HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06 FILED
II 4 In the O81ce of the Secret
County sanitation District County Sanitation Districts
No(s) 4 '�72�/ v of Orange County,California
JUL 261995 P.O.Box 8127 a 10844 Ellis Avenue
qqq Fountain Valley,CA 92729-8127
By
_ Telephone: (714)962-2411
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
June 28, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held Wednesday, June 28, 1995,
at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative office.
(1) ROLL CALL
The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
STEERING COMMITTEE: OTHERS PRESENT:
Present: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel
Bob Zemmel, Director
John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair
Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair
John J. Collins, Chair, PDC
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS
STAFF PRESENT:
Absent: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager
Gary Streed, Director of Finance
George Brown, Chair, FAHR Jean Tappan, Secretary
Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the May 24, 1995 Steering Committee meeting were approved as
drafted.
0
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 2
June 28, 1995
(5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL
COUNSEL
No reports were made.
(6) STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS
(a) Recruitments.
Assistant General Manager—Administration: The six first round finalists will be
interviewed July 6 and 7. The candidate pool appears to be very strong. The General
Manager indicated that he would like to see the position filled by a "generalist" rather
than a specialist.
Technical Services Director. Nancy Wheatley, currently with Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, has accepted the Districts offer and will start August 7.
Laboratory Manager: Interviews will be held for the three finalists the week of July 101_�
The new Technical Services Director will be on the interview panel.
Engineering Director. Sixty-six applications were received and interviews are
scheduled to begin in two to three weeks.
(b) Budget.
The cost per million gallons was the main discussion item. It is estimated to be $599
and is considered the Districts' basic benchmark. The General Manager will be
meeting with all employees in the next month to discuss ways to reduce that number.
(c) Consolidation.
A discussion ensued on the effects of the County bankruptcy on the consolidation of
the Districts.
The Committee directed staff to continue with the consolidation studies and address
how to proceed with the problems with the County as they arise. A white paper is to be
prepared to address our reserves and debt and how they are allocated. Most of the
information is found in the new budget. General Counsel will continue with research
how best to address the debt program under consolidation.
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 3
June 28, 1995
The Committee directed staff to prepare a model organization structure for the July 19,
1995 Executive Committee: One district, how many directors, one financing entity, and
fee issues.
Additional consideration should be given to areas currently outside the Consolidated
Districts' sphere of influence should the Districts take over the landfills. Agreements
with other entities (SAWPA and IRWD) must also be considered. The General
Manager reported that SAWPA has requested a seat on the Board. While this is a
separate subject from the consolidation, it should also be considered.
(d) Organizational Issues.
The Directors were alerted that an employee may be addressing the Directors on his
opposition to the reorganization of the Technical Services Department.
.. (e) County of Orange Bankruptcy.
The General Manager thought that many of our existing and future assets are now at
risk and we should be developing contingencies. Staff will continue to keep the
Directors advised.
(f) State's Constitution Revision Commission.
There was a discussion on the Commission's efforts and how they may affect the
Districts. General Counsel indicated that unfortunately Proposition 13 included a lot of
delegated authority to the state and this could be exercised. This will be monitored and
the Directors will be kept advised.
(g) Revisions to Ordinance re Permits and Fees
The General Manager discussed the issue and some of the background. Cities are
now charging the Districts for encroachment permits and fees which heretofore had
been free. Engineering staff have asked that the policy be reconsidered and that the
Districts in turn charge the cities for inspection fees.
Staff was directed to report to the PDC Committee on which cities are charging the
�+ Districts, and also to prepare a draft staff report on the change in policy.
a
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 4
June 28, 1995
(7) CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
(8) OTHER BUSINESS
The Joint Chair and the General Manager will conduct the performance review for the
Board Secretary.
The Joint Chair announced that the RFP for AB 2766 funds will be out shortly. The
submittal deadline is September 15. He encouraged the Districts to respond.
(9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were no matters to be reported.
(10) MATTERS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT
There were no matters for a future agenda.
(11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting will be at the call of the Joint Chair.
(12) ADJOURNMENT
The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 6:43 p.m.
Submitted by:
Jean Tappan, Steering Committee Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA '
S.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2,1 hereby certify that the
Notice and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, June 28,
1995,was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on
June 23, 1995.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of June, 1995.
hal� X-��o
Penny Kyle, Sec ary eac f the Boards of
Directors of Cou ty S itation Districts Nos. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County,
California
Posted: 1994, A.M. (P.M.)
