Loading...
Agenda Packets - Board - 2002-04-24Y .00 DO pia, mo' _ to ODD M es � and --in c ... an Independient Specia(Di tact o� Phone (714) 754 -5043 Fax (714) 432 -1436 Web Address tivw,xvci.costa- niesa.ca.us Marling Address P O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200 Street Address 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -6520 Board of Directors Arlene Schafer Greg Woodside Art Perry James Ferryman Dan Worthington Printed on Recycled Paper NOVICE OF SPECIAL MEE'T'ING APRIL 24, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District will meet on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 12:00 p m. in Conference Room 5A of the Costa Mesa Civic Center, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. I. Sewer Lateral. Ownership and Maintenance A. Legal. Responsibilities — Review by Alan Burns B. Sewer Lateral. Problems and CMSD Staff Response C. Sewer Main Cleaning Programs II. Discuss Strategic Plan. and Develop Draft Mission Statement III. Draft 2002 -03 Budget; Solid Waste Financial Model IV. Public Comments Dated: April 18, 2002 Clerk of the District MM Alan. Burns is scheduled to be in Court on. Wednesday and if he is unable to attend the meeting, Item 1 will. be continued until. the next Special. Meeting. ALAN R. BURNS JOHN R. HARPER' OF COUNSEL JUDI A. CURTIN* MICHAEL MONTGOMERY' "A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAW OFFICES OF HARPER & BURNS LLP A LIMIfED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 453 S. GLASSELL STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 97866 (714) 771 -7728 FAX (714) 7443350 TO: Honorable President and Board of Directors Costa Mesa Sanitary District FROM: District Counsel DATE: March 5, 2002 RE: Liability for Damage Caused by Laterals W. A2143191 1 1 • \UI 71171 •7t 11107 1 1 The District desires to address the liability and damages issues related to sewer laterals. Facts The District owns and operates a sewer trunk line system for the collection of sewage throughout the boundaries of the District. In many cases these trunk lines are located in the public street. Private property is connected to the public sewer system via a "lateral" that is not maintained by the District. Trees may be located near the laterals and may be city -owned trees or privately -owned trees. Sometimes tree roots can penetrate the lateral and cause damage to the he and cause sewage spills. The Board desires to understand how these conflicting ownership and maintenance patterns affect responsibility and liability so that appropriate action can be taken. 1. Who owns the laterals? 2. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the laterals? 3. Who owns the trees whose roots cause damage? 4. Who is responsible for the, maintenance of the trees and their roots? 5. Under what conditions might the District be liable for lateral damage or damage caused by a leaking lateral? Costa Mesa Sanitary District Lateral Liability r March 5, 2002 Page 2 Title 2, Chapter 2 of our Operations Code defines " "lateral" and "sewer main" as follows: "Lateral. A sewer lateral is that entire underground pipe including the connection between the sewer main and the structural improvements on private property and shall include both the portion on private property and the portion in the public or District right of way. Sewer Main shall also include the phrases "main sewer line" and "main sewer ". A sewer main is the underground pipe structure in the public or District right of way which acts as a gathering system for one or more sewer laterals." Chapter 7.03 of the Operations Code addresses sewer and lateral maintenance: "Section 7.03.010. District M intenanc. P. Unless provided otherwise by contract or other arrangement, District shall maintain those-sewer mains and appurtenances that it owns. Section 7.03.020. Lateral Responsibility. The property owner shall maintain the lateral that connects to District's sewer main, including any portions that may he within the public right of way or Costa Mesa Sanitary District easement. Said laterals shall be maintained in a safe, sanitary and unobstructed condition, and all devices or safeguards which are appurtenant to and necessary for the operation thereof shall be maintained in good working order. Section 7.03.030. Sewer or Lateral Work. All work done on or to any sewer or lateral shall be done in a careful and prudent manner so as to not damage District facilities. Only persons licensed appropriately and having all necessary permits shall be allowed to do such work and may be required to post a bond before beginning with the project." Because ownership or control of the improvements is necessary for liability, a discussion of the elements of liability are set forth herein so that ownership /control can be analyzed in the context of liability. There are two general theories of liability. The first is "dangerous condition of public property" and requires a showing of negligence. The second is "inverse condemnation" and does not require a showing of negligence. In other words, the government will be "strictly liable" if its property causes damage. • Costa Mesa Sanitary District _ Lateral Liability March 5, 2002 Page 3 A public entity is only liable in California if provided by statute. Government Code Section 835 provides for the elements of liability for a dangerous condition of public property. To prove a case under Government Code Section 835, a plaintiff must prove that: 1. Public property (property owned or controlled by a public entity) was in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident. 2. That the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition. 3. The kind of injury that occurred was reasonably foreseeable and was either (a) created by a public employee's negligent or wrongful act, or (b) The entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time in advance so that it could have taken responsible measures to protect against the injury. The first issue in the analysis is whether a lateral is "owned or controlled" by the District. Government Code Section 830(c) provides further guidance by stating that a public entity is not responsible for easements and encroachments that are located on its property that are not owned or controlled by the public entity. The government owner is thus not obligated to inspect for the dangerous conditions of the property interests owned and controlled by third persons, such as easements, encroachments and utility lines, merely because they are located on the property of the public entity. Instead the duty is on the owner. (Pollak, Vida & Fisher, The Law of Inverse Condemnation 3.9 (hereinafter "PVA, Inverse Condemnation "); Law Revisions comment to 830(c); Mark v PC'T& (1972) lQlCalRptr. 908 [City not liable for dangerous condition of street light because no evidence that city had exercised control over it]. If it is shown that a public entity did not have either title or control over the property that was in dangerous condition, there is no liability. (C:hatman v Alameda C".oimty Flnod Control (1986) 228 Cal.Rptr. 257 (District not liable for condition it did not own or control). In Aai ri y Grande, Pml)erties (1994) 35 Cal.Rptr2d 123 the Court found that just because the government inspected a swimming pool for safety violations did not transform the property into "public property." In C ",hatman v Alameda County Flnnrl (nntr01, Apra, the testimony of the District's maintenance engineer was admissible to show that the District never accepted or approved of a culvert and never accepted ownership nor assumed responsibilities for its maintenance. The Court refused to find that District assumed control over the improvement because it inspected the culvert or because it assumed Costa Mesa Sanitary District Lateral Liability March 5, 2002 Page 4 maintenance responsibilities for a creek nearby. The Court also found that the District's requirement that improvements in the creek also be "pre- approved" did not render the culvert "controlled" by the District. In street project liability, ownership is generally established by whether the government entity "accepted" an offer of dedication. [PVA, Inverse Condemnation 3.11] Ownership issues can be confusing. If plaintiff cannot prove ownership, he can still establish liability if he proves that the public entity "controlled" the defective property. [PVA, Inverse Condemnation 3.121 Private improvements become public when a public entity accepts dedication of them. The dedication usually consists of an express offer to dedicate the improvement or property for public use and an express acceptance of the offer to dedicate. However, both the offer and acceptance can be implied. As was stated in PVA, Inverse Condemnation: "There are two forms of implied dedication. The implied -in -fact dedication form is "inferred from the owner's long acquiescence in a public use of his property under circumstances which negate the idea that the use was under a license. The other form, implied -in -law dedication, is akin to adverse and occurs when "the public has used the land for a period of more than five [continuous] years with full knowledge of the owner, without' -asking or receiving permission to do so and without objection being made by anyone." The distinction between implied -in -law and implied -in -fact dedications is a matter of focus. In implied -in -fact dedications focus on the property owner's intent as manifested by his conduct. Implied -by -law dedications focus on the intent and conduct of the public. (Cites omitted) The owner's actual intent in implied -in -law dedications is irrelevant. (Cite omitted) The public entity's acceptance of an offer of dedication may also be implied even in the absence of formal governmental action. "Any action of the responsible public officials showing an assumption of control" suffices. However, a public entity's approval of a subdivision map by itself is not an acceptance of offers of dedication expressed in the map, there must be an express acceptance or some exercise of dominion or control by the public entity (e.g., maintenance or repair work). (Cites omitted) Furthermore, the approval of a subdivision map containing an offer of dedication, without an acceptance of the offer, does not constitute dedication, even in the absence of evidence that the improvement is private property." (Ackley v San Francisco 89 Cal.Rptr. 480). (PVA, Inv. Condemnation, 5.31) The District cannot be liable for a negligent inspection of the sewer lateral. Public entities are not liable for failure to inspect, or for inadequate or negligent inspection of property to determine if the same comply with or violate any enactment or contains or constitutes a hazard to health or safety. V" f* Costa Mesa Sanitary District Lateral Liability March 5, 2002 Page 5 Government Code Section 818.6. A public employee would be similarly immune. Government Code Section 821.4. The inspection immunity has been held to be absolute, and is not limited to discretionary activities (it is extended to ministerial activities also). PVA, Inverse Condemnation 2.135; Cochran v Herzog En avin Co. (1984) 205 Cal.Rptr. 1. It has also been held that this immunity prevails over the mandatory duty liability provided by Government Code Section 815.6. The immunity would not apply if the lateral was the District's property, however. Liability for "dangerous condition of public property" requires that the plaintiff prove negligence. It is therefore anticipated that the usual lawsuit will be brought under the "inverse condemnation" theory which does not require proof of negligence, only causation. The elements of liability involve a "taking by government" without just compensation. The rights flow from the constitution, not the California Tort Claims Act. "Takings" have included activity far short of physical occupation and include physical damage caused to property by the government. Thus government is "strictly liable" for inverse condemnation damages. In Pacific Be]] v City of San Diego (2000) 96 Cal.Rptr2d 897 the Court of Appeal held that when a pipe bursts due to corrosion, that the city was liable although it may not have been negligent. Inverse condemnation liability does not extend to personal injuries, however. Customer C'omn v f 131 of Sacramento 41 Cal.Rptr. 658. In our fact pattern, liability depends on damage caused by a "public improvement" so the issues of ownership and control discussed above, will likewise be applicable. The proof of causation that will lead to liability is somewhat unclear. The public improvement must be used as designed. It must be a "substantial factor" but no court has ventured to define the precise diminishing point at which the public entity's contribution is so small that it ceases to operate as a substantial factor. The public improvement is not a substantial contributing factor if the public improvement works perfectly but nevertheless there is damage. Such might be the case in a hundred year storm that infiltrates the sewer system. Relair v RiversideV Flood Control District 47 Cal.3d at 560 -561. [See Pollack, Vida & Fisher, The Law of Inverse Condemnation at 4.4] However, if there is a cause-and-effect relationship, such other factors will not defeat liability, as long as the City's cause was a substantial factor. McMahan',; V CitV of Santa Monica 146 Cal.App.3d at 699. In McMahan' the Court found that an aging water pipe which had gone past its useful life was a substantial cause of.a water burst because of its weakened and corroded walls. I* Costa Mesa Sanitary District Lateral Liability March 5, 2002 Page 6 1. The laterals are private property, owned by the property owner they serve. While it has been suggested that you cannot have a private use in a public street, that is exactly what is suggested by the cases that hold that an offer of dedication is not accepted unless done formally by an offer of acceptance. 2. The maintenance obligations of the laterals are the property owner's responsibility. The District makes this clear in its ordinance and this would be the case absent an ordinance. We have not, to my knowledge ever assumed control over laterals. In fact, we have advised owners to periodically clean their laterals. 3. The trees are owned either by the city or by the private owners who are near the sewer lateral. The District does not own any trees and therefore cannot be liable for tree root incursion in laterals since it neither owns nor controls the trees nor the laterals. 4. The City or the owner may be liable for failing to maintain the roots so as to not cause damage. Liability would flow from ownership or control (if the city took control over tree trimming it might be liable although an argument could be made that the private property owner owns the trees). 0 5. The District might be liable for damage to the lateral if its sewer main blocked, thereby causing pressure to build that caused damage to the lateral. In that case the damage would have been caused by public property that is owned and controlled by the District. Liability might be caused under either a "dangerous condition of public property" theory or under an inverse condemnation theory. The District could also be liable if it or its contractor negligently installed the sewer main or damaged the lateral during construction work on the sewer main. No liability arises from failure to inspect the lateral or for negligent inspection of the lateral at the tirne of construction. Government Code Section 818.6 provides immunity from negligent inspection or from failure to inspect. Since the District neither owns nor controls the laterals, we should resist any liability imposed because of defects in the laterals, including defective construction, failure to maintain the lateral (tree roots) or failure to repair the lateral as it ages. This would extend to the connection to the sewer main. We enjoy statutory immunity for negligent inspections or for failure to inspect. Alternatively, if our sewer main causes damage to a lateral because it backs up or was not properly maintained, or if our contractor damages the lateral, we should accept liability. In cases in which there may be issues of causation by lie Costa Mesa Sanitary District Lateral Liability March 5, 2002 Page 7 both the lateral and the sewer main, we should attempt to negotiate a proportional settlement. In cases that cannot be settled, we should seek apportionment in any judgment or verdict rendered against us. Cc: District Manager / Engineer District Staff n • Respectfully submitted, Alan R Burns District Counsel I' IdMN r d�ew�w 's I' �l SJNIJ.11=J IS adld AVID O23I=JltdJLlA s.ionoomd "Jo o i � l odd � I 6ZLh-E9Z (Z09) XIN30Hd LB117176Z (800 3SOr NVS 1966-M- (C2) @01110 SaleS 00lC-Z8b (8[Z) a01110 9niinoax3 '31-Ido 'S3-l3JN`d SOS 40Jeasa8 uaapolN 46noJ4l adid AelO Jalla8 sionootid Av-10 of =ioe cf ;I . 'palgwasse si lulol ay} uagnn lunowe pauiw - aalapaad e saoel.rns 6uiaeaq passaooad aql uaamlaq possaadwoo aq llegs luawala bulleas oq1 -uolleinbll -uoo aelnoalo e uielgo of Aaoloel aql le passaooad aq !legs lobids aql to aoiaalxa aql pue llaq aql to aoiaalui 0141 'p lK-d -SS suoileoilioadS leaapad pue 5Zb -o W1Sd luaajno aql of buiwaoluoo pue AAoloel aql le adid aql of papuoq pue lseo !idol lualllsaa e 14l!M 00L -3 W1SV luaaano agl of @did Aelo pall!al!n Al!oadS �*)io l-3oa3AA A,l!:)adS of MOH gbnoagl „t, sazis ui painloel -nuen 'OOZ-0 W1SV luaaano aql of bulwaoluoo @did Aelo pall!al!n uo pallelsul aae slulo(` 'p l9E -d -SS suoll - eoll!oadS leaapaj of pue suoileoilpads SZb -o W1SV luaaano aql of waoluoo pue sbuill!l buigolew to @u!l alaldwoo e 14l!M painloelnuew aae slulol � oo-j-abp@M -uoileJll!lxa ao uoileil -l!lui aaleM pue `uolleilauad low `buipeol aeags japun aanl!el lsulebe slooloid pallelsul Apadoid uagm pue sooelins bullew aql to uolssaadwoo waol!un bulansse `uoissaload bupoauibua aql to sluawaalnbaa plbla !sow aql laaw of paub {sap s! lulol �joo-J-abpaM aq1 'auegl - ainAlod to apew pue aaanloelnuew aql Aq @dld aql uo pawaol '!idol uoissaidwoo alq!xoll 'lseo uoispaid y 1NIor o.N3ol-3Ja3M • DIMENSIONS OF VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE SIZE INCHES FLEXIBLE —Will withstand the strain of backfill OUTSIDE DIAMETER MEASUREMENT OF BELL loads, earth movements and vibrations. Extreme hot THICKNESS OF BARREL or cold temperatures won't distort the precision fit ALL SIZES EXTRA STRENGTH of the joint. INCHES FAST CLEAN -UP —Trenches can be back - filled im- INCHES mediately after pipe is laid ... avoids costly traffic 4 control! 