Agenda_2015_2_10_Meeting Study Session - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District AGENDA Michael Scheafer President Arthur Perry Vice President Robert Ooten Secretary Arlene Schafer Assistant Secretary James Ferryman Director Public Comments. Any member of the public may address the Board. Sp eakers on agenda items should identify themselves to the Depu ty Clerk before the meeting so that their input can be provided at the time the item is considered. Speakers on non-agenda items will be heard under Public Comments. Pursuan t to State law, the Board may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items except under special circumstances. S peakers must limit their remarks to three minutes or as dec ided upon by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer reserves the right to declare any speaker out of order . Obtaining Agenda Materials: The public is entitled to copies of all documents that are made part of the agenda packet. If any document or other writing pertaining to an agenda item is distr ibuted to all or a majority of the Board after the packet is prepared, a copy o f that writing may be obtained at the District offices at 628 W. 19 th Street, Costa Mesa, California. The Deputy Clerk of the District may b e contacted at (949) 645-8400. In Compliance with ADA: Contact Noelani Middenway, (949) 645-8400, 48 hours prior to meeting if assistance is needed (28 CFR 35.102.35.1 04 ADA Title II). I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (If absences occur, consider whether to deem those absences excused based on facts presented for the absence - such determinatio n shall be the permission required by law.) III.PUBLIC COMMENTS This time has been set aside for persons in the aud ience to make comments on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District that are not listed on this agenda . Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Board of Directors about all other items on this agenda at the time those items are considered. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from taking action on oral requests but may refer the ma tter to staff or to a subsequent
meeting. The Board of Directors will respond after public comment has been received. Please state your name. Each speaker wi ll be limited to four (4) continuous minutes. IV.ITEMS OF STUDY 1.Recycling & Waste Diversion Reports - January 201 5 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 2.Ordinance Enforcement Officer Report - January 20 15 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 3.OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator's Meeting - Upda te Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 4.Organics Ad Hoc Committee Update - Oral Report Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from President Scheafer. 5.Project #101 Westside Pumping Station Abandonment Project Finance Plan Recommendation: That the Board of Directors: 1. Consider the construction alternatives; 2. Give staff the preferred direction; and 3. Receive funding strategies from the Finance Mana ger that will be described later in the study session. 6.Project #206 Sewer Rehabilitation Program Grade 4 Finance Plan Recommendation: That the Board of Directors postpo ne implementing a rehabilitation plan and direct staff to reline the Indus mainline at a cost of $353,000. 7.Acquiring One Sewer Combination Truck and a Two M an Crew Recommendation: That the Board of Directors: 1. Approves acquiring one sewer combination (je tter/vacuum) truck and hiring two additional maintenance workers; and 2. Direct staff to budget this item in the FY 2 015-16 Budget. 8.Preliminary Budget Calendar for Fiscal Years 2015 -16 & 2016-17 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 9.Financial Review Recommendation: That the Board of Directors give s taff direction on the options they wish brought back in the upcoming budg et process. 10.Future Study Session Items Recommendation: That the Board of Directors provide staff with dire ction on items to be placed on future study session agendas. V.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DIRECTOR COMMENTS VI.ADJOURNMENT THE NEXT STUDY SESSION OF THE COSTA MESA SANITARY D ISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015 A T 9:30 A.M. IN THE DISTRICTS BOARD ROOM, 628 W. 19TH STREET.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Recycling & Waste Diversion Reports - January 2015 Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. Item Number:1. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Recycling & Waste Diversion Report Cover Memo
CR Transfer CR Transfer To:Javier Ochiqui To:Javier Ochiqui From: CR Transfer Inc.From: CR Transfer Inc.Jurisdiction:Costa Mesa Sanitary District (9)Jurisdiction:Costa Mesa Sanitary District Santa Ana Heights (11)Month/Year:Jan-15 Month/Year:Jan-15 Recycling Report Recycling Report Recycle Tons Recycle Tons Commodity Percentage Recycled Commodity Percentage Recycled Paper(cardboard+mixed paper)9.50%314.72 Green Waste 20.50%34.90 Plastics(mixed plastic+HDPE+PET)2.73%90.44 GW Fines 6.99%11.90 Metal(metal+aluminum+alum. Cans)3.91%129.53 Fines 9.99%17.01 Wood 2.92%96.73 Textiles 0.17%0.29 Greenwaste 34.77%1,151.87 Glass 1.89%3.21 Liquids 0.37%12.26 Paper 4.29%7.30 Fines 0.52%17.23 Plastic 5.58%9.49 Glass(bottles)2.03%67.25 Food Waste 0.00%- Concrete 0.33%10.93 Metal 1.20%2.04 Concrete 0.51%0.88 Wood 0.86%1.46 Totals 57.08%1,890.97 Totals 51.97%88.49 Total Tonnage 3,312.84 Total Tonnage 170.27 Recycled Tonnage 1,890.97 Recycled Tonnage 88.49 Landfill Tonnage 1,421.87 Landfill Tonnage 81.78
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL 3,906.93 3,403.96 3,461.33 3,577.08 3,144.65 3,685.73 3,483.11 24,662.79 2,218.01 1,936.10 1,969.05 2,030.68 1,785.99 2,092.55 1,979.46 14,011.84 1,688.92 1,467.86 1,492.28 1,546.40 1,358.66 1,593.18 1,503.65 10,650.95 56.77%56.88%56.89%56.77%56.79%56.77%56.83%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!56.81%Recycled %CMSD WASTE DIVERSION REPORT FY 2014-2015 Total Tonnage Recycled Tonnage Landfilled Tonnage
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Ordinance Enforcement Officer Report - January 2015 Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. Item Number:2. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Ordinance Enforcement Officer Report - January 2015 Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cm sdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Edward Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer Date: February 10 , 20 1 5 Subject: Ordinance Enforcement Officer Report – January 201 5 This report summarizes major points for three ordinan ce enforcement topics covering scavenging, graffiti, and trash container e nforcement . To commence year 2015 , the CMS D Code Enforcement O fficer continued to focus on improving the quality of life for the residents of our community by continued scavenger enforcement and the reduction of CMSD trash carts left in public view . As the year began , CMSD Code Enforcement saw a gradual increase in the number of complaints fil ed regarding scavenging activity in the city. As with most scavenging complaints, the alleged violations take place in the early morning hours. In order to address resident concerns, t he Code Enforcement Officer investigate d al l complaints and adjusted his sche dule to accommodate request s for early morning or weekend enforcement. Included below are instances of scavenging that were detected while the Officer was investigating specific complaints. Proactive Scavenging Investigat ions: 544 Bernard Street - While conducting patrol, Officer Roberts observed a male adult, who later identified himself verba lly as Jorge Escalon removing recyclable material from within a CMSD trash cart located in front of the above listed location. Offi cer Roberts made contact with Jorge and advised him of CMSD ordinances precluding scavenging activity. Jorge was directed to return to all recyclable material to a nearby trash cart in Officer Roberts’ presence and he complied . Jorge was advised of CMSD po licy and sent on his way with a verbal admonishment.
