HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-11 �C[1770N
� `�� TELEPHONES:
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o� �/' AREA CODE 7,4
540-2910OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1
C
P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92709
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
September 5, 1974
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS , 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11
Gentlemen:
The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos . 1, 2, 3, 51 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County,
California, will be held:
Iftr
WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 11, 1974
AT 7: 30 P.M.
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Secretary
Tentative adjournments prior to next regular meeting:
Executive Committee - Date to be determined
District No. 2 - September 18, 1974, at 6: 00 or 7: 30 p .m.
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
Post Office Box 8127
County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
JOINT BOARDS 96z 2411
Regular Meeting
September 11, 197 - 7 : 30 p.m.
The following is a brief explanation of the more important,
non-routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which
are not otherwise self-explanatory. Warrant lists are not attached
to the agenda since they are made up immediately preceding the meeting,
but will appear in the supplemental agenda available at the meeting.
There was no meeting of the Executive Committee during the month of
August .
Districts Nos . 2 and 6
Nos . 4 and 5 - Election of Chairmen.
Chairman Winn has advised that because of his election to the
office of Joint Chairman, he is vacating the chairmanship of District
No . 2 . Chairman Porter has submitted his resignation to the Costa
Mesa Sanitary District, and lie will no longer be serving on the
Sanitation District Boards . Therefore, it will be necessary for each
of these Boards to elect a Chairman.
Joint Boards
No. 11 - Consent Calendar .
The following items fall into this category in accordance with
the definition established by the Boards :
No. 11-a - Attendance at Concurrent Meetings of the Water
Pollution Control Federation WPCF and Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies AMSA in Denver.
It is recommended that the General Manager be authorized to
send up to four staff members to the concurrent meetings of these
two organizations which represent all aspects of waste treatment and
water pollution control expertise in this country and several foreign
countries . Attendance at the scheduled AMSA meetings has been pre-
viously authorized for Wayne Sylvester in his capacity as a member
of two committees : Uniform Accounting (WPCF) and User Charges (AMSA)
(two days) and the General Manager as a national Director and Secretary-
Treasurer of AMSA. If the requested authorization is approved, we will
send our Chief of the Industrial and Permit Division to participate in
the industrial waste forum and research sessions (two days ) , and one
Department Head (two days) . There will not be an annual joint meeting .
of these two organizations in the western U.S . again until 1976 . Our
agency has been active in both organizations; their conferences and
the manufacturer' s displays and exhibits have proved to be extremely
valuable to the Districts .
Nos . 11-b and 11-c - Close Out of Job No. I-4R, Replacement
of Interplant Gas Transmission Line .
�.r
The two agenda items appearing on the consent calendar make
a final adjustment of the original estimated engineer ' s quantities
based on the unit prices bid and accepts the job as complete, and
approves a Final Closeout Agreement .
No . 11-d - Award of Equipment for Replacement of Grit Augers
at Plant No . 1.
Bids for a public works contract for the replacement of grit
augers at Plant No . 1 were received on June 4th. Only one bid was
received ( $41,300) and the bidder made substantial exceptions to
the specifications . It was estimated that this work could be per-
formed utilizing District forces for $30, 000. The Boards rejected
the bid and directed that the Districts ' forces proceed. The action
appearing on the agenda awards an equipment purchase contract (the
bid opening will take place Tuesday, September loth with possible
award on Wednesday) .
District No . 2
No. 11-g - Grant of Easement for Yorba Linda Pump Station,
Contract No . 2-15 .
The resolution appearing in the agenda approves an agreement
with the State of California, Department of General Services, for
a pump station site on the California State University, Fullerton,
campus at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Associated
Road. In consideration for the granting of this easement , the Dis-
trict agrees to provide site development and landscape amenities as
delineated in the previously-approved construction plans and speci-
fications .
No. 11-h - Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract No . 2-14-2 -
Right of Way Through Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company Property.
The District engineering staff has conducted extensive negotia-
tions with representatives of the irrigation company for permanent
right of way and temporary construction easements for the construction
of a portion of Contract No . 2-14-2 . The negotiations have not been
completed but the District ' s contractor has progressed to the point
where he entered the property on September 3rd . To avoid delaying
the contractor and claims for shut-down time costs, the District ' s
engineering department issued the enclosed letter confirming that
the District would pay $1, 000 for the temporary right of the Dis-
trict ' s contractor to enter, plus $100 per day for occupancy in
excess of 60 days . In addition, the letter details several conditions
relative to the acquisition of a permanent easement for the pipeline .
This matter was discussed with our General Counsel and he concurs in
the action of the engineering staff. It is recommended that the action
appearing on the agenda be approved, ratifying the conditions set fort
in the staff letter to the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company dated
August' 30, 1974 .
-2-
No. 11-i - Change Order No . 2 to Contract No . 2-14-2 .
This change order grants a 31-day time extension to the Kasler
Corporation and L. H. Woods & Sons, Inc . , for the Santa Ana River
Interceptor from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue because of the
recent strike of the laborers and carpenters .
No. ll-j - Annexation No . 7 to the District .
Pursuant to action taken by the District Board on June 13,
1973, the Local Agency Formation Commission has authorized the
annexation of 8 . 8 acres located in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and
Santiago Boulevard, a portion of Tract No . 7455 and Tract no . 6937,
in the City of Orange . The annexation fees have been paid by the pro-
ponent and Resolution No . 74-116-2 will finalize the annexation pro-
ceedings .
District No . 3
No . 11-1 - Change Orders to Contract No . 3-18 - Knott Inter-
ceptor, Reach 4 .
The staff is recommending approval of the three change orders
appearing in the supporting agenda material . Change Order No . 4 is
the allowance of a change in construction methods at no cost to the
District . Change Order No . 5 is a time extension .of 31 days because
of the Southern California laborers and carpenters strikes . Change
Order No . 6 provides for payment of $7,928 . 77 plus a time extension
in the amount of 15 days for extra work required of the contractor
which was not included in the plans and specifications . It is recom-
mended that the change orders be approved . The contractor had sub-
mitted an extra work list exceeding $60, 000 . However, only those
items appearing on the change orders are recommended by the staff
for approval at this time .
No . 11-m - Claim for Damages to Westminster Memorial Park.
We have received a claim for damages as a result of the acti-
vities of the contractor on Contract No . 3-18 (Knott Interceptor,
Reach 4 ) . It is the General Counsel ' s recommendation that the claim
be received, ordered filed, denied, and referred to the District ' s
liability insurance carrier and the construction contractor .
No . 11-n - Claim of S & S Construction Company re : Contract
No . 3-17 .
This .claim is in regard to the contractor 's activities on
Contract No. 3-17 (Knott Interceptor, a portion of aeach 1 and
Reaches 2 and 3 ) in the vicinity of Bolsa Avenue and Newland Street .
It is the General Counsel ' s recommendation that the claim be received,
ordered filed, denied., and referred to the District ' s liability in-
surance carrier and construction contractor.
-3-
No . 11-o - Summons and Complaint for Property Damage from the
General Telephone Company, Contract No . 3-17 .
Two court cases have been filed by the General Telephone Company
against the District claiming $6, 635 .74 property damage to their faci-
lities as a result of the construction of. Contract No . 3-17 , Knott
Interceptor Sewer. The action appearing on the agenda refers the
matter to the District ' s General Counsel and liability insurance
carrier for appropriate action.
No . 11-p - Summons and Complaint for Damages from John Inks,
et al, Contract No . 3-17-1.
A court case has been filed by John Inks for damages against
the State of California, et al, claiming $3, 000, 000 as a result of
the construction of Contract No. 3-17-1, Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer
(Reach 10) and Bolsa Avenue Storm Drain. The action appearing on the
agenda refers the matter to the District ' s General Counsel and. lia-
bility insurance carrier for appropriate action.
Districts Nos . 5 and 6
No. 11-r, 11-s & 11-t - Award of Contract and Establishing a
Suspense Fund .
This relates to award of a contract for the repair of 23 of
the Districts ' jointly-owned manholes . Consent Item No . t estab-
lishes !a Suspense Fund for the progress payments on Contract No.
5-14R. The distribution of the costs will be 75% payable by Dis-
trict No. 5 and 25% payable by District No . 6 .
District No. 11
No. 11-u —Request for Annexation.
We have received a request from the Standard Oil Company for
annexation of 44 . 19 acres of property located in the vicinity of
Ellis Avenue extended westerly of Edwards Street, which is currently
outside the District . It is recommended that the request be received,
ordered filed, and referred to the staff for a recommendation at the
October Board meeting.
Joint Boards
No . 13 - Report of. the Special Committee on- Electronic Data
Processing Implementation.
The special committee met on September 4th with the Districts '
consultants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, concerning proposals
for computer services . The special committee will report fully to the
Boards on this matter at the meeting.
-4-
No . 14 - Further Consideration of Acquisition of Two Parcels
of Property Immediately Adjacent to Treatment Plant No . 2 .
On August 21, the General Counsel ' s summary of the appraisals
of three parcels was mailed to the active Directors . The staff has
prepared a memorandum report relative to the needs of the Districts
concerning these properties . It is recommended that the Covington
Brothers parcel of 7 . 168 acres northerly of Plant No . 2 be acquired
while the northernmost parcel of . 523 acres (Ayers) be deleted from
further consideration by the Districts . The Ayres property is not
required either for the construction of treatment facilities or as
a buffer . With regard to the three-acre parcel, this property has
been included in the Districts ' Project Report as a property to be
acquired in the ultimate development of the Districts ' facilities at
Plant No . 2 .
The consideration of acquisition of this property at this time
is prompted by the property owner ' s request for a change of zoning
to the City of Huntington Beach for M-1 zoning to improve it with
the construction of industrial buildings . A site development plan
has been prepared and presented to the City of Huntington Beach Plan-
ning Department . The Districts ' engineering staff believes that this
property will eventually be needed for construction of sludge handling
facilities . However, at this time , we do not have a precise plan.
Acquisition of the property at this time would bring all_ of the pro-
perty on the east side of Brookhurst adjacent to the treatment facili-
ties under the control of the Districts . At the August Board meeting,
several Directors expressed concern as to the appraiser ' s opinion of
fair market value . We have invited Mr . Everett Schmid, real estate
appraiser, to discuss his appraisal with the Directors next Wednesday
night .
No . 15 - Resolution Urging Amendment to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act .
The Subcommittee on Investigations and Review, House of Repre-
sentatives, is considering the effectiveness of Public Law 92-500
which is the 1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act . The
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) , at their annual
workshop in August, unanimously went on record in support of amending
the Federal Act regarding the use of ad valorem taxes for the opera-
tion and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities . The Districts '
Boards have previously supported this position and - it is recommended
that the resolution appearing in the agenda be adopted expressing our
concern that the elimination of ad valorem taxes as a source of revenue
would drastically restrict the financial operations of our agency .
No . 16 - Resolution Amending Conditions of Employment .
Pursuant to the recently-enacted amendments to the Federal
Labor Act, it is necessary that we re-define overtime as those hours
..r exceeding 40 hours of work in a work week.
-5-
No. 17 - Approving Participation in a Joint Basinwide Waste
Water Solids Management Program Study with the City of Los Angeles
and the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
As previously reported, in recent years there has been con-
siderable discussion regarding the ultimate disposal of waste water
solids originating in the Southern California coastal area. Several
years ago, the Boards of Directors of our Sanitation Districts
authorized participation in a joint application for a federal re-
search grant to study this problem. However, the grant never came
to fruition. After extensive discussions with Federal and State
authorities , the State Water Resources Control Board, in May, 1974,
initiated a Step 1 construction grant for a basinwide waste water
solids management program study to be conducted jointly by the County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County, County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles . The objective
of the study is to consider all potentially favorable alternate
solutions to the long-term disposal of waste water solids originating
in Los Angeles and Orange counties .
The study will be directed by a policy board composed . of the
top level administrators (managers ) of the involved agencies, the
Executive Officer of the State Water Resources Control Board, and
the Regional Director of. Air and Water Programs for. the Environmental
Protection Agency. In order to carry out routine administrative
functions and to comply with legal aspects of receiving a State and
Federal Step 1 grant, it has been mutually agreed that the Sanita-
tion Districts of Los Angeles County will be designated the lead
agency under the terms of the operating agencies ' agreement . The
lead agency will provide the administrative functions required by
the policy board and the project manager . The project manager will
have the over-all responsibility for the conduct of the study and
preparation of the final project report and will be directly respon-
sible to the policy board . A technical review committee, which is
made up of representatives of each of the entities involved, will
provide technical assistance , advice , and recommendations to the
manager as required. Serving in an advisory capacity will be numerous
private and governmental groups, such as State agencies for Health,
Solid Waste Management, Water Control, Air Quality, and groups like
SLAG, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, and others . The study,
which primarily will be financed by state and federal funding, is
anticipated. to cost $2 million, and requires at least three years to
complete .
The three operating agencies have been requested by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control
Board to enter into an agreement to signify their willingness to .
participate in the study by providing jointly 121-,% of the required
funding of the $2 million project, as well as establish the terms
and conditions for administration of the Step 1 grant .
Our Districts ' out-of-pocket total costs will not exceed
$1003000 . However, as a means to provide a revolving fund the
agreement provides that each agency will contribute up to �300, 000
for working capital, which will be refundable . Essentially, the
tasks that will be performed in the course of the study will be
conducted by agency staff personnel or by outside contract , which-
ever is more appropriate .
Our staff believes that this is an excellent opportunity for
the three major waste water operating agencies in California to
demonstrate to State and Federal authorities that we have the ability
and expertise to jointly study a problem, arrive at sensible con-
clusions , and to implement the agreed-upon recommendations . The
Districts ' General Counsel has approved the agreement as to form
and we recommend approval of the interagency agreement .
No . 18 - Additional Pumping Facilities at Ocean Outfall Pumping
Station.
Agenda Items a and b are required to comply with the Districts '
guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 . Item c approves Addendum No . 1 to the plans and specifications
which are technical clarifications of the plans and requirements of
the Districts . The staff recommends that these actions be approved.
No. 19 - Personnel Matters .
qw
The staff has been working on a revised work schedule for
operations personnel which we believe would reduce the personnel
turn-over, overtime cost , and sick leave taken. The staff would like
to discuss this with the Directors .
District No . 2
No . 47 - Award of Contract for Yorba Linda Pump Station, Con-
tract No . 2-15.
Construction bids were opened on this project this week. Four
bids were received which ranged from $671,000 to $808, 000, while the
engineer ' s estimate for this project was $532, 000 . The engineer' s
estimate was prepared in April, and was not revised prior to the bid
opening. It is again apparent that the contractors are anticipating
increased costs and are protecting themselves against losses in the
event the major mechanical equipment costs continue to escalate .
Since the District did receive three bids which are within $28,000
of each other, the District engineering staff is convinced that this
is the true cost of the job and that very little, if any, modifica-
tions could be made to change the plans significantly to justify a
re-bid of the project . Therefore, it is our recommendation that
the contract be awarded to J . Putnam Henck in the amount of $6713146 .
Fred A. Harper
General Manager
-7-
-
1\1
1
`+1
s +\
\
\�
� 1 n0 SCALE
00 a 1—
� ::.
0 0 � Sze• e _
PROPOSED ACQUISITION`\ "` Eq-� Q C] 0 oX% %
P
\ '�•ASS P P P P P /
PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL `
LEVEE C
Oo (D-0oo 03o
•�i:�• V v D O 0 /
0 0
�` /-k
\ o /
EXTEND LEVEE TO v0 /
FLOOD CONTROL S/'
CHANNEL
Co�1J 1y SF � 1%a. v /"b � lj LA N l) AG {ld1
JONN CAROLLO ENGINEERS � `� g�bl °l"ION �l:sT�iC1•� . SIT iONS PLATE NO.OF AND
PHOENIX •"' NUT CREEK • SANTAAN: FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEE `
�- J;�r11'CE COUNTY, Cfal ` —�r,r�i.'� � � � - -
�_•�•'- - -�•a•�.5r61+.Pu�T!•=1T.�!.��.'�- .T��73'1'"�.�__�.L'4'—:T£—=_ :.�iif�:JB.�_��::inJJY z_�—_•.:..•y_ '.C'-�•.•'11�n :1e11.f!_S1Q 'mC=�__,•ISIIlIYr.�.n•Al1•lr._llO�l.'T.�.•�ffCQ:f�IR�. �^-ecOv�!'Mp�y
G
Chairman Winn
140,
September 11, 1974
Report of the Joint Chairman
Call meeting of the Executive Committee for 5 : 30 p.m. ,
Wednesday, October 2nd. Invite Director's Glockner and
Callahan, or Byrne and Wieder to attend and participate in
the discussions .
Report on the Annual Conference of the California Association
of Sanitation Agencies in San Diego, August 21-24 .
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California (` a 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
A�
JOINT BOARDS 962o2d411
IIAGENDA
r..
MEETING DATE
SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 - 7:30 P.M.
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Call
(3) DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7
Consideration of motion to receive and file minute
excerpt from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding
seating new members of the Boards
District No. Director
1 & 6 Kerm Rima
7 Francis H. Glockner
(4 ) DISTRICT 2
Election of Chairman
•� (5) DISTRICT 6
Election of Chairman l—
(6) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary
(7 ) EACH DISTRICT
Consideration of motions approving minutes of the
following meetings, as mailed:
District 1 - August 14, 1974 regular
District 2 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 3 - August 14, 1974 regular
District 5 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 6 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 7 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 11 - August 14, 1974 regular
(8 ) ALL DISTRICTS
Report of the Joint Chairman
(9 ) ALL DISTRICTS
Report of the General Manager
(10 ) ALL DISTRICTS
Report of the General Counsel
r
(11 ) ALL DISTRICTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered
as not requiring discussion or further explanation and
unless any particular item is requested to be removed from
a the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member
of the public in attendance, there will be no separate
discussion of these items . All items on the consent calendar
will be enacted by one action approving all motions , and
casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the
consent calendar. Ali items removed from the consent calendar
shall be considered in the regular order of business .
Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the
consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state
their name, address and designate by letter the item to be
removed from the consent calendar.
Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from
the consent calendar.
Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing
Roll Call Vote or Cast on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same .
Unanimous Ballot
ALL DISTRICTS
(a) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager
to designate up to four staff members to attend concurrent
meetings of the Water Pollution Control Federation and the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies in Denver,
Colorado, October 6 - 11, 1974 ; and authorizing reimburse-
ment for travel , meals., lodging and incidental expenses
incurred
(b) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2, to
the plans and specifications for Replacement of Interplant
Gas Line , Job No. I-4R, authorizing an adjustment of
Engineer' s quantities and an addition of $3,067 . 40 to
the contract with Pacific Engineers . See page "A"
(c ) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-115, accepting Replacement
of Interplant Gas Line, Job No . I-4R, as complete ; authorizing
execution of a Notice of Completion; and approving Final
Closeout Agreement . See page "B"
(lld) Consideration of motion to receive and file bid
ITEMS ON tabulation and recommendation, and awarding purchase
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA of Equipment for Replacement of Grit Augers at Plant
No . 1, Specification No. E-072, to Barnes and Delaney,
in the amount of $26,017 . 00. See page
(e ) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
report on Treatment Plant Construction Projects . See
page "C"
(CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 3)
-2-
(11) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2)
DISTRICT 2
(f) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos . 1 and 2
to the plans and specifications for the Yorba Linda
Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15
(g) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-123-2, approving
... Agreement and Grant of Easement from California State
University, Fullerton for a permanent easement in
connection with the construction of the Yorba Linda
Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15 , in form approved by
General Counsel. See page "D"
(h) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter
from Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, dated
August 15, 1974 , regarding easement across said
company' s property in connection with construction
of the Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract
No. 2-14-2. See page "E"
(2) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
letter, dated August 30 , 1974 , regarding terms
and conditions in connection with easement and
temporary occupancy of Santa Ana Valley Irrigation
Company property relative to construction of the
Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract No. 2-14-2,
and ratifying the terms and conditions stipulated
in said letter. See page "F"
(i) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2, to
the plans and specifications for the Santa Ana River
NNW Interceptor from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue,
Contract No. 2-14-2, granting an extension of time of
31 calendar days because of labor disputes , to the contract
with Kasler Corporation and L. H. Woods & Sons , Inc . , A
Joint Venture. See page "G"
(j ) Consideration of Standard Resolution No . 74-116-2, ordering
annexation of approximately 8. 8 acres to the District in
the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Santiago Boulevard
(Proposed Annexation No. 7 - Portion of Tract No. 7455
and Tract No. 6937 to County Sanitation District No. 2)
(k) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
report on construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor
from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue, Contract No . 2-14-2.
