No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-04COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) September 28, 1978 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. IJ 2) 3) 5) 6J 7 & 11 WEDNESDAY) OCTOBER 4 1973 -7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY) CALIFORNIA TELE PH ON ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of September 13, 1978, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date .. Scheduled upcoming meetings: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE -Wednesday October 25, 1978, at 5:30 p.m. Month October November December January February March April May June July August September October COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA PO.BOX8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUN fAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9?.708 (714) 540-2910 (714)962-2411 JOINT BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATES Joint Board Meeting Date Oct 4, 1978 Nov 8, 1978 Dec 13, 1978 Jan IO, 1979 Feb 14, 1979 Mar 14, 1979 Apr 11, 1979 May 9, 1979 June 13, 1979 July 11, 1979 Aug 8, 1979 Sep 12, 1979 Oct IO, 1979 Tentative Executive Committee Meeting Date Oct 25, 1978 Nov 22, 1978 None Scheduled Jan 24, 1979 Feb 28, 1979 Mar 28, 1979 Apr 25, 1979 May 23, 1979 June 27, 1979 July 25, 1979 None Scheduled Sep 26, 1979 Oct 25, 1979 . I ' i t \ II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS =-County ·sanitation Districts. Post Office Box 8127 -c:---;ot Orange· County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA MEETING DATE OCTOBER 4, 1978 -7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT7 HEAD, IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT :00 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECED'ING WEDNESDAY':s MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING T8E DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests (S) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any "'wtl See supplemental agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT (7) (8) Consideration of motions approving minutes-of the following meetings, as mailed: District 1 September 13, 1978, regular District 2 -September 13, 1978, regular District 3 September 13, 1978, regular District 5 -September 13, 1978, regular District 6 -September 13, 1978, regular District 7 September 13, 1978, regular District 11 -September 13, 1978, regular DISTRICT 7 Election of Chairman ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Manager (c) General Counsel ... \.:;=._ ·- ....... • -•·;::11> (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vot~ will be regarded as the same for each \..I District represented, unless a Director expresses a ·desire to vote differently for any District) JOINT OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND DISTRICT NO. 1 DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO.·S ·DIS~TRICT NO. 6 DISTRICTS 5 & 6 SUSPENSE .DISTRICT 7 DISTRICT 11 · (10) ALL DISTRICTS See page(s) see: page ( s) NONE See page(s) See page(s) S~e page(s) NONE See page(s) See page(s) NONE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. NOS .lQ (A) THROUGH10 ( N. ) "A" and "D" "B'~ and "D" "B" "D" All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explana~ion and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member "C" -"D" of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action.approving·a11 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 ~y letter.the item to be removed from. ·the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ALL DISTRICTS (a) ·Consideration of motion to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding purchase of One (1) 6-Ton (capacity) Crane, Truck Mounted, Specification No. E-:-097, (to be mounted on Districts' vehicle previously purchased under Specification No. A-086) to Great Pacific Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $24,790.34. See page "E" (b) Consideration of motion authorizing one-year extension of Agricultural Lease with Nakase Brothers beginning October 1, 1978, at the annual rate of $300 in accordance with the terms of said lease and Specification No. L-006 (c) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Miscellaneous Paving at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities for a total deduction of $13,649.97 from the contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. See page "F" (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-163, accepting Miscellaneous Paving at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Co~pletion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "G" . . (e) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, granting a time extension of 34 calendar days to the contract with Production Steel Co., Inc. due to delays in scheduled equipment delivery. See page "H" (f) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-164, accepting Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "!" (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-165, approving Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for construction contract administration services re 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, providing for additional services in connection with modifications to the basic computerized critical path construction schedule program, for an amount not to exceed $35, 000. See page "J" (h) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-166, authorizing acceptance of Grant Deed from Beeco, Ltd. in connection with purchase of approximately a .03-acre parcel of property loc~ted within the Districts' Treatment Plant No. 2 site, and authorizing payment in the amount of $3,500.00 for said Grant Deed. See page "K" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3-! (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (i) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-168, appro~ing Letter Agreement with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. to raise the Karales Oil Well No. 5 site located at Treatment Plant No. 2 to the grade of the ~istricts' adjacent roadway in order to provide access to the oil well, for a cost not to exceed $9,000. See page "L" DISTRICT 2 (j) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 78-178-2, ordering annexation of 249.243 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity north of Esperanza· Road and east of Imperial Highway in the City of Yorba Linda, proposed Annexation No. 27 - Travis Ranch Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2 DISTRICT 5 (k) Consideration of ·motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an addition of $11,731.06 to the .contract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. for additional excavation and backfill and ·chan~e in pipe connections, and granting a time extension of 97 calendar days for said additional work. See page "M" (1) · Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans.and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities for a total addition of $293.70 to the contract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. See page "N" (m) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-174-5, accepting Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "0" DISTRICT 7 (n) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 78-180-7, ordering annexation of 9.010 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive between Vista del Lago and La Cuesta, proposed Annexation No. 78 -Tract No. 9688 to County Sanitation D1strict No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 70th Sewer Maintenance District) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent ~alendar, if aRy -4- (12) ALL DISTRICTS -· Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Committee's written report (13) ALL DISTRICTS \....,,/ Consideration of action on items recoill.l~ended by the Executive Committee: • (a) Consideration of ·motion directing the staff to proceed iJ11Jllediately to finalize the Districts' Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to meet applicable Federal requirements and, simultaneously, proceed vigorously to complete the Districts' application for waiver of secondary treatment, as provided by Section 30l(h) of the 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (~) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-167, urging the California Legislature to enact equitable legislation for special districts pertaining to the continued apportionment of their pro rata share of ad valorem tax levies after 1978-79. See page "P" (c) (I) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and recommendation of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. dated September 20, 1978, relative to selection of an in-house mini-computer system (report enclosed with Executive Committee material) (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-169, approving agreement with Delphi Systems, Inc. for purchase and installation of in-house mini-computer system, in form approved by the General Counsel, for a maximum amount not to exceed $281,350.00 plus applicable taxes and deli very. See page "Q" (d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept proposal of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., dated September 19, 1978, for project management services in connection with detail design and installation of in-house mini-computer system; and staff accounting support (as, and if, needed) on a per diem fee basis for a maximum amount not to exceed $76,500.00, as follows: Management of detail system design, installation and monitoring Staff accounting support and assistance, as, and if, needed Maximum Fees and Expenses $39, 780. 00 (Not to exceed) 36,720.00 (Not to exceed) $76,500.00 (proposal enclosed with Executive Committee material) (e) (1) Consideration of motion establishing a Special Committee of one member from each District appointed by the Board of Directors of the respective District to study reorganization of the. Sanitation Districts (2) (a) DISTRICT 1 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (b) DISTRICT 2 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (Item (e)(2) continued on page 6) -5- (e) (2) (Continued from page 5) (c) DISTRICT 3 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (d) DISTRICT 5 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (e) DISTRICT 6 -Consideration of motion appointing (f) (g) Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts DISTRICT 7 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee --------to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts DISTRICT 11 -Consideration of motion appointing Director to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (f) Consideration of actions re Director representation at California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) functions: (1) Discussion re representation (2) Consideration of motion appointing Director to -------represent Districts at CASA functions OR (3) Consideration of motion approving continued representation by retired Director Don Winn in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies through the Association's annual meeting in August, 1979, or until replaced by Board action · upon recommendation of the Executive Committee (4) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-170, authorizing payment of fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with District representation in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies by retired Director Don Winn. See page "R" (14) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of the following resolutions establishing charges for Class I and Class II permittees pursuant to provisions of the uniform Ordinance E.stablishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities of the respective Districts: See page "S" Class I Fee District No. Resolution No. Flow(a) ~) B.O.D:(c) Class II Fee(a) 1 78-171-1 $165. $20.00 $11.00 $232. 2 78.:.112~2 166. 20.60 11.30 237. 3 78-173-3 163. 20.25 11.10 233. s 78-174-5 181. 20.50 12.35 259. 6 78-175-6 165. 20.00 11.00 232. 7 78-176-7 183. 22.75 12.45 262. 11 78-177-11 185. 23.00 12.50 264. (a) Per. million gallons of flow (b) Per thousand pounds of suspended solids (c) Per thousand pounds of biochemical oxygen demand -6- ---.. ---... (15) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file Annual Report submitted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Certified Public Accountants, for '-"1 the year ending June 30, 1978, previously mailed to Directors by the auditors under separate cover '..__) (16) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (17) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn {19) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (20) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (21) DISTRICT 3. Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (23) DISTRICT 5 '~· Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (25). DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or. supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (27) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn (29) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report re status of State Coastal Commission permit for Coast Highway Trunk from Plant No. 2 to Lake Street. See page "T" (30) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (31) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn -7- If. 1BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 'i-County Sanitation Districts Post Off ice Box 8127 of Orange County / California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-2910 . 962-2411 '-11 ~11======================== A ~i§c'1ttrQE~ POSTED .. ~ COMP & MILEAGE •.•• ~ .•• ;:lLE ·--·--- Lf:l.:!R.- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) A/C .... lKlR -(7) "--"' ------{8) f1l.E ..--- lETTEA--- A/C .• -TKlR - - MEETING DATE FILES SET U? ....... ~ ......... . RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED.:-- LEITEr.S WRliTEN ............. . OCTOBER 4) 1978 -7:30 P.M. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MINUTES WRITTEN .. ~~ ANY DI RECTOR DES IR I NG ADD IT I ONAL INFORMATION ON MINUTES flLED.~.~ .. - ANY AGENDA ITEM., PLEAS.E CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT HEAD. IN ADDITION., STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT /:00 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY'S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Roll Call Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary Recognition of special guests Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any See stipplemefttal ageaaa EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, as mailed: District 1 -September 13, 1978, regular District 2 -September 13, 1978, regular District 3 September 13, 1978, regular District 5 -September 13, 1978, regular District 6 September 13, 1978, regular District 7 -September 13, 1978, regular District 11 September 13, 1978, regulaF DISTRICT 7 f'\}, .-l-n _ . Election of Chairman 4-. \V~~-~ ""-~ ALL DISTRICTS · Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Mnnager (c) General Counsel (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of Rott ~ALL VOTE •• __ . the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded. as the same for each ~.ii/)" )~ District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote /If{:/ differently for any District) JOINT OPERATING FUND See page(~) "A" and "C" CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND See page(s) "A" and "C" DISTRICT NO. 1 NONE DISTRICT NO. 2 See page(s) "0" DISTRICT NO. 3 See page(s) "B" and "D" DISTRICT NO.· 5 S~e page(s) "D" ·DISTRICT NO. 6 -·. NONE DISTRICTS 5 & 6 SUSPENSE See page(s) "B" DISTRICT 7 See page (s) "D" DISTRICT 11 NONE '.._) · (10) ALL DISTRICTS 1\011 Ca/I Ve'.c or Cast UnGolowus Ballot CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS .lQ (A) THROUGHlQ ( N ) All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action.approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter.the item to be removed from the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- (1 0 ) (CONSENT CALENDAR contin ued from page 2) FILE .•..•......••..••• LETIER •........••.•• A/C •..• TKLR •••• ~¥' ---···-···········- FILE ..••.••.••.•.• _ .. / ~~ A/C .... TKLR ... . ~'::!1:. ... ( FIL E ..••...•..•..••..• LETIER ·········--· A/C .... TKLR -·· ··--················· .... f ,LE ................. . ,/ ~-~-.. .U: A/C .... TKLR .••• w..~-~~~ Fi LE ........... -••••• LETIER ·······-···- A/C .... TKL R •..• f'ILE --- r lt: ::""\/l/ ..__gTTER§,,,. .• ___ _ A!C .... TK LR ·- ~-~~ --········••->•·-- ALL DISTRICTS (a ) Conside ration of motion to receive and fi l e bid tabulation a nd recommendation and awarding purchas e of One (1) 6-To n (capacity) Cra ne, Truck Mounted , Specification No. E-097 , (to be mounted on Di st ricts ' vehicle previ0us ly purchased under Specification No . A-086) to Great Pacific Equipment , Inc. in t h e amount of $24 ,790.34. See page 11 E11 (b) Consideration of motion authorizing o ne -year exten sion of Agricu l tural Lease with Nakase Brothers beginn ing October 1, 1978, at the annual rate of $300 in acc orda nce with the t erms of said lease and Specification No. L-006 (c) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No . 2 to the p l ans and specifications for Miscellaneous Paving at Heclam a tion Pl an t No. 1, Job No. P\\1 -062, authorizing a n adjustment of engineer 's q uantities for a total dedu ct ion of $13 ,649.97 from the contract wi th Su lly -Miller Contracting Company. See page 11 F 11 (d ) Consideration of Reso lution No . 78-163, accepting Misce llaneous Paving at Reclamation Pl ant No. 1, Job No. PW -062, as comp l ete ; au thorizing execution of Not ice of Completion; a nd approving Fina l Cl oseout Agreeme n t. See page 11 G11 (e) Con side ration of motion approving Change Order No . 1 to the pl a ns a nd specifications for Modification of Exi s tin g Sludge Hopp e r Outl et Port at Rec l amation Pl a n t No. 1, Job No. P\\1-066, granting a time extITT1sion of 34 calendar days to the contract with Production Steel Co., Inc . due to delays in sch eduled e q u i p~e nt delivery . See page 11 H11 (f) Consideration of Resolution No . 78-164, accepting Existing Sl ud ge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No . 1 , Job No. PW-066, as comp l e te; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion; and approving Final Clo seout Agreement. See page 11 I 11 (g) (h ) Con sideration o f Resolution No. 78 -16 5 , approving Amendment No. 1 to t h e Agreement with Butjer Engineering, Inc . for con struction contract administration services re 75 MG D Activated Sl ud ge Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, providin g for adJitiona l services in connection with modifications to the basic computerized critical path construction schedul e program , for an amount not to exceed $35,000 . See p~1 g e · "J" ~q~c.A5l...'~~~ Consid e ration of l<c s o l ution No 78-166 ~uthori zi ng a.cce pt a n ce of Gran t Deed from Be cca, Ltd. in connection with purchase of approximately a .0 3-acre parce l o f property located within the Di stricts ' Tre<itmcnt Plant No . 2 s ite, and authorizing paym e nt in the amount of $3 ,500 .00 for ·said Grant Deed. See p age 11 K11 (CON SENT CALENDAR cont inuc cl on page 4 ) -3- \...,) (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) . FILE -·····-·· .. ···-·-···-·------ FILE ••.••••••••••••••• LETIER ·········-···. A/C •••• TKLR •••• ~.:. ... ......- (i) . Consideration of Resolution No. 78..; 168-, approving. -Le-tte-r Ag~eement with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. to taise the . Karales Oil Well No. 5 site located at Treatment Plant No. 2 to the grade of the Districts' adjacent roadway in order to provide access to the oil well, for a cost not to exceed $9,000. See page "L" DISTRICT 2 (j) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 78-178-2, ordering annexation of 249.243 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity north of Esperanza Road and east of Imperial Highway in the City of Yorba Linda, proposed Annexation No. 27 - Travis Ranch Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2 DISTRICT 5 (k) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the . plans and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an addition of $11~731.06 to the c6ritract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. for additional excavation and backfill and chan~e in pipe connections, and granting a time ·extension of 97 calendar· days for said additional work. See page 11 M" (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans.and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities for a total addition of $293.70 to the contract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. See page "N" (rn) Conside1~ation of Resolµ~i.c;m No. 78-179-.5, accepting Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit S, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-:-R, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion;-and approving Final·Closeout Agreement. See page "0" DISTRICT 7 (n) Consideration of Standard· Resolution N6. ~8-180-7, ordering annexation of 9.010 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive between Vista del Lagb and La Cuesta, proposed Annexatfori No. 78 -Tract No. 9688 to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 70th Sewer Maintenanc~. District) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (11) 1\LL DISTRICTS -Cons-idcration of i terns deleted froin consc11 t _ calendar, if any -4- (12) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Conunittee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Conunittee's written report (13) ALL DISTRICTS \._I Consideration of action on i terns recommend~d by the Executive Committee.: Fi LE ···············-g_~ Ir LETIER-•••••.••••• -. A/C .~ .. TKLR - (a) Conside.ration of motion directing the staff to proceed. immediately to finalize the Districts' Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to meet applicable Federal requirements and, simultaneously, proceed vigorously to complete the Districts' application for waiver of secondary treatment, as provided by Section 30l(h) of the 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act File................... (b) ·Consideration of Resolution No. 78-167, urging the California ~--~.k~~ Legislature to enact eql:Jitable legislation for special districts 11,;_-jf.1"'"1<_,,) ('11/S pertaining to the continued apportionment of their pro rata share ~ of ad valorem tax levies after 1978-79. See page "P" _.... .... -~ .... -/C-c)) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and ~ reconunendation of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. dated September 20, 1978, relative to selection of an in-house mini-computer system (report enclosed with Executive Committee material) filE ···········-···· LETTER ·-·-- A/C : ••. TKlR -· ···-··-·· ........... .... _ .... -·'7· .. ·"" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-169, approving agreement ~ ... Jc.:"-···;.. _ _,,,, with Delphi Systems, Inc. for purchase and insta:l lation of ~~ -eV" I\~\'-in-house mini-_ computer s_ ystem, in .. form ap_proved by the General ~~TIER·u -··-lVI ° Counsel, for a maximum amount not to exceed $281,350.00 plus ~ applicable taxes ·and deli very. See page ~'Q" ~-~ f:::'J Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept proposal of \.Y Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., dated September 19, 1978, for project management services in connection with detail design and installation N) l £ of in-house mini-computer system; and staff accounting support (as, and if, needed) on a per diem fee basis for a maximum amount not to exceed $76,500.00, as follows: ~ ... V.:. ... ~..h.~ Management of detail system design, installation and monitoring A/C •••. TKLR •••• l\\.o.~ v---.. -·· .................... Staff accounting support and assistance, ~s, and if, needed $39, 780. 00 (Not to exceed) _(§:) ... ~ .... LETTER ·······-··- MC •... Tl(l.R .... ~.,,, --.. -.. ..... .........._ Maximum Fees and Expenses 36,720.00 (Not to exceed) $76,500.00 (proposal enclosed with Executive Conunittee material) tfe)'\ (1) Consideration of motion establishing a Special Committee of ~ ~ one member from each District appointed by the Board of Directors of the respective District to study reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (2) (a) (b) DISTRICT 1 -Consideration of motion appointing Direct.or ~ to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts DISTRICT 2 -Consi'deration of motion appointing Director ~ to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (Item (e)(2) continued on. page 6) -5- FILE ················- LETIER ... -- A/C .... TKLR - (e) (2) (Continued from page 5) (c) DISTRICT 3 -Con s id e ration of motion appointing Iilrector ~ to the Speci a l Comm.i ttee to Study Reorganization of th e Sani.tation Di s tricts (d) (e) (f) (g) DISTRICT 5 -Consid e ration Director ~ to Study Re organ i<Z\l tion of DISTRICT 6 -Consideration Director ~~l'tt-~ to Study Reorgani za tion of of motion a ppoint ing to the Sp ecial Commi~t ee th e Sanitation Di s tricts of motion appo inting to the Sp ec i a l Committee the Sanitation Districts DI STRICT 7 -Consid eration of motion appo inting Director ~ . to the Special Cammi ttee to Study Reorganization o f th e Sanitation Districts DIS TRIC T 11 -Con sider a tion o f motion appointin g Director -"15~"'\::J~ to the Special Cammi tte e to Stu dy Reorganization of the Sani tation Districts (f) Con side ration of action s re Di rector r ep res entat ion at Ca liforn ia Ass ociation of Sanitation Ag e ncie s (CASA) function s : (1) (2) (3) ( 4) iscussion re representation ~ on appoi · ng Di rector to at CASA functi.011 ~ ------- OR Consideration of mo tion approv in g continue d representation by r e tire d Director Don Winn in t h e California Association of Sanitation Agencies through the Assoc i ation 's an nual meeting in Augus t, 1979, or until replaced by Board act ion up on recomm e ndation of the Exec utive Comm ittee Con s i de r ation of Resolution No . 78-170, authorizing payment Roll Call Vote or Ca st Un animo us Oa ll ot o f fees a n d reimbu rsement of expenses i n curred in con n ection with Distri ct representation in the California Associat ion of Sanit ation Age n c ies by retired Direct or Don Winn. See p age 11 R11 M\S (14) EACII DISTRICT Con s ideration of t he fo llowin g r eso lut ion s estab lis hing c h a rges for Cl ass I and .Class II permi ttees pursuant t o provision s of the uniform Ordinance Est a bli s hing Regu l a tions for Use of District Se werage Facilities o f the resp ect ive Districts: Sec page 11 S11 Clas s I Fee Dis trict No. Resolution No. Flow(0) ~) B.O .D{c) Class II Fee ca ) Roll Call VoW or Cas t Iii/~ l Unan imous Ballot 78-17 1-1 $165. $2 0.00 $1 1. 00 $232. ""'~ 2 78 -1 72-2 166 . 20.60 11. 30 237. File .................. / ·~[';> 3 78-173-3 16 3 . 20.25 11.10 233. ~~~:+"CU MIS 5 78 -1 74 -5 18 1. 20 .50 12.35 259. I_ ......... Q.v.- LLJ I G,.b-• i'-11~ 6 78-17S-6 165. 20.00 11. 00 232. A/C .... TKLR .. - ···-·· .. ······-···-·-Mb 7 78-176-7 183 . 22.75 1 2 .4 5 262. .\11$11 78-177-11 185 . 23 .0 0 1 2 .50 26 4. ···-··-··-··-- (a ) Per million gallon s of f low (b) Per th ou s and po un ds of s uspended solids (c) Per th ousand p ounds of bioc hemica l oxygen dem a nd -6 - f\t!S .......... -- ~--- A/C .... TKlR - (15) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file Annual·Report submitted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & CQ., Certified Public Accountants, for the year ending June 30, 1978, previously mailed to Directors by the auditors under separate cover .: ..... ---·--(16) ALL DISTRICTS ··---· Other unications or supplemental agenda items, if any (17) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn ~:o?;, (19) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (20) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn ~:u~ (21) DISTRICT 3 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn f:b) (23) DISTRICT 5 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn 8 : o Lf (25) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn g: o 4 (27) DISTRICT 7 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 7 F.lf ................ -(29) LETTE~'~ A/C~e/ --·--(30) Consideration of motion to adjourn y:o~ DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report re status of State Coastal Commission permit for Coast Highway Trunk from Plant No. 2 to Lake Street. See page "T" DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any {31) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn -7- /~ J -"BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ' County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 II of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA MEETING DATE OCTOBER 4, 1978 -7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT? HEAD1 IN ADDITIONJ STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT :00 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY'S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any See StipplemeRtal agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT (7) (8) Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, as mailed: ~ District 1 -September 13, 1978, regular District 2 -September 13, 1978, regular District 3 -September 13, 1978, regular District 5 -September 13, 1978, regular District 6 -September 13, 1978, regular District 7 September 13, 1978, regular District 11 _ September 13, 1978, regular DISTRICT 7 Election of Chairman ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) (b) Joint Chairman General Manager (c) General Counsel (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of ROLL_ CAi.L VOTE •• __ the joint and individual Districts as follows:· (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded as the same for each '..,,I District. represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for.any District) JOINT OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND DISTRICT NO. 1 DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO.· 5 ·DISTRICT NO. 6 DISTRICTS 5 & 6 SUSPENSE DISTRICT 7 DISTRICT 11 See page(~) See page(s) NONE See page(s) See page(s) S~e page(s) NONE See page(s) See page(s) NONE "A" and "C" "A" and "C" "0" and "0" "0" "B" "0" · (10) ALL DISTRICTS 1\0 11 Call v(~:c or Cast Umuumou.s Ballot CONSENT CALENDAR .ITEMS NOS .lQ (A) THROUGHlQ ( N ) All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action.approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter.the item to be removed from the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- .· (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) • ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding purchase of One (1) 6-Ton (capacity) Crane, Truck Mounted, Specification No. E-097; (to be mounted on Districts' vehicle previously purchased under Specification No. A-086) to Great Pacific Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $24,790.34. See page "E" (b) Consideration of motion authorizing one-year extension of Agricultural Lease with Nakase Brothers beginning October 1, 1978, at the annual. rate of $300 in accordance with the terms of said lease and Specification No. L-006 (c) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Miscellaneous Paving at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities for a total deduction of $13,649.97 from the contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. See page "F" · (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-163, accepting Miscellaneous Paving at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "G" (e) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, granting a time extension of 34 calendar days to the contract with Production Steel Co., Inc. due to delays in scheduled equipment delivery. See page "H" (f) Consideration of Resolution' No. 78-164, accepting Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, as complete; authorizing execution of Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "I" (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-165, approving Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for construction contract administration services re 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facili tie.s at Plant No. 2, _providing for ad<li t,ional services in connection with modifications to the basic computerized critical path construction schedule program, for an amount not to exceed $35, 000. See page "J'J {h) Consideration-of Resolution No. 78-166, authorizing acceptance of Grant Deed from Beeco, Ltd. in connection with purchase of approximately a .03-acre parcel of property located within the Districts' Treatment Plant No. 2 site, and authorizing payment in the amount of $3,500.00 for said Grant Deed. See page "K" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- .; (10) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (i) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-168, approving Letter Agreement with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. to raise the Karales Oil Well No. 5 site located at Treatment Plant No. ·2 to the grade of the Districts' adjacent roadway in order to provide access to the oil well, for a cost not to exceed $9, 000. See ·page · "L" DISTRICT 2 (j) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 78-178-2, ordering annexation of 249.243 acres of territory to the District in the _vicinity north of Esperanza Road and east of Imperial Highway in the City of Yorba Linda, proposed Annexation No. 27 - Travis Ranch Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2 DISTRICT 5 (k) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an addition of $11,731.06 to the contract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. for additional excavation and backfill and ·chan~e in pipe connections, and granting a time extension of 97 calendar days for said additional work. See page ".M" (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans.and specifications for Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities for a total addition of $293.70 to the contract with Rodding-Cleaning Machines, ~nc. See page "N" (m) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-179-5, accepting Slip Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, as complete;. authorizing execution of-Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement.· See page "0" DISTRICT 7 (n) Consideration of Standard ·Re~olution No. 78-180-7, ordering annexation of 9.010 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive between Vista del Lagb and La Cuesta, proposed Annexation No. 78 -Tract No. 9688 to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 70th Sewer Maintenance District) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any -4- (12) '..I (.13) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Conunittee's written report ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on.items recommended by the Executive Committee: (a) Consideration of motion directing the staff to proceed immediately to finalize the Districts' Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement to meet applicable Federal requirements.and, simultaneously, proceed vigorously to complete the Districts' ·application for waiver of secondary treatment, as provided by Section 301(h) of the 1977 Federal Water Pollution .control Act (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-167, urging the California Legislature to enact equitable legislation for special districts pertaining.to the continued apportionment of their pro rata share (c) of ad valorem tax levies after 1978-79. See page "P" (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and recommendation of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. dated September 20, 1978, relative to selection of an in-house mini-computer system (report enclosed with Executive Committee material) (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 78-169, approving agreement with Delphi Systems, Inc. for purchase and installation of in-house mini-computer system, .in form approved by the General Counsel, for a maximum amount not to exceed $281,350.00 plus applicable taxes and deli very. See page "Q" (d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept proposal of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., dated September 19, 1978, for project management services in connection with detail design and installation of in-house mini-computer system; and staff accounting support (as, and if, needed) on a per diem fee basis for a maximum amount not to· exceed $76,500.00, as follows: Management of detail system design, installation and monitoring Staff accounting support and assistance, as, and if, needed Maximum Fees and E>.1'enses $39, 780. 00 (Not to exceed) 36,720.00 (Not to exceed) $76,500.00 (proposal enclosed with Executive Committee material) (e) (1) Consideration of motion establishing a Special Committee of (2) one member from each District appointed by the Board of Directors of the respective District to study reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (a) (b) DISTRICT 1 -Consideration of motion appointing Director VovN ~)~ to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts DISTRICT 2 -Consideration of motion appointing Director Dt'l,\ J.Ji,I r to the Special Committee to Study Rborganization of the Sanitation Districts (Item (e)(2) continued on page 6) -5- '..,_/ (e) (2) (Continued from page 5) (c) DISTRICT 3 -Considei;~tion of motion appointing Director Q1ck Se, lv .,\ to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (d) DISTRICT 5 -Consideration of motion appointing · Director tr~ f,t..~~ to the· Special Committee to Study Reorganiza~ion of the Sanitation Districts (e) DISTRICT 6 -Consideration of motion appointing Director .QytHJk._ . to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation.Districts (f) DISTRICT 7 ~ Conside1ation of motion appointing Director Qfr ~ .R to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts (g) DISTRICT 11 -Consideration of motion appointing Director lfrl'r~ S<, ~ .... +-to the Special Committee to Study Reor anization of the Sanitation Districts (£) Consideration of actions re Director representation at California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) functions: .· (1) Dj scus-sio11 re 1ep1ese11tation _(2J __ C.o.nside-r-ation-ef-moti-on---appointing .. 1H.re"Ctor · to -------represent Districts at CASA functions OR Consideration of motion approving continued representation by retired Director Don \~inn in the California Associat_ion of Sanitation Agencies through the Association's annual meeting in August, 1979, or until replaced by Board action upon recommendation of the Executive Committee ~ . ~/;;, (4) V'if Roll Call V e or Casi Consideration of Resolution No. 78-170, authorizing payment of fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection Unanlmou allot with District representation in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies by retired Director Don Winn. See page "R" (14) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of the following resolutions establishing charges for Class I and Class II permittees pursuant to provisions of the uniform Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities of the respective Districts: See page "S" Class I Fee District No. Resolution No .. Flow(a) ~) B .0 .D{c) Class II Feeca) Roll Call Vote or Cast l 78-171-1 $165. $20.00 $11. 00 $232. Unanimous Ballot ~, 78-172-2 166. 20.60 11.30 237. E 78-173-3 163. 20 .• 25 11.10 233. "5 78-174-5 181. 20.50 12.35 259. -6 78-175-6 165. 20.00 11.00 232. 1 78-176-7 183. 22.75 12.45 262. ;ii 78-177-11 185. 23.00 12.50 264. (a) 'Per million gallons of flow (b) Per thousand pounds of suspended solids (c) Per thousand pounds of biochemical oxygen demand -6- (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file Annual Report submitted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & co:, Certified Public Accountants, for the year ending June 30, 1978, previously mailed to Directors by the auditors under separate cover ALL DISTRICTS Other business and conµnunications or supplemental agenda items, if any . DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or sµpplemental agenda items, if any DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn ~~L-, DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn · ~ ·. 6 'I · DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn ~ '. t I (23) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (25). DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or_ supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 6 t Consideration of motion to adjourn ~ :u (27) DISTRICT 7 (28) Other business and 'li°mmunications or supplemental agenda items, if any ~VLM--c, ~~ ~ Yvr"-le G-fei,lu__..~-/ DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn · (29) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report re status of State Coastal Commission permit for Coast Highway Trunk from Plant No. 2 to Lake Street. See page "T" (30) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (31) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn -7- u ·~ ~ANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones : of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS Regular Meeting October 4, 1978 -7:30 p.m. Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 The following is a brief explanation of the ·more important, non-routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise self-explanatory. Warrant lists are enclosed with the agenda material summarizing the bills paid since the last Joint Board mee ting. To minimize the amount of redundancy and duplication in the agenda material and reduce the nUI!lber of comments in the Manager's Report, we have expanded the description of the agenda items in the aeenda itself, particularly with regard to change orders and contracts which have been publicly bid and are within the contr~ct budget or en gineer 's estimate. Detailed change orders are included in the supporting material as well as the bid tabulations for the contracts being recommended for award. Joint Boards No . 10-a -Award of Specification No. E-097 -Six-Ton Capacity Crane. Three bids were received on September 26th for a six-ton capacity crane, ranging from a low of $24,970.34 to a high of $30,143.56. The bids include installation on a previously-purchased cab and chasis. This unit is needed to renlace a 1968 model which is no longer service- able due to the age and condition. The staff recoTI1f!lends that the award be made to the low bidder, Great Pacific E~uipment Company of Los Angeles, in the amount of $24,970 .34 . the Ana the The No. 10-b -Approving Modifications to Agricultural Lease . In 1973, an agricultural lease was granted to Nakase Bros. for use of the Districts' pipeline right of way ad jacent to the Santa River, to be used in conjunction with the right of way ovmed by Edison Com pany for the purpose of wholesale nursery operations . l ease was renegotiated in October, 1976 for a revised lease amo unt of $3 00 per year. Subsequently, the Districts have granted an e n croachment easement to the Orange County F l ood Contro l Distr i c t. Since Nakase ho l ds the l ease for t he a dj acen t Edison righ t of way , t h e re does not ap pear to be any other interested parties. The staff r ecommends a one -year extension of the current agreement as provided by the l e ase t erms for $300. No. 1 0-c -Change Order No. 2 to Job No. PH -062. This cha n ge order to the misce llaneous paving at Plant No . 1 adjusts the engineer's estimated quantiti es for a total deduct to the contract of $13,649.97. This change order, p l us Change Order No. 1, reduc es the original contract price from $100,180 to a final amended contract price of $64,570 .03. The staff recommends acceptance of this change order in the amount of a $1 3,649.97 reduction. No . 1 0-d -Acceptance of Job No . PW-062 -Miscellaneous Paving at Recl amati on Plant No . 1, Job No . PW-062. The contractor has completed all the work and contractual require - ments for the misce llaneous p aving at Pl ant No. 1. The staff recom- mends acceptance of the work and execution of the F ina l Clos eout Agree - ment and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required. No .10-e -Chan ~ Order No. 1 to Job Ho. ,.PW -066. This chanRe order for the mod ification of exi sting sludge hopper outlet port at Plant No . 1 is to extend the contract completion date by 34 ca l endar days as a result of delays in scheduled equipmer.t delivery to the s ubcontractor by the solenoid valve manufacturer . The staff recommends a pprova l of this change order at no additional cost to the District s . No.1 0-f -Acceptance of PW-066 -Modification of Existin Houp er Ou t l et Port at Rec amat i on P l ant N~. The contractor h as completed all work and contractural requirements for the modification of ex isting sludge hopper outlet port at Reclama- tion Plant No. 1 . The s taff, therefore, recommends acceptance of the work an d execut ion of the Final Cl os eout Agreement and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required. No. 1 0-g -Amendment No . 1 to Construction Management Engineering Services Contract. I n May, 1977 , the Districts entered into a contract with Butier En gin eering to provid e the construction management services for the five construction contracts at Plant No . 2 (grant ap proved 75-MGD Impr o ved Treatment). As a part of the construction of Contracts Nos . P2-23 -2 and P2-23 -6, the contractors were required t o provide corn- -2- computerized construction schedules reflecting their anticipated work schedules and the prog ress payments associated therewith. In order that the Districts can continually be apprised of the con- tractors' activities as they reflect on contract changes, the Dis- tricts need a computerized critical path construction (CPM) program. Butier Engineerin~ has offered to provide these services at his cost within the provisions of the contract for an estimated maximum amount not to exceed $35,000 for the balance o f this three-year construction program. The staff reconnnends acceptance of this amendment to the Butier Engineering contract. The State Water Resources Control Board repre- sentative who reviews our construction projects feels strongly that this program should be continued to avert potential litigation asso- ciated with change orders for additional costs and time extensions. This program is grant fundable. No. 10-h -Purchase of Minor Parcel Within Plant No. 2 Site. Treatment Plant No. 2 site in Huntington Beach contains approxi- mately 100 acres of land. This site has been acquired over a period of time, corrnnencing in 1952 to the most recent acquisition in 1976. Recently, the staff ha s been preparing a record of survey to consoli- date all of the purch as es and to reconcile all the encumbrances asso - ciated with our land holding s in order that futu r e planning of the site can be made. It ·was discovered that a minor uarcel of land (approximately 1500 square feet) was inadvertently.omitted in the many acquisitions. This small land-locked parcel is owned in fee by Beeco Ltd., of Newport Beach. The staff apprised the Executive Com- mittee of this problem approximately one year ago. We have negotiated with the land owner based on other land values in the area and have arrived at an agreed price of $3500 including mineral rights. The staff recommends purchase of this parcel and ·authori zation for the General Counsel to prepare the necessary documents for execu- tion. · No. 10-i -Authorizing Pay_zent to Chevron USA, Inc., to Adjust Existing Oil Well at Plant No.. When the Districts acquired a portion of the Plant No. Treatment Plant site, the Districts did not secure the underlying oil and mineral rights which were owned by Standard Oil Company, subsequently conveyed to Chevron USA, Inc. In the condemnation proceedings for the acquisi- tion, Chevron was entitled to certain acc e ss and use rights. There are five permanent well sites and two floating sites and a tank farm lo cated on the Plant site. -3- In the construction of the roadway system under P2 -23 -l (Flood Wall and Site Deve l o~ments) as a part of the 75-MGD of pure oxygen activated sludge treatment, well site #5 was made inaccess ibl e. To adjust the roadway system to accommodate the elevations of the exist - in3 oil we ll would h ave necessitated a cost in excess of $25,000 to $35,000 to the Districts. Chevron has asreed to adjust the existing oil well site to grade for a cost not to exceed $9,000. The staff r ecommends authorization for payment to Chevron in accordance with their proposa l in form acceptab le to the General Cou nsel. Distric t No. 2 No. 1 0 -j -OrderinR Annexation No. 27 -Travis Ranch Annexation. Last November, the Board author iz ed initiation of annexation proceedings for the Travis Ranch property which is located in the vicini ty north of Esperanza Road and East of Imperial Highway in the City of Yorba Linda. The project incorporates approximate ly 250 acres and will contain 641 dwelling units, re su lting in a density of 2.57 dw e lling units per acre. The development is considered low dens ity and conforms to the Districts' Master Plan. It will be constructed i n ten increments over a three to five-year period, starting at EsperaDza and moving north. Loc a l sewer service wi ll be provided by the City of Yorba Lin da. The original proponents of this annexation have now sold this property, and the new owners are L & W Company. The staff recommends adoption of Resolution No .. 78-178 -2 ordering Annexation No. 27. The proponent has paid all a~p li cable fees . District No. 5 No. 10 -k -Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 to Contract No. 5-8 -R. Thi s contract for the slip lining of Trunk B from the Rocky Point Pumpin g Station to the Lido Pumpinr, Station was awarded in Apri l of this year. It was anticipated that the work wou ld be completed on or before June 15th in order to avoid the summer traffic on Pacific Coast Hir.h way. The contractor encountered additiona l work because of unknmvn utilities and additional traffic requirements imposed by Cal Trans because of the extended construction per iod. I ncluded in Change Order no. 1 is $4,947.10 for add itiona l work resultin g from removal of concrete cradles, broken water lines, re - l ocation of installation pits alonR with delays associated with Cal - Trans encroachment permit requirements. Also included in this change order is the amount of $6,783.96 for the substitution of flange con - n ections in li eu of the sleeve couplinr,s as specified . It became apparent that sleeve couplinr,s as specified woul~ not provide the int egri ty of the installation that could be reali~e<l .from a ~lange connection . Thi s additional cost is for the furnishing and instal- l ation of the flange connections above the cost associated with the -4 - - specified sleeve couplings. Change Order No. 1 recommends the time extension of 97 calendar days which includes 15 calendar days for extra work performed and 82 calendar days because of traffic requirements impo sed by the Cal Tran s Encroachment Permit. Change Order No. 2 is an ad justment of the engineer 's quantities increas ing the contract by $293.70 because of an additional six line~l feet installed of the L~,415 lineal feet as specified. The staff recom- mends ap!"rova l of Ch a n ge Orders t-los. 1 and 2 to this contract. No. 10-m -Acceptance of Contract No. 5-8 -R -Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to the Lido Pump Station. The contr actor has completed a ll the work and contractual re- quirements for the slip-lining of Trunk B on Pacific Coast Highway. The staff recommends acceptance of the work and execution of the Final Closeout Agreement and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required . District No. 7 No. 10-n -Ordering Annexation No. 78. On May 10 th, the Board authorized initiation of proceed ings for Tract No. 9688 which is located in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive between Vista del Lago and La Cuesta in the unincorporated territory of the Cou nty. The tract is approximately 9 acres and wi ll contain ten residenti a l lots . The proposed development i s in conformity wi th the Di strict's land-use plan and the staff recommends approval of Resolution No . 78-180-7, ordering annexation of this parcel to the District. All necessary fees have been paid by the proponent. It will be necessary for this property to be annexed to the 70th Sewer Maintenance District for local sewer maintenance. Each District No. 14 -Establishing 197 8 -79 Use Charge Fees for Class I and Class II Industrial Waste Dischargers. The Uniform Indu s tria l Waste Ordinance which was imnlemented July 1, 1976, provides that the respective Boards establish unit charges to industrial dischar~ers for conveying, treat ing and dis- posing of sei;.;rap,e throuf;h the Districts' f ac ilities based upon the annual budget. Class I industrial discharg ers are the major in- du s tri es in the County which will dischar~e volumes in excess of 50,000 gal lons per day or discharge wastewaters which have a strength -5- 50% p,reater tha n domestic sewage or are discharging constituents that are considere d inconpatible with the Districts ' sewerage system. Inasmuch as both Class I and Cla ss II pernittees a re credited in the amount of the estimated annua l ad va lorem tax paid the Districts u pon the property for which the permit h as be e n iss u ed , exclusive of that portion of the tax paid for d e b t service , each individual District must adopt sep arate resolutions establishin~ the u se charges bec a use of the var y in~ rates for the individu a l Districts. Now th at the 1978 -79 budgets h ave been a~proved, it i s appropriate for the Boards to adop t th e resolu t ion s a pp earing in the agenda pursuan~ to provisions set forth in Section 302.6 and 303.1 of the Industrial Waste Ordin a nce for Class I and Class II permittees. All Di s tricts No. 15 -Annual Fina nci a l Reoort . Th e annua l a u dit report for the fisca l year endin~ June 30, 1 978 h as be e n mailed under separate cover to the Directors by the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitche ll a nd Company. I f there are any ques- tions, pl ease call th e Ge n era l Ma n ager or the Dir ec tor of Finance. Di strict No. 11 No . 29 -Status of the Coasta l Cor.1Inission Permit for the Coast Hi g hw ay Trunk S e wer . A h earing has been set for taking test imony conce rning the appea l to th e State Commission by the Amieos de Ba l sa Chica, Sierra Club and Mrs. Ei l een Brock to overturn the Re g i onal Commission's permit fo r the constru ction of the District 1 s Coast Highway Trunk Sewer from Pl an t No. 2 to Lake Street . The state staff has indicated that a favorable report could be made to the Commission if the Di strict wou ld d efer any consideration o f annexation of t he Bols a Chica area until th e coastal el e men t plan for this area is fina l ized , wh ich shou ld be no later than 1981 . Includ ed in th e agenda s u pporting materia l is a staff report a nd a samp l e r e solution re8ardin~ deferred annexat ion of the Bolsa Chica wet l ands. The s taff su gg ests th a t the District 's Director s revi.ew this inforni a t i on for consideration ar th e tfovember 8th Board meeting . It i s also s u g ~ested that this proposal be sent to the Huntington Beach City Counci l for comment . F"!:"ed A. Harper General Ma nap:er September 21, 1978 COUNTY S ANITAT IO N DISTRICTS of Q RANGE C OUNTY. C Al If ORN IA PO 8 0X8127 10 844 ELLIS AVENUE FO UNTA IN VA LLEY. CALIFORN IA 92708 (7 14) 54 0 -2 91 0 (7 14)9 62-2411 MAHAGER'S REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE M . D ._eeting ate: September 27, 1978 -5:30 p.m . This meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:30 P .m. Directors Alan Priest and Earl Roget have been invited to attend and parti - cipate in the discussions. · 1. Completion of Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Recently, we received a communication from the Environmental Protection Agency, Re g ion IX, Water Division Director, advising that the Districts should complete and adopt a Facilities Plan calling for full secondary treatment, rather than an alternative plan con- templatine a waiver of full secondary treatment for ocean discharge as provided by Section 30l(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977. ~ Last Tuesday, your General Manager and Chief En g ineer held further discussions on this subject with Mr. Covington, the Regiona l Water Division Director and his Assistant, Richard Coddington. It was de- cided that one or both of these gentlemen should express their con- cerns of our Districts' approach to the Executive Committee. Without a com pleted Facilities Plan, further construction ~rant participation by EPA wi ll not be forthco~ing. Attached is a very brief staff report and a copy of the letter from EPA. 2. User Fee Revenue Program. The staff and the Districts' consultant, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, have prepared a synopsis of a Revenue ProEram proposed for the 1979-80 fiscal year. EPA re g ulations require that the Districts have an approved Revenue Pro3ram by July 1, 1979, or a ll further con - struction grant pro g r e ss payments wi ll be stopped on that date. We have held discussions with staff members of the State and EPA and it appears that the Districts can develop a Reve nue Pro g ram for the coming fiscal year which will meet the criteria established by EPA for an approved Revenue Pro g ram., if the Districts continue to receive their share of the 1% tax allocation under the Jarvis-Gann Amendment (see enclosed). Pursuant to the Directors' request, enc lo sed is a pronosed reso- lution urging the California Legislature to enact equitable legislation for special Districts to ensure that they continue to receive a pro rata share of the ad valorem taxes authorized by Proposition 13. 3. In-House Mini-Computer System Selection. A. Last May, the Boards approved a feasibility study con- ducted by the firm of Peat, Ma rwick, Mitchell & Company relative to the Districts ' data processing requirements for the immediate future and authorized the consultant to complete a conceptual system design and so licit proposals for installa tion of an in-house mini-computer. In Au gus t, proposals were received from eight firms. Peat, Marwick has evaluated the proposals and recommends that th e Districts enter into a contract with Delphi Systems , Inc., for installation of the in-house system. A representative of Peat, Marw ick will attend the Executive Co mm ittee meeting and review the analysis and recommenda- tion contained in their report wh ich is enclosed herewith. B. Proposal to Monitor Installation of the Selected Computer. As discussed with the Directors at the time the action plan for installation of the mini-computer system was considered and approved, because of the present work load .the fact that the Districts do not have technical personnel nor available staff necessary to implement the system, we are, therefore, ne g otiating with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company for services to assist the Districts in managing detailed design of th e system, monitoring of the installa tion and final accept- ance testing. The staff will report further on this matter at the Committee meeting. 4. Consolidation of the Districts. Pursuant to the direction of the Executive Committee, the staff has prepared a list of pros and cons relative to the possible con- solidation of the seven sanitation districts . Also enclosed for this item is additional information concerning previous Board con- sideration of consolidation. 5. Pendin g Meet-and-Confer Sessions Re Maintenance Personne Sa aries and Bene its. and Within the next few weeks, the management will be meeting and conferring with repre sentatives of the maintenance and op erations personnel relative to salaries and benefits .. The staff would .appre- ciate direction from the Committee and the Joint Boards on this sub- ject. We will be prepared to discuss this in detail at Wednesday's meeting. -2- 6. Fiscal Policy Committee Appointme nts. At the present time, the Fiscal Policy Co mmittee has two vacancies due to the retirement of Director Harr iett Wieder and the t erm of Director Dick Olson wi ll expire thi s month. The procedures for appointments to this cormnittee require appo intment by the J oint Chair - man and confirmation by the Executive Committee. The current Fiscal Policy Co mmitte e is comprised of Jim S harp, Chairman ; Don Holt, member; Dick Olson, mem b er; a nd Pau l Ryckoff , member . 7. Director Rezresentation on the California Association of San i tation Agencies CASA). In April, the Joint Boards a uthor i zed the cont inued rep r esentati on of retir ed Director Don Winn to the California Associat i on of Sanita - tion Agenc ies through th e Association's Annual Work Conference in August o f this year . This a uthoriz ation expired af ter CASA 's August Annua l Workshop; therefore, it wi ll be necessary for the Joint Boards to make a determination relative to future r epresentation at CASA activities. -3- Fred A . Harp e r Gen e r a l Manager September 20, 1978 STAFF REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)540-2910 (714)962-2411 STATUS OF FACILITIES PLAN ~ EPA TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS In June, 1975, the Districts entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIS was completed, in draft form, in the spring of 1977 and public hearings were held and conducted by represen- tatives of the EPA. The EIS is a monumental document analyzing in depth the primary and secondary impacts of alternate plans to meet the EPA secondary treatment requirements and the effects on the marine environment. The major secondary impacts associated with growth include air pollution, land development policies and water reclamation and reuse. This draft EIS was completed based on the draft Facilities Plan jointly prepared by John Carollo Engineers and the Districts' staff. This draft Facilities Plan set forth various alternatives to meet the secondary treatment requirements presently contained in the Districts' NPDES permit. Before the EIS can be finalized, it is mandatory that the Directors adopt a final Facilities Plan. The staff has had several meetings and discussions with representatives of the EPA and State Water Resources Control Board regarding the finalization of the Facilities Plan. There are several areas of disagreement which must be resolved before the EIS can be finalized. It is essential to realize that without an approved EIS, neither the EPA nor the State will participate with grant funding in any facility designed for increased capacity. The present design capacities of the combined Treatment Plants is 184 rngd. Our present flows are approximately 195 mgd. ~o facili- ties for additional capacities have been constructed since 1972. The areas of conflict between the EPA and State officials and regulations and the Sanitation Districts' policies and programs are: 1. The EPA will not finalize the EIS until a final Facilities Plan is adopted by the Boards of Directors. The final Facilities Plan must recom- mend an adopted plan which specifies full secondary treatment facilities for all present and future flows to be treated at the Joint Works. 2. The Boards of Directors have basically adopted a plan supporting the issuance of a waiver of the secondary treatment requirements. This plan maxi- miz~s the present secondary treatment facilities which have been recently completed at Plant No. 1 and which are under construction at Plant No. 2. All flows in excess of the capacities of these two secondary treatment facilities will receive only primary treatment prior to ocean disposal. This Board policy was strongly reinforced by our "concerned citizens" in their expression of their views of ex- penditures by the Districts at the July 19th parking lot meeting. Alternate considerations for resolution of these differences are: A. The Districts do not finalize the EIS. This action would preclude any future State and Federal grant funding for any facilities which are associated with growth and capacity. The only grant participation would be for secondary treatment facilities under this option. B. To finalize and adopt the Facilities Plan stating full secondary treatment as the best apparent al- ternative. This action would facilitate the finalization of the EIS. If the Districts are not successful in obtaining a waiver, then the Facilities Plan and adopted EIS would set the groundwork for full secondary treatment facilities. c. Considering A and B above, even if the Districts are successful in obtaining a waiver for modification of secondary treatment requirements the waiver is issued for only a five year period. At the expiration of the five years, the Districts would then be forced to consider the best practicable waste treatment technology for marine discharges. This best treatment level has yet to be defined by the EPA. It is essential that this matter be resolved in the near future in order that the staff can finalize planning for increased growth and capacity at the Joint Works facilities. Representatives of the EPA will be in attendance at the Executive Committee Meeting to answer questions regarding this matter. Staff is seeking direction in resolution of this EIS process. REL:hjb 2. Copy to: REL UNITED STATES E.NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA., 92708 Dear Mr. Harper; AUG 2 4 1S7H This is in response to recent staff meetings regarding the completion of the County-Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) Wastewater Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As you are aware, it is EPA 1 s policy to require facilities plan adoption prior to publishing a final EIS. The CSDOC facilities plan and the draft EIS presently call for full secondary treatment in accordance with PL 92- 500. While the Clean Water Act of 1977 allows for a modification of the secondary treatment mandate in certain cases (Section 30l(h)), it is our position that until such a modification is granted, all EPA actions must be consistent with full secondary treatment requirements. Staff discussions indicate that the CSDOC no longer anticipates adopting a facilities plan calling for full secondary treatment, instead one which recommends less than full secondary with an alternative of full secondary treatment only if the secondary modification application is unsutcessful. Such a facilities plan is not consistent with existing permit requirements and therefore is not eligible or acceptable to EPA. In the interest expediting the completion of the CSDOC EIS, we suggest that the facilities plan be adopted as written with the inclusi~n of a statement to the effect that if the CSDOC NPDES requirements are modified in the future, the facilities plan would be modified to meet the new requirements. This procedure allows continued EPA participation and assures that OCSD can pursue its project schedule in ac~ordance with applicable statutes. Sincerely, c.;;;:7.JJ)o. ~· ~~ Frank M. Covington 1~ Director, Water Di ision cc: Larry Walke~ SWRCB RESOLUTION NO. URGING CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS PERTAINING TO APPORTIONMENT OF AD VALOREM TAX LEVY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANIT~TION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS PERTAINING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DRAFT 9/19/78 WHEREAS, the adoption of Proposition 13 on June 6, 1978, has established the maximum amount of tax that can be levied upon real property within the State of California; and, WHEREAS, most special districts within the State of California levied a tax upon the real property within.their jurisdiction based upon the ad valorem assessment .rolls; and, WHEREAS, those special districts· which levied an ad valorem based tax relied ·upon such revenues to meet a portion or all of the expenses of operating said Districts; and, 'WHEREAS, those special districts provided sanitation services empowered by State law to establish and collect charges or fees for services provided to the users of their system in addition to receiving ad valorern property tax revenue; and, . WHEREAS, sanitation agenci~s provide a special service directly related to real property; and, WHEREAS, the ability to use a combined system of ad valorem taxes and direct user charges is the most equitable means of financing most special districts and particularly sanitation agencies, and recognizing the relationship of the service to the property,; and, WHEREAS, to implement Proposition 13 the California legisla~urs. has enacted SB 154. (Chapter 292, stats 1978) and SB 2212 (Chapter 332, stats 1978) which measures included the addition of Section 16270 · \wJ to the California Gov~rmnent Code in which the State Legislature has declared its intent to deny special districts any share of the 1% ad ·valorem tax levy allowed by Proposition 13, after the 1978~79 fiscal year~ and, WHEREAS, if such l~gislation is re-enacted in the same or similar form to be· effective· July 1, 1979, it will require the spec"ial districts to impose large user cha:r-ges and have a revenue pr~gram that ·is not necessarily the most.equitable system possible for financi~g its operations; :.and, WHEREAS, to allow General Government such as counties and cities to rec"eive the entire apportionment of the 1% tax levy authorized by the· California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2237, to the exclusion .of special districts, thus requiring special districts who relied in part upon tax .revenue in the past to adopt user c}J.arges to establish ·a pr~gram contrary to the intent and mandate of the people of this State in adopting Proposition 13 • . NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos.· 1, 2i 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1.. Th~t ·the S_tate L~gislature enact a comprehensive revenue pr~gram and tax apportionment legislation to implement Proposition 13 for fiscal year 1978-79 and subsequent years; and, 'Section 2. That· said legislative program provide for special districts to continue to receive a pro rata share of. the ad valorem rate authorized to be levied by California Constitution, Article XII~ on the ·same apportionment .basis as authorized by SB 154 and SB 2212 for the fiscal year 1978-79; and, -2- Section 3. That the legislature not enact any legisative matters similar to Government Code Section 16270 which would direct special districts to rely soley on user charges or similar systems in lieu of receiving property taxes. -3- Copy to: REL ....._,; . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105 Mr. Fred Harper~ General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA., 92708 Dear Mr. Harper; AUG 2 4 1S78' This is in response to recent staff meetings regarding the completion of the County.Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) Wastewater Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As you are aware, it is EPA's policy to require facilities plan adoption prior to pµblishing a final EIS. The CSDOC facilities plan and the draft EIS presently call for full secondary treatment in accordance with PL 92- 500. While the Clean Water Act of ·1977 allows for a modification of the secondary treatment mandate in certain cases (Section 30l(h)), it is our position that until such a modification is granted, all .'EPA actions must be consistent with full secondary treatment requirements. Staff discussions indicate that the CSDOC no longer anticipates adopting a facilities plan calling for full secondary treatment, instead one which recommends less than full secondary with an alternative of full secondary treatment only if the secondary modification application is unsuccessful. Such a facilities plan is not consistent with existing permit requirements and therefore is not eligible or acceptable to EPA. In the interest expediting the completion of the CSDOC EIS, we suggest that the facilities plan be adopted as written with the inclusion of a . $tatement to the effect that if the CSDOC NPDES requirements are modified in the future, the facilities plan would be modified to meet the new requirements. This procedure allows continued EPA participation and assures that OCSD can pursue its project schedule in acc·ordance with applicable statutes. Sincerely, cZJJJo. ~~"· '~ Frank M. Covington 1' Director, Water Di ision cc: Larry Walker, SWRCJ3 September 20, 1978 STAFF REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.0.80X8t27 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)"540-2910 (71•) 962-2411 STATUS OF FACILITIES PLAN -EPA TREATMENT REQUIREHENTS In June, 1975, the Districts entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act •. The EIS was completed, in draft form, in the spring of 1977 and public hearings were held and conducted by represen- tatives of the EPA. The EIS is a monumental document analyzing in depth the primary and secondary impacts of alternate plans to meet the EPA s.econdary treatment requirements and the effects on · the marine environment. The major secondary impacts associated with growth include air pollution, land development policies and water reclamation and reuse. This draft EIS was completed based ·on the draft Facilities Plan jointly prepared by John Carollo Engineers and the Districts' staff. This draft Facilities Plan set forth various alternatives to meet the secondary treatment ~equirements presently contained in the Districts' NPDES permit. _Before the EIS can be finalized, it is mandatory that the Directors adopt a final Facilities Plan. The staff has had several meetings and discussions with representatives of the EPA.and State Water Resources Control Board regarding the finalization of the Facilities Plan. There are several areas of disagreement which must be resolved before the EIS can be finalized. It is essential to realize that without an approved EIS, neither the EPA nor the State will participate with grant funding in any facility designed for increased capacity. The present design capacities of the combined Treatment Plants is 184 mgd. Our present flows are approximately 195 mgd. ~o facili- ties for additional capacities have been constructed since 1972. The areas of conflict between the EPA and State officials and regulations and the Sanitation Districts' policies and programs are: 1. The EPA will n.ot finalize the EIS until a final Facilities Plan is adopted by the Boards of Directors. The final Facilities Plan must recom- mend an adopted plan which specifies full secondary treatment facilities for all present and future flows to be treated at the Joint Works. · ~. 2. The Boards of Directors have basically adopted a plan supporting the issuance of a waiver of the ~ secondary treatment requirements. This plan maxi-.· . mizes .the present secondary treatment· facilities · which have been recently completed at Plant No. 1 and which are under construction at Plant No. 2. All flows in excess of the capacities of these two secondary treatment facilities will receive only primary treatment prior to ocean disposal. ~his Board policy was strongly reinforced by our "concerned citizens" in their expression of their views of ex- penditures by the Districts at the July 19th parking lot meeting. Alternate considerations for resolution of these differences are: A. The Districts do not finalize the EIS. This action would preclude any future State and Federal grant funding for any facilities which are associated with growth and capacity. The only grant participation would be for secondary treatment facilities under this option. B. To finalize and adopt the Facilities Plan stating full secondary treatment as the best apparent al- .ternati ve. This action would facilitate the finalization of the EIS. If the Districts are not successful in obtaining a waiver, then the Facilities Plan and adopted EIS would set the groundwork for full secondary treatment facilities. c. Considering A and B above, even if the Districts are successful in obtaining a waiver for modification of secondary treatment requirements the waiver is issued for only a five year period. At the expiration of the five years, the Districts would then be forced to consider the best practicable waste treatment technology for marine discharges. This best treatment level has yet to be defined by the EPA. It is essential that this matter be resolved in the near future in order that the staff can finalize planning for increased growth and capacity at the Joint Works facilities. Representatives of the EPA will be in attendance at the Executive Committee Meeting to answer questions regarding this matter. Staff is seeking direction in resolution of this EIS process. REL:hjb •I ( I CUSTC~IE ~ Ot.\RGES I. A.'\:-.1J.\I. USER CHARGE A. RESillENTIAL B. S~l.\LL NOX-RESIDE~TIAL (Com::iercial/Small .Industrial) II REVEll\UE REQUIREMENTS A. To pay for annual main- tenance, operating and related costs, including replacement costs. B. To pay for annual main- tenance, operating and related costs, including replacement_ costs. COUNTY SANITATION OISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CONCEPTUAL SYNOPSIS -FINA~ ~ PLAN/REVENUE PROGRAM III VIA~LE BILLING ALTERNATIVES A. 1) Property tax bill a) Ad Valorem and/or b) Uniform sewer service charge (Separate line item) 2) Special arrangement with water companies to collect on water bill. 3) Direct billing by Districts. B. 1) Property tax bill a) Ad Valorem and/or b) Jnifonn sewer service charge, (Sep~rate l~ne j;te111 1 2) Special arran~ement with water companies to collect on water bill, IV B Il.LING CALCULATI ONS/ME1'HODOLOGY A. 1) a) Pro rata share of maximum 1\ Prop. 13 tax levy. b) Based on average resi- dential flow and domestic sewage strength per dwelling unit. 2) Based on average residential flow or a factor of actual water use at domestic sewage strength. 3) Based on average residential flow and domestic sewage strength per dwelling unit. B. 1) a) Pro rata share of maximum 1% Prop. 13 tax levy. b) Based on average flow ari~ sewer strength, per unit, for each user group and/ or sub group cl~s~i­ fication. 2) Based on average flow and sewer strength, per unit, for each user group and/ or sub group classifi- cations; or actual water use and average sewage strength. REVISED 'J/27/78 ( v COMMEl\'75/ ISSUES A. 1) a) Assumes Districts will continue to recei\•e pro rata share of Prop. 13 tax allocatiun which is yet to be determined by legis- lature. (Reference SB 154, Sec. 16270) b) If tax allocation is insufficient to cover M&O costs then sewer service charge 10ould be ir.iplementcd to pro- vide supplementary funds. • Most cost effecti\'e method of col- lecting and administering charges. • More equitable approach. 2) • Would require contractual arrangements and system modifications for compati- bility with approximately 80 different water companies. Greater operating cost and administrative burden. lfater company may not be receptive. 3) • lfould require installation of computcri ::cd billing system and associated administration. • Most costly of alternative. 4) Districts do not have information as to whcthcl' properties are connected. Properties could be given credit if se10ers unavailable or pro1wrty undeveloped. ffo10ever, it would be incurnhc:nt on property owner to apply for credit rebate and such credit would be for the uniform service charge only. 5) Determination if multiple dwelling unit rates are to be modified from single family <lwellinR unit rates would have to be made by Hoards. B. 1) a) Assumes Districts will continue to receive pro rata share of Prop. 13 tax allocation which is yet to be determined by legislature. (Reference SB 154, Sec. 16270) b) • If tax allocation is insufficient to cover M&O costs then sewer service charge would be implemented to provide supplementary funds. • Most cost effective method of collecting and ad~inistering charges. • "nTe e~uitablc annroach. 2) Would require contrnctual arrangements and system modifications for compatibility with approximatelr 80 different water companies. Greater operating cost and ndmistration burden. ( II REVENUE REQUIREMENTS 8. S.lL\LL ~ON-RESIDF.~iIAL (Cont'd.) (Commercial/Small Industrial) C. lNDUS1 R~AL D. EXE.\fPT PROPERTIES C. To pay for annual main- tenance, operating, and related costs, including replacement costs. D. To pay for annual maintenance, operating and related costs including replacement costs, III VIABLE BILLING ALTERNATIVES 3) Direct billing by Districts c. 1) Direct billing by Districts D. 1) Property tax bill a) Uniform sewer service charge (separate line item) 2) Special arrangement with water companies to collect on water bill. 3) Direct billing by Districts. { IV BILLING CALCULATIONS/MElllODOLOGY 3. a) Based on average flow and sewage strength per unit for each user group and/or sub group classifications. b) Based on flow and sewage strength per unit, for each group and/or sub group classi- fication; or actual water use and average sewer strength. C. 1) Based on actual loading data. D. 1) Flow Suspended Solids BOD a) Based on average flow and sewer strength per unit, for each use group nnJ/or sub-group classification 2) Based on avera5e flow and sewer strength, per unit, for each user group nnd/or sub group classification; or actual water use and average sewage strength. l) a) Based on average flow and sewage strengh, per unit, for each user group and/or sub group classification. b) Based on flow and sewage strength, per unit, for each group and/or sub group classi- fication; or actual water use and average sewer strength. v COMMENTS/ISSUES ( 3. a) Would require the installation of computerized billing system and associated ndmini~trativc system. Most costly alternative. b) Would require obtaining flow data for each user in addition to a) above. 4. Districts do not have information as to whether properties are connected. Properties could be given credit if sewers unavailable or property undeveloped. However, it would be incumbent on property owner to apply for credit rebate and such credit would be for the uniform service charge only. C. 1) • Required by Federal Lm~. D. 1) • Any property tax pai<l would be credited against user charge (except debt service tax). Districts currently have± 300 industries permitted under this method. • Requires monitoring of flow and sampling of each firm. a) Exempt properties do not pay any property tax b) Most cost·effectivc method of collecting 2) Would require contractual arrangements and system modifications for compatibility with approximately 80 diffe1·cnt water companies. Gre~ter operating cost and administration burden. 3) a) l~ould require the installation of computerized billing system and associated administrative system. Most costly alternative. b) Would renuire obtaining flow data for each user in addition to a) above. 4) Districts do not have information as to whether properties are connected. Properties could be given credit if sewers unavailable or property undeveloped. However, it would be incumbent on property owner to apply for credit r~bate and such credit would be for the uniform service charge only. i (. l:\DUS1 RIAL COST RECOVERY [II. PEBT SERVICE ".'I. CAPIT:\l FACILITIES REOll!RF.ME~TS II RE\·E~UE REQUIREMENTS Annual charge to recover fed- eral g1·ant share of capital costs associated with indust- d!ll capacity. Annual charge to recover interest and principal on G.O. bonds outstanding. A. Capital Replacement Charge A. Annual charge to provide funds to replace capital facilities when useful l'ifc ·i-s ·exhausted. B. Connection Fees C. Anne.~ation Fees B. To pay for new capacity required for properties not yet connected to system. C. One-time charge to pay amount equal to propor- tionate share of Districts' net equity. III VIABI.E BILI.ING ALTERNATIVES Included on direct billing by Districts for industrial user charge. (See above). Via property tax roll. A. Same options as user charge, ( B. Collected by cities for Districts as a one-time charge when building permit is issued. Cities keep 5% for administra- tive costs associated with collection/disbursement to Districts. Properties in unincorporated areas pay at Districts' offices. C. Paid at time of annexation (or as modified by Boards). IV Bl LLING CALCULATIONS/METimDOLOGY To be collected from all system users that exceed 25,000 gal. per day equivalent sanitary strength, Based on assessed value of property. A. Funds for replacement will be provided over a designated time period by each user group based on current use of facilities. B. Cost of capacity per unit based on projected use. Includes collection, treatment and G&A costs. C. Based on Districts' net equity divided by total acreage. This base is adjusted annually. v COMMENTS/ISSUES -Required by Federal Law. -Requires extensive monitoring. ( Fifty percent of funds recovered repaid to Federal Treasury. -Balance of funds available for restricted use by Districts. Allowable under Prop. 13 for voter approved debt. A. 1) Practical dollar limit would have to be establish~J and continually evaluated. 2) If cash flows fluctuate annual rates nay require substantial adjustment to provide the necessary funds in a given year, or be supplemented by other capital sources such as general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or loans. 3) This charge could also be used to provide additional funds to upgrade facilities for current users if needed -over and above funds currently in reserve B. 1) Requires new developments/users rather t/Jan existing connected properties to pay for cost . of constructing added facilities needed to prondc required capacity. 2) Computation of charge for non-residential units should consider loading yet acco~odate case of administration by cities. 3) Currently in effect for all Districts except Districts 1 and 6. C. • Ess~ntially plac~s annexing properties in s~mc position as if they had been in the Districts from inception (ie., payment of back taxes) • Certain Districts have no annexable territory. • Funds may be used to supplement capital funding requirements listed above. Uncertain source of revenue. .. RESOLUTION NO. URGING CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISrRICTS PERTAINING TO APPORTIONMENT OF AD VALOREM TAX LEVY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS PERTAINING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF -THE - AD VALOREM TAX LEVY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DRAPT 9/19/78 WHEREAS, the adoption of Proposition 13 on June 6, 1978, has established the maximum amount of tax that can be levied upon real property within the State of California; and, WHEREAS, most special districts within the State of California levied a tax upon the real property within.their jurisdiction based upon the ad valorern assessment.rolls; and, WHEREAS, those special districts· which levied an ad valorem based tax relied -upon such revenues to meet a portion or all of the expenses of operating said Districts; and, WHEREAS, those special districts provided sanitation services empowered by State law to establish and collect charges or fees for services provided to the users of their system in addition to receiving ad valorem property tax revenue; and, WHEREAS, sanitation. agenci~s provide a special service directly related to real property; and, WHEREAS, the ability to use a combined system of ad valorem taxes and direct user charges is the most equitable means of financing most special districts and particularly sanitation agencies, and recognizing the relationship of the service to the property_; and, WHEREAS, to implement Proposition 13 the California legislature has enacted SB 154. (Chapter 292, stats 1978) and SB 2212 (Chapter 332, stats 1978) which measures included the addition of Section 16270 to the California Government Code in which the State Legislature has declared its intent to deny special districts any share of the 1% ad valorem tax levy allowed by Proposition 13, after the 1978-79 fiscal year; and, WHEREAS, if such legislation is re-enacted in·the same or similar form to be· effective July 1, 1979, it will require the special districts to impose large user charges and have a revenue pr~graro that is not necessarily the most.equitable system possible for financi~g its operations; and, WHEREAS, to allow General Government such as counties and cities to receive the entire apportionment of the 1% tax levy authorized by the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2237, to the exclusion .of special districts, thus requiring special districts who relied in part upon tax revenue ·in the past to adopt user cl)arge.s to establish ·a pr~gram contrary to the intent and mandate of the people of this State in adopting Proposition 13. 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 FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. That the s.tate Legislature enact a comprehensiye revenue program and tax apportionment legislation to implement Proposition 13 for fiscal year 1978-79 and subsequent years; and, Section 2. That said legislative program provide for special districts to continue to receive a pro rata share of the ad valorem '-61 rate authorized to be levied by California Constitution, Article XIIIA, on the same apportionment .basis as authorized by SB 154 and SB 2212 for the fiscal year 1978-79; and, -2- Section 3. That the legislature not enact any legisative matters similar to Government Code Section 16270 which would d~rect special districts to rely soley on user charges or similar systems in lieu of receiving property taxes. ~3- AGENDA ITEM #13(c)(l) PEAT. ~IARW"ICK. MITCHELL & Co. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 888 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071 September 20, 1978 Director of Finance and Board Secretary C.Ounty Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Mr. Sylvester: W,e have completed our evaluation of vendor proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposal prepared and issued by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (PMM&Co.) for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (Districts) on July 10, 1978. The accompanying report presents the background and objectives of the vendor procurement effort, the analytical methodology employed to objectively evaluate the proposals received, a comparison of the finalist vendors' proposals to the Feasibility Study findings and t~e recommendation of a minicomputer vendor to supply a combination of computer equipme~t and application software to meet the Districts' current and future data processing requirements. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of a careful evaluation of the written proposals received and subsequent oral presentations by selected finalist vendors, we have recommended that Delphi Systems, Inc. of North Hollywood, California be selected as the final vendor and. that the Districts enter into contract negotiations with Delphi Systems to reach agreement regarding total costs, due dates, the respective responsibilities of each party and other appropriate contract provisions. Delphi Systems has been selected for the follo~ng reasons: Lowest proposed cost Highest qualitative rating Demonstrated technical excellence P. M. M. 8. CO. Demonstrated strong commitment to the project as evidenced by overall quality of proposal, oral presentation and staff committed Local service. Particular attention has been paid to evaluating Delphi Systems' demonstrated capacity to perform in a timely and professional manner to the provisions of the contract and to meet the Districts' requirements. Based upon our evaluation, we believe that the risk level associated with in-house computer installations generally and the utilization of Delphi Systems specifically is acceptable if a comprehensive, explicit contract document and detailed project management plan are developed to control and monitor the installation's progress. COMPARISON TO FEASIBILITY STUDY The Feasibility Study had estimated that the in-house minicomputer approach would provide a more cost-effective and higher quality solution to the Districts' requirements than remaining on Xerox Computer Services or contracting with a public agency data service. The results of our proposal evaluation effort confirm these original estimates, as follows: Xerox Computer Services did not propose a solution to the Districts' requirements. The public agency data service approach proposed by the City of Anaheim was substantially more costly and less responsive than the final three minicomputer vendors. The median bid by Delphi Systems at $518,634 is: $280,587 lower than the estimated XCS cost developed in the Feasibility Study --$206,575 lower than the median proposed City of Anaheim cost of $725,209 $36,943 lower than adjusted estimated minicomputer cost developed in the Feasibility Study. The lower total cost proposed by Delphi Systems results from their approach entailing a higher initial software expenditure of $77 ,000, which results in significant reductions in the staff resources required to operate, maintain and enhance the system over the next five years. ii ·--·r P. M. M. a CO. PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION To assist. the Districts in orgaruzmg for implementation, the report includes a summary action plan setting forth the general tasks required to bring the installation to a successful conclusion. * * * * We would like to express our appreciation to the Districts and their staff for their excellent cooperation during the course of this important vendor procurement project. We look forward to providing further assistance to the Districts in their system implementation program. Very truly yours, iii -~· EVALUATION OF VENDOR PROPOSALS FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY INTRODUCTION This report sets forth the results of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell· & Co. 's (PMM&Co. 's) evaluation of vendor proposals received in response to a Request for Proposal prepared for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ( CSDOC) by PMM&Co. and issued July 28, 197 8. The report includes the following sections: Background Objectives of Proposal Evaluation Approach Methodology and Evaluation Criteria Findings, Recommendations and Action Plan Supporting Analytical Exhibits. BACKGROUND In 1977, CSDOC retained PMM&Co. to develop a Revenue Program to assist the Districts in achieving compliance with the user charge/industrial cost recovery regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board. Due to the potential impact of these user charge/industrial cost recovery regulations upon the Districts' existing financial accounting system, CSDOC requested that PMM&Co. evaluate the Districts' data processing requirements to determine: The cost and operational impact of the Revenue Program requirements on· the Districts' current data processing arrangement with Xerox Computer Services (XCS) The Districts' long-range (five-year) data processing requirements. 1 The results of this analysis were reported to the Board in the document entitled ''Report on a Data Processing Approach Study for the County Sani~ation Districts of Orange County" (Feasibility Study). The report recommended that the Districts' most cost-effective approach to achieving compliance with Public Law 92-500 and meeting long-range processing requirements was to purchase an in-house minicomputer. Other alternatives considered were continuing with XCS or contracting with a public agency data service. Based upon this recommendation, the Executive Committee of the Joint Board of Directors requested that PMM&Co. undertake the following tasks to assist the Districts: Development of a comprehensive accounting systems design Issuance of a Request for Proposal for computer hardware and software Selection of a vendor to implement the Districts' proposed data processing approach. The remainder of this report presents the results of PMM&Co. 's evaluation of the proposals received. A copy of the Request for Proposal is included in Attachment A. OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION The objectives of the proposal evaluation are threefold: APPROACH Validate the findings of the Feasibility Study as to the relative cost-effectiveness of the XCS, public agency data service and in-house minicomputer approaches Select the two or three most qualified vendors, on the basis of their written proposals, for oral presentations of their prop'!sed app~oaches Select a fmal vendor, on the basis of their written proposal and oral presentation, for contract negotiation. To meet the evaluation's objectives, PMM&Co. has performed the following tasks: Identified 24 prospective vendors to whom Requests for Proposals were issued (see Exhibit A) 2 Conducted an open bidder's conference to answer vendors' questions regarding the Request for Proposal Developed objective evaluation criteria and criteria weighting factors to provide an unbiased analytical approach to proposal evaluation Selected the following three vendors for oral presentations on the basis of evaluation of their written proposals: American Management Systems Delphi Systems Turner Data Systems Conducted oral presentations for the three finalist vendors to obtain additional evaluative data Selected Delphi Systems as the final vendor to enter into contract negotiations with CSDOC. ·METHODOLOGY AND \.,.J EVALUATION CRITERIA The primary objective of the methodology employed to evaluate the eight (8) proposals received in response to the .Request for Proposal was to attain an objective evaluation. The following steps were included: Established evaluation criteria and criteria weighting factors, before reviewing the proposals, that objectively measure each respondent's capabilities Reviewed each proposal to extract all specifically requested data and to arrange this data in a worksheet format to facilitate direct comparisons Calculated weighted scores for each proposal which reflect the percentage of the total possible points which each proposal received. The specific major criteria and their respective weighting factors are as follows: Hardware and Operating Software -The current and growth capacity of the hardware and operating software. Weighting factor: 10. 3 Maintenance Service -The availability of both hardware and software maintenance personnel. Weighting factor: 5. Application Software -The ability of the vendors to provide the specific applications required by CSDOC. The vendor's accounting and data processing knowledge pertinent to installing appropriation and fund accounting systems in governmental agencies is also measured. It takes into consideration the capabilities, flexibility and degree of integration of the proposed application software. Weighting factor: 30. Cost -The costs associated with each alternative. The one-time and recurring costs are both taken into consideration. Weighting factor: 20. Contract -CSDOC's contract responsibilities with regard to vendor size, vendor stability and whether there will be multiple vendors. Weighting factor: 5. Implementation -The vendor's methodology of conversion and implementation of the proposed hardware and software. This includes the vendor's proposed implementation schedule and the degree of vendor support available to CSDOC. Weighting factor: 20. Project Staffing -The vendors' proposed staffing for the installation of the "turnkey" hardware and software system. Included in this weighting is not only quantity of available staff but also the qualifications of that staff as judged by the resumes submitted in the proposals. Weighting factor: 10. Each major criterion was divided into numerous subcategories, each with its own weighting factor. These subcriteria are available for review in the detailed working papers. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN This section of our report presents the results of our propos~ evaluation, our final vendor recommendation and a general action plan indicating what further steps are required to successfully implement ~ in-house minicomputer system. Comparison of Proposals to Feasibility Study Findings The Feasibility Study determined that an in-house minicomputer approach would be more cost-effective and would offer a higher quality service over a five-year planning period 4 Figure 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY COMPARISON OF FEASIBILITY STUDY, ADJUSTED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSAL COSTS Original Feasibility Study Costs Adjusted Feasibility Study Costs Actual Proposed Costs: Xerox Computer Services aty of Anaheim -low bid City of Anaheim -high bid Delphi Systems -low bid Turner· Data Systems Delphi Systems -high bid American Management Systems - low bid American Management Systems - high bid Xerox Computer Services $ 723,175 s 7992221 No bid Public Agency Data Service 661,709 652A97 $ 683,997 766,421 In-House Minicomputer 576,013 555z577 s 495,384 518,653 541,884 631,545 6762545 \.._) I j · .. i . " i i .. l .• ~l •. j .