The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-04-26 DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 26, 2000 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, April 26, 2000 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: Directors Present: OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McGuigan, Chair pro tem and Chair, OMTS Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Committee Ryal Wheeler Norm Eckenrode, Chair, PDC Committee Tom Seltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee STAFF PRESENT: Jim Silva, County Supervisor Don McIntyre, General Manager Blake Anderson, Asst. General Manager Directors Absent: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Peer Swan, Vice Chair Gary Streed, Director of Finance Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Mike Moore, ECM Manager Jim Herberg, Engineering Supervisor (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM Pat McGuigan was appointed Chair pro tem because of the absence of Directors Debay and Swan. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the Regular March 22 and Adjourned April 3, 2000 meetings of the Steering were approved as drafted. Director McGuigan abstained. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETAPI' The Committee Chair did not make a report. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTEX MAY ✓24 2000 7+_- Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 April 26,2000 (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Don McIntyre reported on the negotiations with the City of Brea on connection fee waivers for Bexley Neighborhood properties currently on septic tanks. Director Daucher has now suggested a compromise of a loan, or lien, against the property in the amount of$3,000. Staff will prepare several alternatives for terms and conditions for the loans for presentation to the FAHR Committee. Supervisor Silva asked that some type of interest be assessed. General Counsel Tom Woodruff indicated that a loan program is allowed by the Special District Act. Mr. McIntyre will notify Brea and the County that this will be presented to our Directors for consideration. Agenda Item (9)A.will be removed from the agenda. Senator Polanco has pulled his bill from consideration; however, he has committed to reintroduce the bill next session after the state-wide EIR has been adopted. Jim Herberg discussed the most recent meeting with the City of Huntington Beach and the State Fish and Game Department regarding landscaping at Plant 2. A go-ahead was given to begin design with an advisory committee formed to review it. Mr. McIntyre indicated that an item would be added to the Board agenda, requesting approval of the MOU with the County of Orange on urban runoff, which outlines the District's responsibilities and fair share of costs. (7) REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Blake Anderson reported on the activities of the Little Hoover Commission, which Is currently looking at special districts' governance, public authority, reserves and revenues. A report is due this week and staff will analyze the findings and report to the Directors. The Rebuild America program is also working with public agencies, but is looking at the longer view of infrastructure needs. One may balance the other. (8) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff indicated that the Court has denied a writ filed by an employee. He updated the members on the activities regarding the Kern County biosolids lawsuit. The State's office of Planning and Research has determined that Kern County shall be the lead agency for the CEQA documentation related to Yakima's Class A biosolids processing facilities. However, he also mentioned that Yakima has withdrawn Its application for the facilities for a number of reasons. Emilio Adston, an employee who is challenging a problem solving decision, may address the Board. Blake Anderson met with him, and indicated that he Is free to address the Board, but that there is no administrative recourse at this point in the process. (9) DISCUSSION ITEMS(Items A-F) A. Resolution In Support of Senate Bill 1956 (Polanoo). This item was pulled from the agenda. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 April 26, 2000 B. Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan. Robert Ghirelli reported that this Rem is on the Board agenda. A request for an additional $160,000 of funding for the District's share of Phase 2 studies has been received from Huntington Beach. Staff is in the process of evaluating this request to verify the District's share. The status of the diversion of urban runoff flows from Huntington Beach was discussed. There are now nine pump stations diverting flow to the District. So far our ocean discharge permit limits have not been exceeded by this practice. Staff will continue to monitor the early affects of this practice. Director Eckenrode expressed concern about making sure all of the affected parties are involved in the discussions. At a presentation put on by the County, there was no mention of the Sanitation District's role. Director Silva indicated that he would be asking one County staffer to be assigned as lead for this program. The first stage is to determine the source and the second stage will be a cooperative program to remedy the problem. Staff will present its recommendations on the request for additional funding to the OMTS and FAHR Committees. C. Changes to Standard Agreement Form for Cooperative Projects Program,Job No.J-73. Jim Herberg discussed proposed changes to the form of agreement for these projects as a result of a letter request from the City of Huntington Beach for verification that all of the District's funding is from local sources. The City may be requesting matching funds from the federal government. It was moved, seconded and approved to incorporate the following into the Cooperative Projects Program agreements: (1) Require the local agencies to reimburse the District for costs incurred by the District, including costs for financial audits, resulting from local agency participation in state and federal matching fund programs; and (2) Require local agency project funding to match that of the District's, dollar- for-dollar, regardless of state and federal grant or loan participation. D. US Bureau of Reclamation/Southern California Recycling Projects Initiative. Jim Herberg reported on the District's participation in this program. The Bureau is seeking interested agencies as partners to share in the costs and by doing so would allow the District membership on the Executive Management Team, which is responsible for the overall direction of the program. Costs would depend on the number of partners and should be known by June. Staff was directed to forward the information to the GW RS Joint Coordinating Committee at its next meeting and report back to the Steering Committee in May. E. What has the EMT done since its January Retreat? Transition Plan Blake Anderson, in an effort to make an orderly transition, described where the EMT is,where it wants to be and how it plans to get there. He described the steps taken to date, including the management training (conducted by a firm called MAP)for all EMT members and division managers and the EMT retreat in January. Management has been establishing expectations for the next budget, • Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 4 April 26, 2000 achieving alignment through the vision and mission statements for departments and divisions, developing operating philosophies using the basic MAP tools for setting goals. Staff is working on a five-year staffing plan, which will consider each division as a separate business unit, developing goals and objectives and staffing requirements to meet those goals. Macro issues that may impact all departments are being developed so that they may be considered during the development of the five-year staffing plan and work plans. An issues list that was a result of the EMT Retreat will be considered by an Operational Organization Committee in attempt to prioritize the items and fix those things that need fixing. F. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in May. The OMITS Committee agenda will include a tour of the lab and the PDC Committee will meet at Plant 2 to tour several of the sites of future projects. Several items listed for review by the OMTS Committee have been removed from the agenda. (9) OTHER BUSINESS,COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY Don McIntyre reported that representatives from Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch were at the District last week for presentations prior to their determining a rating for our finance offerings. (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/OR STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for May 24, 2000 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for May 24, 2000 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 5 April 26, 2000 (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. S bmitted by, Go_ J a appan 49bring Committee Secretary N:Ixy.d¢Wpx WTEEflM(i COMM/REEVIUNp,MWI1HW SCW... STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, April 26, 2000,was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Thursday, April 20, 2000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of April, 2000. zz�zk — Penny Kyle, Secfdtary of th oard of Directors of Orange County Sanitation PAtricl Posted: April 20 , 2000, p.m. By: --Signature wpCwlpm W rsvnm`pmung.im ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD SECRETARY (2) phone: (714)962-2411 maiiin0 address: PO.Box 0127 ra°ntsn 92728-8127 NOTICE OF MEETING 92728-Valley,GA across address: 10844 Ellis Avenue STEERING COMMITTEE fountain Valley.CA 9270E-701B ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Memhar ff0eacies WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000 - 5 P.M. Clef a Anaheim DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Brea Buena Park 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Lypreas Fountain ire ay FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Fullerton Garden Grave Huntington Beach Irvine Le Habra La Palma A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of Lee Alamitoa e Oran Count Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date and Newport Beach g y Orange time. Placando Santa Ana Seal Baach Stanton Mibo ✓Ile Park Verde Linda County of Orange Sanitary Districts Costa Masa Midway City Water Districts Irvine Ranch 'To Protect Me Public Health and the Environment through Excellence in Wastewater Systems' STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS Wednesday, April 26, 2000 Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Wednesday, June 28, 2000 Wednesday, July 19', 2000 Wednesday, August 23, 2000 Wednesday, September 27, 2000 Wednesday, October 25, 2000 Wednesday, November 15, 2000` Wednesday, December 20, 2000' Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Wednesday, February 28, 2001 Wednesday, March 28, 2001 Wednesday, April 25, 2001 `Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday. STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: April 26. 