Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-09TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 September 19, 1969 NOTICE TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Clifton C. Miller, Chairman Lorin Griset Thomas 0. Speer Norman E. Culver Lindsley Parsons Ellis N. Porter Donald D. Shipley Supervisor Wm. Hirstein Subject: Committee Meeting -Tuesday, September 23, 1969 at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Miller has asked us to notify you that there will be a meeting of the Committee in the Districts' office at the above hour and date, as discussed at the September Joint Boards meeting. A brief report on items to be discussed is attached. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m., and dinner will be served at approximately 6:30 p.m. FAH:gc \ ~·"-.... -',,.~ _...,,. v~ . -· )J. -r' Fred A. Harper General Manager copy: Directors Smith, Hamilton and Workman NOTE: The Board of District No. 7 will meet a.t 4: 30 p .m., preceding the· Committee meeting. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 September l9, l969 NOTICE TO BUILDING COMMITTEE Thomas O. Speer, Chairman Norman E. Culver Robert Schwerdtfeger Clifton C. Miller TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Subject: Committee Meeting -Tuesday, September 23, 1969 at ~:30 p.m. Chairman Speer has asked us to notify you that there will be a meeting of the Committee in the Districts' office at the above hour and date. A brief report on i terns to ·oe discussed is attached. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m., and dinner will be served at approximately 6:30 p.m. 4.~2f~ General Manager FAH:gc CO UN TY S AN ITATION D ISTRICT S of O RANGE CO U NTY, CALIFOR N IA P. 0. BOxJtiMK 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 (714) 540·2910 (714) 91>2·2411 September 19, 1969 MANAGER 'S REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE AND BUILDING COMMITTEES Meeting Date : September 23, 1 969 , 5 :30 p.m. Chai r man Mill er has call ed th i s meeting fo r 5 :30 p .m. Dire ctors Smith , Hamilton and Workman have accepted the Cha i r man 's i nv itation to attend and to participate in the discussions . The District No . 7 Board has scheduled a meeting fo r 4:30 p .m. imme - d iatel y preceding the Co mmittees ' meeti ng .. The following is an explanation of the items of business proposed to be taken up by t he Comm ittees . ***'~*********** 1. To u r of Recen t Improveme nts at Treat ment Plant No . 2 Now that the contracts invo lving t he improvements o f the appearance of the buildings at Plant No . 2 are nearing c omp leti o n , the staff wou l d like t he Committees' members to view Plant No . 2 . We will tour the plant in Districts ' cars; therefore , we will l eave from t h e Administrative Office in Fountain Valley promptly at 5 :30 p .m. to take adv a n tage of the r ema ining daylight h o urs . The next construction phase involves pav ing and landscap ing as well as consideration of a new entrance fo r which funds have b ee n inc l uded in t his year 's budget . Also , the staff would like an expression from t h e Ex ecutive and Buildi n g Committees concerning what architectural t r eatment , if any, would be desirable fo r the new centrifuge building which is now under des i gn . 2 . Communica t i on f r om the Orange County Employee s Associ ation At the September meeting of the Boards the attached communica- tion from the Orange County Employees Associ!=l-tion was r eferr ed to the Gen eral Counsel and Executive Committee for r eview and rec ommendation . Mr . Nisson has advised us that he will be pre - s ent at the meeting t o advise the Committee 8 f the legal asp ects regarding the Association 's r equest for r ecogni t i o n and employee payroll ded u ctions for dues to the Association . • -3 . Conside r ation of a Subcontract with the State Water Resources Control Board to Establish an On -The -Job Training Course . As the Committee members will recall , in August , the Districts r eceived an offer from the Executive Officer of the State Resources Control Board to contract with the State Board to establish an on- t h e -job training program . The Districts ' staff advised the Committee that sufficient time was not avai l able to allow complete e v a l uation of the program as submitted by the State . The Committe e i nstructed the General Manager to continue discussions with the S tate r ep r e s entatives regarding this project or possibly a revised program mo r e acceptable to the Districts . The staff is now ready to recommend that we contract for an on-the -job t r aining program which has been revised to fit the needs of our Districts and the surrounding communities. As of this writing we have not received the contract documents from the State , however , we have been advised that they are o n the way . The staff would l ike to present the proposed program and how it fits in with the needs of our Districts . 4 . Fur ther Discussion on the Districts ' Proposed Industrial Waste Charge Ordinance . Si nc e the Se p tember meeting of the Boa r ds , a l etter signed by Ch airman Mill er was sent to the Or ange County Chamber of Commerce requesting that they organize an ad hoc committee to r epresent all segments of industry in the Districts and to meet wi th the Districts' staff to review the proposed ordinance in detai l. In addition, the staff mailed 60 special notices regarding the continued hearing on the proposed ordinance to the cities, Chambers of Commerce and othe rs to inform them of the J o int Boards action. To date , we have not h eard from the Orange County Chamber of Com - merce . Howeve r, we have been advised that a tentative ad hoc committee h as been selected consis ting of about 100 members and the first meeting is tentative l y scheduled for October 3rd . They plan to sel ect a steering committee from this group to work directly wi th the Districts ' staff . The staff would like to discuss this matter with the Commit tee . -. FAH :rp Fred A. Harper General Manager .JOHN H. SAWYER. GENERAL MANAGER 816 NORTH ROSS STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 September 3, 1969 Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Gentlemen: 1 am writing at this time requesting your District1 s recognition of the Orange County Employees Association as the representative of those District employees who are members of our Association. We also request your District 1 s agree- ment to payroll deduction of duly prescribed dues, and such other employee authorized deductions as insurance and dental premiums. Insurance premiums would cover group life insurance, group salary continuance, and group accidental death programs now offered to our memJ:>ers. At the present time, approximately fifty five (5 5) employees of your District have applied for membership in our Association and have designated our Organization as their representative in all matters pertaining to their employ- ment relationship with the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Your early reply to our request for recognition and payroll deduction will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION John Sawyer General Manager JHS:ar COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE. P.a. sax 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 September 19, 1969 TELEPHONES: AREA CDDE 714 540-2910 962-2411 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 Gentlemen: Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting on September 10, 1969, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting Tuesday, September 23, 1969 at 4:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Secretary II I MANAGER 'S AGENDA REPOR T County Sanit at ion Di st ric ts of Orang e County, California DISTRIC T NO. 7 Septemb er 19, 1 969 Adjourned Regula r Mee ting September 23, 1969 -4 :30 p.m . P. 0. Box 5175 10844 Ellis Avenue Founta in Valley, Calif., 92708 Tel ephones: Areo Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 The following is an explanation of the items of business to appear on the agenda for this me et ing . 5 . Prog r ess Report on Financing Mas te r Plan Facilities Mr . Edwin Wells, representing the financing consultant s empl oyed by the Di stricts to recommend mea:'.'ls by wh ich the recommended master plan facilit i es can b e f i nanced, will present a verbal r eport on thei r ac tivities to date . 6 . Remodeling Navy Way Pumping Station It i s the staff 's recommendation that Boyle Enginee r ing be e mployed to prepar e the necessary plans and specificat i ons f or the r emodeling of the °"fl avy Way Pumping Stati on (1 969 -70 budget ed i tem). We have received a l etter from the Tustin City Enginee r 's office indicating his concern o f possib l e sewage overflows from the Brovm ing Avenue subt r unk because of the present limite~ capacity of the station . The Bo ard at it 1 s September 10th meet in g authorized Bo yle En ginee r ing to des i gn the new Navy Way Force Main . 7 and 8 . Ac tio ns Relative to the Construction o f the So uth Coast Plaza Sl:btrunl\. Sewer Extens ion 7 . Consideration of Resolution No . 69 -75 -7 This resolution authorizes the exe cution of an agreement with the City of Santa Ana to provide ~unds by which the District car. construct the above mentioned sewe r ext e nsion . 8 . Approving Ai·rard of Cont r act The appa r ent J.ow bid :ce c ei v e d for this c.onstruction i s we ll wi thin the engineer 's estimat e , therefo re it is the staff 's recor.imendation that the Board apprcve i..he award of contra c t . Ii!. " 9 . Maude Annexation Resolution No . 69 -73 -7 authoriz es the annexation of 2 .9 acres to the District . Thi s property is in the Cowan Heights area in the vicinity of Brian Lane and Cowan Heights Dr ive. The proponents have paid all of the annexat i on fees r equired by the Di strict . It is the staff 1 s rec ommend ation that the annexation be approved . FAH :gc Fred A. Harper General Manager II BOARDS OF DIRE CT ORS Co unty San ita t ion Districts P. 0. Box 5175 o f O rnnge County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CaiiF., 92708 (1) (2) (3 ) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9 ) (10) (11) (12) DI STRICT No . AGENDA September 23, 1 969 -4 :30 p .m. Roll Ca ll Appo intment of Chairman pro tern, if necessar y Report of the General Manager Report of the General Counsel Verbal progress report from Bart l e We l ls As sociates, municipal financing consultants, relative to financing the construction of master p l an facilities for the Di strict . Con sideration of motion accepting proposal of Boyle Engineering, for preparation of plans and spec ifications for the Re modeling of the Na vy :·lay Pumping Station , Contract No . 7 -2AP -2 . See page 11A 11 Consideration of Resolution No . 69 -75-7, approving and authorizing execution of an ag r eement ~·rith the City of Santa Ana relat ive to the construction of the South Coast Plaza Subtrunk Sewer Extension , Contract No . 7 -lF-B. See page 11 B 11 Receive and file engineer 's written recommendation to approve the award of contract for the construction of the South Coast Pl aza Subtrunk Sewer Extension, Contract No . 7-lF-B, to for the Di strict 1 s portion of the contract cost in the amount of ; and to approve award of contract . See page C Considerati on of Reso l ution No . 69 -73-7, ordering annexation of territory to the District (Me.Ude Annexation , Annexation No . 22) • See page "D 11 Consideration of Reso lution No . 69 -67 -7, authorizing acceptance of a 15-foot easement extending approxinately 800 feet from Wi lliams Str eet bet11een 4th Street and Al liance Street in the City of Tusti~, at no cost to the District . See page 11 E 11 Other business and communications Consideration of motion to adjourn ENGINEERS• ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE (714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 September 17, 1969 Board of Di rectors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred Harper General Manager -- Part of the improvements scheduled in the 1969-70 fiscal year for the master plan of trunk facilities is the remodeling of the Navy Way Pumping Station. This facility is located in Navy V"/oy (Edinger Avenue) ;ust northeast of the Santa Ana U.S. Marine Corps Air Facility. ihe pumping station received sewage from the Browning Avenue subtrunk and pumps it one half mile northwesterly to the Gisler- Redhill trunk in Redhill Avenue. The existing pumping equipment and auxiliary structures are not adequate to maintain reliable service for the flows presently being received and those expected in the future. It is recommended that the station be expanded to full master pion capacity requirements in two phases. The first phase involves new receiving chambers outside of the existing structure to pro~rly transfer thP flow from the Browning Avenue subtrunk to the proposed pumping units. This woik wi 11 consist of building several structures with connecting pipelines approximately 20 feet in the ground with rather severe groundwater conditions present. Fhase 2 will consist of revamping the interior piping systems inside the station, installing new pumping equipment and reworking the electrical control center. It is the opinion of the district staff and ourselves that the Fhase 1 work should be done by a private contractor because of the complexities of dewatering and the structural work. In the case of the work inside the pJmping station, or the second phase, it is· our opinion that this could be best accomplished by district personnel under force account procedures. This phase requires bypassing the pumping station during the revamping of the interior piping work which is much easier coordinated and control led by the district. The total estimated ccst for remodeling including engineering, contingencies, and administrative costs is S52, 000. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AN 0 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item No. 6 A-1 District 7 Board of Di rectors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County September 17, 1969 Page Two Mr. Harper has asked us to submit a proposal for furnishing engineering services and consultation to the staff to occompl ish the work. We suggest that the per diem compensation method be employed since on a job of this type it is difficult to estimate the exact amount of engineering work required. ·we have attached a copy of our per diem rates and propose a maximum limit of $4,500 be set at this time. If during the progress of work we feel that additional engineering time is required, we wi II make a timely report to the board explaining the project position. BOYLE ENGINEERING &-tµ :-,,,.,/ -'.')".£.1).a. ~ 'V Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 f c 91-2919-05-00 Agenda Item No. 6 BOYLE ENGINEERING A-2 District 7 .. ... ENGINEERS• ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE C714l 547-4471 PROFESSIONAL AOORESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 BOYLE ENGINE.ERING 1969 RA TE SCHEDULE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Classification ENClNF.ERING/ ARCHITECTURE Consulting En~inecr/ Architect Principal En;h1~er/ Architect Senior Engineer/ Architect Associate Engineer/ Architect Assistant Engincet/ Architect DRAFTING Senior Draftsman Draftsman SURVEYING Licensed Surveyors 3-man Survey Party 2-man Suivey Party CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Resident Engineer Assistant Resident Engineer Inspector MISCELLANEOUS Clerical Travel -:rnto Travel -other than auto Telephone Printing and Blueprinting Rate $30. 00 an hour 26. SO an hour 24. 00 an hour 21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour $14. 00 an hour 12. 00 an bour $18. 00 :m hour 38. 00 an hour 29. 00 an hour $21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour 11. 00 an hour $ 7. 00 an hour 0.15 a mile Actual cost A~tuc 1 cost Cost+ 25~ Subject to revision J:wuary t, t9i0 ENGINEERING ANO ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item No. 6 A-3 District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 69-75-7 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SANTA ANA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REIATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH COAST PIAZA SUBTRUNK SEWER EXTENSION, CONTRACT NO. 7-lF-B The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement between County Sanitation District No. 7 and the CITY OF SANTA ANA, wherein the District will undertake to contract for the engineering, construction and inspection of the subject sewerage facility known as the South Coast Plaza Subtrunk Sewer Extension, Contract No. 7-lF-B, is hereby approved; and, Section 2. That County Sanitation District No. 7, will be reimbursed for services outlined in Section 1 above in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2 of the agreement; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District, in form acceptable to the General Counselo PASSED AND ADOPTED at a adjourned meeting on September Agenda Item No. 7 -B-District 7 RESOLUTION NOo 69-73-7 APPROVING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (Annexation No. 22) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7, OF ORll..NGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT "MAUDE ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY - (ANNEXATION NOo 22)" The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That application has heretofore been made to the Local .Agency Formation Commission for annexation of territory to County Sanitation District No. 7, by means of a petition filed with said Commission by the proposed owners;.and, Section 2. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Maude Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County -(Annexation No. 22)11 , the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and, Section 4. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory; and, Section 5. That annexation fees in the amount of $725.00 ($250 per acre) have been received by County Sanitation District No. 7; and, Section 6. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Division 1 {District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56261, the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be and it is hereby ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 7. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting on September 23, 1969. Agenda Item No. 9 -D-District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 69-76-7 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM REPUBLIC HOMES CORPORATIONo The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement, wherein Republic Homes Corporation grants to County Sanitation District No. 7 a permanent easement for sewer purposes, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That said Grant of Easement is accepted at no cost to the District; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting September 23, 1969. Agenda Item No. 11 E-1 District 7 '--' \..,,I ~r RESOLUTION NO. 69-76-7 SCHEDULE "A" That portion·of Lot "H" of the Stafford and Tustin Tract of Land, as shown on a map recorded in Book 2, Pages·618 and 619 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, California, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the surveyed center- lines of Main Street and Williams Street; thence, from said point of beginning s.0°00 1 48" E. along said centerline of Williams Street, a distance of 1057.84 feet; thence, S.89059'12"·W. a distance of 12.00 feet to the true point of beginning of the parcel to be described, being a strip of land, 15.00 feet in width, 7.50 feet each side,. as measured at right angles from the following described centerline; thence, from said true point of beginning S.82053'18" w. a distance of 151.97 feet; thence, S.89018'40" w. a distance of 640.00 feet to the westerly terminus thereof of said centerline of said 15' wide strip of land. Excepting therefrom that portion within the Williams Street right-of- way. ftgenda Item No. 11 E··2 District 7 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFO RNIA 10844 EL L I S AVE N U E , P.O . BOX 8127. FOU N TA IN V ALLE Y. C A LIFORNIA 927 0 8 Sept e mb er 1 9 , 1 969 T ELEP HO NES: A R EA C ODE 7 14 54 0-29 1 0 962-24 11 TO : MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTR I CT NO . 5 Gen tlemen : Pursuant to a d j ournment of the regul ar mee~ing on September 10, 1 969 , the Board of Directo r s o f Co unty Sanitation Di stri ct No . 5 wi ll meet in an adjourned r egu lar meet i ng : Monday , September 22 , 1969 at 4 :00 p .m. Newport Beach City Ha l l Ci ty Council Chambers ~II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sa ni tation Districts P. 0 . Box 5 175 of Orange County, California 10844 !;llis Aven ue Fou ntain Va l ley, Ca lif., 9 2708 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) DISTRICT No. 5 AGENDA September 22, 1969 -4:00 p .m. Roll Call Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary Report of the General Manager Verbal progress report of District 's engi neers updating the October, 1964, Sewerage Systems Study and Report Other business and communications, if any Cons i deration of motion to adjourn t I • ~ II BO P ~[)S OF o:R£<TOiilS County S:mitatio n District s P. 0. Box 5175 of O range County, Ca li fornia 108Li4 Elli s Avenue Fou nta in Valley, Ca l if., 92708 ( l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (1 2) (13) (lLq JO/J\JT BOARDS A GENDA September 10, 1969 -7 :30 p .m. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Appointments of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 13, 1 969 , as mailed DIS TR I CT 2 Con s ideration of motion approving minutes of the r egular meeting held August 13, 1969, as mailed DISTRICT 3 Consideration of moti on approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 13, 19 69 , as ma i led DIST RICT 5 Consideration of motion approving minutes of the r egular meeting h eld August 13, 1969, as mailed DIST HICT 6 Conside r a tion of motion approving minutes of t he re gul ar meet i ng held August 13, 1969, as mailed DISTRICT 7 Consid e r ation of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 13, 19 69 , as mailed DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 13, 1969, as mailed ALL DISTR IC TS Report of the Joint Chairman ALL DISTRICTS Report o f the General Manager ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Counsel ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to r eceive and file 11 I ndustr~al waste Di sposal Charges Report " dated August 1969, submitted by Bartle Wells Associates. .. (15) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion openi ng public hearing on the Districts ' proposed ordinance r e l ating t o c onne ction t o and use of Di st rict sewerage facilities A . Reading of written communicat i ons B . Ora l comments o r prot e sts C. Mo tion to close h eari ng, or c ontinue h earing to a defi nite date (1 6) ALL DISTRICTS Cons i derat i on of a ction on propo sed ordinance r e l ating to c onnect i on to and us e of District sewerage facilities (17) ALL DISTRICTS /(18) v/ (1 9) (21 ) Con s i deration of moticin appoi nting a Commissioner and an a l ternate to act i n the ab senc e of the commissioner , on the Board of the Southern California Co astal Wa t e r Resea rch Project Authority (creat ed by Joint Powers Ag r eement approved by t he Districts' Boards o n August 13th). ALL DISTRICTS Consid e r ation of motion t o r ece i ve and file report of J ohn Carollo Engineers relative to Irvine -Rive r side J o int Us e Facil ities Study; and author i z ing the staff t o n egotiate wi th Riverside and Irvine Ranch Water District in acco rdance with the r ecomr.iendations set forth in the r epo rt of John Carollo Engineers plus t en p erce nt as r e comm ended by the Executive Committee on June 24 , 1969. See p age "F '" ALL DISTRICTS Cons i derat i on of motion to re ceive and fil e the General Man ager 's recommendation , concurred in by John Carollo Engineers , that the n ego tiat ed price for c e ntrifuge equip- ment be established at $336 ,790~0 and authorizing District No. 1 to execute a purchase contract for sa:Ld equipment . ALL DISTRIC~:·s Con s id erafion of motion approving offer of the County of Orange , Depart ment of Real Property Services , to sell r eal property locate d in the Districts ' int er - plant right of way fo r a total pri ce of $6 ,100 ; and authorizing Distric t No . 