The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-10 a . IN THE OFFICE OF TIE SECRETARY DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRIC7 NOV 18 1998MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 0Y__ Wednesday, October 28, 1998 at 5 p.m. A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, October 28, 1998 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT: Directors Present: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Burnie Dunlap, Chair of the Board (part-time) Shawn Boyd, Seal Beach Alternate Director Peer Swan, Vice Chair of the Board Norm Eckenrode, Director Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee Charles Egigian-Nichols, Consultant Jan Debay, Chair, PDC Committee Ryal Wheeler, OCSD Employee George Brown, Chair, FAHR Committee John Collins, Past Chairman of the Boards STAFF PRESENT: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Directors Absent: Blake Anderson, Asst. General Manager Bill Steiner, County Supervisor Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Bob Ghirelli, Director of Tech. Services Ed Hodges, Director of GSA David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Jim Herberg, Planning Manager Mike Moore, ECM Manager (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM Vice Chair Peer Swan was appointed Chair pro tem in the absence of Chair Dunlap, who arrived at 6 p.m. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the Combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees Meeting of September 23, 1998 were approved as drafted. OCSD . P.O.Box 8127 . Fountain Valley,CA 927288127 . (714) 962-2411 Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 October 28, 1998 (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR There was no report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Don McIntyre asked to add an item to the Closed Session agenda, and General Counsel also asked that the pending Walcon litigation be added to the Closed Session agenda. It was moved, seconded and passed that the measures were of an urgent nature, and that they be added to the Closed Session agenda for discussion. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (8) STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Early Retirement Opportunity The General Manager updated the Committee on the results of this program to date, and recommended that it again be presented to the Board in January for the effective period of January through May 1999. Action: This item will be added to the December Steering Committee agenda with a detailed report for additional discussion. C. Ranking Procedures for FY 99-00 Capital Improvement Projects David Ludwin, Director of Engineering, reported that a team has been formed to develop a methodology to screen new projects and prioritize them for the next CIP budget in an effort to streamline and standardize the process. Subjectivity should not be eliminated from the process. Action: Staff was directed to bring a 'project' back to the Steering Committee that has been run through the criteria. D. Orange County Millenium Book Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications, reported on an outreach opportunity through the County of Orange's Millenium Book. The Steering Committee directed staff to purchase a single page at the rate of$3,000. E. Agreement with Pickens Fuel Corporation re Operation of the Compressed Natural Gas Station Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Administration, discussed this project, which will be dedicated this Friday, October 30. An agreement for accessing computer usage data and the user-billing function is required. Signage and marketing activities also have to be worked out. Any signage will require City of Fountain Valley approval. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 October 28, 1998 Action: The agenda item drafted for the Steering Committee will be revised to include information on other firms, besides Pickens Fuel Corp., that can also perform these functions and submitted to the OMTS Committee in November for action. F. Directors Workshop on Personnel Issues Don McIntyre asked the Steering Committee members to consider scheduling a Directors workshop in an effort to effect the culture changes needed to educate the full Board on the compensation issues involved in re-engineering the District—where we came from, where we are, and where we are heading—and resulting in a clear direction on how to achieve our goals. Action: The Steering Committee scheduled a special meeting on Wednesday, November 18, at 3 p.m. to discuss this one issue in Closed Session. If consensus is reached, a Directors Workshop on the issue will be held on Saturday, November 21. The regular 5 p.m. Steering Committee meeting will not be held to allow sufficient time to discuss this major issue. B. Kern County Proposed Biosolids Ordinance Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager, updated the members on the Kern County biosolids issue as well as the three alternatives available to the District. The draft MOU was discussed. Blake will be providing a brief update to all of the Directors at the Board meeting. Action: The Steering Committee passed a motion to support the numbers in the draft MOU. A related item that staff was previously asked to consider—the possibility of purchasing land for a composting site—was also discussed. Biosolids consultant, Charles Egigian-Nichols, described an available parcel in Kern County that could be converted to a composting site, and outlined some of the other issues required to operate a composting operation. Action: The OMTS Committee shall consider forming a subcommittee at its next meeting to discuss this idea in more detail before taking any further action. G. The list of action items scheduled for consideration by the working committees in November was reviewed. The FAHR Committee will not be meeting in November. 1. Proposed Addendum 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with CDM re Strategic Plan, Phase 2, Treatment. Reuse and Disposal Facilities, Job No. J-40-3. Dave Ludwin reported that most of the work included in this addendum has already been completed because it was additional effort on contract items, not new work. He recognized and apologized for the lapse in program management and has developed safeguards to prevent this from happening again. The addendum and the new safeguards will be discussed in detail at the November PDC Committee meeting. (9) OTHER BUSINESS. COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were no other business, communications, or supplemental agenda items. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 October 28, 1998 (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 18, 1998 at 3 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. The Committee voted to forward the agendized items directly to the Closed Session in tonight's Board meeting. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m, Submitted by: J n Tappan S ering Committee Secretary M Iwp EM1YpmGmIS FRM LOMMIREF98 nI02899 SC MbV� 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, October 28, 1998, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Orange County Sanitation Districrs office on Friday, October 23, 1998. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of October, 1998. Penny Kyle, Secret of Board of Directors of Orange County SanAatio istrict Posted: October23 , 1998. p.m. By: I(� Signature w�Mocy�mMlrmnm�patlnp.im " ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT sbona: (714)962-2411 mlting address: P0. Bo.8127 Fountain Valle,M 92)29-912) NOTICE OF MEETING spore add.: 10844 Biis Avenue Fountain Valft cA STEERING COMMITTEE 9270B-7018 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Member Agencies 0 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1998 - 5 P.M. Cities a area aBran scene Pars DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE G�O'"aa Fountain Valley 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Fugenon FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Gordon Gyve Huntington Beach Irvine Le Habra Le Palma Loas Nawyarr n Beach A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of a-aege Placentia Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date al Beach and time. Seal Beach Banton own V,Ifa Perk roroa ones counts of orange sanitary Districts Costa Me. Midway Gty Water Districts Irvine Ranch -To Protect Me Pubhc Heath and the Environnrent dwmo Etcallemx in Wastewater Systems' STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: October 28. 1998 Meeting Time. 5 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members Burnie Dunlap, Chairman of the Board..................... John J. Collins, Past Joint Chairman........................ _ Peer A. Swan, Vice Chair......................................... George Brown, Chair, FAHR Committee.................. Jan Debay, Chair, PDC Committee .......................... Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee.................. _ Bill Steiner, Supervisor............................................. Others Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel .................... Staff Present Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager...................... Blake P. Anderson, Asst. General Manager.............. Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary......................... Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services.............. Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Admin.. .... _ David Ludvnn, Director of Engineering...................... Mike Peterrnan, Director of Human Resources......... Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications......._ c: Debbie Lecuna AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1998 AT 5 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 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 Office not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. Ali written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the once of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Steering Committee for discussion andror action,it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b)as an emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM. IF NECESSARY (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS All persons wishing to address the Steering 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 action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approve draft minutes of the September 23, 1998 Combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees meeting. -2- October 28, 1998 Agenda 0 (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR , (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-G) A. Consider Offering Early Retirement Opportunity in January (McIntyre) B. Recommend Authority to Enter into MOU with Kern County re Biosolids Disposal (Anderson) C. Proposed Ranking Procedures for FY 99-00 Capital Improvement Projects (Ludwin) D. District's Participation in the Orange County Millenium Book (Tuchman) E. Proposed Agreement with Pickens Fuel Company re Compressed Natural Gas Station (Hodges) F. Scheduling Workshop on Personnel Issues (McIntyre) G. Review List and/or Agenda Items Scheduled to be Presented to Committees in November (Information item only) 1. Proposed Addendum No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement with CDM re Strategic Plan, Phase 2, Treatment, Reuse and Disposal Facilities, Job No. J-40-3 (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (12) NEXT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DATE The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday, November 18, 1998. -3- October 28, 1998 Agenda (13) CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Steering Committee, the Chair may convene the Committee in dosed session to consider matters of pending real estate 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 Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. Al such time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. A. Convene in closed session to discuss status of SPMT Mitigation (Section 54957.6) B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT P H\WP DTAMGENDAI ERING C0MMRIEE0IA0Cn1Q2M AGENDA DOG 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. Burnie Dunlap (714)990-7718(Brea City Hall) Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593-7101 (714)962-0356(Fax) t DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING AND AD HOC COMMITTEES COMBINED MEETING Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at 5 p.m. A meeting of the combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT: Directors Present: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Burnie Dunlap, Chair of the Board Thomas M. Dawes, Consultant Peer Swan, Vice Chair Kris Lindstrom, Consultant Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee Ryal Wheeler Jan Debay, Chair, PDC Committee George Brown, Chair, FAHR Committee John Collins, Past Chairman of the Boards STAFF PRESENT: Bill Steiner, County Supervisor Blake Anderson,Asst. General Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Directors Absent: Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services David Ludwin, Director of Engineering AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Directors Present: Jim Herberg, Planning Engineer George Brown, Chair Peer Swan, Vice Chair Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee Jan Debay, Chair, PDC Committee Norm Eckenrode, GWR Joint Coordinating Committee Member John Collins, Past Chairman of the Boards Bill Steiner, County Supervisor Directors Absent: (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. OCSD • P.O.Box 8127 • Founlaln Valley,CA 92729-e127 (714) SU-2411 D Minutes of the Combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees Meeting Page 2 September 23, 1998 (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Ryal Wheeler addressed the Committee on his attendance at the meetings. He indicated that the meetings are beneficial to him because he can learn about how meetings are run. He also thanked the members for allowing him to attend. He also thanked the committee for allowing his son, Christopher, to attend and for making him feel welcome. Christopher is working on obtaining a Boy Scout merit badge. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the of the Combined Steering and Ad Hoc Committees Meeting of August 26, 1998 were approved as drafted. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR Chair Burnie Dunlap did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER Assistant General Manager Blake Anderson reported on several issues on behalf of the General Manager, who was on vacation. • Kem County Board Of Supervisors Extend Urgency Biosolids Ordinance: Last week the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved an extension of the urgency ordinance to regulate the transport, use, monitoring, and record keeping of biosolids in Kern County. Kem County staff was directed to complete work on a permanent ordinance. They also rescinded the $5/ton road mitigation fee, pending a supporting engineering report. A preliminary engineering report, prepared by an independent engineering firm, Martin-Macintosh, set the cost of all of the presently identified and needed road repair and upgrade costs at $15 to 16 million. The report assumed that 100% of the road damage was a result of biosolids hauling activities. General Counsel Tom Woodruff indicated that the actions being considered by the Kem County Supervisors can be challenged, and there are a lot of cases that are similar with favorable rulings. Staff plans to meet with each of the supervisors, as well as the engineering fine that prepared the traffic study. Staff was directed to continue to follow this ever-changing issue and report to the Steering Committee as necessary. • Sewage Spill on Pacific Coast Hidhwav: Staff received a copy of the Newport Beach police report on the Pacific Coast Highway spill. This spill resulted when a subcontractor to the gas company drilled through our force main. The police report identified the city as the victim, the Sanitation District as the suspect and the gas company as the witness. The report indicated that the problem resulted because the sewer line was incorrectly marked on the road. Bob a Minutes of the Combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees Meeting Page 3 September 23, 1998 Ghirelli is investigating what occurred in an effort to determine if standard reporting procedures were followed. He will prepare a report on his findings and the Steering Committee will be updated at the next meeting. • Comprehensive Listing of the User Rate Changes: Director Collins previously asked the Finance Department to provide a comprehensive listing of the user rate changes that all permitted users will experience as a result of the newly adopted user rates. The report has been placed in the Director's notebooks. • Executive Management Team Retreat: The Executive Management Team will be conducting a day and a half retreat on October 15 and 16. Discussion items include performance measurement techniques, managing staff capacity against work plan and task demands, broad banding, delegation of authority, DART and other reinvention initiatives throughout the District. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff provided a heads-up to the Steering Committee members on a request from the developer of the Boise Chica area, Hearthside Homes, to assign our existing agreement with the landowner, Signal Boise, to a private water company that would provide sewer and water services. The existing agreement with Signal Bolsa, the landowner, provides that the District has a duty to service this area once the property is annexed to our service area. Mr. Woodruff outlined the options. No action was required by the Steering Committee at this time. (8) STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Reciprocal Representation on SAWPA Commission and OCSD Board of Directors Blake Anderson provided a briefing on the issues as requested by the Steering Committee in May. SAWPA has a new general manager and a new chairman. At this time, the SAWPA Commission is reconsidering its role in the region. The issues outlined in a draft White Paper may no longer be relevant. Staff was directed to continue to monitor the situation, and when SAWPA determines its role, revise the White Paper for further consideration by the Committee. B. The action items scheduled to be considered by the working committees in October were reviewed. (9) REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Chairman George Brown did not make a report. D Minutes of the Combined Steering/Ad Hoc Committees Meeting Page 4 September 23, 1998 (10) COMBINED STEERING AND AD HOC COMMITTEES DISCUSSION ITEMS A. CEOA Issues Related to GWRS Project. OCWD's decision to proceed with 30% design before the EIR/EIS was adopted and before the District's Directors have voted to support the project was questioned. General Counsel indicated that preliminary engineering is not considered a project by CEQA. And the action taken by OCWD was to procure a consultant for the preliminary engineering. The actual work would probably not begin until after the EIR/EIS is certified because of the time required to solicit an RFP, review and evaluate the proposals and then award a contract. B. Review Quarterly Schedule of Events for Strategic Plan. There are no date changes since the last update. On November 5, the OCWD will release the Draft EIR/EIS for the GWRS Project. The next GWR Joint Coordinating Committee meeting is now scheduled for October 27. In November the regular GWR Joint Coordinating Committee meeting has been changed to November 22. (11) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were no other business, communications, or supplemental agenda items. (12) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (13) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (14) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for October 28, 1998 at 5 p.m. (15) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:17 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Sections 54956.9(a)(2) and 54957, to discuss the General Manager's Evaluation and one item of significant exposure of litigation against the District. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of a future Board Meeting will report on the actions when they are approved. t Minutes of the Combined SteennglAd Hoc Committees Meeting Page 5 September 23, 1998 At 6:27 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. (16) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Submitted by: J Tappan Styring Committee Secretary krocueo.�arEE�caium�eonsmno7�w scw u;o„e...em STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Daft TOea.Of '. 10/]8/98 10/28/98 AGENDA REPORT uSm NffT w Hari Numbs Orange County Sanitation District L F1 FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding re Biosolids Delivery to Kern County GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize approval of a Cost-sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between OCSD and Kern County, to help mitigate and repair Kern County roads traversed by biosolids-hauling trucks. The MOU contains the following major elements: a. $2.12 per ton fee paid by OCSD for transported biosolids on impacted roads; b. Agreement that Kern County will conduct and fund a comprehensive traffic impact study within twelve months; and C. Prepayment of$750,000 to Kern County to be refunded via tonnage credits over an approximate 5-10 year period. 2. Authorize General Counsel to approve MOU as to form. SUMMARY In July of this year, the Kern County Board of Supervisors directed its staff to draft three ordinances for the Board's consideration. The three were: an ordinance that would ban biosolids; an ordinance that would regulate the use of biosolids; and a fee ordinance that would recover the costs of repairing the damage to Kern County roads caused by trucking biosolids. These issues were subsequently and extensively discussed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on several occasions in open and closed sessions. Orange County Sanitation District staff, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts staff, Los Angeles City staff and our consultants have worked together in a very intensive effort to develop the most favorable terms achievable on these issues. Our primary objective has been to preserve the long-term use of biosolids in Kern County for agricultural purposes while maintaining, to the extent possible, a cooperative relationship between the urban and agricultural counties of California. We have negotiated with Kern County staff on a number of occasions since July and we have communicated with the Kern County Board of Supervisors in their offices and in their open sessions. We have successfully avoided the imposition of a ban, negotiated an appropriate and achievable interim use ordinance that will effectively protect public health and the environment, and have achieved conceptual agreement on the terms of an MOU with Kern County. The proposed MOU would recover road impact costs caused by biosolids trucking from the public wastewater treatment agencies that generate biosolids outside of Kern County. The proposed MOU would impose a $2.12 per ton fee for all out-of-county biosolids that are transported on Kern County-owned roads for the purpose of agricultural use. This rate would be adjusted to a more accurate pro rata cost sharing after a year-long study of biosolids vs. non-biosolids truck traffic for the roads in question. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the Orange County Sanitation District would each prepay $750,000 in road impact mitigation fees at the time that a long-term use ordinance is adopted by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. This prepayment would be credited back to us over several years as 50% of the ongoing fees contemplated in the MOU. (For us, the pay back would take approximately 5 years at a fee of$2 per ton and 10 years at a fee of$1 per ton.) In the event that Kern County defaulted on the terms of the MOU for reasons either within or outside of its control, then any remaining prepayment would be refunded to us. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The Sanitation District presently delivers between 150,000 and 180,000 tons of biosolids per year to Kern County. Most (but not all) travel on roads that are owned by Kern County. Our contractors are in the process of developing traffic routing plans to limit travel on Kern County roads, where practical. Assuming 180,000 tons per year, a first year fee of$2.12 per ton, and everything transported on a Kern County road, the maximum first twelve months fee would be $382,000. However, staff estimates that traffic routing changes will reduce the impact fees on Kern County roads to approximately 75% of this figure and the fee will apply to only 6 months of this fiscal year. Therefore, the anticipated fee for this fiscal year is estimated to be $172,000. It could be less. In addition, we would prepay $750,000 which would be credited back over time, beginning in the second year and extending for between five and ten years against 50% of the road impacts fee prevailing at the time. BUDGETIMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. (Line Rem: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) The operating budget line item for biosolids disposal is $4.2 million for FY 98-99. We presently anticipate spending this budgeted amount. The anticipated first year fee and the prepay, (together totaling $0.92 million)when added to the expenditures to this line item would represent a 22% overage. While the prepay of$750,000 can be rightfully allocated to future operating years, accurately determining a sensible allocation formula is not possible. We anticipate that the existing Joint Works Operating Budget, totaling N My giypMM�SIEEFHG CpAM1ilEE�%VCT10]KlltenGBYUYb MW M.Grc p,„,,, Page 2 just over$45 million, may have sufficient room to accommodate this unanticipated cost. Therefore, staff does not recommend an amendment to the Joint Works Operating Fund at this time. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The use of biosolids in California for agricultural purposes has increased dramatically in the last decade. Prior to 1985, domestic reuse of bagged composted biosolids products, ocean disposal and landfill disposal were the three predominate methods of biosolids management utilized by the wastewater treatment plants of southern California. Very little went directly to agricultural land. All of this changed as the Orange County Sanitation District committed to 100% beneficial reuse in our 1989 Master Plan, Los Angeles City discontinued ocean disposal, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District began to look for alternatives to landfill disposal. The much smaller wastewater agencies of Southern California followed suit. Equally as important, the EPA adopted an extensive set of federal regulations that established scientifically-based standards for the beneficial use of biosolids in agriculture. By 1995, nearly all of Southern California's biosolids were being utilized in agricultural counties, primarily Kern, Kings, and Riverside. Agriculture has been the true beneficiary of this change in practice. Free or nearly free soil amendments have increased yields per acre and even reclaimed marginally productive land. Agriculture has profited from the practice. On the other hand, public awareness increased exponentially in the agricultural counties as each new ton arrived. Opposition increased quickly and loudly through the telling and retelling of unfounded horror stories (mixed with a few true accounts of some very poor application practices). Public concern rose to politically unacceptable levels in some California counties. To date, bans have been enacted in 10 of California's 58 counties—all of them predominately agricultural. Unfortunately, unified action by the wastewater community to educate the public and local government policy makers has been slow in coming. And we probably have yet to see the worst of the public reaction. It is for this reason that we value every beneficial use alternative we now have available to us. In Kern County, things were looking very good up until July of this year. There had been a limited problem with wind blown biosolids and inadequate irrigation in the windy and dry region of eastern Kern County, but Supervisor Steve Perez and Kern County staff had things well under control. They were drafting a county-wide ordinance. The ordinance was a combination of federal "Section 503" regulations, recently completed California Manual of Good Practice (created by the wastewater agencies in cooperation with Cal EPA and other interested parties), and the best advice from staff of the Orange County Sanitation District, Los Angeles City's Bureau of Sanitation, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. With significant input from a technical advisory committee made up of Kern County interests, the evolution of the ordinance into a final NWq.ftY w ISfEERING fAMMR1EEVBCCTIPNB9 Kem L"&n"f>MOU AR = RaYN:BIM9B Page 3 version that would be adopted by the Kern County Board of Supervisors looked like a done deal. While the other four supervisors had taken little notice of the ongoing public participation process or the technical merits of the use of biosolids in Kern County, the wastewater community was confident that Supervisor Perez's leadership would be sufficient to shepherd the process to completion. In July, the biosolids hit the fan. What started as a Board of Supervisors open session discussion about El Nino-related road damage soon spun out of control to include biosolids trucks, biosolids