• ... ! •• ,I ) ! l .) . ' I . ! than either continuing with XCS or contracting with a public agency data service. The results of our proposal evaluation confirm this initial finding and support~ investment decision to replace the existing XCS processing with an in·house minicomputer system. Figure 1, facing, presents a comparative analysis of the Feasibility Study cost findings, adjusted Feasibility Study cost :6.ndings, and the costs proposed by the minicomputer vendor finalists and the aty of Anaheim, which proposed as a public agency data service. The adjustments· to the original Feasibility Study were made to place the Feasibility Study fmdings on a basis directly comparable to the proposals by incorporating the following considerations: Change in the cost of capital discount rate from 6.25% to 7.65% Elimination of interim XCS processing costs which are a cost element common to all approaches Revaluation of certain operating supplies and software development costs to reflect additional required software features and processing volumes. An analysis of Figure 1 supports the following specific conclusions: An in·house minicomputer system is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the Districts' data processing requirements. The costs proposed by the minicomputer vendor finalists vary widely with some proposals exceeding the adjusted Feasibility Study and with othe!'s significantly less. A comparison of the specific hardware and software costs proposed by Delphi Systems, the fl.nal selected vendor, to the Feasibility Study estimated costs indicates that: Delphi's proposed hardware costs are approximately equal to the Feasibility Study costs,_ though the configuratio~ is greater in capacity than that anticipated in the Feasibility Study. Delphi's proposed software costs (median between low and hig~ bids) exceed the Feasibility Study costs by $77,375, yet Delphi's total costs over five years are lower by $36,943 than the Feasibility Study anticipated. 5 Delphi's lower overall cost, notwithstanding the higher initial software cost, is explained by the following factors: 1. Higher level of system integration reducing the need for manual intervention which ~esults in lower staff requirements. 2. The incorporation of advanced design concepts which facilitate data entry, error correction, system control and data inquiry which provide improved system performance· and reduce current and future staff requirements. 3. Greater system flexibility due to use of system master tables which are easily modified to accommodate changing requirements and/o~ accounting policies. This will provide future cost reductions in the area of software maintenance and enhancements. 4. S~plified computer operations procedures which eliminate the need for computer technicians to operate the computer. The actual comparative cost data is presented in the following table: Hardware Software Comparison of Delphi Proposed Costs to Feasibility Study Feasibility Study $ 96,500 77,875 Subtotal 174,375 Other costs 381,202 Total s 555,577 ·Proposal 102,850 155,250 258,100 260,534 518,634 The Feasibility Study had also determined that the minicomputer approach would be qualitatively superior to either remaining with XCS or contracting with a public agency data service. The qualitative ranking of the proposals presented in Exhibits B and C confirms this original finding. As indicated in these exhibits, each of the three top ranked proposals were submitted by vendors proposing the minicomputer approach. 6 . r ( Vendor American Management Systems Turner Data Systems Delphi Systems ( ( Figure 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY KEY QUESTIONS, VENDOR RESPONSES AND PMM&CO. EVALUATION Question Area 1. Basis for overall high proposed cost 2. Payroll system availability by July 1, 1979 Response 1. Cited quality of work 2. Only portion of system available by required date; will require further modifications Evaluation 1. Cost too high; includes overhead associated with transcontinental travel expense and organizational size 2. Severe drawback;. payroll . difficult system to implement; critical to District requirements 3. Job cost system availability by July 1, 3. Underdevel~pment for other client; will 3. Medium level of risk that will not be 1979 be ready ' ready; severe impact · 1. Understanding of software requirements 2. Ability of existing staff to ac~ommodate project of this size and duration . 1. Commitment of proposed: staff to job 2. Otpabllity to perform to contract within required time frame 1. Discussed purchasing general ledger package; uncertain of specifics. Indicated overall price could rise after design 2. Will hire additional staff 1. Indicated that tum staff commitments will be made 2. Discussed performance record, quality of staff proposed and top-level commitment 1. Very poor understanding of requirements; probable cost increase is severe drawback 2. Adequate response but will dilute control over quality of performanc. 1. Have proposed strong staff to be contractually committed 2. Gave best indication of commitment to job; personal acquaintance with performance record supports their performance claims; will perform under well-devised contract document Selection of Finalist Vendors The selection process for determining finalist vendors consisted of evaluating each proposal submitted in terms of preestablished criteria and weighting factors and selecting the vendors with the highest scores to appear for oral presentation.~. Based upon th~ review and comparative analysis of the submitted proposals, three finalist vendors were identified. These vendors and their overall scores, based upon 100 possible points, were: Vendor fmalist 1. Delphi Systems 2. American Management Systems 3. Turner Data Systems Exhibit B point score Low bid High bid 82.74 81.31 61.66 80.90 78.61 61.66 Exhibits A through H present the detail analysis supporting the selection of the finalist vendors. As part of the finalist vendor selection process, specific questions were defined · for each finalist's oral presentation session to fully test each vendor in areas of perceived weakness or concern. Selection of Final Vendor Vendor finalist oral presentations were held at the Districts' offices on Monday, September 11, 1978. All invited finalist vendors were in attendance. The presentation agenda for each vendor was structured to include a thirty-minute vendor presentation and an hour-long question and answer session. The questions formulated as part of the proposal evaluation process were addressed to each respective vendor. Figure 2, facing, presents a summary table of the key questions addressed to each vendor, the vendor's responses and PMM&Co. 's evaluation of the re~pon~es. Based upon the information obtained from each vendor and our evaluation of their respective responses, PMM&Co. recommends that the Districts entel' into contract negotiations with Delphi Systems (Delphi) as the final step in completing the vendor selection process. Delphi has been selected for the following reasons: Highest qualitative rating Lowest proposed cost 7 Demonstrated technical excellence in minicomputer application software Strong commitment to the Districts as a client Overall excellence of oral presentation and proposed staff Local service High degree of assurance of timely, professional performance to contract. As we discussed in the Feasibility Study, the instalation of an in-house computer system entails potentially greater risks than other approaches unless a carefully planned selection and implementation process is adopted and executed. During the selecti~n process, particular attention has been directed to closely evaluating the capability of Delphi to successfully provide the specified minicomputer hardware and software and to fully comply with all contractual provisions. The questions directed to Delphi at their oral presentation were primarily intended to explore their capability to perform by addressing such factors as: Quality of staff proposed and degree of staff commitment Quality of prior performance Reasonableness of correlation between staff hours worked and level of work required Stability of corporation as a going concern. Based upon the quality of Delphi's proposal, their strong.record of prior performance and their willingness to make specific staff commitments, we believe that Delphi is both capable of and committed to full and timely performance. Action Plan Our experience indicates that upon selection of a final vendor, the preparation and execution of a comprehensive and detailed contract document is a critical step toward further reducing any risk of untimely performance or nonperformance by the selected vendor. Such a contract should include, in addition to the standard provisions, detailed statements of the specific deliverable products, their due dates and the respective responsibilities of each party to the contract. 8 Upon execution of a final contract, the Districts should prepare, in conjunction with Delphi, a detailed project work plan. The project work plan, which defines all speci6c implementation tasks and their interdependencies, is the basis for monitoring vendor and Districts performance, identifying problem areas requiring management control on a proactive basis, and scheduling and allocating Districts resources. The plan should include the following elements: Schedule of all implementation tasks identifying per task: Start and complete dates Interdependencies to other tasks Associated deliverable product Performance responsibility Man loading by staff position Schedule of responsibilities for each vendor and Districts-assigned staff indicating tasks and hours per staff per control period PERT network defining schematically all task interdependencies for the duration of the project Schedule of administrative progress meetings and Board presentations. The major project milestones to be de6.ried in the work plan will incl0;de: Detail design, preparation and approval -Working to design standards provided by the Districts, the vendor will prepare a design document which de6nes in detail the following elements: , Overall system processing flow Definition ~fall major system functions for each system to include: 1. Input documents and video input screens 2. File definitions 9 ~· .... 3. Processing logic · 4. Outputs and file inquiry screens System control methodology Conversion requirements. The detail design document is the key review and sign-off milestone for the Districts. This document defines all further custom ·programming and modifications to be performed by the vendor and represents the specifications for the final deliverable product. Extensive Districts involvement at this stage of system implementation is critical to the overall success of the project. Preparation of complete user, terminal operator and system operator documentation Training of Districts staff iri accounting policies, preparation of source documents, use of data entry terminals, system operations and report use Conversion of existing data files through automated and manual means Acceptance testing of each system module and the overall system Parallel testing of key system areas. 10 :_ -. ·-..... u. Proposal to COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY To Provide PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES DURIN~ COMPUTER" SYSTEM DESIGN ·AND INSTALLATION PEAT. MARWICK. MITCHELL & Co. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester CERT?J!IED PtrBLIC ACCOUNTA..""'iTS eeo NEWPORT CENTER DRrvE NEWPORT 'BE.ACS. CA.LI.FOB.NI.A. 92680 September 19, 1978 Director of Finance and Board. Secretary County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Sylvester: . This letter presents our proposal to provide project management services to the Districts during the Districts' upcoming computer system design and installation program. BACKGROUND In May, 1978 Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (PMM&Co.) completed a data processing system review as a major element. in the development· of the Districts' Revenue Program. In this review PMM&Co. reported that the Districts' accounting requirements and transaction volumes were approaching the point at which the Districts' current data processing service bureau, Xerox Computing Service (XCS), could no longer provide cost effective service. · We recommended that the Districts explore other alternatives to XCS, including use of local public agency data services and the installation of an inhouse computer system. The Districts then engaged PMM&Co. to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for computer hardware and software or. public agency data services and to select an organization to provide the equipment and services necessary to fulfill the Districts' accounting requirements. PMM&Co. distributed the RFP to more than twenty-five vendors, including several Orange County-based organizations as well as nationally known firms from the East and Midwest •. .Several responses were received, and PMM&Co, and Districts' staff selected Delphi Systems, Inc., North Hollywood, California, to provide minicomputer hardware and to develop software to meet the Districts' requirements. The recommendation and criteria used to select this vendor are presented in PMM&Co. 's report to the Districts entitled "Evaluation of Vendor Proposals For County Sanitation Districts of Orange County", dated September 19, 1978. In discussions with Districts' management, it has been indicated that the Districts do not have staff resources with sufficient EDP.expertise either to effectively monitor the vendor's efforts in installation of the mini- computer and development of the required software or to perform system .. t P. M. M. a CO. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 Page 2 acceptance testing. Accordingly, the Districts requested that PMM&Co. assist the Districts by providing project management services during detail design installation and acceptance of the Districts' new com- puter system. This proposal defines PMM&Co.'s: • objectives • scope approach work plan schedule, and • fees to assist the Districts in managing this major projece. OBJECTIVES PMM&Co. 's objectives are to: • SCOPE provide the Districts with EDP syst.em and accounting expertise and project management experience to enhance the Districts' ability to implement an EDP system which meets design specifi- cations, and monitor vendor progress toward system completion, and recommend corrective action, if required, to enable the Districts to receive ~system which not only meets Districts' requirements but also becomes operational in accordance with the established time schedule and.within the projected budget for the project. The scope of PMM&Co. 's services includes: onsite management assistance to the Districts in overseeing the vendor's. installation of computer hardware, development of software, and preparation of systems and programming documentation for the Districts' system. assistance to the vendor in development of a complete understanding of the Districts' design specifications routine monitoring of vendor progress toward completion of their installation and development activities assistance to the Districts' accounting staff in defining charts of accounts, transaction posting rules and edit rules and in developing a budgetary structure which integrates responsibility and functional tracking and reporting. . .,. ':JI 11/78 Select Vendor Aug. ( 10/S/78 Develop brange County T:ix Roll Tntcrfnc• csooc ED, PROJ~C'J.' MILESTONES ... ,,, 5/4/79 5/18/79 ,est Orange County Interfacf - ~, 7 /l/79 Convert _ ExiAting System & Files ,, 10/5/78 Commence --~-·sortware \ novelopment 1--------------------------------------------~~ni...~A'omplete Software l>evelop- 111cn t Unit resting ~System ~ Implement,._ ____ ~ .... .._.11/1/79 Acceptance New ,.. ~mplete Sept. Test System ror.t 10/5/78 Commence System EDP t--------------------------------------------------~i ... ~5/21/79 & Accounting ,...-Complete 1>cvclor1nent EDP and Accounting Document- nt ion . Commence CS DOC ..... Stoff ... Training 4/23/79 . Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Hay Jun. 1978 ( 7/1/79 ... .... Jul. ·Aug. Sept. ( lmplement- 11t ion lhsRistance Complete CS DOC Tra!nlnR 11/1/79 Oct. P. M. ~-a CO. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 J?age 3 periodic presentation of project progress to District's staff and management performance of systems acceptance testing to evaluate the vendor's compliance with detail design specifications ~stablishment of file conversion methodology and conversion schedule for each system training and system refinement support upon Districts' acceptance of the system. APPROACH AND WORK PLAN PMM&Co. has developed a comprehensive approach t9 management of this project which is keyed to the project milestones depicted in the facing exhibit and incorporates: Working closely with the vendor and the Districts' staff during review of the detail design specifications to effect a common understanding of the Districts' requirements Routine detailed monitoring of vendor progress against an approved project workplan and ti~e schedule Providing system accountant expertise to as~ist the Districts' staff in their system development responsibilities Review of the hardware installation, programs and systems and prgramming documentation when completed to assess conformance with specifications to determine quality of vendor deliverables Recommendation of revisions to vendor outputs as required Performance of systems acceptance testing in conjunction with Districts' staff The tasks to be performed in carrying out the proposed approach are pre- sented below. The proposed hours for each task are differentiated into those h.ours related to design assistance and monitoring and those hours related to assisting the Districts' staff in their system development responsibilities. PMM&Co. Task Number/ Description l~ PMM&Co. will assist the vendor in preparation of detail design specifications that meet Districts' requirements. Subtasks include: Hours Design Assistance and Monitoring 270 Staff Accounting Assistance P. M. M. a CO. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 Page 4 P~~l&Co. Hours Task Number/ Description Design Assistance and ·Monitoring a. Outline a format for presentation of the detail design specifications b. Develop concurrence among Districts, vendor and PNM&Co. of programming specification requirements. c. Work with the vendor to define required work outputs, including screen fonnats, and documentation requirements. d, Specify automated and manual control procedures. e. Define training·and system conversion requirements. 2. PMM&Co. will prepare a system implementation plan 56 project PERT network, and supporting work schedules for project management and monitoring purposes. Subtasks include: a. In conjunction with Districts and vendor staffs, define all work tasks, task interdependencies, hours, deliverable products, and PMM&Co./ Districts/vendor responsibilities. b. Prepare a project ·schedule, PERT network and calendar of progress meetings with the Dis- tricts staff and Joint Board of Directors. 3. P~~i&Co. will monitor vendor performance against 240 the approved workplan and product quality· stan-. dards established in the previous tasks and assist District staff in their system development responsi- bilities. Subtasks include: a. Monitor vendor performanc~ against the time schedules established in the workplan. b. Monitor the vendor's assignment and commitment of staff to the project. c. Monitor the Districts' tasks and task perfor- mance to assess performance in accordance with the schedules established in the workplan. Staff Accounting Assistance 320 P. M. M. a co. PMM&Co. Hours Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 Page 5 Task Number/ Description Design Assistance and Monitoring e. Act as consultants to the Districts in establishing budgeting and financial policies to guide development of the Districts' budget preparation system, assess the impacts of these policies on the Districts' current chart of accounts, cost allocation procedures, work order system, etc., and organize the Districts' staff to implement the necessary changes to existing practices. f, Report progress against workplan and time schedule to Districts management, prepare an agenda item for inclusion in the month- ly Joint Boards agenda, and make formal · presentations to the Joint Boards when requested by District's management. .4. PMM&Co. will assist the Districts in design and performance of a systems acceptance test. Subtasks include: a. Develop a representative sample of accounting transactions and manually prepare a set of accounting records against which to evaluate computer system outputs. b. Process the sample transactions through the completed systems. c. Evaluate the systems results _against the manual results. d. Recommend systems modifications based upon the test results. 40 e. Rerun the test until the systems meet the appli- cable standards. 5. Once the system has been accepted, PMM&Co. will 24 assist the Districts' staff in converting existing files to the new system and loading opening ba- lances. Subtasks include: a. Establish a detailed file conversion schedule. Staff Accounting Assistance 180 40 'PROJECT STAFFING Project Project Systems Accounting EDP EDP Clerical Task Number/ Principal Manager Consultant Consulting Consultant Consultant Support Totals by Description D.L. STRUVE J.K. PATTERSON Y.W. UONG T.L. MUSIKA G.E. SNYDER E.A. ROBERTS Staff Tasks 1. Assist in vendor preparation of detail 10 160 100 270 d~slgn srecif lcations. 2. Prepare RYRtem implementation and project 2 14 40 56 managcmt"nt plan. 3. H<'nitor vendor perfot"mance against workplan 28 72 460 560 and established quality standards. 4. A~sist the Districts in development and 10 58 76 40 36 220 execution of a systems acceptance test. 5. Assist the Districts in converting existing 4 6 40 14 64 f lles and londlng opening balances. 6. Ar;sist the Dist.ricts in implementing the 10 30 80 120 new system. 7. Typing services. 192 192 Total Hours by Individual 64 ~ 656 40 50 140 192 1482 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ._ ( ( ( p. .M. M. a CO. PMM&Co. Hours Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 Page 6 Task Number/ Description Design Assistance and Monitoring Staff Accounting Assistance b. Identify the Districts' staffing require- ments for completing the conversion on schedule. c. Review the Districts' performance against the approved workplan and time ·schedule. 6. PMM&Co. will assist the Districts in implementing the new system. Subtasks include: 40 a. Review the daily and monthly control reports governing system performance. b. Review Districts' accounting control group activities to ensure the group is effective- ly managing the system. • . c. Provide assistance in correcting procedural problems and work with Districts and vendor staffs to modify programs as required. 7. PMM&Co. will provide typing services in support of the system development effort. 100 Total PMM&Co. Hours 770 TIME AND FEES PMM&Co. proposes to provide project management services to the Districts from October 5, 1978 through November 1, 1979, the anticipated date of full systems conversion. This timeframe and the proposed fees are based upon: the Joint Boards' acceptance of the recommendations presented in the accompanying report commitment of adequate Districts staff resources to complete the Districts portion of the workplan within the time schedule to be developed during Task 2 of the proposed workplan PMM&Co. proposes to provide the design assistance and staff support services for the following fees Design Assistance and Monitoring Staff Accounting Assistance Total and and project monitoring expenses: Fees $36,920 34, o~o $71,000 80 92 712 = ExEenses $ 2,860 2,640 $ 5,500 P. M. M. a. CO. Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester September 19, 1978 Page 7 We are confident that the resources to be conunitted by the Districts and PMM&Co. to this phase of the project will ensure that the target dates will be met. We look forward to our continued relationship in achieving this challenging assignment. Very truly yours, PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO. IJ°j!;}~l~-~ Donald L. Struve, Principal DLS:AE .--.. -' S eptember 22 , 19 78 M E MORANDUM TO : MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COJ:vll-1ITTEE COUNTY S AN ITATIO N DIST RICTS ol 0 fl/\N GE C OUNTY. C AUfOlltJI/\ P.OBOX81 2 7 10844 ELLIS AV!:.NUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9 '.'700 (714)_54 0-2 9 10 (7 14) 962-2411 RE : PROS AND CONS OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SA NITATION DI STRICTS Th e f ol lowing i s a lis t of pros and cons relative to the possible c onsol i dation of the seven Sanitation Di s tricts. I n 1 97 1 and again in 1973, special committees were established b y the Joint Boards fo r the purpos e of studying the Directors' fee s chedules and in each instance, the s e special c offim ittees included proposals for consol ida tion of the Districts in their fin a l reports . I n both r eports, two types of consolidat ion were consi dered : One:consol i date the oresent Sanitat ion Distric ts into one Dis - trict with operations, maintenan c e a n d capital outlay c osts split e v e nly throughout t he new District, i.e. , a sing le tax rate . Wh ile t his achieves many of the goals the Co mm ittees felt were needed, it c reated tax increases in Di stricts Nos. 5, 6, and 7, whi l e lowerin ~ t axes in Di stricts 1, 3 , and 1 1 , with no change in District Ho . 2 . · Th e COIP.JTi ittee concluded that this woul d not be a n equitab l e dis- t ribution of costs and therefore would ~ot recom.~end th{s alternative. Tw0:the other proposa l for consolidation call ed for one District with special zones which \·m uld b e co -terminus with exi s tin g Dis - t ricts ' bounda ries . Each zone woul d have a separate budg et and th e abi l ity to issu e bonds and incur bended indebtedne ss fo r improvements a nd the maintenance thereof within each special zone . En c l osed ·with this staff report are copi es of the t wo committees ' r eports. With the passage of Proposition 13, t h e tax rate issue i s no l onger of c oncern; the r efore, the first proposal for consol id atin g the seven Districts into one Di strict and splitting the costs evenly c an now be considered. P ROS A. Cost savinRS wo u ld be rea li ze d of $30 ,000 to $50,0 00 per year. CONS B. c . D. E. The bookkeeping transac tions would be reduced dr.amatically , because currently nine separa te sets of books of acco unts a re maintained in- stead of one. Budge t in3 wou ld be s imp l er and sever al contingency fund accounts could be reduced. Capita l improvement projects could proceed as ne ede d, the single Board wo uld a n n u a lly establish a priority system for construction projects . Cur- rently some Districts mus t delay projects because of the l ack of funds . As stated in the committee reuorts, th e conso lida- tion would reduce the numbe r ~f special Districts by 6 which i s a n objective endorsed by a number of County and State officials and the gen eral public. A. Presently , each Sanitation Dis trict has a Board of Directors made uo of elec ted o ff icia ls who are cognizant o f the needs of their l oca l communi- ties. Much of the success o f t he Sanitation Dis- tricts must be credi t ed to th e close re l a tionships that have been d eveloped through the years with the loca l ent it ies to solve the waste disposal problems attendant with the rapid growth we have experien c ed here in th e Count y . B. If the Di stricts consolida te int o one Di s trict, some loca l needs may not be met o n a timely basis as the proj ect pri ority system will be determined by the majori ty o f Board members. C . With conso lida tion, loc a l control of some Districts will be lost. D. Som e Districts have substan tial r ese rye f u nds . If th e Di stricts are c onso l idated, one method of ins u ring that the rig ht taxpayer g ets credi t for th ese funds , s uc h as in District s 2 and 7, the re- serves cou ld be tra nsferre d to the ir b ond reder.iption acco unts ; th e taxp ayer who he lp e d accumulate the funds gets the credit. -2- .~-~ E. Di stri c t 6 is not fin a ncia l ly strong . If the Distr i cts h ave to complete full secon dary t r e at - me n t , District No. 6 wi l l be about $400,000 sho rt . If th e Districts rece i ve the Federal wa iver re seconda ry tre a t ment, Distri ct No . 6 will b e ok a y financially. Con s oli dation b a sed o n fu ll secondary tre atmen t would me a n that other t axp a yers would subsidize the District 6 p r o p erty o vm ers by $400,000. Current l y, ther e are 40 Director s r e presenting 2 0 cities, 3 s ani t a r y districts a nd the County Bo ar d of S upervis o rs (24 a g encies). I f consolidated i nto one District , 24 Directors would represent 24 a genci es. Fre d A. Ha r per Genera l Ma n ager ·---, ~ March 111, 1973 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: ROBERT FINNELL, JOINT CHAIRMAN COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 108.C.C ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (71..C) 540-2910 (71.C) 962-2.Clt FROM: EDWARD JUST, CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL COMMITTEE STUDYING IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 2146 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN THE PRESENT DIRECTORS' FEES SCHEDULE In February, 1972 these Boards took act.ion requesting p~rmissive legislation from the State Legislature to reduce multiple directors' rees. On July 10, 1972 the Governor signed AB 2146, which made this possible and it became law on March 7, 1973. Accordingly, this committee is submitting to you tonight a resolution '..I for possible consideration by each district. Also submitted to you· tonight is a brief synopsis of some of the past actions of these boards and the alternatives considered. Although we are submitting a resolution to you, we cannot endorse this measure as we do not believe it to be the answer. Its effect is minimal in cost savings as to fees· and could result in higher administration costs which would more than offset these savings. This is discussed in greater detail in the analysis. Our committee is not in agreement as to the best alternative. There is one school of thought for maintaining the present structure. There is another favoring consolidation. If, after our discussion tonight, you wish to proceed with the resolution eliminating the multiple fees, we recommend that Board members discuss the situation with their respective agencies and come back to the Boards in April prepared to vote. Each Board must vote ·individually on the issue. EJ:ss Respectfully submitted, Edward J'ust Chairman ... :~ REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTE~ STUDYING IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 2146 Assembly Bill 2146 applies to Di~ectors representing more than one district at a joint board meeting. It allows the Districts, ·after passage of a joint resolution approved by all of the districts involved, to limit the· compensation of such a Director to $50 per joint board· meeting attended by him, not ·to exceed $100 per month. The measure amends Section 4733 of the California Health and-Safety Code, and reads as follows: SECTION' 1. Section 4733.