Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1976-01-14
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) January 8, 1976 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 11 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1976, 7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of Orange County, California, will be heid at the above hour and date. Scheduled upcoming meetings: /I/ DISTRICT 2 (Adjourned) -Thursday, January 15, 1976, 5:30 p.m. TELEPHDN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE -Wednesday, January 28, 1976, 5: 30 p. m. (Tentative) MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation· Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS Meeting Date January 14, 1976 -7:30 p.m . Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones; Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 The following is a brief explanation of the more fmportant, 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 pre- ceding the meeting, but will appear in the supplemental agenda available at the meeting. Joint Boards No. 10-a -Award of Contract for Purchase of Chlorine . Bids were received on December 7th for supplying chlorine in ·one-ton cylinders for the calendar year of 1976. Because of the flurituating price of chlorine, the suppliers were permitted to bid three dj.ffe~e:nt ways . It is the staff's reco;:r.m end.a.tion th&t the contr·act ro:r· 1::1'{ 6 go to Continental Chemical Compariy for· the ua.sic unit price per ton .of $208.70. During the p ast 12 months , ·the Districts purchased approximate ly 500 tons of chlorine. No. 10-b -Award of Job No. PW-047. Bids were received to furnish and install new fibergl as s duct- work for Headworks "C" at Plant No. 2 to improve the fresh air ventilation system at this facility. Eight b i ds , ranging from $29,664 to $52,887, were received for this re gular l y -bud ge ted project with a low bid of $29,664 being submitted by Beverly Pacific Corporation, which is $5,336 less than the engineer 's estimate. Th e 1975-76 budget for this project is $15,000 , which was based on re- placing a portion of the existing aluminum ducts with similar material. During the design phase, the staff determ i ned that fiber- glass ducts would be less expensive in the long run because of their resistance to corrosion: In addition, it was necessary to expand the project to replace all of the fresh air duc t s in Headworks "C" because of extensive deterioration. The existing ductwork was installed i n 1969. The new fiber - glass ducts should have a life of at le ast 15 years. While the project cost is double the budgeted line it em, sufficient funds are available in the Minor Projects budget, Plant No . 2, to proceed wi th the project. The staff reco~Jnends award of a contract to the low bidder, Beverly Pacific Corporation. No. 10-c -Approving Plans and Specifications for Surge Tower Extension -Job No. J-9-2. Plans and specifications for the extension of the surg e tower for Outfall No . 2 have been prepared in accordance with the Districts' requireme nts and as was recommended in t he Project Report No. 2 for the 1972-73 Joint Works I mprovements and Addit ions. The estimated cost of this construction is $115,00 0 (budget, $200,000). It is recommended that the Boards authorize advertising for construction bids to be taken February 3rd . No. 10-d -Approval of Plans and Specifications for Fou l Air Scrubber at Plant No . 2 , Job No . PW -050 . Plans and specifications for the Foul Air Scrubber at Plant No. 2 have been prepared in accordance with the design criteria established by the staff to control the foul a ir at Plant No . 2 emanating from the incoming trunks and the "C" Headworks . Hugh Carter Engineering Corporation of Garden Grove, the design engineer for this project, has c omp leted the plans and specifications and has estimated the construction cost to be $158,798 ($150 ,000 is in the current budget for this project). Th e staff recommends that the Districts advertise for receipt of bids on February 3rd , 197 6 . No. 1 0-e -Consideration o f License Ag reement to County of Orange for Irrigation Water Line for rte clai med Wate r Pil ot Pro.i ect. On December 3rd, the staff received a request from the County's Environmental Management Agency , asking permission to construct, operate and maintain a temporary reclaimed wastewater supply 2~ inch diameter pipeline from the Water District 's Fac t ory 21 to the Santa Ana River greenbelt re claimed water pilot project . The suggested alignment of this pipeline is in an area whic h i s not presently required for treatment facilities and it is not anticipated that it will be needed i n the near future. The staff recommends the g ran ting of a License Agreement to the County, without fee, incorporating conditions protecting the Districts ' property and a hold harmless provision for the construction, maintenance and operation of this 2~ inch diameter line. Since the reclaimed water pilot projec t is a two-year pilot study, it is also recomme nded that the Licen~e be granted for a period .not to exceed 2~ years. No . 10-f -Renewal of Membership in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. The annual fees for membership in these organizations are due in January. Our Districts' dues for the California Association of Sanitation Age ncies (CASA) are $1,610, while membership in ~he Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) is $3 , l75. The California Association ma intai ns offices in Sacramento and has an active program dealing with wastewater legislati~e matters and -2- proposed regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board. The AMSA organization represents the large metropolitan agencies at the Federal level. Offices are maintained in Washington, D.C., and they are extremely active. Not only do they work with the staffs of the numerous congressional committees concerned with water pollution control regulat ions, but also their information service on current EPA matters is extremely helpful to the Dis- tricts' staff. This past year, our Director of Finance, Wayne Sylvester, was President of CASA and the General Manager is presently AMSA's Vice President and a member of its 10-man Board. Both organizations have annual meetings which provide ample opportunity for discussions with representatives of other agencies concerning mutual water pollution management problems. Our Directors and staff have been active in both Associations and we feel that the benefits are well worth the costs inv o lv ed. No. 10-g -Follow-Up Management Letter from the Districts' Certified Public Accountants. Included in the agenda material is a letter from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, the Districts' Auditors, which reviews the act ions taken by .the Districts' staff rel at ive to the auditors' recowJnendati ons. Their only criticism is the manner in which we continue to handle the d ai ly receipts. Our practic e is to make deposits with the County Treasurer on a weekly basis except for large rec e ip ts , such as grant payments. Any large receip ts (over $80 ,000), are deposited on the day they are received. This procedure was reviewed with the Executive Committee and approved by the Jo int Boards l ast August. District No. 2 No. 10-h -Approving Addend a Nos. 1 and 2 to Contract No . 2-16-2. Addendum No. 1 changes the bid date from December 1 6 , 1975, to January 6, 1976, to allow more time for the contractors to bid o n this project pending r e~ei pt of the requirements from Cal-Trans for th e Encroachment Permit crossing the Orange Freeway . · Add endum No. 2 inc orporates the requir ements of the State, along with clarifications and additional requirements of the Cities of Fullerton and Placentia. No. 10-i -Award of Contract No. 2-16-2 -~Yorba Lind a F orce Main . This regularly-budgeted project was described at the time the plans and specifications were adopted by the Board. Bids were opened ·on J anuary 6, 1976, and we are pleased to advise that the low bid was i n the amount of $658,925.98, which is $151,350.12 under the engineer's estimate of $810,276.80. Twenty-four bids were received which ran ged from the low bid to a hi gh of $932,341. -3- The bid tabulation is enclosed with your agenda material and we are recommending award to .Vido Artukovich and Sons, Inc., of South El Monte in an amount of $658,925.98 plus $1,362 for paving as re- quest~d by the City of Fullerton, for a total of $660 ,287.98 . Th: City of Fulierton will reimburse the District $1362 after the paving work has been completed and certified by the City. No. 10-k -Annexation No. 12 -Anaheim Hills. The Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the bistrict's request for annexation of 6.16 acres in the Anaheim Hills Inc. development area. The annexation fees have been paid by th~ prop~nents and it is the staff's rec ommendat ion that Resolu- tion No. 76-7-2 be approved ordering the filing of this annexation with the Secretary of State. Nos. 10-1 and m -Change Order No. 1 to Contracts Nos . 2 -14-3A and 2-14-4A. The Directors will .recall that the State Board 's staff gave us the option of awarding Contracts Nos. 2-14-3 and 2-14-4 on the cond·ition that the project manhole frames and c overs were rebid in a separate contract known as the Santa Ana River Intercept o r Sewer from Grove Street to Imperial Highway Manhole Covers and ;;1r:;::;-;-;'",,.=..~ ~.-.r.f-·,-.;:.,.'f-~.:.·, ';'_;!!_~:.i ~;-,u·, ~-;·.+-:.:.. :s ,,.;.. R--t,r~1· 7 r ·:'-"I•'"a:..'f•t-#.,. ---·· .. --, ...,,_..,..,..,...._ __ ._ ... ,_. --.. • ..J•"'' ............ _._... ............................................ -'-""---'-J.V'-'" V""'t"'V'-".'-. sewer from Imperial Highway to Gypsum Canyon Road Manhole Cove rs and Frame s, Contract No. 2-14-4A. These contracts were sub- sequently awarded at the November Board meeting which are essentially equipment contracts. Both were awarded to Long Beach Iron Works in the amounts of $3,604 and $5 ,045 respectively for the two contracts. As a part of the standard bid documents the "contractor'' was r equi red to furnish certain insurance which is only applicable to a construction contract and not an equipmen t contract. The staff is, therefore, request i ng on behalf of the "contractor" that the insurance r equirements be waived since they are not applicable to this type of contract and the contractor did not include the premium costs in his bid. ·District No. 5 No. 10-n -Agreement with The Irvine Company for Cons t ruction and Acquisition of the Back Bay Dri ve Sewer (East Side). Resolution No. 76-8-5 authorizes execution of an agreement with The Irvine Company for construction and acquisition of a Master Plan Sewer in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Board at the December 11th meetingl spec ific ally , $600 ,000 for a term of six years with interest at ~~% on the unpaid balance. -4- No. 10-o -Engineer~ng Proposal for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Back Bay Trunk Sewer. (East Side). . The District adopted a Master Plan for Trunk Sewers in 1969, which was updated in 1971. Recent flow measurements of the Dis- trict's facilities indicate the need for the installation of the Back Bay Trunk Sewer on the east side to accommodate the flows in the drainage area which basically contains the Harbor Hills develop - ment, Big Canyon, as well as the Fashion Island commercial develop - ment. The existing pump station on Jamboree Road has reached its physical limitations as far as any future expansion. It is, therefore, necessary that the District proceed as rapidly as possible to con- struct this needed facility. It is recommended that the General Manager be authorized to negotiate an engineering design proposal with Simpson-Steppat, the District's engineer, for the Board's consideration, for preparation of the Back Bay Sewer (East Side) plans and specifications. District No. 7 No. 10-p -Authorizing Solicitation of Engineering Proposals to Prepare Right-of-Way Mapping . From time to time the staff has discovered substantial dis- crepancies in the descriptions of the District's sewer easements . Because of numerous inquiries by other agencies re garding the District's rights of way and the large number of easements crossing private property, we believe we should engage the services of a reliable firm to review the status of all existing easements. It ls the staff's recoMnendation that authorization be given to solicit engineering proposals to update the District's r i ght -of-way mapping . It is estimated that the cost for outside services wi ll be approxi - mately $25,000. $35,000 was approved in this year 's budget for this purpose. District No. 11 No. 10-q -1970 Agreement with the Ci ty of Huntington Beach Accepting Sunset Beach Sani tary District 1 s Sewage Flows . Included in the agenda material is a staff report regarding some of the difficulties encountered in the administration of a five-y ear old agreement with the City to accept , treat and dispose of sewage from the Sunset Beach Sanitary District . This matter will be discussed in g reater detail at a subsequent meeting when the new Master Plan of Trunk Sewe rs for 04r District is considered by the Board. All Districts Nos. 12 and 13 -Report of Executive Committee a nd Co n - sideration of Recommendations. The Committee.met on January 7th. A report on the <meeting together with recommendations is enclosed for the D+rectors. -5- No. 14 -Proposed Land Exchange -CSD Plant No . 2 and Ayers Property at North End of Districts' Property. Included in the supporting documents .(Q-1 -Q-3) is a memoran- dum of the General Counsel describing a proposed land ex change to square up the northerly boundary of Plant No. 2. It is recommended that the action appearing in the agenda be approved. All Districts No. 15 -CASA Work Conference. A 2-day work conference has been scheduled by the California Association of Sanitation Agencies in Indian Wells January 23rd and 24th. If the Boards adopt ·the r esolutions pertaining to compensation and reimbursement for Directors' expenses under Agenda Item No. 13(c)(l), it will be necessary to have specific authorization for attendance at the conference. No. 16 -Purchase of Special Laboratory Equipment . We have advertised for bids to be op ened January 13th for a Total Organic Carbon Analyze r Unit which will be used in the Districts' laboratory to fulfill specific monitoring requirements for our NPDES pe rmit~ The unit will also be used for testing industrial waste samples and for evaluating some of the JPL-ACTS pilot unit operating results. $10 ,0 00 has been budgeted for this equipment. District No . 2 No. 20 -Adjournment to Thursday, January 15th. Chairman Callahan has requested that the Board adjourn to 5:30 p.m., on Thursday, January 15th, for the purpose of con- sidering the acquis i tion of easements and permits for the con - struction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor for Contracts Nos . 2-;4-4 and 2-14-5. In addition to these matters, there will be severa l additional items of business pending receipt of the necessary documents. District No. 3 No. 30 Staff -Report on Odo r Control Problems . Included in the agenda supporting material is an expanded staff report concerning measures to abate the odor problems being experienced in the Miller-Holder and Knott Interceptor Sewers . Three alternate plans are pres e nted for discussion purposes. District No. 7 No. 33 -Award of Contract No. 7-6-8 -Tustin-Orange r~unk Sewer. Twenty-one bids were received on December 1 6th for the con- struction of the Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer, Contract No . -7-6-8. The apparent low bidder, Nick Didovic Construction Company , wishes to rescind a bid of $475,632.74 because of a mistake. Enclosed -6- .. .. with the agenda material are copies of the correspondence from the Company and their attorneys. Also enclosed is a memorandum from the General Counsel recommending that the District Board make a finding that there is no basis to support the claim of an alleged mistake by the low bidder. He further recommends that the Board award the contract to the Didovic Construction Company and in the event the contractor refuses to execute the necessary contract documents and fails to commence the work, that the District take action to enforce the provisions of the contractor's bid bond. The actions appearing in the agenda are in accordance ·with the General Counsel 's memorandum. No. 34 -Annexation of the Orange Park Acres Area. Pursuant to the Board's direction, the District's engineers have completed the preliminary cost determinations relative to sewering the area within the proposed Orange Park Acres annexa- tion. The proponents have reviewed the information and have decided to proceed with the annexation only on the condition that the District Board will authorize the construction and/or acquisition of the Tustin-Orange Master Plan trunk sewer, Reaches 17·and 18 if the bond/annexation election is successful . . on August 20th, the Board declared its intent to initiate necessary proceedings to annex the Orange Park Acres area in accordance with the Orange Park Association's proposal for con- curr~nt annexation and bond authorization by means o f an e lection to pay any and all costs incurred in connection wit h the pr o ce e ding s and they have deposited $5,000 to date to cover expenses thr ough the determination by the Local Agency Formation Commission . Before the staff initiates the annexation proceeding s, it will be necessary to receive direction from the Board relative to the cons t ruction and/or acquisition of the Tustin-Orange Trunk Sew e r, Re ac h es 1 7 and 18. (Engineer's report re: Orange Park Acres Sewer Impr o vement District enclosed for District Directors). Fred A. Harper General Mana g er ~7-· BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Seinitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ell is Avenue Founta in Valley, Calif., 92708 Tele ph on es: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 (1) FILE t~f..£."(2 ) LETIER •.•.••......•• A/C •... Tl<LR ··-{ 3) " MEETING DATE . JANUARY 14, 1976 -1 : 30 P .M ·.· Pl e dg e of Allegiance and Invoca tion Roll Call AGENDA AOJOURN:·mns POSTED ..•• co::;P & t;ilLEl\GE .... ~ ..•. F:1.c;, :;;:T UP ...... 0 ··· .. ··· P.L· i.G::·.·1s CERllFltO .V, LCl 1 L:t , ·~ ... ;TTEiJ ..... ~ ..... . ' ~ 1·-·r1·~1 '/ ~.!Hv rE., . 111 1:.1 ...... V.: .• MINUTES HLED ...... lt.'.'.". ..• - App ointment of Chairmen pro t e rn, if nece s s ary •s-~ -·-··-··-··-········· DISTRICTS .3 & 8--__ ...... _,~~$ (4) Consideration of motion to receive and following sanitary districts regarding new members of the Boards: file letters from the appointments and seating ITEM S ON SUP PLEME NTAL A GENDA FILE •••.••.••••••••••• LETTER ............. . NC .... TKLR •••• (5) (6) Fl lE ................ - LETIER ···--··- A/C ...• TKLR ··- oooo ooooOOOOOO**H0-00-- ·························• (7) ................... LETIER ·····-·····- A/C •.•. TKLR ··- ··---·---··-··--------·- HOOOOO•OOOOOO O--·- SANITARY DISTRICT Midway City South Laguna DISTRICT NO. 3 8 DI STR ICT 8 ~ El ection of Ch airman -.-.:-~~ EACH DI STR ICT DIRECTOR Richard Olson Harold E. Edwards Cons ide r ation o f mot ion s approving minut es of the f ollowi n g mee tings, a s ma ile d: ,._ls Di s trict 1 Decemb e r 10, 1975 r e gula r ~\s Di s trict 2 Decemb e r IO, 1975 r egular ~Is Di s t r ict 3 December . 10, 1975 r egular ~)s Dis t rict 5 Decemb e r 10, 1975 r e gul a r a nd December 11 , 1975 a djourne d ~ls Di s t rict 6 Decemb e r 10, 1975 r egular ~Is Dis trict 7 Dece mb e r 10, 1975 regula r Distri ct 11 Decemb e r 10, 19 75 r e gular ALL DI STR I CTS Re ports of: (a) Joi nt Ch a irman (b) Ge neral Manage r (c) Gen er a l Counsel " (8) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file certification of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, FILE ······--f\\.o found them to be in order, and that he recommends authorization for LETTER •...••• '.'. •• ;/ payment •1 c ~-- J:.~'?{ ALL DISTRICTS \ ~-WP.~9) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating ROLL CALL vorr ....... ~ . ..-and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund accounts payable check registers for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing ITEMS oN payment of claims listed on page "I" ; and approving accounts SUl'l'LEMENTAL AGENDA payable check registers for signature of the Chairman of the res pective District, and authorizing payment of said claims listed on the pages indicated below: DIS'fRIC'f 1 waua::nt:3, if any .......... ~ .............. NONE DISTRICT 2 warrants -See page "II" DIS TRICT 3 warrants -See page "II" -fHSTRICTS 3 & 11 51:15:fWHSe fml:cl vUU'Pants, if any ••••• NONE DIS'fRIC'f 5 wan ant<', if etfty ......................... NONE DISTRICTS 5 ~ 6 suspeHSe ftIRcl ;raPFants, if any ...... NONE BI STRICT 6 ~t'B:l'?'tifl:tS, if 8:HY I •••••••••••••••••••••••• NONE DISTRICT 7 warrants -See page ------.-"III" BI STRICT 11 warre:Hts, if Cillf •••••••••••.••••..•..•.. NONE (10) ALL DISTRICTS CONSENT ·· CALENDAR Roll Call Vote or Ca sf Unan imo us Elallot J M\S ITEMS NOS, 10(A) THROUGH lQ(Q) 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 i terns. All i terns 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 i terns -are to be deleted from the consent calendar. (.e) ~) Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appea ring on the consent calenda r not specifically remov e d from same. -2- (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ( FILE ..... ~:.: ..•••. - 1._LETTER :;:::-.:_ ..••• A/C •••• TKLR •••• -~~~~~---······ \ -·-·······--·······--···· FILE ....... L--- -. v"_.4. LETTER:> .••.••• 4d(' -A/C •... TKLR_ •• / . ,~-~---~-~-· ···-··················· .. FILE --~---~-f.-.. ..... LETTER ..•.•••••••••• A/C .... TKLR •••• ~tP~6\~~V-......................................... c-~.~-·' ,.... F ILE··-~:::~z:::~::::····· LETTER -··········- A/C .... T~~R •••• '"> ':.~~--~-::.~ ... :.~~- ·----~~~ .. : ..... ~-'-··:- FILE----~---··· LETTER !f.~--~- !'f C .... T_!CLR •••• ~~:~'.:L::~:==,, FILE -·············.···· LETTEr::fr:~::_ ~:.~~~--~~~~ -~~-~-~--z;······· FILE •• .t ............ . LETTER •.•..•.••••••• A/C .... TKLR •••• \.:.'\ t.._-v FILE ••• l ............. . LETTER •.•.......•.•• A/C .... TKLR ...• ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 76-1, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding purchase contract for Supplying Chlorine in One Ton Cylinders, Specification No. C-007, to Continental Chemical Company, for the unit price per ton of $208.70. See pages "A" and "B" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 76-2, to receive (c) (d) (f) and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for New Fiberglass Ductwork for Headworks "C" Fresh Air Ventilation System at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-047, to Beverly Pacific Corporation, in the amount of $29,664.00 See page "C" Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 76-3, approving plans and specifications for Surge Tower No. 2 Extension at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. J-9-2, and authorizing advertising for bids on February 3, 1976 Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 76-4, approving plans and specifications for Installation of Foul Air Treatment at Plant No. 2 Headworks "C", Job No. PW-050, and authorizing advertising for bids on February 3, 1976 Consideration of Resolution No. 76-5, authorizing execution of Temporary License Agreement with the Environmental Management Agency of the Cotmty of Orange, relative to right of way required in connection with irrigation water line from Orange County Water District facilities for the Santa Ana River Greenbelt. See pages "D" and "E" Consideration of motion authorizing renewal of memberships in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and the . Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies for the 1976 calendar year, and approving payment of annual dues of $1,610 and 3,375, respectively Consideration of motion to receive and file management letter submitted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Certified Public Accountants, dated December 22, 1975. See page "F" DISTRICT 2 (h) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Yorba Linda Force Main, from Associated Road to Kraemer Boulevard, Contract No. 2-16-2 (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) FILE .•. ..N::-.: ___ _ _,,----,....-- "' LETTER ---······--·· A/C .... TKLR .... --~---·\L.·-· . FILE .•.... .J,.·: ..... . ',,.---. Ir LETTEIU •....•.••...•• A/C ..•. TKLR .••• ............................................ FILE ..• ~ •• ::. ... ~---··· LETTE~ 'd. . ./;: .. " A/C .•.. TKLR •••• FI LE ~--·~ •• !:. ..... . I LETTER =?.~ A/C .•.. TKLR .... v-F 1 LE ................ .. LETTER····--- A/C .... TKLR - -'\ ~ -..... 6) .. K ..... _ FILE •• !J .. : ...... ; .. - . LETTER --~~.:-~ A/C ...• TKLR •••• .................................... - ....................... -.. -.... . .,,. FILE ....... --- LETTERS~ A/C .... TKLR - DISTRICT 2 (Continued) (i) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 76-6-2, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Yorba Linda Force Main, from Associated Road to Kraemer Boulevard, Contract-No. -2-16-2,--to Vido Artukovich & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $660, 287. 98. See page "G" (j) Consideration of motion to receive, file and deny claim of Timothy Scharnagl by Guardian Ad Litem Gary Scharnagl, dated December 26, 1975, in the amount of $5,000, relative to alleged injuries incurred in connection with construction of the Kraemer Boulevard Interceptor Sewer, Palm Drive to Imperial Highway, Contract No. 2-16-1, and refer to the contractor and District's liability insurance carrier for appropriate action (k) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 76-7-2, ordering annexation of approximately 6.16 acres to the District in the vicinity of the Anaheim Hills, Inc. development area (Proposed Annexation No. 12 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 3 ·to· ·County Sanitation District No. 2) (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (from Grove Street to Imperial Highway) Manhole Covers and Frames, Contract No. 2-14-3A, waiving the insurance requirements as inapplicable to said contract which is for materials only. See page "H" (m) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (from Imperial Highway to Gypsum Canyon Road) Manhole Covers and Frames, Contract No. 2-14-4A, waiving the insurance require- ments as inapplicable to said contract which is for materials only. See page "I" DISTRICT 5 (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 76-8-5, approving and authorizing execution of agreement with The Irvine Company for construction and acquisition of the Back Bay Drive Trunk-Sewer (East Side), in form approved by the General Counsel. See page "J" (o) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to negotiate an engineering proposal from SiiJ>~on-Steppat, District's Consulting Engineer, for design of the iiikBay Drive Tnmk Sewer (East Side) DISTRICT 7 (p) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to solicit engineering proposals for preparation of right-of-way document maps and records for the District's trunk sewer facilities (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) FILE ---------------- lETTER --------···· A/C __ _J!(LR ~:~~L ..... ~iA ___________ .,. ___ .. ,,,.~ DISTRICT 11 (q) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report relative to the existing agreement.with the City of Huntington Beach for accepting flows from Sunset Beach Sanitary District See page "K" END OF CONSENT· CALENDAR (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any f\lE ·······~······-_( 12) ALL DISTRICTS LEfT~R ·····- ~~-::~~fs Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Committee's written report J ............................ --- -5- (13) ALL DISTRICTS F1l! ............ ilth"'-. ( ·~ .~ Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: LETTER : .. 1"£J..,.6 .. A/C •. ~.T~LR ·•·• .t!\ \~~· . ) ..... ~ 'v-'wi>-... 'h~ . ~····R"olT··fa1rVote or ast ___ •. .llnou.liA:>AUs Ballot Consideration of Resolution No. 76-10, pertaining to procedures for the payment of claims against the Districts, and repealing Section 13 of Resolution No. 64-3, as amended~ See page· "L" ~ Consideration of actions re construction of incremental unit of conventional secondary treatment facilities at Plant No. 2: -:~~-~~~·~ ~ Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to proceed ic -~ f\\,\S. with planning and grant application for construction of ~~~;.$.·.;·~ ~f~~D N~ct~vated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Treatment ~ d~ t ~·· /"' ,.,. • ···-·····-····--·-··· .. (2) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to direct J. B. Gilbert & Associates to proceed with Environmental Impact Statement for construction of 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Treatment Plant No. 2 in accordance with the per diem rates set forth in that certain agreement with said firm, dated June 1, 1975, for a maximum fee not to exceed $10, 000 ~ Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to direct John Carollo Engineers to proceed with Facilities Plan for construction of 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities A/C .... TKLR ·-M \.S at Treatment Plant No. 2 in accordance with the per diem rates ·--~~~-set forth in that certain agreement with said firm, dated · -··············-·····-July 1, 1975, for a maximum fee not to exceed $19,500 FILE ···········-····· ~onsideration of the following resolutions establishing LETrE.R>F..~ .. ~~~~ . compensation and reimbursement for expenses for Directors, · .. · r..··· , Roll Call Vote or_ Cast and repealing existing resolutions for same: See page "M" A/C -~.TKLR ·•·• Unanimous Ballot ~J-~l\.o ~· ~;.;~:::~~;.:i ;, 1':'1'<'0.C..~ DISTRICT 1 R11&olutieft 76-11-t (Repeals Resos. 63-128 & 68-3-1) ::E~-.:::: ... ~\~~:~:~~~ ~ ::::~::~:: ~:~~~~~ ~:::::~: ::::~::~:: ~~~::~~~ A/C ~.... C.:.,.~ ( . 73 51 5) {)~ ~· '1 c nNo~) -DISTRICT 5 Re~oltttion 76 14-5 Repeals Resolution -- ••••..• -1. ••...••..•..••• --~-~.Q:~~Sc:t" ...,.o.J>: ;_ DISTRICT 6 Resolution 15-15-6 (Repeals Resolution 73-52-6) FILE .................. ~,-DISTRICT 7 Resolution 76-16-7 (Repeals Resolution 73-53-7) ~~E: .. ~~~~-·:::~ l ~f .S DISTRICT 11 Resolution 76-17-11 (Repeals Resolution 73-56-11) ~;i;~-t·: ~V:. ). ~Consideration of Resolution No. 76-18, amending Rules of Procedure ·······················-Roll Call Vote or~ for Meetings Resolution No. 64-3 as amended relative to , Y. ' , FILE ..••.•••••• : •••••• l/ Unanimous Ball/v\ I c. appointment of al te~ate members of the . Executive Connni ttee LETTE~.~--!'-:9.-/ See page "N" ( 0 7 J .-~,,. , ,_1. · -X A/C ••• ':4KLR •••• ~.c; i ·.St.I • 1~'7 ....... -~Consideration of Resolution No. 76-19, establishing a Deferred Compensa- -·Rolf""C'alr·vote or Cast~ • f f h · · ••.........•.. Ui:wUwous Ballot /Ii\ .,Sa tion Plan or management employees o t e Districts. See page "O" ~1~ ·--~·······-~Consideration of moti. on to receive and file Questionnaire Concerning ·-..LETTER--~---M Possible Need for Changes in Community Redevelopment Law from the A/C .... TKtR •••• ''\ Orange Cormty Environmental Management Agency. See page "P" -6- (14) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to rece'ive and file memorandum from General Counsel (\ dated January 6, 1976, regarding proposed land exchange with Jane Ayers of· P ~-property adjoining the northerly boundary of Treatment Plant No. 2 on )(, Brookhurst Street; approving said exchange; and authorizing the General ~ uJ~ Counsel to execute all necessary legal documents in this regard in accordance ~with the conditions contained in said memorandum. See page "Q" Directors to attend the -----::,- day Mid-Year nference of th alifo sso ion of Sani ion A 1es in Indian We on ~~ ry 23 & 24, 1976; and authorizing reimbursement fo~ expens~s 1nc~rred in ~ccordrnce . with ) established policy(~~~~ f\.A-"at-ut..;._~~ r"·;-----, v ~-····:· ......... .. LETT ER ••··••··• .. ··'(16) ALL DISTRICTS A/C .... TK L~ Other business and communications or supplemental agenda i terns: ... f>.,.0 .. L .... ' .. ~ .. 1 l.... ·······-·····/t\l-S (16-a) ITEMS ON SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Consideration of motion to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding purchase of Total Organic Carbon Analyzer, Specification No. E-078, to Envirotech Corporation-Sparling Division, in the amount of $9,808.03. See page "IV" (17) or supp e ental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 1 Cons idera ti on of motion to adjourn q ',.l..5 ~ DISTRICT 2 ~ ~ ;i,. ~ Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ~ .. o. ~ (20) DISTRICT 2 \O~tS ~-1.5·?· Consideration of motion to adjourn ~~~~s~.~3~8..,.,p~.~m~.~.-rt~Hna~±~s~a~ay~.~J~a~1"ta"a~1~y~l~S~,--1~~~Y~6T-- (22) DISTRICT S Consideration of motion to adjourn 'I:~ 1 (24) DISTRICT 6 FILE ··················c2s) tETIER ···--····· .. ~:.~ .. ::::~~~~--:~M Is (26) Consideration of motion to adjourn 9:~1 DISTRICT 8 Consideration of motion to receive and file Annual Report submitted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Certified Public Accountants, for the year ending June 30, 1975, previously mailed to Directors by auditors or supplemental agenda items, if any -7- . . (27) DISTRICT 8 Consideration of motion to adjourn~:~ 8 (28) DISTRICT 11 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (29) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn /?:~8 ®DISTRICT 3 ~E)g.~-.~~;:.V (a) Staff report on odor control problems relative to operation of the l:.:~ ~-IU«~~~-~) LETTER •••.••. ~ "'; · Knott Interceptor. See page "R" A/C •••• TKLR •••• (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion directing the staff to proceed with odor control measures as determined by the Board (31) DISTRICT 3 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (32) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn 'I: .3J,I, ~ DISTRICT 7 LETTER ............