734 FAST INSPECTION — Pressure joints insure that lines 344 will pass the most rigid tests immediately. No time 6 lost on expensive repair of leaking joints. Only WEDGE- LOCKi, Offers All These Advantages' LASTING SERVICE — Vitrified Clay Pipe with Wedge - '51'6 Lock joints by Pacific provides generations of trouble - INFILTRATION -PROOF — Solves infiltration prob- free service. lems ... Ideal for service in high -water table areas. when properly installed Joints are also exfiltration- proof. 28 ROOT -PROOF — Precision -cast Wedge -Lock joints 2400 lock together under constant compression forming a WYES AND TEES are manufactured in any size as required. root -proof seal. BENDS — 4 ", 6" and 8" are smooth radius except 8" 1/4 SPEED OF INSTALLATION — Joints snap together in bends which are mitered. 10" and larger are mitered. CHAN- seconds! Nothing to caulk .. . Nothing to pour . .. NEL AND PERFORATED PIPE — Manufactured to same Nothing to set. dimensions as sewer pipe. • DIMENSIONS OF VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE SIZE INCHES CRUSHING STRENGTH OUTSIDE DIAMETER MEASUREMENT OF BELL NOMINAL LAYING LENGTH THICKNESS OF BARREL APPROX. WEIGHT ALL SIZES EXTRA STRENGTH POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT INCHES FEET INCHES POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT 4 2000 734 412 344 11 6 2000 101/18 5 '51'6 21 8 2200 129/6 5 1 28 10 2400 1W1'6 5 1114 45 12 2600 1946 5 112 63 15 3100 22Y44 512 1'; 90 18 3600 27.'/e 51, 21 o 125 21 4200 31' a 5' i 2's 186 24 4800 3538 2?; 236 27 5200 393/8 _51' 512 3'16 293 30 5500 43% 512 3';6 378 33 5800 47', i 1 512 378 436 36 6300 52 51, 4 509 39 6600 56 512 4;; 603 42 7000 60! /4 5' i 4/88 676 v Bred 1/4 Bend Mitered t/a Bend Tee Saddle Double Hub Tee Drop Manhole Reducer 1/4 Bend IV rt '20 Overview of Sewer Svstem and Maintenance Program The District's system consists of 326 miles of sewer lines and 20 pumping stations. A detailed list of the sizes and lengths of pipes are shown in the Fixed Asset Schedule included herein. The gravity portion of the sewer system is in excellent condition and the District has adopted the industry standard of cleaning the system at least once per year with trouble spots being cleaned more frequently. For the pumping stations, the District requested a well respected and experienced pumping station contractor to furnish a recommended maintenance schedule for the various components in the station. This information is coupled with the pump manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule to form the District's overall pumping station maintenance program. The report is included as an attachment. The District's field crews consist of two two -man teams and one supervisor. Each team drives a sewer cleaning vehicle. Most members of the team have 20 years or more service with the District. The Supervisor and one other member are trained and certified to work on the pumps. $* F S t 4l lZ_ LA 7 _ i? A (. r &. i s I`IZ- I G i = .25',000 4 r t� � "•,. t.e x: y �2,q 2'(i -.uf �"., ��z-°, F� . �. �r{r b v � t�� ' YJ { 1Ai ? �'J $ '`�' Ca'�+f`}�` F .btl'a Xy .. ,. . .•" . � ¢� X...i".c ✓Kt$5'..% @^i '. at b A.. A�;� 3i/a,ss' "'`4d+;' uv n.s. �y' , . iVAA 4 ,� hraK 'F `s I A Agency Phone No. Residential Commercial Industrial Anaheim (714) 765 -6881 $2.33 per month, per $4.21 per month per $4.21 per month per dwelling unit water closet water closet Brea (714) 990 -7681 0 -1,000 sq. ft - 0 -5 `receptacles = 0 -5 *receptacles = $0.76 /month $2.28 /month $2.28 /month 1 -2,000 sq. ft - 6 -20 *receptacles = 6 -20 *receptacles = $1.52 /month $22.80 /month $22.80 /month 2,000 + sq. ft - 20+ *receptacles = 20+ *receptacles = $2.28 /month $45.60 /month $45.60 /month Buena Park (714) 562 -3722 6% of total consumption + 6% of total water 6% of total water (dedicated meter charge (capacity consumption + meter consumption + meter to sanitary charge) typically $10.94/ charge (capacity charge) charge (capacity sewer only) bimonthly for 5/8 & 3/.) varies depending on charge) varies meter size depending on meter Water use is charged @ size $1.18 per 1,000 gallons Costa Mesa (949) 631 -1731 Single Family - $24.17 yr. $14.06 yr. per 1,000 sq. ft $41.41 yr. per 1,000 sq. Sanitary Multiunit - $18.61 yr. per ft. High volume users District unit pay $6.00 per 1,000 cu ft. above 15,000 cu ft per acre, per month. Cypress (714) 229 -6713 $0.140 per 100 cubic feet $0.140 per 100 cubic feet $0.140 per 100 cubic of water usage, except of water usage, except feet of water usage, metered irrigation usage metered irrigation usage except metered irrigation usage Fountain (714) 593 -4435 No sewer charge — fees No sewer charge — fees No sewer charge — fees Valley come from the General come from the General come from the General Fund Fund Fund Fullerton (714) 738 -6885 25% of total water 25% of total water 25% of total water consumption + consumption + meter consumption + meter capacity /ready -to -serve charge (also called charge (also called charge (based on meter capacity charge or "ready capacity charge or size — e.g., 5/8 & 3/. to serve" charge) "ready to serve" charge) meters pay $10.04 per billing period) billed every two months. Fees pay for street sweeping, tree trimming, storm drain maintenance, and sanitary sewer construction, maintenance and repair Garden (714) 741 -5398 $6.64 bimonthly charges $8.76 bimonthly charges $8.76 bimonthly Grove charges Huntington (714) 536 -5919 $5.30 per month — single Normal consumption — Normal consumption — Beach family residence $6.15 per Equivalent $6.15 per Equivalent $4.40 per month — multi- Dwelling Unit (EDU) per Dwelling Unit (EDU) per family residence (per unit) month — $0.60 per 100 month — $0.60 per 100 cu. ft. per month cu. ft. per month Agency Phone No. Residential Commercial Industrial Irvine Ranch (949) 453 -5456 Single Family Non - residential Class II Non - residential Class Water - (customers who II -(customers who District Monthly Service Charge: discharge domestic discharge domestic (Sewer rates $6.60 strength wastewater) strength wastewater) will be The monthly minimum The monthly minimum increasing Customers who use low charge is $5.90. charge is $5.90. as of volumes of water are The monthly minimum The monthly minimum 7/2001) charged lower sewer fees charge for Portola Hills is charge for Portola Hills as well. Customers using $12.10. is $12.10. 0 -5 ccf of water per The industrial waste The industrial waste month pay a $4.95 sewer program service charge is program service charge charge, customers using $0.59 per month. is $0.59 per month. 5.01 -10 ccf of water pay a $5.95 sewer charge; all Quantity charges are Quantity charges are others pay a flat $6.60 based on the supposition based on the per month. that 90% of non- supposition that 90% of residential water non - residential water Portola Hills Monthly consumption returns to consumption returns to Service Charge: $12.10 the sewer. Non- the sewer. Non- residential customers residential customers Newport Coast Monthly may request submetering may request Service Charge: $0.33 their wastewater submetering their discharge. wastewater discharge. Multiple Family Quantity charge - non- Quantity charge - non - Dwelling Units residential: $0.66 per ccf residential: $0.66 per beyond 10 ccf. ccf beyond 10 ccf. $4.40 per month. Quantity charge - Portola Quantity charge - Hills: $1.25 per ccf Portola Hills: $1.25 per Multiple family dwelling beyond 10 ccf. ccf beyond 10 ccf. units with individual Commodity surcharge Commodity surcharge meters are billed at the All commercial, industrial All commercial, single family dwelling unit and institutional users industrial and rate. whose consumption is in institutional users excess of 10 ccf per whose consumption is month pay this surcharge in excess of 10 ccf per to the Industrial Waste month pay this Program of $0.033 per surcharge to the ccf. Industrial Waste Program of $0.033 per Non - residential Class I ccf. Non - residential and Class II customers who Non - residential Class I discharge extra - strength Non - residential and wastewater or who Class II customers who discharge or have the discharge extra - potential to discharge strength wastewater or constituents subject to who discharge or have federal, state or local the potential to discharge limitations are discharge constituents subject to Class I rates subject to federal, state and charges or local discharge limitations are subject to Class I rates and charges a 1� f Agency Phone No. Residential Commercial Industrial La Habra (562) 905 -9731 10% of monthly water bill 10% of monthly water bill 10% of monthly water bill La Palma (714) 690 -3330 $.20 per 100 cu. ft. of $.20 per 100 cu. ft. of $.20 per 100 cu. ft. of water @ $1.65 per 100 water @ $1.65 per 100 water @ $1.65 per 100 