HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-13 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $✓�
�� TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 540-2910
qi_ � 962-2411
P. ❑. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
April 9 , 1981
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 5
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1981 - 5:30 P.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
�.J
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 8, 1981 ,
the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. S will
meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date.
Se re y
JWS :rb
y BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
14
DISTRICT No. 5 A4 Code 10
962-2411
IIAGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY., APRIL 13, 1981 - 5:30 P-.M.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
(1) Roll call
(2) Consideration of actions relative to Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report re Enhancement Program for the
Big Canyon Drainage Area:
(a) Verbal report of consultant, EDAW, Inc.
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file written
comments received after public hearing on March 30th
re Draft Supplemental EIR, if any
(c) Discussion and further staff comments
(d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re
Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area,
and certify that said Final Supplemental EIR has been
completed in compliance with the State and District
Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 , as Amended (Copy of said report to
be delivered to District 5 Directors on Monday, April 13th)
(3) Consideration of Resolution No. 81-58-5 , approving plans and
specifications for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, From Newport Dunes to
Jamboree Pump Station, Contract No. 5-24 , and authorizing the
General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids.
See page "A"
(4) Consideration of Resolution No. 81-59-5, approving plans and
specifications for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage
N%W� Area (.Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1,
and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for
receipt of bids. See page "B"'
(5) Consideration of actions re possible implementation of user
charges:
(a) Staff report
(b) Discussion
(c) Consideration of motion approving Alternate ,
adopting timetable for implementation of user fees
to be collected on property tax bill, and directing
staff to proceed with said implementation.
(1) If Alternate A is selected:
(a) Consideration of motion waiving provisions
of District Purchasing Resolution No. 81-24
and authorizing staff to procure necessary
materials, supplies and services to implement
user fees to be collected on property tax
bill
(b)l Establish date- for adjourned meeting to
consider user fee rate schedule
(2) If Alternate B is selected:
(a) No further action required at this Board
meeting
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 81-58-5
�.d APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BACK
BAY TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 5-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BACK BAY TRUNK SEWER, FROM
NEWPORT DUNES TO JAMBOREE PUMP STATION,
CONTRACT NO. 5-24
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange
County, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents
this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Shaller & Lohr, Inc'. , District's
engineers, for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, From Newport Dunes to Jamboree Pump Station,
Contract No. 5-.24, are hereby approved and adopted; and,
Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise
for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code
of the State of California; and,
Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date
and time at which said .bids will be publicly opened and read; and,
Section 4. That the Secretary and the District's Chief Engineer be
authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held April 13, 1981.
"All AGENDA ITEM #4 "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 81-59-5
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA (BIG CANYON
MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT) , CONTRACT NO. 5-24-1
A RESOLUTION OF- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA (BIG CANYON
MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT) , CONTRACT NO. 5-24-1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange
County, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents
this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Hartge Engineering Company,
District's engineers, for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage
Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, are hereby
approved and adopted; and,
Section 2. That the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area
project (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, is hereby
approved, and the Secretary be directed to file a Notice .of Determination in
accordance with the Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as Amended; and, '
Section 3. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise
for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code
of the State of California; and,
Section 4. That the General Manager be authorized 'to establish the date
and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and,
Section S. That the Secretary and the District's Chief Engineer be
authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held April 13, 1981.
"B" AGENDA ITEM #4 „B��
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
April 2, 1981 (714) 962-2411
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: District No. 5 Directors
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plans for Implementing User Fees to be Collected on the Property
Tax Bill
Following a review of the District's needed facilities improvements and extensions
and financial projections at the adjourned meeting of the Board on March 30, 1981,
the staff reported that preliminary plans for implementing a user charge would
be developed for consideration by the Directors on April 8th.
Based on the financial projections, there are two conceptual alternatives:
Alternate A: Implement a nominal fee schedule beginning in 1981-82 for
classes of users to be modified in subsequent years to a
totally equitable fee schedule based on established criteria
for each user.
The data base used for collection of a user charge on the
tax bill comes from the County Assessor's roll. The inform-
ation on the roll is limited and does not provide us with
sufficient data to levy a fee based on each parcel's loading on
the sewerage system. Thus, in order to levy an equitable
charge, each non-residential parcel must be identified and
its use determined by a site visit or from other available
sources, a lengthy process requiring considerable effort.
This information must then be input into the data base.
Because of the time constraints, it would not be possible
to accomplish this in time to levy fees on a totally
equitable basis for the 1981-82 fiscal year. However,
the Board could elect to establish a rather nominal fee
schedule for the various classes of users (residential,
commercial, industrial, unsewered property, etc.) in
1981-82 with the understanding that in subsequent years
the data base would be refined and a fee structure
implemented that would assess an equitable charge against
each parcel based on property use and/or sewer system loading.
The major advantage of this alternative is that receipt of
additional revenue would commence in 1981-82.
The major disadvantage is that the fees would not be
totally equitable.
District No. S Directors
April 2, 1981
Page 2
Alternate B: Identify and classify properties and develop an equitable
user fee rate structure for implementation beginning in
1982-83.
This approach, while requiring basically the same procedures
as Alternate A, would delay implementation of a user fee one
year, until 1982-83. This would allow sufficient time to
enable the identification of users and development of a data
base and rate structure before charges are assessed, thus
enabling an equitable system of fees to be levied from the
start.
The major advantage of this alternative is that properties
would be charged based on their actual use of the system,
thus avoiding complaints of inequity.
The major disadvantage is that revenue collections would
not begin until 1982-83.
