HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05 DRAFT
MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was
held on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 at 4 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 Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel
Peer Swan, Vice Chair Don Hughes
Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee Director Steve Anderson
Norm Eckenrode, Chairman, PDC Committee Bill Mills, General Manager, OCWD
Tom Saltarelli, Chairman, FAHR Committee Ron W ildermuth, OCW D
Jim Silva, County Supervisor Mike W ehner, OCW D
Ryal Wheeler
Directors Absent:
STAFF PRESENT:
Blake Anderson, General Manager
Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications
Gary Streed, Director of Finance
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering
Greg Mathews, Asst.to the General Manager
Jim Herberg, Engineering Supervisor
Mike Moore, Manager, ECM
Sam Mowbray, Manager, Laboratory
Nick Arhontes, Facilities Manager
FILED
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
ORANGE COON'Y S'-NITATION DISTRICT
No appointment was necessary.
JUN¢�28 2000
(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 April 26, 2000 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Directors
Swan and Anderson abstained.
Minutes of the Steering Committee 7
Page 2
May 24, 2000
(5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Steering Committee Chair Jan Debay indicated that she has asked General Counsel for a ruling on
providing compensation to alternate directors who, at the request of the chair, attend meetings as
representatives of the District.
(6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
General Manager Blake Anderson reported on the status of continuing labor negotiations with the
SPMT and 501 units.
A. Update on Kem/Kinas County Issues.
Escrow has closed on the property in Kings County. Staff is working to ensure day-to-
day operations meet permit applications. A site improvement plan is under
development that will include a buffer strip next to road. The District will continue to
wart on exercising the purchase option on the Kern County property. Discussions are
underway for other sites.
Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications, reported that the Orange County
Register has indicated an interest in an interview on the biosolids issues.
Blake Anderson reported that the District would continue to build better working
relationships with the Kern and Kings County policymakers.
B. White Pacer on Little Hoover Commission.
A white paper has been prepared by Greg Mathews, Michelle Tuchman and Gary
Streed that discusses the findings and recommendations of the Little Hoover
Commission's report on Special Districts, as well as the possible impacts on the
District.
Action Item: At Director Swan's suggestion, the District's 1997 reserves policy will be
revisited by the FAHR Committee for the benefit of the new Board members.
C. Sacramento initiatives related to transfer of tax revenues.
There was no movement on any of the proposed bills before the legislature.
D. Bill Mills, general manager of the Orange County Water District, briefed the
committee members on the presence of a recently-identified compound, NOMA,
that can be found in water and wastewater streams, and addressed the steps
they are taking to manage it.
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
General Counsel did not make a report.
• i
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 3
May 24, 2000
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS(Items A-D)
A. Cooperative Proiects Prooram.
Jim Herberg reported on the Cooperative Projects Committee and the FAHR
Committee recommendation to allow cities to use federal/state funds for their portion
of matching funds for this program. -
Motion: The Steering Committee moved and seconded a recommendation to allow
the use of alternative funding for the city portion for these projects,as long as the
project resulted in reduced VI to the District's collection system, and forwarded the
recommendation to the OMTS Committee for review before submitting to the Board for
approval.
B. Urban Runoff Fees.
Gary Streed, Director of Finance, described the five alternatives for assessing fees for
dry season urban runoff connection permits that will be presented to the FAHR
Committee at Its June meeting. After a discussion of the many issues involved, it was
recommended that an Ad Hoc Committee be formed to evaluate the impacts and
make recommendations to the Steering and FAHR Committees. The Chair and
General Manager will appoint members to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee.
C. Budget Status.
Gary Streed reported that the preliminary proposed FY 2000.01 budget was presented
to the standing committees. There were no policy questions raised during these
meetings. The format has been changed because of the consolidation of rates.
D. The agenda items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in
June were reviewed.
(9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS,IF ANY
There was no other business discussed.
(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 June 28, 2000 at 5 p.m.
D '
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 4
May 24, 2000
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2000 at 7 p.m.
(13) CLOSED SESSION
The Committee convened at 6:03 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6, to discuss with Labor Negotiator the contract terms and conditions for the new
General Manager. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The
minutes of the Board meeting will report on the action(s)when approved by the Board members.
At 6:50 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
.1bitted by�
e n Tappan If
t ering Committee Secretary
MIxy.ElelpeMWMERINO C MIREEVpVNy1b16 "WM..Porn
Summary of Little Hoover Commission Report on
Special District Operations
zs
a
May 22,2000
OCBO!P.O.Box 81271 Fountain Valley,CA 82M8.8127!(7ta)882-2411
-• Introduction
The following white paper provides the Orange County Sanitation District staff's
interpretation of the Little Hoover Commission's report on Special Districts: Relics of the
Past or Resources for the Future? This report, published in May 2000,details the
Commission's findings on Special District operations. The report delineates information
under five separate findings.
The attached report duplicates the Little Hoover Commission's findings and provides our
summary discussion. The report is formatted as follows:
• Finding
• Recommendation
• OCSD Interpretation of Finding
• Impact of Findings/Recommendations on OCSD
We hope the information provided herein proves useful. If you wish to obtain the full
Little Hoover Commission Report please contact the Communications Department or
access the document via the Internet at www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html.
little Hoover Commission Report on Specid Disfriers—White Paper Summary
Finding 1: Special districts are often invisible to the public and policy-makers,
compromising oversight and accountability.
Recommendation 1: The Governor and Legislature should enact legislation that would
make special districts more visible and accountable. Specifically,the legislation should:
• Require special districts to actively make their activities visible to the public.
• Require special districts to submit information to other local governments.
• Encourage special district elections to be held as part of even year general elections.
OCSD Interpretation or Findings
The Commission believes that because special districts are of a single purpose,providing
one specific service such as water,sanitation or fire protection,much of the public
doesn't realize that these entities are indeed "governments." As such, the traditional
oversight and accountability mechanisms, including public meetings and financial
reporting,have not been effective in promoting the kind of"rigorous examination
required of democratic institutions." This results,according to the Commission,in a lack
of public participation, local-government oversight and agency accountability.
Impact of LHC Findines/Recommendation on OCSD
One of the recommendations of this finding is to"require special districts to submit
information to other local governments." This recommendation has no impact on the
Sanitation District,which is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 25 elected
officials representing the 21 cities in our service area,two local sanitary districts,one
water district, and a representative of the County's Board of Supervisors. In addition, the
Sanitation District has been praised for its longstanding outreach program to local and
state elected officials, the general public,as well as specific target audiences including
environmentalists, regulators,city public works staffs,and educators. The following is a
list of the outreach programs conducted during the past five-year period:
• The Rate Advisory Committee(RAC)and the Planning Advisory Committee
(PAC)—Comprised of representatives from homeowners associations,
environmental groups, regulators,city government,and business and industry,
the RAC and PAC played a major role in our three-year Strategic Planning
effort. Their recommendations for a more"fair and equitable rate structure"
and for wastewater treatment options to meet the growing needs of Orange
County were brought before our Board of Directors. The Board carefully
considered those recommendations,incorporating them into the 1999
Strategic Plan.
• Legislators Day—This special event has been held biannually to keep federal,
state and local elected officials apprised of the latest Sanitation District
programs and developments.
• Special Programs for City Managers and Public Works Staff—At least once
annually the Sanitation District holds a meeting for this specific group to
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts— White Paper Summary !
discuss infrastructure issues,including best management practices and
associated costs for maintaining the County's 12,000 miles of sewer lines.
• Outreach to the Media—In addition to personal telephone calls made to the
media to apprise them of District developments,both of the County's major
newspapers receive all Board committee and regular meeting agenda
packages.
• Tours and Special Presentations—More than 1,000 visitors tour the Sanitation
District annually. Each of these individuals receives an information packet
that includes financial data. In addition,the Sanitation District has made its
facilities available to the Council of Governments and to LAFCO for their
meetings.
• Orange County Fair—For nearly a decade the Sanitation District has
maintained a booth at the Orange County Fair,which is attended by hundreds
of thousands of guests annually. Employees staffing the booth are specially
trained and available to answer the public's questions. District financial data is
also distributed.
• Internet web site—The Sanitation District maintains a comprehensive Web
site that includes extensive financial data. In the past nine months,nearly
7,000 individuals have visited the site.
In addition to the above, the District receives hundreds of calls annually from the public
requesting general information. Staff is always available to answer those questions.
Fin in 2: Local Agency Formation Commissions, by not aggressively scrutinizing the
organization of specific districts, have failed to promote the efficient and effective
evolution of local government.
Recommendation 2: The State should provide LAFCOs with the direction and
resources necessary to make them a catalyst for the effective and efficient evolution of
independent special districts. Specifically, the Governor and Legislature should:
• Require periodic and specific reviews of independent special districts.
• Enhance the independence of LAFCOs.
• Require shared funding of LAFCOs (e.g. special district and city participation).
• Require special districts subject to study to pay for the study.
OCSD Interpretation of Findings
The Little Hoover Commission was forthcoming in their review of LAFCOs and their
widespread failure to accomplish specific elements of their Mission—specifically the
examination of special district agencies and reorganization or consolidation related
thereto. In a three-year period,LAFCOs throughout the state initiated only 18
reorganization studies of special districts of which only one resulted in actual elimination
of a special district. The Commission recognized that external factors were significant
contributors to LAFCO's failures in the special district area. These included: 1)
Permissive and vague State policy,2)Lack of LAFCO independence from county
2
Liale Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts— Mite Paper Summary
influence, 3) Inadequate funding of LAFCOs, and 4)The organizational/political
structure of many LAFCOs. By resolving these problems through the recommendations
noted above,the Commission believed LAFCOs could be efficient,effective and
independent bodies capable of accomplishing its mission. Interestingly, the Commission
on Local Governance in the 21'Century had very similar observations relative to
LAFCOs. They too believed that LAFCOs needed to be re-engineered to be effective
participants in government reform. Although the various recommendations should bring
about desired changes, it will be difficult,as implied in the Little Hoover Commission's
report,to implement them without state mandate. The recommendations noted require
both fiscal sacrifice and shifts in political power. Because of this,implementation
without state legislation will only occur on a sporadic basis.
Imoact of LHC Findings/Recommendation on OCSD
The impact on OCSD is uncertain,though likely not detrimental,if the recommendations
above are implemented. Orange County LAFCO and the District have cooperated in the
past in consolidation of our various districts into one organization. The District fairs well
in comparison to most special district organizations and very likely would n t be the
target of dissolution based on the Commission's proposed guidelines for organizational
review. Rather,if consolidation efforts were undertaken by Orange County LAFCO,it
is quite probable OCSD would be considered a parent agency able to absorb the
responsibilities of other smaller districts with similar missions.
What is more likely in the shorter term is a requirement for the Sanitation District to pay
annual fees to support the LAFCO organization. Special districts throughout Orange
County could be obligated to fund one-third of OCLAFCO's net operating budget
(approximately$500,000 in FY 98/99). OCSD's share would be a small proportion of
that one-third. This would be calculated as the percentage our operating budget
represents compared to the sum total of all operating budgets for the special districts in
Orange County (of which there are 29). Note that this formula is just a preliminary
suggestion by the Commission on Local Governance in the 21"Century and is certainly
subject to modification. Other,though improbable,fiscal impacts that may transpire are
associated with LAFCO auditing OCSD. If the recommendations above are mandated,
then the District would be obligated to pay for such an audit with costs ranging from
$50,000 to$100,000 dependent upon scope of work.