cu. ft. billed bimonthly) cu. ft. billed bimonthly) cu. ft. billed bimonthly) Rossmoor/ (562) 431 -2223 No sewer charge; money No sewer charge; money No sewer charge; Los comes from General comes from General money comes from Alamitos Fund from part of the Fund from part of the General Fund from part Area Sewer property tax property tax of the property tax District Midway City (714) 893 -3553 $15 per year $15 per year $15 per year Sanitary District Newport (949) 644 -3050 $3.60 per month (for $.25 per 100 cu. ft of $.25 per 100 cu. ft of Beach Municipal customers who purchase water used water used Services Billing water from the City) $5.25 per month (for customers who purchase water from another water agency) An additional $2.00 per month is assessed for each additional living unit served by the same sewer connection. A sewer consumption charge of $.25 per 100 cu. ft. of water is also assessed to each customer connected to the sewers stem. Orange (714) 532 -6480 $0.42 per month - covers $0.42 per month $0.42 per month storm drains and sewers. Residential multi - family $0.36 per month storm drains and sewer. Fees are for maintenance only. Placentia 714 993 -8245 No sewer charge No sewer charge No sewer charge Santa Ana (714) 647 -3317 $0.12 per 100 cu. ft. of $0.12 per 100 cu. ft. of $0.12 per 100 cu. ft. of water usage water usage water usage Seal Beach (562) 431 -2527 22% of the monthly water 22% of the monthly water 22% of the monthly ext. 311 bill. In addition, monthly bill. In addition, monthly water bill. In addition, capital charges are capital charges are monthly capital charges assessed at the following assessed at the following are assessed at the rates based on water rates based on water following rates based meter size: meter size: on water meter size: 3/;' or smaller - $5.83 3 /a' or smaller - $6.36 W or smaller - $6.36 1" $8.06 1" $13.78 1" $13.78 1.5" $14.84 1.5" $18.02 1.5" $18.02 2" $23.32 2" $72.08 2" $72.08 3" $165.36 3" $199.28 3" $199.28 4" $276.66 4" $359.34 4" $359.34 6" $507.74 6" $507.74 8" + $1060.00 8" + $1060.00 Agency Phone No. Residential Commercial Industrial Stanton (714) 379 -9222 $28.25 per yr. s/f homes $28.25 per yr. x 12 $28.25 per yr. x 15 ext. 241 $22.60 per yr. apartments (sewer units per acre) x (sewer units per acre) x $14.12 per yr. mobile No. of acres. (charged No. of acres. (charged homes. (charged twice twice yearly on property twice yearly on property yearly on property tax bill ) tax bill ) tax bill Sunset (949) 497 -1580 $72 collected annually on $72 collected annually on $72 collected annually Beach the tax bill the tax bill on the tax bill Sanitary District Tustin 714 573 -3152 No sewer charge No sewer charge No sewer charge Westminster 714 898 -3311 No sewer charge No sewer charge No sewer charge Villa Park (714) 998 -1500 No sewer charge No sewer charge No sewer charge Yorba Linda (714) 961 -7170 Sewer Assessment Sewer Assessment Sewer Assessment District — call for details District — call for details District — call for details Yorba Linda (714) 777 -3018 $2 per month — Single First 2,200 cu. ft. billed at First 1,100 cu. ft. billed Water family residence $2 /month at $2 /month District $1.70 multiple - family $1.70 per 1,000 cu. ft. $1.70 per 1,000 cu. ft. residence (per unit) over 2,200 cu. ft. over 2,200 cu. ft. $1.70 mobile homes (per unit) User fees are billed direct) *Receptacle = toilet, sink, floor sink, urinal, shower, floor drain, double lavatory All changes or corrections should be addressed to: Patrick McNelly Sr. Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 -8127 (714) 593 -7163 pmcnelly(a_)ocsd.com Visit our Web Page: http: / /www.ocsd.com/ G: \wp.dta \om \420 \mcnelly \Local Sewer Charge Rates \Local Sewer Charge Rates - 2002.doc 0 1 1/46 Attached are suggested mission statements. See pages 18 & 19 of the 2002 Strategic Planning Workshop notes for directions on preparing a mission statement. Also included is Mesa Consolidated Water District's mission statement. I 3 PROPOSED MISSION STATEMENTS 1. "Our mission is to continue as leaders in solid Waste management and sewer service." 2. "Serving our community's solid waste and sewer needs. " 3. "Serving our community's solid waste ,'and sewer needs with excellence. " el 0--f /ow ear r-co rali'64 (as r. 4. "Providing superior solid waste management and sewer service to our community. " 5. "Our mission is to deliver optimal District -wide sewer maintenance and operations services and professional single - family residential trash collection services on time, with dedicated people, at fair costs, and superior performance, exceeding our customer's expectations. " "Dedicated to satisfying our community's water needs." Mesa Consolidated Water District COSTA MESA an SANITARY DISTRICT • • • Facilitates! by Rauch Communication Consultants LLC Table of Contents Section Part I — Introduction Page 2 Page No. Background----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3 Part II — Looking At The Future Threats and Opportunities---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 Strategic Issues Confronting the District Part III — The Action Plan 4'1 Issue#1 — Financial ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 6 Issue #2 — Long -Term Future of the District ----------------------------------- - - - - -- 9 Issue #3 — Collecting Multi - Family and Commercial Solid Waste--------- - - - -12 Issue #4 — Strategic Planning------------------------------------------------------- - - - -13 Issue #5 — Public Understanding and Support --------------------------------- - - - -16 Issue #6 — Increase Sewer System Reliability --------------------------------- - - - -17 Appendix A: Guidance on Preparing a Mission Statement ----------------- - - - -18 Summary of Action Items ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -20 (®r , Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Part 1 Introduction Background Page 3 The Board of Directors and members of the senior staff of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District met in a facilitated workshop on February 16, 2002, in order to update the District's strategic plan. This document summarizes the discussions and Action Plan of the 2002 annual planning workshop. Attendees were: Arlene Schafer — President; Greg Woodside — Vice - President; Art Perry — Secretary; Jim Ferryman — Director; Dan Worthington — Director; Robin Hamers — Manager; Tom Fauth — Assistant Manager; Joan Revak — Clerk of the District; Marc Puckett — District Treasurer (participated during the Treasurer's Report); and Robert and Martin Rauch of Rauch Communication Consultants, who conducted the workshop. This report is organized by topic and theme rather than the literal meeting order. Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 4 Part II Looking At The Future Threats and Opportunities Meeting participants were asked to look into the future and develop a list of issues (threats or opportunities) facing the District that might be important issues for discussion at the annual planning workshop. After discussion, several of the issues in an initial list compiled before the workshop were dismissed as normal business issues typically resolved by staff. Final issues chosen for Board discussion in the workshop are shown in boxes. Draft Table of Issues Solid Waste Issues Sanitary Issues General Issues Discovery of herbicides in compost "Zero tolerance" regulatory State Budget deficits could lead to could limit composting requirements lack public taking of funds from Districts understanding resulting in negative PR Diminishing capacity in landfills Increases in regulations; zero Relationship with City and City Council tolerance for spills, WDR, CMOM, GASB 34 Possible expansion in trash Sludge composting collection activities Halfway through 10 -year landfill contract with County IWMD Limits on highway routes for haulers Disaster /Emergency response Costly treatment upgrade for OCSD Variable rates for customers with Runoff capture - as a new task different needs E -waste Lawsuits over variable rates Property owner responsibility for sewer laterals ®r, Change in City Manager LAFCO actions Potential loss of General Manager Potential loss of Engineer Resolution of reassessment of property tax Board changes Staff: adequacy, retention, training Public understanding and support 11ndependence Name change Constantly rising costs Faster, clearer financial reporting Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Costa Mesa Sanitary District P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200 (714) 754 -5030 This publication is distributed by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District as a public service. II&K2lQAVRRW19 GUIDE TO Simple Steps to Prevent Problems Sewer main in street ft nu RICO Grease buildup inside lateral proe s Wei la era\ s .Are There R(�����t� ir�t(�� ��Ullr' Se��er Line? M219 ID 130V pI3MbBW9 Homeowners are responsible for keeping their sewer lateral running free and clear from the residence all the way to the point of connection to the sewer main in the center of the street. Tree roots can invade the