The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-06-26COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen: June 20, 1974 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, ·2, ·3, ·s, ·5,··7 &·Il WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26; 1974; 7~30 ·p;M, 10844 ELLIS. AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournmer.t of the regular meeting held June 12, 1974, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:cf .MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ell i s Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETI NG Wednesday, June 26, 1974 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to the action taken by the Directors a t the regular meeting on June· 10th, the Boards have adjourned to the evening ·of June 26th for the purpose of considering the 1974-75 Districts' construction requirements and review .of the consulting design engineers' performances for the joint works ahd the individual Districts. The enclosed a g enda outlines the manner in which the information will .be presented. Essentially, the staff will review the adop ted master plans for construction , followed by a report on the progress to date, the work to b e accomplished during f is cal ye a r 1974-75, and the schedule for f uture construction to complete the facilities out- lined in the master plans. Attached is a brief description of the c ap ital imp rovement programs for the joint wo f ks (treatment plants ) and, included with the agenda material, i s a description o f the manne r in which the eng ineers have been eva lua ted, and a tabulation of the cons truction projects and the incidenta l eng ineering cost comparisons on r e cent contracts. Currently, the Districts employ the engineering firms l i sted below:. Treatment Plant Design District No. 1 District No. 2 District No. 3 District No. 5 District No. 6 District No. 7 District No. 11 John Carollo Engineers Boyle Engineering Corp . Lowry and Associates Boyle Eng ineering Corp . Shuirman-S impson Donald E. Stevens, Inc.· Boyle Eng ineering Corp . Keith and Associat es Also included with the a g enda material are cash flow p rojections for the next five y ears for the ind ividua l Dist rict s a s we ll as t he joint works improv ements. This meeting will p rovide an exc ellen t opportunity for Boa r d discussion conc e r n ing t he Dist r i cts' constru ction prog ram and the utiliz a tion of outside eng ine ering services. · Fred A. Harper General Manage r CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 1974-75 JOINT WORKS IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR ADDITIONS I~ REACTivATED CARBON TREATMENT/JPL PROCESS (CORF Budget -$3,500,000) In the 1974-75 Fiscal Year Grant Program, we have submitted a Step 1 Grant Application in the amount of $3,500,000 to design and construct a 1.0+ MGD facility to develop and refine design criteria and cost effect1veness of this process. The State and EPA have indicated that they will not fund any additional work on the pilot unit now in operation at Plant No. l. · It is the staffs' feeling that additional information must be obtained from the operation of this unit in order that the one MGD scale-up plant can be constructed. To fully develop the design criteria and cost effectiveness needed to assess this process, outside professional services will be required to augment the Resources Management evaluation team. Services will be required from· JPL and NASA personnel, John Carollo Engineers and perhaps expert(s) in pyrolysis processes. Depending upon the receipt of the grant approval, it is esti- mated that the design for the one MGD unit can be completed by January lst and construction commenced thereon. An amended report is scheduled to be submitted in March 1975 to the $275 million project report which the Environmental Protection Agency is now preparing an Environmental Impact Statement on. This amended report will allow evaluation of the JPL process along with the con- ventional processes which were included in the project report in order that concept approval can be given for the entire advanced treatment program as now required by the State and Federal require- ments. II. .. SOLIDS HANDLING (CORF Budget -$450, 000) A. Cooperative Sludge Study with County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles in a $2 million Step 1 Federal Grant Approximately two years ago, the three sewering agencies in Los Angeles· and Orange Counties were approached by the State Board and the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a sludge study for the ultimate disposal of the sewage solids in this area. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts will be the applicant and lead agency in this study with the other two agencies perfonning studies in their respective areas of expertise. It is contemplated that for the Orange County Sanitation Districts to complete the assigned tasks, outside professional services will be required. Eighty-seven and one half (87-1/2) percent of the $2 million program will be funded by State and Federal agencies. B. Improvements in Existing Solids Handling Program In order to meet the new requirements of the NPDES Pennit which became effective June 7th of this year, we will have to increase"-' our solids production which may necessitate changes in our operation with our present disposal contractor, Goldenwest Fertilizer. This may involve modifications to our existing centrifuge system at both Plants and provision for additional equipment to produce the more amenable sludge for truck transportation. In addition to the above, facilities are planned to facilitate digester cleaning operations. At the present time, we have 25 digesters which must be cleaned and emptied on approximately a 5-year frequency. It is necessary to improve our present method to minimize costs associated with this program and to abate any odor nuisance associated therewith. III. OUTFALL BOOSTER STATION IMPROVEMENTS A. Additional Pumping Capacity for Foster Booster Station At the July Board Meeting, plans and specifications will be presented to add two additional pumping units at the Foster Booster Station to provide increased pumping capability and reliability in this outfall pumping station. These units were included in the 1972-73 project report No. 2 submitted to the State and EPA for funding assistance, but have been placed in a lower priority and funding will not be made available to meet our needs. Estimated cost for this construction is $900,000. B. Evaluation of Rothrock Pumping Station This pumping station, which was constructed in 1959, is powered by four sludge gas driven engines. These engines and pumps are being required to pump against additional heads associated with the new outfall and are not a~ efficient to meet the increasing sewage flows. These units are in need of replacement or extensive remodeling and it is recommended that an evaluation study be made to set forth the alternates available for future budgetary considerations. Extensions of the outfall booster station are included in the $275 million project report previously mentioned. rv. ODOR CONTROL (CORF Budget -$200,000) A. Plant No. 1 To continue with our odor control program at the two Plants, it will be necessary to provide a method of treating the foul air at the metering and diversion structure (I-8-3) which should be completed by mid-September. Foul air must be collected from the seven incoming trunk sewers and treated. Included in this item are miscellaneous landscaping improve- ments to help in our overall program. ~ B. Plant No. 2 At present there are two main sources of odor at Plant No. 2 that remain to be corrected. One is the foul air from the incoming trunk sewers at the Plant headworks; and the other is the stack odors from the centrifuge building. The Districts should proceed with corrective measures to eliminate these odor sources by constructing facilities for foul air treatment. V. SITE IMPROVEMENTS (CORF Budget -$200,000) Site improvements are required at both Plants which include street improvements on Brook.hurst Street in front of Plant No. 2, widening of the entrance road inside Plant No. 2,and associated perimeter landscaping improvements at both Plants. . . MEMORANDUM · June 20, 1974 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8 I 2 7 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-241 I To: Fred A. Harper, General Manager From: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer Subject: Selection and Evaluation of Consulting Engineering Services In the selection of a professional consulting engineer to perform necessary engineering services for the Districts, there are certain criteria which must be evaluated in order to insure the selection of the best qualified firm or individual for a specific project. Some of the basic requirements which the Districts' staff has used to evaluate the qualifications of an engineering firm are as follow: 1. Firm must have a high ethical and professional standing and must have the expertise in the area for which the services are required. 2. The principal and other responsible members of the ·firm must be qualified and well-respected in the area of required expertise. 3. The engineering firm must be client oriented and not job oriented, that is to say the concerns must be with meeting the demands of the Districts and the requirements of the job. 4. The compensation requested by the consulting engineer must be reasonable for the services to be rendered within the scope of the project. In reference to the evaluation of the performance of a consulting engineering firm after the selection has been made, the Districts' staff pays close ·attention to the following: 1. The completeness of the plans and specifications and how well has the engineer addressed himself to the demands of the District and the scope of the project. 