Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-12 `P`pM �SSPIC s Cqs✓^ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA h r� yVP May 7, 1997 rouphone: 92728-8127 14)962-2411 ailing address: P.O. Box 8127 nta7inVall NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING 127 street address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley. CA DISTRICT NO. 11 92 708-701 8 MONDAY, MAY 12. 1997 - 9:00 A.M. Member Agencies • Cities Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Huntington Beach Irvine COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY La Habra La Palma ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Los Alamitos 10844 Ellis Avenue Newport Beach Orange Fountain Valley, California Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin The Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Villa Park Yorba Linda No. 11 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above location, time County of Orange and date. Sanitary Districts Costa Mesa Garden Grove Midway City Board Secretary Water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 AGENDA DISTRICT NO. 11 SPECIAL MEETING Monday, May 12, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts'Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the Office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee for discussion and/or action,it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance (2) Roll call (3) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) DISTRICT 11 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE USER FEES A) Presentation of the Staff Report regarding Ordinance No. 1125, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Amendirg Ordinan:e No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges and Repealing Ordinance No. 1115. B) Public Comment C) Discussion among Directors RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That the Board of Directors approve the Staff Report and adopt the following actions: 1) Motion approving a finding that adoption of Ordinance No. 1125 is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) in that the revenues to be received will be used to meet operational and maintenance expenses and meeting financial reserves and capital requirements which are necessary for the continued maintenance of service within existing defined service areas of the District, as set forth in the comprehensive Master Plan; 2) Motion to read Ordinance No. 1125 by title only, and waive reading of entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present); and 3) Motion to introduce Ordinance No. 1125 and pass to second reading and hearing on May 28, 1997 (5) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications, if any (6) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Joint Boards, Directors shall submit items to the Board Secretary not later than the close of business 14 days preceding the Joint Board meeting. The Board Secretary shall include on the agenda all items submitted by Directors, the General Manager and General Counsel and all formal communications. Board Secretary: Penny Kyle (714) 962-2411, ext. 2026 H:\WP.DTA\AGEN DAUOI NTBDS\AGEN DA\1997\MAY\A.05 r f MEETING DATE: MauTIME: DISTRICTS: ( I I DISTRICT 1 / JOINT BOARDS ILUTZ).................MC GUIGAN........... // V (HOLMBERG)..............ANDERSON ........... - (PERRY/SCHAFER) ........FERRYMAN ......... (FORSYTHE) ..............BROWN. ............ _ (COONTZ)...............MURPHY ............. Y �� IJONES) ...............CARROLL ........... - (POTTS)................SALTARELLI ......... (PETRIKIN) ...............COLLINS ........... _ (STEINER) ...............SPITZER.............. (NOYES/THOMSONI.........DEBAY .._............- (BELL) ...................DENES ............... - DISTRICT 2 (HARMAN) ...............DETTLOFF ............ _ (MAERTZWEILER►.........ECKENRODE .......... (DOTSON)................DONAHUE ............ ICOONTZ)..............MURPHY .............-_ (SIMONOFF) ..............DUNLAP .............._ -_ (HOLMBERG).............ANDERSON ........... (MAERTZWEILERI...........ECKENRODE _ (PETRIKINI ..............COLONS ............. (PERRY/SCHAFER) ..........FERRYMAN ...........- (BELL) .................DENES (MAULLER) ...............MARSHALL - ISIMONOFF) .............DUNLAP.............. (LUTZ)...................MC GUIGAN...........- _ (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ...........- (WALKER)................MINOR BRADFORD ....._ (BANKHEAD)••••••••.....NORBY ............... (COONTZ)................MURPHY - (ZLAKET)...............SINGER ..............- (BANKHEAD)..............NORBY ............... - (STEINER) ..............SPITZER............. (DEBAY) .................NOYES ............... -_ (SCHWING)..............WEDAA .............. (EVANS) .................RICE ................. (DALYI ................2EMEL ...............- (POTTS)..................SALTARELLI .......... - (WEDAA).................SCHWING ............ - DISTRICT 3 (HAMMOND)..............SHEA ................ - (EVANS) ...............RICE (ZLAKET).................SINGER - (ZLAKET)...............SINGER .............. STEINER! •••••••••••••••.SPITZER ..............- (HOLMBERG).............ANDERSON ...........- (SPITZER) ................STEINER ..............- - (FORSYTHE) .............BROWN .........._... (HARMANI ...............SULLIVAN ............ - (JONES) ............... CARROLL (MILLER) .................SWAN ............... - (PETRIKIN) ..............COLLINS .............- (JEMPSA) ................SYLVIA .............. (DOTSON)...............DONAHUE ............- (SCHWING)...............WEDAA .............. - (SIMONOFF) .............DUNLAP..............- (DALY) ..................ZEMEL ............... - (MAULLER) ..............MARSHALL ........._.- -_ (WALKER)..............MINER BRADFORD .... STAFF OTHERS (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ..........._ _ (BANKHEADI.............NORBY ............... ANDERSON .. WOODRUFF ... (STEINER) ..............SPITZER.............. HODGES....._ ANDRUS .....- (HARMAN) ..............SULLIVAN ............- KYLE........- DEMIR ....... - (JEMPSA) ............... YLVIA ............. LINDER ......_ KNOPF .......- (DALY) ................ZEMEL LUDWIN ..... LEE .......... MCINTYRE ... LINDSTROM ...- DISTRICT 5 OOTEN ...... NIXON ......._ (NOYES) ...............DEBAY ............... PETERMAN... / SHAW ......._ (SPITZER) ..............STEINER STREED .....T STONE ......._ (DEBAY) ...............NOYES .............. TUCHMAN .. ........... - WHEATLEY... ........... DISTRICT 6 WILSON .... ............. (PERRY/SCHAFER) ........FERRYMAN - (THOMSON) .............DEBAY ............... ............. (SPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. ............. ............. DISTRICT 7 (COONTZI............... URPHY ............ _ (POTTSI................SALTARELLI ......... _ (THOMSON) .............DEBAY .............. _ (PERRY/SCHAFER) ........FERRYMAN ........... (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ...........- - IHAMMONDI.............SHEA ............... - ISPITZERI ..............STEINER ............. - DISTRICT 11 IHARMAN) ..............DETTLOFF ............ `� V IHARMAN► ..............SULLIVAN ............ ISTEINER) ..............SPITZER.............. �✓ DISTRICT 13 (SIMONOFF) .............DUNLAP.............. - (SPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. - (COONTZ)..............MURPHY .............- - IWEDAA)••••••.........SCHWING - IDALYI ................ZEMEL - DISTRICT 14 (POTTS)................SALTARELLI .......... (COONTZ)............... URPHY .............- - (HAMMOND).............SHEA ................-_ -_ ISPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. H:\WP.DTAXADMIN\BS\DIRECTOR\DLIO2. (MILLER) ...............SWAN 03/27/97 AGENDA DISTRICT NO, 11 SPECIAL MEETING Monday, May 12, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. --- ---- --- Mx:1111-?is 1111 8 1 likRl1 ! DE M j li Io " wl lSS II ad u I lllnIM33 r fall (1) Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance (2) Roll call (3) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) DISTRICT 11 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE USER FEES A) Presentation of the Staff Report regarding Ordinance No. 1125, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges and Repealing Ordinance No. 1115. B) Public Comment C) Discussion among Directors RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That the Board of Directors approve the Staff Report and adopt the following actions: 1) Motion approving a finding that adoption of Ordinance No. 1125 is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) in that the revenues to be received will be used to meet operational and maintenance expenses and meeting financial reserves and capital requirements which are necessary for the continued maintenance of service within existing defined service areas of the District, as set forth in the comprehensive Master Plan; 2) Motion to read Ordinance No. 1125 by title only, and waive reading of entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present); and 3) Motion to introduce Ordinance No. 1125 and pass to second reading and hearing on May 28, 1997 (5) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications, if any (6) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NOTIGr TdbliC7ORs o iac+e�temsothea end�fQcthe.l3+a uiar;Nl�eettnfaheJomt.:;: .................................................................. ..... ..........................................g.................................... .......................................... R................................................................1 .............................................................................................8............................................. ...........................................:..::..::..:.:..:: ....... .. . :..:.::: .::.....,. ,. rsis : es a! u ::Boar „S�...... .....:.:..:...:.. . :... ..,�. .. ..: : 'e . .. .. ...... ... �r..._. r ......h. .L. .�t .ms.t ..th ....... ..._...d.... ._ eta rlat..f ...1hr►.#h ... lse..nf....... .. .... ........... .................r........................................................................................................................................................................ ................................... ::• ........................................:::......::::::�.::..:;. ..:::v::::::::•:::::::::::::::::r :: : • ::::..;:....:::::::::::::::•::::: :::::•:: •::�:::::::: ::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: b�lstness 9 4i:da recedm she Joint 8aard ifi a lr� l he Boartl ecreta : shall mdude on .................................................. ......P.........................9.............................................................................. ....................................................................... ..................................................................... Y$.. ............................................................................................................ ...................................................................... #!.................................................................... . h> nda all itmu I �tld.: iractnr ``lh `Gartelli11rri + ll'Ctarll 9............. ......................................................:5�..................... �. .. . g........................................................................................................ a[L forinat communlcatlons , ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. i3acdSecreta Penn K e : °: .: e" ...............................................EY Y_..YI ...............:::::::•..•::::.::• 1 :.j..962_ 4:..: :�::.......... .Z. 26...........::. ................... ... ......................................................................................................... . ...................................................................................................................... H:\WP.DTA\AGENDA\JOINTBDS\AGENDA\1997\MAY\051297.11 AGENDA DISTRICT NO, 1 SPECIAL MEETING Monday, May 12, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. }}#}jj}} jj s fss}?%}#"s}' y Lx it it i€s}3i#}ii??'r j?} 1.zi ?3z s�sz?€?j 3 #'}5 3<3i�z}}x3#3# i'r'# "' £3 �# 3 3 # IiiI�£ }i�} } � �..!#�,�33r?3 i 5£i30?}}}}��'3��i �����`i(��xs�'f#i?#??1 jj jj },��j�fz�#}}?u��:���#� s t ss xs i •� �; �3��siy#,���((3:�� y}jj � 73j�3�3`tft�?z,,if x f 3#s}ss}ss,�� t3} �.3.�xf€x } �3 3 i 3�3�7�:...3s�zs. ���. � r .•?#,i«<.,s??x £# 33 }� ) 3,fs5}3f##33fs.5 1 33r3#O3.fizx?:3:..<}4x#L.#s� 1 Es€?#ju}}€z#5#4f#3 ( r3 j} i'z,,i•f� 3 3 33 r� ix ..5I€3 x`� ?3 ������ �, ��< � �� ..,i ##}�� - >: t<>s., s33�3 13�3#��i?.>., zz.z..3� #�<3�� �3� � � €1,5 a uss}#.#£�€sNi3 ?-i#3 t-x us-z5 e}f'3 = s3i ii�.s3#.u#.}z.3£3t3'##€3#r'33. '?33}33 33�3 }f33i}s:3>'i333#( 3# I ##3 ' 13 3 3x#3f i ha est n obbar i. ?dmj(�j${a ( : 7 r o 1111001Wt�i�"� """""3.� 9 5. x,. r33t33s' 3, 5�3r13?33 r#?;}.<gss<€33#133'3.},3?3 33�3�°9 33 # ###.1#3135�� x i �1fl3 3a,"! f #xt a im 3 all 11#' #e sir oti 9 ci� f c a�hem walla for3,r � : 33}s#333 i#rix I3�?t 3€z�3133�°3#s3i<3 s �3 }s i.3s..33## ��s»3�#€.>»5� ;}�}'€>,r3,'1�„,3z3u?}:r<'£�###3`i#r �#`3<- .,� i i .} 3.�3- s 3 u<. r, #.;.3i>"'a• 3.,.:..,, }:5 s.5 '• �,5,.''%%; ? d .3 ,.. .�.s1. #� .... €y5 x � 33s�€3��3}3 x�.1��r�3 #} � >s� 3 � �3� �?�oat�3��..e�T W s �##•�z}#3}�� �?� �gi?i��i#�� ( s ? � r,' , ss3.r s t£i?�. � �y � , �� , 3•'::�.3 3 AA >3 � # j £3j ff££,is?s>ra'"333 3 <3`..#.#.?i£33�£f333 5f3333 3i# €33[ � ��?sj#�€:. �3:y� 3.���33� €���3�33�}��)fi}, s 3•##s: f }g �s 3# . f 3t,33 rs>s s3•f#. 33}13 i ?##33t7 .5,... ) �� (gjj jjj � � 3if}r ! r'jj,� '3� ,�jj 3�� s � 3444 � �� j]33 i 33�� j 53 7 3£ t 3 �ai i ��3331�� i�� ..�#J3'3�r{33 33 ��I��r�� 1��} 3's �I�' ��3(` �����#s••£i 3 �33 ?i. I � �j. 3 yQ ! 1 z �n-LIj` � .'a� Q ,�,,r }x i I 3�3 #133 J5�3 I�1 .#£.,.€ 3 .##?#33 J 3f 13 f j3??333ii��.3�3333 € €3�3 33�3 3�33j333J3 33 3:°°s€£s'3€t i#£€ir3€i3 i 3 3 ri J3 £r 5€ 3�I 3€ (€ 3�33333] �J.133# €#1 33i 3333!rjir»q}3 �s a � `e �., �� � an� .+.',x�33j3�#3. 3 s 33 ?#�ss 3?x::s 5 .}ffii3,?333333#3#1333 i€U< .<,.###z3>3x:3:s€"vs??#»�?3 3'3.333''ii�€#3x?#f33x€f?#(3#�;3 333d## •€s#€€> ?- .N .::K£#t'3%3 €33f s?f?xr-;.fu#c33ti�f35ad3s ;tf�atther : € 3t�to 3 eciat �a . �chne [ca' ft1te loft tom III 1,?=� ; 3. #``s?#xs#€;?3 33#€i#3�3s"3#3 ii� s:335•?:s3 �£ �33�' 3s##ji��q£335S � ag n±d�i 4� suet fi n p[em n l a p�stest nnar�er,# •## #££ ?3 3f 3sa £. � } I °/��r ,3 }i �/����/� #(y�/�y�,p #�x s)}`3���s}ss�f {3 {�3 i ajj� £��3.�` ._ Q. .ii1�7'3• o ':'.{1�1V '. '. ..fS1IA:�•Q?'M77MM}i33 'Er 5 ;.,53 S!>}'S%.i S£1?if£%11551 3## SSS 3£•.}%S 1f1' SSS}�j 1'Sf •s>3s5.3 ,"3i r >5 fs..• >r f3 f3 3 s >R3: }.5, 5 3•u t'r:•s ss »%a•s,;?s s ss s•3£{€ is 3»3#it +i?}.ifi#1k s rsfs i#s # s� s 3 �s3 :3 5 r r$s;5 sa 3s 3.3,£# 3i 3}3 3}3si ( 3333 3� 3}? i `� :%g s �3 air 3S 3i3(s I.frs#i 3, 31.ss' s.r< %3,s,.>. ..s3:s .# 3#£' :35�?33�:s3 33 s?ss##£••%}%.. 3r�:i �3 s3�s> 3 ..}r5 ..,2##k�' t i �is.£s•s,s., ��g 3�. ., r,33?.i:�3 .,? �� z ���l�?�� ��#33.....,3a 'i ����s�i>#>#>#£�##r#i£�3i33s i�£s s 3 3�3 3£i;t{?s}..Sg3s3.?s�%i�<��i?3. ���»<#3#££s.}»<s%s%i,.sss fsff'sx£�i}�3��.�.33f.<33;;#�i�33us�:}5>3>53��i(1) Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance (2) Roll call (3) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) DISTRICT 1 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE USER FEES A) Presentation of the Staff Report regarding Ordinance No. 133, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges and Repealing Ordinance No. 121. B) Public Comment C) Discussion among Directors RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That the Board of Directors approve the Staff Report and adopt the following actions: 1) Motion approving a finding that adoption of Ordinance No. 133 is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) in that the revenues to be received will be used to meet operational and maintenance expenses and meeting financial reserves and capital requirements which are necessary for the continued maintenance of service within existing defined service areas of the District, as set forth in the comprehensive Master Plan; 2) Motion to read Ordinance No. 133 by title only, and waive reading of entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present); and 3) Motion to introduce Ordinance No. 133 and pass to second reading and hearing on May 28, 1997 (5) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications, if any (6) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn ;;N�TCE "O.:CfiE�'t'bRS .To place itemson;the:agenda far the IZegular .eating of theinf U. :......::•::::::•.::::::::..................:......::::::::... ................ ....................... . .::: .. :: ,t :,..... : d.Se°...:...: ..::.: .. :otaat :.. t e1os o: ':: ::. ........ t .:.[ r : 1 :: 1516lls�bm�t.... .man..ltt. .Boar..........rf . ...�................. .r.#hen....h....................e......f............. ...... ....... ................................................................................................................................................................................................�........................................................................................................................ besiness '1 da .s ee�re�din the joint board meetin 'he l oarcl 5ecreta : . ehelt inclutl ion .............................................. .......R.........................9..............................................................................9........................................................................ ..................................................................... y............................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................... . he e.... ll.�t : ..su. mate b''° Directors .:the G r"d _I A hl er anef 0eriet�a[Oouns l $rttl :1 .................. .......................................................................................y.......................................:....................................................... ...................::................::................................... .. ........................ allfarmakcommunicatians ...................................................................................................... .... ................................................................... ................ f3oard:Secr.eta' :�. .. pens": :..:. .... .: ezt... 02G..... .............. .......................ry :::::.:::...:::..:.....:.......:.::...................:.:.....:::............ :::K..e::............................_:..... ............ ...:............................... .............................................. .............:::: Y...... .......................................... ....... .. ........................ ............................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... H:1W P.DTA W G E N DAU O!N T B D S 1A G E N DA11997 WIAY1051297.1 OH 0,5t F IC fS Ory4� ,. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA x n� a May 8, 1997 phone: (714)962-2411 mailing address: P.O. Box812A Fountain Valley, CA NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING 92728-8127 street address: 1oisAvenue DISTRICT NO. 1 Fountainuntain Valley, CA 9 2 706-701 9 MONDAY, MAY 12, 1997 - 9:00 A.M. Member Agencies 0 Cities Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Huntington leach Irvine COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY La Habra ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES La Palma Los Alamitos 10844 Ellis Avenue Newport Beach Orange Fountain Valley, California Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin The Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Villa Park No. 1 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above location, time Yorba Linda and date. County of Orange Sanitary Districts 4�97/i4 Costa Mesa Garden Grove Midway City Board Secretary Water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 AGENDA DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL MEETING Monday, May 12, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2,this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts'Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the Office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee for discussion and/or action,it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance (2) Roll call (3) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) DISTRICT 1 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE USER FEES A) Presentation of the Staff Report regarding Ordinance No. 133, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges and Repealing Ordinance No. 121. B) Public Comment C) Discussion among Directors RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: That the Board of Directors approve the Staff Report and adopt the following actions: 1) Motion approving a finding that adoption of Ordinance No. 133 is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15273(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) in that the revenues to be received will be used to meet operational and maintenance expenses and meeting financial reserves and capital requirements which are necessary for the continued maintenance of service within existing defined service areas of the District, as set forth in the comprehensive Master Plan; 2) Motion to read Ordinance No. 133 by title only, and waive reading of entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present); and 3) Motion to introduce Ordinance No. 133 and pass to second reading and hearing on May 28, 1997 (5) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications, if any (6) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Joint Boards, Directors shall submit items to the Board Secretary not later than the close of business 14 days preceding the Joint Board meeting. The Board Secretary shall include on the agenda all items submitted by Directors, the General Manager and General Counsel and all formal communications. Board Secretary: Penny Kyle (714) 962-2411, ext. 2026 H:\WP.DTA\AGENDAUOINTBDS\AGENDA\t 997\MAY\B.05 SPECIAL MEETING District Nos. 1 & 11 May 12, 1997 9:00 a.m. Conference Room C Roll Call D. McIntyre There has been a request by District 1 to re-examine our method scheduled for capital and as a consequence of that we communicated with District 11 since they may be interested in knowing what we are doing with District 1 and essentially what Gary Streed figured out was that we can lower the early on increases by nearly 100 percent financing rather than 50 percent pay??????? It really turned out to be that simple. It does lower substantially District 1 fees and somewhat District 11 early on fees. It means obviously that you spend more money ultimately for debt service, that's the downside, but I think on a political perspective, it is somewhat more attractive. P. McGuigan If I might complete to that in general terms. Santa Ana has 90 percent or more of the property in this particular area and in the consolidated plan that we had just submit to HUD actually at our last meeting. I am very concerned that we have an income level of residents lowest in the county, 25 percent below the countywide median, and only 53 percent of the population meets HUD sectioning guidelines for low and very low. We have a city of 97 percent filled out and I think that we have great concerns about the impact of a 20 and 30 percent increase in the fees. Our city manager is quite concerned since in our public works, we are the primary landowner in the District. Additionally, the county has a lot of facilities, but they do not pay property taxes. Therefore, with the lower assessed value over the past year, I know that is one of the reasons that we have had lower rates, but nevertheless, perhaps we should look at a wider payment of the benefits of the county's governmental facilities. Our city manager had called the Districts to see if we could come to some sort of arrangement that wouldn't give us quite as much of a hit. I am concerned about the long range impact because it means that we're going to have in the real future perhaps or hopefully rebuilding of a major ????? Judy Wilson We originally tried to schedule a $7 million rehab project of the Santa Ana Trunk line, mostly manhole replacements because we have spotted some corrosion since we have gone out to the field. But, I did check with the Engineering Department and we can't just push this up to the sixth or seventh year without major problems. They took a good look at all the field slips and told them to send somebody out to make a field report. The thought we don't have to do a comprehensive program in the next four to five years, but we do need to do one in the next six, seven or eight years and we can do emergency repairs as needed if we see that something is really a problem. So that does give District 1 some relief. What we did is then spread it out over four years, we get to year six and then the last four years of the ten year program is when we spread the cost of$7 million rehab and that seems to help you get the job done. We would never expose you to a high level of risk. Shirley Dettloff has Question for Gary Streed on District 11: You say the overall cost and the end cost will be more if we go through this new formula. What is the difference in that amount? Gary Streed It is $1.4 million a year for 25 years. Shirley Dettloff So even though we are getting a lower amount as far as ?????fee users, we will pay a premium for the increase, as I agree with what District 1, that it is a very attractive. D. McIntyre?? There was an argument raised by John Collins or somebody that it's going to make difficult to get to a single rate because who wants to take on that additional debt burden? I think this is the opposite. I think the closer you keep the rates, a better chance we have ultimately in getting a single rate. I don't think that it is that much of an issue. S. Dettloff What is it that we start out with the first year? Is it the same? G. Streed Yes S. Dettloff Then we start seeing a change from what we originally agreed to and that goes for how many years? G. Streed Well ??????? the ordinance that was introduced at the last Board meeting was a five year plan. We would propose that if you take this other approach that you try it on a ten year plan. J. Wilson Enough that it would give a high level of comfort to the investment community, but we've got a financial plan in place to support your program because they'll look at that since you're doing 100 percent borrowing. The total amount is about $20 million of debt service over 25 years, $1.4 million a year. G. Streed There are those people who would tell you that municipal financing would make you money over the long run rather than cost you money. Just to let you know that the theory that if you don't spend money that you have in the bank will earn more on that then you spend on your debt service. J. Wilson P. Swan would be one of those people and that's because we have been very fortunate H:\WP.DTA\ADMIN\2190XLECUNA\MINUTES\051297.DI JOINT CHAIRMAN'S REPORT JOINT BOARD MEETING OF MAY 28, 1997 1 . WE HAD 57 GUESTS AT OUR FIRST ANNUAL LEGISLATORS' DAY AND EVERYONE SEEMED TO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED AT THIS EVENT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS NETWORKING WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY DELEGATION. STAFF IS ALREADY WORKING ON OUR SECOND ANNUAL LEGISLATORS' DAY PROGRAM SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MAY. 2. BE SURE TO CHECK THE JUNE MEETING DATES LISTED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE. 3. TONIGHT IS DIRECTOR SHELDON SINGER'S LAST BOARD MEETING AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT. EFFECTIVE JUNE 1 , THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE WILL TAKE OVER THE SANITARY DISTRICT AND COUNCILMAN MARK LEYES WILL BE THE CSD REPRESENTATIVE. 1 I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE AND ASK THE DIRECTORS TO ADOPT JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 97- �9 COMMENDING SHELDON SINGER, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS THE GARDEN GROVE SANITARY DISTRICT'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DISTRICTS' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS. (HA VE HIM COME UP AND RECEIVE WHATEVER) WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, SHELDON. I HAVE APPOINTED BURNIE DUNLAP CHAIR OF THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, AND AS CHAIR HE WILL ALSO BE A MEMBER OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE. 2 `�/a�/Q� �� �� G� `� �� D� ���� ���� t� COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY VERSUS ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: PAY, PENSION AND BENEFITS (EMPLOYEES WITH MAXIMUM ANNUAL BASE SALARY OVER$100,000 ONLY) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY: (APPROXIMATELY 625 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES) 'MAXIMUM "MONTHLY EMPLOYER PAID EMPLOYER EMPLOYER JOB TITLE ANNUAL AUTO DEFERRED PAID PAID SALARY ALLOWANCE COMPENSATION PENSION OPTIONAL SUBSIDY BENEFITS GENERAL MANAGER 138,000 $465 OR$715 7,500 4.50% 1,250 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF ADMINISTRATION 119,999 ? 7,500 4.50% 1,250 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF OPERATIONS 119.999 ? 7,500 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING 123,105 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE&OPERATIONS 123,105 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES 123,105 7 VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 123,105 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 122,612 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER 107,099 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 107,099 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 FINANCIAL MANAGER 103,307 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 CONTROLLER 103,307 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 PLANT AUTOMATION MANAGER 103,307 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 SOURCE CONTROL MANAGER 100,302 7 VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 LABORATORY MANAGER 100,302 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE&MONITORING MGR. 100.302 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 ENGINEERING MANAGER 100,302 ? VARIES BY RANK 4.50% 1,250 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 100,302 ? I VARIES BY RANK 1 4.50% 1,250 *Based on current printed salary schedule and rounded to the nearest dollar. "Auto allowance of$715 if hired before 8/24/93,$465 after that date. ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT:(APPROXIMATELY 1920 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES) "MAXIMUM 'MONTHLY EMPLOYER PAID EMPLOYER EMPLOYER JOB TITLE ANNUAL AUTO DEFERRED PAID PAID SALARY ALLOWANCE COMPENSATION PENSION OPTIONAL SUBSIDY BENEFITS SUPERINTENDENT 110,504 $650 NONE NONE NONE 'Based on current salary schedules. May 28, 1997 Re: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County sewer rate increase Good evening Chairman of the board,John Collins and board of directors. My name is Noemi Romero. As a business woman, homeowner and tax payer, I oppose the sewer rate increase which is before you to vote on tonight as a board of directors. I especially oppose the fee increaseon the poorest population of OC who live in District 1. In Dis- trict 1, the sewer rate will increase from $83.24 to over$211 a year. That is 154%...154%n rate increase over the next 10 years. That is a drastic increase. After reading the tax report, material from staff and other data,I have concluded that there is no justification for the rate increase on the residents of Santa Ana,even though the district staff has given a list of reasons to justify the fee increase. What are the related issues to this excessive fee increase? CSDOC lost$88 million in the bankruptcy and now before you is this incredible fee increase which will amount to over$30 mil- lion. Are there any correlations? In my perspective there is. You are proposing for the residents of S.A. to bail out CSDOC, District 1. Furthermore, if this proposal is approved, I believe CSDOC will be violating the California Constitution ARTICLE XIH D SEC. 5. Effective Date and SEC. 6 Property Related Fees and Charges (a)-(d). (i.e. Proposition 218). (Attached is text of Prop. 218. Contact Marianne O'Malley of Legislative Analyst's Office at (916)445-6442.) I urge this board not to approve this huge fee increase,especially since the highest rate increase is on the poorest population of OC. Please do not use us to compensate for the revenue lost in the bank- ruptcy. I believe CSDOC will be violating the law and should vote against this rate increase. i Ro Fo ner Santa Ana City Council Candidate 1994 (714) 647-9767 M t Understanding Proposition 218 Page 19 of 24 Text of Proposition 218 This initiative measure adds Articles X111 C and D to the California Constitution. RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT SECTION 1. TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the'Right to Vote on Taxes Act." SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases,but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent. SECTION 3. VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES. Article X1U C is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE XIII C SECTION 1. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) "General tax"means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (b) "Local government"means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity. (c) "Special district"means an agency of the state,formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. (d) "Special tax"means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund. SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution: (a)All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 20 of 24 (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b). (d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article A the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment,fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments,fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives. SECTION 4. ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY RELATED FEE REFORM. Article XIII D is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE XIII D SECTION 1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments,fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIII C shall be construed to: (a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment,fee, or charge. (b)Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development. (c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes. SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) "Agency"means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII C. (b) "Assessment"means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. "Assessment"includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment"and "special assessment tax." (c) "Capital cost"means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) "District"means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service. (e) "Fee"or "charge"means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service. 69 "Maintenance and operation expenses"means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, i Understanding Proposition 218 Page 21 of 24 rehabilitation,fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement. (g) "Property ownership"shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment,fee, or charge in question. (h) "Property-related service"means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership. (i) "Special benefit"means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit." SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment,fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIII A. (2)Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A. (3)Assessments as provided by this article. (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article,fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership. SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a)An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b)All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. (c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 22 of 24 (d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment. (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. (f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question. (g) Because only.special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e). SEC. 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article 11, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4: (a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water,flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (b)Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (c)Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States. (d)Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. (a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following: Understanding Proposition 218 Page 23 of 24 (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge. (2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. (b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements: (1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4. (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police,fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article. (c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision. (d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section. SECTION 5. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 24 of 24 The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. ------------ - - - --- --- ------ --- ---- -------- ---- yy Z-._._.