Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,California P.O.Box 8127 a 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 24, 1996 - 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, April 24, 1996, 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 Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR Absent: None FILED In the Office of the seenna County Sanitation DisUL0ry Nols) l� MAY g 2199( (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM By 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 March 27, 1996 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 April 24, 1996 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) Report of Committee Chair. There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (b) Report of General Manager. In the absence of the General Manager, Assistant General Manager— Administration Judy Wilson reported on proposed changes to the agenda process. A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the recommendation of the Board Secretary to only include summary reports on action items unanimously approved by Committees unless directed otherwise by the Committee Chair. The Committee agreed to try the change for 90 days with the understanding that at the bottom of the agenda item a summary sentence will be included that states, "If copies of the staff report or further information is requested, contact_.° The lead staff person will contact the Committee Chair after the Committee meeting to see if there are any staff reports they would like sent out in full. (c) Report of General Counsel. General Counsel Tom Woodruff reported that the Pringle Bill was heard and is out of Committee. However, it is anticipated that the bill will not go forward in its present forth. There appears to be a commitment from the ' speaker that there are problems with the current language, and a - cooperative effort would be undertaken to refine it. This bill only applies to Orange County and there are three specific targets: Garden Grove Sanitary District, the 18 south county water and sewer agencies, and IRWD because of their"excess monies." (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Update on Activities re Landfill Acquisition. Blake Anderson reported that there are several clean-up items that need to be finalized. The Board of Supervisors are in receipt of our letter asking for our$100,000 back. Staff is considering "selling" the County the information we discovered on the closed landfill sites for about $100,000. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 April 24, 1996 Some consultant fees are still outstanding. Staff has been negotiating with Price Waterhouse and Saybrook, which resulted in a 14% reduction from each of their original billings. A report will be made to the May FAHR Committee. The total cost for this task is approximately $400,000, including the $100,000 deposit. (b) Status Report on '96-97 Budget Judy Wilson reported on the progress of the '96-97 budget. The anticipated dollars per million gallons ($/mg)for next year is at $587 representing a budget of$51.4 million, a 6% decrease from the '95-96 adopted budget of$58.1 million and $620/mg. The authorized position count is down by 33 and could be lower after the Information Technology audit. This information will be presented to the FAHR Committee in May and the other Committees in June. The CORF budget is at $45 million, of which 85% is for continuing projects. Most other projects are on hold, waiting on the completion of the new Strategic Plan. This budget will be presented to all Committees in May. Director Swan expressed concern that the comparison of the '96-97 budget should be to the actual '95-96 expenditures rather than the budgeted amounts. He also indicated that we know that the staffing numbers are too high, yet additional positions are being requested. Directors Cox, Swan and Brown all indicated that we should try to develop a budget that actually "targets" for where we want to be, rather than having a target that is the budget we propose. Director Swan discussed "real world pain,' as experienced at his firm. He said that reductions through attrition are not enough. Judy indicated that the General Manager has said that he is not in favor of layoffs; that there needs to time allowed to implement some of the major programs and complete four major management audits to determine efficiencies. Director McGuigan said that we need to get the new structure in place before making any major reductions. Blake Anderson addressed the discussions we have had with EMA and the strategies we hope to put in place. It will take us time to put automation in place prior to our being able to reduce staff. Staff is already working on some aspect of EMA's recommendations, including the combination of Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 April 24, 1996 several divisions of the Operations and Maintenance Departments so that cross-training and work force flexibility can begin to be utilized. Judy indicated that all trends are downward and that the General Manager is committed to making this happen, but it would take about 3 to 5 years. She will take the Committee's message back to staff. (c) Report on County of Orange Plan of Adiustment. Blake Anderson reported that the final agreement which was previously approved has defined our participation in the Plan of Adjustment. An analysis of the deal with Option B members was faxed to all directors. The OCIP met and unanimously agreed to not oppose the settlement between the County and Option Bs. The County will file the Plan of Adjustment with the Bankruptcy Court in May and it should be approved. This opens the way for the County to secure bonds in June. It is anticipated that the County will be out of bankruptcy by the end of June. The discovery on the Merrill Lynch case continues to go forward. Depositions will probably extend well into 1997. There is no longer recourse against the County for either Option A or B participants. (d) Review of Committee Action Items for May Meetings. There will be a couple more items added to the PDC Committee agenda for May. (7) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (8) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 5 April 24, 1996 (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING The changes to the Joint Boards agenda will be reviewed at the July Steering Committee meeting. (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 May 22, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 6:25 p.m. Submitted by: e n Tappan, Ste in Committee Secretary 11WPWQI3A(SIRLOM�2] . Nft� � 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,April 24, 1996, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on Thursday, April 18, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of April, 1996. J Penny Kyle, Sec ary of h of the Boards of Directors of Co Sad�' a on Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 1 14 of Ordnge County, California Posted: April 18 , 1996, P.M. By: Signature we«bmbbmmm�vwmc.nn n COUNThoANITATION DISTRICTS OF 01w.JGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 6F' Board Secretary(2) phone: April 18, 1996 (714)9622411 mailing address: P.D.Box 8127 Fountain Valley,CA 9272"127 .neat address: NOTICE OF MEETING 10944 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valleµ CA 92708-7018 STEERING COMMITTEE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Member Agencies NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 0 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Cities Anaheim eras WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. Bvena Park Cypress Fountain Valley F°Bean Huntington Beach° DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Irvine 108" ELLIS AVENUE La Habra La Palma FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Los Alamitos Newport Beach orenge Placentia Santa Ane Seat eaten S antenState A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors Tam^ of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange l4Be Pan: YoWh Linde County, California, will be held at the above location, date and time. County of Orange Barbary Districts Cosm Mese Garden Grove Midway City Water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Wastewater and Environmenml Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 STEERING COMMITTEE Roll Call: Meeting Date: Aoril24. 