The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-12-19 4�7pN COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS o° °'� TELEPHONES: � �� AREA CODE 714 540-2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9622-241101 P. ❑. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY December 13, 1974 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO , I. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1974, 4: 30 P . m, 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 11, 1974, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. The purpose of the meeting is to consider award of a contract for sale of digested sewage solids , based upon staff evaluation of proposals to be received on December 17th. �_;�ze."ej', cretary JWS/cf BOARDS OF WRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 D STRICT No. 9540-2910 62-2411 iIAGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1974 - 4 :30 P.M. (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary (3) Consideration of proposals received for Sale of Digested Sewage Solids , Specification No . S-012 : (a) Staff report on evaluation of proposals received ��L (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion declaring intent to enter into a contract for sale of digested sewage solids with in accordance with their proposal, in form approved by the Districts ' General Counsel (4) Other business and communications (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn !:1S rXA Q EVALUATION OF BIDS RECEIVED ..� FOR THE SALE OF DIGESTED SEWAGE SOLIDS SPECIFICATION NO. S-012 Pursuant to the authorization by the Board of Directors at their regular meeting of December 11, 1974, proposals for the sale of digested sewage solids were solicited from interested parties known to the Districts' staff. Legal publications were made in the manner prescribed by law. Pro- posals and specifications were mailed to eight interested parties. Bids were received on Tuesday, December 17, 1974 from four possible contractors. In general, the specifications offered for sale 12a cubic yards/ per day (available 1975) to 250 cubic yards/per day (projected for 1980) of digested sewage solids available from the two treatment facilities of the Districts. The chemical composition and consistency of the sludge was stated along with other conditions relative to the area and utilities available for solids processing. Summarized below is the evaluation made by the District staff of the four bids received. G.B.M. INC. , Orange, California This proposal is based upon the District's paying an amount of $3.15 per cubic yard for all sewage solids trucked and hauled away fran the joint treatment works facilities. The proposal assumed a minimum haul of 100 yards per day with an unlimited maximum and a seven day per week guarantee. The proposal contained a request for a contract period of ten years and a clarification that all material must be suitable for plant growing media.. Advantages. The apparent advantage of this proposal is that the sewage solids would not be processed at the Districts' plant sites and would require only a minimum of involvement with the preparation of the solids. Disadvantages. The direct cost to the Districts is the cost aspect of this proposal. At the anticipated 1975 volumes, the District would pay approximately $140,000 annually to the contractor to dispose of the solids production from the joint works facilities. KELLOGG SUPPLY, INC., Carson, California This bid contained two distinct proposals which required the use of sludge composting beds. The difference between the two proposals ($0.80 per dry ton to $0.10 per dry ton) submitted was the effort of the contractor in the transportation of the sewage solids from the centrifuges to the settling beds. Contractor reserved the option to determine at his discretion when the material was satis- factory to be removed from the sludge handling areas. The pro- posal also stated that the contractor would not be required to purchase or remove sludge for any other purpose other than the sale and use as a fertilizer, and in the event that the sewage solids were deleterious to plant growth or restricted because of pro- visions of local, state, or federal laws, the contractor would not be required to dispose of the sewage solids. The bidder requested that the Districts grade and be responsible for the drainage of the sludge handling areas designated by the Districts in the specifi- cations. The bidder also declared that in the event that