Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2012 Steering Committee Agenda Packet Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Orange County Sanitation District 5:00 P.M. Regular Meeting of the 1 - Administration Building Steering Committee Conference Rooms A & B 10844 Ellis Avenue ti Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 593-7130 AGENDA DECLARATION OF QUORUM: PUBLIC COMMENTS: If you wish to speak,please complete a Speaker's Form and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Speakers are requested to limit comments to three minutes. REPORTS: The Committee Chair and the General Manager may present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Directors. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Approve Minutes of the December 21, 2011 Steering Committee Meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 2. Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 12-XX, Establishing the Procedure to Conduct an Annual Performance Evaluation of the General Counsel. INFORMATION ITEMS: 3. Public Affairs Report CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Board, 01/25/12 Steering Committee Agenda Page 1 of 3 the Chair may convene the Board 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 Board during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as the Board takes final action on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. Convene in closed session. (1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE. EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Number of Cases: 1 (a) Darrell Ennis v. Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011-00497640 (2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE. ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Potential Cases: 1 (a) Arbitration with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority over contractual issues Reconvene in regular session. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY: ADJOURNMENT: The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22,2012, at 01/25/12 Steering Committee Agenda Page 2 of 3 5:00 p.m. Accommodations for the Disabled: Meeting Rooms are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations, please contact the Orange County Sanitation District Clerk of the Board's office at (714)593-7130 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. Agenda Posting: In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2,this agenda has been posted outside the main gate of the Sanitation District's Administration Building located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley,California,not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All public records relating to each agenda item, including any public records distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting to all,or a majority of the Board of Directors, are available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board. NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for the Committee Meeting, items must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board 14 days before the meeting. Maria E.Ayala Clerk of the Board (714)593-7130 mayala(a)_ocsd.com For any questions on the agenda, Committee members may contact staff at: General Manager Jim Ruth (714)593-7110 Iruth(@ocsd.com Assistant General Manager Bob Ghirelli (714)593-7400 rghirelli(cDocsd.com Assistant General Manager Jim Herberg (714)593-7300 Iherberg(a_ocsd.com Director of Human Resources Jeff Reed (714)593-7144 ireed(cDocsd.com Public Affairs Manager Michael Gold (714)593-7529 mgold(a)ocsd.com 01/25/12 Steering Committee Agenda Page 3 of 3 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 01/25/12 02/22/12 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number 2 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager Originator: Jeff Reed, Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Annual Performance Evaluation of the General Counsel GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 12-XX, Establishing the Procedure to Conduct an Annual Performance Evaluation of the General Counsel. SUMMARY The Board wants to conduct an annual performance evaluation of the General Counsel. The Board's goals are to: ( Strengthen the relationship; ( Provide an instrument for regular evaluation; ( Consider any performance or project objectives; and, ( Provide feedback on areas of interest. The Steering Committee conducts an annual performance evaluation of the General Manager and, likewise, will do so with General Counsel. General Counsel's performance evaluation will occur at the end of the calendar year while the General Manager's performance evaluation occurs at the end of the fiscal year. The Steering Committee reports out annually to the Board on General Counsel's performance evaluation, including any associated recommendations. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A CEQA N/A BUDGET / DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE N/A Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 12-XX ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL WHEREAS, the Board contracts with a law firm for legal services; and, WHEREAS, the Board selects its General Counsel; and, WHEREAS, the Board is the client of General Counsel; and, WHEREAS, the General Counsel reports to the Board; and, WHEREAS, the Board supervises General Counsel; and, WHEREAS, the Board desires to conduct an annual evaluation of the General Counsel; and, WHEREAS, the Brown Act authorizes a closed session to evaluate performance of the General Counsel. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: The Steering Committee conducts an annual performance evaluation of the General Counsel and submits recommendations to the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held this 25th day of February 2012. Larry R. Crandall, Chair Clerk of the Board 1 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 01/22/2012 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number 3 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: James D. Ruth, General Manager Originator: Michael Gold, Public Affairs Manager SUBJECT: Public Affairs Update GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Information Only SUMMARY This report is the monthly Public Affairs Division update that includes legislative and political information from Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, lobbyists' activities, and outreach education and communication programs to member cities, employees and the public. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Affairs Update A busy 2011 Looking back at 2011, it was a busy and very productive year for the Public Affairs team. Not only did we give a record number of tours to educational, community and other groups, we also revitalized the speakers' bureau reaching nearly 500 people through various community groups in 12 cities (between July 1 and December 31). This year also witnessed one of our busiest years in the media. We saw a cover story in the Orange County Register about our hydrogen energy station, articles about employee salaries and benefits, transparency and a fun segment featuring Ally from KTLA coming to work at Plant 1 . In the social media world, our efforts took off with regular Tweets and Facebook posts discussing how OCSD saves tax payer dollars and general information about the wastewater industry. Look ahead to 2012, we expect an equally busy and exciting year as we continue to expand our speakers' bureau, participate in community events and increase our visibility in the communities we serve. The Public Affairs team has developed an aggressive outreach plan that aims to educate and inform the public about who we are, what we do and the important role OCSD plays in protecting public health and the environment. Page 1 of 5 Grants update This month, we finalized our grant application to the US Bureau of Reclamation for the WaterSmart grant program. As you recall, we are requesting up to $1.5 million for project P1-101, the Sludge Dewatering and Odor Control project at Plant 1. This project has already received $2.3 million from EPA and $1 million from Proposition 84 funds. This month, we reviewed a grant opportunity for wetlands restoration and we continue to seek grant opportunities for CIP projects and other efforts. Federal Legislative Update Legislative Advocate: Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources Congress returned to work this month but the legislative session does not begin in earnest until January 24 when the President delivers the State of the Union speech. Being an election year, many do not expect Congress to accomplish much with partisan gridlock dominating. Congressman Lewis not running for re-election; Miller makes a move Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis announced on January 12 he would not be seeking re-election to the 31st District. Mr. Lewis is California's longest serving Republican in Congress and an influential member of the delegation. Following Lewis' announcement, Gary Miller promptly declared his intention to run for the 31st District seat, rather than challenge Ed Royce for the 38t". With this move, Miller avoids a showdown with his fellow Orange County Republican but faces a challenge of his own as the 31st District has a slight edge in Democratic registration. For OCSD, this is a loss because the new seat Miller seeks is out of Orange County and Miller has been one of our strongest supporters. Recent conversations with staff indicate that Mr. Miller will continue to work with us on priority issues but this would still be a loss. President announces plan to elevate Small Business Administration; Reorganize Federal Government In what appears to be an election year gambit to grab the attention of the small business community, and in a broader effort to address governmental efficiency, President Obama announced Friday that he intends to consolidate the numerous federal agencies that address small business needs. The proposed action would take the "U.S. Department of Commerce's core business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency" and place them into one Cabinet-level department. The decision represents the first step in a governmental-wide initiative to revamp the way the federal bureaucracy operates. According to the White House, when the final consolidation program is implemented, $3 billion in savings is expected to be realized. In order to accomplish the overall reorganization, Congress must restore authority for the President to implement a government-wide reorganization. Whether this occurs is an open Page 2 of 5 question. In all likelihood, final approval of such a plan would not happen until after the November elections. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on USEPA use of administrative orders In what is shaping up to be a once in a generation decision that may reverberate through the entire environmental policy framework, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments from a land owner (Sackett) who USEPA contended violated the Clean Water Act's dredge and fill permit conditions. Sackett is contesting the constitutionality of USEPA's use of an administrative order that is not subject to judicial review. The challenge is based on the notion that USEPA's contention that such orders that lay out conditions that must be met are not final, and thus not subject to judicial review until such time as the agency seeks to enforce the order. Sackett maintains that the orders are effectively final orders because the failure to comply would subject them to subsequent penalties. They maintain that USEPA's interpretation deprives the landowner of due process. During the Court's hearing, a