Board of Directors January 2015 269 Cecil Place - Officer Roberts contacted a subject on the street directly in front of 269 Cecil Place who identified herself verbally as Stefanie Carcerano. Moments prior to the contact, Officer Roberts had observed Stefanie removing recyclable material from within a CMSD trash cart and placing the material into a plastic shopping bag that she had with her. During the course of the contact, Stefanie told Officer Roberts that she resides in Costa Mesa and collects recyclable material to make ends meet. Stefanie stated that she had been scavenging for approximately two months and was unaware that it was considered illegal to remove items from a CMSD trash cart. Officer Roberts advised Stefanie on CMSD policy and directed her to return to all recyclable material to a nearby trash cart. Stefanie was warned that she would be cited for future instances of scavenging and sent on her way. 1965 Church Street - A complaint was filed with this office rega rding scavengers rummaging through trash carts in the 1900 block of Church Street. Officer Roberts worked with the reporting party to identify the violator and conducted frequent patrol checks of the area. Despite the increased CMSD presence in the area, the scavenger was not identified or located. The resident was provided with Officer Roberts’ mobile telephone number and encouraged to call as the scavenging activity is occurring. Extra patrols of the 1900 block of Church Street will continue until succe ssful resolution is achieved. 1943 Maple Avenue - While patrolling the 1900 block of Maple Avenue, Officer Roberts observed an unidentified male rummaging through a CMSD trash cart. Officer Roberts approached the subject and called out to him from within h is vehicle. After making contact, Officer Roberts advised the subject that scavenging is a prohibited activity and directed to return all recyclables to a nearby cart. During the course of the contact, the subject was verbally argumentative but did not dis play aggressive mannerisms. Upon returning all recyclable material to the nearby CMSD cart, he rode away on his bicycle. The subject refused to identify himself to Officer Roberts at the time of the investigation. The physical description the subject is: Male Caucasian / Age: 40 -45 / Height: 6’01 -6’03 / Weight: 215 pounds / Hair: Blond (shaved) / Eyes: Blue. Officer Roberts increased patrols in the area and has not seen the person since the date of the contact.
Board of Directors January 2015 2237 Santa Ana Avenue – While patrolli ng the 2200 block of Santa Ana Avenue, Officer Roberts observed two males pushing bicycles with trash bags attached to the handle bars. Officer Roberts decided to contact the two subjects consensually in front of 2237 Santa Ana Avenue and asked them if the y were scavenging. Both of the subjects were cooperative and agreed to talk. During the course of the contact, both subjects admitted that they were going through area trash carts looking for recyclables. Based on their admission, both parties were couns eled regarding scavenging from CMSD trash carts and directed to return all recyclable material to nearby carts. Both parties complied with Officer Roberts’ instructions and were sent on their way with a verbal admonishment. 200 block of Sierks Street - Whi le on patrol in the 200 block of Sierks Street, Officer Roberts was flagged down by an area resident. The resident stated that she wanted to remain anonymous but to make CMSD aware of scavengers rummaging through trash carts in the 200 block of Sierks Stre et in the early morning hours. While at the scene, Officer Roberts obtained a detailed statement and description of the violating party. In the following weeks, numerous patrol checks were conducted in the surrounding area with negative results. To date the scavenger has not been identified or located. The reporting party was provided with Officer Roberts’ mobile telephone number and encouraged to call as the scavenging activity is occurring. Extra patrols of the area surrounding Sierks Street will cont inue until successful resolution is achieved. 169 East Wilson Street - While on patrol in the 100 block of East Wilson Street, Officer Roberts observed a male subject, who later id entified himself as Robert Lee Farrell (NFD), riding on a bicycle on the sou th sidewalk of E/B Wilson Street. Officer Roberts noted that the bicycle had numerous trash bags load ed with recyclable material. Officer Roberts noted that Robert brought his bicycle to a stop in front 169 E. Wilson Street and decided to contact Robert i n a consensual encounter. Officer Roberts asked Robert if he could talk to him for a moment and Robert agreed. During th e course of the contact, Robert admitted that he regularly removes recyclable material from CMSD carts and does so in order to support h imself. Officer Roberts explain ed to Robert that it is a violation of CMSD ordinances to remove (scavenge) any material from CMSD trash carts Officer Roberts directed Robert to return all re cyclable material to a nearby CMSD. Robert was further counseled r egarding future observed instances of scavenging resulting in citation and was sent on his way . 584 Yorkshire Street –Officer Roberts observed a female transient walking in the center of the roadway on Yorkshire Street. Officer Roberts noted that the femal e had a
Board of Directors January 2015 plastic bag on her person and it appeared to contain plastic bottles and assorted recyclable material. Although Officer Roberts did not observe the female scavenging, he formed the opinion that the female may have been scavenging due to the prese nce of nearby trash carts and her being in possession of plastic bottles and other recyclables . Officer Roberts contacted the fe male from within his vehicle and advised her that scav enging activity is prohibited. The female appeared to have difficulty co mprehending what Officer Roberts was trying to convey. Officer Roberts positioned his CMSD vehicle forward of the female’s location and approached a nearby trash cart. While standing at the cart, Officer Rober ts motioned that that she was not to rummage th rough trash carts and she appeared to understand. The female subject quietly left the area with no further incident . Officer Robert s maintained surveillance on the female subject from a distance and observed no instances of scavenging. END OF SCAVENGIN G ENFORCEMENT REPORT Trash Container Enforcement : In the month of January , there w ere numerous customer complaints reported to the District Headquarters rega rding trash carts in public view. The following is a list of locations where trash cart violati ons were found and addressed by the Courtesy Notice process. Total Cases: 24 The following locations received w arnings: (1) Amherst Road - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Beach Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Bowling Green Drive - S torage of carts in public view. (1) Co llege Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (1) C restmont Place - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Governor Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Grant Avenue -Storage of carts in public view
Board of Directors January 2015 (1) Jun ipero Drive -Storage of carts in public view (1) Knowell Place - Storage of carts in public view. (2) Maple Street - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Meyer Place - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Miguel Lane - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Princeton Drive - Storage of carts in public view (2 ) Raleigh Avenue - Storage of cart s in public view. (1) Ross Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Santa Ana Avenue -Storage of carts in public view (1 ) Senate Street - Storage of carts in pub lic view. (1) Shannon Lane -Storage of carts in public view (1 ) Wallace Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Whittier Avenue -Storage of carts in public view (1 ) Wilson Street - Storage of carts in the public view . END OF TRASH CONTAINER ENFOR CEMENT REPORT No case s of graffiti on a trash carts were opened in the month of January .
