Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-11 District 11r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P . 0 . BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) March 4, 1981 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 11 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981 -5:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VA LLEY, CALIFORNI A TEL.EPHONES: AREA COOE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of February 11, 198 1, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and da te to review Preliminary Project Report and Environmental Documentation re Coast Trunk Sewer Study. c II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Califomi1 DISTRICT No. 11 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1981 -5:30 P.M. (1) Roll Call (2) Consideration of Coast Trunk Sewer Study Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (a) Verbal report of consulting engineer re Coast Trunk Sewer Preliminary Project Report and Facilities Plan (b) Discussion of Coast Trunk Sewer Study and financing alternatives ·( 3) Other business and communications, if any (4) Consideration of motion to adjourn I 7;0~ II MANAGER'S A GENDA REPOR T County Sanitat ion Dist ric ts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. 11 Adjourned Regular Meeting March 11 , 198 1 -5:30 p .m. No. 2 -Review of Coast Trunk Sewer Study. Post Office Box 8 127 10844 Ellis Av enue Fo u nta in Vall e y, Cal if ., 92708 T e lepr cnes: Areo Code 7 14 540-2910 962-24 11 Several mo n ths ago, the engineering firm of Lowry and Associates was e n gaged to prepare a repor t reconunending facilities for the backbone outfall trunk sewer for District No. 11 which would tie the north and south portions of the District into one system. As of this writing, the Project Report and environmental documentation have not been completed. However, we anticipate that the Engineer's Report will be completed shortly before March 1 1 th . The staff requested, on February 11th, that the District Board adjourn to 5:30 p.m., March 11th, inrrnediately preceding the regular Joint Board meeting , for the purpose of receiving a verbal report from the consulting engineers and for discussion of the routing alternatives and several financing plans to accomplish the final objective, which is the ultimate trunk sewer facility for District No. 1 1. Included for the Directors' information is a preliminary draft copy of a portion of Chapter I of the study, known as the Executive Sunrrnary . If the Preliminary Project Report is satisfactory to the Board following next Wednesday's meeting, the staff will develop a schedule for subsequent public hearings on the selected project and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Fred A. Harper General Manager ; I -! , .. ··· CHAPTER I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ANO SCOPE OF WORK A. The proposed Coast Trunk Sewer and Bolsa Pump Station Projects have the following purposes: 1. To provide the backbone outfall trunk sewer for County Sanitation District No •. 