See page "H"
DISTRICT 3
(1) Consideration of motion approving the following Change
Orders to the plans and specifications for the Knott
Interceptor, Reach 4 , Contract No. 3-18, and authorizing
changes to the contract with A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc . and
N. M. Saliba Company, A Joint Venture, as follows :
Change Order No. 4 - Pipe substitution and change
.r of construction method, at no
cost to the District . See page "I"
Change Order No . 5 - Time extension of 31 calendar days
because of labor disputes . See
page "J"
Change Order No . 6 - Addition of $7 ,928.77 for extra work.
See page "K"
(CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4 )
-3-
(11) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3)
DISTRICT 3 (Continued)
(m) Consideration of motion to receive, file and deny claim
submitted by Westminster Memorial Park, dated August 8 ,
1974, in the amount of $24 ,453 . 45, in connection with
construction of the Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract
No. 3-18, as recommended by the General Counsel; and
�r refer to liability insurance carrier and contractor
for appropriate action
(n) Consideration of motion to receive, file and deny claim
submitted by S & S Construction Company, dated August 14,
1974 , in the amount of $19,500 .00, in connection with
construction of the Knott Interceptor, a Portion of
Reach 1 and Reaches 2 & 3, Contract No. 3-17, as recommended
by the General Counsel; and refer to liability insurance
carrier and contractor for appropriate action
(o) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summons and
Complaints for Property Damage re General Telephone Company
of California vs . County Sanitation Districts No. 3 and
John F. Shea Company, Inc . , et al. , Case No. 24785 and
Case No. 24786, in connection with construction of the
Knott Interceptor, a Portion of Reach 1 and Reaches 2 & 3,
Contract No . 3-17; and refer to General Counsel and
liability insurance carrier for appropriate action
(p) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summons and
Complaint for Damages re John Inks, et al. vs . State of
California, et al. , Case No. 214450, in connection with
construction of the Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer (Reach 10)
and Bolsa Avenue Storm Drain, Contract No. 3-17-1; and
..� refer to General Counsel and liability insurance carrier
for appropriate action
(q) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
report on construction of the Knott Interceptor, Reach 4 ,
Contract No. 3-18 . See page "Lit
DISTRICTS 5 & 6
(r) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the
plans and specifications for Manhole Replacement and Repair,
Contract No. 5-14R-4
(s ) Consideration of Standard Resolution No . 74-117 , to receive
and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding
contract for Manhole Replacement and Repair, Contract
No . 5-14R-4, to Rewes-Schock, A Joint Venture, in the
amount of $49 ,047 . 26. See page limit
(t ) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-118, creating a suspense
fund for payment of joint obligations pursuant to Contract
No . 5-14R-4 . See page "N"
DISTRICT 11
v (u) Consideration of motion to receive .and file letter from
Standard Oil Company of California, dated September 4 , 1974,
requesting annexation of approximately 44 .19 acres of
territory in the vicinity of Ellis Avenue extended,
westerly of Edwards Street, and refer to staff for study
and recommendation. See page 110"
(12) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any
i� -4-
(13) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of recommendations re implementation of data
processing (Pursuant to Data Processing Feasibility Study
and Implementation Plan approved by the Boards in March, 1974 ) :
(a) Verbal report of Directors ' Special Committee re EDP
(b) Report and recommendations of Peat , Marwick, Mitchell & Co .
..� re selection of data processing service vendor
(c) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and
approve recommendation of Peat , Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
re selection of data processing service vendor (Mailed
to Directors with agenda material)
1
(d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept
proposal of ,�_ to provide data
processing services ; and adoption of Resolution No. 74-119
s c� ► authorizing the General Manager to execute an agreement
with to provide data processing
services . See page "P"
of
(14) ,ALL DISTRICTS
Further consideration of possible acquisition of land immediately
A adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 2 (continued from August 14th
meeting) :
i
(a) Receive and file General Counsel ' s Summary of Appraisal
on 3-acre and 8-acre parcels (previously transmitted to
Board members)
(b) Eight-acre parcel located adjacent to the northerly plant
property line
(1) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
report on acquisition of said parcel. See page "Q"
/ (2) Consideration of motion to receive, file
appraisal report , dated August 13, 1974 , prepared
by Everett S. Schmid, Real Estate Appraiser,
excepting therefrom that portion on the . 523 acre
Ayers Parcel
(3) Consideration of motion approvingAacquisition of
7. 168 acres (Covington Parcel) of land immediately
adjacent to the northerly property line of Treatment
Plant No. 2, and authorizing the General Counsel
/ to proceed withysaid ac-quisition s
0 (4 ) Consideration of motionfdeclaring that the Districts
are not interested in acquiring the . 523 acre Ayers
Parcel contained in the appraisal report of August 13th
(c ) Three-acre parcel located adjacent to the southwesterly
corner of plant
(1 ) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
report on acquisition of said parcel. See page "R"
�.. (2) Consideration of motion to receive, file aud,,apPxxov-e-
appraisal report dated July 29, 1974 ,
prepared by Everett S. Schmid, Real Estate Appraiser
(3) Discussion and consideration of possible actions re
acquisition of- 3-acre parcel immediately adjacent to
the southwesterly corner of Treatment Plant No . 2
-5-
(15) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of Resolution No . 74-124, requesting amendment
Roll Call Vote or Cast to Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) to allow
Unanimous Ballot ad valorem taxes as a basis for user charge systems . See
page nSn
(16) ALL DISTRICTS
..w Consideration of Resolution No . 74-114, amending rules and
Roll Call Vote or coat regulations relative to conditions of employment, Resolution
Unanimous Ballot No. 70-3, as amended, regarding overtime definition (Pursuant
to amendments of Federal law) . See page 'tT"
(17) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of Resolution. No . 74-120 , approving participation
Roll Call Vote or Cast in the joint Basin-wide Wastewater Solids Management Program
Unanimous Ballot Study with the City of Los Angeles and the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, and authorizing execution
of an agreement for said program. See page "U"
(18) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of items re Additional Pumping Facilities at
Ocean Outfall Pumping Station
(a) Consideration of motion to receive and file the Final
Environmental Impact Report for Project Report No. 2,
1972-73 Joint Works Improvements (Excerpts from Final
EIR mailed to Directors with agenda material) .
..� (b) Consideration of motion approving the project for
Additional Pumping Facilities at Ocean Outfall Pumping
Station; and authorizing filing of Notice of Determination
as provided for in the Guidelines Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended
(c) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the
plans and specifications for Additional Pumping Facilities
at Ocean Outfall Pumping Station, Job No. 1-6-1
(19) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of motion to convene in executive session re
personnel matters
(20) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session
(21) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of action on items considered in executive
session
(22) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of motion authorizing the Secretary to adjourn
the regular October, 1974 meeting to Wednesday, October 16, 1974,
at 7: 30 p.m.
-6-
(23) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of motion to receive and file certification
of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing
on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he
recommends authorization for payment
(24) ALL DISTRICTS
(24 ) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint
ROLL CALL VOTE...,„,,,,,,,' Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant
ITEMS ON books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1 ,
SUPPLEMENIAL AGENDA and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "I"
( 25) ALL DISTRICTS
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items , if any
( 26) DISTRICTS 1 & 7
(26) Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants .
ITEMS ON
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page III
,
( 28) DISTRICT 1
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
( 29) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn
sale Pear;r.,
( 31) DISTRICT 3
ITEMS ON (31) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page "II"
( 32) DISTRICT 3
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items , if any
(33 ) DISTRICT 3
Consideration of motion to adjourn
"1 Trr�rrz-rrc--r-�--Tyr--t.
44 &- 4 gee agenda
(35 ) DISTRICT 5
ITEMS ON (35) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENf)A See page "II"
(36 ) DISTRICT 5
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items , if any
(37 ) DISTRICT 5
Consideration of motion to adjourn
4!e14 e jP me 4 4!e 14 &9949 v4 na r- �e-r—�€ a4+y.
4
-7-
(39 ) DISTRICT 6
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(40 ) DISTRICT 6
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(41 ) DISTRICT 7
ITEMS ON (41) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page
(42) DISTRICT 7
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(42) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
John Lyttle Developments, Inc . , dated September 5, 1974 ,
MMSON requesting annexation of approximately 23.48 acres of
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA territory in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Plantero
Drive, and refer to staff for study and recommendation.
See page "V"
(43) DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(44 ) DISTRICT 11
ITEMS ON (44 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ,See page
(45) DISTRICT 11
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(46) DISTRICT 11
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(47) DISTRICT 2
(a) Report of staff and engineers re bids on Yorba Linda
Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15. See page "V"
Roll Call Vote or Cast(b) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 74-122-2,
Unanimous Ballot to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation
and awarding contract .for Yorba Linda Pump Station,
Contract No. 2-15, to J. Putnam Henck, A Corp. and
Henck Pro, A Joint Venture. in the amount of
$671,146 .Oo. See page "W"
(48) DISTRICT 2
ITEMSON (48 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page "II"
(49) DISTRICT 2
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(5 0) DISTRICT 2 rM ��
- Consideration of motion to adjourn to Sept-ember-l&-.,—P '�'' ,
at--6.0.0 p.m. _or 7: 30 -p-_m:
-8-
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area
JOINT BOARDS e906 -2411 14
IIAGENDA
MEETING DATE ADJOURNMENTS POSTED,.!
COMP & MILEAGE..........✓........
FILES UTT UP......VED...
SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 - 7:30 P.M,
RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED..✓."-
LETTERS WRITTEN...............
MINUTES WRITTEN,.....
MINUTES FILED.........
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Call
FILE ..........(3) DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7
LETTER ............. Consideration of motion to receive and file minute
A/C ....TKLR ....
excerpt from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding
seating new members of the Boards
- District No. Director
1 & 6 Kerm Rima
7 Francis H. Glockner
(4) DISTRICT 2
Election of Chairman -
(5) DISTRICT 6
Election of Chairman
(6) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary
(7) EACH DISTRICT
Consideration of motions approving minutes of the
following meetings, as mailed:
District 1 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 2 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 3 - August 14, 1974 regular
District 5 - August 14 , 1974 regular
District 6 - August 14, 1974 regular
District 7 - August 14 , 1974 regular
FILE .................. District 11 - August 14, 1974 regular
LETTER .. ....... ,
A/C ....TKLR . . (8) ALL DISTRICTS
Report of the Joint Chairman
-- -----------
-~ - r(9) ALL DISTRICTS
Report of the General Manager
10 ALL DISTRICTS
/ Report of the General Counsel
(11) ALL DISTRICTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered
as not requiring discussion or further explanation and
unless any particular item is requested to be removed from
the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member
of the public in attendance, there will be no separate
discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar
will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and
casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the
consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar
shall be considered in the regular order of business.
Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the
consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state
their name, address and designate by letter the item to be
removed from the consent calendar.
Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from
the consent calendar. 0 c )
Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing
Roll Call Vote or Cast on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same.
Unanimous Ballot
ALL DISTRICTS
FILE .................. (a) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager
LETTER .............. to designate up to four staff members to attend concurrent
A/C ....TKLR .... meetings of the Water Pollution Control Federation and the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies in Denver,
Colorado, October 6 - 11, 1974 ; and authorizing reimburse-
ment for travel, meals., lodging and incidental expenses
incurred
PILE _................
LETTER .............. (b) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2, to
the plans and specifications for Replacement of Interplant
A/C _..TKLR .... Gas Line, Job No. I-4R, authorizing an adjustment of
.....• Engineer' s quantities and an addition of $3,067. 40 to
i-----.....•••• the contract with Pacific Engineers. See page "A"
LE _
TILE ..._... .......
(c ) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-115, accepting Replacement
of Interplant Gas Line, Job No. I-4R, as complete; authorizing
Arc _..TKLR .... execution of a Notice of Completion; and approving Final
=........ - Closeout Agreement . See page "B"
(lld) Consideration of motion to receive and file bid
FILE ..........._••_` tabulation and recommendation and awarding ITEMS ON � g purchase
LETTERSUPPLEM{NTAL AGENDA of Equipment for Replacement of Grit Augers at Plant
A/C ...-TKLR .... No. 1, Specification No. E-072, to Barnes and Delaney,
_. .... in the amount of $26,017 . 00. See page 11 JN TT
.,,ALE - ••••• , (e ) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
LETTER ....._......,, report on Treatment Plant Construction Projects. See
A/C ....TKLR _.. page "C"
---------- -- (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 3)
-2-
(11) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2)
DISTRICT 2
LETTER ......-- Consideration of motion
(f) approving Addenda Nos . 1 and 2
A/c ...-TKLR .•„
to the plans and specifications for the Yorba Linda
`-"-...... Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15
(g) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-123-2, approving
FILE ... ._...... . Agreement and Grant of Easement from California State
University, Fullerton for a permanent easement in
A/c ....TKLR _ connection with the construction of the Yorba Linda
,.b/ Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15, in form approved by
c us ----- ,.•_ General Counsel. See page "D"
(h) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter
FILE __.__ - from Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, dated
LETTER _ August 15, 1974 , regarding easement across said
A/c -MR _• company' s property in connection with construction
of the Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract
No. 2-14-2 . See page "E"
(2) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
letter, dated August 30', 1974 , regarding terms
FILE ��'" and conditions in connection with easement and
ETT LER .�i:�- temporary occupancy of Santa Ana Valley Irrigation
A/c _-TREK -• Company property relative to construction of the
= Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract No. 2-14-2,
_ and ratifying the terms and conditions stipulated
in said letter. See page "F"
(i) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2, to
FILE _.........._._. the plans and specifications for the Santa Ana River
LEMR _ Interceptor from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue,
A/C ....TKLR — Contract No. 2-14-2, granting an extension of time of
31 calendar days because of labor disputes , to the contract
. _._.._.._.._.._. with Kasler Corporation and L. H. Woods & Sons , Inc . , A
- -- - Joint Venture . See page
FILE -•_••••••-••_ ( (� ) Consideration of Standard Resolution No . 74-116-2, ordering
annexation of approximately 8. 8 acres to the District in
A/C ....TKLR the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Santiago Boulevard
_. (Proposed Annexation No. 7 - Portion of Tract No. 7455
_:_•-___. and Tract No. 6937 to County Sanitation District No . 2)
FILE ------._-._.....
LEMR _ _ (k) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
A/C ....TKLR ._ report on construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor
from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue, Contract No . 2-14-2.
__.__...._....._. See page
DISTRICT 3
(1) Consideration of motion approving the following Change
Orders to the plans and specifications for the Knott
Interceptor, Reach 4 , Contract No. 3-18, and authorizing
changes to the contract with A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc . and
FILE ---- N. M. Saliba Company, A Joint Venture, as follows :
Change Order No. 4 - Pipe substitution and change
NNW A/c ....MR - of construction method, at no
.........------- cost to the District . See page "I"
Change Order No. 5 - Time extension of 31 calendar days
because of labor disputes. See
page "J"
Change Order No. 6 - Addition of $7,928 . 77 for extra work.
See page "K"
(CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4)
-3-
(11) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3)
DISTRICT 3 (Continued)
(m) Consideration of motion to receive, file and deny claim
FILE .................. submitted by Westminster Memorial Park, dated August 8,
LETTER ..::'.;. 1974, in the amount of $24 ,453 .45, in connection with
A/C ....TKLR .... construction of the Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract
No . 3-18, as recommended by the General Counsel; and
.� refer to liability insurance carrier and contractor
"'"."'...... for appropriate action
(n) Consideration of motion to receive, file and deny claim
submitted by S & S Construction Company, dated August 14,
FIB """""""'- 1974 , in the amount of $19,500 .00 , in connection with
LMR ............ construction of the Knott Interceptor, a Portion of
NC ....TKLR --- Reach 1 and Reaches 2 & 3, Contract No . 3-17, as recommended
--------- by the General Counsel; and refer to liability insurance
carrier and contractor for appropriate action
(o) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summons and
Complaints for Property Damage re General Telephone Company
FILEc. �' of California vs. County Sanitation Districts No. 3 and
LETTER John F. Shea Company, Inc . , et al. , Case No. 24785 and
A/C ....MR _, Case No. 24786, in connection with construction of the
Knott Interceptor, a Portion of Reach 1 and Reaches 2 & 3,
........----
Contract No. 3-17; and refer to General Counsel and
...""'... liability insurance carrier for appropriate action
(p) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summons and
Imo:......_..':.... Complaint for Damages re John Inks, et al. vs . State of
LFTtERy. _ :-'` California, et al. , Case No. 214450, in connection with
A/C ....TKLR .... construction of the Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer (Reach 10)
and Bolsa Avenue Storm Drain, Contract No. 3-17-1; and
.. -- ~. refer to General Counsel and liability insurance carrier
-............_......... for appropriate action
FILE _....._.........
LETTER ---_------- (q) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff progress
A/C ....TKLR .... report on construction of the Knott Interceptor, Reach 4 ,
Contract No. 3-18 . See page "Lit..........................
DISTRICTS 5 & 6
FILE ...........—....
LETTER .___ .fr) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the
A/C ....TKLR ._ plans and specifications for Manhole Replacement and Repair,
............_.. - Contract No. 5-14R-4
..........................
F11e (s ) Consideration of 00modai■pIt Resolution No. 74-117 , to receive
LETTER . ' and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding
A/C ....TKLR , contract for Manhole Replacement and Repair, Contract
No. 5-14R-4, to Rewes-Schock, A Joint Venture, in the
".........."""'.. - amount of $49,047 . 26. See page "M"
.................—
FILE (t ) Consideration of Resolution No. 74-118, creating a suspense
LETTER ... fund for payment of joint obligations pursuant to Contract
A/C ....TKLR __ No. 5-14R-4 . See page "N"
......................._.
DISTRICT 11
FILE __ - -(u) Consideration of motion to receive .and file letter from
LETTER ' Standard Oil Company of California, dated September 4 , 1974,
A/C ....TKLR . requesting annexation of approximately 44.19 acres of
d�F - -,j: territory in the vicinity of Ellis Avenue extended,
westerly of Edwards Street , and refer to staff for study
and recommendation. See page 110"
FILE ...............
LETTER ..............
A/C ....TKLR .... (12) ALL DISTRICTS
__ __ Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any � � � � �
((13) ALL DISTRICTS
��� Consideration of recommendations re implementation of data
processing (Pursuant to Data Processing Feasibility Study
and Implementation Plan approved by the Boards in March, 1974) :
TILE (a) Verbal report of Directors ' Special Committee re EDP
LETTER ----------
A/C ....TKLR .... (b) Report and recommendations of Peat , Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
re selection of data processing service vendor
.......... " ((c) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and
approve recommendation of Peat , Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
re selection of data processing service vendor (Mailed
FILE .._.._........ to Directors with agenda material)
� LETTER .::.:._::...
(d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept
A/C ....TKLR ....
proposal of to provide data
��"•• processing services ; and adoption of Resolution No. 74-119
---- »••�•• ti�1 authorizing the General Manager to execute an agreement
with to provide data processing
services . See page "P"
(14 ) ALL DISTRICTS
Further consideration of possible acquisition of land immediately
adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 2 (continued from August 14th
meeting) :
(a) Receive and file General Counsel ' s Summary of Appraisal
on 3-acre and 8-acre parcels (previously transmitted to
Board members )
(b) Eight-acre parcel located adjacent to the northerly plant
property line
(1) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
report on acquisition of said parcel. See page "Q"
FILE ..............
(2) Consideration of motion to receive, file -a - - e
A/C ....TKLR .... appraisal report , dated August 13, 1974 , prepared
by Everett S. Schmid, Real Estate Appraiser,
excepting therefrom that portion on the . 523 acre
- Ayers Parcel
FILE _.........--- .
(3) Consideration of motion approving acquisition of
LETTER -.------_-.� 7.168 acres (Covington Parcel) of land immediately
A/C ....TKLR ---- adjacent to the northerly property line of Treatment
__..................... Plant No. 2, and authorizing the General Counsel
to proceed with said acquisition
(4 ) Consideration of motion declaring that the Districts
are not interested in acquiring the . 523 acre Ayers
Parcel contained in the appraisal report of August 13th
(c ) Three-acre parcel located adjacent to the southwesterly
corner of plant
FILE ..................M` 5(1) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff
LETTER .............. report on acquisition of said parcel . See page "R"
A/C ....TKLR .... (� Consideration of motion to receive , file and app<-o-Ve
•••--•---- ............. or rejec-t appraisal report dated July 29, 1974 ,
-.... prepared by Everett S. Schmid, Real Estate Appraiser
FILE .................. 11
LETTER ...._._..._ (3); Discussion and consideration of possible actions re
A/C ....TKLR .... / acquisition of. 3-acre parcel immediately adjacent to
the southwesterly corner of Treatment Plant No . 2
..........................
