Lewis
NOES: Norge
ABSENT: None
IN WrrNESS WHEREDF, I have hereunto set my hand and affirm the official
seal of the City of Thousand Oaks, California.
4A.Xlcon, C1 Cl Oaks, California
Res. No_ 92-92
291
RESOLUTION NO. 92-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY FOR NPOES STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -TO BE
RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM OF THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND
DETERMINING AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY
WHEREAS, Congress in 1987 amended Section 402 of the Federal Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. 1342 (p) to Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to promulgate regulations for applications for permits for storm water
discharges; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City of Simi Valley will be
designated as having a population over 100,000 and therefore, is mandated to file
a NPOES permit; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 1992, at a conclusion of a public hearing, the
City Council of the City of Simi Valley authorized utilization of the Ventura
County Flood Control District's Benefit Assessment Program to finance the EPA's
Municipal Stormwater Management (MSM) Program for the City of Simi Valley and
recommended establishing a Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) fee of $5.25 for Simi
Valley for FY 1992-93; and
WHEREAS, the proposed $5.25 assessment by the City per BAU will
generate approximately $194,500 for FY 1992-93 which will be utilized to finance
a portion of the costs associated with Part I of the MSM Program.
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Simi Valley recommends that the Ventura
County Flood Control District include the City of Simi Valley in the Ventura
County Flood Control District's Benefit Assessment Program and set a $5.25
Assessment fee per BAU to be collected through the Benefit Assessment Program for
FY 1992-93 for the City of Simi Valley.
U2101.SR/jk 2 9 2
. y
RES. NO.92-75
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be, filed in the Office of
the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 1992
ATTEST:
Alipfe K. Redon o ,
Assistant City Clerk OF SIMI V LEY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Ir orrance, y Attorney oes er, City anager
Ronald Coons, Director
Department of Public works
u2101.sa/]k 293
-2-
RES. N0. 92-76
I. Assistant City Clerk of the City of Simi Valley, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 92-75 was regularly
introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley,
California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22ndday of June,
1992 by the following vote of the City Council :
AYES: Council Members Piper, Mikels, Webb, Mayor Pro Tem Davis,
and Mayor Stratton
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the City of Simi Valley, California, this 23rd day of June,
1992.
eis`"
ASS CLERK OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
I HEREBY CERTIFY TWtT'TIifE.
FOKWING IS A TRUE A140
W
-CORRECT OF THE oRIQhXL
�DATZ ��
�0fti of the y Jerk
De uty City Clerk
294
BOARD OF SWERVISORS, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1992, AT 10:00 A.M.
239/FC-General/507/510/509/508 ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
PC-Calleguas Creek
Upon motion of Supervisor VanderKolk, seconded by Supervisor Lacey,
and duly carried, the Board hereby approves the following matter:
.a
N
N
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
nN of veyWri
<:, Din
Rop►esentkp Ex-offldo: Duty per,
Ventura County Flood Control District John C. Crc
Ventura County Waterworks Districts Water Resources/Develor
No. 1,16,17, and 19
Lake Sherwood Community Services District Al F. K
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Transpor
R.E. C
Engineering Se
Paul W. F
June 30, 1992 Central Se
Alex She
Flood C
Board of Supervisors
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, California 93009
Subject: IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT-CALLEGUAS CREEK WATERSHED
MUNICIPAL STORMWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the Implementation Agreement.
2. Authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the County of
Ventura.
DISCUSSION:
On April 14 , 1992, your Board approved the concept of a single
county-wide NPDES permit and the use of the District's benefit
assessment authority to finance it. At that time your Board was
advised that you would be asked to approve the implementatioA 5
agreement which would identify the responsibilities of the parties
Board of Supervisors
June 30, 1992
Page two
The agreement has been reviewed by County Counsel.
If you have any question concerning this item, please contact
undersigned at Extension 2040.
