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.