Finding 3: Policy-makers and community leaders lack the analytical tools necessary to
assess the benefits of consolidation, impeding their ability to advocate effectively for
change and overcome the tenacity of the status quo.
Recommendation 3: To equip policy-makers and the public with the tools necessary to
assess and guide the organization of independent special districts,the Governor and
Legislature should establish a program at the California Policy Research Center,or
similar institute, to do the following:
• Develop guidelines and protocols for special district consolidations.
3
Unit Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts—White Paper Summary
• Study the long-term outcomes of consolidations and reorganizations.
• Establish a cadre of trainers to assist LAFCOs and their staff.
• Develop performance measures at the special district level that are meaningful to
constituents.
OCSD Interpretation of Findings
According to the Commission's report,policy-makers and community leaders need the
appropriate analytical tools to be able to assess local government performance and
identify opportunities for reorganizations based on this empirical evidence. It was
indicated that LAFCOs are generally lacking in such expertise—both in guidelines and
protocols establishing WHEN and HOW special district consolidation audits should take
place as well as WHAT is the outcome,based on sound analysis, of consolidations once
they occur. In brief, many LAFCOs apparently lack either the technical expertise and/or
analytical staff to perform these functions. According to the Commission's report,
"Lacking reliable data to support reorganization proposals, LAFCOs and community
leaders find themselves at a disadvantage to the politically and emotionally charged
forces that often align in defense of the status quo." Without the capability to conduct
thorough analysis, and absent a robust set of metrics to measure efficiency,effectiveness
and service quality,LAFCOs will continue to struggle to accomplish their core mission.
Impact of LHC Findines/Recommendation on OCSD
There is no impact to our District related to these particular issues. As previously stated,
LAFCO was provided more than sufficient analytical data, developed by District staff,to
support consolidation of our various districts. Furthermore,OCSD is widely recognized
as having some of the best financial, operational and administrative data that allows us to
be benchmarked against other special districts.
Finding 4: Hundreds of independent special districts have banked multi-million dollar
reserves that are not well publicized and often not considered in regional or statewide
infrastructure planning.
Recommendation 4: The Governor and Legislature should enact policies that will
ensure prudent management of special district reserve funds and incorporate these
resources into regional and statewide infrastructure planning. Specifically, the State
should require:
• Districts to publicize their reserves.
• Policymakers to integrate enterprise district reserve information into infrastructure
planning.
• Guidelines for prudent reserves.
4
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts—White Paper Summary
OCSD Interpretation of Findines
The LHC Report categorizes special districts as dependent or independent and as
enterprise or non-enterprise. Generally, independent special districts have elected boards
or are not governed by a city council or county. Enterprise special districts are those that
can levy fees for service. Thus, OCSD is an independent enterprise special district. The
LHC reports that at June 30, 1997,enterprise special districts held retained earnings of
$18.2 billion, while non-enterprise special districts held fund balances totaling$1.2
billion. Thus the focus of the report is upon enterprise special districts.
The LHC Report makes the terms retained earnings, fund balance and reserves equal, and
then implies that all three are synonymous with cash. This is incorrect. The report
correctly states that retained earnings are the difference between revenue and
expenditures. However,it fails to consider that purchases or construction of assets are
not considered an expenditure under the rules of accounting. Clearly revenues applied to
asset accumulation also increase retained earnings,but they do not increase cash. It is
safe to assume that the actual cash balances of enterprise special districts are much less
than the $18.2 billion retained earnings reported. This accounting error should not
distract us from the sense of the report's findings and recommendations, but it is an
important technicality that must be addressed and kept in mind while reviewing the
report. For example, the report states that "reserves of many enterprise special districts
are growing, indicating that revenue may be exceeding the cost of providing service."
Whether reserves means cash or retained earnings may make this statement acceptable or
just plain wrong. Even if cash and retained earnings were the same,this statement
reflects a very short-term view of the"cost of providing service."
Commission Conclusions
Some reserves appear unreasonably large. This conclusion seems to be based upon poor
understanding of the existence and purpose of reserves. Of course, this observation could
have been tempered if they had reviewed the actual cash balances.
District resources are not integrated into infrastructure olanning. The LHC observed that
special districts are not required to participate in the development of county or city
general plans or to cooperate and coordinate their activities with neighboring local
governments. They concluded that special district finances and activities are thus often
unknown to other policymakers and not integrated in local,regional or state infrastructure
planning and financing. While acknowledging that special districts play an impartial role
in providing infrastructure, the LHC asks if they should ever be eligible for State help
considering their large financial resources.
Scecial district reserves are obscure. Financial reporting rules do not require information
to be presented in ways that provide for the public or policymakers to understand or
scrutinize how districts use public funds in general, and reserves in particular. The report
itself proves this point.
5
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts—White Paper Summary
There are no guidelines for prudent reserves. The LHC talked to 10 enterprise districts
that rank in their top 25 among enterprise districts for retained earnings. Five reported
they had reserve policies and 5 reported they did not. Among those that had policies,
there is a wide variation in what is considered appropriate.
Implementing the Recommendation
Develop solutions to particular Problems. Where abuses or excesses are identified, the
first and preferable alternative is for community leaders and district officials to work
together to resolve problems. Solutions should include implementation of policies for the
prudent accumulation and use of reserves.
Determining and reauiring_mudent reserves. The LHC reviewed guidelines from the
Government Finance Officers Association, the League of California Cities,the
International City Managers Association, several cities and special districts, and found no
consistent principles. They suggest a complete survey of reserve policies and practices in
order to develop benchmarks and to facilitate discussions.
Making reserves variable. The biggest problem with reserves is that the public and
policymakers do not know about them. Information should be easily accessible, and
routinely provided. Reserve purposes and amounts should be clearly identified and
explained in financial reports tailored to the needs of the public and policymakers.
Integrating reserve information in infrastructure Planning. Some districts have been
criticized for impeding effective regional planning and have exempted themselves
fiscally and programmatically from the process. It may be possible to apply some district
reserves to regional infrastructure needs if all parties involved are knowledgeable and
communicating. This cooperation may be enhanced by boundary changes, consolidations
or reassigning responsibilities.
Existing OCSD Policy/Practice/Experience/Plans
In 1997,the OCSD retained Public Financial Management to review our long-standing
reserve policy and to propose revisions as appropriate. A part of this work involved a
survey of 24 public wastewater, water and utility agencies. The results were summarized
and benchmarks were developed. The result was a revised reserves policy which was
reviewed and approved by the FAHR Committee in May of 1998. Since adoption, this
policy has been included in every budget document,comprehensive annual report,and
budget presentation. It was also presented to the RAC and PAC during the Strategic Plan
preparation process.
The policy establishes 5 categories of reserves:
• Insurance/Liability Reserve is intended to address the full range of general and
extraordinary liabilities, as well as earthquake, flood and fire damage. The District
6
Lack Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts—White Paper Summary
has fairly high deductibles and only moderate amounts of insurance in order to
contain costs. The probable maximum total loss to the Plants from a 7.5 earthquake
is estimated at$495 million. The target amount for this reserve category is $57
million.
• Cash flow/Contingency Reserve is made up of the sum of 1) six months of total
operating costs,plus 2) 10%of operating costs,plus 3)the August COP service
payments. Because the District's user fees and taxes are collected on the property tax
bill, we receive very little income during the first six months of the year. Funds must
be on hand at the beginning of the year to meet requirements during this funding dry-
period.
• Capital Projects Reserve are to pay for additions, improvements and rehabilitation to
the$1.4 billion sewerage system. The District has implemented a 50:50 mix of pay-
as-you-go and debt financing for capital improvements. The average annual capital
improvement budget for 1998 to 2020 was$82 million,so a reserve level of$41
million was targeted.
• Short-term Specific Capital Projects Reserves was established for projects that would
be in progress before the next COP issue. Even though we have a 50:50 pay-as-you-
go policy, the last new money COP issue was in 1992. The next new money issue is
scheduled for 2000. All projects in the intervening years were paid for from reserves.
The LHC reports that the League of California Cities does not include these types of
accumulated funds as reserves. A target of$122 million was established for this
category, equal at the time to our estimated share of the GWRS.
• Renewal/Replacement Reserve was a new category established after a consultant's
review of our existing fixed assets and development of a rehabilitation and
replacement schedule and computer model. The FAHR Committee reviewed the
model and adopted a policy in May 1998. Basically, 30% of annual
renewal/replacement needs will be funded from these reserves. The initial balance in
this reserve was established at$50 million,to be augmented annually from user fees.
• Rate Stabilization Reserves account for the balance of accumulated funds. No target
was established for this category. All funds in this reserve are available for use in the
subsequent year and are used to reduce fluctuations in the annual user fee rates caused
mainly by changing capital program needs.
• Debt Service Reserves are sometimes required for long-term borrowing. Typically
these are funded in an amount equal to 10% of the amount borrowed. These funds
are controlled by Trustee Banks for the issue and are intended to assure the lenders
that at least one annual payment would be made while a new financial plan was
developed in case of a fiscal crises. The current requirement for these reserves is$33
million.
7
Link Hoover Commission Report on Special Dlsirkts—White Paper Summary -
Impact of LHC Findings/Recommendation on OCSD
The OCSD seems to have complied with all of the requirements or facets of"prudent
management of special district reserve funds."
We have publicized our reserves and policy through the budget, the CAFR, our website
and the Strategic Plan process. We have shared our policy and reserve balances with
each of the cities, the county and several special districts in our service area through the
Directors, through meetings with staff, through the cooperative projects program,and
through the Strategic Plan process. We have adopted a simple, easy to understand
reserves policy,and we repeat it in nearly every publication.
One of the factors not considered,or included,in the LHC report is the use of cash and
investment reserves to offset the interest rate risk associated with variable rate borrowing.
The District has been very successful in reducing long-term borrowing costs through this
practice. Because most of our investments are required to be relatively short-term,our
interest earnings increase when our interest expense increase. In this way we also always
have funds available for principal and interest payments. Additionally,the rating
agencies have been very impressed with our financial stability and management,and our
ability to retire the variable rate COPS,if needed, and have rewarded us with a high credit
rating, which will also reduce the cost of borrowing. Our outstanding variable rate debt
balance is $174 million.
Finding 5: Property tax allocations to some enterprise districts create inequities among
districts and distort the we costs of services. A significant portion of the property tax
allocated to all enterprise districts subsidizes districts with the highest reserves.
Recommendation 5: Policymakers should scrutinize the appropriateness of maintaining
property tax allocations to enterprise districts. Among the alternatives are:
• Annually review the level of property tax support.
• Examine all allocations to enterprise districts.
• Require a State audit of some districts (those with high reserves who receive
property taxes).
• Allow counties to reclaim and reallocate property tax revenues.
• Enhance public understanding of property tax allocation.
OCSD Interpretation of Findings
According to the LHC report,enterprise special districts like us received$421 million in
property tax revenues in 1996-97. Of that amount 36% or$103 million went to 15
districts that also had some of the largest reserves. Our property tax receipts for that year
were$28 million. To the LHC there are two problems: first,enterprise districts can levy
fees for service while other districts cannot;second,districts that may have considerable
resources are "subsidized"by property taxes.
8
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Disdkts—White Paper Summary
Prior to the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, special districts like other agencies
established annual properly tax rates to meet their needs and philosophies. Subsequent to
Proposition 13,they can no longer do that; a share of the 1%basic levy is allocated by
law based upon actual tax levies for 91 75-78. Current need does not affect this allocation
and the district cannot change it. About half of the enterprise special districts receive
some share of the property tax allocation,while 78%of the wastewater special districts
receive property taxes. The OCSD average allocation is 2.8%of the 1% basic levy,but it
varies by tax rate area and by city.
