Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-17 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ;� TELEPHONES: i AREA CODE 714 540-291❑ OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) October 12, 1973 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO, 2 WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 17, ' 1973, 5: 30 P ,M, 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held October 10, 1973, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date . ' 1 . Se r a r y JWS: rb f I� BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: 2Area Code 714 DIST-RICT No. 9540-2910 62-24111 IiAGENDA ADJOURNMENTS POSTED...:- COMP & MILEAGE_,ll FILES SET UP......... ,.... RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED..- ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING LETTERS ViRITTEN... MINUTES WR'T70... OCTOBER 17, 1973 - 5: 30 P.M. MINUTES FILED........ (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary (3) Discussion re proposed joint water reclamation facility with Orange County Water District (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file proposal to Orange County Water District and County Sanitation District No. 2 from Clean Water Consultants , dated ^ October 3; 1973, for preparation of Project Report for Fiscal Year 1973-74 Clean Water Grant Project - 10 MGD LrR - -- Water Reclamation Plant Including; Demineralization; A/C -••TAR and authorizing Clean Water Consultants to proceed with Phase I of their proposal, the cost of which to be shared. with the Orange County Water District , for an amount riot to exceed $1C ,000 (District 2 ' s share) (5) Other business and cormiun2cations , if any (6) Consideration of motion to adjourn -� � 6, CV! Gi L� 11 cl, ILk CU �MU1.n s � � � �n� (.e,, . � 'Pot t°"G FAO v1 4 '� �� =✓Sid t%tv;< PCOPOS:D PARALLft LINO �`� ago �DZOM ulZiN( DIVEk-SION �"• ��'a . ............. co C► 619M N �a� WA5" •■ ` oZAN60"rHoZPoL FKrZLW4Y N!.A PALMA ;- -_ a ri, . �a:��c7 C G•.. KAT�LLA T4 — CO_M►NC-pI eLV WA S?E WATeiz Z AND e3;Z NC- ISNAS'TC` 11 0 �. \ / � V X t\� -� 4 2 ti5 a 1`z7 ST. ly z Qpa' ................. PLANT N2I a er{ WA571 tAl IZ (TLO i0 PLANT WQ'Z O %•^ O GW C7 "v Sr���- � `O?D��D �2:GI,AMQ;ION A��G:MtN:�:.'•:' �:�` �� . cs•�•c•a M;I'.1r1.;:' 7C.UNK We CLEAN WATER CONSULTANTS CULP / WESNER .f CULP ,..i t C" © 0X .835 - CORONA DEL MAR . CALI FORNI A 92625 • TEL : 71 4 / 675- 41 32 Russell L Culp, P.E. George M. Wesner, P.E., PhD. Gordon L. Culp, P.E. October 3, 1973 Orange County Water District i 1629 W. 17th Street t Santa Ana, California 92706 Attention: Mr. James R. Cofer District Engineer I Dear Mr. Cofer: In response to your request, submitted herewith is a proposal for the preparation of a Project Report for a wastewater reclamation facility to be constructed by the Orange County Water District and the County 'Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The proposal contains a tentative work plan and time schedule and a -description of the project team and its , organization. We envision that the work will be divided into two phases as follows: ' Phase I 1. Prepare detailed outline of project report. The State Water Resources Control Board published "Project Report Guideline". This document is currently being re- vised and a draft of portions of the revision have been circulated. The SWRCB is conducting seminars on the Clean Water Grant Program in early October and' the new project report guidelines will be covered in these seminars. The detailed outline will be prepared in conformance with the most recent State guidelines. In addition to the outline, a discussion of some of the elements of the Project Report would be included in Phase I. ' t f 1 Mr. James R. Cofer -2- October 3, 1973 f t E t �r 2. Description of alternative treatment methods and alternative site ! f locations. Some of the alternatives have recently been investi- gated by Lowry and Associates, "Water Reclamation Reconnaissance Study" and OCWD, "Waste Water Reclamation Plant for North Orange - County". • i 3. Description of environmental considerations and any anticipated ' adverse impacts. 4.. Prepare report on Phase I. ' Phase II After review and comment on the Phase I report, the Project Report + would be completed in accordance with.-the. State guidelines. Services would be furnished, as required, during the Project Report review process. Project Organization and Work Plan The work would be performed by personnel from Don Owen and Associates, ' Lowry and Associates, Jones and Stokes and Clean Water Consultants. All work would be performed in close cooperation with representatives from the staffs of OCWD and CSDOC. G. M. Wesner would be the Project Manager for the consultant team. He would coordinate all work and . , maintain contact with• OCM and, CSDOC. A description of the tasks to be performed by various members of the project team is given below. Clean Water Consultants 1. Project manager. Under the general direction of OCWD and CSDOC, coordinate the work of the consultants. 