Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-05
FILED County Sanitation Districts In the Office of the SoeretIllpr of Orange County,California Gaunty Sanhalion Dstnut(s) P.O.Box 8127 a 108"Ellis Avant 3_ /3�y3 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-81Z r `JUN 26199t DRAFT Telephone: (714) 962-2411 e"�p ��' I ITES Or THE STEERING COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 22, 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, May 22, 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 STAFF PRESENT: Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager George Brown, Chair, FAHR Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Absent: Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 24, 1996 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 May 22, 1996 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) Committee Chair Report. Chair Cox discussed what he considered conflicting direction on an issue affecting consolidation at the May 15 Executive Committee meeting. The Executive Committee must address the section under which the consolidation will be filed, either Section 4730 or Section 4730.1. If consolidation goes forward under Section 4730, IRWD will not be entitled to a seat on the Board. If consolidation is implemented under Section 4730.1, three more cities and two water districts would be added to the Boards, resulting in dual representation. This needs to be resolved at the next Executive Committee meeting, scheduled for June 19, and a recommendation made at the June 26 Joint Boards Meeting. (b) There was no report by the General Manager. (c) There was no report by Counsel. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Status of the Pringle Bill (AB 21091 As of this meeting, the bill has not gone to the Appropriations Committee. However, Speaker Pringle has indicated that he would like it out of Committee and to the assembly by the end of May. Mr. Pringle has also indicated that the bill will be changed if responsible alternatives are presented to him. The Steering Committee directed staff to maintain contact with Mr. Pringle's office on this issue. Districts' staff should be educating city councils on the issue by asking them to support the general concept of evaluating agencies to see if consolidation is feasible. A letter will be prepared to all cities and Assemblyman Pringle for the Joint Chair's signature addressing our efforts and concerns. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting _ Page 3 May 22, 1996 (b) Status of Orange County Council of Governments (COG) Sixteen cities have committed to the Council of Governments and three more are scheduled to take action this month. The County is undecided at this time. This program is the continuation of RAPC. When the Council is authorized, our Boards will be requested to take action on a Joint Powers Agreement. (c) Debriefing on Boards Workshops on the Strategic Plan and Results of Directors Survey Judy Wilson summarized the returns of the surveys. The Directors indicated that they appreciate the opportunity to participate. One suggestion was to consider a site tour of the outfall at the next workshop. A copy of the results is attached to these minutes. (d) Role of the Steering Committee The Steering Committee will be included in the preparation of the agenda for the next workshop, tentatively scheduled for September. (e) Agenda Items to be Presented to Committees in June The budget presentations will be made to all committees in June. The PDC Committee will be touring the Plant 2 facilities before their meeting. Director Swan indicated that an equipment expenditures list should be included as part of the budget review process. He also questioned the disposal of surplus lab equipment. Staff is preparing list recommending disposal options for the equipment. Director Swan also suggested that staff consider contracting out the lab and the equipment, or determine the value of the equipment and either sell it or donate it. This is an asset that should be managed. (7) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. a Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 May 22, 1996 (8) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were no matters to be reported on at 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 June 26, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 6:43 p.m. Submitted by: JonTappan, Steering Committee Secretary J:1 W P W LliMS1i LOMMIBBW A+65ZEV.M:.4 J Results of Director's Workshop Questionnaire January Workshop Jerry King of the Regional Water Quality Control Board was the guest speaker for our January workshop. His speech was followed by presentations by four staff members, Blake Anderson, "The Historical Perspective of Our Planning Efforts"; Nancy Wheatley, 'The Ocean Discharge Permit 301 (h)Waiver"; Judy Wilson, "Changing Demographics"; and Dave Ludwin, "Strategic Plan Overview." Don McIntyre concluded the morning with an overview of the strategic policy issues. 1. Did you find this workshop valuable? Yes 8 No _ Comments 1. Good basis for understanding what is needed in the future. 2. This is the first"broad view" I have seen since I became a Board Member three years ago. Staff was innovative and well prepared. 3. It set a very positive tone for the meetings that were to follow. It was very informative and clearly demonstrated that staff were on top of the issues. 