Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-1311 .•. In the OffCt ~. S~r~ta~ County Sanitallon Districi(s -,~/ No(s) 1,va,, ?l, >;0 ?, l~~-f/7 MAR271996 DRAFT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 Bv P£ I I MINUTES OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday. March 13. 1996, 5:30 P.M. A meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held on March 13, 1996 at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative Offices. (1) ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: Committee Directors Present: George Brown, Chair John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Jan Debay James Flora John M. Gullixson Wally Lynn Roger R. Stanton, Vice Chair William G. Steiner Peer Swan Committee Directors Absent: Burnie Dunlap Thomas Saltarelli Staff Present: Donald F. Mcintyre, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Steve Hovey, Director of Information Technology Mike Peterman, Acting Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Nancy Wheatley, Director of Technical Services Michael D. White, Controller Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Linda Eisman, Training Manager Terri Josway, Safety & Emergency Response Mgr. Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Tom Woodruff, General Counsel Howard Slavin, Attorney (2) APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRMAN PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. \13Jf1 \ • G ''• l.>0G 1~r.t I'-> •:iilK) vr1J nl (<''"Ji11;••n .~:)'r--.MF;2 't'fnuc.!J ('.lf" }.~ ·-----·. ' .f '\ , .. , J Minutes of Finance, Adn ! and Human Resources Committe_ Page2 March 13, 1996 (4) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. GENERAL MANAGER. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(S), DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER. DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) Report of the Committee Chair The Committee Chair had no report. (b) Report of the General Manager The General Manager informed the Committee that Gary Hasenstab has terminated, and Mike Peterman has been appointed as Acting Director of Human Resources. (c) Report of Assistant General Manager -Operations The Assistant General Manager of Operations indicated he would have a verbal report later in the meeting when the landfill item is addressed. Report of Assistant General Manager -Administration The Assistant General Manager of Administration had no report. (d) Report of the Director of Finance/Treasurer Finance Director/Treasurer Gary Streed updated the Committee on the status of the Districts' Certificates of Participation (COPs). Mr. Streed advised that the variable rates have declined since the staff report was mailed; dropping below 3% to 2.60% and 2.75%. Mr. Streed also informed the Committee that staff will be receiving RFPs on the Financial Information System on Tuesday and will report back to the Committee with the results at the next meeting. (e) Report of the Director of Human Resources The Acting Director of Human Resources had no report. (f) Report of the Director of Information Technology The Director of Information Technology had no report. (g) Report of General Counsel General Counsel indicated he would present a report during the closed session. _., ~ I Minutes of Finance, Admin. and Human Resources Committee Page 3 March 13, 1996 (5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the February 14, 1996, meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. (6) OLD BUSINESS FAHR96-04 Consideration of motion to approve Resolution No. 96-. extending benefit coverage for regular employees working a reduced work week. This item was sent back to Committee from the Joint Boards' February 28, 1996 meeting. Mr. Peterman restated staffs recommendation to: "Provide part-time employees with entitlement to employee benefits prorated on the basis of 75% if the employee works on average between 30 and 40 hours per week; and 50% if the employee works between 20 and 30 hours per week. Amend the provisions of Resolution 95-105 to allow the proration of benefits to part-time employees, and authorize staff to amend MOUs, health plan Summary Plan Documents, and other administrative policy and procedure manuals as necessary." Mr. Peterman handed out a revised attachment which illustrated "Cost of Part-time Benefits and Areas of Savings by Offering Part-time Benefits," and responded to the Committee's questions. The benefit factor is 26%, not 24% as indicated on the original attachment. General Counsel Tom Woodruff clarified the legalities of establishing a benefit program for part-time employees, and explained the difference between a contract with an independent contractor and a personal services contract with a regular employee working a reduced work week. After several motions and amendments to the motions, it was moved, seconded and unanimously approved to give staff the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to approve the staff recommendation on a prorated basis through the use of personal services contracts. FAHR96-15 Consideration of motion to review. approve and file the Mid-Year Report prepared by staff for the period ending December 31, 1996. Mike White, Controller, stated that last month staff presented to the Committee the Districts' first comprehensive Mid-Year Report for the period ending December 31, 1995. Because of time constraints, the Committee asked that the report be resubmitted at the March meeting. The full report was presented to the Joint Boards on February 28, 1996. Starting with a brief review, Mr. White stated the report consolidates both the financial and operational accomplishments of the Districts at the midpoint of the 1995-96 fiscal year. Mr. White reviewed the major categories of the report and answered questions from the Committee. Vice Joint Chair Peer Swan asked that future reports include side- by-side line item expense comparisons by quarter. I Minutes of Finance, Admin. and Human Resources Committee Page4 March 13, 1996 After discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve and file the 1995-96 Mid-Year Report. (7) NEW BUSINESS FAHR96-19 Consideration of motions to receive and file staff report regarding review of Districts' risk management and insurance activities; direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates and from the Special Districts Risk Management Authority CSDRMAl and the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMAl: evaluate the proposals and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget; direct staff to prepare a Risk Management Work Plan for FY 1996-97, and keep the Committee informed with periodic progress reports. Steve Kozak, Financial Manager, gave an overview of the Districts' risk management . insurance program, practices and activities. He reported on current industry benchmarks and made specific recommendations for short-term improvements and a proposed work plan to guide future review and monitoring of the program. It was requested that staff look into Stop-Loss coverage in the $250,000 to $500,000 range. After discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve staffs recommendation. FAHR96-20 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report regarding preparation for possible financing of Solid Waste Management System Acquisition: and to direct staff to develop and circulate Request for Proposals to assemble a solid waste financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately. In preparation of the potential landfill acquisition, a team to develop the capital financing program is required which would consist of a Financial Advisor, Underwriter(s), Bond Counsel and Solid Waste Engineer. The formation of the financing team is contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and its terms, then a 60-day closing period will be entered into to finalize the deal, otherwise the process will end. Assistant General Manager of Operations Blake Anderson updated the Committee on developments concerning the landfill acquisition and his presentations to cities, their staff and their counsels. Blake and his team attended a meeting of the County Board of Supervisors on March 12, 1996. The Supervisors discussed the issue of tipping fees and voted 5-0 to lower tipping fees from $35 per ton to $27 per ton. Blake indicated that after considerable discussion, he made a presentation regarding the Districts' proposal. The Supervisors then went I Minutes of Finance, Adm1n. and Human Resources Committee Page 5 March 13, 1996 into Executive Session and referred the matter back to County staff requesting the item be brought back on March 19 with their recommendations. No vote was made on the Districts' offer, since this was a general discussion, however, it was clear during the discussion that three Supervisors did not like the Districts' offer, indicating it was not generous enough. Directors Steiner and Stanton both commended Blake Anderson and his staff for the excellent due diligence they put forth regarding the acquisition. Joint Chair John Cox advised that there will be a Landfill Ad Hoc Committee meeting on March 29, 1996, and a formal recommendation will be made at that time regarding whether to proceed with pursuing the landfill acquisition. After several motions and amendments to the motions, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried with 5 ayes, 3 nays, and 1 abstention to: Authorize staff to prepare RFPs and form a financing team to stand ready to go forward, if needed, to finance the landfill acquisition. FAHR96-21 Consideration of motion to receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of January 1996. The month ended January 1996 Performance Monitoring Reports for Liquid and Long- term Operating Monies indicated that total investments amount to $363,038,032. All Investment Policy requirements are being complied with and performance to date exceeds the index rates. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve and forward this report to the Joint Boards. FAHR96-22 Staff Summary Report on the organization of the Communications Division. the results of the Internal Communications Audit and an overview of new and/or expanded programs to reach both internal and external audiences. Michelle Tuchman, Communications Director, gave a slide presentation and reported on the organization of the Communications Division, how the division is structured, the services the division provides and the efforts underway to reach both internal and external audiences. Michelle reviewed an Internal Communications Audit made of 260 Districts employees and its results. Another audit will be conducted in one year. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file this report. (8) CLOSED SESSION The Chair reported the need for a closed session as authorized by Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss and consider the item that is specified as Item (8)(b) on the published Agenda. The Committee convened in closed session at 7:07 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). Confidential Minutes of the Closed Session held by the Committee have been prepared in accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.2 and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Meetings. -~ .. , Minutes of Finance, Adm111. and Human Resources Committee Page 6 March 13, 1996 (9) OTHER BUSINESS, IF ANY None. (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING No reports were requested. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT None. (13) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETING DATES AND ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THOSE MEETINGS The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, 1996. (14) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~~~ Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAH R.96\1996.MI N\MF AH R3.96 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, I hereby certify that the Notice and the Agenda for the Finance, Administration and Human Resources meeting held on March 13, 1996, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on March 7, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of March, 1996. Posted: fX.Jl-Le-JL,.. By: _;}he , I ./(/(/ of the Boards of Directors of County , 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange 1 , 1996, ~ ,' tJ-0 AM§ ~U __ / J:IWPOOC\FINICRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\CERT.POS\CERTP03.96 March 7, 1996 DISTRIBUTION FAHR COMMITTEE MEETING PACKAGE COMPLETE PACKAGES 45 Full Packages Committee 11 Press 1 Tom Woodruff 1 Terry Andrus 1 Donald F. Mcintyre 1 Blake P. Anderson 1 Judith A. Wilson 1 Corina Chaudhry 1 Greg Mathews 1 Gary Hasenstab 1 Patty Steeves 1 Mike Peterman 1 Linda Eisman 1 Ed Hodges 1 Steve Hovey 1 Penny Kyle 2 David Ludwin 1 Bob Ooten 1 Gary Streed 1 Nancy Wheatley 1 Dan Dillon 1 Jeff Esber 1 Steve Kozak 1 Cymantha Atkinson 1 Mike White 1 Brad Cagel 1 Michelle Tuchman 1 Pat McNelly 1 Dan Tunnicliff (Bldg. 6) 1 Gail Cain 1 Extras 5 Notice.& Agenda Only: (13) Posting 1 Jean Tappan (INCLUDE M1Ns.) 1 Angela Holden 1 Clarice Marcin 1 Frankie Woodside 1 Patty Steeves 1 Carolyn Snyder 1 Fawn Elizondo 1 Guard Shack (Mark Esquer) 1 Extras 3 Treasurer's Report: Ron Zenk, Dist. 14 phone: [714} 962-2411 111alrrng address: P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 82728-81 27 street addreas: 10044 Ellis Avenue Fount.sin Valley, CA B2706-701B Member Agencies • Cities 'Amfha/rrl Bree Busna Park Cypress Fauntairi Valley Fu/lePton Hunl!lngton BeEJch Irvine La Habra Le Pe/me Los A/smit-0s Newpart Beech Orange Plsoont:ia Senta Ana Seal Beach 5t:arrtan Tustin Villa.Park Yerba Linde County of Orange Sanitary Districts Costa Mess Garden Grove M1rlway City Water Dlswiata trvlne Rsnsh ~, ": COUNTY SJ-\1~ITATION DISTRICTS OF 0RAl\JGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 6, 1996 NOTICE OF MEETING FINANCE. ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY. MARCH 13, 1996-5:30 P.M. DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 A regular meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above location, time and date. A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 March 6, 1996 FINANCE.ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED MEETING DATES Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meetings Joint Board Meetings March March 13, 1996 March 27, 1996 April April 10, 1996 April 24, 1996 May May 8, 1996 May 22, 1996 June June 12, 1996 June 26, 1996 July July 10, 1996 July 24, 1996 August None Scheduled August28, 1996 September September 11, 1996 September 25, 1996 October October 9, 1996 October 23, 1996 November None Scheduled November 20, 1996 December None Scheduled December 18, 1996 January January 8, 1997 January 22, 1997 CSDOC D P.O. Box 8127 D Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 D Tel. (714) 962-2411 D FAX (714) 962-3954 . I March 13, 1996 AGENDA FINANCE. ADMINISTRATION ANl'D HUMAN RESOURCES COMMIIT-EE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY:. MARC.fl 13. 1996 -5:30 P.M. r···'·--·--·-· .... ····--·····-·----·--"'·--·····--·-·-·--·······-······-····················-···············-···~·-····-·-·---··········-~-·--··"'·-----; ..........•••........••.. . !. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts' Administrative Offices 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. i ~',;======·:· In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. ~ ••.••• ., ...... ,. .. ,. .................... -• .,l-.................................. , ............. ~ .. , .... '"' .. -•• ~"'l-·· .. -·~'!'·•--·-·-··-···"1·····--··i•f'•••,"-'-"-"''"'".J'·····.,. .......... ~ •• ; ......... ~ .... "l .......... e •• ,., ......... .., •• ~ ••.• 1!'.,: (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary. (3) PUbJie Comments: All persons wishing to address the 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 have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). March 13, 1996 ( 4) The Committee Chairman, General Manager, Assistant General Manager( s ), Director of FinancefTreasurer, Director of Human Resources, Director of Information Technology, and General Counsel may present verbal and/or written reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Committee Members. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Committee Members. (a) Report of Committee Chair (b) Report of General Manager (c) (1) Report of Assistant General Manager -Administration (2) Report of Assistant General Manager -Operations (d) Report of Director of FinancefTreasurer (e) Report of Director of Human Resources (f) Report of Director of Information Technology (g) Report of General Counsel (5) Approval of draft Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Minutes for Meeting of February 14, 1996. (6) Old Business. FAl"IR96-04 Consideration of Resolution No._, extending benefit coverage to regular employees working a reduced work week. (Mike Peterman) FAHR96-15 Review of the Mid-Year Financial & Operational Report for the period ending December 31,1995. (Mike White) (7) New Busihess. EAHR96-19 Consideration of motions to receive and file staff report regarding review of Districts' risk management and insurance activities; direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates and from SDRMA and CSRMA; evaluate the proposals and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget; direct staff to prepare a Risk Management Work.Plan for FY 1996-97, and keep the Committee informed with periodic progress reports. (Steve Kozak) -2- March 13, 1996 FAHR96-20 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report regarding preparation for possible financing of Solid Waste Management System Acquisition; and to direct staff to develop and circulate Request for Proposals to assemble a solid waste financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately. (Steve Kozak) FAHR96-2·1 Consideration of motion to receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of January 1996. (Gary Streed) FAHR96-22 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff summary report on the organization of the Communications Division, the results of the Internal Communications Audit, and an overview of new and/or expanded programs to reach both internal and external audiences. (Michelle Tuchman) (8) Closed Session. Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the 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 ::.l::::::::: potential litigation; (c) employee actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Committee during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Committee on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. ~...... ... .. .... •... ... ..... .. ............................................ , ........ ~···· ··•·• ··-·· .......... ~ ........ _9;'" .................. •·•·· ........................................................................ ..1 ...................... : (a) Convene in closed session. (b) Confer with Special Counsel and General Counsel re status of litigation, Patterson vs. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Orange County Superior Court Case Nos. 738179, 738622 and 741371 (Government Code Section 54956.9(a). (c) Reconvene in regular session. ( d) Consideration of action, if any on matters considered in closed session. -3- March 13, 1996 (9) Other business, 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 a staff report. (12) Consideration of upcoming meeting dates and items to be discussed at those meetings. ( 13) Adjourn. ! ................... · ........................ •·••·• ...................... ·-·· ......... ..:-... --·-· ........................................... ·-·· . ·-· ... -.... ·-· .. ·-· ...... ~-..... ~· -. -.. "!,. .......... -•• ·-· .............. -~ 1 i ! Notice to..Committee Members: j i::· If you have any questions regarding the Agenda, or wish to place items on the Finance, l,: Administration and Human Resources Agenda, Committee members should contact the . l Committee Chair or Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. l ! Committee Chair: George Brown (310) 431-2185 ~ ~ Secretary: Lenora Crane (714) 962-2411, Ext. 2501 i 1 (714) 962-3954 (FAX) ! .. "l ..................................................................................................... -••••••••••••••••••.••• ,.~ ••••• _ ••. ., ••• "' • ._ ......... __________________ '";••-·----· .. ·············' J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANEIFPC.MTG\FAHR.96\AGENDA.96\AGENDA3.96 -4- ROLL CALL SHEET FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: March 13. 1996 COMMITTEE MEMBERS GEORGE BROWN (Chair) ...................... . ROGER R STANTON (Vice Chair) ............... . JAN DEBAY .................................. . BURNIE DUNLAP ............................. . JAMES H. FLORA ............................. . JOHN M. GULLIXSON ......................... . WALLY LINN ................................. . THOMAS SALTARELLI ......................... . WILLIAM G. STEINER ......................... . PEER A. SWAN (VJC) ......................... . JOHN C. COX, JR. (JC) ........................ . -------··························· STAFF DON MCINTYRE, General Manager .............. . BLAKE ANDERSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mgr. -Ops. . ..... . JUDITH WILSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mgr. -Admin. . ...... . NANCY WHEATLEY, Director of Tech. Srvs ........ . GARY STREED, Director of Finance .............. . ED HODGES, Director of Maintenance ............ . BOB OOTEN, Director of Operations .............. . DAVID LUDWIN, Director of Engineering .......... . STEVE HOVEY, Director of Info. Srvs .............. . MICHELLE TUCHMAN, Director of Communications .. STEVE KOZAK, Financial Manager ............... . MIKE WHITE, Controller ........................ . GREG MA THEWS, Principal Administrative Analyst .. . MIKE PETERMAN, Acting Director of Human Res .... . TERRI JOSWAY, Safety & Emergency Response Mgr. LENORA CRANE, Committee Secretary ........... . OTHERS TOM WOODRUFF, GEN'L. COUNSEL ............ . HOWARD SLAVIN, ATTORNEY ................. . Distribute After Meeting to: Penny Kyle, Board Secretary Lenora Crane, Finance ROLL3.96 TIME: 5:30 P.M. ADJOURN: __ _ •' Format 0 Written Report OOVerheads OSlldes 0 Flip Charts Anticipated Time 5 min. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 (4)(d): Director of Finance Report Summary Since June 1995, the daily rate COP program remarketing agents have been PaineWebber for the Series "A" and the 1993 Refunding COPs, and J.P. Morgan for the Series "C" COPs. Most fixed rate Series "B" COPs have been refunded and the 1992 Refunding COPs have always been remarketed by PaineWebber in a weekly mode. The attached graphs show the variable interest rates on each of the daily rate COPs since the last report, and the effective fixed rate for the two refunding issues which are covered by an interest rate exchange agreement commonly called a "swap." Variable rates historically rise at the end of each calendar quarter, and especially at year-end, because of business taxes and statements. The rates decline to prior levels immediately in the following month, as they did again this year. Staff will maintain our continuous rate monitoring and ongoing dialog with the remarketing agents and rating agencies to keep the Committee fully informed about developments in the program as they occur and at each meeting. Staff Recommendation Information only. J:IWPOOC\FlNICRANEIFPC.MTG\FAHR.96\COVERS.96\00F3.96 ·············;·········· ············-············;·······························•"•"""""""""""'" 95-qa.:1-ez: I I I I · 95-qa.:1-~z; I 95-qa.:17~ 95-qa.:1-Lo 95-uer-~£ 95-uer-1>z: c.. ca ::: en c: I-Q) 95-uer-H Cl c::: 0 0 0 en a.. 95-uer-o~ f w c::: > 95-uer-£0 c::: c.. ca 0 ::: 55-oaa-LZ: en I-Cl en <( -+ :::c 55-oaa-oz: w I-~ 55-oaa-£~ c: ca ~ a.. 55-oaa-90 0 :::!E 0 o.; 0 ...., 0 56·AON-6Z: + 0 c 55-AON-Z:Z: en 0 ..... Q) .0 56·AON·5~ .0 ~ Q) c: "iii 56-AON-SO 0.. + v 56·/\0N-~O 0 L() ..- <O 5s-100-5z: O> O> ..-..._ v 0 55-100-e~ ..._ (") 0 <O Q) O> CJ l i 55-100-~ ~ ...,: c m en c: J: u:: w >-1---9 56·1001>0 I- .Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 '=! 