The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-11 2 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,California P.O.Box 8127 a 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714)962-2411 FILED DRAFT I,theOniceol the s:cr.Ifr MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Nolal � r� NO 15199` By November 15, 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, November 15, 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: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Present: John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair STAFF PRESENT: George Brown, Chair, FAHR Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Nancy Wheatley, Director of Technical Services Absent: None (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 October 25, 1995 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 November 15, 1995 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (b) There was no report by the General Manager. (c) There was no report by Counsel. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Preliminary Discussion re Governance and Committee System Judy Wilson presented a calendar showing the days staff spends on preparing agenda items for the working committees and Board meetings, as well as attending the meetings. As currently structured, the purchase of the landfills will leave little time to prepare for the meetings of that Board. In order to streamline the Districts', staff would like the Directors to consider combining the OMTS Committee with the PDC Committee (because they are both operating committees), as well as eliminating the Executive Committee, since it is acting as a "pass-through" committee. The majority of the members of the Executive Committee also sit on the operating committees. Director Swan suggested that the Executive Committee continue to exist and only meet on an as-called basis. General Counsel indicated that the Executive Committee is charged with making policy decisions. Staff was requested to try to reduce the number of employees attending the meetings to only those making presentations. Judy's memo on the subject will be revised to address additional options and will be presented to the Steering Committee again in December. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 November 15, 1995 (b) Status Report on Meetings regarding the Excess Capacity Charge Don McIntyre and Nancy Wheatley have been meeting with various state and local agencies and business development councils to reach an agreement on the Excess Capacity Charge assessed to those businesses that discharge a large amount of water to our system. After meeting with several directors, staff agreed to add an item to the Boards agenda to rescind the Excess Capacity Ordinances passed in July and return to the original ordinance that charging large discharges on the basis of equivalent residential charges, on a case-by-case basis. (c) Report on Willful Destruction of Property at Plant No. 2 Blake Anderson reported on the fiber optic cable-cutting incident at Plant 2 on November 1. Our Security Manager, the Chief Operator at Plant 2, and the Instrumentation Manager are investigating. As a result of this damage, all junction boxes will be locked down and all new cable will be metal-clad. (d) Discussion of Pascal & Ludwig Engineers Accident at Plant No. 2 The fatal accident at Plant 2 was discussed. The Districts is a defendant in a claim made by the estates of the decedents. Pascal & Ludwig is responsible for the workers' compensation claims. This will be a closed session item at a future Joint Boards meeting. (7) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (8) OTHER BUSINESS Blake will be updating the Directors at tonight's Board meeting on the landfill issues discussed in the Ad Hoc Committee meeting held earlier today. (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING In January the Directors will be updated on the status of the consolidation effort. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 November 15, 1995 The final report will be made in February, and at that time staff will seek final recommendation from the Directors. (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 has been scheduled for December 13, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 6:55 p.m. Submitted by: a-4�.-- Jtqh Tappan, Steegind Committee Secretary JAWPWQGM -COMM 1115 MIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. 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, November 15, 1995, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts'offices on November 9, 1995. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of November, 1995. Penny Kyle, Secreta ch of the Boards of Directors of County a ion Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, California Posted: November 9 , 1995, P.M. By: Signature wpEx�ymWrcomm�ymtlnp.M1n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. 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, November 15, 1995, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' oflioes on November 9, 1995. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set Aa�' myy hand this 15th day of November, 1995. Penny Kyle, Se a each of the Boards of Directors of Co ty S ni lion Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, S, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of range County, California Posted: November 9 , 1995, P.M. By: Signature wpEoc\gmisVsomm\p�s1in01m COUNTY s.,NITATION DISTRICTS OF DR/._ -E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA phone: November 9, 1995 (714)9622411 nowfing addraee: P.U.Bo,B127 Fountan Valley,Clk 9272MI27 NOTICE OF MEETING meat address: 1 OB44 E lis Avenue Fau bValley.Gl STEERING COMMITTEE 9270 7018 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Member NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 Agendas OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • cmas anane;m WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1995 - 5:30 P.M. Brea Buena Park cypress Finimbon Valley DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Fullermn Huntington Beach 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Irvine FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Le Habra e Palma Los rt Beach imabe w Neport Beach ,range Placentia Sao/ Beach aca A special meeting of the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors Baaltam of Count Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Oran e s�nton Y 9 Tustin County, California, will be held at the above location, time and date. Villa Park Yorb. Linda county of Orange Sanitary Districts Costa Mesa Garden Grove Midway City water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Wastewater and Ennronmemal Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 STEERING COMMITTEE Roll Call: Meeting Date: November 15, 1995 Meeting Time: 5:30 p.m. Meeting Adjoumedr. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 15, 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, NOVEMBER 15, 1995 - 5:30 P.M. ..---------------------------...._..._.........................................................._....................................................._.................... In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, i this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts'Administrative Offices not less i 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 I Committee for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) I 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 i meeting date. i............................................................................................................................................................................... (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- November 15, 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 approve Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held October 25, 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) Steering Committee Discussion Items. (a) Preliminary Discussion re Governance and Committee System (b) Status Report on Meetings regarding the Excess Capacity Charge (c) Report on Willful Destruction of Property at Plant No. 2 (d) Discussion of Pascal & Ludwig Engineers Accident at Plant No. 2 (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 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 employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Committee during a i permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such i time as final actions are taken by the Committee on any of these subjects, the I minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. -2- November 15, 1995 (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, at the call of the Joint Chair. (12) Adjourn. Notce 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, Ext 2001 (714)962-0356(Fax) .rrwnaoacrnaracoMrm r r srs.xao -3- STEERING COMMITTE� AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 15,1 995 Agenda Item (4): Consideration of motion to approve Draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held October 25, 1995 Summary Attached are the draft minutes of the October 25, 1995 Steering Committee Meeting. Recommendation Consideration of a motion approving the draft minutes of the Steering Committee meeting held October 25, 1995. 1:\W POOCIG W TR-COMW 11595.4 `,. 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 October 25, 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, October 25, 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 STAFF PRESENT: George Brown, Chair, FAHR John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMITS Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Absent: Corina Chaudhry, Committee Secretary pro tem 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. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 October 25, 1995 (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 27, 1995 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (b) There was no report by the General Manager. (c) There was no report by Counsel. (6) CONSIDERATION OF TIME LINE FOR STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE The General Manager said that it has become apparent that there are many decisions that are on hold because staff is unsure of what direction they should be following. The AGMs have spent time putting together a time line and a schedule of the items that are needed to be addressed to move this process forward. Blake Anderson and Nancy Wheatley have both had conversations with EPA, and they seem to be receptive to the Districts initiating reopening of the permit. Given the right spin on our application and our proven track record, it is conceivable that we might be required to provide advanced primary only on our effluent. The existing secondary flow could then go to the OCWD for reclamation. This would make a significant difference on our capital requirements for the next decade. It would also make a difference on the direction of the Districts' Strategic Plan. Blake reported that the issuance of our permit and the development of our Strategic Plan is a case of"chicken and the egg"—which comes first. However, the developments of the past week have provided us with answers. The goal is to get an 'umbrella" permit for the next few years. The requirements of the permit will be actual numbers we will be required to meet in our discharge to the ocean. We will try to negotiate the concentration and mass numbers in the permit. Once the numbers are established for the next five years under the new permit . We will be considering the same three scenarios that were used in developing the 1989 Master Plan. Now is the time to re-think this process because of the large reclamation project under consideration. -'. IAW Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 October 25, 1995 The three steps are: • Get the Permit (good for five years). • Develop the Strategic Plan (will be a two year effort). • Tune up the EIR based on the new permit numbers. In year 4 of the permit when reapplication is made, we should then be able to lower the numbers on the permit. Our efforts will be headed towards moving away from the 50/50 secondary but the mass numbers will decrease because of reclamation. The impacts on the ocean should be somewhat less and so will the level of treatment. There was a discussion of possible opponents of the proposed change in treatment level. Early consultation with critics and environmental groups is essential. The state Ocean Plan numbers will have to be met. By not following the 2020 Plan as it is today, there is the possibility of cost avoidance of up to $200 million. Early work includes studies on peak hydraulic discharge management, looking at financing on the short term, and how we use the ocean outfall (change in operations and repairs). After that the work on the Strategic Plan will begin. Additional studies will be done on demographics and the effects of conservation efforts. The EPA and the Regional Board have both indicated that the operation of the outfall flapgate for discharging peak storm water is a viable option. The end result will be a modification of the 2020 plan, not a whole new master plan. Changes in timing and sequencing will be addressed. Only those areas that need to be updated will be changed. (7) REVIEW OF THE 1995-96 GOAL STATEMENTS FOR GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENTS The Goal Statements were reviewed by the Committee. These will be used for evaluating and measuring the performance of the General Manager, the Assistant General Managers, as well as their subordinates. The General Manager stated that this year the process of approving the Goal Statements and Work Plans and then the budget was reversed and therefore these are "after-the-fact." Next year the Goal Statements and Work Plans will be presented before and will drive the budget process. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 October 25, 1995 The General Manager was directed to revised his Goal Statement to include an item addressing creating change in the corporate culture—accepting change and working as a team, and then submit the package to the Executive Committee for information purposes only. This item will not be added to the overall chart but to the narrative. (8) UPDATE ON CONSOLIDATION EFFORT Judy Wilson presented an update on the Consolidation issue. Additional information has been received from LAFCO in the form of a draft application that provides guidance. She has also met with a consultant, John Savaguot, on what he sees as the main issues LAFCO will be concerned about. They discussed the three main issues; 1) including the unincorporated areas of the County; 2)future of other smaller sanitary districts in the area; and 3) IRWD as a contracting agency rather than a member of the consolidated districts. Mother items discussed were underlying voter approved debt, the issue of COPS, the idea of a cash payment to IRWD if it was a contract agency, and other affects on existing agreements and contracts if consolidation takes place. By January 1996, the financial analysis should be complete and a draft application ready for review. The analysis will be done with and without District 14. Investigation will be done on special districts in case the application is conditioned to include them in the consolidation. Everything should be done by the end of the fourth quarter of this fiscal year. General Counsel indicated that under the Sanitation District Act the Districts are not allowed to own and/or build local sewers but may maintain them. One of the main issues with LAFCO is to avoid overlapping jurisdictions. The General Manager indicated that the State's Constitution Revision Commission is strongly encouraging the revisions to local charters and the need to restructure government. The OC Division of the League of California Cities is also considering the need for restructuring, but no consensus has been reached. (9) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. e Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 5 October 25, 1995 (10) OTHER BUSINESS Blake will be updating the Directors at tonight's Board meeting on the landfill issue. The General Manager will be meeting with the South County's mayors and city managers on the landfill issue on November 2. (11) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were no matters to be reported. (12) MATTERS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT There were no matters for a future agenda. (13) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next meeting will be at the call of the Joint Chair. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 6:55 p.m. Submitted by: Jean Tappan, Steering Committee Secretary J. WL1pM5fq MNN10]SBS.MIN JTEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Agenda Item (6)(a): Preliminary Discussion re Governance and Committee System u ma Attached is a memorandum dated November 9, 1995 addressing the issue of restructuring the committee system. I would like to present this to the January Boards meeting for direction. Staff Recommendation This is an information item. J:0PDOC\GM%sTR-00MM%T,111595A1.6A 1 November 9, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Steering Committee FROM: Donald F. McIntyre General Manager SUBJECT: Governance and Review of the Districts' Committee Structure The effort to consolidate the Districts will be an important step in streamlining our administrative procedures. Another important opportunity to further streamline our governance system is to consider our current committee structure. Attached you will find a copy of the Board Agenda Calendar. The agenda preparation schedule for five committees is an extremely complex task with mailing schedules and report preparation deadlines which fall continually during the entire month. Considerable staff time is required to support this process. If we do proceed to acquire the landfills, we will have yet another major work activity requiring a Board policy committee. Given the fact that we plan to use the Districts' administrative staff on a joint operating agreement basis to staff the general government functions, this presents a considerable challenge in an already busy monthly calendar. Among the options the Board may wish to consider are: • Consolidating the Planning, Design and Construction Committee and the Operations, Maintenance and Technical Services Committee. • Eliminating the Executive Committee since it has been primarily a "pass-through" committee, acting on the work of other committees. • Creating a permanent Landfill Committee if the Boards vote to purchase. • Re-evaluating the monthly Joint Boards meeting. Assuming we are successful with consolidation, this meeting could be used to hear reports from the Committee Chairs. There should be time for this since the individual District's business would not be separating agendized. This memorandum is intended as a thought-piece to begin the consideration of these issues. I would like to have a formal agenda item before the Boards in January 1996. DFM:JW:jt J:nYPD0C%GM%SWt-00MM195\110995.M1 CSDOC 0 P.O. Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 0 (714)962-2411 1995/96 COMMITTEES AND BOARD AGENDA PACKAGE CALENDAR NOVEMBER MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY I THURSDAY FRIDAY 6 BOARD Item due ] & Meeling EXE „ 9 BOARD :$TEEFiING,� 10 HOLIDAY Irom PDC&OMiS Rue" Mrllc : 'Now 13 14 15 BOARD 16 17 ❑ OMITS MA 20 21 22 23 HOLIDAY 24 HOLIDAY 27 28 29 BOARD 30 m ❑ PDC —ea DECEMBER MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 ❑ FAHR 4 5 6 BOARD 7 B Malls 11 UNITS&FOG 12 OMTS&PDC 13 BOARD 14 DO&POD 15 EXEC r..,.due Mee,wAuom wally Boom&Don Mem 18 FAHR OATS 19 PDC FAHR 20 OMTS PDC 21 22 11—s Due Re ro Rem M1e.1 wA.1 Maus µsa 25 HOLIDAY 26 27 28 29 STEERING JANUARY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 HOLIDAY 2 FAHR 3 Meeling Malls 4 POO 5 ❑ BOAAD Re ro Nm.cm.m...o "" aw wealwy & B:.Itdmpl0u91ror1,PDC A 10 FAHR 11 .EXECI. rAene. 1i 12 f MfSIp E%ECe `RD Meella moll. IExEaanol 16 16 17 XEC 18 BOARD STEERING' 19 Vessel Na . Midst 22 OMTS A POC 23 OMITS&PDC 24 BOARD S(EERI,NG 26 OMITS&POC 26 A,sad, dare Mee,WmI.E. Mene, elb&w.heal 29 FAHR OMITS 30 PDC FAHR 31 OMITS PDC X. .DW R. o Re ro w.,a.UWy Molls wds FEBRUARY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 2 5 6 FAHR 7 OMTS FAHR & PDC ' . 