Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-14·• REVISED . , 3 Jfiice ofthe Secreta; ?:~nty S<lnitat[Qn D'strlc,1 sl/; , u ·~· }, /, .B }/ . .J ':17 MAY 2 81997 DRAFT By _ _..z;_f!_,"""1<~---MINUTES OF FINANCE, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday. May 14, 1997, 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 Wednesday, May 14, 1997, 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 Barry Denes · Norman Z. Eckenrode Mark A. Murphy Mark Schwing William G. Steiner Thomas R. Saltarelli Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair Committee Directors Absent : None Other Directors Present: None APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant Genera/ Manager Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Admin. David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Chris Dahl, Information Technology Manager Linda Eisman, Training Manager Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Mike White, Controller Greg Mathews, Principal Administrative Analyst Rob Thompson, Plant Automation Manager Bill Webster, Operations Specialist Doug Cook, Chief Operator Lisa Lorey, Human Resources Manager Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Mark Conway, Insurance Broker It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the April 9, and April 16, 1997, meetings of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. .-, Minutes of Finance, Adm, :tnd Human Resources Committee Page 2 May 14, 1997 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair had no report. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER • General Manager Don McIntyre advised the Committee that the Senate Local Government Committee hearing regarding the Districts' consolidation has been moved to June 18. • Mr. McIntyre reported that we continue to get reports from the hearing officers involved in the post-dismissal hearings in support of the Districts' findings. One of the appellates has withdrawn his appeal; the fourth verdict is due this week; and there are four separate hearing officers engaged in the appeals-process. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -ADMINISTRATION • Judy Wilson reported that the Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report was included in the agenda package and appears on the Consent Calendar. The total cost per million gallons have dropped to $511 as of April 30. This figure should be closer to $525 by year end, even with the June accrual. • Mrs. Wilson updated the Committee on some issues regarding the Districts' consolidation efforts and the status of the Pringle Bill, AB 694, relating to LAFCO and the proposal to give them authority to reallocate the reserves of special districts. It is now a two-year bill. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -OPERATIONS The Assistant General Manager of Operations had no report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE • Finance Director Gary Streed advised the Committee that the monthly Treasurer's Report was distributed prior to the meeting in accordance with policy. • Mr. Streed further advised the Committee that the presentation listed as Item number 8 on the Agenda will be delivered at the June meeting instead of this evening. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES • The Director of Human Resources Mike Peterman introduced and welcomed Lisa Lorey, who has recently been appointed as Human Resources Manager, and Mark Conway who represents Burnham Benefits Insurance Services, the Districts' new health benefits insurance broker. Mark has been working with Lisa Lorey in resolving most of the employee insurance problems. • Mr. Peterman advised that he received the broad banding report last night and is currently in the process of reviewing it. He will make a presentation on the report at the June meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION The Director of General Services Administration had no report. ·'\ Minutes of Finance, Adm, '1nd Human Resources Committee Page 3 May 14, 1997 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications had no report. REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel had no report. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (A -F) A. FAHR97-26: B. FAHR97-27: C. FAHR97-28: D. FAHR97-29: E. FAHR97-30: F. FAHR97-32: RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 1997 (All Districts): The April Treasurer's Report was handed out at the FAHR Committee meeting in accordance with the Board-approved Investment Policy, and in conformance to the Government Code requirement to have monthly reports reviewed within 30 days of month end. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of April 1997 and forward to the Joint Boards. CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (COP) REPORT (All Districts): RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (All Districts): Total head count at the Districts as of April 21, 1997 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. RECEIVE AND FILE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1997 (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item PROPOSED CHANGE IN DISABILITY PROGRAM (All Districts): To be effective July 1, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Change disability insurance carrier to Fortis and authorize the Human Resources Director to negotiate change with the unions. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL REPORT COVERING THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Committee review, approve and forward the 1996-97 Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997, to the Joint Boards. DISCUSSION: In response to Chair Brown, Mr. Peterman advised that the Districts' two-year disability benefits were insufficient, therefore, he asked his staff to survey other agencies. The survey found that most other public agencies had disability coverage to age 65. When Robert F. Driver was Minutes of Finance, Adm: 1nd Human Resources Committee Page4 May 14, 1997 MOTION: asked to solicit bids for Long-Term Disability benefits, Driver quoted the Districts a cost increase of $200,000 -which was too expensive. Mark Conway was able to find the Districts Long-Term Disability coverage to age 65 at a savings to the Districts of $15,000 annually. Director Swan requested that the monthly Employment Status Report include a table and graph showing the month-to-month employment changes. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the recommended actions for items specified as A through F under "Consent Calendar." ACTION ITEMS (Nos. 1 -4) The Chair requested that items 5 and 6 be presented out of Agenda order. However, the minutes will reflect those items in sequential order for continuity purposes. 1. FAHR97-21: PLANT AUTOMATION DEMONSTRATION (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ed Hodges introduced Rob Thompson, Plant Automation Manager and Bill Webster, Operations Supervisor. Ed advised that Bill Webster has been with the Districts 16 years and has worked with the Plant Automation Group since its inception. Bill is a Certified Operator. Rob and Bill proceeded to perform a "live" demonstration of the Districts five pumps in the Districts' Outfall Booster Pump Station. Automation of the pumps has allowed the department to reduce operator staff by five positions. MOTION: Received and filed. 2. FAHR97-23: REVIEW CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 (All Districts): COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Director of Engineering David Ludwin gave a slide presentation and reviewed the proposed Capital Outlay Revolving Fund budget. The CORF budget will be presented to the Joint Boards in June as part of the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget. The 1997 CORF Budget is expected to be $54,226,200, an increase of 21 % over last year. During discussion, Director Swan requested that Dave rework the spreadsheets to report projects that are in construction, new projects and future projects. MOTION: Received and filed. 3. FAHR97-31: ACCUMULATED FUNDS POLICY (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Director of Finance Gary Streed advised that in order to allow the Directors to have a better understanding of the accumulated funds policy, it appears a revision to the policy is needed. This project is included as part of the Strategic Plan, however, there is a need to accelerate the work. The recommendation to accelerate the financial plan phase of the Minutes of Finance, Adm. ~nd Human Resources Committee ,,-,I Page 5 May 14, 1997 Strategic Plan will not change the scope of work or compensation for the consultants. After discussion, the Committee requested staff to begin a preliminary assessment of what the replacement needs will be of the Districts over time, whether or not to fund depreciation, and review the pay-as-you-go portion of capital projects. An engineering firm may be needed for this type of analysis. Staff was requested to bring this item back to the September meeting. MOTION: Received and filed. 4. FAHR97-33: FIVE-YEAR STAFFING PLAN REPORT (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Director of Human Resources Mike Peterman reported on the proposed five-year staffing plan and provided details on the administrative procedures that will be used to implement the targeted reductions. The staffing plan is expected to be met through attrition, retirements and cross-training. No lay-offs are planned. A 15% staffing reduction over three years, and more over five years, is the Districts' objective. The only reasons the Districts would change the staffing plan would be if there are changes in EPA and Air Quality requirements, and unforeseen problems with automation and cross-training, stated Don McIntyre. The Committee determined that some Collection System work would be contracted out, however the Districts would still achieve a net savings of $600,000 per year without jeopardizing the standard of service provided to the public. MOTION: Received and filed. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS (Nos. 5-6) 5. STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED USER FEE INCREASES IN DISTRICTS 1 AND 11 (Districts 1 and 11): (FAHR97-20) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Assistant General Manager Judy Wilson gave a status report of the proposed user fee increases. The Districts were asked to meet with City of Santa Ana staff, their City Manager David Ream, and District 1 Chair Director Pat McGuigan to review proposed increases in District 1. Santa Ana felt they were getting the steepest increases, while they are the poorest District. They asked CSDOC staff to try to find another way to bring down the proposed user fee increases to politically acceptable rates. Gary Streed prepared a new financial scenario for District 1 assuming 100% financing rather than 50% financing -50% pay-as-you-go. This had the result of significantly decreasing the steepness of the user fee increases, although their debt service was costlier in the long run. Having done this analysis of District 1, it was also prepared for District 11 Directors. Judy Wilson reported that Director Shirley Detloff, District 11 Chair, also requested a special meeting be scheduled for District 11 to consider this alternative. ,'\ Minutes of Finance, Adm, md Human Resources Committee Page 6 May 14, 1997 Meetings were held with the Boards of Districts 1 and 11 on Monday, May 12. The fee schedule for District 1 has been revised to reflect a 10-year program, and an annual increase of 9. 75%. Staff used a 100% borrowing formula rather than a 50% borrowing -50% pay-as- you-go program. The District 11 fee schedule has been revised to reflect a 10-year program with a 17% high in 1997-98 and gradually declining to 10%, using the 100% borrowing methodology. District 11 was the only District not to increase fees to replace taxes lost in the 1992 property tax shift to the State. The ten-year fee schedules are more attractive to the investment community. First readings of the amended Ordinances were heard at the respective Board meetings incorporating these changes. In response to questions from the Committee, Judy-advised that District 11 will be paying their highest fees in the first year to make up for the 1992-93 property tax shift to the State, when they chose not to increase rates. The two Districts will not be in total compliance with the Districts' Reserves Policy. District 1 will be putting off a major rehabilitation project until later in their fee schedule. Districts 1 and 11 have not deferred maintenance. Some Committee members expressed their concern that the rest of the Districts might have to carry part of Districts 1 and 11 's financial burden when the Districts are consolidated. 6. DART COMMITTEE PRESENTATION (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Doug Cook, Chief Operator, gave a verbal presentation of the Districts Assessment and Reinvention Team Program, describing the mission of the DART program, the program's five phases and the costs of the program. The third phase of the program is expected to cost $50,000 and is included in next year's proposed budget. It is hoped that with plant automation projects, the Districts will receive a return on its investment in this program. INFORMATION ITEM -COMMITTEE CHAIR Chair ·Brown advised the Committee he recently received a letter from Committee Member Barry Denes regarding a workshop he attended on April 26. The letter contained some observations that Director Denes felt the FAHR Committee should examine. Chair Brown asked Director Denes to explain the contents of his letter to the Committee. Director Denes felt it was unfortunate that more Directors were not able to attend the Saturday workshop. He advised a slide demonstration given at the workshop was very interesting because it reviewed the actual costs for the services we provide, and the residential and commercial rates charged to our customers. There were 15 or 20 categories of commercial users. Director Denes felt the Committee should look at ways to make residential rates uniform across the board, and increase revenue by increasing commercial rates to reflect the true commercial costs of those users. Considerable discussion ensued regarding this issue. CLOSED SESSION The Chair reported the need for a closed session, as authorized by Government Code Sections 54957.6, to discuss and consider the item specified under "Closed Session" as Item 9(a) on the published Agenda. The Committee convened in closed session at 7:32 p.m. At 7:45 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. · ..... Minutes of Finance, Adm~nd Human Resources Committee ) Page 7 May 14, 1997 Confidential Minutes of the Closed Session held by the Committee have been prepared in accordance with California Government Code Section 549057.2 and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Meetings. 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. FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by: ~~ Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MAY\SMIN.97 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 May 14, 1997, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on May 8, 1997. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of May 1997. Penny Kyle, Secre ary t(ach of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos);, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, California Posted: 'in,, r__ , 1997, /0 ;31:, §P.M. By:~~ Signature H:\WP.0TA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MAYICERTP006.97 phohe: 1'1141962-2411 mallJng address: RO. Box 8127 Founli81n Valley, CA 92728-8127 $1'0Bt address: 10a44 SIiis A'Jenue Fountain Valley. CA 82708-7018 Member Agencies • Cities Anaheim Brea Buans Park Cypress Fountain Va/Jay Fullerton H11rttington Beach Irvine Le Habra Ls Palmo Las Alsmltos Newport Beach Orange Placentia Sents Ans Seal Beach Stanton Tustfn Villa Park Yorba Linda County of Orange Sanftary Districts Cos.ta Mesa Garden G,•ove Mfdway City Watar Districts trvme Rench "' ,,......__. COUNTY L..)NITATION DISTRICTS OF •RA, J~E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May 8, 1997 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, MAY 14.1997-5:30 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 FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED MEETING DATES FAHR Committee Joint Board Month Meetings Meetings May May 14, 1997 May 28, 1997 June June 11, 1997 June 25, 1997 July July 9, 1997 July 30, 1997 August NONE SCHEDULED August 27, 1997 September September 10, 1997 September 24, 1997 October October 8, 1997 October 22, 1997 November November 12, 1997 November 19, 1997 December December 10, 1997 December 17, 1997 January January 14, 1998 January 28, 1998 February February 11, 1998 February 25, 1998 March March 11, 1998 March 25, 1998 April April 8, 1998 April 22, 1998 May May 13, 1998 May 27, 1998 AGENDA 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, MAY 14, 1997 AT 5:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PROTEM, 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 to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. 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). May 14, 1997 RECEIVE, FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Recommended Action: Receive, file and approve draft minutes of the April 9, 1997 and April 16, 1997, Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meetings. REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORT OF Gl=NERAL MANAGER REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENEJ:¼L MANAGER -ADMINISTRATION REPORT OF-ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -OPERAJl@NS REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE REPGRT OF DIRECTOR OF HUM:A:N RESOURCES REPORT OF Di'RECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF GENERAL ceUNSEL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ~ .................................. ____ .._ ____ ................................. ·---;r ---· ·-······ .................. -........................ .._ ............................................ -•••••• ___ ................................... ·; . . 1 All matters placed on the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further l [ explanation and unless any particular Item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a j [ Director, staff member or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of 1 i these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and ·; : casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from : the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by number the Item to be removed from the consent calendar. The Chair will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. . . . ' t ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ . A. FAHR97-26: RECEIVE AND FILE TREASUR'ER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL .1filIT (All Districts): The April Treasurer's Report will be handed out at the FAHR Committee meeting in accordance with the Board-approved Investment Policy, and in conformance to the Government Code requirement to have monthly reports reviewed within 30 days of month end. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of April 1997 and forward to the Joint Boards. 2 May 14, 1997 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM'S CONTD. B. FAHR97-27: CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIP~TION (COP) REPORT (All Districts): RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. C. FAHR97-28: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (All Districts): Total head count at the Districts as of April 21, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. D. FAHR97-29: RECEIVE AND FILE OUARTERL Y INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PR,OGRAM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1997 (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. E. FAHR97-30: PROPOSED CHANGE IN DISABILITY PROGRAM (All Districts): To be effective July 1, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Change disability insurance carrier to Fortis and authorize the Human Resources Director to negotiate change with the unions. F. FAHR97-32: THIRD QlJARTER FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL 'REPORT COVERING THE PERIOD ENDED MA~CH 31, 1997 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Committee review, approve and forward the 1996-97 Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997, to the Joint Boards. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of items deleted from Consent Calendar, if any. Consideration of one motion to approve all agenda items appearing on the Consent Calendar not specifically removed from same. ACTION ITEM"S 1. FAHR97-21: PLANT AUTOMATION DEMONSTRATION (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only report. (Rob Thompson/Bill Webster-20 minutes) 3 May 14, 1997 ACTION ITEMS CONTP- 2. PDC97-23: REVIEW CAPITAL OUTLAY 'RE:YOLVING FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 (All Districts): The Director of Engineering will present information on the proposed Capital Outlay Revolving Fund budget RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this is information only item. The CORF budget will be presented to the Joint Boards in June as part of the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget. (Dave Ludwin -20 minutes) 3. FAHR97-31: ACCUMULATE!:> FUNDS POLICY (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends acceleration of the financial plan phase of the Strategic Plan and reports to the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. The scope of work and compensation for consultants will remain the same. (Gary Streed -5 minutes) 4. FAHR97-33: .FIVE-YEAR STAPFING PLAN REPORT (All Districts): The Director of Human Resources will report on the proposed five-year staffing plan and provide details on the administrative procedures that will be used to implement the targeted reductions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only report. (Mike Peterman -10 minutes) INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS 5. STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED USER FEE INCREASES lt,J DIST RICTS 1 AND 11 (Districts 1& 11): (FAHR97-20) Districts 1 and 11 are schedule to meet May 12, 1997, to consider additional user fee alternatives. Staff will update the Committee on these meetings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only. (Judy Wilson -5 minutes) 6. DART COMMITTEE PRESENTATION (All Districts): An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) reinvention pilot program called the Districts' Assessment and Reinvention Team (DART) has been formed for the purpose of improving O&M productivity. A discussion of the DART formation and progress will be presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only. (Doug Cook-10 minutes) 4 May 14, 1997 INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS CONT~D .. 8. INTEGRATED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN STATUS REPORT (All Districts) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only. (Terri Josway/Dan Tunnicliff -5 minutes) CLOSED SESSION During th-e course of conduct/nm the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the l 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 l Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. j I Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential j 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 l Committee during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such j time as final actions are taken by the Commit~ee on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect l all required.disclos1:Jres of information ............................................................................................................ ! 9. Convene in closed session. (a) Confer with Districts' Negotiator re pending MOU Labor Negotiations (Government Code Section 54957.6). 10. Reconvene in regular session. 11. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. OTHER BUSINESS. COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS. IF AN:V MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTO.RWOULD1JKE ST..A'FF to REPORT ON ATA SUBSEQUENT MEETING MATTERS WHICH A DfRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT FUTUR6 MEETING O~TES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for June 11, 1997. NOTICE TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS ........................................................................................................................................................ _. -·-····· --......................................................... ----~ ) If you have any questions on the agenda or wish to place any items on the agenda, Committee members should contact ! 1 the Committee Chair or Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. 1 I : . . . . i Committee Chair: George Brown (310) 431-2185 i I I :Comm. Secretary: Lenora Crane (714) 962-2411, Ext. 2501 I . (714) 962-3954 (FAX) . I I : A$st. Comm. Secretary; .. Frankie Woodside ... (714) 9.62-241.11 Ext,. 3001 ................................................................ _ .... .: 5 ROLL CALL FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: May 14.1997 COMMITTEE MEMBERS GEORGE BROWN (Chair) ................................................. . JOHN J. COLLINS (JC) ...................................................... . JAN DEBAY ......................................................................... . BARRY DENES .................................................................. . NORMAN ECKENRODE ................................................... . MARK MURPHY .....................•.........•................................... THOMAS SALTARELLI ..................................................... . MARK SCHWING ............................................................... . WILLIAM STEINER ............................................................. . PEER SWAN (VJC) ............................................................ . STAFF DON MCINTYRE, General Manager ................................... . TIME: 5:30 P.M. ADJOURN: _ ___._p-=.M=. BLAKE ANDERSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mgr. -Ops..................... __ _ JUDITH WILSON, Asst. Gen'I. Mgr. -Admln....................... __ _ ED HODGES, Director of Gen'I. Srvs. Admln....................... __ _ 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....................................................... __ _ GREG MATHEWS, Principal Administrative Analyst... ....... . MARC DUBOIS, Contracts/Purchasing Manager ................ . LINDA EISMAN, Training Manager .................................... .. CHRIS DAHL, Information Technology Manager ................. . NICK ARHONTES, Maintenance Manager .......................... . TERRI JOSWAY, Safety & Emergency Response Mgr ...... . ROB THOMPSON, Plant Automation Manager ................... . BILL WEBSTER, Operations Specialist... ........................... . DAN TUNNICLIFF, Safety & Emergency Response Supvr. DOUG COOK, Chief Operator ............................................. . LISA LORI, Human Resources Manager ............................. . LENORA CRANE, Committee Secretary ............................. . OTHERS TOM WOODRUFF, General Counsel .............................. . DAN CASSIDY, MOU Consultant... .................................. . MARK CONWAY, Insurance Broker ................................... . c: Penny Kyle Debra Lecuna APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 05/14197 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wordjng: AGENl l ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2210, Gary G. Streed, 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RECEIVE AND FILE DRAFT FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS HELD APRIL 9, 1997 AND APRIL 16, 1997 (All Districts) Recommended Action{s): 1. Receive and file draft Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee minutes for the meetings held April 9, 1997 and April 16, 1997. 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_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: N/A SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL N/A ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT N/A WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04110197 H:\WP .DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MA Y\AITMINOS.97 DATE OF MOST RECENT~ ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES N/A CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED NIA YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE N/A BUDGET CHANGE THISAIT N/A AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT N/A REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Tramafers) N/A REVISED TOT AL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 Originator CONCURRENCES: Date Date 1 Oate ADDITIONAL INFORMATION {Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO )MITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. FAHR Committee Meeting Minutes dated 4-9-97. 2. FAHR Committee Meeting Minutes dated 4-1~97. ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. Attached are drafts of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources meeting minutes of April 9, 1997, and April 16, 1997. These minutes were submitted to the Joint Boards at their April 23, 1997 meeting. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP .DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.971MA Y\AITMIN05.97 Page 2 of2 DRAFT MINUTES OF FINANCE, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 9, 1997, 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 Wednesday, April 9, 1997, at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative Offices. ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: Commjttee Directors Present: George Brown, Chair John J. Collins, Joint Chair Jan Debay Barry Denes Norman Z. Eckenrode Mark A. Murphy Mark Schwing William G. Steiner Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair Committee Directors Absent : Thomas Saltarelli Other Directors Present: Steve Anderson Shirley Dettloff Harry M. Dotson Burnie Dunlap Patsy Marshall Pat McGuigan Eva Miner-Bradford Chris Norby Margie Rice Sheldon S. Singer Dave Sullivan Charles E. Sylvia Hank Wedaa Staff Present: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Ed Hodges, Director of General Services 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 Technical Services Chris Dahl, Information Technology Manager Linda Eisman, Training Manager Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Mike White, Controller Doug Stewart, Engineering Manager Jim Herberg, Engineering Planning Supervisor Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Tom Woodruff, General Counsel Ed Zacherl, Asst. Director of Finance, Anaheim APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. Minutes of Finance, Adm,. ..lnd Human Resources Committee Page2 April 9, 1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the draft minutes of the March 12, 1997, meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair announced that there would be a lot of material to go over and reviewed the procedures to be followed in order to allow each Director's questions and concerns to be addressed. Chair Brown also alerted the Board Members to the fact that when Proposition 218 goes into effect, any increases made in fees after this year will require a mail-out to the public. However, the notification requirement should not influence a District's decision to raise fees. If a District needs to raise fees, the process should start immediately. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Don McIntyre had no report. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -ADMINISTRATION The Assistant General Manager of Administration Judy Wilson had no report. REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER -OPERATIONS The Assistant General Manager of Operations had no report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Finance Director Gary Streed advised the Committee that the monthly Treasurer's Report was distributed prior to the meeting in accordance with policy. A copy of the slide presentation regarding user fees was distributed to the Directors for easy reference, as was a one page table which was also included in the mail out. 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. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications Michelle Tuchman had no report. Minutes of Finance, Adm~nd Human Resources Committee ) Page 3 April 9, 1997 REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel had no report. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (A -C) A. FAHR97-22: B. FAHR97-23: C. FAHR97-24: RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1997 {All Districts): The March Treasurer's Report was handed out at the FAHR Committee meeting in accordance with the Board- approved Investment Policy, and in conformance to the Government Code requirement to have monthly reports reviewed within 30 days of month end. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of March 1997 and forward to the Joint Boards. CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (COP) REPORT (All Districts): RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (All Districts): Total head count at the Districts as of March 31, 1997 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this information-only item. MOTION NO. 1: A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously carried to move Item D (FAHR97-25), listed on the Agenda under the Consent Calendar, to the end of the meeting. MOTION NO. 2: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the recommended actions for items specified as A through C under "Consent calendar." ACTION ITEMS 1. FAHR97-20: 1997-98 SEWER SERVICE USER FEES (All Districts) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: General Manager Don McIntyre and Finance Director Gary Streed gave a slide presentation of the sewer user fee program. Don stated the Districts must raise fees because we have deferred capital improvements for some time and we cannot continue to do so and keep up with demographic growth, and the growth in the industry ahead of us. Don discussed the Districts' Budget Assumptions, operating costs and the status of the current budget with respect to the budget reserve policy. Don stated that we are making significant strides in reducing operating costs. The Districts' reserve policy has been around for a decade and it is mostly driven by Board decisions that have relied on the "2020 VISION" Plan. The Districts is about to complete a new strategic plan that has been the basis of a new policy. Gary Streed discussed options that were discussed at the last FAHR Committee meeting and advised that option No. 3 to adopt a program to Minutes of Finance, Admi. .ind Human Resources Committee Page4 April 9, 1997 increase fees in predetermined steps over time on a District-by-District basis was the recommendation of the FAHR Committee on March 12 and approved by the Board on March 26. This option was included in tonight's package, along with three scenarios or alternatives for fee adjustments. Gary Streed's slide presentation included the options and alternatives for fee increases. He reviewed the Districts' six types of budgets, sources of funds, the Sewer Service User Fees program for Single Family residences, and COP repayment sources. Mr. Streed reviewed Districts 1-14 Accumulated Funds by description, Districts 1-14 Accumulated Funds Balances by District, and Accumulated Funds vs. COP Issues. The Committee discussed Proposition 218 notification and referendum requirements; the accumulated funds policy; the status of Assembly Bill 1 which is designed to stop the Property Tax Shift by 10% increments over the next 10 years, the Strategic Plan Process, and the roles of the RAC and PAC Committees. The Committee had questions regarding income sources, unfunded annual depreciation, COP funding, Capital Improvement funding, and the pay-as-you-go philosophy. Some Directors expressed their feeling that a special district should not be a bank where funds are accumulated. We are here to provide a service, however, we also need to protect the integrity of our operation. The Directors felt that we should relabel reserves which identify those funds which are designated for capital improvements, establish a reserves policy and approve alternative "C." The scenarios or alternatives for fee adjustments discussed were: A. Raise fees in all Districts as necessary to balance the budget to comply with accumulated funds policy, and to fund CORF and OCR projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. B. Same as above except borrow for the OCR project. C. Raise fees to balance budget only if a District is not in compliance with the accumulated funds policy In response to questions by the Directors, the Chair announced that a general consensus vote would be taken of all Directors present, not just the FAHR Committee members on any motions made. MOTION: It was moved, seconded, and carried by majority vote, to approve the philosophy of scenario "C," not the numbers, to raise fees to balance the budget only if a District is not in compliance over time with the accumulated funds policy; the District would have 5 years to comply; and the District would borrow for the OCR Project. A Special Meeting of the FAHR Committee was called for by the Chair to be held on Wednesday, April 16, 1997. The intent of the meeting will be for the Committee to review recommendations from staff regarding rate increases for those Districts, where appropriate, in the spirit of Scenario C. The Committee will then render an opinion on a District-by-District basis. It Minutes of Finance, Adm~nd Human Resources Committee Page 5 ,,.----...,, i April 9, 1997 was decided that recommendations would be made in paragraph form, not spreadsheet form, so that the Directors would be able to clear1y explain the recommendations to their constituents. 2. FAHR97-25: PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS M. DAWES (All Districts): The Director of Engineering requested approval of a Professional Services Agreement providing professional engineering services for the completion of the Strategic Plan. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Discussion took place regarding compensation for Mr. Dawes and the effect the waiver of the errors and omissions insurance clause would have on the Districts' legal rights. It was determined that Mr. Dawes would serve in the capacity of Project Manager and would not be responsible for engineering design, construction or inspection. MOTION NO. 1.: It was moved, seconded and approved with a vote of 4 Ayes, and 2 Nays to: 1) Approve a waiver to Resolution 95-105, Article XLIV, Section 99, to retain Thomas M. Dawes as a professional consultant; 2) Approve a Professional consulting Agreement with Thomas M. Dawes providing professional engineering services for the completion of the Strategic Plan, not to exceed 1,000 hours over a period of 18 months, at an hour1y rate of $85 per hour, in an amount not to exceed $85,000; MOTION NO. 2: It was moved seconded and approved with a vote of 4 Ayes and 2 Nays to: 1) Approve a waiver to Resolution 90-43, Policies and Procedures, Section 7b(7) requiring $25,000 of errors and omissions insurance. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS None. CLOSED SESSION There was no Closed Session. OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IE ANY There were none. MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. MA TIERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. Minutes of Finance, Adm1. Jnd Human Resources Committee Page6 April 9, 1997 FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Submitted by: ~ ~ Lenora Crane Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary H:\WP .OTA \FIN\221 O\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\APR\4MIN.97 DRAFT MINUTES OF FINANCE, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 16. 1997, 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 Wednesday, April 16, 1997, 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: John J. Collins, Joint Chair Jan Debay Barry Denes Norman Z. Eckenrode Mark A. Murphy Thomas Saltarelli William G. Steiner Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair Committee Directors Absent : George Brown, Chair Mark Schwing Other Directors Present: Burnie Dunlap Pat McGuigan Margie Rice Sheldon S. Singer Charles E. Sylvia Hank Wedaa Staff Present: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Ed Hodges, Director of General Services Admin. Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Chris Dahl, Information Technology Manager Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Mike White, Controller Doug Stewart, Engineering Manager Jim Herberg, Engineering Planning Supervisor Lenora Crane, Committee Secretary Others Present: Tom Woodruff, General Counsel Ed Zacherl, Asst. Director of Finance, Anaheim Mark Tomich, City of Irvine APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR PRO TEM Director John Collins (JC) announced he was asked to chair tonight's meeting by FAHR Committee Chair George Brown who was unable to attend the meeting. Since the FAHR Committee does not have a Chair Pro Tern, the Committee will elect one at its next regular meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. Minutes of Finance, Admi. .fod Human Resources Committee \! Page2 ApriI9, 1997 Chair Collins requested that each Director briefly review the information placed before them prior to staff reporting on item 97-20. He particularly requested they review the Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees increases for their own Districts and the Staff Report which included a narrative of the financial health of each District. General Manager Don McIntyre announced that he faxed a memo to all Board Members today regarding AB 694 -Pringle which could have serious impacts to special district revenues. The bill was supposed to be heard today by the Assembly Local Government Committee, and was passed over to Wednesday, April 23. Don advised that if any Director wanted a copy of the bill and his memo, Michelle Tuchman has copies available for them. ACTION ITEMS 1. FAHR97-20: 1997-98 SEWER SERVICE USER FEES (All Districts): The Directors approved the philosophy of Scenario "C" at the FAHR Committee Meeting of April 9, 1997. The Committee directed staff to return in one week with a proposal that included smooth and gradual fee adjustments, provided five years for individual Districts to comply with the Districts' internal accumulated funds policy, allowed total expenditures to exceed current revenues, if necessary, and included a capital financing program. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Finance Director Gary Streed presented a brief overview of what was included in the agenda package and gave a slide presentation which included: A review of cash flow assumptions, the Districts' financial history, the increased cost of service, CSDOC's funding policy, a review of all Districts' Accumulated funds, and the Joint Works Capital Improvement Outlay. He also reviewed how the Districts compared to bench marking surveys made by other agencies. Mr. Streed reviewed the Districts' overall cost performance and goals and discussed what can go wrong if all of the Districts do not approve sewer service user fee increases. The Committee discussed the funding needs of Districts 1 and 11, the serious impact on the other Districts if any of the Districts do not approve fee increases, and what a stabilization fund really is. Discussion took place regarding District 13's fee history, the impact on rates when the Districts move to consolidation, and what effect recovery of bankruptcy funds might have on cash flow projections. Discussion also took place regarding getting the good news out to the news media about how well the Districts' compare to other sewer agencies. Chair Collins advised there would not be a District-by-District vote on recommendations made this evening. A District-by-District vote will be called for at the full Joint Boards Meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 23. Tonight, only the FAHR Committee members will vote on a recommendation to the Joint Boards. Don McIntyre advised the Committee that he would be meeting with District 11 on Monday. If any other Districts or individuals wished to meet with him, he would be happy to do so. ~ Minutes of Finance, Adn. ,and Human Resources Committee Page3 April 9, 1997 CLOSED SESSION Director Debay expressed interest in knowing how much sewer damage, if any, was created by the Northridge earthquake, and requested that staff find out if this information is available. Prior to the motion, Director Steiner recommended that the Committee consider making a recommendation for fee increases to extend only for a five-year period. MOTION: It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried to recommend that the Joint Boards approve the proposed Sewer Service User Fees as developed by staff in the assumptions to F.Y. 2001-2002 (a five-year period). Chair Collins stated that traditionally he is asked what the role of a Board is and what the role of staff is. A Board is a policy making body and staff is to carry out the policies and directives of the Board. Chair Collins said he could not think of too many exercises that fulfilled the traditional and expected roles of a Board and staff that he has seen with this particular project on fee schedules. He stated that we have met several times, there has been excellent dialog between the Directors and staff, expanding beyond the FAHR Committee to the Joint Boards. The Directors have given direction to staff, and staff has accommodated these directions and have come back with good suggestions. The product in front us now is a better product because of the cooperation between the staff and the Board. Director Steiner felt that the item discussed this evening is a good piece of staff work with a well defended position. It is a reasonable and plausible approach. Many Directors may be worried about fee increases, but Director Steiner felt it is just good government to maintain the integrity of the Sanitation Districts and for the residents of the communities we serve. Director McGuigan explained her Districts' concerns being so close to the County seat, and being an older community with lower assessed values and fewer capital expansion projects. Upon questioning by Director Singer, staff reviewed the process that will be needed to be undertaken once the full Boards act on this item next week. Chair Collins advised the Directors that Michelle Tuchman informed him during the meeting that there have been notifications made to the press regarding the concepts and ideas of the RAC and PAC Committees which are comprised of members of the public, consisting of commercial business owners and home owners. Director Swan requested that staff place an item on the agenda for the next meeting regarding doing a study on replacement of Districts' facilities. There was no Closed Session. Minutes of Finance, Admi, ~nd Human Resources Committee Page4 ApriI9, 1997 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 Study on replacement of Districts' facilities. FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 14, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Submitted by: k~ Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Secretary H:\WP .DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\APR\4-16MIN.97 0 0 z en m z -4 0 )> r m z C )> ::0 OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 05114197 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 05/28197 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN. A ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2210, Gary G. Streed, Ext. 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension RECEIVE AND FILE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (COP) REPORT (All Districts) Recommended Action(s): 1. Receive and file this information-only COP Report of the Director of Finance. 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 _ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AJTNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT NIA ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP.DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97WiA Y\FAHR97.27 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES NIA PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREY. APPROVED NIA YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE NIA BUDGET CHANGE THIS AIT AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (f otal Budget plus Transfers) NIA REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 Originator CONCURRENCES: Signatur Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) Date Date Date ADDmONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TC' '),'IMITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Graph -COP Rate History Report. ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. Since June 1995, the daily rate COP program remarketing agents have been PaineWebber for the Series II An and the 1993 Refunding COPs, and J.P. Morgan for the Series "C" COPs. Most fixed rate Series 118" 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 A GM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10197 H:\WP .OTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MA Y\FAHR97.27 Page 2 of2 ::c "ti ;...:--C al > "C ,; Ill -I RATE(%) al z m c.. )> 0 IS) <,) .i. (J'I m CT z i:, i:, i:, i:, i:, i:, i:, '< (") 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "Tl m 3-Jul-96 :r tG Ill ~ :::, g 10-Jul-96 --_£ " 17-Jul-96 (J'I 0 i-3 ~ 24-Jul-96 <O ~ _--.i !'? ~ 31-Jul-96 ..... a, m 7-Aug-96 "ti ::c s:: cii 14-Aug-96 -· -I co 21-Aug-96 --.i 28-Aug-96 4-Sep-96 11-Sep-96 18-Sep-96 t 25-Sep-96 -· "ti 2-Oct-96 Ill :5· 9-Oct-96 0 CD ~ 16-Oct-96 0 CD CT CT 23-Oct-96 ""O ~ + 30-Oct-96 ~ 6-Nov-96 t.. 13-Nov-96 -I :0 m s:: 20-Nov-96 -:c 0 .a 27-Nov-96 •· -Ill en :::, + 4-Dec-96 ---I 11-Dec-96 • 0 )> 18-Dec-96 • :::a G) -< en 25-Dec-96 -:E :::a Ill 2-Jan-97 • "C m f 8-Jan-97 ""O 15-Jan-97 0 en 22-Jan-97 :::a 0 0 -I G) 29-Jan-97 CD :::, en 5-Feb-97 :E Ill "C 12-Feb-97 19-Feb-97 26-Feb-97 5-Mar-97 12-Mar-97 19-Mar-97 - 26-Mar-97 - 2-Apr-97 - 9-Apr-97 16-Apr-97 - 23-Apr-97 - 30-Apr-97 -- forBd. sec.•-~ AGE f\'-""" A ~\1'1:l'IGTS o,-~... D. ~"~ D COMM. INFO. ITEM ITEM ~ ... D COMM. ACTION ITEM ! ·"' D JT. BDS. CONSENT TRANSMITTAL ! ~ ... . ~ D JT. BDS. DISCUSSION tC~- (NON-CONSENT) ~ D PUBLIC HEARING JT. BDS. MEETING DATE JT. BDS. AGENDA ITEM NO. (!,. -" MEETING DATE COMM. ID. NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ' ) \l\t (Initials of Originator) OMTS: OMTS I PDC: PDC FAHR: 5114197 FAHR ~2-.:l 8 2520, Mike Peterman, Ext. 2105 EXEC: 'EXEC All STEER: STEER Division No., Name, and Extension JT.BDS: AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT: Total headcount at the Districts as of April 21, 1997. Recommended Actioo(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 - CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ NIA SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL INFORMATION BUDGET TOTAL First Year in Budget: NIA Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID, INFORMATION PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Revised 01114197 H:\WP.DTA\HR\OPEN\597 .AIT Permanent Limited Term - DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: NIA CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA NIA NIA PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL CHANGES THIS AIT PROJECT BUDGET NIA NIA $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED PROJECT FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS AMOUNT APPROVED AIT NIA NIA $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 ' CONCURRENCES: ATTACHMENTS TO .A~ENDA (List) To Committee: . _ ., 21, 1997 Employment Status Report Signature Date Divisi?f(:,=r ~e..LJ.--4,-- lf--Z,147 Signature Date To Jt. Bds.: Departmen Head (Or Designee) £ Signature Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Districts have a Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) headcount of 542.75 as of April 21, 1997. The actual body count is 552. The current FTE headcount is equivalent to a 13.0% reduction from the budgeted 624 positions. The one-month turnover rate for April, 1997 was .18%. ·{ There was one external hire during April, a Senior Financial Analyst. Total external hires this fiscal year has been 12 (10 FTEs). The Districts are currently seeking internal or external candidates for the following replacement positions: Human Resources Manager (Human Resources), Engineer (0 & M), Supervising Buyer (Purchasing), Collection Facilities Worker I (4 positions, Collections Facilities Mtce.), Secretary, Engineer and Senior Engineer (Design Engineering), and Programmer Analyst (IT Software Support). MP/ps c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 01/14/97 H:\WP.DTA\HR\OPEN\597.AIT Page 2 of 2 Employment Status Report Run Date: 21-Apr-97 Regular Regular Total Regular Part-time Part-time Actual Vacant Total ----Full-time 20hours 30hours Contract Intern LOA Headcount Positions Positions 2150 -General Management Administration 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 2160 -Board Secretary 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2190 -Communications 8 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 9 Total General Management 15 0 0.75 0 0 0 16 0 16 2210 -Finance Administration 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 2220 -Accounting 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 2230 -Purchasing & Warehousing 13 0 1 0 0 1 15 2 17 Total Finance 37 0 0.75 0 0 1 39 2 41 2410 -General Services Administration 6 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 2420 -IT Hardware Support 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 6 2430 -IT Software Support 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 9 2440 -Plant Automation Support 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 2450 -Collection Facilities Maintenance 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 18 31 2460 -Plant Facilities 38 0 0 0 0 3 41 5 46 Total General Services Admin. 