1996 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 . . Judith A. Wilson, Asst. General Manager . . . . _ Jean Tappan, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c: Board Secretary Lenora Crane April 24, 1996 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 REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1996 - 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 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) j 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. (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. 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). -1- April 24, 1996 (4) Consideration of motion to approve draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held March 27, 1996. (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 (1) Proposed changes to Joint Boards agenda package (Judy Wilson) (c) Report of General Counsel (6) Steering Committee Discussion Items. (a) Update on Activities re Landfill Acquisition (Blake Anderson) (b) Status Report on '96-97 Budget (Judy Wilson) (c) Report on County of Orange Plan of Adjustment (Blake Anderson) (d) Review of Committee Action Items for May meetings (7) Closed Session. Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set 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 real property negotiations, pending or potential litigation,or personnel matters,pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8,54956.9. 54957 or 54957.6,as noted. 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 permitted closed 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 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. -2- April 24, 1996 (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) The next meeting of the Steering Committee is scheduled for May 22, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (12) Adjourn. Notice to Committee Members: For any questions an 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) J:1W P W CbMSiRSAM MUTAPRUGENaA.M -3- STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 1996 Agenda Item (4): Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held March 27, 1996 Summary Attached are the draft minutes of the March 27, 1996 Steering Committee meeting. Recommendation Consideration of a motion to receive, file and approve the draft Minutes of the Steering Committee meeting held March 27, 1996. „wa000cuvsmm.o�ns�ay.0 cm County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 927284127 Telephone: (714)962-2411 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 27, 1996, at 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, Wednesday, March 27, 1996, 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: Nancy Whitehead, Special Counsel John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer A. Swan, Yce 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 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 February 28, 1996 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. P Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 March 27, 1996 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) Report of the Committee Chair There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (c) Report of General Counsel Special Counsel Nancy Whitehead updated the Steering Committee on recent activity re the Sangerrnano v. OCSD case. The trial date is set for May 6 in Department 93. There are two motions to be heard before that time that may affect the trial start date; one is a summary judgment on the issues of exhausting existing remedies and the other to declare three employees immune because they are not party to the action. On April 5 discovery depositions will held. There has been no settlement demand. There is a settlement conference scheduled for March 29 at 3 p.m. The MSC was discussed and expenses were reviewed. General Counsel will make another report after the General Manager's Report (b) Report of General Manager Blake Anderson reported on the ongoing investigation at Bolsa Chica State Beach to determine the reason for high readings at the monitoring station near the park. One-half of the line was televised and numerous cracks and disalignments were found. Staff estimates that it will cost about $500,000 to replace the line and with the State's budget process the repairs or replacement will never be completed in time for the heavy use during the summer months. One possibility being evaluated and discussed is for the State and the Sanitation Districts to enter into an agreement whereby: the Sanitation Districts makes the repairs and bills the State; or a lease-purchase agreement be executed with a maintenance clause. Should the Districts repair this line, part of the costs might be considered a "trade ofr of any fine for the discharge in Newport Beach. Director Collins expressed concern about how these actions would be viewed by others if we went forward, and directed staff to contact the state to see if they acknowledge the problem and have the funds to fix it before the Districts take any action. Director Swan suggested putting the pressure on the State first and also have the County apply pressure on the Regional Water Quality Control Board for dumping violations to the ocean. (1) Don McIntyre discussed the Executive Management Retreat scheduled for Thursday, March 28,wherein staff will be discussing, among other hems, the EMA competitiveness report, ten-year staffing trends, looking at the budget and how to get to $550 per million gallons target for next year(a 6% reduction), critical goals and department responsibilities. 4 Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 March 27, 1996 (2) The EMA Competitive Study, which indicated that OCSD staffing numbers may be between 20 and 30% high compared to privatized systems, was discussed and staff was directed to eliminate the EMA presentation from the agenda for the Joint Boards Meeting in April. The Committees will receive briefings, however. Don indicated that attrition would reduce staffing levels by about 20% over the next five years. In next year's budget there is$200,000 allocated for a staffing study. The employees are aware of this report and it has been discussed with them. Director Swan suggested that staff set targets and goals and develop an action plan on how to accomplish the reduction of staff as soon as possible because the public would not buy a five-year reduction plan. (3) Judy Wilson reported that five proposals were submitted on the Financial Information System and they are being evaluated at this time. A recommendation will be presented at the April FAHR Committee and forwarded for approval to the Joint Boards at the April meeting. The recommendation will include the costs for training and data conversion. Director Swan requested that the process be done as quickly as possible. (c) Additional Report of General Counsel General Counsel briefed the Committee on the Serrantino v. OCSD lawsuit re unlawful termination. OCSD submitted a settlement proposal which was countered with unacceptable conditions. Blake Anderson indicated that there would be a position available without"bumping' other employees. The Districts' appeal is going forward. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Status Report on Landfill Acquisition Blake Anderson reported on recent activities. Don McIntyre reported that he met with the Irvine Council and they were supportive of our efforts to acquire the landfill system. The draft letter to the County withdrawing our offer to purchase the landfill system was discussed. The letter was approved with several minor word smithing changes. The draft letter and a press release will be presented for approval to the Directors at the Joint Boards Meeting following the Steering Committee meeting, Director Stanton stated that he and Director Steiner were very appreciative of the work staff has done on this issue. A discussion followed on steps to take to get the $100,000 non-refundable payment returned because the County did not act in good faith. This will be further discussed at tonight's Boards meeting. (b) Status Report on '96-97 Budget Process This item was not discussed. i Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 March 27, 1996 (c) Action Items Scheduled to be Reviewed by Committees in April This item was not discussed. (7) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (8) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were no matters for a subsequent meeting. (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 April 24, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 7:04 p.m. Submitted by: W� Tappan, Steerin -Cofnmittee Secretary J:Iwf�L16M'UIRCOMNWMAR ]]7W MIN STEERING COMMITT2-'E AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 1996 Agenda Item (5)(b)(1 ): General Manager's Report Summary Staff is continuing to evaluate ways to streamline the preparation of the Joint Boards agenda package and the process. Judy Wilson will discuss a proposed change and seek direction from the Steering Committee. ��wvroc�c+.rsrq-conwnavwawsa.cva 7 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 1996 Agenda Item (5)(C): General Counsel's Report--Discussion of AB 2109, the Pringle Bill Summary General Counsel will be updating the Steering Committee on ongoing activities, including the hearing that he attended, regarding the status of the Pringle Bill. This issue will also be addressed at the Joint Boards meeting immediately following this Steering Committee meeting, and in more detail at the Executive Committee meeting scheduled for May 15. Staff Recommendation Information item only. �ewwoac�nsrRcawrssAvmusc.cvn w oFF,ocs or \� ROURKE, WOODRU= & 6*1#ADLIN MEMORANDUM TO: Joint Chairman and Members of Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts FROM: General Counsel DATE: April 18, 1996 RE: Proposed Legislation re AB 2109 (Pringle and Baugh) re Formation of"Orange County Water and Sanitation District" The controversial AS 2109, authored by Orange County Assembly Members Pringle and Baugh, was set for hearing in the first Policy Committee before the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 17, 1996. In the absence of Joint Chairman Cox' ability to appear and represent the interests of the Districts, I did appear, for purposes of providing oral testimony, in addition to written correspondence testimony filed previously. I was also able to take advantage of my current position as President of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, who are on record of opposing this measure, in addition to representing the Sanitation Districts. In the many weeks since the Bill was introduced, a great amount of concern has been expressed by virtually all Water and Sanitary Districts in Orange County, and they developed an Ad Hoc Committee, representing both the wholesalers (Municipal Water District of Orange County, Tri-Cities Municipal Water District and Coastal Municipal Water District); the basin owner and manager (Orange County Water District); and the numerous retail agencies. In Sacramento on April 17th, there were 10 representatives of the water industry from Orange County, including Association lobbyists from Sacramento. The basic position of the Sanitation Districts on this measure was to fundamentally endorse the philosophy and concept of streamlined cost-efficient local government, which could include consolidation of existing, overlapping or less-than-maximum efficient agencies. The major point of distinction and objection posed by the Sanitation Districts was that the measure was principally attempting to merge all of the retail customer, service-type Water and Sanitary Districts with the Sanitation Districts, which have no direct customer relationship, and our Districts are 50 to 200 times larger than some of the Water and Sanitary Districts. I had previously met with Assemblyman Pringle's Policy Director and presented the concems of the Sanitation Districts, and was advised that the Sanitation Districts were in fact not an intended target of this legislation, but that we could in fact be included in such measure, notwithstanding. The Water Districts have prepared a "white paper", which I believe was excellently prepared, and provides a reasonable approach to address the concerns of the author. While we, of course, basically supported the position of all of the other Special Districts, we did make it clear to all interested parties that the Sanitation Districts were most interested in segregating themselves on the basis of their unique organization. 9 Joint Chairman and Members of Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts April 18, 1996 Page 2 1 had the opportunity to review the matter with Assemblyman Ackerman from the 72nd District, and he fully comprehends and is supportive of the Sanitation Districts' concerns, and in fact, it would appear that a number of the Legislators are likewise sympathetic. It appeared certain that the Bill would get passed by the Committee, if for no other reason than pure deference to the Speaker being the author, but that the Bill, in its present form, was in fact totally unacceptable to many of those who would vote it out of Committee. Regretably, the Speaker became engaged in another Committee Hearing and was unable to appear at the Local Government Committee; and accordingly, the Chairman of Local Government did not hold the hearing and referred the matter over until April 24, 199& While I am confident that the measure, as presently drafted, is intended as a "leverage Bill" to address three principat coneems—namely: (1) the jursidictional dispute between the City of Garden Grove and the Garden Grove Sanitary District; (2) the multiple overlapping Water and Sanitary Districts in the South County; and (3) the use of "excessive sums" of reserves for investments in real estate by one or more local districts, that it will, nonetheless, continue to proceed and perhaps encompass many other Districts, including the Sanitation Districts, if in fact no meaningful progress is shown on the part of the affected local agencies to remedy the three problems enumerated above. I believe it is critically important that the position of every City and every District be made known to the Speaker, setting forth the points of concem with the Bill—most notably that it is such a sweeping, major reorganization, being done without any study or analysis whatsoever, that it is almost certainly to result in immeasurable problems. ITHOMNERAL COUNSEL nw:q cc: Mr. D.F. McIntyre Mr. B.P. Anderson Ms. J.A. Wilson 6 COUNTY,,..ANITATION DISTRICTS OF DPaaAGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 12, 1996 Hon, Richard Rainey, Chairman engine: and Members of the Assembly Local 17141 SSM411 Government Committee State Capitol "~Ping add.: Sacramento, Ca. 95814 P.O.Bat 8127 Fountain Wiley,CA 9272"127 Re: AB 2109 (Princle. Bauch) street add..: 1 0944 Ellie Avenue Fouraeln Valley,CA It is my pleasure to provide a summary of the written