Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-09' ' By C1 ? } 1996 DRAFT fl& MINUTES OF FINANCE, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 e 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 9, 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 September 11, 1996 at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative Offices. ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: Committee Directors Present: George Brown, Chair John J. Collins, Joint Chair Burnie Dunlap James Flora John M. Gullixson Wally Linn Thomas Saltarelli Roger R. Stanton, Vice Chair William G. Steiner Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair Committee Directors Absent: John C. Cox, Jr. (PJC) Jan Debay Other Directors Present: Sheldon S. Singer Staff Present: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Admin. Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Mike White, Controller Linda Eisman, Training Manager Penny Kyle, Board Secretary Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Tom Woodruff, General Counsel APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. Minutes of Finance, Adi l and Human Resources Committl Page2 October 9, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the September 11, 1996 meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Chair had no report. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager had no report. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -ADMINISTRATION The Assistant General Manager of Administration reported that in reviewing the Districts' portion of the County property taxes, she noticed they were significantly lower than what we predicted. Reassessments of parcels may be the reason for the lower than expected revenue. Ms. Wilson advised she will be investigating this further and expects to bring back a report to the Committee next month. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -OPERATIONS The Assistant General Manager of Operations had no report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE The Director of Finance reported that the Districts' daily COP rates were included in the agenda package mailed to the Committee, and he would be presenting the Treasurer's Report for the months of August and September later in the meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES The Director of Human Resources had no report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION The Director of General Services had no report. \ - Minutes of Finance, Ac J,. and Human Resources Commit) Page 3 October 9, 1996 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications had no report. REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel had no report. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Nos. 1-9) 1. FAHR96-55 RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1996 (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: The Director of Finance provided the Committee with a hand-out report for the month of September which indicated the cash balance for September on the back of the report. Mr. Streed advised that the report has been enhanced to include a column for Estimated Yield for each investment type. Chair Brown stated he would be interested in the estimated yield for the Deferred Compensation investments on future reports. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file the Treasurer's Report for the months of August and September 1996, and forward to the Joint Boards. 2. FAHR96-56: ESTABLISH ANNUAL FEES FOR MAILING AGENDA MATERIALS (All Districts): Board Secretary's Office recommends adoption of a resolution establishing fees for providing agenda-related materials to the general public. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: In response to the Committee, Ms. Kyle indicated she is requesting a Board Resolution establishing an annual fee of $135 for the costs of mailing agenda- related materials to the general public. Newspapers will continue to receive their packages free of charge. Approximately 52 individuals are currently sent agenda packages on a monthly basis. One-time requests for individual agenda packages would be free of charge. Agenda notices and agendas will remain free of charge. Tom Woodruff advised this charge is legal and consistent with what other public agencies are charging: The Boards recently adopted a policy allowing up to 100 copies of public records to be provided free of charge, with a ten cents per copy charge over that amount. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend that the Boards adopt a resolution approving the establishment of Minutes of Finance, Adi l. and Human Resources Committt Page4 October 9, 1996 annual fees for mailing agenda-related material to the general public; and that the Board Secretary report back in six months to apprise the Committee of any complaints to the Districts. 3. FAHR96-57: RESULTS OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY (All Districts): Staff Summary Report of the results of the Finance Department's Customer Service Survey conducted in August and September of this year. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Gary Streed reviewed the results of the Finance Department Customer Service Survey. In response to the Committee, Mr. Streed advised that the low 21 % response rate may indicate that most employees are satisfied, and many employees may find Finance to be somewhat mysterious to them and may not have bothered to respond. Mr. Streed reported that the response to question No. 4 concerning deferred compensation may be because some MOUs do not include matching funds for employees who participate in the plan. All managers in the Finance Department have been given copies of the survey response, and the results will be published in the employees' newsletter with a notation thanking those employees who participated. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file this information-only item. 4. FAHR96-58: TEMPORARY DISCHARGE AGREEMENT WITH IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) FOR THE DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER FROM THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT TO THE DISTRICTS' SEWERAGE SYSTEM (District 14): Technical Services Department requests approval of a Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater by Silverado Constructors during the approximate two-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Mr. Streed reported on this item. The Committee indicated its concern regarding Silverado discharging high flows and storm water during winter months into the Districts' system during peak flow periods, adding to the Districts' peak flow problem. The Committee was also concerned that all the conditions of the agreement have not been worked out prior to being brought before the Committee. I ' Minutes of Finance, Al h. and Human Resources Commit,) Pages October 9, 1996 MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend that the Joint Boards authorize execution of Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater from Silverado Constructors during the approximate two-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project; and further recommends that District 14 be authorized, at their discretion, to request Silverado Constructors to stop pumping during peak flows. The staff was requested to include a copy of the agreement in the Joint Boards' agenda package. 5. FAHR96-59: APPROVE PROPOSED COST/BENEFIT TEMPLATE FOR ALL COST-SAVINGS OR INCOME-GENERATING GIP PROJECTS (All Districts). COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Mr. Streed reported on this item. He advised that no inflation factor was built into the model at this time. The Committee felt an interest rate of return on projects should be included in the model. It was agreed that projects can be categorized as: 1) Cost saving/revenue generating; and 2) Non- revenue generating projects. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the proposed Cost/Benefit Template, including interest rate of return, for all cost-savings or income-generating CIP Projects; to set an interest rate twice a year; considering this issue at the FAHR Committee every six months. 6. FAHR96-60: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE 9, 1993, WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RE GREEN ACRES PROJECT (GAP) WATER, TO INCLUDE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO PURCHASE AND TO SUPPLY RECLAIMED WATER AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE PRICE WHICH REFLECTS POTENTIAL OCWD SAVINGS AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE COSTS OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (CURRENTLY $89/AF) (All Districts): MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend that the Joint Boards: 1) Approve a tentative GAP water pricing agreement; and 2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into a final agreement with the OCWD in a form approved by General Counsel. Minutes of Finance, Ad,. J. and Human Resources Committt Page6 October 9, 1996 7. FAHR96-61: AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF CAPACITY RIGHTS IN TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND SEWER FACILITIES BETWEEN DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 AND 13 AND DISTRICT 14 (All Districts): An amendment to exclude certain flows from the calculation of shares. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Finance Director Gary Streed reported that there would be no Districts-wide financial impact due to the proposed Amendment No. 3., and the Amendment negates the four-year cash-flow impacts of an early flow diversion by District 14. During discussion, it was noted that the City of Newport Beach requested that the Districts participate in this project. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend that the Joint Boards approve the proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Capacity Rights in Treatment, Disposal and Sewer Facilities between Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13 and District 14. 8. FAHR96-62: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (All Districts): Total head count for September 1996 at the Districts. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to receive and file the Employment Status Report. 9. FAHR96-63: COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COX COMMUNICATIONS, LEASE NO. L-XXX (All Districts). COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: General Services Administration Director Ed Hodges advised that the proposed lease is expected to generate $1,500 per month in new revenue for the Districts, and recommended that a lease for a ten-year term and four, five-year, mutually agreeable extensions, be approved with Cox · Communications. The Committee requested that staff make sure all insurance requirements are complied with and that the Districts' are not liable for any injuries to cable employees. Further discussion took place regarding the possibility of Cox Communications sub-leasing the lease site. The Committee felt a clause should be included in the agreement which will require Districts' approval of any sub-lease agreements with Cox Communications and which will include revenue sharing with the Districts, should a sub-lease agreement Minutes of Finance, Ac ~-and Human Resources Committ l Page7 October 9, 1996 CLOSED SESSION take place. Further concern was expressed regarding the aesthetics of the site, if additional towers are installed or equipment is placed on the pole by sub-leasers. The Committee requested that staff investigate if such conditions will be in compliance with local ordinances. MOTION: It was moved, seconded and duly carried to recommend that the Joint Boards approve a lease agreement with Cox Communications, with a prohibition clause included therein, which will require Districts' approval of any sub-lease agreements made by Cox Communications, and which will be subject to revenue sharing with the Districts, and compliance with local ordinances. The Chair reported to the Committee the need for a closed session, as authorized by Government Code Sections 54957.6, to discuss and consider the item that is specified as Items (8)(b)(1) on the published Agenda. The Committee convened in Closed Session at 6:40 p.m. 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. A report of actions taken will be publicly reported at the time the approved action becomes final re Agenda Item 8(b)(1 ). At 7:45 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. OTHER BUSINESS. COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were none. MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. Minutes of Finance, Adr. } and Human Resources Committe. Page 8 October 9, 1996 FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 1996. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Submitted by: ~ ~ Lenora Crane Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\1996.MIN\MFAHR10.96 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 October 9, 1996, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on October 2, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of October, 1996. a of the Boards of Directors of County , , 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, Posted: -~----=----=----=-----bl-__ , 1996, /.' ,6 0 By: H:\WP.OTAIFIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTGIFAHR.96\CERT.POS\CERTPO10.96 p_hone: (71 4) 962-2411 maTllng address; P.O. Box 8127 Fount.air, Valley, CA 92728-8127 sa-eet address: 10844 Elhs Avenue Fountain Valle.y, CA 92708-7018 Member Ag_encies • Cities Ane~eim Bree Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Huntington Beech Irvine La Habra La Palme Los-Afamiuis Newport Beach Orange P/alilentia Santa An~ Seal Beach Stsnron T1,.1stfn v,lla Park Ycrba Unds Count;y of Orange Sanitary Qfstrlcts ·caste Mesa Berrien Grove Midway aity Wa11er Districts Irvine Rench '\ ~ COUNTY -r(NITATION DISTRICTS OF •R1---.• GE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 2, 1996 NOTICE OF MEETING FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 9, 1996, 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 October 2, 1996 FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED MEETING DATES Finance, Administration and Human Resources Joint Board Meetings Committee Meetings October October 9, 1996 October 23, 1996 November November 13, 1996 November 20, 1996 December December 11, 1996 December 18, 1996 January January 8, 1997 January 22, 1997 February February 12, 1997 February 26, 1997 March March 12, 1997 March 26, 1997 April April 9, 1997 April 23, 1997 May May 14, 1997 May 28, 1997 June June 11, 1997 June 25, 1997 July July 9, 1997 July 23, 1997 August None Scheduled August 27, 1997 September September 10, 1997 September 24, 1997 October October 8, 1997 October 22, 1997 ROLL CALL SHEET FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: October 9.1996 COMMITTEE MEMBERS GEORGE BROWN (Chair) ...................... . ROGER R. STANTON (Vice Chair) ............... . JOHN C. COX (PJC) ........................... . JAN DEBAY .................................. . BURNIE DUNLAP ............................. . JAMES H. FLORA ............................. . JOHN M. GULLIXSON ......................... . WALLY LINN ................................. . THOMAS SALTARELLI ......................... . WILLIAM G. STEINER ......................... . PEER A. SWAN (VJC) ......................... . JOHN J. COLLINS (JC) ........................ . STAFF DON MCINTYRE, General Manager .............. . BLAKE ANDERSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mgr. -Ops. . ..... . JUDITH WILSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mg~. -Admin. . ...... . ED HODGES, Director of Gen'I. Srvs. Admin ........ . DAVID LUDWIN, Director of Engineering .......... . BOB OOTEN, Director of Operations & Maintenance .. MIKE PETERMAN, Director of Human Resources .... . GARY STREED, Director of Finance .............. . MICHELLE TUCHMAN, Director of Communications .. NANCY WHEATLEY, Director of Tech. Srvs ........ . STEVE KOZAK, Financial Manager ............... . MIKE WHITE, Controller ........................ . MAHIN TALEBI, Source Control Manager .......... . GREG MATHEWS, Principal Administrative Analyst .. . MARC DUBOIS, Purchasing Manager/Contracts Admin. LINDA EISMAN, Training Manager , ............... . PENNY KYLE, Board Secretary .................. . LENORA CRANE, Committee Secretary. . ......... . -----------............... . OTHERS TOM WOODRUFF, General Counsel ............. . TERRY ANDRUS ............................. . c: Penny Kyle L. Crane TIME: 5:30 P .M. ADJOURN: P.M. A6:ENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE ROLL CALL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1996 AT 5:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 APPOINTMENT OP CH:to.lR PRG> TEM, IF NECESSARY. AGENDA 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. 