Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-08COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE CEUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) August 2, 1984 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. lJ 2J 3J SJ 6J 7 & 11 WEDNESDAYJ AUGUST 8J 1984 -7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 s4a-291 a 962-2411 The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above hour and date. Scheduled Upcoming Meetings: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE -None Scheduled BUILDING COMMITTEE -Wednesday, August 22nd at 5:30 p.m. SELECT co~~~ITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF -Wednesday, August 29th at 5:30 p.m. (Tentative) August September October November December January February March April May June July August COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of 0 RANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 . 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUN"FAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714)S62·2411 JOINT BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATES Joint Board Meetings Executive Committee Meetings Aug 8, 1984 None Scheduled Sep 12, 1984 Sep 26, 1984 Oct 10, 1984 Oct 24, 1984 Nov 14, 1984 Nov 28, 1984 Dec 12, 1984 None Scheduled Jan 9, 1985 Jan 23, 1985 Feb 13, 1985 Feb 27, 1985 Mar 13, 1985 Mar 27, 1985 ·Apr 10, 1985 Apr 24, 1985 May a, 1985 May 22, 1985 Jun 12, 1985 Jun 26, 1985 Jul 10, 1985 Jul 24, 1985 Aug 14, 1985 None Scheduled u 1 II Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellls Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA. MEETING DATE AUGUST 8, 1984 -7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENI HEAD. IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT /:OU P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY'S MEETING (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Recognition of persons ~ho wish to be heard on specific agenda items '--" (Si Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any. ~ See supplemental agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT ACTION: If no corrections or amendments are made, the following (7) minutes will be deemed approved as mailed and be so ordered by the Chairman: District 1 -July 11, 1984, regular District 2 -July 11, 1984, regular District 3 -July 11, 1984, regular District 5 -July 11, 1984, regular District 6 -July 11, 1984, regular District 7 -July 11, 1984, regular District 11 -July 11, 1984, regular ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Manager (c) General Counsel (8) 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 vote will be regarded as the same for each District represented unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for any District.) See page(s) "A• and "B" ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - Joint Working Capital Fund Self-Funded Insurance Funds DISTRICT NO. 1 DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. 5 DISTRICT NO. 6 DISTRICT NO. 7 DISTRICT NO. 11 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT DISTRICTS NOS. 6 & 7 JOINT 7/11/84 $363,322.92 247,838.94 71,142.49 1,473.55 798.30 48,419.44 311.96 20.38 2,801.32 9,483.92 815.05 3,048.24 $749,476.51 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 9 (a) THROUGH 9"(1) 7/25/84 $324,002.02 103,400.23 50,839.04 16,846.50 136.00 14,636.72 3,007.90 37,432.02 116. 36 16,891.22 6,713.36 2,416. 33 $576,437.70 (9) ALL DISTRICTS All matters placed on 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- 8/08/84 (9) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to issue Change Order A to Purchase Order No. 15223 to Ponton Industries, Inc. for purchase of Influent Magnetic Replacement Flow Meters, Specification No. E-142, increasing the total amount by $715 from $119,022.00 to $119,737.00 for additional engineering design services for the metering transition equipment on the interplAlnt·influent interceptor. (b) (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, for an addition of $609.43 to the contract with Frank Ultimo & Sons for miscellaneous modifications and additional work. See page "C" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-134, accepting Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "D" (c) (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Stairway and.Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, granting a time extension of 68 calendar days to the contract with Paramount Metals because of District-caused delays and unavoidable delays in materials delivery. See page "E" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-135, accepting Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "F" . (d) (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Piping for Return Sludge Chlorination at Plant No. 2 Settling Basins, Job No. PW-123, authorizing an addition of $10,466.09 to the contract with Pascal & Ludwig Engineers for replacement of existing manifolds found to be unsuitable and encasing of the new 8-inch piping, and.granting a time extension of 12 calendar days for completion of said additional ~ork. See page "G" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-136, accepting Piping for Return Chlorination at Plant No. 2 Settling Basins, Job No. PW-123, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "B" (e) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report dated July 25, 1984, relative to Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Rehabilita~ion of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2, and supplemental repair needed on the Bushard Trunk. (Copy enclosed with agenda material) (ITEM (e) continued on page 4) -3- 8/08/84 (9) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (e) (2) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Rehabilitation of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2, and Phase III, Job No. I-2R-3, authorizing an addition of $22,608.87 to the contract with V Sancen Engineering, Inc. to remove and dispose of accumulated rock and other debis found covering an area approximately 2,640 feet long between Manholes Nos. 3 and 5. See page "I" (3) Consideration of motion authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Supplemental Repair of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2A (f) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue a purchase order contract to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for the first annual "turn around" inspection services and for any repairs required on valves, fittings and appurtenances on the cryogenic oxygen equipment at the Treatment Plant No. 2 advanced treatment facility, for an amount not to exceed $26,000.00 (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-137, authorizing J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, to sign all contracts and documents not required to be executed by the Chairman of a respective District, and rescinding Resolution No. 76-94 which authorized the retired General Manager, Fred A. Harper, to sign sai~ documents. See page "J" (h) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file protest submitted by McKinley Equipment Corporation re award of purchase of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, Specification No. A-120, '\_,) to Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company, at the June 13, 1984 Board Meeting, alleging that the low bid of Taylor-Dunn did not fully comply with the specifications. See page "K" (2) Consideration of motion to receive and file the General Counsel's opinion that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company is in compliance with the specifications and, in fact, is the low bidder, and recommending that the protest of McKinley Equipment Corporation be rejected. See page "L" (3) Consideration of motion finding that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company is in compliance with Specification No. A-120, for purchase of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, and rejecting the protest of McKinley Equipnent Corporation. (i) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to issue Change Order D to Purchase Order No. 8695 to K. P. Lindstrom, Inc. for consulting services to assist the Districts' staff in preparing responses to the Environmental Protection Agency relative to approval of the Districts' application for a 30l(h) waiver of secondary treatment requirements, providing for additional consulting services and technical assistance re preparation of a draft non-industrial source control program, as required by the Districts• 30l(h) Waiver/NPDES Permit, on a per diem fee basis, at no increase in the total maximUJT' authorized purchase order amount of $56,750.00 ~ -4- 8/08/84 (9) DISTRICT 2 (j) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-146-2, ordering annexation of 1.205 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Imperial Highway and Mohler Drive in the City of Anaheim, proposed Annexation No. 44 -Albers Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2. See page nMn DISTRICT 7 (k) (1) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for design of the Main Street.Relief Subtrunk, Contract No. 7-2C-4, to provide for surveying services required during construction of said project. (2) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for design of the South Irvine Lift Station and Relief Subtrunk, Contract No. 7-7, to provide for surveying services required during construction of said project. (3) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for design of the Von Karman Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-8, to provide for surveying services required during construction of said project. (1) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-148-7, ordering annexation of .45 acres of territory to the District located on Randall Street between Meads Avenue annd Clark Avenue in the City of Orange, propo~ed Annexation No. 107 -Huff Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. See page. "N" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items deleted from the consent calendar, if any -5- (11) (12) 8/08/84 ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive, file and approve the Committee's written report Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: ALL DISTRICTS (a) (1) Consideration of motion approving Phase IA EDP recommendations and authorizing staff to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $88,000 plus tax and freight for purchase, installation and testing of an ITG/Integrity Computer System to upgrade the Districts' existing Data General mini-computer system. (2) Consideration of motion approving Phase IB EDP recommendations and authorizing staff to complete evaluation of the Districts' present and anticipated management information system needs and report back to the Fiscal Policy Committee regarding: (a) The feasibility and anticipated cost of engaging a software vendor to develop enhancements to existing software and reporting capabilities to provide expanded management information (b) The feasibility and anticipated cost of further upgrading the Districts• EDP system with micro-computers to prov~de· improved management information and analytical capabilities (b) Consideration of motion authorizing payment to Coast Insurance Agency of $40,800.00 for the increased annual premimn for Excess Liabiity Coverage for the period July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985 (c) (1) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to negotiate and issue a purchase order to CENTEL Business Systems, Inc. of Irvine in an amount not to exceed $141,300.00 for purchase and installation of a SL-1.MS telephone system, as recommended by the Districts• consultant, Natel & Company (2) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to direct Natel & Co. ( --:" to proceed with Phase II consulting services to assist the Districts in contract negotiations with CENTEL and serve as the Districts' project manager for the installation, testing and acceptance of the new telephone system, for the amount of $8,500.00 (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue Change Order B to Purchase Order No. 15599 to Falcon Services for Interim Out-of-County Trucking of Residual Solids, Specification No. S-031, extending the term of the required trucking services from August 15 through September 15, 1984, and increasing the total authorized amount from $252,000 to an amount not to exceed $352,000 (ITEM 12 continued on page 7) -6- 8/08/84 (12) (Continued from page 6) DISTRICT 3 (e) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file claim from the City of Fountain Valley dated June 27, 1984, for reimbursement for the cost of repairing 10 City sewer manholes (2) Consideration of motion authorizing payment to the City of Fountain valley in the amount of $10,000.00 for repairing damage to 10 City sewer manholes, provided that the City agrees to install a protective coating on said manholes to prevent further deterioration and to hold the Districts harmless from any claim for future damages, as reconunended by the Executive Committee (13) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of the following resolutions establishing charges for Class I, Class II and Class III permittees, pursuant to provisions of the uniform Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities of the respective Districts: See page "O" Class I & II Fee Class III Fee Dist. No. Resolution No. Flow(*) S.S.(*) B.O.D. (*) Flow(*) 1 84-138-1 $227.37 $65.10 $60. 77 $489.81 2 84-139-2 213.34 65.10 60.77 475.78 3 84-140-3 227.17 65.10 60.77 489.61 5 84-141-5 286.88 65.10 60.77 .549. 32 6 84-142-6 216.56 65.10 60.77 479.00 7 84-143-7 295.08 65.10 60.77 557.52 11 84-144-11 230.27 65.10 60.77 492.71 * Flow -Per million gallons of flow s.s. -Per thousand pounds of suspended solids B.O.D. -Per thousand pounds of biochemical oxygen demand (14) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve Interim Report of the Select Committee to Advise the Staff, recommending a change in the basis of calculating the joint ownership percentage. (Copy enclosed with agenda material) (b) Consideration of motion declaring intent to approve an amendment to the Joint OWnership, Operation and Construction Agreement, changing the basis of calculating the joint ownership percentage from flow and assessed valuation to flow only, contingent upon execution of an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District prior to December 1, 1984, providing for the formation of County Sanitation District No. 14, and further providing that the existing Districts not incur a net financial loss as a result of said policy revision and District No. 14 formation (15) ALL DISTRICTS Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any -7- 8/08/84 (16) DISTRICT 1 other business or. communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (17) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn (18) DISTRICT 3 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (19) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (20) DISTRICT 11 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (21) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (22) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any: (a) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee certification re final negotiated fee with for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26 (See Supplemental Agenda - Selection Committee meets 8/3) (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 84-approving agreement with ---------------------------for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26, on an hourly-rate basis, for a total amount not to exceed $ (See Supplemental Agenda - Selection Committee meets 8/3) (23) DISTRICT 6 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (25) DISTRICT 5 (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report dated August 2, 1984, relative to the ruptured line on the Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer. See page "P" (b) Verbal status update report re ruptured line (c) Consideration of motion ratifying action of staff in issuing Purchase Order No. 17041 to K.E.C. Company in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 for emergency repairs to the Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer and replacement of the deteriorated force main (26) DISTRICT 5 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (27) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn -a- (28) 8/08/84 DISTRICTS 2 & 7 (a) Public Bearing on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 (Draft EIR and Staff Swnmary mailed to Directors on 7/3) (1) Open hearing (2) Verbal report from EIR consultant, Ultrasystems, Inc. (3) Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments relative to the Draft EIR, if any (4) Consideration of oral comments, if any (5) General discussion and staff comments (6) Close hearing (b) Consideration of motion directing staff and consultant to prepare Final Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 after the close of the comment period on August 27, 1984 (29) DISTRICT 2 Second reading and adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries: See page "Q" (a) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area· zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries, by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present) (b) Discussion and connnents, if any (c) Consideration of motion to adopt Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries (30) DISTRICT 2 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (31) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (32) DISTRICT 7 Other business or communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ( 33) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn -9- N'tANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS Meeting Date August 8, 1984 -7:30 p.m. Post Ottice Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: 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 meeting. To minimize the amount of redundancy and duplication in the agenda material and reduce the number of comments in the Manager's Report, we have expanded the description of the agenda items in the agenda itself, particularly with regard to change orders and contracts which have been publicly bid and are within the contract budget or engineer's estimate. Detailed change orders are included in the supporting material as well as the bid tabulations for the contracts being recommended for award. No. 9(a): Approval of Change Order No. A to Purchase Order with Ponton Industries for Transition Design for Specification No. E-142. In February, the Boards awarded Specification No. E-142 to Ponton Industries, Inc. to furnish seven magnetic flow meters to monitor the influent from trunk sewers in Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 at a total cost of $119,022 plus tax and delivery. -These meters are needed to comply with a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency as a condition of the Districts' proposed 301Ch) Waiver /NPDES Permit. The original bids anticipated putting a new meter on one barrel of the Interplant Interceptor (this 96" sewer splits from a single line to two 42" barrels at the Plant 2 Headworks) and the continued use of an existing Interplant meter on the other barrel. It has since been determined that providing identical meters for the split metering system would produce the same flow characteristics and thus, more accurate metering data. The existing 42" Interplant meter will be moved to the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer. This change requires additional design work on the metering transition equipment to adapt the second new meter to be installed on the Interplant Interceptor. Accordingly, the action appearing on your agenda is to approve an increase of $715 to 8/8/84 Purchase Order No . 15223 to Ponton Industries, Inc. for the engineering services required for the additional transitional design. The staff recommends appr ova l of the change order in the amount of $715.00 No. 9(b): Approval of Change Order No. 1 to Job No . PW -112, Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2; and Acceptance of Job as Complete . 1) Change Order No. 1: Change Order No . 1 covers 16 add or deduct items of work for a net contract addition of $609.43 . There is no time extension associated with this Change Order. It inc l udes such work as relocation of utilities and changes in fixtures, wiring and types of materials used in the construction. The staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $609.43. 2) Closeout: The contractor, Frank Ultimo ·& Sons , has fulfilled all contractual obligations within the specified contract time . Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution attached with the agenda material authorizing acceptance of the work as complete, execution of the final closeout agreement and filing of the Notice of Completion as required . There was one change order to this contract (No. 1 above) for a net addition of $609 .43. The final contract price is $20,578 .43. No . 9(c): Approval of Change Order No . 1 to Job No . PW-115, Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2; and Acceptance of Job as Complete. 1) Change Order No. 1: Change Order No . 1 is a time extension of 68 calendar days. This Change Order is granted to the Contractor because of delays in materials delivery and scheduling delays caused by the Districts ' inability to shut down critical treatment process operations within the plant to accomodate the work. The staff recommends approval of Change Order No . 1 for a 68-calendar day time extension. 2) Closeout: The contractor, Paramount Metal and supply, Incorporated, has fulfilled all contractual obligations within the specified contract time , and approved extensions of time. Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution attached with the agenda material authorizing acceptance of the work as complete, execution of the final closeout agreement and filing of the Notice of Completion as required . There as one change order to this contract (No . 1 above) for an extension of 68 calendar days . The final contract price is $28 ,483.00 -2- 8/8/84 No. 9(d): Approval of Change Order No . 2 to Job No. PW-123, Piping for Return Sludge Chlorination at Plant No. 2 Secondary Settling Basins; and Acceptance of Job as Complete. 1) Change Order No . 2 : In June , the Boards approved Change Order No. 1 which addded $9,653.63 and 30 calendar days to this contract for the replacement of 800 feet of an existing 10 -inch chlorine line with a new 8 -inch line. The specifications for this project anticipated using the 10 -inch line which was ins t al l ed about 15 years ago; however, due to the uncertainty of the integrity of the line because of its age, testing was required by the specifications to determine its condition. After testing by the contractor uncovered multiple leaks, it was determined that it would be more economical to replace the line than to repair the many leaks found and Change Order No. 1 was authorized for that work. Change Order No. 2 adds $10,466.0 9 and ~2 calendar days to the contract for the replacement of old, above ground chlorine manifolding at the chlorination station as well as concrete encasement of a portion of the new 8" chlorine line which was not in pipe trenches. This encasement was necessary after it was determined during construction excavation that interference from existing underground utilities would cause the installation to be shallower than originally anticipated. In order to assure protection of this line at its shallower location, it is necessary to encase the pipe. The 12 day time extension is required in order to accomplish the work. Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $10,466 .09 . 2) Closeout: The Contractor, Pascal & Ludwig Engineers , has fulfilled .all contractual obligations within the specified contract time and approved extensions of time . Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution attached with the agenda material authorizing acceptance of the work as complete, execution of the Final Closeout Agreement and filing of the Notice of Completion as required. There were two change orders to this contract for a net addition of $20,119.72 . The final contract price is $72,614 .72. While the two change orders do represent 38 % of the total contract, the necessity for replacement of the 15 year old chlorine line could not be adequately determined until the condition of the line was evaluated. As stated above, the staff did anticipate that a new line might be required but did not wish to include it in the original specifications before on-site testing could be performed by the contractor to determine if it was absolutely necessary. The project will improve solids settling at the Plant No . 2 secondary treatment facility and enhance our ability to meet the 30l(h) Waiver /NPDES Permit requirements. -3- 8/8/84 No. 9(e): Actions Concerning Rehabilitation of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2 and Phase III, Job No. I-2R-3 . In March, the Directors awarded a contract for the Rehabilitation of the 30 year old Bushard Trunk Sewer. The work consists of installation of a protective lining on this reinforced concrete sewer which has suffered varying degrees of corrosion from hydrogen sulfide gas attack over the years. There are three actions concerning this project appearing on your agenda. 1) Receive and File Staff Report. Enclosed with the agenda material is a separate staff report describing a condition that has been encountered by the contractor during his reconstruction work. A portion of the sewer has been found to be severely deteriorated which has resulted in considerable extra work, as , set forth in Change Order No. 1, to remove obstructions. It will also require additional structural work in the area of the severe deterioration to maintain the integrity of the s ewer , which staff recommends be competitively bid due to the estimated $135,000 cost. 2) Approve Change Orde r No. 1. Change Order No. 1 adds $22,680.87 to the contract and is required because large accumulations of rock and other rubble have been found in the pipeline approximately 1,000 feet north of Hamilton Avenue to approximately 1300 feet north of Atlanta Avenue. The changed work includes the removal of the rock and other material so that it would not enter the plant nor impede the sewage flow. The sketch attached to the staff report explains this in greater detail and shows the locations of the debris. The staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $22,680.87. There is no time extension associated with this change order. 3) Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Supplemental Repair of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2A Also during reconstruction it has been discovered that the hydrogen sulfide gas attack and corrosion on the top of a stretch of th e reinforced concrete pipe has severely reduced the structural integrity of the pipe. Staff is concerned that this situation could eventually cause the collapse of either the pipe or the street at some future date and is therefore requesting authority for the preparation of plans and specifications to effect a permanent repair. It is anticipated the repair would be a reinforced concrete saddle on the outside top half of the pipe which would transfer the earth and traffic loads around the pipe , thus removing all load stress on the facility. The third action recommended by the staff is to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for competitiv ely bidding this permanent repair. -4- 8/8/84 No. 9(f): Authorize Issuance of Purchase Order to Air Products and Chemicals, Incorporated for Required Maintenance on the Cryogenic Oxygen Equipment. Appro x imately eighteen months ago the Districts put the oxygen generation equipment for the secondary treatment facilities at Plant No. 2 into service. This unit produces pure oxygen utilized in our advanced treatment facility. Safety requirements dictate that a complete teardown and inspection of this cryogenic equipment, and the performance of any maintenance and repair work deemed necessary, take place every 12-18 months. Called a "turn around" by the industr y , this process consists of disassembl y , inspection and repair of all v alves, fittings and associated equipment on the cryogenic cold boxes, compressors, instruments, etc. Since this is the first turn around, the Districts do not have staff trained to perform the work. We have contacted various companies that can do this work, however, believe that because of their familiarity with the equipment and experience in these turn arounds, the original manufacturer, Air Products and Chemicals Incorporated, would be the firm best suited to perform the first turn around. Air Products has provided the staff with a price . not to exceed $26,000 to do the work. The assistance would include two machinery engineers to perform a complete tear down and inspection of the two main air compressors. Districts' mechanics will be present to assist in the inspection and to be trained in Air Products procedures and safety precautions in working on these machines. The Districts' forces will be respon- sible for all instrument and electrical maintenance on the units. The staff requests authorization for the issuance of a purchase order to Air Products and Chemicals, Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $26,000 to perform this critical maintenance work. No. 9(g): Authorize Gen eral Manager to Sign All Contracts and Documents Not Required to be Executed by the Chairman of a Respective District and Rescinding Resolution No. 76-94. With the appointment of a new General Manager it is necessar y to adopt the new Resolution No . 84-137 appearing on the agenda which authorizes J. Wayne Sylvester, as your new General Manager, to sign all contracts and documents not requir ed to be executed by the Chairman of an individual District and rescind the Resolution which authorized retired General Manager, Fred A. Harper to sign such documents. -5- 8 /8 /84 No. 9(h): Actions Concerning Bid Protest orr Specification A-120, 4-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers. At the June meeting, the Boards awarded the purchase of • twelve 4-Wheel Electr i c Cargo Carriers to Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company. Subsequently, by letter dated July 16, 1984, McKinley Equipment Corporation protested the award based on the fact that Taylor-Dunn bid on a differen t power unit than specified. The specifications provided for "enclosed power transisters speed control Power-Tron P.T.240 or General Electric EV-10 SCR". Taylor-Dunn bid a Power-Tron P.T. 350 in lieu of the P.T. 240 because they believed that P.T. 240 was insufficient to handle the ordered equipment. McKinley Equipment Corporation is protesting the bid because the larger Power-Tron unit had not had prior approval by the Districts, while McKinley Equipment Corporation had submitted on two models, one, a PMC-5, unknown to the Districts; and the other on the specified G. E. EV-10 SCR. The bid submitted by Taylor-Dunn was $37,401.00, including the control unit of a Power-Tron P.T. 350. The bid submitted by McKinley Equipment Corporation was $37,200.00 for the unspecified model and $40,020.00 using the specified Model G.E. EV-10. The · bid was awarded to Taylor-Dunn on the basis of the lowest bid satisfying the specifications. The Districts' General Counsel has issued an opinion that the bid amount from Taylor-Dunn was clearly less and that the only issue left is whether the P.T. 350 model being proposed by Taylor-Dunn fails to comply with the specifications which called for a P.T. 240 unit. The Counsel's opinion is that Taylor-Dunn proposed a unit from the same manufacturer that is qualified and approved by the Districts, the only difference being that i t is heav ier duty with more power and capability than the Districts requested. The secondary issue of the use of McKinley Equipment's alternate PMC-5 control unit should be resolved on the basis of rejection in that the Districts had not approved of this particular make and model. The General Counsel states that if the vendor sought to utilize this unit, it should have requested the Districts, prior to bids, to review, analyze and make a determination as to whether the product was acceptable. Attached with the agenda material is a copy of the bid protest submitted by McKinley Equipment Corporation, as well as a copy of the General Counsel's recommendation to reject the protest of McKinley Equipment Corporation. The recommended actions appearing on the agenda are to receive and file the bid protest, receive and file the Generai Counsel's recommendation to reject t h e p rotest, and consideration of a motion finding that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing is in compliance with Specification A-120 for the purchase of twelve 4-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers. -6- ~ . ' 8/8 /84 No. 9(i): Authorizing Staff to Issue Change Order D to Purchase Order No. 8695 to K. P. Lindstrom, Incorporated Re NPDES Permit Consulting Services. One of the requirements of the Districts' new NPDES Permit is the preparation of a Non-Industrial Source Control Program. The time schedule contained in the Permit stipulated that the Districts must submit the draft of such a program by December 1, 1984. K. P. Lindstrom, Incorporated has been under contract to the Districts since 1978 for consulting and technical services related to our 30l(h) Waiver /NPDES Permit application. The firm is familiar with the 30l(h) regulations and non-industrial source control program needs. They have prepared these programs for four other 30l(h) applicants. The staff is recommending that Change Order D be issued to Purchase Order No. 8695 to K. P. Lindstrom, Incorporated to prepare the required Non-Industrial Source Control Program. There will be no increase in the maximum amount previously approved by the Boards for the firm's 30l(h) assistance, as there are presently sufficient monies left within the existing purchase order authority to accomplish the work. DISTRICT NO. 2 No. 9(j) Ordering Annexation No. 44 -Albers Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2. This 1.205 acre annexation is for the connection of an existing residence to the sewer facilities in the vicinity of Imperial Highway and Mohler Dri v e in the City of Anaheim. The local sewering agency will be City of Anaheim. All applicable fees have been paid and the annexation is in accordance with the terms of the negotiated agreement with the County of Orange re AB 8 tax e xchang e s for annexing properties. Staff recommends approval of the resolution attached to your agenda material ordering Annexation No. 44 DISTRICT NO. 7 No. 9(k): Authorize the Selection Committee to Negotiate Addenda to Agreements with Boyle Engineering Corporation for Surv eying Services. At the present time, Boyle Engineering Corporation is under contract to design three District Master Plan projects in the -7- 8/8 /84 Irvine area. In July, the Directors approved the plans and specifications for the Von Karman Trunk Sewer and it is anticipated that the plans and specifications for the South Irvine Lift Station and Relief Subtrunk and the Main Street Re l ief Subtrunk will be presented to the Boards for approval in the near future. During the construction of the projec t s, surveying services ~ ' l will be required to assure the horizontal and vertical control of the facilities being constructed. The cost of these services was not included in any of the original agreements with Boyle Engineering Corporation. Since Bo y le has performed all surve y ing required for the design and established horizontal and vertical control , staff is recommending that the Selection Committee negotiate a separate addendum for each contract to provide the necessary construction surveying services . When an agreement has been reached the Selection Committee will submit its recommendations to the Board for approval. No. 9(1): Ordering Annexation No. 107 -Huff Annexation to County Sanitation District No . 7. This .45 acre annexation is for the connection of a single family dwelling to the sewer facilities in Randall Street between Meads Avenue and Clark Avenue in the City of Orange. The local sewering agency will be the City of Orange. All applicable f ees have been paid and the annexation is in accordance with the terms of the negotiated agreement with the County of Orange re AB 8 tax exchanges for annexing properties . Staff recommends approval of the resolution attached to your agenda material ord er ing Annexation No. 107. ALL DISTRICTS No. 11 and 12: Report of the Executi v e Committee The Committee met on July 25th and encl o sed for Board members is a written report o f their discussions and recommended actions for consideration by the Boards. No . 13: Establishing Charges for Class I, II and III Industrial Waste Permitees: Each year, following adoption of the budge ts, the Direc tors establish Industrial User Rates for the fiscal year. Rates h ave -8- .. -' 8/8 /84 been calculated in accordance with the Industrial waste Ordinance adopted by the Boards effective July 1, 1983. As mentioned last year, cost ratios are being distributed to more accurately reflect higher costs for treating suspended solids and BOD as a result of the newly constructed secondary treatment facilities. This redistribution of costs is being done on a phased approach to ease the burden on industry. This year the cost distribution is 42% to flow, 30% to suspended solids and 28% to biochemical oxygen demand. The respective percentages last year were 50%, 25% and 25%. The actions appearing on the agenda listing are for each Districts to set its respective rate for 1983-84. No. 14: Declaring Intent to Revise the Method of Calculating Joint Ownership Percentage From Flow and Assessed Valuation to Flow Only. The Select Committee to Advise the Staff has been meeting for several months to consider the request of the Irvine Ranch Water District to form County Sanitation District No. 14 and purchase capacity in the Districts' sewerage system. As part of their study, the Committee has reviewed the current method of calculating the individual Districts' respective ownership equity on the jointly owned treatment and disposal works. The Committee has concluded that the current formula is inequitable and is recommending that it be revised from a basis utilizing flow and assessed valuation to a basis of flow only which more properly reflects each Districts' use of the facilities. Enclosed with the agenda is an interim report of the Select Committee recommending that the Boards declare their intent to change the basis of calculating the Joint Works ownership percentage from flow and assessed valuation to flow only, contingent upon the execution of an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District providing for the formation of District No. 14, and further providing that such a change in policy, in conjunction with the formation of the new District, not result in a net financial loss to the existing Districts. DISTRICTS NO. 5 AND 6 No. 22: Receive, File and Approve Selection Committee Certification for Design Services Re the Replacement of the Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26. At the June meeting, the Boards authorized the Selection Committee to negotiate an agreement for engineering services required to design the replacement of the Lido Force Main, -9- 8/8/84 Contract No . 5 -26 . The Selection Committee is meeting on Friday , August 3rd to review the proposals received for this work . This item will be placed on the Supplemental Agenda for the August 8th Board meeting for consideration of actions to receive and file the Selection Committee Certification of the final negotiated fee and adopt a resolution approving an agreement with the selected engineer . DISTRICT NO. 5 No. 25 : Actions Concerning Sewer Break on Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer . On Sunday evening, July 29th, a short pressure pipe leading from the 14th Street pump station to a gravity sewer about 400 ' westerly ruptured. Attached to the agenda supporting documents is a separate staff report on the b r eak. The Manager has been in consultation with the Chairman throughout the episode . The actions appearing on the agenda are to receive and file the written staff report and consideration of a motion ratifying the action of the staff in issuing a purchase order to K .E.C . Company in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for emergency repairs and replacement of this section of the Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer . The staff will also update the Board on the status of the work at the meeting on Wednesday . DISTRICTS NO. 2 AND 7 No . 28 : Public Hearing and Actions Concerning EIR on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the formation of Sanitation District No. 13. Last month the Boards fixed August 8, 1984 at 7:30 p .m. as the time and place for public hearing on the Draft EIR for the formation of Sanitation District No . 13. A copy of the full Draft EIR and a staff summary were mailed to the Directors prior to the July meeting. A representative of the Environmental Consultant that prepared the EIR will review the Draft at the Board meeting . The actions appearing on the agenda ar e to comply with the Districts' CEQA Guidelines . Following the heari ng, s taff recommends that the Consultant be directed to prepare the Final EIR after the close of the official comment period on August 27th. The Final EIR will then be submitte d to the Directors for consideration at a subsequent Board meeting. If any Board Members have questions concerning the EIR, please call staff members Tom Dawes or Hilary Baker at 714 /540-2910 . -10- 8/8 /84 DISTRICT NO . 2 No . 29 : Second Reading and Adoption of Proposed Ordinance No. 206 . At the July meeting a detailed report from the District No. 13 Steering Committee was given to the Directors concerning District No. 13. At that time one of the recommended actions taken by the Boards was to introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 206, an Ordinance of County Sanitation District No . 2 Establishing Separate Service Area Zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries. The actions appearing on the agenda are to have the second reading of the Ordinance and to adopt Ordinance No. 206. -11- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE CEUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) August 2, 1984 TO: All Directors and Staff Members TELEPHONES: AREA COOE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Since my election to a full-year term as Joint Chairman of our Districts, I have analyzed the challenges to be faced. The talents that I possess do not include silver-tongued oratory, so I will not try to impress you with a long-winded speech. However, as a good engineer, it seems logical to me to identify the course I intend to follow during my term in office. This will scope the challenges to be faced and also serve as a checklist to identify accomplishments. As always, the most demanding challenge of any organization is its people. The transition from Fred to Wayne is a major element of our challenge. As we all know, beth of these men are h~rdwcrking, talented individuals. However, th~ Boards ha,re also used this time of transition to reorganize the entire management team along more orthodox lines. This move is ideal from the standpoint that no individual loses out. The challenge that this presents is that the growth in staff, along with the reorganization, opens up opportunities for advancement for a limited number of individuals. Growth always challenges talented people to grow in personal ability. A major element of this growth is the necessity to maintain engineering vision. Long-term planning for ad~ance engineering has always been a cornerstone of District philosophy. It must continue to be a major element of our activity. We must all support each ether to insure that these organizational changes achieve the goals fer which they were created. Major challenges confront us as we deal with various qovernmental agencies. The innninent granting of the 30l(h) waiver will assure continuit7 of the treatment program to which we are presently committed. However, the monitoring program will not only be costly but will regularly expose inconsistencies in the scientific conununity's measurement techniques, and significance of results. We must methodically show compliance to the intent of the program at the same time we react to costly elements t~at serv~ no valid purpose. This tightrope will be very difficult since normal emotional reaction to any criticism we voice is usually interpreted that we are trying to get out of doing something. We must regularly strive to achieve our stsndard of excellence so that we ca~ dispel any invalid criticism. Page Two August 2, 1984 A similar challenge is forthcoming as we work toward having our ocean sludge disposal research program. The initial acceptance of our plan by Congressional direction will simply initiate a program which will be subjected to considerable critique. However, our posture in the academic community must be permitted to prevail so that valid scientific data is recorded leading to new environmentally acceptable methods of processing and disposing of waste. Expanded problems of sludge disposal are real elements of our continued challenge. The costs of blind-compliance to arbitrary direction are so high that alternatives must be explored. At the same time, we cannot afford to have a commitment which can be proven to degrade our local environment. The compromise which we reach must accommodate all legitimate local environmental concerns and at the same time be economically sound. These tasks will be high on our agenda during coming months. Another political element requiring attention is the formation of Districts 13 and 14. The justification for both of these Districts is the better service to residents than would be provided otherwise. However, complete equ~ty in the formation of these Districts is essential to their ultimate success. Costs can neither be subsidized by other Districts, nor should the new Districts pay an unfair 6ost. This equity has been achieved in the action for District 13, but we have not yet reached such a detailed conclusion for District 14. Major capital expansion continues to be needed. This is required for increased flows as well as e~ancement of our existing system. It is difficult to have vision for the future at the same time that we are reacting to problems that \...,I continue to be thrust upon us. Our entire technology must be upgraded as we learn more. For example, the more success we achieve in the removal of heavy metals, the less entrapment of odor- causing materials is achieved. The net result is that a satisfactory odor program of a few years ago is invalidated by the heavy metal removal success of our industrial waste control program. Continued burning of methane in simple engines does not comply with increasing restraints on air pollution problems. Thus, new technologies must be developed in place of practices which were completely satisfactory a few years ago. If we maintain our standard of excellence, our new method will exploit everything that we have learned and augment it with new techniques which can be easily defended. Throughout this entire process, my personal goal is to insist upon conclusions which can be presented for each task in a clear and concise form so that an average resident of our Districts can understand exactly what we are doing. Through this process, much uninformed criticism can be dispelled. Again, I thank you for permitting me to be a participant in this activity. I pledge to do my very best. Sincerely, .