4. Helped put things in perspective. S. A good idea —learning situation. It will get better. 6. A cross-section of the inner-workings of OCSD. 7. The more in-depth information received improves our knowledge and value as a Director representing a constituency. 2. Please rate the presentations: Jerry King Excellent 4 Good 4 Fair _ Poor _ "The Regional Perspective" Blake Anderson Excellent 6 Good 2 Fair _ Poor "The Historical Perspective of Our Planning Efforts" Nancy Wheatley Excellent 4 Good 4 Fair_ Poor "The Ocean Discharge Permit 301 (h)Waiver" Judy Wilson Excellent 5 Good 3 Fair_ Poor_ "Changing Demographics" Dave Ludwin Excellent 5 Good 3 Fair_ Poor "Strategic Plan Overview" 3. How could we have improved this workshop? Comments 1. More time for discussion. 2. For the first workshop, it was very good. 3. Include a Director in the planning. 4. The workshop did not need Improving. 5. It would be very difficult! Nothing to addl 1 � u a May Workshop Bill Mills of the Orange County Water District was our guest speaker, discussing the Orange County Water Reclamation Project. Following a brief overview of the projects comprising Phase I of the Strategic Plan, Paul Brown of the consulting group Camp, Dresser&McKee led a discussion on the plan's mission statement and critical success factors. The second half of the workshop was a panel discussion with staff members Blake Anderson, Judy Wilson and Dave Ludwin. Gail Lynch from Carollo Engineers and Kell! Bum-Lucht from Camp, Dresser& McKee were also on the panel. 1. Did you find this workshop valuable? Yes 6 No 6 Comments 1. Very informative as to relationship of Sanitation District and Water District. 2. It was very informative, and dealt with a topic that is very important and will become much more important...water reclamation. 3. Staff is working hard to communicate. 4. We did not have a good process on the"Mission Statement" and critical success factors. 5. 1 think this plan has to be done soon, the concept and where and how it is going is great! 6. The more in-depth information received improves our knowledge and value as a Director representing a constituency. 2. Please rate the following: Bill Mills Excellent 3 Good 4 Fair _ Poor "OC Water Reclamation" Discussion on the Strategic Plan's Excellent 1 Good 2 Fair 2 Poor 2 Mission Statement and Critical Success Factors Panel Discussion Excellent 2 Good 4 Fair 1 Poor _ Blake Anderson Judy Wilson Dave Ludwin Gail Lynch Kalil Bum-Lucht 3. How could we have Improved this workshop? Comments 1. I was concerned about Directors "resentment"of mission statement. I hope it doesn't glitch the plan to have Directors involved in future planning or feel it is staff doing planning that they simply satisfy. 2. 1 don't really care for the panel discussion format. Would prefer to hear the issues and then to hear the staff present options and substantive analysis behind those options. 3. Too much time wasted on semantics regarding mission statement. 4. The consultant was a disaster. He caused a rift between staff and Directors. Very poorly presented —the order of the agenda was off. Mission statement very poorly presented — it felt adversarial. 5. The facilitator did not do a good job. Very difficult to involve such a large group in a discussion of the mission and critical success factors. He seemed bewildered. He repeated himself often and did not move on when he could have. People lost their focus and the attention span evaporated. 6. Why not media at workshop? People out there should have some idea of what is going to happen. Should know of plans and why it is being done! 7. Keep similar format! 2 a Overall Program Evaluation 1. Are the workshops meeting your information needs? Yes 8 No Comments 1. We all need to better understand the Districts' responsibility to Orange County constituents. 2. Forces Directors to understand the issues and the challenges the Sanitation District faces. It also instills confidence in the Directors with regard to the abilities of the staff. 3. There is a lot to learn. 4. 1 think they are very important because they allow Directors to understand issues in greater depth. 5. Insight to the workings of the Districts on a hands-on level. 6. Enhances role as a Director. 2. Is Saturday morning the best time for you to attend a Board Workshop? Yes 8 No _ Alternative days/times 1. Late afternoon would be OK. 2. Thursday evenings. 3. Our next Workshop will be in September when we will be presenting the initial results of our Investigation of the ocean outfall. Do you have a suggestion for a format or type of presentation you would find most helpful? Suggestions 1. Assume that we don't know how it works and educate us. Then inform us of the issues and costs. Then give us the staffs recommendations and reasons for those suggestions. 2. You don't need a consultant. Questions and answers always work well after presentation. Repeat trip to outfall opportunity. 3. This should be an easier presentation than the last because it does not involve so much subjectiveness as previous workshop. 4. Slides of what is down there and what has to be done to get to where we are going. 5. Visual as well as oral presentation! 4. Do you have any additional comments for improving Board Strategic Planning Workshops? 1. Somehow we need better attendance than the last meeting. 2. More opportunity for open discussion. 3. You might consider breaking the Directors into groups, giving each group a problem and having them present a solution. (Or some variation based on your objectives.) 