75 0 0 2 0.5 3 81 24 105 2520 -Human Resources 5 2 1 0 0 0 8 1 9 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 16 1 0.75 0 0.5 0 20 1 21 3410 -Operations & Maintenance Admin. 15 0 0 1 3 0 19 3 22 3420 -0 & M Scheduling 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 3430 -Plant Operations 1 35 0 0 0 0 2 37 5 42 3440 -Plant Operations 2 43 0 0 0 0 0 43 11 54 3450 -Mechanical O & M 52 0 0 0 0 0 52 10 62 3460 -Electrical O & M 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 27 3470 -Instrumentation O & M 31 0 0 0 0 1 32 1 33 3490 -Central Generation Operations 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 Total Operations & Maintenance 219 0 0 0.25 1.5 3 226 33 259 3510 -Technical Services Administration 3 0 0 0 3 0 6 3 9 3550 -Environmental Compliance & Monitoring 18 0 0 2 0 1 21 1 22 3580 -Environmental Sciences Laboratory 33 2 2 0 0 0 37 0 37 3590 -Source Control 39 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 40 Total Technical Services 93 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 103 5 108 3710 -Engineering Administration 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3720 -Design Engineering 22 0 1 0 1 0 24 3 27 3730 -Engineering Planning 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 3790 -Construction Management 31 0 0 5 1 0 37 3 40 Total Engineering 59 0 0.75 5 1 0 67 7 74 Total Staffing 514 2 4.5 9.25 5 8 652 72 624 H:lexcel.eta\hr\openlempdiv.xls Total FTE Count 542.75! OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 5/14/97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 512.8/97 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: _.,,...--.. AGEN .. \ ITEM TRANSMITTAL .]). CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2210, Steve Kozak, 2504 Division No., Name, and Extension INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1997 (All Districts) Recommended Action(s): 1. Receive and file this information-only report. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Detennination filed on _ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: NIA SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL NIA ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT N/A WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10197 H:\WP.DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97'MA Y\FAHR97.29 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-OATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES N/A CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED N/A 01/2.2/97 YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE N/A BUDGET CHANGE THIS AIT NIA AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT N/A REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 I L-1 AP(l... ')-=f Date 2--1 APR. °)=f Date Date Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TC '}'IMITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Staff Report 2. PIMCO Report 3. Callan Report ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. Staff Report On September 7, 1995, the Districts' Treasury Bill investments matured and funds were wired to PIMCO, the Districts' external money manager. The Districts' funds are invested to maximize safety, liquidity, diversification, flexibility, and yield in compliance with the Districts' adopted Investment Policy, and the California Government Code. SK:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10197 H:\WP .OTA \FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MA Y\FAHR97.29 Page 2 of 2 May 14, 1997 STAFF REPORT Consideration of motion to receive and file Quarterly Investment Management Program Report for the period January 1 through March 31, 1997 Background The Districts' Investment Policy, first adopted by the Joint Boards on September 25, 1996, includes monthly and quarterly reporting requirements in Section 15.0 for the Districts' two investment portfolios. These two funds, the "Liquid Operating Monies," and the "Long-Term Operating Monies," are managed by PIMCO, the Districts' external money manager. The ongoing monitoring of the Districts' investment program by staff and Callan Associates, the Districts' independent investment advisor, indicates that the Districts' investments are in compliance with the Districts' adopted Investment Policy and the California Government Code, and that overall performance has tracked with benchmark indices. In addition, sufficient funds are available for the Districts to meet its operating expenditure requirements for the next six months. Quarterly performance reports prepared by PIMCO and Callan Associates are attached for your reference. Portfolio Performance Summary The following table presents a summary of the performance of the Districts' portfolios managed by PIMCO for the period January 1 through March 31, 1997. 3month 6 months 9 months Since inception 30Sept95 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month Market Value per PIMCO 31 March 97 Estimated Current Yield 31 March 97 ! Quarterly Deposits (Withdrawals) I Estimated Annual Income Portfolio Perfonnance Sunvnary Quarter Ended March 31, 1997 Liquid Operating Monies(%) 1.3 2.7 4.1 5.6 1.3 2.6 3.9 $4.5M 5.4% ($10.0M) ~0.3M Long-Term Operating Monies(%) 0.6 2.8 4.7 5.6 0.4 2.5 4.3 $313.2M 5.4% $20.6M CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 FAHR97-29 Page2 May 14, 1997 Market Recap Financial markets, including fixed income, entered 1997 on a confident note, as the bond market's 1996 fourth quarter performance ended stronger than prior periods. Earlier fears of economic overheating were being replaced by the notion of a "steady state economy," where the economy would grow at a sustainable long-term pace, without inciting inflation. In February, the complexion of the markets changed with signals from the Federal Reserve that it would tighten monetary conditions preemptively, if economic conditions so warranted. On March 25th, the Federal Reserve raised the Fed Funds rate by 0.25%, to 5.5%. As a result, benchmark Treasury yields ended the quarter higher, while the S&P stock index retraced most of its year-to- date gains. PIMCO continued their diversified and long-term approach to managing the Districts' portfolios. With interest rates tightening, and a steepening yield curve, PIMCO moved from a slightly above- index duration strategy, to a shorter duration, for the Long-Term Operating Monies portfolio. This shift mitigated interest rate risk for the portfolio, and contributed to the portfolio performing better than its benchmark again this quarter {0.06% vs. 0.04%). PIMCO continued to maintain a below-index duration for the Liquid Operating Monies portfolio, which performed on its benchmark {1.3%), despite adverse moves in interest rates during the quarter. Comparative marked-to-market ending values of the portfolios are shown in the following table. On March 21, 1997, $10 million was withdrawn from the Liquid Operating Monies portfolio to meet cash flow requirements. On April 17, 1997, $12.4 million, received through the County Tax Collector's apportionment cycle, was deposited in the Liquid Operating Monies portfolio. Liquid Long-Tenn Operating Monies Operatin~ Monies Quarter Ending (SM) ($ ) 30 Sept. 96 14.2 287.1 31 Dec. 96 14.4 311 .5 31 Mar. 97 4.5 313.2 Recommendation Receive and file this information-only report. SK:lc H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\STAFFRPT.97\SRFAHR97.29 ATTACHMENT County Sanitation Districts Qf. Orange County STRATEGY REVIEW FOR THE PERIOD ' JANUARY 1 -MARCH 11, 19~7 , FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION 1& :HUMAN RESOL)RCES _COMMITTEE I -' , MAY 14, 11997 I • Post Office Box 6430 \ I 840 Newport Center Drive Newport Beac;:h i California ~2658-6430 714 • 640-3031 -_PACIFIC jNVESTMEN°T. MANAGEMENT COMPANY . -.. ) .. _\ , _, .,, • I AGENDA BOND MARKET REVIEW ) II PERFORMANCE/ PORTFOLIO REVIEW Ill CURRENT OUTLOOK/ STRATEGY C) PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY RATES RISE ON PREEMPTIVE STRIKE BY FED • BOND MARKET ANTICIPATES FED TIGHTENING • Yield curve steepens in anticipation of Fed action • March 25 Fed raises Fed funds rate 0.25% • Market remains fearful of further Fed tightening • Treasury yields ended the quarter roughly 0.3% higher 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% - ' ' I 5.0% ' ' -' , ' , 1Q '96 100 75 Q. ..0 Cl.) Sl 00 so C ell ..c u 25 0 1 Yr. 1-Yr. T-Bill ,, ,-, ... ,, ... -... , , \ ,, ., I .. '-, , \I \ ,I I \ \ ' \ , ... , .. _... ,~ ... -... , '"-' ......... .. -... , 2Q '96 3Q '96 4Q '96 BJ 85 80 72 55 54 49 I ~ 2 Yrs. 3 Yrs. 5 Yrs. 10 Yrs. 1 ~ 1ST QTR. • 1996 1 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% ,-- ' , 5.5% ' , 5.0% 1Q '97 69 45 I I ~ 30 Yrs. SOURCE: Bloomberg PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY ) STRATEGY RECAP - PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO INDEX • Long-Term Operating Fund -First Quarter 1997 DURATION • MATURITY MIX • SECTOR/ ISSUE • NEAR INDEX SIMILAR TO INDEX • GREATER POSITION IN AGENCY BONDS IN PORTFOLIO THAN IN INDEX • GREATER POSITION IN CORPORATE BONDS IN PORTFOLIO THAN IN INDEX 2 • • • NEUTRAL NEUTRAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE • Agency returns better than Treasury returns • Corporate returns better than Treasury returns PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY STRATEGY RECAP - PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO INDEX • Liquid Operating Fund -Fourth Quarter 1996 DURATION • MATURITY MIX • SECTOR/ ISSUE • NEAR INDEX SIMILAR TO INDEX • GREATER POSITION IN AGENCY NOTES IN PORTFOLIO THAN IN INDEX • GREATER POSITION IN COMMERCIAL PAPER IN PORTFOLIO THAN IN INDEX 3 • • • NEUTRAL TO SLIGHTLY POSITIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE • Agency returns better than Treasury returns • Commercial paper enhances portfolio yield PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE Through March 31, 1997 • Long-Term Operating Fund 3/31/97 Market Value $313,216,435 • Liquid Operating Fund 3/31/97 Market Value $4,523,541 Sanitation Districts of Orange County (L-T) (%) Merrill 1 -5 Year Gov't. / Corp. Index(%) Sanitation Districts of Orange County (Liq-op) (%) 3 Month T-Bill (%) * Annualized. 4 Since* Inception YTD 9/30/95 12 Mos. 3 Mos . 5.6 5.4 0.6 5.4 5.1 0.4 Since* Inception YTD 9/30/95 12 Mos. 3 Mos. 5.6 5.5 1.3 5.3 5.2 1 .3 PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY • • CURRENT OUTLOOK AND STRATEGY • STRONG GROWTH, SLOWING LATER IN 1997 • INFLATION KEPT IN CHECK BY COMPETITION AND PRODUCTIVITY • BOND MARKET ATTRACTIVE LONG TERM, CAUTIOUS NEAR TERM • Threat of additional Fed tightening • Real yields remain attractive • NEAR INDEX DURATION • SECTOR CONCENTRATION: • Focus on agencies • Underweight Corporates • Explore mortgage opportunities for Long-Term Fund 5 PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY ) --~ ,~, . , __ ---_,_ ~ E'2!: Bl!. §2Q,•!.!!!t! Qnlli! AGENDA 0 CqMM. INFO. ITEM ITEM D COMM. ACTION IT.EM 0 JT. BE>S. CONSENT TRANSMITTAL D JT, BDS~mseUSSION (NON.C©NSENT) • PµBLIG, H~ING Jr. S1:IS. t;IEETING1;>Alt ,' JT, BDS. AGENDA ITEM NO. I .. f;. -, ~ MEETING DATE O0MM. ID.NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION OMTS: OMTS ' (Orginator) I PDC: PDC ' FAHR: FAHR 'i 1 -:;o 2520, ~rman, Ext. 2105 EXEC: E)(1EC STEER: STEER Division No., Name, and Extension - JT.BDS: AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 8genda Wording: PROPOSED CHANGE IN DISABILITY PROGRAM: To be effective July 1, 1997. Recommended Action(s): 1. Change disability insurance carrier to Fortis and authorize the H.R. Director to negotiate change with the unions. 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_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ N/A SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL INFORMATION BUDGET TOTAL First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID, INFORMATION PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2520\LOREY\AITL TD. WPD Limited Term - DATE OF MOST RECENT BOAR!2 ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: NOT APPLICABLE CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfer.;) N/A N/A N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL CHANGES THISAIT PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT APPROVED AIT AMOUNT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES NO NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 Originator CONCURRENCES: Date Date .sf, Jen Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO LOMMITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Sample cost breakdown and reommendation from broker ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1 . The Districts has been with the present disability carrier, Reliastar, for two years. The disability coverage provides our employees with both short and long term disability insurance for non-work related injury or illness. The short term disability (STD) insurance lasts for 90 days after which long term disability (LTD) coverage begins. The Districts long term disability insurance provides a maximum limit on benefits of two years. The two year maximum limit for the LTD benefit is lower than industry standards. Seventy-five percent of cities in the Orange County League of Cities Benefits Survey report a maximum benefit to age 60 -70. Fifty percent of water districts in the Orange County Water Association survey reported a maximum benefit greater than age 60. To bring our LTD benefit in line with other agencies, we asked the Robert Driver Company to solicit bids from carriers other than Reliastar. Driver notified us that the cost to the Districts would increase by $200,000 annually to increase the maximum limit on benefits from two years to age 65. Last November the FAHR committee authorized the H.R. Director to negotiate LTD with the unions despite the cost increase. The offer was made to Local 501, but they left the LTD plan on the table. Since then, we have had our new insurance broker, Mark Conway with Burnham Benefits, take a second look at the LTD market. We now have a quote from Fortis Insurance, an A+ rated company, that will increase the LTD benefit to age 65 and also reduce the cost to the Districts by $15,000 annually. We currently pay $17.14 per employee each month for Short Term Disability (STD) and .540% per $100 of payroll for Long Term Disability. Our proposed change will reduce the STD cost to $15.95 and LTD to .500%. MP/II ATTACHMENTS c: Department Head A GM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04110197 A:\AITL TD.WPD Page 2 of2 19100 VON KARMAN AVENUE. SUITE 900. IRVINE CA 92612 TELEPHONE 714-833-2983 FAX 714-833-9549 LICENSE NO. 0853995 March 10, 1997 Mr. Mike Petennan Director of Human Resqurces COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 RE: LTD and STD Marketing Recap Dear Mike: · Burnham Benefits Insurance Services ~* Thank you for taking time to meet with me last week regarding the disability plans for C.S.D.O.C. I have recapped below our discussion for you to review with the Districts. The main goal in marketing the Long Tenn Disability plan was to get coverage to age 65 for employees. In addition, we wanted to get the most competitive long tenn contract with a quality carrier. As I mentioned, ReliaStar is not making a future commitment to the disability market After an extensive market survey, there were only two competitive quotes that combined both STD and LTD. Many carriers dedined to quote because the Districts represented a higher than average disability risk. After analyzing the results of the marketing, my recommendation is to change carriers to Fortis Insurance effective July 1, 1997. Here are several reasons for recommending Fortis: 1. Proposed contract covers all disabled employees to age 65 rather than the current maximum of two years 2. Second largest disability carrier; Rated A+ 3. Most competitively priced (a $15,624 annual savings) 4. Offers a 2 year rate guarantee on both LTD & STD 5. Strongest contract -partial benefits, zero day residual, & 36 month own occupation I have included two spreadsheets comparing your current benefits and rates to the proposed Fortis contract. I've also induded the plan highlights document I will contact you next week to see how you would like to proceed. In the meantime, please feel free to call with any input you may have. ~ ·nc ely, ~ rk Conway anaging Partner c: Usa Lorey Burnham J1enellls Insurance Services ================================================================================-dllJIJll/l//l/11/Jo/ ----~ COST Monthly Covered Payroll Rate per $100 of Payroll MONTHLY COST ANNUAL COST ANNUAL SAVINGS Description Employee Contributions Class 1 (5+ years employed) Class 2 (under 5 years employed) BENEFITS Schedule Amount Maximum Monthly Benefit Maximum Covered Salary Monthly Annually Minimum Monthly Benefit Elimination Period Duration of Benefit Total Disability Required Definition of Disability Pre-Existing Condition Limits Future Enrollees Survivor Benefit COUNTY SAN/TA TION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY LTD COMPARISON ::;;;Ji~lt!~j!~l~1~ii,_l!i li~~J~~i~Ji~f r;;~;:· ·t:~~l~i:~ii1m;:1irji~f iliii~:::+,Jl:lil'tii $1,669,350 0.540% All Full-Time Active Employees Non-Contributory Contributory 662/3 % of Covered Earnings $5,000 $7,500 $90,000 $50 90 Days 2 Years No 2 Year Own 0cc 3 / 12 6 Months (2 Year Rate Guarantee) (2 Year Rate Guarantee) $1,669,350 0.503% All Full-Time Active Employees Non-Contributory Contributory 662/3 % of Covered Earnings $5,000 $7,500 $90,000 $50 90 Days To age 65 No 2 Year Own 0cc 3 / 12 6 Months $1,669,350 0.500% All Full-Time Active Employees Non-Contributory Contributory 662/3 % of Covered Earnings $5,000 $7,500 $90,000 $100 90 Days To age 65 No 3 Year Own 0cc 3 / 3 / 12 3 Months COST Rate per Employee MONTHLY COST ANNUAL COST ANNUAL SA V/NGS Description Employee Contributions BENEFITS Schedule Amount Maximum Weekly Benefit Maximum Covered Salary Weekly Monthly Annually Waiting Period Accident & Sickness Total Disability Required Benefit Duration EEs w/ LTD coverage EEs w/o LTD coverage Lives 533 COMBINED LTD/STD COST MONTHLY COST ANNUAL COST ANNUAL SA V/NGS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY STD COMPARISON $17.14 ·-···:-·-··· :·=·(---:---:.:,--: .. $.9 ''136 : ~\:/:" ; ':·· ·:' $10~,6~7 , .;'}° ,' -, ._.: All Full-Time Active Employees Non-Contributory 70% $336 $480 $2,080 $24,960 14 Days Yes 90 Days 24 Weeks ~~:,:::~~!l,jl!;:;::::r:g:~1ff:i!;~~~il~~;?I::~:":·•, (1 Year Rate Guarantee) $16.78 All Full-Time Active Employees Non -Contributory 70% $336 $480 $2,080 $24,960 13 Days Yes 90 Days 24 Weeks Burnham Benefits Insurance Services llt!IIJ!!IJ!I/J/I//JJJ/, ---- (2 Year Rate Guarantee) $15.95 All Full-Time Active Employees Non -Contributory 70% $336 $480 $2,080 $24,960 14 Days No 90 Days 24 Weeks Bumham Bene.its Insurance Services -----------------------------aPlll/lllll'f' ----- LTD & STD Benefit Highlights 1. Does the current policy include partial benefits with Short Term Disability? Reliastar & Canada Life -Not Included Fortis -This plan allows the elimination period to be satisfied with partial or total disability. In addition, STD is not an all or nothing payment schedule. i=ortis would pay a benefit for partial disabilities. Please keep in mind, this feature encourages motivated employee'.s to return to work as soon as possible. For example, a disabled employee can return to work on a part-time basis and is never put in the situation of risking the withdrawal of his/her disability payments. Under the current policy, an employee needs to be 100% recovered before they can make an effort to return to work. This upgrade in the policy is called ZERO DAY RESIDUAL. 2. /s zero day residual included in the Long Term Disability policy? Reliastar & Canada Life -Included, therefore there is an inconsistency between the STD and LTD plans. Fortis -Included. This is consistent with the STD and does not penalize motivated individuals who wish to return to work during the elimination period. 75% -85% of all disabilities are degenerative in nature, therefore this policy feature accommodates this fact. 3. What is the definition of disability? Reliastar & Canada Life -24 month own occupation Fortis -36 month own occupation 4. What is the income test to return an employee back to work in the "any occupation" period? (Following the 24 or 36 month own period) Reliastar & Canada Life -60% Income Test Fortis -80% Income Test 5. What incentives to the employer/employee are made in regards to rehabilitation? Reliastar-Not Available Canada Life -Employ Rehabilitation Specialists to assist return to work Fortis - 1) Pays the employer up to 50% of the employee's salary for the first month while the employee returns to limited work. 2) Pays up to $2,000 for expenses the employer incurs to accommodate the employee's disability as required by the ADA or similar legislation 3) Offers vocational rehabilitation assistance to spouses of disabled employees. PDC: FAHR: 05-14-97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 05-28-97 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGENl ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2220, Michael D. White, 2520 Division No., Name, and Extension 1996-97 THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL REPORT COVERING THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 Recommended Action(s): 1. Staff recommends that the Committee review, approve and forward the 1996-97 Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997, to the Joint Boards. 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 _ CURRENT BUDGET/COST CURRENT YEAR INFORMATION BUDGET AMOUNT TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $44,895,000 NIA SOURCE: CORF Schedule/Line Items: SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION: $6,927,000 AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL First Year in Budget: NIA Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST ORIGINAL BID, PO, INFORMATION CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10197 A:\FAHR97.32 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: June 26, 1996 -Adoption of the 1996-97 Districts' Budget CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA NIA N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL CHANGES THISAIT PROJECT BUDGET N/A N/A $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT APPROVED AIT AMOUNT NIA NIA $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 )~/4/27 Dafe ¼/4 Date/ '-1 f ~7 Date Signatr Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO 1. Third Quarter Fir. ~MITTEE AGENDA1(Llst): .ll and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997. ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997. Attached, in a separately bound document, is the Districts' Third Quarter Financial and Operational Report for the period ended March 31, 1997. This report is a consolidation of both the financial and operational accomplishments of the Districts' through March 31, 1997. Contained within this report are budget summary reviews of the Joint Operating, the Capital Outlay Revolving Fund, individual District Funds, and the Self-Insurance Funds. Also contained within this report is the status of the divisional performance objectives and workplan milestones identified in the 1996-97 Approved Budget. As indicated within the Overview Section of this report, 71.27 percent, or $34,709,000 of the 1996-97 net joint operating budget of $48. 7 million has been expended. This is a net decrease of 3.01 percent, or $1,076,000 from the same period last year. The total cost per million gallons at March 31, 1997 is $517 based on flows of 67, 139 million gallons. This is $39, or 7.01 percent below the budgeted cost per million gallons of $556. MW c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10197 A:\FAHR97.32 Page 2 of2 )> Cl -I -0 z --I m s: (A OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 5/14/97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: All AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: Plant Automation Demonstration Recommended Actjon(s): AGEN~ l ITEM TRANSMITTAL 1 CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ___ (Initials of Originator) 2440, Rob Thompson , 3455 Division No., Name, and Extension This is an informational item only and there are no recommended actions. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.:$ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT $0 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES $0 YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE $0 REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) $0 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION ORIGINAL BUDGET PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE THISAIT REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL CHANGES First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 01 /14/97 H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97WIAR\FAHR97.21 CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 CONCURRENCES: ATTACHMENTS TO jNDA (List) To Committee: 1. Signature Date Division Manager Or Designee) ~ Signature To Jt. Bds.: 1. Department Head (Or Designee) ~>: w~ ~1~r/f1 Signature Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) In April 1993, the Directors authorized project J-31 , Automation of the Ocean Outfall Booster Station at Plant No. 2. At last month's PDC, the committee authorized a change order that will allow us to complete the project. This project has recently finished the field testing portion of the contract and is being remotely controlled by the Operations Department. Rob Thompson, the Manager of Plant Automation, will be presenting a live demonstration of the Plant Automation of the Ocean Outfall Booster Station. Budget Information The implementation of all of the recommendations was accounted for in this years JO Budget and no additional monies are needed. Staff Recommendation This is an informational item only. EEH:fw c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 01 /14/97 H:\WP.DTA\GSA\2410\HOOGES\FAHR\MAR97.FAH Page2 '· OMTS: PDC: 5-1-97 FAHR: 5-14-97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: All AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN. i ITEM TRANSMITTAL :2. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Originator) 3720, Paul Mitchell, 5051 Division No., Name, and Extension REVIEW CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 (All Districts): The Director of Engineering will present information on the proposed Capital Outlay Revolving Fund budget . Recommended Action(s): 1. For information only. The CORF budget will be approved at the June Board meeting as part of the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: NOT APPLICABLE CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL NIA ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP .DTA \ENG\3720\MITCHELP\BUDGET.978 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: None CURRENT YEAR-YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Total Budget plus Transfers) NIA NIA NIA PREVIOUS BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL CHANGES THISAIT PROJECT BUDGET NIA N/A $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, AMOUNT AMENDED FUNDS PREV. REQUESTED THIS PROJECT APPROVED AIT AMOUNT NIA NIA $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of3 J;J /11:;l~ +h-4let? Originator Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO COMMITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Budget Summa·· ·-) ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. Budget Summary Staff has prepared a proposed Capital Outlay Revolving Fund (CORF) budget, providing funds for the Joint Works Treatment and Disposal System projects as well as special projects; and a proposed District's Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 1997-98. Attached is a summary of the proposed budget for CORF for fiscal year 1997-98 and estimated expenditures for future years. The summary is titled "Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements". In total, the requested funds are $54,226,200, an increase of 21 % over last year's budget of $44,495,000. In summary: Plant 1 Plant 2 Joint Facilities Subtotal Special Projects Engineering General Services Technical Services Operation and Maintenance Equipment Total $20,676,000 10,936,500 12,864,000 44,476,500 2,752,000 3,817,000 130,000 1,208,000 1,942,700 $54,326,200 The facilities and equipment to be acquired by the CORF may be broken down into four major categories. Those which provide improved treatment, providing a higher quality effluent; those which increase capacity, allowing higher flow; those which rehabilitate or replace existing facilities without significantly increasing performance; and those which support activities which are not part of the treatment process. A single project may contain facilities in more than one category. Approximately 41 % of the requested CORF budget is for projects which will improve treatment such as the secondary plant expansion at Reclamation Plant No. 1, improved odor control facilities, automation projects and studies of treatment options. New and ongoing rehabilitation projects comprise about 34% of the proposed budget. These projects include seismic upgrades, clarifier rehabilitation and many smaller equipment replacement projects. The remainder of the budget is for support facilities such as the Plant No. 2 Maintenance Building and warehouse improvements and for projects which increase capacity such as the surge tower replacement. Revised 04110/97 H:\WP.DTA\ENG\3720\MITCHELP\BUDGET.978 Page 2 of 3 The major category expenses and percentages are: Improved Treatment Rehabilitation and Replacement Support Facilities Additional Capacity Total $22,200,000 18,512,500 10,133,700 3,480,000 $54,326,200 40.9% 34.0% 18.7% 6.4% Also enclosed are three schedules that are new to the Directors this year. Each of these new schedules shows the estimated total project cost and the projected annual cash flow needs of the projects in the summary schedule, grouped by "Previously Approved Projects", "New Projects Beginning in 1997-98" and "New Projects Beginning in Future Years". The 1997-98 cash flow totals for each category follow: Previously Approved Projects New Projects Beginning in 1997-98 New Projects Beginning in Future Years Total PM c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\CORFAIT.WPD 1997-98 $48,939,200 5,387,000 $54,326,200 $761,534,400 12,708,000 18,227,500 $792,469,900 Page 3 of3 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT EST A. RECLAMATION PLANT 1 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Headworks a. Replacement of Plant 1 Flow Meters, Pl-55 NEW PROJECT b. M&D Structure Concrete Rep., Pl-56 NEW PROJECT c. Emergency Sewage Bypass System 1,992,000 d. Headworks No. 1 Rebuild 14,950,000 e. Headworks No. 2 Increase Capacity 2,600,000 2. Primary Treatment a. Primary Treatment 72 MGD Expansion, Pl-37 38,450,000 b. Primary Clarifier Rehab. Pl-41 1,845,000 c. 72 MGD Primary Treatment 32,500,000 3. Secondary Treatment a. Secondary Trmt Expansion to 80 MGD, Pl-36-2 40,600,000 b. 40 MGD Oxygen Activated Sludge & DAF's 65,463,000 c. 40 MGO Oxygen Act'd Sludge & OAF, 2017 34,000,000 d. Drain Modifications at Activated Sludge Plant NEW PROJECT 4. Solids Processing a. Belt Presses (4 Units) 14,300,000 b. Solids Storage (4 Bins) 10,140,000 c. Oigesters: 2 @ 11 O' Diameter 9, 100,000· d. Remove Trickling Filters 1 & 3 1,300,000 e. Remove Trickling Filters 2 & 4, 2007 1,300,000 f. 1 1 0 ft Digesters 18,200,000 g, 4 Belt Presses 10,920,000 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Electrical & Fae. Mods. & Safety Upgrades, P1 -40-1 6,328,000 b. 12 KV Distribution Sys for Support Fae., P1-47 4,800,000 c. 66 KV Substation, Pl-52 1,384,000 d. 12 KV Electrical Power Distribution 2,450,000 e. 12 KV Power Distribution, 2001-2012 1,099,000 f. Standby Power Generation, 2005 & 2015 4,914,000 6. Safety Improvements a. Fire Protection, Signs & Water Sys Mods P1-38-5 2,685,100 b. Seismic Retrofit of Non-Struct Systems P1-43 1,300,000 c. Seismic Retrofit, Structural Items Pl-44-1,2,3,4 1,750,000 d. Railings for Aeration Basins, Pl-53 NEW PROJECT 7. Miscellaneous Projects a. Fae. Mods.& Safety Upgrades, Pl-40-2 1,665,000 b. Drainage lmprov. at Plant 1, Pl -40-3 2,100,000 c. Chemical Fae Mods, Pl-46-2 2,960,000 d. Adm. Bldg, Lobby Acoustical lmpr., Pl-54 NEW PROJECT e. Allowance for Planned Small Projects 7,275,000 SUB-TOTAL -RECLAMATION PLANT 1 338,370,100 B REVISED/NEW TOTAL PROJECT EST 375,000 60,000 1,992,000 14,950,000 2,600,000 38,450.000 1,845,000 32,500,000 40,600,000 65,463,000 34,000,000 75,000 14,300,000 10,140,000 9,100,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 18,200,000 10,920,000 1,537,000 4,800,000 1,384,000 2,460,000 1.099,000 4,914,000 2,685,100 1,446,000 3,819,000 200,000 1,665,000 220,000 2,960,000 125,000 4,975,000 332,439.100 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997-1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6130/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 375,000 50,000 269,000 1.151,000 12,000,000 1,245,000 600,000 100,000 28,600,000 11,900,000 100,000 76,000 187,000 376,000 975,000 246,000 2,200,000 1,494,000 860,000 19,000 1,300,000 65,000 60,000 1,000,000 1,809,100 876,000 946,000 400,000 100,000 2,119,000 1,600,000 200,000 200,000 825,000 800,000 40,000 5,000 215,000 482,000 2,478,000 126,000 975,000 700,000 900.000 800,000 37,727,100 20,676,000 8,568,000 14,660.000 -., G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 YRS. 375,000 376,000 50,000 60,000 1,992,000 1,992,000 14,._J,o 2,600,000 15,000,000 10,030.000 38,181,000 38,181,000 600,000 600,000 2.000.000 2,000,000 30,500,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 463,000 4"63,000 65,000,000 34,000,000 75,000 76,000 14,300,000 14.300,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 4,140,000 9,100,000 9,100,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 18,200,000 10,920,000 1,350,000 1,360,000 4,554,000 4,554.000 1,365,000 1,366,000 1,400,000 2,450,000 2,450,000 1 'oo 4,__joo 876,000 876,000 500,000 600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 200,000 200,000 840,000 840,000 215,000 21 5,000 2,478,000 2,478,000 125,000 125,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 17,200,000 10,830,000 71,934,000 35,155,000 107.089,000 187,623,000 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A B PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW APPROVED TOTAL PROJECT EST PROJECT EST B. PLANT 2 NE.W & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Headworks a. Plant 2 Influent Diversion 2,400,000 2,400,00C b. Replacement of Barscreen Influent Gate NEW PROJECT 170,000 c. Headworks "C" Upgrades NEW PROJECT 2,500,000 2. Primary Treatment a. Primary Treatment 24 MGD Expansion, P2-41 14,306,000 14,306.000 b. Primary Clarifier Rehab. P2-48 5,700,000 4,971,000 c. Clarifier Efficiency Improvements NEW PROJECT 1,700,000 d. Drain Replacement at Primary Basins A, B, C NEW PROJECT 260,000 e. Replace Primary Basins A. B, C 11,700,000 11 ,700,000 3. Secondary Treatment a. Rehab Activated Sludge Plant Piping and Valving NEW PROJECT 1,110,ooc 4. Solids Processing a. Rehab 7 Digesters, P2-39 9,920,000 16,395,000 b. TWAS Feed to Digesters F&G, P2-39-1 NEW PROJECT 180,000 c. Solids Storage: 2 Bins 5,200,000 6,200,000 d. Scale 'Replacement at Dewatering Facility, P2-62 NEW PROJECT 87,000 e. Additional 105 Foot Digester 6,100,000 5,100,000 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Digester Gas Compressor Redundancy, J-19-2-1 NEW PROJECT 470,000 b. Elec. Fae. Mods. & Safety Upgrades, P2-47-1 2,870,000 3,976,0,00 c. Standby Power Gen. 16,120,000 16,120,000 6. Safety Improvements a. Fire Protection, Signs & Water Sys Mods, P2-46 4,535,000 3,763,000 b. Landsc. & lrrig. at City Water Pump St., P2-46-l 35,000 35,000 c. Fae Mods & Safety Upgrades, P2-47-2 2,008,000 1,830,000 d. Seismic Retrofit of Non-Structure Systems, P2-50 1,680,000 1,680,000 e. Seismic Retrofit, Structural Items P2-53-2 4,075,000 3,955,000 f. Chemical and Plant Water Modifns, P2-55 4,200,000 4,132,000 g. Reclaimed Water System Pint. 2 3,336,000 3,335,000 7, Miscellaneous Projects a. Air Compressors for Plant Air System, P2-61 NEW PROJECT 250,000 b. Odor Control at Junction and Distribution Boxes NEW PROJECT 560,000 c. Conveyor Belt Access at Solids Storage 80,000 80,000 d. Allowance for Planned Small Projects 7,250,000 5,146,000 8. Support Facilities and Site Improvements a. Warehouse Upgrades, P2-23-6-2R 486,000 648,000 b. Maintenance Building, P2-35-3 6,087,800 9,358,000 c. Phase II Site & Security Imp., P2-35-5 2,200,000 1,226,000 d. Ooeratior,s Bulldlno, P2-23-5-1 (Rebid No. 2) 3,616,000 3,615,000 SUB-TOTAL -TREATMENT PLANT 2 112,901,800 125,995,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997-1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6/30197 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 160,000 1,500,000 750,000 170,000 600,000 , .aoo,ooo 9,000 1,000,000 1,971,000 2,600,000 500,000 1,100,000 600,000 30,000 170,000 800,000 310,000 825,000 360,000 6,360,000 5,870,000 180,000 6,200,000 15,000 72,000 470,000 205,000 200,000 2,020,000 1,550,000 2,979,000 784,000 10,000 26,000 782,000 800,000 48,000 800,000 780,000 100,000 3,555,000 300,000 100,000 3,285,000 847,000 10,000 20,000 255,000 1,500,000 250,000 560,000 4,500 76,500 I, 14(1,000 700,000 900,000 800,000 78,000 568,000 7,526,000 1,832,000 62B,000 600,000 100,000 3,605.000 io.ooo 27,316,l?()O 10,936 600 16,795,000 19,380,000 G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 YRS. 2,400,000 2,400,000 170,000 170.000 200,000 2,500,000 2,600,000 8,000,000 5,297,000 14,297,000 14,297,000 3,000,000 3,000,00C 1,700,000 1,700,000 200,000 200,000 11,700,000 1,110,000 1,110,000 3,000,000 15,670,.000 15,670,000 180,000 180,000 6,200,000 5,200,000 87,000 87,000 5,100,000 470,000 470,000 3,770,000 3,770.000 16,120.000 784,000 784,000 25,000 25,000 848,000 848,000 880,000 880,000 400,000 400,000 847,000 847,000 1,500,000 60,000 3,325,000 3,325,000 250,000 250.000 560.000 560,000 75,500 75,600 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 568,000 568,000 1,832,000 1,832,000 700,000 700.000 10,000 10,000 13,500,000 6,147,000 65,758,500 65,758,SOC 32.920,000 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A B PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW APPROVED TOTAL PROJECT EST PROJECT EST C. INTEReLANT & JOINT FACILITIES 1. Support Facilities and Site Improvements a. Administration Parking Lot NEW PROJECT 222,SOC b. Demolition or Reuse of Old Control Center 200,000 200,000 c. Demolition of Support Bldg @ P2, J-27 21 s,oo·o 215,000 d. CNG Refueling Station, P1-51 (Rebid) 1,020,400 1,020.400 e. Open Bay Enclosures at P1 Warehouse 60,000 90,000 2. Outfall & Booster Pump Stations a. Surge Tower Replacement J-34-1 6,550,000 7,155,000 b. Outfall Reliability & Pumping Annex OOBS "C" 31,085,000 31,085,000 c. Ext & Repl 78" to Deep Water W/120" Outfall 16',120,000 16,120,000 3. Information Management Systems a. Computerized Fae. Records and Owg. Sys., J-25-1 3,930,000 3,927,000 4. Plants 1 & 2 Monitor/Control System, J-31 4,200,000 3,353,940 a. SCADA Retrofit Hrdwre Platform@ Pit 1 &2, J-31-1 1,000,000 1,000,000 b. OOBS Control System, J-31-2 950,000 1,793,000 c. Plant 1 Headworks 2 Control System, J-31-3 850,000 1,313,760 d. Secondary Control System Upgrade, J-31-4 500,000 1,739,000 e. Plant Reinvention/Automation Project, J-42 1,350,000 25,760,000 f. Solids Storage Rehabil. and Automation, J-46 500,000 5,638,0op 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Gas Mixing Systems Improvements, J-25-3-1 NEW PROJECT 470,000 b. Elect!. Power Sys, Rehab. St., J-25-2, J-25-3 1,330,000 5,.515,000 c. Standby Power & Reliability Mods. J-33-1 13,900,000 15,391,000 d. MSP No. 3 at Headworks 2, J-33-2 1,675,000 1,100,000 e, Harmonic FIiters Automation, J-48 NEW PROJECT 50,000 f. Power & Distribution Buildings Ventilation, J-50 NEW PROJECT 140,000 g. Electrical Power Distribution, 1 2Kv 2,707,000 2,707,000 h. Improvements to Central Generation 680,000 680,000 i. Cable Tray Improvements, J-47 2,750,000 2,750,000 6. Bushard lnterplant Trunk Replacement 26,100,000 26,100,000 7. Safety Improvements a. Acc. Platform to Cen Gen Exhaust Piping, J-19-3-1 NEW PROJECT 76,000 b, Confined Space Personnel Retrieval System, J-49 NEW PROJECT 300,000 c. Evaluation of Tunnels for Structural lntegritY, J-51 NEW PROJECT 176,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997-1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6130/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 221,000 500 100,000 100,000 110,000 105,000 820,400 200,000 9,000 81,000 2,655,000 4,360,000 150,000 627,000 205,000 600.000 1,000,000 3,353,940 1,000,000 1,788,000 5,000 574,760 739,oo·o 600,000 800,000 320,000 219,000 2,800,000 8,200,000 9,500,000 100.000 650,000 4,888,000 100,000 370,000 565,000 1,200,000 2,900,000 850,000 891 ,000 300,000 6,700,000 4,500,000 1,000,000 100,000 50,000 140,000 100,000 300,000 280,000 50,000 1,600,000 600,000, 1,000,000 1,000,000 76,000 300,000 176,000 G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND10 YRS. 600 500 222,500 222,500 200,000 200,000 105,000 105,000 ) 200,000 200,000 81,000 81,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 31,085,000 31,085,000 16,120,000 1,000,000 695,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 5,000 6,000 739,000 739,000 1,139,000 1,139,000 5,010,000 250,000 25,760,000 25,760,000 5,536,000 5,538,000 410,000 470,000 4,960,000 4,960,000 3,000,000 14,50.0,000 14,500,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 140,000 140,000 2,707,000 680,000 680,000 500,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 9,100,000 26,100,000 76,000 75,000 300,000 300,000 175,000 176,000 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A B PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW APPROVED TOTAL PROJECT EST PROJECT EST 8, Miscellaneous Projects a. In Plant Sampling System Mod. 70,000 70,000 b. New Grit Augers, J-52 NEW PROJECT 800,000 c. Chemical Flow Pacing for Primary Influent, J-53 NEW PROJECT 100,000 d. AB 5 & 6 Flowmeter Bypass NEW PROJECT 300,000 e. Allowance for Planned Small Projects 6,220,000 4,505,000 9. Water Reclamation 76,859,200 116,000,000 10. Water Conservation NEW PROJECT 5,150,000 SUB-TOTAL -INTERPLANT & JOINT 200.621.600 263,010,600 SUB-TOTAL· MAJOR PROJECTS 652,093,500 741,444,700 12. ~GINEERJN!z li~l:i!.ll\l PROJECI§ 1, Master Planning a, Investigation and Repair of Ocean Outfall, J-39 1,225,000 1,439,600 b. Management of Peak Hydraulic Discharge, J-40-1 1,500,000 1,637,000 c. Determ, of Fin. Charges and Fee Sched., J-40-2 470,000 481,000 d. Treatment, Reuse and Disposal Plan, J-40-3 750,000 933,000 e. CEOA, Public Participation, J-40-4 155,000 411,000 2. Miscellaneous Projects a. Area Classifications Studies, Plants 1 &2, J-35-1 NEW PROJECT 70,000 b. Revision of Standard Specifications, J-44 240,000 240,000 c. Edison Envest Lighting Retrofit, J-45 1,650,000 441,400 d. Evaluation of E>elst]na Alum. covers at Prim. Basins NEW PROJECT 50,000 SUB-TOTAL -ENGINEERING SPECIAL PROJECTS 5,990,000 5,703,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997-1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6130/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999--00 70,000 500,000 300,000 100,000 300,000 1,255,000 600,000 700,000 650,000 600,000 2,500,000 21,000,000 750,000 450,000 15,349.100 12,864,000 32,730,000 40.449,500 60,392,700 44,476,600 57,093,000 74.4B9.500 439,600 900,000 100,000 1,237,000 300,000 100,000 231,000 200,000 50,000 233,000 600,000 200,000 61,000 250,000 100,000 70,000 5,000 100,000 135,000 50.400 382,000 2,000 2,000 60,000 2,257,000 2,762.000 687,000 2.000 G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000--01 2001--02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 YRS. 70,000 70,000 800,000 800,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 300,000 650,000 650,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 46,000,000 36,000,000 106,000,000 10,000,000 116,000,000 500,000 450,000 2,150,000 3,000,000 5,150,000 61,660,500 47,945,500 195,649,500 53,165,000 24B,834,50• 18.827,000 92,360,500 64,922,500 333,342,000 86,340,000 421,682,000 239,370,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 400,000 400,000 250,000 250,000 700,000 700,000 350,000 350,000 70,000 70,000 235,000 235,000 2,000 3,000 391,000 391 ,000 50,000 50,000 2,000 3,000 3,446,000 3,446,000 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT EST E. GENEML SERVICES ADMINISTRATlQN 1. General Services Administration a. GSA -Miscellaneous Small Projects NEW PROJECT b. Tech Services Move NEW PROJECT 2. End User Support (IT) a. Miscellaneous Small Projects NEW PROJECT 3. Programming & Database Sys. (IT) a, Document Management NEW PROJECT b. Data Integration NEW PROJECT c. Strategic Information Architecture !SIA) NEW PROJECT d. CMMS Programming NEW PROJECT e. Intranet NEW PROJECT f. Security System Improvements NEW PROJECT g. Voice/Data Building Rewiring NEW PROJECT h. Network Backbone Upgrade Continuation NEW PROJECT i. Internet E-Mail/Browsing NEW PROJECT j. Year 2000 Data Change NEW PROJECT k. WWW Server NEW PROJECT I. FIS/Oracle Gateway NEW PROJECT m. Financial Information System (IT) 2,025.000 n. Source Control Programming NEW PROJECT o. Data Extraction from Plant Control System NEW PROJECT p. Upgrade Phone System NEW PROJECT q. GIS NEW PROJECT 4. Plant Automation IIT) a. Desktop Compute~ Standard NEW PROJECT b. Plant 2 Plant Water Programming Upgrade NEW PROJECT c. Plant 2 City Water Programming Upgrade NEW PROJECT d. Plant 1 City Water Programming Upgrade NEW PROJECT e. Plant 2 Dewatering Control System Upgrade NEW PROJECT f. Plant 1 Dewatering Control System Upgrade NEW PROJECT g. Plant 2 TWAS PLC Program/SCAOA Upgrade NEW PROJECT h. Plant 2 DAFT PLC Program/SCADA Upgrade NEW PROJECT I. Plant 1 & 2 Heat Loop PLC Replacement NEW PROJECT J. Plant 1 & 2 Primary Clarifier Rehab. SCADA Configure NEW PROJECT k. Plant 1 Secondary Treatment SCADA NEW PROJECT 5. Collections Facilities !GSA) a. Plant 2 New O & M Building Furniture NEW PROJECT b. Arc Info Mapping NEW PROJECT 6. Plant Facilities !GSA) a. Office Furniture for New O & M Building NEW PROJECT b. Library System for New O & M Building NEW PROJECT c. Training/Meeting Room Fleet Service Facility, Plant 1 NE_W PROJECT d. Training/Meeting Room Fabrication Shop Facility, Pion NEW PROJECT e. Districts' Training Res.ource-Centar NE:W PROJECT SUB-TOTAL• GSA B REVISED/NEW TOTAL PROJECT EST 625,000 250,000 21,000 800,000 4,334,000 724,000 179,000 82,000 278,000 438,000 624,000 70,000 213,000 161,000 400,000 1,564,000 216,000 185,000 68,000 383,000 862,000 110,000 70,000 50,000 700,000 400,000 152,000 180,000 440,000 85,000 185,000 20,000 300,000 25,000 32,000 18,000 18,000 200,000 15,462,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997-1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6/30/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999--00 250,000 125,000 250,000 21,000 130,000 571,000 33,000 700,000 1,489,000 715,000 430,000 240,000 18,000 110,000 18,000 17,000 44,000 32,000 6,000 256,000 23,000 260,000 89,000 33,000 180,000 126,000 106,000 44,000 26,000 60,000 116,000 37,000 143,000 18,000 400,000 1,414,000 160,000 128,000 22,000 22,000 74,000 37,000 38,000 30,000 266,000 39,000 100,000 762,000 110,000 70,000 50,000 700,000 400,000 162,000 180,000 200,000 240,000 85,000 185,000 20,000 300,000 25,000 32,000 18,000 18,000 200.000 1.414.000 3 817.000 6,735.000 1,206,000 G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000--01 2001--02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND10 YRS, 125,000 125,000 625,000 626,000 260,000 250,000 } 21,000 21 ,000 33,000 33,000 800,000 800,000 715,000 715,000 4,334,000 4,334,000 18,000 18,000 724,000 724,000 17,000 17,000 179,000 179,000 82,000 82,000 278,000 278,000 33,000 33,000 438,000 438,000 106,000 106,000 624,000 624,000 70,000 70,000 213,000 213,000 161,000 161,000 400,000 400,000 160,000 150,000 22,000 22,000 216,000 216,000 37,000 37,000 185,000 186,000 68,000 68,000 39,000 39,000 383,000 383,000 862,000 862,000 110,000 110,000 70,000 70,000 50,000 50,000 ) 700,000 700,000 400,000 400,000 152,000 162.000 180,000 180,000 440,000 440,000 85,000 86,000 185,000 185,000 20,000 20,000 300,000 300,000 25,000 26,000 32,000 32.000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 200,000 200,000 1,145,000 1.145,000 14,048.000 14,048,000 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements A B PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW APPROVED TOTAL PROJECT EST PROJECT EST F. TECHNICAL SERVICES 1. Cenlral Lab Modificalions 641,300 2. LIMS Implementation 280,000 505,000 3. Miscellaneous Lab Improvements 125,000 4. NPDES Permil Surmort 255,000 150,000 SUB-TOTA'L -TECHNICAL SERVICES 1,301,300 655,000 G. QP~RATIONS & MA.IN!fil!ANCE 1 . Operations Department Projects a. Upgrade To Syste"! for Emission Modeling Testing 40.000 40,000 b. Air Quality Database Development 60,000 125,000 c. Sulfur Monitoring for Combustion 223,000 185,000 d. Central Generation Parametric Monitor Sys 487,000 454,500 e. Biolilter/Biotrickling Filter Demonstration 50,000 85,000 f. Scrubber Chemical Feed System Mod. 600,000 625,000 g. Anoxic Gas Flotation Process Demonstration NEW PROJECT 125,000 h. Hydrolysis-thickening-flotation Demonstration NEW PROJECT 52,000 i. Large Scale Microfiltration Demonstration NEW PROJECT 59,000 J. Primary Effluent Filtration NEW PROJECT 80,000 k. Processes to Achieve Class A Biosolids NEW PROJECT 90,000 I. WAS Drying without Digestion NEW PROJECT 76,000 m. H,02 Dosing Feed Sensor for Influent Trunks NEW PROJECT 40,000 n. Turbidity Monitoring & Regulatory Equipment Fae. 85,000 85,000 a. Full-Scale Biosolids Reduction 1,500,000 1,500,000 p. Misc Optimization Studies & Improvements 430,000 430,000 q. Miscellaneous Reliability & Redund. Projects 150,000 150,000 2. Maintenance Department Projects a. Plant 2 Digester Gas Flare Control Sys Upgrade NEW PROJECT 140,000 b. Plant 2 Truck Loading VFD Replacement NEW PROJECT 60,000 c. Plant 2 MSP Vibration Monitor Upgrade NEW PROJECT 44,000 d. Plant 1 Headworks Scrubber Pump Mods. NEW PROJECT 30,000 e. Bell Press Drive Unit Replacement NEW PROJECT 20,000 f. Rebuild Serpintix Conveyor at P2 Solids Station NEW PROJECT 97,000 g. Reconfigure Reclaimed Water Meter Station at P2 NEW PROJECT 55,000 h. Backup Cooling Water Mods at P1 Cen Gen NEW PROJECT 35,000 I. Trickling Filter Clarifier Mechanical Rehab. Invest. NEW PROJECT 50,000 i. Weir ExIenslons at Termination Channel NEW PROJECT 30,000 SUB TOTALS -O&M PROJECTS 3,625,000 4,762,500 H. Equipment llama 52,725.000 24.442,700 TOTAL JOINT WORKS CAPITAL REQ 715,734. BOO 792,469,900 Projected Average Daily Flow in MGD Estimated Future Capital Requirements From Last Yea(s Budge! CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS REQUIREMENTS 1997 • 1998 TO 2006-2007 C D E F ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6130/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999--00 300,000 130,000 75,000 300,00( 130,000 40,000 25,000 36,000 40,000 5,000 33,000 96,000 27,000 6,500 86,000 65,000 135,000 85,000 185,000 200,000 60,000 60,000 125,000 62,000 59,000 80,000 40,000 50,000 76,000 40,000 35,000 60,000 1,500,000 80,000 140,000 210,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 140,000 60,000 44,000 30,000 20,000 97,000 40,000 5,000 36,000 50,000 30,000 381,500 1,208,000 2,599,000 232,000 1.942,700 2,500,000 2,500,000 84.745.20( 64,326,200 69,614,000 78,429,500 245MGD 253MGD 261 MGD 74,810,000 59.925.000 36,547,000 G H I J K L ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE 2000--01 2001--02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 YRS, 205,000 205,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 -150 ODO 355,000 355,000 - 40,000 40,000 5,000 15,000 100,000 100,000 15,000 14,000 185,000 186,000 138,000 25,000 448,000 448,000 85,000 86,000 60,000 60,000 440,000 440,000 125,000 125,000 52,000 52,000 59,000 59,000 80,000 80,000 90,000 90,000 76,000 76,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 350,000 360,000 100,000 100,000 140,000 140,000 60,000 60,000 44,000 44,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 97,000 97,000 - 6,000 5,000 55,000 56,000 35,000 35,000 50,000 60,000 30.000 30,000 223,000 119,000 4,381 ,000 4,381,000 2.500,000 2,soo,ooa 11,942.700 12,500,000 24.442,700 96,380,500 68.689,500 367,514.700 1 OO,B40,000 468,364,700 239,370,000 270 MGD 278 MGD 307MGD 360 54,552,0cio 54.552.000 272,760.000 434,252,000 Page 1 of 4 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -Previously Approved Projects PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO APPROVED TOTAL COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT EST PROJECT EST 6/30/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND10 vcc, A. RECLAMATION PLANT 1 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1 . Headworks c. Emergency Sewage Bypass System 1,992,000 1,992,000 1,992,000 1,992,000 d. Headworks No. 1 Rebuild 14,950,000 14,960,000 14,950,000 e. Headworks No. 2 Increase Capacity 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2. Primary Treatment a. Primary Treatment 72 MGD Expansion, P1-37 38,450,000 36,450,000 269,000 1. 