HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-01-12COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
January 21, 1972
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIHECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 7
Gentlemen:
TELEPl-1DN ES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to adjournrnent of the regular meeting held January
12, 1972, the Board of pirectors of County Sanitation District
No. 7 will meet i.n an adjourned regular meeting:
JWS:gc
Tueeday, Janua~y 25, 1972
at 4:30 p.m.
108~-4 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
f?'SE!crif ary' /
£/ ()· !J
•·
I' ii I
BO ARDS OF DIRE CTO RS
Co unty Sar.ita ti on D istric ts
c"' J · t,, • s . . "'
P. 0 . Box 5 175
of O ra nge Coun ty, Cal iforn ia 10844 ~lli s Av enue
Fou nta in Vall ey, Ca lif., 92708
II
(l )
(2)
(3 )
(4 )
FI LE .~7"('5 )
l ETTER .Y.'."--
A/C ¥. TKL R ).{
(6 )
(7 )
DISTRICT 7
Adj ou rned Regular Meeting
Janua r y 25, 1 972 -4 :30 p .m.
AGENDA
ADJOURN MENTS ..... ~·-
CO MP & Ml~EAGE ... v.'.".:-
FI LES SET UP ........ v.'.".' ....•. ; /
RESOLUTIONS crnm1rnsv
LETT ERS V, F:: iTEtl .... -":' ..•.•.•
MI NUTES V.'':".' •rEN ... ,...C..~
MINUTES HLED ..... W,_..
Roll Ca l l d r'I · h ~~ r:~ ..c..x~ ~ tJ 1 ~ ~ ,v; V:{~ ~('
Appoint ment f ghairman pro t ern , i f nece J sary
Re p o r t o f the Gene r al Manager
Re p o r t o f t he General Coun sel
Cons i de r a t ion of motion t o receive , file and accept
p r oposal of Boyle Eng ineering _, dated January 20) 1972 ,
t o pe r f o nn engineering services r elative to Main Street
Subt r unk Eas t , Reaches 4 1 and 42, Contract No . 7 -2C -l ,
for an amoun t not to .exceed $4,800 . See page 11 A11
·
Verbal progress report on poss i ble change s t o
conn.ec tion and use ordinanc e to provide funds
9onst r uction of facilities not ~ticipated .in
~Deferred from previ ous me eting .)
Dist r ict
for
master plan .
Co n side r ati on of request of proponents of proposed
annexati on of tentative Tract 7389 for reconsideration
of peti t i pn ·for anne xa)t.ion to t he District. (Deferred from previous mee~ing .
• ~~ FILE •• ;:::::::::: ...... ~ LETIER ·····-···-
( A/C •... TKLR ••••
•a.····-~---············.-
(a ) Co n s i de r ation of motion t o r eceive and file
l e tter dated December 1 0 , 1 971, from Evans and
l-..:\\)U Associ a t es , Inc ., on behal f of the proponent s ,
!!,/-r e q uesting reconsiderat ion o f petition for annexat j_on
11'1 fl. of a p _p r oximately 37 . 2 ac r es to the District , and
.J7, >-r 1-"i 7 =--
"??. ~ .., ., '~ ;
-u~-con sideration of action on sai d request . See
p age "B 11
(bl Conside r ation of motion to r eceive and fi l e lette r FILE:::::::::::: .....
//,ovf.fo o C.: d a t ed January 4 , 1972 , from Evans and Associates , lETTER ······----
/1,n<-'" .-~r"~...1 I nc ., on behalf of the proponents , requesting that Al e .. _TK-L R ··-
z ._7f . ./o> fees for proposed annexation be computed at the rate
, nn , .:r, i n eff e c t for 1971, and cons i deration of ac t ion on ···-·-············-
rp /vlr s a i d r e quest . See page 11 c 11 ··················-
(8 ) 0t h
~ ( \Ar\:lLd A i~ .. ~t• '.'~ e r uUS l n e s 3'an"d"""corn9riun1 c a ·1 ons , lf any
(9 ) Co ns ide ration of mot ion t o ad..j ourn. .i: .,...,..~
·'
p ll
IYT}).f::,1J/j ~ 'L§l!:!/{J.7~g
ll
ENG-I NEERING·
0
ENGINEERS e ARCHITECTS
412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471
January 2~, 1972
The Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 7
of Orange County
Post Office Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper
General Manager
Main Street Subtrunk East
Reaches 41 and 42 -Contract No. 7-2C-l
. ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178
In response to your request we submit the following proposal for engineering
services to prepare plans and specifications and to provide construction staking
for subject master plan facilities. ·
The project will begin approximately 800 feet east of MacArthur Boulevard and
extend easter I y 4, 250 feet to Jamboree Bou I evard. Estimated construe ti on cost
is $120,000. Design of the subtrunk will conform to the district's standards.
The Irvine Industrial Complex will be the contracting agency and will let the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder through pub Ii c bidding procedures.
Specification format will conform to Irvine Industrial Complex standar~s.
Our fee for preparing plans and specifications will be a lump sum amount of
$4, 800. The fee is predicated on the scope of work conforming in general to
the master plan layout. Field surveys will be required in order to prepare the
plans and specifications. These surveys include taking topography and culture
within the project limits. We propose that all field surveys for design as well
as construction staking be performed on a per di em basis at $48 per hour for a
3-man survey crew and $21 per hour for a I icensed surveyor. .
We are ready to proceed with the work upon receiving authorization •
. Respectfully submitted,
BOYLE ENGINEERING ·
-i.-' ·a ,,...., 'J -~ • I . l : CYVUl-bL/ v' lu~nv._.// ?!,_ ,
Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951
ps
L
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
...
Agenda Item #5 -A-District 7
~EVANS & ASSOC IA TES, I NC_.
· • Surveying
-• Planning
• Subdivisions
1543 West Garvey Avenue • Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 458 • West Covina, California • Phone 962-4081
Fi LED
b th~ Office of the S'2cr~tary
. County Sanitation District
No ---22-------December 10, 1971
Honorable Goard of Directors
County Sanitation-District No. 7 of Orange County
Post Off ice Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California
Attention: Mr, Fred Harper
. General ~anaget
Re:· Tentative Tract :40, 7389
M·arion E. Jones Estate, El r-1odeno
Dear Mr, Harper;.
.
On Novenber 24, 1971, Nor-Vada Land Company, tho developer
of the above referenced project, filed a pctiti~n for annexat-
ion thereof to the City of Orange,
A pre-annexation Zone Application, Conditional Use Permit
Application and Tentative Map were filed with the Planning
Qepart~ent of the City of Orange on-December 9th. The Zone
Application and Tentative Ma? reflect approximately a 6 unit
per acre density for th8 proposed Pla~ncd.Unit DevelopMent,
The total dwelling units proposed for the project is now 232
or 99 units less than that approved by the County of Orange,
On behalf of the Nor-Vada Land CompaQY and the Estate of ~arion
E. Jones, deseased, we hereby request that the petition for
annexation of the subject nroperty to District No, 7 which was
previously denied, be reconsidered and approved as a result of
the ~evised planning,
Your~v-))1~
EVANS f/_,b_!;JJ?:NC,
£//~Q~~ /. . . . •. _,.~ /-.y-' ...__,. w 1 ,., · \~J ....... Evans .
c.c. R. T. Hebard, Nor-Vada Land
~-1ariday_le Pecy, Executrix of Estate of r~arion E, Jones
Mr •. Don Smith, Mayo~ of th~ City of Orange
,.
Agenda Item. 7a -B-District 7
L
fl-t \ -1
'2-1., 1.-1 b
e-3 ,,,,J~
~VANS & ASSOCIATES, INC~
• Surveying
··P~g
~
• Subdivisions
1543 West Garvey Avenue • Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 458 • West Covina, California • Phone 962-4081
January _4, 1972
Sanitation District tJo. 7 or Orange County
Post Off ice Rox 8127
Fountain Valley, California .
Attention: Mr. Fred Harper
Re: Tentative Tr~ct No. 7389, ~arion E. Jones Estate
El Modeno
Dear· Mr. Harper;
. FILED
li1 the O~-nce of trie Sncri::t;,ry
County rJitati')n c., .rn::r
No·-~_.{_, ___ _
It is our understanding that the annexation of the " Jones
Estate" will be considered by .the Board of Directors at their
regular Mooting of January 12, 0 1972, pursuant to our request
by letter dated DeceMber 10, 1971.
It has come to 0ur attention that tho fees for annexation to
Sanitation C> i strict rJo ~ 7 \'i'ere raised f rem $297. 00 per acre
to 5369. 00 per acre effect i vo January I, 1972. I nasrnuch as
the original petition for annexatlon was filed in August 1971,
and has been pending since that date we respectiful ly request,
on behalf of the developer, that the ar~a be permitted to annex
at the rate in effect at the time the original petition was
f i I ed,
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
EVANS & ASSQCtJt1ES-~JC. /(j~~~ ~~Vtt<7-w i I I 'i an W, Ev ans
WWE:dJb
c.c. R. T. Hebard, Nor-Vada Land Company
Agenda Item 7b -C-Distrfct 7
Mectj_n8 DE-te '\~ s \:l d. Tir:e l..\·. ~o Districts ~:-,
DI STRICT 1 JOI I'J~ BOA?:.DS
= --- -Just __ Harper
Gris et Herrin Baker __ Cas pe rs
Battin Caspers ·--Battin, Caspe r s
Mi l l er Coco Berton Wes tra
Porter Ca sper s
Christie Root
DISTRICT --Cla r k ,Ro bt .--~ac kson 2
Sm'ith Hi l eman -· Cl ark ,Ralpn Caspers
·c o en
Christie Root Cu lver
Cl ark, Rob t . -Jackson Davis . --Fonte
Cu l ver ·-Finnell -Gomez
Finnell Gome .z Fisc hbac h
Herrin Gris et Green -McCracken
Just Harper -Gri s et Herrin
Phill ips Caspers Harper Just
Sims Zuniga Harvey -Kanel
Stephenson --Dut ton Hemeon -Lew is
Wedaa Mac h ado He r rin -Grise t
Winn Schniepp Hirt h -croul
Holden --Ho gard
DI STRICT 3 Hyde -Kroes en
tiyde Kroes en Mc I nnis --Hirth
Battin Caspe rs McW h i nney -Mi ller . --coco Berton West ra
Christie Ro ot Pars ons
Clar~Robt . __ Jacks on Phillips -caspers
Cu l ver Porter
Davis Fonte Roge rs -Hirth
Green McCr acken Shiple y -McCracken
Harper Just S i ms -zuniga
Harvey Kane l Smi t h -Hi l eman
·Herrin Gri s et Step h e n son --Dutton
Heme on Lewi s We daa --Mac h ado
Holde n -Barnes Wi nn -scrmiepp
Mc Wh inney
Sims Zuniga
Stephenson Dutton --
* * * DISTRICT 5 Mi te-hell
Parsons
Caspers
Boyd :=Goldberg
Hi rt h Croul · OTHERS
DISTRICT 6 Harper ../
Por te r Brown ./
Caspers Sylvest er ~
. Mcinnis Hirth -Lewis
Dunn
DIST RICT 7 · Clarke
v Coc o Sigler --Miller
Clark ,Ralph ./ Caspe rs Crabb
F.i 8 @J:-re ac!=r-~ Quigley
G: . ob _L. Herrin --
Porte r "' Carls on
Ro g ers / Hirth Finste r
!=!"Yl.ith / Hileman Galloway
.•, Hohener /
DIS TRICT 11 Hunt
Shipley Mc Cracken Keit h
Baker Caspers Lowry
Coen Maddox
8
Martin.son
DI STRICT Niss on ./ ----Boy.ct ·Goldbe r g Piersall
Caspers Steve ns
Mit c he ll i;1+ ../
if< 1-J~ /
~ / VlJUJiYik~ P-10.-.. / u ('
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
January 12, 1972
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 3
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
I am sure that all of us recognize the mounting concern,
net only by the Orange County Grand Jury but also· the newspapers
and the general public, relative to the Sanitation Districts
and the Directors' fees schedule. In 6ur capacity as Directors
of the Sanitation Districts it behooves us all not only to maintain
perfect.attendance records by answering roll call, but also staying
for the entire meeting in order to contribute to the continued
success· of the Districts' operations. It is only in performing
our duties as Directors to the best of our abilities that we can
properly represent our respective entities.
District No. 3
January 7, 1972
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3? 5? 6? 7? AND 11
Gentlemen:
The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange
County, California, will be held:
Wednesday evening, January 12, 1972
at 7:30 p.m ..
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
_ ...
Ji -.
II ·
I'
I
II
II
BO ARDS OF DIRECTORS
Co unty Sanitation Distri cts
of Ordng e County, Californ ia
January 12 , 1972 7 :30 p .m.
l--Pledge of Allegianc e and Invoc a t ion
Roll Cal l
. •.
P. 0. Box 5 175
10844 t:llL5 Av;;(\u~
Fountain Valley, Ca l ;F., 92708
AGENDA
AD JO UR N't.l]llTS POSTED .. v'
~orr.~ e •. :~7i LEf\G E7 .. .
m ~s ~n ur ......... , ....... , .... ~
-E~O L UT H'NS w mm.D.!."'" t \' .,..,, " /
·'--
(1)
' ( 2 )
(3 )
LETTEnS \''0.ITicN ... ~7
. MHWTES '!IRITT~ .....