line and restrict flow or cause a backup in the system. Root control products costing less than $10 are available at local hardware stores. Minor root problems can be handled with these products but a plumber may be required to cut out major root growth. Help Yourself & Help the Environment! Sure glad I did my part! 2744 -68 4 -1 -02 SE'nks Haul k Tat Free DIl (at U MUM Grease is Public Enemy Number 1 because it is the primary cause of sewer line blockages. Homeowners should never pour grease down the sink, instead, it should be poured into a jar with a cover. The jar should be stored under the sink and then thrown out on trash day. Strategic Issues Confronting the District The selected issues were then organized into the following six categories: Issue #1: Financial 1.1 Solid Waste Financials 1.2 Other Financial Issues 1.3 Timing of Treasurer's Report and Packet 1.4 Treasury Services Issue #2: Long Term Future of the District 2.1 Comparison of Different Options for the District's Future Issue #3: Collecting Multi - Family and Commercial Solid Waste 3.1 Discuss Options Issue #4: Strategic Planning 4.1 Develop the Strategic Plan 4.2 Outline for Building a Strategic Plan 4.3 Elements of a Complete Strategic Plan 4.4 Management & Engineering Succession Plan Page 5 Issue #5: Public Understanding and Support 5.1 Current Outreach Activities 5.2 Ideas for Future Outreach Issue #6: Increasing Sewer System Reliability 6.1 Abandon 7 Pump Stations Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Part 111 The Action Plan ISSUE #1. Financial Page 6 Report By Treasurer on Solid Waste Financials The District's Treasurer distributed a financial report on the solid waste operations financial status, detailing whether solid waste rates are covering costs. 1.1 SOLID WASTE FINANCIALS • Solid waste operations showed a total net loss for the 2000 -2001 fiscal year of $290,000. - Net solid waste operational loss for fiscal year 2000 -2001 was $130,000. Other losses were included. - Net solid waste operational loss for fiscal year 2001 -2002 is projected to be $100,000 • The total net loss was due to: 1. Loss of interest earnings due to the separation of sewer and solid waste funds. Liquid waste had much higher reserves, and therefore higher interest earnings. 2. Other common expenditures and revenues 3. Timing of receipts from County 4. Uncertainty by District Treasurer as to effect of segregating trash collection operations. • The solid waste fund equity (reserve) target is about 25% of the operating budget, which is equal to about $1 million each year. Current equity in the fund is $2.3 million. Question: How long could the solid waste fund equity cover the annual operational loss as well as the interest payments on the loan for the trash cans? Answer: Maximum period available from reserves (fund equity) is less than 7 years. Action: Develop a multi -year (5 yr) Solid Waste Financial Plan. The plan should do the following: • Identify how much money • Develop adequate reserves to set aside for future (fund equity) of approximately replacement of containers. 25% of operating budget. • Include CPI increases for hauler • Identify appropriate rates, with and recycler. options for Board review. Rauch Communication Consultants ®r, WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 7 • Consider using interest • Incorporate additional costs income from the fund for e -waste recycling program equity for non - operating and for increased awards for items such as future Telephone Book Recycling container replacement. Program. • Incorporate the debt • Factor in commitment to service for $2.2 million residents that trash collection loan for trash cans. rates will not be increased for • Incorporate potential costs at least two years due to the acquisition of the standardized to take over Trash containers. Container Management from Costa Mesa Disposal. Who: Treasurer When: March 7, 2002, for Board Packet 1.2 OTHER FINANCIAL ISSUES • Effect of GASB 34 • Develop Financial Plan for sewer system Action: Explain these issues at the Investment Oversight Committee meeting. Who: Marc When: Ongoing 1.3 TIMING OF TREASURER'S REPORT AND PACKET A brief discussion was held about the timing of the Treasurer's Report so that it could be included in advance in the Board packet, and not distributed at the actual Board meeting. There are a number of factors that make this difficult. It was decided to take no immediate action on this issue. Action: After solid waste financing, rates and the financial model are fully understood, consider preparing a 5 -Year Sanitary Sewer Financial Plan with 5 -year rates, reserves, replacements, etc. Who: Marc When: June 2002 Rauch Communication Consultants r WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES i Page 8 1.4 TREASURER SERVICES A discussion was held about the timely receipt of financial reports and information from the Treasurer. Action: Convey to City Manager the belief that City responsibilities have left Treasurer with inadequate time to properly address District work. Who: Rob When: April 2002 Dr Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 9 ISSUE #2: Long -Term Future Of The District 2.1 COMPARING DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR DISTRICT FUTURE: The group undertook a long discussion about the relationship of the City and the District in the future. Included was a discussion of the pros and cons of moving to a separate District building and hiring its own employees versus continuing to work within City facilities and contracting with City employees. Various options were explored: • Status Quo -- Stay in City offices and use contract workers, etc. • Name change with new District sign out front, distinguishing City from District. • Obtain or construct a new building and hire employees. 2.1.1 Analysis of Consolidation Related Issues: LAFCO. There was a discussion of the potential threat of action by LAFCO regarding the District. Key discussion points are outlined below: • If consolidation were to ever occur, it is likely that service levels would decline under City control because of competing needs for resources and attention similar to patterns noted in other Orange County cities. • LAFCO is currently preoccupied with incorporating "islands," and in pursuing the new Service Reviews that are to be undertaken every five years. • LAFCO recently prepared a statement outlining their intent to only pursue consolidations or reorganizations if the action is proposed by the special districts. The City • The City Council currently appears uninterested in controlling wastewater services or residential solid waste. While this situation could change at any time, for now there appears to be little threat from the City. Action: Determine facts and issues around LAFCO's new 5 -year Service Reviews. Present to Board Who: Rob When: March 2002 2.1.2 Comparison of costs of contract services with the City versus cost of separate District headquarters with own employees. A 1994 study showed that there might be a modest savings to the District by moving to its own building and hiring its own employees. There is probably little difference Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 10 in cost between the two options, but the only evidence is the 1994 study, now 8 years old. Action: Board carry out a general review and make comments on the 1994 study. The goal of the general review is to determine if a new study is warranted. Who: Rob / Board discuss When: July 2002 2.1.3 Comparison of District Operations under status quo situation versus District being in own building with own employees. a) One Stop Permitting. If the District left City Hall, would it impact the "one- stop" permitting that is current? The reality is that projects requiring engineering must go to Rob's engineering office, as do projects with water permits must go to the Water District headquarters. NOTE: It was asked if the City believes that "one stop permitting" is an issue ?" It is important to find out before taking any action on moving. b) Owning property versus renting. Owning a building eventually develops District equity versus renting c) Level of service. No important change under either scenario. d) Financial issues. The City's accounting practices do not include time card tracking in order to substantiate charges to the District. e) Comparison of public perception. Changing the status quo by changing the name or moving into separate facilities would increase the perception of the District's independence and visibility. f) Comparison of 3 options. STATUS QUO • The District may be subject to take -over under the status quo situation due to the close working relationship. • The status quo may protect the District by keeping low visibility. • Costs may be approximately equal for status quo versus moving. MOVE AND NAME CHANGE • There is likely to be some takeover protection if the District is able to separate without controversy. • There are likely to be some employee benefits as employees of the District rather than of the City. The District could offer more appropriate benefits and employees might