testimony which we 9270 701E submit to your Committee concerning the position of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County on this proposed AB 2109, which would create the Member Orange County Water and Sanitation District. AgeMee • cities It is the position of the County Sanitation Districts that, despite the cash':.Bree meritorious objectives of the author in attempting to create a more efficient and Buena Perk Cypress responsive level of local government service to the residents of Orange County, Fountain Valley Fullerton the Bill, as presently drafted, is unworkable, and would likely produce the exact Huntington Beech Irvin opposite results of the apparent intent of the author. This is at least particularly La Habra Le Pahns Los Alamitos true, insofar as the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. There are in Newport Beach Orange fact nine totally separate and independent sanitation districts within Orange Placentia $°"M Ana County, each of which is formed under the provisions of the County Sanitation Seal Basch Stanton Tustin District Act. However, they are in fact consolidated for virtually all purposes P Ville Perk rare, ones pursuant to a Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement dating County a1 Orange back to 1954, by and among those nine Districts. They are often referred to as Sanitary Discrete an example of perhaps the most efficient form of local government. Coate Mesa Barden Grove M,d.y cry Pursuant to the Joint Agreement, the nine Districts are operated by a Water Districts single administration, which provides for the planning, construction, operations, Irvine Hench maintenance, financial and administrative staffing. The nine Districts jointly own and operate the third largest wastewater management agency west of Chicago, serving a population of approximately 2.2 million people, with collection, A Public Westeneter and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 treatment and disposal facilities worth more than $1 billion. There are 600 miles of major trunk sewers, 200 miles of sub-trunks, 30 pumping stations, and 2 major wastewater treatment plants, with disposal facilities to safely discharge the treated effluent through an ocean ouffall, into deep ocean waters, approximately five miles offshore. The plants have a hydraulic capacity of treating and disposing of 600 million gallons per day. During two severe rainstorms in early 1995, they approached that level when 540 and 560 million gallons were processed through the plants in a given 24-hour period. The major point of concern with AB 2109 by the Sanitation Districts is that it is being combined with 24 other agencies, all but four of which are in the business of providing direct service to individual customers, either as owners or occupants of residential, industrial or commercial property. The Sanitation Districts do not provide service to individual owners or occupants, but rather provide only the massive trunk line and interceptor collection sewer system that allows for the local service agencies, namely 20 cities and three sanitary districts, to provide the local customer service. Those agencies connect their local system to the Districts' trunks. The Districts then transport, via their massive collection system, to the wastewater treatment plants owned by the Districts in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. These are the only two treatment plants that provide service to these 23 communities. After completion of the treatment, it is then disposed of through the Districts' jointly-owned and operated ocean outall. The Sanitation Districts are also unique, in that they are solely responsible for the development, implementation and enforcement of the Industrial Source Control Program, as mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act, the State Porter- Cologne Act, and all of the implementing regulations of both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State and Regional Water Control 7006 31 2771O 1 2 Boards. The local community service agencies—either cities or sanitary districts— are not equipped or staffed to provide that service, and this is perhaps the most critical program to ensure the continued protection of the marine environment by adequately regulating the discharge of toxic and hazardous substances into the Districts' sewers. The local agencies, either as cities or as sanitary districts, need to continue to be responsible to the individual customers who receive their local sewer service. The operations and maintenance of these local sewers are entirely different in scope from the Sanitation Districts, in that they typically handle small diameter lines, as opposed to massive interceptor and trunk sewers measuring up to 96 inches in diameter. The Sanitation Districts, for those who have not been afforded the opportunity to fully examine their organization and operations, could appear to be unwieldy, in that the nine Districts have a combined total of 29 directors. However, the record will clearly show that in fact it is perhaps the most efficient governmental organization available and that when considering an annual operating budget of$60 Million and a capital improvement budget ranging from $50 to $250 Million per year, it truly is the best of both worlds. There are the extraordinary costs efficiencies of having the benefit of a consolidation of the nine Districts for all administrative purposes, but yet each local community, within the areas served by the nine Districts, has its own elected representative on the governing body of the Districts. That way, each community has an individual to speak on behalf of that community at the time of determining the need for planning and developing of both the individual district capital projects and the joint treatment and disposal facility projects. The County Sanitation Districts in fact have been on record for many years, in addition to their actually operating in a consolidated form, of supporting m°°"°° I 3 2n16 1 renewed examination of ways of improving their own administration and operations. In 1995, the Districts engaged a consulting firm to undertake the necessary studies to determine if further consolidation of the nine Districts into a single District was feasible. The consultant's initial report has just recently been provided to the Districts' Directors for their review and consideration, and a decision is expected by the end of this year. The Districts long-range planning and financing program with the existing structure has enabled them to provide this vital service to the 2.2 million residents of Central and Northwestern Orange County, residing in 23 different communities, for the lowest cost in the State of California, among major sewerage agencies. To combine these Districts with those small water and sewer agencies that perhaps have as few as 400 local direct service customers with a totally different function, would almost certainly result in inadequate or inappropriate representation, and produce a more costly, rather than a cost- efficient, form of government and operation. On behalf of the Districts, we urge that this Bill not receive a favorable recommendation, as drafted, but if the overall concept of the Bill is looked upon favorably, we would strongly urge that Section 106(G) be deleted by eliminating the Sanitation Districts from within the scope of the Bill. They are truly different than the other Districts included in the Bill. ]�31 277161 4 F I would be most happy to respond to any questions. Ve truly yours, Thomas L. Woodru� General Counsel nW:nl cc: Honorable Pringle Honorable Baugh Matt Francois, Committee Consultant 2000. 