11 of Orange County (CSDOC 11) which will tie the north and south portions of CSDOC 11 into one system. . 2. To relieve existing CSDOC 3 facilities which are presently overloaded. 3. To provide capacity needed to sewer the remaining development permitted in the current General Plan of the City of Hunt"ington Beach and in the current General Plan of the County of Orange. 4. To reduce maintenance and energy costs by eliminating four existing pump stations including the existing Slater Avenue Pump Station and replacing them with a single ~ump station. B. The proposed Coast Trunk Sewer and Balsa Pump Station are key trunk sewer facilities which were identified in both-the 1977 Master Plan I-1 .. v of Sewer Facilities for County Sanitation District No. 11 and the ··1979 ·c1ty-of· Huntington Beach ·sewe~ Ma:s·ter· Plan.· C. The proposed facilities may require easements for construction 9u~side of dedicated right-of-way where crossing the 1 ands of the. Huntington Beach Company, (Standard Oil of California} and where crossing the lands of Signal Landmark. All other portions of the project lie in dedicated street right-of-way in the City of Huntington Beach. O. This project report has been prepared to meet the following objectives: 1. To describe tha need for the project and its relationship to City and County master plans. 2;· ·ro describe ·exiSting~ sewering.'facilfti.es arid. ·,th~·. 'appropria.te· past agreements, permits and commitments affecting them. 3. To examine project alternatives and recommend one apparent best alternative project. 4. To compute expected velocity and flow conditions associated with the apparent best alternative project. . . . . . . . . . ··. . 5. To outline the applicable design considerations for the reco1T111ended project_ for pipeline design and pump station design. 6. To provide environmental documentation for the project and outline necessary mitigation measures. I-2 . • .. ; .·:: . ... . ··: ] •. -.To provide. reach by reach. .cost' ... estimates. for. the .. project ... and .. identify funding sources. -8. To identify remaining permits, agreements, and agency approvals needed to complete the project. 9. To develop a schedule for financing and constructing the entire trunk system. 10. To prepare an interim operations plan for the District. HISTORY A. A sunrnary of existing sewering.facilities used by County Sanitation Oistict No. 11 is presented in Table I-1. . . .. B.