/rJ/5
ALL DISTf<ICTS Mll'IUTES f-ILED ............ --
Consideration of motion to rece i ve and f ile minute
exce r pt f rcm the Board of Supervisors showing
appointment of Director and alternates to serve
o n the Districts ' Boards as fol l ows :
.District ( s)
1 & 3
~ 5 , 6 & 8
7
1 1
Director or Active Alterna te
Supv . Ro bert W. Battin
Supv . William J. Phil l ips
Supv . Ronald W. Caspe r s , Chairman
Supv. Ralph B. Cl ark
Supv . David L . Bake r
(4) DIST RICT/7 /. · ·
Cons_;kaerati~on of motion to receive and file minute
excerp t from · y of Irviny s1lowing appointment of
Director to e :rve as me~ber of District 's Board
)'
(~Appoj.ntme1ft of Ch-ahman pro ~-i.f ne.c-es1nrry
(6 ) EACH DISTRICT
(7 )
Consicie ra-c i on of motions approvi n g minutes of the
followi:ng. meetin g s , as mailed :
1 17/s District 1
!7?/S Di s trict 2
District 3
District 5
District 6
District 7
Di s t rict 8
District 1 1
AL L DISTRICTS
December 8 , 1971 regular
December 8, 1 971 reg ular and
Decemb er 22 , 1971 a djourned
December 8 , 1971 regular
December 8 . 1 9 71 re g ular
December 2~, 19'71 adjourned
December 8 , 1971 regul ar
Decemb er 8, 1971 r egular
Oc t ober 13 , 1 971 r egular
December 8 , 1971 regul a r
Report of the Joint Cha i rman
ALL DI STRICTS
Report of the Ge n e r a l Manager
(~ ALL DIM'RICTS
Re p ort -&f tne General Counsel
(10' ~ J
ALL DIS 'l1RIC'l1 S
Re port of the Ez:ecutive Committee and co!1sider3.tion of
motion to receive and file the Cor.unittee 1 s writ t en r epo rt
(11)
-~
ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of action on items· recommended by the
Executive Committee;
@J Consideration of Resoluti~n No. 72-1, approving
FILE ••••• .t.:::::'.... a.i."1d authorizing execution of agreement with Irvine
f./itl. L 0 p_~ ):\ Ranch Water District providing Wa'ter District with
•mER · ~ 'J) ./"'. 15 mgd capacity in Sanitation Districts' disposal ·
~cNA.TKLR \._c '--.JJ facilities. See page "D" (Copy of agreement
... _ .. _................. mailed with Agenda material) ·
............................
.,/ (b)
FILE •.•..•.••..••..••. "cc. )._, ::::.~~ ~/ /J1 Is
---·-···----·---.... -----... -.. --
FILE .bi.A-.... .
LETIER t/.A,. ... -
A/C _ ... TKLR JC
(c)
----·--·-···········
···················4····
Consideration of motion to accept proposal of D ~
William P. Ficker, A.IoA., dated December 17, 1971, ~
for consulting services in connection with design ~
of treatment facilities in accordance with state · '
and federal regulations for construction grant
eligibility in an amount not to exceed $7,500. for
1972 calendar year. See page "E"
Consideration of motion authorizing renewal of
memberships for the 1972 calendar year in the
California Sanitary and Sanitation Districts'
Assoclation and the Association of Metropolitan
Sewering Agencies, and payinent of· annual dues of
$1,400.00 and $1,300.00,respectively
(12) ALL DISTRICTS
(13)
Status report on Upper Santa Ana River Basin project
(Chino Basin .Municipal Water District Agreement)
* * * * * * * * * *
ALL DISTRIC'I'S
CONSENT CALEND.i\R
All matters placed on the consent calendar
are considered as not requiring discussion
or further explanation and ·unless any
particular item is requested to be removed
from the consent calendar by a Director,
staff member, or member of the public j_n
attendance, there will be no separate
discussion of these items. All items on
the consent calendar will be enacted by one
action approving all motions, and casting a
unanimous ballot for resolutions included
on the consent calendar. All items removed
from the consent calendar shall be considered
separately in the regular ·order of business.
Members of the publi.c who wish to remove an
item from the consent calendar shall, upon
recognition by the chair, state their name,
address and designate by letter the item to
be removed from the consent calendar.
* * * * * * * * * *
Chairman will detennine if any i terns a.re to
be deleted from the consent calendar.
Consideration of action to approve all
agenda items appearing on the consent
calendar not specifically removed from same.
-2-
·i
( 13) ALL DISTRICTS -CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED ·
. (a)
FILE ••••••• ~.... ,
LETTER ~---f3
~~~07
. ·. (b)
v" FILE ••••••••••••••••••
LETIER ••• ~ •• . D ..
A/C .... TKLR ...• \( . /\ \
f.:.9.t.~.O.Q.] / o o
d-/
Consideration of motion.to receive, file and accept ~
proposal submitted by John Carollo Enginee~s, dated
December 30, 1971, for preparation of operational
manuals for Treatment Plants Nos, 1 and 2, as required
by state·and.federal agencies under co~struction grant
provisions, for a fee not to exceed $18,500,in ·
accordance with said proposal and the terms of agree-
ment with engineers. dated July 1, 1.970. See page "F"
Consideration of motion to· receive and file
recommendation of Maintenance Superintendent in
connection with acquisition of six mobile radios
and authorizing the General Mana~er to exercise
option to acquire six additional units under
Specification No. E-060, UHF Two Way Radio System, and
issue purchase order-to Motorola C & E, Inc. for the
amount of $6,132.00 plus tax. See page "G"
. ._,,;
FILE •.•..••••••.••••••
LETTER .... ~ .•••
('~.) Consideration of Resolution No. 72-2 amending Positions ~ and Salaries Resolution No. 71-3, as amended (Considered
V by Boards in Executive Session at meeting of December 8,
1971 -Copy in meeting folders)
A/~ .... TKLR .... ~ ~ ....................... ~ .. ? .J
(d)
v
(e)
~consideration of motion discontinuing utilization of
Special Labor Counsel services effective January 1, 1972.
Consideration of motion authorizing attendance of
General Couns·el apd Director of Finance at _the Work
FILE •••• ::::= .....
LETTER .::::::: •••••
V"Conference of the California Sanitary and Sanitation
Districts Association in Indian Wells, January 27
through 29; and authorizing reimbursement of trans-·
portation, ~odg~ng, meals and ipci~~~tal expenses
incurred -y~ ~~ ~ Q,.;_:tJ.~)9~ t cL:ffi~ ~
'?(C :::TKLR ::. I K~ec~.~\~~"'s
R~~'~ir.~t., ""1 v
FILE ···-~ ./ ( :f)
~:.~=~CP -
Consideration of motion authorizing payment for additional
consulting services by John Carollo Engineers
in c.onnection with proposed new state 911d federal
dischar~e requirements on a per diem basis not to
exceed $6,500 in total
Consideration of motion authorizing John Carollo Engineers
to design Extension of Ellis Avenue Force Main, to be
included in the construction of Interplant Influent Inter-
ceptor, Job No. I-8, in accordance with the terms (5.7%
of construction cost) of their agreement dated July 1, 1970
.....................................
FILE •••• a.c.::.... (h) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager
LEmR •• -:::::. ... ,, V to issue purchase order to Link-Belt Company for
A/c ::'.TKLR-:S(. C ~ 3 J?Urchase of grit auger for an amount not to exceed
gQ_1 _~0.0~L3..) oD $8, 500 plus tax and freight
FILE ••. ~:::::·""'"•••·····
LETI~R ••• ,~(_
A/C -·~ . R
........ _ .. __ -··
(i) Consideration of motion to receive and file Annual
Report submitted by Hanson, Peterson, Cowles and
..___/ ~ Sylvester, Certified Public Accountants, for the
period ending June 30, 1971, previously mailed to
Directors by auditors
·······-····· .... ~
(14)
8
v
ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of items deleted-from consent calendar, if any
ALL DISTRICTS
Further consideration of Report of Special Committee
Studying Directors' Fees Schedule, continued from December
8th meeting. (Copy in meeting folders)
-3-
(16) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of internal inspection of Ocean Outfall
. No. 2, Marine Section, Job No. J-10:
ffl·/s ~) Report of design engineer
v (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter
FILE·················· from John Carollo Engineers dated January 3, 1972,
u:mR ... J~ recommending internal inspection of Ocean Outfall
A/C -:-::-.TKLR 7.. vNo. 2; and proposal of Parker Diving Service dated
···-····················· January 6, 1972, to perform internal inspection of
.......................... pipe joints. See pages "H" and !'I."
(c) Consideration of motion to receive ·and file staff
estimate of cost for internal inspection of Ocean
Outfall No. 2. See page . 11 J 11 ·
Consideration of motion approving recommendation of ~0 0n
design engineer to inspect Ocean Outfall ~
No. 2 and accepting proposal of Parker Diving Service
to perform said inspection.
(17) ALL DISTRICTS .
Consideration of motion to receive and file certification
(
of the General Manager that he has checked all bill~. (\'\ 7 y appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order, and
' that he recommends authorization for payment
I (19)
"1 ~
. (20)
v-·· fl'I \S
ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint
Operating and. Capital Outlay Revolving warrant books for
signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing
payment of claims listed on page "A"
ALL <DISTRICTS --· /
;:et°her business-<al1d communicati~ if any
DISTRICTS 1 & 7
Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants,
if a:ny. See page II c"
(21) DISTRICT 1 _ .. ____ _
q_pnsideration__.0-f--4hotion ~-~ovin~rants, /~ee page __.Mj3" ~J:'-, if any.
(22) DI~ICT l~
other,,busines,s and 'cbmmunications' if any
v--tr'· a_q ( 23) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn
,/" (24) DISTRICT 2
FILE ............... _ Consideration of Resolution No. 72-3-2, approving plans
LETTER .~..ls..e t-,~ · and specifications for Santa .Ana River Interceptor, ~
AIC"'.':7.TKLR-It' Contract No. 2-14, from Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue; ~ ~. / and authorizing advertising for alternate bids for
·--~ V capacities of 50 mgd, 80 mgd, and 184 mgd to be opened
··--------···· .. ·· March~ 1972, at 11:00 aom. See page "K"
~ I (25) DISTRICT 2
'
fl.I\ , c / Consid_ eration of motion approving warrants, if any
I .> V See page r:B"
(26) DIST~T 2 "'-..
Otherb"usiness ~d comm~ions, if any
-4-
, AJ3J) ll·V
(28)
m{SV"
DISTRICT 2
Cornn.deration of motion to adjourn
DISTRICT 5
Consideration of motion to receive, file, and take under
submission·,Master Plan Revision, dated ·December, 1971
submitted by Shuirman-Simpson.. (Copy·mailed with Agenda
material) ·
(29) DISTRICT 5 .
/ Cons1aeration of motion to receive, file and accept ~
FILE ····-~---· proposal of Moore and Taber, dated January 6, 1972, to
LEmR .... i/2. {tcf perfonn soils investigation services for Sewer Trunk "B",, A/C.~KLR.-M ~ Unit 8, Contract No. 5-19 (Coast Highway·Force Main). ~1
. S "L" ························-ee page . . .
DISTRICT 5 . .
Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any
See. page "B"
(31) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 --·.. · .. -· . .
q_g_nsideratio~otion app~ suspense fund warrants,
~--if any. See page "B" . . .
(32) DISTR:E:Q_T 5 ~-
Other i}ijsine~and co~ications, if any
(33) DISTRICT 5 q '. 3 0 Consideration of motion to adjourn
(34) DIS,µ.I-CT. o_· ,-,-.....
_.,....:::c=onsideration _9fdnotion appr~~--~-~rrant·s-~ if any
,,,r, See page ee:J~-rr r ----..., r
(35) DIS TRI oo;, 6
Other buwnes~d co~ications, if any
ct·. 3\ (36) DISTRICT· 6
Consideration of motion to adjourn·
(37) DISTRig,11 8 ~ ~
Other b'usiness and C-Ommunic-ations, if any
(38) ln-s,.TRICT 8 "" ~ \.. .
Cons1.deration ~motion to adjou~
>~ .
DISTRICTS 3 & 11
o ion of approving plans
and specifica ·. or Knott Interceptor, a Portion of
Reach 1, and Reaches 2 ontract No. 3-17; and
authorizing advertising for bids ened February 17,
1972, at 11:00 a.m. See page
(40) DISTRICT 3 & 11
I ~ Consideration of motion approving suspense fund ·warrants,
FiLE ..•• ~. (l1 ~ if any. See page 11 Bu
LETIER ;·~ ~41} . DISTRICT 11
AJc .....• KL~,;}~ .. · ·-. Consideration of Resolution No. 72-5-11, ordering annexation
~~~<~~-of terr~tory to the District, Si~n~l B?lsa #~ Annexation_, "-···yl''[µiJ 1---___ Anrlexa.· t1on Noe 15. See page N· ~ -5£_....;. -C~ ~. j ~ )
( 1+2) DISTRI.CT 11 ,
Consideration''--qf motion approvlng warrants, if any.
See page II ctt"'.
-5-
FILE •••. ~
DISTRI ~1 1_____-:
0 /eusiness ~communicatio ns, if any
DISTRICT 11
Conside ration of motion to adjour n
DISTRI CT 3
Consideration of mo tion approving Change Order No . 3 , to
the plans and specifications for Beach Relief Tr unk Sewe r,
Reaches 17, 18 , and 19, Contract No . 3 -16 , authorizing
an addition o f $850 to the ·contract with Me rco Construction
Engineers, Inc . See page 11 0 11
LffiER •. v.:. ( 46 )
~~~l S ·~1 v1
DIS TRICT 3
Consideration of Resolution No . 72-6 -3, establishing
annexation policy fo r District . See p age 11 P 11
-·~···················--( 47) DI STRICT 3
Consider ation of motion to receive and file memorandum
()i2, \---from the Deput y Chief Engineer conce r n i ng construction of
~ \" the Knott Inte rc ep t o r Sewer, Contract No . 3 -17 ; and ,
f,LE ......•..•..••..••
LETTER .. ~ •••
A /C :'." .. TKLR ::.