2. Prepare information on alternate site locations. I 3. . Prepare information on alternate treatment methods 4. Draft the Project Report. - Don Owen and Associates {; 1. Prepare outline for the Project Report. r 2. Draft the Phase I report. 3. Review progress with SWRCB staff and obtain continents on project. 4. Conduct regular reviews of work by other consultants. �C;:r-_� I Mr. 'James R. Cofer -3- October 3, 1973 ..o S. Edit the Project Report. 6. Coordinate review of Project Report after its submittal to SWRCB. Lowry and Associates 1. Providd information and data for alternatives. ! 2. Prepare other information and data as required for Project Re- port. 3. Prepare exhibits for reports. t 4. Review Phase I and Project Reports. Jones and Stokes Conduct all environmental impact investigations and prepare EIR for Phase I and Project Reports. Time- Schedule The Phase I report would be completed by November 9, 1973 and the , Project Report by February 15, 1974. E � I Cost It -is proposed that the work be conducted on a time and materials basis with the Phase I cost not to exceed $20,000 and the Phase II 'cost not to exceed $50,000. Time would be billed on a fee schedule approved by the District and all other expenses would be charged at • cost (auto mileage @ $0.15 per mile).. Very truly yours, •G. M. WESNER i 1 � i • COUNTY SANITATION -'TRICT NO. 2 ' July 26, 1973 ' REVISED SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT STRUCTION PROJECTS (A) dr Project Dist, No. 2 Upstream Total 1970-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Santa Ana River Interceptor (Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue) 184 MCD $ 5,848,000 $ 2,665,000 $ 8,513,000 $2,567,000 $5,946,000 Santa Ana River Interceptor (Katella Avenue to - La Palma) 3,200,000 2,000,000 5,200,000 115,000 5.085.000 Santa Ana River Interceptor (La Palma to near County line) 2,200,000 3,700,000 . 5,900,000 3000000 $2,650,000 $2,9�0,000 Water Reclamation Plant 3,4o0,0o0 .5,100,000(B) 8,500,000 2,800,000 5,700,000 Yorba Linda Pump Station and Force Main 786,000 786,00o 8,000 200,000 578,000 Palm Drive Interceptor 509,000 509,000 7,000 200,000 302,000 Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1;737,000 1,737,000 14,000 350,000 . 1,373,000 , Kraemer Interceptor 418,000 , 418,000 8,000 . 10,000 400,000 Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor 549,000 549,000 275,000 274,000 South Santa Ana River ' Interceptor 745,000 745,000 745,000 Orchard Interceptor 178,000 - 178,000 178,000 Richfield Interceptor 380,000 , 380,000 380,000 Other Small Projects 300,000 300,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $20,250,000 $13,465,000 $33,715,000 $2,819,000 $12,141,000 $8,153,000 . 0,975,000 $1,627,000 NOTES: (A) Costs- include engineering and contingencies (B).Demineralization Facilities to be constructed by Orange County Water District * COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT h0,_..2_ BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS 1973/74 FISCAL YEAR prelim. 7-26-73 1973/74 ESI'IKATED ASSESSED VALUATION $1,157,375,170 1973/74 EST. A.V. ADJUSTED FOR 5%DELINQ.Sl,099,506,41 2 1973/74 EST. TAX RATE PER $100 OF A.V. .3144 FUND N2 ACCUM. CAPITAL OUTLAY ONE CENT IN TAX RATE WILL RAISE _ 109,951 APPROVED APPROVED EST IY.ATED RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTION OR ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET BUDGET XP ACTUAL LRES BUDGET to 4 PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES Treatment Plant Expansion 4,416,034 5,076,990 1,768,641 4,860,726 Reserve for-Facilities to comply with State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California -923,000 923,000 Contract 2-14-1, Santa Ana River Interceptor Trunk to Katella 7,045,000 5,547,000 2,310,698 Rebudgetec 5,946,000 Contract 2-14-2, Santa Ana River Interceptor from Katella to La Palma 2,000,000 129,949 Rebudgetet 5,085,000 Contract 2-14-3, Santa Ana River Interceptor from La Palma 2,200,000 Contract 2-15, Yorba Linda Pump Station & Force Main 793,000 7,520 Rebudgetee 778,000 Contract 2-16, Kraemer f Interceptor 7,832 410,000 Contract 2-17, Palm Drive . Interceptor 394,000 6,632 Rebudgete " 502,000 `0W Contract 2-18, Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1,478,000 13,637 Rebudgeted 1,723,000 Euclid Trunk Bypass 40,000 Master Plan Report 5,300 8,000 Rebudgete 10,000 Adjustment for Grant Funds Equity re Interplant Interceptor 397,645 Liability to CBMWD for Grant Funds Received 603,500 District Facilities improve- ments and Extensions 445,000 2115,000 61,000 Tax Collection Expense 7,0601 9,000 8.411 10 00'0 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 918 33416 473 9904 253 320 23,550,071 LESS: CASH CARRY-017:R & FEVENUE Funds Available July 1 Budgeted Reauirerients 72/73 16, 173,990 Actual. Expenditures 72/73 4 253,320 • ,220,070 Allowance for Accruals, Other Income and Transfers 595 876 CARRY OVER (CASH & INVEST'S) 7,1157,394 9,404,405 12,816,546 2,816,546 Delinquent Taxes 64,000 48,000 59,000 Annexation Fees 75,637 Joint Works Equity Sale 110,128 166,426 174,846 Sale of Capacity Rights 758,152 41679,000 Federal and State Grants 1,4o9,000 2,556,000 1,787,700 v Interest & t;isc. Receipts 290 000 3C0 C00 500,000 TOTAL CASH & REVr14U`E 9 330 5221.3�232,=983 0 092,729 AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAXES 2,587 11 2 3,2111,007, 3 1157,342 Rebudgeted at total cost to c rplete pr -Ject. CBI.1vlD cost of set by Reventie item, Sale of Cap Ci t-y R9 Eil s Balance appropriated from District Faci ities irpp:loverients & Extension , Acct. rb !!! COUNTY SAN1TATICN DISTRICT NO, 2 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS Prelim. 