9 R ra Moels Malls heell Em 12 HOLIDAY 13'Item!.e I PDC A 14 FAHR is ':'mom,- �ArvR erne.e.e 16 OMTSOEXEC &BOARD Meeting .Goren tlue 19 HOLIDAY 20 OMITS&PDC 21 ,EXEC ',j'22 Blake&Dan Meet 23 W ssaso'. M.al Na b 1 Moll 26 FAHR OMTS 27 PDC FAHR 28 Mesa Malls 29 t—D. Rom M MCWs wIJW Nunen ".mod " ,, MARCH MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 4 5 FAHR 6 MeollOg malls 7 PDC 9 R rvoneoimm�raa its aua maeft 11 12,.Ilebgdue lmm POC A 13 FAHR 14. ?.!EXEC: .AlO111—uon 15 O TS EXEC ABOARD Wall n WOIExEoenD, 19 OMITS&PDC 19 OMITS&PDC q6 EXEC 21 Blake&MOO All 22 A,enc.Gown Me Mee,"Wk. m"on, Mao '' Me9e '', 26 FAHR OMITS 26 PDC FAHR 27 Male Male 26 29 a..Due Has. Re a AsXN.IJW mest APRIL MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY t 2 FAHR 3 Meallag Melb 4 POC " S R m Non Comml,IBw llama aae t I 9 fljp lmm POC& 10 FAHR 11 EXEC Y rAe9,—,doe 12 A o..XEDrflBOAHO MBBII A0,M.1 re ExF Sst, 16 OMTS A PDC 16 OMITS&PDC 17 EXEC Ip "-. 18 Blake&Dart Most ". 19 Age...dus, Mae,w(tlNke &ee, M 22 FAHR OMTS 23 PDC FAHR 24 Mails Mask 25 26 keme Due Re". ON'. MamswODU Memo Mostwo 29 30 FAHR no,. MAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 Meeling Mesa 2 - PDC 3 Mameom Iee items 4Us MsV 6 7I Item duo Irom PDC A 9 FAHR 9 EKEC 10 OMi56E%EG 6flOARp Most MailsFw EnEOORD 13- OMIS&PUC 14 :DAVIS&PDC 1E EXEC, 16 Stake,&Me Wool 17 rA.PoNta Wa MBeI WI&yke M'r Ie r'+1,11' 20 21 22 BOARD STEEfl 23 FAHR 24 Wells IlamStlue 27 HOLIDAY 28 OMITS FAHR 2P PDC OMTS 30 PDC 31 Rewo MBa,BwrJWY Re Maus Halle JUNE MONDAV TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 3 4 FAHR 6 Meeting WHO; 6 PDC ] 14 Re ro wncomm,aee nBmn oBB Mee, 10 11 1141IgdPBdmrn PDCS 12 FAHR 1� .EXEG ' Eu.AHR um.e Ole It £I(66aBOARD MBelln rR.[rk/ AIQ'. mEMEGRRO 17 OMITS&PDC 1B UNITS&I'm 18 ^ ,EXEC : 't`:20 Ross.&Don Most - '21 tffi.,atlas Meal weeks, meethl; (Ml ra 24 FAHR OMITS 25 PDC FAHR 26 Mats Malt 27 29 item.Due RB ro Estee Moelswuunv AleBan '2" OIu' Caul .March 1118Y5 STEERING COMMITTEt 9 AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Agenda Item (6)(b): Status Report on Meetings held regarding the Excess Capacity Charge Summary The Districts' new Excess Capacity Charge (ECC) is causing a lot of concern throughout the business community in the County, as well as the stale, as it is seen as an obstacle to businesses relocating to Orange County. On Monday, November 13, staff is meeting with the Orange County Business Council, and another meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 17. Attached are copies of letters we have received opposing the ECC, as well as our responses. Staff will be prepared to discuss this item in more detail at the meeting. Staff Recommendation This is an information item. J:\W POOC\GMISTR-COMM\111595AI.68 COUNTY ', NITATION DISTRICTS OF OR,,SE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 8, 1995 n14r962z411 add: P.O.Bce B127 Fou,mm V60,,CA ' ,.W72M127 Wayne D. Wedin "a&%*" Orange County Business Council 10A4 H¢aemn rd nnvecay.ab 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 . 927O&MIS Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr, a Ilr :' 1 am responding to your letter of October 25 on behalf of John Cox, Chair of 0 the Joint Boards of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Cities Responses to your specific questions concerning the Excess Capacity Charge are enclosed with this letter. You should also have received by now a Ao8°"m letter from me dated October 20, 1995 with general information about the Btee ..Buana P.rk charge. cy mss 'Fdurrm'n Walley Fu'lattcn We are looking forward to meeting with you on Friday for lunch at Ihewrgmn Beach ne Birra oretti's. If you need additional information prior to that meeting,wne p y p g, please r'" bna call Nancy Wheatley or me and we will do our best to respond. CSDOC La Palma lea MamAda remains committed to working with you, the Red Team and others to foster raewpae Beach economic development in the County. o-e,ree _ - NecenOe seal atiamch m Sincerely, 3emm� rtadn Vfae Perk �� :'tbrbe Linde : dty&orange Donald F. McIntyre General Manager M. DFM:jt -:Gareen&vue lAWpWLY.M 11LM60 .F:Midway C4 weer oi.e:vz. Attachment c: Nancy Wheatley bcc: Chair and members of The Board of Directors A Public Wastewater and Enmmnmenrel Management Agenry Commiated M Pmtecnng the Enwonment Since 1954 y s QUESTIONS/RESPONSES ON THE EXCESS CAPACITY CHARGE 1. Flow threshold seems arbitrary and is not tied to size of property so it penalizes large companies over small. Please explain rationale of flow threshold. Underthe federal pretreatment program requirements, businesses which discharge over 25,000 gallons per day into the sewerage system are considered "Significant Industrial Users" (SIUs) and subject to strict regulations on their discharges. In considering what businesses should be subject to an excess capacity charge, which is essentially a large user charge, this volume (25,000 gallons per day)was the minimum size that we could consider. The Districts settled on a larger number, 50,000 gallons per day, to limit the number of customers for whom the extra calculation would be required. The charge recovers the cost of capital facilities needed to provide wastewater treatment for that business. The cost of such facilities is directly related to the volume of discharge and the quantity of solids/BOD discharged into the system. The size of the business in terns of revenues, sales or square footage is irrelevant to the cost of providing wastewater treatment facilities. Sewage volume and strength is relevant. Nevertheless, the Districts do charge new business connections under 50,000 gallons per day on a per-square-foot basis. The Districts determined that this was easier, because flow and solids/BOD are sometimes difficult to estimate, particularly for smaller businesses. The Districts also concluded that for businesses with flows under 50,000 gallons per day,the difference between the two methods would be small enough to justify using the less precise calculation while still achieving a 'lair share" fee program. 2. This new revenue stream (from ECCC) does not appear to be figured into your financial planning? /t seems it will either generate additional revenue or decrease flow projections by driving away large users. Please explain. The Districts fund capital projects from connections charges recovered from new customers, including residential and commercial, institutional and industrial customers. However, the revenue stream from each of these customer classes is not separately identified in the financial accounts. The new connection charges are based on the unit costs of providing service to new customers. New facilities are built in modules as needed to meet service demand. Fees and charges which have been paid by new customers are used to finance new facilities as needed. If new customers, whether residential users or large volume businesses, do not connect and increase flow in the system, no new facilities are built. In other words, fees and needs for new facilities are directly related. If new customers connect to the system, their connection fees finance additional facilities. If no new connections are added to the system, no fees are collected and no new facilities are needed. 3. Flows have not tracked master plan projections and, therefore, cost projections used to support the fee analysis may be overstated. Please respond and support projections. As just discussed,the increased flow from new connections and fees for those new connections are directly related. The fees recover the unit costs for facilities, which are built in modules as needed. Lower flows attributable to fewer new connections lead to less demand for facilities and a lower recovery of connection fees. November 7, 1995 4. The Santa Ana River Watershed Planning Agency's (SAWPA) capacity and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) capacity is included in the 400 MGD flow projection and their capacity is paid for differendy-not through their connection fees. Are these agencies not subject to the ECCC1 Why is this? Both SAWPA and IRWD have contractual relationships with the Districts which require that they pay 'lair share" for treatment facilities in advance of using these facilities. These contracts charge for capital facilities using the same unit prices that are included in the Excess Capacity Charge, adjusted to reflect the unique aspects of these agencies use of the Districts' facilities. For example, SAWPA already owns the interceptor which delivers its flow to the Districts' treatment plants. Therefore, SAWPA does not pay for "sewer pipes and pumps" in Its capital charges - only treatment plant facilities. 5. Does the Districts assess an "Excess Capacity Fee", if applicable, when an existing business expands or seeks a permit to expand, either on site or off site? The Excess Capacity Charge ordinance includes a provision that requires a business over 50,000 gallons to pay a charge if the business increases its flow by 25%. However, the wording of the ordinance is ambiguous as to whether this charge would be imposed if no new connection were associated with the increased flow. A number of issues about the clarity, of the ordinance and its fairness to new and existing businesses have been raised since it took effect on July 1, 1995, including this particular question. The Districts are reviewing options for changes to the ordinance to correct ambiguities and make it more consistent with speck business demand for wastewater treatment facilities. This effort is part of a larger project to review new connection fees, which have not been raised for the last three years. One change which is anticipated is to revise the Excess Capacity Charge to an annual fee. An annual fee would more accurately reflect the costs imposed on the Districts by individual businesses. The Districts are seeking input from the business community on the best ways to recover capital costs for wastewater treatment facilities and will review alternatives for the Excess Capacity Charge with the business community prior to proposing changes. One additional point is important. A number of businesses, including food processing companies, make considerable investments in the installation and operation of pretreatment systems. These systems will generally reduce both the size of the ECC and the annual user fees paid. NJW:ahh REF#J.