From: Krista Reininga

Sent: Mon Nov 20 11:38:11 2017

To: MARTIN Michele

Cc: COUTU Adam; SVETKOVICH Christine; TARNOW Karen E; EMER Lydia; wqfee2018; Angela Wieland; rappold@ci.wilsonville.or.us; Wierenga, Ronald; Keith Bondaug (KBondaug@cityofsalem.net); njoshi@cityofsalem.net

Subject: Comments on workgroup materials regarding the MS4 Permit Fee structure and MS4 workplan priorities

Importance: Normal

Attachments: image001.gif;

Dear Michele,

Thank you for including me in DEQ’s workgroup to provide input on how to redesign the MS4 Permit fee structure to align with legislative direction. I appreciated the opportunity to hear about DEQ’s current plans and to provide feedback. As a consultant, I participated in the workgroup as a representative of MS4 Phase I permittees. Therefore, following the workgroup meeting, I discussed outcomes of the meeting with a few of the Phase I jurisdictions that were not in attendance.

On behalf of some of the interested Phase I jurisdictions (Clackamas County WES, City of Wilsonville, and City of Salem) that were not in attendance, the purpose of this letter is to provide comments and feedback related to the issues discussed. Two categories of comments are provided below: 1) those related to the fee structure itself, and 2) those related to proposed DEQ MS4 Workplan Priorities.

Fee Structure:

• * Permittees understand that higher fees are needed to fund two positions to support the MS4 permit program. However, an equitable and understandable distribution of the fees is desired. In the draft fee table provided, it is hard to understand why there is a base fee in addition to separate fees based on population. If there is a specific reason for a base fee, it would be helpful if that definition or rational was included in the background documentation.
• * If the base fee is intended to reflect a consistent permit administration fee among permittees, we do not agree that permit administration efforts are consistent among permits. The base fee concept isn’t proportionate to the effort required to administer each permit given the varying co-permittees. Fees should not be based on either arbitrary or overly complex metrics.
• * We would prefer that DEQ bill co-permittees individually and not by permit group. For example, WES currently pays the permit fee for the Clackamas County permit which results in an administrative burden for the County to administer and collect fees from 10 other co-permittees on the permit.
• * With respect to the proposed fee structure, Clackamas County Water Environment Services (WES) noted that WES’s population based fee at $1,133 is too low and should be $3,850, while the County DTD fee at $3,850 is too high and should be lower. DTD manages very little area within Clackamas County and the UGB but outside of incorporated cities and service districts (i.e., less than 10K people). Identifying population numbers by jurisdiction is not straight forward when the MS4 system service area overlaps jurisdictions and other MS4 permittees. If you develop a fee based on population, we hope you will work with the jurisdictions to develop the most appropriate population estimates for the MS4 service areas.

MS4 Workplan Priorities:

• * In preparation for the workgroup meeting, DEQ provided a document to attendees titled “Information for MS4 permit fee workgroup meeting”, dated October 31, 2017. On page 2 of this document, a list of DEQ’s MS4 workplan priorities is provided. These priorities are intended to summarize what the two newly funded MS4 positions will accomplish once hired. The first bullet item states that the positions will “start work on reissuing the expired MS4 Phase I permits (not including the Oregon Department of Transportation permit), with the goal of having three of the seven Phase I permits out for comment by December 2019 (timing will be adjusted based on when both vacant positions are filled).” We understand that the Clean Water Services permit is not currently in need of renewal. However, what about the other three Phase I jurisdictions not listed for renewal in work plan priorities? Renewal of their permits should also be a priority before any work listed in bullet item 2 is initiated (bullet item 2 states that DEQ will evaluate new jurisdictions for permit coverage). It does not make sense to us that new permits would be considered for coverage when other Phase I permits are still sitting expired.
• * Renewal of the other three expired Phase I permits is not listed in the workplan priorities at all. It would be very difficult for MS4 Phase I’s to support new permit fees (ranging from $20,601 to $47,254) if the associated services to renew their permits is not included in the workplan at this time. Permit backlogs and administrative extensions present a significant burden to permittees and results in an inability to adaptively manage programs to maximize resources and environmental benefits. Re-issuing Phase I permits in a timely manner should be a top priority.
• * We also recommend that the six expired Phase I permits be renewed in parallel. We recommend that DEQ work on all permit renewals for the six expired permits at the same time and issue the renewals in the same timeframe even if that means the ultimate permit issuance deadlines are extended. There are significant advantages to consistent permit renewal schedules including the following:

1. There are efficiencies in negotiating permit conditions as a group and not having to revisit issues with each individual jurisdiction.

2. The Phase I communities achieve efficiencies when working on permit items in sync with each other. For example, if significantly different post construction standards are required in the renewed permit, Phase I communities can work together to share resources needed to develop and implement the new requirements;

3. The Phase I communities are subject to consistent requirements on the same schedule. Citizens are not confused by inconsistent requirements or standards depending on the community they are in.

• * We heard in the workgroup meeting that the MS4 permit fees would be funneled into DEQ’s overall stormwater program costs and there is not a guarantee that 100% of the permit fees will translate into services for the permittees paying the fees. If the two new positions are 100% fee-based, we expect that the two positions should be 100% dedicated to providing services to the jurisdictions paying those fees.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this feedback.

Thanks,

Krista Reininga

Brown and Caldwell | Portland, OR

kreininga@brwncald.com

Office - 503-244-7005

Direct - 503.977.6645