1 That in consideration of the defe rment of c e rtain improvement s
of New land Stree t by the Ci ty of Westm ins te r to accomm odate~
construction of the Di stric t 's Contract No . 3 -17, the O
District will assist in securing ABFP (A rterial Hi ghway
Financing Program) funds at such time as the City of West -.
minster e l ec ts to cons truct this d efe rre d imp r ovem e nt, and
in the event the Ci t y i s not succ essful in securing.said
funds, the Dist rict will r e imburse the City for the loss
due to the deferred construction schedule in an amount not
t o e xc eed $25 , 000 . See page 11 Q 11
.....
/ ( 48) DIS TRIC T .3 . .
Fite ..... v.:: ....... -~'. Consider ation of motion to receive and file letter from
temR W.8.._ Hall & Fo r ema.ri , Inc ., dated December 27, 1971 , requestin~
MC ".':'":,::Rt lt ~. ~AVi ~ Di ~trict 3 service . a 20 -ac~e parcel of land lo~ated in
......... -:.;;r•··r · J I '' Loo Ang e l e s County , and refe r to staff and eng i n eers for .
.......................... r ep ort back to the Board. See page "R"
(49 ) DISTRICT 3
{5 Consideration of motion approving warrants , if any
/ ~fl S "B r1 ~ (~ L -, ee page ~D I STRI CT 3
~ Othe r b usiness and communications , if any
( 51 ) DISTRICT 3 ~3.s' . Cons i de r a tion of motion to adjourn
rfS;)} DISTRICT 7 .
..11 ,,.-_ ~ Verbal progress r eport on possible changes to
~~ · c onnect ion and use ord i nance to provide funds
c on st ruct ion of facil ities not anticipated i n
d ef e rred from Decemb e r 8 th mee ting
District
f or
ma st e r plan,
FlLE ..•.... L
LCTI ER ..... ~: DISTRICT 7 ~ Consideration of Resolution No . 7 2 -7 -7, a u thorizing
acceptance o'f Grant of Easeme nt from Irvine Industrial
Comp l e x, f or a p ermanent easement relative to the McGaw/
Jambore e Su.bt r unk ,CCont r acts Nos . 7 -2 -~ and 7 -2 -D5 .
See page 11 s tt _ ~'----" / ~ /
-6 -
,.
("
DISTRICT 7
Consideration of request of proponents of proposed
annexation of tentative Tract 7389 for reconside.ration
of petition for annexation to the District
(a) Consideration of motion to receiye and file letter
dated December 10, 1971, from Evans and Associates,
Inc., on behalf of the proponents, r~questing
reconsideration of petition for annexation of
approximately 37.2 acres to the District, and
consideration of action on said request. See
page "T"
Consideration of motion to receive and file letter
dated January 4, 1972, from· Evans and Associates,
Inc., on behalf of the proponents, requesting that
fees for proposed annexation be computed at the rate
in effect for 1971, and consideration of action on
said request. See page · "u"
~ DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion to receive and file letter dated V 1r)December 23, 1971, from H. Laws-on Mead, Attorney for
FILE ·······-:;:.····· · proponents of proposed Cpapman Avenue East Annexation,
LETTE~·······:., (fl · Annexation No. 25, requesting modification of acreage for
MC .... TKLR •••• computing annexation fees; and consideration of action on ...................... -V said request. See page "V 11
··············-
(56) DISTRICT 7 ~ Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
FILE ·······vc;J ·~j Irvine Industrial Complex dated December 28, 1971, ~
LETTER ···········~)yV..._, \ requesting the District enter into a Master Plan
AJc-:::.tKLir:::.c ~ Reimbursement Agreement for construction of a portion
··········~·-·-rJ\ 1 of the Main Street Subtrunk; authorizing the General
......... -----\ 11 Manager to request proposal from Boyle Engineering for
· preparation of plans and specifications for said facility;
· and declaring intent to enter into standard Master Plan
Reimbursement Agreement upon completion. See page 11 W11
vfflG(57)
/(58)
w.'41 (59)
DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any
See page "c''
DISTRI.__CT 7 "-..
Other 'bilsines's and~unications, if any
· ..
DISTRICT 7 //
Consideration of motion to adjourn -tb '{ ~ ~ o
c
-7-
· II
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Aven'ue
Fountain Volley, Calif,, 92708
Telephones: · .
o.f Orange County, California
. Area Code 714
540-2910
962-241 I JOINT BOARDS
January 7, 1972
REGULAR MEETING ·
Wednesday, January 12, 1972
7:30 p.m.
The following is a brief explanation of the more important non-.
routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not
otherwise self-explanatory. Warrant lists are not attached to the
agenda since they are made up immediately preceding the meeting but
will appear in the complete agenda available at the meeting.
Joint Boards
Nos. 10 and 11 -REPORT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND ACTIONS ON
COMMITT EE 'S RECOMMENDATIONS: The Committee met on the evening ·of
December 28 with Director Hirth as a g uest. A report of the .meeting ,
together with recommendations to the Boards, has been previously
mailed to the Directors. Item No . 11 (a through c) is consideration
of actions recommended by the Committee to the Joint Boards .
No. 12 -STATUS REPORT ON UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN PROJECT (CHINO
BASIN MUNICIPAL WATE R DISTRICT): It will be noted that ·in the
preceding item the recommendat ion of the Executive Committee concern-
ing this matter has not bee n listed. The General Counsel and I met
with representatives of the Chino Basin Municipal Water District
this week to resolve the formula for comput ing adjusted capital costs.
This matter was not completely resolved, therefore the final draft
agreement will not be submitted to the Boards for consideration unti l
the February meeting. The General Counsel and I will report on the
status of this ~reject on Wednesday.
No. 13 -CONSENT CALENDAR: The following agenda items fall into this
category in accordance with the definition established by the Boards .
(a) Acceptance of Prop osal from John Carollo En g ineers for
Preparation of Plant Operation Ma nua l -'I'he Environmental
Protection Agency requi r es a detailed and complete Pl ant
Operation Manual be prepared prior to mak ing final payment
on Federal grants. In the past the staff has been pre-
paring and submitting individual manuals fo r each Plant
unit for which a grant has been made. The EPA advises
(b)
(c)
(e)
that this is no l onger satisfactory and that ·a manual for
·the . entire Plant will have to be prepared .in acco rdance
with their strict guide lines. The cost of this manual can
be included in the total cost of the ·project on which the
grant is based . Howeve r, ·the cost cannot be inc luded if
the work is done by force account, i.e. by the staff.
Because of this g r ant consideration and the fact that we
do not have the manpowe r to ·p repare the required complete
operation manua l in a re asonable time , we are recommending
that the proposal of the engineers be accepted for a sum
not t o exceed $1 8,500 . A copy of the proposal is included
with the agenda mate rial.
Pti'rchase of Six Additional Mobi l e Radio Uni ts -Last fall,
t he Dis t ricts purchased ten mobile rad iotelephones, to-
gether wit h a base transmitting station at Plant No. 1.
These units have been install ed in v arious of our working·
vehicle s and _a re performing quite satisfactorily. · The
purchase contract with the vendor, Motoro l a C & E, provided
that the Districts have a six months option to purc hase up
to ten more units at the same unit price, if desi re d . A
memorandum on this subject from the Supe r intendent .of
Maintenance is included with the agenda materia l and it is
r ecommended that six addition~l units be purchased. ·
Rec l assification of Laboratory Pers onnel -The resolution
included with"the a g enda material proviaes for the re-
classification of our l aboratory personnel as recommended
during the personnel session· at the Dec ember Joint Board
meeting.
Attendance at California Sanitary and Sanitation Dist r icts
Association ·Wo r k Conference a nd· Comm i tt ee Mee tings -I am
rec ommending that the Director of F inance a n a t he Gener a l
Counsel be authorized .to attend this conference at Indian
Wells on Janua r y 2 7 throug h 29 . The Association will b e
re viewing the actions taken by the State Legislature during
the past year and formulating a program concerning possib le
issues which will be considered by the legislature during
1972 .
Mr. Nissen is a member of the Association's Attorneys
Committe e and Wayne Syl vester has been active on se v eral
committees involving uniform a~counting procedures and
other activities required by the State and Fede ral regu-
lati ons.
(f) Increas e in Fee for John Carollo En g inee rs in Connection
with Ocean Disch arg e Requir em ents -La st spring , John
Carollo Eng ineers were authorized to provide assistance
and consultation to the staff when new Dist r icts ' waste
discharge requirements were be ing formulated by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. However, before that body
-2-
(g)
(h)
(i)
could adopt their requirements, the State Water Resources
Control Board unexpectedly began hearings on a proposed
new ocean discharge policy ~hich, if ad6pted, would result
in tremendous capital expenditures by tne Districts.
Consequently, it was necessary to further utilize the
services of the eng ineers for preparation of material,
discussions with St ate Board staff members, attendance at ·
hearing s, etc. We are recommending that the existing
authority b e increased from $200 0 to $6 500 to permit pay-
ment for their .services.
Authori zing Design Services for Ellis Avenue Force Main -
During the design of the influent mete r and diversion
structure at P lant No. 1, which _will be ready for bidding·
shortly, it became apparent that it would be desirable
during construction to bypass the flow in the existing
EUclid Trunk to Plant No. 2 by means of an extension of
the existing Ellis Avenue Force Main. This bypass can be
used in the future to bring flow from District No. 3 to
Planl No. 1. Accordingly, it will be necessary for the
enginee rs to design this extension which is expected to be
installed by the contractor on the Interplant Influent
Interceptor under a change order currently being negotiate d.
Since the engineering.cont ract for the Interplant Influe nt
Interceptor was on a lump sum basis and did not contemplate
the design of the force main extension, we are recommending
that John Carollo Engineers be reimbursed for their design
services in this connection on a basis of their current
percentage fee of 5.7% of the additional cost of t he
extension , as established by the chang e order being
negotiated and which will be presented to the Boards for
consideration at the February meeting.
Authorizing Purchase of Grit Auger at Headworks "c", Plant
No. 2 -Du ring the last week the Headwo rks "C" g rit auger
has been disassembled fo~ maintenance and inspection. Ou r
· maintenance staff estimates that it will not operate more
than three months long er as this piece of equipment is
badly worn and in need of immediate replacement. This is
a proprietary item of the Link Belt Company and the replace-
ment must be purchased from them in order to be compatible
with the existing associated equipment. We estimate that
the cost will not exceed $850 0.
Annual Audit Report -Our independent auditors, Hanson,
Peterson, Cowles and Syl v ester, advise that they are
mailing directly to the Directors the required annual audit
report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. This re-
port has been complicated and delayed, to some extent, by
the changeover to the now State required uniform accounting
system and audit procedures. The staff will be prepared
to answer any questions the Directors may have on this
report. ·
-3-
No. 15 -CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE STUDYING
DIRECTORS' FEES SCHEDULE: Further consideration of .the report sub-
~itted by the Special Committee is schedul~d for Wednesday's meeting.
No. 16 -INTERNAL INSPECTION OF JOINTS OF .OCEAN OuTFALL NO. 2 .: ..
·Included with the agenda ·material is a letter from John Carollo Engi-
neers dated J anuary 3 recom.~endin g this inspection. Since the cost of
the inspection will be considerable, we · have also included a total
cost estimate (minimum $10 ,660 -maximum $17,350) prepared by our
·Director of Operations and Laboratories. If the Boa rds approve of
this expenditure, it is recommended that the proposal of Parker Diving
Service, of San Pe dro, for doing the actual hard hat diver inspection
be accepted. This firm has been solicited for a proposal since it
furnished inspection di ving servic es during the construction of the ·
outfall and thus is thoroughly familiar with the situation concerning
the two out-o f -tolerance joints described in the Carollo letter. The
proposal (copy included with the agenda material) is fo r a lump sum
fee of $4850, including furnishing of a boat, four diving teams of
two men each, and all necessary associated equipment.
District No . 2
No. 24 -APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANTA ANA RIVER
INTERCEPTOR FR OM PLANT NO. l·TO KATELLA AVENUE, CONTR4CT NO. 2-14:
At the December 22 ad j ourned meeting the District's design enginee rs,
Lowry and Associates, were authorized to proceed with the preparati.on
of revised plans and specifications for this project providing for ·
alternate bids for capac ities of 80 mgd and 50 mg d._ The original plans
submitted last year provi ded for pipe capacity in the lower re aches of
184 mg d. The engineers have advised us that since these plans are
already drawn it wou ld be simpler to take bids on three different pipe
sizes (184 mgd, 80, and 5 0 mgd, respectively). Contractors who have
been contacted on this matter have stated that there is no problem in
bidding on three sizes of pipe. Since this plan has the merit of
allowing the Board to ma k e a choic e of three pipe sizes after the bids
are taken, we have asked the engineers to proceed on this basis.
Bids are scheduled to be taken on this project on March 2, with
further consideration by the Board of the actual pipe size to be
installed to be made at an adjourned meeting in March.
