Homeowners, It's Time To Vote on Manhattan Beach Storm Drain Measure
Jan 11, 2024 09:54PM ● By Jeanne Fratello
City crews vacuum trash from a storm drain outfall. Photo via City of Manhattan Beach.
Manhattan Beach property owners, if you haven't voted yet, the time is ticking on your chance to vote on a proposed storm drain fee increase.
Property owners should have received a ballot and a postage-paid return envelope by mail. Each vote must be received (not merely postmarked) by 5:00 p.m. on January 17. (If you have lost your ballot, need a replacement ballot, or need
assistance completing your ballot, contact the Manhattan Beach
City Clerkâs Office at (310) 802-5056 or [email protected].)
The
proposed increase represents a big leap, from an annual fixed fee of
$19.12 to an average annual fee of $129 per parcel. However, that fee
has not increased since 1996.
The city's storm drain fund
pays for the maintenance of and improvements to its
81-mile storm drain system, which eventually leads to the ocean. The
storm drain system is designed with the goal of preventing floods and
sinkholes, keeping the
ocean clean, and minimizing property damage.
However, according to a city staff report, most of the storm drain infrastructure in Manhattan Beach is 50 or more
years old and was installed as the city developed. "Engineering reports show that many storm drains are in need of repair or replacement as they
deteriorate and fail," according to the report. "When storm drains fail they create sinkholes and
cause flooding that damages streets, sidewalks, and public and private
property. Outdated storm drains are not as effective in preventing
trash, toxic chemicals, and pollutants from reaching the ocean, beaches,
and waterways. The cost to proactively repair or replace aging storm
drains is far less than the cost of reconstructing storm drains when
they fail, potentially creating sinkholes and property damage."
The storm drain fund
is currently operating at a deficit, according to city staff. The
current fees generate approximately $350,000 in revenue, while the
program has racked up costs of about $2.2 million per year. The city has
been funding the difference through its General Fund, providing $6
million in subsidies over the past four years.
The
city also receives funding through L.A. County's Measure W and applies
for grants where applicable, although city staff emphasized at a meeting last November that those dollars alone do not cover the increased needs. Consultants took into
account an aggregate amount of Measure W funding and storm drain fees
when determining the new amount for the fee, according to staff.
If
the fee is not increased, the city projects it will need to subsidize
the storm drain fund by approximately $11.4 million over the next six
years - dollars that would take away from other General Fund items.
Under
the proposed fee structure, 88% of residential property owners will pay
a fee under $200 annually; 7% of residents will pay an annual fee
higher than $200 due to more impervious square footage (lot square
footage that is covered by structures or surfaces such as concrete that
do not absorb water and thus create more runoff) on their properties.
The remaining 5% accounts for commercial property. The fees would be
collected via the Los Angeles County consolidated property tax bill.
Funds from the storm drain measure would be used
for repairs, operations, maintenance, and improvements, including:
- Reconstructing or replacing aging storm drains that are identified by engineers as at risk for collapse or failure;
- Installing and maintaining storm drain devices that protect local beaches, waterways, and the ocean from trash and pollution;
- Inspecting and testing stormwater quality regularly to ensure clean water standards;
- Removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff;
- Reducing illegal discharges of pollution in local waterways.
Property
owners who do not want the fee increase already had one chance to turn
it down. The city had mailed out 13,102 notices on September 22, giving
property owners the chance to submit written protests. Half of the
property owners would have had to file a protest to block the fee
increase from going to a ballot. However, by the November 7 deadline,
only 1,628 property owners had filed a protest.