2000 Meeting Time: 5 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members Jan Debay, Chair of the Board ............................ Peer A. Swan, Vice Chair................................... Norm Eckenrode, Chair, PDC Committee ............. Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee .............. Tom Saltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee ................ Jim Silva, Supervisor........................................ Others Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel.................... DonHughes............................................................... Director Russell Patterson............................_........... Staff Present Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager...................... Blake P. Anderson, Asst. General Manager............. Jean Tappan, Secretary............................................ Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services.............. Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications......_ c: Lenora Crane AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000 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 pasted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Office not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the office 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 and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b)as an emergency item or that there Is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not lass 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 A. Approve draft minutes of the March 22, 2000 Steering Committee meeting. B. Approve draft minutes of the April 3, 2000 Adjourned Steering Committee meeting. -2- April 26, 2000 Agenda (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (7) REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (8) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (9) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-F) A. Resolution in Support of Senate Bill 1956 (Polanco) (Robert Ghirelli) B. Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan (Robert Ghirelli) C. Changes to Standard Agreement Form for Cooperative Projects Program, Job No.J-73 (Jim Herberg) D. US Bureau of Reclamation/Southern California Recycling Projects Initiative— (information Item) (Jim Herberg) E. What has the EMT done since its January Retreat? Transition Plan (Blake Anderson) F. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in May (Information item) (10) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING (12) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (13) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2000. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2000. (14) 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 closed 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. -3- April 26,2000 Agenda 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. At 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, if necessary B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (15) ADJOURNMENT jt HAWROTAWOENOM4TEEFING COMMITTEEbO AOM2000 AGENDAW"NDTICEAMD aCUGA EHEET.DOC 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: Jan Debay (949)644-3004(Newport Beach City Hall) Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593.7101 (714)962-0356(Fax) E-mail: itappan@ocsd.com Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 March 22, 2000 C. Increase$3000 Cap for IDEAs The IDEA program awards proven cost savings or safety suggestions. At this time the Board approved cap is 10%of the savings up to$3,000. Staff has requested that the cap be increased if an IDEA was submitted that could save the District over$500,000. The Committee members expressed support for the program and directed staff to develop several recommendations that might be considered by the Steering Committee at a future meeting. D. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees was reviewed. (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY General Counsel's representative, Tom Nixon, reported that it would be necessary to vote on adding a personnel matter to the closed session agenda. The members unanimously agreed that there was a need to add the item to the closed session agenda. (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/OR STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday,April 26, 2000 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:04 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 54956.9, to confer with General Counsel re: A. Michael Rozengurt v. Orange County Sanitation District, at al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 808544, and Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No. AHM 0062970. B. General Managers Performance Evaluation. The members voted to convene a special closed session to discuss the General Manager performance and compensation. W DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, March 22, 2000 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, March 22,2000 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: Directors Present: OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Tom Nixon, Counsel Peer Swan, Vice Chair Craig Farrington, Counsel Norm Eckenrode,Chairman, PDC Committee Director Jim Ferryman Tom Saltarelli, Chairman, FAHR Committee Bill Mahoney, County CAO's Representative Director Lynn Daucher Directors Absent: Ryal Wheeler Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee Jim Silva, County Supervisor STAFF PRESENT: Don McIntyre, General Manager Blake Anderson,Asst.General Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Lisa Tomko, Acting Director of Human Resources Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Gary Streed, Director of Finance Andre loan, Engineering Project Manager (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the February 23, 2000 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair welcomed Director Ferryman to the meeting. v' Minutes of the Steering Committee j( Page 2 March 22, 2000 (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Don McIntyre reported that there was a correction necessary to Board Agenda Item 15.(c),which he would announce at the Board meeting. There is a need to address a personnel matter at both the Steering Committee and Board meetings that surfaced after the agenda was prepared. Mr. McIntyre also congratulated David Ludwin, Director of Engineering,for receiving the Orange County Engineering Council's Distinguished Engineering Achievement Award. Andre loan, Engineering Department Project Manager, provided a recap on the issues pertaining to the continued integrity of the Santa Ana River Interceptor. About five miles of this line are considered at risk and staff is looking at five alternatives to protect or relocate this trunkline. The Draft EIR is being finalized and will be distributed. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2004, however, mitigation measures will be significant and could be costly. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-D) A. Request for Contribution for Sewer Line Construction to Serve Bexley Neighborhood Annexation to the City of Brea Director Lynn Daucher discussed the issue of financial assistance to homeowners for sewer connections from the City of Brea's standpoint, and Bill Mahoney, County CAO's representative, expressed the concerns of Orange County Supervisor Smith. There are two public policy issues that should be considered: 1) getting rid of county islands within the service area, and 2) protecting the groundwater supply. District-wide, there are about 3,000 properties that are still on septic systems. Director Swan expressed concern about equity for those property owners that bought into the system. Director Saltarelli mentioned that a connection to a sewer increases the value of the property, and suggested that a lien be placed on those annexing parcels that would be paid when the property sold. Mr. McIntyre will meet with the Brea City Manager to obtain the formula that was used to develop each agency's portion of the annexation costs. Staff was directed to proceed with negotiations to include installment payment agreements or liens. B. Development of Five-year Staffing Plan Greg Mathews described the approach staff will be taking in developing the new report, which will be presented to the Directors in the fall. He indicated that the reductions experienced in the last five years were relatively easy and further reductions will come with more difficulty. The Committee requested that a bi-monthly progress report be made to the FAHR Committee during the development phase. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 4 March 22, 2000 C. Employee request for a Board hearing on disciplinary action. D. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of the Joint Board will report on the actions when they are approved. At 6:36 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session to discuss Item B.A. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. to a special meeting on Monday, April 3 at 2 p.m. Pb�bmiftad by, Tappan t ering Committee Secretary N'IW.6eL5iemLlSlro,✓q GvrvMnYA.MB/W5P3M$C MwIMdK DRAFT MINUTES OF ADJOURNED STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, April 3, 2000 An adjourned meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Monday, April 3, 2000 at 2 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 Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Peer Swan, Vice Chair STAFF PRESENT: Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee None Norm Eckenrode, Chairman, PDC Committee Directors Absent: Tom Saltarelli, Chairman, FAHR Committee Jim Silva, Supervisor, County of Orange (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 2:05 p.m. in Closed Session to discuss two personnel matters, as follows: 1) Reviewed and approved General Manager's Annual Performance Evaluation and Compensation. The objectives for the next year will be developed at future meetings. 2) The Steering Committee appointed Chair Debay Labor Negotiator and provided direction re salary, benefits, terms and conditions of employment for Blake P. Anderson, General Manager. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of the Joint Board will report on the actions when they are approved. At 2:55 p.m.,the Committee reconvened in regular session. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 April 3, 2000 (5) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. bmitted by J Tappan String Committee Secretary H�.mieoero W"bccom�m« uavro usw.s a.