7-26-73 1973/74 FISCAL. YEAR 1973/74 ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION 51,157,375,170 1973/74 EST. A.V. ADJUSTED FOR .5%DELINQ.$1,099,506,412 1973/74 EST. TAX RATE PER $100 OF A.V. $ No Tax Rate FUND #2 FACILITIES REVOLVING ONE CENT IN TAX RATE WILL RAISE $ No Tax Rate APPROVED APPROVED ESTIMATED RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTION OR ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET XPENDITURES 1972173 1973/74 PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES Connection Fee Administration 48,750 District Facilities Improve- ments and Extensions 942 250-- TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 991,000 LESS: CASH CARRY-OVER & REVENUE Connection Fees - -� 975,000 Interest Income 16 000 TOTAL CASH & REVENUE 991,000 AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAXES -0- v r.. rb '3�►��v�'k0�'r Yc v v ` '✓7:< N4 Pl20PO5�D PARA�tI 1. tlN� 4`'?o� �i20M ul2tN� DlVE�StON • ��� ca ` 04.1N --THOZPC4 � FKE�WdY NLA PACMA ;C wA 57e wATeR a �,..•_;� / ��z QND �;z1Nt V'JA5'TC `NA • �,Qtc o a Qy u U; S57 STta . 37 S (, 4ti 6, f p CI$_ ................. Fi AN't N2 f 8!?t�l� WAS;c I"iIVL�'i:0 Q F L4N7 N92 ,b PLANT W'?I 0 (� 'P.;-p O��-C;� Zr-%AMATIDN �,ti�G•�MIN��.�-' �, " ::' MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County San. Post Office Box 8127tation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telepbones: Area Code 714 540-2910 DISTRICT NO. 962.2411 II Adjourned Meeting Wednesday, October 17, 1973 5:30 p.m. 1973-74 Clean Water Grant Project - 10 MGD Water Reclamation Plant Including Demineralization. Through the efforts of the staff of the Orange County Water District, the State Water Resources Control Board � -� has placed the above-mentioned project on their priority list for this fiscal year. The Water District and Sanitation District No. 2 have been directed to submit a "Project Report" (updated feasibility study including Environmental Impact Assessment ) on or before March 1, 1974, to determine the desirability of this project . Chairman Robert Nevi1_ and. Director Don Smith have participated with our staff in dis- cussions with representatives of the Water District concern- ing the proposed cooperative project. The purpose of this meeting is to determine the Board ' s position regarding our District ' s involvement. Enclosed for the Directors ' information is an excerpt from a water reclamation reconnaissance study prepared in 1971 and a proposal. from Clean Water Consultants for the preparation of a "Project Report", as well as a District capital improvement cash flow schedule . Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH: j Enclosures EXCERPTS FROM: - WATER RECLAMATION RECONNAISSANCE STUDY County .Sanitation District No. 2 - w. of Orange County, California and . Orange County Water District October 1971 ,*Awe ' Lowry and Associates 121 East Washington Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701 n STATEI4ENT OF PROBLEM The District's existing trunk sewer system that conveys f lows to ::zat- ment plant no. 1 in Fountain Valley is becoming overloaded. Master plan studies show that the Newhope-Placentia trunk sewer system is grossly in- adequate g ade uate for the long term needs of the District. Unless additional sc%zer facilities are constructed, or some other means is implemented to relieve the existing system, growth within the District will have to be curtailed- Past studies have determined the cost of expanding the existing system to convey all of the expected future flows to plant no. 1 at Ellis Ave::z- The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and the cost c: klL relieving the existing system and providing for future growth by the cc::- struction of a water reclamation plant in the upper portion of the District. Flows originating in the upper areas would be directed to the water recla- mation plant and used for ground water recharge purposes. Flows from tl. ' lower areas would continue to be directed to plant no. 1. This plan wSS also evaluated in the past, and it was concluded in the earlier studies that n water reclamation plant is economically competitive with expanding the " existing system. However, water quality is the most serious single pr:;lem, ,• and must be solved in cooperation with the Orange County Water District. *Ono CONCLUSIONS (1) A:- flow of 10 million gallons per day (mgd) could be directed to a water reclamation plant located at the site of the Burris Sand Pit adjacent to the Santa Ana River southerly of Lincoln Avenue. The water could be reclaimed and discharged into the Santa Ana River for g ground water re- charge purposes. The ultimate average flow that could be diverted to this site is 65 mgd. (2) The existing sewer system could be modified to direct flows to the site of the reclamation plant and provide for future growth within the Dis- trict at less cost than expanding the system to take the flows to plant 'No. 1. A .savings of about $4 .7 million could be realized in the modi- fied truck sewer system. �•a i (3) The cost of primary treatment at Plant No. 1 is appxoimately the same .