use, biosolids impacts, and agricultural "dead zones" caused by the monstrously toxic effects of biosolids. No County staff with knowledge of the pending biosolids ordinance were in the room and, because the agenda item under discussion had everything to do with roads and nothing to do with biosolids, no wastewater representatives were present either. The Supervisors directed staff to bring back an ordinance to ban some or all types of biosolids and a road fee ordinance for any biosolids that they proposed for exemption from the ban. A year's worth of technical and public outreach work went up in smoke in ten short minutes. At this point, top management staff from the three large agencies entered into the discussions for the first time. This in not to imply that the technical staffs of the agencies had done an inadequate job up to this point. Far from it. In fact, the considerable progress we have achieved in the last three months is a direct result of the trust and technical ground work they established in their dealings with Kern County staff during the previous year. The last few months have been intense, filled with countless hours of help from our technical staffs and several consultants, and meetings with members of the Board of Supervisors, key Kern County staff, carrot growers, water district interests, and other interested parties. The issues represented by the use ordinance, the proposed ban, and the fee ordinance occupied the agenda of four regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors and an equal number of their closed executive sessions as well. In August, the Board adopted a biosolids use ordinance on an urgency basis that is set to expire in January. It is essentially the ordinance that had been in the process of being readied for adoption prior to the July blow up. The Board also adopted a $5 per ton fee in August, rescinded it in September, considered a $5.99 per ton fee in October and directed Kern County staff to return with an analysis of a wastewater agency-proposed fee structure in November. Since July, the staffs of the three large wastewater agencies have agree, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that the communities causing cost impacts to the infrastructure and administrative procedures of Kern County have some responsibility to pay for those impacts. With approximately 40,000 truck loads of biosolids applied to Kern County agricultural land every year, the county roads serving these agricultural parcels are being impacted to some degree. Also, it is evident, and quite understandable, that some agricultural interests, like carrot growers, want to make the business decision of steering Gear of biosolids for the sake N'.MNEbNYeM6l9fEENIXG LVMMIRFFBBbCTtb2lBB rmn G Bemla MdI M.Gx Page 4 of public perception and marketability. That's fine with us. The demands of non-food crops like sudan grass and cotton, for instance, are more than enough to provide a viable and ample market for the reuse of biosolids. In fact, it has been estimated that biosolids from urban Southern California would only satisfy 5% of the agricultural nutrient demand for Kern County. Providing the carrot growers with the opportunity to avoid biosolids amended land, and demonstrating to their buyers that they have, requires a robust reporting, inspection, enforcement, and record-keeping system that is administered by a county department. Fees associated with the urgency ordinance appropriately provide the money to administer such a system. With regard to impact fees associated with road damage, it is critical for the Orange County Sanitation District's Board of Directors to note that there are some significant constitutional and philosophical questions at play here. General Counsel has advised that there is significant case law to support our resisting any road fee whatsoever that Kern County might attempt to impose on us. In fact, the Kern County Taxpayers Association and the California Trucking Association have both made it a matter of record that they oppose the collection of any road fee. They asked the Kern County Board of Supervisors to look to existing fuel tax and property lax revenues for recovering costs due to the normal wear and tear on county roads caused by biosolids trucking. They both also argued that a fee directed only at biosolids is, on its face, discriminatory, and because it fails to have a solid technical basis on which to calculate it, fails the Proposition 218 test. The wastewater agencies were considering making these arguments against a road mitigation fee a matter of public record, but chose not to because we knew that our arguments could be made just as well by others. The question for the Orange County Sanitation District's Board of Directors to decide is whether to support the idea that it is fair and reasonable for the rate payers of our service area to pay for the costs of roadway repair and administrative burdens that would otherwise be paid from the general funds and road funds of Kern County. Sanitation District staff believes that it is fair and reasonable to do so. There is precedence enough here in Orange County to support this position. The host fees paid to Brea and Irvine by Orange County to offset the traffic impacts of the County's landfills is a case in point. The mitigation and impact fees charged developers for city impacts are another example of the concept. It was from this position that staff proposed the terms of the MOU that have been described above. The best (and unfortunately inadequate) estimate of biosolids-related cost impacts are contained in the hastily prepared report that was created by the engineering firm, Martin Macintosh, headquartered in Bakersfield. The firm was hired by the wastewater agencies to complete an independent survey of the truck traffic and pavement conditions of the county roadways and to recommend a tonnage charge to equitably recover the costs. The report is filled with assumptions unsubstantiated by actual field data and uses cost recovery formulas based on unmeasured traffic counts. Based on the foregoing, it concludes that biosolids carry a 73% pro rata share of the H%x tlM genda�ERING GOMMRIEPBBWM0289 MMG 01gd MOU AR Jrc ReNeef.0/R90 Page 5 i responsibility of the road damage, and that cost recovery over a ten-year period would require a $2.12 per ton fee on the biosolids traveling these roads. Actual truck traffic counts and actual engineering field assessments of the roads in question are necessary to establish a more accurate pro rate assessment of biosolids trucking. This can be done, but will require either a year's planting and harvesting cycle to count trucks, or a far more sophisticated accounting of the trucking activities that typically occur on the roads in question. Both methods will take longer than the Kern County Board of Supervisors is willing to wait. In the interim, if one buys the argument that a fair and reasonable payment to Kern County is appropriate, then every month that a fee decision is delayed is one more month that debts remain unpaid to Kern County. It is for this reason that the wastewater agencies proposed a first year interim fee of $2.12 per ton. We believe that an accurate assessment will result in a fee more on the order of$1 per ton, but we won't really know until a more comprehensive assessment is completed. $2.12 is a reasonable negotiated first year fee, considering where the Board of Supervisors started. The idea of a prepayment was first suggested by the wastewater agencies. The reason for this suggestion was to acknowledge that there are existing and unmet road repair needs that are impacting our operations, as well as all others who share the use of the roads in question. Kern County staff have adequately described the shortfall of their road repair budget in this and previous fiscal years. We thought it reasonable to advance some of our fees with the understanding that these fees would be fully recoverable in either the form of credits in future years or in a cash refund if circumstances prevent us from future access to Kern County. In no case would the prepayment be offered or paid without the wastewater agencies first receiving reasonable assurance through the adoption of a final version of a use ordinance (and not a biosolids ban) by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. The act of the Board to adopt a tough but reasonable use ordinance that fully protects public health and the environment is sound public policy we support. It regulates the transport, use, monitoring, reporting and record keeping of biosolids use activities on agricultural land. ALTERNATIVES There are three alternatives: 1. That the Board of Directors authorize approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between Kern County and Orange County Sanitation District for purposes of sharing in the cost of repairing and mitigating the impact to certain Kern County roads from biosolids truck delivery traffic, in a form approved by General Counsel. This is the staff recommended alternative. 2. That the Board of Directors directs General Counsel to notify Kern County of our intent to not pay road impact costs imposed by ordinance or other proposed NMp.EbVpeMYlS1EEFIHG LpAMIf1EEW1CCT10]BB Wm GBM®lit NW M.Cec pa,,,, Page 6 methodology and that we would take action up to and including relief in the Courts to enforce our rights. We could very well prevail in this endeavor. However, Kern County could devise other methods to collect the fees which are legal or could seek legislative relief in Sacramento or Washington. In any case, a long and protracted battle between urban and agricultural interests would serve little constructive purpose and would do nothing to advance a spirit of cooperation and mutual support. 