•. A/C .... TKLR .... Consideration of actions relative to award of Tustin-Orange Trtmk Sewer, Portion of Reach 12, Reach 13, and Portion of Reach 14, Contract No. 7-6-8: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file telegram from Nick Didovic Construction Company, dated December 18, 1975, rescinding bid for said project; and letter from Monteleone & McCrory, Attorneys for Nick Didovic Construction Company, dated December 18, 1975, requesting that their client be relieved of their bid on said project. See pages "S" and "T" FILE ~-~--~·tf\.l ..S lETTER ............. . (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file memorandum of General Cotmsel, dated January 6, 1976, regarding award of Tustin-Orange Trlillk Sewer, Portion of Reach 12, Reach 13, and Portion of Reach 14, A/C •••• TKLR ... . Contract No. 7-6-8. See page "U" -~~~~Z' (c) m:ideration of Standlli_ Resolution No.~to re~eive and file Roll Call Vote or Cast tabulation _<!nareconune~tion and aw~ontract for Tustin-Orange Unanimous Ballot .· ~ Sew~_!:_,_ .. P-ortion of Reach -1:l.each ~--a~on of Reach 14, Contra·cT.-No. 7-6-8, to Nick Didovic~··construction Company, in the amount of $4 75, 632. 74 "'· ~ee .Page "V" ~!LE"":··E·-··,y.:T/tl\.\5 ~ ~ c.,..,;._Q ,!)., ~ (LETTER. : •• 'l!b · (d) Cortsideration of motion declaring that in the event of nonexecution of '-J;:Tc .... KLR .••• the contract for constructiQ.n.....Qf__Tustin-Orange Trtmk Sewer, Portion of Reach 12, Reach 13, ,arut150'rtion Ot--Req~h 14, Contract No. 7-6-8, by the lo · dde -Nick Didovic Constructfo~4!he General Counsel be authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of the bid bond submitted by said contractor ~--:·········· ~J:R' .. ~ . ./(_.,. A/C .... TKLR •••• -8- I •. • • .. ·~DISTRICT 7 FILE -~!-~--~ LETTER ···-··-··· .. A/C ___ na,a -· (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from George Rach, Chairman of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee, dated January 6, 1976, requesting annexation of the Orange Park Acres area to the District. See page "W" ----(b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion directing the staff to proceed with annexation procedures as determined by the Board (35) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (36) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn I 0 ·.DB -9- II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange Cou'pty, California DISTRICT No. ~i- 2 Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Te le phones: Area Cede 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA ( p . t . ~:Tr'trre-~~~~~~ t\,·~-t~ ~&~ ~~ ~ ~ Cons1derat~ht-of-way acquisition in connection with construction of Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (from Imperial Highway to Gypsum Canyon Road), Reach 5, Contract No. 2-14-4, and Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (Gypsum Canyon Road to Orange County Line), Reaches 6, 7 & 8, Contract No. 2-14-5: ~Consideration of Resolution No. 76-20-2, approving Permit-Agreement with County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and ,,.,. -!~E ·······-~--- lETTER ············•• M\~ Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, for District No. 2 to occupy right of way through said agencies' property in ':'J!l~~".:"!i0~ ,.ri_ 1.:h ~0" c::"f-,..11rH rm ~n<l nyif"-r~ ti cm of the Santa Ana River A/C .... TK~R ...•. ---··--........................ __ _ -----·--------- Interceptor Sewer, Contracts Nos. 2-14-4 and 2-14-5; establishing conditions therefor; and authorizing payment in the amount of (Approx. $165 M) for said Permit-Agreement (agreement to. be mailed to Directors under separate cover on Monday, January 12) -4 · · ~ ~ Consideration of Reselutien He. 76 21-2, accepting Grant of Easement FILE .--= ...... _ from Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company in connection with LETIER -······-··-\_s construction of the SaI1ta Ana River Interceptor Sewer, Contracts A/C .... TKLR •.•• M;, Nos. 2-14-4 and 2-14-5; and authorizing payment in the amount of ·······-··············-· $10, 650 for permanent easement, $14, 550 for temporary easement, and the amount of $60 for each damaged citrus tree -~-~"JI I ..,,.,.• FILE~---~ LETIER ·······-- A/C .... TKLR ·- . v' :--, ~ ..) Fl!~ ;;;;.__;- ~meR ······--- A.le ,,..TKLR -- ~:::::: ~ ~-=. ~ \••• .......... .... (c) Consideration of RQsolw'tieH ~le, 76 22-2T accepting Grant of Easement from Bryant Ranch in connection with construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer, Contracts Nos. 2-14-4 and 2-14-5; and authorizing payment in the amount of $15,400 for permanent easement, $16,350 for temporary easement, and the amount of $60 for each damaged citrus tree (d) Consideration of ~esolution Mo. /6;J3-2, authorizing acquisition of parcel for metering station and accepting Grant of Easement from Bicklyn, Inc. in connection with construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer, Contracts Nos. 2-14-4 and 2-14-5; authorizing payment of $12,000 per acre for metering station site (estimated to be less than 1 acre) plus considera.tion for permanent ingress and egress rights for said site; and authorizing payment in the amount of $7,600 for permanent easement, $6,900 for temporary easement, and the amount of $125 for each damaged non-citrus tree Consideration of actions in connection with proposed Annexation No. 13 - Tract No. 7350 to County Sanitation District No. 2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report dated January 9, 1976, on annexation of areas within the City of Villa Park to County Sanitation District No. 2. See page "A" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 76-24-2, declaring special exception for Tract No. 7350 and waiving connection fees therefor. See page "B" (c) Consideration of Resolution No. 76-25-2, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex approximately 10.868 acres to the District in the vicinity of Santiago Boulevard and Patrician Drive, and setting annexation fees therefor in the amount of $455.50 per acre (Proposed Annexation No. 13 -Tract No. 7350 to County Sanitation District No. 2) See page "C" (d) Consideration of motion declaring intent to· levy sewer service charge in the amount of $10 per unit per month against developed properties in Tract 7350 if proposed Annexation No. 13 -Tract No. 7350 is not completed (5) Other business and communications (6) Consideration of motion to adjourn lD"f cf ··2- ST AF F R E P 0 R T · January 9, 1976 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 108.C.C ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71.C) 5..C0-2910 (71..C) 962-2..C 11 Subject: Annexation of Areas Within the City of Villa Park to Sanitation District No. 2 An updating of the District's boundary map in the spring of 1973 revealed that certain areas had been annexed to the City of Villa Park, developed and were receiving sewer service, but had inadvertently not been annexed to Sanitation District No. 2. One particular area is Tract No. 7350 which lies southerly of Santiago Boulevard as shown on the attached map. After a series of conununica- tions between the District's staff and that of the City, it is felt that it would be more expeditious if the Sanitation District would initiate proceedings similar to that which were done for Annexation No. 8, Tract No. 4980, in the City ~f Orange. Inasmuch as the Tract No. 7350 is fully developed and all ni~P~PP~ p~rcels are occupied. this annexation woulJ be an inhabited ~~nc~atio~ requiring notification and public hearings. Since this area is similar to Annexation No. 8 in the City of Orange, it is recommended that similar actions be taken by the Board. These are as follows: 1. Initiate proceedings for an inhabited annexation and, if successful, declare a special exception for Tract No. 7350 and waive the District's connection fees therefor. 2. The authorization initiating the proceedings to annex the Tract should set the fees therefor at one-half the established amount to be consistent with said previous Annexation No. 8. Since there are 10.868 acres in Tract No. 7350, at one-half the current annexation fees, the amount would be $4,950.38. This is the amount that should be paid by the City of Villa Park for this annexation. 3. Declare an intent to levy a sewer service charge in the amount of $10.00 per unit per month if annexation is not completed. REL:hje "A-1" AGENDA ITEM #4(A) II A-1" :::: :t> I N :::: :t> G') rn z t:::1 :J:> ........ -I rn 3 ::::::t:: ..c::-,-....,. )> '-"" ... ... :t> I N :::: 0 ~ ..... ~ ..... ._.._. __________________________________ ~--~----~~·~--~---------------- ~~ 3n-20. J. ~~I ..., --· )U~ )i~l . ~~ IU L ~ ~ / . BOULEVARD ~ 11 • _.. ... r-·-;1 ·,.~~~ 9 ~~1o.i??3.CUf ~ aw '~ ii L . · 1 f' @ ~ ~ ~ ~ In © .. ~ ~ 1~7· ~1 -'O' ~~ 67~· PATRICIAN '°"' I llO' ·c "' .....,.._,_.. ,.1110. ·-.. - LO TSP£/ CH R. $. 46 • S R. .S: !JI • .U POR. LOTS @) 6.0<IAC. ANO ca:S mACT ·e AREA NOT VVJTH!Al <D r<> I N CJ' 378-19 ,.6/00' © ~I © ~l © a, '! OR.ANGE.. COUNTY '-5ANITATION ( MARCH 1972 MARCH 1974 -7$ 7350 12r LOTSPEICH 8 CC: !s' TRAcr L.A. 3-162 TTiACT N:J. 7J50 M. M 280-12,13 92-:)G DISTf!-IC·T NO~ 2 NOTE· ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & PARCEL N'JMllERS SHOWN IN Cli\ClES /\SS':SSOlrS 1n\P £rJ:JK31e p:.cc 19 (O\.J,\!"11' C..:F O~\NGE C=> ( RESOLUTION NO. 76-24-2 WAIVING CONNECTION FEES FOR TRACT NO. 7350 A RESOLlITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TRACT NO. 7350 AND WAIVING CONNECTION FEES THEREFOR * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, through an apparent oversite, Tract No. 7350 was not annexed to District No. 2 at the time the territory was annexed to the City of Villa Park; and, WHEREAS, the City of Villa Park and District No. 2 intend to initiate proceedings to annex Tract No. 7350 to the District; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of District No. 2 has heretofore ~dopted an ordinance establishing connection fees., which said ordinance bccare~ effective October 1, 1973. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 does hereby resolve, determine and order: Section 1. That a special exception with respect to proposed annexation of Tract No. 7350 to County Sanitation District No. 2 is hereby declared; and, Section 2. That because of said special exception, the Board of Directors does hereby waive any· connection fees for Tract No. 7350 that might otherwise be due pursuant to District connection fee ordinances; and, Section 3. That said waiver of connection fees has been approved only pursuant to the hereinabove declared special exception. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting held January 15, 1976. AGENDA ITEM #4(B) "B" RESOLUTION NO~ 76-25-2 AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - ANNEXATION NO. 13 -TRACT NO. 7350 A RESOLUTION OF TifE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTI-IORIZING THE INITIA- TION OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 13 -TRACT NO. 7350 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2) * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Th~t an application for annexation of territory to itself be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission as follows: Section 1. That this proposal is made pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California; and, -----.,.: ...... -~! --.C-.... ~""' --1·~,.... -""" ...... .c --~--·~-C'-_ .... .: --,, \..•V '-.· \,. I '-' 11 W T C'.Llll' ..L J. \,,_.f'.t ,..., I '.11 ~ ..1 ._'t ._,_I.I ,,.ll'• ~,.' l''' .. ,'--' ---"''' .. -,_. C.L.1111\,,L"'.l l\u <J 1'1' I '·'I'\. J_ -- mately 10.868 acres in the vicinity of Santiago Boulevard and Patrician Drive in the City of Villa Park to provide sanitary sewer service to said territory; and, Section 3. That the territory to be annexed is inhabited; and, Section 4. That the designation assigned to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Annexation No. 13 -Tract No. 7350 to County Sanitation District No. 2", the boundaries of which are more particularly described and delineated on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section 5. That provisions for all fees required to be paid as a condition of the· annexation must be satisfied prior to completion of annexation proceedings; and, "C-1" AGENDA ITEM #4Cc) "C-1" Section 6. That pursuant to a heretofore declared special exception, the annexation acreage fee for said annexation is hereby established at $455.50 per acre; and, Section 7. That request is hereby made that such proceedings as required by law be taken to complete this annexation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting held January 15, 1976. "C-2" AGENDA ITEM #4(c) "C-2". DISTRICT NO. 2 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 S T A F F R E P 0 R T January 9, 1976 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 108-4-4 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71-4) 5-40-2910 (71-4) 962-2411 SUBJECT: Acquisition of Rights of Way for Santa Ana River Interceptor A tremendous effort has been expended by the Board and the staff during the past nine years, first planning and now finally constructing the Santa Ana River Interceptor from Plant No. 1 to the County line (22 miles). When ~his .~~oject is completed, the major segments of the State adopted Basin Water Management Plan can be implemented. The Directors will recall that the Board delayed construction of their own needed trunk sewer facilities for several years to allow additional time for the Upper Basin entities, the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Agencie.s to debate the issues and merits of providing significant .hydraulic capacities in our proposed facilities to remove :the brl.ne wastes presently percolating into the underground water supplies above Prado Dam. This project has involved many Federal, State and County agencies including the Environrr.ental Protection Ag~ncy, State Water Resources Control Board, State Air Resources Board, Sanla Ana r'fatt:rsiieu Project Authority, County Board of Supervisors, County Flood Control District, County Harbor, Beaches and Parks District, as well as several entities' Planning and Engineering Departments. In September, 1972, the Directors awarded the first contract ($6.3 million) which constructed an 84 -inch line from Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue. Contract No. 2-14-2 ($3.S million) con tinued the project from Katella Avenue, under the Riverside Freeway, to the intersection of .La Palma and Grove Streets. In August and September of last year, the Board awarded the final three contracts extending the line from La Palma and Grove Streets to the County line. The aggregate amount of these three .contracts is $10 million. It is anticipat e d that all three contracts will be completed and the facilities made operational by December of this year. This report summarizes the last main endeavor~ that is, the acquisition of the necessary rights of way. PERMIT-AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE The Interceptor traverses the Yorba Regional Park, the Featherly Regional Park, as well as properties owned and operated by the County Flood Control District, particularly improved portions of the Santa Ana River Channel . The District staff and engineers attempted to coordinate with all affecten agencies beginning with the design J?hase in 1973, howevei;-, maximum coordination was not achieved because of conflicting commitments by the affected a gencies to other areas of responsibilities not associated with this project, as noted below. The District's staff and General Counsel, along with representatives from the County Counsel's Office, County Flood Control District, County Harbor, Be aches and Parks District, have worked out a perinit agreeinent wherein the Sanitation District can occupy properties owned by the County, providing joint utilization of public properties for the benefit of the citizens of Orange County. The two major areas of the permit agreement are as follows: 1. During the period of time that the District's staff, along with representatives from the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, were diligently pursuing the procurement of the construction grant from the State and EPA, the County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District was proceeding with a Federally assistec program to improve the Yorba Regional Park. Although there was communication between the Sanitation District and the County, it was virtually impossible to coordinate both efforts within the time ·restraints associated with the two projects. Subsequent to the receipt of bids by the Sanitation District to construct that portion of the Interceptor Sewer through the Yorba Regional Park, the County's contractor for the Park development com- menced placement of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of select material in the area where the trunk sewer was to be constructed. As a result of this unfortunate timing, the County must issue to the Parks' contractor a change order in the amount of approximately $165,000 to ·remove the Park improvements constructed subsequent to the award of the sewer contract in order to allow the District's contractor to proceed without a changed condition. The amount of this change order to be paid by the County to the Park's contractor is a permit cost which must be borne by the Sanitation District. This matter has been discussed with the State grant team and they are presently evaluating the eligibility of this permit fee. They have visited the site and · are reviewing the entire matter. We expect an answer from the State before Thursday's meeting. 2 . Tne License Agreement contains provisions for consicie:ra -::i on or -.:n e benefits to the County and the general public in the mitigation of pollution of surface waters in Featherly Park. The District i s to waive any and a ll annexation and hook up costs for the Yorba Regional Park and Featherly Regional Park. It is the staff's recommendation that this be approve d by the Board with the condition that in the event that the Park areas are converted to another use or transferred to private ownership, the then existing annexation fees and connection charges will be levied on the property. These same provisions were placed on the City of An aheim for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course development. SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION COMPANY EASEMENT (30 1 Permanent Easement 3.2 acres; 90' Temporary Easement 4.5 acres) In October, Donahue and Company, appraisers approved by the Directors, submitted a report to the Districts' General Counsel which analyzed the fair market values of the property to be acquired from the Santa Ana Va lley Irrigation Company, as well as Bryant Ranch. The Santa Ana Vall ey Irrigation Company is the fee owner of prop erty in the Weir Canyon area as well as the Green River Golf Course, but because of the long term lease (SO y ears plus ) by the Bicklyn Corporation, a ll negotiations for the right-of-way through the Green River Golf Course h ave been with the Corporation . The app rai sal valued the SAVI Weir Canyon area property at approxima tely $47,000 which in c ludes the temporary easement, the p €rmanent easement, severance dama ges and the cost-to-cure, which has b een defir.ed as that expense necessary to bring the property back to its original agricultural producing s tate. This parcel of the SAVI ·property is in Sanitation District No. 2. In discussions with officials of the Irrigation Company and the Bryant Ranch, it has been mutually agreed that damaged or removed citrus trees will be paid for at $60 per tree including cost of replacement and loss of revenue during the time required to re-establish a producing crop. The amount paid to the property owners will be based on the actual am~unt of trees removed during construction (the cost included herein is only an estimate). BRYANr RANCH EASEMENT (30' Permanent Easement 10.3 acres, Temporary Construction Easement 24.3 acres) The entire Bryant Ranch is outside the Sanitation District's boundaries. Mr. Ernie Bryant has expressed his desire to be allowed to annex to the District as .part of the consideration for granting the easement for the Inter- ceptor. The General Counsel, as well as staff, has advised Mr. Bryant that annexation to the District is not to be confused with the acquisition of the right-of-way, but he has been told, as well as the owners and operators of Green River Golf Course, that the trunk sewer acilities include capacities for development of these areas outside of the Sanitation District based on current land use plans. The staff and General Counsel, in meeting with the property owners, have advised that the Sanitation District is a service utility and with the proper approvals from the Cities or County as to the land use and develop- ment thereon, the sewer capacities are available pending conditions of annex- ation established by the District's Directors. The appraiser has estimated the cost of the acquisition, including temporary and permanent easements, severance damages, as well as the cost-to-cure to be _approx"imately $43, 000. GREEN RIVER GOLF COURSE EASEMENT The alignment through the Green River Golf Course i s adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad and does not occupy the area pres e ntly deve loped for go lf course purposes. There may be some interference during the construction p eriod. The District's contractor has met with representatives of the Golf Course's management and it is felt that the construction activities can be well coordinated with those of the Golf Course activities to minimize the inconvenience and interfera nce. The appraiser has estimated the total compensation for the right of way to be approximately $15,000 which would include the temporary and permanent easements for th~ sewer, as well as fee purchase of less than an acre for that area to be occupied by the met erin g structure at the County l ine . SUMMARY the total cost of acquisition from Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, the Bryant properties and the Green River Golf Course (Bicklyn, Inc.) is est im a ted to be approximately $100,000. It is reconunended tha t the Board approve the permit agreement with the County and accept the grants of easements from Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, Bryant Ranch and Bicklyn, Inc . with the terms and conditions to be approved by the Ge neral Counsel. II .. BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS . Ana Code 71-4 540-2910 962-2-411 AGENDA SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS JANUARY 14, 1976 -7:30 P.M. DISTRICTS 3 & 8 (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file letters from the following sanitary districts regarding appointments and seating new members of the Boards: SANITARY DISTRICT Midway City South Lagtma ALL DISTRICTS DISTRICT NO. 3 8 DIRECTOR Richard Olson Harold E. Edwards (9) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund accounts payable check registers for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "I" ; and approving accounts payable check registers for signature of the Chairman of the respective District, and authorizing payment of said claims listed on the pages indicated below: MS'flHC't' l warraut"', if My ......................... NONE DISTRICT 2 warrants -See page "II" DISTRICT 3 warrants -See page "II" BISTRICTS 3 6 11 !H:11'f!let\3e fl:tfte ll'8'P'P8Flt5 j if SH~'· •••• NONE MS'ffUC'f 5 wanant"', if a!'ly ......................... NONE BISTRICTS 5 a 6 3~f!leftse :ffit\8 W8'P'P&Hts, if &Hy •••••• NONE BiSTRI CT 6 lfllI!'8H:t3, if 8HY I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NONE "III" DISTRICT 7 warrants -See page ----- Bf STRICT 11 r:an ant;:, , if llftY. . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . . • . NONE (16-a) Consideration of motion to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding purchase of Total Organic Carbon Analyzer, Specification No. E-078, to Envirotech Corporation-Sparling Division, in the amount of $9,808.03 . See page "IV" WARRANT NO. 28370 28371 28372 28373 28374 28375 28376 28377 2e378 28379 28380 28381 28382 28383 28384 28385 28386 28387 28388 28389 28390 28391 28392 28393 28394 28395 283 96 28397 28398 283 99 28400 28401 28402 28403 2.8404 28405 28406 28407 28408 28409 28410 28411 28412 28413 28414 28415 28416 28417 28418 2841 9 28420 28421 28422 "I-1" JOINT OPERA TING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF AAA-Fremont Bag & Salvage, Bags $· ABC Paint Striping Service, Striping A & S Building Maintenance Co., Janitorial Service Admiral Corporation, Sampling Equi.pment Air California, Air Fare, Various Meetings All Bearing Service, Inc., V-Belts & Pipe Supplies City of Anaheim, Power Anaheim Sewer Construction, Lateral Repair The Anchor Pacing Co., Pump Packing & Gasket Material Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Technical Manual Applied Science Labs., Inc.,· Lab Supplies Artesia Implements & Parts Co., Tracto r Parts Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA Dues Ralph W. Atk i nson, Valves BRW Safety Supply, Signs Bancroft-Whitney Co., Manuals Bank of America, Bond & Coupon Collection Bannin g Battery Company, Batteries Beckman Instruments, Metering Supplies John G. Bell Co., Engine Parts Bell P i pe & Supply Co mpany, Valves Best Packing Supply Co., Hardware Bird Electronic Corp., Metering Supplies Bird Machine Co., Conveyor Parts Blower Paper Company, Tape Blue Diamond Materials, Paving Materials Bomar Magneto Service , Inc., Magneto Repair Public Employee's Retirement ·system, Depooling Study State o f Calif. Dept. of Transportatio n, Inspect ion C & R Reconditioning Co., Pu mp & Engine Repair CS Company, Valves & Fre ight Cal's Cameras, Photo Processing & Supplies Calif'. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Dewatering Permit Calif. State Water Resources Control Board, Lab Training Castle Controls, Inc., Contro ls Clyde's Repair Shop, Equipment Repai r Coast Nut & Bolt Co., Hardware College Lumber Co ., Inc., Bu i lding Ma terials Commercial & CB Co mmuni cations, Communicatio n Equipment Consolidated Electri c Distributors, Electrical Supplies Continental Radiator, Truck Repair F. B. Co ok Corporat t on, Tank Repair Copeland Mo tors, Inc., Truck Parts Lee L. Cory , Employ ee Mileage Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Costa Mesa County Water Dis trict, Water r Daily Pilot, Bid Notice,Spec E-007 Deaver Manufacturing Co., Truck Repair DeGuelle & Sons Glass Co ., Truck Repair Derby's Topsoil, Paving Materials Diamond-Newport Ice Co., Lab Suppl ie s Diana Di stributors, Cleaners Nick DiBenedetto~ Employee Mileage AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT 154.77 150.00 837.00 303.16 159.30 293.66 92.74 650.00 124.03 18.50 32.45 255.74 3,375.00 89.81 76.18 2lJ. 22 61.43 688.56 1,856.48 189.27 284.66 99.79 128.95 63.04 197. 41 374.08 126.94 294.oo 38.78 1,860.00 292.44 317.66 100.00 85.00 29 8 .02 624 .42 65.76 416.04 127.20 2,18 3.65 51.33 360.00 131.93 8.25 515.60 6.oo 9.77 299.40 84.57 23 8 .58 i:i.90 966.88 30 .42 "I-1" WARRANT·· NO. 28423 28424 28425 28426 , '127 2?!428 28429 28430 28431 28432 28433 28434 28435 28436 28437 28438 28439 28440 28441 2ts442 28443 28444 28445 28446 28447 28448 28449 28450 28451 28452 28453 28454 28455 28456 28LJ57 28LJ58 28459 281.Jt>o 28461 28462 28LJ63 28461.J 28LJ65 28466 28467 28468 28469 2~LJ70 28471 28LJ72 28LJ73 28471.J 28475 28LJ76 ';'"' 11 77 '-""' "I-2" · IN FAVOR OF Diesel Control Corp., Governor & Engine Repair $ The Drawing Boa.rd, Inc., Printing The Duriron Company, Inc., Pump Parts Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies & Printing Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Services Enterprise Printing Company, Printing Envirotech Corp., Clarifier Parts Essick Machinery Co., Compressor Parts Fischer & Porter Co., Pump Parts & Metering Supplies The Flag Shop, Flags City of Fountain Valley, Water Edward R. Francis, Pl-15 Inspection Fredson Trailer Supplies, Equipment Parts Freeway Machine Shop, Machining City of Fullerton, Water GAF Corporation, Printing Machine Repair Garden Grove Lumber Co., Building Materials General Electric Supply, Electric Supplies Georgia Pacific Corp., Chlorine General Telephone Company Cindy Geter, Employee Mileage Goes Litho Company, Office Supplies Jules D. Gratiot Co., Inc., Compressor Parts M. E. Gray Company, Pipe Supplies Graybar Electric Co., Electric Supplies Harrington Industrial Plastics, Pipe Supplies Harrisons & Crosfield, Flocculants Haul-Away Containers, Trash Disposal Hennig, Inc., Truck Repair Hertz Car Leasing Division, Vehicle Lease Hewlett Packard, Training Seminar Hollywood Tire of Orange, Truck Tires Honeywell, Inc., Metering Supplies House of Batteries, Batteries Howard Supply Company, Pipe Supplies & Tools City of Huntington Beach, Water Huntington Beach Equipment Rental, Equipment Rental Inland Nut & Bolt Company, Hardware Irvine Ranch Water District, Water Jensen Instrument Company, Metering Supplies Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe Supplies King Bearing, Inc., Seals, Bearings & Bushings Kirst Pump & Machine Works, Pump Parts Kleen-Line Corporation, Janitorial Supplies Knox Industrial Supplies, Hardware LBWS, Inc. , Hardware'· Tools & Welding Supplies L & N Uniforms Supply Co., Uniform Service Lawson Products, Inc., Lubricant Judy Lee, Employee Mileage Los Angeles Times, Employment Ad McMaster-Carr Supply Co., Hardware Master Blueprint & Supply, Printing & Drafting Supplies Metropolitan Supply Co., Gauges Moltronics Division, Electronic Supplies Moore Products Co., Regulator Parts AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT 2,408.71 72.58 58.45 848~52 3,000.00 16.g6 456.56 210.79 1,731.05 44.77 40.00 589.53 50.31 138.0l 5.92 165.21 38.03 631.84 9,050.28 3,850.45 9.30 7.00 216.23 7b.94 586.10 819.45 1,869.84 2LJ5.oo 605.LJ2 1,010.58 150.00 LJ06.55 890.5~ ll.J8.o6 644.69 118. 93 140.99 5LJ4.65 1.75 388. 51 129.33 230.04 1,158.20 231.79 231.J. 23 934. 38 2,601.58 54.LJ4 31.26 174.30 422.02 230.82 ll.J5.09 9C1.40 153.83 "l-2" WARRANT NO. 28478 28479 28480 28481 284t12 28483 28484 28485 28486 28487 28488 28489 28490 28491 28492 28493 28494 28495 28496 28497. 28498 28499 28500 28501 28502 28503 28504 28505 28506 28507 28508 28509 28510 28511 28512 28513 28514 28515 28516 28517 28518 28519 28520 28521 28522 28523 28524 28525 28526 28527 28528 28529 28530 28531 28532 "1-3" IN FAVOR OF Morrison Company, Pipe Supplies $ J. Mosher, Employee Mileage National Lumber Supply, Building Materials & Hardware City of Newport Beach, Water Oakite Products, Inc., Cleaners Orange Coast Calculator, Equipment Repair Orange County Farm Supply, Landscape Supplies Orange Valve & Fitting Co., Valves Oxygen Service, Lab Supplies Pacific Telephone Company M. c. Patten Corporation, Gauges Perkin-Elmer, Metering Supplies Pickwick Paper Products, Janitorial Supplies Printec Corporation, Reproduction Supplies Rainbow Disposal Co., Trash Disposal The Register, Employment Ad Dr. Donald Reish, Ocean Research REP Index, Maps The Republic Supply Co., Pipe Supplies Reynolds Aluminum Supply Co., Steel Routh Transportation, Oil Removal Ryan Herco, Pipe Supplies SGA Scientific, Inc., Hardware Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Printing Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Repair Santa Ana Tent & Awning, Hardware Sargent Welch Scientific Co., Lab Supplies Scientific Products, Lab Supplies S. F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage Richard J. Shaffer, Warehouse Consultant Shepherd Machinery Co., Caterpillar Parts Sherwin Williams Co., Paint Supplies John Sigler, Employee Mileage Sims Industrial Supply, Equipment Parts & Hardware Skil Corporation, Equipment Parts Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Southern California Water Company, Water Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp., Bottled Water Speed E Auto Parts, Truck Parts Standard Oil Company, Diesel Fuel, Gasoline & Grease Stang Hydronics, Inc., Equipment Rental State Compensation Insurance Fund, Quarterly Deposit Sterling Art & Engineering Supplies, Drafting Supplies St. Louis Beacing Company, Bearing Repair The Suppliers, Tools & Hardware Surveyor's Service Company, Tool Repair J. Wayne Sylvester, Director of Finance, Petty Cash Reimb. T-Girl Temporary Employment, Warehouse Clerk T & H Equipment Co., Inc., Equipment Parts Tatkin Company, Metering Supplies Bruce Taylor, Employee Mileage c. o. Thompson Petroleum Co., Kerosene Thompson Lacquer Company, Paint Supplies Triangle Steel~ Supply Co., Steel AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT 13.92 20.40 187. 40 633.75 249. 52'-' 49.47 172.91 119.27 36.30 452.13 59.98 158.88 220.32 288 .42 64.oo 16.56 450.00 736.70 785.25 145. 76 1,588.00 38.43 47.26 26.61 548.16 137.80 72.46 155.78 28.26 125.00 13.35 380.07 28.02 89.23 18.52 44,851.02 2,427.19 3.96 9~.45 226.91 4,790.17 201.55 12,025.00 38.32 438.60 898 .83 82.21 103.09 511.89 38.16 21.20 25.02 99.64 335.99 99.49'-' "1-3" WARRANT· NO. 28533 28534 28535 28536 -37 ~38 28539 28540 28541 28542 28543 28544 28545 28546 28547 28548 28549 28550 28551 28552 28553 28554 28555 28556 28557 28558 28559 28560 28561 28562 "l-4" IN FAVOR OF Truck & Auto Supply, Inc., Truck Parts $ Union Oil Co. of California, Gasoline United Parcel Service, Freight-Out United Reprographics, Inc., Printing United States Elevator Corp., Maintenance Agreement University of Calif, Irvine Regents, JPL Computer Service Valve and Primer Corp., Freight Van Waters & Rogers, Chemicals VWR Scientific, Sampling Supplies Varec, Inc., Incinerator Parts Victor Comptometer Corp., Equipment Repair Kevin Walsh, Employee Mileage Arluss Walters, Employee Mileage John R. Waples, R.S., Odor Consultant Warren and Bailey Co., Inc., Hardware Water Sewage Works, Technical Publication Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Engine Parts Westco, Pipe Repair Western Belting, Hardware Western Electronic Supply Corp., Sampling Supplies Western Salt Company, Salt Westinghouse Electric Corp., Electric Supplies White, Fine & Ambrogne, Dr., Legal Services Re: PL92-500 Williamson & Schmid, Easement Documents Wilson Engine & Equipment Co., Engine Parts Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel World Travel Bureau, Inc., Air Fare, Various Meetings Donald J. Wright, Employee Mileage Xerox Computer Services, Data Processing Xerox Corporation, Reproduction Services AMOUNT 670.04 39.32 66.98 8.24 33.00 12.16 19.75 1,982.27 116.60 424.oo 98.05 23.70 24. 