� as the cost for providing secondary treatment for water reclamation. If new ocean discharge standards require the addition of secondary treatment facilities at Plant No, 1, the cost for the reclamation plan Tye is considerable less expensive. (4) The total capital costs are summarized as follows: Water Primary Secondary Reclamation Treatment Treatment p Plant •1 Plant 1 t *Sewer Systems $13.9 million $18.6 million $18.6 million Treatment Facilities 26.5 million 26.7 million 44.6 million Total $40.4 million $45.3 million. $63.2 million The estimated cost for an industrial trunk sewer that would segregate and divert the industrial wastes away from the water reclamation plant is $770,000. (5) The total dissolved mineral content (TDS) of the water is presently f . too high for reclamation and direct reuse. Present flow is in the :.. r range of 1800-2600 ppm. Desired quality is 600 ppm. This is due to ...., the high TDS of the water supply, and partially due to industrial wastes. F •,� (6) There are three possibilities for solving the water quality problem: S 2 (a) The best solution is to use water from the State Water Pro- ject as the basic water' supply in the tributary area. The TDS will then be sufficiently low to practically eliminate the problem. (b) An interim solution to the problem, if the Orange County Water District obtains a supply of State water from ground water recharge purposes in the Santa Ana River basin, would- be to use this water for blending with the reclaimed water to lower the overall TDS of the water entering the ground water basin. • (c) Demineralization of the reclaimed water may be feasible, especially if research and development grants can be ob- tained. ..J 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings in this report, it is recommended that the District _ consider the following: (1) In cooperation with the Orange County Water District, determine if the water reclamation plan is consistent with the Basin Plan of the Cali- fornia State Water Resources Control Board for the Santa Ana River Basin, and to what extent a water reclamation plant may be eligible for financial grant assistance. (2) If it is determined that a plan for water reclamation is consistent with • the Basin Plan, adopt a policy similar to Resolution No. 971 of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California that offers to deliver free of charge secondary effluent to appropriate public agencies for treat- '_ ment and reuse. .we (3) Explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with the Orange County Water District, whereby the Sanitation District would construct L. the secondary treatment facilities, and the Water District would be re sponsible for any necessary additional treatment and use of the reclaimed water. " w _R E Yo. -.1 C5 h PIZOF'05�D PACALLft LlNV' PROM 5RINk DIVERSION Co �`a � �..�[ r er•r•rer.re■ ctiaerta w � °� WA5 '. • 02iN /'T p � FitE2'W4r 0*8 RIV c P12'. 4'.,400•r•r•r• i LA PALMA r a a WAS+G �,i.ir.f Q • i L .� :,t°�2�aGi1� C�7DUND5 I N SAIL IZP u;. SQ KA��tta GOMINGLFD WA51E WATEIZ AND BRINE WASTC "Mol� GAQ4"N GRaf.• r . •� 3 U be C'O NGI' Ol00 FR.:WAY NAMIL O LC- 0 0""' Ft ANT N° 1 P;,p�T TO PLANT Wel N°2O v ie .4$� O G W D "'Z i jC � �qsr ® plV�►�StON ST�L>GTt)1ZE ''170 POS,`0 Z:'—%AMATtON A"ryG:MIN'._-CAL!Z4i•JN PLANT D,D.G, i_U N K 5''W:`+5 .®ereeeo =U',iJCZ: Z2UNK �':W.'h5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL. ROOM 1015, RESOURCES BUILDING IA16 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814 AUGUST 31: 1973 MR. FRED A•. HARPER, GENERAL MANAGER ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 DEAR MR. HARPER: SUBJECT; P.Y. 1973-74 CLEAN WATER GRANT PROJECT — 10 MGD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT INCLUDING DEMINERALIZATION ON JULY 11, 1973: THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ADOPTED CRITERIA FOR RANKING PROPOSED F.Y. 1973-74 SEWERAGE PROJECTS AND A CLEAN WATER GRANT PRIORITY LIST DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THAT CRITERIA. ON AUGUST 16, 1973, THE STATE BOARD ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN WATER GRANT PROGRAM REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE TO BE APPLICABLE TO P.Y. 1973-74 PROJECTS. A COPY OF THESE REGULATIONS 1S ENCLOSED. ON THE ADOPTED PRIORITY LIST, YOUR AGENCY HAS A PROJECT IN PRIORITY CLASS a. SUCH A RANKING WILL ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT FOR FUNDING IN F-.Y. 1973- 74. WITH THIS LETTER YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2115 OF THE AMENDED GRANT REGULATIONS YOU HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED A PROJECT REPORT .DUE DATE OF MARCH 1,.