HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-05-18STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL
'OOM 1140, RESOURCES BUILDING •
~416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814
·."-""
May 10, 1971
Mr. Fred A. Harper
General Manager
--County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P. o. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708'
Dear Mr. Harper:
We have reviewed in depth the District's application for
clean water grants for the Sunflower Interceptor and must
inform you that in our view the project is ineligible for
grant assistance.
Massive demand for the federal funds available have caused
the State Board to strictly interpret federal and state
regulations as regards eligible interceptors. If liberal
.interpretations are made, predorninent portions of the grant
program funds would go into building conduits with little
clean water return on the investment.
As you know, we have met and discussed our views with
Sanitation District engineers and consultants on several
occasions, but should you have additional comments or desire
further explanation of rationale, please call upon us.
Paul R. Bonderson
Chief
cc: CRWQCB, Los Angeles Region
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE. (EUCLID OFl=:··RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
May 14,. 1971
·"
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 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 held May 12,
1971, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District
No. 7 wi.11 meet in an adjourned regular meeting:
JWS:gc
Tuesday, May 18 ,. 1971
at 5:30 p.m.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, balifornia
District #7 -Staff report on District 's Master Plan Faciliti es
The Direc t or o f F inance reported to the Board on the
projected financing in connection with the constr u ction of
District 's Master Plan facilities. He advised the Board
that recent denial ~X by the State Water Resources Con tro l Bo ard
o f the District's application f or a construction grant on t he
Sunflower Interceptor S e wer would have a s ignificant effect on
the District 's f und i ng requiremen ts . Base d upon the cash
f low projections it appears advisable at this time for the District
to s ell additional $1,000,000 of authorized general obligation
bonds to provide t he necessary funding for con struction of
the Sun fl ow e r Intercept or, Reaches 1, 2 and 3 and the R ed Hi l l
Interceptor , Re ac hes 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 . Following a general
discussion it was moved , seconded and duly carr ied : ~~That
the report o f preliminary cash projection dated May 18, 1971
be received and ordered f iled .
Declaration of In t ent to
Offe r $1 ,000,000 in general
Following a report by NM Edwin
Wells, o f Bartle ){Wells Associates ,
obligation bonds for sale District 's municipal finan cing
on J u ly 21, 1971 consultants , on the current stat u s
os fhe bond market in connection with the propos e d sale of
add ition al authorized general obl i gation bonds , it was
moved , seconded and duly carried : Tha t the Boa r d of
Directors declare its intent to o f fer $1 ,000 ,00 0 in general
obligation bonds for sale on Ju l y 21, 1971 ; and , FURTHER MOVED :
That said date of sale be subject to final determinat ion
by the Board .
#10 -Segerstrom -standard , and authorizing payment as provided
in said resolution
#11 -Following a general discussion concerning the scheduled
increase in sewer connection charges on July 1, 1971 as
provided for in Ordinance No. 712, it was moved, seconded and
duly carried : That the staff be directed to prepare and forward
a communication to the cities and sanitary districts within
District No. 7 and the local news media, concerning the escalation
of .sewer connection fees
CLAR K M ILL ER
C . A R T HU R NISSON
NELSO N KOGLER
H , LAW SON M EAD
MILLER, NISSON & KOGLER
ATTORN E YS AT LAW
2 0 14 NORTH B R OADWAY
. SANTA ANA . CALIFORNIA 92706
REPORT ON LAWSUIT -
CSD #3 VS. AMERCOAT CORP., COOK & BARLETTA, ET AL.
TE!:L.EPHONB
!542·6771
The trial of this lawsuit was on April 20 and 21,
1971 and resulted in a judgment in fa v or of the defendants.
The matter was not decided on the merits. It was judged that the
statute of limit ations had run before the suit was commenced.
To summarize, the v arious contracts were completed
in late 1959 and by the middle of 1960. In June and July of
1961 the District had information to t h e effect that the
protective coat ing was deterio~ating and, in some cases, failing
completely. A written report to L ee M. Nelson, General
Manager, was made on July 20, 1961 , and a complete surv ey was
made by Boyle Engineering in Se ptember of 1961. This survey
disclosed t hat there were many areas of :failure in v arying
degrees.