'C <D Lri <:f 1-i C\i c:i Q) _.... ..... w ~ m (%)3lVH I-> c.. cc en ~ Q _.... D.. (j FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 { 5): Consideration of motion to approve the draft Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Minutes of February 14, 1996. Summary Attached is a draft of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting Minutes of February 14, 1996, for approval by the Committee. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the minutes of the February 14, 1996, Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting be approved. These minutes were submitted to the Joint Boards at their February 28, 1996 meeting, and no further action is required. J:\WPOOC\FINICRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\1996.MINICVRMIN3.96 ., DRAFT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 MINUTES OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 14. 1996. 5:30 P.M. A meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held on February 14, 1996 at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative Offices. (1) ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: Committee Directors Present: John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair George Brown, Chair Jan Debay James Flora John M. Gullixson Wally Lynn Thomas Saltarelli Roger R. Stanton, Vice Chair William G. Steiner Peer Swan Committee Directors Absent: Burnie Dunlap Other Directors Present: Staff Present: Donald F. Mcintyre, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Gary Hasenstab, Director of Human Resources Steve Hovey, Director of Information Technology Bob Ooten, Director of Operations Gary Streed, Director of Finance Nancy Wheatley, Director of Technical Services Ed Hodges, Director of Maintenance Michael D. White, Controller Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Linda Eisman, Training Manager Greg Mathews, Principal Administrative Analyst Terri Josway, Safety & Emergency Response Mgr. Mike Peterman, Human Resources Supervisor Isiah Mitchell, Training Supervisor Cymantha Atkinson, Financial Analyst Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Tom Woodruff, General Counsel Ruthann Moomy, Callan Associates, Inc. Rita Seymour, PIMCO Gordon Hally, PIMCO (2) APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRMAN PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. Minutes of Finance, Ar in. and Human Resources Commit' 1 Page2 February 14, 1996 (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. (4) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. GENERAL MANAGER. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER($), DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER. DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) Report of the Committee Chair The Committee Chair had no report. (b) Report of the General Manager The General Manager had no report. (c) Report of Assistant General Manager -Operations The Assistant General Manager -Operations had no report. Report of Assistant General Manager -Administration Judy Wilson, Assistant General Manager, Administration, announced that a manila envelope was placed before each Director containing the Districts' new Employee Handbook, a red book entitled "Human Resources Policies and Procedures," and a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Boards. Every Districts' employee was sent this information, and all of our managers and supervisors will receive training on the policies and procedures. This will ensure that everyone is in compliance and has a good understanding of what is expected. (d) Report of the Director of Finance/Treasurer Finance DirectorfTreasurer Gary Streed referred to his report contained in the agenda package which provided a history of the Districts' refunding on its variable rate debt. With the successful substitution of the Liquidity Providers on the 1992 Refunding COPs, Moody's has restored the Districts' Aaa rating. The average daily rate paid in the first six months of FY 1995-96 has been approximately 3. 76%. As of today, that rate has dropped to 3.05%, with 3.25% on the refunding. Mr. Streed advised that the Treasurer's Report will be given later in the evening and will appear as a New Business numbered item, in order to facilitate carrying it forward to the Joint Boards. 1 Minutes of Finance, Adrr') and Human Resources Committe"} Page 3 February 14, 1996 In conclusion, Mr. Streed indicated that expanded reports will be given by Callan Associates, the Districts' third-party Investment Advisor, and Pacific Investment Management Company, the Districts' External Money Manager, regarding the Districts' performance over the first six months. (e) Report of the Director of Human Resources The Director of Human Resources had no report. (f) Report of the Director of Information Technology The Director of Information Technology had no report. (g) Report of General Counsel General Counsel had no report. (5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the January 10, 1996, meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. (6) OLD BUSINESS FAHR96-04 Consideration of motion to approve Resolution No. 96-. extending benefit coverage for regular employees working a reduced work week. This item was brought back to Committee from the January 10, 1996 meeting with a request for further information. In this supplemental report, Mr. Hasenstab reported on the three areas raised by the Committee at the last meeting, specifically, retirement benefits, prevalence of part-time employment in Orange County and other industries, and job sharing. Mr. Hasenstab reported that part- time employees working a minimum of 20 hours are currently covered under the Social Security Act at 7.65% of their hourly rate. Social Security vs. the Districts' retirement system would mean a cost avoidance of $6,400. Public agencies surveyed by the League of California Cities indicated 38% of them provide part- time benefits to their employees, with approximately 90% of other industries providing these benefits. Time-off benefits are prorated based upon hours worked. Job sharing has its pros and cons. To avoid problems, many of these employees sign agreements regarding their benefits so there will be no issue. The Districts' current Employee Benefit Program is specifically limited to full-time employees by Resolution 95-105. Extending employee benefits on a prorated basis to employees who would like to work a reduced work week would enhance the Districts' organizational flexibility through job sharing, more accurately match Minutes of Finance, Ar in. and Human Resources Commit ' Page4 February 14, 1996 workload requirements with work schedules, potentially reduce overtime costs, and offer a greater measure of equity to regular employees who do not work a 40-hour week. Staff recommended providing part-time employees with entitlement to employee benefits prorated on the basis of 75 percent, if the employee works on average 30 to 40 hours per week, and 50 percent, if the employee works 20 to 30 hours per week. After discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried, with two abstentions, two nays, and four ayes, to recommend amending the provisions of Resolution 95-105 to allow the proration of benefits to part-time employees, and authorize staff to amend MOU's, health plan Summary Plan Documents, and other administrative policy and procedure manuals as necessary, to the Joint Boards of Directors for further consideration. FAHR96-09 Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report dated January 4. 1996 re the Joint Agreement of the County of Orange, the Official Investment Pool Participants' Committee and Each Option A Pool Participant: and consideration of Resolution No. 96-approving said Agreement. Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager-Operations, reported this item had been held over from the FAHR Committee's January 10, 1996 meeting pending receipt of the County's Financial Disclosure Statement. That statement has been released and the Joint Agreement, the Disclosure Statement and Plan of Adjustment are coincident with each other. Mr. Anderson advised that the Districts are about 6% of the Pool claims, with about $1.3 billion in total claims. By approving the Agreement, it allows the County to improve its position, it improves our place in line in receiving litigation proceeds from Merrill Lynch and others, and gives the schools super priority in that litigation recovery. On an immediate basis, withheld proceeds of $6.2 million held by the County under the existing Comprehensive Agreement would be released to the Districts, and the undisputed portion of the County Administered accounts amounting to $1.3 million will be released immediately. On January 3, 1996, the Orange County Investment Pool (OCIP) Committee reached final agreement with the County on all of the details of the "Joint Agreement of the County of Orange, the Official Investment Pool Participants' Committee and Each Option A Pool Participant" for the resolution of claims against the County of Orange dated December 18, 1995. The Joint Agreement has been conveyed to all Option A participants (the 190 schools, cities, special districts and other public entities that signed the Option A version of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement that was approved in May 1995) for their individual consideration and approval. Minutes of Finance, Adrr,-) and Human Resources Committef') Pages February 14, 1996 After discussion on this item the Committee moved, seconded and duly carried with one nay vote, to recommend that the Joint Boards approve the "Joint Agreement Proposed by the County of Orange for the Resolution of Pool-Related Claims of Option A Pool Participants, and Other Related Matters." (7) NEW BUSINESS (Please Note: Though the following items were acted on in another sequence, the minutes will reflect them in numerical order for tracking purposes.) FAHR96-1 O Consideration of motion to renew Boiler & Machinery Insurance for the period March 1. 1996 to March 1. 1997. with American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (Kemper Insurance Group). in an amount not to exceed $79.698. Steve Kozak, Financial Manager, reported that the Districts' Boiler & Machinery insurance coverage is due for renewal on March 1, 1996. Robert F. Driver Associates, the Districts' Broker-of-Record, recommends the Districts renew its Boiler and Machinery Insurance with Kemper Insurance for a renewal period effective March 1, 1996 to March 1, 1996, in an amount not to exceed $79,698. The renewal premium adjustment will allow for increases in Districts' property values and is only $2,307 higher than last year's. Driver's recommendation is based on their recent survey which indicates there is a limited number of available underwriters still providing Boiler and Machinery coverage and, those that still do provide this coverage are imposing high deductibles and premiums for large underwritings such as the Districts. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend renewal of Boiler & Machinery Insurance for the period March 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997, with American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (Kemper Insurance Group), in an amount not to exceed $79,698. FAHR96-11 Consideration of motion to receive and file PIMCO's First Quarterly Performance Report. Investment Management Program. Steve Kozak introduced Rita Seymour and Gordon Hally of Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO), the Districts' external money manager, who gave an overview of their company's background, services, processes, procedures, reporting techniques and strategies. Also in attendance was Ruthann Moomy, of Callan Associates, Inc., the Districts' third-party Investment Advisor. Ms. Moomy described Callan's responsibilities to the Districts' and reviewed the Districts' First Quarterly Performance Report. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file this report. Minutes of Finance, Ac .n. and Human Resources Commit' Page6 February 14, 19.96 FAHR96-12 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff summary report on training. Judy Wilson introduced Linda Eisman who was hired in November 1995, to fill the position of Training Manager. Linda Eisman summarized the Districts' Training Program for the Committee using a slide presentation. Terri Josway, the Districts' Safety & Emergency Response Manager, demonstrated the use of a multi-media computer program on hazard awareness as a training tool. The program allows for testing with a pre-test and post-test feature. The cost to operate this equipment is expected to be as little as $1 per employee. The Training Program is aimed at addressing past problems identified in the Ernst & Young Study completed in 1995, along with recommendations made in other past studies. A centralized record keeping system has begun, and a Training Advisory Committee with representation across departments was formed in September 1995. Ms. Eisman introduced Isiah Mitchell, who was recently hired to fill the newly established Training Supervisor position. This position supports the Training Manager position. The Training Division will be coordinating and centralizing training functions, identifying cost-effective methods and providing data base administration and management of Districts-wide training. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file this item. FAHR96-13 Consideration of motion to waive Districts' policy in order to retain former employee on a work-order basis. The Districts' Human Resources Policies and Procedures states that any former employee who retires from the agency and forms a business in which he or she is sole proprietor, may not be retained to provide service directly to the Districts for a period of one year subsequent to their last day of employment. Ms. Tuchman requested a waiver of this policy in order to retain Corinne Berenson on a work- order basis. Ms. Berenson, a long-time employee, has been working part-time since April 1995. Her in-depth knowledge of the agency makes her a valuable asset. Providing support on an as-needed basis represents a significant savings to the Districts over part-time employment. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to waive the Districts' policy in order to retain Corrine Berenson on a work-order basis. ~ Minutes of Finance, Adrr-) and Human Resources Committe'_...._) Page7 February 14, 1996 FAHR96-14 Consideration of motion to receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of December 1995. Gary Streed, Districts' Treasurer, reviewed the quarter ended December 31, 1995 Performance Monitoring Reports. Total investments amount to $367,805,049. All Investment Policy requirements are being complied with and performance to date exceeds the index rates. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve and forward this report to the Joint Boards. FAHR96-15 Consideration of motion to review. approve and file the Mid- Year Report prepared by staff for the period ending December 31. 1996. Mike White, Controller, introduced his report enclosed in the agenda packet. The bound book is the Districts' first comprehensive Mid-Year Report for the period ending December 31, 1995. The report consolidates both the financial and operational accomplishments of the Districts at the midpoint of the 1995-96 fiscal year. Due to time constraints, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to table this report until the March 13, 1996 meeting. FAHR96-16 Consideration of motion to approve proposed update to the Districts' Fiscal Policy Statements. Mike White explained that the Fiscal Policy Statements are used to formally define the goals for the financial operations of the Districts and provide the Directors with tools for financial decision-making. The Fiscal Policy was used as a guide in the 1995-96 budget, which also included the status of the Districts' compliance with each of those statements. After reviewing the adopted Fiscal Policy statements, staff is proposing five additional policy statements to ensure the Policy is current and relevant to today's operations. Mr. White reviewed the additional Fiscal Policy Statements. After discussion on this item, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to adopt the proposed update to the Districts' Fiscal Policy Statements with a change to the statement regarding training opportunities to read, "To provide training opportunities for available jobs within the organization, to the extent possible, for those employees ... n Minutes of Finance, A< ·n. and Human Resources Commit' 1 Page 8 February 14, 1996 FAHR96-17 Consideration of motion to review and approve 1996-97 Budget Assumptions for use in preparation of Districts' 1996- 97 Budget. Mike White advised that certain assumptions are necessary as a foundation for developing the Districts' budget. The assumptions guide the Board of Directors and Districts' staff in determining the level of wastewater treatment services that will be provided to the community and how these services will be funded. After review and discussion of the 1996-97 Budget Assumptions, it was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the 1996-97 Budget Assumptions and their use in the preparation of the 1996-97 Budget, with a change to the fourth Budget Assumption to read, " ... earnings on the investment of the Districts' idle operating cash and reserves will be budgeted at six percent." FAHR96-18 Consideration of motion to waive Districts' policy in order to retain former employee on a work-order basis. The Districts' Human Resources Policies and Procedures states that any former employee who retires from the agency and forms a business in which he or she is sole proprietor, may not be retained to provide service directly to the Districts for a period of one year subsequent to their last day of employment. Mr. Hovey requested a waiver of this policy in order to retain Steve Fanizza on a work-order basis. Mr. Fanizza, a Districts' employee of five years standing, recently resigned his position as Programmer Analyst to further his career as an independent software consultant. Mr. Hovey requested Mr. Fanizza be retained on a work-order basis in order to minimize the impact of Mr. Fanizza's resignation and to provide uninterrupted support to Technical Services only until a permanent replacement is recruited. It was moved, seconded and duly carried to waive the Districts' policy in order to retain Steve Fanizza on a work-order basis. (8) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session required. (9) OTHER BUSINESS. IF ANY None. Minutes of Finance, Adrr) and Human Resources Committe~ Page 9 February 14, 1996 (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING No reports were requested. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT None. (13) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETING DATES AND ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THOSE MEETINGS The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 1996. (14) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Lenora Crane Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\1996.MINIMFAHR2.96 ) Format D Written Report D Overheads D Slides D Flip Charts Originator p Department Head Sign Off 'J.7t'U Anticipated Time i c 1\'\ ' N FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR March 13, 1996 FAHR96-04: Consideration of Resolution No. , Extending Benefit Summary Coverage for Regular Employees Working A Reduced Work Week The Districts' current Employee Benefit Program is specifically limited to full-time employees by Resolution 95-105. That Resolution specifies in the Definitions Article that regular full-time employees are entitled to benefits as set forth in the resolution, and in Section 38 that "The Districts shall provide health insurance coverage ... for the benefit of regular full-time employees." A similar provision will be found in each of the Memoranda of Understanding with the various employee groups. Extending employee benefits on a prorated basis to employees who would like to work a reduced work week would enhance the Districts' organizational flexibility through job sharing, more accurately match workload requirements with work schedules, potentially reduce overtime costs and offer a greater measure of equity to employees who do not work a 40-hour week. The current budget has a total of eight part-time positions, including one Storeskeeper Assistant in Finance and seven Part-time Assistants in Technical Services. The actual part-time headcount for District employees is seven. The Districts' Employee Benefit Program could be extended to part-time employees on a prorated basis. Conclusion Providing part-time benefits to employees can be revenue neutral in its application. It simply provides Districts' management with one more tool to effectively and efficiently manage staff while attracting and retaining valuable human resources. Recommendation Provide part-time employees with entitlement to employee benefits prorated on the basis of 75 percent if the employee works on average between 30 and 40 hours per week on average, and 50 percent if the employee works between 20 and 30 hours per week. Amend the provisions of Resolution 95-105 to allow the proration of benefits to part-time employees, and authorize Staff to amend MOU's, health plan Summary Plan Documents and other administrative policy and procedure manuals as necessary. g:\wp\hr\hr\steeves\fahr\ptben296.cov March 4, 1996 FAHR96-04: STAFF REPORT Consideration Of Resolution No. ·' Extending Benefit Coverage For Regular Employees Working A Reduced Work Week Questions and Clarification from the February 28 Board Meeting 1. The Board asked for the full cost/benefit analysis that staff used for its projections on how part-time benefits were perceived to be revenue neutral to the Districts. Attached to this submittal is Table A which reveals that the cost of providing benefits to current part-time employees is equal to $25, 720. Additional estimates for six more part-time positions for fiscal year 1996-97 would raise the grand total to $68,086. Table B shows staff's projections for savings by the Districts. One job share arrangement indicates a $4,853 savings by hiring a second employee at bottom of range. The Table also indicates a $61,290 savings based on a status change of four full-time employees to part-time, 30 hour per week employees. These positions would not involve a job share arrangement. Staff believes that part-time benefits are a win-win situation for the Districts. Costs are not significant to provide part-time benefits since there are resulting savings to offset these costs. 