2. How successful is the engineer in soliciting competitive bidders and how does the low bid compare with the engineer's estimate for the project. 3. The ease of construction of the project with reference to the clarity of the plans and specifications. 4. The evaluation as to the completeness of the plans and specifications as reviewed ,by the contractor, subcontractors and Districts' inspection personnel. Fred A. Harper Page Two June 20, 1974 5. The extent of the change order requests which are a direct.result of discrepancies between the plans and specifications and the actual field conditions. 6. The assistance by the consulting engineer during the construction phase of the project. In evaluating a consulting engineering firm who has been associated with the District or Districts for several years, the staff attempts to make an unbiased evalu- ation, but it must be recognized that familiarity sometimes invites complacency by both the client and engineer. It is my opinion that in the development of any project for our Districts, there are several staff members involved, namely .from engineering, maintenance and operations, as well as inspection personnel during construction; therefore, there are sufficient checks throughout the process to avoid any tendency for complacency. The engineer's knowledge and accumulation of data by his association with the Districts is advantageous in a continuing construction.program which is consistent with the "pay as you go" policy developed by the Boards. I have summarized and attached hereto a table of the Districts and Plant contracts which·have been awarded within the last three years and have shown thereon a comparison of the final costs, percent of change orders above the initial bid, the engineering fee associated with the design of the project and the median compensation for basic design services as recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their Manual No. 45 which is the standard used in the professional engineering field. Also attached herewith is a summary of the Joint Works and District projects which are scheduled to commence "-"' design during this fiscal year. This table indicates the estimated construction cost and the engineering fee based upon the guidelines as set forth in the aforementioned American Society of Civil Engineers Manual. REL:hje ( SUMMARY OP DISTR! _ • CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ( 1971-74 CONTRACT BIDS PINAL CONST. PERCENTAGE DESIGN ASCE NO. DESCRIPTION ENG'R EST. LOW BID REC'D COST CHANGB ORDERS ENGR. FEE BASIC FEE D I S T R I C T N O. 1 1-12 Main-Dyer Interceptor, Reaches 25-28 $ 499,144 $ 472,146 13 $ 474,956 + 0.6 $ 23,100 $ 33,040 1-13 Warner Avenue Siphon on Greenville-Sullivan Tr. 23,775 24,028 3 24,028 0.0 2,350 2,500 D I STRICT N O. 2 2-14-1 Santa Ana River Interceptor, Reach 1 8,942,015 . 7,676,112 4 7,834,726 + 2.0 283,420 385,000 2-14-2 Santa Ana River Interceptor, Reach lA 4,895,000 3,545,635 9 Incomplete 107,920 214,000 2-18 Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1,404,188 1,472,160 8 Incomplete 68,665 81,200 D I S T R I C T N O. 3 3-16 Beach Boulevard Relief Trunk 517,990 453,122 14 468,894 + 3.0 27,500 35,000 3-17 Knott Interceptor, Reaches 1, 2 and 3 6,353,999 5,755,480 10 5,812,053 + 1.0 219,300 312,000 3-17-1 Bolsa Relief Trunk and Westminster Storm Drain 372,000 382,414 8 379,389 -1.0 20,240 27,740 3-18 Knott Interceptor, Reach ~ 3,795,13A 4,334,412 7 Incomplete 123,500 212,000 D I S T R I C T N O. 5 5-18 Upper Newport Bay Crossing -Trunk B 250,000 336,400 7 327,573 -3.0 9,000 22,800 5-19 Pacific Coast Highway Force Main 783,100 678,500 9 790,333 +14.0 42,000 56,2SO D I STRICT N O. 7 7-6-1 Sunflower Interceptor, Reach 1 3,112,000 ~.290,481 16 2,291,334 o.o 104,485 163,500 7-6-2 Sunflower Interceptor, Reach 2 1,424,843 1,278,238 9 1,287,269 + 1.0 65,315 70,200 7-6-3 Sunflower Interceptor, Rea cl\ 3 and Red Hill Interceptor, Reaches 4 and 5 996,301 1,060,42-? 13 1,062,044 o.o 48,731 62,000 7-6-4 Red Hill Interceptor, Reaches 6, 7 and 8, ·5s1,s4s 486,108 21 489,679 + 1.0 22,468 35,000. 7-5-IR West Relief Trunk, Reaches 19, 20 and 22 605,000 472,680 .. 18 456,661 -4.0 '31,640 36,000 D I 5 T R I C T N O. 1 1 ll-10-2R Slater Avenue Pump Station Wet Well 11, 145 14,856 1 Incomplete 2,999 3,000 11-12 Slater Avenue Trunk 476,815 419,000 17 Incomplete 9,700 31,950 SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 1971-74 CONTRACT BIDS PINAL CONST. PERCENTAGE DESIGN ASCE ~o. DESCRIPTION ENG'R EST. LOW BID REC'D COST CHANGE ORDERS ENGR. PEE BASIC FEE J-12 *Vehicle Maintenance Facilities $ 189,700 $ 239,900 11 $ 249,445 + 4.0 $ 18,708 $ 20,700 J-7-2 *Administration-Engineering Building Additions and Remodeling 278,250 237,600 11 249,434 + 5.0 27,437 24,080 J-4-1 & Increased Water Reuse Facilities Pl-9-1 Additional Secondary Treatment 1~250,000 1,397,300 7 1,453,623 + 3.0 83,454 92,400 J-13 * Shops and Warehouse Building 810,000 1,119,712 4 Incomplete 55,660 68,300 I-8 