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 4733.5 f!here tuJo or more county sanitation districts 'have joined in the purchase, ownership, use, construction, maintenance, or operation of a sewerage system, or sewage disposal or treatment plant, or refuse transfer or disposal system, or both, either 'Within or without· the districts, or have so joined for any combination of these purposes, as provided in Section 4742, and the districts hold their meetings jointly, and one or more of the directors serve as a director on more than one of such districts meeting jointly, the distraicts may, by joint resolution approved by each district, Zimit the compensation of such a director to compensation equal to not morae than fifty dollars ($50) for each jointly held meeting attended by him, not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) in anu one month TO~ att~dance at jointly held m~etings. ... .. Introduction of the legislation allowing limitations of Directors' compensation was initiated by the Orange County Sanitation Districts Joint Boards. It was one of four recommendations by a Special Committee appointed by the Joint Boards March 10, 1971 to study possible changes in the present Directors' 'fees schedule. The four recommendations presented by the Special Committee at the January 12, 1972 Joint Board meeting were: (1) Maintain the Director~' compensation at the present level as established by resolution of the individual Districts in 1967 and 1968. (2) Amend the fee schedule·so that those Directors repre- senting more than one District at a joint meeting would only receive compensation· equal to that of a Director ~ representing a single District. (3) Consolidate the various Sanitation Districts into one County Sanitation District with operations, maintenance, and capital outlay costs split evenly throughout the new District. -1- (11) Cons.olidate the present Sanitation Districts into one• '"' -~­ County Sanitation District with special zones which would be co-terminus with existing Districts' boundaries and it would have sep·arate budge.ts, could issue bonds, ; and incur bonded indebtedness for improvements and the ~ maintenance thereof within the special zone. Discussion by the Joint Boards at that time centered on alternatives (2) and (4). A motion to adopt alternative (4), consolidation, failed to pass, after which a motion to adopt alternative (2), amending Directors' fe~s through legislation, was successfully adopted. The · permissive legislation was drawn up by the Districts' General Counsel, and through the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, in which the Orange County Sanitation Districts hold membership, the measure was introduced to the Legislature by Assemblyman Townsend. At tbe January 10, 1973 regular meeting of the Joint Boa~ds, Joint Chairman Finnell appointed Past Joint Chairmen Norman E. Culver, Edward Just, and Clifton Miller to a Special Committee on Directors' Fees for Concurrent Board Meetings, to study· and make a recommendation to the Joint Boards in connection with implementing provisions of Assembly Bill 2146. Since that time, the Committee has studied the situation, and compiled the following information for the consideration of the Joint Boards. There are presently 48 seats on the Joint Boards:· Agencies Sitting on For a total R~mr~sented ( ) Boards of ( ) seats 11 1 11 9 2 19 2 3 7 1 4 4 l 7 7 24 48 There are 35 active Directors now on the Joint Boards. Directors Sit on For a total ( ) Boards of ( ) seats 23 1 23 11 .2 22 l 3 3 35 48 j·--If1 Distrj_cts No. 5 and No. 11 annex presently unincorporated areas, the entire city councils 0£ the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach will automatically become the Board of Directors for those two Sanitation Districts, increasing the total number of seats on the Joint Boards to 55. The Committee determined that it would re-submit the four alternatives presented by the prior Special Committee, and the reasoning behind them~ plus a fifth alternative originating with the present Special . Committee. (1) Maintain the Directors' compensation at the present level as established by resolution of the individual Districts in 1967 and 1968. Both Special Committees concluded that the present fee structure is inequitable and that another alternative should be sought. It should be noted that this alternative is ~he only one presented maintaining the existing structure which does have some good features. While the fee structure is under attack, it has been demonstrated that the present composition of the Boards does provid~ a powerful lobbying effort. This has been of value most recently in effecting changes in proposed state and federal legislation. It is difficult to place a dollar value on these changes or to give sole credit for their happening to this structure .. (2) Amend the fee schedule so that those Directors representing more than one District at a joint meeting would only receive compensation equal to that of a 0Director representing a.~ingle District. Assembly Bill 2146 was designed to accomplish this end. Implementation of the measure will require passage of a joint resolution by each of the Districts involved. It should be pointed out that where ~ Director represents two or more districts and one of those districts fails to adopt the joint resolution, the Director.will continue to collect compensation for each. It is .the opinion of the committee that this is not the best solution. Under current law, each city may name an alternate to the Mayor, whereas Sanitary Districts may not. Therefore, we anticipate a total reduction of only five fees; two from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, one from the Garden Grove Sanita~y Di~trict, and two ~ro~ the County Board of Supervisors. It remains a possibility that both Costa Mesa and Garden Grove could name separate individuals to the different boar.as, raising· the total number of Directors· to 46 under the existing boundaries, for a reduction of only two fees. · -3- .- (3) Consolidate the various Sanitation Districts into one. County Sanitation District with operations, maintenance, and capital outlay costs split evenly throughout the new District. While this would achieve many of the goals the committee felt were needed, it would create tax increases in Districts 5, 6, and 7, while lowering taxes in Districts 1,. 3, and 11. It would have no effect on District 2. The Committee concluded that this would not be an equitable distribution of costs and ther·efore does not recornmend- this alternative. (4) Consolidate the present Sanitation Districts into one County Sanitation District with special zones which would be co-terminus with existing Districts' boundaries and it would have separate budgets, could issue bonds; and incur bonded indebtedness for improvements and the maintenance thereof within the special zone. The previous Special Committee selected this alternative as their first choice for adoption. In effect, this alternative would provide for"only one Sanitation District but would allow for special zone·s which would be the equivalent of the present County Sanitation Districts which would have no effect on the ..... ,• tax rates of each of the present Districts. The consolidated agencies would act as a single Sanitation Vistrict now ac~s. \,,,,,,/ The .existing Joint Administrative Organization would be eliminated as would the necessity for seven sets of resolutions, minutes~ seals, etc., for jbint business. Rather than having District No. 1 act as agent for all the Districts it would merely be one District. There would be no duplication of Directors in that each city within the District, each Sanitary District now represented, and the County Board of Supervisors, would have a single repre- sentative and an alternate for a total of 24 active Directors. This compares t.o a pr6j ection of· the present Boards. Currently there are 35 directors representing 20 citie~~ three ~anitary Districts and the County Board of Su~ervisors, or a total of 24 agencies. If alternate Directors· are selected wherev~r possible, this could increase to as high as 46. Ultimately, if Districts 5 and 11 annex currently unincorporated areas, the entire city counc+ls of.Newport Beach and Huntington Beach will automatically become the Board of Directors for those districts. ·This would increase the number of Directors to 53 for 55 seats. Two cities would have seven members each votfng on matters before the Joint Boards. -4- .;.--.. ,., ..... . - This alternative would also have the effect of substan- tially reducing the number of special districts, an objective formally endor::;ed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, and the Orange County Grand Jury. At the same time, it would still provide the mechanism for solving local problems by providing for zone committees equivalent to the present Districts Boards. Last but certainly not least, the reduction in Directors fees would amount to a substantial savings.to the taxpayers of the Districts. (5) Abolish the Joint Boards~ Place operation of the Joint Treatment Works under the jurisdiction of the Executive Board, consisting of the chairman of each of the Districts. This action would require passage of special legislation by the State. It would be necessary to word it as per- missive law, as with AB 2_146, to make passage feasible, since it would affect all other Sanitation Districts in the State. . . Under this proposal, the Executive Board would conduct all business relating to the Joint Treatment works. Individual District boards would meet separately, as needed, to resolve matters pertaining only to their areas. Directors representing more than one District would have to physically attend two meetings to collect double fees· if this alternative is selected. Individual bo~rd meetings would be smaller and allow clo~er participation of all directors . . It should be noted that this alternative would result in eight separate and distinct meetings, compared to the present two. Consequently, the staff would be attending more: meetings, although it is entirely possible that all boards would not have to meet monthly. SPECIAL COMMITTEE STUDYING IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 21~6 Chairman: Edward E. Just, Councilman City of Fountain, Valley Members: Ex Officio Members: Norman E. Culver, Board Member ;~~rden Grov~ Sanitary District Clifton C. Miller, Councilman ·City of Tustin Robert F. Firinell, Joint Chairman C. A~thur Nissan, General Counsel -5- ----·--.,, ......... -··-·--.. •-••-••·,• ,..,_, , .,.,, •·• -··-.-- 1 p•• t ••• .,...,_. •• • P•M•~ .................. _ ...... 'f ••-;... ••••'-~•·"•• •• ~ .. .,. ...... ~~--~.....----··~-·-·'...:--· , ( ( fl1 ( ·~1 •I •I THE REGISTER 18 Mar 73 .. :, Saf.Hation. Districts Board Delays Pay Cut Decision - 'by CON BLISS receive more than $50 per Included in the lengthy wrong· with the present ar .. " line. \Vhen such an overlap Smith claims they kno\'f vh'· R<'gistcr Starr Writer meeting. memorandum is ·a two-page rangement," he added. occurs, city councils cnn ap-tually nothing about. F 0 UN TA IN VALLEY--Consolidating into one proposed resolution that, in The current discussions be-point .more than Me rcpre-"I'm not a damne. 1it :Members of the county sani-main district with zones simi-s~1ort, '~·~uld put a $50-pC\·~cs-gun some time ago and re-~ntahve. ash~mc:d," h!? said, reforrl.o.a: tatkn districts bi:>ard have de-Jar to existing distrids, which s1on cc1hng on compcnsatton. ccntly gained m 0 m e n tu m There now arc 35 dircctors to his double chc-ck. layed ac:tion on a resolution would reduce the current 35 l~owcver, Just pointed out . when an Assembly b!ll V.·cnt representing 20 cities, three Last week's meeting began calling for a ceiling or $50 per directors to 24. that the resolution r~flccts a into effect that is designed to sanitary districts and the at 7:30 p.m. with only two· meeting that sanitation direc-·· -Abolishing the mdsting minimal savings and docs not trim the fees to $50. But the county board of supervisors. directors ah!)cnt. By" 9 p.m., tors r.nn draw. joint board system, which reduce the number or di:-ec-biil also calls for local ap-"I should think the people tharc were I('ss lbn a c!<izcn A ii:ial dcci~ion on the con-Just said wou1d result in eight tors and ultimately could re. proval of any changes in how of this county ~md the newspa-still rem:iini:~g. tro\·ersial uu1~1ication-of-pay s~paratc meetings instead of suit in higher administration directors m-a pa!d, mc:ining pers should be pc:.tting us on One of the strong argu. sys~~m is c>:p~ctcd to be the single rnonthly session. costs that probably would that each of the seven sanita-the back !or the job we're mcnts presC'ntc<l by those who· rcac:hed at the April 11 board "Some o~ you aren't going more than offset any saving~. tion districts must vote to. doing," the board was told by fa\'Or the large body is the meeting. to be lrnppy with this,,, Just If the resolution is adopted, adopt the plan before any Donald Smith, director of Dis-apparent lobby effect in Sac· t:ndcr existing pay arrange-told fellow sanitation dircc-.Just said .it app~ars the revision goes into effect. trict No. 7, who draws· $100 r a men to and Washington, mer.ts. 11 representatives col-to:s, who each received a board's total of 48 positions The $50-pei·-mceling fee cur-per meeting. D.C., for. state and federal lcct do'J.b1c pa:,• for attending copy of the allernativ<:s to would be. reduced to 46 and rently is duplicated when city Smith also rapped the coun· gi·ants. "We nc·~d c\·cry bit of a :r.ior:~hiy meeting :md one study prior to next month's save only $100 a month. boundary lines cross more ty grand jury for gcltir.g in-· muscle that we can get," m0r.1~~r rcce:i\·cs a triple $150 meeting. "We J1avan't fo~nd anythir.g .. than oue sanitation district · volved in an issue which voiced one dlrector. che:d:. In rddit!on, the chairm:m of the seven Slnitation districts and the ch~irman of the coun- ty l:o<lrd of st:pen•i!;ors each sit (in aU ~eH:n bo:m:s and get s:;:~o per r.1~e~ir.g. "T::erc i.5 one school of thougi1t for maintaining the : pre~cnt structure,'' said Ed Just, fo:-mer cha!:-m~n or the jo!n1 L'.l:i:·d:.. "There is anoth· er fan;ri!1~ conrni!d:J.Uon. '' Ji.;:;~. l~c:.id::~J, the c0mmiltce: to .s~l:.!~: .::t.::·:;J~:·:es, has~ prop~~~i G~tions including: ! -~I:lintaining st:itus quo,; -Amcr.\li!~g the fo~ schcd-' ula so th~t no member could; MEMORA.NDUM Agenda Item No.--1.~__, November 5, ~971 TO: EDWARD JUST, JOINT CHAIRMAN FROM:. ROBERT FINNELL, CHAIRMAN, S.PECL~L COMMITTEE STUDYING DIRECTORS' FEES SCHEDULE SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN THE PRESENT DIRECTORS' FEES SCHEDULE The following report constitutes the recommendations of the special committee appointed by ·the Joint Boards at the regular board meeting of March 10, 1971. During this period the committee has met on a number of occasions and has reauested and received detailed information from both the Sanitation Districts' staff and the Districts' General Counsel. The committee has reviewed several alternatives which are discussed below. (1) Maintain the Directors' compensation at the present level as established by resolution of the individual Districts in 1967 and 1968. (2) The special committee concluded that the present fee structure is inequitable and that another alternative should be sought. Amend the fee schedule so that those Directors representing more than one District at a joint meeting would only receive compensation equal to that of a Director representing a single District. · The General Counsel ruled that under the present Health and Safety Code the Sanitation.District does not have the authority to discriminate in its fees. This alternative could be achieved," however, by requesting the State Legislature to enact special legislation. It was the consensus of the special committee that because such legis- lation would affect all sanitation districts in the State of California, the chances of securing passage of such legislation were slim. It was also agreed that even if such legislation could be enacted it would be time consuming and would not solve other problems which will be facing ~he Districts in the near future. The special committee does recommend, ·however, that if the Joint Boards do n~t agree with the committee's recommended alternative; serious c·onsideration should be given to requesting · legislative action to accomplish the reduction of multiple fees to a single Director. (3) Consolidate the various Sanitation Districts into one County Sanitation District with opera- tions, maintenance, and capital outlay costs split evenly throughout the new District. While this would achieve many of the· goals the committee felt were needed, it would create tax increases in Districts 5, 6, and 7, while lowering taxes in Districts 1, 3, and 11. It would have no effect on District 2. The Com- mittee concluded that this would not be an equitable distribution of costs and therefore does not recommend this alternative. (4) Consolidate the present Sanitation Districts into one County Sanitation District with special zones which would be co-terminus with existing Districts' boundaries and it would have separate budgets,.could issue bonds, and incur bonded indebtedness for improvements and the maintenance thereof within the special zone. In effect, this ~lternative would provide for only one Sanitation District but would allow for special zones which would be the equivalent of the present County Sanitation Districts which would have no effect on the tax rates of each of the present Districts. The consolidated agencies would act as a single Sanitation District now acts. The existing Joint Administrative Organization would be eliminated as would the necessity for seven sets of resolutions, m~nutes, seals, etc., for joint business. Rather than having District No. 1 act as agent for all the Districts it would merely be one District. There would be no duplication of Directors in that each city within the District, each Sanitary District now represented, and the County Board of Super- visors, would have a single representative and an alternate for a total of 23 active Directors. The committee felt that this latter point was one which deserved special attention of the Joint Boards. At the present time there are -2- .· .. ---.J t . --) 29 Directors representing 19 cities and 3 Sanita_ry Districts and the County Board· of Supervisors. However,-if Districts No. 5 and No. 11 annex presently unincorporated areas, the entire city councils of the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach will automatically become the Board of Directors for.those two Sanitation Districts. This will increase the.number of ·Directors to 36 with two cities 6aving 14 repres~nta­ ti ve s voting on matters before the Joint Boards. In addition, if each of the mayors of cities belonging to more than one District should elect a different alternate to repre- · sent them in each District, the number of Directors-· could go as high as 48. This would more than double the number of Directors which w.ould be possible under this proposed alter- native. The committee felt that the unwieldy nature of such a large Board'would be detri~ mental to the efficient operations of the Districts·. This· alternative would also have the effect of substantially reducing the number of special distr~cts, an objective formally endorsed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Division of . the League of California Cities, and the Orange County Grand Jury. At the same time,· it would still provide the mechanism for solving local problems by providing·fo~ zone committees equivalent to the present Districts' Boards. Last but certainly not least, the reduction in Directors fees would amount to a sub- stantial savings to the taxpayers of the Districts. The committee recommends the adoption of this alternate plan. It has prepared for the re- view of each Director, a proposed consolidation agreement. It is recommended that this item -3- ... : .. ,.;: ... ..... , ·, .. ~.;:-.~ .. ~.~ ~-···-"-.,, , .' ,. .... · ·•• :\,.· ... ...\:~~ .. ~<':.·r.~·._.~ ... ~l.'"" ,,:· ~;,.··~··· '··' • • • .,, •• ,-. • ..• -::t[d,· ..• ;. : :. . ' . ... be placed on the December 8, 1971 a~erida ·. for a ·discussion and vote by the me~bership of the Joint Boards. Respectfully submitted, "111 J J ~ /,!I ntl:i.t!r 7. -:/4/n~f'' Rooert Finnell . Chairman Members of the Special Committee: Chairman: Members: Ex officio Members: Robe·rt Finnell, M~y9r City of ~lacentia Joseph Hyde, Councilman. City of Los Alamitos Liridslay Parsons, Councilman City of Newport Beach Don Smith, Mayor City of Orange _Mark Stephenson, Councilman · City of Anaheim C~ Arthur Nissen, General Counsel · Orange Courity Sanitation Districts . . Edward Just, Joint Chairman .Orange County Sanitation Districts _ .. -4- . . , , AGREEMENT FOR CONSOLIDATION DRAFT 9/29/71 This Agreement made in Fountain Valley, California, on ______ day of ---------~-----' 19 ____ , by and between COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOSo 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY (each hereinafter referred ~o collectively .- as "Districts"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Districts are organized and existing under the provisions of the County Sanitation District Act • (Section 4700, et seq. of the Health & Safety Code), and WHEREAS, Districts are each engaged in the collection, transporting and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes originating with the County of Orange, and WHEREAS, Districts jointly own and operate propert.Y used for the treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes, and WHEREAS, each District serves a different territory of the County of Orange and owns certain sewerage facilities independent of each other District, and WHEREAS, the territory of all districts together constitute a contiguous territory, and WHEREAS, by agreement districts maintain a single joint administrative organization which administers all of the affairs of each districts, and WHEREAS, by reason of assessed valuations, varying states of development and land us.es, ·each district has different requireme~ts for funding i~s operations, and . . WHEREAS, many administrative benefits can be derived from a consolidation of all districts into a single county sanitation district, and WHEREAS, the County Sanitation District Act provides for the maintenance of zones within a single county sanitation district (Health & Safety Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive) which can be maintained to keep existing tax burdens in similar proportions upo~ .consolidation of the districts. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements set forth hereinafter, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the districts will petition for consolidation into one county sanitation district whose territory will include all of the territory now contained within their respec- tive territorial boundaries. 2. The consolidation district, hereinafter called ---------, will.be known as 3. When formed, will be divided into zones ----- as authorized under the provisions of Health & Safety Code, Section 4850-4856, inclusive. Said zones will be coterminous .with existing boundaries of each district and sub-committees of the directors will be created to recommend to the whole . board of .directors the special improvements and tax re9uirements for each zone. Each sub-committee ahall include the directors whose constituencies are significantly included within the zone they are to be concerned with. . -. . -, -, 4. In determining the revenues needed for each zone within--------as provide~ in Health & S~fety Code, Section 4856, the directors shall calculate the requirements for each zone insofar as the operation of is dis------ tinguished from the special sewerage facilities constructed, maintained and operated to serve the localized requirements of the zones in accordance with the joint ownership, operatiqn and construction agreement dated March 10, 1971, now existing by and between the districts, parties to this agreement~ ·5. The expressed intent of this agreement is to provide the means to ~aintain the existing proportions of the tax burden on the property within e~ch district to be included in the newly consolidated ------ ... ' September 22, 1978 Mr. Don Saltarelli, Joint Chairman Board of Directors - Orange County Sanitation District Dear Don: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of items I believe the Fiscal Policy Committee should study and recommend actions on this year: 1. I believe we should study the possible consolidation of the districts and the resultant reduction in the number of directors; also savings and operating resources that might result froo such a ~eorganization. 2. I believe we should study the need for our joint districts to sponsor SCO~RP beyond the 1978-79 fiscal year. As you know, our contract with SCCKRP will terminate at the end of this fiscal year and I understand they will be asking us to continue our relationship with them beginning in 1979-80, with approximately $80,000 support per year. I ac not sure we should continue in this joint. powers arrangement if the issue of secondary treatr.1ent \.,.,) has been settled. Therefore, I think it would be to our advantage to look into several aspects of this program and recommend an action to the Executive Committee before the 1979-80 budget is finalized. 3. I would recommend that our Committee continue to review the 1978-79 operating budget with the staff in an attempt to find additional areas in which we might economize. I believe a review of this nature may extract additional savings from the current operating budget and better acquaint us with the· complexity of our budget process. This will allow us to nake better recommendations for savings in the 1979-80 budget. · I hope this message reaches you before the Joint Boards meeting on Wednesday, September 27, as you may wish to discuss. .. tJiese .... items with the Board at that time. If you have any questions concerning my recommendations, call me. Sincerely, ~w James B. Sharp, Chairman Fiscal Policy Committee JBS:mfb cc: Donald Holt Paul Ryckof f RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OCTOBER 4, 1978 -7:30 P.M. J . ~'~\LL XC\-R! S IDEXT !,\!. • :'..:::..--:.:~c: a l /S:o a 1 1 l :iJ::;:r i a l ) I I !\E \'E ~"\JE RE QU lRE~IE XTS A. To pay fo r annual mai n·· ~c n an ce , operl ting and r elated c osts , including repl a ce~ent cos ts . 8. To par fo r an nual mdn- t ena nce , o pe r a ting and r el a t ed cos t s , i nc l udi ng r e p l a ce"'ent cos ts. COUXTY SAN I TATI ON DI STR I CTS OF ORANG E COUNTY CO:<C r: . SYl"OPS !S -FINAN CIAL PL>\N/REVE:>."\JE PROGRAM Ill VIAB Lc BI LL i l>G ,\l.TER.':ATI VES A. l) Property t ux bi ll a) Ad \'a l o re1n and/or b) Uniform se1<er ser v i cc ch;1 q;e (Sepa r ate l ine i tem) 2) Spec i al arrangem e n t wi t h wa t er CO!Jp anies t o collec t on wa ter bi ll . 3) Direct bi l ling by Dis t r i c t s . B. 1) Pr op ert y t ax bill a) Ad Valorem and/or h ) :Jn i fo rm s cwe1• s e rv ice ch:trge , (Sepa rate Une item1 2) Spec ial a rra n ~c m cnt wi t h water c omp a:iies to c ol l ec t on ••a t c r bi 11, I V B 11.1. I l>G CA I.CU I.AT ! O:\S/~IETI!ODOLOGY A. l) a) Pr o rata share of maximtcn I °' r r op . 13 t ax l evy . b ) Based on average resi - dential fl ow a nd domes t i c sew age s treng th per d wel ling un it . 2 ) Ba sed on a ve r a ge r esidentia l f l ow o r a f ac tor o f actual w:itcr use 4tt domes t i c sewage st r ength. 3) Ba sed on avcrai;e r es i den tia l fl ow a nd ·dom est ic s ew ag e stre ngth pe r dwe l l i ng un i t. 8 . l) a ) Pr o r at a s ha r e of maxim um l \ Pr op. 13 t ax leYy . b) Based o n ave r age flow an ~ sew er str engt h , per unl t, fo r e ac h us e r group and/ o r sub gr oup clas s~­ fic a tion . 2) Based o n ave ra ge flow a nd sewer strengt h , pe r un it , for each u s er g r ou p and/ or s ub group c l assifi - c ations ; or a c t ua l wa ter use ::nd average s e11agc s t r eng t h . v CO~:,\:E~S / I SSUJ:S A. l ) a) As5u ne s Dis t r i cts wi l l c nn ti n~e t o rccc i 'c pro rata s ha r e of P ~o p . 13 t a.< al i •icc.: 10:: 1<hich is ye t t o be ..:c t ern i ncJ hy l c,_i~­ la t u r c . (Refe r en c e SB 15 J, S<!c . l r,:;o) b) If tax a l l o~.1t ion is ::.su:-::.:it'c.t t o c over ~1t0 c os t ~ t hLn SL ~~r '~rvi ~~ cha rge ~oul J be i ~plc~L~tt ~ t o p:-o - \'i de sup;>lc-::cn t a ry :"un<l5 . Mos t CO:'t c!'f~~t i vc ::lc t hoJ o f col - lec t ing an d ad~!nister!c& cha r ges . Mo r e CGU itablc ttr>;>r o.tct •. 2) . h"oul d rcc ui re c o:it :-.... ctua l :1 :-:-... r ·1,,,:1.;~:i~.; and. srs t C 0 '.T'I :;;oJi fico.iti c r . ..; !"o:-1:t·;1:.~ i - bi l i ty ~it l1 :1 p ?r <>Xi ~a tcly SJ ,~i :·~f r c:.t ~at c r comp 3nics. Lrcltc r 0 ;1~~~tinK c ost and adnini stra t ivc bu rd~n . Ka t e r COr.i ?3 ny oay no t be r c~L'j"lt i\•c . 3) \\ou l d rcqu i re i nst=i 1 1 a t ion o f '"";j?:.Jt L'!" i : <:J b i l l ing s y st e :a am! a s soci::::c1.! nd::-:i ni ~:r :a1.i :-i. Mos t cos t ly o f ~lte rnat ive . () Di s t ri c t s do no t h.1,·e infor:.at !on .is t o 1.:.«: ·.:·r pr ope r t ies a r c c on1~i;oc tc d . Pr opC'r' ics ~,)u J ! h1.• g i ven c r c.:-J i t if s c"cr ~ un:t\":tiL th l ~ o r p :·o~1..·rt y un<l cvc l Oj>Cd . !IOWC\'C r, i t '"''OU l J '><' lrlC t .· IH:n t on prope rty o~n c r t o apµly f o r ~r~~i t :~!>,1lC a nd s uch c r e d i t wou ld be fe r t ::c .r.1:0:. s ervi ce ch arge onl y . S) Detcrr.:i na t i on if au lti p!e J •e l li n1 ~n i t ':-~~­ a r c to be r.:od i f ied fr o~ s i cgle fa:ii l y .! .. cl i ir .. : uni t r a t es wou l d have to lie r::a <l t• liy ~.,:or!~. B . l ) a) Assu~e s Di s tri c t s will c c c :::it.l' to r .·cC':·:~ pro r at:i sh:.r c o f r :-o ~. i3 t ;.i:< J l l o i::i t i 1.':l which is yet t o h<' dcte r ~ineJ b)• l ci::s 1.1:u r e . (Re f erence SB 154 , Sec . 16 2;01 b ) I f t ax a l locat i on is ins uf!'i ci en t to co·:c:r ~:&O c osts t hen sewe r s erl i ce cha r ;;c "ou l.l be imple :~cn tc d t o provi ce s u rplc~.e:lt:i ry funds . Mos t c ost effec tive i::c t hod n: c o l l ~c ti ng and at!:ii n i s tc:-i ng ch ar c;~s . .,!"I T C co uitah l C' ann roach . 2) ~;ou l d r equ ire c on t:-:i crual a rr a n;:c -::~n:s .i r.d spt em rn od ifica t ions for c or.:;1 :lt l ~•!l it r 'i ~.1 app r oxina te l y 80 d i ffe r ent ~a t e : c ~r.:~a n1e~. Greater O?Crati ng c os t ~nd a d~i s::-~:io n bu r~c ~. .( II R£\'E~iJE REQUIRE.\IE~7S a. s·~\L!. V1~•-iU:SIO&~iIA.L (Cont'd.) (f.:e;!.-:.•: rdal/S:.&11 Int;atrial) C. I~"WS1'RIAL !~. :~~!7\~ F~~;~ITIES :: • • : I• ~ : '-'.° ', ;5 C. To pay for annual main- ten~nce. operating, and related costs, including rcplacc=cr.t costs. A.,nual charge to recover fed· eral grant share of capital costs associated with indust• rial capacit)". Anr.ual charge to recover interest and principal on c.o. bonds outstanding. A. Ci?l~al Rcp!ace~cnt Charge A. Annual charge to provide funds to rc~lace capital facilities wncn useful life ·is :exhausted. B. Cor.:.ection Fees B. To pay for new capacity required for properties not yet connected to systc:n. (i VIABLE BU: .. AI.TER.~ATIVES 3) Direct billing by Districts C. 1) Direct billing by Districts Included on direct billing by Districts for.industrial user charge. (See 3bove). Via property tax roll. A. Samo options ns user charge, B. Collected by cities for Districts as a one-time charge when building permit is issued. Cities keep S\ for auministra- ti ve costs associated with collection/disbursement to Districts. Proportios in unincorporated areas pay at Districts• offices. IV BILLit\G CALCULATIONS/METIIOOOLOGY 3. a) Based on average flow and sewage strength per unit for each user group and/or sub group classifications. l' I.' b) Based on flow and sewage strength per unit, for each group and/or sub group classi· fication; or actual water use nnd average sewor strength. c. 1) Based on actual loading dnta. Flow Suspended Solids BOD To be collected from all system users that exceed 25,000 gal. per day equivalent sanitary strength, Based on assessed value of property. A. Funds for replacement will be provided over a designated time period by each user group based on current use of facilities. B. Cost of cnpacity per unit based on projected use. Includes collection, treatment and G&A costs. 3. a) ~ould require the installation of computerized billing syste::a and · associated 3dr.iinistr:ith·e s)·ste:::i. Most costlr altcrnath·e. b) Would require obtaining fl~w data for each user in addition to a) above. 4. Districts do not have information as to ~hcthcr properties arc connected. Proj)i:rd'os co;ild be given credit if sewers una\•:ailahlc or ;>rorcrty undc"vclorcd. However. it woulJ I•'-' in.:~-l·cr.t on property owner to apply for credit rc~ate and such credit would be for the uniform service charge only. . C. 1) • Required by Federal l.;iw. • Any propert)· tax paid woulJ be ~redit.:J against u~er charge (~xccpt debt service tax). Districts currently ha~e • 300 industries permitteJ ur.Jcr this ~cthod. • Requires monitoring of ilow and sa=pli~g of e:ich firm. • Required by Federal Law. • ke~uires extensive ~onitoring. 1 • Fifty percent of funds reco\•crcd repaia to Federal Treasury. Balance of funds available for restricted use by Districts. Allowable under Prop. 13 for voter approved debt. A. 1) Practical dollar limit would h:wc to be est.iblished and continually evaluated. 2) If cash flows fluctuate annual ratu r.ia,· require substantial aJjustm~nt to pro•i~e the necessary funJs in a i:in•n ye:ir, or t-e supplc~ented by other capital sources such as general obligation b1>nds, r'-'\·enu.: bonJs, or loans. 3) This charge could also he u:;;,•d to pro\'ide additional funJs to u1,g1·a.le facilities f.:>r current users if needed -Q\·er and abo\·e funds currently in reserve B. l) Requires new developments/users ra~her than existing connected properties to p~y for cost of constructing aJded iacil~ties ne~C'd to ~~o~ide required capacity. 2) Computation of charge for non-rcsi~ential units should consider loading yet acco~oJate ease oi administration by cities. I 3) Currently in effect for all Districts except Districts 1 and 6. ( ( I CUSTOMER CHARGES IV. CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS (Cont'd. ) C. Annexation Fees II REVENUE REQUIREMENTS C. One-time charge to pay amount equal to propor- tionate share of Districts' net equity. ( III VIABLE BILLING ALTERNATIVES C. Paid at time of annexation (or as modified by Boards). IV BILLING CALCULATIONS/METHODOLOGY C. Based on Districts' net equity divided by total acreage. This base is adjusted annually. ( v COMMENTS/ISSUES ( C. • Essentially plb.ccs annexing properti~s in same position as if they had been in the )istricts from inception (ie., payment of back taxes) • Certain Districts have no annexable cerritory. • Funds may be used to supplement capi~al funding requirements listed above. • Uncertain source of revenue. I I J jQINT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 WA.~RANT NO. CAP.ITAL OlITLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS ·-...,.,; 43000 43001 43002 43003 43004 43005 43006 43007 43008 43009 43010 43011 43012 43013 43014 43015 43016 43017 II A-4" Butier Engineering, Inc., Contract Management Campbell Heating & Air Conditioning, Contract J-7-38 Hickman Brothers, Inc., Contract PW-063 Dr. Robert C. Y. Koh, Waiver Application C. H. Leavell & Company, Contract P2-23-3 K. P. Lindstrom & Associates, Waiver Application Motorola, Inc., Communications Equipment, Plt. 2 Pascal ~ Lugwig, Contract P2-23-5 Production Steel Company, Inc., Contract PW-066 The Register, Legal Ad P2-15-l and J-4-2 Skipper & Company/Cohen & Lewin, Contract PW-055-1 Skipper & Company/Domar Electric, Contract PW-055-1 Skipper & Cornpany/Rosswood Industries, Contract PW-055-1 Skipper & Company/Van Diest Brothers, Contract OW-055-1 H. C. Smith Construction Company, Contract P2-23-6 Southern California Testing Lab, Testing P2-23-5 and P2-23-6 Southwest Sewer Equipment, Tool Box Sully Miller Contracting Company, Contract PW-062 TOTAL CORF TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT $· 13,179.00 14,242.50 33,840.00 1,088.51 289,664.86 2,272.24 823.95 45,470.80 16,016.50 571. 