2. The Board indicated that it would like to know why there is a perceived overtime problem that would justify the need to utilize part-time workers. The Board also questioned why staff came up with part-time benefits as a solution to that problem. Due to a combination of policies including overtime and compensatory time, the Districts have a "snowballing" effect when administering overtime. The following example explains the situation that exists when staff converts overtime into compensatory time "at the rate of 1 % hours for every hour worked" as allowed in the MOUs. CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 FAHR96-04 Page 2 March 4, 1996 Employee A receives permission to work 12 hours of overtime. He/She converts those hours into 18 hours of compensatory time. Employee A then takes 18 hours off. In departments with minimum staffing levels, Employee B would be required to work 18 hours of overtime to cover for Employee A. Employee B then converts those hours into 27 hours of compensatory time. This can go on and on up to the cap of 45 hours. Providing prorated benefits to part-time employees will enable the Districts' staff to attract and retain part-time workers to combat the "snowballing" effect. g:\wp\hr\hr\steeves\fahr\ptben296 Table A -Cost of Part-time Benefits Current Part-time employees Job Title PT Asst. PT Asst. PT Asst. PT Asst. PT Asst. PT Asst. Design Engineer I TotaJ Hrs. Worked Additional estimate for 96-97 PT employees Job Title Hrs. Worked Sr. Comp Analyst Sr. Comp Analyst Exec. Asst. I Environ. Spec. II Clerk Eng. Aide I Total 20 20 35 35 35 30 30 20 20 30 30 30 30 Benefit Factor 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% Benefit Factor 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% Eligible for: Cost of Benefits 12% $ 1,363 12% $ 1,282 18% $ 2,932 18% $ 2,785 18% $ 2,447 18% $ 2,603 18% $ 3,628 $ 17,039 Eligible for: Cost of Benefits 12% $ 3,011 12% $ 2,400 18% $ 5,989 18% $ 6,689 18% $ 4,049 18% $ 5,108 $ 27,246 Table B -Areas of Savings by Offering Part-time Benefits Job Share Savings by Splitting at Bottom of Range Job Title Sr. Comp Analyst Total $ $ Split Salary Part-time Savings Due to NOT Rehiring for Split Duties Job Title Hours Worked PT Benefit Savings Exec. Asst. I 30 $ 4,658 Environ. Spec. II 30 $ 5,202 Clerk 30 $ 3,149 Eng. Aide .I 30 $ 3,973 Total $ 16 983 New Entry Salary $ - Paid Time-off Savings $ 1,008 $ 1,125 $ 681 $ 859 $ 3,674 Annual Savings $ 4,853 $ 4,853 Salary Savings $ 11,092 $ 12,386 $ 7,498 $ 9,459 $ 40,435 !Grand Total Total cost to the Districts would be approximately $1,944 Page 1 Paid time off Total $ 1,032 $ 2,395 $ 971 $ 2,252 $ 1,269 $ 4,201 $ 1,205 $ 3,989 $ 1,059 $ 3,506 $ 1,314 $ 3,917 $ 1,831 $ 5,459 $ 8,680 $ 25,720 Paid time off Total $ 2,280 $ 5,292 $ 1,817 $ 4,217 $ 3,024 $ 9,013 $ 3,376 $ 10,065 $ 2,044 $ 6,093 $ 2,578 $ 7,686 $ 15,120 $ 42,366 !Grand Total Is 68,oa6 I Total $ 16,809 $ 18,768 $ 11,373 $ 14,339 $ 61,290 Is 66,142 I Format D Written Report DOvefheads D Slides 0 Flip Charts Department Head Sign Anticipated Time --- FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 FAHR96-15: Review of the Mid-Year Financial & Operational Report for the period ending December 31, 1995. Summarv Last month, staff presented the Districts' first comprehensive Mid-Year Report for the period ending December 31, 1995 to the Committee. This report is a consolidation of both the financial and operational accomplishments of the Districts at the mid-point of the 1995-96 fiscal year. Because of time constraints, the Committee asked that the report be resubmitted at the March meeting. Contained within the Mid-Year Financial Report are budget summary reviews of the Joint Operating & Working Capital Funds, the Capital Outlay Revolving Fund, individual Districts, and the self-insurance funds. Contained within the Mid-Year Operational Report is the status of the Activity Trends and Projects previously identified in the 1995-96 Approved Budget. As indicated within the Overview Section of this report, 44.25 percent or $24,060,000 of the 1995-96 net joint operating budget of $54,380,000 has been expended. In addition, the Districts are still only at 48.26 percent of the "target" budget of $49,860,000. The cost per million gallons for the second quarter alone was $603.09, which is slightly higher than the annual targeted amount of $599.00, but below the approved budget of $627.30. However, the cost per million gallons for the first half of the year is still low at $555.87, due to the unusually low first quarter total of only $508.98. Some of the factors contributing to the increase of $94.11 cost per mg from the second quarter's total of $603.09 over the first quarter's total of $509.98 include: • Environmental Monitoring increased 257.27 percent, or $34.74 cost per mg over the first quarter. This majority of this increase is primarily attributable to the timing of payments made for ocean monitoring, since out of the $1.3 million costs incurred to date, only $268,000 was recognized in the first "") l quarter. Although total environmental monitoring costs are $78,000 less than last year at this time, this line item is currently at 55.51 percent of the total budget and will have to be carefully monitored over the remainder of the year. • Although Repair Materials increased 67.91 percent, or $20.22 cost per mg over the first quarter, this line item is still at 49.63 percent of budget at mid-year. Staff will be challenged to keep this line item within the total $3,375,900 budget, since an additional $500,000 of material relating to plant automation computer maintenance has now been identified that had not previously been considered during the preparation of the budget. • Research increased 580.65 percent, or $13.59 cost per mg over the first quarter. The majority of this increase is related to the increase in payments made to Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority (SCCWRPA). Although the Research line item is currently at 69.28 percent of total budget, staff believes that the costs booked-to-date reflect a greater portion of the total annual cost and that the year end total cost will approximate the budget of $565,000. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Committee approve and file the 1995-96 Mid-Year Report. J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANEIFPC.MTGIFAHR.96'1COVERS.96\FAHR96.15A I Elm!!!! 0 Written Repott OOverheads OSlides Gary Streed 0 Flip Charts Anticipated Time __ _ FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 FAHR96-19: Consideration of motions to receive and file staff report regarding review of Districts' risk management and insurance activities; direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates and from the Special Districts Risk Management Authority (SDRMA) and the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA); evaluate the proposals and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget; direct staff to prepare a Risk Management Work Plan for FY 1996-97, and keep the Committee informed with periodic progress reports. Summary A staff report regarding a review of the Districts' risk management and insurance activities, including recommendations for follow-up actions, is submitted for consideration by the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee: 1 . Receive and file staff this report. 2. Direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates and from SDRMA and CSRMA; evaluate the proposals and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget. 3. Direct staff to prepare a Risk Management Work Plan for FY 1996-97, and keep the Committee informed with periodic progress reports. J:\WPOOC\FINICRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\COVERS.96\FAHR96.19 . I March 13, 1996 FAHR96-19: BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT Consideration of Staff Report Regarding Review of Districts' Risk Management and Insurance Activities. The Districts' current risk management program and practices consist of a combination of self-insurance and commercial insurance as a result of Fiscal Policy Committee recommendations which were implemented by the Joint Boards of Directors. The Public Liability and Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Plans have been in existence since July 1979. Excess liability insurance was also in place at that time, and was purchased each year until 1986, when faced with major increases in premiums, reductions in coverages, and difficulties in placing and maintaining coverage, the Joint Boards of Directors implemented a fully self-insured general and vehicle public liability program. For FY 1995-96, the Public Liability Self-Insurance Fund has an ending reserves balance of $3.4 million. The ending reserves balance for the Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund is $756,000 for the same period. In addition, the FY 1995-96 budget contains approximately $1.5 million for insurance premiums placed through the Districts' Broker of Record, Robert F. Driver Associates. Attachment "A" presents a schedule of insurance policies currently in force. Although the Districts' risk management program has been reviewed annually for budgetary purposes, in recent years there has not been a regular review of the policies that guide the program and how the changes within our operations affect the program's structure. For this reason, staff is bringing forward a review of the existing program, complete with industry benchmarks, specific recommendations for short-term improvements, and a proposed work plan to guide future review and monitoring of the program. THE DISTRICTS' APPROACH TO RISK MANAGEMENT In the past, it was standard practice for organizations to reserve funds to compensate for an occasional aberrational year. However, today's complex regulatory environment, the uncertainties in the insurance market in response to recent natural catastrophes, CSDOC 0 P.O.Box8127 0 FountainValley,CA92728-8127 OTel. (714)962-2411 0FAX(714)962-3954 FAHR 96-19 Page2 March 13, 1996 and the trend involving large settlement awards require innovative approaches to the management of risk. Therefore, it is increasingly important to take a longer view with respect to managing and financing risk, and identify, implement, and monitor flexible risk control alternatives. As noted above, financial pressures on the insurance industry have escalated in recent years, creating tight and expensive markets. While this is an important cost consideration as we review the District's risk management program, we nonetheless must focus on assessing how risk exposures have changed, and identifying the financial implications of those changes. The program should look at what kind of risk financing we should do based on the Districts' own needs and requirements, rather than the demands of the insurance market. As an initial step towards improving the program, or re-engineering the Districts' approach to risk management, it is critical that the Districts evaluate if the current approach to risk management is the most effective, given today's environment. Staff initiated this evaluation of the current risk management program, using a combination of benchmarking and alternatives analysis to prepare this report, and to formulate recommendations for further action. BENCHMARKING AND THE DISTRICTS1 RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM In general terms, benchmarking can be defined as a coordinated effort to develop a clear sense of where a particular program stands, at what level to set targets for improvement, and how to redesign processes for maximum performance. To develop a clearer understanding of the Districts' existing risk management program, several key comparisons were reviewed using a recent study, "Cost of Risk Evaluation (CORE) in State and Local Government," conducted by the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) and Deloitte & Touche LLP. In that the CORE is a stand-alone study, it does not identify trends which may have occurred over time. Additionally, the study included general purpose governments of all sizes as well as special purpose districts in its survey. As such, study conclusions are general in nature, and in some cases, may require interpretation relative to a large operation such as the Districts. Nonetheless, the CORE survey is a comprehensive benchmarking tool that can be used to analyze costs and make comparisons concerning insurance limits, retentions, and premiums. The CORE study is one of the most recent cost of risk studies available. FAHR 96-19 Page3 March 13, 1996 Summary Comparisons The CORE study surveyed almost 300 governmental agencies, ranging from very large metropolitan and state governments, to small cities and towns. Respondents also included county governments, school districts, and special districts across the nation. The study reports that the average overall cost of liability, workers' compensation, and property risk, as a percentage of budget, is approximately 0.007 percent. Applying this 0.007 percent factor to the Districts' FY 1995-96 operating budget results in a benchmark cost of $450,000. By comparison, the Districts' FY 1995-96 budget includes $1.8 million for liability, workers' compensation, and property insurance; of which $1.4 million funds the Districts' All-Risk Property and Earthquake insurance premium (including in-lieu payments to reserves). The Districts' All-Risk premium cost is approximately 90% of total insurance premium costs given the Districts' proximity to known earthquake fault lines, and the continuing tightening of the All-Risk insurance market. The CORE study reports that most government agencies have both a risk management function and a safety and loss control function, with most conducting in-house safety programs focusing on employee safety. The Districts share this philosophy with the risk management function managed by the Finance Division, and the safety program managed by the Safety and Emergency Response Division in Human Resources. Coordination of the Districts' risk management and safety programs is augmented by the Districts' Safety Committee, whose membership consists of a cross-section of departmental staff, including Finance. Additionally, risk management and safety program staff have initiated discussions to organize a Districts' Risk Management Task Force to address Districts-wide loss control and risk management issues. Property Findings The CORE study indicated that 90% of respondents maintain a property damage (other than automobile physical damage) retention level of $100,000 or less. Auto physical damage retentions were $10,000 or less. The Districts' property damage retention level is $250,000 under the existing All-Risk Property and Earthquake Insurance Program, which does not include auto liability. The survey found that approximately 77% of all property losses were $100,000 or less. Further, almost half of all property claims were $25,000 or lower. FAHR 96-19 Page4 March 13, 1996 The CORE survey states that all-risk property coverage is purchased by approximately 80% of public agencies, as opposed to obtaining coverage only for specified individual perils such as fire or windstorm. The Districts tracks directly with this benchmark. The Districts' All-Risk insurance provides a $200 million blanket loss limit, with a $30 million sublimit for earthquake coverage. The Districts also purchases Boiler & Machinery (B&M) property insurance, as do 80% of the agencies surveyed in the CORE study. The Districts' B&M policy provides a $100 million loss limit, with a $25,000 deductible. The CORE survey did not provide a benchmark measure for this specific insurance coverage. Liability Findings The CORE study reports that liability costs make up approximately 34% of the total cost of risk, making liability coverage the second largest cost category, after workers' compensation. The benchmark study indicates almost 70% of the agencies surveyed purchase primary general liability limits averaging approximately $6 million, and excess/umbrella limits of $10 million. The most common general liability deductible is $100,000. These agencies also obtain an average of $2 million public officials -, coverage. By comparison, the Districts is entirely self-insured for general liability coverage with $3.4 million in reserves. The Districts ceased excess liability insurance coverage in 1986. The Districts does maintain a $2 million limit for Fidelity/Faithful Performance, covering Members of the Boards of Directors and Districts' staff. Workers' Compensation Findings The CORE study states that the average cost of workers' compensation risk financing averages 1.1 % (0.011) of payroll, with the most common workers' compensation retention being $250,000. Applying the 1.1 % cost factor to the Districts' FY 1995-96 payroll results in a benchmark comparison of 0.008% of payroll for the Districts. As noted earlier, the Districts currently maintain a $756,000 self-insurance reserve for the primary layer of workers' compensation coverage. This is supplemented with a $1 million Excess Workers' Compensation policy which has a $250,000 retention. FAHR 96-19 Page 5 March 13, 1996 Preliminary Benchmarking Conclusions The comparison of the Districts' existing risk management and insurance program to the benchmarks identified in the CORE study indicate that the Districts track reasonably well with current practices in the following areas: • Implementation of risk management function. • Implementation of in-house safety program. • Maintaining a variety of specialty insurance coverages. • Achieving and sustaining a low rate of workers' compensation costs. At the same time, this initial benchmarking exercise indicates that we can target areas of the Districts' existing risk management program for improvement by developing a Risk Management Work Plan. The Risk Management Work Plan for FY 1996-97 would include items such as developing and implementing a risk management monitoring and reporting component for the Districts' new Financial Information System; developing executive summary reports for monthly loss runs; preparation of a risk management and insurance Policies & Procedures Manual; and preparation of an Annual Risk Management Report. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES Continuing the evaluation of the Districts' existing risk management program, staff researched alternatives to the current self insurance/commercial insurance strategy. Staff directed specific attention to alternatives to the Districts' current Public Liability Self-Insurance Fund. General liability insurance is designed to cover only liability for property damage and bodily injury. Because the Districts is solely self-insured for general liability, a single catastrophic accident, or large settlement award, could entirely wipe out the Districts' self-insurance fund. Through strong operational safety and maintenance programs, the Districts has had few significant losses in recent years. It is important, however, to remain aware of the potential for an accident or other emergency incident to occur, despite proactive risk management practices. While it is true that the Districts have enjoyed a sustained period of low liability claims and losses, this trend, in and of itself, is no guarantee of similar experience in the future. Random natural disasters can and do devastate local communities, including public infrastructure such as roadways, bridges, water and wastewater treatment facilities. The goal is to maintain appropriate levels of insurance to protect the Districts given the unknown, the nature, timing, or magnitude of these FAHR 96-19 Pages March 13, 1996 Although the Districts have $3.4 million set aside in a self-insurance fund for such incidents, it is possible that any one major incident could severely impact the reserve level. The Districts have been judicious in past years by annually budgeting monies to the self-insurance fund in an amount equal to the premium cost of the general liability insurance in 1986, when the cost was $260,000. However, in light of what we know today, the Districts would be advised to consider augmenting the self-insurance fund with some form of excess/umbrella coverage for catastrophic events. This level of protection would be a prudent safeguard that would be extremely valuable for the Districts to have in place as part of a recovery plan for emergencies. Therefore, it is prudent to review the extent of the Districts' exposure to catastrophic liability risk, evaluate prevailing marketplace conditions, and compare the financial implications of the Districts' self-insured position to a combined self-insured and excess/umbrella insurance program. ALTERNATIVES General liability insurance, whether basic or excess coverage, is available through a variety of programs and in various combinations of limits and self-retentions. This section of the report focuses on preliminary comparisons between the alternative of brokered excess coverage and coverage obtained through specialized insurance pools. Excess General Liability Policy The Districts could purchase an excess general liability insurance policy each year. Robert F. Driver Associates estimated that an excess general liability policy having a $23 million per occurrence and annual aggregate limit, with a $2 million per loss self-funded retention, would cost approximately $200,000 per year. Special District Risk Management Authority The Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA) was formed as a shared risk pool in 1986 to meet the liability insurance needs of special districts. The stated mission of SDRMA is to specifically provide affordable, renewable insurance and risk management services to California special districts. Staff worked with SDRMA to complete a preliminary coverage review. SDRMA recommended that the Districts maintain commercial carriers for Property and Boiler and Machinery (B&M) insurance, and reduce the risk exposure of the Districts' self-insurance fund by obtaining coverage for general liability, auto liability, and E&O FAHR 96-19 Page7 March 13, 1996 from a risk-sharing pool. SDRMA estimated that excess general liability coverage through SDRMA membership, having a $20 million per occurrence and annual aggregate limit, and a $100,000 per loss self-funded retention, would cost approximately $226,000. California Sanitation Risk Management .Authority Like SDRMA, the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA) was formed as a shared risk pool in 1986. CSRMA is an association of California wastewater agencies whose mission is to protect member resources by stabilizing risk costs in a reliable, economical, and beneficial manner while providing broad coverage and quality risk management services. In initial discussions with CSRMA, they indicated that through CSRMA membership, the Districts could participate in the Authority's pooled liability program with an excess limit of $10 million above the Districts' existing $3.4 million self-insurance retention, and purchase an additional $1 O million layer via an umbrella policy for approximately $250,000 per year. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies In January, a consultant approached the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) with a proposal that would involve a group discount broker providing property, liability, and other lines of insurance to AMSA member agencies at significant cost savings on paid premiums. In turn, AMSA contacted the Districts to determine our interest in a pilot study which would evaluate the discount broker proposal. Staff has indicated our interest in participating in their study. The AMSA study is slated to begin in March. CONCLUSIONS At this point in the evaluation of the Districts' existing risk management program, staff recommends that the Committee direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates, and from SDRMA and CSRMA, evaluate the proposals, and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget. With respect to the future of the Districts' risk management program, staff recommends that a Risk Management Work Plan be drafted to guide the ongoing development of the program. The Work Plan would act as an agenda and a master schedule to coordinate program improvements. The focus of this effort will be to identify and recommend the most effective and efficient risk management strate9ies possible. FAHR 96-19 Page 8 March 13, 1996 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Receive and file staff this report. 2. Direct staff to solicit formal proposals for general liability insurance through Robert F. Driver Associates and from SDRMA and CSRMA; evaluate the proposals and return to the FAHR Committee with recommendations for a general liability insurance program as part of the FY 1996-97 budget. 3. Direct staff to prepare a Risk Management Work Plan for FY 1996-97, and keep the Committee informed with periodic progress reports. SK:lc J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\SRFAHR96.19 Attachment POLICY COVERAGE Boiler and Machinery Travel and Accident POLICY LIMITS IUS$l $100,000,000 Per Occurrence Combined Limit Sublimits: -$250,000 Increased Cost of Construction/ Demolition -$250,000 Expediting Expenses, Ammonia Contamination and Water Damage -$100,000 Hazardous Substance -Class 1 -$100,000 Per Person, All Employees and Directors -$400,000 Aggregate any one accident INSSCH3.XLS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INSURANCE SCHEDULE POLICY PERIOD 1-Mar-96 to 1-Mar-97 16-May-93 to 16-May-96 AS OF SEPTEMBER 1995 INSURANCE CARRIER Kamper Insurance Group (3XL 13183900) Heritage Life Insurance Company (SR14816- LBQXK-01) ANNUAL PREMIUM $79,698 $780 (3-Year Pre-Paid Premium) Paga 1 of 4 SIR/DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION -$25,000 Deductible -$100,000 Deductible for Motors, Engines, and Turbines over 500 HP, and Digastars and Reactors None A TTT AC HM ENT RISKS COVERED Production machines, public utility equipment, business interruption, and earthquake resultant damage. Accidental Death end Dismemberment While Traveling Outside Orange County. 