31 5 27716_1 Q MAJOR FACTS CONCERNING CSDOC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SANITARY AND WATER DISTRICTS • CSDOC -THE THIRD LARGEST POTW WEST OF CHICAGO. • NINE SEPARATE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS. • ONE CONSOLIDATED JOINT ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS. • OWNS AND OPERATES THE ONLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISPOSAL OUTFALL TO SERVE 23 COMMUNITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY. • PROVIDES WASTEWATER COLLECTION TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES TO 20 CITIES AND 3 SANITARY DISTRICTS SERVING 2.2 MILLION OF THE 2.5 MILLION RESIDENTS OF ORANGE COUNTY. • OWNS AND OPERATES 2 CENTRAL POWER GENERATION PLANTS, FUELED BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS PRODUCED METHANE GAS. THIS SUPPLIES ENTIRE ELECTRICAL NEEDS AND SALE OF SURPLUS ELECTRICITY TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. • THE DISTRICTS, AS A SINGLE PURPOSE PUBLIC AGENCY, ARE THE ONLY MAJOR PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS IN THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE RECEIVED A s M 2Ll , , 6 P WAIVER OF FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT OF DISCHARGED EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 301(h) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT. THIS AVOIDS $1.4 BILLION IN ADDITIONAL CAPITAL FACILITATES CONSTRUCTION BEING INCURRED BY TAXPAYER- RATEPAYERS. CONSOLIDATION WITH NUMEROUS OTHER AGENCIES WITH DIFFERENT PURPOSES AND MISSIONS COULD PLACE THIS WAIVER IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY. • THE DISTRICTS IN 1995 COMMISSIONED A STUDY BY AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE THE ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSOLIDATING THE 9 DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE ENTITY. THAT DECISION WILL BE MADE BY END OF 1996, BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT RECEIVED FEBRUARY, 1996. • THE DISTRICTS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM AS MANDATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. THE INDIVIDUAL CITIES AND SANITARY DISTRICTS HAVE NEITHER THE FACILITIES NOR THE PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STAFF CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. • IF THE DISTRICTS WERE MERGED AS PROPOSED, THE 20 CITIES OF ITS 23 MEMBER AGENCIES WOULD CONTINUE TO EXIST AND PROVIDE THE LOCAL SERVICE TO INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS AND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE BILL WOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED. z000 1 7 zmsi `. - AB 2109 Page 1 Date of Nearing: April 17, 2996 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Richard Rainey, Chairman AS 2109 (Pringle) - As Introduced: January 29, 1996 LOCAL GOVERNMENT > APPROPRIATIONS > SUBJECT: Creates a new district to assume the powers of multiple water and sanitation districts in Orange County. Specifically, this bill: 1) Creates a single countywide district (the -Orange County Water and Sanitation District-) with a ten-member directly-elected board to assume the powers of the existing 25 Orange County sanitation and water districts. 2) Provides for the assumption of powers by the Orange County Water and Sanitation District of the following special districts, effective January 1, 2999: Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Dana Point Sanitary District, Garden Grove Sanitary District, Midway City Sanitary District, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, Los Alamitos Water District, Orange County Sanitation District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Coastal Municipal water District, Orange County Water District, .Tri-Cities Municipal Water District, East Orange County water District, Capistrano Beach Water District, E1 Toro Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, Laguna Beach County Water District, Los Aliens Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita water District, Santiago County water District, Serrano Irrigation District, South Coast Water District, Trabuco Canyon Water District and the Yorbe Linda Water District. 3) Excludes existing special districts from the Orange County Water and Sanitation District if the voters of a city that includes at least 701, of the service area of that existing special district authorize (by a majority vote) the assumption of powers of that special district by the . city. 4) Establishes an advisory board of former special district members to consult the newly created board members. FISCAL EFFECT: State-mandated local program; contains reimbursement direction. BXISTING LAW: 1) The Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 provides various means of consolidating special districts. Specifically, consolidation may occur as a result of a local agency formation commission AS 2109 Page 2 1 (LhFCO) initiated process, by election of the voters or by resolution of a special district. 13ACXGRODND: In August 1995, 18 water and wastewater agencies in south Orange County.undertook a comprehensive Study to determine how to provide customers with more efficient Service. Among the considerations discussed was a plan to consolidate and reorganize the existing structure of water agencies. .The first phase of the study is to be distributed for public comment in May and finalized in June. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters argue that the LAFCO system is broken and thus is not conducive to consolidation. The current structure is characterized by inefficiencies and overlapping jurisdictions. The existing LAFCO process has produced no substantive action to address these problems. For instance, each of the existing 25 water agencies has its own board of directors and operating budget and it is unlikely that these administrators have a strong incentive to see consolidation occur. Creation of a unified water district will result in administrative savings as well as a Significant drop in the number of board members. Further, it came to light during the Orange County bankruptcy that certain special districts were making speculative investments and raised rates from their customers to recoup their losses. Supporters say there would be more accountability if the districts were consolidated into one agency. Especially " [i]n light of Orange County's bankruptcy, the need for structural reform has increased, spurring efforts to address consolidation through legislation, outside of the LAFCO process." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents argue that the LAFCO process should be used to handle complex issues like consolidation: " [t]he LAFCO responsibilities outlined in the Cortese-Knox Act are critical to making reasoned and effective choices regarding consolidation." The existing water agencies feel the study they have undertaken "deserves the opportunity to be completed and implemented." The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) opposes this bill because, "it would compel by state legislation a merger which should be determined at the local level using existing processes." Also, the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) argues, "increasing size can lead to diseconomies and less accountability." The Coastal Municipal Water District (CMWD) asserts that there are numerous technical and governance issues which the bill does not address: variations in services and water rates of the existing agencies, variations in assets and reserves, indebtedness, property taxes, and existing ground water and surface water rights. Also, CMWD says the bill denies customers the opportunity to choose their water provider. Page 3 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Suonort Speaker Curt Pringle [SPONSOR] OPoosition Assoc. of CA Water Agencies CA Assoc. of Local Agency Formation Commissions CA Assoc. of Sanitation