Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-10-13FILED IN THE OFFICE Or THE SECRETARY ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Corrected OCT 2 7 1999 MINUTES OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETLN.G -- Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, October 13, 1999, 5 p.m. f,b_ A meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on October 13, 1999 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: FAHR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Thomas Saltarelli, Chair Mark Leyes, Vice Chair Shawn Boyd John M. Gullixson Shirley McCracken Peer Swan, Board Vice Chair John J. Collins, Past Board Chair Directors Absent: Jan Debay, Board Chair Mark A Murphy (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Woodruff, General Counsel Don Hughes Toby Weissert Dan Cassidy Gerald Nichols John Newham Dave Briney STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Robert Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Mike White, Controller Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Lisa Tomko, Human Resources Manager Dawn McKinley, Sr. Human Resources Analyst Greg Mathews, Assistant to General Manager Marc Dubois, Purchasing Manager Laurie Bluestein, Communications Action Team Penny Kyle, Committee Secretary Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 2 October 13, 1999 (4) -RECEIVE, FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1999 Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting, as drafted. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair had no report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager was not present. (7) REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Blake Anderson updated the members on the actions taken by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on the Biosolids Ordinance. The Supervisors voted 5-0 to proceed with the biosolids ordinance, which bans Class B biosolids in three years on agricultural land in the unincorporated portions of Kern County imposes road fees and provides for setbacks from groundwater, neighbors and schools. They also filed a negative declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to any environmental impacts of the ordinance adoption Staff and General Counsel are preparing to file a challenge to the CEQA action and to the ordinance itself. The Board of Directors will be asked to authorize the filings at its next meeting (8) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Director of Finance Gary Streed referred to the handouts for the Directors that evening. A revised table was provided for Item 13(a) -Delegation of Authority, a redlined copy of proposed Ordinance No. OCSD-11, Item 13(b), and copies of letters from the Yorba Linda Water District regarding Item 13(d). (9) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES The Director of Human Resources had no report. (10) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications reported that the District's Orange County Fair Program was the recipient of the City-County Communications and Marketing Association's (3CMA) Silver Circle Award for "Most Creative Public Outreach Program With Least Dollars Spent". (11) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel gave the Directors an update on the OCIP's response to the request for additional legal fees from attorneys representing the County on the bankruptcy issue. Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 3 October 13, 1999 (11-1) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES Director of Technical Services Bob Ghirelli gave an update to the Directors regarding various options to manage Class A and B biosolids and possibility of purchasing land in Kings County and Kern County. (12) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (Items a-e) a. FAHR99-71: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of September 1999: The 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. b. FAHR99-72: Receive and file Employment Status Report as of September 21, 1999. c. FAHR99-73: Receive and file Certificate of Participation (COP) Monthly Report. d. FAHR99-74: Receive and file report of General Manager approved purchases in amounts exceeding $50,000 in accordance with District's purchasing policies. e. FAHR99-75: Receive and file information related to District costs incurred for Huntington Beach Closure Project, Su bl edger #09810318. Motion: END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the recommended actions for items specified as 12(a) through 12(e) under Consent Calendar. (13) ACTION ITEMS (Items a-e) a. FAHR99-76: Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-_, Establishing Policies and Procedures for the Award of Purchase Orders and Contracts; Award of Public Works Project Contracts; Award of Professional Services Contracts; Delegation of Authority to Implement Said Policies and Procedures; and Repealing Resolutions Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43. The Directors entered into a lengthy discussion and asked questions of staff. Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to continue this item to the November 1 olh F AHR meeting and request staff to report on internal control process as it relates to the issuance of professional services agreements. Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 4 October 13, 1999 b. FAHR99-77: Ratify the decision of the General Manager and authorize him to waive the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (CFCC), pursuant to District's Ordinance No. OCSD99-01, Section 305.6, regarding issuance of the Special Purpose Discharge Permits to the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange to allow urban runoff to be discharged to the District's wastewater system for a one-year period effective November 1, 1999. Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve staffs recommendation. c. FAHR99-78: Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-_, Amending Human Resources Policies and Procedures, Resolution No. OCSD 98-33 Relating to1) Adjust the Assistant General Manager's pay range (E20) maximum from $136,680 to $148,836; 2) Move the Director of Information Technology classification from pay range E17 ($75,876-$119,784) to pay range E18 ($85,992-$139,464); 3) Move the Warehouse Supervisor classification from pay range E4 ($43,248-$61,236) to pay range E9 ($55,212-$78, 156); 4) Move the Contracts & Purchasing Supervisor classification from pay range E9 ($55,212-$78, 156) to pay range E11 ($60,828- $86,064); 5) Create Contracts Specialist classification at pay range E2 ($39,252- $55,488); 6) Create Contracts Administrator classification at pay range E7 ($50,064-$70,848); 7) Reinstate the Safety and Emergency Response Specialist classification at pay range EB ($52,500-$74,292); and 8) Create Information Technology Strategic Implementation Leader classification at pay range E11 ($60,828-$86,064). Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve staffs recommendation. Director Gullixson also requested that staff provide a listing of all employees wages and benefits. d. FAHR99-79: Director's request to reconsider District's Policy regarding Refund and Credit for Sanitary Sewer Service Charges. The Directors entered into a discussion regarding the legality of extending the time frame in which property owners could request a refund of user fees erroneously paid in previous years. Director Gullixson referred the Directors to copies of letters from Yorba Linda Water District that were provided that evening. Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to form an Ad Hoc Committee to do further study on the District's current policy of refund of user fees and the legality of extending the time frame in which property owners could be granted a refund of those user fees paid erroneously. Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 5 October 13, 1999 e. FAHR99-80: Proposed Ordinance Revisions for Capital Facilities Capacity Charges General Counsel gave a brief report regarding the need to incorporate the revisions to Ordinance No. OCSD99-09. The intent of the ordinance when adopted was to have existing dischargers only pay an additional capital facilities capacity charge (CFCC) at that time when they expanded their use or facility and increased their discharge of flow, BOD or suspended solids. A revision of the ordinance is deemed necessary to clarify certain ambiguities. Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to include proposed ordinance revisions for capital facilities capacity charges in proposed Ordinance No. OCSD99-11. (14) INFORMATION PRESENTATIONS a. FAHR99-81: State of the District -Employee Audit Director of Communications Michelle Tuchman gave a brief report on a survey of employees completed each year to track changes in employee morale, attitude and perceptions, and to determine the effectiveness of the District's existing communications programs. Directors requested that in the future the title of the report not use the word audit. (15) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were no supplemental agenda items. (16) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (17) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next FAHR Committee meeting is scheduled for November 10, 1999 at 5 p.m. (18) CLOSED SESSION The Chair reported to the Committee the need for a Closed Session, as authorized by Government Code Section 54957.6, to discuss and consider the items that are specified as Item 18(A)(1) on the published Agenda. The Committee convened in closed session at 7:02 p.m. Operative Effect Operative effect of Stats.1986, c. 887, see Historical Note following Education Code ~ § 53082. Sewer service fees; refund when no service provided; claims (a) By July 1, 1991, local agencies shall refund any sewer service fees collected for whi, were delivered. (b) Any sewer service fees collected by a local agency from any person for which no ser provided shall be refunded in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d). (c) In cases where a person paid fees as described in subdivisi.on (a) and is still residin1 location, it shall be the ~sponsibility of the local agency, upon determination that the pr connected to the sewer system. to return fees in their entirety, regardless of the amount of were wrongly collected. For the purposes of this section, if the exact amount of the c: readily available, the amount of the refund may be calcillated by averaging the rates paid the same classification during the time period in which the fees were collected. (d) In cases where a person paid fees as described in subdivision (a) but is not still residin location, the payer of the fees may make a claim for a refund to the agency collect (e) No statute of limitations • • • shall apply to claims for fees paid before January 1, 19 paid on or after January 1, 1992, claims shall be filed within 180 days of thedate (f) .A.s used in t.liis sect.ion, "sewer scr.ice fees" means periodic fees, tolls, rates, rent charges imposed by local agencies for the purpose of covering the cost to arovide sewer operate, maintain, repair, and replace sewer systems and facilities, buto not include following; (1) Sewer standby or availability charges or assessments. (2) Special assessments levied in accordance with one or a combination of the Improvemen (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000) o! the Streets and Highways Code), the Munici ment Act of 1913 (Division 12 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Streets and Highwa the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500) of the Highways Code). (3) Sewer connection charges or sewer capacity charges paid in conjunction with or as a approving an application for sewer service. (Added by Stats.i990, c. 1558 (S.B.1821), § 3. Amended by Stats.1991, c. 1226 (S.B.767), § Additions or changes Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • * 22 q<>VERNMENT CODE § 53088 Historical and Statutory Notes 1990 Legislation !. -nie ,AMembly Journal of Aug. 16, 1990 contained the following letter from Richard Ka.tz regarding the legisl,- tive· Intent of S.B.1821 (Stat.s.1990, c. 1558): · ,•,Amendments I have proposed to SB 1821 (Bergeson), u amended July 7, 1990, create a new Section 63082 of the Government Code, requiring local agencies to refund sewer semce !ees collected for which no l!llch services were delivered. . • A concern baa been raised that thla section could be coD.11trued to require refund of reasonable -etandby or ava!labillty charges for sewer services, If the payor or the rea,&0nable standby or availability cjiarge is not yet con- nected onto a sewer. "The provisiona of Section 63082 of the Government Code are Intended to apply to fees collected for which no actual sewer services were rendered, and are not Intended to apply to reasonable standby or availability charges." "The ~nate Daily Journal or Aug. 31, 1990, contains 'the following letter from Marian Bergeson to Darryl White regarding legislative Intent of S.B.1821 (Stat.s.1990, e. 1558): MDl'Jll" Darryl: Earll.er today the Senate pused and sent to the C.JJvemor my Se:llite BID 1821. A.-nor.g ether thingi,, SB 1821 ena,cls a new Section 63082 to the Govern- ment Code, requlrlng local agencies to refund sewer ser- vice feu collected for which no auch services were deliv• ered. w A concern has been raised that this section could be conatrued to require refund of reasonable standby or availability charges for sewer services, If the payor of the reasonable standby or availability charge i& -not yet con- nected onto a sewer. "The provisions of Section 63082 of the Government Code are intended to apply to fees collected for which no actual sewer services were rendered, and are not Intended to apply to reasonable standby or avail9:bility charges." ! I r i I i system to provide necessary service to the multiple categories of users; the total costs of the existing and future facilities in the system; and alternate methodologies for establishing fair and equitable charges to connect to and gain access to the system; and, D. That the Board of Directors has previously, by duly adopted Ordinances, commencmg in 19·69, established Capital Fac1ht1es Capacity Charges, formerly known commonly as "connection charges" or "fees" to be paid by all persons obtaming a permit to connect to the Distnct's system as a financial payment to have access to and use of the O1stnct's wastewater collection, treatment and disposal fac1ht1es m existence at the time of connectmg to the system, and for future facilities to be constructed; an , E. That the District's connection charge ordinances, included author1fy for the District to levy an excess capacity charge upon commercial and mdustnal users who discharge large quantities or high strength wastewater; and, F. That the District(s) adopted a revised, comprehensive excess capacily charge by ordinancei effective July 1, 1995, which ordinance(s) was subsequently repealed November 15, 1995 pending complebon of the Financial Rates and Charges Report; and, G. That the District on February 22, 1996 adopted a moratorium on the collection of excess capacity charges until the Financial Rates and Charges Report was completed and a revised Capital Fac1htles Charge was adopted; and, H. That all new commercial and industrial dischargers connecting to the7>istr1ct's system from July 1, 1995 to September 1, 1999 (the effective date of Ordinance No. OCSD-09) were deemed to be conditionally permitted Significant Commercial -Industrial Users, required to pay any Capital Facilities Capacity Charge adopted by the District at the same rates as new S1gmf1cant Commercial -Industrial Users, provided the Charge was no greater than the excess capacity charge adopted to be effective July 1, 1995; and, ! e. That a final report (the "Determination of Financial Rates and Charges Report"), based upon studies and reports of District's engineering and financial advisors, and an extensive evaluation by an Advisory Committee of industrial, commercial, and residential users of the system (the "Rate Advisory Committee"), heis geen was prepared and submitted to the Board of Directors to assist and guide it in its considerations for the adoption of this Ordin3nse (the "Determin3ti9n gf Finansial Rates and Char90s R0139rt"); and, Ordinance No. OCSD-09; and, TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:1 0/13/99 2 -F-J. That the Report has been made available to the public and has been su6ject to noticed public hearings, all in accordance with the provisions of law; and, K. That following adoption of Ordinance No. OCSD-09 on July 21, 1999, certain amb1gu1ties and uncertainties were discovered, relating to the 1mplementat1on of the Ordinance. It is now appropriate, to insure ease of admm1strat1on and clarity of understanding by those persons and entities governed by the Ordinance, that the provIsIons of Ordinance No. OCS0-09 be revised; and, !: G. That the revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance will be-used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities of the District; to repay principal and interest on debt instruments; or to repay federal or state loans for the construction and reconstruction of said sewerage facilities, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves; and, W M. That the properties upon which the fees established by this Ordinance are levied, will discharge wastewater to the District's collection, treatment and disposal system facilities; that the costs of owning, operating, and maintaining said facilities has constantly increased due in part to increased regulatory requirements to upgrade the treatment process; and that said costs will exceed the amounts of any ad valorem tax revenues derived from said property; and, ,1.,. N. That the cgnn@cUon f.8@i Capital Facilities Capacity Charges imposedoy authority of this Ordinance do not exceed the estimated amount required to provide access to the sewer system facilities and service for which the fee is levied, as provided in California Constitution Article XIIID; and, J 0. That the fees adopted by this Ordinance are non-discriminatory, as applied to all users of the system, and are established upon a rational basis between the fees charged each category of property that is connecting, and the service and facilities provided to each connected property by the District; and, -" P. That the adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act from further environmental assessment pursuant to the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21 0S0(b )(8), and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15273(a). NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District does hereby ORDAIN: Section 1: Definitions TLW:pj:#111294:D-3: 10/13/99 3 1.1 "Actual construction costs" include the cost of all activities necessary or incidental to the construction of a District facility, such as financing, planning, designing, acquisition of the property or interests in the property, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and repair. 1.2 "Capital Facilities Capacity Charge" means a one-time, non- discriminatory charge imposed at the time a property is connected to the District's system, directly or indirectly, or an existing structure or category of use is expanded or increased. Said charge is to pay for District facilities in existence at the time the charge is imposed, or to pay for new facilities to be constructed in the future, that are of benefit to the property being charged. The a110Jditigna1I Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Cha1i:9ss Charge, as provided for in Sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Ordinance, is a one-time charge, a portion of which is payable over a period of time. 1.3 "Connection fee" means a fee equal to the cost necessary to physically connect a property to the District's system, including, but not limited to installation of meters, meter boxes, pipelines and appurtenances to make the connection, that does not exceed the actual cost of labor, materials, and overhead for the installation of those facilities. 1.4 "Nondiscriminatory" means that the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge does not exceed an amount determined on the basis of the same objective criteria and methodology applicable to comparable public or non-public users, and is not in excess of the proportionate share of the cost of the District's facilities of benefit to the person or property being charged, based upon the proportionate share of use of those facilities. 1.5 "Predecessor Districts" means former County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, which jointly owned and administered the property and sewerage system facilities of the District, which consolidated into the Orange County Sanitation District, as a single entity, effective July 1, 1998. 1.6 "Public agency" means the United States or any of its agencies, the State or any of its agencies, the Regents of the University of California, a county, city, district, school district, local or regional public authority, or any other political entity, subdivision or public corporation of this State. Section 2: Connection Permits: Required. A. Connection permits are required of all dwelling units, buildings and structures connecting directly or indirectly to the District's sewerage system facilities. Included are the connections of laterals to local municipal sewerage TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 4 facilities, and the connection of local municipal sewerage facilities and laterals to the District's facilities. B. N,Q..Except as authorized by the issuance of a Special Purpose Discharge Permit under sections 305-305.6 of Ordinance No. OCSD-01 or as amended, or as authorized pursuant to a special extra territorial service agreement approved by the Board of Directors, no permit shall be valid unless the real property to be served by use of the permit is included within the boundaries of the District and within the boundaries of a local sewering agency authorized to maintain public sewering facilities. However, a permit as authorized above may be issued for property to be served outside tne boundaries of a local sewering agency if a local sewering agency makes application for the issuance of such permit, gr ~mvidss a '.¥Fitten wai>Jsr of this re~1.1irgR=Jsnt to ths District. There will be a l:'JondiscriR=Jinatory nondiscriminatory Capital Facilities Capacity Charge assessed to public agencies for connecting directly or indirectly to the District's sewerage system facilities, and a connection permit must be obtained. Section 3: Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Payment Required. No application for a permit for a connection to a District sewerage facility, or to any sewerage facility which discharges into a District sewerage facility, shall be approved, nor a permit issued, until a District Capital Facilities Capacity Charge Is pard by the applicant. No connection permit shall be issued unless there is an established category of use of the property to be served or a valid building permit issued which establishes the category of use of said property. Section 4: Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Time of Payment. 4.1 Payment of the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge established by this Ordinance for connection to the District's sewerage system facilities shall be required at the time of issuance of the building permit for all construction within the District, excepting in the case of a building legally exempt from the requirement of obtaining a building permit. The payment of the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for such exempt buildings will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumbrng connection permit for any construction within the territorial limits of the District. 4.2 Upon application of any property seeking to connect to the District's system, the Board of Directors of District, in its sole and absolute discretion and upon a finding of compelling need, may, pursuant to the authority of California Health & Safety Code Section 5474, approve of an agreement with the property owner for the payment of the applicable connection charge in installments over a period of not to exceed five (5) years, bearing an interest rate on the unpaid TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 5 balance of not to exceed ten (10%) percent per annum, and that the charges and interest shall constitute a lien on the property. Section 5: Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Schedule of Amounts. Every person or entity newly connecting any property to the District's system facilities shall pay a Capital Facilities Capacity Charg.e in the amount for the applicable category of use set forth in Table 1. TABLE 1 CAPITAL FACILITIES CAPACITY CHARGE Use Category Commercial -Industrial Low Demand Average Demand High Demand Rate Basis Base Charge Per 1,000 square~ feet1 Per 1,000 square feet $ 1101 Per 1,000 square feet $ 6751 Per 1,000 square feet $1,6001•2 Single Family Residential 5+ Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit $2,530 $2,165 $1,820 $1,475 $1,130 1 Provided that the minimum Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for such new construction shall be $1,820; and all calculations shall be on a per square foot basis. 2The Base Capital Facilities Capacity Charge is established at $1,600 per 1,000 square feet, but shall be incrementally increased from the present amount at five (5) levels, and five (5) time periods as follows: Effective September 1, 1999 Effective January 1, 2000 Effective July 1, 2000 Effective January 1, 2001 Effective July 1, 2001 $ 675 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 900 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1 ,130 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1 ,360 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1 ,600 per 1,000 sq. ft. A schedule of the Capital Facilities Capacity Charges specified herein will be on file in the Office of the Board Secretary of the District, and in the Building Department of each City within the District. *Low Demand connections are the following categories of users: Nurseries; Warehouses; Parking Structures; RV Storage; Churches; Truck Terminals; RV Parks; Lumber/Construction Yards. **High Demand connections are the following categories of users: Restaurants, Supermarkets; Car Washes; Coin Laundries; Amusement Parks; Shopping Centers with Restaurants. ***All other connections are Average demand users. TLW:pj:#111294:D-3: 10/13/99 6 Multi-Family Residential 4+ Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom Studio Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit $1,965 $1,620 $1,275 $ 910 $ 580 Section 6: A6161itional Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Significant ln611.1strial Us8rs. In aseition to the Capital Fasiliti8s Capasity Cl:iarge, l.)asee 1.1pon sash 1,000 s91.1ar8 fQet of 91,1il61ins area for sommersial in611.1strial 1.1se Commercial -Industrial Users -Definitions. sategor/ fJFOfH!lrties , all 1.1ssr:s that are A. A Significant Commercial - Industrial User (''SCIU") is any person or entity who discharges commercial or industrial process flow, but excluding domestic sewage flow, m an amount greater than 25,000 gallons per day ("gpd"), or Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("BOD") greater than 150 pounds per day, or Suspended Solids (''SS") greater than 150 pounds per day, or who 1s required to obtain a Waste Discharge Permit or Spesial P1.1rtJose Oissharge P8rmit, as prescribed by Ordinance No. OCSD-01, Article 3, due to having federally-or District- regulated or significant discharges, shall [Jay a daily sharge for eash gallon of flm\' or i;io1.1n61 of eioshemisal Oxygen Oemand ("eOO") or St.1s[Jen61e61 Solids (''S5t") abo>.ie the base wse 61issharge maxim1.1ms insh,,161e61 in the~ B. An Existing SCIU is any SCIU discharger connected and discharging to the District's system prior to July 1, 1995. C. A New SCIU is any discharger who connects and discharges to the District's system pursuant to a Waste Discharge Permit issued on or after July 1, 1999. If previously connected and not an SCIO, as defmed m Subparagraph A above, but, subsequent to July 1, 1995, increases flow, or BOO, or SS to a level as to constitute an SCIO. D. A Conditionally Permitted SCIU is any SCIU discharger who connected to and discharges to the District's system pursuant to a Waste Discharge Permit issued on or after July 1, 1995 up to September 1, 1999. E. The maximum discharge allowed to a user, for which a base CapitarFacilit1es Capacity Charge 1n the amo1:mts as set forth belo1,t;. The tJase wse dissharge maximwms ai:e is paid, as per Section 5 Table 1 above, is 25,000 gallons per day ("gpd"), or 150 pounds each of BOD and SS . Discharge of flow, or BOD, or SS in amounts greater than allowed by this Subparagraph E, shall be subJect to the prov1s1ons of Section 7 or Section 8 hereof. TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 7 F. Each Existing SCIU shall have a baseline of allowed discharge of flo~ and BOO, and SS established by the D1str1ct as of July 1, 1999 based upon the discharge for fiscal year 1998-99. Dischargers who are deemed to be SCl•s solely because of the requirements to obtain a Waste Discharge Permit pursuant to Section 6 above, shall have a minimum baseline established as follows: Flow -25,000 gallons per day; BOO -150 pounds per day; and SS -150 pounds per day. The SCIO shalloe authorized to discharge flow, and BOO, and SS up to the baseline amounts without payment of a Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge. G. Each Conditionally Permitted SCIU shall have a baseline of allowea discharge of flow, and BOO and SS established by the 01str1ct as of the date of issuance of the Waste Discharge Permit for reference purposes only. The Supplemental Capital Fac1htles Capacity Charge as prescribed by Section 7 below, shall be payable commencing with the effective date of this Ordinance. H. Within two (2) years from the date of the District's written notice To the SCIO of its baseJine amounts, the SCIO shall have a right to appeal the 01str1ct's established baseline for the SCIO. The appeal shall be to the General Manager, or his delegated representative, who shall have discretion, based upon extraordinary circumstances, wherein the established baseline 1s not representative of the h1stor1cal average dally discharge by the SCIO for a yearly perrod, to modify the baseline amounts for the current year, or on a permanent basis, subJect to terms and conditions as prescribed by the General Manager. The dec1s1on of the General Manager shall be final. Section 7. Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: New and Cond1bonally Permitted S1gn1ficant Commercial -Industrial Users. In addition to the base Capital Fac111t1es Capacity Charge, as prescribed in Table 1 for commercial -industrial use category properties, all New SCIOs and all Cond1t1onally Permitted SCIUs shall pay a Supplemental Capital Fac1ht1es Capacity Charge for each gallon of flow, or pound of BOO, or SS 1 exceeding the base use discharge maximums, m the following amounts: Flow BOD ss l?grt;iQn Gallons Per Day l?grt;ion Pounds Per Day l?grt;ign Pounds Per Day Daily Charge Oaily ~ee $0.00057 $0.14461 $0.16025 This adcliti9nal Section 8: Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge, based blplQR tl9\4J and stren9th a69lJe the a>1era9e allgwed \~ith the base: Existing Significant Commercial -Industrial Users. TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 8 A. All Existing Significant Commercial -Industrial Users connected to and discharging to the D1str1ct's system shall be required to pay a Supplemental Capital Fac1hfles Capacity Charge, shall be shar9ed to the blSer on its iquarterly invoise ~r thii 5ianitary Se1,01er 5iervise Char9e& (User Char9e), as i;;irovicfod by Qistrist Ordinanse f,,Jo. OC5iD Q5 . 5iestion 7 upon the occurrence of either (i) an increase of discharge flow of 25,000 gallons per day ("gpd"), or 25% per day over ,ts estabhshed baseline authorization, whichever ts lesser; or (11) an increase of BOO or SS discharge of 150 pounds each per day, or 25% each per day, whichever 1s lesser, over ,ts established baseline authorization. B. The Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge shall be in the following amounts for each component that 1s increased as provided in Section BA above: Flow BOO gs- Gallons Per Day Pounds Per Day Pounds Per Day Daily Charge $0.00057 $0.14461 $0.16025 C. The Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge shall be calculated on the basts of the average daily quantity of discharge in excess of the User's baseline. The daily averages will be based on the daily discharges for a year, utilizing discharge records and reports of the District. Section 9: Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Replacement Structures. For new construction replacing former structures, the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge shall be calculated and paid to the District on the rate basis of the category of the new use and the amounts as set forth in Table 1, less a credit amount, up to the amount of the new Capital Facilities Capacity Charge, equal to a charge, as prescribed in I able 1 that would be for the prior category of use which was terminated and removed. Section i 10: Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Remodeled Structures. In the case of existing structures connected to the District's system facilities, to which new construction or alteration is made to change or increase the category of use, a Capital Facilities Capacity Charge shall be calculated and paid to the District on the rate basis of the category of the new use and the amounts as set forth in Table 1, less a credit amount, up to the amount of the n·ew Capital Facilities Capacity Charge, equal to a charge, as prescribed m I able 1 for the prior category of use. Section .Q 11: Payment of Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: Off-Site Sewers Not Partof Master Plan Relative to Reimbursement Agreements. A charge for connection to off-site sewers which are not included as part of the TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 9 • District Master Plan and for which a Non-Master Plan Reimbursement Agreement has been entered into between the District and the property owner, shall be paid in the amount provided for in said Agreement, to be known as a Non-Master Plan Capital Facilities Capacity Charge. The amount set forth in said Agreement shall be the amount due, whether the original Agreement is still in force, has been extended, or has expired. The Non-Master Plan Capital Facilities Capacity Charge shall be in addition to the other Capital Facilities Capacity Charges provided for in Sections 3 and 4 hereinabove, established for property connecting to said facilities. Section 4C 12: No Refund or Transfer. A Capital Facilities Capacity Charge is paid forThe connection of a specific parcel of property. No refund of any charge shall be made because of non-use or change of use, or any other reason. The connection permit is non-transferable to any other property. Section 44 13 : Exceptions. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all owners of properties within the District, including those properties otherwise deemed exempt from payment of taxes or assessments by provisions of the State Constitution or statute, including properties owned by other public agencies or tax-exempt organizations. Section~ 14: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstances is held invalid by order of Court, the remainder of the Ordinance, or the application of such provision to other persons or other circumstances, shall not be affected. Section ~ 15 : Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect Si9~tQm9QF 1, 1 QQw Section 44;. 16: Repeal. Ordinance No. OCSD-04 09 is hereby repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section~ 17: Certification and Publication. The Secretary of the Board shall certify To the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the affirmative vote of not less than two- thirds of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District at a Regular Meeting held ______ _ Chair, Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District ATTEST: TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 10 l • Secretary of the Board of Directors Thomas L. Woodruff, District Counsel TLW:pj:#111294:D-3:10/13/99 11 . ,. FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date ToJt. Bds. 10/13/99 10/27/99 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number >--A_d:t.li--7 I Orange County Sanitation District FROM: SUBJECT: Gary Streed, Director of Finance Originator: Steve Kozak, Financial Manager TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1999 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of September 1999. SUMMARY Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), serves as the District's professional external money manager, and Mellon Trust serves as the District's third-party custodian bank for the investment program. The District's Investment Policy, adopted by the Board, includes reporting requirements as listed down the left most column of the attached PIMCO Monthly Report for the "Liquid Operating Monies" and for the "Long-Term Operating Monies." The District's external money manager is operating in compliance with the requirements of the District's Investment Policy. The District's portfolio contains no reverse repurchase agreements. Historical cost and the current market ("mark-to-market") values are shown as estimated by both PIMCO and Mellon Trust. The slight differences are related to slight variations in pricing assumptions regarding marketability at the estimate date. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY None. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. ~ Not applicable (information item) H:lwp.dtaVin\210\cnlnelFAHR\Fahr9W)ctlTreasRepor!Sepla11ber.doc Revised: 10/17197 Page 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Investment Reports 2. Monthly Transaction Report GGS:SK:lc H:lwp.dlaVin\2101cnine\FAHRIF•hr99\0cl\Tre•sReportSepllmber.doc Rllllised: 10117197 Page3 MONTHLY REPORT ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending 30 September 1999) Liquid Operating Monies (603) 15.1.1 PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value Estimate: • PIMCO • Mellon Historical Cost: • PIMCO • Mellon 15.1.2 MODIFIED DURATION Of Portfolio: Of Index: 15.1.3 1 % INTEREST RA TE CHANGE Dollar Impact (gain/loss) of l % Change: 15.1.4 REVERSE REPOS % of Portfolio in Reverse Repos: (see attached schedule) 15.1.5 PORTFOLIO MATURITY % of Portfolio Maturing within 90 days: 15.1.6 PORTFOLIO QUALITY Average Portfolio Credit Quality: 15.1.7 SECURITIES BELOW "A" RATING % of Portfolio Below "A": 15.1.8 INVESTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE "In Compliance" 15.1.9 PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE Total Rate of Return(%) by Period: I Month: 3 Months: 12 Months: Year-to-Date: Commentary • In sharp contrast to July and August, interest rates fell across all maturities in September (e.g. 3-month Treasury Bill rates fell I I basis points). • The Liquid portfolio outperfonned its benchmark by 7 basis points. • PIMCO's emphasis on corporates and agencies added to portfolio returns. • PIMCO will continue to emphasize high quality commercial paper and short-tenn notes. H:l .. \FINANCEl, .. \REVISED UQ0999.RPT ~ $19,074,336 $19,056,870 $19,138,408 $19,138,422 0.19 0.20 $36,646 0% 54% "AAA" 0% Yes Portfolio Index 0.46 0.39 1.34 1.18 5.04 4.63 3.70 3.44 MONTHLY REPORT ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PIMCO'S PERFORMANCE MONITORING & REPORTING (for the month ending 30 September 1999) Long-Term Operating Monies (203) 15.1.1 PORTFOLIO COST AND MARKET VALUE Current Market Value Estimate: • PIMCO • Mellon Historical Cost: • PIMCO • Mellon 15.1.2 MODIFIED DURATION Of Portfolio: Of Index: 15.1.3 1 % INTEREST RA TE CHANGE Dollar Impact (gain/loss) of I% Change: 15.1.4 REVERSE REPOS % of Portfolio in Reverse Repos: ( see attached schedule) 15.1.5 PORTFOLIO MATURITY % of Portfolio Maturing within 90 days: 15.1.6 PORTFOLIO QUALITY Average Portfolio Credit Quality: 15.1.7 SECURITIES BELOW "A" RATING % of Portfolio Below "A": 15.1.8 INVESTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE "In Compliance" 15.1.9 PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE Total Rate of Return(%) by Period: I Month: 3 Months: 12 Months: Year-to-Date: Commentary • With interest rates falling across all maturities in September, the bond market showed stronger returns. • The Long-Tenn portfolio outperfonned its benchmark by 12 basis points. • PIMCO's emphasis on mortgage-backed securities and corporates added to portfolio returns, as these were the best perfonning sectors. • PIMCO will continue to emphasize mortgage-backed securities. H: I . IF!NANCEl2 l 01 . IREVISF,IJ L-T0999.RPT $268,523,761 $268,201,643 $272,419,649 $272,803,456 2.31 2.36 $6,265,653 0% 29% "AAA" 0% Yes Portfolio Index 0.93 0.81 1.20 1.12 2.28 2.30 1.69 1.77 @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 71 ' PAGE: 1 BASE: USD NET ASSET SECTOR SUMMARY OCSF07511102 30-SEP-1999 FINAL LIQUID OPER-PIMCO %OF UNREALIZED PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION COST MARKET VALUE TOTAL GAIN/LOSS CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 2,668,801.00 2,668,801.00 13.83% 0.00 TREASURY BILLS -LESS THN 1 YR 3,411,181.67 3,411,181.67 17.67% 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE -LESS 2,440,218.06 2,440,218.06 12.64% 0.00 FNMA ISSUES -LESS THN 1 YR 1,197,711.25 1,197,711.25 6.21% 0.00 MUTUAL FUNDS 92,077.30 92,077.30 0.48% 0.00 TOTAL UNITED STATES 9,809,989.28 9,809,989.28 50.83% 0.00 TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 9,809,989.28 9,809,989.28 50.83% 0.00 FIXED INCOME SECURITIES UNITED STATES U.S. AGENCIES 4,698,304.60 4,690,430.00 24.30% -7,874.60 BANKING & FINANCE 3,255,175.30 3,203,901.00 16.60% -51,274.30 INDUSTRIAL 863,753.00 851,589.50 4.41% -12,163.50 UTILITY -ELECTRIC 511,200.00 500,960.00 2.60% -10,240.00 TOTAL UNITED STATES 9,328,432.90 9,246,880.50 47.91% -81,552.40 TOTAL FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 9,328,432.90 9,246,880.50 47.91% -81,552.40 OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES 243,756.22 243,756.22 1.26% 0.00 TOTAL 243,756.22 243,756.22 1.26% 0.00 TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS 243,756.22 243,756.22 1.26% 0.00 NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS 19,382,178.40 19,300,626.00 100.00% -81,552.40 08-0ct-1999 10:44:55 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 1 BASE: USD NET ASSET SECTOR SUMMARY OCSF07522202 30-SEP-1999 FINAL LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO %OF UNREALIZED PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION COST MARKET VALUE TOTAL GAIN/LOSS CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS RECEIVABLES 47,160.50 47,160.50 0.02% 0.00 PAYABLES -30,121,165.63 -30, 121,165.63 -11.12% 0.00 TOTAL -30,074,005.13 -30,074,005.13 -11.10% 0.00 UNITED ST A TES COMMERCIAL PAPER -DISCOUNT 36,885,832.66 36,885,832.66 13.62% 0.00 FNMA ISSUES -LESS THN 1 YR 4,881,597.78 4,881,597.78 1.80% 0.00 FED HM LOAN BNK -LESS THN 1 YR 5,978,500.00 5,978,500.00 2.21% 0.00 MUTUAL FUNDS 294,505.70 294,505.70 0.11% 0.00 TOT AL UNITED STATES 48,040,436.14 48,040,436.14 17.73% 0.00 TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 17,966,431.01 17,966,431.01 6.63% 0.00 FIXED INCOME SECURITIES UNITED STATES U.S. GOVERNMENTS 42,686,161.70 41,321,861.20 15.25% -1,364,300.50 U.S. AGENCIES 79,008,957.90 76,986,923.74 28.42% -2,022,034.16 GNMA SINGLE FAMILY POOLS 26,950,937.50 27,313,775.00 10.08% 362,837.50 GNMA MULTIFAMILY POOLS 3,983,207.57 3,951,513.13 1.46% -31,694.44 FHLMCPOOLS 9,632,643.37 9,517,644.43 3.51% -114,998.94 FHLMC MULTICLASS 8,566,878.53 8,563,460.85 3.16% -3,417.68 FNMA POOLS 1,688,492.00 1,695,804.42 0.63% 7,312.42 ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 100,491.39 100,459.24 0.04% -32.15 ABS: HOME EQUITY 493,597.88 493,286.91 0.18% -310.97 MUTUAL FUNDS 1,000,000.00 993,300.00 0.37% -6,700.00 BANKING & FINANCE 54,047,184.00 53,857,025.50 19.88% -190, 158.50 INDUSTRIAL 17,029,969.00 16,022,557.80 5.91% -1,007,411.20 UTILITY -ELECTRIC 2,151,250.00 1,995,000.00 0.74% -156,250.00 UTILITY -TELEPHONE 7,497,255.00 7,422,600.00 2.74% -74,655.00 TOTAL UNITED STATES 254,837,025.84 250,235,212.22 92.37% -4,601,813.62 TOTAL FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 254,837,025.84 250,235,212.22 92.37% -4,601,813.62 08-0ct-1999 10:47:51 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II . PAGE: 2 BASE: USD NET ASSET SECTOR SUMMARY OCSF07522202 30-SEP-1999 FINAL LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO %OF UNREALIZED PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION COST MARKET VALUE TOTAL GAIN/LOSS OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS PAYABLES/RECEIVABLES 2,710,858.93 2,710,858.93 1.00% 0.00 TOTAL 2,710,858.93 2,710,858.93 1.00% 0.00 TOTAL OTHER PORTFOLIO ASSETS 2,710,858.93 2,710,858.93 1.00% 0.00 NET PORTFOLIO ASSETS 275,514,315.78 270,912,502.16 100.00% -4,601,813.62 08-0ct-1999 10:47:51 Executive Workbench YLDANAL OCSF07511102 DISTRICT: LIQUID OPERATING YIELD ANALYSIS 1999/09/30 PAGE 1 RUN DATE 10/06/99 RUN TIME : 15.26.08 ======,=========::.==--=-==-------====~=-=--=-===-;:=.===rn=====~-======-===-===--=============-=-~= PAR VALUE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 92,077.30 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 996085247 2,soo,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC 313396NT6 MAT 11/82/1999 900,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS LP DISC 38142UY30 11/03/1999 3,5001000.00 US TREASURY BILLS 912795DK4 03/02/2000 OD 03/04/99 900,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISCOUNT 313588MP7 MAT 10/05/1999 300,000,00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC 313588MS1 MAT 10/08/1999 900,000.00 IBM DISC 44922BXM5 10/21/1999 900,000.00 GENERAL ELEC CAP DISC 36959JX65 10/06/1999 TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 1,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEBS 3134A3RT5 FLTG RT 05/18/2000 DD 05/18/99 3,700,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BK CONS BOS 3133M7EW2 4.835% 01/28/2000 DO 01/28/99 500,000.00 DUKE ENERGY CORP 1ST & REF MTG 264399DB9 8.000% 11/01/1999 DD 11/01/94 500,000.00 CHRYSLER FINL CO LLC 171205AT4 13.250% 10/15/1999 YTM AT BOOK .ooo 4.846 4.940 5.094 5.181 5.256 5.312 5.333 4.930 .ooo 4.860 5.001 5.119 CURRENT MOODY MARKET YIELD 5-P PRICE 4.982 .000 .000 .000 .ooo .000 .000 .ooo .078 4.707 4.847 7.985 13.221 AAA AAA P-1 A-1+ P-1 P-1 A-1+ P-1 A-1+ P-1 A-1+ P-1 P-1 AAA AAA AAA AAA AA3 AA- Al A+ 100.000 97.609 97.563 97.462 99.785 99.883 99.589 99.382 99.968 99,750 100.192 100.218 TOTAL COST/ MARKET VALUE 92,077.30 92,077.30 2,440,218.06 2,440,218.06 878,069.00 878,069.00 3,411,181.67 3,411,181.67 898,061.25 898,061.25 299,650.00 299,650.00 896,297.00 896,297.00 894,435.00 894,435.00 9,809,989.28 9,809,989.28 999,200.00 999,680.00 3,699,104.60 3,690,750.00 511,200.00 500,960.00 529,010.00 501,090.00 % TYPE % TOTAL . 93 . 48 24.87 12.00 8.95 4.61 34.77 17,90 9.15 4. 71 3.05 1.57 9.13 4.70 9. 11 4.69 100.00 51.46 10.81 5.25 39.91 19.37 5.41 2.63 5 .41 2.63 YLDANAL OCSF07511102 DISTRICT: LIQUID OPERATING -======-===----------==-- PAR VALUE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION 850,000.00 PHILLIP MORRIS CO INC NTS 718154BX4 7,125% 12/01/1999 DD 12/01/92 900 1000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP MTN 37042M7G2 6,250% Ol/11/2000 DD 01/11/94 500,000.00 TRANSAMERICA FIN MTN fSBOOllO 89350MEP1 8.450% Ol/12/2000 DD 01/12/95 900 1000,00 FINOVA CAP CORP MTN TR 00039 31808CBQ4 6.190% 10/20/1999 DD 10/20/97 4001 000.00 LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 00252 52517PLM1 6.400% 08/30/2000 DD 09/26/97 TOTAL FIXED INCOME SECURITIES TOTAL YTM AT BOOK -----~ 5.258 5 ,305 5.653 5.972 6.353 ------- 4.235 ------4.552 YIELD ANALYSIS 1999/09/30 CURRENT MOODY YIELD S-P ------------- 7 .112 A2 A 6.249 A2 A 8,404 A3 A 6,188 BAAl A- 6.405 A3 A -------- 5.872 ------ 3,234 MARKET PRICE -------- 100.187 100.014 100,544 100.029 99,926 PAGE RUN DATE RUN TIME TOTAL COST/ MARKET VALUE ---------- 863,753.00 851,589.50 909,657.00 900,126.00 515,125.00 502,720.00 901,167.30 900,261.00 400,216.00 399,704.00 ----------------- 9,328,432.90 9,246,880.50 ---~-------19,138,422.18 19,056,869.78 ----------------- 2 10/06/99 15.26.08 % TYPE % TOTAL ----------- 9.20 4.47 9.73 4.72 5.43 2.64 9.73 4. 72 4,32 2.10 -------- 100.00 48,53 ----------100.00 100.00 --------- YLDANAL YIELD ANALYSIS PAGE 3 OCSF07522202 1999/09/30 RUN DATE 10/06/99 DISTRICT: LONG-TERM OPERATING RUN TIME 15.26.08 ------ ---·----=-----·--=-=· ----·-=-=== PAR VALUE YTM AT CURRENT MOODY MARKET TOTAL COST/ % TYPE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION BOOK YIELD S-P PRICE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------··-------------~------- CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 294,505.70 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT .ooo 4.982 AAA 100.000 294,505.70 .61 996085247 AAA 294,505.70 .10 6,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BK CONS DISC 5.179 .ooo P-1 99.642 5,978,500.00 12.44 313384NGO MAT 10/22/1999 A-1+ 5,978,500.00 2.00 4,900,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC NT 5.220 .000 P-1 99.624 4,881,597.78 10.16 313588NK7 MAT 10/25/99 A-1+ 4,881,597.78 1.64 14,000,000.00 PROCTER & GAMBLE DISC 5.301 .000 P-1 99.604 13,944,560.00 29.02 74271SX42 10/04/1999 13,944,560.00 4.68 1,000,000.00 AMERICAN EX CR CP DISC 5.303 .000 99.560 6,969,200.00 14 .50 02581SXT3 10/27/1999 6,969,200.00 2.34 1,200,000.00 HEWLETT PACKARD DISC 5.316 .000 P-1 99.882 1,198,584.00 2.49 42824KX55 10/05/1999 1,198,584.00 .40 13,000,000.00 GENERAL ELEC CAP CP DISC 5.329 .000 P-1 99.823 12,976,946.66 27.01 36959.JX57 10/05/1999 12,976,946.66 4.35 1,800,000.00 IBM DISC 5.330 .000 P-1 99.808 1,796,542.00 3.73 44922BX45 10/04/1999 1,796,542.00 .60 -------------------------··------------- TOTAL CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 5.207 .058 48,040,436.14 100.00 48,040,436.14 16 .11 FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 2,000,000.00 BANKERS TR NY CORP GLOBAL NT .ooo 5.807 Al 99.806 1,992,800.00 .79 066365DW4 FLTG RT 05/11/2003 DD 05/11/98 A-1,996,120.00 .67 3,500,000.00 CHRYSLER FINL LLC MTN ITR00615 .ooo 5.530 Al 99.828 3,498,635.00 1.39 17120QE80 FLTG RT 08/08/2002 DD 04/08/98 A+ 3,493,980.00 1.17 2,000,000.00 FORD MTR CR CO TERM ENHANCED .ooo 5.606 Al 99.812 1,998,613.60 .79 345397SC8 FLTG RT 08/27/2006 DD 08/27/98 A 1,996,240.00 .67 3,000,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP MTN .ooo 5.595 A2 100.015 3,010,830.00 1.19 37042WVR9 FLTG RT 12/17/2001 DD 12/15/98 A 3,000,450.00 1.01 YLDANAL YIELD ANALYSIS PAGE 4 OCSF07522202 1999/09/30 RUN DATE 10/06/99 DISTRICT: LONG-TERM OPERATING RUN TIME 15.26.08 -------- ---------=-======= PAR VALUE YTM AT CURRENT MOODY MARKET TOTAL COST/ % TYPE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION BOOK YIELD S-P PRICE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3,950,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP NTS .ooo 5.510 A2 99.949 3,918,768.50 1.57 370425QV5 FLTG RT 08/18/2003 DD 08/17/98 A 3,947,985.50 1.32 2,000,000.00 HELLER FINANCIAL INC NTS .000 5.459 A3 100.334 2,000,000.00 .80 423328BK8 FLTG RT 06/25/2001 DD 06/25/99 A-2,006,680.00 .67 3,000,000.00 HELLER FINL MTN tTR 00246 .ooo 5.538 A3 100.598 3,000,000.00 1.20 42333HLF7 FLTG RT 04/28/2003 DD 04/27/99 A-3,017,940.00 1.01 4,000,000.00 HOUSEHOLD FIN CO MTN .ooo 5.444 A2 100.079 4,000,000.00 1.59 44181KZA5 FLTG RT 06/24/2003 DD 06/24/98 A 4,003,160.00 1.34 1,000,000.00 HOUSEHOLD FIN MTN SR 100570 .ooo 5. 743 A2 100.014 999,188.90 ,39 44181KZT4 FLTG RT 08/01/2001 DD 09/04/98 A l,000,140.00 .34 .oo US TREASURY NOTES .ooo .ooo AAA .ooo .00 .oo 9128273G5 06.250% 08/31/2002 DD 09/02/97 AAA .oo .oo 7,285,320.00 US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX NT 3,698 3.651 AAA 99.297 7,262,163.77 2.89 9128273A8 3.625% 07/15/2002 DD 07/15/97 AAA 7,234,104.20 2.43 10,520,600.00 US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX NT 3.723 3.534 AAA 95.500 10,241,575.00 4.01 9128272M3 3.375% 01/15/2007 DD 01/15/97 AAA 10,047,173.00 3,37 19,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 4.943 6.600 AAA 101.062 20,012,510.00 7.67 lll64CZY7 6.670% 03/27/2002 DD 03/27/97 AAA 19,201,780.00 6.44 4,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY MTN tTR 00299 5.170 5.481 AA3 99.609 3,997,788.00 1.59 61745ENL1 FLTG RT 04/15/2002 DD 04/15/99 A+ 3,984,360.00 1. 34 5,000,000.00 US TREASURY BONDS 5.234 9.461 AAA 117.594 6,233,593.75 2,34 912810DE5 11.125% 08/15/2003 DD 07/05/83 AAA 5,879,700.00 1.97 2,100,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES 5.294 6.291 AAA 101. 328 2,167,321.15 .85 912827Z54 06.375% 09/30/2001 DD 09/30/96 AAA 2,127,888.00 • 71 900,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES 5.366 7 .241 AAA 103.578 967,825.47 .37 912827D25 07.500% 11/15/2001 DD 11/15/91 AAA 932,202.00 .31 5,200,000.00 US TREASURY BONDS 5.617 9.790 AAA 121. 297 6,698,250.00 2.52 912810DG0 11.875% 11/15/2003 DD 10/05/83 AAA 6,307,444.00 2 .11 1,500,000.00 ASSOCIATES CORP NA SR NTS 5.650 6 .511 AAl 99.832 1,543,215.00 .59 046003HY8 6.500% 07/15/2002 DD 07/11/97 AA-1,497,480.00 .50 YLDANAL YIELD ANALYSIS PAGE 5 OCSF07522202 1999/09/30 RUN DATE 10/06/99 DISTRICT: LONG-TERM OPERATING RUN TIME 15.26.08 c...=-....--=-==--===-==---:-- PAR VALUE YTM AT CURRENT MOODY MARKET TOTAL COST/ % TYPE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION BOOK YIELD S-P PRICE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL -----------------------------------------------··----------------------------------~ --------- 1,000,000.00 HELLER FINANCIAL INC NTS 5.760 5.853 A3 98,246 999,730.00 .39 42333HKJO 5.750% 09/25/2001 DD 09/25/98 A-982,460.00 .33 2,005,000.00 SEARS ROEBUCK ACCEP CORP MTN 5,804 6.663 A2 98.156 2,060,739.00 ,78 81240QGW6 6.540% 02/20/2003 DD 02/20/97 A-1,968,027.80 .66 5,ooo,ooo.oo US TREASURY NOTES 5.811 6. 174 AAA 101.234 5,086,402.25 2 .02 9128272L5 06.250% 02/28/2002 DD 02/28/97 AAA 5,061,700.00 1.70 3,000,000.00 SEARS ROEBUCK ACCEP CORP MTN 5.849 6.701 A2 98.937 3,073,170.00 1.18 81240QJA1 6.630% 07/09/2002 DD 07/09/97 A-2,968,110.00 1.00 14,750,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 5.8B2 6.215 AAA 91.B75 14,560,462.50 5.41 31364GLD9 5.710% 12/15/2008 DD 12/15/98 AAA 13,551,562.50 4.54 6,000,000.00 NATIONSBANK CHARLOTTE NC MTN 5.8B2 5.B50 AAl 100.000 5,996,400.00 2.39 63858JDE6 5.850% 04/07/2000 DD 04/07/98 AA-6,000,000.00 2.01 710,013.15 FHLMC MULTICL MTG P/C 1574 E 5.912 5,911 99.812 709,014.69 .28 3133T02D5 5.900% 06/15/2017 708,678.33 .24 15,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 5.981 5.844 AAA 99.594 14,955,300.00 5,97 31364G2VO 5.820% 07/19/2001 DD 07/19/99 AAA 14,939,100.00 5.01 2,500,000.00 MERRILL LYNCH NOTES 5,995 6,380 AA3 99.919 2,526,725.00 .99 59018SXP4 6.375% 10/01/2001 DD 10/03/97 AA-2,497,975.00 .B4 7,500,000.00 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS 6.010 6.063 AAA 9B,968 7,497,255.00 2.96 079B67AX5 6.000% 06/15/2002 DD 06/15/98 AAA 7,422,600 .00 2.49 12,500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEBS 6.062 6.019 AAA 99.690 12,485,625.00 4.97 3134A3ZM1 6.000% 07/20/2001 DD 07/20/99 AAA 12,461,250.00 4.18 2,000,000.00 BANKBOSTON CORP SR NTS 6.133 6.186 A2 99.009 1,999,600.00 • 79 06605TAL6 6.125% 03/15/2002 DD 03/12/99 A-l,9B0,1B0.00 .66 100,491.40 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A CLA 6.200 6,202 AAA 99.96B 100,491.39 .04 31677EAA4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/96 100,459.24 .03 1,000,000.00 POPULAR INC MTN ITR 00004 6.201 6,242 A3 99.330 1,000,000.00 ,39 73317PAD1 6.200% 04/30/2001 DD 04/21/99 BBB+ 993,300.00 .33 2,500,000.00 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF 2146 QT 6.207 6,108 AAA 98.234 2,455,859.38 .9B 3133TKKU3 6.000% 11/15/2011 AAA 2,455,859.38 .82 YLDANAL YIELD ANALYSIS PAGE 6 OCSF07522202 1999/09/30 RUN DATE 10/06/99 DISTRICT: LONG-TERM OPERATING RUN TIME 15,26.08 =========-====-==--=-==-==-=--=--=--=---------------------------------------=-=--=-==-==-==================================== PAR VALUE YTM AT CURRENT MOODY MARKET TOTAL COST/ % TYPE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION BOOK YIELD S-P PRICE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL ---------------------------------~-------------------------------------------------------- 493,597.88 GREEN TREE CORP 99-D CL A-1 6.290 6,294 AAA 99.937 493,597.88 ,19 3935052Y7 6,290% 10/15/2013 DD 08/26/99 AAA 493,286.91 ,17 4,500,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 6,291 6,226 AAA 100.062 4,488,705.00 1.79 31364CXV5 6,230% 03/01/2002 DD 03/03/97 AAA 4,502,790.00 1.51 6,250,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.301 6.464 AAA 92.828 5,781,250.00 2,31 01N0606A9 6,000% 10/15/2028 AAA 5,801,750.00 1.95 3,397,400.68 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF E3 A 6 .316 5.838 AAA 101. 752 3,401,116.46 1.38 3133TCE95 6.324% 08/15/2032 AAA 3,456,923.14 1.16 2,000,000.00 BEAR STEARNS COS INC 6.330 6.788 A2 99.438 2,031,960.00 .79 073902AH1 6.750% 04/15/2003 A 1,988,760.00 .67 5,000,000.00 LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN f00196 6,364 6,642 A3 100.125 5,039,450.00 2.00 52517PJD4 6.650% 11/08/2000 DD 11/08/96 A 5,006,250.00 1.68 2,000,000.00 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF Tll A6 6,496 6.694 AAA 97.100 2,ooo,0ee.oo • 77 3133TDPV2 6.500% 09/25/2018 AAA 1,942,000,00 .65 2,339,420.34 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF SER 1620Z 6,542 6,896 AAA 87,009 2,183,280.40 ,81 3133Tl7A4 6.000% 11/15/2023 DD 11/01/93 AAA 2,035,506.24 .68 22,500,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6,564 6,799 AAA 95,609 21,169,687.50 8.59 01N0626A5 6.500% 10/15/2029 AAA 21,512,025.00 7.21 730,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR FNMA 11TH 6.577 6.526 AAA 97.688 713,118.75 .28 11F0116AO VAR RT 10/01/2029 AAA 713,118.75 .24 9,000,000.00 PHILIP MORRIS COS NT 6,593 9. 142 A2 101. 176 9,903,780.00 3.63 718154BB2 9,250% 02/15/2000 A 9,105,840.00 3.05 9,484,448.86 FHLMC GROUP fG5-0476 6,628 6,976 AAA 100.350 9,632,643.37 3.80 3128DDQ55 7,000% 02/01/2003 DD 02/01/98 AAA 9,517,644.43 3.19 2,226,022,63 GNMA II POOL f080088M 6,705 6.309 AAA 101.047 2,274,716.87 .89 36225CC20 6,375% 06/20/2027 DD 06/01/97 AAA 2 ,249,329.09 .75 10,500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEBS 6. 711 6,425 AAA 98,047 10,323,075.00 4.11 3134A3TCO 6.300% 06/01/2004 DD 06/01/99 AAA 10,294,935.00 3.45 2,000,000.00 MARSH & MCLENNAN COS INC SR NT 6. 717 6.690 A2 99,029 1,992,280.00 .79 571748AB8 6.625% 06/15/2004 DD 06/14/99 AA-1,980,580.00 .66 YLDANAL YIELD ANALYSIS PAGE 7 OCSF07522202 1999/09/30 RUN DATE 10/06/99 DISTRICT: LONG-TERM OPERATING RUN TIME 15.26.08 .. -::==--~=------=-= PAR VALUE YTM AT CURRENT MOODY MARKET TOTAL COST/ % TYPE SECURITY ID SECURITY DESCRIPTION BOOK YIELD S-P PRICE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------ 3,000,000.00 FORD MTR CR CO GLOBAL LANDMARK 6.739 6. 738 Al 99,438 2,995,080.00 1.19 345397SJ3 6.700\ 07/16/2004 DD 07/16/99 A 2,983,140.00 1.00 2,500,000.00 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LNS INC NT 6.866 6.923 A3 98.949 2,498,400.00 .98 22237UAB8 6.850\ 06/15/2004 DD 06/24/99 A 2,473,725.00 .83 1,680,654.85 GNMA II POOL 10080023 6.869 6.911 AAA 101. 281 1,708,490.70 .68 36225CAZ9 7.000\ 12/20/2026 DD 12/01/96 AAA 1,702,184.04 .57 996,072.89 FNMA POOL 10252703 6.877 6.589 AAA 98,656 975,373.25 .39 31371HU48 6.500\ 09/01/2006 DD 09/01/99 AAA 982,685.67 .33 2,500,000.00 US TREASURY BONDS 6.906 8.877 AAA 149.266 4,029,030.31 1.49 912810DJ4 13.250\ 05/15/2014 DD 05/15/84 AAA 3,731,650.00 1.25 2,000,000.00 LONG ISLAND LTG CO DEB 7.512 8.221 BAA3 99.750 2,151,250.00 .79 542671CT7 8.200\ 03/15/2023 DD 03/28/93 A-1,995,000.00 .67 --------------------------------------- TOTAL FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 4,530 6 .141 254,837,025.84 100.00 250,235,212.22 83.89 ----------------------------------------TOTAL 4.549 5.968 302,877,461.98 100.00 298,275,648.36 100.00 ================= --------- @ ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENT TRANSACTIONS DISTRIBUTION TO PLAN ADMINISTRATOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 0.00 DISTRIBUTION TO PLAN NA9123459 ADMINISTRATOR cw OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 0.00 FED WIRE FEES FOR AUGUST NA9123459 cw LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 0.00 FED WIRE FEES FOR AUGUST NA9123459 cw LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 0.00 FED WIRE FEES 99362E418 GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO cw LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 0.00 FED WIRE FEES 99362F258 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO cw LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 0.00 FED WIRE FEES 99362F902 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO cw 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 ' PAGE: I AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -25,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 -1.70 0.00 0.00 -1.70 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE PURCHASES 0.00 993620926 cw 0.00 99362H585 cw CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS 21,125.00 996085247 B 21,125.00 996085247 FC 140,175.25 996085247 B 140,175.25 996085247 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FED WIRE FEES LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FED WIRE FEES LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 0 I -Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 PAGE: 2 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -0.85 0.00 0.00 -0.85 0.00 0.00 -21,125.00 21,125.00 0.00 -21,125.00 0.00 0.00 -140, 175.25 140,175.25 0.00 -140,175.25 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 749.71 996087094 B 3,480.55 996087094 B 749.71 996085247 B 749.71 996085247 FC 14,610,443.17 996085247 B 14,610,443.17 996085247 FC 14,000,000.00 74271SX42 B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO PROCTER & GAMBLE DISC 10/04/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 PAGE: 3 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -749.71 749.71 0.00 -3 ,480.55 3,480.55 0.00 -749.71 749.71 0.00 -749.71 0.00 0.00 -14,610,443.17 14,610,443.17 0.00 -14,610,443.17 0.00 0.00 -13,944,560.00 13,944,560.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 14,000,000.00 74271SX42 FC 300,000.00 02680KWV6 B 300,000.00 02680KWV6 FC 3,900,000.00 80311BWV9 B 3,900,000.00 80311BWV9 FC 761,873.21 996085247 B 761,873.21 996085247 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO PROCTER & GAMBLE DISC 10/04/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO AMERITECH CORP DISC 09/29/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO AMERITECH CORP DISC 09/29/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SARA LEE CORP DISC 09/29/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SARA LEE CORP DISC 09/29/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 PAGE: 4 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -13,944,560.00 0.00 0.00 -299,030.17 299,030.17 0.00 -299,030.17 0.00 0.00 -3,888,646.67 3,888,646.67 0.00 -3,888,646.67 0.00 0.00 -761,873.21 761 ,873.21 0.00 -761,873.21 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000J 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 8,061.98 996087094 B 400,000.00 99362E418 B 400,000.00 99362E418 FC 55.82 996085247 B 8,462.29 996085247 B 55.82 996085247 FC 8,462.29 996085247 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO 05.100%09/16/1999 DD 09/15/ GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO 05.100% 09/16/1999 DD 09/15/ GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 16-Sep-1999 . PAGE: 5 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -8,061.98 8,061.98 -0.00 -400,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 -400,000.00 0.00 0.00 -55.82 55.82 0.00 -8,462.29 8,462.29 0.00 -55.82 0.00 0.00 -8,462.29 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 6 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 J 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 14,751.03 BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT 16-Sep-1999 -14,751.03 996087094 VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 16-Sep-1999 14,751.03 B 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 16-Sep-I 999 -400,000.00 99362F258 05.125% 09/17/1999 DD 09/16/ 16-Sep-1999 400,000.00 B LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 16-Sep-1999 -400,000.00 99362F258 05.125% 09/17/1999 DD 09/16/ 16-Sep-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 16-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 57,144.63 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT I 7-Sep-1999 -57,144.63 996085247 17-Sep-1999 57,144.63 B 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 57,144.63 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 17-Sep-1999 -57, 144.63 996085247 17-Sep-1999 0.00 FC I 7-Sep-1999 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 56.09 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 17-Sep-1999 -56.09 996085247 17-Sep-1999 56.09 B 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 56.09 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 17-Sep-1999 -56.09 996085247 17-Sep-1999 0.00 FC 17-Sep-1999 0.00 08-0 ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 400,000.00 99362F902 B 400,000.00 99362F902 FC 6,483.90 996085247 B 6,483.90 996085247 FC 83,692.67 996085247 B 83,692.67 996085247 FC 400,000.00 993620926 B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.050% 09/20/1999 DD 09/17/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.050% 09/20/1999 DD 09/17/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.150% 09/21/1999 DD 09/20/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 PAGE: 7 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -400,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 -400,000.00 0.00 0.00 -6,483.90 6,483.90 0.00 -6,483.90 0.00 0.00 -83,692.67 83,692.67 0.00 -83,692.67 0.00 0.00 -400,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 400,000.00 993620926 FC 900,000.00 313588MP7 B 900,000.00 313588MP7 FC 56.37 996085247 B 56.37 996085247 FC 186,075.19 996085247 B 186,075.19 996085247 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.150% 09/21/1999 DD 09/20/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISCOU MAT 10/05/1999 MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISCOU MAT I 0/05/1999 MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 2 l -Sep-I 999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 PAGE: 8 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -400,000.00 0.00 0.00 -898,061.25 898,061.25 0.00 -898,061.25 0.00 0.00 -56.37 56.37 0.00 -56.37 0.00 0.00 -186,075.19 186,075.19 0.00 -186,075.19 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 400,000.00 99362H585 B 400,000.00 99362H585 FC 1,800,000.00 44922BX45 B 1,800,000.00 44922BX45 FC 3,703.00 996085247 B 3,703.00 996085247 FC 203,446.86 996085247 B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.040% 09/22/1999 DD 09/21/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.040% 09/22/1999 DD 09/21/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO IBM DISC 10/04/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO IBM DISC 10/04/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 PAGE: 9 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -400,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 -400,000.00 0.00 0.00 -1, 796,542.00 I, 796,542.00 0.00 -1 ,796,542.00 0.00 0.00 -3,703.00 3,703.00 0.00 -3,703.00 0.00 0.00 -203,446.86 203,446.86 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 203,446.86 996085247 FC 900,000.00 44922BXM5 B 900,000.00 44922BXM5 FC 13,000,000.00 36959JX57 B 13,000,000.00 36959JX57 FC 55,698.32 996085247 B 55,698.32 996085247 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO IBM DISC 10/21/1999 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LIQUID OPER-PIMCO IBM DISC 10/21/1999 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GENERAL ELEC CAP CP DISC 10/05/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GENERAL ELEC CAP CP DISC 10/05/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 PAGE: JO AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -203,446.86 0.00 0.00 -896,297.00 896,297.00 0.00 -896,297.00 0.00 0.00 -12,976,946.66 12,976,946.66 0.00 -12,976,946.66 0.00 0.00 -55,698.32 55,698.32 0.00 -55,698.32 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOL!DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 1,200,000.00 42824KX55 B 1,200,000.00 42824KX55 FC 7,000,000.00 02581SXT3 B 7,000,000.00 02581SXT3 FC 6,000,000.00 313384NG0 B 6,000,000.00 313384NG0 FC 4,900,000.00 313588NK7 B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO HEWLETT PACKARD DISC 10/05/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO HEWLETT PACKARD DISC 10/05/1999 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO AMERICAN EX CR CP DISC 10/27/1999 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO AMERICAN EX CR CP DISC 10/27/1999 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL HOME LN BK CONS DISC MAT 10/22/1999 WARBURG DILLON READ LLC, NEW LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL HOME LN BK CONS DISC MAT 10/22/1999 WARBURG DILLON READ LLC, NEW LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC N MAT 10/25/99 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 2 7-Sep-I 999 2 7-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-1999 2 7-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 2 7-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 . PAGE: ll AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -1,198,584.00 1,198,584.00 0.00 -I, 198,584.00 0.00 0.00 -6,969,200.00 6,969,200.00 0.00 -6,969,200.00 0.00 0.00 -5,978,500.00 5,978,500.00 0.00 -5,978,500.00 0.00 0.00 -4,881,597.78 4,881 ,597.78 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 4,900,000.00 313588NK7 FC 6,556.25 996085247 B 6,556.25 996085247 FC 66,937.50 996085247 B 66,937.50 996085247 FC 300,000.00 313588MSI B 300,000.00 313588MSI FC FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC N MAT I 0/25/99 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC MAT l 0/08/ 1999 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC MAT I 0/08/1999 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 PAGE: 12 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -4,881,597.78 0.00 0.00 -6,556.25 6,556.25 0.00 -6,556.25 0.00 0.00 -66,937.50 66,937.50 0.00 -66,937.50 0.00 0.00 -299,650.00 299,650.00 0.00 -299,650.00 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II . PAGE: 13 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 I 0000 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -492,401 .06 GNMA POOL #0486958 14-Jul-1999 475,320.90 36210A5TO 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ 24-Aug-1999 -475,320.90 BC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -492,401.06 GNMA POOL #0486958 14-Jul-1999 2,044.83 36210A5TO 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ 24-Aug-1999 0.00 IBC 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -492,401.06 GNMA POOL #0486958 14-Jul-1999 477,365.73 36210A5TO 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ 24-Aug-1999 0.00 FCC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 24-Aug-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 492,401.00 GNMA POOL #0508706 14-Jul-1999 -475,320.84 36211CDK5 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ 24-Aug-1999 475,320.84 B LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 492,401.00 GNMA POOL #0508706 14-Jul-1999 -2,044.83 36211CDK5 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ 24-Aug-1999 0.00 1B 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 492,401.00 GNMA POOL #0508706 14-Jul-1999 -477,365.67 36211CDK5 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ 24-Aug-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 28-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 12,000,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 02-Aug-1999 -11,362,500.00 01N062698 6.500% 09/15/2028 21-Sep-1999 0.00 FC BEAR STEARNS & CO INC, NY 21-Sep-1999 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE l 0,500,000.00 01N062698 FC 6,250,000.00 0IN060692 FC 730,000.00 llF0l 1693 FC 10,500,000.00 01N0626A5 B 12,000,000.00 0lN0626A5 B 996,072.89 31371HU48 B 996,072.89 31371HU48 1B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 09/15/2029 DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.00% 9/15/2028 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR FNMA 11 TH VAR RT 09/01/2029 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 10/15/2029 DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 10/15/2029 BEAR STEARNS & CO INC, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FNMA POOL #0252703 6.500% 09/01/2006 DD 09/01/ CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FNMA POOL #0252703 6.500% 09/01/2006 DD 09/01/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 06-Aug-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 09-Aug-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 11-Aug-1999 23-Sep-l 999 23-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 21-0ct-1999 02-Sep-1999 2 l-Oct-1999 02-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 PAGE: 14 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -9,879,843. 75 0.00 0.00 -5,658,203.13 0.00 0.00 -712,206.25 0.00 0.00 -9,889,687.50 9,889,687.50 0.00 -11,280,000.00 11 ,280,000.00 0.00 -975,373.25 975,373.25 0.00 -3,956.62 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 996,072.89 31371HU48 FC 730,000.00 11F0116A0 B 6,250,000.00 0IN0606A9 B 400,000.00 52517PLMI B 400,000.00 52517PLMI 1B 400,000.00 52517PLM1 FC 2,500,000.00 3133TKKU3 B 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FNMA POOL #0252703 6.500% 09/01/2006 DD 09/01/ CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR FNMA 11TH VAR RT 10/01/2029 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.000% 10/15/2028 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 002 6.400% 08/30/2000 DD 09/26/9 LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 002 6.400% 08/30/2000 DD 09/26/9 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 002 6.400% 08/30/2000 DD 09/26/9 LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF 2146 QT 6.000% 11/15/2011 BEAR STEARNS & CO INC, NY TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 02-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 1 0-Sep-1999 25-0ct-1999 15-Sep-1999 21-Oct-1999 17-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 I 7-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 17-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 04-0ct-1999 PAGE: /5 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -979,329.87 0.00 0.00 -713,118.75 713,118.75 0.00 -5, 781,250.00 5,781,250.00 0.00 -400,216. 