Many studies of state and local government finance have considered property tax
allocations,but consensus on solutions has been elusive.
• California Constitution Revision Commission recommended each county form a
citizen charter commission to allocate the non-school portion of the property tax.
• Commission on Governance for the 21st Century suggested that"future govemment
reformers may wish to consider reallocating a portion of property tax revenues
currently accruing to enterprise districts . . "
• Speaker's Commission on State and Local Government Finance recommended that
property tax revenues be reported to the public by a state agency or by county
auditors.
• Senate Committee on Local Government identified property tax allocations to
enterprise special districts as one of four policy issues for 2000.
• Legislative Analyst was directed by the Legislature to identify alternatives for
restructuring the property tax allocation. The Legislative Analyst noted that the
current allocations are based on 25-year old formulas that do not reflect today's
needs, that there is a tension between special purpose agencies and general purpose
governments, and that allocating taxes to enterprise special districts may have
discouraged them from evolving to user fees.
Existing OCSD Policy/Practice/Experience/Famre Plans
Except in Revenue Areas 13 and 14,the OCSD receives a share of the 1%basic levy
property tax. This percentage averages approximately 2.8%but varies considerably. We
have no taxes for GO Bonds.
The total property tax budget for 1999-2000 was$32 million. In 1991, the Board
adopted a policy of dedicating property tax receipts to COP service. The budgeted COP
service for 1999-2000, excluding a proposed new issue,was$31 million.
9
Date Hoover Commission Report on Special Distriets—White Paper Summary
Impact of LHC Recommendation on OCSD '
While the recommendation calls for property taxes to be"scrutinized,"the intent seems
to be to reduce or eliminate property tax allocations to enterprise special districts,
especially those with large reserves.
There is a current Legislative effort, AB 1396, directed at property tax revenue. Our
understanding is that the chair of the conference committee,Senator Peace,has opened
the discussion with a call for a"blank piece of paper'approach.
If property taxes are diverted from the District,it would take a$38 increase in the annual
SFR user fee to replace the lost revenues.
If the lost property taxes were not replaced,the reserve balances would eventually be
reduced to unsafe levels,perhaps to zero. In that case,the interest income would
correspondingly decrease. In order to replace the lost interest income,the Single-Family
Resident(SRF)user fee would need to be increased an additional $32 per year.
The combined annual fee increase to recover lost property taxes and interest would be an
87% increase,or$70 per year.
10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice
and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, was duly
posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Thursday, May 18, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 2000.
{ 0'
Penny Kyl ecr ary of the Board of Directors of
Orange County "anitation District
Posted: May 18 , 2000,_ p.m.
By:
Signature
wNoclgmwrcomm\y ting.lm
eORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Phan:
(7143 962-2411
nellhp isid.:
PD. Box B12)
Fountain Valley.C
9272E-6127 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
sweat.lore,.:
1oB44 titisn sAvenue STEERING COMMITTEE
Fountain Valley.CA
szToeame
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Windsor
Assets.
• WEDNESDAY, MAY 24 2000 - 4 P.M.
Cities
Anaheree B DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Buena Park 10844 ELLIS AVENUE
Cypress
FPan[ain Valley FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Hundngtan Beach
Irvine
Le Habra
La Palma
Las Atur"ce An adjourned regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of
w Neport Beach Directors of Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above
(bang:
Plecen[ia location, date and time.
Banta An
Beal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
✓Ile Perk
vorba Linde ""`PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN START TIME*'***
County of Orange
Sanitary Districts
Costa Mesa
Mieway City
Water Districts
Irene Ranch
'To PiotH t Me Public Health and Me Environment through E+cellence in Wastewater Systems'
6 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Phmm:
(714)962-2411
.111a,add.:
PO. Be.8127
F nt&n Valley.G
92728-8127 NOTICE OF MEETING
acre..add ...:
1a ry �Vella,ks . STEERING COMMITTEE
92709J018
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Winh.r
..tame.
• WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 - 5 P.M.
cis..
Arena. DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Baer.Park 10844 ELLIS AVENUE
cypress
Fo.rtain valley FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
F.narmn
Garden Grove
H.nbnglon Beach
Irvine
La Habra
Amirola s
L Pn,We
Los A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of
Newport Beach Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above location. date and
Grenga
Wacama time.
Santa An
Seal Beach
,,an.
Tustin
Valle Perk
Y.rba Linda
Case" W ar....
Seer", Districts
Caste Mesa
Midwey Oty
Water Districts
Irvine Ranch
"le Prated Me Publ¢Health and the Enwromment through&calla'CI m Wastew lar Systems'
STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES
FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
Wednesday, June 28, 2000
Wednesday, July 19', 2000
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
Wednesday, September27, 2000
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Wednesday, November 15, 2000`
Wednesday, December20, 2000'
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
'Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday.
STEERING COMMITTEE
(1) Roll Call:
Meeting Date: May 24, 2000 Meeting Time: 4 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, OMITS Committee ...............— —
Tom Saltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee ................—
Jim Silva, Supervisor........................................_ —
Others
Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel....................—
DonHughes...............................................................—
Director Steve Anderson...........................................
Staff Present
Blake P. Anderson, General Manager......................
-
Jean Tappan, Secretary............................................
Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services..............
Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager...—
Gary Streed, Director of Finance..............................
Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications......
-
c: Lenora Crane
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 AT 4 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 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 andlor 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 April 26, 2000 Steering Committee meeting.
-2- May 24, 2000 Agenda
(5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR
(6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
A. Update on Kem/Kings County Issues (Bob Ghirelli)
B. Status of White Paper on Little Hoover Commission (Greg Mathews)
C. Sacramento initiatives related to transfer of tax revenues (Blake Anderson)
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS(Items A-D)
A. Cooperative Projects Program (Jim Herberg)
B. Urban Runoff Fees (Gary Streed)
C. Budget Status (Gary Streed)
D. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in June
(Information item only)
(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) FUTURE MEETING DATES
The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday,June 28,2000.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m.,Wednesday,June 28,2000.
(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 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- May 24, 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:
1. The Committee will meet with its designated labor negotiator(Board
Chair)to provide instruction re: terms and conditions of an employment
agreement with the General Manager per Government Code Section
54957.6.
B. Reconvene in regular session
C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
jt
HAW P.DTAYIGENDAZTEERING COMMITIEEJJMMTYDT➢S 4WAGENDA WRH NOTxEMD ROLL CALL SHEET.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 Hell)
Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)693-7101
(714)962-0356(Fax)
E-mail: jtaooan@ocsd.com
.I
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 Saltarelli, 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 tern 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
The Committee Chair did not make a report.
i
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 bans 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 Potence 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 Kam County biosolids lawsuit. The State's
office of Planning and Research has determined that Kam 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 Ariston,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(Potence). 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
item 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 verity 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,
r
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 OMTS 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 ATA
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.
Submitted by. r,
n Tappan
ring Committee Secretary
K�+RWWT��1/ISIEENNG LPWlIIEE�Ag00101f6W SC IYW,.Je
STEERING COMMITTEE wes/24/0aoxe TOBtl.orDir.
/29
AGENDA REPORT Item Numbe Ib mNumbs
8(a)
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering
Originator: Jim Burror, Contract Project Manager
SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE PROJECTS PROGRAM, JOB NO. J-73
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
(1) Reconsider direction given at the April 2000 Steering Committee, and instead allow
local agencies participating in the Cooperative Projects Program to use State and
Federal funds to match to the District's contribution and; (2) Maintain the requirement
that the local agencies reimburse the District for extraordinary costs for financial audits
resulting from local agency participation in State and Federal matching fund programs.
SUMMARY
The Guidance Review Committee (GRC) and the Finance and Human Resources
(FAHR) Committee reviewed the recommendation made by the Steering Committee in
April to require local agencies to provide funding equal to the District's share under the
Cooperative Projects Program. This requirement would prevent a local agency from
using State or Federal grants to fund there half of the project costs. The FAHR
Committee discussed the sources of capital improvement funding used by Cities and
local sewering agencies. It was noted that it is common practice for cities to use grant
funds to pay for capital improvements, and that Cities often have no other source of
funds available for infrastructure projects.
The FAHR Committee also noted that the Cooperative Projects Program is encouraging
local agency funding to improve their infrastructure. However, it was also noted that
Cities have to be resourceful in securing funds for capital projects, and that the
Cooperative Projects Program should encourage tax dollars being returned to the area
in the form of State and Federal grants, rather than impose limits. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Steering Committee reconsider its previous recommendation,
and instead, allow local agencies to participate in State and Federal funding programs
to match the District's Cooperative Project Funding. It is also recommended to maintain
the requirement that the local agencies reimburse the District for costs incurred due to
audits resulting from local agency participation in State and Federal matching fund
programs.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
The FY99-00 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 FY99-00.
ermse Page 1
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
None
ALTERNATIVES
Require local agencies match District funding when applying for Cooperative Projects
Program, State, and Federal funds.
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
None
JB:jak
H:wp.da%gmdaZteenng Commgtee=Way00V-73 AR 052400.dw
RneM-. ermve Page 2
STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date TO Bd.of Dir.
05/24/00 N/A
,• AGENDA REPORT ItinNf6 n.ber Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: URBAN RUNOFF CHARGES
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
This item will be discussed at the June FAHR Committee meeting.
SUMMARY
When the final Urban Runoff Policy was considered by the OMTS Committee in April,
they deferred the charges and fees to the FAHR Committee. Five alternatives are
discussed in the Staff Report.
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
See Staff Report.
ALTERNATIVES
See Staff Report.
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report
2. April 5, 2000 Agenda Report to OMTS
3. Resolution OCSD-00-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
IYaEWWMW I bq.dutnu I Ob ne45TEERING COMMITTEEARUrMin Runoil.doc
&wee: aams Page 1
,9
May 15, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Alternative Fees for Dry Season Urban Runoff
In April 2000, the Board adopted Resolution No. OCSD-00-04, Establishing Dry
Season Urban Runoff Policy. This Resolution requires a Wastewater Discharge
Permit be issued by the District in accordance with all applicable Ordinances. It
also requires the permittee to "pay all the applicable fees and charges including
but not limited to permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and
non-compliance fees." The exact type of Permit to be issued is not specified.
Two types of Wastewater Discharge Permits may be appropriate under the
current regulations, or a new type of Permit may be required. A Class I Permit is
required for"any user who discharges wastewater that averages 25,000 gallons
per day or more of regulated process wastewater, or is determined by the
General Manager to have a reasonable potential to adversely affecting the
Districts' operation or for violating pretreatment standard, local limit or discharge
requirements . . ." Certainly this language applies to dry weather urban runoff.
Were It not for the health risks and beach water standard violations, we would not
even be considering the issue. A Special Purpose Discharge Permit is required
for the discharge of"unpolluted water, storm runoff, or groundwater. . ." This
may also apply.
What should be charged?
The fee structure is different for each of these Permits, and a different structure
could be developed for a new type of Permit. Class I users pay a fee based
upon actual flow and strength of their wastewater discharge. The rates per
million gallons and pounds of BOD or SS are adopted by Ordinance. These
rates are used in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the attached schedule. BOO and SS
concentrations and pounds are expected to be minimal for urban runoff, resulting
in a user fee of$321.40 per million gallons.