Attached hereto are preliminary timetables for implementation of each alternative.
The staff will review these conceptual options in more detail at the Board meeting
on April 8th.
A statutory requirement when considering the collection of a user charge on the tax
�— bill is notification to each property owner. Enclosed is a sample notice and
information package presently under use by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF USER FEE 4/02/81
TO BE COLLECTED ON PROPERTY TAX BILL
ALTERNATIVE A - 1981/82
APRIL 8 APRIL 13 APRIL 29 MAY 13-20 MAY 26 JUNE 11 JULY 8 AUGUST 10
REVIEW ALTERNATIVE ADOPT USER FEE CONSIDER USER FEE INTRODUCE ORDINANCE HEARING ON ADOPT DISTRICT
USER FEE IMPLEMENT- IMPLEMENTATION RATE TO BE ESTABLISHING USER ORDINANCE AND BUDGET
ATION CONCEPTS ALTERNATIVE AND ESTABLISHED FEE REPORT
DIRECT STAFF TO
PROCEED
RECEIVE AND FILE (ADOPT ORDINANCE
o USER FEE REPORT
F WAIVE PROVISIONS DESCRIBING PROPERTY
a OF PURCHASING b FEE TO BE LEVIED ADOPT REPORT AND
c RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE COL-
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO LECTION OF USER
o PROCURE NECESSARY ESTABLISH PUBLIC FEE ON TAX BILL
m
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES HEARING DATE FOR
b SERVICES TO IMPLE- REPORT
MENT USER FEES
CONDUCT USER FEE RATE STUDY
EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO
EXTRACT PARCELS FROM COUNTY ROLL
TO PROVIDE DATA BASE FOR NOTICE
TO PROPERTY OWNERS
PRINTING OF NOTICE TO PUBLISH ORDINANCE
PROPERTY OWNERS RE USER
FEE REPORT
H
a ADDRESS, SORT AND
� MAIL NOTICES
IL
0
a
PUBLISH LEGAL NOTICE
a
v~i CONDUCT PUBLIC
INFORMATION
MEET I IIGS
EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO PROVIDE PARCEL CHARGE TAPE TO COUNTY AUDITOR
PREPARATION, REVIEW, ADOPTION OF DISTRICT BUDGET b FILING WITH COUNTY AUDITOR
START DATA
BASE REFINEMENT
PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF USER FEE 4/02/81
TO BE COLLECTED ON PROPERTY TAX BILL
ALTERNATIVE B - 1982/83
APRIL, 1981 MAY, 1981 DECEMBER, 1981, JANUARY, 1982 FEBRUARY, 1982 MARCH, 1982 JULY, 1982 AUGUST,' 1982
REVIEW ALTERNATIVE CONSIDER USER FEE INTRODUCE ORDINANCE HEARING ON ORDI- ADOPT DISTRICT
USER FEE IMPLEMENTA- RATE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISHING USER NANCE AND REPORT BUDGET
TION CONCEPTS BE ESTABLISHED FEE
ADOPT ORDINANCE
o ADOPT USER FEE RECEIVE AND FILE
►= IMPLEMENTATION USER FEE REPORT
a ALTERNATIVE AND DESCRIBING PROPERTY ADOPT REPORT AND
o DIRECT STAFF TO 6 FEE TO BE LEVIED AUTHORIZE COLLEC-
a PROCEED TION OF USER FEE
m ON TAX BILL
ESTABLISH PUBLIC
HEARING DATE FOR
REPORT
EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO EXTRACT
PARCELS FROM COUNTY ROLL TO PROVIDE DATA BASE
IDENTIFY 6 CLASSIFY PROPERTIES AND
UPDATE DATA BASE
DEVELOP EQUITABLE USER FEE RATE
STRUCTURE BASED ON USE
PRINTING OF NOTICE PUBLISH ORDINANCE
a TO PROPERTY OWNERS
IRE USER FEE REPORT ,
0
a
CL
'^ ADDRESS, SORT 6
w MAIL NOTICES
N
PUBLISH LEGA! NOTICES
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS
EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO PROVIDE FOR DATA BASE UPDATE
AND PARCEL CHARGE TAPE TO COUNTY AUDITOR
.AS'i/At[i
EECJ1MAr1011
SCL,D ...t. YANAGEVEN' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California
Mailing Address: / P. O. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607 WALTER E. GARRISON
Teiephone: Zenith 2-9121 Ciiei -Engineer and Generai .'Manager
March 5, 1981
Dear Sanitation District Customer.
The District's records indicate that you own a parcei of land located within Sanitation District Yo. :_,the boundaries of wtuch are shown on the enclosed
Herr). i tie District has proposed a service charge on patteis of land within its boundaries to heir)pay for the cost of collecting, .-eating and disposing of
sewage. This charge. ii approved, will be coilected on the 1981-82 property tax bill. The purpose of his letter is to advise you of the nature and amount of
the proposed set+ice charge as Weil as the time.date and place of a public hearing to discuss the service.:large and its placement on the property tax bill.
A Service Charge Report has:een tiled with the District Cleric describing the parceis of property in Sanitation District No. 22 and the service charge for
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO DISCUSS THE REPORT.THE eSTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE CHARGE.A.ND ITS PLACEMENT ON
THE 1981-82 PROPERTY TAX BILL. THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS.
PUBLIC HEARIING DATE AND TUYIE:Thursday,April 2, 1981
3:00 p.m.