00 400,216.00 0.00 -2,631.11 0.00 0.00 -402,847.11 0.00 0.00 -2,455,859.38 2,455,859.38 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000J 0000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED PAY UPS SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 2,500,000.00 3133TKKU3 1B FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 30,500.00 9128272M3 PU 30,500.00 9128272M3 FC 21,070.00 9128273A8 PU 21,070.00 9128273A8 FC 57.00 3133TCE95 PU 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF 2146 QT 6.000% 11/15/2011 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.375% 01/15/2007 DD 01/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.375% 01/15/2007 DD 01/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.625% 07/15/2002 DD 07/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.625% 07/15/2002 DD 07/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 6.324% 08/15/2032 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 29-Sep-1999 04-0ct-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 30-Sep-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 15-Jul-1999 30-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 PAGE: 16 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -1,250.00 0.00 0.00 -30,500.00 30,500.00 0.00 -30,500.00 0.00 0.00 -21,070.00 21,070.00 0.00 -21 ,070.00 0.00 0.00 -57.00 57.00 0.00 Execulive Workbench @ OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SALES SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 57.00 3133TCE95 FC 11,638.94 3133Tl7A4 PU 11,638.94 3133Tl7A4 FC CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS -1.70 996085247 s -1.70 996085247 FC -756,152.26 996085247 s 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 6.324% 08/15/2032 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF SER 162 6.000% 11/15/2023 DD 11/01/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF SER 162 6.000% 11/15/2023 DD 11/01/9 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 13-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 . PAGE: 17 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -57.00 0.00 0.00 -11 ,638.94 11,638.94 0.00 -11,638.94 0.00 0.00 1.70 -1.70 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 756,152.26 -756,152.26 0.00 Executive Workbench @ I[ ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 18 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 10000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -756,152.26 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 03-Sep-1999 756,152.26 996085247 03-Sep-1999 0.00 FC 03-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -14,000,000.00 IBM DISC 03-Sep-1999 13,939,216.67 44922BWH7 09/17/1999 03-Sep-1999 -13,939,216.67 s MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -14,000,000.00 IBM DISC 03-Sep-1999 31,927.77 44922BWH7 09/17/1999 03-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -14,000,000.00 IBM DISC 03-Sep-1999 13,971,144.44 44922BWH7 09/17/1999 03-Sep-1999 0.00 FC MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER 03-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -10,300,000.00 SARA LEE CORP DISC 03-Sep-1999 I 0,258,262.11 8031 lBWM9 09/21/1999 03-Sep-1999 -I 0,258,262.11 s MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -10,300,000.00 SARA LEE CORP DISC 03-Sep-1999 14,442.89 803llBWM9 09/21/1999 03-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -10,300,000.00 SARA LEE CORP DISC 03-Sep-1999 10,272,705.00 803llBWM9 09/21/1999 03-Sep-1999 0.00 FC MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER 03-Sep-1999 0.00 08-Oct-J 999 10: 26: 35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000J 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -749.71 996087094 s -3,480.55 996087094 s -1,688,646.67 996085247 s -1,688,646.67 996085247 FC -1.50 996085247 s -1.50 996085247 FC -60,707.50 996085247 s 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 14-Sep-1999 14-Sep-1999 14-Sep-1999 14-Sep-1999 14-Sep-1999 15-Sep-I 999 15-Sep-I 999 PAGE: 19 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 749.71 -749.71 0.00 3,480.55 -3,480.55 0.00 1,688,646.67 -1,688,646.67 0.00 1,688,646.67 0.00 0.00 1.50 -1.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 60,707.50 -60,707.50 0.00 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 20 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 I 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -60,707.50 DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT 15-Sep-1999 60,707.50 996085247 15-Sep-1999 0.00 FC 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,061.98 BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT 16-Sep-1999 8,061.98 996087094 VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 16-Sep-1999 -8,061.98 s 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO 16-Sep-1999 400,000.00 99362E418 05.100% 09/16/1999 DD 09/15/ 16-Sep-1999 -400,000.00 s GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO 16-Sep-1999 56.67 99362E418 05.100%09/16/1999 DD 09/15/ 16-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS LP REPO 16-Sep-I 999 400,056.67 99362E418 05.100% 09/16/1999 DD 09/15/ 16-Sep-1999 0.00 FC GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 16-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -14,751.03 BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT 17-Sep-1999 14,751.03 996087094 VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 17-Sep-1999 -14,751.03 s 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 17-Sep-I 999 400,000.00 99362F258 05.125% 09/17/1999 DD 09/16/ 17-Sep-1999 -400,000.00 s LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 21 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000J 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 17-Sep-1999 56.94 99362F258 05.125% 09/17/1999 DD 09/16/ 17-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 17-Sep-1999 400,056.94 99362F258 05. 125% 09/17/1999 DD 09/16/ 17-Sep-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 17-Sep-1999 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 20-Sep-1999 400,000.00 99362F902 05.050% 09/20/1999 DD 09/17/ 20-Sep-1999 -400,000.00 s LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 20-Sep-1999 168.33 99362F902 05.050% 09/20/1999 DD 09/17/ 20-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 20-Sep-1999 400,168.33 99362F902 05.050% 09/20/1999 DD 09/17/ 20-Sep-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 20-Sep-1999 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 21-Sep-1999 400,000.00 993620926 05.150% 09/21/1999 DD 09/20/ 21-Sep-1999 -400,000.00 s LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO -400,000.00 LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 21-Sep-1999 57.22 993620926 05.150% 09/21/1999 DD 09/20/ 21-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -400,000.00 99362G926 FC -2,791.96 996085247 s -2,791.96 996085247 FC -400,000.00 99362H585 s -400,000.00 99362H585 IS -400,000.00 99362H585 FC -13,432,982.24 996085247 s 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.150% 09/21/1999 DD 09/20/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.040% 09/22/1999 DD 09/21/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.040% 09/22/1999 DD 09/21/ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROTHERS REPO 05.040% 09/22/1999 DD 09/21/ LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 22-Sep-l 999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 22-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 PAGE: 22 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 400,057.22 0.00 0.00 2,791.96 -2,791.96 0.00 2,791.96 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 -400,000.00 0.00 56.00 0.00 0.00 400,056.00 0.00 0.00 13,432,982.24 -13,432,982.24 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLJDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -13,432,982.24 996085247 FC -11,463.71 996085247 s -11,463.71 996085247 FC -681,597.78 996085247 s -681 ,597. 78 996085247 FC FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 492,401.06 36210A5T0 SC 492,401.06 362IOA5T0 ISC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0486958 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0486958 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 27-Sep-I 999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 28-Sep-1999 28-Sep-1999 28-Sep-1999 28-Sep-1999 28-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 PAGE: 23 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 13 ,432,982.24 0.00 0.00 11 ,463.71 -11,463.71 0.00 11,463.71 0.00 0.00 681,597.78 -681,597.78 0.00 681,597.78 0.00 0.00 -463,857.19 475,320.90 11,463.71 -2,044.83 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 492,401.06 36210A5T0 FCC -492,401.00 36211CDK5 s -492,401.00 36211CDK5 IS -492,401.00 36211CDK5 FC -12,000,000.00 01N062698 s -12,000,000.00 01N062698 FC -10,500,000.00 01N062698 s 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0486958 6.500% 02/15/2029 DD 02/01/ DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0508706 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0508706 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA POOL #0508706 6.500% 08/15/2029 DD 08/01/ DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 09/15/2029 BEAR STEARNS & CO INC, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 09/15/2029 BEAR STEARNS & CO INC, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 09/15/2029 DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 26-Aug-1999 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 06-Aug-1999 24-Aug-1999 28-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 02-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 PAGE: 24 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -465,902.02 0.00 0.00 463,857.13 -475,320.84 -11,463.71 2,044.83 0.00 0.00 465,901.96 0.00 0.00 11,294,062.50 -11,329,250.00 -35,187.50 11,294,062.50 0.00 0.00 9,901,992.19 -9,913,093.75 -11,101.56 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000J 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -10,500,000.00 01N062698 FC -3, 700,000.00 9128272Wl s -3,700,000.00 9l28272Wl IS -3, 700,000.00 9128272Wl FC -5,500,000.00 9128273G5 s -5,500,000.00 9128273G5 IS -5,500,000.00 9128273G5 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 6.500% 09/15/2029 DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO U S TREASURY NOTES 06.500% 05/31/2002 DD 06/02/ CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY NOTES 06.500% 05/31/2002 DD 06/02/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY NOTES 06.500% 05/31/2002 DD 06/02/ CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON C LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY NOTES 06.250% 08/31/2002 DD 09/02/ GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY NOTES 06.250% 08/31/2002 DD 09/02/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY NOTES 06.250% 08/31/2002 DD 09/02/ GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 02-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 07-Sep-1999 PAGE: 25 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 9,901,992.19 0.00 0.00 3,770,820.31 -3,810,555.78 -39,735.47 65,053.28 0.00 0.00 3,835,873.59 0.00 0.00 5,572,187.50 -5,677,682.23 -105,494. 73 6,610.58 0.00 0.00 5,578,798.08 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ii PAGE: 26 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000J 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLJDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEB 03-Sep-1999 2,488,000.00 3134A3ZMI 6.000% 07/20/2001 DD 07/20/9 07-Sep-1999 -2,497,125.00 s MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER -9, 125.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEB 03-Sep-1999 19,583.33 3134A3ZMI 6.000% 07/20/2001 DD 07/20/9 07-Sep-I 999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEB 03-Sep-1999 2,507,583.33 3134A3ZMI 6.000% 07/20/2001 DD 07/20/9 07-Sep-1999 0.00 FC MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER 07-Sep-I 999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 03-Sep-1999 8,067,200.00 31364CBD9 6.625% 04/18/200 I DD 04/18/9 07-Sep-I 999 -8,012,576.00 s BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK 54,624.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 03-Sep-1999 204,638.89 31364CBD9 6.625% 04/18/2001 DD 04/18/9 07-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 03-Sep-1999 8,271,838.89 31364CBD9 6.625% 04/18/2001 DD 04/18/9 07-Sep-1999 0.00 FC BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK 07-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,500,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES 03-Sep-1999 8,601,601.56 9128272G6 06.250% 01/31/2002 DD 01/31/ 07-Sep-1999 -9,034,223.67 s GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY -432,622.11 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II . PAGE: 27 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000J 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLJDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,500,000.00 U S TREASURY NOTES 03-Sep-1999 54,857.34 912827206 06.250% 01/31/2002 DD 0 l/3 l/ 07-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -8,500,000.00 U S TREASURY NOTES 03-Sep-1999 8,656,458.90 912827206 06.250% 01/31/2002 DD 01/31/ 07-Sep-1999 0.00 FC GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 07-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -730,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR FNMA 11 TH 1 0-Sep-1999 713,689.06 1 lFOl 1693 VAR RT 09/01/2029 23-Sep-1999 -712,206.25 s GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 1,482.81 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -730,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR FNMA 11 TH 1 0-Sep-1999 713,689.06 l1F011693 VAR RT 09/01/2029 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -6,250,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 15-Sep-1999 5,787,109.38 01N060692 6.00% 9/15/2029 21-Sep-1999 -5,658,203.13 s GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 128,906.25 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -6,250,000.00 COMMIT TO PUR GNMA SF MTG 15-Sep-1999 5,787,109.38 01N060692 6.00% 9/15/2029 21-Sep-1999 0.00 FC GOLDMAN SACHS & CO, NY 21-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP MTN 20-Sep-1999 1,002,590.00 37042WGK1 6.700% 04/30/2001 DD 04/25/9 23-Sep-1999 -1,018,520.00 s BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK -15,930.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 28 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 10000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP MTN 20-Sep-1999 32,011.11 37042WGK1 6.700% 04/30/2001 DD 04/25/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP MTN 20-Sep-1999 1,034,601 .11 37042WGKI 6.700% 04/30/2001 DD 04/25/9 23-Sep-l 999 0.00 FC BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,250,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP NTS 20-Sep-1999 1,260,362.50 370425QF0 7.125% 05/01/2001 DD 05/01/9 23-Sep-1999 -1,283,862.50 s LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ -23,500.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,250,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP NTS 20-Sep-1999 35,130.21 370425QF0 7.125% 05/01/2001 DD 05/01/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,250,000.00 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP NTS 20-Sep-1999 1,295,492.71 370425QF0 7.125% 05/01/2001 DD 05/01/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 HOUSEHOLD FIN CORP NT 20-Sep-1999 959,340.00 441812GF5 6.000% 05/01/2004 DD 04/30/9 23-Sep-1999 -964,650.00 s DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR -5,310.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1 ,000,000.00 HOUSEHOLD FIN CORP NT 20-Sep-1999 23,833.33 441812GF5 6.000% 05/01/2004 DD 04/30/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 29 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000IO000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 HOUSEHOLD FIN CORP NT 20-Sep-1999 983,173.33 441812GF5 6.000% 05/01/2004 DD 04/30/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 FIRST USA BK NA M1N #SR 0000 20-Sep-1999 994,970.00 33744CAB1 6.125% 06/25/2001 DD 06/23/9 23-Sep-1999 -999,100.00 s DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR -4,130.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 FIRST USA BK NA M1N #SR 0000 20-Sep-1999 15,312.50 33744CAB1 6.125% 06/25/2001 DD 06/23/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,000,000.00 FIRST USA BK NA M1N #SR 0000 20-Sep-1999 1,010,282.50 33744CAB1 6.125% 06/25/2001 DD 06/23/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC DEUTSCHE BK SEC INC, NEW YOR 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,305,000.00 BEAR STEARNS COS INC SR NTS 20-Sep-1999 1,307,818.80 073902AW8 6.750% 05/01/2001 DD 04/26/9 23-Sep-1999 -1 ,317,619.35 s BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK -9,800.55 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,305,000.00 BEAR STEARNS COS INC SR NTS 20-Sep-1999 34,745.63 073902AW8 6.750% 05/01/2001 DD 04/26/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -1,305,000.00 BEAR STEARNS COS INC SR NTS 20-Sep-1999 1,342,564.43 073902AW8 6.750% 05/01/2001 DD 04/26/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC BARCLAYS BANK, NEW YORK 23-Sep-1999 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 30 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 10000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -3,000,000.00 CIT GROUP INC MTN SR 00024 20-Sep-1999 2,875,800.00 12560PAZ4 5.910% 11/10/2003 DD 11/09/9 23-Sep-1999 -2,900,880.00 s MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY -25,080.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -3,000,000.00 CIT GROUP INC MTN SR 00024 20-Sep-1999 65,502.50 12560PAZ4 5.910% I l/10/2003 DD 11/09/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -3,000,000.00 CIT GROUP INC MTN SR 00024 20-Sep-1999 2,941,302.50 12560PAZ4 5.910% 11/10/2003 DD 11/09/9 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 LEHMAN BROS MTN #TR 00343 20-Sep-1999 2,504,300.00 52517PQG9 FLTG RT 07/15/2002 DD 07/12/ 23-Sep-1999 -2,500,000.00 s LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 4,300.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 LEHMAN BROS MTN #TR 00343 20-Sep-1999 30,974.31 52517PQG9 FLTG RT 07/15/2002 DD 07/12/ 23-Sep-1999 0.00 IS 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -2,500,000.00 LEHMAN BROS MTN #TR 00343 20-Sep-1999 2,535,274.31 52517PQG9 FLTG RT 07/15/2002 DD 07/12/ 23-Sep-1999 0.00 FC LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ 23-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -3,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY MTN #TR 00299 20-Sep-1999 2,984,100.00 61745ENLI FLTG RT 04/15/2002 DD 04/15/ 23-Sep-1999 -2,998,341.00 s MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY -14,241.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000JO000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -3,000,000.00 61745ENL1 IS -3,000,000.00 61745ENL1 FC -300,000.00 52517PPQ8 s -300,000.00 52517PPQ8 IS -300,000.00 52517PPQ8 FC PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS FIXED INCOME SECURITIES 79,650.00 3133TCE95 PDC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO MORGAN STANLEY MTN #TR 00299 FL TG RT 04/15/2002 DD 04/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO MORGAN STANLEY MTN #TR 00299 FLTG RT 04/15/2002 DD 04/15/ MORGAN STANLEY & CO INC, NY LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 003 8.150% 05/15/2000 DD 10/16/9 LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 003 8.150% 05/15/2000 DD 10/16/9 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO LEHMAN BROS HLDGS MTN TR 003 8.150% 05/15/2000 DD 10/16/9 LEHMAN BROS INC, NJ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 6.324% 08/15/2032 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 20-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 27-Sep-1999 3 0-Sep-1999 27-Sep-I 999 3 0-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 01-Aug-1999 01-Aug-1999 . PAGE: 31 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 31,850.00 0.00 0.00 3,015,950.00 0.00 0.00 303,150.00 -304,350.00 -1,200.00 3,056.25 0.00 0.00 306,206.25 0.00 0.00 -79,650.00 79,737.12 87.12 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 32 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 10000 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLJDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -79,707.00 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF E3 A 01-Aug-1999 79,707.00 3133TCE95 6.324% 08/15/2032 01-Aug-1999 -79,794.18 PD -87.18 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -79,707.00 FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 01-Aug-1999 79,707.00 3133TCE95 6.324% 08/15/2032 01-Aug-1999 0.00 FC 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 13,481.54 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 15-Aug-1999 -13,481.54 31677EAA4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 15-Aug-1999 13,481.54 PDC 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 13,481.54 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 15-Aug-1999 -13,481.54 31677EAA4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 15-Aug-1999 0.00 FCC 16-Aug-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -13,481.54 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 15-Aug-1999 13,481.54 31677EAA4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 15-Aug-1999 -13,481.54 PD 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -13,481.54 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 15-Aug-1999 13,481.54 31677EAA4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 15-Aug-1999 0.00 FC 14-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO -400,638.60 FHLMC GROUP #G5-0476 01-Sep-1999 400,638.60 3128DDQ55 7.000% 02/01/2003 DD 02/01/ 01-Sep-1999 -406,898.58 PD -6,259.98 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -400,638.60 3128DDQ55 FC -44,826.15 3133T02D5 PD -44,826.15 3133T02D5 FC -27,908.70 36225CAZ9 PD -27,908.70 36225CAZ9 FC -35,051.22 36225CC20 PD -35,051.22 36225CC20 FC 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC GROUP #05-0476 7.000% 02/01/2003 DD 02/01/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICL MTG P/C 1574 E 5.900% 06/15/2017 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICL MTG P/C 1574 E 5.900% 06/15/2017 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #0080023 7.000% 12/20/2026 DD 12/01/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #0080023 7.000% 12/20/2026 DD 12/01/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #080088M 6.875% 06/20/2027 DD 06/01/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #080088M 6.875% 06/20/2027 DD 06/01/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 PAGE: 33 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 400,638.60 0.00 0.00 44,826.15 -44,763 .11 63.04 44,826.15 0.00 0.00 27,908.70 -28,370.94 -462.24 27,908.70 0.00 0.00 35,051.22 -35,817.97 -766.75 35,051.22 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLJDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE MATURITIES -47,160.50 3133TCE95 PD -6,402.12 3935052Y7 PD -6,402.12 3935052Y7 FC -13,081.23 31677EAA4 PD -13,081.23 31677EAA4 FC CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS -2,200,000.00 34539UW99 MT 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 6.324% 08/15/2032 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GREEN TREE CORP 99-D CL A-1 6.290% 10/15/2013 DD 08/26/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GREEN TREE CORP 99-D CL A-1 6.290% 10/15/2013 DD 08/26/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FORD MTR CR CO DISC 09/09/1999 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 I 5-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-I 999 15-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 PAGE: 34 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 47,160.50 -47,212.08 -51.58 6,402.12 -6,402.12 0.00 6,402.12 0.00 0.00 13,081.23 -13,081.23 0.00 13,081.23 0.00 0.00 2,193,352.33 -2, 193,352.33 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOL/DATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -900,000.00 313588LY9 MT -1,900,000.00 80311BWM9 MT -900,000.00 61166BWP8 MT -300,000.00 02680KWV6 MT -3,900,000.00 80311BWV9 MT FIXED INCOME SECURITIES INTEREST -300,000.00 073902AP3 MT 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC MAT 09/20/1999 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SARA LEE CORP DISC 09/21/1999 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO MONSANTO CO DISC 09/23/1999 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO AMERITECH CORP DISC 09/29/1999 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SARA LEE CORP DISC 09/29/1999 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO BEAR STEARN COS INC NTS 7.625% 09/15/1999 DD 09/21/9 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 29-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 PAGE: 35 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 896,476.50 -896,476.50 0.00 1,892,300.78 -1,892,300. 78 0.00 881,400.00 -881,400.00 0.00 299,030.17 -299,030.17 0.00 3,888,646.67 -3,888,646.67 0.00 300,000.00 -303,930.00 -3,930.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE -13,481.54 31677EAA4 ITC 0.00 996087094 IT 500,000.00 89350MEP1 IT 4,500,000.00 31364CXV5 IT 0.00 996085247 IT 0.00 996085247 IT 2,200,000.00 34539UW99 IT 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO BSDT-LATE MONEY DEP ACCT VAR RT DD 06/26/1997 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO TRANSAMERICA FIN MTN #SBO0 11 8.450% 01/12/2000 DD 01/12/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 6.230% 03/01/2002 DD 03/03/9 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO DREYFUS TREASURY CASH MGMT LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FORD MTR CR CO DISC 09/09/1999 TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 16-Aug-1999 15-Aug-1999 16-Aug-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 0 I -Sep-1999 0 I -Sep-I 999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 0 I-Sep-I 999 03-Sep-1999 03-Sep-I 999 01-Sep-1999 03-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 09-Sep-1999 PAGE: 36 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS -657.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 21,125.00 0.00 0.00 140,175.00 0.00 0.00 749.71 0.00 0.00 3,480.55 0.00 0.00 6,647.67 0.00 0.00 £xacutive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II . PAGE: 37 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000J 0000 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 57.00 FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 13-Sep-1999 57.00 3133TCE95 6.324% 08/15/2032 01-Aug-1999 0.00 IT 13-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 13,481.54 FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 14-Sep-1999 656.44 31677EM4 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 15-Aug-1999 0.00 IT 14-Sep-1999 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 900,000.00 FINOV A CAP CORP MTN TR 00039 15-Sep-1999 27,855.00 31808CBQ4 6.190% 10/20/1999 DD 10/20/9 15-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO 300,000.00 BEAR STEARN COS INC NTS 15-Sep-1999 11,437.50 073902AP3 7.625% 09/15/1999 DD 09/21/9 15-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 2,000,000.00 BANKBOSTON CORP SR NTS 15-Sep-1999 62,270.83 06605TAL6 6.125% 03/15/2002 DD 03/12/9 15-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 2,000,000.00 LONG ISLAND LTG CO DEB 15-Sep-1999 82,000.00 542671CT7 8.200% 03/15/2023 DD 03/28/9 15-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 15-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 400,638.60 FHLMC GROUP #G5-0476 15-Sep-1999 57,663.01 3128DDQ55 7.000% 02/01/2003 DD 02/01/ 01-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 15-Sep-1999 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 44,826.15 3133T02D5 IT 79,707.00 3133TCE95 IT 11,638.94 3133Tl7A4 IT 6,402.12 3935052Y7 IT 3,000,000.00 37042WVR9 IT 3,500,000.00 17120QE80 IT 27,908.70 36225CAZ9 IT 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICL MTG P/C 1574 E 5.900% 06/15/2017 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTI CLASS CTF E3 A 6.324% 08/15/2032 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF SER 162 6.000% 11/15/2023 DD 11/01/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GREEN TREE CORP 99-D CL A-I 6.290% 10/15/2013 DD 08/26/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GENERAL MTRS ACCEP MTN FLTGRT 12/17/2001 DD 12/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO CHRYSLER FINL LLC MTN #TR006 FLTG RT 08/08/2002 DD 04/08/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #0080023 7.000% 12/20/2026 DD 12/01/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 15-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 01-Aug-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 0 I -Sep-I 999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 17-Sep-l 999 17-Sep-1999 17-Sep-I 999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-I 999 20-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 PAGE: 38 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 3,711.29 0.00 0.00 17,388.31 0.00 0.00 11,638.94 0.00 0.00 1,659.86 0.00 0.00 42,393.60 0.00 0.00 14,751.03 0.00 0.00 8,720.79 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 I 0000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 900,000.00 313588LY9 IT 35,051.22 36225CC20 IT 1,000,000.00 3134A3RT5 IT l ,900,000.00 80311BWM9 IT 900,000.00 61166BWP8 IT 13,081.23 31677EAA4 IT 4,000,000.00 44181KZA5 IT 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC MAT 09/20/1999 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO GNMA II POOL #080088M 6.875% 06/20/2027 DD 06/01/ LIQUID OPER-PIMCO FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DEB FLTG RT 05/18/2000 DD 05/18/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO SARA LEE CORP DISC 09/21/1999 LIQUID OPER-PIMCO MONSANTO CO DISC 09/23/1999 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO FIFTH THIRD BK AUTO TR 96A C 6.200% 09/01/2001 DD 03/15/9 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO HOUSEHOLD FIN CO MTN FL TG RT 06/24/2003 DD 06/24/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 01-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 18-Sep-1999 20-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 21-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 15-Sep-1999 23-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 24-Sep-1999 , PAGE: 39 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 3,523.50 0.00 0.00 12,011.96 0.00 0.00 4,377.67 0.00 0.00 7,699.22 0.00 0.00 18,600.00 0.00 0.00 586.79 0.00 0.00 55,698.32 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench @ II ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT II PAGE: 40 PORTFOLIO DETAIL OCSG000 I 0000 0l-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR TRADE DATE/ AMOUNT/ SECURITY ID TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ SETTLDATE/ COST/ TRANSCODE BROKER COMPLDATE GAIN/LOSS LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 1,000,000.00 HELLER FINANCIAL INC NTS 27-Sep-1999 28,750.00 42333HKJO 5.750% 09/25/2001 DD 09/25/9 25-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 27-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 2,000,000.00 FHLMC MULTICLASS CTF Tl 1 A6 27-Sep-1999 10,833.33 3133TDPV2 6.500% 09/25/2018 25-Aug-1999 0.00 IT 27-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 19,000,000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN MTN 27-Sep-1999 633,650.00 31364CZY7 6.670% 03/27/2002 DD 03/27/9 27-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 27-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 2,000,000.00 HELLER FINANCIAL INC NTS 27-Sep-1999 28,604.72 423328BK8 FLTG RT 06/25/2001 DD 06/25/ 25-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 27-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 300,000.00 AMERITECH CORP DISC 29-Sep-1999 969.83 02680KWV6 09/29/1999 29-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 29-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 3,900,000.00 SARA LEE CORP DISC 29-Sep-1999 11,353.33 8031 IBWV9 09/29/1999 29-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 29-Sep-1999 0.00 LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO 2,100,000.00 U S TREASURY NOTES 30-Sep-1999 66,937.50 912827Z54 06.375% 09/30/2001 DD 09/30/ 30-Sep-1999 0.00 IT 30-Sep-1999 0.00 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 Executive Workbench @ OCSG000 10000 OCSD-CONSOLIDATED SHARES/PAR SECURITY ID TRANSCODE 0.00 9128272M3 CD 0.00 9128273A8 CD 08-0ct-1999 10:26:35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PORTFOLIO DETAIL 01-SEP-1999 -30-SEP-1999 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/ BROKER LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.375% 01/15/2007 DD 01/15/ LONG TERM OPER-PIMCO US TREASURY INFLATION INDEX 3.625% 07/15/2002 DD 07/15/ TRADE DATE/ SETTLDATE/ COMPLDATE 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 30-Sep-1999 . PAGE: 41 AMOUNT/ COST/ GAIN/LOSS 30,500.00 0.00 0.00 21,070.00 0.00 0.00 Executive Workbench October 6, 1999 DISTRIBUTION FAHR COMMITTEE MEETING PACKAGE Full Agenda Package 45 Committee 13 & Mailing List Donald F. McIntyre 1 Blake P. Anderson 1 (3-hole punched) Dan Dillon 1 Marc Dubois 1 Jeff Esber 1 Ed Hodges 1 Steve Kozak 1 Penny Kyle 2 David Ludwin 1 Greg Mathews 1 Partick Miles 1 (3-hole punched) Bob Ooten 1 Mike Peterman 1 Gary Streed 1 Michelle Tuchman 1 (3-hole punched) Robert Ghirelli 1 Mike White 1 (3-hole punched) Cagle, Brad 1 Lisa Tomko 1 Bob Geggie 1 Mahin Talebi 1 Patricia Jonk 1 Lenora Crane 1 File 1 Extras 5 (for meeting hand-out, if necessary) Notices and Agenda Onl)! 12 Posting 1 Jean Tappan 1 Anna Ubaldini 1 Frankie Woodside 1 Patricia Magnante 1 Janet Gray 1 Security 1 Extras 5 (for meeting hand-out, if necessary) Ron Zenk, Dist. 14 Treasurer's Report Only C \\RADON\DATA 1 \WP .OTA \ADMIN\BS\FAHR\DISTRIBUTIONLISTFAHR.DOC ••• n·11~,,,.,• "" ~ ., ;r, ,. -A.i,:-~ ~"'.'-J • .. ~ ~d:~ 1, '~·"! ~ :_' . i' :,.,.3' ...... ~~~ ~,..,:;-~- FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FAHR Committee Meeting Dates October 13, 1999 November 10, 1999 December 8, 1999 None Scheduled February 9, 2000 March 8, 2000 April 12, 2000 June 14, 2000 July 12, 2000 No Meeting Scheduled September 13, 2000 October 11, 2000 Board Meeting Dates October 27, 1999 November 17, 1999 December 15, 1999 January 26, 2000 February 23, 2000 March 22, 2000 April 26, 2000 June 28, 2000 July 26, 2000 August 23, 2000 September 27, 2000 October 25, 2000 ROLL CALL FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Meeting Date: October 13, 1999 Time: 5:00 p.m. Adjourn: ____ _ COMMITTEE MEMB-ERS THOMAS R SALTARELLI (Chair) ................................................ . MARK LEYES (Vice Chair) •.••••••••••...........•••••••••....•...•...••••••••......•• SHAWN BOYD ••••••••••..••..•........••••••••..•.•..•...•.•...•..........••••••••••.••••... JOHN M. GULLIXSON •..•••••••••••••.....••.••••••••••••..••..•••••••.•.•.............. SHIRLEY MC CRACKEN ....................................•.......................... MARK A. MURPHY .....••••••••••••••.....••.••••••••••••••.........••••••••••..........•• JAMES W. SILVA .••..••••..••••••.....•••••••••••.••.......•••••••••••..........••••••••... JAN DEBAY (Board Chair) ..•..•..•......•••••.••••••.............••••••.........••.•• PEER SWAN (Board Vice Chair) .................................................. . JOHN J. COLLINS (Past Board Chair) ......................................... . OTHERS TOM WOODRUFF, General Counsel .............................................. . TOBY WEISSERT, Carollo Engineers ...•••••••••.•••......•.•••••••••....••.••••• STAFF DON MCINTYRE, General Manager ••••......•.•••••••••••..........•••••••.••..... BLAKE ANDERSON, Assistant General Manager •..•.•••...••.•.•.•••••••. ED HODGES, Director of General Services Administration ......... .. 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 ................... .. PATRICK MILES, Director of Information Technology .................. . ROBERT GHIRELLI, Director of Technical Services ..................... . STEVE KOZAK, Financial Manager ............................................... . MIKE WHITE, Controller ................................................................. . GREG MATHEWS, Assistant to the General Manager ................... . LISA TOMKO, Human Resources Manager •••••.••••....••••••••••..•..•....•• DAWN MCKINLEY, Sr. Human Resources Analyst ....................... . PENNY KYLE, Committee Secretary .............................................. . c: Lenora Crane MINUTES OF FINANCE. ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, September 8, 1999, 5 p.m. A meeting of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on July 14, 1999 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: FAHR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Thomas Saltarelli, Chair Mark Leyes, Vice Chair Shawn Boyd John M. Gullixson Shirley McCracken Mark A Murphy Peer Swan, Board Vice Chair John J. Collins, Past Board Chair Directors Absent: Jan Debay, Board Chair James W. Silva (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Woodruff, General Counsel Don Hughes Ryal Wheeler Daniel Cozad, SAWPA Representative STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Patrick Miles, Director of Information Technology Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance Mike White, Controller Steve Kozak, Financial Manager Lisa Tomko, Human Resources Manager Jim Herberg, Engineering Supervisor John Swindler, IT Manager Jean Tappan, Acting Committee Secretary Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 2 September 8, 1999 (4) RECEIVE, FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING It was moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1999 Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting, as drafted. Director Gullixson abstained. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair had no report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager was not present. (7) REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Mr. Blake Anderson provided an update on the beach closure and ongoing activities. A report will be prepared for the Board that addresses both the cost accounting and technical issues, along with recommendations. Mr. Anderson also reported that OCIP member agencies are vigorously opposing the payment of additional fees to the County of Orange litigation firm. Proceeds should be distributed in October. (8) a. Presentation on SAWPA Governance and Water Bond Issue. Daniel Cozad, SAWPA representative, described the existing SAWPA governance structure and proposed alternatives to more clearly represent the various agencies and stakeholders in issues impacting the Santa Ana River watershed. He also described the projects included in the water bond that, if passed by the State legislators, will be presented to the voters next year. The Directors expressed concern about having agreements in place with the various recipients to ensure that the identified funding is forwarded by SAWPA. The issue of representation will be discussed by the Steering Committee. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Director of Finance Gary Streed reported that property tax and user fee revenues to be received from the County exceed the amounts estimated in the budget. He also reported on the status of the 176 requests from Yorba Linda residents for refunds or credits. There were also 10 requests from residents in other areas of the County. A discussion followed on reconsidering the Board decision at a future meeting. Mr. Streed said that the last account with the County Treasurer has been closed. (9) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES The Director of Human Resources had no report. Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 3 September 8, 1999 (10) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS The Director of Communications had no report. (11) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel had no report. (12) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (Items a-e) a. FAHR99-63: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of August 1999: The 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. b. FAHR99-64: Receive and file Employment Status Report as of August 17, 1999. c. FAHR99-65: Receive and file Quarterly Investment Management Program Report for the Period April 1, 1999 through June 30, 1999. d. FAHR99-66: Receive and file Certificate of Participation (COP) Monthly Report. e. FAHR99-67: Receive and file FY 1998/99 End of Year Operational Report. Motion: END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve the recommended actions for items specified as 12(a) through 12(e) under Consent Calendar. (13) ACTION ITEMS (Items a-d) a. FAHR99-57: The Delegation of Authority Resolution was pulled from the agenda at the request of staff. · b. FAHR99-68: Update on FIS Implementation and Completion Mike White gave a brief report on the history of the project. After discussion, the members approved the recommendation to close out the project. Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to accept the J. D. Edwards Financial Information System and close project #5401200. Director Mark Murphy abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. c. FAHR99-69: Approve 401 (a) Plan Maximum Contribution. The General Manager explained that the action pertains only to the General Manager's contract. There is no additional cost to the District. Minutes of the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting Page 4 September 8, 1999 Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve 401 (a) Plan Maximum Contribution. d. FAHR99-70: Approval of consultant contract with retired employee Gerald Jones re Planning and Implementation of DART Re-engineering Program. Director of Human Resources Mike Peterman explained that the DART reinvention process is in the implementation stage and Mr. Jones' expertise and experience is critical to the success of the program in terms of continuity and vision. No decision has been made on filling the vacant position at this time. The ordinance allows the FAHR Committee to waive the requirement that restricts employing retired employees for one year. Staff was directed to include a statement in the contract that only actual travel expenses would be reimbursed. Director Collins asked that the language in the ordinance be revised to remove reference to the "Joint Chairman." Motion: Moved, seconded and duly carried to approve consultant contract with retired employee Gerald Jones re Planning and Implementation of DART Re- engineering Program. Director Swan opposed. (14) INFORMATION PRESENTATIONS a. FAHR99-61: Data Warehouse Demonstration Information Technology Manager John Swindler demonstrated the data warehouse and how information is collected and retrieved. (15) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There were no supplemental agenda items. (16) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT There were none. (17) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING Director Gullixson asked that the credit and refund of user fees policy be reconsidered at a future meeting, and that General Counsel provide the statutes that limit refunds beyond four years. (18) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next FAHR Committee meeting is scheduled for October 13, 1999 at 5 p.m. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION ANq HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1999, AT 5 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFiC-E 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative 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 Jess than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) ROLL CALL (2) ,APPOl'NTM'ENJ OF CHAIR PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS All persons wishing to address the Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chair, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). October 13 1999 (4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approve minutes of the September 8, 1999, Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee meeting. (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (7) REPORT OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (8) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (9) REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES (10) REEl?ORTOF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS (11) REPORT OF GEN.ERAL COUNSEL (12) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (a-e) Consideration of motion to approve all agenda items appearing on the Consent Calendar not specifically removed from same, as follows: !All matters placed on the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of 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 frorn the consent calendar. The Chair will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. a. FAHR99-71: Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of September 1999. The Treasurer's Report will be distributed at the FAHR Committee meeting in accordance.with the Board-approvecl Investment Policy, and in conformance to the Government Code requirement to have monthly reports reviewed within 30 days of month end. 2 b. C. d. e. FAHR99-72: FAHR99-73: FAHR99-74: FAHR99-75: October 13 1999 Receive and file Employment Status Report as of September 21, 1999. Receive and file Certificate of Participation (COP) Monthly Report. Receive and file report of General Manager approved purchases in amounts exceeding $50,000 in accordance with District's purchasing policies. Receive and file information related to District costs incurred for Huntington Beach Closure Project, Subledger#09810318. END OF ·CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of items deleted from Consent Calendar, if any. (13) ACTION ITEMS (a-e) a. FAHR99-76: b. FAHR99-77: C. FAHR99-78: Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-_, Establishing Policies and Procedures for the Award of Purchase Orders and Contracts; Award of Public Works Project Contracts; Award of Professional Services Contracts; Delegation of Authority to Implement Said Policies and Procedures; and Repealing Resolutions Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43. . (Marc Dubois -10 minutes) 1) Authorize staff to waive the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (CFCC) regarding issuance of the Special Purpose Discharge Permits to the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange to sewer urban runoff for a one-year period effective November 1, 1999; and 2) Amend Ordinance No. OCSD-09 by deleting the reference to "Special Purpose Discharge Pemit" to mandate imposition of a CFCC. (Bob Ghirelli -15 minutes) Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-_, Amending Human Resources Policies and Procedures, Resolution No. OCSD 98-33 Relating to 1) Adjust the Assistant General Manager's pay range (E20) maximum from $136,680 to $148,836; 2) Move the Director of Information Technology classification from pay range E17 ($75,876-$119,784) to pay range E18 ($85,992-$139,464); 3) Move the Warehouse Supervisor classification from pay range E4 ($43,248-$61,236) to pay range E9 ($55,212-$78,156); 4)Move the Contracts & Purchasing Supervisor classification from pay range E9 ($55,212-$78,156) to pay range E11 ($60,828-$86,064); 5) Create Contracts Specialist classification at pay range E2 ($39,252-$55,488); 6) Create Contracts Administrator classification at pay range E7 ($50,064-$70,848); and 7) Reinstate the Safety and Emergency Response Specialist classification at pay range EB ($52,500-$74,292). (Dawn McKinley-10 minutes) 3 d. FAHR99-79: e. FAHR99-80: October 13 1999 Director's request to reconsider District's Policy regarding Refund and Credit for Sanitary Sewer Service Charges (General Counsel-10 minutes) Proposed Ordinance Revisions for Capital Facilities Capacity Charges (General Counsel-10 minutes) (14) INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS a. FAHR99-81: State of the District -Employee Audit (Michelle Tuchman-10 minutes) (15) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS ORSUPPLEMENTALAGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY (16) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA i;QR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (17) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Meeting is scheduled for November 10, 1999, at 5 p.m. (18) CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the .business set forth on this age-nda as a regular meeting of the Committee, the ·-j Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate negotiations, , pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, i 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. j~ Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employee actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Committee during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. Aj_ such time as final actions are taken by the Committee on any of these l sub·ects, the minutes will reflect all re·quired disclosures of information. j A. Convene in closed session. 1. Confer with District's Labor Negotiator re Labor Negotiations and Update Labor Relations Resolution (Government Code Section 54957.6). B. Reconvene in regular session. C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. 4 October 13 1999 (19) ADJOURNMENT ~Notice To Committee Members: I For any questions on the agenda or to place any items on the agenda, Committee members should contact the Committee I Chair or Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: Committee Secretary: Thomas Saltarelli Penny Kyle (949) 833-9200 (714) 593-7130 ------------------------------,,---, ..... _,,_., ·-----------' 5 FAHR COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Originator: Patty Steeves, Human Resources Analyst Meeting Date 10/13/99 Item Number FAHR99-72 SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT AS OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Employment Status Report. SUMMARY Total FTE headcount at the District as of September 21, 1999 was 497.75. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Not applicable. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. r8] Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION To Bd. of Dir. Item Number The District had a full-time equivalent (FTE) headcount of 497.75 as of September 21, 1999. The actual number of employees was 507. The annual turnover rate is 5.1 %. There were three promotions for the following positions: • From: To: • From: Associate Engineer II (Source Control) Engineer (Design & Planning Engineering) Laboratory Analyst (Environmental Sciences Laboratory) To: Senior Laboratory Analyst (Environmental Sciences Laboratory) • From: Plant Operator (Plant Operations) To: Senior Plant Operator (Plant Operations) \lradonldala1w,p.dta\agenda\FAHRIFahr99199ar\FAHR99-72.dot Rellised: 81201118 Page 1 There were two new employees hired in September, 1999: • Intern (Air Quality & Special Projects) • Construction Inspector (Construction Management) ALTERNATIVES Not applicable. CEQA FINDINGS Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS September 21, 1999 Employment Status Report. Performance compared to 3-Year Staffing Plan. \lnldon\data1\wp.dta\agenda\FAHR\Fah199199ar\FAHR99-72.dot R"""8<1: 8/2lll98 Page2 9/21/99---4:38 PM Employment Status Report Regular Regular Actual Vacant Budget Budget Plan Plan Positions Regular Part-time Part-time FTE Positions FTE FTE FTE FTE w/in Fins/ plan Full-time 20 hours 30 hours Conlract Intern LOA Count FY99-00 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 (FY01-02) 110 -General Management Ad min 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Total General Management 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 210 • Finance Administration 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 220 -Accounting 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 19.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 230 -Purchasing & Warehousing 13.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.00 3.50 15.00 17.50 17.50 17.50 3.50 Total Finance 33.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 3.50 38.00 37.50 37.50 37.50 3.50 310-Communications 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 9.00 0.00 10.75 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 Total Communications 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 9.00 0.00 10.75 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 410 -General Services Admin 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 -3.00 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -4.00 420 -Collection Facilities Mice 16.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 17.50 0.00 18.50 17.50 19.50 19.50 2.00 430 -Plant Maintenance 29.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.50 0.00 38.50 29.50 29.50 28.50 -1 .00 Total General Services 49.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 51.00 -3.00 63.00 48.00 49.00 48.00 -3.00 510 -HR & Employee Development 9.00 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.25 0.00 11.75 10.25 10.25 10.25 0.00 Total Human Resources 9.00 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.25 0.00 11.75 10.25 10.25 10.25 0.00 610 -Technical Services Admin 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 4.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 620 • Environmental Compliance & Moni1 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 19.50 1.00 18.00 20.50 20.50 20.50 1.00 630 -Environmental Laboratory 27.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.50 2.50 34.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 2.50 640 -Source Control 33.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.75 0.00 36.75 33.75 33.75 33.75 0.00 650 -Safety & Emergency Response 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1.50 5.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 1.50 0.00 Total Technical Services 87.00 2.50 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 90.75 5.00 98,50 95.75 95.75 95.75 5.00 710 -Engineering Administration 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 720 -Planning & Design Engineering 30.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 31.25 4.00 27.25 35.25 35.25 35.25 4.00 730 -Construction Management 33.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 34.00 2.75 37.00 36.75 36.75 36.75 2.75 Total Enqineering 66.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.50 1.00 68.25 6.75 67.25 75.00 75.00 75.00 6.75 810 -0 & M Administration 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 820 • 0 & M Process Support 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 a.so 0.00 9.00 1.00 11.25 10.00 9.25 9.25 0.25 830 • Plant 1 Operations 31.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 32.50 0.83 37.00 33.33 34.33 34.33 1.83 840 -Plant 2 Operations 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.33 43.00 39.33 37.33 37.33 -1 .67 850 -Mechanical Mtce 45.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.50 0.00 52.50 45.50 45.50 45.50 0.00 860 -Electrical & Instrumentation Mtce 54.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.50 1.00 58.50 55.50 55.50 55.50 1.00 870 -Cogeneration 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.34 11.00 10.34 10.34 10.34 0.34 880 • Air Quality & Special Projects 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 9.50 9.50 -0.50 Total Ooerations & Maintenance 199.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 202.50 3 .. 50 223.25 206.00 203.75 203.75 1.25 910 -IT Admin 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 930 -Customer & Network Support 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 12.00 3.00 11.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 3.00 940 -Programming & Database Sys 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 950 -Process Controls Integration 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 Total Information Technoloav 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 28.00 5.00 26.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 5.00 Total Stafflna 482.001 4.50I 2.25I 0.50) 2.50) 6.00 497.75 20.75 542.50 518.50 517.25 516.25 18.50 Original 5-Yr Plan Goal 549.00 521.50 515.50 507.50 g:\excel.dta\hr\51 O\steeves\3-Year Staffing Plan FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 10/13/99 N/A AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number FAHR99-73 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance Originator: Steve Kozak, Financial Manager SUBJECT: CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (COP) MONTHLY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1999 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file Certificates of Participation (COP) Monthly Report for the month of September 1999. SUMMARY Since June 1995, the daily rate COP program remarketing agents have been PaineWebber for the Series "A" and the 1993 Refunding COPs, and J.P. Morgan for the Series "C" COPs. Most fixed rate Series "8" COPs have been refunded and the 1992 Refunding COPs have always been remarketed by PaineWebber in a weekly mode. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY None. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. rgi Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For the month of September 1999, graphical and tabular reports are attached. The first graph entitled, "OCSD COP Rate History Report," 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." H:\wp.dta\agenda\FAHR\Fahr99\99ar1FAHR99-73.doc Revised: 1 /5198 Page 1 The second bar chart entitled, "Comparative Daily COP Rate History Report," shows the performance of the District's Daily Rate COPs as compared to a composite index rate, which represents the average rate of six similar variable rate daily reset borrowings. The third bar chart entitled, "COP Rate History, Comparison of Highest & Lowest Rates," compares the performance (monthly average interest rate) of the District's Daily Rate COPs with the highest and lowest monthly average rates from among six similar variable rate daily reset COPs. The table entitled, "COP Rate History, Comparison of Monthly Averages," shows the monthly variable interest rate performance of the District's Daily Rate COPs as compared to the composite index. Estimated annual interest payments calculated for a standard $100 million par amount, are also shown. Variable rates historically rise at the end of each calendar quarter, and especially at year-end, because of business taxes and liquidity requirements. The rates decline to prior levels immediately in the following month. Staff maintains continuous rate monitoring and ongoing dialog with the remarketing agents to keep the Committee fully informed about developments in the program as they occur and at each meeting. ALTERNATIVES None. CEQA FINDINGS None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Graph -OCSD COP Daily Rate History Report 2. Graph -Comparative Daily COP Rate History Report 3. Graph -COP Rate History, Comparison of Highest & Lowest Rates 4. Tabular -COP Rate History, Comparison of Monthly Averages GGS:SK:lc H:lwp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fahr99199ar\FAHRSS-73.dac Revised: 115198 Page2 Prepared by Finance, 10/5/99, 2:55 PM Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 AVERAGE DAILY COP RA TE HISTORY COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGES OCTOBER, 1998-SEPTEMBER, 1999 OCSD $100M $98.5M $46M Series"A" Series"C" Series 93 Ref Paine Webber J.P. Morgan PaineWebber 3.06 3.00 3.06 2.94 2.91 2.94 3.11 3.07 3.11 2.84 2.87 2.84 2.30 2.28 2.30 2.72 2.66 2.72 2.88 2.83 2.88 3.34 3.33 3.34 3.30 3.25 3.30 2.35 2.36 2.35 2.82 2.82 2.82 2.98 2.97 2.98 2.89% 2.86% 2.89% ESTIMATED ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS PER $100M PAR AMOUNT $ 2,886,667 $ 2,862,500 $ 2,886,667 * FOOTNOTE Composite index consists of the following COP transactions: • IRWD, Series 86, $60M, Smith Barney • IRWD, Series 93 "A" Refunding, $87.6M, Bankers Trust • IRWD, Series 93 "B" Refunding, $41.BM, J.P. Morgan • IRWD, Series 95 Refunding, $117.8M, PaineWebber Composite Index• 3.02 2.96 3.09 2.87 2.32 2.70 2.86 3.34 3.28 2.36 2.83 2.98 2.88% $ 2,884,167 • Western Riverside Co. Reg. Wastewater Auth., Series 96, $25.4M, PaineWebber • Orange Co., Irvine Coast Asst. Dist. 88-1, $94.5M, J.P. Morgan • SCE, $192M, Lehman G:\excel.dta\fin\2220\geggi\Finance\COPdaily$rate comparison FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 10/13/99 N/A AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number FAHR99-74 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Marc D. Dubois, Contracts / Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL MANAGER APPROVED PURCHASES GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report of General Manager approved purchases in amounts exceeding $50,000 in accordance with Board purchasing policies. SUMMARY In May 1998, the FAHR Committee and the Board approved changes to the staff purchasing authority. One of the changes was to increase the dollar threshold before Board authority was required for purchases of goods or services, excluding public works purchases, to $100,000. When approving this change, the Committee asked for periodic reports showing purchases approved by the General Manager for amounts between $50,000 and $100,000. Subsequent to receiving the initial report, the Committee requested that future reports be placed on the Consent Calendar. Vendor Name Amount Description/Discussion IBM Corporation $73,200.00 IBM AS 400 system lease South Coast Environmental $80,868.00 Emissions source testing Nickey Petroleum Co.,lnc. $60,000.00 Regular and premium gasoline County contract Office Depot $50,000.00 Office supplies -County contract Duthie Power Services $75,816.00 Y2K portable generators So. Calif. Coastal Water $56,500.00 Analyze sediment samples Research Realtime Systems Corp. $74,300.00 SCADA system upgrade Converse Consultants $80,000.00 Emergency work -Beach closure MEC Analytical system $60,000.00 Dye study report & Flourometers Page 1 Section 1 O of Resolution 98-21, the District's Purchasing and Contracts Award Resolution, authorizes the Purchasing/Contracts Manager to purchase items that have "appropriate budgetary approval." During the budget adoption process, the lists of these items were highlighted for the Directors. For these reasons, purchases ,that fell into these categories are not included in this report. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. ~ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A ALTERNATIVES N/A CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS None. Page2 FAHR COMM ITTEE Meeting Date 10/13/99 AGE NDA REPORT Item Number FAHR99-75 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Don McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager SUBJECT: INCURRED DISTRICT COSTS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CLOSURE PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1) Receive and file information related to District costs incurred for Huntington Beach Closure Project, Subledger #09810318 SUMMARY The District participated in a lead role in the investigation of the Huntington Beach closure project and incurred the costs associated with our due diligence efforts. The beach closure, which lasted from the Fourth of July weekend to the Labor Day weekend, required thorough investigative and support efforts that resulted in significant Engineering, Technical Services, General Services, Communications and Administrative costs. The level of District effort has been reported in some depth at the various Committee meetings; however the overall costs have not previously been summarized. As we begin to demobilize from our emergency-stance to a longer term planning mode, our ability to estimate the incurred costs has improved. Thus far, based on purchase orders and other data, it is estimated the District has spent nearly $1.5 million on all efforts related to the Huntington Beach closure project. These costs are shown in Attachment A and are categorized as follows: • $736,931 for Coast Trunk Siphon Projects and resulting rehabilitation. • $212,222 for characteristic and investigative studies at Huntington Beach and surrounding areas. • $90,281 for sewer inspection and rehabilitation services. • $86,607 for In-house lab services. • ~$411,000 for accumulated District staff time. These project costs will increase, though not dramatically, as we continue to refine our data and conduct further research into the source of the problem. We are working cooperatively with the involved agencies to develop an equitable cost-sharing plan related to this on-going project. Until such time when we are able to confirm one or more sources for the Huntington Beach closure, or unless future policy direction dictates otherwise, current project expenses are being allocated to Revenue Area 11. There is one exception: the Outfall Dye project H:\wp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fahr99199ar\FAHR99-75.doc ReviMd: 1.15198 Page 1 To Board Item Number for approximately $85,000 benefits the entire District and thus will be distributed to all Revenue Areas. At minimum, siphon cleaning, re-design and rehabilitation will be permanently allocated to Revenue Area 11. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Please consult Attachment A detailing District and other agencies' costs through the end of September, 1999. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. ~ Not applicable {information item) This is an information item only. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The costs in Attachment A were categorized based on what was believed to be similar functional areas. They are f~rther described as follows: Coast Trunk Siphon Project -The Coast Trunk Siphon Project began as an investigative effort to discover the probable cause of the Huntington Beach elevated bacterial levels. It transitioned into a Capital Improvement Project to retrofit and narrow the siphon. The CIP costs for siphon rehabilitation have been included as part of the overall Huntington Beach Closure Project although it could be itemized separately. This work would not have been accomplished in the foreseeable future without the cleaning and leak investigation that led to the siphon's re-engineering. Although no leak was discovered, the siphon was re- designed to improve flows. Vicinity Characteristics Research -These projects included various studies designed to ieentify the possible source(s) of the Huntington Beach contamination. Although these data gathering efforts have provided a significant amount of information and led to the District ruling out some contamination sources, the studies have not resulted in conclusive evidence identifying the actual source of the problem. Sewer Inspection/Rehabilitation Services -These projects included visual inspection, televising and rehabilitation of sewer infrastructure around the Huntington Beach area. State Parks will be reimbursing the District for a large H:lwp.dtalagendalFAHRIFaht98\99aM'AHR99-75.doc R9"ised: 115198 Page2 portion of these costs as reflected in the Other Agency Costs line item of Attachment A In-house Lab Services -These represent the fully-loaded costs associated with taking and testing laboratory samples related to the closure. They include the lab staff time necessary for testing. In addition, the costs of the vessel taking the samples are included in this category. Other Administrative Costs -These are largely made up of the remaining staff time involved in the Huntington Beach Closure Project. It includes meetings, investigations, research, Emergency Operations Center activities, communications efforts, etc., as well as captures any extraordinary services or regular overtime paid to staff. The costs are fully-burdened with the appropriate District's overhead rates. In addition to District costs, the participating agencies-the City of Huntington Beach, County Health, State Parks, and County Flood Control-have provide us with their estimated costs through the end of September. These are provided in Attachment A It should be noted these are not audited and will use different overhead rates and other methods for capturing costs compared to the District. Nevertheless, the figures provide a representation of what the Huntington Beach Closure Project costs have been for all directly involved agencies. ALTERNATIVES Not Applicable. CEQA FINDINGS Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 ) Attachment A -District and other Agency Costs for Huntington Beach Closure Project GM H:\wp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fahr99\99;1r\FAHR99-75.doc Revised: 1/5198 Page3 District and Other Agency Costs for Huntington Beach Closure Project Activity Work Status OCSD$ H.Beach$ Co.Health$ St Parks$ Co.Flood$ Coast Trunk Si!;!hon Project Flow Monitoring Studies Awaiting final report $ 18,065 Siphon Leak Inv. & Cleaning* Completed $ 391,289 est. Siphon Debris Hauling Completed $ 7,577 Diversion Structure Completed $ 125,000 est. Siphon Engineering & Retrofit In-progress $ 195,000 est. SUB-TOTAL $ 736,931 •inc. Newland area cleaning Vicinit:ll:'. Characteristics Research Ground Penetrating Radar Completed $ 10,000 est. Beach Surveying & Hydropunching Completed $ 81,000 est. Archived Docs Review & Aerial Photo Completed $ 7,075 est. Talbert Marsh Study Draft Report Submitted $ 30,000 est. Outfall Dye Project Completed $ 84,147 est. SUB-TOTAL $ 212,222 Sewer lns~ction/Rehab Services CCTV/Clean Huntington State Beach Area Completed $ 27,590 CCTV/Clean Lower District 11 Completed $ 5,928 Other line cleaning services Completed $ 11,941 Sewer Repair Services for State Parks Completed $ 20,822 Potholing beside Lines Completed $ 24,000 est. SUB-TOTAL $ 90,281 In-house Lab Services Fully-loaded Sample Costs On-going costs (data through September 30) $ 83,807 Enchanter Boat On-going costs $ 2,800 SUB-TOTAL $ 86,607 Other Administrative Costs Documents, Mapping, etc. On-going costs $ 1,274 Accumulated Staff Time On-going costs (data through September 30) $ 411,000 est. SUB-TOTAL $ 412,274 Other Agency Costs Outstanding Reimbursement from State Parks $ (51,682) Listed Jurisdiction $ 335,133 $ 75,959 $ 121,869 $ 28,555 I GRAND TOTAL FOR DISTRICT: $ 1,486,633 I TOTAL PROJECT COSTS -ALL AGENCIES $2,048,149 Attachment A ALTERNATIVES Maintain existing policy, or adopt revised new policy. CEQA FINDINGS NIA ATTACHMENTS 1. July 14, 1999 FAHR Comm_ittee Staff Report 2. September 2, 1999 PDC Committee Staff Report 3. October 7, 1999 PDC Committee Staff Report 4. Proposed ResolutiQn No. OCSD 99-XX H:lwp.dlalagendalFAHRIFahr99\99arlFAHR99-76.doc RIMMd: 115/96 Page2 r· FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 07/14/99 09/22/99 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number FAHR99-57 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Delegation of Authority Committee (Marc Dubois,· Contracts/Purchasing Manager, Doug Stewart, Engineering Manager, Ed Torres, Air Quality Control Manager, Michael D. White, Controller) SUBJECT: PURCHASING RESOLUTION AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY (DOA) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-XX, Establishing Policies and Procedures For The Award of Purchase Orders and Contracts; Award of Public Works Project Contracts; Award of Professional Services Contracts; and Delegation of Authority to Implement Said Policies and Procedures; and Repeal Resolution Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43. SUMMARY In July 1998, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43 establishing policies and procedures for the award of purchase orders and contracts, award of public works contrads, award of professional services agreements, and delegation of authority to implement said policies and procedures. Proposed Resolution OCSD 9~ XX is to consolidate these previously approved Resolutions into one compact resolution and Repeal Resolutions OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43. A committee comprised of division managers was formed to review and recommend changes to existing policies and procedures related to delegation of authority. The work of this committee resulted in the passage of several independent Board Resolutions in FY 1997-98 related to delegated authority from the Board. The directives in these resolutions ranged from contracts and purchasing to construction contract change orders. In conjunction with the consolidation of the Districts in July 1998, General Counsel recommended adoption of Resolutions OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43 to replace these earlier Resolutions. General Counsel and the Delegation of Authority Committee (DOA Committee) have since been asked to revisit these resolutions and consolidate them into one compact resolution related to the entire spectrum of delegated authority from the Board to Board Committees and staff. The \lladonldala1-,.dla'lagenda\FAHRIFah19111118afV'AHR~57.dat RMMI: 11201N Page 1 ,, DOA Committee and General Counsel have collaborated and are requesting approval of the attached resolution. Combining the four resolutions, removing inconsistencies - created within the in the original doa.aments, and changing the levels of delegated authority will gain consistency across the organization. The details are discussed in the Additional Information section of this Agenda Report. This item was reviewed by the Steering Committee in May, and referred to the PDC and FAHR ~ommittees. The PDC Committee reviewed and approved the recommendations by a split vote on .July 1, 1999. They will rec::eive additional information at their , . September meeting. This item is tentatively scheduled for the September 22, 1999 Board meeting. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Not Applicable. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has ~n budgeted. D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. 181 Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Resolution OCSD 98-8 deals primarily with the award of professional service agreements, the selection of consultants, and the ratification of construction contract change orders. The DOA committee compared the delegated approval levels for professional service agreements and construction contract change orders with the delegated approval levels for all other.service type contracts and found a disparity across the organization. Under the Delegation of Authority Resolution, OCSD 98-12, the General Manager is delegated up to $100,000 of authority for approval of service contracts and purchase orders. Under Resolution OCSD 98-8, however, the General Manager is delegated up to $50,000 for approval of professional service agreements and construction contract change orders. Staff is requesting a change in the delegated authority to achieve consistency with the General Manager's authority and to provide flexibility aaoss the organization. The increase in the General Manager's authority and the additional flexibility provided to staff will save the District time in getting projeds approved, lessen the workload submitted to the Board and Committees, and provide more time for the Directors to focus on the •bigger picture· projects. Table 1 on the following page shows a summary of the existing levels of delegated authority and the requested new levels.