4. 1 believe we are on the right track by having these workshops. The Sanitation District is too large and complex not to have them. Keep the presentation simple and don't assume too much! 5. Don't be so formal! We are used to study sessions and "rolling up our sleeves" in a workshop setting. 6. Tell us your needs, goals, issues—We are part of the team, and are used to solving problems. 7. Other than the one workshop which was problematic, I think things are going well. 8. The format has been good each time. Very well done. Question time to focus more on what is being covered. Mrrcg J:WPOOQCOMMSECYBOSURVEY. 3 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, May 22, 1996, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on Thursday, May 16, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of May, 1996. Penny Kyle, Seyf a/rypreach of the Boards of Directors of Co n y n tation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, California Posted: May 16. 1996 at p.m. By. Signature •m.cIMWI .mm'm .l" COUNTY•GANITATION DISTRICTS OF DPWNGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Board Secretary(2) Phone: May 16, 1996 (7141962-2411 mailing address: P.O.Box 8127 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-B127 straet address: NOTICE OF MEETING 10544 Ellia Avenue Fou 927o&7o1e STEERING COMMITTEE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Member NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 Agencies• OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA cities Anaheim area WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. Buena Perk C press Fountain Valley Fullerton DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Huntington Beach Irvine 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Le Haire L. canineFOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Los Alamitos Newport Beech Orene Potence Santa An. seal Beach A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors Stenton satin of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange One Park Yo Linda County, California, will be held at the above location, date and time. County of Orange Sanitary Districts Costa Mo. Garden Grove Midway City Water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Waatewoter and Environmental Monegament Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 STEERING COMMITTEE Roll Call: Meeting Date: May 22. 1996 Meeting Time: 5,30 mm, 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 May 22, 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, MAY 22, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section i 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts'Administrative i 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) 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 i 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- May 22, 1996 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 April 24, 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 (c) Report of General Counsel (6) Steering Committee Discussion Items. (a) Status of the Pringle Bill (AB 2109) (b) Status of Orange County COG (Council of Governments) (c) Debrief on January 27 and May 4 Board Workshops on Strategic Plan and Results of Directors Survey (d) Role of Steering Committee 1) Scheduling and Calendaring Joint Board Meetings 2) Reviewing and Developing Strategic Workshop Agenda (a) Agenda Items to be presented to Committees in June. (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; ©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. -2- May 22, 1996 (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) The next scheduled meeting of the Steering Committee is June 26, 1996. (12) Adjourn. Notice to Committee Members: For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda,Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: John C.Cox,Jr. (714)721-8660 Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)962-2411.6d. 2001 (714)962-0356(FAX) J:\N4pOClnMIISiRCOMR%W AYNGENOAM -3- e �d STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MAY 22, 1996 Agenda Item (4): Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held April 24, 1996 Summary Attached are the draft minutes for the April 24, 1996 Steering Committee. Recommendation Consideration of a motion to receive, file and approve the draft Minutes of the Steering Committee meeting held April 24, 1996. 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 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 (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 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 form. 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. a 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 � I 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) Reoort on County of Orange Plan of Adjustment. 