~~ Joint Chairman July 25, 1984 RE: AGENDA l l t.M •W. STAFF REPORT Change Order No. 1 Rehabilitation of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Adams Avenue to Hamilton Avenue, Job No. I-2R-2 9(e) The District in March 1984 awarded a contract for the rehabilitation of the Bushard Trunk Sewer, Jobs Nos. I-2R-2 and 3. This work consists of the installation of a protective lining on this 30 year old reinforced concrete sewer which has suffered varying degrees of corrosion from hydrogen sulfide gas attack. Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $22, 680. 87, is required because large accumulations of rock and other products found north of manhole No. 3 (located approximately 1, 000 feet north of Hamilton Avenue) had to be removed so that the work could proceed. At manhole No. 3, a measuring weir had been installed over 20 years ago to control flows into the treatment plant and allow measurement of the sewage. This facility has not been in service in recent years, and was removed as part of the contract construction. The rock and other rubble which accumulated upstream of this weir required removal so that it would not enter the plant nor impede the flow. The attached sketch shows the location of the weir, the removed debris and corrosion damage discovered downstream of the weir ·between manhole No. 3 and Hamil ton Avenue. It is surmised by staff that the weir backed up the water to some degree upstream allowing larger rocks and other material to deposit over the years. Downstream of the weir an uneven and unstable water surface resulted which probably allowed larger concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas to be released from the sewage. This gas has severely attacked and corroded the top of the reinforced concrete pipe as shown on the attached photos. This pipe has a single cage of reinforcing steel; corrosion has occurred well past the stee 1 reinforcement. The strength of the pipe is severely reduced and it is quite possible that the pipe and street could collapse at some future date. Staff believes that the most effective way to correct this problem is the installation of a reinforced concrete haunch on the outside of the pipe which would transfer the earth and traffic loads around the pipe using the weakened pipe as a form for the new concrete, all shown on the attached sketch. The pipe will be coated under the current contract to prevent additional corrosion. It is recommended that the Directors authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the correction of this deficiency. It is anticipated that the plans and specifications, which would require excavation of approximately 450 feet in Bushard Street in the affected area, could be completed in about two months. The project, estimated to cost about $135, 000, could be submitted to the Directors at the regular October Board meeting for approval with award estimated for December 1984. While the threat of a street collapsing is real, it is not in immediate danqer and, accordingly, can be bid under normal procedures. Attachments: Sketch Photographs --~S 4 • RC p --:i ORIG .-- IO ~E CAGE . MH+2 S ta . 531-62 .35 H a milton Ave. R e inforcing Stee l =!18" ELLIPTICAL REINF . LONGIT . BARS PROPOSED REPAIR SECTION A-A -54 # RCP .... ,,. Contract l-2R-2 & l-2R-3 Severely Damaged Pipe 450'± MH +4 MH +3 ~ St a 6 6 +8 5 . 3 5 St a 80+05 .35 Atlanta St. A A Bu s h a rd St. WEIR ·~ Debris (Remov e d) (Removed) Change Order No.1 LON G I T. BARS ----.. NORTH ~ M.H.+5 1300'± - TOP OF PIPE REBAR E XPO S ED --"'-. '---EXIST . 1.D . CONCRETE ORIG . l.D . SECTION 8 -8 -DETAIL ._ ~ I nsid e photos of the top of Bushard Trunk S e wer . Note that concrete has bee n corroded well p as t the r e inforci n g ste el which was cover e d b y a minimum of l ~ i n ches of con cre t e at time of installation . Th e rust ed s t ee l s h ow n has completely failed . Approximately o n e -half th e thickness of the pipe is gone . 'i. --. .i.-AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 August 2, 1984 INTERIM REPORT OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA92708 . (714)540-2910 (714)962·2411 SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF RE JOINT WORKS OWNERSHIP FORMULA CURRENT JOINT WORKS OWNERSHIP FORMULA The investment in the joint treatment and disposal facilities and the annual additions to these facilities are shared by the individual Districts based on the Capital Outlay Rev~lving Fund (CORF) ownership percentages. These · percentages are calculated annually by averaging the preceding 3-year's average flow for each District's percent to :the total flow and the 3-year average assessed valuation (A.V.) for each District's percent to the total assessed valuation. The individual Districts buy or sell capacity to each other in the Joint Works annually based upo11 the change in these CORF ownership percents. This method, or formula, has been used since the early days of the Districts. When the formula was first developed it was believed that flow would reflect the current actual use whereas assessed valuation.would be an indicator of future flow requirements as development occurred and would require the developing District to begin paying for facilities expansion slightly in advance of actual need because construction would preceed actual flow increases. The three~year average tends to smooth any dramatic fluctuations in the proportional share of the formula elements. Exhibit 1 summarizes the calculation of each Districts' ownership percentage for the year ended June 30, 1983. INEQUITIES OF CURRENT FORMULA Over the years, inequities have evolved in the CORF ownership because of Proposition 13 and other factors. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 the annual increase in assessed valuation does not necessarily reflect the value of the property. Unless a property changes ownership, or is new construction, the increase in A.V. is limited to 2% of the previous year's A.V. Further, Proposition 13 provided that the 78-79 base year A.V. be adjusted to the March 1, 1975 value. If a property is sold or developed then the A.V. is set equal to the market value at that time. Those Districts which are essentially built-out could experience as little as a 2% growth rate, while developing districts will grow at tlie current market value of new construction in addition to the 2%. Of .course, resale and turnover would cause the actual increase to exceed 2% in a period of rising costs, even in a built-out District. Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 presently use more capacity (based on actual flow) than they own and, conversely, Districts Nos. S, 7 and 11 now own more capacity than they use. Although most of the Districts' current ownership in the Joint Treatment Works is relatively close to the actual use, there District No. 1 which uses. 2.5% more capacity which owns 3.4% more capacity than it needs. ownership/use differentials range from 0.16% are illustrated below: is ·a substantial differential in than it owns and District No. 7 The remaining Districts' to 0.83%. These ownership equities FLOW/AV OWNERSHIP VS. FLOW OWNERSHIP IN JOINT WORKS 6/30/83 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Actual Current Shortfall Purchase (Sale) (Flow & AV) Use (Flow) Only or (Excess) Ownership % Amt if Formula District Ownership % Ownership % of Ownership Differential Changed 1 9.05% 11.57% 2.52% 27.85% $5,318,612 2 29.96 30.41 .45 1.50 949,750 3 31.35 32.18 .83 2.65 1,751,765 5 6.66 5.96 (. 70) (10. 51) (1,477 ,391) 6 5.83 6.33 .so 8.58 1,055,280 7 ·9.10 6.26 ·(3.44). (35.47) (7,260,326) 11 7.45 7.29 ( .16) (2 .15) . (337,690). 100~00% 100.00% -0-% $ With the current consideration of two new sanitation districts, the inequities may be compounded. Proposed District 13 is made up entirely of undeveloped ~ land •. In the initial years, this District's equity percent will be quite low reflecting the low flow and the A.V. of mostly raw land. However, as the District develops the A.V. will rise based· on current housing costs which have increased considerably since ·1975. Although proposed District No. 14 is further develpped than District No. 13, most of the development is post-Proposition 13 and has.been assessed at more recent market values. Regardless of the impacts on the proposed new Districts, the Conunittee is of the opinion that the current method.of calculating the ownership formula must be addressed because of the existing inequities and it appears appropriate at this time to consider alternative means of sharing the Joint Works Capital costs. ALTERNATIVES There are five alternatives to the present formula that were considered for CORF equity percentage calculation: 1. Use a 3-year flow average only and exclude A.V. 2. Use the existing formula but keep A.V. constant at the Proposition 13 level. 3. Use the existing formula for ownership in the Joint Works up to some fixed date and share cost of additions after that date on a new formula -......,,; -2- -o- 4. Use the existing formula but increase A.V. a minimum each year equal to· the change in an inflation index such as the C.P.I. or E.N.R.L.A. If the actual increase exceeded the minimum then the actual would be used. 5. Use the existing formula but weight the average by assigning a factor to the flow or A.V. IMPACT OF NEW DISTRICTS 13 AND 14 Exhibit 2 reflects the impact of proposed Districts 13 and 14 on the ownership percentage calculation for both the existing formula and a flow-based formula. Exhibit 3 summarizes the net effect (in Column L) on the existing Districts if the formula is changed and Districts 13 and 14 are formed and buy into the Joint Works. CONCLUSION The alternative to use flow only is summarized in the above table on page 2. In Districts 2, 3, S, 6, and 11 the· relationship between the existing formula and a formula based on flow only is fairly· close. However, as. noted previously, in District 1 the flow percentage, or use of the facilities, is considerably higher . than the A.V •. per9entage. ·This is due, in part, to the·concentration· of 'exempt. valuations for .local, state and· federal·properties in District 1. This means the District 1 share of joint facilities· is being subsidized by others. This is also true but to a lesser degree in Districts 2, 3 and ?· However, in District 7, which has developed more recently, the situation· is '.,,.,,,I reversed and the A.V. percentage is. considerably higher than the flow (or.use) percentage •. District 7 has, therefore, purchased more Joint Works capacity than it actually uses. Districts 5 and 11 also have more equity than they need, pr~bably due to the relatively higher valuation of the coastal properties. ·A change to a flow or use only based ownership percentage would result in.a substantial purchase (cash outlay} by D·istrict 1. and a sale (receipt) by District 7 based on this wide difference between flow ·and A.V. If this change 1n formula were adopted the payments could be spread over several years to lessen the impact. The attraction of this method is that the equity in existing facilities and the cost of future facilties would be borne based on the actual use. Since the use of A.V. as an element of the formula will only result in inequities for the reasons previously stated, the most logical and equitable approach seems to be a formula based on only flow (Alternative 1 above} to calculate CORF ownerships. This method would result in the Districts' ownership of the system in proportion to their actual use. The immediate impact of a change to a flow-based formula can be· moderated by adopting a time payment plan, or by phasing out the use of A.V. over several years by assigning a decreasing factor for A.V. each year. If, however, the change to a flow only based formula would take place in conjunction with the formation of District No. 14, the income to the existing Districts from the sale of Joint Works Capacity to District No. 14 could result in a net positive financial transaction for the existing Districts. -3- \...,I . RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Boards declare their intent to change the basis of calculating Joint works ownership percentage from flow and assessed valuation to flow only, contingent upon the execution of an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District providing for the formation of District No. 14, and further providing that such a change in policy, in conjunction with the formation of the new District, not result in a net financial loss to the existing Districts. Respectfully Submitted, SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF Richard B. Edgar, Joint Chairman Don R. Griffin, Vice Joint Chairman Don.Roth Don Saltarelli Don Smith David Sills/Sally Ann Miller · -4- 0 1 ·: "' .. (A) (B) District Parameter 1 FLOW AV 2 FLOW AV 3 FLOW AV 5 FLOW AV '..._/ 6 FLOW AV 7 FLOW AV 11 ~ow AV TOTAL FLOW TOTAL AV ACTUAL EQUITY PERCENTAGE CALCULATION 6/30/83 (C) (D) (E) 3-Year Percent To Actual 6/30/83 Average Each Total Equity Percents 9,233 11.57% 9.05% 2,957,339 6.53 24,257 30.41 29.96 13,354,993 29.50 25,668 32.18 31.35 13,820,138 30.53 4,754 5.96 6.66 3,338,424· 7.37 5,048 6.33 5.83 2,412,170· 5.33 4~992 6.26 9.70 5,942,057 13.13 5,817 7.29 7.45 3,443,407 7.61 79,769 100.00% 100.00% 45,268,528 100.00% EXHIBIT 1 (F) Actual 6/30/83 Joint Works Equity $ 19,101,000 63,232,000 66,166,000 14,056,000 12, 3,05, 000 20,472,000 15,724,000 $211,056i000 ( ( ( ~) !" .. ) EXHIBIT 2 E~UITY PERCENTAGE FORMULAS INCLUD NG PROPOSED DISTRICTS 13 & 14 AS OF 6/30/83 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Based On Existing Flow/AV Formula eased on Flow Only Formula Difference 6/30/83 6/30/BJ 6/30/0J 6/30/83 3-Year Percent To Equity In Equity Equity In District Parameter Average Each Total In Percents Equity Percent Joint Works Percent Joint Works l FLOW 9,233 10.80 AV 2,957,339 6.09 4. 71 8.44 17,813,126 10.80 22,794,048 2 FLOW 24,257 28. 38 AV 13,354,993 27.53 .es 27.96 59,011,258 28.38 59,897,693 3 FLOW 25,668 30.02 AV 13,020,138 28.48 1.54 29.25 61,733,880 30.02 . 63,359,011 5 FLOW 4,754 5.56 AV 3,338,424 6.80 . (1. 32) 6.22 13,127,683 5.56 11, 734, 714 6 FLOW 5,048 S.90 AV 2,412,170 4.97 .93 5.44-11,481,446 5.90 12,452,304 7 FLOW 4,992 5.84 AV 5,942,057 12.25 (6.41) 9.04 19,079,463 5.84 12,325,670 11 FLOW 5,817 6.80 AV li443i407 1.10 .30 6.95 14 668 392 6.80 14,351,808 . SUB-TOTALS FLOW 79,769 93.30 AV 45,268,528 93.30 -o-93.30 196,915,248 93.30 196,915,248 13 FLOW 256 .30 AV 145,557 .30 * .30 633,168 .30 633,168 14 FLOW 5,475 6.40 AV 3,105,237 6.40 * 6.40 13,507,584 6.40 13,507,584 TOTALS FLOW 8s,soo 100.00 AV 48 ,·5191322 100.00 -o-100.00 211,0561000 I 100.00 211,056.000 NOTES: PROPOSED DISTRICTS 13 & 14 A.V. WAS CALCULATED '1'0 EQUAL FLOW % TO TOTAL. PROPOSED DIST 114 CURRENT FLOW IS OMGD. FLOW USED FOR INITIAL JOIN~ WORKS EQUITY PURCHASE IS lSMGD. ( (A) (B) (C> (0)· CE) CURRENT DISTRICTS EQUITY District Based on Existing Formula Based on Flow Only 6/30/83 6/30/83 6/30/83 6130/83 Equity Equity In Equity Equity In Percent Joint Works Percent Joint Works I 9.05 19, 101,000 11.57 24,419,000 2 29.96 6.3,2'2,000 ,30.41 64, 182,000 l 31.35 66,166,000 32.18 67,918,000 5 6.66 14,056,000 5.96 12,579,000 6 5.0J 12,305,000 6 •. :n 13,360,000 7 9.70 20,472,000 6-26 13,212,000 11 7.45 15, 724,000 1.29 15,386,000 Sub-Toh I 100.00 211,056,000 100.00 211,056,000 13 14 TOTAL 100.00 211,056,000 100.00 211,056,000 ( SUJ.tMY EFFECT CF OiAtlGE IN EQUITY PERCENT CALCULATION t.£TIIOO . 6/:50/83 CF> (G) • uo ") (J) FROPOSEO DISTRICTS EQUITY Required Add Dist 14 Required Based on Flow Only Purchase (Sale) Escalated Cost Purchase lSalei 6/30/83 6/30/Sl Of Equity At Of Initial Of Equity · Equity Equity In Book Value • Joint Works (E)-(C) Percent Joint Works (H)-(E) Equity Purchase 5,318,000 19.80 22, 794,000 Cl ,625,000) (4,908,000) 950,000 280.38 59,898,000 (4,284,000) ( 12,898,000) 1,752,000 J0.02 63,359,000 (4, 559,000) <13,649,000) . (1,477 ,000) 5.56 11,735,000 (844,000) <2,526,000) 1,055,000 5.90 12,452,000 (908,000) (2,685,000) '7,260,000) 5.8i 12,325,000 (887,000) '2,655,000) (338,000) 6.eo 14,352,000 ( 1,034,000) (3,092,000) -0-93.JO 196,915,000 <14, 141,000) (42,415,000) .Jo 633,000 633,000 6.40 13,508,000 13,508,000 42,415,000 -o-100.00 211,056,000 -o--o- • ORIGINAL C".ONSTRUCTION COST OOT ADJUSTED FOR DEPRECIATION al mANT FUN>ING ( .lo.,) ,, EXlllBIT l (K) (L) Net Out I ay Cl ncome> Required By Tohl Cost Change In Equ Of Joint Works Formula If Equity Purchase Combined With By Dist 13 & 14 Salo to Now D (l)+(J) CF)-(K) (6, 533,000) ll,215,000) <17,182,000) Cl6,2l2,000) ( 18,208,000) ( 16,456,000) (3,372 ,000) (4,649,000) (J,593,000) (2, 538,000) (3,542,000) CI0,802,000> (4, 126,000) (4,464,000) (56,556,000) (56,556,000) 633,000 633,000 55,923,000 55,923,000 -o--o- July 11, 1984 STAFF REPORT ON SHORT-TERM EDP SYSTEM UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS AND LONG-TERM PLANNING SCHEDULE COUNTY SANITAT ION DISTRICTS of Q·RANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA P.0 .BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)540-2910 (714) 962-2411 The purpose of this staff report is to: Present a recommendat ion regarding immediate and short-term data processing system upgrade requirements. Present a summary of long-term plans for data processing improvements. BACKGROUND The growth in the size and complexity of the Districts' collection and treatment facilities has been paralleled over the last five years by a corresponding growth in the volumes of transactions processed via our existing data processing system. Major increases in volume have occurred in various areas, including: Subsystem Payroll Accounts Receivable Purchasing/Accounts Payable Job Cost Accounting System Reasons for Increase New employees added to operate/maintain new advanced treatment facilities and ensure compliance with Federal/State regulations. Number of industries under permit has increased from 300 in 1980 to more than 1,000 today. 25% increase in volume of purchase orders/payments due to expanded materials/supplies requirements for new facilities. Significant increase in work order cost accounting activity to collect costs for additional facilities added within the last two years. The Districts' existing EDP equipment, originally installed in 1978, presently processes accounting transactions virtually 24 hours a day , seven days a week, and is rapidly approaching its maximum processing capability. Late last fall the Finance Department contracted with B. D. Whetstone & Associates, a data processing consulting firm that has provided periodic EDP consulting , programming ar.d processing services to the Districts for the past three years, to assist the staff in evaluating both short-term and long-term solutions to address these significant increases in volume and meet the Districts' growing need for additional data processing capabilities. Mr. Whetstone and the staff identified a series of alternatives ranging from low-cost, short-term options to long-term, high-cost alternatives to determine the most cost-effective solutions available to the Districts in expanding our data processing system. As indicated above, the major reason for initiating this type of planning study was that the Districts' current MICOS/Data General mini-computer system was beginning to become overloaded during routine processing, resulting in slow response time, extended processing time and inability to perform new processing applications. PLANNING STUDY ALTERNATIVES The consultant and staff explored the costs and benefits of the following alternatives: 1. Decrease system demand through procedural changes. 2. Off-load existing system requirements to a stand-alone microprocessor. 3. Use of outside service bureaus for major applications such as: A. Payroll B. User Charges 4. Acquisition and development of new/upgraded software. 5. Acquisition of new/upgraded hardware. 6. Acquisition of new hardware and development/acquisition of new software. REPORT SUMMARY The consultant has concluded that there are two feasible solutions to the Districts' current systems expansion requirements from the six alternatives outlined above. These solutions are: A. Acquisition of new mainframe computer equipment and development/ acquisition of new software (identified in the enclosed report as alternative 6), at an estimated cost of $1.9 million over a five-year period. B. A combination of two alternatives, including: (1) Use of the County of Orange to perform user charge processing for both Districts 5 and 6 as well as other districts moving to user charges in future years (identified in the report as alternative 3B) , and (2) Acquisition of new /upgraded hardware and retention of the existing software operating on the Districts' present system (identified in the report as alternative 5), at an estimated cost of $610,000.00 over the next five years. -2 - Table A compares these two feasible alternatives. The other four alternatives were rejected for the following reasons: Alternativ e 1 -Decrease demand through procedural changes 2 -Offload applications to microprocessor 4 -Acquisition of new /upgraded software 3A-Outside service bureau: Reason for Rejection -Limited, short-term solution to response time/capacity issue -No expansion capabilities for existing system -Would require implementation of further source document control procedures -Unable to accommodate inventory control application -Requires development of system network interface -Limited expansion capabilities -Doesn't improve overnight processing overloads Requires considerable programming effort/time, thus not a realistic short-term solution -Limited expansion capabilities Doesn't improve overnight processing overloads -Would not accommodate custom inventory control application -Limited expansion capabilities for Districts' system We have reviewed the recommendations in the report with the consultant, and have concluded that the combination of alternatives 3B and 5, i.e., use of the County of Orange data processing capabilities for user charge system requirements, along with acquisition of new /upgraded hardware to enhance the capabilities of the Districts' current mini-computer system, is the most cost-effective, short-term approach to meet the Districts' increased processing requirements for the next 2-3 years. EVALUATION OF NEW/UPGRADED HARDWARE There i s one system on the market that would allow the Districts to upgrade the hardware yet retain our current software. This system is offered by the International Technology Group, Inc., (ITG) with local offices in Newport Beach, and is called the Integrity Computer System. In order to evaluate the performance of the Integrity System, we tested several of our existing p r ograms and applications at the ITG facility. Our experience was favorable and the operating results, fast response time and excellent performance of the installation made this the first choice as the recommended alternative for i mpro v ing/upgrading our cur r ent hardware without requiring major software rewrites. -3 - In order to accurately_ define the cost for the hardware upgrade relative to the ITG/Integrity System, we solicited a proposal f r om ITG as a replacement for the Districts' current MICOS/Data Genera l system, and the cost of this new hardware, inc luding ins t allation and testi ng of the sys t em , i s $88,000 .00. Both the c o n sultan t's r epor t a n d a copy o f t h e I TG/I ntegrity System proposal are included for your review and evaluation. Current System Item Capacity Nova 3/12 CPU 96 KB (2) CDC Disk Drives 8 0 MB ea. (2 ) CDC Tape Drive 1 600 BP I Pertee Printer 600 LPM (4) Mi das CRT N/A Terminals Upgraded System Item ITG/Integrity CPU Capacity 256 KB -Retai n existing disk drives for backup Winchester Disk 160 MB ea . Drives -Retain existing hardwar e -Retain existing har dw are -Retain existing hardware TOTAL COST OF PROPOSED UPGRADED SYSTEM Added Cost $60,00 0 N/A $28,0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A $88!000 No decision of this type should be made without first determining how it will fit into our plans and affect our options for future years. Staff is curren tly conducting a Ma nagement I nformation Survey which will tell us what additional kinds of information and types of repor ts are needed to most