District No. 5
No. 28 -REPORT ON MASTER PLAN REVISION: In September of las t year,
the Board authorized Shui rman-Simpson , District's eng ineers, to
prepare a report updating the estimated cost of future facilities in
the District in order to ma ke a determination a s to the adequacy of
re venue from current connection charges . This updating of cost was to
take into account the latest land use patterns and population densities
resulting from studies by the Irvine Company.
Shuirman-Simpson has now submitted this report, a copy of which
is enclosed in this mailing. It will be noted that the r eport con-
cludes that future connection charges at the current r ates from
-4-
..
developments on the land expected to be annexed to the Dist rict will
closely approximate the total estimated cost of new facilities need~d.
The report also suggests certain changes in the District's connect i on
charges to correct, as much as possible, present inequities between
charges for residential and conunercial development. The staff recom-
mends that the report be received and filed and taken und_er submission.
No. 29 -ACCEPI'ANCE OF PROPOSAL FOR SOILS INVESTIGATION -NEW COAST
HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO . 5-19: The District 's engineers have
requested that the District retain a soils consultant to make studies
necessary for the design of this new facility. The engineers have
also prepared specifications for the study and suggested three local
firms which would be satisfactory to them. The staff has interviewed
the three firms recommended and have asked Moore and Taber, of Anaheim,
to submit a firm proposal for this work. A copy of the Moore and
Taber proposal is included with the agenda material and it is recom-
mended that it be accepted for a lump sum fee of $5600 .
Districts Nos. 3 and 11
No. 39 -APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FIRST PORTION OF
KNOTT INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT NO; 3-17: Boyle Engineering expec-ts to
have plans and specificat ions for this large project ready for approval
and authorization for bid by the time of .the meeting . This project
consists of installation of five miles of 96-inch diameter reinforced
concrete trunk sewer from the intersection of Ellis Ave nue and Brook-
hurst Street to t he inte!·section of Bolsa Avenue and Newland Street .
The preliminary estimated cost of the· project is $6 ;150,000, for which
we are hopeful of obtaining State and F ede ral grants for an as yet
undetermined amount. District No. 11 will participate in the project
cost in the amount of 13.7% from the lcwer end t o the intersection of
Slater Avenue and Newland Street. This project conforms closely to
the adopted 1968 Master Plan of Sewerage F·acili ties in District No . 3
and the plans of District No. 11. Bids for this project are to be
-opened on February 17, with award scheduled at the March Joint Board
meeting.
District No. 11
No. 41 --ORDERING SIGNAL BOLSA #1 ANNEXATIO N: Adoption of the reso-
lution included with the agenda mat_erial is the final legal step
necessary for annexation of this 348 acre parcel as previously app rove d
by the Board .
District No . 3
No. 45 -CHANG E ORDER NO. 3, CONTRACT NO. 3-16: This construction
contract will provide a relief trunk in Beach Boulevard in the Buena
Park area . A chang e order, adding the sum of $850 has b een ne gotiated
with the contractor in order to eliminate a utility conflict with a
water valve. We recommend the adoption of the chang e order as included
in the agenda material.
-5-
No. 46 -RESO LUTI ON ESTAB LISHING ANNEXATIO N PO LICY : At ·the De c ember
meeting the Board directed the staff to prepar e a form a l annexation
policy in view of inquiries conce r ning possible annexations in the
v icinity of the Naval Weapons Depot . A r esolution, included with the
agenda material, has been prep a red estab lishing such a policy which
is simi l ar to that adopted by the other Districts which h ave contiguous
annexable areas . It will be noted that the annexation fee proposed
in the r esolution for $6 30 per ac re is arri ved at by comp uting the net
worth per acre of the Dist rict, plus $1 50 . Eac h year, the fee will
be recomput ed on this basis .
No. 47 -REPORT CO NCERNING DEFERRA L OF PAV I NG OF A PORTION OF NEWLAND
STREET IN THE CITH OF WESTMINSTER : During the desig n of Cont r act
No. 3-17 (It em No. 39) it was l earn ed that the City of Westminster is
planning to imp rove, in the ne a r future, a portion of Ne wland St reet
under the Arte rial Hi g hway Financing Prog r am . Since the const ruct ion
of the p roposed trunk sewer would nec es sitate destroying and rep lacing
most o f the improvement -if the latter is installed p r ior to sewer
construct ion, our engineers and staff have held consultations with
City officials who h ave agreed to postpone one -half of the h i ghway
project until after the sewer is installed, provided that the Dis t rict
makes certain assur ances concerning possible loss of arterial -highway
financing funds . A more detailed r eport f r om the Deputy Chief Enginee r
on this matter is included with the agenda material . The motion
appearing on the agenda is recommended.
No . 48 -SEWERA.GE SERVICE FOR LAND IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY : Inc luded
with the a g enda material is a lett er 'dated Dec ember-27 from Hall and
Foreman, Inc ., r equesting sewerag e service by the District fo r a
20 acre parce l l ocated in Los Ange l es County adjacen t to the District .
We believe the letter and a cc ompanying maps to be self-explanatory and
rec ommend that the letter be rece i ved a nd fi l ed and r eferred to the
staff and enginee r s for study and r eport .
·District No. 7
No . 52 -PROGRESS REPORT ON POSSIBLE CHANGES I N CO NNEC TION FEES : This
matte r was deferr ed to this meeting at t he Joint meeting in December~
We have been holding discussions on this matter ·w ith the District's
engineers and the staff will r eport on possible changes in connection
fees.
No. 5 3 -ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT : Th is is a routine acceptance of an
easement· f'.rom the Irvine Industrial Complex at no cost to the District .
No. 54 -. PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TRACT 7389 : This annexation (Jones
Ra nch -37 a cres) was disapproved by t he Board during the l a tter part
of l ast year because the population dens i ties proposed would have
gener ated h ighe r sewage flows than anticipated when the District's
master plan was adopted . We are now in receipt o f two l etters from
Evans and Ass ociates , Inc .; one dated De cember 10 (Item No . 54a )
r equesting reconsideration on the basis of lowe r planned d e nsities,
and a l etter dated January 4 (Item No . 54b) r equesting that if the
-6-
annexation is app r oved, the app l icable annexatiori fees be based on the
197 1 figure of · $2 97 pe r acre instead of the 1972 figure of $369 .
No. 55 -REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF.ANNEXATION .FEES, CHAPMAN EAST
AN NEXATION NO. 25 : A formal reque st has been su bmitted by the legal
coun se l repres entin g the proponents of Annexation No . 25 asking the
Board to waive annexation fees on a portion of the proposed annexation .
The total annexation comprises 17.3 acres , 9 .52 acres of which are
owned by the proponents of the annexation; the remaining property is
pu b l ic right of way .
No. 56 -REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE MAIN STREET
SUBTRUNK: The I rvine Industrial Complex now intends to construct
the remaining portion .of the Main Street Subtrunk, a District master
plan facility. We r ecommend the a ction appear ing on t he agenda .
-7-
Fred A. Harper
General Manage r
,,., I
i·1 e'"e t Tfig Date .Jan · 12,, 1972
DISTRI CT 1
Griset
Battin
Miller
Porter
ni:sTRICT 2
Smith L_
Ch ristie _.ac._
Clark, Robt ·..L
Culver ~
Finnell ~
He rrin _JL'_
Just
Phill ips ~
S . ...t,L_
llilS _J.!!...
Stephenson --1.L
Wedaa v
Winn -V
DI STRICT 3
tiyde
Battin
Berton
Christie
Cl ark, Robt .~
Culver ./
Davis -;;-
Green ...JL_
Ya:P}i ill
Harvey
Herrin
Hemeon
Hold en
L_
~
~
~-
Mc Whinney V"
Sim s t/
S tephenson ~
DISTRICT
Parsons
Caspers
Hirth
DISTRICT
Porter
Caspers
Mc Innis
DISTRICT 7 ~
Miller ""'
Ql~iFki9 ~<!!tlpl ~
Fischbach
Gris et
Porter
tiWs gc ±s
ith
DISTRICT
Shipley
. .l?a k.eJ;
Coen
DISTRIC T 8
Boyd _A_
Caspers -lL...
Mitchell ~
He rrin
Caspers
Coco
Hileman
Root
Jackson
Gome .z
Gr i s et
Harper
Caspers
Zw1iga
Dutton
Machado
Schniepp
Kroes en
Caspe rs
Westra
Root
Jackson
Fonte
McCracken
Just
Ka nel
Gris et
Lewis
Barnes
Zuniga
Dutton.
Croul ·
Hirth
Coco
Ca spers
Herrin
Hirth
Hileman
t.i cCracken
Caspers
·Goldberg
Ti12 e 7:30 p .m. Dis tricts l ,2 ,3 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,8 & 11 --------
JOI NT BOA?J)S
Just ./ }iarper
1'a:h~e.-..... Ca spers
Ba·ttin ~Caspers
Berton ~W estra
Caspers ....-
Chris tie ....,. Root
Clark,Robt .--;;;-Jackson
.~e:Plss ~Silfi¥1 ...-Caspers
Coen ~
Cu l ver ~
Davis . ~Fonte
Finnell L_ Gomez
Fisc hbach
Green ~McCr ac ken
Gris et ~Herrin
U all~'ir ..,_. Just
Harvey ~Kanel
Hemeon ~Lewis
Herrin r'1' Griset
Hirth ~~rou l
Holden ~Hogard
Hyde L._ Kroes en
Mclnnis ~ liirth
Mc Wh inney _ .1J!!!_
Mi ller ~Coco
Parsons ti"
Phillips 7"" Caspers
Porter -;;;;;-
~ogorB "'7Hi r th
Shiple y -;;;r-McCracken
Sims ,__., Zunig a
Smith -;;.o-Hileme.ri
Stephenson .,,,,,-Dut ton
Wedaa · -;;;;;•r-1-:a.cho.J.o
Wi nn ~Sc hniepp
-)(--x--)(-
Mi tchell
. BQYQ..
OTHERS
Harper
Brown ·
Sylvester
;Lewis
. Du nn .
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hoh ener
Hunt
Keith
Lowry
Maddox
Ma.rtin.son
Niss on
P i ersall
Stevens
--Goldberg
Me~tin~ De.te Jan. 12, 1972
DISTRICT 1
Gris et
Battin
Miller
Porter
~/· Herrin
,,_/' Caspers
~ Coco
~
n1STRICT 2 ....,,
Smith ~Hileman
Christie ~ Root
Clark,Robt.~ Jackson
Culver ~
Finnell ....JL. Gomez
Herrin ~ Griset
Just --L' Harper
Phillips~~ Caspers
Sims ~ Zuniga
Stephenson ~ Dutton
Wedaa ~ Machado
Winn .iP ~ Schniepp
DISTRICT 3
tiyde ~
Battin ~
Berton ~
Christie ~
Clar~Robt.~
Culver ~
Kroes en
Caspers
Westra
Root
Jackson
Davis ~ Fonte
Green ~.Mc_c_;:acken
Ha;f'f>er ~(_Just'
Harvey ~ Kanel
·Herrin --k:::::. Griset
Hemeon ~ Lewis
Holden ~ Barnes
McWhinney -.L
Sims ~ Zuniga
Stephenson--'-"' Dutton
DISTK[CT 5
Parsons ~
Caspers L/"
Hirth ~ Croul ·
DISTRICT 6
Porter ~
Caspers ~-
. Mcinnis ~ Hirth
DISTRICT 7
Miller J:::::::. Coco
_. Clarlt,Ralp-h ·Q.; ~l
-~schbaclr
Gris et
Porter
.Regers
~ 'ith
~ ..
~ Herrin
~-' a_ (Hirth
~'Hileman
DISTRICT 11
Shipley l/" ~-~c Cracken
·Baker a.....~)
Coen ·~
DISTRICT 8
Boyd ~ Goldberg
Caspers ~
Mitchell __±..
T:il:.e 7:30 p.m. --------
-
-
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7,S & 11
JO I 1'1T BOARDS
Just
Baker
Battin
Berton
Caspers
Harper
=Caspers
__ Caspers
Westra
Chri.stie Root
Clark, Robt.--. tJackson
Clark, Ralpn:--caspers
Coen --
Culver
Davis.
Finnell
Fischbach
Green
Griset
Harper
Harvey
Hemeon
~ Herrin
Hirth
Holden
Hyde
--Mcinnis
McWhinney
-Miller
Parsons
--Fonte
-Gomez
--McCracken
Herrin
Just
-Kanel
--Lewis
--.Griset
--croul
--Bogard
-Kroes en
--Hirth
--coco
Phillips .---caspers
Porter
Rogers --Hirth
Shipley --1.rccracken
Sims ----zuniga
Smith -Hileman
--. Stephenson --Dutton
Wedaa --r.~achado
Winn --Schniepp
* -K-*
Mite-hell
Boyd =Goldberg
OTHERS
Harper
Brown·
Sylvester
Lewis
Dunn
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Br· c, • .aJ"'
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hohener
Hunt
Keith
Lowry
Maddox
Martin.son
N:Lsson
Piersall
Stevens
·~
Ne'('; ting De-. t':: Jan. 12, 1972
D.ISTPJCT 1
{Gris et
"Battin
'Miller ·t
f Porter
/Herrin
7 Caspers
7coco ~.
nrsTRICT 2
f ~i th ./Hileman
'f'Christie ~Root ~Clark, Robt. g;/ Jackson
rculver ~
y Finnell " v/ Gome.z
Y Herrin ~rGriset f Just . ~Harper
YPhillips ~ Caspers
'I Sims 1 / / Zuniga
Y Stephenson~ Dutton
1 Wedaa ~Machado
f Winn ~ Schniepp
DISTRICT 3
#eyde r /
f Battin r -;;.
y:Berton J
Y Christie ,I ;>
it Clark, Robt.Y ...... -..... ,./
Kroes en
Caspers
Westra
Root
Jackson
r Culver ,.; __i::_,.,
'/Davis I i./ Fonte
y Green ~J' 7 MJ!C~acken
YHarper , 4us-c
Y Harvey ,:;-:;:-/ Kanel
y·Herrin ~~ Griset
Y Hemeon ~ Lewis
Y Holden ,J--Barnes
r McWhinney 'f; 7
Y Sims . ..,,/ Zuniga
'f Stephenson 1/ / Dutton
DISTRICT 5 /
r'Parsons~ JJ.