PLACE: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Joint Administration Office
1955 Woritman Mill Road
Whinier. CA 90601
(See Map)
Due to the change in the property tax law, the Sanitation District's property tax revenue has been decreased by approximately sixty percent since 1978. The
District does not receive any State surplus funds.
On January 23. 1981,the Board of Directors received and filed a Service Charge Report which recommended that appropriate charges be levied to
residential,commercial and industrial properties on the basis of their use of the sewerage system.
ice Sanitation Districts conaucted a study which relates the flow and strength of sewage for each commercial classification and industrial discharger
discharging less than one million gallons per year to a number identified as a sewage unit. A sewage unit represents the average daily quantity of
sewage flow and strength that would be discharged from a single family home.The service charge is based upon the cost to treat a sewage
unit—while taking into account ail other Distract revenue sources. All industrial dischargers discharging more than one ttuilion gallons per year pay
for their sewerage services through the Districts'existing wastewater treatment surcharge progrm.
On the top of the mailing lama affixed to the Postcard appears the designated use which the Distnct's records indicate applies to your property. To the
right of that description is a number indicating the amount of sewage units designated to your property. The proposed service charge for fiscal year
1981-82 is S11.00 per sewage unit. Your service charge for 1981-82 can be determined by multiplying the number of sewage units for your property
by the charge per sewage unit. Payment of the service charge will be the responsibility of the owner of the property. If approved, it will appear as a
separate item on the properry tax bill.
On the same railing:abet, a number appears in the too right hand corner. The number is the map book, page and parcel number for the pro. ry which our
records indicate you own in Sanitation Distinct No. ''. If you ace=not connected to the sewer, please indicate this on the enclosed postcard. You must
nail ctis to the District,,postmarked before April 2, 1981. Parcels not presently connected to the sewerage system writ not be assessed a service
charge.
IN ADDITION TO TIM PUBLIC HEARING—PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS will be 4eid:o answer your Questions:
Public Information Meetings Dates,Times and Places:
Tuesday, March Z4, 1981 Thursday, March_6, 1981
7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m.
Glendora High School.Faculty Lounge Covina High School Cafeteria
1600 E. Foothill Blvd. 463 S. Hollenbeck
Glendora Covina
(See Map) (See Map)
The format will be identical for each meeting—a ZO minute prescritanon by Sanrtanoa Districts' staff,a question and answer penod and open
discussion. Additional information meetings can be scheduled for interested groups upon request.
If you have questions or want additional information, please contact Sanitation Districts'staff by dialing the Operator(-0') and asking for 7lnith 2.9121
(toil "me).
Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m..Monday through Friday.
Ve�ourrs.
+1C ,
'/alter E. Garnson
'AEG:pc
tints.
0IS-2Z7-2.'81 4MM
THIS PROPERTY IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE SEWER
(DISTRICTS' PERSONNEL WILL VERIFY INFORMATION DATE. SIGNATURE:
'KITH CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFtiY THIS INFORMATION IS NOT VALID UNLESS
D' RTMENTS.) POSTCARD IS SIGNED.
ESTA P90PIEDAO NO ES TA CONECTADA AL ALCANTARILLAOO Fecaa
(Personal del Distrito verificara la informacidn Firma
can ]as Departamentos de Edificia y Sequridad del Esta informacidn no es valida al menos
Municipio y del Condado) que la tarjeta postal sea firmada.
AFFiX MAILING LABEL HERE
Adhiera el memhrete aqui
�I
Y
Y
Q
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEE'NiNG
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1981; at 7:00 P.M.GLENDORA HIGH SCHOOL THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981; at 7:00 P.M.
COVINA HIGH SCHOOL
1600 E. FOOTHILL BLVD 463 S. HOLLENBECK AV.
GLENDORA COVINA
(IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE) (IN THE CAFETERIA)
a o
m
¢FOOTHILL BLVD. PUENTE ST.
W
1- O� W
W � U¢
V Q ¢
a = ¢ Y ROWLAND AV.
} G PALOPINTO AV.
V� uj v
z m
O ¢ ¢ uw
,-FACULTY LOUNGE O
o =
CAFETERIA
o J 4 — y—
bo�
o
0
NTER SCHOOL GROUNDS ON VALLEY CENTER AV.
PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981 ; at 3 :00 P.M.
DISTRICT'S JOINT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
1955 Workman Mill Rd.
Whittier , Ca. 90601
PECK Rd. /PECK Rd.
OFFRAMP
POMONA FRWY. -*' �
�1 �� SANITATION
(60 FR W Y.) DURFEF A V. DISTRICTS
OFFICE
Qom.
PECK Rd. t1j� WORKMAN
OFFRAMP �CO MILL Rd.
v
�v
SAN GABRIEL RIVER FRWY. --.,, Q
(605 FR W Y.) �A/
�� PECK Rd. /
v
BOUNDARY MAP D1SulqwR1CT7_F" 22
z
ci
DUARTE m li
r
ERRA MADR[ :�`'f
AK �A 1
a OYAI CA`KS"o'.'�� .- .AZIJSA. '� I�i S !• <
HuNT N INGTO OR. - A GLENDORA
WART H RD. •.,- - ,,
IRWfNDAL
wolm
LA
mvrr
BALDWIN PARK i ,. : VERNE
} `-`.•' fir.,,-. ._�,�}1
SS PpMONA 1 p _ ?.:ar .j I^ r.f'< • _ _, i....•.•+..p J,{j v"� .
�i �' W r• VIVA �'�' _ •'�'� SAN
r
J _ CANER N AYS.• - SEANAROINo
LA PUENTE
i •,10 .
Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County
P.O. Box 4998
Whittier. CA 90607
SANITATION DISTRICTS' FACTS
Included in this fact sheet is information to help you unaerstana the proposed service .name for::our District. For additional information. please dial
the Operator t-0-)and ask for Zenith 2-9121 troll free).
1. WHAT'S A SANITATION DISTRICT?
A sanitation district is a special district charged with the responsibility of conveying,treating and disposing of sewage ana industrial wastes. it is a
public agency.separate from the County government,established under the State Health and Safety Code to provide sewerage service to a specific
geographical area. A sanitation district must treat and dispose of sewage in accordance with County, State and Federal standards to protect the public health
and the environment.
2. WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS?
Approximately four million people are serviced by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in the northeastern and southern portions of Los
Angeles County. The Districts were first formed in 1923 and presently serve all or part of 75 cities which are grouped into 27 individual districts. Each
district is governed by a Board of Directors made up of the `Ilayors(or designated alternates)and County Supervisor representing the county area.
The small sewer lines found in residential streets are maintamea by other entities such as incorporated cities or the County Engineer. This service is
tended by a separate charge and is not related to the proposed service charge. The small sewer lines connect to larger sewers owned by the Districts which
convey sewage to the treatment plants. The major Districts' facility is the Joint water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Canon. It currently
treats approximately 3bt)million gallons of wastewater per day. Atter the wastewater is treated, it is discharged through an ocean outfall system extending
two miles off the Palos Verdes coast. The Districts also operate ten smaller water reclamauon plants.
3. HOW HAVE THE DISTRICTS BEEN FINANCED?
Formerly, most of the Districts' revenue was derived from property taxes. A sixty percent reduction in the amount of money available from=Derry
taxes. as a result of Proposition 13, has necessitated a service charge to provide the necessary funds for capital improvements and operation and
maintenance. Additional sources included industrial wastewater treatment charges.contracts. Federal and State gams and interest on investments.
S. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE CHARGE?
Property owners within a district will be charged a uniform rate according to their user group;single family homes. apartments.commercial buildings,
industrial dischargers discharging less than one million gallons per year,etc. All industrial dischargers discharging more than one million gallons per year
pay for their sewerage services through the Districts'existing wastewater surcharge program. The service charge will appear as a separate item on the
property tax bill.
5. HOW WAS THIS TYPE OF SERVICE CHARGE SELECTED'.
A study was conducted by Sanitation Districts'staff to determine what alternatives existed for a charge structure(method of data collection and fee
calculation)and billing system. Alternatives included:
Charge Structure Alternatives: Billing System Alternatives:
User Groups Separate item on property tax bill
Water Consumption Direct bill from District to user
Percentage of Other Utility Bills Water bill
Wastewater Flow Other Utility bill
Utility Meter Size
Basic criteria used in evaluating alternatives were:
Fairness and equity
Low administrative and collection costs
Ease of implementation
Low non-payment idelinquency) possibilities
A summary report was compiled documenting staff research and citizen opinion. Based on this report, the Board of Directors determined that a uniform
rats:per user group, to be collected on the property tax bill. most closely met the above criteria for a service charge.
6. DO L14OUSTRIES AND COMMERCLAL.ESTABLJSHMENTS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR USING THE SYSTEM?
Yes. industrial and commercial users pay for use of the system based upon the quantity and quality of their sewage.
7. WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN WHO iS ON A LOW FIXED INCOME?
Depending on income. people over the age of 62 have the option to defer payment of their tax bill(property taxes and service charge items on the tax
bill). Payment is then made when the property is sold or changes ownership. As a result,this service charge may be deferred by those who quality.
._ETING DATE April 13, 1981 TIME 5:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 5
DISTRICT i JOINT BOARDS Newport Beach City Hall Annex
r...r (SALTAREL I). . .SHARP. . . . . . SHOLLINDEN) . . . . .ADLER . . . . . .
(YAMAMOTO�. . . . .WARD,J. . . . . `MACALL15TER) . . .BAILEY . . . . .
(CRANK). . ..... .HUTCHISON. - (WINTERS : . . . .BORNHOFT : : •
(RILEY). .STANTON. - (ROGET� - CORBETT •
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY) . . • • . • • •CULVER . • .
FRIED . .'�VEDAA. . . . . .
�SALTARELLI)• • • • •EDGAR • • • • •
SEYMOUR) . . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . . (ROWAN) . . . . . . . •EVANS • • • ••
SWINTERS) . . . . . .BORNHOFT. (KIRKPATRICK� . . .FINLAYSON
IGAMBINA) . . .FOX. . . . . . . . (MANDIC) . . . . . . . .FINLEY • • • •
(ECKENRODEI •- • •HOLT • • • • • • (GAMBINA) . . • • • • •FOX • • • • • •
(ODLUM) . . . . .. • •KAWANAMI •• (HEATHE ) • •• •• •+lAP.T • • • • •
('WIEDER) NEBTANDE (MAURER)• • • • •• • • +iEATHER
WIED R)- -) • • N LELSEN •. !ECKENRODE� • •• .•HOLT
(CULVER) . . . . . . .PERRY• • • • • (CRANK) • • • • • • • • •HUTCHISON •
SBEYER) . . . . . . . .SMITH. . . . . . S . . . . . . . .FOX) ' •ISLES • . .
((CORBETT). .WARD,B. . ODLUM) .KAWANAMI . .