30 l.t28 .80 118.86 16.oo 248.oo 1,472.00 55.1~ 29.15 108.26 177.06 1,500.00 130.95 8,344.25 99.59 666.82 lb.05 7,509.10 1, 721.49 TOTAL JOINT OPERATING $ 160,871.t.39 AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS II 1-4" WARRANT NO. 2ts153 28154 28155 28156 281?7 28158 28159 28160 28161 28162 28163 28164 28165 28166 28167 28168 2cn69 28170 28171 28172 28173 28174 28175 28176 28177 28178 28179 28180 28181 28182 28183 28184 28185 "l-5" CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Lauren Anderson Design, Renderings $ AMOUNT 424.oo 708.15 Balsbaugh Laboratories, Test Equipment John Carollo Engineers, Engr. Services, ACTS, Fae. Plan Hugh Carter Engineering Corp., Engineering, P2-ll-2 County Sanitation Dist. 2 of Los Angeles, Solids Management Study Daily Pilot, Notice E-078 Donovan Construction Co., Contractor Pl-16 Eastman, Inc., Office Equipment Engineers Sales-Service Co., Pump Enviro Development Co., Inc., JPL Filters Forkert Engineering, JPL Survey & Engr., P2-8-8 General Conveyor, Inc., JPL Conveyor J. B. Gilbert & Associates, Facility Plan EIS J. Putnam Henck, Contractor, PW-045 Hoagland Engineering Co., Contract Management Pl-16 Hopper Service Parts Company, Tools Ingersol-Rand, Tools LBWS, Inc., Tools Motorola, Inc., Communication Equipment Olympic Sales, Office Equipment Pacific Pumping Company, JPL Pumps Photographic Instruments Co., Photo Equipment The Register, Notice PW-047 Sande Equipmen~ Co., Inc., JPL Filter Press Shelf Master, Inc., Racks Simonds Machinery Co., JPL Pumps Southern Calif. Testing Lab, Testing Pl-16 Speed E Auto Parts, Tools Thermo Electric, Test Equipment Twining Laboratories, Testing Pl-lb United Systems Corporation, Test Equipment Western Wholesale Co., Edging Machine F. T. Ziebarth Company, Contractor PW-043 TOTAL CORF TOTAL JOINT OPERATING AND CORF AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS 41, 606 . 30 '-' 4,500.00 25,000.00 9.77 606,542.23 206.77 4,339.64 32,670.60 913.15 21',430.40 4,217.73 204,464.15 11,937.00 377.68 797.12 4bl.80 2,863.35 8Ll2.70 4,394.51 310.55 103.05 3,383.52 1,369.10 168. 93 140.40 344.50 671.80 44.27 513.08 286.16 2,417.30 $ 981,459.71 $1,142,334.10 "I-5" DISTRICT NO. 2 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF ~31 State of California, Annexation 12 Processing Fee 28132 Clifford Forkert, Prepare Right-of-way Documents ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 28131A City of Anaheim, South River Trunk Purchase 28132A County of Orange, Compaction Testing 28133 J. Putnam Henck, A Corporation, Contractor 2-15 28134 Kasler Corporation, Contractor 2-14-4 28135 Lowry and Associates, Engineering Services 2-14-5 & 2-15 28136 The Register, Bid Notice 2-16-2 28137 Smith Emery Company, Pipe Testing, 2-14-4 28138 Southern California Testing Laboratory, Soils Testing 2-15 28139 Testing Engineers, Inc., Pipe Testing, 2-17-1 & 2-18 DISTRICT NO. 3 ACClThn.JLATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 28140 Boyle Engineering Corporation, Engineering Services, 3-20-1, 3-20-2, 3-21-1 28141 County of Orange, Compaction Testing, 3-20-1, 3-21-1 28142 City of Los Alamitos, Review Plans & Specifications 3-21-1 28143 City of Seal Beach, Pavement Restriping, 3-21-1 28144 Smith Emery Company, Pipe Testing, 3-20-1, 3-20-2, 3-21-1 28145 Southern California Testing Laboratory, Soils Testing 3-21-1 28146 Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Contractor 3-20-1 28147 Testing Engineers, Inc., Pipe Testing 3-19 28148 A.G. Tutor Co., Inc & N.M. Saliba, Contractor 3-20-2 & 3-21-1 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF , 1 49 City of Cypress, Refund Permit Overpayment ~ "II" AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DI STiU CTS $ AMOUNT 85.00 501.56 $ 586.56 $ 84,411. 79 102.71 32,349.24 66,555.00 518.40 99.97 1,508.00 14.13 2,301.00 $ 187,860.24 $ 188,446.80 $ 3,973.00 275.14 1,200.00 651.76 2,652.00 425 .10 356,488.00 104.00 341,236.00 $ 707,005.00 $ 250.00 $ 707,255.00 "II" DISTRICT NO. 7 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF 28150 Boyle Engineering Corporation, Engineering Services 7-6-7 & 7-6-9 28151 San Diego Pipeline Company, Inspection Costs 7-6-7 28152 The Tustin News, Bid Notice 7-6-8 "III" AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS $ '-"" AMOUNT 12,190.00 770.57 83.16 $ 13,043.73 "III" II IV" BID TABULATION SHEET Da. te January 13, 1976 11:00 a.m. Contract For: TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ANALYZER SPECIFICATION NO. E-078 ·. CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID 1. Envirotech Corporation-Sparling Division Arcadia, CA 1975-76 BUDGET ITEM: $10,000.00 $9,808.03 Envirotech Corporation-Sparling Division is the only known source of supply for this type of equipment. It is, therefore, recommended that award be made to said firm in the amount of $9,808.03. V?1~ W. N. Clarke Superintendent AGENDA ITEM #16(A) -ALL DISTRICTS II IV" ~. RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS fo JANUARY 14J 197;5 -7:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 76-1 AWARDING PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR SUPPLYING CHLORINE IN ONE TON CYLINDERS, SPECIFICATION NO. C-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR SUPPLYING CHLORINE IN ONE TON CYLINDERS, SPECIFICATION NO. C-007 * * * * * * * * * * 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 written recommendation this day submitted to the . Boards of Directors by the Superintendent that award of purchase contract be made to Continental Chemical Company, for SUPPLYING CHLORINE IN ONE TON CYLINDERS, SPECIFICATION NO. C-007, and the bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said specification, are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That said contract for Specification No. C-007 be awarded to Continental Chemical Company in the amount of $208.70 unit price per ton, furnished and delivered, in accordance with the terms and conditions of said specification and the bid proposal therefor; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of County Sanitation District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a purchase contract with said supplier to supply chlorine pursuant to the specifications and purchase contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be ordered returned to the unsuccessful bidders~ e PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 1~, 1976. AGENDA ITEM #lO(A) -ALL DISTRICTS "B" BID T A B U L A ·T. I 0 N SHE.ET Date January 7, 1976 Contract For: SUPPLYING CHLORINE IN ONE TON CYLINDERS SPECIFICATION NO. C-007 SUPPLIER BID ALTERNATE NO. I UNIT PRICE PER TON 1. Continental Chemical Co. $ 208.70 Sacramento 2. Jones Chemical, Inc. 213.45 Torrance 3. Georgia Pacific Corp. 215.45 City of Commerce 4. McKesson Chemical Co. No Bid It is recommended that· award be made to Continental Chemical Company in the amount of $208.70/ton. W. N. C~arke Superintendent AGENDA ITEM #lOCA) -All DISTRICTS "B" '. II C" B I D TABULATION SHEET Engineer's Estimate: $35,000.00 Date December 16 1 1975 -11:00 A.M. Contract For: ~EW FIBERGLASS DUCTWORK FOR HEADWORKS "C" FRESH AIR VENTILATION SYSTEM AT TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2 1. 2. 3. 4 .• 5 .• 6. 8. 9. 10. JOB NO. PW-047 CONTRACTOR Beverly Pacific Corporation Burbank Paramount Plastic Fabricating Downey Baseline Sheet ~Ietal, · Inc. San Bernardino Century Conditioning Gardena · Ideal Heating and Air Conditioning Corporation Santa Fe Springs ASL Corporation North Hollywood Southland Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. Long Beach K-Mor Engineering, Inc, Pasadena AGENDA ITEM #10(B) -ALL DISTRICTS TOTAL BID $29,664.00 $34,933.00 $37,626.00 $39,390.00 $39,500.00 $39,899.00 $48,797.00 $52,887.00 lie II 41.· . .. H. G. OSBORNE 01"[CT0" C.R. NELSON ASSiSTANT OIR[CTO" OEVCLOPM[NT OF DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA, CA. DEC 3 1975. T[LEPHON[: 834-2300 A"[A COO[ 7'4 MAILING ADD"CSS P.O. 9011078 SANTA ANA, CA. 112702 P'IL[ EOl. 21 Mr. Fred A Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Deac Si'!': The County of Orange (County) has decided not to use secondary effluent from the County Sanitation Districts (District) as the irrigation water source for the Santa Ana River Greenbelt -reclaimed water pilot project. Reclamation plant effluent produced at Water Factory 21 will be utilized as the source. The two-year pilot project.will irrigate 1000 feet of the east-side Santa Ana River levee southerly of the San Diego Free~ay. This ~ill reqcire a 2~ -i~ch P.V.C. supply pip2line f~om Water Factory 21 to the irrigation site. ConsLruction is scheduled to begin by the end of January, 1976. Staff discussions with the District's Assistant Engineer, Nick Dibenetetto, have indicated that the County will be permitted to lay the pipeline on the District property for the two-year project. This letter of understanding expresses the terms of agreement between the County and the District regarding the pilot project. The County shall: "D-1" 1) Lay approximately 2750' of P,V.C.-Class 200 pipe by proceeding southerly three feet east of the District's westerly fence line, and then proceeding easterly three feet south of the District's southerly block wall, 2) Maintain a mininwm of 6 inches cover, except under the roadway where 30 inches of cover will be provided. 3) Remove and replace a section of chain link fence at the junction with the southerly block wall to allow the contractor access to the con- struction area. · 4) Install a gate valve on the mainline on the southeast corner of the District property. 5) Be responsible for all costs of materials, installation, inspection, and maintenance of the irrigation system, AGENDA ITEM #10(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "D-1" • Mr~. Fred A, Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Page 2 6) Be responsible for replacing all fence sections or other property improvements owned by the District which are damaged during pro- ject construction and during project duration. 7) Protect all existing trees. 8) Submit all construction plans and specifications to the District regarding work to be done on the District property prior to ad- vertising for bids. 9) Within 6 months after termination of the two-year pilot study, determine the feasibility of having a permanent supply pipeline on the District property. The District shall: 1) Provide a ten-foot wide construction area on the District's property east of the westerly fence line and south of the southerly block wall·adjacent to Garfield Avenue. 2) Locate all existing facilities for the County during project con- struction. 3) Allow Counly per~unnel to enter the District property for maintenance of the pipeline. 4) Notify the County of any leaks in the pipeline. 5) Approve all construction plans and specifications regarding work to be done on District property prior to advertising for bids. Should there by any questions regarding these terms of agreement, your staff may contact Bob Kallenbaughat telephone number (714) 834-6390. If the above terms are acceptable, please sign below and return the original to this office. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ~ Fred A. Harper, General Manager SRK:jb Very trul__y yours, L~~ ) /12 \ { ~,.( ~"l ~I • / • /) (. .~ /•'t.,\.......~ c, R. Nelson, Assistant Director "D-2" AGENDA ITEM #10(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "D-2" "E" RESOLUTION NO. 76-4 AUTI-IORIZING EXECUTION OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT TO OCCUPY RIGHT OF WAY WITH ORANGE COUNTY EMA A RESOLUTION OF TIIE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTI-IORIZING EXECUTION OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT TO OCCUPY RIGHT OF WAY WITII ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY RE GREENBELT IRRIGATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of Cot.mty Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Temporary License Agreement to Occupy Right of Way, dated , is hereby approved; and, Section 2. That Cot.mty Sanitation District No. 1, as .agent for itself n..: _.,__,.! -•-1'T-- lJ.L.J .... L .•.'-"~~---••v., • California, is hereby authorized and directed to enter into said agreement granting temporary right of way to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency for irrigation water line through Districts' property for Santa Ana River Greenbelt; and, Section 3. That the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Temporary License Agreement to Occupy Right of Way, in form approved by the Districts' General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 14, 1976. AGENDA ITEM #lO(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "E" ""-"' PEAT. MARWICK, MITCHELL & Co. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 The Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of ·Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Members of the Boards: December 22, 1975 We have completed our examination of the financial records of The Orange County Sanitation Districts' for the period July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975. We have not reviewed the internal control subsequent to September 25, 1975, which is the date of our accountants' report. Although our audit procedures did not reveal any weaknesses in internal control other than those mentioned in our interim letter to the Boards dated June 26, 1975, we would like to advise you as to the status of the recommendations made in that letter based upon our observation. Journal Entries Connnents: Status: Cash Receipts C.onnnent: Status: Daily Deposits Comment: Status: "F-1" All journal entries should be recorded on prenumbered forms with all numbers accounted for monthly. Batch control totals should be established over the journal entries before terminal operator processing so that the control totals may be reconciled with printed reports to ensure all transactions have been properly processed. Recommendations implemented. An individual independent of the mail opener and the person making deposits should compare the daily listing of mail receipts to the deposit order returned by the County Treasurer. Reconnnendation implemented. Cash receipts should be deposited on a daily basis. Further disucssions with the Director of Finance indicate he is opposed to a policy of daily deposits unless amounts received on any given day are "substantial" because of the manpower cost involved. We agree with the Director but we are also of the AGENDA ITEM #10(G) -ALL DISTRICTS II F-1'~ P. M. M.8c CO. The Board of Directors County ·Sanitation Districts of Orange County December 22, 1975 2 opinion that ''substantial" amounts received are· not being deposited daily as they should be in accordance with District policy. The following is a brief enumeration of some of the items with which we take exception: Date Received July 3, 1975 July 10, 197 5 July 10, 197 5 July 15, 197 5 August 7, 1975 August 21, 197 5 August 28, 1975 Date Deposited July 7, 1975 July 17, 197 5 July 17, 197 5 July 17, 197 5 August 13, 1975 August 26, 1975 September 5, 1975 Amount $ 44,487 41,098 19,889 23,826 44,221 26,125 39,354 Suspense Accounts Com:nent: Status: Connnent: Status: Payroll Comment: Status: Connnent: Status: All entries made to suspense accounts should have prior approval of the Director of Finance. Recommendation implemented. Suspense accounts should be analyzed on a monthly basis. The Director of Finance is of the opinion that quarterly reviews would suffice. We agree with this modification. Personnel responsible for adding new names to payroll master files and reporting employee time should not have access to employees warrants. Adequate controls implemented. Payroll clerks should not have access to personnel records. At the time of our review it was the Directors intention to hire ai1 assistant to the Chief of Personnel to assume responsibility for personnel record keeping. Xerox Terminal Security Comment: Access to the xerox computer terminal should be restricted. Status: Reconnnendation implemented. "F-2" AGENDA ITEM #10(G) ALL DISTRICTS "F-2" P. M. M.8c CO. The Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County December 22, 1975 3 Petty Cash Connnent: An official independent of the petty cash custodian should examine and cancel petty cash vpuchers at the time the fund is reimbursed. Status: Purchasing Connnent: Status: Fi~ed Assets Conm1ents: Status: Recommendation implemented in modified form with which we concur. Emergency purchases should be examined more closely to determine that such purchases d~ in fact, qualify as an emergency as defined by the Boards. Corrective actions being taken. Periodic physical inventories of assets should be taken on a rotating basis. Any change in the status of assets should be reported in writing tn thP ar.r(ltmtin~ rle!'~Ttment. Because of the magnitude of such an endeavor it is understandable that successful identification and accounting for existing assets will not be accomplished in the near future but we intend to work closely with the staff in accomplishing such an objective. Project Cost Accounting Connnent: Status: Payroll hours paid to employees should be reconciled with labor hours charged to work orders on a monthly basis. Recommendation implemented. Now that we have completed our initial audit of the Districts account records we would like to express our appreciation to the staff and the Boards for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, "F-3" AGENDA ITEM #10(G)·-ALL DISTRICTS "F-3" BID TABULATION SHEET Date Januarr 6, 1976 -11:00 A.M. Contract For: YORBA LINDA FORCE MAIN, FROM ASSOCIATED ROAD TO KRAEMER BOU LEV ARD CONTRACT NO. 2-16-2 Engineer's Estimate: $810,276.80 CONTRACTOR · l. Vito Artukovich & Sons, Inc. South El Monte 2. McGuire Construction Company Placentia · 3 • Rogers & Davi es Ontario .4. Mark Dakovich Brea 5·. Co 1 i ch Const rue ti on Company Los Angeles 6·. A.G. Tutor Co., Inc. and N. M. Saliba Company, A Jt~ Venture North Hollywood 7. Sully Miller Contracting Company Long Beach 8. G. A, MacDonald Construction Co~, Inc. Montrose 9. A. S, Peich~ Inc. Pomona 10.Mike Masonvich Construction Co~, Inc. Arcadia 11.Mike Prlich & Son South El Monte Total Items 1 -7 $658,945.98 $665, 191.00 $670,198.00 $673,985.00 $681 ,026.60 $685,356.45 $6·98 '084. 00 $703,828.35 $704,052.00 $705,984.00 $708,158.25 "G-1" AGENDA ITEM #lOC1) -DISTRICT 2 Total Items l -B $660,287.98 $667,007.00 $672,014.00 $675,801 .oo $682,479.40 $687,172.45 $699,900.00 $705,644.35 $705,868.oo $708,254.oo $711 '790. 25 "G-1" JUD TABULATION SHEET Date January 6, 1976 ·-11:00 AM Contract For: Yorba Linda Froce Main, Contract No. 2-16-2 Continued •.•••• ;. • Total Total 12. Henson· Construction, Inc. Bell Gardens 13. M.G.R. Const~uction Company Brea 14. R. L. Thibido Construction Co., Inc. San Marcos 15 • Barron & Eckhart Engineering Contractors South El Monte 16. Burch Engineering Construction Baldwin Park 17 • Risto Construction Co. and· Young and Associates, A Jt. Venture Los Angeles 18. Pascal & Ludwig, fnc. Upland 19. Kordick & Son, Inc. and Martin F. Kordick and Martin A. Kordick, A Jt. Venture Huntington Beach 20. Bebek Company Irvine 21. Bejac Corporation Placentia 22. B & P Construction Company Los Angeles 23. George Miller Construction Company LosAngeles 24. Prkacin Company and Runje Corporation, A Joint Venture Burbank 25. "G-2" AGENDA ITEM #lO(I) -DISTRICT 2 Items 1 -7 Items 1 -8 $715,710.30 $717,526.30 $716,181.50 $717,997~50 $729,799.00 $731,615.00 $733,675.50 $737,307.50 $737,141 .00 $738,957.00 $741 ,167.60 $744,799.60 $778,421.00 $780,237.00 $783,390.00 $784,752.00 $791,529.00 $793,345.00 $793,534.70 $795,804.70 $795,170.00 $798,802.00 $929,188.00 $932,975.00 $932,341.00 $933,430.60 "G-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF O~ANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER c. o·. NP • __ 1 ______ _ CONTRACTOR: Long Beach Iron Works DATE January 14, 1976 '-"' Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (from Grove Street to Imperial Highway) JOB: Manhole Covers and Frames, Contract No. 2-14-3A Amount of this Change 0 rde r (ADD) (DE DUCT) $ o oo 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. Change in standard ·specifications section 3-5 of the provisions pertaining to insurance.- Deletion of insurance requirements as this is strictly·a materials job and .no on-site 9onstruction is involved. Or.iginal Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change (ADD) (DEDUCT) Amended Contract Price Board ~uthorization date: Approved: $_ 3'2 604. 00 $ o. o·o $ 0.00 $ 3,604.00 January 14, 1976 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, California By ________________________ ~--------- Consulting Engineer By ________________________________ ___ By ----------------~----------~-Chief Engineei Contractor "H" AGENDA ITEM #10(L) DISTRICT 2 II H" ~ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER C.O. NO. ______________________ __ ONTRACTOR: Long Beach Iron Works, Inc. DATE January 14, 1976 Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer (from Imperial Highway to Gypsum Canyon OB: Road) Manhole Covers and Frames, Contract No. 2-14-4A Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (DEDUCT) $ 0.00 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or ~ontract work are hereby authorized· and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or leductions from the contract price are hereby approved. · .Change in Standard Specifications Section 3-5 of the provisions pertaining to insurance Deletion of insu~ance requirements as this ·is strictly a materials supply job and no on-site construction is involved. · Origin~l Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change (ADD) (DEDUCT) Amended Contract Price Board authorization date: Approved: $ 5,045.60 $ _____ o_._o_o ______ _ $ 0.00 ---------~----~-- $ 5,045.60 January 14, i976 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, California By.._..---------------~--~-=----::=---:----Con s u 1 ting Engineer By _________________________________ ___ By--------------------~---~~----Ch i ef Engineei. Contractor "I" AGENDA IT~M #10(M) -DISTRICT 2 "J" RESOLUTION NO. 75-8-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE IRVINE COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF THE BACK BAY DRIVE TRUNK SEWER. WHEREAS, the District and the Irvine Company have entered into negotiations for the construction of a sewer line to serve an area primarily under ownership of the Irvine Company and within the District No. 5 boundaries: and WHEREAS, said agreement calls for the Irvine Company to pay for the costs of construction subject to reimbursement by the District in order to have the District acquire the line as its property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Section 1. The agreement with the Irvine Company for the construction and acquisition of the Back Bay Drive Trunk Sewer (east side) is hereby approved in a form approved by the General Counsel of the District. Section 2. The Chairman and Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 14, 1976. AGENDA ITEM #lO(N) -DISTRICTIS ST AF F January 8, 1976 SUBJECT: Sunset Beach Sanitary District Sewage Flows (.;QUNTY !:iANITATION lJISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 108.C.C ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71.C) 5-40-2910 (71-4) 962-2-411 . In December, 1970, the District, in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach, entered into agreements between the District and the City and between the City and the Sanitary District to permit disposal of the Sunset Beach sewage through the City lines and into the District No. 11 lines for treatment and disposal. This agreement allowed the Sanitary District to abandon their then existing treatment facilities and curtail the discharge of wastewaters through their ocean outfall. The agreement between the City and District No. 11 provi(led for payment for acquisition of capacity rights in the joint treatment and disposal facilities of the District and for an average treatment capacity of 250,000 gallons per day with a permissible peak flow capacity of 415,000 gallons per day for the trans- portation, treatment and disposal of the Sunset Beach Sanitary District's sewage and wastewater flows. There were no provisions in the contract for the Sanitary District to exceed the capacities as allowed in the agreement. In ·July, 1974, Sanitation District No. 11 informed 'the City of Huntington Beach that the Sanitary District was discharging peak flows in excess of 870,000 gallons r~!' '.i?-)'. Th~5~ f'ln~r~ WPr~ in Vin1::1tion Of the COn<litlOnS C:Ontained Within t.he contract. The District's staff, along with the City's staff, have attempted to resolve this problem with the officials of the Sunset Beach Sanitary District, but have been unsuccessful in bringing compliance by the Sanitary District. A recent survey made in November, 1975 by the District No. 11 staff reveals that the per capita sewage flow far exceeds the per capita water conswnption in the Sunset Beach area. This fact confirms staff's previous supposition of large volumes of infiltration from the Sunset Beach Sanitary District's sewer facilities. This is evidenced in the following table: Period July '72 -December '72 January '73 -June '73 July '73 -December '73 January '74 -June '74 July '74 -December '74 January '75 -June '75 Sewage Flow M.G. 48.9 50.1 44.6 55.1 54.3 58.4 Per Capita Water Sewage Flow Purchased (Gallons) M.G. 120 36.8 125 33.9 110 37.4 138 38.6 134 30.8 146 13.3 Sunset· Beach and Surfside. Per Capita Consumption (Gallons) 90 84 92 71 75 33 Water figures represent water purchased by 630 residential accounts are served by this fairly constant 2,205). volume (population estimated at a Sewage flow figures represent readings from City of Huntington Beach invoice to Sunset Beach Sanitary District for flows pumped. "K-1" AGENDA ITEM #lO(Q) -DISTRICT 11 "K-1". Staff Report January 8, 1976 Page Two It is the feeling of both the District No. 11 staff, as well as the City's staff, that the present agreements do not provide for flows greater than those which were originally allowed and that the excessive amoun~ of the infiltration is in violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, therefore, these agreements must be modified to allow the staff to administer these flows more realistically. REL:hje "K-2" AGENDA ITEM #lO(Q) ~ DISTRICT ;11 "K-2" "L-1" RESOLUTION NO. 76-10 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DISTRICTS AND REPEALING SECTION 13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 64-3. * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, by provision of the County Sanitation Districts Act the Orange County Treasurer is the ex-officio Treasurer of the Districts; and WHEREAS, all District monies are on deposit with the Office of .the Orange County Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the County Auditor-Controller is the ex-officio Auditor of each District; and WHEREAS, the County Auditor-Controller is responsible for the payment of all claims after receipt of approval by the Districts; and WHERLA~, prior procedure na~ riad approve all claims for routine purchases including progress pay- ments for engineering services and construction projects and other payments arising out of contractual agreements with the Districts prior to presenting to the County Auditor for payment; and WHEREAS, many invoices may be delayed up to six weeks before payment as a result of this procedure; and WHEREAS, this delay results in less than desirable business relationships with .Persons dealing with the Districts and a possible loss of revenue for inability to take discounts for early payment; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Government Code and the County Sanitation District Act (Health and Safety Code Section 4700, et seq.) provides that warrants dra~n and payment of demand; certified or approved by the Director of Finance as conforming to a AGENDA ITEM #13(A) ALL DISTRICTS "L-1" "L-2" budget approved by the Boards of Directors need not be authorized by the Boards of Directors prior to payment. 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: 1. That upon certification and approval by the Director of Finance of the Districts that the demands presented conform to a budget approved for the current fiscal year, an executed con~ract, \ and/or a specific Board authorization, and are able to be paid from an unencumbered fund, then the claims may be forwarded to the Orange County Auditor-Controller for inunediate payment prior to approval by the Boards of Directors. 2. The Director of Finance shall cause to be prepared for each regular meeting a list of all claims paid by the Joint Admini- strative Organization and each District; said list to set forth the warrant number, payee and amount of each such claim. The payment of Joint Administ=ative Orga~i2atic~ claims sh3ll be ratifi~d by roll call vote of a majority of the Districts' Boards of Directors and payment of individual District claims shall be ratified by roll call · vote of the respective District Board. 3. All claims for damages or other claims deemed by the General Manager to be of questionable validity shall be taken up and acted upon separately and apart from claims of authorized purchases, services and formal contract payments. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 14, 1976. AGENDA ITEf1 #13(A) -ALL DISTRICTS "L-2" .r "M-1" RESOLUTION NO. 76-11-1 ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND REIMDURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR DIRECTORS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING TUE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES FOR ITS DIRECTORS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. ~i 11 l, {Jr{ ' • ~' .. •~'i-3 -I WHEREAS, Section 4733 o~ the Health and Safety Code provides that the District Board has the power to fix the amount of compensa- tion per meeting to be paid each member of the Board or for each day's service rendered as a member by request of the Board; and WHEREAS, Section 4733.S of the Health and Safety Code provides that where two or more County Sanitation Districts have joined in. the purchase, ownership, use, construction or operation of a sewerage . . system and said Districts hold their meetings jointly, and one or more of the Directors serve as a Director on more than one of such . . ---.. --' ... .,: ..., A aa ""-"-.! I by each District, limit the compensation of such a Director for attending sai? jointly held meetings; and WHEREAS, County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, have heretofore executed a Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement, dated July 1, 1970, as amended; and WHEREAS, Section 4734 of the Health and Safety Code provides that where two or more County Sanitation Districts have joined in the administration and operation of the respective Districts and hold their meetings jointly and such meetings are presided over by a Director of one of the Districts acting as Joint Chairman for and on behalf of the joint organization, each District so participating may pay the Joint Chairman the same compensation as a Director of such District is paid; and AGENDA ITEM #13Cc)(l) -ALL DJSTRICTS "M-1" "M-2" WHEREAS, said Districts hold their regular monthly meetings jointly. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE ANO ORDER: Section 1. That each Director shall receive the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00} for attendance at each meeting· of the Board of Directors or for each day's service rendered as a member of tne · Board by request of the Board, provided that he shall not receive more than the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month as such compensation from this District. Each day's service rendered as a member of the District Board shall be deemed to includ~, but not be ·limited to, attenda~ce: (a} as a member of the Executive Committee of the Joint. Administrative Organization; {b) as a meml>er of any committee appointed by the Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization or the Chairman of the District which has established the commit tee; ( c) . when expressly invited to at tend the Executive Committee meetings by the Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization; (d} conferences with State and/or Federal legislators regarding Joint Administrative Organization business when approved by action of the Joint Boards; or (e} attendance at c?nferences for business of the Joint Administrative Organization or the District when approved by action of the Joint Boards or the District Board. Section 2. If a Director represents two or more Districts, the payment to the Director for attendance at meetings or for each day's service shall be shared equally with each District repre- sented by the Director. Section·3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1, when a Director of this District is also a Director of nnother District, said Director shall be paid not mqre than a total of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for attendance at any jointly held meeting Of said Districts or each day's services rendered AGENDA ITEM #13(c) (1) -ALL DISTRICT$;::. "M-2" . "M-3" concurrently to said Districts by the birecto~ when s~ch other District, or Districts, has, or have,· adopted a resolution substantially similar to this one, as is permitted under the provisions of Section 4733.S of the Health and Safety Code. Section·4. Section 3 of this resolution shall not apply to the Director serving as Joint Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. The Director serving as Chairman of the Joint Admin- istrative Organization shall receive the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) from each District which.he presides over in a jointly held meeting of the.Joint Administrative Organization, as author- ized by Section 4734 of the Health and Safety·Code1 provided, however, that the Joint Chairman shall not be paid more than Fifty Dollars ($50.90) by any District for any meeting. Section 5. The Director serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization shal1 receive the sum of F~fty Dollars ($50.00) from the District which he represents and no other District when attending a meeting of his District or other Districts or Executive Committee .or other Committee assignments . approved by the Joint Boards, or when attending to special service rendered as a Diredtor by request of the Joint Boards. Section 6. Each Director shall receive the sum of Fifteen Cents ($.15) per mile for each mile up to and including 150 miles, Twelve Cents ($.12) per mile. for each mile over l~O miles up to and including 600 miles, and Six Cents ($.06) per mile for all miles in excess of 600 miles, actually traveled on business of the District .. per month. When traveling on the business of more than one District, such Director shall receive no more than said mileage, whether on the business of one· or several Districts. Section·?. When traveling on the business of one or more Districts, the Director shall be entitled to reimbursement of expenses.necessarily ·incurred in the course of said travel in accordance with the following schedulea AGENDA ITEM #13<c)(l) ';, .