Agencies CA Municipal Utilities Assoc. City of Santa Ana Coastal Municipal Water District County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Fresno LAFCO Laguna Beach County Water District Municipal Water District of Orange County Orange County LAFCO South Coast Water District Individual letters M Analysis orenared by: Matt Francoie / algov / 445-6034 WATER AGENCY CONCERNS WITH AB 2109 PRESENTATION TO THE ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 17, 1996 RECOADIENDAnON AB 2109 should not be a legislative mandate for unilateral consolidation, but rather an aid to creating a more efficient delivery system for potable water and wastewater service. Several local efforts are now under way in Orange County to develop the optimum service delivery system, one that likely will result in several structural changes such as consolidations and reorganizations. AB 2109 should: 1) Encourage and facilitate consolidations and reorganizations developed by local agencies and their customers;and Several studies are now under way in Orange County that are likely to result in recommendations for consolidations and/or reorganizations [ `]fig Attachment A]. These studies will consider a number of factors, and will address several issues outlined in this paper. Where the studies result in recommendations combining districts formed under different legislative acts, AB 2109 could facilitate such combinations. 2) kelp to remove obstacles to quick implementation of these consolidations and reorganizations These studies now under way normally would result in recommendations to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which was created by the ;,egislature to ensure the logical creation and/or consolidation of local governmental entities. These countywide LAFCOs perform a useful function in reviewing proposals, but suffer from inadequate funding and staff to handle multiple, complex and/or competing applications. AB 2109 could develop a more certain or greater funding mechanism to ensure adequate and timely review of local consolidation/creation applications. SUMMARY OF CRMCAL ISSUES Consolidation or reorganization of special districts in Orange County should strive to result in economies, efficiencies and improved accountability of local government. A large regional agency may be best suited to handle planning functions, but it may not be best suited to retail accountability and concerns over local control. These issues need to be — and should be— resolved on a local level. Water Agency Concerns With AB 2109 . Assembly Local Government Committee April 17, 1996 Page 2 The following issues have been identified as requiring careful consideration in connection with AB 2109: 1)Local Preference AB 2109 makes the assumption that voters in Orange County desire a large countywide consolidated agency for water and sewer service, rather than locally governed special districts. Recent experience tends to indicate otherwise. The City Council of Costa Mesa recently rejected a proposal to assume governance of the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Residents en mass in 1995 rejected a proposal to dissolve the Santa Margarita Water District, expressing confidence in the locally elected board of directors. Local special districts provide one of the few opportunities for citizens to participate in local government through the election process without having to raise large sums to conduct campaigns on a countywide basis. Local districts have direct communication with their customers through the monthly billing process, community based newspapers and cable television systems, and the local meetings of the governing board. Many of these opportunities would be lost through large-scale consolidation with centralized administration and governance. 3)Emuitable C 2yZ13 nce AB 2109 as introduced would set election divisions along the lines of Supervisorial Districts. This would result in six of the proposed 10 directors representing divisions where there would be few, if any, retail water or sewer services; a minority of four would represent the area where most retail water and sewer districts presently provide service. [See mar Attachment Bl. 4)Variations in services and water rates The levels of services provided by some districts are greater than others. These services are in response to the desires of the local areas and include intensive water conservation programs, in-school programs and public education. Other factors, such as pumping costs in hilly ares, source of water, and for the need of additional water quality programs can cause disparity in water rates and property taxes among agencies. 5)Variations in assets,reserves.indebtedness and nronetty taxes Districts throughout Orange County have made varying levels of investment in infrastructure and maintenance financed with bonds issued in accordance with individual long-term fiscal plans. Some have elaborate systems of internal Water Agency Concerns With AB 2109 Assembly Local Government Committee April 17, 1996 Page 3 improvement districts to account for new growth; some have bonded indebtedness authorizations designed to provide financing to rapidly growing areas. And many special districts receive some small share of the basic one percent of ad valorem property tax, some of which is used to back debt service. 6) Legal R latio c ins Care must be taken to maintain legal relationships among agencies and with agencies and individuals outside Orange County. An example is provided by the relationship among agencies along the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana is an "adjudicated' river, where certain flows are guaranteed by court decree. Again, legal precautions must be taken to maintain the river water rights within the watershed. These rights have been established often through protracted and costly legal processes. 7)Groundwater and surface water ri h c Perhaps the most potentially contentious issue is the right to groundwater and surface water flows. The Orange County Water District, for instance, was established to manage the groundwater basin for the benefit of cities overlying the Orange County main basin, which generally underlies the area of the north and west county. The groundwater cities long have expressed a concern that their rights to the groundwater not be compromised, as water extracted from the basin is considerably less expensive than imported water. The basin has been beneficially managed without intrusion or adjudication by the courts. Any consolidation effort would require political and legal care not to jeopardize the groundwater rights and to avoid a potentially costly rush to adjudication if those rights are perceived to be in jeopardy. Other similar issues are involved with rights to Irvine Lake, Santiago Creek flows and the San Juan Creek basin. 