- 1974 FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT. IF THIS PROJECT IS TO REMAIN ON THE P Y. 1973-74 PRIORITY LIST AND RECEIVE CONSI— DERATION FOR FUNDING, YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR PROJECT REPORT, WITH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, BY THIS DATE. HOWEVER, IF THIS DATE 'PLACES AN ADVERSE TIME CONSTRAINT UPOM YOU, YOU MAY REQUEST A LATER DUE DATE. CONVERSELY, If WORK ON YOUR PROJECT REPORT HAS PROGRESSED TO THE STAGE WHERE YOU COULD SUBMIT YOUR REPORT EARLIER, YOU MAY REQUEST AN EARLIER DUE DATE. ANY SUCH REQUESTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY • OCTOBER 12 1973. IN NO CASE WILL AN ASSIGNED PROJECT REPORT DUE DATE FALL BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1973, OR SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 1, 1974. APPLICANTS .ARE APPRISED OF SECTION 2121 OF THE GRANT REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRES PROJECT REVIEW AND CONCEPT APPROVAL TO BE FORTHCOMING WITHIN 120 DAYS OF PROJECT REPORT DUE DATE. TO MEET THIS SCHEDULE, IT WILL BE CRITICAL THAT PROJECT REPORTS ARE COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE. INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THE .-PROJECT REPORT GUIDELINES MUST BE INCLUDED AND SUBMITTED IN THE PROJECT REPORT. REQUESTS TO THE APPLICANT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT INITIALLY PROVIDED WILL UNNECESSARILY DELAY THE REVIEW PROCESS AND MAY RESULT IN FAILURE TO, RECEIVE CONCEPT APPROVAL WITHIN THE 120•-DAY PERIOD. PROJECTS NOT APPROVED IN THE 120—DAY PERIOD WILL BE CARRIED OVER TO A FUTURE FISCAL YEAR. IN VIEW OF RECENT CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE GRANT PROGRAMS AND IN AN EFFORT TO HELP MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH THE GRANT PROCESS, THE GRANT TEAM STAF " HOPES TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH ALL GRANT APPLICANTS ON THIS YEAR'S PROJECTS. V& INTEND TO r.or MR. FRED A-. HARPER —2- AUGUST 31, 1973 MEET PERIODICALLY WITH EACH APPLICANT AS THE PROJECT REPORTS ARE BEING PREPARED. THE PURPOSE OF THESE MEETINGS WILL BE TO MAKE EACH APPLICANT FULLY AWARE OF FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS AND TO HELP THE APPLICANT AVOID PITFALLS THAT COMMONLY PLAGUE GRANT PROJECTS. THE FIRST STEP THAT MUST BE TAKEN BY EACH APPLICANT IS THE COMPLETION AND SUBMITTAL OF THE ENCLOSED "KEY ACTION QUEST IONNAIRE.1t THIS QUESTIONNAIRE SHOULD BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT OUR STAFF CAN EVALUATE THE DATA AND BE PREPARED TO ASSIST YOU IN OVERCOMING PRESENT OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOUR AGENCY INITIATE THESE STAFF LEVEL MEETINGS BY CONTACTING THE GRANT TEAM EVALUATOR ASSIGNED TO YOUR PROJECT. WE WILL IN TURN CONTACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE REGIONAL BOARD. AN INITIAL MEETING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS-BEING SCHEDULED AT KEY' POINTS IN THE PROJECT REPORT FORMULATION. ASSIGNMENT OF EVALUATORS TO SPECIFIC PROJECTS HAS NOT BEEN MADE AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, GENERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATE HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO ONE OF TWO EVALUATION TEAMS. REGIONS 2, 5A, 5B, 5C, AND S ARE IN EVALUATION TEAM A — TEAM LEADER, MR. GARY MORRIS. REGIONS 11 31 41 5D, 61 7•1 AND 9 ARE IN EVALUATION TEAM B - TEAM LEADER, MR. DONALD HODGE. CONTACT WITH THE APPROPRIATE TEAM LEADER MAY BE low MADE REGARDING MEETINGS ON YOUR PROJECTS. REVISED PROJECT REPORT GUIDELINES WILL BE PROVIDED IN EARLY SEPTEMBER. THESE GUIDELINES WILL BE SIMILAR IN CONTENT TO THOSE OF PREVIOUS YEARS EXCEPT THAT GREATER DETAIL OF THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED WILL BE PRESENTED IN A- SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT GUIDELINE FORMAT. GREATER EMPHASIS WILL BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS AND TO THE FORMULATION OF THE- RECOMMENDED PROJECT. THE MAJOR NEW. REQUIREMENTS ADDED TO THE GUIDELINES WILL BE THE INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS AND COST--EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO THE 1972 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POILUT10N CONTROL ACT. FURTHER QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS .NOTICE MAY BE OBTAINED BY CON— TACTING EITHER AFOREMENTIONED EVALUATION TEAM LEADER AT (916) 322-2640. SINCERELY, 1 A r_ � LARRY h. WALKER ASSfSTANT DIVISION CHIEF MANAGER — CLEAN WATER GRANT PROGRAM ENCLOSURE v � ( COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 2 July 26, 1973 l REVISED SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT CONSTRUCT PROJECTS (A) Project Dist. No. 2 Upstream Total 1970-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 Santa Ana River Interceptor (Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue) 184 MGD $ 5,848,000 $ 2,665,000 $ 8,513,000 $2,567,000 $5,946,000 Santa Ana River Interceptor (Katella Avenue to La Palma) 3,200,000 2,000,000 5,200,000 115,000 5,085,000 Santa Ana River Interceptor (La Palma to near County line) 2,200,000 3,700,000 5,900,000 300,000 $2,650,000 $2,950,000 Water Reclamation Plant 3,40o,000 5,100,000(B) 8,500,000 2,800,000 5,700,000 Yorba Linda Pump Station and Force Main 786,000 . 