By:
Si nature
J:W OOLIe51PoPM IAST27-W.1
`.BOUNTY SANITATbN DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-812➢
x 1b n,Y
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
cc<ou� (714)962-241 1
June 22, 1995
NOTICE OF MEETING
STEERING COMMITTEE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
A special meeting of the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, will
be held at the above location, time and date.
STEERING COMMITTEE
Roll Call:
Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 Meeting Time: 5:30 p.m.
Meeting Adjourned:
Committee Members
John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair . . . . . . . . . . . _
George Brown, Chair, FAHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
John J: Collins, Chair, PDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR . . . . . . . . .
Others Present
Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel . . . .
Staff Present
Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager . . . . . .
Blake P. Anderson, Asst. General Manager . .
Jean Tappan, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
June 22, 1995
AGENDA
STEERING COMMITTEE
JOINT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995 - 5:30 P.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
i than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above.
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.
e...............................................................................................................................................................................
(1) Roll Call
(2) Appointment of Chairman Pro tem, if necessary.
(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.
-1-
June 22, 1995
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) Consideration of Motion to Receive and Approve the Minutes of the Steering
Committee Meeting held May 24, 1995.
(5) The Committee Chairman, General Manager and General Counsel may present
verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Committee
Members. These reports are for information only and require no action by the
Committee Members.
(a) Report of Committee Chairman
(b) Report of General Manager
(c) Report of General Counsel
(6) Items for Discussion
(a) Recruitments
• Assistant General Manager, Administration
• Technical Services Director
• Laboratory Manager
• Engineering Director
(b) Budget
(c) Consolidation - Informal discussion of concept.
(d) Organizational Issues - General discussion.
(a) Orange County Bankruptcy
(1) Transfers of county assets or activities.
(2) After the election, then what?
(f) Consider need for a study on the State's Constitution Revision
Commission proposals and the impacts on the Sanitation Districts, if any.
(g) Consider Ordinance change re free connections for city facilities—quid pro
quo.
-2-
June 22, 1995
(7) Closed Session.
.----__..........._----------------_.._...-......."""-'......................................-...............
—'---._._
Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set
i forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Committee, the Chairman
may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending
or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code
i Sections 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6.
Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property, (b) matters
of pending or potential litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with
f. employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under
i the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Committee during a
permitted dosed session and are not available for public inspection. At such
time as final actions are taken by the Committee on any of these subjects, the
i minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information.
(a) Convene in closed session, if necessary.
(b) Reconvene in regular session.
(c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session.
(d) Report on discussion taken in closed session, as required.
(8) Other business, if any.
(9) Matters which a Director would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting.
(10) Matters which a Director may wish to place on a future agenda for action and a
staff report.
(11) Consideration of upcoming meeting dates.
(a) Confirm September 27, 1995 as next meeting date.
(12) Adjourn.
Notice to Committee Members:
For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda,Committee members should contact
the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting.
Committee Chair: John C.Cox,Jr. (714)721-8660
Secretary, Jean Tappan (714)962-2411.Eat 2001
(714)962-0356(Fax)
-3-
STEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA FOR
JUNE 28, 1995
(4) Consideration of motion approving Draft Minutes of
May 24, 1995 Steering Committee Meeting.
Summary
Attached are the draft minutes for the May 24, 1995 Steering Committee.
Recommendation
Consideration of a motion approving the draft Minutes of the Steering Committee meeting held
May 24, 1995.
,1�u�4
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127
Telephone: (714) 962-2411
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
May 24, 1995 - 5:30 p.m.
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held Wednesday, May 24, 1995,
at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative office.
(1) ROLL CALL
The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
STEERING COMMITTEE: OTHERS PRESENT:
Present: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel
John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair
Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair
John J. Collins, Chair, PDC
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS
George Brown, Chair, FAHR STAFF PRESENT:
Absent: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager
Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager
Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR Jean Tappan, Secretary
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the April 26, 1995 Steering Committee meeting were approved as
drafted.
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 2
May 24, 1995
(5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL
COUNSEL
The General Manager reported on information on the Clean Water Act he received
while at the AMSA Conference in Washington, DC. It appears that while AMSA
supported the Act, there are portions of it that could negatively affect the Districts. We
will continue to work with AMSA to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings.
(6) STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS
(a) Recruitments.