Y Caspers y .
'I Hirth _ Croul
DISTRICT 6
'/ :\5orter II :;;;
'I Caspers Y /
y. Mcinnis J--:7
DISTRICT 7
7 Miller Y /
Y. Clark,Ralpfi.__1
Fischbach ~
Y Griset ~
'/ Porter I /
Y Roge:rs tJ ;;<
1 r-'ith y_
DISTRICT 11
Hirth
Coco
Caspers
Herrin
Hirth
Hileman
'I Si"1:Lpley 'I / McCracken
: ~~~~r ~ 7 Caspers
DISTRICT 8
Boyd ¥·Goldb.erg
Caspers
Mitchell
Tir:.e 7:30 p.m. -------Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 & 11
JOINT BOAE--:.DS
Just
Baker
Battin
Berton
Caspers
Harper
=Caspers
__ Caspers
Westra
Christie Root
Clark, Robt .--cracks on
.Clark, Ralpn-Caspers
Coen --
Culver
Davis ..
Finnell
Fischbach
Green
Griset
Harper
Harvey
Hemeon
Herrin
Hirth
Holden
Hyde
Mc Innis
.McWhinney
Miller
Parsons
--Fonte
-Gomez
--McCracken
--Herrin
Just
-Kanel
--Lewis
--Griset
--croul
--Hogard
-Kroesen
--Hirth
--coco
Phillips --caspers
Porter
Rogers --Hirth
Shipley --Mc Cracker...
Sims --zuniga
Smith -Hilema.lJ.
Stephenson --Dutton
Wedaa --Machado
Winn ---Schniepp
* * *
Mite-hell
Boyd =Goldberg
OT HE HS
Harper
Brovm·
Sylvester
Lewis
. Dunn
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hohener
Hunt
Ke.ith
Lowry'
Maddox
Martinson
Niss on
Piersall
Stevens
Neeting De.te Jan. 12, 1972
Gris et
Battin
Miller
Porter
1 rttc;;
~Her~
~ Caspers
~·Coco
~·
DISTRICT 2
Sllii th ~ Hileman
Christie ~ Root
Clark,Robt.~ .Jackson
Culver ~
Finnell ; <~-·/ Gome.z
Herrin ~· Griset
Just 7 Harper
Phillips ~· Caspers
Sims --JL,· Zuniga
Stephenson~ Dutton
Wedaa ~Machado
Winn ...,/. Schniepp
DISTRICT 3
Iiyde ,rvvv Kroesen
Battin 7 Caspe,rs
Berton r::;:::· Westra
Christie Root Clar~Robt. 7 Jackson
Culver ~
Davis v Fonte
Green 7 McCracken
Harper ~ Just
Harvey ~· Kanel
·Herrin ~ Griset
Hemeon ~. Lewis
Holden ~ Barnes
Mcwhinney ~
Sims . ~-Zuniga
Stephenson /Dutton
DISTRICT 5
/ Parsons
Caspers
Hirth
~ ~Croul ·
DISTRICT 6
Porter
Caspers
. Mcinnis
~ ~·.
~ .. Hirth
DISTRICT 7 .
Miller L Coco
. Clark, Ralph ~ Caspers
Fischbach
Gris et
Porter
Rogers
('1--,ith
~-DISTRICT
Shipley
Baker
Coen
DISTRICT
Boyd
Caspers
Mitchell
~· Herrin
~~Hirth
~Hileman
11
/McCracken
--1..,L"' Caspers
~/
8
Goldberg
TiI::e 7!30 p.m. -------Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 & 11
-·
JOINT BOA?:.DS
Just
Baker
Battin
Berton·
Caspers
. Harper.
=Caspers
Caspers
Westra
Christie --Root
Clark,Robt.-· -Jackson
Clark, Ralpn--Caspers
Coen --
Culver
Davis.
Finnell
Fischbach
Green
Gris et
Harper
Harvey
Hemeon
Herrin
Hirth
Holden
Hyde
Mc Innis
McWhinney
Miller
Parsons
--Fonte
-Gomez
--McCracken
Herrin
Just
-Kanel
--Lewis
-Griset
--croul
--Hogard
--Kroes en
--Hirth
--coco
Phillips --caspers
Porter
Rogers. --Hirth
Shipley --McCracken
Sims ----zuniga
Smith ---Hileman
st·ephenson --Dutton
Wedaa ~-Machado
Winn --schniepp
* * *
Mite-hell
Boyd
OTHERS
Harper
Brm·m·
Sylvester
Lewis
Dunn
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hohener
Hunt
Keith
Lowry'
Maddox
Martin.son
Niss on
Piersall
Stevens
--Goldbera
--0
Meeting Date Jan. 12, 1972 T:iJ::..e 7!30 p.m.
:PIS'l'F.ICT 1 (1~-:J I "'-:>l. ~
Gris et
Battin
Miller
Porter
~ Herrin
~· Caspers
~Coco
~i,~
nrsTRICT 2
Sii{i th L(Hilerrian
Christie lY\A Root
Clark, Robt.~ Jackson
Culver ~
Finnell J,/"' Gomez
Herrin --;:; Griset
Just ~;z..v Harper
Phillips .'JiAJ Caspers
Sims ?'kb Zuniga
Stephenson ~ Dutton
Wedaa ~ Machado
Winn ....L!);::2 Sc hni e pp
DISTRICT 3
Eyde ~ Kroes en
Battin ~ Casp~rs
Berton ~ Westra
Christie ~ Root
Clark, Robt.~ Jackson
Culver ~
Davis ~ Fonte
Green l'l"'..,,,) McCracken
Harper ~ Just
Harvey ~ Kanel
·Herrin ~ Gris et
Hemeon ~ Lewis
Holden ~-Barnes
McWhinney ..uC.. Sims ~ Zuniga
Stephenson ~ Dutton
DISTRICT 5
Parsons •"lvo
Caspers ,z
Hirth ~ Croul ·
DISTRICT 6
Porter ~· Caspers
·Mcinnis ()'Vi) Hirth
DISTRICT 7
Miller ~,/fioco
Clark.,Ralp~ Caspers
Fischbach _L...
Griset ~ Herrin
Porter ~
Regers ~ Hirth
,... , i th · Hileman
...,,,,,_~
DISTRICT 11
Shipley ~ McCracken
Baker ---::-./"' Caspers
Coen -4L-
·Goldberg
--
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 & 11
JOI Nr BOA?:.DS
--
Just
Baker
Battin
Berton·
Caspers
. Harper:
=Caspers
Caspers
--Westra
Christie --Root
Clark, Robt.-. -J.ackson
Clark,Ralpn--caspers
Coen --
Culver
Davis.
Finnell
Fischbach
Green
Gris et
Harper
Harvey
Hemeon
Herrin
Hirth
Holden
Hyde
Mc Innis
McWhinney
Miller
Parsons
--Fonte
--Gomez
--McCracken
Herrin
Just
-Kanel
--Lewis
--Gris et
--croul
--Hogard
--Kroesen
--Hirth
--coco
Phillips --caspers
Porter
Rogers. --Hirth
Shipley --McCracken
Sims ---zuniga
Smith --Hileman
Stephenson --Dutton
Wedaa ~-Machado
Winn --schniepp
* * *
Mitchell
Boyd =:Goldberg
OTHERS
Harper
Brown·
Sylvester
Lewis
Dunn
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hohener .
Hunt
Keith
Lowry'
Maddox
Martin.son
Niss on
Piersall
Stevens
1·1eeting Dei.te Jan. 12, 1972
DISTP.ICT 1
Gris et
Battin
Miller
Porter
DISTRICT 2
~ith
Christie
Clark, Robt.--
Culver -
Finnell
Herrin
Just
Phillips
Sims
Stephenson --
Wedaa
Winn
DISTRICT 3
Iiyde
Battin
Berton
Christie
Clark, Robt._
Culver
Davis
Green
Harpe-I!-
Harvey
·Herrin
Hemeon
Holden
McWhinney
Sims
Stephenson=
DISTRICT 5
Far sons
Caspers
Hirth
DISTRICT 6
Porter
Caspers
· MGin.riis
~-DISTRICT 11
Shipley
~r
Coen
DISTRICT 8
Boyd
Caspers
Mitchell
Herrin
Caspers
Coco
Hileman
Root
Jackson
Gome.z
Gris et
Harper
Caspers
Zuniga
Dutton
Machado
Schniepp
Kroes en
Caspers
Westra
Root
Jackson
Fonte
McCracken
Just
Kariel
Gris et
Lewis
-Barnes
Zuniga
Dutton
Croul ·
Hirth
Coco
Caspers
Herrin
.""=".
~an
~·lcCracken
Caspers
Goldberg
7:30 p.m. --------Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 & 11
c...~·"'eo~OINT BOAPJ)S
Just
-Efa:ke--r
~ Battin
~ Berton
Harper
=Caspers
Caspers
--Westra
~Caspers
~-Christie --Root
.-::;;;;:::;· Clark, Robt .-Jackson
.G±-ark,--R-tlp-n--Caspers
~ Coen --
~ Cul:rer
~·-Davis .. --Fonte
Finnell -Gomez
Fischbach
-::::::-Green --McCracken
Gris et --Herrin ~
--6:;:.::. Harper --Just
Harvey -Kanel
1.--Hemeon --Lewis
Herrin --Griset
~ Hirth --croul
~ ~ Holden --Hogard
'-" Hyde -Kroesen
/. Mcinnis --Hirth
~cWhinney_ -
· . Miller --coco
..iL. Parsons
--J,L". Phillips --caspers
~Porter
~-Rogers --Hirth
~Shipley --McCracken
~-·Sims --zuniga
V"'' Smith -. -Hileman
--:;;; Stephenson --Dutton
--Wedaa --Machado
~Winn --Sclmiepp
* * *
Mite-hell
Boyd ~Goldberg
OTHERS
Harper
Brown·
Sylvester
Lewis
. Dunn
Clarke
Sigler
Crabb
Carlson
Finster
Galloway
Hohener
Hunt
Keith
Lowry
Maddox
Martin.son
Niss on
Piersall
Stevens
"o"rl,J_ n.!)m '.Jo._.11:£L_, ~0 >.:.il!d 11 .... 1 h -7th Revised Draft
CSD 1-6-'72
AGREEM."SN'r BF.TWF.F.N (!QTJl'PT'Y SANITATION DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY
AND IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT FOR CAPACITY
IN DISPOSAL FACILITY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of , 1972, by ~nd between COUNTY
~~~~~~~~~~~-
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY, for itse_lf, and
as agent for COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, hereinafter referred tC? as "Sanitation
District", and IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRJCT, hereinafter referred
to as "Water District";
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Water District is a public corporation created
and governed by the California Water District law (Division 13
of the Water Code of the State of California), and
WHEREAS, Sanitation District is a public corporation
organized pursuant to the County Sanitation District Act (Chapter
3, Part 3, Division 5 of the Health and Safety Code),an~ is a
party to the Joint Ownership Operation and Construction Agreement
dated March 10, 1971, between itself and County Sanitation Dis-
tricts Nos~ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, and amendments thereto; and
WHEREAS, Sanitation District previously has constructed
a disposal facility con$isting of those facilities depicted on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof, which facilities are in some instances referred to herein
as "the outfall", which term relates to all of the portions of
the disposal facility set forth j_n Exhibit "A 11 commencing from
the "point of connection" designated on Exhibit "A" to the present
terminus of the disposal facility in the Pacific Ocean, and
WHERRAS, Water District is pursuing reclamation projects
for maximum beneficial use of water available to it, but desires
to purchase from Sanitation District .FIFTEEN MILLION (15,000,000)
gallons per day capacity in the outfall;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and
covenants herein contained, the patties to this Agreement do
hereby agree as follows:
1. Disposal Facility Capacity Right. Sanitation
District agrees to sell, and Water District agrees to purchase
capacity in the outfall in the amount of FIFTEEN MILLION
(15,000,000) gallons per day. The capacity herein purchased by
Water District shall be peak capacity. The capacity of Water
District shall not be utilized until such time as facilities of
Water District are connected to the outfall at the point of con-
nection designated on Exhibit nA". The cost of such connection
shall be borne solely by Water Districi. Inasmuch as Water
District concurrently ~.Jill be building a connecting facility,
Water District·may include in its construction contract the con-
struction of the connection to the outfall. However, all plans
and specifications therefor first shall be approved in writing by
Sanitation District and the actual construction itself at the
option of Sanitation District may be inspected by Sanitation
District or its designated representative at the cost of Water
District. The purchase price provided for hereunder shall be paid
on January 1, 1973, or upon acc·eptance and completion of the con-
struction of the interconnecting facility, inclusive of the con-
nection to the outfall of Sanitation District, whichever shall
occur first.
2. Right of Way. Sanitation District will grant any
reasonably necessary rights of way needed by Water District to
make such connection over and upon property owned by Sanitation
Di.strict.