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Scavenging Report – January 2015 Locations: • 544 Barnard St. • 269 Cecil Place • 1965 Church St. • 1943 Maple Ave. • 2237 Santa Ana Ave. • 200 Block of Sierks • 169 E. Wilson St. • 584 Yorkshire St.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator's Meeting - Update Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. Item Number:3. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type OC Waste & Recycling Update - January Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Elizabeth Pham , Management Assistant Date: February 10 , 201 5 Subject: OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator’s Meeting (Update) Summary On Thursday, January 15 , 201 5 , staff attended the OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator’s meeting in Santa Ana. This report is a brief synopsis of the meeting . Staff Recommendation Staff recom me nds that the Board of Directors receive and file th is report. Analysis The meeting consisted of the following three (3 ) presentations: • Mallory Burden from CalRecycle , reported on the State Update. • Isaac Novella from OC Waste & Recycling, reported on the County Update. • Mark Patti from Mattress Recycling Council (MR C), presented on the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act . 1. Mallory Burden presented on the impact of AB 1826 . The presentation is attached to this report. Ms. Burden also discussed that CalRecycle will provide financial incentives for capital investments in composting/anaerobic digestions infrastructure and recycling manufacturing facilities that will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The priority is to understand environmental and economic benefits in disadvantaged communities. These grants will promote infrastructure development at facilities in California that achieve greenhouse
Board of Directors Study Session Fe bruary 10 , 201 5 Page 2 of 3 gas emission reductions by diverting more materials from landfills and producing beneficial product s. 2. I saac Novella announced that County’s $2.5 million 4th Cycle Regional Recycling and Waste Reduction competitive grant will be released on March 23, 2015 . The Regional Recycling and Waste Reduction Competitive Grant Program will be designed to enhance t he partnerships the County holds with its city and special district partners in order to better promote, enhance and effectuate sustainable regional outcomes related to recycling and waste reduction throughout the county. 3. Mark Patti provided information o n the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act. MRC is implementing a program that meets the obligations of SB 254 and SB 1274, which seeks to reduce the illegal dumping of used mattresses and increase the number of mattresses recycled. The presentation is attached to this report. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states: “Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in t he most economical and environmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable Environmental R eview The OC Waste and Recycling Coordinator’s Meetings are not a disturbance of the environment similar t o grading or construction and do not constitute a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. The recycling coordinators work as a group for the betterment of the environment. Financial Review No financial impact. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet for the February 10 , 201 5 , Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Direct staff to re port back with more information Attachments
Board of Directors Study Session Fe bruary 10 , 201 5 Page 3 of 3 a) AB 1826 Presentation b) Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act
AB 1826 By: Mallory Burden and Kat Ferrer OCRC Meeting January 15, 2015
Policy Drivers AB 939 50% diversion requirement on jurisdictions AB 341 75% reduction, recycling, composting statewide goal by 2020 Not transformation or disposal -related activities, etc.Doesn’t change AB 939 mandate on jurisdictions or how CalRecycle evaluates compliance AB 32 ARB Scoping Plan –Waste Sector Reduce GHGs to < 1990 levels 2
3 Where Are We Now?49 %51 %Currently Recycled (PPD)Currently Disposal-Related Activity (PPD)
Projected 2020 tonnages to reach 75% recycling 23 MT 20 MT 37 MT Recycled Amount in 2012 More Recycled by 2020 Still could be Disposed i n 2020 4
What Will 75% Take ?Moving > 20 million tons/year out of landfills 1/3 or more organic, plus many traditional recyclables Either overseas or other states OR more infrastructure here in California CalRecycle preference to handle waste in CA 100s of new or expanded facilities 5
What Else 75% Can Achieve?Jobs if in -state GHG reductions Biofuel/bioenergy production 6
What Counts?*Biomass not included in base –but future increases to biomass reduce disposal so it de facto falls into Diversion or Recycling AB 939* Diversion Rate AB 341* Recycling Rate +Diversion Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, ADC, AIC, Beneficial Reuse, Transformation Recycling Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting (including Anaerobic Digestion)_Disposal Landfilled, Exported Disposal, Excess Transformation Disposal -Related Landfilled, Exported Disposal, Transformation, ADC, AIC, Beneficial Reuse, Waste Derived Fuel 7
Why Organics?>>30% of total disposal compostable/digestible No way to 75% without it Scoping Plan identifies organics as key player to help meet GHG goals If divert ½ 3 -4 MMTCO 2 e reduction/year 8
Sticks Reduce organics disposal through:•Legislation : AB 1826 (statutorily mandated commercial recycling of organics) + AB 1594 AND/OR •Regulation : Air Resources Board could implement through direct regulations
AB 1826 April 2016 -Businesses generating 8 CY organics/week required to have organic waste recycling Jan 2017 –4 CY/week of organics Jan 2019 –4 CY/week of solid waste 2020 trigger: CalRecycle can reduce to 2 CY of waste if statewide organics disposal not cut in ½Multifamily complexes only must divert greenwaste Jan 2016 -Jurisdictions required to implement program to divert organics generated by businesses CalRecycle to review jurisdictions’ programs CalRecycle to recommend actions re: state’s organic recycling infrastructure 10
AB 1826 Jurisdiction Requirements Jan 2016 -Implement program Outreach, education, monitoring Organics recycling program May include mandatory recycling via policy or ordinance, franchise agreement or contract, or requiring material to go through MRF Identify multiple parameters and barriers; plan to address barriers under control of jurisdiction Rural exemption process Aug 2017 –begin reporting in Annual Reports on education/outreach/monitoring Including # of regulated businesses that generate organics and # recycling organics, and, if available, tonnage that is being diverted.11
Relationship to MCR Some similarities to MCR but more complex Similarities:Businesses are responsible Jurisdictions must have outreach, education, monitoring 12
Relationship to MCR Differences:Variability in organic waste types and programs General lack of food waste programs Roles of food banks, renderers, etc.What constitutes a program?Rural exemption process Need to ID more information and specify plan Need to identify those that generate organics Need to provide #s of businesses that are recycling Need to provide tonnage diverted, if available 13
Guidance on 1826 Guidance will be developed, just as for MCR Nov 2014 –initial guidance on 1826 provisions + solicitation of questions from stakeholders + listserv Dec 2014 -Develop rural exemption process Jan 2015 –post responses to “easy” questions; announce Spring workshops to discuss other questions/issues Jan/Feb 2015 -Develop models of options for what constitutes an organics recycling program re: policies, program variations, etc.Jan/Mar 2015 -Outreach to industry associations Spring 2015 –workshops Develop revised CIWMP Enforcement Policy Develop guidance on what will be expected in EARs Provide tools for identifying organics generators May/June 2015 –finalize guidance (6 months before initial implementation date)July/Dec 2015 -promote tools and resources via local meetings 14
