Agenda Item 6A: Rate/Fee Study Update Valerie Quinto Interim - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
agenda item 6a rate fee study update
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Agenda Item 6A: Rate/Fee Study Update Valerie Quinto Interim - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 29, 2024 123 likes •287 views

Agenda Item 6A: Rate/Fee Study Update Valerie Quinto Interim Administrator vminton@sonomarcd.org sonomacountygroundwater.org Purpose of Agenda Item 1. Update Board on rate/fee study timeline 2. Review budget implications of carrying study

slide-1
SLIDE 1

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Agenda Item 6A: Rate/Fee Study Update

Valerie Quinto Interim Administrator vminton@sonomarcd.org

slide-2
SLIDE 2

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Purpose of Agenda Item

  • 1. Update Board on rate/fee study timeline
  • 2. Review budget implications of carrying study

into FY 2018-19

  • 3. Provide update on current options
  • 4. Receive feedback
slide-3
SLIDE 3

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Years One & Two: Member Agency Contributions

  • City of Petaluma
  • County of Sonoma
  • North Bay Water District
  • Sonoma County Water Agency
  • Sonoma Resource Conservation District
slide-4
SLIDE 4

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Initial Fee Study Timeline

October 2017 – Advisory Committee Information Item November 2017 – Fee Study Begins Winter 2017/18 – Draft Options Developed Spring 2018 – Community Input and Board Consideration May/June 2018 – Public Hearing Fall 2018– Possible Fee Implementation January 2022 – GSP Completed, Reconsideration of Fees Based on GSP Findings

slide-5
SLIDE 5

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Adjusted Fee Study Timeline

October 2017 – Advisory Committee Information Item November 2017 – Fee Study Begins Winter 2017/18 – Draft Options Developed Spring 2018 – Community Input and Board Consideration Summer 2018 – Additional data development &

  • ptions

Fall 2018– Additional Community Input Fall-Winter 2018/19 Public hearings & fee adoption (6 month funding gap) December 2019– Fee Implementation January 2022 –

GSP Completed, Reconsideration of Fees Based on GSP Findings

slide-6
SLIDE 6

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Budget Implications

  • Rate & fee study costs
  • Current contract not-to-exceed $85,000 (likely to be fully

expended by September 1)

  • Budgeted $74,998 in 2018-19 for rate/fee study and

implementation

  • Likely additional legal fees and staff costs
  • 6 month funding gap
  • DWR grant to cover most of GSP development costs
  • Possible carryover from 2018-19 budget
slide-7
SLIDE 7

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Parcel Charge

  • What: Flat charge per parcel
  • Why:
  • Spreads the cost among all parcel owners in the GSA boundaries
  • Easy to levy
  • Low cost per parcel
  • Issues:
  • Potential concerns regarding fairness
  • If approached as a parcel tax, this would be costly and require 2/3

voter approval

slide-8
SLIDE 8

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Categorical Benefit Fee

slide-9
SLIDE 9

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Proportional Benefit Fee

  • What: Prop. 26 Regulatory Fee charged to all parcel owners,

based on possible combination of land use + parcel size

  • Why:
  • Everyone benefits from healthy basin, but larger property owners

& those with more intense land-use benefit more

  • Spreads the cost
  • Low cost per parcel, especially in larger basins
  • Issues:
  • Many parcels are served by water-suppliers
  • Approach requires regulation to charge de minimis users
slide-10
SLIDE 10

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Continue Current Agency Contributions

  • What: Agencies continue funding the GSA through end of FY 2021/2022
  • Why: Agencies represent groundwater beneficiaries within the basin
  • How: Use same allocation percentages used during the first two years, or

some other arrangement agreed to by member agencies

  • Pros:
  • Easy to implement
  • No start-up costs
  • No new burden on tax/ratepayers
  • Cons:
  • Member agencies initially agreed to only two years of contributions
  • Possible financial burden for some agencies
  • Requires unanimous vote of member agencies
slide-11
SLIDE 11

sonomacountygroundwater.org

FUNDING OPTION Data Readily Available? Easy to administer? Inexpensive to administer? De minimis regulation needed? Political Barriers? Flat Parcel Charge Yes Yes Yes No High Proportional Benefit Fee Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Categorical Benefit Fee Mixed Yes Yes Yes Medium Member Agency Contributions Yes Yes Yes No Mixed

slide-12
SLIDE 12

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Questions for Consideration

  • 1. Parcel charge:

a. Is there interest in pursuing a flat parcel charge? Or, should it be removed from potential options?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Questions for Consideration

  • 2. Fee based on estimated groundwater use

(Categorical Benefit Fee):

  • a. To charge rural residential well users, they need to be

regulated (likely through a simple well registration program): Should staff take steps toward an ordinance to regulate rural residential (de minimis) users?

  • b. Should costs be shared by municipalities based on the

actual and/or potential use of groundwater in the basin?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Questions for Consideration

  • 3. Proportional Benefit Fee (a parcel based fee

that would spread costs broadly, but segmented by parcel size and, possibly, land-use designation):

a. Is this an option that staff/consultants should continue pursuing? b. If so, should unirrigated Open Space parcels and

  • ther parcels (ex., CalTrans right of ways, water

ways), be included in the fee base?

slide-15
SLIDE 15

sonomacountygroundwater.org

Questions for Consideration

  • 4. Ongoing member agency contributions:
  • a. Is the Board interested in pursuing ongoing

member agency contributions?