The Districts are currently recruiting for four positions—Assistant General Manager-
Administration, Technical Services Director, Laboratory Manager, and Director of
Engineering. The AGM position closes May 26 and it looks like there will be close to
75 applications. David Griffin Assoc. reports that there are some very strong
candidates. Three candidates are being interviewed May 25 for the Director of
Technical Services position. The interview team will consist of Dan McIntyre, Blake
Anderson, Bob Murray (David Griffin Assoc.) and Margie Nellor. Dennis Smith of The
Smith Group, a Human Resources specialist firm, will test the applicants on their
perception of the job and the existing department managers will also interview the
candidates. The three candidates for the Lab Manager position will be interviewed
after the Director of Technical Services is on the job and can be part of the interview
team. The Director of Engineering position has been advertised and staff will be doing
the recruiting.
(b) Budget.
The draft budgets will not be mailed with the agenda packages for the PDC Committee,
but rather will be presented at the meeting. The revised budget process has taken
more time than in the past, but the result will be a much easier to understand
document.
The major change is in training. The General Manager stated that he believes this is
essential. There is $500,000 allocated for training and $134,000 for travel and
meetings. This total is about 2% of the total payroll, the industry average. All
personnel will be involved. Another consideration is tuition reimbursement. Director
Swan indicated that written goals and objectives should be included stating what is the
intent and what is to be accomplished. This is included. Training may be considered a
requirement for promotion.
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 3
May 24, 1995 -
The effects of reorganization on the personnel budget were discussed.
Div. 2150, Management, will add a Communications Division. This group will be
responsible for all internal and external communications, including the office aides,
and the receptionist.
Human Resources will separate Safety and Health from Training and make them
separate divisions.
Finance will break out Information Services as a separate Department under the
AGM for Administration and give it Department Head Status. Plant Automation will
be left in Information Services for now, though it may be returned to Engineering,
depending on several factors, including the qualifications of the new Director of
Engineering. Information Services will be broken into two sections; hardware and
software.
Maintenance and Operations will be separated, each with department status.
The security function is going to be privatized.
Technical Services is combining the Air Quality, Conservation, Recycle and
Reclamation, and Compliance into one division, the Environmental Services
Division.
The Microbacteria Lab has been eliminated, reducing the lab personnel from 54 to
47.
There will also be a Planning section in Engineering. Director Swan asked about a
tracking section, or contracts administration group. This is being included. Blake
Anderson explained some of the problems with the Engineering Department and
indicated that the new Director of Engineering will have to make them the major
effort.
The net increase in the Personnel Budget will be 6 authorized positions, or 7.5%. The
total actual positions will increase from 600 to 660. This increase is a result of trying to
put in place all of Ernst &Young's recommendations and filling many vacancies.
The Capital Budget was discussed. The booklet has been prepared and there will be
summary of the projects presented at the meetings.
(c) Consolidation.
The Committee was advised that at the June Board Meeting, Joseph Martin of the Los
Alamitos County Water District, would be addressing the District No. 3 Board seeking
representation and a seat on the Board. His agency provides sewerage services to the
City of Los Alamitos. Tom Woodruff discussed the background and stated that District
No. 3 would have to be reorganized and restructured to accommodate this request.
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 4
May 24, 1995
The idea of one super District with one member from each agency was discussed. The
financial ramifications of combining the nine Districts into one must be detailed. The
General Manager indicated that this is a governance issue, not a money issue. Staff
will report in June on this issue.
(d) Privatization.
There was a discussion on the privatization of Santa Margarita Water District and the
effects it could have on the Districts. The General Manager and Assistant General
Manager have had discussions on this as well. The benchmark goal is the cost per
million gallons for treatment. that cost now is just over$500 per million gallons. There
are other things being considered to reduce expenses, including having SCE take over
the operation of Central Power Generation and selling the power. Everything is being
considered to meet our goal.
(g) Deferred Compensation.
The first increment of the money has been received from the County. The General
Manager would like to bring this issue to the Executive Committee because it is a
policy decision, not a finance decision. Staff was directed to prepare a couple of
options.
(f) Bankruptcy.
Blake Anderson reported on the current status. On Friday, May 19, $295,000,000 was
received. The remaining funds due will be in "good as gold" recovery notes due on
June 5, and $44 million in claims.
Measure R was discussed. County staff asked the OCIP Committee for support. At
this time, the County has a deficit of$1.7 billion and Measure R appears to be the only
way the County anticipates making up the majority of it. In the event Measure R fails,
the County will not have a second chance. All bond holders may be asked to forgive
the 11 cents.