effectively manage our expanding operations and activities . We can then contract with a software house to program t hese reports or to change existing reports as required . With the ITG upgrade, the Distr icts would have a mini-computer capable of communicating/interfacing wi th the IBM micr o -computer. This capability would present a future option to provide Ma n agement and Department Heads with personal computers, spreadsheet app l ications (like Visicalc or Lotus 1-2-3), and instan taneous access to the budget and job cost accounting system data base . The potential for timely access to meaningful, useful management information is an important step forward in our overall EDP plan. Althoug h the Integrity System will operate smoothly using the existing Di s tricts ' software, we anticipate that some software enhancements may be desirable to improve the effectiveness of the system. Therefore , we propose to also systematically review all current software to identify improveme n t opportunities to assure optimum utilization of the hardwar e and available processing time . -4- IMMEDIATE/SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (Phase I) The staff recommends the following actions to provide capability to meet our immediate needs and enable us to process the increased volumes of transactions we are now experiencing and expect to handle in the near future: Phase IA -Immediate: Authorization for staff to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc., Newport Beach, CA, in an amount not to exceed $88,000.00 plus tax and freight, for purchase, installation and testing of an ITG/ Integrity Computer System to upgrade the capabilities of the Districts' existing Data General minicomputer system. We would continue our existing practice of establishing and maintaining individual Districts' user data bases and performing supplemental user fee billing via the County of Orange EDP system capabilities, presently used in Districts 5 and 6. Table B sets forth the proposed schedule for immediate implementation of the recommendations defined above to resolve our short-term processing deficiencies and evaluate the potential of the upgraded system for providing better management information capabilities to Districts' staff via use of micro-computers and software enhancements for the upgraded system. Phase IB-Short-Term: Direct the staff to complete its evaluation of the Districts' present and anticipated management information needs and report back to the Committee regarding: (1) The feasibility and anticipated costs of engaging a software vendor to develop enhancements to existing software and reporting capabilities to provide expanded management information. (2) The feasibility and anticipated costs of interfacing the Districts' upgraded EDP system with micro-computers to provide improved management information and analytical capabilities. As indicated on Table B, installation of the upgraded system could be completed before the end of this calendar year. If a decision is made to proceed with software enhancements and micro-computers to support our MIS requirements, we would expect to be able to complete both the immediate and the short-term plan phases within 18 months. LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (Phase II ) There are several matters pending that will affect our long-term EDP needs. These include: -Creation of proposed Districts 13 and 14 -Assessment of the accounting/EDP impact of permitting all commercial customers versus the current 1,000 IW accounts. -Assessment of the County's long-term capabilities to provide user charge data base maintenance and billing services as additional Districts employ supplemental user fees to meet O&M expenses. -5 - -Final definition of MIS requirements to enhance effective administration of the Districts and compliance with federal and state regulations. As indicated earlier in this report, our consultant estimates that the five-year cost of acquiring and installing new hardware and software (alternative 6) is $1,935,000. Table A compares the proposed immediate recommendation for upgrading our existing system and continuing to use County EDP resources for supplemental user charge processing/billing (a combination of alternatives 3b and 5) at a cost of $610,000. Considering the major differences in cost and the requirement to develop an in-house EDP staff to support a major EDP installation, staff believes it would be prudent to await resolution of the unresolved issues identified in the previous paragraph before embarking upon execution of Phase II of the proposed EDP System Review and Implementation Plan. Once these determination have been made, our long-range needs can be clearly defined and a system developed to meet our EDP requirements for the forseeable future. With the dramatic changes in state-of-the-art computer technology and our ever-changing demands on the system to handle the day-to-day work loads and provide the necessary information to optimize management of the Districts' activities, this will, in the future, be an ongoing effort -as it has in the past. The attached Long-Term EDP System Review and Implementation Plan, Table C, outlines the proposed ong-term plans and time schedules for defining our EDP systems requirements and identifying solutions to meet our accounting, budgeting and management information systems needs over the subsequent five to ten-year period. -6- Oe=:ipti01 o f Alternative 3b-tlse ruts i de Ell' servlres (Ch .J)ty of Ora11')e ) f oe urer diarges . S-h:x?Jire i:pgraded hard- w;:ire for t he exls tlrg EXP system . 'IUIJ'.\L 6-h:xtu ire ~ haroore ard oof twa r e (S1111 U na inf r arre oc large mini- o:::rrpJ t e r) . 5-Year Capital md eel O:Sts $522,000 $88,000 foc eqJipll3'1t; $10-20,000 est Lrrated for potential ooft- i.are enharcerre'lts to iltpro.ie system perfoamnce ard repocting ca[Xlbll i ties. $610 ,000 $1,935,000 sror t-tean -th benefi t to in-l'r::xlm systen def ic ie'lC ies. -Presently 51RXXtirg Districts 5 & 6, -Pro.ri~ excellent sl-ort- teem tpJrade in processing Sf'eed/system CC\»01 ty ~ 01 offsite testing of Districts' awlicatiois en tpgraded system. -t·bt an effective shxt- teem oolutim-scla::ti.01/ i1CX1-J isl tloo/a:nvers Im process wlll take 18 11D1ths a t leas t. 'IJIBl.E A SlM\l\m'/tnl['Mls::N CP msnuCIS' mESENl' En> &"YSIF.M llL'IEIH\TIWS System ~ilities ImJ-term -Pro.Tires g:iod oost vs. servire capebllitles. -Avoids ei<eesS hardware o:ists. -M3y al!D provide sufficient r.ap.;clty to exterd system life fa: five years (deped- ing 1p:n future iq:plicatioo re<pi.renents) • -Excellffit l.crg-tecm cai:a- bllltles, bJt at the e>cperlSe of e>«:iesS capacity as we 11 as an l.lll'leCeSSarY oofb-lare a:nversloo. E>cp:lnsien -<:a[Xlble of hanilirg all existing and anti- cli:ated u ser fee prograrrs CM?r next five years (assunlrg antirued Cl:u'lty 51.HXXt). -System aUOIS foc additi01 of 1.p to 16 d isplay tecmil'\!l.1$ arn disk units (ooly 5 1.11lts en present anfig.iratloo) • -EXiellent ~loo caµi- blliti es foe S-10 years , lrclu:l lrg all Us:?r charge <{t)licatlcns and integr ated IW/aa:nntirg <hta base m:n."9'fS"1t ca[Xlbllities . a:ntrol -<l:.ulty antro ls sd'led- ulirg & prcdx::tl01; req.ii.res anrual regotla- ticns with Q:unty assesror. -1\l.lo.o/S Dis tr lets to retain oontrol of all existing CH>llcatlois (e>a:Ept user charge systells) • -Districts' exis tlrg ao.:D.l'ltirg staff will a::otirue to q:ierate 1.PJ racled system. -Districts CDUlil bclrg user charge awllcaticns ln-h:Juse aid exercise full July u, 1984 Other O:Sts@en e f its -Will require oie oco:JlR'ltant tx> rm lnta UV ttJC}ate data base and eval- uate oojusblelt req.r;?sts (i:x;siti01 <(\'.)roved in 1984-85 b.rlget). -Jnstallatl01 can be q:iera- tioial within 3 11C1ths of placing ocde.r foe exis t- ing equiprcnt. -Existing ooftware/tenninals can be retained. ~raded rarclwa rc am Sl.HX>Ct JIM R:: neoork. -rm has l.o:::al office/ sq:J[XXt s taff (Irvine) and existlrg client base, l:ut is a 9'eden-besed crnp.viy with a limited U.S. cust- aier base. -Will req.ilre pernanent EDP s taff, rem:xlelirg , slgnifl- cant cx:rn..ers loo e ffa:ts, antrol o.ier all sche::bllrg/ and di.srtt:>tlen of cpera- prooesslrg. tlcns. Tl\l3IE B DISilUCIS' ElP SYSIEM R£VIEW llrn IM.'IDENmT.ICN PU\N Plll\SE I 1 IJ.MDIA'.IE lll'D SIOUUJ:EIM 1984 1905 July ll, 1904 HIIl'S'ltN': I JUL I N.G I Sl:!P I ccr I tUJ I m:: I Jm I FED I ~M I APR I WIY I Jl.NI JUL I Al.G I si;i> I CCI' I NN I m:: L l?hasc IA: Imrediate l'lctims to (\:lgrade l!}(i s tlrYJ System 1. FiSC3l !Ulicy/EXocutive o:mnittee Jolnt lbards review/awrove staff's slmt-tenn EI1P System u1:gradirg rero11re¥lat ims. 2 . Staff ne<ptiate with/issu:? a p.m::hase order to l1G foe system l{X3rade. 3. Install/test/oocept q:igraood system. 4 . Q:nple te lnvenl:Xlry cnitrol <(l>licatlcn/ revJew other software cnhancarents . l'1•ue In: Sort-'U?rm h:tioos to E\raluate EC Jnt.er face am otter Software enaro3rent.'I 1. Cb1plete ln-ln.1se MlS requl rem31ts survey ard eva lllilte r eq.1 l.rerents. n. S:>llc lt/eval.11ate pt:O[lC6als foe oo foorn/ MIS enharn21re1ts to l.P:Jraded mlni- Q'lTP.ller system. 2. Solicit/evaluate pCO{XSals foe IIM EC haroore/ooftware foe MIS effianoerraits/ n\-:inagem.nt analytical Sl{:PXt. 3. Present rcpoct to Fiscal !UllcyjEXea.itive Cbrmittee/Jolnt ll::ards foe review/~l of HIS erhan::ell'ents. 4. Staff negotiate wi th/isru:? p..u:chase ceders to su:x:essful verdxs for MIS enharcarents/ UN FC hard.<a r e /roftware . 5. Jnstall /test/ao:ept MIS enhancermts am IEJ•I FC hao\..aro/oofoore. MIUSl1l'E 1. Staff p?rfCX116 in-h:ure review of lP.Jrcrled l'lG Inte;irity;Uata General/ IEM EC system per fc:xrn;noe Ix> assess renainirg life of system. 2. A?1iew by B::nrds. Staff revelcps so:ipe of loOCk/lssues. ~t for Pro{xlsals for cx:rrprehensive haroore/rofoore req.i irarents sbrly. . ). Selecticn Chrmlttee evaluate pr:opooal and resp:nses/reo:::mrend verdoc to Joint !bards for ~ro.1al. 4. 'krrl:x a:npletes sbrly/presents reo::mrerdatlcns tx> Boards s. Staff,lvenchr devek:p and issue IEq\Est for Prop:sal for hardware/s:>ftware system resign installaticn, testlrg and trainirg of staff foll.owirg system cxnverslcn. 6 . Sclectim Cl:JTTni ttee evaluate propcsal respcnses/reo.'.ll11'13'ld vencbr to ,'Jo i nt lb:lrds for ~l. 7. Sc locted verdoc d?s I <}'\S and ins ta Us hard.'111re/s:>ftware . e. Dl:Jtrlcts hire EIP staff to qJerate/ program;lralnta.in syst:an. 9. Staff per forms t11 I t and system tests ard r ereives trainirg fran ven:br . 10. Staff/=xloc initiate and cmplcte system cxnverslm/staff accepts system fran ~r. ll. 9{st:em cx:rrmn::es fullscale qJeraticns . 'DlllIE c DfSJRICIS' EIP SYSID1 REITIEi 111'1> I MPUM!Nlf{l'I(}I PlllN PIPISE II: laG-twa PlJ\N I 191l5 I 1986 1987 I I I I July ll, 1904 1908 1989 I L___ I I r B.O. \Nhetstone & Associates - COUN TY SANI TATION DI STRICTS o f ORANGE COUNTY Data Proce ssing Alternatives St udy Fe b ruary 28 , 1984 - - - .... - 1130 Tenth Street, Manhattan Beach , California 90266 • 213 I 372-16 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - B.O. \Nhetstone & Associates February 28, 1984 Mr. Gary Streed County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92728 Dear Mr . Streed: B. D. Whetstone and Associates is pleased to submit this final report summarizing the assistance we have provided in analyzing strategic and tactical planning alternatives for data processing. Your copy is enclosed. Should you have que s tions or concerns regarding the content of the report, please do not hesitate to call . I have enjoyed working with yo u and your staff on this project and hope to work with you again in the very near future . Yours very truly, B. D. Whetstone and Associates 1130 Tenth Street, Manhattan Beach , California 90266 • 213 I 372-1612 .·-- -TABLE OF CONTENTS - Section Page -Management Summary 1 -Background 2 Objectives and Scope 2 -Requirements Statement 3 Alternatives Considered 4 - Analysis and Conclusions 5 -Recommendations 16 -Appendices -Data Processing Status Report A-1 High-Level Costing Analysis for B-1 User Charge System Related Requirements - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·" Management Summary This data pr0cessing alternatives study was initiated to respond to data processing resource availability issues . Through the years since the existing minicomputer was installed, the implementation of new applications and growth of existing applications has placed a strain on the existing minicomputer's capacity. This study was intended to look beyond attempting to fix an existing problem, and look ahead four to five years, so that finding a solution to existing problems which would also be consistent with longer range goals and objectives. This report recommends that CSDOC invest approximately $80,000 to $85,000 in 1984 for upgrading data processing hardware. This will allow CSDOC to retain and protect their investment in applications software for another three to five years. Additionally, this report recommends for cost effectiveness, that CSDOC continue to utilize the County Assessor's Office and associated data processing services to process annual User Charge (Fee Assessment) Systems. 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Background The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) has been utilizing a computer system and applications software provided and maintained by a vendor, Delphi Systems, Inc., since 1979. Existing applications are primarily for accounting and budgeting. User charge systems have been processed on service bureaus in the past few years due to limitations of the in-house system. The current in-house system is a minicomputer configuration including a Data General (Nova series) central processing unit (CPU), two removable hard-disk storage units, a tape drive, a high-speed printer, and four user terminals. The system is capable of supporting concurrent terminal usage with some degradation in performance depending upon application. The applications base and processing volumes have grown over the intervening years since original implementation to such an extent that they have severely impacted system resources (e.g., disk storage space and CPU time). During this study, concerns were expressed about existing and imminent future demands on computer resources (that cannot be supported given the capabilities of the current in-house system) including: 0 Full implementation of a computer-based inventory system, o Growth in existing application processing volumes, and 0 Implementation of user charge systems (beyond Districts 5 and 6). Additiol).al background information is provided in the memo, "Data Processing Status Report", Streed and Butler, 11/30/83, included with this report as Appendix A. Objective and Scope The objective of this project was to produce a paper describing and evaluating data processing solutions that satisfy CSDOC's strategic (long- term) and tactical (short-term) data proc essing requirements. The study was to include a section ranking solutions on the basis of their ability to meet the stated requirements (refe r to pages 5-15 , Analysis and Conclusions). The scope of the study was intended to be limited to a manageable alternative solutions for CSDOC' s data processing requirements page 4, Alternatives Considered). 2 number of (refer to - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Requirements Statement CSDOC has truly been fortunate with regard to data processing resources and personnel. While most companies and government agencies are adding both data processing hardware/software and staff at phenomenal rates, CSDOC has been able to maintain a relatively small staff of non-DP professionals that function with a minimum of data processing equipment, yet still have the ability to provide vital business data processing functions. This situation is in keeping with CSDOC management philosophy, which equates to some requirements to consider when analyzing data processing strategies: o Maintain lowest staff levels possible (for cost control), o Automate functions only if cost reduction can be achieved, and o Contract for technical assistance in areas (e.g., data processing) where a full-time staff member may not be fully utilized. The specific problem statement or goal of this data processing alternatives study is to address CSDOC's e x isting computer resource shortage and recommend a solution which will satisfy the following requirements: 1. Provide a least cost solution that satisfies al l other requirements, 2. Retain existing software base, if possible, since application requirements are not expected to change dramatically within the long-term p lanning horizon, 3. Retain as much of existing hardware as possible, to capitalize on investment to-date, 4. Maintain in-house control of applications, where feasible , and 5. Provide sufficient DP resource (within the horizon) to accommodate new systems and existing applications. long-term planning moderate growth in The long-term planning horizon for the purposes of this study is specif ied a s four to five years (approximately one-half the useful life cycle for most data processing systems and components), 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alternatives Considered The alternatives ccnsidered in this study ranged f rom low-cost, short-term solutions to high-cost, long-term solutions. The approach utilized in this study was to initially consider any or all alternatives thought to be feasible, but to eliminate those that upon some investigation proved to be too costly or technically unsound. Alternativ es that had merit both economically and technically were retained for further analysis. A summary of the alternatives considered in this study is as follows: 1. Procedures Change --Decrease system demands through procedural changes, e.g., change time cards from daily to weekly, 2. Off-load to Micro --Decrease system demands through off-loading, e.g., input time cards to a separate microcomputer which could then batch transfer data to the existing minicomputer, 3. Outside Services Decrease system demands through use of outside 4. service bureaus, e.g. let Bank of America do payroll, New/Upgraded Software by purchasing new, or software, Increase system availability and response improving upon existing, applications 5. New/Upgraded Hardware --Increase system availability and response by purchasing additional or upgraded hardware for the existing minicomputer , and 6. New Hardware and Software --Increase data processing capability by purchasing new hardware and software, i.e., start over with a new vendor. The alternatives just listed will be referred to in subsequent sections by corresponding number and/or the short description. 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions Each of the alternativ es listed in the previous section will be discussed in detail in this section. The requirements listed on page 3 have been used to generate the following list of criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated . Weighting factors precede each criteria. (3) A. Cost/Benefit The overall cost of a specific solution was considered vs. the possible benefits. Costs could include data processing equipm~nt, software, hardware and software maintenance, personnel, and facilities. A low cost/high benefit solution would be ranked higher for this criteria. (2) B. Short-term Capability --The ability of a specific solution to satisfy the short-term requirements for data processing capabili~ies was evaluated. A solution which could provide immediate improvements in system response time or allow for the addition of new applications in the short-term would be ranked higher for this criteria. (2) C. Lon g -term Capability --The ability of a specific solution to satisfy the long -range requirements for data processing capabilities was evaluated. A solution which could provide sufficient improvements as in B. (above), but with s ufficient growth factored in to allow for c o ntinue d sup port of all a pplications thro ugh the pla nning horizon would be r a nked higher for this criteria. (1) D. Expansion Capabilities --The abil ity of a specific solu tion to accommodate unforeseen cha n g es in the demand for data pro cessing resources was evaluated. A solution which could be acquired at a lower cost today to match low volume requiremen t s , b ut tha t could be expand ed at a l a ter date a t incremental (as oppos ed to replacement) costs to a cc ommodate a higher volume, wou l d be ranked highe r for this criter ia. (1) E. Control --The fac tor of i nternal vs . external processing options was eva luated. Solutions were ranked on the basis of how much control CSDOC could exert over their production (scheduling, o utput timing , problem resolution, e t c .) and protection (information privacy, abil ity to control errors, etc .). (1) F. Othe r Factors --A n u mber of intangibles were evaluated with regard to each sugges ted solution including: Organizational impact Conve r sion requirements Vendor support So lutions were ranked higher fo r minimal org a n izational impact, minimal con version requirements, excellent vendor s upport, etc . 5 - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) The purpose of the weighting scheme is to emphasize the importance of one criteria in relation to another . The weighting factors add to ten for convenience. The intent here is to show relative importance, for example, Cost/Benefit (weight 3) is three times as important to the decision making process as Expansion Capabilities (weight 1). Within the following analysis of each alternative, one to ten points were awarded as a subjective evaluation of the ability of the al ternative to meet the stated criteria. The maximum score that an al ternative could receive is, therefore, the sum of the weighting factors times the highest point score for each criteria (i.e., 10 x 10 = 100 ). The following discussion analyzes each alternative individually against each criteria. The number of points awarded for each criteria is given in this section and summarized in the table on page 16. 6 - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) A~ternative 1 -Procedures Change This alternative: (8) A. Proposes to decrease system demands by implementing procedural changes. Time card procedures could be changed to weekly data input (as opposed to current daily input). It is estimated that while some improvement in system availability and response would be apparent, the increase would not be dramatic from implementation of this alternative. (Certainly not a sufficient gain to consider this as a sole solution to computer resource shortages). The benefit from this alternative would be in the area of cost savings from the reduction of overall input time required. Cost of implementation vs. benefits would be roughly equivalent . (6) B. Provides a limited short-term solution to response time and availability problems. (1) C. Does little or nothing to alleviate longer term resources demands. (O) D. Has no expansion capabilities. (7) E. Allows CSDOC to retain control of all existing applications (with the exception of user charge systems). (9) F . Has a greater impact upon manpower than upon machine power . The reduction in staff workload (to input daily items on a weekly basis or weekly items on a monthly basis), could be sig nificant . 