3. That the Board of Directors directs staff to eliminate Kern County as an alternative for managing biosolids. Other counties and other non-land based alternatives are certainly within the realm of possibility. We, in fact, now take 15% of our biosolids to Kings, San Diego, or Riverside Counties. However, these alternatives, if not now more expensive than Kern County, could in the future become so. We would expect that if the wastewater agencies walk away from Kern County (where the vast majority of southern California biosolids are now used), there will be an immediate dislocation of the existing pricing structure of biosolids management, and we will see price increases in the alternative counties. Recent proposal cost for our sister agencies have ranged from $28.00 to $32.00 per wet ton. It is also unclear at this time how sustainable agricultural use of biosolids will be if Kern County falls. As goes Kern County, so goes California, and some say the Nation. If Board of Directors directs staff to implement Alternative 3, the District has the following non-Kem County biosolids management options currently available under existing contracts Bio Gro, Pima Gro, and Tule Ranch. Sites currently available at existinc contract rates Bio Gro and Pima Gro have a permitted land base of approximately 9,000 acres in western Riverside County and 4,000 acres in San Diego County. The District and several Southern Californian POTWs, including San Diego, are currently using these sites. A conservative estimate of the District's share of the capacity on these sites is approximately 80,000 tons of biosolids per year. Unfortunately, these sites are not a viable option during inclement weather. This capacity may increase pending San Diego's decision to start landfilling biosolids in January 1999. Adverse regulatory activity may result from a drastic increase in biosolids imported to Riverside County. Tule Ranch has a land base of 1,808 acres in Kings County. A conservative estimate of the District's share of the capacity on this site is approximately 30,000 tons of biosolids per year. This site provides the District with a viable inclement weather biosolids management site. However, some of Tule Ranch's Kern County sites directly adjacent to the Kings County line may not be subjected to the road mitigation impact fee since they can be accessed without using "county roads." Such a determination may result in an additional 2,680 acres available for management of District's biosolids. A conservative estimate NMRa1a0^^yISIFFAdO LOMMIREflHTIX:I\1P39®Item Ce Bl®W MW M.!¢ A Page 7 of the District's share of the capacity on this site is approximately 45,000 tons of biosolids per year. If the District were to enter into an agreement having sole rights to Tule Ranch's Kings County site and the adjacent Kem County site the capacity would be approximately 150,000 tons per year. Sites currently available at increased rates Bid Gro and Pima Gro have a permitted land base of approximately 1,000 acres in eastern Riverside County. Capacity on this site is approximately 25,000 tons of biosolids per year. This site provides the District with a viable inclement weather biosolids management site. Biosolids management at this site would cost approximately $30.00 per ton. Additional biosolids management options currently available include Bio Gro's ability to compost District's biosolids at their Arizona Soils composting site for $38.00 per ton, Pima Gro's Arizona land application at$35.00 per ton, and Landfilling in Arizona at $45.00 per ton. Pima Gro also expects to receive a 250-ton per day expansion at their Recyc composting facility in February 1999. This could provide the District with a 90,000 ton per year biosolids management option. Expected cost for this composting option is approximately $26.00 per ton. Assessment of other biosolids management alternatives such as other contracting with other land application sites, and buying a farm and/or a composting facility are being explored. CEQA FINDINGS To the extent that Kern County finds it necessary to comply with CEQA in its ordinance adoption process they will do so. They will rely, somewhat, on the regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Lahontan and Central Valley Regions. ATTACHMENTS None BPA:LB Mlup.JbliWMiISIEENLW CAMMIIIEEKPdLT1Rfl9B1(em CO BaMih MOV M.hc w.u.nermm Page 8 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To it M: 10/28/98 10/28/98 AGENDA REPORT IIte)SINS11ber Item Number Orange County Sanitation District d Y� FROM: Edwin E. Hodges, Director General Services Administration �X7 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH PICKENS FUEL CORP FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CNG REFUELING STATION GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Pickens Fuel Corporation for the Operation and Maintenance of the CNG Refueling Station. Summary The District's CNG Refueling Station is due to become operational in November 1998. Staff believes that it would be in the best interest of the District to outsource the Operation and Maintenance of the station. Additionally, staff believes that Pickens Fuel Corp. is best suited to take over the operation and maintenance function. Pickens Fuel Corp. is a California corporation that owns or manages more than 40 CNG stations in California and the greater Phoenix, Arizona area. They are the largest natural gas fuel suppliers in the United States, with sales of more than 5 million gallons annually. They process more than 3,000 transactions each day and bill more than 1,000 customers each month. Some of their fleet customers include the United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service, SunLine Transit, SuperShuttle, Waste Management, City of Irvine and the US Marine Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Pickens Fuel Corp. will conduct all scheduled maintenance as required on the compressor skid/controls, gas dryer, two fuel dispensers and two card readers. The estimated monthly cost for weekly service to these pieces of equipment is $900 per month, plus parts. Staff assumed that this work would be outsourced when they prepared the original Performa analysis and included a fee of$20,000 in year 1 and $18,000 in subsequent years to cover this cost. The monies to pay for this work would come from the sale of CNG to public and private fleets. Additionally, Pickens will also operate the station for the District. Under the terms of this portion of the agreement, Pickens would provide all of the training, issue credit applications and fuel cards, take care of all billing and market the station to both public and private sector fleets. The cost to provide these services will be $0.10 per gallon for all sales at the District station. X1 PdWgUWIWug SU T-FUEMCK N9WdigaMe R.1181.e CmI-PFCG Page 1 Attached for your guidance and review is the Performa analysis showing the cost impact of entering into an agreement with Pickens. Please note that the CNG station has a payback in year seven and has a positive cash flow, which will only increase, with the increase in marketing effort by Pickens Fuel Corp. With the concurrence of the Steering Committee, staff will be bringing this forward to the November OMTS committee. Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Administration, will present a verbal report on this item. PROJECTICONTRACT COST SUMMARY The CNG refueling station is designed to pay for itself. The cost to operate and maintain the station will come from the proceeds of selling CNG to public and private fleets. BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: Section , page ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ® This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Staff is working with General Counsel to prepare an agreement with Pickens Fuel Corp. ALTERNATIVES 1. Not to enter into an agreement with Pickens Fuel Corp. as a sole source. 2. Prepare a RFP. CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Performa Analysis on the CNG Refueling Station showing the addition of outsourcing the Operation and Maintenance. EEH: fw H%W dW� W I O eNLT.FUEUPICMNS\Oa 1p .Rlp Sle Cm..PFQ. Pap 2 Pefta 10 LOe0e N 10 LOAD;I 10120981B21 CSDOC NO STATION INCOME STATEMENT YW1 Yuri Vw- S Yar1 Yw Yw6 Year? Years Yare Yar10 Yartt Year12 Yw13 Year 1d YW16 Mm41 LOW -HAULERS _ f00A0 1d0.d0 1d0A0 1d0A0 224.64 2204 R21.00 22d.Od MM 280.90 2M.60 MAO 2KM 260.80 2M80 MnW LOW la -OCSD 6.N SAO ON 6.83 7.17 7.63 7.21 0.30 8.90 &W 8.30 B.N 8.30 MINN IOW -CITES N.M 62N N.17 67.M W.M 81.M 67.N W.BB 67.80 W.M W.M 67.M W.M 67.80 MnMI IOW -OTHER 6.00 6.N 6.61 6.70 &M &M 8.70 7.04 7.39 Tn B.10 SM TOTAL ANNUAL LOADR3W 1N.N 1a.80R47M MAO 2a.M MAO RMAI RMAI 363.68 3aA2 361.37 361.74 386.13 MA) BMtlon •HAULS 11.W I 12123 111 2M.72 2MAI 2MM 2WAS R9B.20 368A2 SM.75 390.11 9N.dB MIT WAS BMllen -OCSD 1.M el 6.10 SEA 7.16 7.a IN $AS 8.71 8.71 6.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 SM6M -CITIES 11.M WAS Mm MIS M.18 00.16 N.16 M.18 6e.16 Mtb M.16 68.16 MIS 68.10 BMIbn •OTHER i1.M el &N !M 0.82 6.11 0.41 6.73 7.07 TAR ITS ells 0.9 TOTAL STATION RECOVERY 241M 2M.72 3MM WAS w.d] =.TO W1.1d 429.M /28.70 /NAO 031.15 471.03 432.74 Sbtlen Ee w: 1,M Cam O.2Mkeml d3.7B d6.72 WM W.Q W.N M.11 MW $1.35 Bta 91.61 WAS 81.08 81.77 12A6 ma 18.71 1B.77 16.05 1B.9R 19.00 21.72 21.70 21.81 21.M 21.89 VAN 7.02 7.N 11.77 11.74 11.02 11.8s 11.87 14.15 14.16 14.17 14.19 1421 14.22 SO CN TFOIN018011 CMM NMWMWMI_ 0.83 17.14 1T.N 18.N NAB am W.N MIS N.71 31.03 31.M 31M 31.0 31.M MAO FkW 6Ntla MNnYeuna 20.00 10.00 1&M ta.M 18.00_ 1&M 18.M 18.M I&N 1&M 18.00 18.00 I&W 18.N 18.00 Pldeea FUN CorpO IeBa .1 id.M 19.M 1B.M N.W 39.E 29.N N.M N.N N.80 96.31 96.0 96.44 NAT 35.51 NM Poww .MMa�k SAO 12.21 ta74 13.25 18.06 _ta,N 18.M 18.N 19.0 =67 22.N 22.72 22.7d M,70 M.70 Meweaa o.M aM o.M o.M aM 0.00 B.M 0.0 a.M 0.0 o.M B.M ON o.M 0.00 EPAd Ta Oeaelbn ON ON 0.90 aM aM o.M E aM ON 9.N a ON ON am "o.p9 ON ON O.M 0.N ON O.N 0.N ON 0.00 O.N 0.0 0.00 0.00 ON TOTALS W.W 1NM 130.N 1N.N 1N.N 191.31 iB21R 1N.M 2N.N RR621 R26.M 228.T 2N.N 2N28 NET INCOME 01,9997 d&71 111.N 123.10 1a1.M 176.06_ 176.M 1TO. 177.M _178.67 2M.M MAO MA7 206.38 2M.91 MAT IIAULIND COBT&AVIN08 1.01 KOS a.M KOO 61.M M.a M.O MM 415,53 KS3 IWIO 1M IS 1M1S 100.10 1M.te 1M.16 CUMMUTATNE NETINCOME (81.000 97.791 211321 WAS W&42 w.99 11WM 1415M 19TSTO 19M.N 2266.99 2549.61 2082.67 IN.11 3510.18 W6.80 CASH FLOW STATEMENT NETINCOME ($I.WM W.70 211321 440.39 628.42 OWN 1152.99 1416.64 1079.76 IWAO 22NM MN.64 NW.W 31NAI 3610.10 382/.80 DEPRECIATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 EPAat T.DWua9n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cask Flow 97.70 20321 440.32 82BA2 MGM 116239 1415.04 1879.79 1944.90 22111.99 28M.64 20237 31M.11 3610.19 ]BUM Pey8e0kAatyeh 3 2m •1156.20 400.07 413.69 425.88 a60.09 .101.09 18/M 026.71 NOW IN2.01 1316.18 /W0A9 1M2.M 2238.10 2670.T2 note 1.10 .4 dollMook N gabbOdd RWmkWwrWI.MOGEfixQftr yesIs 14,16IOWeM 6980 NbWsbr n1a1B. - _ note 2-MMIn seta i1MNb0 ape STEERING COMMITTEE MeenngMe To ad.ofwr. 10128/98 AGENDA REPORT I em Rem NumberB.G.G. Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: November Agenda Items for Consideration by Working Committees GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Review with staff the tentative agenda items scheduled for review by the Working Committees in November. SUMMARY Staff routinely prepares for the Steering Committee a list of items scheduled for presentation to the Working Committees and the Boards at their next monthly meetings. This allows the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough to make reassignments in the review or approval process. The following items are scheduled to be considered by the Committees in November: OMTS Committee: 1. Cooperative Projects Program — Guidance Committee Review Update 2. Area 7 —Sewer Line Cleaning 3. 1998-99 Operational Research Program and Status 4. Fountain Valley Fueling Agreement 5. OCSD Role in Watershed Management PDC Committee: 1. Approve Addendum 4 to Professional Services Agreement with CDM re Job No. J-40-3, Strategic Plan—Phase 2 A copy of the draft Agenda Report is attached 2. Ratify Change Order 3 to Jobs P1-40-2R and P2-47-2R, Facilities Modifications and Safety Upgrades at Plants 1 and 2 3. Approve plans and specifications and a budget amendment for Contract No. 3-11 R, Rehabilitation of Seal Beach Interceptor Sewer 4. Approve plans and specifications and a budget amendment for Contract No. 3-35R, Rehabilitation of Magnolia Trunk Sewer FAHR Committee: No meeting in November PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY f N/A BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NA ALTERNATIVES NA CECIA FINDINGS Not a project. ATTACHMENTS NA jt N.W de Bend. MERING COMMRiEEWB%%MRs M Nw of ec A—.e,.. ,rmH, Page 2 PDCCOMMMEE M�°9om '°xaas. 11/05/98 11/IB/99 AGENDA REPORT ' ""n°' Item"°n°" Orange County Sanitation District FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering D Originator: Jim Herberg, Engineering Supervisor r SUBJECT: STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 2, TREATMENT, REUSE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, JOB NO. J40-3, ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve Addendum No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc, for preparation of Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan, Job No. J-40-3, for additional planning and design services in the amount of$293,022 for a total amount not to exceed $1,403,740. SUMMARY Additional work has been required of Camp Dresser& McKee (CDM) to complete Phase 2 of the Strategic Plan. The additional work includes revisions to Strategic Plan documents, changes in planning assumptions, and additional support due to the extended project schedule. This additional work is beyond the scope that was envisioned when the PSA was amended in January 1998. The majority of the additional effort was performed incrementally by CDM from May through August 1998. Over time, the additional tasks accumulated and became significant. Although staff realized that some of the work was out of scope, at the time the work was being done, staff believed that sufficient consultant budget was available to complete the work. CDM did not inform the District of the magnitude of the extra work or the associated cost until September 1998. The fee for this additional work is $236,118. As a good faith gesture, and to show their commitment as a team member on the project, CDM has agreed to be compensated for the additional work at their cost with no allowance for profit. This proposed increase also does not include $50,000 of additional costs that CDM has incurred and agreed to write off and not attempt to recover. One of staffs project management responsibilities is to assure that the consultant's work is completed within budget. We also require our consultants to keep our staff informed as to the status of work efforts and budget compliance. We will continue to stress the importance of proactive budget management to our project management staff and our consultants. A comprehensive project management training program is in Page 1 development that will address this issue. In the interim, our staff and supervisors have been instructed to provide a higher level of budget oversight and communication with the PDC Committee and our Board of Directors. In addition to the completed work, CDM has proposed future work necessary for completion of the Strategic Plan including: • Revising all volumes of the Strategic Plan to reflect the agency's name change to Orange County Sanitation District. • Providing for additional review and revisions to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) information. • Providing continued project support, participation in project management meetings, and coordination efforts with EIR consultants. Staff is requesting an additional authorization of$56,904 for this upcoming work. As with the work described above, CDM has agreed to complete the work at their cost, with no profit. The combined fee for the additional completed and future work described above is $293,022. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The total additional fee of $293,022 is 10% of CDM's existing total budget of$2,929,178 for Phases 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. Please refer to the attached Professional Services Agreement Status Report. BUDGETIMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item). There are sufficient unexpended funds in the combined Strategic Plan project budgets for phases 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan (Management of Peak Hydraulic Discharge, Job No. J-40-1; Determination of Financial Charges and Fee Schedules, Job No. J-40-2; and Treatment, Disposal & Reuse Plan, Job No. J40-3) to cover the additional fees. See attached Budget Information Table, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WORK COMPLETED: The following represents the additional work completed thus far. Page 2 Technical Memos - In the January 1998 addendum, staff requested that technical memos be prepared documenting the underlying engineering assumptions of the Strategic Plan. They were prepared and reviewed by Engineering, O & M, Finance, GSA and Technical Services. To better communicate and serve our internal stakeholders, a collaborative process formed between the departments. The group, known as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), generated significant comments and information during the review process beyond what was projected when the addendum was issued. The large volume of comments reflected the fact that the technical memo effort was underestimated initially. To address these comments, CDM performed additional work, increasing the overall length of the technical memos from the contracted 70 pages (seven memos 10 pages each) to over 360 pages (9 memos averaging 42 pages in length). The technical memos were finalized during April and May 1998. The review and comment process was necessary to ensure documentation that resulted in the best information available for the Strategic Plan. The information will serve in prioritizing construction of future capital projects. It will also be useful in making future technical and operational decisions, particularly in light of the agency's reinvention efforts. Planning Issues - In June 1998, after completion of the technical memos, a number of important assumptions changed. The changes required a level of engineering effort beyond the scope of work. The additional work included: • Support for Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS)—The initial engineering work on the treatment facilities (Volume 4)was based upon the GWRS secondary effluent quality requirements provided in a March 1998 memorandum from Orange County Water District(OCWD). To meet the GWRS requirements, CDM determined that a $40 million secondary treatment expansion was necessary. In June 1998, District Staff, OCWD, CDM, and the GWRS consultants (Black and Veatch and Carollo Engineers) developed an alternate plan to reduce the amount of secondary facilities supporting GWRS. It was decided that the District's existing secondary facilities could be operated at a higher flow rate, increasing the effluent solids content. To compensate for the higher solids content, the GWRS would include $5 million in additional microfilters. Although this decision required CDM to revise engineering work that they had already completed, the revised plan reduces future secondary treatment construction by approximately $40 million. • Urban Design Element- The Strategic Plan includes a landscaping improvement plan to visually screen the area along Pack Coast Highway at the south boundary of Plant No. 2. CDM is required to coordinate the design with the City of Huntington Beach (City) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DF& G). Consensus between these agencies has been difficult, requiring more meetings and revisions to the plans than originally anticipated. In July 1998, Staff directed CDM to modify plans previously agreed upon by the City and incorporate changes