2/29/96 POLICY COVERAGE Excess Workers' Compensation Faithful Performance Bond POLICY LIMITS US$ -$1,000,000 Excess Workers' Comp. each accident/each employee for disease. -$1,000,000 Employer's Liability -Statutory Workers' Compensation -Includes Allocated Claims Expenses -$2,000,000 Per Loss Employee Dishonesty, Faithful Performance, and Computer Fraud for all Employees and Directors -$1,000,000 Per Loss Depositor's Forgery INSSCH2.XLS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INSURANCE SCHEDULE POLICY PERIOD 1-May-95 to 1-May-96 1-Mar-94 to 1-Mar-97 AS OF SEPTEMBER 1995 INSURANCE CARRIER National Union Fire Insurance Company (4156013) The Hartford Insurance Company (PE8JL6769) ANNUAL PREMIUM $21,662 $4,670 Page 2 of 4 SIR/DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION -$250,000 Workers' Compensation & Employers' Liability -Includes Allocated Claims Expenses $5,000 Deductible RISKS COVERED Specific Excess Insurance for self-insurer of Workers' Compensation in the State of California. , Public Employee Dishonesty (AKA Fidelity Bond), including Faithful Performance, Computer Fraud, and Depositor's Forgery 2/27/96 I ~ POLICY COVERAGE Property Insurance POLICY LIMITS (US$1 $200,000,000 Blanket loss limit per occurrence ($30,000,000 sublimit and in annual aggregate for the perils of earthquake and flood!. INSSCH1 .XLS POLICY PERIOD 26-Jun-96 to 26-Jun-96 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INSURANCE SCHEDULE INSURANCE CARRIER Group of 10 Carriers (See Attached) AS OF SEPTEMBER 1995 ANNUAL PREMIUM $1,377,461 Page 3 of 4 SIR/DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION -6% per Unit of Insurance subject to $260,000 minimum/$30,000,000 maximum earthquake. -$26,000 Flood and All Other Perils. RISKS COVERED All Risk including earthquake and flood on all real property and personal property, underground tunnels, piping, utilities, ocean outfall, lift and pumpin, • stations, business interruption, rents, --" (including bond revenue payments), electronic data processing media and extra expense, contractors equipment, vehicles (including collision), transit, demolition and increased cost of construction, contingent liability, valuable papers, automatic coverage, debris removal, extra expense and accounts receivable all per manuscript form. (NOTE: underground piping is limited to on-site at Plants 1 and 2 plus the connecting lines between the Plants.I 2/27/96 _) .. .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ALL RISK PROPERTY AND EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE PROGRAM Effective: 25 June 95 to 25 June 96 SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. PREMIUMS & FEES PARTICIPATION & NAME OF CARRIER ANNUAL PREMIUM A. $7,500.000 PRIMARY LAVER !ALL RISK INCLUDING EO & FLOOD! Reliance Insurance Co. Lexington Ins. Co. CNA Ins. Co. $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $210,000 $175,000 $164,000 B. $2.500,000 EXCESS OF $7.500.000 LAYER (ALL RISK INCLUDING EO & FLOOD! RLI Insurance Co. $2,500,000 $100,000 C. $10,000.000 EXCESS OF $10,000,000 LAYER (ALL RISK INCLUDING EO & FLOOD) Agricultural Ins. Co. Royal Insurance Co. Reliance Insurance Co. Fireman's Fund Associated International $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $81,250 $81,250 $65,000 $65,000 $32,500 0. $5.000.000 EXCESS OF $20.000.000 LAYER (ALL RISK INCLUDING EO & FLOOD! Essex Insurance Co. $5,000,000 $125,000 E. $5.000.000 EXCESS OF $25.000,000 LAYER (ALL RISK INCLUDING EQ & FLOOD! Westchester Fire Ins. Co. $5,000,000 F. $15.000,000 EXCESS OF $30.000.000 LAYER (NO EARTHQUAKE! Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. $15,000,000 G. $155.000,000 EXCESS OF $45.000,000 LAYER (NO EARTHQUAKE) Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. $155,000,000 TOTAL PREMIUM CIGA Taxes and Fees 1995 GRAND TOTAL PREMIUM COST INSCH495.XLS Page 4 of 4 $87,500 $90,000 $81,000 $1,358,000 $5,907 $13,544 $1,377,451 3/7 /96 •, ; fg!!!!!! D Written Report DOverheads OSlides Gary Streed D Flip Charts Anticipated Time __ _ FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 FAHR96-20: Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report regarding preparation for possible financing of Solid Waste Management System Acquisition; and to direct staff to develop and circulate Request for Proposals to assemble a solid waste financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately. Summarv A capital financing program would be used for the Solid Waste Management System acquisition and related Capital Improvement Program. In preparation for this, staff is initiating the process to establish a financing team to develop the Solid Waste Management System capital financing program. Financing team professionals would be compensated only if a financing transaction takes place. Staff Recommendation 1. Receive and file this report. 2. Direct staff to develop and circulate Request for Proposals to assemble a solid waste financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately. J:IWPOOC\FINICRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\COVERS.96\FAHR96.20 " March 13, 1996 FAHR96-20: Background STAFF REPORT Consideration of staff report regarding preparations for possible financing program for Solid Waste Management System Acquisition On February 14, 1996, the Joint Boards of Directors approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the terms and conditions of acquisition of the Orange County Solid Waste Management System and directed staff to submit the MOU to the County of Orange. Staff submitted the MOU on February 23, 1996, and the County is currently in the process of considering the proposal. Capital Financing Program The MOU constitutes the basis of the Districts' offer to the County to acquire the landfill system. As such, the MOU is predicated on two critical factors; commitment of 90% waste stream flow control by the cities, and the implementation of a capital financing program by the new Solid Waste Management Sanitation District (SWMSD-99). It is important to note that the financing would be secured by a pledge of revenue based on the receipts of the waste management disposal facilities (landfill tipping fees). No wastewater revenues or reserves would be used or pledged to support the solid waste financing program. Also of interest is that the capital financing program strategy is based on the assumption that investment grade ratings would be required for the solid waste issue. To ensure this, a minimum of 90% flow control is required. All financial projections and cashflow analyses that support the MOU for acquisition of the waste system are based on the commitment of 90% of the Orange County waste stream. Currently, the County's system is without waste flow agreements, and cities and their haulers may use the Orange County landfills at their convenience, choosing to leave the local system whenever a short-term lower rate can be secured. If the proposed SWMSD-99 is to finance the system, it is imperative that a steady waste stream is committed, therefore ensuring a reliable and predictable revenue stream. The Districts' staff is holding a series of regional workshops with local elected officials and city managers to discuss the issue of flow control and to ask cities to commit their waste stream. A March 22, 1996, deadline has been set to secure 90% flow control. CSDOC 0 P.O. Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 0 Tel. (714) 962-2411 0 FAX (714) 962-3954 FAHR96-20 Page2 March 13, 1996 The other factor central to the MOU is the use of a capital financing program to finance acquisition of the system and fund the capital improvement program (CIP) for the SWMSD-99. Currently, the County is paying for its landfill CIP on a pay-as-you-go basis because it is difficult to secure debt financing without a secured waste stream. Pay-as-you-go financing directly impacts the system's rates, with significant increases being needed in years in which large capital projects are planned. The new SWMSD-99 would use a capital financing program for the system acquisition and the CIP, which would allow for a more predictable rate increase pattern. Financing Team In preparation for the potential landfill acquisition, staff is initiating the process to establish a team to develop the capital financing program. The team would consist of the following financing professionals: Financial Advisor: Underwriter(s): Bond Counsel: Solid Waste Engineer: To assist in identifying capital financing alternatives and planning the debt program. To purchase and resell the securities. To certify the legal authority of the bond issue. To render an opinion on the feasibility of the improvements in connection with the issue. Staff is preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for each of the specialities and updating the Districts' RFP mailing lists. Timing While staff feels that it is prudent to begin the background work for the capital financing program, the need for the team is entirely contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and agrees to its terms, the Districts and the County will enter into a 60-day closing period to finalize the deal. However, if the County rejects the Districts' offer, the process would likely end at that time. Staff recommends that the Committee direct staff to proceed with development and circulation of RFPs to assemble a solid waste financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately. FAHR96-20 Page3 March 13, 1996 Recommendations 1. Receive and file this report. 2. Direct Staff to develop and circulate Request for Proposals to assemble a Solid Waste Financing team so that, if needed, the Districts is ready to proceed immediately SK:CA:lc J:\WPOOCIFIN\CRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\SRFAHR96.20 Proposal Requirements Request for Proposals (RFP) Selection of Bond Counsel For Solid Waste Management System Financing Program 1.0 General lnfonnation 1.1 Introduction J The County Sanitation District~ of drange County is proposing the formation of a county- wide Solid Waste Management S~nitation District to assume the solid waste authority for waste disposal a.ptl' l~ndUll .:mana'1ement now governed by the County of Orange. The goal is to increase-lq:_Pal co~tfol of the waste management system by establishing direct local governance Qy ~the .customers of the waste disposal system. The new district would be formed unde('Califomi~:fl-lealth and Safety Code 4700 et seq, and would be governed by a 33 member board riepresenting all cities and sanitary districts in the County. By restructuring 99.vernance of the system, the communities using the local disposal system would controHi1e-operations, management, finances and liability of these disposal facilities. The new district would be called the Solid Waste Management Sanitation District of Orange County (SWMSD-99). All financial projections and cashflow analyses that support the concept of the new solid waste district are predicated upon the use of a capital financing program to both finance acquisition of the system and fund the capital improvement program (CIP) for the SWMSD-99. Currently, the County is paying for its landfill CIP on a pay-as-you-go basis because it is difficult for the County to secure debt financing without a secured waste stream. Pay-as-you-go financing directly impacts the system's rates, with significant increases being needed in years in which large capital projects are planned. The new SWMSD-99 would use a capital financing program for the system acquisition and the CIP, which would allow for a more predictable user rate pattern. It is important to note that the financing would be secured solely by a pledge of revenue based on the receipts of the waste management disposal facilities (landfill tipping fees). No wastewater revenues or reserves would be used or pledged to support the solid waste financing program. Also of interest is that the capital financing program strategy is based on the assumption that investment grade ratings would be required for the solid waste issue. To ensure this, a minimum of 90% flow control is required. In preparation for the potential landfill acquisition, staff is initiating the process to establish a financing team to develop the capital financing program. On February 14, 1996 the Joint Boards of Directors approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the terms and conditions of acquisition of the County's waste disposal system and directed staff to submit the MOU to the County of Orange. Staff submitted the MOU on February 23, 1996 and the County is currently in the process of considering the proposal. Initial Board of Supervisors review is scheduled for March 12, 1996. While staff feels that it is prudent to begin the background work for the capital financing program, the need for the team is entirely contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and agrees to its terms, the Districts and the County will enter into a 60-day closing period to finalize the deal. However, if the County rejects the Districts' offer, the process would likely end at that time. The proposed solid waste management system financing program and the use of the financing team professional is contingent on the County and the Districts entering into an agreement for the transfer of the waste disposal system. 1.2 Intent of Request for Proposal The Districts are seeking proposals f rolll,.firJTl,~"'-qJ:iified to serve in the capacity of Bond Counsel to provide Bond Counsel servi!:es fo r :P,S ose1d 'solid waste management system transaction(s). J '·~.· ~ 2.0 Scope of Work ~mr: ··1*' The Districts are seeking the sef.v1c~s.o(qualified Bond Counsel. The selected legal firm will assist the Districts, in the.·~xecrition4of future bond transactions for the solid waste management system finam;:ing pr~gr~m. The duties of the Bond Counsel shall include, but may not be limited to:,fii 2j"~ 'l" ~·1:---"1 .. ·~ f •'°'L-:.f... • 1. Conduct an.finaly~1s of ,the legal aspects of future bond financings. ii -i:--·!~¥1. 2. Draft all bond documents including trust agreements, resolutions and assignment agree!rients. .i ~~"",u;.'""" 3. Provide"alegal opinion regarding the tax-exemption of the bonds and other issues as may be required to facilitate the issuance of the bonds, including, but not limited to preference, bankruptcy and enforceability opinions. 4. Review and evaluate the legal and tax aspects of the structure of the transaction as proposed by the financial advisor and senior underwriter. Provide legal assistance and input as required. 5. Make presentations to the Districts' Board of Directors, as necessary. 2.1 Bond Counsel Qualifications The Districts will select a financing team which, in its sole opinion, is most capable of performing the services described in this RFP. To be considered for the work, a proposer must demonstrate knowledge of or experience in similar solid waste financing projects. Additionally, the firms must have references which can attest to the quality of the firm's past work and its record in meeting project timetables. 2.2. Assigned Professionals This section shall include a staffing plan and a letter from the Senior Managing Partner or designee of the proposer to guarantee that the key personnel indicated in the organizational chart will be assigned to this project unless their employment is terminated. If substitutes or back-up personnel are planned on a contingency basis, they should be indicated on the organizational chart. Page 2 of 8 The Districts reserve the right to investigate the qualifications of all firms under consideration and to confirm any part of the information furnished by a proposer, or to require other evidence of managerial, legal or technical capabilities which are considered necessary for the successful performance of the contract. 3.0 Proposal Contents All proposals shall be in the format described below. In order to ensure that each proposal is reviewed and scored property, it is imp'ortant that each proposer follow the format with care. Proposals should be as br:i_ef];!:md concise as possible, responses are not to exceed twenty (20) pages. Propbsals .:ex~eeding"i20 pages shall be deemed non- responsive. Lists and tables summariziQg expen"li~,._may be provided in appendices not counted under the 20-page limit: = 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . .. v Cover Letter Qualifications of the Firm Assigned Professionals ,_,,¥ Recommended Le.g~l/Busrn~ss Approach Cost/Pri~~ropoi:a!,~. Fi rn'r Statemeht"ofl~onflict of Interest •;1 111 ~ -oi!ibl ~~··if -~ For a proposal to'be corjsJdered, a firm must respond to the following questions: :[ A. ~ CoverTetter 1 1. The cover letter should not exceed three (3) single-spaced pages and should be signed by a principal of the proposing firm. The letter should summarize the major points contained in the proposal, as well as provide the name and phone number of the key contact person. The cover letter should be signed by an authorized representative of the firm who may contractually bind the firm and negotiate on behalf of the firm. Please indicate that the proposal is valid for 90 days. B. Qualifications of the Firm 1. Describe any relevant experience, indicating issuers and transactions for which your firm has served (indicate if bond or underwriters' counsel) and brief details of the transaction. Please limit data on relevant experience to the following categories: a. Short-term borrowings b. Long-term debt restructuring c. Certificates of Participation (COPs) d. Variable Rate Structures e. Revenue Bonds Use the data from a recognized source such as the Bond Buyer or Securities Data Corporation, cite the 1993, 1994 and 1995 rankings for your firm as bond counsel in California as well as nationally. 2. For each category, indicate the issuer, the role of your firm (as bond counsel or underwriters' counsel), the par amount and date of the issue. Page 3 of 8 3. Describe why you believe your firm is the best candidate to serve as Bond Counsel for the Districts' proposed solid waste management system financing program. What factors do you feel should weigh most heavily in this selection? Please include any additional information that you believe is relevant to the selection process. C. Assigned Professionals 1. State the name, home office location, telephone number, background, and relevant experience for all individuals, including tax counsel, who will be assigned to this engagement. Describe the_ role and responsibility of each individual; identify the individual charged with the ~,,y-toJ~~~ responsibility for this engagement as well as the individual who will attend qfflcial Jffeetir:igs c;>f'the Districts when requested. Provide .an organizational chart outliniVg .!'ow yO'Lif:team _ will execute the Dist~cts' tran_sact1on~. I~ ~he firm. has more t~a~~-;je ""'~ffice, .'dent1fy the office from which ~~ch designated 1nd1v1dual will be operating~ Pl.1:r~i~_e bnef resumes for each, emphasizing recent relevant solid waste man~geitbi~J, an'9.;imulti-jurisdictional experience; especially recent California experience. 4St aofb~f-~~sociations to which professionals assigned to the engagement belong. l.:jst any aq_~fflonal licenses or certifications that you believe are relevant to the Districts, -includi,~g_,NASD, NYSE, and SEC licenses. -'-". .--[~c;J~ -·~ ,J"'•"'" 2. lf youf fim1--'do'e!:! not have the necessary expertise or resources in your Los Angeles/Orang~1~904ntr:ar~a office, please describe the arrangements your firm will make to provide bond coT:u'isel services on a continuous and uninterrupted basis. -¥ [ 1 ; ' ~I;,. .,u 3. ~l~rovid~·no more than three (3) client references for the professionals assigned to tniS'l engagement. Indicate the names, telephone numbers and transactions 11IJH ;1 completed for each reference. D. Firm Legal/Business Approach 1. Describe your understanding of the Carbone decision, and discuss your firm's recommendations for structuring flow control for the proposed solid waste financing program, in light of Carbone. 2. Discuss your firm's view on how bond documents can be structured to protect the bondholders while providing greatest flexibility to the Districts. Are there specific provisions that you would recommend? If yes, please describe. 3. Describe your firm's view on secondary market disclosure? What steps should the Districts take to protect itself while ensuring adequate disclosure? Is there a need for separate disclosure counsel? E. Cost/Price Proposal 1. Please describe the basis on which you propose to be compensated. provide an estimate of your expected total fee as well as the components making up that fee. It is the Districts' intention to compensate counsel based on flat, not-to-exceed, contingent fee per transaction. State the specific circumstances, if any, for which your firm might seek additional compensation. Any additional expenses or compensation in excess of this not-to-exceed fee will be at the sole discretion of the Districts and will be Page 4 of 8 ,,....\ ~ I I negotiated on a transaction by transaction basis. Provide a not-to-exceed fee for the following transactions, including an estimate of the hours required by the assigned professionals for each type of transaction, and how the hours are managed (assume a $100 million financing). Traditional Certificates of Participation Refunding Certificates of Participation Revenue Bonds The Districts will reimburse counsel for reasonable expenses. These expenses may include: printing, munifacts, advertising, overjapeing debt statement, CUSIPl~!CICDAC, travel, .messenger/T,ail/(i~-e~. and duplication/faxing/telepho~e .. Any add1t1onal expenses will only be h,onore_q wit~ tt,he expressed consent of the D1stncts prior to the time a transaction is price~ lr;idicate .. ~tother expenses for which your firm would seek reimbursement. The Distn-""1'.will not reimburse bidders for either computer or word processing time. "1=-r· 2. The Districts intend to reirri'~~~cocinsel for work done outside of a defined transaction on an hourly basis: Pl~ase 'provide the hourly rates for the lead Attorney, Tax Counsel and other p~o{~Tsio~als a'ssigned to such projects or assignments. Please indicate if these _ra!r.s a~~;,tpe traWtional hourly rates charged by the key professionals of your firm or if a percentag·~ di~count will be offered to the Districts in performing such projects or assig~m~~;t~-"'; -~t , ,u •L:. - F. Statern,ent of Conflict of Interest bll .-: If at any time~ft~~-January 1, 1992, your firm participated in any financial transaction with the Counly ol Orange, any agencies governed or controlled by the County of Orange, and/or the Orange County Treasurer, please provide the following information for each transaction: a. For debt and similar issuances: the date and amount of each; the principal parties; and the role of your firm. b. For investments: the date and amount of each; the type of investment; the principal parties; and the role of your firm. Proposals which do not meet these qualifications will not be considered beyond preliminary evaluation. 4.0 Technical Proposal Evaluation Process: The overall evaluation process will be performed by a Proposal Evaluation Team (the "Team"). The evaluation criteria set forth at the end of this section will be the sole basis for determining the technical acceptability of proposals. The technical proposal should be specific and complete in every detail. 4.1 The proposers, whose written proposals are determined to be within the competitive range by the Team, may be interviewed or asked to enter into contract negotiations. Upon evaluation of the proposals and outcome of negotiations, the Team will make a recommendation for contract award. Page 5 of 8 The Districts may: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Reject any or all proposals. Issue subsequent requests for proposals. cancel the request for proposal. Appoint alternate members of the Team. Remedy technical errors in the request for proposals. Approve or disapprove the use of particular firms. Establish a short list of proposers eligible.L.fOr interviews after review of written proposals by the Team and con!l~er~ij~f.[ of its r~commendations. Modi~ any requirements cont~lrie~ _ritnf.1 ~Q~ R,~P and reques~ .revised subm1ttals from proposers det~J.:m_1n'ed to bJi..;;;,_withm the compet1t1ve range. Negotiate with any, all or none ~~lhe proposers. Solicit best and final offers from al · e or none of the proposers. "1~1: Award a contract to one o~··m.:,~;~ppro :. · ers. Accept the written prop_osal _aS'l'ari~ffer, without negotiation and issue a notice to proceed. r'°" '"' This RFP does not com~itJhe .Qr~fricts ~b:rr(gotiate a contract, nor does it obligate the Districts to pay for any costs incurre(;t'."jn pr~paration and submittal of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The Districts res~.r:ves-the:{ight to contract with any of the firms responding to this RFP based solely upon its ju1dgmenr9nhe qualifications and capabilities of that firm. No informatio~ relati?ij to th~,_r~sults of the RFP process will be released until after the recommendations by:lhe lieam. ·1:_JJL~ 4.