8)Costs of consolidation Perhaps one of the more daunting issues involved in attempts to undertake widespread consolidation are the potential legal costs involved. From the recitation above, some of this potential is evident. Formation of improvement districts and sub-improvement districts to maintain equity among areas with varying tax rates and bond issue commitments; the maintenance of groundwater and surface water rights; and other as yet uncovered "unintended consequences" may prove vastly more costly than any monetary savings that might be achieved through massive consolidation. Many of the local districts in question were formed for the very purpose of establishing and protecting those rights for local property owners and residents. A legislative "magic wand' to dismiss these arrangements seems imprudent. They are the underlying reason for the careful due process embodied in the Water Agency Concerns With AB 2109 Assembly Local Government Committee April 17, 1996 Page 4 establishment of the Local Agency Formation Commissions by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act. CONCLUSION To make any kind of significant reorganization of local government in Orange County, AB 2109 should be amended to address the several issues associated with such an effort. If the goal of AB 2109 is to create a more efficient delivery system for potable water and wastewater service, then logical organization of delivery systems should be analyzed and put into place. AB 2109 could be amended to mandate a study on how best to reorganize and consolidate special districts. This bill or future legislation could be written to facilitate, or even require, adoption of the study's recommendations, either through the LAFCO process or by a public vote. This approach is constructive and allows the opportunity to reasonably address the issues identified herein. With appropriate and timely input from water districts and sanitary within Orange County, AB 2109 can be amended and passed with provisions that would improve significantly Orange County local government. ATTACHMENT A Summary of Governmental Restructuring Initiatives in Orange County (as of April 8, 1996) Water District Specific Description of Restructuring Initiative: End Product/ Schedule Related Contact Outcome InItIsllJe(s) :�Ptirts'on Service Delivery Systems and Governance Improvement Study—An outgrowth of discussions among the five California Water ` Districts(Santa Margarita,Irvine Ranch,Moulton-Niguel,El Tom and Los Alisos) this group has expanded to include 18 primarily South-County water Ron Kennedy,El districts.The group has hired the management consulting firm of Ford Recommendations Phase I—mid- Toro Water Sauvajot to look at potential reorganizationskonsobdadons among its for May District(714) members both from an economic as well as customer-service standpoint consolidationtreorga- 837-7050 nization will be Recommendation John Schatz, This first phase of this study will be released for public review in mid-May fawarded to to LAFCO— Santa Margarita and finalized in early July.Financial,legal and operational data from the LAFCO for early July Water District participating wholesale and retail districts has been gathered,and a model implemenmtfon (714)459-6400 developed that will be used to identify feasible consolidations.Once these feasible consolidations are identified,plausible consolidations will be developed.In phase B of the study,information LAFCO will need to consider these alternative institutional structures for water and wastewater service will be prepared. LAFCO Dena Point "Single District Scenario Study" — In Reorganization April 1993,LAFCO began a sphere of influence study for the six districts discussions between Dana Smith, ` providing water and/or sewer service to the City of Dana Point,with the Jan. 1, 1995— Completed South Coast Water Orange County intent of moving toward a"single district scenario".One year later,LAFCO consolidation of Disuictandlaguna LAFCO staff reported the responses to that scenario from the districts and was Capistrano Beach Peripheral Beach County Executive directed to work with the districts to develop common-ground issues and Water District and discussions Watts.District Director(714) weak toward consolidation. Capistrano Beach ongoing 834-2556 Sanitary District. Reorganization discussions between Coastal MWD and Tri-Cides MWD Page 1 of 5 Summary of Governmental Restructuring Initiatives in Orange County Countywide Description of Restructuring Initiative End Producll Schedule Related Contact Outcome Initistl4*(s) Person Orange County 2001 —Beginning with a draft released in April, 1995. Supervisor Marian Bergeson has continued to refine a set of proposals for changing systems of service delivery and program administration.The most Goverment Supervisor recent draft calls for a number of structural and administrative changes, Practices Oversight Marian Bergeson, including elimination of the Board of Supervisors and LAFCO; Working document Latest drift dated Committee Aide Dave IOff establishment of the Orange County Regional Services Authority(ORSA), called Orange Sept.28, 1995 (714)834-3550 with a governing board from each of nine districts;appoinunent of a strong County 2001 first County CEO county CEO who would administer programs for health and human services, talented in April proposal / public facilities,(e.g.,flood control)public protection(e.g.,District 1995 Attorney),water(e.g.a single water department combining oversight of both groundwater and imported water from Metropolitan)and transportation; have cities take over existing County services for non-jail law enforcement and police protoction,local planning and land use,affordable housing programs,and library services;and contracting with the State to provide other services(e.g.,elections and voter registration). Government Practices Oversight Committee (GPOC) — This group,consisting of 27 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, originally was formed to oversee a management audit of county government "Fact Book"of Fact Book endOrange County Mary Ann in the wake of last December's bankruptcy.The committee has since govemment entities of April 2001 Schulte,Co- broadened the scope of its mission to include developing a framework of chair, governing principles,performance measures and outcomes,and reorganizing Report on Report to Board County CEO (714)540.5351 strategies for the County as well as local governments(including special restructuring/ of Supervisors proposal Bill Mitchell, districts).Five subcommittees(health and human services,public rcoperation —June co-choir pmwcdon,EMA,general government and cities and special districts)we (714)741-3049 working to develop a"fact book"on are operations and budget of each county depanmentlagency/city/special district.Phase 11,now under way, includes a process of interviews and other outreach to tap the opinion of stakeholders,including county line and management employees,users of County services,and outside observers. County CEO—The Board of Supervisors on April approved a contract Report and Government tan Miuetmeier, with the Diamond Group to study reorganization of County functions and Recommendations Practices Oversight County CEO service delivery systems,including independent special districts. to Board of Committee (714)834-6200 Supervisors Dan Young, Orange County Gary Hausdorfer/ 2001 Diamond Group (714)727-4650 Page 2 of 5 Summary of Governmental Restructuring Initiatives in Orange County Countywide (Cont.) Description_01 Restructuring Initiative End Product/ Schedule - Related Contact Outcome Initlative(s) Person Orange County Restructuring Working Group —This group is composed of the executive director of the Orange County division of the Research and League of California Cities,the co-chairs and other leadership of the GPOC, proposal Government Francine F. and staff of the Business Council,plus senior staff from some of the Briefings,working development— Practices Oversight Rabhtovitz and Supervisors' offices.It has been meeting monthly since September to papers;draft In.-June Committee Paul J. Silvem, discuss various restructuring options and alternatives.Technical work is proposals;final Hamilton, being performed by the consulting firm of Hamilton,Rabinovitz At report draft Business Council Rabirovitz 8r( Alschuler,with funding from the Irvine Foundation.Principal areal being recommend., Alschuler.Inc, discussed include options for dealing with County"islands",general June-Aug. (818)509-7333 principles that should guide consideration of service consolidations,and guidelines for assessing which services now delivered by the County would Final Report, be more appropriately delivered at the regional or local level. Sept.