(WARD,J) . . . . . . .YAMAMOTO.. (SEIT::) . . . . . . . . .LASZLO • • • •
WIEDER) • • • • • • •NESTANDE • •
DISTRICT 3 (HOLLINDE;!)•• • • • .NIELSEN . • • -
(BAILEY) . . . . . . . .PATTINSON .
(COLLINS) . . . . . .VAN DYKE. . . �CULVER). PERRY . . . .
(ROWAN) . . EVANS. . . . . . HEATHER) .. . . . . .PLUMMER. . .
(HOLLINDEN) . . . .ADLER. . . . . . (DAVIS) . . . . . . . ..REESE . . . . ..
ROGET� : . . . . . . -CORBETT. . . . (STANTON) . .. .. . .RILEY . . . . . .
PERRY . . .CULVER. . . . . (SEYMOUR) • • • • • •ROTH. . . . . .
MNR�7ATK). .FINLAYSON. . (SALTARELLI) . . . .SHARP . . . . . .
CRI �BEYER) . . . . . . . . .SMITH • • • • • •
'FOX . .. . ISLES. . . . . RILEY) . . . . . . •STANTON • .
SEIZ . . . . . .LASZLO. . . • (ZOMMICK . . .. . . .SYLVIA• • • • •
DAVIS : . . . . .REESE. . . . . COLLINS)S . . . . . . .VAN DYKE• • •
SEYMOUR). . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . AHTHONY,A) • • • • •VARDOULIS • .
ZOMMICK) . . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . (HANSON) . . . . . . . .WAHNER• • • •
ROMAGNINO) . . . .WHEELER. . . . SCORBETT) . . . . . . .'WARD,B. . . . .
�NESTANDE). . . . .WIEDER. . (YAMAMOTO) • . • • • •WARD,J . . . . .
BORNH05T) . . . . .WINTERS. . . (FRIED) • • • • • • •WEDAA• • • • • •
WARD,J . . . .. .YAMAMOTO. . (ROMAGNINO) . . . . .WHEELER. . .
DISTRICT 5 (NESTANDE •WIEDER. . . ..
./ (BORNHOFT) • •WINTERS•
MANTON)
URER) . . . . •HEATHER. . . . (WARD,J) . . . . . . . .YAMAMOTO-
RAUSS). . ... .COX . . . . .
. .RILEY. OTHERS
DISTRICT o HARPER• • • •
(CRANK) . HUTCHISON. . SYLVESTER• •
(HEATHERS • • •• • •PLUMMER• - • LEWIS. . . . . .
(RILEY) . . • • .• • •STANTON• CLARKE• • •
BROWN. . . . . .
D ANDERSON• - •
DISTRICT
BAKER
(BEYER) SMITH. . . . . . CONATSER. . .
EISEDGAR DAWES. . . . . .
SAATRRLLTAEL
H • • • • • •HART• • • • • • • FATLAND. - .
IWIEDER) • • • •NESTANDE• • • YOUNG. . . . . .
ANTHONY,A) • • • .VARDOULIS• •
HANSON) • • • • •WAHNER• • • • •
YAMAMOTO) . . . . .WARD,J. . . . - WOODRUFF. . .
HOHENER. . .
DISTRICT 11 HOWARD• • • •
(BAILEY) . . • • •PATTINSON. . HUNT. . . ; : :
(MACALLISTER) . .BAILEY. . . • • LYNCH—'
(NESTANDE) . . . . .WIEDER. . . . . LYNC
MARTINS. ON. .
STEVENS. . . .
2/11/81
SL
\S�
ess Ne,
16
A-94y--40*
CA\ 1{1N L43GC- -W-S w+�o4 A.•c LSc�I e,�sn fks
J o E
i(/4
i
i DISTRICT 5 ADJOURNED MTG. 4/13/81
' NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX
-a) Report of consultant, EDAW, Inc.
Steve Nelson reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR. Verbal comments
from Frank Robinson, representing Friends of Newport Bay, Alan Beek, representing
O.C. Foundation for Preservation of Public Property, and Tom Nielsen, representing
The Irvine Company. Subsequently received written comments from Fred Worthley, Jr.
Department of Fish and Game, and Kenneth Smith, Manager, County of Orange
Environmental Analysis Division. He indicated that basically, the comments
received were points of clarification, requests for information or suggestions
for more detailed grading work to be done. No comments were unsupportive of
restoration effort.
Lumped comments into various groups and briefly outlined each:
(1) Comments re variations to the plans since the Draft EIR was considered re
deletion of removal of spoils pile and transporting to site near Jamboree Road.
Response - Beneficial impacts essentially the same. Landform and enhancement
of biological. No significant change in land use. Potential adverse impacts
also do not change significantly. Land dust from trucks in transporting up
canyon. Air quality and noise more localized. Circulation greatly reduced,
4000 less trips.
(2) Comments expressing concern for erosion control. Most common comment.
Response - Erosion and sediment control to take place in several ways. (1) Measures
to be recommended by soils and grading engineer. Unknown at this point
but will meet City of Newport Beach requirements and Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Newport Beach has most stringent requirements in Southern
California. (2) Will be limitations to maximum slope of 71-;,:1 in lio of 5 :1.
(3) Immediate revegetation of recontoured slopes in addition to restoration
following grading. Will be done by using plant species specifically selected
for tolerance of saline soils. (4) Protection of slopes from recreational
vehicles via a moat inhibiting illegal access. Is currently a problem and
hope to preclude that in the future. (5) Toe of slopes will be set back from
main stream course. (5) Will maximize opportunity to move project up from
original completion date of November to October 15 recommended by Fish $ Game
and others to avoid early rains. This opportunity exists because of deletion
of taking spoils to site near Jamboree Road and the time savings.