62 2,827.34 1,519.30 6,927.19 1,050.36 . 5 8 2 J 104 . 7 0 575.88 203.52 10,750.50 $1,023,128.77 $1,114,210.00 II A-4" JOINT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 12, WARRANT NO. JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS 43126 43127 43128 43129 43130 43131 43132 43133 43134 43135 43136 43137 43138 43139 43140 43141 43142 43143 43144 43145 43146 43147 43148 .. II A-3" Southe111 California Gas Company, Gas Southern Counties Oil Company, Diesel Fuel Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation, Bottled Water SWl Electric Corporation, Small Hardware The Suppliers, Small Tools TFI Building Materials, Valves Taylor-Dunn, Small Tools Taylor Instruments, Scale Tetko, Inc. , ·Lab Supplies C. 0. Thompson Petroleum Company, Kerosene Tony's Lock & Safe Scryice, Lock Service Truck & Auto Supply, Inc., Truck Parts United Parcel Service, Delivery Service VBA Cryogenics, Demurrage and Special Ga~es Valley Cities Supply Company, Pipe Fittings VWR Scientific, Lab Supplies John R. Waples, Odor Control Consultant Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Engine Parts Western Wire & Alloys, Welding Supplies Milton D. Winston, Employee ~lileage Xerox Corporation, Xerox Reproductions and Rental George Yardley Associates, Control Gauges Donald Winn,, Travel Expense Reimbursement TOTAL JOINT OPERATING FUND AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS 1978 AMOUNT $ 867.94l..-J 2,820.38 593.46 183.49 490.97 1,,106.98 87.14 31.41 42.26 108.12 125.15 515. 71 27.59 367.83 1,251.14 1,156.95 217.60 26,146.67 76.32 10.65 1,490.78 144.38 428.81 $ 91,081.23~ .. "A-3" JOINT'DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 WARRANT NO. JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS 43072 43073 43074 43075 43076 43077 43078 43079 43080 43081 43082 43083 43084 43085 43086 43087 43088 43089 43090 43091 43092 43093 43094 43095 43096 43097 43098 43099 43100 43101 43102 43103 43104 4·3105 4~10f.. 43107 43108 43109 43110 43111 43112 43113 43114 43115 43116 43117 43118 43119 43120 43121 43122 43123 43124 43125 "A-2" Heat and Power Equipment Company, Blower Parts $· Hertz Car Leasing Division, Vehicle Lease Honeywell, Inc., Charts City of Huntington Beach, Water Instrumentation Specialities, Tubing International City Management Association, Program Handbook International Steel & Rigging Company, Inc., Pipe Installation Irvine Ranch Water District, Water Jensen Instrument Company, Insti:umentation Control Keenan Pipe & Supply Company, Equipment Parts Kilsby Tube Supply Company, Tubing King Bearing, Inc., Pump Parts L. A. Chemical, Landscape Supplies LBWS, Inc., Truck Parts L & N Uniform Supply Company, Uniform Rental Lancaster Upholstery, Truck Seat.Repair Lance Speedometer Service, Speedometer Repair Lavender Fastener Company, Small Hardware Lewco Electric Company, Truck Parts Lifecom-Safety Service Supply, Safety Wear Long Beach Iron Works, Inc., Manhole Covers Long Beach Safety.Council, Safety Course and Registration Fee McKesson Chemical Company, Chemicals Dennis May, Employee Mileage Morgan Equipment Company, Engine Parts Motorola, Inc., Communications Equipment Maintenance Nelson-Dunn, Inc., Truck Parts Orange Valve & Fitting Company, Pipe Fittings Oritex, Inc., Engine Parts Pacific Envelope Company, Envelopes Pacific Telephone Company, Phone Service Pacific Thermal Sales, Inc., Thermal Switch ·M. C. Patten Corporation, Con~rol Gauges Perkin-Elmer, Lab Supplies B~ Dalton Pickwick, Mechanics Manual Pickwick Paper Products, Janitorial Supplies Harold Primrose Ice, Sampling Ice Productool, Inc, Drill Parts Rainbow Disposal Company, Trash Disposal The Register, Advertisement, Sale of Cement.Trucks. Reynolds Aluminum Supply Company, Aluminum Sheeting Robbins & Myers, Pump Parts Roseburrough·Tool, Inc., Small Tools Rucker Company, Freight Ruffs Saw Se~-vice, Saw Repair SBC, Inc., Sewer Construction S & J Chevrolet, Truck Parts Sargent Welch Scientific Company, Lab Supplies See Optics, Safety Glasses Senik Paint Company, Paint Supplies Sherwin Willjams Company, Paint Supplies Smith Electric Motors, Electric Motor Repair South Orange Supply, Pipe Fittings Southern California Edison, Power AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT 1'77.73 819.23 106.72 1,220.94 172.99 20.00 3,385.00 3.20 206.58 118. 30 67.42 656.77 333.90 369.35 1,163.47 71.50 110. 00 57.75 38.91 281.62 524.70 220.00 210.94 26.10 13.70 379.83 156.44 68.15 30.66 74.20 46.50 437.93 41.47 248.99 29.68 90.09 15.90 48.78 139.05 18.15 1,,242.55 132.49 51.52 22.64 127.30 2,095.50 107. 63 r 192.62 61.22 203.35 713. 38 207.13 144.41 3,502.10 "A-2" Jli~NT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 WARRANT NO. JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS 43018 43019 43020 43021 43022 43023 43024 43025 43026 43027 43028 43029 43030 43031 . 43032 43033 43034 43035 43036 43037 .43038 43039 43040 43041 43042 43043 43044 43045 43046 43047 43048 43049 . 43050 43051 43052 43053 43054 43055 43056 43057 43058 43059 43060 43061 43062 43063 43064 43065 43066 43067 43068 43069 43070 43071 "A-1" American Compressor Company, Compressor Parts Ralph W. Atkinson,· Control Valve Associated of Los Angeles, Electrical Supplies Barksdale Controls Division, Instrumentation Controls Beckman Instruments, Janitorial Supplies John G. Bell Company, Valve Parts James Benzie, Employee Mileage Bierly & Associates, Inc., Workers Comp Administration Bird Machine, Centrifuge Part Bristol Park Medical Grouo. Phvsical Exams Burke Engineering Company, Engine Parts Bus~ness Forms Press, Business Forms Cadillac Plastic & Chemical Company, Plastic Lettering Castle Controls, Inc., Valves Central Scientific Company, Small Hardware Chevron USA,_ Inc., Gasoline Chlorine Specialities, Inc., Chlorine Cylinder College Lumber Company, Inc., Building Materials Compressor Service, Compressor Parts Compressor Systems, Inc., Compressor Parts Congressional Staff Directory, Directory • Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Electrical Supplies Control Specialists, Inc., Pump Parts • Copeland Motors, Inc., Jeep Parts Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Mr. Crane, Equipment R~ntal Daniels Tire Service, Tires Datamation Stationers, Office Supplies Deco, Electrical Supplies Deep Harbor Lubricants, Lubricant Dennis Printers, Inc., Forms Department of General Services, Safety Orders Diana Distributors, Janitorial Supplies Diesel Control Corporation, Equipment Repair Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies Eco Air Products, Air Filters Filter Supply Company, Filters Fisher & Porter, J-4-2 Plan Refund Fisher Scientific Company, Lab Supplies. Foremost TI~readed Products, Small Hardware City of Fountain Valley, Water France Compressor Products, Compressor Parts and Repair Freeway Machine & WeldinS!. Machine Parts Freeway Stores,. Office Equipment A. F. Frey, Employee Mileage City of Fullerton, Water General Telephone Company, Phone Service Georgia Pacific, Lumber Golden State Fish Hatchery, Lab Supplies Goldenwest Fertilizer Company, Sludge Removal Hach Chemical Company, Inc., Chemical Gases Halprin Supply Company, Air Cylinders Harbor Fire Protections, Inc., Safety Equipment Harbor Radiator, Radiator Repair AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS $ AMOUNT 199.4l.-J 77.29 170.94 126. 24 74.97 224.52 88.38 900.00 3,415.32 • 65. 00 59.97 306.67 40.20 90.27 148.89 4,181.98 1,366.69 137.22 17.84 201.50 35.25 253.34 154.84 . 61. 83 170.21 557.oV 961.57 12.93 128.90 29.57 1,803.67 12.72 818.53 360.86 222.26 ·25.14 155.68 5.00 22.22 442.51 1,057.14 940.64 283.02 78. 71. 41.58 73.42 1,303.47 708.93 30.00 7,913.7~ 24. 7\.-J 636.00 307.40 256.87 "A-1". ,• Agenda Item No. 7 September 26, 1978 · Joint Chairman Don Saltarelli and Members of the Executive Committee Re: 23rd Annual Conference, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, August 23-26, 1978 ... As your representative I attended the Annual Work Conference of CASA in Rancho Bernardo near San Diego. As you can imagine, the. conference centered around the effects of Proposition 13. Many of the agencies had already been through user charge ~ hearings a~q had adopted sqme charges. They were all aware of the heated attendance that you had at your public hearing. It was the consensus that all sanitation district agencies will have to come to grips with some user.charges or source of additionpl revenue.· The Honorable William A. Craven gave a talk on a legislative '\. J ··~ • outlook for special districts. With regard to funding of special districts, he indicated that, in all probability, the State would '-..._,) direct that· districts least able to generate adequate funds would .receive priority. He also said the State plans to legislate in the future provisions for l.ocal governments to raise additional rev~nue which the State cannot provide. Another featured speaker.was Paul De Faico, Jr., EPA Administrator, Region IX. Mr. De Falco highlighted some of the areas that EPA will be looking into which will affect many of us such as sludge disposal, hazardous materials and various Acts of Congress . which include the Safe Drinking Act, Toxic· Substances Act, National Environmental Act, Endangered Species Act and the Histori€al Preservation Act, all of which t.hey are charged with enforcing. John Bryson, Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board, introduced B. J. Mil~er, their new Board member, who fills the position requiring a civil engineer with sanitary engineering and water quality experience. We have hopes he will be an asset to the Board and will work well with the sanitation agencies. In closing, it appeared to be a very successful conference for all. I was re-elected Director and member of the Executive Committee for Lh~ coming year. I will be available to propose and work toward implementation of any effort, as directed by the Joint Boards. •. Don Winn "B" INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 WARRANT NO. DISTRICT NO. 3 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OlITLAY !N-FAVOR OF .. 42998 Kordick & Rados, A Jt. Venture, Contract 3-20-3 TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. 5 & 6 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF 42999 Rodding-Cl.eaning Machines, Inc., Contract 5-8-R TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 5 & 6 AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS ' AMOUNT $ 549,319.41 $ 549,319.41 AMOUNT $ 115,556.26 $ 115,556.26 "B" JOINT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID. SEPTE~IDER 26, 1978 WARRANT NO. JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS 43181 43182 43183 43184 43185 43186 43187 43188 43189 43190 43191 43192 43193 43194 43195 43196 43197 43198 43199 43200 43201 43202 43203 43204 43205 . 43206 43207 43208 43209 43210 43211 43212 43213 43214 43215 43216. 43217 43218 43219 43220 43221 43222 43223 43224 43225 43226 43"227 43228 43229 43230 43231 43232 43233 43234 43235 "C-1" Allied Colloids, Polymer Anixter Pruzan, Electrical Supplies Associated of Los Angeles, Electrical Supplies Banning Battery Company, Batteries Blue Diamond Materials, Building Materials C & R Reconditioning Company, Shaft Repair Cal-Glass For Research, Inc., Lab Supplies Cal South Equipment Company, Test Equipment . California Auto Collision, Inc., Truck Repair CASA, Conference Registration Fee Art Carr Transmission, Truck Repair R. L. Carson, Employee Mileage Case Power & Equipment, Equipment Parts Chevron USA, Inc., Engine Oil and Gasoline Brian Chuchua's Jeep, Inc., Jeep Parts Coast Insurance Agency, Notary Bond College Lumber Company, Inc., Lumber Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Electrical Supplies Continental Chemical Company, Chlorine Control Sp~cialists, Inc., Pump Parts Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts CSDOC, Trust Account Replenishment (Workers Compensation) Daily Pilot, Legal Ads Daniels Tire Service, Tires Datamation Stationers, Office Furniture C. R. Davis Supply Company, Plastic Sheeting Deco, Electrical Supplies Derbys Topsoil, Building Materials Diamond Core Drilling Company, Drilling Diana Distributors, Freight Diesel Control. Corporation, Engine Repair Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Monitoring .fureka Bearing Supply, Pipe Fittings Federal Envelope Company, Envelopes Fischer & Porter Company, Pump Parts Foremost Threaded Products, Small Hardware Fountain Valley Camera, Film Processing · Gatlin Horne Sprinkler Supply, Sprinkler Supplies General Electric Supply, Electrical Supplies General Telephone Company, Phone Service Goldenwest Fertilizer Company, Sludge Removal Hach Chemical Company, Inc., Oxygen Haul-Away Cont·ainers, Trash Disposal Hollywood Tire of Orange, Tires Honeywell, Inc., Strip Charts Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Company, Caustic Soda House of Batteries, Batteries Huntington ~each Equipment Rental, Equipment Rental Keenan Pipe & Supply Company, Pipe Fittings King Bearing, Inc., Bearings Kleen-Linc Corporation, Janitorial Supplies LBWS, Inc., Welding Supplies L & N Uniform Supply Company, Uniform Rental Life Security System, First Aid Supplies AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS $ AMOUNT io, 920. oq i 76.24~ 489.05 350.40 11. 28 40.00 104.94 80.00 158.40 165.00 32.63 10.20 274.50 5,780.00 45.66 40.00 46.30 336.66 11,658.28 107.59 386.01 1,846.80 22.78 461.13 12.72 276.89L.. I 825.44 '\w) 180.20 546.00 33.17 732.31 629.84 3,000.00 126.18 712. 85 762.81 290.60 76.56 .453.68 1,620.21 3,159. 30 7,925.10 76.23 660.00 16.45 108.77 5,,813.77 150.73 48.40 351.15 590.60L __ , 24.17~ 354.50 627.23 153.40 "C-1" JOINT DISTIUCTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 WAltRANT NO. JOI NT OPERATIJ\G FUND WARRANTS 43236 43237 43238 43239 4:~240 43241 43242 43243 43244 43245 43246 43247 43248 43249 43250 43251 43252 43253 43254 43255 43256 ·43257 43258 43259 43260 43261 43262 43263 43264 43265 43266 43267 43268 43269 43270 43271. 43272 43273 43274 43275 43276 43277 43278 43279 43280 43281 43282 43283 43284 43285 ,13286. 43287 43288 43289 "C-2" McMastcr-Carr Supply.Company, Hardware E. D. Moritz Fo\mdry, Manhole Covers Motorola, Inc., Communications Equipment Maintenance Nalco Chcmknl Company, Freight Charge National° L\mhcr Supply, Small Hardware City of Newport Beach, Water Oakitc Products, Inc., Janitorial Supplies Orange County Chemical Company, Chemicals County of Orange, Tax Roll Processing Fee Orange County Stamp Company, Rubber Stamp Orange Val vc lt Fitting Company, Pipe Fittings ·1_ Pacific Telephone Company, Phone Service Parts Unlimi tcd, Truck Parts Pcarsons Lawnmower Center, Mower Parts Pickwick Paper Products, Paper Products Pinky's Security Locksmith, Lock Service Pitney Bowes, Postage Meter Postmaster, Postage Harold Primrose Ice, Sampling Ice Productool, Inc., Drill Bits and Small Tools Quality Building Supply, Sand Rainbow Disposal Company, Trash Disposal The Register, Employment Ads Robbins & Myers, Pump Parts Santa Ana Dodge, Truck Repair Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Repair Sargent Welch Scientific Company, Lab Supplies Scientific Products, Lab Supplies Seal Engineering Company, Rubber Products Senik Paint Company, Paint Supplies Serv-all Refrigeration, Refrigerator Repair Shepherd Machinery Company, Equipment Repair Sherwin Williams Company, Paint Supplies Signal-Flash Company, Safety Equipment Sims Industrial Supply, Safety Gloves South Orange Supply, Pipe Fittings Southern California Edison, Power Southern·California Water Company, Water ' ' .· Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation; Bottled Water Spiral Binding Company, Inc., Binders Starow Steel, Steel Super Chem Corporation, Janitorial Supplies J. Wayne Sylvester, Petty Cash Transparent Products Corporation, Building Materials Travel Buffs, Air Fare Truck & Auto Supply, Inc., Truck Parts Union Oil Company of Cal ifori.na, Gasoline United Industrinl Suppl)', Jnc., Instrument Gauge United Par"~cl Scrvjcc, Deliver)' Service Utilities Supply Company, Hand Tools Valley Citios Supply Company, Pipe Fittings Water Pollution Control Federation, Conference Rcgistr•ati.on Fee \faukesha Engine Servi center, Engine Parts Western Salt Company, Lab Salt AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS $ AMOUNT 84.66 875.26 379.33 25.35 142. 49 12.45 550.35 119. 57 839.52 9. 77 74. 04 260.93 1,892.51 42.78 75.02 25.00 73.14 1,000.00 15.90 64.87 686.] 6 107 .10 212.85 1,263.52 20.65 1,023.40 23.32 36.49 168.22 112 .68 58.40 30.40 257.58 52.79 32.37 136.81 60,683 .. 34 6.26 6.75 205.32 183.27 529.47 910.32 .. 1]3.97 939. 60 . 213.70 9.87 35.55 47. 24 16.96 1,017.44 368.00 l 02. 71 126.94 "C-2" JOINT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 ·WARRANT NO. .JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS 43290 43291 43292 "C-3" Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Xerox Computer Services, Computer Service Xerox Corporation, Xerox Reproductions and Ren~al TOTAL JOINT OPERATING FUND AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT I $ 4,128.2~ 4,410.91 2,257.73 $ 150,882.37 "C-3'~ JOINT DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 WARRANT NO. CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANT~ 43165 43166 \_,/ 43167 .. 43168 43169 43170 43171 43172 43173 43174 43175 43176 . 43177 43178 43179 43180 "C-4" Bird Machine Company, Bowl Centrifuge John.Carollo Engineers/Greely Hanson, P2-23 Construction City ~ide Office Machines, Calculator Datamation Stationers, Bookcase Dunn & Bradstreet, Market Identifiers Eastman, Inc.·, File Cabinet Erncon, Sludge Study Fischer & Porter Company, Magnetic Flowmeter J. B. Gilbert & Associates, Waiver Application Osborne Laboratories, Inc., P2-23-6 Tests Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company; Consul ting Services Santa Ana Dodge, Dodge Pick-Up Sears Roebuck & Company, Laboratory Oven for Pesticides Skipper & Cornpany/Rosswood Industries, Contract PW-055-1 Southern California Edison, P2-23 Power Installation Twining Laboratories, Test P2-23-6 TOTAL CORF TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT $ 111,454 .40 37 J 546.11 157.94 85.60 2,114.53 83.93 1,389.89 2,860.48 339 .12 910.00 107,294.47 5,618.00 784.29 421.37 1,075.70 43.50 $ 272' 179. 33 $ 423, 061. 70 "C-4" . ,INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 WARRANT NO. DISTRICT NO. 2 OPERATING FUND IN FAVOR OF. 43158 State of California, Annexation 31 and 32 Fees TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 2 OPERATING FUND WARRANT NO. DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY IN FAVOR OF ·43159 Osborne Laboratories, Inc., Test 2-19 and 2-20 TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 2 ACO FUND TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 2 WARRANT NO. DISTRICT NO. 3 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY IN FAVOR OF 43160 43161 Boyle Engineering Corporation, Construction 3-20-3 Osborne Laboratories, Inc., 3-20-3 Tests TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 3 WARRANT NO. DISTRICT NO. 5 ACCUMULATED CAPTIAL OUTLAY IN FAVOR OF 43162 43163 "D-1" Ecos Management Criteria, EIR/Jarnboree L. D. King & Associates, Big Canyon Project TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 5 AGENDA ITEM #9 -ALL DISTRICTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ AMOUNT 190.00 190.00 AMOUNT 560.00 560.00 750.00 AMOUNT 3,910.88 6,440.00 10,350.88 AMOUNT 421.88 4,496.00 4,917.88 "D-1" . INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS CLAIMS PAID SEPTE~IBER 26, 1978 ,WARRANT NO. I DISTRICT NO. 7 OPERATING FUND IN FAVOR OF 43164 State of California, Annexation 77 and 80 Fees TOTAL DISTRICT NO. 7 "D-2" AGENDA ITEM ·#9 -ALL DISTRICTS AMOUNT 240.00 $ 240.00 "D-2" September 27, 1978 07 M E M 0 R A N 0 U M TO: J. Wayne Sylvester FROM: Ted Hoffman SUBJECT: Bid Specification E-0~7, 6-Ton Crane, Truck Mounted COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 f.LUSAVENUE FOUNTAIN VAL.LEY. CALIFvnMA 9.!7uH I J (714) 540-2910 '-1 (714) <J62<?.t 1 t Sealed bids were opened at 11:00 A.M., Tuesday, September 26, 1978, for furnishing and installing a 6-ton crane on Districts' owned · cab & ·chassis. The tabulations are as follows: Great Pacific Equipment Co. Los Angeles Nat'l Model 3T-37 $ 28,290.34 *Trade-In 3,500.00 Arko Equipment Inc. Los Angeles Pitman Model HL-757 $ 31,143.56 i,oqo.oo Asher Equipment Co. Industry RO Model TC60-l $ 31,487.60 4,660.00 Net Cost $ 24,790.34 $ 30,143.56 $ 26,827.60 *Trade-in -1968 I.H.C. Cab & Chassis with 6-ton utility crane. \..I In 1977-78 the Districts purchased a new. cab and chassis (Spec. No. A-086) to replace the worn out vehicle on which an existing crane was installed. The crane was to be transferred to the new cab and chassis and the old truck retired. However, in prep~ring to transfer the crane it was determined to be unsafe and not certifiable under CAL-OSHA. Therefore, the above bids were solicited to replace the crane and it is reconunended that the award be made to the low bidder, Great Pacific Equipment Co. for their bid p~ice nf $24,790.34, including sales tax and trade-in. Because the crane replacement was not anticipated in the current year's budget, acquisition of the following budget items will be delayed until next year or modified to provide funds for the above purchase. Dept Approved Items Transfer Amount 50 Street Sweeper $20,000.00 50 Air Compressor 4,790.34 $24,790.34 \~i:·//L~:.'--Concur, ~ ,VJJna_vt~ Ted Hoffman I.;/ Chief of Procurement & Property . W,N, Clarke, Superintendent "E" AGErlDA ITEM #10(A) -ALL DISTRICTS "Eu COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 ·CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. ___ N_/_A ______________ ___ 2 C.O. NO. ____________________ ___ DATE~~----s_c_p_t_c_rn_b_cr __ 2_9_,~19_7_s~---·~CONTRACTOR: SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING CO. JOB: Misccllnncous Paving at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-062 . Amount of this Change Order f~~~X (DEDUCT) .$ (13,649.97) In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contr~ct -·and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. ~ ADJUSTMENT OF ENGINEER'S QUANTITIES DEDUCT: Item Change Est'd Quantities No. Description Unit From To Diff. 1 Asphalt concrete TONS 750 630:95 119.05 @ 19.45/TON $ 2,315.52 2 Aggregate base TONS 1,250 845.46 404.54 @ 12.25/TON 4,955.61 3 Asphalt overlay TONS 1,200 1,025.21 174.79@ 19.56/TON 3,418.89 5 Remove A.C. base & pavement S.F. 13,500 7 ,971. 00 5,529.00 @ 0.55/S.F. 3,040.95 Total Deduct: $13,730.97 ADD: 6 Redwood headers L.F. 1,650 1,704 54.00 @ 1.50/L.F. $ 81.00 Total Add: $ 81.00 TOTAL DEDUCT: ($13,649.97) Original Contract Price $ 100,180.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ (21,960.00) This Change C'A'U~ (DEDUCT) $ ( 13, 64 9 . 9 7) Amended Contract Price $ 64,570.03 Board authorization date: October 4, 1978 Approved: SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING CO. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, California ~By ~--~--------~------~~~~~-By------------------------~--~ Contractor Chief Engineer "F" AGENDA ITEM ~lO(c) -ALL DISTRICTS "F" "G" RESOLUTION NO. 78-163 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-062 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING MISCELLANEOUS PAVING AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-062, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 contractor, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, has completed the work in accordance with the terms of the contract for MISCELLANEOUS PAVING AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-o6i, on September 30, 1978; and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Chief Engineer has recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, whi~h said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. Tbat Miscellaneous ·Paving at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, is here.by accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated July 27, 1978; and, Section 4. That the Chairman of District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Sully-Miller Contracting Company setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Miscellaneous Pavfng at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-062, is her~by approved; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of itself and County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2. 3, s, 6, 7 and 11, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adj~urned regular meeting held October 4, 1978. AGENDA ITEM #lO(n) -ALL DISTRICTS "G" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. ___ N~/~A ________________ _ C.O. NO.~ ___ l ________ ~-------- '--'coNTRACTOR: Production Steel Co., Inc. DATE . September 29, 1978 Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port JOB: at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (DEDUCT) $ 00. 00 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contr~ct and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the foll<;>wing .additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. Extension of Contract Time The Contractor is hereby granted an extension of .contract time due to the delay in scheduled equipment delivery date to subcontractor by solenoid valve manufacturer. 34 Calendar Days . . TOTAL TIME EXTENSION 34 Calendar Days SU~lMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Date Original Contract Time Qriginal Completion Date Time Extension this Change Order Total Time Extension Revised Contract Time Revised Completion Date • June 29, 1978 60 Calendar Days August 27, 1978 34 Calendar Days 34 Calendar Days 94 Calendar Days September 30, 1978 Original Contract Price $ 16,135.00· Prev. Auth. Changes $ 0.00 This Change (ADD) (DEDUCT) $ 0.00 Amended Contract Price $ 16,135.00 Board authorization date: October 4, 1978 Approved: PRODUCTION STEEL CO., INC. ~y ----~----------------~~--~-- Contractor COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, California By __ ~--~------------~~--~---- Chief Engineer "H" AGENDA ITEM #10(E) -ALL DISTRICTS "H" "I II RESOLUTION NO. 78-164 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-066 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF TIIE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE HOPPER OUTLET PORT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-066, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 contractor, Production Steel Co., Inc., has completed the work in accordance with the terms of the contract for MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE HOPPER OUTLET PORT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-066, on September 30, 1978; and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Chief Engineer has recommended acceptance of said work as having· been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, which said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated June 29, 1978; and, Section 4. That the Chairman of District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Production Steel Co., Inc., setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066, is hereby approved; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No: 1 are hereby authorized and directed to execute said ag.reernent on behalf of itself and County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4, 1978. AGENDA ITEM #lOCF) -ALL DISTRICTS II I II RESOLUTION NO. 78-165 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRA- TION SERVICES RE 75 MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, RE COMPUTER SERVICES A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES RE 75 ·MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, RE COMPUTERIZED CPM SERVICES. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the Districts have heretofore entered into an agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for construction contract administration services in connection.with five phases of 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2; and, WHEREAS, as part of the construction contracts for Jobs Nos. P2-23-2, Division· 1, Oxygen Generation and Storage Facilities, and Division 2, Oxygen Dissolution Facilities, and P2-23-6, Major Facilities for 75 MGD.Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, the contractors were required to provide a computerize~ construction schedule reflecting their anticipated construction schedule and the progress payments associated therewith; and, WHEREAS, in order for the District to effectively monitor the contractors' progress, the contract administrator has also provided a computerized critical path construction (CPM) program pursuant to the aforeme~tioned agreement with Districts; and, WHEREAS, in order to optimize the effectiveness of the contract administrator's CPM program, it is desirable to modify said program to reflect actual construction changes for the balance of the three-year construction program; and, WHEREAS, such modification represents a change of scope in the contract administrator's agreement with the Districts. NOW, TiiEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, "J-1" AGENDA ITEM #10(G) -ALL DISTRICTS" "J-1" 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Amendment No. 1 dated October 4, 1978, to the Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. dated May 25, 1978, for construction contract adminis.tr.ation services relative to 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, providing for modifications and updating of the basic computerized critical path construction schedule by Butier Engineering, is hereby authorized and approved; and, Section 2. That payment in an amount not to exceed $35,000.00 to Butier Engineering, Inc. for said services is hereby authorized; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Amendment on behalf of itself and Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, in form approved by the General Counsel. · PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4,. 1978. "J-2"· AGENDA ITEM #10(G) -ALL·DISTRICTS "J-2" RESOLUTION NO. 78-166 AU1110RIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED FROM BEECO, LTD. RE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WITHIN TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2 SITE A RESOLUTION OF TiiE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITA- TION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED FROM BEECO, LTD. IN CONNECTION WITH PURCHASE OF PROPERTY · LOCATED WITHIN THE TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2 SITE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, in the course of preparing a record of survey to consolidate the records of all Treatment Plant No. 2 property acquisitions, it has been determined that the Districts do not have title to a 1500-square foot parcel of land within the Treatment Plant No. 2 site, which said parcel is presently owned by Beeco, Ltd.; and, II WHEREAS, it is desirable that the Districts acquire said parcel in order to obtain unencumbered title to all said parcels within said Treatment Plant No. 2 site to enable construction and operation of master planned sewerage I.._/ facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That certain Grant Deed dated wherein real property situated in the County of Orange, State of Galifornia, within the Treatment Plant No. 2 site, is granted to the County Sanitation Districts of .. Orange County, is hereby accepted from Beeco, Ltd.; and, Section 2.-That the real property over which said Grant Deed is granted is more particularly oescribed and shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That said Grant Deed is granted in connection with purchase of approximately a .03-acre parcel of property located within the Districts' Treatment Plant No. 2 site; and, "K-1" AGENDA ITEM #lOCH) -ALL DISTRICTS "K-1" "K-2" Section 4. That payment in the amount of $3,500.00 for said Grant Deed is hereby authorized; and, Section.5. That the .Secretary of the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant Deed in the Official Records of Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4, 1978 . • AGENDA ITEM #10(H) -ALL DISTRICTS "K-2" "L" RESOLUTION NO. 78-168 APPROVING LEITER AGREEMENT WITH CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. TO RAISE KARALES OIL \\'ELL NO. S AT PLANT NO. 2 TO GRADE IN CONNcCTION WITH JOB P2-23-l A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LETTER AGREE- MENT WITH CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. TO RAISE THE KARALES OIL WELL NO. 5 SITE TO LEVEL OF DISTRICTS' ADJACENT ROADWAY AT PLANT NO. 2 IN CONNECTION JOB NO. P2-23-l * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. holds certain access rights for oil well sites located on the Districts Treatment Plant No. 2 site; and WHEREAS, Districts' construction of a roadway system in connection with Job No. P2-23-l, Flood Wall and Site Development for 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, made the Karales Oil Well No. 5 site inaccessible; and ' WHEREAS, the Districts are responsible for restoring access to said site. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1, That the certain Letter Agreement dated September 22, 1978, by and between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. authorizing Chevron to raise the·entire oil well site for Karales Oil Well No. 5 located at Treatment Plant No. 2 to a height equal to the level of the Districts' adjacent roadway in order to provide access to said oil well; and, Section 2. That payment for said work to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. in an amount not to exceed $9~000.00 is hereby authorized; and, Section 3. That the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Letter Agreement in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4, 1978. AGENDA ITEM #lQC1) -ALL DISTRICTS "L" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX Bl27 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT No·. N/A c.o. NO .