Class I users who discharge more than 25,000 gallons per day are called
"Significant Commercial-Industrial Users" (SCIU). These SCIUs are subject to a
Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (SCFCC) based upon actual
use when their flow increases 25% or 25,000 gallons per day. Because the initial
Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for a regular non-residential user is calculated
based upon the square feet of the building connecting to the system, there is no
method to calculate an accurate charge in these cases. The SCFCC, however,
presents a reasonable Alternative. The SCFCC could be calculated using a zero
mgd baseline.
Alternative Fees for Dry Weather UR
Page 2
May 15, 2000
Alternative 1 includes the SCFCC calculation, in accordance with the adopted
Ordinance. The capital, connection or SCFCC rate would be $660.95 per million
gallons. This Alternative includes a 5% cost of money charge, since the facilities
used must be constructed before the fees are received. The operating user fee
is consistent in each of the three Alternatives.
Alternative 2 is the same as Altemative 1 except the cost of money, or interest,
component has been removed. This reduces the capital portion of the fee to
$336.60 per million gallons.
Alternative 3 eliminates the capital portion of the charge altogether, leaving only
the $321.40 per million gallons operating user fee. Applying this Alternative may
require a change to the CFCC Ordinance. In order to select this Alternative, the
Directors would have to find that there is adequate capacity in the sewerage
system, during dry weather, for this wastewater. In this case, one could conclude
that since no additional facilities are required, then no CFCC should be
assessed. This is the lowest cost Alternative, and is consistent with the interim
Special Purpose Discharge Permit issued to Huntington Beach in October 1999.
Alternative 4 is an entirely different approach to determining the fees. This
method allocates the operating budget and the 20-year capital requirements to
flow alone. No costs or expenses are allocated to BOD or SS. This Altemative
provides higher unit costs than Alternative 1, 2 or 3, and should be discarded.
Alternative 5 treats Dry Season Urban Runoff as any other Special Purpose
Discharge Permit. The adopted Ordinance specifies a charge for use to cover all
costs of the District for providing sewerage service and monitoring shall be
established by the General Manager. Historically, this has been an operating
user fee of 1.5 times the "Class III" user rate. The Class III rate typically reflected
domestic waste concentrations. District policy is to discourage these types of
permits because the flow generally is "clean water"which does not require
treatment and should be discharged to a storm drain, not to a sewage treatment
plant. The operating user fee is the highest of any Alternative. The Ordinance is
not clear about a CFCC for this type of user. Potential calculations could be the
same as presented in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Another method of calculating the
CFCC would be to allocate the single-family dwelling unit fee to assumed gallons
per day. This method is presented in this Altemative. Because the operating
user fee is so high, any of the CFCC Alternatives result in this Alternative having
the highest total rate. It is shown as a comparison to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and
to show the change that results from another provision of the existing adopted
Ordinances.
Alternative Fees for Dry Weather UR
Page 3
May 15, 2000
Who should pay?
Once the appropriate rates for collection, treatment and disposal of Dry Season
Urban Runoff are established, we must determine who should pay. Alternatives
include the OCSD ratepayers, the agency that owns the connecting facility, the
Flood Control District, and the County of Orange.
The OCSD ratepayers are charged for sewer service. The Strategic Plan and
the operations budget are based upon projected wastewater flows. Facilities
have not been planned for urban runoff. The April staff report to OMTS and the
Board that accompanied the Resolution establishing a Dry Season Urban Runoff
Policy identified a potential flow of 20 mgd. More information is needed to know
the precise financial impact of this additional treatment and disposal, but it is
reasonable to conclude that this 4% increase in flow could require a 4% increase
in user fees. Currently, that would amount to about $3 per year per SFR. In the
event that property taxes are diverted away from the OCSD, perhaps taxes
sufficient to meet this non-sewage related regional need could be retained.
The agency that owns the facility connecting to the sewer normally pays the fees
and charges. This would be the preferred Alternative, if all of the runoff
originates within that agency's service area, or if costs could be recovered from
outside sources.
The Flood Control District is responsible for flood control channels and their
discharge to the ocean. Runoff is intended to be collected by the flood control
system. This seems to be the logical choice for responsibility for the urban runoff
fees as well. The Flood Control District could put a fee on the property tax bill as
a separate line item, similar to our user fee. The fee could be based upon
acreage and would be approximately$9 per acre or$2 per SFR.
The County of Orange may be essentially the same as the Flood Control District.
Both provide services to areas larger than the OCSD. Both could develop a plan
and a program for the entire County. The County Board of Supervisors has
already shown interest in this issue. They may have the most diverse and
flexible sources of income to meet this critical environmental need.
GGS:Ic
H:\wp.db\NnUWaane\STEERING COMMITTEE\UrbanRunoH.d=
Attachments:
1. Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
2. Staff Report- Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff
3. Resolution OCSD-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
05/l22000 4.21 PM
Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
Capital and O&M Costs
Charge per Million Gallons
Alt Description A B C D E F G H
OCSD Daily OCSD Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Total Daily
1 Class I rates incl 5%interest Unit of Meaeure Conn Rate Use Rate Tota9unit Units Conn Fee Use Fee Charge
flow per gal per day O.W05700 0.00021931 0.0007893 1,000,000 570.00 219.31 789.31
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration per lb per day 0.1440100 0.18045000 0.3250800 167 24.12 30.10 54.22
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration per lb per day 0.1602500 0.17265000 0.3329000 417 66.82 72.00 138.82
680.95 321.40 982.36
2 Class I rates without interest
flow per gal per day 0.0002900 0.00021931 0.0005093 1,000,000 290.00 219.31 509,31
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration per lb per day 0.0741000 0.18045000 0.2545500 167 12.36 30.10 42,46
as @ 50mg/L assumed concentration per lb per day 0.0a21100 0.17265000 0.2547600 417 34.24 72.00 106.23
336.80 321.40 658.00
3 Class 10&M rates only
flow per gal per day 0.0000000 0.00021931 0.0002193 1.000.000 - 219.31 219.31
bod ®20mg/L assumed concentration per It, per day 0.0000000 0.18045000 0.1804500 167 - 30.10 30.10
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration per lb per day 0.0000000 0.17265000 0.1726500 417 72.00 72.00
321.40 321.40
4 Divide budget O&M by budget flow per gal per day 0.000584729 0.0005847 1,000,000 - 584.73 584.73
Divide 2020 capital invest by total flow for 30 years per gal per day 0.0005914 0.0005914 1,000,000 591.46 691.45
591.45 584.73 1,176.18
5 Same as dewatering permit, 1.5 times"Class III" per gal per day 0.00143329 0,0014333 1,000,000 - 1,433.29 1,433.29
SFR Connection Fee on per gallon basis per gal per day 0.000682224 0.0006822 1,000,000 082.22 682.22
682.22 1433.29 2.116.51
G:\excel.dta\fn\210\stmeed\run off fees One Rate
OMTS COMMITTEE MeeMtlngsroo Gate a/uNoo T°Ba OO
AGENDA REPORT Item Number rmR Mmber
OMrs00.04 12(c)
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Originator. Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager
SUBJECT: POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY N7EATHER U AN RUNOFF
INTO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANI ANION ICT SEWERAGE
SYSTEM
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. OCSD OD-D4, Establishing D ason rban Runoff Policy.
SUMMARY
At the December 15, 1999 regular meeting, the Board of Directors approved the interim policy
for acceptance of dry weather urban runoff into the District's sewerage system. Staff has
revised the interim policy to produce a permanent policy to handle dry weather runoff diversions
to the District's sewerage system that will address regional needs while protecting the District's
investment in improving the environment and its capital facilities.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
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
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA FINDINGS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report on Proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Weather Urban Runoff into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System.
2. Resolution No. OCSD 00-04, Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
NtlnMgfM9Jf\gnWBuG heM R�\1°.l° AY RNA 13.)..
March 27, 2000
STAFF REPORT
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Results of the Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that the dry season urban
runoff discharging to the Pacific Ocean through the Talbert Channel may have caused or
contributed to the cause of the shoreline contamination that occurred in the summer of 1999.
As a result,the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in August 1999. Historically, the District
has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of dry season urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. Therefore, it has never been included in the Districts mission nor practice
to accept discharge of this type of waste into the sewerage facilities. The events of last summer
at Huntington Beach are leading us in a new direction.
The District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations regulates all discharges into the District's
sewerage facilities. These regulations do not currently include a provision to authorize any dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. On December 15, 1999,the Board of Directors
approved an interim policy for acceptance and discharge of dry season urban runoff to the
sewer system on a temporary basis. Since the adoption of the interim policy, the District has
received requests from The Irvine Company and Hearthside Homes, Inc. to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system from proposed housing developments in Newport
Beach and Huntington Beach. These requests were prompted based on discharge requirements
of the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board due to potential
water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of this
runoff.
Since the District's Interim policy was adopted for a period of only one year, regulatory agencies
questioned the developers about the time period during which the District would accept the dry
season urban runoff. The California Coastal Commission has indicated that without a
permanent policy in place to accept the dry season urban runoff in lieu of direct discharge into
the ocean, permission to construct will not be granted. Based on the available testing results
and information, the bacteria counts in dry season urban runoff have the potential to exceed
Ocean Water Protection Standards by 10-20 times. The total dry season urban runoff from
each developer is estimated at 0.1 million gallons per day(MGD), and the levels of known loxics
such as heavy metals are similar to those found in domestic sewage. Moreover, the bacteria
counts in the runoff are significantly lower than the typical influent bacteria counts we now
receive in the District's influent.
District's staff proposes to revise the interim policy and establish a long-tens resolution for
disposal of dry season urban runoff to the sewer system because: 1) the acceptance of the dry
season urban runoff is fundamentally appropriate to minimize the possible adverse
environmental impact, and 2)there is an immediate need to adopt a long-term policy to
accommodate the public needs.
Policy for Acceptance of Dry Weather Urban Runoff
Page 2 of 3
March 27, 2000
OTHER AGENCIES' PRACTICES
The District has contacted six neighboring wastewater agencies to research their practice of
accepting urban runoff discharges to their sewer facilities. Based on the information obtained,
none of the agencies has established any written policy, fees or characteristic requirements
regarding dry season urban runoff. They are accepting urban runoff or storm water when it is
contaminated, on an occasional, case-by-case basis. The City of Los Angeles is already
accepting dry season urban runoff from two areas (Malibu and Santa Monica)without any
policy, discharge requirements or fees in place.
PROPOSED POLICY
The District's staff believes that the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff to the sewer
system will reduce the levels of contaminants along the Southern California shoreline and
enhance public health and environmental quality.
The revised policy includes many of the same provisions contained in the interim policy and new
provisions to protect the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of
sanitary sewer discharges to the sewer system. Under the proposed policy, the District will only
accept certain types of dry season urban runoff during the period of April 15 to October 31 of
each year. In summary, the proposed policy includes the following provisions to:
• Require the applicant to exclude storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Require the applicant to evaluate other disposal options and implement pollution prevention
measures;
• Require the applicant to guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due for
the collection, treatment and disposal of dry season urban runoff;
• Authorize staff to deny the request and to not issue a discharge permit if such issuance
adversely affects the District's operations;
• Require the applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorize staff to take enforcement actions, including termination of the discharge if full
compliance with the conditions of the District's Ordinance and discharge permit are not met.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED POLICY
Although the proposed policy contains provisions to protect the District's operations and enable
the District to ensure compliance with all the regulatory requirements, there are concerns the
staff has encountered which, due to lack of information at this time, cannot be fully addressed.
• Concern: The types and levels of all pollutants of concern such as pesticides contained in
urban run off are unknown at this time. Therefore, the possible impact of accepting the dry
season urban runoff discharge to sewer and on the District's effluent is not fully known.
