HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06 FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY RANRATION DISTRICT
_MMJ�f UJ S OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETAL 19g�22000
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 BY_.__......_..
A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was
held on Wednesday, June 28, 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: OTHERS PRESENT:
Directors Present: Director Shirley McCracken
Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Thomas Nixon, General Counsel
Peer Swan, Vice Chair Ryal Wheeler
Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee
Norm Eckenrode, Chairman, PDC Committee STAFF PRESENT:
Tom Seltarelll, Chairman, FAHR Committee Blake Anderson, General Manager
Jean Tappan,Committee Secretary
Directors Absent: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering
Jim Silva, County Supervisor Mike Moore, ECM Manager
Jim Herberg, Engineering Supervisor
Ted Vitko, Associate Engineer
Andrei loan, Project Manager
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the May 24, 2000 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted.
(5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Committee Chair Jan Debay announced that room reservations have been made for the August 9-12,
2000 CASA Annual Conference in Monterey. Those interested in attending are to contact Jean
Tappan by July 12.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 2
June 28,2000
(6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
General Manager Blake Anderson reported that Charlie McGee has been asked to appear on a
future Warren Olney radio show, "Which Way LA", to discuss the beach closure issues as well as
responding on behalf of the District in a Los Angeles Times article on Huntington Beach, One Year
Later.
There are several projects and studies being funded jointly by the City of Huntington Beach, County
of Orange and the Sanitation District. However, the data has not been released as yet. The NW RI
has agreed to put together a blue ribbon panel to review the data to ensure the analyses are based
on good data. Chair Debay, a member of the NW RI Board,discussed some of the information that
she received from that organization, and she has invited Ron Linsky, NW RI's Executive Director, to
attend the July 12 Ad Hoc Committee meeting to discuss the Institute's findings. Mr.Anderson
announced that the County of Orange has formed a new division on watershed management and will
be coordinating efforts throughout the county.
Mr. Anderson announced that only the PDC Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee would hold
meetings in August.
A. Status Report on Beach Boulevard Sewage Spill.
Mr. Anderson explained the contractor's construction plan and described how the
June 9 spill occurred in La Habra. An estimated 60,000 gallons of sewage flowed
through the storm drain, into Coyote Creek and the San Gabriel River and discharging
into the ocean at Seal Beach. Mr.Anderson appeared before the Seal Beach city
council to explain what happened and take responsibility. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board indicated that it is likely that a fine will be assessed, but the amount has
not yet been determined. Mr.Anderson stated he would like the flexibility to work out
a cost sharing formula with the contractor for the cost of the fine,should it come.
Chair Debay complimented Mr.Anderson on the interview published in the Orange
County Reglsterafter his appearance before the Seal Beach city council.
B. Development of a Biosolids Management Plan.
A decision was made to go forward with a Biosolids Management Plan to take the
District to the year 2020. Mike Moore has been assigned to head this effort and he
explained what would be covered and the anticipated schedule. Because of the time
involved, Mr. Moore has stepped down as Manager of the ECM group and will be
working full time on the plan,along with Layne Baroldi and a consultant. One item
that is being considered is the creation of an educational center on the Kings County
site. Director Swan suggested a demonstration project tying a crop to a biosolids
applied field. A LIC Davis agricultural agent is being sponsored to assist with research
projects on a 40-acre set-aside.
C. Issues related to SARI Relocation.
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering, and Andrei loan, Project Manager, discussed
the environmental,funding and permitting issues that are underway. Director Swan
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 3
June 28, 2000
asked if realigning the sewer to the south side of the river along Santa Ana Canyon
Road had been considered. Staff will consider it before the next PDC Committee.
The PDC Committee will discuss the project in detail at its July meeting.
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Counsel Tom Nixon reported that the hearing on the Kern County Biosolids Ordinance is set for
August 3, 2000.
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-D)
A. Notify Steering Committee of General Manager intent to execute Funding Agreement re
U.S. Bureau of ReclamatiorvSouthern California Recycling Projects Initiative.
Jim Herberg reviewed this program, which was first presented to the Steering
Committee in April. At that time staff was directed to discuss the program with the
OCW D/OCSD Joint Coordinating Committee about a contribution. OCW D is already a
participant. In order to have a voice during the discussions,the District would have to
become a member participant and the cost would be about$154,000 through 2002.03.
The Committee members agreed with staff recommendation to participate for one year
and re-evaluate the benefits at the end of the first year on whether to continue
participation.
B. Recommend that the Board authorize compensation for Chair-appointed alternates for
attending Groundwater Replenishment Joint Coordinating Committee meetings.
It was moved, seconded and duly carried to forward the recommendation to the Board
at its June 28 regular meeting.
C. Receipt of unsolicited proposal to Purchase Composting Facility and Biosolids-permitted
Land and staff request for direction on how to proceed.
Mike Moore explained that this proposal was one of the reasons for developing the
Biosolids Management Plan. The OMTS will be reviewing this Issue at its regular July 5
meeting. Because of the critical time line, staff was requesting direction on proceeding
with the due diligence.
The Committee members agreed that due diligence should continue on this property,
and that staff should continue to look at land on the east side of the San Joaquin valley.
D. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in July
were reviewed. It was decided that there is a need for the PDC Committee to meet in
August. The other Committees will be dark.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 4
June 28, 2000
(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 July 19, 2000 at 5 p.m.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2000 at 7 p.m.
(13) CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
bmitted by:
a Tappan
SteAring Committee Secretary
N:IypWeNB¢Mel$luri'p+CamMro'WJUMR032BM NeMecdv
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, June 28,2000,was duly
posted for public Inspection in the main lobby of the DlstdcPs offices on Thursday, June 22, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of June,2000.
lj*A,;a
Penny Kyle, Secrq6ry P the Board of Directors of
Orange County! District
Posted: June 22 2000, 30 p.m.