· · A: summary·.of pa.s.t.. agreements,. per.mi-ts. and .conmitments . is· included . ~ .. · .. · ..... in Table I-2. ALTERNATIVES A. Four alternate vertical alignments A thru 0, were evaluated in this study. Alternative A provides the minimum allowable slope required to maintain a flow velocity of 2 fps throughout the pipeline ... alignment, and provides for minimum TOH requirements at the Bolsa Pump Station. Alternatives B, C, and D provide for higher flow velocities, i.e., smaller diameter pipe with shallower trenches downstream from the Balsa Pump Station with a resulting higher TOH requirement for pumping. B. The estimated capitalized cost for power for pumping an average flow of 19 mgd for a 50 year period amounts to approximately S287,000 per foot of lift. I -3 r"8l! C·l SUMMARY OF E:<ISTt:SG CSCOC 11 ~~CIL!7!:'.! c::mtACT ~-B U oa:;;& "VE. T1UllX U·l U·7 U-3 tl•U N!MUICO OE1.AWAI£ GRAVm TilUlflC SerD C Ul'llT 1 ) An;m'A amRC!PTOR 1'1WftlC mr&a (UNIT 7) aoa war nucx ss;a (UllT ,, HMtt.Ta!I ..\VEMJE FORCE *L't ma :t&WUICD STRET PW'IPUCG mnas cu:crr 11 > Gal.O!JI ~ PUM't'IG STATION .vtD FORCE l'A tN ·S&a (UllT l) ·. · · · SLAT!R·SPtfliDAL! nlUlllC SEWS (UftlT S) s:4!Ln!I (!DUIGS) !QUA OltC\ nmreK sews cuitrr ~> SMS.Tm AVE. SCSIGAGi UFT mnoN :Ce.uHO ST. tNTaCEPTOR T'RUHK SEWER mt,m AVE. GAAYtn SEWER EDI?IGB AVE. Sale.AGE l.IFT ST-\TtOtt SLATS AVE. wvm SillS lUOtOU ST. wvtn S!'AEil sum AV!. GAAVtT'f SEWS 1;.SU-Te "VE. Sala.AGE . ~JMPtffG ST.1.TtCa't AHO FORC% !'Alff S!'JER SUTS-1PRUSAI.£ l em1Ga ~a.•u iilUrtK saa SUi'ER ~VE. i'RlUOC SSER exnnsxmc 'MUUIG .we:. ~EU!F ssao COAST ~IC srJG :seu:UJ ~V!:. !lE!.!i? SE'.iG YEAR OF C011STRUCrtO:S OES iu:m! !T ·• 1914 G'.~. s;eca 1935 1948 L9S3 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1966 1966 1965. 1970 l9i4 l979 1980 l9BO I-4 CURRIE E!IGI~E!RtflG CO. QUIHTOlt ERGiltEERS t.Tt1. HARRISON 1 ~!"t HEADMAN. FSGUSOft l C\ROLLO UlWRY OVGJEYER 1 ASSOCIATES LOWRY OVERfETB i ASSCCtAT'ES l.O'AY OVERME'!ER & ..\SSOC!AT'!S l.OMRY O'IGmEI Ii WOCt.\TES t.O'.IRY OVOHEYG & ASSOC:ATiS l.C'JRY 1 ASSOCL\TiS LO'dRY & ASSQCt..\r-c:S :<£!iM l ~SSOCtATtS mid i ~!SOCI..\1n :<~!nf i .lSSCC:;its :.!!!!!! ?'JROIASE!J ~ C:T'f OF 14U1CTtrtGTa:I SC:-! • ~URCMASS ~OH CITY OF Mwrrt:&GTON ;c:,. ''JRCIASED ~OM C!TY OF Htllrr.::CGTON !C:-t • ~ROfASED ffl0H Cr:'Y :JF ifUlCTt:&GTOft SC:-t. .~lOOMED 1967 t.!i=T SiAT?O., A8At«XJNE1 1966 Jt I I -~ --------------------1:_.-' ------- ' TABLE I-2 S~.MARY OF PAST AGREEMENTS ANO COMMITMENTS AGREEMENT WITH csooc 3 csooc 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION BY .CSOOC 11 SUMMARY OF OBLIGATIONS CSOOC 11 PURCHASED l9i OF CAPACITY OF MILLER HOLDER TRUNK SEWE.q CSDOC 11 PURCHASED 13~ OF CAPACITY OF KNOTT INTERCEPTOR OEVELOPE.q· AGREED TO FINANCE CON- STRUCTION OF COAST TRUNK FROM LAKE sr·. TO GOLDENWEST CSDOC ll ASSURED COASTAL COMMISSION THAT BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS WOULD NOT BE ANNEXED UNTIL CERTIFICATION OF · LOCAL COASTAL PLAN OR UNTlL JULY 1981 ·.·· I-5 .. . . •. . .. I Jt I I I I ... ·· ... C. In order to minimize both pumping costs and sewer construction · ·costs; A·lternatfve .. C has beeri selected as the recomfrended vertical · ·· alignment (See Figure I-1). 