Major Issues in Infrastructure Development Cost compared to landfilling Financing new/expanded facilities Permitting at state level CEQA Local land use decisions NIMBY Ensuring markets to use increased amount of organics materials 15
Permitting/Siting Issues Local land use CalRecycle regs on composting and AD Definition of food material Requirements for in -vessel digesters Contamination levels Land application restrictions Air Districts and ARB Regional Water Boards and SWRCB CDFA 16
Markets: Procurement & Demand Markets mostly local or regional –need local demand Local government procurement –part of 939 mandate Promotion with local residents, landscapers, businesses, Chamber of Commerce Sustainable landscaping California Urban Water Conservation Council DWR model water -efficient landscape ordinance CalTrans (and other agencies) –compost and mulch for erosion control and landscaping Agricultural and grazing lands Water conservation savings Gov’s Office re: soil health Marin Carbon re: rangeland C sequestration 17
Markets: Clean Products Markets are local or regional –contamination comes back to our own soils and water Compost already subject to metals and pathogen standards Labeling info: US Composting Council, CDFA re: nutrients Organics certifications –e.g., OMRI Physical contaminants –glass, plastics Proposed CalRecycle regulations Working with Water Board and CDFA on other land application issues 18
Carrots: State Financial Incentives •ARB: Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS )•CPUC: SB 1122 feed -in tariffs •CEC/CPUC: Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) •CEC: AB 118 Grants •CalRecycle RMDZ Program Loans •Treasurer’s Office: CPCFA Tax -Exempt Bond Financing, CALCAP •CalRecycle: Greenhouse Gas Grants/Loans •BOE: Manufacturers Tax Rebate
2014/15 Budget Funding from Cap & Trade revenues $25 million in FY 2014 -15 $25 million again in FY 2015 -16 20
CalRecycle Greenhouse Gas Programs 2 Grant Programs ($20 million)Organic materials ($15 million)Fiber, Plastic, and Glass ($5 million) Statewide, competitive 1 Loan Program ($5 million, revolving)Organics & Fiber, Plastic, and Glass Statewide, competitive 21
Contact Info Link to all program documents and application:http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/GrantsLoans/All questions for the Grant Programs GHGreductions@CalRecycle.ca.gov All questions for Loans Loans@CalRecycle.ca.gov 22
MATTRESS RECYCLING COUNCIL (MRC)Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act SB -254 & SB -1274 January 15, 2015 Mark Patti Southern California Coordinator
What is the MRC?•Mattress Recycling Council (MRC) was created by International Sleep Products Association (ISPA), the trade association for the mattress industry •Non -profit organization tasked with implementing and standardizing mattress recycling laws in states with supporting legislation.
MRC Program Objectives Design and implement a program that:•Meets the obligations of SB -254 and SB -1274 •Increases the number of mattresses recycled •Reduces illegal dumping •Is efficient and cost effective to minimize the consumer recycling fee
How will the program work?•Mattress recycling fee established by MRC and approved by CalRecycle •Retailers charge the fee on each mattress unit sold in the state •The fee is remitted to MRC •Retailers and solid waste facilities consolidate units •Transporters move units from consolidation points to recyclers •Recyclers deconstruct units •MRC uses the fee revenues to pay service providers
Collection •Consumers will continue to dispose of mattresses through traditional methods:o Retailer take -back with new purchase o Transfer station drop -off o Curbside pick -up •Solid waste facilities provided with storage containers for efficient packaging •SB 254 authorizes a payment to solid waste facilities to collect on behalf of the program
Recycling & Transportation •RFP for transportation and recycling services in early 2015 •Program will require a number of transporters and processors to manage expected volumes •H igh recycling rate can be achieved with uncontaminated feedstock •MRC encourages competition and geographically separated recyclers
Timeline •Retailers required to take back mattress when delivering new mattress: July 1, 2014 •RFP for mattress transport and recycling: early 2015 •Program Plan due: July 1, 2015 •Budget development: on -going through plan submittal •Manufacturers , retailers and renovators must register with MRC •Program implementation: early 2016
Roles for Solid Waste Facilities and Municipalities •Consider participating in MRC program •Evaluate physical storage space •No -cost acceptance provision •CalRecycle reporting requirements beginning in July 2017
Becoming a Collection Center •www.mattressrecyclingcouncil.org •“MRC in Your State” tab •Scroll down to California •Click on the “Form” hyperlink •Complete “Interested Party Form”•Repeat for all of eligible facilities
Roles for Haulers/Recyclers/Transporters •Watch for MRC’s RFP in early 2015 •Understand your processing capabilities and costs •Line -up downstream recyclers •Report annually to CalRecycle on processing volumes (begins July 2017)
MRC Staff Mike O’Donnell –Managing Director mikeo@mattressrecyclingcouncil.org Office: 206 -498 -5005 Mark Patti -Southern California Coordinator mpatti@mattressrecyclingcouncil.org Office: 571 -482 -5442 Rodney Clara -Northern California Coordinator rclara@mattressrecyclingcouncil.org more info at:www.mattressrecyclingcouncil.org
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Organics Ad Hoc Committee Update - Oral Report Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from President Scheafer. Item Number:4.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Project #101 Westside Pumping Station Abandonment P roject Finance Plan Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors: 1. Consider the construction alternatives; 2. Give staff the preferred direction; and 3. Receive funding strategies from the Finance Mana ger that will be described later in the study session. Item Number:5. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Project #101 Cover Memo
Costa Mesa Sanitary District …an Independent Special District Protecting our community’s health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Memorandum To: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Rob Hamers, District Engineer Date: February 10, 2015 Subject: Project #101 Westside Pumping Sta tion Abandonment Project Finance Plan Summary Staff has utilized the services of a pipeline contractor and a micro -tunneling contractor to further refine the anticipated construction costs of the District’s pumping station abandonment project. The results are attached as Exhibit A and indicate an approximate construction cost of $5.77 million, and with 40% contingencies (engineering design, park restoration design, permitting, project administration, inspection, and construction contingency), a tota l project cost of $8.1 million, which includes $1 million for park restoration costs. The next step for this project is identifying a financing strategy followed by consideration of the MOU from OCSD that commits the District in following through on constr ucting the improvements identified in the project. OCSD requires all flows from the CMSD pump station in order to insure the inverted siphon under the Santa Ana River will work properly. Also attached is Exhibit B that shows the present day construction c ost not to complete the project is approximately $6.74 million, which is higher than the cost of $5.77 million to complete the project. This indicates the improvements associated with maintaining the pump stations are more expensive than the improvements associat ed with abandoning the pump stations.