the sludge handling areas cannot be used due to health reasons or other- wise, the contract will be terminated. The requested term of the contract was for a period of three years with seven annual renewal options. Advantages. The apparent advantage of this proposal is that the Districts could continue their present business with an established firm which has proved the marketability of recycling sewage solids. The annual receipts would vary from approximately $1000 to $6000 in 1975 to $2500 to $15,000 in 1985. Disadvantages. The apparent disadvantages of this proposal is that it would require continuous land operation of disposed sewage solids at Plant No. 2. a- ALART COMPANY, Buena Park, California This proposal incorporates the means for making a finished transportable and immediately saleable product of the Districts present centrifuged sludge cake. The contractor proposes to install at no cost to the Districts the necessary equipment which would be completely housed in a steel frame building for the necessary facilities. Compensation was offered to the District ($1.00 per dry ton) for the purchase of the digested sewage solids. This proposal proposed the use of the available seven acre site at Plant No. 2 for a contract period of ten years. Advantages. The method as proposed by the bidder if successful would help the Districts to achieve long range planning goal of eliminating our present composting operation and the odors associated with the current methods. The bidder does appear to be familiar with pro- cessing of solid waste and has proposed the installation of a foul air scrubbing system to minimize any odor problem associated with the process and the prevention of pollutants escaping to the atmosphere. The method appears unique and if successful it would be very advantageous to our industry. If the method proposed is not successful, the contract would be terminated and the Districts would then have to seek alternate methods of disposal. GOLDEN WEST FERTILIZER COMPANY, Santa Ana, California This proposal was received from the contractor the Districts have had contractual arrangements with in the past. This company is familiar with solids processing and the bid submitted contained several alter- natives for consideration. Basically these alternatives are as follows: A. The installation of a sludge drying machine at Plant No. 2 for processing of approximately 400 dry yards of solids per day by 1976. The proposal contained an offer for purchase of the solids ($1.62 per dry ton) at such �r time as the solids processing machinery is installed and operational at Plant No. 2. But the contractor would not have to pay for any processed material until it is done by the mechanical dry operation. There is a pro- vision in this option for the Districts to pay to the bidder (at the rate of $3.00 per dry ton) material trucked to the company's facilities in Irvine. .�, B. This alternate offers a cost price' plus a per- centage thereof. The bidder would govern the processing and sales operation and would pay to the Districts upon selling of the material the balance between the process and operating costs and allowed overhead from the sale of the marketable material. C. This alternate is strictly a disposal cost to be paid by the Districts to the company for pro- cessing of all material in the bidder's Irvine plant at the rate of $3.00 per dry ton. D. This alternate is a profit sharing of the�tet sales of the volume of sewage solids sold. Advantages. The four alternatives presented in this proposal offer the same advantages as stated in the above mentioned bids. This contractor is generally familiar in the processing of sewage solids and has offered on all alternatives contractual relationship for a time period of twn years. Disadvantages. The disadvantages to this proposal are in- corporated in those listed above for the applicable pro- posals contained therein. RECOMMENDATIONS After carefully analyzing the proposals and the qualifications of the bidders, it is the staff's recommendation that the Board declare its intent to enter into a contract for the sale of digested sewage solids with Alart Company, Buena Park, in accordance with the proposal and in a form approved by the Districts' General Counsel. This recommendation is based upon the evaluation of the bids which can best serve the District's immediate needs and if the proposed method of disposal and recycling the sewage solids is successful, it will eliminate a substantial contingent financial burden to the Districts for many years to come. 