The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972-06-21COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen; June 16, 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 5 & ~ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1972, 4:30 P,M. ~EWPORT BEACH CITY HALL 3300 \'/EST NE\'!PORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-291 a 962-2411 Pursuant to adjou:rnment of the regular meeting held June 14, 1972, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 will oeet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:rb ic -~· ,. f!f't r ,.., ~-,,-. r .. .:: 1i"!:n·~r--rr-.11;s d ! ,li'·!1 ·~::"~; s;~j ;,u~:;·~~:;.;,:... (}}I/ '11 I ji;:JV-· P. 0 . ih< 81::? {' i08i;.i ~!.is ;._,,:;nu~ of O•c.r•;c Count y, ( >ii'.orn io ~tvJ D 111 ~ -ff""'~f.) 6(~"1"' • ; fg --t. F ounloin V<Ji:ey, C:o!iF., 927~ ::. l, ~ !( "~ ~ .·."" ~ · l f \. r .. -. " ~ ~-l - I·. ~ '' ~ " " • \fi '--, I' "-",; " rlC -.1" I . i.ls'M~ ~ fl tJ ~-d • .... • '\Oot..Y e __,_ - ' . --·' ---------------·-----------·-----· ---·--. ------·------~---------·----------... jl,·-----------··----·· · --------------·----------------·------------·-- !! P,G tzND A l\.dj __ ou.;tned Rr-:~_J._ar Mee_ti l".g_ J une 2 1 , 1972 -4:30 p .m. ADJO URNMH!TS p,-,ST ED CQi,'.P & Mii.Er.GE .... ~:: r!L ES SET UP ....... ./.. ...... RESOLUTIONS CEf1T1F:EO ---- LETTEr.S \'."2iTTEN .. ~ MI NU1ES WfliTTEf! ... ~. MINU TES HLED ...... f::: ...... . ( l) Roll Cal]_ (2 ) Appol n trnent of Chairnen pro t2m: i f n ecessary (5 ) Repor t o f Dj.rector of Pina.n e e on .Dis tri ct::;' firia::1clal E~ ta.tus (7) FILE ·-····-·· .. ··-~~h~ \; A/C •... TKLR ··~ (10 ) ( l J. ~ (12) ~;I ~!13.L'.~£ s 5 __ ~ _ 6 q J .. ~Q Staff r eport and corsjderaticn o:..., Resolution No . 72 -89 , P a.ut h or i ziLt: exccu-:; l0n cf agY'ee.f"!en ,c 1·:jt)-~ Donal a J. ~~ 8: Co . fur' O '.'P.r~;j_z~.()6 Pa.cifi c ·~(;2.St Eir,hvrn.y SC'\ Ci' 0ro8 :-:;.l nc in C(.JlP'1P...,i·J'v-·"' \•'4 •-1-, r•e1 .... ·i ·)"PVT'l.::.,...,t < J.-'1 "\()Y•r1'r·n 0{'. ?.}'-'1 •'0~'"'1-'=>.-,.~(,--. 'fr ~: '::' -~ . "~~~ "~,,~. ··~· :-,;;:~·:_:_ J wJ r ~" ~ -1(1 -~ r; ~ < . " . •• )-- D :r. ~)'f:< I cri s 5 & 6 ~--f c,..,. <-.. ~("' v .. '" f}L/6 cl ~ ~L~ • -C0v, .• i;-; .je-r:,r..,. -:_: (°: ' ..... -c_-f' u 0 sc•l 11 '· -i .... -. Fr1 7 ')_ Ou'i ~ ·-t ·"'Or"·i 7 l' 1-<.' ",.. ----V ~ fl o.... .J ..,;. V ---... . -...._ • 1 C. ..' 3 -=1. V. L 4 ·--_. :;.:> U e:~Ct;t:ti.:-;n C>f Ji r.e n s~~ 2.>-~:r·c-:t~!1ert forJ 1'")ig;ht (.)j~ v1~1~, \',1 itl1 Bet::c.c, Ltd.} CJ'-:.neral C:::.--t~de Oil Corr:pany 2r!c .~\1::n $'.: rc,11g Pe Lroleum Corporation i~ co~nec~ion wt~h construction 0f ('i:-2,st highv :~y For·ce h'Jc.1.;i, (;or:;tr·flct. ':i --·19, See u <...u~ <\JlvCt,,_, DTS1-!~IC'l'S 5 Pv G !'B '' ·-·Le1).orf(,f". Er:sins·.-::r OE pre.:; ect c.nC. co.nside::>a~::Lon 0~ Hesolut j _o~1 !·(o . 7 ~--91, ~.pprov ~r1 i::; pls.r:s o.nd Sf.:0.C:Lf:Lc<) :.:1.~Jns for SE~..ZEH ~l'RllfTX n 3 1', llnit 8 (Co.J.s'c. E:;.gt:~·_r~y ii'ci.i..'C:e :-~,.:i.:in, ContracL ~o . ~-19), with bi~s t~ b e r~ceiv2d on A~gus~ 1 . Sec pag(; _ -~C.:.~~--C\l.NOM. DIS~P~ICT 5 --Otl1°e:' -s·;~si:H~ss ar:d co:nmunlcr..tions, if a ny Dl2:f 1~IC'.:' 6 --,)-~11~10.Ll~i~ r1es~ and Dl:,T.RIC':' 6 -cCDir. ~-\°f,::-.a l• i J!.1 if 2.ny (-lo _,,::::. RESOLUTION NO. 72-89 AU'I1HOHIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT RE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SEWER A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY ·sANI'TATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DONALD J. STOLTZ AND COMPANY. FOR OVERSIZING PACIFIC COAST HIGIB'/AY CROSSING * * * ~ * * * * ~ The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6, of Orange County, California, . DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement dated -------- between County Sanitation District No. 5 and Donald J. Stoltz and , Company for oversizing Pacific Coast Highway crossing in connection with replacement of portions of Newport Beach Trunk A, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5, acting for itself and as agent for District No. 6, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting _held June 21, 1972. Agenda Item #6 -A-Districts 5 & 6 RESOLUTION NO. 72-90 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT RE COAST HIGHvJAY FORCE MAIN 2 CONTHACT NO. 5-l9 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BEECO, LTD., AND GENERAL CRUDE OIL COMPANY AND.ARMSTRONG PETROLEUM FOR RIGHT OF WAY RE COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-19 * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6, of Orange County, California,. DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: - Section 1. That the certain License Agreement dated -----' between County Sanitation District No. 5, Beeco Ltd., and General Crude Oil Company and Armstrong Petrolewn for right of way in connection with SEWER TRUNK 11 B11 , UNIT 8, (COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-19, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the Chainnan and Secretary of District No. 5, acting for itself and as agent for District No. 6, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 21, 1972. A~enda Item #7 -B-Districts 5 & 6 RESOLurION NOo 72-91 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COAS'I1 HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NOe 5-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFI- CATIONS FOR COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-19 * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract docwnents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by Shuirman-Simpson for COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-19, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids will be received until 11:00 a.m., August 1, 1972, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and the Districts' Engineers be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors; and, Section 5. That County Sanitation District No. 5, acting for_ itself and on behalf of County Sanitation· District No. 6, is hereby authorized to award contract for said work on behalf of these Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held June 21, 1972. Agenda Item # 8 -C-Districts 5 & 6 Board of Directors DONALD E. STEVENS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEER 1828 FULLERTON AVENUE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 (714) 646-8915 June 15, 1972 County Sanitation District No~ 6 of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 ATT: Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager Gentlemen: I am happy to submit herewith my proposal for furnishing engineering services to prepare an Engineer's Report of Master Plan Sewer Facilities in County Sanitation District No. 6. My services would consist of the following: 1. Meet with District representatives to determine District needs, discuss study pro~ress, and alternate study pro~osals. 2. Investigation to determi~e study area. 3. Research to determine extent of existing system. 4. Research to determine existing and ultimate land use. s. Assist District personnel in flow measurements, site selection, and evaluate results. 6. Establish design criteria, and analyze the existing system consistent with land use. 7. Project flow data considering ultimate land use. 8. Determine District sewer facilities needs in view of ultimate land use. 9. Recommend capital improvement prov,ram including nrobable cost and recommended time schedule. 