Interplant Influent Interceptor 7,505,499 6,387 ,511 7 6,469,092 + 1.0 201,845 332,800 I-8-3 Influent Metering and Diversion Structure 1,490,000 1,290,000 9 Incomplete 73,895 94,900 Pl-6-lA 12 KVA Extension and 1,000 KVA Transformer 65,000 61,472 1 61,472 o.o 3,503 7,800 Pl-6-1 Electrical Remodeling -Phase 2 130,000 155,320 2 163,298 + s.o 9,307 15,000 Pl-3-1 Odor Control and Improved Screenings 115,000 108,400 3 110, 105 + 2.0 6,275 10,000 P2-17 Sedimentation Basin K and Digester K 1,200,000 l,164,540 8 1,199,440 + 3.0 62,370 88,800 P2-18 Effluent Screening Facilities 70,000 69,299 7 69,299 o.o 3,950 7,700 P2-11-l Headworks C Expansion 1,200,000 1,228,000 s 1,277,256 + 4.0 72,803 80,400 P2-19 Sedimentation Basins L & M and Digesters L & M 1,700,000 1,383,000 10 1,455,644 + s.o 82,971 109,500 P2-20 Electrical Remodeling 350,000 158,294 8 Incomplete 9,022 32,200 P2-21 Digesters N & 0 1,200,000 1,068,413 4 Incomplete 60,899 75,000 * Facilities designed by William P. Ficker, Architects ( .( .( FISCAL YEAR 1974-75 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION J 0 I N T W 0 R K S Pl-16 -SO MGD Activated Sludge Additions SERVICES REQUIRED TYPE OF SERVICE I M P R 0 V E M E N T S A N D/O R A D D I T I 0 N S Soils testing, materials testing, in-plant pipe inspection Outside Testing Labs Jet Propulsion Laboratory -Reactivated Carbon Process Consultation in pyroly- sis, fluid hydraulics and materials balance, equipment evaluation JPL/NASA Personnel Plant Design Consul- Cooperative Sludge Study Improvements to Existing Solids Handling Program Evaluation of Rothrock Pump Station Odor Control at Plant No. 1 Odor Control at Plant No. 2 Site Improvements at Plant Nos. 1 and 2 Raitt Street Trunk and Raitt Trunk Consultants & expertise in solids handling, soil amendments, affects on vegetation, virus growth, etc. Design, preparation of plans and specifications Feasibility study Preparation of plans and specifications tants and staff · personnel Outside consultants along with staff Outside consultant Outside consultant By staff Preparation of plans and By staff specifications Preparation of plans and By staff specifications D I S T R I C T N O. 1 Preparation of plans and Outside consultant specifications D I S T R I C T N O. 2 ESTIMATED FEE $ 65,000 Dependent upon grant application approval Dependent upon grant applicatiori approval $ 25,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 7,500 25,000 $ 60,000 Design contracts have been awarded for the preparation of the plans and specifications on the Santa Ana River Interceptor Contract No. 2-14-2 (under construction), the Yorba Linda Pump Station, the Palm Drive Interceptor, the Carbon Canyon Interceptor and the Kraemer Interceptor Santa Ana River Interceptor (La Palma Avenue to the County line) Design, preparation of Outside consultant plans and specifications D I S T R I C T N 0. 3 $340,000 Design contracts have been awarded for the preparation of the plans and specifications on the Imperial Reli~f Interceptor and all reaches of the Knott Interceptor West Relief Interceptor, Reaches 27, 28 & 29 Miscellaneous pumps and switchgear at various pumping stations, manhole repairs, wet well repairs, replacement of portion of Bayside Drive Sewer ~ Magnetic flow meters, realignment of Lower Dover Trunk Preparation of plans and Outside consultant specifications D I S T R I C T N O. 5 Preparation of plans and By staff specifications D I S T R I C T N O. 6 Preparation of plans and By staff specifications $ 75,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,000 FISCAL YEAR 1974-75 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tustin-Orange Trunk, Red Hill and Mitchell to Irvine and Newport Tustin-Orange Trunk, Irvine and Newport to Fairhaven and Esplanade Miscellaneous trunk repairs, new meters and pumps at various pumping stations Remodel Newland Pump Station Coast Highway Realignment Completion of Master Plan Report Manhole repair at various locations SERVICES REQUIRED D I S T R I C T N 0. 7 Preparation of plans and specifications Preparation of plans and specifications Preparation of plans and specifications D I S T R I C T N O. 1 1 Preparation of plans and specifications Preparation of plans and specifications Preparation of plans and specifications TYPE OF SERVICE Outside consultant Outside consultant By staff By staff By staff Outside consultant By staff ESTIMATED FEE ~ $ 50,000 $ 33,000 $ 7,500 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 •· II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (1) [/ ~2) JOINT BOARDS ADJOURNED REGULAR ··MEETlNG JUNE 26, 1974 -7:30 P.M. * * * * * *· * * Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Roll Call Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary c:?' 