-5-
(15) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of Resolution No . 74-124 , requesting amendment
Roll Call Vote or Cast to Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) to allow
FILE ...11'eartimeus Ballot ad valorem taxes as a basis for user charge systems . See
LE'>TER:........... �` page list,
A/C ....TKLR .... '
'. .........._(16) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of Resolution No . 74-114, amending rules and
Roll Call Vote or cast regulations relative to conditions of employment, Resolution
Unanimous Ballot FILE ...._. No . 70-3, as amended,
gar ng re di overtime definition (Pursuant
�.......
to amendments of Federal law) . See page 'IT"
LETTER .......
A/C ....TKLR ._.
---------------------(17) ALL DISTRICTS
-- _ - - - Consideration of Resolution No. 74-120, approving participation
Roll Call Vote or Cast in the joint Basin-wide Wastewater Solids Management Program
Unanimous Ballot Study with the City of Los Angeles and the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County , and authorizing execution
tEiTER � F� r� of an agreement for said program. See page ?full
R
_„�
_.._.--(18) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of items re Additional Pumping Facilities at
Ocean Outfall Pumping Station
FILE ...._.___._.
LETTER .......... (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file the Final
A/C ....TKLR ._. Environmental Impact Report for Project Report No. 2,
(III > 1972-73 Joint Works Improvements (Excerpts from Final
EIR mailed to Directors with agenda material) .
z (b) Consideration of motion approving the project for
Additional Pumping Facilities at Ocean Outfall Pumping
A/C .--TKLR ..•. Station; and authorizing filing of Notice of Determination
�-I� (� L � as provided for in the Guidelines Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended
FILE -————
LETTER ..-------
A/C .»TKLR - (c) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No . 1 to the
plans and specifications for Additional Pumping Facilities
at Ocean Outfall Pumping Station, Job No . J-6-1
......................-
(1,9) ALL DISTRICTS—,,
Consideration of"-motion to convene i-nexecu--session re
personnel matters
('20) ALL DISTRICTS\
Consideration Of�nQtion__to-re�nvef n regular session
FILE ..........._..... c(�A\�' `g
LETTER ::....(21) ALL DISTRICTS
A/C ....TKLR .... Consideration of action on items considered in executive
session
22) ALL DISTRICTS
LETTER - Consideration of motion authorizing the Secretary to adjourn
A/C ....TKLR . \� the regular October, 1974 meeting to Wednesday, October 16, 1974,
..._......_......._.. ` at 7: 30 p .m.
-6-
(23) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of motion to receive and file certification
of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing
on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he
recommends authorization for payment
(24 ) ALL DISTRICTS
(24 ) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint
MUL CALL VOTE...... Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant
ITEMS ON books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1 ,
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "I"
(25) ALL DISTRICTS
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items , if any
fl'7 ( 26) DISTRICTS 1 & 7
(26) Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants .
ITEMS ON
SU"tEMENTAL AGENDA See page III
( 28) DISTRICT 1
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
( 29) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn
-( 3 C4)
- •6 e�re��e-�-t�-a�-a�e t lei-a-gp�e v}ng-s�t s�,e�s e ���.:e���a�-s.,
( 31) DISTRICT 3
ITEMS ON (31) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page "II"
( 32) DISTRICT 3
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(33 ) DISTRICT 3
Consideration of motion to adjourn
-BTS
44 any 'Sea agenda
(35 ) DISTRICT 5
ITEMS ON (35) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGFNChe See page "II"
(36 ) DISTRICT 5
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items , if any
(37 ) DISTRICT 5
Consideration of motion to adjourn
-7-
(39 ) DISTRICT 6
bus
Oth iness ana�ommunications orssupplemental agenda
items, if any
(40 ) DISTRICT 6
Consideration of motion to adjourn i
(41 ) DISTRICT 7
ITEMS ON (41) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page
(42) DISTRICT 7
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
0_, (42) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
John Lyttle Developments , Inc . , dated September 5, 1974 ,
FMMSON requesting annexation of approximately 23. 48 acres of
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA territory in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Plantero
Drive, and refer to staff for study and recommendation.
See page "V"
(43) DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(44 ) DISTRICT 11
ITEMS ON (44 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page "III"
(45 ) DISTRICT 1�
Other busine`sZ-and cJ 6-vI munic-&moons or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(46) DISTRICT 11
Consideration of motion to adjourn 1 °'.0 9
FILE ...... irt-) DISTRICT 2
LETTER - -
A/C ....TKLIt . (a) Report of staff and engineers re bids on Yorba Linda
Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15. See page "VII
Roll Call»Vote or CaJb) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 74-122-2,
Unanimous Ballot to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation
FIISI�- - and awarding contract for Yorba Linda Pump Station,
17TTFP �,��5 Contract No. 2-15, to J. Putnam Henck, A Corp. and
Henck Pro, A Joint Venture. in the amount of
....... $671,146 . 00 . See page 11W"
8) DISTRICT 2
ITEMsON ' ' (48 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
iUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA See page "II"
(49) DISTRICT 2
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
items—if any
FILE .............._
( Consideration of motion to adjourn to S l
LEA..............50) DISTRICT
A/C _.TKLR .... tember 18 , 19741
at 6: 00 p.m. or 7: 30 p.m.
-8-
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code
JOINT BOARDS 9540-2910
62-241114
IIAGENDA
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS
SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 - 7: 30 P.M.
ALL DISTRICTS
(lld) Consideration of motion to receive and file bid
tabulation and recommendation, and awarding purchase
of Equipment for Replacement of Grit Augers at Plant
No. 1, Specification No. E-072, to Barnes and Delaney, -
in the amount of $26,017 . 00. See page "IV"
(24 ) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint
Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant
books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1,
and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "I"
DISTRICTS 1 & 7
(26) Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants .
See page
DISTRICT 3
(31) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
See page "II"
DISTRICT 5
(35) Consideration of motion approving warrants.
See page "II"
DISTRICT 7
(41) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
See page "III"
(42) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
John Lyttle Developments , Inc . , dated September 5, 1974 ,
requesting annexation of approximately 23 . 48 acres of
territory in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Plantero
Drive, and refer to staff for study and recommendation.
See page "V"
DISTRICT 11
(44 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
See page "III"
DISTRICT 2
(48 ) Consideration of motion approving warrants .
See page "II"
JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS
WARRANT NO . IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT
23750 Air Seals Corp. , Engine Parts $ 55.66
23751 Alex Fish Co . , Inc. , Lab Supplies 513.00
23752 All Bearing Service, Inc . , Bushings, Seals & U-Joints 110.57
23753 Allied Supply Co ., Valves 1,781 .05
23754 American Cyanamid Co. , Chemical Coagulants (MO 1-10-73) 2,998
23755 American Lock & Supply, Inc . , Hardware 151 -77*7
23756 City of Anaheim, Power 38.22
23757 Anaheim Dodge, Truck Parts 71 .23
23758 The Anchor Packing Co . , Gaskets 14.84
23759 Associated Concrete Products, Manhole Rings 114.48
23760 Associated Laboratories, JPL Analysis 325.00
23761 Authorized Supply Corp ., Piping 54.90
23762 Azusa Western, Inc . , Concrete 71 .32
23763 Bancroft-Whitney Co . , Government Codes 230.31
23764 Banning Battery Co . , Batteries 467 .74
23765 Beckman Instruments, Inc . , Metering Supplies 597.56
23766 Bell Pipe & Supply Co. , Pipe Supplies 50.24
23767 Bishop Graphics, Drafting Supplies & Equipment 45.05
23768 Blower Paper Co ., Paper 45.92
23769 Don Bogart, Employee Mileage 43.20
23770 Brenner Fiedler & Associates, Compressor 105.61
23771 Bristol Park Medical Group, Inc . , Pre-employment Exams 65.00
23772 Broadlick Art Supply, Drafting Supplies 2.47
23773 Brookhurst Dodge, Truck Parts 11 .56
23774 Burroughs Corp., Calculator Repair 23.50
23775 C & R Reconditioning Co ., Engine Repair 370.00
23776 Cadillac Plastic & Chemical Co . , Plexiglass 84.87
23777 Calls Cameras, Photo Supplies & Processing 150.80
23778 Cal State Seal Company, Gaskets 33•")8
23779 Calif. Assoc . .of Sanitation Agencies, Workshop Registration 16o.",
23780 John Carollo Engineers, Engeering Services - I.W. Ordinance 143.45
23781 Brian Chuchua ' s, Truck Parts 5.34
23782 Clark Equipment Company, Equipment Rental 593.60
23783 College Lumber Co ., Inc . , Building Materials 187.38
23784 Commercial & C.B. Communications, Communication Equipment &
Supplies 518 34
23785 Connell Chevrolet, Truck Parts 85.59
23786 Control Specialists, Inc . , Compressor Parts 78.41
23787 Consolidated Bolt & Nut Co . , Hardware 272.62
23788 Consolidated Electric Distr., Electric Supplies 633.04
23789 Constructors Supply Co. , Hardware & Tools 380.22
23790 Copeland Motors, Inc . , Truck Parts 111 .74
23791 Costa Mesa County dater District 6 .00
23792 County of Orange, Maps & Blueprints, 11 .00
23793 Mr. Crane, Crane Rental 340.00
23794 Crest Leasing, Vehicle Lease 147 .28
23795 Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc ., Lab Supplies 251 .60
23796 Deckert Surgical Co . , First Aid Supplies 1.86
23797 Diamond Core Drilling Co ., Core Drilling 50.00
23798 Dominguez Marine & Industrial Supply Co ., Steel Flanges 966.72
23799 Dow Chemical U.S.A., Freight 113.04
23800 Ida L. Duesberg, Employee Mileage 12.90
23801 The Duriron Company, Inc . , Pump Parts 253.9;
23802 Eagle Truck Lines, Inc . , Freight 67 .Q5
23803 Eastman, Inc . , Office Supplies 370.,r
23804 Electric Supplies Distr. , Electric Supplies 28.62
23805 Electronic Balancing Co ., Centrifuge Repair 135.00
238o6 Enchanter, Inc . , Diving & Ocean Services (MO 2-13-74) 3,400.00'
23807 Essick Machinery Co . , Compressor Parts 8.15
238% Fischer & Porter Co . , Telemetering Supplies 1,829.34
238o9 The Flintkote Co . , Gravel 119 .83
23810 Clifford A . Forkert, Topographic Survey P1-16 449 .30
23811 W. J. Foster Construction Co . , Sludge Bed Construction 4, 497.21
I-1
WARRANT NO . IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT
23812 City of Fountain Valley, Water $ 40.00
23813 William H. Fox, Employee Mileage 32.10
23814 Frederick Pump & Engr. Co. , Pump 189 .63
23815 Garden Grove Lumber & Cement, Building Materials 67.58
23816 General Telephone Co . of Calif. 1,065.63
23817 Georgia-Pacific Corp., Chlorine, Contract 1-1-73 6,130.41
'818 Graybar Electric Co., Inc . , Electric Supplies 865.12
�
23819 Hach Chemical Co. , Inc . , Testing Materials 116.38
23820 Allan Hancock Foundation, Technical Manuals 23.47
23821 Hardware Systems Co., Lab Supplies & Equipment Rental 156.98
23822 Harbor Pallet Co. , Pallets 572.40
23823 Fred A . Harper, Various Meeting & COD Expenses 116.25
23824 Harrisons & Crosfield, Inc ., Coagulents NO 1-10-73) 2,353.20
23825 Haskel Engineering & Supply Co., Equipment Parts 22.30
23826 Haul-Away Containers, Trash Disposal 255.00
23827 Hercules Inc . , Coagulents NO 1-10-73) 3,000.60
23828 Hertz Car Leasing, Vehicle Lease 567.62
23829 Hood Manufacturing, Inc . , Clarifier Parts 1.9874.08
23830 Howard Supply Co ., Pipe Supplies, Valve Repair & Valves 1, 154.87
23831 City of Huntington Beach, Water 37 .19
23832 Huntington Beach Equipment Rentals, Equipment Rental 59 .80
23833 Inland Nut & Bolt Co. , Hardware 408.25
23834 Intl . Biophysics Corp. , Lab Equipment 50.00
23835 Intl . Harvester Co ., Truck Parts 279 .10
23836 Keeler Advertising Specialties, Hardware 189 .35
23837 Keen-Kut Abrasive Co., Hardware 131 .65
23838 Keenan Pipe & Supply Co. , Pipe Supplies 1,905.93
23839 King Bearing, Inc . , Bearings, Bushings.& Belts 262.08
23840 Kingmann-White, Inc ., Telemetering Supplies 60.97
23841 Kleen-Line Corp. , Janitorial Supplies 36o.67
P3842 Knox Industrial Supplies, Hardware & Tools 134.53
843 Kona Kai Club, CASA Workshop Expense 275.75
13844 LBWS, Inc . , Welding Supplies, Tool Repair & Hardware 206 .23
23845 L & N Uniform, Uniform Service 1,972 .73
23846 W. R. Ladewig Co . , Equipment Parts 74.42
23847 Larry' s Bldg. Materials, Inc. , Building Materials 209 .66
23848 Lawless Detroit Diesel, Controls 225.41
23849 A . J. Lynch & Co . , Freight 15.60
23850 Mc Coy Ford Tractor, Tractor Parts 78.75
23851 Mc Kesson Chemical, JPL Supplies 562.22
23852 Marine Biolo ical Consultants, Inc ., Ocean Ecology Service
(Mo 8-8-73� 33.20
23853 Master Blueprint & Supply Co. , Printing 134.78
23854 Herbert L. Miller Tire Co. , Truck Tires 224.31
23855 Moore Systems, Inc. , Controls 76.92
23856 E. B. Moritz Foundry, Manhole Rings & Covers 391 .93
23857 NCR - Nat ' l. Cash Register Co . , Forms 151 .86
23858 Nalco Chemical Co ., Chemicals. 223 .00
23859 City of Newport Beach, Water 507 .72
2386o C. Arthur Nisson, Gen' l . Counsel Retainer & CASA Workshop
Expense 1,000.00
23861 Orange County Stamp Co . , Office Supplies 3.70
23862 Orange County Wholesale Electric, Electric Supplies 25.44
23863 Pacific Pumping Co, Pump Parts & Pump 2,347 .42
23864 Pacific Telephone Co. . 462 .41
r)3865 M. C. Patten & Co ., Inc . , Gauges 102 .82
,.,3866 Perkin Elmer, Lab Equipment 117 .92
23867 Tom Pesich, Employee Mileage 16 .50
23868 Petrolane, Propane 23.63
23869 Phipps & Bird, Inc., Equipment Parts 16 .73
23870 Porter Boiler Service, Inc ., Boiler Parts 101 .45
23871 Postmaster, Postage 500.00
23872 Power Systems Co . , Controls 70 .28
23873 Premium Rubber Co., Hose 79 .50
23874 Rainbow Disposal Co ., Trash Disposal 40.00
I-2
WARRANT NO . IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT
23875 The Republic Supply Co. , Pipe Supplies $ 2 .58
23876 Gordon E. Reid Drafting, Drafting Services 8 .00
23877 Routh Transportation, Oil Removal 214.09
23878 Santa Ana Blue Print Co. , Printing 71 .73
23879 Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Repair 270.38
23880 Sargent Welch Scientific Co. , Lab Supplies 193.12
23881 Saunders Distribution Co., Equipment Parts 40
23882 Everett S. Schmid, Appraisal Services (MO 6-12-74) 1,470.1m
23883 City of Seal Beach, Water 14.77
23884 See Optics, Safety Glasses 102.68
2388 5 Sherwin Williams Co. , Paint Supplies 4, 320.86
23886 John Sigler, Employee Mileage 10.95
23887 Fred Sinasek; Employee Mileage 28.50
23888 Small Comb Electric Co., Motor Repair 82.17
23889 South Orange Supply, Pipe Supplies 23.85
23890 So. Calif. Edison Co. 39,698 .13
23891 So. Calif. Gas Co. 782.75
23892 So, Calif. Water Co. 4.10
23893 Southwest Processors, Inc. , Oil Removal 1,148.04
23894 Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp. , Bottled Water 114.48
23895 Speed-E Auto Parts, Truck Parts 662.78
23896 Standard Concrete Material, Inc., Concrete 117.34
23897 Standard Oil Co. of Calif. , Gasoline & Oil 3,468.48
23898 Sterling Power Systems, Inc , , Belt 41 .34
23899 Supelco, Inc . , Lab Supplies 79 .30
23900 Tony' s Lock & Safe Service, Hardware 27.58
23901 Trade Paper Co., Drafting Supplies 42.61
23902 Transcon Lines, Freight 13.74
23903 Trexler Compressor, Inc., Compressor Parts 1,124.77
23904 Union Oil Co. of Calif. , Gasoline 134 .91
23905 United Auto Parts, Truck Parts 127.72
23906 United Machine Shop, Engine Repair 171
23907 United Parcel Service, Delivery Service 30-11
23908 United Reprographics, Inc . , Printing 157 .46
23909 United States Equipment, Inc ., Compressor Parts 216.24
23910 Valvate Associates, Valves 381 .07
23911 Valve & Primer Corp. , Freight 16.57
23912 Wallace & Tiernan, Valves 217.04
23913 John R. Waples R.S. , Odor Consultant 228 .80
23914 Warren & Bailey Co. , Inc . , Hardware 18.29
23915 Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Inc ., Engine Parts 94.40
23916 Western Salt Co. , Salt 101 .37
23917 White, Fine & Ambrogne, Dr. , Prof. Services. (MO 5-8-74) 1, 500.00
23918 Bruce E. Witcher, Employee Mileage 11 .85
23919 Russell Wold, Employee Mileage 60.18
23920 Donald J. Wright, Employee Mileage 70.62
23921 Wynhausen Softener Co. , Water Softener 515.72
23922 Xerox Corp., Reproduction Service & Supplies 1,650.06
23923 Everett H. York Co. , Gaskets 19 .38
23924 Zodiac Paper Co . , Reproduction Supplies 201 .19
TOTAL JOINT OPERATING $ 117, 360.43
I-3
CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS
WARRANT NO . IN FAVOR. OF AMOUNT
. 23925 Bassett Office Furniture Co. , Office Equipment $ 137 .70
23926 Blue M Engineering Co . , Incubator & Freight 369 .96
23927 John Carollo Engineers - Engineering Services-Plant Constr. 2,849 .78
03928 Donovan Construction Co. of Minnesota, Contractor P1-16 575,221 .28
..3929 E.T.I. & Kordick, Contractor I-8-3 29,342.20
23930 Hemisphere Constructors, Contractor P2-21 5, 555.75
23931 Hoagland Engineering Co. , Contract Mgmt. Services P1-16 11,372.00
23932 Pacific Engineers, Contractor I-4-R 35,335.1-3
23933 J. Ray Construction Co., Retention J-13 55,223.43
23934 The Register, Bid Notice J-6-1 106.01
23935 S & S Products, Tools 2, 104.10
23936 Southern Calif. Testing Labs, Testing P1-16 1,101 .60
23937 Testing Engineers, Inc . , Testing P1-16 lo004.00
23938 Twining Laboratories, Testing P1-16 40.00.
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING $ 719,762.94
TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF $ 837, 123.37
..r
I-4
DISTRICT NO. 2
OPERATING FUND WARRANTS
WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT
23939 State of California., Board of E ualization, Annexation
Processing Fee, Annexation ? $ 85.00
ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
23940 Chino Basin MWD, Federal Grant Payment 2-14-2 $ 549,100.00
23941 Kasler Corporation & L. H. Woods & Sons, Contractor 2-14-2 897,654.00
23942 Lowry and Associates , Construction Survey 2-14-1 & 2-14-2 9,888.75
23943 Orange County Flood Control, Inspection Permit 2-17 416.00.
23944 The Register, Bid Notice 2-15 87.74
23945 Testing Engineers, Inc. , Pipe Inspection 2-14-2 1,976.00
$ 1,459,122. 49
$ 1,459, 207. 49
DISTRICT NO. 3
ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
23946 Boyle Engineering Corporation, Engr. Serv. 3-20-1, 3-20-2
3-20-3, Construction Survey 3-18 & 3-20-2 $ 32,723,,.�)
23947 A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc . & N. M. Saliba, Contractor 3-18 53.55443. 99
$ 568,167. 49
DISTRICT NO. 5
OPERATING FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
23948 The Register, Bid Notice 5-14-R4 $ 87.74
23948A Rewes-Schock, Retention Release 5-14-R3 2, 407. 93
$ 25 495.67
-II-
DISTRICT NO. 7
OPERATING FUND WARRANTS
WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT
23949 Gelco Grouting Service, Retention Release 7-1-R $ 916. 59
FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
23950 Boyle Engineering Corporation, Engr. Serv. 7-6-6, Design
Survey 7-6-6 $ 10,112.05
DISTRICTS NOS 1 & 7
SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
23951 C. Arthur Nisson, Legal Services 7-6-1 $ 300.00
DISTRICT NO. 11
ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS
IN FAVOR OF
2?"-)2 F. B. Cook Corporation, Contractor 11-10-2R $ 5,791. 46
-ILI-
B I D T A B U L A T I O N
S H E E T
Date September 10, 1974
Contract For:
EQUIPMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF GRIT AUGERS
AT PLANT NO. 1
SPECIFICATION NO. E-072
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
1. Barnes and Delaney $26 017 . 00
3330 E. 29th Street '
Long Beach, CA. 90806
2. Pacific Conveyor Company 40, 960. 52
Downey , CA. 90242
It is recommended that award be made to Barnes and Delaney in the
amount of $262017 . 00 .