Blake requested direction about supporting Measure R. The Boards originally
supported Blake in his efforts to collect 100 cents on the dollar, and he was directed by
the judge that appointed him to the OCIP to use his best judgment on behalf of the
Districts, and the interests of all the special districts in representing them. Now some
of the cities, and the Directors of the Districts, are opposing the sales tax. The
Committee directed Blake to do what he considered proper. The Committee and the
General Manager indicated that they would support Blake.
Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting
Page 5
May 24, 1995
(7) CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
(8) OTHER BUSINESS
No other business was discussed.
(9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were no matters to be reported.
(10) MATTERS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT
There were no matters for a future agenda.
(11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting will be at the call of the Joint Chair.
(12) ADJOURNMENT
The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 7:20 p.m.
Submitted by:
J ar Tappan, Steen fig tommittee Secretary
j:MyEocym�strcvmmYne95�00]695.min
STEERING COMMITTE
AGENDA FOR
JUNE 28, 1995
ITEM (6)(fl: Discussion of State of California's Constitution Revision
Commission Proposals and Possible Impacts on the
Sanitation Districts
Summary
Attached are two documents pertaining to the Constitution Revision Commission and
their activities.
Steering Committee Recommendation
This is an information only item.
J\W GDJL1GMl5TRLOM�.6F
x: CALIFORN ASSOCIATION of SANITATION AGENCIES
925 L Street,Suite 1400 S"cra .w,CA 95814 TEL:(916)446-0388—FAX(916)4484808
e,
June 9, 1995
TO: CASA MEMBER AGENCIES
FROM: Mike Dillon, Executive Director
Christina Dillon, Lobbyist
RE: CONSITIrEMON REVISION COMMISSION
The Constitution Revision Commission met in May for a two-day hearing on
"Contracting For Governmental Services," "Local Finance" and "Local Government
Reorganization." As we have reported previously, the Commission is having difficulty
zeroing-in on spec revision proposals to submit to the legislature in August.
Senator Lucy Rillea, the author of the bill that formed the Commission, encouraged
the Chairman to conduct "less informational" meetings and begin the deliberation
process. Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill and Judge Roger Warren expressed concern
that if the Commission did not begin developing actual draft language soon for
proposals, a mere skeleton document would be sent to the legislature, lacking tight
policy wording. Lastly, one Commissioner begged Senator Rillea to request a time
extension for the Commission, to which Chairman Hauck retorted, "No. We're going
to adhere to this schedule."
The Commission has decided to develop during June, three or four "packages" of
revision proposals, wherein all state and local government financing and restructuring
elements within each package would be complementary. Three "packages" will be
placed on the ballot and the voters will select one of the three to implement statewide.
The discussion regarding contracting out, featured four panelists, including Bill Eggers
of the Reason Foundation's Privatization Center. (The Reason Center is "a
nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy research and educational organization dedicated
to advancing the principles of a free society.") Eggers made two separate references to
a wastewater treatment plant and a sludge processing plant in Indianapolis which, by
using contracting out and cost analysis, "saved the city 440/e" and "reduced 79
employees" respectively. Said Eggers, "Privatization is not always going to be the best
option, but right now public agencies are insulated and there is no hammer for
quality."
During the local finance discussion, Joel Fox of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, announced the development of the "Protect Proposition 13 Act," which
will more than likely be slated for the November ballot in 1996. The proposition
would ban the use of assessments, except those that directly benefit property, and
"would be limited to only those used traditionally to finance the capital costs or
maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, or flood
control, drainage systems and vector control." Further, it redefines all other new
assessments as "special taxes" and requires a 2/3rds vote to levy theta, and requires
majority voter approval of utility user taxes and other local taxes placed in the general
fund.
Finally, the group was given a copy of "Orange County 2001" which is former State
Senator and now Supervisor Bergeson's answer to the Orange County Bail-Out. The
Commission is being asked to give serious consideration to her radical local
government restructuring proposal. Specifically, Orange County 2001 would:
s Eliminate the Board of Supervisors and replace it with a single elected "county
Mayor, who would manage the cost-effective delivery of regional services throughout
the geographic county."
° Establishes a county Regional Services Authority, who advises and assists the
County Mayor in providing these services. Authority board includes 10 members
from the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, one each from
four specific community groups or organizations (ie: United Way, Grand Jurors
Association, etc).
" The Mayor shall operate four administrative divisions, including Health and
Human Services, Public Facilities, Public Protection, and Transportation, with
guidance from the Authority board.
° "Sanitation and Waste Management - The Orange County Sanitation Districts
(OCSan) and several other independent sanitation districts and water districts
administer the area's sewage treatment and collection systems. OC 2001 would
consolidate these separate districts into a single department within the Division of
Public Facilities — the department could be competitively bid to OCSan or a private
firm (as is done by the City of Indianapolis). The Waste Management function of this
department would also be put to bid with the current Integrated Waste Management
Department (IWMD) expected to compete for the area's hazardous waste collection
program and three area landfills. Sanitary districts held $185 MN in reserves in FY
1994.95, with $29 MN in salary/benefit and directors' expenses. They collected $79
MN in user fees and $3.2 MN in property taxes. OC 2001 assumes that these expenses
could be reduced by 40% (similar to that which occurred in Indianapolis) and estimates
a $26 MN savings with consolidation."
The Commission left the "Bergeson Proposal" open, and are expected to revisit it
during the two-day meeting next week in Sacramento.
mini -
NE_WS
Dedicated to Excellence in Municipal Financial Management
Constitutional Revision Commission June 1995
Discusses Finance
CCRC Newsletter Impose sanctions ifa balanced accountability and understandabil-
April1995 budget is not passed by the con- ity. The commission also discussed
stitutional deadline. the current configuration of local
The Constitutional Revision Com- The current constitutional prohi- agencies and their duties and respon-
mission has been meeting regularly bition against incurring mul- sibilitim,and reviewed the con-
to submit a preliminary report to the tiple-year debt without a vote of straints that interfere with the alloca-
Legislature and the Governor by the people would be strength- tion of state and local responsibili-
their August deadline. The discus- ened. ties. The following is a list of op-
sion recently has focused on local The vote requirement for the tions discussed:
government finance and the state/ budget would be changed to a
local relationship which the Com- simple majority,but the two- OptionsforChangingtheStructure
mission reeoghrzes as being"one of thirds vote requirement for tax of Local Government
the most difficult tasks assigned to increases would be retained
thecommission." The objective: M=imize account-
Local Government ability by increasing local control
Following are highlights from a re- Reorganization and Fiscal Powers ofprograrru and resources.
cent Commission meeting and de-
tails of some of the assumptions that The commission discussed the The only elected offices for won-
framedthe discussion. structure of local government and ties would be boards of supery i-
modifications that could increase Please see Constitutional Revision,page 3
The State Budget and
FiscalProcesses .,.. .:..:::. .........;...:..,- -;:soz.._:�:.....- .... ._..
4
The objective: Increase flexibility >`
in the budget-making process. e
What's Inside ..
It is important to reconnect the Mini-News ,
' P '� � alwayss seeking
g �
budget process to the people. input from all
Provide for a two-year budget ; Presidents Message........_.........................2 CSMFO
and create a process for periodic ' ShopTalk.....................................................3
P Pe a Spotlight...................................................._4 memberson
reconciliation of the two years. OFOA Legislative Agenda ..........................5 topics in any
Strengthen the requirements for a l; In the Courts................................................5 department
balanced budget so that the Leg- t Upcoming Conferences ..............................6 section. j
Mooing Notices ...........................................6
islature would be required to r y
ass-and the Govemorto si a UP the Ladder......................................_.....7
P �- Members'Professional Sentices.................7 It's voar
balanced budget. In addition,re- Capaol Action.........................................Add newsletterl
quire that each budget contain a n
prudent reserve and impose a x
limit on the amount of debt that ti
may be incurred by the state. _:c...:•+•ua:cr: -rs7.rr.,xp.�e;;:»�sx..a.:;a:- r K -�:_,�._.
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
CSMFO Mini-News t June 1995
Constitutional Revision Commission, Continued property tax,would require ap-
proval by a majority vote of the
sors,sheriffs,and district attor- cal reorganizations by pooling all People.
neys. All other officials would be funds received by all local entities Taxes used for specific purposes
appointed by the board ofsupervi- within each of the 58 counties and would require a majority vote;
sors so that it is clear that the requiring local officials to appor- taxes used for general or unidenti-
board is the accountable body. tion local responsibilities and rev- fied activities would require a
Provide the county chief adminis- enues based on local priorities two-thirds vote. It was also sug-
trative officer(CAO)with powers within a specified time period. gested that each tax proposal be
similar to those of a city manager. • An alternative would be to allow judged with a representation
Considerreducing the number of for a local reorganization process, test--those who would pay the tax
counties,even though changing allowing local communities to es- are ones who should vote on the
boundaries may be complex. The tablish their own charters. respective tax increase proposal.
commission considered changing The property tax rate could be
the current requirement for the Options for Changing the Local changed by a two-thirds vote of
creation of a new county from a Finance System the people.
majority of those in the new Terminate Mello-Roos financing
county and a majority of those in The objective: Increase account_ and benefit assessments or tighten
the remainder of the old county to ability and jlaxibiliry at the local the rules on the proliferation of
amajorlry ofthose who would re- level. benefit assessments and other
side in the new county. mechanisms that end=run the pro-
Extend charter city revenue au- Ms.