~ I ' I I l .1 ' . ALL DlSTRI CJS. ·· . " . ·-. ". "M-3" · · "M-4" Commercial Transportation -per actual invoice II ,~ Hotel ~J;6:~-~~tual statement for occupancy Registration -actual cost of conference or meeting re91strat1on fee Ground Transportation -as itemized Telephone Service -as itemized Meals, Gratuities and Incidentals -$20.00 per day Section 8. No Director shall receive pay for attendance at ' any meeting, such as Executive tommittee or other committee~, which is scheduled immediately preceding, immediately succeeding, or con- current with a regularly scheduled District or joint meeting of the District. Section·9. b~ -'·'·~ -; b~"' J , I Resolution No. ~3 44 11 concerning compensation for Directors are hereby repealed and made of no further force or effect. Section·Io. This resolution shall become effective ' 1976. --~--~~~--~--~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 14, 1976. · . .. AGENDA ITEM #13<c)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS ..~. "M-4" "N-1" RESOLUTION NO. 76-18 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 14 OF RESOLUTION 64-3, AS AMENDED, RE FIXING ANO ESTABLISHING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS OF THE DISTRICTS. * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, these Boards from time to time, commencing in 1949, have established rules of procedure and from time to time have amended said rules so that different aspects of said pro- cedures are to be found in a number of resolutions and motions; and WHEREAS, it is desirable and appropriate to amend the resolution setting forth the rules of procedure to provide authority for the appointment of alternate members of the Executive Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Section 14 of Resolution No. 64-3, as amended, is hereby amended to read: •14. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE -There shall be a permanent Committee designated as the Executive Committee which shall consist of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of each District, or his designee, parties to the Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement dated March 10, 1971, the Director who represents the Orange County Board of Supervisors, or his designee, and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. The General Manager of the Joint Administrative Organization may attend meetings of said Committee in an advisory capacity. Any person designated as an alternate member of the Executive Committee must be an elected official of the same agency as the regular Executive Committe member. The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization shall be the Chairman of the Execut~ve Committee. AGENDA ITEM #13(c)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "N-1" -· "N-2" The Committee may fix a ~egular meeting time and place or may meet at the call of the Chairman. The Committee may consider any matters related to the joint ownership, operation and construction of all the Districts and make recommendations thereon to the Joint Boards of Directors of the Districts." PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held January 14, 1976. AGENDA ITEr1 #13Cc) (2) -.A~L DlSTRICTS "N-2" "0-1" RESOLUTION NO. 76-19 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-98 BY REVISING THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS THEREFOR FOR THE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICTS. * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the Districts, by adoption of Resolution No. 75-98, established a deferred compensation plan for certain full tim~ management ~nd supervisory employees; and WHEREAS, the Districts recognize that employment incentives can be established for the management employees by providing addi- tional deferred compensation program benefits for those employees; and WHEREAS, the Districts desire to revise the deferred compen- sation plan for the management employees subject to certain terms and conditions. --. ,.., 1 1 ''•Ir' r ,, ...., ... ...... ..., ...... -.z -. . . . -_. '' • r .;.> ..-• ''r' -........ -____ ....,, .. Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER: 1. The deferred compensation plan previously established by Resolution No. 75-98 shall continue in full force and effect for the management and supervisory employees. 2. The deferred compensation plan of the Districts is hereby amended to provide for a contribution by the Districts of an annual sum equal to three percent (3%) of the gross annual salary of the General Manager and department heads, provided said employees volun- tarily contribute an equal sum to the deferred compensation program, that the progra~ can be terminated only by action of the Boards of Directors, that the participating employees shall not be entitled to withdraw any sums on deposit except upon death or retirement or AGENDA ITEM #13(n) -ALL DISTRICTS "0-1" "0-2" for those sums contributed by the Districts after three years of continuous service. 2. The specific terms and conditions of the plan shall be set forth in separate agreement to be executed by the Chairman of the Boards and the participating employees. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on January 14, 1976. AGENDA ITEM #l3(n) -ALL DISTRICTS "0-2" . ' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE: 834-~679 AREA CODE 7t4 MAl&.,lljCO A00"'£!1!1 P.O. BOX 4049 December 19, 1975 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 H. C. OSBORNE DIRECTOR Orange County Taxing Agencies Gentlemen: Re: Questionnaire Concerning Possible Need for Changes in Community Redevelopment Law FILE In recent years, there has been a growing number of individual and governmental agencies who have expressed concern with regard to . . .,.. ~ . . -~ ., . -. . .. . ...L!UiJd.C t-u .!.. •'-'u1u.:.au!1.l. L.J' ri-~eue \/t:: l..Ul:Jlne.:11:. r .r:u J ec-r:.~ on ~r1c 't.~X OI the taxing agencies when the community redevelopment agency uses property taxes to finance the projects. The redevelopment agency receives a portion of the property taxes levied by each taxing agency having territory which is included within the project area. The amount diverted to the redevelopment agency is all the property tax revenue attributable to any increase in the assessed valuation of the taxable property after the effective date of the adoption of-the redevelopment plan. The taxing agencies' revenues are frozen at the amount attributable to the existing valuation at the time of the adoption of the plan. Among those who have expressed concern is the Chief Administra- tive Officer of the County of Los Angeles who has made specific recom- mendations to the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County with respect to the need for amendments to the existing Community Redevel- opment Law. Assemblyman Montoya has also evidenced some concern with the existing law by introducing Assembly Bill 2400 which seeks to amend several aspects of the existing law. A Task Force made up of representatives of four County depart- ments has been reviewing the Community Redevelopment Law at the direc- tion-of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The Task Force has been instructed by the Board to solicit reconunendations ::rom affected taxing agencies. "P-1" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) ~ ALL DISTRICTS "P-1" Orange County Taxing Agencies December 17, 1975 Page Two The attached Questionnaire is being sent to you inasmuch as you are a local agency whose revenues would be affected by a Com- munity Redevelopment Agency project which includes territory in which you levy a property tax. Your responses to the questions will greatly aid the Task Force in reaching recommendations for presenta- tion to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Please complete the answers to the questions as best you can. In the event you feel unable to give a "yes," "no" or "unde- cided" answer, your conunents would be welcome. Return the completed questionnaire no later than January 15, 1976 to: Conununity Redevelopment Law Task Force 811 North Broadway P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 Should you need ~ny clarification with regard to the questions, please contact Paul Raver or John Heppart at 834-2345. JWA:ks enclosures "P-2" Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne AGENDA ITEM #13CE) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-2" · COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW QUESTIONNAIRE I. PROJECT AREA "Tax increment financing" (Health & Safety Code §33670) of community redevelopment projects allows a community redevelopment agency to divert from taxing agencies a portion of the revenues attributable to all taxing agencies' levies on all taxable property included within the project area. Hence, the amount of property included within the redevelopment project is one factor that deter- mines to what extent tax revenues are diverted from taxing agencies. Current law leaves the determination of the boundaries of a redevelop- ment project solely to the discretion of the redevelopment agency. Health & Safety Code §§33320.1, 33321. 1. Should some limits be placed upon a redevelopment agency's _;;u--powers in establishing· the boundaries of a redevelopment project? Yes D No 0 Undecided D Answer the following if your answer is "yes": a. Should these limits be established by statute \Slate Legislature) or by administrative regulations (by authorized State agency)? Statute D Regulations 0 Undecided D b. Should the proposed plan of the redevelopment agency be subject to review for compliance with the statute or regulation governing the property which may be included in the project. Yes D No D Undecided D c. Should an independent agency be empowered to disapprove proposed plans wnich it determines are not in accordance with a statute or regulation governing the property which may be included in ~ project? Yes D No 0 Undecided D II. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLANS The plan of redevelopment is prepar.ed and approved by ,~he redevel- opment agency and adopted by the legislative body (city coun1~il) of the community (city). Public hearings must be held but the final decision "P-3" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-3" 1 1~·41 i/;.. on the contents of-the plan is left to the city council. A plan must conform to the general plan in effect for the area; it must contain safeguards that the work will be carried out in accordance with the plan and it must contain a general description of ho~ the project will be financed. Neither the adoption of the plan nor the implementation of the plan is currently subject to review or approval of indc1lcndcnt local or state agencies. 1. Should the adoption of a redevelopment plan be subject to review by: a. Local agency Yes n No 0 Undecided b. State agency Yes I No r1 Undecided - 2. Should the adoption of a redevelopment plan be subject to aeproval by: a. Local agency Yes ~ I No n Undecided b. State agency Yes 11 ·-' No n Undecided 3. If your answer to la or 2a was "yes," what should be the nature of the local agency? a. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Yes No Undecided D b. Conunittee composed of affected taxing agencies Yes D v' No Undecided c. Other. Yes D No n Undecided 0 If "yes," specify 4. If your answer to lb or 2b was "yes," what should be the nature of the State agency? :1 I . n n D a. Existing State agency dealing with conununity development Yes 0 No I . . : Undecided D b. Existing State fiscal agency Department of Finance (Appointed by Governor) Yes n No --' D State Controller (elected official) Yes ii No _: _I Other: (specify) Undecided n "P-4" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-4" , ;/./,· j. to c. A newly created State agency devoted solely to Community redevelopment projects? Yes n No tJ Undecided CJ 5. Should the review or approval be: a. Local agency: fiscal aspects only [] ~ total D undecided D b. State agency: fiscal aspects only D total ·o undecided n 6. Should the implementation of the redevelopment plan be subject periodic re~iew for compliance with the terms of the plan? a. Local agency: Yes D vi' No [j Undecided D b. State agency: Yes n No D Undecided 11 ~-If other than agencies set forth in answer to 3 and 4, specify nature of agency: Local.: State: III. DIVISION OF TAX REVENUE A conununity redevelopment agency's share of taxes levied on property within the redevelopment project is all revenues attributable to any increase in the assessed value of the property after the effective date of the adoption of the redevelopment plan. The taxing agency is restricted to the revenue attributable to the assessed value at the time of the adoption of the plan. This diversion formula allows a community redevel- opment agency to share in revenues generated by a taxing agency increasing the tax rate it levies in the project area. 1. Should the share given to a taxing agency be increased (and the CRA's decreased) each year by some formula which would recognize that the taxing agency's cost of providing services is being increased by inflation and other factors? Yes 0 No D Undecided n "P-5" AGENDA ITEM #13(E)-ALL DISTRICTS "P-5" 2. Revenues attributable to an increased tax rate levied by a taxing agency after the adoption of a redevelopment plan should be: Shared with a CRA D Qo ·. /~ Retained by taxing agency n Undecided D IV. ENTITLEMENT AND USE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS A Community Redevelopment Agency receives tax increm~nt monies upon proof of an indebtedness. Continued entitlement depends on the continued existence of the indebtedness but the amount and duration of the entitlement and the use of the tax increment monies are not otherwise restricted by current law. 1. Should the Community Redevelopment Law provisions with respect to the entitlement to, and the use of tax monies be clarified? "P-6" Yes LJ No 0 Undecided D If your answer is "yes," a. Should the clarification be related to the amount of the redevelopment agency's debt? L..-._ Yes LJ No LJ Undecided LJ b. Should the clarification be related to the current year needs of the redevelopment agency? Yes n No n Undecided D c. Should the clarification be related to entitlement for a fixed number of years? Yes 0 No D Undecided D d. Should the clarification be related to permitting tax increment monies to be used solely for .the retirement of debt? Yes 0 . No n Undecided D e. Should the clarification be related to some other factor? Yes 0 No n Undecided II If "yes," specify AGENDA ITEM #13(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-6" V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Under existing law redevelopment agencies are not required to file financial reports with-any independent agency unless they have incurred a bonded indebtedness. 1. Should redevelopment agencies be required to file annual financial statements with the. State Controller" Yes n I No D Undecided D B. Under existing law there is no requirement that redevelopment agencies be audited by an independent auditor. Periodic audits are common requirements for speci~l districts. 1. · Should redevelopment agencies be required to have their accounts and records audited by an independent auditor annually? Yes D j .No D Undecided 0 C. Redevelopment agencies may provide public improvements in the project area, including improvements that normally would be provided by the municipality as opposed to those which are normally provided by a developer. 1. Should public improvements be restricted to those normally provided by a developer under usual private development project conditions? Yes 0 No D Undecided 0 D. . . . ... ... ... ~ed~e~ ~u exis~, ai~ surpius remaining after provision is made for the payment of all obligations and the retirement of all debts are deposited in the general fund of the city. This is true regardless of the source of the funds. 1. Should surplus funds which are derived from the diversion of the tax monies of taxing agencies, and the interest earned on such funds, be redistributed to the taxing agencies after all obligations and debts of the redevelopment agency have been pro- vided for? Yes DJ No rl Undecided D E. Community Redevelopment Agencies may affect your particular agency in a way which we have not thus far anticipated. Please set forth any such special situation and your suggested solution. Name.of agency Prepared by: Telephone No. Name Title "P-7" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-7" : .. BRIEF ANALYSIS AND COHMENTl\RY ON THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW · The law may be found in Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health & Safety Code (§§3300~-33738) . . · Every "conununity" (defined by §33002 as a city, county, city and county, or Indian Tribe), has a Corrununity Redevelopment Agency (§33100). However, it may function only after the legislative body of the corrununity declares by ordinance that there is a need for the agency (§33101). This declaration is subjec~ to a referendum. . . The-redevelopment agency may be governed.by meffibers appointed by the mayor or chairman of the board .of supervisors with the approval of the legislative body (§33110), or the legislative body may declare itself to be the age~cy (§33200). There appears to be no problem connected with the creation of the agency nor with its general powers set forth in Article 3, Chapter 2 (§§33120-33135). The agency's powers may be suspended by the legislative body of the community if it has not-redeveloped or acquired land or taken other redevelopment activities within two years after the adoption ··of the ordinance declaring the need for the agency (§33140) and it may be dissolved by the legislative body when it has no outstanding indebtedness and the members of the agency give unanimous consent to the dissolution {§33141). Since these provisions 2re pcrmissi~e with the J.egislaLive.iJudy and the agency, there is no assurance in the law ·that an agency will ever cease to exist. Continued existence of an ·agency together with an indebtedness entitles the agency to receive ·•tax increment" financing even when it might appear that the need for the money has ceased. Upon.·dissolution of an agency,· surplus funds existing after pay- ment of all of its obligations and indebtedness vest in the community (i.e., the general fund of the city). Her.ce, the potential for the subversion of the purposes of the law by keeping an agency·in existence in order to accumulate surplus funds which will ulti~ately enrich the COIIk~unity at the expense of other taxing entities . . . A redevelopment agency is empowered· to redevelop "blighted" areas. •Redevelopment" means the planning, development, replanning, redesign- ing, cle?rance, reconstruction or rehabilitation or any combinatio~ of these, and purchase for residential, commercial, industrial, public or other structures, or spaces, as may be appropriate or necessary, including recreational and other facilities incident or pertinent to them (§33020). ·Article 3 of Chapter 1 of the law defines what constitutes "blighted." A blighted area is one that is characterized by one o; . more of the conditions listed in §§33031-33034. These conditions ~ briefly be stated as: "P-8" AGENDA."ITEM #13(E) ALL DISTRitTS "P-~" · .. .. 1. Unfit or unsafe .building. 2. The existence of dislocation, ·deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning. 3. Subdivisions containing lots of irregular form or shape, or inadequate in size for proper usefulness. 4. Lots laid out in disregard of contours or other physical characteristics. S. Seashore conditions ·which result in (a) decline in coastal environment, .(b) need for public beach areas or access, (c) a danger t9 the quantity and quality of marine life •. 6. Unproductive condition of land. 7. Diminishing population resulting in underutilization of land. The Legislature has declared that blight causes public ~nd private injury (§§33035-33036). • While no faul.t has been found with the purpose of eliminating blight from the community, critics of the law see a need to more narrowly define blight or to use some other criteria for determining what sort of areas should be redeveloped. ··. Redevelopment agencies are not !:"·equircd to lL.~Lit their "oro1ect ~~ea~" ~dcfi~ed i1! 533320.l us an area of a community which is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the redevelopment law) to those which are in fact blighted. The law permits the project area to include lands, build- ings, or irnprovemen~which are not blighted " ... but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area •.•. " . (S33321) • .. Critics of the law contend that the necessity to include non- blighted areas in the project generally is related to "tax increment" financing rather than a geographical reason. The City of ·Los Angeles has frankly admitted this premise in connection with its most recent downtown redevelopment project. That project includes several rela- tively new skyscrapers which are obviously non-blighted structures. The law requires an agency to follow set procedures in designating the "project area" (§§3330.1-33327), and in preparing and adopting the redevelopQent plan (§§33330-33367). The redevelopment plan must conform to the community's general plan insofar as it is appJicable (S33331). It must contain safeguards to insure that the work of rede- velopment will be carried out pursuant to the plan (§33336). It must describe generally the method of financing the redevelop-nent project (S33334); whether bonds are to be issued (§33341), and w~ether the community will expend money on the project (§33343}. ~'P-9" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) ALL·. D i°STRI CTS ·"P-9" ,. ' The plan must be approved by the agency (§33351) and adopted by the legislative body as an ordinance before it becomes effective (S33365). Prior to either the approval of the plan by the agency, ·or the adoption of the plan by the legislative body, public hearinos are required (§§33348 and 33361). Where the legislative body.is ~ agency, these procedures are simplified )§33359). Upon adoption, the plan is submitted to the auditor and tax collector of the county, to the governing body of ·each taxing agency which levies taxes on any project in the area, and to the State Board ~f Equalization. (§33375) Participation by property et·mers who desire to participate must . be allowed by the plan (§33339}, and existing businesses are given a priority right to return to the area after redevelopm~nt (§33339.5). . A redevelopment agency may be granted eminent domain powers (§§33342 and 33391) . It may also negotiat~ ~ purchase or receive the prope~ty as a gift. Having once acquired property in a.project area, an agency may demolish buildings, clear land, improve building sites and install . streets, utilities and other public improvements (§§33420-33427). Except for the providing of housing for displaced persons (33410), ·the construction of publicly-owned buildings (§33445) or school .. buildings (§33446), an agency does not have the authority to erect · structures in connection with the redevelopment of a project area (S33440). Disposition of property acquired by an agency through lease or sale may be done without public biddi~g {§33431). Except for property :::0:1--:-::.y2d t·:: a. p\J1.;l.i.~ budy, any sale or lease of property acquired ·for the purpose of redevelopment must be disposed of upon condition that it be redeveloped in conformity with the redevelopra2nt plan (§33432}. The minimum price upon disposal of property is to be the "fair value" of the property for the uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan (§·33433). "Fair value 11 does not necessarily mean "fair market value." Since the buyer will be required to meet the conditions of the develop- . ment set forth in the redevelopment plan, the price may well be less · than "fair market value." A redevelopment plan may be amended. Amendment procedures gener- ally follow those provided for in the approval and adoption of the plan itself (§§33450-33458) .. Critics suggest that there should be a limitation placed on the ability of an·agency to perpetuate itself by .--·amending its plan ad infinittlr.l. Since 1952, there have been eighty- three Community Redevelopment Agencies created. Only .two of these agencies have been dissolved. Community Redevelopment Agencies may issue bonds by adopting a resolution authorizing such issuance (§33645). The principal and interest may be payable (a) exclusively from the income and revenue of the redevelopment project financed .by the proceeds of the bonds, "-"" "P-10" AGENDA ITEM #13(E) -ALL DISTRICTS '"P-10" . : . or with such proceeds, together with financial assistance from governmental agencies, (b) exclusively from the income and revenue of certain designated redevelopment projects whether or not they ·were financed in whole or in part by the proceeds of the bonds, (c) in whole or in part from taxes allocated to and paid into a special fund of the agency pursuant to "tax increment" financing provisions, (d) from its revenue generally, (e) from any contri- butions or other financial assistance from governmental agencies, (f) by any combination· of these methods (§3:3~1). These bonds are not obligations of the community or thr State, or any other public subdivision of the State. The bonds are payable solely out of the assets of the agency (§33644) • ·The community may also fund redevelopment projects from the proceeds from the sale of its own general obllgatiori bonds (§33630). Prio authorization of the electorate of the community would neces- sarily be a prerequisite to any such financing plan. . . The most controversial method of financing projects is contained in §33670. This section provides the "tax increment" financing method. An agency which adopts this method of financing -its rede- velopment projects diverts tax revenue from the taxing agencies which · levy taxes on property in the project area. The amount of the diver- sion is determined by the amount of increase in the assessed valua- tion of property within th~ project area following the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Taxing agencies will have their assessed valuation base frozen and will receive only those revenues which are attributable to the levy on the assessed valuation of the property _ao that value existed prior to the adoptinn nf th~ ~~de~elcp~~~t ~l~~ The redevelopmen~ agency receives all the revenue attributable to levies on the increase in the assessed valuation of the property in the project area occurring after the adoption of .the redevelopment plan·. Critics of the law suggest that this method of financing results· in·the general taxpayer subsidizing the private development of project areas. s~pporters of the law assert that increases in the assessed valuation of property in the project area will be the result of rede- velopment effort and therefore it is only right that the increased revenue be used to pay for the cost of such redevelopment • "P-11" , •. -~ . I . ~ . .. :.· ..... T . . . . . . :. -.. . . . .. \ .. ·AGENDA ITEM #l3(E) -ALL DISTRICTS t I • • .. . . ... ... .... . . ... ·. . .. "P-11" ·•· C\J . rt') .. C\I ·. C\J .. ·SANTA . Q., ...3 0 er: ....... Q., 0.. ~. (/) ,, Cl er: z '1l ->-t; .< ->< ~ ---- . 30 1 © POR. LOT A R .S. 92-3 TRACT MARCH 1975 0 Cl) u ANA .0 0 e-- ~ . ....... Q., 0.. 0 c::z:: 0 p., :.u Cl) (/) 0 0::: c. '1l 0 >-c:: < 0.. IS6 -.t, SUMMERW1;110 06 - BANNING TR.ACT TRACT NO. 8578 • ~ •. 1.....-.......b L .8 . 71 ~" ,,, .. ~/ ".1 ·/ (R.S. 12- @) OIJTFALL R.S. 86-6 ~I L.A 1-34, 35 8 3-. M.M. 353-4, 5, 6 . ·----· .. -... -·----- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE January 8, 1976 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-24 1 I MEMORANDUM TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager FROM: w. N. Clarke, Superintendent SUBJECT: District No. 3 and Plant No. 1 Odor Control At your request, several odor scrubbing projects for Plant No. 1 incoming sewers have been reviewed and three different plans are presented for consideration. PLAN A would be considered minimal, with capacity to treat 10, OOO---c1'l·1 of foul air; it would not be enclosed in a permanent structure. Some work will be required at Ellis and Bushard to connect the existing 36" pi'pe to the 96" Knott Interceptor. This connection would be considered temporary (1 to 2 years) since the 36" pipe is intended to b:ring flows from the Magnolia Trunk into Plant No. 1. It would probably be effective as far north as Golden West and Westminster Avenues ( 8 rniles). Dist1·ict No. ~ construct.ion cost -$32,400. Operational costs are estimated to be $200 per day. PLAN B would have capacity to treat 20,000 CFM. The scrubbing at Plant No. 1 would be in an enclosure. The project would include extensive work at Ellis and Bushard to install a 36'' suction pipe over the existing inverted siphon in the Yillott Interceptor. The piping portion of this plan would also be considered temporary; however the scrubber at Plant No. 1 would have a considerable life expectancy. It would probably be effective as far north as Golden West and Lincoln, and Westminster and Ed\·:ards ( 13 miles). District No. 3 construction cost -$75,992. Operational costs are estimated to be $400 per day. . PLAN C would differ in several respects in that it would be a staged proJect incorporating odor control for the District No. 3 trw1k sewer in the anticipated Plant odor control facilities at the Metering and Diversion Structure for all Districts disc~arGing to Plant No. 1. This odor control facility was described in Project Report No. 2 for the 1972-73 fiscal year anticipating a Federal ~rant. This was denied by the State and EPA, but it is a project which is needed to abate the odors associated with the incoming flmrn. "R-1" Stage 1 -Install connection between 36 11 Ellis sewer ·and Knott Interceptor aii Ellis and Bushard ($20,000 cost to be borne by District No. 3) and construct a AGENDA ITEM #30(A) -DISTRICT 3 "R-1" 20,000 CFM scrubber at Plant No. 1 as part of the budgeted Joint Works Odor Control Projects (budget amount is $250,000). Joint Project construction cost -$56,ooo. The use of the existing 36" Ellis Avenue sewer as a foul air duct will be evaluated as well as the possibility of utilizing the 78" Ellis sewer (portion of r-8) as a means of drawing the foul air to Plant No. 1 to deterrnlne the most cost-effective method. Stage 2 -Install new 36" suction piping in Ellis from Plant Ho. 1 to Brookhurst and connect to Knott Inter- ceptor (construction cost of $260,000 to be borne by District No. 3) and ~xpand scrubbing system at Plant No. 1, as required, in accordance with·Joint Works Construction Projects. Construction cost -$85,000. It is recommended that we proceed with Stage 1 of PLAN C to construct the connection at Ellis and Bushard (District No. 3 cost -$20,000) and construct a scrubber at Plant No. 1 (Joint Districts cost -$56,000), for a total estimated cost of $76,ooo, with an operational target date of July, 1976. "R-2" ·-e./1 I ~--~/ 1!:1 -.•;' ,:-:~11":1 ",' " f;'·•· I g ·.r-.... ..:..F~:~ w. N. Clarke Superintende!"lt AGENDA ITEM #30(A) -DISTRICT 3 "R-2" ..,.--·. c ••. '.'I· ~-:sr. DEC 18 PN 3: 35 OU?L!CATE OF TELE~RA~·.A TELE.PHO! '. RNA205C1834)C2-057513E352)PD 12/18/75 1834 f) !CS IPMRNCZ CSP e 2139371533 TORN LOS ANGELES CA 73 12-18 0634P EST FON 7145402910 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 7 COPY MESSAGE 1 0844 ELLIS AVE FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CA 92708 ~ AJTENTION MR BRUCE WITCHER. REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN MY BID SUBMITTED DECEMBER 16 1975·FOR CONTRUCTION OF TUSTIN-ORANGE TRUNK SEWER CONTRACT NUMBER 7-6-8 WHICH MISTAKE MADE MY BID MATERIALLY DIFFERENT c c c c c c c THAN i INTENDED IT TO BE. BECAUSE OF MISTAKE I M·usr AND DO RESCIND c r ' ~y EID. RECLlEST !H~! D!S!R!C! CONSENT !O REL!EVE ME OF MY S!D BECAUSE OF MISTAKE. FULL DETAILS FOLLOW. NICK DIDOVIC CONSTRUCTION CO BY NICK DIDOVIC, OWNER SF-1201 (R5-69) "S" AGENDA ITEM #33(A) -DISTRICT 7 c II s II ""'-""~ • u n~ ' • : .Copy; REL, BEW •· STCPHCN MONTCLCONC (1888• 198Z) OARRl:LL P. MCCRORY DAVID P. YAH'C STANTON P. Bl:LLANO WILMl:R I!:. WINDHAM G. ROBCRT HALE LAW O,.,.ICES i\\ONTELEONE & .Mc CnoRY 2900 MUTUAL BENCf'IT LIFE BUILDING 5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9003e TCLCPHONC 837· 1!133 ALAN P. RIBAKOFF PATRICK .J. DUFFY m WILLIAM N. COHl:N MICHAl:L F. MINCHELLA GERALD T. YOSHIDA MICHAEL MAROKO #5393 "T-1" December 18, 1975 County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fow1tain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Bruce Witcher Gentlemen: Re: Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-6-8 This firm represents Mr. Nick Didovic, doing husinPS~ ~s Njr.k nin.()"{7i~ ('nn~i-rtJ~+-ion <:om-p-?