News Alert
Update: Wildfire Continues to Grow; Containment…

Council Members Protest Hike in Watershed Fees

Fees for the monitoring of stormwater runoff from Murrieta will nearly triple this fiscal year.

Murrieta city officials vented frustration recently about a substantial increase in fees for the oversight of water runoff.

The city will need to pay more than half a million—$527,612—this fiscal year after City Council begrudgingly voted Jan. 17 to approve the Santa Margarita Watershed Implementation Agreement between the Riverside County Flood Control District, County of Riverside and the cities of Murrieta, Temecula and Wildomar.

Stormwater from the three cities and unincorporated areas flows into the Santa Margarita Watershed Region, which is overseen by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, as delegated by the state.

Under the implementation agreement, Riverside County Flood Control District employs a Watershed Protection Department to investigate, examine, measure, analyze, study and inspect matters pertaining to flood and storm waters, to ensure they comply with the Regional Board.

In fiscal year 2010-2011, Murrieta paid $173,416 into the agreement with funds generated by a County Service Area assessment collected on property taxes. The city generally collects $400,000 a year from the assessment.

But under more stringent National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, the fees the city will need to pay are nearly tripled.

City staff forecast that by next fiscal year, the city's NPDES reserve fund will be depleted. The city will have to dip into the general fund for $33,000 of the $753,000 fee. By fiscal year 2013-2014, nearly $500,000 of $659,000 will need to come out of the general fund to pay it.

That did not sit well with City Council, a few of whom called it an unfunded mandate and suggested suing.

"We need to rope these people back into reality," said Mayor Doug McAllister. "...This is the one time we would all like to throw a protest vote."

With what Councilman Rick Gibbs described as "disdain and disgust," the Council voted 5-0 in favor of the newest implementation agreement, which runs through 2015.

"Why do we sign this?" said Councilman Randon Lane. "At what point do we say enough is enough? We slowly see the money that we have in our general fund, in our reserve, dwindling away."

"At some point somebody is going to pay—whether it is employees, whether it is citizens," Lane said.

"We have always considered our reserves as the holy grail for our city. I appreciate that this implementation agreement is being spread across cities, but at some point enough is enough."

Lane asked city staff what would happen if the city didn't agree to the fees.

City Engineer Pat Thomas said the city could face fines of up to $10,000 a day, which he said happened to the County of Riverside when it was not in compliance with runoff requirements for a project on Scott Road.

"Our cost would be much more if we tried to do this alone," Thomas said.

City Council expressed they would like to continue to pursue the matter before the Commission on State Mandates. In November 2011, the city filed a test claim with the commission.

However, according to City Senior Management Analyst Brian Ambrose, the backlog on the such claims can be years.

"To say that their backlog is years behind is probably an understatement..." Ambrose said.

Los Angeles County filed a test claim in 2007 and it is estimated they will have their hearing late this year or early 2013, according to a staff report.

Council members said they didn't want to lose momentum on the argument, and suggested lobbying Murrieta's federal representation.

"We ought to start that lobbying train and see what...we can do to get the state off our back," Gibbs said.

In the meantime, fees are due this month for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, and in October for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

City Manager Rick Dudley warned of other cuts when the fees start having to be drawn from the general fund.

"Unless we sue and win on an unfunded mandate claim, we don’t have a lot of choice," Dudley said. "And unless the economy turns around soon, we will have to make other cuts. It is damaging to the community for what really is an unfunded mandate."

Tired February 01, 2012 at 04:58 PM
So the govt has come up with a way to grab fees because of nature. Water comes down the mountain when it rains. Oh so the govt can now dictate how much rain is allowed to runoff? This is why people are so disgusted with govt bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.
Robin Crist February 01, 2012 at 05:27 PM
More unfunded mandates...not surprising. The education community has been dealt this hand for YEARS....so irresponsible to say the least!! Whether it's city or the business of education, the fear of potential litigation is preventing our elected officials from fighting the fight. Sad but true.
Susan Marsh February 01, 2012 at 11:03 PM
This is what happens when you grow government; it demands to be fed. Water falls from the sky, we can't stop it or order more. After it falls it runs off down the path of least resistance. Where it joins other water. We need to charge the water a toll to cross into and out of our city limits. Sounds crazy? Not anymore crazy than some of the state, regional, county and city regulations.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »