Loading...
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