'V l<<Q (JJj \, L o'' (4) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman JS) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the ·General Manager (6)/ALL DISTRICTS )/ Report of the General Counsel )) l 'V (7) ALL DISTRICTS / Joint Works Improvements and Additions to meet new F ede ral and State regulations A. Review of Project Report for Improved Treatment. See page "A" 1. Reclamation Plant No. 1, 46 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities 2. Treatment Plant No. 2 Advanced Treatment B. Reactivated carbon treatment process (JPL) C. So lids treatme nt handling and disposal 1. Cooperative sludge study with County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles 2. Improvements in existing solids handli ng program 3. Cooperative alternate fuel source study with County of Orange _ D. Outfall Booster Station improveme nts 1. Additional pumping capacity for Foster Booster Station 2. Evaluation of Rothrock Pumping Station E. Odor control 1. Reclamation Plant No. 1 -Fo untain Valley 2. Treatment Plant No. 2 -Huntington Beach F. Site i mprovements 1. Reclamation Plant No. 1 -Fountain Valley 2. T reatment Plant No . 2 -Huntington Beach G. Discussion ~ (8) ALL DISTRICTS Review of consulting d es ign engineer's services (9) ALL DISTRICTS Other contractual outside services (pipe, soils, and mat erials testing ) A. Joint Wo r ks Construction B. Districts' construction (10) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental a genda items, if any (10) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order contract to Richard Cramer, Inc. for recoating and painting, in connection with Repair of Two Gas Spheres at Plants Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. PW-036, in the amount of $4,647.00 (Force account project previously approved by Resolution No. 74-36) -2 - ( 11) DISTRICT 5 (12) (13) (14) (15) Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction program. See page "B" 2. Current status and 1974-7~~construction program 3. Scheduling of upcoming projects 4. Discussion DISTRICT 5 Review of consulting design engineer's services DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda i terns, if any DISTRICT 5 ~ Adjournment ~ > DISTRICT 6 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction-program. See page "C" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3. Scheduling of upcoming projects 4. Discussion (16) DISTRICT 6 ( 17) ~ ( 18) ( 19) Review of consulting design engineer's services DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any DISTRICT 6 Adjournment ~ ',>7 DISTRICT 11 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction program. See page "D" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3. Scheduling of upcoming projects 4. Discussion (20) DISTRICT 11 Review of consulting design engineer's services (21) DISTRICT 11 ( 22) Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any DISTRICT 11 ~ ·,o i,.... Adjournment -, -3- (23) DISTRICT 1 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction program. See page "E" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3. Scheduling of upcoming projects 4. Discussion (24) DISTRICT 1 Review of consulting design engineer's services (25) DISTRICT 1 (26) ( 27) Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any DISTRICT 1 l r;. ',o Adjournment -1 DISTRICT 7 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers . 1. Long-range construction· program. See page "F" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3. Scheduli n g of upcoming projects 4. Discussion (28) DISTRICT 7 Review of consulting design engineer's services (29) DISTRICT 7 ( 30) (31) Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (29 ) Conside r at i o n o f mo tion appr ovi n g foll ow ing warra n t: DI S TRI CT NO . 7 F ACIL ITI ES RE VOLVING F UND No . Payee Am o un t 232 5 5 Halo poff & Sons, In c ., Release $2 a:z3 . 22 of Retained P e rcentage , 7 -3A -l DISTRICT 7 / Adjournment q',I\ DISTRICT 3 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction pro g ram. See page "G" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3 . Scheduling of upcoming project s 4. Discussion (32) DISTRICT 3 Review of consulting d esign engi n eer 's se rvice s ( 33) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (34) DISTRICT 3 Adjournment q ·, -Y0 -4- . ' (35) DISTRICT 2 Overview of Master Plan of trunk sewers 1. Long-range construction program. See page "H" 2. Current status and 1974-75 construction program 3. Scheduling of upcoming projects 4. Discussion ( 36) DISTRICT 2 Review of consulting design engineer's services (37) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (38) DISTRICT 2 q·,')~ Adjournment -5- II ·BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Senitati.on Districts Pos t Office Box B 127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Ave n ue Fountain Valley, Cal if ., 9 2708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS · Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS JUNE 26, 1974 -7:30 P.M. AL L DI STRI CTS . (1 0 ) Conside r ation of motion authorizing .the General Manager to issue a purchase order contract to Ri chard Crruner, Inc . for r ecoating and painting , i n connection with Repair of Two Gas Spheres at Plants Nos . 