HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2002 Special Steering Committee MinutesDRAFT
MINUTES OF SPECIAL STEERING COMMITIEE MEETING
Thuffiday, November7,2002
A special meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District
was held on Thursday, November 7, 2002 at 3 p.m., in the District's Administrative
Office.
(1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Directors Present:
Shirley McCracken, Chair
Steve Anderson, Vice Chair
Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee
Russell Patterson, Chairman, PDC Committee
Brian Brady, Chairman, FAHR Committee
Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair
Directors Absent:
Jim Silva , County Supervisor
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
OTHERS PRESENT:
Thomas Nixon, General Counsel
Eric Sapirstein
John Freshman
Larry Porter
Randy Fuhrman
Eileen Murphy
Mike Moore
Chandra Johannessen
Laura Ann Davick
STAFF PRESENT:
Blake Anderson, General Manager
Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Gary Streed, Director of Finance
Sonja Wassgren, Communications Analyst
Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
rq ro
IN THF 1"\,..~,C:f o~ J'HE SECRETARY
ORA~M ,,, " · ··· · ", ,,..,.~TION DIST RICT
Larry Porter and Eileen Murphy both asked the Committee members to continue towards full
secondary treatment.
(4) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Committee Chair Shirley McCracken did not make a report.
Minutes of the Special Steering Committee
Page 2
November 7, 2002
(5) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
General Manager Blake Anderson did not make a report
(6) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Counsel Tom Nixon did not make a report.
(7) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-D)
Before beginning discussion on the listed items, Blake Anderson said that staff would be presenting a
review of activities here in California as well as Washington, DC since the July 17 decision to move to
secondary treatment standards, what possibilities there are for federal funding of some of the efforts
and how the context of the federal Clean Water Act and prior federal grant funding for wastewater
treatment upgrades can be instructive on how best to proceed. He introduced Eric Sapirstein and
John Freshman, our lobbyists in Washington, DC, who then gave brief biographical statements.
Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services, gave a brief overview of staff activities since July 17.
The Engineering Department is reviewing all of the planned CIP projects and anticipated projects
required to meet the new 30/30 level of treatment and will be presenting a final report to the Directors
in March. The disinfection program is up and running. For the past month the regulatory goals have
been met as well as our stated goal of meeting AB411 standards at the end of the outfalL At the
same time Operations is ramping up the level of secondary. The draft NPDES permit application was
presented to the Directors for comment and the final application will be presented to the Board at its
November 20 meeting before submitting to EPA the first part of December.
Staff continues to meet with the regulators on the terms and conditions of the permit. The agreement
should be finalized in May or June, after the CIP planning program is completed. AB1969 was
passed that changed the law to allow a 1 0-year schedule for construction of the necessary facilities
without penalty as long as we adhere to the schedule. Staff is working on obtaining the same
assurances from EPA. Mr. Ghirelli also mentioned that a key component will be to seek grant funds
from EPA. Messrs. Sapirstein and Freshman will be assisting the District in this effort. They met with
several departments today to get an overview of the ongoing initiatives.
A. Washington Update
Mr. Sapirstein reported that with the help of three members of the Orange County delegation
(Cox, Rohrbacher and Sanchez) report language has been included in the EPA spending bill
endorsing the course of action the District is taking and informing EPA that they should work
with the District to avoid penalties as we move voluntarily towards meeting secondary
treatment standards. Mr. Sapirstein said that the Clean Water Act never anticipated an
agency moving away from a waiver voluntarily.
B. Authorization and Funding Options for Secondarv Treatment
Mr. Freshman first addressed the concern expressed by members of the environmental
community that our efforts might be directed towards amending the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and somehow undercut it. Mr. Freshman made it very clear that the direction he has received
from the Sanitation District is to not amend the CWA at this time. That is because of the
positive assurances that we have received from EPA that punitive fines are not what they
have in mind for the Sanitation District. EPA staff and counsel have acknowledged that the
Minutes of the Special Steering Committee
Page 3
November 7, 2002
Sanitation District's move to secondary is voluntary and for this reason EAP intends to give
the Sanitation District every consideration for a reasonable compliance schedule.