0. Four alternate horizontal alignments, I thru IV, were evaluated. These alignments are shown on Figures I-2 through I-5. The cost for each alternative alignment and for a no project alternative is sunmarized in Table I-3. E. Alternatives I, II, and III are within the Balsa Chica area and are all approximately the same cost. Alternate IV is totally outside the Balsa Chica limits, but has an estimated capitalized power cost of $35 mi 11 ion. SEWAGE FLOWS ·A. · ·· Sewage· flows . have ·been· :-comptite-d ·. for.· . the· . prbj ect using .. current planning data from the City of Huntington Beach and the. County of Orange. B. The unit flow generators used in developing design flows for the project are shown in Table I-4. C. Peak flows have been developed assuming a peaking factor '• '. ..... (Q peak/Q average) of 1.80. Minimum flows have been developed assuming a minimum flow factor (Q min/Q average) of 0.50. D. The design project flows are tabulated by reach on Figure I-4. I-6 2 26 24 ......_ ". 22 a: 4 ..1 . 20 .... 0 a 18 "' .. 0 ... 18 """-' " z 0 14 -· ..a .... 12 -== ~ 10 ... ,,, 0 8 CJ _. 6 = -a. 4 cc (.) 2 1 I L' OSTS OF VERTICAL .ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES . 60 ALT. D ... Z I Ill Ill ... a:> a: en Ill i=; ~ Ill !:i cc a. m CZ -C TOTAL PROJECT COST M cosTS .. coNSTRUCTlO . 66 POWER COSTS FOR SO YEARS MAINTENANC2 COSTS FOR 50 YEARS .72 78 ALT. C ALT. B ALT. A PIPELINE DIAMET1£R BELOW PROPOSED BOLSA STATION F1GURE I ·1 I-7 - ALTERNATIVE .. 1•.· I-8 I '·--.---i . . , -I FIGURE 1•2 ALTERNATIVE 11 I-9 ... ALTERNATIVE 111 F1GURE 1·4 I-10 ALTERNATIVE IV FIGURE I· 5 I-11 ALTERNATIVE IHORIZ. VERT. I I A I B I c I 0 II c III c IV v TABLE I-3 SUMMARY OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (ENR 3600) TOTAL COST. CAPITAL INCLUDING CAPITALIZED COST* 0 & M COSTS NOTES ,, Minimum TOH Vertical Alterna-$16,518,000 $27 ,s10 ,·ooo ti ve, 78 11 Pipe Downstream from Bolsa P.S.,(See Fig.V-3) 16,027,000 27,459,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept with 72 11 Pi pe Downstream from Bolsa P.S., Higher TOH at P.S. and Less Trench Exca- vation. 15,462,000 27,438,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept with 66" Pipe Downstream from Balsa P.S., Higher· TOH at P.S. and Less Trench E.xca- vation. 14,897,000 27,879,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept·with 60 11 Pipe Downstream from Bolsa P.C., Higher TOH at P.S. and Less Trench E.xca- vat ion 15,795,000 27,772,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex- cept a more direct Route was taken across Balsa Chica ( See Fi g • I-3 ) 14,935,000 26,911,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex-I cept an Alternate Alignment was taken through Huntington I Seacliff Area(See Fig. I-4 ) I I I 12,020,000 48,52:3,000 No Encroachment on Bo 1 sa Chi ca (See Fig. I-5) I I ! 