151,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 10,030,000 38,181.000 38,181,000 b. Primary Clarifier Rehab. P1-41 1,645,000 1,845,000 1,245,000 600,000 100,000 600,000 600,000 c. 72 MGD Primary Treatment 32,500,000 32,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 30,500,000 3. Secondary Treatment a. Secondary Trmt Expansion to 60 MGD, P1-36-2 40,600,000 40,600,000 28,600,000 11,900,000 100,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 b. 40 MGD Oxygen Activated Sludge & DAF's 65,463,000 66,463,000 463,000 463,000 6s,or' '\ c. 40 MGD Oxygen Act'd Sludge & DAF, 2017 34,000,000 34,000,000 34,01 4. Solids Processing / a. Belt Presses (4 Units} 14,300,000 14,300,000 14,300,000 14,300,000 b. Solids Storage (4 Bins} 10,140,000 10,140,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 4,140,000 c. Digesters: 2 @ 11 O' Diameter 9,100,000 9,100,000 9,100,000 9,100,000 d. Remove Trickling Filters 1 & 3 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 e. Remove Trickling Filters 2 & 4, 2007 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 f. 110 ft Dig esters 18,200,000 18,200,000 18,200,000 g. 4 Belt Presses 10,920,000 10,920,000 10,920,000 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Electrical & Fae. Mods. & Safety Upgrades, P1-40-1 6,328,000 1,537,000 187,000 375,000 975,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 b. 12 KV Distribution Sys for Support Fae., P1-47 4,800,000 4,800,000 246,000 2,200,000 1,494,000 860,000 4,554,000 4,554,000 c. 66 KV Substation, P1-52 1,384,000 1,384,000 19,000 1,300,000 65,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 d. 12 KV Electrical Power Distribution 2,450,000 2,450,000 50,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 2,450,000 2,450,000 e. 12 KV Power Distribution, 2001-2012 1,099,000 1,099,000 1,099,000 f. Standby Power Generation, 2005 & 2015 4,914,000 4,914,000 4,914,000 6. Safety Improvements a. Fire Protection, Signs & Water Sys Mods Pl -38-5 2,685,100 2,686,100 1,809,100 878,000 876,000 876,000 b. Seismic Retrofit of Non-Struct Systems P1-43 1,300,000 1,446,000 946,000 400,000 100,000 500,000 500,000 c. Seismic Retrofit, Structural Items Pl-44-1,2,3,4 1,750,000 3,819,000 2,119,000 1,600,000 200,000 1.700,000 1,700,000 7. Miscellaneous Projects a. Fae. Mods.& Safety Upgrades, P1-40-2 1,665,000 1,666,000 625,000 800,000 40,000 840,000 840,000 b. Drainage lmprov. at Plant 1, P1-40-3 2,100,000 220,000 5,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 c. Chemical Fae Mods, P1-46-2 2,960,000 2,960,000 462,000 2.476,000 2,478,000 2.476,000 e. Allowance for Planned Small Projects 7,275,000 4,975,000 975,000 700,000 900,000 800,000 800,000 600,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 SUB-TOTAL-RECLAMATION PLANT 1 338,370,100 331,814,100 37,727,100 20,551,000 7,666,000 14,660,000 17.200,000 10,830,000 71.109,000 35,155.000 106,264.000 187,623.000 Page 2 of 4 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -Previously Approved Projects PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEW ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO APPROVED TOTAL COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT EST PROJECT EST 6130/97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 YRS t,. !'LAN l ,.c,, Oi u,.uv,m, (HU.lie<; I::, 1. Headworks a. Plant 2 Influent Diversion 2,400,000 2,400,000 150,000 1,500,000 750,000 2.400,000 2,400,000 2. Primary Tfeatmunt o, Primary Treatment 24 MGD Expansion, P2•41 14,306,000 14,306,000 9,000 1,000,000 8,000,000 5,297,000 14,297,000 14,297,000 b. Primary Clarifier Rohob. P2-4B 5.700,000 4,971,000 1,971,000 2,500,000 500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 •· Replace Primary BR.Sins A, B, C 11.700,000 11 ,700,000 11,700,000 4, Solids Proc,,ssing o. Rehab 7 Dlgeoters, P2·39 9,920,000 16,396,000 825,000 360,000 6,350,000 5,870,000 3,000,000 15,570,000 15,570,000 c. Solids Storage: 2 Bins 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 e. Addltional 105 foot Digester 5,100,000 6,100,000 5,100,000 5. Etectrlcat Pow er Systems b. E!oc. Foe. Mods. & Safety Upgrades, P2•47-1 2,870,000 3,976,000 205,000 200,000 2,020,000 1,550,000 3,770,000 3,770,000 e. Standby Power Gon. 16,120.000 18,120,000 16,1~ 6. Safety Improvements a. Fiio Protection, Signs & Wa,er Sys Mods. P2•46 4.535,000 3,763,000 2,979,000 764,000 784,000 784,000 b. Landsc. & lrrlg. at City Wator Pump St .• P2-46• 1 35,000 36,000 10,000 26,000 25.000 25.000 c, Fae Mods & Safety Upgradu, P2•47•2 2,008,000 1,630,000 782,000 800,000 48,000 848,000 848,000 d. Seismic Retrofit of Non-Structure Systoms, P2,50 1,680,000 1,680,000 800,000 780,000 100,000 880,000 880,000 e. Seismic Retrofit. StruoturaJ ltem1 P2-53-2 4,075,000 3,955,000 3,555,000 300,0,00 100,000 400,000 400,000 f. Chemical ·and Plant Water Madi!ns, P2-55 4.200,000 4,132,000 3,285,000 847,000 847,000 847,000 g, Redolmed Water System Pini. 2 3,335,000 3,335,000 10,000 20.000 255.000 1,500,000 1,500,000 50,000 3,325,000 3,325.000 7, Mlsc,illaneous Projects c. Conveyor Belt Access at Solids Storage 80,000 80,000 4,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 d. Allowanco for Planned Small Projects 7,250,000 5,146,000 1,146,000 700,000 900,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 8. Support facilities and Sita lmprovonu,nts· a. Warehouse Upgrades, P2•23-6-2R 485,000 646,000 78,000 668,000 568.000 568.000 b. Maintenance Building, P2-35-3 6,087,800 9,368.000 7,526,000 1,832.000 1,832,000 1,832,000 c. Phase II Site & Security Imp., P2•35•5 2,200,000 1,228,000 526,000 600.000 100,000 700,000 700,000 d. Ooemtiont1 Bulldinn P2.-23-5-1 IRobld No. 21 3 615 000 3 616 000 3 605 000 10000 10 000 10 000 SUB-TOTAL. TREATMENT PLANT 2 112,901,800 118. 768.000 27.316,500 10,541,500 11 .873,000 16.670.000 13.300,000 6.147.000 58.531,500 58.531,500 32,920,000 Page 3 of 4 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -Previously Approved Projects PREVIOUSLY REVISED/NEvv ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COSTTO APPROVED TOTAL COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT EST PROJECT EST 6/30197 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND 10 yoc C. INTERPLANT & JOINT FACILl]]E§ 1. Support Facilities and Site Improvements b. Demolition or Reuse of Old Control Center 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 c. Demolition of Support Bldg @ P2, J-27 215,000 215,000 110,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 d. CNG Refueling Station, Pl-51 (Rebid) 1,020,400 1,020,400 820,400 200,000 200,000 200,000 e. Open Bay Enclosures at P1 Warehouse 60,000 90,000 9,000 81,000 B1,000 81 ,000 2. Outfall & Booster Pump Stations a. Surge Tower Replacement J-34-1 6,550,000 7,155,000 2,655,000 4,350,000 150,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 b. Outfall Reliability & Pumping Annex 00B5 ·c• 31,085,000 31,086,000 31,085,000 31,085,000 c. Ext & Repl 78" to Deep Water W/120" Outfall 16,120,000 16,120,000 16,120,000 3. Information Management Systems a. Computerized Fae. Records and Dwg. Sys., J-25-1 3,930,000 3,927,000 627,000 205,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 595,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 4. Plants 1 & 2 Monitor/Control System, J-31 4,200,000 3,363,940 3,353,940 a. SCADA Retrofit Hrdwre Platform@ Pit 1&2, J-31-1 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ,../ b. 00B5 Control System, J-31·2 950,000 1,793,000 1,788,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 c. Plant 1 Headworks 2 Control System, J-31-3 850,000 1,313,760 574,760 739,000 739,000 739,000 d. Secondary Control System Upgrade, J-31-4 500,000 1,739,000 600,000 600,000 320,000 219,000 1.139,000 ,. 139,000 e. Plant Reinvention/Automation Project, J-42 1,350,000 26,760,000 2,800,000 8,200,000 9,500,000 5,010,000 250,000 25,760,000 25,760,000 f. Solids Storage Rehabil. and Automation, J-46 500,000 5,638,000 100,000 650,000 4,888,000 5,538,000 5,538,000 5. Electrical Power Systems b. Electl. Power Sys. Rehab. St., J-25-2, J-25-3 1,330,000 5,515,000 565,000 1,200,000 2,900,000 850,000 4,950,000 4,950,000 c. Standby Power & Reliability Mods. J-33-1 13,900,000 16,391,000 891,000 300,000 6,700,000 4,500,000 3,000,000 14,500,000 14,500,000 d. MSP No. 3 at Headworks 2, J-33-2 1,675,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 g. Electrical Power Distribution, 12Kv 2,707,000 2,707,000 2,707,000 h. Improvements to Central Generation 680,000 680,000 100,000 300,000 280,000 680,000 680,000 i. Cable Tray Improvements, J-47 2,750,000 2,760,000 50,000 1,600,000 600,000 500,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 6. Bushard lnterplant Trunk Replacement 26,100,000 26,100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 9,100,000 26,100,000 7. Safety Improvements 8. Miscellaneous Projects a. In Plant Sampling System Mod. 70.000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 e. Allowance for Planned Small Projects 6,220,000 4,505,000 1,255,000 600,000 700,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 9. Water Reclamation 76,859,200 116,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 21,000,000 46,000,000 36,000,000 106,000,000 10,000,000 116,000,000 SUB-TOTAL-.INTERPLANT & JOINT 200 821,600 275 228 100 1s 349 too 12 399 000 30.114,000 39 699 000 61 160 000 47,495.000 190 867000 50 185 000 241 052000 18 827000 SUB-TOTAL-MAJOR PROJECTS 652,093.500 725,610,200 80,392,700 43,491 ,500 49,855,000 71,029,000 91 ,660,000 64,472,000 320.507 .500 85,340,000 405,847,500 239,370,000 Page 4 of 4 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -Previously Approved Projects PREVIOUSLY REVISEO/Nt:VV ESTACCUM PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO APPROVED TOTAL COSTS TO BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT EST PROJECT EST 6/30/97 1997-88 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BEYOND10 YR!': !1, ENGINEERING SPECIAL PBOJECTS 1 .. Master Plannino a. Investigation and Repoir of Ocean Outl.all, J.39 1,225,000 1,439,600 439,600 900,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 b. Manogoment of Peak 1-lydraulJc Olochorge. J•40·1 1,500,000 1,837,000 1,237,000 300,000 100,000 400,000 400,000 c. Determ, ol An. Charges and fee Schod_, J-40-2 470,000 481,000 231,000 200,000 50,000 250,000 250,000 d. Treatment, Reuse and Disposal Plan, J-40-3 750,000 933,000 233,000 500,000 200,000 700,000 700,000 e. CEQA, Public Participation, J-40·4 155,000 411,000 61,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 350,000 2. Miscellaneous Projects b. Revision of Standard Specifications, J-44 240,000 240,000 5,000 100,000 135,000 235,000 235,000 c. Edison Envest Uahtina Retrofit J-45 1 650,000 441 400 50 400 382 ODO 2 000 2 000 2,000 3,000 391 000 391 000 SUB-TOTAL • ENGINEERING SPECIAL PROJECTS 5 990 000 5 583 000 2 257 DOD 2 632 000 687 000 2 ODD 2 000 3 ODD 3 326 DOD 3 326 DOD e_ GENE!!A!. SERVICES A!1!/llNISTRATION 3. Programming & Database Sys. (ITI m. Flnanclal Information Svstem OTI 2,025 ODO 1 564 ODO 1 414 ODO !5.0 ODO 150 000 150 000 SUB-TOTAL -GSA 2.025 000 1564000 1 414,000 150.000 150 000 150,000 F. TECHNICAL SERVICES 1, Central Lab Modifications 641,300 2. LIMS Implementation 280,000 606,000 300,000 130,000 75,000 205,000 205,000 3. Mls!:eUanoous Lab hnprovemcnts 125,000 4. NPDES Permit Suo00<1 255.000 160 000 150000 150 000 150 000 SUB-TOTAL· TECHNICAL SERVICES 1301 300 655000 300000 130 000 150000 355 000 355 ODO G. OPERATIQ!j!;! ~ MAINTENA!j!,I; 1 Operations Oep~rtrnont Pr0Joc1s a. Upgrade To Systerr, tor Eml5"ion Modeling Tasting 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 b. Air Oualitv Oarabase Developmont 60,000 125,000 25,000 35,000 40,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 100,000 100,000 c. Sulfur Monitoring lor Combustion 223,000 185,000 33,000 96,000 27,000 15,000 14,000 185,000 185,000 d. Central Generation Parametric Monltor Sys 487,000 454,500 6,500 85,000 65,000 135,000 138,000 25,000 448,000 448,000 •-Biofilter/Biotrkkfing Flltor Damonsvation 50,000 86,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 I. Scrubber Chemical Feed System Mod. 600,000 625,000 185,000 200,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 440,000 440,000 n. Turl;lidlty Monitoring & Rogulotory Equipment Fae. 85,000 85,000 35,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 o. Full-Scala Biosol ds Reduction 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 p. Misc OptimlzaUon Studies & Improvements 430,000 430,000 80,000 140,000 210,000 350,000 350,000 o, Mlscellonaous Aoliabintv & Rodund. Proiecua 150 000 150 000 60 000 50 ODO 50 000 100 000 100 DOD SUB TOTALS· O&M PROJECTS 3625 000 3679 500 381500 583 ODD 2146000 227 ODO 218000 114000 3 298000 3.298000 H. Eaulnment Items 52,725.000 24,442,700 1,942,700 2.500,000 2,500,000 2,600.000 2,500,000 11.942,700 12,500.000 24,442.700 TOTAL JOINT WORKS CAPITAL REQ FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS 717,759.800 781,634,400 84,745.200 48.939,200 55.188,000 73,758,000 94.530,000 67 ,Qflll.000 339,579,200 97,840,000 437,419,200 239,370,000 Pae1of2 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -New Projects Beginning in 1997 -98 (For Approval) PROPOSED PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT 1997-98 1998-99 1999--00 2000--01 2001--02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET BEYOND 10 YRS. A. RECLAMATION PLANT 1 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Headworks b. M&D Structure Concrete Rep., P1-56 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 3. Secondary Treatment d. Drain Modifications at Activated Sludoe Plant 75000 75000 75000 75000 SUB-TOTAL· RECLAMATION PLANT 1 125,000 125,000 125.000 125,000 B. PLANT 2 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Heedworks b. Replacement of Barscreen Influent Gate 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 2. Primary Treatment d. Drain Replacement at Primary Basins A,B,C 200,000 30,000 170,000 200,000 200.000 4. Solids Processing b TWAS Feed to Digesters F&G, P2-39-1 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 d. Scale Reolacamenl at Dewaterino Facility, P2-62 87000 15000 72000 87.000 87 000 SUB-TOTAL· TREATMENT PLANT 2 637.000 395.000 242.000 637.000 637,000 C. INTERPLANT & JOINT FACILITIES 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Gas Mixing Systems Improvements, J-19-3-2 470,000 100,000 370,000 470,000 470,000 e. Harmonic Filters Automation, J-48 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 I. Power & Distribution Buildings Ventilation, J-50 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 7. Safety Improvements a Acc. Platform to Cen Gen Exhaust Piping, J-19-3-1 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 8. Miscellaneous Projects c. Chemical Flow Pacing for Primary Influent, J-53 100,0QO 100,000 100,000 100,000 '" SUB-TOTAL -INTERPLANT & JOINT 835 000 465 000 370,000 835.000 835,000 SUB-TOTAL· MAJOR PROJECTS 1,597,000 985,000 612,000 1,597.000 1,597.000 D. ENGINEERING SPECIAL PROJECTS 2. Miscellaneous Projects a. Area Classifications Studies, Plants 1&2, J-35-1 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 d. Evaluation of Existina Alum. covers at Prim. Basins 50000 50000 50,000 50.000 SUB-TOTAL· ENGINEERING SPECIAL PROJECTS 120 000 120,000 120,000 120,000 Pae2of2 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -New Projects Beginning in 1997 -98 (For Approval) PROPOSED PROPOSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT 1997-88 1998-99 1999-00 2000--01 2001--02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET BEYOND 10 YRS. E. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 3 Programming & Database Sys. (IT) a. Document Management 800.000 130,000 571,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 800,000 800,000 b. Oeta Integration 4,334,000 700,000 1,489,000 715,000 715,000 715,000 4,334,000 4,334,000 c Strategic lnfom,ation Architecture (SIA) 724,000 430,000 240,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 724,000 724,000 d CMMS Programming 179,000 110,000 18,000 17.000 17,000 17,000 179,000 179,000 e. lnlrenet 82,000 44,000 32,000 6,000 82,000 82,000 f. Security System Improvements 278,000 255,000 23,000 278,000 278,000 g. Voice/Data Building Rewiring 438,000 250,000 89,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 438,000 438,000 h. Networl< Backbone Upgrade Continuation 624,00C . 180,000 126,000 106,000 106,000 106,000 624,000 624,000 i. Internet E-MaiVBrowsing 70,000 44,000 26,000 70,000 70,000 j. Year 2000 Data Change 213,000 60,000 116,000 37,000 213,000 213,000 I FIS/Oracle Gateway 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 n. Source Control Programming 216,000 128,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 216,000 216,000 p. Upgrade Phone System 68,000 38,000 30,000 68,000 68,000 4. Plant Automation (IT) a. Desktop Computer Standard 862,000 100,000 762.000 862,000 862,000 b. Plant 2 Plant Water Programming Upgrade 110,000 110,000 110.000 110,000 c. Plant 2 City Weter Programming Upgrade 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 d. Plant 1 City Water Programming Upgrade 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 g. Plant 2 TWAS PLC Program/SCADA Upgrade 152,000 152,000 152,000 152,000 h. Plant 2 DAFT PLC Program/SCADA Upgrade 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 i. Plant 1 & 2 Heat Loop PLC Replacement 440,000 200,000 240,000 440,000 440,000 6, Plant Facililies (GSA) c. Training/Meeting Room Fleet Service Facility, Plant 1 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 c1-Trelnlng/Meetin~ Room Fabrlcalion Shop f acihlv, Plant 1 18 000 18000 18 000 18,000 SUB-TOTAL-GSA 10,326,000 3.667,000 3,784,000 987,000 944,000 944.000 10.326,000 10.326,000 G. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 1. Operations Department Projects g. Anoxic Gas Flotation Process Demonstration 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 h. Hydrolysis-thickening-flotation Demonstration 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 i. Large Scale Microfiltration Demonstration 59,000 59,000 59,000 59,000 j. Primary Effluent Filtration 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 k. Processes to Achieve Class A Biosolids 90,000 40,000 50,000 90,000 90,000 m. H202 Dosing Feed Sensor for Influent Trunks 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2. Maintenance Department Projects b. Plant 2 Truck Loading VFD Replacement 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 c. Plant 2 MSP Vibration Monitor Upgrade 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 h. Backup Cooling Water Mods at P1 Cen Gen 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 i. Trickling Filter Clarifier Mechanical Rehab. Invest. 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 i. Weir Extensions at Term inalion Channel 30000 30000 30,000 30.000 SUB TOTALS· O&M PROJECTS 665,000 615 000 50,000 665,000 665,000 TOTAL JOINT WORKS CAPITAL REQ FOR NEW PROJECTS BEGINNING IN 1997-98 12.708,000 5,387 000 4,446,000 987,000 944,000 944.000 12,708,000 12,708,000 • Paelof2 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -New Projects Beginning in Future Years (For Information) ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET BEYOND 10 YRS. A. RECLAMATION PLANT 1 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Heedworl<s a Replacement of Plant 1 Flow Meters, P 1-55 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 6. Safety Improvements d. Railings for Aeration Basins, Pl-53 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 7. Miscellaneous Projects d. Adm. Bldg. Lobby Acousticel lmpr., P1-54 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 SUB-TOTAL. RECLAMATION PLANT 1 700000 700000 700000 700 000 B. PLANT 2 NEW & ONGOING PROJECTS 1. Headworks c Headworl<s "C" Upgrades 2,500,000 500,000 1,800,000 200,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2. Primary Trealment c. Clarifier Efficiency Improvements 1,700,000 1,100,000 600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 3. Secondary Treatment a. Rehab Activated Sludge Plant Piping end Valving 1,110,000 800,000 310,000 1,110,000 1,110,000 5. Electrical Power Systems a. Digester Gas Compressor Redundancy, J-19-2-1 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 7. Miscellaneous Projects a. Air Compressors for Plant Air System, P2-61 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 b. Odor Control at Junction and Distribution Boxes 560 000 560 000 560 000 560 000 SUB-TOTAL· TREATMENT PLANT 2 6 590 000 3.680,000 2 710 000 200,000 6 590 000 6 590 000 C. INTERPLA!:!T & JOINT FACIL111Eli 1. Support Facilities and Site Improvements a. Administration Parking Lot 222,500 221 ,000 500 500 500 222,500 222,500 7. Safety Improvements b. Confined Spece Personnel Retrieval System, J-49 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 c. Evaluation of Tunnels for Structural Integrity, J-51 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 B. Miscellaneous Projects b. New Grit Augers, J-52 800,000 500,000 300,000 800,000 800,000 d AB 5 & 6 Flowmeter Bypass 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 10. Water Conservation 5,150,000 750,000 450,000 500,000 450,000 2,150,000 3,000,000 5,150,000 l SUB-TOTAL -INTERPLANT & JOINT 6 947 500 2,246,000 750 500 500,500 450 500 3,947,500 3,000,000 6.947 500 SUB-TOTAL. MAJOR PROJECTS 14 237 500 6.626 000 3,460 500 700.500 450,500 11 237,500 3,000,000 14 237 500 Pa e 2 of 2 Construction and Rehabilitation Requirements -New Projects Beginning in Future Years (For Information) ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIVE ESTIMATED TEN COST TO TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR COMPLETE PROJECT 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 TOTAL 2002-2007 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET BEYOND10 YRS. I;:. GENERA!, §l;RVIC~ Al2MINISTRATIQll! 1. General Services Adminislralion a. GSA • Miscellaneous Small Projects ·625,000 250,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 625.000 b. Tech Services Move 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2. End User Support ( IT) a. Miscellaneous Small Projects 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 3. Programming & Dalabase Sys. (IT) k. WWW Server 161,000 143,000 18,000 161,000 161,000 o. Oala Exlrac1ion from Plan! Control System 185,000 74,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 165,000 185,000 q.GIS 383,000 266,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 383,000 383,000 4. Plenl Aulomalion (IT) e. Planl 2 Oewalering Conlrol System Upgrade 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 f. Planl 1 Dewatering Control System Upgrade 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 j. Plant 1 & 2 Primary Clarifier Rehab. SCADA Configuration 85,000 85,000 65,000 85,000 k. Plan! 1 Secondary Treatment SCAOA 165,000 185,000 165,000 185,000 5. Collections Facilities (GSA) a. Plant 2 New O & M Building Furniture 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 b. Arc Info Mapping 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 6. Plent Facilities (GSA) a OfflCB Fumilure for New O & M Building 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 b. Library System for New O & M Building 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 e. Districts' Trainlno Resource Cenler 200 000 200,000 200 000 200:000 SUB-TOTAL· GSA 3 572 000 2,951,000 219 000 201 000 201,000 3,572 000 3 572 000 G. OPEBAIIQNS & MAl!:!!IENANCE 1. Operations Department Projects I. WAS Drying without Digestion 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 2. Maintenance Department Projects a. Plant 2 Digester Gas Flare Control Sys Upgrade 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 d. Plant 1 Heedworks Scrubber Pump Mods. 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 e. Bell Press Drive l)nil Replacement 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 f. Rebuild Serpintix Conveyor at P2 Solids Station 97,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 a, Reoonfiau,e Reclaimed Waler Meter Station at P2 55000 40000 5000 5000 5 000 55,000 55000 SUB TOTALS • O&M PROJECTS 41 8,000 403,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 418,000 418,000 TOTAL JOINT WORKS CAPITAL REQ FOR NEW PROJECTS BEGINNING IN FUTURE YEARS 18,227,500 9,980 000 3,684,500 906,500 656,500 15,227,500 3,000,000 18,227.500 OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 05/14/97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 05/28/97 ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: ACCUMULATED FUNDS POLICY (All Districts) Recommended Action(s}: -----AGEN. ," ITEM TRANSMITTAL 3. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2210, Gary G. Streed, 2500 Division No., Name, and Extension 1. Staff recommends acceleration of the financial plan phase of the Strategic Plan and reports to the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. The scope of work and compensation for consultants will remain the same. 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_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: N/A SOURCE: Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: Ill1S AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL N/A ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT NIA WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10197 H:\WP .DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MA Y\FAHR97.31 DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES N/A CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED N/A N/A YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE N/A BUDGET CHANGE THISAIT N/A AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT N/A REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of2 Originator CONCURRENCES: Signatii@ Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) Date Date Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TC \1MITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Accumulated Fur.