1 to execute the docum ents n ecessary t o effec t sai d purchase . _See p age "G" --- ALL DISTRIC'rS Con sideration of mot i on amending motion adopted January , 1 969 , to increase the maximum number of wj.res on Ed i son Company poles to thirteen, r e l ative to joint use of r ight of way between Coast Hi ghway and Garfield Avenue , Hw~in g ton Beach ; and authori zing District No . 1 to execute t he License Agreeme nt -2 - \ti' (22) \~t (23) (24) (25 ) v (26 ) els ) ALL DISTRICTS Co n s i deration of c ommunication fr om t he Or ange County Emp l oyees ' Associati on re l at i ve t o representing those Districts ' emp l oyees who a r e members of the Association . See page 11 H11 ALL DIS TRI CTS Cons i deration of motion to rece i ve and f ile certificati on o f the General Manager that he has checked all bills a p pearing on the agenda, found them in order , and that he r e c ommends authorization for payme nt . ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating Fund and Capital Out l ay Revo l ving Fund warrant b ooks for signature of the Chai rman of District No . 1 , a n d aut horiz i ng payment of c l aims l isted on pages 11 A11 , 11 B 11 and 11C11 ' ALL DISTRICT S Ot he r bus i ness and communications , if any DI STRICT 1 Cons i deration of Resolution No . 69 -69 -1 , emp l oying Boy l e Engineering to prepare Eng i neer 's Report pursuant to p rovis i ons of the California Health and Safety Code , Secti on 4748, showing p r esent and future sewerage r equi r ements as needed by the Distri ct ; and acceptanc e of proposal submitted by Boy l e Eng i neering dated August 21 , 1969, for above sai d se r v i ces in an amount not to exceed $725 . See pages ,.,I 11 and 11 J rr DISTRIC T 7 Cons i deration of Reso l ution No . 69 -68 -7, employing Boyl e Eng i neering to prepare Engineer 's Report pursuant t o provi sions of the California Hea l th and Safety Co d e, Secti on 4748, show i ng present and future sewerage r equi rements as needed by the Distri ct; and acceptance o f proposal submitted by Boy l e Eng i neering dated August 21 , 1969, for above said services in an amount n ot to exceed $1 ,24-0 . See pages "K" and "L" DISTRICT 1 Consideration of mot i on accepting proposal of Boy l e Engineering dated August 21, 1969 , for the pre paration of p l ans and specificati ons fo r the "Lower Ma i n Street a nd Broadway Trunk " as presented i n the July , 1965 engi neer 's report, for a bas i c fee of $17,632 . See p age "M" (29) DISTR I CT 1 Consideration of motion approving warrants , if any . See page "D" (30) DISTRICT 1 Other busine ss and communications , if any -3 - (31) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn (3 2) DISTRICT 2 Conside ration of motion approving warrants, if any . See page "D" (33) DISTRI CT 2 Other business and communications , i f any (34) DISTRICT 2 / (35) (36 ) (3 7 ) (3 8) (3 9) (40 ) (41) (42) Consid e ration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 3 Con siderat i on of Reso l ution No . 69 -72 -3, approvi ng plans and specifications for Contract No . 3 -15, Mi lle r Holder Trunk Sewer Manho l e Repai r; and authorizing advertising for bids . See page "N11 DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion approving warrants , if any . See p age "D 11 DISTRICT 3 Ot her business and communications , if any DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn DIS TRICT 5 Consideration of mot ion approving warrants, if any . See page "D 11 DISTRICT 5 Other business and commun ications , i f any DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to ad journ to Se ptember 22 , at the City Hall, City of Newport Beach . DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion approving warrants , i f any . See page "E" (43) DISTRICT 6 Ot h er busin ess and communications, i f any (44) DJSTRICT 6 Consid e ration of motion to adjourn (45) DISTRICT 11 Consid e ratio n of motion approving warrants , if any . See page "E 11 (4 6 ) DISTRICT 1 1 Othe r bus iness and communications, i f any (47 ) DIST RI CT 11 Con s ide r ation o f motion t o adjourn -4- (49) ~O) (51) (52) (53) (54) DI STRICT 7 Consideration of motion accepting prop osal of Boyle Engineering dated August 21, 1 969 , for engineering s ervices for the preparation of plans and specifica tions for the Navy Way Force Main as p r esented in the "Maste r Plan Trunk Sewer Faci lities , dated May, 1 969 , for a b asic fee of $3 ,Lwo . See page 11 0 11 DISTRICT 7 Considera tion of Resolution No . 69 -67 -7 , approving and authorizing exe cution of a l icense agreement wi th the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company relative to a r ight -of -way needed in the construction of Contract No . 7 -4 -2R , Tustin -Newport Re l ief Subtrunk Sewer; and authorizing payment therefor i n the amount of $150 . See page 11 p 11 DISTRICT 7 Consid e ration of Resolution No . 69 -71 -7 , to receive a nd file bid tabulation and r e commendation and awarding Contract No . 7 -4 -2R (Tustin-Newport Re lief Subtrunk Sewer) to Byron Crume , I nc . in the amount of $41, 528 . 45 . See pages 11 Q 11 and "R" DISTRICT 7 Conside rat i on of motion approving Change Ord er No . 1 , J ob No . 7 -2R, (Redhill Relief Trunk Sewe r), granting a two -day extension of time and an addition of $1 ,815 .85 to the contract with Zarubica Company . See page 11 s 11 DIST RICT 7 Conside ration of motion approving warrants, if any . See page "E" DISTRICT 7 Other business and cormnunic ations , if any DISTRICT 7 Consid e r a tion of motion to adjourn to 4 :30 p .m., Sept ember 23 -5 - I . M ANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 5175 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephon es : II of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS Sep t ember 5 , 1969 REGULAR J:viEETI NG Wednesday, September 10, 1969 7:30 p.m. Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 The following is a brief explanation of the more important non- routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not o therwi s e se lf-exp lanatory. Warrant lists are not attached to the a genda since they are made up immediately preceding the meeting but wi ll appear in the complete agenda avai l ab le a t the meeting . * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * Joint Boards FINA L ASSESSED VA LUAT IONS AND TA X RATES: Although no further Board action is r equired > we are att aching to this report for the Directors' information a tabulation of the final assessed valuations and tax rates of the Distri cts, together with the comparable figu r es for 1968-69. No. 14 -REPORT OF BARTLE WELLS ON INDUSTRI AL WASTE DISPOSA L CHARGES: This matter is re l ated to Items Nos . 15 and 16 concerning the proposed Districts ' ordinanc e on connec tion to and use of Districts' sewerage faci liti es. Copies of the report were ma iled to all Directors prior to the August meeting and it will be considered before action on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Ed Wells, of Bartl e We lls , will be present at the meeting to answer any questions concerning the report. Nos . 15 and 16 -PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ACTION ON PROPOSED CONNECTION AND USE ORDINANCE: These matters are covered in detail in a separate report inc luded in this mailing. No . 17 -APPOINTMENT OF CO~fil~ISSIONER AND ALTERNATE FOR SOUTHERN CALI- FORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT AUTHORITY: At the August 13 Board meeting execution of a joint powers agreement for this project between the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, the County of Ventur a and the County of San Diego, was appr oved . The agr eement provides for a governing b ody of Commission~ ers representing the above agencies . Since the Authority wi ll shortly be starting to function, it is recommended that the Joint Boards a ppoint Directors to serve as the Districts' commissioner and 8.lte r nate on the board of the Authority . I , ill .. No . 18 -ENGINEER'S REPORT ON IRVINE-RIVERS I DE J OINT USE FACILITY STUDY: The Board members will recall that at the March Joint Board meeting, John Carollo Engineers were employed for a study and report concerning joint use of facilities for treatment and disposal of wastes from outside the Districts . This study orig inated from requests of the Irvine Company and the Riverside County Fl ood Control and Water Conservation District for cost figures which could be used as a basis of negotiating purchase of capacity rights, on a con - tractual basi s, in the Districts' treatment and disposal facilities. It was agreed by the Irvine Company and the Riverside agency tha t they would pay for this study. The final report has now been prepared and submitted. However since it is rather bul ky and conta ins considerabl e supporting information of general interest onl y to the staffs of the Districts a nd the outside agenc ies , we have asked the engineers to prepare a i:rnmnary of the report, which is inc1uded in the agenda material. Mr . Ha rvey Hunt, a partner of John Carollo Engineers, will be present at the meeting to answer any questions the Directors may have on this repo rt . The Executive Committee, at its meeting on June 24, wen t into this matter in considerable detai l and recommended that the Sani- t ation Districts proceed with the negotiations with Irvine and the Riverside District on the basis of the figures recomm ended in the report, p l us ten percent. The recommended motion appearing on the agenda would therefore concur i n the Executive Committee's recom- mendation and allow the staff to proceed with further negotiations in t his matter. No. 19 -PURCHASE OF CENTRIFUGE EQUIPViENT: At the August Joint Board meeting the staff was authorized to negotiate with the Bird Ma chine Company for purchase of centrifuge equipment for Plants Nos . 1 and 2 , scheduled to be instal led this fisca l year . A mee ting with representatives of the Bird Machine Company wi ll be held on the day of the Board meeting and if the purchase negotiations are completed satisfactori l y at this meeting, the action appeari ng on the agenda under this item is recommended. If the negotiations are not satis - facto rily completed , it will be recommended that action on this matter be deferred. No. 20 -PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE: The Board of Supervisors has declared surplus to the Flood Control District's needs certain small parcels of l and adj acent to the Santa Ana River between Atlanta and Hamilton Avenues in Hunting ton Beach . Some of these parcels overlap the Dist ricts' inter -plant right of way along the river for wh ich the Districts now have only easement rights . In conformity with general Board of Supervisor policy, these p a rcels are offered first to public a g encies . Since it is the goa l of the staff to obtain fee title to all of our ri g ht of way (at pres e nt a portion of the strip is owned in f ee and in the balance, our rights consist only of easements), we are recommending that the Districts purchase from t he County the available parc e ls within the right of way . The transaction consists of 19 small parcels totaling o .61 acres . The -2 - • I It' • • I ' I -- offering price of the County is $1 0,000 p er acre, o r $6,1 00 for the acreage involved . We consider this a fair price and therefore recom- mend the action appearing on the agenda under this item . No. 21 -AGREEMENT WITH EDISON CO MPANY FO R JOINT USE OF POLE LINE: In January of this year the Boa r ds aut h o r ized an agreement with the Edison Company providing for a joint use pole line between Garfie l d Avenue and the Coast Highway, under certain conditions p r escribed by the Boards . One of these conditions consisted of r est ricting to 12 the total number of wi r es on the pole line in the Districts ' right of way . Last winter 's rains caused the Edison Company to postpone this project and in their recent planni ng for construc tion, they have pointed out that under modern pol e line design the required number of circuits cannot be carried with 12 wires and that an additional neutral wire, for a total of 13, will be required. The staff is still recommending that the agre eme nt be consummated because of i ts benefits to the Districts and we are therefore suggesting that the Boards modify the former action, changi ng the restriction from 12 to 13 wi re s . No. 22 -REPRESENTAT IO N FOR DIS TRI CTS ' EMPLOYEES: We are in receipt of a lett e r on this subject, copy enclosed with the agenda materi a l , from the Orange County Employees Association . It is the staff 's recommendation that this matter be referred to the Distri cts' Legal Counsel and the Executive Committee for recommendation . Dist r icts Nos . 1 and 7 Nos . 26 and 27 -ENGINEER 'S (BOND) REPORTS FOR NEW JOINT FACILITIES: The adopted timetable of District No . 7 for financing and constructing its portion of the recent l y approved Master Plan Trunk Sewer Fa cili- ties for the t wo Districts calls for a general obligation bond i ssue election in January, 1970. Before a bond election can be held, the Sanitation District Act requires the preparation of an engineer 's report in a precisely prescribed form, describing the project . It will therefore be necessary to prepare such a report fo r public hearing, etc ., prior to planning the bond election . Although, as pointed out at the June 24 joint meeting of the two Boards, District No . 1 will be able to finance its portion of the joint facilities without the necessity of bond financing, it also appears appropriate for a similar r eport to be prepared for Dist rict No . 1 in order that the voters may obtain a comp l ete pictur e of the project . The District No . 1 report will also serve to supersede a similar report approved in October, 1965 , under which facilities constructed since· that time have been proceeding. In order to conform to the above District No. 7 schedule, we have asked Boyle Engineering to submit proposals to the two Districts for the work necessary in preparing the reports . We therefore recom- mend adoption of the two resolutions appearing under these items . The proposals for the engineering work are included with the agenda material . -I . . -3 - ... - District No. 1 No . 28 -ENGINEERING SERVICES FO R LOWER :t•iA I N STREET AND BROADWAY TRUNK: The last pro j ect under the 1965 engineer's r eport , ment ion ed above, is construction of the Lower Main Street and Broadway Trunk Sewe r , scheduled and budgeted for this fiscal year . The City of Sa nta Ana advises that this facility will be neede d as soon as . poss ible a nd we are the refore recomm ending that the engineering work c omm ence. It is expected that the actual construction a nd contract administration will be handled by the City of Sant a An a , as was the case wit h recent District p roj ect s in this City . In o rder to get this work under way, we have asked Boyl e Engineering to prepare a proposal describing the work and the services to be performed f o r the .fee propos ed. This proposal is included with the agenda materi a l and it is r ecomm ended that it be accepted. District No . 3 No. 35 -PLANS AND SPE CIFICATIONS FOR MAN HOLE REPA I R: We are now ready to proceed with this construction work , wh ich is re g ularly scheduled and pudgeted for this f iscal year. The repair is ne c essary becaus e o f serious dete riora tion , due to hydrog en sul f ide a ttack , of the concrete in several l arge manh oles on the Mi l l e r -Holder Trunk Sew er. It will be recalled that this deteriora tion has been discussed in p revious Board mee tings in connection with the l awsuit fi led by the Districts against the construction c ontractor s and supp lier and a pplicator of the concrete prot ec t ive coating installed at the time of construction. Th e engineers have advised that they will have p lans and specifications f o r thi s work ready fo r approval at this Board meeting. We therefore rec ommend the resolution included with the agen da mat8rial approving the plans and specifications and author- izing advertising for b ids to be r e cei ve d on Octobe r 6 . Dis trict No. 5 No . 41 -ADJOURNMENT TO A DA TE LATER THIS MONTH: Shuirman -Si mpson, eng ineers preparing the rep o rt updating the October, 1964, Se we r age System Study and Report, have advised that their studies ha ve p r o ceeded far enough that an oral presentation to the Board on thei r findings to date is app ropri ate . It wi l l be recalled that it was agr eed at the time thi s firm was emp loyed that such oral p r esentations wo uld be made from time to time during the c ourse of the study . It is the re fo re recommended that the Board ho l d an adjourned meeting l ate r this mon th for this p urpos e . A meeting at 4:00 p.m ., on September 22 at the Newport Beach City Hall is sugges t ed . Distric t No. 7 No . 48 -ENG I NEER I NG SERVI CES FOR CO NSTRUCTION OF NA VY WAY FORCE MAIN: We have asked the Dis trict 's engineers, Boyle Engineering , to submi t a proposa l for the necessary engineering services fo r construction of a new forc e main between the Navy Way Pump Station and Red Hill -4 - . . I - l - Avenue as scheduled and budgeted for this fiscal year . Serious difficulties were encountered during the heavy rains l ast winter because of the limited carrying capacity of the existing force main . We therefore hope to have this construction under way as soon as possi b l e . Accordingly , the proposal inc l uded with the agenda material is recomm ended for acceptance. No . 49 -LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY: This is a routine matter in connection with construction of the Tustin-Newport Re lief Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-4 -2R, bids for which were taken on September 3 (It em No . 50). No. 50 -AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TUSTIN-NEWPORT RELIEF TRUNK SEWER: Bids for this construction project, which will be financed from the City of Tustin 's connection fee fund, we re received on Septembe r 3. A bid tabulation is attached to the agenda ma terial. The engineers are a t present a nalyzing the bids and contacting references of the low b idder . A pre -awa rd conference with him has been scheduled for September 8 . A de finite recommendation for award of the contract will be made at the Board meeting. No. 51 -CHANGE ORD ER NO . 1, CONTRACT NO. 7 -2 -R: The e ngineers have negotiated with the Za r ubica Company , the contractor on this job, for construction of a mete ring vault to provide for measurement of the flow discharged from District No. 7 to District No. 1 , a s provided in the a gre em ent between the two Districts . This metering structure was not inc luded in the origina l plans and spe cifications b ecause of the indefinite status, at that time, of the unnarued road i n which the sewe r is being cons truct ed . The price quoted by the contractor for this extra work ($1 ,815.85 ) appears to the e ngineers to b e reasonable and they a nd t h e staff recommend that it be a ccepted and the formal change order, attached to the agenda material, be adopt ed . No . 54 -ADJ OURNHENT TO 4 :30 P.M., SEPTEMBER 23 : Chairman Miller has sugge sted that the Board adjourn to the above hour and date, immediate ly prececing the next scheduled me eting of the Executive Committe e, in order t o h ear a presentation f r-o::n Bartle We lls on their studies to date wi t~ regard to financing the f utu re facilities described in the May, 1969, master plan rep ort . l -5- Fred A. Harper General Ma nager \w) September 3, 1969 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Comparison of Final Assessed Valuations* and Tax Rates for the Fiscal Years 1968-69 and 1969-70. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATIONS TAX RATES District Noo 1968-69 1969-70 1968-69 1969-70 1 $ 201,412,2900 $ 211,445,3100 04417 .4415 2 737,760,0200 797,067,750.** .4263 .4261 3 844,783,650. 907,010,860. .4194 .4793 5 166,223,380. 179,817,880.** .2702 .2645 6 148,519 ,490 0 156' 103, 140. ** .2540 .2335 7 189,664,880. 222,592,760.** 04972 .4970 8 73,076,420. 77,636,6600 -0--0- 11 196,257,4900 209,497,636. .4547 .4522 $2,557,697,~200 $2, 761, 171,996. * Total Assessed Valuations include both Secured and Unsecured Valuationso ** Adjusted for Agricult.ural Preserves and/or Upper Bay Land Exchange Valuations for purposes of computing tax rates. 11 MA NAG t:'.R'S AGENDA REPOR T County San itation Distric ts of Orange Cou nty, California JOINT BOARDS P. 0. Box 5175 10844 Elli s Avenue Fountoi n Valley, Calif., 92708 ¥4§ Phone 962-2411 September 5, 1969 SPECIAL REPORT ON PROPOSED UNIFORM ORDINANCE REGULATI NG CONNECTIONS TO AND USE OF DISTRICT FACILITIES (I NDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE) A public hearin g and further considera tion on the above proposed ordinance wi ll be he l d at this meeting (Items Nos . 15 and 16). Cha irman Mi ller has suggested that the staff prepare a special report on thi s subject in view of its importanc e and because of the c ontro - versial nature of the ordinance . In ord er to bring a ll Di rectors up to date, this report will first present a bri ef chronology of events l eading to the public he aring and second, a summary of the principal objections and c ornmen ts which h ave been rec eived up unti l now . CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 1. Consideration of this matter by the Executive Committee began in Oc tober , 1967, as a r esult of an i nquiry to Dis trict No . 2 fr om a paper manufacturing company as to charges for disposal of a large daily vo l ume of paper mi ll wa ste from a proposed new p l a nt. 2. In August, 1968, at the r ecommendation of the Executive Committee , the fi rm of Bartle Wel ls, of San Fr ancisco , was emp loyed by the Joint Boards for preparation of a report a nd recommendations on establishment of industrial waste disposal charges . A copy of the f irm 's final report was previously mailed to the Directors (Item No . 14). 3. In February, 1969 , Ba rtle Wel ls submitted a pre liminary r eport and afte r study by the Exe c utive Committee, the staff and General Coun se l were di re cted to prepare a draft of a proposed ordinance 1·ri th c e rtain departures from the Bar tle Wells r ecommendations . Various d rafts of the p roposed ordinance were subsequent l y considered by the Committee . 4. In June, 1969, at the suggestion of the Executive Committee , l etters were mailed to a ll cities and Chambers of Commerce within the Districts notifying them that the Boards were considering an ordinance establishing use charges for excess industria-J. waste . 5. On Augu s t 5, 1969, the Executive Committee reviewed a final dra ft of the proposed ordinance and recommended that it be submitted t o the Joint Boards for consideration. 6. At the August 1 3 Joint Board meeting all Districts adopted a resoluti on of intention to c onsider the ordinance and ordered a public hea ring of the matte r at the Septembe r 10 Board mee ting. At the same meeting , a letter from the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce , commenting on the ordinance, was considered and the staff directed to reply to the points raised therein . 