786,0o0 8,o00 200,000 578,000 Palm Drive Interceptor 509,000 509,000 7,000 200,000 302,000 Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1,737,000 1,737,000 14,000 350,000 1,373,000 Kraemer Interceptor 418,000 418,000 8,000 10,000 40o,000 Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor 549,000 549,000 275,000 274,000 South Santa Ana River Interceptor 745,000 745,000 745,000 Orchard Interceptor 178,000 178,000 178,000 Richfield Interceptor 38o,000 380,000 380,000 Other Small Projects 300,000 300,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $20,250,000 $13,465,000 $33,715,000 $2,819,000 $12,141,000 $8,153,000 $8,975,000 $1,627,000 NOTES: (A) Costs- include engineering and contingencies (B) Demineralization Facilities to be constructed by Orange County Water District ' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 v BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS 1973/74 FISCAL YEAR Prelim. 7-26-73 • 1973/74 ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION $1,157,375,170 1973/74 EST. A.V. ADJUSTED FOR 5%DELINQ.S1,099,506,412 1973/74 EST. TAX RATE PER $100'OF A.V. $ .3144 FUND #2 ACCUM. CAPITAL OUTLAY ONE CENT IN TAX RATE WILL RAISE $ 209,951 APPROVED APPROVED ESTI►".ATED RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTION OR ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET XPENDITURE� 1972/73 4 PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES Treatment Plant Expansion 4,416,034 5,076,990 1,768,641 4,860,726 Reserve for Facilities to comply with State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California923,000 923,000 Contract 2-14-1, Santa Ana River Interceptor Trunk to Katella 7,045,000 5,547,000 2,310,698 Re' budgetec 5,946,000 Contract 2-14-2, Santa Ana River Interceptor from Katella to La Palma 2,000,000 .229,949 Rebudgete 5,085,000 Contract 2-14-3, Santa Ana River Interceptor from La Palma 29200,000 w/ Contract 2-15, Yorba Linda Pump Station & Force Main 793,000 7,520 Rebudgete 778,000 Contract 2-16, Kraemer Interceptor 7,832 410,000 Contract 2-17, Palm Drive , Interceptor 394,bo0 6,632 Rebudgete ' 502,000 Contract 2-18, Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1,478,00o 13,637 Rebudgeted 1,723,000 Euclid Trunk Bypass 4D 000 Master Plan Report 5,300 8,000 Rebudgeted 10,000 Adjustment for Grant Funds Equity re Interplant Interceptor 397,645 Liability to CBMWD for Grant Funds Received 603,500 District Facilities Improve- ments and Extensions 445,000 245,000 61,000 Tax Collection Expense 7,000, 9,000 8 411 10,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS L1,918,334 16,473,990 4,253,320 3 550 071 LESS: CASH CARRY-OVVER & REVENUE Funds Available July 1 Budgeted Requirements 72/73 16,473,990 Actual Expenditures 72/73 4,253,320, 12,220,670 Allowance for Accruals, Other Income and Transfers 595,876 CARRY OVER (CASH & INVEST'S) 7,457,394 9,404,405 12,816,`46 2,816,546 Delinquent Taxes 64,00o 48,0oo 59,000 Annexation Fees 75,637 Joint Works Equity Sale 110,128 166,426 174,846 Sale of Capacity Rights 758,152 4,679,000 Federal and State Grants 1,409,000 2,556,000 1,787,700 Interest & Misc. Receipts 290,000 300 C00 500,000 TOTAL CASH & REVENUE 9,330,522 13,202 9R320,092,729 AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAY.ES 2,587,812 3,241,0071 3,457,342 Rebudgeted at total cost to c mnlete project. CBM' 'D cost offset, by Revenue item, Sale of Cap=city Rights I rb Balance appropriated from District Facilities imps}ovements & Extension•• Acct. + 11 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 2 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS Prelim. 7-26-73 e 1973/74 FISCAL. YEAR \ 1973/74 ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION S1s157,375,170 1973/74 EST. A.V. ADJUSTED FOR,5%DELINQ.$1,099,506,412 1973/74 EST. TAX RATE PER $100 OF A.V. $ No Tax Rate FUND M2 FACILITIES REVOLVING ONE CENT IN TAX RATE WILL RAISE $ No Tax Rate APPROVED APPROVED ESTIMATED RECOMMENDED DESCRIPTION OR ACCOUNT TITLE BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET 7.XPENDITURES 4 • PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES Connection Fee Administration 48,750 District Facilities Improve- ments and Extensions 942 250- TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 991,000 LESS: CASH CARRY-OVER & REVENUE Connection Fees 975,000 Interest Income 16 000 TOTAL CASH & REVENUE 991,000 Now AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAXES -0- rb �,-r- :_ ► CLEAN WATER CONSULTANTS CULP / WESNER ./ CULP BOX 835 CORONA DEL MAR , CA LI FOR-NI A 92625 • TE L : 71 4 / 675- 41 32 Russell L. Culp, P.E. George M. Wesner, P.E., PhD. Gordon L. Culp, P.E. October 3, 1973 • i Orange County Water District 1629 W. 17th Street Santa Ana, California 92706 �r Attention: Mr. James R. Cofer f District Engineer Dear Mr. Cofer: I In response to your. request, .submitted herewith is a proposal for the preparation of a Project Report for a waste water reclamation facility. to be constructed by the Orange County Water District and the County t Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The