by Mark McDermott
A ballot measure that will steeply increase storm drain utility fees was approved by Manhattan Beach property owners in a mail-in election. The votes were tallied earlier this week and results officially announced late Tuesday, with the ballot measure earning 52.65% approval versus 47.35% against.
“The support for the storm drain measure reflects our community’s dedication to building a city that can withstand environmental challenges while preserving the beauty of our surroundings and the clean beaches and ocean we all hold dear,” said Mayor Joe Franklin. “My council colleagues and I are very grateful for the support of Manhattan Beach residents and we look forward to maintaining the infrastructure that will prepare us for future storms.”
In late November, 13,468 ballots were sent to every property owner in the city, to be mailed back to the City anytime before the end of the day on January 17. The City Clerk’s office tallied 5,309 ballots Monday and Tuesday. The results were close — 5,309 property owners voted in favor and 2,514 in opposition to the measure, a margin of only 281 votes.
The success of the measure will result in $2.1 million in new revenue. It will also mean the City’s General Fund will no longer need to subsidize the stormwater system, which is supposed to be paid for through an enterprise fund generated through property owner fees. That fund, which pays for storm drain operations, maintenance, and capital projects, has required $6 million in General Fund subsidies since 2019. If the ballot measure had not passed, the subsidy was projected to grow to $11.4 over the next six years.
“The forecast projects dipping into economic uncertainty reserves by Fiscal Year 2026, with the reserves fully unfunded by Fiscal Year 2027,” said Julie Bondarchuk, the City’s financial controller. “The unreserved general fund balance is also projected to be fully depleted by Fiscal Year 2026….This current method of blending stormwater operations with general fund subsidies is unsustainable.”
At issue was the fact that the stormwater fee, which was $19.12 per property, had not increased since 1996. The passage of the ballot measure means that the average single-family home will pay $129 a year and the average business $1036 annually.
Councilperson Steven Napolitano, who was on the council that enacted the original fee in 1996, said the thought at the time was that any required subsidies would not be significant. But that changed as time went on.
“I’ll tell you, a lot has changed since 1996,” Napolitano said at a council meeting in November. “I don’t know who’s paying the same or less for anything since 1996….There’s a tipping point where it’s just too much out of that General Fund and it starts eroding the other things that we want to do.”
“It means we have to do budget cuts for the things we already enjoy and we can’t expand on the things that people want expanded. Want more cops? It takes money. Want more firefighters? It takes money. Want cleaner parks? It takes money. It all takes money.”
The City is mandated by law to operate a stormwater drain system, which both prevents flooding but perhaps even more crucially keeps polluted overflow and trash from reaching the ocean. The City maintains seven full capture systems to filter debris, bacteria, and metals from reaching the ocean via runoff. In addition to yearly operational costs, staff has identified $8.35 million in capital improvement projects the storm drain system will require in the next five years.
Mayor Franklin, in an interview, said that beyond the financial imperatives behind the new fee structure, there was an even more fundamental issue — the environmental protection of Manhattan Beach’s most treasured resource.
“For 40 years as I’ve walked, run and played on the beach with my children, and now, grandchildren, I’ve been concerned about stormwater runoff and the damage it causes,” Franklin said. “This now firmly funds efforts in the future to help keep debris and harmful bacteria from the beach and ocean. And it puts the City on a strong financial footing without sacrificing vital services and public safety.”
A potential complication could still undermine the City’s efforts at maintaining its storm drain system. A statewide initiative on the November ballot proposes a change in election law that would require two-thirds approval of all fee increases rather than a simple majority. The ballot measure, called the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, would retroactively apply to all fees imposed or increased after January 2022. It has been strongly opposed by the League of California Cities, who argue the measure is a corporate-backed measure intended to save large developers millions at the expense of residential taxpayers.
“This far-reaching initiative would retroactively cancel measures that were already passed by local voters— effectively undermining their rights to decide what their communities need,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities. “In many cases, this will result in devastating cuts to critical services like fire and emergency response, law enforcement, parks, libraries, and resources to support unhoused residents.” ER