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 2 of 5 The analysis section also provides information on the possibility of the District not abandoning the Aviemore (Valley) Pump Station due to the cost of the abandonment and the cost of park restoration in the Talbert Regional Park. Staff Recommendation That t he Board of Directo rs : 1. C onsider the construction alternatives ; 2. Give staff the preferred direction; and 3. Receive funding strategies from the Finance Manager that will be described later in the study session. Analysis The original schedule prepared by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) reflects beginning final engineering design on April 8, 2015 with construction beginning on March 22, 2017. At this point, OCSD has prepared a 3 -party MOU between OCSD , CMSD, and the City of Newport Beach and OCSD will not issue an RFP for final engineering design until the MOU is approved by all three parties. At the same time, it is prudent for the Sanitary District to determine alternatives and its financial strateg y prior to executing the MOU. For budgeting purposes, if the District executes the MOU at the April 23, 2015 regular meeting, OCSD will begin its RFP process. This schedule would result in OCSD beginning construction in on October 23, 2017. The Sanitary District has 3 budget years to consider funding the balance of the project. The District has a current project balance of $2.5 million so the yearly contribution would have to be $1.87 million per year for 3 years to achieve the total of $8.1 million. Construction Alternatives 1. Do not abandon Aviemore Pump Station: Unfortunately for the District , the Aviemore pump station is the smallest station owned by the District as it pumps wastewater for just 26 residences but the cost to abandon the station is ve ry high. As shown in Exhibit A, the construction cost for the abandonment is $532,076 and the associated park restoration costs are approximately 0.81 acres disturbed multiplied by OCSD’s estimated cost of a half million dollars per acres, which equals $4 05,000 for park restoration for a total abandonment cost for the station of approximately $937,076. Should the District decide not to abandon the station and to save the $1 million abandonment cost, the District would still be complying with the proposed OCSD MOU that requires all flows from the pump stations to be directed to the OCSD abandonment sewers . This is because the flow from Aviemore, after being
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 3 of 5 pumped, travels to the Canyon pump station that is being abandoned, so the Aviemore flows would be taking a circuitous route to the OCSD sewer. The majority of the impact to the Talbert Regional Park from the District’s proposed abandonment sewers is from the Aviemore sewer so the impact to the environment would decrease if the station were left in service. In order to remodel the Aviemore station and bring it up to industry standards would likely co st the District approximately $150,000 in construction costs. 2. Victoria Street Gravity Alternative: This is one of the four alternatives identified in OCSD’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A map of this alternative is available in Attachment C. The OCSD sewer pipeline would be constructed as approximately 1,500 linear feet of 24 inch diameter gravity sewer from the existing Newport Beach Pump Station site. Construction of the District’s and Newport Beach pipelines and abandonment of associated pump station would occur under this alternative. The OCSD sewer pipeline would extend northwest along the northern border of Talbert Regional Park within the wide dirt trail toward Victoria Street. The inverted sewer siphon segment under the Santa Ana River wi ll be near Victoria Street. The cost for this alternative is not much greater than the proposed project It appears this alternative would have less impacts to Talbert Park than the original proposed project; however, the EIR does identify the Victoria Str eet Gravity Alternative would result in greater impacts to geology and soils when compared to the proposed project. Not abandoning Aviemore Pump Station could also be considered under this alternative, which should have less impacts to geology and soils. According to the EIR, the No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative, but Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternativ e is No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Victoria Street Gravity Alternative is considered the superior alternative. On January 28, 2015, staff and Secretary Ooten met with residents that are concerned about the impacts to Talbert Park. They prefer the No Project Alternative, but did acknowledge that if the District and OCSD proceeds with this project they prefer the Victoria Street Gravity Alternative. Strategic Eleme nt & Goal This item complies with Strategic Plan Element 1.0, Sewer Infrastructure and Goal No. 1.4 System Wide Sewer Replacement and Repair Program. The strategy for this Strategic Element is : ”We will do this by the careful management of the collection infrastructure using prudent planning and maintenance, with financial strategies to maintain sufficient capacity and respond to changing regulatory demands.”
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 4 of 5 Legal Review Not applicable at this time; however, District Counsel will review and approve the MOU before it is presented to the Board for your approval consideration. Environmental Review The project will impact the environment and an environmental impact report (EIR) has been filed. The report states that with mitiga tion, the impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant. Although the project is large and creates an impact on the environment, it does not represent an increase in capacity or an enlargement of the sewer system. Rather, the purpose is to decr ease operating costs and to lessen future impacts to the environment. Financial Review The estimated cost for the District’s portion of this project is $8.1 million. Approximately $2.5 million is saved for this project. Later in this study session, the Board will receive a presentation from the District’s Finance Manager regarding funding strategies for this project. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the February 10 , 2015 Board of Directors study session meeting at District Headquarters and on the District ’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Do not abandon Aviemore Pump Station and direct staff to work with OCSD officials on amending the proposed MOU. 2. Approve the Victoria Street Gr avity Alternative and direct staff to work with OCSD officials on amending the proposed MOU. 3. Approve the Victoria Street Gravity Alternative and do not abandon Aviemore Pump Station and direct staff to work with OCSD officials on amending the proposed MOU. 4. Approve the project as proposed in the EIR and direct staff to bring back the MOU for Board approval consideration. Attachments A: Engineer’s Estimate of Construction Costs. B: Present Day Construction Cost if the District decides not to abandon pump stations. C: Map of proposed project.