By:
ignature
•➢d�gmWr o %W
b ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
BOARD SECRETARY (2)
phone:
17141 962-2411
mailing address:
P.D. eon 8127
Fountain Valley,CA
92728-8127
street add.: NOTICE OF MEETING
10844 Ellis Avenue OF THE
Fountain alley M
708-7018 STEERING COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Member
Agencies• WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000 - 5 P.M.
Cities
Anaheim DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Brea
Buena Perk 10844 ELLIS AVENUE
GYPress Fountain Valley FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
Fullerton
GeMen Grove
Huntington Beech
wine
Le Habra
L.Palma A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of
Lee Ale etes
Nawport Beach Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date and
Dranga time.
Pl.c.me.
Santa An.
Seel Beech
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Perk
Ywbe Linda
County of Orange
Sanitary Districts
Coate Mee.
Midway City
Water Districts
Irvir:.Ranch
'To Protect the Public Health and the Environment through Excellence in w.steweter Syahems'
STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES
FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
Wednesday, July 19', 2000
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
Wednesday, October25, 2000
Wednesday, November 15, 2000'
Wednesday, December 20, 2000'
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Wednesday, April 25. 2001
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
'Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday.
STEERING COMMITTEE
(1) Roll Cali:
Meeting Date: June 28, 2000 Meeting Time: 5 p.m.
Meeting Adjourned:
Committee Members
Jan Debay, Chair of the Board ............................—
Peer A. Swan, Vice Chair...................................—
Norm Eckenrode, Chair, PDC Committee ..............
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee ...............—
Tom Saltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee ................
Jim Silva, Supervisor........................................
Ot ers
Shirley McCracken, Director......................................
TomNixon, Counsel..................................................
Don Hughes
Staff Present
Blake P. Anderson, General Manager......................
Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager..._
Gary Streed, Director of Finance ..............................
Mike Moore, ECM Manager......................................
Layne Baroldi, Regulatory Specialist........................
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering......................
Jim Herberg, Engineering Planning Supervisor........
JeanTappan. Secretary............................................
c: Lenora Crane
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000 AT 5 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has
been 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 and/or action,it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b)as an emergency item
or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District
subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not 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 May 24, 2000 Steering Committee meeting.
-2- June 28, 2000 Agenda
(5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR
(6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
A. Status Report on Beach Boulevard Sewage Spill (Blake Anderson)
B. Our intention to develop Biosolids Management Plan (Mike Moore)
C. Issues related to SARI Relocation (David Ludwin)
(7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-D)
A. Notify Committee of General Manager intent to execute Funding Agreement re
US Bureau of ReclamatiorJSouthem California Recycling Projects Initiative (Jim
Herberg)
B. Recommend that the Board authorize compensation for Chair-appointed
alternates for attending Groundwater Replenishment Joint Coordinating
Committee meetings (Blake Anderson)
C. Receipt of unsolicited proposal to Purchase Composting Facility and Biosolids-
permitted Land and staff request for direction on how to proceed (Layne Baroldi)
D. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in July
(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,July 19, 2000.
The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., Wednesday, July 19, 2000.
-3- June 28, 2000 Agenda
(13) CLOSED SESSION
During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of
the Steering Committee,the Chair may convene the Committee in 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.
Reports relating to (a)purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential
litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are
exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the
Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such
time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all
required disclosures of information.
A. Convene in closed session, if necessary
B. Reconvene in regular session
C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session.
(14) ADJOURNMENT
jt
HAWPOTAWGENDANSTEERING COMMIrrEFW'JMWv MM£NOAWC
Notice to Committee Members:
For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda,Committee members should contact the
Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting.
Committee Chair: Jan Debay (949)644-3004(Newport Beach City Hall)
Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593-7101
(714)962-0356(Fax)
E-mail: IfaDDan OCSd.COm
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 Wildermuth, OCWD
Jim Silva, County Supervisor Mike Wehner, OCWD
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
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments by any member of the public.
(4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the April 26, 2000 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Directors
Swan and Anderson abstained.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
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
wait 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 Paper 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.
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 3
May 24, 2000
(8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-D)
A. Cooperative Projects 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. Budcet 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.
o .
Minutes of the Steering Committee
Page 4 P
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.
bmitted byi/
e n Tappan
eying Committee Secretary
NW.WWpw MISIEEIXNG CPMII/r1EEYpWNp1652JW SL MiWes Fwm.IXc
Summary of Little Hoover Commission Report on
Special District Operations
May 22,2000
OCSD!P.O.Box 8187!Fountain V911ag CA 9272841127!(774)962-2411
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.
tattle Hoover Commission Report on Specfd Districts—A'hae 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 of 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-govemment oversight and agency accountability.
Impact of LHC Findinga 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
1
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts— White Paper Summary
discuss infrastructure issues, including best management practices and t.
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.
Finding 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
Little Hoover Commission Report on Speeid Districts—White 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
LAPCOs. 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.
Impact of LHC Findines/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 not 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.
FIndine 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
time 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 Flndings/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 laree. 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.
Special 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 Rarticular problem s. 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 mquiring_prudent 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/Practicd&perience/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
line Hoover Commission Report on Special Dtands—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-tern 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.
Little Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts— White Paper Summary
Impact of LHC FindineslBecommendation 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 earrings 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.
Fin in 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 Findines
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 Hooper Commission Report on Special Districts— White Paper Summary
Prior to the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, special districts like other agencies
established annual property tax rates to meet their needs and philosophies. Subsequent to
Proposition 13,they can no longer do that; a share of the I%basic levy is allocated by
law based upon actual tax levies for 1975-78. 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 government
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/Future 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
Link Hoover Commission Report on Special Districts—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
STEERING COMMITTEE
(1) Roll Call:
Meeting Date: July 19,2000 Meeting Time: 5p.m.