%VPM101SCVied.n Novem r 7, 1995 ROURKE, WOODRUFF & SPRADLIN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Nancy J. Wheatley Director of Technical Services FROM: General Counsel DATE: November 7, 1995 RE: House Foods America Corporation - Excess Capacity Charges Issue Jim Wybenga has requested that I provide you with a memorandum regarding the obligation of House Foods America Corporation ("House Foods')to pay an excess capacity charge for its proposed food processing facility to be located in the City of Garden Grove. It is our understanding that House Foods will soon commence construction of this new food processing facility which will discharge in excess of 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater and will require a new sewer connection. Discussion The issue of excess capacity charges applicable to District users is not entirely new. As you are aware, the regulations implementing the Clean Water Act mandate that sewer system users pay their fair share of the cost of treatment and disposal of wastewater. (40 CFR §35.2140) The Districts previously recognized this requirement through former -Section 309 of the Districts'Wastewater Regulations which provided that new or expanding developments which required substantial sewerage capacity were potentially subject to an excess capacity charge, although the method of calculation was not specified. Effective July 1, 1995, the Districts amended Section 309 to establish a method for calculation of an excess capacity charge payable by all applicants for a permit to connect to District facilities. The charge applies to new developments or expansion of existing developments meeting certain discharge criteria, one of which is a wastewater discharge in excess of 50,000 gallons per day. Revenues generated by the excess capacity charge will be used for construction of collection, treatment and disposal facilities necessitated by these new or expanded uses. As House Foods' proposed processing facility has not yet been constructed, it appears that the facility both needs a permit to connect and is a new user. Based upon an assumed discharge in excess of 50,000 gallons per day, House Foods falls directly within the provisions of Section 309 et seq. requiring payment of the excess capacity charge. Ms. Nancy J. Wheatley November 7, 1995 Page Two House Foods' contentions that it has been a corporate citizen of Orange County since 1993, when it apparently purchased the proposed facility site, and that it relied on existing fees in planning its development do not change the applicability of the excess capacity charge to House Foods or legally compel an exemption. In fact, House Foods may well have been subject to an excess capacity charge under former Section 309 which existed from at least 1983 to 1995. If House Foods is granted an exemption, it could be argued that it would not be paying its fair and equal share of the system costs. Such an exemption could run afoul of §35.2140. As the Board of Directors has authorized that excess capacity charges be paid over time, it is our opinion that the District may not, without express Board authorization, exempt House Foods from the excess capacity charge. If the Board of Directors takes such action, we believe that other users may justifiably contend that the excess capacity charge is being applied in a discriminatory manner. We strongly recommend against the selective exemption of any dischargers to whom the excess capacity charge is applicable. It is our understanding that the Districts may, within the near future, revise the excess capacity charge. One option may be for the Staff to represent to House Foods that, if the excess capacity charge is ultimately reduced, Staff will recommend that House Foods and other similarly situated users be retroactively provided with the benefit of the reduced rate. Naturally, this option requires Board approval to implement. Conclusion The existing excess capacity charge is applicable to House Foods' proposed food processing facility on Garden Grove. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel Thomas F. Nixon cc: Mr. D. F. McIntyre Mr. B. P. Anderson Ms. M. Talebi Mr. J. Wybenga Thomas L. Woodruff, Esq. z000 17 20311_1 �daGwar� �' i H'N® o�I 526 STANFORD AVENUE LOS ANGEIES.CAUFORN A 90013 TEL 213-62436/5/FAX:213612-0281 October 31, 1995 Mr.John C.Cox,Jr. Joint Chair County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 RE: Sewer Excess Capacity Charges Dear Mr.Cox, This letter shall serve to amend that letter dated October 26, 1995,on behalf of House Foods Corporation addressed and delivered to the offices of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County on October 26, 1995. The letter shall be amended as follows: A. Pursuant to Section three(3)of Ordinance No.322, "An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California, Establishing Excess Capacity Charges",House Foods herein exercises its right to challenge the validity of this Ordinance. In addition,House Foods Corporation should not be subject to any proposed Excess Capacity Charges for the following reasons: I. House Foods has been a corporate citizen in Garden Grove since March of 1993,and as such,has been an Orange County tax payer and is an existing customer in good standing with the Orange County Sanitation District. 2. House Foods has a Development Agreement with the City of Garden Grove which includes, among other items,an approved site plan for House Foods proposed food processing facility,which Development Agreement was adopted by the City Council per ordinance #2254 dated March 4, 1993. Mr.Cox,we appreciate your attention to this important subject,and House Foods looks forward to your favorable comments and direction. Sincerely, Shigero Shitasaka House Foods C,ALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY (619) 645-2657 PM WA.. Fax(619) 645-2663 G.° ., Jane mdeewdset October 30, 1995 Srt 7 Margie L. Rice Secretary ProTem Midway City Sanitation District San Diego Ft�&°°l Dear Ms. Rice: oisoe A letter was faxed to you on October 25, 1995 from the Orange County Business Council advising you of a 'Red Team' to address concerns relating to the adoption by the County Sanitation District of New Ordinance,No. 125. That letter also stated that a meeting was being scheduled to meet with selected members of the Sanitation District Board. That meeting has been scheduled for 4:00 PM,Monday,November 13, 1995 in the Conference Room of the Orange County Business Council located at 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100, Irvine. Your attendance is of major importance. We have invited Board Members Mark Murphy,Margie Rice, Thomas Saltarelfi, Sheldon Singer, Roger Stanton and Bob Zemel. Representing the 'Red Team' will be Garden Grove Mayor Bruce Broadwater,California Trade and Commerce Regional Director Judy Jarvis, Office of Foreign Investment Director Bijan Klan, Orange County Business Council President Wayne Wedin and NBS Lowry Regional Vice President Michael Swan. We look forward to a productive meeting. Please advise me if you will be able to attend. I can be reached at(619) 645-2423. lam also available to answer any questions or concerns you may have. 750 V St Sincerely, SWW 1830 San Diego,CA ° 92101-1822 en Raney J Project Manager _ ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESSo COUNCIL October 25, 1995 Mr. John C. Cox,Jr. Chairman,County Sanitation District of Orange County(CSDOC) 10044 Ellis Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Cox: A "Red Team" has been formed at the Orange County Economic Development Consortium to address the issues concerning CSDOC's adoption of Ordinance No. 125, regarding excess capacity charges and its negative impact upon economic development here in the County. The Red Team consists of representatives from: 1) State of California Trade&Commerce Agency 2)The Governor's Office 3) Senator Rob Hurtt's office 4)Orange County Permit Assistance Center 5)NBS Lowry Engineers&Planners 6)Local cities EDC staffs 7)Orange County Economic Development Consortium(OCEDC)staff As stated in my letter to Don McIntyre (dated October 9, 1995) for us to fully represent the true impact of this new ordinance we need to make sure we are using factual/current data. To that end,we are asking for the help of your staff in answering the attached questions. Should your staff have any questions please feel free to call Mike Noonan, Vice President Business Retention, OCEDC on 714-476-2242. Thank you in advance for your expeditious handling of this important matter. Sincerely, Wayn Wedin Chaff of the Board cc: Donald McIntyre,General Manager Orange County Sanitation District, Ken Moore, President Orange County Economic Development Consortium Red Team Members Attachment 2>MK% Wn W 1B UWi A92714 TEUB E714A7QM B 62BW33 FN 7144769M v RE: CSDOC staff report on the Excess Capacity Connection Charges(ECCC)dated January 17, 1995 (Nexus Study) 1. Flow threshold seems arbitrary and is not tied to size of property so it penalizes large companies over small. Please explain rationale of flow threshold. 2. Tbis new revenue stream(from ECCC)does not appear to be figured into your financial planning? It seems, it will either generate additional revenue or decrease flow projections by driving away large users. Please explain. 3. Flows have not tracked master plan projections and therefore,cost projections used to support the fee analysis may be overstated? Please respond and support projections. 