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 5 of 5 Reviewed by: Wendy Davis Finance Manager
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Project #206 Sewer Rehabilitation Program Grade 4 F inance Plan Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors postpo ne implementing a rehabilitation plan and direct staff to reline the Indus mainline at a cost of $353,000. Item Number:6. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Project #206 Cover Memo
Costa Mesa Sanitary District …an Independent Special District Protecting our community’s health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Memorandum To: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Rob Hamers, District Engineer Date: February 10, 2015 Subject: Project #206 Sewer System Rehabilitation Project – Grade 4 Finance Plan Summary At the December 18, 2014 regular meeting, a variety of options were presented to the Board of Directors for rehabilitating the 914 line segments with one or more Grade 4 structural deficiencies. Grade 4 structural deficiencies are pipe conditions rated “poor” that will soon become Grade 5, which require immediate attention. At the regular meeting, the Board requested staff return with a financial strategy to handle the Grade 4 structural deficienc ies and that plan is described below. Staff Recommendation That t he Board of Directo rs postpone implementing a rehabilitation plan and direct staff to reline the Indus mainline at a cost of $353,000 Analysis The 914 line segments with one or more Grade 4 deficiencies have been broken down into two groups, the first (worst) 160, and the remainder. The rating sheets for the first 160 Grade 4s and an explanation of the rating s is attached hereto as Exhibit A as evidence of the condition of the sewer mains. T he first 80 segments have multiple Grade 4s and Grade 3s, so many that a full -length cured -in -place -pipe (CIPP) liner could be installed in all 80, however, it is assumed for
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 2 of 3 budgeting purposes that 65 segments will receive full -length liners and 15 segmen ts will receive three short liners. For the second 80, which also have multiple deficiencies, it is assumed 40 segments will receive full -length lining and 40 segments will receive three short liners. For the remaining 754, it is proposed to wait and rech eck them after the next round of District -wide CCTV. These segments have approximately one or two Grade 4s and some Grade 3s. If the rehabilitation of the top 160 were to occur in two years, construction costs of the first two phases would be as follows : Phase I – (65 x $15,000) + (15 x $6,000) = $l.065 million Phase II – (40 x $15,000) + (40 x $6,000) = $0.84 million When allocations for design, inspection, contract administration, and contingencies, totaling 30%, are added, the costs are as follows: Phase I - $1.385 million Phase II - $1.092 million As noted in the staff recommendation of this report, a 2 -year to 4 -year program to rehabilitate the Grade 4 segments would be appropriate, and possibly longer if other concerns are deemed more important. Recently, staff met to prioritize capital improvement projects. Due to the cost for Phase I and because the Indus line had six sanitary sewer overflows since 1999, staff believes it is a top priority to reline Indus by next fiscal year. Also, it’s been nearly ten years since the District’s entire sewer system has been televised. Staff believes that when the system is televised again we will have a better understanding of the condition of Grade 4s and can make appropriate plans for rehabilitation. Strategic Element & Goal This item complies with Strategic Plan Element 1.0, Sewer Infrastructure and Goal No. 1.4 System Wide Sewer Replacement and Repair Program. The strategy for this Strategic Element is : ”We will do this by the careful management of the collection infrastructure using prudent planning and maintenance, with financial strategies to maintain sufficient capacity and respond to changing regulatory demands.” Legal Review Not applicable at this time.
Board of Directors February 10 , 2015 Page 3 of 3 Environmental Review Inserting a liner in the existing Indus sewer main using a no -dig method in order to prevent root intrusion and backups is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) under Secti on 15301 as a “Class 1” project as stated under 15301 Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities …15301(b) “Existing facilities of both in vestor and publicly -owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services“. Financial Review The cost for Grade 4 Rehabilitation Phase I is $1.385 million. Due to other CIP priorities staff recommends pos tponing this project and replace it with the Indus Relining Project. The cost to reline Indus is approximately $353,000 and will be budgeted in the FY 2015 -16 CIP Budge t. The Finance Manager will be giving a presentation to the Board later in the study s ession regarding the District’s CIP budget. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the February 10 , 2015 Board of Directors study session meeting at District Headquarters and on the District ’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Direct staff to budget Grade 4 Rehabilitation Phase I in the FY 2015 -16 Budget 2. Direct staff to budget a portion of Grade 4 Rehabilitation Phase I in the FY 2015 -16 Budget. 3. Do not reline the Indus mainline 4. Direct staff to report back with more information Attachments A: Rating Sheets for Structural Grade 4s. Reviewed by: Wendy Davis Finance Manager
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Acquiring One Sewer Combination Truck and a Two Man Crew Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors: 1. Approves acquiring one sewer combination (je tter/vacuum) truck and hiring two additional maintenance workers; and 2. Direct staff to budget this item in the FY 2 015-16 Budget. Item Number:7. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Sewer Combo Truck & Two Man Crew Cover Memo
Costa Mesa Sanitary District …an Independent Special District Protecting our community’s health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Memorandum To: Board of Directors From : Scott Carroll, General Manager Date: February 10, 2015 Subject: Acquiring One Sewer Combination Truck and a Two Man Crew Summary Currently, the District is cleaning its entire sewer system (224.2 miles) annually using a combination of the District’s jetter/vacuum truck (Vac -Con) and two man crew along with National Plant Services, a private contractor. During non -working hours, weekends and holidays, the District has four employees that rotate on standby duty to respond to emergencies. Staff has developed a proposal for that we believe will improve the level of service, relieve standby duty stress , imp rove emergency response, and save the District money in the long run . Staff Recommendation That the Board of Directors: 1. App roves acquiring one sewer combination (jetter/vacuum) truck and hiring two additional maintenance workers; and 2. Direct staff to budge t this item in the FY 2015 -16 Budget. Analysis The shared cleaning concept with National Plant Services (NPS) is working well, but there are some drawbacks. For instance, speed is essential for NPS and private contractors. They want to clean the mainlin e as fast as they can and move on to their next project. T he old saying “time is money” is true for private contractors, so NPS is not in our service area for very long.