Meeting Adjourned:
Committee Members
Norm Eckenrode, Chair of the Board................... _
Peter Green, Vice Chair.................................... —
Steve Anderson, Chair, PDC Committee .............. — _
Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee .............. — _
Tom Saltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee ............... —
JimSilva, Supervisor........................................ — —
JanDebay, Past Chair..............................................— —
Others
AnnaL. Piercy, Director.............................................—
Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel....................—
Don Hughes
Staff Present
Blake P.Anderson, General Manager......................—
Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager...—
Jean Tappan, Secretary............................................—
Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services..............—
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering......................—
Patrick Miles, Director of Information Technology....
Bob Ooten, Director of Operations& Maintenance..—
Lisa Tomko, Director of Human Resources..............—
Gary Streed, Director of Finance ..............................—
c: Lenora Crane
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
phone:
17141982-2411
onalllag soil
PG. Box 8127
Poalw4ln Valley,CA
9272B 8127
.n..c.dd..: NOTICE OF MEETING
10844 Ewa Avana. OF THE
Fcunta n Vane,.CA STEERING COMMITTEE
9270B401a
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Wines,
All WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000 - 5 P.M.
•
Cities
Anehelm DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Buena Perk 10844 ELLIS AVENUE
Cypress FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
F4untam Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntlngton Beech
,vine
Le Habra
Le Palms A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of
Las Ahlr" a a Oran Count Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date and
Newport Beach g Y
Grange time.
Placentae
Senn Ane
Seel Beech
Blanton
Tusbn
Was Park
Yorba Linde
Csuetp of Drso,
Smeltery Districts
Costa Mess
Midway Cary
W.ter District.
Irene Ranch
'To Protect the Public H..10 end the Environment through E+cellence m wastewater Systems'
STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES
FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS
Wednesday, July 19*, 2000
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
Wednesday, October25, 2000
Wednesday, November 15, 2000*
Wednesday, December 20, 2000*
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
*Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday.
k
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Steering Committee Item 6.A.
June 16, 2000
phone:
17141 9a2 2411 Gerard Thibeault, Executive Officer
..III p address, California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Pa El e127 3737 Main Street, Suite 500
F ncain valley.CA Riverside, CA 92501-3339
927211-W27
•Wa•ddr•••n SUBJECT: June 9, 2000 Sewage Spill
10944 Ellis Avenue
r4uni,ain Volley.C4
92708.7018
The purpose of this letter is to provide information regarding an overflow of sewage
from an Orange County Sanitation District(District) sewer line that occurred on
June 9, 2000. District staff notified the Orange County Health Care Agency
Meador (OCHCA), Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), and
Ap°"a" Office of Emergency Services (OES).
Miss The overflow occurred downstream of a diversion plug (Figure 1)on Beach
Anaheim Boulevard (northbound slow-lane), about one quarter mile south of Imperial Highway
a^as in La Habra. The current volume estimate of the overflow is 60,600 gallons based on
eaana Park LYaraaa field staff descriptions of the overflow path dimensions. All but approximately
founeam Vapey 1,000 gallons of the sewage reached the stone drain system.
Fallarton
Gorden Rave
Hantl,rpton ee.M The following Is the District's understanding of the circumstances surrounding the
Iri,ne June 9, 2000 overflow:
La He&.
La Palma
Loa Alma
. There are two parallel, in-service sewer lines running in a generally north-south
Ha`"p°"owga direction on Beach Boulevard between Imperial Highway and Rosecrans
Accents Avenue. For purposes of this report, the lines are referred to as the"East line"
sold Ana and the"West line". The overflow occurred in the West line, which ranges in size
seasa�onh from 15 inches to 21 inches. The East line ranges in size from 18 inches to
msdn 27 inches.
ON.Park
YOfAa Linda
a The District is in the final phase of increasing the capacity of the Miller-Holder
e.ansv •r or.n,. trunkline, which runs along Beach Boulevard and connects to the East and West
Waleary ol.arias. lines to meet capacity requirements through 2020. This project required that the
East line flows be temporarily diverted.
Ota. /✓ .
M'd.y o`y Prior to the commencement of construction, the District's design consultant
waeor Districts determined that the West line had sufficient capacity to handle the flow from both
rrMa He„4h the East and West lines between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (low-flow hours).
Fleming Construction, the District's construction contractor, was specifically
informed of the District's design consultant's analysis before construction
commenced. The design consultant's conclusion was confirmed by flow meter
data, which was also in the contractor's possession.
'To Pmtecr the Ainh,Haa¢h end Ina Envxnan,rn[tnnl,gn!'.rcellen:e m L15&nmater Systems'
Gerard Thibeault
Page 2
June 16, 2000
• During the early morning hours of June 9, 2000, Fleming Engineering diverted
flows from the East line into the West line by means of an inflatable plug placed
at a diversion manhole just south of Imperial Highway. The contractor's flow
diversion plan provided for diversion of the flow into the West line "during low-
flow hours only when necessary."
• Construction continued throughout the night, and at 6:30 a.m. on June 9, 2000,
the contractor apparently believed that, based on the flow levels observed,the
West line could handle the morning diumal flow a little longer and continued
working with the diversion plug in the East line.
• At 7:45 a.m., the City of La Habra received a citizen report of a broken water
main. The City responded and determined that the problem involved a District
sewer line. At 8:15 a.m., the City staff first notified the District of the problem and
set up traffic control.
• Upon receipt of this notification, the District's Control Center immediately began
the process of notifying the District's Collections and Construction Management
staff.
• The District's Collections staff immediately began mobilization and responded to
the site. At 8:30 a.m., the District's Collection staff left the District's Huntington
Beach Plant No. 2 for the overflow site.
• At approximately 8:30 a.m., District Construction Management Supervisor arrived
at the construction site. At 8:40 a.m., the contractor informed the District
supervisor that the plug was still in the line. The District's supervisor immediately
instructed the contractor to deflate the diversion plug, thereby allowing sewage to
return to the East line.