Very trul yours,
Alex Sheydayi
Deputy Director of Public Works
Flood Control Department
AS:ebh
Attachment
296
JUN 15 19c
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CAMARILLO, DETERMINING AN
ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY PART ONE NPDES
STORM WATER .SANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO BE
RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
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 applications for permits for storm water discharges; and
WHEREAS, these permit regulations will require the control of
pollutants from storm water discharges by requiring 'a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the
discharge of storm waters into waters of the United States from
municipal storm drains; and
WHEREAS, the City of Camarillo has determined that it is in the
City's best interest to become a part of a regional permit; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 1992 the City Council approved an
implementation agreement with other cities, Ventura County and
the Ventura County Flood Control District to develop an
integrated storm water discharge management program with' the
objective of improving water quality in the Calleguas Creek
watershed and other watersheds; and
WHEREAS, the District's Benefit Assessment Program was identified
as a pssible funding source for the NPDES Permit process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Implementation Agreement, the District
will perform various services on behalf of the City and t4s other
parties to the Implementation Agreement under the NPDES Permits
and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to complete Part 1 of the NPDES
Permit is approximately $75,000 for the 22,248 basic assessment
units (BAU) in the City of Camarillo resulting in a unit cost of
$3.24/BAU, where a basic assessment unit is equivalent to a
standard detached single family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the District informs City that under the Implementation
Agreement, the District will collect the necessary funding to
complete Part 1 of the NPDES Permit process through the Benefit
Assessment Program.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CAMARILLO HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE
VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COLLECT THROUGH THE BENEFIT
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM THE ESTIMATED $75,000 NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE
CITY OF CAMARILLO'S SHARE OF PART 1 OF THE NPDES PERMIT PROCESS
PURSUANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT. THIS AMOUNT IS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S TOTAL
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMARILLO.
297
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, THIS 10th l, ay��e, 1992.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted
by the City Council of the City of Camarillo at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of June , 1992,
by the following vote, ::o-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Craven, Gose, Morgan, Smith; Mayor Daily
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
it erk
cc: Director of Community Services
Director of Engineering Services
Director of Finance
res9211/tr
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT IS A FULL, TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF
Resolution No, 92-85. a Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Camarillo determining an assessm ,t for the
City Part One NPDES Storm Water Manas=ent Pr=am to be
recommended for incluEjon into thg Benef x Assessment
Program of the Ventura County Flood Control District,
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF298
CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA.
Attachment 2
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
VENTURA COUNTYWIDE
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
This Amendment to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Implementation Agreements (a copy of which is attached as Attachment 1) 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, with respect to the following matters:
RECITALS
Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT desire to continue
funding and implementing an integrated Stormwater Discharge Management Program
with the objective of protecting and improving water quality in Ventura County; and
Whereas, the DISTRICT has been designated as the Principal Permittee in the
PERMIT, and
Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT currently operate the
Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program pursuant to four
separate 1992 Implementation Agreements divided by watershed zone and approved
by the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT; and
Whereas, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT desire to modify the
1992 Agreements as relates to cost sharing of Principal Permittee activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree the Agreements be, and hereby are
amended as follows:
1. TERM
This Amendment shall be in effect for fiscal year 2009/2010, commencing on July 1,
2009 and terminating on June 30, 2010.
2. PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE BUDGET
The principal permittee budget for FY2009/2010 is attached as Exhibit A. The total
Principal Permittee costs shall not exceed $2,479,732 and is a not-to-exceed
amount representing the maximum amount that will be used for determining
distribution of costs in accordance with Section 3, Expenditures. The budget line
items may be modified with approval of the Management Committee, as long as the
overall total budget is not exceeded.
299
3. Expenditures, Section IV, subsection C is amended as follows:
1) 50% of the DISTRICT's NPDES Benefit Assessment share is to be used for
funding Principal Permittee costs.
2) Principal Permittee costs not funded through Section 3.1. shall be distributed
among Co-permittees as follows: 15% by DISTRICT and the balance by the
CITIES and COUNTY based on current Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) ratios.
3) Exhibit B attached shows an example distribution of costs based on BAU's,
using the revenues for FY 2009/2010. Actual revenue amounts shall be used in
computing the final cost distribution.
4) The Principal Permittee shall implement accounting tracking mechanisms in
order to report and describe contributions and expenditures. Any unexpended
funds not used for Principal Permittee activities shall be returned to the Co-
permittees.
4. PAYMENT
The Co-permittees' share of the Principal Permittee budget can either be deducted
from the proceeds of the Benefit Assessment Program levied on its behalf or by
payment to the DISTRICT. Co-permittees shall notify DISTRICT by February 1, 2010
of their preferred method of payment.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION DATE
The financial aspects of this Amendment shall take effect on July 1, 2009.
6. AGREEMENT IN EFFECT
Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, all other provisions of the
Agreements shall remain in full force and effect.
7. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
Each party covenants that each individual executing this Amendment on behalf of
each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for
such party.
8. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
This Amendment 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 parties hereto, each counterpart shall be deemed an original
and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same AMENDMENT, which shall
be binding and effective as to the parties hereto.
Page 2 of 5
300
The parties to this Amendment are as follows:
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 Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 388-5307; Fax (805) 388-5318
City of Fillmore
250 Central Avenue
Fillmore, CA 93015
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 524-3701; Fax (805) 524-5707
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 517-6255; Fax (805) 532-2555
City of Ojai
401 South Ventura Street
Ojai, CA 93023
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 646-5581; Fax (805) 646-1980
City of Oxnard
305 West Third Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 385-8280; Fax (805) 385-7907
Page 3 of 5
301
City of Port Hueneme
250 North Ventura Road
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 986-6568; Fax (805) 986-6660
City San Buenaventura
501 Poli Street
Ventura, CA 93001
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 654-7800; Fax: (805) 652-0865
City of Santa Paula
P.O. Box 569
Santa Paula, CA 93061-0569
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 933-4298; Fax (805) 525-3742
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Attn: Director of Public Works
Phone: (805) 583-6786; Fax (805) 583-6300
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Attn: Public Works Director
Phone: (805) 449-2457, Fax (805) 449-2475
Page 4 of 5
302
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
VENTURA COUNTYWIDE
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
City of Moorpark Signature Page
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day
and date first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor Date
City of Moorpark, California
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
Page 5 of 5
303
Exhibit A
Principal Permitee Budget
2009-2010 Year One of New Permit
ACCOUNT PROGRAM COSTS
P6010501 Program Administration Staff FTEs Staff Costs Fixed Costs
Management Committee 0.15 $28,964
Subcommittees 0.15 $27,102
Permit Activities Coordination 0.12 $24,741
Annual Report 0.11 $16,486 $2,000
New Permit Reporting 0.00 $0
Develop reporting forms 0.05 $9,645
Develop new reporting format 0.03 $5,767 $75,000
Receiving Water Limitations Compliance Report 0.02 $3,288 $25,000
Board Letters/Correspondence 0.02 $3,856
Clerical Support 0.05 $5,200
SUBTOTAL 0.70 $125,049 $102,000
P6010602 Permit Renewal
' Contingencies 0.00 $0 $50,000
Review of draft and tentative 0.00 $0
Consultants 0.00 $0
Attorneys 0.00 $0
Meetings with RWQCB 0.00 $0
Sub-Committee Meetings 0.00 $0
Management Committee 0.00 $0
Comment Letters/Issue Papers etc. . . 0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL 0.00 $0 $50,000
P6010603 Regional Representation
Regional Board Liaison 0.05 $10,269
SCCWRP 0.13 $26,156 $100,000
CASQA-Membership and Participation 0.08 $19,537 $15,000
Legislation 0.00 $0 $5,000
Environmental Crimes Task Force 0.02 $5,233
Watershed Meetings"as appropriate" 0.04 $7,480
Regional Board's Storm Water Task Force 0.02 $4,187
SUBTOTAL 0.33 $72,862 $120,000
P6010504 Water Quality Monitoring
Implement New Countywide Stormwater Monitoring
Program 1.33 $210,424
New Standard Operating Procedure Manuals 0.15 $20,551 $12,000
Monitoring Report 0.16 $22,882 $60,000
45 day reporting deadline 0.13 $18,562
Data Management 0.42 $49,698
Water Quality Database Upgrades(Automated
Standardized Electronic Reporting) 0.08 $9,701 $30,000
Equipment Operations&Maintenance 0.23 $38,257 $10,000
11 Urban Outfalls 0.21 $34,356
Laboratory Analytical Services 0.03 $4,925 $100,000
Toxicity Identification(potentially 3) 0.00 $0 $13,500