Response: There are provisions in the proposed policy to require the discharger to
periodically monitor its discharge into the sewer system and to take corrective measures to
control or eliminate the pollutants of concern or to reduce the loading to the sewer system.
The proposed policy also includes provisions authorizing staff to take enforcement actions
including termination of the discharge.
Policy for Acceptance of Dry Weather Urban Runoff
Page 3 of 3
March 27, 2000
• Concern: At this time, the District cannot accurately project the future collective volume of
the dry season urban runoff discharges to the sewer system. The District also has limited
existing and future system capacity in the collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
Therefore, depending upon the future collective volume of these types of discharges, the
District may not have an adequate system capacity to accommodate the future volume of
the urban runoff discharged to the District's sewerage facilities without substantial expansion
of sewerage facilities.
Response: Today, the estimated total flow from Huntington Beach and the two developers
is about 1.2 MGD. Future runoff volume may increase to 10 MGD from the potential
applicants in the District's jurisdiction. This volume is about 4 percent of the District's total
influent of 245 MGD. The District believes that there is adequate overall system capacity to
accommodate this volume. Moreover, there are provisions in the proposed policy to require
the discharger to implement pollution prevention including recycling, reuse and reduction in
the volume of the discharge. In addition, the proposed policy authorizes the staff to deny the
issuance of a permit and terminate the discharge or require additional waste management
facilities to be installed by the discharger if the discharge threatens to adversely impact the
District's facilities.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICY
If this policy is adopted, to ensure that there would not be any recognizable adverse impact on
the District's sewerage facilities, staff will commence dose monitoring of the urban runoff
discharges to the sewer system and accumulate quality and quantity data currently not
available. After sufficient information is obtained over the next few years, staff will revisit the
provisions of the policy and will recommend necessary adjustments to conform to the findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution No. OCSD 00-_
which includes the proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff Into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System. If the Board of Directors adopts this
policy, staff further recommends that the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, which is
currently under review by staff, include In the next revision the elements of the policy adopted by
the Board of Directors.
MTL:Ivw
Hftw .dpVaM% !OM9enda for wnoH.dm
RESOLUTION'' NO. OCSD 00.04
ESTABLISHING DRY SEASRBAN RUNOFF POLICY
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE_
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DRY EASON
URBAN RUNOFF POLICY
WHEREAS, certain types of dry season urban runoff create public health and/or
environmental problems which are infeasible to economically or practically control; and,
WHEREAS, THE Orange County Sanitation District ("District") has available
limited system capacity in its collection, treatment and disposal facilities which may
allow the District to accept certain dry season urban runoff discharges without adversely
affecting the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary
sewer discharges; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have system capacity available to allow wet
season discharges to the District's facilities; and
WHEREAS, District has developed a Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy to address
certain environmental concerns associated with dry season runoff; and,
WHEREAS, District may accept dry season urban runoff, on a permanent basis,
provided that the discharge occurs in full and complete compliance with the terms of the
District's Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation
District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1: That the following Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy is established
as a District Policy:
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF D SEASON RBAN RUNOFF INTO THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATIO T SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The Orange County Sanitation District ("District") may accept surface urban runoff into
the sewerage system only during the period of April 15 through October 31 of each year
("dry season urban runoff") and only if the following requirements are met:
u om\20001'lQ r
A. Requirements for Obtaining Permission to Discharge
f. The dry season urban runoff diversion to the sewerage system shall address a
public health or environmental problem associated with the runoff discharge that
cannot be otherwise economically or practically controlled;
2. The dry season urban runoff diversion structure shall be designed and other
necessary provisions shall be implemented to exclude storm runoff during wet
weather. The diversion structure shall be equipped with a lockable shut-off
device, satisfactory to the District, and to which the District shall be provided
access at all times;
3. The permit applicant shall consider and evaluate the feasibility of other disposal
alternatives (i.e., discharging into storm drains, reuse and reclamation of the
runoff, etc.) for the discharge of the dry season urban runoff. The permit
applicant shall submit to the District a report, satisfactory to the District describing
the evaluation of each disposal alternative, and demonstrating why each
alternative is not economically or practically feasible to dispose of the proposed
dry season urban runoff in lieu of sewer discharge;
4. The permit applicant's proposed diversion system shall prevent debris or any
other pollutants of concern from entering the District's sewerage system. The
permit applicant shall submit design drawings and an operations and
maintenance plan for the proposed dry season diversion structure which shall be
sufficient to establish that all District requirements will be met to prevent pass
through of and/or interference with the District's sewerage facilities. The
diversion system shall be capable of measuring and recording on a daily basis
the flow discharged to the sewerage system;
5. The permit applicant shall submit best management practices and pollution
prevention strategies designed to minimize or eliminate dry season urban runoff.
More stringent practices and strategies may be required depending on the nature
of the anticipated discharge;
6. The permit applicant shall submit to the District a proposed method to guarantee
the existence of an enforceable mechanism to ensure that the District receives
payment for all monies due pursuant to this policy for as long as the permit
exists. No permit application shall be complete without such an enforceable
mechanism, satisfactory to the District in its sole discretion. This mechanism
shall be designed to limit any administrative burden on the District;
7. The General Manager, or his designee, may impose additional requirements as
may be appropriate to reduce the burden on the District's collection, treatment
and disposal facilities;
B. Collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewer discharges remain the
2
Wm 2=0 W
District's primary function. No additional dry season urban runoff permits shall be
issued If the General Manager, or his designee, determines that such issuance
may, alone or in conjunction with other permits, adversely affect the District's
primary function;
9. Permit applicants shall pay a permit fee in an amount established by the District
prior to the issuance of any permit;
10. Prior to commencement of discharge of the dry season urban runoff to the
sewerage system, in accordance with the policies and procedures set by the
District, the permit applicant must apply for and receive a Wastewater Discharge
Permit from the District. The District may require that the permit applicant enter
into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry season discharge
is authorized in addition to or in lieu of issuance of the Wastewater Discharge
Permit; and
11. The permit applicant shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from all
liability associated with the dry season urban runoff to which the permit and/or
agreement apply. The terms of the indemnification shall be in a forth satisfactory
to District's General Counsel,
B. Requirements After Granting Permission to Discharge
1. The quality and quantity of the discharge shall meet the conditions, provisions or
limitations contained in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations
(Ordinance No. OCSD-01)';
2. The permittee shall conduct self-monitoring for the pollutants of concern as direct
by the District to ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and limits set forth
in the discharge permit and/or agreement and the District's Ordinances. Unless
otherwise directed, the permittee shall conduct self-monitoring of the discharge
on a quarterly basis. The result of all self-monitoring shall be submitted to the
District, upon request, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days following the
completion of sample analysis. The permittee shall monitor the flaw and submit
reports documenting the flow discharged as directed by the District;
3. In the event that the quality or quantity of the dry season urban runoff discharge
to the sewerage system does not meet the conditions, provisions, or limitations
set forth in the discharge permitlagreement or Ordinance No. OCSO-01, the
permittee shall take immediate action to correct the problem(s) to ensure that full
compliance is met. The District may take enforcement action for any violation of
the terms of the permit and/or the District's Ordinances, including termination of
the discharge, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. OCSD-01;
Any reference in this policy to any District Ordinance, policy or permit shall include any subsequent
amendments, modifications, revisions or successors to such ordinance, policy or permit.
Acm\2000'oa
4. In accordance with Ordinance Nos. OCSD-01, OCSD-10, and OCSD-11, and
any other current or future District Ordinances or policies, the permittee shall pay
all the applicable fees and charges including but not limited to permit fees, sewer
use charges, capital facilities charges, and noncompliance fees. Failure to pay
any fees in a timely manner shall be cause for termination of the permit and
discharge;
5. The permittee shall provide District's employees with access to the diversion
location and all areas from which and through which runoff originates and/or
flows, during all reasonable hours, which shall include any time when a discharge
to the sewer system may be occurring, for purposes of inspection, monitoring,
and verifying compliance with the discharge permit/agreement or the District's
Ordinances;
6. The permittee shall have complete responsibility for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the diversion facility or any other associated facilities, for
ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the discharge
permit/agreement and the District's Ordinances, and for paying all the applicable
charges and fees for the entire duration of the discharge to the District's
sewerage system;
7. All District administrative costs related to the implementation of this policy shall
be bome by the permittee,
6. If the District determines that the dry season runoff, alone or in conjunction with
other discharges, is adversely affecting or threatening to adversely affect the
District's collection, treatment and/or disposal facilities, the District shall so notify
the permittee who shall immediately cease all such discharge to the sewerage
system. The District may, in its sole discretion, allow the continued discharge
provided that the permittee installs, operates and maintains additional facilities as
the District determines are appropriate to ensure that the dry season runoff does
not, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, adversely affect or threaten to
adversely affect the District's collection treatment and/or disposal facilities, and
9. Except as expressly authorized by this policy or a District Ordinance, no urban
runoff shall be discharged directly or indirectly into the District's facilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held April 26, 2000.
Chair
ATTEST:
Board Secretary
wo�snwo»o-
a
STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date I To ad.of Dlr.
OS/a9/00
' AGENDA REPORT I IItelgNyl r Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District C L:
FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PROPOSED FY 2000-01 OPERATING AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this information-only report.