--Policy FY '96-97 ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. As a part of the financial plan developed by the team of Directors, staff and consultants, the Boards have implemented a plan to build accumulated cash balances for certain future events. This plan has been reviewed as a part of the Fiscal Policy Statements in the annual budget process. The current policy specifies accumulated funding amounts for Cash Flow Requirements ("dry period funding"), contingencies, capital projects, catastrophes, environmental changes and debt service needs. Any funds accumulated in excess of those specified are to be classified as Rate Stabilization Funds and are to be used to smooth future rate adjustments in order to avoid sudden increases for one-time needs. A copy of this policy as it was stated in the 1996-97 budget is attached. During the initial stage of the 1997-98 budget development process, the Directors requested that the accumulated funds policy be reviewed and reconsidered in detail. Some Directors wondered why there are no accumulated funds for replacement and rehabilitation of our $1 billion facilities, some wondered if the total funds accumulated were too great, and some wondered if more funds could be used to reduce future service fee requirements. The Financial Analysis portion of the Strategic Plan currently underway includes the development of a long-term financial plan by staff, Camp Dresser McKee and Public Financial Management. Staff has discussed the possibility of accelerating this phase with the consultants and they have agreed that they could do that without affecting the scope or the compensation in their contract. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceleration of the financial plan phase of the Strategic Plan and reports to the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee. GGS:lc c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10197 H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MAY\FAHR97.31 Page 2 of 2 May 14, 1997 Accumulated Funds Policy From 1996-97 Budget As a part of the "2020 Vision" Master Plan, the Fiv8"Year Financial Plan and subsequent financial planning sessions, the Directors have developed a comprehensive policy regarding reserves accumulated funds. The levels and purposes are described as follows: • General Liability: In 1979, the Directors established a Self-Insurance Fund for liability insurance and a reserve of $250,000. The fund was designed to self-insure for basic small claims, and to purchase excess-loss insurance for larger claims. Each year an in-lieu premium would be paid and any excess would accumulate in the reserves. In 1986, the Directors decided to become completely self-insured and not purchase any liability insurance. However, in 1996 the Directors voted to limit the Districts' self-insurance exposure to $100,000 and acquired excess public liability insurance of $25 million at a cost of $115,000 annually. A goal of $2.5 million has been established for this fund. • Operating Fund General or Dry Period Funds: The principal revenue stream of the Operating Funds follows the County of Orange Tax Collection and apportionment schedule as the Sanitary Sewer Service Fee is collected as a separate line item on the property tax bill. Since the first major apportionment is scheduled for late November, the first five or six months of operating costs must be paid from funds on hand. For this reason, "Dry-Period Funds" of 50 percent of the current year's operating budget have been established. The goal for these funds is approximately $30 million. • Operating Fund Contingency Funds: The Sanitary Sewer Service Fee can only be assessed once each year. The fee is collected on the County property tax bill to minimize collection costs and delinquencies, but cannot be changed after the tax bills are mailed. Since a District cannot generate any additional revenues at mid-year, a contingency has been added to the budgetary requirement. This requirement has been established at 20 percent of the annual operating expense, or approximately $12 million. • Capital Projects Funds: Funds for capital improvement projects, estimated to exceed $1.5 billion by the year 2020, come from connection fees, savings and borrowing. Because the capital improvement program is master-planned to meet federal and state environmental regulatory requirements and additional capacity needs, projects must be started and completed on a schedule. While the "2020 Vision" Master Plan proposed a 50:50 mix of construction funds from pay-as-you-go and borrowing, the financial markets may not be optimal for a debt issue when construction funds are needed. In order to provide for cycles in the financial market, Capital Projects Funds equal to one year's estimated capital outlay has been established. The current goal is $50 million, but was $100 million when the policy was adopted. • Environmental Requirement Funds: An Environmental Requirement Fund has been established at 1 O percent of one year's estimated capital outlay program to provide for contingency capital funding for unforeseen or quick-breaking environmental requirements on projects to improve the quality of the air, ocean, or the land. Current plans are to have $5 million in this fund. CSDOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 Accumulated Funds Policy FY 96-97 Page2 May 14, 1997 • Earthquake and Flood Damage Reserve: The current replacement value of the Districts' sewerage system is estimated to be approximately $1.5 billion. The two treatment plants are adjacent to the Santa Ana River and near the Newport-Inglewood Fault. Although our facilities are designed and built to the highest seismic standards, property insurance is very expensive and difficult to obtain. The 1996-97 property insurance premium for excess loss is estimated at $1.37 million for $200 million of all-risk insurance, but only $30 million of earthquake coverage. Because of the minimal amount of cost-effective insurance available, an Earthquake and Flood Reserve of $100 million has been established. This is aproximately equal to 10% of fixed asset value at cost. • Debt Service Reserves: A condition of some Certificate of Participation (COP) issues is that a reserve be established to guarantee some future payments. Required Debt Service Reserves, under the control of the Trustees, are approximately $32 million. • Debt Service Dry Period Funds: The main revenue source for debt service payments is property tax revenues also collected by the County of Orange on the property tax bill. Since the first major apportionment is scheduled for late November, and the annual principal payments on COP debt is due in August, the payment must be paid from cash on hand. For this reason, "Dry-Period Funds" equal to the Debt Service requirements due in August of each year have been established. The current requirement is approximately $26 million. GGS:lc H:\WP .DTA\FIN\221 0\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MA Y\FINOVR.497 05/05/97 HON 18:11 FAX 714~1 94a7 PFII Newport Bch ijgoo2 ., ............ f t• 11 I 1 1 ., ~ Ila • l•t!t ,, .• , ........ , • f!t;~-, .. • ..... PUBl.lC RNANOALMANAGEMENT, INC. Financial andllMStmalt Advi&cx8 660 NewpanO!nta"Ddve. SUR 750 Newpolt Beadl. califom.la 92660-{)408 714-721-9422 (Pax) 714-721-9437 Mr. Gary Streed Director of Finance . ______ .. ___ ··-· County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 ... • .. DearGary: May 5, 1997 ·----------·--~- As promised, following is a scope of work for the development of a long-term financial plan for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ("Districts"). AF. we discussed, this work is generally included in the fmanciaJ analysis portion of the Strategic ~ efforts underway. Public Fmancial Management, Inc. ("PFM") is a subconsultant to Camp Dresser Mckee ("COM''). PFM and CDM are agreeable to accelerating this work phase without affecting the scope or compensation of their respective contracts. PFM very much appreciates the opportunity to provide financial advisory services to the Districts. As a core client of PFM, we are committed to provide the· Districts with the highest quality service and support. PFM has provided services to the Districts on four prior occasions. Previous engagements include providing support to the Districts Taxable Commercial Paper Program. preparing manuals addressing the Districts' Certificate of Participation Program, Reverse Repurchase Agreement Program and the Taxable Commercial Paper Program; providing a full range of financial and investment advisory support in connection with the Orange County bankruptcy and preparing an Orange County Landfill Valuation. Currently PFM is conducting a bond proceeds investment review for all Districts' existing debt. SCOPE OF SERVIa.8 1. Assist the Di&trkts in the uvelop~nt of a long term comprehensive jinaneial p"lan. PPM will analyze the financial resources available to the Districts by identifying the types of revenues available and their forecasts for growth, existing and future operating and capital requirements and necessary reserves levels. The results will allow PFM to develop a reliable comprehensive financial plan that meets the Districts' needs. It is anticipated that cashflow models will be available during Jwie 1997 for review and that a draft preliminary financial plan will be delivered during July 1997. It is anticipated that the draft plan will have to be refmed once the new draft capital plan is available in August or September, 1997. PFM will continue to work with Districts' staff through the strategic planning process to refine the plan to meet the needs of the Districts. .: • ( !1-1 05/05/97 MON 18: 12 FAX 714 7?1_ 9437 PFM NeWJ>ort Bch ~003 .,~ .. ,,.,,., .. ·• .. ',, ,. ' .. "., ............... , ... " , ..• -- Mr. Gary Streed County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Scope of Services, May 5, 1997 Page2 PFM will review all relevant background infonnation including audited financial statements, current fmancial cash flow projections, and the current budget. PliM· will also examine tb8 Districts existing reserves. policy and make recommendation& for mvisions to meet futura Dislricu' needs ... 2. R•••w of tlN Capital J,nprowmienl Program. PFM will review the Districts' capital budget as well as the amounts and sources of funds the Districts are willing and able to commit to funding its capital needs. PFM will develop a computer model which inputs the cash flow requirements and timing identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which calculates necessary debt service, reserves balaiices,"and cove.rage 11lb.OI. The Long T"emi F'manciar Plan snow.a eiialile_ffie __ ··----- Districts Jo finance its capital improvement program in a lowest cost. timely and flexible manner. 3. Jdsnlify Financing Alurnatitres. PFM will develop an optimization model to address various · financing altematives, mchidmg pay-as-you-go and debt financing including short-term notes (if ? · 1' ':· applicable), commercial paper, variable-rate debt, and traditional fixed rate bonds. This work phase will identify the amount. and. timing of debt, current revenues and reserves towards ~ the · development of financing alternatives and recommended strategies. 4~ Prepare Long Term Fintuu:ial Report. Deve]op a Power Point report incorporating the fmdings, conclusions and .recommendations from the three previous tasks. The financial report shall summarize the analysis of long-tcnn debt vs. Pay~as-you-go funding and resulting financing alternatives, recommend a revised Districts' reserves policy and present the recommended Districts' financing strategy. PFM will gladly attend any necessary Joint Boards or Joint Boards committee meetings and relevant workshops. If you have any questions regarding any part of our proposed scope, please feel free to contact me at (714) 721-9422. The Districts are a very important potential client to PFM and we look forward to serving you further on this important work assignment. Sincerely, PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. Patticia M. Gorczyca Senior Managing Consultant --·~ . For Bd. Sec, v· !Fl D C~M. {NF0, ITEM • €0MM. ACTION ITEM D JT. BE>S. CG>NSENT El JT. BOS. DISCUSSION (NI~WCONSEN;Jj 11D PIJSLIO HEARING II -J~ JT. ~DS. MEETJNGDAiE --- 1. ':-.-----JT, BO~. AGENDA ITEM N0, MEETING DATE OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 5-14-97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 5-28-97 COMM.ID. 0. OMTS,___ ___ _ Pt>C, _ _.,,~---..-, FAHR ft-J) EXEC,_ ___ _ STEER,_ ___ . . DISTRICT NO. ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGENF"-\ , ITEM TRAN SMITTAL I 't. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Orginator) 2520, Mike Peterman, 2105 Division No., Name, and Extension FIVE-YEAR STAFFING PLAN REPORT: The Director of Human Resources will report on the proposed five- year staffing plan and provide details on the administrative procedures that will be used to implement the targeted reductions. Recommended Action(s}: 1. No action. Informational only. 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_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.:$ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Lim; Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL ORIGINAL BID, PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? N/A If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04110/97 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2520\PETERMAN\FAHR\STAFFPLA. WPD DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARQ ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED YEAR-TO-DATE REVISED BUDGET BUDGET BALANCE TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfer.) N/A N/A BUDGET CHANGE REVISED TOTAL THISAIT PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMOUNT AMENDED REQUESTED THIS PROJECT AIT AMOUNT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of 2 \ ___ _ Originator Date CONCURRENCES: Signature Date Division Manager(~ ~~ 5-,-'ll Signature Date Department Head {Or Designee) ~' w ~ s--1 I '17 Sig ure Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO COMMITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. ) ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. The attached five-year staffing plan spreadsheet is the result of forecasts by the Districts' management team to achieve the collective objective of reaching a 15% staffing reduction over three years and more over five years. The staffing plan depends upon the ability of this agency to more effectively conduct its day-to-day tasks by using plant and office automation, training an increasingly adaptive work force, streamlining our administrative and operational procedures, and balancing the activities we choose to accomplish. Attrition and cross training will allow us to decrease our staff size over time without resorting to layoffs. As relatively predictable as our future task loads are, as effective managers of a large public agency we have a responsibility to forecast our future staffing needs and plan accordingly. We should not rely on layoffs to accomplish our long-term goal of decreased unit costs of treatment. We have demonstrated this commitment by including a "no layoff' provision in the collective bargaining agreements with two of the Districts' employee associations. We have a management responsibility to minimize the disruption to the lives and families of our dedicated and hard-working employees as we change the culture of the agency. This is not to say that we are not going to be demanding of our employees in the future. Over time, we will require that the productivity and effectiveness of every employee increase to a practical maximum. Employee reviews, training, and coaching will be used to sensitize and prepare our staff for the demands of the future. We will provide the tools necessary to make our staff as productive as possible. Employee-led committees, like DART that are staf driven, will emerge from all quarters of the agency. They will be the key to our improved future effectiveness and efficiency. We will vest more responsibility in our employees and give them the flexibility to change their working practices. Our challenge is to improve our cost of operation while maintaining high operational standards. The facilities, programs, and systems that we provide the Orange County public must always meet the test of excellence. This five-year staffing plan is designed to achieve that balance, but it is a forecast only. Annual review of the capital budget programs, regulatory requirements, plant automation, work practices and information technology will help assure that we do indeed achieve that balance. c: Department Head A GM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2520\PETERMAN\FAHR\STAFFPLAWPD Page 2 of2 Attachment #1 Staffm Summa FY 92-02-B Depart,P.1ent FY92 E\'!93 ']1~94 Fl:95 FY96 General 3 3 3 5 6 Management Communications 1 II II II II 15 Human Resources 25 24 24 25 19 Finance 40 40 40 40 42 GSA2 51 51 51 54 58 Operations & 337 334 335 331 340 Maintenance Technical Services 128 127 125 128 121 Engineering 79 79 79 74 77 TOTAL 613 616 627 599 624 ACTUAL STAFFING3 % Change From FY 1996/97 1In prior years included management support; includes Board Secretary. 2Re-organization between GSA & Operations & Maintenance occured in FY 97. 1:f¥97 6 12 16.5 40.75 105.5 258 103.75 73.5 616 ·FY98 ~99 • FY'OO F¥0 1~02 6 55 5.5 5.5 5.5 9.75 9.75 9.7~ 9.75 9;75 18.25 18.25 18.25 17.75 16.5 39.75 37.75 36.25 34.75 33.25 88 90 83 83 82 227.25 220.25 208.25 205.25 203.25 99.25 96 90 90 87 71.5 72 71 71 71 559.75 549.5 522 517 508.25 -9% -11% -15% ,-16% -17% 3Contract employees and part-time inspectors included. Note sum of Departments would reflect AUTHORIZED staffing levels as opposed to ACTUAL staffing levels resulting in a higher total. Pre-1996 actual staff levels are currently unavailable by division. Note Districts based staffing levels on Full-time Equivalents (FTEs) beginning in FY 97. Pre-97 data is based on actual number of positions. _) Attachment #2 Actual/Authorized Staffing Chart Summary FTEBudget Division No & O..scnplion 1881-82 1892-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1998-97 2150: General Management Administration 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 Total General Management Department 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 6.00 2160: Board Secretary 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2170: Management Support 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0,00 0.00 2190 /2300 Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 9.00 Total Communications Department 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 15.00 12.00 2180: Personnel Office 25.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 2510: Human Resources Administration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2520: Human Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 5.00 2540: Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 2530: Safety & Emergency Response 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 7.00 5.50 Total Human Raeources Department 25.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 19.00 16.50 2210: Finance Administration 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2220: Accounting 19.00 19,00 19.00 19.00 20.00 20.00 2230: Purchasing & Warehousing 18.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.75 Total Finance Department 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 42.00 40.75 2240: Information Se<vices 20.00 20.00 20.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 2410: General Sefvices Administration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.50 2420: IT Hardware &lpport 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 2430: I T Software S\Jpport 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 9.00 2440: Plant Automation Support 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 7.00 6.00 2450: Collection Facilities Maintenance 31.00 31 .00 31.00 31.00 32.00 31.50 2460: Plant Fad lilies Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.50 Total General Sarvlcea Department 51.00 51.00 51.00 54.00 58.00 1011.50 3410: Operations & Maintenance Administration 20.00 20.00 16.00 17.00 22.00 20.00 331 O: Maintenance Administration 10.00 9.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 0.00 3320: Maintenance Scheduling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 3330: Plant Maintenance 55.00 55.00 54.00 54.00 52.00 0.00 3350: Mechanical Maintenance 70.00 70.00 69.00 69.00 68.00 0.00 3360: Electrical Maintenance 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 0.00 3370: Instrumentation Maintenance 31.00 31.00 35.00 35.00 37.00 0.00 3430/40: Plant #1 & #2 Operations 125.00 123.00 123.00 119.00 119.00 98.00 3490: Central Generation Operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 3420: o&M Planning/ Process Support 97-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 3450: Mechanical Operations & Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.00 3460: Electrical Operations & Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.50 3480: Air Quality & Special Projects 3470: Instrumentation Operations & Main! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.50 Total Operations & Maintenance Dept 337.00 334.00 335.00 331.00 340.00 258.00 3510: Technical Se<vices Administration 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 8.00 3520: Compliance 14.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 3530: Conse,vation.Recycie & Reuse 5.00 6.00 500 5.00 0.00 0.00 3540: Air Quality Management 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 3550: Environmental Compliance & Monijoring 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 19.00 3580: Environmental Science Laboratories 49,00 50.00 49.00 52.00 47.00 39.00 3590: Source Control 46.00 45.00 44.00 44.00 43.00 39.75 Total Technical Sarvlcea Department 128.00 127.00 125.00 128.00 121.00 103.75 3710: Engineering Administration 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 2.00 3720: Design Engineering 28.00 28.00 28.00 25.00 25.00 25.50 3730: Engineering Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 3790: Construction Management 41.00 41.00 41 .00 39.00 40.00 40.00 Total Engineering Department 79.00 79.00 79.00 74.00 n.oo 73.50 Total Actual Staffing -All Departments* ~ % Change From FY 1991·92 :ir. Chan,e From FY 199~97 % Shaded columns are full-time equiValents IFTEsl where prior yea~ represent number of staff positions. •contract employees and part-time inspecto~ Included. Note sum of Departments would reflect AUTHORIZED staffing levels and would total a higher number; ACTUAL staff, pre-1996, by division Is currently unavailable. STAFFH-1.XIS Proposed ~1 I ~, FTE97-N Proposed I Proposed Budget FTE99-00 FTE00--01 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 8.00 5.50 I 5.50 I 5.50 I 5.50 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 I 9.75 I 9.75 I 9.75 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.50 6.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 18.25 18.25 I 18.25 I 17.75 I 16.50 I 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 20.00 16.00 17.50 16.00 14.50 15.75 16.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 39.75 37.75 I 38.25 I 34.75 I 33.25 I 0.00 22.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 17.50 18.50 18.50 16.50 18.50 40.50 36.50 28.50 26.50 27.50 88.00 90.00 I 83.00 I 83.00 I 82.00 I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 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 79.00 77.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 12.25 11.25 10.25 9.25 9.25 54.50 50.50 47.50 46.50 44.50 58.50 58.50 57.50 56.50 56.50 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 227.25 220.25 I 208.25 I 205.25 I 203.25 I 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 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 20.25 21.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 35.50 31.00 30.00 30.00 29.00 38.50 38.00 37.00 37,00 35.00 99.25 96.00 I 90.00 I 90.00 I 87.00 I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 31 .00 31.00 31.00 31 .00 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 36.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 71.50 72.00 I 71.00 I 71.00 I 71.00 I 559.75 549.50 I 522.00 I 517.00 I 508.251 -9% ·10% -15% -16% -17% -9:ir. -11:ir. -rs:ir. -16:ir. -17% Page 1 IN.FOIR·.MATIONAL PRESE:NTATIOi'NS OMTS: PDC: FAHR: 5/14/97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: Dist. 1 & 11 AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: AGEN ~~\ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Originator) 2150, Judy Wilson, 2005 DMsion No., Name, and Extension Status Report on Proposed User Fee Increases in Districts 1 and 11. Recommended Action(s}: 1. No action. This report is for information only. CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Date Notice of Exemption Filed: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on _ and Notice of Determination filed on_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: NIA Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: N/A Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL ORIGINAL BID, PO, CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ Limited Term Revised 04/10/97 G:\NTGLOBAL\LENORA\FAHR9720. DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARD ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM: April 23, 1997 CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE NIA BUDGET CHANGE THISAIT AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES NO NOT APPLICABLE If YES, explain In ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Page 1 of 2 Originator Date CONCURRENCES: Date ~ 7 Ct7 Sig ature Date Department H ad (Or Designee) ~-u)~.... ~/,/91 --,L....,P,.::..=:..=:........:.....:....:..._-=-.;;. ________ _ Sig t re Date Assi ant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) ATTACHMENTS TO C'" 11TTEE AGENDA {List): 1. Attachment 1 -Ori!a cApril, 1997 Proposal 2. Attachment 2 -Revised Financing Option for Dists. 