1 and 2, Job No . PW-036 , in the amount of $4 ,647 .00 (Force acco u nt project previously approved by Resolution No. 74 -36) DI STRICT 7 (29) Considerat i on of motion approvin g fo l lowing warrant : No . 23255 DI STRICT NO . 7 FACIL I TI ES REVOLVING FUND Payee Halopoff & Sons , Inc ., Release of Retained Percentage , 7 -3A -l Amount $2 ,773 .29 MEETING DATE June 26, 1974 JISTRICT 1 t' tr~:·' TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 (GARTH[:) ••••• .&QTTE!R!JOM. • ••• -~ ---- (CLARK) •••••• BATTIN •••••••• ~ ---- RI MA ••••••••• ·+ __ (LANGLEY) •••• SALTARELLI. •• ·--___ _ DISTRICT 2'1. ,, .. ,i''u ( !D' ·~E~ • • • • ~llW--· • • .J.~. · ._L_ -------/ En-rNG ······CHAPUT········------ BAKER • • • • • • 6b:sA:RI<• • • • • • • • ._.,._ ----PATTE~SON) • • GARTHE ···If····~ ----NEVI~)· • • • • ·GRAHAM· • /~. • ·------~THOM)· • • • • • ·KAYWOOD· • • • • • -~ ---- L YOt-JS) ···CALLAHAN • • • • • j ---- FOX)········ MAC KAIN······------ PERRY····· • • • .__±__ ---- (STANTON)···· SCOTT·········~ ---- (PEREl) ······TEMPLE········------ (ROOT) • • • • • • ·WOOD· • • • • • • • • ._____::{__ ---- DISTRICT 36'1.: /+ 1 ! MAC KAIN) ••• FOX ••••••••••• -../-. ---- NUI JENS). ••• ARBI SO ••••••• ·-./----- CLARK) •••••• BATTIN. • • • • • • ,/ ---- SALES) •••••• BLACKMAN..... ()., ---- COLLI NS) •••• BYRNE........ ../ ---- CULVER... • • • • ./ --__ (MEYER) •••••• DAVIS ••••••••• _./_ ---- EDWARDS •••••• ·+ ___ _ PATTERSON) •• GARTHE ••••••• ·----__ THOMJ. •••••• KAYWOOD. • • • • • ./ ___ _ COX) •••••••• LONG •••••••••• ~ --__ Y NG) •••••• NEVIL. •••••••• _v ____ _ wmlD) ••••••• ROOT ••••••••• --~----- LACAYO) ••••• SONJU ••••••••• ~ ___ _ (SCOTT)) •••••• SVALSTAD ••••• ·+ ___ _ (COEN ••••••• WI EDER· .~.Q ..... _____ _ DISTRICT 5 (RYCKOfF) •••• MC INNIS ••••• ( B AKE R ) • • • • • • € LA R K. • • • • • • • ROGERS ••••••• DISTRICT 6 y PORTER ••••••• ------ (CLARK) •••••• BATTIN.······ 5 ---- (MC INNIS) ••• Si8RE........ ---- DISTRICT t.,) \' IDJ t.f~ ~ (LANGL~Y)· ···SALTARELLI··· ./ ---- (PRYOR •••••• BURTON.... • • • ~ ---- (BAKER •• ) ••• Cl::ARK... • • • • • ~ ---- (MC INNIS ···DOSTAL·······,_.,_ ---- (PEREZ) •••••• JACKMAN...... w --__ (GARTHE) ••••• PATTERSON.... v --__ PORTER. • • • • • • v' ---- DI~RICT 11 ~COEN) •• • • • •• DUKE ••••••••• CLAR t<) •••••• BAK ER •••••••• COEN) ••••••• GIBBS •••••••• DISTRICT 8 ./ ./ ./ MITCHELL..... ---- (BAKER).····· CLARK· ••••• • • .___ ___ _ (JOHNSON) •• • • HOLM • • • • • • • • ---- 6/26/74 JOINT BOARDS PORTER •••••• NUIJE!S) ••••• ARBISO •••••• :=== ==== CLARK ••••••• BAKER ••••••• ___ _ CLARK ••••••• BATTIN •••••• ___ _ SALES ••••••• BLACKMAN •••• ___ _ PRYOR ••••••• BURTON •••••• COLLI~S. ) ••••• BYRNE ••••••• :======= EWING ••••••• CHAPUT •••••• ___ _ 1 _1.LA..I~--• • ••••• ,c; LARI( • • • • • • • CULVER •••••• ---- (MEYER) ••••••• DAVIS ••••••• ---- (MC I NNI s) •••• DOSTAL •••••• -----.-- (cOEN) •••••••• DUKE •••••••• ---- EDWARDS ••••• ---- MAC KAIN) •••• FOX ••••••••• ---- PATTE~SON) ••• GARTHE • • • • • • ==== === NEVI~) ••••••• GRAHAM······ COEN) •••••••• GI BBS ••••••• ---- PEREi) ••••••• JACKMAN·····======= TH0('-1) •••••••• KAYWOOD ••••• COX) ••••••••• LONG •••••••• ---- L VONS) • • • ·CALLAHAN· • ." • ---- FOX) • • • • • • • • ·MAC KAIN·· • • ---- RYCKOfF) ••••• MC INNIS •••• ---- YOUNG) ••••••• NEVIL ••••••• ---- GARTHE) •••••• PATTERSON ••• ---- PERRY ••••••• ---- RIMA •••••••• ---- (WOOD) •••••••• ROOT •••••••• ---- ROGERS •••••• ---- (LANGLEY)···· ·SALTARELLI •• ---- (STANTON)···· ·SCOTT ••••••• ---- (LACAYO) •••••• soNJU ••••••• ---- ! MC IN~IS) •••• STORE ••••••• ---- SCOTT ••••••• SVALSTAD •••• ---- PEREi ••••••• TEMPLE •••••• ---- COEN) •••••••• WI EDER •••••• ---- DUNNE) ••••••• WINN •••••••• ---- (ROOT)········ WOOD·······-===-=== * * * * * * * OTHERS ~-r HARPER v --SYLVESTER v . 6 LEWIS _..x:.__ DUNN CLARKE TAYLOR BROWN NISSON v EWING HOH EN ER _L_ HOWARD HUNT v KEITH ---r KENNEY -V"'- LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON ~ PIERSALL STEr:NS ~ ~1l v' 1 c ' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1 2 2 2 3 2 5 2 6, 7 2 AND 11 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING June 26 1 1974 -7~30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held June 12, 1974, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the Dlstricts' offices. · The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each District's Board. DISTRICT NO. 1 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 2: Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 3 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 5 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 6 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 7 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 11 Directors present: Directors absent: ROLL CALL John Garthe, Robert Battin, Kerm Rima, and Donald Saltarelli None Donald Winn, Dale Chaput, David Baker, John Garthe, Beth Graham, Miriam Kaywood, Michael Callahan, Leonard MacKain, George Scott, Joe Temple, and Francis Wood Bob Perry Donald Fox, Gilbert Arbiso, Jr., Robert Battin, Edward Byrne, Norman Culver, Jesse Davis, Roland Edwards, John Garthe, Miriam Kaywood, Robert Nevil, Robert Root, Bernie Svalstad, and Harriett Wieder Thomas Blackman, Charles Long, and Sonia Sonju Don Mcinnis and David Baker Howard Rogers Ellis Porter, Robert Battin, and Don Mcinnis None Donald Saltarelli, John Burton, David Baker, Milan Dostal, John Garthe, and Ellis Porter James Jackman Henry Duke, David Baker, ·and Norma Gibbs None ALL DISTRICTS 6/26/74 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, and Ray Lewis Director Carolyn Ewing, C. Arthur Nissan, General Counsel, Harvey Hunt, Milo Keith, Jack Kenney, Donald Martinson, Donald Stevens, and Conrad Hohener ....,,,,, An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California, was held at 7:30 p.m. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation, the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each District's Board. * * * * * * * * * ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Manager The General Manager reported on his attendance at a meeting of the Special .EPA Task Force on Ocean Dischargers/ Secondary Treatment in Portland, Oregon, on June 24th and 25th. Our Districts were invited by EPA to submit supporting technical information concerning suggested alternatives to the secondary treatment definition. The task force is studying the feasibility of legislation to allow the Administrator of EPA flexibility in determining secondary treatment requirements for deep water ocean dischargers. ALL DISTRICTS The General Counsel reported the Report of the State Supreme Court had recently held . . General Counsel that the Governmental Conflicts of on Conflicts of Interest Act is constitutional. The ~ Interest Legislation Directors in April had stayed the effective dates of the respective Districts' Guidelines for Implementation of the Act pending a ruling by the State Supreme Court. Mr. Nissan described the alternatives available to the Boards under the provisions of the Act and also reviewed the recently adopted Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9), which repeals and supercedes the Governmental Conflicts of Interest Act effective January 7, 1974. Following a general discussion, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors readopt the Guidelines for Implementation of the Governmental Conflicts of Interest Act omitting, however, the disclosure provision, as recommended by the General Counsel. ALL DISTRICTS Directing item re Conflicts of Interest Guidelines be placed on July 10, 1974, agenda and rescinding previous action Following further discussion regarding conflicts of interest legislation, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Secretary be directed to place on the agenda for the regular Board '-' meeting on July 10, 1974, an item for consideration of guidelines implementing the Governmental Conflicts of Interest Act; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the previously adopted motion, ".That the Boards of Directors readopt the Guidelines for Implementation of the Governmental Conflicts of Interest Act omitting, however, the disclosure provision, as recommended by the General Counsel", be rescinded. -2- ALL DISTRICTS Review of Joint Works Improvements and Additions to meet new Federal and State regulations ALL DISTRICTS 6/26/74 The staff briefly reviewed the Project Report for Improved Treatment recently submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The plan to meet federal secondary treatment regulations, as presently defined, project a capital expenditure of $275 million during the next ten years. The Boards recently let a $32 million contract for construction of the first phase of the program, a 46 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facility at Reclamation No. 1. Considerable interest has been expressed by state and federal regulatory agencies in the reactivated carbon treatment process being developed in cooperation with the Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Discussions are presently being held with SWRCB and EPA for a $3.5 million Step 1 grant to scale-up the existing pilot plant in order that full-scale design criteria and cost effectiveness may be determined. The process appears to offer a technological breakthrough in wastewater treatment and, if successful, would reduce the Districts' capital costs to meet current federal discharge requirements. The General Manager also reviewed efforts regarding solids treatment, handling, and disposal. Presently the Districts are engaged in a cooperative sludge study with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles, 87 1/2% which will be funded by ~ $2 million Step 1 federal grant. The Districts are also cooperating with the County of