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

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 into FY 2018-19 3. Provide update on current options 4. Receive feedback 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 sonomacountygroundwater.org

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

Adjusted Fee Study Timeline October 2017 – Winter 2017/18 – November 2017 – Advisory Committee Draft Options Fee Study Begins Information Item Developed Summer 2018 – Spring 2018 – Fall 2018– Community Input Additional data Additional and Board development & Community Input Consideration options (6 January 2022 – Fall-Winter 2018/19 month December 2019 – GSP Completed, Public hearings & funding Fee Implementation Reconsideration of Fees fee adoption gap) Based on GSP Findings 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 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 sonomacountygroundwater.org

Categorical Benefit Fee 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 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 sonomacountygroundwater.org

FUNDING OPTION Data Readily Easy to Inexpensive to De minimis Political Available? administer? administer? regulation needed? Barriers? Flat Parcel Charge Yes Yes Yes No High Proportional Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Benefit Fee Categorical Mixed Yes Yes Yes Medium Benefit Fee Member Agency Yes Yes Yes No Mixed Contributions 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? 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? 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, s hould unirrigated Open Space parcels and other parcels (ex., CalTrans right of ways, water ways), be included in the fee base? sonomacountygroundwater.org

Questions for Consideration 4. Ongoing member agency contributions: a. Is the Board interested in pursuing ongoing member agency contributions? sonomacountygroundwater.org