1 & 11 3. Attachment 3 -May 6, 1997 memo to David Ream 4. Attachment 4 -May 6, 1997 memo to Dist. 11 Directors ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA {List) 1. At the April 23 Board meeting, the individual Districts each approved a five year user fee schedule to meet the critical financial requirements for the Joint Works and their respective budgets (see Attachment 1 ). Subsequent to the April vote, staff became aware that the City of Santa Ana was seriously concerned by the proposed 20% and 30% annual increases in rates in District 1. The City of Santa Ana represents over 90% of the service area in District 1. After a telephone conversation between General Manager Donald F. McIntyre and City Manager of Santa Ana David Ream, it was agreed that a meeting would be held on May 5 at Santa Ana City Hall to discuss this issue. In attendance were David Ream, District 1 Chair Pat McGuigan, several members of City staff; and Judy Wilson, Gary Streed and Don McIntyre representing CSDOC. Mr. Ream noted that the "biggest increase was reserved for the poorest District" and although "the City wanted to be responsive and to be a positive player," he felt that the magnitude of the annual increases were simply too high. He asked the CSDOC staff if additional scenarios could be run which would further smooth out the curve and keep the increases to under 10%. Subsequently, Gary Streed ran a scenario which assumed a 100% borrowing rather than a 50% borrowing -50% pay-as-you-go program. It also recognized $245,000 in connection fee revenue from the new Federal Building and the deferral of a $7 million rehabilitation project to years '02-03 through years '05-06. This new financing option resulted in an annual increase of 9.75%. At a meeting on May 6 with City of Santa Ana, this was deemed to be an acceptable solution. District 1 Chair Pat McGuigan was requested to schedule a special meeting as soon as possible to consider the reading of an amended ordinance incorporating these changes. Because District 11 was also facing up to a 20% increase, the staff used the 100% borrowing methodology to see if this would give similar relief to District 11. Using this alternative financing option, it did lessen the steepness of the increases from a 17% high in '97-98 and gradually declining to 10%. (District 11 needs a higher increase the first year to make up for the 1992-93 property tax shift to the State, when it chose not to increase its rates at that time.) This information was shared with District 11 members on May 6. On May 7, District 11 Chair Shirley Dettloff called to request a special meeting of District 11 on May 12 to consider an amended ordinance. Staff will brief the FAHR Committee at the May 14 meeting on the outcomes of special meetings held by Districts 1 and 11. c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP.DTA\ADMIN\2150\WILSONJUWILSON\REPORTS\USERFEES.WPD Page 2 of 2 4/16/97 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Attachment 1 Original April, 1997 Proposal Raise Fees To Balance In Approx 5 Years, Borrow for 50% Capital lmpr, Funding Compliance In Approx 5 Yrs, OCR Phase I District 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 1 $83.24 $100.00 $130.00 $160.00 $190.00 $195.00 $200.00 $205.00 $210.00 $215.00 2 $71.52 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 3 $73.89 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $76.47 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 7 $50.09 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $97.00 $100.00 $103.00 11 $60.00 $70.00 $84.00 $100.00 $120.00 $135.00 $140.00 $145.00 $150.00 $155.00 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year: 1 0% 20% 30% 23% 19% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 7 0% 10% 9% 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 11 0% 17% 20% 19% 20% 13% 4% 4% 3% 3% 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% CF _CONS9.XLW 7:53AM Rates 5/7/97 Proposed Annual Sewer Service User Fees Single Family Residence Rate Attachment 2 Revised Financing Option For Districts 1 and 11 Borrow for 50% Capital lmpr(100% in Dist 1 & 11), Includes OCR Phase I, Current Accumulated Funds Policy District 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 $83.24 $91.36 $100.26 $110.04 $120.77 $132.54 $145.47 $159.65 $175.21 $192.30 I 2 $71.52 $73.00 $75.00 $77.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 3 $73.89 $75.00 $76.00 $77.00 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 5 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 $96.75 6 $76.47 $78.00 $80.00 $82.00 $84.00 $86.00 $88.00 $90.00 $92.00 $94.00 7 $50.09 $55.00 $60.00 $66.00 $73.00 $80.00 $88.00 $97.00 $100.00 $103.00 11 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.58 $165.261 13 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Percentage Change From Prior Year: 1 0% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 2 0% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 7 0% 10% 9% 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 11 0% 17% 14% 13% 13% 13% 10% 10% 10% 10%1 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Dollar Change From Prior Year $0 $8.12 $8.91 $9.78 $10.73 $11.77 $12.92 $14.18 $15.57 $17.08 I 2 $0 $1 .48 $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 3 $0 $1 .11 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 5 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 $0 $1.53 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 7 $0 $4.91 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $3.00 $3.00 11 $0 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.25 $12.66 $11 .11 $12.19 $13.38 $14.681 13 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CF _CONS9.XLW 4:08PM Rates May 6, 1997 VIA FAX TO: David Ream City Manager, Santa Ana ,.. MEMORANDUM FROM: ~~nf"' Chief Admifflstrative Officer SUBJECT: User Fees -District 1 Background Att::-.tlment 3 On May 5, CSDOC and City of Santa Ana staff met to discuss your concerns with the steepness of the rate increase in District 1. You noted that the City of Santa Ana represents over 90% of the service area served by District 1 and that it appeared that the "biggest increase was reserved for the poorest district." You agreed to provide us with information on average household income to document your point that District 1 's ability to pay should be considered in creating a viable fee schedule. You further noted that, in retrospect, it may have been wiser to continue with the annual stepped approach originally provided in the adopted 1989 Strategic Plan in order to avoid the steep increases District 1 is now facing; however, you said ''The City wants to be responsive and to be a positive player in some survivable approach." In our discussion, CSDOC staff noted that the following factors have contributed to District 1's financial condition: older infrastructure requiring significant rehabilitation, declining assessed valuation; and the presence of numerous governmental agencies. As the County seat, there is significant tax-exempt property in District 1. Our data shows that assessed valuation in District 1 is $10.2 billion and $2.1 billion (21%) is off the tax rolls. This represents a revenue loss to District 1 of approximately $500,000 in property tax revenue a year, or the equivalent of $7 on the user fee. Recommended Approach We were asked to review District 1 's revenue and expenses and determine if there was a viable approach to smooth out the steep increase and reduce the annual increase to less than 10%. Attached is a spread sheet showing a revised schedule labeled 100% COP Alternative which achieves your requested objective. The key assumptions which we have changed are as follows: Instead of 50% pay-as-you-go and 50% borrowing, we have presumed 100% borrowing; -The $245,000 connection fee for the Federal Building has been included in the '97-98 revenues. -The $7 million rehabilitation project for the Santa Ana Trunk Line has been deferred until years '02-03 and '05-06. CSDOC' • o Cl 81w P127 p i:~,,~tain V?l'ev CA 92728-8127 • 171d\ 962-2411 David Ream Page2 May 6, 1997 Using these assumptions, we can maintain an annual increase of 9.75%. Briefly, I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of this approach: -This approach would allow District 1 to go to the capital market to borrow for capital improvements required, including District 1 's share of OCR. Therefore, District 1 would not have to depend upon the cooperation, support, and loans from the other eight Districts. -The increases in user fees are limited to 9.75% per annum. Borrowing for 100% of District's costs is more expensive in the long run, i.e., $3.3 million in debt service vs. $1.8 million under the original proposal adopted at the April meeting. -Year '02-03 places District 1 in the negative column once again in terms of revenues meeting expenses with a ($1.9 million) balance. Recommendation We believe the 100% borrowing program is probably the most politically feasible and is the better option. We would recommend that District 1 adopt a 10-year fee schedule to give greater comfort to the investment community that the intended borrowing is backed by a longer-term commitment. This is important given the negative cash-flow in year '02-03. We look forward to discussing this revised alternative at today's 4:00 p.m. meeting. JAW:cmc H:\WP.DTA\ADMIN\2150\WILSONJ\JWILSON\CORRES\97\050697.M1 Attachment C: John Collins, Joint Chair Pat McGuigan, District 1 Chair George Brown, Chairman, FAHR James M. Ferryman, Director District 1 Mark A. Murphy, Director District 1 Thomas R. Saltarelli, Director District 1 Todd Spitzer, Director District 1 5/6/97 District No 1 Sewer Service User Fee Alternatives Single Famil~ Residence Rates Used As Exam~le Onl~ Approximately 72,500 Equivalent Dwelling Units in Service Area 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 COP Totals As Introduced $ 83.24 $ 100.00 $ 130.00 $ 160.00 $ 190.00 $ 195.00 $ 200.00 $ 205.00 $ 210.00 $ 215.00 Annual Change 20.13% 30.00% 23.08% 18.75% 2.63% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% 2.38% New COP Issues $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $ 6,500,000 $4,000,000 $ 24,000,000 ' I Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $1,877,000 Deferral Alternative $ 83.24 $ 95.00 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 $ 160.00 $ 170.00 $ 180.00 $ 190.00 $ 200.00 Annual Change 14.13% 15.79% 18.18% 15.38% 6.67% 6.25% 5.88% 5.56% 5.26% New COP Issues $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $3,300,000 $ 2,800,000 $2,000,000 $ 14,900,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $1,166,000 100% COP All $ 83.24 $ 91.36 $ 100.26 $ 110.04 $ 120.77 $ 132.54 $ 145.47 $ 159.65 $ 175.21 $ 192.30 Annual Change 9.75% 9.74% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.76% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% New COP Issues $6,300,000 $8,200,000 $9,000,000 $ 10,900,000 $7,900,000 $42,300,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% $3,309,000 MFR rates are 60% of SFR rate per unit, Non-residential rates are 71.5% of SFR rate per 1000 sq ft. Shaded area represents first reading amounts. County Sanitation District No 1 Summary Financial Information Adjust Fees Less Than 10%, Borrow for 100% Capital & OCR for 5 Years, Comply With Funds Policy W/in 10 Yrs Estimated Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary 10 Year B.ef Description JaS6-9Z iaaz-aa isaa-aa lSSS-QQ ZQQQ-Ql 0..1::.QZ ll2:0a 03:fM !M:Q-5 125:00 Tola.I Revenues: 1 General User Fees 6,027,000 6,619,000 7,274,000 8,000,000 8,804,000 9,695,000 10,714,000 11,838,000 13,080,0Q0 14,451,000 96,502,000 2 Property Taxes 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 20,000,000 3 Other Revenues 2,639,000 8,463,000 10,379,000 11,491,000 13,727,000 11,663,000 3,966,000 4,200,000 4,510,000 4,866,000 75,904,000 4 Revenues 10,666,000 17,082,000 19,653,000 21,491,000 24,531,000 23,358,000 16,680,000 18,038,000 19,590,000 21,317,000 192,4Q6,000 5 Requirements: 6 Oper & Mtce Exp 5,310,000 5,334,000 5,384,000 5,507,000 5,633,000 5,763,000 5,897,000 6,034,000 7,697,000 7,841,000 60,400,000 7 Capital Outlays 5,920,000 6,154,000 7,938,000 8,569,000 10,338,000 8,634,000 4,396,000 3,363,000 3,363,000 3,363,000 62,038,000 8 COP Service 4,400,000 4,791,000 5,470,000 6,253,000 7,165,000 7,979,000 8,348,000 8,381,000 8,414,000 8,813,000 70,014,000 9 Requirements 15,630,000 16,279,000 18,792,000 20,329,000 23,136,000 22,376,000 18,641,000 17,TTB,000 19,474,000 20,017,000 192,452,000 10 Revenues-Re~ulrements (4,964,000) 803,000 861,000 1,162,000 1,395,000 982,000 (1,961,000) 260,000 116,000 1,300,000 (46,000) , 11 Accumulated Funds: 12 Beginning of Year 21,944,000 16,980,000 17,783,000 18,644,000 19,806,000 21,201,000 22,183,000 20,222,000 20,482,000 20,598,000 21,944,000 13 End of Year 16,980,000 17,783,000 18,644,000 19,806,000 21,201,000 22,183,000 20,222,000 20,482,000 20,598,000 21,898,000 21,898,000 14 ' New Borrowing 6,300,000 8,200,000 9,000,000 10,900,000 7,900,000 42,300,000 15 Sewer Service User Fees: Average Eea 16 SFR Annual User Fee $83.24 $91.36 $100.26 $110.04 $120.77 $132.54 $145.47 $159.65 $175.21 $192.30 $131.08 17 Percentage Change 0.00% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 131 .0% 18 $1 SFR Fee Raises $72,400 $72,450 $72,550 $72,700 $72,900 $73,150 $73,650 $74,150 $74,650 $75,150 19 COP Coverage Ratios 20 Senior Lien, Min 1.25 1.76 1.69 1.76 1.79 1.83 2.06 2.11 2.36 2.30 2.43 21 Junior Lien, Min 1.00 1.12 1.07 1.16 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.16 1.30 1.27 1.39 SWAN2E.XLS Dist 1 Base c:197_budg .. .· May 6, 1997 VIA FAX TO: Shirley Dettloff Dave Sullivan Todd Spitzer FROM: Judy Wilson MEMORANDUM Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Revised User Fees -Alternative Approach Att~hment4 i Both District 1 and District 11 have significantly higher proposed increases in user fees than the rest of the Districts. As noted earlier, in District 11 's case, this can be attributed to the fact that District 11 has not raised its fees since 1989 despite a shift in property taxes to the State in 1991-92. Further, District 11 is facing approximately $6. 7 million in capital needs in the next five years. Yesterday we met with David Ream, City Manager of Santa Ana, whose city represents over 90% of District 1 's service area. He was distressed over the size of the annual increases in terms of annual percentage and asked if we could devise any further strategies to reduce the steep incline. We ran an additional scenario which assumed borrowing for 100% of the program rather than doing 50% pay-as-you-go. This had the effect of reducing the annual increase significantly, although the 100% borrowing program does increase the cost of debt service. Since we did this calculation for District 1, we have also done it for District 11. Attached you will find a revised fee schedule contrasting user fees for District 11 as introduced at the April meeting and user fees under a 100% borrowing program. Although your debt service cost increases from $1.1 million to $2.5 million over 25 years, it does have the important benefit of reducing the annual increments. This information is provided for your consideration. You may wish to have a meeting to consider this option prior to the May Board meeting. If so, we would need to notice this meeting pursuant to the Brown Act. The staff will be happy to meet with you as a group or individually to discuss this option. JAW:cmc H:\WP.DTA\ADMIN\2150\WILSONJ\JWILSON\CORRES\97\050697.M2 Attachment C: John Collins, Joint Chair George Brown, Chairman, FAHR CSOOC • P.O. Box 8127 • Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 • (714) 962-2411 :..Jll.>l'dl District No 11 Sewer Service User Fee Alternatives Single Family Residence Rates Used As Example Only Approximately 51,500 Equivalent Dwelling Units in Service Area As Introduced Annual Change New COP Issues $ 60.00 $_ 70.00 $ 84.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 135.00 $ 140.00 $ 145.00 $ 150.00 $ 155.00 16.67% 20.00% 19.05% 20.00% 12.50% 3.70% 3.57% 3.45% 3.33% $2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,500,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% 100% COP Alt Annual Change New COP Issues $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 80.00 $ 90.00 $ 101.25 $ 113.91 $ 125.02 $ 137.21 $ 150.58 $ 165.26 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.74% 9.75% $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $ 7,500,000 $7,500,000 Estd Ave Annual Cost of COP Service Over 25 Years at 6% 1, MFR rates are 60% of SFR rate per unit, Non-residential rates are 71.5% of SFR rate per 1000 sq ft. Shaded area represents first reading amounts. DIST1 FEE.XLS COP Totals $14,500,000 $1,134,000 $ 33,000,000 $2,581,000 8:54AM County Sanitation District No 11 . • Summary Financial Information Adjust Fees to Balance IF Accum Funds Low, Borrow for 50% Capital & OCR if needed, Comply With Funds Policy W/in 5 Yrs Estimated Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary . Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary 10 Year Rm Description :IS96:9Z l99Z-9B :1996-99 :1999::0Q 2QQQ-Q:I Q1:02. 02:03 03:tM !M:0.5 ~ Iota.I Revenues: 1 .General Usei-Fees 3,042,000 3.556,000 4,076,000 4,604,000 5,204,000 5,889,000 6,507,000 7,196,000 7,966,000 8,825,000 56,865,000 2 Property Taxes 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 20,390,000 3 Other Revenues 1,858,000 5,794,000 7,949,000 10,126,000 9,835,000 10,067,000 2,759,000 2,980,000 3,246,000 3,565,000 58,179,000 4 Revenues 6,939,000 11,389,000 14,064,000 16,769,000 17,078,000 17,995,000 11,305,000 12,215,000 13,251,000 14,429,000 135,434,000 5 Requirements: 6 Oper & Mtce Exp 4,411,000 4,450,000 4,509,000 4,624,000 4,743,000 4,867,000 4,993,000 5,125,000 6,404,000 6,544,000 50,670,000 7 Capital Outlays 4,754,000 4,585,000 6,361,000 8,117,000 7,466,000 7,774,000 2,780,000 2,099,000 2,099,000 2,099,000 48,134,000 a COP Service 2,198,000 2,307,000 2,768,000 3,395,000 4,107,000 4,766,000 5,082,000 5,094,000 5,104,000 4,969,000 39,790,000 9 Requirements 11,363,000 11,342,000 13,638,000 16,136,000 16,316,000 17,407,000 12,855,000 12,318,000 13,607,000 13,612,000 138,594,000 10 Revenues-Requireme (4,424,000) 47,000 426,000 633,000 762,000 588,000 (1,550,000) (103,000) (356,000) 817,000 (3,160,000) 11 Accumulated Funds: 12 Beginning of Yea 25,436,000 21,012,000 21,059,000 21,485,000 22,118,000 22,880,000 23,468,000 21,918,000 21,815,000 21,459,000 25,436,000 13 End of Year 21 ,012,000 21 ,059,000 21 ,485,000 22,118,000 22,880,000 23,468,000 21,918,000 21,815,000 21,459,000 22,276,000 22,276,000 14 New Borrowing 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 33,000,000 ''' 15 Sewer Service User Fees: Av!;lrage Fee 16 SFR Annual User Fee $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $101.25 $113.91 $125.02 $137.21 $150.58 $165.26 $109.32 ) 17 Percentage Change 0.00% 16.67% 14.29% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 9.75% 18 $1 SFR Fee Raises $50,700 $50,800 $50,950 $51,150 $51,400 $51,700 $52,050 $52,450 $52,900 $53,400 19 COP Coverage Ratios 20 Senior Lien, Min 1.25 5.94 6.95 5.56 4.26 3.40 3.05 2.75 3.05 2.79 3.48 21 Junior Lien, Min 1.00 0.97 1.13 1.16 1.10 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.15 1.05 1.25 SWAN2E.XLS Dist 11 Base c:197_budg D ·C0MM. INF.0. ITEM D C0MM, Ae]'IQN f"FEM GI JT; BOS. G0NSENiT t1 ke0s ois1::uss1ON (N0N::C0NSENT) 0 PUBLIC HEAF,\!NG For Bd Seo... t ,.. . Jr: BOS. MEETING 0A'TE !( __ .; __ fl-BOS. A~f§:NDA ITEM N0. MEETING DATE C0 MM. ID. NO. OMTS: OMTS PDC: PDC FAHR: 5/14/97 FAHR EXEC: EXEC STEER: STEER JT. BOS: . DISTRICT NO. - ALL AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: --AGENL ~ ITEM TRANSMITTAL CONTACT FOR INFORMATION (Originator) 3440, Doug Cook, Ext. 6000 Division No., Name, and Extension An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) reinvention pilot project team called the Districts Assessment and Reinvention Team (DART) has been formed for the purpose of improving O&M productivity. A discussion of the DART formation and progress will be presented. Recommended Action(s): 1. None. For Information Only CEQA REVIEW: Project is Exempt: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE DATE OF MOST RECENT BOARQ ACTION ON THIS SPECIFIC Date Notice of Exemption Filed: ITEM: Negative Declaration Approved on Final EIR Approved on_ and Notice of Determination filed on_ CURRENT BUDGET/COST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $ SOURCE: CORF JO DISTRICTS Schedule/Line Items: AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT N/A ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL $0.00 ORIGINAL BID, PO,CONTRACT AMOUNT $0.00 CURRENT YEAR- TO-DATE EXPENDITURES N/A PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED $0.00 YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE N/A BUDGET CHANGE THIS AIT $0.00 AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT $0.00 REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? YES REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) N/A REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 WILL PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? NO If YES, state number: _ Permanent _ limited Term If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Revised 04110197 Page 1 of 4 H:\WP.DTA \OM\341 0IOOTEN\AIT\FAHRDART.597 CSDOC e P 0 . Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411 ATTACHMENTS TO 1MITTEE AGENDA (List): 1. Five Phases of tt. . RT Project Orig;nato~ 2. League of Cities Article, "Reinventing Business Practices: CONCURRENCES: Date _...£..:.~~¥11-~~~~:::::::===:::::...:-1~2--., /1 r Signature Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) The Rewards Outweigh the Risks" ATTACHMENTS TO JOINT BOARDS AGENDA (List) 1. The reinvention effort in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) began with the Competitiveness Assessment Report completed in the Spring of 1996 by EMA that identified six business practice changes that could effect a 16% decrease in the O&M costs budget. The six business practice changes are: 1. From Operations and Maintenance to Total Productive Maintenance 2. From reactive to planned maintenance. 3. From attended to unattended operation (Automation) 4. From work separated by skill and craft to workforce flexibility 5. Use technology as a strategy 6. Eliminate bureaucracy and empower staff. In addition, EMA recommended the combining of O&M , which occurred in May, 1996. A 16% decrease in O&M cost for a $30 million dollar budget equals $4.8 million dollars. EMA projected the cost savings could be achieved in a five year period. The Competitiveness Assessment report recommended the formation of a team of O&M staff to develop a Competitiveness Action Plan over five years to implement the strategies listed above. The Competitiveness Assessment Plan became Phase I of the O&M Department's reinvention effort. In June, eight Districts staff members (consisting of supervisors, union-represented employees, and training staff) visited the wastewater systems at Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The group came back very enthused about the potential to reinvent the O&M Department. Assisted by EMA, staff assessed the department and developed an initial scope and schedule of the work ahead to change the department during Phase I. Phase 11 of the effort started in September 1996 with the formation of a sixteen-member O&M Districts Assessmen and Reinvention Team (DART). The team is predominately rank and file staff representing a cross-section of all trades and skill levels. EMA was hired to facilitate team formation, train members to work as a team, and help write the Change Management Plan. DART members met with the consultant weekly and developed the Plan in three months. The focus of Phase 11 wan an examination of various work practice techniques used by the O&M staff and potential options for changing the work practices to derive greater efficiencies. Out of these work practice change sessions came the recommendation to establish a specialized task team to define the final specific elements to include in workforce change and how to properly implement the change itself. Revised 04/10/97 Page 2 of4 H:\WP .DTA\OM\341 0\OOTEN\AIT\FAHRDART.597 This total package of changes will be called an "Adaptive Workforce" and will include the following in-depth, focused team study business practices: • Cross-functional Work Teams • Process Optimization Teams • Incentive Package • Cross-training Program • Broad banding • Modified Workforce Flexibility In Phase Ill, DART's main focus will be a detailed plan of the efficiencies available from the Adaptive workforce concepts. Other specialized teams will be formed to study productivity opportunities in the areas of Training, Communications, the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), Purchasing, Warehousing, Automation and Information Technology. These teams will work with and in support of other Divisions and Departments. Each defined Phase Ill team will have established goals, a scope of work, a schedule, and will report to the DART team for review and direction. Phase Ill is scheduled to conclude the detailed plan developments in July 1997. Phase Ill will be completed and Phase IV will begin at different times over the next year. The time when Phase Ill ends for a specific plan element and the time when the element is implemented under Phase IV is highly dependent upon the nature of the element and eases of implementation into the daily activities of the Plants and the Workforce. Phase IV will consist of the implementation of the Focused Teams Plan. Phase IV will begin in July, 1997. Depending on the scope, each team's implementation products will become available over the next one to three years. The estimated O&M reinvention costs are summarized below: * Estimated Phase I Phase II Phase Ill Phase IV Total: Consultant $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $125,000 $207,500 Direct Districts' Staff Labor $ 6,000 * $ 50,000 $ 50,000 * $100,000 * $206,000 Phase IV consulting help will be in the areas of team training, Adaptive Workforce concepts, skill-based pay development, computerized maintenance management, cross-training procedural development, and other focus team business practice studies. The Phase IV costs are being estimated for the 1997 /98 Budget. Phase V is envisioned to be the outside review of the performance of the reinvention effort. In summary, Phase I, the EMA Competitiveness Assessment Report, was completed in the Spring of 1996. Phase 11, the formation of DART and development of the Change Management Plan, began in September of 1996 and was completed in December of 1996. Phase 111, which will focus on the Adaptive Workforce concept and formation of specialized teams, will work toward a goal to develop an Implementation Plan by July, 1997. O&M staff members are enthusiastic about this effort and are dedicated to the pursuit of the development of more efficient and cost-effective operations and maintenance work practices. Revised 04/10197 Page 3 of4 H:\WP .DTA\OM\341 0\OOTEN\AIT\FAHRDART.597 If any member of the Committee is interested in additional details regarding DART or would like a copy of the Phase II reports, please contact Bob Ooten at (714) 962-2411 Ext. 3004 or Doug Cook at Ext. 6000. DC:pjm c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 04/10/97 H:\WP .DTA\OM\341 0\OOTEN\AIT\FAHRDART.597 Page 4 of 4 •I .:. 1 DART -Phase I Assessment Summary In addition to increasing fiscal and regulatory pressures, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), as well as other publicly operated utilities in the United States. has a new challenge to meet- competition from ·private sector. contraet operations companies. This challenge is like no other and may radically change the face of the U.S. wastewater and water utility industry. The collection and treatment of wastewater are core services provided by CSDOC to its customers. These customers have come to expect the high reliability and low cost of service provided them by the District over the last decade. The District Has An Excellent Track Record The District has a strong tradition of regulatory compliance. District staff effectively anticipate new regulatory actions and. when rules are changed. quickly execute well-prepared action plans. Toe District is meeting the new challenge of competition in several ways. including commissioning this competitiveness assessment study summarized by this report, developing perfonnance measures, benchmarking analyzing historical data including costs, changing -operator work schedules, conserving energy, eliminating chlorine from the plant site. automating the plant, providing effective source control, and doing equipment and unit process research. This assessment study was conducted from the perspective of a private sector utility operator to determine where and to what extent competitive gaps exist. Toe swdy addresses the operations and maintenance · departments in panicular, and the rest of the agency in general, including Technical Services, Engineering, Administrative Services, Human Services, Finance and Information Technology. Assessment Results Show That Opportunities To Improve Productivity Do Exist Toe findings of this study show that opponunities do exist to improve productivity at CSDOC. The swdy methodology was to view the District organization ··through the lens" of a privatizer. A privatizer would use less -510805<MSSESS~ECl\051496 1 . 1 .:. S. From Technology As Risky To Technology As Strategy CSDOC has utilized technology primarily to centralize process monitoring at both plants. Many process operations are done primarily manually, with minimal , or islands, of automation. Toe District is installing a partial automation plan designed to provide a backbone information highway. monitoring and remote control of all existing PLCs centrally at the Control Center and the Operations Center. A privatizer would completely automate both plants to reduce staffing and to minimize chemical. energy. and other costs. 6. From Organization As Structure To Organization As Strategy A privatizer would eliminate beauracracy and hierarchy and utilize a team approach, empowering employees and maximizing productivity. Suppon organizations. such as Technical Services. Administrative Services. Engineering, ·Human Resources, Finance and Information Technology would be streamlined. A privatizer' s goal is to uust staff to do their jobs and provide the tools they need to maximize productivity. EMA• s high level assessment of CSDOC was based on two days of interviews, plus review of relevant documentation supplied by the District. Toe resulting calculations of potential savings contained in this repon certainly should be refined with further analysis. however, it is clear that significant improvements are possible. Toe results of this Assessment show that a privatizer could operate the entire CSDOC 23% more efficiently. therefore, potentially saving approximately $12.6 million annually, by applying the six strategies described above. Toe results show that a contract operator would operate · and maintain the plant 16% more efficiently. It should be noted that almost every large wastewater and water system is embarking on reengineering to increase productivity. -510805CMSSESS'5ECl\051496 1 -3 1 DART -Phase II Executive Summary Introduction Water and wastewater utilities are facing rapidly increasing fiscal pressures driven by aging infrastructure, increased regulatory constraints, and consumer demands. To respond to these driving forces, proactive utilities and agencies are adopting revised management philosophies and practices to improve productivity, hold the line on controllable costs, and respond to competitive forces and opponunities. On February 27-29, 1996, EMA Services, Inc., conducted an assessment of the County Sanitatjon Districts of Orange County (CSDOC). The purposes of the assessment were to 1) assess the efficiency of the Districts' current operations as compared to how a privatizer might operate the Districts, and 2) to present and discuss the assessment with District staff and identify areas where operational efficiencies could be obtained. The assessment methodology included: • Interviews with CSDOC staff to determine current work practices and to quantify costs associated with those practices. • Independent analysis and comparison of the Districts' current situation with the approach used by U.S. privatizers, as well as by private European utilities. • Presentation to District staff of the six most significant paradigms governing private and European wastewater utility operations and maintenance. • Presentation to and discussion with District staff regarding application of the six paradigms specifically to CSDOC, including quantified results. • Preparation of a summary repon outlining the results of the assessment, including implementation recommendations. The assessment addressed the following areas: • Staffing • Operations. • Maintenance . • Technical services. • Engineering. •-' 110CSD-SC11010697\PLN 1 • 1 l I ] I I I I 0 I I 0 I I • Information Technology. • Finance. • Human Resources. • Administrative Services. Assessment Summary In addition to increasing fiscal and regulatory pressures, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), as well as other publicly operated utilities in the United States, has a new challenge to meet - competition from private sector, contract operations companies. This challenge is like no other and may radically change the face of the U.S. wastewater and water utility industry. The collection and treatment of wastewater are core services provided by CSDOC to its customers. These customers have come to expect the high reliability and low cost of service provided them by the Districts over the last decade. The Districts Have An Excellent Track Record The Districts have a strong tradition of regulatory compliance. Di.strict staff effectively anticipate new regulatory actions and, when rules are changed, quickly execute well-prepared action plans. The Districts are meeting the new challenge of competition in several ways, including commissioning a competitiveness assessment study, developing performance measures, benchmarking, analyzing historical data including costs, changing operator work schedules, conserving energy, eliminating chlorine from the plant site, automating the plant, providing effective source control, and doing equipment and unit process research. The competitive assessment study completed in Phase One was conducted from the perspective of a private sector utility operator to determine where and to what extent competitive gaps exist. The study addresses the operations and maintenance departments in particular, and the rest of the agency in general, including Technical Services, Engineering, Administrative Services, Human Services, Finance and Information Technology. •A:\IOC~SCl'DID611\PLN 1 • 2 I I I l I 9 I I I) • • IITJ Assessment Results Show That Opportunities To Improve Productivity Do Exist The findings of this study show that opponunities do exist to improve productivity at CSDOC. The study methodology was to view the District organization .. through the lens" of a privatizer. A privatizer would use less staff than at present, primarily by applying strategies that are different than those used today by the Districts. These new strategies are the following: 1. From Operations and Maintenance to Total Productive Maintenance (TPO) A privatizer would eliminat~ the separation between operations and maintenance. Everyone would be working on preventive maintenance tasks and the plants would be automated to minimize •·operating" requirements. No one would be ''waiting and watching" for things to happen. As a result, productivity would increase. One utility defined Total Productive Operations as: "Optimize the potential of a unified worl..force to reliclbly meet the demands for a high quality effluent, milizing best business practices. " Total Productive Operations is using the totality of resources available to become more productive in the operation of the wastewater treatment plant and supponing depanments. 2. From Reactive to Planned Maintenance Planning maintenance in advance of equipment failure is problem prevention. Reactive maintenance c•wait till it breaks") is expensive. Planning ensures that the right tools, the right skills, and the right parts are in hand prior to maintenance work being accomplished. A pri vatizer would ensure that at least 75% of maintenance work was planned, which is the level the Districts are presently operating. In other words, the Districts are already employing this .. new strategf' in a very commendable fashion. 3. From Attended to Unattended Operation A privatizer would fully utilize automation to reduce staffing at both plants during swing and graveyard shifts. Off-shift staff would be busy •A:\\OCSO-SCl\010117\PUI 1 • 3 1 l l l I I I I I I with preventive maintenance tasks and would only "operate" if the automation system fails. 4. From Work Separated By Skill and Craft To Work Force Flexibility (WFF) Work force flexibility means cross-training of existing staff. A privatizer would cross-train operators, mechanics, electricians, control system technicians, and other staff. Cross-training significantly reduces time spent waiting for specific skills ·and trades and allows staff to work as teams. As a result, productivity gains of 20% or more are possible, again resulting in a need for fewer staff. In return for achievement of specific skills, licenses, etc., a privatizer rewards employees through a skill-based compensation program. The more skills an employee attains, the more pay and/or bonuses he or she receives. As a result. everyone wins -productivity increases and employees benefit financially. 5. From Technology As Risky To Technology As Strategy CSDOC has utilized technology primarily to centralize process monitoring at both plants. Many process operations are done manually, with minimal technology, creating islands of automation. The Districts are installing a partial automation plan designed to provide a backbone information highway, monitoring and remote control of all existing PLC's centrally at the Control Center and the Operations Center. A privatizer would completely automate both plants to reduce staffing and to minimize chemical, energy. and other costs. 6. From Organization As Structure To Organization As Strategy A privatizer would eliminate bureaucracy and hierarchy and utilize a team approach, empowering employees and maximizing productivity. Suppon organizations, such as Technical Services, Administrative Services, Engineering, Human Resources, Finance and Information Technology would be streamlined. A privatizer' s goal is to trust staff to do their jobs and provide the tools they need to maximize productivity. •A:\IOCSO-SC110U)ff7\PLN 1-4 EMA' s high level assessment of CS DOC was based on two days of interviews, plus review of relevant documentation supplied by the Districts. It is clear that significan! improvements are possible. The results of this Assessment show that a privatizer could operate the entire CSDOC 23% more efficiently, therefore, potentially saving approximately $12.6 million annually, by applying the six strategies described above. The results show that a contract operator would operate and maintain the plant 16% more efficiently. It should be noted that almost every large wastewater and water system is embarking on reengineering to increase productivity. High Leverage Recommendations Start With A Competitiveness Plan of Action The following high-leverage actions are recommended to allow the Districts to be competitive with the private sector. I. Develop a Competitiveness Plan of Action for a five year program to become as efficient as a privatizer by applying the new paradigms. TPO and WFF for operations and maintenance, in panicular, will be the cornerstones of the plan. Employees, management, and the unions must be actively involved to develop a successful program. The plan should include: • A clear definition of the Districts' business mission and vision. • A structure based on the Districts' core competencies. • Definition of performance metrics for all work groups. • Clear statements regarding strategies and tactics to reach specific performance goals. 2. Reengineer operations and maintenance around TPO and reorganize to eliminate the separateness between O&M. 3. Develop an automation plan, including a new operations philosophy for the plants and collection system. 4. Reengineer all suppon groups around the Districts' core mission and simplify the existing management hierarchy. Examine the cost/benefit of each ongoing and future project and relate the projects to the core mission. oA:\\OCSl>SCt'IOIOIIN'UI 1-5 I t I 5. Develop a computer system integration plan based on user requirements and the Districts' core mission and a reengineered O&M staff. 6. Make field trips to private utility operations such as Oklahoma City and Indianapolis, and to public utilities, such as Denver Metro, who are applying the new paradigms. Phase Two Continues CSDOC's Move Toward A Competitive Stance As a result of the recommendations from the Competitive Assessment, Phase One, completed in February of 1996, EMA was asked to provi.de services during Phase Two to prepare the Districts for reengineering and moving toward closing the competitive gap. The following five tasks were included as part of the Phase Two scope of work: 1. Review the Plant Automation Task Force Repon Dated June 3, 1996. 2. Review the Skill-based Pay Proposal Dated August 7, 1996. 3. Form Core Team and Appropriate Sub-teams. 4. Develop a Framework for Work Force Flexibility Program. 5. Assist Sanitation Districts Staff in Preparation for Phase Three Staging. A Districts Assessment and Reinvention Team, DART, was formed to include representation from the major areas impacted by reinvention of operations and maintenance {O&M). EMA facilitated several work sessions that were designed to solicit CSDOC staff input and ownership. In addition, EMA Services, Inc., was contracted to provide review and comment on Tasks 1 and 2 without collaboration from DART. Much has been accomplished during the four months of Phase Two. DART has worked well together and is showing great leadership in planning the optimization of the O&M depanment. The goal in this three- phase optimization and reinvention process is to ensure the work and motivation of the first two phases are not lost. It is critical to move directly into Phase Three as soon in 1997 as possible. -A:\\QCSO,SCl\1110111\PLN 1-6 Phase Two Yields Additional Knowledge About CSDOC And Provides Structure For Educating O&M Staff Two key benefits were derived from the Phase Two project. First, both DART and EMA learned more about the needs of CSDOC. Through the employee involvement process additional views of the organization were contributed. The majority of the District staff are capable and professional. They are the experts and have much to contribute to the reengineering and optimization process of Phase Three. Research indicates that employees are more likely to accept change if they have had an opportunity to be involved in the reinvention process. In addition, the latest research from the FAST organization indicates that one of the top reasons for failure of reengineering projects has been using an inside facilitator to drive the change. Utility staff have a limited exposure -to outside best practices and have long-term "baggage" or biases that impact the success of the project. The methodology used throughout Phase Two is sound and will form the framework for Phase Three. The CSDOC staff participates by offering their expertise to the design of the new reengineered processes and EMA provides broad utility experience and objective facilitation skills. During Phase Two this was accomplished by EMA presenting a 0 strawperson" or .draft of models that have been successfully used within other utilities and DART then reviews and modifies the "strawperson" to meet specific· District circumstances and needs. Second, Phase Two gave the utility staff an opportunity to become more educated regarding the utility industry and the most competitive practices implemented by other public utilities. This education process included trips to Colorado Springs and Denver, as well as informational presentations by EMA. Conclusion Phases One and Two have provided the urgency and motivation for change. Competition is real, therefore, public utilities will need to learn how to become more productive and competitive in order to keep their jobs. In Teaching the Elephant to Dance, author James Belasco says that urgency is necessary to begin the change process. A 23% gap and potential savings of 12.6 million dollars throughout CSDOC is the urgency. •A.-\10CSO-SC110101111PLN 1•7 .,. Employee involvement has created the motivation to change. It will be absolutely essential that this momentum be continued with a timely roll- out into Phase Three . ..t..-\10CSD-SC1'010ll1\PUI 1-8 .,.. . ·~. ) The Five Phases of the Districts Assessment and Reinvention Team Project Phase 1: Competitive Assessment 12,000 A. Compare work practices, staffing levels, and overall cost to contract O&M and privatizer treatment plant operations model B. Communicate results of assessment to all levels of the organization C. Prepare to develop a plan of action to reduce competitive gap Phase 2: Vision, Goals and Project Plan 40, 000 A. Fonn O&M Districts Assessment and Reinvention Team B. Perform team training and orientation C. Create vision, goals, strategies d. Develop initial reinvention opportunities Phase 3: Document and Innovate Processes 20 to 30K A. Establish full time reinvention coordinator b. Form process improvement task teams c. Document existing process: "As ls" process state, organizational assessment, IT assessment, current metrics d. External benchmarks and best practices e. Validate the opportunities established in Phase 2 f. Innovate processes: target process, target organization, target IT environment, and target metrics g. Develop an integrated implementation strategy and approach: processes design, organizational design, and IT design Phase 4: Transform the Organization 100 to 200K A. Transform operations B. Transform organization C. Evaluate transformation Phase 5: Monitor Transformed Processes 12,000 A. Perform continual improvement B. Monitor need for change C. Transfer learning i• r--==;;:;:======--------=;:=,;:;;:,:::;-::==,----, ---- • COMM. INFO. ITEM • COMM. ACTION ITEM • JT. BOS. CONSENT • JT. BOS. DISCUSSION (NON-CONSENl) • PUBLIC HEARING ____ JT. BDS. MEETING DAlE ____ JT. BDS. AGENDA ITEM NO. AGEN'=-'~ ITEM TRANSMITTAL 1 MEETING DATE OMTS: COMM. ID. NO. DISTRICT NO. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION PDC: FAHR: 5/14/97 EXEC: STEER: JT.BDS: 0M'tS. _____ , PDC ____ _ FAHR...._ ___ _ All EXEC-____ _ STEER. ____ _ AGENDA WORDING AND RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Agenda Wording: Integrated Emergency Response Plan Status Report. Recommended Action(s): 2530, Daniel Tunnicliff, 2143 Division No., Name, and Extension Receive and file this information-only IERP 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_ CURRENTBUDGETICOST INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGETED AMT.: $312,232 SOURCE: JO Schedule/Line Items: 2530 AMOUNT OF TRANSFER: Schedule/Line Item: TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION First Year in Budget: 1995-96 Master Plan Estimate: Year of First Costs: 1996 THIS AITNENDOR/PROJECT COST INFORMATION CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AMOUNT $187,232 ORIGINAL BUDGET TOTAL $312,232.00 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 $187,230 PREVIOUS BUDGET CHANGES $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS, FUNDS PREV. APPROVED YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET BALANCE $2 BUDGET CHANGE THISAIT $0.00 AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS AIT REQUIRES BOARD POLICY ACTION? NO REVISED BUDGET TOTAL (Total Budget plus Transfers) $0 REVISED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $0.00 AMENDED PROJECT AMOUNT $0.00 If YES, explain in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section Revised 01 /14197 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2530\TUNNICLI\ER\IERP\FAHRSTAT.WPD Page 1 of 3 3-13-47 Date Signature Department Head (Or Designee) Signature Date Assistant General Manager (Or Designee) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Background and/or Summary) BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS TO A~ENDA (List) To Committee: ToJt. Bds.: 1. On October 25, 1995, the Districts awarded a Professional Services contract to develop an Integrated Emergency Response Plan (IERP) to Communications Performance Group, Inc. for a total amount not to exceed $312,232 over the 1995-96 (Phase 1) and 1996-97 (Phase 2) Fiscal Years (OMTS95-43). The Safety and Emergency Response Division has oversight and project management responsibilities for the IERP and the Districts' Emergency Response Program. A cross-department IERP Review Team was formed to facilitate the gathering of information and to provide input to and review of the various documents developed for this project. The IERP will ensure that the Districts: • Provides personnel with the procedures to safely respond to an emergency, thereby protecting life, environment, and property • Meets regulatory requirements The IERP will ensure that the Districts have a unified, integrated approach to emergency preparedness and response and will enable the Districts to be eligible for state reimbursement of response-related personnel costs during a major emergency. STATUS The IERP was completed on December 31, 1996 and was distributed to Department Directors, Division Managers., and the IERP Review Team on February 21, 1997. The IERP consists of two volumes. Volume I, Emergency Preparedness contains plans for preparing for an emergency, for example, the Media Plan and Finance Plan. Volume II, Emergency Plans and Procedures, contains plans and procedures for specific types of emergencies such as earthquakes, floods, and hazardous materials releases. Several products were developed that were not in the original scope of work without an increase in the total cost of the project. For example: • A Hazardous Materials Chemical Inventory database was developed by Communications Performance Group, Inc.. This database allows for the tracking of the amount and location of hazardous materials at the Districts. • The /ERP Pocket Guide was developed to inform all employees of the contents of the IERP and explain their responsibilities in the event of an emergency. Revised 01 /14197 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2530\TUNNICLI\ER\IERP\FAHRSTAT.WPD Page 2 of 3 • Emergency procedures for Electrical Outages have been developed . r'\ .~ i ) Recommendations Report A recommendations report was competed by CPG on January 31, 1997. The report contains recommendations to support the Districts' IERP, including specific training, equipment and supplies, establishment of facilities, and the development of specific policies and procedures. The Safety and Emergency Response Division will be including many of the recommendations into the 1997-98 Fiscal Year budget. Ongoing Activities Training As of 03/13/97, all employees have gone through the IERP Overview course which provides a background of the IERP, discusses the emergency recognition procedure, and provides an awareness of hazardous materials. The Incident Command System Introduction course began in March and the training should be complete by early April. The course is designed to familiarize the Districts' IERP personnel with their roles in the Districts' Incident Command System and satisfy the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Field Orientation and Basic performance objectives. The next course to support the IERP, Incident Command System Emergency Management, is currently under development and will begin in May. The course will satisfy SEMS Field Intermediate and Advanced performance objectives. Exercises The Districts have been conducting table top exercises which are classroom responses to specific emergency scenarios. Functional exercises which are specific activations of components of the IERP are in the planning phase. Ultimately, the Districts will participate in full-scale exercises with the local emergency response agencies such as the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Fountain Valley Fire Department. DET:dt c: Department Head AGM-Administration AGM-Operations General Manager Revised 01/14197 H:\WP.DTA\HR\2530\TUNNICLI\ER\IERP\FAHRSTAT.WPD Page 3 of 3 FAHR CALEN-DAR May 14, 1997 Consideration of Report on Integrated Emergency Response Plan )~ii------------------------------------• )jj:H Consideration of Results of Broadbanding Study Information i? Consideration of General Liability Insurance Renewal Action t~:i · . . , Consideration of Property Insurance Renewal Action ,l t ------------------------------------• ,101 Consideration of FY 1997-98 Individual District Budgets Action Consideration of 1997-98 Joint Works Operating and Capital Budgets Action l'.11 Consideration of Implementation of Risk Management Task Force Information Consideration of Land Lease at Plant 2 Information _;it---------------------------------+------11 I(' •• , !: Consideration of Delegation of Authority Policy Changes Action -.~ Consideration of Funding Options for Santa Ana River Interceptor Relocation Action H:\WP.DTA\FIN\2210\CRANE\FPC.MTG\FAHR.97\MAY\CALS.97 CS DOC e P.O. Box 8127 e Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 e (714) 962-2411