34,236,000 No Project Alternative i i I ft I-12 -: ,_ .. · .. . ~·. DESIGNATION Rl R2/MH R3 RS c M CFE '...,.,; CFR x TABLE I-4 UNIT FLOW GENERATORS AVG. FLOW DESCRIPTION GPO£ACRE LOW DENSITY 1,550 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM OENs:ITY 2,000 RESIDENTIAL/ fttlBILE HOME HIGH DENSITY 3,880 RESIDENTIAL COAST AREA APARTMENT 14,000 COMMERCIAL AREA COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL 3,230 INDUSTRIAL 3,880 SCHOOLS 3,.600 PARKS 160 NON. SEWAGE -0- GENERATING I-13 PEAK FLOW GPO/ACRE 2,790 3,600 6,984 25,200 5,814 6,984 6,480' 288 -0- ALIGNMENT ANO PROFILE A. The recorrmended alignment and profile for the project is shown on F i gu re VI -1. B. The recormnended alignment and profile will minimize pumping requirements while maintaining a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second at a 0/d of 0.75. C. The profile will allow the bluff area to drain by gravity. D. The flows, velocities, and depth to diameter ratios at each reach of the project are tabulated in Table I-5. DESIGN A. A conceptual design for the proposed Balsa Lift Station is p-resent·ed· ·;-n Chapter ·vrr. · · · · .. ·· .... · · ··. · ·· .'. .. ·.·· :· ·.· B. A list of design criteria for the proposed Balsa Lift Station is contained in Table I~6. · C. Where possible, the Coast Trunk Sewer will be located within dedicated right-of-way. The first section of the Coast Trunk Sewer, between Lake Street and Golden West Street will be located entirely within existing streets maintained by the City of Huntington Beach. I-14 ;-~· ; -. I EXCERPTS FROM PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION COAST TRUNK SEWER MARCH 1_1, 1981 Prepared By: LOWRY & ASSOCIATES 17748 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, California 92714 ...... I .- 01 ( ~·---- ~· -- PEACH A-I A-2 1\-J A-4 1\-5 A-& A-1 A-0 A-9 A-10 0-1 C-1 C-2 ---- Spring- dale-I Spring- dale-2 Edwards-I Etlwards-2 Edwnds-3 .Gol~!!f~U ~ LOCATION CATION lake St. to lrd St. to lrd St. lrd lo Kiln St. In St. Ha In St. to 6th St. to 6th St. 6th St. to 8lh St. o 8lh St. Oth St. to 10th St. o 10th St. 10 12th St. IOlh St. 10 12th St. 12th St. to 14th St. to 14th St. 14th St. to 16th St. to 16th St. 16th St. to 18th St. to 18th St. 18th St. to Golden West St. to Golden West St. Golden West St. to Oolsa P.S. st St. lo Oolsa P.S. Ootsa P.S. to Edwards St. Trunk • to Edwards St. Trunk Edwards St. Trunk lo Springdale Trunk t. Trunk lo Springdale Trunk nk to Padva Dr. Coast Trunk to Padva Dr. Padva Dr. to Slater Ave. to Slater Ave. Coast Trunk to Vars tty Dr. nk to Vars tty Dr. 1r. to Oa lmora 1 Dr. Varsity Dr. to Oa1mora1 Dr. Da1mora1 Dr. to Slater Ave. Dr. to Slater Ave. ~dwards Trunk to Stater Ave. runk to Stater Ave. ( ( ~.\ "l --------------· ... -· ··-... -·-.. ~·\ TABLE 1-5 TABLE 1-5 DESIGN FLOW COHOITIONS IN COAST TRUHK DESIGN FLOW COHOITIONS IN COAST TRUHK PE"Anto\1-AVCliAGrnlJU-. PE"Anto\1-AVCliAGrnlJU---...1nn11M·nmr PIPE q . v Q r· CONTRACT DIAMETER ( IH., SLOPE ,!ljD __JU!!__ -11!!. HGO Did f Ps PIPE q . v Q r -q-·------y- CONTRACT DIAMETER ( IH., SLOPE ,!ljD __JU!!