�oumea M.emr ex STEERING COMMITTEE M ng Dae Teea.&OW. \ 4/26/00 4/26/00 AGENDA REPORT I� NRmaer nem numaer �. A. W'I Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D. Env., Director of Technical Services Originator: Layne T. Baroldi, Regulatory Specialist SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 1956 (POLANCO) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 00-03, Declaring Support for Senate Bill 1956 (Polanco) Uniform Statewide Regulation of Biosolids Land Application SUMMARY Biosolids management programs throughout California have been experiencing increased local opposition to land application of Class B biosolids. Much of the opposition is based on unsupported public perception concerns over the risks posed by pathogens in biosolids. Several counties in California have adopted ordinances that are prohibitively restrictive or ban the land application of Class B biosolids. Senate Bill 1956 (Polanco) would prohibit local governments from enacting or enforcing an ordinance more restrictive than state and federal requirements unless there is substantial peer- reviewed scientific evidence to support more restrictive standards. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY 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 Two classes of biosolids were created with respect to pathogen reduction, Class A and Class B. Biosolids achieving the Class B designation typically undergo treatment to significantly reduce, but not eliminate pathogens. Class B biosolids can only be used in conjunction with specific federal and state regulations for land application. These Class B regulations have been proven to be protective of human health and the environment. Class A biosolids typically undergo further treatment that reduces pathogens to below detectable levels. Typically, no site restrictions are required after land application of Class A biosolids. The District produces approximately 190,000 tons of Class B biosolids annually. In 1999, 66% of our biosolids went to counties that are either considering restrictions or have already adopted bans on biosolids land application. NeConWeulMv,Cnle0ekelBwN Agenda RepohlM:O&eN Agenda Re{a,b1MN.Xam 11(c),Col Roieed. ermeA Page 1 Unfortunately, opposition to biosolids recycling based on public perception has resulted e in politicizing the biosolids controversy at the local level. As such, several counties in California have adopted ordinances that are prohibitively restrictive or ban the land ' application of Class B biosolids. Several other local governments are under increasing pressure to follow suit due to fear that biosolids will be forced into their jurisdictions in a short time frame that is not conducive to proper management and oversight. Recently, Kern County adopted an ordinance that will ban Class B biosolids land application on January 1, 2003. To support the District's biosolids management efforts, staff requests the Steering Committee recommend the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution supporting Senate Bill 1956 at their April 26, 2000 meeting. Senate Bill 1956 will require the adoption of a statewide, science-based, uniform regulation for the land application of Class B biosolids in California. Senate Bill 1956 will continue to allow local control when the regulation is based on substantial, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence and it can be shown that unreasonable adverse effects on the environment or public health within the local jurisdiction would exist. Such a resolution of support from a body representing more than 2.2 million people will be a valuable document for the District's biosolids management program's advocacy efforts. Several stakeholders have stated their position on this bill co-sponsored by the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. In support of this bill are League of Cities, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. The only entity on record in opposition to the bill is Kern County. Interested stakeholders that have yet to take position are the Farm Bureau, Western Growers Association, and the California State Association of Counties. This resolution of support will be instrumental in assisting working with the author and other stakeholders to craft an acceptable bill that puts in place a uniform, statewide program that protects the interests of all stakeholders, including POTWs, local government, and the fanning community. ALTERNATIVES • Oppose and see similar bans like that placed on land application of Class B biosolids in Kern County replicated in other counties • Stay neutral on the bill and allow other agencies to take the lead CEQA FINDINGS ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. OCSD 00-03 • Senate Bill 1956, March 28, 2000 Amended Version \YaaonWaUlMpaNlagmaa\Bans'-d.Feryi6WUJ erns Ag-a.Re,TWO —11h)aW Rr+ise0e Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 00-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTDECLARING SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 1956 (POLANCO) WHEREAS, biosolids are the residuals from municipal wastewater processing which have been properly treated so that they may be safely recycled to amend soil through direct land application; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Sanitation District(District) produce biosolids at their wastewater treatment plants and desire to continue to recycle their biosolids in this environmentally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency conducted a comprehensive review of the risks associated with reuse of biosolids via application to the land and established standards for such reuse under 40 CFR Part 503 in 1993. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed these standards and judged them to be protective of human health and the environment; and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) declared state policy to maximize the recycling of materials that might otherwise be disposed of in landfills. Since the adoption of standards to assure the safety of this practice, biosolids have been increasingly recycled via application to agricultural land. In 1998, 100% of the District's biosolids and 65% of the biosolids produced in California were recycled in this method. Continuation of this recycling will preserve space in landfills for wastes that cannot be recycled; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board is preparing an Environmental Impact Report for a statewide General Order for General Waste Discharge Requirements for the Discharge of Biosolids to Land for Use in Agricultural, Silvicultural, Horticultural, and Land Reclamation Activities in California. Through this process, scientifically defensible standards will be established that will address California's unique circumstances, using a uniform approach to the issues; and WHEREAS, a piecemeal approach to the regulation of biosolids has been developing in the State of California, with some local governments establishing prohibitively restrictive requirements or bans on biosolids reuse. Other local governments are under increasing pressure to follow suit due to fear that biosolids will be forced into their jurisdictions in a short time frame which is not conducive to proper management and oversight; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1956 will assure that any local government ordinances adopted that are more restrictive than the federal or state requirements must be based on substantial, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence and a showing of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment or public health within the local jurisdiction. This legislation was introduced at the urging of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and other publicly owned treatment works because of the proliferation of biosolids ordinances based on perceptions rather than sound science. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District does hereby declare its support of Senate Bill 1956, which will promote the continued recycling of biosolids in accordance with state and federal regulations and cooperation between rural and urban counties of the state of California in managing biosolids in an environmentally responsible manner. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 2e day of April, 2000. Chair ATTEST: Board Secretary H:Wp.dtaNadmIn1BSVtesdWo 2=\00-03.dw Shirley McCracken Lynn Daucher Director from the City of Anaheim Director from the City ofBm Gerald N.Sigler Anna L.Picrey Dimtor from the City ofBucna Park Dhecm from the City of Cypress Guy Carman Don Bankheed Dircctor from the City ofF.u.tWn Valley Director from the City of Fullerton Mark Leyes Peter Green Director from the City ofGwdm Grove Director from the City of Huntington Beach Christina Shea Steve Anderson Director from the City ofhvine Dimtor from the City ofla Habra Paul Walker Charles E.Silva Director from the City of IA Palma Director from the City off.Alamitos Jan Debay Mark A.Murphy Director flown the City ofNewWrt Beach Director from the City of Orange Norman Z Eckemode Pet McGuigan Director from the City ofMacentia Director from the City of Santa Ana Shawn Boyd Brien Donahue Director from the City of Seat Beach Director from the City of Stanton Thomas R. Saltarelli Russell Patterson Director from the City of Tustin Dincor from the City of Ydls Park John M Gullixson James M.Ferryman Director from the City of Vorba Linda Director from the Costa Mesa Sanitary DtsWct Joy L.Neugebauer Peer A.Swan Director from the Mrd"y City Sanitary District Director from the Irvine Ranch Water District Jim Silva Director from the Board of Supervisors AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28,2000 SENATE BILL No. 1956 Introduced by Senator Polanco February 24, 2000 An act to add Article 9 (commencing with Section 53160) to Chapter I of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code,relating to water. UGRfATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1956,as amended, Polanco. Water: biosolids. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board or a California regional water quality control board to prescribe general waste discharge requirements for the discharge of dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge or other biological solids upon the receipt of a specified application, as prescribed. Existing law requires the state board and regional boards to replace individual waste discharge requirements with general waste discharge requirements for sewage sludge and other biological solids. This bill would prohibit a local government from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that prescribes standards in addition to, or more restrictive than, certain federal regulations or general waste discharge requirements for biosolids land application adopted by the state board, but would authorize a local government to adopt standards in addition to, or mare restrictive than, those certain federal regulations or general waste discharge requirements under specified circumstances. The bill would authorize any interested person to petition the state board for 99 SB 1956 —2— review of the action of the local government, as prescribed. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes. State-mandated local program:no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Article 9 (commencing with Section 2 53160) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 3 5 of the Government Code,to read: 4 5 Article 9. Biosolids 6 7 53160. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all 8 of the following: 9 10 (a) In order to protect the quality of the waters of the 11 state, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) have 12 been subjected to increasingly stringent regulations and 13 standards. POTWs have increased their level of 14 treatment to reduce discharge of conventional pollutants 15 and have adopted strict industrial source control 16 programs to limit the discharge of toxic materials to the 17 sewers. 18 (b) POTWs produce solid or semisolid residuals as a 19 result of wastewater treatment that must be disposed of, 20 reused on land, or incinerated. When these residuals have 21 low concentrations of pollutants and are treated to 22 reduce pathogens so that they may be safely recycled, 23 they are called biosolids. 24 (b}- 25 (c) The federal Environmental Protection Agency 26 conducted a comprehensive review of the risks associated 27 with the reuse of biosolids via application to the land and 28 established standards for reuse under Part 503 29 (commencing with Section 503.1 of Tile 40 of the Code 30 of Federal Regulations. The National Research Council of 31 the National Academy of Sciences reviewed these 99 —3— SB 1956 1 standards and judged them to be protective of human 2 health and the environment. 3 (d) This state declared in the Calfornta Integrated 4 Waste Management Act of 1989 (Division 30 5 (commencing with Section 40000) of the Public 6 Resources Code) its policy to maximize the recycling of 7 materials that might otherwise be disposed of in landfills. 8 Biosolids are a significant waste stream that, in the past, 9 generally have been disposed of in landfills. Recently, 10 since the adoption of standards to assum the safety of the 11 practice, biosolids have been increasingly recycled via 12 application to agricultural land. Continuation of this 13 recycling will preserve space in landfills for wastes that 14 cannot be recycled, and is important to the people of the 15 state. 16 (e) The State Water Resources Control Board is 17 preparing an environmental impact report for a 18 statewide general order for general waste discharge 19 requirements for the discharge of biosolids to land, for use 20 in agricultural, silvicultural, horticultural, and land 21 reclamation activities in this state. Through this process, 22 scientifically defensible standards will be established that 23 will address California's unique circumstances, using a 24 uniform approach to the issues. 25 (p A piecemeal approach to the regulation of biosolids 26 has been developing in this state, with some local 27 governments establishing prohibitively restrictive 28 requirements or bans on biosolids reuse. Other local 29 governments are under increasing pressure to follow suit 30 due to fear that biosolids will be jorced into their 31 jurisdictions in a short time frame that is not conducive 32 to proper management and oversight. 33 (g) Promoting cooperation among local governments 34 on matters relating to the recycling of biosolids, 35 inherently involving the interaction of urban and coral _ 36 areas, as well as efforts that provide for the state's 37 wastewater treatment needs in an orderly fashion to 38 protect public health and the environment, are matters 39 of statewide concern. 9b SB 1956 —4— 1 53161. (a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), a 2 local government may not enact, maintain, or enforce an 3 ordinance, regulation. or resolution that prescribes 4 standards in addition to, or more restrictive than, Part 503 5 (commencing with Section 503.1) of 71de 40 of the Code 6 of Federal Regulations or general waste discharge 7 requirements for biosolids land application adopted by 8 the State Water Resources Control Board. Nothing in this 9 section restricts the authority of a local government to 10 regulate land application of biosolids within the 11 jurisdiction of the Delta Protection Commission. 12 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local 13 government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or 14 resolution after a noticed public hearing prescribing 15 standards in addition to, or more restrictive than, those 16 _standards contained in Part 503 (commencing with 17 Section 503.1) of Me 40 of the Code of Federal 18 Regulations or general waste discharge requirements for 19 biasolids land application adopted by the State Water 20 Resources Control Board, under either or both of the 21 following circumstances: 22 (1) The local government determines that the 23 operation of a biosolids land application site within that 24 local jurisdiction will result in unreasonable adverse 25 effects on the environment or public health within the 26 local jurisdiction. The determination that unreasonable 27 adverse effects on the environment or public health will 28 exist shall be based on substantial peer-reviewed, 29 scientific evidence in the record of the proceedings, and 30 shall take into consideration specific populations whose 31 health may be adversely affected within the local 32 jurisdiction. 33 (2) The local government determines that the 34 operation of a btosolids land application site within that 35 local jurisdiction has resulted or will result In the local 36 government being in violation of other applicable state or 37 federal laws. 38 (c) (1) Within 30 days of the date of adoption by a 39 local government of any ordinance, regulation, or 40 resolution pursuant to this section, any interested person n e —S— 9B 1956 1 may petition the State Water Resources Control Board for 2 review of the action of the local government. At the time 3 the petition is filed, the petitioner shall file with the local 4 government a request to prepare the record of 5 proceedings relating to the challenged action. 6 (1) The local government shall prepare, certify, and 7 submit the record to the State Water Resources Control 8 Board within 60 days of the date of receipt of a request to 9 prepare the record and may recover from the petitioner 10 the reasonable cost of compiling the record. 11 (3) (A) The State Water Resources Control Board 12 shall conduct a hearing on a petition for review within 60 13 days following the date of certt$oatton of the record by 14 the local government. Mthin 30 days following the date 15 of the close of the hearing, the State Water Resources 16 Control Board shall issue a written decision on the 17 petition. 18 (B) The evidence before the State Water Resources 19 Control Board shall consist of the record before the local 20 government, and any other relevant evidence which, in 21 the Judgment of the State Water Resources Control 22 Board, should be considered to determining tf the 23 requirements of subdivision (b)have been sadsfced. 24 (C) If the State Water Resources Control Board finds 25 that the action of the local government is consistent with 26 the standards set forth in subdivision (b), it shall affirm 27 the action of the local government. 28 (D) If the State Water Resources Control Board finds 29 that the action of the local government is not consistent 30 with the standards set forth in subdivision (b), it shall 31 invalidate the action of the local government. 32 (4) The filing of a petition for review pursuant to 33 paragraph (1) shall stay the implementation of the local 34 government ordinance, regulation, or resolution until the 35 State Water Resources Control Board issues a written 36 decision pursuant to paragraph (3). 37 (5) Not later than 30 days from the date of service of 38 a copy of a decision issued by the State Water Resources 39 Control Board pursuant to paragraph (3), any aggrieved 99 e SB 1956 —6- 1 parry may file with the superior court a petition for writ 2 ofmandatefor review thereof. 3 (6) Any interested person filing a petition with the 4 State Water Resources Control Board for review of an 5 ordinance, regulation. or resolution pursuant to this 6 section shall reimburse the State Water Resources 7 Control Board for reasonable costs that the State Water 8 Resources Control Board actually incurs in performing 9 duties pursuant to this section. The amount of 10 reimbursement shall be equal to, but may not exceed, the 11 State Water Resources Control Boards actual costs. An 12 invoice for reimbursement shall be submitted to the 13 person filing the petition subsequent to issuance of the 14 written decision on the petition, specifying the hours 15 spent by State Water Resources Control Board staff, tasks 16 performed, and costs actually incurred. STEERING COMMITTEE Meng Date ToBd.oroil 04/etl26/00 AGENDA REPORT Number Rem Number Orange County Sanitation District Y FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services SUBJECT: Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the report. SUMMARY The City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Sanitation District are involved in two, cooperative, investigations to determine the sources of the contamination that resulted in last summer's beach closures. Two private consulting firms have been contracted to conduct the work. The work is being conducted in phases: Phase I is underway and Phase II is about to get underway. The total budget for the first phase of the work is $549,000; OCSD's share is $88,633 (approximately 16% of the total budget). The City, as lead agency for the studies, has asked the District to provide an additional $159,700 to fund its share of the Phase II effort. Staff is presently evaluating the City's cost-sharing request. The Board of Directors will be asked at a future meeting to approve its "fair share" of funding for the Phase II effort. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The table below provides a breakdown of the actual Phase I cost-shares and the cost- shares proposed by the City of Huntington Beach in their letter to the General Manager: Phase Actual Phasell (Proposed) URS Greiner $399,000 $385,000 OC $211,033 (53%) OC $154,000 (40%) OCSD 43,633 (11%) OCSD 38,500 (10%) HB 144,334 36% HB 192,500 50% Komex $150,000 $364,000 OC $0 OC $0 OCSD 45,000 (30%) OCSD 121,200 (33%) HB 105,000 70% HB 242,000 670/ Nadm mal\ry.dla andalSlEeaM Commr EVMIp, e1956M.En1 ga,W: &1N96 Page 1 r BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. X Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Following the closures that occurred along Huntington Beach last summer, the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, and OCSD, agreed to jointly fund further investigations into the source(s) sources of the contamination. Two fines, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex-1-12O-Science have been contracted to perform the work. URS Greiner is investigating surface water sources of the beach contamination (storm drains and pump stations) and Komex is looking at subsurface sources in the soil and ground water. Both investigations are still in the data gathering stage but preliminary results from the Komex study are in. The consultants conclude that two conditions warranting further study in Phase II have been found: bacterial levels have been noted in ground water samples taken at Plant 2 and the Hilton construction site; and freshwater pools that may contain bacteria near the power plant, along the west bank of the Santa Ana River, and the north bank of the Talbert Channel near Plant 2. While the USC Sea Grant expert panel did not believe ground water was a likely source of the contamination, the consultants and City staff have recommended moving forward with the Phase II work. District staff believes the ground water monitoring data and geophysical testing results from last summer's investigations, coupled with the results of Komex's Phase I work, do not implicate ground water as a source of the bacteria. There may be some additional ground water testing needed to put this issue to rest but at a lower level of effort than proposed in Phase II. Similarly, the URS Greiner proposal for Phase II does not directly impact the District's facilities, and is focused on additional studies of Talbert Marsh, the Santa Ana River, nearshore ocean transport processes and computer modeling. Staff is meeting almost daily with the county and city representatives to resolve these issues and we will have more definitive information to present to the Steering Committee at the April 26 meeting. Komex proposes additional geophysical and hydrogeological investigations, expanded testing and a final report for a fee of $364,000. URS Greiner proposes extensive water quality monitoring, dye studies in nearshore waters and study reports for a total fee of $385,000. The City has taken the lead role in retaining the consultants. Letters requesting support for Phase II cost sharing have been submitted to the County and OCSD. A copy of the request letter from the City Administrator to Don McIntyre is attached. District staff will be negotiating its '9air share" portion of the Phase II work with the City and County of Orange based on the results of the Phase I work. At its April 17 meeting, the Huntington Beach City Council appropriated funds and authorized execution of amendments to the existing contracts with URS Greiner and Komex for the Phase II work. \� alM ,ftVpe "WEEPINO WMMRIEEW04pN0.5B I M M.W Rw.w: M we Page 2 Representatives of the City, County, and OCSD have been meeting periodically with Supervisor Jim Silva to develop a memorandum of understanding to guide the county's watershed planning efforts related to urban runoff and stormwater management issues. A copy of the draft MOU is attached. It is anticipated that the City will retain the lead on the Phase II effort but that overall coordination of the runoff issue countywide will transition over to the County in the coming months. OCSD will continue to play an important supporting role in this effort. As a first step, the County is convening a multiagency group to develop an Emergency Action Plan to identify actions that can be taken to prevent a recurrence of last summer's closures, including such things as additional diversions to the sewer system, ponding of water prior to release, and berming of the mouths of the Talbert Marsh and Santa Ana River. ALTERNATIVES CEQA FINDINGS ATTACHMENTS Letter from Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator, to Don McIntyre (April 13, 2000) Draft Memorandum of Understanding (April 14, 2000) \ dowdal\".Me4pendaWEEPWG CCMMRIEES9Jp,0 R1WPA,Cq PwW: wll Page 3 Sent by: PFRO OIR. 714 834 2395; 04/14/00 3:57PM;jALE,,,,,p252;Page 214 _ 1 P%ddL M., '0a 3W N.H.sum' so COUN7YOFORANGE B'4b'`n''CA PO.am 4PIB PVaLicF.4c✓trzzus&REsoLwcssDEPaaat�vr SnmA.,.CA s_10224"S .1111ph . (114)11 i 2300 Pu (714)BWSIBB Date: April 14, 2000 TO: Ray Silver, City Manager City of Huntington Beach Don McIntyre, General Manager Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Vicki L.Wilson, Director Public Facilities and Resources Department SUBJECT: MOU Attached please find the final revision to the MOU based upon input this morning. Please notify me of your concurrence so the MOU may be finalized. My goal is to have the Board of Supervisors approve it on April 25, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. dci L. Wilson att. cc- D. Hughes, Second District, Board of Supervisors Sent by: PFND DIN. 714 834 2395; 04/14/00 3:57PMi efru g252i Page 314 a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG COUNTY OF ORANGE,CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT April 14,2000 Problem Statement Bacterial contamination of local coastal waters from known and unknown sources. Purpose Statement --- - - The purpose of this document is to clarify roles and responsibilities of the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District with regard to coastal water quality and urban runoff management studies. Ongoing Studies The County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, and Orange County Sanitation District, together with the National Water Research Institute, contracted with UCI to perform sampling studies to determine whether urban runoff from the Talbert Marsh is a predominant source of contamination to local coastal waters. In addition.the three agencies have jointly contracted with two consulting firms in a cooperative study to expand on the work accomplished by mligm investigate further the emen'cpws of the summer beach postimrs/closures of 1999 and develop soecific corrective acriona_ Action Plan The County of Orange will take the lead role in the development of watershed study groups,and in securing partnerships and financial commitments from cities, the state and federal government. The County of Orange will review and coordinate the ongoing study efforts. All amides will work to(ia—re<legislative and fisrat support from the State and Federal governmerCa�hathef jowl efforts. Rotes Solutions to coastal water quality problems are regional in name, and require action from a variety of entities. Therefore,the three parties to this memorandum agree to the following roles: COUNTY • Subject to the approval of the Baud of Supervisors, the County of Orange will provide its fair share of financial support 0e\9Aai.'U eMC:rr£tdplr�lrOAANWNOF UHD6BSTANDINGdoe Sent by: PFRD OIR. 714 834 2395; 04/14/00 3:58PMilatfax #252;Page 414 r • The County of Orange will continue in the lead role in coordinating with its NPDES co-permittees on urban nmoff issues. • The County of Orange will assume the lead role in the develonmem of a rernediation action plan to provide recommendations for any regional measures to address needed coastal protection enben ements identified as a result of direct urban rrmoffor due to mrique=physical fachors contributing to beach closures and/or postings caused by excessive bacteria levels • The County of Orange will take the lead in working cooperatively with other agencies to support additional methods for educating the public about the impacts of urban runoff • The County of Orange will participate in urban runoff educational sessions for city and special district staff members. • The County of Orange will host urban runoff education sessions for elected officials. CITY • Subject to the approval of the City Council,the City of Huntington Beach will provide its fair share of financial support • The City of Huntmgtan Beach will assume the lead role in the develoamem of remediation actions renuired for maintenance and modification of City sewer and local drainage infrastructure. • The City of Huntington Beach will assume the lead role by hosting urban runoff educational sessions for city and special district staff members. • The City of Huntington Beach will work cooperatively with other agencies to support additional methods for educating the public about the impacts of Cuban runoff SANITATION DISTRICT • Subject to the approval of its Board of Directors,the Orange County Sanitation District will provide its fair share of financial support. • The Sanitation District will coordinate with its member agencies, including the City of Huntington Beach and the County,and with other agencies on urban runoff issues and work cooperatively to support requests for diverting dry season runoff to the nna sewer system. • The Sanitation District will participate in and work cooperatively with other agencies on supporting additional methods for educating the public about the impacts of urban runoff. This document is intended as a Program Level Memorandum of Understanding. More formal and technical agreements will be developed for specific projects. - Wl,eie4 PMQ1TWP�baANIXIFd OF UNDEa5r4t Gw City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 1 _ - OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR April 13, 2000 Don McIntyre, General Manager Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Dear Don: Subject: Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan Consultant Scopes of Work—Amended Contracts Our agencies, together with the County of Orange(County), have been involved in two, cooperative, scientific investigations resulting from last summers beach postings and closures. The firms of URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex-H2O-Scienoe have been contracted to perform this work. Briefly, the URS Greiner study is designed to determine possible surface water sources of the beach contamination, while Komex is conducting a study designed to determine possible sub-surface sources for the contamination. These two studies have been guided by a Joint work group consisting of our three agencies and other support agencies, which has been meeting approximately weekly over the last few months. As a result,we believe that this work effort is poised to make a significant contribution in identifying, and eventually controlling,this serious problem. As set forth in their original scopes of work, both the URS Greiner and Komex studies are being conducted in phases. Because the extent of the work is so dependent on what will have been discovered in sequential phases, the contracts can be modified as necessary as the work progresses, thus, maximizing cost-effectiveness. The first phase of the Komex study, which is to determine the "Feasibility of Bacterial Transport in Groundwater to Surface Water Receptors," has been completed. Komex'field