10. Deliver fifty (50) copies of a report containing the results of Item 1 through 9. Agenda Item #9 D-1 District 6 DONALD E. STEVENS, INC •• CIVIL ENGINEER • 1828 FULLERTON AVENUF. • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 • (714) 646-8915 Proposal letter Engineer's Report of Master Plan Sewer Facilities in County Sanitation District NO. 6 Sheet No. 2 6/15/72 The District will furnish: 1. Flow measurement results at points mutually selected as representativee 2. An inventory of present District facilities including joint ownerships or other service obligations. I will furnish the foregoing engineering services at the following per diem rates: Senior". Engineer $27.50 per hr. Assistant Engineer 22.00 per hr. Senio1"' Draftsman 20.00 per hr. Clerical 8.75 pe~ hr. Blueprinting and printing Cost Plus 25% The estimated cost of Items 1 through 10 is $6825.00. It is sugv,ested payment be upon completion and delivery of the report. I propose to complete and deliver to the District the report outlined herein by December 31, 1972. Very truly yours, u. .~~·-;. ,70 . ;;: / , ~;'!-i!~ (.../-. v.,.~ D.E.STEVENS RCE #11066 des:m Agenda Item #9 D-2 District 6 Ir. P!.ANAGER 'S AGEt1DA R~POR'f ; Cot.!nty Sanitation Di:.tricts P. 0. aox 51 75 10844 t'.llis Avenue Fountain Vbl ley, ColiF., 9 2708 II of Orange County, California DISTR ICT NO. _5_~_··· ~-'\. ADJOUR NE D REGULAR MEETING Wedn esda.K, Jun.e 2 1, 1972 ~: 30 p .m. Newport Beach Cj_ ty Hall Telephones: Are o Codo 714 540 -2910 962 -2411 June 16, 19 72 No. 3 -STAF F REPO RT ON GENERAL INFORMATION REIJATING TO THE DIS 'rR IC TS : One of t he p:c:inc i pal r eas ons for holding this ad journed me eting of the t~o Distr icts is to orient the new Directors . Included in the agenda material is a brief description r e l ating to each District 's h istory, present f acilities , basic p olici es, basic statistics and long range plans. The staff wi ll briefly review this material and be prepared to answe:c any questions the Directors riay h ave on this subject. Form e r Chairman Par sons h a~ b een invi t ed to be pre sent to g ive the n ew Directors the benefit of his kno~dedge of Distri c t No . 5 activities . No . 4 -REPOR T OF ENGil'fEER ON MASTER PLAN FACII,ITIES: :Mr. Don ald Simpson of Shuirman-Simpson will be present and prepared t o go into de tail, if desired, on this s ubject. Mr. Simpson has been the eng ineer for District No . 5 for many years and thus is thoroughly f am ilia r with its probl ems and needs in r ega:r d to physical facil iti es. Included with the :mailing, for the information a nd files of the new Di.rectors , are copies of two r ecent engineer 1 s reports by lvf..r . Simpson, !!Interim Mas t er Plan Report for Cou.n.ty Sani ta ti on District No . 5, Nove mber 1969 11 a.11.d "county Sanitation District No . 5 Mas ter Plan Revision, Decembe r 1971 ". No . 5 -REPOR T OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE : Mr . Sylvester will g ive a b r lef verbal report on the present financia l condition of both Districts, sources of revenue , and outlook for the 1972-73 budge t and t ax rate . No . 6 -AGREE1"1ENT HI TH DONALD J. STOLTZ AND COMP ANY FOR OVERSIZI NG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SEHER CROSSING: 'rhe above comp a ny is the develop e r of a l arge apartment comp lex in the City of Newport Beach and Distri.c t No. 6 . 'Eh e company has entered into an arrangement with the Hoag Hospital, whereby a sewer serving those prop erties wil·1 be constructed and connected to the Districts ' g ravity sewer on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway a few hundred feet northwest of the Newport Boulevard overcrossing. In view of the fact that under Contract No . 5-19 (Item No. 8) a portion of the Districts' gravity sewer, southeast of this point, wi ll be rep l aced and that this new sewer can conveniently use the same highway crossing proposed for the Stoltz firm, a distinct savings can be realiz ed by entering into an agreement with this firm to oversize the crossing for the two Districts' future needs. Because of the savings, the two Boards last year authorized the staff to negotiate with the Stoltz Co mpa ny for reimbursement of the cost of oversizing this connection . These negoti ations are nearly complete and it is expected that by the time of the meeting an agreement can be presented fo r consideration of approval for execution. No . 7 -LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY (CONTRACT NO . 5-19): This contract for the construction of the Coast Highway Force main between Rocky Point and the Santa Ana River (Item No. 8) will parallel the existing force main and gravity sewer throug h the Banning (Beeco, Ltd .) property . The District 's engineer and staff have neg otiated an agree - ment with Beeco and the two oil le ssees involved (General Crude Oil Company and Armstrong Petroleu.rn) for a license agreement, at no cost to the District, to occupy the additional l and necessary for the new force main. The three companies have been very cooperative in this matter. We recommend that the license agreement be approved for execution. No . 8 -APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN: The District 's engineer will desc ribe the scope of this long planned and budge ted project, a part of the District No. 5 master plan in which District No. 6 will participate . The estimated construction cost is $783,000 . We recommend approval of the plans and specifi- cations and authorizing advertising for bids to be received on July 25 . No . 9 -PROPOSAL FOR DISTRICT NO. 6 MASTER PLAN REPORT : It has been long believed that the existing facilities of District No . 6 and those to be constructed in conjunction with District No . 5 (Item No .8) would be adequate for many years . However in view of the r apid increase in development and f low, we recommend that a study be under - taken of the District 's facilities and a master plan report prepared setting forth any new facilities required. We have therefore asked the District 's engineer, Donald E . Stevens, Inc ., to subm it a proposal for p r eparation of such a report. The firm 's proposal is included in the agenda material and we recomme nd that it be accepte d fo r a total fee not to exceed $7,000. The District's cur r ent budget contains the sum of $10,000 for this study. -2 - Fred A. Harper Gene ral Manager ~EE'"f~:-tJ G D.~TE _ June 21, 1972 TIME 4 : 3 0 p . m . D I ST R I CT S ._5.J--JJ.&-6u......_. __ _ DISTRICT 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS ~H ER RIN); .•..• GR I SE T ..... . \CASPERS ) .•.•. BA TTIN ..••. ·====== (WELS H)····· .• MILLER .•.... _____ _ PORTER ..•.•. _____ _ D: J RIC T 2 ~ (PEREZ)· ·····SMITH · · · · .. _· ----- CULVER ..... ____ -- (LAN GER ) ...... FI NNE LL .... _____ _ (KO WAL SKI ) ...• FOX .....•.. _____ ·_ (GI\ I SET ) ..•..• HERRIN •.•.. _____ _ (HOLLINDEN ) ... JUST.~ ..... _____ _ (R OB ER TS).··.· NEV Il_ ...... _____ _ (C AS PER S) .. · .• PHIL LIPS ... ____ -- (RE INHARDT ) ... RO OT ...•... _____ _ ~(DUTTON) .•.... STEPHENSON . _____ _ CASTRO ...••. \A/ED A.A. ...•.. _____ _ POT TE R~ ...•.. WINl'l •.•...• ___ . ___ _ DI ST RICT 3 CULVER····· ------ (C ASP ERS).···· BATTIN··.·· ------ (HINES).······ DAVIS ...... _____ _ (KO WA l.-SKI) · · · FOX······ .. _____ _ (COEN)········ GREEN ..•... _____ _ (FRA NK I EW ICH). L/\CAY O · ..•. _____ _ (NUIJENS) • · · · LEWIS···· .. _____ _ (MILLER).····· LO NG ·· ...•. _____ _ (GR I S ET).····· HER R IN····. _____ _ (BARNES).····· HOLDEN ··· .. _____ _ MC WHINNEY . _____ _ (R EI NH ARD T) ... ROOT····· .. _____ _ (HOLLI NDEN) · · SCOTT·····. _____ _ (D UTTON) · · · • · STEPHENSON . ______ _ (ROB ERT S)···· STEVENS .... (BYRNE)······ VANDER v~AA L. === === === DISTRICT 5 l JOI NT BO,~RDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS I (HO LLI NDEN } ..• JUST ....•... (CASPERS) •••.• BAKER ...••.. ---- (CASPER S ) ..... BATTIN ..•.•. ===== CA SPERS ....• (CASPERS)·.··· CLARI<· .• ·•·· == == CULV ER······ (H I NES)······ ·DAVIS· .. ···· ---- (COEN)······· ·DUKE ········====== (LANGER)······ FINNELL ····· --__ (l<OWAl-SKI) ... ·F OX ··· .. ···• ___ _ (COEN)······· ·GIBBS ··.···· ___ _ (COEN)· · · · · • • ·GREE N· · · · • • • ___ _ (HERRIN)····· ·GRISET · • • • • • ---- (GR I SET) .. ····HERRI N······ ---- (BARNES)· · · .. ·HOLDEN .• · · · · ---- (MC INNIS) ..• • KYM LA .•• •• • • ----- (FRANKIEWICH) .LACAYo .••••• ---- (NUI J ENS) .•••• LEWIS······· ---- (M I LLER)······ LONG········ --__ (CROUL) ·······MC INNIS···· ___ _ MC \t/H I NNE Y · • --__ (\•/ELSH) ·······MILLER······ ___ _ (ROBERTS)···· ·NEVIL······· ---- (CASPERS)····· PH I LLI PS ···· ---·-· PORTER · • · • • • ----(F I SCHBACH) .• ,QU I GLEY .•••• ___ _ (MC INNIS) •..• ROGERS...... · (REINHARDT) ROO T· .••.••• ==== (HOL L I NDEN) · .. SCOTT ······· ---- (PEREZ)····· ···SMITH ······· ---- (DUTTON) • · · · · ·STEPHEN SON· · ---- (ROBERTS)····· STEVENS ····· ---- (MC Ir~~IS) ····STORE ······· ---- (BYRNE;······ ·VANDE RW AA L· · ----- (CASTRO)····· ·WEDAA · · · · · • • __ -- (POTTER)····· ·WINN ········ ___ _ * * * * * I (CROUL) · · · · · · MC I NNIS ··· --r ----·, (BAKER)··· · · · 6'A8PER3 · · · · -7 ---- GOLDBE RG· • · • ---- MITCHELL···· ---- (MC INNIS) ... KYMLA .•• itt.. ------OTHERS DISTRICT 5 PORTER ····· ~ ___ _ (PHILLIPS)··· CAS PERS ···· ~ __ -- (MC INNI S )··· STORE······ _:L_ ---- DISTRICT 7 (WELS H)······ (C ASPERS)···· (HERRIN).···· r -I SCH BAC[l ) • · INNIS) .•. (PEREZ).····· DISTRI CT 11 MILLER····· ------ CLARI<· · • · • • ------- GR I SET .•••• ·------ PORTER ...... ------ QUIG LEY .... ·------ RO GERS ••.••. __ ---- SMITH ....••• ------ (COEN) · .. · .. G IBBS ...... ------ (CAS PERS) .... BAKER ....... ------ (COEN)··· .... DUKE ....... ------ DISTRICT 8 GOLDBE RG · · · ------- (CLL'i.RK)· · • · · · CASP ERS · · · · ------ f'/1ITCHELL · · • ------ 5 /10 /72 Hf.I.RP ER BROWN SYLVESTER LE WI S DUNN CLARKE SIGLER NISSON TAYLOR BRO\A/N BOET T NER CARLS ON FINSTER GALLO WAY HOHE NER HO \.'./ ARD HUNT KEITH LY NCH MADDO X MARTIN SO N MU RONEY PIE RSA LL STEVE NS f1EET-+NG DA T E ___,.J.._JJ,U..~.2.L 197 2 -TI ME .4 : 3..Q__n_. rn • D I ST R I CT S ___.5_L6 __ 1T('-1-0 rc T 1 L 1.) r,. ACTIVE DIRECTORS ~HERRi~ ..•• GRI S ET •..... ~C A SPERS ) •.... BA TTIN ..••. ·~======== (\·l ELSH) ·······MILLER ...••• __ . __ ·-- PORTER ....•. _____ _ IL ~TR ICT ·2· (;ER EZ ) · • · • • · SMITH ...... ------CU LVER •.... _____ _ (LANGE R). • • • . . F I N NELL •... ------ ( KOi'vALS !<I ) •... FOX .•...•.. ------ (G R I SET) .••... HE RR IN ...•• ____ -- (H OL LINDEN) ... ,.J US T.~ ..... ------ (RO BERTS).···· NEVIL ..•.•. ------ (C AS PERS).···. PHILL I PS ... __ --__ (R E I NHARDT) ..• ROO T •.....• __ ·--__ (DUTTONl .•.••• STEPHE NS ON . _____ _ (C ASTRO ..•... WEDA.A. ...•.• ______ _ (POT TER •••.•. WINN. .•.•..• _____ _ DI STRICT 3 CUL VER ····· ------ (C ASPERS).···· BATT I N · .• •• ------- (H INE S).······ DAVIS ··.· .• __ ---- lKO WA l-SKI) · · · FOX ········ __ ---- COE N)········ GREEN······ _____ _ FRA Nl <IEWICH). LACAYO····· _____ _ (N UIJEN S ) · · · • LE WIS······ _____ _ (MILLER}····· LONG ······· _____ _ (G R I SE T}····· HERRIN ····· _____ _ (BAR NES).····· HOLD EN ····· _____ _ MC WHI NNE Y · _____ _ ?RE I NHA RDT) .•• ROOT ····.·· _____ _ .HO LLI NDEN} · · SCOTT·,···· _____ _ (DU TTON ) · · • • • STEPH ENSON. ______ _ (ROBERTS )···· S T EVE NS ···· _____ _ (BYR NE) · · · · · • VANDER WA AL · _____ _ DISTRICT 5 - (CROUL) · · , · · · MC INNIS • • . (B AKER)··· • · · CASPERS . · •. (MC INNIS)· .. KYMLA ..... · DISTRICT 6 PORTER· · • · · ( PH I LL I P S ) • · · CASPERS • · · · (MC IN NI S )··· ST ORE ······ JO I NT BOAR DS ACTIVE DIRECTORS 1 HOLLI~DEN) ... J US T ....... . (CASPERS) ..••. BAK ER ....•.. ======== I (CASP ERS ) ••••• BA TTI N ...•• ' ---- 1 . CASPERS ..... __ ·-- (CASPE RS) .. ••· CLARK ······· __ ~ I CU LVER······ (HI NES )······ ·DAVIS ······· ---- (COEf~) · • · • • • ··DU KE · • · • • • ·· · == ==== (LANG ER )··.· •. F I NNELL ····· --__ (KOV~Al-SK I) ····FOX.········ ___ _ (COEN) •.••... ·GI BBS ······· ___ _ (COEN)·· · • • • • ·GREEN· • · · · • • ___ _ (HERR IN )····· ·Gl~IS ET · · • · · • ---- (GR I S ET) .•..•. HER R IN······ ---- (BAR NES )······ HOLD EN ······ ---- (MC I NNI S) ..•• KYM Lf.\ .... ··• ---- (FRA NKI EWICH) ·LACAYO .. •··· ---- (NUIJE NS) .•••• LE WI S ······· ---- (MI LL Ef<) • • • • • ·LON G· • · · • • • • ----- (CROUL). ······MC I NN i S · • • • __ -- MC \.'IH I NN EY · • ___ _ (ilJELSH) • • • • · • ·M1 LLE R· • • · • • ---- (ROBERTS)····· NEV IL······· ---·-· (C ASPE RS)···· ·PHILLI PS ···· ----· , POFHER • • • • · · ----l FISCHB ACH) •• ,QUI GL EY .•.•. ___ _ (MC I NNIS ) ..•• RO GERS .••. ·· (REIN HARD T ) ROOT •.•• ····==== (HOLLI ~D EN) ... SCOTT······· ---- (PE REZ 1 ·······SMI T H·,····· ---- (D UTTON) • • • • ··STEPHENSON · • ---- (ROB ER TS)···.-. STE VENS ····· ----- (MC I NN I S )··· ·STORE ······· ---- (BYRNE)······ ·VM~DERWAA L· • ----- (C AST RO)··· ... ·WEDAA · · · · • • • ---- (POTTE R)····· ·WI NN ········ ___ _ OTHERS * * * * * GO L D BE f~G • · • • MIT CHELL···· HARPER BROW N SYL VEST ER LE WIS DU NN CL ARK E SIGLE R DISTRICT 7 (\.'/E LSH)· · · · · · (CA SPERS)···· (H ERRIN).···· MI LLER····· ------l CLARK······ ------ NI SS ON TAYLO R (-t SCHBAC[J) · · \~ INNIS).·. (PERE Z)· · · · · · DIST RICT 11 GR I SET ..... ·------ PORTER ...... ------ QUIGLEY ..... ------ ROGERS ...... __ ---- SMITH ...•... ------ (CO EN) · .. · · · GI BBS · · · · · · ------ (CASPER S) .•.. B/\.KER •..•... ------ (COE N)· ...... DUK E ....... __ ---- DI STRI CT 8 GOLDBERG · · · ------ (CLARK )······ CASPERS · · · · -------- MITC HEL L··· ----- --- r:i/10/72 BROWN BOET TNER CAR LSON F I NSTE R GA LL O\~A Y HOHENER HOVJARD HUN T KE ITH LYNCH MADDOX MAR T I MS ON MURONEY PI ERSA LL ~~ ST EVENS ./ L /~ 6 lJJF-._ :_ :-~~o-L. ' &_cJ JtA~f 'UIA J ~-;· ~ w4"1"'"' Agenda I tern No_3" =-- .. EXCERPTED FROM: DIRECTORS l~JFORMATION BOOK l I. II COUJ\11-y SANI1-,.Ar-fION DIS1~E.ICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNif\. : ~ .. I ~ ' • COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 Active Directors Don Mcinnis (Chairman) 4105 Seashore Drive Newport Beach Ronald W. Caspers (Bd. of Supv.) P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana Carl J. Kymla 700 .Kings Road Newport Beach Alternate Directors Richard Croul 427 Fernleaf Corona del Mar David L. Baker (Bd. of Supv.) P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana Don McI.nnis 4105 Seashore Drive Newport Beach 6/72 -1- Telephone 871-5000 Ext. 633 834-3550 831-2500 545-ol~33 834-3220 871-5000 Ext. 633 TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Representing_ Newport Beach Unincorporated areas Newpo:rt Beach Newport Beach Unincorporated areas Newport Beach COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 General Information District No. 5 consists of the major portion of the City of Newport Beach, plus unincorporated territory in its south and east portions. Practically all of the u..nincorporated area is undeveloped and under one ovmership, the Irvine Company. Since the District contains only one city or sewering agency, it is governed by a Board of Directors of three members, consisting of the Mayor and one Councilman from the City of Newport Beach, and a member of the Board of Supervisors representing the unincorporated area. District No. 5 is the smallest of the seven County Sanitation Districts participati.ng in the Joint Organization and is bordered by District No. 6 on the north and west, District No. 7 on the northeast, areas of the Irvine Ranch (not in any Sanitation District) on the southeast and the Pacific Ocean on the southwest. The Irvine Ranch Water District, which borders District No. 5 on the northeast, serves the University of California at Irvine