-2-
3. Use. Subsequent to completion of· construction of
the required connection and payment of the purchase price pro-
vided for herein, Water District shall be entitled to deliver
effluent in the amount herein specified to the designated point
of connection for disposal thereof by Sanitation District. Prior
to any such discharge, Water District shall first have obtained
all discharge requirements required by law for such discharge
from the California Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region
or its successor agency and any other agency that may have juris-
diction or control over such discharge.·
4. Quality Criteria and Violations Thereof. The··
effluent delivered by Water District to Sanitation District
shall meet the discharge requirements applicable thereto and
the Quality Criteria established and maintained by Sanitation
District for itself and the other agencies that may discharge
into those facilities during the term of this agreement. It
is understood that Sanitation District may amend and change its
Quality Criteria from time to time.
In the event the effluent delivered by Water District
to Sanitation District facilities fails to meet the aforesaid
discharge requirements or Quality Criteria of Sanitation District
and said violation constitutes a threat to the safety and con-
tinuing operation of the existing or expanded facilities of
Sanitation District, Sanitation District shall have the right
upon twenty-four (24) hours notice, in writing, to suspend all
or part of Water District's use of its disposal facility capacity
right until such time as said Water District's effluent complies
~-with the applicable discharge requirements and the aforesaid Quality
Criteria of Sanitation District. In the event that Water District
continues to discharge effluent in violation of the applicable
standards or in violation of said Quality.Criteria twenty-four
~3-
(24) hours after receipt of notice in writing to correct or
remedy said violation Water District shall pay to Sanitation
District a penalty in the sum of Five Hli.ndred Dollars ($500) per
million gallons of waste water so discharged in violation of said
Criteria or standards. In addition thereto, Water District shall
pay to Sanitation District the cost as reasonably determined and
certified by Sanitation District Qf repairing any damage to
Sanitation District's facilities caused by the discharge of
effluent after receipt of such notice either to suspend or correct
from Water District's system in violation of the applicable dis-
charge stand&rds or Sanitation District's Quality Criteria.
5. Purchase Price. The purchase price to be paid by
Water District is the sum of $539,550.00. In the event such
payment is not received on the date herein provided, this Agree-
ment shall terminate.
6. Additional Facilities. In the event that any
federal, state, regional or local regulatory body or agency
having jurisdiction may hereafter require construction of an
extension of the outfall or modification of the outfall, Water
District shall participate on a proportionate basis in any con-
struction required to provide such additional facilities, and
such participation by Water District shall be based on the ratio
of its capacity in the facility required to be constructed to the
total capacity thereof. Any financial assistance which is received
from the federal government, the State of California, or any other
source for such construction, shall be credited to Water District
on the same ratio.
7. Metering. Water District shall install a flow
regulator and recording or totalizing meter capable of measuring
the quantities of effluent discharged from its facilities to the
outfall at the point of connection. Said flow regulator shall be
-4-
adjusted to limit the peak flow to FIFTEEN MILLION (15,000,000)
gallons per day. The meter shall be located at the point of
connection or elsewhere as Sanitation Di?trict reasonably may
determine. Such meter shall be the kind. and type approved by
Sanitation District. The metering fa~ilities herein provided
for shall be subject to inspection and testing by Sanitation
District from time to time and sh~ll be read at periodic intervals
by Sanitation District. All costs for installing, maintaining,
reading and testing said meters shall be borne by Water District.
8. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any interest
hereunder shall be transferred or assigned by Water District to
any person, entity or concern without the prior written consent
of Sanitation District, prqvided, however, that nothing herein
contained shall prevent Water District from designating or allo-
cating to other public agencies a portion of its capacity in the
outfall so long as such action does not affect Water District's
liabilities and obligations hereunder.
9. Acts of God. Neither party hereto shall be liable
for failure to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement
by reason of flood, fire, earthquake or act of God, provided that
due diligence is exercised to repair or replace facilities damaged
and to perform hereunder following such occurrence. Sanitation
District and Water District shall each pay its proportionate share
of the cost of such replacement based upon the ratio of its capacity
in the facility required to be repaired or replaced.
10. Approval by State Treasurer. Water District, within
thirty (30) days after execution hereof shall seek approval of
this Agreement by the State Treasurer. This Agreement sh~ll be
and is conditioned on Water District obtaining such approval.
11. Operation and Maintenance Cost. Water District
agrees to pay on demand, and not more frequently than semi-annually,
-5-
its share of all operation and maintenance costs pertaining to
facilities downstream of the point of connection. Water District
agrees to pay initially as its share of such cost~ $1.00 per
million gallons of effluent discharged at the point of connection
designated on Exhibit "A". This amount is deemed by Sanitation
District to be sufficient to cover its costs in regard thereto,
including any ordinary repairs which are defined for the purpose
of this Agreement, as any repairs requiring an expenditure of
less than FIVE THOUSAND ($5,000) DOLLARS for any.one incident.
Said charge shall be reviewed and adjusted periodically if found
to be inappropriate. The foregoing costs do not include chlorina-
tion of effluent disposed of through the outfall. If such is re-
quired, the cost thereof shall be prorated on the amount of
effluent disposed of through the outfall.
12. Relocation, Reconstruction, or Major Repairs.·
In the event Sanitation District, for reasons other
than its own convenience or benefit, incurs future costs for
relocation, reconstruction, or major repairs of all or any portion
of the outfall, Water District shall pay a proportionate share of
such costs which shall be based on the ratio which the capacity
owned by Water District bears to the total capacity of Sanitation
District in the facility after such relocation, or reconstruction.
Any financial assistanc·e which is received from the federal govern-
ment, the State of California, or any other sour~e shall be
credited to water District on the same ratio. Sanitation District
shall give water District reasonable notice of any such relocation,
reconstruction, or repairs, and said payment shall be made within
thirty (30) days after presentation of invoice by Sanitation
District.
13. Term, First Refusal and Capital Replacement Charge.
The term of this agreement shall be forty (40) years from the date
-6-
•.
of its execution. Water District shall have a right to first
refusal to extend the term for a like period. First· refusal .
shall be a part of each additional term .. · Sanitation District
shall give Water District twenty-four (24) months notice of its
election to continue selling excess capacity rights prior to the
expiration of the initial term provided for herein or any subse-
quent like term.
It is acknowledged that Sanitation District may be
required to replace the outfall or provide other means of disposing
of the effluent of Sanitation District and water District. In
order that Sanitation District might be assured that it will have
funds available from Water District for such purposes, commencing
five (5) years after payment of the purchase price provided for
in paragraph 1 hereof, Water District shall pay annually to
Sanitation District three (3%) percent of such purchase price to
be used by Sanitation District. In the event Sanitation District
does not have excess capacity rights to sell or elects to terminate
this agreement during the initial term, the original purchase price·
provided for hereunder shall not be repaid and it shall be retained .
by Sanitation District. Annual payments received hereunder by
Sanitation District shall be repaid to Water District in five (5)
equal ar.mual payments without interest. Such payments shall be
received by water District on or before January 1 of each succeeding
calendar year until paid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties.hereto have executed
-7-
this Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Miller, Nisson & Kogler
By
----------~--
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By _A __ l_e_x_a_n_d_e_I_" _B_o_w_1-· e-, --
General Coilllsel
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1,
OF ORANGE COUNTY, and as Agent
for County Sanitation Districts
Nos. ·2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of
Orange County
By
__,,,C,.....h_a_i_r-·m_a_n-,---=B~o-a_r_d~o-f"""""""'D~1 ..... ' _r_e_c.,...t_o_r_s __ _
By--,,,...---.---_,,,_-_,,..-..,,,--=-::----.-----~ Secretary, Board of Directors
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT
By
-P-r_e_s_i_d_e_n~·t----------------
By
-----.....-~-------------------Secretary
-8-
t'li ~ :t
'-...... . t
UJ
............. .
'i
~
~
...
\
. ' •.
(
.
.L~ ... ,."'"llt '~f\ t•UltO'f I ,-, ~\fl'll\tt •
"'r I ~ ,,, "'~I '~
.. :
.. . .
. ,
;
I
; .
. .
. .
. "
".
·. ,.
. • .
. .
• .
·. . .
'.
...
..
,·
'1
( • .......................... '["
:' .• ..
..
"
"··· ...
, ~·~s ' ANfiA't!O~ OTS I"'
COUN'N S f 'y Ct.LIFORNfA AN '"'E Cet..'NT OR IV -
JotNr wom<s r-A·1c
f:' f; Q\'{ :x>i._\f I WASTEWAT ... R_ ... _ .
CAROLLO E~~(i!HE~S JOHN .
! I ~/If/Tl PLATE N .
.
"
Acre"'r'J !t,,,.1 ,.,,o~ i&:... __ s __ _ <.), .... ,r.; .• h ~
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ANNEXATIONS .,..,.
Annex
Number General Description
12 Buck
14 Newport Avenue
18 Ludlow-Armbrust
19 O'Sullivan
21 Daniger
22 Niaude
23 Sirrine Drive
24 Santiago Jr. High
25 Chapman Avenue East
B-C07-l l 6-00
1-5-72
Gross Area
100%
3.40 ac.
100%
37 .3 ac.
100%
2.44 ac.
100%
3.66 ac.
100%
6.27 ac.
100%
2.90ac.
100%
1.52 ac.
100%
24.65 ac.
100%
17.30 ac.
100%
Pub Ii c · Road Area Private Property Area
% %
1.20 ac. 2.20 ac.
35% 65%
0.9 ac. 36.41 ac.
2.4% 97.6%
. 12 ac. 2.32 ac.
5% 95%
3.66 ac.
0% 100%
6.27 ac.
0% 100%
0.07 ac. 2~83 ac.
2.4% 97.6%
1.52 ac.
0% 100%
0.46 ac. 24. 19 ac.
1.9% 98.1%
7.78 ac. 9 .52 ac.
45% 55%
(
November 5, 1971
MEMORANDUM
TO: EDWARD JUST, JOINT CHAIRMAN
FROM: ROBERT FINNELL , CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL COMM ITTEE STUDYING
DIREcrroRS' FEES SCHEDULE
SUBJECT: RECOMME NDAT ION FOR CHANGES IN THE PRESENT DIRECTORS'
FEES SCH EDU LE
The following report constitutes t h e recommen dations of t he
special committee appointed by the Joint Boards at the regular
board meeting of Mar ch 10, 1971.
During this period tDe·corni~ittee has met on a number of
occasions and has requested and received detailed information
from both the Sanitation Districts 1 staff and the Districts!
General Counsel . The committee has reviewed several alternatives
which are discussed below.
(1) Maintain the Directors 1 compensation at t h e
present level as established by resolution of
the individual Districts in 1 967 and 1968 .
The special committee concluded that the
present fee structure is inequitable and
that another alternative should be sought .
(2) Amend the fee schedule so that those Directors
representing more than one District at a joint
meeting would only receive compensation equa l
to that of a Director represen ting a single
District .
The General Counsel ruled that under the present
Health and Safety Code the Sanitation District
does not have the authority to disc riminate in
its fees. This alternative could b e achieved ,
however, by requesting the State Le gisl~ture to
enact special legislation . It was the consensus
of the special conunittee that because such legis -
lation would affect all sanitation districts in
the State of Ca lifornia , the chances of securing
passage of such legislation were slim. It was
also agreed that even if such legislation coul~
be enacted it 11rnuld be time consumi.ng and wo uld
n ot solve other pr o blems wh iQh wil l be facing t h e
Districts in the near future.
The special comm ittee do·es recommend, however,
that if the Joint Boards do not agree with the
committee 's r ecommended alternative, serious ·
considerati on should be given to requesting
legislative action to accomplish the reduction
of ·multiple fees to a single Director . ·
(3) Consolid a te the various Sanitation Districts
into one County Sanitation District vii th opera -
tions, maintenance, and capital outlay costs
split evenly throughout the new District .
While this would achieve many of the goals the
committe e f .elt were needed, it would creat e
tax increase s in Dis tr i~ts 5, 6 , and 7, while
lowering taxes in Districts 1, 3, and 11 . It
would have no effect on Dist rict 2 . Th e Com -
mittee concluded that this would not be an
equitabl e distribution of costs and therefore
does not recommend this alternative .
(4) Consolidate the present Sanitation Districts
into one CO"t~t..n ty Sani t a ti on District with
special zones which would be co -terminus with
existing Districts ' boundaries and it would
have separate budgets, could issue bonds, and
incur bonded indebtedness for improvements and
the maintenance thereof within the special zone .
In effect, this alterna tive would provide for ·
only one Sanitation.District but would allow
for special zones which would be the equivalent
of the present County Sanitation Districts which
would have no effect on the tax rates of each
of the present Districts . The consolidat ed
agenci es would act as a single Sanitation District
now acts . The existing Joint Administrative
Organization would be eliminated as would the
necessity for seven sets of resolutions, minutes,
seal s, etc ., for joint business. Rather than
having District No . 1 act as agent for all the
Districts it would merely be one District . There
wou l d be no duplication of Directors in that each
city within the District, each Sanitary District
now repres ent ed, and the County Board of Super -
visors, would have a single representative and
an a l ternate for a total of 23 active Directors .
The c omm ittee felt that this latter point was
one which deserved special attenti on of the
Joint Boa rds . At the present time there are
-2 -
29 Directors representing 19 cities and 3
Sanitary Dis.tricts and the County Board of
Supervisors. However, if Districts No . 5
and No . 11 annex presently unincorporated
areas, the entire city councils of the
Cities of Ne wport Beach and Huntington Beach
will automati cally become the Board of
·Directors for those two Sanitation Districts .