investigations conducted during this first phase have discovered some possible sources of contamination and it is the firm's recommendation that second phase studies be conducted to develop the'Characterization of Potential Sources of Bacterial Contamination in.Groundwater and Transport Processes.' In short, Komex'first phase investigations identified several underground physical anomalies and the second phase work is needed to perform tests which are intended to identify the exact nature of these anomalies. The URS Greiner study, similar to the Komex work, is being conducted in phases. While URS Greiner has not yet completed its first phase studies, the firth is more than half-way through. Even at this relatively early stage, a change in the scope of work has been suggested by the OCSD and County representatives. Also, the City has suggested that certain additional work, identified as being needed by the consultants, be added to the first phase. These changes involve the collection of additional field data and the performance of ocean dye studies that were not originally envisioned. The City representatives, as well as the support representatives from UC Irvine, consider that the computer modeling included in the original scope of work should be retained though modified somewhat. With all this,we have concluded that these changes will greatly increase the value of this work as well as expedite the final results. Telephone (714) 536-5202 Don McIntyre April 13, 2000 Page 2 URS Greiner was authorized$399,000 for its first phase study. Of this, your agency agreed to pay $43,633 and the County agreed to contribute$211,033. URS Greiner has estimated an additional 'not-to-exceed"amount of$385,000 to perform the above scope of work changes. As is currently being done,this work would be on a time and expenses basis and may not require the full expenditure of this allotment. The final not-to-exceed amount for this work remains to be negotiated between our agencies and URS Greiner. It is our recommendation, based on a fair share estimation of benefits received, that the County pay 40% of this additional cost, or $154,000, and that your agency pay 10%, or$38,500. This will leave the City of Huntington Beach share for the URS Greiner work at $50%, or$192,500. The first phase of the Komex-1-120-Science contract was approved at$150,000, of which your agency agreed to share 30%, or$45,000, with the remaining 70%, or$105,000. contributed by Huntington Beach. Komex has estimated an additional not-to-exceed amount of$364,000 to perform the second phase of is contract. Again, the work would be on a time and expenses basis and may not require the full expenditure of this estimated amount. As with URS Greiner, our two agencies would negotiate the not-to-exceed figure with Komex before authorizing this additional work. It is recommended, based on a fair-share estimation of benefits received, that OCSD pay 33%, or$121,200 of the amended Komex contract cost and the City of Huntington Beach contribute the remaining 67%, or$242,800. The total commitment by OCSD for the two contract amendments would be not to exceed $159,700. We appreciate your continued support and your efforts with us to expedite resolving this most urgent and important matter affecting our citizens. Sincerely, n Ray Silver City Administrator cc: Jim Silva, Vice Chair, Orange County Board of Supervisors, 2n0 District Janice Mitterneier, County of Orange Executive Officer Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works Vicky L.Wilson, Director of PF&RD, County of Orange STEERING COMMITTEE M7Urg oats To ad.or Dir. /2rvoo AGENDA REPORT i t Number I Item Niinba Orange County Sanitation District FROM: David Ludwi , Director of Engineering Originator: Jim Burror, Contract Project Manager SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE PROJECTS PROGRAM, JOB NO. J-73 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Incorporate the following into the Cooperative Projects Program agreements: (1) Require the local agencies to reimburse the District for costs incurred by the District, including costs for financial audits, resulting from local agency participation in State and Federal matching fund programs; and (2) Require local agency project funding to equal that of the District's, regardless of State and Federal participation. SUMMARY The City of Huntington Beach has made an inquiry about the Cooperative Projects Program and the District's sources of funds. As a result, two significant issues have surfaced in administering the Cooperative Projects Program. The first issue is the possibility of the District being subjected to Federal audits through Cooperative Projects Program. A Federal audit may occur when local agencies use District funds as part of their matching funds requirements when applying for State and/or Federal matching funds. Staff believes that the District is properly documenting its finances; however, defending the District's accounting methodologies, solely because of the Cooperative Projects Program, could be costly. It is recommended that the Cooperative Projects Program agreements incorporate a clause allowing the District to recover any costs resulting from local agency participation in other funding programs. The second issue is project funding by the local agency under the Cooperative Projects Program. Local agencies can apply for funding from other sources than the District. The goal of the Cooperative Projects Program is to encourage, and match, local agency funding to improve their infrastructure. Therefore, it is also recommended that the Cooperative Projects Program agreements incorporate a clause to establish that funding by the local agencies shall equal that of the District's, regardless of State and Federal participation. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The FY 1999-00 budget includes $3.0 Million for cooperative project funding for each year from 1999-00 through 2003-04. Fifteen projects totaling $2.3 Million were approved for funding for FY 1999-00. R.m..e. saaee Page 1 BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: I ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION None ALTERNATIVES Allow local agencies to apply for Cooperative Projects Program, State, and Federal funds without regard to potential costs for audits by State and Federal agencies. This alternative could result in significant costs to the District. CEOA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS None JB:jak GtntglobaMgenda Dnfi Repons'Steenng Comm0t"U.73 AR 042600.d= as..w aaom Page 2 t STEERING COMMITTEE meeting Date I To ad.of Din 4/26/00 AGENDA REPORT IItey,,41er Item Number Orange County Sanitation District Y !!�� FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Originator: Wendy Sevenandt, Project Manager SUBJECT: US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION This is an information item on the Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative. SUMMARY The Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative (Initiative) is a multi-year US Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) planning program. The Initiative is designed to continue the work begun during the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. Summaries of these two efforts are attached to this Agenda Report. The Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District participated in an advisory capacity for the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. The Groundwater Replenishment System and expansion of the Green Acres Project are among the regional projects included in this study. Orange County Sanitation District may continue to participate in the Bureau's program by becoming a member of the Executive Management Team. The Executive Management Team is comprised of staff from participating Southern California agencies and is responsible for the overall direction of the program. The Bureau's Southern California Office is seeking interested agencies to join in the Initiative Partnership and contribute to the program in a cost-shared method. The Bureau has identified the Initiative as a$3.4 million effort over the next three years, with $1.7 million contributed by the participants. The actual participants are not confirmed at this time. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The Initiative is a $3.4 million effort over the next three years, with $1.7 million contributed by the participants. Each agency's participation costs will be identified after the drafting of agreements and confirmation from the participating agencies. The w Wn axone Page 1 f anticipated cost share would be$150,000 -$200,000 for each participating agency over three years. 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 The Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative is a multi-year US Bureau of Reclamation planning program. The Initiative is designed to continue the work begun during the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. The original cost-sharing partners for this study were: • California Department of Water Resources • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California • West& Central Basin Municipal Water District • City of San Diego • Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority • San Diego County Water Authority • South Orange County Reclamation Authority • City of Los Angeles These eight cost-sharing partners have indicated their willingness to continue as cost- sharing partners for the Initiative. Two other agencies along with Orange County Sanitation District may join the original cost-sharing partners. The Initiative is a planning program that could include more detailed project engineering, economic and financial analyses, environmental documentation, and public education efforts. The Bureau has identified the Initiative as a $3.4 million effort over the next thee years with a budget breakdown, in thousands, as follows: Total FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 Bureau 1.700 115 400 600 585 Partner 1,700 115 400 600 585 Total 3,400 230 800 1,200 1,170 The contribution for each partner would be divided in a reasonable fashion as agreed between the cost-sharing partners. In this fiscal year, an example of each partner's share of the cost, with eight participants,would be $14,375. ne�ar�aau•e Page 2 a i ALTERNATIVES As a member agency of Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), Orange County Sanitation District(District)could allow SAWPAto represent the Districts interests on the Executive Management Team. CEQA FINDINGS Not applicable-Information Item Only ATTACHMENTS 1. Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (SCCWRRS) Summary 2. Overview of Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative WS:jo:jak GAnWobaMgenda Deft ReportA eering Co ItteeZmau of Reda=fion 42000.doc wa..e:eaaee Page 3 A-�►�hMeN�- I � 1.2.2 What is SCCWRRS? Critical to the success of a regional planning effort is the participation of a representative cross-section of the local interests involved in water supply and water recycling. The Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study(SCCWRRS) is a partnership of federal,state and local agencies dedicated to supplying water to southern California in the most economical fashion,protecting and enhancing the environmental quality of the region,and working together to assure that southern California continues to enjoy safe, reliable water supplies. SCCWRRS eight cost sharing partners are as follows: • California Department of Water Resources • Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts • City of Los Angeles • City of San Diego • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California • San Diego County Water Authority • Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority South Orange County Reclamation Authority The cost sharing partners,along with USER developed an extensive database of recycled water demands and potential supplies,land use,environmental assets,and local water and wastewater agency plans. In addition, a set of sophisticated planning tools were developed with which to analyze the data and evaluate the benefits of regional water recycling strategies. This work was completed during a Phase I process that ended in 1998. The cost sharing partners then opened the planning process to all southern California water and wastewater agencies, to work together, in partnership,using the tools and database from Phase 1,and identify regional water recycling opportunities that would be attractive to them. This work has been performed during the Phase 11 portion of SCCWRRS. This group became known as the SCCWRRS Project Advisory Committee(PAC). Together, USBR, the eight cost sharing partners,and over 60 local water and wastewater agencies chose to examine the feasibility of regional water recycling projects over short term and long-term planning horizons. The analytical approach is based on existing projects and plans of local agencies,evaluated from a regional perspective. Along with the 2040 planning horizon, the cost sharing partners and PAC members included a short term implementation plan. The Short Term Implementation Plan represents 15 key projects that cost sharing partners and PAC members determined to be more economically beneficial than their original locally sponsored recycled water projects. /}ttALhmen+ Z The Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative Overview and Discussion Document March 27, 2000 (Please consider this document as a "starting point for our discussion on March 30) The Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative(The Initiative) is a multi-year US Bureau of Reclamation planning program. The Initiative is designed to continue the work begun during the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study to assist local water and wastewater agencies in final planning and environmental documentation leading to implementation of projects identified in the SCCWRRS. The Initiative begins in Federal FY 00 (Federal Fiscal years begin on 10/1 of each year)and is budgeted through Federal FY 03. Budgeted levels In future years depends on the commitment of local agency participants and the ability to obtain Federal appropriations for this activity in the coming years. Reclamation has identified the Initiative as a$3.4 million effort over the next three years. Depending on the scope and cost-sharing arrangements of the Initiative, Reclamation estimates a budget breakdown as follows: Total FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Reclamation 1,700 115 400 600 585 Partner 1,700 115 400 600 585 Total 3,400 230 B00 1,2001,170 What is the Scope of the Initiative? The Initiative can Include cost-shared study components as an example: • More detailed evaluation of projects Identified in the SCCWRRS Short Term Implementation Plan(STIP)report. This work could Include more detailed orolect engmee�dn , economic and financial analyses,and environmental documentation as v9e11as public avrareness/education efforts. • Examination of the next phase of projects to follow in the 2010 to 2020 time horizon, • Continued discussion on the 2040 horizon, challenging each other to examine alternative futures as an ongoing exercise. • Maintenance of a regional collaborative effort to facilitate regional cooperation for project implementation, financing, political and institutional support,and public awareness and educational campaigns. • Other components? Reclamation Is interested in maintaining the regional collaboration begun during SCCWRRS and continuing to facilitate a dialogue on the future water situation for southern California. What does it cost? The scope of the study and out-year funding levels Is predominantly a decision of the cost sharing partners. Reclamation has proposed that the Initiative have a 500/0 local cost-share. Thus,the total amount of each participating agency's share would be a division of 500/6 of the total rest of the Initiative amongst the cost-sharing partners. This federal fiscal year(FY 00) Reclamation's Southern California Area Office(SCAO)has up to$115,000 to cost-share with interested agencies to get the Initiative started. (Thus, the Initiative has up to a$230,000 budget this fiscal year ending September 30, 2000.) These funds need to be committed or expended by I September 30, 2000. Thus,SCAO is seeking interested agencies to join the Initiative Partnership and contribute their share of up to$115,000 divided in a fashion deemed reasonable by the cost- sharing partners. An example of the cost-share can be drawn from SCCWRRS' 8 cost-sharing partners. If the original 8 were involved with the Initiative, each partners share would be$14,375 for this fiscal year. The addition of new partners would decrease the share for each participating agency. Some important issues need to be resolved prior to entering a cost-sharing agreement with southern California agencies. Notably, Reclamation is interested in whether the budget ought to be divided into an overall"Executive Management Team"activity,and project specific activities, tailored to each of the project sponsors needs. This would create an opportunity for smaller agencies to participate as cost sharing partners in a fashion that directly benefits them. • The Executive Management Team could be responsible for the"big-picture" components of the Initiative. This would be similar to the role played by the SCCWRRS EMT. Regional dialogue, continuing development of a long term picture, overall management of the project implementation strategy, and examination of the 2010 to 2020 projects in collaboration with"Initiative Project Advisory Committees" similar to the SCCWRRS PACs. • The Project Specific Activities could be structured around each project and the needs of the project sponsors to move those projects forward. Not all of the projects identified in the SCCWRRS Short-Temr Implementation Plan Report are at the same place in terns of their planning, environmental documentation,and financing anangemer ts. This"project speck"component could be managed like the SCCW WRS PACs except that the work would be cost-shared by the participating PAC Members on their projects. If this arrangement makes sense,then the key question is"How much of the annual budget should be allocated to each of the two major activities: EMT and PACs?" What Can Be Accomplished in FY 00? Clearly, a$230,000 will not mount a detailed implementation planning study for even one, let alone many projects. But,j ram �rh_?_ prepare a%gQp JAudylor the Initiative-and begin to do some more detailed planning._ We can identify a scope of technical engineering and economic u on�c awareness and educational activities, as well as a scope of environmental documentation work. We could get underway with some project specific work as well. All of this could begin in FY 00. t + Meeting Date To ad.of Dir. STEERING COMMITTEE giZ6ioo AGENDA REPORT IItegi,Nummtar Item Nu bm Orange County Sanitation District �7 FROM: Blake P. Anderson,Assistant General Manager Originator: Blake P. Anderson SUBJECT: Transition Plan GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Information only. SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Steering Committee with an update on the activities and decisions that the general manager, incoming general manager and EMT have undertaken to provide staff with a clear vision of the future of the agency. This report also provides an outline of the activities that the EMT and staff will undertake to complete the transition in leadership. During the last four months: 1. In January: a. our consultant, Vince Murdico, conducted an evaluation of our organization effectiveness. He interviewed and/or surveyed the Steering Committee, the EMT, division managers and supervisors. Approximately 40 people participated in the process. b. each member of the EMT had completed a three-day management-training seminar. c. the Board named Blake Anderson as the next general manager. d. the day after the Board's determination, the EMT conducted a two-day retreat. e. the incoming general manager announced the alignment of the departments. He announced that he would not fill the position of assistant general manager. 2. In February: a. the EMT met with all division managers and first-line supervisors to discuss the results of the retreat and to introduce some of the concepts that will be used for leading the District in the future. b. the EMT began using the methods learned in the management training for setting priorities and reporting progress on achieving our vital goals. c. every department manager began drafting departmental vision and mission statements. 3. In March: a. the first of the division managers began attending the three- day management-training seminar (all will have attended by the end of August). b. final draft versions of our new mission, vision and operating philosophy statements were completed and circulated for comment by the EMT. 4. In April, the Organizational Opportunities Committee, chaired by David Ludwin and comprised of managers and supervisors, was formed to improve the organizational health of the District. During the next eight months: 1. In May, a special edition of Pipeline will describe what is ahead under the leadership of the new General Manager. 2. In June, the FY 2000-01 operating and capital improvement budgets will be conveyed to the Board for review and adoption. 3. During the summer first-line supervisors will be provided with in-house management training similar to that received by the EMT and division managers. 4. In the summer and fall, the Organizational Opportunities Committee will provide reports and recommendations to the EMT for its consideration. 