'VOW MEETING DATE December 19 , 1g74 TIME 4 3� p =n DISTRICTS i DISTRICT 1 � JOINT BOARDS GARTH . . . . . PATTERSON. . . . (DUNNE) • • • • • WINN . . . . . . • CLARK�. . . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . NUIJENS) • • • • ARBISO • • • • • RIMA. CLARK . . . . . . BAKER • • • • • • (LANGLEY) . . . .SALTARELLI . . . CLARK . . . . . . BATTIN • • • • • • MC KN W) • • • • • BLACKMAN • • • • DISTRICT 2 PRYOR� . . . . . . BURTON • • • • • • F� ' NG . . . . . . CHAPUT COLLI S) . . . . BYRNE • • • • • • LENS • • • • • •CALLAHAN • • • • • LYONS • • • • • • CALLAHAN • • • • BAKER • •CLARK SEWING • • • • • • CHAPUT • • • • • • PATTERSON) • .GARTHE . . . . . . • (BAKER • • • • • • CLARK • • • • • • • NEVI ) • • • • • •GRAHAM • • • • • • • CULVER • • • • • • THOM� • • • • • • KAYWOOD • • • • • • MEYER) DAVIS . . . . . . • FOX) . . . . . . .MAC KAIN• • • • • • MCIJNIS) • • • • DOSTAL . . . . PERRY. . . . . . . . COEN) • • • • . . . DUKE • • . . . • • STANTON) SCOTT . . . . . . . . EDWARDS . . . . . PEREZ • • • •TEMPLE • • • • • • • MAC KAIN) • • • FOX . . . . . . . . . DUNNF . . . . . .WINN �PATTERSON)• • . GARTHE . . . . . . ROOT J . • • • • • •WOOD (COEN) . . . . . . . GIBBS . • • • • • . GLOCKNER . . . DISTRICT 3 NEVIL� . . . . . . GRAHAM . . . . . PERE� • • • • • • �1ACKMAN • • • • • MAC KAI )• • • • FOX• • • • • • • • • • THOM • • • • • • • KAYWOOD . . . . . NUIJENS . . . .ARBISO . . . . . . . �FOX) HOMRIGHAUSEN,) COX • • •CLARK( • • • • •BATTIN . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . MAC KAIN. . . . . MC KNEW)• • • • •BLACKMAN • • • • • (RYCKO F) • • . • MC INNIS. . . . . COLLINS) • • • •BYRNE . . . . . . . . �GARTHE) YOUNG. . • • • • NEVIL . . . . . . . CULVER. . . . . . . • • . . . PATTERSON . • . (MEYER) . • • • • •DAVIS . . . . . . . . PERRY . . . . . . . EDWARDS . . . . . . RIMA . . . . . . . . PATT�RSON) • • GARTHE • • • • • • ROGERS • • • • . • THOM • • • • • •KAYWOOD • • • • • • (WOOD) • • • • ROOT . . . . . . . . HOMRIGHAUSEN) COX . . . . . . • • • LANGLEY SALTARELLI . . YOUNG) • • • • • •NEVIL . . . . . . . . STANTON� • • • • SCOTT . . . . . . . WOOD) • • • • •ROOT • • • • • • • • • LAC AYOJ • • • • SONJU . . . . . . . LACAYO) • • • • •SONJU . . . . . . . . MC IN IS) • • • • STORE . . . . . . . (SCOTT) • • • • • •SVALSTAD • • • • • SCOTT� • • • • • • SVALSTAD . . . • (COEN) . . . . . . •WIEDER . . . . . . • �COEN PERE ) . . . . . . TEMPLE . . . . . . WIEDER DISTRICT 5 (ROOT . . . . . . . WOOD . . . . . . . . ZRYCKOFF) . . . •MCINNIS : : : ; :KER)) •CLARK ROGERS . . . . . . . OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER RIMA . . . . . . . . . SYLVESTER (CLARK) • • • • • •BATTIN . . . . . . . LEWIS U (MC INNIS). . . .STORE • • • • • • • • CLARKE., A (TAYLOR DISTRICT 7 � �' BROWN (LANGLEY) . . . .SALTARELLI • • • PRYOR� . . . . . .BURTON • • • • . • • NISSON BAKER • • • •CLARK • . • . • • • • EWING MC INNIS). . . .DOSTAL • • • . . • • HOHENER GLOCKNER • • • • • HOWARD SPEREZ) . . . . . •JACKMAN • • • • • . HUNT ` 1RTHE) . . . . .PATTERSON . • • . KEITH DISTRICT 11 KENNEY LYNCH (COEN) . . . . . . .DUKE • • • • • • • • • MADDOX (CLAR ) • • • • • •BAKER • • • • • • • • MARTINSON (COEN� . . . . . . .GIBBS . . . . . . . . PIERSALL STEVENS DISTRICT E MITCHELL • • • • • (BAKER) • • • • • •CLARK . . . . . . . . (JOHNSON) • • • •HOLM • . . . . . . • • 12/11/74 MEETING DATE December 11 , 1974 TIME 7 : 30 p .m. DISTRICTS 1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,6 , 7 & 11 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS GARTH . . . . ..PATTERSON. . • • '� DUNNE) • • • • WIN N • • • • • • • CLARK F. . . . . .BATTIN. . • • • • • ` - — NUIJE S)• • • • • ARBISO • • • • • i✓ RIMA. . . . . . . . . ✓ CLARK • • • • • • BAKER • • • • •• v (LANGLEY) . . . .SALTARELLI . • • —� — CLARK . . . . . . BATTIN • • • • • • ✓ MC KN W) • • • • • BLACKMAN • • • ✓ DISTRICT 2 PRYOR� • • • • BURTON • • • • • VG • • • • • •CHAPUT • • • . • • '� �- COLLI S). . . . • BYRNE • • • • • • E' v k� LYON S • CALLAHAN • • • • ✓ ' LtwNS . • • • • •CALLAHAN• • • • • k-� EWING • • • • • • CHAPUT . . . . . BAKER • • • • •CLARK '� -�-- BAKER • • • • • • CLARK • • • • • • "i*-- PATTE SON) • •GARTHE . . . . . . . — CULVER • • • • • •_� NEVI . . . . . .GRAHAM• • • • • • • THOM� • • • • • •KAYWOOD • Cx" �- MEYER) DAVIS . . . . . . . FOX) . . • • . . .M P1. 