-._ -._ This report was prepared by Marianne O'Malley Under the supervision of Mac Taylor. To request publications call(916)445-2375. This report and others are available on the LAO's World Wide Web site at http://www.lao.ca.gov. The Legislative Analyst's Office is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento,CA 95814. Return to LAO Home Page "G v..,ce o1 the Secac, 11,J1 Sanitation Districts) May 28, 1997 - st ,a 3(L MAY 2 81997 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County gy /�, 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 RE:May 28, 1997 Proposed Fees Increases Attention: Chairman John J. Collins: Dear Chairman and fellow Board members of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, I must officially oppose the proposed(CSDOC Agenda Item#19, 5-28-97)fee increases, especially for District#1. CSDOC has publicly stated various reasons for the increases of District#1,they are as follows, 1. Growing population increase of 15,5401 from 1990 to 1995. 2. Many public buildings not on the tax rolls. 3. Assessed valuation has fallen by 3.13%since 1990. 4. Only 19%of District#1 budget is derived from said assessed valuation. 5. Infrastructure is in need of repair, $7.6 million worth over the next five years. 6. Last increase only 5 years ago, "a mistake". 7. $7 million operating deficit for fiscal year`96-97 . 8. Default of Districts' internal reserve policies. However,I believe the unstated reasons for District#1 proposed drastic fee increases are, 1. The loss of$88 million from the O.C. Bankruptcy. 2. Avoiding the requirements of Proposition 218. 3. Money needed to cover lawsuits ($788,000 "Whistle Blower," LA Times Section B- 1, 4-2-97)from poor management. 4. The highest fee increase will hit the poorest(disenfranchised)population in O.C. Does CSDOC consider this fee a property-related fee, if not please specifically explain why not? 1 Districts 2&3 have had greater population increases of 53,003 &44,983 respectively; both have greater base population & greater base flow percentage in comparison to District #1 by over 20%. —2— May 28, 1997 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Chairman John J. Collins Why has CSDOC not stated if& when additional fees will need to be increased again, or how long this fee increase(we know how many years of fee increases)will last until the next increase is expected. In closing CSDOC should not, and must not approve these proposed excessive fee increases. If approved, I believe CSDOC will be violating the California Constitution ARTICLE XH1 D SECTION S. Effective Date, and SECTION 6. Property Related Fees and Changes. (a) Through (d). The tent of Proposition of 218 from the State of California's Legislative Analyst Office (http://www.lao.ca.Zovo is attached hereto for your review. Sincerely, 2o .Rez ( � P.O. BOX 30195 SANTA ANA, CA 92735-8195 1990 Pop. 1995 Pop. Pop% Flow% G J L 0 R current fee proposed feel%incre-as District 1 210,050 225,590 11.10% 10.20% 19% 7.6 million none 7 million $14.8 milliot $ 83.24 $ 211.061 154% 15,540 —$ --71.52 $82-$92 15%-29% 53,003 District- - 3- 671,581' " - -7--16-,5-6-4 -3 5--.4,0- 3--1-.5--0, 2-5-O-Ko 4.2-m-il I ko,n-,-1--6--m-i 1-1-i o--n- 6.7-m-1'1 I-i o--n 1-2 4-—m i 1-1 i o-n- $ 73.89 $80-$90 9%-22% 44,983 b1iiiii-5 —4k5-8­8----52-,117 2.57% 4% 35% 3.1 million 1.2 million $830,000 28.1 million $ 96.75 $ 96.75 0% 3,529 District 6 96,9-570 107,000 5.30% 4.50% 20OA 1.8 million 6 million (2.2 million 20.6 million $ 76.47 $86-$96 13%-26% 7,050 2 District 7 1 1*44—,220----158,790 7.80% 9.20% 27% 5.9 million 14 million 7.3 million [330.1. million $ 50.09 $80496 60%-92% 14,570 District l-1 111,516---1-17,-98-3 5.83% 7% 29% 7.1million 18.2million $ 60.00 $ 181.38 203% 6,467 District 28,519 1.41% 1% 0% 0 0 $241,000 9million 100.00 $ 100.00 0% 5,550 bis-t-r-i-c-t-1--4 1,873,230 2,023,922 -9-44N- 0 o-p%- --Population of CSDOC out of 100% Information complied from CSDOC's staff report '010W�Jil�:-Wa-s-te-flo-w int-o- ,CS- D---O,-C- out,-o-f-*I--00-%-- dated April 16, 1997 and inputed by Rick Rodriguez G=%o-f-money-*f-r,o, m-,- p,-rope-r--ty-tax-1,n-each--Districts' budget L= Est. money for future capacity projects__ O=Money used out of reserves J= Est. money for future rehab. projects R= Money in reserves Proposed fee includes Syr schedule and 10yr schedule 1%increase includes 5yr schedule and 10y--r schedule - Understanding Proposition 218 Page 19 of 24 Text of Proposition 218 This initiative measure adds Articles X1I1 C and D to the California Constitution. RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT SECTION 1. TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the'Right to Vote on Taxes Act." SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers.to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent. SECTION 3. VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES. Article XIII C is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE XIII C SECTION I. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) "General tax"means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (b) 'Local government"means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity. (c) "Special district"means an agency of the state,formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. (d) "Special tax"means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund. SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution: (a)All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 20 of 24 (c)Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b). (d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article 11, the- initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment,fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments,fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives. SECTION 4.ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY RELATED FEE REFORM. Article X1H D is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE MI D SECTION 1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments,fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIII C shall be construed to: (a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment,fee, or charge. (b)Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development. (c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes. SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) "Agency"means any local government as defined in subdivision(b) of Section I of Article NH C. (b) "Assessment"means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. "Assessment"includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment"and "special assessment tax." (c) "Capital cost"means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) "District"means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service. (e) "Fee"or "charge"means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service. 69 "Maintenance and operation expenses"means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, Understanding Proposition 218 Page 21 of 24 rehabilitation,fuel,power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement. (g) "Property ownership"shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment,fee, or charge in question. (h) "Property-related service"means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership. (i) "Special benefit"means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit:" SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment,fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIII A. (2)Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A. (3)Assessments as provided by this article. (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article,fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership. SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a)An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b)All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. (c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 22 of 24 (d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment. (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. (1) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question. (g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e). SEC. .5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4: (a)Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water,flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (b)Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (c)Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States. (d)Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. (a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following: Understanding Proposition 218 Page 23 of 24 (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge. (2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee ' or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. (b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements: (1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance.with Section 4. (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police,fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a.significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article. (c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the .property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision. (d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section. SECTION 5. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. Understanding Proposition 218 Page 24 of 24 The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. This report was prepared by Marianne O'Malley Under the supervision of Mac Taylor. ' To request publications call (916)445-2375. This report and others are available on the LAO's World Wide Web site at http://www.lao.ca.gov. The Legislative Analyst's Office is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. Return to LAO Home Pin n May 28, 1997 ' 1997-98 to 2005-06 Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations District Historical Overview The Districts are considering increases in their sewer service user fees. The following narrative description of each District's characteristics and financial condition is provided to assist the Directors in gaining a better historical understanding of each District's situation. As you will see by reading the following District narratives, there are a number of variables which have impacted the user fees and the various District's financial health. Among them are: - The availability of property taxes: Two Districts were formed subsequent to Prop 13 and received none, therefore, their costs are met entirely by user fees. - The growth in assessed valuation: Some Districts have experienced new development and growth in their assessed valuation; however, District 1 has experienced an actual decline in assessed valuation as has District 7. - Willingness to increase user fees in the past: Most of the Districts which received property taxes increased their user fees in FY '92 when the State shifted the property tax from special districts to itself. District 11 did not increase user fees at this time which has contributed significantly to its unstable financial situation at this time. - State of the infrastructure: Districts in the older established parts of the County are beginning to have significant rehabilitation projects in their future capital plan while those in the low-lying areas must contribute to higher pumping costs. - Rate of growth: Some parts of our service areas are growing at a faster rate than others. These factors suggest two issues: the opportunity for increased assessed valuation and property taxes, and the need for increased capacity. District Most of District 1 is mainly located in the City of Santa Ana with portions of Orange, Tustin, and Costa Mesa, and represents approximately 11.1% of the population and 10.2% of the flow for the CSDOC service area. Since 1990, its population has grown from 210,050 to 225,590. A significant factor for District 1 is that it is the seat of County government with many public buildings which are off the tax rolls. District 1's assessed valuation has fallen by 3.13% since 1990, and property taxes account for only 19% of its total revenue as compared to an overall average of 25%. This is the lowest percentage of any of the seven other districts which receive property taxes. District 1 is also in one of the older parts of the County. Its infrastructure is in need of repair. The Engineering Department has recently forecast a need for over$7 million in rehabilitation projects for the collections system within the next five years. Currently, its user fee is at $83.24. District 1 last increased its user fees in 1991-92 when the State shifted the property tax. It is estimated that District 1 will have $10.5 million in revenues and $17.5 million in expenses in FY '96-97. To meet its expenses, it will need to spend $7 million in reserves CSOOC 0 P.O.Box 8127 0,P Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 2 May 28, 1997 reducing its reserves to $14.8 million. This situation places District 1 in default of the Districts' internal reserve policies. Without an increase in user fees, District 1 will be unable to borrow any money to meet its capital needs and it will not have sufficient funding to pay its share of O&M and capital costs in the future. District 2 District 2 is one of the largest districts with a population which has grown from 564,356 in 1990 to 617,359 in 1995. It includes the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Fountain Valley, La Habra, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Yorba Linda, Villa Park, and the Garden Grove Sanitary District. It represents approximately 30.5% of the CSDOC's service area in terms of population and approximately 32.5% of the flows. Unlike District 1, which has seen a decline in assessed valuation in the last five years, District 2's assessed valuation has grown from $29.9 million in 1990-91 to $33.1 in 1995. Its property tax revenue represents 23% of its revenues. District 2 first adopted a user fee in 1991 of$55. It increased its user fee to $71.52 in FY'92-93 when property taxes were shifted to the State. It is estimated that District 2 will have $42.7 million in revenue and $44.7 million in expenses in FY '96-97. To bridge this gap, District 2 will spend down $1.9 million in reserves. Its accumulated funds are a healthy$113 million and will decrease to $111 million by the end of this fiscal year. Only a modest user fee increase would be needed to match its revenues to expenses. Unlike District 1, which has entirely rehabilitation projects for the next five years, District 2's program is primarily for capital improvements and increased capacity. The Engineering Department has projected its capital needs to be $30.1 million in the next five years of which only$1.2 million is for rehabilitation. District 3 District 3 is our largest District. It includes the cities of Brea, La Habra, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Buena Park, La Palma, Cypress, Stanton, Anaheim, Los Alamitos, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and the Midway Sanitary District. It has grown from 671,581 in 1990 to a population of 716,564 in 1995, representing 35.4% of CSDOC's service area population and 31.5% of its flows. District 3's property tax revenue is 25% of its total revenues. Its assessed valuation has grown from $28.9 million in FY '90-91 to $32.3 million in FY '96-97. Its 1996-97 revenues are estimated at $42.1 million and its expenses are estimated at $48.9 million. To bridge this gap, it will draw down on $6.7 million of reserves. Like District 2, its reserves are healthy at $124 million, to be reduced to $117 million by the end of the fiscal year. District 3 first adopted a user fee in FY '90 and increased its user fee to $73.89 in FY '93 because of the property tax shift. Like District 2, a relatively modest increase in user fees, will allow District 3 to meet its fiscal requirements. The Engineering Department has projected a $20.2 million District 3 capital needs over the next five years of which $16 million is for capacity improvements. District 5 District 5 is one of our smallest Districts, with a population of 52,117. It is entirely within the City of Newport Beach. It has seen only modest growth since 1990 when its population was 48,588. District 5 represents 2.57% of CSDOC service area population and 4% of its flows. District 5 first adopted a user fee in 1982 and increased its user fees FY '92-93 to $96.75. Property taxes account for 35% of its revenue-the highest of any District. Its assessed valuation has increased from $7.7 million in FY '91 to $9.6 million in FY '97. District 5's operating revenues nearly match its operating expenses. This year we are estimating $7.2 million in revenue for District 5 and $8 million in expenses, leaving $830,000 to be made up by reserves. It began the fiscal year with $28.9 million in reserves and will finish the year with $28.1 million. District 5 is in a low-lying area of the service area and has required significant investment in pump stations over the years. The Engineering Department is planning approximately$4.3 million in capital Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 3 May 28, 1997 improvements for District 5 facilities in the five years which will primarily be a compilation of rehabilitation projects ($3.1 million) and capital improvements ($1.2 million). It would appear that District 5 may have made a more drastic adjustment in its user fees in 1993 than was actually needed. Therefore, District 5 will be able to maintain its current fees over the next five years. District 6 District 6 includes a portion of Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, serving the City of Costa Mesa. It had a 1995 population of 107,000 having grown from 99,950 in 1990. It represents approximately 5.3% of CSDOC's service area population and 4.5% of its total flows. District 6's assessed valuation has grown from $4.9 million in FY '91 to $5.5 million in FY '97. Its property taxes are 20% of its revenues. District 6 first implemented a user fee in FY '83 and raised it over the years, including an adjustment in 1992 to $76.47 to make up for the State's property tax shift. Currently, District 6's revenues exceed its expenses due in part to an inter- district sale of treatment plant equity. FY '96-97 revenues are estimated to be $8.2 million and its expenses are estimated to be $6 million allowing $2.2 million to be transferred to its reserves. Its reserves will total $20.6 million by the end of this fiscal year. The Engineering Departments has estimated District 6's capital needs for its collection system to be $7.8 million in the next five years with the majority of the work ($6 million) for capacity improvements. District 6 will require a modest fee increase to meet its capital and operating needs. District 7 District 7 is located principally in the City of Tustin and includes parts of Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. Its 1990 population was 144,220 and it grew to 158,790 in 1995. District 7 represents 7.8% of the CSDOC's service area population and 9.2% of its flows. Its assessed valuation has declined, falling from $16.1 million in FY '90-91 to $15.3 million in '96-97. Its property taxes represent 27% of its revenues. District 7 adopted its first user fee in FY '92 and increased it to $50.09 in FY '93 to compensate for the State's property tax shift. District 7 is in a newly developing area of the County, and not surprisingly, the majority of its capital projects in the next five years are for capital improvements and increased capacity. The Engineering Department projects a $20.7 million capital program for District 7 with almost $14 million in capacity improvements and $5.9 million in rehabilitation projects. District 7 will have $11.2 million in revenues and $18.5 million in expenses. Therefore, the District will be reducing its reserves by $7.3 million. Its accumulated funds were $37.5 million and it will close the year with $30.1 million. District 7 will need only a modest increase in user fees to meet its needs. District 11 District 11 is contained solely within the City of Huntington Beach. Its population in 1991 was 111,516 and increased to 117,983 in 1995. It represents 5.83% of CSDOC's service area population and 7% of its flows. District 11's assessed valuation has increased from $7 million in FY '91 to $8.2 million in FY '97. Property taxes account for 29% of its operating revenue. District 11 first adopted a user fee in FY '89, and unlike most of the other Districts, it did not adjust its user fee in FY 92-93 to compensate for the State property tax shift. Its user fee has remained at $60 since FY '92. District 11's '96-97 revenue is estimated to be $6.8 million and its expenses will be $14 million. Therefore, $7.1 million must come from reserves in order to meet its expenses. It began the year with $25.4 million in accumulated funds which will decrease to $18.2 million by the end of the fiscal year. The Engineering Department has estimated $6.7 million will be needed in the next five years. District 11 is in default of the Districts' internal reserve policies. At the current rate of expenditure, without an increase in user fees, it will Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 4 May 28, 1997 expend all of its reserves in three years. Given this financial situation, like District 1, District 11 will not have sufficient funds to be able to borrow for future capital needs nor will it be able to pay its bills without a significant increase in its user fees. District 13 District 13 includes sections of Anaheim, Brea, Orange, Yorba Linda, and an unincorporated County area. It had a population of 22,969 in 1990 which grew to 28,519. It is our smallest District, representing 1.41% of CSDOC's total service area population and 1% of its flows. District 13's assessed valuation has grown from $1.5 million in 1990-91 to $2.4 million in '96-97. Ironically, while it has enjoyed growth in assessed valuation, unlike most of the other Districts, District 13 gets no share of the property tax since it was formed after the passage of Prop. 13. It adopted its first user fee in FY '86 and set the rate at$70. It was raised in FY '89, FY '91 and again in FY '92 when it was set at $100. District 13's '96-97 revenues are estimated to be $1.7 million. It will draw down on $241,000 of its reserves to meet this gap. Its reserves were a healthy$9.3 million at the beginning of the year and it will close the year with $9 million in accumulated funds. Other than purchasing capacity from District 2 and District 7, there are no scheduled capital improvements for District 13 in the next five years. Accordingly, like District 5, District 13 will maintain current user fees in the near future. Summary and Recommendation A review of the District-by-District historical reports, shows a real need for sewer service user fee increases in most of the Districts. This proposal provides some time for the individual Districts to come into compliance with internal accumulated funds policy, provides a smooth adjustment of fees for the next ten years, and provides a platform that will allow for a capital financing program. It is important that each of the Districts adopt this plan. The Districts have always been operated as if they were a single entity and will be considered even more singular as the consolidation process proceeds. The capital improvement program can best be funded through a blend of pay-as-we-go and debt financing. To do otherwise requires very significant and immediate increases in most Districts. An overall, multi-year plan will give lenders and investors the confidence in our ability to repay that will make a financing program successful and affordable. Staff recommends adoption of a policy to adjust rates as needed over the next nine years in accordance with the schedule shown on the attached "Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees." GGS:Ic G:WTGLOBALICWANTHAISR FAHR97.R EV Attachment 5/23/97 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Borrow for 50%Capital Impr(100%in Dist 1 &11),Includes OCR Phase I,Current Accumulated Funds Policy District 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 1 $91.36 $100.27 $110.04 $120.77 $132.55 $145.47 $159.66 $175.22 $192.31 $211.06 2 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 3 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.76 $96.75 $96.75 6 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 7 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 11 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.59 $165.27 $181.38 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year: 1 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 2 2.07% 2.74% 2.67% 3.90% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 3 1.50% 1.33% 1.32% 1.30% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 2.00% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 7 9.80% 9.09% 10.00% 10.61% 9.59% 10.00% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 11 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Dollar Change From Prior Year 1 $8.12 $8.91 $9.78 $10.73 $11.78 $12.92 $14.18 $15.57 $17.08 $18.75 2 $1.48 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 3 $1.11 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 $1.53 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 7 $4.91 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 11 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.25 $12.66 $11.11 $12.19 $13.38 $14.68 $16.11 13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CF C0NS9.XLW 11:57 AM Rates ap, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY: CALIFORNIA�� s May 28, 1997 phone: (714)962-2411 John Collins, Chairman, Joint Boards of Directors Members, Joint Boards of Directors mailing address: County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127 of Orange County Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 10844 Ellis Ave. street address: Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 10644 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA Dear John and Board: 92708-7018 It doesn't seem as if it was five years ago that I joined this Board as one of its newest members. I remember walking into the Board Room for my first meeting and being a little bit anxious, wondering what my personal responsibilities would be in addition to Member representing the citizens of my district. For those of you who were there that evening, Agencies thank you for helping to put my trepidations aside. I soon learned that this is a • dynamic Board offering many opportunities for even the newest members to Cities contribute. Anaheim Brea And now, here I am, on the eve of my departure from the Board. As you all know, this Buena Park was not my decision to make, but one which I have no choice but to abide by. Still, I Cypress want to be an active participant in helping to determine the future of this wonderful Fountain valley p P P 9 Fullerton organization. It is for this reason I have asked to remain a member of both the Rate Huntington Beach Advisory Committee and the Planning Advisory Committee. Instead of representing Irvine La Habra the Board, I want to serve on these committees as a member of the general public. La Palma Los Alamitos g Newport Beach e an I encourage d, in advance, congratulate the Board on its continued achievements. Orange The citizens of Orange County can be proud and confident that the Joint Boards of Placentia Directors of the Count Sanitation Districts has and will continue to be a hardworking Santa Ana y Seal Beach team making responsible, thoughtful decisions for the benefit of all those who live and Stanton work in the county we call home. Tustin Villa Park Yorba Linda Thank you for five wonderful years and for allowing me to contribute in some small County of Orange way to the success of this agency. Sanitary Districts - Sincerely, Costa Mesa Garden Grove Midway City 1 Water Districts She don S. Singer Irvine Ranch Garden Grove 4 Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 ❑ COMM.INFO.ITEMFor Bd.Sec,Usu Only AG E N DA/14`' ❑ COMM.ACTION ITEM ITEM n o JT.BIDS.CONSENT TRANSMITTAL ❑ JT.SDS.DISCUSSION (NON-CONSENT) Mc ❑ PUBLIC HEARING Lt JT.BIDS,MEETING DATE REVISED JT.BIDS,AGENDA ITEM!NO, MEETING DATE COMM.ID.NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION OMTS: OMTS (Originator) PDC: PDC FAHR: FAHR ALL DISTRICTS Blake P. Anderson, x2020 EXEC: " EXEC David Ludwin, x5000 STEER: STEER Division No., Name,and Extension JT.BDS: 5/28/97 AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: CHANGE ORDER TO JOB NO. J-34-1 WITH ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS FOR PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COTS ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITIES TO PERMIT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS RECLAIMED WATER TO THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' OCEAN OUTFALL SYSTEM TO BE FUNDED BY DISTRICT 5 (All Districts). Engineering Department requests approval of change order for construction costs for an increased amount not to exceed $200,000. Recommended Action(s): All Districts 1. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a change order for Job No. J-34-1, with Advanco Constructors, to construct intertie facilities between the Green Acres Project distribution system and the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall system at a cost not to exceed $200,000 to be funded by District 5. District 5 2. Approve District 5 funding of the change order for Job No. J-34-1, with Advanco Constructors, to construct intertie facilities between the Green Acres Project distribution system and the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall system estimated at $200,000, plus ten percent of the change order cost to cover Districts' engineering and administrative costs. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on NA Final EIR Approved on and Notice of Determination riled on CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR CURRENT YEAR- YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $200,000 $200,000 N/A N/A $200,000 SOURCE: DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: Dist.5 Misc. Projects AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL INFORMATION (J-34-1) TOTAL CHANGES THIS AIT PROJECT BUDGET First Year in Budget: $8,750,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,750,000.00 Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: Revised05"4/97 Page 1 of 3 H:\WP.DTA\ENG\ENG\RECLAIM.AIT THIS AITNENDORIPROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID,PO, CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED • INFORMATION CONTRACT FUNDS PREY. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT AMOUNT APPROVED Arr AMOUNT r J $7,122,693.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $7,322,693.00 Y WILL P �teEnjlbRqE*Q�'!rem DITI PERSONNEL? NO YES REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES NO NOT APPLICABLE If YES, Limited Term If YES,e)pWn in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO COMMITTEE AGENDA(List): 1. Originator Date CONCURRENCES: ignat re Date Divisio a (Or i ee) 5- 1���� ATTACHMENTS To JOINT BOARDS AGENDA(List) O 1. Sig Date De a e H r ignee igna ure Date Assistant General Manager(Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) In September 1996, the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) entered into a three-way agreement (titled the "Basic Integrated Reuse Project" or"BIRP") to allow for the year-round operation of IRWD's water reclamation facilities. This reclaimed water would be used during the winter months of October through March to service OCWD's Green Acres Project (GAP) customers, who include the Sanitation Districts. It is expected that there will be excess water during these months when landscaping irrigation and other reuse demands are lower than 7.8 mgd of flow that OCWD is obligated to accept into its system, it was necessary to have facilities to dispose of excess reclaimed water. The preferred solution was to use the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall. Discharge through the ocean outfall system requires additional facilities pipes, valve, and instrumentation) at the Sanitation Districts Plant No. 2. These facilities are referred to as the "outfall intertie" in this AIT. (Note that additional intertie facilities are under construction between the IRWD and OCWD reclaimed water distribution systems.) In January 1997, the Sanitation Districts renegotiated its agreement with OCWD for the purchase of reclaimed water for use at the Districts' two treatment plants, in large part to allow for the discharge of IRWD/GAP excess reclaimed water through Districts' facilities during the winter months. The provisions of this renegotiated agreement included: • A commitment by the Sanitation Districts to purchase 4.2 million gallon per day of reclaimed water, • An agreement that up to 3.2 million gallons per day of excess reclaimed water could be discharged to the Districts' ocean outfall; and • A provision that the construction costs for the intertie facilities necessary to get the excess reclaimed water into the ocean outfall system would be paid by OCWD, or as otherwise agreed by the parties to the three-way agreement. The intertie to the ocean outfall system had originally been designed to bring the excess reclaimed water to the surge tower. Sanitation Districts staff concluded that construction of such facilities was undesirable because of the congestion at Plant No. 2. Perhaps more importantly, staff also realized that, wit the OCR project moving forward quickly, the discharge of excess reclaimed water to the ocean was likely to go on only for a few years, making the investment in the pipeline of questionable value. Therefore, the plan now is to build a short connection to the Plant No. 2 process water system. The excess reclaimed water will be discharged through this system to the Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station (OOBS). This plan requires additional pumping costs of about$10,000 per Revised 05M"7 Page 2 of 3 H:\WP.DTA\ENG\ENG\RECLAIM-AIT year for the discharge but reduces construction costs from over$300,000 to approximately$200,000. The Districts would be reimbursed for the}pumping costs for the discharge on an annual basis by either OCWD or IRWD. An operating agreement for the disposal, will be brought to a later Joint Board meeting. Construction of the intertie must begin as soon as possible to have the facilities in place by October 1, 1997, to avoid IRWD discharge to Upper Newport Bay. The Districts plan to accomplish the work using change order to Job No. J-34-1. The construction contractor for J-34-1, Advanco, is working in the area where the facilities need to be constructed, and it is most efficient to request that this contractor do the work. At the request of IRWD and the City of Newport Beach, District 5 is now being asked to consider funding the cost of constructing the outfall intertie estimated to be $200,000. During a meeting between the Irvine Ranch Water District and the City of Newport Beach, attended by Directors Debay and Swan, it was suggested that District 5 could fund the change order using its capital funds. District 5 does have sufficient funds to pay for this change order. Following completion of all facilities to connect the Green Acres Project and the IRWD reclaimed water distribution system, the parties to the three-way agreement (City of Newport Beach, IRWD and OCWD)will discuss final funding responsibility for the project. The details and certainty of a reimbursement to District 5 are unknown at this time because the principals (City of Newport Beach, IRWD and OCWD) have not committed to a reimbursement plan. BPA/NJW:dm/jmf c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised M4M7 Page 3 of 3 HAWP.DTAIENGIENGIR ECLAIM.AIT CHECK LIST (Attach completed check list to the front of AIT when submitting to Committee/Board Secretary) ¢ (This form to be hand-written) Genera (State Yes, No, N/A) All boxes (except shaded boxes) are filled in, including budget information, using computer Originator and/or typist's initials are typed on last page of AIT above c: Document spell checked (remember to spell check each section separately) Originator's name typed in as"Contact" Originator signs above Division, Department Head and AGM original signatures in "Concurrences" section All attachments included. Attachments that go to Committee/Boards are listed in applicable "Attachments" section of AIT. (These can be different than those required by Bd. Secretary.) AIT package copied to disk and disk slipped into envelope and attached to AIT package Four(4) copies of AIT package and disk submitted to Committee/Board Secretary Estimated Discussion/Presentation time: minutes _Attachments (for Board Secretary's official files)-- Check all that apply (For a complete listing of items to be attached to an AlTand the Agenda, refer to the Library in the Agenda Procedures Manual. Required backup information has not changed.) Staff Report for detailed, technical information only. Otherwise, include in AIT form Original correspondence/documents/reports to be received and filed Copy of approved Job Plan for new construction, repair, or maintenance projects CEQA documentation, if applicable (attach Notice of Exemption,if appropriate) Copy of Agreement/Addendum/Contract with exhibits, approved and signed by Contracts- Purchasing Manager/General Counsel Certification Letter for professional services agreements and addenda executed by appropriate Directors and staff for Districts proj_e_cts onlX Memo re Consultant's Errors and Omissions insurance coverage signed by Department Head for design projects Construction Specifications(Plans not required to be submitted) and fully executed memo re review of Plans and Specifications (formerly BIDDOC13) Notice Inviting Bids All proposals for professional services, purchase specification contracts for chemicals and services, and construction projects to be received and filed, if appropriate Signed Bid Tabulation and Staff Recommendation (include original bid packages) Signed Purchase Requisition Contract/Signed Change Order/Closeout Agreements with Contracts-Purchasing Manager's/General Counsel's concurrence(Approval memo or signature on document) Other supporting documentation Resolutions and ordinances Information for Committee/Board Meeting (State Yes, No, N/A) Originator notified Committee Secretary of his/her attendance at meeting Originator notified Committee Secretary of name(s) of guest(s) in attendance at meeting Originator notified CommunicationsDepartment of special audio/visual needs for presentation Request completed for Graphic Services for presentation materials (allow five working days minimum)(form available from Communications) Originator scheduled meeting to review presentation with Communications Director Originator notified Committee Secretary that there will be handouts at meeting (Originator makes copies and delivers to Committee Secretary before meeting) R WRI)TAIENGIENGIRECLAIM.AIT 4 MEETING DATE: May 28, 1997 TIME: 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS: 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,13 P: 14 DISTRICT 1 �-`� JOINT BOARD (LUTZ).................MC GUIGAN........... (HOLMBERG)..............ANDERSON ..... (PERRY/SCHAFERI ........FERRYMAN ...... .. (FORSYTHE) ..............BROWN .... . .............. - (COONTZ►..............1NURPHY ............ A/ (JONES) .................CARROLL . / - (POTTS)................SALTARELLI .......... Y (PETRIKIN) ...............COLLINS .............(STEINER) ...............-,5=EW . (NOYES/THOMSONI.........DEBAY ............... . - (SELL) ...................DENES ............... - DISTRICT 2 / (HARMAN) ...............DE17LOFF ............ (MAERTZWEILER).........ECKENRODE .......... ( (DOTSON)................DONAHUE ............ (COONTZ)..............MURPHY ............. , - ISIMONOFF) ..............DUNLAP .............. -_ IHOLMBERG).............ANDERSON .........,. (MAERTZWEILER)...........ECKENRODE .......... (PETRIKIN) ..............COLLINS ............. (PERRY/SCHAFER) .........FERRYMAN ........... -_ (BELL) .................DENES ............... (MAULLER) ...............MARSHALL ...........�L/ - (SIMONOFF) .............DUNLAP.............. (LUTZI...................MC GUIGAN........... _ (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ..........._ (WALKER)...•............MINOR BRADFORD ..... (BANKHEAD).............NORBY............... (COONTZ)................MURPHY .............-Ae - (ZLAKET)...............SINGER .............. (BANKHEAD)..............NORBY ............... - (STEINER) ............--r, �SfWr -.......... • (DEBAY) .................NOYES ................. - (SCHWING)..............WEDAA .............. (EVANS) .................RICE .................... . - (DALY) ................ZEMEL ............... IP017SI..................SALTARELLI L - (WEDAA).................SCHWING ............�� - DISTRICT 3 IHAMMOND)..............SHEA ................ IEVANS) ............... RICE (ZLAKET).................SINGER .............. - I )...............SINGER ......... . STEINER) ................SPITZER .............. _ IHOLMBHOLMBERG►.............ANDERSON .......... �(SPITZER) ................STEINER ...........::: IFORSYTHE) .............BROWN ............. (HARMAN) ...............SULLIVAN ......... (JONES) ..............CARROLL ....... ., (MILLER) .................SWAN ............ _ (PETRIKIN) ..............COLLINS ............ (JEMPSA) ................SYLVIA .............. - (DOTSON)..............DONAHUE ....... .... (SCHWINGI...............WEDAA ............. - . (SIMONOFF) .............DUNLAP.............. (DALY) ..................ZEMEL _ (WA ..............M L ........... )WALKER)..............MINER BRADFORD .... STAFF OTHERS (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ........... / (BANKHEAD).............NORBY ............... C'.� ANDERSON .. r� WOODRUFF .. ✓ (STEINER) ............-=-GE4 2&q:............ : /� BODGES....._� ANDRUS ..... _ (HARMAN) ..............SULLIVAN KYLE........_. DEMIR ....... (JEMPSA) ..............SYLVIA ............ LINDER ...... KNOPF ....... (DALY) ................ZEMEL ............... LUDWIN ..... LEE .......... ' MCINTYRE ... LINDSTROM ..._ DISTRICT 5 OOTEN ...... NIXON ...... _ INOYES) ...............DEBAY ............. PETERMAN... SHAW ....... (SPITZER) ..............STEINER STREED ... STONE ....... TUCHMAN _ (DEBAY) ...............NOYES ............. ✓ WHEATLEY... ......... DISTRICT 6 WILSON ..... ........... - (PERRY/SCHAFER) ........FERRYMAN ............ ............. fTHOMSON) .............DEBAY .............. -�T- ............ - ........... - (SPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. ............ ........... _ .. )DISTRICT 7(COONTZI..............MURPHY ............ (POTTS)................SALTARELLI .......... ✓ 17HOMSON) .............DEBAY ............... • (PERRY...... ..... .....MCGUIGAN ........... - (LUTZ).................MCGUIGAN ........... (MAMMON.).............S E (SPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. +! + DISTRICT 11 ��CLG�� yNI (HARMAN) ..............DETTLOFF .......... (HARMAN) ..............SULLIVAN ............ P (STEINER) ............ �SRITZEA ».......... DISTRICT 13 / (SIMONOFF) ..............UNCAP.............. y/ / (SPITZER) ..............STEINER ............. (COONTZ)..............MURPHY ............. (WEDAA)...............SCHWG ............ZEMEL . IDALYI ................ZEMEL .............._� DISTRICT 14i� (POTTS)................SALTARELLI ........ ( )..............MURPHY ........... (MAMMOHAMMON.)•••••••••••..SHEA ................ (SPITZER) ...............STEINER ........... H:\WP.DTA\ADMIN\BS\DIRECTOR\DL102. (MILLER) ...............SWAN ............... ��� � � 03/27/97 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORMI TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. l AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. • ar DATE: s:1 Z s- AGENDA ITEM NO. P f 1I NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) ce HOME ADDRESS: vi � \ NUMBER STREET) '� ��trc vv�ti•�t L. Vv \\ i CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: w (SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION) F28A REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ' ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. DATE: S- v'2� lam, AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) HOME ADDRESS: (NUMBER/STREET) y s ITY/ZIP CODE T PHONE: REPRESENTING: S�°�'I T c� �, �- 11 r 7 (S 0 NAME F ORGANIZATION) F28A -- REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. DATE: -2 g ) Q It rI AGENDA ITEM N6. / NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) /V o�►► Z� HOME ADDRESS: �. (NUMBER STREET) CITY ZIP CODE TELEPHONE: -7 —9 -7 G REPRESENTING: SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION F28A REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO. FIVE MINUTES. DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) HOME ADDRESS: ��j act (-s -�. 0n (NUMBER STREET) (CITY/ZIP CODE) TEL ONE: REPRESENTING: (SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION) F28A 1 � REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS / ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING. AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. V�- DATE: Z AGENDA ITEM NO. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) HOME ADDRESS: � 77 (NUMBER STREET (CITY/ZIP CODE TELEPHONE: S� -2 6 72 REPRESENTING: (SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION) F28A SIGN-IN SHEET COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY MAY 28,1997 BOARD MEETING NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM (please print) (please print) A�A6� /;z L � - csD u c- HAWP.DTA\ADMIN\BS\F0RMST31. ��-�f�-GAl•� �N �GLLe.o7Td � `//"(.LC-!it/• �U�- J�/ For M.Sec.use Only AG E N DA �� , ,1RICtt o. ❑ ca�nM.Irmo.ITEM °� ❑ COMM.ACTION ITEM ITEM �' n ❑ JT.SDS.CONSENT TRANSMITTAL ❑ JT.BDS.DISCUSSION b p (NON-CONSENT) 0 PUBLIC HEARING µ l Z�f�f JT.BDS,METING DATE REVISED —=-1•-- JT.BDS.AGENDA ITEM NO. MEETING DATE COMM.to.NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION OMTS: OMTS (Originator) PDC: PDC FAHR: FAHR ALL DISTRICTS Blake P.Anderson, x2020 EXEC: EXEC David Ludwjn, x5000 STEER: STEER Division No.,Name,and Extension JT.BDS: 5/28/97 AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: CHANGE ORDER TO JOB NO. J-34-1 WITH ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS FOR PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COTS ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITIES TO PERMIT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS RECLAIMED WATER TO THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' OCEAN OUTFALL SYSTEM TO BE FUNDED BY DISTRICT 5 (All Districts). Engineering Department requests approval of change order for construction costs for an increased amount not to exceed $200,000. Recommended Action(s): All Districts 1. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a change order for Job No. J-34-1, with Advanco Constructors, to construct intertie facilities between the Green Acres Project distribution system and the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall system at a cost not to exceed $200,000 to be funded by District 5. District 5 2. Approve District 5 funding of the change order for Job No. J-34-1, with Advanco Constructors, to construct intertie facilities between the Green Acres Project distribution system and the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall system estimated at $200,000, plus ten percent of the change order cost to cover Districts' engineering and administrative costs. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on NA Final EIR Approved on and Notice of Determination filed on CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR CURRENT YEAR- YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $200,000 $200,000 N/A N/A $200,000 SOURCE: DISTRICT 5 Schedule/Line Items:Dist,5 Misc. Projects AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL INFORMATION (J-34-1) TOTAL CHANGES THIS AIT PROJECT BUDGET First Year in Budget: $8,750,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,750.000.00 Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: R"sed W14M7 Page 1 of 3 H:\WP.DTA\ENG\ENG\RECLAIM.AIT r THIS AITNENDORIPROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID,PO, I CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED INFORMATION CONTRACT FUNDS PREY. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT AMOUNT APPROVED Arr AMOUNT t $7,122,693.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $7,322,693.00 WILL P EJTMREQU IRE DITI PERSONNEL? NO YES REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES NO NOT APPLICABLE If YES, fate n e Limited Term If YES,explain In ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO COMMITTEE AGENDA(List): 1. Originator Date CONCURRENCES: CDivisio gnat re Date a (Or i ee) �� v �j� ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA(List) O 'f/ 1. Signatur Date Dam H r ignee t A/?igna We at Assistant General Manager(Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION(Background and/or Summary) In September 1996, the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach) entered into a three-way agreement (titled the"Basic Integrated Reuse Project" or"BIRP") to allow for the year-round operation of IRWD's water reclamation facilities. This reclaimed water would be used during the winter months of October through March to service OCWD's Green Acres Project (GAP) customers, who include the Sanitation Districts. It is expected that there will be excess water during these months when landscaping irrigation and other reuse demands are lower than 7.8 mgd of flow that OCWD is obligated to accept into its system, it was necessary to have facilities to dispose of excess reclaimed water. The preferred solution was to use the Sanitation Districts' ocean outfall. Discharge through the ocean outfall system requires additional facilities pipes, valve, and instrumentation) at the Sanitation Districts Plant No. 2. These facilities are referred to as the "outfall intertie" in this AIT. (Note that additional intertie facilities are under construction between the IRWD and OCWD reclaimed water distribution systems.) In January 1997, the Sanitation Districts renegotiated its agreement with OCWD for the purchase of reclaimed water for use at the Districts' two treatment plants, in large part to allow for the discharge of IRWD/GAP excess reclaimed water through Districts' facilities during the winter months. The provisions of this renegotiated agreement included: • A commitment by the Sanitation Districts to purchase 4.2 million gallon per day of reclaimed water, • An agreement that up to 3.2 million gallons per day of excess reclaimed water could be discharged to the Districts' ocean outfall; and • A provision that the construction costs for the intertie facilities necessary to get the excess reclaimed water into the ocean outfall system would be paid by OCWD, or as otherwise agreed by the parties to the three-way agreement. The intertie to the ocean outfall system had originally been designed to bring the excess reclaimed water to the surge tower. Sanitation Districts staff concluded that construction of such facilities was undesirable because of the congestion at Plant No. 2. Perhaps more importantly, staff also realized that, wit the OCR project moving forward quickly, the discharge of excess reclaimed water to the ocean was likely to go on only for a few years, making the investment in the pipeline of questionable value. Therefore, the plan now is to build a short connection to the Plant No. 2 process water system. The excess reclaimed water will be discharged through this system to the Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station (OOBS). This plan requires additional pumping costs of about $10,000 per Rmised 05M 4 e7 Page 2 of 3 H:\W P.DTA\ENG\ENG\REC LAIM.AIT ,A year for the discharge but reduces construction costs from over$300,000 to approximately$200,000. The Districts would be reimbursed for the pumping costs for the discharge on an annual basis by either OCWD or IRWD. An operating agreement for the disposal, will be brought to a later Joint Board meeting. Construction of the intertie must begin as soon as possible to have the facilities in place by October 1, 1997, to avoid IRWD discharge to Upper Newport Bay. The Districts plan to accomplish the work using change order to Job No. J-34-1. The construction contractor for J-34-1, Advanco, is working in the area where the facilities need to be constructed, and it is most efficient to request that this contractor do the work. At the request of IRWD and the City of Newport Beach, District 5 is now being asked to consider funding the cost of constructing the outfall intertie estimated to be $200,000. During a meeting between the Irvine Ranch Water District and the City of Newport Beach, attended by Directors Debay and Swan, it was suggested that District 5 could fund the change order using its capital funds. District 5 does have sufficient funds to pay for this change order. Following completion of all facilities to connect the Green Acres Project and the IRWD reclaimed water distribution system, the parties to the three-way agreement (City of Newport Beach, IRWD and OCWD) will discuss final funding responsibility for the project. The details and certainty of a reimbursement to District 5 are unknown at this time because the principals (City of Newport Beach, IRWD and OCWD) have not committed to a reimbursement plan. BPA/NJW:dm/jmf c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Rwised05114197 Page 3 of 3 HAW RDTAIENGIENGIRECLAIM.AIT CHECK LIST (Attach completed check list to the front of AIT when submitting to Committee/Board Secretary) (This form to be hand-written) General (State Yes, No, N/A) All boxes (except shaded boxes) are filled in, including budget information, using computer Originator and/or typist's initials are typed on last page of AIT above c: Document spell checked (remember to spell check each section separately) Originator's name typed in as "Contact" Originator signs above Division, Department Head and AGM original signatures in "Concurrences" section All attachments included. Attachments that go to Committee/Boards are listed in applicable "Attachments" section of AIT. (These can be different than those required by Bd. Secretary.) AIT package copied to disk and disk slipped into envelope and attached to AIT package Four(4) copies of AIT package and disk submitted to Committee/Board Secretary Estimated Discussion/Presentation time: minutes Attachments (for Board Secretary's official files)— Check all that apply (For a complete listing of items to be attached to an AlTand the Agenda, refer to the Library in the Agenda Procedures Manual. Required backup information has not changed.) Staff Report for detailed, technical information only. Otherwise, include in AIT form Original correspondence/documents/reports to be received and filed Copy of approved Job Plan for new construction, repair, or maintenance projects CEQA documentation, if applicable (attach Notice of Exemption, if appropriate) Copy of Agreement/Addendum/Contract with exhibits, approved and signed by Contracts- Purchasing Manager/General Counsel Certification Letter for professional services agreements and addenda executed by appropriate Directors and staff for Districts projects only Memo re Consultant's Errors and Omissions insurance coverage signed by Department Head for design projects Construction Specifications (Plans not required to be submitted) and fully executed memo re review of Plans and Specifications (formerly BIDDOC13) Notice Inviting Bids All proposals for professional services, purchase specification contracts for chemicals and services,-and construction projects to be received and filed, if appropriate Signed Bid Tabulation and Staff Recommendation (include original bid packages) Signed Purchase Requisition Contract/Signed Change Order/Closeout Agreements with Contracts-Purchasing Manager's/General Counsel's concurrence (Approval memo or signature on document) Other supporting documentation Resolutions and ordinances Information for Committee/Board Meeting (State Yes, No, WA) Originator notified Committee Secretary of his/her attendance at meeting Originator notified Committee Secretary of name(s) of guest(s) in attendance at meeting Originator notified CommunicationsDepartment of special audio/visual needs for presentation Request completed for Graphic Services for presentation materials (allow five working days minimum)(fonn available from Communications) Originator scheduled meeting to review presentation with Communications Director Originator notified Committee Secretary that there will be handouts at meeting (Originator makes copies and delivers to Committee Secretary before meeting) WWRDTAIENGIEWRECI AIM.AIT 4 5/23/97 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Borrow for 50%Capital Impr(100%in Dist 1 &11),Includes OCR Phase I,Current Accumulated Funds Policy District 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 1 $91.36 $100.27 $110.04 $120.77 $132.55 $145.47 $159.66 $175.22 $192.31 $211.06 2 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 3 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 7 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 11 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.59 $165.27 $181.38 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year: 1 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 2 2.07% 2.74% 2.67% 3.90% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 3 1.50% 1.33% 1.32% 1.30% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 2.00% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 7 9.80% 9.09% 10.00% 10.61% 9.59% 10.00% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 11 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Dollar Change From Prior Year 1 $8.12 $8.91 $9.78 $10.73 $11.78 $12.92 $14.18 $15.57 $17.08 $18.75 2 $1.48 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 3 $1.11 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 $1.53 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 7 $4.91 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 11 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.25 $12.66 $11.11 $12.19 $13.38 $14.68 $16.11 13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CF CONS9.XLW 11:57 AM Rates IR May 28, 1997 1997-98 to 2005-06 Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations District Historical Overview The Districts are considering increases in their sewer service user fees. The following narrative description of each District's characteristics and financial condition is provided to assist the Directors in gaining a better historical understanding of each District's situation. As you will see by reading the following District narratives, there are a number of variables which have impacted the user fees and the various District's financial health. Among them are: - The availability of property taxes: Two Districts were formed subsequent to Prop 13 and received none, therefore, their costs are met entirely by user fees. - The growth in assessed valuation: Some Districts have experienced new development and growth in their assessed valuation; however, District 1 has experienced an actual decline in assessed valuation as has District 7. - Willingness to--increase user fees in the past: Most of the Districts which received property taxes increased their user fees in FY '92 when the State shifted the property tax from special districts to itself. District 11 did not increase user fees at this time which has contributed significantly to its unstable financial situation at this time. - State of the infrastructure: Districts in the older established parts of the County are beginning to have significant rehabilitation projects in their future capital plan while those in the low-lying areas must contribute to higher pumping costs. - Rate of growth: Some parts of our service areas are growing at a faster rate than others. These factors suggest two issues: the opportunity for increased assessed valuation and property taxes, and the need for increased capacity. District Most of District 1 is mainly located in the City of Santa Ana with portions of Orange, Tustin, and Costa Mesa, and represents approximately 11.1% of the population and 10.2% of the flow for the CSDOC service area. Since 1990, its population has grown from 210,050 to 225,590. A significant factor for District 1 is that it is the seat of County government with many public buildings which are off the tax rolls. District 1's assessed valuation has fallen by 3.13% since 1990, and property taxes account for only 19% of its total revenue as compared to an overall average of 25%. This is the lowest percentage of any of the seven other districts which receive property taxes. District 1 is also in one of the older parts of the County. Its infrastructure is in need of repair. The Engineering Department has recently forecast a need for over$7 million in rehabilitation projects for the collections system within the next five years. Currently, its user fee is at $83.24. District 1 last increased its user fees in 1991-92 when the State shifted the property tax. It is estimated that District 1 will have $10.5 million in revenues and $17.5 million in expenses in FY '96-97. To meet its expenses, it will need to spend $7 million in reserves CSDOC 0 P.O.Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 i Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 2 May 28, 1997 reducing its reserves to $14.8 million. This situation places District 1 in default of the Districts' internal reserve policies. Without an increase in user fees, District 1 will be unable to borrow any money to meet its capital needs and it will not have sufficient funding to pay its share of O&M and capital costs in the future. District 2 District 2 is one of the largest districts with a population which has grown from 564,356 in 1990 to 617,359 in 1995. It includes the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Fountain Valley, La Habra, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Yorba Linda, Villa Park, and the Garden Grove Sanitary District. It represents approximately 30.5% of the CSDOC's service area in terms of population and approximately 32.5% of the flows. Unlike District 1, which has seen a decline in assessed valuation in the last five years, District 2's assessed valuation has grown from $29.9 million in 1990-91 to $33.1 in 1995. Its property tax revenue represents 23% of its revenues. District 2 first adopted a user fee in 1991 of$55. It increased its user fee to $71.52 in FY'92-93 when property taxes were shifted to the State. It is estimated that District 2 will have $42.7 million in revenue and $44.7 million in expenses in FY '96-97. To bridge this gap, District 2 will spend down $1.9 million in reserves. Its accumulated funds are a healthy$113 million and will decrease to $111 million by the end of this fiscal year. Only a modest user fee increase would be needed to match its revenues to expenses. Unlike District 1, which has entirely rehabilitation projects for the next five years, District 2's program is primarily for capital improvements and increased capacity. The Engineering Department has projected its capital needs to be $30.1 million in the next five years of which only$1.2 million is for rehabilitation. District 3 District 3 is our largest District. It includes the cities of Brea, La Habra, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Buena Park, La Palma, Cypress, Stanton, Anaheim, Los Alamitos, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and the Midway Sanitary District. It has grown from 671,581 in 1990 to a population of 716,564 in 1995, representing 35.4% of CSDOC's service area population and 31.5% of its flows. District 3's property tax revenue is 25% of its total revenues. Its assessed valuation has grown from $28.9 million in FY '90-91 to $32.3 million in FY '96-97. Its 1996-97 revenues are estimated at $42.1 million and its expenses are estimated at $48.9 million. To bridge this gap, it will draw down on $6.7 million of reserves. Like District 2, its reserves are healthy at $124 million, to be reduced to $117 million by the end of the fiscal year. District 3 first adopted a user fee in FY '90 and increased its user fee to $73.89 in FY '93 because of the property tax shift. Like District 2, a relatively modest increase in user fees, will allow District 3 to meet its fiscal requirements. The Engineering Department has projected a $20.2 million District 3 capital needs over the next five years of which $16 million is for capacity improvements. District 5 District 5 is one of our smallest Districts, with a population of 52,117. It is entirely within the City of Newport Beach. It has seen only modest growth since 1990 when its population was 48,588. District 5 represents 2.57% of CSDOC service area population and 4% of its flows. District 5 first adopted a user fee in 1982 and increased its user fees FY '92-93 to $96.75. Property taxes account for 35% of its revenue-the highest of any District. Its assessed valuation has increased from $7.7 million in FY '91 to $9.6 million in FY '97. District 5's operating revenues nearly match its operating expenses. This year we are estimating $7.2 million in revenue for District 5 and $8 million in expenses, leaving $830,000 to be made up by reserves. It began the fiscal year with $28.9 million in reserves and will finish the year with $28.1 million. District 5 is in a low-lying area of the service area and has required significant investment in pump stations over the years. The Engineering Department is planning approximately$4.3 million in capital Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 3 May 28, 1997 improvements for District 5 facilities in the five years which will primarily be a compilation of rehabilitation projects ($3.1 million) and capital improvements ($1.2 million). It would appear that District 5 may have made a more drastic adjustment in its user fees in 1993 than was actually needed. Therefore, District 5 will be able to maintain its current fees over the next five years. District 6 District 6 includes a portion of Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, serving the City of Costa Mesa. It had a 1995 population of 107,000 having grown from 99,950 in 1990. It represents approximately 5.3% of CSDOC's service area population and 4.5% of its total flows. District 6's assessed valuation has grown from $4.9 million in FY '91 to $5.5 million in FY '97. Its property taxes are 20% of its revenues. District 6 first implemented a user fee in FY '83 and raised it over the years, including an adjustment in 1992 to $76.47 to make up for the State's property tax shift. Currently, District 6's revenues exceed its expenses due in part to an inter- district sale of treatment plant equity. FY '96-97 revenues are estimated to be $8.2 million and its expenses are estimated to be $6 million allowing $2.2 million to be transferred to its reserves. Its reserves will total $20.6 million by the end of this fiscal year. The Engineering Departments has estimated District 6's capital needs for its collection system to be $7.8 million in the next five years with the majority of the work ($6 million) for capacity improvements. District 6 will require a modest fee increase to meet its capital and operating needs. istrict 7 District 7 is located principally in the City of Tustin and includes parts of Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. Its 1990 population was 144,220 and it grew to 158,790 in 1995. District 7 represents 7.8% of the CSDOC's service area population and 9.2% of its flows. Its assessed valuation has declined, falling from $16.1 million in FY '90-91 to $15.3 million in '96-97. Its property taxes represent 27% of its revenues. District 7 adopted its first user fee in FY '92 and increased it to $50.09 in FY '93 to compensate for the State's property tax shift. District 7 is in a newly developing area of the County, and not surprisingly, the majority of its capital projects in the next five years are for capital improvements and increased capacity. The Engineering Department projects a $20.7 million capital program for District 7 with almost$14 million in capacity improvements and $5.9 million in rehabilitation projects. District 7 will have $11.2 million in revenues and $18.5 million in expenses. Therefore, the District will be reducing its reserves by $7.3 million. Its accumulated funds were $37.5 million and it will close the year with $30.1 million. District 7 will need only a modest increase in user fees to meet its needs. District 11 District 11 is contained solely within the City of Huntington Beach. Its population in 1991 was 111,516 and increased to 117,983 in 1995. It represents 5.83% of CSDOC's service area population and 7% of its flows. District 11's assessed valuation has increased from $7 million in FY `91 to $8.2 million in FY '97. Property taxes account for 29% of its operating revenue. District 11 first adopted a user fee in FY '89, and unlike most of the other Districts, it did not adjust its user fee in FY 92-93 to compensate for the State property tax shift. Its user fee has remained at $60 since FY '92. District 11's `96-97 revenue is estimated to be $6.8 million and its expenses will be $14 million. Therefore, $7.1 million must come from reserves in order to meet its expenses. It began the year with $25.4 million in accumulated funds which will decrease to $18.2 million by the end of the fiscal year. The Engineering Department has estimated $6.7 million will be needed in the next five years. District 11 is in default of the Districts' internal reserve policies. At the current rate of expenditure,without an increase in user fees, it will r Sewer Service User Fee Recommendations Page 4 May 28, 1997 expend all of its reserves in three years. Given this financial situation, like District 1, District 11 will not have sufficient funds to be able to borrow for future capital needs nor will it be able to pay its bills without a significant increase in its user fees. District 13 District 13 includes sections of Anaheim, Brea, Orange, Yorba Linda, and an unincorporated County area. It had a population of 22,969 in 1990 which grew to 28,519. It is our smallest District, representing 1.41% of CSDOC's total service area population and 1% of its flows. District 13's assessed valuation has grown from $1.5 million in 1990-91 to$2.4 million in '96-97. Ironically, while it has enjoyed growth in assessed valuation, unlike most of the other Districts, District 13 gets no share of the property tax since it was formed after the passage of Prop. 13. It adopted its first user fee in FY '86 and set the rate at $70. It was raised in FY'89, FY'91 and again in FY '92 when it was set at$100. District 13's '96-97 revenues are estimated to be$1.7 million. It will draw down on $241,000 of its reserves to meet this gap. Its reserves were a healthy$9.3 million at the beginning of the year and it will close the year with $9 million in accumulated funds. Other than purchasing capacity from District 2 and District 7, there are no scheduled capital improvements for District 13 in the next five years. Accordingly, like District 5, District 13 will maintain current user fees in the near future. Summary and Recommendation A review of the District-by-District historical reports, shows a real need for sewer service user fee increases in most of the Districts. This proposal provides some time for the individual Districts to come into compliance with internal accumulated funds policy, provides a smooth adjustment of fees for the next ten years, and provides a platform that will allow for a capital financing program. It is important that each of the Districts adopt this plan. The Districts have always been operated as if they were a single entity and will be considered even more singular as the consolidation process proceeds. The capital improvement program can best be funded through a blend of pay-as-we-go and debt financing. To do otherwise requires very significant and immediate increases in most Districts. An overall, multi-year plan will give lenders and investors the confidence in our ability to repay that will make a financing program successful and affordable. Staff recommends adoption of a policy to adjust rates as needed over the next nine years in accordance with the schedule shown on the attached "Proposed Annual Sewer Service Use Fees." GGS:lc G:\NTGLOBALNCYMANTHA\SRFAHR97.REV Attachment 5/23/97 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Borrow for 50%Capital Impr(100%in Dist 1 &11),Includes OCR Phase 1,Current Accumulated Funds Policy District 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 1 $91.36 $100.27 $110.04 $120.77 $132.55 $145.47 $159.66 $175.22 $192.31 $211.06 2 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 3 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 7 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 $96.00 11 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.59 $165.27 $181.38 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year. 1 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 2 2.07% 2.74% 2.67% 3.90% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 3 1.50% 1.33% 1.32% 1.30% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 2.00% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% 2.33% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 7 9.80% 9.09% 10.00% 10.61% 9.59% 10.00% 2.27% 2.22% 2.17% 2.13% 11 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Dollar Change From Prior Year 1 $8.12 $8.91 $9.78 $10.73 $11.78 $12.92 $14.18 $15.57 $17.08 $18.75 2 $1.48 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 3 $1.11 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 $1.53 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 7 $4.91 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 11 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.25 $12.66 $11.11 $12.19 $13.38 $14.68 $16.11 13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CF CONS9.XLW 11:57 AM Rates DATE PAID 03/19/97 04/02/97 HANDWRITES ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund - 824,446.25 700,635.12 71,074.47 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 3,012,193.39 415,626.21 135,534.07 Joint Working Capital Fund - 130,958.36 146,445.36 595.36 Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 22,975.14 31,381.04 4,212.50 DISTRICT NO. 1 - 18,157.28 60.00 0.00 DISTRICT NO.2 - 86,218.97 11,330.59 2,367.37 DISTRICT NO.3 - 59,679.19 19,562.44 7,451.89 DISTRICT NO.5 - 4,283.05 2,301.26 905.60 DISTRICT NO.6 - 1,431.14 420.00 0.00 DISTRICT NO.7 - 5,825.33 8,552.04 1,786.28 DISTRICT NO.11 - 9,567.10 66,160.32 7,133.07 DISTRICT NO.13 - 41.38 0.00 0.00 DISTRICT NO.14 - 0.00 24.86 0.00 DISTRICTS NO. 1 &7 JOINT - 0.00 0.00 0.00 DISTRICTS NO.3&11 JOINT - 0.00 0.00 0.00 DISTRICTS NO.5&6 JOINT - 80.71 13,477.80 4,253.10 DISTRICTS NO.6&7 JOINT - 0.00 2,029.94 1.711.51 DISTRICTS NO.7&14 JOINT - 19.90 10,095.70 4,425.01 TOTALS 4,175,777.19 1,428,102.68 241,450.23 15i PAC 75 Oc COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA %C irE Exvi�N May 21, 1997 phone: (714)962-2411 To the Chairman and Members mailing address: of the Joint Boards of Directors P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Subject: Board Letter street address: 10844 Ellis Avenue_ Fountain Valley, CA The following are items that you may find interesting. If you need additional 92708-7016 information on any of the items, please call me. Proposed User Fee Increases and Our Advisory Committees Member Agencies On May 2, 1 sent the attached letter to members of the Planning Advisory Committee so that they would be informed on the proposed user fee increase issue before their May 8 meeting. Unfortunately, we failed to advise the Rate Advisory Committee Cities (RAC) before the information was published in the local papers. At the May 1 RAC Anaheim meeting, the members expressed their concern that they were not advised of the Brea proposed increase before it was presented to the Directors and published. Staff Buena Park addressed their concerns and reiterated that the RAC was formed to assist in Cypress Fountain Valley recommending the rate structure, not the actual rates. On May 13, the FAHR agenda Fullerton item was mailed to RAC members along with a letter of apology (copy attached). Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra Staff is aware that early notification is important, and procedures are being developed Le Palma that will prevent this from happening in the future. Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia Updates from AMSA Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton House Committee Displays Commitment to Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Tustin Majority and minority leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Villa Park Committee last month signaled their intent to reauthorize the Clean Water Act (CWA) Yorba Linda this Congress. In an April 25 letter, the chair and minority leader of the Committee, County of Orange and the chair and minority leader of the Water Resources and Environmental Subcommittee, exhort CWA stakeholder groups to enter into discussions with each Sanitary Districts other to develop consensus positions and recommendations on key issue areas. The letter, which calls bipartisan legislation re-authorizing the CWA in the 105" Congress Costa Mesa an "important goal," adds that the committee will "convene an initial meeting with Garden Grove interested parties" to discuss consensus positions in more detail, and suggested that Midway City more CWA hearings will be held. Key issues that the committee plans to address in Water Districts this effort include: infrastructure funding, point source regulation, watershed protection approaches, wetlands, enforcement, non-point source control, and wet Irvine Ranch weather flows. Sanitation Districts' staff. working through AMSA and CASA, will monitor this closely and provide input as the CWA reauthorization is developed. A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 H 73 0 G s 'L�FCT/HO T'{E!CIiF H.{F Boards of Directors Page 2 May 21, 1997 AMSA Urges Careful Congressional Consideration of Privatization. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) has urged the House Appropriations Committee to carefully consider the impacts of any legislation that would encourage the private sector funding of public wastewater facilities. In a May 2 letter to the committee, AMSA expressed "serious concerns" about "both the content and quality" of an EPA draft report on the viability of privatization and urges committee members to examine the Association's report, Evaluating Privatization: An AMSA Checklist during their consideration of the issue. The letter concludes that, "Above all, it is important to recognize that POTW privatization doesn't mean that someone else is footing the bill. Ratepayers are still ultimately responsible for the cost of building, operating and maintaining wastewater facilities," and warns that no analysis has been performed on the effects of privatization on ratepayers. AMSA represents the largest 100 wastewater treatment agencies in the country. The Sanitation Districts is one of the original charter members of AMSA, which was formed in 1970 to provide technically-based information to Congress and EPA as they write laws and regulations impacting publicly owned wastewater treatment agencies. First Annual Legislators' Day On May 2, the Districts held its First Annual Legislators' Day. More than 60 people attended the morning's activities, including Senator Ross Johnson, Assemblyman Scott Baugh, Assemblyman Dick Ackerman, as well as 14 CSDOC Board members. The meeting's agenda provided the attendees an overview of the Districts' mission and operations. Discussion focused on the Districts' interest in Sacramento and our recent work on AB 769 (Baugh). A tour of Plant 1 concluded the morning's event. We have received many positive comments from attendees, including a follow-up call from Assemblyman Ackerman's office thanking us for hosting the event. The Second Annual Legislators' Day is scheduled for May 1998, and staff is already working on the agenda. SCAQMD Certificate of Appreciation and Participation Awarded to Vladimir Kogan We are pleased to announce that Vladimir Kogan, senior scientist in the Operations and Maintenance Department, received a Certificate of Appreciation and Participation from the SCAQMD and appointed him to serve as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to the SCAQMD's IAIC. A copy of the certificate is attached. Changing Times The May 5, 1997 edition of our Changing Times is enclosed. I think you will find it interesting reading. N l5 PI.5 `�0 A d o= 4` vc,m Nra xfS Boards of Directors Page 3 May 21, 1997 CAL-OSHA Appeal The decision of the Administrative Law Judge on the Districts' appeal of the citations issued by CAL-OSHA was due May 15. As of the date of this mailing, no decision has been made. Urban Water Institute Workshop on "Water Quality vs. Stupid Rules" We received the attached fax notification of the Urban Water Institute's workshop, along with a request that you receive copies. If you are interested in attending, you may register at discounted rates. Your expenses will be reimbursed. Satellite Seminar on The Clean Water Act: The Next Steps in New Directions Nancy Wheatley, Director of Technical Services, has been asked to participate in an interview panel on Hot Waters/CWA Issues Update at the May 29 satellite video conference seminar co-sponsored by the Water Environment Federation and the American Bar Association in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997 National Pretreatment Program Excellence Award Nomination The Districts has been nominated for potential receipt of a 1997 National Pretreatment Program Excellence Award from the U.S. EPA (letter attached). Staff is completing the awards application, which is due May 22. In August the winners will be announced. Black & Veatch Benchmarking Report Attached is a copy of a Benchmarking Report prepared by Black & Veatch for the City of Los Angeles. The results are very interesting. Public Consensus: Risk vs. Risk As the Board moves to make important strategic planning decisions, you will be balancing issues of good science, environmental stewardship, economic operations and capital investment. I believe the attached article from the April 1997 issue of Governing illustrates the difficulty of this balancing act. a - • ��I�hC IIIF ENV�P���� Boards of Directors Page 4 May 21, 1997 Update on SCCWRP Activities Attached is a May 9, 1997 Executive Director's Report from Stephen Weisberg of SCCWRP. discussing recent administrative and scientific activities, external communications, publications and upcoming meetings and seminars. I've also included a copy of an article from the South Bay Breeze on SCCWRP's activities. Recent Newspaper Articles Also attached are four articles and an editorial from local publications on issues of interest. Information Technology Benchmark Study Also attached is a memo from Chris Dahl, our Information Technology Manager and Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Administration, discussing the benchmarking study recently completed by the Gartner Group. It found that our IT division was 42% more efficient than our industry group average and 48% more efficient than our peer group average. This information will be part of the Strategic Information Plan, which will be presented to the FAHR Committee in June. AMSA's May 9, 1997 FaxAlert AMSA reported on special meetings with EPA on three issues of interest, described in the attached fax. Our comments on these issues are noted 1, 2, and 3, corresponding to the numbers on the fax. 1. This issue is typical of the push-pull dilemma that the regulators set up for themselves and us. They speak for flexibility and shared leadership and then object when the open process results in proposed rule changes. 2. EPA is about to open a new initiative to look at water quality standards. Site specific standards, achieveability and reasonable cost effectiveness will be considered. The environmental community is concerned that standards could be relaxed, and they are right. The question is whether the environment will see new damage as a result—obviously most AMSA members are not interested in doing damage, however, they are interested in being cost effective and flexible. 3. We have not yet been asked but we probably will take part in the radioactivity survey. Mike Moore is heading to Washington to work on this issue. �plSS PI 7 O a 9ojf�,N�T1F$11 Boards of Directors Page 5 May 21, 1997 Status of Consolidation Because the State Local Government Committee had no other items of business on their May 21, 1997 calendar, AB 769 (Baugh) was moved to June 18. This should not pose a problem for us. AB769 now has a long list of supporters and no identified opposition. Our Legislative advocate, Ken Emmanuel, was able to spend a considerable amount of time with Senator Lewis when they shared a flight to Orange County. Senator Lewis brought up his concerns regarding AB 769. He had been under the impression that the consolidation was broader than the nine districts and that it was circumventing the LAFCO process. Senator Lewis now understands the bill's intent and is supportive. (Senator Lewis' concerns had been brought to our attention by Senator Ross Johnson when he was attending Legislators' Day. This was helpful information and our advocate was requested to follow-up with Senator Lewis.) Automatic System for Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring and Controlling at Foul Air Scrubbers The Districts' currently operate 25 packed tower wet scrubbers for treatment of foul air, utilizing pH analyzers to control chemical feed. The chemical feed is adjusted shift-by-shift by operators. Automating the system by providing continuous chemical feed control offers an opportunity to decrease chemical costs. The Districts implemented a program to evaluate the availability and cost-efficiency of continuous monitors for controlling chemical feed and monitoring the H2S content in the scrubbers' exhaust to meet the SCAQMD permit limits. The staff evaluation concluded that with full implementation an annual savings of$300,000 in labor, chemicals and materials is possible. After a national evaluation of available monitors, staff conducted a two-month intensive demonstration study of the two devices. Based on the demonstration study results, staff has recommended purchase of sixteen monitors manufactured by Vapex, Inc., of Orlando, Florida. The $200,000 budgeted in the 1996-97 CORF has been used to purchase the 16 monitors this fiscal year. An additional S200,000 is being proposed for fiscal year 1997-98 for design and installation. Sale of Surplus/Obsolete Inventory At a recent FAHR Committee meeting, a question was raised concerning the removal of obsolete inventory. Attached is a May 14, 1997 memo from Marc Dubois, Contracts/Purchasing Manager, explaining the procedures that were followed. C} Fo t.h wn Boards of Directors Page 6 May 21, 1997 CASA's Spring Meeting I will be attending the CASA Spring meeting in San Francisco May 29, 30 and 31. If you need to contact me, call my assistant, Jean Tappan. I will return to the office Monday, June 2. If you would like additional information on any of the above items, please call me. Donald F. McIntyre General Manager DFM:jt Wead%data2%wp.dtatadmin%GMIDFM\BOARD LTR071052897.doc Attachments: May 20, 1997 letter to PAC Members, and May 13, 1997 letter to RAC Members with attached AIT Certificate of Appreciation and Participation May 5, 1997 Changing Times "Water Quality vs. Stupid Rules" Workshop Notice April 15, 1997 letter re 1997 National Pretreatment Excellence Award Nomination November 1996 Black & Veatch Benchmarking Report Risk vs. Risk article from April 1997 Governing May 9, 1997 memo re SCCWRP Executive Director's Report Newspaper Clippings May 15, 1997 memo re Information Technology Benchmark Study May 9, 1997 AMSA FaXAlert May 14, 1997 memo re Sale of Surplus Inventory T P ` RIC COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A 4�n�r NNP May 2, 1997 Phone: Dear PAC Member. (714)ss2-2411 I'm sure you have read about the proposed user fee increases in either the Los mailing address: Angeles Times or the Orange County Register. I apologize to you that you learned P.O.Box8127 about this recommendation from the newspaper rather than direct) from staff. Fountain Valley,Cc. Y 92728-8127 street address: I know that when your committee was initially organized, we told you that our intent 10B44 elis Avenue was to hold sewer fees at the current level until such time as the Strategic Plan was Fountain Valley.CA 92708-7018 concluded. Indeed, that was the initial staff recommendation before the Boards' Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee in February 1997. That Committee voted to reexamine this assumption when it became clear that we would deplete our reserves by$26 million in order to meet capital and operating expenses in the absence of a user fee increase. After several special workshops, in April the Member Boards voted to increase user fees in steps over the next five years. Agencies • Cities Attached you will find a copy of the Agenda Report, which discusses in some detail the financial health of our various Districts and explains why a user fee increase is Anaheim needed at this time. Brea Buena Park Cypress The Planning Advisory Committee's mandate remains the same. We continue to Fountain valley Fullerton look to you to assist us in determining the appropriate mix of projects to meet our Huntington Beach needs in the future. If, after evaluating the new Strategic Plan, changes are needed Irvine La Habra in the rates, we will revisit the fee schedules again. We appreciate the work and time La Palma that you've devoted to this project and look forward to continuing our productive Los Alamitos working relationship. We certainly will endeavor in the future to keep you informed Newport Beach Orange on major policy decisions in advance of the press. Placentia seer each The ordinances for the user fee increase will receive their second reading at our Stanton May 28 Board Meeting. I suspect that there may be more articles in the papers. Tustin k Staff and I will be ha to answer an questions you may have at the next PAC Villa Park happy Y q y Y Yarba Linda meeting, Thursday, May 8, 1997. County of Orange Sincerely, Sonitery Districts Costa Mesa /�% " Garden Grove Midway City Donald F. McIntyre Water Districts General Manager Irvine Ranch DFM:JAW:jt Attachments c: Joint Chairman and Members of the Boards of Directors A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 \F\ONR 79i 9. LT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FjrF' Ghat? May 13, 1997 phone: (714)962-2411 Dear RAC Members: mailing address: P.O. Box 8127 As I stated at our recent meeting on May 1, 1997, we sincerely regret that you had to Fountain Valley, CA learn about the proposed user fee increases from the newspapers rather than from 92728-8127 CSDOC staff. In the interest of keeping you up-to-date on the user fee increases, I street address: am enclosing a staff report which will be discussed at the May 14 Finance, 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA Administration and Human Resources Committee of our Board. 92708-7016 The enclosed staff report provides an update on user fees in Districts 1 and 11. District 1 is primarily the City of Santa Ana. District 11 is the City of Huntington Beach. Both of these Districts faced steep increases. The Santa Ana city staff Member asked us to review all options available to see if these steep increases could be Agencies mitigated in some way. • Cities Gary Streed, our Finance Director, ran a scenario which assumed 100% borrowing rather than 50% borrowing/50% pay-as-you-go. This had the effect of decreasing the AnaBr a steep increase in user fees for District 1, albeit their debt service costs increase in the Buena Park long run. Having done this calculation for District 1, we also ran this alternative for Cypress District 11 since they were also facing similar increases. Fountain Valley Fullerton Huntington Beach The Directors of Districts 1 and 11 have opted to adopt the 100% borrowing Irvine La Habra approach in order to lessen the short-term impact on their users. The two Districts Le Palma held special meetings on May 12 and gave a first reading to amend their user fee Los Alamitos Newport Beach ordinances. The second reading of District 1 and 11 user fee ordinances is still Orange scheduled for the regular meeting of the CSDOC Board on May 28. Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach As I noted at the May 1 meeting, RAC's mission remains the same: to carefully Stanton review the current rate structure and the spread of costs among industrial, Tustin Villa Park commercial, and residential as well as how these costs should be allocated within Yorbe Linda three major categories. We look forward to working with you on this very important County of Orange project. Sanitary Districts Sincerely, Costa Mesa Garden Grove �i�Q��/ Midway City Water Districts Donald F. McIntyre Irvine Ranch General Manager DFM:cmc H:\WP.DTAWDMIN\GM\DFM\CORRES97\051397.L1 C: Attachment 4 Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 ® c fJ V RAC Committee Members Mark Asturias Vince Mariner John Brewster Jay McAlister Steve Brown Mike Noonan John Bushman John Norman Rick Chapler David Placek Kamran Dadbeh Don Rasmussen Eldon Davidson Phil Sansone Don Davis Ronald C. Schlenker Greg Davis Tim Serlet Marc Draper Bill Shears Richard Edes Scott Smith Shirley Fishke Paul Snow Tim Greaves Jean F. Soppet Kenny Hom Joe Valinsky Duane R. Jordan Steve Woodroof Jerry Kirchgessner Sherwin D. Yoelin Steven Liebermann Bob Lockhart lilt ° grad s .us�t7�n� AGENDA 1) ccw.INFO.n-Em ITEM 0 COW.ACTION STEM 13 JT.°°5:C°"SENT TRANSMITTAL ❑ JT.BDS.D3SCtISSION •� � oc> . (NON-CONSENT) ; Cl `Pusuc HEARING JT.BUS.ME)TM DATE JT.BDS.AGENDA ITEM NO MEETING DATE -.—COMM.ID.NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION OMTS: GNITS (Originator) PDC: PDC FAHR: 5/14/97 FAHR-- Dist. 1 & 11 2150, Judy Wilson, 2005 EXEC: EXEC STEER: STEER Division No., Name,and Extension JT.BDS: AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: Status Report on Proposed User Fee Increases in Districts 1 and 11. Recommended Action(s): 1. No action. This report is for information only. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on April 23, 1997 Final EIR Approved on and Notice of Determination filed on CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR CURRENT YEAR- YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: S N/A N/A N/A N/A SOURCE: N/A Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item. TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL INFORMATION TOTAL CHANGES THIS AIT PROJECT BUDGET First Year in Budget: N/A $0.00 Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID,PO, CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED INFORMATION CONTRACT FUNDS PREY. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT AMOUNT APPROVED AIT AMOUNT $0.00 WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES NO NOT APPLICABLE If YES,state number: Permanent Limited Term If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Romsed"1W7 Page 1 of 2 G:\t4TGLOBAL\LENORA\FAHR9720. ATTACHMENTS TO COMMITTEE AGENDA(List): ' 1. Attachment 1-Original April,1997 Proposal Originator Date 2• Attachment 2-Revised Financing Option for Dists.1 &11 3. Attachment 3-May 6,1997 memo to David Ream CONCURRENCES: 4. Attachment 4-May 6,1997 memo to Dist. 11 Directors Signature Date Divi ' n Manager!T�� ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA(List) S 1 q7 1. Sig ature Date Department Ad(Or Designee) SignbtVre Date Assi ant General Manager(Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) At the April 23 Board meeting, the individual Districts each approved a five year user fee schedule to meet the !critical financial requirements for the Joint Works and their respective budgets (see Attachment 1). Subsequent to the April vote, staff became aware that the City of Santa Ana was seriously concerned by the proposed 20% and 30% annual increases in rates in District 1. The City of Santa Ana represents over 90% of the service area in District 1. After a telephone conversation between General Manager Donald F. McIntyre and City Manager of Santa Ana David Ream, it was agreed that a meeting would be held on May 5 at Santa Ana City Hall to discuss this issue. In attendance were David Ream, District 1 Chair Pat McGuigan, several members of City staff; and Judy Wilson, Gary Streed and Don McIntyre representing CSDOC. Mr. Ream noted that the "biggest increase was reserved for the poorest District" and although "the City wanted to be responsive and to be a positive player," he felt that the magnitude of the annual increases were simply too high. He asked the CSDOC staff if additional scenarios could be run which would further smooth out the curve and keep the increases to under 10%. Subsequently, Gary Streed ran a scenario which assumed a 100% borrowing rather than a 50% borrowing - 50% pay-as-you-go program. It also recognized $245,000 in connection fee revenue from the new Federal Building and the deferral of a $7 million rehabilitation project to years '02-03 through years '05-06. This new financing option resulted in an annual increase of 9.75%. At a meeting on May 6 with City of Santa Ana, this was deemed to be an acceptable solution. District 1 Chair Pat McGuigan was requested to schedule a special meeting as soon as possible to consider the reading of an amended ordinance incorporating these changes. Because District 11 was also facing up to a 20% increase, the staff used the 100% borrowing methodology to see if this would give similar relief to District 11. Using this alternative financing option, it did lessen the steepness of the increases from a 17% high in '97-98 and gradually declining to 10%. (District 11 needs a higher increase the first year to make up for the 1992-93 property tax shift to the State, when it chose not to increase its rates at that time.) This information was shared with District 11 members on May 6. On May 7, District 11 Chair Shirley Dettloff called to request a special meeting of District 11 on May 12 to consider an amended ordinance. Staff will brief the FAHR Committee at the May 14 meeting on the outcomes of special meetings held by Districts 1 and 11. c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Re-sad 0411 QM7 Page 2 of 2 H:1W P.DTAIADM I N12150\W I LSONJUW ILSONIREPORTSIUSERFEES.WPD v V Attachment 1 Original April, 1997 Proposal 1 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Raise Fees To Balance In Approx 5 Years,Borrow for 50%Capital Impr,Funding Compliance In Approx 5 Yrs,OCR Phase I District 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 1 $83.24 $100.00 $130.00 $160.00 $190.00 $195.00 $200.00 $205.00 $210.00 $215.00 2 $71.52 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 3 -$73.89 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $76.47 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 7 $50.09 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $97.00 $100.00 $103.00 11 $60.00 $70.00 $84.00 $100.00 $120.00 $135.00 $140.00 $145.00 $150.00 $155.00 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year. 1 0% 20% 30% 23% 19% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 7 0% 10% 9% 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 11 0% 1 NO 20% 19% 20% 13% 4% 4% 3% 3% 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% CF CONS9.XLW 7:53 AM Rates Attachment 2 Revised Financing Option For9 Districts 1 and 11 % Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Borrow for 50%Capital Impr(100%in Dist 1 &11),Includes OCR Phase[,Current Accumulated Funds Policy District 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 1 $83.24 $91.36 $100.26 $110.04 $120.77 $132.54 $145.47 $159.65 $175.21 $192.30 2 $71.52 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 3 $73.89 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $76.47 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 7 $50.09 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $97.00 $100.00 $103.00 11 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.58 $165.26 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year: 1 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 2 0% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 7 0% 10% 9% . 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 11 0% 17% 14% 13% 13% 13% 10% 10% 10% 10% 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Dollar Change From Prior Year 1 $0 $8.12 $8.91 $9.78 $10.73 $11.77 $12.92 $14.18 $15.57 $17.08 2 $0 $1.48 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 3 $0 $1.11 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 5 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 $0 $1.53 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 7 $0 $4.91 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $3.00 $3.00 11 $0 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.25 $12.66 $11.11 $12.19 $13.38 $14.68 13 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CF CONS9.XLW 4:08 PM Rates Attachment 3 " _ � a May 6, 1997 b C^r VIA FAX MEMORANDUM TO: David Ream City Manager, Santa Ana FROM: Judy 1 sou Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: User Fees - District 1 Background On May 5, CSDOC and City of Santa Ana staff met to discuss your concerns with'the steepness of the rate increase in District 1. You noted that the City of Santa Ana represents over 90% of the service area served by District 1 and that it appeared that the "biggest increase was reserved for the poorest district." You agreed to provide us with information on average household income to document your point that District 1's ability to pay should be considered in creating a viable fee schedule. You further noted that, in retrospect, it may have been wiser to continue with the annual stepped approach originally provided in the adopted 1989 Strategic Plan in order to avoid the steep increases District 1 is now facing; however, you said "The City wants to be responsive and to be a positive player in some survivable approach." In our discussion, CSDOC staff noted that the following factors have contributed to District 1's financial condition: older infrastructure requiring significant rehabilitation, declining assessed valuation; and the presence of numerous governmental agencies. As the County seat, there is significant tax-exempt property in District 1. Our data shows that assessed valuation in District 1 is $10.2 billion and $2.1 billion (21%) is off the tax rolls. This represents a revenue loss to District 1 of approximately $500,000 in property tax revenue a year, or the equivalent of$7 on the user fee. Recommended Approach We were asked to review District 1's revenue and expenses and determine if there was a viable approach to smooth out the steep increase and reduce the annual increase to less than 10%. Attached is a spread sheet showing a revised schedule labeled 100% COP Alternative which achieves your requested objective. The key assumptions which we have changed are as follows: Instead of 50% pay-as-you-go and 50% borrowing, we have presumed 100% borrowing; - The $245,000 connection fee for the Federal Building has been included in the '97-98 revenues. The$7 million rehabilitation project for the Santa Ana Trunk Line has been deferred until years '02-03 and '05-06. CSDOC • P.O Box 8127 • Fountain Valley. CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 P David Ream Page 2 May 6, 1997 Using these assumptions, we can maintain an annual increase of 9.75%. Briefly, I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of this approach: Pros - This approach would allow District 1 to go to the capital market to borrow for capital improvements required, including District 1's share of OCR. Therefore, District 1 would not have to depend upon the cooperation, support, and loans from the other eight Districts. - The increases in user fees are limited to 9.75% per annum. Cons - Borrowing for 100% of District's costs is more expensive in the long run, i.e., $3.3 million in debt service vs. $1.8 million under the original proposal adopted at the April meeting. - Year'02-03 places District 1 in the negative column once again in terms of revenues meeting expenses with a ($1.9 million) balance. Recommendation We believe the 100% borrowing program is probably the most politically feasible and is the better option. We would recommend that District 1 adopt a 10-year fee schedule to give greater comfort to the investment community that the intended borrowing is backed by a longer-term commitment. This is important given the negative cash-flow in year'02-03. We look forward to discussing this revised alternative at today's 4:00 p.m. meeting. JAW:cmc H:%WP.DTAVIDMIN121501W I LSONJUWILSONICORRES1971050697.M 1 Attachment C: John Collins, Joint Chair Pat McGuigan, District 1 Chair George Brown, Chairman, FAHR James M. Ferryman, Director District 1 Mark A. Murphy, Director District 1 Thomas R. Saltarelli, Director District 1 Todd Spitzer, Director District 1 5/6/97 District No 1 Sewer Service User Fee Alternatives Single Family Residence Rates Used As Example Only Approximately 72,500 Equivalent Dwelling Units in Service Area 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-0 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 COP Totals As Introduced $ 83.24 $ 100.00 $ 130.00 $ 160.00 $ 190.00 $ 195.00 $ 200.00 $ 205.00 $ 210.00 $ 215.00 Annual Change 20.13% 30.00% 23.08% 18.75% 2.63% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% New COP Issues $3,500,000 $4,000.000 $6,000 000 $ 6.500,000 $4.000,000 $24,000,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $1,877,000 Deferral Alternative $ 83.24 $ 95.00 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 $ 160.00 $ 170.00 $ 180.00 $ 190.00 $ 200.00 Annual Change 14.13% 15.79% 18.18% 15.38% 6.67% 6.25% 5.88% 5.56% 5.26% New COP Issues $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $3.300,000 $ 2,800,000 $2.000,000 $14,900,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $1.166,000 100%COP Alt $ 83.24 $ 91.36 $ 100.26 $ 110.04 $ 120.77 $ 132.54 $ 145.47 $ 159.65 $ 175.21 $ 192.30 Annual Change 9.75% 9.74% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.76% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% New COP Issues $6,300,000 $8,200.000 $9,000.000 $10,900.000 $7.900,000 $42.300,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $3.309.000 MFR rates are 60% of SFR rate per unit, Non-residential rates are 71.5%of SFR rate per 1000 sq ft. Shaded area represents first reading amounts. County Sanitation District No 1 Summary Financial Information Adiust Fees Less Than 10%, Borrow for 100%Capital&OCR for 5 Years,Comply With Funds Policy Wfin 10 Yrs Estimated Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary 10 Year M Uesarinlion 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-04 2000-01 U--Q.2 42-M 13--Q4 44=Q� 4�QI: T91�1 Revenues: 1 General User Fees 6,027.000 6,619.000 7,274.000 8.000.000 8,804.000 9.695,000 10.714,000 11.638.000 13,080.000 14.451.000 96.502,000 2 Property Taxes 2.000.000 2.000,000 2.000.000 2,000.000 2,000.000 2.000,000 2,000.000 2.000.000 2,000,000 2.000.000 20,000,000 3 Other Revenues 2.639.000 8.463,000 10.379,000 11.491,000 13,727,000 11.663.000 3,966,000 4.200.000 4,510,000 4.866,000 75.904.000 4 Revenues 10.666.000 17.082,000 19.653.000 21.491,000 24.531,000 23.358.000 16.680.000 18,038.000 19.590.000 21,317,000 192.406,000 5 Requirements: 6 Oper&Mice Exp 5,310,000 5.334.000 5,384.000 5,507,000 5.633,000 5.763.000 5.897.000 6.034.000 7.697.000 7.841,000 60,400,000 7 Capital Outlays 5.920.000 6.154,000 7,93B.000 8,569,000 10.338.000 8.634.000 4,396.000 3.363,000 3.363.000 3,363,000 62.038.000 8 COP Service 4.400.000 4.791,000 5,470.000 6.253,000 7.165,000 7,979.000 8,348.000 8.381,000 8,414,000 8.813,000 70,014,000 9 Requirements 15.630.000 16,279.000 18,792.000 20.329,000 23.136.000 22.376,000 18.641.000 17,778,000 19,474,000 20,017,000 192,452.000 10 Revenues-Requirements (4,964.000) 803.000 861.000 1.162.000 1,395.000 982.000 (1,961,000) 260,000 116.000 1,300,000 (46.000) 11 Accumulated Funds: 12 Beginning of Year 21.944.000 16.980.000 17,783.000 18,644.000 19.806.000 21,201.000 22.183,000 20,222,000 20.462,000 20.598,000 21,944.000 13 End of Year 16,980.000 17.783.000 18.644.000 19.806,000 21.201.000 22.183.000 20.222.000 20.482.000 20.598,000 21.898.000 21.898.000 14° New Borrowing - 6.300.000 8.200,000 9,000,000 10.900.000 7,900,000 - - - - 42,300.000 15 Sewer Service User Fees: Average Fee 16 SFR Annual User Fee $83.24 $91.36 $100.26 $110.04 $120.77 $132.54 $145.47 $159.65 $175.21 $192.30 $131.08 17 Percentage Change 0.00% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 131.0% 18 $1 SFR Fee Raises $72.400 $72.450 $72.550 $72,700 $72.960 $73.150 $73.650 $74,150 $74,650 $75,150 19 COP Coverage Ratios 20 Senior Lien,Min 1.25 1.76 1.69 1.76 1.79 1.83 2.06 2.11 2.36 2.30 2.43 21 Junior Uen,Min 1.00 1.12 1.07 1.16 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.16 1.30 1.27 1.39 SWAN2E.XLS DIM i Base 097 budg �;o Attacnment 4 t M 1F T p y n u a May 6, 1997 - p b VIA FAX MEMORANDUM TO: Shirley Dettloff Dave Sullivan Todd Spitzer FROM: Judy Wilson Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Revised User Fees -Alternative Approach Both District 1 and District 11 have significantly higher proposed increases in user fees than the rest of the Districts. As noted earlier, in District 11's case, this can be attributed to the fact that District 11 has not raised its fees since 1989 despite a shift in property taxes to the State in 1991-92. Further, District 11 is facing approximately$6.7 million in capital needs in the next five years. Yesterday we met with David Ream, City Manager of Santa Ana, whose city represents over 90% of District 1's service area. He was distressed over the size of the annual increases in terms of annual percentage and asked if we could devise any further strategies to reduce the steep incline. We ran an additional scenario which assumed borrowing for 100% of the program rather than doing 50% pay-as-you-go. This had the effect of reducing the annual increase significantly, although the 100% borrowing program does increase the cost of debt service. Since we did this calculation for District 1, we have also done it for District 11. Attached you will find a revised fee schedule contrasting user fees for District 11 as introduced at the April meeting and user fees under a 100% borrowing program. Although your debt service cost increases from $1.1 million to $2.5 million over 25 years, it does have the important benefit of reducing the annual increments. This information is provided for your consideration. You may wish to have a meeting to consider this option prior to the May Board meeting. If so, we would need to notice this meeting pursuant to the Brown Act. The staff will be happy to meet with you as a group or individually to discuss this option. JAW:cmc H:1WP.DTAW DMIN121501W ILSONJUW ILSON%CORRES1971050697.M2 Attachment C: John Collins, Joint Chair George Brown, Chairman, FAHR CSDOC • P.O. Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley. CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 JI V/JI District No 11 Sewer Service User Fee Alternatives Single Family Residence Rates Used As Example Onlv Approximately 51,500 Equivalent Dwelling Units in Service Area 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 COP Total! As Introduced $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 84.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 135.00 $ 140.00 $ 145.00 $ 150.00 $ 155.00 Annual Change 16.67% 20.00%. 19.05% 20.00% 12.50% 3.70% , 3.57% 3.45% 3.33% New COP Issues $2.000,000 $3,000,000 $3.000.000 $ 3,000,000 $3,500,000 $ 14,500,00, Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $1,134.001 100%COP Alt $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 80.00 $ 90.00 $ 101.25 $ 113.91 $ 125.02 $ 137.21 $ 150.58 $ 165.261 Annual Change 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.74% 9.75% New COP Issues $4,000,000 $6.000,000 $8.000.000 $ 7,500.000 $7,500,000 $33,000,C01 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $2,581,001 MFR rates are 60%of SFR rate per unit, Non-residential rates are 71.5%of SFR rate per 1000 sq ft. Shaded area represents first reading amounts. ,a niRT1FFF XI q - County Sanitation District No 11 Summary Financial Information Adjust Fees to Balance IF Accum Funds Low,Borrow for 50%Capital&OCR if needed,Comply With Funds Policy WAn 5 Yrs Estimated Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary 10 Year EW Descrtotion 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05$ hial Revenues: 1 General User Fees 3.042.000 3.556.000 4.076.000 4,604.000 5,204.000 5.889.000 6.507,000 7,196.000 7,966.000 8.825.000 56.865,000 2 Property Taxes 2.039,000 2.039.000 2.039.000 2,039,000 2,039.000 2,039,000 2.039,000 2.039.000 2,039,000 2,039,000 20,390,000 3 Other Revenues 1,858,000 5.794.000 7,949.000 10.126,000 9.835,000 10,067,000 2.759,000 2,980.000 3.246.000 3.565.000 58,179,000 4 Revenues 6.939.000 11.389.000 14.064,000 16,769,000 17.078.000 17,995.000 11.305.000 12,215,000 13,251.000 14.429,000 135.434.000 5 Requirements: 6 Oper&Mlce Exp 4.411.000 4.450.000 4,509.000 4.624.000 4,743,000 4.867.000 4.993,000 5.125,000 6.404.000 6,544,000 50,670.000 7 Capital Outlays 4,754.000 4,585,000 6,361,000 8.117.000 7.466.000 7,774,000 2.780.000 2,099,000 2.099.000 2,099.000 48.134.000 8 COP Service 2,198.000 2,307.000 2.768,000 3,395,000 4,107,000 4.766,000 5.082.000 5,094,000 5.104,000 4,969,000 39,790.000 9 Requirements 11.363.000 11,342.000 13.638,000 16,136.000 16.316,000 17.407.000 12.855.000 12,318,000 13,607,000 13.612.000 138,594,000 10 Revenues-Requireme (4,424,000) 47,000 426.000 633.000 762,000 588,000 (1,550,000) (103.000) (356.000) 817,000 (3,160,000; 11 Accumulated Funds: 12 Beginning of Yea 25.436.000 21.012,000 21,059,000 21.485.000 22,118.000 22.880.000 23.468,000 21,918.000 21.815.000 21,459,000 25,436.000 13 End of Year 21,012,000 21.059.000 21,485,000 22,118.000 22.880.000 23,468.000 21.918.000 21.815.000 21,459.000 22.276.000 22,276.000 14 New Borrowing - 4.000.000 6.000.000 8.000.000 7.500,000 7.500.000 - - - - 33,000.000 15 Sewer Service User Fees: Average Fee 16 SFR Annual User Fee $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.58 $165.26 $109.32 17 Percentage Change 0.00% 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 18 $1 SFR Fee Raises $50.700 $50,800 $50.950 $51.150 $51.400 $51.700 $52.050 $52.450 $52,900 $53.400 19 COP Coverage Ratios 20 Senior Lien, Min 1.25 5.94 6.95 5.56 4.26 3.40 3.05 2.75 3.05 2.79 3.48 21 Junior Lien, Min 1.00 0.97 1.13 1.16 1.10 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.15 1.05 1.25 SWAN2E.XLS 01st t 1 Base 097 budq Certificate of Appreciation and Participation Reposing special trust and confidence in the integrity and ability of the South Coast Air Quality Management District has heretofore appointed him as a member of IAIC and in so doing, authorized and empowered him to execute and fulfill the duties of said position. The South Coast Air Quality Management District hereby conveys its sincere appreciation to for his contributions to the health and well-being of the citizens of the South Coast Air Basin by reason of his dedication to the clean air effort for this and future generations. In witness whereof, we have caused this Certificate of Appreciation and Participation to be issued this day of 1.9.97. C ion Mkeo ----_— ra M lru •P airman 01!ae Roa•A .r.w�.