7 - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 2 -Off-load to Micro This alternative: (4) A. Proposes to decrease minicomputer system demands by purchasing a microcomputer which could be used to input data off-line from the minicomputer. The da t a could then be transmitted to the minicomputer at machine transfer rates during off-peak hours. Requires the purchase of a compatible microcomputer system including communications adapters and applications software. Estimated hardware costs would be approximately $5, 000. Custom applications software could cost an additional $2,000 to $3,000. May prove to be infeasible from a technical standpoint. Additional research would have to be performed to determine feasibility and to verify possible performance increases available as a result of this alternative. Costs could easily exceed expected benefits. (7) B , Might provide a reasonable short-term solution to response time and availability problems . Expands the resource base available to CSDOC in the area of data processing. (2) c. Provides some capabilities (such as spread sheet programs) that could be considered longer term. Does sufficient added capability to address larger demands charge systems, inventory control system, etc .): (1) D. Has little or no expansion capability. preparation not provide (e .g., user (7) E. Allows CSDOC to retain control of all existing applications (with the exception of user charge systems). (9) F. Provides minimal organizational i mpact and a minimal conversion requirement. Vendor support would be variable depending upon sources for requisite hardware and software. 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 3 -Outside Services This alternative proposes to decrease system demands by applications to outside services. In this instance, due to difference in scope of two possible implementations of this each be evaluated separately as follows: Alternative 3a -Payroll Processing This alternative: off-loading the radical alternative, (7) A. Proposes to decrease minicomputer system demands by off-loading the payroll application to a bank service bureau (such as Bank of America). Banks often under-bid this type of service with the hope of establishing an account relationship with an organization. A bank can eventually recover shortfalls through the increase in its asset base and/or through fee services which the bank may attempt to sell at a later date. A specific proposal that was evaluated for this alternative required the acquisition of an IBM Personal Computer upon which data input could be performed (preprocessing for transmission to the service bureau's DP center). As a side benefit, the microcomputer would be available for processing other small stand-alone applications. Overall benefits would outweigh costs in the short-term. (7) B. Might provide a reasonable short-term solution to response time and availability problems . Expands the resource base available to CSDOC in the area of data proc e ssing . ( 2) c. Provides some capabilities (such as spread sheet programs) that could be consid ered longer term. Does sufficient added capability to address larger demands charge systems, inventory control system, etc.). (1) D. Has little or no expansion cap a bility . preparation not provide (e.g ., user (4) E. Allows CSDOC to retain control of most, but not all, existing applications . (8) F. Provides minimal organizational impact and a minimal c onversion requirement. Vendor support would be variable depending upon sources for requisite hardware and software. 9 .· - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 3b -User Charge Systems This alternative: (9) A. Proposes that user charge systems continue to be processed on outside agencies' computer systems thus obviating the need for in-house computer hardware and software for that purpose. It was determined in the course of this study that: o A computer with sufficient capacity to process the amount of data involved in the user charge systems proposed would fall into the category of small mainframe (or super mini). o The cost of the required in-house computer hardware, software, maintenance charges, personnel, etc., would be prohibitively high for a process that would be run once per year (even though it might be a several month precess). o The only circumstances under which it would be necessary (or feasible) to bring this processing in-house are: The County Assessor could not provide any or all of the following: accurate parcel data, programming support, data file maintenance support (for year to year carry-over of required data fields), and/or sufficient processing resources to complete the task in time for the annual tax cycle deadlines. The County Assessor could provide the services, but only at a cost even more the in-house data processing solution. above mentioned prohibitive than A high-level costing analysis was performed based upon information provided by representatives of the County Assessor's Office and data processing publications. The data indicated that the option to bring a small mainframe computer in-house would be considerably more expensiv e over the planning horizon considered. Please refer to Appendix B -High-Level. Costing Analysis for User Charg e System Related Requirements. While the analy sis is considerd to by only a rough estimate, it is sufficient for feasibility purposes and has been compared to other current costing studies of a similar scope and found to be within the established range. 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 3b -User Charge Systems (continued) This alternative: (2) B. Does little to alleviate current in-house minicomputer resource shortages as the user charge systems to-date are already being processed on outside service bureaus . (8) C. Provides a good cost vs. service r atio ; excess hardware costs are kept to a minimum while required capability is still provided. (7) D. Allows additional districts to be added as long as the County Assesor agrees to provide the additional processing resources. (7) E. Allows CSDOC to retain control of existing in-house applications, but forces an annual negotiation of scheduling, processing cycle corrections, etc., with the County Assessor . (5) F. Conversion requirements may be significant in terms of establishing user charge criteria and adding new districts. Organizational impact will be less than with an in-house system, but will still require a CSDOC staff member (or members) to assist with the annual processing cycle . Vendor support in this instance refers to the County Assessor 's Office, their data processing staff and service bureau support . Vendor support could vary significantly based upon previous experience. 11 - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 4 -New/Upg raded Software This alternative: (2) A. Proposes that the existing data processing resource shortage be addressed by purchasing enhanced or improved software. It has been found that existing Delphi software, in some instances, does not make the most efficient use of the minicomputer hardware. Some time, effort, and money could be spent to have a programming consultant rewrite sections of the existing code to make it run more efficiently. The improvements, while possibly significant, are not expected to be significant enough to justify the cost of the programming support re quired to make the changes. This would be especially true if it were determined that software changes alone (withou t attendent hardware changes) could not produce enough extra computing resource to address the existing problems. (2) B. Requires considerable programming effort and would t herefore . take many months t o complete. It does not represent a good short-term solution. (1) C. Does little or nothing to address long-term requirements. (1) D. Provides little or no expansion capabilities . (7) E. Allows CSDOC to r etain control of all existing applications (with the exception of user charge systems). (2) F . Conversion requirements would be of concern as operational disruption could occur during the time that the programming was working to enhance programs. Vendor support c o uld vary significantly (choice of programmer would be critical). 12 :.· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 5 -New/Upgraded Hardware This alternative: (10) A. Proposes that the existing data processing resource problems be addressed by purchasing improved computer hardware . Both complete and partial replacement options were considered in detail . All options had significant implications toward the criteria established this rep ort . A detailed recou nt of all the options considered would be too detailed and voluminous to include in this report. Hence, the following discussion is for the recommended option only . The most attractive option considered was available through a company which is specifically marketing systems which can run the existing MICOS-based Delphi-written applications software, International Technology Group (ITG). The ability to run existing applications is important from a cost standpoint, due to the extremely high costs associated with either converting software from one operating system to another, or rewriting/converting to a new application which provides similar functional capability . The recommended option for this alternative was to purchase the ITG model 256/161 system. This system comes with the operating syste:m software and one 160 megabyte (Mb) (or character) Winchester-type disk unit . An additional 160 Mb disk is recommended . The total cost of this upgrade would be approx imately $8 0,000 to $85,000 (depending upon sale of existing equipment, see next paragraph). This option allows CSDOC to retain the existing minicomputer line printer, tape drive, all display terminals, and one of the removable disk units . The e x isting CPU and second disk unit could be sold on the open market. (10) B. Provides an excellent short-term solution . Requires little or no conversion effort. (8) c. Provides an excellent long-term capability vs. workload ratio over planning horizon . solution. Provides good the course of t h e long-term (8) D. Allows fo r the addition of display terminals (up to a total of 16) and dis k units . Allows for additional processor upgrades at incremental cost only. (7) E. Allows CSDOC to retain control of all existing ap plica tion s (with the exception o f user charge systems). 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :.· Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 5 -New/Upgraded Hardware (con tinued) This alternative: (8) F. Implies little organizational impact, conversion requirements would be minimal. The vendor, ITG, appears to be stable, however, they are a Swedish firm and are just now expanding their market into the United States. ITG has established a presence in the Southern California area to provide system -support and maintenance services. Programming support could be available from both ITG and outside contractors. Existing software can be retained. This is not only important from a cost standpoint, but allows CSDOC to avoid changing procedures to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of a new system. 14 '·· - - - - - - - - - - - - - Analysis and Conclusions (continued) Alternative 6 -New Hardware and Software This alternative: (6) A. Proposes that CSDOC replace the existing system with both new hardware and software. It is rare when the change to a new generation .of hardware or to a different vendor's hardware does not require either new software or a massive software conversion. In this instance, a change to a new vendor would most definitely require CSDOC to scrap existing applications and start over or attempt a massive conversion. The cost analysis developed to support Alternative 3b also supports this Alternative. The cost to bring a smaller mainframe computer in-house would still be extremely costly, over the planning horizon considered in this study, due to the software conversion costs. (5) B. Does not provide a good short-term solution, since selection, acquisition, and conversion for a new vendor's hardware and software would take approximately 18 months. (10) C. Would provide excellent long-term capabilities, but in excess of those required, and, in this instance, at the expense of a needless software conversion. (9) D. Would provide excellent long-term exp a nsion capability. (10) E. Gives CSDOC the ability to bring all applications in-house, if the computer is properly configured and sized. (2) F. Would have the greatest organizational impact, requiring additional staff, remodeling expenses, massive conversion efforts, and operational disruption. Vendor support would vary by vendor. 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - Recommendations The following table represents a summary of the scores for each alternative presented in the previous section: Alternative Evaluation Criteria Weight 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 Cost/Benefit 3 8 4 7 9 2 10 6 Short-term Req.'s 2 6 7 7 2 2 10 5 Long-term Req. 's 2 1 2 2 8 1 8 10 Expansion 1 0 1 1 7 l 8 9 Control 1 7 7 4 7 7 7 10 Other Factors 1 9 9 8 5 2 8 2 Totals (Weight x Score) 54 47 52 66 22 89 69 Based upon all criteria and information available at the time this report was written, the best alternative for CSDOC to pursue would be Alternative 5 -New/Upgraded Hardware . If it is kept in mind that this alternative was highly 9ependent upon the one company (ITG) that could supply a software compatible solution, then this by far is the best alternative from a price/performance standpoint. While Alternative 5 represents the best overall solution based upon the criteria established for this study, it is recommended that a multiple alternative solution be adopted. This is primarily due to the fact that a total solution must address all requirements, and in this instance, the ITG solution does not directly address User Charge System requirements. To make the alternatives more directly comparable, Alternativ e 6 New Hardware and Software would be compared to a combinatio n of Alternativ e 3b -User Charge Systems (Outside Services) and Alternativ e 5 . In this case, the combined alternatives, 3b and 5, still represent a more cost effectiv e solution than Alternativ e 6. (See Appendix B.) It should be noted that, while there are dependencies to consider in comparing Alternatives 3b, 4, 5, and 6 (Group II), Alternatives 1, 2, and Ja (Group T) are relatively independent of Group II alternativ es. CSDOC may wish to consider the implementation of one or more Group I altern atives based upon further study, as additional ~ost savings c o uld be ava ilable. 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appendix A "Data Processing Status Report" Streed and Butler, 11 /30 /83 .... ... .... ..... .. 11/30/83 A-1 DATA PROCESSING STATUS REPORT The purP.ose of this report is to review the status of our existing minicomputer systems' hardware, software, utilization and to propose al ternatives for the future. Since Fiscal 1979-80, we have been using an in-house minicomputer and software purchased from Delphi, Inc. We are fully using the applications for: -Payroll General Ledger -Fixed Assets -Purchase Order/Counnitments -Accounts Payable -Accounts Receivable -Job Cost Accounting The Inventory Control subsystem is being used to produce catalogs and physical inv.entory tags and is being tested, debugged and improved on one class, office supplies. In general, our data processing is satisfactory as a historical record keeping activity. We are able to accumulate all of our costs in both the general ledger and job cost systems by department, to produce bi-weekly payroll warrants and reports, bi-weekly payments to our suppliers and to send invoices as required. The test work done to date on implementing the inventory control system indicates that it will be a very time consuming system to operate. Without considering the impact of the Plant 2 warehousing operation, we expect ou t data processing r~quir em ents to increase by approximately eighty (80) hours per month. Of these hours, about 75% will be data input during t he regular work schedule and 25% will be processing which should be scheduled for overnight and weekends. Most of our processing, wi th the exception of payroll, is done during off hours and runs unattended. An average month now includes approximately 220 hours of such processing or about seven hours every day of t he month. The inventory control process is expected to add a little more than one hour per day to t his average. Of course, averag~s are somewhat deceiving and this is no exception. Our month-end processes and reports account for approximately 25% of out processing requirements. There are some areas of our data processing which need t o be improved , particularly in t he area of management or decision making reports. The most notable of these improvemen ts would include a comparative budget revi ew directly from the computer, thereby eliminating hours of worksheet prep and word processor input, a budget preparation system which is entirely manual now , and a personnel management system . .... ... ... .... ..... ... .... .... ... ... Data Processing Status Report November 30, 1983 Page Two A-2 It seems that to fully implement the subsystems we currently have and to make any additional information available will require some changes in procedures, software or hardware or some combination of changes. Some possibilities to consider are: -to decrease demands on system by reducing timecards from daily to weekly -to input timecards to a microprocessor for batch transfer to our existing minicomputer -to have payroll processed off site by a service bureau -to purchase new/improved software -to purchase new more powerful hardware -to upgrade our existing hardware/software. Our recommendation is to evaluate these alternatives but to concentrate on the possibility of upgrading the h ardware/software which we already own and which is operating satisfactorily in its present capacity. This approach would seem to be the least costly and would certainly be t he least disruptive. To this end we have asked Bruce Whetstone & Associates to submit a proposal to evaluate our options and to off er a solution . We expect his efforts will cost less than $4,000 and request authority to proceed at a staff level . - - - - - -Appendix B -High-Level Costing Analy sis User Charge System Related Requirements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hiqh-Lev el Costing An a l y sis fo r B-1 User Charge System Related Requirements ·r .... Outsid e Processing Option A. Ot-gan i::: at ion Count y Assessor $ E DP Contract Mgr EDS /Facilities Mgr Totals $ Di st . 6 (83-84) 12. (l 1. 0 47 .0 60 .0 $ <Note : dollars in thousands ) Estimated Pr ogram Mods. 6 . (l 1. 0 25.0 32. (> .$ Operating Co sts <a nnual ) 1 0 .0 /district 2 .5 1 (l . 0 22 .5 B. Estimated Operating Costs (nex t 5 yea rs b y district ) 1. Fi :·:ed Costs <all districts) Count y Assessor $ (84-85) ------- 1. (l r> k · Fi :-:ed Costs -Oper ati ons Distri ct 6 $ 10 . 0 District 5 1 0.0 District 1 District 1 "":! ._;, District 14 District 7 District 11 ------- Sub-Totals $ 20.0 3 . Va t-i able Costs Database District c::-...J $ District 1 Distr i ct 13 District 14 District 7 Dis trict 1 1 ------- Sub-Totals $ o . 0 5 y r (85-86) (86-87) (87-88) (88 -89) Total ----------------------------------- ,..., C" .::. ,_J ,.., C' ..... ...J ,.., c::- ..::. • ,_J 2. = ..J 11 . (l ( i ndi v i dual distric ts> 10.0 1 0 . (I 1 0 . i) 1 o . 0 50 .0 1 o . 0 10 . (l 1 0 .0 10 .0 5 0 . (l 1 o . (l 10 .0 10.0 1 0 . (l 40 .0 10 . 0 10 .0 1 \). (l 10 . 0 40 .0 10. 0 1 0 . 0 1 o . 0 30 .0 1 0 .0 1 o . 0 20 .0 10 .0 1 0 . (l '.2 (l • (l ----------------------------------- 40 .0 50 .0 70 . (l 70 .0 250 .0 Setup b y Assessor ( i ndi v i dual di stricts ) 10 .0 10 . (l 20 .0 20 .0 10 .0 10 .0 :20 . (l 20 .0 20 . (l 20.0 20 .0 20 . (l ----------------------------------- 40.0 ::20 .0 40 .0 o . (> 100 .0 4. Variable Costs -Progr ammi ng F ees (individua l districts) District 6 $ 31 (l 31 • (l District !:" ,.J 15 .0 15. (i District 1 '.::5.0 2 5.(l Distr ict 13 15 . (i 15 . (l District 14 25 .. (> 25 .0 Dis tri.ct 7 25 . (> 25 .0 District 1 1 25 . (> 2 5.(l ------------------------------------------ Su b-Tota ls :f 31. (l 40 . 1) 4 0 . ,) 50 . 0 o . 0 i61 .0 Total Est im ated Cost $ 52. •.) 122 .5 1 1 2 .5 162 .5 72 .5 522.(l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hich-Level Costing Anal y sis for User Charge S y stem Related Requirements (continued ) I I. New In-House Hardware and Software Option A. Com puter Hardware a n d Software (One T ime Costs) Hardware $ Sofb·iare Total s $ 250. 0 350 .(> 600. (l $ $ Hig h 300 . (> 600 . 0 900 . (l B . Techni c a l Staff (i ncremental to e>: i s t ing ) 3 y s . Programmer (1) App . Programmer (1) CompLtter Ops. ( 2) Totals $ ··I:" ..... Salar y 35. () '.24 . (l 40.0 ·~9. l) C . Hardware and Software Maintenance Hardware Software ·i:" ..... Totals $ D . 5 Year F'roj ect i ans Total Annual 24 .0 36 .0 6 0. (l O/H 19 .3 13.2 22 . (> 54 .5 Year $ $ Assume d 250 . 0 500 . (l 750 . (l Total r~nnual 54 .3 37 .2 62 .0 153 .5 B-2 1 ·• ~ k ·-· 4 5 Tota l ...., Capital (5 yr . Amort .) Ha rd r.-iare ~1:. So f t• ... i c:~re 1Jp ,?.rat i ei n s ~ Staff (+5% I y ear ) Ma 1n t (+5% I y ear1 .:;._mp li e s - .+,-_,, rota l Est imated Cost $ - 50 . 0 1 00 . (l 1 50 . (l 60 . (I C' 0 -· · ------- ~565 . (> 50 .0 1 (l(i . (l 157 . 5 I 7 Q . ..;. . (; 5 . (l ------- ::75 .5 5(i. (i 100 .0 165 . ..j. t:..6 . 2 i;:· . ·' . (i ------- 3E<6 .5 5 (>. (; 1 00 . (l 173 . 6 69 . 5 i:::· 0 ,:.; . ------- 398 . 1 5(i . (l 1 (l(l • (l 182 . ' ·-· 7 2. 9 c:-..J. 0 ------- 250 . •.) 500 . (l 828 . 8 ::::31 . <7 ..J "'t::' ..;._1 . (> ------- 4 10 .3 1 9::':.5 .4 I ~ r July 11, 1984 COUNTY SANITATION DISTR ICTS STAFF SUMMARY REPORT OF TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY NATEL & CO. of Q RANGE COUNTY. CALI FORNI A P.O .BOX8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (71 -l)962·24 11 Based upon a Fiscal Policy Conunittee recommendation, the Boards authorized Natel & Co., a local telecommunications consultant, to perform an in-depth study of the Districts' telephone needs for the purpose of acquiring a new, updated telephone system to replace the existing GTE system currently in use. A significant part of this study involved preparing detailed specifications for competitive bidding to acquire a new system to replace the overloaded GTE system, performing an analysis of the vendor responses, and presenting a recommendation on the results of the competitive bidding process. Formal Requests for Proposals (RFP) were sent out to eleven suppliers, and a total of five vendors submitted responsive proposals. COST ANALYSIS The adjusted cost totals for purchase and installation of a comprehensive telephone system to replace our existing system are presented in the following table: ADJUSTED TELEPHONE SYSTEM BID AMOUNTS Vendor CENT EL CCA AT&T Informa tion Services NTI GTE Adjusted Cost $ 141,310.00 142,662.00 176,879.00 182,322.00 217,274.00 Natel performed a financial analysis for the five responsive bidders in which they uniformly adjusted the individual bid prices to properly reflect the l eas t expensive system configuration while at the same time including cost additions (or deletions) for system equipment needed to match the desired, specified system requirarae nts t hat Natel wr o t e into the original bid package. The tabulated summary of these adjusted system capital costs for the five bidder s presented above reflects these cost adjustments . -........... Staff Sununary Report July 11, 1984 Page Two In addition, Nate! also performed a net present value (N PV) analysis of the potential cost savings available to the Districts by installing a new system compared to the estimated cost of remaining with our current system. The results of this analysis are presented in the following table: COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES OF SAVINGS OVER EXISTING SYSTEM Vendor CCA CENT EL NTI AT&TIS GTE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION 10 Years NPV Savings Over Existing System $ 219,209.00 217,169 .00 180,427 .00 172 ,109 .00 143,696.00 Nate! also prepared a decision matrix which assigned relative point values for four different criteria used to compare each of the vendors. Following are the results of this assessment : TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANALYSIS RESULTS Financial Vendor End -User Total System Analysis Capability Opinion Points CENT EL 1 ,175 490 500 360 2,525 NTI 1 ,1 75 410 500 380 2,465 CCA 1 ,125 500 300 300 2,225 GTE 1,100 325 400 345 2,170 AT&TIS 750 400 450 370 1,970 Attached is Natel 1 s final report. Chapter III of the report explains the decision matrix criteria, presents a comparative rating of the five vendors, and recommends that the Districts enter into a purchase and installation contract with CENTEL Business Systems , Inc . CENTEL has proposed installation of an SL -lMS system, and the company has a large maintenance facility and staff in Irvine to install the system and provide routine maintenance support. The Staff concurs with Natel & Co.'s analysis and recorrunends that the Districts award a contract to CENTEL Business System s for purchase and installation of the new telephone/conununications system in an amount not to exceed $141,310 .00 . - - - - - - - - - - ..... - - - - ..... - - TELEPI-IO·NE SYSTEIV1 ANALYSIS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Fountain Valley , California Prepared by: Nater & Co. Orange, California June , 1984 - ' .,, - - - - - I ' \ - - - - - - - TELEPI-IO·NE SYSTEM ANALYSIS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Fountain Valley , California Prepared by: Nate! & Co. Orange , California June , 1984 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOTICE OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION The information disclosed within this Telephone System Analysis is proprietary and is the property of Natel & co. for the pur- pose of assisting County sanitation Districts of Orange county in the selection of a telephone system. Recipients hereof recognize that certain processes and analytical techniques used in preparing this report are copyrighted and that this material may not be reproduced or disclosed in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Natel & co. - - - - I \ - - - - - - - - COUNTY SANITA T ION DISTRICTS OF ORANG E COUNTY FOUNTAIN VALLEY , CALIFORNIA JUNE, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION •...••••••.•••••.•.•.••••.... ~ .•...•..•.••.. 1 I I. ANA LYSIS OF THE ALTERNA T I VES .•.•....•.••..•........•..•. 2 A. Criteria for Evaluation ......••••.•..•.•.....•.....• 3 B. Overvi ew of Prop o sed Systems/Vend o rs •••.•••......... 6 C. Financial Analysis •..•.........••..•..••..........• 19 I I I . CO NCLUSION S •.•.•..•.•••....•..••..••••.•••••.•.•.•....• 22 A . Deci s ion Matrix .................................... 24 B . Recommendation .•.•..•......•.....•....•..••....•... 26 AP PENDICES AP PENDIX A: AP PENDI X B: APP ENDI X C : AP PE NDI X D: APPENDIX E: APP END I X F : APP ENDI X G : APPEND I X H: APP END I X I : Line and Trunk Co nfi g ur ations of Pr o p osed sys t e ms Ve ndor Cr o s s -Se c t ion a l Anal ys i s o f Re quired Feat u r e s Sy s t e m Fe atures Design a ted as Op ti ons Tech ni c al Br e ak dow n o f Pr op osed S ys t ems Req uir ed Space, Po we r , a nd En v ir onmen t al co n d i t i o n s Cro s s -Se c t i ona l An aly si s o f Ven do r In s t allatio n, Ma int e nan ce , a n d su pport Ve ndo r-Supp li ed Pa rt ia l custome r Lists Te l epho n e Ins tr ument Equipment Required and Ass oci ated Cos t s Com par a t i v e Cost Impa c t o f Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapter One Introduction I. INTRODUCTION County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Telephone System Analysis Natel & co. was engaged by County Sanitation Districts of Orange County to develop comprehensive telephone system specifications for the County Sanitation Districts' facilities. Representatives from Na tel & Co. met with representatives of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County to determine their present and future telecommuni- cat ions needs. The mutually agreed-upon needs were identified in Natel & Co. 's Request for Proposal, which formed the basis of a competitive bidding procedure and subsequent analysis. Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to document the methodology, criteria, analyses, and results, which lead to the ultimate recommendation of a new telephone system for County sanitation Districts of orange county. ..... - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - Chapter Two County sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone system Analysis A. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Natel & Co. evaluated all proposals on overall merits in the best interest of County Sanitation Districts of orange county. Following is a discussion of the criteria used in our evaluation. 1. system Price and Cash Flow Analysi~ Natel & co. evalua _ted all proposals over a ten (10) year investment time horizon, discounted at ten percent ( 10%). All offerings are treated as outright cash purchases, as specified by county Sanitation Districts of Orange county financial management. Evaluations involve a comparison of the cum u 1 at iv e net present v a 1 u e of savings ( or premiums) of the systems, vis-a-vis the existing system. A complete listing of the assumptions, con- straints and capital costs used in the cash Flow Analysis program, as well as a summary of the results, are found at the end of this Chapter. The detailed result s of the Cash Flow Analysis program are found in Appendix I. -3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis 2. System Support Information regarding vendor s y stem support is gathered in two (2) different wa y s. Th e first method involves evaluating responses to t h e Ven- dor Questionnaire, which is included in the Request For Proposal sent out to each ·v end o r. This information allows Natel & Co. to evaluate the availability of each vendor's maintenance, in terms of installation interval, hours per day during which service is available, number of . main tena nce/techn i ca 1 per sonne 1 available in the local area, locations from which personnel are dispatched and at which spare parts are stored, and guaranteed response times to maj o r and minor system failures. Nate! & co. also evaluates the qua l ity of the system support associated with eac h proposed s y s- tem. This information is gathered by polling end-users of the proposed systems t o obtain their perceptions of the quality of work performed. This includes the technical c om petence d i spla y ed by service personnel, response time to service requests, neatness, and overall degree of profes- sionali s m of the vendor's service a n d ma i nt en a n ce employees. -4- - - - - - - ; "'l~ .. - - - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone system Analysis 3. System Capability System capability involves a technical evaluation of each proposed system. Capabilities, such as call processing capability (under both normal and peak load conditions), possibilities for inte- grated voice/data transmission, and off ice-of- the-future applications, as well as the system's a bi 1 i ty to meet daily expectations and demands, are evaluated. In addition, system capability also refers to the feature availability inherent in each system. 4. System Familiarity The private suppliers to which Natel & co. sends the Request For Proposal can be divided into two (2) groups, based upon the type of equipment they represent. The first group are the vendors who are equipment distributors only. Since they do not manufacture any equipment, they often repre- sent the product line of more than one manufac- turer. In such cases, it is i mportant to know how familiar the vendor is with the proposed system , in terms of how long the vendor ha s rep- resented the manufacturer, how many of the like systems the vendo r presently maintains, etc. -5- - -~ - - - - - - ............. i - - - - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis 5. The second group of vendors are the manufac- turer/distributors. Since the vendor performs both functions, the vendor's system familiarity is no longer an issue. An exception arises in a case where a new product line is introduced. This, of course, applies to both vendor types. Vendor Organization This criteria is used to gauge the overall integ- rity of the vendor. Natel & Co. requests that all vendors furnish ir.formation concerning their financial position, client base, locations of facilities, etc. This is to safeguard against the possibility of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County losing their system support and legal recourse in the event that the vendor ceases to continue as a "going concern". B. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS/VENDORS The following section provides a synopsis of each of the vendors and the systems being proposed . Included therein is a brief discussion of the vendor back - ground, proposed system characteristics, and t he sys- tern capital costs pertaining to each proposa l. Each synopsis is fully referenced to the appropriate Appendices, which provide expanded discussions and/or in-depth analyses of the respective topics. -6- --... -'\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chapter Two c ou n ty Sanit a t ion Di str i cts of Or ange County Ana l ysis of the Al t ernatives Telephone System Analysis 1. AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS AT&T Information Systems (AT&TIS), formerly American Bell, Inc. (ABI), is a wholly -owned sub- sidiary of AT&T and was formed in accordance with FCC guide l ines unde r Compute r I n quiry II o n June 24 , 1 982. AT&T is the world 's largest manufac- turer of telephone equipment . AT&TIS received approximately $4 .5 billion for capitalization from AT&T in June , 1984. Most of the telephone equipment , apparatus , and materials used by AT&T have been manufactured or procured by At&T Technolog i es, formerly western Electric Company , Inc ., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T . All maintenance service on the proposed system would be provided through the AT&TIS maintenance center located i n Irvine, California. To meet Na tel & co.' s specifications , AT&T IS is proposing the Dimension 400, with Feature Package 15, manufactured by AT&T Technologies. The Dimension 400 is an electronic communications system that uses stored-program control, time division multiplexing, and analog switching tech- nology (ref: Appendix D). At the Equipped con - figuration, the system will provide a combination -7- - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis of 150 lines and 26 trunks (ref: Appendix A). The Proposed configuration met and exceeded the required line and trunk specifications for Equipped, Wired, and capacity. The Dimension 400 met most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified (ref: Append ices B . and c, respe c- tively). The following pricing represents the unadjusted costs of the Dimension 400 system, as stated by AT&TIS within Natel & Co. 's RFP specifications for County sanitation Districts of orange county: Standard Instruments: Purchase Price Sales Ta x Total System Cost Electronic Instruments: (without LED Display): Purchase Price Sales Tax Total system Cost Electronic Instruments: (with LED Display) -8- $133,426.8 8 7,367.63 $140,794.51 ========== $141,308.01 7,666.62 $14 8 ,974.63 ========== No Bid Submitted - - - - - - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis Standard Instruments: Electronic Instruments: (without LED Display) Purchase Price Sales Tax* Total System Cost Electronic Instruments: (with LED Display) -11- No Bid Submitted $120,964.56 6,010.58 $.i26,975.14 -------------------- No Bid Submitted - - - - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone system Analysis 3. COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA Communications Corporation of America (CCA) was incorporated in October, 197 0 , and is headquar- tered in Dallas, Texas. CCA' s Costa Mesa, California, sales and service off ice is the newest of CCA's offices and represents a va riety of telephone system installations in different industries. As a distributor, CCA's major equip- ment sources are Northern Telecom, Inc., Nippon Electric (NEC), Mite!, Inc., and ROLM Corporation. CCA is proposing the SL-lMS to meet the communi - cations needs of the county Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The SL-lMS telephone switching system is manufactured by Northern Te lec om , Inc. ( NTI) , the second largest supplier of telephone switching equipment in No rth America . The SL-lMS is a computer-bas ed telephone system and is one of the most advanced systems available on the market at the present time (ref: Appendix D for technical breakdown of system). CCA is a factory-authorized contractor fo r NTI and has been certified by NT! to install and maintain NTI telecommunication systems with full support of NTI. Appe ndix F lists CCA's installa- tion, maintenance, and system support capabili- ties . -12 - _ ..... - - - - -· - - - - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis The SL-lMS telephone system, as proposed by CCA, met most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified (ref: Appendices B and c, respec- tively). The proposed system will be equipped with 172 lines and 26 trunks. CCA has proposed a capacity level of 400 lines and 60 trunks. The system also met most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified. The unadjusted costs of the SL-lMS, as p roposed by CCA and stated in Natel & Co.'s RFP specifica- tions, are as follows: standard Instruments: Electronic Instruments: (without LED Display) Purchase Price Sales Tax Total system Cost Electronic Instruments: (with LED Display) Purchase Price Sales Tax Total System cost -13- No Bid Submitted $127,712.00 4 ,597.63 $132,309.63 ========== $135,085.00 4,863.06 $139,948.06 ========== - - - - - ... Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone system Analysis 4. GTE BUSINESS TERMINAL SALES GTE Business Terminal sales is the equipment mar- keting division of GTE of California, a subsidi- ary of the GTE Corporation. As a communications, manufacturing, and research organization, GTE corporation has operations in· 41 states and 17 countries, with · 1983 revenues in excess of $13 billion and nearly 250,000 employees. GTE has been installing and maintaining business communi- cation systems in California for over fifty years. GTE designs and manufacturers a broad range of products, from digital telephones and advanced business and information s ystems digital central off ice equipment, earth stations, satellites, and laser optics. Telenet, Mobilnet, and Sprint are three ( 3) GTE companies influencing the data, mobile communications, and long distance markets. Established in March, 1982, GTE Business Terminal sales marks the tele- phone company's entry into the deregulated bus i- ness market . GTE is proposing the Omni SII digital PABX to meet Natel & Co. 's communications specifications for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Manufactured by GTE, the Omni SII util- izes s tored-program control and time divi s ion -1 4- - - - - - - I \~. - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis multiplexing (TDM) in a pulse code modulation (PCM) format. At the Equipped configuration, the Omni SII can provide a combination o f 168 lines and 28 trunks, as well as meet and surpass Capa- city configuration requirements (ref: Appendix A). As depicted in Appendices. B and c, the Omni SII included most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified. The following quotation demonstrates the unad- justed capital cost of the Omni SII, as proposed by GTE Business Terminal Sales in Natel & Co. 's RFP specifications for the county $anitation Districts of Orange County. Standard Instruments: Purchase Price Sales Tax Total System Cost Electronic Instruments: (without LED Display) Electronic Instruments: (with LED Di s pla y ) .-15 - $170,380.00 8,115.54 $178,495.54 ========== No Bid Submit t ed. No Bid Submitted. - _, - - - - I \- - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis 5. NORTHERN TELECOM, INC. Northern Telecom, Inc. (NTI) is headquartered in Richardson, Texas, and is Northern Telecom, Limited's (NTL) United States wholly-owned sub- sidiary. NTL has been a part of the telecommuni- cations industry since 1882 and . is the second largest manufacture~ of telecommunications equip- ment in North America. NTL's corporate headquar- ters are in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, and in 1983, NTL became a publicly-owned corporation. As of year end 1983, NT! has installed in the United Stated, Canada, and around the world, SL-1 2 digital business communications systems representing over 3,000,000 lines. NTI manufactures, markets, and maintains telecom- munications systems and electronic off ice systems in the United States. The management over ser- vice, maintenance, and support for the proposed telephone system would be performed by NTI's Business Communications Systems Group located in Los Alamitos, California. The analysis in Appen- dix F shows the profile of NTI 's installation, maintenance, and system support capabilities. 2sL-l is a Registered Trademark of Northern Telecom, Limited. -16- -· - -· - - - c .. - - ...... - - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis NTI is proposing the SL-lMS for the county sanitation Districts of orange county. Manufac- tured by NTI in Santa Clara, California, the SL-lMS is a digital system utilizing time divi- sion multiplexing (TDM) in a pulse code modula- tion (PCM) format and is computer-control led by stored-program (software-based) operating tech- nologies (ref: Appendix D). Incorporated in its basic design are most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified (ref: Appendices B and c, respectively). The system's architecture permits the SL-lMS to be equipped with 175 lines and 26 trunks at cut- over, while accommodating a combination of 360 lines and 40 trunks at maximum system capacity (ref: Appendix A). As proposed, the SL-lMS bus- iness communications system features electronic telephone instruments ( SL-1 sets) (ref: Appendix H) • The following represents the unadjusted capital cost, as proposed by NTI in Natel & co. 's RFP specifications for the County Sanitation Districts of orange county. -17 - _, - - ' ,_ - .... -· ..... Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis NTI is proposing the SL-lMS for t h e county sanitation Districts of orange county. Manuf ac- tured by NTI in Santa Clara, California, the SL-lMS is a digital system utilizing time divi- sion multiplexing (TDM) in a pulse code modula- tion (PCM) format and is co mputer-controlled by stored-program (software-based) operating tec h - nologies (ref: Appendix D). Incorporated in its basic design are most of the Required and Optional Features, as specified (ref: Appe n dices B and c, respectively). The system's architecture permits the SL-lMS to be equipped with 175 lines and 26 trunks at cut- over, while accommodating a combination of 360 lines and 40 trunks at maximum system capacity (ref: Appendix A). As proposed, the SL-lMS bus- iness communications system features electronic telephone instruments ( SL-1 sets) (ref: Appendix H) • The following represents the u nadjusted capital cost, as proposed by NTI in Natel & c o . 's RFP specifications for the county sa n itation Districts of orange c o unty • -17- ~­( - - I ·-'-~ .... - Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis Standard Instruments: Electronic Instruments: (without LED Display) Purchase Price Sales Tax Total system Cost Electronic Instruments: (with LED Display) Purchase Price Sales Tax Total System Cost -1 8 - No Bid Su b mitted. $165,360.00 7,032.00 $172,392.00 -------------------- $183,919.00 8,145.00 $192,064.00 ========== - - \._ - - - - Chapter Two County sanitation Districts of Orange County Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis C. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In accordance with the discussion in the Financial Analysis Section A.l of this Chapter, Table 2.1 lists the Assumptions and Constraints used in the Cash Flow Analysis program. TABLE 2.1 Assumptions and constraints for the cash Flow Analysis Program Cash purchase Discount rate of 10% Insurance at $1.00 per $1000 of net escalated at 5 % per year Earnings on reinvested savings at 5% No Property or corporate tax Maintenance contracts included for suppliers after first year (ref: Appendix F) escalated at 15% per year -19- - - ' ~· - - - - ..... Chapter Two County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Analysis of the Alternatives Telephone System Analysis Table 2. 3 lists the cumulative net present value of system savings (usinq the aforementioned criteria) of each of the systems compared to the existing s y stem over a ten (10) year investment time horizon. TABLE 2.3 Comparative cumulative Net Present Values Of savings over 10 Years 10 Years NPV savings Vendor over Existing System CCA $219,209 CENTEL $217,169 NTI $180,427 AT&T IS $172,109 GTE $143,696 -21- - - - - - - - Chapter Three Conclusions III. CONCLUSIONS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Telephone System Analysis Information der ived from Natel & co. 's End-User Surveys and from the proposals received from each vendor was grouped into four ( 4) separate categories. The four (4) categories are: (i) System, (ii) Financial Analysis, (iii) Vendor, and (iv) End-User Opinion. Na tel & Co. eval ua tea the relative performance of each system/vendor in each of the categories and quantified the results in order to develop a Decision Matrix. A. DECISION MATRIX Following is a brief discussion of the subcomponents of each of the listed categories in the Matrix. 1. system a. Configuration: Each system was analyzed to determine whether the specified line and trunk configurations were met. b. Inherent and optional feature capability. c. Type of switching technology utilized . d. Data transmission capability. e. Call processing capability. f. Maximum simultaneous conversations. -2 2 - - - - - - - - Chapter Three Conclusions County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Telephone System Analysis 2. Financial Analysis Information for relative "Financial Analysis" comparison derived from Appendix I and Ch apt er II, section c. 3. Vendor Capability As derived from the Vendor Questionnaire, which is in the Request for Proposal, the f ollowing areas were analyzed. a. Relative vendor stability. b. Location of spare parts storage. c. Location of maintenance personnel dispatch point. d. Guaranteed response time to major problems. e. Guaranteed response time to minor problems. f. Installation interval. 