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria The Districts anticipates selecting firms first for its senior managing underwriter positions. All firms not selected as senior managing underwriter and who requested consideration for co-manager will be evaluated for co-managing underwriter positions. The criteria for evaluating includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. Experience of the firm with solid waste management system financings and with California long-term debt financings. 2. Demonstrated competence of the individuals assigned to the financing, including references. 3. Cost/Price Proposal. 4. Approach to the requirements as indicated in the written proposal. 5. Understanding of the legal structure, and statutory restrictions for issuance of tax-exempt solid waste system bonds. Page 6 of 8 5.0 Role Definitions 6.0 6.1 7.0 A. Firm's Responsibility The selected firm shall furnish the necessary professional, technical and clerical personnel to provide services required. The selected firm will appoint and make known to the Districts a Project Manager who will be responsible for all coordination between the Districts and the bond counsel. ... B. Districts' Responsibility The Districts shall provide guidelin - Steve Kozak, Financial Manj ge,l;lsha -manage the project for the Districts. -~ ::- •Ll ,['1 Jc ~~W I : Prohibited Activities: PROPOSERS, TH1EJR AGENTS-i1\ND/OR ASSOCIATES SHALL REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING OR-~~LICl~ING DISTRICTS' OFFICIALS REGARDING THIS RFP DURING THE SELECli:ION 'PROCESS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION MAilf RESOL;{ IN DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSER. J Proposal Su,ltmittal ·"1 F A complete submittal will consist of an original and ten (10) copies of the proposal documents. All submittals must be received and time stamped by the Districts, at the address provided below no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on . Proposals received after 4:00 p.m. local time will not be considered. FACSIMILE COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ATTN: STEVE KOZAK, FINANCIAL MANAGER 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728-8127 8.0 Additional Information and Changes No oral modifications of this RFP shall be valid. Any modifications shall be written by RFP addendum, and signed by the Districts' Director of Finance. 9.0 Confidential Data Proposer shall clearly mark each page of its proposal that contains trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information which the proposer believes should not be disclosed outside of the Districts. No part of any proposal will be disclosed outside the Districts prior to contract award. J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANEIFPC.MTGIFAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\BCRFP&NM Page 7 of 8 DISTRICTS' BOND COUNSEUUNDERWRITERS' COUNSEL SELECTION SCHEDULE l "it Request for Proposals are mail~d via Certified Mail to Distribution List. f;;;:-· ~ Pre-proposal conference o be~held~at 9:00 a.m. ~:~j~:.·t;r istricts by 4:00 p.m. Districts' Rl!view o , 1ttee review proposals and develop short list of firms to'-f:>e .interviewed for consideration by Districts' Finance and Personnel Comrnittee. -~ . _ -r· ~J.l!. iii4~r Lr-districts~ fin~nce and Personnel Committee considers Review , Committee' recommendation and determines short list of firms to be .1 ;> intervf~wed as well as composition of Selection Committee. Districts' Selection Committee interviews short list of firms, or and "· p6ssibly makes selection of Bond Counsel and Underwriters' Counsel. Joint Boards approve selection of Bond Counsel and Underwriters' Counsel. Page 8 of 8 Proposal Requirements Request for Proposals (RFP) !'-:! .f.Y:HG ~· Selection of lndependi ntj ift!asib.ility Engineer I. ·•l -·~ ·!i;c.: r; I ~7• Ulr:-..Or .. ~ Solid Waste Management~-.stem Financing Program 1, . 1.0 General Information ··-. 1.1 Introduction The County Sanitati<>,,n Districts: of Orange County is proposing the formation of a county-wide Solid .:1.--.J Waste Management]~~nit~ti_p'n District to assume the solid waste authority for waste disposal and landfill management h,OW governed by the County of Orange. The goal is to increase local control of the waste management system by establishing direct local governance by the customers of the waste disposal system. The new district would be formed under California Health and Safety Code 4700 et seq, and would be governed by a 33 member board representing all cities and sanitary districts in the County. By restructuring governance of the system, the communities using the local disposal system would control the operations, management, finances and liability of these disposal facilities. The new district would be called the Solid Waste Management Sanitation District of Orange County (SWMSD-99). All financial projections and cashflow analyses that support the concept of the new solid waste district are predicated upon the use of a capital financing program to both finance acquisition of the system and fund the capital improvement program (CIP) for the SWMS0-99. Currently, the County is paying for its landfill CIP on a pay-as-you-go basis because it is difficult for the County to secure debt financing without a secured waste stream. Pay-as-you-go financing directly impacts the system's rates, with significant increases being needed in years in which large capital projects are planned. The new SWMSD-99 would use a capital financing program for the system acquisition and the CIP, which would allow for a more predictable user rate pattern. It is important to note that the financing would be secured solely by a pledge of revenue based on the receipts of the waste management disposal facilities (landfill tipping fees). No wastewater revenues or reserves would be used or pledged to support the solid waste financing program. Also of interest is that the capital financing program strategy is based on the assumption that investment grade ratings would be required for the solid waste issue. To ensure this, a minimum of 90% flow control is required. In preparation for the potential landfill acquisition, staff is initiating the process to establish a financing team to develop the capital financing program. On February 14, 1996 the Joint Boards of Directors approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the terms and conditions of acquisition of the County's waste disposal system and directed staff to submit the MOU to the County of Orange. Staff submitted the MOU on February 23, 1996 and the County is currently in the process of considering the proposal. Initial Board of Supervisors review is scheduled for March 12, 1996. While staff feels that it is prudent to begin the background work for the capital financing program, the need for the team is entirely contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and agrees to its terms, the Districts and the County will enter into a 6CH:iay dosing period to finalize the deal. However, if the q6unty rejects the Districts' offer, the process would likely end at that time. The proposed s!>Ud Y,as~e management system financing program :.'..:,:· .:=-~=-=-f and the use of financing team professiol'lals i~-cpnt!ng~nt on the County and the Districts entering into an agreement for the transfert he waste disposal system. 1.2 Intent of Request for Proposal r.q; ,,,-~ The Districts are seeking proposals from-firros alified to serve as an independent feasibility engineer to provide and "Independent Engine~ring Rep_ol1" for inclusion in the offering documents for the solid waste management system financihg prQgr~m. 2.0 Scope of Work -i;_,' .•. The Districts is seeking the se/vices of an independent feasibility engineer to perform the following tasks and provide a~~;lndepe-ndent Engineering Report." ""' ""l:"- Task 1 -Review of Contracts. Agreements and Documents The independent feasibility consulting engineer (the "Engineer'') will undertake a review of all relevant contracts, agreements and documents related to the Solid Waste Management System (the "System"). In undertaking this review, the Engineer will identify concerns regarding the financial and technical risk of operating and maintaining the System. The primary focus will be to identify terms and conditions which could affect The Districts' ability to finance the acquisition and capital requirements of the System. The review will include the following: 1. Review State and County statutes related to operating the Orange County solid waste management system. 2. Review Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with host cities and any other inter-jurisdictional agreements that apply to the system. 3. Review waste flow control methods being implemented by the Districts'. This review will consider recent Federal and State actions that have been made regarding flow control. 4. Review all relevant solid waste management plans, such as the Integrated Waste Management Plan, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Permit Design and Operating documents. 5. Review other pertinent and relevant documents as required. Page 2 'f Task 2 -Evaluation of Solid Waste Supplv and Sources The Engineer will review the quantity and composition of solid waste to be delivered to the landfill system for the purpose of determining the useful life of the landfill system, including additional permitted capacity, the level of tipping fees, and potential quantities of recycled material. The Engineer will identify whether there are any a_lt~rnative means of waste disposal for waste generated within the geographical boundari~j;, of~~jl~ CounJy based on independent review of information obtained from the County, the Stat~ of Calif""'· · and private sector sources. ~ The Engineer will determine the quantity of sp . ,!W,aste under the control of the Districts', absent the enactment of any flow control legislation wh~l\aPPJ1'!'.}.P the County. If no flow control is enacted, the Engineer will evaluate the level of tippinQjee!;lh!t ~h' be charged to attract specified waste tonnages to the landfill system and will identify if th~e i!!G°dii;lEfffbm this level of tipping fee can be expected, when combined with other income, to meef;the;1finanCial obligations of the landfill system. lT 1~L. ~ I I '"""if" The specific subtasks sl;l,~l,l 1inclqc!.e the fClllowing: "'"'. "-c~jt ,, i~~~ 1. The Supply c>rSolid Waste ~t l~~f.~1. a) rtA review t r.the supply of solid waste will be undertaken to determine the amount ':of solid;waste being generated within the County. This will be accomplished, in ~p·att, by reviewing the current disposal records of the County of Orange. The purpose will be to identify a current per capita generation rate. b) A review will be made of the latest population projections for the County for the purpose of determining the current solid waste generation rate per capita and identifying the trends which may have developed with regard to changes in the per capita rate. c) A survey will be undertaken of the tipping fees being charged at alternative disposal sites outside the geographic boundaries of the County. A comparison will be made of the projected cost of disposal at such sites, including the cost of transportation versus the cost of disposal to the landfill system. d) A review will be made of seasonal fluctuations in the generation of solid waste. 2. Source of Solid Waste -A review of information obtained from the County and other sources regarding the potential sources of solid waste to the landfill system by category, absent the enactment of flow control, will include consideration of: a) The quantity of municipal solid waste generated by the cities, the commercial sector, other incorporated areas and the unincorporated area of the County. b) The status of privately owned alternative disposal facilities within an economically viable hauling distance of Orange County, both in operation and in various stages of planning. Page 3 c) A determination of the anticipated hauling distances for current service recipients of the landfill system, and identification of the current transportation costs which the private haulers are experiencing. Task 3 -Review and Analysis of Project Costs and Revenues The Engineer will review the projected capital costs ~n~ operating and maintenance expenses of the System with the Districts' and its design engiA·eerstlO~identify ,if such costs have been prepared in .,..~ .. ! ]? accordance with generally accepted enginee ·n prac!rce~_ a,fl'd are reasonable for the purposes of financing. ~ ~'.0"f' The Engineer will estimate the required le~e ¥ .. P-_erating revenues associated with tipping fees necessary to pay operating expenses and~~~hseryice on bonds to be issued, and identify the level of interest income on reserve funds, ·lba~ed~'.Ot;l1olnformation provided by the Districts. All of this information will be utilized to determip e th1 ov~~ll economics of the solid waste management system. _:' !!l'.1! :!ii· Based on available inforrr,iil~i?n; Jt,l_~i;_Engine·er will develop a series of sensitivity analyses of projected operating results, including ftleJeve,Coqipping fees and service charges required to allow the Districts to meet the cost of the op~ratlr;ig'-cand maintenance costs of the landfill system and to make the annual debt service payments. This af\alysis will serve as the basis for the projected operating results to be . • ..1. included in the offering docum~ts for the financing program. fir!Jgj' .I-I: Projected operating'1~~ults-Will be developed which will include consideration of operating revenues from tipping fees and interest income on reserve funds, annual operating and maintenance expenses, and annual debt service payments. 1. This analysis will be undertaken in close coordination with the Districts, who will provide information concerning the size of the debt service reserve fund, the need for any reserve and contingency funds, interest rates on the bonds, interest earnings on the reserve fund during the construction period, and debt service coverage requirements. 2. Projected operating results will be developed for use in the offering documents and projections of operating results for the life of the landfill system will be developed. Task 4 -Review of Landfill Design The Engineer will review landfill design parameters, and the projected site volumes for each landfill in the system. The review will include the following: 1. Review information provided by the Districts regarding the current size, condition, location, and the present use of the landfill sites. 2. Review the design of the landfill system, including construction; surface water drainage control; groundwater protection control; leachate generation collection, treatment, and disposal; and gas migration control for each landfill site. 3. Review the Operating Plan for the landfill system. Page4 4. Review the basis for the estimated useful life of the landfill system. 5. Review the construction schedule for the landfill system. 6. Review Closure Plans for each of the landfills. 7. Review the financial obligation to admini~tlr closed landfills. '.ffib . 8. Review the potential financial natfil"itY regaffdi_ng ~r:a-eironmental effects of the existing and closed landfills. -"'l~lj,¥ __ ""p erating Permits of the Project The Engineer will review the status of ~ll required i~vironmental and operating permits required from federal, state and local agencies to _gQ'nstr;µct and operate the components of the landfill system. The Engineer will address the present s~atus @Lcompliance for each of these permits. ' , -="~ ;r. "I ---~mp,. jC' For any permits which h~Je-Tiot ~~q· Qbtained at the time of a financing transaction, the Engineer will provide an opinion as tq ,th'e:.fl~elihood, from a technical perspective, of obtaining such permits. A review will be made of ·pendin{;f~d/or future changes in environmental legislation and requirements which could impact the operation of the landfill system. Task 6 -Assumptio·ns,anci11bpinion The Engineer will provide Opinions and Conclusions on matters customarily provided in "Independent Engineering Report," which would be included in offering documents. This will include a detail of all the principal Assumptions and Considerations used to arrive at the Opinion and Conclusions. Task 7 -Preparation of Report The Engineer will prepare up to four (4) drafts and one final copy of the Engineer's Report setting forth the principal findings, conclusions, and summarizing the Engineer's review and analyses. The Report will need to be signed by a registered engineer licensed in California. The Report will be prepared with a scope, and in a format suitable for inclusion in offering documents. Task 8 -Presentations The Engineer will attend meetings while preparing the Report. The meetings may include "all-hand" finance meetings, meetings with Districts' staff, public hearings and meetings with the rating agencies, bond insurers and conference calls with the prospective bond purchasers. 2.1 Engineering Qualifications The Districts will select the firm which, in its sole opinion, is most capable of performing the services described in this RFP. To be considered for the work, a proposer must demonstrate knowledge of and experience in similar projects. Pages The Districts reserves the right to investigate the qualifications of all firms under consideration and to confirm any part of the information furnished by a proposer, or to require other evidence of managerial, engineering or technical capabilities which are considered necessary for the successful performance of the contract. 3.0 Proposal Contents .,¥,,. _,,/ All proposals shall be in the format described bej()w.-1tr.io'~der to ensure that each proposal is reviewed and scored proper1y, it is important that eactlJ>roi:>,i9sei:~fd!!q~ii the format with care. Proposals should be as brief and concise as possible, respor::i~~ ·are not to~ exceed twenty (20) pages. Proposals exceeding the page limit shall be deemed non~resppnsive . Lists and tables summarizing experience may be provided in appendices not counted 6nder ~:""appropriate page limit: 3.1.A. A. B. Cover Letter Qualifi~tions of the_. Fitm "'~t 1. Expener;!ce ~ ::;;:! ..•. - 2. Engin~~,rl!JQ G~t~~'~ """ · 3. Assigned Professiaiilals 4. Recommerade~Project Approach Cover;Letter ITd. The cover letter sho~ld1~nq_fe'xceed three (3) single-spaced pages and should be signed by a principal or officer of the proposing firm. The letter should summarize the major points contained in the proposal, as well as provide the name and phone number of the key contact person. The cover letter should be signed by an authorized representative of the firm who may contractually bind the firm and negotiate on behalf of the firm. Please indicate that the proposal is valid for 90 days. 3.2.B. Qualifications qf the Finn For a proposal to be considered, a firm must respond to the following questions: B.1. Experience This section shall describe the firm and its experience relevant to the Districts' needs for the project. It shall include a description of the firm's past or current assignments which demonstrate experience as an independent feasibility engineer for projects similar to the Districts' solid waste system financing program. 1. Provide a brief description of your firm, including the organization of your firm. Include a description of the lines of authority and interrelationships. B.2. Engineering Criteria 1. Describe your experience with solid waste management system and project financing programs. Page 6 \ ' 2. Provide descriptions of projects you have performed which are similar in character and nature to this project. 3. Describe your experience with development of Independent Engineering Reports for inclusion in offering documents for bond financing transactions. 4. Describe your experience with wast · ,eirm analysis and projections for solid waste management systems. B.3. Assigned Professionals This section shall include a staffinQ,R#an arr _sa)etter signed by a principal or officer of the firm to guarantee that the key personn.~l-in~l9!ted . .irf the organizational chart will be assigned to this project unless their employment1ls tel11li'pated. If substitutes or back-up personnel are planned on a contingency basis, they;6s'hould bEfmdicated on the organization chart. #l.. . ::-- rl l---"- 1. ln~i.tate th~opfofeslrorials from your firm that would be assigned to the Districts' y...!.,..,.. f r· solicj: waste Q1an_agement system financing program, their home office location, their role~~and their project hours as a percentage of your team's effort. Who will !>e' the ino.i'<i,dual that would have primary responsibility for executing the Districts ·e rproject? "' Provide brief resumes for each, emphasizing recent relevant solid ~rtw~s.te ~anagem.ent and independent engineering experience; especially recent ~S,~IJfo'm1a expenence. 2. Provide three, and only three, client references for the key professionals assigned to this project. Indicate the names, telephone numbers and projects completed for each ·reference. B.4. Recommended Engineering Approach Discuss your firm's recommended approach to the project. The Districts is seeking firms that can demonstrate a broad understanding of, and background in issues relevant to developing and implementing a financing program for solid waste management systems. Proposals which do not meet these qualifications will not be considered beyond preliminary evaluation. 3.3 Compensation Please provide your total proposed project cost broken down by approximate hours for each task. Include hourly rates for all classifications assigned to the projects. Page 7 3.4 Acceptance of Terms and Conditions 4.0 4.1 Each proposal must include a statement signed by a principal or officer of the firm, indicating that the submitting firm agrees to meet the conditions outlined in this RFP together with attachments. If any qualifying conditions are required, they should be specified in this signed statement. Technical Proposal Evaluation Proce~$s i , The overall evaluation process will be l~~9~e}~$-'f>;~posal Evaluation Team {the "Team"). The evaluation criteria and weightin_gl~wl!kbe the sole basis for determining the technical acceptability of proposals. The tee nicaf. pr:§:P.osal should be specific and complete in every d t ·1 ~;· e a1. ,. ~~· ,-' The proposers, whose writtetl prgposals are determined to be within the competitive range by I. . the Team, may 'be asked to enter,~ioto contract negotiations. Upon evaluation of the proposals and outcome of negotiatidras, the"feam will make a recommendation for contract award. . •I· ;i.. '\a1'•!j;!. The Districts may: or• T ::r .1· 'c 1. .#Reject a~y or all proposals. 2. ~1:1ss~e $l!lbsequent requests for proposals. 3. ··· µ,§...,,~lltel the request for proposal 4. Appoint alternate members of the Team. 5. Remedy technical errors in the request for proposals. 6. Approve or disapprove the use of particular firms. 7. Establish a short list of proposers eligible for interviews after review of written proposals by the Team and consideration of its recommendations. 8. Modify any requirements contained within the RFP and request revised submittals from proposers determined to be within the competitive range. 9. Negotiate with any, all or none of the proposers. 10. Solicit best and final offers from all, some or none of the proposers. 11. Award a contract to one or more proposers. 12. Accept the written proposal as an offer, without negotiation and issue a notice to proceed. This RFP does not commit the Districts to negotiate a contract, nor does it obligate the Districts to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submittal of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The Districts reserves the right to contract with any of the firms responding to this RFP based solely upon its judgment of the qualifications and capabilities of that firm. No information relating to the results of the RFP process will be released until after the recommendations by the Team. 4.