recommended by DF&G. The work was necessary to move forward with the project and maintain a good relationship with the agencies involved. Page 3 • 50/50 Discharge Criteria -The original scope addressed two discharge scenarios, the NPDES permit limits, and full secondary treatment. In July 1998, in preparation for the August Board workshop, CDM analyzed the impact of GWRS on the District's current policy of discharging a blended effluent consisting of 50 percent primary and 50 percent secondary effluents (50/50 policy). Although this analysis was not included in the original scope, it was required to demonstrate the major differences in cost between the District's 50/50 policy with and without GWRS. Increased Staff and Board Support—Due to the highly collaborative nature of this project, an increased level of technical and management analysis, decision-making, and internal and external communication was required beyond what was originally estimated. The meetings were necessary to provide the required communication with the various stakeholders (Board, Public, and Management). The following additional meetings were required beyond the original scope: -Thirty biweekly management meetings (Technical Advisory Group and Management Advisory Group) -One Board Workshop -One RAC Meeting -Three Ad Hoc Committee Meetings PROPOSED ADDITIONAL WORK: The following represents proposed upcoming work: Name Change - On July 1, 1998, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) became the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). In addition, the individual Districts were renamed as Revenue Areas as part of consolidation. Based on these changes, all Strategic Plan volumes will need to be revised. Over 700 pages of text and 200 figures and tables are affected by the name change, as well as associated grammar (singular versus plural). Since the document will not be adopted until July 1999 (one year after consolidation), a name change is being recommended. Interim Submittal for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The new facilities identified in the Strategic Plan will need to be combined with the District's existing five year capital program and future rehabilitation and replacement projects. An additional interim submittal of the CIP will be required to assure that project phasing and budgeting has been reviewed and analyzed by District Staff, and that the District's input is included in the final CIP. An interim submittal will require CDM to conduct additional meetings with Staff and make revisions to the draft CIP prior to finalizing. Ongoing Management and gineering Support - Staff informed the Ad Hoc and Steering Committees at the EnJuly 29 meeting that additional strategic planning costs would be incurred for future work due to extension of the project schedule. The schedule was extended to allow time to receive direction from the Board on the Page 4 designated preferred alternative for the Strategic Plan, prior to moving forward with the CIP and the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This resulted in a Board Workshop being held on August 22, with recommendations presented to the full Board of Directors at the September 23r0 meeting. The additional time required to receive Board direction on the preferred alternative has extended CDM's efforts beyond the scheduled completion by the end of July. While a large part of the Strategic Plan has been completed and reviewed by the District, there is significant effort remaining, requiring continued consultant support. The support services include a number of ongoing responsibilities, including: - Eight Project Management Meetings - One Ad Hoc Committee Meetings - One Board Workshops - Four coordination meetings with the EIR consultants PROPOSED ADDENDUM NO. 4 COST SUMMARY: Work Completed Technical Memos $103,867 Revised Planning Issues $ 59,808 Schedule Delays/ Management Support 72.44 Subtotal $244,118 Upcoming Work Documentation; Consolidation and Name Change $ 23,304 Interim Submittals for CIP $ 22,600 Ongoing Management and Engineering Support $ 11.000 Subtotal $ 56,904 Addendum No. 4 Total $293,022 ALTERNATIVES Do not approve addendum. Should the PSA not be amended, CDM would not be compensated for extra work already completed. In addition, revisions reflecting the District's name change and refinement of the CIP would not be done. CEQA FINDINGS None Required. Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Professional Services Agreement Status Report 2. Budget Information Table, Phase 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan 3. Proposal letter from CDM dated October 12, 1998 JDH:jam G:WglobaMgenda Draft RepoftTDCU-0 AR2.dw Page 6 Professional Services Agreement Status Report Job/Contract No. J-40-3 Phase 2 Strategic Plan Total Project Budget: $ 1,462,000 Consultant: Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Start Date of Project: January 22, 1997 Date Addendum Description Cost Accumulated Costs 1/22/97 Original PSA Phase 2 Strategic Plan —Treatment, Reuse and 673,461 673,461 Disposal Plan 1/5/98 1 Additional Energy Studies 15,049 688.510 Revised Permit Conditions, Additional Public 1/28/98 2 Involvement, and Assistance with Outstanding 397,239 1,085,749 Rate Structure Issues Develop and file a Stormwater Management Plan 9/3/98 3 with California Regional Water Quality Control 24,969 1,110,718 Board Proposed 4 Support ongoing and future activities for completion of the Strategic Plan 293,022 1,403,740 R: pAWengUOBS&CONTRACTMSTRAT PLWJ 4D3Nddendum'Addendum Status Report.doc 10/20/98 Revised 0511 V98 BUDGET INFORMATION TABLE STRATEGIC PLAN (PHASES 1 & 2) JOBS NO. J-40-1, J-4O-2 & J-40-3 ORIGINAL CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED FUNDS THIS PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECWTASK AUTHORIZED PROJECT BUDGET REVISED AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZATION TOTAL EXPENDITURE COMPLETE BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE BUDGET TO DATE REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO DATE TO DATE(%) Consultant PSA' $ 2.671,000 $ 3,295.200 $ 3,295,200 $ 2,929.178 $ 293,022 $ 3,222,200 $ 2.808,396 87% Flow Monitoring Services $ 359.800 $ 359,800 $ 359,800 $ 359.800 $ 359,800 100% Staff&Overhead $ 380,000 $ 937.250 $ 937,250 $ 937,250 $ 937,250 $ 871,444 93% Contingnecy and Other $ - $ 210.245 $ 210.245 $ 59,645 $ 59.545 $ 59,645 100% TOTAL $ 3.051.000 $ 4,802.495 $ - $ 4,802,495 $ 4,285,873 $ 293,022 $ 4,578.895 $ 4,099,285 90% Does not include$239.630 for District 7 Mapping Protect. h%wp dta ngVobscontraeft lntpini4O-3dddendum 4 AR budget table OCT.20.19% 10:12RM CFJV UNLS Pn-•• CAMCamp Dress &McKee Inc. .ow.ro ,azs r�asaroamley,svue soc cansme.cammaaatoa Ter 780 GSB-T/SS FBL7FACS3-74II October 12,1998 Mr.David A Ludwin Director of fibgineering Orange County Sanitation District P.O.Box 6127 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-6127 Subject Strategic Plan,Phase 2-Job J443 Addendum 4:Revistims to the Strategic Plan Dear Mr.Ludwin Thank you so much for meeting with us today to review the changes in scope to the strategic planing effort. As we discussed today,mochhas transpired since receiving Addendum 2 on January 28,1998. Chm%g in technical direction,levels of detal7,and schedule delays have resulted in a higher level of effort to complete the plamdng and _ engineering analyses and documentation Although the work has provided additional benefits to the decision making process,it has emmaeded the level of effort envisioned by both CDM and OCSD in January 199& As we are all aware,this project has been more of a"process"than a tradiiianallydefined project Although the process may have seemed somewhat arduous at times,there bas been a tremendous amount of valuable work performed. This work has resulted in the development of dynamic tools and documentation that will provide significant benefit to the District and the County of Orange for many years to come. Through this collaborative process,the District's staff,management,Board and public have gained significantly in the following areas: Dynamic Tools - Collection System Model(STORM and fixtran) - Wastewater Treatment Facilities Model - Pacut Decision Model HrS Model Detailed Documentation and Action Plans - Plannvmg and Design Qiteoa - Cost Criteria(capital and O&M) - Stormwater Management Plan - Water Conservation Program - Interim now Management Plan Hydrogen Sulfide Study Urban Design Pion OCT.20.1998 10:13PM CWP I L=] rwncc CDM Camp Dresser&McKee Inc Mr.David A.Ludwin ONober 12,1998 Page 2 • prnmdation for Puturc Programs GWR System Implementation Cooperative Projects Program - Adaptive Plan for Future Regulatory Clmnges Because of the level of effort in gaining input and buy-in both internally(staff, management and Board)and eideenally(public and regulatory community),these tools and plans will be extremely useful as you proceed through the planning horizon. Additional Work Required Below,you will find a more detailed accounting of the changes in scope that have occurred in the last 8 months. We hope this documentation helps to Illuminate not only the changes to the levels of effort,but the benefits gained by them. We have also Included a time line to illustrate the Incremental nature of the changes in scope. Planning Issues • Suunort ofCrly$,Qyblem On June 1,1998,after completion of the technical memoranda documenting all of the engi neeringbaseline assumptions and parameters,a meeting was held with the GWR System Team to review facility changes thatwould reduce the cost Impacts of GWR System support. At that meeting,significant baseline assumptions were revised. These assumptions included use of bidding filter effluent for GWR supply water,reduction in quality of secondary effluent acceptable to GWR(increasing loading rates to clarifiers),and the pursuit of Phase I only for GWR. Although these changes significantly Impacted the strategic planning efforts,the changes benefitted both OCSD and OCWD