__ -11!!. HGO Did f Ps fliD. ~J~ . -~ 66 66 .00052 .00052 45 45 0.75 0.75 l.64 l.64 25.0 25.0 0.50 0.50 l.25 l.25 12.5 0.34 2.71 66 66 .00047 .00047 43 43 0.75 0.75 J.48 J.48 24.0 24.0 0.50 0.50 l.12 l.12 12.0 0.34 2.61 66 66 .00045 .00045 42 42 0.75 0.75 J.40 J.40 23.5 23.5 0.50 0.50 3.06 3.06 12.0 0.34 2.61 '66 '66 .0004J .00043 41 41 0.75 0.75 3.32 3.32 23.0 23.0 0.50 0.50 2.99 2.99 11.5 0.34 2.50 A A 66 66 .000'11 .000'11 . 40 . 40 0.75 0.75 l.24 l.24 22.0 22.0 0.50 0.50 2.86 2.86 11.0 0.14 2.39 66 66 .00039 .00039 39 39 0.75 0.75 l.16 l.16 21.5 21.5 0.50 0.50 2.80 2.80 11.0 0.3'1 :!.19 66 66 .00037 .00037 38 38 0.75 0.75 3.08 3.08 21.0 21.0 0.50 0.50 2.73 2.73 10.5 0.34 2.20 66 66 .00035 .00035 37 37 0.75 0.75 2.99 2.99 20.5 20.5 0.50 0.50 2.67 2.67 10.5 0.34 2.20 66 66 .00033 .00033 36 36 0.75 0.75 2.91 2.91 20.0 20.0 0.50 0.50 2.60 2.60 10.0 0.34 2.17 66 66 .00031 .00031 35 35 0.75 0.75 2.0J 2.0J 19.5 19.5 0.50 0.50 2.54 2.54 _!=1_ 0.34. ..bl! 8 (Future) 8 (Future) 66 66 .00031 .00031 35 35 0.75 0.75 2.03 2.03 19.5 19.5 0.50 0.50 2.54 2.54 9.7 0.34 2.11 --------· -------------- 72 72 .00019 .00019 34 34 0.74 0.74 2.31 2.31 19.0 19.0 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 9.4 0.34 1.72 C (future) C (future) 54 54 .oooso .oooso 26 26 0.75 0.75 l.14 l.14 14.5 14.5 0.50 0.50 2.02 2.02 7.2 0.34 2.34 ---------·-----------·--------- future future 54 54 .00030 .00030 20 20 0.75 0.75 2.42 2.42 11.0 11.0 0.50 0.50 2.14 2.14 5.5 0.34 1.70 future future 54 54 .00020 .00020 19.5 19.5 0.75 0.75 2.36 2.36 10.8 10.8 0.50 0.50 2.10 2.10 5.4 0.34 1.75 -----· -----· -----·------· ·---·- 36 36 .00040 .00040 8.6 8.6 0.75 0.75 2.34 2.34 4.7 4.7 0.50 0.50 2.06 2.06 2.4 0.34 1.75 Future Future 30 30 .01507 .01507 5.6 5.6 0.28 0.28 7.70 7.70 3.1 3.1 0.21 0.21 6.40 6.40 1.6 0.15 5.36 30 30 .00050 .00050 & •. 4 & •. 4 0.75 0.75 2.12 2.12 l.O l.O 0.50 0.50 1.89 1.89 1.5 0.34 1.58 ----·------·-------- Future Future IB IB .00130 .00130 2.J Otl.L 2.sd ... J.!l_ '1t!Q_ ~-~L 2.J Otl.L 2.sd ..... !.!l_ '1t!Q_ ~-~L JI.:..& !!.-~L ~ 2 26. 24 ~ en 22 a: c ... 20 ... 0 Q 18 u. 0 16 en z 0 14 -..I ..I 12 -:& ~ 10 ... en 0 8 u ... 6 ~ -A. 4 c u ·2 1 COSTS OF VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES. 60 ALT. D 1-z I Ill UI ._a:> a: r-W- < fa~= t mcez . .C TOTAL PROJECT COST M cosTS . coNSTRUCTIO 66 POWER COSTS FOR 50 YEARS MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 50 YEARS 72 ALT. C ALT. B 78 ALT. A PIPELINE DIAMETER BELOW PROPOSED BOLSA STATION FIGURE.1•1 I-7 ~I I ALTERNATIVE HORIZ. VERT. I A I B I c I D II c III c IV v ~ TABLE I-3 SUMMARY OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (ENR 3600) TOTAL COST CAPITAL INCLUDING CAPITALIZED COST* 0 & M COSTS NOTES $16,896,000 $27,988,000 Minimum TOH Vertical Alterna- ·tive, 78 11 Pipe Downstream from Balsa P.S.,(See Fig.V-3) 16,405,000 27,837,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept with 72 11 Pipe Downstream from Bolsa P.S., Higher TOH at P.S. and Less Trench Exca- vation. 