(3) Comments requesting more information about actual restoration/revegetation plan.
Response - The plan was still incomplete at the time the Draft EIR was considered.
Water will be diverted across restoration area into area of uniform elevation
where it will saturate soils and create conditions suitable for marsh establishment
and growth. The plan is to hand transplant predominent marsh species found in
upstream areas to restoration area. Details to be worked out but preliminary
indications are that there is a potential source at San Joaquin Reserve.
Established methods do exist to do this successfully. Have spoken to two
project leaders of similar efforts and feel it could be done with high degree
of success.
(4) Comments regarding dedication to non-profit organization and future allowable
uses in area'
Stated that District staff informed consultant that dedication to non-profit
organization is not consistent with thinking to date and will have to be resolved
between The Irvine Company and recipient of land should project go ahead.
As far as allowable uses, language in Coastal Permit clearly states that if
dedicated, regardless of recipeint, area B to be preserved as Open Space
Conservation easement and the offer shall provide for permanent protection
of habitat values of area.
(5) Comments expressing concern for archaeological and paleontological interests
in Big Canyon area.
No impact expected. Moving them would only enhance and protect.
Mr. Nelson further reported that in addition to comments, The Irvine Company
made some suggestions on how to handle some grading constraints. Proposed
grading plan which illustrates an effective method of reducing sediment transport.
Called in geotechnical engineer to certify that placement of fill will remove future
landslide potential. Suggested channel downstream of the concrete dip crossing
should be protected from erosion and the slope of the moat should be very flat.
These will be considered.
Chairman Heather asked if there were any questions. Carl Wilcox, Dept. of Fish $
Game, said that comments seem fine to them but just mentioned the need for
adequate control mechanism for the road access through restoration area.
Heather advised that she had discussed dedication of easement at the Council's
study session didn't hear any substantial comment against it. Cox asked if
it was clear who the ultimate owner of the property to be transferred was.
The Irvine Company answered that it was not clear. Irrevocable dedication to
the Coastal Commission.
Mr. Harper asked if this plan was consistent with the Coastal Commission's
preliminary staff recommendations. Allan Tebbetts answered, yes, it is.
Staff summary and recommendation are consistent with original conditions. Added
that the the present time they are not sure we will have the full support of
the Friends of the Bay. This is set for hearing and voting at the same meeting
on Wednesday afternoon. Heather asked if this also reflects the way we are
handling the spoils pile? Tom Dawes that the Coastal Commission agrees with
the present plan before Directors.
(3) $ Plans and Specs for Contract 5-24 and 5-24-1
(4)
Tom Dawes advised that there are two separate sets of plans and specs that are
nearly complete for sewer and restoration job. Are currently advertising both
of these jobs so contractors who may be interested can complete a set of
pre-qualification requirements. Are doing that on both projects to get a
substantial contractor who is very familiar with each job and can complete within
time required on both. Will have pre-qualification hearing. Will receive
pre-qualification results on Monday. Will review and bring results to Board at
the May meeting. Then will send documents out to those who make the list and
will be opening bids in June sometime. Will be ready to award both contracts at
July Board meeting. Added that we have about half the pipe in our yard right now
and will have enough time for the contractor to purchase the rest.
-2-
Tom Woodruff then stated that these two projects will be financed by the agreements
with The Irvine Company and Daon. We entered into agreement with TIC in 1976 and
they deposited $50,000 which was able to be used by the District to pay for necessary
engineering and preliminary work. Said in the past year we have been working
at coming to grips as to whether to use the old agreement, amend it, or come up
with a new agreement. His opinion is that 1976 agreement is outdated. There
is one significant, substantive problem with agreement. 176 agreement says
District will repay $600,000 advance at the rate of $100,000 per annum. Brought
this to the Board about a year ago. The Daon agreement does not have this provision.
It simply says that we will pay it back as quickly as possible. The Board
approved that as the way to proceed. Accordingly, the agreement was revised in
that fashion. Went back and forth with The Irvine Company. At one time agreed
to go with the old, then go with the new agreement. Said he got a letter last
Thursday which said they now want the old agreement to stay in effect. Said we
have got to come to grips with this. Seems difficult to go ahead with agreement
that we know we can't live up to even though 176 agreement provides no recourse
in the event of default by the District. No way we can guarantee $100,000. New
agreement says we will give all of the surplus. District has two agreements for
$600,000 and $400,000. Money will be on 60/40 split. Original agreement didn't
anticipate that. Original agreement says other connection charges. Irvine Company
says we will work out cash flow problem but we still don't have it in writing.
Heather asked if Irvine Company knew of agreement with Daon. Tom said yes, they
knew but they were not a party to the agreement. Said Daon really wanted agreement
and was in a hurry. Agreed to no interest from the District. Are paying 41-2% to
The Irvine Company. Said that Irvine Company has reaffirmed their pledge in 1976
agreement but it is in conflict with what both sides want to do with payment schedule.
JWS added that the cash flow schedule does include repayment of the loan on the
assumption of connection surcharges of $600,000 for Zone 2 over a 5-year period.
•• The difference between 176 agreement and proposed new agreement is that 176 agreement
specifies that we have to pay $100,000 per year. New agreement specifies we only
have to pay out as much as received in Zone 2 surcharge.