4. The Santa Ana River Watershed Planning Agency's(SAWPA)capacity and Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD)capacity is included in the 400 mgd flow projection and their capacity is paid for differently-not through their connection fees. Are these agencies not subject to the ECCC? Why is this? 5. Does the District assess an"Excess Capacity Fee", if applicable,when an existing business expands or seeks a pemrit to expand,either on site or off site? 526 STANFORD AVENUE HIN0IC7II LOS ANGEL ES,CAUF0RNM 90013 October 24, 1995 TEL 213-6243615/FAX:21&612-0281 Mr. John C. Cox, Jr. Joint Chair County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 RE: Sewer Excess Capacity Charges Dear Mr. Cox: Our company, House Foods Corporation, purchased a five (5) acre parcel in Garden Grove, California, in March of 1993, for the purpose of constructing a new, food processing facility. We are relocating our offices from Los Angeles to Orange County and expect to begin construction on our new building during the next three or four months. House Foods became a corporate citizen in Orange County in 1993. We carefully and diligently planned the development of our new facility since the early part of 1992 beginning with the site selection process throughout Southern California. All aspects of the project were researched including land costs, construction costs, the availability of utilities, and all applicable permits and fees associated with the project. This due diligence was brought together and documented concurrently with our land escrow closing in Garden Grove in the form of a Development Agreement which was prepared and approved by the City Council. The agreement was adopted as per ordinance #2254 dated March 2, 1993 and reflects a four (4) year term. It has come to our attention that the Orange County Sanitation District has approved an ordinance (Sewer Excess Capacity Charges) which would require new businesses that utilize in excess of 50,000 gallons per day of water and related sewer, to pay a significant fee in order to conduct their daily operations. Further, the ordinance was effective July 1, 1995., Respectfully, our use has not changed with regard to our sewer requirements, we documented our project in 1993 with the City of Garden Grove which included use and site plan approvals which are on record, we have faithfully performed all of our development obligations to date, and are now ready to begin con- struction. Therefore, we would appreciate acknowledgement by the Orange County Sanitation District that House Foods is an established existing entity, property owner, and business within Orange County which status will serve to exempt House Foods from any new user sewer charge the Orange County Sanitation District may wish to impose. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter and we look forward to your concurrence and a longstanding relationship with the Orange County Sanitation District. Very truly yours, Shigeru Shirasaka, General Manager COUNTY ti aITATION DISTRICTS OF ORE _,E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 20, 1995 a,a„e, Wayne D. Wedin r7141 962-2411 Orange County Business Council 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 inauang address: Irvine, CA 92714 Po all rol valley,CA 92728-8127 Dear Wayne: sweat address: 10944 Ellis Alai Thank you for your letter of October 9, 1995 concerning the Excess Capacity roumam Vsle CA e270&701e Ordinance adopted by the Joint Boards of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The Districts share many of the concerns that you have expressed in your letter regarding the need to encourage economic development in Orange County. We also agree with you that the Districts' policies must be carefully crafted to be Mareear consistent with these goals. Finally, we agree with your conclusion that the Agenaaa Ordinance as presently written may not be supportive of these goals and requires • some reconsideration and revision. We would also note that the Districts should c�;aa have (but did not) informed the communities in the County of the new charge when it was passed. We are working on providing better information in the communities and AnsBi also are reviewing the collection of the charge because of concerns about its impact Bare Buena Perk on business development. Cypress Fountain ve,,x��ay A bit of explanation and clarification of the Ordinance may be helpful before Humngmn Beach discussing the ongoing review of the Ordinance. The Districts' capital program, La Habra which has planned for wastewater treatment facilities through the year 2020. is La Pell funded through connection fees from all customers, including residential customers Los Alamrt.s who pay an up-front charge of S2,350 for each new residential connection. Most Naayon Beach Orange businesses, which discharge less than 25,000 gallons per day of wastewater for Pr.oeari. treatment, pay connection charges on a per-square-foot basis consistent with this senor Are residential charge. However, using a per-square-foot charge for businesses which Bea Areach r9 9 P q 9 stern discharge large amounts of wastewater(over 50,000 gallons per day) does not T15 Yrlla Park adequately account for the capacity demand for facilities that these large businesses Y"s und. place on the system. In the past, the Districts have had in place an Ordinance that : unty of orange allows these large users to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This was done in only a few rases, in large part because it has been rare to have new businesses of :anMary Cherithis size and type connect to the system. clam Mae. The Excess Capacity Charge was developed last spring to standardize the charge Barden B''OVB and to ensure that several large public works water purification projects would pay Mr.,Or, their fair share of the cost of the wastewater treatment facilities. The charge applies water Districts to any industrial facility that discharges more than 50,000 gallons per day and, as rrnna Ranch such, is targeted to public projects and new businesses that place large demands on . the wastewater system. If these new businesses were not assessed for their demands on the system, the facilities required to serve them would have to be paid for by other business and residential customers. A Public Weareeamr aM Eners n al AkMgemint Al Cana a{md 0 Prinal the Enmpn l SrKe 1954 Wayne D. Wedin Page Two October 20, 1995 Once the Ordinance was passed, the Districts learned that several communities had been successful in promoting major new business development in the County. The new businesses included large sewer users that would be subject to the Excess Capacity Charge. As noted earlier, there was not adequate information about the charge available and there was confusion about the previous charge. While we could not undo the latter problem, the Districts immediately recognized that imposing the very high up-front charge called for in the Ordinance was not sufficiently flexible. As an initial response to the problem, an "Urgency Ordinance"was passed by the Joint Boards on August 23 to allow for payment of the charge over a ten-year period. In addition, I instructed staff to review the Ordinance and determine ways to recover the cost of capital facilities that would be more supportive of continuing business development in the County. Districts' staff are working on restructuring the collection of the capital costs covered by the Excess Capacity Charge through an annual fee that will reflect the actual demand for treatment facilities caused by these large businesses. The restructured charge will be brought to the Joint Boards as soon as it has been reviewed by the many interested parties, including community development officials and representatives of the business community. I suggest we meet for lunch with Blake Anderson and Nancy Wheatley of my staff on November 6, 8 or 9 to further discuss this issue. Please call if any of these or other dates or times are better. Let me close by assuring you that the Districts are committed to economic development in the County and will work to support community development efforts. Sincerely, Donald F. McIntyre General Manager DFM:jt J:1WPD'JQG FKIO EC c: Blake Anderson Judy Wilson ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL October 9, 1995 FX[QVnYf WMMI*tff CXnIP+uN rv'J wM^ Donald McIntyre CHN,WUN ELECT Ely,S6 P General Manager v2f E OAe"mN..e aNRN;,N County Sanitation District of Orange County °"'°""" 10044Ellis PRESIOENT Fountain Valley, CA 92708 1cM B Nmcka^ Wrx.'E F— """'`""°" c""°'�^"• This letter is to formally let you know that the Orange County Business Council M I—M4M-- [.,;m..:E„ has received strong concerns and opposition to your new Ordinance No. 125, L.°.-0.° °.^, regarding excess capacity charges. pn 0.StnMe' As this excess capacity charge appears to be very substantial and is allegedly not 1�°LSMMt. P tY g PP rY B Y being applied uniformly; it has the potential of being a very negative influence in �;. :.. .......„,X,.., the retention and attraction of business in Orange County. You know how important the economy and jobs are to the Business Council and as a result we will be looking into the complaints and concerns as quickly and thoroughly as possible. As an organization that is comprised of elected officials that are desperately seeking to strengthen their own economic foundations, I know that you are sensitive to our competitive position and want to do whatever you can to help strengthen that position. Don, should you wish to talk with us regarding Ordinance No. 125 we would of course be more than willing to call some key folks together for such a meeting. In the meantime we will continue to work with the Red Team to learn as much about this issue as we can. I hope things are going well with you. Wayne Wedin Chai of the Board cc: Ken Moore, President Orange County Economic Development Consortium 3PARRPV k"TE M NNINE.CALBORW92714 TELEPHONE 7144762242 FAX 7144769240 COUNTY ., ,J[TATION DISTRICTS OF OR, 3E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA L^ October 20, 1995 Rose Marie Rowin 10042 Lampson phone: Garden Grove, CA 92640 (714)9622411 Dear Ms. Rowin: mailing address: Po. eao 612J F unovn Vail,ra Thank you for your letter of October 11, 1995 concerning the Excess Capacity 92)2"12) Ordinance adopted by the Joint Boards of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange meat add County. The Districts share many of the concerns that you have expressed in your 1�46 n V Ave" letter regarding the need to encourage economic development in Orange 0844 n venal,CA 9 9 9 P 9County. 