SUMMARY
The preliminary proposed 2000-01 budgets for treatment plant O&M, and for the Capital
Improvement Program, were presented to each of the Committees this month. Staff will
give the Steering Committee a status report. The final proposed budgets will be
presented to the Committees and the Board in June.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
N/A
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)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
N/A
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1. Preliminary JO Budget by Line Item
2. Preliminary CIP Budget by Status
H:"EMNMYIO nMa MNG COMMITTEE120WVCIPe A=
R...a: worse Page 1
2000-01 Budget
Proposed Budget
Expense by Line Item
Budget
1998.99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 Percent
Description Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change
Salado%Wanes.& Benefits
Salaries&Wages 32,676,487 32,123.300 31,991,468 34,839,700 8.46
Employee Benefits:
Retirement 2.729.376 1,938,600 2,195,133 2,400,300 23.82
Group Insurance
Group Insurances 2,820,149 3,177,000 3,250,216 3,614,500 13.77
Tuition Reimbursement 77,183 - 6,821 - -
Unfiorm Rental 63,768 67,200 67,350 69,200 2.98
Worker's Compensation 219,001 237,400 311,618 310.200 30.67
Unemployment Insurance 6,679 112.300 5,800 53,800 (52.09)
Total Benefits 5,916,156 5.532.500 5.836,838 6.448.000 16.55
Salaries,Wages,&Benefits 38,591,643 37,666,800 37,828,306 41,287,700 9.65
Matl.Suooly.&Services
Administrative Expenses:
Memberships 140,258 162,100 182,600 185,500 1.87
Office Expense-Supplies 165,104 155,200 132.376 141,100 (9.09)
Office Expense-Other 97,316 109,000 88,593 89,300 (18.07)
Small Computer Items 239,850 250.000 150,800 260,000
Minor Furniture,Fixtures,etc. 28,210 107,800 92,800 87,100 (19.20)
Printing&Publication:
Repro-In-House 253,982 285,200 260,877 254,300 (10.83)
Printing-Oulside 42,038 67,500 62,217 59,450 (11.93)
Notices&Ads 21,212 24,800 31,600 30,600 24.39
Photo Processing 8,223 10,200 7,130 7,950 (22.06)
Trainina&Mealinas:
Meetings 201,928 236.000 213,539 223,850 (5.15)
Training 493,380 755,000 600,000 678,000 (10.20)
Operating Expenses:
Chemical Coagulants 1,238,736 1,307,300 1,410,000 1,361,100 4.12
Sulfide Control 1.202,427 1,265,800 1,408,610 1.435,000 14.27
Odor Control 1,376,453 1,424,200 1,108,400 997,800 (29.94)
Chemicals-Cogeneration Oper. 11,183 29,700 22.000 20,000 (32.66)
Miscellaneous Chemicals 8.434 28,300 28,200 14,000 (50-63)
Gasoline,Diesel&Oil 314,115 158,600 161,500 187.300 18.10
Tools 88.244 168,300 134,811 120,700 (28.28)
Soty,Paints,&Jan.Supplies 58.219 41,600 36,300 43,950 5.65
Lab Chemicals&Supplies 316.976 334,000 452,941 386,400 15.69
Other Operating Supplies 179,365 134,900 150.000 146,710 8.75
Contractual Services:
Solids Removal 3,961,656 4,293.500 4,777,000 6,000,000 16.46
Other Waste Disposal 402.742 490,700 491,250 467,100 (4.81)
Groundskeeping&Janitorial 217,816 262,000 460.000 410,000 58.49
Outside Lab Services 69,095 148,700 195,100 248.200 66.91
Oxygen Plant Operations 274,740 331,500 281,350 295,000 (11.01)
Omer 711.980 1,236,300 704,688 801,400 (36.18)
Continued:
Section 5-Page 6
Joint Works Operating Fund �J
Proposed Budget
Expense by Line Item
Budget
1998-99 1999-M 1999-M 200001 Percent
Description Actual Budget Projected Proposed Change
Continued:
Professional Services:
Legal 332,003 390.000 393,000 420,000 7.69
Aught&Accounting 46,765 46,800 45,100 45,500 (278)
Engineering 174214 440,500 341,300 277,5D0 (37.00)
Other 777,087 1,603.600 1,156278 1,242,500 (22.52)
Research&Monhorino:
Environmental Monitoring 1,422,690 1,678,100 1,678.100 11510,000 (10.02)
Air Quality Monitoring 16,477 95,000 40,000 75,000 (21.05)
Research 392,545 655,500 580.500 550,500 (16.02)
Repairs&Maintenance:
Materials&Services 3.638.165 3,809,100 4.255,670 3,904,050 2.49
Svc. Mtc.Agreements 726,969 1,821,300 1,015,350 1.383,450 (24.04)
Utilifies:
Telephone 207208 249200 261,958 251,850 1.D6
Diesel For Generators - 10,000 15,D00 11,000 10.00
Natural Gas 978.509 1,032,500 1288,500 1,130,000 9.44
Power 1,355,155 1,411,400 855,200 921.600 (34.71)
Water 799.598 876.900 818,520 830,900 (5.25)
Other Operating Supplies:
Outside Equipment Rental 125.015 179,600 139221 146,180 (18.61)
District Equipment Rental 301,638 319,400 320,199 322,000 0.81
Insurance Premiums 1,060,540 1,188,000 1,18B4O00 1,200.000 1.01
Freight 58,062 56,800 53.378 62,560 (7.14)
Misc.Operating Expense 143,701 1855.000 169,357 169,000 (8.65)
AOMD Operating Fees 112,303 142.000 120.000 120.000 (15.49)
General Manager Contingency - 405,900 - 340.000 (16.24)
Reappropriations - - - 220,000 -
Other Non-Operating Expense 32,6B5 47,400 58,678 44250 (6.65)
Total Malls,Supp,&Serv. 24.827.011 30,471,800 28,437,990 29,109,550 (4.47)
Total J.O. Requirements 63.418.654 68.127.600 66266,296 70,397250 3.33
Cost A IM-Cori&Other (17261,646) (19,732.600) (18,158,954) _ (19,906,6D0) 0.88
Net J.0. Requirements 46,157,008 48,395,000 48,107,342 50,490.650 4.33
Net J.O.Revenue (3,564,143) (4,395.000) (4,868,000) (4,490.650) 2.18
Net J.O. Budget 42,592,865 44,000,000 43,239.342 46,0D0,000 4.55
Section 5—Page 7
Page 1 of T
Capital Improvement Program
2000-01 Budget By Project Status
Prol.O Project Deseepoon Toad Budget N. Rwleed _ Conumm,_ Fulure
Revenue A.a 1
1.17 Same Me Trunk Sewer Rehab. Coll System 7.494.000 - 7,494.000 - -
1.20 Gm dlsSuliMn MH Rehab. Cal System 729.000 - - 729.me
1.21 ReM s t MH Rehebnffil Col System 830,000 - - - 630.000
1.22 Lower Melm6madway MH RehebUUegon Call System 795,000 - - 795,000
Mlecataneoue Capital Improvements.RA1 Cell system 500,000 000,000
Revenue All l TWsl 0W9et 10.149.000 sog000 1,494,000 2.154.000
Revenue Atm 2
2.21.1 Canon Canyon Do.IMercepWr Parell615ewer CWI System 5,0117,139 - - 6.007.130 -
2.24.1 Carbon Oyn Sewm 8 Pump SM.Abandonment Cell system 2.984o00 - - 2.694,000 -
2.31 $.me Ana li Inte opter Rallel Sewer Coll System 11,053.000 - - 11,M3,000 -
2-37 Me 2-Raheblltatlon W Outlying Pump Stations Can System 120.000 - 120,000 - -
2-41 Sane Ma RMr Inter Realignment and Protects. Cep System 31.418.000 - 31,430,000
2.42 AbaMenmanl of ymba Unda Pump SWUM CWISysem 200,000 - 280,000
246 New pa-Ptamnlle Trunk Replacement Cell sow. 12.745. 00 - - 12,746,000
247 Cypuss Astmm Tmnk Replacement Call System 3.3801000 - - - 3,360.000
249 Taft Bunch Impmvam Coll System 4.742,000 4.742.000 -
2.50 Atwood S.Wmmk lmpmuemenle Coil System 1.089.900 - - 1.639,800 -
2.51 Lowm Santa Me River intercepter Improvements Cal System 19.617,000 - - - 1D,617,000
2.52 Eudid Relit improvements-Rahell•A• Cell System 10,831.ow - - 10.931.000 -
2.53 EWM ReIIef lmprovemenb-pence e Call Sysem 6,210,0DID - - E.210,000
2.54 Uppm Newhap.PleceMle Trunk MenhWe Rehab. Coll sole. 1.748,00e - - 1.748.000
2.55 L.Newhope-.scene Trunk MaMde Rehab. Can System 2.222.0110 - - - 2,222.000
2.58 Santa Ana Rlwr lnbrupW,Mmhale Rehab. Co03yslem 052A00 - - - 662,000
2.52 South AneMlm InM1rceplor Manhola Reheb, Can Syemm IA70.000 - - 1.90A00
?56 Setae Me Rlwr RWlW Sewm,Reach B Chip system 12,976,00D - - - 12,976,000
MNpellaraous CabNtl Improvements.RA2 Call System 2.01WOOD 2,9D0.000 - -
TmnkSawerMappingPRdmA Call System 124.080 lm.600
Revenue Ma 2 Tom!Decline 130)06,619 6.142.000 12g000 B3.w,BI9 60.10T.Ow
Revenue AM 3
2.97 A.e3.Rehabination of OullyinO Pump SWUM. Call System ia9,m0 - leBp00 - -
3.2-1 Repleca Miller Holder TWO Sewer Siphon Coll System 1,995.000 -
}26 Omn9e-weetem SWAny),Relief S. Call System 1,232,000 1,232,000 -
3.351R RehabOUslbn of NO M80mha Think Sewn Coll system 10,352.OW - 10.352.000 - -
2C5R.3 Relteblllte M Ma9mts Tmnk Sewer.Pheea 2 Cell system 12.127.000 12,127.000 -
"a-1 selar-H.War Trunk Sewer System.Reach 1 Call System 10,689.NO - 10.9g9.000 - -
342 Nbelelds ReIIM IMermMm PaWel Cog System 4.650,000 4.550.00
345 Tmsk Been W Me HaowxWestern Subbunk Coll System 542.000 - - - 542,000
119 VVRA Side howl ins Members Manhale Rehab. Call System 082.000 - - - 802.000
3.51 RMabRIWWn W Me Seal 0omh Pump SM W CWI System 3.0e3,WO 3.0".00o -
3-52 RehabnU¢Uon of We Mundane Pump SWUM Can system 1.619A00 1.619.Ow - - -
5.9-1 Mode.M M,nWla RelMl Sewer In Vhmans Aw. Cali SWM. 208.847 - - 208.847 -
MbceneneousCapltallmprovemens.RAO Call Systam 2,OOD,000 2,000.00D - -
Phaee 2 Corrosion Aaseesmenl Call System 69.000 66.000 - - -
Continue.Food Chemical Trsalmmt FeReSty Cou System 308,000 300.000 - -
Think SawnMappin9Protect Call System 157.229 157928
Revenue Aron 3 TWA Social. 49,B82.715 20.407,Op0 21.209.000 2,362,725 5.654,000
0arcelAWYMMOW.R."0.01 bofge11CIP by Status - OWOMD00 at 4:Oa PM
Page 2 M 7
Capital Improvement Program
2000-01 Budget By Project Statue
ana A ProjeUOekMptlm real Budget Mere Rodend Comfits" Forced
Revenue Ne.b
b37 Nee 5-RMsbllllenon of Outlying Pump stay .. Coll Syal 338,000 - 336.001) - -