�•e. i i 1 4 May 5,1997 Manses to Program Adopted Employee-recommended Section 2 (Core fob Responsibilities) has been deleted. modifications to the Performance The committee recommended that Section 2 information also Review Program (formerly called be incorporated into Performance Objectives. the Management Performance The new Performance Review form will also include three 4 Review Program -- MPRP) were revisions to Section 3 (Performance Objectives): submitted last week to General Manager Don McIntyre for his V Resources to do the job review. The modifications, including W Measurement Standards a major change in the appeals process and the elimination of a number V Priority, which replaces weighting factors rating system, will go into effect this Resources to Do the Job 0 month, according to Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources. It will now be a joint activity between the employee and the reviewer to agree on a list of critical resources necessary for Four representatives from the Supervisory, Professional and the employee to successfully perform the responsibilities of his or her job. Management Team (SPMT) helped develop the recommendations. It was the committee's opinion that an employee can only be They are Mark Tomko,John Dettle, evaluated fairly when appropriate resources, including t ) Jack Vincent and Adriana Renescu. equipment, are available. With the proper resources on hand, . the responsibility for successfully completing the task lies solely 4 Ed Hodges, Dave Ludwin, with the employee. Bob Ooten and Mike Peterman represented management on the Measurement Standards } eight-member team. Measurement Standards are currently listed in two places, New Performance Review Form Section 3 (Performance Objectives) and Section 6 (Future Performance Objectives). The committee recommended that The new form will include these the specific requirements for an employee to receive a "meets changes: expectations" on the following year's performance evaluation "Safety" will no longer be a separate be added to Section 6 (Future Performance Objectives). item in Section 1 (Performance While not required, the committee also "highly recommended" Factors). The committee that requirements to receive an "exceeds expectations" also be recommended that safety -- included. as it pertains to an individual's job -- From Weighting to Priority be incorporated into Section 3 (Performance Objectives). The new form will also ask that Performance Objectives "This doesn't mean the Districts is (both current and future) be listed in order of priority. placing less of an emphasis on This change will eliminate the need for weightings. safety," said Mike. "To the contrary, New Appeals Process safety is critical and remains a high The Performance Review appeals process will now follow priority here. But, the committee felt procedures similar to the Districts'p grievance process. it would be more appropriate to incorporate safety in another Employees wishing to appeal their evaluations will first need section." to speak with their supervisors. If no resolution is reached, , the employee and supervisor How Do We Compare? UPDATE -- FIS While Bob Ooten, Director of Operations and Maintenance, has shared The FIS implementation is on schedule. this information with his staff during O&M all-hands meetings, we thought To date, we have completed and gone everyone would find these charts of interest. They show how the Districts live with the payroll and budget compares to other wastewater treatment agencies. modules. A memo was distributed Denver Metro was used in the comparison because they are considered on April 23 which provided descriptions "best in class" for a public agency. Indianapolis was selected because they for the various payroll deduction codes are the first large contract-operated plant. The data for these charts was listed on the pay checks. If you have compiled last year. We'll keep you updated when new information is collected. not received a copy contact Payroll. EMA, the Districts competitiveness assessment consultants, recommended a The Human Resources module is also goal for O&M to reduce the 16%cost reduction potential to 10% as quickly on schedule and due to go live this as possible and to reduce the last 10% within five years. Bob says O&M is month. It will enhanced report writing on target to be at 10% by July. capabilities plus an automated employee benefits system which interacts directly with the payroll system. The general ledger,job cost, accounts O&M Staffing per million gallons 2.5 payable and accounts receivable — — modules are scheduled to go live in July. C7 2.0 2 Last, but not least, are the purchasing, g inventory, contract management and Fixed asset modules scheduled to go 1.5 live in October. 20 1.05 0 9 Once all the systems are in place, O 1'0 we will be conducting Districts-wide training on how to access information, 0.5 generate financial reports and analyze Lsummary information to obtain detailed 0.0 transaction information. The training Average Denver CSDOC Indianapolis is scheduled to begin in the second City (public) (both plants) (private) quarter of next fiscal year. best in class Just a Reminder! Overall Cost Performance and Goals The Purchasing &Warehouse division 30% will begin their staff FIS training on 25% May 19. This training will continue into July. Unfortunately, it coincides 0 0 with the end of the fiscal year, our a 20% busiest time! Please help out by... 0 16% 13.70% V Call the Purchasing front desk first 3 � for answers to general questions. 10% bl Know your requisition numbers vwhen calling on the status of orders. V Check the Warehouse first for O supplies before placing new orders. Average City CSDOC Denver Metro APR-30-97 WED 04 :06 PM URBAN WATER INST 17147606073 P. 02 Urban Water lnstitu►to, Inc. - Workshop - "Water Quality vs. Stupid Rules" June 26, 1997 - Long Beach Marriott Hotel Many members of the general public believe their tap water is harmful to their health. Requirements that local water agencies publish the chemical constituents of their.water supply termed to foster this idea.The water industry and the Environmental Protection Agency often have been at odds over enforcement of the Pure Drinking Water Act.Are the regulations necessary to protect the public health?Or,are they just "stupid rules"that simply make the water supply more expensive?What is the.quality of Southern California's water supply?What is being done to improve the quality and reassure the public that their water is drinkable? 9.00 am. Keynote Speakers-Point/Counterpoint 12.00 noon Lunch Break Public health or just more"stupid rules" 1:00 p-m. Luncheon Speaker What isthe condition of Southern California's water supply? Public Concern-Reality or Nonsense 9 A5 a.m. Meet Your Regulator-)Panel "' 1:45 p.m. Federal Regulation-StaitkeReport State Department of health Clean Water Act/Safe Drinking Water Act State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Board 2.15 p.m. New Technology-Panel State and Federal Environmental Protection Agencies Cryptospotidium 11:00 am. Cse Studies-Panel Introducing Ozone What are the impacts of regulation on water International Research supply projects? National Water Research Institute Eastside.Reservoir-Drinkable and Swimmable? San Diego Repuri6cation-Effluent to Reservoir 3:15 Adjoarn Orange County Reclamation- Effluent to Groundwater EARLY REGISTRATION INFORMATION—Early registration is encouraged Registration applications received prior to June 13 receives a$25 discount.Applications must be accompanied by check,money order.government or company purchase order.After June 13,add$25 for registration.No registration will be reserved without payment or purchase order:Mailed registrations will be confirmed in writing.For overnight aocornmodations,please call the hotel directly at 562/425-5210 REFUND POLICY—An administrative charge of$25 will apply to.all registration canesllatiogs made in writing (FAXes accepted) before June 20.No refunds will be made for cancellations after that date.Substitutes are welcome.No shows will be invoiced. For information please call or FAX the:Urban Water Institute,Inc. 3 Civic Plaza,Suite 100,Newport Beach CA 92660 • Tel.714/760-6071 - FAX 714/760-6073 --------------------------------------------- RE6157UTION FORM—rear off and mall or fax to the Urban WaterInstitute at the address or number listed above. ( ) Register the following person for the June 26, 1997 Workshop ( } Discounted early registration fee: $125 for members $150 for non-members ( ) Registration(after June 13) 3150 for members $175 for non-members ( ) Spouse luncheon $35 Name: (for additional enrollments,please submit copies of form for each person.Make chocks to the Urban Water Institute,EDI#33-0573523 Check enclosed $ or Purchase Order# for invoice Name: Title: Agency/Frmr Telephone( ) FAX( ) Address; City: tip Code: J� DRs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY b �` 00 WASHINGTON, D.C. .44 PROti� Office of Water r, 15 1997 John Collins, Joint Chair County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California . 92728-8127- Dear Mr. Collins: I am pleased to inform you that your municipality has been nominated for potential receipt of a 1997 National Pretreatment Program Excellence Award. This is the ninth year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sponsored the pretreatment awards. The National Pretreatment Program Excellence Awards acknowledge municipalities that are demonstrating their commitment to the protection and improvement of the Nation's waters through their operation of exemplary pretreatment programs. The National Pretreatment Program Excellence Awards Program is conducted in conjunction with EPA's Operation and Maintenance Excellence, Beneficial Sludge Use, Stormwater, and Combined Sewer Overflow Awards programs. An awards review committee composed of national pretreatment experts will choose winners in five size categories based on the total number of significant industrial users. Winning municipalities will receive public recognition through press releases and coverage in national publications, including the Water Environment Federation's Operation Forum. In addition, first and second place winners will receive award certificates and plaques. To be considered for possible receipt of an award, your municipality must review the enclosed information and complete the awards application provided. Information provided in the application should highlight efforts employed by your municipality that go beyond minimum program requirements and that demonstrate innovative measures used to conduct local program activities. Three copies, of your completed application must he returned to EPA postmarked no later than May 22,1997, Winners will be notified in August. Congratulations on your nomination which is, in itself, a recognition of your efforts to implement your community's pretreatment program. Sincerely yours, James F. Pendergast, Acting Director Permits Division Enclosures cc: Mahin Talebi 1 yr J t BLACK & VEATCH 6 Venture, Suite 315,Irvine,California 92718.3317, (714) 753.0500,Fox (714) 753.1252 February 21, 1997 Mr. Bob Ooten County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Bob: Enclosed is as close to an original copy we have for the benchmarking data you requested. We prepared the information for the City of Los Angeles because they expressed an interest in reviewing their operations to improve effectiveness and efficiency, a service Black & Veatch provides. We prepared the information from our data base because we work for most of the cities on the survey. Please feel free to calf me here in our Irvine office if we can be of any assistance regarding matters such as benchmarking, reengineering, organizational studies and services related to privatization or managed competition. My direct line is 788-4201. Very truly yours, BL K & VEATCH 3 e Boomhouwer estern Regional Manager Management Consulting Division Enc. Comparison of "Benchmark" Data For Large Wastewater Utilities � i i Prepared for The City of Los Angeles � i ; I ; i ' I � I ; I li I I � ij : i Black & Veatch November, 1996 J . BLACK &VEATCH COMPARISON OF "BENCHMARK" DATA FOR LARGE WASTEWATER UTILITIES 18-Nov-96 New York, Los Angeles Los Angeles Detroit, Philadelphia, Data Item NY ... Chian. IL Cly, San, 0-15ta __._CA _ MI M ._ MWBA, MA PA .. Service Indicators Service Level (a) R R R R/W R/W W R/W Population Served 7,322,000 5,100,000 4,900.000 4,000,000 2,937,200 2,600,000 2,286,000 Number of Customers Retail 807,000 1,600,000 1,500.000 634,363 279,000 483,000 Wholesale 29 75 43 Equivalent Retail Customers(b) 2,440,667 1,700.000 1,633.333 1,333,333 979.067 866,667 762,000 Total Flow Treated(mgd) 1,592.0 1.343.5 494.7 450.0 485.5 390.0 554.0 Service Area, Square Miles 268 872 760 600 754 515 130 Combined Sewers Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Miles of Sewers 6,500 2,900 2,955 Flow per Customer,GPD(c) 1,973 840 330 338 496 450 727 Miles of Sewer per Customer(c) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.0030 0.0000 0.0039 Customers per Square Mile (c) 3,011.2 1,834.9 1,973.7 2,222.2 1,298.5 1,682.8 5,861.5 Cost Indicators Number of Employees 2,001 2,440 1,746 2,400 1,308 574 1,165 Operation& Maintenance Exp., $ 480,500,000 219,100,000 137,962,600 207,844,000 122,242,099 157,517,000 122,881,000 Total Revenue, $ 1,977,900,000 620,100.000 759,400,000 384,369,000 178,075,492 722,300,000 247,668,000 Effectiveness Indicators Customers per Employee (c) 403.3 655.7 859.1 555.6 748.5 1,509.9 654.1 O&M Cost per Customer, $(c) 595 137 92 156 125 182 161 O&M Cost per mgd, $ 301,822 163,082 278,881 461,876 251,786 403,890 221.807 Revenue per Customer, $ 2,451 388 506 288 182 833 325 Revenue Bond Rating(d) AA A A A- A Rates, Residential: Annual Service Charge, $/yr. 260.52 147.97 100.00 242.00 173.84 311.00 301.20 Volume Rate,$/1000 gal. 2.15 1.81 1.01 4.60 1.58 Flat Rate, $/Unit/year 85.00 53.52 182.80 Billing Frequency Annually Annually Annually Bi-Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Notes: (a)Service Level:R Retail,W=Wholesale (b)Population served divided by 3. (c)Based on actual customers for'Retail'only,and on equivalent retail customers for'Wholesale'and'Retail/Wholesale'. (d)Based on 1990 data. BLACK&VEATCH COMPARISON OF "BENCHMARK" DATA FOR LARGE WASTEWATER UTILITIES 18-Nov-96 Orange County San Diego, St. Louis, MO Wash. DC Denver, CO King County, San Jose, Pala Item Sanitary P_ist, . -CA -M5Q--(d)_ W& S.Auth. Metro__ (Seattle) WA CA-- Service Service Indicators Service Level(a) R/W R/W R R W W R/W Population Served 2,100,000 1,800,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1.250,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Number of Customers Retail 500.000 242,546 417,838 371,000 390,000 Wholesale 4 15 55 36 8 Equivalent Retail Customers(b) 700,000 600,000 466,667 466,667 416,667 400,000 400,000 Total Flow Treated(mgd) 230.0 179.2 307.0 154.5 140.0 154.0 104.0 Service Area, Square Miles 454 450 524 1.000 380 680 300 Combined Sewers No No Yes No No Yes No Miles of Sewers 7,200 256 Flow per Customer,GPO(c) 329 299 735 416 336 385 260 Miles of Sewer per Customer(c) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0172 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 Customers per Square Mile(c) 1,541.9 1,333.3 797.4 371.0 1,096.5 588.2 1,333.3 Cost Indicators Number of Employees 595 1.406 1,050 1,103 358 952 294 Operation& Malntenance Exp.,$ 59,900,000 82,560,247 123,372,500 110,660,000 30,327,641 46,453.000 34,500,000 Total Revenue, $ 271,400,000 170,700.000 169,300,000 58,037,014 169,300,000 65,300.000 Effectiveness Indicators Customers per Employee(c) 1.176.5 426.7 397.9 336.4 1,163.9 420.2 1,360.5 O&M Cost per Customer, $(c) 86 138 295 298 73 116 86 O&M Cost per mgd,$ 260,435 460,716 401,865 716,246 216,626 301.643 331,731 Revenue per Customer, $ 388 285 0 456 139 423 163 Revenue Bond Rating(d) AA AAA AAA AA AA AA AA Rates, Residential: Annual Service Charge, $/yr. 101.28 244.68 79.08 332.11 160.00 236.04 204.00 Volume Rate, $/1000 gal. 1.32 3.53 1.77 3.76 Flat Rate,$/UniI/year 71.28 244.68 170.52 10.00 204.00 Billing Frequency Annually Bi-Monthly Monthly Quarterly BI-Monthly BI-Monthly Annually Notes: (a)Service Level:R 3 Retail,W=Wholesale (b)Population served divided by 3. (c)Based on actual customers for'Retail'only,and on equivalent retail customers for*Wholesale'and'Reta1VWholesale'. (d)Based on 1990 data. BLACK & VEATCH COMPARISON OF "BENCHMARK" DATA FOR LARGE WASTEWATER UTILITIES 18-Nov-96 Sacramento, San Francisco, East Bay Mun. New Orleans, Data Item BQ;aQn. MA cA _CA _._. Utility DIM. Service Indicators Service Level (a) R R R/W R R Population Served 1,059,283 1,000,000 800,000 611,000 558,000 Number of Customers Retail 88,000 217,000 165,000 169.180 141,478 Wholesale 4 Equivalent Retail Customers (b) 353,094 333,333 266,667 203,667 186,000 Total Flow Treated(mgd) Unknown 143.0 83.7 138.0 104.0 Service Area, Square Miles 45 225 49 83 92 Combined Sewers Yes Yes Yes No No Miles of Sewers 1,488 Flow per Customer, GPI)(c) 0 659 314 816 735 Miles of Sewer per Customer(c) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0105 Customers per Square Mile (c) 1,955.6 964.4 5,442.2 2,038.3 1.537.8 Cost Indicators Number of Employees 608 340 450 308 1,584 Operation& Maintenance Exp., $ 135,866,000 39,700,000 53,857,000 29,378,999 28,636.000 Total Revenue, $ 166,409,000 62.200,000 180,600,000 125,800,000 42,021,000 Effectiveness Indicators Customers per Employee (c) 144.7 638.2 592.6 549.3 09.3 O&M Cost per Customer, $(c) 1,544 183 202 174 202 O&M Cost per mgd, $ 0 277,622 643,453 212,891 275.346 Revenue per Customer, $ 1,891 287 677 744 297 Revenue Bond Rating (d) AA AA AAA Rates, Residential: Annual Service Charge, $/yr. 357.00 155.40 173.00 204.32 186.72 Volume Rate, $/1000 gal. 4.57 2.00 0.41 1.26 Flat Rate,$/Unit/year 97.80 67.68 67.20 Billing Frequency Monthly Bi-Monthly Bi-Monthly Bi-Monthly Monthly Notes: (a)Service Level:R=Retail,W=Wholesale (b)Population served divided by 3. (c)Based on actual customers for"Retail*only,and on equivalent retail customers for'Wholesale"and'RetaiVWholesale'. (d)Based on 1990 data. Population 8 6 4 N C .� 4 c a 2 K 5 yam: ,ry• fN A. B. C. D. E F. G. H. I. J. K. L M. N. 0. P. 0. R. S. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/Cust. $/mgd $/Cust. $/Year S/1,000 gal. A. New York,NY 7,322,000 403.3 595 301,822 2,451.00 260.52 2.15 B. Chicaeo, IL 5,100.000 655.7 137 163,082 388.00 147.97 0.00 C. Los Angeles Co. San. Dist. 4,900,000 859.1 92 278.881 506.00 100.00 0.00 D. Los Angeles. CA 4,000.000 555.6 156 461,876 288.00 242.00 1.81 E. Detroit.MI 2.937 200 748.5 125 251.786 182.00 173.84 1.01 F. Iv1WRA.MA 2,600,000 1,509.9 182 403,890 833.00 311.00 4.60 G. Philadelphia. PA 2,286.000 654.1 161 22 1.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 H. Orange Co. San. Dist. 2,100,000 1,176.5 86 260,435 388.00 101.28 0.00 1. San Diego,CA 1,800,000 426.7 138 460,716 285.00 244.68 0.00 J. St.Louis MSD 1,400,000 397.9 295 401,865 0.00 79.08 1.32 K. Washington D.C. 1,400,000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 L. Denver Co. Metro. 1.250,000 1,163.9 73 216,626 139.00 160.00 1.77 M. King Co.(Seattle),WA 1.200,000 420.2 116 301.643 423.00 236.04 3.76 N. San Jose,CA 1.200,000 1,360.5 86 331.731 163.00 204.00 0.00 O. Boston,MA 1.059,283 144.7 1.544 339.665 1,891.00 357.00 4.57 P. Sacramento. CA 1,000.000 638.2 183 277,622 287.00 155.40 0.00 Q. San Francisco,CA 800.000 592.6 202 643,453 677.00 173.00 2.00 R., East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611,000 549.3 174 212.891 744.00 204.32 0.41 S. New Orleans. LA 558.000 89.3 202 275,346 297.00 186.72 1.26 Customers per Employee ' 2000 1500 r i I 1000 500 0 S. O. K. J. A. M. I. R. D. Q. P. G. B. E. C. L H. N. F. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/Cust. $/mgd $/CUSt. $/Year $/1.000 gal. S. New Orleans.LA 558.000 89.3 202 275,346 297.00 186.72 1.26 O. Boston.MA 1.059.283 144.7 1544 339.665 1.891.00 357.00 4.57 K. Washington D.C. 1,400.000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 J. St.Louis MSD 1.400.000 397.9 295 401,865 0.00 79.08 1.32 A. New York.NY 7,322.000 403.3 595 301.822 2.451.00 260.52 2.15 M. King Co.(Seattle),WA 1,200.000 420.2 116 301.643 423.00 236.04 3.76 1. San Diego.CA 1.800.000 426.7 138 460.716 285.00 244.68 0.00 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611.000 549.3 174 212.891 744.00 204.32 0.41 D. Los Angeles,CA 4.000.000 555.6 156 461.876 288.00 242.00 1.81 Q. San Francisco.CA 800,000 592.6 202 643.453 677.00 173.00 2.00 P. Sacramento.CA 1.000.000 638.2 183 277.622 287.00 155.40 0.00 G. Philadelphia.PA 2,286.000 654.1 161 221.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 B. Chicago.IL 5.100.000 655.7 137 163.082 388.00 147.97 0.00 E. Detroit,MI 2,937,200 748.5 125 251.786 182.00 173.84 1.01 C. Los Angeles Co.San.Dist. 4.900.000 859.1 92 278.881 506.00 100.00 0.00 L. Denver Co. Metro. 1,250.000 1.163.9 73 216.626 139.00 160.00 1.77 H. Orange Co.San.Dist. 2.100.000 1,176.5 86 260,435 388.00 101.28 0.00 N. San Jose.CA 1.200,000 1.360.5 86 331.731 163.00 204.00 0.00 F. *MWRA.MA 2.600.000 1,509.9 182 403.890 833.00 311.00 4.60 O&M Cost per Customer 2000 t1- 1500 1000 500 -; AM AMMAM �.: lodl 0 L N. H. C. M. E B. 1. D. G. R. F. P. 0. . S. J. K. A. O. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/CuSL $/mgd $/CUSL $/Year $11.000 gal. L.. Denver Co. Metro. 1,250.000 1,163.9 73 216,626 139.00 160.00 1.77 N. San Jose.CA 1.200.000 1,360.5 86 331.731 163.00 204.00 0.00 H. Orange Co.San.Dist. 2.100.000 1.176.5 86 260.435 388.00 101.28 0.00 C. Los Angeles Co.San.Dist. 4.900,000 859.1 92 278.881 506.00 100.00 0.00 M. King Co. (Seattle),WA 1.200,000 420.2 116 301.643 423.00 236.04 3.76 E. Detroit.MI 2,937.200 748.5 125 251.786 182.00 173.84 1.01 B. Chicago.IL 51100.000 655.7 137 163,082 388.00 147.97 0.00 I. San Diego.CA 11800,000 426.7 138 460,716 285.00 244.68 0.00 D. Los Angeles.CA 4.000,000 555.6 156 461.876 288.00 242.00 1.81 G. Philadelphia.PA 2,286,000 654.1 161 221,807 325.00 301.20 1.58 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611,000 549.3 174 212,891 744.00 204.32 0.41 F. MWRA.MA 2,600.000 1.509.9 182 403.890 833.00 311.00 4.60 P. Sacramento.CA 1,000.000 638.2 183 277.622 287.00 155.40 0.00 Q. San Francisco.CA 800.000 592.6 202 643.453 677.00 173.00 2.00 S. New Orleans.LA 558.000 89.3 202 275,346 297.00 186.72 1.26 J. St.Louis MSD 1,400,000 397.9 295 401.865 0.00 79.08 132 K. Washington D.C. 1,400,000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 A. New York.NY 7.322.000 403.3 595 301.822 2.451.00 260.52 2.15 O. Boston.MA 1.059.283 144.7 1,544 339.665 1,891.00 357.00 4.57 O&M Cost per Treated Flow 800 r� 600 c� r (n C ` l9 0 400 r 200 _ w: Y. Y 0 O. B. R. L G. E. H. S. P. C. M. A. N. J. F. 1. D. 0. K. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/CUSL $/mgd $/Cust. $/Year $/1,000 gal. O. Boston,MA 1,059,283 144.7 1,544 0 1.891.00 357.00 4.57 B. Chicago.IL 5.100.000 655.7 137 163.082 388.00 147.97 0.00 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611.000 549.3 174 212,891 744.00 204.32 0.41 L. Denver Co. Metro. 1.250.000 1,163.9 73 216.626 139.00 160.00 1.77 G. Philadelphia. PA 2.286.000 654.1 161 221.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 E. Detroit.MI 2,937.200 748.5 125 ='1.786 182.00 173.84 1.01 H. Orange Co.San.Dist. 2,100.000 1,176.5 86 =60.435 388.00 101.28 0.00 S. New Orleans.LA 558.000 89.3 202 275,346 297.00 186.72 1.26 P. Sacramento.CA 1.000.000 638.2 183 277,622 287.00 155.40 0.00 C. Los Angeles Co.San.Dist. 4.900,000 859.1 92 278,881 506.00 100.00 0.00 M. King Co.(Seattle).WA 1,200.000 420.2 116 301.643. 423.00 236.04 3.76 A. New York.NY 7,322,000 403.3 595 301.822 2.451.00 260.52 2.15 N. San Jose,CA 1.200.000 1,360.5 86 331,731 163.00 204.00 0.00 J. St.Louis MSD 1,400.000 397.9 295 401,865 0.00 79.08 1.32 F. MWRA.MA 2.600.000 1,509.9 182 403,890 833.00 311.00 4.60 1. San Diego,CA 1.800.000 426.7 138 460.716 285.00 244.68 0.00 D. Los Angeles.CA 4.000.000 555.6 156 461.876 288.00 242.00 1.81 Q. San Francisco.CA 800.000 592.6 202 643.453 677.00 173.00 2.00 K. Washington D.C. 1.400.000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 Revenue per Customer 3000 F i - 2500 04 2000 1500 .t v; 1000 L. 500MIN NIVI { .: Nor �Wfx � �)-'� ��c'y:• ' J. L. N. E. I. P. D. S. G. H. B. M. K. C. O. R. F. O. A. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utilitv per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/Cuss. S/mgd S/Cust. S/Year S/1,000 gal. J. St. Louis MSD 1,400.000 397.9 295 401,865 0.00 79.08 1.32 L. Denver Co. Metro. 1,250,000 1,163.9 73 216,626 139.00 160.00 1.77 N. San Jose.CA 1.200.000 1.360.5 86 331.731 163.00 204.00 0.00 E. Detroit, MI 2.937,200 748.5 125 251,786 182.00 173.84 1.01 I. San Diego,CA 1.800.000 426.7 138 460.716 285.00 244.68 0.00 P. Sacramento.CA 1,000,000 638.2 183 277.622 287.00 155.40 0.00 D. Los Angeles.CA 4,000.000 555.6 156 461.876 288.00 242.00 1.81 S. New Orleans,LA 558.000 89.3 202 275.346 297.00 186.72 1.26 G. Philadelphia. PA 2,286.000 654.1 161 221.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 H. Orange Co.San.Dist. 2.100.000 1,176.5 86 260,435 388.00 101.28 0.00 B. Chicago, IL 5.100,000 655.7 137 163.082 388.00 147.97 0.00 M. King Co. (Seattle),WA 1.200.000 420.2 116 301.643 423.00 236.04 3.76 K. Washington D.C. 1.400.000 336.4 298 716,246 456.00 332.11 3.53 C. Los Angeles Co. San. Dist. 4,900.000 859.1 92 278,881 506.00 100.00 0.00 Q. San Francisco.CA 800,000 592.6 202 643,453 677.00 173.00 2.00 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611.000 549.3 174 212.891 744.00 204.32 0.41 F. MWRA,MA 2.600.000 1,509.9 182 403.890 833.00 311.00 4.60 O. Boston, MA 1.059.283 144.7 1,544 339,665 1,891.00 357.00 4.57 A. - New York, NY 7,322.000 403.3 595 301.822 2,451.00 260.52 2.15 Annuai Aesiaennai noervice k.narbe 400 300 +H 200 100 .R !f 0 J. C. H. B. P. L 0. E. S. N. R. M. D. I. A. G. F. K. O. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Cade Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/Cuss. $/mgd $/Cuss. $/Year $11,000 gal. J. St.Louis MSD 1,400.000 397.9 295 401.865 0.00 79.08 1.32 C. Los Anacics Co.San.Dist. 4,900.000 859.1 92 278.881 506.00 100.00 0.00 H. Orange Co.San.Dist. 2.100.000 1.176.5 86 260.435 388.00 101.28 0.00 B. Chicaeo. IL 5.100.000 655.7 137 163,082 388.00 147.97 0.00 P. Sacramento.CA 1.000.000 638.2 183 277,622 287.00 155.40 0.00 L Denver Co. Metro. 1.250.000 1,163.9 73 216.626 139.00 160.00 1.77 Q. San Francisco.CA 800.000 592.6 202 643.453 677.00 173.00 2.00 E. Detroit,.Ml 2.937.200 748.5 125 251.786 182.00 173.84 1.01 S. New Orleans.L4 558.000 89.3 202 275.346 297.00 186.72 1.26 N. San Jose.CA 1,200.000 1.360.5 86 331,731 163.00 204.00 0.00 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611.000 549.3 174 212.891 744.00 204.32 0.41 M. King Co.(Seattle),WA 1,200,000 420.2 116 301,643 423.00 236.04 3.76 D. Los Angeles.CA 4,000,000 555.6 156 461,876 288.00 242.00 1.81 1. San Diego.CA 1,800,000 426.7 138 460,716 285.00 244.68 0.00 A. New York.NY 7,322.000 403.3 595 301.822 2,451.00 260.52 2.15 G. Philadelphia. PA 2.286,000 654.1 161 221.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 F. MWRA.MA 2,600.000 1.509.9 182 403.890 833.00 311.00 4.60 K. Washin¢son D.C. 1,400.000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 O. • Boston.MA 1,059,283 144.7 1.544 339.665 1,891.00 357.00 4.57 Residential Volume Charge 5 4 T 3 '4 3 a 2 t K :2 0 N. C. H. B. P. I. R. E. S. J. G. L D. O. A. K M. O. F. Wastewater Utility Code Annual Customers O&M Cost O&M Cost Revenue Residential Residential Utility per per per per Service Volume Code Wastewater Utility Population Employee Customer mgd Customer Charge Charge $/Cuss. $/mgd $/CusL $/Year $/1,000 gal. N. San Jose,CA 1.200,000 1.360.5 86 331.731 163.00 204.00 0.00 C. Los Angeles Co.San. Dist. 4,900,000 859.1 92 278.881 506.00 100.00 0.00 H. Orange Co. San.Dist. 2.100.000 1.176.5 86 260.435 388.00 101.28 0.00 B. Chicaeo, 1L 5.100.000 655.7 137 163.082 388.00 147.97 0.00 P. Sacramento.CA 1.000.000 638.2 183 277.622 287.00 155.40 0.00 1. San Diego.CA 1.800.000 426.7 138 460.716 285.00 244.68 0.00 R. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. 611,000 549.3 174 212,891 744.00 204.32 0.41 E. Detroit, MI 2,937,200 748.5 125 251,786 182.00 173.84 1.01 S. New Orleans,LA 558,000 89.3 202 275.346 297.00 186.72 1.26 J. St. Louis MSD 1,400,000 397.9 295 401,865 0.00 79.08 1.32 G. Philadelphia,PA 2.286.000 654.1 161 221.807 325.00 301.20 1.58 L Denver Co. Metro. 1,250,000 1,163.9 73 216,626 139.00 160.00 1.77 D. Los Angeles.CA 4,000,000 555.6 156 461.876 288.00 242.00 1.81 Q. San Francisco,CA 800,000 592.6 202 643.453 677.00 173.00 2.00 A. New York, NY 7,322,000 403.3 595 301.822 2,451.00 260.52 2.15 K. Washineton D.C. 1,400.000 336.4 298 716.246 456.00 332.11 3.53 M. King Co. (Seattle),WA 1.200.000 420.2 116 301.643 423.00 236.04 3.76 O. Boston. MA 1.059.283 144.7 1,544 339.665 1.891.00 357.00 4.57 F. MWRA, MA 2.600,000 1,509.9 182 403,890 833.00 311.00 4.60 Residential Rate Comparisons (a) Twenty Most Populated U.S. Cities Ranked From Highest Cost (1) to Lowest Cost (20) Combined Water-Seryiea Bank Semer Sery u Bank ScrYicc Bank S S S city . � 1 s� � ��.Pgoop,M-A Jf I04" M- � 11 San Francisoco,CA 225.60 7 530.48 2 756.08 2 ;sari Uiego, 'Il�?�.ttat�i�iri' ' i.•; 2b :sd3i# IEZ.: r1UOiaal:tit�: n ( ltouslon,TX 330.60 1 368.40 6 699.00 4 0 a�i�bt;Ll11�: isstiE =�z ;� '___yi;.:c,L fnidZs` iti66r1i ;il Philadelphia,PA 226.88 6 392.56 5 619.44 6 San Jose,C�Aj 281.04 3 !2�227.52y 11 508.56 8 QI , ,0 #�h�tffl.�:tL��#�3 1 �.ivr1 9.V 9 i y'ro, 12 4 ' �#1101 �aat.YGlTrlS�itflt. 1 iC I!ri!1?�f �l�siars��:Z !lial�.19.. ..��1�� ���� �� ��fi���D'� � Washington,D.C. 160.64 15 298.24 8 458.88 10 New York,NY 169.60 13 270.40 10 440.00 12 it:os An9!9Pf.. 'ei r` 5�•�: �s�G; �B San Antonio,TX 152.74 16 224.13 12 376.86 14 ;iNtiwsu.cc, :Tl.r•Eft � es 1;;,;,�187.8 ,`. ��?1� 1 i1;� i � � !� +► .�5! Baltimore, MD 127.68 19 197.36 14 315.04 16 tiQenix;A`l l r e l ti t b $ ; 3 01 IL.4'i 71 Detroit, Ml 129.24 18 144.76 17 274.00 18 ilyiemP. 0,-i H&i!tLbi :i i i ira c:l49.i t _� � =i i ,:�i 'ro: ? : t : Q � s =ar► i . 1 � Chicago,11, (b) 120.96 20 93.12 19 214.08 20 Average Excluding Detroit 204.86 276.94 471.21 (a)Annual Bill-Based on 16,000 cu.Jt or 120,000 gallons and a 518"meter. (b)Chicago residents pay for a portion of their sewage disposal costs through property taxes. (c)Sewage in San Diego receives primary treatment only. Page D•2 Comparison of Annual Retail Sewage Charges in the 20 Largest U.S. Cities Ranked from Lowest Cost (1) to Highest Cost (20) Small (a) _ Medium (b)_ Large (c)_ _ Population city Amo>1nt Rank Amount Rank Amount Rank 736,014 Baltimore, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187.36 7 1,873.60 8 140,520.00 8 574,283 Boston, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549.72 20 5,677.79 19 451,366.44 19 2,783,726 Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.12 2 931.20 2 69,840.00 2 632,945 Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.24 12 2,601.65 10 193,308.53 11 1,007,618 Dallas, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.68 14 3,268.68 15 243,028.68 15 1,027,974 Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.76 4 1,325.80 3 95,572.20 3 1,629,902 Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368.40 15 3,684.00 16 276,300.00 17 731,327 Indianapolis, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.43 6 1,625.04 6 120,075.36 6 635,230 Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489.20 18 4,814.00 18 339,186.00 18 3,485,557 Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216.96 8 2,169.60 9 162,720.00 10 610,337 Memphis, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.42 1 704.16 1 52,812.00 1 628,088 Milwaukee, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.44 5 1,421.36 5 99,025.24 4 7,322,564 New York, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270.40 11 2,704.00 11 202,800.00 12 1,585,577 Philadelphia, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.56 16 3,268.24 14 157,739.64 9 983,403 Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 141.83 3 1,368.67 4 101,655.84 5 935,393 San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.13 9 1,872.21 7 137,381.01 7 1,110,554 San Diego, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.44 17 3,696.84 17 271,280.88 16 723,959 San Francisoco, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 530.48 19 15,993.60 20 1,199,520.00 20 782,248 San Jose, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227.52 10 2,752.00 12 206,400.00 13 606,900 Washington, D.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298.24 13 2,982.40 13 223,680.00 14 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.52 3,236.74 237,210.59 (a) Based on water use of 16 Mcf(120,000 gallons) per year and a 5/8 inch meter. (b) Based on water use of 160 Mcf(1.2 million gallons) per year and a 2 inch meter. (c) Based on water use of 12,000 Mcf(90 million gallons) per year and a 6 inch meter. ENVIRONMENT ike Pompili, the assistant health commissioner in Columbus, Ohio, likes to pass around tiny laboratory i vials filled with half an I aspirin tablet, ground to a crumbly dust. ` He tells all takers that this is the amount of atrazine, a common pesticide, that a :' '•a person would consume by drinking Columbus tap water every day for 70 years. It is 1/5,000th of the amount of atrazine that the federal Environmental cides from the city's drinking water?Nei- Protection Agency has found to cause Cher Pompili nor Lashutka hesitate to cancer in laboratory rats. answer that question in the negative. But despite this miniscule amount, But Lashutka is even more adamant on Pompili says, the city's drinking water a corollary to that point He's spent the past just barely meets the EPA limit for few years complaining that federal laws are atrazine, which is used by farmers who forcing Columbus to waste local taxpayer work fields upriver from Columbus. money on environmental problems that e ' "People look at that standard as a huge don't pose any threat to the city.And it's no amount of risk," he says. `"They don't small tab.The city health department cal- understand how little of that stuff there culated in 1991 that Columbus would have is"in the water that they're drinking. to spend$1.1 billion over the next 10 years c When a city tries to set its environmental cleanup agenda by mixing scientific fact with public sentiment, it can end up with a program that hits too close to home. Nor, according to Pompili, do they to comply with national pollution control understand the cause and effect of ingest- standards—money that could be better ing those minute amounts of atrazine. To spent for more police, improved schools get a more graphic handle on that,Pompili and other essential services. The mayor sent his staff into the death-certificate files and his aides argue that they could make to see what residents of Columbus and better use of that money­and still protect other populated areas of Franklin County Columbus citizens' health—if municipal have been dying from for the past 15 years. governments could just set their own envi- The results add more fuel to Pompili's ronmental objectives.In this era of devolu- - aspirin fire: One person tion, local leaders, died from heart disease B Y T O M A R R A N D A L E Lashutka contends, ............................................................. every 5.4 hours, from ought to know more cancer every eight hours and from a car about what really imperils their environ- accident every 4.82 days.One death every ment than federal or even state regulators. 