• · 11 ....... , ....... aH~AHRllll-57.llat -...11121111 ·Page2 Table 1 Summary of Changes to Financial Approval Levels Deleaated Area Current Deleaation General Manager authority Up to $25,000 per for PSA's and addenda original agreement . and up to $25,000 additional per each addendum, NTE $50,000 total for all addenda. Director of Engineering · Up to $50,000 per authority for small projed each task order, no task orders and addenda authority for addenda. only. This provision applies only to Sections 4.03-4.06 .. General Manager authority Up to $25,000 per for Public Works Contrad original contrad and and Change Orders up to $50,000 (additions only) per each additional change order. In no case may change order total exceed 5%, or $100,000, whichever is less, of total contract. Board Committee's Up to $50,000 per authority for PSA's and original agreement Addenda and up $50,000 per each addenda, NTE $100,000 total additional. Board Committee's Up to $50,000 per authority for Public Works original contrad and Contrad and Change Up to $100,000 Orders (additions only) per each additional change order. In no case may change order total exceed 10% or $200,000, whichever is less, of total contract. Board Over $50,000 on original and over $200,000, or 10%, whichever is less, on change orders. lladonldala1\Np.dllalaganda\FI\HR\FaMIINl8aftrAHRII0-57.clal R9viMII: ll/2Qll8 Proposed Delegation Justification Up to $100,000 total Maintain consistency with GM's for PSA , including all authority for seNices, equipment addenda. and materials. Non-PSA purchases between $50,000 and $100,000 are. reported to FAHR each quarter. PSA actions by GM reported to PDC monthly. Up to $50,000 per Maintain consistency with GM's each task order and authority for services, equipment up to $50,000 each and materials. addendum with a total not to exceed Director of Engineering reports all $100,000, including all task orders to PDC each quarter. addenda. Up to $100,000 for Maintain consistency with GM's total of original authority for seNices, equipment contract and all and materials. change orders (additions only). In no Public Works bidding and contract case may change requirements would continue to be order total exceed 5% met. Change orders reported or $100,000, which-each month to PDC with quarter ever is less, of total to date update. contract. Up.to $200,000 total Consistency with Board for PSA, including all Committee's cunent·delegated addenda. authority of 2x the GM's authority. Primarily affeds PDC Committee. Up to $200,000 for Consistency with Board total of original Committee's current delegated contrad and all authority of 2x the GM's authority. change orders (additions only). In no Affects PDC Committee only. case may change order total exceed 10% or $200,000, whichever is less, of total contract. Over $200,000 on Time savings due to the reduction original and over in the volume of small projects $200,000, or 10%, that would have to be reviewed by whichever is less, on the Board. chanae orders. Page3 PSA, or Professional Service Agreement, as used in Table 1 on the preceding page, and in Table 2 below, is limited to firms providing engineering, architecture, environmental·; land surveying, construction management services and related services. Table 2 provides for three additional changes that are being requested by staff. Table 2 Changes to Policy and Administrative Issues DescriDtion Chanae Justification Professional Services Allow General Manager to Reduces administrative Agreements for small extend agreement period for burden on Engineering and capital projects only, refer two additional years. Purchasing Departments to to Section 4.03 solicit interest from finns and establish contracts. Travel assoeiated with Include Mexico along with Likely incidence of travel to meetings and training Canada (already approved by Mexico as a result of NAFT A Board) as Board-approved and consideration of North destination for out-of-country America as a whole. travel. Delegated authorities Allow General Manager and Varying levels of authority for within Departments for Department Heads authority to purchasing required by purchaseslessthan establish purchasing authority individual departments varying $1.0,000 within organizational structure. structures and position classifications. Staff has had one year of experience with the small capital projects consultant contracts. Eighteen task orders were issued under this program, saving an average of 2.5 months on each task order, compared with obtaining Board approval of a separate contract for each project. This delegated authority has been key in alleviating a backlog of projects that had built up over several years. At the end of the contract period, each of the consultants was asked if they would extend this year's rates for an additional year. All agreed to extend the contract terms for an additional year. Eliminating an entire RFP and consultant selection process on an annual basis would save staff about 350 hours per year, or 0.17 full time equivalent staffing effort, and allow the District.to lock in favorable consulting rates for a three year period. In order to be effective, purchasing authority must be delegated into the organization. Prior attempts to delineate this authority were accomplished by the use of position classifications, i.e. Foreman. However, the various Departments and Divisions are organized and structured differently, and these classification delegations were not practical throughout the entire agency. Allowing each Department Head the ability to establish separate authority levels for purchases under $10,000 will provide the organization with the ability to manage more efficiently and effectively in the future. ALTERNATIVES Maintain the existing delegation of authority levels and separate purchasing resolutions. \lladonldata1'1Np.dla\aga,dlllFAHR\FaMIINllllill\FAHRll9-57.dat A.._: 8l20IIIII Page4 PDC COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 9/2/99 9/22/99 AGENDA REPORT iem ~~mber Item Number '/)c,, • ..3 5' Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Delegation of Authority Committee (Marc Dubois, Contracts and Purchasing Manager; Doug Stewart, Engineering Manager; Ed Torres, Air Quality Control Manager; and Michael White, Controller) SUBJECT: PURCHASING RESOLUTION AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY (DOA) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-XX., Establishing Policies and Procedures for the Award of Purchase Orders and Contracts; Award of Public Works Project Contracts; Award of Professional Services Contracts; and Delegation of Authority to Implement said Policies and Procedures; and Repeal Resolution Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22 , and OCSD 98-43. SUMMARY In May 1999, the Steering Committee and the FAHR Committee reviewed this item. In July 1999, the PDC Committee reviewed this item and approved the item on a 5-4 vote with the recommendation that the item be further discussed at the September PDC Committee meeting. The PDC Committee requested that specific examples be brought to them to show how the proposed Delegation of Authority would affect workflow. This information is contained in the Additional Information section of this Agenda Report. The prior Agenda Report discussing the proposed Delegation of Authority is attached for reference. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Not Applicable. BUDGET IMPACT 0 This item has been budgeted. (1999-00 Budget, Sedion_, page_) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. ~ Not applicable (information item} Page 1 The reporting mechanism for all delegated approvals under the proposed DOA remains unchanged. Any PSA approved by the General Manager is reported on a quarterly basis to the PDC Committee for.their review and comment. Any construction contract or change order approved by the General Manager is reported to the PDC Committee on a monthly basis and summarized quarterly. ALTERNATIVES Maintain the existing Delegation of Authority levels and separate purchasing resolutions. CEQA FINDINGS Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS PDC 99-35 Agenda Report with attachments DMS:jak G:Vltglobal\Agenda Draft Reports\PDC\DOA AR 090299.dot Page3 suggested changes to remove inconsistencies created in the merging of the documents, and suggested changes in the levels of delegated authority to gain consistency across the organization. The details are discussed in the Additional Information section of this ' Agenda Report. This item was reviewed by the Steering Committee and the FAHR Committee in May 1999. The FAHR Committee will rehear this item at their July meeting, subsequent to the PDC Committee review of the item. This item is tentatively scheduled for the July 21, 1999 Board meeting. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Not Applicable. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. [8] Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Resolution OCSD 98-8 deals primarily with the award of professional service agreements, the selection of consultants, and the ratification of construction contract change orders. The DOA committee compared the delegated approval levels for professional service agreements and construction contract change orders with the delegated approval levels for all other service type contracts and found a disparity across the organization. Under the Delegation of Authority Resolution, OCSD 98-12, the General Manager is delegated up to $100,000 of authority for approval of service contracts and purchase orders. Under Resolution QCSD 98-8, however, the General Manager is delegated up to $50,000 for approval of professional service agreements and construction contract change orders. Staff is requesting a change in the delegated authority to achieve consistency with the General Manager's authority and to provide flexibility across the organization. The increase in the General Manager's authority and the additional flexibility provided to staff will save the District time in getting projects approved, lessen the workload submitted to the Board and Committees, and provide more time for the Directors to focus on the "bigger picture" projects. Table 1 on the following page shows a summary of the existing levels of delegated authority and the requested new levels. G:ln~obal\Agenda Olaft RepartslPOCIOelegation ol Authonty • 070199.dot Revised: 812D/98 Page2 PSA, or Professional Service Agreement, as used in Table 1 on the preceding page, and in Table 2 below, is limited td firms providing engineering, architecture, environmental, land surveying, construction management services and related services. Table 2 provides for three additional changes that are being requested by staff. Table 2 Changes to Policy and Administrative Issues Description ChanQe Justification Professional Services Allow General Manager to Reduces administrative Agreements for small extend agreement period burden on Engineering and capital projects for two additional years Purchasing Departments to solicit interest from firms and establish contracts Travel associated with Include Mexico along with Likely incidence of travel to meetings and training Canada (already approved Mexico by Board) as Board- approved destination for out-of-country travel. Delegated authorities within Allow General Manager and Varying levels of authority Departments Department Heads for purchasing required by authority to establish individual departments purchasing authority within on:ianizational structure Staff has had one year of experience with the small capital projects consultant contracts. Eighteen task orders were issued under this program, saving an average of 2.5 months on each task order, compared with obtaining Board approval of a separate contract for each project. This delegated authority has been key in alleviating a backlog of projects that had built up over several years. At the end of the contract period, each of the consultants was asked if they would extend this year's rates for an additional year. All agreed to extend the contract terms for an additional year. Eliminating an entire RFP and consultant selection process on an annual basis would save staff about 350 hours per year, or 0.17 full time equivalent staffing effort, and allow the District to lock in favorable consulting rates for a three year period. In order to be effective, purchasing authority must be delegated into the organization. Prior attempts to delineate this authority were accomplished by the use of position classifications, i.e. Foreman. However, the various Departments and Divisions are organized and structured differently, and these classification delegations were not practical throughout the entire agency. Allowing each Department Head the ability to establish separate authority levels for purchases under $10,000 will provide the organization with the ability to manage more efficiently and effectively in the future. ALTERNATIVES Maintain the existing delegation of authority levels and separate purchasing resolutions. G:lntglobal\Agencla D<af\ ReponslPOCIOelegation al Aulholity • 070199.llot Revised: 11/20198 Page4 PDC COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bel. of Dir. 10/7/99 10/27/99 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number ~ PDC99-35 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Originator: Delegation of Authority Committee (Marc Dubois, Contracts and Purchasing Manager; Doug Stewart, Engineering Manager; Ed Torres, Air Quality Control Manager; and Michael White, Controller) SUBJECT: PURCHASING RESOLUTION AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY (DOA) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 99-XX, Establishing Policies and Procedures for the Award of Purchase Orders and Contracts; Award of Public Works Project Contracts; Award of Professional Services Contracts; and Delegation of Authority to Implement said Policies and Procedures; and Repeal Resolution Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43. SUMMARY In May 1999, the Steering Committee and the FAHR Committee reviewed this item. In July 1999, the PDC Committee reviewed this item and approved the item on a 5-4 vote with the recommendation that the item be further discussed at the September PDC Committee meeting. In September 1999, the PDC Committee again referred the item to the October PDC for further discussion. The PDC Committee requested that specific examples with workflow charts be brought to them to show how the proposed Delegation of Authority would affect workflow. This information is contained in the Additional Information section of this Agenda Report. As evident from the attached workflow examples, a substantial savings in project schedules and staff effort can be realized if the proposal Delegation of Authority is implemented. The prior Agenda Reports discussing the proposed Delegation of Authority are attached for reference. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Not Applicable. BUDGET IMPACT 0 This item has been budgeted. (1999-00 Budget, Section_, page_) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. [gl Not applicable (information item) Page 1 CEQA FINDINGS Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1) Workflow Charts 2) September 1999, PDC 99-35 Agenda Report with attachments DMS:jak G:\ntglobal\Agenda Draft Reports\PDC\DOA AR 100799.doc Page 3 CURRENT BOARD AUTHORIZATION VERSUS PROPOSED PDC AUTHORIZATION Current Process with Existing DOA -----17 -62 Total Man Hours/ 9 Calendar Weeks To Complete I Hours -10 Hours AR Drafted / Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by Engineering Supervisor & Engineering Manager Contract Reviewed and Approved by Contracts Manager 8 Hours AR Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by DOE, AGM, and GM. 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares PDC Package PDC Meeting 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares Board Package Proposed Process with Proposed DOA-----15 -60 Total Man Hours/ 6 Calendar Weeks To Complete I Hours -SO Hours AR Drafted / Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by Engineering Supervisor & Engineering Manager Contract Reviewed and Approved by Contracts Manager Week 1 Week2 Week3 8 Hours AR Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by DOE, AGM, and GM. 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares PDC Package PDC Meeting Week 4 I Week 5 I Week 6 I Week 7 I Week 8 Board Meeting " Week 9 I CURRENT PDC AUTHORIZATION VERSUS PROPOSED GENERAL MANAGER AUTHORIZATION Current Process with Existing DOA-----15 -60 Total Man Hours/ 6 Calendar Weeks To Complete I Hours -&o Hours AR Drafted / Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by Engineering Supervisor & Engineering Manager Contract Reviewed and Approved by Contracts Manager a Hours AR Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by DOE, AGM, and GM. 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares PDC Package PDC Meeting Proposed Process with Proposed DOA-----8 -10 Total Man Hours/ 1 Calendar Week To Complete 4-8 Hours PM Prepares GM Package; Memo, Contract, & Attachments 3 Hours Contract Reviewed& Approved by Contracts Manager Week1 1 Hour GM Package reviewed by DOE, AGM, and Approved by the GM I Week 2 Week3 Week 4 I Week 5 I Week 6 I Week 7 I Week 8 Week 9 I CURRENT BOARD AUTHORIZATION VERSUS PROPOSED GENERAL MANAGER AUTHORIZATION Current Process with Existing DOA-----17 -62 Total Man Hours/ 9 Calendar Weeks To Complete I Hours 0 10 Hours AR Drafted / Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by Engineering Supervisor & Engineering Manager Contract Reviewed and Approved by Contracts Manager 8 Hours AR Reviewed / Corrected & Approved by DOE, AGM, and GM. 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares PDC Package PDC Meeting 2 Hours Board Secretary Prepares Board Package Proposed Process with Proposed DOA-----8 -10 Total Man Hours/ 1 Calendar Week To Complete 4-6 Hours PM Prepares GM Package; Memo, Contract, & Attachments 3 Hours Contract Reviewed and Approved by Contracts • Manager Week 1 1Hour GM Package reviewed by DOE, AGM,and Approved by the GM I Week 2 Week3 Week4 Week 5 I Week 6 I Week 7 I Week 8_ . I Board Meeting Week 9 I ARTICLE I: ARTICLE II: ARTICLE Ill: RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 99-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE AWARD OF PURCHASING ORDERS AND CONTRACTS; AWARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CONTRACTS; AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS; AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT SAID POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS NOS. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98- 22, AND OCSD 98-43 TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITAL OF FINDINGS Section 1.01 Findings -Declaration of Intent. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Section 2.01 Purpose and Scope. Section 2.02 Authorizing General Manager to Establish Rules and Guidelines. Section 2.03 Procedure for Delegation of Authority. PURCHASING SYSTEMS RE SUPPLIES. EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Section 3.01 Purpose and Scope. Section 3.02 Purchasing System Adoption. Section 3.03 Purchasing Division Delegated Authority. Section 3.04 Requisitions. Section 3.05 Cooperative Procurement. Section 3.06 Purchases: Bidding Requirements. Section 3.07 Purchases: Emergency. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 1 ARTICLE IV: Section 3.08 Purchases: Standardized Prices and Specialized Services. Section 3.09 Purchase Orders. Section 3.10 Purchases: Encumbrances of Funds. Section 3.11 Blanket Purchase Orders. Section 3.12 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Greater Than $50,000.00. Section 3.13 Purchases Between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00. Section 3.14 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than $50,000.00. Section 3.15 Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than $5,000.00. Section 3.16 Inspection and Testing. Section 3. 17 Purchases: Negotiated Contracts. Section 3.18 Surplus Supplies, Materials, and Equipment. Section 3.19 Sale of Real Property. Section 3.20 Recordkeeping. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS Section 4.01 Purpose and Scope. Section 4.02 Retention of Professional Technical Consultants. Section 4.03 Small Capital Project -Defined. Section 4.04 Small Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications. Section 4.05 Small Capital Project: Annual Budget Approval. Section 4.06 Small Capital Project: Selection of Consultants - Procedure. TlW Draft No. 12:05/19/9.9:#1031B5 2 ARTICLE V: ARTICLE VI: ARTICLE VII: Section 4.07 Major Capital Project: Defined. Section 4.08 Major Capital Project: Scope of Work. Section 4.09 Major Capital Project: Selection of Consultants - Procedure. Section 4.1 O Major Capital Project: Award of Professional Services Agreements. Section 4.11 Major Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications. PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS Section 5.01 Purpose and Scope. Section 5.02 Public Works: Bidding Required. Section 5.03 Bidding Procedure: Public Works Construction Greater Than $35,000.00. Section 5.04 Approval of Change Orders to Construction Agreements. MEETINGS {AND RELATED TRAVEL) AND TRAINING (AND RELATED TRAVEL) EXPENDITURES Section 6.01 Purpose and Scope. Section 6.02 General. Section 6.03 Policies and Procedures. MISCELLANEOUS Section 7.01 Noncompliance. Section 7.02 Severability. Section 7.03 Effective Date. Section 7.04 Repeal of Prior Resolutions. ARTICLE I RECITAL OF FINDINGS TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 3 Section 1.01: Findings -Declaration of Intent. A. California Government Code Section 54202 requires that every local agency shall adopt policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies, services, and equipment, and that purchases of supplies, services, and equipment by the local agency shall be in accordance with said duly adopted policies. B. California Government Code Section 54204 requires that if the local agency is other than a city, county, or city and county, policies provided for in Section 54202 of said Code shall be adopted by means of a written rule or regulation, copies of which shall be available for public distribution. C. In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies, services, and equipment, and the letting of public works contracts at the best possible cost commensurate with quality and delivery needs, together with other relevant factors, to exercise positive financial control over purchases, to clearly define authority for the purchasing function, and to establish bidding procedures, a purchasing system for the District, beyond what is required by said Sections of the Government Code, is desirable and in the best public interest. D. An effective, comprehensive organization needs an administrative structure with support procedures that are logical, efficient, well-documented, are understood by the organization's employees and members of the public, and that enable timely and responsive administrative acquisition of materials, supplies, and services. The organization should also appropriately delegate authority to those persons and units having responsibility for these activities. E. The Board of Directors has determined that a delegation of authority structure provides for better training of employees which will result in improved efficiency and effectiveness of the District's operations. ARTICLE II DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Section 2.01: Purpose and Scope. In an effort to remove barriers that prevent District employees from performing their jobs at the highest level of efficiency, a delegation of authority structure will appropriately train the employees, and by providing increased responsibility and ownership, will contribute to the improved efficiency and effectiveness of the District. Section 2.02: Authorizing General Manager to Establish Rules and Guidelines. The General Manager of the District is hereby authorized to establish rules TlW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 4 and guidelines to implement Board policies and to delegate to Staff signature authority to initiate and execute contracts or purchase orders to acquire services, including professional services, supplies, and materials, and public works project contracts, all as more particularly specified in Articles Ill through VI. Section 2.03: Procedure for Delegation of Authority. The following provisions establish delegated signature authority for contracts and purchase orders for the acquisition of supplies, services, materials, equipment, and professional services. The delegated authority for each functional management level will be established one level higher in the absence of specifically identified authority. The General Manager's authority is delegated to the Assistant General Manager ("AGM") in the General Manager's absence. These procedures establish the framework and boundaries within which a delegatee can operate, and also provide Management with a mechanism to evaluate implementation and hold the delegatee accountable for his/her actions. Upon delegation of authority by the General Manager, each Department shall be authorized to further delegate to respective employees within the Department. The delegation shall be effective upon the Department Head setting forth, in writing, the name of the delegated employee, his/her job position, and specific level of delegated authority designated as Level A, B, or C, respectively, and filing it with the Contracts/Purchasing Manager. The General Manager shall establish procedures to implement further delegated authority into the organization. For contracts and purchase orders for the acquisition of supplies, materials, equipment, and services (excluding public works contracts governed by State law and professional services agreements), the following signature authority is hereby established. The functional authority level listed describes the highest level of signature approval needed. Intermediate management approval between the initiator/requester and listed approval level must also be obtained. A. Approval Levels All items above $100,000.00 are to be approved by the Board prior to purchase, with the exception of emergency items, pursuant to Section 3.13. All items between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 are reviewed and approved by the General Manager prior to purchase, and reported to the Board of Directors on a quarter1y basis. All items below $50,000.00 are approved pursuant to the following delegation of authority: 1. Items exceeding $100,000 require Board of Directors approval, unless previously authorized by the Board for items identified in the annual District budget. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 5 8. 2. Items $50,000 to $99,999 require General Manager or Assistant General Manager approval. 3. Items $25,000 to $49,999 require Department Director approval. 4. Items $10,000 to $24,999 require Division Manager approval. 5. Items $5,000 to $9,999 require Level A approval. 6. Items $2,000 to $4,999 require Level B approval. 7. Items less than $2,000 require Level C approval. Co-Signatures. In addition to the signature of the Delegated Authority: 1. To ensure that all policies and procedures governing purchase orders and contracts are followed, all contracts or purchase orders will be signed by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or his designee. 2. All purchases for computer hardware, software, and communication equipment will be pre-approved by the lnfonnation Technology Director, or his designee. C. Procedural Requirements. All policies and procedures adopted by the Board of Directors or promulgated by the General Manager governing the procurement of services, equipment, or supplies will apply, and shall be complied with. Budgeted funds must be available prior to the acquisition of goods or services. Upon the identification of goods or services needed that are not originally budgeted, either a budget transfer request form must be completed demonstrating that adequate funds are available to cover the acquisition, or the Board of Directors must authorize a budget amendment, at which time, the item being acquired would fall into the budgeted category. Section 3.01: ARTICLE Ill PURCHASING SYSTEM RE SUPPLIES, SERVICES, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 Purpose and Scope. In order to establish efficient 6 procedures for the purchase of supplies, services, materials and equipment, and the letting of public works contracts at the best possible cost commensurate with quality and delivery needs and other relevant factors; to exercise positive financial control over purchases; to clearly define authority for the purchasing function; to establish bidding procedures, pursuant to Section 54202 of the Government Code of the State of California, a purchasing system is deemed necessary. Section 3.02: Purchasing System Adoption. The procedures and authority set forth in this Resolution are intended to operate in concert with and supplemental to the delegation of authority granted by the governing Board of Directors in the adoption of this Resolution. Full compliance with the provisions of all Articles in this Resolution is required. Section 3.03: Purchasing Division Dalegated Authority. There is hereby vested in the Purchasing Division (hereinafter referred to as •Purchasing"), under the general supervision and direction of the Director of Finance, the authority for the purchase of supplies, services, materials, and equipment, letting of public works contracts and establishment of rules, procedures and administrative policies relative thereto. The Director of Finance may delegate or assign any or all of the following duties to the Contracts/Purchasing Manager: A. To purchase or contract for supplies, services, materials, and equipment required by any Department or Division, in accordance with purchasing procedures prescribed by this Resolution; such administrative regulations as Purchasing shall adopt for the internal management and operation of Purchasing; and such other rules and regulations as shall be adopted by the Board of Directors. B. To negotiate and recommend execution of contracts for the purchase of supplies, services, materials, and equipment; for construction of public works projects; and for the disposition of surplus property and by-products of the sewage treatment process. C. To submit to General Counsel for review or approval, as necessary, all contracts, purchase orders, and other related documents, the original executed copies of which shall be delivered to the Board Secretary for custodianship. D. To prepare for the District, the needed standards and specifications of quality in supplies, services, materials, equipment, and construction at the best cost and under the most favorable conditions, with due consideration to delivery and other relevant factors. E. To discourage uniform bidding and endeavor to obtain as full and open competition as possible on all purchases and sales. ll.W Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 7 F. To prepare rules, regulations, procedures, and administrative policies, and revisions thereto, governing the purchase of supplies, services, materials, and equipment; for the letting of public works construction contracts in accordance with the provisions of state law; and disposition of surplus property and by-products. G. To prepare rules, regulations, procedures, and administrative policies, and revisions thereto, governing the warehousing of inventories. H. To keep informed of current developments in the field of purchasing, including but not limited to prices, market conditions and new products. I. To prescribe and maintain such forms as reasonably necessary to the implementation of this Resolution and other rules and regulations of the District. J. To develop specifications to establish minimum standards for all purchases. K. To supervise the inspection of all supplies, services, materials, and equipment purchases to insure conformance with specifications. L. To provide for transfer of surplus or unused supplies and equipment between Departments, as needed. M. To have custodianship and control of all inventories and surplus property. N. To maintain a bidders' list, vendors' catalog file, and records needed for efficient op.eration of the Purchasing Division. 0. To review, approve, and maintain active insurance documents for all District procurements. P. To undertake such other and future duties as, in the Director's discretion, are incidental and necessary to the conduct of the Division. Q. To revise all records to reflect the sale, transfer, or reorganization of a supplier's business, or a change in the supplier's name for doing business, so long as all other terms and conditions of the original agreement remain the same. In such event of an assignment of the purchase order or contract by the supplier, the District shall not be bound until it has given its consent in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. An amendment to the original agreement shall be prepared authorizing and consenting to the assignment and shall be executed by the General Manager, or his designee, on the District's behalf. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 8 Section 3.04: Requisitions. All employees of the District who need or require supplies, services, materials, or equipment to carry out the defined duties of their positions, shall submit requisitions for purchases or warehouse requisitions to Purchasing, in accordance with the adopted rules, regulations, procedures, and policies of the Purchasing Division. Usage of the District's procurement cards shall be exempt from this requirement. Section 3.05: Cooperative Procurement. A. The District, through Purchasing, may participate in or sponsor, conduct and/or administer a Cooperative Procurement Agreement for the acquisition of procured items or services with any other public agency purchasing unit, in accordance with an agreement between the District and the other public agency. B. The District, through Purchasing, may sell to, acquire from, or use any property belonging to another public agency, including the cooperative use of supplies or services. C. Participation in the County of Orange Cooperative Purchasing Program has been expressly authorized by adoption of Board of Directors Resolution No. OCSD 98-22. Section 3.06: Purchases: Bidding Requirements. Except as hereinafter provided, purchasing of supplies, services, materials, or equipment shall be by bid procedures as set forth in this Article Ill, when the purchase is estimated to have a value greater than Five Thousand {$5,000.00) Dollars; the commodities or services may be obtained from more than one vendor; or are not standardized as to price; and no emergency exists. Section 3.07: Purchases: Emergency. Whenever an emergency arises which is, or may be a threat to the continued required operations of the wastewater treatment plants and facilities owned by the Districts, or when purchases are immediately necessary for the preservation of life or property, or to avoid a threat to the public health or safety, the Division may purchase supplies, services, materials, or equipment required for immediate use, in an amount greater than One Hundred Thousand $100,000.00) Dollars without observing the procedures set forth in this Resolution. The General Manager or his designee shall advise the District Chair and/or Vice Chair, as appropriate, of the action taken, and such action shall be ratified by the Board of Directors at its next regular meeting. Section 3.08: Purchases: Standardized Prices and Specialized Services. In the purchases of supplies, services, materials, or equipment in which the items to be purchased have a demonstrated uniformity in price, or it is determined that there is a sole source, or the provider of services is determined to be uniquely qualified to perform TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 9 specialized services, Purchasing may make such purchases without observing the bidding procedures of Section 3.12 below. Section 3.09: Purchase Orders. Purchases of all supplies, services, materials, or equipment shall be made by purchase order and may also require a formal written contract, when determined necessary or appropriate by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager. To ensure that all policies and procedures governing purchase orders and contracts are followed, all contracts or purchase orders will be executed by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or as delegated by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager. Purchasing and employees requisitioning supplies and equipment shall be responsible that purchase orders and requisitions are in conformity with the spirit and intent of this Resolution and that no purchase has been broken into smaller units to evade any requirement of this Resolution. Purchasing shall retain, in its files, one copy of all purchase orders issued during two (2) years preceding, on which copy of the purchase order, there shall be a list of bidders and prices bid for the materials or equipment purchased, or if no bids or quotations were taken or received, a full statement as to the reason therefor. Section 3.10: Purchases: Encumbrances of Funds. Except in cases of emergency, no purchase order shall be issued for any supplies, services, materials, or equipment, unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation balance in the fund against which said purchase is to be charged. Section 3.11 : Blanket Purchase Orders. The Purchasing Division may issue annual blanket purchase orders for recurring purchases of miscellaneous supplies that: A. Because of economic considerations, the items are not carried in stock in the District's warehouse; B. Are stock items that have been designated as appropriate sole source acquisitions; C. Purchasing determines it is in the best interests of the District to competitively bid a blanket order for inventory items; or D. Are for miscellaneous supplies, services, materials and equipment where such purchase of supplies, services, materials, and equipment may be procured from a single vendor during the budget year, without observing the procedures prescribed in Section 3.12 below, when, in its discretion, it is determined that such blanket purchase orders are at a cost favorable to the District and will result in more efficient procurement of such items. Blanket purchase orders shall be in confonnity with the spirit and intent of this Resolution. The Purchasing Division shall, at the beginning of each budget year, file a list of such purchase orders and the estimated annual amount with the Director of Finance. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 10 Section 3.12: Bidding 'Procedure: Purchases Greater Than $50,000.00. A. Award to Lowest Bidder. Except as otherwise provided in this Article Ill, purchases of supplies, services, materials, and equipment of estimated value greater than Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars shall be by written contract or purchase order with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder (unless a Request for Proposal ("RFP") solicitation instrument is utilized), pursuant to the procedures prescribed herein. B. Award Approval. Purchases of supplies, services, materials, and equipment that have appropriate budgetary approvals shall be bid and awarded directly by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or as delegated by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager. Supplies, services, materials, and equipment that exceed the budgeted amount, or effect policy recommendations or ratifications, or are sole source contracts exceeding $100,000.00, and all public works contracts, shall require Board of Directors' approval prior to issuance or award of a purchase order or contract. C. Notice Inviting Bids. The notice inviting bids shall include a general description of the articles or services to be purchased or sold, shall state where bid fonns and specifications may be secured, and the time and place for opening bids. 1 . Published Notice. The notice inviting bids shall set a date for the opening of bids. The notice shall be published one (1) time at least ten (1 O) days before the date for the opening of the bids. Notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published within the District's jurisdiction, or by electronic bulletin board procedures designed to reach the industry or market of supply. 2. Bidders List. Purchasing may also solicit sealed bids, or receive bids electronically, from all qualified, responsible prospective suppliers whose names are on the Bidders List maintained by the District, or who have requested their names to be added thereto. 