Board of Directors February 10, 2015 Page 2 of 4 A consequence for the fast cleaning is that the pipe may not be as thoroughly clean as it can be, which could increase the risk of a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO). Also, i f the District needs emergency cleaning during regular business hours when our cleaning truck is in the shop for maintenance, it can take NPS hours to arrive, or if th e District requires special cleaning, it may take NPS or a private contractor days to schedule the cleaning due to prior commitments. Staff believes acquiring another sewer cleaning truck with a two man crew will solve the drawbacks mentioned above. Oth er benefits of having two cleaning trucks is an increase in the number of cleaning days. Due to the District’s 9/80 work schedule, the system is being cleaned 234 days a year because the cleaning crew is off every other Friday. A second cleaning truck an d crew will allow the District to clean 260 days, which includes every Friday of the week. Another benefit for a second cleaning truck and crew is a faster response time for emergencies and the District will less likely be dependent on mutual aid from oth er organizations. In 2012, the District acquired a 12 cubic yard sewer combination truck (jetter and vac uum) that cost $334,494 Staff is not recommending another 12 cubic yard truck because another truck that size will not fit in the Yard. Staff belie ves a smaller sewer combination truck (5 or 9 cubic yard) will be appropriate. The cost for a 9 cubic yard sewer combination truck is estimated at $300,000 . The District’s Maintenance W orker I employee will be promoted to Maintenance W orker II and will be the op erator of the new cleaning truck . The promotion will cost the District an additional $3,413 in FY 2015 -16. Staff is recommending hiring two new Maintenance W orker I employees that will each serve o n both cleaning trucks . The cost to hire two new Mainte nance Worker I employees is estimated at $113,670 , which is at mid salary range and includes benefits and Clean Water Environment Association (CWEA) certification. Another benefit to hiring two additional maintenance workers is the relief of standby duty. The District has five maintenance worker s , but four of them are on rotational standby duty because one employee lives too far to be on standby. That means at least one week a month an employee is on standby. When one of the four employ ees is on vacation , an employee can be on standby for two weeks a month. While staff is compensated for being on standby, it can still put stress on home life as standby employees are limited to family functions and/or personal endeavors because they must stay close to Costa Mesa in the event they have to respond to an emergency within thirty minutes. Another benefit for
Board of Directors February 10, 2015 Page 3 of 4 h aving a total of seven maintenance workers is that it gives the District flexibility to work staff in shifts for emergencies that are l onger than 24 hours. Strategic Element & Goal This item complies with strategies for Strategic Plan Element 1.0, Sewer Infrastructure and Strategic Plan Element 5.0, Administrative Management , which states: Strategy for Strategic Plan Element 1.0, Sewer Infrastructure ”We will do this by the careful management of the collection infrastructure using prudent planning and maintenance, with financial strategies to maintain sufficient capacity and respond to changing regulatory demands.” Strategy for Strategi c Plan Element 5.0, Administrative Management “We will conduct periodic reviews, refine and implement policies and procedures, and assure the General Manager has the direction and tools necessary for successful District operations.” Legal Review Not appl icable . Environmental Review If the District acquires another sewer cleaning vehicle, the vehicle will essentially take the place of the National Plant Services sewer cleaning vehicle so whether the sewer cleaning is performed by CMSD or National Plant Services, the same amount of sew er mains are being cleaned, therefore, there is little to no change to the current environmental impact of the District’s sewer cleaning program. Additionally, a new District sewer cleaning vehicle will be stored at the District Yard and begin its workday from there while the National Plant Service cleaning vehicles are stored in Long Beach so there will be a possible reduction in environmental impact due to a reduction in travel miles. In total, the change to the environmental impact would be negligible. Also, with the addition of another sewer cleaning vehicle, the District’s heavy duty fleet is still less than the minimum required by AQMD that would r equire the fleet to be altern ative fuel or install particulate matter traps. Financial Review The to tal costs of staff’s proposal is $460,587 , which includ es the cost for the cleaning truck, truck maintenance and replacement cost, salaries, benefits and CWEA certification. While the startup cost is significantly higher than the contract with NPS, the District will experience a savings in the subsequent years . In fact, over a ten year period, the District will save $174,185. Please see the cost analysis in Attachment A. This is the last year of a five year contract with NPS. The District is required to solicit RFPs for cleaning service, so the FY 2015 -16 cost of $218,000 may be lowered due to competitive bidding.
Board of Directors February 10, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the February 10 , 2015 Boa rd of Directors study session meeting at District Headquarters and on the District ’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Do not approve the acquisition of one sewer combination truck and hiring two maintenance workers. 2. Direct staff to solicit RFPs for cleaning services. 3. Direct staff to report back with more information. Attachments A: Second Cleaning Truck Analysis Reviewed by: Wendy Davis Finance Manager
ATTACHMENT A Total 10 Years CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS CMSD NPS Vehicle 300,000 Maint 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,909 10,000 12,000 Replace 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 40,317 Salaries/Benefits 113,670 121,627 130,141 139,251 148,998 153,468 163,428 174,868 187,109 200,206 CWEA 1,600 1,824 1,952 2,089 2,235 3,370 3,370 3,370 3,370 3,370 460,587 218,000 168,768 224,540 177,410 231,276 186,806 238,214 196,855 245,361 202,619 252,722 212,743 260,303 224,464 268,113 240,796 276,156 255,893 284,441 2,326,940 2,499,126 Notes 2015-16 Salaries mid range 2021-22 MWII Salaries & Benefits Per contract, NPS eligible for CPI increase - 172,185 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Difference
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Preliminary Budget Calendar for Fiscal Years 2015-1 6 & 2016-17 Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. Item Number:8. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Preliminary Budget Calendar Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment b y providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum To: Board of Directors Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Wendy Hooper Davis, Finance Manager Date: February 10, 2015 Subject: Preliminary Budget Calendar for Fiscal Yea rs 2015-16 & 2016-17 The schedule below represents the outline for creat ing and adopting the District’s Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 budgets. Staff wil l be working on different aspects of the budget from now until the May Study Session and will update the Board as necessary. Staff recommends the following target d ates: Action Item Target Date Department Budgets due from Staff 02/20/15 Frida y General Manager Review with departments 03/10/15 Tuesday February 2014-15 Consumer Price Index released 03/20/15 Friday General Manager review 03/24/15 Tuesday Preliminary budget document handed out to Board 04 /23/15 Tuesday Special meeting to review preliminary budget 04/2 7/15 Week of Study Session meeting to review preliminary budget 05/12/15 Tuesday Study Session meeting (if necessary) to finalize bu dget 06/09/15 Tuesday Notice of public hearing (postcard mail out) 06/1 0/15 Wednesday Budget adoption at regular Board meeting 06/25/15 Thursday Public hearing to adopt sewer and trash charges 07 /23/15 Thursday Transmit assessments to OC Treasurer-Tax Collector 08/10/15 Monday