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 April24, 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: J n Tappan, St eri' g Committee Secretary J\WPWC`CaMISIPLOMMLLtlINAH .WNN STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MAY 22, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(b): Discussion of Orange County COG (Council of Governments) Summary The Sanitation Districts will be a voting member of the newly proposed Orange County Council of Governments. Other members will include: the twelve representatives to SCAG; a member representing the League of California Cities, Orange County Division; the two representatives to the SCAQMD; one Supervisor representing the County; one representative from the independent Special Districts selected through the LAFCO process; one representative from OCTA; and one representative from the TCAs. There will be two nonvoting members—one from the Business Council and the other from three universities. The COG is expected to be funded through the SCAG Overall Work Program (OWP) process. Currently Orange County receives $600,000 a year through the SCAG OWP process. It is split three ways- $200,000 each to OCTA, the County and the League. Attached is a question-and-answer sheet about the Council of Governments. Steering Committee Recommendation Information only J'.WDMC M M-COMM96V MISF FM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT AN: ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS The following questions and answers reflect a range of topics commonly raised during discussions about the convening of a Council of Governments. Q. What is the purpose of the Orange County Council of Govern mazes? A. The purpose of the organisation is to unify Orange Cowry so that it can speak with a collective voice on important subregional and regional issues. Working together and sharing resources is cost-effective by reducing duplication of effort,and the consensus achieved by member entities will allow Orange County to more effectively advocate its positions and augment its standing within the region. The recommended Council,which will be comprised of members representing local jurisdictions and special districts and agencies in Orange County,will provide Orange County's only mechanism for the collective examination of issues that are subregional or regional in nature and transcend individual political boundaries. Q. Will a Council of Governments be another layer of government? A. No. The Orange County Council of Governments will formalize activities currently performed by the Orange County Regional Advisory and Planning Council (RAPC), which has existed since 1991. The Council's activities would not require new staff,and instead will tap existing staff resources from member entities. No membership dues will be required of member agencies. Q. With RAPC in place,why is there a need for a Council of Govemments? A. RAPC is an informal body created in 1991 as an evolutionary step towards a Council of Governments. While RAPC has performed admirably,recent activities in Orange County resulting from the bankruptcy have requited that local jurisdictions and agencies re-examine traditional roles and responsibilities. Times have changed in Orange County,and now more than ever the need exists for a formal,representative organisation in be operational and be capable of conducting studies,building consensus,formulating recommendations and advocating positions for the benefit of Orange County collectively. Q. What types of issues will the Council of Governments deal with? A. Generally, the Council will ultimately address those issues that its members collectively decide to address. Initially,functions will include issues such as air quality attainment strategies,providing subregional input to the Southern California Association of Governments in its development of mandated regional plans,review of selected legislation pertaining to regionallsubtegional issues,liaison with the private sector,performing regional housing needs assessments and developing demographic data for use by members on a range of studies and planning activities. Q. Will there be an ongoing review process to ensure the Council is fulfilling its mission? A. Yes. The JPA agreement and/or bylaws will clearly stipulate the requitement for a review of the Council's activities by individual member entity staff and by the Council's Board of Directors. Q. What will the COG's relationship be to the Orange County Division,League of California Cities? A. The Division will continue to fulfill its role as an arm of the State league to its Orange County members. The COG will augment Cities' abilities to coordinate with other county entities on issues of mutual concem,just as it will augment entities' abilities to coordinate with Orange County Cities and the League. It is important that the League continue to function autonomously so that City interests are advocated ]�a. 61 Resolution I-96 Resolution of the Orange County Division. League of California Cities. Supporting the Formation of an Orange County. Council of Governments Whereas. the public interest requires that Orange County .cues and publtc ageae:e, meet in a public forum to exchange ideas and share information on issues of re^venal and ,ubregional significance: and Whereas. in 1991. Orange Countv formed the Regional Planning and Advuory Council iRAPC) to provide a form to focus on regional issues: and Whereas. in 1991. the RAPC was reconfigured to provide a better nexus between its members and the regional issues it addresses: and Whereas, in response to the Orange County bankruptcy and die County of Orange reducing its rote in regional issues. the Orange County City Managed Association convened a task force to develop a process for the most effective means of comprehensively addressing regional planning:and Whereas, the Task Force, after reviewing various models for addressing regional planning issues, have recommended the development of a Council of Governments io provide a forum for addressing regional planning issues: and Whereas, concurrently. a Restructuring Supemomminee convened by Orange County cities to study the delivery of regional services also identified a Council of Governments as an entity needed to discuss and possibly implement fume restrwairing recommendations:and Whereas, the formation of an Orange County Council of Governments will provide Orange County with a arena for in public agencies in exchange ideas and information.conduct studies and projects to improve common government responsibilities. build consensus among members on regional and subregional issues.advocate Orange County interests at the mgionaL state and federal level,and assist in coordinating subregional planning efforts:and Now, Thoefore, Do is Reso/re4 that the Orange County Division. League of California Cities supports the formation of an Orange County Council of Govenunents to provide a formal forum for Orange County public agencies on regional planning activities and issues. Orange County Council of Governments ' "From Resolution to Resolved" CHRONOLOGY OF KEY DATES March 1, 1995: OCCMA appoints Regional Issues Task Force April 20, 1995: COG formation discussed in RAPC reconfiguration report April - Present: COG updates provided monthly to RAPC and EMC May 11, 1995: COG/MPO presentation provided to O.C. Division Membership May 22, 1995: Reg. Issues Task Force recommends process be developed to establish COG June 29, 1995: Task Force and Planning Directors develop list of regional activities July 27, 1995. Executive Steering Committee adopts Task Force recommendations August 14, 1995: Division's Restructuring Supercommittee recommends formation of COG August 17, 1995: Division staff provides COG briefing to RAPC October 4, 1995: Regional Issues Task Force recommends formation of a COG October 4, 1995: OCCMA endorses Regional Issues Task Force recommendation October 26, 1995: Executive Steering Committee approves COG proposal, sponsors resolution November 9, 1995: COG resolution introduced at Resolutions Committee January 11, 1996: O.C. Division adopts 1996 Strategic Plan, identifies COG as core strategy January 11, 1996: O.C. Division adopts COG resolution March, 1996: Draft JPA being developed Orange County Council of Governments "From Resolution to Resolved" FUNCTIONS General ✓ Forum for study, consideration, recommendations on areawide and regional problems ✓ Assemble information helpful in consideration of problems peculiar to O.C. ✓ Explore practical avenues for intergovernmental cooperation/action ✓ Seek economies of scale in administration of governmental services Specific ✓ SCAG Activities ✓ AQMD Activities ✓ Demographics ✓ Legislation on regional/subregional issues ✓ Liaison with public & private sectors ✓ Regional Housing Needs Orange County Council of Governments _ "From Resolution to Resolved" STAFFING & FUNDING Staffing ✓ Executive Management Committee (City Managers & Agency Heads) ✓ Technical Advisory Committee (Staff-level) ✓ Other committees as determined necessary and convened by OCCOG ✓ O.C. Division, League of CA Cities staff lead capacity to coordinate staff resources Funding ✓ SCAG, through OWP and other sources ✓ Grants ✓ Member contributions ✓ Other Orange County Council of Governments "From Resolution to Resolved COMMON QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ♦ A duplicative layer of government? € No. A COG would formalize activities now performed by the Regional Advisory and Planning Council. No new staff will be required. No membership dues will be sought. ♦ Will local authority be pre-empted / usurped? No. A COG will conduct studies, make recommendations and advocate the implementation of those recommendations. A COG would have no power to force implementation of its recommendations. ♦ Will COG membership be unwieldy and burdensome? No. While not finalized, the configuration will likely be similar to the existing 21-member RAPC board. COG membership throughout the state ranges fro►n 12 to 38. ♦ Is there a potential to save taxpayer dollars? Yes. Cooperation among agencies can result in consolidating efforts on issues of nurtual concern. The demographic transition to CSUF, realizing annual savings of$500,000, serves as an example c f what a COG can cooperatively achieve. ♦ How will the COG relate to the O.C. Division of the League of Cities? The COG will augment Cities' outreacli/coordivatian with other county entities, just (IS it will anvinent entities' outreach/coordination with the O.C. Cities and the Legitue. A Primer on Councils of Government The following background examines the basics of forming a COG,and provides a general overview of organizational and functional considerations. Definition: COGS are essentially voluntary associations that represent member local governments, mainly cities and counties, that seek to provide cooperative planning,coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mum concern that cross jurisdictional lines. In this sense, COGS serve to develop consensus on many municipal issues that need to be addressed in a subregional or regional content. If properly structured, COG duties complement and do not duplicate jurisdictional activities,and serve to unify jurisdictions and agencies on [natters of mutual concern,but independent of the responsibilities traditionally exercised by the individual members within their owr communities. Jurisdictions typically agree to form COGS following discussion and negotiation on common goals and