by reducing the cost of supporting GWR System by$40 million. T..novative TeehnolooeTv The original scope of work requited CDM to consider spare-saving technologies to forestall possible site limitation problems at both plants. In addition,the scope requited CDM to specifically consider primary effluent filtraion. However, during the development of the technical memoranda,and in subsequent meetings and discussions with OCSD staff regarding Volume 4, -comments from OCSD ®phasdzed the need to consider funher opporhuubes. Based on this input, Sections 5,6,9 and 17 of Volume 4 were revised to include Innovative technology discussions for implementation of promising innovative technologies for prelumnary/pirmary,secondary and solids pmcesees. This additional work consolidated,evaluated and prioritized a variety of innovative process technologies and provided support to OCSD's on-going monitoring of alternative OC7.20.1998 10:13PI1 CHMY ix Lbxn 1.1 CDMCamp Drew f r MrdCee lne Mr.David A.Ludwin October 12,1998 Page 3 processes. (It should be tuned that CDM is not asking for additional compensation for this expanded scope of work) • Thban Dp6gn Elemerit As part of the development of contract documents for landscape improvements to the Plant 2 south boundary wall,CDM was required to coordinate with OCSD and the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that any proposed improverrusits were acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. In April 1998, CDM and OCSD met with the City of Huntington Beach to begin the pmcess. Coordination with Fish and Game resulted an a meeting on July 15,1998 which also included the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Differences between these agencies and the City required revisions by CDM to the original set of plane recommended for the area and agreed to by the City. This issue is still lauessolved,and the CDM team has demobilized temporarily. Once completed, however, this project will not only result in a pleasant visual break to travelers along Pacific Coast Highway,but it will also strengthen OCSD's existing good relationships with both the City of Huntington Beach and the California Department of Fish end Game. • Odor Control/ er BuS+rimSs The original scope of work required CDM to conduct a straightforward evaluation of previous studies conducted regarding odor control scrubbers and to prepare a technical memorandum presentingrecomrnenda6ons to increase scrubber efficiency. This adtial scope was slowly expanded by OCSD staff until 'odor control"became "air emissions"which resulted in the preparation of Technical Memorandum 4A-1 which was issued in May 1998. This memorandum,consisting of over 30 pages,covers odorNOC treatment parameters,practices and operating philosophies;air emissions permitting regulations driving odor control requirements;criteria for chemical odor treatment and binf'iltration;and air emissions impacts a&cwq power generation While this work provides clear benefits to OCSD in strategic plaruung,it has moved far beyond the original.Intent of the scope of work (It should be noted that CDM is not asking for additional compensation for this expanded scope of work) • Addition of 50:50 Level of Trmrment In August of 1998,staff requested that CDM comeider the District's current target of achieving a blend of 50 percent primary and W percent secondary effluent in addition to the Diagonal NPDBSS permit limits and full secondary treatment criteria. This work was requested to show the comparative impact of changing from current philosophy to the new permit limits. Through this additional OCT.20.19% 10:14Po1 C4 Utc iti CM Camp Dresser&Mclree hc. ` Mr.David A.Ludwin October12,1998 Page 4 analyses,the Board was able to make an educated decision regarding the move from current philosophy to producing an effluent meeting permit requirements. To quantify the increased level of effort,we provide the following summary. Budget $170,139(1281 hours) Actual 5229,947(1976 hours) Difference$59,808(695 hems) Technical Memoranda The original concept and intent of the development of technical memoranda was to confirm the fundamental assumptions and"building blocks"which had been developed in 1997. These memoranda were to incorporate work that had been previously completed. The understanding was that these memoranda would be short(a10 pages) with minimum review of the contents. After receipt of the Addendum 2,however,the scope and breadth of the Technical Memao da changed considerably. The Memoranda became a tool for greater staff collaboration,input and review of the baseline decisions,an opportunity for staff to consider assumptions that had been previously made,and a chance for more m-depth documentation of background information and description of took and methodology used to reach the decisions made. This process afforded the District the additional opportunity to take full advantage of the exterdse and knowledge of the staff in Operation&Maintenance,Technical Services and Fngmeenng and Planning. Although this greater level of participation and detailed analyses and documentation will help make these took more accepted and utnilmed,the effort to complete the documents far exceeded the angmally anticipated level. To quantify the increased level of effort,we provide the following summary: - Original 7 memos, 10 pages each,5 reviewers,keel of comments-1 week hum around - Actual 9 memos,average 47 pages each(excluding appendices),20-25 reviewers, average 70 comments per memo,2 to 3 wmks to address Budget $109,W(879 hors) Actual 8213A35(1988 hours) Difference$103,867(1009 hours) OCT.20.1998 10:14f3M CPMP DREBSLH Mucci CMCamp Dresser&McKee Inc Mr.David A.Ludwin October 12,1998 Page 5 Schedule DelaydInctease In Manageatent As you know,the schedule for completion and the number of meetings required for planning,education,and decision-making have been expanded as the process has progressed. In reviewing the contractual requirements(original agreement phis addenda)for meetings compared with the actual number of formal meetings(excluding informal staff-level dfwiasini c),the additional effort has been substantial,but warranted in bringing the necessary parties toward decision. To quantify the increased level of effort,we provide the following summary. MCOWI&L By.Contract Actual (a5 of 10.10:2A7 HI-weekly(SIRAP,TAG) 54 84 Board Workshops 8 9 RAC/PAC 16 17 Ad Hoc 9 12 Budget $04,379(3,M411iotus) Actual $526,=(3,959 hours) Differencz$77,443(455 hours) Additional Work Efforts Required • Name Chimgg On July 1,1998,the County sanitation Districts of Orange County(CSDM became the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). In addition,the title of each individual member District was changed from District to Revenue Area. All Strategic Plan volumes need to be revised to reflect these recent changes. Over 700 pages of text and 200 figures and tables are affected as well as associated grammar(singular versus plural). Additional Technical Review[S,p=eng With the ewsption of the Volume 3,the scope of work required the submittal of only a draft 50%and a Pawl submittal for each volume of the Strategic Plan However,it has become clear that staff require at least one other opportunity to review the portions of key volumes which present Capital Improveza¢u Program (CIP)utformat mt. Single submittals of the draft CIPs for the collection system, treatment facilities and disposal system will be prepared by CDM for review by OCSD staff. CIP adjustments and phasing of expenditures to the collection Micro,treatment plants and disposal system will be performed by OCSD staff in OC't.20. 1998 10!15RM CPi P ORtS.SkJ< CM Camp Dresser&McKee Inc Mr.David A.Ludwin October 12,1998 Page 6 working sessions with CDM staff. The resultent comments will be provided m CDM for incorporation into the final CIP. This proms has already been discussed with staff and has been accepted by them to finalize the CIP. • Qngpjtr Manag=ent and EpgineC+Sgpport The current Strategic Plan effort was scheduled to be completed by the end of July 1998. While a large part of the work has been completed and reviewed by OCSD, the continued participation of CDM to provide support to the Strategic Plan effort tluough mid-Mg is seen by OCSD and CDM has beneficial. To provide this support on an on-call basis,an upper limit not-to-exceed value for these services has been established by OCSD. The extent,timing and level of effort of all support efforts provided under this owk will be defined by OCSD in advance. CDM will endeavor to make available those staff requested by OCSD at the locations and times proposed by OCSD. In this way,CDM's expertise in the strategic platming process will continue to be available to OCSD. Level of Effort The level of effort that has been expended and will be needed to complete the work outlined above is broken down in the attached Table 1. As you can see,the fee needed to complete the work is$293,M2. As we are all aware of budget constraints and the need to nunimire impacts to the District,we are offering that CDM be compensated on an"at cost"basis for the work outlined herein. Thank you for your consideration of this requested addendum. We are proud to be a pert of this importantplamning process and have enjoyed the team spirit that has been fostered. We took forward to the successful completion of this useful,dynamic plan. Very truly yours, .��' CAMP �iDRESSER&E�n�d fig Kdlme M.Eiro1-Luft RE Senior Vice President loaLduo bbadltr^p %10-12NMWP m Jim Herber&OCSD Paul Gustafson,CDM OCT.20.1998 10:15R1 LH^t u�¢y-,cR wr.ci t CDM Camp Drier&McKee in, Mr.David A Ludwin October 12,1998 Page 7 Table 1 Desorption of Tasks Summary of Labor Hours and Fee Description Estimated/ Estimated/ Actual Actual Cost Labor Hours Planaung issues 695 WAS Technical Memmranda 1009 $103,867 Schedule Delays/Increase m 455 $77 443 Management Name Change 244 $23—%M Additional Tedmical Review/Comments 7.36 $Y2hm Ongoing Support llg $11,000 Total 2757 $293A22