• Fleming Engineering immediately mobilized to begin deflating the diversion plug.
• At 9:00 a.m., a District's Collection staff arrived and immediately began setting up
containment of the overflow.
• By 9:05 a.m., the District's Collection staff had protected the nearest storm drain,
835 feet south of the overflow with rubber matting. The sewage flow continued
moving across Beach Boulevard and entered the storm drain in the southbound
slow-lane.
Gerard Thibeault
Page 3
June 16, 2000
• At 9:10 a.m., District staff placed a vehicle, and later sandbags, on top of the
manhole cover to stop the flow from leaving the manhole (Figure 2).
• At 9:15 a.m., the surcharge continued to subside as the pillow plug continued to
deflate. District staff completed vacuuming 800-1,000 gallons of contained
sewage (Figure 3).
• The District instructed the contractor to use the contractor street sweeper to clean
the overflow area. The street sweeping was completed by 11:30 a.m.
• The District notified the following agencies of the overflow by telephone as
follows:
Agency Time
OCHCA 9:20 a.m.
PFRD 9:25 a.m.
RWQCB 9:33 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
OES 10:41 a.m.
California Department of Fish and Game 10:48 a.m.
Each agency was provided with an initial "ballpark"estimate of the overflow volume
of 50,000 gallons based on field staffs initial descriptions of the overflow path
dimensions. The current estimate, based on more refined flow and overflow
dimension approximations, is 60,600 gallons.
• The District requested that the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources
Department ("PFRD") respond to the site. PFRD was unable to contain the
overflow in the flood control channel due to the significant existing flows in the
Coyote Creek Channel and the quick movement of the flow through the storm
drain system.
• As of 1:00 p.m. on June 9, 2000, OCHCA closed a portion of Seal Beach from
the mouth of the San Gabriel River to the Seal Beach Pier. OCHCA performed
follow-up sampling on June 9 and 10, 2000. OCHCA reopened half of the closed
section of the beach on June 12, 2000 when the results of the first dean sample
confirmed the lack of contamination. The remaining section of the beach was
reopened on June 13, 2000.
Gerard Thibeault
Page 4
June 16, 2000
On Monday, June 12, 2000, a District contractor videotaped the West line
between the construction site and Imperial Highway. A two-by-four piece of
wood of unknown origin was found lodged in the West line's manhole
approximately 1,300 feet south of the overflow area, which may have contributed
to the overflow by obstructing a significant volume of the Flow in the West line.
The District is seriously concerned with the impacts that this overflow has caused
and is continuing to review the incident and surrounding events to determine
corrective actions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at
(714)593-7450, The staff contact for this issue is Deirdre Hunter who may be
reached at (714) 593-7459.
Robert P. Ghirelli, D. Env.
Director of Technical Services
MDM/DEH:kmf
H%WPDTP\Tb1]5 31WIMETTER MO H8B LMEA WC
Enclosures
C: Monica Mazur, OCHCA
B. Anderson
B. Ooten
D. Ludwin
J. Linder
M. Moore
N. Arhontes
D. Hunter
ECM File
Figure 1: Sewer Line and Spill Flow Schematic
Im erial Hi hwa
Distance:
200 feet
Div rsion
ug
Spill Site
(Figures 2 & 3)
Sp
II flow
di ction
Distance:
1,300 feet
to Drain
C07V inspacticn
Storm Drain finds; ,4
fTgura 4)
Distance:
8,400 fee
Co ote
Cr'e k
Construction
project area for
new manhole
New 39" line
Figure 2: Spill Pictures
.ram
}I
4
k�
Spill flow moving south along the Facing north on northbound side of
tw
northbound side of Beach Boulevard Beach Boulevard at 8:40 a.m.
at 8:40 a.m.
��s. •Y! — to
R }
�I
Manhole and flow direction facing Manhole covered in sandbags to stop
north on the northbound side of flow from manhole at 9:10 a.m.
Beach Boulevard at 8:40 a.m.
Figure 3: Spill Containment and Clean-up Pictures
rtx P '
�P +1
Containment set-up and flow direction Containment set-up and flow direction
in northbound lane of Beach to primary and secondary storm
Boulevard at traffic light. drains in northbound lane of Beach
Boulevard at traffic light.
hil
Storm
Drain
Containment set-up, traffic control, Flow direction to second storm drain
and flow direction in northbound lane in southbound lane of Beach
of Beach Boulevard. Boulevard at traffic light.
Figure 4: Videotape of 2"x 4"piece of wood lodged in manhole
1,300 feet south of spill area.
t -
5-�noN I �"1+ 75
v California Regional Water Quality Control Board
" Santa Ana Region
'Winston H.Hiekax le amel Address: hupYlwww.swrrbxa,,,/ru tb8 Gray Darts
Serrswry for 3737 Main Street,Suite 500,Riverside,California 92501-3348 Govemnr
£nvironaemal Pbone(909)782400-PAX(Ml)781-6288
Protection
Steering Committee Item 6.C.
May 26, 2000
Mr. Keith S. Dunbar, P.E.
K.S. Dunbar & Associates Environmental Engineering
Post Office Box 6210
Arnold, CA 95223-6210
AMENDED RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE RELOCATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER
INTERCEPTOR, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, ORANGE COUNTY
(SCH #99091104)
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWOCB), have
reviewed the Notice Of Completion for the above referenced project and have the
following comments:
The relocation of the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) is of critical importance to
the Regional Board. The current SARI alignment poses a significant threat to
downstream water quality, in that catastrophic failure of the line could occur during high
flow conditions in the Santa Ana River(River). Since the SARI carries both brines and
other forms of domestic and industrial wastewater, minimization of the threat of this type
of failure of the line should be a very high priority to the owners and operators of the
line. The potential for failure of this line is recognized by the Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD), the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAW PA), and this agency.