No formal written demand for repairs and correc-
tions was made on the contractors until a month or so before
the expiration of t h e ir respective fiv e-year guarantees.
Af ter these demands were made, there was some
correspondence and a denial of liability by the v arious c ontrac-
tors involved. The District authorized the filing of a
lawsuit at its meeting of September 14, 1966 .
The defendants argued that the statute of limitations
commenced when the District became aware of the defective
manhole c oating. 'rhe District's position was that it did not
s t art running until the five -yoar guarantee p eriod ended.
This same argument was raise d upon a Motion for
Summary Judgment on May 12, 1970 and the Judge a t that hearing
ruled that the statute commenc e d running at t h e e nd of the
fi ve-yea r guarantee period as contended by t he District.
At the trial on April 20, and 21, this .point was
again raised and that t rial judge decided in favor of the
d efendants. The ruling wa s that the Distric t should ha v e
commenced its suit wit hin four years of its initial disc o v ery,
which appe a red t o have b e en July 20 , 196 1, the date of Ted
Dunn 1 s report to Lee M. Nelson.
I
! I
It is believed that this issue could be
isolated in an appeal and that costs of appeal could be
minimized. If ·the District does not want to pursue
further, I might consider taking it up on appeal at
my own expense on a contingency basis. The estimated costs
of appeal are $1500 to $2500.
Dated: May 12, 1971.
Respectively submitted,
e~~ c. Arthur Nisson
General Counsel
CAN:cp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL
• ~OOM 1140, RESOURCES BUILDING
.._.,,.1416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814
May 10, 1971
Mr. Fred A. Harpe~
General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
Po Oo Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Dear Mr. Harper:
We have reviewed in depth the District's application for
clean water grants for the Sunflower Interceptor and must
inform you that in our view the project is ineligible for
grant assistance.
Massive demand for the federal funds available have caused
the State Board to strictly interpret federal and state
regulations as regards eligible interceptors. If liberal
interpretations are made, predominent portions of the grant
program funds would go into building conduits with little
clean water return on the investment.
As you know, we have met and discussed our views with
Sanitation District engineers and consultants on several
occasions, but should you have additional comments or desire
further explanation of rationale, please call upon us.
Paul R. Bonderson
Chief
cc: CRWQCB, Los Angeles Region
@ . .
.
"
May 14, 1971
C . .J. SEGERS~rROM & SONS
3315 Fairvie·w Road • Costa l\fcsa, California 92626
'I'elephonc 546-0110
Mr. Arthur Nisson
Miller, Nisson & Kogler
Attorneys at Law
2014 North Broadway
Santa Ana, California 9 2 7 0 6
Dear Art:
Enclosed is an original and one copy, executed by us, of the Right-of-
Way Easement for the Sunflower Avenue trunk. Will you kindly date and
sign this document and return the original to us, retaining the copy for
your files. The land area described in Schedule "A", Page l, 0. 563 Ac.
9506/73 O.R. is owned by us and is farmed by Roy Sakioka. ·
You should deal directly with Mr. Sakioka in regard to the remuneration
for crop damages. The balance of our property taken by this easement
amounts to 3 .146 acres and with a two-year average of a crop produced
on these fields comes to $400 per acre, for a total of $1, 258. 40.
We sincerely hope this easement will facilitate the construction of this
much needed sewer for the south part of Santa Ana.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
C. J. SE~ER:,STROM & SONS .·~
.· .. ··:;; . /1 x-,.. ,/ . •· .. ' "' ' ·,, ,, . ,./,./!/ .. / .· / ·· 1/ ///;.· ;..~..:/ / c f/ , / /:_/'[,/L-__. , <-C /,
/ .·· l ..-· 7
; Hal Seger.strom .. -· ··
Encl. //
II
P. 0. Box 5175
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
.Co unty San itati o n Di stricts
of Oran ge County, Ca lifo rnia
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Te lephones :
DISTRIC T N O . 7
May 14, 1971
Adjo urned Regular Meeting
May 18, 1 971 -5 :30 p .-m.
1 •. Discussion and Actions Pertaining to Sale of
Additi onal General Obligat ion Bonds .