Orange in an alternate fuel source study. Presently, our sludge solids are disposed of through a contractual arrangement with Golden West Fertilizer at a nominal annual revenue to the Districts. The contractor is presently paid by other agencies in the County to dispose of their solid wastes. Golden West Fertilizer is preparing a proposal to the Districts to temporarily set aside the contractual provisio~ to enabie development of a drying process requiring the installation of equipment which will enable preparation of the material at the Districts' site for immediate marketing. The staff will report further to the Boards on this matter at the next regular meeting. The staff also briefly reviewed the following joint works projects: Additional Pumping Capacity for Foster Booster Station Evaluation of Rothrock Pumping Station Odor Control at Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 Plant Site Improvements ALL DISTRICTS Revie\v of consultj.ng and outside services The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of John Carollo Engineers, Districts' consulting design engineers, for treatment plant construction, and also reviewed other contractual outside services for joint works and individual District construction projects such as pipe testing, soil evaluation, and materials testing. -3- ALL DISTRI C'rS 6/26/74 ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing the General Manager to issue purchase order c or1t rue t to ru ch.:irJ Cramer, Inc. re Job No. PW-036 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the General Manager be authorized to issue a purchase order contract to Richard Cramer, Inc. for recoating and painting, in connection with Repair of Two Gas Spheres at Plants Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. PW-036, in the amount of $4,647.00. '-"' DISTRICT 5 Review of Master Plan of trunk sewers construction for the DISTRICT 5 Review of consulting engineer's services DISTRICT 6 Review of Master Plan of trunk sewers construction for the DISTRICT 6 Review of consulting engineer's services DISTRICT 5 Ad.i ournment The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Shuirman-Simpson, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer construction. The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Donald E. Stevens, Inc., District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer construction. Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:59 p.m., June 26, 197 ll. DISTRICT 6 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:59 p.m., June 26, 1974. DISTRICT 11 Review of Master Plan of trunk sewers construction for the DISTRICT 11 Review of consulting engineer's services DISTRICT 11 Adjournment The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Keith & Associates, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer construction. Mo~ed, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:02 p.m., June 26, 1974. -4- DISTRICT 1 Review of Master Plan of trunk sewers construction for the DISTRICT 1 Review of consulting engineer's services construction. DISTRICT 1 Adjournr.ient ALL DISTRICTS 6/26/74 The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m., June 26, 1974. DISTRICT 7 Review of Master Plan of trunk sewers construction for the DISTRICT 7 Review of consulting engineer's services construction. DISTRICT 7 Approval of warrant The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the District's Facilities Revolving Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman, and that the County Audit.or be authorized and directed to pay $2,773.29, in accordance with the warrapt listed below: No. Payee Amount 23255 Halopoff & Sons, Inc., Release of Retained Percentage, 7-3A-l $2,773.29 DISTRICT 7 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:17 p.m., June 26, 1974. DISTRICT 3 Review of Master Plan of trunk sei·ters construction for the DISTRICT 3 Review of consultiJ.l_g engineer's services construction. The District's Chief Engineer reviewed the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. Th~ Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer -5- ALL DISTRICTS 6/26/74 DISTRICT 3 .l\djournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of ~aunty Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:20 p.m., June 26, 197lL DISTRICT 2 Review of Master Plan of trunlc sewers construction for the DISTRICT 2 Review of consulting engineer's services DISTRICT 2 Adjournment The District's Chief Engineer revieweu-_., the District's long-range construction program, the current status of the Master Plan work and the proposed 1974-75 fiscal year. The Chief Engineer reviewed the services of Lowry & Associates, District's consulting design engineer, for trunk sewer construction. Moved, seconded, and duly carried: 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 9:28 p.m., June 26, 1974. ;::,ecreta~y, B9ard of Directors of ~o~nty/,Sani(pt'tion Districts Nos. 1, , 3, ~, 6, 7, and. 11 . -6-