With this recognition comes responsibility to minimize the potential for failure. We
strongly urge both OCSD and SAWPA to proceed as rapidly as possible to implement a
relocation alternative that provides for long-term protection from the likelihood of failure
of the SARI line. Should catastrophic failure of the SARI line occur, the exposure of the
responsible agencies would depend, to a significant degree, on the efforts made to
minimize the risk of failure.
We have reviewed the alternatives identified in the draft EIR. There is no question that
the alternatives (D and C) that result in the removal of wastewater flows from the bed of
the River are superior to those that simply provide additional levels of protection for the
pipeline. However, any of the alternatives that improve protection of the pipeline from
California Environmental Protection Agency
0 Recycled Paper
1
Mr.Keilh S.Dunbar,P.E..
K.S.Dunbar&Associates Environmental Engineering -2- May 26, 2000
high flows in the River are also much preferred over the existing condition. We
commend the project proponents for their efforts to date. We also urge OCSD and
SAWPA to select and implement a project alternative that provides for long-term
protection of water quality and beneficial uses, while still providing the very valuable
function of exporting salts from the upper portions of the Santa Ana River watershed.
More general comments on the EIR and the project follow.
1. RWQCB personnel have determined that this project may require coverage under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, water quality certification for dredge and fill
operations. Please contact Kelly Schmoker (909) 782-4990 with the Regional Board's
Planning Section to further discuss your project.
2. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) should be developed and
implemented during construction to protect the beneficial uses addressed in the Santa
Ana River Basin Plan. The BMPs should address:
• discharge of pollutants;
• increased turbidity and the disruption of river flow;
• disturbance to the flood plain;
• runoff and erosion;
• prevention of sewage and chemical spills; and
• tracking of sediments and toxic materials into the streets, storm water
conveyance channels, or waterways.
3. RWQCB personnel have determined that this project may require coverage under the
State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Activities National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit. Please
contact Mark Smythe (909) 782-4998 with the Regional Board's Storm Water Section
to further discuss your project.
4. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may be required to be submitted
to the Regional Water Board prior to the start of the project. Erosion and sediment
California Environmental Protection Agency
Mr.Keith S.Dunbar, P.E..
K.S.Dunbar 8 Associates Environmental Engineering -3- May 26,2000
controls must be utilized to prevent runoff during excavation, construction, and site
remediation.
5. Dewatering during construction at the site may require either a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of wastes to
surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for the discharge
of wastes to land. Please contact Gary Stewart (909) 782-4379 with the Regional
Board's Regulation Section to further discuss your project.
6. Construction equipment should not be stored within the streambeds. Fueling,
lubrication and maintenance equipment should not be located within any streams or
areas where contaminants could be washed into a waterbody.
7. No waste material should be discharged to any drainage areas, channels or streams.
Spoil sites should not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material
could be washed in a waterbody.
If you have any questions, please call Wanda Smith at (909) 782-4468.
Sincerely,
i
GER J. THIBEAUL
Executive Officer
cc: Mosie Boyd—State Clearinghouse
Blake Anderson, G.M., Orange County Sanitation District
Bob Ghirelli, Director Tech. Services, Orange County Sanitation District
Joe Grindstaff, G.M., SAWPA
California EnvbonmenW Protection Agency
STEERING COMMITTEE FRwwg Date TOBd—.f Dir.
6/28/00
AGENDA REPORT IT Number Item Number
Orange County Sanitation Dis
tFROM: David Ludr of Engineering
Originator: Wendy Sevenandt, Project Manager
SUBJECT: U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER
RECYCLING PROJECTS
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to execute a funding agreement between the Orange
County Sanitation District and the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the Southern
California Water Recycling Projects Initiative for the first year at an estimated cost of
$10,455, for the Federal Fiscal year ending September 30, 2000.
SUMMARY
In April, the Steering Committee reviewed an informational item regarding the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's (Bureau) planning program, the Southern California Water
Recycling Projects Initiative (Initiative). The Initiative is designed to continue the work
begun during the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
Study (SCCWRRS). One of the specific projects in this study is the Groundwater
Replenishment System (GWR System). Regional issues in this study include brine and
salt management.
At its April 2000 meeting, the Steering Committee directed Staff to bring the
recommendation to participate in the Initiative to the Joint Cooperative Committee (JCC)
for the GWR System forjoint funding with the Orange County Water District (OCWD).
At its May 15, 2000 meeting, the JCC declined to authorize joint funding of the Initiative
under the GWR System, as OCWD already contributes funds to the Initiative as a
member agency of Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). SAWPA has
been representing OCW D for five years on the SCCW RRS, and will continue to do so
for the Initiative.
Staff recommends that the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) participate in the
Bureau's Initiative due to OCSD's interest in the GWR System and regional reclamation,
brine and salt management issues as well.
R.W a W Page 1
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
The Initiative is a $3.4 million effort over the next three years, with $1.7 million
contributed by the participants. Each agency's participation costs will be identified after
the drafting of agreements and confirmation from the participating agencies.
With eleven agencies participating, the cost to the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD)would be $10,455 in the first year. This assumes the first year cost of
$115,000 is shared equally between the eleven agencies.
The following table shows the cost to OCSD for the budgeted horizon.
Bureau of Total to
Year Reclamation Participating Cost to OCSD
Agencies
FY99-00 115,000 115,000 10,455
FY00-01 400,000 400.000 36,364
FY01-02 600,000 600,000 54,545
FY02-03 585,000 585,000 53,182
TOTAL 1,700,000 1,700,000 154,546
At this time, Staff is recommending OCSD's participation in the first year at a cost of
$10,455. OCSD participation in future years would require Board authorization of
subsequent agreements.