cross-section of the Justices' ideologies converged in seeming agreement that the agency's position that imposing orders and exposing a landowner to fines effectively posed serious due process concerns. If the Court decides in favor of the Sacketts, the action would potentially expose the agency to mountains of legal challenges against such orders issued under the Clean Water Act. The decision could also pose serious challenges to other environmental enforcement efforts. Ironically it may serve to spur on changes to the Clean Water Act in Congress in the next Congress. State Legislative Update Legislative Advocates: Christopher Townsend, Heather Dion and Casey Elliott, Townsend Public Affairs The RDA ruling and OCSD The recent ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding ABx1 26 and striking down ABx1 27 sent shockwaves through local government agencies across the state. ABx1 26 eliminated redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and directed the resolution of their activities. ABx1 27 created an "Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program" for cities or counties to opt into. As a consequence of the Court's ruling, nearly $6 billion of annual property tax revenue previously diverted to RDAs will now remain with core local services, once existing obligations are resolved. As a result of the Court's decision, ABx1 26 takes effect immediately, with all of its deadlines prior to May 1, 2012 extended by four months (the period of time for which their effectiveness was delayed due to the stay of the Court). Recently, however, Senator Padilla of Los Angeles introduced a measure stalling the implementation of AB x1 26 until April 15. For special districts within the boundaries of one or more RDAs, current and ongoing property tax increment will still be taken until all pre-existing RDA obligations are paid off. Likewise, pass through payments to all special districts will be maintained. However, each year, after all pre-existing RDA obligations have been met, the remaining property Page 3 of 5 tax dollars within each RDA will be remitted on a proportional basis to all special districts that paid into the RDA's increment. In its analysis earlier this year, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee reported that RDAs now collect $5.7 billion annually in property tax increment. Of that $5.7 billion, $3.2 billion is diverted from school property tax, $1 .2 billion from counties, $671 million from cities, and $519 million from special districts. As pre-existing RDA obligations are paid off over time, special districts, along with schools, counties, and cities stand to recover these billions of dollars to use toward core local services. In its 7-0 ruling, the Court found that RDAs do not have a protected right to exist that immunizes them from statutory dissolution by the Legislature. However, the Court also found in a 6-1 ruling that RDAs do have a protected right not to make payments to various funds as a condition of operation. A central issue before the Court was the effect of Proposition 22 on the powers of the State Legislature. In its opinion, the court wrote that while Proposition 22 amended the state Constitution to impose new limits on the Legislature's fiscal powers, it did not rescind the Legislature's power to dissolve redevelopment agencies. Following the issuance of the Court decision, Governor Jerry Brown issued a statement declaring: "Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety." It is anticipated that in the wake of the Court's ruling, redevelopment and low-income housing proponents will seek legislation in 2012 to establish a new program to fund their activities. Currently, OCSD has several pass-through agreements with RDAs within our service area that were established prior to 1993 requiring the transfer of a negotiated amount to the District for the portion of RDA increment revenues that were lost primarily as a result of Proposition 13. Following 1993, the State passed AB1290 requiring all newly created RDAs to pass-through a uniform rate of approximately 33 percent of tax revenues loss as a result of RDA tax increments. It is not easily determinable as to how closely this 33 percent represents how much the District would have received if there was no RDA property tax increment in place. Combined, we have 60 RDAs sending the District pass-through tax increments that totaled $2.2 million in FY 2010-11. It appears that the dissolution of RDA's will mostly be a push between lost future pass-through RDA tax increments and the increase in property tax revenues that are no longer diverted to RDA's. Governor Brown releases his 2012-13 budget This afternoon the Governor unveiled his proposed budget for the 2012-13 fiscal year. This budget builds on many of the themes that the Governor introduced in his budget Page 4 of 5 last year: focusing on core government services, bringing government closer to the people, and paying down the State's mounting debt. The Governor's budget estimates that the current budget deficit (remainder of the current budget year plus next year) is $9.2 billion. The budget attempts to address this budget deficit through a mix of spending cuts, revenue enhancements, and programmatic shifts. Specifically, the budget calls for $4.2 billion in spending cuts, $4.6 billion in new revenue, and $1.4 billion in programmatic shifts and it contains a $1.1 billion reserve. It should be noted that the Governor's proposed budget would reduce the State's structural deficit over the next several years ($4.713 in 2013-14, $2.913 in 2014-15, $1.913 in 2015-16). The cuts contained in the Governor's budget are overwhelmingly focused on the areas of health and human services and education. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CEQA N/A BUDGET / DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE N/A Page 5 of 5