W. N. Clarke , Superintendent.
*400
AGENDA ITEM ##11 (d) -IV-
ALL DISTRICTS
(714) 832.0271
LYTTLE
JOHN LYTTLE D PRESIEVELOPMENTS. INC. �oHN PRESIDENT
10411 MIRALAGO PL. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 02705
CORDON TRIPP
SALES AGENT
September 5, 1974
Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 7
of Orange County
P. 0. Box 8127
18844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92702
Gentlemen:
Request is herby made to annex 23.481 acres to
County Sanitation District No. 7 per the attached
map and description, "Annexation No. 42 - Tract
No. 8640 Annexation to County Sanitation District
No. 7 of Orange County" .
The territory in the proposed annexation is owned by:
John Lyttle Developements Inc.
10411 Miralago Pl .
Santa Ana, CA 92705
The assessed value of the area within the proposed
annexation as shown on the last preceeding equalized
assessement roll of Orange County is 71 , 914 dollars.
The area in the proposed annexation is uninhabited ,
therefore there are no voters residing in. the ter-
ritory-rproposed to be annexed .
Your early consideration of this matter will be
greatly appreciated .
Attached is a check for THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE
DOLLARS.
\Yours truly
JOHN LYTTLE DEVELOPEMENTS, INC.
Jo n,-.B. Lyttle, resident
.,r
AGENDA ITEM #42 -V- DISTRICT 7
�./ RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
September 1.1, 1974 - 7: 30 P.M.
COUNTY SAN ITAT l U:; I)I S"I'i:1 t' t'5 OF U!'.,\::G1: C0U.*,-1'Y
• P. 0. I.ox 8127 1:11 is Avenue
Fountain VcLlley, Ca.lifornia 92708
CHANGE 01tDT-R
C.O. 'N0. 2 _
CONTRACTOR: Pacific Engineers DATE_ September 11, 1974
JOI3: REPLACEMENT OF INTERPLANT GAS LINE - JOB NO. I-4R
Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (?I�I�>�XXI�) $ 3,067.40
... In accordance with contract Provisions , the following changes in the
e`ontract and/or contract work arc hereby authorized and as compensation
therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract Price are
hereby approved.
ADJUSTMENT OF ENGINEER'S QUANTITIES
ADD
Item Change Est'd Quant.
No: Unit From To
1. L.F.. 19,133 19,759 626 @ $4.90/L.F. $3,067.40
TOTAL ADD $3,067.40
Original Contract Price $ 98,151.70
Prev. Auth. Changes $ 1,668.66
This Change (ADD)XI1tN $ 3,067.40
NOW
Amended Contract Price S102,887.76
Board authorization date: Approved:
September 11, 1974 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of
Orange County, California
By
-agincer
By
IiY i1C I:I11;111i:
ontractor
AGENDA ITEM #11 (b ) =A- ALL .DISTRICTS
RESOLUTION NO. 74-115
ACCEPTING JOB NO. I-4R AS COMPLETE
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS . 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING JOB NO. I-4R AS COMPLETE AND
APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREET4ENT
The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 1,
2, 33 51 63 7 and 11 of Orange County, California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the contractor, Pacific Engineers , has
completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the
contract for REPLACEMENT OF INTERPLANT GAS LINE, JOB NO. I-4R, on
the 26th of August , 1974; and,
Section 2. That by letter, Districts ' engineers , have
recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in
accordance with the terms of the contract; and,
• Section 3. That the Chief Engineer of the Districts has con-
curred in said engineer' s recommendation, which said recommendation �r
is hereby received and ordered filed; and,
Section 4. That Replacement of Interplant Gas Line , Job
No. I-4R, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the
terms of the contract therefor, dated the 27th of June 1974; and,
Section 5. That the Chairman of District No . 1 is hereby
authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor;
and,
Section 6 . That the Final Closeout Agreement with Pacific
Engineers , setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of
Replacement of Interplant Gas Line , Job No. I-4R, is hereby approved; -
and,
Section 7. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of
Directors of District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to
execute said agreement on behalf of itself and County Sanitation
Districts Nos . 2, 33 5, 6 , 7 and 2.1 of Orange County, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held April 10 , 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #11 (c ) -B- ALL DISTRICTS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E
(714) 540-29I0
(714) 962-2411
PROGRESS REPORT
TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS
I-4R - REPLACEMENT OF INTERPLANT GAS LINE - ($99,820)
Work on this project has progressed as anticipated. The Contractor has completed
the pipe line and has placed it in service.
Contract 100 percent complete,
I-8-3 - INFLUENT METERING AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE - ($1,503,679)
INFLUENT CHANNEL: Complete to existing Plant No. 1 influent.
INFLUENT PIPING: Euclid and Sunflower Trunk bypasses in service. Completed
junction structures on Newhope-Placentia and District No. 1 trunk lines.
Interplant Influent Interceptor, Ellis Force Main, Newhope-Placentia, and
Sunflower Trunks have been connected to structure.
METERING AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE: Gate installation complete.
Contract approximately 96 percent complete to date.
P2-20 - POWER RELIABILITY PROJECT AT PLANT NO. 2 - ($158,294)
Contractor back on job.
Control cable installed
POWER BUILDING A: Modification begun.
Contract approximately 58 percent complete to date.
P2-21 - DIGESTERS "N" AND 110" AT PLANT NO. 2 - ($1,076,514)
DIGESTERS "N" AND "0": Complete.
DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING: Complete.
TUNNELS: Complete.
DIGESTER GAS COMPRESSORS: Complete.
..i STORM WATER PUMP STATION: Structurally. complete. Still having difficulty with
pump delivery.
Minor punch list items being completed by contractor.
Contract approximately 99,52 percent complete to date.
AGENDA ITEM #11 (e) C-1 ALL DISTRICTS
i
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
j of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
j (714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
c �
Progress Report
Treatment Plant Projects
Page Two
,1 P1-16 - 46 MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 - ($29,876,000)
Work on this project is progressing as anticipated. To date, all major
excavations and a site dewatering system have been completed. Pile driving
continues and is appr ximately ten percent complete. Underground pipe work
is underway and will continue through the month.
i
1
TREATMENT PLANT WORK
Total Value Under Contract $32,714,307 $32,714,307
Total Work to Date 3,253,024
Total Work During August 672,628
Total Work Awaiting Award 1,678,700 1,678,700
DISTRICT TRUNK LINE WORK
}
i Total Value Under Contract $10,160,000 $10,160,000
Total Work to Date 5,250,158
Total Work During August 961,454
Total Work Under Design 71,878,000 21,878,000
Total Work Awaiting Award , 720,193 720,193
TOTAL AMOUNT UNDER CONTRACT, DESIGN AND
AWAITING AWARD $67,151,200
September 5, 1974
e
I
AGENDA ITEM #11(e) C-2 ALL DISTRICTS
RESOLUTION NO. 74-123-2
APPROVING AND ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND
GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CSU, FULLERTON,
RE CONTRACT 2-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF' DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF
ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND
ACCEPTING AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF EASEMENT
FROM CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON,
IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACT NO. 2-15
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No . 2,
of Orange County, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That certain Agreement and Grant of Easement
dated , wherein an easement located on
property of California State University, Fullerton, in the vicinity
of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Associated Road, for construction
and maintenance of a sewage pump station and appurtenances is
�r granted to County Sanitation District No . 2, is hereby approved
and accepted from the State of California, acting by and through
its Director of General Services ; and,
Section 2 . That the real property over which said easement is
granted is more particularly described and shown on Exhibits "A"
and "B" , attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and,
Section 3. That said easement is granted in connection with
construction of. Yorba Linda Pump Station, Contract No . 2-15; and,
Section 4. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, be authorized and
directed to execute said agreement and Grant of Easement on behalf
of the District; and,
Section 5. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No . 2 be authorized and directed to record
said Agreement and Grant of Easement in the Official Records of
Orange County, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #11 (g) -D- DISTRICT 2
Copy: JWS
Santa Ana Valleg Irrigation Coillapunjj DIRECTORS
O//IC lR•
TELEPHON E 538-2351
PRESIDENT-R. D. LEWIS 154 NORTH GLASSELL STREET R. D. LEWIS
/ICE-PRESIDENTS P. O. BOX 6 E. E. PANKEY
E. E. PANKEY
H. E. BALMER Orange, California 92666 H. E. BALMER
SECRETARY-MANAGER August 1S, 1974 E.T. WATSON
WILLIAM B. WEST g H. NITTA
Orange County Sanitation District
Post Office Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Attention: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
Gentlemen:
After finally receiving approval from the Orange County
Water District on the wording , the matter of the Santa
Ana River Interceptor Sewer (Brine Line) easement across
our property was brought before our Board of Directors
at. their August 14 , 1974 meeting. At the same time
your letter of August 12 , 1974 was presented.
The Board concluded that they would authorize approval
of the easement and permit upon
1. defining of the easement as being twenty
feet (20 ' ) in width;
2 . receipt of $1 , 000 . 00 covering our legal,
managerial , engineering, inspection, and
miscellaneous office expenses;
3. wording confining the contractor to work
within the easement area only;
4 . after notification of entering upon pro-
perty, sixty (60) days in which to com-
plete work and vacate premises; if
election is made to continue on premises
after sixty (60) day period , a fee of
$100 . 00 per day.
In your letter you stated no manholes are located upon
the Company' s property. We wondered about M H No 2
566 + 71. 82? Really immaterial assuming access would
be from Lincoln Avenue south to the facility?
We will await your reply. If you have any questions
please call our office.
Very truly yours,
`/
William B. West
WBW/cjw
AGENDA ITEM #11 (h) (1 ) -E- DISTRICT 2
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ' `3 AREA CODE 7 4
�1 0-2910
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 542-2411
P. ❑. BOX 6127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10644 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLIO OFF-RAMP. SAN OIEG❑ FREEWAY)
August 30, 1974
Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company
I54 North Glassell Street
Orange, California 92666
Attention: Mr. William B. West, Secretary-Manager
Subject: Easement for Contract No. 2-14-2
Pursuant to the recent telephone conversation between your office and Ray E. Lewis,
Chief Engineer for the Sanitation Districts, this is to confirm that the District
is in complete agreement with the conditions as set forth in your letter of
August 15, 1974 regarding subject easement. Specifically, the District agrees to
the following:
1. Payment of $1,000 to cover the Irrigation Company's legal, managerial,
engineering, inspection and miscellaneous office expenses for a license
to enter and construct the Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer.
2. Definition of the permanent easement as being twenty feet (201) wide.
3. Incorporation of wording which will confine the contractor to work
within the easement area only with a prohibition against removal of
any material from the property.
4. A sixty day period in which to complete the work after notification
to the Irrigation Company of entry to the property. If the property
is not vacated after the sixty day period, a fee of $100 per day will
be paid to you.
S. We agree to negotiate with you in good faith to arrive at a price we
will pay for the permanent easement across your property. If a mutually
acceptable price has not been agreed upon by November 1, 1975, we agree
to file and prosecute to completion a condemnation action.
6. We will hold you harmless by reason of this license and construction.
AGENDA ITEM #11(h) (2) F-1 DISTRICT 2
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-29I0
(714) 962-2411
Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company
August 30, 1974
Page Two
It is also understood that you have given your permission to allow our
Contractor to proceed with construction of this project.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to call this office.
Bruce E. Witcher
Senior Engineer
BEW:ss
AGENDA ITEM #11(h) (2) F-2 DISTRICT 2
COUNTY SAN ITAT I O.N' D I STi;i CTS UI. COU:;T'i
P. 0. box 3127 - 10644 Ellis Avenue
Fouaitain Valley, California 92705
CHANGE ORDF.IZ
Kasler Corporation $ C.O. NO. 2 _
CONTRACTOR:_ L. H. Woods & Sons, Inc. A Joint Venture DATE September 4, 1974
JOB: Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer from Katella Avenue to La Palma Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-
Amount of this Change Order (MXX) Q KUM) $ 0.00
..i In accordance with contract provisions , the following changes in the
contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation
therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are
hereby approved.
Reference: Contractor's letter to District
dated August 7, 1974
Extension of Contract Time
The Contractor is hereby granted an .
extension of time for lost time due
to a strike of Laborers and Carpenters 31 Calendar Days
-- TOTAL TIME- EXTENSION 31 Calendar Days
Summary of Contract Time
.� Original Contract Date November 29, 1973
Original Contract Time 380 Calendar Days
Original Completion Date December 14, 1974
Total Time Extension 31 Calendar Days
Revised 'Contract Time 411 Calendar Days
Revised Completion Date January 14, 1975
Original Contract Price $ 3,545,635.33
Prev. Auth. Chanties $ 0.00
This Change 0=3 MKIMM) $ 0.00
NOW
Amended Contract Price 3,545,635.33
Board authorization date: September 11, 1974 Approved:
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of
Orange County, California
By -
Consu tiliti Engineer
By .
By _Chic- Lnr1;11?
Contractor
A nr.+7,Tr%A TM VM 91 1 (4 1 _r- DISTRICT 2 —
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92S.01
(7I4) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
M E M O R A N D U M
September 4, 1974
TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager
FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract No. 2-14-2
Installation of pipe has progressed 5,000 feet north of Taft Road.
Manhole installation and backfilling/compaction operations progressing
as scheduled. Tunnel under Taft Road moving slowly. Pipe has been
installed. One joint of pipe was damaged during pushing operations;
pipe being repaired.
Pipe installation and grouting under Southern Pacific Railroad has
been -completed. Block wall along Riverdale Avenue is being erected.
Contractor estimates completion of this project by the end of October,
1974.
REL:BEW:TR:hje
AGENDA ITEM #11(k) H-1 DISTRICT 2
�d
1 � \J � -•p� ,. •• � .ar1�V�wn,uu,7 a4:+ur:wr,N1A,�r�•1.� ���� .: �""��„ ,.,. -.`l
'�. `�yt a �.., • •�•. .. •.'. '-^ ...�.'^,,,�:1 Sianlruheq„r: � :.•� /.� R`,•i'C� �7
�:• -✓r��'� �� •�!"•1 � fti,: `•% 'Ir .;ti•� Gam,, f `..•I�.JL.�_ •.'.�'... .\ � � •`� \
`�� '�.•�-� •�'/-•i=�•mot '`��. I, .:9�a�^:y �., /�'�\��;� �n��`•C� (nIf L��L�r\\\\••'�±�,'1-,�•+.••. .
-iJ , •• 4u4TN/• �`JY 1�\'f/�•' \.•Y, \� � '�•\� ` •'_t anln••dd4„ • _fig `
`C~A lA ANA
\•` `� IN11N111NNt1NN11111N1111Nf141L441441111 �•-
'!A hjlµ/fir%✓LG'' �{
H •ec�s.::.��:•ss.:.�:zr.�.*ttfvw-u�c•c.�a�.sc,�e.•.a�rvx•sso•+ar.,�sw. .
LA >r:,•zzm-rs
`— 14111.444441441.................... { -! o'v
COWNUY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF O!)1V.GF-. COUNTY
P. 0. box 8127 - 108-14 Ellis 'Wenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
CIIANGIi 01Mi:R
A. G. Tutor Co . , Inc . & N. M. Saliba C.O. NO. 4
MINTRACTOR: Company, A Joint Venture DATE Se=tember 5 _ 1974
10B: Knott Interceptor, Reach 4 , Contract No . 3-18
Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (REDO : 5Q 0 . 00
In accordance with contract provisions , the following changes in the
:ontract and/or contract work arc hereby authorized and as compensation
therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are
iereby approved.
Reference-: District ' s letters to the Contractor
dated August 14 , 1974 and August 20, 1974
The Contractor shall be allowed to substitute 2450-D for
the tunnel and 1000-D pipe from Station 357+91 to 358+33 .
The following conditions shall apply:
1 . The trench width 1 foot above the top of the pipe
shall not exceed 14 feet .
2. All costs for this work , including the removal and
replacemq.nt of. the. railroad tracks and all costs
that may be - imposed by the Southern Pacific Railroad
shall .be borne by the Contractor and there shall be
no additional cost to the District .
3. The Contractor takes full responsibility for any
delays this work may cause, whether to the District ,
Railroad, or Contractor and there shall- be no
additional contract time for this work .
4 . All work shall be performed in strict aceordanCe
with the applicable provisions of the plans and
specifications .
S . Payment for this change in method 'will be made under
the appropriate bid items for tunnel and pipe and
there shall be no change in total contract price .
ADD $0 . 00
The Contractor shall be allowed to install 1000-D pipe from
Station 351+00 to 351+42 .
The following conditions shall apply:
1 . The 1000-D pipe shall be installed with a partial
concrete encasement extending from the bottom of
the pipe to one foot above the top of the pipe and
placed against the undisturbed trench walls . All
encasement ' coricrete shall be Class A (3000 psi) �..i
and vibrated to insure that no voids exist .
2 . There . shall be no additional cost to the District
and all costs shall be borne by the Contractor .
3 . The Contractor takes full responsibility for any
delays this work may cause and no additional contract
time shall be allowed for this work .
ADD $0 . 00
AGENDA ITEM #11 (1) I-1 DISTRICT 3
COU14TY SANITATION D I STI:I CTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
P. 0. Box 3127 - 108.14 Lillis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92709
CHMNGL• ORDER
A. G . Tutor Co . , Inc . C.O. NO. 4
CONTRACTOR: & N. M. Saliba Co . , A Joint Venture DATE September S , 1974
JOB: Knott Interceptor, Reach 4 , Contract No . 3- 18
` r' In consideration for the above changes in method , the
Contractor agrees not to make any claims against the -
District for the extra work performed on bid item
#8 due to changing the pipe size from 8" to 12" and
removing the concrete encasement , not shown on the
plans , from the District ' s 18" VCP sewer in order to
construct bid item #8 .
ADD $0 . 00
Original Contract Price 4_,334 , 412 . 00
Prev. Auth. Changes $ 0 . 00
This Change $ 0. 00
Amended Contract Price $ 4 , 334 ,412 . 00
Board authorization date : September 11, 1974 Approved:
COUNTY DISTRICTS of
Orange County, California
By By
consulting Engineer Chiet LnRineL
�By - —
Contractor
AGENDA ITEM #11(1) I-2 DISTRICT 3
COUNTY SANITATION' DIST!:ICTS 01: 0!'j1::(1,1. COUNTY
P. 0. I;ox 51"27 - 1!);)4-I 1:111:, Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
CHANGE 01,11)%IZ
A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc. C.0. \0. 5
NTItACTOR: and N. M. Saliba Company, A Joint Venture DATE September 5, 1974
Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18
Amount of this Chan-e Order ( XtQa $ 0,00
In accordance with contract Provisions , the following chan;es in the .�.i
ntract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as *compensation
erefor , the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are
:reby approved.