BUDGETIMPACT
® This item has been budgeted. (Line item: 199912000 Budget section 9,Water
Management Projects, Page 12 and Page 132,Contract No.J-36,$121.924,700)
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
❑ Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative (Initiative) is a multi-year
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation planning program. The Initiative is designed to continue
the work begun during the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse Study. The original cost-sharing partners for this study were:
• California Department of Water Resources
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• West& Central Basin Municipal Water District
• City of San Diego
• Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
R• , � Page 2
V
• San Diego County Water Authority
• South Orange County Reclamation Authority
• City of Los Angeles
These eight cost-sharing partners have indicated their willingness to continue as cost-
sharing partners for the Initiative. The Initiative is a planning program that could include
more detailed project engineering, economic and financial analyses, environmental
documentation, and public education efforts.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) has identified the Initiative as a $3.4 million
effort over the next thee years with a budget breakdown, in thousands, as follows:
Total FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03
Bureau 1,700 115 400 600 585
Partner 1,700 115 400 600 585
TOTAL 3,400 230 800 1,200 1,170
The contribution for each partner would be divided in a reasonable fashion as agreed
between the cost-sharing partners.
The Bureau will draft a cost sharing agreement between the Bureau and the eleven
agencies that have indicated a desire to participate in the Initiative. Those agencies
were identified as:
1. City of Los Angeles
2. City of San Diego
3. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
4. San Diego County Water Authority
5. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
6. California Department of Water Resources
7. South Orange County Reclamation Authority
8. Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency
9. Orange County Sanitation District
10.County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
11.Central/West Basin Municipal Water Districts
With eleven agencies participating, the cost to the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD)would be $10,455 in the first year. This assumes the first year cost of
$115,000 is shared equally between the eleven agencies.
For future years, subsequent agreements would be required.
n.ww:saose Page 3
f
ALTERNATIVES
Do not authorize participation in the Initiative. With Orange County Water District
(OCWD), a member agency of Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA),
SAWPA would represent the interests of OCWD and Ground Water Replenishment
(GW R) System on the Executive Management Team. OCSD would not be directly
represented on other issues pertaining to regional reclamation and brine/salinity
management projects.
CEQA FINDINGS
This study is in preliminary stages. Environmental work may become a task within the
Initiative.
ATTACHMENTS
None
WS:jo,.jak
G:InlglooaAAgwda Draft Reporls6Sleering CommlfteelBumau of Reds fian 062800.dw
ate,: ,aoe, Page 4
STEERING COMMITTEE MmUng Date To ad.of IN'
6/28/00 6/28/00
AGENDA REPORT r�N=W ItemNnibe
X .b.
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager l cz—
Originator: Jean Tappan, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: Director Meeting Compensation
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Board authorize compensation for Chair-appointed alternates for
attending Groundwater Replenishment Joint Coordinating Committee meetings.
SUMMARY
At the request of the Steering Committee, staff researched the possibility whether
Directors who are appointed alternates and are requested to attend meetings could be
compensated if the regular member is in attendance. Resolution No. OCSD 98-3
(attached), Establishing Compensation and Reimbursement for Expenses for Directors,
provides for payment for meeting attendance as follows:
"Section 1: A. Attendance as a member of any Committee established by the
District and appointed by the Chair of the District.
B. Attendance at any Committee meeting when expressly invited to
attend said Committee Meeting by the Chair of the District.
C. Attendance at conferences with state and/or federal legislators
regarding District business, when approved by action of the Board
of Directors.
D. Attendance at a meeting, hearing, or conference for business of the
District, when approved by action of the Board of Directors, or when
designated by the General Manager, with the concurrence of the
Chair, when deemed to be in the best interests of the District."
Therefore, as provided in Section 1.13. and D., compensation for GWR Joint
Coordinating Committee meeting attendance may be paid to any director requested to
attend meetings by the Chair or-� ger—
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
NA
n ro a•va^aSrEEnwc eoMumeeroo.waaaeeoo oren.,m�e.se.o w.a. eom.am
a.,,..e:uMa 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
NA
ALTERNATIVES
NA
CEOA FINDINGS
NA
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. OCSD 98-3
X 1.OiaIW.n TEEMNG C0.11EF u�Marecto,I.'.epen�a re0.'h M
R—'.d WMB Page 2
!' RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 98-3
ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND
REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR DIRECTORS
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSE
REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES FOR ITS DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, Section 4733 of the California Health & Safety Code provides that
the District Board has the power to fix the amount of compensation per meeting to be
paid each member of the Board, or for each days service rendered as a member by
request of the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation
District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1: That each Director shall receive the sum of One Hundred ($100.00)
Dollars for attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors, or for each day's
service rendered as a member of the Board, by request of the Board, provided that
each Director shall not receive more than the sum of Six Hundred ($600.00) Dollars per
month as such compensation from the District. Each day's service rendered as a
member of the District's Board shall be deemed to include, but not be limited to:
A. Attendance as a member of any Committee established by the
District and appointed by the Chair of the District.
B. Attendance at any Committee Meeting when expressly invited to
attend said Committee Meeting by the Chair of the District.
C. Attendance at conferences with state and/or federal legislators
regarding District business, when approved by action of the Board of Directors.
D. Attendance at a meeting, hearing, or conference for business of
the District, when approved by action of the Board of Directors, or when designated by
the General Manager, with the concurrence of the Chair, when deemed to be in the
best interests of the District.
Section 2: Each Director shall be reimbursed at the rate per mile established
by the United States Internal Revenue Service as allowable for mileage expense
mnoaoo
sazrs_-, 1
deduction for use of personal vehicle or business of the District.
As said allowable rate established by the Internal Revenue Service is periodically
changed, said changes in the reimbursement rate shall become effective on the first
day of the month following the month in which the change is announced by the Internal
Revenue Service.
Section 3: When traveling on the business of the District, the Director shall be
entitled to reimbursement of expenses necessarily incurred in the course of said travel,
in accordance with the following schedule:
A. Commercial Transportation - Per actual invoice.
B. Hotel - Room rate per actual statement for occupancy.
C. Registration - Actual cost of conference or meeting registration fee.
D. Ground Transportation - As itemized.
E. Telephone Service - As itemized.
F. Meals. Gratuities and Incidentals - $40.00 per day. In those cases
where the actual cost of the Directors personal meals and incidentals required during
the course of the conference or meeting exceeds the per diem, reimbursement will be
based upon actual expenditures.