5. In December, the Five-year Operational Business and Staffing Plan will be conveyed to the Board for review and adoption. (Progress reports will be provided to the Steering Committee from time to time during the summer and fall.) PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The initiatives contained herein and associated costs are largely related to staff time investments. Consulting support, provided by both the MAP organization and Vince Murdico, has been expensed to our training budget. These expenses have been for Department and Division manager advanced training and will result in approximately $60,000 in one-time expenditures. BUDGETIMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ® This item has not specifically been budgeted for this fiscal year but is being funded through the General Manager's Contingency Fund and through otherwise non- appropriated training funds. ❑ Not applicable (information item) HAv dtaVp nEaZTEERING LOMMITTEEWONprOGVlf2fi 9PA Ira-loom RmdO R.k .,me Page 2 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On January 27 and 28, the EMT conducted a two-day retreat. Its purpose was to review an assessment of the District that had been conducted by our management consultant; to draft a mission statement, a vision statement, and an operating philosophy; and to develop an issues list that the agency would address over time. The EMT also reconfirmed its support of the Guiding Principles that were created in 1996.Preparation for the retreat began in October when the assistant general manager attended a three-day management-training session. The entire EMT completed the same seminar during December and January. The EMT's two-day retreat set in motion a number of activities on which the EMT, division managers and other staff members have been working ever since. The EMT, with the help and consultation of some of the division managers, has drafted vision, mission and operating philosophy statements that will be shared with staff during the first week of May. The texts of these statements are attached. They will be conveyed to staff through a special edition of the District's internal newsletter, Pipeline. Incidentally, many of the other details provided in this report to the Steering Committee will also be provided to staff in Pipeline. During the retreat, the EMT developed a list of issues and concerns related to the condition and organizational health of the District. The list is attached. It is being addressed by a broad-based group of managers and supervisors in the "Organizational Opportunities Committee', chaired by David Ludwin. The Committee will use the list and diagnose what underlies the observations contained in it and what needs to be done to address the problems. The list will be prioritized, a calendar created and assignments made. The incoming general manager has decided that the alignment of the departments will be as follows, each reporting directly to the general manager: 1. Engineering: David Ludwin, Director 2. Finance: Gary Streed, Director 3. Human Resources and Employee Development: Lisa Tomko, Director 4. Information Technology: Patrick Miles, Director 5. Operations & Maintenance: Robert Cotten, Director 6. Communications: Michelle Tuchman, Director 7. Technical Services: Robert Ghirelli, Director Greg Mathews will continue as the assistant to the general manager, providing support and administrative counsel to the general manager's office. The new general manager will utilize Greg Mathews and other staff as needed to complete analytical work and special projects that will relieve his workload. His decision to move forward without filling the assistant general manager position will only succeed by streamlining the workload and relying upon staff for detailed support. RW.y.El��RMO WMMRiEE4'PPyNT01' MVAVUWYm R.n RV W W,Me Page 3 r The incoming general manager and the EMT, with help from the division managers and the supervisors, will develop a Five-year Operational Business and Staffing Plan. Key operating objectives for the next five years will be developed for every business unit. Then, the staffing necessary to accomplish the objectives will be developed and proposed to the Board. We will also incorporate initiatives for improving the overall effectiveness of the organization in this Five-year Plan. The initiatives that we anticipate will include: Management training Leadership training District-wide compensation/classification systems • Improving managementlunion relations Improved planning and forecasting Better linkage between individual division, department and District performance objectives Better delineation of responsibilities, increased authority and improved accountability Better use of the financial information system across the organization Completion of the DART initiatives Creating this Five-year Plan will be a significant undertaking and we will devote considerable staff time to accomplish the work. It will be incorporated into the Work Plans for FY 2000-01. We anticipate that the proposed Five-year Operation Business and Staffing Plan will be ready for Board consideration in December. ALTERNATIVES Not applicable. CEQA FINDINGS Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vision Statement 2. Mission Statement 3. Operating Philosophy Statement 4. Issues and Concerns List H.b .ft*p A EERING COMMRTEENP,MNPMIBD)BPA 1M 00 PW.000 nwN : BRM Page 4 4 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT VISION STATEMENT "To achieve world-class leadership in water resource management." MISSION STATEMENT "We,the employees of the Orange County Sanitation District, are committed to protect public health and the environment by developing, integrating, and delivering fiscally responsible wastewater, water reclamation, and watershed protection solutions. We are a values-based organization dedicated to uphold and consistently demonstrate the attributes affirmed in our Guiding Principles." GUIDING PRINCIPLES Our Guiding Principles are a declaration of who we are and the beliefs we affirm. They form the framework of our organization and reinforce our professional code of Ethics. • HONESTY,TRUST and RESPECT -We aspire to the highest degree of integrity, honesty,trust, and respect in our interactions with each other, our suppliers, our customers, and our community. • TEAMWORK and PROBLEM SOLVING -We strive to reach District goals through cooperative efforts and collaboration with each other and our constituencies. We work to solve problems in a creative, cost- effective and safe manner, and we acknowledge team and individual efforts. • LEADERSHIP and COMMITMENT -We lead by example, acknowledging the value of our resources and using them wisely and safely to achieve our objectives and goals. We are committed to act in the best interests of our employees, our organization, and our community. • LEARNINGMEACHING-Talents,Skills and Abilities -We continuously develop ourselves, enhancing our talents, skills, and abilities, knowing that only through personal growth and development will we continue to progress as an agency and as individuals. • RECOGNITION/REWARDS We seek to recognize, acknowledge and reward contributions to the District by our many talented employees. b OPERATING PHILOSOPHY The Orange County Sanitation District is a public agency that is successful by working as a team and by leveraging our efforts with other public agencies. We think like a business and act in the public interest, all the while emphasizing the ABC's of our operating philosophy: • Accountability -We maintain accountability for our commitments and for our behavior. We use measurable short-term and long-term goals. We use methods that regularly check our collective and individual progress in achieving our commitments. We measure and expect honest, respectful, open and constructive behavior in ourselves and from the people with whom we work. • Balance -We achieve balance in what we do. Work matches our capacity to perform it. We look for economies of operation without sacrificing quality or causing unreasonable risk. We consistently perform our core work and meet our basic wastewater management responsibilities while,being willing to take on new initiatives that improve environmental quality or service in the community we serve. • Communication We understand the need for timely and accurate communication with the many different people who make up our community of interest. Staff and management communicate freely, openly and honestly to solve problems and to achieve constructive change. We provide our Board of Directors with accurate and timely information about matters that impact their policy making and affect the wider interests of Orange County. We provide opportunities for the public and the press following consultation with and input by division managers and supervisors. STEERING COMMITTEE Meeung Date To Rd.of Dir. a/26/ao AGENDA REPORT I ItVumyGer I Item Number Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: May 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 May. 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 tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Committees in May: OMTS Committee: 1. Electric Vehicle Leasing (Information) 2. Air Toxics— New Requirements (Information) 3. Compressed Natural Gas Station Contract (Action) 4. Plant 2 Earthquake Damage Contingency Plans (Information) 5. Engine Rod Reconditioning Program for Central Generation (Information) 6. Outfall Inspection Results (Information) 7. Annual Report Summary (Information) 8. Source Control Performance Indicators (Information) 9. Ocean Monitoring Program In-sourcing and Strategic Process Studies (Action) 10. Legislation Update (Information) 11. Expert Panel —Summary Report (Action) 12. Laboratory Tour and LIMS Presentation (Information) PDC Committee: 1. Ratify Change Order 4 and Approve Closeout Agreement and Notice of Completion for Job No. P1-44-4, Seismic Retrofit of Four Structures 2. Ratify Change Order 5 and Approve Closeout Agreement and Notice of Completion for Contract No. 5-41-1, Relocation of Lido Pump Station 3. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Job No. J-35, Area Classification Study Implementation Plan 4. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Job No. J-77, Effluent Pump Station Annex FAHR Committee: 1. 2000-01 CIP Budget Status Report (Information) 2. 2000-01 Operating Budget Status Report (Information) 3. 2000-01 User Fees, Connection Fees, Annexation Fees (Action) 4. 2000-01 Source Control Permit User Fees (Action) 5. Approve Final COP Restructuring Documents (Action) 6. Quarterly Investment Management Report (Information) 7. Annual Renewal of All-risk Property Insurance (Action) 8. General Manager Approved Purchase Report (Action) PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY 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 CEQA FINDINGS Not a project. ATTACHMENTS NA jt XBry.00N0e^E0451xnnp Ctvrmtlee'NJ.y,CppC't6p�1i9101 Ni51IX MByu Mc Page 2