_T"'l~7. in C'On- nection with.a mistake that our client made in his bid submitted to you on December 16, 1975, for the construc- tion of the above referenced project. Mr. Didovic noti- .fied you by telephone and by telegram of the mistake in his bid on December 18, 1975. The purpose of this letter is to supply the full details concerning the mistake. Enclosed herewith is the sworn declaration of Mr. Didovic explaining how he mistakenly left the amounts that he had estimated for shoring and cleanup and main- tenance out of his bid, resulting in a mistake in his bid in the sum of $40,000. If you desire any further explanation or substantiation of the mistake, in addition to that contained in the enclosed declaration, our client will be happy to supply any additional information that you may desire. The mistake made by Mr. Didovic, although unfortunate, is a straight forward error which legally entitles him to rescind his bid under well-settled California law (see e.g.: M. F. Kemper Construction Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 37 Cal.2d 696; h'hite v. Berenda Mesa Water District, 7 Cal.App.3d 894). We believe that the mistake could have been avoided if the District had included in the Schedule of Bid Prices a specific bid item for shoring as required AGENDA ITEM #33(A) -DISTRICT 7 "T-1" •" •LAW O,.F'ICE:!J MONTELEONE & McCnORY "T-2" County Sanitation District No. 7 December 18, 1975 Page 2 by Section 6707 of the Labor Code. Because of the substantial magnitude of the error, our client cannot accept an award of the contract based upon his erroneous bid and must reluctantly exercise his right of rescission. We respectfully request that County Sanitation Qistrict No. 7 consider the enclosed declaration, recognize the existence of the mistake, and relieve our client of his erroneous bid and return our client's bid bond. · If you desire any further information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the under- signed. Very truly yours, MONTELEONE & McCRORY DPY:rm Enclosure cc: Nick Didovic Construction Company AGENDA ITEM #33(A) -DISTRICT 7 "T-2" "T-3" DECLARATION OF NICK DIDOVIC I, Nick Didovic, say: At all times herein mentioned I was and now am the owner of Nick Didovic Construction Company. I personally made the estimate for the bid submitted by Nick Didovic Construction Company to County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County for the con- struction of the Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-6-8, ·for which bids were opened at 11:00 A.M. on December 16, 1975. I estimated the job on Saturday and Sunday, December 13 and 14, 1975, and left my estimating notes at home with my wife so that she could fill out my bid after I made test holes on the jobsite. I did my testing on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, and telephoned my wife go ahead and fill out my bid. My wife completed the bid and had it delivered to the District in time for the bid opening. In estimating the job I knew that the depth of the trenches that I would have to excavate varied from 11 to 22 feet, and that shoring would be necessary. I estimated a price of approximately $440,000 for the first four bid items, which price included my estimate of $25,000 for shoring and $15,000 for cleanup and maintenance. I had estimated those two amounts on a separate sheet of scratch paper, but .I forgot to tell my wife to be sure to include those two amounts in the bid. When my wife filled out the bid on the morning of December 16, 1975, she neglected to include those two items in my bid. -1- AGENDA ITEM #33(A) -DISTRICT 7 ... "T-3" . . "T-4 II The result of this mistake was that my bid on Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 is in error by the sum of $40,000. On the evening of the bid opening I was told by my bonding agent that I was the low bidder at $495,000. I suspected at that time that I had made a mistake in my bid, but I did not discover the magnitude of my error until the following day, December 17, 1975. During that day I went over my estimate ll_lany times to see whether I could perform the job for the amount that I actually bid, $475,000. I discovered that the magnitude of my error was so large that I cannot perform the job for the amount of my bid • My mistake was made solely in the filling out of my bid .. and was not due to any error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work or in reading the plans or specifications. foregoing is true and correct. -.t:! ·-· ..L. ~xecuted at Los Angeles, California, this 18th day of December, 1975. NICK DIDOVIC .· AGENDA ITEM #33CA) -DISTRICT 7 "T-4" MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 FROM: GENERAL COUNSEL DATE: January 6, 1976 SUBJECT: Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer Contract No. 7-6-8 Award of Bid to Low Bidder -Nick Didovic Construction Company The District staff opened bids for the above referenced contract on December 16, 1975 and a total of twenty-one bids were received. The low bidder was determined to be the Nick Didovic . Construction Company whose bid was in the sum of $475,632.74. The second lowest bid was in the sum of $512,892.00 and a total of fourteen of the twenty-one bidders submitted a total construction ~id 10~er th~~ th~ ~n~in~~ring ~sti~~te_ On December 18, 1975 the lower bidder, by telephone and telegram, notified the District of an alleged mistake concerning the bid which was submitted and indicated he was seeking to rescind the bid and not accept the contract. This was followed by a letter dated December 18, 1975 from the attorney representing the low bidder and included a declaration of Nick Didovic, the owner of the low bid company. The issue presented is whether the .District is empowered to require the low bidder to execute the contract and perform all the terms and conditions for the amount of the low bid price. Subject to the items outlined below, it is my opinion that based upon a review of all the facts, the District, in this case, can require Nick Didovic Construction Company to perform the terms of the contract and, for his failure to do so, can take legal action to enforce the terms of the performance bid bond submitted on his behalf to recover the amount of damages incurred by the District for non-performance. . This particular subject matter has been the source of much litigation over the years, both in California and in other "U-1" AGENDA ITEM #33(B) -DISTRICT 7 "U-1" jurisdictions. There are several general principles of law that are controlling, and a few specifics that would apply to the facts of this case. For example, it is a common principle of law that upon the opening and declaration of the bids, a plain- tiff's bid is in the nature of an irrevocable option and upon acceptance and award by the receiving agency, it constitutes an enforceable contract. At the same time, the State of California has developed a line of judicial decisions which essentially holds that a contractor who makes a mistake of fact is entitled to rescind or revise the bid which he sub- mitted and may not be forced to perform. I do note that there is a clear distinction between a mistake of fact which will allow for rescission and a mistake of judgment from which the bidder will not be relieved of his obligation. The typical mistake of fact is one of clerical error, such as the transposition of figures or errors in the extension of calculations. In those instances, the courts have held generally that a rescission is allowed for such a mfstake. · On the other hand, the courts have not allowed relief via rescission for those mistakes which are errors in judgment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the low bidder seeking rescis- sion to estwblish that the mistake is material to th~ contract, was not the result of a neglect of duty, that enforcement upon him would be unconscionable and that the District can be placed . in a position of status quo. It is my opinion that based upon a review of the bid documents, the declaration of Nick Didovic and the letter requesting rescission dated December 18, 1975, the low bidder has failed to establish sufficient proof of a mistake of fact warranting the District to relieve him of the contractual obligation. The declaration contains hearsay statements about apparent errors that the wife of the contractor made and he indicates that he was aware that shoring would be necessary. The attorney represnting the contractor indicated that the mistake could have been avoided if the District had included a specific bid item for shoring which, in my opinion, is contrary to statement and declaration of his client. My opinion is based further upon the fact that the amount of the error is not particularly significant or material and clearly is not out of line without the other bids submitted. Likewise, it is my opinion that it constitutes more of a mis- take in judgment by the contractor than that of fact. -2- "U-2" AGENDA ITEM #33(B) -DISTRICT,7 RECOMMENDATION· That the District make a finding that there is no basis in fact to support the claim of alleged mistake in fact by the low bidder and, therefore, the contract is to be awarded to Nick Didovic Construction Company as the low bidder. It is further recommended that upon refusal of the contractor to execute the necessary contract documents and to commence performance, the District immediately advise the surety that the District intends to take legal action to enforce the provisions of the bid bond. TLW: ab 5-A-3 cc: Mr. Fred A. Harper Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester Mr. Ray E. Lewis Thomas0d~· General Counsel -3- "U-3" AGENDA ITEM #33(a) ._ DISTRICT.7 "U-3" . . .... B I D TABULATION SHEET Date December 16, 1975 -11:00 A.M. Contract For: TUSTIN-ORANGE TRUNK SEWER, PORTION OF REAQI 12, .REACli 13, AND PORTION OF REACH 14 CONTRACT NO. 7-6-8 Engineerrs Estimate: $587,620.00 1. 2. 3. . :;. . 5. 6. 7. CONTRACTOR Nick Didovic Construction Co. Anaheim, California Steve Bubalo Construction Co. Reseda, California Henson Construction, Inc. Bell Gardens, California Prkacin Co. and Runje Corp. Pasadena, California A. G. Tutor Co., Inc. and N. M. Saliba Co. North Hollywood. California Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. Redondo Beach, California Rogers & Davies Ontario, California 8 •· Mike Masanovich Construction Co. , Inc. 9. Arcadia, California A. S. Peich, Inc. Pomona, California 10 • McG.uire Construction Company Placentia,. California · 11. Vido Artukovich & Son, Inc. South El Monte, California "V-1" AGENDA ITEM #33(c) -DISTRICT 7 TOTAL BID $475,632.74 $512,892.00 $515,627.00 $538,964.00 $546.531.00 $549,760.00 $552,386.00 $552,870.00 $554,732.00 $555,531.70 $562' 714. 00 "V-1" ~ ::. BID TABULATION SHEET . Date December 16, 1975· -. Contract For: TUSTIN-ORANGE TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-6- Continued •••••••• 12. Risto Construction Co. and · . Young & Associates, Inc. , Jt. Venture Los Angeles, California 13. 14. 15. 16. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. Long Beach, California Colich Construction Company Los Angeles, California Burch Engineering Construction Baldwin Park, California Mike Prlich & Sons South El Monte, California 17 • · B & P Construction Co. ·• Los Angeles, California 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. "V-2" RE and RW Crane, Inc. Lon~ Beach. California George Miller Construction Co. Los Angeles, California Kordick & Son, Inc. Huntington Beach, California \ Ban-Bevanda, A Jt. Venture . Arcadia, California AGENDA JTEM #33(c) -DISTRICT '7 $564,413.00 $568,999.00 $577,208.06 $592,239.00 $596,648.50 $599,659.00 $620.126.00 $669,473.00 $673,056.50 $725, 643. so "V-2" . . "W" FACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM ORANGE PARK ASSOCIATION, INC.: ORANGE PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. P. 0. Box 2365 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92669 Fred A. Harper, General Manager CoWlty Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange CoWlty P. O. Box 8127 Fo1.mtain Valley, California 92708 January 6, 1976 Pursuant to our phone call this morning, it is the consensus of the Orange Park Acres Planning Committee that we should pursue the steps necessary for 'r\1 . ,. • . ,_ -. . , • ., - rica~c ~==p m= ~uvi~=u ~~ to how I and the members of the Committee can be of assistance to you in the ultimate realization of our desire to be annexed to the 7th Sanitation District. George Rach, Chairman Orange Park Acres Planning Committee AGENDA ITEM #34(A) -DISTRICT 7 "W" January 8, 1976 MEMORANDUM TO DISTRICT NO. 1 DIRECTORS: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0 . BOX 8127 108<44 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71<4) 5<40-2910 : (71<4) 962-2411 SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 13(c) (1) re Directors' Compensation Poli.cy Because District No. l's existing compensation policy differs from that of the other six Districts, we are enclosing herewith a copy of District No. l's current Resolutions Nos. 63-128 and 68-3-1. ,_ ,_ ...... '-". J ·. RESOLUTIOil no. 63-12 8 RESOJ,UTio:r R:~o Jl.1:DI11G co:~Pr.~ff)fl_rrro;1 FOTI TI!E JOLl'..!.' C.j~J.::, .LI .., --~ ... .... -- WHEREAS, County Sanitation District No. 1 docs, with County Sanitation Districtn Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County 1 mm, use and maintain a ael·1age disposal and treatment plant and dinp~:)Sal system; and, WHEREAS, said Districts hold their regular monthly meetings jointly; and, \fiIEREAS, said meetings are presided over by a director of one or said Districts acting as Joint Chairman for and on behalf or said Joint organization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that commencing l·rith tho month or October, 1963, and monthly there.after• the Chairman of the Joint .Administrative Orga1:1ization of County Snnitatlon Dlst1•1cts Nos. 1 1 2 1 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be paid the name coopensation by this Di_strict as a director is paid except that when said Joint Chairman is a director of this district '.:his shall not apply; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the--:; uhen future changes in the compensa- t1on of the directors of this District are made, the co~pensation or said Joint Chairman shall be changed to conform to the compc.nsa- t1on or the directors of this District at all times. {REF., Section 4733 of State Health and Safety Code, as amended 1967) RESOLUTION NO. 68-3-1 FIXING COMPENSATION FOR DIRECTORS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FIXING COMPENSATION FOR ITS DIREcr.roRS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 67-ll4-l, REGARDING SAID COMPE~~SATION The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. l of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That each Director shall receive the sum of $50.00 for attendance at any meeting of the Board of Directors of this District, provided that he shall not receive more than the sum of $100.GO per month as such compensation from this District; and, Section 2. That in the event a Director of this District is a Director of another, or other, County Sanitation Districts of ·Orange County, he shall receive compensation as provided by each District he is serving as a Director; Rnct: Section 3. · That each Director shall receive the sum of ten ~ents (11¢) per mile for each mile, or part of a mile, actually traveled on business of this District. That when traveling on the business of more than one District, each District shall bear an equal proportion of said expense, and such Director shall receive no more than said ten cents ~1¢) per mile~ or part of a mile, so traveled, whether on the business of one District or several Districts; and, Section 4. That the Resolution No. 67-114-1 concerning compensation of Directors, is hereby rescinded and made of no further effect; and, Section 5. That this resolution shall become effectiv~ January 1, 1968; and, Section 6. That all actions of this District, whether by resolution, motion or otherwise, inconsistent herewith or contrary to the terms hereof, be and they arc hereby amended to conform to th~ terms of this resolution. · · !tgenda Item No. 34 ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMCNT. DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ORANGE COUNTY, C.A.LlfORN IA ALTERNATIVE 1 ANNEXATION WITH COMPLETE SEWER SYSTEM ESTIMATED PROJECT COST November 1975 Item 8-inch V .C. P. in paved roads 8-inch V. C. P. in driveways 8-inch V .C. P. in unFavcd areas 8-i !')Ch V. C. P. in Hand>' Creek area 48-i.nch-dicmeter manholes 60-inc:h-diamcter manholes 4-inch wyes -l per parcel 4-inch V.C.P. laterals within right-of-way Sewage pumping foci I ity 4~inch sewer force main Total Estimated Construction Cost November 1975 lnfloiion from t-Jovember i975 to June 1911 1 20 months at l percent per month Total Estimated Construction Cost Contingencies at 10 percent Finance, legal 1 design engineering, construction staking, construction inspection, administration, accounting, and incidental costs at 18 percent Right-of-way 2 Subtotal County Sanitation District No. 7 annexation fee 3 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Annual debt service with 7 percent, 15-year financing l Assumes the fol lowing schedule: June 1976 -Bond election Estimated Quantity 32,800 Feet 5,400 Feet 10,400 Feet 3,800 Feet 135 Each 30 Each 425 Each 10,000 Feet 1 Each 700 Feet 7 Acres 550 Acres June -December 1976 -Engineering and right-of-way work Unit Cost $ 19.00 s 15.00 $ 13.00 $ 23.00 s 700.00 $ 1,000.00 s 20.00 $ 14.00 Lump Sum $ 15.00 $10,000.00 $ 1,029 .oo January 1977 -Begin construction, with 1-ycar time period Total Cost $ 623, 200 83,700 13,500 87,400 94,500 30,000 8,500 140,000 40,000 10,500 $1,131,300 248,900 $1,380,200 138,000 248,400 70,000 $1,836,600 566,000 $2,402,600 263,800 June 1977 -Midpoint of construction • BOYLE ENGINEERING 2Minimum 15-foot width·. 3 Effectivc since July 1975 to be revised July 1976. F 0 E P I'Y~_:_' ~~~-~~:} __ ~_ ~· --,~ _ ~~·:::; ~-'.~"~:-~ '.~ j SUL.'.J .... .' •• I 11...·, 1;. 1.'1.:.101·.; "'-----------~-··-···-·---··--.--·--··-· . JlE C .l l975 nti. I,.--·-------.. ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE 2 · ANNEXATION ONLY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST November 1975 Item County Sanitation District No. 7 1 Ann~xation Fee P I • • E • • I t" t" 2 re rminary ngrneenng nves 1ga ion, Reports, Finance, and Lega I Fees TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Estimated Quantity 550 Acres Annual Debt Service with 7 percent, 15-year Financing A'1nual Improvement Distiid Tax Rate a. IV.arch 1975 Assessed Value= $5,465,000 Unit Cost $1, 029 .00 63,800 -b. Tax Rate 514651000 ~ 100 -1.167 per $100 of Assessed Value Total Cost $566,000 15,000 $581,000 63,800 Annual County Sanitation District No. 7 Property Tax Rate= 0.4026 per $100 of Assessed Value Total Annual Tax Rate= 1.57 per $100 of Assessed Value BOYLE ENGINEErmIG -·----------·------------, 'f:'tQD J... .. .... I-~ ~~?_ :· -~} j ~ ~ ~ ~~~,I .~ t •. :..-= & ,-~~ : ·~ ~ '. ·::-\ , , ... , : ~-~ -~~~~' i --·-·--·----· ---· .. --------· ·--------------I l i ----------·--------·-···-------·--········-····--·-- ...... -DEC i 1975 ~).,I.:·--··--···------···· . 1 ~-Effective since July 1975, to be revised July 1976. 2Memorandum to Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 from Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel. ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. ·7 ORANGE COUNTY I CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE 3 ANNEXATION WITH 11 RED BACKBONE" SEWER SYSTEM ESTIMATED PROJECT COST November 1975 Item 8-inch V.C.P. in paved roads 48-inch-diameter manholes 60-inch-diameter manholes 4-inch wyes -1 per parcel fronting on backbone system 4-inch V.C.P. laterals for each wye Total Estimated Construction Cost November 1975 Inflation from November. 1975 to June 1977 1 20 months at l percent per month Total Estimated Construction Cost Contingencies at 10 percent Finance, legal. design engineering, construction ;~u~ :r.8, •.:(·1·6;·, '-" .. ~:,_,,-. ;. •Sf'r;-( ~:•.)1"'1, c .. ).·,-, ;. ,; ,:,-(, ::,:. •. , accounting, and incidental costs at 18 percent Subtotal Estimated Quantity 12,000 Feet 'J!J Each 8 Each 80 Each 2,200 Feet Unit Cost $ 19.00 $ 700.00 $1,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 14.00 County Sanitation District No. 7 annexation fee 2 550 Acres $1,029.00 TOTAL ESTl/0.ATED PROJECT COST Annua I debt service with 7 percent, 15-yea r financing Annual Improvement District tax rate o. b. lklrch 1975 assessed value= $5,465,000 111 ,700 Tax rate= 514651000 ..;.. lOO = 2.043 per $100 of assessed value Total Cost $ 228,000 20,300 8,000 1,600 30,800 $ 288,700 63,500 $ 352, 200 35,300 63,400 $ 450,900 566,000 $1,016,900 $ 111,700 Annual County Sanitation District No. 7 property tax rate = 0 .4026 per $100 of assessed value Annual 7th lvbintenance District tax rote= 0.0190 per $100 of assessed value Total Annual Tax Rate= 2.47 per $100 of assessed value 1 Assumes the fol lowing schedule: June 1976 -Bond election June -December 1976 -Engineering and right-of-way work January 1977 -Begin construction, with 1-)'ear time perio~OYLE ENGIN E':RING ·June 1977 -Midpoint of construction 2 Effoctive since July 1975 to be revised July 1976. ··-----F·--·-' .. I -• 1 ' ~ ·-... -... " .,..:· ~ •• ·_:._. 7;. ~.. ~---~. "':· '·,· ~ .J \ •. 7 r ~ ~·~-.:~.-; ~: ~ ~ : .::: ~ , ;;. . ~ . ; . . ~ : . . ~ -. ----·-.. --------... ------· oO. ---· -• T -----------... -0 ---·----------, ~ .. '\,...! •. : ,_ .: ' ·, ,_J ... ·'" :~'" ~; ••• _____ _: ________ _ ------------··--· -----·--·----· DATE DEC ·1 rn75 ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ORANGE COUNTY I CALlfORN IA AL TERNATIYE 4 ANNEXATIOt-J WITH 11 RED AND BLUE BACKBONE" SEWER SYSTEM ESTIMATED PROJECT COST November 1975 Item 8-inch Y. C. P. in paved roads 48-inch-diameter rr.onhol es 60-inch-diameter manhcl es 4-inch wyes -1 per parcel fronting on backbone system 4-inch V .C. P. laterals for each wye Total Estimated Construction Cost November 1975 Inflation from November 1975 to June 1977 1 20 months at 1 percent per month Total Estimated Construction Cost Contingencies at 10 percent Finance, legal, design engineering, construction stakin~.-construcHon inspection. administration. accounting, and incidental costs at 18 percent Subtotal County Sanitation District No. 7 annexation fee 2 TOT AL EST IMA TED PROJECT COST Annual debt service with 7 percent, 15-year financing Annual Improvement District tax rate a. March 1975 assessed value= $5,465,000 Estimated Quantity 17 ,600 Feet 41 Each 12 Each 108 Each 3, 100 Feet 550 Acres Unit Cost $ 19.00 $ 700.00 $1,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 14.00 $1,029.00 b. Tax rate= 5146 ~~~06°1 10 ~ = 2.465 per $100 of assessed value Total Cost $ 334,400 28,700 12,000 2, 200 43,400 $ 420,700 92,600 $ 513,300 51,000 92,400 $ 656,700 566,000 $1,22?,700 $ 134,700 Annual County Sanitation District No. 7 property tax rate= 0.4026 per $100 of assessed value Annual 7th Maintenance District tax rate= 0.0190 per $100 of assessed value Total Annual Tax Rate= 2.89 per $100 of assessed value 1 Assumes the fol lowing schedule: June 1976 -Bond election June -December 1976 -Engineering and right-of-way woik January 1977 -Begin construction, with 1-year time period June 1977 -Midpoint of construction BOYLE ENGINEERING 2 Effccti~c since July 1975 to be revised July 1976. --------~..... • T • -• ~ " . -.. -'. .,.. "'\ • I 1 '~~ :.::·,~~~A •0 .'.' •• ~! '.'...'.'>.•: ~ ,' o ·,J,, f 1 -------~-~-! .~~-;~·· ~ l. ~1-~J·· j~ .• -~.·\::-=~~\ i ·-~~-=~=-~~~~~~ .. --J ~ t" (' ' 1 , ' • . -· .._\.I t DA I --------·---->- ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ORANGE COUt...JTY, CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE 5 ANNEXATION WITH 11 RED, BLUE, AND·PINK BACKnONE 11 SEWER SYSTEMS ESTIMATED PROJECT COST November 1975 Item 8-inch V. C. P. in paved roads 8-inch V .C. P. in unpaved areas 48-inch-diameter manholes 60-inch-diameter manholes 4-inch wyes -1 per parcel fronting on backbone system 4-inch V. C. P. laterals for each wye Total Estimated Construction Cost November 1975 Inflation from November 1975 to June 1977 1 20 months at .1 percent per month Total Estimated Construction Cost ·Contingencies at 10 percent F!nance, legal, design engineering, construction stoking, cor.stiuciior. i~:;pccrion, cdmir:is!n.1!!'.)n, accounting, and incidental costs at 18 percent Right-of-way 2 Subtotal County Sanitation District No. 7 annexation fee 3 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Annual debt service with 7 pt:rcent, 15-year financing Annual Improvement District tax rate a. March 1975 assessed value= $5,465,000 Estimated Quantity 19 I 300 Fct:t 1,400 Feet 53 Each 14 Each 131 Each 3,850 Feet 0.5 Acres 550 Acres Unit Cost $ 19.00 $ 13.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 14.00 $10,000.00 $ 1,029.00 b. 147,200 Tax rate= 514651000 + lOO = 2.694 per $100 of assessed value Total Cost $ $ s 366,700 18, 200 37, 100 14,000 2,600 53,900 492,500 108,300 600,800 61,000 108,000 5,000 s 774,800 __ 566,000 $1,340,800 $ 147 I 200 Annual County Sanitation Distri.ct No. 7 property tax rate= 0.4026 per $100 of assessed value Annual 7th Maintenance District tax rate== 0.0190 per $100 of assessed value Total Annual Tax Rate= 3.12 per $100 of assessed value l Assumes the fol lowing schedule: June 1976 -Bond election June -December 1976 -Engineering and right-of-way work January 1977 -Begin construction, with 1-year time perio!fOYLE ENGINEERING June 1977 Midpoint of construction 2 Minimum 15-foot width. 3 Effcctivc since July 1975 to be revised July 1976. I • ~ 1, 1' I"'~ •. \, ·., :. -:, ·' ".: : '. -! ._,_)_1_·.~ ___ i __ · ---···-·--···· ••••.• L SUL~J:_ "1 1 ·., ~ . ~ " • ' 7 \ .., r -I 11 t.·· ('I ' : . ! ~ C•AI r •... :-.. -·· 1 ('l '(.' -. ,J ORANGE PARK ACRES SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CONNECTION CHARGE 1. Basis for Special Connect~on Charge a. The cost per lot to build the entire sewer system is the equitable price for all lots to pay regard! ess of construction phasing. b. The backbone systems would be paid for by all l<:>ts in the improvement district. c. The balance of the system would only be paid for by the lots not fronting on the backbone system. d •. A special connection charge would be paid by those lots fronting on the backbone system to help pay for the remaining portion of the sewers to complete the sewer system. 2. Cost Per Lot to Construct Entire System a. Number of lots= 425 .. L C-.t~ ..... -l. .... ..J .---.. ~~ ...... .i.; ................ ,.i. -(1 Q~t. t.n() L' a !.,...) 1 • '1 •tw4 • '~' v '"""'"'" t ,.,, • t v """'a • "-' 1 1 .....,. ......,.. _. • ~ • 1 -._.. -f -"""' - c. Cost per lot= 1,836,600 + 425 = $4,321 3. Special Connection Charge -11 Red Backbone" Sewer System a. b. c. d. Number of lots fronting on backbone = 80 Number of lots not fronting on backbone= 345 ·Total 425 Estimated construction cost= $450, 900 1 450 900 Cost per lot to construct bacKbone = 4 ;5 = $1,061 Cost per lot to complete system= Total cost per lot In itia I cost Remaining cost = $4,321 = 1,061 = $3,260 BOYLE ENGINEERING --------·--·-----·· --------------- Orange Park Acres Sewer Improvement District Special Connection Charge P~ge 2 e. The 80 front lots should pay $3,260 to equalize their costs with the 345 remaining lots not fronting on the backbone system. 450, 900 + 80+345 260,800 I 1, 12:. 700 I ";::; 1,836 ,600 345 or 1,061/lot+ 3,260/lot= $4,242/lot 4. Special Connection Charge -"Red Plus Blue Backbone" System · a. Total number of lots = 425 Lots fronting on backbone= 130 Remaining lots = '295 b. Estimated construction cost= $656,700 c. Cost per lot to construct system= 656,700 7-425 = $1,545 d. Remaining cost per lot= $4,321 -1,545= $2,776 e. Special connection charge for 130 front lots should be $2,776. f. Summary of costs 656,700 130+295 360,900 _) 130 { +Lai a: 900 J -;;- '295 $1,836,600 or 1,545/lot + 2,776/lot = $4,321/lot 5. Special Connection Charge -"Red, Blue, and Pink Backbone" System a. Total number of lots = 425 Nu mbcr of I ots fronting on backbone = 131 · Remaining lots = 294 Orange Park Acres Sewer Improvement District Special Connection Charge Page 3 b. Estimated construction cost= $774,800 774 800 c. Cost per lot to construct backbond = 4 ;5 = $1,823 d. Cost per lot to complete system Total cost per lot= $4, 321 Initial cost = 1,823 Remaining cost = 2,498 e. 131 lots fronting should pay special connection charge, $2,498 f. Summary of costs . ,..J 774,800 131+294 r 32~3;001· + + - 734,400 294 $1,836,600 or 1,823/lot + 2,498/lot = $4,321/lot 1-14-76 REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN INTRODUCE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW STAFF, PROCEDURES REGARDING SELECTION OF DESIGN ENGINEERS. DON FOX) CHAIRMAN JESSE DAVIS ALICE FRANKIEWICH MACLAIN BERNIE SVALSTAD JESS PEREZ AND ANNOUNCE THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL MEET IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS BOARD MEETING. ~ CALL A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 5:30 P.M.J WJ;DNEgDAYJ ~ INVITE 2 DIRECTORS FROM AMONG THE FOLLOWING: o?J ROBERT BATTIN ':\.A.l'1~ ~ ~-+ __ ? __ .tt-'-"':u. ~ EDWARD BYRNE DALE CHAPUT RALPH CLARK NORM CULVER .· I I EXCERPTS FROM SECTION 4 OF THE FINAL STAFF REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY (NCWQ) RELATIVE TO WATER QUALITY -PRESENT CONDITIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPROVEMENTS BY CONSTRUCTION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS .. .. ..., 2·. Marine Studies The Commission evaluated the environmental effects of disposing of municipal wastes into nearshore marine waters in the vicinities of San Juan, Puerto Rico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Puget Sound; and the Alask a nt New York and Southern California bignt§. The comparative ecological and economic feasibility of ocean di~£·~'.~~.1.~::<?J municipal effluents rece iving 'less than secondary treatment was''\~'$r1\\\\~~%);\v,-zed .for a numb e r of those locations, as well as for the t·1iami\\\\\i\rS.4i'J~{, area. Because of a -:1.::n.:::ra.l S1...2'.!:'•_i. '--~· .::.,~ W.:::. ;_,.:. .:.i_..__.u L L!:t:: t::·.f.~~:~~~:::; ui: r::u::..:..(.;..:..~c.l w ..::.:::; ::es i n :n .:!r .:.ne waters, the assessments focused princi'.P\'i1'ly upon the Southern California Bight, an area for which there exists a ··reasonable amount of infor- mation. The findings from that location, however, may apply to othe r coastal regions physi<;;~:~'J.,Y. and ecolog ically similar to it. The b::: :::::~~1\~I!~~~~::::· :::::::s a::' the areas studied a"e caused ny munici})ili~\\~'di s charges, although certain of t he mu n icipal effluents contain industrial wastes treated in municipal treatment plants. A major pollution problem in the Ne w York B~9.~t is offshore dump ing of municipal and indus t rial s ludg es ,,ij~~fo;,\\~~Jatively shallow waters overlying t h e contine n t al .•\\\\~~~if\I\\\\y~~·~.llution by raw wastes from fish proces sing plant s is ~~~~~~F.rentf)J~ local problem in certain sections of the Al askan ''::\}t~'g~.~.t .~~1?' that situation probably will be re:nedied for the rn~~~~\t~#.i'by application of primary wastewater treatment. In San jiJ'~'ri Bay and Pearl Harbor, both relatively shallo w bays surrounded by densely populated areas, point-source problems are both aggravated and masked by nonpoint poll.ution from I ' f: f: r.-,. r c· I ~ l i ~ ~ I i I I • ·IV-76 maritime t raffic and sto rm runoff . Disposal of partially treated municipal effluents through off- shore outfalls is presently either planned or practiced in the Southern California Bight and in the vicinities 9f Honolulu, Hawaii, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. In the Sou~ti~·i·n California ._ __ area, the water quality ·and environmental eff~:~¥.~\\9.f discharging partially treated municipal effluents through~).'f'ff~'}.\q\t.~ outfalls appear to be limited to the immediate viciniti~s oi'''ti\~>9utfalls when they are locate d in relatively deep waters having'''i°trong currents. Ecological changes rec9rded from the vicinities of the Southern California outfalls include changes in species diversity and biomass, and concentration of organisms that seem to find immediate use for subst~Q~es contained in the effluents. Several fish disea s es--~~~Iuding a fin rot condition and a skeletal disorder--appear at./~h}is~.@J.y high frequencies near some outfalls, but it is unc1··~'a'i\\\;\;,i1{~.fher the disorders a r e caused by the effluents or the u~\:E~\t'@.::,s=rowding of fishes near the outfalls. A number of other pat'h~i~gical disorders , occur in fishes that occupy outfall areas .fh the Southern California region, and the disorders may be directly related -..__,~o the outfalls. Fish diseases similar to those occurring in the immediate vicinities of the Southe rn California outfalls also appear at unusuall.~:A:~~gh frequencies around municipal s l udge dumping beds in ''\~J~~\\\&~2,\U!'.P..;k Bight. ~l\\l\\\\~\\\\\l\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\·:· Hv.rin .:-s lu•.:!o;;= ~h:po!:;a.l in.'\~£i4~\~'.::~'\ork Bight d amages the ocean bottom and water column as a\~\aj:>itat for many organisms, and appears to have a measur ~\ty toxic effect on both l arva and adults of certain shellfish s pecies. The se e ffects seem to be limite d to the irn.~ediate vicinities of sludge dumping sites, but ~9~~fa.~~ing the dumping practice promises to cause mor~· sever:~\Wi~'fot?i'~ms in part because of the limite d circulation patterns fth\~tj)~~\\~fi?..J,,.;h9.Y?. waters of the bight. Sludges dumped into the bi~h*-\\\'t;~wa~~:'f:i:F concentrate r ath er than dispers ing rapidly into ttig\'§~~ ocean. The ef f ects a r e measurab l e in bottom sediments ·e&ilected in the vicinities of ~ludge beds. The sed i ments contain certain heavy me t als i n concentrations considerably higher than concentrations of the same me t a l s in a.Jllb~~p t sedime nts . Although s ludges pre sently deposite d in the .:~~i.J~\\\~\\~.:,.Bight contain large amounts of me tals and other actually .,~\\\'?.'fi:d pcilk:?.\-\\\i ally toxic materials, most nutrients introduce d to •\\\\\\~~,,.bigh%\\f.~ppear t o come from the Hud s on River. "<r\\\~~~,,\\'' ,-. ,,,. i \ ' \.~., r L_ - • IV-77 The major environmental problems related to discharges of municipal wastes into the relatively closed marine systems at Pearl Harbor and San Juan Bay seem to center around nutrients, coliform bacteria, turbidity and generally noxiqµ,s aesthetic conditions. Nonpoint source pollution is a pr~~9.fuinant contributor to many of those problems, however. The priI]~}'.:Y'.0\~h.w,c;i.ct of P.L. 92-500 upon these bays will probably be .,'£:'.dec'r~}:i.