Reference: Contractor's letter to District
dated August 7, 1974 '
Extension of Contract Time
The Contractor is hereby granted an
extension of time for lost time due
to a strike of Laborers and Carpenters 31 Calendar Days
TOTAL TIME EXTENSION 31 Calendar Days
Summary of Contract Time
Original Contract Date June 1, 1973
Original Contract Time 360 Calendar Days
Original Cohlpletion Date May 27, 1974
Previous Time Extension 128 Calendar Days
Total Time Extension 159 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Time 519 Calendar Days
Revised Completion Date November .2, 1974
Original Contract Price $ 4,334,412.00
Prev. Auth. Chances $ 0.00
This Chance (ALU) (1),1W Ifit) $ 0,00
Amended Contract Price 84,334,412.00
3oard authorization date: September 11, 1974 Approved:
COUNTY SAN I TAT I O: DISTRICTS of
Orange County, California
Y
Consulting Enbincer
BY
�Y • • 11 C 1;11 I;111�l;1'
Contractor
AGENDA ITEM #11(1) -J- DISTRICT ?
COUNIT), S AUTAT N N STi:1(;TS OF Oi'.ANC-E COU;;TY
11. 0. 11oix S 1 7 - 1 0,i 14 1:11 is 'Went:e
Fouiitaia Valley, California 92708
C11A'XE. Oi;l ER
A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc. C.O. NO. 6
;O:d'fl::1CT0lt : and N. M. Saliba Corryinv, A .Taint Moisture DATE Son mbar S-107,4
101.: Knott Interceptor, hunch 4 , Contract No. 3-18
Amount of this Change Order (A!);)) $ 7 , 928 . 77
NOW In accordance with contract provisions , the following Chan-es in the
:ontract an,i/or contract i.or',, are hereby authorized and as co,apensation
therefor, the following auditions to or deductions from the contract Price are
iereby approved.
Reference : Contractor ' s letters to the
District dated September 17 ,
1973 ; October 3 , 1973 ; December
5 , 1973 ; December .17 , 1973;
January 5, 1974 ; January 9, 1974;
• and April 1 , 1974 . District ' s
letter to Contractor dated
April 29, 1974 .
ADD:
A. For removal of debris encountered
while drilling to place soldier
beams on Bolsa Avenue between
Stations 291+90 and 292+25. 490. 00
..� B. For construction of brick bulkhead
directed by the district at
Station 265+64 . 814 .72
C. For removal of abandoned Southern
California Gas Company reinforced
concrete vault encountered at
Station 288+28t. Vault not shown
on plans . 688 . 00
D. For removal and reconstruction of
a portion of the curve between
Stations 263+92 and 265+01 , construct
a closure section and for additional
supports for existing utilities in
order to better accommodate the
modified alignment of contract 3-17 .. 4 , 000 . 00
E. For removal and replacement of
approximately 357 feet of concrete
curb, gutter and cross gutter
to conform to County Road Department
requirements for ultimate street
improvements and permit requirements . 1 , 936 . 05
TOTAL ADD $7 , 928 .77
AGENDA ITEM #11 (1) K-1 DISTRICT 3
COU14TY SANITATION DISTRICTS 01- OkZ1`;GI; COUNTY
P. 0. Box 8127 - 108,14 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
C11ANG1: ORDER
A. G. Tutor Co. , Inc. C.O. NO. 6
CONTRACTOR: and N. M. Saliba Company, A Joint Venture DATE , eptem er S , 1974
JOB: Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18
Extension of Contract Time
The Contractor is hereby granted an
extension of time for the above work.
Item A 1 Calendar Day
Item B 1 Calendar Day
Item C 1 Calendar Day
Item D 9 Calendar Days
Item E 3 Calendar Days
TOTAL TIME EXTENSION 15 Calendar Days
Summary of Contract Time
Original Contract Date June 1 , 1973
Original Contract Time 380 Calendar Days
Original Completion Date May 27 , 1974
Time Extension this Change Order 15 Calendar Days
Previous Time Extension 159 Calendar Daya.i
Total Time Extension 174 Calendar Days
Revised Contract Time 534 Calendar Days
Revised Completion Date November 17 , 1974
Original Contract Price $ 4 ,334 , 412 . 00
Prev. Auth. Chanties $ 0 . 00
This Change (ADD) (=''M=) $ 7 , 928 . 77
Amended Contract Price S4 , 342 , 340 . 77
Board authorization date : Approved:
September 11, 1974 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of �
• Orange County, California
By (. By
Consulting Engineer Chief1;ngi11CL
By
Contractor
AGENDA ITEM #11(1) K-2 DISTRICT 3
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5, 1974
TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager
FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18
Installation of pipe has progressed approximately 400 feet west of
Hoover on Main Street. Open cut has been completed across the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks. Rail service has been resumed. The intersection
of Hazard and Hoover Streets is open to through traffic.
Backfilling is completed on Hoover and progressing along Main Street.
Construction should be completed on Main Street by October 1st.
Installation of manholes is on schedule. Chain link fence erection has
been completed along the east side of- Hoover Street.
A property owners informational meeting was held at Will more School in
Westminster on Tuesday, September 3rd at 7:30 P.M. Letters of invitation
were hand delivered to all residents affected by the construction on
Main Street prior to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to
familiarize the residents along Main Street with the job the Sanitation
Districts are trying to do, both in the Main Street area and throughout
the Districts. Residents were briefed on the reasons for the selection
of the Main Street alignment and the necessity of a trunk sewer system
in that area. Following the brief presentation, a question and answer
period was held, giving the property owners an opportunity to voice
their opinions and feelings concerning the construction.
REL:BEW:TR:hje
AGENDA ITEM #11(q) L-1 DISTRICT 3
Ir
Y)
L
U � 'L� �:;:s�� roan. 1111,'-'-" �-., � �-_^. .- 'gig
El
,is Li
.............
z
Lo
7-1
ij
AGENDA ITEM #11 (g) L-2 DISTRICT
Engineer's Estimate $60,000.
B I D T A B U L A T I O N
S H E E T
Date September 4, 1974 .- 11.00 A.M.
�aA
Contract For: Manhole Replacement and Repair
Contract No. 5-14R-4
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
1• Rewes-Schock, A Joint Venture
715 South Nakoma Drive
Santa Ana, California 92704 $49,047.26
It is recommended that award be made to Rewes-Schock, J.V.
in the amount of $49, 047 . 26
�✓ /LLlcld;f-4
W. N. Clarke, Superintendent
I concur in the above recommendation.
R ewi Chie-r Engineer
NEW
AGENDA ITEM #11 (s ) -M- DISTRICTS 5 & 6
RESOLUTION NO. 74-118
CREATING A SUSPENSE FUND
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CREATING A
SUSPENSE FUND FOR PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS
JOINTLY UNDERTAKEN; ESTABLISHING PERCEN-
TAGES OF CONTRIBUTION; AND DESIGNATING
DISTRICT NO. 5 AS AGENT
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 County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange
County, California, is hereby authorized and directed to establish
a suspense fund for the purpose of the payment of joint obligations
in connection with the Manhole Replacement and Repair, Contract
No. 5-14R-4; and,
Section 2. That County Sanitation Districts Nos . 5 and 6
shall bear the percentage costs of the joint obligations chargeable
to said suspense fund in the following percentages, as set forth
in that- certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale dated July 1, 1966,
to wit:
District No . 5 - 75%
District No. 6 - 25%
Section 3 . That County Sanitation District No. 5 be appointed
agent, to act for itself and County Sanitation District No. 6; and
that the Chairman of said District No . 5, and the Secretary, be
authorized and directed to sign warrant books for said suspense fund;
and,
Section 4. That, upon written request of the General Manager,
the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to transfer
funds from the Districts ' Operating Funds to the suspense fund herein
provided.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #11(t ) -N- DISTRICTS 5 & 6
Chevron Standard Oil Company of California,
Western Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phone (213) 691-2251
.M. Rasmussen
District Land Supervisor Land Department September 4, 1974
Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary
Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 3
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Dear Mr. Sylvester:
The Standard Oil Company of California respectfully request that the
herewith attached legally described area be annexed to the Orange
County Sanitation District No. 11.
We are the sole lessee of the proposed area by virtue of an oil and
gas lease. The area is uninhabited, and consists of 44.1868 acres.
Enclosed is our check in the amount of $325.00, representing District
processing costs, and we would be very grateful if this matter could
appear on.your September 11, 1974 meeting agenda.
Yours very truly,
RAP:cm
Enclosures
AGENDA ITEM #11(u) —0— DISTRICT 11
RESOLUTION NO. 74-119
AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE DATA PROCESSING
SERVICES
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3,
51 6, 7, AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH
TO PROVIDE DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation District Nos .
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the proposal of
is hereby received, filed, and accepted; and,
Section 2. That the General Manager of the Districts is hereby
authorized to enter into an agreement with
to provide data processing services in accordance with the terms
of said proposal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #13 (d) -P- ALL DISTRICTS
J COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
-FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
1714) 962-2411
c
M E 11 0 R A N D U M
--September 4, 1974
TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager
-FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Acquisition of-Additional Properties Adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 2
(Northerly 8 Acres)
On March 1, 1974, the staff transmitted to the State Water Resources Control 'Board
and Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency, a Project Report for
Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2. This Report included an evaluation and recom-
mendation to meet the Districts' requirements for the State and Environmental
Protection Agency's regulations and the flow commitments for the year 1985. To
meet the present State and Federal requirements, based upon conventional methods
of treatment, it will be necessary to acquire additional lands to the north of
Plant No. 2 to accommodate the anticipated additional facilities required as shown
-on the attached sketch.
It is my opinion that the Districts should proceed with the acquisition of the
7 1/2 acre parcel north of Plant No. 2 to provide the necessary land for treatment
facilities to meet present and future wastewater discharge requirements. The
1/2 acre parcel included in the undeveloped eight acres north of the Plant would
not be required for acquisition at this time nor at any foreseeable time in the
near future.
REL:hj e
AGENDA ITEM #14 (b) (1) Q-1 ALL DISTRICTS
' N
' r+
A
a
NO �
SANTA ANA RIVER
Ile
-..'. ....- - - .r.�. .. .....-..... - - . - ..._.-.�......- - -
S (D
EDS Ivu
l
•••,,.�. "`�',�� :'��4 `, ;�➢,. �'� �. r e. =fib:' 'i y ?'��: � ` Q O t'w -
OQ fl ♦ CPO
It
0 pR tag E 'Pp
�tFpL S,ipRAG -�. o�y``�.`,,,•� ;. 1�s ' .. •�Or;:' � 1 � d
Rs HO•
T�
t� Vie,�, R. do
G4AR pL A► "•FFr�,♦ :. pLptE W
FLOG 4 y.5 7 ` 5
P�pn��°';���• yea AL��'RNT1 LA'(oVF,�.�ERS
�°� TS P�pRNG -
1�
Of
S CpUN GE coot,,,(,
4w....
s A -
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
M E M 0 R A N D U M
September 5, 1974
TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager
FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
- SUBJECT: Acquisition of Additional Properties Adjacent to Treatment Plant No. 2
(Southwesterly Three Acres Adjacent to Plant Site)
Attached herewith is a copy of the site arrangement for the best apparent alterna-
tive as included in the Report submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board
and the Environmental Protection Agency on March 1, 1974. You will note that
additional lands are required to accommodate the processing of the wastewaters to
meet the newly enacted State and Federal discharge requirements. This alternative
does not provide for ultimate solids disposal at this Plant.
At the present time, the solids processing portion of this Plant's facilities are
located adjacent to the three acre site owned by Rinker Development Company,
fronting on Brookhurst Street. It is conceivable that the solids treatment and
processing area can be confined within the present boundary restraints of this
Plant site. However, this can only be achieved if a new approach can be found for
ultimate solids processing. If we must continue with the existing solids processing
procedures, that is to say by anaerobic sludge digestion, centrifuging and haul away
to land composting, additional lands would be required.
In the event that the State and Federal discharge requirements are altered, which
would dictate a different scheme for treating the wastewaters at Plant No. 2, it
is also conceivable that additional lands would be required which is evidenced on
Alternate OS4 which was included and discussed in the Report submitted to the State
and Environmental Protection Agency. With the uncertainties associated with the
ultimate solids processing facilities the State and Federal discharge regulations
will require, it is my opinion that it is essential that the Districts acquire this
three acre site at this time to allow a maximum latitude within the confinements
of this Plant site. It would be more prudent to acquire this parcel at this time
and hold the lands until final commitments for this Plant have been made, and then
if excess property remains it can be subsequently disposed of at some future date.
REL:hje
AGENDA ITEM #14 (c ) (1) R-1 ALL DISTRICTS
z
t7
s4
AS sc _ _- Hr, qNA R��FR
1C �.
H 1 I RF _
^ SC PS Sc �-
l�
fC ! SC
^ B B RIF O 1_
Sc O
AD sC O O CI B
•` B
`\ P �I FgLE
� AB O PF p 0
_ O o 0
\ . A7 R} SF ��� P
=, 0 5OLI05 PROCE: 5si G
EXISTING •\ BB P P O
o
P
fU D PROPOSED
AS AERATION B%SIN O
9 OUTFALL 9OOSTCR PUMP STATION l u D D D
D ./
B9 BLOWER BUILDING T P P P P
CF CENTRIFUGATION FACILITIES
G \al �� /
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN ( I QD OD O
0 DIGESTERS �f-+
H HEADWORKS •� /
P PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASIN \ P P P P CF D PS PUMP STATION
RF ROUGHING FILTER 499 \
S FLOW SPLITTER BOX 00� �\ D D D G P T SLUDGE THICKENERS yG /
RS
T `
,It k
r�
a ODO
(10
CJ BUSHARD STREET
H
SITE ARRANGEMENT
APPARENT BEST ALTERNATIVE
c�
�10 JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS PLATE NO.
7�
oHOENtX WALNUT CREEK •SANTA ANA OF
ORANGE C^11NTY, CALIFORNIA EK —2
RESOLUTION NO. 74-124
REQUESTING A14ENDMENT TO FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT PL 92-500 TO ALLOW
AD VALOREM TAXES AS A BASIS FOR USER
CHARGE SYSTEMS
.w A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS . 1, 2, 3,
52 6, 7, AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT (PL 92-500) TO ALLOW AD VALOREM
TAXES AS A BASIS FOR USER CHARGE SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, Section 204 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 provides , in part , as follows :
". . . (b) (1) . . . that the applicant (A) has adopted
or will adopt a system of charges to assure that
each recipient of waste treatment services within
the applicant 's jurisdiction, as determined by the
administrator, will pay its proportionate share of
the costs of operation and maintenance (including
replacement) of any waste treatment services
provided by the applicant. . . "
and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted
said provision of the Act as allowing ad valorem taxes as a basis
for a user charge system as required in the Act; and,
WHEREAS, the General Accounting Office has , however, ruled that
ad valorem taxes are not allowable as a basis for a user charge
system to meet said provisions of the Act; . and,
WHEREAS, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,
presently serving a population of 1, 500,000 in more than twenty-four
communities , have heretofore demonstrated their ability to finance
their activities and distribute costs of said activities equitably
among their users , resulting in an efficient and cost-effective
program of wastewater quality control in Orange County; and,
WHEREAS, said program of wastewater quality control has hereto-
fore been, for the most part, supported for capital improvements and
expansion and operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities by
ad valorem taxes; and,
AGENDA ITEM #15 S-1 ALL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, implementation of a direct user charge by the County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County would involve a system of
charges for over 400,000 separate connections , would not be cost
effective, and would significantly add to the Districts ' operating
costs by as much as 25%, thus placing an additional burden on all
users ; and,
WHEREAS, these Joint Boards of Directors have heretofore
declared their ifttent to adopt a revenue program for financing
of Districts ' activities which envisions the use of ad valorem tax
as a component of said revenue program,. and which said revenue
program would demonstrate the Districts ' ability to fund operation
and maintenance of facilities ; demonstrate the Districts ' ability
to finance the replacement and expansion of facilities as needed;
demonstrate that the industrial community will pay its proportionate
share of Districts ' costs and will adopt industrial waste discharge
rules and regulations ; and demonstrate that Districts ' costs are
equitably distributed among users ; and,
WHEREAS, the Districts propose to accomplish the above in `r
accordance with the Water Pollution Control Act ' s stated objective
of minimizing procedures and paperwork and interagency decisions
and procedures and the best utilization of available manpower and
funds .
NOW THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos . 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County , California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE :
That the Joint Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California, do
hereby petition Congress to amend the Water Pollution Control Act
(PL 92-500) to authorize ad valorem taxes as one of several sources
of revenue for user charge systems .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #15 S-2 ALL DISTRICTS
RESOLUTION NO. 74-114
AMENDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT RESOLUTION NO.
70-3, AS AMENDED
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SA14ITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT RESOLUTION NO. 70-3,
AS AMENDED, RE DEFINITION OF OVERTIME
WHEREAS, effective May 1, 1974, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, requires overtime pay after forty hours of work
per week at not less than one and one-half the employee' s pay
rate; and,
WHEREAS, these Boards of Directors have heretofore adopted
a resolution providing for overtime pay in compliance with said
provision of the Act; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of said Act relative to
overtime pay, it is deemed necessary to clarify the definition of
overtime service contained in the Districts ' resolution setting
forth the rules and regulations relative to conditions of employment .
NOW THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos . 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER:
Section 1. That Section 4 of Resolution No . 70-3, as amended,
is hereby further amended to read as follows , effective May 1, 1974 :
"Section 4. If, in the judgment of the General
Manager or his designee , work beyond the prescribed
work week is required of an employee, such work that
exceeds forty hours of actual hours worked during said
week shall be considered overtime service and will be
compensated for as provided in Section 16 of the Districts '
most current Positions and Salaries Resolution.
Section 2. That any resolutions or motions or portions thereof
that conflict herewith are hereby repealed and made of no further
effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #16 -T- ALL DISTRICTS
RESOLUTION NO. 74-120
APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT BASIN-WIDE
WASTEWATER SOLID: MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STUDY
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, and 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PROVIDING FOR A JOINT BASIN-WIDE WASTEWATER
SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STUDY
The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California,
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the certain agreement dated ,
by. and between County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County,
the City of Los Angeles, and County Sanitation District No. 2 of
Los Angeles County, providing for a $2,000,000 joint basin-wide
wastewater solids management program study is hereby approved and
adopted; and,
Section 2. That, in order to provide working capital to
cover start-up costs and facilitate administration a Revolving
Fund will be established, and each party to said agreement shall
advance one-third of required working capital, not to exceed
$300, 000 for. the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County; and,
Section 3. That the total net costs of said study which are
not funded by a Step 'l state and federal grant shall be shared
equally by the parties to said agreement , not to exceed a total
net cost of $100, 000 for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County; and,
Section 4 . That the Chairman and Secretary of County Sanitation
District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
agreement on behalf of itself and County Sanitation Districts Nos 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held. September 11, 1974 .
AGENDA ITEM #17 -U- ALL DISTRICTS
• COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962.2411
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5, 1974
TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager
FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Yorba Linda Pump Station - Contract No. 2-15
Bids were received on Wednesday, September 4, 1974 for this pumping station for
District No. 2. Four bids were received, which ranged from $671,000 to $808,000.
The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $532,000. I have reviewed the cost
breakdown between the Engineer's Estimate and the low bid, and it is apparent that
the spiraling escalation is difficult to anticipate at this time. The contractors
have projected cost escalation to the end of the project at which time the major
mechanical equipment will be delivered and installed. The Engineer's Estimate was
prepared in April of this year and was not revised prior to the receipt of the bids.
I am attaching herewith two graphs prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency,
which reflect the cost index for both sewage treatment plant costs and sewer
construction costs for the calendar years 1973-74.
J. Putnam Henck and Henck Pro, the apparent low bidders, have previously performed
contractural work with the Sanitation Districts, mainly on treatment plant projects.
J. Putnam Henck constructed "C" Headworks at Plant No. 2, Contract No. 'P2-11 in
the amount of $2,498,528. Contract No. P2-17, Sedimentation Basin 11V and Digester
"K", in the amount of $1,199,440 was also completed by this construction company.
I concur with the design engineer's recommendation, which is attached hereto, to
award the contract to J. Putnam Henck in the amount of $671,146.00.
REL:hje
AGENDA ITEM #47 (a) V-1 DISTRICT 2
A� soswocriates
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE • SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701
TELEPHONE 714 /541-5301
September 5, 1974
L
Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer
County Sanitation Districts
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Subject: Yorba Linda Pump Station, Contract No. 2-15
Dear Mr. Lewis:
We have reviewed the bids received for the subject project on September 4,
1974. Five bids were received and are compared with our Engineer's esti-
mate as follows:
Engineer's Estimate - $532,000
J. Putnam Henck - $671,146
Taylor & Hoover, Inc. - $673,850
Sully Miller $697,455
Hydro Mechanical Co. - $808,000
We have conferred with the low bidder in order to ascertain why the bid
was approximately 25 percent higher than our estimate. We have determined
the fallowing:
1) Our Engineer's estimate was made approximately four months ago
and did not adequately take into account the severe inflationary
trend that we are now experiencing.