Tom Nielsen of The Irvine Company stated that they have an obligation to put up
$600,000 and realize they have no recourse if District doesn't pay. Want project
to move forward. Will put up money when District asks for it. If problem is one
of repayment, will work with District to do that. Think we can work out payment
before award of projects. Riley asked if he was reassuring them that he and TLW
can work together. Nielsen said they would prefer not to change agreement but
will work with TLW to see what can be arranged. Never felt that original agreement
needed a change except recommendations re prospective cash flow. Feel confident
that we can resolve prpblem by award date.
TLW stated he just wanted to advise Board that they are going out with plans and
specs tonight and if we don't have an agreement in a couple of weeks, will call
Directors back into session. Will have to make a decision as to whate kind of
agreement Board agreed to make with the Irvine Company. Board should make a
decision as to whether it is prepared to pay $100,000 per year or pay it back with
all Zone 2 surcharges or whatever.
Nielsen said that the Irvine Company is prepared to accept payback of all connection
fees on the basis of 60/40. When each connection fee comes in, no matter from whom,
then it is distributed 60/40. Will agree to that.
TLW stated that the question was with regard to the absolute fee--the $600 or the $850
out of Zone 2. The thought is that the $250 should be available to the District if
they should need it and should choose not to pay. All of the $600 surcharge or the $850?
Nielsen stated that the $600 is okay. TLW replied then there was no problem. Will
take Nielsen's word for the Irvine Company.
-3-
(5) Possible implementation of user charges
Heather reported that at the Council 's study session they agreed not to put this
charge on the water bill. Said Strauss would like it to be more equitable.
She stated she was leaning to Alternate A. Do have to move fast in order to
get something on the tax bill for this year.
Riley asked if Alternate A is what the staff recommends? FAH replied that it is
the staff's intent if we are going to go with something this year, to be as
equitable as possible. Would recommend a rather low fee to start with because
we wouldn't have complete equity. Do have two people in Industrial Waste that
we can get to the water department as quickly as possible to get flow information.
Then we have to cross check that. Have quite a bit that will have to be done.
Said staff would like more time if we had our druthers.
Cox stated that the general consensus was that we should do this this year and
create as much as equity as we can. Mr. Harper indicated we will need an
escape clause in the ordinance so Board or Manager can make adjustments if we
find inequities as they come up. Heather added we will need appeal procedure also.
Riley said he didn't mind pushing it back a year if we don't need the money this
year. Heather said they need the money. Cox added he thought there is some risks
such as Balboa Peninsula. Said timing is right for P.R. work because of break.
Didn't think $60 a year is so significant. Riley stated, you weren't in the
parking lot last time. It only takes one person to come up and tell how unequitable
it is for him and everybody begins to think they are being ripped off too.
Heather said she thought it was viable now and not in the next year. Referred to
L.A. County's success. Riley stated we can't be compared with L.A. County in any
way. They have different people who do things a lot differently.
JWS indicated that if the Board adopts Alternate A, will proceed immediately but
do have the option to discontinue proceedings.
It was then moved and seconded to approve Alternate A. - Item 5(c) (1)$(2) .
(6) Other business
Board adopted Resolution No. 81-60-5 approving agreement with Department of Fish
and Game in connection with the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage
Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1.
-4-
. �'cY-t�e�.v-�-�► �w tea--t� �-,.--,�.�-- -
Oct *Wwo
. lot
f}
}L - ` r�l �.■....
AL1
r
a...-A - - ---- ---- -
, ... f 770
1. ,
1- ti
-A.7-4t OV
Al
P '
d �
Y
7
4-1
APA+- --
1
now
smol
1
Al 4b
owft-
54
4vo
ure"
006- 6,
-at OL
L"L-e
L(I
in 1�
IZ
AA- a.
NOW
4o
Interoffice Memorandum THE IRVINE COMPANY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
T0: Charlie Jencks CC Sat Tamaribuchi w/o attach.
Dayne Stiles
r �
Steve hunk
From: Steve Hawkins
Date: April 7, 1981
Subject: Big Canyon Restoration Project
The following are comments in regards to the Grading Plan for tlhe Big Canyon
Marsh Restoration Project. It is our understanding that you will be drafting
a letter to present The Irvine Company's comments:
1) Attached is a marked up copy of the proposed grading plan which
illustrates an effective method of reducing sediment transport.
This method is the construction of diversion itches at 1% gradian
and downdrains. In addition, a temporary filter fence can be con-
structed along; the toe of the slope to filter out coarse 'sediment
particles until adequate vegetation has been established. Tile hydro-
seeding and mulching of the site will further reduce the potential
of surface erosion.
2) The proposed filling operate will be within the area of a recent
landslide. A geotechnical enginger should certify that placement
of fill will remove uture landslide potential.
3) The channel, downstream of the concrete dip crossing, should be
protected from erosion; due to the channels bottlenecking and
flaring. There should also be channel protection at the culvert
along Backbay Drive.
4) The slope of the moat should be very flat.
SJ1i:pc
Attachment
t b
f
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
April 13, 1981 - 5:30 p.m.
Newport Beach City Hall Annex
3330 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of April 8, 1981, the
Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California
met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, at the Newport
Beach City Hall Annex.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5 :30 p.m. The roll was called
and the Secretary reported a quorum present.
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Jacqueline Heather (Chairman), John Cox, Jr.
and Thomas Riley
DIRECTORS ABSENT: None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne
Sylvester, Secretary, Rita Brown, Hilary
Baker and Tom Dawes
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Joe
Devlin, Dave Dmohowski, Charlie Jencks,
Steve Nelson, Tom Nielsen, Allan Tebbetts
and Carl Wilcox
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Report of EDAW, Inc. , Steve Nelson of EDAW, Inc. , District's
District's consultant, consultant, briefly reviewed the oral comments
on comments received on received at the March 30th public hearing on
Final Supplemental EIR the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
re Enhancement Program re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon
for Big Canyon Drainage Drainage Area. He also reported that addi-
Area tional written comments had been received
from the California Department of Fish and
Game and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency subsequent to the
hearing. Mr. Nelson then categorized the various types of comments received
and summarized the responses thereto which have been incorporated into the
final EIR.
Following a brief discussion, Allen Tebbetts, Special Counsel for the District,
stated that the restoration plan is in compliance with the conditions originally
established by the Coastal Commission and they are in agreement with the proposed
plan.
Receive and file written It was moved, seconded and duly carried:
comments re Draft Supple-
mental EIR re Enhancement That the written comments received from the
Program for Big Canyon Department of Fish and Game, dated April 6, 1981,
Drainage Area and the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency, dated April 8, 1981, relative to the
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) re Enhancement Program for
the Big Canyon Drainage Area be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed.
Receive, file and approve Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Final Supplemental EIR re
Enhancement Program for the That the Final Supplemental Environmental
Big Canyon Drainage Area Impact Report re Enhancement Program for
the Big Canyon Drainage Area be, and is
hereby, received, ordered filed and approved; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That the Board of Directors hereby certifies that said
Final Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with the State and
District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended.
Approving agreement with It was moved, seconded and duly carried:
State of California, Dept.
of Fish and Game, re Enhance? That the Board of Directors hereby adopts
ment Program for Big Canyon Resolution No. 81-60-5, approving Agreement
Drainage Area Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration
with the State of California, Department of
Fish and Game, in connection with the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon
Drainage Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) . A certified copy
of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Discussion re agreement with The District's General Counsel reported on
e Irvine Company re the agreement entered into with The Irvine
construction of the Back Bay Company in 1976 re advance payment of connection
Trunk Sewer fees in order to construct the Back Bay Trunk
Sewer to serve properties owned by The Irvine
Company. Mr. Woodruff pointed out that due to the current financial status of
the District, the payment provisions of the 1976 agreement need to be revised.
He indicated that negotiations with The Irvine Company relative to preparation
and approval of a new agreement had been under way for some time but, as yet,
no new agreement had been executed and that The Irvine Company recently
indicated that they would prefer to continue with the existing agreement.
Mr. Woodruff stressed the importance of resolving the repayment issue prior
to advertising for bids for construction of said project.
Following a lengthy discussion relative to the provisions of the current
agreement and proposed changes to be included in a new agreement with Thy
Irvine Company, Tom Nielsen, representing The Irvine Company, commented , 11 their
position relative to repayment of the loan and assured the Board that the
necessary terms and conditions could be worked out to the District's satisfaction,
prior to award of a contract for the Back Bay Trunk Sewer, to enable the project
to proceed.
-2-
Approving plans and Following a brief report by the Deputy Chief
specifications for Engineer on the bidding procedure to be followed,
Contract No. 5-24 it was moved, seconded and duly carried:
�.d That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 81-58-5, approving plans
and specifications for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, from Newport Dunes to Jamboree
Pump Station, Contract No. 5-24, and authorizing the General Manager to establish
the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached
hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Approving plans and Moved, seconded and duly carried:
specifications for
Contract No. 5-24-1 That the Board of Directors hereby adopts
Resolution No. 81-59-5, approving plans and
specifications for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area (Big
Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, and authorizing the
General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy
of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Discussion re implementation Following a staff review of the required
of user charges procedures and actions necessary to establish
a user fee and collect said fee on the annual
property tax bill, the Board entered into a discussion of the alternative time-
tables for implementation of such a fee.
It was then moved, seconded and duly carried:
That Alternative A, to implement user fees to be collected on the property
tax bill beginning with the 1981-82 fiscal year be adopted; and,
V./
FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to proceed with implementation
thereof.
Waiving provisions of Following a brief discussion of the need to
purchasing resolution expedite procurement of necessary materials,
re user fee program supplies and services to enable implementation
implementation of the user fee program in accordance with the
adopted timetable, it was moved, seconded and
duly carried:
That the provisions of District Purchasing Resolution No. 81-24 be, and are
hereby, waived and that the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to procure
necessary materials, supplies and services to implement said user fee program.
Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5
be adjourned to S: 30 p.m., April 29, 1981, at Newport Beach City Hall Annex.
The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 6:25 p.m., April 13, 1981.
V Chairman of the Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. S
of Orange County, California
Secretary of the Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 5
of Orange County, California
-3-
EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
An adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation
District No. 5 , of Orange County, California, was held on April 13 ,
19 81 , at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley,- California.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. . The roll was called
and a quorum of the Board was reported present.
Directors present: Jacqueline Heather, Chairman, John Cox and Thomas Riley
Directors absent: None
Present: J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary of the Board.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. , April 29, 1981,
at Newport Beach City Hall Annex. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 6:25 p.m. , April 13, 1981.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 5 , of Orange County, California, do hereby certify
the above and foregoing to be full, true and correct copy of minute entries
on record taken from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, on the 13th
day of April , 19 81 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of County Sanitation District No. 5 , this 13th day of April ,
1981 . &—i
Sec e ry,OV Sa of Directors of
Co t S ita 'on District No. 5
5-110