5.13 Bp Clayton qNM Sewer Reheb9Hamon Cdl System 2,713.000 2.713.000 - - -
5.46 Replacement of Beek Bay Thank Sawm Call System a.094.000 - - 9.0"A" -
5-47 Balboa Took Sewer Pehebation. Coll system 3,968.001, - - - 3.968.000
$40 Replacement of Me Biller Paid Pump South Col System 3.479.M 3.478.000 - - -
5.60 Replacement of the Rocky Pont Pump Smash Col System 4,124.000 4,1M,000 - - -
5.51 Rehabilitation of the lath Sleet Pump SNWn Car System 2,210,000 2,20.000 - - -
5-52 RehaWilaed.of Me-KMason Pump Bases Call System 2.248,000 2.248,000 - - -
6.53 Rehabgnetion M Me 81 BMge Pump Stelbn Call System t9M.0o0 I,W.000 - - -
5.54 RehabSWb of Me Cri Cave Pump SNtlon Can slash, 3061000 3 .m - -
Mixelloneaue Capita Ispmvemeoa.RA5 Cog System 2.000.000 2,O0e000 - -
Tur,MayerMapphpPmJmt Call System 20,7W - - 20,780 -
PumpMetbnSCAOA Common Study-RA5 Call sates 79.000 79,OM
Revenue Aoe 5 Total Budget 30,671,780 18.174,000 336,000 8,10,780 3,M,mo
Revenue Araa6
2-37 flue.6-Rahebgilalbn of 0.0,ft Pump Stegens Col star. 72,000 - 72.000 -
6.1J Abandon AS That.War—and Co.Sewers Coll System 2.176.000 - 2.176,000 - -
MIeOeIlaMOosCepgdlmpovements,RA6 Coll system 5009U0 600,000 - - -
Tonk Sewer Mapping soled Call States 15,a24 16.624
Rarenue Ame 6 TOMI Budget 2.704.624 609,00s 2,248,000 16.624
Revenue Area 7
2.37 Ame 7-Rehabilitation to Outlying Pump Stamens, CCP System 395,000 - 390 000 -
7.14.3 Ramel HUI Pump Stalin Abandonment CM Brae. 126.000 - 120,000 -
7.21 Sun600er impmepter Manhole Rehab, Coll System 5.W.= - 5,387,000 - -
7-211 Cdlege Ave.Pump Mason Paraltl Form Mein CIA System 1,877,000 - - 1,877,000 -
7-27 RA Tudin NNefe-Aeasboey Subuunk Sewer Cali System 1.731.000 - 1.731000 - -
7.32 Gisler-Red HQ Trunk Relaxation Can Syses 5,703,300 - 5.703300 - -
7.35 Moose,SuMonk Sewer B Pump SNtlon Abend Cog System 1,273.000 1.273000 - - -
7.36 GIMer-Rehha Trunk lmprarriou N.Road,W Co05ptes 4.025.100 - - 4.025,100 -
747 Gsler-RetlhN Sysem Improvements planes B Col Status 5,013.000 5,013,000 - - -
7.38 Tustin Trunk lmparromenls Col System 3.650.000 3,658,000 - - -
7.39 Orange Thank lspovemenN Cas system 3941.700 - - 3,941,700 -
7.40 West Trans Improvements Coil SysNm 496,000 496.M - - -
7-41 GWm-RedhaMortlr Thank Improvements Can system 5.703,600 - - 5.703,600 -
742 Lower Gear-Redbill Mandate RrOmbillslion Cog States 7M,0010 - - - 7S4.000
743 Upper GlMm-ReahMM eloole Rehab. Col System te6,o00 - - - 166.000
744 Campus Crave Subbunk Improvements Col System 507.00 - - - 507,000
7.47 Replacement of the Cog.,Ave.Pump Made, Call SysNm 4,717,000 4,717.000 - - -
7d9 Relwbil6dbn of fins MeaMhur Pump Vernon Cd Bysem 1,354,000 1.3M.000 - -
J-76 DiMme-wltle Geopphlcel true system(GI$) Cog System 2.500,000 2,500.000 - - -
MOceilaMousCepaallspmyemorts.RA7 Cog System 2.000,000 2.000,000 - - -
Msim6akerFereeMain Ventletlan Col system 30,000 30,000 - -
TrunkSnwmMepplrgPmled Cap 5yMem 24.936 - - 24,930
Nmpsts5on 5CADA Common Study-RV,7 Cam SysNm 67.000 67,000
generate Nee 7 Trans Budget 51448,036 21,039,000 13.U3,300 15839.336 1,427. 00
O:tesTal.tlNVIm210MbeeoA0.01 budgeOCIP by eteW, 0510=000 at 4U PM
Pagel o1 7
Capital Improvement Program
2000-01 Budget By Project Status
Pre.0 Prgetl Dexllpllon Tome Stan Net peninsula Contracts Funds
Revenue Anse 11
11.114 additional Trunk Sewer RulMumml Call Spmm 4.5110,000 - 9506,001) - -
11-20 Nag Avenue forma ter Cut system 3,711,000 - 3,711.001) - -
11-22 Warner Avonue RB11B1 sewer Can System 3,399.000 - 3.399,000 - -
11.23.1 ksleral8 sewM ahead at settle Coasl May Con System 129.000 trader - - -
I1.25 Edogerfili Chia Trunk Improvementsa Call System 782.000 - - - 752,00
11-26 Coast Trunk Sewer Reeabilllmian Can System 1,984,000 - - - 1.984,000
11-28 permeation of the Edinger Pump Slatian Coll System 1449.000 1,449,000 - - -
2.37 Area 11-Reheheimtion of outlying Pump Slm Con System 108,000 - 100,000 - -
Miscellaneous Cashel lmOrovemems.Pat 1 Coll System SurGOD 500,000 - - -
Trunk Sewer Mapping Prolecl Call System 41,680 - - 41.560 -
AmsterlanSCADACommunStudy-RA 11 Can System 07,000 67.000
Revenue Am.11 IF MI Budget 16,675,560 2.077.000 11,724,000 108,5W 2,79B4O00
Revenue Area 14
7-27RA14 Tustin AiMoe-Amencig SubWnk Sewer Can System 4.821,000 - 4,021,000 - -
MiscenenewaCalledenprovemente,RA14 Car system Monte 200,000
Revenue Area 14 Talk l Supper 4.821.000 200,000 4.021.000
Total Collections System Projects Budget 297,108,909 60.660,000 61.096.300 90.148,894 70,278,000
Control redeem
1-10 Rehab,a upgrade of Otis Ave.Pump Sto arterial 1.605.000 - - - 1.005.000
1-24 Barred!Trunk Sewer ReMdlnallpa InteBJobot 30.630,000 - - 30.530.000 -
J 73 Coup Proleds,Narmada.Reduction InmrlJolnt 144,750.000 - 144)50.000 - -
SSOTrainingFacnity uteritainl 83,900 63.900
Canadian retained Total Budget 177.048.900 0,800 144,750,000 30.030.000 1,dU5,000
Handwork.
FP1-1 2 New Barson ens at Plant No,1 Headwndu Plant 1 312,000 - - 312.000
FPt-2 . .HeedwarW Pumping(44 at-paper 2 Plant 3.00.000 - - - 3.000.00
FPt-3 Headwprks PvmpMO(44 mgd)-Phase 3 Rant 4,MWD - - - 4,000.000
FP14 Headworks Pumping(44 mgd)-Phase 4 Rant 1 4.000.000 - - - 4.000.000
FP1-S Three OM Chambers Plant 6.000.000 - - - 61000,000
FP14 Throe Gift Chambers Plane 8.000,000 - - - arkno.000
J-62 G01 Assay Replacement hear nl 1,006.000 - 1,008,000 - -
P1-62 Sunte OrNe paratrooper Rant 401.200 - - 407.200 -
Pt-71 Natural Rant 4,330,000 4,33g000 - - -
P1-05 Hamassau Pumping(44 harp)-Phanl Plant 5.520.000 5,320.000 - - -
P246 Header",Improvements at Plaid No.2 Ptent 2 74,118,000 74,110,000
Headvi Treat Budget 108.783,2W 9,800,000 76.20g000 407,200 23,312,000
0:leacel.dWft21mebee "I budgeltClP W Status 05RN2000M4A8PM
Page a N T
Capital Improvement Program
20MOI Budget By Project Status
PuG.d Peopled condo ton Total Budget New ReWee Continuin0 FNIw
PqT!q Tneatra l
FPI-2 Ten Papery Gentled Plant 60.00BOOO - - - fig00 =
A71-2 peddles Glosaatlans for Oder control Plant2 276.000 2T6,000 - - -
PI.37 Pd.Clemiera 1631 d Related Fad191e5 Plant l TS,450,000 - - 76A50,000 -
P1-81 Yankee SMeaOeam Pump Slatlon Upgrade Plant 1 1,089,000 -
P2-80 PNnary Treatment RebabRNmb Plant 2 11,8%.= 11.8118.000 - - -
P2-05 Cbadar Center Orive Regammen0uP8rade Inlm/Jaint 51840.000 5.810.00D - - -
Sludge level M.asopened Demo Inetallat.n Plant 2 36I,000 384.000 - - -
SludgeDensilyMeterUpgmdn Inler/Joint fia0,000 600.000
Prudery TreaVllans Total Budget 15S,605.000 I9.1611,000 70,5191000 W.M.000
Semi yam Treadnem
J-314 Sec Treat Monnoring a del Sys.upgrade Inter/Joel 4.317,700 4,317.700 - -
PI.28 Rabab Trading FRlers&endeared New Clamors Planet 21,000,000 - 21,00O00a - -
P1.62 AetlueMd Shaped Plant Rab.bataetd Meets 3,745.000 3}45.00 - - -
P2&4 Secondary Plant Rehabadaaon Plantl 7.44a 0 - - - 7.443.O0D
ANvatsd sludge".ban Basin Sdeder Study Plant 1 510.000 510,000 - - -
Oxygen Pans ReybwmenURehabillaabn Plant 1 110.000 11Q000
Secondary Transposed Twat Budget 37,129,700 4,3B5,000 25,317.700 7.443,00D
Status Header,&Collapsed
FPI4 Two New Diseases et Plant No.1 Ptanl1 1e.600.000 - - - 14.600.000
FPt-10 Seven Bed FOor Pre.pss at Met No.1 Plant 17,a0g000 - - 17,5001000
F1,141 Two Bell Foam Praww at Plans No.1 Flee 1 5,00D,000 - - - 6.000.00D
FP1-12 S Cent Stores.Happen at Panl No.1 Plant 391000,000 - - 39,000,000
FPI.13 1 Coke SMrege Hopper as Plant No.1 Plant 1 2,000,000 - - - 2,80D.000
FP1-9 Four New Diwstore ad Plana No.1 plant 29,200.000 - - - 29,200,000
FP2-2 Two New Digwlere at Plae No.2 Pont 15s00.040 - - - 15.400,000
FP2G 0ne Now OlBmtar at Plant No.2 Planes 7,70D.000 - - - 7,T00.000
FF24 2 Cents Starese Happen RebebOHaBon meet 2 8.000.000 - - - 8.000.000
FP2-S 2 Coke SW.,.1.11re Plant 16A00.000 - - - 16,400,000
F72-7 Fllbata Clarder at Plena No.2 Plant 2.102,000 - - - 21102.0130
Pt-73 Olossdon&Dewatatng Rehaa.RmuTisdnrent Plant 1 9.80Oa00 - - - %BDO.00D
P140 New Bed Ffispad cluster plant 1,3",000 1'dao1OOd - - -
P2.39 Rehabilitation of Otoodem at Plant No.2 Meet 17.230.000 - 17234,000 - -
P2-00 SNMS Storage and Trade lmtn,FaWlry Plant 15.1M,000 - - 15120.000 -
M-61 DIBeasien&Oa deddng Rehabi.RNurblahnwnt nee 2 2,800,000 716011,000 - - -
SP-30 High Reta Olweasr M4 Purees Much.Seats Plant 517,000 - - 517,000 -
SP-37 Dewreterog Bell Press Rebuid Meet 025,000 - - s25,000 -
SP-et Bell Press Autoo llon Swdal 135,000 - - 175.000 -
DewataringBellPressRebuOd Plant 528.000 - - 528,000 -
SludgeGreaterR.M.ement PIee2 2N,OOD - - WOOD
Dewebrne Ball Prod Esmnslan Plant 2o.= 230,000 - - -
Tula Ranh AtuldtlomBloea6ato Mgmd Needs spedel B,BS0,000 9,850,000
Sued.Hands,&Diallon Tool Budget M.325,000 19.200.000 17,234,000 17,389.NO 172,502,000
G:b¢N.dbNm210bheet80010uesel by StaNe - 05102A000NTM PN -
PBgo.5 of 7 ,
Capital Improvement program
2000-01 Budget By Project Status
Prop Prejed Oeeenp9on Tend swam Neil Revised ConOnuing Future