The commission considered an al- thority to counties;and all county- Give local agencies the ability to
temative that would stimulate Jo- and city-imposed taxes,other than levy and allocate the property tax.
ShopTalk
ElectriclndustryRestruMuring that before any final decisions are The PoolCo model proposes cre-
made,a number of major technical ation of a pool in which all generators
In April 1994,the California Public and policy issues must be resolved deliver electricity and from which
Utilities Commission(PUC)an- within the PUC. In addition,the users purchase electricity. Electricity
nounced that it intends to"deregu- California Legislature has made it prices would be based upon frequent
late"California's electricity services clear that it intends to participate in (hourly)auctions based upon the
market This article discusses the anyrestructuringprogram ultimately prices generators would bid to sell to
changes being considered and major created. the pool and the demand for electric-
issues. Next month,we'll discuss iry by users. All users would pay the
likely impacts on municipalities and Two Main Models same price for buying electricity from
League of California Cities lobbying The two most predominant re- the pool. The PoolCo model envi-
strategies. structuring proposals are"direct ac- sions the opportunity for direct access
cess"and"PoolCo." In direct access, between generators and users as an
Background customers would enter into bilateral option to buying and selling within
The primary reason given by the contracts directly with sellers(or gen- the pool. The Poo1Co model would
PUC to deregulate California's elec. erwors)of electricity. Generators be applied to all users at the same
tricity services market is to reduce could be a traditional utility or an in. time.
the cost of electricity in California. dependent power producer.The price Direct access is favored by
The PUC proposal stimulated consid- would be negotiated between the user PG&E and was proposed in the
erable debate,discussion,and alter- and generator.The direct access PUC's original Bluebookproposal.
native proposals. While the original model would be phased in over time, Poo1Co is favored by Southern Cali-
PUC proposal was to be implemented with large users incorporated into the fomia Edison and San Diego Gas and
in January 1995, it has become clear system first and smaller users later.
Pleare see SlwpTalY next page
Page 3
STEERING COMMITT!9E'
AGENDAFOR
JUNE 28, 1995
ITEM (5)(9): Discussion of Policy re Issuing Free Connection Permits
to Cities
Summary
Attached is a memo dated June 9, 1995 from John Defile regarding the current policy of
not charging cities Capital Facilities Connection fees and inspection fees in return for
no-cost city public right-of-way encroachment and inspection fees.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is seeking direction on the possibility of revising the policy to allow the Districts to
charge cities fees for connections and inspection.
J IWPCCPpAM1STi{AMM1C618BS CG
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
01 ORANGE COUNTY, CAUFURNIA
June 9, 1995 10 sws AVENUE
Pe BOX 6127
WIIMNN VALLEY,C AMA W722Ai 27
nm9W4.11
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Linder, Director of Engineering
Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager
FROM: John Dettle, Engineer r
SUBJECT: City Encroachment Permit and Inspection Fees
As you are aware, the Districts has a "no fees" practice with the cities in our service area. You
may also be aware that the cities are all having to operate under tighter fiscal restraints and are
exploring new ways to save or generate revenues. Frequently, the Cities are requesting the
Districts to pay their permit and inspection fees. Staff has to spend more time and endure more
frustration trying to convince the cities that this is a no win policy with the big loser being the tax
payer.
Managing collection sewer projects in the Cities would be much simpler if the Districts' Boards
of Directors would adopt a policy to either pay or not pay the cities' encroachment and
inspection fees, and to either charge or not charge the cities for the Districts' Capital Facilities
Connection Charge and inspection fees.
I am requesting that this issue be brought before Districts' Boards of Directors for final
resolution. I will, of course, volunteer to write the staff report and prepare an agenda package
on this issue.
Please inform me of your decision. If you have any questions, please call me at extension
5069.
JCD:jac
ENGZ720 0SD90 M1
cc: Jack Vincent -
Chuck Winsor
I