Loading...
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