Loading...
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. '