Thi s will increase the .number of Directors
to 36 with two cities having 1 4 representa -
tives voting on matters before the Joi nt .
Boards . In addition, if each .of the mayors·
of cit ie s be lon ging to more than one District
shoul d e l ect a different alternate to repre -
sei;it them in each District, the nuJnber of
Directors could go as high as 48 . This wou ld
more than double the number of Director s which
would be possib l e under this proposed alter-
nat ive . The coIJ)mittee fe lt that the unwieldy
nature of such a large Boa rd would be detri -
mental to the efficient operations of the
Districts .
This alte rnative would also have the effect
of substantially reducing the nuJnber of
special districts, an objective formally
endors ed by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors, the Orange County Divis ion of
the League of California Cities, and the
Orange County Grand Jury .. At the same time,
it would still provide the mec hanism for
solving local problems by provi ding fo r zone
committees equivalent to the pres ent Di stricts'
Boards .
Last but certainly not least, the reduction
in Directors fees would amount to a sub -
stantial savings to the taxpayers of the
Districts .
The committee recommends the adoption of this
alternate plan . It has prepared for the re -
view of each Director, a proposed consolidation
agreement . It is recommended .that this item
-3 -
be plac e d on the De cemb e r 8, 1 971 age rid a
for a discu s si o n a nd vote b y t he membe r s h i p
of the Joint Boa r ds .
Re spectfully s u bmitt e d,
/)1 ;.! J ~~ J ("" .hi . ··-f]~i ''-i!;--r j~;n~~ .
Rob e r t ?inne ll
Ch ai r ma n ·
Membe r s of the Sp e c i a l Corr.r1'.1i tt e e :
Ch a i rman :
Membe rs:
Ex offici o Eemb e rs :
Robert Finn e ll , l-'.a yor .·
Ci ty of Placentia
J oseph Ey d e _, C01.JJ1cilma.n
_City o f Las Jl.l a:ni tos
Li nd sJ.c y Pa r sc11s > Counci lrna n
~i ty of N8 ~po t t Bea ch
~ Do n Sm ith , l-13-yor
City o f Or«.::.n g e
1·1ark Step!:e n s o n , Coun cilma n
·city of An ahe im
C . Ar t hur r;issori', Ge ne r a l Cotm sc ~
Or ange Co unty Sa ni ta ti o n D i s tri~ts
Edwa rd Just, Joi n t Chairma n
.Orange Co un ty S a n i t a ti o n Distri cts
-4-
-..
,
..
AGREE:rvfENT FOR CONSOLIDATION
DRAFT
9/29/71
This Agreement made in Founta.IDValley, California,
on day of ---~~~~~~~-' 19~-' by and between
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOSo 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7_and 11,
OF ORANGE COUNTY (each hereinafter referred to collectively
as "Districts").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Districts are organized and existing
under the provisions of the County Sanitation District Act
(Section 4700, et seq. of the Health & Safety Code), and
WHEREAS, Districts are each engaged in the collectlon,
transporting and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes
originating with the County of Orange, and
WHEREAS, Districts jointly own and operate property
used for the treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial
wastes, and
WHEREAS, eacn District serves a different territory of
the County of Orange and owns certain sewerage facilities
independent of each other District, and
WHEREAS, the territory of all districts together
constitute a contiguous territory, and
WHEREAS, by agreement districts maintain ~ single
joint administrative organization which administers all of
the affairs of each districts, and
WHEREAS, by.reason of assessed valuations, varying
states of development and land uses, each district ha~
different requirements for funding its operations, and
WHEREAS, many administrative benefits can be derived
from a consolidation. of all districts into a single county
sanitation district, and
WHEREAS, the County Sanitation District Act provides
for the maintenance of zones within a single county sanitation
district (Health & Safety Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive)
which can be maintained to keep existing tax burdens in
similar proportions upon consolidation of the districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
the agreements set forth hereinafter, it is agreed as follows:
1. That the districts will petition for consolidation
into one count7 sanitation district whose territory will
include all of the territory now contained within their respec-
tive territorial boundaries.
2. The consolidation district, hereinafter called
, will be known as
~~~~~~~~~-
3. Wnen formed, will be divided into zones
as authorized under the provisions of Health & Safety Code,
Section 4850-4856, inclusive. Said zones will be coterminous
with existing boundaries of each district and sub-committees
of the directors will be created to recommend to the whole
board of directors the special improvements and tax requirements
for each zone. Each sub-committee shall include the directors
whose constituencies are significantly included within the
zone they are to be concerned with.
4. ·In determining the revenues needed for each
zone within as provided in Health & Safety Code,
Section 4856, the directors shall calculate the requirements
for each zone insofar as the operation of
--~~~~
is dis-
tinguished from the special sewerage facilities constructed,
maintained and operated to serve the localized requirements
of the zones in accordance with the joint .ownership, operation
and construction agreement dated March 10, 1971, now existing
by and between the districts, parties to this agreement.
5. The expressed intent of this agreement is to
provide the means to maintain the existing proportions of the
tax burden on the property within each district to be included
in the newly consolidated
l./l.j/ IL ac
.. ((21~ (_AN
·Section 5
REVISIONS TO SEVENTH REVISED DRAFT OF
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
A~D IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT FOR
CAPACITY IN DISPOSAL FACILI.TY
Purchase Price.
The purchase price, sometimes hereinafter referred
to as "initial purchase price'', to be paid by Water District
is the sum of $539,550.00. In the event said payment is
not received on the date hereinabove provided in Section 1,
this agreement shall terminate.
Section 13 Termination and Capital Replacement Charge.
The term of this agr~ement shall be forty (40) years
from the date of its execution.
Water District snall pay to Sanitation District
annually commencing on the 5th anniversary of this agreement
the sum of $16,185.0Q. By reason of its initial purchase
price payment and the annual payments of $16,185.00 hereinabove
described, Water District shall be deemed to have acquired a
.
perpetual right at the termination hereof to participate in
the use of existing and expanded disposal facilities of Sani-
tation District. In the event the parties are not able to
negotiate an appropriate joinder or consolidation of Water
District with Sa~itation District on or before the end
~ of the term of this agreement, or in the event Water District's
said perpetual right is not otherwise confirmed by contract
extension for reasons other than the decision of Water District
·•
to abandon such right, Sanitation District shall repay to
Water District an amount equal to all sums paid except the in-
itial purchase price for disposal rights in five equal annual
installments. No interest shall be due or payable by
Sanitation District on the monies to be repaid as herein
provided. Such payments shall be received by Water District
on or before January 1st of each succeeding calendar year after
termination of Water District's disposal rights until paid.
Boards of Directors discussion concerning the Special Committee
Report, Agenda. Item No. 10, December 7, 1971
·Following a lengthy discussion Chainnan Just polled the Directors
for their respective agencies preferences of the four alternatives
contained in the Special Committee's Recommendation for Changes
in the Present Directors' Fees Schedule.
Anaheim
Buena Park
Brea
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
Costa Mesa San.Dist.
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation)
No indication on position
No indication on position
No indication on position
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation) or
Alternate #2 (Legislation to limit Directors'
fees)
No indication on position
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation)
No indication on position
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation)
Favors Alternate #4 (C9nsolidation)
Not yet considered by Council
Not yet considered by Council
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation)
Not yet considered by Council
Opposes Alternate #4 (Consolidation); might
be interested in Alternate #2 (Legislation to
limit Directors' fees) ·
No indication on position
Opposes Alternate #4 (Consolidation); favors
Alternate #2 (Legislation to limit Directors'
fees)
No indication on position
Favors Alternate #4 (Consolidation)
No indication on position
Garden Grove San.Dist. Opposes Alternate #4· (Consolidation); favors
Alternate #2 (Legislation to limit Directors'
fees)
Midway City San.Dist. No indication on position
Board of Supervisors Not presented to Board yet; will be placed
on agenda
Following furti1er discussion the matter T#as tabled to the regular
meeting of the Joint Boards on January 12, 1971.
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
JOI NT MEETING OF T!IE i30P.RD S OF DIP.ECTOF.S OF COUNTY
SANITATION DIST~ICTS NOS . 1, 2 , 3, 5 , 6 , 7 and 11 ,
OF OHi;NG S COUNTY, CAL IFORNIP.
A regular joint meeting of t h e Boards of Di re ctors ~f Cou nty
Sanitation Dis t ric t s Nos . 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange
County , California , was held at the hour of 7:3 0 p .m.,
January 12 , 19 72 , 1 0844 Ellis Avenue , Fountain
Valley, California .
The Chairman of the Joint A~min~strative Organization called
the weeting to order at 7:30 p.D .
The roll was c alled ana the Sec re tary re p orte~ a quorum
present for each Dis t ri c t 's Bo a r a .
* * * * * * * * *
DISTRICT 7
Adjournment
Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of t he Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned
to January 25, 1972, at 4:30 p.m. The Chairman then declared
the meeting so adjourned at 9:47 p.m., January 12, 1 9 72.
STATE OF CAL IFORNIAl
SS,
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Se c ret a ry o f each of the
Boar d s of Di r ectors of County Sanitation Distri:ts Nos.
1 , 2, 3, 5 , 6, 7 , an d 11 , of Orange County, California,
~o hereby certify that the above an d foregoing to be full ,
true an 0 c o r re c t copy of minute entries on mee ting o f
sa i sl Board s of Di rec tors on t he 12th da y of January
19 72
12th
S -107
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
n ay of January, 1972
this
Boar ~s of Directors
ation Districts No s .
7, an d 11
Chairman Just
Presentation of 10-year service award to Louis L. Becker. Lou
started with _theDistricts in January, 1962 as a Maintenance Man.
He is now in Collection Facilities Maintenance.
a ~ --.t.
Call meeting of Executive Committee for Tuesday, ~~~:{ ~211t:r,
..
at 5:30 p.m. Invite Directors Robert Harvey and William Fischbach.,
or Directors Donald Winn and David Baker.
Report regarding dedication ceremonies of the Orange County Water
District, 2:00 p.m., Thursday, January 27th.
Report on resolution adopted by the City of Camarillo urging the
State Water Resources Control Board to initiate action to implement
stricter requirements on discharge of municipal and industrial waste
waters· to the ocean.
January 12, 1972
#7 -Reuort of .Joint Chairman
Presented 10-year service award to Louis L. Becker who is in
Co l lection Facilities Maintenance .
Called meeting of Executive Committee for Tuesday , January 25th at
5:30 p .m. Invited Director Harvey .
Reported with regard to dedication ceremonies of the Orange County
Water District , 2:00 p.m ., Th~rsday, January 27th .
I t was moved and seconded that the resolut i on adopted by the Ci ty
o f Camarillo be received and filed (re SWRCB initiating action to
implement stricter requirements on discharge of municipal and industrial.
waste waters t o the ocean)
#8 -Report of General· Manager
Welcom ed new Board members.
Read letter from Babcock Electronics commending Don Wright for
good public relations job done on Sunflower job .
Re new requirements under consideration by State Board: Harvey Hunt
me t with peopl e in Sacramento last Monday . State i s now going to
d evelop a new set of regulations and mail out to several agencies to
try them out for size . Haven 't seen proposal yet . Harvey Hunt fee l s
they may -b e tougher than what was proposed previously . Don 't understand
f rom State Board_ staff why they are going ahead with this unl ess' they
-are going to make their requireme nts mo r e stringent than federal ones .
Staff of Public Works Committee has been instructed to include a
provision requiring those treatment plants which are approved as of
Ja..riuary, 1974 and those which are in existance in January , 1976, to
have effluent treatment . We interpret this to mean secondary treatment
wi l l be required throughout the UoS . Where do we go from here?
Casp e rs r e ported wi l l be interviewing for a permanent representative
in Washington, D.C . and should have in a month or so . Hopefully will
b e ab l e to represent Sani ta ti on Dis tricts a l so .
Ha rvey Hunt reported that State did not re l ease copy of new requirements
because it had not gone to their own cowJUittee yet . From the · meeting
he believes (1) they are going to shoot more toward receiving water
quality rather than discharge itself; and (2) will point toward in~ustrial
sourGe control which .we have all been in favor of . They didn 't let
t oo many of the detail s out . Report should be out sometime in February
and target date .for its implementation is January, 1976 . Means an
immediat e expenditure of $65 million for Orange County without any real
idea that it would do the job.
Pars·ons stated he beLieves S_o . California is an exception in this
particular situation with o u r outfall systems . Wondered whether we
could get local representatives together as a body in order to get
more favorable rec ognition in Washington . Hyde said every sanitation
district says -the same . thing that they 1;i.re an e x·c ep tion . Wedaa asked
what r esponse we had in the past on · State l evel·. Parsons answered
tha.t we couldn 1 t get ~people back there in · time because Comm.i ttee
act.ed so fast in Washington . Also stated we are the only people
carrying on a study and · trying to work out a solution .
p . 2 .
Mr Just asked that if anyone would be in Washington in the near
future, they should check with FAH and get some appointments sc~eduled .
League of Cities Convention - 1 st week of March . Just goint to
Washington middle of February; Griset -January 24-26. Professor
Isaacs could give a good testimony .
#9 -Report of General Counsel
No report Referred to item #ll(a)
#11(a) -Culver recommended that Executive Committee report be
accepted with the exception of i tern (a) M/S
Nissan read change in agreement with IRWD on page 6 , Section 13,
requested by IRWD. Ag re ement sent out was a first refusal . Districts
cannot make a contract in excess .of 50 years for contracting of
treatment rights but can sell existing rights. The effect is the
same as the language sent out .