3. Bulletin Boards. Purchasing may also advertise pending purchases or sales by a notice posted on a public bulletin board in the Purchasing Division Office, and by electronic bulletin board, as deemed appropriate by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager. D. Bidder's Security. When deemed necessary by Purchasing, bidder's security may be prescribed in the contract specifications or in the public notice inviting bids. Bidders shall be entitled to the return of bid security upon the full execution of an awarded contract or issuance of a purchase order, by the successful bidder. A successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon refusal or failure to execute the contract within the prescribed time after the notice of award of contract has TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 11 been delivered to bidder, unless the District is responsible for a delay in the prescribed time. The Board of Directors may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest re.sponsive, responsible bidder. If the Board of Directors awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, an amount of the lowes1 bidder's security equal to the difference between the low bid and the awarded bid, shall be forfeited to the District, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. E. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed or electronically received bids shall be submitted to the Contracts/Purchasing Manager and/or Secretary of the Board of Directors, and shall be identified as a bid on the envelope or the electronic bulletin board. Bids shall be opened in public by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or his designated representative, at the time and place stated in the public notices. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of not less than thirty (30) calendar days after the bid opening. In cases wherein the Request for Proposal ("RFP") instrument is utilized, all RFP's will be opened, and only the name of the Proposer shall be read aloud at the time and place set forth herein. F. Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the Board of Directors may reject any and all bids presented and readvertise for bids. If all bids are rejected, the Board of Directors, by majority vote, may declare that the materials or supplies may be acquired at a lower cost by negotiation in the open market and authorize the purchase in that manner. G. Tie Bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, (with quality and service being equal), and if the public interest will not be best served by a delay of readvertising for bids, the Board of Directors may accept the one it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders at the time of the award. H. Performance Bonds. Purchasing shall have authority to require a faithful performance bond, a labor and materials bond and/or a warranty bond, before entering into a contract in an amount as it shall find reasonably necessary to protect the best interests of the District. If the Purchasing Division requires any of these bonds, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids and in the contract specifications. Section 3.13: Purchases between $50.000.00 and $100,000.00. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections 3.12(A) through 3.12(H) above, Purchasing may award a contract to purchase supplies, services, materials, or equipment in an amount greater than Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) and less than One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars, without obtaining bids and following the TLW Oran No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 12 procedures set forth above when the Contracts/Purchasing Manager detennines that: A. By purchasing immediately, it can avoid an imminent price increase or realize a substantial price discount that is available on a short term basis only; or B. It can obtain supply, services, materials, or equipment immediately that might not otherwise be available at such time as purchasing procedures could be completed; or C. Said contract for supplies, services, materials, or equipment has Board of Directors' approval for multiple one (1) year renewal periods. All such contract renewals shall require the Contracts Administrator/Purchasing Manager approval; or D. The supplies, services, materials, or equipment are only available from a sole source. E. Whenever an emergency arises which is, or may cause a threat to the continued required operations of the treatment plants, or when purchases are immediately necessary for preservation of life or property, or to avoid a threat to the public health or safety. All purchases between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 shall be reviewed and pre- approved by the General Manager and reported to the Board of Directors on a quarterly basis. Section 3.14: · Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than $50,000.00. Purchases of supplies, services, materials, or equipment, of an estimated value in the amount of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars or less on which bidding is not required by state law, may be made by Purchasing in the open market without observing the same procedures as prescribed by Section 3.12 above. The procedures to be used for these purchases are as follows: A. Minimum Number of Bids. Open market purchase shall, whenever possible, be based on at least three (3) bids and shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and shall be by written contract or purchase order. B. Solicitation of Bids. Bids shall be solicited by written requests to prospective vendors or purchasers and/or by telephone, facsimile transmission, electronic bulletin board, and/or by public notice posted on a public bulletin board in the Purchasing Division Offices. C. Receipt of Bids. Bids shall be submitted to Purchasing, which shall keep a public record of all open market orders and bids for a period of two (2) years after the submission of bids or the placing of orders. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 13 D. Exceptions. Purchasing may purchase supplies, services, materials, or equipment without observing the procedures prescribed in Subparagraphs A, B, and C above, if supplies, services, materials, or equipment are only available from a sole source. All such purchases shall be approved by the Director of Finance, the requesting Department Head, and the Contracts/ Purchasing Manager. Section 3.15. Bidding Procedure: Purchases Less Than $5,000.00. Purchasing may purchase supplies, services, materials, or equipment of a value in the amount of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars or less per purchase order, without observing the procedures prescribed in this Section when, in the Contracts/Purchasing Manager's discretion, it is determined that observing such procedures would not result in a lower overall cost to the District. Record of such decision shall be fully stated in the purchase order file as to the reason therefor. Section 3.16: Inspection and Testing. The supplies, services, materials, and equipment delivered, and contractual services performed, shall be inspected to determine their conformance with the specifications set forth in the purchase order or contract. Purchasing shall have authority to request professional services, or to require chemical and physical tests of samples submitted with bids and samples of deliveries which are necessary to determine their quality and conformance with specifications. Section 3.17: Purchases: Negotiated Contracts. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Resolution, the Board of Directors may, when it appears in the best interests of the District, authorize the Staff to negotiate and award a contract for purchase of supplies, services, materials and equipment without observing the procedures prescribed in Sections 3.12 and 3.14 above. A. When such authorization has been granted for purchase of supplies, services, materials, and equipment of an estimated value in the amount of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars or greater, the Staff shall obtain the concurrence of the District Chair and/or Vice Chair, as appropriate, prior to awarding such purchase. B. Whenever any contract for supplies, services, materials, or equipment has been entered into between the District and a person or entity providing such supplies, services, materials, or equipment, and Purchasing determines that it is in the best interest of the District to continue said contract with such person or entity, Purchasing may, in its discretion, negotiate an extension of such contract without observing the bidding procedures prescribed in Sections 3.12 and 3.14 above; provided, the contract contains provisions for subsequent extension periods; has been approved and awarded by the Board of Directors; and/or has prior budget approval, as provided in Section 3.12. TI.W Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 14 C. This Section shall not apply to the letting of public works construction contracts in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars. Said contracts shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Article V of this Resolution. Section 3.18: Surplus Supplies, Materials. and Equipment. All Departments and/or Divisions shall submit to Purchasing, at such times and in such form as Purchasing shall prescribe, reports showing all supplies, materials, and/or equipment which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or worn out. Purchasing shall have authority, as deemed appropriate by the Contracts/Purchasing Manager, to sell, exchange for, or trade in on new supplies, materials, and equipment, or dispose or, as deemed appropriate, all supplies, materials, and equipment which cannot be used by any other Department or Division, or which have become unsuitable for District's use. Section 3.19: Sale of Real Property. No real property of the District may be sold, or any negotiations leading to such sale may be made, without prior approval of the Board of Directors. Section 3.20: Recordkeeping: A record of all sales or surplus property and by-products shall also be maintained by Purchasing upon or in which is maintained the record-of the bids received for the property or by-products sold, or if bids were not taken or received, a full explanation thereof. Such records shall be maintained for two (2) years after the sale. ARTICLE IV PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS Section 4.01: Purpose and Scope. The Orange County Sanitation District, in the interest of uniformity, fairness and cost effectiveness desires to establish policies and procedures for the selection and procurement of professional engineering, architectural, environmental, land surveying and construction management services. Section 4.02: Retention of Professional Technical Consultants. This Resolution establishes a procedure to be followed in the selection and retention of Professional Technical Consultants in the areas of engineering, architecture, environmental, land surveying, construction management services and related services. Professional Technical Consultants are those individuals or firms providing engineering, architectural, environmental or land surveying services which are those TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 15 professional services associated with research, development, design and construction, alteration, or repair of real property, as well as incidental services that members of these professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, sorveys, evaluations, consultations, planning, programming, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, cost estimates, inspections, shop drawing reviews, sample recommendations, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, and other related services. Services for product testing are excluded. It is recognized that no two individuals or firms have equal skills, training, or experience and that the qualities of such persons vary. Accordingly, Professional Technical Consultants shall be selected based upon the District's discretion and opinion as to which particular consultant is best qualified to perform the work (hereinafter referred to as "projects") in question. For purposes of this Resolution, "firm" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture, engineering, environmental seNices, land surveying, or construction project management. Evaluation and selection of a consultant firm will include but not be limited to the following: A. . The firm shall be: of high ethical and professional standing, its members being of good moral character, and it shall be prepared to submit references from persons of known repute. B. The principal and other responsible members of the firm must be registered in the State of California, as required by law. C. A principal member of the finn's staff must have at least ten years' recent experience in responsible charge of work of the type involved in the project. D. At least two additional members of the finn's staff must have at least five years' experience in responsible charge in the field, or fields, required by the project. E. The firm shall be capable of performing the work within the prescribed time limitations considering the current and planned work loads of the firm. F. If all other factors are equal, preference shall be given to a local based firm when more than one firm is being considered. G. If the project is funded, either in whole or in part, by federal funds that require, as a condition of establishing or maintaining eligibility for federal funds, that firms working on the project maintain an affirmative action employment program, then the firm selected for the project must certify to having such a program. TlW DraftNo.12:05/19/99:#103185 16 The District also recognizes that the scope of services and the qualifications of consultants can differ significantly between major capital facilities projects and small capital projects. The criteria set forth in Paragraphs C and D above may be waived by District for small capital projects. The procedures set forth in this Resolution shall govern the retention of such professional consultants. Section 4.03: Small Capital Project: Defined. "Small capital projectn is defined as a miscellaneous capital improvement or facility modification, replacement, or repair project, related to plant safety, reliability and efficiency enhancements where professional consulting services are estimated to be in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 for each project. Section 4.04: Small Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications. The Board of Directors delegates to the Director of Engineering, as Professional Registered Engineer, the authority to approve the design, plans, and specifications for construction of new or modified District facilities that is deemed a small capital project, as defined in Section 4.03 above. Section 4.05: Small Capital Project: Annual Budget Approval. Upon approval by the Board of Directors of an annual budget, the District's Staff shall be authorized :to solicit contract proposals from professional engineering, architectural, environmental, land surveying and construction management firms to perform the required services for the approved small capital projects, as defined and prescribed herein. Section 4.06: Small Capital Project: Selection of Consultants -Procedure. A. District's staff shall compile a master pre-approved list of 5-10 firms having the required expertise to perform the required professional service for a small project. The master list of firms will be selected based upon a solicitation, review of qualifications, and Board approval. The original term of the agreement shall be for one (1) year. Thereafter, the Department Director shall be authorized to recommend to the General Manager, an extension of the professional consulting services agreement for up to two (2) additional one (1)-year renewal periods, for a total of three (3) years, with each of the parties designated on the approved master list. The professional consulting services agreement for each party on the master list shall be forwarded to the purchasing office. The Engineering Department Staff shall prepare the appropriate requisition documentation to insure future payment to the consultant. B. As a need for an individual specific project arises, the District will implement the Agreement by issuing a task order identifying the specific project by name and number and including the approved scope of work required of the consultant for the project. The scope of work for any individual task order, shall not entail a cost in 11.W Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 17 excess of $50,000.00. There is a maximum annual limitation of $200,000.00 for each individual consultant purchase order under the provisions of this Section 4.06. C. The Department Director shall first obtain at least two (2) price proposals from consultants before the task order is awarded to a consultant. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Department Director where a determination is made that the subject work is unique such that only one (1) consultant is available to perfonn the work, or where significant time constraints or emergency conditions dictate that one (1) consultant be solicited for a price proposal. The Department Director, or his designee, shall review the proposals specifically addressing cost and ability to meet District schedule requirements. Based on the evaluations, the Department Director is authorized to award the task order. D. Ohce the consultant is selected for the award of a small capital project and the task order is executed by the District, the Department Director shall issue the notice to proceed. E. Addenda to a particular task order shall be approved by the Department Director. However, the amount for each addendum may not exceed $50,000.00, and the cumulative total for all addenda may not exceed $50,000.00. The Department Director shall issue the task order addendum in letter form. Section 4.07: Major Capital Project: Defined. "Major capital projecr means the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of the District's Capital Facilities, including treatment plants, trunk sewers, pump stations, ocean outfall, administrative and support facilities, and other facilities related to District operations, where the cost of professional technical consulting services are estimated to be in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 for any project. These projects may require Selection Committee or Board approvals. Minor or specialty-item capital projects are defined as projects, where the cost of professional technical consulting services are estimated to be in an amount more than $50,000.00, and less than or equal to $100,000:oo and require only General Manager approval. Requirements for Scope of Work, ProposaJ, Procurement and Negotiation Agreemeht Continuation of Services, Agreement of Services, and Conflict of Interest apply for both Major Capital Projects and Minor or Specialty-Item Capital Projects, with deviation only in authorization levels. Section 4.08: Major Capital Project: Scope of Work. A. For every project approved by the Board of Directors and for which outside services are required, the District staff shall develop a comprehensive scope of work. TlW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 18 B. The scope shall define the extent of the services and the time required. Section 4.09: Major Capital Project: Selection of Consultants -Procedure. For the employment of any professional consulting services for major capital projects, the following procedures shall apply: A. Proposals -Notice Requesting. Staff shall prepare a Request for Proposal ("RFP") or a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") for the scope of work which shall include a request for the firm's qualifications, personnel capability, demonstration of firm's capabilities, identification of personnel assigned to the project, estimate of number of hours for each aspect of the project, fee proposals and conflict of interest disclaimer. The Request for Qualifications' process may be used, at Staff's discretion, to narrow the field of firms submitting proposals on the project. District shall maintain a comprehensive list of professional consultants' demonstrated competence. Notice shall be mailed to all firms requesting notice of any RFP or RFQ issued by the District. Optionally, notice may be given by publication in professional journals or publications of general circulation. _ B. Staff Screening Committee. A screening committee of at least two (2) staff members as chosen by the Department Director shall review all submitted proposals and prepare a recommendation for selection of the best qualified consultant to the Selection Committee, as described in Paragraph D below. C. Proposals -Contents. Proposals submitted shall: 1 . Acknowledge the scope of the project and extent of the services required. 2. Include a description of the firm's qualifications for performing the proposed work. 3. In the case of a proposal for construction management services, each firm shall provide evidence that its personnel that will carry .out on- site responsibilities have expertise and experience in construction project design review and evaluation, construction mobilization and supervision, bid evaluation, project scheduling, cost-benefit analysis, claims review and negotiation, and general management and administration of a construction project. 4. Include past performance records of the firm. nw Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 19 5. Demonstrate the firm's capabilities to complete the work within the time allotted. 6. Identify the specific key personnel to be assigned to the project. 7. Provide an estimate of the number of hours involved in each aspect of the scope of work for such personnel. 8. Be accompanied by a sealed fee proposal estimate which shall not be opened until the firm is selected as being qualified. Thereafter, it shall be the basis, for procurement negotiations. The form of the fee proposal shall be as described in Subsections F2 and F3 below. 9. Contain a conflict of interest disclaimer. 10. Provide any other information required to properly evaluate the firm's qualifications and familiarity with the types of problems applicable to the project. D. Selection Committee -Membership. 1. . The members of the Board of Directors Standing Committee principally responsible for the project and contract under consideration for approval shall constitute the Selection Committee for District projects. 2. At the discretion of the District Chair, additional Directors may be appointed to the Committee to assist in the consideration of proposals for specific projects. E. Review of Proposals by Staff Committee and Selection Committee. 1. The Staff Committee shall review each proposal and the qualifications of each firm with due consideration of office location, reputation in the professional community, experience, both generally and specifically on similar-type projects, the project approach, understanding of the scope of work, financial standing, number of qualified personnel and their availability for the project, quality of references, work load and other factors relevant to the project being considered. 2. The Staff Committee, upon completion of their evaluation of all proposals, shall determine those finns deemed to be fully qualified to provide the services sought by the District based on their demonstrated competence ahd qualifications. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 20 3. The Staff Committee, upon making a determination of the fully qualified firms, shall rank the firms considered, in order of preference, based upon the qualification of each, as described in Subparagraph E(1) above. Thereafter the Committee shall open the sealed fee proposal of the qualified firms. Based upon the fee proposal, the committee may recommend to the Selection Committee or the Board of Directors an individual or firm for award of the contract. The recommended individual or firm can be ranked lower than firms with higher fee proposals. 4. The Selection Committee shall receive and review the recommendation of the Staff Committee and either award or recommend to the Board of Directors, either the approval or disapproval of the Staff recommendation to award a contract, as authorized in Section 7 below. F. Procurement and Negotiation of Agreement. To determine the firm to be selected and the compensation for the services sought, the following procedures will be strictly adhered to: 1. The Staff Committee will, at its discretion, invite the firm that is considered to be the best qualified to appear before the Staff Committee. 2. The proposal for fees associated with the services as submitted by the selected firm shall be presented in sufficient detail to enable the Staff ·Committee to adequately ascertain the level of effort associated with the scope of work and to detennine whether the firm has thoroughly identified the efforts associated with the services and thoroughly understands the work required. 3. The basis of the fee shall be: Cost plus a fixed fee with a maximum amount, a per diem rate(s) with a maximum amount, or a lump sum (fixed) fee. 4. If it is the decision of the Staff Committee to use methods for compensation other than the lump sum or cost plus a fixed fee with a maximum, or the per diem rates with a maximum, justifications for this decision shall be made by the Staff Committee in its recommendation to the Selection Committee and the Board of Directors. 5. The Staff Committee shall review the compensation requested by the firm which shall be compared with the maximum fee as previously established. 6. The final negotiated fee, as recommended to the Selection Committee and Board of Directors, shall be certified by the Staff Committee as TlW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 21 reasonable for the services requested and not resulting in excessive profits for the firm. 7. If agreement is not reached, the negotiations should be terminated and similar interviews should then follow with the next-ranked firm. 8. All such negotiations shall be on a strictly confidential basis, and in no case shall the compensation discussed with one firm be discussed with another. G. Continuation of Services. 1. In some instances where a qualified firm has satisfactorily completed one phase in the development of a project and the Board determines that it is in the best interests of the District to retain the same firm for subsequent phases of related work, the Staff Committee or the Selection Committee may be authorized to proceed directly with negotiations with that firm for the additional work. 2. Continuation of services may arise when a firm has completed a feasibility report or a preliminary engineering report and the services for said work are satisfactory to the Board and the procedure of examining other firms for subsequent phases is not deemed necessary or cost effective. 3. ·. In the event that satisfactory negotiations for price cannot be concluded under these circumstances, negotiations should be terminated and the provisions set forth hereinabove for selection of a firm would apply. H. Specialized Services. 1. · In the event that specialized services are required where it is determined that only one qualified firm can best perform the services for a specific project in an amount greater tha·n $50,000.00, the Staff Committee, in the case where the fees are greater than $50,000.00, will report to the Selection Committee said findings and request authority to negotiate directly with the particular specialized firm. 2. The basis of selection of the specialized firm or individual under Subparagraph H(1) above, along with the negotiated fee, shall be presented to the Board of Directors for consideration. I. Agreement for Services. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 22 1. Upon approval by the Board of a negotiated agreement for professional services, a contract shall be executed in a form approved by the General Counsel. terms: 2. The contract shall include, but not be limited to the following (a) A statement of the scope of the project. (b) The basis and individual elements of the fees. (c) The basis for payment to the firm. ( d) The time limits in which the services must be performed. (e) Provisions for fee adjustments should there be changes in the scope of work. (f) If it is determined by the Selection Committee that the District may be caused to incur a penalty or liability, or suffer a loss because of the failure of the firm to perform the work within specified time limits, the contract shall include a clause setting forth penalties for such nonperformance or delayed performance, in amounts to be determined by the Committee. (g) For projects exceeding $50,000.00 in fees or in other cases as determined by the District, errors and omissions insurance in an amount recommended by the General Counsel (based upon engineering data from the Department Director) shall be required, unless the Standing Committee or Board of Directors, as the case may be, waives said insurance. For projects that involve small engineering studies where a consultant is asked to provide a report not related or leading directly to a design project, the General Manager (based upon engineering data from the Department Director), in his discretion, may waive the requirement for the consultant to provide errors and omissions/professional liability insurance. J. Conflict of Interest. 1. The District maintains a Conflict of Interest Code, pursuant to California Government Code Section 87100 et seq., which governs the activities and performance of duties of its officers, employees, or agents in the conduct of project work for the District. TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 23 2. No Director, officer, employee or agent shaJI solicit or accept rebates, kickbacks, favors or other unlawful consideration from any individual or firm on behalf of any firm that may be potentially selected as a qualified firm to provide professional consulting services to the District. Acceptance of food and refreshments of nominal value on infrequent occasions and acceptance of gratuities or gifts shall not be deemed a violation of this provision, provided that if said items exceed $290.00, or the amount as fixed by Government Code Section 89503, or California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18940.1, in a calendar year, the Director, officer, employee or agent may be disqualified from participating in the decision pursuant to Article Ill of the District's Conflict of Interest Code; and provided further, tha.t any Director, officer, employee or agent, as a designated employee under the District's Conflict of Interest Code, shall report any amount of gifts on his/her annual Statement of Economic Interest as required by said Code. 3. Any firm seeking selection under these procedures that violates the District's Conflict of Interest Gode shall be automatically disqualified. Section 4.1 O: Major Capital Project: Award of Professional Services Agreements. A. Professional Consulting Services. The award and execution of an agreement for professional consulting services on behalf of the District shall be made in accordance with the following delegations of authority: 1. 2. 3. Authorizing Authority Department Heads General Manager OMTS, PDC, or FAHR Committee (or Standing (Committees) TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 24 Authorized Action Solicitation of Requests for Qualifications C'RFQ") and Requests for Proposals (RFP"). Authorization to evaluate proposals and to execute contracts up to $100,000. Receive recommendations of Staff and General Manager, and approve Profes- sional Services Agreements of over $100,000.00 up to $200,000.00. 4. Board of Directors Receive recommendations of Staff, General Manager and Committee, and approve Professional Services Agreements for over $200,000.00. B. Professional Consulting Services Agreement Addenda. The award and execution of an addendum to an agreement for professional consulting services on behalf of the District shall be made in accordance with the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Authorizing Authority Department Head General Manager OMTS, PDC, or FAHR Committee (or Standing Committee) Board of Directors Authorized Action Authority to negotiate addenda. Receive recommendation of Staff and approve contract changes up to $100,000.00 per addendum on previously-awarded Board contracts. The additive value of the total of the General Manager-approved contracts, and all addenda, shall not exceed $100,000.00. Receive recommendations of Staff and General Manager, and approve contract changes between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 on Board-awarded contracts, and between $0.00 and $200,000.00 on General Manager- awarded contracts. The additive value of the changes shall not exceed $200,000.00. Receive recommendations of Staff, General Manager and Committee and approve contract changes for over ,$200,000.00. Section 4.11: Major Capital Project: Approval of Plans and Specifications. The procedure and authority for the approval of the design plans and specifications for construction of new or modified District's major capital projects is as follows: A. For any project with approved budget authority, the Director of Engineering is authorized to advertise for construction bids, set a bid date, and receive all bids. ll.W Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 25 B. For any project, if the engineer's estimate for the construction contract, as provided by the Director of Engineering or the District's consulting design engineer is equal to or less than the approved construction budget for the project, the Director of Engineering may advertise for bids, and upon receipt, the lowest responsive bid of a responsible bidder will be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. C. For any project, if the engineer's estimate for the construction contract, as provided by the Director of Engineering or the District's consulting design engineer, is greater than the approved construction budget for the project, the Director of Engineering shall submit the project to the Standing Committee for recommendation, and based thereon, to the Board of Directors for approval. D. For any project, upon receipt of bids for the construction, if the lowest responsive bid of a responsible bidder is equal to or less than the approved construction budget for the project, the bid will be submitted to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors, upon receipt of the bid, shall approve the plans and specifications of the project and may award a contract. E. For any project, upon receipt of bids for the construction, if the lowest responsive bid of a responsible bidder is greater than the approved construction budget for the project, Staff shall present the bid and a recommendation to the Standing Committee for review and recommendation to the Board of Directors. ARTICLE V PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Section 5.01 Purpose and Scope. Public works contracts are herein defined as contracts with duly licensed contractors in the State of California for the furnishing of labor, materials, equipment and permits, as deemed necessary, for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities, and any other public building, structure or improvement necessary to the operation of the District, in an amount greater than Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars, as per California Public Contracts Code Sections 20783 et seq. Section 5.02: Public Works: Bidding Required. When the expenditure required for a public works construction project exceeds Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars, it shall be contracted! for and let to the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with the provisions of California Public Contracts Code Section 20783. Section 5.03: Bidding Procedure: Public Works Construction Greater Than $35,000.00. Procedures for soliciting bids and awarding contracts for public works TlW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 26 projects for more than Thirty-Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Dollars, shall be by written contract with the lowest responsible bidder, pursuant to the procedures prescribed herein and in accordance with applicable provisions of California Public Contracts Code Section 20783. A. Notice Inviting Bids. The Notice Inviting Bids shall specifically describe the work to be performed, shall state where bid forms, Specifications, and General and Special Provisions may be secured, and the time and place for receiving and opening sealed bids. 1. Published Notice. The Notice Inviting Bids shall set a date for the opening of bids. The first publication or posting of the Notice shall be at least ten (10) calendar days before the date for the opening of the bids. The Notice shall be published at least two (2) times, not less than five (5) days apart, in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published within the District. 2. Mailed Notice. Unless the work to be done is proprietary, the Notice Inviting Bids shall be published in a public newspaper which carries Orange County public works bid notices, not less than twenty-one (21) calendar days before the date of opening of bids. 3. Bidders list. The Engineering Department may also solicit sealed bids from all qualified, responsible, prospective suppliers whose names are on a Bidders List that may be maintained by District. B. Bidder's Security. When deemed necessary by the Purchasing Division, bidder's security may be prescribed in the contract Specifications and in the public Notice Inviting Bids. Bidders shall be entitled to return of bid security, upon full execution by the successful bidder of an awarded contract by the District. A successful bidder shall forfeit its bid security upon refusal or failure to execute the contract within the prescribed time after the Notice of Award of Contract has been delivered to the bidder, unless the District is responsible for the delay in the prescribed time. The Board of Directors may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest responsive, responsible bidder. If the Board of Directors awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, an amount of the lowest bidder's security equal to the difference in an amount between the low bid and the awarded bid, shall be forfeited to the District, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. C. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the Director of Engineering or Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or their designees, and Secretary of the Board of Directors, and shall be identified as a bid, on the envelope. Bids shall be opened by the Director of Engineering or Contracts/Purchasing Manager, or their designee, in public, at the time and place stated in the public notice. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of not less than thirty (30) calendar days after the bid TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 27 opening. D. Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the Board of Directors may reject any and all bids presented and readvertise for bids. If, after the opening of bids, all bids are rejected, the Board of Directors, on a Resolution adopted by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, may declare that the work can be performed more economically by force account, or the materials or supplies furnished at a lower price in the open market and may have the work done in a manner stated in the Resolution in order to take advantage of this lower cost. E. Tie Bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price (with quality and service being equal) and if the public interest will not be best served by a delay or readvertising for bids, the Board of Directors may accept the one it chooses, or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders at the time of the award. F. No Bids. If no bids are received, the District may have the work done by force account; may readvertise for bids pursuant to the procedures herein; or may select a contractor by negotiation. G. Emergencies. Whenever an emergency arises which is, or may be, a threat to the continued operation of the wastewater facilities, support facilities and/or administrative facilities operated by the District, a contract for the repair or replacement of the public facility may be ordered by the General Manager without complying with the provisions of this Resolution or the California Public Contracts Code. This authority is hereby delegated to the General Manager, or his designee, by the Board of Directors pursuant to the authority of California Public Contracts Code Section 22050. In such event, the General Manager shall advise the District Chair and/or Vice Chair, as appropriate, of the action taken, and such action shall be confirmed by a four- fifths (4/5) vote of the Board of Directors at its next regular meeting. H. Surety Bonds. The Purchasing Division shall require a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Materials Bond. A Warranty Bond may be required before entering into a contract in an amount up to one hundred (100%) percent of the amount of the contract, as it shall find reasonably necessary to protect the best interests of the District. The form and amount of the bond shall be described in the Notice Inviting Bids, or in the contract Specifications. I. Cost Records. Cost records shall be kept in the manner provided in Sections 4000 to 4007, inclusive, of the California Government Code. Section 5.04: Approval of Change Orders to Construction Agreements. The procedure and authority for the approval of change orders to construction agreements is as follows: TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 28 A. General Manager. The General Manager is authorized to approve any single change order with a total amount of additions to the agreement (not the net amount of the change order), not to exceed $100,000.00, and a total cumulative amount for all change order additions to the agreement not to exceed 5% of the original agreement amount, or $100,000.00, whichever is less. B. Planning, Design & Construction Committee. The Planning, Design & Construction Committee is authorized to approve any single change order with a total amount of additions to the agreement (not the net amount of the change order), not to exceed $200,000.00, and a total cumulative amount for all change order additions to the agreement not to exceed 10% of the original agreement amount, or $200,000.00. whichever is less. C. Management and Staff. At such time as the Staff becomes aware of a fact or circumstance that will likely result in total additive change orders exceeding 5% percent of the original contract amount, it shall be presented to the Planning, Design & Construction Committee at its next regular meeting for review, consideration, arid possible action. ARTICLE VI MEETINGS (AND RELATED TRAVEL) AND TRAINING (AND RELATED TRAVEL) EXPENDITURES Section 6.01: Purpose and Scope. This Article sets forth the procedures and scope of delegated authority by which District employees are authorized to incur expenses for budget-approved meetings and training in furtherance of District business. Section 6.02: General. A. Meetings or training exceeding $500.00 will be itemized, as well as possible, in the approved budget. It is recognized that some meetings and training cannot be preplanned. B. All out-of-country travel (excluding Canada and Mexico) requires approval by the Board of Directors. C. Meetings or training requests exceeding $2,000.00 will be approved by the Department Director. D. Meetings or training requests less than $2,000.00 will be approved by the Division Manager. E. Established approvals must be received prior to arrangements for TLW Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 29 meetings or training being made. Section 6.03: Policies and Procedures. All policies and procedures governing meetings and training, such as the use of District forms and justification, will be followed. ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS Section 7.01: Noncompliance. Any transaction failing to comply with this Resolution in any respect is voidable in the discretion of the Board of Directors, and any employee willfully and knowingly violating any provision of this Resolution may be subject to disciplinary action. Section 7.02: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the entire Resolution or any of the remaining portions thereof. The Board of Directors hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 7.03: Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Board of Directors. Section 7.04: Repeal of Prior Resolutions. Resolutions Nos. OCSD 98-8, OCSD 98-12, OCSD 98-22, and OCSD 98-43 are hereby repealed in their entirety. PASSED ANO ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held _____ _, 1999. Chair ATTEST: Board Secretary l\.W Draft No. 12:05/19/99:#103185 30 FAHR COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env., Director of Technical Services Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 10/13/99 10/27/99 ~m Number Item Number ~ltiJI!.. ~-"!17 SUBJECT: SPECIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND COUNTY OF ORANGE TO SEWER URBAN RUNOFF GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION To waive the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (CFCC) regarding issuance of the Special Purpose Discharge Permits to the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange to sewer urban runoff for a one-year period effective November 1, 1999. . Concurrently, to amend Ordinance No. OCSD-09 by deleting the reference to "Special Purpose Discharge Permit" to mandate imposition of a CFCC. SUMMARY The City of Huntington Beach (City) and County of Orange (County) operate four pump stations at various locations in the City of Huntington Beach. The pump stations collect urban runoff, and in the past discharged to the Talbert Channel, which flows into the Pacific Ocean. On August 30, 1999, as part of the ongoing investigation of the shoreline contamination, the District agreed to reroute the flow from the four pump stations to the sewer system. The dry weather flow from the pump station is estimated to be 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd). Recent analyses of the discharge have shown that the runoff does not contain any constituents at levels in violation of the District's discharge limits and prohibitions. Preliminary results of the beach closure investigation suggest that the runoff from the pump stations discharging to the Talbert Channel may have contributed to the cause of the recent shoreline contamination. To mitigate the impact of the discharges, in accordance with Sections 203 and 305 of the District's Ordinance No. OCSD-01, the District plans to issue Special Purpose Discharge (SPD) permits to the City and the County to allow the discharges from the above-mentioned pump stations to the sewer system. The SPD permits will be issued for discharges during summer or winter dry weather conditions, starting November 1, 1999, for a period of one year. As part of the permit conditions, the City and County will be required to measure the flow, BOD and TSS, and provide these measurements to the District on a monthly basis. In addition, the City and County will be required to implement provisions to interrupt discharge to the sewer system on an emergency basis, especially during high-flow storm events when there is a potential for the capacity of the sewer system to be exceeded. In accordance with District's Ordinance Nos. OCSD-01 and OCSD-10, the District plans to charge the City and County for the actual operations and maintenance (O&M) cost associated with the discharges from the pump stations. The O&M charge is calculated at approximately $420 per million gallons per day, based on the District's current understanding of the urban runoff characteristics. However, the District proposes that the Capital Facility Capacity Charges (CFCC) for the discharge from the pump stations to the sewer system be waived. As per District's Ordinance OCSD-09, applying the full CFCC is estimated at $660 per day per million gailons. C:ITEMP\FAHR99-XX.dot Page 1 Staff recommends lhat the CFCC be waived for one year dur.ing the term of the SPD permits, be~use staff is planning to work with the City, Cotmty and others to develop long-term solutions to mitigate tne negative impact of these discharges on the shoreline, which have resulted in the recent beach closures. At th is time, the only practical alternative available to the City and County is to discharge the flow from the pump stations to the sewer system. To avoid confusion or misunderstanding and to allow for the "waiver'', the staff is concurrently recommending the amendment of Ordinance No. OCSD-09 by deleting the refe.ren_ce to "Special Purpese Discharge Permit'' as part of the mar:,datory impositien of a CFCC. The provisions in existing Ordinance OCSD-01 (Seetion 305.6) will st111 allow for the impositi0n of a CFCC in any given case, at the discretion of the General Manager. As noted abov-e, in this case it is the staff recommendation that the CFCC net be imposed and staff seeks the Boards' concurrence with the decision of the General Manager. Since the decision to sewer the urban runoff from the pump stations was made to mitigate the potential impact on the environment and public health, staff recommends that the City and County t>e granted a waiver of the CFCC for a period of only one }(ear. Following one year of discharge, the project will me re-evaluated. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY NIA BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. ~ Not applicable ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALTERNATIVES CEQA FINDINGS ATTACHMENTS C:ITEMPIFAHR99-XX.dot Page2 FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date 10/13/99 AGENDA REPORT Item Number FAHR99-78 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Originator: Dawn McKinley, Senior Human Resources Analyst SUBJECT: PAY STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENTS GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Adjust the Assistant General Manager's pay range (E20) maximum from $136,680 to $148,836. 2. Move the Director of Information Technology classification from pay range E17 ($75,876-$119,784) to pay range E18 ($85,992- $139,464). 3. Move the Warehouse Supervisor classification from pay range E4 ($43,248-$61,236) to pay range E9 ($55,212-$78, 156). 4. Move the Contracts & Purchasing Supervisor classification from pay range E9 ($55,212-$78,156) to pay range E11 ($60,828- $86,064). 5. Create Contracts Specialist classification at pay range E2 ($39,252- $55,488). 6. Create Contracts Administrator classification at pay range E7 ($50,064-$70,848). 7. Reinstate the Safety and Emergency Response Specialist classification at pay range EB ($52,500-$7 4,292). 8. Create Information Technology Strategic Implementation Leader classification at pay range E11 ($60,828-$86,064). SUMMARY From time to time, pay structures need to be adjusted. Pay structure adjustments include the increase of pay ranges, the movement of classifications to different pay ranges, and the development or elimination of classifications. Structure adjustments are usually made in response to changes in the external market or in response to internal organizational changes. Staff has identified eight areas of the exempt pay structure in need of modification. The proposed structure adjustments will not result in any individual salary increases. The recommended modifications are as follows: H:lwp.dlalagenda\FAHR\Fahi98\119ar\FAHR99-78.doc RtMled: 8120198 Page 1 To Bel. of Dir. 10/27/99 Item Number 1. The pay range maximum for the Assistant General Manager (AGM) position ($136,680) is currently $3,300 per year less than the highest-level department head pay range maximum ($139,980). It is recommended that the AGM 's pay range maximum be raised to $148,836, or 6.3% above the department head pay range, to eliminate the inequity that exists between the AGM pay range and the department head pay range. 2. In June of 1999, an Executive Management Salary Survey was conducted. The results of the survey showed the average market rate for the position of Director of Information Technology at $123,860. The maximum of the District's pay range for that position is $119,784. The average market rate for the Director of Information Technology is above the maximum of the District's pay range for that position. It is recommended that the position be moved from pay range E 17, with a maximum of $119,784, to pay range E18, with a maximum of $139,464 so that the incumbent's salary may, in the future, be allowed to advance toward market. 3. All incumbents classified in supervisory classifications at the District are expected to perform comparable level of duties including planning and administering approved budget allocations, hiring, evaluating and disciplining staff, and recommending dismissal of staff when necessary. The supervisory classifications fall into pay ranges E9 to E 14 with the exception of the Warehouse Supervisor classification, which falls into pay range E4. To create internal equity between the Warehouse Supervisor classification and all of the other supervisory classifications, it is recommended that the Warehouse Supervisor classification be moved from pay range E4 ($43,248-$61,236) to pay range E9 ($55,212-$78, 156). 4,5,6. Approximately two years ago, the Purchasing Division took over many contract management duties formerly performed by Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart. Due to the exceptional. increase in the District's reliance on outsourcing of services, consultant contracting, and insurance & bond review and the recent re-organization of public works from Engineering to Purchasing, it is recommended that: A. The Contracts/Purchasing Supervisor classification be moved from pay range E9 ($55,212-$78, 156) to E11 ($60,828-$86,064) to recognize the higher-level contract management duties and to bring the position to the pay range of other comparable classifications. B. A Contracts Specialist classification be created at pay range E2 ($39,252-$55,488) to support the contract management function as there are no existing classifications comparable to this proposed classification. The average market rate for a Contracts H:lwp.dlalagendalFAHRIFahr99199arlFAHR99-78.doc RIINised: Bl2(W8 Page2 Specialist, according to the 1999/2000 Watson Wyatt Data Services Salary Survey, is $47,000. The midpoint, or market reference point, of pay range E2 is $47,364. Please see the attached classification description, Attachment 1 . C. A Contracts Administrator classification be created at pay range E7 ($50,064-$70,848) to support the contract management function as there are no existing classifications comparable to this proposed classification. The average market rate for a Contracts Administrator, according to the 1999/2000 Watson Wyatt Data Services Salary Survey, is $60,300. The midpoint, or market reference point, of pay range E7 is $60,456. Please see the attached classification description, Attachment 2. 7. In July of 1997, the requirements of the Safety and Emergency Specialist position were modified to include Professional Engineering Registration. As a result, the incumbent was reclassified to Engineer and the Safety and Emergency Specialist classification was deleted from the salary schedule. The requirements of the position have been modified once again; Professional Engineering Registration is no longer a requirement of the position. It is recommended, therefore, that the Safety and Emergency Specialist classification be re-instated at its original pay range EB ($52,500-$74,292). Please see the attached classification description, Attachment 3. 8. Finally, a new classification of Information Technology (IT) Strategic Implementation Leader is being proposed at pay range E11 ($60,828- $86,064). The new classification is necessary to slot up to three individuals who are critical to the IT strategic development of the organization and who have unique understanding of District processes, procedures, and proprietary software training. Without the position at level E11, we cannot retain our IT project leaders. Please see the attached classification description, Attachment 4, as well as an Internet article on Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, Attachment 5. The Salary Schedule has been updated to reflect the proposed modifications and is attached for review and acceptance as Attachment 6. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGET IMPACT • • • I This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. This item has not been budgeted. Not applicable (information item) H:lwp.dta'agenda\FAHR\Fahr99199ar\FAHR99-78.doc ReYised: 8/20198 Page3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/A ALTERNATIVES NIA CEQA FINDINGS NIA ATTACHMENTS 1. Contracts Specialist classification description. 2. Contracts Administrator classification description. 3. Safety and Emergency Response Specialist classification description. 4. IT Strategic Implementation Leader classification description. 5. Internet article on Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. 6. Salary Schedule with recommended modifications. H:lwp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fah~r\FAHR99-78.dac Revised: 8/20,'98 Page4 ATTACHMENT 5 GUIDE TO ENTERPRISE COlVIPUTING Government Out of the Box Long a fix ture for business, all-in-one enterprise resource planning systems are beginning to move into the public sector. BY ELLEN PERLMAN http://w,vw.govemin11..comn erp.htm It doesn't take a million-dollar software package to make sure school buses get regular oil changes. But keeping the big yellow buses lumbering around the Houston Independent School District is just one of dozens of maintenance tasks that must be done regularly, and tracking all of that work has gotten a lot easier since the district began using its new computerized management system last September. The Houston schools' high-tech system does much more than keep the buses running. School officials can find out, up to the minute, how much money they have remaining in their budgets. Cafeteria managers no longer have to send out their lunch menus three weeks in advance and stack inventory for long periods of time; they now can order on Monday for the next week's pizza and lunch-meat delivery. The process for paying vendors and logging payments received has become smoother and easier. Before the new system went online, the school district struggled with archaic computer systems that had been put in place in 1983. Most information was disseminated on paper, which was time-consuming and made it difficult to track transactions and activities. Because budgeting was highly centralized and it would take five days to get a paper copy of spending activity, individual schools were forced to keep their own "shadow" budgets. It would do no good to see on paper that there was $800 left to spend when three requisitions remained in transit in the system. Then the Houston school district discovered that its financial system was not going to make it through the millennium: It was not Year 2000 compliant. Instead of trying to upgrade the old programs, officials decided to spend $8 million for software and consulting services to install an "enterprise-wide" system. The new system puts PCs on principals' desks, connects individual schools with central offices and allows principals to take over the business of managing and running their individual schools better. The district now has much more efficient systems-systems that communicate with each other-for inventory management, preventive maintenance, financials, funds management, and accounts payable and receivable. School employees can tap into a mother lode of information on their own PCs. That ability to connect departments and functions electronically under one system has increasing appeal not just for school systems but for many cities, counties and states that are implementing, or considering, what has come to be known in the past few years as "enterprise resource planning," or ERP. No matter how disparate the constituents or programs, certain activities take place in all agencies. Employees have to be paid, goods have to be purchased and funds have to be managed. Private-sector companies have been installing ERP systems for decades. In the past few years, governments have been getting into the game, buying ERP packages to do general ledger, payroll, budgeting, accounting and asset management. In 1998, governments accounted for 3. 7 percent of total industry licensing revenues, according to the market research firm AMR Research Inc. Governments of all sizes have been investing in enterprise systems, from Tuolumne County, California, and Boulder County, Colorado, to the states of Florida and Louisiana. A large growth area is in mid-size governments with operating budgets of $100 million or so and 500 to 1,000 employees. The vendors most prevalent in the government market are J.D. Edwards, Oracle, PeopleSoft and SAP, which supplied the Houston school district's system. Like the Houston schools, many government ERP purchasers have been motivated by the Year 2000 problem. But even without the looming specter of Y2K failures, many government officials know that systems put in place in the 1970s and 1980s are nearing or have surpassed their useful lives, don't manipulate or share data well, and need to be replaced. Technology has changed so rapidly in recent years that they are finding they are being held back by cumbersome legacy technologies, particularly as they look to do business on the Web. INFORMATION MINING Experts in the field of information technology caution that enterprise-wide systems are not for everyone. Governments should think long and hard and analyze what their needs are before jumping in and buying these new systems, which can be expensive and time- consuming to implement and maintain. Bringing an ERP system online can take from six months to two years. "There are a lot of nightmare stories in the market about the amount of time it takes to implement and the costs," says Ellen Zidar, a senior research analyst with GartnerGroup, an information technology research and consulting company. But there also can be a tremendous amount of benefit to the systems. Users can mine for information more quickly and easily even across department lines. Governments can reduce or eliminate duplicative tasks such as keying in names and addresses in one agency that have already been input by another. And these systems can analyze and use stored information in a way mainframes are unable to. For instance, ifthere is a huge upward blip in expenditures in an agency, there are tools to analyze why. With a mainframe system, a department manager typically has to request a financial report that can take days to arrive. It might take several reports to figure out where the unusual expenditure was. The new system can drill down to a detailed level within minutes. In the past few years, enterprise software companies have started catering to government, modifying their products to adapt them to governments' particular needs. Before that process began, governments that implemented such systems bought a product created for the commercial sector and adapted it themselves. "A lot of governments are stuck with software primarily designed for business that was modified to handle the eccentricities of government," says John Sobleskie, deputy chief financial officer in the Wayne County, Michigan, Department of Environmental Operations. Kansas started using enterprise-wide software in 1995 and had to make about 2,500 modifications to the system to reflect the public-sector environment. Since that initial installation, Kansas has upgraded its package to a government-specific version, which has enabled the state to keep subsequent modifications to a minimum. The state pays annual maintenance fees to its vendors and receives upgrades as they are released. The next trend on the horizon is toward incorporating Web technology into enterprise-wide systems. That, for instance, would enable traveling government employees to access needed data or do expense reports from the road. Citizens and businesses could get licenses, pay taxes, check invoices or the status of payments on a system that integrates information from many agencies. Texas school districts are able to go onto the Web, plug in a password and request money from the Texas Education Agency, which began using an enterprise-wide system in 1997. At the other end of the implementation scale, many governments have been postponing decisions on large new computer projects, concentrating instead on making it through the year 2000 intact. That waiting game, which a lot of businesses have been playing as well, has contributed to some slowdown in the market for enterprise systems. But as in Houston, the Y2K specter has also worked the other way, contributing to some governments' decisions to buy the systems in the late 1990s. The millennium bug was one of the factors in Montana's decision several years ago to spend $16.5 million for the hardware, software and implementation for an ERP system. The state rolled out the first phase-budget development-in August 1998, and added asset management two months later. In May of this year, the state cut the first paychecks for its 12,000 employees from the new human resources component. Previously, government managers in Montana had to cope with a lot of different systems that operated in disjointed ways. For instance, the state had several different computer systems for processing the purchase of an automobile. One took care of the purchase transaction. Another paid the vendor. A third recorded the purchase on the books as a fixed asset. Each system was developed by and for the individual agencies, and at different times. They did not share information readily with each other, and the financial information from the separate systems often conflicted. The new software from PeopleSoft takes care of the whole process as one on the same system. "It reduces data entry and reduces the errors of data entry," says David Ashley, project director for Montana's system. Another plus for Montana is that agency employees develop skills that are easily transferable between agencies since they all learn to use the same computer system. An employee from the purchasing department, for example, no longer enters a whole new world ifhe takes a job with accounts payable. RISKS AND COMPLEXITIES At the same time as they look at the benefits of these systems, governments have to be careful to look at the risks and the complexities. Some governments have made purchase decisions without expending the effort to figure out just what it is they want out of such a system-a recipe for disappointment down the road. "It's management by magazine cover," says Robert Charette, president of ITABHI Corp., a Spotsylvania, Virginia, consulting company specializing in managing business and technology risks for governments and telecommunications companies. "They say, 'Everyone is doing it, so we ought to have ERP.' It's being touted as the cure for the common cold." A lot of what a government wants to get out ofan ERP system might be accomplished with policy changes or management decisions reorganizing the way jobs are performed, Charette believes. Even when an enterprise-wide system is the answer, the actual hardware and software are only pieces of a much larger project. More important is how, and how much, governments plan to change their operations so they mesh with the new computer system. Governments planning to move to ERP have to thoroughly analyze what they are doing now and understand how the new system .would achieve the same results. Or they have to decide to change the way they do business to match the way the new system works. The option is available to customize the new system so it mimics the old way of doing things, but it often doesn't make sense to highly modify the software and then have to do it all over again in 18 months when the vendor comes out with an upgrade. "It's important not to modify unless you have to," says Don Heiman, chief information technology officer in the Kansas Department of Administration. "It's much better to stay vanilla." But running a software package in a pure-vanilla state is usually not possible. Most governments have unique requirements, such as a legislative mandate or a personnel provision that a union bargained for. In large part due to the customization involved, the first time Kansas went through an upgrade to its enterprise software, it took a year and Heiman' s entire IO-person staff to install the new version at the same time it had to maintain the old. In Wayne County, the road maintenance department has worked for years with a custom- designed off-line system that tracks the department's costs. When the new J.D. Edwards enterprise system was proposed, the department insisted on using a lot of the existing system's procedures--codes and numbers it was used to. The county and the vendor had to figure out how to configure the system the best way to accommodate those needs. "It took a significant amount of time to meet the requirements of the road department and convince them this was going to do the job for them," says Sobleskie. But he is enthusiastic about the benefits that will come down the road. BUILDING ON WORKFLOW The enterprise system that the Texas Education Agency began using two years ago has vastly improved the efficiency of the organization, according to Bill Monroe, chief of operations. It has enabled an agency that was downsized from 1,200 people to 800 to administer $12 billion in funds and manage an $18 billion stock and bond portfolio. But only about a third of the effort to implement the Texas agency project came from the computer programmers. The rest fell on accounting, purchasing and other staff people who were going to use it. The system is built on electronic workflow. Employees previously had systems that did not communicate. Therefore, with the new system, they had to figure out who was going to get what in the electronic process and how to set up the system accordingly. "They have to get together and decide a common language on how they're going to operate," Monroe says. "There are an awful lot of decisions that have to be made." Although the Texas Education Agency did that painstaking work, it still ended up giving itself a grade of C for knowing what the roles and responsibilities of everyone using the system were going to be when the system went live, Monroe says. When the system finally came online, for instance, the agency wasn't sure whose job it was to process all the purchase orders to move them to accounts payable. "The tools were all there, but the implementation was so fast," says Monroe. "There was not so much focus on how we were going to use the tools." The agency also gave itself a C for not being ready with a "performance tuning team" when the system went live. If 100 people happened to request financial information at the same time, the response was not as quick as people expected. While the agency could not have foreseen that kind of performance issue, it should have had people ready to deal with such problems, Monroe thinks. "We didn't know to have a performance tuning team ready," he says. "We didn't understand we needed to tune." Other parts of the Texas agency's implementation fared better. In areas such as contingency planning and bringing in an "all star" team of technicians to implement the system, for example, the agency gave itself grades of B+ and A+, respectively. RICH AND POOR Because so much investigation into a government's business processes is required for a successful ERP implementation, it takes the average governmental organization about a year from when the analysis begins to when a decision is made to go forward with a project. When the implementation goes forward, there is both a "rich man's" and a "poor man's" approach, says Ashley in Montana. Under the rich man's approach, there is enough project money to hire people to implement and run the system full-time. The advantage is that government employees don't have to be pulled off their regular jobs or try to do two jobs at once. With the poor man's approach, existing government employees are used as much as possible to implement the new system, maintain it, and train other workers in its use. The advantage, besides cost savings, is that employees are sensitive to the needs of their agencies and can improve how the system is implemented. In addition, employees have a chance to become as knowledgeable on the new system as they were on the legacy system right from the start, positioning them to return to their home agencies to utilize the system and help others. In Montana, 10 different agencies contributed 32 state employees to serve on the implementation project, and the agencies continued to pay their salaries. That kind of freeing of resources can be hard to do, however. Wayne County started replacing its clunky old systems with the enterprise-wide package in January 1998. But implementation is going slower than county officials thought it would. They originally expected it to be finished October 1, but they didn't have enough people with enough time to meet that goal. The people helping to implement the system also are continuing to do their regular jobs. "I didn't have the manpower to take people off and throw them on this and do nothing else," Sobleskie says. Whether the rich man's or poor man's approach is used, few governments have the resources to do the entire job themselves. Most of the time, they will have to look to a systems integrator to manage the implementation job. Governments also have to take into account ongoing maintenance costs. Even in the commercial world, which has been doing this a lot longer than the government sector and often has more money to spend on technical staff, companies are finding they can't maintain the systems on their own. "It's a hot technology for outsourcing," says GartnerGroup's Zidar. But governments that have made it through the arduous process of getting an enterprise- wide system in place, such as the school district in Houston, have been only too happy to bid goodbye to the old, inefficient ways of doing things. "It was a lot of work," says the school district's controller, Melinda Garrett, "but it was woJ1h the price." Copyright© 1999, Con~essional Ouarterlv, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing and City & State are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. clsrange ' 10127199 Attachment 6 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Administrative and Clerical Exhibit A Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status 1019 44,680 55,628 Information Services Technician Ill Non-Exempt 1017 41,714 51,940 Financial Technician Non-Exempt 1015 40,606 50,540 Graphics Coordinator Non-Exempt 1013 38,436 47,840 Senior Storeskeeper Non-Exempt 1012 38,933 48,476 Administrative Assistant Non-Exempt 1011 37,906 47,189 Graphics Services Assistant Non-Exempt 1011 37,906 47,189 Information Services Technician II Non-Exempt 1008 34,382 42,800 Information Services Technician I Non-Exempt 1007 33,444 41,644 Secretary Non-Exempt 1004 31,878 39,691 Senior Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt 1004 31,878 39,691 Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt 1003 31,660 39,424 Storeskeeper Non-Exempt 1002 29,370 36,556 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt 1002 29,370 36,556 Office Aide Non-Exempt 1002 29,370 36,556 Office Specialist Non-Exempt 1001 26,308 32,770 Office Technician Non-Exempt 904 14,468 30,164 Storeskeeper Assistant Non-Exempt 903 14,468 24,812 Technical Services Assistant Non-Exempt clsrange 10127199 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Engineering Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status 1025 49,866 62,090 Senior Construction Inspector Non-Exempt 1023 47,526 59,174 Engineering Associate Non-Exempt 1020 45,621 56,786 Construction Inspector Non-Exempt 1015 40,606 50,540 Engineer Aide Ill Non-Exempt 1009 36,893 45,935 Engineering Aide II Non-Exempt 1006 33,228 41,355 Engineering Aide I Non-Exempt • • cisrange 10/27/99 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Technical Services Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status 1018 43,476 54,134 Environmental Specialist II Non-Exempt 1018 43,476 54,134 Source Control Inspector II Non-Exempt 1018 43,476 54,134 Senior Laboratory Analyst Non-Exempt 1010 37,134 46,249 Environmental Specialist I Non-Exempt 1010 37,134 46,249 Laboratory Analyst Non-Exempt 1010 37,134 46,249 Source Control Inspector I Non-Exempt 1005 32,552 40,533 Source Control Technician Non-Exempt clsrenge 10127/!il!il Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Operations and Maintenance (501) Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status 2015 44,571 55,504 Lead Electrical Technician Non-Exempt 2015 44,571 55,504 Lead Instrumentation Technician Non-Exempt 2014 42,207 52,549 Electrical Technician II Non-Exempt 2014 42,207 52,549 Instrumentation