15.840,000 27,816,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept with 66 11 Pipe Downstream from Balsa P.S., Higher TOH at P.S. and Less Trench Exca- vation. 15,275,000 28,257,000 Same as Alternative I-A ex- cept with 60" Pipe Downstream from Bolsa P.C., Higher TOH at P.S. and Less Trench Exca- vation 16,173,000 28,150,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex- cept a more direct Route was taken across Balsa Chica (See Fig. I-3) 15,313,000 27,289,000 Same as Alternative I-C ex- cept an Alternate Alignment was taken through Huntington j Seacliff Area(See Fig. I-4 ) 1 12,020,000 48,523,000 No Encroachment on Balsa Chic (See Fig. I-5) 34,236,000 No Project Alternative I fit I 1-12 CONTRACT CONTRACT A CONTRACT B CONTRACT C BOLSA PUMP STATION TOTAL TABLE I-8 TOTAL PROJECT COSi COAST TRUNK SEWER AND BOLSA PUMP STATION ENR-3600 ESTIMATED LOCATION CONSTRUCTION COST LAKE ST. TO $ 3,667,702 GOLDEN WEST GOLDEN WEST TO BOLSA P.S. 2,900,000 BOLSA P.S. TO 1,800,000 SPRINGDALE · 4,194,000 $12,561,102 ( ' ' f , .. ' ~"' -r, .. \u , uk. ( n. }. .. ... \ /\,I ) 1-20 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 4,951,398 3,915,000 2,430,000 5,661,900 $16,958,298 S / CY'"'U ,efl-v :_ --. -i.o c/' u . c ·. ·· · ·, . ' ' ·- Jt I ~ r·~ •• ,.. '•I.' Connection Fees TABLE VII I-6 PROPOSED FINANCING TOTAL COAST TRUNK SYSTEM Residential Units 13,000: ($1000) Connnercial Area 74 ($1200)* Industrial Area 309 ($1200)* Sale of Partial Trunk Capacities and P.S. Sites Annexation Fees 318 ($2008) 1 3-, oaa.f a.aa 88,800 370,800 707 ,377 638,544 TOTAL s·1-4, 805, 521 * Minimum fees NOTES: (1) A.C.O. = Accumulated Capital Outlay F. R. = Facilities Revolving Fund (2) Above connection. fees for Balsa Chica area include minimum development of 318 acres 1513 units. ..-:--I VII I-12 / T .-- MEET ING DAT E March 11 , 1981 DISTRICT 1 l!i'I E 5:30 p .m. DISTRI CTS 11 (SA LT AR EL LI) .•• SHARP ..•... ------ (Y AMAM~TO) ..... WARD,J ..... ------ (CRA NK •....•.. HUTC H I SO N •• ----- (R l LEY), .••..•. STANTON •... ------ DISTRICT 2 (FR I ED ) ••.•...• 1'/ED AA •..•.• (S EYMO UR ) .....• ROTH ....•.. ------ (WINT ERS ) ...... BOR NHOF T ... ------ (GAMB!NA) .j .... FOX •.••..•. ------ (ECK ENROD E • · · ·HOLT • · · •••• ------ (OD LUM) • • • · · · • ·KA\·JANA~I · • • ------ (WIED ER)······ ·NESTANDE • · • ------~HO LLi i-iD EN ) • · • NlE LS EN • • • • ------ (CUL VER )······ ·PERRY······=== ~E Y E R)· · • • • · • ·SM! TH· • · • · • CORB ETT) ••.•.• WARD,B .•••• ------ ~ARD,J) ••••••• YAMAMOTO ... ----------·-- DISiRICT 3 (CO LLINS ) •••••• VA N DYKE ••• ------ (ROl'IAN) ..•..... EVANS ...••• ------ (HO LLINDEN ) ••.• ADLER ••••.• ------ (RO GET} •.••.••• CORBETT .•.. --__ -- (PERRY ) ...•••.. CU LVER •.••• _____ _ (KIRKPATRICK) •. F IN LA YSO N •• __ (M ANDIC ) .•..... FINLEY..... ---- (FOX ) •...•••••• ISLES .••... ------ (SEITZ ) •••••••. LASZLO •••.• ------ (D AVIS). ....••. REES E •.•... ------ (SEYMOUR) •••••• ROT H ••.•.•. ------ (zoMM ICK) •.