Loading...
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