Section 4: No Director shall receive pay for attendance at any meeting, such
as Committee Meetings, which is scheduled immediately preceding, immediately
succeeding, or concurrent with, a regularly-scheduled District Board Meeting.
Section 5: This Resolution shall become effective July 1, 1998.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting held July 1, 1998.
Chair
ATTEST:
Board Secretary
U27610
saz�s_ 2
STEERING COMMITTEE Meedng Date To ad.of Dir.
6/28/00
AGENDA REPORT Iter Number Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env., Director of Technical Services
Originator: Layne Baroldi, Sr. Regulatory Specialist
SUBJECT: Receipt of unsolicited proposal to Purchase Composting Facility
and Biosolids-permitted Land and staff request for direction on how
to proceed
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The General Manager is seeking direction from the Steering Committee.
SUMMARY
On May 24 and June 14, 2000, the District received an unsolicited offer to purchase
approximately 22,000 acres of biosolids-permitted farmland in Kings County and a 160-
acre composting facility located in Kern County for$72 million. After reviewing the offer,
staff has informed McCarthy Farms of our preliminary interest in evaluating the offer and
conducting appropriate due diligence on the farmland and the compost site. District's
staff has begun a preliminary investigation on the farmland, relying primarily on portions
of a draft due diligence report that was recently performed by another agency.
Relevant information will be provided at the Steering Committee meeting, including a
description of the site, regulatory issues and an estimate of the scope, schedule and
budget to complete due diligence on the site, its associated water rights, associated
improvements and equipment. Staff will seek the Steering Committee's direction on
how to proceed next.
Attached are the two letters from McCarthy and our first response letter.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
NA
BUDGETIMPACT
❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line Item #86 Joint Operating Fund budget)
❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
❑ This item has not been budgeted.
® Not applicable (information item)
Page 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
f
NA
ALTERNATIVES
NA
CEOA FINDINGS
NA
ATTACHMENTS
1. May 24, 2000 letter from McCarthy Family Farms, Inc.
2. June 9, 2000 response letter from Layne Baroldi
3. June 16, 2000 letter from McCarthey Family Farms, Inc.
LB:Ib
H�.CleNpgNWEUIW CO MEE,NJnWM2=I 11,1a1 V./gema Fepr,Ooc
Page 2
viBExT� McCarthy Family Farms, Inc.
CO 1E% 7-0
�ANCY1 go Huau i
7a� 0002,,P-
LAvr� nor
May 24, 2000
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Blake Anderson
General Manager
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Re: Sale of Composting and Land Application Operations
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On behalf of McCarthy Family Farms, Inc., and San Joaquin Composting, Inc.
(collectively "McCarthy"), we wish to indicate the availability for purchase by the Orange
County Sanitation District ("District") of the composting facility located in Kern County
and the land application operation located in Kings County.
The assets included in the sale will be the following:
1. Real property in Kings County consisting of approximately 22,000 acres of
farm land which receives biosolids and all improvements thereto;
2. Real property in Kern County consisting of approximately 160 acres on
which the composting operation is conducted by San Joaquin Composting and all
improvements thereto;
3. Composting business and land application business operated on such
parcels;
4. All equipment, vehicles and other items of tangible personal property
which are currently utilized in the composting, farming and land application operations,
except for certain personal motor vehicles;
5. Rights to all excess water connected with the Kings County farm property;
and
1601 Skyway Drive, Suite 205 • P.O. Box 80727
Bakersfield CA 93380-0727
(805) 391-5840•(805) 391-5844 (Fax)
May 24, 2000
Page 2
6. All intangible property including licenses, permits and related items
associated with the conduct of the land application and the composting operations to
the extent subject to conveyance by McCarthy.
McCarthy will agree to enter into a five year contract for the management of both
the composting and the land application and farming operations as an independent
contractor. The exact terms of such management contract will be agreed to between
the parties prior to the close of escrow and to include a provision that such contract may
be terminated early without penalty upon six months notice by the District. We
anticipate that compensation will be structured with salaries for management and other
labor and expenses on a cost plus basis.
The purchase price shall be $72,000,000 and will include the equipment and
items of tangible personal property currently utilized in the conduct of the composting,
farming and land application operations. This transaction shall be structured in a way to
minimize the tax impact upon McCarthy and as negotiated between the parties.
Additionally, McCarthy will assist District in its efforts to secure the transfer of any
necessary permits or licenses in order to continue the current operations.
To the extent that Orange County Sanitation District has an interest in taking
advantage of this opportunity, we propose the following time table:
(i) District to notify McCarthy in writing that it is interested in pursuing
this opportunity by June 9, 2000;
(H) District and McCarthy to negotiate terms of definitive agreement by
July 10, 2000, and
(iii) Parties to execute all documents, complete due diligence and close
escrow by September 10, 2000.
For clarification, this correspondence shall not be deemed to be a binding offer to
sell, but, rather a preliminary outline of the terms of an offer, which if made by the
District, would seriously be considered by McCarthy.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of this matter and should you
have questions, please contact me.
very 1 y ur ,
PM\bcD PATRICK McCART
773W11 2700.LTR
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
June 9, 2000
n1a1982-za11 Patrick McCarthy
1601 Skyway Drive, Suite 205
eo e.0127 Bakersfield, CA 93380-0727
Famaaki VeW.M
W72e-8127
SUBJECT: Sale of Composting and Land Application Operations
ar ad4aaa:
10844 Bf Avewa
Fowmm V°Aw.04
92708-7018 The Orange County Sanitation District's(District)General Manager has asked me to
convey the District's interest in exploring the opportunity to purchase approximately
22,000 acres of farmland in Kings County and the San Joaquin Composting facility
as described in your unsolicited offer letter dated May 24, 2000. District's staff has
Nra+ae.a also been instructed by its General Manager to provide your letter to the District's
"Q0°aa' Board of Directors'Steering Committee to review at their meeting on June 28, 2000.