7. Between July 25 and August 26, meetings between the staff and c ommittees of the Chambers of Connnerce of Santa Ana, Fullerton, Orange County and Anaheim we r e held to discuss the ordinance provisions. 8. 0!1 August 15, a notice was mai l ed to a ll cities and Chambers of Commerc e within the Dis tricts i nviting r epresentative s to attend an informal discussion-type meeting on this subject at t he Dist rict s ' office on August 28. 9 . On August 20, a seven-page r ep l y to the above -described Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce l etter was mailed, with a copy to a ll Directors. 10. On August 28 the meeting described under I tem No . 8 was held with a l arge attendance of industrial r epresentatives and city officials. Eight Di rectors were a lso present , with Chairman Mi ller presiding . A r oster of those attending the meeting is attached, which will indicate the interest being shovm in this matter . SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS TO DATE The following is an attempt by the staff to reduce to principal c ategories the many com.ments and objections r aised at the above - described meetings and in the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce l etter . 1. Philosophy of Taxation -There have been a numbe r of comments r elative to the val ue of industry to the community and to the County as a who l e . Accordingly, some firms feel that this shoul d be considered before i mposi n g additional costs on industry for industrial waste disposa l. There is a lso some feeling that perhaps all sewerage charges should be on a use basis rather than a combination of ad valorem taxes and use charge s as now proposed . 2. Uniform App licat ion of Ordinance -A number of Di rector s and individua ls have inquired as to what the Joint Boards' reaction would be if one or more Districts do not adopt the ordinance . Although we do not believe it was ever stated as a written policy of the Boards, the Executive Committee has always gone on the assumption that it would not be appropriate for the ordinance to apply only to a portion of the area served by the Sanitation Di stricts . 3. Cost to Existing Industry -I t was pointed out that t h e annual cost for industrial waste disposal under the propos ed ordinance may amount to as much as $40,000 for some existing industries . It . was sugg ested that this unexpected additional operating cost might seriously curtail expansion plans for existing industries a nd tip the scales against establishing a n ew opera tion in Orange County. -2- 4. Purpose of Ordinance -A number of direct questions have been asked as to whether the primary purpose of the ordinance is to raise money or to regul ate quality and quantity of industrial waste discharge . Cha irman Mi ller pointed out at the August 28 meeting (as also stated in the Bartle We lls report) that the primary purpose is not to r a ise mo ney but to pla ce a portion of the cost of handling excess industrial waste on those r eceiving the service rather than to impose t hese cos ts on the general taxpayers , including other industries. It was also pointed out that the regulation of quality of industrial waste is also of paramount import ance to the proper operation of the Districts' facilities. 5. Amount of Revenue Antic i pated -Several persons have inquired as to what the annual revenue can be expe cted to be under the propose d ordinanc e and also its annual cost of admi nistration. The staff has no accurat e way of mak ing this estimate but it was stated that the figure is expected to be l ess than $500 ,000 as compared to the approximately $10.5 million revenue to be obtained by taxes in the present fiscal year. The cost of administration of the ordinance was estimated to be less than $75,000. Any excess of revenue over administration cost would have the effect of dec r easing the amount of funds necessary to be raised by t axes . 6. Delegation of Authority to General Manager -Many p rotests have been registered that the proposed o r dinance delegates too much authority to the General Manager in establishing additional rules and regul ations as to quality of industrial waste discharged. Objections were a l so voiced to a llowing t he General Manage r to limit the total volume discharged by any particul ar permittee . Chairman Mi lle r and the staff stated that as to establ ishment of additional rul es and r egul ations for quality, it would be r ecommended that the ordinance in its present form be modified to make these additional rules and r egul ations subject to Board approval after public hearing . With r egard to the authority for restricting flow permitted from any particular . establishment , the staff feels strongl y that this is necessary because of the varying sizes of the trunk sewer f aci lities at various l ocations in the Districts . In other words, it would be obviously inappropriate to a l low a volume of flow from an industry to exceed , until a ne·w facility is available, the existing capacity remaining in a trunk sewer . If any industry has objection to a limitation of this type being impo sed , an appeal procedure is set forth in the ordinance in which the industry can bring its case to the Bo a rd of Di r ectors . 7• Measureme nts of Quali ty and Qu antity -There have been many t echnical questions rais ed as to exactly how any particular industrial wast e discharge would be measured and sampled . The staff has pointed out verbally and a l so in the above -mentioned lett e r to the Santa Ana Ch ambe r of Co mme rc e , that there are a number of ways or combination of methods by which these measurements c a n be made or estima ted and a l l must have the concurrence of the discha rger at the time the p e nnit is is sued . Fai l ing thi s concurrence, there is recourse to the appeal proc edure . Technical questions as to quality measure~ents and require - ments h ave been raised as well as the cost of in-plant equipment to · meet these r equirements . The staff again pointed out that this is a question of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement between the industry and the staff as to how a ny particular set of quality require- ment s and a timetable for complianc e can be met . -3- . \5 8. Basis for Computing Allowable Discharge Without Charge - This matter was thoroughly discussed in the staff 1s reply to the Santa Ana Ch amber of Commerce letter. Chamber officia ls apparently feel that the individual industries should be given the option of determining the allowab le free discharge on either an assessed valuation or a creage basis. The staff do es not feel that this is workab le. It is quite agre eable to chang ing the basis of computing the allowab l e free discharge to the amount of assessed valuation of the industry, if the Directors determine the latter is more app r opriate . 9. Definition of Area Occupied -Some industries have stated, and the staff concurs, that the definition of area occupied in the propos ed ordinance c oul d be made more precise and a l low acreage to be comput ed as the sum of the acreage of non-contiguous parcels provided that these are a ll in one District. There was also a question raised as to whether leased space in an office bui l ding wou ld be interpreted as area occupied. This can also be handled in the modification of the defini tion. One firm , at l east, operates more than one plant in the Districts, each of whi ch produces industrial was t e . In this instance it was det ermined that one p l ant would be subject to a charge , whi l e the other wou ld not. In this c ase the staff believes it shoul d be optional with the industry as to whether to be billed for each establishment separate ly or to consider the two, or more , l ocations as one opera tion and comp ute the c harges accordingly . 10. Appeal Procedure -There have been definite protests raised a gainst the re quirement of a non-r efundable appeal fee ($1 00). These firms fee l that the fee s h oul d be r efundable if the appeal is suc c ess - ful. Co mment ·was a l so ma de t hat the re shoul d be a Special Appeals Board established betl,·reen the Board of Directors and the courts . The staff h as pointed out that the provision of the non-refundable appeal fe e was at the suggestion of the Executive Committee . 11. Use Cha r ges by Other Agencies -Questions were r aised as to s ewe r age use charges imposed by othe r southern Ca lifornia agencies outside of Orang e County . The staff reported tha t there i s a growing movement among most l a r ge sewering agenc ies throug hout the country t o impose use charges , p a rticularly on industrial waste dispos a l. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Distric ts are c onsidering the adoption of an ord inance similar in intent to our proposed ordinance but requiring an initial cash purchase of excess sewe r cap ac ity. The City of Los Angeles do e s not have a use charge , per se, but limits the volume of discharge , when nec ess ary, of indus trial waste . The City h as a lso c onsidered prop os als, for the past two years, to establish general sewer cha r ges on a ll users . The City of San Diego cha rges a l l users an amount equal t o one -half the wate r bill. The County of San Diego (s anitation district s a nd other sewe ring agencies) imposes an in- dustrial waste us e cha rge based on the formula involving volume and quality of the was t e . 1 2 . Crimina l Penalties for Violation -Some of the org anizations and firms believe that it is inapp rop riat e to provide for criminal penalti es (fine or imprj.sonrnent) in cas e of viola tion. Director Nev il suggested that no prosecution should be und e rtaken if it could be demonstrat ed that the indus try was proceeding with "due diligence" to comply with the ordinance . -4- 13. Miscel l aneous Comments -Most of the remaining comments and objections r ecei ved have been of minor or t e chnical n ature which the staff believes have been satisfactorily answered in the series of meetings described above . ' -5- Fred A. Ha r per General Manager COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P . 0 . SOXlSX'XE(. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNI A, 92708 Augu st 28 , 1969 MEETI NG DATE: Thursday, August 28 , 1969 -10:00 a .m. Di s tricts 1 Offices TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 RE: ORANGE CO UN TY SANITATION DISTRICTS 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONNECTION TO AND USE OF DIS TRICTS 1 SEWERAGE FACIL I TIES DIREC TORS PRESENT Clifton C. Mi ller , Chairman, Joint Boards Paul c. Furman , Cou nci lman William Hirstein, Chairman Dale Kro e s en , Mayor Frank Marshott, Ma.yor Rob ert J, Nevil, Mayor L. Ro Reinhardt, Mayor Don E. Smith, Mayor City of Tus tin La Palma Board of Supervisors Los Alamitos Stanton La Ha bra Fulle rton Orange STAF F MEMBERS PRESENT Jac k Ahern W. W. And erson Frans J. Arvidson Will J . Bae}~ Paul G. Brown Norman Tremblay William Clarke Ted Dunn John E . Sigler Jean Bankston OTH ERS PRESENT Nutrilite Products, Inc . Tr etoli te Div ., Petroli te Co rp . 7-Up Bottl ing Company Hun tington Beach Chamber of Commerce .. Jack A.hern W. W. Anderson Frans J. Arvids o n Will J . Back Go Ho Bailey Richard Bail ey Ro Do Barnes W. Bewley Co Wo Blo dgett Joe Bonfiglio Co H. Braithwarte Walter Bressel Bart K. Brown John Brown Walter R. Brown John -Burke Warren Cavanagh John B. Dannelley Ro So Dod son Be rt Downey Don Druery Bert Duffin Gary P. Dysart Don Farmer To Ho Ferguson R. Ho Fi l ius Jim Fletcher Ray Gentry Harry Gould Bi ll Haas Jo C o Harper No D. Helmer J. Do Hitt Bert Huffin Frank Hughes Go Ko Jacobs Fo E. Johnson Ho Co Johnson Dani el Kavanagh John Kohler Bo A. LaFever Ben Levin J ohn M. Lindsay Will Lindsay) Jr. Stan Loft Ed Lynch J. E. Madigan Robert K. Maize Jim Ma lek George Maxwe ll J. Do Mois e Nutrili te Products) Inc . Tretolite Di v .) Petrolite Corp . 7-Up Bottling Comp a ny Huntington Deach Chamber of Commer ce Dart I ndustries Uniroyal) Inc. Con o l on Corporation Uni on Oil Hunt-Wesson Foods Royal Industries Cal Colonial Chemso l ve Garden Grove Sanitary Dist. Wo Jo Voit Rubber Corp. Go Jo Fibres Kwiks et Lock§ City of Santa Ana City of Westnunster Alum-A-Therm McDonnell Douglas Corp. Bor g~Warner Controls Collier Carbo n & Chemical Georg ia-Pacific Corp. Fullerton Arnold Engineering Co. Ad9hr Farms Anaconda Wire & Ca ble Co. Arnold Engineering Co. Kerr Glass Compan y Wo Jo Voit Rubbe r Corp. Fullerton Chamber of Commerce City of Orange West American Rubber ITT Cann on Electric Georgia-Pacific Corp. National Biscuit Aerojet-General Corp . Industria l Engineers Kerr Glass Company Anodyne) Inc . Humko Products Arrowhead Puritas Waters Alpha Beta Acme Markets) Inc .· Orange Co. Chamber of Co mme rce Orange Co. Ch ambe r of Comm e rce Humko Products C-L Ch emi cal Products Kwikset Locks Hyer Hardware Mfg. Co. Kim berly-Clark San ta Ana Ch ambe r of Comm erce West in~house Electric Corp. Pat Nardulli W. Ao Ni cholson Bruc e A. Packard J. Pliner Robert Roggers H. w. Sammer Charl es Sapp Wi l liam H. Schalber Ralph Sho9k Mo E o Skilling Co Po Smith Do n L. Smith W. Eo Snyder Wi lliam Steele Gary P. .Stetzel J ames Stock Lucien D. Truhill Ted Truscott J oe Truxaw Charles Urmy C. Eo Van Hoy Ar thur A. Weaver Bi l l Weller Go Wi npenny Don Wysopal c. Young Conrad Hohener, Jr . Na t Neff C-L Ch e mical Products Un i versal Foods City of Pl acenti a Gen eral Tire Ma r k Steel Stamp Hun t -Wesson Foods Alpha Beta Acme Mkts .,Inc. City of Anaheim Yo r ba Linda County Water Dist. Northrop Corp . Hunt-Wesson Foods To wnsend Company Embee Plating Babcock Electronics Hunt-Wesson Foods Standard Oil Co. of Calif. Orange Co. Chamber of Commerce Alpha Beta Acme Mkts .,Inc . Ci ty of La Palma Ke r ns United .An aconda Wire & Cab l e Co . B. J. Fibres Sprayon Products, Inc . S PS Western General Tire & Rubber Ca l va Dairy Boyle Engineering Nat Neff Engineering .-:~ 696t 'Ot ~aqwa~clas SiliN~oocr DNI~HOdcinS CINV SNOI~n~os~H ...!!..----:---• T T WARRANT NO. 11705 11706 11701 ~1708 11709 11710 11711 11712 11713 11714 11715 11716 11717 11718 11719 11720 11721 11722 11723 11724 11725 11726 11727 11728 11729 11730 11731 11732 '--f1733 11734 11735 11736 11737 11738 11739 11740 11741 11742 11743 11744 11745 11746 11747 11748 11749 11750 11751 11752 11753 11754 11755 11756 11757 ~1758 J.1759 11760 11761 11762 11763 11764 11765 JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF A-1 Tool Rebuilders, Inc., Small Tools Abbey Rents, Chair Rental for IW Meeting All Bearing Service, Inc., Bearings City of Anaheim, Power Anaheim Dodge, Truck Parts The Anchor Packing Co., Pump Packing Atlas Stationers, Office Supplies Tommy Ayres Chevrolet, Truck Parts Beacon Auto Parts, Inc., Small Hardware Beckman Instruments~ Inc., Test Equipment Bell Pipe & Supply Co., Valves Bell's Radiator Service, Truck Repair Blower Paper Co., Maintenance Supplies Bruner-Division of Calgon, Pump Repair $ Butler Compressor & Spray Equipment Co., Paint Equip. John Carollo Engineers, Engineering Services Certified Building Materials, Cement Charles Bruning Co., Reproduction Supplies Chrome Crankshaft Co., Inc., Engine Repair City Wide Air Conditioning, Air Cond. Repair Clayton Manufacturing Co., Valves Clow Corp., Piping Supplies Coast Insurance Agency, Insurance Premium College Lumber Co., Inc .• ,. Small Hardware & Lumber Continental Emsco Co., Small Hardware Control Specialists, Inc., Valve Repair Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Costa Mesa County Water Dist., Water Davey's Locker Inc., Boat Rental for Ecology Survey De Guelle & Son's Glass Co., Bldg. Maintenance Supp. bept. of Fish & Game, Ecology Permit Dunton Ford, Truck Parts Eletric Supplies Dist., Elect. Supplies The Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Research & Monitoring Fischer & Porter Co., Controls Fowler Equipment, Inc., Crane Rental Freeway Machine & Welding Shop, Drive Shafts General Electric Supply Co., Electric Supplies General Telephone Co. Georgia Pacific Corp., Chlorine Harbor Clinic, Pre-Employment Physicals Fred A. Harper, Various Mtg. & C.O.D. Expenses Haskel Engr. & Supply Co., Valves Hersey-Sparling Meter Co., Meter Hertz Equipment Rental, Equipment Rental James E. Hilborn, Employee Mileage Hines Wholesale Nurseries, Shrubbery Howard Supply Co., Small Hardware, Pipe City of Huntington Beach, Water Ingersoll-Rand, Compressor Parts International Harvester Co., Truck Parts Johnston Pump Co., Pump Parts Jones Chemicals, Inc., Disinfectant Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe King Bearing, Inc., Drive Chain, Bearings Kleen-Line Corp., Janitorial Supplies Knipper's Rentals, Equipment Rental LBJ Crane Rental Service, Inc., Crane Rental LBWS, Inc., Small Hardware, Tools, Welding Supplies L & N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Rental Judy Lee, Employee Mileage -A- AMOUNT 48.70 14.40 455.53 12.50 19.77 207.52 212.75 10.13 18.23 519.75 132.30 . 72.00 71.37 43.78 268. 61 209.56 44.10 68.27 125.00 44.oo 11.25 159.37 4.oo 158.22 149.48 93.31 267.89 6.oo 450.00 47.00 5.00 8.27 254.69 3,645.00 100.00 326.50 388.50 114.35 301.32 23,940.95 118.oo 44.40 119.07 83.85 28.00 11.40 236.25 874.23 7.30 283.61 54.14 43.14 582.75 243.43 1,151.24 187.54 90.00 90.00 372.75 906.28 10.50 T WARRANT NO. 11766 11767 11768 11769 1.1770 ~1771 11772 11773 11774 11775 11776 11777 11778 11779 11780 11781 11782 11783 11784 11785 11786 11787 11788 11789 11790 11791 11792 11793 11794 1.1795 ~1796 11797 11798 11799 11800 11801 11802 11803 11804 11805 11806 11807 11808 11809 11810 IN FAVOR OF R. w. McClellan & Sons, Inc., Paving, Mtce. Supp. $ Mack Trucks, Inc., Truck Parts Main Photo Service,. Photo Processing Metropolitan Supply Co., Fittings City of Newport Beach, Water C. Arthur Nisson, General Counsel Retainer Co. of Orange Auditor-Cont., Juv. Court Work Pgm. Orange County Radiotelephone . Orange County Water Works, Sewer Cleaning Water O'Reilly Bros. Glass Co., Door Repair Pacific Telephone Co. Palm Stationers, Office Supplies Postmaster, Postage Douglas E. Preble, Employee Mileage Radio Products Sales, Inc., Electric Supplies The Register, Subscription Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Rewind Shell Oil Co., Gasoline The Sherwin-Williams Co., Paint Supplies A. H. Shipkey, Inc., Tires & Tubes Signal-Flash Co., Inc., Traffic Control Equip. Rental Smith Bros. Co., Metal Work So. California Edison Co. Southern Counties Gas Co. Speed-E-Auto Parts, Truck Parts Southern Calif. Water Co. Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp., Bottled Water Standard Oil Co., Engine Oil John w.·stang Corp., Euclid Dewatering Star-Lite Electronic Co., Traffic Control Rental Stilley's Photo Supplies, Photo Supplies Superior Scaffold Co., Scaffolding T & H Equipment Co., Tractor Parts C. o. Thompson Petroleum Co., Solvent Triangle Steel & Supply Co., Small Hardware Two Guys Discount Dept. Store, Ecology Surv. Equip. Union Oil Co., Gas & Service Van Waters & Rogers, Test Equipment John R. Waples R. s., Odor Consultant AMOUNT 315.00 40.46 5.29 133.21 435.18 700.00 500.00 297.30 2.00 191.38 194.70 9.61 150.00 69.10 61.67 16.50 112.57 464.54 108.10 381.53 9.34 18.64 11,376.28 443.06 121 •. 99 4.30 89.68 174.70 145.14 93.00 45.74 . 711. 96 345.17 36.95 41.59 90.52 8.03 364.51 211.90 137.87 414.98 warren & Bailey Co., Inc., Plastic Tubing Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Inc., Engine Parts Welch's Concrete, Concrete Wilson Engine & Equipment Co., Truck Parts World Travel Bureau, Inc., Wash. & Woodward Gov. James Wybenga, Employee Mileage 62.56 2,364.55 Confs. 408.00 21.45 TOTAL JOINT OPERATING $ 60,497.30 -B- -.~ T WARRANT NO. 11811 11812 ~.1813 '-11814 11815 11816 11817 CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS. IN FAVOR OF John Carollo Engineers, Engr. Services-Plant Const.$ J. E. Hoagland & W. w. Hoagland, Contractor P2-14 AMOUNT 13,924.77 19,356.30 20,750.85 80,532.00 16,357.20 W. w.·Hoagland, Cont~actor I-7-2 Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., Contractor J-10 Santee Construction Co., Haul Earth Fill Twining Laboratories, Testing P2-14 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING OCEAN OUTFALL #2 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REVOLVING FUND IN FAVOR OF Raymond G. Osborne Labs, Testing J-10 TOTAL INSPECTION REVOLVING TOTAL JOINT WARRANTS -c- 22.00 $ 150,943.12 $ 1,941.50 $ 1,941.50 $ 213,381.92 WARRANT NO. 11818 '819 Yls20 11821 11822 11823 '-v' 11824 11825 ~ 11826 DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF .Boyle Engineering, Inspection & Survey 2-10-9 Lowry Engineer~ng Science, Survey 2-12 Meriwether Investment Company, Assignee of Charles L. Burch & Sons' Inc. Contractor 2-10-9 DISTRICT NO. 3 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engineering-Manhole Repairs ACCIDvruLATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS _ IN FAVOR OF Anaheim Sewer Construction, Utility Locations- 3-11, 3-13 & 3-14 . Boyle Engineering, Engineering & Survey 3-11, 3-12 3-13 & 3-14 . DISTRICT NO. 5 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Ci.ty of Newport Beach, Con11. Chg. Adm. Shuirman-Simpson, Engineering Service ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF B & M Excavating Inc., Contractor 5-16 -D- AMOUNT $ 1,186.50 1,178.00 46,122.90 $ 48,487.40 $ 1,952.00 $ 973.01 4,416.85 $ 5,389.86 $ 7' 341.86 $ 40.00 610.00 $ 650.00 $ 2,334.21 $ 2,984.21 WARRANT NO. 11827 11828 11829 11830 11831 11832 11833 DISTRICT NO. 7 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engr. Serv.-Plan Check and Inspection . ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engr. Serv.,-Survey and Inspection 7-2R Zarubica Company, Contractor 7-2R FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, License Fee 7-4-2R Keith and Associates, Engr. Serv. 7-2D-P The Tustin News, Legal Ad 7-4-2R Wallace Trade Bindery Co., Plans & Specs 7-4-2R -E- AMOUNT $ 829.00 $ 2,278.00 64,392.70 $ 66,670.70 $ 150.00 1,034.oo 5~.33 3 .23 $ 1,277.56 $ 68,777.26 --~"'"""--------J 0 H N CAR 0 LL 0 ENGINEER 5------------- Phoenix, Arizona Laf ayefte, California El Paso, Texas ~OHN A. CAROLLO, P.E. Reply to: ROBERT M. BRERETON, P.E •• H. HARVEY HUNT, P.E. HOWARD M. WAY, P.E. ROBERT G, WILLIAMS, P.!:. 3688 MT. DIABL.O BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549 ooNALo R. PREISLER, P.E. August 21, 1969 Boards of Directors Coun"ty Sanitation Districts 1, 2, 3, 5 1 61 7 and 11 of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Gentlemen: AREA CODE 415 The General Manager of the Districts authorized our firm by letter dated March 13, 1969, to proceed with a study of the feasibility and · costs involved to treat and dispose of wastes originating out~ide of the present Districts 1 boundaries. This authorization was pursuant to acceptance of our proposal dated February 10, 1969. We submit herewith a summary of the report on the Irvine-Riverside Joint Use of Facili~ies Study. This summary sets forth our findings as to the costs involved for the Districts to treat and dispose of wastes originating outside of the present Districts 1 boundaries. These costs can be used as a basis for determining a fair amount to charge for treatment and disposal services, should the Districts desire to contract with other agencies for providing such services. Very truly yours, HHH/ls Agenda Item #18 F-1 All Districts 283·3895 SUMMARY OF REPORT on ·IRVINE-RIVERSIDE JOINT USE OF FACILITIES STUDY for COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY l969 This report presents estimates of costs for the Districts to jointly treat and dispose of wastes from Irvine Ranch Water District and wast.es originating in the Santa Ana River basin above Orange County (in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), along with the Districts' wastes. It also suggests a basis for charging outside agencies for set- . vice by the Districts. Capital Costs (Capacity Purchase) Facilities required to provide primary treatment and disposal of the projected wastewater flows were determined and land requirements were investigated. Costs to provide treatment a.nd disposal facilities which the Districts have experienced to date were summarized and updated. Estimates were then made of the cost to provide the required treatment and disposal facilities for the joint agencies. All costs and estimates are at present worth based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) Index for . ' I...os Angeles of 1300. Overall costs were then converted to unit costs for providing primary treatment and disposal facilities for wastes originating outside the present Districts 1 boundaries. Costs for solids handling facilities were broken out for use in deter mining unit costs to handle excess solids. Agenda Item #18 F-2 All Districts The future unit cost to the Districts for providing primary treatment and disposal facilities are estimated as set forth below. Costs shown are for a one million gallon per day (MGD) increment of treatment capacity. Item Construction Cost (Primary Treatment) Land Cost Charge for Unused Capacity *Based on an ENR of 1300 Cost per MGD Average Flow $313,740 10,000 62,500 $386, 240::: Rounding off, use a figure of $385, 000/MGD average flow which corresponds to $232, 000 per MGD of peak flow or $149, 000 per cubic foot per second peak flow. This is based on a peak to average , flow ratio of 1. 66 to I. The construction cost represents the unit cost at today's prices to construct one million gallon per day (MGD).of pri- mary treatment and disposal capacity assuming the treatment capacity is expanded in 12 MGD increments. The land cost above represents the cost of one third (1 /3) of an acre at $30, 000 per acre. One third (1 /3) of an acre of land is required per million gallons of primary treatment capacity constructed. The charge for unused capacity above represents a return at 5 percent (5%) interest on the investment the Districts must · carry in facilities which are not operating at f:1~1 capacity such as headworks facilities, interplant pipelines and ocean disposal facilities. Plate 1 herein shows the projected.investmen~ the Districts must carry in unused treatment and disposal capacity. In a schedule such as that set forth above, the recovery of money required to replace the original facility could be by obtaining 1 /30 Agenda Item //18 All Districts 2 to ti 1&.11 40 u a: ~ 20 ,.,.,,,.- ~ ~ 0 1970 1975 1960 3 f 'Yo CAPAC l'Y USED Bt IRVINE 8 RIVERSIDE ~ ... -----('"23.8% -50 YEAR AVEl!A ,£ ~ --"--19.6% • ~OYEAR AVERAiiE 1985 1990 1995 2000 1005 ZOIO 1015 2010 !!!B .160 I 140 ~ 20 ~YEAR ::~GE-166 UOLr ~'~ .'11llllll111Illill~ril~l!~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 'YEAR COSTS© E.N.R.(LA.): 1300 Agenda Item #18 F-4 2010 2015 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT REQUl RED FOR UNUSED CAPACITY JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS PU OEN IX LAf AYETTE EL PASO .AJJ Districts 2020 PLATEN°- J . 4 of the construction cost each 'year. ($10, 458/yr/MGD updated to the current ENR cost index). This would insure a continu.ous capacity right. The above cost would include treatment and ~isposal of a waste containing a normal amount of solids. If the wastes contai~ed suspended solids in excess of 25~ milligrams per liter (MG/L), the Districts should charge a.:n additional amount to cover additional capital costs of solids handling. Unit costs for handling excess solids on a tonnage basis are estimated as set forth below. handled. Item Jnterest on Construction ·cost Capital Depreciation Interest on Land Cost *Based on an ENR of 1300 Cost per ton of Excess Solids $11. 64 3. 51 • 34 $15. 49~~ Rounding off, use a figure of $15. 50 per ton of excess solids Recovery of the capital cost of solids handling facilities should be on the above basis when the suspended solids exceed 250 MG/Las an occasional occurrence. However, if a discharger from outside the Districts should decide to discharge, on a continuous basis, solids which had already been removed from domestic wastewater and/or industrial solids, the discharger should purchase capacity rights in additional solids handling faci~ities at the plant. Unit costs for purchase of capacity rights. are estimated as shown below. Item Construction Cost Land ~:Based on an ENR of 1300 Cost per ton of solids processed/ day $85,000 2,500 $87, soo~:: In a schedule such as that set forth above the recovery of money Agenda Item //18 F-5 All Districts required to replace the original facility could be by obtaining 1 /30 of the construction cost each year. ($2, 850. Ob p"er ton processed per day up- dated to the current ENR cost index). 5 The Districts presently construct expansions of their primary treatment facilities in 12 MGD increments. It is thought that this would be a reasonable increment to use in purchasing capacity rights in the Districts I joint treatment facilities. Plate 2 which follows shows the rate at which the outside agencies would be required to buy increments of treatment capacity if flows would develop as projected. Note that Plate 2 assumes 12 MGD increments at $385, 000 per MGD of capacity. The $385, 000 per MGD is actual cost. It may be that the· Districts will elect to add some ~mount to the actual cost for incentive in which case the curves indicated on Plate z· should be adJ':lsted accordingly. The above costs can be used as a basis for determining a fair am~unt to charge for the capital cost of primary treatment and disposal, i. ea capacity purchase, of wastes originating outside of the present Districts' boundaries. H and when other treatment, in addition to that presently .provided, is required, additional facilities would be necessary. Provisions should be made in any treatment and disposal of wastes contract for additional capital charges if any change in the type of treatment should be required. Operation and Maintenance Costs In addition to charging for capital costs {capacity purchase}, it will obviously be necessary for the _Districts to impose charges for the additional ope ration and maintenance expense incurred by reason 6:f the additional load .. These charges should logically be in proportion to the additional waste water and/or solids handled. Therefore, in any contract Agenda Item /f 18 F-6 All Districts \,,,,,,/ """' ~. 0 (.? 120 100 :E 80 I ;: 9 La.. w (.? <( 0: 60 w 40 ~ ._ 20 0 - • 1970 ' ;, ---------~ 1975 6 IRVINE 41.195 - ~ 36.96 32.34 ~,,. / ACCUMUl .ATED COST-I> ,,/ -{ / ·" ~ -PREDICTED FLOW. ./' ~ . .. 1980 1985 1990 1995 YEAR Assume 12 M.G.D. Increments 8 $ 385,000/M.G.D. Avorooe Flow. RIVERSIDE : 27.72 I &; 3.IOQ 98 oO a.4swq,, ~g 3.86 --10. :l-!" ~~ ::> '-"" .24 u 0 <C .62 0 2000 ~o.-----~~~.-~--~~.-~~~~-,...~~~~---r----~~------1~~~~---f t-o . I ~ (!) ~~19.640 :E 18.48() ' 40 oo ;:: . 13.SGW 0 g ~o ~ <(o 9.24..J g w 20 ::> <!> FLOW ~..: <( -4 G? :::::> E.~ -~ . -0 ......... w . 0 ~ > 0 0 <( <( 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR Agenda Item /118 F-7 FLOW 8 COST INCREMENTS · 'RIVERSIDE-IRVINE JOHN. CAROLLO ENGINEERS .111110 /&1 1969 PLATE N~2 All Districts I ~ I i t ' t f t- ' : i i \,,,,;) '..,I '-...,.,J entered into with outside agencies for sewerage service, the Districts · will probably wish to provide that the former pay for operation and maintenance costs on a formula basis depending on measured flow and solids content. These costs can be determined from the Districts' cost accounting system and should be payable at least annually. They should also be. adjusted periodically to reflect possible increased (or decreased) future costs as computed from time to time. Agenda Item #18 F-8 All Districts 7 ~~·-. -.:--. ~ - August 15, 1969 EOl-205, 206 . OF Santa Ana River Channel DEPARTMENT OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES 115 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: 834-2550 AREA CODE 714 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. o. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California Attention: Norman R. Trembley STANLEY E. KRAUSE DlltCCTOR GEORGE H. CORMACK0 SRA MANAGEMENT DIVISION .iosEPH A. HENNESSEY ACQUISITION DIVISION JACK YOUNC 0 SRA VAl.UATION DIVISION Your August 11, 1969 letter indicates that your Sanitation District would like to acquire from.the Flood Control District only the real property rights existing within your District's interplant right of way. For clarification, the property you desire to purchase is shown in blue on the attached map. Each parcel has been recalculated by the Flood Control Distric~ Engineers. The portion of the subject parcels you wish to purchase has been appraised on the basis of con- tributing $0.23 per square foot to the total market value of all the excess parcels considered as one sale. Since all the property you will be acquiring is in the $0.23 per square foot zone, the sale price to you is a result of the total area to be transferred multiplied by $0.23. This amounts to $6,111.27, or an even $6,100.00 when rounded to final sales price. A summary of area calculations and price computations is ·attached for your reference. Notify us in writing as soon as your Board officially agrees to the $6,100.00 sales price and I will draft an agreement for this transaction. lJ.i.'bJ~ee ~-nt12/v.t-Darro l d D. MyetJs Real Property Agent DDM/mmv Agenda Item # 20 G-1 All Districts l EDISON C.OMPANY SUBSTATlON ~ -----------.----. ~ ·- R\~HT OF WAY l=OR SE..W'E.R PURPOSES, APPROX. SO' WIDE., OWNED BY COUNTY' -- .SANITATION OISTRlC.T5 PARC.EL OWNED IN FEE BY C.S.D.O.C... -- S\-\AOE.D A~EA.!> lND\C::ATE. E.)(C.E.~S PAR(.E\..S OV'JNED BY CRA~GE COUNrY' F"LOOO CO~TROl. OlSTR\C.T To .. cil Area 1n R JW Owned by C-. S.O. 0. C. . . :ow11ed by o.c.i:-.c.o. Owriecl by ofhe..-:a PARC.EL 0"'1NE0 BY I. 33·At:.. , 01 Ac.. . ,(of Ac.. . 71 AG. C..lTV OF" HUNT\NGTOt-J Sch. I l-l AM t LTO r'1.---1---1--A_V_E_._-+------,-- l. _~~rl~ T~om ~ ?O /All Districts I .IOHN H. SAWYER. GENERAL MANAGER 816 NORTH ROSS STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 835-3355 September 3, 19 69 Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County · 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain valley I California Gentlemen: I am writing at this time requesting your District's recognition of the Orange County Employees Association as the representative of those District employees who are members of our Association. We also request your District's agree- ment to payroll deduction of duly prescribed dues, and such other employee authorized deductions as insurance and dental premiums. Insurance premiums would cover group life insurance, group salary continuance, and group accidental death programs now offered to our members. At the present time, approximately fifty five (55) employees of your District have applied for membership in our Association and have designated our Organization as their representative in all matters pertaining to their employ- ment relationship with the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Your early reply to our request for recognition and payroll deduction will be greatly appreciate.cl. Sincerely, ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ~!_44~~~"'' John ~ Sawyer . General Manager JHS:ar REPRESCJHlNG Mo:~E Hi1-\r--J 5SOO ORAi':lGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES --------. ·----'--~-- Agenda .Item II 22 -H-All Districts RESOLUTION NOo 69-69-1 EMPLOYING ENGINEERS A RESOLUTION OF THE .BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo l OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, EMPLOYING SANITATION ENGINEERS AND DIRECTING SAID ENGINEERS TO PREPARE REPORT The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section l. County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, does hereby employ Boyle Engin~ering, Civil Engineers, to make a survey and report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 4748, showing the present and future sewerage requirements for the District. Section 2. That the Engineers prepare and file a report with the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. l setting forth: (a). A general description of existing facilities for sewage collection, treatment, and disposal, or a general description of existing facilities for refuse transfer or disposal, or both. (b). A general description of the work proposed to be done to carry out the objectives of the Districto (c). A general plan and general specifications of the work. (d)o A general description of the property proposed to be acquired.or damaged in carrying out the work. (e). A map showing th~ boundaries of the District and in general the location of the work proposed to be done, property taken or damaged, and any other j_nformation useful to an understanding of the proposed work. (f)o An estimate of the cost of the proposed work. Section 3. That said Engineers are hereby employed to do the work hereinabove set forth for the fee of $725.00 in accordance with the terms of their proposal dated August 21, 1969. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 10, 1969. Agenda Item #26 -I-District No. 1 ENGINEERS o ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 August 21, 1969 Board of Directors Co.unty Sanitation District No. of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Va I ley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper In response to a request from your general manager, we are pleased to submit our proposal for preparing an engineer's report setting forth require.ments for sewage collection foci lities for present and future requirements of the district. The report will incl!Jde both those facilities to be constructed in ioint participa- tion with County Sanitation District No. 7 and independently by District No. 1 • This report will be prepared in accordance with Section 4748 of the Health and Safety Code of the Staf·e of California. We propose to prepare the engineer's report for a fee of $725. We further propose that al I plates and copy for the report will be prepared by this office and all costs of reproducing and binding the required copies of the report wil I be billed at cost to the district. We are prepared to proceed immediately with the preparation of the report and estimate that the report should be complete for presentation at your regular meet.ing in October, 1969. Respectfu I ly submitted, On..t.MU :J~h11,xJ1 µ .. Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer pp PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING Agenda Item #26 A N D· ARCH ITF.CTU RAL SERVICES -J-District No. 1 RESOLUTION NOo 69-68-7 EMPLOYING ENGINEERS · A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, EMPLOYING SANITATION ENGINEERS AND DIRECTING SAID ENGINEERS TO PREPARE REPORT The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, does hereby employ Boyle Engineering, Civil Engineers, to make a survey and report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 4748, showing the present and future sewerage requirements for the District. Section 2. That the Engineers prepare and file a report with the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 setting forth: (a). A general description of existing facilities for sewage collection, treatment, and disposal, or a general description of existing facilities for refuse transfer or disposal, or both. (b)o A general description of the work proposed to be done to carry out the objectives of the District. {c). A general plan and general specifications of the work. (d). A general description of the property proposed to be acquired or damaged in carrying out the work. (e). A map showing the boundaries of the District and in general the location of the work proposed to be done, property taken or damaged, and any other information useful to an understanding of the proposed work. (f). An estimate of the cost of the proposed worko Section 3. That said Engineers are hereby employed to do the work hereinabove set forth for the fee of $1,240000 in accordance with the terms of their proposal dated August 21, 19690 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 10, 1969. Agenda Item # 27 -K-District No. 7 ~. ~~·n-·~~ . ,~;!_~ L::l/ -~ ENGINEERING 0 ENGINEERS e ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE (714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 August' 21, 1969 Boord of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Volley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper In response to a request from your general manager I we are pleased to submit this proposal for preparing on engineer's report setting forth requirements for sewage collection facilities. to meet the present and future requirements of the district. The report wi II be based on the recently completed master plan of trunk sewer facilities and prepared in accordance with Section 4748 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. We propose to prepare -the engineer's report for a fee of $1 , 240. · We further propose that all plates and copy for the report will be prepared by this office and that all costs of reproducing and binding the required number of copies will be billed at cost to the district. We ore prepared to proceed immediately with the prepa.ration of the engineer's report, and it is estimated it should be completed for presentation at your regular meeting in October, 1969. Respectfully submitted, <!bt-t1UU ~t-JlM~'0 (2_ Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer pp PROFESSIONAL ENGINEEHING AND. ARCHITE:CTURAL S E R V I C Es' Agenda Item #27 T -.LJ-District No. 7 ENGINEERS o ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 • TEL.EPHONE (714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 August 21, 1969 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 1 ~f Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager Gentlemen: Pursuant to Mr. Harper's request / we are pleased to submit our proposal for furnishing engineering services for the preparation of plans and specifications . for the "Lower Main Street and Broadway Trunk" as presented in the engineer's report for County Sanitation District No. 1, doted July, 1965, by Boyle Engineering. The proposed facility will begin at Main Street and Dyer Road where it is to be connected into the district's existing Dyer Road tnmk, extend northerly along Main Street to Broadway Place, continue northerly along Broadway / and finally connect to the "Upper Main Street and Broadway Trunk" on Edinger Avenue. The trunk will consist of approximately 3700 feet of 30-inch pipe and 3300 feet of 27-inch pipe. The total estimated cost of the proiect including construction, engineering, inspection, end incidental costs is $350,000. When this proiect is finally placed into s~rvice, master pion requirements for the central portion of District No. ·1, as outlined in the 1965 report, will have been met. We understand the city of Santa Ana will be the contracting agent for the district and provide the construction staking and inspection services as hos been done on past pro jccts for District No. 1 • PflOFESSIONAL ENGINC::E"RING AND. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda I~em # 28 · M-1 District No. 1 ·Board pf Directors County Sanitation District No. 1 Ai.gust ·21, 1969 Page Two· Based on this premise, we will perform the following professional engineering service$ for the proposed facility. a. Hold conferences with representatives of the district, property owners, city of Santa Ana or leasees involved and other public agencies and others, to review and discuss al I aspects of the proiect. b. Make arrangements for and coordination of field surveys, soils investigations, and paveme.nt coring. c. Prepare preliminary engineering studies and design for review and approval. d. Prepare engineering data for regulatory permit applications that may be required by the Orange County Flood Control District and Sout~ern Pacific Company. e. Prepare detail plans and specifications.· f. Prepare estimates of quantities and costs. g. Deliver the original tracings of the plans and reproducible plates of the specifications for the district's use in preparing the necessary number of copies for record purposes, distribution to prospective bidders, etc. h. Assist the city of Santa Ano or its agent in securing bids, tabu lotion and analysis of bid results and in letting of contract. i. Check shop and working drawings as may be submitted by the contractor. i. Review laboratory reports on mate~ials tests and inspections ond correlate such reports with the intentions of the plans and specifications. k ~ Furnish consultation and advice to the city and/ or district or its agent during construcf-ion. I. Furnish periodic observations of construction work and progress and provide appropriate reports to the district. DOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda .rtem #28 M-2 District No. 1 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. ~t.Q~s t 21., 1969 Page Three m. Observe inti al operation of the proiect, witnessing performance tests .as required by the specifications and reporting same to the district and city. n. Make a final in~pection and report of the completed proiect with a representative of the city or its agent. o. Prepare record drawings ("as-constructed") when construction work has been completed and accepted by the district. This shall mean the original tracings of the plans wil I be modified, if necessary, because of deviations from the original work. Modifications to the original tracings will be based upon information supplied to the engineer by the city. The original tracings after being modified will become district property. We propose to provide the services in items 11 0 11 through 11 0 11 for a basic fee of $17,632. It is suggested that payment be monthly on a percentage completed basis up to 90 percent at time of delivery of plans and specifications with 100 percent payment when the work is completed and accepted by the district. There will be field surveys required in order to prepare the plans and specifications. These surveys wil I include taking topography and culture within the proiect limits. We propose that al I fie Id surveys necessary for design be performed on a per diem basis at our current per diem rates, a copy of which is attached to this proposal. · If any revisions are required by maior changes in the scope of the proiect after the preliminary drawings are approved or after the final plans are completed and such revisions are ordered by the district, we wi 11 perform such additional work at the current per diem rate. · We propose that all outside services that are required and approved by the . district such as soils investigations, paving coring, and plant inspection for quality control for materials used on proiect construction will be paid directly by the district upon presentation of a statement of such outside services with the engineer's certification. If we are authorized to proceed wH-h this work at the S;pterl:a-10th board meeting, plans and specifications can be ready for the boards approval at the February, 1970 board meeting. &-n-t.A..tt.J~J/c,,;u?:.ed/ ~. Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda Item //28 M-3 District No. 1 _;R ,A (y''@lgll~ ENGINEERING CJ ENGINEERS e ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. 92702 . • TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 -BOYLE ENGINEERING 1969 RATE SCHEDULE e SANT A ANA J CALIFORNIA Classification ENGINEER.ING/ ARCHITECTURE Consulting Engineer/ Architect Principal Engineer/ Architect Senior Engineer/ Architect As~ociatc Engineer/ Architect As~istant Engineer/ Architect DRAFTING Senio:: Dr2itsman Draftsman SURVEYING Licensed Surveyors 3-man Sur\'C}' Party 2-man Survey Party CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Resident Engineer Assistant Resident Engineer Inspector MISCELJ.ANEOUS Clerical Travel -auto Travel -other than anl\.'\ Telephone Printiug and Blueprinting Rate $30. 00 an hour 26. SO an hour 24. 00 an l1our 21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour $14. 00 an hour 12. 00 an hour $18. 00 an hour 38. 00 an hour 29. 00 an houl' $21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour 11. 00 an hour $ 7. 00 an l1our 0. 15 a mi1e Actua~ cost Actual cost Cost+ 25% Suhjcct to rc:-vision J=inun r}' t J 1970 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AN 0 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item f/28 M-4 District No. l RESOLUTION NOo 69-72-3 . APPROVING PLAMS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTRACT NOo 3-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 3, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MILLER HOLDER TRUNK SEWER MANHOLE REPAIR, CONTRACT NOo 3-15 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Boyle Engineering, District's engineers, for construction of the Miller Holder Trunk Sewer Manhole Repair, Contract No. 3-15, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids. will be received until 4:00 v.m., October 6, 1969, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board and the District's Engineers be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directorso PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 10, 1969. Agenda Item #35 -N-District No.~]. R O<rrJ} • .. ENGINEERING (jJ ENGINEERS o ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 August 21 , 1969 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper Pursuant to Mr. ·Harper's request, we are pleased to submit our proposal for furnishing engineering services for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Navy Way Force Main as presented in the "Master Pion Trunk Sewer Facilities, dated May, 1969 by Boyle Engineering." The force main wil I begin at the existing Navy Way Pu~ping Station and extend northwesterly along Navy Way and Edinger Avenue finally terminating into the existing Red Hill Trunk on Red Hil I Avenue. The force main wi II consist of approximately 2640 feet of either 12-or 14-inch pipe, depending on final design criteria. The total estimaled cost of th~ proiect including construction, engineering, inspecHon and incidental costs is $48,000. We wil I perform the fol lowing professional engineering services for the proposed facilities. a. Hold conferences with representatives of the district, property owners, Orange County Road Deportment or leasees inv9.lved and other public agencies and others, to review and discuss al I aspects of the proiect. b. Make arrangements for and coord!nation of field surveys, soils investigations, and pavement coring. c. Prepare preliminary engineering studies and design for review and approval .. d. Prepare engineering data for regulatory permit opplicaHons that may be required by the Orange County Road Deportment and Santa Fe Railway Company. PROFESSIONA.L ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #1+8 0-1 District No. 7 ( \ .. Boord of Directors County· Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County August 21, 1969 Page Two e. Prepare detai I plans and specifications. f. Prepare estimates of quantities and costs. g. Deliver the original tracings of the plans and reproducible plates of the specifications for the district's use in preparing the necessary number of copies for record purposes, distribution to prospective bidders, etc. h. Assist the district or its agent in securing bids, tabulation and analysis of bid resu Its and in letting of contract. i. Che~k shop and working drawings as may be submitted by the . contractor. i. Review laboratory reporf·s on materials tests and inspections and correlate such reports with the intentions of the plans and specifications. k. Furnish consultation and advice to the city and/or district or its agent during construction. I. Furnish periodic observations ~f construction work and progress and provide appropriate reports to the district. m. Observe initial operation of the project, witnessing performance tests as required by the specifications and reporting same to the district. n. Make a final inspection and report of the completed project with a representative of the district or its agent. o. Prepare record drawings ("as-constructed") when construction work has been completed and accepted by the district:' This shal I mean the original tracings of the plans will be modified, if necessary, because of deviations from the original work. When inspection is carried out by personnel not directly employed by the engineer, modifications to the original tracings will be based upon information supplied to the engineer by the district. The original tracings after being modified will become district property. · B 0 Y l-E E N G I N. E E R I N G Agenda "rtem llhB 0-2 District No. r'( Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County August 21 , 1969 Page Three We propose to provide the services in items 11 a 11 through 11 0 11 for a basic fee of $3,400·. It is suggested that payment be monthly on a percentage completed basis. up to 90 percent at time of delivery of plans and specifications with l 00 percent payment when the work is completed and accepted by the district. . . There will be field surveys required in order to prepare the plans and specifications. These surveys will include taking topography and culture within the proiect limits. We propose that al I field surveys necessary for design be performed on a per diem basis at our current per diem rates, a copy of which is attached to this proposal. If any· revisions are required by maior changes in the scope of the proiect after the preliminary drawings are approved or after the final plans are completed and such revisions are ordered by the district, we wil I perform such additional work at the current per diem rate. We propose that al I outside services that are required and approved by the district such as soils investigations, paving coring, and plant inspection for quality control for materials used on proiect construction will be paid directly by the district upon presentation of a statement of such outside services with the engineer's certification. If we are authorized to proceed with this work at the September 10th board meeting, plans and spacifi cations can be ready for the boards approval at the November, 1 969 board meeting . Respectfully submitted, a'?V-~t/(1,J~/t't.NJ, ~- Cof1rad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer pp Enc. • 1 DOYLE ENGINEl::HING Agenda Item 1148 0-3 District No. '""( n [/}~/}~.~:., ENGINEERING D ENGINEERS o ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE C714 > 547-4471 PROFESSIONAL .ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 BOYLE ENGINEERING 1969 RATE SCHFDULE SANT A ANA' CALIFOfu'lIA Classification ENGINEERING/ ARCHITECTURE Consulting Engineer/ Architect Principal Engineer/ Architect Senior Engineer/ Architect Associate Engineer/ Architect Assistant Fngineer/ Arc11itect DRAFTING Senior Draftsman Draftsman SURVEYING Licensed Surveyors 3-man Suivey Party 2-man Survey Party CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Resident Engineer Assistant Resident Engineer Inspector MISCELLANEOUS Clerical Travel -auto Travel -other tlrn.n auto Telephone Printing and RlttC'printi ng I •• Rate $30. 00 an hour 26. SO au hour 24. 00 an hour 21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour '$14. 00 an hour 12. 00 an hour $18. 00 an hour 38. 00 an hour 29. 00 an hour $21. 00 an hour 18. 00 an hour U. 00 an hour -' $ 7. 00 an hour 0.15 a mile Actual cost Actual cost Co::t + 25% Suhjc-ct to rcvi-;h.")n J:inu:iry t, 1970 ENGINEERING AN 0. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #L~8 o-4 District No. 7 RESOLUTION NOo 69-67-7 AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON~. TOPEKA .AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY · A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District Noo 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the Chairman and the Secretary of County Sanitation District No. 7 be authorized and directed to accept and sign that certain Pipe Line License from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company dated August 14, 1969, identified by Engineer's Drawing Noo L-3-30163; and, Section 2o That the Secretary be authorized to forward said license in duplicate to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company for execution and return; and, Section 3. That said license be accepted and approved by the District upon the filing of a duly executed copy thereof in the office of the Secretary; and, Section 4o Payment in the amount of $150.00 to cover the license fee.is hereby authorized to be made to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Companyo PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 10, 1969. Agenda Item # 49 -P-District No. 7 .... . RESOLUTION NO. 69-71~7 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TUSTIN-NEWPORT .RELIEF SUBTRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-4-2R RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7; OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TUSTIN.:.NEWPORT RELIEF SUBTRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NOo 7-4-2R The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District Nao 7, of' Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND. ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of' Directors by Boyle Engineering, District's engineers, and concurred in by the District's Chief' Engineer, that award of contract be made to BYRON L. CRUME, INC. , Contractor, f'or TUSTIN-NEWPORT RELIEF SUBTRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-4-2R, and the proposal submitted for said work, are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2o That said contract for Contract No. 7-4-2R, be awarded to BYRON L. CRUME, INC. , Contractor, in the total amount of' $ 41,528.45 in accordance with the terms of' its bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received f'or said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the un- successful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng held September 10, 1969. Agenda It.em #50 -Q-District No. 7 ....... BID Eng •. Estimate: $41,851.00 TABULATION SHEET Contract For: TUSTIN-NEWPORT RELIEF SUBTRUNK SEWER CONTRACT NO. 7-4-2R BIDDER 1. Byron L. Crume Inc. 10336 South Painter, Suite A Santa Fe Springs, Calif. 92686 2. Bart Pipeline, Inc. 6632 Fee Ana Anaheim, Calif. 92806 3. Robert G. Castongia, Inc. 12323~ S. Woodruff Avenue Downey, Calif. 90241 4. Scott Bros. Construction 630 s. Hathaway Street ·~ Santa Ana, Calif. 92705 5. DeLeon Construction 207 Coffman Avenue Anaheim, Calif. 6. M & M Pipeline Co. 2808 West Temple St., Suite I Los Angeles, Calif. 90026 7. 8. *Corrected total 9. 10. Agenda Item #50 -R- Date: __ ~~S~e~p~t~·-3~,..__.1~9~6~9~-- TOTAL BID" $41,528.45 $46,839-55* $55,396.10 $65,881.00 $68,123.45 $96,334.20 District No. 7 --... .. .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 5175 -10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, ·california 92708 CHANGE ORDER C .O. NO • ____ l ____ _ CONTRACTOR: __ ~z_a_r_u_b_i_c_a~C_o_m~p_a~n~y----------~~--DATE: .Sept. 10, 1969 -----~--~----__:;, __ JOB: Red Hill Relief Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-2-R Amount of this cha~ge order {ADD) (tlm:>UtXl.X) $ 1,815. 85. ~ In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. REFERENCE: Engineer's letter of September 2, 1969 ADD Construct metering vault adjacent to manhole · at.Station 27+04 as shown on new Plan Sheet #18 LUMP SUM ADD ~---~---------~-~--~~-~------~---- $ 1,815.85 An extension of time of 2 calendar days is granted for this extra work. Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change {ADD){DEDUCT) Amended Contract Price $ 492,391.20 $ non;:.::.e=---- . $ l,815.85 $~4,207.05 Board authorization date: Approved: "--" September 10, 1969 Agenda Item .f/51 -S- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By ___ /s/ P~~l G. Brown Chief Engineer ZARUBICA COMPANY BY District No. 7 1969 Board of Directors Ptuldent EDMUND J. LYNCH C-L Chemical Product.t Pir.t Vice Prc1ldcnt EARL s. DARLEEN Paciffl! Telephone Second Vlcc Prcddent GLEHN P. ALLEN Orange Savings & Loan .l\ssocfatlon Trcamrer RICHARD B. MILLE!\ United States National Bank &ccatloe Bo~rd Chairman JAMES BEAM Pirst National Bank of Orange County VICKI BECKMAN Volt Inst.ant Personnel ALBERTA CRAWFORD Town and Country }AMES CURRY Anaconda Wire 6 C:iblc Company MASON L. FENTON Attorney at Law '--" WILLIA~c J.t'nANTZ Valcntir.e Realty JAMES E. HANSE!'l First National Bank o! Orange County JERRY HAY The Cit)" Corporation T. J. HEDRICK Continental Moulding Company PAUL T. JOHNSTON St. Joseph Hospital HAnoLD V. KmaY Orange Un1£1ed School District HAROLD MAH.All Orange Postmaster JIM MOISE Wutrnghouse Electric Corporation GEORGE c. MOORE Geor11e Moore Realty GLENN MusSELWHITE, Jn. Southern California Edison Company FREEDA NEAL Womeu·s Division JAMES PAINO The J. Paino Company JoHN J. PmLDIN Gcnuat Tire 6 Rubber Compnny KEN PURCELL Plrst Amerlcnn Tide lnsurancc and Trust Company KEN SAGE Michael's Markets. Incorporated SAMUEI. SALlON · Salkln Engineering r '"DEJUClt D. TunNER, M.D. ~ Stnff l\lcmbcrs JonN SNETSINGER Manager MIIUAM McGmm: Olf kc Scc:rclarg ORANGE CHAMBER OF COMN1ERCE 6 2 5 E a 8 l C la n p m n n A ,. e n u e • 0 r a n g e, C a I i f o r 11 i a 9 2 6 6 7 TELEPHONE 538.3581 CAREA CODE 714) September 5, 1969 County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Gentlemen: Re: Proposed Ordinance Relating to Industry ·use·of District•s·sewerage Facilities Having attended your August 28 informal meeting and having discussed this important matter with my Executive Board and Industrial Committee, the Orange Chamber of Commerce requests continuance of any puolic hearing until at least October 8 when the problems we anticipate from the ordinance, in its present form, can be thoroughly discussed. Thank you for your consideration of this urgent and important request. Sincerely, ~~ -.~~ ----· ,~--~;-;/ /:::_~"'_.,.h .-..->'?,, ( · · . // ~-/7[e .,( __ C.. ~(,.· ,/ ·' .. -i..~ ~ ti 7; /' Edmu~d J. Lynch : ~ President . l \._. "Progress 7'1iroug1i Free Enterprise" DIRECTORS: GEORGE K. BAILEY Partner Hoye, Graves, Balley & Co., C.P.A.'s ROBERT V. BARTON Vice President Home Oil co. of America FRED W. BEINEMAN Plant Manairer American Can Co., Dixie Cup LAWRENCE R. BIGBEE Personnel Manager Pacific Scientific Co. ROY BOLT President & Gen. Mgr. Kwlkset. Div. of Emhart Corp. TED BOWSFIELD Director of Stadium Operation Cautornla Angels JOHN BRIDGES Public Accountant Bookkeeping Service SAM CAMPBELL Editor The Bulletin RODNEY COULSON Individual Member T. EUGENE DAHLGREN Administrator Martin Luther Hospital ROBERT A. DAILY Resident Manai:er Delco-Remy CHARLES K. DAROAN Manairer, Market.Ins: Division Disneyland RICHARD GAY Vice President & Manuer ,. · i.: of America -Anaheim Mr.In omce J\.~ _/d B. GEISLER ....,rney OILY of Anaheim HAURY I. HORN Individual Member WILLIAM G, JOLISSAINT Public Relatlo:is Assistant Carl Karcher Enterprises L. L. KILPA TR!CK President & Board Chnlrmau Callfomla Computer Products, Inc. LLOYD KLEIN President Klein Construction RONALD LINCOLN Director Facllltles & Indus. Enalneerlng Autonetlcs JAMES W. McALVIN Administrator Anaheim Memorhil Hospital ANSON McARTHUR /.dmlnlstratlve Assistant. Buzza Cardozo Greeting Cards JOHN McKENNON Vice President & Mana~lnz Dlrtctor Ornnd Hotel BILL MILLER General ManB1er McCoy Ford DAN P. MITCHELL Executive Vice Pres. & Oen, Mn. KEZY R'.\dlo Station FRANK K. OMATSU Assistant Vice President & Mgr. Sumitomo Bank of California JOSEPH PAUL Mau ager Market Basket FRED SCHMUCK Vice President Fluldmaster, Inc. BERNARD SMITH Oeneral ManAster Menasha Corporation JOHN STEPFY Pre:;ldent "" ''Y Buick Co. ''-._ /D SUNDALI .......: President & M&r. Security P~clfic National Bank W. J. (DILL) THOM II.tanager Anaheim Office Furniture JOHN WASPI Vice President Global Van Lines JAMES L. WEBB District. Commercial Manaier Paclnc Telephone Company OFFICERS J'AMES L. WEBB ------President ROY BOLT ------ln Vice Preridenl RONALD LINCOLN -2nd Vice Preridenl RICHARD GAY -----• -Treasurer 122 North Lemon Street Anaheim, California 92805 Telephone (714) 535-2833 LARRY SIERK. E:tccutfoe Vice Pre1ident September 5, 1969 Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts 2 and 3 P. O. Box 5175 Fountain Valley, Calif. 92708 Gentlemen: At its August 28, 1969, meeting the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors went on record requesting that the Sanitation Districts of Orange County grant a continuance of at least 30 days on the public hearing of September 10th concerning the proposed "Industrial Waste Ordinance". The continuance is requested in or- de1· to give the Chamber an opportunity to study the ordinance in detail. We feel, after preliminary examination, that the ap- proval of this ordinance in its present form will seriously affect the business climate of the City of Anaheim and Orange County in general. As soon as the Chamber has thoroughly studied the ordinance, we will inform you of our recommendations. JLW:am cc: City Manager Sincerf)' J (lli,lt;)\;~,~ry_(lQ:r- James L. Webb, President Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Chrm. Board of Supervisors President, Orange County Chamber of Commerce GARDEN GROVE f/;f?ia~~ a& f/;ommettee 12753 BROOKHURST ST. -P.O. BOX 464 -GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 September 9, 1969 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation Districts D2 and #3 10844 Ellis Avenue rountain Valley, California Re: Proposed ordinance regulation regulating connections to and use of sewer facilities Draft dated 7/29/69 -Rev. 8/6 69 Gentlemen: At today's meeting of the Board of Directors of the· Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce it was unanimously voted to request the Orange County Sanitation Districts #2 and #3 to postpone the adoption of the above ordinance for ninety days for purposes of more detailed study. We would appreciate your consideration of this recommendation. Sincerely, LR/sa OFFICERS Chairman, E:cecutive Committee H. w. LL .... TO:'<i Nculand Cor~ration, Subs1d1ary North American Rockwell Corp. President LAWRESCE A. PETERSES Union Bank First \'ice President F. R. ~IARVIS Security Title ln,.urance Compar.y Second Vice President JUSTUS c. CA'l'ES Hughes Ai:cra!I Company Treasurer J.uu:s BE.Ul The First National Bank of Oranqe County President, Senators Club JACKSos A. Wu.cox Stall Builders Te?tporary Personnel DIRECTORS MRS. J.EA. .... SETTE BA.-.;001 Radio Station KNOB JA.,IES BEA~( The First Notional Sank of Oranqe County Dos Bnl'CE Standard Oil Co:npany of California HERBERT L. v. COFFEY Real tor·Appraisor KEITH F. CORDREY Premier Prin!inq Co:npany AL H. EsKRIDCE \.,,,I _ Bonk of America JACK FEEH.\S Southern CountiH Gos Compc.ny E. H. FL .... STER Boyle Enqineerinq JUSTUS c. CATES Hughes Aircrait Company BEnSARD HA..-.;sEs Disneyland FRANK Hl.'CH£S The Irvine Company FEsTos E. Jost:s Municipal Court Judge, Western Orange County LEOS R. JosES Jones, Elliott and Associates, CPA GEORGE T. KELLO<:C Imperial Highway Associclion RALPH c. KISEll Southern California Edison Company H. w. LL'\"TOS Norland Ccrporo:ion, Substd:ary North American !lockwcll Corp. Jons LuTZ Jn. First American Title lnsur:mee and Trust Company F. R. :\IAR\'IS Se::urity Title lnsura::ce Co::ii;cny Jou:-; B. MERRELL 11 Wvott & Merrell. A!!orncys a: Law · Miss LonsA Mn.u Loquna Federal Scv:nqs and Loon Associa:ion LELA:SD E. :\lnun; Anch,;i:n Savings and Loan Ass::cia::on }OHS PARK~'.I\ P B S Corporcaon l.AWRE:SCE A. PETERSE:S Union Bon>: H. L. RE:\1:\ll'.RS Ret:rcd JA'.\ll:S E. TWEEllT American Na1ional Propcrtio:i AnTHCR \\'. \V AC:SEll Ral;Jh C. Sutro Co:ni:o::y CEORCI-: E. \\'A TI'S Allstate lnsurancll Cor::par.·1 ~ RouEnT ~. \VE~:o Oranqo Coai;t Da:ly Pilot PAUL M. \\'urn: Comprlihcnsive Hlllalth Pla:inin7 As~oc. \V Al.T \\'ntGLt:Y ____ T«?w::s-:-n!_~o:nr:;::n)' E:recutii;e \'icr. President Lucrns D. Tnu1111.1. ANG~ COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERC~ 1477 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVE., ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92802 (714) 774-2851 August 25, 1969 Mr. Fred A. Harper Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Harper: On behalf of the Sanitation Subcommittee of our Water, Flood Control, Sanitation and Pollution Committee of the Orange County Chamber of Commrce, I respectfully wish to petition your Board to continue the Public Hearing scheduled for September 10 on the proposed ordinance on the use of district sewerage facilities until at least October a. The purpose of this petition to your Board is so that we can get the information out on the Ordinance to industries in Orange County. This additional requested titre will also allow us time to receive and study "feed- back" from these industries as to the possible effect of the Ordinance upon them. Our Comnittee is wholly in accord with the idea that Orange County needs an Industrial Waste Ordinance which will be fair to the districts as ~ell as our industries and will not irrpede the further growth and enhancement of the economic base of Orange County. WHL/nls Sincerely, ?u 4.o;~~££ Will H. Lindsay, Jz-Chairrnan Sanitation Subcommittee of Water, Flood Control, Sanitation and Pollution Committee OFFICERS Chairman, Erecutii;e Committee H. w. LL'lTOS Narl<md Cor.poration. Subs1d1ary North Amer1c:an Rockwell Corp. President LAwRESCE A. PETERSl::S Union Banlt First Vice President F. R. MARVIS Security Title ln•urance Compony Second Vice President Jusn:s C. CATES Hughes A!rcrci!t Compony Treasurer jA.'\l.ES B.t.\.'\l The First National Bank ol Orange County President, Senators Club JACKSOX A. Wu.cox Staff Builders Temporary PersoMe! DIRECTORS MRS. JEAS!'\l::'rl'E BAXOCZI Radio Station KNOB jA.'\lES BEAM The First Na:;cnal Bank of Orange County Dos Bm:cE Standard 01! Compony ol California HERDEl\T L. v. COFFEY Rcoltor-Appraiser KEITH F. CORDREY Premier Prin:inq Company AL H. ESKlllDCt: "..._,/ Bcnlc of America JACK FEEHAS Southern Couniies Gos Co:npcny E. H. F1xsn:n Boyle En;iineerinq JusTcs C. CA.TF.s Hughes Aircraft Company B.tnsARD lfassEs Disneyland FRA~'X H CCHES The lrvi.'1.e Company FESTOS E. JOSl::S Municipal Court udge, Western Orange cunt·; Lrnx R. josF.s Jories. Elliot! and Aszociates. CPA C.EOllCr. T. KELLOCG !mpe:ial Highway Asso:::a:icn RALPH c. K1SEI\ Southern Ca:1!ornia Edison Company H. w. LISTO::-.: r:arland Corpora:ion. Subsidiary North A:r.enc::n ib::kwell C::r;:. jonx Lun Jn. First A:r.ericar: T1!lc lnsurcr.r:e and Tn.:st Com;xmy F. R. ~[Al\\'IX Security Title Insurance Co:::i:cny Jons B. MERRELL n V/vatt & Me::e!I, A:tor::ey;; a: L::w • Miss Lon..'\.~ ~hLLS Laqi:na Fcde:al S::..,ings end Loan Associc::on LELA.:-\D E. Mymu: Anah.,1m Savings and Loan Assoeiahon joux PAnKEn P B S Cor~ra:i::n LAWl\.ESCE A. PETER<;ES Un:on Banlc H. L. RE~l~fERS Retired jA.~IF.S E. TwEt:1>T American No:lor:al P:o;-crt:f's ARTlll:R \\'. \\' ACSt:R Ralph C. Sutro Co:::pn;· CF.one;•: E. \V ATTS A!Isiate lnsuran:e Comr,an·1 '--/ Rom:1rr N. \\'~:1m Orango Coos: Dailj' Pi!o: • PAUL ~l. \\'111TE CompDh<!r:sive Hc::l:h Pl=n:r:-; A5~o: \VA.LT \\'mc;u;y Town~<-n:i Comn'"lr,·r Executice._\'ic:c p;,?.;i~fr~t­ Lucn-:s D. Tnnm.1, ANGE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1477 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVE., ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92802 (714) 774-2851 Mr:'. Fred A. Harper General Manager September 9, 1969 Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Indust1"ial Waste Ordinance Dear Mr. Harper : In the light of the historical pattern of cooperation be- t·ween ·government and industry in Orange County, we respect- fully request the continuation of the public hearing on the above ordinance until the recommendation of an Ad Hoc Com- mittee to be appointed jointly by your Board and the Chamber can be obtained to study the entire problem of industrial waste disposal. It is further suggested that this committee be formed as follows: five members from your Board; five members from the Orange County Chamber of Commerce; and five members jointly selected by both organizations. When this committee report is obtained, we might then expect a complete, cooperative solution beneficial to all responsible segments of the County. WHL:jp s· cerely, ~ _ /)/ //, . / '/'--- -( (,\_~,q:-:--.~ l-7t,t?.(i/(__,,-<.. /··· -) Will H;·· Lindsay, Chairman ' ,,. : ,.,,..., / Sanitation subcommittee {.,// W.J. VOIT RUBBER CORP. Sublidiaryol AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 3901 South Ha.-bol" Bouleva.-d. Santa Ana. Califo.-nia 714-546-4220 Mr. C. Miller, Member Orange County Sanitation District 13511 Diamond Head Drive Tust~n, Ca. 92680 Dear Mr. Miller: September 9, 1969 I am greatly concerned, as are other manufacturers in Orange County, about the proposed industrial waste ordinance that you and the other ·members of the Sanitation District will review Wednesday, September 10th. . As this ordinance is presently written its enactment would result in a serious financial burden on many of Orange County's leading . industries. I am sure this is not your or the Board's intent. Industry has only recently been apprised of the proposed ordinance. The problems that resulted in the Sanitation District drafting this ordinance have not been fully explained. The ordj.nance as it now reads, substantially ignores the Bartle Wells recommendations regarding volume and solids content, is considerably more restrictive than industrial waste ordinances in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties and will be expensive to administer. This last point will have the effect of greatly reducing the net revenue generated by the ordinance. I respectfully request that you ask for a three-month continuance in order that a committee representing industry and the Sanitation District can study the main industrial waste problems that exist in Orange· County. I firmly believe that such a group will find a more workable solution to those problems, one which will not be discrimi- natory to industry and will not have a punitive effect on industrial growth in Orange County. Further, if the generation of revenue is a key objective of such an ordinance, I.feel that the suggestions and experience of industries' representatives will result in an ordinance less costly to administer than that presently proposed. BKB:mm Very truly yours, /;-~. /~ ? . ). / /--'/ /2 /,//~$? .)) : ~,/?or.----. Bart K. Brown Vice President Director of Manufacturing Mailing Address: P.O. Box 958. Santa Ana, California 92702 SUBHA PAnx ·cnAMSElt OF COMMERCE 6045 BEACH BOULEVARD G BUENA PARK, CALIFORNIA 90620 8 AREA CODE (714) 521-0261 September 8, 1969 Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA Gentlemen: Board of Directors of the Buena Park Chamber of Commerce at their meeting held on Monday, September 8th, 1969, decided to oppose the proposed Industrial Waste Ordinance that is scheduled for a hearing on September 10, 1969. Some of the questions prompting the opposition: Why is the ordinance needed? Is the ordinance for regulation or tax purposes? Has the industrial community been consulted or asked to participate in deliberation? Sincerely, ~· ...--&Yec,ef;~.a- Alex: Gooaman General Manager AG/ldb FULLERTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO:. Directors of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California SUBJECT: Opposition to the Proposed Orange County Sanitation District Ordi'nance (Revised Draft 8/6/69) Regarding Industrial Waste Disposal. The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Community of Fullerton are unanimously opposed to this proposed Ordinance for the following reasons. 1. The fees appear to be disporportionate to usage with heavy penalization of industry. The examples are that one company expects rates to in- crease by 600-700% and another expects rates to increase over 1000%. 2. The proposal places virtual autonomous control in tne hands of a General Manager. (Article 4, b; Article 5) 3. The fees appear to be arbitrary and without foundation in that the District has no clear idea as to what increased revenue will be gene- rated. The District Engineer estimates the intrease to be over $100,000 but less than $10,000,000. 4. The proposal has no provision for surplus funds generated. 5. The limitations on outfall do not follow the Bartle Wells recommen- dation and are more restrictive without apparent basis for selection. 6. No statistical studies or other data have been publicized which might substantiate the reasonableness of costs or limitations. 7. This Ordinance could make Orange County an unfavorable location for new Industry and stifle future expansion of existing firms. 8. This proposed Ordinance appears to be just another way to dispropor- tionately tax Industry. Interpretation of this Ordinance as written is unclear. Without intensive investigation which might better develop the implications to all sewage users of charges, revenuess and limitations it will remain ambiguous. Any further review of ·proposal should include at least two industrial representatives of this council and this Chamber and similar representation from Chambers within the county. James L. Lynch, President .;z::~~ Copies to: Other interested parties I · i I J i '-' f i I ., i J I I ·1 $ I I $ t t l I t { • f i \._) CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CALIFORNIA City Hall • 11391 Acacia Street Area Code 714 -537-4200 September 8, 1.969 Board of Directors . . Garden Grove Sanitary District 13121 Brookhurst Street G~rden Grove, California 92640 ····~ Gentlemen: The City of Garden Grove staff has reviewed the proposed Ordinance of the County S~nltation Districts of Orange County, California, pertaining to connection apd uses of the District's sewage facilities and the proposal to establish charges for disposal of industrial waste. To properly evaluate the Ordinance, we of course, would require Information divulging data which relates to the need for the establishing of such an extensive piece of legislation. While the City ts not a local sewage agency, our under- standing of the various uses of water within our community tends us to raise questions whether adequate Investigations have been performed and whether their findings warrant the establ fshing of so tight controls and whether, in fact, the problem ts County-wide or relates to a few special Industries In limited areas. Furthermore, we wish to question the necessity of establishing criteria for measurements and controls with so many variables combined with minimum allowances beyond which the proposed charges become applicable. Also, it appears prudent to ask whether the costs of inspecting and administering such a program would not by far outweigh any anticipated advantages or, Jn fact, eliminate any Inequities which this Ordinance alleges to overcome. Pleas~ be assured that our staff supports you In the raising of the aforenoted questions and urges you to participate In the evaluation of this document. Should there, in effect, be a problem, we urge yo~.to propose a method to monitor and control the specific areas of the problem or to support legislation which directs Itself to the problems on hand, rather than to blanket legislation with so severe provisions and so complicated methods of control as this proposed Ordinance suggests. Very truly yours, ,,,,...... . DUD~EY N./ LAPHAM /~ Ci}·~ayager ;2; 14. 'G!/ll&~ t/ .. ~ /'-'P/~~c> By: CLAUDE J •. LUG L/ Ass tstarnt City Manager cc: Board of Directors, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Directors, District #2 and #3, Mayor, De~lopmcnt Services, Water Department \_,I \._) \.,,_) 13121 BROOKHURST STREET e JEFFERSON .C-39-43 e GARDEN GR~ CAllfOVtNIA ~ February 8, 19i9 To: Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts 2 and 3 Lorin Griset, Mayor of the City of Santa Ana Wade Herrin, Vice Mayor of the City of Santa Ana Re: P..roposed Ordinance Regulation Regulating ---Connection to and Use of Sewerage Facilities, Draft Dated 7-29-69, Rev. 8-6-69. Reference is made to the proposed ordinance providing for rules and ~qulations relating to connection to and use of Sanitation District •~age facilities, establishing charges therefore and charges.for disposal of industrial waste. While there is considerable merit to the intent of the proposed ordinance, there are several provisions which are too drastic in our opinion. Following are some specific.observations and recormnendatione. First, most of the proposed rules and reco~ndations are brand new, and some of them are severe. In order to enable the industrial end business communities to assimilate these measures, we recom.mend . postponement of the adoption of the proposed ordinance for at leamt 90 days.· We further reccmmend that representativas of the County Sanitation Districts meet with represontatives of business and industry to work out a satisfactory compromise on aome of the major points of contention. Second, the blanket approach towards industrial waste control may require such extensive inspection and enforcer!Snt that the increased revenues may be dissipated to a great extent by increased coats. This would have the effect of possibly antagonizing some businesses and industries without deriving offsetting benefits. ~'hie would constitute what might s0ea to business a..~d industry as sbaple harassment and to serve as a deterrent to further bumiues~ and industrial development. We would prefer to see a more oimplified approach, with emphasis on the major contributors of indu~trial waste. We reco~nd that more int0nsive studies ba mada to·de~~-mine the types of busin0ss or industry thlit a~a special problems either. because of the volu.m~ or the nature of their affluent and that the BOAAO OF DIRECTORS ROBERT H. MAIN, PftlU\IDD:HT: WALTIIA rA. DRESSEL, Sltc::AETARY; ROBS P. JOHNiftON, TAJ:AOuni:q; HORMAN 1:. C:ULVltFI: DR. ~· D. UtGGl!TT Page 2. proposed ordinance be confined. to such types of business and industry. Third, there seems to be a supposition that industry does not pay its fair share of sewage disposal. Even if this supposition is valid, it should be remembered that the taxpayers· who pay for sewage disp~sal also pay for schools and where their· tax rate for sewage disposal might·be 5¢ or 10¢ higher without industry, their tax rate for schools would be almost 10 times that much higher without industry. According to the Engineering Report on Seweraqe Facilities for the Garden Grove Sanitary District recently completed, the average flow coefficients used are as follows: R-3 High Density (67.6 ppa) Industrial Commercial .0090 cfs/ac .ooao • • .0050 • .. Since there will be an increasing trend towards higher.density development in Orange County, the flow coefficient for multiple unit residential can be expected to increase. Conversely, independent analysis of tax revenues derived from different sources indicate the following: Assess~d Valuation Land & Buildings Assessed Valuation Personal Property Hi Density Residenqial $ 880,000. 57,600. Total Assessed Valuation $ 937,600. Commercial 639,500. 430(001. $1,069,500 Industrial $ 725,200. $1,151,000 The figures given ebove can be readily verified. We are of the opinion that an adequate balanced tax base ts necessap;y.for·the economic" health· of the .. county 7 .~d· that a balanced ·tlµt base must. have a oizeable segmefit of business and industi;y. Industrial development in particular, especially of the type that is occurring in orange County, should be actively fostered, not diseouraged. We recommend that any formulas used in connection with the proposed ordinance include allowances for ad valorem tax revenues in relation to sewage disposal costs as compared to high density . residential development. Based on recommendations from our consulting engineers pursuant to the Engineer Report previously mentioned, the Garden Grove Sanitary District is in the process of providini addition~! trunk capacity at a relatively high coat in comparison to ex stinq facilities in the area, not for industry but for projected high density residential developroont; yet we are looking to induat~y for a large proportion of our ta~ revenues to pay for the additional trunks. We sincerely hope that industrial development will be even greater in the future in our District and we intend to help pror.sote thi$ development where we properly can. RHM:em Vefy. ~~ly. l. urs, /. ./ Tu/. 6/Z'· ·.~' ~ I .'A . --. CIJ-1 I .6:;'d L~ " RobeX: H. Main, Predident 7 Kimberlq·Clark (])Corporation NEENAH, WISCONSIN 54956 The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Gentlemen: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 414 722-3311 2001 EAST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 3 4 TELEPHONE 714 525-8271 Fullerton, California September 8, 1969 I am writing this for the purpose of bringing to your attention certain points relative to the .proposed sewer ordinance. I believe that these factors are of sufficient importance to warrant careful consideration and to carry appreciable weight in your final conclusion. · I understand the draft of the ordinance which I have reviewed was a preliminary one. It appears that as a result of the informal reviews held to date, changes are already being contemplated before the proposed ordinance will appear in amended form. It was stated at preliminary meetings that comments on the pro- posed ordinance were requested from all those who would be affected by it and who were, therefore, concerned. Kimberly-Clark will be affected and is much concerned. It was pointed out at the meeting held Thursday, August 28, that a new source of revenue was not the only, and perhaps not even the principal reason, for the ordinance. The other major reason stated for its adoption at this time was to discourage low capital investment -high water users -high solids contrib- utors from settling in the area unless they are prepared to pay a proportionate treatment charge. The Kimberly-Clark mill at Fullerton is a high water user, but deffni te ly does not represent a low capital investment. The paper industry is recognized as being one of six industries having the highest ~apital investment per production worker of all the industries in the nation -and we employ 600 people at the Kimberly-Clark mill, with an annual payroll of approximately $5,500,000. Even from the point of view of water use, our consumption is big or small depending upon the basis of comparison. When viewed relative to water consump- tion of many others in our city, the figure may seem large, but when compared with water used in the manufacture of tissue grades across the nation, the rate is very low indeed. In fact, the Kimberly-Clark mill at Fullerton is recognized throughout the country as an outstanding example of water conserva- tion. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER K I m. b e r I q • c I a r k e c 0 r p 0 r a t I 0 n P~ge 2 I might point out here that when the location at Fullerton was being considered, the availability and cost of water were prime considerations. We were very frank in the discussions of our needs and we. were assured that these needs could be met. Since construction of the mill, we have proceeded with our own technological developments and these have been very successful -and costly. As a result· of these efforts, while more than doubling the size of our operation since 1956, we are using only about one-third of the total quantity of fresh water considered as necessary at the time the agreement with the city was reached in 1954. · This brings me to the first point of concern; namely, the limitation placed . upon total suspended solids which prohibits effluents containing more than 1250 milligrams per liter suspended solids. Due to the recirculation, reuse, and other water saving practices employed at our mill, wastes are concentrated so that we frequently exceed this figure. We are continually working on methods of reducing both water and fiber waste. Under the proposed ordinance we would be unable to reduce water consumption without an equivalent fiber reduction, since reductions in water alone would increase the concentration. In fact, at the present time we would be forced, under the terms of the proposed ordinance, to add substantial quantities of fresh water to our waste stream to make it acceptable for discharge to the sewer. The use of reclaimed fiber also adds to this problem. We hear it voiced on every hand that our future economy will be based on a new 3 R's -Recovery, Reclamation, and Reuse. We are utilizing a certain amount of secondary fiber in our production, but waste is higher for this part than for the virgin fiber portion of our furnish. Accordingly, I would recommend that any limitation on concentration (up to the point where interference with flows in the sewer lines might occur) be eliminated. My second point is made in reference to Article 3, secti'on C-2 which states that, "The use permit made ••• requires the provision of industrial waste pre- treatment plants or facilities necessary to insure compliance ••• " So stated, this would give the individual issuing the permit the power to stipulate the treatment equipment to be installed even if the party concerned knew of a better way technically, economically, or practically of accomplishing the same thing. I submit, therefore, if there is to be an ordinance it should concern itself only with rules "of what is required" and leave the 11 how 11 of attaining conformance to these rules up to the individual or industry concerned. My remaining points were touched upon at preliminary meetings. However, to make certain that there is no misunderstanding on Kimberly-Clark's position, I make the following four suggestions for the record: 1. I feel that the powers of the general manager are much too broad as given in the proposed ordinance. They would allow him to make decisions in granting, refusing, or withdrawing permits that could have far reaching affects upon the welfare of individuals throughout the county. It is my recommendation, therefore, that the establishment of rules for pennits and operation be the responsibility of the Directors of the district after public hearing. K I m• b e r I q • C I a r k 0 C o r p a r 1 t 1 a n P.igc J ~ 2. We were informed at an earlier meeting that it was desirable to have unanimous approval by all seven districts for the ordinance to become binding. I recommend that unanimous consent of all seven districts be required for establishment of rules or changes to existing rules. 3. I believe that the ordinance should contain specific provision for appeal to the courts of rulings by the Board of Directors. My reason is that if there is a significant disagreement to the rulings of the Board by the person concerned, this matter can be settled through the appeal procedure. Without this provision for appeal, the only alternative is for the person or persons to be ruled a violator at which time the matter goes to the courts for a decision as to enforcement. Even if the matter is decided in favor of the individual, he will have been termed a violator for a period. 4. The penalty {Article 13} which specifies that each an~ every day is a separate violation would still be severe even if the ruling of the Board of Directors could be appealed. If the courts-cTecided against the individual he would thereafter be subject to the Qnerous risk of a fine for each and every day of violation. If there is no court appeal procedure incorporated in the ordinance, and it was necessary for the individual to become a violator technically before he could go to court,. the penalty specified would be not only severe but unreasonable since he would be faced with the possibility of a heavy fine and/or prison sentence as the price he must pay for a legal decision to which he is legitimately entitled. In conclusion, a protest against the magnitude of the rates involved seems to me to be justified. If one of the major purposes is to prevent newcomers with high water demands, high solids contributions, and low capital investments from coming into the area, it seems unfair to me to accomplish this by penalizing those who live there now, who have made high capital investments and who have faced up to the water problems of Orange County. If the proposed ordinance were to be adopted, it would appreciably increase the cost of doing business in our Fullerton Mill and be a serious consideration relative to any future expansion. Although we will have representation at the September 10, 1969 hearing, we understand that time may preclude oral statements. Therefore, please include our position, as spelled out in this letter, in the record of the hearing. If time becomes available in the hearing, we would welcome the opportunity to supply amplifying comments and/or answer any questions relative to our position. JGG:jm cc: To each Director To each member of the County Board of Supervisors Respectfully submitted, KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION (}~f<M'ditt~i4 J'.~-: GROSKLAUS MILL MANAGER Kimberlq•Clark E!) Corporation NEENAH, WISCONSIN 54.956 The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Gentlemen: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 414. 722-3311 2001 EAST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 3 4 TELEPHONE 7 U 525·8 2 71 Fullerton, California September 8, 1969 I am writing this for the purpose of bringing to your attention certain points relative to the proposed sewer ordinance. I believe that these factors are of sufficient importance to warrant careful consideration and to carry appreciable weight in your final conclusion. I understand the draft of the ordinance which I have reviewed was a preliminary one. It appears that as a result of the informal reviews held to date, changes are already being contemplated before the proposed ordinance will appear in amended form. It was stated at preliminary meetings that comments on the pro- posed ordinance were requested from all those who would be affected by it and who were, therefore, concerned. Kimberly-Clark will be affected and is much concerned. It was pointed out at the meeting held Thursday, August 28, that a new source of revenue was not the only, and perhaps not even the principal reason, for the ordinance. The other major reason stated for its adoption at this time was to discourage low capital investment -high water users -high solids contrib- utors from settling in the area unless they are prepared to pay a proportionate ~reatment charge. The Kimberly-Clark mill at Fullerton is a high water user, but definitely does not represent a low capital investment. The paper industry is recognized as being one of six industries having the highest capital investment per production worker of all the industries in the nation -and we employ 600 people at the Kimberly-Clark mill, with an annual payroll of approximately $5,500,000. Even from the point of view of water use, our consumption is big or small depending upon the basis of comparison. When viewed relative to water consump- tion of many others in our city, the figure may seem large, but when compared with water used in the manufacture of tissue grades across the nation, the rate is very low indeed. In fact, the Kimberly-Clark mill at Fullerton is recognized throughout the country as an outstanding example of water conserva- tion. AN EGLJAL OPPORTUNITY EMrLOYER K I m b e r I q • C I a r k 0 C o r p o r a t i o n Page 2 I might point out here that when the location at Fullerton was being considered, the availability and cost of water were prime considerations. We were very frank in the discussions of our needs and we were assured that these needs could be met. Since construction of the mill, we have proceeded with our own technological developments and these have been very successful -and costly. As a result· of these efforts, while more than doubling the size of our operation since 1956, we are using only about one-third of the total quantity of fresh water considered as necessary at the time the agreement with the city was reached in 1964. · This brings me to the first point of concern; namely, the limitation placed upon total suspended solids which prohibits effluents containing more than 1250 mi.lligrams per liter suspended solids. Due to the recirculation, reuse, and other water saving practices employed at our mill, wastes are concentrated so that we frequently exceed this figure. We are continually working on methods of reducing both water and fiber waste. Under the proposed ordinance we would be unable to reduce water consumption without an equivalent fiber reduction, since reductions in water alone would increase the concentration. In fact, at the present time we would be forced, under the terms of the proposed ordinanc~, to add substantial quantities of fresh water to our waste stream to make it acceptable for discharge to the sewer. The use of reclaimed fiber also adds to this problem. We hear it voiced on every hand that our future economy will be based on a new 3 R's -Recovery, Reclamation, and Reuse. We are utilizing a certain amount of secondary fiber in our production, but waste is higher for this part than for the Virgin fiber portion of our furnish. Accordingly, I would recommend that any limitation on concentration (up to the point where interference with flows in the sewer lines might occur) be eliminated. My second point is made in reference to Article 3, section C-2 which states that, "The use permit made ••• requires the provision of industrial waste pre- treatment plants or facilities necessary to insure compliance ••• 11 So stated, this would give the individual issuing the permit the power to stipulate the treatment equipment to be installed even if the party concerned knew of a better way technically, economically, or practically of accomplishing the same thing. I submit, therefore, if there is to be an ordinance it should concern itself only with rules 11 of what is required" and leave the "how" of attaining conformance to these rules up to the individual or industry concerned. My remaining points were touched upon at preliminary meetings. However, to make certain that there is no misunderstanding on ~imberly-Clark's position, I make the following four suggestions for the record: 1. I feel that the powers of the general manager are much too broad as given in the proposed ordinance. They would allow him to make decisions in granting, refusing, or withdrawing permits that could have far reaching . affects upon the we 1 fa re of i ndi vi dua 1 s throughout the county. It is my recommendation, therefore, that the establishment of rules for pennits and operation ·be the responsibility of the Directors of the district after public hearing. ..... K I m' b e r I q • C I a r k 0 C a r p a r a t I o n P.igc 3 \.,I 2. We were informed at an earlier meeting that it was desirable to have unanimous approval by all seven districts for the ordinance to become binding. I recommend that unanimous consent of all seven districts be required for establishment of rules or changes to existing rules. 3. I believe that the ordinance should contain specific provision for appeal to the courts of rulings by the Board of Directors. My reason is that if there is a significant disagreement to the rulings of the Board by the person concerned, this matter can be settled through the appeal procedure. Without this provision for appeal, the only alternative is for the person or persons to be ruled a violator at which time the matter goes to the courts for a decision as to enforcement. Even if the matter is decided in favor of the individual, he will have been termed a violator for a period. · 4. The penalty (Article 13) which specifies that each and every day is a separate violation would still be severe even if the ruling of the Board of Directors could be appealed. If the courts--ciecided against the individual he would thereafter be subject to the onerous risk of a fine for each and every day of violation. If there is no court appeal procedure incorporated in the ordinance, and it was necessary for the individual to become a violator technically before he could go to court, the penalty . specified would be not only severe but unreasonable since he would be faced with the possibility of a heavy fine and/or prison sentence as the price he must pay for a legal decision to which he is legitimately entitled. In conclusion, a protest against the magnitude of the rates involved seems to me to be justified. If one of the major purposes is to prevent newcomers with high water demands, high solids contributions, and low capital investments from coming into the area, it seems unfair to me to accomplish this by penalizing those who live there now, who have made high capital investments and who have faced up to the water problems of Orange County. If the proposed ordinance were to be adopted, it would appreciably increase the cost of doing business in our Fullerton Mill and be a serious consideration relative to any future expansion. Although we will have representation at the September 10, 1969 hearing, we understand that time may preclude oral statements. Therefore, please include our position, as spelled out in this letter, in the record of the hearing. If time becomes-available in the hearing, we would welcome the opportunity to supply amplifying comments and/or answer any questions relative to our position. JGG:jm cc: To each Director To each member of the County Board of Supervisors Respectfully submitted, KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION ' I • .// //. "":"-~e<l.~"-4 SKLAUS MILL MANAGER -:-........ . ...... September 8, 1969 The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of orange County HUNT·WESSON FOODS, INC. 1645 West Valencia Drive Fullerton, California 92634 n4 sn-2100 Re: Comments on Opposition to the Adoption of the CSDOC's Proposed Industrial Waste Ordinance Gentlemen: The company now known as Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. first made its appearance in Orange County in 1931 with the purchase of a small bankrupt orange juice plant on the present Fullerton site. From these meager beginnings, it has emerged as a major producer of tomato products and convenience foods with sales in excess of $500 million a year. In orange County alone, Hunt-Wesson employs over 1,700 people with an annual payroll of nearly $16 million. Last year, its personal and real property tax contribution to the County and to the City of Fullerton amounted to approximately $468,000. Hunt-Wesson's parent corporation, Norton Simon, Inc., also headquarters in Orange County, making additional tax and pay- roll contributions to the area. The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 2 Hunt-Wesson has long enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to grow and prosper in the Orange County area. As evidence of this fact, it has made capital inv~stments in land, improve- ments, buildings, machinery and equipment at its Fullerton plant and refinery in excess of $13 million and is continually expanding and improving these facilities. Only very recently did Hunt-Wesson become aware of the Indus- trial waste Ordinance now being proposed by the Staff and Executive Committee of the CSDOC. After reviewing this pro- posed ordinance, Hunt-Wesson feels compelled to present the following comments in opposition to its adoption, for the following reasons: Last year, Hunt-Wesson's ad valorem tax contribution to the CSDOC (District No. 3) was $15,111. In addition, a sewer charge of $5,637 was paid to the City of Fullerton. We under- stand that commencing August, 1969, the City of Fullerton will impo9e sewerage charges equal to 10% of each user's total water bill. With this change, it is anticipated that we will now be paying the City nearly $15,000 per year in sewer use charges. While Hunt-Wesson's payments to the CSDOC and the City of Fullerton amounted to over $20,700 last year, if the proposed ordinance were adopted, these charges (as best we are able to compute them) would skyrocket to approximately $86,000 per year, •' The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 3 with $15,000 (or more) going to the CSDOC in ad valorem taxes, $15,000 to the City of Fullerton and approximately $56,000 in sewer use charges resulting from the proposed ordinance. This results in an unprecedented increase of nearly five times, which is unreasonable and unjustifiable based upon the sketchy data that has been made public. Nowhere in the entire United States does Hunt-Wesson pay sewerage charges of this magnitude. Such charges would unquestionably affect Hunt-Wesson's plans for future growth and development within the County. Capital ex- pansion projects of approximately $4,000,000., now underway and being considered by Hunt-Wesson for its Fullerton facility, are being reappraised in light of this proposed ordinance. Restric- tive, punative and expensive operations here must be compared with other areas where we have installations, all seventeen (17) of which will have considerably less costly sewerage charges. At this time, our foremost and primary objection to the passage of the proposed ordinance is the failure of the CSDOC or its staff to demonstrate the need for such an ordinance. As is stated in the August, 1969 report from £artle Wells Associates, "no serious attempt is made to measure the costs of sewerage services caused by industriai Elants or to assess any charge to recover such costs except on a spotty individual basis. 11 Before any meaningful sewer use charge ordinance can be adopted, the CSDOC must have sufficient facts and data at its disposal The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Page 4 to determine if such charges are really necessary and, if so, what charges are "reasonable" in relation to those facts. As the ordinance is presently drafted, many industries could end up paying considerably more in taxes and use charges than their "reasonable" share. The Bartle wells August report concluded that any proposed industrial waste ordinance, to be defensible, must be equitable. "If one category of the using public is to be asked to pay a larger share of the expense of providing sewerage services, it must be demonstrable that it is causing a disproportionate share of the cost of providing such services and that the charges imposed bear a reasonable relationship to that added cost." It is submitted that this has not been done by the CSDOC. It appears that the CSDOC does not have sufficient informa- tion at its disposal to even determine the amount of revenue it would collect by the adoption of this ordinance. We have heard that estimates have been made by the CSDOC Staff of between $100,000 and $10,000,000 per year. It would seem that it would be impossible for the CSDOC to demonstrate that revenue in an unknown amount is needed or that such an unknown figure bears any relation to the cost of handling industrial effluent. ·~ The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 5 Assuming that an Industrial waste Ordinance is eventually adopted by the CSDOC, the question remains as to what indus- tries' share of the cost of handling industrial effluent should be. The preliminary recommendations (February, 1969) from Bartle Wells were 10,000 gallons per acre per day, 15,000 gallons per acre per day peak flow and 400 parts per million of suspended solids as cut-off points. In the CSDOC Staff's re- sponse (August 20, 1969) to the Industrial Waste Committee of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, it was stated that the use of the Bartle Wells recommendations would incorporate a built-in "subsidy" to any large user. These statements appear to reflect the belief that industry should pay.a minimum of 100% of the cost of disposal of industrial wastes. While it is true that industry should bear a "reasonable share" of any unusual sewerage disposal costs generated by it, there is a substantial question as to what constitutes a reasonable share, after taking into consideration all of the benefits provided by industry to the community at large. As concluded by the August, 1969 Bartle wells report, "the cost of providing sewerage facilities and services is a joint responsibility of the public at large and those who directly use and benefit from them." In addition to being given credit for property taxes which are turned over to the Districts and other sewerage charges, industry should be given a measure of The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Page 6 credit for the balance of its tax contribution which benefits, not industry, but the public at large. Last year, Hunt-Wesson's real pr~perty taxes alone amounted to $408,446.02 of which $249,111.06 went for education. These fine educational facili- ties are not utilized by this or any o~her industry, but directly benefit the public at large. Of course, the presence of industry greatly benefits the public through the collection of other tax revenues and by providing employment. In return, it is only reasonable and equitable that industry should receive credit for these contributions by being assessed a sewer use charge which is substantially less than 100% of any unusual sewerage disposal costs generated by it. Any other approach could very well have the effect of discouraging the entry of new indu_stry into orange County as well as limiting development and expansion of existing facilities. Surely this is not the desired result of the proposed sewer use charge ordinance. One of the difficulties with the ordinance as proposed is the recommended charges for peak flow and for suspended solids. Both of these charges are unreasonably high. The Senior Sani- -' tary Engineer for the National Canners Association has taken the time to review the proposed ordinance and make comparisons with other communities. His letter concluding that these pro- posed charges are "extremely high" as compared to that of other communities is attached for your consideration. The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 7 In addition to the above comments, it is suggested that any ordinance entertained by the CSDOC should consider the follow- ing itemf?: (1) At the August 28 meeting, the Staff of the CSDOC stated that the proposed ordinance theoretically applied to all commer- cial and industrial users but that, practically, from an administra- tion standpoint, it would be impossible to get around to every commercial user, such as service stations and other smaller busi- nesses. It is submitted that any ordinance considered by the CSDOC must be one that is capable of uniform administration. Otherwise, the statutory obligation of the CSDOC to adopt an ordinance that is uniformly just and equitable to all users would not be met. (2) Provision should be made for those situations where users have more than one outfall. At the August 28 meeting, the Staff indicated that if more than one outfall is involved, they will be averaged together in determining charges. (3) If gallons per day per acre is used as a unit of measure, the definition of "area occupied" should be expanded to include a formula for determining what acreage a lessee of office, ware- house or other space in a building is entitled to receive credit for. The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 8 (4) In the past two years, Hunt-Wesson has installed screens and made other capital improvements at its Fullerton plant. to reduce the amount of suspended solids and upgrade the quality of effluent at a cost of approximately $100,000. plus the asso- ciated operating and carrying charges. In addition to the obvious cost savings in sewer use charges, industry should be given other credit for capital improvements of this nature. Of importance to this company and to other orange county in- dustries is the lack of reasonable or, in fact, any alternatives. Newcomers exploring potential locations for manufacturing facilities will have the option of evaluating locations out- side Orange County before making any decision to expend millions of dollars in capital installations. This alternative is no longer available to resident industries. While we do not pretend to be experts in the field, it is our understanding that substantial federal grants are available to agencies such as the CSDOC which could greatly reduce its need for additional charges. In addition to federalgrants which may be available under Public Law 660 (33 u.s.c.A. §466[e]) for sewerage treatment works, federal grants of up to 66-2/3% of the cost of "basic public sewer facilities (other than treat- ment works)" may be applied for under Public Law 89-117, as amended (42 u.s.c.A. §3101 et. seq.). I ,. ; The Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 9 It is respectfully requested that the CSDOC and its Staff give careful consideration to these comments as well as the comment~ from other industries, various Chambers of Commerce within the County and other interested persons before taking any action on the proposed Industrial waste Ordinance. If after further study it is finally decided that a sewer use charge ordinan.ce is needed, it is hoped that industrial repre- sentatives from the various Chambers of Commerce within the County will be consulted and allowed to add their expertise in the development of a more equitable and defensible Indus- trial Waste Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, HUNT-WESSON FOODS, INC. ~-~~n-~ A. Silva, Vice President cannery Operations & Engineering cc: Mayor L. Reinhardt, City of Fullerton James L. Lynch, President Fullerton Chamber of Commerce . ' ( V• , •. t• . r. : ~0 t• . t- • Ci • (l .. . . I .. , .. I U• I· ' C. > .. , t' • UI (. i ,, . (• . (• . ,, .. . ~ • t I C. l (i i rv ti . ~ (& ) lh n ti · · : • f' · Q • •' 1 (> (L I t~ () , .. c I· p 0 tl i I ct (, 1 0 ~: 0 ": u. I- ] .. . . . l• t .. . . . . . . . ~, . ti ' ~: : (. \ -. . . . . . . . . 11 . .. . . (1 1 J (J C• •• (J i (1 I I (f ) c. ) ,. , o Lr J r. •· · p o er . ; . u, ,. , C. . > ~ j C. > 0' ) fl ' .. . . t ·I :. . . ! 0 f' ' J r: .. . . ( , (: :, . .. . . : : t I Cl ' . ! . 0 f• l (H I· ' {I I .. . ~ j' I I l\ 1 (: pi t• I 1- ! ,. , u. o (v {l . l c; : : (1 (L I {' 6 • :. :. ~ f1 .. . . ,. _ , ~. : j I- ' p1 (I ) :; 0 (1 · u. (, ' I (~ l l' • •v ~) O U• (1 1 cl fl l CJ , 0 ~, · p: . : c- : - . •! · · :. . . U1 $l ' o ~s C: • l' - ' :: s 0 c- t C> f/ J .. . . . . . . . _ •u "v "d o •s .. . . . t) .. . . rs o p. . I- ! t- ; ·~ j (> r: .. (: . r: t' - .. . en (; •v :, · Cl : '" {/ , 1- : • ,, , 0 .. ~ i' J < en < .. . . . . (i > 0 0. . . 1- • t ] (; . 1 tr ' r: t 1· · r, f• l > • I ,. . . . ti (I i • L' I t- J • : (. > (, ; ; r .. r] p, ~) · 0 t• · ., "' .( " .. [· , 1 C. ' J (~ · ~ < (i > r] :: > .. Q ll l ~) C• Ul t1 f ._ r: 1- ; () •! " · 0 p. . 0 tJ . 0 .. . d .. v 0 (. > r: ,. I I~ ri 01 b. p, [/ ; S\ l .. . . . ., . _ , ~i · U1 ,. , f' ~ 0 .. . . .. • .> ,. > (! . p (, I () -! • :. s '< 1 j Cv ti • c· : · t • Ul I • :, f, .. . . . . . . . . < 0 (> [, ; ~. ti ' 1; '~ i I· · • .. . . . . .. . , (J ! ~. pi (& ) 0 0 I' IJ ; tj 0 0 0 ~. I ' Cl ~ s: : p, 0 . (, . (~ "' '" (. ~: · < l p. :· t• . r: Y• (V • ! .. . . ct . (I ~ p. : .. . . . • .. r. t· J (. ) I ! (1 1 (. ) (" (. . i C. : l .. , (' 1- •u . ' . .. . u Cl = t Cf ~ : . (i i S' ' Li l fl ' s· ; •; < {l JI r- 1 · •· .. .. . .. C> f: r. : u1 w I J CL . l . .. .. : t "' I '• {I J v· • ] r. 1 ~, . , rt ~) .. l, ~: · '• ' fl ~ 0 ~: {\ I 1- I l' ! '< '- : . ! ~! . fl ~; · : ;· ~ >' Cl : <v (" tf l (l l C> >- l t •• 0 /' ' (i . 1 ~ ~ t. d •j t- • t S ,. , {! I . ~· <" ! p, ~ fl ' (! : : ,, . . .. . . . t r. ct .. . . . • pl :> ' (J ,. . . . Cl - f: t- ; ' ( ·, ~ ~ t- ' • c· t - C" t - r~ ~_ : ; 11 - • . ? c- 1 - fo t I J I· , , tf . .. j I ·• (. l .. > c· ; " I; , 1- ' ~- fl ' <v ,. . . . ~S ui <• • '" ' Ci ' ~ r: · •. . :; f~ l' J •• • (j J p ,_ . ) It I· - ' ) f (l ' p, tJ {) I (i i ,_ ; .. .. . •' ,. .. .. , • ,, • •· • r· t - (l j r I Cl C/ J 1- l . 1 ct ' r: · !' ? . C: i . 1 '" l 0 "i . . S (" 1- l ri 1 (, . .. . ~i O: t 0 0 {/ J CI t/ l p. i t- l ~~ .~ cl .. , . • o· ~: tJ P- 1 -J C' I· p1 t '· I- ' "' (I ) ~ O "u ,. . . . . c- 1 <: : (l ' •: R ., p. 1 ~ 0 1- > t- • · U1 er · <! () ct - tl 1 t• · ~ rt - (I J .. . . . . . . . . . p. ,: .. . . . . . 0 ~J ' p. i ti t .• (1 1 t• ) UJ 0 Cf l c· ~ ( 0 •u m d () • ; ~· · t- f ~; ~. . .J ., ! l rt @ (l · ~ t Ci • ;J ., . •j t/ J t- 1 {\ > .. . t t. ) . (. . _ , d ·~ (L I ~ 0 • "< tJ '< f' . : "' "l S fl ~ 'l ' U1 0 0. ) ·~ 0 ,, .. . . (l l • ~) , ,, c, ; (t ' . : -. . . . . . . . . 0 t· I (' \ ) c I ~I (. J c I C> l• • "" ' (' 1 -. ' (\ ) fl ' n : ~ (i , ) ~s .f l • "- < 1- 1 0 t> ' ~h < (I > r~ ,. .. . Ci ~ p. . t: > ' P' t• · p. 1 ~ Cf l ~ (S Q Ci l t· · · 0 0. Ci t ~~ ,, t] .. ; .. •; / p •• (I ' "' 1 t I (v 0 @ :· . s c- 1 · CI J .. . . . . . . . •u 0 r: ~) A· CJ . . > .. ] :: , · . (V 0 :• " ' pi •· : en (v .. . . . . . . . , t) ' .. . . fl l l' J t' 1 (O t> " •· ' · p, Cl ~ ! 0 ~· · p 0 0 .. . , ~) ,. . C l ~I "· l (\ ) n. c- t - ti ' . r: tn . "u @ ~ p .. . CD p. . 0 en . 0 ft · . ~- . ~ : p1 () , c- t · t/ J 0 ,. .. . . . . .. . . <. . · 0 .. . . . . . rt - · U1 p .. @ 1- : 0 0 ~j n fs 0 C> .. d (i > ' t- t c- 1 ' 0 .. . .. . . .. . . . 0 ~l : ,. ~ (t i C. 1 0 -J (. \ l ( C' I · •' l (' \ ) H (\ I I- . '< t> ' t' • 0~ 1 ~ , .. N t- 1 ~\ . C' v (J :> . r• I . : (1 1 fi i t. i ' f\ 1 (/ } (; ) p .. 0 ~ i •1 . J C" i > p1 .. . . ., . , .. . , .. . . C> ~ --( ; . C> lH C> •0 (l l "t .. . . . 0 c. , 0 Cl ' • pi ,. . . _. . . . ,. .. {( 1 (v ~~ I t .• t- ) ~, .. . (I ) 0 :· ) . r· ' I; (f ' • (i ; o· · fl l tr ; Ci ' p, 0 ~) < 0 .. . . . f: ~, . , Q -.. . -{ / . ; (. . ) 0 l. 1 1 "d (L I .. : .. . . . 0 C> 0 0· 1 S\ ' .. .. '- - ' .. . . . {/ ) Ct > .o r. : J. • · (' ' t f\ 1 v' I- I (1 1 it ~ .~ . p1 (> ·~ J .. . . . . . . .. . r. • c :· • ·• (v c :· (V '> ' (. , •c J ,. ~ () .. . ~ :: 1 r- ' 0 (\ \ tJ • I {/ ~ r• . r· ; (v <! ~: I ~ (, ~ Jl l (; ) t• ! . '" J 0 l! 1 (1 1 () .. . . . i· 1 1- : (I ' • (; ll l f\ 1 ·~ (L I c. (I ! (, • .. I) 0= ? I· ' • p (~ (; ) 0· () 0 0 .1 - : r: p, .. • t •• .. . . c· I t 1 '< t~ .. . (/ J () r- . • (1 1 f\ \ ·· ~ tV •• • p ~; · . f .~ Cl > p ~- · •' ( 't (' , tl 1 (I ~ 0 ,. . . , .. .. . .. tr i ,_ . . . r· t - 0 r1 1 (I I' .. . •' <' . : • :, <; ; • 1, (> u () .. '• ~~ Ui U< ~. fl "' Q .. . . C" L I r: n '" f t- 1 rt · f\ 1 0 "U .. . . :s .. . . . () ~f . U; 0 ~s U1 cl · .. . ,. f\ 1 U1 .. . 0 t' j. . . I ti ; (1 ' '" "< (' I ) ft · ~. i ~\ · C' v .. ~ (" f · (i ) . tl l :: ) · < 0 Ci • ~~ · s· ~ .. (J ~' . ! .. . .. . ~ () . 0 @ . .. . d 0 • R 0 O" UI -. . . : : ti (V t• · p, 0 •: ~! (\ l t- h l· l (> ~~ c :· p, 0 ~ "! U1 Cu I u (, . o p. 1 . ; ~ . : en .. . •' .. . .. . . c: · .. . . .. . •. a . J t -I ti : t I f; (l ' •: ; • f- " . .. • ,, . c. t .. •. • . . µ . (i > U• rt · • .. . . I ( . : r! · .. . : : ; -- ; ! ) Ci ! Ci 1 • 0 p .. ~; ~ •0 UJ () < 'O {\ I r I P C. f i t- · ' I ,, •· ) ~; ; !~ "J f ! . 0 •' 0 c: t- l (J () : •' ~ ~; · r• . p; · CJ , u • ! -. . . . r i .. . . [' V < o- . . (i i l• ' .t · . tn @ "d rt (i > s v' . (J "l C. , , . l l- - 4 ~ c, · .. . . ,, , r •I I· . ~; h' u. f' ; ' [l ~· E (I t. • o( m- "' U> :O UI " 0 ,, , Ul r -- 1" 1 x :< -I 0 J: )> Ul r ·I -· :u ., , ,, , 0 111 lJ ~I j" . ~ (( I ~ 0 ( •, I {' , ; (' ) ,( > ;( ) . : 't : · t I l . ~ J . : '. ( > !. ) ,/ , i I ( '} '1 I I' , I I 1; .. . . J :; .I •. ; ' . u: u ,. /. ; .. r ' l I , . 0: ·- : : · : ' ° ' - . . oc : : . ·· . . ; , , , ' .. ~ . ~- \ s 1· •. .: ... ' = 'i ; ; · · .. . ·. 1_ , . . - . l" ' 0 ! '- · · · . \, ! ~ :c r ~ .. c > r >- >: > rr , ~ ~ :' I ~· p C' r· II r. 'Z JC 0 • - ;. 2 i' 1< ~ . ~ ,. l' I ~ .~ l( • - ,, . ~ : r £: ,. .. . < p, < 0 r 11 Jj r. VI 0 ,. . 'Z ' .. : ~ ,. & .. 1~ . M4·· C. J -. <:: ....... ~ .. ..... .., .............. . -2.-1969 In light oi fo.e c:..".:,c.vc Y.ata, ~:c p:&.·oposcd volur.::ie cha~gc i$ quite e.~uitablc, ~'U.t ~e su~::Je:..--..C:cC:. ~oi..ici.:; c~~r.;c i.s 4igh. -:::'l0 pec:i.l~ i:..ow cne;.1• ;;.:! C.oe~ l'lOt appear tC be justiiia~lc oi :;l~c :Zc:..ciiitic~ to i-J.a.:..--..G.l~ t~e c:-i:ces;:; yoh:....-.1.e is :.:ct ~~i:1:lg c~::.--.si~c~·cC:.. D;;.~ !:v i:n'-! la::.·'ge va.~ia~iO:A."".S in wast~ fiow ch.:.l'"i::.-.~ a ... --.y '.fi~c:..:.·t~~·, :. t woU.:C:. i.;,~ cxt~·~:-... ~el. y C:.i:fiicU:t .to cs tablish. a:-... ec;.u.i ta.~le ?eal'- fiow ch~:.·gc. Ot!:e:e St4rcha.rge .: .. ates e::.-:i:)loyed by va1·iou::> sar4ita1·y dist~icts are out- :i.i:" ... eci. o~ ·~"-le a:-::c..ct-.. acl s:'j.eet. :i you need iu~tr4el" a.ssistar.ce, please foe: :free ~o contact n."l.e. -. ~ r--,. ~ ..._ -'-· .... ·" ..... Enclosure CC: f:..t.: .. :r. 1Yalter A •. Mercer Mr. C. VT. 3lodgett Very t::-uly yours, ,.·--- / . --;,·--- ........ : ~ .. 1'. ·--......... ...._ Ronald A. ':sugi:a, :?. E. Senior Sanitary ~ngh:eer --- r"'I-:-.ex: 1, ,..,..._ GJv Cl.:. .':4-5-1/2 cc~~~s 100 .: ... ~~c vv~, ...... , ?C:..· cu ..... r':"\._ ~ ·~ -:::.i---. -• "'I CCC ~.f., ..:~ cents 100 ~4 . ..... w •• \:::i.A'-' ... , J. ... v' c~ ...... , :?Cl" cu .I.I. • -· ,_,:-.; •4 , .. 4-...... -• -, ,.... -,OG .• .:: ... · -• ·.1: ..._, .:-...n c-c;.'-4 ......... v ...... aJ. c .......... ::;e v.:. j. o cent..:. pc ... .&. Cu"'" is rnc:.1.ae i ... 1..i.1.C \va.~te exce~C.s 5GO l.J?n1. i:1. s~.;?e:::cleC:. solids or 7 SC :?l:nn BOD since secol"l.- Ee.sec. o:-... a~ av~::c..ge C.c.ily flow (May 1 68 to A:?:ril 1 69) o:f I. 6 MGD. Vol~1.a cb.a:r;;e \;)13~ ?e::.· day or ~9, 000 pe:r yr. Su.s?er-... C.ed SoliC:s ~12 0 p<n· day oi· 42, 7 0 0 per yr• Total Charge.--$91, 7 00 per yr • . '--"' ..... · ., .. ~ ... · .. , a.. '?.QT"'i cha-... ;:e O. "-~ cents·,e":"' po,·-.-:..:. i:;..eCC:lCi.C..7:y t.r~a;.. ... ueni. ?::"OV::.""'e • ..i..1 """" •• ~ oJ.,, .. r -.............. Flow ~3. 83 pe= million gallor..s s~spa:-... C:.eC. soliG.s 0. 56 ce:i.ts ?e:r pound ?otal ·Charge --$ S, 500 per year· Los Angeles Laundryowners Association 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNfA 90017 AREA CODE <213) eB3·1!574 ROOM 222 STATLER CENTER SPECIAL DELIVERY Chairman of the Board Orange County Sanitation District· 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Sir: September 8, 1969 I have just received a copy of an article which appeared in "The Register" on September 4, 1969, regarding the uniform industrial waste charge proposed by your Board of Directors. I do not at present have any particulars on how this waste charge would.increase the cost of doing business in your sanitation district. However, I would urge most strongly that you consider the fact that any increase in the cost of doing business will deter members of our industry from moving into your district, and may adversely affect existing plants. The linen supply and industrial laundry industry in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas has been growing in the recent past. We expect to continue adding new plants, particularly in the Orange County area. Therefore, we urgently request that before you pass this industrial waste charge ordinance you give industries such as ours the opportunity to study the plan. We would then be in a position to suggest alternatives or to agree with the proposed plan if we find it is a fair and equitable charge. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, n&i1 /)MacKen~ Executive Director DJM/lb ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO CONNECTION TO AND USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES, ESTABLISHING CHARGES THEREFOR AND CHARGES FOR DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, AND REPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. DRA!t1 T 7-29-69 8-6-69 (Rev. ) The Board of Dlrectors of County Sanitation District No. · of Orange County, California, does ordain as follows: ARTICLE 1 -PURPOSE .. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the maximum public benefit from the use of the Districts' facilities by regulating the-quality and quantity of sewage and industrial waste discharged thereto and to provide for charges for the use thereof when such use is disproportionate to District costs imposed by other property within the District. The revenues to be derived from the application of this ordinance shall be used to defray the costs of, including the repayment of principal and interest on bonds issued for the acquisition, construction or reconstruction and the maintenance of an adequate sewerage system to serve the territory of the District excepting that no revenues derived from this ordinance shall be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street sewers or laterals as distinguished from main trunk interceptor and outfall sewers. ARTICLE 2 -DEFINITIONS (a) Area Occupied -Shall mean the land area in acres upon which improvements and ~acilities have been constructed and the use thereof produces industrial waste. It shall include the area occupied by all improvements used, owned or maintained by or for the firm or establishment whether or not industrial waste is generated by a particular improvement and shall include landscaped areas, parking lots, warehouses -and incidental improvements. It shall also include unimproved land adjacent to improved property when such land is owned, leased, occupied or maintained by the firm or establishment. In the case of land occupied for oil or mineral production, it shall include the entire area reserved for oil or mineral production. (b) District -Shall mean County Sanitation District No. of Orange County. {c) Sewage -Shall mean the waste water derived from human use ~ of buildings for ordinary residential, institutional or commercial purposes. {d) General Manager -Shall mean the individual duly designated by the Board of Directors of the District to administer this ordinance. (e) Industrial Waste -Shall mean the waterborne waste and· waste water from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation of whatever nature, including institutional and commercial operations where water is used for laundering, vehicle cleaning, or the removal of signifi- cant quantities of wastes of non-human origin. (f) Local Sewering Agency -Shall mean any public corporation duly authorized under the laws of the State of California to construct and/or maintain public sewers. (g) Peak Flow Rate -Shall mean the highest flow rate of industrial waste discharged to a public sewer over a period of at least 15 minutes between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight at any time during a calendar quarter. {h) Pre-Treatment Plant or Facility -Shall mean any works or device for the treatment of industrial waste, prior to discharge into a public sewer. (i) Public Corporation -Shall mean any City, District or other public agency duly organized under the laws of the State of California. (j) Standard Methods -Shall mean procedures described in the Twelfth edition of "standard Methods for the Examtnation of Water and Wastewater" as published by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control '.,.,/ Federation. {k) Suspended Solids -Shall mean any insoluble solid matter contained as a component of sewage or industrial waste and capable of separation from the liquid portion of s~id waste by laboratory filtration.· -2- ARTICLE 3 -PERMITS (a) When Required -No person or public corporation shall be permitted to connect to, use, or maintain a connection to the sewerage facilities of the District without a valid ·permit, issued as herein- after provided. No person or public corporation shall be permitted to use or maintain a connection for the discharge of industrial waste to a sewerage facility of a local sewering agency, which facility discharges to a District sewerage facility, without a valid permit issued as hereinafter p·rovided. (b) Condition Precedent -No permit shall be valid unless the real property to be served by use of the permit is included within the boundaries of the District and within the boundaries of a local sewering agency authorized to maintain public sewerage works; provided, however, a permit may be issued for property to be served outside the boundaries of a local sewering agency if a local sewering agency makes application for the issuance of such permit. (c) Permit for Connection To and Use of District Facility (1) Application for such permit shall be made to the District on forms provided by the District and shall be in two parts: first, a connection permit for the purpose of authorizing connection to a District's sewerage facility under conditions set forth in said permit; and secondly, a use permit. for discharging sewage and industrial waste to District's sewerage facility in accordance with the rules and regu- lations of the District established as hereinafter provided. (?) The use permit may prescribe requirements as to the type of connection and require the provision of industrial waste pre- treatment plants or facilities necessary to insure compliance with the District's rules and regulations as· to the characteristics, quality and quantity of sewage and industrial waste discharged. Such rules and regulations shall be established as provided hereinafter and such requirements shall be set forth in the permit by the General Manager of the District. (d) Permit for Use of District Services and Facilities for :rrea.tment and D~sposal of Industrial Waste (1) Application for such permit shall be made to the -3- District on forms provided by the District. The··permit shall be issued by the District and shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the District as to the components, quality and quantity of sewage. and industrial wastes discharged. The permit may also prescribe require- me~ts as to necessary pre-treatment of industrial waste to insure compliance with the District's regulations as to the components, quality and quantity of sewage and industrial waste discharged. Any such requirements shall be set forth in the permit. ARTICLE 4 -QUALITY REQUIREMENTS (a) Substances Prohibited -No person or public corporation shall discharge sewage or industrial waste into a District sewerage facility or into a local sewering agency facility, which facility discharges to a District facility, when the components of such effluent cause the effluent to exceed the limits set forth herein or are in violation of the rules and regulations of the District established as hereinafter provided. {l) A temperature higher than 120°F {2) More than 100 milligrams .Per liter of hexane soluble material (fats and oils) or 25 milligrams per liter of floatable oil (3) a pH of less than 6.5 or more than 12.0 (4) More than 1250 milligrams per liter of suspended solids (5) Any amount of substances which, singly or in combination with other substances, cause an explosive, radioactive, or toxic condition in the sewerage system, treatment plants or disposal area. (b) Additional Rules and Regulations -The General Manager of the District shall, from time to time, establish and· disseminate additional rules and regulations as to quality of industrial waste dis- charged to the sewerage facilities of the District or to the sewerage facilities of a local sewering agency, which facility discharges into a District facility. Said regulations will be for the purpose of insuring that industrial waste discharged will not cause undue maintenance in the District's facilities, interfere with proper operation of the treatment plants, produce a noxious or malodorous gas, create a public nuisance, create hazards to structures, equipment and personnel, or create a violation of the requirements imposed upo~ the District by Federal, State or local regulatory agencies. ARTICLE 5 -QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS i..._; In order to provide for reasonable use of the District's sewerage facilities and in recognition of the fact that the transmission, treat- ment and disposal of domestic sewage is the highest and best use of the District's sewerage facilities, the General Manager of the District may set forth requirements in any permit to limit the quantity of industrial waste discharged to a sewerage facility of the District or to a local sewering agency. Such requirements may limit the volume of industrial waste to be discharged with respect to any given unit of time. ARTICLE 6 -CHARGES FOR CONNECTION AND USE (a) Connection Charge -No application for a permit for a connection to a District sewerage facility shall be considered until a connection charge is paid by the applicant, provided however, that such charge shall not be payable when a permit is issued for the reconnection or alteration of an existing connection made by the District or at the request of the District. Said connection charge shall be an amount set forth in a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors. (b) Permit Charge for Industrial Waste -No application for a permit to use a connection to a facility of the District or to a sewerage facility of a local sewering agency, which discharges into a District facility, for the discharge of industrial waste shall, after the effective date of this ordinance, be considered until an industrial waste permit charge is paid by the applicant. As used in this section, "discharge of industrial waste" shall include any significant change in the quality or quantity of an existing industrial waste discharge. ~o charge will be made for the issuance of such permit for discharges of industrial waste 1.._i existing at the effective date of this ordinance, providing application therefor is made within 180 days after said effective date. Said industrial waste permit charge shall be an amount set forth in a reso- ·1ution duly adopted by the Board of Directors. -5- (c) Use Charges for Industrial Waste -In order to effect an equitable distribution of costs between the users of the District's sewerage facilities, a charge shall be made for use of such facilities for disposal of industrial waste when the volume and quality of such waste imposes District costs disproportionate to the District costs imposed by other property within the District. It is hereby established that an average daily rate of flow of industrial waste exceeding 5,000 gallons (668.5 cubic feet) per acre of area occupied per day or a peak flow rate of ·industrial waste exceeding the rate of 7,500 gallons (1003 cubic feet) per acre of area occupied per day or the discharge of industrial waste containing more than 250 milligrams per liter of sus- pended solids imposes an unreasonable burden of cost on other property within the District. In the event of a discharge of industrial waste, whose components, either by themselves or in conjunction with those of other wastes, create an additional maintenance and/or treatment expense to the District, the Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the General '-11 Manager of the District, may impose additional charges commensurate with the additional maintenance and/or treatment expenses incurred. (d) Computation and Invoicing of Use Charges for Industrial Waste -At the beginning of each calendar quarter, the Generai Manager of the District shall determine which dischargers of industrial waste have, during the preceding calendar quarter, exceeded the flow rates and/or suspended solids content limitations set forth hereinabove and shall compute the use charge payable. Said use charge is the sum of a Volume Charge, a Peak Flow Charge and a Suspended Solids Charge and shall be computed as follows: (1) Volume Charge -The volume charge per calendar quarter, when more than 50 percent of the total flow during the calendar quarter is discharged during the hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight, is $0.05 per ~ 1,000 gallons (133.7 cubic feet) of the excess of the actual voltune discharged during the calendar quarter over t~e volume to be accepted without charge. The volume to be accepted without charge is 5,000 gallons per day·for each acre of area occupied. -6- . I.._,) Or, when more than 50 percent of the total flow each day during the calendar quarter is discharged during the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m., the volume charge is $0.04 per 1,000 gallons, calculated on the same basis. {2) Peak Flow Charge -The peak flow charge per calendar quarter is $0.50 per 1,000 gallons per day of the excess of the actual peak flow rate discharged during the calendar quarter over the peak flow rate to be accepted without charge. The peak flow rate to be accepted without charge is 7,500 gallons per day for each acre of area occupied. (3) Suspended Solids Charge -The suspended solids charge per calendar quarter is $15.00 per ton of suspended solids in the industrial waste discharged during the calendar quarter in excess of the tons of suspended solids to be accepted without charge. The tons of suspended solids to be accepted without charge is that amount represented by a concentration of 250 milligrams per liter. £eginning October 30, 1970 and thereafter not later than 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, the General Manager of the District shall invoice each permittee for the discharge of industrial waste as follows: For each calendar quarter from July 1, 1970 through June 30, 1971, 33-1/3% of the amount equal to the sum of the volume charge, peak flow charge and suspended solids charge; for each calendar quarter from July 1, 1971 through June 30, 1972, 66-2/3% of said amount; and after June 30, 1972, for each calendar quarter, 100% of said amount. ARTICLE 7 -MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF FLOWS (a) Average Flow -The measurement of average flow of industrial waste shall be made by the District by means of a metering device, approved by the General Manager of the District and installed and \.,.J maintained at the expense of the discharger of industrial waste, or by estimate arrive~ at from total water used in the area occupied, or by other means acceptable to the General Manager of the District and to the discharger of industrial waste. The discharger of industrial waste shall · -7- have the option of selecting whether the measurement shall be made by meter, or by estimate, or other means, provided that the method of esti- mate or other means is approved by the General Manager of the District. {b) Peak Flow Rate -The me~surement of peak flow rate during the calendar quarter shall be made by means of a meter approved by the General Manager of the District or by field measurements made by the District. The discharger of industrial waste shall have the option of selecting the method of measurement to be used, provided however, that in the event ·the field measurement is selected, an additional charge of $150.00 per calendar quarter will be made to defray the costs thereof and will be invoiced with the regular use charge invoice for that calendar quarter. {c) Determination of Components -The measurement of suspended solids and other components in the. sewage and industrial waste discharged shall be made from appropriate samples of the discharge taken and analyzed by the District as part of the regular inspection program herein- after authorized. All quality measurements and determinations shall be made in accordance with Standard Methods. ARTICLE 8 -INSPECTION The.General Manager of the District shall institute a regular industrial waste inspection program in order to determine the quality and quantity of industrial waste discharged to the Districts' facilities and the effect thereof on the maintenance and operation of said facili- ties. Said inspection shall be carried out by employees of the District. ARTICLE 9 -INTERPRETATION AND APPEAL (a) Request for Ruling -If any permittee or applicant for a permit disputes the interpretation or application of this ordinance, he shall set forth his contentions in writing to the General Manager of the District. The General Manager shall within thirty days respond in "...__) writing to the contentions so made and set forth his determinations thereof. (b) Appeal -If the permittee or applicant for a permit is dis- ·satisfied with the determinations so made by the General Manager, he -8- may within thirty days after mailing of said ruling by the General Manager to said permittee or applicant for a permit, appeal said ruling by giving written notice of the basis of his appeal to the Board of Directors of the District. Said written notice shall be accompanied by a non- refundable fee of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00). The Board of Directors of the District shall within forty-five days after receipt of said written notice of appeal make a final determination of the issues presented. ARTICLE 10 -PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND DELINQUENCIES All charges made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance are due and payable upon receipt of notice thereof. All such charges shall be and become delinquent thirty days after mailing or delivering notice thereof to the mailing address of the property subject to such charges. All delinquent charges shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and each day any such charge remains delinquent shall be deemed a separate violation. ARTICLE 11 -PENALTIES Any charge that becomes delinquent shall have added to it a penalty charge equal to ten percent of the charge that became delinque~t and thereafter an additional penalty shall accrue on the total charge due, including the ten percent basic penalty at the rate of one-half of one percent per month until paid. ARTICLE 12 -COLLECTION Upon motion by the Board of Directors of the District, any charge and all penalties thereon shall be collected by lawsuit in the name of the District. Any such action for collection may include an application for an injunction to prevent repeated and re-occurring violations of this ordinance. ARTICLE 13 -VIOLATIONS No person or public corporation shall violate any provisions or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance. Any person or public corporation violating any of the provisions or failing -9- to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance shall be ~~ilty of a misdemeanor. Any person or corporation convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this ordinance shall be puni.shed by a fine of not more than $100.00 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each person or public corporation shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this ordinance i_s committed, continued or permitted by such person or public corporation and shall be punishable accordingly. ARTICLE 14 -SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby. If a provision of this ordinance is held invalid, all valid provisions that are severable from the invalid provision shall remain in effect. ARTICLE 15 -REPEAL Ordinances Nos. are hereby repealed and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance. ARTICLE 16 -EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 1970. -10-