92] 7018 We also agree with you that the Districts' policies must be carefully crafted to be consistent with these goals. Finally, we agree with your conclusion that the Ordinance as presently written may not be supportive of these goals and requires some reconsideration and revision. We would also note that the Districts should „ M have (but did not) informed the communities in the County of the new charge when it Agencies was passed. We are working on providing better information in the communities and • also are reviewing the collection of the charge because of concems about its impact cuss on business development. A"sere. A bit of explanation and clarification of the Ordinance may be helpful before Bash. Para discussing the ongoing review of the Ordinance. The Districts' capital program, Oppress which has planned for wastewater treatment facilities through the year 2020, is Fountain valley Follermn funded through connection fees from all customers, including residential customers Huh"^gran Beach who pay an up-front charge of$2,350 for each new residential connection. Most -V Hebre businesses, which discharge less than 25,000 gallons per day of wastewater for La Palma treatment, pay connection charges on a per-square-foot basis consistent with this to.n Beach residential charge. However, using a per-square-foot charge for businesses which Newport Beach 9 9 P q 9 Onahge discharge large amounts of wastewater (over 50,000 gallons per day) does not Pl.cenda adequately account for the capacity demand for facilities that these large businesses saute Ana lace on the system. In the past, the Districts have had in lace an Ordinance that seal Beech P P Y P So,hron allows these large users to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This was done in TiS°" onlya few cases, in large art because it has been rare to have new businesses of v4�e Perk 9 P lbrha und. this size and type connect to the system. County of orange The Excess Capacity Charge was developed last spring to standardize the charge and to ensure that several large public works water purification projects would pay s'nhary Di r cts their fair share of the cost of the wastewater treatment facilities. The charge applies caste Mesa to any industrial facility that discharges more than 50,000 gallons per day and, as s""1en � such, is targeted to public projects and new businesses that lace large demands on Mmway cq 9 P P 1 P r9 the wastewater system. If these new businesses were not assessed for their Water Metri= demands on the system, the facilities required to serve them would have to be paid - Wino Ranch for by other business and residential customers. A Public wastewater and Ennronmental Management Agency Cammated to Pr xecang the Enruonmenr 9nce 1954 a � Rose Marie Rowin Page Two October 20, 1995 charge available and there was confusion about the previous charge. While we could not undo the latter problem, the Districts immediately recognized that imposing the very high up-front charge called for in the Ordinance was not sufficiently flexible. As an initial response to the problem, an "Urgency Ordinance"was passed by the Joint Boards on August 23 to allow for payment of the charge over a ten-year period. In addition, I instructed staff to review the Ordinance and determine ways to recover the cost of capital facilities that would be more supportive of continuing business development in the County. Districts' staff are working on restructuring the collection of the capital costs covered by the Excess Capacity Charge through an annual fee that will reflect the actual demand for treatment facilities caused by these large businesses. The restructured charge will be brought to the Joint Boards as soon as it has been reviewed by the many interested parties, including community development officials and representatives of the business community. Again, thank you for your interest in this issue. Let me close by assuring you that the Districts are committed to economic development in the County and will work to support community development efforts. Please let me know if you would like more information or if you would like to meet for further discussions. Sincerely, Donald F. McIntyre ' General Manager DFM:jt J1W VCCCW�1 IOMS.ECC c: Blake Anderson Judy Wilson WEST ORANGE COUNTY ASSOC'YA'TION OF REALTORS v ® 10042 Lampson / Garden Grove, California 92640 / (714) 636-7660 / FAX (714) 539-7146 MEMBER OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS/ CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS REACTOR® October 11, 1995 Mr. John Cox Chair, Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue 1995 OFFICERS Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 ROSE MARIE ROWIN Dear Mr. Cox, President CANDICE CARPENTER This is a complaint about an ordinance passed by the County Sanitation Districts President-Elect of Orange County (CSDOC). We understand you now charge businesses high ELAINE FRIES fees for discharging excessive sewage. Vice President TRUMAN PARKER In these tough times all new fees put Orange County at a disadvantage in trying Secretary/Treasurer to attract companies from other areas. A non-business friendly ordinance is discouraging for the West Orange County commercial and industrial Realtors. 1995 DIRECTORS We are trying to make Orange County better economically by attracting CONNIE OOYD businesses. It would be helpful if you could delay implementation of the new MATT CROSBY ordinance or allow companies a grace period to plan to cope with the new fees. NICK HOFFMAN The West Orange County Association of Realtors would like to suggest a ESTHER LURWIG discussion of the effects of your ordinance with a group of business people with the goal being how to make your sewer fees more business-friendly. You might DAVID McCAFFREY first look at a more suitable start up method than a 10 year payment plan that CLARA WATSON charges interest. DIANA GARRERS We are willing to work with you to try and find other means to take the burden Immediate Past President off companies, so they may still move to Orange County and be successful. If you CARMEN HANSON would like to discuss this, please call me at (714) 893-0659 and I will be pleased to Executive Vice President offer suggestions to improve Orange County's image after the impact of a poor economic three years and the recent bankruptcy. Sincerely, WEST ORANGE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO Rose Marie Rowin 111121, President E9WLNOUNN9 OPPONNNIIT COUNTY 6AITATION DISTRICTS OF ORA"GE COUNTY, CALIFOAIA October 11, 1995 The Honorable Jim Morrissey 930 West 17th Street, Suite C nlal aeza411 P"411 Santa Ana, CA 92706 mtl8,q a Wcas: +-P.O.Bur 6127 Fe,*Wn WOW,,CA Dear Assemblyman Morrissey: ...W72M127 Wetmamas, Joint Chairman Cox has asked me to respond to your letter of October 2, 10B44 erm Avenue row4eln WOW..CA 1995 concerning the Excess Capacity Ordinance adopted by the Joint 92708-7018 Boards of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The Districts share many of the concerns that you have expressed in your letter regarding the need to encourage economic development in Orange County. We.also agree with you that the Districts' policies must be carefully crafted A, to be consistent with these goals. Finally, we agree with your conclusion 0 that the Ordinance as presently written may not be supportive of these Mae goals'and requires some reconsideration and revision. We would also note that the Districts should have, but did not, inform the communities in the Anaheim Brie County of the new charge when it was passed. We are working on B,. .Pen providing better information to the communities and also are reviewing the Fwata�ey collection of the charge because of concerns about its impact on business 1pnHwgermn development. ngmn Beecn ry ne 1e Habra to Palma A bit of explanation and clarification of the Ordinance may be helpful before Las Atemlme I discuss the ongoing review of the Ordinance. The Districts' capital N°.°°rt Bees"Orange program, which has planned for wastewater treatment facilities through the Foment, Year 2020, is funded through connection fees from all customers, including SanSeed eaecce residential customers who pay an upfront charge of $2,350 for each new ante" residential connection. Most businesses, which discharge less than 25,000 ruabn Wee Perk gallons per day of wastewater for treatment, pay connection charges on a %m .ands per-square-foot basis consistent with this residential charge. However, em4y of C nge using a per-square-foot charge for businesses which discharge large amounts of wastewater (over 50,000 gallons per day) does not adequately Wnitary tfi +cta account for the capacity demand for facilities that these large businesses Coeur Mase place on the system. In the past, the Districts have had in place an Gortlon c o"o Mi.twoy Coy Ordinance which allowed these large users to be assessed on a case-by- case basis. This was done in only a few cases, in large part because it water olatncra has been rare to have new businesses of this size and type connect to the Irvni Banco system. The Excess Capacity Charge was developed last spring to standardize the charge and to ensure that several large public works water purification projects would pay their fair share of the cost of the wastewater treatment facilities. The charge applies to any industrial facility that discharges more than 50,000 gallons per day and, as such, is targeted to public projects and new businesses that place large demands on the wastewater treatment A Public Weeteweter and Enwmnmennl Management Agency Committed to P acwdng me Environment since 1954 - v _ Assemblyman Morrissey Page 2 October 11, 1995 system. If these new businesses were not assessed for their demands on the system, the facilities required to serve them would have to be paid for by other business and residential customers. Once the Ordinance was passed, the Districts learned that several communities had been successful in promoting major new business development in the County. The new businesses included large sewer users who would be subject to the Excess Capacity Charge. As noted earlier, there was not adequate information about the charge available and there was confusion about the previous charge. While we could not undo the.latter problem, the Districts immediately recognized that imposing the very high upfront charge called for in the Ordinance was not sufficiently flexible. As an initial response to the problem, an "Urgency Ordinance" was passed by the Joint Boards on August 23 to allow for payment of the charge over a ten year period. In addition, I instructed staff to review the Ordinance and to determine ways to recover the cost of capital facilities that would be more supportive of continuing business development in the County. Districts' staff are working on restructuring the collection of the capital costs covered by the Excess Capacity Charge through an annual fee that will reflect the actual demand for treatment facilities caused by these large businesses. The restructured charge will be brought to the Joint Boards as soon as it has been reviewed by the many interested parties, including community development officials and representatives of the business