•
O11a' Your letter also proposes that the District and you negotiate the terms of a definitive
anonmm agreement by July 10, 2000. It has recently come to the attention of District's staff
area that Kings County is in the process of drafting a biosolids ordinance that may impact
auo"" mw the viability of Class B biosolids land application in Kings Count A meeting of the
Lypresa Y PP 9 Y 9
F"anmin W y Kings County Board of Supervisors to discuss the draft biosolids ordinance is
Fi°BfO" tentatively planned for Tuesday, June 11, 2000. The specific regulatory impacts of
Callan bTDve
HPrrtingmn eeean the draft version of the Kings County biosolids ordinance are neither known to the
District, nor can District's staff predict the direction the Board of Supervisors will take
a FbDe
Lo Palm, in regard to the regulation of Class B biosolids.
Los luemims
h1Bivpof`oB,.a The District understands that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Plecantia Board biosolids land application permits for portions of your Kings County acreage
5eit0'°"O are either General Order or Site Specific. Continued exploration of the opportunity to
Seol Beecn P P PP Y
sTemm� pursue your offer is contingent upon both types of permits being acceptable for
T11 " continued land application of Class B biosolids by Kings County.
Ville Part
Yp-0s Lna°
rVl (n1-`U—GAl`
Yvitary Olacricta ayne Baroldi
coup Masa Senior Regulatory Specialist
M�tlway Gry
avatar otasrmsa LB:kmf
\VRADON\Datat\wp.dtaVs\3550t315`McCaithy Offer&9-00.doc
Irvinc P°ncn
c: B.P. Anderson
R.P. Ghirelli, D.Env.
M.D. Moore
ECM File
'T°P.WU the Public Health.nd the Enmr"nment thr ,h Excellence in VVas[ewa[er Sys[ems'
y1B E R Ty McCarthy Family Farms, Inc.
(. zr roa
RANCV / cop, pot
June 16, 2000 �0"� tj� `}o
0Uv )�
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Blake Anderson
General Manager
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Re: Sale of Composting and Land Application Operations
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This will serve to acknowledge receipt of and thank you for your letter dated June
9, 2000.
It is our preference that if the Orange County Sanitation District is interested in
purchasing these facilities, that we move forward with the negotiations along the time
line outlined in my letter dated May 24, 2000. We do understand your concern as to the
creation of a new biosolids ordinance for Kings County but we anticipate the impact of
such ordinance to be minimal on our operation. In order to provide the District with a
level of comfort, we will agree that to the extent the new Kings County biosolids
ordinance bans the land application business operated in Kings County, that the District
will have the option to end the negotiations without further obligation if such option is
timely exercised.
Lastly, there has been a discussion about the feasibility of purchasing a portion
of our operations and although it is not our desire to piecemeal the sale, we will not
foreclose out that possibility and will consider any reasonable proposal which the
District might put forward.
Again, this correspondence shall not be deemed to be a binding offer but rather a
preliminary outline of the terms under which we would consider selling these
businesses.
1601 Skyway Drive, Suite 205 • P.O. Box 80727
Bakersfield CA 93380-0727
(805) 391-5840 •(805)391-5944(Fax)
Mr. Blake Anderson
June 16, 2000
Page 2
Thank you for your continued attention and consideration to these matters and
should you have any questions, please fe/ free to contact me.
;Very,iryy ' ur
PM1hc� PATRIC McCAR HY
113W117 815D0-LTR
STEERING COMMITTEE MeeOng Date To ad.of Dir.
6/29/00
AGENDA REPORT regN�ber Item Number
Orange County Sanitation District KK
FROM: Blake P. Anderson, 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 July.
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
July:
OMTS Committee: 1. Report on Local Limits Ordinance
2. Update on National Biosolids Partnership
3. Consider Ocean Monitoring Program Insourcing and Strategic
Process Studies
PDC Committee: 1. Ratify Change Order No. 4, Job No. P2-39, Rehabilitation of
Digesters I, J, K, L, M, N and O at Plant No. 2
2. Ratify Change Order No. 1 and Approve Closeout Agreement
and Notice of Completion, Job No. P2-61, High Pressure
Compressed Air System
3. Ratify Change Order No. 4, Job No. J-33-1, Standby Power and
Reliability Improvements
4. Ratify Change Order No. 2 and Approve Closeout Agreement
and Notice of Completion, Job No. J-75, New Engineering
Trailers at Plant No. 1
5. Ratify Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 and Approve Closeout
Agreement and Notice of Completion, Contract No. 2-34R,
Repair and Rehabilitation of Manholes on Euclid, from Ellis
Avenue to Orangethorpe
6. Ratify Change Order Nos. 2 and 3, Contract No. 3-35R,
Rehabilitation of Magnolia Trunk Sewer
7. Approve Addendum No. 6 to the Professional Services
Agreement for Job No. J-42, Plant Automation
8. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Contracts 3-52,
Rehabilitation of Westside Pump Station; 5-53, Rehabilitation of
Bay Bridge Pump Station; 5-54, Rehabilitation of Crystal Cove
Pump Station; 11-28, Rehabilitation of Edinger Pump Station
9. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Contract
No. 2-21-1, Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor Parallel Sewer
10. Discuss Realignment Alternatives for Contract No. 2-41, SARI
Replacement and Protection (information only item)
FAHR Committee: 1. Approve updates to Human Resources Policies and Procedures
2. Approve Annual Investment Policy
3. Consider Full-scale Procurement Card
4. Consider Annexation Fee Policy
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
NIW M.%,.da�1.1n eCam.,,. IW10628W osia A%W J.11.trc
namsad. MM8 Page 2