~. in coliform bacteria content. ·:::\\\\\\'~\: -~~~:· Although data are quite limited, few if any large-scale measurable envirorunental effects are apparent from releasing untreated and partially treated sewage and organic indust:::-ial wastes into the Alaskan Bight. Ton:~.ht.ial currents disperse the wastes before effects can deveJ:,~P:~· ~~,e primarily for that reason implementation of the Act ~i:,fi: .. h&V.8 little or no effect upon water quality in the Ai~~}~fltW::Bight. 'l In op~n, freely-circulated coastal ar~:~~~~~h deep~~w~a~e~r~s~~'!iiMl81!!ii!~ receiving municipal effluents, maximum levels of environmental recovery will probably be achieved with secondary tFeab~'1t, and will probably be limited to the immediate vicinities of outfalls. Adverse environmental effects associated with BAT will be insignific~'4.¥\\\"!1f:~D. compared to changes resulting from application of se&'!\\i~\r~'Y.:W~!i,~ci.truent of municipal effluents discharged through outf~'i['~~\\\\\'ffi'~'' effects of EOD probabl -..... ou•_-\...e no+-i' ,...,.,,,ble only ~<~~\\'+.l'h. 0 ;TT'Tl1e~; =-t 0 ,,_; c_; _n __ ; +-_i· f>S o_f' c 1_1 t_f''!_11_s. y, :..J • ...... .._ ----:-~~~~~~:~ -----·· ---i;...;.. -~ - There is a marked scarcity ~~W'~ata relating environmenta611••~!!!!1• situations to pollution for all coastal regions of the nrtion. Most existing:':information comes from the Southern California and New Y9ffe\':~fu.tghts, and that information is of a preliminary nature •. ,~\~,~~\\\\i~iS\\\W:\\~\\~:· The assimilat'-~~/~\~.apacity of deep, circulating marirf"e~'""s~tems seems to be suC":}{\tJ'iat introduction of municipal sewage effluents does not increase .. regional concentrations of most potential pollutant material~ beyond natural background levels. •-=-.-!!I-_.._,. __ !!Ill!~~~· Theffi1:!:I'.~:?.;i.on' s marine studies indicat_e that large volumes of partial~J'&i¥.~~unicipal wastewaters probably can be discharged -.· .... ,..,. .. .._, __ -~ -:.-·::.·· in.to de:f'~hlr e ei~&\*;~rculating coastal waters in certain areas without signifi~~·~ma.p:~{'to local environments. Effluent limitations necessary to provide 1f4~ji\'t'.'e local environmental protection can be derived from studies of mett i1i in oceans, from an understanding of concentrations of different subst~nces that are toxic to marine life, and from considerations of health and aesthetic factors. The marine studies indicate that waste- .J IV-78 waters discharged to marine systems prob.ably could be released safely when they meet scientifically established water quality criteria applying"'-" to particular locations rather than the uniformally defined national treatment levels. Diffuser outfalls of appropriate lengths and depths can be designed to cause maximum dispersion of effluents wi th~.n offshore disposal areas. Adequate effluent limitations yieldingf~ni- mal environmental effects in offshore receiving waters ~a-ilSbe achieved by a variety of types and levels of wastewate~~~#"f~~~~t, if publicly owned treatment plants are carefully design~& a~a\#:g~~ted. . ·~:w~\~:· .... --.. The Commission's analyses indicate that plants treating something less than 10. million gallons of sewage per day may find higher treat- ment levels and shorter outfalls economical, without undue adverse ·environmental consequences. Redundancy sufficient to provide continu- ous enviro~~ental protection in case of partial~£ailure should be included in such plants. Plants with capac~~:~~ ~~s¢eding 10 million gallons a day will find it advantageous ecoriq~~9.iif to use primary or advanced primary treatment, and to discharge ti-1\l~\µ§q. .. lorlger outfalls • Operating energy requirements are similar for pritrl~ti~:advanced primary and sec~:mdary treatment levels. Tertiary treatment.~f~quires about · e .... -.~,ch energy as the other levels, and ranges from an equivalent cost for small dischargers to about twice the cost for larger ones. The total savings from building optimum environmentally acceptable treatment- disposal system combinations for.J?:Bl?licly owned treatment works dis- charging to -nearshore coastal wat~£~\\\~~.n .. be substantial when compared to the potential costs of meetini~~~~~~(~~tional treatment levels. The scarcity of data about th:~~ii~t=~·,,,:ffects of placing municipal wastes into coastal waters indicates t"ii~~ scientific studies similar to those currently in progress in the New York Bight by the National eanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Southern California Bight y Southern Californi~.:::Q..t;:?.qstal Water Research Project should be initated inunediately for all ~8g§t%~\ arr.as ~here ocean wasteftisposal of municipal effluents is practi:g\~~:J:'.~ .. ;:.~\t'.t.f?..01 .gh the information now avai.lable sugges s a environmental i~;P.&~~~~\Bi~~;~~ine discharge of adequately treated and adequately dispersed efii.~~h:ts receiving less than secondary treatment are minimal in the Califo:rfii~~\~:Light, the actual localized and universal short-and long-term effects of such practices cannot be'ul~erstood fully until much more information is developed from other coastal areas. Discharge of _~~y municipal or industrial wastewaters into coastal waters should not.:~\:lf~~i~W.~.~wed in any part of the nation until sufficient pre- liminary ::.~~:§:e·aI\~~J~\:h:3s been completed locally to: ::~~\~~~~ii.~::: ::::::i::t:a::e:::e:r::e:~e:::t:y:::~:a:~t- falls and disposal methods necessary to minimize local environmental effects. ( ALASKA OAHU, HAWAII SCJ. CALIF. BIGHT GAE.'\ T UASIN & S.W, DtSERT KEY -Nitrogen & Phosphorus (Nutrients) Turbidity Study Area ...... ~""""'Total Di~olved Solids A·M Geographic Regions l. . ."]Coliform Bacteria l. Figure IV-4 SCALE IWM Significant~ Moderate Minor GREAT LAKt:S n t>UEATO E ... ,. 1 RICO ~~ SOUTHERN PLAINS PUERTO RICO Note: Assessment studiM were conducted on specific ri"er rNch• Of' weter bodiff wtOi.ln each shaded aree. Natl. Commissiol' on Water Ou•llty November 1975 • ( ( ALASKA OAZ~VIAll ·OAHU, HAWAII GREAT BASIN & S.W. DESEfH KEY r.;: · Baseline Condition (µrllsentl Figu1·e IV-9 LEVELS OF "'....,.._11_..P,..T 1977 (8'1st pr.ict11:.tblu 1echnologyl TREATMENT ~ 01\ T 1933 (B,!~t ;.vJolable rr.chnologvl D f.00 lflomiroation of di~char!)t! A ·Ma GPoqr;1ph1c reg1011s SOUTHERN PLAINS Insufficient data PUERTO RICO Source: Natl. Commission on Water Quality compiled from Pnvironmental contractor reports November 1975 ( ; ' l I i i i 1. . i' I I I >·- • IV-87 4. Residuals Disposal e Generally it will be possible to dispose of virtually all resi- dual materials generated by municipalities and industries ~~~spending to the Act's requirements in a safe and environmentally acc~p~:?ilile manner. The residuals will consist almost entirely of liquid effl\i~~ts.. and semi- solid sludges generated by wastewater treatment technoi&ji~~::~\\i~o~~.t of those materials will be suitable for either land disposal or e·~B~{.~H cally beneficial use in land conditioning and agricultural practices. In many areas having insufficient land resources for residuals disposal, sludge incineration will provide environmentally safe options to land disposal. Residuals disposal will, however, pose ~ problem in highly populated areas with air quality problems prohiP.iting incineration, and without adequate land resources suitable for .~h~irorunentally safe land disposal methods. Insufficient data were obf$.~:.n@.~~yJD.ring the Commission studies to document adequately the amount of ~~S.14«~1s that can be recycled or reclaimed nationally. ·~'.~1~\\\\\\\\\\~::: ·:~~~\\~!~ • Based on Conunission studies, the national rate of genera.tion of sludges, effluents and other residual materials will increase substantially for the 1977 and 1983 levels of wastewater treatment compared to present residuals generation rates. Nat~9~al residuals generation rates will not increase significantly for ~:\\\f...Of:?.:::Jevel of wastewater treatment compared to 1983 generation rate~~~~t1~~\\{f~j~~~ntally acceptable residuals disposal methods are available, ho~~~s~1\~}\ftc:5f. virtually all lev'eJ.s of ............ .&-...., •• ...,~ ......... .&-.... ,....":\ ... ....,,..,...._~ ..... t:>,...,,; v-n~ ""'' n r::::~~~C\;_c;()() ....... ...> ............. ~ .. --------~~··-··--___ .! _____ -_J -·-···~\~\~\~:---• e The major problems resulting from residuals disposal will generally be institutional and economic rather than environ~ental in nature. In the vicin~~~\~-~ of industrial complexes and densely populated sections of the nati.¢HF\~~\~.:,idual materials can be transported to safe disposal sites, . but;A:~w~r a )lip:~ t. Moreover, many sections of the country suitable for safe ~ri~~~t.t0ri\0B~~~ficial use as disposal areas will not be immediately available .fd~~\~~:.\lf.h use for institutional reasons. . ·:;\\\\\\\\\~: 5. Environmental Impacts o An o.Y.~.rview of biological findings from the Commission's en- virorunent~~f:1~\t~~-selected to represent a range of water body type and water q~.~~~H:~y·:.p:t~~J?\.qms indicates the following with regard to fish, shellfi~1~N\::~.nd wi~:fj~\ife: ·::~~~\\\\\\\\\\~i~::. .::~\\\\\~:: . 1) Ff151Wi\\\mt\::·sor.te species, are currently present and propagating in very neai\"iy every water body in the country. 1 j J ' _J • IV-88 2) Sport or game fish, most frequently considered "desirable" and often most indicative of underlying system conditions, are often ~ more sensitive than rough or commercial species and have been virtually eliminated in about 40-50 percent of the total area studied by the Commission; half of this gross elirnin~~ion is due primarily to nonpoint source contributions. j::..~f· !~eci:!~~::;::e~~~s=~~ ~~o~:~~i~~!~ ~=v=h~e=~t:! :!~~\~~~~~~~,;l~!~~d by point and nonpoint source contributions, physical habit~f.changes and management practices. Some of these activities have benefited certain fish comrnuni ties. Most have bt~en detrimental. • In those areas where the fishery esse~t.J.ally has been eliminated, BPT and secondary treatment potE!ntially coul,~\\\\?~s~ore 20-25 percent nationally of that area not presently sui taf.i};~~~:.fg~\\protection and propagation. The value of this imp:rnvement is enhanced i~·.~.~~Jf8fa~:bf the fact that it occurs prim~rily in and downstream from large ~8~J;~~~on centers. Fishing activity, ·and other recreation associated ·:~~·~\~h cleaner water,' potentially becomes available for more people. • Achievement of BAT and BPWTT indicates the potential for another 10-15 percent improvement nationally in suitable area due primarily to additional dissolved oxygen impi.~Y~~p~s, and assumptions of projections at some of the sites of toxics afiiii6i\W8\l:i;.r:i.ent removal. o Elimination of point-sou;~~~~~~~:=~:e may add an additonal 5-10 percent improvement nationally in su.:Ftgk:le areas. -~:~· o Available biological measures of the structure and function of most ecosystems, incl~.d.tng those selected for Commission study, are inadequate to preci~~JY~~h?racterize all facets of these systems or all potential reaction.~~\\~p· ~9.¥~t-source abatement levels. o "Water qu~~;~~\wi~;~~\\\~~:vides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and \tl)\~hife ••. " will not be attained nationally by 1983 or even with t~e n~fional goal of elimination of point-source discharge. Nonpoint sources and physical alteration of water bodies ar.d surrounding watersheds will contunue to be primary deterrents in many areas • Jfif i/i~l\\,,,, . e.~~ct~~~#~~oint sources on biological corru:iunities.are not uniform13g:;~~~~n ~§.~er body types, between geographical regions or even between pa1~~\§{'.~\~he same water body. Consequently, reduction or elimination ~f~~1~se sources will not bring about uniform change. . I , l \ t I l f. I .. t I I I ~ i ' j· f l .J .... _______ _ IV-89 • In some areas where water quality is.sufficient to meet the stated goal, destruction of essential habitats will continue to influence plant and animal populations. • T"ne following findings generally apply to all effl~~nt abatement levels, .~a~r~\,, .. 1) Problems associated with the presence of toxie~fuat€rj:\~._.~ (i.e., fish kills, bird population declines, potential c~·rit.1\#'il:nation of f~od products) exist at·nearly all sites where data were -~Vailable. Documentation of ·existing concentrations and environmental effects of toxics is sufficient to justify major·efforts toward limit~tion, and ultimate control, as well as additional research into specific . :: fec::~poi n t sources contribute he av ilf~!\;-:t{f~\;· condition of the fisheries. Dominant forms and sources a·r:~\\\\(#.)~~-turbidity and sedimentation, primarily from land runoff, ·~:(Bt\\\~q.xic materials from urban sources and (c) excessive nutrients, esp@%W~lly in lakes, from la~d runoff. 3) The impacts of previous and planned physical changes, such as dams, channelization, and wetland drainage and fisheries management practices, such as stocking.A\\~~~9J~i.~. species introductions, are very important factors underlying:~\~{~~\EA~-~7!J:~j,al improvements in water quality and are unaffected by :\~1~¥.~ffe~r\~:~tion of the Act. • The following findings appl;\i\\,ionally to shellfish: ~~::· 1) Shellfish resources have been lost at nearly all of the Conunission's estuarine study sites due to (a) destruction of suitable I .::::::::::: .• habitat, and (bkW:frJhtamination from bacteria and toxic chemicals. Point-source c~$~f~i:\~~~ll not affect the former category significantly since much of ~tfil1~\~:~~8W~\\t$\Wa.ue to siltation of shellfish beds. Most areas with bif?t~:h_;~i: .. ~·ont<unination-problems will improve with achievement of seco~ai4~~:treab1ent requirements. If combined sewer contributions are contrdlled with 1983 requirements, additional beds will open, while smaller gains could be expected with the elimination of point-source discharges in those areas where effluents compi;JWf~\\~~\J.~rge percentage of the stream flow • . :~~\~\~\~~~~;:::::w~~~~%: 2) :~~:\\::\~~rtion~:\::-:::J nearly all estuarine sites showed potential for ·~ .. ·~'.··~!!··. .. •. ~ ........... confa!;l:~~W:::.?o:J\¥.:jnination due to urban storm runoff and other nonpoint source~'/;\~~\~f.i.a 11 y with an ti ci pated human population increases . • . -----·---· --· --··---· -.. -· [ IV-90 • The following findings apply nationally to w~ldlife: 1) Point-source abatement overall will.have a small but beneficial impact on the wildlife resources of the nation. The greatest threats to wildlife stern from destruction of habitat~. Point-source controls will contribute slightly to reducing the d.~~'.b:uction and alteration of wildlife habitat, but control of acd\1:\fties, such as dredging and filling of wetlands, would do far rno'~J/f%\S~.t the damage to wildlife. ·:· ·:~~\\\\~~\: 2) Water-borne pollutants do have deleterious effects on water related wildlife. Their effect is two-fold: toxic ~ubstances, especially pesticides and heavy metals, interfere directly with reproduction and migration of wildlife; p.gllutants such as oil or excessive nutrients exhibit indirect eff~ilits by damaging or destroying wildlife habitat. -~\\%\\\\\~~: .. ::\\\\\\\:~ } o Controlled ocean disposal of municip~~~~~,~~pts receiving treatment less stringent than secondary probably·a~~\be practiced without development of either short-or long-term ad~erse health and ecological effects in some coastal sections of the nation. It appears J ~ to be generally unnecessary to go beyond secondary treatment of munic- ipal wastewaters discharged to open coastal marine system through ade- quately designecroutfalls to m~~~~~i9 local and regional marine eco- systems in a natural state. Li't\~:t~\\\Wtf;\~~~:tion exists about the environ.- mental effects of dumping yn1.1'15.c\p~W\\:~~f.f:f~~:?~:ter sludgi:?s into the oc~=.!L ·.rnc data. a.va.i.ia.ble s-uggest tne p:La·E~i;~~· to .be loca.uy u.amaging, but. either insigni'f icant or unmeasurable?~~.\:a larger, regional basis. In some coastal areas, municipal effluent:~::· receiving only primary treatment can probably be released into nearshore coastal environments without measurable ecological ~ffect. For those areas, ·implementation of P. L. 92-500 will have negf¥~~*~~ environmental effects. Discharge of municipal and industrial was~;¢.%?1~~~ coastal waters should not be permitted in any part of the natiori%\f\$~~~~~~::.~;:!.\W:t\~;fore sufficient preliminary research has been completed localfy·W~B~~~~ .. ·~~(il determine whether or not the area is suitable for disposal, ···~h_B,.~\\\t:,2) determine the levels of wastewater treat- ment necessary to minimize~:.:i;cal environmental· effects. o The primart effect of point-source pollution of lakes and other standing jl~J:~:·~~:.bodies in the nation has been an accelerated ra.te of eutroph~&.tffhfi~~~~\"?:~:. to introduction of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosph?if~.· s"f~~l\fi.cant removal of nutrients from effluents will require wastewat~E~a~%g± technologies more stringent tha.n secondary for municipal .. d~.$1\~~Si~rs and at least the BAT level for industrial dischargers, but only in thB~f· areas where contributions of nutrients from nonpoint ·and uncontrolled· point sources are relatively minor. Advanced rates of ) f f · ,_.... J I l I I IV-91 eutrophication in standing water bodies generally result in dramatic bio- logical changes and development of obnoxious aesthetic situations. Application of wastewater treatment technologies that remove nutrients eventually will end ~hose conditions in many lakes in the country, but will have little overall effects upon the lakes and other_§~J.anding water bodies located in highly agricultural areas, and other a.f~~~ where nutrient input comes mainly from nonpoint sources. .:~~\\\\~~\:~\~::: . .. \\\\\r·.~·· -~~~\\\\\\\\\!~~·. • The Commission's environmental studies were una~ie ~~~~1¥J-iess adequately the question of delayed implementation of the ~equir~~~nts and goals of the Act. The primary reason for this relates to the length of time over which there have been measurements made in any single environ- mental system across the country. Most ecosystems, for which there is considerable baseline or historical informatiqrt~:-have only been studied for 5-10 years using modern ecological f ield_j:::~:~ShnJ_ques. There are far too few. of these lengthy studies available t~g\\\~~~ .:d.§J:·e to predict in a general sense the effects of the delayed impf~~~B$~tion of the Act, al- though data do exist to document the fact that ~8ht~n.ged pollution in- puts eventually damage ecosystems beyond a point o.f"\~;~:covery. Secondly, there have been few studies conducted over a long enough time frame to where recovery from·specific perturbations is will documented. ~ few case histories, however, dq.document the importance of decisive ac- tion to control effluents. Whe~~§~~~~~dation has not proceeded for a number of decades, recovery appe·~:f~W:~i{\\t:~\\~p~pid, of ten much more rapid than predicted initially. Since thi~::~~~~:~:~-~iS.1a, th~ t poi:it in ti~e whe~ the perturbation has proceeded to wh~;t~\irreversible environmental effects have occurred, is not well documentedi~~~hievement of secondary treatment and BPT in those areas where point sourtes predominate and control of toxics will bring the most significant changes under this Act and the greatest amount of prg~~~ss towards achieving the 1983 interim national goal. Control 0 r''tit:~l\ili\\\\i'imoff and combined sewer overflows as soon as possible is ~i~i\~·%.~:···t;~ result in additional significant inprove- ments in water quality. ·~Acs~·evernent of the 1983 interim goal may be effectively delayed until. m6~e adequate measurements can be taken to con- trol pesticides and other materials entering the nation's waters from nonpoint sou~fes and agricultural land. Achievement of the secondary treatment;~J&.~ri~ement nationally may not result in significant changes in coas'~,1~'ii~'f'i~~&~{~ ters. ·~:.\}fi~~#.;}s .:~~jificient information available to question the merits of establisHffi:J~~~r¥.f.ondary treatment for coastal municipalities as a high priority, althotl~h it should be stressed that few data are available and more information is required before policies can be established that are :!" .. ~ I 1 ~ :l .; ~ 1 .1 1 1 l j .1 1 , ; j I f l l 1 t -~ IV-92 J.:eaningful.. Eventual growth in the coa.s.t~l areas may result in ~ ~oads that will require secondary treatment in every instance. \ J. WAYNE SYLVESTER PHDNEs: C714J 540-2910 962-2411 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS P. o. Box 81 27 -1 0844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 1/12/76 Re: Permit-Agreement Woodruff says this is latest draft. No changes are anticipated. However, it is being reviewed by Director of EMA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lS I; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Zl 28 29 30 ~ 31 32 WDW:cm 1/12/7 . RE: DISTRICT 2 ADJOURNED MEETING TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR 1-15-76 AGENDA ITEM #3(A) PERMIT-AGREEMENT THIS PERMIT is made and entered into this ___ day of ----~--' 1976, by and between the COUNTY OF O~NGE, a political subdivision of the.State of California (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"), the ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as "FLOOD"), and the ORANGE, COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as "PARKS"), and COUNTY S&~ITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY (hereinafter referred to as n SANITATION. II) RECITALS WHEREAS, COUNTY holds title to certain properties along La PaL~a Avenue in the City of Anah~im, County of Orange, for an environmental corridor and regional park r~lated purposes; and WHEREAS, FLOOD operates and maintains an improved portion of the San~a Ana River Channel and ow~s certai~ p=ope=tics i~ fee titl~; --..:1 U.dU WHEREAS, PARKS is developing and operating regional parks for public purposes, designated as Yorba Regional Park and Featherly Regional Park; and WHEREAS, PARKS has previously awarded a contract to F. R. Stanfield Company of San Diego to construct improvements in Yorba Regional Park; and WHEREAS, SANITATION proposes to install, operate'and maintain a sewer pipeline traversing these properties as detailed on plans entitled "Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer, Contract Numbers 2-14-4 and 2-14-5" (hereinafter referred to as "S~WER"): and WHEREAS, SANITATION as the "Lead Agency," has certified compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and ~elated guidelines and procedures established by the County of Orange and requirements of other regulatory agencies, including the Cnited States I I .. i:. 1 Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality 2 Control Board, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, State of 3 California Air Resources Board, etc.; and 4 WHEREAS, the affected parties mutually recognize that the 5 proposed SEWER will provide for joint utilization of public properties, 6 to the benefit of the citizenry of Orange County, and that it is in 7 the interest of the general public to cooperate in joint use of such 8 properties; and g WHEREAS, it is mutually recognized that this project is necessary lO in order to solve several critical water quality problems and to 11 provide an economical and efficient disposal method for high salinity J2 waste that would otherwise degrade the ground water of the upper and 13 lower Santa Ana River Basins; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein 15 contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 16 !.. Sl'.NIT.Z\.T!0N shall !1a~.7 e p~epared, by a civil engineer ~'..lly 17 registered for practice in the State of California, engineering draw- 18 ings and specifications (hereinafter referred to as "specifications"), 19 for the proposed SEWER.construction traversin~ the Santa Ana River 20 Channel, Yorba.Regional Park, Featherly Regional Park, and other 21 COUNTY owned properties. 22 2. Specifications for the proposed SEWER construction, including 23 a progress schedule for work within COUNTY and FLOOD properties, shall 24 be submitted to the County of Orange for review and approval by tje 25 Director of its Environmental Management Agency (hereinafter referred 26 to as "DIRECTOR") , which· approval shall be issued .promptly upon 27 determination that said specifications and schedule meet COUNTY, 28 FLOOD, and PARKS criteria. 29 3. All work involving major obstiuction or possible diversion of 30 storm waters within the Santa Ana River Channel, and tributaries 31 thereto, shall be limited to the non-storm season (April 15 through 32 I WDW:cm 1/12/7 2. 1 October 15). SANITATION, th~ough its contractor, shall provide for 2 the free flow of runoff waters within this area during the construction 3 period; and shall perform any necessary and remedial work or action to 4 prevent any possible storm water overflow or breakage of existing 5 improvements; and shall require its contractors to provide proper and 6 adequate insurance coverage for any liability or damage that may be 7 caused by constractor's failure to co so. 8 4. SANITATION shall instruct its SEWER contractor to cooperate 9 with COUNTY inspectors to insure that all construction affecting COUNTY 10 and FLOOD ·properties is carried out in accordance with SANITATION'S 11 plans and specifications as approved by COUNTY. SANITATION shall be 12 responsible for all surveying, supervision, materials testing, safety 13 measures and other actions necessary for the completion of the construe- 14 tion. 15 5. In the event SANITATION or its contractor shall fail to 16 prosecute the construction in a diligent manner or in accordance with 17'' the approved specifications and progress schedule and the terms of this 18 Agreement, to the extent that the flood-carrying capacity of the 19 channel is restricted or damage to COUNTY's facilities has occurred as 20 a result of SEWER project, DIRECTOR may give written notice to 21 SANITATION to comply with the terms of this Agreement or to correct the 22 noticed conditions within ten (10) days of date of receipt of the 23 notice. In the event of SANITATION's failure to comply with the 24 DIRECTOR's notice, COUNTY may then enter the construction site and 25 perform any construction or modification necessary to restore the 26 channel or facilities to its former condition. In the event COUNTY ~ ~ 29 30 31 32 WDW:c 1/12/ prforms any construction pursuant hereto, SANITATION agrees to pay all costs for said remedial work within thirty (30) days of demand. Performance of such remedial work shall not relieve SANITATION of its responsibilities or related liabilities. I I 3. 1 In the event the permitted work, the use of the subject permit 2 area, or the timely completion of work thereunder is not accomplished 3 in accordance with the progress schedule, plans, permits and specifica- 4 tions approved by DIRECTOR, or performed in a manner compatible with 5 COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS operations, DIRECTOR may, in the public interest, 6 temporarily suspend all work in the permit area after giving written 7 notice to SANITATION specifying the specific areas of violation and 8 necessary measures to correct. Said. notice shall require SANITATION 9 to reply in writing to DIRECTOR within ten (10) working days as to 10 what procedures are being implemented to correct the violations. Upon 11 failure to reply or correct the violations, DIRECTOR may enter the 12 construction site and order all work terminated. Continuation of work 13 shall not resume until such time and under such conditions as approved 14 by DIRECTOR. In the event the DIRECTOR determines that an emergency 15 16 I 17 'i exists within the river channel or its flood' plain.which could cause damage or loss to life or pr0perty, hE? rr:ay order the immediate tE:rrninatl. r of work for the duration of the emergency and take whatever action he 18 deems necessary to assure the unobstructed flow of water. In the 19 event of such emergency action, neither COUNTY nor FLOOD shali incur 20 any liability whatsoever to SANITATION. 21 6. In consideration of the benefits to COUNTY, FLOOD and PARKS 22 and the general public, including the mitigation of pollution of 23 surface waters within Featherly Regional Park, which will result from 24 construction of the SEWER, COUNTY and FI.OOD hereby grant to SANITATION ~ a permit for the limited purpose of installing and operating an under- 26 ground sewer line facility and related appurtenances, together with 27 the right of ingress and egress to said facilities, through that ~ certain real property identified and described in Exhibit "A" attached 29 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. COUNTY, PARKS und 30 FLOOD reserve the right to perform any work and the right to develop, 31 I 32 I WDW:c 1/12/ 6 4. 1 operate and maintain public recreation facilities on or over any 2 portion of the permit area. Such activity may be performed without· 3 incurring any liability whatsoever to SANITATION. 4 7. In the event that existing and/or future development. of Yorba 5 Regional Park, ·Featherly Regional Park, or other COUNTY or PARKS 6 recreational facilities necessitate sanitary sewer disposal facilities, 7 SANITATION agrees to waive any and all annexation and connection 8 charges for connection to subject sewer line as a consideration for 9 the granting of this permit, unless such waiver is expressly prohibited 10 by Federal or State law or regulation. In the event any portion of 11 said COUNTY or FLOOD properties are changed to any use not exclusively 12 owned, operated and maintained as.a public recreational area or 13 facility, then COUNTY, its lessees, agents, or successors in interest 14 -shall pay to SANITATION the annexation and connection charges then in 15 effect for the area devoted to the new use. Said fees and charges . 16 shall be paid within thirty (30) days of invoke by SANITA·rION. 17 8. It is mutually acknowledged that Yorba Regional Park is 18 presently under construction by PARKS' contract with F. R. Stanfield 19 Company of San Diego, involving major improvements in the area of the 20 proposed sewer line and currently scheduled for completion by April 5, 21 1976, as shown on plans entitled "Yorba Regional Park--Phase I, 22 Project Y0-10." 23 Pursuant to SANITATION' s request and in the interest -0f coord;ina- 24 ti on, PARKS wi 11 initiate a change order, a copy of. which is attached 2S hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference herein made a part of this 26 Agreement, subject to mutual concurrence of SANITATION, PARKS, and 27 PARKS' contractor, for a delay of completion of subject park improve- 28 ments within the proposed sewer line area. As specified in said 29 30 31 change order, PARKS' contractor will remove and replace previously installed earthen material and related.irrigation pipes and other underground utilities that may interfere with SEWER construction and 32 I WDW:cm 1/12/7 s. 1 restore the permit area to the original grade ~er Yorba Park specif ica- 2 tions. SANITATION's contractor will then install sewer line facili- 3 ties and backfill subject area to "original ground" grade as shown on 4 and in a manner compatible with park plans, meeting the approval of 5 COUNTY inspector. SANITATION agrees to pay to PARKS all costs incurred 6 by reason of said change order within thirty (30) days of notification. 7 All park access approaches, utility lines, and 'storm drain facilities 8 are to be kept in operational condition by SANITATION. 9 9. SANITATION agrees to relocate, reconstruct or modify any 10 portions of the SEWER installation in the permit area promptly upon 11 written notice to do so by COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS. Relocation shall 12 not be required when other reasonable alternatives are available. 13 However, the final determination of the necessity of such action shall 14 rest solely in the discretion of the Board of .Supervisors of the 15 County of Orange. 16 10. Upon completion of SEWER construction, SANITATION aqrees to 17 reconstruct and restore all existing improvements and facilities 18 within COUNTY and FLOOD properties to a condition equal to or better 19 than existed prior to conunencement of SEWER construction and to the 20 satisfaction of DIRECTOR. 21 11. By acceptance of this permit, it is acknowledged that the 22 pipeline to be installed shall be the property of SANITATION and 23 SANITATION shall be responsible for operation and maintenance: 24 SANITATION acknowledges the fact that the pipeline may be subject to 2S possible damage as a result of erosion, flotation, channel degradation, 26 or other causes, including subsequent construction or reconstruct:.on 27 of COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS facilities, and further agrees to hold 28 COUNTY, FLOOD Cl.nd PARKS free from liability for any damages whatscever. 29 SANITATION further agrees to assume all responsibility for the 30 repair or cost of such repair for any damage to COUNTY, PARKS or -~Loon 31 facilities that may be caused by the installation, operation, mainte- 32 nance or failure of the permitted SEWER. WDW:c 1/12/ G 6. I _. .. ·1 l 1 2 3 4 5 12. Except insofar as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 7 hereof, pertaining to the reconstruction area in Yorba Regional Park, SANITATION shall provide for restoration of all COUNTY, PARKS and FLOOD facilities and properties in accordance with conditions existing at the start of consttuction as specified by DIRECTOR's assigned 6 inspector. SANITATION shall be responsible for the protection or 7 replacement of all trees, shrubbery, ground cover, etc., with the 8 understanding that substitution of certain items when practical and 9 reasonable shall be permitted subject to final review and discretion lO of DIRECTOR. SANITATION agrees to flag the alignment and all trees ll to be removed and notify DIRECTOR prior to any construction. 12 13 14 15 16 • I U .a.. 13. SANITATION agrees it shall require faithful performance bonds of its contractor and shall not exonerate such bonds.nor shall the work be accepted unti~ SANITATION receives written concurrence of DIRECTOR as to satisfactory completion of those portions of work located within or affecting COUNTY, PARKS and FLOOD.facilities. 18 securing of public liability and property damage insurance in appro- 19 priate amounts naming the County of Orange, Orange County Harbors, 20 Beaches and Parks District, and the Orange County Flood Control District 21 as additional insureds. This permit shall not be effective until 22 satisfactory evidence of such insurance is filed with the DIRECTOR. 