2) The bidders can no longer obtain firm prices from suppliers on
certain items and must anticipate what the cost of these items
might be when they are delivered. In this instance, valves and
piping are an extremely critical item.
3) Long lead times are necessary for delivery of mechanical and
electrical equipment, which further adds to the Contractor's
problems and costs.
It should be noted that the two lowest bidders, who estimated the costs and
problems by two separate and independent evaluations, arrived at essentially
the same bid. This most likely indicates that the low bid is as good as can
be obtained under the present' circumstances.
It is also noted that J. Putnam Henck is a long-established contractor and
has successfully completed a number of projects for the County Sanitation
Districts in the past. '
AGENDA ITEM #47 (a) V-2 DISTRICT 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO`I AGENCY
OFFICE OF RATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
Program Planning and Evaluation- Branch
Data Analysis and Reports Section
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT and SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
(1957-1959=100)
July: 1974
PLANT
Values % Change % Chanae Values % Change % Change
Cities July 1974 July 1973 April 1974 I *July 1974 July 1973 April 1974
ATLANTA 191 .45 15.4 7.4 210.69 18.3 10.3
BALTIMORE 204.70 19.1 6.1 226.02 10.2 2.5
BIRMINGHAM 184.81 14.4 6.2 194.57 15.4 4.5
BOSTON 221 .52 17.4 10.6. 264.04 26.3 10.4
CHICAGO 220.13 18.5 7.3 238.06 15.1 7.1
CINCINNATI 217.77 20.7 10.5 232.16 17.6 9.2
CLEVELAND 224.39 15.5 7.7 243.99 14.8 7.0
Di,LL d-.cS i0..5 �f.ti 192.56 14.` � .,�1
DENVER 196.26 16.6 11 .8 196.86 11 .1 9.6
DETROIT 223.10 12.3 8.3 253.04 11 .7 6.6
KANSAS CITY 213.48 12.6 8.6 234.59 12.8 9.5
LOS ANGELES 221 .08 10.6N 6.0✓ 231 .13 10.9 2.2
MINNEAPOLIS 212.13 13.8 9.2 227.31 9.4 4.3
NEW ORLEANS 189.29 13.8 9.9 204.40 16.2 14.4
NEW YORK 242.48 15.3 7.1 272.40 -9.9 6.3
PHILADELPHIA 218.80 18.3 8.7 254.67 25.4 8.9
PITTSBURGH 224.23 16.4 10.9 236.23 12.8 6.2
ST. LOUIS 201 .90 9.8 6.4 216.98 7.9 6.9
SAN FRANCISCO 230.26 14.3 6.0 242.00 11 .8 4.4
SEATTLE 212.44 18.1 6.3 221 .96 15.7 5.9
NATIONAL
INDEX VALUES 212.15 15.5 8.2 229.68 14.3 7.2
August 21 , 1974
AGENDA ITEM #47 (a) V-3 DISTRICT 2
-"i
COST INDEX
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT _ :( : _ ;:� -•
1 1 r J �_•-�i�_ _,
- - 1
-t
- --� �J — -— -�_ . ;._::._-� —��- — =��--- — �• —=i.'/ is �:—�ri=•.( =•�r :: :�-�s-I: =�`.. :1
--- -' :i: ,-.. -(':_�. �•- .: -i..:�._};. :;: yip=j=-.:_ :l: :Y
-, -:• -ice- :..,. ._{ .;:�;
77
- _-�_•--i• = , -_�_-:1�_
:203 •__: ~� - - - -_'::�-:tom t':-_,_- t--_- _ _.
• +,t'
Af
ice_ ......... --t
_87-
-973
-71
' JAN _ FEB ' MAR '_'APR j MAY JUNE_ JULY AUG ' SEPT MT..' NOV - DEC
AGENDA ITEM #47 (a) V-4 DISTRICT 2
7.
-- -=-=—'---=--SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST -INDEX ' -----= -'-- — - '—�
---
7.
-226
214
00,
100,
1973
WOO
t--- 198 — —--- —-- --- - - --' ---, — --- f '-- -
—194.
.190
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT N!1V DEC �
AGENDA ITEM #47 (a) V-5 DISTRICT 2
Engineer's Estimate: $532,000
B I D T A B U L A T I O N
S H E E T
Date Sente ,gr_ 4. 1974 - 11 ,00 A.M.
Contract- For: Yorba Linda Pump Station
Contract No. 2-15
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
1� J. Putnam Henck, A Corp. and
Henck Pro, A Joint Venture
S50 West 40th Street
San Bernardino, California 92406 $671,146.00
2. Taylor $ Hoover, Inc.
Post Office Box 215
San Marcos, California 92069 $673,850.00
3. Sully-Miller Contracting Company
3000 East South Street
"• Long Beach, California 90806 $697,45S.00
4.. Hydro-Mechanical Company
14107 Crenshaw Boulevard
Hawthorne, California 90250 $808,000.00 �
5.
6
7.
8.
9 •
10.
AGENDA ITEM #47 (b ) -W- DISTRICT 2
In addition to the members of my Council or Board, I would
like invitations sent to the following for the dinner meeting
and tour of the Sanitation Districts ' facilities on September
25th:
Name Title
Name Title
Name Title
Name of Director
Agenda Item No.
PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
v
888 NORTH MAIN STREET
SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 02ZOI
September 4, 1974
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this report is to discuss the findings and present our recommendations
related to the selection of a data processing service vendor for the County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County (the Districts).
The report includes a brief background of the study, our approach to vendor
selection, a review of the key factors we studied and our conclusions and recommendations.
SUMMARY
We recommend the Districts contract with Xerox Computer Services (XCS) for data
processing service. XCS provides a cost-effective service with proven operational systems in
each of the applications areas required by the Districts.
BACKGROUND
In 1973 the Board of Directors of the Districts approved a study, performed by Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell & Co., of the feasibility of data processing for the Districts. One of several
conclusions of the study, completed in early 1974, was that a data processing service could be
effectively used in the following financial application areas:
Payroll and labor distribution
Fixed assets accounting
P. M. M. & CO.
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
2
Accounts payable
Job cost and construction-in-progress accounting
General ledger for final accounting
Budget reporting.
The Board of Directors approved a further study to assist the Districts in selecting
a vendor to provide data processing service.
APPROACH
There were a number of tasks performed leading to the recommendation in this
report. First, was the development of a representative list of data processing service vendors.
This list included major established firms in Southern California, governmental agencies with
experience in data processing service, and companies asking to be included in the bidding
process. We did not attempt to be all inclusive, but to provide a bidders' list with a variety of
services and one that would allow competitive proposals.
The next step was the preparation and mailing of a detailed Request for Proposal
(RFP). This RFP included 18 pages divided into four sections, providing the following
information:
I. Instructions for proposal preparation
II. Background information
III. Application descriptions
IV. Proposal requirements.
The RFP was mailed May 15, 1974 to twelve companies providing data processing services.
The bid list and responses are contained in Exhibit A.
P. M. M. a CO.
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
3
A bidders' conference was held on June 4, 1974 at which there were seven companies
represented. Questions were answered at that conference and some supplementary material
was provided to the bidders.
Proposals were submitted by the following companies:
Dataspecs Computer Services
Public Agency Data Systems
21st Century
Xerox Computer Services.
These proposals were carefully reviewed and three companies were requested to make
personal presentations and to submit to questions by the Districts' financial staff. The three
making presentations were:
Public Agency Data Systems
21 st Century
Xerox Computer Services.
Further study and analysis were performed on these bidders. An on-site inspection of
Xerox Computer Services was made. Our findings and conclusion were summarized and
reviewed with the Districts' management.
KEY SELECTION FACTORS
All the major selection criteria are discussed in this section of the report. Each factor
was applied to each of the four vendors that presented proposals. The four vendors analyzed in
this section are:
Dataspecs Computer Services
Public Agency Data Systems (PADS)
21st Century
`� Xerox Computer Services (XCS).
P. M. M. & CO.
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
4
Application Capability
The single most important selection factor was the quality of the computer programs
(software) that the vendor was proposing for each application area. The applications were:
Payroll and labor distribution
Fixed asset accounting
Accounts payable/purchasing
Job cost accounting
Construction in progress
General ledger
Budget reporting.
Considered in this evaluation were the amount of modifications to the software
required, the documentation available, the proven operational experience demonstrated, and
the capabilities provided by the computer systems. We made these major points because we do
not believe the Districts have the resources or time to correct or greatly modify computer
programs but should utilize well-proven systems.
Xerox Computer Services was the only system to provide demonstratable software in
all requested application areas that would meet the Districts' current and future requirements.
PADS presented excellent systems that were competitive with XCS in every area except the
area of job cost accounting. Since job cost accounting is a major and high-volume activity for
the Districts, this is an important requirement. Both XCS and PADS demonstrated excellent
understanding of the requirements presented by the Districts and of governmental accounting
requirements in general.
P. M. M. a CO.
The Boards of Directors
NWW County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
5
21st Century had serious deficiencies in the general ledger area. General ledger is a
complex activity due to the many funds, the governmental requirements and the
interrelationship of the many Districts. Dataspecs did not have a fixed asset system to meet the
Districts' requirements. Extensive modifications were unacceptable to the Districts and
resulted in lower ranking for 21st Century and Dataspecs. A ranking based on application
software capability would be:
1. Xerox Computer Services
2. Public Agency Data Systems
3. 21st Century
4. Dataspecs Computer Services.
Cost
Cost is certainly the other major factor in this analysis. There are two cost
comparisons made here. The initial modification cost and the ongoing processing costs. The
costs for processing for one year were proposed as follows:
Dataspecs Computer Services $47,364.00
Public Agency Data Systems 30,000.00
21st Century 15,975.00
Xerox Computer Services 32,316.00
Our estimate in the previous study was that a realistic charge for the Districts'volume
and activities would be $30,000.00.
The proposed costs for modifications or purchase of existing software were as follows:
Dataspecs $ 1,950.00
Public Agency Data Systems 48,212.00
21st Century 2,790.00
Xerox Computer Services None
P. M. M. & CO.
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
6
There are other costs to consider also in making this evaluation. Those are the costs
incurred if systems do not work or create work rather than contributing to efficiency. Any
system that has not been proven over a period of time can add to costs if it does not function
as expected.
Dataspecs was not considered further in our evaluation because of the combination of
high ongoing costs and lack of proposed systems with proven acceptance in governmental
environments. 21st Century was carefully considered because of the low costs proposed.
However, the serious lack of understanding of the governmental accounting requirements and
the complexities involved led us to believe that the low bid was not realistic. Further, the
extensive time required by the Districts to develop the necessary system would far outweigh
any cost advantage. A decision for 21st Century because of low cost would be basically a
decision to totally develop computer programs for key applications.
We believed the XCS and PADS ongoing costs to be realistic and highly competitive.
These bidders also understood the requirements of the RFP in a superior manner. The high
initial costs, however, of purchasing the PADS programs place PADS at a distinct cost
disadvantage. Therefore, our rankings based on all aspects of costs were:
1. Xerox Computer Services
2. Public Agency Data Systems
3. 21st Century
4. Dataspecs.
Resources
The resources in terms of capital, qualified personel and computer hardware were also
considered. Xerox Computer Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Xerox Corporation
with substantial resources. XCS has a large-scale real-time computer providing on-line service to
P. M. M. a CO.
..i The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
7
over 300 customers nationwide. XCS has many highly qualified computer professionals
available to support the Districts.
PADS is financed by capital funds provided by the users based on the users' option to
participate. All costs must be distributed to the participant including all cost overruns. PADS
uses time on a large-scale computer located at the Kawasaki plant in Orange County. PADS'
total professional resources are five people.
21st Century is an independent corporation whose stock is primarily held by the
principals who direct the company. They use a second-generation tape/card computer, the IBM
1401. They have a professional staff of approximately five.
Based on resources, our rankings would be as follows:
1. Xerox Computer Services
2. Public Agency Data Systems
3. 21st Century.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
We reviewed each of the bidders in many areas, based on both written proposals and
personal presentations. Our findings, presented earlier, covered application capabilities, costs
and resources. This section presents our conclusions based on our study and our
recommendation. It is important to note that Mr.Wayne Sylvester and his staff were
extensively involved in reviewing every aspect of this study.
Conclusions
We began the selection process with the requirement for proven governmental
computer programs. Both XCS and PADS met these requirements very well. Both 21st
P. M. M. & CO.
The Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 4, 1974
8
Century and Dataspecs did not meet these requirements and did not understand the
requirements or appear to have personnel who could respond to the Districts' needs.
XCS provided a realistic and competitive cost proposal which proved more favorable
than PADS'. Finally, there are substantial resources available to XCS when compared to the
other bidders.
Recommendation
Our recommendation is that the districts contract with Xerox Computer Services to
provide data processing services for the specified application areas. It is evident from our study
that XCS should provide an effective solution to the Districts' requirements.
There are additional capabilities that are provided by XCS that are not available with
other systems. These include the ability to access by direct inquiry any of the Districts' data in
the computer. Also there are extensive on-line edit capabilities that help reduce input error.
Accounting records in the computer are updated on a real-time basis, allowing for faster
reporting and more current data. Finally, we believe the installation of this system should be
easier because of the extensive operational experience of XCS and their technical resources.
Xerox Computer Services would be an enhancement to the District management information
resources.
We extend our thanks for the excellent assistance provided by Mr. Wayne Sylvester
and his staff during this study. It was a pleasure to provide this management consulting service
to the Districts.
Very truly yours,
P. M. M. a CO. Exhibit A
VENDOR RESPONSE DATA
Iftope
Bidders'
Requests for conference Bid
Proposals mailed to attendees response
Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Yes No bid
County of Orange
(Computer Sciences Corporation) Yes Declined
Global Data Corporation Yes No bid
Integrated Data Corporation Yes Declined
Public Agency Data Systems (PADS) No Bid
`'W Xerox Computer Services (XCS) Yes Bid
21st Century Yes Bid
Management Services Associates No No bid
McDonnell Douglas Automation Yes No bid
Dataspecs Computer Services No Bid
NCR No No bid
Municipal Data Systems (MDS) No No bid
,%we
i
Agenda Item No..LEIL�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
for
PROJECT NO . 2 FOR
1972- 1973 JOINT WORKS IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
JOB NO. J-•6-1
ti
D. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
INTRODUCTION
According to the National Environmental Policy Act,
Section 102 (2) D of the Act requires the environmental
assessment to "study , develop , and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of action in which any
proposal involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative
uses of resources . A rigorous exploration and objective
evaluation of alternative actions that might avoid some or all
of the adverse environmental effects is essential" . The
following provides such a detailed evaluation of alternatives
for each of the projects as well as a discussion of the
proposed action.
The alternative measures described in this section have
all ' been weighed as to benefits , costs , approaches to
installation, engineering , and compatibility with the proposed
action and construction, and have been deemed undesirable . None
of the alternatives would reduce the impact , nor increase the
beneficial aspects , nor provide specially desirable effects with
comparison to the proposed projects . The off-site features
described in the alternativeshave been deemed too costly, too
ineffectual , and each would have a much greater physio-biological
and combined socio-economic series of adverse effects than the
proposed plan, which would not be balanced by any greater
desirable benefits . These alternatives , nevertheless , are
included herein .
1 . OUTFALL PUMPING FACILITIES EXPANSION AT PLANT NO. 2
Additional capacities are required in the outfall booster
pumping facilities at Plant No . 2 , to be completed by 1975 . Both
existing pump stations require extra power . Surge Tower No . 2
must be extended upwards to a height of 30 additional feet .
This additional height will make Surge Tower No . 2 the same
height as Surge Tower No , 1.
The existing pumping station facility and structure was
originally designed to accommodate two future pumping units ,
... and Surge Tower No . 2 was designed as a basic concrete unit , with
a steel collar to engage an upward future extension , which will
be constructed of steel . There are six alternatives mentioned
in the stated theoretical discussion. The seventh is the pro-
posed plan .
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No . 1 , No Project -- Surge Towers are considered
parts of the outfall pipelines , since they act as retainers for
extra effluent , whether at peak flow periods , or during storms ,
or due to any other emergency situation. They back off the surges ,
and contain them. Then, when conditions steady , or the load lightens ,
the flow goes through the outfall pipe to the ocean . In the mean-
time , levels in the surge towers are falling , since the peak has
stopped. If the surge towers did not exist : (i) the ocean outfall
pipe could burst , (ii) flow would commence to inunate
the entire sewage plant area , (iii) peak conditions would
cause effluent to back up through the underground sewers , and
pass through the manholes into the streets , and this would be
raw sewage , (iv) the entire sewage plant would be inundated,
and repairs would be impossible .
Surge towers make the outfall pipes less expensive to
construct, thus they cannot be dispensed with , or omitted from
any normal sewage plant with ocean outfall . Thus a "no project"
alternative is impossible to conceive, as residents do not wish
the county to be flooded with raw sewage , even if it is their
own .
The Regional Water Quality Control Board could immediately
put a cease and desist order on CSDOC facilities , but there
would still be no place for the sewage t.o go except on the
ground.
Gravity flow capacity is only 70 mgd, so something has to
be done to cope with under-capacity. Surges can easily raise
flow to 300 mgd , therefore exp^ ...:. ." . , s necessary. Since two
pumps must be added to the E ^ilities , the Alternative
No . 1 (" no project") cannot be acceptable in any possible way .
For the foregoing reasons Alternative 1 is not considered
acceptable , nor is it permissible under the Porter-Cologne Act
to allow sewage to overflow .
Alternative No . 2 - Use the Older Outfall During Surge --
The present 120" pipe extends 5 miles out to sea, but , as
stated heretofore , its capacity can be exceeded by gravely
dangerous amounts . In such a case it would be advisable to
discharge through the 78" pipeline to handle the excess
effluent . This is Alternative 2 .
The old outfall may not meet State Ocean Discharge require-
ments because the old outfall would not be capable of handling
wastes generated in Orange County and upper area contributors ,
and this would be an adverse impact .
For the above reasons , Alternative No . 2 is not considered
acceptable .
Alternative No . 3 - Use old Outfall for Brine Discharges
Only -- This alternative has been suggested by various people
interested in "saving" money , using existing equipment (because
it is there) , and for other similar reasons .
Regardless , to perform this function it would be necessary
to install extra equipment at the CSDOC treatment facilities
and possibly upstream as well , without any additional handling
capacity being fully satisfied.
Only the bland discharges would be emitted at the smaller
outfall inshore . This appears to be acceptable , but the costs
are probably prohibitive .
After consideration of all benefits , costs , and results ,
this alternative must be discarded . However, the old outfall still
may have to be used in emergency situations .
Alternative No . 4 - Build Inland Pump Station , with
Tertiary Treatment - - This dubious alternative consists of building
a plant inland that would handle surges * at peak periods of
sewage flow , when the main plants are loaded to capacity , or
over their ultimate capacity .
This would entail (i ) a new heavy-duty pump station inland , �./
far upstream of the main plants , and (ii) a tertiary treatment
plant that would provide almost pure water at the outfall .
.. The expense of such a plant would far exceed the proposed
actions in the Master Plan . The idea is good , but the benefits
would only occur during surge , flood , or storm periods , or when
the population ' s sewage made the surge tanks- appear to be
static as to volume-handling capability .
During rain , storms , and floods , there exists an excess
of water. Thus , a tertiary plant to produce the highest degree
of water at such a time is superfluous , redundant and unnecessary .
The water would be good water as effluent , under tertiary
treatment . This would be beneficial , if the water can be used.
The pumping station , treatment plant and so forth would
be financially prohibitive (for the purchase of land) , zoning
and legal problems .
For these reasons , Alternative No . 4 should be discarded .
Alternative No . 5 - Tertiary Treatment , with Discharge to
Santa Ana River - - This will not be detailed , as the explanations
are almost the same as Alternative No . 4 , with the exception
*4W that discharge is ' into the Santa Ana River. -
For the same reasons outlined in detail in Alternative No.
4, above, this Alternative No . 5 should be rejected. In
addition, over-capacity may cause serious discharge into an
overflowing river, and once more this would be disastrous .