Orin Outlet!SyeMms
FP24 Diehdedbn ladl6es(25 MGD) Plantt 4,380.000 - - - 4.390.001)
J-39 Inue,11,11on ant Repelr at Omen Gall Ieter7.oint 16.907,000 - 16.907,000 - -
J-77 EmNat Pumping Base,Annex Inter7Juld 28.346.000 28.340.000
Ocean Outlet Systems Total Budget 49.03.000 16,907,000 28,346.000 4,380.000
uftsystems
M0 Int,fo Can-0en Starling Air System InlerlJdnl 141.000 - - 141.000 -
J-71.5 But.Grain Detebsse Dunne raenl B Tagging IntenJoiet 100.Ow 100.000 - - -
Pl. Chanced!FatlIM Made.at Plant No.l Plead 1 3.760.000 - 3.760.000 - -
P1-74 Plant UWMa RehebulkatienlaeluNlahmenl Plant 3,30g000 3,360.000 - - -
P247.1 Me001m1cane b Else.8 Control SyMt ne Plant 2 2.05.000 - 2,616.000 - -
P881 Hgh Pleasure COmpreased Air syetem Plant 409,000 - - 409,000 -
P2.70 Gas DompreFwr Add'Nm as Plant No,2 Plant 9011.000 - 906.000 - -
P2.52 Mass Rehad0e6on and Refurbishment Plant 2 3,394.000 - 3.394,000 - -
BeatetbVrketFASEleuatorUppuee Plant 106.000 1m.NNO - - -
UnMguund Tank Leak Oetac6an Upgrade InlmlJdut 120.000 120.000
UM6y Systems Tend Budget 14,819,000 3,666,000 10,03.0011 550,000
Etedrldal Power Systems
J-25-4 Eleddcel Power System SWSlea Inter/Jalnl 3,216,000 - - 3.216,000 -
J-2S5 Be..Power System Sla Witty,Die9nms Inler/JoNI 3.366.000 - - 3,36aow -
J-33.1 Standby Power and RWWUTAy ModMmOans I.I.W.inl 17.370.088 - - 17,370.068 -
M7 Cede Trey IMprovenenM at Planar 102 IntedJohd 2S."11.000 - 26.WB 000 - -
J-70 Cenhal Generetlan Ausona6an lmldJ t 2,904.000 2.B84,wo
Veddml Parker Systems Total Budget 53.A6.088 A9fi4.00N 26.878,M 23,954,068
Fhw Managemeet It Reliability
JA Ou6ell Flax Meter ReplawmOnt Inter/blot 1.124.000 - 1.124.000 - -
M7 Peak Flmv Manggement FMnt3 4,055,000 4.055,000
Fbw Management B ROUND,Total Budget 51170,000 5.179,000
Brady A S curdy lmprwemens
5400600 Secuft,Systam Improvement. Specall 1.333,200 - - 1,333,200 -
J-35 Arm ClemNmN.n Bananas InMNJ01n1 27,016,787 - - 27,918.787 -
Process Safely Mgmt Complianm Prostate I.tedJ01M 3awo 30.=
Sef rty 8 Security Improlwmenis TMM Budget 29.281.987 30.000 29.261,987
Process Rested SpeMM Projects
1714 Padilla.ModWceams le,00.,Can1M Inter/Jaut 384JI00 .84.000 - - -
J-714 Fedg08 ModMeMbn4 for W.Central Inter/Jalnl 2889.mn 2.688,000 - - -
Y714 Conprehomhrc Caw Consul Assessment InhelJdM 3.466.000 1486,000 -
J-714 Adomae foul air.y.M.cwMamete damage Inter/Joint 73.1100 73.000 - - -
J-78 Thermal haulaslon Management Program Inter/JOMI_ SOO.NON BO0.000 - -
M.nesaE Melntemn s Pnglen IntedJohd 670.000 $70.000 - - -
Hacwa...grant, .trM Proaauree asmajolM 1,190.000 11190,000
Paul Related Specal Pubcls Tatar Budget 9.469,000 8.279.00 1.190.000
G9exal.dagaVl WkvmaMMl budual CIP by Status OSbMWO at 4:a PM
Page 6 or 7
Capital Improvement Program
2000-01 Budget By Projeel Status
Pml.s Pmlect Dmoafpeon Tone Rodger New Rev4e0 cMOnufiq FuWm
Shortage 6 Master Names
J-403 Strategic Plain-Pon"2 Sp-al 2,193.342 - - 2.19.1,]II -
J40,4 Struggle Plan Program EIR Special 1.119.329 - - 1.119,329 -
PlantOSMManualBSOPProtect-PhaseI Special 4,00 .000 4.m.w0
Strategic S Master Planning Total Budget 7.312.071 4.000.000 3,312,071
Wate_Management Propch
4d6 Grpmdpone,Replenishment Stolen Inse"Joint 173.232.000 - 176.222,0110 - -
J-92 Water Cmrtervmim Speclad 4.544.000 - - 4,54/,000 -
J-93 2 Long Term Permanent Monirenng Program IntedJaNl 5.00g,000 5.a00.a00
Water Management Projects Torts Budget 187,e68,000 5.000,000 171I.M.000 4.W,o00
Research 5 Centopmml
J44R Stanchest Spatlecetlm Recreation;3 Updates fira d am 200.000 - - 200.000 -
Slid Final for FY0a01:Solids Processing Speed 675,000 -
SpdProIMrFY00-2001'.Lleuid Stream, Spread 215,000 21S.000 - - -
Spc Pol 00U1:Nor ConlrotReg Compliance Speed 651,000 651.000
Research d Development Tool Budget 1,741,000 we.000 57S.000
Ran,Automaton IS Dammtetpallm
J-3}3 Power Montt and Control Systems Intar/Jois 1.354.000 - 3,256.000 - -
J42 Plant Renventan l Automation Project Inter/Jain 25,750.411 - - 25.700.411 -
SCAOA System Replacement Study InIMJomt 310,000 310,0011 - -
SCADAGnphksTaggingUWdr InholJdnl 570,000 570,000 - -
plant 2 threatening PLC SCADAUpgrade Plant 231,a00 261.000
Plant Aulpm9tmr 3 OomputeMallon Tdo 8u690 30.377.411 1,281.000 3,356,000 25.'750.411
Mlninmation Management a CompubrR9tOn
5400700 Vau.Dals Bending Reams; SPedel go9.aa0 - 979.4W - -
5400800 Nalwork BaNLene Upgrade LentnuaWn WhrrJolnl 1.497.000 - 1,497,000 -
6403100 Field FOmr Optc rotational StpMmd12e0on Special 324.00 - 324.930 -
5403200 Front Fehr OWo Upgrades Inter/Joel sm.NO - - 5M.=
5404400 Replacement d Intentional FlOer Optic Sparest 499.000 - 4N.CN - -
145-1 CmtWbrimd FetAhy Pau.B Daq.Syslen Inter/Joint 4.955.873 - 4.055.1113 -
a", DOcummd Management Sparest eN.000 W.000 -
S"2 Data fireemion special 4,334,000 - - 4,a34,a00 -
SP43 StrabBic lnroinmmion AmWecture(SIA) Speed 724,000 724.000 -
SP-04 CMMS Programming Special 400.000 - - 490.000 -
SP-13 Source Control Programming Spacial 575.000 - - 576,000
SP-15 Geagnephic imprmeYpn SpMm $pedal 4,156,000 4.150,000 - -
SPJ6 Aapmeton Repo"Publishing Speciel losa 0 - - 195.000
Reminds Management Pmpram Spedsl 255,000 - - 255.000 -
IntemetE-roar Brmeang(Vkhha) Imadkint 300.000 - no,000 -
WarmeSmTechmtegyObsder.Rmem, hoboN inl - 140.000 140.000 - - - -
SpeWllaadProxssNeMark tderlklnl 105,sU0 '105,000 - -
FISUpgrade InredJanl 1B50,000 "Will -
former statement Dawbpmant Specie$ 300,000 30.000 -
Weather 2000Mlgreton Spade 333,000 333.000 - -
G?Isml,dlenfloWl uVeedWOAl hudgeri by Steens 0510MMO at 4:88PM -
Page 7 of 7
Capital Improvement Program
2000-01 Budget By Project Status
Pent.tl PrdM Cesubllon TWI BuJpM New permanent Command FuINa
ON.2000 upped. Spatial 09,000 69.000 - - -
SCQACammunknfons-EMamen Study Stational 157.000 157.000
Tool adamortMn Management 6 Compulmaa5on 23.4M. 3 2,/11111,000 S,93e,e80 15.032.5111
Mbraltnenw a Supwn Praleae
FE-J Fecands Engineernp Protect Intr/Joel 20.000.000 - - 20.=.= -
FE-Pt FacR e3 EntareaMp Pmleone plant 1 20,000.000 - - 20,000,000 -
FE-P2 FacliOes Engineering Prootmda Plant 2 20.000.00(1 - - 20,000,000 -
J42 Medilpamma to Using Megn Systems lmerlJoiel 2.69a.000 - - 2.0114.000 -
J49 BMg.and NCMn.Frea RehatRelurbohment Ienolip" 1,655.001) - - - 1,455,0110
J-90 1NPC Equipment Repteemenl at plant 162 InttlJWe 75T,900 757,000 - - -
P2.94 Landeupa ma omgation at Plant No.2 Plan.2 810.000 810.000 - - -
SPde Soma Cap,Equip.RepMwmeM PmieO InMtlJPtt 740.000 - 740,000 - -
SwEamChem,FeedSystemMWs. SpeWl 799,000 -
Waellauee RNnwltion PmMm Inhul loin) 600.000 600.000 - - -
Nmm Station brESL oral ECM imamman Plant 75.000 ?S.M
Teel Mlsultneoue 8 Supdo0 Projects 67,927,000 2,242ADD ]e0.000 0.4e0A00 I,e55,0e0
Equipment
Ottas Capital Equipment Budget Equipment 2,912JM0 2.912A00
Equipment Toll Sudden 2,912.000 ;912,000
Taal Treatment, eupo ne and Statical Protect 1.1a8.810.e20 82.390.800 515,597,1m 320.161,ee0 270,697,000
Teal Copael lmpromonem Propmm t.6M035914 152058800 576692480 e10310631 34897300➢
G rmrwlduY r2tOuummoudi itudgeaCdo W Stamm 0S0241000e10:08PM
STEERING COMMITTEE MeeOng Date I To lid.or Dir.
5/24/00
AGENDA REPORT Reg er Item Numbe
Orange County Sanitation District b !i ryumb
FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager
Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
SUBJECT: June 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 June.
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
June:
OMTS Committee: 1. Plant 2 Earthquake Damage Contingency Plans
2. Outlet Inspection Results
3. Startup of Air Quality Information Management System
(AW IMS)
4. NPDES Permit Risk Management Analysis
5. Santa Ana River Watershed Group
6. 301 (h) Ocean Waiver Reapplication Update
7. Fees to Urban Runoff Discharge to FAHR Committee
8. Annual Report Summary
PDC Committee: 1. Ratify Change Order No. 1 and Approve Closeout Agreement
and Notice of Completion, Demolition of Warehouse and Area
Improvements, SP19990065
2. Ratify Change Order Nos. 2 and 3, Rehabilitation of the
Magnolia Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 3-35R (Rebid)
3. Approve Addendum No. 2, Geotechnical Engineering
Environmental Site assessment and Material Testing Services,
Specification No. P-182
4. Approve Addendum No. 2, Surveying Services, Specification
No. P-183
5. Approve Budget Amendment, Plans and Specs, and Award
Construction Contract, Ocean Outfall Flowmeter, Job No. J-66
6. Approve PSA, Wastehauler Station, Dewatering Building and
Junction Box Modifications for Odor Control, Job No. J-71-3
FAHR Committee: 1. Approve COP Restructuring Sale
2. 2000-01 Proposed Budget Approval
3. Update Human Resources Policies and Procedures
4. Annual Investment Policy Approval
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
CEOA FINDINGS
Not a project.
ATTACHMENTS
NA
jt
W-m,�vw.suero can«w�awPo+:.aa�v a u+sa.n.,o-.ao�
Page 2