proposal contains a tentative work plan and time schedule and a description of the project team and its organization. We envision that the work will be divided into two phases as follows: t Phase I 1: Prepare detailed outline of project report. _ The State Water Resources Control Board published "Project Report Guideline". This document is currently being re- vised and a draft of portions of the revision have been circulated. The SWRCB is conducting seminars on the Clean Water Grant Program in early October and the new project report guidelines will be covered in these seminars. The detailed outline will be prepared in conformance with the most recent State guidelines. , In addition to the outline, a discussion of some of the elements of the Project Report would be included in Phase I. t i t Mr. James R. Cofer -2- October 3, 1973 ! t 2. Description of alternative treatment methods and alternative site t locations. Some of the alternatives have recently been investi- gated by Lawry and Associates, "Water Reclamation Reconnaissance Study" and OCWD, "Waste Water Reclamation Plant for North Orange County". 3. Description of environmental considerations and any anticipated adverse impacts. i 4.. Prepare report on Phase I. ; Phase II After review and comment on the Phase I report, the Project Report f would be completed in accordance with. the_ State guidelines. Services would be furnished, as required, during the Project Report review process. Project Organization and Work Plan The work would be performed by personnel from Don Owen and Associates, . Lowry and Associates, Jones and Stokes and Clean Water Consultants. All work would be performed in close cooperation with representatives from the staffs of OCWD and CSDOC. G. M. Wesner would be the Project Manager for the consultant team. He would coordinate all work and maintain contact with OCIM and• CSDOC. A description of the tasks to ! be performed by various members of the project team is given below. Clean Water Consultants 1. Project manager. Under the general direction of OCWD and CSDOC, coordinate the work of the consultants. 2. Prepare information on alternate site locations. j t 3. . Prepare information on alternate treatment methods. t } 4. Draft the Project. Report. Don Owen and Associates 1. Prepare outline for the Project Report. 2. Draft the Phase I report. 3. Review progress with SWRCB staff and obtain comments on project. 4. Conduct regular reviews of work by other consultants. • I Mr. James R. Cofer -3- October 3, 1973 i 5. Edit the Project Report. 6. Coordinate review of Project Report after its submittal to SWRCB. Lowry and Associates 1. Provide information and data for alternatives. 2. Prepare other information and data as required for Project Re- port. 3. Prepare exhibits for reports. } 4. Review Phase I and Project Reports. . Jones and Stokes .r Conduct all environmental impact investigations and prepare EIR for Phase I and Project Reports. Time Schedule ' The Phase I report would be completed 'by November 9, 1973 and the Project Report by February 15, 1974. I Cost It is proposed that theFlork be Conducted on a time and materials basis with the Phase I cost not to exceed $20,000 and the•Phase II cost not to exceed $50,000. Time would be billed on a fee schedule approved by the District and all other expenses would be charged at cost (auto mileage @ $0.15 per mile).. Very truly yours, G. M. WESNER MEETING DATE October 17, 1973 TIME 5: 30 P .m. DISTRICTS 2 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS SGARTHE). • •'• - . PATTERSON• • • LANGER) • • • • • FINNELL• • • - ((CASPERS)• • • . . BATTIN. • • • • • CASPERS . . . . BAKER. . . . . . RIMA. . . . . . . . CASPE S� • • • • BATTIN . . . . . (WELSH) . . . . . . SALTARELLI• • SALES• • • • • • BLACKMAN• • - DISTRICT 2 CASPERS• • • • �EWING) . • • • • CHAPUT. . . . . ST'VENS . . . . . NEVIL• • � CASPERS) • • • • CLARK. . . . . . . E —NO. • • • • CHAPUT• CULVER. . . . . CASPERS)• • • • • CLARK• • .j�• (HINES) . . . . . . DAVIS . . . . . . CULVER• • (MATNEY) • • • • • DUKE• • • • • • LANGER)• • • • . • FINNELL. •�: �L EDWARDS• FOX). • • • . • • • . KOWALSKI• • • • KOWALSKI ) • • • FOX. . . . . . . . PATTERSON)• • • GARTHE. . . . . . PATTER ON) — GARTHE• • • • - SCOTTI- • • • • JUST• • • - • • • • MATNEY • • • • • GIBBS . . . . . . REINHQRDT)• • • ROOT. - - • • MATNEY • • • • • GREEN. . . . . . PEREZ • • • • . • SMITH. • • •'• • BROWN • • • • HYDE. . . . . . . _. DUTTON)• • • • • • STEPHEN SON• • SCOTT • • JUST. . . . . . . DUNNE). . . . . . . WINN• • • • • . • • FOX) • • • • • • • KOWALSKI • • • MC INNIS) . . . KYMLA. . . . . . DISTRICT 3 MARSHOTT. . . �STEVENS) CROUL) . . . • • . MC INNIS. . . KOWALSK ). . . . FOX. . . . . . . • . . . NEVIL. . . . . . CASPERS . . . . . BATTIN. . . . . . (6ARTHE) . . . . . PATTERSON . - SALES I. . . . . . . BLACKMAN. . . . PORTER. . . . . CULYE(HINES). . . . . _. DAVISR (BURTON) . . • . . QUIGLEY: : . . . . . . . : RIMA. . EDWARDS. . . . . FRANKIEW CH) ROBERTS. . . . PATTER ON). . . GARTHE. . . . . . MC INNIS� . . . ROGERS. . . . . MATNEY�. . . . . . GREEN. . . . . . . REINHARDT) . . ROOT. . . . . . . BROWN). . . . . . . HYDE. . . . . . . . __ (WELSH) • • •• SALTARELLI . MARSHOTT. . . - HOLLINDEN) • . SCOTT. . . . . . FRANKIEWICH)- ROBERTS. . . . .. . .. . . . . SMITH . . . . . . Rr NHARDT ROOT. . . . . . . . DUTTON) . . . . . STEPHENSON . HLVLIN EN SCOTT. . . . . . . ROBERTS) . . . . STEVENS . . . . DUTTON • STEPHENSON MRNfl INNIS) . . . STORE. POBERTS). . . . STEVENS. . . . . . . . . . . VANDERWAAL. BYRNE). . . . . . . VANDERWAAL. (DUNN . . . . . . .WINN. . . . . . . DISTRICT 5 UCRKER OUL • • • . • • • MC INNIS. . . . .. . . . CASPERS. . . . . KYMLA. . . . . . . OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER ' PORTER. . . . . . SYLVESTER - LEWIS CASPERS). . : : : BATTIN• . ; . . . DUNN INNIS). STORE• . lc; CLARKE ✓ DISTRICT 7 TAYLOR BROWN PE�• • • • • SMITH • • CASPER )• • • • • CLARK• • • •••.. • NISSON GARTHE • • • • • • PATTERSON• • • _ BL.ISS PORTER. . . . . . _ BOETTNER BURTON)• • • • • • QUIGLEY• • • • . CARLSON MC IN� IS)• • • • ROGERS• • • • . • FINSTER WELSH I. . . . . . . SALTARELLI• • GALLOWAY DISTRICT 11 HOWARDR (MATNEY) • • - • • •DUKE• • • • • • • • HUNT kTNEY) KENNEYSPERS) • • • • •BAKER KEITH • • • • • •GIBBS . . . . . . • - --- LYNCH DISTRICT 8 MADDOX = MARTINSON • • • • • MITCHELL PIERSALL (CLARK). . . . . . . CASPERS. . • • • STEVENS (JOHNSON) . . . . . HOLM . . . . 1.0/10/73 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING October 17, 1973 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held October 10, 1973, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No . 2 of Orange County, California., met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the District offices . The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5: 30 p .m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present . DIRECTORS PRESENT: Robert Nevil (Chairman) , Dale Chaput, Ralph Clark, Norman Culver, Robert Finnell, Thomas Kowalski, John Garthe , Edward Just, Robert Root, Don Smith, and Mark Stephenson DIRECTORS ABSENT: Donald Winn STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J . Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, and William Clarke OTHERS PRESENT: Rex Hastings, Donald Martinson, and .Ralph Shook Discussion re proposed The General Manager reported joint water reclamation that the proposed joint Sanitation facility with Orange District - Orange County Water County -Water District District 10 MGD Water Reclamation and Demineralization Plant had been placed on the 1973-74 Clean Water Grant Project priority list through the efforts of. the Water District ' s staff. We have been directed by the State Board to submit a project report and environmental impact assessment on or before March 1 , 1974, to determine the feasibility of the project . Chairman Nevil and Director Smith have participated with our staff in discussions with representatives of the Water District concerning the cooperative project . The Water District has received a proposal from Clean Water Consultants (CWC) for preparation of the project report . The proposal was solicited from their firm because principals of CWC have considerable experience with a similar project in' the Lake Tahoe area. The report will examine costs and alternatives with emphasis on determining the feasibility of the project before the respective Districts must commit themselves . #2 10/17/73 Following a review of the proposed water reclamation facility and its relationship with the Sanitation District ' s joint works treatment operations , the Board entered into a lengthy discussion concerning the project . During the discussion a question was raised concerning the growth inducement potential of the facility and the relationship of the facility to the �- construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor. It was pointed out that the excess capacity included -in Reach 1 of the Santa An.- River Interceptor was provided for by the Board specifically for sale of additional capacity to upper basin entities outside of Orange County when needed. ' AuthorizinE Clean Water Moved, seconded and duly carried: Consultants to prepare Phase I of Project Report for That the proposal to Orange County Clean Water Grant Water District and County Project - 10 MGD Later Sanitation District No . 2 from Reclamation Plant_ Including Clean Water Consultants , dated Demineralization October 3, 1973, for preparation o_f Project Report for Fiscal Year 1973-74 Clean Water Grant Project - 10 MGD Water Reclamation Plant Including Demineralization, be received and filed; and that Clean Water Consultants be authorized to proceed with Phase I of their proposal to .define the project, the cost to be shared equally with the Orange County Water District , for an amount not to exceed $10,000 for District Vo. 2 ' s share : The Phase I Report will be considered by the District No. 2 Board at its November 14th meeting. Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly garried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 6 : 35 p .m. , October 17, 1973• Chairman of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California ATTEST.': , Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California -2-