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria The criteria for evaluating the proposals includes, but is not limited to the following: Page 8 A. Experience of firm in successfully completing similar projects. B. Experience of personnel to be assigned to the engagement. C. Approach to project. D. Schedule. E. Cost. 5.0 Role Definitions: A. Firm's Responsibility B. ".Jn:iE' . The selected firm shall,1lt.1~1filL.t ~ necessary professional, technical and clerical personnel to provide s~r\iice.:..S~;9uired . The selected firm,..wJll aRP,o[!lM:md make known to the Districts a Project Manager who will be re.~.Pqvsible ~9Lall 1cci°ordination between the Districts and the Engineer. Districts' R~:o'ns;Jfilt ·~-"" ~.--, The Qistricts shall1provide guidelines for the subject services . . f.> Steve' KoZ'a·k~ Financial Manager, shall manage the project for the Districts. 6.0 Prohibited Activities 6.1 PROPOSERS, THEIR AGENTS AND/OR ASSOCIATES SHALL REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING OR SOLICITING DISTRICTS' OFFICIALS REGARDING THIS RFP DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION MAY RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSER. 7.0 Proposal Submittal A complete submittal will consist of an original and ten (10) copies of the proposal documents. All submittals must be received and time stamped by the Districts Office of Contracts, at the address provided below no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on . Proposals received after 4:00 p.m. will not be considered. FACSIMILE COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Attn: Steve Kozak, Financial Manager 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Page 9 8.0 Additional Information and Changes 9.0 All requests for additional infonnation should be in writing and sent to the address above. No oral modifications of this RFP shall be valid. Any modifications shall be written by RFP addendum, and signed by the Districts' Director of Finance. Confidential Data .Jiu. ~ ' Proposer shall clear1y mark each p~ge of." ropg~~I that contains trade secrets or other c~nfidential ~mmercial _or ~nancial l~feJl"ation wtll'ch th~ prop?ser believe~ should ~ot_ be disclosed outside of the Districts. No part-iaf, any proposal will be disclosed outside the D1stncts prior to contract award. ·F ~ Page 10 INDEPENDENT ENGINEER SELECTION SCHEDULE Event Request for Proposals are mailed to Distribution List Pre-proposal conference to Q!3 held .~t 10:00 a.m. 1.f_lr ,,.µ:t•~~LJ'~ . 4" ~-=:i-E" Proposals are due at the DIS ' ts by 4:00 p.m . ..;;r ff Districts' Review Cocnm1 e~l ~y.1ews proposals and develops short list of firms to be interv\~wed for consideration by Districts' Finance and Human Resource Committee r ,, :.~ 4=' Distri~_§'', Fina~C;e. add1f:iuman Resource Committee considers Review Comrrtitt"ee recdtnrljlendation and determines short list of firms to be inte~i~weq~~s,1'!/ell as composition of Selection Committee. r~ Olstricts' Selection Committee interviews short list of firms, and makes seleciiOR Of firm. '.<!:·-.--- Joint Boards approve selection of Independent Engineer. Page 11 Proposal Requirements Request for Proposals (RFP) Selection of Underwriter(s) For ,'1, Solid Waste Managemen~~~y~te'r'n Fi~ancing Program 1.0 General Information 1.1 Introduction ;-; ..Ji? !- The County Sanitation Distrjcts 01f Qr11nge County is proposing the formation of a county- wide Solid Waste: Manag,~m~nt Sanitation District to assume the solid waste authority for waste disposal and landfill management now governed by the County of Orange. The goal is to increase local contror of the waste management system by establishing direct local governance-by theLcustomers of the waste disposal system. The new district would be formed un~~r Califo~ia Health and Safety Code 4700 et seq, and would be governed by a 33 memBer board1-epresenting all cities and sanitary districts in the County. By restructuring gQ:vemance of the system, the communities using the local disposal system would control the operations, management, finances and liability of these disposal facilities. The new district would be called the Solid Waste Management Sanitation District of Orange County (SWMSD-99). All financial projections and cashflow analyses that support the concept of the new solid waste district are predicated upon the use of a capital financing program to both finance acquisition of the system and fund the capital improvement program (CIP) for the SWMSD-99. Currently, the County is paying for its landfill CIP on a pay-as-you-go basis because it is difficult for the County to secure debt financing without a secured waste stream. Pay-as-you-go financing directly impacts the system's rates, with significant increases being needed in years in which large capital projects are planned. The new SWMSD-99 would use a capital financing program for the system acquisition and the CIP, which would allow for a more predictable user rate pattern. It is important to note that the financing would be secured solely by a pledge of revenue based on the receipts of the waste management disposal facilities (landfill tipping fees). No wastewater revenues or reserves would be used or pledged to support the solid waste financing program. Also of interest is that the capital financing program strategy is based on the assumption that investment grade ratings would be required for the solid waste issue. To ensure this, a minimum of 90% flow control is required. In preparation for the potential landfill acquisition, staff is initiating the process to establish a financing team to develop the capital financing program. On February 14, 1996 the Joint Boards of Directors approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the terms and conditions of acquisition of the County's waste disposal system and directed staff to submit the MOU to the County of Orange. Staff submitted the MOU on February 23, 1996 and the County is currently in the process of considering the proposal. Initial Board of Supervisors review is scheduled for March 12, 1996. While staff feels that it is prudent to begin the background work for the capital financing program, the need for the team is entirely contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and agrees to its tenns, the Districts and the County will enter into a 60-day closing period to finalize the deal. However, if the County rejects the Districts' offer, the process would likely end at that time. The proposed solid waste managemenLSYcS.fem financing program and the use of !he financing team professional is conti~gent~p'~,he CoY,nty and the Districts entering into an agreement for the transfer oft , e waste·;d~~ifa,Vsystem. 1.2 Intent of Request for Proposal The Districts are seeking proposals!~~m inns qualified to serve in the capacity of senior managing and/or co-managing .i:NldefWiit~r(s) to provide underwriting services for proposed solid waste management sys_fem transaction(s). . $ ,., [. t:lr{.!- The Dis~ricts, in i~~.o:.~_ple~~~1:~tiolll, reserv~s the right to detennine the number of underwnters and the._i:ole ·of·each underwnter. ~;~ ... l~ The Districts, in;its ~ol~~is~r;tion, reserves the right to detennine the ultimate composition of.the underWrlting team based on the proposals that are received. Regardless of'the ultirrrate composition of this underwriting team, the Districts, in its sole discretion, alsg re.serves the right to establish a selling group of any composition for any future transaction if it deems that such a selling group, for policy and/or financial reasons, is beneficial to the Districts. All respondents will be considered for the senior, book running manager, unless otherwise indicated, and the selection of co-managers will be from the candidates that were not selected for senior, book running manager or have otherwise indicated that they only wish to be considered for a co-manager role. 2.0 Scope of Work The Districts is seeking the services of qualified underwriters to assist the Districts develop and implement a solid waste management system capital financing program. It is anticipated that the senior book running manager will be involved in all aspects of the financing, including the development and execution of the technical, financial, marketing and credit strategies. The duties of the book running senior-managing underwriter shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Work with the Districts' staff, General Counsel, bond counsel, financial advisor, and feasibility engineer to develop and evaluate the legal and financial structure for proposed solid waste management system transaction(s). Review and evaluate financing alternatives available to the Districts for the solid waste management system, and make recommendations on specific financial products to meet the Districts' capital financing objectives at the lowest cost and consistent with the Districts' risk profile. Page 2of14 B. c. D. E. Assist with the selection of financial services necessary for proposed transactions. Work with the Districts staff to prepare the strategy for, and support presentations to rating agencies, bond insurers and investors, as necessary. Market the bonds at the lowest possible interest cost. dlH" . .,,_,,rtrlil' . Development and Execution o')gr -t-~~:tg Underwnters The senior underwriter(s) will .·spons1 l~ffor the development of an Agreement Among Underwrite , {&U) that is consistent with the objectives of the Districts. This AAU will b.e· disla~~!~d at least one week prior to the sale of any bonds. We have concl . hat;!ltne following formulas for gross spread, participation, allocation/brde .. J~l:fllity, and retention will best serve the Districts goals. Please ensure~tha~ the appropriate documents reflect this position. ~ ~ _d~- 1. Gross Sprel:id. Th~Tiistricts reserves the right to review and approve all fees and lfxp~ ses ~.nd request their substantiation. -:-' -~i""· a.""'" Ea : y in the financing schedule the Districts advisor will establish ""' expense guidelines with the book-running senior manager. The expenses co~p'~n_ent o.f~tne underwriting spread r:nu~t be fi_nalized by the boo_k:running semor ... man-ager and approved by the D1stncts pnor to the day of pnc1ng. In addition~computer expenses and syndicate member expenses must be supported with documentation. An estimate of the expense component must be provided to the Districts by the book-running senior manager no later than two days prior to the day of pricing. In general, the Districts does not reimburse the book-running senior manager for clearance fees. b. Ear1y in the financing process the Districts will discuss with the book-running senior manager the maximum underwriting risk component which will be considered after the pricing of the securities is completed. There will be no consideration of the actual underwriting risk component, if any, of the underwriting spread until after the order period closes. At that time, the Districts, its financial advisor, and the book-running senior manager will review the book of orders and discuss the need for including underwriting risk in the underwriters' spread for any unsold bonds. If it is determined that underwriting risk would be appropriate, the Districts will determine the level of that fee, not exceeding the previously-set maximum. There will be no negotiation of underwriting risk after the verbal award has been given by the Districts to the syndicate. Any underwriters' risk component must be approved by the Districts. c. The Districts will set the management fee and how it will be distributed early in the financing process. In general, the management fee will not necessarily be distributed to the managers on the basis of liability, but on management work performed. In certain cases, it is possible that there will be no management fee. Page 3of14 d. Maximum takedowns will be set by the Districts in consultation with the financial advisor, and the book-running senior manager. Final proposed takedowns for all maturities must be included as part of the proposed pricing tenns faxed by the book-running senior manager to the Districts at least one day prior to the pre-pricing conference call. All takedowns are subject to review and approval by the Districts. 2. Allocation of Bonds. Ear1y in the financing schedule the Districts will detennine the general bond allocatiO'Jfu.gq,,.fS the Districts wishes to achieve for the _Particular financing. These ~9als~l!.f.e. disqu~sed with the boo~-running. senior manager. As the financing st,ructUre, 1s finalized and the credit market mto which the Districts' bonds will ~"~old is ~tilated, the Districts, its financial advisor, and the book-running ~!= manager will discuss how the Districts bond allocation goals will be met. (' · ring and sale by the managers and in the dealings among the man~ge •' owing procedures should be followed: ,_-• ff r a. Reten.t~n ~houlq · e given out three business days prior to pricing. The amount of retention .should· be up to 25% of the term bonds. In addition to the tenn b:onds,,a::riitention~may be given out on serial maturities dependent _[ --TO:l. upon market ori diti'ons, A consensus scale and structure will be discussed at that time. 9·.1 -* .[ ""b. Nb'individual manager shall receive more than 50% of any desigO,ated order. Designated orders for bonds in excess of $1 million shall be allocat~df.:lmong at least three other managers. c. Priority of Orders: I. Firm Net Orders Up to 50% of Finn's Liability ii. Group Orders iii. Net Designated Orders (As per MSRB Rules) iv. Member Orders (Filled on a percentage basis up to liability) All Finns will be able to fill priority orders up to 50% of their liability position. For example, if firm "A" has a $10 million liability position and $2 million in initial retention, such firm would receive bonds to fill $3 million in additional priority orders. d. Firms will provide the name of their account to the Districts, at the time of the order. 6. Make presentations to the Districts' staff and Board, as necessary. 7. Maintain and support a secondary market in the Districts' securities. Page 4of14 2.1 Underwriting Qualifications The Districts will select the firms which, in its sole opinion, are most capable of performing the services described in this RFP. To be considered for the work, a proposer must demonstrate knowledge of and experience in similar projects. Additionally, firms must have: Adequate financial resources to unde~rite!j:and market the bonds; and References which can attest to U1e ti" Jlf of the firm's past work and its record in meeting project time tables. The Districts reserves the right to investigate ! . and to confirm any part of the information fu!Jlis of managerial, financial or technical capa_t>il' · successful performance of the contractl · l' ,~' 3.0 Proposal Contents .. mdlll- alifications of all firms under consideration -.b~ a proposer, or to require other evidence · r k 'are considered necessary for the All proposals shall be in ltte:ifo.rma 1 'e.scribed below. In order to ensure that each proposal is reviewed and scored propert~1]j~_important that each proposer follow the format with care. Proposals should be aslbrief ah~. concise as possible, responses are not to exceed twenty (20) pages. Proposals exseeding trae ''page limit shall be deemed non-responsive. Lists and tables summarizing experie.tii·c~ may,J)e provided in appendices not counted under the appropriate page limit: · l:k 3.1.A. A B. c. Cover Letter Qualifications of the Firm 1. Experience 2. Financial Criteria 3. Assigned Professionals 4. Recommended Financing Approach 5. Marketing Statement of Fiduciary Responsibility Standards Cover Letter The cover letter should not exceed three (3) single-spaced pages and should be signed by a principal or officer of the proposing firm. The letter should summarize the major points contained in the proposal, as well as provide the name and phone number of the key contact person. The cover letter should be signed by an authorized representative of the firm who may contractually bind the firm and negotiate on behalf of the firm. Please indicate that the proposal is valid for 90 days. 3.2.B. Qualifications of the Firm For a proposal to be considered, a firm must respond to the following questions: Page 5of14 B.1. Experience This section shall describe the finn and its experience relevant to the Districts' needs for the project. It shall include a description of the finn's past or current assignments that demonstrates experience as a senior-managing or co-managing Underwriter for issuers similar to the Districts. 1. Provide a brief description of your finn, including the organization of your public finance department, muoicipal bond department, and sales organization. Include a 9jscrip.ti§'1 of the lines of authority and interrelationships. Why~15 ttii.s 6~piz~onal structure advantageous to the Districts for the proj~?;?'"What-~ysfem of profit center accounting does your finn use to allo-'1~t~ costs and revenues of the various municipal bond functio 2. Describe the expene ce-ofy~ur finn as managing underwriter and . . I co-managing !!tiderwrit~.r for the following types of financings since Ja~,.uary 11. ~h991 .(l'..,;1 . t"'' iJ. n#. _,;~r a. -,1i!.,_;r~si1cifi:1enn borrowings b. 1t;:Eong.:Turm debt restructuring ~· Certificates of Participation (COPs) Variable Rate Securities Revenue Bonds :..,,, y=t:'il~"- "•For each category, indicate the issuer, the role of your finn (as senior manager or co-manager), the par amount and date of the issue. Select one example for each of the above categories (a) through (e), and provide a brief description of the approach taken by your finn in structuring and marketing that financing. For each category, using the data from a recognized source such as Securities Data Corporation, cite your 1993, 1994 and 1995 rankings (indicate both credit to senior book running manager and credit to each manager). 3. Has your finn recently (in the past three years) been the subject of an investigation by the SEC, NASO, NYSE or any other state or federal organization relating to the municipal industry? If so, please concisely describe the investigation; including its nature and purpose, and its outcome. B.2. Financial Criteria 1. Indicate the finn's current total capital and net capital, and the change from last year. Page 6of14 2. Because future financings may be of considerable size, it may be necessary for the senior manager to underwrite the bonds without firm orders and hold bonds in inventory. Indicate your firm's maximum underwriting commitment in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and proposed commitment to the Districts. 3. Over the last three years, what has been the average amount of your firm's capital allocated to municipal finance operations? Of this amount, how much has been for negoti~teg-llunderwriting? Competitive underwriting? Secondary• ariet activities? ~'if~· 4. Describe the ownershiP,,1 ~reClit ra Ira, ,,·capitalization and date of formation of any subsidiary or afftli4~-tpat is included in your proposal. Describe the. obl!gation for the):~,~r~nt~~.anizaUon(s) or other entity(s) to guarantee obligations of the s_t.lb~~~ry);" · I ,_, ·•-~~ --J...;;r 8.3. Assigned Profession~!.? t TI ..,.- 1 ~ ft=~ T.t .. This section shallTl:fclude-s-'slaffing plan and a letter signed by a principal or ' I officer of th~firm to -guarantee that the key personnel indicated in the orga~izational e~~i;:~ _wHf be assigned to this project unless their emplo~ment is terminated. If sobstttutes or back-up personnel are planned on a contingency basis,;!Pey should be indicated on the organization chart. -CT 1. ~fi-ndi_cate the professionals from your firm that would be assigned to solid waste management system transactions of the Districts, their home office location, their role, and their project hours as a percentage of your team's effort. Who will be the individual that would have primary responsibility for executing the Districts transactions? Provide brief resumes for each, emphasizing recent relevant solid waste management and multi- jurisdictional financing experience; especially recent California experience. List the NASO, NYSE, and SEC licenses of each individual assigned to the Districts. 2. Provide three, and only three, client references for the key professionals assigned to this financing. Indicate the names, telephone numbers and transactions completed for each reference. 3. Provide a list of three firms and lead attorney that you would consider using as Underwriter's Counsel. 8.4. Recommended Financing Approach This component shall provide each respondent an opportunity to discuss the current issues facing the Districts relative to capital financing for a solid waste management system, and the potential creative solutions which might provide additional benefits to the Districts in this regard. The Districts is seeking firms that can demonstrate a broad understanding of background in financings relevant to solid waste management system financings from understanding of credit. Demonstrating a clear comprehension of the relationship of these factors and the ability to integrate them into Page 7of14 the overall policy directives of the Districts will be a significant factor in being selected as senior manager(s}. The proposer may submit any innovative ideas it has used successfully on past projects. 1. Discuss your firm's view on the following issues related to any future bond transactions or debt restructurings: a. What steps, if any, should be taken to establish a credit rating for the solid waste manaQ!:JTl~nt system? What challenges or difficulties would1 ou Elfittcjpate o~ behalf of the Districts in future co_mmunication!fiith ftJEf'iiiJ1~_g~gencies? Should all three ratings (Fitch, S&P, M · ·S) be r~~u!ae·sted? If so, why? If not, why not? b. How should aJci -. ,,bond program be structured? Should ~1t:::P1o' :I. "l!':::1!=ff';r;7 long-term defil'.be fixed ""or variable rate? F~l:~irr c. What dihe1:_'(.mique ideas or suggestions might your firm offer to proviffe n~w~or-alternative funding sources for the proposed solid .jg~=1 wa:t.e management system financing program, including any cash """"" ;JQ flow ~or=yield enhancement techniques? 1. "'·-8\~rr .. d:-ThJ';Districts wishes to retain underwriting firms with broad "' municipal finance experience. Does your firm have a group that 8.5. Marketing ~specializes in structuring and marketing derivative security '"" · products such as interest rate swaps, inverse floaters, etc? If not, what has been your firm's experience with the use of derivative products? Do you recommend that the Districts issue derivative securities such as structured yield curve notes or enter into interest rate swaps to lower its interest cost? What target savings should the Districts consider appropriate before utilizing these products? Describe your proposed derivative securities structure, including a complete discussion of the benefits and risks of this· program to the Districts. 1. Assuming current market conditions, offer a proposed structure on a $100 million new money solid waste management system transaction using terms and serials. Develop alternative maturity and redemption schedules. What call features would your firm propose, and what effect will these call features have on the issue's pricing? Given the strength of the Districts' bonds, how short of a call can the Districts sell at no cost? 2. Describe your strategy for marketing the bonds. What do you see as the appropriate mix between institutional and retail sales? Please describe your firm's institutional and retail distribution capabilities. What portion of the bonds do you expect to be placed with California investors, and what portion will be sold nationally? Would your firm be willing to give California retail investors the highest priority? Would this be helpful in Page 8of14 3.3 producing the lowest borrowing cost possible? If so, how would you propose maximizing the retail investor demand? 3. Describe your commitment to and method for maintaining a secondary market in the Districts' securities. C. Statement of Fiduciary Responsibility Standards 1. If at any time after January 1, ,;1.9~2. your firm participated in any financial transaction with the Coujlty of~2!'~,nge, a!'y agencies governed or controlled by the Counw-of Qrang~,::.af1.