-Dee. Orange County Senior Executive Discussion Group — This group grew from discussions among the Pool Participants Committee on - William how to lake advantage of a"window of opportunity"to restrocture Discussions that Ongoing Woollett Jr., government—especially county government—in the wake of the may Iced to CEO, bankruptcy. It has expanded to include participation from the Business proposals through Transportation Council and League of Cities The members have been meeting monthly to other venues Corridor share ideas about government accountability,efficiency and service Agencies improvement The group does not intend to develop formal positions or (714)436.9980D recommendations,but rather to serve as a sounding board for concepts. Orange County Business Council Restructuring Task Force — Identification of This group monitors restructuring efforts and discussions,and has developed specific desired Outcomes to be Senior Executive Julie Paenlea, a set of principles that it believes should guide muructuring activities in outcomes from identified by Discussion Group Bus.Council Orange County.Particularly active in contributing ideas to the development local govemment summ"Aall Public Affairs of the proposed County charter,it is now working on principles that can be restructuring and 1996 OC Restructuring Director used in various restructuring and reform scenarios.Objectives are for greater operational Working Group (714)476-2242 accountability,greater cost-effectiveness,and a greater degree of public improvements that access to local government will improve the business climate Page 3 of 5 Summary of Governmental Restructuring Initiatives in Orange County Countywide (cost.) Description of Restructuring Initiative, End Product/ Schedule Related Contact outcome Initlativs a Portion Orange County Division, League of California Cities Restructuring Super Committee —A league committee composed of complelad, 31 city council members and city managers prepared a"while paper'in Draft report Aug. 10, 1995 Government Janet M. Huston, August 1995,that makes a series of recommendations about County Practices Oversight Executive Din, governance,delivery of public services,disposition of public assets and Committee League of Calif. privatization.These include a County charter,strong CEO,and reducing the Cities, OC number of elected officiais/deparmi nl heads;preliminary evaluation criteria Division for distinguishing between core services that should continue to be delivered Business Council (714)972-0077 ` by the County.County services that should be delivered by cities,and l regional services that should be considered for a joint powers authority or council of governments;and a set of principles that should guide the disposition of County assets,ranging in scale from John Wayne Airpon to County-owned equipmenL Orange County Charter —On Nov, 28, the County Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation from the Orange County Charter Hon.Bruce Commission to put two measures on the Match ballot: 1)to adopt an Public vote on Both measures Sumner,chair, Orange County Charter and 2) to expand the Board of Supervison from five Chancy defeated on OC Charter to nine members effective in January 1999.The recommended charter, Mach 26, 1996 Commission adopted earner after nearly a year's worth of work by the 38-member Orange (714)650-9474 County Charter Commission,contains no mention of special districts.A proposal for wide-wale consolidations was rejected early in the process. The Charter:Imposes term limits on supervisors(no more than two consecutive four-year terms);Establishes a strong Chief Executive Officer, responsible for managing day-to-day county operations and supervising all non-eimted department heads;Establishes that in addition to Supervisors, the only elected County officials shall be the Assessor,District Attorney and Sheriff.Currently elected positions such as 7'reasurerfrax Collector and County Clerk/Recorder would be appointed by the CEO. Page 4 of 5 Summary of Governmental Restructuring Initiatives in Orange County Other OC Special Districts Description of Restructuring Initiative End Product/ Schedule Related Contact Outcome InitiatIve(s) .PeI500 County Sanitation Districts 2020 Vision Plan and Consolidation Study —The County Sanitation Districts of Orange Decision on Report ta led Don McIntyre, County(CSDOC)has commissioned a study by the Ford Sauvajot Consolidation April 1996 General Mgr., Management Group to assess a proposal to consolidate the nine existing ,cot✓ �..- CSDOC Sanitation Districts into a single District. 1 96 14 962.2411 Orange County Transportation Agencies Consolidation Study —The Orange County Transportation Authority(OCfA)has launched the Stan Oaoito, third attempt since 1998 to merge the operations of OCfA,the Consolidation Under discussion Exec.Dir., Transportation Corridors Agencies(TCA),the Laguna Beach Municipal repon and OCfA Transit Lines and other countywide transportation functions now handled by recommendations (714)590.6292 County agencies.Following a preliminary analysis by an outside consulting form,OCTA staff recommended in February its Board approve an inter- William agency advisory committee and commission a formal study of a possible Woollen Jr., merger. CEO,TCA (714 436.9800 l Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT B i 7 tii'�Y,i TiLIY aS'i1 F'Tp IF 1 , 3g �, ' � �}} i I1, 1RM �. ,01 4 :...... yg, is "�I 1uL'! lyy,( ! !r�5� 1e,It �'•ji, ,,, \ •r r s j i'}•' 1� U t�9 � u ' like l.i ilsx'`'LiFj 1 �VS.s ��) Rclnil Water Providers- R4 _ - ,k+lfl LAY '• .�� ���' .(FR•, ,�2K`3��1 sy svrnvssoeus orsrnrn � •.;•,•'• �.� ��}' W.� i �, s � © consouoeno$PWAt RTM oismrn .�. ��� ,,pi • l e 'STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR APRIL 24, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(d): Review of Agenda Items Scheduled to be Presented to Committees in May Summary In December during the discussions on consolidating committees,staff was directed to routinely prepare a listing of items that will be presented to the working committees and the Boards the following month. This would allow the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough to make changes in the approval process. The Committee and the items scheduled for review/action in May are: OMITS Committee: 1. Report on State of Technical Services Department(information Rem) 2. Quarterly Report on Districts'Occupational Injury and Near Miss Accidents Rates(information Rem) 3. Report on SAIC(information Rem) 4. Consideration of motion to enter into three-party Billing Agreement with SoCalGas for the billing process of the Compressed Natural Gas Station 5. Closing report on implementation of the 38 recommendations made by Ernst&Young audit of Operations and Maintenance Departments (information Rem) 6. Competitive Assessment Report(information Rem) 7. General Services Administration Report(information Rem) 8. 1996-97 CORF Budget Status Report(information Rem) 9. 1996-97 Operating Budget Status Report(information Rem) PDC Committee: 1. 1996-97 CORF Budget Status Report(information Rem) FAHR Committee: 1. Quarterly Treasury Report(information Rem) 2. Receive and file Staff Report re Legal Services Alternatives 3. Receive and file Quarterly JO and CORF Budget Review 4. Receive and file CIP Report 5. Consideration of motion adopting new Health Benefds Plan 6. Monthly COP Rate Report(information Rem) 7. Monthly Investment Report(information Rem) 8. Quarterly Training and Travel Report(information Rem) 9. 1996-97 Operating Budget Status Report (information Rem) 10. 1996-97 CORF Budget Status Report(information Rem) 11. Consider proposals and award contract for Property and Public Liability Insurance Staff Recommendation Information Rem only. J\wPpCl,`�M14f0.LONMBW/�PIMMO.LYR