• I CONTRACTOR: .RODDIN~-CLEANING MACHINES, INC. DATE September· 29, JOB: Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5 Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract Amount of this Change Order (ADD) ~~tl1XlU $ 11, 731. 06 1978 No. 5-8-R . In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contr~ct a.nd/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the fol lowing additions to or deductions from the contr~ct price are hereby approved. ADD: ' 1. Additional excavation, backfill, and paving due to leaking 2. District Trunk not part of contract work at Station 0+00. Time extension: 1 day. 1 Backhoe -8 hours @ $12.00/hr = $ 96.00 I Operator -8 hours @ $22.00/hr :..: 176.00 1 Laborer -8 hours @ $19.60/hr = 156.80 60 SF of paving @ $0.80/SF = 48.00 $476.80 Profit @ 15% 71.52 Total Add: Removal of concrete cradles not shown on Plans 5+47. Time extension: 2 days. 1 Backhoe -16 hrs @ $12.00/hr = $ 192.00 1 Operator -16 hrs @ $22.00/hr = 352.00 I Laborer -16 hrs @ $19.60/hr = 313.60 1 Supt. -16 hrs @ $25.00/hr = 400.00 Cones, Barricades and lights 16 hrs @ $11. 00/hr = 176.00 $1433.60 Profit @ 15% 215.04 Total Add: at Station 3. Removal of concrete cradles not shown on Plans at Station 44+14. Time extension: 1 calendar day. 1 Backhoe -8 hrs. @ $12.00/hr = $ 96.00 1 Operator -8 hrs. @ $22.00/hr = 176.00 1 Labore1· -8 hrs. @ $19.60/hr = 156.80 ·1 Supt. -8 hrs. @ $25.00/hr = 200.00 1 Dump Trk -8 hrs. @ $10.00/hr = 80·.00 1 Compr. -8 hrs. @ $45.00/dy = 45.00 Cones, etc.-8 hrs. @ $11. 00/hr = 88.00 $841.SO Profit @ lS~o 126.27 Total Add: "M-1" AGENDA ITEM #lOCK) -DISTRICT 5 $. 548.32 $1,648.64 $ 968.07 "M-1" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. c.o~ NO. · CONTRACTOR : RODDING-CLEANING MACHINES, INC. DATE N/A I September 29, 1978 JOB: Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5 Ro~ky Point to Lido Pump Station, Contract No. 5-8-R 4. Change in installation pit No. 7 locations as required by Cal Trans due to traffic problem. Remove and replace paving. No time extension. 48 feet @ 5 f ect = 240 SF 36 feet @ 5 feet = 180 SF 420 SF @ $1.50/SF = 5. Delays encountered.and repair of broken water line shown incorrectly on Plans at Station 28+00. Time extension: 1 day. 1 Backhoe -8 hrs. @ $12.00/hr = $ 96. o..o 1 Operator -8 hrs. @ $22.00/hr = 176.00 l Laborer -8 hrs. @ $19.60/hr = 156.80 1 Supt. -8 hrs. @ $25.00/hr = 200.00 1 Compr. -8 hrs. @ $45.00/dy = 45.00 · 1 Dump Trk 8 hrs. @ $10.00/hr = 80.00 1 Welder -4 hrs. @ $40. 00/hr = 160.00 Cones, etc.-8 hrs. @ $11. 00/hr = 88.00 $1,001. 80 Profit @ 15% 150.27 Total Add: 6. Flange connections in lieu of sleeve coupling as specified. Time extension: 10 days. Total Add: TOTAL ADD: Extension of Contract Time "M-2" Coast Highway traffic and Department of Transportation requirements prevented the contract from proceeding as originally estimated causing time delay in completion of the work. The contractor is hereby granted an extension of Time ~xtcnsions Items Nos. 1 thru 6: TOTAL TIME EXTENSION: AGENDA ITEM #10(K) -DISTRICT 5 $ 630.00 $ 1,152.07 $ 6,783.96 $11, 731.06 82 Calendar Days 15 Calendar Days 97 Calendar Days "M-2" .. COUNTY S/\f·J) T/\TION 01 !;TRICT5 or OR/\NGE COUNTY P • 0 • B 0 X 8 1 ? 1 -1 0 8 L1 '• C LL I S I\ VENUE FOUNTAIN VALL£::Y, CALIFORIHA 92708 GRANT NO. N/ A CHJ\NGl: ORDER C. 0. NO . __ --1=====~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\.../-, CONTRACTOR:~~R_o_oD_I_N_G_-c_L_E_·AN __ IN_G~~~_c_1_n_N_E_s_,_I_N_c_.~---OATE ____ ~_s_e~p_t_cm_b_c_r~2_9_,_1_9_7_8 ____ _ JOB: Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5 Rocky Point to Lido Pump Station, Contract No. 5-8-R SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Date Original Contract Time Original Completion Date Time Extension This Change Order Total Time Extension Revised Contract Time Revised Completion Date Board authorization d~te: October 4, 1978 RODDING-CLEANING MACHINES, INC. By _______ ·~--~----------~---~---C on t r~Jctor April 27, 1978 60 Calendar Days June 25, 1978 97 Calendar Days 97 Calendar Days 157 Calendar Days Septem.ber 30, 1978 Or.i g ina 1 Contract Price $ 216, 114. 25 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 0.00 This Change (ADD) ~~enc) $ 11,731.06 Amended Contract Price $ 227,845.31 Approved: COUNTY Sf\U I T/\T I ON DISTRICTS of Orange County, California Dy____________ --·-- Chief [n9inecr "M-3" · AGENDA ITEM #10(K) -DISTRICT 5 "M-3" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/ A --~~------------~--- .~ . c. o. N0.~~2--~~----------~-- CONTRACTOR:~ __ RO_D_D_I_N_G-_C_.L_E_AN_I_N_'G __ ~t_\C_l_II_N_ES __ ,_I_N_C_.~ DATE~~----S_c~p_te_m_b_e_r __ 29_, ___ 1_9_7_8~~- JOB: Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5 Rocky Point to Lido Pump Station, Contract No .. S-8-R Amount of this Change Order (ADD) {~~1K~~K) $ 293.70 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contr~ct and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. ADJUSTMENT OF ENGINEER'S QUANTITIES Increase Item No. 1 (22-inch diameter SDR 32.S Polyethylene Liner) from 4,415 L.F. to 4,421 L.F. 6 L.F. @ $48.95/L.F. = TOTAL ADD . Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change (ADD) (DOOUC\W Amended Contract Price Board authorization date: October 4, 1978 Approved: $293.70 $293.70 $ 216, 114. 25 $ 11, 731. 06 $ 293.70 $ 228,139.01 RODDING-CLEANING. MACHINES, INC. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, California ~ ·By __ ~~----~----~--~~~--~~ By~----------~----~--~~~-- Contractor Chief Engineer "N" AGENDA ITEM #10(K) -DISTRICT 5 . "NII "O" RESOLUTION NO. 78-174-5 ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. 5-8-R AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, . ACCEPTING SLIP-LINING OF TRUNK B, UNIT 5, ROCKY POINT TO LIDO PUMP STATIONS, CONTRACT NO. 5-8-R, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, Rodding-Cleaning Machines, Inc., has corn- pleted the work in accordance with the terms of the contract for SLIP-LINING OF TRUNK B, UNIT 5, ROCKY POINT TO LIDO PUMP STATIONS, CONTRACT NO. 5-8-R, on Sept~rnber 30, 1978; and, Section 2. 1bat by letter the Districts' Chief Engineer has reconunended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of \...,) the contract, which said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pwnp Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, is hereby accepted as complete in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated April 27, 1978; and, Section 4. 1bat the Chairman of District No. 5 is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with R~dding-Cleaning Machines, Inc. setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations, Contract No. 5-8-R, is hereby approved; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. S arc hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement in·form approved by the General Counsel . . PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4, 1978. AGENDA ITEM #lOCM) -DISTRICT 5 "O" "P-1" RESOLUTION NO. 78-167 URGING CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS PERTAINING TO APPORTIONMENT OF AD VALOREM TAX LEVY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT EQUITABLE LEGISLATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS PERTAINING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the adoRtion of Prop0sition 13 on June 6, 1978, has established the maximum amount of tax that can be levied upon real property within the State of California; and, WHEREAS, most special districts within the State of California levied a tax upon the real property within their jurisdiction based upon the ad valorern assessment rolls; and, WHEREAS, those special districts which levied an ad valorem based tax relied upon such revenues to meet a portion or all of the expenses of operating said Districts; and, WHEREAS, those special districts provided sanitation services empowered by State law to establish and collect charges or fees for services provided to the users of their system in addition to receiving ad valorem property tax revenue; and, ·WHEREAS, sanitation agencies provide a special service directly related to real property; and, WHEREAS, the ability to use a combined system o.f ad valorem taxes and direct user charges is the most equitable means of financing most special districts and particularly sanitation agencies, and recognizing the relationship of the service to the property; and, ~GENDA ITEM #l~(s) -ALL DISTRICTS . "P-1" "P-2" WHEHEAS, to implement Proposition 13 the California legislature has enacted SB 154 (Chapter 292, stats 1978) and SB 2212 (Chapter 332, stats 1978) which measures included the addition of Section 16270 to the California Government Code in which the S.tate Legislature has declared its intent to deny special districts any share of the .1% ad valorem tax levy allowed by Proposition 13, after the 1978-79 fiscal year; and, WHEREAS, if such legislation is re-enacted in the same or similar form to be effective July 1, 1979, it will require the special districts to impose large user charges and have a revenue program that is not necessarily the most equitable system possible for financing its operations; and, . WHEREAS, to allow General Government such as counties and cities to .receive the entire apportionment of the 1% tax levy authorized by the California Revenue. and Taxation Code, .section 2237, to the exclusion of special districts, th.us requiring special districts who relied in part upon tax rev~nue in the past to adopt user charges to establish a program contrary to the intent and mandate of the people of this State in adopting Proposition 13. 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 FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. That the State Legislature enact a comprehensive revenue program and tax apportionment legislation to implement Proposition 13 f~r fiscal year 1978-79 and subsequent years; and, Section 2. That said legislative program provide for special districts to continue to receive a pro rata share of the ad valorem rate authorized to be levied by California Constitution, Article XII\.,} on the same apportionment basis as authorized by SB 154 and SB 2212 for the fiscal year 1978-79; and, AGENDA ITEM #13(s) -ALL DISTRICTS "P-2" "P-3" Section 3. That the legislature not enact any legisative matters similar to Government Code Section 16270 which would direct special districts to rely soley on user charges or similar systems in lieu of receiving property taxes. AGENDA ITEM #13(s) -ALL DISTRICTS · "P-3" RESOLUTION NO, 78-169 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH DELPHI SYSTEMS, INC, FOR IN-HOUSE MINI-COMPUTER SYSTE~1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH DELPHI SYSTEMS, INC, Fon PURCHASE AND INSTAL- LATION OF IN-HOUSE MINI-COMPUTER SYSTEM * * * * * * * * ·* * * * * WHEREAS, the Districts' data processing consultant, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co,1 has heretofore submitted a report and reconunendation concluding that installation of an in-house mi~i-computer system is the most cost-effective and appropriate method of satisfying the Districts' data processing requirements for the next several years; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said report and reconunendation, the Boards of Directors have ·heretofore approved an action plan for acquisition and installation of an in-house mini-computer system; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to authokization of the Boards of Directors, the con- sultant has prepared a.conceptual design and request for proposal for said system; and, WijEREAS, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., has reviewed and evaluated the pro- posals received for said system and has recommended to the Boards of Directors that the Districts enter into a contract with Delphi System, Inc. for installation of the in-house mini-computer system, which said recommendation is contained ·in their report dated September 20, 1978. 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 RESOLVED, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section I. That the report and recommendation of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. relative to selection of a vendor for installation of an in-house mini- computer system, be and is hereby, teccivcd, ordered filed nnd approved; nnd, "Q-1" AGENDA ITEM #13(c)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "Q-1" ... Section 2, That the certain agreement dated , by and between County San.itation District No. 1 of Orange County and Delphi Systems, Inc. for purchase and installation of an in-house mini-computer system, including but not limited to computer hardware, accessories, documentation and software, be and is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 3. That payment for said system is hereby authorized in accordance with the provisions set forth in sai_d agreement for a total amount not to exceed $281,350, plus applicable taxes and delivery; and, Section·4. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of itself and Count~ Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned meeting held October 4, 1978. "Q-2" AGENDA ITEM #13(c)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "Q-2"· ., RESOLUTION NO. 78-170 ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES OF RETIRED DIRECTOR DONALD WINN'S REPRESENTATION IN CASA A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICJS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING cmwENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF RETIRED DIRECTOR DONALD WINN'S REPRESENTATION IN THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SANITATION AGENCIES THROUGH THE ANNUAL 1979 MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, retired Director Donald Winn has previously been active in the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County's participation in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA); and, WHEREAS, retired Director Donald Winn is presently serving as a member of the CASA Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS, said term on the CASA Board of Directors will not expire until the close of the CASA Annual Conference in August, 1979. NOW, TI-IEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of Co~nty Sani~ation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. Thqt the continued representation of retired Director Donal Winn.in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies through said Association.' s Annual Work Conference in August, 1979, is hereby approved; and that during said period, Donald Winn shall be entitled to· receive the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day, but in no event shall the representative's total compensation exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month; and, Section 2. That when traveling on such business, said representative shall be entitled to reimbursement of expenses necessarily incurred in the course "R-1" AGENDA ITEM #13CF)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "R-1" of said travel in accordance with the following schedule:. Commcrical Transportation -per actual invoice Hotel -room rate per actual statement for occupany Registration -actual cost of conference or meeting registration fee Ground Transportation -as itemized Personal Vehicle -First 1-15-0 miles per month @ $.15/mile -Next 151-600 miles per month @ $.12/mile -Next 601+ miles per month @ $.06/mile Telephone Service -as itemized Meals, Gratuities and Incidentals -Actual cost of the representative's personal meals and incidentals r~quired during the course of the conference or meeting. Section 3. That the authorization provided for by this resolution shall expire after CASA's Annual Work Conference in August, 1979. "R-2" AGENDA ITEM #13(F)(2) -ALL .DISTRICTS "R-2" "S" RESOLUTION NO. ES:Y-ABLISHING USE CHARGES FOR 1978-79 FISCAL YEAR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. A RESOI..lITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. OF ORANGE COUN1Y, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHINGUSE CHARGES FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II PERMITEES FOR '111E 1978-79 FISCAL YEAR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. * * * * ~ * * * * * WHEREAS, this Board of Directors has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. __ , an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewe~age Facilities; and, WHEREAS, said Ordinance provides that the Board of Directors shall annually adopt a charge for use of District facilities by Class I and Class II permitees. . . NOW, THEREFORE: The Board of Dire·ctors of County Sanitation District No. _of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That, pursuant to Section 302.6 of Ordinance No. ~-' the 1978-79 fiscal year charge for use for Class I permitees is hereby established as follbws: For Flow: $ ___ per million gallons of flow For Suspended Solids $ ___ per thousand pounds of S.S. For Biochemical· Oxygen Demand $ per thousand.pounds of B.O.D. Section 2. Tha.t, pursuant to Section 302.6 of Ordinance No. __ , the 1978-79 fiscal year charge for use for Class II permitees is hereby established as follows: For Flow: $ per million gallons of flow --- PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 4, 1978. AGENDA ITEM #14 -ALL DISTRICTS-"S" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 01 ORANGE CouN·rv. CALIFORNIA PO OOX8127 10844 ELLIS AVlNUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CAUFOHNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 September 28, 1918 (714) 962·241 l STAFF REPORT STATUS OF STATE COASTAL COM.~ISSION PERMIT FOR COAST HIGHWAY TRUNK FROM PLANT NO. 2 TO LAKE STREET In April, 1978, the District No, 11 filed an application with the Regional Coastal Commission for a pennit to install the 84-inch Coast Highway Trunk extending from Plant No. 2 to Lake Street along the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway. This Coast Highway Trunk is the backbone system for the Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for this District. On June 26, 1978, the Regional Commission heard all testimony and approved the permit by a 7 to 5 vote. This permit approval was appealed to the State Coastal Commission by the Amigos de Balsa Chica, the Sierra Club and Mrs. Aileen Brock. The hearing on this matter has been set by the State Commission for October 17th. On Tuesday, September 26th, staff met with the staff of the Coastal Commission in San Francisco to discuss the concerns of the Commission and its staff. The Coastal Commission staff did not appear concerned as to the capacities since most of the drainage area lies outside of the Coastal Cotmnission zone of influence. The main concern is the status of the Balsa Chica area. The Coastal Element Plan (CEP) has \.,.I not been completed for this area but must be resolved before July, 1981. The State staff indicated that a favorable report could be made to the Conunission if the District would postpone consideration of annexation of this area to the Sanitation District until after the finalization of the Coastal Element Plan for this area. Since no development could be approved by the Coastal Commission requiring sewer service, staff feels that if the Directors would adopt a resolution indicating good faith that the area would not be annexed to the District until the Coastal Element Plan has been adopted, but no later than 1981, this would allow the District to secure the pennit and proceed with this needed Coast Highway Trunk Sewer. Timing is critical on the installation of the sewer because of the inter- facing with $75 m~llion of construction underway or to be awarded at Plant No. 2. Attached with this memorandum is a sample resolution for consideration by the Directors. It is suggested that the resolution also be made available to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and· that the Directors consider the ·adoption of this resolution at the November 8th Board Meeting. J'.lthough the hearing on the permit will be held on October 17th, the final vote will not be made until November 15th by the State Coastal Commission. REL:hjb "T-1" AGENDA ITEM #29 -·DISTRICT 11 "T-1" -.,_ -'P" ......... ASSURANCES TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REGARDING ANNEXATION OF BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 CONCERNING THE ANNEX- ATION OF THE BOLSA CHICA AREA AND THE COASTAL ELEMENT PLAN BEING DEVELOPED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, District did cause to have prepare a Master Plan of Trunk Sewer Facilities to meet the needs of.the District for a 25 year planning period: and, WHEREAS, said Master Plan has been prepared in accordance with the District's policies and in harmony with the Master Plan of local sewers prepared by the City of Huntington Beach; and, WHEREAS, included in the District's Master Plan is a backbone trunk sewer designated as the Coast Highway Trunk, extending from the Districts' Treatment Plant No. 2 located near the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway and the mouth of the Santa Ana River, thence aligned northerly and on the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway, through the downtown section of the City of Huntington Beach around the Balsa Chica area, terminating at Algonquin and Warner Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach; and, WHEREAS, it is becoming increasi~gly important to commence con- · struction on ·said Coast ~ighway Trunk because of potential inter- ferences with construction activities presently under contract or anticipated to be awarded for treatment plant improvements; and, WHEREAS, County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, s, 6 and 7, in conjunction with Sanitation District No. 11, have approved various ~1 contracts and plans to implement a program to meet the federal requirements for discharge of wastewaters to the marine environment; and, "T-2" AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 11 "T-21' WHEREAS, it is essential for the District to not alter their implementation programs to meet the discharge requirements as pre:sently contained or anticipated to be imposed ·through the National \.! Pollutant Discharge· Elimination Syst'em contained in the provisions of the Federal Water Quality Control Act; and, WHEREAS, the District did apply for a permit from the Regional Coastal Commission. for permission to construct said Coast Highway Trunk from Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 1978, the Regional Coastal Commission heard all testimony and approve the District's permit application to con- struct .said Coast Highway Trunk; and, WHEREAS, the action by the Regional Coastal Commission has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission by citizens and groups concerned.about the effects from the sewer system and its relationship ·.,... to any development which might be proposed in the Balsa Chica wetlands area. This concern has also been expressed by the -California Coastal Commission staff because the Coastal Element Plan for development or use has not been resolved and approved· by the California Coastal Commission; and, WHEREAS, the District is obligated to provide the necessary trunk sewer facilities required for the development within the drainage area to the Pacific Coast Highway Trunk; and WHEREAS, construction of said Coast Highway -Trunk sewer must be done in sufficient time to avoid construction conflicts with the Districts' ongoing construction pr~grams to improve the quality of the wastewater effluents being discharged to the marine environment; and, 2 "T-3" AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 11 "T-3" WHEREAS, the Bolsa Chica wetlands area is not presently within the Sanitation District and, therefore, cannot be provided sanitary sewer service until said annexation is consummated;.and, WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission is concerned as to -the offering of utility service until the finalization of the Coastal Element Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS; County Sanitation District No. 11 does hereby resolve not to consider annexation of the Balsa Chica wetlands area, which is pre~· sently outside the District's boundaries and is shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, until the finalization of the Coastal.Element Plan for this area, or until July, 1981.· This consideration is made in good faith that the California Coastal Commission will consider favorably.the District's application for a permit to construct the Coast Highway Trunk from Treatment Plant No. 2 to Lake Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, in order not to interfer or delay the Dis'tricts' implementation of treatment facilities. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held • "T-4" AGEHDA ITEM #29 -DIST~ICT 11 • "T-4" "T-5" .. ' ·. BOLSA "WETLANDS" . . © . .. > ~ •. .. .. ORTH . 0 • 1/2 I . 2 (lid 4 SX· I : ·l "": =3 Jim.t.:. · . SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALifO~NlA EXHIBIT "A" AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 11 "T-5" . .9/13/78 DISTRICT 6 Fixing and determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 78-151-6, fixing and de- termining the rate of taxation required for payment of bond principal ~md interest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Fixing and·determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 78-152-7, fixing and de- termining the rate of taxation required for payment of bond principal and interest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 11 Fixing and determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolutieri No. 7°8-153-11, fixing and de- 'l;ermining the rate· of taxation required for payment of bond principal and interest for the fiscai year 1978-79, and·establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving change in date of regular October meeting That a change in the regular October meeting date from October 11th to October 4th, 1978, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Awarding Job No. J-4-2 That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 78-154, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for Chlorination Facilities Refurbishment at Treatment· Plant No. 2, Job No. J-4-2, to Equinox-Malibu in the amount of $137,500.00. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Addendum No. 1 re Job No. P2-15-1 That Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Installation of Centrifuge at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-15-l, providing for changes re valve and ripe dimensions, be and is hereby, approved. A copy of this addendum is on file in the office of the Secretary. -13- 9/13/78 DISTRICT 11 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund $ 1,283,998 9,572,260 444,403 29,350 119, 151 Bond and Interest Fund 1951 Bond and Interest Fund -1958 $11,449,162 FURTHER MOVED: That said budgets are hereby received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 1 Fixing and determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 78-147-1, fixing and de- termining the rate· of taxation required . for payment of bond principal and interest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $~oo_of a~ses~ed ~aluation to be levied upon all of the taxable property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 2 Fixing and determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 78-148-2, fixing and de- termining the rate of taxation required for payment of bond principal and ~nterest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable.property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 3 Fixing and determining tax rate re bond principal and interest for 1978-79 fiscal year Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 78-149-3, fixing and de- termining the rate of taxation required for payment of bond principal and interest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable property within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Fixing and determining tax rate re bond ·principal That the Board of Directors hereby adopts and interest for 1978-79 Resolution No. 78-150-5, fixing and de- fiscal year termining the rate of taxation required for payment of bond principal and interest for the fiscal year 1978-79, and establishing the number of cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to be levied upon all of the taxable property '-6) within said District for the taxable year 1978-79. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -12- 10-4-78 -REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN CALL A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 5:30 p,M,, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25TH, INVITE TWO OF THE FOLLOWING DIRECTORS TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS: LAURENCE SCHMIT JOHN SEYMOUR JAMES SHARP &..-- G};;RD SI EiiR0 REPORT ON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION MEETING IN ANAHEIM OCTOBER 1-6 I • CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FOR THE TWO VACANCIES ON THE FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING October 11, 1978 -7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California * * * * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 1 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary pro tern California, and there not being of District No. 1 was thereupon DISTRICT 2 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary pro tern California, and there not being of District No. 2 was thereupon DISTRICT 3 Adjourmnent of meeting by Secretary pro tern California, and there not being of District No. 3 was thereupon DISTRICT 5 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary pro tem California, and there not being of District No. 5 was thereupon DISTRICT 6 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary pro tem California, and there not being of District No. 6 was thereupon DISTRICT 7 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary pro tern California, and there not being of District No. 7 was thereupon This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting · adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tern. This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meetin·g of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tern. This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pr~ tern. This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tem. This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tern. This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., being the time and place· for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, a quorum of said Board present, the meeting adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tern. 11/8/78 •·. DISTRICT 11 This 11th day of October, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., Adjournment of meeting being the time and place for the Regular by Secretary pro tern Meeting of the Board of Directors of County '--l Sanitation District No. 11, of O~ange County, California, and there not being a quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 11 was thereupon adjourned by Fred A. Harper, Secretary pro tern. Fred A. Harper, General Manager and Secretary pro tern of the Boards of Directors, County Sanitation Districts Nos . I, 2,. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 -2- MEETING DATE October 4, 1978 TIME 7:30 p.m. DJSTHJCTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 DISTRICT 1 -------~-CHANK)~-::-: •... RIM/\ •••••••• _(L_ --·- WELf.H) •••••••• SI fl\HP ••••••.• ~ ----- JH LEY) •••••••• /\NTllONY ••••• ~ --- \.._,,) ORTIZ) •••••••• EVANS ••••••• ~ --__ · !!t~I~IJ T 2 ~FRIED)~~ .... \-/[Dl\A ••••••• __£_ ---- RASl:IFORD) •.•••• 110;-T:. . .. . . . . V _ __:__ RILEY) •••••••• Cts~HI •• • • • • .__.JL_ ---- COOPC:R· • • • • .--1L ---- fWGET) •••••••• G~AI 11\M. • •••• _ _.L_ __ -- WELLS) •••••••• llOUSTON • • • •• ~ ---- EVANS) • • • • • • • ·ORT! Z • • • • • • ·~ --·--CULV~:R) ······-.PERRY·······~ ---- ROTH •• • • • • • • • SEYflQb'R • • • • ~ __ . _._ HOYT •• • ······SMITH······· ....,-___ _ ADLER) •••••••• STANTON ••••• ..,..-___ _ (WJ NTERS) •••••• VebA&QUl!il ............... ___ _ DISTRICT 3 . ~ADLrn) .• ••••••• SV/\LSTAD •••• V° ___ _ MEYER) ••••••• -GRIFFIN··· ··---'1L. ___ _ CPEHRY) ......... CULVER •• ····~ ___ _ (coorrn) ....... GAMBINA· ••• ·~ ___ _ LACI\ YO) • • • • • • ·HUDSON· • • • • ·~ ___ _ SEITZ) •..•• ••• LASZLO······~ __ -- WE I SHAUPT) •••• MILLER •••••• .,...-___ _ FINLAYSON) •••• OLSON ••• ····~ ___ _ EVANS) •••••••• ORTIZ •••••• -~ ___ _ NYBORG) ••••••• PR I EST •• • • • • V" YOUNG) •••••••• ROGET •••••• ~~-== == RILEY) •••••••• ~~llf4IT. ••••• ../" . ROTH) .••.••••. SEYf1QWR •••• --;;;;;= ---- SHEtH~·M/\N) ••••• SI EBERT .••.• --;:;? ---- ZOMi-11 CK).· ••••• SYLVIA ••••• -~ == == VELASQUEZ) •••• WINTERS. • • • • ~ ___ _ PI STgl_~I-2 , Ci;u~iME·u~ · · · · R';'e1<0r=-r.:. • • • • ___ &£ __ -- (ANTHONY) • • • ;, • • R 1 LEY• • • • • • ·~ -·----. (RYCKOFF) • • • • • • STRAl:Hi.S.-. • • • ·~ ----- .DISTRICT 6 --·-----· ·----.,,,,,, ( RYC.KOfFJ. ..•.. MC INN I s ... ·------ (CHAN K) .• ••••••• RI Ml\ ......... J:l....-. __ --· _ (RI LEY) •••••••• ANTHONY • • • • ·-~ ---- DJ STRICT 7 t (;J\Yn-o5~~'.~ ...... v A ) . .. HJ s .... ~.L ----- ~Hon> .....••. "·11·111 ~ __ . -r--- Rl LEY)······· . .. · • • • • • ·-~ ---·-·- OlH J z) · ··· .. ···EVANS·······-~ _____ _ ~H~TCt!lSON) • ••• GLO~K~~rn~Ji.