~/or the Orange County Treasurer, please provide the foll®l g inforthatwn for each transaction: '• a. F~r ~ebt and:~~fnila~, ~ ~y.ances: the date and amount of each; the pnnc1pal padi~stand Jhe role of your firm. ,. "' ~··"' tlr' r. ~t:- b. For in,~estr;ients_; the date and amount of each; the type of investment:· ihe1-principal parties; and the role of your firm. ~'*=-;:-7,.,...~. ""'::'-" Proposals which-Uo1·not meet these qualifications will not be considered beyond preliminary evaluafion~i· =t Compensatior:f =4~!· ' Please provid~tl.your't6°tal proposed gross spread on a not-to-exceed basis for a $100 million financingusing the structures provided below. Separately identify the various components. Traditional Certificates of Participation: Refunding Certificates of Participation: Revenue Bonds: In submitting your cost/price proposals for the outlined transactions, please refer to the following guidelines: Management Fee: The bid for this fee will be on a firm basis. The Districts expects that the bid for a management fee will remain constant over the life of the engagement. Indicate that this fee is firm for the next two years. The bid should be solely for the investment banking services of the bidder and should not include any management fee for either co-senior or co-managers. While for purposes of this RFP, the Districts has asked bidders to assume a $100 million financing, this fee is not subject to further negotiation regardless of the potential size of future financings. Takedown: The Districts recognizes that this fee will. be determined by market conditions at the time of pricing. Please provide an estimate of your proposed takedown for the above referenced transactions assuming current market conditions. Page 9of14 Underwriter Risk: The Districts recognizes that this fee will be detennined by market conditions at the time of pricing. Please provide an estimate of your proposed risk for the above referenced transactions assuming current market conditions. Expenses: The Districts will reimburse the senior manager only for expenses. These expenses will include: underwriter's counsel, printing, federal funds, CUSIP/DTC, travel, messenger/mail/fed-ex, and faxing/telephone. Any additional expenses will only be honored with the expressed consent of the Dlstrjcts prior to the time a transaction is priced. Indicate any other expenses foG,w hicRlyour finn would seek reimbursement. The ~istricts v.:m not reimburse bidderf'for _,!ith-ef5o~~-f;llter or word processin.g tim~. Provide an estimate for the above ref~re ced tran:sact1ons for each expense item hsted above. 3.4 Acceptance of Tenns and Conditi(:) 1:-:. Each proposal must include atstat~ment signed by a principal or officer of the finn, indicating that the submittiTit1 firnf'agrees to meet the conditions outlined in this RFP together with att~chmen~~.~lf arly;;-qualifying conditions are required, they should be ~ ~--!-specified in this slgm~d_statem~nt. ..;_ ;;· !-.ii_ 4.0 -i~ Technical PrOJ?OSal Evaluation Process 4.1 ·? ·r The overall e~luation-~1rocess will be perfonned by a Proposal Evaluation Team (the ''Team"). Theeval uation criteria and weighting set forth at the end of this section will be the sole basis for detennining the technical acceptability of proposals. The technical proposal should be specific and complete in every detail. The proposers, whose written proposals are detennined to be within the competitive range by the Team, may be asked to enter into contract negotiations. Upon evaluation of the proposals and outcome of negotiations, the Team will make a recommendation for contract award. The Districts may: 1. Reject any or all proposals. 2. Issue subsequent requests for proposals. 3. Cancel the request for proposal 4. Appoint alternate members of the Team. 5. Remedy technical errors in the request for proposals. 6. Approve or disapprove the use of particular finns. 7. Establish a short list of proposers eligible for interviews after review of written proposals by the Team and consideration of its recommendations. 8. Modify any requirements contained within the RFP and request revised submittals from proposers detennined to be within the competitive range. 9. Negotiate with any, all or none of the proposers. 10. Solicit best and final offers from all, some or none of the proposers. 11. Award a contract to one or more proposers. 12. Accept the written proposal as an offer, without negotiation and issue a notice to proceed. Page 10of14 4.2 This RFP does not commit the Districts to negotiate a contract, nor does it obligate the Districts to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submittal of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The Districts reserves the right to contract with any of the firms responding to this RFP based solely upon its judgment of the qualifications and capabilities of that firm. No information relating to the results of the RFP process will be released until after the recommendations by the Team. Proposal Evaluation Criteria 1Ti1 ;:-r • 1·r<" The Districts anticipates selecting fi~1JE~t for its"'s~n'ior managing underwriter positions. All firms not selected as sehto_n,managing underwriter and who requested consideration for co-manager will be, evaf~ted, for co-managing underwriter positions. The criteria for evaluating the prQp·or s. inclµCles, but is not limited to the following: Senior Manager a. b. c. d. e. f. g . '\" i.~~ ""' Structure and ra'j~proaar"to s-olid waste management system financings for the Districts. -,;., Demonstrated expenence in successfully structuring and bringing solid waste management system and other complex credits to mark.et. . .~ Experience, qualifications, location and availability of the personnel assigned to this engagement. Marketing strength with institutional buyers and retail investors. Knowledge, experience and understanding of California solid waste management credits. Demonstrated ability and commitment of the firm to underwrite up to a $200 million bond issue. Demonstrated mark.et presence in underwriting California municipal debt. Co-Managers a. Demonstrated mark.et presence in underwriting California municipal debt. b. Demonstrated distribution to the California tax-exempt retail securities mark.et. Page 11of14 c. Knowledge and familiarity with California solid waste management system bonds. d. Experience and qualifications of the personnel assigned to this engagement. e. Structure and Approach to Districts' solid waste system financings. 5.0 Role Definitions: A. Firm's Responsibility The selected firm(s) shall .-fu~i~.111 the necessary professional, technical and clerical personnel to pro~ide~seT'tlg.es required. 'i The selected firm(sl will appo,iht and make known to the Districts a Project Manager who wit(pe resp=on-Sible for all coordination between the Districts and the Underw~ter. B. District~! -Respo~~ility The Dlistricts shall provide guidelines for the subject services. f ...... -1 f l "--7 , I t Steve KOZak, Financial Manager, shall manage the project for the Districts. 6.0 Prohibited Activities 6.1 PROPOSERS, THEIR AGENTS AND/OR ASSOCIATES SHALL REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING OR SOLICITING DISTRICTS' OFFICIALS REGARDING THIS RFP DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION MAY RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSER. 7 .0 Proposal Submittal A complete submittal will consist of an original and ten (10) copies of the proposal documents. All submittals must be received and time stamped by the Districts Office of Contracts, at the address provided below no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on ___ _ ___ . Proposals received after 4:00 p.m. will not be considered. FACSIMILE COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Attn: Steve Kozak, Financial Manager 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Page 12of14 8.0 Additional Information and Changes All requests for additional information should be in writing and sent to the address above. No oral modifications of this RFP shall be valid. Any modifications shall be written by RFP addendum, and signed by the Districts' Director of Finance. 9.0 Confidential Data Proposer shall clearly mark each page of its BJ:ORO'Sal that contains trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial infQtli'lation which the proposer believes should not ~e disclo~ed_outsi~e of the Distric~~: No p=aftff~!J¥''proposal will be disclosed outside the D1stncts pnor to contract awai:d. "li·~- J!IWPDOC\FINICRANEIFPC.MTGIFAHR. Page 13of14 UNDERWRITER SELECTION SCHEDULE Request for Proposals are mailed via Certified Mail to Distribution List Pre-proposal conference to be held at""1o:OO a.m. Districts' Review Committe:e re 1ews proposals and develops short list of ~ :.L. .. ....:..:..:.:.J firms to be interviewed foroc-oi;ts1Cleration by Districts' Finance and Personnel Committee" ·· ~ · I' .I -;.r ~· Districts' Finance anirPei-sonnel Committee considers Review Committee ,,,_..,.;....,. -1•=""""'1-recoril"'~n.datj~li: and determines short list of firms to be interviewed as well as compo'Sitiorl'cof Selection Committee . . ,__,,:?- I' Districts' Selection Committee interviews short list of firms, and makes ~election . of firm( s). Ll JolnfBoards approve selection of Underwriter(s). Page 14of14 ·~ I Proposal Requirements Request for Proposals (RFP) Selection of Financial Advisor For Solid Waste Management Syste!P Financing Program 1.0 General lnfonnation 1.1 Introduction ,I The County Sanitation Distri9.f'~ ot Ora~.ge County is proposing the formation of a county- wide Solid Waste Management Sanitalion District to assume the solid waste authority for waste disposal anfi·r1andfflt:m.ana~ement now governed by the County of Orange. The goal is to increas-e·loc~,f cdntjiol of the waste management system by establishing direct local governance ~-t~e~stdmers of the waste disposal system. The new district would be formed under'Califo~if'Health and Safety Code 4700 et seq, and would be governed by a 33 member board representing all cities and sanitary districts in the County. By restructuring rQ.~e~~D~ of the system, the communities ~si~~ the local di~posal system would controlii.ll'le ·operat1ons, management, finances and hab11tty of these disposal facilities. The 'new district would be called the Solid Waste Management Sanitation District of Orange County (SWMS0-99). All financial projections and cashflow analyses that support the concept of the new solid waste district are predicated upon the use of a capital financing program to both finance acquisition of the system and fund the capital improvement program (CIP) for the SWMSD-99. Currently, the County is paying for its landfill CIP on a pay-as-you-go basis because it is difficult for the County to secure debt financing without a secured waste stream. Pay-as-you-go financing directly impacts the system's rates, with significant increases being needed in years in which large capital projects are planned. The new SWMSD-99 would use a capital financing program for the system acquisition and the CIP, which would allow for a more predictable user rate pattern. It is important to note that the financing would be secured solely by a pledge of revenue based on the receipts of the waste management disposal facilities (landfill tipping fees). No wastewater revenues or reserves would be used or pledged to support the solid waste financing program. Also of interest is that the capital financing program strategy is based on the assumption that investment grade ratings would be required for the solid waste issue. To ensure this, a minimum of 90% flow control is required. In preparation for the potential landfill acquisition, staff is initiating the process to establish a financing team to develop the capital financing program. On February 14, 1996 the Joint Boards of Directors approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the terms and conditions. of acquisition of the County's waste disposal system and directed staff to submit the MOU to the County of Orange. Staff submitted the MOU on February 23, 1996 and the County is currently in the process of considering the proposal. Initial Board of Supervisors review is scheduled for March 12, 1996. While staff feels that it is prudent to begin the background work for the capital financing program, the need for the team is entirely contingent on the County's consideration of the MOU. If the County responds favorably to the MOU and agrees to its terms, the Districts and the County will enter into a 60-day closing period to finalize the deal. However, if the County rejects the Districts' offer, the process would likely end at that time. The proposed solid waste management system financing program and the use of the financing team professional is contingent on the County and the Districts entering into an agreement for the transfer of the waste disposal system. 1.2 Intent of Request for Proposal The Districts are seeking proposals fror.o'lifirm,Sd!9,~lified Jo serve in the capacity of financial advisor for the proposed soli!:I waste man.§g~ment system transaction(s). ~t~;:- 2.0 Scope of Work The financial advisor shall be av.aii~~.:l~ .e ermined by the Districts to provide analysis, consultation and support ta r de~l1opment and implementation of the solid waste management financingpro~ra"?.r The financial advisor may be requested to provide assistance staff in the followi'ng areas: _.n.lii· -·~ A. Propose -~f=1ve so .. :ons to funding, financing, cash flow and other monetary challenges'T~la~e~Jo""tfie solid waste management system financing program. ~I ~~~ B. Assistf'staff in s,Pliciting proposals for bond counsel, underwriter(s), issuing and paying:O:~ge1JlS', 11iquidity providers, trustee, printers etc., if necessary. ~~jrli C. Assist in the structuring of a bond issue including: rating agency preparations, the size and timing of bond sale, bond callability, bond maturities, reserve fund, capitalized interest, and other matters which may assist in obtaining the lowest interest cost for the issue. · D. Provide advice, written analysis and assistance regarding the benefits of possible credit enhancements. E. Prepare written reports before and after pricing indicating market comparable (including gross spread, management fee and takedown comparables) and overall market conditions. F. Serve as the Districts' agent with respect to the pricing of the bonds and minimizing the costs of issuance. G. Provide oral and/or written updates to the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee and the Joint Board of Directors, as required. H. Assist the Districts staff in the review of all bond allocations to assure equity among the co-managers and assist in the preparation of a written report supporting the bond allocation process. I. Other matters as needed. Page2 2.1 Financial Advisor Qualifications The Districts will select the firms which, in its sole opinion, are most capable of performing the services described in this RFP. To be considered for the work, a proposer must demonstrate knowledge of and experience in similar projects. The Districts reserves the right to investigate the qualifications of all firms under consideration and to confirm any part of the information furnished by a proposer, or to require other evidence of managerial, financial or technical capabilities which are"considered necessary for the successful performance of the contract. " 3.0 Proposal Contents All proposals shall be in the format describe .. · I , . order to ensure that each proposal is reviewed and scored properly, it is importa ea_c proposer follow the format with care. Proposals should be as brief and concise as p _ ssiBie, responses are not to exceed twenty (20) pages. Proposals exceeding the pag.e' lilljlft shall' be deemed non-responsive. Lists and tables summarizing experience may be,,prbvid~dc ip appendices not counted under the appropriate I. ·t· ·m·, ·,-, i =· page 1m1. -'-'~ . · ; "'1.tl!, '";.-.,ti ·-= ~I A. Cover Letter,~~"~ .n!: .:-..Jlf' B. Qualifications of;tme·flrm 1. Exe.~rience 'l'"'-- 2. Fin~r:tcial Advisor Criteria 3. As~ighe-d Professionals 4. Recommended Financing Approach C. Statement of Fiduciary Responsibility Standards 3.1.A. Cover Letter The cover letter should not exceed three (3) single-spaced pages and should be signed by a principal or officer of the proposing firm. The letter should summarize the major points contained in the proposal, as well as provide the name and phone number of the key contact person. The cover letter should be signed by an authorized representative of the firm who may contractually bind the firm and negotiate on behalf of the firm. Please indicate that the proposal is valid for 90 days. 3.2.B. Qualifications of the Firm For a proposal to be considered, a firm must respond to the following questions: 8.1. Experience Indicate the experience of your firm for the following types of financing since January 1, 1991. 1. Short-term borrowings. 2. Long-term debt restructuring. 3. Certificates of Participation (COPs). Page 3 4. Variable Rate Securities. 5. Revenue Bonds. For each category, indicate the date of issue, the issuer, the credit ratings and the size of the transaction. Using the data from a recognized source such as Securities Data Corporation, cite the 1993, 1994, and 1995 year to date.;rankings for negotiated issues for your firm in California and nationally. · ,"'El'" 4lli~ B.2. Financial Advisor Criteria 1. Provide a concise list of the se c~s· and the work products that your firm proposes to provide to the Qj~Jl;!ct :·. '~,. scribe the overall relationship you envision in your role as ~rnan~ial:·advisor to the Districts. What unique services or products would you prpvid~?u Wb~t specific benefits do you feel your team will bring? ~~ ~ • ~ ~· Jt ·~ ",~- 2. Describe=!l~·proeeS:s your firm will use to understand the Districts' financing needs and for prop·os'mg appropriate solutions. m·~..., ·1· 3. Descrit:>~ your fiefn1~· knowledge, experience and resources in tracking and monitQ'fing the i~-exempt and taxable bond markets (including fixed rate, L".l-'Tt ,_ varia~J~':rate-and derivative products), the swap market, and the government securfffes"rrfarket. 4. Describe a specific situation(s) where the firm applied their advisory skills and abilities in the following areas: A. Responsiveness and attentiveness to clients needs B. Creative ability C. Knowledge and understanding of municipal market conditions and trends D. Analytic capability E. Oral and written communication skills 5. Cite examples where the assigned personnel have analyzed transactions proposed to utilize derivatives and have both recommended for and against the use of derivatives in the transaction. Describe the circumstances and state the reasons for each decision. 6. How will you ensure that the Districts receive the best price for any bonds, financings involving swaps and other derivative products? How will you evaluate the success of these pricings? Page4 7. Disclose all compensation/fee arrangements (formal or informal) that your firm or any of its individuals has with the following parties: swap providers, investment contract providers, verification agents, financial advisory firms, investment banking firms, any other consultants or financial institutions and law firms. 8.3. Assigned Professionals This section shall include a staffing plan and a letter signed by a principal or officer of the firm to guarantee that th~. k~yipersonnel indicated in the organizational chart will be assign.ed i~~ilis project unless their employment is -~. ·]·"'1" " terminated. If substitutes or badk-u.Q1pe~onnel ·are planned on a contingency basis, they should be indicated o .'tne orgaoiZ~tion chart. 1. 2. Indicate the professiodals . . ·;your firm that would be assigned to future transactions of theJ:ii§1:ticts;·1 !tfeir home office location, their role, and their project hours as/a Pr(c~~~efe of your team's effort. Who will be the individual that would ha1ie 'primary responsibility for executing the Districts' tr~l)sac1i~ry~_;?.='' Provide brief resumes for each, emphasizing recent relev.~nt CS1ifdmia solid waste management, and multi- juns~iS.li?n~J ·~n_cincing experience. List any licenses of individuals who wouldll>;~'·assfgn·ed to the Districts. :re·· ---..£ .,. ?ij ... ~Provide three, and only three, client references for the key professionals _:J~assigne'o to this financing. Indicate the names, telephone numbers and 1l!f:~ra.nsactions completed for each reference. 8.4. Recommended Financing Approach Discuss your firm's approach to the project. The Districts is seeking firms that can demonstrate a broad understanding of, and background in, issues relevant to developing and implementing a financing program for solid waste management systems. 3.3 Compensation The Districts' expects to receive monthly billings statements from its financial advisor. 1. Given your proposed scope of services and work products, discuss your proposed fee arrangement. State if your firm is willing to accept a contract based on a fixed cost not-to-exceed basis. If yes, provide an estimate of that fixed price. If you propose to be compensated on the basis of time and materials, provide a schedule of the hourly billing rates for team members, a list of the types of expenses for which you would expect to be reimbursed, and your estimate of total fees and expenses. 2. If your firm charges a separate transaction fee, estimate the fees for a bond issue assuming an issue size of $100 million. Pages 3. Please indicate all of the financial advisory fees that your firm charged on its (3) three most recent transactions. Include the date, the name of the issuer and the type of services performed. 3.4 Acceptance of Terms and Conditions Each proposal must include a statement signed by a principal or officer of the firm, indicating that the submitting firm agrees to meet the conditions outlined in this RFP together with attachments. If any qualifying condjfions are required, they should be specified in this signed statement. 4.0 Technical Proposal Evaluation Proc ~ The overall evaluation process will bE!1p , !'TTled by a Proposal Evaluation Team (the ''Team"). The evaluation criteria.~'<f~!li9h'i1·ng set forth at the end of this section will be the sole basis for determining tJfe te_cHni~l1ifacceptability of proposals. The technical proposal should be specific and <;p'h'lplete in every detail. i.:!.:-'* ~ ~ ~ir.] - 4.1 The proposers, wh~b~e Y(,~Jiftep proposals are determined to be within the competitive range by the Team;~may b~.sked to enter into contract negotiations. Upon evaluation of the proposals and out~~e of negotiations, the Team will make a recommendation for contract award.,-9_1,. '"' .'ii !:::: ~-tt ... The Districts1may: , J J~~!:iF~·- 1. Reject any or all proposals. 2. Issue subsequent requests for proposals. 3. Cancel the request for proposal 4. Appoint alternate members of the Team. 5. Remedy technical errors in the request for proposals. 6. Approve or disapprove the use of particular firms. 7. Establish a short list of proposers eligible for interviews after review of written proposals by the Team and consideration of its recommendations. 8. Modify any requirements contained within the RFP and request revised submittals from proposers determined to be within the competitive range. 9. Negotiate with any, all or none of the proposers. 10. Solicit best and final offers from all, some or none of the proposers. 11. Award a contract to one or more proposers. 12. Accept the written proposal as an offer, without negotiation and issue a notice to proceed. This RFP does not commit the Districts to negotiate a contract, nor does it obligate the Districts to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submittal of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The Districts reserves the right to contract with any of the firms responding to this RFP based solely upon its judgment of the qualifications and capabilities of that firm. No information relating to the results of the RFP process will be released until after the recommendations by the Team. Pages 4.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria The criteria for evaluating each of the proposals are provided below. 1. Understanding the Districts' immediate and long-term financing objectives. 