Nevertheless, he stated that under the unlikely situation that negotiations for an administrative
order or consent decree accompanying our secondary treatment permit go horribly against he
interests of the citizens of Orange County, then under that condition and that condition alone
we would seriously contemplate seeking a very narrow amendment of the CW A to
accommodate our need for protection against enforcement fines as we transition to
secondary treatment standards.
He gave a brief history of the Clean Water Act, which in the beginning provided grants and
then moved to a loan program. In the early years of the Clean Water Grant Program, the
federal government provided 75% grants amounting to $3-to $5 billion per year. In
California, the state provided a 12 112% grant, which implied that the local authority contributed
only 12 112% to the cost of these facilities. In the 1980s, the Grant Program was scrapped in
favor of a loan program. The Sanitation District did not avail itself of this program because of
the red tape and because we could secure loans in the market that were comparable to what
was available through the state revolving loan program. Around the rest of the country this
was also true. There wasn't a lot of interest in the federal financing program since the change
because agencies have been able to find lower cost funding. In the 90s, a Coastal Cities
program was created to make grants to agencies that embarked on large programs. For
example, Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County Sanitation District received sizable
federal grants to upgrade their facilities to full secondary treatment under this program.
Today, the Sanitation District is one of the largest "stragglers" for federal funding. There an
equity argument that we can pursue. Basically, it's now Orange County's turn to receive what
most large agencies in the country have received in the last 30 years of federal clean water
grants.
C. Legislative Strategy for Pursuing Federal Funding
The States and Territorial Assistance Grants program is now in effect that helps agencies that
have a significant capital need. These grants live in the VA HUD-Independent Agencies
appropriation bill that Congress passes every year as part of the normal budgeting process ..
Mr. Freshman mentioned that the District should begin with an incremental process building
on prior grants as a long-term strategy. By demonstrating our involvement in regional
water/wastewater/watershed management projects, we could make the persuasive argument
for an ecosystem restoration program. As our representatives they would help develop a five-
year plan that will require packaging a comprehensive water and infrastructure picture to
present to EPA.
Blake Anderson mentioned that the cost for these consulting services, staff and board
member trips and other expenses for a well-coordinated campaign to receive federal funding
is estimated at $200,000 per year. Assuming up to five years to achieve significant federal
funding, this implies $1 million of out-of-pocket expenses over and above staff time to
participate in the effort. The projects that we hope to get on the list could be over $50 million.
Or not. The question before the Steering Committee is: Are we willing to commit up to $1
million, spent incrementally over the next several years, with the hope but not the assurance
of receiving federal funding support for our CIP?
Minutes of the Special Steering Committee
Page4
November 7, 2002
D. Next Steps
Mr. Sapirstein indicated that it is likely that we can get grant funding. The first step is to get
included on the list of eligible projects. This will require active participation by the directors
and staff in Washington with our delegation. He and Mr. Freshman will be setting up
meetings. They will put together briefing materials and develop a target list of administrators
and representatives.
An advisory motion was moved, seconded and approved to request staff to move forward with the
consultants in developing a short-term strategy for securing grant funding. An action item will be on
the November Steering Committee and Board meetings agendas. This will include an estimate of
the amount of grant assistance available, and an authorization to establish a budget for this purpose
for Calendar Year 2003 covering Fiscal Years 02-03 and 03-04
(8) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY
There was no other business discussed.
(9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were none.
(10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT
There were none.
(11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 5 p.m.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 7 p.m.
(12) CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
(13) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 4: 40 p.m.
Submitted by:
appan
ng Committee Secretary
G:\wp.dta\agenda\Steering Committee\02\Nov\110702 Special Meeting\110702 Special SC Minutes. doc