2 • • �- MCI RN IS) • • • • DOSTAL • . . . . ✓ � -� PERRY. . . . • F - COEN) . . . . . . . DUKE . . ✓ EDWARDSDS . . . . . STANT N) SCOTT . . . . . . . . MAC KAIN) • • • FOX . . . . . . � PEREZ • • • •TAM E • • • • • • • � ) T*H'E* PATTERSON • • • GAR DUNN . . . . . .WINN . . . . . . . . L + . . . . . ROOT� . . . . . . .WQOD ✓ (COEN) . . . . . . . GIBBS . . . . . . ._� GLOCKNER . . . . r DISTRICT 3 NEVIL� . . . . . . GRAHAM . . . . �- PERE • • • • • • JACKMAN MAC KAI )• • • •FOX. . . . . . . . . . THOM� • • • • • • KAYWOOD • . . . . NUI JENSl • • • •ARB I SO • • • • • • • _. — HOMR I GHAUSEN,) COX • • • - CLARK) • • • • •BATTIN . . . . . . • + RYC • • • • • • MC KNEW)• • • • •BLACKMAN — — KOFF) • • • • d�S: • • • : COLLINS) • • • •BYRNE . . . . . . . . MRTHE) UNG) • • • • • NEVIL • • • . •CULVER. . . . . . • �" YOUNG) . . . . . . PATTERSON . . . ✓ (MEYER) . . . . . .DAVIS • • • • • • • • k PERRY . . . . . . . ✓- EDWARDS . . . . . . RIMA • . • • . . . • ✓ PATT RSON) • •GARTHE . . . . . . • `� _ ROGERS . . . . . . ✓ THOM�. . . . . . .KAYWOOD. . . . . . � �_ WOOD) • . . . . . ROOT . . . . . . . . HOMRIGHAUSEN) COX • • • • • LANGLEY SALTARELLI YOUNG) • • • • • •NEVIL. . . . . . . . _� STANTON� • • • • SCOTT . . . . . . . WOOD) • . . . . .ROOT . . . . . . . . . ✓ _� LACAYO . . . . . �� . . . . . . . v LACAYO) • • • • . . . . . . . . �_ MC IN IS) • • • • STORE . . . . . . . SCOTT) • . • • • •SVALSTAD• • • • t' SCOTT • • • • • • SVALSTAD • • • .T COEN) . . . . . . .WIEDER. . . . . . . + PERE ) . . . . . . TAMNIkE. . . . . . ✓ COEN . . . . . . • WIEDER • • . . • . L__ DISTRICT 5 ROOT • • • • • • • .WOOD • • • • • • • • SRYCKO F) ' . . MS. . . . . . IBAKER� • • • •CLARK . . ROGERSr • • • Z OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER RI MA • • • • • • • • • 4' SYLVESTER CLARK) • • • • • •BATTI N . . . . . . . �— LEWIS �MC INNIS). . . .STORE • • • • • • • • CLARKE TAYLOR DISTRICT 7 BROWN LANGL Y) • • . •SALTARELLI • • • PRYOR • • • • • •B URTON . . . . . . . — NISSON BAKER CLARK . . . . . . . . EWING MCINNIS). . . .DOSTAL. . . . . . . ✓ HOHENER GLOCKNER • • • • • HOWARD PEREZ) • . • • •JACKMAN • • • • • HUNT ( .THE) . . . • •PATTERSON . . . . KEITH DISTRICT 11 KENNEY LYNCH COEN) . . . . . . .DUKE . . . . . . . . . ✓ MADDOX CLAR� ) • • • • • •BAKER • • • • • • • • MARTINSON COEN) . . . . . . .GIBBS . . . . . . . . PIERSALL STEVENS DIS ICT 8 MI ELL• • • • (BAKER) • • •CLAR (JOHNSON) • • • •HOLM • • • . . . , � , 17h COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUlTES OF ADJOURNED RLUULAR MEETING December 19, 1974 - 4 : 30 p .m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California �./ Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 113, 1974, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the District ' s offices . The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4 : 30 p .m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present . DIRECTORS PRESENT: Robert Battin (Chairman pro tem) , Kerm Rima, and Donald Saltarelli DIRECTORS ABSENT : Jerry Patterson .(Chairman) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, and William Clarke OTHERS PRESENT: Gordon Cooper, Al Eddows , and Jean Eddows Appointment of Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Chairman pro tem That Director •Battin- be appointed Chairman pro tem in the absence of Chairman Patterson. Declaring intent to award. ' The District ' s Chief Engineer contract for Sale of distributed copies of the 'staff Digested Sewage Solids evaluation of the four bids received to Alart Company for the Sale of Digested Sewage Solids , Specification No. S-012 . Following a staff review of the proposals submitted by G.B.M. , Inc. , Kellogg Supply, Inc . , Alart Company , and Golden West Fertilizer Company, the Chair recognized Mr . Al Eddows of Alart Company and Nr. Gordon Cooper of Golden West Fertilizer Company, who elaborated on the proposals of their respective firms . It was then moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Board of Directors concurs with the staff recommendation _ and hereby declares its intent to enter into a contract for sale of digested sewage solids with Alart Company , in accordance with the terms of their proposal, in form approved by the General Counsel . #1 12/19/74 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned . The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5 :18 p.m. , December 19, 1974'. Chairman of the Board of Directors, County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, California ATTEST: Secretary of the Board of Directors, County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California