be more protected by being represented by a smaller agency. ®r Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 11 • There is likely to be a small cost benefit to the public from a move and name change. • A move and name change would increase public visibility and support. • There may be an intangible benefit of separating from the City in terms of a new freedom to think differently without taking into account City interests. • There may be risks to this bolder move by attracting the attention of other agencies. NAME CHANGE WITH NEW DISTRICT SIGN • A name change and addition of a new District sign would provide benefit of increased public recognition. • A name change and addition of a sign would allow more time to plan for a move, and if desired, acquire property and move later. • Changing the District name and adding a sign does not create as much of a new, more independent mindset as moving physically out of the City. • Simply changing the name and adding a sign is probably the lowest risk option. Action: After discussing the issues, it was decided to take a moderate course of selecting a new name and putting up a new sign in front of City Hall to increase District identity. The tasks identified are: • Consider new name • Talk to attorney about legal ramifications • Make a plan for changes (sign, stationery) • Consider how name change may require change on new standardized containers • Take initial look for suitable location and property • Inform City that space is a problem; need more now as well as in the future • Long -term: keep option for move open Who: Rob / Board When: Ongoing Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 12 ISSUE #3: Collecting Multi - Family And Commercial Solid Waste With respect to the possibility of adding new functions: • The District will begin picking up Newport Beach solid waste after Newport Beach annexes certain County islands inside the District. • The District does not pick up large multi - family or commercial solid waste. 3.1 DISCUSS OPTIONS The various roles the District could undertake with regard to commercial and multi - family solid waste were reviewed. • Leave commercial and multi - family solid waste collection functions as they are at present. • Pick up all multi - family solid waste if agreement reached with City • Undertake commercial solid waste collection if agreed to with City. What would be the District motives for assuming multi - family and commercial solid waste collection? • The existing commercial and multi - family solid waste collection rates are high. • Many haulers do not keep credible recycling records. • Multiple haulers cause more traffic, pollution, and street wear and tear. • The current situation results in a loss to the city of potential franchise fees of about $1,000,000. Action: Take "baby steps" on commercial and multi - family trash with City. This would involve gradually reintroducing the issue, and educating the Liaison Committee, and then educating the City Council. Who: Liaison Committee When: Next Liaison Committee meeting OF Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 13 ISSUE #4: Strategic Planning The general approach of Rauch Communication Consultants LLC is to build a Strategic Plan from the ground up rather than from the top down. That is, instead of starting with the broadest and most general statements — the Mission, Vision, Goals, etc, -- we recommend starting by identifying the issues actually confronting the district: the key issues, current and future, that must be resolved in order for the District to operate effectively. We have arrived at this approach because, in our experience, current issues -- whether they are regulatory challenges, public perception problems, service level inadequacies, infrastructure, political or people issues -- must be concretely dealt with before an agency can effectively manage its future. Real concrete issues (challenges, problems, shortcomings) are like having pebbles in your shoes. People can ignore these pebbles (issues) for a while, but on a long journey, eventually the pebbles become so distracting that the traveler can think of nothing but getting them out. The same is true of developing a strategic plan. We believe a District must begin by addressing the realities confronting it today, and, so to speak, remove the pebbles. We recommend prioritizing and resolving these issues with a specific, detailed Action Plan that becomes a near term District priority, incorporated into Board action agendas and management work plans. Once the key near term issues have been identified, prioritized, and an Action Plan developed, then an organization can turn to a broader perspective -- defining the mission, vision and long- term goals of the District. The advantage of this approach is that the long term District goals are rooted in an understanding by the Board and staff of the realistic practicalities of the District: its infrastructure, operations, people, finances and politics. The Strategic Plan that emerges following the development and implementation of a near term Action Plan is likely to be realistic, not just a set of platitudes. It provides substantial guidance as to what to do and when to do it. It is an actual plan, with priorities, schedules and responsibilities, not merely a warm - hearted statement of District intentions. 4.1 DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC PLAN We believe that the process should be as simple as possible and the output should be simple and understandable. If the Goals are too grandiose or complex, they will become nice words but will simply not be implemented. In short, Strategic Planning should be rooted in realities. These are found at the ground level, where the District is operating. We believe it is more desirable to begin the journey of developing a Strategic Plan by addressing real, current problems and issues. With these satisfactorily resolved, the District is in a better position to look ahead at future realities, and to develop its long term Strategic Plan based on its experience with the annual Action Plans. Each annual Action Plan then becomes the first year of a long term Strategic Plan, which is annually reviewed and revised in light of the past year's experience. �. Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 14 4.2 OUTLINE FOR BUILDING A STRATEGIC PLAN The process recommended by Rauch Communication Consultants can be outlined in the following way: Step 1: Action Plan: A concrete plan to resolve high priority issues. This important' first step addresses the actual issues that the District is facing today, and begins defining the issues it is likely to face in the future. No strategic plan can be meaningful if it fails to develop an Action Plan to address current realities. This is the beginning of a bottom -up approach to strategic planning that is built upon real issues. Step 4: Create Goals and Strategies. Develop goals and strategies to accomplish the Mission. The Action Plan is a series of specific steps that address specific issues. The Goals and Strategies group these specific actions into general categories. This step gives a management perspective on the actions we are taking by putting related actions together so that we have a better management understanding of the long -term direction of the District. Step 2: Develop A Vision of the District in the Future: "What do we want to be when we grow up" — say 10 years from now? What facilities, services, service area functions, relationships will be in place then? This exercise provides a portrait of what we are striving to become. Step 5: Identify Values. Identify the key values that guide the District. Values help shape the way we approach problem and solutions. For example, Districts place a different value or emphasis on the environment, cost, customer service, facilities, employees, communications, etc. Making the Districts values more explicit provides another guideline for making consistent decisions. Step 3: Revisit the Mission Statement: What is our mission? What is our long -term role in the community we serve? Revisit the Mission Statement to be sure that it fits our District both today and in the future. Step 6: Tie Strategic Plan Together With Other Plans. Financial, Operations, Personnel, Succession and Outreach plans, work plans, etc, should be integrated and related to the District's Strategic Plan. We recommend that the actions in every plan be keyed to the Strategic Plan by numbers — that is, every action should be fulfilling one numbered statement or another of the Strategic Plan. Examples of above nomenclature: GOAL: Assure a permanent, reliable and adequate water supply for the community. This goal would fulfill one aspect of the Mission Statement. STRATEGY: Develop additional water supply resources in order to accomplish this goal. ACTION: Bank excess groundwater in a nearby groundwater basin. This follows the strategy stated above. ACTION PLAN: Find a suitable water bank partner and develop a contract for storing excess winter water flows. Rauch Communication Consultants ®r, - WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 15 4.3 ELEMENTS OF A COMPLETE STRATEGIC PLAN The following is a hierarchy of elements that constitute a complete Strategic Plan. • Vision • Mission Statement • Values • Goals • Annual Action Plan • Strategic Plan consisting of above elements • Detailed work plans and a budget are derived in conformance with the Strategic Plan. It is not necessary to undertake every one of these elements in the beginning. Costa Mesa Sanitary District completed an annual Strategic Action Plan in 2001 and updated it in 2002. During the workshop it was also decided to develop a Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Values and Goals. Action: Prepare a draft version of a Mission Statement, Vision, Values and Goals. Who: Rob / Board When: Adopt these draft elements by the completion of the budget process. Action: Provide written guidance on how to prepare a Mission Statement, Vision, Values in the Strategic Planning Report.' Who: RCC When: In notes of workshop Action: Prepare a Management and Engineering Succession Plan Who: Rob When: March 2002 Special Meeting ' Suggestions on how to prepare a Mission Statement are included in Appendix A of this Report. �. Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 16 ISSUE #5: Public Understanding And Support 5.1 CURRENT OUTREACH ACTIVITIES The following are some of the current outreach activities of the District. • Newsletter issued regularly • Chamber update • Liaison Committee, meetings • Yearly telephone book recycling underway contest for schools • CD and VCR tapes titled • Standardized containers are being "Working for You" are available delivered to all residents 5.2 IDEAS FOR FUTURE OUTREACH A number of ideas were discussed to enhance the existing outreach program. Some of the ideas include increasing outreach to neighboring agencies and adding signs on the trucks of solid waste fleet. Action: Develop a Liaison Committee for IRWD, City of Newport Beach Who: Liaison Committee When: Meet quarterly Action: Send letter to various community groups, Chamber, service clubs, homeowners associations, etc. promoting the availability of a District presentation and/or video. Who: Everyone (Note, that everyone may make presentations, but someone needs to be selected to oversee the program and make it happen.) When: On -going Action: Use Public Outreach to promote the District's mission, services etc. Who: Rob When: Ongoing Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 17 ISSUE #6: Increase Sewer System Reliability 6.1 ABANDON 7 PUMP STATIONS A very brief discussion was held about this issue. The Manager described a project in conjunction with Newport Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District to abandon seven pump stations and replace them with a gravity line that could help increase reliability and decrease spills. Action: Continue engineering study to abandon seven pump stations and replace with gravity flow line. Schedule Board workshop to review the plan Who: Rob will supervise the engineering and schedule the Board workshop. When: Board Workshop in June 2002. Rauch Communication Consultants Dr, __ WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 18 Appendix A: Guidance on Preparinq a Mission Statement A good mission statement should accurately explain why your organization exists and what it hopes to achieve in the future. It articulates the organization's essential work. This should be accomplished in a brief sentence or paragraph that is free of jargon. An effective mission statement must resonate with the people working in and for the organization, as well as with the different constituencies that the organization hopes to affect. It must express the organization's purpose in a way that inspires commitment, and the courage to accomplish the commitment. Your organization's mission statement should answer four key questions: 1. Whom do we serve? 2. What are the opportunities or needs that we exist to address? (The purpose of the organization.) 3. What are we doing to address these needs? (The actual work of the organization.) 4. What constitutes excellence (How do we measure excellence? By being cost - effective? By responding effectively to customer needs? By protecting the environment? By being a leader among local agencies ?) Examine how the District measures the excellence of its work output. Steps To Write a Mission Statement 1. Ask staff, Directors, and perhaps, others to list any words phrases, or ideas with respect to the organization and the four questions above. 2. Compile the lists of words and phrases and assemble them as a rough draft in a workshop, looking for ideas that receive broad consensus. 3. Suggest that a person or a committee take the raw, assembled draft statements and craft them into a well- worded Mission Statement. 4. Take the edited statement back to the group for review and edit. Example Mission Statement The mission statement below for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization illustrates the issues discussed above. The mission of Big Brothers /Big Sisters of America is to make a positive difference in the lives of children and youth, primarily through a professionally- supported, one -to- one relationship with a caring adult, and to assist them in achieving their highest potential as they grow to become confident, competent, and caring individuals, by providing committed volunteers, national leadership and standards of excellence. Whom do we serve? Children and youth (®r , Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 19 The purpose: to make a positive difference in the lives of children and youth so that they'll achieve their highest potential. What we do — our business: providing and supporting committed volunteers who have one -to- one relationships with children and youth. What constitutes excellence? Individuals who are confident, competent, and caring; leadership and standards of excellence. The Mission Statement Should: Express the organization's purpose in a way that inspires support and commitment. • Motivate those who are connected to the organization. • Be convincing and easy to grasp. • Use active verbs to describe what you do. • Be free of jargon. • Be brief so that anyone connected to the organization can readily repeat it.2 2 The suggestions about developing a mission statement draws upon RCC's experience and an essay from The Grantsmanship Center in an article called How to Write a Mission Statement by Janel M. Radtke. Dr, Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS 1.1 Solid Waste Financials Action: Develop a multi year (5 yr) Solid Waste Financial Plan. Who: Treasurer When: March 7, 2002 for Board Packet 3.1 Discuss Options 1.2 Other Financial Issues Action: Explain these issues at the Investment Oversight Committee meetings. Who: Marc 4.3 When: Ongoing 1.3 Timing of Treasurer's Report and Packet Action: After solid waste financing, rates and the financial model are fully understood, consider preparing a 5 -Year Sanitary Sewer Financial Plan with 5 -year rates, reserves, replacements, etc. Who: Marc When: June 2002 1.4 Treasurer Services Action: Review workload of Treasurer Who: Rob When: April 2002 2.1 Comparing different options for District future Action: Determine facts and issues around LAFCO's new 5 -year Service Reviews. Present to Board. Who: Rob When: ASAP Action: Board review and comment on 1994 study. Determine if new study is warranted. Who: Rob / Board discuss When: July 2002 Action: Consider a new name and put up a new sign in front of City Hall to increase District identity. Many specific actions; see list on p. 11. Who: Rob and Board When: Ongoing Page 20 Action: Take "baby steps" on commercial and multi - family trash collection with City. Gradually reintroduce issue, educate Liaison Committee, and then educate City Council. Who: Liaison Committee When: Next Liaison Committee meeting Elements of a complete Strategic Plan Action: Prepare draft version of Mission Statement, Vision, Values and Goals. Who: Rob / Board When: By completion of budget process Action: Provide written guidance on how to prepare a Mission Statement, Vision, Values in the Strategic Planning Report. Who: RCC When: In notes of workshop Action: Prepare a Management and Engineering Succession Plan. Who: Rob When: March 2002 Special Meeting 5.2 Ideas for future outreach Action: Develop a Liaison Committee for IRWD, City of Newport Beach. Who: Liaison Committee When: Meet quarterly Action: Send letter to various community groups promoting availability of a District presentation and/or video. Who: Everyone When: Ongoing Action: Use public outreach change to promote District's mission, services, etc. Who: Rob will ensure this happens When: Ongoing Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Page 21 6.1 Abandon 7 pump stations Action: Continue engineering study to abandon 7 pump stations and replace with gravity flow line. Schedule Board workshop to review plan. Who: Rob will schedule Board meeting When: Board Workshop, June 2002 ®r , Rauch Communication Consultants WORKSHOP FEB 16 FINAL RAUCH NOTES Rauch Communication Consultants