~ ___ _ \'lELSl1) •••••••• SAL 11\"ELl I.·--~ ____ _ RYCKOFr-) • • • • • ·NI l.Lt /\MS· • • • _ _.L -·---· DJSTR1CT 11 -~-BA-1 .. L.·LY):..~~·~ •••• SllENl~M/\N ••• ~--~ ___ _ SllLNl~M/\N) ••••• Ptd T HJ SON •• ·-~ __ ----• ~ rnu:y) ........ r~111uT ••••• ___ I!!!!:. .. _--··--· 7 /1~1/"/8 JO I~ lT BO/\ RDS (RI u~) · · · · • · • · · /\NTllONY • ·• •• ---~ - (H 1 l.l: Y) • • • • • • • • • CL/\HK • • • • • • ..:::_ -COOPER·····~...;.___ (purny> ..••.•... cyt.vER ..•. :-~ - Corn1z) ....•••. -EV/\NS· • • •• -~ -- lcooPEH) ••••• ····G/\MBIN/\····~ - (HUTCllJ SON)····· GLOCKNER···-~ -- { IWG ET) • • • • • • • • • GRf\1-1/\M • • • • • ~ -- (HE YEH)· ·: • • • • • • GIH Ff IN· • • ·--~. -- (Hl\SJIFOrm) •••••• HOLT· ••••• -~ -- h:CLLS) • • • • • • • • • JlOUSTOi'l· • • ·-~ -- ( L/\CA YO) • • • • • • • ~I IUD.SON· • • • • --lL: -- ! SEIT?.)' • • • • • • • • L/\S"i.:LO • • • • ·-~ -- HYCl(Of F) • • • • • • ·MC INNIS···~ __ \•/EI SH/\UPT) • • • • ·MI LLEH • • • • · .~ · _._ FJHL/\YSON) ·····OLSON······~ __ EVANS).······· ·ORTIZ······~ __ _ ( Sl·IEN KMAN) • • • • • • P /\ TTl N SON • • ~ __ { CUL \'ER)·.' • • • • • ·PERRY· • • • • • .Jl._ __ NYBORG) • ·······PR l EST···· ·--k:::: __ · .. ANTHONY)····;.·· RI LEY·•····~ __ CH/\N K) • • • • • • • • • R l MA· • • • • • ·_a__ __ ! YOUNG) • • • • • • • • ·ROGET· • • • • • ~ __ HlJi.l;·i1:L) •. • • ••• • • RY@l!8~~ • • • ·~ __ \'IELS!·I) ••••••• ··SAL 1 /\1,t.LLI ·_IL. __ RI LEY) •••••••• • SCHMIT····· _... ROTH) •••••••• • • 8E'/f18~R • • • • ~ -- (WELSH)· • • • • • • • • SHAHP • • • • • ·-~ == ~D/\I LEY)········ SHEi·~KMAN • • ·~ __ ~SHEN.KMAN) • • • • • ·SI El~ERT • • .• ·~ __ HOYT)·········· SMll H • • • • • ·~ __ ADLER)····· ····STANTON····~ __ RYClmFF) • • • • • • • STR!tlJ8S • • • • ----. (ADLER)········· SV/\LSTAD • • • ~ == ~ZOMMI.CK) • • • • • • • SYL~IA· • • • ·~ --. GAIDO) • • • • • • • • • V~RDOULI S • ·~ __ . \·/INTERS). ····.·VELASQUEZ·· - (FR I ED)· • • • • • • • • \·~EDAA • • • • • -~ = (RYCKOFF) ·······WILLI AMS···.~ __ (VEU\StlUEZ) ·····WI NTCf~S • • • ·~ __ HAHPEJL •••• -·--- SYLVESTER.·-- LE\'ll S •••••• --. CLARKE ••••• __ _ BRO\'lt~ •••••• -- \•IOODHUFF ••• __ MOHEIJER ••• ·--- HO\·/ARD ••••• __ llUlff .••••• ·-- KE J TH •••••• ---··- KEN I~ E Y ••••• __ _ LYtlCI I •••••• ·--·-- MADDOX ••••• -·--- M/\lfr IrJSON •• ___ _ PI [l~S/\LL ••• ---··- sn:VEl'JS ••• ·-- TH I\ VU~ S • • • • _ .. ~. -· __ '' MEETING DATE October 4, 1978 T I ME • 7 : 3 O p • m. 0 I S Tl~ I CT S 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 & 11 DISTHICT 1 ------- !-C,IU\f t R5:~ .... R I M/\ •.••••••• -------- WE Ua 1) •••••••• Stlf\HP •••••• ·------·- IU LEY) •••••••• /\NTI IONY ••••• -------orn I z) ......... EVAtJS •••••• ·------- l!L~J]_ lf, T 2 ~FRICT>T:-~ .... \4/EDAA •••••• ·------- R/\SMFORD) ••••• llOL T •• · •••••• ___J_ ---- R I LEV) •••••••• C LJ\R K • • • • • • ·------ . COOPCR· • • • • ·------ JWGET) •••••••• G~/\11/\M. • • • • ·------ WELLS) •••••••• HOUSTON •••• ·--__ . --- EVANS)········ ORTIZ·······------- CULVi:R) ·······PERRY·······------ ROTH ••• ·• •••• SEYMOUR·····----__ HOYT •• • • • • • • ·SM ITH· • • • • • ·--___ _ ADLER) •••••••• STANTON·····--__ . __ (W J NTERS) •••••• VELASQUEZ. • ·--___ _ DISTRICT 3 (ADLER).· ••••••• SV/\LSTAD • • • ·--___ _ (MEYER) •••••••• GRIFFIN·····--___ _ CPEHRY) .•.••.•. CULVER ••••• ·------(coorrn) ....... G/\MBINA ••••• ______ _ L/\CA YO)· • • • • • ·HUDSON· • • • • ·----__ SEITZ) ... •·•·• LASZLO······--___ _ WE I SHAU PT) •••• MILLER.·····--___ _ FJNlAYSON) •••• OLSON ••••••• EV/\r~s) •••••••• ORTIZ •••..•• ------ NYDORG) ••••••• PR I EST.····.--· ---- YOUNG) .. · •..... ROGET ..•.... -----. - RILEY) •••••••• SCHMIT ..•••• ------ ROTH) ••••••••• SEYMOUR. -.•• ------ SHENKM/\{~) _. •••• S ~EBERT .••• ·== == == ZOMMICK) •••••• S. LVIA •••••• VELASQUEZ) •••• WINTERS •••• ·== == == PI STR.LrI_.~ ,, ~liU~tMEi)--=-:-: .... 'ft·;·e1cerr ..... _____ _ AN fHONY) ··•···RI LEY·······------- RYCl<OFF) • • • • • • S.:fRAPaS • • • • ·------ DISTRICT 6 ( RYCKOf·r:=r~-= ..... MC INN I s ... --------___ · (CR/\NK) ......•. RIMA~······· (RI LEY) •••••••• ANTHONY .•.. ·== == == DISTRICT 7 t GA:.{f)o)~ ....•.. v r\rmouu s .. ---------< 1-1ovr) ••••••••• sMJT11 ••••••. _________ _ (RJ~:EY) .••• • •• • .CL/\Rf(. • • • •• ·--___ _ (OR I JZ) • · • • .. · • · EV/\NS • • • • • • ·-·-___ _ ~HUTCH I SON)· ••• GLOCKNER····---___ -·-- \·l[LSll) ••••••.• $/\LT/\i~ELLI • ·----____ _ RYCKOFf) •• • ••• \'/ILLl/\MS··· ·-------- DI STI~ 1 CT .1.1 ~·"f~A-1 .. L.L Y f~ ~:-: .... SI IE N l(MJ\N ••• ··----· __ __ Slli:Nl~l·l/\N) ••••• PJ\ TT l rJSOi~ •• ~------___ --·-- rn L[Y) ••••••• 0 SCl!MIT ••..• ··-·····-· ---· ~--- 7 /1~Vi'8 JO If IT BO/\ RDS . CR I uivY:-:-:--:-:-..... ANTI IONY •••. ···---- (Hll.l:Y) • • • • • • • • ·CL/\HI<· • • • • ·----- COOPER·····--~ (prnJ~Y) •••• • • ·• • ·CUI.VER· • • • • ---- (ORTJ z). · · • • • • • ·EV/\l'!S·· • ···------ lCOOJ>EH) • • • • • • • • G/\MB I NA···· ---- (HU fCI rJ SON)· • • • • GtOCKNER • • • ----(f~OGET) .. • • • • • • • ·GfU\11/\M· • • • ·---- (1·1EYrn) • ·: • • • • · • GH I FFI M· • • ·-·---- (rU\SHForm) •••••• HOLT •••••• ·---- (\:u.1..s) •.•••••.• HlHJSTOM· •• ·----- ( ~~C(~ YO) • • • • • • • • I IUD: Sm!· • • • • ---- { S l: I P)' · · · • · · · · L/\S~LO • • • • ·------RYClrnrF) ••••••• MC I UN Is •• ·---- \•IE I SH/\UPT) • • • • ·MILLEH· • • • ·--__ (FJML/\YSON) ··~··OLSON······--__ (EV/\NS) · ········ORTIZ······--__ . (Sf·IE!-JKM/\N) • • • • • ·PATTINSON· ·--__ (CUL \'ER)· • • • • • • • PERf<Y · • • • • ·--__ (NYBORG) • ·······PHI EST·····-·-__ . ·(/\(ffHONY) • • • • • • ·RI LEY· • • • • ·--__ ( CR/\HK) • • • • • • • • ·RI MA· • • • • • ·--__ ~YOUNG) • • • • • • • • ·ROGET· • • • • • __ . __ _ l·!Ul•ii·if:L) • .• • • • • • • nYCl~O~F • • • ·--_. _ l'iELSH) ••• · ••• • • S/.\L 1 /\hELL I • RILEY) •••••••• 0 SCHMIT· • ••• ---- (ROTH) •••••••••• SEYMOUR···.---- (\'IELSH) • • ·······SHARP······== == (BA I LEY) • • • • • • • ·SHEN KMAN· • • ~'SHENKMAN)····· ·SIEDERT· • • ·== == HOYT)········· ·SMITH·· .. ••• /\DLEH) • • • • • • • • • ST/\NTON • • • .---- (RYCl(OFF) • • • • • • ·STRAUSS· • • .---- !ADLER)········· SV/.\LSTAD • • .----z ot·~M I CI<) • • • • • • • SY L \I IA • • • • .---·- GA IDci) • • • •• • • • • VARDOULI S • .---- \'II NTERS) ••••• • ·VELASQUEZ· .---- (FR I ED)········ ·WED/\A· • • • • .---- (RYCKOFF) • • • • • • -~HLLJAMS· • .----(VEU\S~lUEZ) • • • • 0 WI NTCRS • • • ·=== === OTHERS --------- ~:) fnv c~ lL '[_ It~ j ,111\A-~ ~.~ ~ :t l, (j11 kL1v ~·~ ~j·-:.- ~ \))1,.,..., c:J 1L.t-.{I t)J\ %.JL,"" J l-IAHPER ••••• ---- SYLVESTER •• _v_ LE\'llS ....... ~ CLARKE ••••• ~­ BfW~'/N •.••••• _L \·IOODRIJFF ••• -~­ HOHEI IER •••• _.:__ 1·10\•//\fU> ••••• --v IUJfff ••••••• __ KE ITH •••••• ----- KENl~ E Y ••••• __ _ LYl:Cll •••••• ----- M/\lH>OX ••••• ---·-- MJ\lff JtJSOrL ·--·- p I rnsALL ••• -·-·- STEVEIJS ••• ·--- · TR/\VU~S ••• ·-·-·--·· Item No. ~~ -Authorize Payment to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. to Adjust '-91~xisting Oil Well at Plant No. 2 When the Districts acquired a portion of the Plant No. 2 Treatment Plant site, the Districts did not secure the underlying oil and mineral rights which were owned by Standard Oil Company, subsequently conveyed to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. In the condemnation proceedings for the acquisition Chevron was entitled to certain access rights for oil well sites. There are five permanent well sites and two floating sites and a tank farm located on the Districts' Treatment Plant site. In the construction of the roadway system under P2-23-l (Flood Wall and Site Developments) recently completed as a part of the 75-mgd of pure oxygen activated sludge treatment, well site #5 was made inaccessible by the Districts' interior roadway system. To adjust the roadway system I.._,/ ~' to accommodate the elevations of the existing oil well would have necessitated a cost in excess of $25,000to$35,000 to the Districts. Chevron has agreed to adjust the existing.oil well site to grade for cost not to exceed $9,000. Staff recommends authorization for payment to Chevron in accordance with their proposal to be approved by General Counsel. Item No. Amendment No. 1 to Construction Management Engineering Services Contract In May, 1977, the Districts entered into a contract with Butier Engineering to provide the construction management services for the five construction contracts at Plant No. 2 for the grant approved 75-MGD of pure oxygen activated sludge treatment. As a part of the construction Contracts Nos. P2-23-2 and P2-23-6, it was required of the contractors to provide a computerized construction schedule reflecting their anticipated construe- tion schedule and the progress payments associated therewith. In order that the Districts can continually be apprised of the contractors' activities as it reflects on contract changes, it is necessary that the Districts also provide a computerized critical path construction program. The basic program has been provided under the basic contract with Butier Engineering. This computerized critical path construction schedule \...{ has enabled the construction manager and the Districts' personnel to be kept apprised of changes in the contractors' progr«ss. The Districts' program provided by Butier Engineering has been reviewed by the State as well as high ranking officials of the EPA from Washington, D.C. In order to fully utilize this construction schedule, it is ncesssary that the program be revised and updated to reflect actual construction changes. Butier Engineering has offered to provide these services within the provisions of the contract for an estimated maximum a~ount not to exceed $35,000 for the balance of this three year construction program. Staff recommends acceptance of this amendment to the Butier Engineering contract. The State Water Resources Control Board representative who reviews our construction projects feels strongly that· this program should '--"~e implemented to avert potential litigation. The costs associated with this amendment are grant fundable. Item No. -Ordering Annexation No. 27 -Travis Ranch Annexation At the November, 1977 meeting, the Board of Directors initiated annex- ation proceedings for the Travis Ranch annexation which is located in the vicinity north of Espera~za Road and East of Imperial Highway in the City of Yorba Linda. The project incorporates 249.243 acres and will contain 641 dwelling units, resulting in a density of 2.57 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is considered low. den~ity· and conforms to the Districts' Master Plan. This project will be constructed in ten increments -0ver a three to five year period startLng at Esperanza and moving north. Local sewer service will be provided by the City of Yorba Linda. The original proponents of this annexatio~ have now sold this ·property, and the new owners are L & W Company. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 78--2 ordering-Annexation No. 27. The proponent has \._I paid all applicable fees. Item No. -Ordering Annexation No. 78 -...,.; At the May 10, 1978 meeting, the Board of Directors initiated proceedings for Tract No. 9688 which is located in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive between Vista del Lago and La Cuesta in the unincorporated ·t~r~itory.of the County. The Tract is approximately 9.0275 acres ~bd will conta'.in· ten residential lots. The proposed development is in-confirmity with the Districts' land use plan and staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 78-~_-7 ordering annexation of this parcel to the District. All necessary fees have been paid by the proponent. Item No. -Purchase of Minor Parcel Within Plant No. 2 Site "-r'Treatment Plant No. 2 site in Huntington Beach contains approximately 100 acres of land. This site has been acquired over a period of time, commenci~g in 1952 to the most recent acquisition in 1976. Recently, the staff has been preparing a record of survey to consolidate all of the purchases and to reconcile all the encumbrances associated with our land holdings in order that future planning of the Treatment site can be made. It was discovered that a minor parcel of land (approximately 1500 square feet) was inadvertently omitted in the many acquisitions of the Treatment . .. ·plant site. This land locked parcel, which is approximately .03 acres is owned in fee title by Beeco Ltd. of Newport Beach. The staff apprised the Executive Committee of this parcel approximately one year ago. Negotiations with the land owner and comparison of other land values in "-"the area have led the property owner to. agree to s~~l to the Districts this parcel of land, including all mineral rights, for an amount of $3,500. Staff recommends purchase of this parcel and .that the General Counsel be authorized to draw up the nece~sary documents for execution. Item No. \._I -Approving Modifications tq Agricultural Lease In May of 1973, an agricultural lease was granted to Nakase Bros. for the use of the Districts' right-of-way adjacent to the Santa Ana River, to be used in conjunction with the right-of-way owned by the Edi~on Company for the purpose of wholesale nursery operations. The lease was initially granted for an amount of $200 per year. This lease was renegotiated in October, 1976 for a revised. lease amount of $300 per year. Subsequent to the renegotiation of this lease in October, 1976, the Districts have granted to the O~ange County Flood Control District an encroachment on this property leased to Nakase Bros. thereby reducing the amount of proper- ty from acres to acres. Because of this reduction, the staff is recommending the extension of thislease for one year at $300 per year. Since this firm has the use of the adjacent Edison Right~of Way for ~landscaping purposes, it would appear that it is a compatible use and there does not appear to be any other interested parties. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of this negotiated lease extension. Item No. -Acceptance of Job No. PW-062 -Miscellancotis Paving at Treatment Plant No. 2 The Contractor has cowpleted all the work and contractual· require- ments for the miscellaneous paving of Plant No. 2. The staff recommends acceptance of the work and execution of the final closeout agreement and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required. • Item No. -Acceptance of PW-066 = Modification o~ Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Port at Reclamation Plant No. 1 ~he Contractor has completed all work and contractural requirements for the modification of existing sludge hopper outlet port at Reclamation Plant No. 1. Staff, therefore, recommends acceptance of the work and execution of the final closeout agreement and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required • ·. I' Item No. -Change Order No. 1 to Job No. PW-066 This change order for the modification of existing sludge hopper outlet port at Plant No. 1 is to extend the contract completion date by 34 calendar days as a result in delays in scheduled equipment delivery to subcontractor by the solenoid valve manufacturer. The staff recommends approval of this change order at no additional cost to the Districts. _. j Item No. ~~~--Change Order No. 2 to Job No. PW-062 This change order to the miscellaneous paving at Plant No. 1, adjusts the engineer's estimated quantities for a total deduct to the contract of $13,649.97. This change order, plus change order No. 1, reduces the original contract price from $100,180 to a final amended contract price of $64,570.03. The staff recommends acceptance of this change order in the amount of a deduct of $13,649.97. ITEMS NOS. -Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 to Contract No. 5-8-R ----- \.,_I This contract for the slip lining of Trunk B from the Rocky Point Pumping Station to the Lido Pumping Station was awarded in April of this year. It was anticipated that the work would be completed on or before June 15th in order to avoid the summer traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. The contractor encountered additional work because of unknown utilities and additional traffic requirements imposed by Cal Trans because of the extended construction period. Included in Change Order No. 1 is $4,947.10 for additional work resulting from removal of concrete cradles, broken water lines, relocation of installation pits along with delays associated with Cal-Trans encroachment permit requirements. Also included in this change order is the amount of $6,783.96 for the substitution of flange connections in lieu of the sleeve couplings as specified. It became apparent that sleeve couplings as specified would not provide the integrity of the installation that could be realized from a flange connection. This additional cost is for the furnishing and installation of the flange connections above the cost associated with the specified sleeve couplings. Change Order No. 1 recommends the time extension of 97 calendar days which includes 15 calendar days for extra work performed and 82 calendar days because of traffic requirements imposed by the Cal Trans Encroachment Permit. Change Order No. 2 is an adjustment of the engineer's quantities increasing the contract by $293.70 because of an additional six lineal feet installed of the 4,415 lineal feet as specified. Staff recommends approval of Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 to this contract. Item No. -Acceptance of Contract No. 5-8-R -Slip-Lining of Trunk B, Unit 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Station The Contractor has completed all the work and contractual require- ments for the slip-lining of Trunk B on Pacific Coast Highway. The staff recommends acceptance of the work and execution of the final closeout agreement and the filing of the Notice of Completion as required. Item No. -Change Order No. 2 to Job No. PW-062. This change order to the miscellaneous paving at Plant No. 1 adjust~ the engineer's estimated quantities for a total . ~1 deduct to the contract of $/j 6. //9 ~ The ·staff reconunends acceptance of this change order in ·y7 the amount of a deduct of $ / ~ /. t./? /f€-"'1~;__~~- AWARD SPECIFICATION ED 97 SIX TON CAPACITY CRANE THREE BIDS WER~ RECEIVED ON SEPTEMBER 26, ~978, FOR A SIX TON CAPACITY CRANE, RANGING FROM A LOW OF $24,970.34 TO A HIGH OF $30 ,143.56. THE BIDS IN CLUDE INSTALLATION ON A PREVIOUSLY PLRCHASEDCABA l\[)CHASIS. THE LNIT IS NEEDED TO REPLACE A 1968 MODE L WHICH IS NO LONGER SERVICEAB LE DUE TO THE AGE AND CONDITION. FUNDS ARE PROVIDED IN THE CURRENT 1978-79 EQUIPMENT B~DGET FOR THE PLRCHASE OF THIS EQUIPMENT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS AWARD TO GREAv PACIFIC EQUI PMEN T COMPANY OF Los ANGELES, IN THE AMOLN T OF $24,970.34, AS THE LOWEST AND BEST BI~. '!I II 11 ii I II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanita t ion Districts DHArT 9/2 2/78 Post Office Box 8127 of Orang .z County, Ca liforn ia 10844 El I is Avenu e Fou ntain Volley , Cal if., 92708 Te lephc~s : JOli\JT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-29 10 962-24 J 1 AGENDA MEETING DATE DCTOBER 41 1978 -7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTO R DES I RIN G ADD:TIONAL INFORMATION ON ANY AGENDA I TEM 1 PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT HEAD, IN ADDITION 1 STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 7:00 P .M, IMMEDIATELY ' PRECEDING WEDNESDAY 'S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE · RO OM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS ' BOARD ROOM , (1) Pl e dge of All egiance and Invocation (2) Roll Cal 1 (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests (5) Consid era-ti on of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any See supplementa l agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT c'\) <\ ('i,) C onsiderati~1 of motions approv ing minutes of the following mee tings, as mailed: District 1 Septemb e r 13, 19 78 , r egular District 2 Sept embe r 13, 1978, r egular District 3 September 13, 1978, regul ar Di strict 5 September 13, 1978, r egul a r Di strict 6 Se ptembe r 13, 1978 , r egu i'ar Oi strict 7 September 13 , 1978, regular Di st rict 11 Septemb er 1 3 , 19 78 , r egul a r DISTRICT 7 -Elcctjon of Chairman ALL i)J ST IUCTS Heport s of: (a ) Joint Ch:iirmn n (b) Gcncr:t l Mnnager (c) Gcn c-rn l Counsel - ALL DISTRICTS -Cons i deration of ro ll ca ll vote motion ratifying p;:iyment of c l aims of th e j o int and individu;:i l Di stricts as fo l lows : (Ea c h Dire ctor s h ;:i ll be cal l e d only on ce ;:in<l th a t vote wi ll be r e ga rd e d a s th e sam e for e ;:i ch Di s tri c t r e pre s ent ed , u n le s s a Dire ctor expresses a desir e to vote d i f feren tl y for a ny Di s trict ) JOI NT OPERAT I NG FU ND CAPITA L OUTLAY REV OL VI NG FUND DIST RICT NO. 1 DIS TRICT NO. 2 DI STRI CT NO . 3 . DISTR I CT NO . s DI STR I CT NO. 6 DI STRIC T NO. 7 "' DIS TRI CT NO. 11 ALL DI STRICTS CO NS ENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS I 9 (A) TH RO UGH 9 ( ) Al l matt e r s p l a c e d upon the c on sent cal e n da r are cons id e r e d as not r e qu irin g d iscu s sion or f urt her e xp l anatio n a nd unl es s a ny p a rtic ul ar item is requ e sted t o b e r em ove d from the con sent ca l e n da r by a Direc t or, staff mem b e r, or me mber of the p ub l ic in a tt e ndanc e, there wil l be no separat e discus sion of th ese i tems . All ite ms on the c on sent c a l e n dar wil l b e e n ac t e d b y o n e acti on a pproving a ll mo ti ons, dnd castin g a un ani mou s ba llo t f or r eso l u tions i n c l ude d o n t h e con s ent c a l e nd ar . All item s r emove d f r om t h e c on s e n t ca l e n da r sha l l b e c o n s id e r ed i n t h e r eg ul a r ord c ~ of bu s in e s s . Memb er s of t h e public who wi sh t o r em ov e a n ite m f rom th e con sen t ca l e nda r s ha l l, upo n r e c ogn iti o n b y t he ch a i r , s t a t e t h e ir na me , a d <lress a nd cl esi g n:H e b y l etter the it em to be remo v ed f r om th e con s e nt c a l e nda r. * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ch ;:i irma n wi ll d e t enn ine i f ;:inr items a r c to b e <l e l e t e d from th e con sent c:1l c n <l;n . Con si d er a t ion o f ac t i on t o ap p r ove a l l oge111.l:i j tems a ppc;:iri n g on th e con s e nt ca l e ndar no t s pe cifi ca ll y r em ove d f r om s a me . ( ) - -----~-~--- CONSENT CALENDAR ALL DIS TRICTS ( ) Change O~No .\ to .Joh No. -r2-2~ Op c ration'S Ccntc r ----£0 1:.. 75 MGD ImprovcdTrcatmcn~1 lant "N o . 2, re ([1_) Award Specification No. E-096, Vibrat i on Ana l ysis Equipment (Bid open in g -9./-2:6/78) (~) Award Specification No . E-097, One (1) 6-ToryCrane<:J Truck Mounted ( c:-. {) <>-e.Jv) (Bid opening 9/26/78) 1 ;> ,,,1 riO D '3 +. Renew . Agricultural Lease with Nakase Brothers, Specification No . L-006 (expires 9/30/78 -$300/year) Accepting Job No . PW-062, Misce ll a n eous Pav ing at Reclamation Plant No . l , as complete f)i> ... \\9'°?> ( E:) Ch a n ge Order No. l to Job No. PW-066 , Modification of Existing Sludge -w Hopper Outlet Port at I~eclamation Plant No . 1, g r anting a time extension of 35 calendar days <5;) Accepting Job No. PW-066 as comp l ete ~ lll5 G)~ . ~~.\~~~~ ~ >..e ~~ ,,._>..--P, ~ $SS,-.o /\.<. ~fM ,,.,....n"-'. <\1l "~ °D \-S--'1\ \l< ~ ~GJ2__ .;i_ r \>,~~. ~ ~~.s-a-0) ~~~~.u~. 1~~111c. ('f)\.NO·e,~ . 1 \!fT'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~Asiµ.uQ V '-9,,,....,,. -P,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'6-o3·& () ~ ( ) -3- ( ) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted fro m consent calendar, if any ( ) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and considera ti o n of motion to r eceive and file the Committee's written report ALL DIS TRICTS Consi deration of act ion on items recommended by the Executive Committee: (~) F,aci li ti es Plan a n d EIS (action ??) t.>'l. 11' V (b) Resolution urging Ca l iforn ia Legis l ature to enact e quitable l eg i s lation for specia l districts pertaining to the apportionment of the ad va lorem tax levy~c\:i) __ ,~ ~ t1 ~ (CJ C~) R & F report & rec9renaat·ion of PMM&Co. r e in-house mini-computer \ ~ system selectionY -z;.--.__, ', 0 · 7 -1;r (~tv y JO , 1 ·1 h) /~ Resolution approvin g agreement wi t J:,;pe lphi Systems, Inc. for / ~ installation ~i=t em f fr-'.'' ~ ~·, ,J,..,, ~~) Rece ive, fi l e & accept proposal from Pea t, Marwick, Mitch e ll & Co. for r n _itoring of the install a tion and fina1 acceptan ce t estin g of mini-computer (~<~~9dp;n~ (~~ ~?~ ~ ~ f, ~ er~ {; d _. > {:_<i:;) .'l;..s olution re CAS~ rep re se nt ation~ ..-;;..,. t:..r--&}~ ~ . . ( ) T== r 111, ~ ~ ------------- (?~~ ~ -z f.=v)-:: ~--f -3(a.)- NON-CONS ENT CALENDAR ( ) E/\Cll Ill STR Tl.T ) Consideration of the fol lowing resolutions establi s hin g u se charges for Cla ss I and Class II permitees pursuant to prov1s1ons of the uniform Ordinance Establi s hing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities of the re spec ti ve Districts: See page "CC" District No. 1 2 3 5 6 7 11 EACH DISTRICT Resolution No. Amend Uni Use Class I Fee Flow S .S. B.0 .0. \ Cl ass II Fee ( ) ALL DISTRICTS Receive and file Annual Report suomi tted by PMM&Co., Certified Public Accountants, for the year ending June 30, 19 78, previously mai l ed to Directors by the auditors under separate cover ( ) ALL DISTRICTS ( ) ALL DISTRICTS ( ) ALL DISTRICTS ( ) ALL DISTRICTS ( ) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental age nda l terns , if any -3 (b)- ( ) CO NSENT CALENDAR DI ST RI CT 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) .( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) NON-CONSENT CALENDAR ( } DIST RICT 1 ( } DIST RICT 1 ( } DIST RICT 1 ( ) DIS TRICT 1 ( ) DIST RICT 1 ( ) DISTRICT 1 ( ) DISTRICT 1 ( ) DISTR ICT 1 Oth er busin ess and communications or supplemental agenda items , if any ( ) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn -4(a }- ( ) CONSENT CALENDAR DISTRI CT 2 ( ) Reso l ution ordering Annexat i on No . 27 -Trnvis Ra nc h An n exation (24 9.24 3 acres i n t he vic inity n orth of Esperunza Road and east of I mp e r ia l l li g hway i n t he City of Yorba Li nda) ( ) ( ) ~ ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) -5 - - NON -CONSENT CALENDAR ( ) DI STRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 ( ) DISTRICT 2 Oth e r bu s iness a nd communicati o ns or sup ple me ntal agenda items , if any ( ) DISTRICT 2 Con s id e r a tion of motion to adjourn -5 (a)- ( ) DISTRI CT 3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) CONS ENT CALENDAR -6- NON-CONSENT CALENDAR ( ) DISTRICT 3 ( ) DISTRICT 3 ( ) DI STRICT 3 ( ) DIS TR ICT 3 ( ) DISTRICT 3 ....,. ( ) DISTRICT 3 ( ) DIST RIC T 3 ( ) DIST RICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda i t erns , if any ( ) DISTRICT 3 Consideration o f motion to adjo u r n -6 (a )- i \ ( ) CO NSENT CALENDAR DISTRI CT 5 ( ) J\pprovc Ch:-ingc Order to Contract No . 5 -8 -R,Slip Unin g of Trunk B, Uni t 5, Rocky Point to Lido Pump Stations , for ?? 4-to~+- ' ~~. /'/I y=., (ftr~ ( ) Accept Contract No . 5-8-R as complete ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) < r -7- - NON-C ONSENT C~LENDAR ( ) DI STRI CT 5 ( l DI ST RICT 5 ( ) DI STRICT 5 ( ) DISTRICT 5 ( ) DISTRI CT 5 ( ) DISTRICT 5 ( ) DISTR I CT 5 ( ) DIS TR I CT 5 Oth er business and comm u nications or supplemental agenda items , if a ny ( ) DI STRICT 5 Co n sideration of motion to ad j ourn -'{(a )- ( ) CO NSENT CALENDAR DIST RI CT 6 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) -8- NON-CO NSENT CALENDAR ( ) DISTRICT 6 ( ) DI STRICT 6 ( ) DISTRICT 6 ( ) DISTRICT 6 ( ) DISTRICT 6 ( ) DI STRICT 6 ( ) DISTRICT 6 ( ) DISTRICT 6 Oth er business and communications or supplemental agenda i tems, if any ( ) DISTTI ICT 6 Con s ideration of motion to adjourn -8(a)- ( ) CON SENT CALENDAR DISTRICT 7 ( ) Reso lut ion ordcrJng Annexation No. 78 -Tract No . 9688 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (9.010 acres in the vicinity of Le mon Height s Drive between Vista clel Lago aiid La Cuesta) (to also be a nn exed to 70 th SMD) -9- NON -CONSENT CALENDAR ( ) DI STRICT 7 ( )· DI STRICT 7 ( ) DI STRICT 7 ( ) DIST RICT 7 ( ) DI STRICT 7 ( ) DIS TRICT 7 ( ) DI STRICT 7 ( ) DI STRICT 7 Other business and communications o r supplemental a~enda items , if any ( ) DI STRICT 7 Consid e ration of motion to adjourn -9 (a )- • ( ) DI STR I CT 11 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) CONS ENT CALENDAR -10- NON -CONSENT CALE NDA R ( ) DISTRICT 1 1 ( YJ ,, c-6 C- () '' '--c::::........ I '· ........ ~ ;~ ; C v,£ /_£,PC ( ) DI STRICT 1 1 ( ) DISTRICT 1 1 ( ) DI STR I CT 11 ( ) DI STRICT 1 1 ( ) DISTRICT 11 ( ) DISTRICT 11 ( ) DISTRICT 11 Oth er business and communications or supplemental agenda i tems , if any ( ) DI STRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn -lO(a )- OCTOBER 4, 1978 JOINT MTG. Election of District 7 Chairman Don Smith was nominated for Chairman. No other nominations. Smith e l ected Chairman . Since he was Chairman pro tern previously , needed a new Chairman pro tern. Francis Glockner nominated. No other nominations. Glockner elected. (8-a) Report of the Joint Chairman Saltarelli called a meeting of the Executive Committee for October 25th and invited Jim Sharp (who said he would be there anyway as Chairman pro tern in District 1) and Richard Siebert to attend . Saltarelli then reported on the WPCF Conference in Anaheim. Were 317 displays at convention and approx i mate l y 1 0 ,000 people. Said he was very impressed strides made with sludge equipment . Was a very good meeting. Told Directors he gave a welcome speech on Monday morning . (Told story about Paul DeFalco ) Re Fiscal Policy Committee, advised that there were two vacancies. Said he wanted to re-appoint Dick Olson t o the Committee for one of the seats. Advised that they would like a commitment from the person that might be appointed to the Committee that they wi l l be on the Board of Directors for another two years. Then asked for volunteers to serve on Committee. Beth Graham volunteered . ..._-b) Report of the General Manager FAH reported fu~ther on WPCF Convention. Said there were quite a few Federal people there . We have been conducting tours here -50 per bus load with one bus every day for four days . Other dignitaries have come on their own rather than on the bus. Have had nothing but complimentary remarks . Said our operators here have taken pride in tidying up the plant . Advised~that tomorrow we are going to have two staff members from the House Public Works Oversight Sub -Committee. Said these fellows are investigators. They are to get information for the Oversight Sub -Committee as to how the laws that have been passed by Congress are being administered by EPA. Mr . Harper said he has met them and they have been at the Conference for the past couple days. Advised that Joint Chairman Saltarelli would come down and meet with them also and pass along the Directors' views as to what we thing shou l d be done. Regarding the regulations on the secondary treatment waiver , Costal , EPA Administrator , arrived but no regulations . They say now it will be a couple weeks . We did submit our applications on the deadline date which was September 24th. Discussed changing regular November meet i ng date because election day is the day before . It was moved to change the meeting date from November 8th to November 15th . Executive Committee would be the 29th of November . Director Miller then thanked Mr. Harper for putting in the handicapped parking place in our lot . Said he wished the County would do the same. (13 -c) Agreement with Delphi Systems re mini -computer (13-d) Director Olson said he had been looking at this item for the last week and met with JWS and PMM. Said he stronger recommended the approach we have taken in developing a user system. Said the only problem he had is that he is not familiar with Delphi Systems . Was wondering how many of the other Directors were familiar with them and their operation in California . Saltarelli stated that question came up with the Executive Committee and they were assured that they were financially strong, etc . Saltarel li asked if anyone in the room was familiar wi th Delphi. ??~aid he was familiar with their data processing system and they ha~ very !ine reputation . PMM proposa l for management services re mini -c ompute~ ~{~ ~~--- Roth asked if there was any attempt to contact the City of Anaheim . Saltarelli answered , yes, we explored PADS, County of Orange, etc . JWS referred question to John Patterson of PMM . He advised that they submitted a RFP to the City of Anaheim . Said in the original proposal , found a mini -computer to be the most economical approach . Proposals received confirmed this . Over $200 ,000 savings over 5 -year period . Also , the responsiveness (?) was substantially greater than with City of Anaheim . Anaheim not competitive with top three vendors . Cost effectiveness and responsiveness of s ervice are reasons for their choice. (Ji -e ) Special Committee to study reorganization of the Sanitation Districts Williams sugge sted we needed a motion to form committee before appointing one. It was so moved to form this special committee . Saltarelli then asked the Chairman of eac h District to appoint someone from his District. DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 7 DISTRICT 11 - Vern Evans Don Hol t Richard Siebert Thomas Riley Oma Crank (or if ~e didn 't want to Mcinnis would be the alte rn ate) Don Sm ith Lawrence Schmit (or Ron Pattinson as alternate if Schmit couldn 't db it) Don Smith suggested that each member of this committee that was appointed should ask an alternate from his District to attend a Committee meeting if he could not attend as it is important that each District be represented . -2-