23 15. SANITATION agrees to provide: (1) security measures for 24 adequate protection of the general public, (2) unobstructed. or alternate 2& means of access for public trails and roadways, (3) alternative or 26 uninterrupted service of all existing utility facilities, e.g., gas, 27 water, electrical, sanitary, etc. Stockpiling of earthen or construe- 28 tion materials, including storing or parking of equipment, shall be 29 prohibited on COUNTY or FLOOD properties without express permission 30 from the COUNTY inspector. Ingress and egress and areas allowed for 31 construction shall be limited as directed·by the COUNTY inspector. 32 I WDW:c 1/12/ 6. 7. 1 16. At least twenty-four (24) hours prior tb the commencement 2 of any stage of permitted construction, within COUNTY or FLOOD 3 properties, SANITATION shall notify COUNTY (Chief Construction Inspector 4 R. M.· Brazil) by telephone {834-2544 or 834-3410) or by writing, 5 addressed to the Environmental Management Agency, Development Division, 6 Post Office Box 1708, Santa Ana, CaLifornia 92702. SANITATION shall 7 provide the names and telephone numbers of its authorized representa- 8 tives responsible for coordination and supervision of the permitted 9 work. 10 17. All excavations by SANITATION shall be backfilled and 11 compacted to a relative density of at least ninety percent (90%) of 12 the maximum density as specified in California Test Method No. 216. 13 18. This permit shall become void in the event the use permitted 14 is abandoned for a period exceeding one (1) year. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties.hereto have caused this Permit- 16 Agreement to be properly executed and attested on the dates opposite I 17'' authorized signatures. 18 19 20 21 :~ Dated: ATTEST: WILLIAM E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex-officio.Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 23 By ----~------------~~-~---------Deputy 25, Dated: ---------------~' 1976 26 27 ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas L. Woodruff 29 General Counsel 30 fil 32 WDW:c 1/12/7 ·.a. COUNTY OF ORANGE,. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT By ___________ ~..-~~___,-----------~ Chairman of theirBoard of Supervisor COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By __________________________________ ~ Secretary .. ' 1 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 2 3 H. G. Osborne, Director, 4 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 5 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL 8 Orange County, California 9 By 10 Deputy 11 Dated: 12 13 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 1. ' 14 i 1 15 I j Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer, i 16 County Sanitation District No. 2 17 I l 18 t t ' 19 l ·i 20 l I ! 21 1 22 23 24 i5 26 27 .. 28 29 .. 30 31 .._.,. 32 .• 9. . j ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -.,,,., 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WDW:crn 1/12/7 PERMIT-AGREEMENT THIS PEru1IT is made and entered into this day of , 1976, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political -------- subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") , the ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD cm~TROL DISTlUCT (hereinafter referred to as "FLOOD"), and the ORANGE C0Ulh Y HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as "PARKS"), and COUNTY Sl\NI'I'ATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY (hereinafter refer~ed to as "SANITATION.") RECITALS WHEREAS, COUNTY holds title to certain properties along La Pal!i:w Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, for an environmental corridor and regional park related purposes; and WHEREAS, FLOOD operates and maintains an improved portion of the Santa Ana River Channel and owns certain properties in fee title; and WHEREAS, PARKS is developing and operating regional park~.:; fol~ public purposes, designated as Yorba Regional Park and Featherly Regional Park; and WHEREAS, PARKS has' previously awarded a contract to F. R. Stanfield Company of San Diego to construct improvements in Yorba Regional Park; and WHEREAS, SANITATION proposes to install, operate and maintain a sewer pipeline traversing these properties as detailed on plans entitled "Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer, Contract Numbers 2-14-4 ) and 2-14-5" (hereinafter referred to as "SEWER"); and WHEREAS, SANITATION as the "Lead Agency," has certified compliance with the California Environmental Qua.li ty Act of 19 70 and related guidelines and procedures established by the County of Orange and requirerr.ents of other regulatory agencies, including the United States I I 1.. ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 'l 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~·~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WDW:cm 1/12/7 En.vironm~ntal Protection Agency, California Regional Water. Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, State of California Air Resources Board, etc.; and WHEREAS, the affected parties mutually recognize that the proposed SEWER will provide for joint utilization of public properties, to the benefit of the citizenry of Orange County, and that it is in the interest of the general public to cooperate in joint use of such properties; and WHEREAS, it is mutually recognized that this project is necessary in order to solve several critical water quality problems and to provide an economical and efficient disposal method for high salinity waste that would otherwise degrade the ground water of the upper and lower Santa Ana River Basins; . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SANITATION shall have prepared, by a civil engineer duly registered for practice in the State of California, engineering draw- ings and specifications (hereinafter referred to as "specifications"), for the proposed SEWER construction traversing the Santa Ana River Channel, Yorba Regional 'Park, Featherly Regional Park, and other COUNTY owned properties. 2. Specifications for the proposed SEWER construction, including a progress schedule for work within COUNTY and FLOOD properties, shall be submitted to the County of Orange for review and approval by the Director of its Environmental Management Agency (hereinafter referred to as "DIRECTOR"), which 'approval shall be issued.promptly upon determination that said specifications and schedule meet COUNTY, FLOOD, and PARKS criteria. 3. All work involving major obstruction or possible diversion of storm waters within the Santa Ana River Channel, and tributaries thereto, shall be limited to U1e non-storm season (April 15 through I 2. . ! ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WDW:c 1/12/ - October 15). SANITATION, through its contractor, shall provide for the free flow of runoff waters within this area during the construction period; and shall perform any necessary and remedial work or action to prevent any possible storm water overflow or breakage of existing improvements; and shall require its contractors to provide proper and adequate insurance coverage for any liability or damage that may be caused by constractor's failure to do so. 4. SANITATION shall instruct its SEWER contractor to cooperate with COUNTY inspectors to insure that all construction affecting COUNTY and FLOOD properties is carried out in accordance with SANITATION'S plans and specifications as approved by COUNTY. SANITATION shall be responsible for all surveying, supervision, materials testing, safety measures and other actions necessary for the completion of the construe- tion. 5. In the event SANITATION or its contractor shall fail to prosecute the construction in a diligent manner or in accordance with the approved specifications and progress schedule and the terms of this Agreement, to the extent that the flood-carrying capacity of the channel is restricted or damage to COUNTY's facilities has occurred as a result of SEWER proje~t, DIRECTOR may give written notice to SANITATION to comply with the terms of this Agreement or to correct the noticed conditions within ten (10) days of date of receipt of the notice. In the event of SANITATION's failure to comply with the DIRECTOR's notice, COUNTY may then enter the construction site and perform any construction or modification necessary to restore the channel or facilities to its former condition. In the event COUNTY perfonns any construction pursuant hereto, SANITATION agrees to pay all costs for said remedial work within thirty (30) days of demand. Performance of such remedial work shaJ.l not relieve SANITATION of its responsibilities or related liabilities. I / 3. ...,,, 1 In the event the permitted work, the use of the subject permit 2 area, or the timely completion of work thereunder is not accomplished 3 in accordance with the progress schedule, plans, permits and specifica- 4 tions approved by DIRECTOR, or performed in a manner compatible with 5 COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS operations, DIRECTOR may, in the public interest, 6 temporarily suspend all work in the permit area after giving written 7 notice to SANITATION specifying the specific areas of violation and 8 necessary measures to correct. Said notice shall require SANITATION 9 to reply in writing to DIRECTOR within ten (10) working days as to 10 what procedures are being implemented to correct the violations. Upon 11 failure to reply or correct the violations, DIRECTOR may enter the 12 construction site and order all work terminated. Continuation of work 13 shall not resume until such time and under such conditions as approved 14 by DIRECTOR. In the event the DIRECTOR determines that an emergency 15 exists within the river channel or its flood plain which could cause 16 damage or loss to life or property, he may order the immediate terminati n 17 of work for the duration of the emergency and take whatever action he 18 deems necessary to assure the unobstructed flow of water. In the 19 event of such emergency action, neither COUNTY nor FLOOD shall incur 20 any liability whatsoever to SANITATION. 21 6. In consideration of the benefits to COUNTY, FLOOD and PARKS 22 and the general public, including the mitigation of pollution of 23 surface waters within Featherly Regional Park, which will result from 24 construction of the SEWER, COUNTY and FLOOD hereby grant to SANITATION 25 a permit for the limited purpose of installing and operating an under- _.....,,,. 26 ground sewer line facility and related appurtenances, together with 27 the right of ingress and egress to said facilities, through that 28 certain real property identified and described in Exhibit "A" attached 29 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. COUNTY, PA~KS arid 30 FLOOD reserve the right to perform any work and the right to develop, 31 I 32 / WDW:c 1/12/ 6 4. ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .....,, 27 28 29 30 31 32 WDW:cm 1/12/7 operate and maintain public recreation facilities on or ovez any portion of the permit area. Such activity may be performed without incurring any liability whatsoever to SANITATION. 7. In the event that existing and/or future development of Yorba Regional Park, Featherly Regional Pa~k, or other COUNTY or PARKS recreational facilities ~ecessitate sanitary sewer disposal facil~ties, SANITATION agrees to waive any and all am1exu.tion and connection charges for connection to subject sewer line as a consideration for the granting of thi~ permit, unless such waiver is expressly prohibited by Federal or State law or regulation. In the event any portion of said COUNTY or FLOO~~roperties are changed to any use not exclusively owned, operated and maintained as a public recreational area or facility, then COUNTY, its lessees, agents, or successors in interest shall pay to SANITATION the annexation and connection charges then in effect for the area devoted to the new use. Said fees and charges shall be paid within thirty (30) days of invoice by SANITATION. 8. It is mutually acknowledged. that Yorba Regional Park is presently under construction by PARKS' contract with.F. R. Stanfield Company of San Diego; involving major improvements in the area of the proposed sewer line and' currently scheduled for completion by April 5, 1976, as shown on plans entitled "Yorba Regional Park--Phase I, Project Y0-10." Pursuant to SANITATION's request and in the interest of coordina- tion, PARKS will initiate a change order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference herein made a part of this Agreement, subject to mutual concurrence of SANITATION, PARKS, and PARKS' contractor, for a delay of completion of subject park improve- ments within the proposed sewer line area. As specified in said change order, PARKS' contractor will remove and replace previously installed earthen material and related irrigation pipes and other underground utilities that illay interfere with SEWER constr~lction I 5. ~ 1 and restore the permit area to the original grade per Yorba Park speci- 2 fications. SANITATION's contractor will then install sewer line 3 facilities and backfill subject area to "original ground" grade as 4 shown on and in a manner compatible with park plans, meeting the approva 5 of COUNTY inspector. SANITATION agrees to pay to PARKS all costs 6 incurred by reason of said change order within thirty (30) days of 7 notification. All park access approaches, u~ility lines, and storm 8 drain facilities are to be kept in operational condition by SANITATION. 9 9. SANITATION agrees to relocate, reconstruct or. modify, entirely 10 at its expense, any portions of the SEWER installation in the permit 11 area promptly upon written notice to do so by COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS. 12 Relocation shall not be required when other reasonable alternatives are 13 available. However, the final determination of the necessity of such 14 action shall rest solely in the discretion of the Board of Supervisors 15 of the County of Orange. 16 10. Upon completion of SEWER construction, SANITATION agrees to 17 reconstruct a~d restore all existing improvements and ·facilities 18 within COUNTY and FLOOD properties to a condition equal· to or better 19 than existed prior to commencement of SEWER construction and to the 20 satisfaction of DIRECTOR. 21 11. By acceptance of this permit, it is acknowledged that the 22 pipeline to be installed shall be the property of SANITATION and 23 SANITATION shall be responsible for operation.and maintenance. 24 SANITATION acknowledges the fact that the pipeline may be subject to 25 possible damage as a result of erosion, flotation, channel degradation, "" 26 or other causes, including subsequent construction or reconstruction 27 of COUNTY, FLOOD or PARKS facilities, and further agrees to hold 28 COUNTY, FLOOD and PARKS free from liapility for any·damages whatsoever. 29 SANITATION further agrees to assume all responsibility for tl:e 30 repair or cost of such repair for any damage to COUNTY, PARKS or FLOOD 31 facilities that may be caused by the installation, operaticn, mainte- 32 nance or failure of the permitt~d SEWER. WDW:cm 1/14/7 6. • I ~' 1 12. Except insofar as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 8 2 hereof, pertaining to the reconstruction area-'-tn Yorba Regional Park, 3 SANITATION shall provide for restoration of all COUNTY, PARKS and 4 FLOOD facilities and properties in accordance with conditions existing 5 at the start of construction as specified by DIRECTOR's assigned 6 inspector. SANITATION shall be responsible for the protection or 7 replacement of all trees, shrubbery, ground cover, etc., with the 8 understanding that substitution of certain items when practical and 9 reasonable shall be 'permitted subject to final review and discretion 10 of DIRECTOR. SANITATION agrees to flag the alignment and all trees 11 to be removed and notify DIRECTOR prior to any construction. 12 13. SANI'I'ATION agrees it shall require faithful performance 13 bonds of its contractor and shall not exonerate such bonds nor shall 14 the work be accepted until SANITATION receives written concurrence of 15 DIRECTOR as to satisfactory completion of those portions of work 16 located within or affecting COUNTY, PARKS and FLOOD facilities. 17 14. SANITATION acknowledges responsibility for the contractor's 18 securing of public liability and property damage insurance in appro-- 19 priate amounts naming the County of Orange, Orange County Harbors, 20 Beaches and Parks District, and the Orange County Flood Control District 21 as additional insureds. This permit shall not be effective until 22 satisfactory evidence of such insurance is filed with the DIRECTOR. 23 15. SANITATION agrees to provide: (1) security measures for 24 adequate protection of the general public, (2) unobstructed or alternate 25 means of access for public trails and roadways, (3) alternative or ...,., 26 uninterrupted service of all existing utility facilities, e.g., gas, 27 water, electrical, sanitary, etc. Stockpiling of earthen or construe- 28 tion materials, including storing or parking of equipment, shall be 29 prohibited on COUNTY or FLOOD properties without express permission 30 from the COUNTY inspector. Ingress and egress and areas allowed for 31 construction shall be limited as directed by the COUNTY inspector. 32 I WDW:c 1/12/ 6 7. ~· 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '26 ..._,, 27 28 29 30 31 32 WDW:c 1/12/7 . 16. At least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the corrunencernent of any stage of permitted construction, within COUNTY or FLOOD properties, SANITATION shall notify COUNTY (Chief Construction Inspector R. M. Brazil) by telephone (834-2544 or 834-3410) or by writing, addressed to the Environmental Management Agency~ Development Division, Post Office Box 1708, Santa Ana, California 92702. SANITATION shall provide the names and telephone numbers of its authorized representa- tives responsible for coordination and supervision of the permitted work. 17. All excavations by SANITATION shall be backfilled and compacted to a relative density of at least ninety percent (90%) of the maximum density as specified in California Test Method No. 216. 18. This permit shall become void in the event the use permitted is abandoned for a period exceeding one (1) year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Pennit- Agreement to be properly executed and attested on the dates opposite authorized signatures. Dated: l~TTEST: WILLIAM E. ST JOHN County Clerk arid ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By ------·~~-------------~--------~ Deputy Dated: -------- APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas L. W:--·~ "' :- General Conn: ... , ·.l I 1976 8 .· COUNTY OF ORANGE,. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND ORANGE COUN'l'Y HARBORS, BEACHES AND PAHKS DISTRICT By -C-:-h-a--=i-r_m_a_n_o___,,,f~th.-e-1..-r_B_o_a_i: __ ....,,.d_o_,f~S-u-p·-. e-r-v---:-i-s-or .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Chairman E·~{ ~--;::-----:------~----~--~--~~--~-Secretary . " ....,,,,,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "'-"" 26 27 28 29 30 31 :32 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: H. G. Osborne, Director, Orange County Environmental Management Agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL Orange County, California Dated: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: S T A F F R E P 0 R T January 14, 1976 TO: Fred A. Harper, General Manager FROM : Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8 127 108.C.C ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTA IN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71 .C ) 540-2910 (71 .C) 962-2411 SUBJECT: Negotiations for Right-of-Way -Green River Golf Course Santa Ana River Interceptor, Contract No. 2-14-5 In a recent meeting with members of the Bicklyn Corporation, t he owners and operators for the lease from the Santa Ana Valley Irri gation Company for t he Green River Golf Course, I, a long with Bruce Witcher of the Di s t r i ct's staff, Don Martinson of Lowry and Associates, the District's consulting engineer, and S. S. Zarubica, the contractor for the a bove-mentioned contract, were able to make adjustments in the contract requirements to best fit the operation of the Golf Course and at the same time meet the demands of the construction contractor. As a result of the mutual agreement between the Dis trict's staff and contractor and that of the operators of the Green River Golf Course, I, on the beha lf of the District, agreed to certain conditions which were different from those offered by Tom Wood ruff in his l etter of December 29, 1975. The major difference between the offer I extended to the Green River Go l f Course as compared to that of Tom Woodruff, was a reduction of the temporar y construction easem ent from 90 -feet to 30-feet at a savings of approximately $4,600. A condition of the use of the t emporary easement was that the contractor expedite his construction efforts to minimize the i mpacts on the Golf Course activities. The contractor has stated that he can h ave the pipeline work constructed within 45-days and the metering structure completed within five months. It was mutua lly agreed that the contractor be given a period of 60-days and six months respectively to perform the above-mentioned task and i n the event that the contractor extend ed hims elf beyond this period of time, the District would pay to the Green Rive r Golf Course a sum of $100 per day every day beyond that as agreed upon. It was a lso agreed that delays beyond the contro l of the District or the contractor such as inclement weather, l abor disputes, delays in material deliveries, etc., would extend the above-mentioned time periods. Another adjustment between that which was agreed upon and that offered by Mr. Woodruff was a slight adjus tm ent in the metering structure and the pipe alignment to avoid removal of existing trees, but necessitating the replanting of the earthen bank adjacent to the railroad property. The Go l f Course operators requested that this be planted in order n ot to bare the bank to t he Golf Course. It is felt that these conditions are more conducive to the actual operations of the District's contractor and within the appraisal amount s as set forth in the appraisal report. Mr. Fred A. Harper January 14, 1976 Page Two In a telephone conversation with Mr. Bicklyn, President of Bicklyn, Inc., he has indicated that all of the conditions contained in my letter of January 13, 1976 are acceptable and he will give a letter of entry pending receipt of the final legal documents to be executed by Bicklyn, Inc., which will be acted upon at their next Board Meeting of February 10th. REL:hje . ...,,,,,, 1 ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, EEACHES & PARKS DISTRICT Contract Change Order No. 4 Agreement No. Y0-10 2 For Construction of: Yorba Regional Park Phase I Development 3 To: F. R. Stanfield Co. , Contractor 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 You are hereby directed to make the following described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifi- cations on this contract. Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid as deter- mined in accordance with Specification Section 1-03.05. Cooperate with Orange County Sanitation District, in order to allow construction of the Santa Ana River Regional Interceptor Sewer to proceed along its "La Palma Ave." align- ment in advance of interfering portions of Park construction that has not yet been performed or can at this time be deferred. Such Park construction that must be per- formed in order to have other Park areas and facilities completed and opened to the public as originally scheduled shall continue. Contract time shall be extended as necessary (now estimated as being 60 calendar days) to allow for the proper completion, per specifications, of those portions of Park construction that are hereby directed to be deferred. Park construction not interrupted by this change order shall be completed within the original allotted contract time. All payment for work performed, including but not limited to that listed below, will be made at the total agreed lump sum price of the following 8 or 9 enumerated items. Progress payments will be made in accordance with pertinent specification provisions. 1. Without disturbing original or now existing embankments outside of the 145' wide road R/W and "Corridor" adjacent to La Palma Avenue, excavate to original ground elevations as shown on Park construction plans all material 28' south to 128' south of City of Anaheim Road R/W and transport and stockpile the removed material for the agreed lump sum price of $1~1,400.00. Agreed lump· sum price arrived at as being approxi- mately 60,000 C.Y. @ $0.69 per C.Y. 2. Load and transport material from Item No. 1 stockpile and replace and compact, within the above excavated area, to Park finish gra.de for agreed lump sum price of' $48,600.00. Agreed lump sum price arrived at as being approximately 60,000 C.Y. @ $0.81 per C.Y. 3. Derock and fine grade the upper 12"-18" of select material from the above designated area for the agreed lump sum price of $15,000.00. Agreed lump sum price arrived at as being approximately 500,000 S.F. @ $0.03 per S.F. .,.--,.-, 1 4. To protect the plantings within the corridor and road R/W area where land- 2 scaping is deferred by reason of this change order, install 6' chain link security 3 fence and gates as necessary and at termination of needed period (approximately 90 4 days) dismantle and remove at agreed lump sum price of $12,000.00, Agreed lump sum 5 price based on an estimated 12,000 L.F. of fence @ $~.00 per L.F. This item and pay- 6 ment may be deleted at the discretion of the Director. 7 5. Added landscaping and irrigation costs: include maintenance of plants and trees 8 while in storage; remove and replace existing water and electrical supply lines; 9 install temporary irrigation loop system; reclean all lines of sand and foreign matter 10 and replace filters all at agreed lump sum price of $42,039.00. 11 6. Escavate, compact and regrade roads and bike trails in desi~nated area at agreed 12 lump sum price of $2,500.00. Agreed lump sum price arrived at as being approximately 13 5, 000 L. F. @ $0. 50 per L. F. 14 7. Surveying for layout of roads, bike trails, sign position and topo area@ 15 agreed lump sum price of $1,000.00. 16 8. Storage and rehandling of benches, barbecues, signs, light standards and 17 electrical equipment at agreed lump sum price of $1,000.00. 18 9. Provide temporary water and power supply for estimated 90 days @ agreed lump 19 sum price of $2,105.00. 20 Total Agreed Lump Sum Price: $165,6~4.00 21 I CERTIFY THAT ORDINANCE 2'Tl 7 HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 22 23 24 SUMMARY OF CONTRACT COST STATUS APPROVED AS TO FORM ·._,-25 Original Contract Bid Price $2,078,517.00 Preceding Changes 101,378.14 ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Change 165 1 644.oo 26 New Estimated Contract Cost: 271 By reason of this order, the time for comnletion will be (as shown above). By ____________________________ __ Deputy 28 We, the undersigned contractor·, agree that if this proposal is approved, we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and per- 29 form all services necessary for the "1ork above s-pecified, a.nd will .~ccept as full pay- ment therefore the prices shown a.bove. 30 Accepted Date -------------------------Contractor ___ F--.,._R_...._s_t~a-n_f~i-e_l_d __ c_o_. ____________ __ 31 By------------------------------------- Title ____________________________ __ 32 Submitted by: ______________________________ Approval Recommended: ___________________ _ Orange County Sanitation District Approved by: Date: __________________________ __ Board of Supervisors ...._.,. 1 ORANGE COUN'l'Y HARBORS, BEACHES & PARKS DISTRICT Contract Chan~e Order No. 4 Agreement No. Y0-10 2 For Construction of: Yorba Regional Park Phase I Development 3 To: F. R. Stanfield Co., Contractor 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 You are hereby directed to make the following described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described vork not included in the plans and specifi- cations on this contract. Description of vork to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be pnid as deter- mined in accordance vith Specification Section 1-03.05. Cooperate vith Orange County Sanitation District, in order to allov construction of the Santa Ana River Regional Interceptor Sewer to proceed along its "La Palma Ave." align- ment in advance of interfering portions of Park construction thnt pas not yet been performed or can at this time be deferred. Such Park construction that must be per- formed in order to have other Park areas and facilities completed and opened to the public as originally scheduled shall continue. Contract time shall be extended as necessary (now estimated as being 60 calendar days) to allow for the proper completion, per s~ecifications, of those portions of Park construction that are hereby directed to be deferred. Park construction not interrupted by this change orde~ shall be completed within the original allotted contract time. All payment for work performed, including but not limited to that listed below, will be made at the total agreed lump sum price of the following 8 or 9 enumerated items. Progress payments will be made in accordance vith pertinent specification provision~. 1. Without disturbing original or now existing embankments outside of the 145' wide road R/W and "Corridor" adjacent to La Palma Avenue, excavate to original ground elevations as shown on Park construction plans all material 28' south to 128' south of City of Anaheim Road R/W and transport and stockpile the removed material for the agreed lump sum price of $41~400.00. Agreed lump· sum price arrived at as being approxi- mately 60,000 C.Y. @ $0.69 per C.Y. 2. Load and transport material from Item No. 1 stockpile and replace and compact, within the above excavated area, to Park finish grade for agreed lump swn price of $48,600.00. Agreed lump sum price arrived at as being approximately 60,000 C.Y. @ $0.81 per C.Y. 3. Derock and fine grade the upper 12"-18" of select material from the above desi~noted area for the agreed lump sum :price of $15,000.00. Agreed lump sum price arrived nt as being approximately 500,000 S.F. @ $0.03 per S.F. r -- 1 4, To protect the plantings vithin the corridor and road R/W area vhere land- 2 scaping is deferred by reason of this change order, install 6 1 chain link security 3 tence and gates as necessary and at termination of needed period {approximately 90 4 days) dismantle and remove nt agreed lump sum price of $12,000,00. Agreed lump sum 5 price based on an estimated 12,000 L ,F. of fence@ $1 .. 00 per L.F . This item and pay- 6 ment may be delete d at the discretion of the Director. 7 5. Added lands caping and irrigation costs : include mainte na nce of plants and trees 8 vhile in s torage ; remove and rep lace existing water and electrical supoly lines; 9 install t emporary irrigation loop s ystem ; reclean all lines of sand and forei g n matte r 10 and r eplace filters all at a greed lump sum price of $42,039,00. 11 6. Es cavate, compact and regrade roads and bike trails in desig nate d area at a g r eed 12 lump s um p rice of $2,500.00 . Agr eed lump sum price arrive d at as being a p proximately 13 5,000 L.F. @ $0.50 per L.F. 14 7. Surveying for layout of roa ds, bike trails , s i gn p o s ition a n d top o area @ 15 a gr eed lump s um p rice of $1,000.00. 16 8. Storage and rehandling of b e nches , barbecues, s i gns , l ight s tand ards and 17 ele ctrica l equi pme nt at agree d lump sum p rice of $1,000,00. 18 9, Provide temp orary water and power supply for estimated 90 day s @ a gr eed lump . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 sum p rice of $2 ,10 5 .00 • Total Agre ed Lump Sum Price: $165 ,6 44.00 I CERTIFY THAT ORDI NANCE 2'717 HAS BEEN COMPLI ED WI TH . SUMMARY OF CONT RA CT COS T STATU S Orig i na l Contrac t Bid Pric e $2 ,07 8 ,517.00 Prec e ding Cha nges · 101,378 .14 Thi s Ch a ng e 165 ,6l1h.oo Ne w Es t im ate d Co ntra ct Cos t: $2 ,345 ,5 39 .14 AP PRO VED AS TO FORM ADRI AN KUYPER , CO UNTY COUN SEL ORANGE COUNTY, CA LIFORN IA Bv r eason of t h i s order . t h e tim e fo r comn l et i on will b e (as s h own abov e ). 28 We , the un de r s i gned co n t r actor , a gree t h a t i f thi s p r opos al i s nn prove·:l , we wil l -p r o v ide a ll e qui pme nt, f u rn i s h a l l ma t e r i als , except ns ma y othe r wis e be no t e d abov e , and per - 2 9--form al~ serv h :es-n ec essa.ry fo r "v hc v orR abov e s -p ec.i fi e d , and wi l l .fl.CCe pt as ful l pa~r ment the r efor e the pri c es s hown a b ov e . 30 Acce p t e d Date Contractor F . R . Stnn f :! eld Co . ~--------------~-------------------~--~~~----------~~ 31 By ~----------~----------------~------~--~ 32 Submitted by:~~------~~~~------~-----Arp r o va l R e c ornm e nd e d :~--~- Orange Co u nty Snn itntio n Di s t ri ct Ap pr ov ed by: Date : ----------~--~----~~--~ Bo a r d o f Sup e rvi s o r s MEETING DATE January 14. 1976 TIME 7:30 p.m. lJ I ST R I CT S 1. 2 . 3 . s . 6 . 7 . 8 and 11 DISTRICT 1 ' ../ RI MA •••••••• ~n'S::-:DRICH) •••••• BATTIN ••••• .; -== == L_,,,NS) •••••••••• GARTHE ••••• _v ____ _ SHARP) •••••••••• SALTARELLI._./_--. __ DISTRICT 2 L VONS · · .. · • • • • • CALLAHAN. • • ( -t ~tt> EWING .......... CHAPUT ...... r--;--- DIEDRICH) .••••• CLARK ••••••• ~ -.J.--- GARTtiEL I ...... EVANS ....... ---r -..4--- THOM). I ••••••••• KAYWOOD • • • • / 4 == FOX) ............ MAC KA IN. • • t/ ~ JACKMAN) ••••••• PEREZ....... ./ _j_ == PERRY....... ./ - !SVALSTAD) •••••• SCOTT ••••••• -./--_..--- DUNN[:) •••••••••• WINN ••••.••. --r------ WARD) ........... WOOD. • • • • • • • I ~ == GRAHAML ••••••• YOUNG ••••••• _L_ _ ... __ _ DISTRICT 3 x~ HOMRIGH(\USEN).cox .•••••••• ~ ..... 1 COLL I NS) ••••••• BYRNE ••••••• _. __ ,,j. __ _ CULVER..... -1 .t ~GRIFFIN) ••••••• DAVIS •.••••• -". -~ == GARTH EL ••••••• ~ •••••• --Y-• W' "' KA I N) •••••• F 0 X. • . • • • • • • -, --..1--- (~HJ .......... GRAHAM • • • • • I ~ == (THOM) ••••••••••• KAYWOOD •••• _/_ -"""-__ (soNJU) ••• , •••••• MAC LAIN ••• ~~ -- (BLACKMANJ •.