objective: which is usually consummated by execution of a Joint Powers Agreement(JPA). In most cases, adoption of a JPA is specifically authorized by state law. In the case of California,JPA authority is granted under Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code. Structure: Most COGS in California display common organizational characteristics.These include voting membership by participating jurisdictions through an Executive Committee or Board of Directors. Representation can be along the lines of"one member-one vote," weighted differentially based on population or other growth- related parameters,or otherwise detemrined based on agency/membership representation and/or affiliation. Other common features of COGS include an Executive Director and independent staff,and a variety of polity committees and support task forces or groups which focus on specific issues of concern Most COGS engage in considerable coordination with member local governments,as well as other special purpose regional, state and federal agencies. To support this intergovernmental coordination COGS typically enter into Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)with affected agencies Statutory and Fiscal Incentives: A major factor in understanding the rationale behind COGS pertains to the legal and fiscal context in which they developed Councils of Government came into prominence during the 1960's after a series of Congressional mandates promoted areawide planning and coordination.This began fast i the transportation area, but was soon followed by a regional approach to such issues as air and water quality, waste management, housing and community development and growth forecasts. These mandates were typically mirrored by supporting state statutes,and carried with them substantial funding support COGS were supported by federal and state grant funds designed to target specific goals, but frequently also leaving COGS with some discretion on how such money might best be allocated Today most COGS, particularly in larger urban or metropolitan areas, are still largely dependent on funding from state and federal sources. An example of this is the considerable mount of money that was made available for transportation and air quality planning under the Intermocial and Surface Transportation Efficiency Am of 1991 (I.STEA),which accounts for a majority of planning funds utilized by COGS COG Functions: COG responsibilities are wide-ranging, but in all cases are determined by its member jurisdictions and agencies. Activities common to many COGS include regional review of environmentally significant projeces per CEQA: air quality planni g; areawide clearinghouse for review of federal financial assistance;regional housing needs assessment hazardous and solid waste management demographic projections growth management analysis and development of subregional strategies review of local general plan amendment amawide water quality planning; transportation planning,modeling and programming, and general planning support and technical assistance as directed by member agencies. `STEERING COMMITTEt AGENDA FOR May 22, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(e): Review of Agenda Items Scheduled to be Presented to Committees in June Summary The Committee and the items scheduled for review/action in June are: OMITS Committee: 1. Readdress Closing report on the Implementation of the 38 recommendations made as part of the Ernst&Young Audit. 2. Report regarding the results of the Hydrogen Sulfide Scrubber Automation Study and recommendations for future actions. 3. Consideration to authorize the Districts to enter into a Lease/Purchase Agreement with Scientific Utilization, Inc. to acquire a Sludge Arc Treatment System for Performance Testing. 4. Authorization for staff to procure Natural Gas from a private marketer and award contract for purchase of Natural Gas. 5. Consideration to extend Science Applications International Corporation's Year 10 Contract. 6. Consideration on the proposed 1996-97 Budgets to be considered by the FAHR Committee and the Joint Boards at their June 1996 meetings. PDC Committee: 1. Consideration to approve Change Order No.2 for Secondary Treatment Improvements at Plant No. 1. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 96-, for the approval for plans and specifications for Main Sewage Pump No. 3 Drive at Headworks No. 2 at Plant No. 1,Job No.J- 33-2. 3. Consideration of Resolution 96- , for the approval for Restoration of Old Laboratory for Human Resources. 4. Consideration of actions relative to Compressed Natural Gas Refueling Station, Job No. P1-51; 1)Approve Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for said project,2) Recommend to the Boards Resolution No. 96- , to receive and file bid tabulation and award contract for Compressed Natural Gas Refueling Station, Job No. P1-51. 5. (FAHR 96-36): Report from Don McIntyre and staff on the proposed 1996-97 budgets to be considered by the Finance Administration and Human Resources Committee and the Joint Boards of Directors at their June 1996 meeting. FAHR Committee: 1. Consideration of 1996-97 Budget Recommendations 2. Quarterly Communications update 3. Consideration of Property Insurance Renewal 4. Consideration of Motion Authorizing General Manager to negotiate Agreement for F.I.S. S. Truck driver drug program 6. Change order to Kerry Consulting Contract. Staff Recommendation Information item only. J%N DOC,GArtS OMM YAW 6 CM