2. Experience in providing creative and innovative approaches to municipal finance. ,-;"- '\ ·"~ 3. Firm resources and accessibility f ktif'~ ·~rsonnel to Districts staff during the engagement. · ~irt 4. Team and experience on simjl~ .r 5. Qualification of key person_n18'~lss1gn:e & .J'I :f:' -,.,,_ 6. Reasonable fees. -F .;· '· -l 5.0 Role Definitions: A. The sel~cted tirrp s) shall furnish the necessary professional, technical and clerical personnel to provide services required. ""t1:__:_,__' ' The selected firm(s) will appoint and make known to the Districts a Project Manager who will be responsible for all coordination between the Districts and the Underwriter. B. Districts' Responsibility The Districts shall provide guidelines for the subject services. Steve Kozak, Financial Manager, shall manage the project for the Districts. 6.0 Prohibited Activities 6.1 PROPOSERS, THEIR AGENTS AND/OR ASSOCIATES SHALL REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING OR SOLICITING DISTRICTS' OFFICIALS REGARDING THIS RFP DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION MAY RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSER. Page7 7.0 Proposal Submittal A complete submittal will consist of an original and ten (10) copies of the proposal documents. All submittals must be received and time stamped by the Districts Office of Contracts, at the address provided below no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on ____ _ __ . Proposals received after 4:00 p.m. will not be considered. FACSIMILE COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. County Sanitation Districts.of 0range County + "" Attn: Steve KozaK,. Fin:ar:icial Manager 10844J~liis A~Efifue. . ""Ji'" 11,L -1 ml:; ....... ";:::. Fountain Valle'· CA 92'72~--8127 8.0 Additional Information and Changes All requests for additional information §'hO\J , ·e in writing and sent to the address above. No oral modifications of this REP shali" be;vaiid. Any modifications shall be written by RFP addendum, and signed by the lDistdets~ _Ofrector of Finance. 1~,r,_, t!!:u1r 1ii;;: · 9.0 Confidential Data '":I "l't. ~-:-~ ." Proposer shall cleany marlq~a-eh page of its proposal that contains trade secrets or other confidential com,Jlercial o~financial information which the proposer believes should not be disclosed outsic;f~,of th~. Districts. No part of any proposal will be disclosed outside the Districts prior to ~Q_tract award. J:\WPDOCIFIN\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\RFPFA Page 8 FINANCIAL ADVISOR SELECTION SCHEDULE Request for Proposals are mailed via Certified Mail to Distribution List :rt A Pre-proposal conference to1'6e b ·n ,,:r Districts' Review Comrpittee; eviews proposals and develops short list of firms to be intef'Viewel!'t for consideration by Districts' Finance and Human Resources 9errjmittee_0eii1.i':f ·l~_tBJk1·: 't.,.··· ~ District~'t'inans.( :.~dministration and Human Resources Committee consi.c.;ters--~~~ie~ Committee recommend~~ion and det~rmines sh_ort list of firms to be rnt~rviewed as well as composition of Selection Committee. -~1 Dt ·~5rselection Committee interviews short list of firms, and makes selection of firm(s). Joint Boards approve selection of Financial Advisor. Page 9 Fonnat D Written Report D overheads OSlides 0 Flip Charts Onginato~~ Department Head Sign~ Gary Streed Anticipated Time 5 min. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 FAHR96-21: Consideration of motion to receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of January 1996. Summary Both Pacific Investment Management Co., PIMCO, and Mellon Trust began their professional external management of our funds in September 1995. In order to give the Directors an opportunity to review the month-end reports available from PIMCO, and to avoid distribution at the meeting, reports from the prior month are included with the agenda. Quarterly presentations are made to the Committee by both PIMCO and our third- party independent consultant, Callan Associates. The Investment Policy adopted by the Joint Boards on May 24, 1995, includes reporting requirements as listed down the PIMCO Monthly Report for the "Liquid Operating Monies" and for the "Long-Term Operating Monies." All of the Investment Policy requirements are being complied with and performance to date exceeds the index rates. State of Calif. LAIF Bank of America PIMCO -Short-term Portfolio PIMCO -Long-term Portfolio District 11 GO Bond Fund Debt Service Reserves @ Trustees Staff Recommendation $ 11,824,809 606,215 60,832,895 256,252,307 2,232 33,519,574 $363, 038, 032 Staff recommends the Committee receive, approve ~nd forward this report to the Joint Boards. J:\WPOOC\FIN\CRANBFPC.MTGIFAHR,96\COVERS.96\FAHR96.21 March 13, 1996 CS DOC TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS 1995 -1996 _) 400 350 300 I! .!! 250 0 Q 'O 200 • c ~ 150 i 100 50 0 June 30 July 31 Aug. 31 . Sept. 30 Oct. 30 Nov. 30 Dec. 31 Jan. 31 J:\WPDOCIFINICRANEIFPC.MTG\FAHR.96\COVERS.96\FAHR96,21 MONTHLY REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending January 31, 1996) Liquid Operating Monies 14.1.1 PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value: Historical Cost: 14.1.2 MODIFIED DURATION Of Portfolio: Oflndex: 14.1.3 1 % INTEREST RA TE CHANGE Dollar Impact (gain/loss) of 1% Change: 14.1.4 REVERSE REPOS %·of Portfolio in Rever.se Repos: (see attached schedule) 14.1.5 PORTFOLIO MATURITY % of Portfolio Maturing within 90 days: 14.1.6 PORTFOLIO QUALITY Average Portfolio Credit Quality: 14.1.7 SECURITIES BELOW "A" RATING % of Portfolio Below "A": 14.1.8 INVESTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE "In Compliance" 14.1.9 PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE Portfolio Total Rate of Return: 1 Month: 3 Months: 12 Months: Year-to-Date: - Index Total Rate of Return: 1 Month: $61,394,854 $61,434,674 '11 .25 $67,534 (.11 %) 0% 90% AA+ 0% .45 1.44 ----- .45 .45 MONTHLY REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending January 31, 1996) Long Term Operating Monies .ii-PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value: l 14.1.1 ! Historical Cost: I 1~.1.2 MODIFIED DURATION Of Portfolio: Of Index: 1~.1.3 1%INTERESTRATECHANGE Dollar Impact (gain/loss) of 1 % Change: lf.1.4 REVERSE REPOS % of Portfolio in Reverse Repos: (see attached schedule) I 14.1.5 PORTFOLIO MATURITY % of Portfolio Maturing within 90 days: 14.1.6 PORTFOLIO QUALITY Average Portfolio Credit Quality: 14.1.7 SECURITIES BELOW "A" RATING % of Portfolio Below "A": 14.1.8 INVESTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE "In Compliance" 11.1.9 PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE Portfolio Total Rate of Return: 1 Month: 3 Months: 12 Months: Year-to-Date: Index Total Rate of Return: 1 Month: .. $266,059,747 $222,510,310 2.4 2.4 $6,412,040 (2.4%) 0% NA AA+ 0% .91 3.12 ------ .91 .89 Fonnat Originator A r o Written Report o Overheads Mlche~~ru Department Head Sign o~-~ o Slides Michelle Tuchman o Flip Charts Anticipated Time __ _ FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 FAH R96-22: Staff Summary Report on the organization of the Communications Division, the results of the Internal Communications Audit and an overview of new and/or expanded programs to reach both internal and external audiences. Summarv A Communications Division was organized last summer under the General Management Department to better meet the communications and graphics needs of the Districts. The following information is a report on how the division is structured, the services the division provides and the efforts currently underway to reach both internal and external audiences. Budget Information There is no budgetary impact. Staff Recommendation An informational item only. j:lwpdoclcommsec\michelle\template.96 March 13, 1996 FAHR96-22: Background STAFF REPORT Summary Report on the Communications Division organization, the results of the Internal Communications Audit and an overview of new and/or expanded communications programs. A Communications Division, within the General Management Department, was established in the FY '95-'96 budget to centralize five functions -internal and external communications, graphic services, photocopying, the Mail Room and the receptionist's duties. Director of Communications, Michelle Tuchman, was hired in November to manage and coordinate these functions. Since that time, emphasis has been placed on assessing individual job responsibilities within the Division and, if necessary, reassigning those responsibilities to add greater operational efficiency and enhance employee productivity. Three budgeted positions - a senior office aide, a clerk and an intern -were eliminated and a part-time employee was placed on work-order basis. Discussions continue on converting the recently vacated position of administrative assistant to Communications Coordinator, a move that would enable the division to better meet internal communications needs. Following an assessment by the Director of Communications, it was decided that employee communications was the area of immediate need. Therefore, the biggest and most visible effort within the last half of fiscal 1996 will be the refinement and further development of our internal communications program. External communications are also vital to the implementation of such issues as the NPDES permit renewal and the update of the Districts' strategic plan. To reach specific stakeholders several programs are being planned for the remainder of fiscal 1996 as well as fiscal 1997. Communications Audit An Internal Communications Audit was conducted in January to more accurately gauge employees' perceptions, concerns, morale and attitude. Some 260 employees responded to the audit, the largest number of respondents to any employee survey. We believe this response rate emphasizes the importance employees place on communications. CSDOC D P.0.Box8127 D FountainValley,CA92728-8127 DTel. (714)962-2411 0FAX(714)962-3954 FAHR96-22 Page2 March 13, 1996 Audit highlights include the following: More than 70% of the respondents agree or somewhat agree with the statement, "We've gone through some tough years at the Districts, but I think things are improving." When asked if they believe "Morale at the Districts is improving," 35% said they disagree while 40% said they somewhat agree. Nearly 80% feel communications at the Districts is improving, and 62% agree or somewhat agree with the statement, "The Districts cares about me and what I think." Employees say the Districts' mission, goals and objectives have been clearly communicated to them, with supervisors, managers and departmenUdivision meetings being the first choices for the sources of accurate, reliable information. The News Pipeline, our employee newsletter, is an important communications vehicle, but greater emphasis needs to be placed on publishing Districts' future plans, policies and procedures, proposed expansion and/or changes in Districts' operation, and management philosophy. The Internal Communications Audit will be conducted again in January 1997 and the results compared as a benchmark to the effectiveness of our employee communications programs. Communications Action Team A Communications Action Team, comprised of 1.0 volunteer members representing the Districts' eight departments, was formed in February. The purpose of the Team is to assist the Communications Division in its continuing assessment of the Districts' internal communications needs, to suggest new programs and services to meet those needs and to form the foundation of the Districts' employee communications network. The Communication Action Team received the results of the Communications Audit and will use those results to recommend new and/or expanded programs and services. Expanded and Improved Programs The following programs will be expanded and improved during the last half of fiscal 1996 and will continue to be evaluated on an ongoing basis for effectiveness and responsiveness to employee needs: FAHR96-22 Page 3 March 13, 1996 -The News Pipeline -Regularly scheduled (formal) meetings with upper management -An employee suggestion/comment/complaint program that ensures confidentiality -The NEWSLine New Programs Bulletin Boards -A bulletin board program was established in January to provide a communications vehicle that both management and staff can use and share. Some 22 bulletin boards were installed throughout the Districts. The Communications Division is the coordinating unit and the group responsible for updating information and maintaining the boards. Informal Meetings with Management -Management will be visiting work sites throughout the plants to further facilitate two-way communications, to give employees the opportunity to showcase their work areas, and to further break down barriers between management and staff. Graphic Services It is also a goal of the Communications Division to produce and provide programs and services that assist employees in improving their presentation skills. To that end, regularly scheduled workshops and seminars will be conducted. "How to Plan an Effective Presentation" was February's workshop; "How to Give an Effective Presentation" is scheduled for March. External Audiences The following external audiences have been identified, and various programs and communications vehicles, like Quarterly Board Workshops, have and will continue to be planned to reach these audiences: -the Boards of Directors -the general public --stakeholders (including environmentalists) -government representatives (state and local) -Orange County businesses -the media -schools/educators FAHR96-22 Page4 March 13, 1996 Summary The Districts has made significant strides within the first half of fiscal 1996 to improve its internal communications program. Feedback from employees is positive, although we believe significant improvements can -and will -be made to our communications vehicles. j:\wpdoc\commsec\michelleltemplate.96a Page 4 of 4 Communications Audit January 1996 RETURN TO DIV. 2190 BY FEBRUARY 1 How long have you been with the Districts? D less than a year D 1-5 years D 6-10 years D 16-20 years D 21 years or more Which of the following describes your job classification? D Administrative/Clerical D Technical D Supervisor/Manager D Operators D Maintenance D Professional We've gone through some tough years at the Districts, but I think things are improving. D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree Morale at the Districts is improving. D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree Communications at the Districts is improving D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree The Districts cares about me and what I think. D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree If I have a question about a policy or procedure, I know where to get an answer. D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree The Districts' mission, goals and objectives have been clearly communicated to me. D strongly agree · D agree D somewhat agree The Districts is a good place to work. D strongly agree D agree D somewhat agree D disagree D disagree D disagree D disagree D disagree D disagree D disagree D 11-15 years D Department Head D strongly disagree D strongly disagree D strongly disagree D strongly disagree D strongly disagree D strongly disagree D strongly disagree Commwrications Audit Page2 I usually receive information about what's going on at the Districts from: (please rank 1-9 with 1 being the highest ranking) My supervisor/manager Department/division meetings The News Pipeline The NEWS Line Memos The grapevine My fellow employees Rumors Newspapers I would rather receive information about the Districts from: (please rank 1-9 with 1 being the highest ranking) My supervisor/manager Department/division meetings The News Pipeline The NEWS Line Memos The grapevine My fellow employees Rumors Newspapers Please rank the following list of communication sources for importance and accuracy (please rank 1-9 with 1 being the highest) My supervisor/manager Department/division meetings The News Pipeline The NEWS Line Memos The grapevine My fellow employees Rumors Newspapers Importance Accuracy , . How would you rate the overall content of The News Pipeline? D Excellent D Good D Fair D Poor When you receive The News Pipeline, how much do you read? D Almost all of it D about half of it D Only selected articles D little, if any, of it Does The News Pipeline keep you up-to-date with Districts news? D Always D Most of the time D Sometimes D Rarely Communications Audit Page4 Do you think The News Pipeline maintains a good balance of information? D Always D Most of the time D Sometimes D Rarely Would you like to see The News Pipeline expanded? D Yes D No How often would you like to see The News Pipeline distributed? D Bi-weekly (as it is now) D Monthly D Quarterly Would you like to see an employee newsletter that has more department features and stories about fellow employees? D Yes D No How frequently do you call the NEWS Line? D once a week D every other week D once a month D never Did you attend last summer's Family Day? D Yes D No D No,Because _________________ _ Did you attend last summer's CSDOC Picnic? D Yes D No D No, Because _________________ _ Did you attend the CSDOC Holiday Party? D Yes D No D No, Because _________________ _ Would you like to see more events like Family Day? D Yes D No ATTACHMENT 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Communications Audit Results I Question 1: How long have you been with the Districts? Under 1 year 6% 1 -5 years 31% 6 -10 years 41% 11 -15 years 12% 16 -20 years 6% Over 20 years 5% I Question 2: Which of the following describes your job classification? Administrative/Clerical 21% Professional 18% Technical 18% Supervisor/Manager 16% Maintenance 16% Operators 6% Department Head 2% I Question 3: We've gone through some tough years at the Districts but I think things are improving. Strongly agree 6% Agree I 33% Somewhat agree 38% Disagree 19% Strongly disagree 4% I Question 4: Morale at the Districts is improving. Strongly agree 1% Agree I 17% Somewhat agree 40% Disagree 35% Strongly disagree 7% I Question 5: Communications at the Districts is improving. Strongly agree 7% Agree I 28% Somewhat agree 42% Disagree 21% Strongly disagree 2% I Page 1 of 7 Communications Audit Results Question 6: The Districts cares about me and what I think. Strongly agree 4% Agree 23% Somewhat agree 39% Disagree 28% Strongly disagree 6% Question 7: If I have a question about a policy or procedure, I know where to get an answer. Strongly agree 6% Agree 44% Somewhat agree 34% Disagree 14% Strongly disagree 2% Question 8: The Districts' mission, goals and objectives have been clearly communicated to me. Strongly agree 9% Agree 42% Somewhat agree 34% Disagree 13% Strongly disagree 2% Question 9: The Districts is a good place to work. Strongly agree 24% Agree 49% Somewhat agree 23% Disagree 4% Strongly disagree 3% Page 2 of 7 Communications Audit Results Question 1 O: I usually receive information about what's going on at the Districts from: (1=Highest Ranking) My supervisor/manager 1 My fellow employees 2 Department/division meetings 3 Memos 4 The News Pipeline 5 The grapevine 6 Rumors 7 The NEWSLine 8 Newspapers 9 Question 11 I would rather receive information about the Districts from: (1=Highest Ranking) My supervisor/manager 1 Department/division meetings 2 Memos 3 The News Pipeline 4 The NEWSLine 5 My fellow employees 6 The grapevine 7 Newspapers 8 Rumors 9 Question 12: Please rank the following list of communication sources for importance and accuracy: (1=Highest Ranking) I mgJ1.rtaac:.e. Ac;.,ura~ My supervisor/manager 1 1 Department/division meetings 2 2 Memos 3 3 The News Pipeline 4 4 The NEWSLine 5 5 My fellow employees 6 6 Newspapers 7 8 The grapevine 8 7 Rumors 9 9 Page 3 of 7 Communications Audit Results I Question 13: The amount of information I receive on the Districts' future plans is: Too Much 4% Too Little 54% Just Right 38% No Answer 4% I Question 14: The amount of information I receive on the Districts' policies and procedures is: Too Much 6% Too Little 54% Just Right 35% No Answer 5% I Question 15: The amount of information I receive on proposed expansion change in the Districts' operation is: Too Much 4% Too Little 64% Just Right 26% No Answer 6% I Question 16: The amount of information I receive on management philosophy is: Too Much 11% Too Little 50% Just Right 26% No Answer 13% I Question 17: The amount of information I receive on job related information is: Too Much 1% Too Little 50% ' Just Right 43% No Answer 6% I Question 18: The amount of information I receive on job advancement opportunities is: I Too much 0% Too Little 53% Just Right 37% No Answer 10% Page 4 of 7 Communications Audit Results Question 19: The amount of information I receive on the effect of external issues on my job is: Too Much 2% Too Little 62% Just Right 21% No Answer 15% Question 20: The amount of information I receive on news of other departments/divisions is: Too Much 2% Too Little 64% Just Right 25% No Answer 9% Question 21: The amount of information I receive on the Districts' stand on current issues is: Too Much 0% Too Little 64% Just Right 26% No Answer 10% Question 22: The amount of information I receive on the Districts' community involvement is: Too Much 1% Too Little 51% Just Right 37% No Answer 11% Question 23: The amount of information I receive on personnel changes/promotions is: Too Much 2% Too Little 35% Just Right 59% No Answer 4% Page 5 of 7 Communications Audit Results Question 24: The amount of information I receive on human interest news on co-workers is: Too Much 3% Too Little 33% Just Right 55% No Answer 9% Question 25: The amount of information I receive on general Districts' news is: Too Much 2% Too Little 41% Just Right 53% No Answer 4% Question 26: How would you rate the overall content of The News Pipeline? Excellent 18% Good 61% Fair 19% Poor 2% Question 27: When you receive The News Pipeline, how much do you read? Almost all of it 79% About half of it 9% Only selected articles 9% Little, if any, of it 3% Question 28: Does The News Pipeline keep you up-to-date with the Districts' news? Always 9% Most of the time 57% Sometimes 31% Rarely 3% Question 29: Do you think The News Pipeline maintains a good balance of information? Always 9% Most of the time 61% Sometimes 26% Rarely 4% Page 6 of 7 Communications Audit Results Question 30: Would you like to see The News Pipeline expanded? Yes 70% No 30% Question 31 : How often would you like to see The News Pipeline distributed? Bi-weekly (as it is now) 82% Monthly 16% Quarterly 2% Question 32: Would you like to see an employee newsletter that has more department features and stories about fellow employees? Yes 62% No 38% Question 33 : How frequently do you call the NEWSLine? Once a week 11% Every other week 6% Once a month 41% Never 42% Question 34: Did you attend last summer's Family Day? Yes 29% No 71% Question 35: Did you attend last summer's CSDOC Picnic? Yes 16% No 84% Question 36: Did you attend the CSDOC Holiday Party? Yes 18% No 82% Question 37: Would you like to see more events like Family Day? Yes 63% No 37% Page 7 of 7 Format 0 Written Report OOverheads OSlides 0 Flip Charts (12): Summary Anticipated Time __ _ FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR MARCH 13, 1996 Consideration of upcoming meetings and items to be discussed at those meetings. The calendar of future meetings is on the back of the Notice of Meeting each month. The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, 1996. Some of the potential major non-routine items the Committee will be reviewing, considering and acting on over the next few months follow. Some items will carry forward to future months, but are listed only once at the start of a process. Review of Legal Service Options and Subcommittee Report Employer/Employee Relations Resolution Consideration of 1996-97 User Fees, Connection Fees, Annexation Fees Quarterly Ernst & Young Status Report pi Consideration of Broad-banding Classifications and Pay-for-Performance Compensation 1996-97 Budget Update Consideration of Authority for Contract Name Changes Review Responses to F.l.S. RFP Process Review Commercial Bank Selection Alternatives Quarterly Treasury & Investment Report Quarterly Budget Review Personnel Classification Studies Quarterly Training Program Status Report 1996-97 Budget Update Consideration of Landfill Financing Team Consideration of 1996-97 Budget Recommendations Quarter! Communications Pro ram U ate Staff Recommendation Information only item. J:IWPDOC\FINICRANEIFPC.MTGIFAHR.96\COVERS.96\CALEN3.96