4. End-User Opinion Na tel & Co. polls end-users of the same systems as those being proposed to gain t heir perception of: a. The vendor's installation capabilities. b. The system's operational capabilities. c. The vendor's maintenance capabilities. d. The quality of the vendor-supplied training. e. The end-user's perceptions of their present system and system support relative to their previous system. -23- - - I I - - - - - - Chapte r Th r ee Conc l usions County sani t ation Dist r icts of Orange co unt y Telcph0ne System ,\nalys is DECISION MATRIX The following matrix highlights the relati v e perfor mance of each vendor in each of the listed categories: Financial Vendor End-user System Analysis Capability Opinion Total AT&TIS 750 400 450 370 1,9 70 CENT EL 1,175 490 500 360 2,525 CCA 1,125 500 300 300 2,225 GTE 1,100 325 400 345 2,170 NTI 1,175 410 500 380 2,465 -24 - - - - - - - Ch apt er Three Co nclu sions County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Telepho n e System Analysis In descending o rder, the point totals from the matrix are: Vend o r /System Total Points 1) CENT EL 2,525 (SL-lMS) 2) NTI 2,465 ( SL-lMS) 3) CCA 2,225 ( SL-lMS) 4) GTE 2,170 (Omni SII) 5) AT&T IS 1,970 (Dimension 400) -25 - - - -- - - - - - Chapter Three Conclusions County Sanitation Districts of Orange county Telephone System Analysis B. REC0r1MENDATIONS Natel & Co. recommends Centi:l with the SL -lMS as the primary recom mended supplier and telep hon e s ys tem for County sanitation Districts of Orange County. In terms of the System Capabi li ty ~ategory of the Decision Matrix model, the SL -lMS was ranked number one (1) overall of the five (5) systems evaluated. The SL -l MS is one of the more technologically- advanced communications systems available on the marke t at the present time. As proposed by Centel , the SL-lMS system met all of the line and tr u nk requirement specifications , as well as most of the Required and Optional Feature specifications. In the Financial Analysis cateqor y , the Centel pro- posal performed second best overall within a one per- cent (1%) margin of the top ranking potential sup - plier of the systems under consideration in this analysis. The second place rankinq is due primarily to a slightly higher cost for associated maintenance service provided by Centel. The Centel proposal entailed the lowest overall capital cost at $141,310. Furthermore , the cash Flow Analysis program identified that by installing the SL -lMS telephone system in place of the existing system , County Sanitation Districts of Orange County would accrue over a ten ( 10) year period a cumulative net present value savings of $217,16 9 . ) - /_ - - - - - - - Chapter Three Conclusions County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Telephone System Analysis In the Vendor Capability category, Centel was ranked number one ( 1) of the vendors eva 1 ua ted, based upon the criteria established herein. Centel' s local maintenance facility is located in Irvine. The maintenance facility includes a complete staff of factory-trained technicians servicing SL-1 customers in the Orange County area. In terms of the End-User Opinion category, which reflects the results of an ongoing End-User Opinion survey conducted by Na tel & co., Centel was ranked within the top five percent (5%) out of all the suppliers in question. Centel's ranking in this category was above the overall median performance inferring with a statistically significant level of confidence that the Centel customers were generall y satisfied with the company's level of installation, maintenance, and system support capabilities. In conclusion, based upon the facts considered and the analyses conducted, Natel & c o . feels that Centel and the SL-lMS are sufficientl y justif ie ci as t h e recommended supplier and system for County Sanitation Districts of Orange county. -27- ------- - - APPENDICES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·· - - - - - - APPENDIX A LINE AND TRUNK CONFIGURATIONS OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - Followinq are the line and trunk confiqurations proposed by each vendor upon which their system prices are based. In all cases, the "Equipped" column represents the confiquration that would exist at system cutover. The "Wired" column represents the configuration to which the proposed system may expand with- out any additional capital investment other tharr the incremen- tal cost of printed circuit boards (P.C.B. 's) to expand the confiquration on a per line or trunk basis. The "Capacity" column dictates the type of system that will ultimately be pro- posed, in that it represents the limit to which the system may approach without impairinq the call processinq capability of the common control unit. - 1. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH INFORMATION SYSTEMS -Dimensi o n 400 -Specified Equipped Wired Capacity -Consoles 1 2 3 Trunks -Combinations 26 31 40 Lines 130 165 225 Lines OPX 25 35 so Proposed -Equipped Wired capacity Consoles 1 2 4 Trunks Combination 26 32 128 --Lines 130 165 387 Lines OPX 25 35 50 -7 - - - - - .... - ~ 2 . CEN TEL BU SINESS SYSTEM . SL -lMS -Specified Equipped Wired Capacity Consoles 1 2 3 -Tru n ks Combinations 26 31 40 -Lines 130 165 225 Lines OPX 25 35 50 - Proposed -Equipped Wired Capacity -Consoles 1 2 15 ...... ___ Trunks Combination 26 32 40 -·- Lines 176 192 228 Lines OPX 25 36 52 ,.., - - - - - - - - -3. COMMUNICATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA SL-lMS -Specified Equipped Wired capacity Consoles 1 2 3 -Trunks Combinations 26 31 40 -Lines 130 165 225 Lines OPX 25 35 50 - Proposed -Equ i pped Wired Capacity Consoles 1 2 15 - Trunks Combination 26 32 60 -- Lines 147 165 350 Lines OPX 25 35 50 " - - - - 4 . GTE BUSINESS TERMINAL SALES OMNI SII -Specified Equi1212ed Wired ca12aci t:z: - Consoles 1 2 3 -Trunks Combinations 26 31 40 -Lines 130 165 225 Lines OPX 25 35 50 - Proposed -Equi1212ed Wired ca12acity -Consoles 1 4 8 Trunks Combination 28 256 1000 --- Lines 13 6 485 1998 -Lines OPX 32 35 50 --, - - - - - - - -5 . NORTHERN TE LECOM , INC. SL-l MS -Spec i fied Equipped Wired ca12acit;t -Consoles 1 2 3 -Trunks Combinations 26 31 40 Li nes 130 1 65 225 - Lines OPX 25 35 50 - Proposed -Equipped Wired ca12acit;t Consoles 1 2 32 .... Trunks Combination 26 32 52 --- Li nes 130 1 68 284 -Lines OPX 25 36 64 - - - - - - - - - - - -,.. 1-. \ - - - - - APPENDIX B VENDOR CROSS-SECTI ONAL ANALYSIS OF REQUIRED FEATURES B. REQUIRED FEATURES Co n t'd AT&TIS CENTEL CCA " ATTENDANT OPERATING FEATURES -Attendant Camp -On x x 0 -Attendant Overflow Facility x x x Attendant Transfer-All Calls x x x - Automatic Recal l 0 x x Busy override x x x Busy Verification of .,,. Stations x x x Dial "O" Trunks to Attendant x x x - ..... -Trunk -to-Trunk Connections-Attendant x x x ., Two-way Splitting x x x - - - ,... - B. REQU I RE D FEATU RES Cont'd GTE NT! ATTENDANT OPERATING FEATURES - Attendant Camp -On x 0 Attendant Overflow Facility x x Attendant Transfer-All Calls x x - Automatic Recall x x Busy override x x Busy Verification of ... Stations x x Dial "O " Trunks to -Attendant x x Trunk-to -Trunk , \ Connections-Attendant x x Two-way Splitting x x - - ..... - -. - - - r \ - - B. REQUIRED FEATURES Cont'd AT&TIS ATTENDANT POSITION FACILITIES Attendant Class of Service Display Multiple Console Operation Pushbutton Dialing to Stations Syste m Alarm Indications Trunks-Switched Loop Operation x x x x x Volume Control-Console Signal o SWITCHED LOOP CONSOLE FEATURES Alphanurnbe ric Display for Attendant Position Atte nd ant Called Number Display Attendant Trunk Group Busy Lamps Call Processing Indications Incoming Call Identification x x x x x ~ CONFERENCE FEATURES - ' - Add -On conference Attendant Conference Flexible Station-Controlled Conference Multi-Station/Multi-Trunk Conference x x x x CENT EL CCA 0 0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x .... - .... • .... B. REQUIRED FEATURES Cont'd ATTENDANT POSITION FACILITIES Attendant Class of Service Display Multiple Console Operation Pushbutton Dialing to Stations System Alarm Indications Trunks-Switched Loop Operation Volume Control-Console Signal SWITCHED LOOP CONSOLE FEATURES Alphanumberic Display for Attendant Position Attendant Called Number Display Attendant Trunk Group Busy Lamps Call Processing Indications Incoming Call Identification CONFERENCE FEATURES Add-On Conference Attendant Conference Flexible Station-Controlled Conference Multi-Station/Multi-Trunk Conference GTE NTI x 0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x - - - .... - - - B. REQUIRED FEATURES cont'd HUNTING ARRANGEMENTS Circular Hunting No n-Consecutive Hunting RESTRICTION FACILITIES Data Privacy Miscellaneous Trunk Restrictions Station Forced Busy Toll Restriction-0&1 in PBX SYSTEM FEATURES Automatic Station Release with Howler Classes of Service Diagnostic Circuitry Multiple Trunk Groups P rocessor Changes Administrative Panel Tandem Trunking Trunk-to-Trunk Transfer INWARD DIA LING FEATURES Di r ect Inward System Access AT&TIS x x x x 0 x 0 x x x x x x x CENT EL CCA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 x - - - - - - - - - - .... - B. REQUIRED FEATURES Cont'd HUNTING ARRANGEMENTS Circular Hunting Non-Consecutive Hunting RESTRICTION FACILITIES Data Privacy Miscellaneous Trunk Restrictions Station Forced Busy Toll Restriction-0&1 in PBX SYSTEM FEATURES Automatic Station Release with Howle r Classes of Service Diagnostic Circuitry Multiple Trunk Groups Processor Changes Administrative Panel Tandem Trunking Trunk -to-Trunk Transfer INWARD DIALING FEATURES Direct Inward System Access GTE NTI x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x B. REQUIRED FEATURES cont'd AT&TIS CENTEL CCA ACCESS AND CONTROL CAPABILITIES - Attendant Direct Paging x x x -Tie Trunk Access x x x Voice Paging Access x x x Voice Paging Access "Meet Me" w/trunk x x x NIGHT SERVICE FEATURES Flexible Night Service x x x Trunk Answer from Any Station x x x ·-- MULTI-LOCATION FEA TURES -Off-Premises Stations (retaining all station features) x 0 x - - - B. REQUIRED FEATURES Cont'd GTE NTI - - X = Inherent in System O = Option or Not Available - - - -APPENDIX C SYSTEM FEATURES DESIGNATED AS OPTIONS - - - - ·-c . FEATURES DESIGNATE D AS OPTIONS -AT&TIS CENTEL CCA Speed Cal l ing Station: INH INH I NH System: INH IN H INH Processor Changes via CRT or Te l etype INH INH INH Redundant Computer Common Control N/A N/A N/A Reserve Power ( 4 Hou r UPS) $21,068 $5 ,296 $5,050 Least Cost Routing with Queing (on hook) INH IN H INH ( Power Failure Restart '~. ROM /PROM INH INH IN H CDR List N/A $3,511 I NH 3 -Pair Jacks (prewire) $540 INH INH - - ..... - - - - (_: - - - C . FEATURES DESIGNATED AS OPTIONS Speed Calling Station: System: Processor Changes via CRT or Teletype Redundant Computer Common Control Reserve Power (4 Hour UPS) Least Cost Routing with queing (on hook) Power Failure Restart ROM/PROM CDR List 3 pair Jacks (prewire) INH N/A $ = Inherent in System = Not Available = Additional Cost GTE NTI INH INH INH INH I NH INH $23,703 N/A $2,630 $4,651 INH INH INH INH $5 ,534 INH INH INH - - - - - - - - APPENDIX D TECHNICAL BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS Following is a cross-section listing of the technical c h arac- teristics of the proposed systems. Reference terminolog y can -be found on the pages following the cross-section tables. -- - - - - - - - - - - ( ' - - - - - - D. TECHN I CA L BREAKDOWN OF PROPO SED SYSTEMS AT&TIS Switching Principle TDM Modu l ation Principle PAM Common Control Stored- Trans mission CCS load/line at cutover @ P .01 Total BH (Busy Hour) CCS 's available at program dece n tralized micro - processor volatile memory analog 6 ccs Cutover 6 ccs Maximum Sy stem ccs's available Simu l taneous conversations at cutover Simultaneous co n versations at capacity Baud Rate Certification number 1,662 ccs 64 64 9 ,600 FCC# AS593M- 62269 PF-E CENTEL TDM PCM S tored- program single micro- p r ocessor no n-vo l atile memory digital 36 ccs 36 ccs 7 ,200 ccs 90 157 9 ,600 FCC # AB6 98 2 62937 PF -E CCA TDM PCM Stored - pr o gra m single micr o - processor non-volatile memory digital 36 ccs 11 ccs 2,4 00 ccs 90 157 9 ,600 FCC # AB69 82 62937 PF-E .- - - - - - - - - - - D. TECHNICAL BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS Switching Principle Modulation Principle Common Control Transmission ccs load/line at cutover @ P.01 Total BH (Busy Hour) CCS's available at Cutover Maximum System . CCS's available Simultaneous conversations at Cutover Simultaneous conversations at cap acity Baud Rate Certification number GTE TDM PCM Stored- progr am single micro- processor volatile memory digital 6 ccs 6 ccs 6,912 ccs 96 96 5,600 FCC# CTB984 70804 PF-E NTI TDM PCM Stored- program single micro- processor non-volatile memory digital 36 ccs 36 ccs 7,200 ccs 90 157 9,600 FCC# AB6982 62937 PF-E - ..... ,_ - - - I ~ - - - - - - - \. - ANALOG -a method of transmitting intelligence using a continu- ously variable signal usually in the form of electrical vo lta ge . BAUD a unit of measurement of the velocity of da ta transmis- sion expressed in "bits per second.'' CCS hundred call seconds, i.e., one CCS equals one call in progress for 100 seconds. CCS is a figure rep r esenting the traffic handling capability of a switching system under busy hour cond itions. ~la nufacturer's traffic assumptions us ed in the dete rmination of CCS fi g ures may vary from th e actual traffic conditions experienced. There fore , the quoted "CCS/line " fig ure s are for comparat ive purposes onl y .. Industry benchmarks designate 8.0 CCS/line and above as "heav y tra ffi c", 5.0 CCS/line and above a s ''med i um t raff i c" , and 3 . 5 CC SI 1 i n e and be 1 ow as "1 i g ht traffic". DECENTRALIZED MICRO -PROCESSOR -a t y pe of common control architec - ture in which sev eral micr oprocesso rs control respective grou ps of lines, trunks, stations, and call processing functions. In this type of a r r a nge men t , the ce n t r a 1 pro c e s s i n g uni t (C PU ) cont r o 1 s the real -time functions with the d ecentral ize d microprocessors operating in machine -time o nl y . A gene ral ad vantage of -this t ype of architecture is that a failure within a microprocessor wil l only affect its associat e d lin es , trunk s , and the like . DIGITAL -a method of transmitting intelligence using a discrete set of signals in the form of a finite set of amp li tudes, frequen- cies, or phases. DIST RI BUTED MICRO-PROCESSOR -a type of co mmon contro l architec - ture in which several microprocessors c on trol respective gro u ps of lines, trunks, stations , and call processing functions. Unlike the related decentralized architecture, ther e is no CPU in a system uti li zing distributed arch itec ture . Thu s , the micropro- cessors operate in machine-time and real-time. As with decen- tralized systems , distributed systems possess the advantage of limiting line and trunk failures to the associated microprocessor only. Fur t hermore , distributed ar ch itecture facilitates ease of expansion , since no CPU is utilized in t h e system . LDM -Linear Delta Modulation . LDM is a digital modulation prin - ciple or meth od of encoding intelligence for transmission. LO~! utilizes an ext r a integration step at the decoder allowing modu- lation sensitivity to the rate of cha nge (delta) in th e sample of th e original signal waveform . Thus, the original signa l is samp led twic e before the r es ul tant binary code is reconstr u cted into the origina l waveform. MODULATION PRINCIP L E -the method of s<impling the original signal waveform such as LD?-1, PA!'-1, ;ind PCM. - - - .... - - - - - - - - - - NON-VOLATILE MEMORY -a general term for a memor y device utilizing Read -Only ~ternary (ROM) and/or Programmable Read -Only ~ternary (PROM). RO~l/PRO~t memories are not eliminated in the event of power outages (comme rcial or voluntary). Since the s yste m's data base remains intact , the system becomes immediately operat io nal upon returning to conditions at ful l power supply. P.01 an industry-standard Grade of Service figure . At a probability factor o f P .01 , 1 % of all calls att empted during the busy hour (at th e given CCS/line figure) would be blocked or unsuccessfully completed. PAM -Pulse Amplitude Mod u lation .. A modulation process in h•hich each pulse in the sample is proportional to the amp litu de of the original signal waveform being represented . Therefore, the transmitted i ntelligence wil l be continuousl y variab le and is, thus, an analog technique of voice re production . PCM -Pu 1 s e Code Mod u 1 at i on . A mod u 1 a t i on process i n w hi c h the original signal waveform is encoded into a digital re pre sent ation of the analog level by quantizing the signals into a binary code consisting of a series of l's and O's. SINGLE MICRO-PROCESSOR -a type of common contro l arc h itecture in which all system functions are controlled by a single central p r oce ssing unit (C PU). In th e event of s ystem failure, the entire system will go down. SDS -Space Division Switching. which provides a multiplicity paths over which the physically data transfers take place . A type of switching technol ogy of individual ha r d -wire ta lking separated voice conversations o r SWITCHING PRINCIPLE -The method by which intelligence is trans - ferred across switching crosspoints through an interconnection network such as SDS and TDM. TDM -Tim e Division Mult iplexin g . A t ype of s wit ching technology that multiplexes (t he technique of sending many vo ice channe ls over a single wire facility) talki 'ng paths over a common single facility referred to as a speech l1ighway. The voice channels are separated by time, not space . This is accommodated by sampling a group of talking paths at very high speeds (in nano secon d s) and transmitting the sampled intelligence o ver the common s peech highway to the associated output t a lking paths . VOLATILE MEMORY -a genera l term for memory devi ces in which all information contained therein is destroye d in the event of a loss in power. The ty p ical memory storage device consists of a maonetic ttlpe or cassette. Upon returning to conditions of f ull po~er , the mtlgnctic tape is used to reload the data hase in to t he system's pro ce ssors . -- - - - - - - ( .._. - - - - - - - APPENDIX E REQUIRED SPACE, POWER, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS E. REQUIRED SPACE, POWER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - ..... - .... - - Space Required at Cutr:iver Minimum Ceiling Height Required A.C . Power Require- ments for System Components V.A.C. Amps Recommended -Environmental - - - - - - - - - Limits Min . Temp. Max. Temp Humidity Level of Heat Dissipation by System at Equipped Configuration Air Conditioning Required 24 hr/day AT&TIS 91 sq. ft. 7 I 129 20 65 deg. F 95 deg. F 20 -60 % 5,388 BTU/Hr. Yes CENT AL 64 sq. ft. 8' 115 22 60 deg. F 85 deg. F 20-55% CCA 175 sq. ft. 8 I 120 20 32 deg. F 104 deg. F 35-80% 4,098 BTU/Hr. 6,000 BTU/Hr. Yes Yes E. REQUIRED SPACE, POWER AND ENV I RONMENTAL CONDITIONS - GTE NTI -Space Required at Cutover 123 sq . ft . 64 sq. ft. Minimum Ceiling -Height Required 8' 8' A.C . Power Require- men ts for System Components V.A.C. 208 208 ..... Amps 20 20 Recommended -Environmental Limits -Min . Temp . 60 deg. F 60 deg . F Max. Temp 86 deg. F 86 deg. F Humidity 40-60 % 20-35% -Level of Heat Dissipation by System at Equipped -Configuration 5,447 BTU/Hr. 4,300 BTU/Hr. Air Conditioning -Required 24 hr/day Yes Yes - - - - - - - - -- - - - APPENDIX F CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VENDOR -INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT - ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F. CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VEN DOR INSTALLATION, MAINTEN - ANCE AND SUPPORT Installation interval for system bid after AT&TIS contract is signed 135 Days Service Available 24 Hrs/Day 365 Days/Yr Mai ntenance Performed by Installation Maintenance Personnel: Total Number of Factory Trained Main- tenance Techni- Vendor Employees cians 20 Total Number of Maintenance Technicians 20 Dispatched from Irvine Mai ntenance response time for: Minor Problem Majo r Problem Training included 24 hours 4 hours in bid price Yes Maintenance contract cost for second year $8,109 CENT EL 90 Days 24 Hrs/Day 365 Days/Yr Vendor Employees 18 10 Irvine 24 hours 2 hours Yes $7,392 CCA 120 Days 24 Hrs/Day 365 Days/Yr 25% Vendo r 75 % Sub- contractor 14 2 Costa Mesa 24 hours 2 hou rs Yes $7,056 ..... - - - - - - - - - - - - F . CRO S S-SECTIONA L ANALYSIS OF VENDOR INSTALLATION, MAINTEN- ANCE AND SU P PORT GTE NTI Instal l ation interval for system bid after contract is signed 252 Days 90 Days Service Available 24 Hrs/Day 24 Hrs/Day 365 Days/Yr 365 Days/Yr Main t enance 40% vendor Vendor Performed by 60% sub-Employees contractor Installation Maintenance Personnel: Total Number of Factory Trained Main- tenance Techni- cians 11 33 Total Number of Maintenance Technicians 27 33 Dispatched from Cerritos Los Alamitos Maintenance response time for: Mino r Problem 24 hours 24 hours Major Problem 4 hours 2 hours Training included in bid price Yes Yes Maintenance contract cost for second year $6 ,720 $6,746 - - - APPENDIX G VENDOR SUPPLIED PARTIAL CUSTOMER LISTS - -· - - - - - - ,_ - - - { \ - - - - - - - 1. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH INFORMATION SYSTEMS southern California Area Users customer City Lines Anaheim Memorial Hospital Anaheim 600 St. Jude Hospital Fullerton 712 Hoag Memorial Hospital Newport Beac h 700 Mission Viejo Company Mission Viejo 1,000 Fountain Valle y Hospital Fountain Vly 580 2. CENTEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS Southern California Area Users customer St. Mary's Medical Center Intergraph Nardon Manufacturing Co. Calif. Primary Physicians Glendale Fed. Savings & Loan Long Beach Irvine Alhambra Los Angeles Encino Lines 1,50 0 70 69 160 70 - I - - - ( . - - - - - - - - - l. COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 4. southern California Area Users customer National Education corporation Compton Unified School Dist. Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Attorneys at Law Inter-continental Hotel GTE .BUSINESS TERMINAL SALES City Newport Beach Compton Los Angeses San Diego Southern California Area Users customer City Pioneer Electronics Long Beach Sante Fe Energy Santa Fe Springs Equifax La Habra Indian Palms country Club Indio Lines 200 525 42 1,000 Lines 300 193 144 256 ,_ - - - ( \ - - - - - - - s . NORTHERN TELECOM, INC. So u thern Ca lifornia Cu sterner St . Joseph Hospital Pacific Mu tual Life Insura n ce Marriott Hotel Endevco save-On Drugs, Inc. Area Users City Lines Orange 1,250 Newport Bch 1 ,200 Newport Bch 5 41 San Jua n Capistrano 426 Anaheim 220 - - - APPENDIX H -TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIRED -AND ASSOCIATED COSTS ( - - - - - - - - - - - -Inc 1 uded herein are the instr urnent types and quantities upon which the vendors based their sys tern pr ices . The pre-Cutover -and post-cu tover prices a re also included for the respective equipment types. In addition, the section "Switching Equip- ment" indicates the cost of incrementally increasing the line and trunk size of the associated systems. - - - ( - - - - - ·- ' - - 1. AT&TIS -DIMENSION 400 - a. For Electronic Instruments Without LED Information Display .... Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed as Pr i ce Price Quantit:t s12ecified Per Unit Per Unit -65 Single Line Desk Yes $56 .75 $58.75 (DTMF) 25 Single Line Wall Yes $61. 0 0 $63.00 ( DTMF) 1 Trimline Wall Yes $84.98 $87.98 ( DTMF) 1 El evator Phones Yes $556.70 $556 . 70 52 Electronic Yes $275 .00 $279.00 Instr ume nt s ( 11 Electronic Yes $287.75 $291.75 Instruments with -10 Station Capacity 11 Electronic Yes $407 .50 $412.50 Instruments with 20 Station capacity - - - - - - b. Miscella n eous Equipment -Pre -Cutover Post-cu tover Inc luded Installed I nstalled as Price Price Quantity Specif i ed Per Unit Per Un i t 102 Long Handse t Yes $1 0 .00 $10.00 Cords ( 9 Ft . ) 11 4 Long Mounting Yes $34 .00 $34 .00 -Cords (12 Ft. ) 2 Loud Externa l Bells Yes $34.00 $34 .00 6 3 -Pair Indoor No* $90.00 $90 .00 J acks -2 sta r se t s Yes $160 .00 $160 .00 1 Headset and Yes $235 .00 $240 .00 -Adapte r for Elect r onic Instrume n t - ( c. switching Equipme n t - Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed .... as Pr i ce P r ice Specif i ed Per Unit Per Unit -Trunk Cards , Combination Yes $482 .00 $593.00 Number of trunks per card Line cards Yes $355.00 $402.00 -Number of trunks per card Line ca rd s, OPX Yes $355 .00 $402 .00 -Number of lines per card - -* -Reference Appendix C for adjustment to bid proposal . -\. __ - - - - - - - - -r:-- \ - - - - - -' - - 2. CENTEL -SL-lMS a. For Electronic Instruments Without LED Information Display Quantity 65 25 1 1 52 11 11 Single Line Desk (DTMF) Single Line Wall ( DTMF) Trimline Wall ( DTMF) Elevator Phones Electronic Instruments Electronic Instruments with 10 Station Capacity Electronic Instruments with 20 Station Capacity Pre-Cutover Included Installed as Price Specified Per Unit Yes $93.06 Yes $9 6. 0 3 Yes $107.92 Yes $306.77 Yes $198.28 Yes $198.28 Yes $465.45 Post-Cutover Installed Price Per Unit $96.97 $100.07 $112.46 $319.67 $206.63 $206.63 $485.08 - b. Miscellaneous Equipment -.. Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed as Price Price -Quantity Specified Per Unit Per Unit 10 2 Long Handset Yes $ 2.97 $ 3.10 Cords ( 9 Ft. ) 114 Long Mounting Yes $ 4.46 $ 4.65 Cords (12 Ft. ) - 2 Loud External Bells Yes $59.16 $61.65 -6 3-Pair Indoor Yes $ 2.83 $ 3.01 Jacks 2 Starsets Yes $141.18 $147 .12 l Headset and Yes $ 74.30 $ 77.43 Adapter for -Electronic Instrument ( c. Switching Equipment -Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed as Price Price SEecif ied Per Unit Per Unit Trunk Cards, Combination Yes $694.76 $723.99 -Number of trunks per card Line Cards Yes $1,642.85 $1,711.97 -Number of trunks per card Line cards, OPX Yes .Sl,642.85 $1, 711. 