1.25 years was blamed on a winter cold It's thinking like that that's led spell,and one every 25 years on a summer Lashutka and his administration down heat wave.Making the usual rule-of--thumb the politically perilous and somewhat assumptions about the link of certain tricky path of comparative risk assess- chemicals to cancer, health department ment: setting up a committee of ordinary officials figured out that one resident would citizens to look into potential pollution seriously by factoring into scientific evi- die every 208 years from drinking pesti- problems, telling them to review the dence the quality-of-life concerns that cides that seep into Columbus'water sup- most pertinent scientific information simply can't be quantified. ply from central Ohio farmlands. about the hazards—including risk assess- It's an interesting, even tantalizing Those numbers and the lab vials are ments, cost-benefit analyses and the solution. In effect, it means a rethinking raising what Pompili and his boss, Mayor like—and then asking them to use that of the ways in which public money is Gregory S. Lashutka, insist is a troubling information to rank the hazards and perils spent to repair the effects of contamina- question: To save one life over the next to the city's health, natural surroundings tion and other environmental damages. It two centuries, does it make sense for and general quality of life. In short,com- also tries to redress what public officials Columbus to spend $120 million on an parative risk assessment asks communi- such as Lashutka consider to be the out- elaborate system that EPA could order ties to decide for themselves what envi- of-balance trends of the environmental the city to install to filter chemical pesti- ronmental problems to take most era. But as Lashutka himself is learning, 32 GOVERNING Apr111997 public and the taxpayers, 'Is there a real environmental risk posed here?' " says ' Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, who conducted a pioneering comparative environmental risk study when she headed her state's Ecology Department. In Congress and academia,and in many city halls and county administration build- ings as well,public officials have been rais- ing hopes that scientists and economists will answer that question for them.In the- ory,that sounds reasonable enough. Congressional Republican leaders, state legislatures,conservative think tanks and regulated industries argue that it's only sensible to take regulatory decisions out of politics by bringing the best science and economic thinking to bear.Of course, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency routinely assesses scientific stud- :- ies when it sets pollution standards at lev- els the agency concludes are necessary to protect public health.State environmental officials say that the complicated—and controversial—risk assessment and cost- benefit procedures that Congress has ' been considering would tie regulation in knots by offering business more chances than ever to second-guess the agency's decisions. `:My God, it would bring us to our knees,"is the way one state pollution . ' control chief reacts to the idea On their own, however, the states themselves have begun experimenting with applying other technical and eco- nomic assessments before they impose � regulatory requirements. For instance by I f many state environment departments are ~ developing risk-assessment procedures for answering the question"How clean is clean?" before they approve goals for decontaminating a specific abandoned industrial site.R.Steven Brown,research director for the Environmental Council of the States, has found that roughly half of the state pollution control agencies have begun using some form of cost or risk analysis tools. the road to comparative risk assessment control laws. As a result, when pollution New York Governor George E. Pataki, is itself fraught with political risk. Your crops up governments overreact, on the for instance, ordered the state's Environ- best arguments and closest allies can be theory that the safest thing to do is clean mental Conservation Department to con- turned against you. everything up completely. But that's no duct a cost-benefit analysis before adopt- longer practical, especially as regulators ing an air quality standard that could put he overall situation Lashutka is begin focusing on smaller and smaller small neighborhood dry cleaners out of concerned about is obvious pollution sources. Now, instead of business. "Before we exercise the regula- enough: For the past three responding immediately to every poten- tore power that government has, we're decades, public officials have quailed at tial threat,a growing number of pollution going to do everything we can to make the thought that theyll guess wrong on regulators are saving that there needs to sure that we know what we're talking the life-and-death decisions they're be a pause for evaluation. "We're really about," says Robert L. King, a former required to make to implement pollution going to have to get down and say to the Monroe County, New York, executive Rix l i -6 illnrnnrina April 1997 G O V E R N I N G 33 who directs Patald's office of regulatory reform. Others are more cynical about the process. Cost-benefit tests, says one Western state water quality regulator, just provide another hook for a legislator to challenge a rule and more opportunity to slow things down." Scientific and economic techniques could become more usefiil in regulatory decision making, especially as they get more sophisticated and precise. "Risk- based tools are definitely the direction to be going in, but they have limitations Tight now," says Mary L. Gade, the Illi- nois Environmental Protection Agency director. "The real quandary here is, do . you wait until you have perfect science, or do you act on the best information that's available to you?" ' either Congress nor state legisla- tures nor city councils have been able to sort through that question Columbus mayor Gregory S.Lashutka argues that local leaders know more effectively. Besides, science is just one about what imperils their environment than federal or state regulators. part of the equation. `There is a public ....................................................................................................................................................................... component that needs to be given equal Congress advocate. Comparative risk identified as needing more attention. weight, and that is the outrage factor," assessment projects factor in more sub- But the Environment 2010 findings says Michele Morrone,who heads up the jective criteria. The projects typically have essentially been shelved since two of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's assemble panels of experts to assess what its prime movers and shakers--Governor comparative risk project. science can tell a community about envi- Booth Gardner and Gregoire—moved on That,of course,is what legislative bod- ronmental risks—as well as what the after the 1992 elections. Gregoire left the ies are in business to do. But when envi- experts don't know. But then they go one Ecology Department after being elected ronmental issues are teclinical and emo- step beyond science by bringing in ordi- attorney general, and the newly elected lions grow heated, the effectiveness of nary citizens,generally from outside gov- governor, Mike Lowry, came into office the process can break down: Not much emment, to measure the scientific find- without a commitment to follow up on the interaction, dialog or evolution of think- ings against the public's perceptions of 2010 recommendations. Gregoire's suc- ing takes place. what threatens their health. "Science is a cessor at ecology, Mary Riveland, reorga- And that's what comparative risk component part. It is not the answer," nized the agency in ways that blurred the focus on the 2610 priorities. Then, after conservatives took control of the state leg- islature two years ago, they began cutting o m n -ns i back the Ecology Department's budget _+ �,•e- , across the board,without regard to Envi Ulu b l t d5b ronment 2010 priorities. _ - Maine's Environmental Priorities Proj- ect,on the other hand, survived a guber- assessment projects are designed to says Gregoire,who oversaw the Environ- natorial transition two years ago when counter. The U.S. EPA began nurturing ment 2010 project that Washington's Independent Angus King took over from the idea a decade ago after internal Ecology Department completed in 1990. outgoing Governor John R.McKernan Jr. agency reviews concluded that pollution So far, however, its not clear whether It clearly helped that the group that control budgets were badly out of kilter comparative risk efforts are making any helped launch the project had previously wall actual threats to the environment. permanent difference in how govern- hired King,then a public television show Since then, the federal agency has ments approach environmental prob- host, to moderate a workshop on assess- financed comparative risk reviews by two lems. Initially, 'Washington's Environ- ing state pollution issues. After King was dozen states and communities. ment 2010 was the most successful: Its elected governor, he kept the project Although they're often confused, the recommendations persuaded the state going and incorporated some of the proj- concept is different fi-om the relentlessly legislature to enact several tougher envi- ect s findings into his own environmental objective and rigorously scientific disci- ronmental laws dealing vith the air qual- program. Last vear,when environmental- pline of quantitative risk assessment and ity, grater conservation, growth manage- ists proposed a ballot initiative banning cost-benefit analysis that Republicans in ment and energy issues that were clear-cutting in Maine, timber company officials and conservationists who are tak- understanding of pollution issues. Mor- not borders on immoral.They often con- ing part in the priorities project coalesced rone says the comparative risk process fuse the projects with conservative pro- alternative that nearly "allows us to work in a non-confronta- sals to subject regulations to rigid sci- behind amoderate ear y po ] gala passed and will come up for a vote again tional atmosphere to build trust with entific or economic tests. this year. "Weve formed a pretty strong quite a few groups." If she had another While environmentalists may have center,"says Ted Koffman,a Bar Harbor chance,though,Morrone would drop the been wary, hazardous waste companies college professor who chairs the projeefs term "comparative risk" from the Ohio were even more so. Officials from that steering committee. projects title.The point she is making is industry say they reluctantly joined the that, given the way environmentalists statewide process as a defensive step. orming a strong center on envuon- think, any effort to determine whether After being part of it, however, they say mental issues is no mean achieve- protecting the environment is practical or they've been pleasantly surprised at the ment. Except for environmental activists and the businesses subject to pollution regulations, not many people worry about environmental quality until something dramatic happens—fish are Wed by sewer overflows or toxins leak from an abandoned factory. Too often, the ensuing uproar forces regulators into a crisis-response mode and convinces legislators that they've got to pass more laws. For state and local regulators, a comparative risk project holds out the promise of building a broader community consensus on pollution before public pas- sions get inflamed. That promise has encouraged a num- The Society of the Plastics Industry ber of other states to launch comparative American Plastics Council assessment projects. Colorado and Ver- mont have completed their priority SPI/APC State Government Affairs reports, and a number of other states have the process under way. Ohio's comparative risk project com- YOU ' VE KNOWN US SFPARATELY AS missioned sophisticated polls and THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY (SPI) invented imaginative methods for assess- ing the publics views. During the Ohio AND THE AMERICAN PLASTICS COUNCIL . State Fair, for instance, the agency gave nearly 6,000 fair goers 10 fake$1 million bills each and asked them to spend the money on the environmental threats they NOW GET TO KNOW US AS felt were most serious.The results were SPI/APC STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS not surprising: Participants put the bulk of their money on drinking water protec- tion and waste management. Both are We have unified our state government affairs environmental issues that draw promi- operations to better communicate with you on: nent attention from the media and envi- 0 public policy matters of importance to the plastics ronmental organizations. But when the industry, and risk project polled professional scientists • the economic importance of the plastics industry and government officials who deal with in your district and state. pollution every day, they ranked indoor air quality, surface water pollution and As SPI/APC State Government Affairs, the broad wildlife habitat loss much higher than the plastics industry will speak with one voice on important fair-going public did. advocacy, legislative and policy issues that are Ohio's project has produced a 500- critical for the plastics industry. page state-of-the-environment report the size of a big-city phone book that Olio For more information on SPI/APC State Government EPA Director Donald R. Schregardus Affairs, contact Roger Bernstein, Senior Director of carries with him whenever he testifies Government Affairs and Regional Operations, before the state legislature. The Ohio 202.974.5400. EPA also has set up a new environmental - education office to improve the publie s Anrl11497 GOVERNING 35 way the process helped the public distin- guish between waste-disposal facilities that are carefully regulated and leaky toxic dumps that cause extensive damage. ` The Ohio Farm Bureau also has been active in the risk project, and it learned by conducting focus groups with 5,000 farming community residents that those residents are also disturbed about sub- urbs sprawling across croplands. That concern mirrored many of the findings from similar comparative risk projects for the industrialized Cleveland region and for rural Athens and Clinton counties. In response,Governor George V.Voinovich called a statewide land use conference this spring to address concerns about the loss of open space around Ohio's cities. The governor has also asked the proj- ect's public advisory group to boil its o rankings down into better-defined strate- gies to guide the state's environmental protection programs. As leader of a group that set environmental priorities for Columbus, s Columbus is now learning, that Gerald C.Tinianow is now pressuring the city to implement them. willbe a much more difficult ............................................................................................................................. assignment. It is much harder to chanted with the pace at which the city In addition,this winter when Lashutka translate a public consensus on enAron- was moving to implement its report,30 of proposed an increase in the sales tax to mental priorities into the concrete reality the citizens who drafted Priorities '95 finance a new downtown arena—one that of municipal budgets and ordinances. formed a group they call Priorities Part- local boosters hope will draw a National And as Lashutka is also finding out, a ners.Their intent is to hold the city's feet to Hockey League expansion franchise to comparative risk assessment project on the fire to make sure that the risks they Columbus—Tinianom, countered with the local level may look like a simple ranked as top priority get the appropriate objections, wondering aloud why, if the political answer to"a nagging problem, attention from the city. Its not enough to mayor as a Republican was willing to rec- but it can turn around and bite you. simply rank pollution problems, notes ommend raising taxes, he chose to do it The project Lashutka launched,Priori- Columbus attorney Gerald C. Tinianow, to build an arena rather than implement a ties '95, started out with a committee of the longtime Sierra Club leader Lashutka Priorities project. 200 of Columbus'best and brightest citi- picked to chair the project."The city needs Tinianow thinks the recently formed zens who were asked to come up with a to put its money where its mouth is.There and relatively small Priorities Partners "has the potential of becoming a tremen- dous environmental advocacy group that ensurwill be viewed as trot independent of city hall.' There is ironv in that for Lashutka,the mayor who has long argued that federal mandates force local governments to waste scarce resources on low-risk envi- blueprint for the most serious environ- has been skepticism from the environmen- ronmental problems. Now the partners mental risks Columbus faced. Drawing tal movement almost from the get-go." are turning the tables on him,telling local on home-grown technical ad-Oce from the In January, the partners issued a 170- officials that it's wasteful to spend cite Battelle Institute and Ohio State Univer- page report faulting city officials for not taxpayers'money on other municipal pro- si,,the group studied evidence about 30 following up on more of the 1995 recom- grams while ignoring the high-risk envi- potential pollution problems and, using mendations. In particular,they demanded ronmental problems the comparative risk the process of comparative risk analysis, that the administration make a commit- project identified. ranked the ones they felt posed high, ment not to reopen the city incinerator as So,after all the effort that went into the medium or low threats to the city. a gas-burning power plant until emissions Priorities'95 rankings--and despite Pom- Whatever Lashutka s agenda was in controls have been upgraded.They're also pili's laboratory vials and death certificate establishing the committee and commit- pushing the city council to adopt a Priori- research—it will be messy political ting its priorities to writing, he certainly ties recommendation that developers be debate, not clear-cut science, that will didn't intend it to lead to the political prob- required to set aside 15 percent of new make the calls on what environmental pri- lem he now faces. After becoming disen- residential neighborhoods as open space. orities governments should pursue. 1B -�r r n v r n r , r, r A..-i1 +on- Ted Rin phMnere ph SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT 7171 FENWICK LANE WESTMINSTER, CA 92683.5218 714-894-2222 FAX 714-894-9699 DATE: May 9, 1997 TO: SCCWRP Commission & CTAG FROM: Stephen Weisberg, Executive Director�lt,/' RE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 1996 ANNUAL REPORT: Development of the 1996 annual report is underway. Eighteen articles documenting the year's research activities and findings have been writte,, and ar-e scheduled for publication. Eleven articles have been forwarded to CTAG and peer reviewers for comments, with the remainder to be sent out within the next week. We expect to deliver the report to the printer at the end of June. FY 1997/98 RESEARCH PLAN AND BUDGET: Earlier this year, Staff developed a draft of proposed projects for the coming year's research. It was reviewed by CTAG on January 23 and by the Commission on February 14. Based on comments received at the meetii;gs, we have prepared the FY 1997/98 research plan and budget. The document will be reviewed by CTAG on May 15 and will be sent to the Commission for their approval at the June *13 meeting. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT: SCCWRP's new Joint Powers Agreement effective JLI!y 1, 1997 was approved by the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County on March 26, and by the City Council of the City of San Diego on May 5. TI1e Los Angeles City Council will consider approval on May 12, and the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is scheduled to consider approval within the next month. FY 1997/98 contributions invoices were issued to the agencies on March 10. FACILITY LEASE/IMPROVEMENTS: As approved by the Commission on February 14, we have negotiated and executed a new five-year lease agreement for the agency's facility in Westminster. Our monthly lease payment will increase by 7% effective January 1, 1993. This follows two and a half years without an increase and includes a provision of no increase for the next two and a half years. Given the strong demand for commercial space in Orange County and the below-market rate we have been paying, we believe this to be an extremely modest increase. We have also engaged the services of an architect to complete the plans for the expansion of our office space. The plans will be sent to the City of Westminster for approval next week, with the solicitation of bids to follow. We expect to award the construction contract by June, with the work to commence shortly thereafter. A Public Agency for Marine Environmental Research r SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 2 WORLD WIDE WEB PAGE: SCCWRP's World Wide Web page on the Internet (http://www.sccwrp.org) has been visited by over 1800 people since its completion and has been registered with all of the major Internet search engines. Our site was recently highlighted in Surfergirl magazine, which has a monthly feature about interesting environmental organizations. We have recently added pages on our site for two local scientific organizations: the Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists (SCAMIT) and the southern California chapter of the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists (AIFRB). We are presently negotiating to do the same for the southern California chapter of the Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists (SETAC). These arrangements strengthen SCCWRP's goals of enhancing scientific understanding of the Southern California Bight and forming partnerships with other scientific organizations. SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT PILOT PROJECT (SCBPP): The SCBPP Steering Committee has met monthly, with the last meeting taking place on April 29. The Steering Committee has focused on three areas: 1) Completing analyses and interpretation of the 1994 data; 2) Planning of special studies to be conducted in 1997 that address the methodological and quality assurance deficiencies that were noted in the 1994 studies; and 3) Beginning the planning process for conduct of the 1998 regional survey. Most of the work for the first two items has been delegated to the specialty working group sub-committees. The infaunal working group has completed development and validation of a benthic index that can be used to interpret complex infaunal data; they have also selected thresholds for reference conditions and four levels of biological response. A presentation on the index and the results of the infaunal sampling was given to the Steering Committee on April 29. The Steering Committee gave its approval to begin writing the final report. A draft report is expected by the end of June. The infaunal group has also identified further development of the infaunal index in shallow water as its 1997 study priority. The fish group has held five meetings since January. The group has defined the major natural assemblages using several analytical techniques. The group is now focusing on developing an index that quantifies impacts to these assemblages. They have identified appropriate data sets for developing the index, and preliminary testing to determine potentially responsive trawl metrics. The trawl index development process should be complete during this quarter but it is not certain whether, due to the inherent variability introduced by mobility of fish, a trawl index can be developed. The fish group has also begun preparing the fish tissue contamination report. Initial portions of the report have been prepared as an annual report article. The fish group has identified comparison of contaminant levels among fish species captured at the same location as their primary question to be addressed in 1997. This is an important question because no one species is found throughout the bight and one must understand the among species variation or correlation in order to conduct bight-wide spatial assessments. �Y SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 3 V The sediment chemistry group has completed most of the analysis of the 1994 data and is now preparing a draft final report. The chapter on iron normalization has been completed and submitted as an annual report article. The sediment chemistry group has formed three sub-committees to focus planing of the 1997 methodological studies and the 1998 regional survey: a PCB technical committee, a PAH technical committee, and a trace metals technical committee. All three committees have come to agreement on the issues of target analytes, detection limits, analytical procedures, and interlaboratory calibration. Each committee is writing proposals for a series of interlaboratory comparison studies to be conducted during 1997; some of the subcommittees are also preparing proposals for holding time studies to determine whether samples can be stored for extended times without loss in analyte concentration. Longer holding times would allow a tiered analytical approach in which more expensive or time consuming analyses would be conducted only on those samples which met a set of criteria established based on less expensive analyses. The CTD group is working on preparation of their final report and will make a presentation to the steering committee on May 29. The group is assessing the feasibility of adding fluorometers to the CTD package for the 1998 survey. One finding from the 1994 survey was that the oxygen data was hard to interpret in absence of fluorometry measurements. The steering committee has started to discuss how the 1998 survey should differ from the 1994 survey. There is extensive interest in moving into harbors and bays so that we can place offshore waters into context of conditions in nearshore waters. Toward that goal, we have begun discussions with potential participants who normally sample in these areas, including the Department of Water and Power, Southern California Edison, the Port of Long Beach and the State Lands Commission. We have also begun discussions with USGS, who is interested in coring studies that would allow us to assess the spatial extent to which contamination is changing over time and in what direction. SCCWRP has agreed to partner with USGS in a coring study of this type in Santa Monica Bay in 1997. We have also begun discussions about the possibility of extending the regional survey into Mexico in 1998. On April 2, SCCWRP hosted an all day workshop with 22 Mexican scientists and agency personnel to discuss this possibility. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a NAFTA funded international agency, also attended the meeting and volunteered to help underwrite the cost of the Mexican participation, if the Mexican scientists can organize themselves under an umbrella organization. STORMWATER RESEARCH: Chemical analysis of sediment samples collected for last year's intensive footprint study off of Ballona Creek has been completed. A report of the results has been prepared and forwarded to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. No substantial deposition of stormwater-related particulates in shallow water (<25 meters) was found, supporting the original decision to locate sediment collection stations at a depth of 25 meters. Sampling was successfully conducted in conjunction with a January 1997 storm. Ballona Creek stormwater and Santa Monica Bay water samples were obtained during the storm and SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 4 I tested for toxicity. Toxicity tests were also conducted on sediment from 14 stations within Santa Monica Bay. Four different sediment toxicity tests were conducted on these samples, including a test of interstitial water and a long-term growth and bioaccumulation test. Data analysis from these experiments is in progress. Sediment samples were also collected from 10 locations for measurement of sediment chemistry and infauna community composition. The sediment chemistry and infauna samples are presently under analysis. We expect to complete analysis of these samples by July and include the results in the second year report to Los Angeles County. BIOMARKERS: The development of a method for analysis of stress proteins in fish is nearly complete. Samples of flatfish (English sole) liver from three locations (Palos Verdes, Orange County shelf, off Dana Point) have been analyzed for one of two stress proteins. The results indicated a greater concentration in stress proteins in Palos Verdes fish and were consistent with other biomarker data (bile PAH metabolites) that indicated greater contaminant exposure at Palos Verdes. The quality assurance component of the stress protein method is currently being refined in order to reduce variability. Following this step, the flatfish samples will be reanalyzed to evaluate performance of the method. Sea urchin gonad samples were also collected from recent sediment toxicity tests with contaminated sediment. These samples will be analyzed in order to obtain preliminary information on stress protein response in this species. PLAN AND OUTLINE OF "STATE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT" REPORT: We have identified several subject areas which are appropriate for a State of the Bight Report but for which SCCWRP and its partner organizations possess insufficient data to address. We are attempting to develop partnerships with other organizations that have the data or expertise to address these issues. Three subject areas for which we have been exploring partnerships to assess status and trends are: kelp beds (Cal Fish and Game, Southern Cal Edison, National Park Service); rocky intertidal (Minerals Management Service), and marine mammals (Orange Coast College). POINT LOMA OUTFALL EXTENSION STUDY: Laboratory analysis for the first two years of sampling has been completed. The data has been analyzed and summarized in an annual report article. Samples from the third quarter of the third year have been sorted and measured; samples from the third quarter of the fourth year have been sorted. The project was intended to include measurements through five years of the recovery process, which should be completed in the next fiscal year. SEDIMENT TOXICITY & BENTHIC INFAUNA DATA ACQUISITION: Data from SCCWRP reference surveys (1977, 1985, 1990), the City of San Diego (1985, 1990), County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (1985, 1990), County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (1972, 1973, 1976, 1979 and 1985-1995), the City of Los Angeles (1985, 1990) and the SCBPP (1994) were compiled and taxonomically justified to the SCAMIT-approved taxonomic list for southern California. Data from the City of San Diego, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, and the City of Los Angeles for 1986-1995 has been acquired. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 5 V Data from CSDOC has been compiled and formatted. Formatting of data from the City of San Diego is in progress. BIOACCUMULATION OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN HORNYHEAD TURBOT: This project, to determine the bioaccumulation patterns of DDTs and PCBs in hornyhead turbot, is nearing completion. All of the samples have been processed, and data analyses are underway. We are summarizing different pieces of information to calculate the partitioning patterns of DDTs and PCBs among hornyhead turbot tissues, sediments, suspended particles, and overlaying water. We will estimate the thermodynamic tendencies for PCBs and DDTs to move between these.compartments, which would help us to understand the bioaccumulation mechanisms of PCBs and DDTs in hornyhead turbot tissues under field conditions. USING MOLECULAR MARKERS TO DETERMINE SOURCES OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS: This is a three-year study currently in its first year. The first-year efforts are focused on method development and identification of marker compounds specific of stormwater runoff. After completing most of the method development work in the first half of the 1996/97 fiscal year, we collected runoff samples from Ballona Creek in January and February 1997 to search for target markers. We also collected and analyzed effluent samples from the Hyperion Treatment Plant (at a time when no rain water was received by the plant). By comparing the results from analyses of these two types of samples, we have identified two target compounds present in the stormwater samples are not found in the effluent samples. These compounds are associated with raw materials (probably tire additives) used in automobile tire manufacturing and likely derived from tire residues washed from road surfaces during rainfall events. One of the future tasks is to analyze wastewater effluent samples collected during rainfall events and find out whether the marker compounds mentioned above are present at detectable levels in the wastewater effluents. TRACING ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FROM THE WHITE'S POINT OUTFALL EFFLUENT - RADIOISOTOPE STUDIES: This project, a three-year joint effort between SCCWRP and the University of Southern California, with funding provided by the Sea Grant Program, is designed to provide new information on whether and how fast buried contaminants at the Palos Verdes Shelf are being remobilized along the sediment column and into the water column. The first-year activities (from October 1996 to September 1997) have been focused on sample collection and analyses. Wet weather sampling was completed in January and February 1997; dry weather sampling will be conducted in July/August 1997. Eight stations at the Palos Verdes Shelf were sampled; suspended particles, water, surface sediments, and sediment cores were collected. We are currently analyzing the samples for DDTs, PCBs, LABs, and TOC (the USC collaborators are measuring radioactive isotopes). With the results from Bioaccumulation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Hornyhead Turbot, it may be possible to estimate the bioavailability of historically discharged contaminants. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 6 MODEL POTW MONITORING PROGRAM: Significant progress has been made towards standardizing ambient water quality, sediment quality, invertebrate and fish biological sampling and analytical methodology. Most of this progress has evolved through the Southern California Bight Pilot Project (SCBPP) Steering Committee and associated Working Groups. Interagency laboratory and field testing programs are planning for intercalib ration studies in the upcoming year. These studies will help to develop a model POTW ambient monitoring program. Significant progress, both internally and externally, has also been made towards a model effluent monitoring program. Internal projects have included an inventory of laboratory methods, detection limits, and sampling frequency for large wastewater monitoring programs. This data compilation is included in this year's annual report article which has been distributed to CTAG. External efforts have revolved around the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Sources and Loadings Committee. We are actively participating in this program designed to not only standardize analytical and reporting methods, but to rank constituents of concern based upon actual or potential environmental effects from a variety of pollutant sources. Factors such as frequency, location, limits of detection, and interaction with ambient monitoring programs are major issues being addressed presently within this committee. This platform may serve as launching point for the remainder of the Southern California Bight dischargers. GUIDE TO IDENTIFICATION, DISEASES AND ANOMALIES OF DEMERSAL FISHES AND INVERTEBRATES: Acquisition of information, photographs, and specimens from museums and fish anomaly experts is about 75% complete. A draft key to the anomalies of fish and invertebrates is more than 50% complete; the key, information, and photographs are being compiled on computer so that it can be included as part of the field computer system. A hard copy will also be printed. The first version of this report (which will be periodically updated) is scheduled for completion by the end of June 1997. ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF DEMERSAL FISH COMMUNITIES: Analysis of SCBPP demersal fish data is currently underway to develop a functional organization model. As part of this effort, we have completed recurrent group analysis, which has been prepared as an annual report article. We have also completed cluster analyses, which will be prepared as an article in next year's annual report. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL AND OTHER WASTEWATERS: Annual report articles have been prepared summarizing 1995 effluent data for: 1) large municipal wastewater dischargers; 2) small municipal wastewater dischargers; and 3) power generating stations. Work is now focusing on estimating discharge from industrial dischargers. A preliminary list of more than 100 industrial dischargers to the Southern California Bight has been narrowed down to about 20 with measurable discharges. Effluent data from 10 of these have been obtained. We hope to gather the remaining data and conduct analyses on these data by the end of the fiscal year. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 7 ARCHIVING SCCWRP HISTORICAL CURRENT METER DATA: The inventory of historic current meter data is about 35-50% complete. Further work on the project has been postponed. HISTORICAL TRENDS IN DEMERSAL FISH POPULATIONS: Historical demersal fish and invertebrate data accumulated by SCCWRP has been incorporated with the historical trawl data base from 1911 to 1977. In addition, fish and invertebrate data collected in SCCWRP reference surveys of 1985 and 1990, and most fish and invertebrate data from the four major POTW monitoring programs, have been acquired and incorporated into the data base. We still need to obtain fish biomass and anomaly data, and invertebrate data from some of the agencies. We anticipate acquiring data from these agencies in the upcoming quarter. EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT ON WHITE CROAKER: All white croaker needed for this study have been collected, weighed, measured, and dissected. In the upcoming quarter otoliths will be prepared, ages will be determined, and data analysis will be conducted. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS • SCCWRP participated in the Earth Day fair held at Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in San Pedro on Saturday, April 19. Our exhibit featured a poster outlining SCCWRP's programs and a display of field specimens and sampling equipment. (See attached letter). • Jim Allen made two presentations at the California and the World Ocean '97 conference in March: the first on a regional approach to standardizing marine receiving-water monitoring methods in Southern California, and the second on variability in demersal fish and invertebrate populations in the Southern California Bight in 1994. • Steve Bay and Ken Schiff also made presentations at the California and the World Ocean `97 conference regarding SCCWRP's stormwater research in Santa Monica Bay. Steve's was on the effects on surface water and sediment toxicity, and Ken's was on benthic impacts in the nearshore coastal zone. • Steve Weisberg chaired a session on creating cooperative water quality monitoring programs at the California and the World Ocean '97 conference, • Steve Bay and Ken Schiff made a presentation in San Francisco during March at a workshop jointly sponsored by the Center for Watershed Protection and EPA regarding environmental indicators to assess stormwater control programs and practices. • Jim Allen chaired a larval fish recruitment symposium at the annual meeting of the Southern California Academy of Sciences in May. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 8 • Jim Allen chaired a Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project seafood risk calculations report review committee, which met on May 8. • Jim Allen served as a member of the Marine Ecological Reserve Research Program, Scientific Review Panel of UC Sea Grant. This panel evaluates proposals submitted for conducting scientific research in four marine ecological reserves established along the California coast by the State's Marine Resources Protection Act. • Shelly Moore gave a talk on "How to be a marine biologist" for Career Day at 96th Street School, Los Angeles in April. • Mary Bergen attended a meeting sponsored by EPA's Superfund program, contributing to a panel discussion on the relationship between bioturbation and capping contaminated sediments on the Palos Verdes shelf. • Steve Weisberg is serving as a member of the Palos Verdes Shelf Technical Advisory Committee for EPA's Superfund program, which met on February 19 and April 23. The committee is providing technical review for EPA concerning the development of their remediation program. • Steve Weisberg met with the Dean of Natural Sciences at Cal State Long Beach about resurrecting an intern program in which CSU students could work at SCCWRP for college credit. • SCCWRP was featured in a April 27 article in the Torrance Daily Breeze. Copies of the article are enclosed. SCCWRP was also quoted in a March 26 LA Times article about sediment contamination in the southern California Bight. • Steve Weisberg gave a seminar about SCCWRP's regional monitoring activities to the Navy's Research and Development group in San Diego on April 18. • Steve Weisberg gave a seminar about SCCWRP's regional monitoring activities to the UCLA Institute of the Environment on March 3. • Steve Weisberg, Ken Schiff and Steve Bay gave a seminar on SCCWRP's stormwater research to the City of Los Angeles Stormwater Division on May 7. • Steve Weisberg attended and gave a plenary talk at a Minerals Management Service workshop on February 26 and 27. The purpose of the workshop was to develop a regional monitoring program for the rocky intertidal zone; MMS wanted to base their program on our successful 1994 Pilot Project. • Eddy Zeng was elected President of the Southern California Environmental Chemists Society (SCECS). SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 9 PUBLICATIONS • A manuscript entitled "Reproduction and population dynamics of a population of Grandidierella japonica in Upper Newport Bay, California", authored by Darrin Greenstein and Liesl Tiefenthaler, was published in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. • A manuscript entitled "A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Chesapeake Bay", authored by Steve Weisberg (with A. Ranasinghe, R. Diaz, D. Dauer, J. Frithsen and L. Schaffner) was published in Estuaries. UPCOMING MEETINGS/SEMINARS • The next CTAG meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at SCCWRP. • The Southern California Bight Pilot Project steering committee will meet on Thursday, May 29 and Wednesday, June 4, 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at SCCWRP. • SCCWRP's seminar series continues in June with two seminars:'Dr. Steven Murray of Cal State Fullerton will make a presentation on "California's rocky seashores: Identifying the balance between long-term conservation of living resources and short-term pressures for human use" on Friday, June 6, and Dr. Mia Tegner of Scripps Oceanographic Institute will make a presentation on "Kelp forests, ocean climate, and anthropogenic inputs" on Friday, June 20. Both seminars begin at 11:00 a.m. and will be held at SCCWRP. • The SCCWRP Commission will meet on Thursday, June 12, 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (to review the results of the Southern California Bight Pilot Project) and on Friday, June 13, 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon (to conduct regular business). C"ABPJLLO ' April 29, 1997 / V V l!V I V E 101 AQUPRJUM 1 o s a n g e I e s Christopher Francisco Administrative Officer Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 7171 Fenwick Lane Westminister, CA 92683 Dear Christopher and Staff, We extend our thanks to you for helping to make Cabrillo Marine Aquarium's 1997 Earth Day Celebration a success. More than 2,500 visitors from the community learned more about caring for our planet and what they, as individuals, can do to make a difference. There were over 35 groups and agencies represented and over 150 volunteers dedicating their time to educate others about the environment. Thank you for sharing with the community the valuable work you do. As the lead agency monitoring our coastal environment, your display and staff were tremendously inviting for visitors to stop and find out more about all you do. We greatly appreciate your time and efforts in helping to draw attention to celebrating Earth Day and for individuals to make choices that support our planet. Thank you for your support. Steve Vogel Linda Chilton Education and Collections Curator Education Specialist 3720 Stephen White Drive • San Pedro, California 90731 • Phone 310/548-7563 • Fax 310/548-2649 Facility of the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Daily Breeze SUND/> April 27, 1997 South Bal, i; Rcsearchers are intent on counting creatures, but for ocean-floor dwellers it means sbOTTOmb, Ur Py Lee Peterson �+tr; ?:y' .�3' q `' x i° QUOTED The boat rocks gently at aer. r + ,+!�;AFF WRITER r,t u {lead stop just off the Palos +n •Y�a � f `�'����`�t�a�!I? F' There is a Verdes Peninsula as crew mein- ,x, . r•a ,r�e ,� ,, , ,, �� glaring need for bars in yellow bib overalls hoist + �.•� 3� s, Yy+ Wit, aboard the dripping,prickly a regionwide <:,ck of sea urchins and bottom. G eders,then carefully dump , i si ,� -"' monitoring sys- r I!,e squirming cargo into stain- tern and for S less-steel tanks. . �. ' `r << • f� r Plunging their hands into r" � communicating the tanks'murky mix,they pull ;, •><!�: out small flatfish,rockfish, the findings to i shrimp and eels.A Bud Light n can and a brown box crab turn the public." up among the teeming sea life. —STEVEN WEISBERG, All hands on deck start sort- ing.counting and weighing the - executive director of fich and other animals trapped '• �•• SCCWRP in the trawl net's maw. The curious catch is fresh °''` {{We need a from an'otter trawl"—the process of slowly dragging a 25• mostly indepen- foot-Ion&net with a narrow ry dent organiza- mouth along the ocean floor-for �,¢,Wile, w•�,7„ 't; ;I 10 minutes.It could never catch - -��: ;<t ? " "`" th���'�ju�k: tion like something as swift as an otter, '" '`» Y.�i: c +t •-' : even if there were otters in `t11�"•' a� t ti; � � �' SCCWRP to these waters.Instead,it cap y N-..• ' �"` "r^i+°•-.'.? ,=tures the small and the slow- !w ` off, ,. =?z"' - r unify the data." moving. -•� t�. ,� y�i� -TERRY TAMMINEN, 'Anything that is sitting on "`--+�"s:� �. J' ,,`,;,:�; •"' the(ocean bottom)we usually I ,r;•,, _..-�' �,4. 1 head of get."said research technicians '_ Santa Monica Baykeeper Dario Diehl."It gives us a rep- t'Iy S resentative sample of a hsbi• p F' `` %kid%i-'r,+�, �•�_¢�• �, {{We don't usu- tat.' , •tis : Taking this creature census all„ �.•• •� d `'I� .�.L' y have a lot are marine scientists of the ;,� , Southern California Coastal )q,� of areas that t Water Research Project.Known �;j 1 ,' �+Y,.,i + outright kill the by its acronym SCCWRP—pro- nouncedsquirp"—the agency animals like in tests the waters from Point Con• r ception to the Ihlexican border, :'' " , i,,��td' ��:Why the 70S. SO We compiling evidenceofpollu- ' -: r'/ use more sensi- tion's impact on the near-shore ocean environment. tive tests now." With trawls and other tests L 7.'.;'r•" of marine biology,chemistry t� 1 —STEVE BAY, i 0 0 =7 principal scientist and toxicology;scientists can ''1 ����`"•.�'tV P P CREATURES/C2 �' `^' at SCCWRP 're td is --- )$ Y ,-yi T� ter'!•.'.+ �••- '��s:�1, r - r:�,.:,,:✓ �• it�"~`+��sn!`.� 'i -•• +•`•�/•- 1 { BE1tNAR00 ALPSrSTAFF PHOTOGRAPHER Dario Diehl,top,of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project sorts sea urchins and other marine organisms draggedp u off the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Researcher r Linda Schweitzer, left, collects excrement from white sea urchins as part of a toxic sedi- ment experiment while marine toxicologist, Damn Greenstein, above,uses a computer to measure the size of the sea urchins. r o-%t lake a snapshot of the ecological L,,,•S Joining other studies health of a certain area. Tradi• - 4 y 1li'${ SCCWRP can't change that tionally, they have concentrated •� t � 1��+;.,_; overnight, but Weisberg hopes to on the soft bottom habitats , .. Al.�►*'r� 111� improve the situation by piggy around the outfall.pipelines of 1, backing on other studies, and wastewater treatment plants. But _ P 1,'�9ii�;ins�', __ working in conjunction with oth• now SCCWRP woufd like to cre• `' ; ` er projects when possible. complete picture of the ale a more com P �� ; ••h'� i•�' �.,. _ For example, this summer, slate of the ocean along the coast = �� �� } ii ,+ SCCWRP will join the U.S. Geo- of Southern California and its is. �t '�+ � tin logical Survey in studying ocean lands. \ x. `� ? floor core samples from Santa The ambition to get the "big G' `. + It `(, Monica Bay. picture"has the 28-year•old agen• V.r �� ! ,jj: � ��ir. The $750,000 study will marry cy at a crossroads.The wastewa• E. \ fit, J'ti` 5 �+;r, the resources of the two agencies, ter effluent that SCCWRP was 'a Weisberg said. SCCWRP has the �, •, !, created to monitor is becoming ,Y y' vy�� /,• �� l f+ local facilities and the biologists less of a factor in polluting the }� . +. !'' �; �,: and chemists who understand the ocean; storm-water runoff and contamination. USGS has the ge- other pollution sources are play ;,', •�r��!+,, h7s ologisls and sedim m ent- ovement ing a greater role. \ ;ij'Y}: �'= ! �` l experts. 'Glaring need' RERRARDO AIPS/STAFF PH070GRAPHER "What we arc trying to address "There is a glaring need for a John Gavin, left, and Dario Diehl of the Southern California is what is the extent of the con- na- lamination?monitoring system Coastal Water Research Project haul marine life aboard a vessel, tion getting Is that r worse?" and for communicating the 1 lion getting better or worse?" find- ings to the public." said Stephen Weisberg said. Weisberg. SCCWRP's new execu• what effects it has on the marine Urchins cat by gobbling up sed• Securing more joint studies is a tive director. environment," Weisberg said. iments to glean whatever nutri• main goal for Weisberg.Working "Despite two decades of large "We have a much poorer idea of ents might be there. Collecting with other agencies helps stretch annual expenditures on marine what is going on with storm wa• their excrement and testing it for SCCWRP's $1.7 million annual monitoring in Southern Califon ter." PCBs tells the scientists how the budget. nia, environmental managers do In pursuit of evidence of pollu• animal processes the toxin. Most of SCCWRP's funding not Have the scientific informa- tion's effect on the marine envi• In long-term tests of ocean floor comes from the four sanitation lion they need to make informed •ronment, SCCWRP researchers samples scooped from the mouth agencies that operate the waste- decisions about the use of the spend 150 days a year on the wa• of Ballona Creek. scientists look water treatment plants serving coastal environment,"states a re- ter. at the urchins' reaction to the the most urbanized coastline.It is port co-authored by Weisberg and In addition to botlorn•lrawling, sediment. Do they settle on it,or run by a commission made up of his predecessor. they use a mechanical mouth to do they move away and cling to representatives of these four sew- The Orange County-based agen• grab soft sediment. They deploy the sides of the plastic tubs? age agencies and from five regula- cy has conducted od a variety of re- ocean current meters, examine Another toxicology test puts ur• tory bodies. as studied seafood-cat bottom-dwelling benthic worms, chin embryos under the micro- search.It h i ing habits a stu Monica Bay's and use special fillers to measure scope to check for malformed While it is in part directed by recreational anglers, traced ocean water for dissolved toxic skeletal rods and gut abnormali• sanitation districts,SCCWRP has household detergents into the chemicals such as DDT pesticide. ties. developed a reputation for accu- g rately reporting contamination ocean by following molecular Low-level Indicators levels, whether from sewage markers and documented long- Testing procedures Tests like these were developed plants or other sources. term improvements in sewage The samples and data are taken to look for effects of the contami- treatment output. back to the agency's Orange nation at levels too low to kill. Expanded agenda? Its testing is not as well•publi- County laboratory for testing.At In fact, environmentalists who the laboratory, researchers may "We don't usually have a lot of cized as the monthly "beach re- have led efforts to clamp down on port card,"which is compiled by expose urchins to contaminated areas final outright kill the ani• wastewater treatment plant pollu- lieal the Bay from bacteria tests sediments from the mouth of Bal- mals like in the'70s,' said Steve lion would like to see an expan- Iona Creek or compare the stress Bay, a toxicologist and principal of the surf by a slew of agencies , sion of SCCWRP's agenda. They and published in The Dail Proteins from Dover sole fish scientist at SCCWRP.. w. we use said it should also monitor the Breeze. Y caught off the Palos Verdes Pen- more sensitive tests now." health of tidepools, kelp forests insula and Dana Point. Sometimes, the agency has to and fisheries. Bacteria checks spot beaches test the tests, to see how well where storm runoff or sewage Sea urchins have proved to be a these new methods work. "The use of SCCWRP data has leaks have made it too contami• vital research tool for SCCWRP. been absolutely invaluable in our natal to swim temporarily. But In the "cold lab" at SCCWRP's In one such experiment, biolo- efforts to get(treatment plants)to the tests don't measure what tox- Westminster headquarters.UCLA gist Jeff Brown takes a litmus- clean up their act," said Mark ins are present,or what those tox- student Linda Schweitzer periodi. like test of proteins fit Dover sole. Gold, executive director of Heal ins are doing to marine life. tally collects sea urchin excre. The class of proteins lie tracks the Bay. "I have absolutely no While SCCWRP isn't in file ment from a roomful of urchin• are stress indicators, produced worries about the quality of their business of bacteria checks, it is filled tubs. when the fish is living through work." some sort of shock. Instead, Gold would like to see increasingly turning its attention The samples are examined for to storm-water runoff.The runoff, traces of the PCBs.a toxic chenni• "We can go out in the environ- SCCWRP open its governing board filled with pesticides, detergents, cal once used as a coolant in elec. ment and gel a fish and deter-. to other interests, such as acade- oils and pet feces washed off the tric transformers.The chemical is mine how it is beings stressed by mia and environmental groups.He cityscape, is recognized as the found in significant quantities off the environment," Brown said.' would like to see a more a main source of new pollution the Palos Verdes coast. In this For the first round of expert- gkres- pouring into Santa Monica Bay. case, researchers have taken ments, Brown compared bottom- sive expansion of SCCWRP's moni- The pollution may be harming clean soil. Intentionally contami- dwelling Dover sole from two toring activities away from issues marine life.or it may be a threat nated it with PCBs to study the places: a clean area near Dana, of Interest primarily to wastewater to human health. reaction of white sea urchins. Point and the DDT-dumping treatment plants. SCCWRP wants to be at the grounds off of Palos Verdes. "If you look at their annual re- fQrefront of figuring that out. "As it turns out. Palos Verdes Ports, they really come out with ,"We have a very good knowl• has a greater amount of impact sonic outstanding science." said edge of what is coming out of the than Dana Point,"Brown said. Terry Tamminen, head of Santa sAw'age (treatment plants) and There are also new tests exam- Monica Baykeeper. ining breakages in fish DNA "We need something like strands and the chemical reac• SCCWRP because the one thing tions within fish. that a lot of people will tell you is Weisberg. SCCWRI''s director, that there is a tremendous amount points out that no one else is us- of research out there; we need a ing these tests in Southern Cali- clearinghouse. We need a mostly fornia. independent organization like The agency started moving to- SCCWRP to unify the data:'Tam- ward regional monitoring with a lninen said. "I think SCCWRP's pilot project in 1994. Weisberg, role should be expanded:' who took the agency's helm last Past contacts September, has scheduled anoth• er regional project in 1998.These Marianne Yamaguchi, acting efforts involve enlisting the help, director of the Santa Monica Bay cooperation and sometimes fund- Restoration Project, said _hSr ing of other organizations. agency,which is a governmental The agency recently started up planning body, has hired a site on the World Wide Web SCCWRP in the past to monitor (www.sccwrp.org) and plans to storm-water runoff. work with marine aquariums to SCCWRP is busily organizing design and sponsor displays. the next regional monitoring pro- But the main thrust is to coor- ject, planned for 1998. Because dinate a meaningful regional there may be more than GO differ- monitoring program. A National ent organizations helping to col- Research Council study in 1990 lect data, SCCWRP has to Stan- found that$17 million was being dardize tests. The agency is also spent annually by a variety of or- preparing to play host to a delega- ganizalions to study the region's tion of Mexican scientists, who coastal waters. The council con- will work side-by-side oil eluded that because of overlap, SCCWRP projects. most of the ftmding was going to waste. r, CABPJ April 29, 1997 I V E 11*0 AQUAPJUM I o s a n g e I e s Christopher Francisco Administrative Officer Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 7171 Fenwick Lane Westminister, CA 92683 Dear Christopher and Staff, We extend our thanks to you for helping to make Cabrillo Marine Aquarium's 1997 Earth Day Celebration a success. More than 2,500 visitors from the community learned more about caring for our planet and what they, as individuals, can do to make a difference. There were over 35 groups and agencies represented and over 150 volunteers dedicating their time to educate others about the environment. Thank you for sharing with the community the valuable work you do. As the lead agency monitoring our coastal environment, your display and staff were tremendously inviting for visitors to stop and find out more about all you do. We greatly appreciate your time and efforts in helping to draw attention to celebrating Earth Day and for individuals to make choices that support our planet. Thank you for your support. Steve Vogel Linda Chilton Education and Collections Curator Education Specialist 3720 Stephen White Drive• San Pedro, California 90731 • Phone 310/548-7563 • Fax 310/548-2649 Facility of the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 9 PUBLICATIONS • A manuscript entitled "Reproduction and population dynamics of a population of Grandidierella japonica in Upper Newport Bay, California", authored by Darrin Greenstein and Liesl Tiefenthaler, was published in the Bulletin of the Southem California Academy of Sciences. • A manuscript entitled "A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Chesapeake Bay", authored by Steve Weisberg (with A. Ranasinghe, R. Diaz, D. Dauer, J. Frithsen and L. Schaffner) was published in Estuaries. UPCOMING MEETINGS/SEMINARS • The next CTAG meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at SCCWRP. • The Southern California Bight Pilot Project steering committee will meet on Thursday, May 29 and Wednesday, June 4, 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at SCCWRP. • SCCWRP's seminar series continues in June with two seminars: Dr. Steven Murray of Cal State Fullerton will make a presentation on "California's rocky seashores: Identifying the balance between long-term conservation of living resources and short-term pressures for human use" on Friday, June 6, and Dr. Mia Tegner of Scripps Oceanographic Institute will make a presentation on "Kelp forests, ocean climate, and anthropogenic inputs" on Friday, June 20. Both seminars begin at 11:00 a.m. and will be held at SCCWRP. • The SCCWRP Commission will meet on Thursday, June 12, 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (to review the results of the Southern California Bight Pilot Project) and on Friday, June 13, 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon (to conduct regular business). SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 8 • Jim Allen chaired a Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project seafood risk calculations report review committee, which met on May 8. • Jim Allen served as a member of the Marine Ecological Reserve Research Program, Scientific Review Panel of UC Sea Grant. This panel evaluates proposals submitted for conducting scientific research in four marine ecological reserves established along the California coast by the State's Marine Resources Protection Act. • Shelly Moore gave a talk on "How to be a marine biologist" for Career Day at 96th Street School, Los Angeles in April. • Mary Bergen attended a meeting sponsored by EPA's Superfund program, contributing to a panel discussion on the relationship between bioturbation and capping contaminated sediments on the Palos Verdes shelf. • Steve Weisberg is serving as a member of the Palos Verdes Shelf Technical Advisory Committee for EPA's Superfund program, which met on February 19 and April 23. The committee is providing technical review for EPA concerning the development of their remediation program. • Steve Weisberg met with the Dean of Natural Sciences at Cal State Long Beach about resurrecting an intern program in which CSU students could work at SCCWRP for college credit. • SCCWRP was featured in a April 27 article in the Torrance Daily Breeze. Copies of the article are enclosed. SCCWRP was also quoted in a March 26 LA Times article about sediment contamination in the southern California Bight. • Steve Weisberg gave a seminar about SCCWRP's regional monitoring activities to the Navy's Research and Development group in San Diego on April 18. • Steve Weisberg gave a seminar about SCCWRP's regional monitoring activities to the UCLA Institute of the Environment on March 3. • Steve Weisberg, Ken Schiff and Steve Bay gave a seminar on SCCWRP's stormwater research to the City of Los Angeles Stormwater Division on May 7. • Steve Weisberg attended and gave a plenary talk at a Minerals Management Service workshop on February 26 and 27. The purpose of the workshop was to develop a regional monitoring program for the rocky intertidal zone; MMS wanted to base their program on our successful 1994 Pilot Project. • Eddy Zeng was elected President of the Southern California Environmental Chemists Society (SCECS). SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 7 ARCHIVING SCCWRP HISTORICAL CURRENT METER DATA: The inventory of historic current meter data is about 35-50% complete. Further work on the project has been postponed. HISTORICAL TRENDS IN DEMERSAL FISH POPULATIONS: Historical demersal fish and invertebrate data accumulated by SCCWRP has been incorporated with the historical trawl data base from 1911 to 1977. In addition, fish and invertebrate data collected in SCCWRP reference surveys of 1985 and 1990, and most fish and invertebrate data from the four major POTW monitoring programs, have been acquired and incorporated into the data base. We still need to obtain fish biomass and anomaly data, and invertebrate data from some of the agencies. We anticipate acquiring data from these agencies in the upcoming quarter. EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT ON WHITE CROAKER: All white croaker needed for this study have been collected, weighed, measured, and dissected. In the upcoming quarter otoliths will be prepared, ages will be determined, and data analysis will be conducted. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS • SCCWRP participated in the Earth Day fair held at Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in San Pedro on Saturday, April 19. Our exhibit featured a poster outlining SCCWRP`s programs and a display of field specimens and sampling equipment. (See attached letter). • Jim Allen made two presentations at the California and the World Ocean '97 conference in March: the first on a regional approach to standardizing marine receiving-water monitoring methods in Southern California, and the second on variability in demersal fish and invertebrate populations in the Southern California Bight in 1994. • Steve Bay and Ken Schiff also made presentations at the California and the World Ocean '97 conference regarding SCCWRP's stormwater research in Santa Monica Bay. Steve's was on the effects on surface water and sediment toxicity, and Ken's was on benthic impacts in the nearshore coastal zone. • Steve Weisberg chaired a session on creating cooperative water quality monitoring programs at the California and the World Ocean '97 conference, • Steve Bay and Ken Schiff made a presentation in San Francisco during March at a workshop jointly sponsored by the Center for Watershed Protection and EPA regarding environmental indicators to assess stormwater control programs and practices. • Jim Allen chaired a larval fish recruitment symposium at the annual meeting of the Southern California Academy of Sciences in May. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 6 MODEL POTW MONITORING PROGRAM: Significant progress has been made towards standardizing ambient water quality, sediment quality, invertebrate and fish biological sampling and analytical methodology. Most of this progress has evolved through the Southem California Bight Pilot Project (SCBPP) Steering Committee and associated Working Groups. Interagency laboratory and field testing programs are planning for intercalib ration studies in the upcoming year. These studies will help to develop a model POTW ambient monitoring program. Significant progress, both internally and externally, has also been made towards a model effluent monitoring program. Internal projects have-included an inventory of laboratory methods, detection limits, and sampling frequency for large wastewater monitoring programs. This data compilation is included in this year's annual report article which has been distributed to CTAG. External efforts have revolved around the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Sources and Loadings Committee. We are actively participating in this program designed to not only standardize analytical and reporting methods, but to rank constituents of concern based upon actual or potential environmental effects from a variety of pollutant sources. Factors such as frequency, location, limits of detection, and interaction with ambient monitoring programs are major issues being addressed presently within this committee. This platform may serve as launching point for the remainder of the Southern California Bight dischargers. GUIDE TO IDENTIFICATION, DISEASES AND ANOMALIES OF DEMERSAL FISHES AND INVERTEBRATES: Acquisition of information, photographs, and specimens from museums and fish anomaly experts is about 75% complete. A draft key to the anomalies of fish and invertebrates is more than 50% complete; the key, information, and photographs are being compiled on computer so that it can be included as part of the field computer system. A hard copy will also be printed. The first version of this report (which will be periodically updated) is scheduled for completion by the end of June 1997. ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF DEMERSAL FISH COMMUNITIES: Analysis of SCBPP demersal fish data is currently underway to develop a functional organization model. As part of this effort, we have completed recurrent group analysis, which has been prepared as an annual report article. We have also completed cluster analyses, which will be prepared as an article in next year's annual report. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL AND OTHER WASTEWATERS: Annual report articles have been prepared summarizing 1995 effluent data for: 1) large municipal wastewater dischargers; 2) small municipal wastewater dischargers; and 3) power generating stations. Work is now focusing on estimating discharge from industrial dischargers. A preliminary list of more than 100 industrial dischargers to the Southern California Bight has been narrowed down to about 20 with measurable discharges. Effluent data from 10 of these have been obtained. We hope to gather the remaining data and conduct analyses on these data by the end of the fiscal year. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 5 Data from CSDOC has been compiled and formatted. Formatting of data from the City of San Diego is in progress. BIOACCUMULATION OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN HORNYHEAD TURBOT: This project, to determine the bioaccumulation patterns of DDTs and PCBs in hornyhead turbot, is nearing completion. All of the samples have been processed, and data analyses are underway. We are summarizing different pieces of information to calculate the partitioning patterns of DDTs and PCBs among hornyhead turbot tissues, sediments, suspended particles, and overlaying water. We will estimate the thermodynamic tendencies for PCBs and DDTs to move between these compartments, which would help us to understand the bioaccumulation mechanisms of PCBs and DDTs in hornyhead turbot tissues under field conditions. USING MOLECULAR MARKERS TO DETERMINE SOURCES OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS: This is a three-year study currently in its first year. The first-year efforts are focused on method development and identification of marker compounds specific of stormwater runoff. After completing most of the method development work in the first half of the 1996/97 fiscal year, we collected runoff samples from Ballona Creek in January and February 1997 to search for target markers. We also collected and analyzed effluent samples from the Hyperion Treatment Plant (at a time when no rain water was received by the plant). By comparing the results from analyses of these two types of samples, we have identified two target compounds present in the stormwater samples are not found in the effluent samples. These compounds are associated with raw materials (probably tire additives) used in automobile tire manufacturing and likely derived from tire residues washed from road surfaces during rainfall events. One of the future tasks is to analyze wastewater effluent samples collected during rainfall events and find out whether the marker compounds mentioned above are present at detectable levels in the wastewater effluents. TRACING ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS'FROM THE'WHITE'S'POINT OUTFALL EFFLUENT - RADIOISOTOPE STUDIES: This project, a three-year joint effort between SCCWRP and the University of Southern California, with funding provided by the Sea Grant Program, is designed to provide new information on whether and how fast buried contaminants at the Palos Verdes Shelf are being remobilized along the sediment column and into the water column. The first-year activities (from October 1996 to September 1997) have been focused on sample collection and analyses. Wet weather sampling was completed in January and February 1997; dry weather sampling will be conducted in July/August 1997. Eight stations at the Palos Verdes Shelf were sampled; suspended particles, water, surface sediments, and sediment cores were collected. We are currently analyzing the samples for DDTs, PCBs, LABs, and TOC (the USC collaborators are measuring radioactive isotopes). With the results from Bioaccumulation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Homyhead Turbot, it may be possible to estimate the bioavailability of historically discharged contaminants. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 4 tested for toxicity. Toxicity tests were also conducted on sediment from 14 stations within Santa Monica Bay. Four different sediment toxicity tests were conducted on these samples, including a test of interstitial water and a long-term growth and bioaccumulation test. Data analysis from these experiments is in progress. Sediment samples were also collected from 10 locations for measurement of sediment chemistry and infauna community composition. The sediment chemistry and infauna samples are presently under analysis. We expect to complete analysis of these samples by July and include the results in the second year report to Los Angeles County. BIOMARKERS: The development of a method for analysis of stress proteins in fish is nearly complete. Samples of flatfish (English sole) liver from three locations (Palos Verdes, Orange County shelf, off Dana Point) have been analyzed for one of two stress proteins. The results indicated a greater concentration in stress proteins in Palos Verdes fish and were consistent with other biomarker data (bile PAH metabolites) that indicated greater contaminant exposure at Palos Verdes. The quality assurance component of the stress protein method is currently being refined in order to reduce variability. Following this step, the flatfish samples will be reanalyzed to evaluate performance of the method. Sea urchin gonad samples were also collected from recent sediment toxicity tests with contaminated sediment. These samples will be analyzed in order to obtain preliminary information on stress protein response in this species. PLAN AND OUTLINE OF "STATE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT" REPORT: We have identified several subject areas which are appropriate for a State of the Bight Report but for which SCCWRP and its partner organizations possess insufficient data to address. We are attempting to develop partnerships with other organizations that have the data or expertise to address these issues. Three subject areas for which we have been exploring partnerships to assess status and trends are: kelp beds (Cal Fish and Game, Southern Cal Edison, National Park Service); rocky intertidal (Minerals Management Service), and marine mammals (Orange Coast.Collego). POINT LOMA OUTFALL EXTENSION STUDY: Laboratory analysis for the first two years of sampling has been completed. The data has been analyzed and summarized in an annual report article. Samples from the third quarter of the third year have been sorted and measured; samples from the third quarter of the fourth year have been sorted. The project was intended to include measurements through five years of the recovery process, which should be completed in the next fiscal year. SEDIMENT TOXICITY & BENTHIC INFAUNA DATA ACQUISITION: Data from SCCWRP reference surveys (1977, 1985, 1990), the City of San Diego (1985, 1990), County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (1985, 1990), County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (1972, 1973, 1976, 1979 and 1985-1995), the City of Los Angeles (1985, 1990) and the SCBPP (1994) were compiled and taxonomically justified to the SCAMIT-approved taxonomic list for southern California. Data from the City of San Diego, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, and the City of Los Angeles for 1986-1995 has been acquired. SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 3 The sediment chemistry group has completed most of the analysis of the 1994 data and is now preparing a draft final report. The chapter on iron normalization has been completed and submitted as an annual report article. The sediment chemistry group has formed three sub-committees to focus planing of the 1997 methodological studies and the 1998 regional survey: a PCB technical committee, a PAH technical committee, and a trace metals technical committee. All three committees have come to agreement on the issues of target analytes, detection limits, analytical procedures, and interlaboratory calibration. Each committee is writing proposals for a series of interlaboratory comparison studies to be conducted during 1997; some of the subcommittees-are also preparing proposals for holding time studies to determine whether samples can be stored for extended times without loss in analyte concentration. Longer holding times would allow a tiered analytical approach in which more expensive or time consuming analyses would be conducted only on those samples which met a set of criteria established based on less expensive analyses. The CTD group is working on preparation of their final report and will make a presentation to the steering committee on May 29. The group is assessing the feasibility of adding fluorometers to the CTD package for the 1998 survey. One finding from the 1994 survey was that the oxygen data was hard to interpret in absence of fluorometry measurements. The steering committee has started to discuss how the 1998 survey should differ from the 1994 survey. There is extensive interest in moving into harbors and bays so that we can place offshore waters into context of conditions in nearshore waters. Toward that goal, we have begun discussions with potential participants who normally sample in these areas, including the Department of Water and Power, Southern California Edison, the Port of Long Beach and the State Lands Commission. We have also begun discussions with USGS, who is interested in coring studies that would allow us to assess the spatial extent to which contamination is changing over time and in what direction. SCCWRP has agreed to partner with USGS in a coring study of this type in Santa-Monica-Bay-in 1997. We have also begun discussions about the possibility of extending the regional survey into Mexico in 1998. On April 2, SCCWRP hosted an all day workshop with 22 Mexican scientists and agency personnel to discuss this possibility. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a NAFTA funded international agency, also attended the meeting and volunteered to help underwrite the cost of the Mexican participation, if the Mexican scientists can organize themselves under an umbrella organization. STORMWATER RESEARCH: Chemical analysis of sediment samples collected for last year's intensive footprint study off of Ballona Creek has been completed. A report of the results has been prepared and forwarded to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. No substantial deposition of stormwater-related particulates in shallow water (<25 meters) was found, supporting the original decision to locate sediment collection stations at a depth of 25 meters. Sampling was successfully conducted in conjunction with a January 1997 storm. Ballona Creek stormwater and Santa Monica Bay water samples were obtained during the storm and _ SCCWRP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT-May 9, 1997-Page 2 WORLD WIDE WEB PAGE: SCCWRP's World Wide Web page on the Internet (http://www.sccwrp.org) has been visited by over 1800 people since its completion and has been registered with all of the major Internet search engines. Our site was recently highlighted in Surfergirl magazine, which has a monthly feature about interesting environmental organizations. We have recently added pages on our site for two local scientific organizations: the Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists (SCAMIT) and the southern California chapter of the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists (AIFRB). We are presently negotiating to do the same for the southern California chapter of the Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists (SETAC). These arrangements strengthen SCCWRP's goals of enhancing scientific understanding of the Southern California Bight and forming partnerships with other scientific organizations. SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT PILOT PROJECT (SCBPP): The SCBPP Steering Committee has met monthly, with the last meeting taking place on April 29. The Steering Committee has focused on three areas: 1) Completing analyses and interpretation of the 1994 data; 2) Planning of special studies to be conducted in 1997 that address the methodological and quality assurance deficiencies that were noted in the 1994 studies; and 3) Beginning the planning process for conduct of the 1998 regional survey. Most of the work for the first two items has been delegated to the specialty working group sub-committees. The infaunal working group has completed development and validation of a benthic index that can be used to interpret complex infaunal data; they have also selected thresholds for reference conditions and four levels of biological response. A presentation on the index and the results of the infaunal sampling was given to the Steering Committee on April 29. The Steering Committee gave its approval to begin-writing-the-final report. A draft report is- expected by the end of June. The infaunal group has also identified further development of the infaunal index in shallow water as its 1997 study priority. The fish group has held five meetings since January. The group has defined the major natural assemblages using several analytical techniques. The group is now focusing on developing an index that quantifies impacts to these assemblages. They have identified appropriate data sets for developing the index, and preliminary testing to determine potentially responsive trawl metrics. The trawl index development process should be complete during this quarter but it is not certain whether, due to the inherent variability introduced by mobility of fish, a trawl index can be developed. The fish group has also begun preparing the fish tissue contamination report. Initial portions of the report have been prepared as an annual report article. The fish group has identified comparison of contaminant levels among fish species captured at the same location as their primary question to be addressed in 1997. This is an important question because no one species is found throughout the bight and one must understand the among species variation or correlation in order to conduct bight-wide spatial assessments. O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT t' 7171 FENWICK LANE WESTMINSTER, CA 92683.5218 714-894-2222 FAX 714.894.9699 DATE: May 9, 1997 TO: SCCWRP Commission & CTAG FROM: Stephen Weisberg, Executive Director�lt�,/' RE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 1996 ANNUAL REPORT: Development of the 1996 annual report is underway. Eighteen articles documenting the year's research activities and findings have been writter, and _,r-- scheduled for publication. Eleven articles have been forwarded to CTAG and peer reviewers for comments, with the remainder to be sent out within the next week. We expect to deliver the report to the printer at the end of June. FY 1997/98 RESEARCH PLAN AND BUDGET: Earlier this year, Staff developed a draft of proposed projects for the coming year's research. It was reviewed by CTAG on January 23 and by the Commission on February 14. Based on comments received at the meetings, we have prepared the FY 1997/98 research plan and budget. The document will be reviewed by CTAG on May 15 and will be sent to the Comrission for their approval at thE! June .13 meeting. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT: SCCWRP's new Joint Powers Agreement effedivkE J,,I;y 1, 1997 was approved by the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County on March 26, and by the City Council of the City of San Diego on May 5. The Los Angeles City Council will consider approval on May 12, and the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is scheduled to consider approval within the next month. FY 1997/98 contributions invoices were issued to the agencies on March 10. FACILITY LEASE/IMPROVEMENTS: As approved by the Commission on February 14, we have negotiated and executed a new five-year lease agreement for the agency's facility in Westminster. Our monthly lease payment will increase by 7% effective January 1, 199'. This follows two and a half years without an increase and includes a provision of no increase for the next two and a half years. Given the strong demand for commercial space: in Orange County and the below-market rate we have been paying, we believe this to be an extremely modest increase. We have also engaged the services of an architect to complete the plans for the expansion of our office space. The plans will be sent to the City of Westminster for approval next week, with the solicitation of bids to follow. We expect to award the construction contract by June, with the work to commence shortly thereafter. A Public Agency for Marine Environmental Research Nk=VV0rHrt=n �.urrt�vu� Name of Paper Section Pape Date Subject 04COM - SLUDGE* Water Officals Face Face� �. : al Chan es• _ .'.:„,-_. �+ ;;i tf►ougti Lj►man said the alle �'trict is a new special district,created m Du .Continued from Al '`" �. ^Cgatione against the defendants in January 1995 with the merger of r•' ?-�,�.N."r.:µ i;and May 29,199& were serious,she could not directly Beach ",�• t"' %;a the 66-Year-old Capistrano -- '= 'Our allegations are that (San- nk the agency's dumping to the 'Sanitary District and the Capistrano By DAVID REYES .: fehez]directed district employees to beach closures. The agency.is lo- Beach County Water District. It is TIMES STAFF witrin •• r""�!'.; .. ...:.,c °1.dump sewage sludge from vacuum sated at 25752 Victoria Blvd.,Cap-` 'governed by a 10-member board trucks neat to the facility in Dana f o Beach.' , .. :f': :: ::' SANTA ANA—The Orange _:Point," �n made up of the directors of the two County district attorney's office said"We expect to `"There is a good chatrce of a a former districts. has filed criminal charges against a that it was placed in such a correlation between'.the sewage` the Capistrano Beach Water Dis- ' tiara that it can find its way into `sludge that has been dumped adja- __S tate*Parks Supt. Jack Roggen- tric general manager and a 'e��k and into Doheny_State cent to the (facility(,and finding buck said he had not heard " " ' ::, �: z.some h coliform counts on the supervisor, alleging they illegally � about the criminal charges against dumped sewage for two ears into `:Y Lyman .eatd the facility is not. Lyman said. ! - -:;;t ped ag y M. . . the water'agency and the other San Juan Creek which empties off .gipped�to dispose of this waste two defendants. Doheny State Beach in Dana Point ;and aces not have a solid waste :Shiiaid health everts could be - "But it this helps determine a The charges result from the first = permit to do so.The water, Wed during trial and .may point source for the pollution (in major envirotynental investigation i'district's attorney released only a .shed more light on the risks. :: •the creek]then it can only improve of a public agency, officials said ,'pad statement and Could not a "But, proof that they contami- Thursdays ` . be,reached to comment on whether - nated the beach is not the legal issue our water quality.situation down Steven;Cory Sanchez,39,a dis- :: why the agency was collecting �;,,Lyman said."The issue here , the way. But it must be shown tr trict supervisor who allegedly or- °^,fire sewage sludge. .-"`;t c;> is that they [illegally] dumped the be leading to the degradation of th. dered district employees to dump ..,The long investigation included ' sewage. The public has a right to environment,"Roggenbuck said the sewage sludge,was charged on '.`surveillance of district vehicles and ` protection.This was an area known Michelle Kremer,environmenta Wednesday,with 18 felony counts ;0MPmYeeS,as well as aerial photo-. to be frequented by people walking legal. affairs `attorney. with :the and two'6isdemeanors. Dennis -graphs of the facility and its prow- I through and walking their dogs. Surfrider Foundation, a nationa Emerson)AcClain,62,the district's iMitY to the Creek. They dumped this on land and it led : ocean preservation organizatior general' manager, was charged y a to a state beach frequented by i.. based in San Clemente, expresses with eight misdemeanors, includ- : I f found V ty, Sanchez faces a families and surfers." 1,:.surprise at the charges. ing negligence. - , • - ; 1 mmdmum penalty of three years . ' According to a search warrant ' "Even if they dumped just once An attorney for the water dis- imprisonment and a$W,000 fine for 'affidavit filed by.Kip Kinnings,an i at that facility,it doesn't mean that trict and the two other defendants ' each felony count. environmental crimes investigator it's.all going to wash away with the denied the district attorney's alle- " "McClain faces a maximum penalty:'' with the district attorney's office, next rain," Kremer said. "It seep: gations,saying they were"techni- f of&months in jail and a$500 fine he witnessed a district truck at the .into the ground and it could still be cal in nature"and that the conduct .for each misdemeanor Count.How- i Capistrano Beach Sanitation facil- polluting the entire watershed area of all three defendants did not ,ever, on each of two water code ity•site on April 2, 1996, "drive for a long time." . harm or threaten the health or `counts, McClain faces a minimum around the field discharging a safety of local residents. _ =5,000 and a year in county jail. . i liquid sludge material from the 1;. Samples of the dirt where the Paul Meyer,.a criminal defense -,rear tank area." i sludge was allegedly dumped re- attorney representing the agency, A skip loader then was seen vealed"extremely high fecal soli- J t McClain and Sanchez,said his eli= :moving dirt onto the dumped form levels,"relating to human or: i eats are expected to' enter not . sludge material,Kinnings said animal waste, according to the Iguilty pleas at a May'20 arraign- ':`-.Last May 29,Kinnings returned,' district attorney's office. {merit in Municipal Court in Laguna ' • ,-' The charges cap a yearlong Niguel. + this time with Larry 8oneybourne, probe of the agency, suspected of "The age of the allegations, �hief of war .quality for the engaging in an illegal practice mainly May 1996, one year ago. county's Health Care Agency.Kin- "that became a policy"of ordering ,highlights the technical nature tongs. add he saw.another truck its truck drivers to collect sewage rather than any actual danger of enter the sanitation facility, drive sludge and then let it seep into the ' the allegations," Meyer said in a to the dirt field south of the facility ground outside the district's Dana prepared statement. "At present, and again discharge liquid from the,' Point facility, Deputy Dist. Atty. we are evaluating these charges rear of its tank. Michelle Lyman said. She said the ,and anticipate that a favorable Samples were taken of the soil in agency is suspected of illegal 'resolution will arise once all of the the dirt field, Kinnings said Upon dumping between April 29, 1994, i facts have been considered by the analysis,tests revealed"extremely Please we SLUDGE,A18 district attorney." I• high fecal coliform levels,"he said For years,swimmers and surfers ' The district attorney's office did at Doheny State Beach,which lies not have an estimate of how much at the mouth of San Juan Creek, sewage allegedly was dumped dur- have complained of itchy skirt ing the•two years. rashes and eye, ear and mouth The Capistrano.Beach Water Dis- infections. The beach has repeat- edly been closed because of pol- luted water. NEWSPAPER CUPPINGS Name of Paper Seclfon page Gate SubJect Everyb0 d Back POOL: Cities Beira • Sounded Outs in the O.C. P0,01? _ _ Like the county, these mumd- �oorlach, who raised question palities have adopted strict invest- about Citron's investment prac ■ Finance:Treasurer Moorlach wants to reopen the meat guidelines that stress safety tices before the bankruptcy, saic now more conservative fund to outside agencies,but and liquidity over high returns. he would like to start off be The exotic. securities routinely accepting the investments of one other officials express doubt or oonosition. _ purchased by former Treasurer or two cities as part of a pilot Continua from Bl Robert L Citron,such as reverse- Program- improve strained relations with repurchase agreements and in- '�is not a hard sell,"he said. 13Y SHELBY GRAD local cities and• save the count verse floaters,are now ruled out. "We want to see If this make: ri�cEs STAFFWRITER Y money by spreading the• pools Costa Mesa and Tustin officials sens_e. We want to be an alterna- SANTA ANA—More than two overhead costs among more inves. are now reviewing the county's . tive. . . :' years after his predecessor's tors, rules to make sure they comply Mittermeier and other county risky investment practices "I think it's time we try it out with their own.If they do,the issue officials said they'don't questior. wreaked financial havoc on cities and see if it can work,,, Moorlach` of reinvesting with the county Moorlach's competence or dispute and school districts across Orange said. "I don't want to deprive could go to the city councils for that he has vastly unproved op- County, Treasurer-Tax Collector taxpayers of some that could consideration.The Board of Super. ' eeations of the treasurer's office. John M.W. Moorlach wants to help them in the long run." visors also'would probably have to But they disagree with the trea- reopen the county's infamous in- Officials in Tustin and Costa approve any new pool investors. surer over whether the county vestment pool to these same out- Mesa said they have discussed • Tustin Mayor Jeffery M. should invest the funds of other side agencies. investment issues with Moorlach Thomas,who serves on the county government agencies. Moorlach has quietly discussed several times and have come away treasurer's oversight committee, Mitt"eier said that, in .the the idea with several cities, and impressed by. the Bounty's new said the county pool could offer wake-bf the bankruptcy, the officials in at least two—Tustin conservative investment policies •cities another option for investing county_ needs to reexamine its and Costa Mesa—said they'are and, to a lesser degree, by the as Part of larger diversified portfo- "core businesses" and determine seriously considering placing a respectable yields the county's li- whether it makes sense to handle portion of their'investments with pool has been earning. Theysaid A liquid pool with a triple-A such services as managing outside the county. they have also been swayed by the rating would be very attractive to investments. But Moorlach's tentative at- AAA rating the Finch investment city treasurers who are looking for "We need to look at what tempts to lure back outside inves- Service recently awarded to the places to invest,"Thomas said."In businesses we want to be in, not tors are already raising concerns POOL some ways,this is the safest place Just today but in ZO years," she among some county officials,in- "I don't think it's right to be. to Put your money,because it hassai "We cannot base this on circling Chief Executive Officer Binational about what happened gone through all that has hap- personalities or who happens to be Jan Mittermeier, who believes two years ago,because things have pened.It's been cleansed." in office at this time." the county has no business man changed," said Costa Mesa Mayor School officials who still invest e aging other people's money. Joe Erickson. "It's a very safe, their money in the pool attest to The CFO acknowledged that Orange County plunged into very liquid pool." the changes.Michael Fine,finance X inviting outside investors into bankruptcy in 1994 after the director for the Newport-Mesa the pool might spread out some of county-run investment pool, Accepting cities back into the Unified School District,said Moor- the overhead costa incurred by the brimming.with deposits from 187 L 1 investment pool would mark a lack is far more receptive than usurer's office. cities, schools and special dis- major bankruptcy milestone. . I Citron to investor oversight, sug- "But I don't think it's a substan- tricts,lost$1.64 billion on some of After the December 1994 finan- gestions and questions.-- tial enough benefit for us to engage the most volatile securities sold vial collapse, the county•hired "We now get detailed monthly in this additional responsibility, by Wall Street These outside Salomon Brothers to invest its reports. When we have questions, she added."If asked by the board,I investors,along with the county, money. Moorlach assumed full they get answered, Before, there would have to recommend that we have yet to recoup all their losses. control of the pool in January, was no reporting, per se," Fine not accept the deposits" of any Mittermeier said that while she managing county investments and said."We are also getting a decent investors-not required by law to respects Moorlach's work, she those of Orange County school return." place money in the pool. does not believe it's in the districts, which are required by Board of Supervisors Chairman county's best interests to invest state law to deposit their funds Over the last year, the county William G. Steiner also expressed the funds of other agencies with the county pool earned monthly yields concerns about opening the pool to "At this point,I don't consider While some of the cities that ranging from 5.4%to 5.8%—earn- outside investors, but said he it part of�theeccou�rnt��cite Previously kept money in the � slightly above other money hasn't made a final decision on the an added responsibility, and a cstmtY-run Pool are now relying market funds, according to data issue. potential liability should the phi. on a state-run investment pool, provided by the treasurer's office. "Under John's leadership, the losophy of the treasurer's office most are managing their Portfolios BY buying exotic securities,Citron portfolio has never been safer," change with a new treasurer." individuallY,usually with the help earned yields as high as 8%. Steiner said. 'But after the bank- Moorlach argues that opening of outside specialists, investment - ruptcy, I really don't have any up the pool to outsiders would oversight committees, or in-house desire for the county to serve as a Please see POOL,B7 finance staffers. bank to other public agencies." r Return of the Pool f Orange County`s investment.pool is earning respectable yields y despite new guidelines that stress safety and liquidity over hi returns.Hem is how the pool compared to five uthe> rated nwq market funds for April 1997: � � s 30AsT�` Fnrfd rnet YW Janus Money Market Fund: ..... _ .... .. 5.55 Orange County Market investment Pool'.. ..... 5.45 Provident InstitutionalFu66;...........I.................. 5.42 Federated Prime Obligation........................ ..... 5.38 Dreyfus Casio Management................................. 5.33. Fidelity Daily.. 4.94 Soeroe:Oran"Cotr Vemuef-tax cwoys wsc e Las Angdes 71mes ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ' NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Name of Paper Section Page Date / / Subject A —ri me.s �1�1 efr� J( l ll9'7 LLt�el'.S �o fh,e 7-i�,e� Not All Sewer Rates Increasing ■In response to the April 29 article aged by the Sanitation Districts of "Steep Increases in Sewer Rates Pro-. Orange County. posed": Local taxpayers see on their party Not all sewer districts are increasing ' tax bills a charge by the Sanitation their rates.The Rossmoor/Los Alami-' Districts of Orange County, District & tos Area Sewer District (formerly the The Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Los Alamitos County Water District)is . Sewer District does not appear on the a regional sewer district that trans- tax bill.Our board of directors continues ports sewage through a network of to use local property taxes (basic levy) pipelines to the treatment plants man- and interest income to manage and pay for this sewer distribution service. We have maintained the lowest cost for service in Orange County for 45 years. ARLYSS M.BURKETT Board of Directors Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District ■The funneling of water district fees into municipal general services budg- ets includes a concern not mentioned in your article: the payments from the large numbers of homes in unincorpo- rated areas. An example is North Tustin,which is served.by the Tustin Water Service. Residents in that area are neither represented on the City Council nor served by the city but are paying into the Tustin general fund with a portion. of their water bills. NANCY BAKER Santa Ana 1c NEWSPAPER CUPPINGS Name of Paper Section Page Date Subject Sewage Dump'm' gChar- g­e-s._--.. Prompt Recall Petition . ., ■ Environment:Taxpayers property and not raw sewage. The allegations are 'technical in nature protest CapiSt1'dllo Beard and did not affect the health or Water D1Sttict'S plan t0 -safety of residents, they said. The allegations concern practices that fund defeILse of Staf happened more than a year ago and have since changed,they said. By KDOERLY SANCM 'What is being, alleged is not TIMES STAFF WRITER even happening," said district di- rector Jim Hayton. 'This is not a. ' DANA POINT—Taxpayers an- current hazard that warrants tak- gry about paying for the legal ing a qualified person off the job." defense of a water district that MacLain, who is charged:with ' allegedly dumped sewage began eight misdemeanoisf' including signing a recall petition Wednes- negligence, said thelAi0rict'has day against Capistrano Beach Wa always"complied'to tle,best.of my ter District board members. knowledge with`all'the"'*u- The water district, which faces lations." Sanchez; who, was"'not criminal charges filed by the dis- present at,the.niee#ft gt i07'. grged trict attorney's office, voted last with 12 felony-'ootmts.�and`e3ght week to continue to provide legal misdemeanors.'` '�' counsel for ..` ;`,.supervisor Steven Cory Still,reaidents�eaidit::was nit fair Sanchez, who allegedly instructed for them to pay to defend staffers employees to dump the sewage in who are accused of polluting their San Juan Creek,and general man- water. "I don't.understand why I ager Dennis Emerson MacLain, have to pay3and for people to be who oversees district operations. employed" people to be de- "These were employees of the fended,"sA Nora Shea.' district whose actions are alleged I Several s$ifers fromYllie Doheny to have occurred in the scope of Beach LongboardSair$ng Assn. their duties," legal counsel,Steve who attended the.- meeting said DeBaun said"The district believes they don't het- in'he water at it could be liable,so it is better to Doheny State Beach:.because the defend them." I pollution is so bad.' s Tim Bolen, editor of a commu- The district"battoia$y,'s office nity magazine,circulated the recall says samples taken from the al- petition at a meeting Wednesday. leged dump sites revealed ."ex- Bolen said he planned to recall all tremely high fecal coliform levels" board members except acting from human or animal waste.Erd- President Douglas Erdman. man said he was prepared at last The charges come after a year- week's.meeting to,suspend Mac- long investigation of the agency.It Lain and Sanchez, but .on the is accused of dumping sewage from advice of legal counsel, the board the backs of tank trucks from April postponed that action"pending a 29,1994,to May 29,1996. report from their own criminal Board members said.Wednesday defense attorney.that the material allegedly dumped' The board will review that re- was storm drain waste and sand port and consider further action at from the sand filter on district its meeting June 4. I10 R MMAY,MAY 9, 1997 LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIALS 7t r._ Localities See Some Hope for justice on PropertyTaxes An overdue momentum is building in Sacramento here's more to a healthy California econ- Michael Sweeney (D-Hayward) and Fred, omy than a constant stream of tax breaks Aguiar (R-Chino) to cap the transfer of local N induce businesses to move here or stay funds at its current level and then to reduce the here. That fact was evident this week when a state's take by a certain percentage each year powerful group of business organizations gave until it reaches zero. enthusiastic support to a legislative initiative to Their measures (AB 95 and ACA 4) won the begin returning state-appropriated property backing of the Assembly Appropriations Com- tax revenues to local government. mittee this week and will become an integral Private business wants good streets, water part of the state budget negotiations expected to supplies,sewers,libraries,parks and police and begin soon. fire protection.Those services are vital to busi- A similar bill sponsored by Aguiar breezed ness operations as well as to through the Legislature last the lifestyles and satisfaction year but was vetoed by the of employees. But the sad A powerful group of business governor. Wilson said then story of recent years has been organizations gave that "a comprehensive one of cuts in city and county enthusiastic support to a approach should be consid- services because of lack of legislative in ered next year as a part of the funds. initiative to begin budget process." But there A state Chamber of Com- returning state-appropriated was no such proposal in the merce official said that the property tax revenues to local governor's budget, and his pending legislation to restore government. Finance Department said this property taxes to local gov- week it opposes the plan. ernments "is crucial from an The devil is in the details of economic development standpoint." Spokes- the budget. The money to ensure a balanced men for the residential and commercial budget, which is required under California law, construction industries delivered similar views. has to come from somewhere. One place is the By joining with cities, counties and special pot of several hundred millions that Wilson set districts, the business groups have helped to aside for successive 5% business tax cuts this create a seemingly unstoppable political force year and next. Democratic leaders in both favoring an end to the state's usurpation of$3.5 houses of the Legislature insist there will be no billion in local revenues annually. Under legis- such cut this year.This is money that rightfully lation signed by Gov. Pete Wilson, the state should be returned to local government, back- appropriated the money to itself in the early ers of the Sweeney-Aguiar bills argue. 1990s when it faced a multibillion-dollar budget What California ultimately needs is a sweep- deficit caused by the recession. ing constitutional reform of the fiscal relation- The recession is over now.State revenues are ship between the state and the 7,000 units of surging.But the state is still spending the local local government. It has become an irrational governments' money—including the annual mess over the past 25 years. Until a formula to growth in the property tax take—to balance its do that is devised,the best way to begin restor- own budget. It's time for that to stop.The coa- ing property tax revenues to local government lition is supporting legislation by Assemblyman is the Sweeney-Aguiar plan. P ISI ICis f �O lf� O vwv May 15, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Dori-McIntyre General Manager FROM: Christopher D. Dahl Information Technology anager THROUGH: Ed Hodges P Director of General ervices Administration SUBJECT: Information Technology Benchmark Study A benchmark study of the Districts' Information Technology (IT) divisions was recently completed by Real Decisions, a subsidiary of Gartner Group, the premier IT research and advisory company. The study evaluated the costs and staffing of our IT group compared with a similar "industry" group (public and private sector utilities and service providers) and with a "peer" group (companies of similar size, IT workload and IT environment). In brief, the analysis revealed that IT is 42% more efficient than the industry group average (a $1.6 million cost advantage) and 48% more efficient than the peer group average (a $2.2 million cost advantage). In other words, the average company in those comparison groups would spend 42% and 48% (respectively) more than we do to perform our work. In staffing, the comparison groups average 13.3 and 20.9 (respectively) more IT staff than we do to do our work. The report recommends continuing the high level of efficiency while reinvesting those cost savings in efforts to improve IT client satisfaction, improve alignment with the business needs, and reduce the risk of negatively impacting business processes. These findings and recommendations verify our internal analyses and support our ongoing efforts to better measure, manage and advance the contributions of IT. CDD:cw H:1WP.DTA\GSA124201DAH L1W1MO-ITOV.597 c: File CSDOC 0 P.O. Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley. CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 23:43 MAY 09, 1997 #16288 PAGE: 1/1 W FaxAlert l V Friday,May 9, 1997 AMSA held a very productive and successful National Environmental Policy Forum and Annual Meeting this past week that included several committee meetings, and sessions to discuss regulatory, legislative, and management issues. In addition,several special meetings were conducted with EPA to address issues described below: AMSA-EPA Address Draft WET Implementation Strategy Issues / Representatives of AMSA's Water Quality Committee leadership and National Office met with EPA officials to discuss Association concerns with the agency's draft whole effluent toxicity(WE'I)implementation strategy. The meeting was held in response to AMSA's April 23 letter and comments which expressed strong disappointment with the draft's failure to adhere to the conclusions of the WET Pellston Conference and related follow-up activities. Several key items on WET testing that EPA agreed to collaborate with AMSA on include:formation of a small working group of various stakeholders for developing a stepwise or tiered approach to WET permitting;involvement of AMSA in the peer review of EPA's work on WET data interpretation and statistics;opening of EPA WET training to a wider audience including AMSA members;invitation to AMSA members to submit manuscripts for a SETAC session in the fall in San Francisco on WET testing; and collaborate with AMSA on policy decisions relating to the determination of"reasonable potential"for WET limits and the use of WET limits for combined sewer overflows and stormwater discharges. EPA committed to follow through on these issues and will share its plans for WET implementation before the AMSA summer conference in July. AMSA-EPA Meet to Prioritise ANPRM Issues AMSA's Water Quality Committee leadership and National Office also met with EPA officials to identify issues of primary concern to the Association relating to.the development of the upcoming release of a streamlined advanced notice of proposed rulemaking(ANPRM)for revising the water quality standards program.EPA is in the process of revising the draft ANPRM to respond to public continents and to narrow the scope of issues. While AMSA continues to support a comprehensive review of the regulation,the two highest priorities identified were issues relating to designated uses and water quality criteria, followed in priority by antidegradation, and a call for EPA to clarify existing regulation and policy. Under the general category of uses,a recommendation was made to consolidate issues under the headings of specificity of use designations,minimum elements of a use attainability analysis,and definition of existing uses. AMSA's Water Quality Committee will be requested over the next few weeks to review the outline of issues and identify those in most need of revision. EPA plans to complete its stakeholder dialogue with industry, states,and public interest groups over the next six weeks to find common areas of agreement as high priority for improving national water quality and the standards program. A Federal Register notice of the ANPRM is expected during Summer 1997 and will be distributed to the membership at that time. AMSA-WEF-EPA-NRC Meet on POTW Radioactivity Surrey A joint stakeholder meeting involving AMSA,WEF,EPA,and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC)was held this week to review NRC plans to conduct a survey of some 300-400 POTWs for analysis of the presence of radionucleides in biosolids samples and discuss educational tools to communicate radioactivity issues with wastewater agencies and general public. While the survey is anticipated to be voluntary in nature,several participants had pressed NRC to fix its existing regulation under 40 CFR 20 and release its draft guidance document on discharges of radionucleides to wastewater systems for review by the POTW community. A Federal Register notice is expected later this Summer announcing NRC plans to conduct a survey later in 1997. Both AMSA and WEF plan to submit a joint letter to NRC regarding the conduct of the survey and the need to establish a peer review group to oversee and monitor the results. The group plans to reconvene in Philadelphia in July to discuss next steps. May 14, 1997 To: Judith A. Wilson Assistant General Manager,Administration From: Marc D. Dubois Contracts/Purchasing Manager Subject: Information on sale of surplus inventory In the fiscal years of 1995/96 and 1996/97,the Districts aggressively pursued the overall reduction of stagnant and/or obsolete warehouse inventory. The goal was to reduce our inventory holding costs in addition to seeking higher turnover on our true consumables. District's staff identified over 1400 items that were designated as stale, obsolete inventory. The book value for these items was approximately $454,193 which is the cost we paid for the item multiplied by the quantity on hand. During the evaluation phase of the reduction effort, it was determined that a majority of the items categorized as obsolete had in fact directly complemented many pumps, engines, and other mechanisms that had not been operational for well over a decade. Most of the obsolete inventory was procured in the mid 1980's and a significant amount dated back to the late 1970's. The Operations and Maintenance Department has expressed to the Purchasing staff that most, if not all public agencies have abandoned the processes in which the obsolete items accommodate. The translation for non-technical staff is"nobody will want this stuff." Regardless of technical staff opinion,the Purchasing & Warehouse Division felt a competitive bid process was appropriate. Request for bid(no.9697-1)was sent out December 10, 1996. The bidder's list was exhaustive but necessary. The bids were sent to all members of CERA (California Water Environment Association), all available surplus companies and inventory recovery firms,in addition to being advertised in two newspapers. The bid stipulated complete inspection opportunities for all interested parties. The bids were closed on Tuesday, January 28, 1997, at 5:00 P.M. As expected,the Districts did not receive any responses. It was determined at that time by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager that negotiations were in order to move the obsolete inventory out of the Warehouses in addition to making some profit. The Contracts/Purchasing Manager contacted Andy's Salvage company to solicit any interest in the inventory. Andy's did not respond to the initial bid process. Andy's expressed that 80% of this inventory has no value for resale,recycle or reuse. The initial offer by Andy's was $750 with the assurance that all items would be removed within a two month period. The Contracts/Purchasing Manager countered with$1000 and a one month removal period. Andy's agreed and the process has been completed. It must be noted that prior to the competitive bid process,a majority of the vendors that originally provided these items to the Districts were offered the opportunity for buy-back. None of the vendors were interested in the obsolete inventory. The Contracts/Purchasing Manager has since put policy and procedure in place to significantly reduce the potential for future surplus removal of this magnitude.