LLC UD 936 Old Orchard Road, Campbell, CA 95008 _ Ph: 408-374-0977 Fax: 408 -374 -2197 Email: info @rauchcc.com Robin B. Hamers Manager/District Engineer P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200 Dear Robin: This letter provides subjective comments you requested on how your District compares to other special districts, particularly sanitary districts. Our comments are based on our observations from the interviews and workshop held on February 15 and 16, 2002. Public Outreach In terms of outreach effort, the District continues to be above average when compared to other sanitary districts we know. A number of good suggestions are contained in the strategic Action Plan report relating to Outreach that should be pursued (see p. 15). In addition, we offer the following suggestions: Logo. Since the District is considering a new name, it may also need a new logo. As we commented last year, the current logo when printed large is distinctive and the color is attractive. However, when printed smaller, the detail is not readily apparent, and it may not be readily recognizable as the Costa Mesa Sanitary District logo. The District may want to consider developing a logo with less detail. Simple and striking logo designs are easier to see and recall by the public. This step can go far toward reinforcing the District's identity. Media and Press Coverage. We are not aware whether the District receives generally positive or negative news coverage, or if the District maintains a media relations program to obtain regular positive press coverage. If not, we suggest that the District seek to obtain positive press coverage once each month as a goal. This would help cultivate both press and public understanding. We could provide some simple suggestions on how to pursue this if you wish. Community Presentation. Another effective way to communicate with active leaders in the community is by making public presentations to established groups such as Chambers of Commerce, Boards of Realtors, service clubs, homeowners' associations, and similar organizations. As discussed in the workshop, we recommend that the District consider C:\My Documents\F drive\MY DOCUMENTS *STRATEGIC PLAN\RAUCH LETTER FEB 16 02 FINAL.doc 4/18/2002 7:46 AM I developing a brief general presentation in modular form, with content similar to the video. It would have a module containing general information about the District along with other modules on key topics, and a full script that would make it easy for speakers such as Board members to prepare for presentations. It could incorporate portions of the video, which can be readily projected from within PowerPoint. Video. The video is itself an excellent outreach tool, and its continued use should be encouraged. It could be useful for a school program, and provide effective information for your liaison meetings with other agencies as well. Name change. With the advent of a new District logo and name, it seems appropriate to prepare truck signs that carry the logo and name as the trucks go about their daily pickup rounds. This is an easy and natural way to spread the word about the district name and function. Similarly, the logo and name should in some manner be affixed to the new trashcans being distributed to households. There are doubtless other ways to make the change known: in the newsletter, in the Chamber update meetings and so forth. Using sensible opportunities to make the most of the name change seems to be a safe and prudent way to help distinguish the District's functions. Special Programs It appears that the District continues to maintain a significant number of special programs that provide special benefits to the public and are a sign of the District's high service levels. The potential a -waste program would be a very beneficial addition to the District services. Support for Urban Runoff Programs Because of the rising public concern about ocean and beach pollution, we recommend using your public outreach activities to help educate the public about the issue. Some messages could include clarifying the difference between point and non -point sources, promoting toxic waste collection programs, and indicating the District's support for the City's and County's efforts to address the urban runoff problem. We believe that this will position the District image in the public's mind as being an interested and supportive agency with respect to this important issue. C:\My Docwnents\F drive\MY DOCUMENTS 4 \STRATEGIC PLAN\RAUCH LETTER FEB 16 02 FINAL.doc 4/18/2002 7:46 AM 2 Overall Level of Service The overall level of service appears to remain excellent. This assessment is based on the numerous forward - thinking special programs mentioned above, the good condition of the sewer collection system, attentiveness to maintenance details, and the active outreach program. The District's service standard is set at a high level. Relationship With City One area of concern remaining from last year is the relationship with the City. The unusual intertwining with the City has resulted in a number of problems outlined last year and again in the recent workshop. • Substandard Office Space. Although improved, the offices remain small, and the District is not free to change the situation without the concurrence of the City. An effort to resolve this situation is mentioned in the Action Plan for 2002. • Diminished Public Recognition. Citizens may not realize that they are visiting an independent agency. The planned steps of a name change and a new sign are a helpful "baby step" toward resolving this. We suggest that this issue may be one that the Board may wish to consider at each of its annual Strategic Action Plan workshops — that is, determine the effectiveness of last year's "baby steps" in clarifying the District's independent role, and deciding whether additional steps are warranted. • Finance: Initial steps are described in the 2002 Action Plan to rectify inadequate finance support. Because of its importance, we suggest that the District pursue this matter more aggressively. If not satisfactorily resolved, the District should give consideration to hiring an independent treasurer. • Finance Master Plan. The Treasurer's Report indicated that the District already has many elements of a well - planned financial structure, with prudent reserve funds and reasonable rates. The preparation of a coherent, long -term financial Master Plan is a valuable and important step to assuring long -term, stable and secure services to the community. We recommend continued efforts in refining and clarifying the Financial Master Plan following review of the Treasurer's initial draft on solid waste. Making the whole financial picture as simple and clear as possible will help the Board and the manager continue to make wise financial decisions in the future. CAMy Documents\F diive\MY DOCUMENTS 4\STRATEGIC PLAN \RAUCH LETTER FEB 16 02 FINAL.doc 4/18/2002 7:46 AM 3 • Multi- Family and Commercial Solid Waste. The strategic Action Plan to slowly reintroduce this issue to the City is a good forward step. The workshop recommendation is to try to convince the City to franchise the haulers. It might be more advantageous to get the City to allow the District to franchise the service in exchange for paying a fee back to the city. The overall strategic direction would be to gather all solid waste management with the District in order to improve service, improve communication with customers, maintain reasonable costs, reduce wear and tear on City streets, assure accurate record - keeping on recycling, and provide a significant income stream through franchise fees. The bottom line motivation for this approach is that the District is simply more motivated and better equipped to do a good job with multi - family and commercial solid waste. Strategic Planning For two years, the District has created Strategic Action Plans to deal with near -term issues of concern. This year the District is beginning to develop longer -term Vision, Values, Mission Statement, and Goals. Future steps would involve updating the strategic actions every year while coordinating and incorporating work plans, long range plans, the Budget and Strategic Action Plans as subsets of the Strategic Plan. Putting all these into a coherent whole will provide increased clarity and direction to the Board, Staff and District. Suggestions for proceeding are included in the enclosed notes of the 2002 Action Plan. Summary Our summary view has not changed in the past year: the District appears to be well and economically run, well maintained and well managed. You are doing an excellent overall job. Please regard the comments in this memo as subjective, introduced by us to be constructive as well as hopefully useful. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with you as you lead your District into the future. Please call if there is anything else we can do to help, or if you have any questions. Regards, Martin Rauch Rauch Communication Consultants LLC By e-mail. C:\My Documents\F drive\MY DOCUMENTS 4 \STRATEGIC PLAN\RAUCH LETTER FEB 16 02 FINAL.doc 4/18/2002 7:46 AM 4