Technician II Non-Exempt 2013 40,775 50,776 Lead Mechanic Non-Exempt 2013 40,775 50,776 Pump Power Operator Non-Exempt 2013 40,775 50,776 Senior Plant Operator Non-Exempt 2012 41,812 52,060 Lead Collection Facilities Worker Non-Exempt 2012 41,812 52,060 Lead Worker Non-Exempt 2012 41,812 52,060 Machinist Non-Exempt 2011 39,304 48,949 Senior Mechanic Non-Exempt 2011 39,304 48,949 Welder Non-Exempt 2010 39,040 48,612 Equipment Operator Non-Exempt 2009 37,979 47,285 Builder Non-Exempt 2009 37,979 47,285 Electrical Technician I Non-Exempt 2009 37,979 47,285 Instrumentation Technician I Non-Exempt 2008 37,737 46,973 Plant Operator Non-Exempt 2007 34,505 42,969 Electrical Maintenance Worker Non-Exempt 2007 34,505 42,969 Instrumentation Maintenance Worker Non-Exempt 2007 34,505 42,969 Painter Non-Exempt 2007 34,505 42,969 Senior Maintenance Worker Non-Exempt 2007 34,505 42,969 Senior Collection Facilities Worker Non-Exempt 2006 33,590 41,812 Mechanic Non-Exempt 2005 31,348 39,040 Collection Facilities Worker II Non-Exempt 2005 31,348 39,040 Maintenance Worker Non-Exempt 2004 30,938 38,509 Operator In Training Non-Exempt 2003 29,875 37,207 Groundskeeper Non-Exempt 2002 29,490 36,700 Control Center Clerk Non-Exempt 2001 24,184 30,093 Collection Facilities Worker I Non-Exempt 2000 22,882 28,502 Helper Non-Exempt ctsrange 10/27199 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Supervisory Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status E14 $70,380 $SS,600 Engineering Supervisor Exempt E13 $67,128 $S4,S32 Environmental Management Supervisor Exempt E12 $63,S48 $S0,468 Laboratory Supervisor Exempt E11 $60,828 $86,064 Senior Operations Supervisor Exempt E11 $60,828 $86,064 Senior Maintenance Supervisor Exempt E11 $60,828 $86,064 Information Technology Supervisor Exempt E11 $60,828 $86;064 Contracts & Purchasing Supervisor Exempt ES $55,212 $78,156 Maintenance Supervisor Exempt ES $55,212 $78,156 Operations Supervisor Exempt ES $55,212 $78,156 Source Control Supervisor Exempt ES $55,212 $78,156 Supervising Construction Inspector Exempt ~ ~ ~ Contracts & Purchasing Supervisor Exempt E9 $55,212 $78,156 Warehouse Supervisor Exempt E4 ~ ~ Warehouse Supervisor Exempt cisrange 7 10/27/99 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Management Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status E16 $77,688 $109,812 Construction Manager Exempt E16 $77,688 $109,812 Engineering Manager Exempt E16 $77,688 $109,812 Environmental Compliance & Monitoring Manager Exempt E16 $77,688 $109,812 Laboratory Manager Exempt E16 $77,688 $109,812 Source Control Manager Exempt E15 $73,956 $104,616 Controller Exempt E15 $73,956 $104,616 Financial Manager Exempt E15 $73,956 $104,616 Plant Automation Manager Exempt E15 $73,956 $104,616 Contracts & Purchasing Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Accounting Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Safety/Emergency Response Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Maintenance Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Human Resources Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Operations Manager Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Information Technology Manager Exempt clsrange 10127189 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Executive Management Pay Range Minimum Maximum Classifications FLSA Status E27 $154,596 $154,596 General Manager Exempt E20 $95,676 $148,&~6 Assistant General Manager Exempt E20 $95,676 $1~&,liliO Assistant General Manager Exempt E19 $87,180 $139,980 Director of Engineering Exempt E19 $87,180 $139,980 Director of Operations & Maintenance Exempt E19 $87,180 $139,980 Director of General Services Administration Exempt E19 $87,180 $139,980 Director of Technical Services Exempt E18 $85,992 $139,464 Director of Finance Exempt E18 $85,992 $139,464 Director of Information Technology Exempt ~ ~ $11Q,71i4 Director of Information Technology Exempt E17 $75,876 $119,784 Director of Human Resources Exempt E13 $67,128 $94,932 Director of Communications Exempt ' clsrange 10/27/9il Pay Range 1027 1012 1012 Minimum 42,551 38,933 38,933 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group Confidential Maximum Classifications 52,978 Executive Assistant II 48,476 Executive Assistant I 48,476 Human Resources Assistant FLSA Status Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt cisrange 10127189 Pay Range 905 Minimum 18,720 Orange County Sanitation District Classifications By Employee Group "Non-Regular'' Part Time Maximum Classifications 33,280 Intern FLSA Status Non-Exempt FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 10/13/99 10/27/99 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number FAHR99-79 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD POLICY REGARDING REFUND AND CREDIT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION This is a Director's request to reconsider a policy recommended by the FAHR Committee and adopted by the Board. As such, it is inappropriate for the General Manager to make a recommendation. SUMMARY In response to a request from property owners in Yorba Linda, the FAHR Committee recommended, and the Board approved, a credit and refund policy in July 1999. The policy allows credit against connection fees for the entire sewer service paid with interest. Refunds, however, may only be made for a four-year period or so long as ownership can be established, whichever is less. Director Gullixson has requested, and the Board has approved, that the FAHR Committee reconsider this policy. He has recommended that the refund policy be the same as the credit policy. On August 3, staff mailed 825 notices to property owners in the Yorba Linda Water District that do not receive sewer service. To date there have been 232 responses. Only 43 of these were to request a credit against future connection fees. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY If the policy is changed to allow refunds of all fees collected, plus interest, the increased refunds could be as much as $365,000. BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ~ This item has not been budgeted. D Not applicable (information item) H:lwp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fahr99199ar\FAHR99-79.doc Re.ised: 8l20l98 Page 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION None. ALTERNATIVES None. CEQA FINDINGS NIA ATTACHMENTS None. H:lwp.dtalagenda\FAHR\Fahr91N19ar\FAHR98-79.doc RMed: 8120198 Page2 FAH R COMMITTEE Meeting Date 10/13/99 AGE NDA REPORT Item Number '" FAHR99-80 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS RE CAPITAL FACILITIES CAPACITY CHARGES GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Revisions re Capital Facilities Capacity Charges SUMMARY See General Counsel's memo dated October 5, 1999. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. X Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALTERNATIVES CEQA FINDINGS ATTACHMENTS General Counsel's memo dated 10/05/99 To Bel. of Dir. Item Number LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: Chair and Members of Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee FROM: General Counsel DATE: October 5, 1999 RE: Proposed Ordinance Revisions re Capital Facilities Capaci ty Charges ("CFCC") As the Directors are aware, the Board adopted its new, comprehensive CFCC Ordinance at its meeting of July 21, 1999, following studies by Staff, Consultants, the Rate Advisory Committee, and hearings by your Board Committees. As is so often the case, the very best of efforts by all involved personnel often get tested and minor errors are discovered once it is put into practical application. Exactly that fact situation has occurred relative to the implementation of this Ordinance, and specifically the imposition of Supplemental CFCC. There has been a certain degree of uncertainty as to the Board's intent relative to its application to all the existing connected dischargers, or whether it only applied to new connecting dischargers, or only those who would be expanding their facilities or usage. The Staff has determined, based upon a review of all the records, that the intent was to have existing dischargers, only pay an additional CFCC at such time as they expanded their use or facility and increased their discharge of either flow, BOD, or Suspended Solids ("SS"). Unfortunately, Ordinance No. OCSD-09, as presently drafted, is not expressly specific on that point, and in order to avoid any further confusion or disagreement in the implementation of the Ordinance, the Staff and my office have prepared the revisions of certain provisions to more specifically address the Board's intent, and to make it more equitable for the actual Commercial -Industrial Users. The proposed Ordinance provides, in summary: 1. That all new, Significant Commercial -Industrial Users ("SCIU's") will pay a Supplemental CFCC for any discharge of flow, BOD, or SS over the base charge maximums, to wit: 25,000 gallons per day, or 150 pounds each BOD and SS. 2. All SCIU's, when connecting to the system, will pay a base capital facilities charge calculated on one of three rates per 1,000 square feet of building area. This base rate charge will allow for a discharge of up to 25,000 gallons per day, or 150 pounds each BOD or SS. FAHR COMMITTEE Meeting Date To Bet of Dir. 10/13/99 AGE NDA REPO RT Item Number Item Number FAHR99-81 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications SUBJECT: STATE OF THE DISTRICT -EMPLOYEE AUDIT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Informational item. SUMMARY Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications, will present the results of the State of the District -Employee Audit, which was conducted in July 1999. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/a BUDGET IMPACT D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted. X Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N/a ALTERNATIVES N/a CEQA FINDINGS N/a ATTACHMENTS Survey results Background State of the District Employee Audit July 1999 The District conducts an internal audit each year to track changes in employee morale, attitude and perceptions, and to determine the effectiveness of our existing communications programs. Audit results also help identify areas where new communications programs could be established to better meet employees' information needs. The first audit of this type was conducted in January 1996 with a "mini audit" conducted six months later. The results of those efforts provided a benchmark for future audits and confirmed what we had expected to find at that time: that employees were anxious about the District's changing culture, suspicious of management's efforts and that, overall, morale was low. Please keep in mind that in January 1996 the new General Manager had yet to complete the first year of his tenure, a new Assistant General Manager - Administration had been with the District less than six months, and the "threat of privatization" (and all its implications) was a phrase just being introduced to employees. The third audit was conducted in May 1997, less than six months after the agency-wide drug investigation and during performance-evaluation time. While approximately the same number of employees participated in that audit -34 percent -the results were very negative, if not discouraging to the Board and executive management. However, we remained undaunted. We continued our organizational-change efforts, to refine our existing communications programs and to establish new venues for the exchange of information between management and staff. To eliminate as many extraneous variables as possible, we waited two years to conduct this most recent audit. We believe that delaying our fourth effort resulted in a more realistic view and valid survey. Survey Method The 1999 survey instrument was developed by the Communications Action Team, a group of nine employees representing virtually all areas of the agency. The survey was distributed as a separate package to all departments and divisions. A cover letter from General Manager Don McIntyre, emphasizing the importance of the audit and employee participation, was attached to each survey. As in previous years, respondents' anonymity was stressed in an effort to receive the most candid, honest answers. Incentives (a drawing for a movie ticket, a gift certificate to a local fast-food restaurant) were offered to those who participated in the survey. While we had approximately a 50 percent response rate to this audit, it is unclear whether the incentives had any impact as many prizes went unclaimed. The name of the 1999 survey was also changed from the Internal Communications Audit to the State of the District -Employee Audit to better reflect the intent of the effort. 1999 Results The results of the 1999 audit are very positive and reflect an employee workforce that seems comfortable-and understands -the direction of the agency, is more trusting of management and is receiving a sufficient level of reliable information from a variety of sources. In particular, when asked the following questions, the percentage of respondents answering "always" or "most of the time" increased: My morale has improved over the past year. This is a good place to work. When I have a question about a policy or procedure, I know where to get an answer. The District's mission, goals and objectives have been clearly communicated to me. Summary 1997 1999 15% 34% 42% 53% 53.5% 77.7% 70.5% 62.9% The Communications Action Team feels these indications of more positive employee morale are particularly significant given the reductions in staffing. In addition, the apparent increase in the level of trust in management is also noteworthy. Will the next State of the District -Employee Audit result in such a positive outcome? With additional organizational change anticipated next spring with the departure of the General Manager, the immediate answer is "no". A major change at the top will result in a renewed level of anxiety throughout the agency. However, we will maintain our commitment to proactive communications that support our ongoing organizational change. State of the District Employee Audit July 1999 Mcfftor Some-' ~ A. The Information I Receive Alw~ys times ~ Ra~ly· , Never theT(me 1. Communications throughout the District are improving. 5.2 46.2 37.3 8.4 2.8 2. Communications in my departmenVdivision are improving. 9.3 46 33.5 9.7 1.6 3. When I have a question about a policy or procedure, I know where to get an answer. 16.9 53.6 21.8 6.9 , 0.8 4. The District's mission, goals and objectives have been clearly communicated to me. 17.3 45.6 26.2 8.5 2.4 5. The objectives of my departmenVdivision have been clearly communicated to me. 21.8 45.6 20.6 10.9 1.2 6. I understa·nd how my job supports the goals of my departmenVdivision. 43 40.2 11 .6 4.4 0.8 7. I can depend on reliable information from the following sources: EMT 9.6 39.9 26.8 14.9 8.8 Manager 22 43.5 19.8 11 .2 3.4 Supervisor 23.1 47.1 22.1 6.2 1.4 Foreman 21 .7 40.6 23.6 7.5 6.6 Lead 15.9 45.1 23.9 7.1 8 Co-workers 9.7 43.4 39.4 5.8 1.8 Don's All-Hands Meetings 19.8 39.7 25.9 9.5 5.2 . Department/division meetings (including townhall meetings) 13.5 48.1 26.2 8 4.2 The News Pipeline 27 .9 43.3 21.9 4.9 2 The Grapevine 8.2 19.5 42.9 22.9 6.5 Memos 10.1 51.3 29.8 7.6 1.3 E-mails 11.4 53.9 31.4 2 1.2 District lntraneVNTGLOBAL 10 41.4 30 11.8 6.8 8. I am satisfied with the information I receive: District's future plans 5.7 43 31 .6 16.8 2.9 District's policies/procedures 7.4 41 38.1 12.7 0.8 Management philosophy 4.1 29.1 35.7 25 6.1 Job-related information 7.3 49.2 33.7 8.1 1.6 Job advancement opportunities 7.1 36.7 29.6 20.8 5.8 News of other departments/divisions 4.5 21.3 48.4 23.4 2.5 District's community involvement 8.2 38.5 37.3 13.5 2.5 Personnel changes/promotions 5.8 38.7 33.7 19.3 2.5 Human interest news on co-workers via Pipeline 21.2 51.4 21 .6 4.5 1.2 General District news 10 49.2 33.3 5.8 1.7 If I don't receive enough information, I feel comfortable seeking out the information I need. 21 .1 44.2 26.4 6.6 1.7 7. In addition to the IDEA Program, I think we should have employee Suggestion Boxes. 22.8 21.9 25.3 11 .4 8. Expectations of me are clear. 20.8 53.9 20.4 4.1 9. I am kept informed of changes/progress in the agency. 6 44.8 37.5 10.5 10. I receive regular feedback on my performance. 14.1 37.9 31.9 12.5 11. I receive recognition for work well done. 16.2 35.2 31 .2 14.6 12. I am comfortable communicating issues/concerns with my immediate supervisor. 36.4 43.7 13.4 5.7 13. I understand how my job contributes to the success of the agency. 40.9 44.9 10.5 2.8 14. The procedures required to perform my job responsibilities have been adequately explained to me. 20.6 48.6 24.3 5.7 0.8 15. In my work group, employees are held accountable for their job performance, both positive and negative. 20.2 35.2 27.5 13.8 3.2 16. In my work group, I continuously look for ways to improve my Job performance. 44 48 6.9 0.8 0.4 17. I know who my internal customers are and I understand their service needs. 37.1 57.1 2.4 3.3 18. I get regular feedback from my customers about the quality of service my work group provides. 13.5 33.1 37.6 13.9 2 .Q. Morale 1. My morale has improved over the past year. 13.9 39.6 24.9 15.5 6.1 2. This is a good place to work. 26.3 51 .4 20.2 1.6 0.4 3. I feel respected. 20.1 51 22.9 4.4 1.6 4. I feel appreciated. 14.5 46 29 6.9 3.6 E. General 1. How long have you been with the District's? 21.4 21 .8 6.2 2. In which department do you work? 0.9 2.6 3 12.9 7.7 6 38.2 6.9 3. Which of the following describes your job classification? Comments SurveylD Comments I love the Pipeline, but sometimes it runs a little bit late, behind schedule. The communication effort from upper management down to the employees is there, and that is very nice, but I get the impression sometimes that I( Is an after- thought, as if people started inquiring about whatever the issue is, and so 'then ii is decided that it would be better to let everybody know at the same time ..... almost as if to avoid having to repeat the explanations (convenience) and not because they believe we would've liked to be informed from the beginning. Or worse, that we should have been Informed. Revlsn organizational structure and individual competencies/desires to Improve effectiveness, efficiency and morale. Break down organizational barriers so that it is easier to get our jobs done with limited delays. Provide resources needed so that bum out does not occur to those committed to getting the job done at alt costs (Including personal and health). I LOVE THIS PLACE AND I CONSIDER MYSELF VERY FORTUNATE TO BE EMPLOYED AT OCSD! 0 Nothing could be improved on. The grass is greener on our side of the fence. Mike Peterman Thanks for asking! Stop trying to do everything on the cheap. Millions for facilities, but employees are begrudged every nickel. EMT makes the big bucks on the backs of the people who do the real wor1<. Get rid of the dead heads and the people that @1#$% and cry and holler discrimination. They don't perform. In other words the lazy @%#$@. Quit putting the carts before the horses! suggestion boxes -Please keep the intranet up-to-date. -Bring your daughter to work day is supposed to be an opportunity to provide guidance and inspiration to our female youth. Rolling it into the 'sons' day dilutes the focus. We can never have enough opportunities to model and inspire our youth -our future! 1--When il's important -make it in person at least a phone call 2--Always treaVrespect others as your best friend 3--When in doubt call him/her up, nothing beats getting it from the horses mouth, item 1 4--The news Pipeline, none of it's close to being excellent. Creditably is a product of trust --I suggest that trust be earned at all levels and that openness is truly encouraged, not stifled by fear of retaliation. The agency needs 10 clearly foster and practice concern for the needs, self respect and self actualization of all employees. Lead by example-recognize and reward. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page I of 7 SurveylD Comments I work the night shift. I suggest to give us more trainings, more up to date informations on what is company's goal today and for the future. We're doing a very good job on our communication process, thanks for that. Take action on changes discussed in meetings. 1. Don't make changes for the sake of changes. We have a habit of changing things, including the things that already work very well. 2. We are going in the right direction when we try to effectively use the review system to improve employee performance. We are just starting this process and we need to continue to focus on this as an agency. · 3. In general, all OCSD staff are paid well. Bui we have recently made some salary adjustments within the SPMT group that discourage some groups (OPS supervisions). A closer look at the pay salary structure may be necessary to assure that those staff with significant responsibilities are corripensated appropriately. Training in tact and respect in correspondance both verbal and written. A suggest.ion was made regarding landmark education that directly correlates to improving communication between all individuals at the District. Make those seminars available to District employees as an outside resource to improving ones' outlook and attitude toward family, co-workers, and business· associates. My tuition was reimbursed through the General Manager, for my participation in landmark education. Why not make this valuable tool available lo all interested individuals? Have communications director make public appearances more often. Also, provide more information on future goals, especially on the staffing plans. More could be said. More should be done to encourage a better selection of supervisors to come forth for promotion. It is hardly an anonymous survey when lhe above information is requested. Hold managers to the same level of honesty and integrity expected of the Operator or Lab Tech. I would give it an A rating. Making an organization more competitive and efficient is not easy, and not without some discomfort. I will quote Peter Drucker, "The purpose of the organization is to make the strength's of it individuals effective, and their weaknesses, irrelevant." I think this organization is following that dictum. D. Cook Very often my co-workers and I feel that HR does not have the best Interests of the District employees in mind when actions or decisions are made. The attitude now is take care of your own problems we're too busy----Maybe HR needs some remedial training in communications. In the past, the EMT meeting minutes were posted on the Intranet for viewing. That was a good way for us to keep up on issues important to the EMT/District. recommend reinstating this practice for more effective information dissimination. I think overall we're making a forward progress. Referring to se_clion D. Morale: My morale has been excellent since I found out years ago that doing a good job day to day makes you feet good about who you are and what you do. I ignore the politics and whining from both management and fellow employees. What happened to the EMT's meeting minutes on the Intranet? That was the only way I knew What was going on 4 or 5 levels above me. t lhink all supervisors and managers should write more ala-boys. A two sentence e-mail or memo about a job well done goes a tong way. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Survey/D Comments Division heads and Dept heads must continue work to be more team oriented. They have made a lot of progress, but there is still room for improvement. In my opinion the Districts morale is slowly improving. No one in management listens to what really needs to be done: It is all lip service. With 80% (plus or minus) of employee topped out in salaries, somethings needs to be improved. Why is it if you receive an exceeds on review there is no reward for all one's hard work If you are not management. , 1. At one time there was a list of the District's future goals and objectives, How about posting tha:t on the Intranet for easy reference? 2. How about posting EMrs and Division Manager's goals and objectives for the year? (Both suggestions would allow employees to know what directions Departments and Divisions are headed.) 3. For Item C15, admittedly there are "bad eggs" in every group. I feel that many, ii not all, of the "eggs• are getting away with things. This causes morale to go down, especially ii the problems is addressed to everyone rather than the individual(s). Improve the bidding process! It takes too long to get a job done because of it. A good example look at J-Basin, how long has it been down? Most of that time is because of the bidding, takes too long. 1. Implement some of the management skills supposedly learned in the last 3 years of training. 2. Reactivate the values committee. 3. Fire Blake Things have improved greatly in the last two years. 1. Keep employees informed on (facts) of Districts' future plans (promptly) so the employee has time to make a good decision based on facts and not rumors. 2. The Dlslricts should have (consistency) in its policies. Generally, a good place to work!! Bring back the summer work program Need the option to use temporary laborers on a as needed basis. Would like to be told the truth --HR claims temporary helpers cannot work over 1 year when 60% have been here over 2 years. Plan to get to know the staff and make the time to share. -Meetings are OK to share info--but night shift can't make it to day lime meetings and slay awake as required for work. No one shows to evening meetings that are scheduled-so staff feels unimportant and that information is useless when not backed by mgmt/supervislon attendance. When information and attendance is inconsistent, your philosophy has no value. Maybe a little MBWA would do? Note: Is it true McIntyre needed a map to find the carpenters shop to see the outhouse display for the fair? That's as funny as the training guy from Hyperion (Flanagan) realizing after a year that we don't have egg-shaped digesters. If the rest of the Districts managers were as good as the one I have, you'd see a marked improvement in this facility. You have too many people who are "just bosses'. Not one in ten is a leader! Leadership is your problem; not management. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page3of7 SurveylD Comments I like the idea of a raffle I would use the team that helped evaluate lhe form to evaluate lhe results and try to generate interest in responding to the survey. I would like to see the success st.ories printed about the many employees who have made the transition to different jobs within the Districts -Many are happier where they now work. I believe you are talking or could talk about 30-40 employees who have successfully changed jobs. Promoting fairness and equality in the treatment of employees --reclass, promotions, raises, pay The All-Hands meeting might wor1< better Indoors with possible multiple meetings or close-circuit TV. This would better the conditions with weather, noise and set-up. I know you are doing the best you can, it's a slow process. Keep doing what you now do. Many people have a deep seated need to be un-happy and will use this or any survey as a forum to dump all over anyone. Don't give up, this Is a great place and communication ls better than it was a few years ago. We are on the right path. Shane Towns Dept 850 My observation has been that in an effort to share Information, too much has been communicated too soon or too little has been communicated too late. There is a happy medium that we must strive for. This will help to improve morale by reducing fear, stress, anxiety and distrust. Pat Magnante · The district management does not really value the employees. Too many experienced personnel are leaving/encouraged to retire for the sake of reducing staff numbers and payroll. We will pay the price later. We need a new executive management tearn--top to bottom! The Board of Directors have too much influence on the Internal workings of the Sanitation District-we must work legislatively to limit their power. Secretaries should get the same respect as EAS (probably same pay too) Find more efficient and consistent ways of communicating the big decisions and info from EMT, the Board, Don's Board Letter, etc. All minutes should be kept up to date on the web, Outlook or NT global. Then follow up with advertising emails. Executive Mgmt should make a strong effort to work along side the employees and share info. DON MCINTYRE SHOULD BE MORE EMPLOYEE FRIENDLY! Participate in things like the OC Fair Etc. Smile and be nice! In regards to section D: Morale #1--My morale was already high a year ago, so there was little room for improvement. A lot of blaming and finger-pointing goes on in operations --all humans make mistakes and instead of blaming individuals, an attitude of fixing whatever error may be would be better- also- There is a serious problem with pro-active managing --especially regarding sheduling. Train supervisors to respect not degrade. Teach them how to manage. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page4of7 SurveylD Comments The dart committee has had its lime and now we need to move on. The maintenance system has become too bogged down. The technicians are being assigned to their jobs and are informed that they are not to receive input from other sources. They now believe that they must do only what is assigned or sutler the consequences In their reviews. The plant equipment is showing more disrepair lately than ii has In a long time. I have some equipment in my area that has not been working correctly for over two years. My supervisor says that· I must keep submitting service requests. What good is there in submitting the same service request over and over? I don't believe that we are under staffed I just think that job requires more Input from the customer, and less time on training. Some of the training that is being assigned should be offered and not assigned. This does not mean that things like sexual harassment training should be elective, but things like TCP should. These TCP are being slotted for 25% of the technicians time, and with more than 25% of the time for meetings and paperwork this leaves not much lime to get their work done. There have been days where equipment is down and nobody is available to repair it because the staff ls in training or meetings. Do we have to buy another yacht, or pay for South Coast Plaza to clean up before we start returning to our primary business (water in water out). ' Our mission statement states "Through Excellence In Wastewater Systems• not we are competing with the Navy, when the paperwork out weigh the project, launch it. CMMS is a good TOOL not the answers to maintenance. Maintenance is what keeps the water flowing through the plants. When maintenance is strangled with red tape failures occur. Technicians are worker bees not valve taggers, SOP authors, mindless drone, and not victims. The old system needed reform the new system needs overhaul. Not that I have vented you can file this with all of the other input that Is not wanted, in the round file (or paper shredder). I think we have a lot of qualified staff at the Districts, you need to start using them for what they know and not whose views do they fallow. Promotions should be on knowledge, and experience that will help, and not knowledge of a train of thought that fits in the spot (YES MEN). Don't be alra!d of original thinkers sometimes out of the mouths of babes comes a solution. Print/Distribute the Pipline regularly (perhaps a schedule so we know when to expect them and we can also provide stories at the appropriate times). Be up front with what the real agendas are. When they are misrepresented, employees react worse than hearing the truth to begin with, and then feel deceived. Be clear and accurate when Identifying problems. Take actions that truely address a true problem. Don't make changes that don't make solid sense. It's a waste of time arid money. Look for specific expertise within or hire people that have the expertise that we need. Don't just jump to out source something or hire consultants. Don't be flippant with tax payers money. District Intranet has not been updated this year! The last EMT minutes were for 12/14/98. It seem that the Districts goes 90% of the way and then stops dead In the water. IE: Hazement, safety training, Intranet. The Intranet should be the electronic pipeline for OCSD. Lets start using IT to IT's potential. Communication has to be open- For the situation to improve the employee has to put out an effort just as much as the supervisors. Both sides have to have a positive outlook and willing to adopt to change to improve in our work and give our customers the best product. XMT DISTRICT WIDE GOALS TO ALL EMPLOYEES. In regards to Item 04: Only hear from my foreman. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 PageSo/7 SurveyID Comments I'm curious how much money did this communications Audit cost the District? Also why does the CMMS system not have the ability to schedule maintenance on equipment on hours that the equipment has ran basis Instead of quarter1y? At this time you have maintenance personnel servicing equipment whether It needs it or not. Meanwhile other equipment goe.s unrepaired for months due to back orders or what. For example, RSP's, D&E, F&G. OOBS #3 Air conditioner (over a year). Is that specific enough? If we're going to be more efficienct. Let's be honest about it and not create the Illusion of it. I think that the Morale has improved 100% but, Pon still needs to make himself known. He needs to get out there and see what his employees do for a living. They are so proud of what they do and I don't think that they're asking to much of him. Do a better job of keeping night shift informed Too much "bean counting"--lots of hours spent accounting time---needs streamlined. Stop hiring consultants all the lime How many project specialists do we need??? Outsource all Admin so our full time employees will go down. I am so tired of hearing people complaint! It brings other people down. It's a shame so many employees think the District is out to screw them. I think if they just appreciated the fact that they had a job it would help. However, the negotiation process here is pretty ridiculous. Too long!!! Bring in supervisors and upper management from the outside that have proven their skills elsewhere in the private sector instead of the bunch of politicians we have now of the supervisors and lead people we have-in operations. Most do very well as operators or senior operators but have no training or experience supervising or guiding on the personal level. They treat people below them like trash then expect us to work as a team. This includes the general managers office too. This is not a good team leadership example. HR needs to be more Involved with how the District works --Managers are not doing a good job with staff. Managers only care about their goals and need to be part of team not the king of their kingdoms unaware of what is happening in the field. Feel Peterman and McIntyre are lame ducks killing time before they leave. This makes them very ineffective. Thank you. Important policy changes or decisions need to be communicated more effectively from the division manager. Overall Pretty. A good place to work. I have a great boss, (Engineering Director). I think that management trys to do good and sometimes they succeed. I think that people get caught up on all the negatives and lose sight of all the positives that management does do. It's a good place to work, although there are days when it doesn't seem like it. But that's anyplace. Please continue with supervising skills training. It's a good idea to always do refresher courses for supervisors. Good for us non-supervising groups also. 0 Trust Appreciation Acknowledgement Recognition of an empoyee's loyalty More praise I think service awards should be given out once a year at the x-mas lunch to allow everyone to participate in the congratulatory effort. This would give long-term employees a morale boost. (Just a thought.) . ~ Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page 6of7 SurveylD Comments GET NEW MANAGERS Supervisors must hold employees accountable. The supervisor training was apparently unsuccessful in changing the old culture of live-and-let-live. A large number of employees are still taking advantage of supervisors who look Iha other way. Feedback on capital projects --the "post-mortum• •• is missing so I do not learn from my mistakes or the mistakes of others. 1. Not enough communication from EMT occurs. The EMT should be just as accountable to the troops as they are to the EMT. 2. "Managing by exception• seems to translate Into no compliments--ever. How is anybody's morale to improve when all you hear is what you are doing wrong. 3. The EMT seems to spend too much time on details that should be delegated and to little time on the big picture issues. 4. Leaders in this organization and any other would be best served with an approi3,ch of helping those that work for them to succeed. I see too little of that here. I feel I communicate my needs to my supervisor/manager through the proper channels. They take all my suggestions as reluctance to change. I feel I always am willing to change but I like to look at possible problems with the change. Now I feel I should just say OK even if there is a problem. Management does not take constructive criticism. Also management doesn't go to meetings and listen to the needs of customres. Then I have to deal with the customers! Also management always thinks they are doing a great job. But who except the inner circle reviews their performance! Stop these surveys. They no longer serve any useful purpose. Internal procedures are often unclear regarding accounting/purchasing. I feel communication at the District has improved. That we have better access ·to information now than we have ever had. Having access to EMT meeting minutes, Board Mtg and Committee meeting minutes and communication from the General Manager are important and beneficial. I feel that because of some of the negativism from the past continue to hamper current employee morale. But I feel improvements are coming in morale and empoyee attitudes. Restructure management, build trust and work on morale, this was a great place to work and if Mr. Jones opens his eyes and ears it could be there again. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Page 7of7