and the surrounqing area. The Water District does not participate in the Joint Organization and is .providing its own collection, treatment and disposal system .. In common with the other six Sanitation Districts, District No. 5 has experienced e. rapid rate of growth in the past fifteen years, its assessed valuation having increased approximately 340% during this period. Essential to this growth has been the provision of an adequate sewerage system under the powers of the District. History The District was organized under the County Sanitation District Act in 1947 and a rather small bond issue of $796, 000 was approved by· the voters in 1949. Proceeds from this bond issue were used partially for purchase of a core sewerage system jointly 1'Ti th Distrlct No. 6, from the City of Newport Beach, and consisting basically of a trunk se~·rer from the Upper Ne1·;rport Bay Bridge on the southeast to Treatment Plant No. 2 on the nort.h~·rest _, plus four existing se~·rage prnnp stations, and 100% interest in the Bayside ~rive Trunk Sewer extending from Corona del Mar to Pacific Coast Hic;hway. The balance of the proceeds were used to purchase equity in the joint treatment and disposal facilities and to construct a 36-inch sewer siphon under the Santa Ana River to Treatment Plant No. 2. Prior to commencement of the District's operation, the City of Newport Beach maintained its m·m treatment plant directly across the Santa Ana River from the Sanitation Districts' Treatment Plant Ho. 2. Disposal of the old treatment plant effluent was accomplished by means of the Joint Outfall Sewer's ocean. outfall, under a contractual arrangement. Even prior to this arrane;ement, and through 1937, the 6/72 -2- City disposed of inadequately treated sewage into Newport Bay at two separate locations, on·e near the Arches and the second at the present site of the Balboa Yacht Club. Thus, in the span of 30 years, tremendous improvements in the sewerage of the area have occurred, ~ and the earlier practice of disposing of effluent into the Bay would now be unthinkable. It was realized at an early date that the 1949 bond issue was inadequate to provide facilities for the ultimate needs of the District. Consequently, since that time additional facilities have been purchased or constructed out of current revenue, principally ad valorem taxes, until 1965 when a District-wide sewer connection charge was inaugurated . . Because of the District's inadequate facilities in the early days, a total of eight separate formal engineering reports have been prepared, some of ~iliich were used as the basis for construction or acquisition of facilities. In addition, several informal or interim reports have been submitted. One major acquisition in 1956, was the purchase from the City of Newport Beach of the Peninsula Trunk Sewer, extending along Balboa Boulevard from 11 G" Street to the Lido Pu.mp Station near the present City Hall. This acquisition also included two sewage lift stations, one at nAtt Street and Balboa Boulevard and the other at 14th Street and Balboa Boulevard. Three further acqui- sitions occurred from 1958 to 1971 of facilities constructed by the Irvine Company and acquired by the District under ~ontractual arrange- ments. These facilities consist of the Jamboree Road Pump Station, Trunk Sewer and Force Main, the Corona del Mar Pump Station, Force Main and Trunk Sewer from Poppy Avenue to Jamboree Road along Pacific Coast Highway, and the Big Canyon Sub-':fa"'unk Sewer. District No. 5, as well as all of the other six Districts, has, since its formation, participated continuously in the Joint Admini- strative Organization. No Distrj_ct pm-rers are delegated under this arrangement except that, for convenience, District No. 1 has been nruned to serve as contracting agency for the other Districts in matters of treatment and disposal facility construction and for certain personnel arrangements such as contracting with the Public Employees Retirement System, etc. Even this delegation is very limited in that all Districts' Boards must approve the annual joint construction budget, the authorization of individual projects, and the establish- ment of positions, salaries, and personnel policies. Present Facilities The basic sewerage system of the District consists of 15.7 miles of gravity sewer ranging in size fr·om 36 to 10 inches in diameter. It also includes nine pump stations and 6.o miles of force main ranging from 24 to 8 inches in diameter, either wholly o~med or jointly owned with District No. 6. The total value on the District's books for these facilities is $2,250,000, of which $356,ooo was financed by the 1949 bond issue and the balance, lU1der proceeds from current revenue. 6/72 -3- A portion of the sewerage system within the District is jointly 011med with District No. 6. The topography of the latter District is such that its southern portion naturally drains to the south and this portion is connected through trunk sewers in Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive to the Coast Highway Trunk Sewer system. This joint owner- ship arrangement provided considerable economy in initial construction since constructj_on costs are not in dj_rect proportion to capacity of the facilities provided. Maintenance costs in the joint facilities are shared in the se ... me proportion as o-wnership. Since a large portion of the District lies in, or near, sea level, the nine pump stations previously mentioned are necessary to transport the wastewater to the treatment plant site. Maintenance and operation costs (power costs, daily inspection and routine mainten- ance and repair) of these stations add materially to the District's expenses. Basic Policj_es A~ Annexations -There is a considerable area, now undeveloped and u..riinco"rporated, adjacent to the District on the southeast, ·which is capable of being annexed. Five annexations, from 1955 to 1971 have occurred in this area, involving a total of approximat~ly 950 acres. During this same period approximately 866 acres have been detached . from the District.. Each of these annexations 1.•rnre designed to make the s.ervice areas of the District and the Irvine Ranch Water District conform with natural drainage basins. Because the acreage of v1ith- drawals closely approximated the acreage annexed, no annexation fees were charged. However the Board of Directors, in 1970, established a general anne~<ation policy calling for an annexation fee to be computed each year on the basis of the net worth of the assets of the District per acre. This fee at present (May, 1972) is $620 per acre. This fee is expected to be applied to future annexations where no concurrent equivalent detachment occurs. The 1965 financing report, discussed in the follm'ling section, suggested that annexation fees be applied to the District 1 s share of treatment plant expansion costs·. It has also been the firm policy of the District Board, since formation, that the District shall include, by a.n..n.exation or otherwise, no territory in any city or sewering agency, eligible for representation on the District Board, thus jeopardizing the ma.jority control of the City of Newport Beach. B. Financing -Aside from the small 1949 bond issue, the District has financed all subsequent treatment plant expansion from current revenues. A portion of the proceeds from this bond issue were used to finance a minor new construction program, which was known, even at that time, to be inadequate for the ultimate needs of the District. Consequently, the major portion of the new construction and/or purchase of facilities since the initial bond issue construction has been financed either from ad valorem truces, loans from the Irvine Company, or fr01n the proceeds of a sewer connection charr;e inaugurated on July 1. 1965. These charges were established by Ordinance No. 502, and up to"Hay 1, 1972 have aggregated :?797 _,ooo. The basic charge, as established by thj_s ordinance, is r.ow $155 per dwelling unit with 6/72 -4- separate provisions, based on. the number of pltunbing fixtures tnstalled, for commercial and industrial buildings. Under the provisions of the ordinance, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, this ~harge escalates by $5. 00 per dwelling unit each year i:1ith proportionate increases for cow.mercial and industrial buildings. The money is collected by the City of Newport Beach Building Department at the time of issuance of build:ing permits and remitted monthly to the District. The establ:tshJnent of the connection charges was based on recommendations contained in a financing report submitted in 1965 by Bartle Wells Associa.tes, and it is anticipated that these chare;es will be a major source of revenue for the District, and ultimately sufficient to provide facilities for developing areas of the District without further ad valorem tax financing or bond issues. Three facility acquisitions previously mentioned, the · Jamboree Road system; the Corona del Iv!ar PuJnp Station· and Trunk Sewer system, and the Big Ca.nyon Sub-Trunk Se-vrer 1·rere originally financed by the Irvine Company. Under a reimbursement agreement, the Jamboree Road system has been completely paid off from tax revenue resulting from the development of the area served encompassing the Aeroneutronics Plant. The construction cost of the Big Canyon Sub-Trunk Sewer is currently bej.ng repaid out of connection charges generated in the tributary area. The other acquisition> the Corona del J .. 1ar system> is not strictly an acquisition since title to the facility remains with the Irvine Compa.~y but will be deeded to the District, in 1981> at no cost. Regardless of actual otmership, the facilit~es are pait of the District's system and are maintained and used by the District. A fourth transaction, involving f:tnancing by the Irvine Company, was for the construction of the Upper Bay Bridge Pu.mping Station and Force Main and the Back Bay Drive to Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Se·wer, put into servj_ce in 1966 and 1967 respectively. These facilities were constructed by the District at a total cost of $788,000, of which $400,000 was provided in two separate advances by the Irvine Company, $300,000 from accumulated tax revenues, and $88,000 from accumulated connection charges. The $400,000 advanced by the Irvine Company is being repaid from connection charges collected in Irvine Company areas. Operating expenses and bonded debt service are financed from ad valorem taxes levied on all land and improvements (but not. personal property) throughout the District. The District's tax rate since 1954-55 is shown on the table on Page 6. Further data on the District's current fiscal affairs and budgets is presented later in this section. It will be noted that the tax rate reached a hieh point in the fiscal years 1959-60 and 1960-61. These levies were necessary to construct a project needed immediately to prevent sewage overflows to the Bay, i.e., the present force main running from Rocky Point to the Santa Ana River siphon. 6/72 -5- C. Connections -In cornmon with the other Sani tatj_on Districts, District No. 5 has adopted, by means of the above-mentioned Ordinance No. 502, the policy of accepting sewer connection applications only from public agencies. Thus it maintains its position as "wholesaler" with the basic function of constructing and maintaining street and lateral sewers being left to the City of Ne·wport Beach. The ordinance establishes charges (basic charge now $155 per dwellins unit with separate provisions for commercial and industrial buildings) for new construction throughout the District. The ordinance also provides rules and regulations for quality of the wastewater discharged to the District's facilities. The quality standards have three objectives, i.e., preventj_on of damage to District's facilities, prevention of dis- proportionate treatment costs, and avoidance of detrimental effects of treatment plant effluent on the ocean and its ecosystem. In 1970 the District, along with the other six Districts, adopted a uniform connection and use ordinance which provides that certain large ·waste producing industries and establishments requiring more than normal capacity or use pay an rrexcess" capacity and use cha~cge (see preceding section on uniform connection and use ordinance). Basic Statistics The following table presents basic data with reg~rd to the District. Fixed Fiscal Assessed Average Assets Year Acrea~e Valuation{l) Tax Rate Flow{2) {at cost) 1954-55 8,234 $ 43.2 $ .3594 2.9 $ 774,ooo 1955-56 11 46.9 .3664 2.9 '778' 000 1956-5~ II lt9. 9 . 3581+ 3.0 820,000 1957-5 II 52. 5 .3510 3 .. 2 947,000 1958-59 II 58.4 .3505 3.4 1,257,000 1959-60 8,294 61.3 .4950 3.6 1,539,000 1960-61 II 66.1 .47.12 3.7 1,608,000 1961-62 II 104.3 . 334'7 3.9 1,758,000 1962-63 11 108.1 .3244 4.1 1,982,000 1963-6J-1-II 110.4 .3379 4.3 2,130,000 1964-65 " 117.8 .3285 4.5 2,193,000 1965-66 " 127.6 .2835 4.6 2,652,000 1966-67 II 131.0 .2874 5.0 3,025,000 1967-68 8,539 151.9 .2720 5.6 3,167,000 1968-69 8,347 166.2 .2722 5.8 3,,358,000 1969-70 8,351 179.8 .2645 6.1 3,697,000 1970-71 8,~13 218.4 .2623 6.5 4,650,000 1971-72 229.8 .2620 6.8(4) 5,235,000(3) m Millions Million gallons per day cost Of these fixed assets $2,985,000 represents equity in of j ointly-m·med treatment and. disposal facilities, and the balance trunk sewers. (4) Estimated *~-~-** * * •**•*•*** 6/72 -6- Operating Budget (1971-72): Capital Outlay Budg·et ( 19Tl-72): Total Budget Requirements (1971-72) (including bond retirement): Bonded Debt (6-30-72): · A.~nual Retirement: Long Range Plans $ 332,950 1,707,930 2,071,920 396,000 20,000 As previously pointed out, the Directors, staff and the various engineering firms employed by the District, have always been aware that the continuing population growth in the District and the corresponding increase ip the flow of wastewater would require expan- sion of the District's internal collection and pumping system. Af'ter a number of studies and reports on segments of the over-all situation, the Board of Directors, j_n 1964, employed Donald C. Simpson, Consulting Engineer, to prepare a master comprehensive sewerage report for the entire District which was intended to result in the eventual construc- tion of a system capable of supplying the ultimate requirements of the District and all annexable territory. This report was submitted to the Directors in October, 1964 and subsequently approved as the official plan of the District. The report divided future construction into three stages and suggested scheduling of construction. The total expenditure for the required ultimate improvements was estimated at approximately $2.5 million with only a small portion ($180,000) to be funded by District No. 6. It was following approval of this engineering plan that the Directors authorized the previously described financing report of Bartle Wells Associates and subsequently adopted connection charges as a financing method. However, since the engineering report showed that the first stage construction was urgently needed, it was concluded that construction should take place as soon as possible before sufficient revenue from the new connection charges, recommended by the financing report, was available. This first step construction consisted of the recently eompleted (1) Upper Bay Bridge Pump Station and Gravity Sewer (1966), (2) Back Bay Drive to Pacific Coast Hig~1ay Trunk Sewer (1967), and (3) Reconstruction of the Rocky Point Pump Station (1967) at a total cost of $794,ooo. This construction was financed as described previously. Stage Two and Stage Three construction will be scheduled as necessary depending on rate of grm·rth and the timing of future annexa- tions. It is anticipated that accumulate.d connection charges will, by and large, be adequate to provide the eventual funding of this future construction. At the present time (May, 1972) the District is preparing to take bids on a rather large master plan project involving the con- struction of a parallel force main between Rocky Point and the Santa Ana River siphon. The estimated total construction cost of this project is $783,100. It will be financed out of accumulated revenues derived from ad valorem taxes and the above-described connection 6/72 -7- charges. It is believed that after this project is completed, no major capital expenditures, except for contributions to treatment plant construction, will be necessary for some time unless extensive areas are annexed to the District by the Irvine Company. It is planned that these facilities will be constructed, as were·those described under Financing, with the assistance of an advance from the Company to be repaid from future connection charges generated in the area. 6/72 -8- COUNTY SANITATION DISTR!CT f\Jo. 5 BUDGET RECOf-\f'H\!1 ENDATIONS 19'11/12 FISCAL YEAR TRE A Ttl!;NT PL AMT EXPANStCN & EXPANSWN $.44 BUDGETED REQUlREf\fiENT DOLLf\R TOTAL R EQUIR EME N TS ~2,537 ,500 .. OPERATING .FUND ~.40 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL.OUTLAY f'Utm TAX ·REVENUE DOLL.t\R TOTAL Af.10UNT TO BE RAISED 8 Y TAXES $5'12, 649 TAX LEVY $.23 CARRY-OVER & RESERVE $._;5_9 SOURCE OF BUDGETED REVENUE DOLLAR TOTAL AVAILABLE $2,537,500 260 250 240 230 (/) 0:: <t 220 ...J -1 0 210 0 190 LL. 0 180 ~ 170 0 ...J 160 ...J -~ 150 140 130 66 6f ' •' ' COUNTY S:e.r~l.TATiOM D~STR~CT NO. __ TREf~D CHARTS 68 69 Fl"S CAL 1966/67 TH R 0 UGH 1971/72 / / 21 1Q 70 71 YEAR /" / 11 72 208 206 2o4 2 .. 2 C/) er: 2 .o c::( :j 1 .8 0 0 106 LL. 0 1o4 BUDGETED REQUIREMENTS --- CASH EXPENSE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUt4TION (f) 1 e2 z 0 :r 3J. 3 t-3 z 2 2 66 bf -~ 68 69 FI S C A L 1£. 71 YE AR TAX RATE 11 72 :i 1 oO _J :?: 08 ·.2 §1. 68 68 69 FI S C A L RAISED BY TAXES 22 19. 70 . 71 Y EAR TOTAL BUDGET 6 E><PENDITU8_~.§. " ( CciUN1~Y SANIT ATI01'1 DISrfRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CA.LIFORNIA JJ T,.L.<lftnf-nf Plonf /Jo. I. tt ~ "- Ci!.sler. _____ ~!:·_..... .. __ ~·-F"...;..:''-'+J-·--___ _ \l )i, ' kl .A·~ Adctms- c 0 s r A _f(l1r M E s A Seo/~: J'' 11 Offtox. J. mi. ~ ~ /n,ofma.nl P/~!JI J.lo. 2 .. . .. ... .. ... . . ~ 9 (" ,,. ~ ;• (" ""'--~ -~ ~ -.c;;;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ' ' ' 19 lh ' ' ' j'/: '-, .. ~ -.::i '- ~ ~ l COUNTY Si\NIT ATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 6 Active Directors Ellis H. Porter (Chairman) 396 Meadow Lane Newport Beach Ronald W. Caspers (Bd. of Supv.) P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana John Store 441 Isabella Terrace Corona del Mar Alternate Directors Don Mcinnis 4105 Seashore Drive Newport Beach Willia_'ITl J. Phillips ( Bd. of Supv. ) P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana 6/72 -1- TeleEhone 548-3717 83'-~-3550 675-7131 . 871-.5000 Ext. 633 834-3330 TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Representing Costa Mesa Sanitary District Unincorporated areas Newport Beach Newport Beach Unincorporated areas COUNTY SANITATION' DISTRICT NO. 6 General rnforznatjon District No. 6 encompasses the major portion of the City of Costa Mesa (local sewage collection system operated by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District), a small area in the City of Newport Beach, and some unincorporated areas. It is completely surrounded by, and its boundaries are contiguous with, all of the other Sanitation Districts in the Joint Organization. Consequently, it has never been involved in annexation proceedings. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District was in existence before the City of' Costa Mesa ·was formed and it continues to serve the area within the City, therefore a member of the governing body of the Sanitary District sits on the Board of Directors of District No. 6, rather than the Mayor of the City. The District has experienced a spectacular rate of growth in population and assessed valuation in the past fifteen years, its assessed valuation having increased 480% during this period. Essential to this growth is the existence of a trunk sewer system provided by the District. Historl The District was organized under the County Sanitation District Act in 1948, and shortly thereafter embarked on a trunk sewer con- struction program which was financed from the proceeds of a $912,000 bond issue approved by the voters in 191+9. The bond issue also provided for funds for purchase and/or construction of the District's share of the joint treatment and disposal works. This construction and purchase was preceded by a formal engineering report as required by the Sanitation District Act. District No. 6 is unique among the other Districts in that the initial construction of internal facilities was adequate and did not have to be supplemented by further engineering reports and construction projects. District No. 6, as well as all of the other six Districts, has, since its formation, participated continuously in the Joint Admini- strative Organization. No District powers are delegated under this arrangement except that, for convenience, District No. 1 has been named to serve as contracting agency for the other Districts in matters of treatment and disposal facility construction and for certain personnel arrangements such as contracting with the Public Employees Retirement System, etc. Even this delegation is very limited in that all Districts' Boards must approve the annual joint construction budget, the authorization of individual projects, and the establish- ment of positions, salaries, and personnel policies. 6/72 -2- . Present Facilities The trunk sewer system of the District consists of 10.7 miles of pipe ranging in size from 39 to 18 inches in diameter. The total value ~· of these facilities is approximately $564,ooo, of which $367,000 was financed by the 1949 bond issue, the balance being principally the estimated value of the former Santa Ana Army Air Base facilities, deeded to the District at no cost in 1955, and facilities constructed jointly with Districts Nos. 5 and 7 with current revenue. The topography of District No. 6 is such that approximately · two-thirds of the area drains to the north through the former Air Base facilities to Treatment Plant Noe 1, and the other one-third drains to the south and is carried to Plant No. 2 through the Coast Highway Trunk system, jointly owned with District No. 5. From College Avenue to Treatment Plant Noo 1, the Army Air Base facility is jointly owned with Distict No. 7. This sharing of capacity with the other two Districts is mutually advantageous. District No. 6 has also entered into a Basic Accommodation Agreement with District No. 7 to provide service to an area in the latter District (Santa Ana Heights) which drains naturally through the Army Air Base Trunk sewer. This agrement sets a charge of $15 per million gallons for wastewater from District Noo 7 transported through District No. 6•s system. District No. 6, in connection with the joint trunk sewer facilities, is involved in the operation of three pump stations: the College Avenue Pump Station (with District Noo 7), ·and the Rocky Point Pump Station and Bitter Point Pu.mp Station (with District No. 5). The maintenance and operation costs (power costs! daily inspection, routine maintenance and repair) of