•••• SYLVIA •••.. ------ (R OMAGNINO ) .... WHEELER •... ------ ~N E STANDE). •••. WIEDER ••••• ------ BORN HOFT) ••.•• WINTER S •..• ------ WARD , J) .•..•.• YAMAMOTO ... === DISTRICT 5 ~MA U RER) .•.•••• HEATHER •••• ------ STRA USS) ...••• COX ..•.•.. ------ STANTO N) ••••.• RILEY .••... ------ DISTRICT 6 (CRANK ). { •....• HUT CHISON •. ____ _ (HEAT HER ; ••.••• PLUMMER •••• --__ -- (RI LE Y) •••••... STANTON·· •. _____ _ DISTRICT 7 (BEYER) •••• < ••• SMITH •••••• ----- (SAL TAR E~LI J •• ·EDGAR. • · •.. ------ (HEATH ER) •••.•. HART .•••••• ------ (WIEDER ) ....... NESTA NDE· ·, ------ ~ANTHONY,A) ..•. VA RDO UL!S •. ----- HA NSO N) ...•... WAHN ER ..... ------ YAMAMOTO) .•..• WARD,J •..•• ------ 0 !STR IC T 11 (BAILEY ) .•..... PATTI NSON •. + ---- (MACALLISTER) .. BAILE Y •..•• --;r ---- (NESTAND E ) •..•. WIEDER· .•.. ------ 2/11/81 JOINT BOARDS ~HO L LIND E N) ••..• AD LE R ..•.. ·---- ~MACALLISTER) •.. .BAILE Y .• '. .• ---- WINTERS) .....•. SCRNHOFT •. ·---- ROGET ).······· ·CO RBETT .··· ---- (STRAU S S) .•....• COX •••••••• ---- ~PERRY ) •..••..•. CU LVER •.... ---- -,SA LT AR EL LI 1 .... EDGAR .•.•.. --__ (R OWAN ) ••..•..•. EVA NS .•••.• ___ _ (KIRKPA TRICK).·· ·F INLAYSO N·· CMAN DJC ) ..•••••. F IN LE Y .••. ·= - (GAMDINA) ..•.•• ·FOX .••• •••• -- <H EATH ER) • • • • • • +iART • · · • • • · ---- (MAUR ER) •.• ·••••• +i EATH ER • • • · ---- f ECKENRODE). • ····HOLT •.• • • · • • ---- !CR AtiK ) • ·····.·.HUTCHISON .·== FOX.) ••.•.•••••• IS LES······ ODLUM ) . ·• · ••..• KAWA NAMI ••. ---- SEIP:) ••. ••· •• ·LASZLO ••••. ---- (WI ED ER)······· ·N ESTANDE •.• ---- (HOLLINDEN1. • •.• NIE LSEN •••• ---- (BAILEY ) ....•... PATT I NSON •. ---- (CULV ER). ..•..... P ERRY •.•••. ---- (HE ATHER ) ..•.•.. PLUMM ER •••• ---- (DAV IS) ..••..•.. REESE ..•.•• ---- (S TANTON ) .•..... RILEY .•.•• ·==== (SEYMOUR ) · · · • • · ·ROTH ....... ---- (SA L TAR ELLI ) .... SHA RP ••••. ·--__ BE YER)········ ·SMITH ..... ·---- RILEY)········ .STA NTON ••• ·---- ZOMMICK ) ······.SYLVIA •••• ·---- CO LLI NS)······ ·VAN DYK E .• ·---- ANTHONY ,A)···· ·VAR DOUL!S • ·---- HANSON )······· .\'/AHN ER .... ·---- (CORBETT ) ••...•. WARD,B ••••. ---- (YAMAMOTO)····· ·WAR D,J • • • • ·---- (FR IE D)········ ·WEDAA·. • •• ·----~R OMAGN !NO )···· ·WH EELER ···· ---- NE STAND !i ······WIEDER ·····----BORNHO F T ~ ·····.\'/INTE RS •... ---- (WAR D,J) ········YAM AM OTO··· -- OTHERS ./ HARPER ·····-- SYLV ESTER ··-"- LE\'IIS · · • · · · _:L_ CLA RKE····· -- BROWN······-- AND ERSON·.·-- SAK ER •..... __ CONAT SER .• ·-- DAW ES •...•• ___..L_ FATL AND •.. ·-- YO UNG .•.... WOODRUFF .. . HO HENER .... === HO WARD· .••• HUN T •.•.... KE ITH •.•.•• __ LYN CH ....•. MART I NSON •. :::Z: ST EVENS ... ·-- (. I J,, \,. ,.. f /,...v.. ho\fcv O('.)r I to\~ \ SC '&.· Q~,., j1 ~ \) ( I -• I f'4. ~ I 0 · ... . . • a.. £""'_. -~ --- • -... ~· Q -.ll ~ t'tii:. ~ 4;..-- .. -I .... r ~-'~ \; • (' i 1~ • 1 .; ... . ~-f l ,, r I l ... ~ l r r I t ' l f .. . r I I I I ~ . ·~ _!