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 t 1 the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth r ri a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. PUBLIC COMMENTS All persons wishing to address the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chair, 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). October 9, 1996 RECEIVE, FILE AND APPROVE MINU:fES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Recommended Acfion: Receive, file and approve draft minutes of the September 11, 1996, Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting. REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER REPORT OF ASSJSTANT GENERAL MANAGER -ADMINISTRATION REPORT OF ASSISTANT GEMERAL MANAGER -GPERATIONS REPORT OF DIRECTOR OI= FINANCl:z REPORT OF DIRECTOR QF HUMAN RESOURCES REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN'ISTRATION REPORT Of DIR'ECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS :REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL DISCUSSION ITEMS-(Items 1-9) 1. FAHR96-55: RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1996 (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the months of August and September 1996. (Gary Streed -2 minutes) 2. FAHR96-56: ESTABLISH ANNUAL FEES FOR MAILING AGENDA MATERIALS (All Districts): Board Secretary's Office recommends adoption of a resolution establishing fees for providing agenda-related materials to the general public. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution approving the establishment of annual fees for mailing agenda-related material to the general public. (Penny Kyle -2 minutes) 3. FAHR96-57: RESULTS OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY (All Districts): Staff Summary Report of the results of the Finance Department's Customer Service Survey conducted in August and September of this year. 2 October 9, 1996 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and File this information-only item. (Gary Streed -5 minutes) 4. FAHR96-58: TEMPORARY DISCHARGE AGREEMENT WITH IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) FOR THE DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER FROM THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT TO THE DISTRICTS' SEWERAGE SYSTEM (District 14): Technical Services Department requests approval of a Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater by Silverado Constructors during the approximate two-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize execution of Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater from Silverado Constructors during the approximate two-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project. (Mahin Talebi -5 minutes) 5. FAHR96-59: APPROVE PROPOSED COST/BENEFIT TEMPLATE FOR ALL COST- SAVINGS OR INCOME-GENERATING CIP PROJECTS (All Districts). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposed Cost/Benefit Template for all cost-savings or income-generating CIP Projects. (Gary Streed -5 minutes) 6. FAHR96-60: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE 9, 1993, WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RE GREEN ACRES PROJECT (GAP) WATER, TO INCLUDE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO PURCHASE AND TO SUPPLY RECLAIMED WATER AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE PRICE WHICH REFLECTS POTENTIAL OCWD SAVINGS AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE COSTS OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (CURRENTLY $89/AF) (All Districts): An amendment to the 2993 Agreement between CSDOC and OCWD to include a long-term commitment to purchase and supply reclaimed water at a mutually agreeable price. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Approve the tentative GAP water pricing agreement. 2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into a final agreement with the OCWD in a form approved by General Counsel. (Gary Streed -5 minutes) 7. FAHR96-61: AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF CAPACITY RIGHTS IN TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND SEWER FACILITIES BETWEEN DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 AND 13AND DISTRICT 14 (All Districts): An amendment to exclude certain flows from the calculation of shares. 3 October 9, 1996 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1} Approve the proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Capacity Rights in Treatment, Disposal and Sewer Facilities. (Gary Streed -5 minutes} 8. FAHR96-62: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (All Districts}: Total head count for September 1996 at the Districts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive and file the Employment Status Report. (Mike Peterman -5 minutes) 9. FAHR96-63: COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COX COMMUNICATIONS, LEASE NO. L-XXX (All Districts). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Enter into the attached lease with Cox Communications. (Ed Hodges -5 minutes) CLOSEb 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 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. (a) Convene in closed session. (1) Confer with Districts' Negotiator re meet and confer; and negotiations for the establishment of salaries, compensation or fringe benefit (Government Code Section 54957.6). (b) Reconvene in regular session. (c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. OTHER BUSINESS, COMMWNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF T0 REPORT ON AT A SUSSEQUENT MEETING 4 October 9, 1996 MATTE.RS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AN-D STAFF REPORT FUTURE MEETING DA"TES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for November 13, 1996. N©TlCE TO COMMl'TTEE MEMBERS If you have any questions on the agenda or wish to place any items on the agenda, Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: Comm. Secretary: Asst. Comm. Secretary: George Brown Lenora Crane Frankie Woodside (310) 431-2185 (714) 962-2411, Ext. 2501 (714) 962-3954 (FAX) (714) 962-2411, Ext. 3001 le H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\AGENDA.96\AGENDA10.96 5 OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN. -~ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RECEIVE AND FILE DRAFT FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 1996. Recommended Action(s): 1. Receive and file draft Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee minutes for the meeting held September 11, 1996. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ BUDGET INFORMATION N/A CURRENT YEAR TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ BUDGET AMOUNT SOURCE: Schedule/Line Item: N/A AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent Limited Term CONCURRENCES: Date s· nature Date ssistant General Manager (Or Designee) DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Translers) N/A N/A N/A CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT APPROVED AIT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO YES NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Draft Minutes of FAHR Committee Meeting held 9-11-96. To Jt. Bds.: 1. Attached is a draft of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting minutes of September 11, 1996. These minutes were submitted to the Joint Boards at their September 25, 1996 meeting. GGS:lc c: Department Head A GM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP .OTA \FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\F AHR.96\0CT .AIT\MIN911 .96 Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of2 County Sanitation District: of Orange County, Californi; P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenu1 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-812'. Telephone: (714) 962-241' MINUTES OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday. September 11. 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 August 7, 1996 at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative Offices. ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: Committee Directors Present: George Brown, Chair John J. Collins, Joint Chair Jan Debay James Flora John M. Gullixson Wally Linn Thomas Saltarelli Roger-R. Stanton, Vice Chair William G. Steiner Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair Committee Directors Absent : John C. Cox, Jr. (PJC) Burnie Dunlap Other Directors Present: None Staff Present: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Admin. Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Mike White, Controller Marc Dubois, Purchasing Manager Christopher Dahl, Information Technology Manager Frankie Woodside, Assistant Committee Secretary Others Present: Russ Patton, Labor Consultant Dan Cassidy, Labor Consultant Thomas Woodruff, General Counsel APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. Finance, Administration 1d Human Resources Committee Page 2 September 11, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the August 7, 1996 meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Chair had no report. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager asked that the Directors continue to familiarize themselves with the Strategic Plan by attending the Strategic Plan Workshop on Saturday, September 21. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-ADMINISTRATION The Assistant General Manager of Administration had no report. New employees Christopher Dahl, Information Technology Manager and Marc Dubois, Purchasing/Contract Manager were introduced. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -OPERATIONS The Assistant General Manager of Operations was not in attendance. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Gary Streed reported on the Districts' daily COP rates. Since the agenda package was mailed, the COP rates have gone down. Rates traditionally go up at the end of the month and down after the beginning of the month. An internal survey of the Finance department was recently completed. Gary Streed will report the results at next month's meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES The Director of Human Resources was not in attendance. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION The Director of General Services had no report. Finance, Administratio~nd Human Resources Committee"' Page 3 1 , September 11, 1996 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications deferred, as the report would be included in agenda item FAHR96-53. REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel had no report for open session. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Nos. 1-6) 1. FAHR96-49: 2. FAHR96-50: 3. FAHR96-51: RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 1996 (All Districts). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of July 1996 and forward to the Joint Boards. REPORT OF CONTRACTS/PURCHASING MANAGER RE ABC INVENTORY PROGRAM (All Districts). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file -information only. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE DISTRICTS' INVESTMENT POLICY (All Districts): Consideration of motion to revise the Districts' Investment Policy Statement, and recommend that the Joint Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 96-_ to adopt the updated Investment Policy. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: The Director of Finance reviewed the changes proposed in the staff 'report which was included in the agenda. The committee asked to have Callan Associates, our Investment Management Advisor, report on the pros and cons of allowing investments to extend beyond 5 years with their next quarterly report. The staff proposal was modified to provide that the monthly Treasurer's Report be distributed at the Committee meeting, in order to meet the 30 day availability required by the revised Government Code. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1) Receive and file this report; 2) Approve revisions to the Districts' Investment Policy as recommended in this report, as proposed by the Committee, and as depicted in the updated Investment Policy presented in staff report; and 3) Recommend that the Joint Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 96-_ at their meeting of September 25, 1996, to approve the Districts' updated Investment Policy; repeal Resolution Nos. 95-14 and 95-15; and repeal Resolution No. 95-78, and incorporate its contents into Resolution No. 96-_ . Finance, Administratior ld Human Resources Committee -" Page4 September 11 , 1996 4. FAHR96-52: 5. FAHR96-53: 6. FAHR96-54: CLOSED SESSION ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 132 PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT FOR RETIREMENT PURPOSES (All Districts): The Director of Human Resources, in conjunction with the FAHR Committee, recommends that the Directors adopt the Ordinance providing for two additional years of service credit to eligible Districts' employees who retire between January 1 and March 31, 1997, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 31641.04. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 132, an Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, providing eligible Districts' employees to receive two years additional service credit for retirement purposes. RESULTS OF COMMUNICATIONS MINI AUDIT (All Districts): Staff Summary Report on the results of the July Communications Mini Audit and an update of the new and/or expanded programs to reach both internal and external audiences. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file -information only. PROPOSITION 218, RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT (All Districts): The Chief Administrative Officer requests that the Boards go on record in opposition to Proposition 218 which would impose significant and expensive procedural requirements on the noticing of proposed extensions of, or increases to, user fees. The proposition also provides for the application of the voter initiative to user fees, which means that a voter initiative could force a roll-back or reduction in user fees which would have an adverse affect on the Districts' ability to borrow at low interest rates. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: There was considerable committee discussion about the value and appropriateness of taking a public position on a ballot measure. The consensus was that we should participate in information gathering and disseminating sessions but not take an official position in opposition. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Districts not go on record opposing Proposition 218, but investigate methods to inform the public. The Committee convened in closed session at 7:05 p.m., as authorized by Government Code Sections 54957.6, to discuss and consider the item specified under Closed Session as (a)(1) on the published Agenda. Confidential Minutes of the closed session held by the Committee have been prepared in accordance with California Governmet:1t Code Section 54957 .2 and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Finance, Administratio ~nd Human Resources Committee) Page 5 September 11, 1996 Committee Closed Meetings. No reportable action was taken re Agenda Item (a)(1). At 7:45 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. OTHl:R BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were none. MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 1996. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m . Submitted by: ~-/.----. \ . . . -· ., \t1\,M\(\{.1"c\~1 ' 'I-_J 1 'f rc!_l)kie Woodside Finance, Administration and Human Resources Assistant Committee Secretary le A:\MFAHR9.96 OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: --------AGEN .\ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (All Districts) Recommended Action(s): 1. Receive and file this information-only Report of Director of Finance. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Determination filed on _ BUDGET INFORMATION NIA CURRENT YEAR CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: BUDGET AMOUNT TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL SOURCE: EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) Schedule/Line Item: NIA NIA NIA NIA AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION ORIGINAL BID, PO, CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT CONTRACT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT AMOUNT APPROVED AIT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent Limited Term If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section CONCURRENCES: ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Graph -COP Rate History Report Date Date To Jt. Bds.: 1. ~'wc4'.-si9~ 9/.Jo/1, Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or 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 graph shows 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. 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. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP .OTA \FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\OCT.AIT\DIRFIN. RPT Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of2 (") "'tl ~ C iil > "C < RATE(%) !ll ~ -I iil ;a m C. )> 0 ~ N w .I>, (11 Ol CT -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '< m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,, I 03-Jan-96 3 · <ii !ll I I ' I ::, -f 10-Jan-96 I I I I 0 (0 (1) Ol I I ' I - 17-Jan-96 I I I I 0 I I I I (0 ~ I I I I ~ 24-Jan-96 I I I I I I I I (0 I I I I (0 31-Jan-96 I I I I _Ol I I I I ~ 07-Feb-96 I I I I .I>, I I I I ~ I I I I 14-Feb-96 21-Feb-96 28-Feb-96 06-Mar-96 + 13-Mar-96 20-Mar-96 "'tl !ll 27-Mar-96 3· C') (1) ~ 03-Apr-96 0 CT "'C CT 10-Apr-96 ~ ;;o + 17-Apr-96 )> 24-Apr-96 --t m '-I "'tl 01-May-96 * :::c s: ¾ I 08-May-96 I en 0 I (C ! I --t !ll 15-May-96 ::, I 0 I I 22-May-96 I I ~ + I I I I 29-May-96 I I I ;;o )> I I ' G) 05-Jun-96 I I I m I I I CJ) I I I "'C ::E 12-Jun-96 I ' I 0 Ill I I I "C I ' I ;;o 19-Jun-96 I ' I t I ! I --t 26-Jun-96 en 03-Jul-96 0 0 Gl 1 0-Jul-96 (1) ::, CJ) 17-Jul-96 ::E Ill "C 24-Jul-96 . 31-Jul-96 07-Aug-96 14-Aug-96 I I I J: I I I I I I I 21-Aug-96 I I I I I I I I I 28-Aug-96 I I I I I .I 04-Sep-96 I I I I I I I I I 11-Sep-96 I i 18-Sep-96 25-Sep-96 \ PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 10-23-96 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN~ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ---ll;,,:!,-..(lnitials of Originator) 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1996 (All Districts) Recommended Action(s): 1. Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the months of August and September 1996. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Determination filed on _ BUDGET INFORMATION N/A CURRENT YEAR TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: BUDGET AMOUNT SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: N/A AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, slate number: _ Permanent Limited Term CONCURRENCES: Date re D~ nt General Manager (Or Designee) DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A N/A N/A CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT APPROVED AIT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Monthly Monitoring Reports for August and September To Jt. Bds.: 1 . Monthly Monitoring Reports for August and September ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Districts have used Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), as our professional external money manager, and Mellon Trust as our third-party custodian since 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 have been included with the agenda. Immediate past-month reports were available from the Treasurer. At the August meeting, the Committee directed staff to distribute prior month reports at meetings and to advise the-Chair in advance of any noteworthy items. The September report will be available at the meeting. Quarterly presentations are made by PIMCO and our third-party independent consultant, Callan Associates, when requested by the Committee. The Investment Policy adopted by the Joint Boards includes reporting requirements as listed down the left most column of the attached 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. Historical cost and the current market "mark-to-market" values are shown as estimated by both PIMCO and Mellon Trust. The slight differences are caused by differing assumptions regarding marketability at the estimate date. Attached are schedules showing the detail and summary for both the short-term and long-term portfolio investments. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager ::0:: :•: f :,:d}i¢S"i?bb" .. State of Calif. LAIF Bank of America PIMCO -Short-term Portfolio PIMCO -Long-term Portfolio District 11 GO Bond Fund :-:-:-:!:-:-:-: Debt Service Reserves @ Trustees County Commingled Petty Cash Deferred Compensation H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\OCT.AIT\FAHR96.55 Revision: 8/28/96 $11,829,090 458,840 32,885,149 282,502,989 9,792 33,516,935 6,128 3,900 9,182,067 $370,394,890 Page 2 of2 ; ~ MONTHLY REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending 31 August 1996) Liquid Operating Monies 14.1.1 PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value Estimate: • PIMCO • Mellon 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 Reverse 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: $33,015,704 $33,015,688 ' $33,015,704 _) .12 .25 $39,619 0% 96% AAA 0% ) ,- .43 1.35 I -·----- 3.61 .44 MONTHLY REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending 31 August 1996) Long Term Operating Monies 14.1.1 PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value Estimate: • PIMCO • Mellon Historical Cost: 14.1.2 MODIFIED DURATION Of Portfolio: Of Index: 14.1.3 1 % INTEREST RA TE CHANGE Dollar Impact (gain/loss) of 1 % Change: 14.1.4 REVERSE REPOS % of Portfolio in Reverse 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: $283,223,446 $283,800,001 $289,017,751 - 2.4 2.3 $6,797,363 % NA AAA 0% - .15 1.48 ------ .88 .24 OCSF075111 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH CCM-1ERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT FEDERAL f01E LOAN MORTGAGE -LE FNMA ISSUES -LESS THN lYR FED 1-+1 LOAN BNK -LESS THN lYR INTR AM DEV BNK -LESS THN lYR FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK -LES BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO SlJ-W\RY BY SECTOR 31-Al.G-1996 COST 0.78 13,247,100 .59 2,569 ,203 .58 6,915,740 .00 3,952 ,827 .36 3 .453. 220 .56 2,594,752 .33 152,304 .00 32,885,149 .20 130,538.43 130,538 .43 % OF MARKET VALUE TOTAL 0.78 13,247,100.59 2,569,203.58 6,915,740.00 3,952,827 ,36 3,453,220.56 2,594,752.33 152,304.00 0.00% 40 .12% 7 .78% 20.95% 11 .97% 10.46% 7.86% 0.46% 32,885,149.20 99 .60% 130,538.43 0.40% 130 ,538.43 0.40% BASE: USO HBllOO UNREALIZED ESTIMI\TED CURR GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCCJ,IE YIELD 0.00 0,00 a.ad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,711.40 3.75 5,711.40 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ========= =======~= ==== ========= ======== = 33,015,687 .63 33,015,687,63 100.00% 0,00 5. 711 . 40 0 . 02 Page 1 OCSF075111 MELLON TRUST LIQUID OPER-PIMCO PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SEClDR BASE: USO 31-AUG-1996 HBllOO MARKET % OF UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURR SHARES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION PRICE MARKET VALUE TOTAL COST GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCa-lE YLD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH 0 CASH 1.000 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL CASH 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ca-t1ERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 500 .000 .AMERICAN TEL & TL DISC 98 .819 494.093. 75 1.50 494 ,093.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/12/1996 200.000 BELL SOOTH TELCa-1 DISC 98.803 197 ,606.00 0.60 197 .606.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/19/1996 1,500.000 CAISSE D'OORT DISC 98.215 1.473.228.75 4.46 1.473.228.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/13/1996 1. 800 . 000 CANAD IAN w-iEA T BO DI SC 98 .609 1. 774. 967 .50 5.38 1. 77 4. 967 . 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/12/1996 1,500.000 FORD MTR CR CO DISC 99.897 1. 498,451.25 4.54 1. 498 .451. 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/05/1996 100.000 GENERAL ELEC CAP DISC 99 .707 99.707 .22 0.30 99,707.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/18/1996 1.100 ,000 KFW INTL FIN INC DISC 99.123 1. 090. 355.14 3.30 1. 090. 355.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/19/1996 1.700.000 LILLY ELI & CO DISC 98.670 1,677,389.06 5.08 1. 677 . 389 . 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/21/1996 2.500.000 ONTARIO HYDRO DISC 98 .675 2.466 ,877 .78 7.47 2 .466 .877. 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/09/1996 800,000 PITNEY Bil-JES CC DISC 99 .490 795,916.67 2.41 795 ,916 .67 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/24/1996 200.000 PROCTER & G.AM3LE DISC 99.283 198,565.39 0.60 198,565.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/08/1996 1.500.000 WESTERN AUST TRSY DISC 98 .663 1.479,942 .08 4.48 1,479,942.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/20/1996 ---~-------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL Ca-t1ERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 13.247.100.59 40.12 13,247,100.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 FEDERAL t-01E LOAN MJRTGAGE -LESS THAN 1 YR 2,100.000 FEDERAL Ha-IE LN MTG CORP DISC 98 .644 2,071,518.75 6.27 2,071,518.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAT 09/05/1996 500.000 FEDERAL t-01E LN MTG CORP DISC 99.537 497 .684.83 1.51 497,684.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAT 09/12/1996 Page 1 OCSF075111 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SECTOR 31-AUG-1996 SHARES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION MA.RK.ET PRICE SUBTOTAL FEDERAL Ha-1E LOAN MJRTGAGE FNMA. ISSUES -LESS THN lYR 1.600.000 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC NT 98 .666 MA.T 11/14/1996 2.700,000 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC NTS 99.094 MA.T 10/23/1996 2,700 ,000 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC NTS 98 .576 MA.T 11/21/1996 % OF MA.RKET VALUE TOTAL 2,569,203.58 7.78 1.578,656 .00 4.78 2,675,524 .50 8.10 2,661 ,559.50 8.06 COST 2,569,203.58 1,578,656 .00 2,675,524.50 2.661.559 .50 -------------------·---------------~------- SUBTOTAL FNMA. ISSUES -LESS THN lYR FED ft1 LOAN BNK -LESS THN lYR 2.500 .000 FEDERAL 1-[ME LN BK CONS DISC MA.T 11/13/96 1.000,000 FEDERAL HCNE LN BK CONS DISC MA.T 09/11/1996 500 ,000 FEDERAL HCNE LN BK CONS DISC MA.TURES 11/12/1996 98 . 707 99 .684 97 .662 SUBTOTAL FED ft1 LOAN BNK -LESS THN INTR AM DEV BNK -LESS THN lYR 3.500,000 FEDERAL 1-M LN MTG CORP DISC 9B.663 MA.T 11/15/1996 SUBTOTAL INTR AM DEV BNK -LESS THN FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK -LESS THAN 1 YEAR 2,600 .000 FED FARM CR BK CONS DISC NTS 99.798 MA.T 09/12/96 SUBTOTAL FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK - BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS 152 ,304 BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT-100.000 PUBLIC II SUBTOTAL BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUN 6,915,740 .00 20.95 6,915 ,740.00 2,467 ,675 .69 7 .47 2,467 ,675.69 996,840 .56 3.02 996,840 .56 488,311 .11 1.48 48B .311.11 -------------------------------- 3,952,827 .36 11 .97 3,952,827 .36 3,453 ,220 .56 10 .46 3,453,220 .56 3,453,220.56 10.46 3,453,220.56 2,594 .752.33 7.B6 2 . 594 .7 52 . 33 2,594,752.33 7.86 2,594,752.33 152 ,304.00 0.46 152,304.00 152,304 .00 0.46 152,304.00 Page 2 BASE: USD HBllOO UNREALIZED ESTIMA.TED CURR GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCa-1E YLD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- 0.00 0.00 5.711.40 3.75 ------------- 5,711 .40 3.75 _) OCSF075111 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO SHA.RES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES 0 INTEREST RECEIVABLE SUBTOTAL PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SECTOR 31-AU3-1996 MARKET PRICE % OF MARKET VALUE TOTAL COST 32,885,149 .20 99 .. 60 32,885,149.20 1.000 130,538.43 0.40 130,538.43 ----------·- 130,538.43 0.40 130, 538 .43 130,538.43 0.40 130,538.43 33,015,687.63 100.00 33,015,687.63 Page 3 BASE: USO 1-IHl00 UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURR GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INC0>1E YLD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,711 .40 0.02 0.00 0.00 ---------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,711.40 0.02 OCSF075222 LOI\G TERM OPER-PIMCO PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH C(}1MERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT TREASURY BILLS -LESS THN lYR BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS FIXED INC(}1E SECURITIES U.S. GOVER1'NENTS U.S. AGENCIES BANKII\G & FINANCE INDUSTRIAL TOTAL FIXED INC(}1E SECURITIES OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO SIJvMll.RY BY SECTOR 31-AUG-1996 % OF COST MARKET VALUE TOTAL 0.73 0.73 0.00% 12.694.692.76 12,694,692.76 4.47% 4.719.669.45 4,719,669.45 1.66% 109.268.00 109,268.00 0.04% BASE: USO HBllOO UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURR GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INC(}1E YIELD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,097.55 3.75 --------------------------------------------------- 17.523,630.94 17.523.630.94 6.17% 0.00 4,097.55 0.02 91.326.196.85 89,240,560.00 31.44% -2.085,636.85 6,126.875.00 6.87 134.518.625.00 131.866.414.00 46.46% -2.652.211.00 8.700.040.00 6.60 27.627.436.61 27.494.397.55 9.69% -133.039.06 1.905.397 .00 6.93 11 .507 .100.00 11.115. 825. 00 3.92% -391.275.00 988,500.00 8.89 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 264.979.358.46 259.717.196.55 91.51% -5.262.161.91 17.720.812.00 6.82 6,559,173.57 6,559,173.57 2.31% 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6,559,173.57 6,559,173.57 2.31% 0.00 0.00 0.00 = 289,062.162.97 283.800.001.06 100.00% -5. 262 .161. 91 17.724.909.55 6.25 Page 1 OCSF075222 LOl'li TERM OPER-PIMCO SI-VIRES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH 0 CASH SUBTOTAL CASH COOERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 900.000 MRITECH CORP DISC 10/28/1996 1.600.000 CAISSE D'fll,()RT DISC 10/07/1996 3,200.000 FORD MTR CR CO DISC 09/05/1996 4.700 .000 GENERAL ELEC CAP DISC 11/12/1996 1.400.000 t-OTOROLA INC DISC 09/19/1996 100.000 PROCTER & G.AM3LE DISC 10/17/1996 900.000 PROCTER & G.AM3LE DISC 10/08/1996 MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SECTOR 31-AlXJ-1996 MARKET PRICE 1.000 98.660 99.086 99.706 98 .802 99.593 99.242 99.283 % OF MARKET VALUE TOTAL 0.73 0.00 0.73 0.00 887,940.50 0.31 1. 585. 368. 00 0.56 3,190,604.45 1.12 4,643,688 .78 1.64 1. 394. 305 .11 0.49 99,241.67 0.03 893 ,544 .25 0.31 COST 0.73 0.73 887,940.50 1. 585,368.00 3,190,604.45 4,643,688.78 1. 394. 305.11 99. 241. 67 893,544 .25 BASE: USD HBllOO UNREALIZED ESTIMA.TED CURR GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCCJvlE YLD 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL COOERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT TREASURY BILLS -LESS THN lYR 5,000 .000 US TREASURY BILLS 94.393 06/26/1997 OD 06/27/96 SUBTOTAL TREASURY BILLS -LESS THN 1 BSOT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCa.JNTS 109.268 BSDT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT-100.000 PUBLIC II SUBTOTAL BSOT RESERVE DEPOSIT ACCOUN TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 12.694,692.76 4.47 12.694.692.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,719,669 .45 1.66 4.719. 669 .45 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,719,669 .45 1.66 4,719,669.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 109,268.00 0.04 109,268.00 0.00 4.097.55 3.75 109,268.00 0.04 109,268.00 0.00 4,097.55 3.75 17,523,630.94 6.17 17 .523.630.94 0.00 4,097.55 0.02 Page 1 OCSF075222 MELLON TRUST LOt{; TERM OPER-PIMCO PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SECTOR BASE : USO 31-ALG-1996 HBllOO MARKET % OF UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURR SHARES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION PRICE MARKET VALUE TOTAL COST GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCCl'1E YLD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FIXED INCCl'1E SECURITIES U.S GOVERNMENTS 75.500.000 US TREASURY NOTES 101. 562 76,679,310 .00 27 .02 78,223,618 .72 -1.544 ,308 .72 5,379,375.00 7.02 07 .125% 09/30/1999 DD 09/30/94 13.000.000 US TREASURY NOTES 96 .625 12,561,250.00 4.43 13,102,578 .13 -541. 328 .13 747,500.00 5.95 05 .750% 10/31/2000 DD 10/31/95 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL U.S. GOVERNMENTS 89,240 ,560.00 31 .44 91,326,196 .85 -2 ,085,636 .85 6,126,875.00 6.87 U.S. AGENCIES 10.000.000 FED NATL MTG ASSN MTN 94.937 9,493.700.00 3.35 9,593,750.00 -100,050 .00 564,000.00 5.94 5.640% 02/20/2001 DO 02/20/96 39,600,000 FEDERAL H01E LN BK CONS BOS 98.234 38,900,664.00 13 .71 39,890,500.00 -989,836.00 2,570,040.00 6.61 6.490% 09/13/2000 DD 09/13/95 15,000,000 FEDERAL H01E LN MTG CORP DEBS 96 .141 14 .421.150. 00 5.08 14,554,687.50 -133,537 .50 898,500.00 6.23 5.990% 03/06/2001 DD 03/06/96 25.000,000 FEDERAL t-rnE LN MTG DEB 98 .685 24 ,671.250 . 00 8.69 25 ,000,000.00 -328 ,750.00 1,680,000 .00 6.81 6.720% 10/02/2000 OD 10/02/95 25.000.000 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DEB 99 .281 24,820,250 .00 8.75 25 ,351. 562 . 50 -531,312 .50 1,712,500 .00 6.90 6.850% 05/26/2000 DD 05/26/95 20,000 .000 FEDERAL NTAL MTG ASSN 97.797 19,559.400. 00 6.89 20 .128 .125. 00 -568 .725 . 