Alternative No . 6 - Combination of Previous Alternatives This would provide all of the accrued benefits of all the other
alternatives , but also the accrual of all of the other adverse
and detractive aspects and impacts . A combination of the
benefits would be extremely acceptable , but a combined total
of all of the adverse impacts would create the same conditions
as explained in Alternative No . 1 ("no project" scheme) .
This alternative isnot acceptable . It is impractical . It
has some elusive , or illusory untried benefits , but the adverse
impacts demand rejection for the .reasonable conclusions reached
in the previous rejected alternatives .
v
Proposed Project - - Installation of Pumps and Surge
Tower Extension -- The two new pumps would be within the Plant
needs .
The Surge Tower No . 2 extension would be within the Plant
area .
No new lands need to be purchased, leased, or zoned for
sewage uses .
The treatment facility needs no tertiary treatment at
. higher expense , can be handled with the present plant staff,
under the supervision of plant engineers during any and all
emergencies .
Treatment and disposal facilities are already available ,
during surges , peak periods , or during storm periods when
flooding might be a possibility .
The two extra pumps are capable of peak flow situations .
Under surge conditions , with both Surge Towers (with the
extended capability of Surge Tower No . 2 in existence) , the
120" outfall pipe may behave differently from the calculated
flow that was estimated , but only in a -positive direction ,
since it is well equipped and protected by the surge towers .
Tw-o surge towers connected to the 120" outflow would have
some visual impact , but it is planned to make these towers
less conspicuous by some architectural scheme , not yet
determined .
Only a welded superstructure is needed to complete the
Surge Tower planned expansion . All work i's of a minor nature .
No new facilities need be built .
The proposed Project seems to have no competition from
along the various Alternatives previously listed .
r�
+EETING DATE _September 11 , 1974 TIME 7: 30 p .m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3, 5,6,7 & 11
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS
(EARTH ) . . . . . P!!TTE,' SvN.Z� ✓ (DUNNE) • • • • • WINN • • • • • • �
(CLARK�. . . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . -✓ NUIJENS) • • • • ARBISO • • • • • d
RIMA. . ✓ CLARK • • • • • • BAKER • • • • • •
(LPNGLEY) : . . .SALTARELLI . . . ✓ CLARK . . . . . . BATTIN • • • • •
DISTRICT 2 MC KNEW) . . . . . BLiAN. :
PRYOR BURTON • • •
DUI,! E . . . . . .WINN . . . . . . . . . ✓ COLLI S) . . . . BYRNE . . . . . . ✓
L�^^JS • • • • • •CALLAHAN• • • • • ✓ LYONS • • • • • • CALLAHAN • • • •
C,.�JG • • • • • •CHAPUT• • • • • • • � EWING • • • • • • CHAPUT • • • • • • ✓
BAKER • • • • • • CLARK • • • • • •
BAKER • • • • •CLARK• • • • • • • • CULVER ✓
PATTE SON) • •GAP,THE MEYER) DAVIS
NEVI P= •.A •�� ✓ MC I�(NIs) • . • . DOSTAL
THOT. . . . . . . . KAYWOOD• ) . . . .
FOX . . . . . . .MAC KAIN • • • • • ✓ COEN . . . . . . • DUKE • • • . . •.• .
PERRY • • • • • • • • ✓ EDWARDS • • . -
(STANTON) • • • •SCOTT• • • • • • • • �' �MAC KAIN) • • • FOX • • • • • • • •. . . . PATTERSON)• . • GARTHE . • • • .
ROOT . . . . . . TEMPLE • (COEN) . . . . . . • GIBBS . . . . . .
ROOT Y. . . . . . 7 GLOCKNER . . . �
DISTRICT 3 NEVIL . . . . . . GRAHAM . . . .
PERE ) • • • • • • JACKMAN • • . • p:
IhI . REISO . . . . • . . ✓ THO 1) . . . . . • • KAYWOOD . . •.. •.. . ✓;✓A
JIJ COX • • • . • • • • LONG . . . . .
ENS . A
WCLA • • • • •BATTIN • • • FOX . . . . . . . . MAC KAIN. . . . .
MC KNE )) • • • _ RYCKOF) - . . - MC INNIS.
YR SYOUN . . . . . . NEVIL . . . . . . •CQLLIyS • • • •CULVER• ;
'-
• �• • ✓ (GARTHE) • . • PATTERSON • . . ,,
(MEYER) . . . . . .DAVIS • • •Q•�� . . . v/_ PERRY . . . . . . .
EDWARDS • • • • • RIMA • • • • • • • •
PATT�RSON) • •GARTHE . .. . . . • ✓ WOOD) • • • • • ROGERS . • • • • • 0-
THOM • • • . • •KAYWOOD
GOX) • • • • • • •LONG • • • • • • `' LANGLEY� • • • • SALTARELLI • • �.
Yb:lNG) • • • • • •NEVIL• • • '' STANTO • • • • SCOTT - • • • • • •
W �) . . . . . . -OCT. . . , . . . . LACA`f0) • . • • SONJU . . . . . . .
LA�AYO) . . . . .SONJU • •,� • • 7 MC }. . . . SfiOTE . . . . . .
,Y _� �SCOiT SVALSTAD
SCOTT) • • • • • •SVA.LSTA •
COEN) • • • • • • •WIEDER• • � PERE'F) • • • • • • TEMPLE • • • • • •
COEN1 . . . . . . . WIEDER . . . . . .
DISTRICT 5 ROOT)))) WOOD • . ✓
�RYCKOFF) . . • •i�C I NN I S• : : : . " +
BAKER)) • •CLARK •
ROGERS . . . . . . . ��-
OTHERS
DISTRICT 6 HARPER `
' SYLVESTER
R I MA . . . . . . . . . _sL_ LEWIS ✓
SCLARK) • • • • • •BATTI N . . . . . . • v 1
lMC INNIS). . . 44eRf • • • • • • CLARKETAYLO •'
�,n � BROWNR
DISTRICT 7
LANGL Y) • • • •SALTARELLI • • • '' a
PRYOP. • • • • • •BURTON • • • . • • - pI-I-S&9W-YI
✓ Zu. . ,
BAKER . . .C :�.R� . . . . nn r• • --� EW I PSG ✓ -
MC I NN I S)• • . •DOST.4,L• • . . • • HQHENER
GLOCKNER • . • . • HOWARD ✓
PEREZ) . . . . •JACKMAN • HUNT ✓
� n
GARTHE) . . . . •c^', E:R,_0ir' X • • ✓ KEITH
D,...R i CT 11 LYNCHY
�:� ✓ MADDOX
COEN) • . • . . •DUKE . . . `.`. . . ✓ � FIARTINSON
CLARKK) . . . . . .BAKER • • . . . . . . y MARTPIERINSO
COEN J . . . . . . .GIBBS . . . . . . •
ALL
STEVENS
_DISTRICT 8
MITCHELL• • • • •
(BAKER) . . . . . .CLARK . . . . 6 - -
(JOHNSON) • • • •HOLM • • • • • • • • •
9/11/74
Ik1EFTING DATE September 11, 1974 TIME 7 : 30 P.m.— DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5, 6,7, & 11
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS N
�GARTH - . . YrEI-Sv�u. . . � (DUNNE) . . . . WINN . . . . . . .
(CLARK . . > l�. .BATTIN. . . . . . . �G NUIJENS)• • • • • ARBISO • • • • •
RR-IMA. . . . . . . . . CLARK) . . . . . . BAKER . . . . . .
(LANGLEY) . . . .SALTARELLI . . . v
CLARK) . . . . . . $ATTIN • • • • • ./
D.ISTRICT 2 MC KNkW) . . . . . .B-d#€IF40 • • •
PRYOR • • • • • BURTON • • •
Dt1P;NE . . . . . •WINN. . . . . . . . . �� COLLINS) . . . . BYRNE . . . . . . -�
PIS • • • • • •CALLAHAN• • y LYONS • • • • • • CALLAHAN • • • •
SING • • • • • •CHAPUT• • • • • • • � � EWING • • • • • • CHAPUT . . . . . .�
(BAKER • • • • •CLARK• • • • • • • • t/ BAKER • • • • • • CLARK • • • • • • �✓
0l'TUSON) - - GARTHE- - • • : : : CULVER . .. . . .I • • • •GRAi-Atl.•' �� MEYER) DAVIS ✓
(THOM • • • • • • • KAYWOOD• • • • • • MC I Y
IS) . . . . DOSTAL . . . . . .
�FOX) . . . . . . . .MAC KAIN • • • • • !� COEN > • • • . . . DUKE . • . . . �✓
PERRY . . . . . . . . EDWARDS • • . .
(STANT>N) • • • •SCOTT. . . . . . . . _� MAC KAIN) . . . . FOX • • • . ... . . .
�-
(PERE • • • • •TEMPLE • • • • • • • �PATTERSON) - - GARTHE . . . . . .
(ROOT�. . . . . . . (COEN) . . . . . . . GIBBS . . . . . . t:—
GLOCKNER . . . t---
DISTRICT 3 NEVIQ . . . . . . GRAHAM . . . .
PERE-) • • • • • JACKMAN . • . . •may
(MAC KA I R). . . .FOX. . . . . . • • • • b/ THO i� • • • • • • • KAYWOOD • • > . ,�
�NUIJENS}) . . . .ARBISO• • COX : . . . : . . . LONG . . . . . . . �r
CLARK)) • • • •BATTIN • • . . . . . ✓ FOX . . . MAC KAIN. .
(MC KNEW)• • • • B-L&EIfMAN'• • • • • IRYCKOFF) • . . . MC INNIS. . . . .
�COLLINS) • • • •BYRNE • • • • • • . ✓ �GARTHE)'
YOUNG • • . • > NEVIL • • . • . �
CULVER. . . . : . • • • . • . PATTERSON . . .
(MEYER) . . . . . .DAVIS . . . . . . • . ✓ PERRY . . . . . . . �-
EDWARDS• • • • • • RIMA . . .. . . . . .
ci
tPATT€RSON) • •GARTHE . . . . . . . ROGERS . . • . .
(THOo�'1) . • > • > • •KAYWOOD. . . . . WOOD) . . . . ROeT . . . . . . . .
(COX) • • • • • • > •LONG • • • • • • . • . s� LANGLEY . • • . SALTARELLI • •
'ING) . . . . . .NEVIL. . . . . . . . V STANTON) . . . . SCOTT . . . . . . . `�✓
�ktt}D) • . . . . .ROOT• . . • . . . . . �' ILACAYO) : • . SONJU . . . . . . .
LACAYO) •SONJU SMCIN IS) • • • . STORE .
(SCOTT) • • • • . :';�LS TAD• • • • • kSCOTT� • • • . . . SVALSTAD • • • • ;��
(COEN) • • • • • . •WIEDER• • • • • •-•- PERE ) . . . . . . TEMPLE . . . . . .�t�
COEN . • . • . . . WIEDER . . . . . .
DISTRICT 5 R . . . . . . . W SOD . . . . . . . .
�RYCKOFF) . . ' -MC INNIS • : : ; •
BAKER)) •CLARK • • • •
ROGERS . . . . . . . OTHERS
DISTRICT 6 HARPER
RIMA . . . . . . . . .
✓ SYLVESTER
(CLARK) . . . . . .BATTIN . . . • • •_ LEWIS
(MC INNIS). . . ._� . . . . . . .• . �/ CLARKE
DISTRICT 7 BROWNR
(LANGL Y) . . . .SALTARELLI . . .
PRYOR . . . . . .
BURTON , . . . . . . .
NISSON
BAKER . . . . . .CLNRf:.:��_. . . . . EWING
MC INNIS). . . .D0" AL. . . . . . . `� HOHENER
GLOCKNER• . . . .
. . . . �/ HOWARD
PEREZ)
.JACKMAN • • . HUNT
�C'RTHE) . . . . KEITH
D-MfRICT 11 KENNEY
LYNCH
(COEN) . . . . . . .DUKE - '- - - MADDOX
(CLAR��C) • • • • .•BAKER • • • • • • • • �� MARTINSON
(COEN I . . . . . . .GIBBS � • • • • • • • `" PIERSALL
D I SLCT 8 STEVENS
/ TCHELL. . . . .
CBAKER) • • • • • •CLA . : . . . .
(JOHNSON) • • • •HOLM• • • • •. • •
9/11/74
August 29 , 1974
NOTICE TO DISTRICT NO. 2 ACTIVE DIRECTORS
Chairman Winn has advised that as a result of his election
to the Joint Chairmanship , he is resigning as Chairman of
County Sanitation District No . 2 and has requested that the
Directors be notified that an item will be placed on the
agenda for the regular September llth meeting to elect a new
Chairman for District No. 2 .
6 W " ne S vester
Sec tary f the Boards
of Directors
9/11/74 JOINT MTG.
(8) Report of the Joint Chairman
Winn reported on CASA Conference in San Diego which he and Director
Wieder, FAH, JWS, Bruce Taylor, Harvey Hunt , etc . attended. Mentioned
JWS was elected President of CASA (& was the first single President) .
Said Win Adams talked on water pollution control programs and reported
that industrial waste program was lagging very badly and are now
�. going to put that on the front burner. Said Ralph Cahill gave a
few interesting statistics . California is leading state in technology
and compliance as far as EPA is concerned. Dick O' Connell of EPA
advised they had only collected $60,000 in fines at this point but
agencies could be expecting to hear from them in the future. Winn
said he felt that the contact with these people in business sessions
at the Conference and on a personal level was very worthwhile and
urged Directors to attend such meetings that will come up in the
future .
Called a meeting of the Executive Committee for 5 :30, Wednesday,
October 2nd and invited Directors Glockner and Callahan.
(9) Report of the General Manager
Reported further on the CASA Conference . Said one of the primary
activities of this organization is to work with state legislature
on legislation and to work with SWRCB. Executive Director, Mike
Dillon is doing an outstanding job representing various agencies in
Sacramento. FAH said he talked to him about possibility of coming
to one of the Joint Board meetings and getting some of the Directors
ideas of how to be effective in Sacramento. Our primary effort has
been working with regulatory agencies .
Called Directors ' attention to the blue form in their folders . Told
Directors to indicate any of their city staff or board that they wished
to have invited to Open House on,--the 25th. FAH said he had already
mailed invitations to each of the council members of the representative
cities and sanitary district board members and also other members of
Board of Supervisors . Hope to start tours about 4 :30 and will take
groups of about 20 ever 15 minutes . Hope to complete tours about 7 : 00
and will come back for dinner and brief comments . Would like to know
if Directors can't attend.
(10) Report of General Counsel
Clark Miller reported for Mr. Nisson. Advised that on August 23rd
Mr. Nisson attended Attorneys Committee meeting at CASA Conference
in San Diego and reviewed legislation in process. Briefly reviewed
the following legislation: (SEE attached report ) AB 2918, Chapter 228;
AB 497, Chapter 124; AB 2753, Chapter S 391; SB 1340 ; AB 1579 ,
Chapter 457; SB 1711, -Chapter 323.
Director Wieder then briefly reported on her attendance at the CASA
conference . Felt many more of the Directors should make an effort
to attend and participate . Said our Districts are one of the most
productive . Was very impressed with esteem our Directors and Mr.
Harper held and that Wayne was elected President.
(11) CONSENT CALENDAR
Temple moved to remove item 11(j ) . Asked who the property owner was
on this annexation. Was shown the file and the owners' names and
had no further questions . Item was approved.
(13) EDP recommendation
McInnis briefly reported that the Committee has spent a considerable
amount of time on study and report and implementation. Now going
into Phase III - Selection of electronic data processing company to
begin implementation phase . Part of Phase II task was to assist the
staff and Committee in actually going out to bid and analyzing the
results of that bid activity . Said that has been done and the next
step now will be to select the proper company . PMM&Co . will continue
to assist .
ATTORNEY ' S REPORT FOR
�► GENERAL MEETING OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
September 11, 1974
On August 23 , 1974 I attended the Attorneys
Committee Conference at the CASA work session in San Diego .
Newly enacted legislation was the primary subject of the
committee meeting and a number of newly chaptered Bills
were read, most of which will become effective in January,
1975 . The following bills were of particular significance :
AB 2918 , now Chapter 228 , is an amendment to the
Health & Safety Code concerning sanitary districts. It is
of interest to the sanitation districts in that it provides
for payment of $50 . 00 per day for each day ' s attendance at
meetings of the Board or for each day ' s service rendered as
a Director by request of the Board, not exceeding four days
in any calendar month together with any incidental expenses .
If this legislation had been broad enough to
include county sanitation districts , payment could be made
for the services of Directors serving on the Executive
Committee and other special committee work. It may be
r, advisable to seek an amendment at the next legislative
session to permit such payment for county sanitation
districts .
AB 497 , Chapter 124 , provides that where a local
ordinance so provides , any interested person adversely affected
by a decision of the advisory agency or appeals board in re-
lation to the approval of a tenative subdivision map may
file a complaint with the legislative body. It authorizes
the legislative body to hold a hearing on such complaint
and specifies procedures re filing and hearing.
AB 2753 , Chapter S 391 , permits local ordinances
to require the payment of a fee as a condition of approval
of final subdivision map or as a condition of issuing a
building permit for purposes of defraying the actual or
estimated cost of constructing major thoroughfares in
addition to bridges .
SB 1340 is a further amendment of the Governmental
Conflicts of Interest Act relating to conflicts of interest
and financial disclosure by certain public officials . I expect
to make a detailed and comprehensive report on this probably at
the November meeting.
v
`.► AB 1579 , now Chapter 457 , defines "Executive
Regulations" and specifically excludes mandates issued by
the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water
Quality Control Boards pursuant to the Porter-Colgne Water
Quality Control Act. This closes a possible avenue of obtain-
ing additional funds from the State under the claim that our
additional expenditures are State mandated or additional costs
pursuant to Executive Regulations . Up until the enactment of
this Bill, we had a fair shot at such a claim. This Bill
also authorizes an additional property tax if there is an
emergency which constitutes a danger to public health, safety
or welfare or of a general disaster which requires additional
costs which can not be met in a meximum property tax. It
provides for the levy of an additional rate which will produce
1% of the amount produced by the maximum property tax rate.
If these are not sufficient, you can apply to the Controller
for a further levy . All in all, this is not a good Bill.
SB 1711 , Chapter 323, permits a county, by resolution
or ordinance, to establish a schedule of fees to be imposed on
land in the unincorporated area of the county to be used for
the operation and maintenance of county waste disposal sites
and for financing waste collection , processing, reclamation
and disposal services . This was enacted as an urgency statute
and provided the fees could be collected on a monthly or yearly
..r basis and may be billed and collected by the county tax collec-
tor.
The general observations concerning the legislation
were to the effect that many no-growth Bills appear to have
been enacted and that a trend for more restrictions on the
development and use of land continues at a rapid rate.
The Attorneys Committee has planned its next meeting
for November 15 with a primary purpose to review the legislation
as finally enacted and to formulate such new legislation as may be
determined to be desirable and necessary on behalf of the Asso-
ciation of Sanitation Agencies . I am hoping that the staff
and Directors will indicate between now and that time such
items of legislation as they may deem necessary to be proposed.
Other activities during the month were primarily
routine.
Respectfully submitted,
C. Arthur Nisson,
General Counsel
CAN :ac
PMM&Co. advised their recommendation is Xerox Computer Services .
Xerox supplies a computer terminal which will be installed on
premises . Looks like typewriter. Briefly described process.
Jerry Peck reviewed their approach in selecting a vendor. First,
established bid list . Developed a formal Request for Proposal
with details of exactly what we wanted. Received proposals from
Public Agency Data Systems (PADS) , Dataspecs, Computer Services (? ) ,
21st Century, and Xerox Computer Services . Made their evaluation
based on these written proposals and oral presentations that were
made . Felt that proposals received were representative . Gave a
,Nowgood field representation of the market . Criteria used: (a) Programs
should have high quality - requested that all applications be
demonstrated to them. (b) Cost (c ) Resources of these firms . Made
their evaluation on these three requirements . Xerox Computer Services
was. the only one that responded in all aspects we required. Xerox
has all of these programs in use in many areas such as cities of
Pasadena and San Diego. Felt no modification would be needed for
Xerox but would be needed in all of the other programs . Indicated
costs of various proposals : Dataspecs $47,000; PADS $30, 000;
Xerox $323000; 21st Century $15,000 - low bid but had almost no
governmental application and extremely heavy modification involved. .