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Financial Review Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors give s taff direction on the options they wish brought back in the upcoming budget process. Item Number:9. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Financial Review Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Wendy H. Davis, Finance Manager Date: February 10 , 201 5 Subject: Financial Review Summary The Board of Directors has asked staff to review the District’s unfunded retirement liability and reserves balances. To do this , staff is presenting the Board with a very high level review of the upcoming two year projected budget , including Capital Improvement Projects , as well as several potential funding scenarios. S ta ff Recommendation That the Board of Directors give staff direction on the options they wish brought back in the upcoming budget development process for FY 2015 -16 & 2016 -17 . Analysis Attached are several schedules with different scenarios of projected revenues and expen se s for the current year through fi scal year 2017 -18. For comparison purposes , e ach schedule includes a summary of the actual revenue and expen se activities for fiscal year s 20 11 -12, 20 12 -13 and 20 13 -14 , as well as the ending Retained Earnings . For the purposes of th is analysis , we assume Retain ed Earnings is equal to cash. Therefore , the ending Retained Earnings balance in a given fiscal year becomes the beginning funds available for the subsequent fiscal year ’s spending. If the actual revenues exceed the actual expen ses , th e n Retained Earnings increases and there would be more funds available for future use . If the actual expenses exceed the actual revenues , th e n Retained Earnings decreases , resulting in less funds available to meet future needs. The next assumption made is that both the Solid and Liquid Waste Funds require the equivalent of six months’ worth of expenses to meet the District’s cash flow needs. Cash flow is a very important part of the District’s reserve decisions since there must
Board of Directors February 10 , 201 5 Page 2 of 4 be suffic ient money available to pay expenses during the six months when no assessments are received. Staff has used very conservative assumptions in our revenue and expen s e project ions for the purposes of this analysis . F irst , staff assumes revenues will remain flat as compared to the current year projected revenues . Sec ond, expense s are assumed to increase by 5% each year. Solid Waste Attachment A 1 : This schedule shows that by the end of fiscal year 20 17 -18 , the Solid Waste Fund w ill not have enough cash flow to cover expenses until the annual assessments start to come in from t he County. The Solid Waste Fund would have to temporarily borrow money from another Fund, if available, in order to meet its operating expenses . Assumptions include: • Trash Assessment revenues for fiscal year 20 15 -16 through 20 17 -18 are equal to the actual number of household s submitted to the County for the fiscal year 20 14 -15 rolls , with no increases in households. • T he first year of the Organics Program, fiscal year 20 15 -16, the diversion rate will average 20%, with an i ncreas ing cost per ton from $51.97 to $71.50. In subsequent years the percent of Organics tonnage is projected to average 30%. Attachment A 2 : This schedule reflects the same information as Attach ment 1 ; however , it includes the funding of the PERS and OPEB unfunded liabilit ies . The Solid Waste Fund’s Retained Earnings would be further reduced , as well as the necessary cash flow. By paying off the PERS unfunded liability , the District would have a lower “Employer Rate” effect fiscal year 2016 -17. Liquid Waste Attachment B 1 : This schedule shows that by the end of fiscal year 20 17 -18 , the Liquid Waste Fund w ill have increased its Retained Earnings balance to $6,509,075. Throughout the years , revenues continue to exceed expenses causing the Retained Earnings in this F und to grow. Assumptions include: • T he Sewer Assessments will equal the amounts projected in the 2012 Sewer Rate Study. • T he transfers to and f rom the Asset Management Fund to fund CIP projects is the same amount as the current year. • Capital Outlay assumes there are no request s for Capital Equipment in fiscal years 20 15 -16 through 20 17 -18 . Only CIP projects are anticipated at this time. Attachment B 2 : This schedule reflects the same information as Attachment 1 ; however , it includes the funding of the PERS and OPEB unfunded liabilit ies , a Combo Truck and two man crew, and funding CIP projects a bove the $1,787,000 while
Board of Directors February 10 , 201 5 Page 3 of 4 maintaining a balanced budget . B y t he end of fiscal year 20 17 -18, Retained Earning s will still ha ve a significant balance , which could be used to fund additional CIP projects or to relocate the District Headquarters. Asset Management Fund Attachment C 1 : This schedule shows that by the end of fiscal year 20 17 -18 , the Asset Management Fund w ill have increased its Retained Earnings balance to $5 ,293,579 , which exceeds the minimum reserve requirement of $5,000,000 . CIP Budget Review Attachment D 1 : This schedule shows that the total amount of funds allocated to all future CIP projects are the same as the current year budgeted amount of $1,787,000. The goal of this schedule is to identify staff’s priorities and then allocate funds accordingly. The “Proposed Budget Adjustment” column sh ow s the reallocat ion of money left over from completed projects , and staff’s requested transfer of funds to higher priority projects. Staff is trying to show the projects are a priority , but also whi ch projects can be completed by either 6/30/15 or 6/30/16 so as not to budget more work than staff can handle. This schedule illustrates the District’s priority is to accumulate funds for the Westside Pump Station Abandonment Project #101. To fully fund this project , the District needs $8.1 million . A ccording to this scenario , we will have accumulated approximately $7.4 million by fiscal year 20 17 -18 , which includes the transfer -in of $100,000 received from the developer of 1901 Newport Blvd 10 years ago. Attachment D 2 : This schedule reflects the same information as Attachment 1 with exception of the additional funds of $702,024 in fiscal year 2016 -17 and $625,275 in fiscal year 2017 -18. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item supports achieving Strategic Element No. 7.0, Finances, by ensuring the short and long -term fiscal health of the District. Legal Review Legal review is not required. Environmental Review The preparation of financial statements is an administrative action and not a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA guidelines. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the February 10 , 201 5 Board of Directors regular meeting at District Headquarters and on District’s website at www.cmsdca.gov . Alternative Actions 1. Refer the matter back to staff Attachment s A: Solid Waste Fund Attachment 1 & 2
Board of Directors February 10 , 201 5 Page 4 of 4 B: Liquid Waste Fund Attachment 1 & 2 C Asset Management Fund Attachment 1 D: CIP Budget Attachment 1 & 2
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Future Study Session Items Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors provide staff with dire ction on items to be placed on future study session agendas. Item Number:10.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District ADJOURNMENT Recommendation/Notes: THE NEXT STUDY SESSION OF THE COSTA MESA SANITARY D ISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015 A T 9:30 A.M. IN THE DISTRICTS BOARD ROOM, 628 W. 19TH STREET. Item Number: