Loading...
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