Area Code 7 14
540-2910
962 -2411
The District 's Board adjourned to th e above date to
discuss the possible sale of additional authorized General
Obligati on Bonds to finance Contract No. 7 -6-3 (Sunflower
Interc epto r Sewer , Reach 3) and the Red Hill Interceptor
Sewer . As rep orted, State and Federal financial assistance
wil l not be available during the coming fiscal year for the
District No . 7 i nterceptor sewer const ruction p rogram (see
enclos ed State Board letter). The firm of Bartl e Wells
Associates, Municipal Financing Consultants , has been advised
of t he May 12th Board ac tion accepting their proposal to pro-
cee d with the sale of additional bonds . Mr . We lls is prepar-
ing a time schedule which will recommend a possible sale date
to be c onside r ed at Tuesday's meeting .
The enc lo sed project funding r eport dated March 5., 1971,
is currentl y being updated and a revised cash-flow projection
will be presented at the meeting .
2 . Reque s t from The Irvine Company to Study Possible
Annexation of Undeveloped Acreage No rth of the Ma rine Corps
Air Fac ility .
We have b een advised that a commun ication will be forth-
coming from The Irvine Company requesting that the Districts
consider the feasibility of annexing substantial acreage to
the District. This property lies north of the Marine Corps
Air Facility .
During the preparation of the Engineer's Report for the
$6 .0 mi llion sewerage system bond issue, ~t was concluded by
repre sentatives of Th e Irvine Company ~hat this area would be
served, when developed, by the Irvine Ranch Water District;
there fo r e, the existing facilities and planned construction
do not provide for additional capac ity which would be required
i f this a r ea were ann exed. Since thi s matt er involves proper ties
,~ .. -...
outside the District's boundary and will consume some time of
the District's engineers, it is the staff's reconunendation that
Boyle Engineering be authorized to conduct whatever engineering
studies are required to obtain the information requested, pro-
vided the Company agrees to reimburse the expense to the District.
FAH:j
Enclosures
Fred A. Harper
General Manager
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7
Sunflower Interceptor & Red Hill Interceptor Financing Capabilities
REQUIRED PROJECT FUNDING
1
Pro.ject
Estimated Total
Project Cost
(See below)
7~6-l Sunflower Interceptor,
Reach l ·
7-6-2 Sunflower Interceptor,
Reach 2
7-6-3 Sunflower Interceptor, Reach
3 and Red Hill Interceptor
Total Project FUnding Requirements
for District No. 7
AVAILABLE DISTRICT PROJECT FUNDING
(Excludes Fe1. & State Financing)
Bond Sale (3.5 Million Sold 1no)
Accumulated Capital Outlay
2,635,000
1,640,000
2,101,000
District No. 7 Share
(Without Federal
& State Financing)
1,845,000
1,230,000
2,101,000
3,500,000
800,000
4,300,000
Assume Fed. & State
Financing On
7-G-l
3b9,000
1,230,000
2,101,000
3,700,000
3,500,000
800,000
4,300,000
3-5-71
Assume Fed. & State
Financing On
7-b-l & 7-6-2
369,000
246,ooo
2,101,000
2,716,000
3,500,000
800,000
·4,300,000
Note: The above schedule reflects project costs only. If federal and state participation enables completion of the
facilities without selling additional authorized bonds, because of the cash flow situation, it may be necessary
for short term ~arrowing of funds against anticipated tax revenues pending receipt of grant monies.
Pro,ject Bid
7-6-1 2,290,481
7-6-2
7-6-3
• )
~amputation of Estimated Project Cost
Engr's. Est.
1,425,000
Engr. Fee
104,485
65,315
Add Survey, Insp. Est'd Total
)
& Incidentals Project Cost
240,000
149,000
2,G35,ooo
1,640,000
2,101,000
District lf..7 Share
Percent Amount ----
70% 1,845,000
.
75% 1,230,000
100% 2,101,000
5,176,000
)
''·
II
BOAflDS Of DiREC'fOrtS
County San itati on D!str icts P. 0. Box 5175
of Orange Co unty1 Cal ifo rn ia I08l14 ~llis Aver.u e
Fountain Valley, Ca l if., 92700
·,
\ ~, DI S.TR/CT No.'~--
May 18 , 1971 -5 :30 p .m.
Roll Call
\,
Appoint me nt of Chai rm an pro t ern , i f nec.essary
Report of the General Manager
Report of t he General Counsel
A GE r~ D A
7{D)OURNMENTS •• "~
CO MP & MILEAG E .. i.C'~
~1~:~L~~o~: .. ~£~£~
LETTERS V/RlTTEtL. .. ~
MINUTES WRfffEtl .,.,15/.,_,
MI NUTES HLW • .,,,,J.?m<«'
Conside r a tion of motion to receive and file letter f:com C/
S tate Wa t e r Resource s Control Board dated May 10 ,, 1 971, ~O
advising that the Sunflower Inter c ~ptor is inel i gible tJ.S .
for grant assista..nce ·
~Staff report in connect i on with financing of District 1 s
master plan f acilities . (Copy in meeting folder . ) .
(11)
(12 )
(1 3 )
Repor t o f Bartle Wel ls Assoc i ates , municipal financing
consultants, in conne c tion with sal e of additional authorized
general o b ligation bond s
Consideration of motion declar ing t h e Boards intent to · i
offer 1.1p to $ !,[))"\?1tr1rV in general obligatio~. /.. ,µ"•
bonds to b e sold on 1,..,,.,.11 . (Amount a21d ~atp ;11.6
t o be determined .. ) I' <J..f V(; ~ttl'j:l 1
Considerat ion of request from 'l'he I rvine Company
p ible anne xation of undeveloped area north of
Corps ··r Facility
(a) Cons i derat1 _
f r om The Irvi ne
said s t udy.
re questing
(b ) Cons i deration of ion authoriz District 1 s
eng i neers to duct necessary studie dete rm ine
feas i bil . of se r ving the p r oposed area t annexed
prov · ' d that the proponent of the anne xation a
reimburse the District for said engineering expens s .
Consideration of Res o lution No . 71-57-7 , authorizing exe cution
of a temporary working lic ense wit h Nellie R. Segerstrom ,
et al, in connec tion with const r uction of Sunflower Interceptor,
Rea.ch 1 , Co.n tra.ct No . 7 -6·-l, and Sunflower Intercep to·r , . ·
Reach 2 , Contract No . 7 -6 -2 , fo r an amount to be determineC.
by value of· the crop damaged , a.s r ecomme nded by the Genera.l
Counsel . See page 11 B11 ·~
• Ii.
Discuss i on r elati ve to advising p u blic of the schedul d ~
· JuJY .. 1 , 1971 increase in sewer conne ction c harges ( , -~.,. ....... ().
Other. business and cormnunications, i.:f A n[ ~J k ~ l: •(~~,~~~· . ~
C •ct .. f t • t ct •. ~''1 "--t onsi erai:aon o : me· i on o a Journ ~' fixr;;fi 'ti ....
PD --~vJf'c1
:
l ~x ~l"' 11 ~·
jfaig.1 l / vr~i~
f\•fY .pr[f
1v~.
.-
RESOLUTION NO. 71-57-7
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY
WORKING LICENSE. AGREEMENT SEGERSTROM
PROPERTIES
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY
WORKING LICENSE AGREEMENT (SEGERSTROM
PROPERTIES)
* * * * * * * * * * *
The Board of Directors of County .Sani ta.tion District No. 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 Temporary Working License Agreement
from Nellie R. Segerstrom, Harold T. Segerstrom, Segerstrom
Industrial District, South Coast Plaza (a partnership), Veronica
P. Segerstrom, Henry T. Segerstrom, Yvonne De C. Segerstrom,
Harold T. Segerstrom, Jr., and Jebnette E. Segerstrom, dated
May 18, 1971, described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part of this resolutiGn; and,
Section 2. That said license be accepted and approved by
by the District upon the filing of a duly executed copy thereof
in the office of the Secretary; and,
Section 3. That the Auditor of the District be authorized,
upon receipt of a demand signed by C. A. Nisson, General Counsel
of the District, to pay to the above designated owners an amount
to be determined by value of the crop damaged.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held
May 14, 1971.