IRWD
FAH explained further: Onlast page of agreement, note/point of
connection. Proposal is that I RWD acquires 15 MGD c~pacity in
oc ean 01tfall . Point of connection will be past our treatment
faciliti es and will be going directly.:hto the ocean outfall #2 ,
near surge tower . Will have control of quantity and quality of
their discharge; however we do not have the capability, at this
point,to do anything about their effluent as far as treating it .
They are going.to treat their own effluent with secondary treatment
and any other treatment required based on legis l ation of SWRQCB.
In agreement we have two safeguards: (1) Since we cannot treat
their waste at the point entering our system , we have asked them
to go to Board and get discharge requirements . (2) There is a
quality criteria a..nd quantity enforcement clause in agreement to
protect Districts . May charge penalty and have right to refuse
any additional wastes not meeting requirements. Ocean Outfall has
a C?pacity of 480 MGD and I RWD wishes capacity rights of 15 MGD for
discharges from Wa.ter District, Los Alisos area & El Toro Marine Base.
At present time the peak flow is about 190 MGD; average is 138 MGD .
We increased original plans for 96 11 pipe (360 MGD ) to 1 20 11 pipe which
allows .for over 1 00 MGD more.
Miller moved that this agreement be referred back to Executive
Committee so that change could be better unde r stood and reported
to Directors. S~conded by Hyde . Just & Culver didn't a gree with
this motion . Vote was taken oh returning to Exec. Conu..~ittee.
Districts 2, 3, 5 &6 voted 11 no 11 and Districts 1, 3 & 7 voted "yes!!.
The motion failed .
Smith questioned what would happen if they didn't meet ··requirements
or we had to shut them off .
FAH stated there is a $500 per mi+lion gallon penalty in this
agreement , plus other actions that can be taken. I RWD will build
thei r own facilities to Plant No. 2. Will be under pressure so
will have to pump and will have to at least · equalize our pressure.
They wili receive discharge requiremen ts .. Executive Off icers of
Regional Board state .that becaus e of regional systems that are being
required t hroughout the country, State Board will ask for l .egislation
to ·set .discharge req-1..1.irements ·on individual . ope raters .· . If we go to
effluent discharge reql,,iirement, eve r ything is tested at point put into
pipe. Wi ll be. required to do everything ·we are required to do. Leg:Ls-
lation wil l bacl~ us up . Grant program will require other agencies to
do t he same .
p. 3
Hyde asked to explain payments of 3% of purchase price after 40 years?
Nisson explained they are going to pay $539,550 for this 15 MGD
capacity right. Beginning 5 years after that time, they are going
to start paying 3% of that figure which is $16,186.50 per year for
~35 years, and we are going to invest it as we wish and keep the
interest gained on money. If at the end of the term, they don't
~want J~o -continue with the a~reement or we don't want to continue,
they are goin~ to get back $16,186.50 x 35 that they paid but not
-the original $539,550 or the interest gained. Districts can use
money for all this time as they please . Fund being built up is
=actually to pay for capacity for another 40 years if they wish to
continue agreement . This eliminates having to go through entering
another agreement and deciding what they should pay . Districts
.can 't have automatic renewal so have to have something in agreement
:1-ike this. -
·coen mentioned Section 7 of agreement defines quite clearly how
.:quantity will be monitored but Section 4 doesn't say much about
_!JlOni~o~ing quality •
. __ when
Nisson reported that/standards are laid down, they would pro_vide
the manner that they w.ill be checked on. Monitoring _requirements
will be incorporated into this provision by reference.
~t was Moved and Seconded that agreement be approved . Roll Call
·vote was taken and motion -carried .
#12 -Mr . Harper referred to new map and indicated the population
.of various basins. Basin that we are involved with has about
·1,300,000 people. Around 400,000 here . For several years there
has been growing concern about the underground water situation in
our basin. In this upper basin alone ilfa l"O year : period from 1950-60,
there was an accumulation of 100,000 tons of salt .per year. River
doesn't run the year around to carry salt back to ocean . Build up
of: salts in underground water supply here is concern of Directors .
Several years ago started negotiations with RCWCFCD-_ Proposed l ine
would discharge into ocean 4000 ft . ·off shore . Came to Directors
and. asked to buy old outfall. They ·were offe_red a price of $2 mil l ion
and didn 't think it was worth it . Began to talk about joint line as
a result of many discussions. District 2 went into design and line
was proposed up the river wtere we would have capacity to serve this
area. from County line. First discussed 30 MGD for upper area; changed
·to 50 MGD and now ·back to 30 MGD. St-ate and federal agenc i es are now
insisting that things be l ooked at on a water basin management concept.
Thing.s we are doing have to conform to basin plan . Do have basin
·p l an adopted by SWRQCB. Will be a line down rive·r ~d effluent
discharged to the ocean . Several mill ion dollar savings in joint
construction of facility. Last month-District 2 decided on a concept
we hadn't had before:Because of pending requirements to go to
secondary treatment and the fact that we will be getting Northern
California water .in this basin, which is a higher quality water than
:the Colorado River ~~ater that we are getting now, we will be able to
get into water reclamation_ sometime in the not too distant future ..
District 2 needs a 50 million gallon line for themselves and will
expand to serve · upper a ·rea wastes. Will not be to~ic wastes. Are
going to plac e t h e same cont r o ls at this point where it enters the
County as .we would o n any industrial d'ischarger within our own District.
As far as marine environm~nt -is concerned, wa.stes would have -to -meet
our req_uirerrients . -would have sufficient .controls to protect ourselves.
p . 4
#12 (cont .)
If we do not do this, there is a possibility that State or Federal
government will s ay if we are not going to work with upstream
people, they will put in a new agency to have control over entire
basin . There are very definite· advantages to taxpayers in County
in savings of money and we wil l have control in what goes out the
pipe . State apd Federal people think this is a good project .
. ,. we . .
·rt was stated/will not have adverse effluent toxic -wise , and will
be ab~e to take some of the saline brines ·out . We will actually be
treating the water in our system . ·
Nisson indicated one of the agreements was worked out and, hopefully,
would have both agreements by next meeting . There will be one
agreement for Di strict 2 and one for ent ire group .
#13(c) -Hyde question 8~% figure and it was explained that this was
for a period of two years, not just for this year . M/S
#13(e) -FAR mentioned that in the p~st we usua~ly sent the Joint
Chairman to this conference . It was Moved and Seconded that he attend .
#15 -Mr . Just indicated that he was in favor of Alternative #4 and
he read all of the alternatives . He mentioned ·that each District
Chairman signs docuraents for that particular District and District 1
signs docum ent s pertaining to· all Distri cts ; while the Joint Chairman
signs none and makes more money for none muc h greater responsibility .
Sims asked whether we would have to go to l egislature to change
anything re #4?
Finne l l indicated agreement wou l d only have to be drafted by General
Counsel and taken to LAFC and Board of Supervisors . Don 't have to
go to Sacramento.
Sims asked if we had one consolidated District and no chairman for
each District, what about Executive Committee?
Finnell stated that the Committee recognize d that if Alternate 4
were acc.ep.ted bythe Joint Boards , that some other additional reorganiza-
tion. might be in order. One of the spe~ific items t he Committee
talked about was the Executive Committee . The Chairmen of the
special zones could form the Ex.ecutive .Committee . He also felt that
t he Executive Committee 's, authority should be examined . Presently
they give recommendations only .
Sims said unless this portion is d i scussed with regard to Executive
Comm i ttee , we are not ready to .<?-dopt th i s.
Mr. Just said zone committees would pretty much remain as they are --
one representative from each of the agencies , and one from the Board
of Supervisors . Fop affairs that deal with a particular city (Exampl e -
City of Santa Ana, Dist . 1), inst e ad of five men that constitute the
Board , they will now have 22 men making ~he legal determinations for
the Dis·t"rict .
Just stated that the committee wou l d on l y make recommendations and
legal action 0otiid b~·taken ·b~·t~e joint··~oards .
p. 5
~gi~g~ .stated that there is doubt about the impact of #4 with regard
effect immediately and in the future regard~ng the problems
pertaining to· the City of Santa Ana. One man -One vote is a real
problem. District 1 happens to pertain exclusively to Dist. l;
District 6 -mostly Costa Mesa; and District 5 -Newport Beach . Each
city would like to have the ability to determine what is best for
themselves. ·
Smith indicated the City of Orange would probably have the biggest
problem in the future because of biggest expansion that way. They
feelfee lowering is okay. Agree with Griset; would like to keep
it as close to people concerned and not N@t just a recommendation
from committee. He questioned how one Board could kno w all the
problems of a local area and take as good an action.
Finnell said all these years they had had the City of Santa Ana
helping them in Placentia and it hasn't hurt them. With regard to
Home Rule, we all want it but we recognize in the Joint Boards that
it is worth giving up a little bit to effect economies and efficiencies
in the joint operation and the same holds true for th~ zones.
Nissen stated that through the years working together, all Dastr.icts
had to agree on the treatement facilities expansion and operation,
so no one District has any control over anything except lines within
its own District. He observed there aren't many political problems ~~
with regard to these lines. If recommendation comes from a city,
the Board usually approves. Miller brought up a couple instances
where there was disagreement and Nissen indicated this happens very
infrequ~ntly and on insignificant items. ~<"O v I hC.\ 0 ' i..SM
Hyde stated that most arguments against #4 are for ~l:l-J:4..sm.. (?)
No good arguments why Alternative 4 is so bad. There is one .of
two choices: Clean up situation that should be c leaned up and which
could be a potential scandal; or you can have it done be legislature.
Coen stated that District 11 would have two representatives--one
from the City of Huntington Beach and one from the Board of Supervisors,
and they would always be a minority in any vote.
Griset mentioned that Alternate 4 would save fees for some 10 Directors
for the year.
Nissan stated there wou~d be other savings also i n the keeping of
fewer sets of books and less paperwork
Caspers suggested a 5-man commission could handle this job fine. ·
.Finnell moved that the Joint Boards approve Alternative #4 subraitted
by Special Committee. Motion was seconded.
Miller stated they should vote on whether each District is ready
to vote on an alternative.
Just said vote has to be by District.
C~soers made substitute motion~ ~hat this be haridled ~t the ne x t 4 . meeting. It was seconded. Finnell mentioned that this was held over
last month because the Board of Superviso~s had not had· a chan ce to
discuss it and he would be more in favor of motion if he was ~ssu~ed
·they t·rculd have acted by the next meeting.
A vote by hands wa s taken and the motion to defer this item .o
the next meeting pass ed 16 to 15 .
~. 6
Po r ter stated that he agreed with Hyde. This should be solved ~nd
n ow . He .does .not agree that District 6 should me rge with a:'...l or ·
t he other Districts ; Districts 1 , 7 and 6 should solve their own ·
p roblems. The simple solution to the problem would be for any
Di r ector to sign that he will rec e ive compensation for just the
Di strict he initially represents and the problem would be solved .
Ni ssan stated that they don 't l ike to deal on a voluntary basis
a nd should have laws set up that spe l l o u t exactly what it is going
t o be .
#18 -An inquiry was made as to why a roll cal l vote was taken on
the payment of the bills which was a fairly standard item. It was
mentioned that there are sometimes some very large payments ~ade
and they want to give the Directors an opportunity to have a say in
approving them .
#24 -Mr . Harper asked that the bid date be changed to March 28th
f or the Santa Ana River Interceptor . '
#39 -·M~. Harper mentioned that the engineers were prepared to
submit p l ans and specs for the .bid ope.ning on February 17th;
h owever , at the discussion on Monday with the State Division of
Highways , they through the engineers ·a curve so decided to hold o f f .
#50 -Nisson stated he has underway a condemnatio n suit on a piece
of right of way on a job completed some time ago . The settlement
conferen ce was set for Monday and someone mu st be authorized to
make settlement offer based on a rea sonable figure. In this
particular condemnation .we have a permanent easement in the area
of the San Diego Freeway and Westminster . Appraiser said land was
wo r th $1.67 per square foot . This partic ular parcel was 3-4 ft.
be l ow grade and a l l of our facilities are underground . Mr. Nissan
a s ked authority to offer settlemen t not to exceed $3 ,500 . Motion
was made and seconded to give him authority .
#52 -Miller recommended that Items 52 and 52 be referred to a
sp ec i al meeting for District 7 o~ January 25th at 4 :30 . Motion was
ma d e and seconded and carried .
'
#55 . -Mr . Ha r per asked whether there was a possiblity that this
modification would set a precedent f or the future , but that this ~id
appear to include quite a lot of public propert y in annexati on .
Nisson indicated that this was a rather special annexation because
a n nexation included public road so District can put l ine in for ·
Assessment District 9 . There is an overwhelming amount of public
r ight of way that .will never con~ribute to flows of sewage and will
not set a precedent unless you had another similar situation .
, .
Miller asked whether it ·had been the policy of the Board o f District 7
to requi re appli cant s to pay annexat ioh fees on public property lik~
roads .
p. 7 .
Smith answe~ed that 45% public roads was ~ut of line and there .
should be some compromis e there. The usual percentage of public
area is about 5%. A fair amount of about 40 % should be considered .
Mi ller asked about area under old Chapman Avenue .
Hohener stated that it is st~ll a county road and hasn 't been
abandoned.
Mi ller stated that it ought to be made very clear that this is
change is for roads only .
Mr. Harper said that if · they excluded s.treet , they would have to
r aise annexation fees to provide for servicing and treatment .
Mr. Harper suggested that Board could waive fees but not set a
p r ecedent. Smith moved that this be approved and it was seconded
and passed.
'