these stations .add materially to the District's annual expense. This expense is shared with Districts Nose 5 and 7 in proportion to the ownership of capacity of the three stations. Basic Policies A. Annexations -District No. 6, being surrounded by other Sanitation Districts, has had no annexations and consequently no policy has been established in this regard. B. Financing -Aside from the 1949 bond issue, the District has financed all subsequent treatment plant and trunk sewer construction out of current revenues. These revenues consist almost wholly of ad valorem taxes levied on all land and improvements (but not personal property) throughout the District. Operating expenses and bonded debt service are also financed from ad valorem taxes. During the early years of the District's existence (see table on following page) the tax rate was quite high due to its comparatively low assessed valuation and the high debt service on the 1949 bond issue. However, for the past twelve years the District's tax rate has been the lowest of all the seven Sanitation Districts as a result of the tremendous increase in assessed valuation, the perception of the original Directors in 6/72 -3- providing an adequate trunk sewer system, and the acquisition, at no cost, of a major portion of the District's system from the Federal goverrunent. C. Connections -In common with the Other Sanitation Districts, District No. 6 has adopted, by ordinance, the policy of accepting sewer connection applications only from public agencies. Thus it maintains its position as "wholesaler", with the basic function of constructing and maintaining street and lateral sewers being left to other public agencies within the District. The connection ordinance does not provide a charge for connection or use of the.District's facilities excep"t for a nominal ($35) inspection fee at the time of connection and an "excess" capacity and use charge for certain large waste producing industries and establishments requiring more than normal capacity or use (see pre- ceding section on uni~orm connection and use ordinance). The ordinance also provides rules and regulations for quality of the wastewater discharged to the District's facilities. The quality standards have three objectives, i.e., prevention of damage to District's facilities, prevention of disproport:lonate treatment costs, and avoidance of detrimental effects of treatment plant effluent on the ocean and its ecosystem. Fixed Fiscal Assessed Average Assets Year Acrea~e Valuation~l) Tax Rate Flow{2) (at cost) 1954-55 9,811 $ 18.3 $ c5550 0.89 $ 903,000 1955-56 fl 21.5 .~000 0.97 907,000 1956-57 If 25.5 . 456 1.2 911,000 1957-58 rr 33.2 .1~083 2 .. 0. 1,004,ooo 1958-59 fl 42.6 .3460 2.4 829,000 1959-60 n 48.8 .2228 2.z 1,015,000 1960-61 rr 62.0 .2536 3. ~ 1,142,000 1961-62 " 72.9 .2870 3.8 1,263,000 1962-63 ti 94e8 .2728 4.3 1,482,000 1963-64 II 103.3 .3297 4.7 1,655,000 1964-65 " 114.5 .2663 5.2 1,764,ooo 1965-66 If 123.0 .2704 5.7 1,822,000 1966-67 n 128.8 .2604 6.1 2,014,ooo 1967-68 II 138.o .2553 6.4 2,168,000 1968-69 rr llt8.5 .2540 7.3 2,342,000 1969-70 ti 156.1 .2335 7.6 2,603,000 1970-71 n 185.6 .2313 8.o 3,120,000 1971-72 " 192.5 .2313 8.3(4) 3,519,000(3) m Millions Million gallons per day cost Of these fixed assets $2,955,000 represents equity in of jointly-owned treatment and disposal facilities, and the balance trunk sewers. (4) Estimated * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6/72 -4- Operating Budget (1971-72): Capital Outlay Budget (1971-72): Total Budget Requirements (1971-72) (including bond retiremen~): Bonded Debt (6-30-72): Annual Retirement: Long Range Plans $ 253,859 1,367,939 1,660,376 412,000 25,000 As previously mentioned, the original facilities constructed or acquired by the District appeared to be adequate for the forseeable future. Consequently, no studies of needed facilities within the District, aside from the. original 1948 engineering report, have yet been authorized by the District Board. However, in 1966 there was submitted to the Board of Supervisors a report, undertaken at County expense, entitled 11 waste Water Disposal and Reclamation for the County of Orange, 1966-2000 11 • This report, while concentrating its major emphasis on the largely undeveloped areas in the southeast portion of the County, also reviewed the needs of the existing Sanitation Districtso The conclusion of this report with respect to District No. 6, was that the present facilities serving the northern two-thirds of the District are adequate to serve its ultimate needs. However, this report pointed out that the facilities jointly owned with District No. 5, serving the southerly one-third of the District, were inadequate to some extent and would have to be expanded in the future. The conclusion reached in the County report as to the facilities serving the southern section of the District was based on a master comprehensive sewerage report for District No~ 5. This report, prepared in 1964 by Donald C. Simpson, Consulting Engineer, estimated that the total cost to District No. 6 of additional joint facilities with District No. 5 would amount to approximately $180,000, as compared to a total expenditure for District No. 5 of $2.3 million. 1967 engineering studies by District Noe 7 have indicated that the construction of a new force main and gravity trunk sewer between the College Avenue Pump Station and Plant Noe 1 was necessary. Since District No. 6 owns a small share (5%) of the capacity of the Gisler Trunk leading to this pump station, it contributed a proportionate share toward the cost of the new project. This expenditure amounted to approximately $15,000. In spite of the conclusion of the above-mentioned County report, it has been the experience of the other Districts that future flows estimated some time ago will be exceeded, principally because of high rise and multiple dwelling unit coristructione Consequently, a sum has been budgeted for a thorough engineering study of the District's facilities, expected to be undertaken during fiscal year 1972-73. 6/72 -5- ~ I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT No. 6 B U D G ET R E G 0 1\ti tv1 EN DAT I 0 N S 1971/72_ FISCAL YE AR B U D GET E D RE Q U IRE f\~ ENT STATE & FEDERAL DO LLAr~ ·10TAL REQUIREt/1ENTS $1,771,535 OPERATING f"Utm ACCUMULATED OAP ITAL. OUTLAY FUND TAX REVENUE DOLLAR TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RAIS ED BY TAXES $423,488 GRAtffS C .\RRY-OVEf~ &. RESERVE $.58 SOURCE OF BUDGETED I~EVEr~UE DOLLAR T 0 TA L A VAIL A 8 LE $1 , 7 71 , 535 COUrJTY SANl.TATJON DISTRICT NO. 6 230 220 (/) a:: <( 200 _J _J 0 190 0 180 la.. 0 170 (/') z 160 TC t:' ~.~ ·n ,..... tJ. ~. P. TC '1liliG.mi1'1LJ' Viii~~'\ &V 1966/67 TH ROUGH 1971/72 2o2 j150 . ·/ ~ ~I . 1.8 140 / ·. . . 130 _/·· 120 67 68 i-e 69 £2 19. 70 71 Fl'SCAL YE AR (/) a: 106 <t _J _J 1. .4 0 0 1 o2 - LL. 0 1.0 - ll 72 ~ 08 0 -.1 _J TOT,t\L ASSESSED VALUATION _J -::: .6 38 .s 36 o4 34 ~2 32 (/) . t-30 -66 w ~~ BUDGETED REQUIREMENTS CASH EXPENSE RAISED BY TAXE 68 69 .2.2. 1Q. ll 70 . '11 'i 2 z 28 F I S C A L Y EAR w (.) 26 24 22 20 ··---1 66 bf .61 68 68 69 FI S C A L lQ 71 YE AR TAX RATE 11 72 TOTAL BUDGET a E><PENDITURES DISTRICTS 5 & 6 . G.__ u~ i~~ ~,a__ 1 QJ'-1 ,QU11.5 DISTRICT 5 ~Chairm an Mcinn is presented Resolution No. 72 -5 8 of the Board~of Directors e~1-::t~r. 6 ~.;, ~-~~'\~.f ~L r-~~ -4.. ,A ~ fl of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, ~~'/J, r ~~~~) k 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,~nd 11,~commebding ~iRdsley Paraons for his outstanding cont ribution and dedication to public service as a D:i:r~ctor of C ~.un~ Sani ta ti on Districts.No 5=-to XXJg, Mr Parso:n.s... That Ch~an r@a-id \t fie :r?EH30J.