community. Again, thank you for your interest in this issue. Let me close by assuring you that the Districts are committed to economic development in the County and will work to support community development efforts. Sincerely, Donald F. McIntyre / General Manager DFM:NJW:ahh REF#J:WpW10W=*s9y c: Chairman John Cox 0T1>e +_ COMMRTEE6 `� �.sseutbl ~, wce Cnalrman: j w Comenne,Premoca T o tY �Y1rN Y �^f Iay Y.f Gonxi EMal E5lcie,my P~iHJ. M10@ C00liforni '0 Xiegislatu L Membe,:Eoonomic DevOlppmeM a Y Ernl l Sele JIM MORRISSEY andd Toxic Toxic Mandrels Heats ASSEMBLY M.IWGECOUNTY DISTRICT Joint andi dOConmmerce OMNOE COUNTY .aim Fame Cemmitlee Task Force on Oelanse Conve,spn October 2, 1995 Mr. John Cox Chair, Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 Dear Mr. Cox: I was shocked to hear about an ordinance passed by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) that allows you to now charge businesses higher fees for excessive discharge into the sewer system. In your attempt to raise revenues for the district you are putting Orange County at a disadvantage. In the California Assembly I am attempting to create more jobs for Californians by attracting businesses to the state. This CSDOC ordinance is preventing jobs from coming to orange County while other levels of government and agencies are working to encourage businesses to move into the county. I hope that you will take a hard look at the message you are sending businesses with this ordinance. The livelihood of thousands of people are at risk and the county can not afford to loose additional revenue because businesses relocate in another part of the country. ---. If you would like to discuss this issue further please call me at (714) 285-0355. Sincerely, J MM_0 semblyman, �Distri JM:tr OFFICES STATE CAPITOL SW WEST 17TH ST..SURE C SACMMENTO,CA M14 SAWA AN&CA 927M 1518144E-7533 (714)2554n55 FAX 191613274783 FAX(714)M-1WI Prv116,1 pr gerycletl Pape, V ORANCrE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL October 9, 1995 u,IMM,N Wun:7 W!O" Donald McIntyre CUNRN,N n[<I mF s aR«b General Manager nra cwuwMw County Sanitation District of Orange County ° 10044 Ellis wvsmrN7 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 lam P I+rrorm ten-+ ..... °"" This letter is to formally let you know that the Orange County Business Council rM'« has received strong concerns and opposition to your new Ordinance No. 125, regarding excess capacity charges. w, As this excess capacity charge appears to be very substantial and is allegedly not P Y g PP q' B Y being applied uniformly; it has the potential of being a very negative influence in ........ .. .. the retention and attraction of business in Orange County. You know how important the economy and jobs are to the Business Council and as a result we will be looking into the complaints and concerns as quickly and thoroughly as possible. As an organization that is comprised of elected officials that are desperately seeking to strengthen their own economic foundations, I know that you are sensitive to our competitive position and want to do whatever you can to help strengthen that position. Don, should you wish to talk with us regarding Ordinance No. 125 we would of course be more than willing to call some key folks together for such a meeting. In the meantime we will continue to work with the Red Team to learn as much about this issue as we can. I hope things are going well with you. "q Wayne Wedin Chairm of the Board cc: Ken Moore, President Orange County Economic Development Consortium .PARv P1 A:'A 91q'r I� RVM rk W:. WRp•.I 7 J if +. r527-%• ;AY •.r. COUNTY`�- NITATION DISTRICTS OF OR*nGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA G; October 4, 1995 The Honorable Rob Hunt California State Senate District Office °K 11642 Knott Street si�xm Suite 8 Garden Grove, CA 92641 OC�n�ea�9197 ;( !v+at(A Dear Senator Hurtt: rer�ms Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1995 concerning the Excess Capacity t W Wft a Ordinance adopted by the Joint Boards of the County Sanitation Districts of 1-.6927m ote Orange County. The Districts share many of the concerns that you have expressed in your letter regarding the need to encourage economic development in Orange County. We also agree with you that the Districts' policies must be carefully crafted to be consistent with these goals. Finally, we agree with your '.�.� conclusion that the Ordinance as presently written may not be supportive of these °palm goals and requires some reconsideration and revision. We would also note that - the Districts should have, but did not, inform the communities in the County of the new charge when it was pause('. v`,'e are working on providing better information nnane;m to the communities and qls,- are reviewing the collection of the charge because of Brea concerns about Its impact on business development. Buere Pert A bit of explanation and clarification of the Ordinance may be helpful before I .Hun discuss the ongoing review of the Ordinance. The Districts' capital program, which Ifiimngmn Bidden b.;,,a has planned for wastewater treatment facilities through the Year 2020, is funded Ne°'8 through connection fees from all customers, including residential customers who pay an upfront charge of$2,350 for each new residential connection. Most '^'BN9O1''BBB ' businesses, which discharge less than 25,000 gallons per day of wastewater for treatment, pay connection charges on a per-square-foot basis consistent with this sanm And residential charge. However, using a per-square-foot charge for businesses which Sabnch i discharge large amounts of wastewater (over 50,000 gallons per day) does not ran adequately account for the capacity demand for facilities that these large W. we businesses place on the system. In the past, the Districts have had in place an Ordinance which allowed these large users to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This was done in only a few cases, in large part because It has been rare to have new businesses of this size and type connect to the system. son"♦Levi= -. ram Wild The Excess Capacity Charge was developed last spring to standardize the charge ryr;.. YO�, and to ensure that several large public works water purification projects would pay .- their fair share of the cost of the wastewater treatment facilities. The charge !A.11111 a applies to any industrial facility that discharges more than 50,000 gallons per day tidy Ranch and, as such, is targeted to public projects and new businesses that place large .. . demands on the wastewater treatment system. If these new businesses were not .- assessed for their demands on the system, the facilities required to serve them would have to be paid for by other business and residential customers. A Public wenewamr and Enrronmenmi Management Agenry Cammlaee m Pmmcvng Me Environment Since 1954 Senator Hum Page 2 October 4, 1995 Once the Ordinance was passed, the Districts learned that several communities had been successful in promoting major new business development in the County. The new businesses included large sewer users who would be subject to the Excess Capacity Charge. As noted earlier, there was not adequate information about the charge available and there was confusion about the previous charge. While we could not undo the latter problem, the Districts immediately recognized that imposing the very high upfront charge called for in the Ordinance was not sufficiently flexible. As an initial response to the problem, an "Urgency Ordinance" was passed by the Joint Boards on August 23 to allow for payment of the charge over a ten year period. In addition, I instructed staff to review the Ordinance and to determine ways to recover the cost of capital facilities that would be more supportive of continuing business development in the County. Districts' staff are working on restructuring the collection of the capital costs covered by the Excess Capacity Charge through an annual fee that will reflect the actual demand for treatment facilities caused by these large businesses. The restructured charge will be brought to the Joint Boards as soon as it has been reviewed by the many interested parties, including community development officials and representatives of the business community. Again, thank you for your interest in this issue. Let me close by assuring you that the Districts are committed to economic development in the County and will work to support community development efforts. Sincerely, i Donald F. McInty¢/ General Manager DFM:NJW:ahh REF#J:WpW10U1uM C: All Members of the Boards of Directors of the Districts , y� yy1^ ^y� �n SACRAMENTO OFFICE alifurnitt Star �Lyn�i COMMITTEES I STATE CAPITOL ROOM 30]6 BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW 3ACRACA I4 SENATOR F NANCE TERNATIONAL TRADE N INVESTMENT AND 19I S,6144 E583 1 I ROB HURTT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DISTRICT OFFICE THIRTY FOURTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT cE CHAIP I 1642 KNOTT STREET. SUITE 8 REVENUE AND TAXATION GARDEN GROVE CA 92641 014i 8-635353 4, FAX i]I4 598-8033 17or a� — 7voy - NA&xr- September 18, 1995 Sanitation District of Orange County Board of Directors P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Dear Directors: I am writing to express my concern regarding your new ordinance relating to the excess capacity fee. Many manufacturing firms are located within my Senate district and the communities which I represent are actively recruiting new firms to relocate within their city boundaries. It was recently brought to my attention both by the city of Buena Park and Garden Grove that the excess capacity fee, effective July 1, 1995, has had a negative impact on their efforts. I understand your interest in recouping the costs to your system associated with a manufacturing firth which uses large amounts of water for their processes. However, it is also my understanding that generally only four major industries are impacted by this excess usage fee; metal finishing, textiles, food processing and oil-related industry. It does not make economic sense to place the burden of future capitol improvements primarily on the backs of a few industries. As you know, our County is currently experiencing an extreme fiscal crisis brought on by the bankruptcy. It is my belief that we need to adopt policies which encourage business and job creation, not those which act as a severe deterrent such as the sanitation district excess capacity fee. Individual communities are striving to support their economic development efforts and promote Orange County as a positive place in which to do business. Your ordinance, as it is currently written, will certainly cost jobs in our county. Sanitation District of Orange County , September 18, 1995 Page 2 I urge your reconsideration of the formula used to assess the excess capacity fee so that it is reasonable and not prohibitive to the economic development efforts of our local cities. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincere ROB HURTT Senate Republican Leader RH:kb cc: Mayor Bruce Broadwater, City of Garden Grove Mayor Don Griffin, City of Buena Park Orange County League of Cities Orange County Business Council Orange County Permit Assistance Center ORAN`>COUNTY SANITATIOK..ASTRICTS NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Name of Paper 8echan I Pegs Dam Subject 9- •ys Usage fees catch cities by surprise GOVERNMENT: Offl- The Orange County sanitation CiBis fear a huge 1D- Districts voted in July to base g permit fees on usage rather than crease in sewer-permit square footage, a move that to charges could keep increaseFaused fees oar moM The companies out of new fee formula applies only to businesses entering the county Orange f 011nty end new plants requiring per- By GT„WOMLIN mits to do business; operations The Orange Countya already in the county are over. nter fected. GARDEN GROVE — When The charges are levied against Los Angeles tofu processor heavy system users under a for- Home Foods chose Garden mula based on water use and sot- - Grove's westside industrial area id-waste disposal. Previously, as the site for its new 130,00P the fee was based on the square equamtco[ plant, city leaders footage of the factory. were thriaed. Ecinomicdevelopment offi- But a new way of computing cials in Orange County are only the county sewer fee that in- now finding out about the usage creased the company's permit fee as they sign agreements to costs from 975,000 to$1.4 million bring businesses and jobs to the threatens to derail the project, county which would bring 95 jobs to the The real shocker was that we city d dn't know anything about it," "This isobscene,"said Garden said Tindall. Crave City Manager George Tie- Mark Taylor, director of the Santa Ana Permit Assistance dall of the county's Excess Use Fee. "we're trying to figure out Center, an agency that helps what the heck the options are, businesses moving into Orange and how to keep these jobs in County obtain sty, county and Garden Grove." Please see FEES Page 90 coP{ 5 _ J C",1Y P FEES: A change in how sewer charges are figured increases bills tenfDV4( FROM 1 manager who worked with KUA that this had gone into effect," them, but there are no specific ready angry over House Foods' state permits,said he learned of for two years,said the$5 million said Nancy Wheatley,director of plans or costs for new projects, fees, expect the permit fees to the fee only recently, when a fee bill nearly killed the deal. In- technical servyices for the dis- she said. inhibit businesses looking to South Korean company faced a deed, the bill was more than the triclf� 0 Id NiAlkht ifIk6B In an effort to reduce the fee's make a home in Orange County. $5 million sewer-permit bill to value of KUA's entire Buena rletti' Immediate Impact, the sanita- "if this is an add-on cost, it is move into a Buena Park factory. Park real estate. But Wheatley defended the tion districts just passed an exactly the wrong message to KUA Industries, a Korean- Had the KUA deal fallen fees, saying that heavy users emergency amendment that will send to business at this time," owned textile-dye and machin- through, It would have eliminat- such as food processors and allow payment of the permit fee said Timothy Cooley, vice presi ery manufacturer moving into a ed 200 jobs as well as$1.9 million manufacturers should pay for to be spread out over time, dent of Partnership 2010, an 100,000-square-foot plant in Bue. in anticipated sales-tax revenue. -(he gallons and gallons of water Wheatley said. Orange County economic-devel na Park, sought mediation from Even the sanitation district they use daily. "Over 10 years the impact will opment association. the Permit Assistance Center. said the agency should have bet- Funds from the usage fee will be less significant and will fit In Wayne Wedin of the Orangt The fee was ultimately reduced ter informed cities about the new be used to develop sanitation fa- with the cost of doing business.It County Economic Development to $2.5 million and its payment fee structure. cilities, said Correen Bdrenson, won't discourage development." Consortium said new permit! spread over several years. "Unfortunately, communities spokeswoman for the sanitation she said. and fees "move in the wrong rill Gus Duran, the Buena Park doing business development districts. The new facilities will Still, Garden Grove and em- reckon. We should reduce regu economic-development project weren't adequately informed be built when demand requires nomic-development officials, a1- lalions and reduce fees." COUNTY'twAITATION DISTRICTS OF OR*iGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA tt September 5, 1995 :.. ' 2 : 4198241471 IMPORTANT NOTICE —.a�admit eo:er2] rauvaerj u�v.� a�2Ba12] �,�„L 8m1eBe1 TO: All Member Agencies Of The Orange County Sanitation Districts 10. Boards Of Directors e27G 7018 SUBJECT: Sewer Excess Capacity Charges - Effective July 1, 1995 M yd, On May 24, 1995, the Board of Directors of each of the County Sanitation Districts of .neen�s Orange County adopted an Ordinance, effective July 1, 1995, establishing excess r ' ,_• capacity charges for customers with substantial flow, suspended solids, or biochemical oxygen demand. The purpose of the Ordinance is to recover the cost CJtlee of constructing treatment facilities that are needed to serve these customers. Similar .. costs are recovered from other customers through the residential connection and commercial business charges. The excess capacity charge is applicable to any new connection or new user whose discharge is tributary to the Districts' sewerage ermn system and whose average daily loading to the sewerage system contains one of B°B� the following: a 9 Parameter Value mrtw Bearlr� y Flow >_ 50,000 gallons per day (gpd) mn qne Suspended Solids (SS) >_ 105 Ibs per day (Ibs/d) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) >_ 105 Ibs per day (Ibs/d) mm ru®n P The Ordinance provides that the excess capacity charge shall be calculated based •,wu`.�,°,° . on the following formula: :Au ef'�enpe r^ ECC = (Flow, gpd)/399 gpd x CFCC x 58% + tin•DValeie (BOD, Ibs/d)/0.83 Ibs/d x CFCC x 19% + '" '''-•' (SS, Ibs/d)/0.83 Ibs/d x CFCC x 23%. [care M' Where: ECC is the excess capacity charge; and we 'nwai= CFCC is the capital facilities connection charge. Vic' In an effort to assist new businesses in Orange County and enable them to start their operations without paying the excess capacity charge in one lump sum, on August 23, 1995, the Districts' Board of Directors adopted an Urgency Ordinance, effective immediately, to authorize staff to set up a payment plan to be approved by the Districts' General Manager and Director of Finance. This Ordinance allows the A PuOlic WaarewNen ub EmianmeMel Menegemen[Agenq Lommr¢e°ro Prvrecting the Ennronment Since 1954 Important Notice to All Cities Page 2 September 5, 1995 facilities subject to the excess capacity charges to pay their excess capacity charges over a maximum period of 10 years. The payment schedule will include an interest rate sufficient to allow the Districts to obtain the present value of the applicable excess capacity charge. The Districts are considering other payment plan options in order to provide flexibility in paying the excess capacity charges. Upon approval of any options, or changes in the Excess Capacity Charge policy, the Districts will inform all the affected parties and the appropriate agencies. Please be reminded that effective July 1, 1995, the Districts are implementing the excess capacity policy in accordance with the attached Ordinances which were adopted on May 24, 1995 and August 23, 1995. The Districts will be holding workshop sessions on October 3, 1995 and October 5, 1995 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon to provide information and answer any questions you may have on the excess capacity charge. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Wybenga or the undersigned at (714) 962-2411, extensions 3813 and 3800, respectively. Mahin Talebi Source Control Manager MT:lvw Jawrummuumezu XTR Enclosure c: Thomas F. Nixon, Esq. Nancy Wheatley Gary Streed John Linder Tom Dawes Jim Wybenga "9'TEERING COMMITTEE AGENDAFOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Agenda Item (6)(c): Staff Report on the willful Destruction of Property at Plant No. 2 Summary In the General Manager's Board Letter, there was a paragraph on the destruction of some fiber optics cable at Plant 2, which resulted in loss of signal. Staff sent a sample of the cable to a testing lab, and the results indicated that the cable was mechanically cut. Staff will update the Steering Committee members on the results of our ongoing investigations and further planned actions. Staff Recommendation This is an information item. J:MPD0MGM15TR-00M W 111595AI 6C `STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Agenda Item (S)(d): Discussion of Fatal Accident on Pascal a Ludwig Engineers' project at Plant No. 2 on February 1, 1994 Summary Staff will update the Steering Committee members on current status regarding the fatal accident at Plant 2. Staff Recommendation This is an information item. 1AWP00C1GM1STR-00MW 11595460 S Y V ` I JOINT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING AGENDAFOR DECEMBER 13, 1995 Agenda Item (12): Consideration of motion to receive and file draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held November 15, 1995. Summary Attached are the draft minutes of theNovember 15, 1995 Steering Committee meeting. Steerina Committee Recommendation to the Joint Boards of Directors That the draft minutes of the November 15, 1995 Steering Committee meeting be received and filed. 1:\W V�(.'A]U09SDECV]W-13.CVR