00 1,275,000.00 6.52 6.375% 10/13/2000 DD 10/10/95 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL U.S. AGENCIES 131,866.414.00 46 .46 134,518,625.00 -2,652 ,211.00 8,700,040.00 6.60 BANKit{; & FINANCE ~) 1,500 .000 CHRYSLER FINL MTN TR# 00201 100 795 1. 511,925.00 0.53 1. 534 . 950 . 00 -23 ,025 .00 122,400 .00 8.10 8.160% 01/31/1997 OD 01/11/95 465 .000 CHRYSLER FINL MTN TR# 00224 100.867 469 . 031.55 0.17 475 ,972 .61 -6. 941. 06 37,572.00 8.01 8.080% 01/31/1997 DD 01/31/95 1,500,000 CHRYSLER FINL MTN TR# 00258 100.770 1. 511. 550. 00 0.53 1,522,140.00 -10 ,590.00 110,700.00 7.32 7.380% 03/17/1997 DD 03/03/95 2,900 .000 CHRYSLER FINL MTN TR# 00306 101.092 2. 931. 668 . 00 1.03 2,952,896.00 -21.228.00 210,830.00 7.19 7.270% 04/13/1998 DD 04/13/95 1,000.000 CHRYSLER FINL MTN TR# 00335 99 ,270 992,700.00 0,35 993,160.00 -460.00 62,600.00 6.31 6.260% 07/20/1998 DD 07/18/95 7.100 ,000 FORD MOTOR CR MTN TR# 00177 99 ,984 7,098 ,864.00 2.50 6,999,748 .00 99 ,116.00 402,570.00 5.67 VAR/RT 03/30/1999 DD 03/30/94 4.000 .000 FORD MTR CR MTN TRANCHE #TR 96 99 .816 3,992.640 .00 1.41 3,970 ,480 .00 22 ,160 .00 243,200.00 6.09 Page 2 OCSF075222 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SHARES/PAR SECURITY DESCRIPTION ----------------------------- FLTG/RT 11/09/1998 DD 11/08/93 3,000,000 GMAC MED TERM NTS 8.625% 1/10/2000 00 1/10/95 3,700,000 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP MTN TR00324 8.375% 02/03/1999 DD 0/03/95 1.000 ,000 LEf-Ml'IN BROS INC SR SUB NTS 7.000% 5/15/1997 DD 5/27/94 1.000,000 SEARS ROEBUCK MTN# TR 00491 7.690% 02/27/1998 DD 02/28/95 SUBTOTAL BANKING & FINANCE INDUSTRIAL 1.500,000 CHRYSLER CORP OEB 10.400% 08/01/1999 9.000.000 PHILIP MORRIS COS NT 9.250% 02/15/2000 SUBTOTAL INDUSTRIAL TOTAL FIXED INCa--1E SECURITIES OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES 0 INTEREST RECEIVABLE SUBTOTAL PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS MELLON TRUST PORTFOLIO DETAIL BY SECTOR BASE : USO 31-AUG-1996 HBllOO MARKET % OF UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURR PRICE MARKET VALUE TOTAL COST GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCa-1E YLD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104.659 103.357 100.432 101. 772 103 .525 106.255 1.000 3.139 .770.00 1.11 3,227,070 .00 -87.300.00 258,750 .00 8.24 3.824.209 .00 1.35 3,911.640 .00 -87. 431. 00 309,875 .00 8.10 1. 004 . 320. 00 0.35 1.007 .520.00 -3.200.00 70,000 .00 6.97 1.017.720.00 0.36 1. 031. 860. 00 -14.140.00 76,900 .00 7.56 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 .494.397 ._55 9.69 27 .627.436 .61 -133 .039 .06 1.905.397 .00 6.93 1.552.875.00 0.55 1,603,320.00 -50.445.00 156,000 .00 10.05 9,562.950.00 3.37 9,903,780.00 -340 .830.00 832,500 .00 8.71 11 .115.825.00 3.92 11.507.100.00 -391.275 .00 988,500 .00 8.89 259.717.196.55 91.51 264.979.358.46 -5.262.161 .91 17.720.812 .00 6.82 6,559,173 .57 2.31 6,559,173.57 ------------------------------- 6.559.173.57 2.31 6.559.173.57 6.559.173 .57 2.31 6,559,173 .57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 283.800.001.06 100.00 289,062.162.97 -5.262.161.91 17,724.909.55 6.25 Page 3 I OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10/9/96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 10/23/96 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEh_A ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2160, Penny Kyle, 2026 Division No., Name, and Extension ESTABLISH ANNUAL FEES FOR MAILING AGENDA MATERIALS (ALL): Board Secretary's Office recommends adoption of a resolution establishing fees for providing agenda-related materials to the general public. Recommended Action(s): 1) Adopt resolution approving the establishment of annual fees for mailing agenda-related material to the general public. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Dale Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on _ BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ N/A SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT NIA ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent Limited Term CONCURRENCES: Signature Date Divt?ion Manager (Or Designee) /11 1 a LIL 77U:-MtA Signature 1 I Date Department Head (Or Designee) ~'u)t)r-. · nature ' ' Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: N/A CURRENT YEAR- TO-OATE EXPENDITURES NIA CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED NIA YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE NIA AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT N/A REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Trans!ers) NIA AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT NIA If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Resolution 2. Agenda fee survey To Jt. Bds.: 1. Resolution 2. Agenda fee survey ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Board Secretary's Office maintains a list of approximately 52 persons who have requested to receive agenda-related materials. These requests are mainly for the agenda, minutes, and all back-up documentation. These requests for documentation have historically been provided completely free of charge. On March 27, 1996, an administrative policy was implemented to provide copies to any requester on the basis of the first 100 copies would be at no charge, and $.10 per page being charged thereafter. The Board Secretary recommends that this policy also be applied when providing copies of agenda-related materials to requesters. In order to determine the fees, a one year average of the number of pages over 100, plus a one-year average of the cost to mail an entire agenda package, was calculated to be $135.00 per year. This average is the proposed annual fee to be charged per requester. Requests for agendas only will be mailed at no charge. However, those requesting the entire agenda package to include back-up documentation will be required to pay the annual fee of $135.00. Newspapers will continue to receive agendas and backup documentation free of charge. Five agencies were contacted regarding their policies for copying and providing agenda backup material. See attached Agenda Fee Survey. The Board Secretary's Office will maintain a copy of the current month's agenda and backup material for public review at the Districts' reception area at Plant No. 1. PK/plj c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager J:\WPDOC\BSIAG96\OCT96\FEES.AIT Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 Page 2 of2 AGENDA FEE SURVEY AGENCY AGENDA AGENDA PACKAGE Irvine Provides copies of agendas at the counter for $350.00 per year billed free; copies of backup are . IO a page. Mailed annually. agendas are provided free but the requestor must provide a self-addressed, stamped envelope with .55 postage. Huntington Are provided free at meeting or prior to Agenda packages are not Beach meeting. Charge for mailing agenda is provided through the mail. If $45.00/per year; minutes are $45.00/per year. a citizen wants a copy of any If copies of agendas are requested after the backup, they pay .25 per meeting, it is .25 per page. page. Agendas free at the counter and at meeting. If Agenda packages are not Anaheim a person wants agendas mailed, it's $133.00 a provided through the mail. year. Charges for photocopying are .50 cents Any copying requested for the first page, .20 thereafter. Copies for FPPC backup is charged at .50 first are . IO per page. page/.20 each page thereafter rate. Newpapers and Chamber of Commerce get free agenda packages. Free agendas at the counter and at Board Full agenda packages are not County of meeting. For those requesting mailed provided. There is a public Orange agendas, they must provide a self-addressed, review file in the office; the stamped envelope with $ I. 0 I postage. Any public can select what they copying is .15 per page. want copied and pay the .15 fee per page. Newspapers don't receive anything for free--they use the review copies and make their own copies for a fee. Newport Agendas free at the counter. If the public If anyone wants the full Beach comes in for copies, there is no charge. If the packet mailed, there is council public wants minutes and/or agendas, they policy that $35-40.00 shall be must provide a self-addressed, stamped charged. Newspapers, envelope. Other copying is .5 per page. however, don't pay for the packet. Newport Beach maintains a public review copy--no charge for copying if the public comes into the office. RESOLUTION NO. 96- ESTABLISH ING ANNUAL FEES FOR MAILING AGENDA MATERIALS A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL FEES FOR MAILING AGENDA MATERIALS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• WHEREAS, the Districts receive approximately 52 requests annually to mail notices of regular Joint Board meetings, including requests for meeting agendas and back-up material; and WHEREAS, the Board Secretary has estimated the annual cost of mailing Joint Board agendas and back-up materials, exclusive of copying costs, to be $32.28 per request; and WHEREAS, California Government Code §6257 authorizes the Districts to charge for the direct cost of copying meeting agendas and back-up materials; and WHEREAS, the Board Secretary has estimated that the direct cost of copying such records, documents, and materials exceeds 10¢/page and that the average agenda and back-up materials per Board meeting consists of 188 pages; and WHEREAS, this Board has determined that there shall be an annual charge fee for mailing notices of Joint Board meetings, agendas, and back-up materials, based on ten (10) cents per page (excluding the first one hundred pages) for the average agenda plus the averaged costs for mailing; NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. No fee shall be charged for mailing notice of Joint Board meetings to anyone who files a written request therefor with the Board Secretary. Section 2. An annual fee is hereby established at $135.00 per requester, for mailing copies of Joint Board Agendas and back-up materials to persons requesting such copies. Section 3. The Board Secretary is directed to send mailed notices of Joint Board Meetings at least one week prior to every regular meeting of the Joint Boards ( and as soon as practical for every special meeting called less than 7 days prior to the date set for the meeting) to any person who has filed a written request for same. Section 4. The Board Secretary is further directed to mail copies of Joint Board Agendas and back-up material at least one week (same as above) to any person who pays the annual fee and provides the Board Secretary with self-addressed envelopes for that purpose. Section 5. The Board Secretary is also authorized to prorate said fee for requests that cover less than one year. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 23, 1996. OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 1019196 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: All AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGENL.A ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary Streed, ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RESULTS OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY (Districts): Staff Summary Report of the results of the Finance Department's Customer Service Survey conducted in August and September of this year. Recommended Action(s): An informational item only CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Determination filed on _ BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: NIA SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT NIA ORIGINAL BID, PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: NIA CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES NIA CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED NIA YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE NIA AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT NIA REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT NIA REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section CSDOC e P.O Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 CONCURRENCES: Signa Department He (Or Designee) A.ll~·wd-4~ Signat~ Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ----~ C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\FSRVY\OCTAIT.WPD Revision: 8/1/96 Date ATTACHMENTS. \GENOA (list) To Committee: 1. Copy of Customer Service Survey Instrument 2. Results of Survey To Jt. Bds.: 1. Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Finance Department distributed a Customer Service Survey on August 14 to all District employees. The purpose of the survey was to improve customer service to District employees, and establish a benchmark of the Finance Department's current performance. The survey (Attachment 1) was circulated for three weeks and a total of 126 responses, representing 20.6 percent of District employees, was received. Cumulatively, the surveys rated the Finance Department very favorably. The survey posed affirmative statements and provided employees with response options ranging in five increments from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree". When tallied cumulatively, 53 percent of employees either "Strongly Agreed" or "Agreed" with the survey statements. When the category of "Somewhat Agree" was added in, that total increased to 72 percent. Only 12 percent of District employees "Disagreed" or "Strongly Disagreed" with the performance or practices carried out by the Finance Department. The balance of the surveys indicated "No Response." Employees took the opportunity to point out areas of potential and needed improvement, but the overall consensus of the department's performance was generally very favorable. Specifically, the Finance Department was rated very well in customer service with regard to payroll and timekeeping functions and purchasing activities. Employees responded that staff provide timely and courteous responses and that the warehouse does a good job of providing for project needs. Employees indicated that they would like more investment options in the Deferred Compensation Program and some stated that they felt the deferred compensation matching program should be extended to all employees. Currently the Districts' provides a limited match to management, supervisory and professional employees as part of their benefit package. While employees rated the budget document and process favorably, comments were received indicating the need for more participation and involvement from all levels of Districts employees. It was recommended that the Finance Department offer process and procedure training in the services that are commonly used by employees. Many employees indicated that they are looking forward to the benefits that will be offered by implementation of the new Financial Information System. A compilation of all employees comments is being reviewed by Finance Department staff. Each comment will be considered and, where feasible, recommendations will be implemented. A follow-up survey will be conducted annually to monitor the department's performance. GS c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\FSRVY\OCTAIT.WPD Revision: 8/1/96 Page 3 of 3 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Finance Department Customer Service Survey In an effort to improve customer service to District employees, the Finance Department is doing a survey to rate our performance. We hope you will take a minute to fill out the survey and let us know how we can better meet your needs. Please submit your responses to Cymantha Atkinson or Lenora Crane of the Finance Department by September 4. Again, it won't take long to fill out the survey (please circle your responses), and your answers are critical to us being able to serve you better. Thanks for your help. Payroll 1) I am satisfied with how promptly and courteously my payroll questions are answered. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Please provide examples to support your answer. 2) I am satisfied with the format of the weekly/biweekly timecard. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Agree Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Strongly Disagree 3) I am satisfied with the service I receive when I have an issue with a timecard. Strongly Agree Somewhat Dis_agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Please provide examples to support your answer. 4) I am satisfied with the current Deferred Compensation Program. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Agree Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 Strongly Disagree Purchasing 5) My interactions and business relationships with Purchasing/Warehouse staff have generally been positive experiences. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Disagree Strongly Disagree 6) The parts and materials I need in the Districts' warehouses are normally readily available. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Please provide examples to support your answer. 7) When I submit a requisition to buy something, Purchasing processes it in a timely manner. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Disagree Strongly Disagree 8) If I need something immediately, Purchasing normally gives it full attention and does their best to take care of the situation. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Finance Department Customer Service Survey Page 2 Disagree Strongly Disagree Budget 9) The Budget is a useful information tool. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Disagree Strongly Disagree 10) The budget process has become more participative, meaningful and understandable. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Please provide examples to support your answer. 11) My questions regarding costs charged to work orders are generally answered promptly and in a courteous manner. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Disagree Strongly Disagree 12) I find the monthly expense reports useful in tracking my department/division's costs. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Please provide examples to support your answer. Finance Department Customer Service Survey Page 3 Accounts Payable 13) My interactions and business relationships with Accounts Payable staff have generally been positive experiences. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Disagree Strongly Disagree 14) Based upon comments I receive from suppliers, vendors and consultants, I believe they are being paid on time. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Please provide examples to support your answer. Department-wide Questions Disagree 15) In your opinion, what does the Finance Department do well? 16) How could the Finance Department better serve you? Strongly Disagree 17) Is there an area or question we did not address in this survey that you would like to comment on? Thank you! August 7, 1996 Finance Department Customer Service Survey Page4 ATTACHMENT 2 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Finance Department Customer Service Survey On August 14, 199.6, 611 Finance Department Customer Service Surveys were distributed in the bi-weekly paycheck. 126 responses were received, representing a 20.6% response rate. Preliminary results follow. 1) I am satisfied with how promptly and courteously my payroll questions are answered. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 18% 54% 13% 10% 2% 3% 2) I am satisfied with the format of the weekly/biweekly timecard. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 12% 55% 14% 13% 5% 1% 3) I am satisfied with the service I receive when I have an issue with a timecard. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 8% 17% 59% 13% 3% 0% 4) I am satisfied with the current Deferred Compensation Program. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 12% 11% 28% 22% 15% 12% 5) My interactions and business relationships with Purchasing/Warehouse staff have generally been positive experiences. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Agree Agree Disagree Response 17% 51% 21% 6% 0% 5% Survey Results Page 2 6) The parts and materials I need in the Districts' warehouses are normally readily available. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 8% 10% 53% 21% 6% 2% 7) When I submit a requisition to buy something, Purchasing processes it in a timely manner. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 11% 8% 47% 23% 9% 2% 8) If I need something immediately, Purchasing normally gives it full attention and does their best to take care of the situation. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 13% 16% 39% 24% 8% 0% 9) The Budget is a useful information tool. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 19% 10% 31% 26% 12% 2% 10) The budget process has become more participative, meaningful and understandable. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 27% 7% 24% 20% 17% 5% 11) My questions regarding costs charged to work orders are generally answered promptly and in a courteous manner. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 2% 35% 17% 14% 2% 30% Survey Results Page 3 ~ I ATTACHMENT 2 12) I find the monthly expense reports useful in tracking my department/division's costs. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 41% 6% 18% 20% 9% 6% 13) My interactions and business relationships with Accounts Payable staff have generally been positive experiences. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 25% 14% 44% 14% 2% 1% 14) Based upon comments I receive from suppliers, vendors and consultants, I believe they are being paid on time. Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Response Agree Agree Disagree 33% 2% 37% 23% 5% 0% 15) In your opinion, what does the Finance Department do well? 16) How could the Finance Department better serve you? 17) Is there an area or question we did not address in this survey that you would like to comment on? OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10/9/96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: DISTRICT NO. 14 AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN: 1 ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION -f'/7 (Initials of Originator) Division 3590, Mahin Talebi, Extension 3800 Division No., Name, and Extension TEMPORARY DISCHARGE AGREEMENT WITH IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) FOR THE DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER FROM THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT TO THE DISTRICTS' SEWERAGE SYSTEM (District No. 14): Technical Services Department requests approval of a Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater by Silverado Constructors during the approximate 2-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project. Recommended Action(s): Authorize execution of Temporary Discharge Agreement with IRWD for the discharge of groundwater from Silverado Constructors during the approximate 2-year Eastern Transportation Corridor construction project. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE BUDGET INFORMATION: Estimated revenue of over $500,000 per year. AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT N/A WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: N/A CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A N/A N/A CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT APPROVED AIT N/A NIA N/A REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section CONCURRENCES: . I 16 Signature Date Division Manager (Or Designee) Signature Date Department Head (Or Designee) ~·WJJN-10l,I,, Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS T" 4GENDA (List) \ To Committee: 1. Agreement Re Temporary Discharge of Groundwater (will be provided) To Jt. Bds.: 1. Silverado Constructors is a partnership involved in the construction of the Eastern Transportation Corridor in Orange County. A portion of this corridor is located near the intersection of the Interstate 5 Freeway and Jamboree Road in the City of Irvine. As part of this construction project, Silverado Constructors will be required to perform dewatering in the vicinity of the underpass under the Interstate 5 Freeway. The dewatering is required because of the shallow groundwater table at the construction site. Silverado Constructors has requested that it be allowed to discharge the groundwater from the dewatering activity into the Districts' sewerage system. It is anticipated that the discharge rate will vary seasonally from 3,000 gallons per minute (4.3 million gallons per day) during the first month of construction to a flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (2.2 million gallons per day) for the remainder of the anticipated two-year construction period. Through a proposed Special Purpose Discharge Permit that County Sanitation District No. 14 (District No. 14) would issue to Silverado Constructors, Silverado Constructors would be required to measure the flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended solids (SS) and provide these measurements to IRWD and District No. 14 on a monthly basis. Under the proposal, District No. 14 and IRWD would charge Silverado Constructors for the actual cost (calculated at $82.45 per million gallons, $116.16 per thousand pounds of SS, and $91.44 per thousand pounds of BOD) related to the treatment and disposal of the groundwater discharge. District No. 14 will invoice IRWD for District No. 14's cost of treatment and disposal of the discharge by Silverado Constructors separately from all other wastewater discharges. The Districts will lease to IRWD temporary capacity rights to transport the groundwater discharge of Silverado Constructors from District No. 14 to the Districts' treatment plant during the term of this agreement. IRWD will pay to the Districts, for the temporary capacity right, an annual rent (estimated at $427,000). The temporary capacity right and Special Purpose Discharge Permit are proposed to terminate on January 1, 1999. If the construction of the Eastern Transportation Corridor is not completed by that date, the temporary capacity rights and Special Purpose Discharge Permit may be extended on terms mutually agreeable to IRWD and District No. 14. It is our understanding that the request to discharge to the sewer system is not long-term. Silverado Constructors is currently evaluating long-term alternatives that include discharging to IRWD or the Orange County Water District for possible reclamation or obtaining an NPDES permit. However, following completion of the construction project, long-term discharge of the groundwater from the Eastern Transportation Corridor site is not recommended. MT:lvw c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager J:\WP\3590\LAURIEIAITSILVE Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of 2 OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN.._ _ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension APPROVE PROPOSED COST/BENEFIT METHODOLOGY FOR ALL COST-SAVINGS OR INCOME- GENERATING CIP PROJECTS (All Districts). Recommended Action(s): Approve proposed Cost/Benefit Methodology for all future cost-savings or income-generating CIP Projects. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ BUDGET INFORMATION N/A CURRENT YEAR TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ BUDGET AMOUNT SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: N/A AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES , state number: _ Permanent Limited Term CONCURRENCES: Date Si ure Date Department H d (Or Designee) ~-We.ls-/D/,/9' i ature Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A N/A N/A CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT APPROVED AIT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Analysis of Compressed Natural Gas Station To Jt. Bds.: 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) Background One of the necessary steps when evaluating or deciding whether to proceed with a project is a cost/benefit analysis. The methodology for this step has historically been left to the discretion of the Project Manager or champion; no methodological approach has been formally adopted Districts-wide. The goal of this analysis is to determine the financial impact of a potential project. A project which reduces overall costs or provides income in excess of the cost may be assigned a higher priority, based upon this analysis. Of course, some public policy projects are completed even though they are never monetarily paid back because they fit within the mission of the agency. Some projects will be abandoned because there is a higher benefit from simply leaving the money in the bank. The 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program budget contains the Districts' initial efforts to standardize the cost/benefit analysis. During the budget adoption process, we realized that our initial effort was not as strong or effective as we would have liked. Additionally, the Planning, Design and Construction Committee asked for a cost/benefit analysis during their review of the Compressed Natural Gas Station project in July. Since then, we have considered various alternatives and approaches in an effort to develop an improved cost/benefit template that can be used for all cost-savings or income-generating CIP Projects. One of the tools often used in a cost/benefit analysis is a present value analysis. This tool brings the future revenu or expense stream back to the same dollar value as the project cost. This is necessary when the future values have been adjusted for inflation or price increases, and to analyze projects over differing periods of time. In this manner, the "cost of money, " or the time value of money, becomes a part of the review process and does not distort the results. Proposal The enclosed analysis of the Compressed Natural Gas Station was prepared using the proposed methodology. Th rows have been numbered and the columns labeled to facilitate review and discussion. The following descriptions are noted: • Rows 1 through 9 contain the revenue or savings estimates for each of the next 25 years. Twenty-five years are included in order to fully amortize any borrowing that may be done for the project. The revenue estimates for each year are based upon the variables in the Factors column. In this template the annual revenues or savings are n.Q1 increased by an assumed inflation factor to ensure a conservative fiscal estimate, and to reduce the assumptions that have gone into the analysis. Using the same inflation assumption for revenues and expenses will increase the impact of whichever is greater when a present value analysis is computed, thus allowing for no inflation gives a more conservative result. • Rows 10 through 20 contain the anticipated annual expenses or costs associated with a project. These are primarily operation and maintenance expenses. Like revenues and savings, the expense variables are show in the Factors column. The annual estimates have not been increased by an assumed inflation rate. H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\OCT.AIT\FAHR96.59 Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of 3 ' ;, • Rows 21 and 22 show the ':ual net operating income and the acc. Jlated, project-to-date net operating revenues. Both of these are expressed in current year dollars by virtue of not including an inflation factor in first two sections of the template. • Rows 23 through 26 indicate the total project cost, funding from outside sources and the net project cost to the Districts. All of the costs are shown in Year 1, even though a project may take two or three years to design and construct, in order to simplify the analysis and review. The !!fil construction or project cost is the basis for determining the payback period. • Row 27 shows the proceeds and retirement of borrowing, if appropriate. This data is informational and not included in the net operating revenue or in the payback period analysis. • Rows 28 through 31 contain the present value analysis. of the net operating income (estimated annual cash flow). All of the future net operating revenues are brought back to current value by the discount rate shown in Line 29 of the Factors column. The last column of the template shows the total present value of the accumulated net operating revenues for the entire project debt service period. • Rows 32 and 33 can be considered the summarizing point for the entire analysis and template. Row 32 shows the initial cost of the project reduced by the present value of the net operating income earned each year. When the result of this formula becomes a positive number, the initial costs of the project have been recovered. This is indicated in Row 33 by the word "Paidback". As long as the subsequent revenues exceed costs the word "Paidback" continues to print. • Rows 34 through 36 are informational for comparative purposes. They show the potential interest earnings if the project is not undertaken and the funds are left in the bank. The interest rate for the period of analysis is fixed and is shown in the Factors column. The present value of accumulated interest earned can be contrasted to Line 32 of the template to indicate the project's return rate compared to interest earned. As an example, at the end of the debt service period it is estimated the CNG Project will earn approximately $500,000 more than if monies were left in the bank. Recommended Action Staff will review the proposed template with the Committee and seek direction on how to proceed. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration A GM-Operations General Manager H:\WP.OTA \FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\0CT.AIT\FAHR96.59 Revision: 8/28/96 Page 3 of 3 9/20/96 Rer OesC!lotion Factors Constr Year2 1 REVENUES Or SAVINGS 2 Station Recovery -HAULERS ($/gal) $ 0.91 $ 94.64 3 Station Recovery -OCSO $ 0.94 4 Station Recovery -CITIES $ 0,95 5 Station Recovery -RAINBOW $ 0.91 104.10 6 Station Recovery -OTHERS $ 1.00 7 Other Rev: 8 Other Rev: Biosolids Trucking Savings 54.08 9 TOTAL REVENUES . $ 252.82 10 STATION EXPENSES & COSTS 11 Commodity ($/therm) $ 0.185 $ 54.55 12 Taxes (haulers-$.047)(others-$.117) 13.86 13 Interstate Demand ($0,00/therm) . 