Loading...
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