•••• MC KNEW .••• _v ____ _ OLSON ••• 1 ..... --7---~-__ ! D I ED R I CH ) • . . • • • SCH M I T. I:~! • -. GI BBS) .......... Sl=1 I PLE'f. . . . . ./ -== STANTON) ••.•••• SVALSTAD •.• --;..---~-__ W 0 0 D ) • • • • • • • • • • • WA-R-8'-. • • • • • • • ~ ARBISOL •.••••• \.'iEISHAUPT •• v .J-== DISTRICT 5 \ ~RYCKOFF)) ..... r-MC INNIS-:-.. ___:!__ ~t 1 _s _ DIEDRICH ...... RILEY ••••••. -" ___ -__ ROGERS...... ~ _!i::__ __ DIST RI CT 6 (MC INNIS) .•.••• STORE ••.•••• _v ____ _ (DIEDRICH) ..•••• BATTIN. •••.. _./ ____ _ RI MA •.••••.• _.,._ --. __ DISTRICT 7 \ . (EVANS). I ••••••• GARTHE..... v ..l ~1.: c~ HoNv > ....... BURTON • • • • . ./ ----=-== (DltDRICH) •••••. CLARK •••••. _/_ -~-__ (MC INNIS) •••.•• DOSTAL ••••. _v __ ...... __ _ · · GLOCKNER... v - (PEREZ}.--· •••••• JACKMAN.... .; ~ == (SHARP) .••••••••• SALTARELLI._. ___ -__ rnsTqICT 11 . D1·EDRICH) ..•••• SCHMIT. ..•.. --. ___ _ ·~l--/ GIBBS) •.•••.•••• DUKE ••• I •••• __(L_ ----w I ED ERL ••••••• GI BBS ••••••• __L_ ___ _ DISTRICT 8 EDWARDS •••. _/ ____ _ (JOHNSON) ••••••• HOLM •••.••• __!k_ ___ _ (DIEDRICH) •••••• RILEY •••.••• ~ __ . -- JOINT BOARDS DIEDRIC~ ...••. BATTIN ••••••• --7--__ ANTHONY~~ ....••. BURTON ••••••• ___ _ COLL I ~S ...•.••• BYRNE •••••.•• _.; __ _ L VONS ....•..••• CALLAHAN •.••• _v __ _ EWING I ••••••••• CHAPUT •••.••• -" --- DI EDR'I CH).. •..•• CLARK.. • • • • • • v HOMRIGHAUS EN) .• COX. • • • • • • • • • • v == CUL VER. • • • • • • " ! GR I FF IN) •••••••• DAV IS .••••••• -"--- MC INNIS l ...... DOSTAL •• 1~>X1 :-.. ----J!!,x.-J G I BBS). ••••.••• -~ . • • • • • . • • ../ GARTHE) ••••.•••. EVAN"S •••••••• -.; -. -- MAC KA I NL ..... FOX .......... -Y--- (EVANS).········ ·GARTHE· • • • • • ·--=--- (WIEDER)········ ·GIBBS····· ... --=:-== GLOCKNER •••• _::L_ !NEVIL) •••••••••• GRAHAM •••••• I-"'-== PEREl) •••••••••• JACKMAN •••... _v __ _ THO~) ••••••••••• KAYWOOD •••..• _'ti __ _ F 0 X) • \ .......... MAC KA I N • • • • " SONJUJ •••••••••• MAC LA IN • • • • " (RYCOFF ) .•.••.••. MG HHtl:S. .... -v--- (BLACKMAN) ...... MC KNEW ...... _L_ == 0 LS 0 N • • • • • • • • ./ . (JACKMAN) .••••••• PEREZ •••••••• -v-. -- PERRY •••••••• -v--- (DIEDRICH) •••••• RILEY........ ·. · RIMA •••••.••• _ .. __ _ ROGERS....... &t SHARP) .......... SALTARELLI .• -J--- D I ED R I c H) .•.• I • s CHM I T ...••.• -.;--- S VAL ST AD) •••.•• SCOTT ..•••••• -,--- GIBBS) .......... SH I PLEY ...... =r == MC INNIS) .•.••. STORE ....•••• t1 STANTON) ..•••.• SVALSTAD ••.• -,--- WOOD). .......... WARD • • • .. • • . . fi./ == ARB I s9) ......... \·~E 1 SHAU PT ... ~ __ ~. DUNN~ j •••••••••• w INN .•• , .•• , I _( -. -- WARD) •.••.•••••• WOOD •.••••••. _fi.:._ __ GRAHAM) .•••••••. YOUNG .•••..•• ___:{__ __ · OTHERS HARPER "' Ckt· '/ ~·· : . SYLVESTER ---lL._ ~./ : v 4":': i'- LEWIS ./ v(f"c'.t. . c.. CLARKE "" t~r;.:., t::c---TAYLOR BROWN V' I" t.,. ~ (j I'' ' - c ' , .. , I. ,':t I I I WOODRUFF ./ EWING --HOH EN ER v -- / -HOWARD ../ HUNT ,/ KEITH KENNEY ~-LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON _L_ PIERSALL STEVENS TRAVERS MEETING DATE January 14. 1976 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 and 11 DISTRICT 1 RI MA........ V ~DIEDR~CH) •••••• BATTIN..... ._..,.... == == F""NS .••••••••• GARTHE ••••• ~ ___ _ ~RP •••••••••• SALTARELLI. v ___ _ DISTRICT 2 ~ '~'c:.)<.t> ~~to.:\-b. LYONS · · · ·······CALLAHAN ••. ---lL_ ~ __ EWING .•.••••••• CHAPUT •••••• ~ -t---__ D I EDR I CH) •••••• CLARK ....... ~ +,--__ GARTtiEl ...••.•. EVMJS .•.•••• ~ .:!J___ __ THO~) ..•..•••••• KAYWOOD •••• ~ _:J__ __ FOX) ............ MAC KA IN ••• __1£_ ..::J__ __ JACKMAN) .•••••• PEREZ ••••••• ~ ~ __ PERRY ••••••• ~~ __ DUNN[:). ••••••••• WINN ........ ~ _& == !SVALSTAD) •••••• SCOTT ••••••• ~ .::/___ WARD) ........... WOOD ••.•••.• ~ -1.-__ GRAHAML ••••••• YOUNG....... V"" +--__ DISTRICT 3 (HOMR I GH[\USEN). COX......... ~ ::f__ (COLL I NS) .•••••• BYRNE ••••••• ~ _L_ == CULVER..... .,,,,,. il-~GR I FF I NL ...... DAVIS ••••••• ~ x_ == GARTH El ••.••••• EVANS ••••••• ~ 1--__ MAC KA I N ) • • • • • • F 0 X • • . • • • • • • v-_y__ THOM) ••••••••••• KAYWOOD •••• ~ :f__ __ !NEVI LJ .......... GRAHAM ••••• ~ 1--== SONJU) ••• \ •••••• MAC LAIN ••• ~--~ __ BLACKMANJ •.•••• MC KNEW •••• ~ :t_ __ . OLSON. • • • • • . ~ L_ __ (DIEDRICH) .••••• ·SCHMIT...... ~ tJ (GIBBS) .......... StlIPLE¥.' .... ~ ~ == ~STANTON) ••••••• SVALSTAD... V' .::L_ _. _ WOOD) ••••••••••• ~-•.••••• ~ ..:/_ __ ARBISOL •.••••• WEISHAUPT •• __.j,£_ 1_ __ DISTRICT 5 (RYCKOFF)) .••••• MG HUIIS ... ~ ~ __ (DIEDRICH .••••• RILEY~~-~~ __ ROGERS...... o.., ~ __ DISTRICT 6 (MC INNIS) .••••• STORE ••.•••• ~ ___ _ (DIEDRICH) .••••• BATTIN. .••.• ~ ___ _ RIMA •.•••••• ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 7 EVANS •...••••• GARTHE ..... ~ :f__ __ ANTHONY) ..••••• BURTON •••.• ~ f\l __ .~ JR I CH) •••••• CLARK .•••.• ~ L_ __ (Mr INNIS) •••••• DOSTAL •••.• ~ _:t_ __ GLOCKNER ... ~ ~ __ (PEREZ) .......... JACKMAN .... ~ _j__ (SHARP) •••••••••• SALTARELLI.~ -1L __ DIST~ICT 11 (DIEDRICH) ...... SCHMit ..... ~ ___ _ (GIBBS) •.•••••••• ~ .••••••• ~ ___ _ (WIEDERl. ....... GIBBS ....... ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 8 EDWARDS •••• ~ ____ . (JOHNSON) •.••••. HOLM ••• : ••• ~ ___ _ (DIEDRICH) •••••• RILEY:-~~ ___ _ JOINT BOARDS DI EDR IC~ ..•••• BA TT IN •••.••• ~ __ ANTHONY .....••. BURTON .••.••• --.I:::::'.:.. __ COLLI ~S ....•••. BYRNE •••••.•• ~ L VONS~ .......••• CALLAHAN. . • • • ~ ~ EW I NG1 ... ) ..•.••• CHAPUT ••••••• -4.L-__ DIEDRICH ....... CLARK ........ ~ __ HOMR I GHAUSEN) •• COX •..•••.••• ~ __ CULVER •• ; •••• ~ !GR I FF IN) •.•••.•. DAVIS ••••.••. ~ -- MC INNIS l ...... DOSTAL. •••••. __k:. ~7 GI BBS) .••••••••• 1*HEE .•••••••• ~ __ _ · GARTHE) ......... t:VAP~S ........ ~ MAC KA I N l ...... FOX .•...•.••• ~ == (.e¥Arqs) •••.••••• -~A~TI IE-••.••. (-W-I Ef)f~) .. " ""•GIBBS .... · ... -:---== GLOCKNER •••• ~ !NEVIL) •••••••••• GRAHAM....... ~ == PE REi) ••••.••••• JACKMAN. • • • • • .,,- THO~) ••••••••••• KAYWOOD •••••• ~ __ FOX). ••••••••••• MAC KA IN •••• ~ __ SONJU) •••••••••• MAC LA IN • • • • ,_.._.. (RYCOFF) ...••..•• r.e 1rm1s..... ........... == (BLACKMAN) ...... MC KNEW...... ~ a:::=7 --OLSON ....... . ( J AC KMAN ) .••••••• PER E Z . . • . . • . . v-== PERRY ........ ~ (DIEDRICH) •••••• RILEY •.••.••. ~== RIMA ......... ~ __ ROGERS .•..••. ---'b!_ SHARP) •.••••..•• SALTARELLI .. _./L_ -- D I ED R I CH ) ...... SCH M I T. . • . . . • ..,._, -- S VAL ST AD) ..•.•• SCOTT........ ..........--- GIBBS) uellIPLEY ...... ---- MC INNIS) .•..•• STORE ....•••• ~ -- STANTON) ••..•.• SVALSTAD •••. ~ -- WOOD) ••••.•••..• ~4AFH> .•••••••• ~ == ARB I SO) •.•.••••. ~J EI SHAU PT. . . ___.., ~,DUNN~) .......... WiNN......... V == -WARD ;, • • • • • • a • • • I W 0 0 D • • • • • • • • • GRAHAM) ....••... YOUNG........ v == OTHERS HARPER ~.~~~:....~ SYLVESTER 't~~c.ti\,.) LEW IS C.~ ~CLARKE ~~··~'TAYLOR (~ BROWN WOODRUFF EWING HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH KENNEY LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSCN PIERSALL STEVENS TRAVERS 'll4) (If :Za) (#7b) JANUARY 14, 1976 JOINT MTG. Chairman Winn introduced new Directors Richard Olson (Midway City Sanitary District) and Harold E. Edwards (South Laguna Sanitary District). Report of the Joint Chairman Winn introduced the members of the Special Committee to Review Staff Procedures re Selection of Desing Engineers: Don Fox, Chairman; Jesse Davis; Alice MacLain; Bernie Svalstad; and Jess Perez. Annotmced that the Committee would meet immediately following the Board meeting. Said he would defer rest of his report until the Executive Committee items. Later in meeting he called an Executive Committee meeting for Tuesday, January 27, and invited Director John Burton to attend. Said second guest would be chosen by Mr. Harper and Director Gibbs. Report of the General Manager Mr. Harper referred to goldenrod-colored excerpt in Directors' folders. Said this portion of report was relative to water quality in the ocean. Essentially, what it is saying is that in open ocean areas where there are adequately designed ocean outfalls, it would appear that the present practices are adequate to protect the environment. One of the significant things to the staff is on the third page--map of U.S. Indicates that iJl the Southern California bite has minor problems and only other one in same category is Gulf of Alaska. We have concluded from this that we do not really have problerrsin Southern California that are in other parts of nation. This largely due to SCCWRP agency. Referred to other map on back side--has to do with areas that are suitable for game fish population. In Southern California bite area we are at 80% of the range of pollution at the present time and by adding secondary treatment, would only improve at best by 20%. Alaska is 90%.at this time. Think this is very helpful for some of the arguments we are making in Washington. . Reported that a hearing was held in San Francisco on this report. Congress has been reluctant to make changes in 92-500 until this report was completed. FAH said we had one of their staff members here today visiting us and he indicated that they were going to run out of payroll money. Chairman of this Committee is Rockefeller and he is going to ask for additional $250,000. Question is, are they going to make recommendations to Congress or is it up to Public Works staff or House to figure out what recommendations will be. Appears that ad valorem tax issue has 11 votes in favor. As far as secondary treatment for ocean disposal, not sure on that because they may put so many regulations on what we have to prove to avoid secondary treatment, we might spend 8 to 10 years trying to prove it and in the meantime, would be in violation of the requirements . Discussed this with Win Adams and he said secondary treatment for ocean discharge was not necessary. The conclusion that we have to make at this point is that what secondary treatment we do put in will go toward meeting the objective of proper marine disposal but not necessarily go all the way--100%. If we started today with all the money we needed, it would still take us 8 years to complete all the way to secondary. treatment. Young asked Mr.-Harper what a "bite" was? Explained that it is ocean area from Mexican border to Santa Barbara and out as much as 60 miles. (#7c) (#10) Report of the General Counsel Said items that he had to comment on were contained throughout agenda. No litigation pending. We do have some extensive work to discuss in District 2 relative to right of way. CONSENT CALENDAR items removed /(•) Young asked if the contract states that if we do need the land, will they pay relocation costs or what? REL answered that he didn't see that we would be in that area for the 2~ years that this will be in effect. Is only a temporary line. Was moved & seconded & carried. (g) Young questioned s ubstantial daily deposit issue. Asked if money is cash / or checks or what? JWS answered that all of our cash is in check form . Explained that we define substantial as the break-even point of what it would cost on a daily basis--$80,000 is break-even point. Supv. Clark asked about our insurance. Is the re a breaking point on amount of money allowed before we deposit? .nqs answered that because we don't handle cash, there is no insurance. We do have a $200,000 bond. Young asked if we handle short-term investments. JWS stated we have about $55 million in short-term investments. Question then asked re what the bond would do if money was lost or checks lost. Woodruff replied that bond covers employees but will not cover theft by third party. Item the n moved, seconded & carried. (#13b-l) Construction of incre mental unit of conventional secondar treatment at Pl a nt 2 Winn r eported briefly on background of this item. Said Executive Connnittee met with members of EPA & SWRCB in De cemb e r to discuss JPL process and construction. Was consensus at that time that we should consider some COIJlPletion of JPL process and conventional secondary treatment. Added that l a st April on trip to Wa s hington it began to evolve that JPL process, even if constructed for 1 MG D, still wouldn't give us all the answers. Districts have had some encouragement from State. Both agencies want to see what this is going to do but there is quite a drive within California to get some of the grant monies working. Said he thought Executive Committee is recommending that Directors adopt recommendations of the staff on this. REL referred to staff report mailed out. Almost seem contradictory to report of FAH earlier in meeting , but ·according to memorandum, have to proceed to improve quality of our effluent. We have to examine our course of ·action from time to time to see if we are on the right course. Said we felt it may be prudent to proceed with increment of biological treatment at this time. Referred to photo of Di s tricts' facilities on wall and explained present treatment. Also explained second phase. Said digesters would not be necessary and existing facilities we have now would not be utilized unless we continue with some type of primary and secondary treatment. We have $60 million invested in digesters. In trying to incorporate these in our planning, have met requirements imposed on us. Recommendation is for u sing these facilities with secondary biological carbon process. Have met with State and EPA and are most anxious to get monies out in construction. Item was then moved, seconded & carried. -2- (#13b-3) JCE preparation of Facilities Plan re 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facl. (#13c-l) Svalstad commented that he assumed the staff did their charts and came up with this $19,500. Asked if they were included and was told no. Said he requested this in the past and felt we should have more backup on this so they can intelligently figure out whether this is done properly. Directors' Compensation Woodruff advised that this item calls for separate resolutions for each District. Districts currently have resolutions pertaining to various authorizations for payment .. Resolutions identical with one technical change in District 1 because District 1 presently has different resolution in force than all the other Districts." During last session of State legislature laws changed pertaining to reimbursing Directors. To provide authority to pay Directors of Sanitation Districts a fixed fee of $50 per day for not only attending joint meeting but other business of the Districts. Present law sets $200 maximum for all other Directors except Joint Chairman. Amendment does not change this. Resolution does provide authority to pay members of the various District Boards $50 for attending Joint Board meeting, $50 for attending other meetings such as Executive Committee or special meetings or if Director is sent to Washington, Sacramento or wherever. Said second major change in law is to clarify some ambiguity regarding 11¢ per mile excluding other expenses. Law says Districts may be reimbursed for actual expense incurred. Recorrunendations have been considered by Executive Conunittee and are now presenting them to each individual District for consideration. Woodruff then briefly reviewed some of the sections of the resolutions: Section 1 itemizes but does not attempt to detail every conceivable meeting or source of meeting that there could be for payment. For single Director repre- senting two or more Districts, -expenses shared equally. Cannot collect from both Districts. This is a change for District 1 but all other Districts have policy in force of only being able to receive no more than one fee. Section 3 addresses the above regarding collecting from more than one District. Section 4, no change established by State law. Joint Chairman, when presiding at Joint Meeting, gets per diem for each of the Districts. Does not get that from all Districts when acting at Executive Cammi ttee, etc. Only f rom that District which he represents then. Section 6 has slight revision to reimbursement for mileage. On a sliding scale. Section 7 is new and one of considerable study by staff. Dire ctor of Finance has had problem with County Auditor. No two persons make out s a me kind of expense reports. This is to provide for actual reimbursmenet b a sed upon invoices for items such as air transportation, hotel, etc. All meals, gratuities, incidental expenses, etc. would be lumped into per diem of $20 per day. No override for extra expenses. ("Winn advised that the Ex e cutive Committee spent quite a bit of time on this and recorrunended by overwhelming majority that the Joint Boards adopt this. Referred to words "as approved by Joint Boards" which were inserted in several items. Said Boards still have opportunity to review this at any point down the line. ~Winn then asked if Directors could submit itemized sta tement. Woodruff said yes. If all meals were served by Conference, then that expense could be submitted on invoices and would have to be approved before payment. Winn then stated that the Executive Committee would assume a l a rger share of the load r a ther tha n going into as many c ommitt e es as in th e p ast. -3- Saltarelli stated that one thing that Executive Committee did not consider was taxpayer's pocketbook--purpose of all of this is public service and think we should try to maintain this. Said he was opposed to this as it opens possibility of more conunittees and meetings and more money. Thinks if taxpayers pay gas plus free meal for Executive Committee should be enough. Kaywood asked if we knew what additional cost would be? FAH answered that the Executvie Committee meets 10 times a year with about 10 members on the Committee. Winn repeated that they would not form as many committees as Executive Conunittee would take the load. MacLain stated that even if E.C. took on more responsibilities and appointed less conunittee members, still talking about $50 per person on E.C. Said she knew her council wouldn't support this and she couldn't support any of this. Cox advised that he told his council about it and they authorized him to vote in favor of it. Also said he would abstain on City's vote. ?? Dostal asked if this was going to be voted on by Districts and Woodruff answered that it would. Graham questioned having meetings before Joint Meeting. Svalstad said he thought maybe there should be some minor compensation for Board members who have extra committee work. $50 is exorbitant. Can't conceive why we should pay Chairman $350 per month plus quite a few more meetings that Chairman has to attend. Don't care how long we have done it, am opposed to it. Chaput asked regarding Joint Chairman, if we have 3 Joint Meetings per month, how much does the Joint Chairman make? Woodruff answered $350 x 3. Added, what about E.C. Does everybody get $50 including Joint Chairman7 Woodruff-said yes, if it is held at a different time. Chaput then said he would have to concur with other comments. Think Joint Chairman should have limit also. Not here to make money. We are public servants. Now we expect to get paid for jobs we have been doing for years because it was our duty. Said his City council didn't go along with it. Graham said she hadn't discussed this with her City council. Moved to continue to next meeting. Motion seconded. (District 3) District 2 moved & seconded to continue. District 7 moved & seconded to continue. District 5 moved. No second. Tie vote so .no . action on the floor. District 1 -Saltarelli moved that resolution be denied, then withdrew motion when advised that no action would be needed to do that. Woodruff then reiterated that existing resolution in District 1 is contrary to other Districts. District 1 is now eligible to receive pay for more than one District. Said if Directors would like to amend existing resolution, if they will advise staff, we will prepare for next meeting. It was then moved to place resolution before District 1 that is in conformity with other resolutions. Motion was seconded and carried. Saltarelli then asked if other Districts pass new resolutions, does that mean they will get $50 and others will not? Was answered yes, that was correct. -4- District 6 indicated no motion. District 11 -Schmit then stated that the fun hoU.Se tonight was because these people are being paid. This speaks for the $50. Said District 11 moves that we approve the new resolution. When special meeting called and we make a special trip, think we deserve the money for the time and energy. Said again that he moved to approve the new program. Gibbs stated that as one long in this missionary work, considers herself priceless. Seconded motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of District 11 members present. Winn then asked FAH to give backgroun on Directors' compensation. Mr. Harper reported that quite a few years ago the Joint Boards · directed their councils to seek legislation to increase compensation for Joint Chairman because of additional activities he is involved in. At that time legislation did change. Compensation at that time was $25 per meeting and was subsequently increased for all Directors to $50. Many special districts got this new legislation now before Directors last year but for some reason sanitation districts were left out. Sanitary districts and water districts were included. This new action brings the sanitation districts' \. directors' compensation comparable with other entities. Svalstad said he would like to know for the past year what the Joint Chairman has received per month and would like to know how many Committee meetings we had this last year and what would have been received by people on Committees and how it would affect the budget. Gibbs commented that one committee they had last year, they hadn't had in 23 years so couldn't go by that. Culver then stated that he had tried to sit there and listen but being a past Joint Chairman. said they were talking about two different ball games. Said he was never compensated for Executive Committee and didn't care. Added that as Joint Chairman he was down here sometimes twice a day. Have to separate this. Svalstad then asked if he couldn't request information on what it would cost the budget. Didn't have backup information. Winn said he had no objection. Wood, Graham, MacLain, Chaput & Young indicated they would like copies also. Winn said to advise FAH or Rita if others would like copy. Byrne then moved that the data be reproduced and sent to all Directors. Motion was seconded. Callahan said that he wanted to elaborate that if committee meeting was on same night of Joint Meeting, would not get more money. Gibbs said we couldn't go by last year's experience. Didn't feel this is really necessary. Chaput then asked if they attend any type of meeting for Sanitation Districts, can get money? Winn said, if approved by Joint Boards. Svalstad suggested that staff and Executive Committee give Directors a projection for this year. Gibbs indicated that it should be on a c omparative basis and they don't have a comparative basis. CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Voice vote. Woodru££ said motion was for preparation and mail out of all material to Board. Byrne said motion was for last year's figures and projected next years. Show of hands: 23 for and 9 against. -5- (#13c-2) Resolution re Rules of Procedure for Meetings re E.C. (#13d) (#13e) (#14) (#19) Woodruff briefly sununarized the resolution saying it designates the makeup of the Executive Conunittee as the Chairmen of the respective Districts. Presently there is no provision for a Chairman when he cannot attend to send an alternate to appear on his behalf. This resolution allows an alternate to appear. Dostal questioned section stating that person designated as alternate must be from same agency. Asked if we weren't talking about picking someone from that ·~same District, not agency. Woodruff said yes, it would be from the respective District, not agency. It was then moved that the resolution be amended to read as corrected with the word "District". Motion seconded & carried. Deferred Compensation Plan for management Reported that the Executive Committee has endorsed this as a place to start. Clark asked if this was included in raise for Dept. Heads. Said this is another 3% raise. Fox stated that Executive Committee discussed language of deferred compensation and this was held over from raises. Jackman added that it was part of the raise package to be voted on later. Called Executive Session to discuss this 8:54 p.m. Reconvened at 9:17 p.m. It was then moved, seconded and carried to approve Resolution. Questionnaire Question was asked if we are responding to this questionnaire. Was answered, no, Executive Committee recommendation was that this does not apply to this agency. Jane Ayers property exchange Woodruff advised that Mrs. Ayers son would like to address the Board with regard to a couple conditions in staff recommendation. Report was prepared basically in accordance with original request of Mrs. Ayers. Several things have been done-- appraisal of Jack Strobel, map prepared by registered engineer and remaining documents would have to be executed if exchanged approved by Directors. Said Mr. Ayers has indicated this evening that there are a couple objections. They would not agree if all of six reconunendations were approved by Board such as street improvement costs. Winn asked if Woodruff if he would like more time to work this out and Woodruff said it might be appropriate. Mr. Ayers would like more time. Asked how much time, and replied that he thought by the next Board meeting. Clark moved this be continued for one month. Motion seconded and carried. DISTRICT 2 Other Business Asked for a show of hands regarding meeting after Joint Meeting to discuss items on adjourned meeting agenda for 1/15/76. De cided to meet that night. Mr. Harper briefly explained problem that was encountered. Said we we re not able to coordinate activities in construction of Yo rba Park .s o we co uld build the sewer -6- Dist 2 agenda (#3a) (#3b) (c&d) first. Contractor bid job as laid out prior to improvements. 60,000 yards of earth had been hauled in plus improvements. Said that essentially what has happened is that we have worked out Permit-Agreement with County that involves about $165,000 for their contractor to remove this material so that our contractor will have conditions as they were at the time the job bid. Said Sanitation Districts and SAWPA are responsible to County to pay the bill . Have been in contract with State and they feel it is a permit requirement to pay this change order to County and it would be grant eligible at 87~% funding and we will pay balance. Bid was $137,000 under estimate so we are still ahead. Perez moved to adopt Resolution 76-20-2 as listed. Motion seconded. Woodruff reported that we have agreement in principle but have not had documents executed yet. Said problem was that he could not guarantee finalty of amount. Said he thought perhaps there was no need to adopt resolutions now as long as Directors will authorize staff and General Collllsel to proceed. '!hey will give us authority to enter. Perez said he wanted to restate motion that they approve staff proceeding with necessary steps without approving resolutions. Woodruff added to accept grant of easement or permit. Motion was secopded & carried.1 ~ ,n v I .it--~ < µ_ .... o· l V\t\ ... 4' "~ 0J ~ ~ '1"1J ~ Woodruff then said he would like simi la~ ~otion for City of Anaheim. It was so moved, seconded and carried. (#4) Proposed Annexation No. 13 -Tract No. 7350 (#30) (#31) (#33) '!his item deferred to future meeting. DISTRICT 3 -Odor Control problems REL reported briefly and then WNC reported further on odor problems and control measures. Recommended that we proceed with Stage 1 of Plan C to construct the connection at Ellis and Bushard . $20,000 would be funded by District No. 3. $56,000 to construct a scrubber at Plant No. 1 would be Joint Districts cost. Svalstad moved to direct staff to proceed with odor control measures as recommended under Plan C, Stage 1. Motion seconded and carried. DISTRICT 3 Other business Svalstad complained that he had been getting his agenda package on Monday evening and was having a problem going over it. Would like to try to get material on Saturday, if possible. Mr. Harper said that we attempt to get it mailed by 'Ihursday evening but last couple agendas have had to be put in mail on Friday. We take it to Santa Ana office. May be some difficulty on those going to City Halls. FAH said we would look at some other methods of delivery. Award of Contract No. 7-6-8 Perez stated that as alternate Director in District 7 he had some questions . Asked when we received bids and if we didn't have 60 days to award. Received bids on December 16 & do have 60 days. Perez asked something else ?? and Woodruff answered, no, the only thing presented to us was single hand-written calculation sheet of totals. Contractor claims that he has no work sheets, spread sheets, etc. -7- (#34) Director ? co ~.mented that it is llllusual for a contractor to withdraw his bid llllless he is going to take a bath. Difference is only $3,000 between second bidder. Asked if we included in specifications request for unit prices for shoring? Woodruff answered no, not required. That applies to cities or colillties, not to special districts. Perez then stated what the alternatives were: (1) Forfeit bond (2) Go to second bidder or (3) Rebid the job . Woodruff said that his personal opinion was that he was not satisfied with the proof that they presented. Directors are empowered to release him and release bond and move to second bidder. Perez then commented that if we know this man is going into contract reluctantly, will be worries down the line of what is going to happen. If it would not create a problem with regard to retention period of bids, would like to allow the staff a few more days to ask the low bidder for more information. Woodruff said the contractor's attorney was here and they had presented everything available. Perez asked attorney to make a statement. Burton asked what the cash penalty is if we don't release bond. Difference between second low bid -$37,000. Asked probability of court action and probability of success in court action. Woodruff said no worse than 50-50. Clark said that he felt as Perez that there has been a mistake made and the gentleman is in the business and bid because he wanted the work. Pulling out of it indicates a loss for him. Substantiated by other bids. The hardship that we would impose and quality of work and potential legal action possibility doesn't warrant forcing action . Moved to award to second lowest bidder. Motion seconded. Asked who bonding company is -United Pacific Insurance Company. Added that motion is to release & exonerate bond of low bidder. Motion carried. Orange Park Acres Jackman asked for continuance of item. Stated that Mr. Harper says that proponents have reviewed the information and have decided to proceed with annexation on the condition the District will authorize Tustin-Orange Trllllk Reaches 17 & 18 acquisition upon annexation. Said he wants more information on this sewer. Moved to continue this . Motion seconded. Saltarelli added that part of the research or information should be in the area of the statement T!1ade in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Manager's Report (On August 20th, the Board declared its _intent to initiate necessary proceedings to annex the Ornage Park Acres area in accordance with the Orange Park Association's proposal for concurrent annexation and bond authorization by means of an election by the voters in the affected area.) Said to his knowledge, that is not true. Action was to authorize our Counsel and staff to study the legallity only, how much it would cost and whether it could be done. Would like to have the minutes researched to reflect what that motion did say. Jackman said he wanted to include that request in his motion. Winn then asked Garthe to chair this item as District 7 Chairman. Burton asked what the impact was to continue this item. George Rach, OPA, answered that the impact will be on the residents of the area in need of Sanitation District facilities now. Delay would just put that off. They are trying to -8- . . ~ "" coordinate voting with sch eduled election to keep costs down as much as possible. Area is programed in 1975 Master Pl an . De l aying it is goin g to put off p eop le that need the facilities. Said being considered for annexation is not political a t all. Said hi s commit tee had met with s t aff four times and have gone over this extensively. This is part of the Master Plan already. Burton the n asked when the election was set for . Was answered June . Saltarelli sai d again that it was his understanding that they approved authorization for staff to s tudy, not to initiate proceedings . Burton stated that they _(OPA) had fulfill e d their obligations in accordance with l ast meeting, and asked if that wasn't true? FAH said yes. However, staff has not given the Directors the cost of the acquisition or construct ion of Reaches 17 & 18. Said h e might suggest a n adjourned meeting of Dis trict 7 the next week to get information requested . Saltarelli said this is a very complex issue. Don't understand ab solute urgency . Would like to h av e opinion as to whether it i s legal to bond for something other than capital improveme nt? Can you bond for an nexation fee? Dostal then made a substitute motion to defer this to January 28th . Mo t ion seconded. Clark said h e couldn 't make it that date . Much discussion on what date everyone co uld attend. Jackman then mov e d the original motion h e said to continue t o February 11th at 6:30 p .m. just before the Joint Meetin g. Rach requested that the information requested by Saltarelli and Jackman be specifically indicated so staff knows what they are looking for and there are not questions that can 't be answere d at next meeting. J ackm a n said he wants costs and detail s and wants to know what conditions are and why opposed, e t c. Discussed meeting on the 23rd then but Jackman was n ot avai l ab l e . Called for the questi on on meet ing on Feb. 11th. 3 votes in favor and 4 against . Motion failed . Winn then s ugg ested that Chairman Ga r the confer with staff and hi s District and set a date. This was agreed upon . It was then moved a nd seconded to do so. -9 -