~.iru:l-w-B.ich -had been &igned by a-1-l- i?l=l-e-members-of tJre--.~d:·n--15-Baa:rds of-Elrree'ttoI"!:i. (#3) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 For the benefit of ~e new Directors , ~ 1~ /'the General Manager reviewed the t,,,r.._ f'Ltvtt ~~Q...-/j _ history and development of Districts Nos. 5 and ~6~ ~d ~ briefly the basic policies~-li:ai$[ng J.,. . 't;; .• <;t,,, l t~/~ annexation , financing gv""connection charges;ppresent facilities, L, ..h°J\:k... facility and ~g -r ange plans ~ future1requ i rements of the respective Di d ricts. (#4) DISTR I CTS 5 ~ ~~f~ Donal d Simpson, D-3.striet 5's consulting tb..~-64£ ~ f enginee~~ reviewed the District's £4,vv;r' Master Plan of "fac ilities . He pointed out that the major facility +' yet to be constructed , is the Coast Highwa y Force Main, Contract No . 5-1 9 , which wi ll parallel exist 'ng facilities in Coast Highway. The line wil l be _joi nt l y constr cted and owned . by/ Districts.J. 5 and 6, ~"" ~Pk-v.kfl ~ ~ ~"'~ ~~~ -k ~cu.-~{}. ~-~istrict 5~l m~mN~xxx~~ .wi . ~~capat:"ty~f.er th ew ultimat~e __ v~ ~~ ~-W-tl.<c..1 ~Ct.~ //hi flow s:t: ±btf! .:i;r:r&tPi9t'\ and also p ovide 'J:, backup M the exis ting +iw Vv. Q' (>. ~L-e\ ~~ sys tern. The tw<>-remaining,i major •f :\:~it ie s to be c Ons i rue t ed are ~ on each side of the . Uppe~ \Y. The line on the W ~L side of the Bay wou ld serve both D is t ~icts 5 and 6,( and the 1-:t'ne .._] (#5) #5 & 6 ~ p . 2 ~ on the East side would serve District 5 onl y . The need for ~ t hese facilities ~~ntingent upon the deve l opment of the ~ Bay area. ~ ~~ "iin. ..., In oo~ection w~th service ¥.:@ the area to the Sout heast of the District s present boundary, Gordon Jones oclt e Irvipe pompany "#' tttt. -llJ ~-b.....;( ~ ~ advised the Board /that it was their intent toA nnex the area i~ from the present District~ boundary to Cryst al Cove41 ~ J ,. ( 1. -JlP>~ Sistrie~ n ;;.:~§. The area South o f ,...C,ry:stal Cove wc_:>µl d b~ L ~V'r I 41--~~L ~~ .. 1v handled~~another sewe ring agency . ·lA:fiesley Farsons ~~pointed k(A J l<.v-. out /' it had been the District-t:s...policy to1'ria intain the District's boundari es contiguous with those of the City of Newport Beach . DISTRICT { ~ Following the re po r t o f t he engineer , ~·~~~ the Board entered into a d is cuss i on ti . ~~ t ._-t,. rfv ~ .L -t::.~ (Jl.c,v,Y ,,.,f-~ k (/.c...._,f concerning the District 's connection """' -..~ ~ t_ ~ o..(.lc.. charge policy . The engineeF _ J . ..,et;;~~IAV 4j~ recommended that the District cons ider changing -efA. . \ ~ rw~ ;~ J ~f , d&~( > • c-empnt ing MTe connection charges <1 It was the n move d, s'econded and duly carried : be That KNH an item/p l aced on the dlgend a for the next r egular meeting of District ~. 5 for co.nsider ation .of amendment~ t~ the Distric t 's co nne c · n charge ordinance ..v.. ~Jc<-<-c.< '-~ A av t"' ............-. ~"i t ~ • , '(>tf.tt'\./t-• DISTRICTS 5 & 6 , , The Director of Finance reviewed ~ ~~ .;\_ <\),._,~ rt:.-· .Ii \J"'/\-1---b-t' the financial position of Districts 5 and 6 and pointed o u t t hat upon complet ion of ~aster P l an fo District No . 6 , a long -range financial plan would be forthcoming . Presently there are construct ion reserves for future Di s tri ct facilities expansion ... (#6) of $407 ,000 in District No . 6 . ~ Mr. Sylves ter reviewed the financing of ~District No . 5~ #5 &6 p .3 ~ster Plan facilities , the major portion of which have been ~t } I' Connection fees, irwlud.ing ~epayment of the loan in aiQ. oft _,__ :&. . .d v .. .lJ.()fe.-.. ... uJ'\A +-.. .lu,..AAc.-< -'1.. ~t ~l ~\M.._ ._ t construction from the Irvine Company4 Prese~tl.llth"?F"9 is { / . 1),..,i....:;f \..er-:. ;: $771,000 in reserve for construction of the Coast Highway t' / No . ~ Force Ma&in 6 //, eontract /5-19. ~ DISTRICTS 5 fr.. The Deputy Chief Engineer reviewe d ~ the propos~i to enter jnta an agreement with Donald J . Scholz & Co . for oversizing Pacific Coast Highway Sewer in connection with replacement of a portion of Newport Beach Trunk "A". Under the terms of the agreement a ~· r f. t "' c- -f distinct savings could 9~ realized by the Di stricts, iO as~uc? a){l:, , { they wou~p~~:ly~he oversizing of the c ro ssing ,~i ld :;t,;.~ el i minate ~ t\o rtt'ilinder Pacifi c Coast Highway when °$' Trunk "A" is relocat d .CftMr . Lewis reported t.hat a19paPently a-~- qnestion had--a.r~~r;i. the Scholz Company~ ... \>( de vel epmel"J:t a:11d they had\req~e;ted that .t.pe m~t}~r be u e~d4J2 w ~ ~ J~w."' '111 iL.. t1Pt1 .b•"""'.,, r __ trr" abeyance pending a decision by~Newport Beach1 Following a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried : That consideration of Resol u tion No . 72 -89 , authorizing execution of an agreement with Donald J . Scholz & Company for oversizing Pacific Coast Highway crossing, be deferred to the regular meeting to be held on July 12. #5 & 6 p . 4 Following :n~at1.ru< by the Districts' consulting engineer r ~~ the proposed license af~eement for right of way ifi eeru~c"J;;'en wi:th constr 1 ction of Contract No. 5-19, it was moved, seconded and dul~arried: That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No . 72 -90 , authorizin~execution of license agreement for right of way with Beeco, Ltd ., General Crude Oil Company and Armstrong Petroleum Corporation i n connection with construction of Coast Highway Force Mai\' Contract No . 5-19. Donald Simpson, .District 's consul ting ~~~-d...~~ design engineer 1d4sou$.hed, the scope r=a;i•d::!p~sions aHel speclflcatlonei few. 6{ Sewer Trunk "B", Unit 8 (Coast Highway Force Main, Contract 5-1 9). Je pointed out that there are . tw_2 . ,J ~~ t 1. 1,..-~'1 (,../ additiona l ~ items ~in the•proposal; one for the propos 1 edl'lportion t.v,h._{l.._'\~'\.(,./ v~t.. r ~l<.--~ J of Newpo rt Beach Trunk "A" ~e:i:ty .sewe:iA and tn~ second for -Q 1 -fr'_ &..-, .. )=:/ '.: ::J, 1 ,.,_ .,t.f.. 1 ' f\0 1NvtW ·f \ ~ ;;J ti~ J, reinforced plastic "mortar pipe lining&~ The B~ard will have the option of accepting or ~ jecting either of these bid items in the contract with regard o working the paved area of Coast of open trench allowed at any gi en time . Following further discussion concerning the of the contract, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards,.6f Directors adopt Resolution No. 72 -91, approving plans and specifica~ions for Coast H~ghway Forc ~Main , Contract o;;JL._..,., ,._ ~ r.b., 1 .t • (-,., £.. • ' f 0 fr ~.f d /I ; u. f.I\. No. 5-1 9; and est&l:h··i-sn:±ng-t.h~l hid date as-August 1, 19721 Certified -' . ~~ #5 & 6 p . 5 ~ copy of this ~esolution is attached hereto and made a part of the~~s. (#9) DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: 0~~~pic, c.;,· ',.,lr:i )1,,t:t 6/c.._ That the proposal submitted by Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Civil Engineers , dated June 15, 1972 , for preparation Master Plan facilities for District No. 6 ~ i · · · be a~flX~XRN received, ordered filed , and cv.Ox ~ dla. ... Jo. Utt~~ approve -fo:r:.-a-ma-x-:i:nmm-f;e~ot-t e-exceed $-7-, GGQ . eo-, in accordance )\ ' / wi~EI: co11di'tt~cqnt-a.-i-rreu-1.'"f!'tn e p ropc r sctl-a,s fQ.llows : ' ....... Senio\ Engineer $27 .50 per hour Assistan\ Engineer 22.00 per hour Senior Dr~ftsman 20.00 p er hour Clerical \ 8,75 per ho ur Blueprintin ~& printing Cost plus 25 % DIST~ Moved , seconded and du l y carried: Adjournment That this meeting o f the Bo a r d o f Directors of County anitation Distric t No . 6 be adjourned . The Chairman then clared the meeting so adjourned at 5 :50 p .m., June 21 , 1 972 . DISTRICT 5 Moved , seconded and duly carrie d: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors County Sa nit at ion District No . 5 be adjour ned . The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5 :51 p .m., June 21, 1972 .