Agenda Item #10 -B-District 7
(
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7
Sunflower Interceptor·& Red Hill{ terceptor Financing Capabilities
REQUIRED PROJECT FUNDING
, Project
Estimated Total ·
Project Cost
(See below)
7~6-1 Sunf~ower Interceptor,
Reach l
7-6-2 Sunflower Interceptor,
Reach 2
7-6-3 Sunflower Interceptor, Reach
3 and Red.Hill Interceptor
Total Pr9ject funding Requirements
for Distrl~t No. 7
AVAILABLE DISTRICT PROJECT FUNDING
(Excludes Fe~. & State Financing)
Bond Sale (3.5 Million Sold .7/70)
Accumulated Capital Outlay
2,635,000
1,640,000
2,101,000
District No. 7 Share
(Without Federal
& State Financing)
1,845,000
1,230,000
2,101,000
5,176,000
3,500,000
800,000
4,300,000
Assume Fed. & State
Financing On
7-6-1
369,000
1,230,000
2,101,000
3,700,000
3,500,000
800,000
4,300,000
( 3-5-71
Assume Fed. & State
Financing On
7-b-l & 7-6-2
369,000
246,ooo
2,101,000
2,716,000
3,500,000
800,000
·4,300,boo
Note: The above schedule reflects project costs only. If federal and state participation enables completion of the
facilities without selling additional authorized bonds, because of the cash flow situation, it may be necessary
for short term ~arrowing of funds against anticipated tax revenues pending receipt of grant monies.
Pro.ject
7-6-1
7-6-2
7-6-3
Bid
2,290,481
~amputation of Estimated Project Cost
Engr.'s. Est.
1,425,000
Engr. Fee
104,485
65,315
Add Survey, Insp. Est'd Total
& Incidentals Project Cost
240,000
149,000
2,635,000
1, 6lW, 000
2,101,000
District :/1..7 Share
Percent Amount
70% 1,845,000
75% 1,230,000
100% 2~101,000
5,176,000
Meetj_ng Date 5 /1~/'J./ Time
DIS'l'RICT 1
--5::~0 f2 . 2::1 ' District JOI~ BOARDS
Gr i s et Herrin Culver
Miller Coco Hem e on Lewis
Porter Baum Ho gard
Battin Berton Westra
Christie Root
DISTRICT 2 Clark Magnus
Davis Bousman
J ust Harper Step henson Dutton
Christi e Root Finnell Gomez
la.rk Magnus Coen
:u l ver Green Mc Cracker
Stephenson Dutton Gris et Herrin
F innell Gomez Harvey Kanel
Herrin Griset Herrin Griset
Sims Zuniga Hirth Croul
Smith Hileman Hyde Kroes en
Weda a Machado Just Harper
Winn Schniepp Mc Innis Hirt h
Battin McWhinney ---Miller -Coco DISTRICT 3 Parsons
Culver Porter
Hemeon Lewis Rogers Hirth
Baum Hogard ---Shipley rlic Cracker
Berton Westra Sims Zuniga
Christie Root Smith Hileman
Clark Magnus Wedaa Machado
Davis Bousman Winn Schniep:!
Stephenson Dutton Battin
Gr een Mc Cracken
Harvey Kan e l
Herrin Gris et * *· ~-* * * Hyde Kroes en Mitchell
J ust Harper Boyd Goldber ~
fcWhinney
ims Zuniga OTHERS / Battin Earp er
Brown /
DI STRICT 5 Sylve ste r
Lew is
---:::7
Parsons Carlson
Hj _rth Croul Clarke ./
Battin Dunn
Finster
DI ST RICT 6 Galloway
Hohe ner
Porte r Hunt
Mc Innis Hirth Keith
Rat tin Lowry
Maddox
DISTRICT 7 Martinson
Nisson
Miller v Coco I/ Piersall
tpl et Herrin ---.E Sigler ../ ,/
Porter ./ ,/ Stevens
Ro ge rs .(' Hirth .f~# ./ Crabb
Smith ./ Hileman ./ ~lulA. Battin I /
'II STRICT 11 (.
Shipley
Co en McCracken
Battin
DISTRICT 8
Boyd Goldbe.rg
Mitche ll --Battin