14 So Cal Transportation Costs ($/therm) $ 0.050 14.74 15 Fixed Station Maintenance 20.00 16 Variable Station Maintenance . 17 Power ($/kw-hr) $ 0.035 9.00 18 Other Exp: 19 Other Exp: 20 TOTAL EXPENSES . $ 112.14 21 ANNUAL NET OPERATING INCOME . $ 140.68 22 ACCUM NET OPERATING INCOME . $ 140,68 23 CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION COSTS 24 Facitlily Costs $1,180.00 25 Contributions From Others (Grants, Etc) 159.00 26 NET CSD CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,021.00 27 PROCEEDS FROM BORROWING 4~ $ . $0.00 --- 28 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 29 Assumed Discount and Interest Rate: 5% 30 Present Value of Annual Cash Flow 5% $11.021.00l $ 127.60 31 Present Value of Accum Cash Flow 5% $(1,021.00 $ 127.60 32 ACCUM PV, CSD COSTS LESS INCOME $(1,021 ,00) $(893.40 33 CSD Construction Paldback In PV Dollars 34 Annual lnte_resl Earnings @ Disc Rate if No 5% $ 51.05 S 53.60 .----" 35 5% $ 51.05 S 104.65 I 36 Present Value of Accum Interest Earnings 5% $ 51,05 $ 97.24 NGV3,XLS Proforma Construction Cost Payback Analysis COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS STATION Dollars are times 1000 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 4.95 5,20 5.46 5.73 6.02 42.41 44.53 46.76 49.10 49,10 49.10 104.10 10410 104.10 104.10 104.10 104,10 . . 4.46 4.69 4,92 5.17 54.08 54.08 54,08 86,53 86,53 86.53 $ 295.23 $ 302.31 $ 309,25 $ 344.51 $ 345.02 $ 345.55 $ 63,80 $ 65.35 $ 66.81 $ 67.43 $ 67,54 $ 67.65 19.71 20.69 21,62 22,00 22.07 22.15 . . . . . 17.24 17.66 18.06 18,22 18.25 18.28 18.00 18.00 18.00 18,00 18.00 18.00 . . . . . . 10,52 10,78 11.02 11.12 11,14 11 .16 $ 129.27 $ 132.48 $ 135.51 $ 136.78 $ 137.01 $ 137.24 $ 165.97 $ 169.82 $ 173,73 $ 207.73 $ 208.02 $ 208.31 $ 306.65 $ 476.47 $ 650.20 $ 857,94 $1,065.95 $1 ,274.27 $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 143.37 $ 139.72 $ 136.12 $ 155.01 $ 147.83 $ 140.99 $ 270.97 $ 410.68 $ 546.81 $ 701.82 $ 849.66 $ 990.65 $(750.03\ $1610.32\ $(474.19) $(319.18) $ (171.34\ $ 130.35) Page 1 oft Year 9 Year 10 Year11 Year12 Year13 Year 14 Year 15 I $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 s 94.64 $ 94.64 6.32 6.64 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 5.43 5.70 5.98 6.28 6.60 6.93 7.27 86.53 86.53 108.16 108.16 108.16 108.16 108.' $ 346.11 $ 346.70 $ 368.95 $ 369.25 $ 369.56 $ 369.89 $ 370., $ 67.77 $ 67.90 $ 68.03 $ 68.09 $ 68.16 $ 68.22 $ 68.30 22.22 22.30 22.38 22.42 22.47 22.51 22.55 . . . -. . . 18,32 18.35 18.39 18.40 18.42 18.44 18.46 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 . . . . . . . 11 .18 11.20 11.22 11.23 11 .24 11.26 11.27 $ 137.49 $ 137.75 $ 138.02 $ 138,15 $ 138.29 $ 138.43 $ 138.58 $ 208.62 $ 208.95 $ 230.93 $ 231.10 $ 231.28 $ 231.47 $ 231 .66 $1,482.89 $1.691.84 $1,922.77 $2,153.87 $2.385.15 $2,616.61 $2,84828 $0Jl0' • so:cio' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0"~ $ 134.48 $ 128.28 $ 135.02 $ 128.68 $ 122.65 $ 116.91 S 111.43 $1,125.13 $1 ,253.41 $1 ,388.43 $1,517.11 $1,639.76 $1 ,756.67 $1 868_.10 $ 104.13 $ 232.41 $ 367.43 $ 496.11 $ 618.76 $ 735.67 $ 847.10 Paldback Paldback Paidback Paidback Paldback Paidback Paldback $ 56.28 $ 59.10 S 62.05 $ 65.15 $ 68A1 $ 71..83 .$ 75,42 $ 79.20 s 83.16 s 87.31 $ 91.68 $ 96.28 S 101.06 $ 160.94 $ 220.03 $.282.08 _$ 347.24 S 415.65 S 487.48 S 562.91 S 642.10 $ 725.26 S 812.57 $ 904.25 $1 ,000-51 $1101.59 S 145.86 , $ 194.48 S 243.10 S 291.71 $ 34{t33 S 388.95 $ 437.57 $ 486.18 $ 534.81 S 583-43_ . S 632.05 S 680.67 S 729.29 5 14 PM 9/20/96 NGV3 XLS R-,., Descriotlon 1 REVENUES Or SAVINGS 2 Slation Recovery -HAULERS ($/gal) 3 Station Recovery -OCSD 4 Station Recovery-CITIES 5 Station Recovery -RAINBOW 6 Station Recovery -OTHERS 7 Other Rev: 8 Other Rev: Biosolids Trucking Savings 9 TOTAL REVENUES 10 STATION EXPENSES & COSTS 11 Commodity ($/therm) 12 Taxes (haulers-$.047)(olhers-$.117) 13 Interstate Demand ($0.00/therm) 14 So Cal Transportation Cosls ($/therm) 15 Fixed Station Maintenance 16 Variable Station Maintenance 17 Power ($/kw-hr) 18 Olher Exp: 19 Other Exp: Proforma Construction Cost Payback Analysis $ COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS STATION Dollars are times 1000 Year 16 Year17 Year18 Year 19 Year20 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 6.97 6.97 6.97 6,97 6.97 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 49.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 104.10 7.64 8.02 8.42 8.84 9.28 108.16 108.16 108.16 108,16 108.16 $ 370.60 $ 370.98 $ 371 .39 $ 371.81 $ 372.25 $ 68,37 $ 68,45 $ 68.53 $ 68.62 $ 68.71 22.60 22.65 22.70 22.76 22,82 --- 18.48 18.50 18.52 18.55 18.57 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 ----- 11.28 11.29 11 .31 11.32 11.34 20 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 138.73 $ 138.89 $ 139.07 $ 139.25 $ 139.44 21 ANNUAL NET OPERATING INCOME $ 231.87 $ 232.09 $ 232.32 $ 232.56 $ 232,81 22 ACCUM NET OPERATING INCOME $3,080.15 $3,312.24 $3,544.56 $3,777.12 $4,009.93 23 CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION COSTS 24 Facitlity Costs 25 Contributions From Others (Grants, Etc) 26 NET CSD CONSTRUCTION COST 27 PROCEEDS FROM BORROWING -· $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 so.oo ~00 28 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 29 Assumed Discount and Interest Rate: 30 Present Value of Annual Cash Flow $ 106.22 $ 101.26 $ 96.53 $ 92.03 $ 87.74 31 Present Value of Accum Cash Flow $1,974.33 $2,075.59 $2,172.12 $2,264.15 $2,351.90 32 ACCUM PV, CSD COSTS LESS INCOME $ 953.33 $1 ,054.59 $1,151 .12 $1,243.15 $1,330.90 Year21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 $ 94.64 $ 94,64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 $ 94.64 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6,97 49.10 49.10 49.10 49,10 49.10 104.10 104,10 104.10 104.10 104.10 9.74 10.23 10.74 11.28 11.85 108.16 108.16 108.16 108.16 108.16 $ 372.71 $ 373.20 $ 373.71 $ 374.25 $ 374.81 $ 68.81 $ 68.91 $ 69,02 $ 69.13 $ 69.24 22.88 22.94 23.01 23.08 23.15 --- 18.60 18.62 18.65 18.68 18.71 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 ----- 11.35 11.37 11.39 11.40 11.42 $ 139.63 $ 139.84 $ 140.06 $ 140.29 $ 140.53 $ 233.08 $ 233.36 $ 233.65 $ 233.96 $ 234.28 $4,243.01 $4,476.36 $4 710.01 $4,943.97 $5,178.25 -so.oo -·so.oo -SO.DO .S0.00 $0..00 $ 83.66 $ 79.77 $ 76.07 $ 72.54 $ 69.18 S2 435.56 $2,515.33 $2,591.40 $2,663.94 $2,733.13 $1,414.56 $1 ,494.33 $1,570.40 $1,642.94 $1,712.13 33 CSD Construction Paidback in PV Dollars Paidback Paidback Paidback Paidback Paidback Paidback Paldback Paidback Paidback Paldback 34 Annual Interest Earnings @ Disc Rate if No Projed 35 Acaim Interest Earnings if No Project I 36 I Present Value of Accum Interest Earnings $ 106.13 $1,207.71 $ 777.90 $ 111.44 $ 117.01 $1,319,15 $1,436.16 S 826.52 S 875.14 S 122.86 S 12lHlQ $ 135.45 S 142.22 S 149.33 $ 156.80 $ 164.64 $1,559.02 $1,688.02 $1,823.47 $1,965.69 $2,115.03 $2,271.83 $2,436.47 $ 923.76 $ 912..38 $1 021 . .00 $1,069.62 S1,118.24 $1.166.88 $1,215.48 Page 2 of 2 Total I $2,271.36 144.83 1,115.61 2,498.50 159.46 2,271.36 $8,461.12 $1,617.38 527.55 -437.13 434.00 - 266.82 $3,282_88 $6,178.25 f -I $2,733.13 '$2.436.47 _J ',~1d r l OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 10-23-96 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wordjng: AGEN . -~ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE 9, 1993, WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RE GREEN ACRES PROJECT (GAP) WATER, TO INCLUDE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO PURCHASE AND TO SUPPLY RECLAIMED WATER AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE PRICE WHICH REFLECTS POTENTIAL OCWD SAVINGS AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE COSTS OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (CURRENTLY $89/AF) (All Districts). Recommended Action(s): 1) Approve the tentative GAP water pricing agreement. 2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into a final agreement with the OCWD in a form approved by General Counsel. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Determination filed on _ BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $450,000 SOURCE: JO Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: All/PROJECT COST INFORMATION Reduced Chemicals & Energy CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT $450,000 ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES $111,000 CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED 8-28-96 YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE $339,000 AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT ($200,000.00) REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) $450,000 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section CONCURRENCES: Date ,·vi, /91.p Sig re Date De artment Head (Or Designee) ~-:;;i, ·w~ ~ Signatur IIJ0/9, Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS ,AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Attachment A To Jt. Bds.: 2. Staff report re Amendment 3 1 . Attachment A 2. Staff report re Amendment 3 4. Draft Agreement w/OCWD 7 At the August meetings, the FAHR Committee and the Joint Boards considered and approved four action items relative to the Basic Integrated Reuse Project (BIRP) proposed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the City of Newport Beach. The goal of the BIRP is to provide for reuse of reclaimed water produced by IRWD that could otherwise be discharged to the Newport Back Bay. The enclosed staff report responds to the directive that staff negotiate an amendment to the 1993 Agreement with_ the OCWD for Green Acres Project water to include a long-term committment to purchase and to supply reclaimed water at a mutually agreeable price. Staff of both agencies have met and negotiated an "uninterruptable" agreement with no price increase for 1996-97. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\OCT.AlnFAHR96.60 Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of2 October 9, 1996 STAFF REPORT Green Acres Water Pricing Amendment BACKGROUND At their August 1996 meeting, the Joint Boards of Directors approved the FAHR Committee recommendations related to the Basic Integrated Reuse Project (BIRP) proposed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and the City of Newport Beach. One of the actions was to direct staff to negotiate an amendment to the 1993 Agreement with the OCWD for Green Acres Project (GAP) water to include a long-term commitment to purchase and to supply reclaimed water at a mutually agreeable price. The 1993 Agreement specifies "that the cost of reclaimed water shall be the operations and maintenance cost of the Water District for operating the green Acres Project facility, which is currently $150/acre foot." The 1993 Agreement further provides that the costs shall be reviewed and adjusted annually "to reflect the actual changes" in the Water Districts' operating and maintenance costs. For 1995-96, the price was negotiated at $89/acre foot. The OCWD had proposed a price of $112/acre foot prior to the Districts' consideration of the BIRP. The BIRP provides that the OCWD will take surplus reclaimed water from the IRWD instead of operating the GAP Plant during the winter months. During this period, the OCWD cost of water ultimately sold to the Districts will be 50% of the price paid to OCWD by the Districts. Such a pricing arrangement would result in the Districts paying double the actual cost of the water during that period, not simply the cost. This "profit" to OCWD will be used to pay for the infrastructure needed to get the IRWD reclaimed water to the OCWD and ultimately to the Districts. The OCWD maintain that they cannot go forward with the project without this pricing incentive. There are some benefits to the Districts from a long-term agreement: • Diversion of District No. 14 influent to the GAP will reduce chemical and energy costs to treat the Districts' daily flow. • The reduction in daily flow will postpone or eliminate the need for additional capital facilities. • A long-term supply of reclaimed water will reduce the Districts' requirements for more expensive potable water. • GAP water is less expensive than producing our own high quality reclaimed water. • The 1993 Agreement allows the OCWD to stop the GAP water supply to the Districts if OCWD can sell to other customers at a higher price. CS DOC • P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 Green Acres Water Pricing Amendment Page 2 October 9, 1996 PROPOSAL With these facts in mind, staff of the OCWD and Districts have met to discuss and to negotiate an agreeable long-term pricing arrangement. The significant points of staffs tentative agreement with OCWD are: • The term is fifteen (15) years, to match the BIRP. • GAP water will be supplied without interruption except when CSDOC effluent supplied to OCWD fails to meet quality criteria. • The water replenishment portion of the GAP operation and maintenance costs will be discontinued. This was a $29.07 piece of the $112/acre foot reported by OCWD for 1995. • The GAP operations and maintenance costs per acre foot will be based upon the actual costs of the GAP Plant and the water quality produced while the Plant is operating. • The GAP operations and maintenance costs for 1996-97 are agreed to be $89.00/acre foot. This is the same rate paid for 1994-95 and 1995-96. • The Districts will pay an equipment charge of $10.00/acre foot beginning in 1997-98 which will reach a maximum of $50/acre foot in 2001-02. • The equipment replacement charge is based upon the GAP plant cost of $8.75 million, a useful life of 20 years, and a production capacity of 7,500 acre feet. This results in a cost of $93 per acre foot. The proposed agreement is to phase the equipment replacement charge over five years and to cap it at $50 per acre foot. • No equipment replacement costs will be included in the annual GAP operations and maintenance costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the tentative GAP water pricing agreement as outlined above and as shown in Attachment A, and authorization of the General Manager to enter into a final agreement in a form approved by General Counsel. GGS:lc H:\WP.DTAIFIN\221 0ICRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\FAHR96.60 Attachment 10/2/96 ATTACHMENT A GREEN ACRES WATER PRICING ANALYSIS Rate Paid OCWD 1994-95 Proposal Proeosed Amendment ** 1995-96 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Treatment Plant O&M Cost Influent Pump Power $ 7.32 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.20 Distribution & Plant Power 40.21 40.13 40.13 40.13 40.13 40.13 40.13 40.13 40.13 Chemical Costs 23.04 25.38 25.38 25.38 25.38 25.38 25.38 25.38 25.38 General O&M, incl Labor 2.87 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 Labor 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 Lab Analysis (water quality) 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.67 Total O&M $ 73.44 $ 83.01 $ 83 .01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.0 . Water Reglacement/Reglenishment Well Pump Power $ 27.60 $ 37.87 $ -$ -$ $ $ $ -$ Replenishment Asmt 77.75 MWD Replacement Water 253.50 General O&M, incl Labor 7.00 0.92 HPEP Power 40.21 40.13 Total Water Alternative $ 152.56 $ 332.42 $ $ $ $ -$ $ $ Production Quantities {Acre Ft} Deep Well Used for GAP 1,209.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWD Replacement Water 703.98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAP Plant Production 4,920.20 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 GAP Blended Production 6,129.60 6,044.83 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 Calculation of Unit Price ger AF GAP Share $ 361 ,339.49 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 Replacement Share 234,017.03 Replenishment Share 184,506.06 Total Cost $545,845.55 $677,360.99 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 $443,343.96 Total Production 6,129.60 6,044.83 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 5,340.85 Blended O&M Cost per AF $ 89.05 $ 112.06 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 $ 83.01 Equipment Repl Sinking Fund 5.99 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 50.00 Cost per Acre Foot $ 89.05 $ 112.06 $ 89.00 $ 93.01 $ 103.01 $ 113.01 $ 123.01 $ 133.01 $ 133.01 ** O&M costs will change annually beginning in 1997-98 based upon actual OCWD GAP maintenance and operations costs for the operational period in the prior year. GAP2_1.XLS Equipment Replacement Sinking Fund contributions will not exceed $50 per acre foot 7:15AM OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 10-9-96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 10-23-96 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN \ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF CAPACITY RIGHTS IN TREATMENT, DISPOSAL AND SEWER FACILITIES BETWEEN DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 AND 13 AND DISTRICT 14 (All Districts): An amendment to exclude certain flows from the calculation of shares. Recommended Action(s): 1) Approve the proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Capacity Rights in Treatment, Disposal and Sewer Facilities. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ BUDGET INFORMATION N/A TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: CORF & JO Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION Esitmated Future CORF Savings Estimated Future Chemicals & Energy CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED 8-28-96 YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE N/A AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT ($6,000,000) ($200,000) REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section CONCURRENCES: Date Sig ture Date Dep rtment Hea (Or Designee) -6lr,i;ih"',h,... Si a re A:: General Manager (Or Designee) ,,1,1,, Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS. )AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Staff report re Amendment 3 2. August FAHR Report 96-47 To Jt. Bds.: 1. Staff report re Amendment 3 2. August FAHR Report 96-47 The enclosed staff report summarizes the Boards' directive relative to the District No. 14 share of 1996-97 Joint Works capital improvements and the June 30, 1997 inter-District purchase and sale of Treatment Plant Equity. Districts-wide there is no financial impact of this Amendment, and the Amendment negates the four-year cash- flow impacts of an early flow diversion by District 14. GGS:lc c: Department Head A GM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\OCT.AIT\FAHR96.61 Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of2 October 9, 1996 STAFF REPORT District No. 14 Share of Joint Capital Improvements BACKGROUND Each of the individual Districts shares in the cost of Joint Works capital improvements, both new and existing, based upon a three-year moving average of flows. At the end of each year, the Districts buy and sell ownership and actually transfer funds to complete the transaction. Three-Party Agreement At the August 1996 FAHR Committee and Joint Boards meetings, the Directors considered the impacts on the Sanitation Districts of a so-called Three-Party Agreement between the Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the City of Newport Beach, also known as the Basic Integrated Reuse Project (BIRP). The goal of BIRP is to provide beneficial reuse of reclaimed water produced by IRWD through the OCWD system and to eliminate discharge of reclaimed water into the Newport Back Bay. The Directors agreed in July to provide some capital funding relief to IRWD in order to accommodate and to encourage the BIRP. The pertinent actions proposed by the FAHR Committee and adopted by the Joint Boards were: 1) Modify the existing Agreement between District 14 and the other Districts to provide that the 1996-97 flow excludes up to 3.2 mgd, providing the three-party BIRP is approved. 2) Maintain the June 30, 1997 equity sale from District 14 to the other Districts, calculated on the basis of excluding 3.2 mgd from the four highest flow months, as an inter-District payable/receivable of approximately $4.8 million, and transfer the funds in 1999-2000 in order to eliminate the negative cash flow impacts on the other Districts from the accelerated flow reduction. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff has been notified that the three-party BIRP agreement has been approved. As a separate agenda item, the Directors will consider an agreement with OCWD for a long-term supply and purchase of Green Acres Project reclaimed water. Thus, all of the prerequisites to a modified agreement between District 14 and the other Districts have been met. A draft Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Capacity rights in Treatment, Disposal and Sewer Facilities between Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 13 and District 14, prepared by General Counsel, will be available at the meeting. Staff recommends approval of the draft Amendment. GGS:lc Enclosure H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\FAHR96.61 CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 • Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 August 7, 1996 STAFF REPORT FAHR96-47: Consideration of actions relative to the Basic Integrated Reuse Project proposed by OCWD, IRWD and the City of Newport Beach I. SUMMARY The Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the City of Newport Beach (City), have executed an agreement to implement a reclaimed water project called the Basic Integrated Reuse Project (BIRP). The goal of the BIRP is to provide wide use of reclaimed water produced by IRWD, especially in winter months when IRWD demands for reclaimed water are low. II. BACKGROUND In winter months, IRWD cannot use or store all the reclaimed water the agency is capable of producing at its Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. Therefore, historic practice has been to send higher amounts of untreated wastewater to CSDOC for treatment and disposal, since IRWD could not discharge treated wastewater to San Diego Creek. IRWD recently developed a plan to discharge approximately 5 mgd of treated wastewater into nearby duck ponds and water fowl habitat, with subsequent discharge to San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Back Bay. IRWD has received from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board an NPDES permit for both a demonstration phase (2 years) and, if successful, a subsequent permanent phase. This project, called the Wetland Water Supply Project (WWSP), met opposition from the City and several groups including "Defend the Bay." As an alternative to the WWSP, the BIRP has been proposed by IRWD, OCWD and the City. Instead of discharging the treated effluent to the duck ponds, wildlife habitat, San Diego Creek, and Upper Newport Back Bay, IRWD would pump up to 8 mgd of treated effluent to OCWD's Green Acre Project (GAP) pipelines for reclamation purposes. In order for that to happen, IRWD, OCWD and the City have executived an agreement which binds each agency to require certain actions and expend certain funds. The BIRP will also require CSDOC to amend an agreement with OCWD. FAHR96-47 Page2 August 7, 1996 Ill. DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC INTEGRATED REUSE PROJECT The BIRP is an alternative to WWSP. IRWO projects up to 8 mgd may be surplus reclaimed water within the next five years, particularly during winter months when irrigation demands for reclaimed water are lowest. CSDOC is OCWD's highest use GAP customer. CSDOC uses on average approximately 4.2 mgd of reclaimed water year-round, with single-pass cooling of equipment as the largest use of reclaimed water. Under the BIRP, IRWD reclaimed water would be substituted for OCWD-produced GAP water. This would allow OCWD to reduce production during winter months and, in fact, it appears that the GAP water treatment plant can be removed from service each winter for approximately four months. The IRWD reclaimed water is higher quality than GAP water due to a lower dissolved mineral content. IV. EFFECTS ON CSDOC Under an agreement dated June 1993, CSDOC agreed to purchase reclaimed GAP water from OCWD "at cost," and to provide OCWD with secondary effluent at no charge. "At cost" has meant the cost to OCWD to operate and maintain the facilities to convert our secondary effluent to reclaimed water. For fiscal year 1995-96, CSDOC was charged $89.00 per acre-foot, with an annual cost of approximately $472,000. The agreement also provides that OCWD can terminate delivery of water to CSDOC upon 24-months notice. This clause was included to allow OCWD the opportunity to sell reclaimed water for other purposes at a higher cost at OCWD's discretion. The clause would require CSDOC to find an alternate water source or reduce water requirements for reclaimed water, if other OCWD customers were found. CSDOC uses reclaimed water for a variety of treatment plant processes and for site irrigation. The largest use is for cooling various pieces of equipment most associated with our Central Generation projects. However, as noted above, CSDOC faces the possible future loss of GAP water. In anticipation of that possibility, CS DOC has studied two alternate courses of action, both of which would require significant capital funding. The first course of action is to reduce the use of reclaimed water by eliminating all or some single pass cooling. This could be accomplished by installing closed loop cooling systems with either air cooling or heat exchangers. The second alternative is to build and operate our own reclaimed water system using our secondary water as a source. Both of these alternatives, either separately or together, would be costly and would add extra equipment and operations and maintenance activities not directly associated with the Districts' core business of wastewater treatment . Under the BIRP, reclaimed water supplies would be guaranteed and the need for reducing our use or finding an alternate source eliminated. The cost of the future CSDOC alternatives have not been refined, but a capital cost projection estimate FAHR96-47 Page 3 August 7, 1996 V. in the range of $2 million is probably reasonable. One condition of the three- party BIRP Agreement is that CSDOC agrees to purchase 4.2 mgd from October through March at "a rate per acre foot equal to OCWD's cost to treat secondary water to tertiary standard." Although the three-party BIRP Agreement does not include the Districts, the price of water must be agreed upon. TERMS OF THE DRAFT THREE PARTY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) The MOU that staff has reviewed provides schedules for the accomplishment of certain tasks which will lead to an agreement to implement the BIRP. The three parties, IRWD, OCWD, and City agree in the MOU to: 1) develop agreements and permits which will provide for an intertie between IRWD's Michelson Water Reclamation Plant and GAP lines which currently terminate in MacArthur Boulevard, just southeasterly of Red Hill Avenue; 2) the construction of a proposed GAP extension into Newport Beach, to be paid for by OCWD; and 3) an IRWD intertie within University Avenue which will link to the new GAP extension at Jamboree Road and University Drive. The GAP extension will provide outlets within Newport Beach as far south as Fashion Island for future customers. The City will guarantee that certain city customers now utilizing city potable water will switch to reclaimed water. These two projects, the IRWD intertie, and the GAP extension, constitute the majority of the physical work necessary for the BIRP. The MOU also provides that OCWD will accept up to 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water, up to 3.2 mgd more than it now delivers to customers during the winter months. OCWD will pay IRWD fifty-percent of the price that CS DOC pays OCWD for the reclaimed water. Currently, this is OCWD's operations and maintenance cost to produce the water; $89.00 per acre foot although OCWD has proposed $112 for 1996-97. A separate agreement between OCWD and CSDOC specifies the formula that determines operating costs. If OCWD can sell additional water, it will pay IRWD for the additional water at the fifty-percent rate, otherwise it will accept the added water from IRWD at no additional cost. Separately, plans are being developed for the disposal of any added water (discussed below). The estimated cost to OCWD is about $6 million for the GAP Extension. The estimated capital cost to IRWD for the intertie segment is about $2.1 million. IRWD will also incur the additional costs to treat up to 7.8 mgd to reclaimed water standards rather than to have the Districts treat to ocean discharge standards. (This would reduce District 14's operating costs and revenues.) There is an unknown added cost, probably to OCWD, for disposal of excess reclaimed water. The City of Newport Beach will pay $500,000 for retrofits. There are no capital requirements for CSDOC under the BIRP. FAHR96-47 Page4 August 7, 1996 The method for disposal of reclaimed water that cannot be utilized by OCWD in winter months has not been finalized. One option is to discharge the water into the Santa Ana River. A second option, which appears to be gaining favor, is to discharge the excess water to CSDOC's ocean disposal system. Since the water would already be pressurized by OCWD and at Plant No. 2, it could be directly injected to the outfall pipeline and not require pumping by CSDOC. However, an intertie costing OCWD and/or IRWD about $100,000 to $200,000 would be required to make the necessary connection. The capacity of the GAP transmission line to Plant No. 2 and into the outfall would be approximately 2.5 mgd. Operating costs to CSDOC would be minimal. Discharge to the Santa Ana River would require a permit to be issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the discharger, either OCWD or IRWD. The reclaimed water could be discharged through the Districts' ocean outfall under two different scenarios. If it is put into the Districts' system upstream of the Districts' outfall sampling location, the Districts would request a modification of its ocean discharge permit and assume responsibility for the discharge. Under these conditions, the Districts must have a permit with IRWD, just as it does with large industrial dischargers, to control the quality of the reclaimed water. If the reclaimed water is discharged into the outfall system downstream of the Districts' effluent sampling location, the discharger, IRWD, would apply for a separate ocean discharge permit through the Districts' outfall system. In either case, impact of the additional flow through the ocean discharge system must be evaluated. However, the volume is small enough that its impact is likely to be minimal and, because of the quality, positive to the extent it is evident at all. Compliance with CEQA requirements for the connection to the outfall would be the responsibility of either IRWD or OCWD. VI. A DISCUSSION OF PROS AND CONS OF BIRP From staffs' perspective, the Basic Integrated Reuse Project appears beneficial to the three implementing parties and to CSDOC, presuming that a favorable rate is negotiated with OCWD. Following is a brief discussion of some of the benefits and downside of the proposed BIRP that staff has identified: 1. Irvine Ranch Water District IRWD will benefit by minimizing the opposition of various parties to the Wetland Water Supply Project. Additionally, the high quality IRWD reclaimed water will generally be used in a reclamation project that has the potential for expansion. IRWD is arguably the public agency with the most impressive water reclamation record in the state. This project would certainly advance their mission. IRWD would need to treat wastewater for OCWD at a higher cost than they pay to have us treat it. FAHR96-47 Page 5 August 7, 1996 IRWD will incur certain capital charges that may not occur under the WWSP for the intertie. The BIRP will not change IRWD's ultimate CORF ·contribution because it is an alternative to surface disposal as a part of the WWSP. 2. Orange County Water District The Orange County Water District will save money if its GAP Water Treatment Plant is not operated during the winter months. An OCWD staff report estimates annual savings of $152,000. During these same months, a higher quality reclaimed water source will be provided by IRWD. OCWD will benefit by the expansion of the GAP distribution system, and with the subsidies provided, actually enjoy a marginal cost benefit for the expansion. OCWD operating costs will not increase because of BIRP and, thus, GAP water costs to the Districts should remain constant, or even decrease as a result of OCWD savings, priced in accordance with the 1993 GAP Agreement between OCWD and the Districts. 3. City of Newport Beach The City has sponsored and encouraged the development of the BIRP, and will benefit by the expanded use of reclaimed water within the City and by satisfying those opposed to the WWSP. The City will spend about $500,000 for retrofits. 4. County Sanitation Districts of Orange Countv CSDOC will benefit by lower wastewater treatment costs in the range of $200,000 per year primarily for avoided chemical and energy costs, since not as much effluent will have to be treated to secondary treatment levels for water reclamation. However, the greatest benefit will be the avoidance of future capital requirements for water reclamation and/or water reduction. OCWD's request that we commit for a 15 or 20-year term to our present water usage will negate the requirements for these future capital expenditures. CSDOC will also benefit by the use of the higher quality reclaimed water, and may enjoy additional savings by expanded use of this reclaimed water in chemical systems that currently cannot use the lower quality GAP water. Operational savings realized from less wastewater treatment will be partially offset by a higher cost to the remaining Districts, since the administrative portion and other fixed costs of the treatment costs will be spread over a smaller flow base. FAHR96-47 Page6 August?, 1996 The CSDOC unit cost for GAP water purchased from OCWD could decrease to reflect the $152,000 annual savings that result from shutting down the GAP treatment plant. This would need to be negotiated. Diversion of IRWD flows to either the WWSP or the BIRP will result in reduced capital contributions from District No. 14, and in increased purchases of Joint Works Treatment Facilities from District No. 14. Assuming the capital improvement program set forth in the 1996-97 Budget (which will be revised by the Strategic Plan), the reallocation of capital improvement costs through 2020 will be: District No. Reallocation @ 4.6 mgd 1 $2,413,366 2 7,009,107 3 7,278,596 5 919,148 6 1,046,674 7 2,165,533 11 1,607,306 13 247,833 14 (22,687,563) Total $ 0 The proposed three-party agreement provides that IRWD will not discharge to the WWSP during 1996-97 while the additional GAPII facilities are being constructed, if the Districts will modify our agreement to calculate the District No. 14 capital contribution method for one year. The three-party agreement requires the Districts to agree to treat up to 3.2 mgd during the six winter months, but to exclude those gallons from the calculations {operations, maintenance and treatment costs would be paid). The capital contribution calculation is based upon a three-year moving average of flows from each of the Districts. The District 14 flow is specially calculated to be three times the actual flow for the four highest months of the year. The impacts of reducing these flows for water that would otherwise have been diverted are limited to the four years that it takes the moving average to catch up. f FAHR96-47 Page 7 August 7, 1996 During this period, the net capital contributions to JWTF and the annual equity sale/purchase amount to $7,413,451 for District No. 14, whether the other Districts agree to adjust the 1996-97 flow or not. The difference is the timing of the contributions. Cost to Other Include All Flow Adj. 96-97 Flow Districts 1996-97 $ 118,184 $(4,683,315) $ 4,801 ,499 1997-98 (4,289,652 (4,756,246) 466,594 1998-99 674,572 539,278 135,294- 1999-00 (3,916,555) 1,486,832 {5,403.387) Total S(Z,413,451 l ~(Z,413,451) $ 0 Clearly, over the four-year period the additional costs to the other Districts to adjust the 1996-97 flow net to zero. There is, however, the time value of money to consider as the costs shift to the first year. The costs are primarily made up of the annual JWTF equity purchase from District 14, because of the advanced reduction in flows. District No. 14 should carry a receivable from the other Districts for the period, and the other Districts should retain possession of, and interest earnings on, those funds in order to adjust for the time value of first year's equity sale. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As noted above, the Districts are not a party to the proposed three-party agreement, but execution of the agreement depends upon some actions by the Districts. Staff recommends that the Districts agree, in concept, to take the following actions: 1. Modify the existing Agreement between District 14 and the other Districts to provide that the 1996-97 flow excludes up to 3.2 mgd, providing the three-party BIRP is approved. 2. Modify the existing Agreement between all Districts and OCWD for Green Acres Project (GAP) water to include a long-term commitment to purchase and to supply reclaimed water at a mutually agreeable price which reflects potential OCWD savings and which does not exceed the costs of operations and maintenance (currently $89/AF). FAHR96-47 Page 8 August 7, 1996 3. Maintain the June 30, 1997 equity sale from District 14 to the other Districts calculated on the basis of excluding up to 3.2 mgd for approximately four months as an inter-District payable/receivable of approximately $4.8 million, and transfer the funds in 1999-2000 in order to eliminate the negative cash flow impacts on the other Districts from the accelerated flow reduction. 4. Authorize staff to begin negotiations with parties to the three-party agreement to allow for disposal of excess reclaimed water. TMD:GGS:lc J:\WPDOC\FIN\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.96\STAFFRPT.96\SRFAHR96.47 ~-------------------------.---------------------- For Bd. Sec.F-'\Qnjy 0 COMM. INFO. ITEM 0 COMM. ACTION ITEM 0 JT. BOS. CONSENT 0 JT BOS. DISCUSSION (NON-CONSENT) 0 PUBLIC HEARING ____ JT. BOS. MEETING DATE ____ JT. BOS. AGENDA ITEM NO. AGE~'~A ITEM TRANSMITTAL MEETING DATE COMM. ID. NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ./ YVlr (Initials of Originator) OMTS: OMTS PDC: PDC FAHR: 1019196 FAHR fl.fa-~~ EXEC: EXEC All 2520, Mike Peterman, Ext. 2105 STEER: STEER Division No., Name, and Extension JT.BDS: AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION($): Agenda Wording: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT: Total headcount for September, 1996 at the Districts. Recommended Action(s): Receive and file the Employment Status Report. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ N/A SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT NIA ORIGINAL BID, PO.CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term CONCURRENCES: Signature Date _ Divisio~ ~anaier (~r De~ 1 ..... ~-~-\£.,-~_u:_~ __ ·_-_--J-:_._~~--V;V;_l~_u_~"'--__ ---'-1_-_l~-1~ Signature Date Department Head (Or Designee) $, ,i;;).' u/"'4,,;: g ature Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: NIA CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES NIA CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED N/A YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE NIA AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT NIA REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT NIA REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. September 1996 Employment Status Report. To Jt. Bds.: 1. CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 OMTS CC"....._"111. PDCCOMM. FAH~~OMM. JOINT BOARDS Meeting Date: -----Approved: Amended: Forwarded to: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Districts have a Full-time equivalent (FTE) headcount of 597.25 as of September 25, 1996. The actual body count is 607. The current FTE headcount is equivalent to a 4.5% reduction from the budgeted 624 positions. The turnover rate with the Districts during the year (September 1, 1995 -August 31, 1996) was 6.1 %. The one month rate for September, 1996 was .33%. Staff will maintain a monthly monitoring of changes to keep the Committee fully informed about changes as they occur. ps c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP.DTA\HR\2520\STEEVES\1096.AIT Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of 2 I I, Employment Status Report Run Date: 25-Sep-96 Regular Regular Total Regular Part-time Part-time Actual Vacant Total Fu/I-time 20hours 30hours Contract lntem L.OA Headcount Posltlons Positions 2150 -General Management Administration 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 2160 -Board Secretary 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2190 -Communications 7 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 9 Total General Management 16 0 0 0 0 1 17 1 18 2210 -Finance Administration 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 2220 -Accounting 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 2230 -Purchasing & Warehousing 16 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 17 Total Finance 39 0 0.75 0 0 0 40 1 41 2410 -General Services Administration 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 7 2420 -IT Hardware Support 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 6 2430 -IT Software Support 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 9 2440 -Plant Automation Support 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 2450 -Collection Facilities Maintenance 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 31 2460 -Plant Facilities 45 0 0 0 0 1 46 0 46 Total General Services Admin. 98 0 0 1 0.5 1 101 4 105 2520 -Human Resources 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 2530 -Safety & Emergency Response 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 6 2540 -Education & Training 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Total Human Resources 15 1 0 0 0.5 0 18 1 19 3410 -Operations & Maintenance Admin. 16 0 0 1 4 0 21 0 21 3420 -0 & M Scheduling 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 3430 -Plant Operations 1 39 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 40 3440 -Plant Operations 2 53 0 1 0 0 1 55 1 56 3450 -Mechanical O & M 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 3 63 3460 -Electrical O & M 26 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 27 3470 -Instrumentation O & M 33 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33 3490 -Central Generation Operations 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 Total Operations 246 0 0.75 1 2 2 254 5 259 3510 -Technical Services Administration 3 0 0 0 4 0 7 1 8 3550 -Environmental Compliance & Monitoring 19 0 1 2 1 0 23 0 23 3580 -Environmental Science Labroratories 30 1 2 0 0 2 35 2 37 3590 -Source Control 39 0 0 0 0 1 40. 0 40 Total Technical Services 91 0.5 2.25 2 2.5 3 105 3 108 3710 -Engineering Administration 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3720 -Design Engineering 23 0 0 0 2 0 25 2 27 3730 -Engineering Planning 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 3790 -Construction Management 34 0 0 4 1 0 39 0 39 Total Engineering 65 0 0 4 1.5 0 72 2 74 Total Staffing 670 1.5 3.76 8 7 7 607 17 624 H:lexcel.dtalhr\steeveslempdiv.xls Total FTE Count 591.251 AGEN[) ITEM TRANSMITTAL MEETING DATE OMTS: DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION _t.~~ _H __ (lnitials of Originator) PDC: FAHR: 10/9/96 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: All AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: 2410, Ed Hodges, 3005 Division No., Name, and Extension Communications site lease agreement with COX COMMUNICATIONS, Lease No. L-xxx. Recommended Action(s): 1. Enter into the attached lease with Cox Communications. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Item: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: AIT/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT $0 ORIGINAL BID, PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent CONCURRENCES: Signature Division Man <· Signature Department Head (Or Designee) c;!!C~ . w~"" · ature Limited Term o-- Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) Date Date Date DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: October 1996 CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES $0 CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE $0 AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) $18,000.00 In additional $ AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO YES NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA (List) To Committee: 1. Communication Lease Site Survey To Jt. Bds.: 1. Communication Lease Site Survey CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) In May 1995, the Director of General Services Administration was approached by Cox Communications with the concept of entering into a lease that would allow Cox Communications to install antennae and other devices on the roof of our Ocean Outfall Booster Station at Plant 2. The equipment is part of their new wireless communication infrastructure. At that time, they proposed a 35 year lease with the agreement that they would pay the Districts a sum of $500.00 per month. In July 1996, staff advised Cox that a 35-year lease could not be recommended to the Board and requested that they consider a 10 year lease. Later that month, Cox came back with their second proposal. In this proposal, they increased the lease amount to $1,000.00 per month and decreased their term to 20 years. In August 1996, GSA surveyed the cities in Orange County to find out how much they were receiving for the same or similar leases. Attached for your guidance and information is a copy of the results of this study. Most of the cities did not have any agreements; however, the cities that did have such agreements received between $800.00 and $1,200.00 per month for the lease. In September 1996, staff went back to Cox Communications with a counter-proposal for $1,500.00 per month and a 10 year term with the provisions for extensions in mutually agreeable 5 year increments. After some discussion, Cox agreed. Budget Information The proposed lease will generate $18,000 a year in new revenue for the Districts. This revenue was not anticipated in the FY 96-97 Budget. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the FAHR recommend to the October Joint Boards that the Districts enter into this lease with Cox Communications for a term of 10 years and 4 five year extensions to the lease terms that will be mutually agreeable. The Districts will receive a lease of $1,500.00 per month during the 10 year term of the lease. c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager A:\COX.AIT Revision: 8/28/96 Page 2 of 2 City Contact Anaheim Dick Mayer Brea Ray Orlick Buena Park Doug Brodowski Costa mesa Jeanie Cypress Catherine McMahon Dana Point Michael Fountain Valley Mary Bowron Fullerton CarolWiech Garden Grove Cathy Standeford Huntington Beach Dan Brennan Irvine Karen Vaughn Laguna Beach Planning Dept. Laguna HIiis Mike Thiele Laguna Niguel Planning Dept. La Habra Dawn Lakin Lake Forest Peter La Palma Joan Hoestrey Los Alamitos Donna Vellln Mission Viejo Chuck Wilson Newport Beach Peggy Ducey Orange Pat Myers Placentia Jamie Delos Santos San Clemente David Lund San Juan Capistrano Mary Santa Ana Charlie View Seal Beach Elizabeth Stoddard Stanton Darleen Cordova Tustin Elizabeth Binsack Villa Park Kathy Adrian Westminster Janice Foley Yorba Linda Helene Kammeler Communication Site lease Survey Phone No 254-5191 990-7721 562-3554 754-5327 22s.6688 248-9890 965-4410 738-6350 741-5100 536-5544 724-6183 497-0713 707-2675 362-4300 310-905-9701 707-5583 523-7700 X 115 827-8670 X 201 470-3051 644-3002 744-2202 993-8117 361-8322 493-1171 667-2729 310-431-2527 37S-9222 x240 573-3031 998-1500 898-3311 x401 961-7110 Vendor Alrtouch NIA LA Cellular and Alrtouch Will get back wl Info. NIA NIA NIA Alrtouch Cellular NIA Nexus and Pac Tel NIA Left 3 messages NIA NIA NIA NIA Nextel NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Left 4 messages Left 2 messages NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Receive Monthly Fee Length of Lease $1,000.00 $1,000.00/1,000.00 10 yr wl2 5yr renewables $833.00 10 yrs $1,000.0011,500.00 5yrs w2 5yr renewable $1,200.00 5 yrs w/2 5 yr renewables • David Lund handles these leases at the City of San Clemente. They lease their properties to various wireless communication companies. He would like us to fax him the specs of our requirements, he would be glad to match up our needs with an appropriate lease that he is handllng right now. Fax (714) 361-8283. 9125196 October 9, 1996 :,:-.': >•·::\;::::,:.: ·:·••,,':,.c;d ':N:oVEMl3.ERJ{ Consideration of Commercial Bank Selection Action ,.,,,,,., .•. :,.??:)fi)fff/ii---------------------------+---------11 1:1;;~ ' ~ !/~ ~::::::::::: :; :::: :~:::; ;,:~:i~:·~~:.:·~p~::•I• :::::::::: :::: Consideration of First Quarter Budget & Performance Review Information Only ,. V , · <l Consideration of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the •!'Year Ended June 30, 1996 :-· Consideration of Revisions to Purchasing Resolution '''} Consideration of Broker-of-Record for Property and Personnel Insurance Action Action Action ;.. .. ji----------------------------------~ Consideration of Meet-and-Confer Process and Status :pf;C,E.MB6R' ': Consideration of Renegotiated MOUs (501 & OCEA) i Consideration of Progress Report on Implementation of IT Audit ... Recommendations :: ·· Consideration of Progress Report on Removal of Obsolete . .: Inventory ' JANdAlfy'-' ,: Consideration of RFP for Network Hardware Upgrade : i Consideration of Results of Broadbanding Study , Consideration of Recommended Risk Management Work '' Plan : Consideration of Award of Design/Build Contract for Plant Automation : Consideration of Collections Systems Maintenance Study I Consideration of Budget Assumptions and Fiscal Policies : Status Report on User Fee Methodology Recommendations . Consideration of Renegotiated MOUs (Professional & · Suoervisorv) H:\WP .DTAIFIN\2210\CRANEIFPC.MTGIFAHR.96\0CT .AlnCAL 10.96 CSOOC • P.O.Box8127 • FountainValley,CA92728-8127 • (714)962-2411 Information Only Action Information Information Action Information Only Action Action Information Only Action Information Only Action