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation(budget for 2) 0.03 $6,233 $150,000
Additional Outfalls @$2600 ea event 0.00 $41,600
Fox Weather Forecast Service($35k total) 0.00 $759 $4,000
Sampling Equipment(exisiting) Replacement(Based on 5
Year Depreciation) 0.00 $0 $309000
Staff Training 0.08 $13,048 $4,000
Stormwater Monitoring Coalition 0.05 $7,595
Research Agreement 0.01 $2,416 $7,500
Beach AAe+aiter+ng 0.00 $0
Volunteer Monitoring 0.05 $6,605
Urban Runoff/Outfall Charicterization $36,164
eleven new sample stations @25,000 $275,000
SUBTOTAL 2.96 $482,176 $737,600
304
EXHIBIT B
Co-Permittee Share of Principal Permttee (PP) Costs
2009-2010
Estimated '09/10 PP Costs $2,479,732
-WPD BAU Revenue Contribution $712,463
$1,767,270
-WPD Shared Cost @ 15% $265,090
City/County Shared Costs $1,502,179
Co-permittees Total BAUs % of Total BAUs $ City/County Shared Costs
Camarillo 30205 8.798% $132,165
County 72982 21.258% $319,340
Fillmore 4300 1.253% $18,815
Moorpark 13332 3.883% $58,336
Ojai 4395 1.280% $19,231
Oxnard 55424 16.144% $242,513
Port Hueneme 4932 1.437% $21,580
San Buenaventura 42342 12.334% $185,272
Santa Paula 9107 2.653% $39,849
Simi Valley 47996 13.980% $210,011
Thousand Oaks 58293 16.980% $255,067
Total 343308 100.000% $1,502,179
Notes:
1. WPD BAU revenue contribution will be based on actual revenue
2. Shares will be based on actual costs
3. Share percentages from Benefit Assesment Report'09-10
4. Cost rounded to nearest dollar- BAU rounded to nearest whole number
305
P6010505 Public Participation and Outreach
Coordinate Countywide Educational Outreach Events 0.01 $1,009 $5,000
Develop/distribute Public Outreach Materials 0.02 $3,707
General Public 0.01 $1,221 $35,000
Ethnic Communities(180 days) 0.01 $1,221 $30,000
Website 0.03 $4,782
Behavioral change assessment(365 days) 0.01 $1,970 $25,000
Pollutant specific outreach(180 days) 0.01 $2,070 $30,000
School outreach(plan due in 90 days) 0.01 $2,070 $40,000
Citizen Advisory Groups 365 days) 0.03 $5,686
SUBTOTAL 0.15 $23,736 $165,000
P6010506 Special Studies and Reports 0.00
Low Impact Development Study 0.01 $2,329 $17,388
Hydromodification Study 0.01 $2,329
Bight Study 0.07 $12,277
Regional Bioassessment Study 0.16 $26,019 $125,000
0.00 $0
rethroids $75,000 2 times in permit cycle) 0.01 $1,627
SUBTOTAL 0.27 $44,582 $142,388
P6010508 Funding Options Development
Funding Options Development 0.00 $0 $50,000
SUBTOTAL 0.00 $0
P6010510 Public Infrastructure
CRV Grant Application and Reporting $5,710
Coordinate training 0.00 $523 $500
Standardized pesticide protocols 0.00 $523
Updates on regulations and rulings 0.00 $523
SUBTOTAL 0.01 $1,570 $500
P6010511 Construction
Coordinate training 0.00 $523
Updates on regulations and rulings 0.01 $2,617
SUBTOTAL 0.01 $3,140 $0
P6010512 Land Development
Update to Guidance Manual 0.02 $5,233 $60,000
Low Impact Development 0.00 $0
Peak flow control criteria 0.00 $0
BMP maintenance and cost 0.00 $0
Expected pollutant removal 0.00 $0
Observed local effectiveness data 0.00 $0
Integrated water resource planning 0.00 $0
Development/CIP Training 0.02 $5,233 $10,000
Watershed Specific Hydromod Control Plans 0.02 $5,233
Mitigation Funding Management Framework 0.01 $3,140 $40,000
BMP Tracking Database 0.02 $5,233
SUBTOTAL 0.10 $24,073 $110,000
P6010513 Business Assistance
Business Assistance Program 0.02 $2,855 $5,000
Develop/distribute Public Outreach Materials 0.01 $1,808
retail auto supply 0.00 $0 $15,000
home improvement stores 0.00 $0 $15,000
pet shops 0.00 $0 $15,000
Corporate outreach program 0.01 $2,332
Critical Source Database 0.02 $3,117
Model inspection forms 0.01 $1,970
SUBTOTAL 0.07 $12,081 $50,000
P6010514 Illicit Discharge
Discharge Tracking Format(2 years) 0.03 $4,663
Storm Drain Mapping(GIS) 0.01 $2,070
Connection Tracking 0.00 $533
SUBTOTAL 0.04 $7,266
TOTAL 4.64 802,244 $1,527,488
General Contigencies $150,000
GRAND TOTAL $2,479,732
306