Did not have a good understanding of what it takes . Reviewed some
of the modification costs . Xerox is only system that has capability
of getting immediate response to questions - and immediately knowing
if you have made a mistake . Accounting records would be available .
Strongly recommends that the contract be with Xerox Computer Services .
Duke asked if it is normal for PMM&Co. to make recommendations when
bids have come in and they have not met full requirements? Jerry
Peck answered that they did not accept the bids but are acting in
an advisory capacity. Duke questioned further if it was normal for
the Sanitation Districts to accept bids from two or three agencies
which cannot do what we are asking for? Wayne answered that we
didn' t know until we received bids and opened them what they could
do. Once the bids were opened, felt we had good cross representation.
Sent applications out to 12 or so people . The point of the proposal
was to get the information on record as to what they could or could
not do and to evaluate them. Had at least two bids to compare and
make recommendation. Difficult to come up with applications that work.
If we had chosen to develop a computer system, then perhaps could
choose any one of them. Duke then commented that out of three bids ,
was only one that actually qualified. Jerry Peck stated that there
were at least two that qualified but one is superior.
MacKain questioned criteria application. Stated that staff advised
that only Xerox could respond to the six areas listed. If that is
the case, wouldn' t that automatically preclude all of the other
companies? PMM answered, not if we were ready to spend development
dollars . Very obvious choice unless we want to spend more money.
If they can' t do one part of the application, we will have to build
it .
Scott commented that it was stated that firms were evaluated to
begin with on face value . One proposal has buy-in charge and others
don'.t--PADS. Did you take that into your discussion.
MacKain asked if we were told by PADS that it was a requirement
to get involved in their system? PMM answered it was put in writing
that it was a requirement . PADS is not an on-line system. MacKain
asked further if that cost was a big item. Was answered it raises
the cost of PADS considerably. MacKain then asked if that cost was
not there, would that affect your recommendation? PMM answered it
would not .
Burton questioned the recommendation because the staff does not have
a resident specialist in data processing systems . Jerry Peck then
advised of his background and experience in this line .
-2-
Burton added regarding drafting the specifications for selecting
vendors, was there assistance in selecting these vendors?
McInnis then reviewed that the Special Committee with Chuck Stevens
as chairman had considerable background in data processing. McInnis
works with EDP all day long. This Committee spent many, many, many
hours with staff and PMM&Co. going through and building up specifica-
tions, reviewing the entire process and reviewing requests that went
out and participating with PMM&Co. in reviewing and analyzing those
that came in. We can assume that the selection was a well judged
selection. Spent one whole Saturday going through personnel inter-
viewing those who were thought to be qualified at that point . Was
hardly a willy-nilly thing_ . Burton then agreed that he felt this was
more than adequate . Had one more question--do the costs include
communication time? & does it include the network that is used to
connect the computer? Was answered, yes, includes connection of
terminal, processing cost and total package . Burton then added that
within the last three weeks there has been a new tariff passed and
we would see a tremendous increase in our phone bills and suggested
the budgets be modified considerably .
Callahan stated he thought there was a little misunderstanding on
PADS . as to what the specifications were and what the capabilities of
PADS might be . Suggested that we continue this item for a few weeks
so somebody from PADS can clarify the bids . MOVED to continue the
item to next meeting. Scott SECONDED the motion.
Root advised that he talked to Chuck Stevens and looked over proposal
of Xerox and must emphasize what McInnis said. Up to this point, this
certainly was not a slipshod approach to trying to provide the best
service that we could for all Districts. & even when they chose PMM&Co .
there was quite a bit of evaluation by Committee . Said he can' t help
but believe that there were other things besides the software, such
as on-line capability, that noone else has . Said he was at a loss to
see why to continue on. Said he would like to ask if staff, in their
review, feel that there is a soft spot in any of the evaluation and
`r if they are happy with the discussion or is there another point
worthwhile of consideration by the Directors? Wayne answered that
first of all, were quite impressed with software that PADS has up and
running. Advised that late that afternoon we received a call from
PADS saying they would be willing to waive the $48 ,000 buy-in on
software . Discussed this with PMM&Co. and they said this would not
change their recommendation.
Scott said he would speak in favor of continuation. No bones to pick
with PMM&Co . but still some things that he had some doubts about.
Said his own people, Stevens & Hollinden, have asked for continuation.
Winn then reiterated to Directors that they had to realize the hours
the Committee has spent on this . McInnis advised that the Committee
recommended Xerox; recommendation not PMM&Co . ' s .
MOVED & SECONDED to receive and file report and recommendation of
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Arbiso stated he was well acquainted with PMM&Co. and thought report is
very comprehensive and didn't know what seemed to be the question in
tying these things up . Time is money . If staff feels we should
proceed, don' t see why we should prolong this .
Svalstad said he wanted a point of information--what reason there was
as far as time problems . Was answered, no reasons .
Svalstad CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
More discussion. said;he had lunch with Stevens and it was
his recommendation was Xerox proposal. If he had realized there
would be so much question, would have been here tonight .
-3-
It was then stated that the motion to continue is not acceptable
as to the date . Someone further advised it was to continue to the
next meeting. Burton then asked what rules of order we operate
under and was advised Robert ' s Rules of Order. More discussion.
Winn CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on original motion to continue until
the next meeting.
Callahan wanted a point of information--Asked JWS if we could take
software and use elsewhere with Xerox? PMM&Co . answered no, cannot
take Xerox software & use either.
Voted by hand count . 14 for continuing item. 20 against . Motion
failed. Duke requested his "no" vote be recorded. .
Nevil then stated that he voted for continuation, primarily to suggest
that the staff send out all of the material that Directors have
received on this item to all of the Directors again for the benefit
of the new Directors . Scott seconded Nevil' s remarks .
(13d) Burton MOVED to R, F & accept proposal of Xerox Computer Services .
Motion SECONDED.
Svalstad wanted a point of information--By accepting this firm,
will be accepting $32,000 figure--Is that correct? JWS advised that
we can enter into firm fixed price contract with Xerox which allows
10%, or unit price cost and estimate of annual cost is $32,000 .
Svalstad his personal opinion is we are approving contract we have
never seen. Asked if Board & staff & PMM&Co . gone over this contract
and agreed to it? JWS answered they have a standard form contract
and included it in their proposal. Svalstad added that in his city
they get to read contract before they approve it .
CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Voted by show of hands. 18 in favor.
10 against . Motion carried.
Winn then advised that any -of the new Directors that would care to
pick up copies of this information mailed out previously, please let
staff know and they will take care of it . Nevil said he thought
all of the reports should be mailed to new Directors .
Duke stated he voted no and his question was based on discrepancy
of bidding system. Wanted it made a matter of record that he voted
no - also Callahan' s no vote. & Burton wanted his yes vote recorded.
(14� ) Eight-acre parcel
_� Everett Schmid reported on 8-acre parcel.
Baker advised that he raised the question last month as to why we
need it . Think the question is do we or do we not need it .
Root said appraiser had used the"highest and best use" and that was
not the zoning on the property at the time . Asked how do you appraise
-land that is not carrying that zoning and how could you know that
City of Huntington Beach would rezone that property? Schmid briefly
explained (I think) .
('9 nIT Wieder mentioned that they had asked the Board to defer this until
the City of Huntington Beach had opportunity to get further information.
Brought information to their Planning Department and advised of
Planning Dept . ' s comments . Discussed appraisal on gross vs. net property.
-� 'Duke asked what the current zoning was . Answered R1-0 on Covington
and appraises R2 ??
Clark stated that it seemed to him that they should not be talking
about appraisals . Don't think it was established that we needed
this property . Didn't feel that staff came up with enough information
\� that we really need this .
-4-
Mr. Harper reviewed the staff' s recommendation regarding 8-acre '
parcel. Recommendation is to acquire the 7 .16 acres and declare
Districts are not interested in 1/2 acre parcel. In Master Plan
of Districts are developing facilities to meet State and Federal
requirements . We will need more construction on Covington property,
and do feel this property will be necessary for future construction.,
At the time that Mr. Nisson was authorized to engage an appraiser,
we thought this was all one piece of property. We would not be
interested in that 1/2 acre parcel.
Regarding the 3-acre parcel, FAH advised that he could not give a
definite yes , we will construct some facilities on this 3-acre parcel.
We do not have a precise plan. Is in the area we will no doubt
have a sludge handling operation. Sludge handling areas are a
nuisance as far as odors and may have continuing problem. Are
spending a substantial amount each year on odor control at both
facilities . If there were development on that property, would have
to consider some type of on our own property to prevent any
problem. Owner has requested M-1 zoning.
Nevil asked, do you feel even with M-1 zoning that you will have to
have a pullback(?) . FAH said from what we have seen, these are small
businesses that will be going into there and may be quite a bit of
traffic .
Everett Schmid advised Mr. Rinker is putting up a series of small
industrial businesses that will be suitable for use in support of
residential community to the north.
Winn commented that we have been trying to keep the two parcels
separate in the discussion but appears very hard to do. Advised
that there was some discussion regarding forming a committee to
meet with City of Huntington Beach to determine the possibility of
some joint use of 3-acre parcel but if Directors don' t even want to
consider 3-acre parcel, then committee would be of no use .
Kaywood then asked in the event there is an odor problem of any kind,
if there are homes or apartment in 8-acre parcel, can they turn
around and sue the Sanitation Districts and collect . Clark Miller
answered that they could sue but not sure about collecting.
Gibbs said she would like to speak as Director from Huntington Beach .
This question came up two years ago. Said she thought the pertinent
fact here tonight was does the Sanitation Districts need this
property? If 8-acre property will be needed 5-10 years from now,
time to buy is now. Will have to take the long look on this particular
piece of property. Would strongly recommend buying 8-acres at
this time . The 3-acre parcel is an enigma. Have appeared before
City Council and would like to have it rezoned and had questions on
council as to how we let them go in so close to sewer plant . A very
real problem and putting anything right next to it is an environmental
problem. Think all Directors should appreciate the location and
think we should go ahead and buy it . Chaput added that this property
is not a livable place . Gibbs said real problem is that Rinker
inherited this piece of property and got hung and is not able to
do anything with it . Someone asked why we didn't let him keep it .
Gibbs said Huntington Beach didn't want to rezone the property for
what Rinker wants to do with it .
Wood asked if H.B. had a public use land zone so it would only be
suitable for a park or school or something, so it could not be
used for R-2 or R-3 . Gibbs said they were instructed two years ago
that as long as zoning remained as it was, nothing could be built
on it .
Chaput then stated that H.B. ' s decision may be that what we are
proposing is not compatible so maybe will have to go to something
else that is much lower value. Gibbs said there is a possibility
could be used for parking, or Sanitation Districts could buy and
City of H.B. maintain. Chaput said he thought we should give that
information to appraiser & that he used a false basis for his appraisal .
-5-
McInnis stated that it was his impression that we were on item 14 (b)
regarding the 8-acre parcel . Question was asked & answered by FAH
that we do need this parcel . E. C. went through this at some length.
Should be little doubt . Recommended that we stay with agenda and take
care of that item first. McInnis MOVED item 14(b ) (2) . Motion SECONDED.
Svalstad called for a point of information--Was the appraised price
on zone R-3 and what it is master planned now? Is it net or gross
that -we are approving? Want to be sure we are buying it net .
..r
Duke answered that it is RAO right now. Is in a holding zone.
Svalstad added that probably this cannot be zoned as a holding zone
forever. Must have some kind of a master plan for it . Everett
Schmid said appraisal was R-2 . Talked to Planning Dept . and found
out what it could be used for.
Winn then asked if we had approved item 14 (b) (2) and do we have to
pay that exact amount or more or less or can we negotiate?
\' Duke MOVED that the motion read that if we are in favor of-buying,
that we negotiate until we come to a meeting of the minds with seller
and come back to Directors with final price. Felt that appraisal is
extremely high.
jIt was then requested that the word "approve" be deleted from the
motion on item 14 (b) (2) and McInnis accepted that change to his motion.
Just receive and file appraisal report . Person seconding the motion
approved also .
14(b ) (3 )> MOVED that staff be authorized to enter into negotiations with property
owner for potential purchase of 7 .18 acres . Motion SECONDED.
Gibbs said we should approve acquisition and then authorize negotiation.
but Nevil added that if you approve purchase first , person knows that
we are going to buy it .
again
Nevil MOVED/that staff be authorized to negotiate with property owner
for potential acquisition of 7.168 acres .
Clark Miller read a memo from Mr. Nisson - Said that prior to initiation
of negotiation, we have to have appraisal of property . If Board does
not adopt or reject appraisal, you can't do anything. If you don't
approve or adopt it , then you can't negotiate .
Kaywood said she thought that appraisal really needs to be looked at
again and downgraded considerably .
Burton questioned that we can't discuss acquisition without real estate
appraisal first . Miller read Nisson' s memo again. If you want to
acquire property, have to get new appraisal .
McKnew stated that was a very unusual piece of advice . Can't believe
that that was the intent of the author. Intent must have been that
in order to commence some type of condemnation action in the event
there is a lawsuit , then you must have appraisal.
CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
Svalstad called for a point of information--Is this net or gross acres?
Schmid gave an answer but did not really answer his question.
Svalstad then made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION that we negotiate on the basis
of net acreage . Nevil said he agreed with Svalstad . Root read from
appraiser' s report and said 7 . 168 is net acres . Duke disagreed
because he said there were other dedication areas in it .
Wieder then asked for a point of information--If it is the intent of
this Board to purchase the property but the controversy is the cost ,
can we not just pass a motion to purchase the property at the best cost
to the Districts which would take care of the net , gross & market value ,
-6-
and that we do so with direct guidance and consultation with the
Planning Department of the City of Huntington Beach. Is talking
about both parcels now. Whatever amount of land the Districts need
to acquire, should do so at the best price for the Districts . What
the Board needs is direction to go ahead and negotiate .
VOTED on motion - motion CARRIED. Patterson requested his "No" vote
be recorded.
14 ,.) (4) MOVED, SECONDED & CARRIED.
14 (c) Winn reiterated that there was some talk about a committee with
Norma Gibbs as chairman to talk about any joint useage with City
of Huntington Beach. If Directors don't want 3-acre parcel, then
let ' s don' t appoint a committee .
FAH then reaffirmed staff' s position on 3-acre parcel . Said we do
not have a precise plan where we can say we will definitely build
some facility on that parcel . In discussion with Exec . Committee
where it first came up, they felt that any development on the property
would continually have a nuisance with odors . Is development across
the street so think the staff suggested that the property be purchased
to remove any possibility of a nuisance. Does not remove the possi-
bility that this might be needed in the future .
Winn asked Gibbs if there is any interest on the part of Huntington
Beach in discussing this jointly with the Sanitation Districts and
she said I think so.
FAH said he still recommends purchase .
REL referred to agenda attachment R-2. Said what our plans might
be and underline the word"might" , is for a solids processing area.
This plant is designed to accomodate Districts to year 1985 . What
happens beyond that time we don' t have a plan for. This particular
site does have its restrictions as far as expansion. Hopes that along
the way we can find a process that will change the process of treating
and handling of sludge, but if that does not come about and if price
is too prohibitive, it is the decision of the Directors .
MacKain suggested that agenda items 14 (c ) (1) & (3 ) be taken first before
they got hung up on (2) . (c) (1) - MOVED & SECONDED.
Re (c) (2) said there is some question re amount of appraisal. Winn
suggested maybe Directors would approve formation of a committee to
investigate and report back at next meeting or earliest convenience
and take no action on (c) (2) & (3) . Baker asked what would be the
purpose of committee and how would that affect staff' s recommendation?
Winn advised that it was discussed previously that there might be some
joint uses with Huntington Beach. Baker asked if that meant that City
of H.B . would buy half. Gibbs said that she would not recommend that .
Baker stated that if staff' s recommendation is a valid recommendation,
don't see any reason not to go ahead with acquisition. If not valid,
see no reason to go ahead.
Chaput said he didn't think that staff had demonstrated on this small
parcel that we needed it . Said he saw no reason why we don' t consider
motion to receive and file appraisal report (NOT APPROVE) and send
staff out to negotiate . It was then so MOVED & SECONDED to receive
and file and authorize negotiation.
Patterson advised that he voted against previous motion and that he
voted against this one . Asked do we need it and if we want to buy
it , what is the price? Said he would favor a motion that if we need
it , let ' s buy it and then refer the appraisal back. Agree with Nevil
that once we say we are going to buy it, then they say let ' s take the
appraisal price . We don't have to take appraiser' s price . There is
a property value on that land but what it is he didn' t know.
-7-
Patterson said he would support acquisition of both parcels . This
is a growing thing and will need it . Staff is saying we need it
ultimately but don' t have a precise plan. Said he would so MOVE.
Nb.cKain agreed that there is a potential need and would be ,&ncumbant
of the Districts to acquire property . Would take issue, however, if
staff does not know what to do with it . Now is the time to go out and
negotiate and then come back after they have negotiated.
Svalstad called for a point of order--Said we are talking about item
(c ) (2 ) not (c ) (3) . Was advised that the two items were being discussed
together.
Burton asked when property owner came before City of H.B. and Gibbs
answered it was some time ago. Said he is eager to do something with it .
Burton then asked if he receives M-1 zoning, would that significantly
affect appraisal? Schmid said he appraised it on highest and best use
assuming M-1, zoned RAO right now. Duke said M-1 appraisal based on
City of Costa Mesa industrial belt and has nothing to do with City of
Huntington Beach. MORE DISCUSSION!
Burton then stated that it would appear from what staff says that if
City of HB is going to have some impact on that appraisal, might be
wise course of action not to take action on it but watch it very closely
and if City of HB acts , then could get a new appraisal. Suggested that
we take that course of action.
jChaput then restated his MOTION: To receive and file the appraisal
report dated July 29 , 1971 b Everett Schmid, and direct staff to
negotiate a price for that property .
Winn asked if motion infers we do need that property . Chaput indicated
it had been called a buffer zone and if it is an economical price, we
may buy it .
VOTED on motion. by voice . Motion CARRIED.
MacKain then asked if this motion authorizes acquisition or just
negotiation? Winn advised that the Boards would have the final
approval on price .
(21) Operators' schedule
FAH briefly reported on discussions with our operating personnel .
Said effective Jan. lst all our mtce. people and office personnel
went on 9-hour days with every other Friday off. Has been a very
successful program. During first six months had a savings in
sick leave of 638 hours and on overtime of 825 hours . Actually
serving public better. Said there is one group of employees who have
not been able to participate in this--shift workers . Are three
shifts a day, every day of the year. They have asked that they be
considered for some type of an arrangement like this . Have been dis-
cussing with Operators a shift program of 10 hours . One of the
problems in Operations is the turnover . In 1972-73 — 33% turnover
and 73-74 — 36% turnover. Continual training program. 1/3 of our
program is training, not in operations . Program we have come up with
is a four-day week working 10 hours a day with overlap on the shifts .
Explained a little further. Said Board approved two additional
employees to handle some of the problems in Operations . We will now
have sufficient personnel to handle this work and would not need to
hire the two additional personnel. Would be putting them on fixed
shifts . Have had rotating shifts in the past . Have only had one
employee that said he didn' t want to try it . Others said let ' s give
it a try . Shifts would be working Sunday through Wednesday and
Wednesday through Saturday . Each group gets one of the weekend days
off. Mr. Harper said first of all, would like Directors approval on
this to try it out and the other thing needed is regarding shift
differential paid to people working on night shift . Presently paying
$3 . 50 for first shift and request that we change that to $4 . 40 for
eight-hour shifts and $5 . 00 for 10-hour shift . The General Manager' s
recommendation was so MOVED, SECONDED & CARRIED.
EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF TI REGUI�AR
JOINT PiEETING OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 15 2, 33 55 6, 7 and 11,
OF ORANGE COUNTY,T. � - ,1 , c:,ALl 6niv-
ix
A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos . 13 25 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange
County, California, was held at the hour of 7: 30 p.m. ,
September 11 , 19 74 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain
Valley, California.
The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization 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 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this. meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned
to 7 : 30 p.m. , October 2, 1974 . The Chairman then declared
the meeting so adjourned at 10 : 10 p .m. , September ll-, .1974
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the
Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos .
1, 25 3, 55 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be full,
true and correct copy of minute entries on meeting of
said Boards of Directors on the llth day of September �
1974
IN WITNESS WHEREOF', I have hereunto set my hand this
llth day of September, 1974 .
..r
Secrotlar•y of t'he Bcar'ds o?
of County Sanitation Districts No., .
15 2, 3,' 5, 6, 7, and 11
S-107