9 7 .... Number of lines per card - .... - - ' I - ( .... ' b. Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 102 114 2 6 2 1 Long Handset Cords (9 Ft.) Long Mounting Cords (12 Ft .) Loud External Bells 3-Pair Indoor Jacks Starsets Headset and Adapter for Electronic Ins tr u men t c. Switching Equipment Trunk Cards, Combination Number of trunks per card Line cards Number of trun k s per card Line Cards, OPX Number of lines per card Pre-Cutover Included Installed as Specified Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Included as Specified Yes Yes Yes Price Per Unit $ 7.00 $ 7 .00 $3 30 .00 $59.00 $135 .00 $234 .00 Pre-cutover Instal l ed Price Per Unit $670 .00 $1,598.00 $1,598.00 Post-cutover Installed Price Per Unit $ 9 .00 $ 9.00 $412 .00 $74.00 $169 .00 $293.00 Post-Cutover Installed Price Per Unit $837.00 $1,998.00 $1,998.00 - 4 . GTE -OMNI II tr' a. For Standard Instruments ~ Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover I n cluded Insta l led Installed ~ as Price Price Qua n tit:t s12ecif ied Per Unit Per Unit 65 Single Line Desk Yes $133.00 $139 .00 ( DTMF) ..... 25 Sing l e Line Wall Yes $132.00 $138 .00 ( DTMF) l Trimline Wall Yes $146.00 $154 .00 -( DTMF) 1 Elevator Phones Yes $229.00 $229.00 ..... 50 Five Li n e Desk Yes $291.00 $320 .00 (DTMF) ..... 2 Five Li ne Wall Yes $291.00 $320 .00 ( DTMF ) -· 1 1 Nine Line Desk Yes $322 .00 $360 .00 ( DTMF) -11 Nineteen Line Yes $524 .00 $606 .00 Desk ( DTMF) - - - - - - - 4. GTE -OMNI II !'9' a . For Standard Instruments ...... Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed as Price Price Quantity s:eecif ied Per Unit Per Unit 65 Single Line Desk Yes $133.00 $139 .00 ( DTMF) 25 Single Line Wall Yes $132.00 $138.00 ( DTMF) 1 Trimline Wall Yes $146.00 $154.00 (DTMF) 1 Elevator Phones Yes $229.00 $229.00 50 Five Line Desk Yes $291.00 $320 .00 (DTMF) 2 F i ve Line Wall Yes $291.00 $320 .00 ( DTMF) -· 11 Nine Line Desk Yes $322.00 $360 .00 ( DTMF) -11 Nineteen Line Yes $524.00 $606.00 Desk ( DTMF) - - - - - - - - b. Miscellaneous Equipment ,_ Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed as Price Price Quantity SEecif ied Per Unit Per Unit 13 Dial Select Yes $466.00 $569.00 Nine Station ( DTMF) l Dial Select Yes $466.00 $569.00 110 Lines on Key Yes $ 64.00 $ 74.00 -(Stanbar 4 oos) 16 13-Line KSU Yes $889.00 $972.00 28 Long Handset Yes $32.00 $32.00 Cords ( 9 Ft. ) 40 Long Mounting Yes $26.00 $26.00 Cords (12 Ft.) 2 Loud External Bells Yes $114.00 $114.00 5 (25-Pair) Yes $130.00 $130.00 -Prewire Amphenols 1 3-Pair Indoor Yes $46.00 $46.00 Jack 2 Star sets Yes $96.00 $119.00 1 Headset and Yes $84.86 $99.00 Adapter for Key Telephone 1 Bell Transfer Key Yes $41.00 $41.00 - - - - c. Switch i ng Equipment - Trunk cards , Combination Nu mber of trunks per card Line cards Number of trunks per card Li ne Cards, OPX Number of lines pe r card ( - - - - Included as Specified Yes Yes Yes Pre-cutover Installed · Price Per Unit $704 .00 $874.00 $989 .00 Post-Cu tover Installed Price Per Unit $731.00 $907.00 $1,028.00 ...._ ,_ - - - - - ( - - - - - - \. - - s. NTI -SL-lMS a. For Electronic Instruments Without LED Information Display Pre-Cutover Included Installed as Price Quantity Specified Per Unit Post-Cutover Installed Price Per Unit 65 25 1 3 52 11 11 Single Line Desk { DTMF) Single Line Wall { DTMF) Trirnline Wall ( DTMF) Elevator Phones Electronic Instruments Electronic Instruments with 10 Station Capacity Electronic Instruments with 20 Station Capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 45.00 $ 49.00 $ 55.00 $291.00 $172.00 $372.00 $454.00 $ 52.00 $ 57.00 $ 64.00 $333.00 $198.00 $446.00 $558.00 b . Miscellaneous Equipment -Pre-cutover Post-Cutover Included Installed Installed .... as Price Price Quantity Specified Per Unit Per Unit 102 Long Handset Yes $ 5 .00 $ 6.00 cords ( 9 Ft . ) 114 Lo ng Mounting Yes $ 5.0Q $ 6.00 Cords (12 Ft . ) 2 Loud Exte r nal Be l ls Yes $ 13 .00 $ 15 .00 6 3 -Pair I n door Yes $238.00 $318 .00 Jacks 2 Starsets Yes $140.00 $161.00 1 Headset and Yes $234 .00 $269.00 Adapter for Electronic Instrument c. switching Equipment - Pre-Cutover Post-Cutover Incl u ded Insta l led Instal l ed a s Price P r ice Specified Per Unit Per Unit ..... Trunk Cards , Combination Yes $824 .00 $946.00 Number of trunks per c ard -Line cards Yes $2 ,019.00 $2,318.00 Number of trunks per card Line cards, OPX Yes $1 ,483.00 $1 ,702.00 -Number of lines per card - - - - - ,- - - - -APPENDIX I -COMPARATIVE COST IMPACT OF SYSTEMS • - - ( ...... - - - - - - - - - - .- - APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE COST IMPACT OF SYSTEMS • - I I. - - - - - - - - - - -YEAI~ 8 1i· -ao::-w ,.J SE. 87 -88 8'3 '3 0 '3 :!. -o·=· _..._ 93 TOTAL -· - - - - - - NATEL & CO. TELEPHONE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS SYSTEM PAYM E NTS $17!,039 $121 $121 $e1 $QI $QI $1Zl $0 $Q'I $QI ---------- $171, 039 --------------------- YEP P. FIXE D cos: 88 8 '3 '3 'll 9 ~ '32 93 AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANNU AL M~I NTENANCE DE P REC I AT I ON COSTS INSURANCE TOTA L COS T S IZt 121 $171 $1 71, 21 ei $8 , 1 IZ1'3 $181Z1 $8,289 $'3, 325 $18'3 $9~ 5~ /.;. $10, 724 $198 'tl ©, '322 $1 -=· ...... , 333 $21218 $12, 5 4: $1 L~ l 183 $218 $14 , 4 1Z11 $16, 31121 $22'3 $16, 53'3 $18, 757 $241 $18 , 9 '3 7 $21, 570 $253 $ ..... ~J., 8 23 $24, 805 $255 $25, 1217 1 --------------------------------------------- $1Z1 $136, 115 $2, 151 $30'3, 3 .Zl7 ============ -------------------------------------------------------------------- VRR I AB :_£ COS T Il'~STA !_U:ff I ON COS T TOT AL COST $!+;::.:, 202 $L;S , 4 2 2 $5 .1, 0 EA $55, 17 1 ·,;;s1, 788 ~.E, 7' 9 57 $74,753 $82, 2 '1 0 $90 1 L1.f;4 $3'3,510 :;i+2, 2 !Zt 2 $4 5 ,422 $51, 0EA $55, 1 7 1 $£1,7 88 $57,957 $7 '+, 753 $82, ~:::40 $'3121, 45 4 $39 , 5l!l.'I T OTAL. $57 2,5'31 $672 ,591 ----------------=-============== ======:::.:====== =============== - - - - - - Bl; 85 o c '-''-' .'37 88 8'3 -g :zi '31 92 i 1 TAL ..... I . ---- - - - - - - - - - AT &T INFORMATION S Y STEMS · OP E RA TI ~G COS T RNA L YSIS PO TENT!~L VENDOR v s . UTIL:TY POTENT I Ai... o;::•::::RAT ING RETURN F~O:"! 1'.:ii\J~LJ1':);__ OPERATING sr.w:;:NGS INVESTED TOTA L.. S~V~NGS 1~FT=:S~ TAXES S~VINGS SAV :t-.:GS ---------------·---------------------------- ( 12'3, 003) ( 1 ~=.::'3, 0!Z:8) ($5 , 450) ( 135, ~;58) -:-o ~·-:, 13'+ 38, 134 $ l , '307 1..~, 040 '+.:., 550 41 , 55:21 ".~. ~c., 078 L: '7 .. _, 1 5 .::8 45, 2't'3 '+5, 24'3 $2, 2E.2 I+ 7 I ~11 Lt9 , 2 4 7 4'3, 2 47 ~·2, Lt-S2 51, 710 c::-~ ..J...:i, 556 c::--. _,,~, 555 ~--. -='C.' ?= 7t:l WI._, 56, 24L; 58, 224 58, 224 $2, 911 61, 1 35 53, ;::42 53~ 2 '+2 $3 , 1 52 E-6 , 'r\?:5 58, EA 1 58, ct.... u . .J. $3, I: 7 ·::• , . ....>'-72 , 07 3 7 Lf, '1-33 7Li.. . , L:~3'3 S3, 722 7fJ ~ lbl $363,284 $353, 28'+ $18, lE.4 $3.91,443 =========== ========== --------------------------============== C W1ULA:::::v:::: C;.J~•'!UL A ·:-I '·J?.. TOTAL.. NPV 0::7 SAV!l'.;GS S :'.:\V !NGS ----------------------· I 1 -:;-:- • -.....J-J ' l ;5.S ) ( 135, 45,3 (35, I+ 18) ('3·:_:., •7-t';' - "·' ,.J <: (51, 7 '3 1Z1 > , c ~ \w...j, ;zi :~) ;:: ( 4 , 273) (27, 3 !Z.5 47 , 431 8, 1z1 1 2 1121.~, 575 t.·=· . ._, '3'71:7 .._, ..,_. 1 EA, 8 1 :Zi 77, 1 .. 1..,5 .-.-· 215 11 1' z::-.-, i c.~ is "J i=. - 31z:3, 2 88 1 '+5 , : L;2; 381, 443 J.78, 2 5: $'34Lf , '32 ! $178, 2.'? :_ =========== ========== ---' - YESlR 85 e.s '31 '?2 i •TAL --- - - - - - - - AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS - POTDnrqi... OC•ERATI NG SAV~~GS _________ .. _ ( 12'3' 003) "7 0 -.J'-'., 1 3 4 Lj.: ' 55tll 45 , 24'3 L;9, 247 c:-~ ...J~, 555 se., 224 53, 242 58, c. ' • C•'+ .Ir. 74, lf33 $363,284 =========== OPERATI~G COST RNA L YSIS POTENT:~L VENDOR vs . UTILITY o;::•c:RA T ii'JG S?ETURN t="~O!'~ 1~N!\!U1':'t;_ Sl::l/INGS !?\!VESTED TOTAL.. Ac--r =-· .. _:-'\ TAXES S::lVINGS SAV:NGS --------------------·-----------·--- ( 1 ~::9, 0Q18) ( $5, '+:50) ( 135 , .'.;53) 38, 134 $1, '307 ''!:Z' IZILHZ! 41, 55:21 " .. -. :PC.' !2178 "'!·~, f,;::s '+5, 24'3 $2, 262 I+ 7 , ~11 4'3, 247 <;1»2, L~E,2 <=-1 ...J,, ' 710 c:---._•.:i' 555 c·-· .:>C..'5 G78 55, 24L; 58, 224 $2, 911 61, 135 F.,3~ c:: '+2 $3~ 152 E.tS' 1.,05 58, c. 4. u .... $3, 4-32 72 , 073 7!.i. . ' 1.:.3'3 $3, 722 78! lbl $353,284 $18 , l E-4 !53.S 1 , 44'3 =========== ----·-------------·-----========:::=== CU;'<1ULA:: v=: C:~:<L:L-A ·:-I ~)~ TOT PL NPI.' or- SAVI:\GS S:-\VINGS ----------------------· 11 7c:-. -...... ,..J, Lt58) ( 135, 453 (35 , 418) ( 9 '=]' i.'.:513 ( 51, 7'3121) , c-: \\-1-....1 , 0:;::1;:: ( 4 , ~:::7 '3) (27, 3!Z.5 L; 7, 431 8, 1z1 1 2 10.3, 575 42~ '33~:. 1EA , B :t :z1 77, L;1+5 231, 215 1 1 1' C"····" ... Jc..:.. 3 1z:3, 282. 1 '+5, : L;3 381, 44'3 3. 781 29: $344,'32~ =========== ========== ..... .... - - - - - - - - - YEAR ------ BL~ 85 t3E. 87 88 8'3 '3 0 "31 '32 '33 TOTAL BL;. 85 SE· 87 88 83 1:N1 91 '32 33 TOTRL NATEL & CO . TELEPHONE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS CENTEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS SYST =:M A f\IN U A '-MA I NTEN(.)NCr=: TO TA\_ PR YM !:::~T S DE::•REC I AT I ON COSTS INSU RANCE COSTS ---------·-----·--------··· -·-·----------·--------------------- $1 '+tZI, 7 18 0 0 $141 $140, B5'3 $1Zl $7' 392 $1 .!+8 $7~ 540 $QI $8 , 51Ztl $155 $8, 656 $QI $'3 ' 77f, $163 $9 , '33'3 $0 $11, 2 42 $171 '.? 11 , 4 1 -::-... ._, $0 $12, '3 2 9 $1 8Ql $13, 108 $0 $ l It ' 868 $18'3 $15 , 057 $QI $17 ,0 9 8 $198 $17, 2'3tS <:S IZl $1 '3' 663 $206 $ l "3, 87 1 ~>0 s22, 612 $218 ~--.. -. ~c.i=., 8-: 1 ,_, ... -------------------------------------------------------- $140, 718 $:7.l $124, 081 $1, 770 $256, 559 ====:::-:=:==== =====--======== ============ ============ =========== COST ANA L YSIS FO ~ EXIST I NG S YS 7 ~~ F I XE D VARIABLE :~STAL L A T !ON TOTRL C8S T COST CO S T COST $0 $42, 20~~ $0 $42,202 $4G, "t22 $46,4 22 .:;51, IZ!EA $5 1 , 0EJ1- <555, 171 d:C"C -~~, 171 $61,788 $61,788 $67,'357 SE.7,967 $7Lt , 753 $74,7E,3 $82, 2i~0 $82,240 $'3121, L;S -4 $'3 0 , l}f, l~ $'3'3 , 510 $'3'3, 510 s S72 ,5'31 $672 ,5'3! ========== ============= ------------------------============ - -' - - - - - - 84 85 8·S 87 88 8S '3 0 3! g ·:· ·-33 -TOTAL - - - - - - - - CENTEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS ' OPERA TING COST ANA~v sis POTE ~TIAL VE~DOR vs . '-.'T ~l-!"":Y PC.,..E NT IAl... OPERATI NG RETUR~ ::-i;o:1 ·"t~ H"Jt..,,•_·A~ CU MUL A7IVE C:J f'r:..J '._A T I VE OPERA: ING SA VING S INVESTED -,·C·T t-.~. TOTAL N C'\/ OF SR \!! "-iGS AFTER TAXES SA VI NGS SPV :NGE SA'v'l N GS SA VING S ---------------------------·---·---------------------------------- ('38, 557) (98,557 ) ($LJ., '932·) (J.0 3,590) ( 103 , 5'3 0 ) (103,591Z 1 36,882 38,882 $1, '34'+ 40,827 (5~::, 753 ) (56, 474 ; 42,408 42,408 $2, 1 2 0 4 4,529 ( 18, 23'1 ) (29,574 : 46,232 45,232 $-=• ,, ·=· L-, \.J .... .._ 48,544 30, 3 H'.t E., 1se. 50 ,375 50,37 5 $2,5i 9 52,893 83, 2 ~),:::. 4 ·-. ,....-.r:-~, JC.-• 54,858 54,858 $2, 74."}: 57 1 6e11 140 , 81Z14 78 , 5'3 ~ 53,707 59,707 $2,98 5 52, 532 20 .:::., 4'37 1 1 4, !l-73 EA, 344 64,944 $3,247 58, 1 '3 1 C.'71,587 :49,07: 70,593 70,533 $2, 530 7 4 , 1 ·=·· ..... .., 345,81tZl 183,551? 75, 580 76,580 $3 1 83L; 60 ,5 13 Lt 26' .32 ~~ 217,75£=, $405, ei2c· $405, 022 $2~7.l, 31£. 1 $425,323 $1,317,047 $217,7'36 ========== =========== =========== ========== =========== ========== - - - - - - ..... - - - - I - - NATEL & CO . TELEPHONE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA Y E1~R ------·-- 8Lt 85 85 87 88 89 SQ1 91 -:-i ·=· _._ 93 TOTAL YEAi~ ------·- 8'+ 85 BE. 87 88 8'3 9ti) 9 1 ('.J ·=· _._ 93 TOT AL SYSTEM A !\INUAL MA I i\ITE1\!.:i :-.JCC. ;::•A YMENTS DEPREC I AT I 0!'.j COSTS I i';S'.JRANCE -··----------·------------------------------------ $ l Lt0 1 3C:7 IZ1 0 $ l L~IZI $0 $7, Ql55 $147 $1Zl $8, 1 l.4 $155 !li0 $9, 332 $162 $QI $10., 731 $171 $121 $12, 341 $179 $0 $14·, 19E: $188 $1Zl $16, 7 ·=·1 ..,._ -$197 $1?, $18, 76'3 $207 $0 $21, 584 $218 --------------------------------------------- $140 , 327 ·$QI $118, 441 $1, 765 ========== ============= =========== ============ COST AN~LYS!S F OR ~X I ST I NG SYS T ~M FI XED COST $0 $0 ======== --------------------------------- VARIA BLE COST $42, c~0 ~:: $1+E., 422 $51,054 $55, 17 1. $6 1.,788 $57 ,9 6 7 $74,7 6 3 $82, 24QI S'30, 4fA $99, 5 1 1Z1 $572,5 91 ============== IN STR'.....LATION C OS T $0 $0 ============ TOT1:\L COST $42,202 $46, '~22 $51:064 $55, 17 1 $61,788 $E.7,9 S7 $74,753 $82,24 0 $91Zl, 4 5 4 $99 , 5 H '.I $572,591 ===-=:::.======= T OT~4L cos :-s ---------- $1 40, 467 $7,203 $8, 25'3 $9, 4'34 $112?, 9il.2 $12, 520 $ l L;, ,38 121 $ l E.., 518 $1 B, '375 $21 , 802 ---------- $260' 533 ========== - - YEA:< - 3..:f 35 -BG 87 88 89 '312\ Sl 9·-· .::. -r.:i-:-~·..J T07RL - ( - - - - - - - - COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA l=1 0T:::!\ITii'.=1L OPERATING SAVINGS (38,2£.5 ) 3'3,21'3 l.;.2, 7'35 '+6 ,577 5 0,886 55, Lr47 sei,383 55,72 1 71 ,487 77,708 $4 12 ,058 =========== OPERATING COST ANALYSIS" POTENTIAL VENDOR vs . UTILITY OPERATING SR\/INGS RETURN FROM INVESTED AFT E R TAXES SAVINGS i98,2S5) ( $Lf 1 913) 3'3~219 $1 ' '3E..1 42, 795 $2, 140 4 5 ,577 $;:=:, 334 51Z1, 885 $2, 5Li.f+ 55,447 $2 ,772 60 ,383 $3 ,01'3 55,721 $3,286 71 ,487 $3,5 74 77 ,71218 $3 ,885 ANNUAL. TOHlL SAVINGS ( 103, 41 , 179> 180 44,935 4'3 ,011 53 ,430 58 ,21'3 53,402 59, 007 75,052 Bl ,593 CUMULATIVE CUMUL~7IV~ TOTAL NPV OF SAVINGS SAVINGS ( 1'.~)3 ' 179) ( 103 , . -,-, . ( ::; ( E, 1, 399) ( E.5, 742 ( 1 7, 064) CC:~., 612iE. 31 , 9.:,.7 8 -=·, i::: ''----' 85 ,377 44, 71tZ: ~43 ,535 8l:)' 8E.:Z. 206 ,599 116,545 275 , 01215 .. c:---. .:. ... ;c..' 05;z; 35~, 068 187,;L.TT 432 ,651 221 , 58 ~- $41 2,IZ158 $20 , 50.3 $432 ,561 $1,345 ,414 $;:::21, 681 -----------· ---·--------=========== ========== =========== ============= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... YERR ------ 84 85 85 87 8B 8'3 '3121 '31 '32 '33 TOTAL VEfClR C5 SS 87 88 89 NATEL & CO . TELEPHONE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS GTE BUSINESS TERMINAL SALES SYSTEM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS DEPRECIATION COSTS INSURANCE ---------------------------------------------- $~:::17 I 27L~ 121 0 <t:-• .. -, ~C.L • $1Zl $5, 7~:::0 $228 $QI $7,72 8 $2Lf!Z\ $0 $8 , 887 $~ . .::-.-. C'.~c. $0 $10, 22QI $254 $Ql $11,753 $277 $QI $13 , 5 16 $2'31 $tL) $1 5,544 $306 $121 $17 ' 875 $321 $IZJ $2 G'.t, r=c--.J.J ( $337 -------·-------------------------------------- $217, 27L~ $0 $11 2, 81Z1 1 $2 ,733 ========== ============= ============== ============= COST ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SYSTE~ FIXED VARIGBL~ C::JST COST $0 $li·2, 202 $4E..,422 $51,064 $5E., 171 $51 ,788 $57,967 $7L~, 763 $82, ~7.:412' $'30, '+64 $'3'3, 511z1 $E,7~::, 53 1 INSTALLATION TOTAL COST COST $0 $42, 2:212 $4E., '+22 $51,05 4 $56, ' -1 -I .._ $51,758 $57,957 $74,753 $82,240 $50, L~54 $'39,510 ~r-.-, r::n'1 ::>b/c 1 -•-:;.-. =~=====~ ============ ============ =======~=== TOTAL COSTS ----------- $21 7' 4':3:. $E., '3"' .. e. $7, '358 $'3, 13'3 $H?I, 48L~ $12,031 $13, 807 $15, SLtSc $18, l '35 $21Z1, S'3Lf ---------- $332., 808 ========== GTE BUSINESS TERMINAL SALES QO~R~TING COST PNA L YS IS -POT ~~T IA~ VE~DO~ vs . UT!LITY -PCTENTiA~ OP2R~7ING R~TURN FRO~ ANNUAL CUMULA T IV~ C~MU ~AT!V~ C~EqA TI NG SA V :NGS INVESTED TO TAL TOTAL NPV OF S~VIN GS ~~7ER T~X~S SRVINGS SAVINGS SAV I NG S SAVINGS - £.!+ ; '1 ~= ~ .:. I ,J t 2.S'3> ( 1 75~ 28'3) ($8 , 754-> ( !. 84 , 054) ( l e.4, 054) ( 184, 054 : BC: 3'3, 4 7'-> 3'3, 4.7.y. $~.,"374 Li. ~ ... ' 4L;Es ( 14;:::, E.1Z1 5) ( 1 '+6, 374 ; -o ~ 1..-•C.:i 43, 1z1s7 4-:.-.....,, 0'37 $2, 155 45, .-,e .-. C~Ca ( '37, .354) ( 108, 97 [, ~ o-'-'I 47, tZl.32 47, 032 $2, 35~~ 4'3, 38'+ U-:7: '371 ) ,-. . { -, 87 3 : 33 51, 3 •2'4 51, 312\L> $--. c, 5 55 c:-7 -''-', 8E.'3 c:' __., 8 '38 (35, 0.%); 83 C'C' SJG C'C' '335 $2, 797 58, 733 EA, 631 ' 3BS ..J-1, ..;..;, .:. ~ 90 60, '35S E,1Z1, S56 $3, 048 EA , tZ!l.~4 128, 535 37 , 517 - ·31 5;::.., 3'3.Z: 55, 3'31Z: $3, 320 59, 710 198, .345 73, ;~E·? •::1 =· -··-...,.-, I ,:;. t 267 72, 2E·7 $3? 513 -r. I ..:_,,, 881 27.:,, ;:;:25 1 :Zt8o: 588 q7 ~-...1 78! 5:,; 78, 6tE. d: "7 -41....J, '331 Bi~, 5Lt/ 356., 77-:.-. _, 143, (:,')f. -$339,783 $1 E., '38'3 $35S,773 $S56,523 =====-======== -----·------------·------=====:======== ====~===== =-=======~== =-==~====~~ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - '- - 'r'E:RR 81.; 85 8G 87 86 3'3 '30 91 '32 '33 TO TAL {35 .9.7 32 NATEL & CO. TELEPHONE SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS SYSTEi'1 PAY:'>1 E NTS $!_81Z1, 858 $QI $121 $IZI $1Zl $0 $12? $1Zl $0 $tZI $180.,858 NORTHERN TELECOM ~NN U A L MA I NT ~NA~CE DEPRECIATION COS7S INSU~R~CE . 1') QI $181 $E,' 7L;E, ·!> 1 9 121 $7, 758 $1. '33 $8, '3·=··=· ......... ~i20·3 ':S 1 QI, 250 $220 $11, 7'3'3 ~··=--=-.. :;>t__. .I. $! 3, 55'3 $2 42 <:?15 , GQIL;. $2 54 $17, '3 1.,.4 $257 $20, S.36 $28 1 $1Zt $ll.3,237 $2 ,2 75 T OT1~L COSTS $i81, ss, S7, $'3, $10, <t 1 ·=· ·V -L-, $ l .3, $15, $18 , $20 , 0.3'3 '37.:: ~.__, gc:--...J I 1 3 1 481Zl ;z130 81 . ... es.s "'=' 1 ·=1 '-... \.. 917 $2'36,370 ========== ========~=== =~~======== =~========== =======~=~ :=-:: XED $:21 COST AN~LYSIS FOR EXISTING SYSTE~ VARIABL:=.: COST $42 ,202 ·$46, l;.22 $51, Q)E,t; ~j;56, 1 71 ss:, 7°98 $71.;, 753 $82, 2.CftZI ~30 ,454 $'3'3,510 $S72,531 INSTALLATION TOTAL COST COS: $0 $42,202 $.C;E., L;22 $5 ! , ll.E..4 $55 , 171 SfJ1 , 7 £:.·8 $67 ,967 $71+, 753 $82 ,240 $'31Zt , 454 $33, 5H.i ======== ============ ==~========= ==========~ - - .... - - - - - - - ,JI.,. 05 86 e,7 8 .S SS S! ,-,-. ,;.;_. -:-GT::': __ NORTHERN TELECO M ~ POTE~TI~~ VE~DO R vs. I 'fT I --r \/ .) ' ~ '-J. ' : ~UT~NT~~L QPERATING RETURN ~20M 2PE2 ~T!NG SAVI~GS INVESTED TO T~L 7GTAL ~~v 8F G~V :NS S ~~TE~ 7AXES SAVINGS S~VINGS sqvr~GS S ~VIN GS ( 138, .~1 37 ) ( 1 38, 837) ( $E,, '34·L-=:) ·. l (:':;, 77'3) ( 145., 77'3) ( 1 l}::;, 77':1i 33, 48(;, 3~, 486 $:;. ·3 7'+ 4 .. L~E,: ( !_Q14, -:' .. r., \ ( :0 \9': 087: , .L , ~ • .J-" C• I Lf3, 1 07 43, 107 tt:···· :.,),=.,' :55 4 5, ·=·c·=· 'l':"'r" 13 56 > < 7 ·ZI, E.80 ) ._ .. _J .._ \ _, ::! ' 47, 041~ 1...-. I 1 Q1L;.ll. .-:;·':".• -"--'5 3 5 2 l;.9~ 23;:;: ( 31 E,C.:,L•) ''":"-:" , ... ,..J, 571 ) C:-• 3 :l8 51 3 1218 d .-. 5E,5 C' '";' .9, 7 '~ 1..1,,., ;:: : QI 3 , ;:~~:5 __,,:. , , :.;J .::.1 -"-'-; c: e:-o--C:-t::' 1337 e·=· 7'37 ..J...J' .,~I ~·...>, -.J L.. ~ i= c ,__._., 72-'1 :02, ':li•I ; -,-, ~ :1, E_,C h . 5'21 , '352 6 :Zt, 952 $3, fZ:LhS ,S4, e11c'll 1 GS~ ·':)1:+L; 7:5, C-1 ·=· .. ~ .. Jt..-..t. 55, ":' ::I • . .JW -E,E,1 3 .51 ~:>3 : 7 .. 0 ~· w 5':?, / 12'!:'.: 23S~ E,l.;.'.1 '.L . 1, 583 72, i.~52 72~ :=:32 ".=-->3., t=,: 3 75, E.G5 3 :1.2 .. 5 iz;g . L;;, 973 ~ 7r:. ..... , 533 78, C";'-':l '7 ___ , $2:., 3 3Q: n ·=· '..JL.., 523 .3 '35, :t)32 : • .g '.., '377 $395,032 593 9,468 ~~S:,S77 ========== =========== =========== ========== =========== ========== - - - - - - - .... - .... .... .... .... - July 7, 1984 STAFF REPORT COUNTY SA NITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE ~OUNTY. CALIF ORN IA P.0.BOX 8 127 10844 ELLIS AVEN UE FOUN TAIN VALLEY. CALIFO RN IA 92708 (71 4) 54 0-291 0 (71 4) 962-2 411 IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON DISTRICTS' TAX REVENUES AND OPERATING COSTS The purposes of this report are to: Review the impact of redevelopment agency project financing on Districts' revenues and operations Present various options available to the Districts for recovering property tax revenues lost by the Districts by virtue of tax increment financing methods employed in the existing or proposed redevelopment projects within the Districts' service area. Seek policy direction from the Boards of Directors relative to redevelopment projects . INTRODUCTION An initial report has previously been presented to the Fiscal Policy Committee and Executive Committee outlining the impact of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects within the Districts' service area on the Districts' tax revenues and operating costs. The staff was requested to review the existing redevelopment projects underway to define both the types of projects (residential/ commercial/industrial) and the scope of the redevelopment activity within each project area. This report: Provides background data on the redevelopment process throughout the County, with a focus on redevelopment activities within our service area Defines the types and scope of redevelopment activity within the Districts' service area Assesses the overall impact of the tax increment financing on the Districts' tax revenues and ability to meet our operating cost requirements Defines the estimated impact of exemplary projects on individual Districts' financial position over the life of each project Outlines several options available to the Districts to recover ad valorem tax revenues lost to the Dis t ricts throug h us e of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects. BACKGROUND All of the Districts except District No. 5 have existing redevelopment projects in their service areas, and several Districts have more than one active or proposed project. Even though cities within the Districts' service area have engaged in redevelopment activities for many years, there has been a substantial increase in establishment of new projects since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. While the revenues generated for redevelopment agencies using tax increment financing have been restricted due to the limitations placed upon the property tax by Proposition 13, many cities are still turning to this financing method to provide funds for upgrading blighted areas, installing infrastructure improvements, and inspiring private sector investment in areas that might not otherwise be attractive to business. Presently, eighteen of the cities served by the County Sanitation Districts have established redevelopment projects encompassing 18,238 acres. During the past year, nine new projects have been initiated and all of these projects, totaling an additional 3,954 acres, have received authorization from their respective city councils to move forward. Table 1 identifies the 18 active projects within the Districts' existing service area. The nine projects that have been authorized within the last year are highlighted in the table. These projects have a significant financial impact on the Districts and this report highlights estimates of the impact. The primary reasons why redevelopment projects impact the Districts are, first, these projects typically employ a financing mechanism established by State law called tax increment financing, an approach that effectively places a ceiling on the tax revenues available to the taxing agencies serving the redevelopment project and allocates the future incremental increase in tax revenues generated by the property within the redevelopment area to the redevelopment agency to finance project activities. Second, one of the major purposes of redevelopment projects is to create a proper climate for increased development within the project area. This new development often generates additional operating costs for the Districts in collecting, treating and disposing of the increased levels of wastewater discharged from the project area, but these additional costs are not accompanied by higher revenues necessary to offset the added expense of serving the area. The Districts are responsible for providing sewerage services for property within redevelopment project areas. Our operations and maintenance costs are escalating rapidly due to federally mandated requirements, energy impacts and inflation. Because we currently rely on ad valorem taxes to finance operations and maintenance in all Districts {Districts 5 and 6 also levy a use fee because taxes are insufficient to cover operating costs) , the freezing of taxes will mean that the cost of services provided by the Districts to existing and future users in the redevelopment areas may not be adequately covered. Although an individual redevelopment project may or may not significantly impact the Districts, the cumulative effect of several redevelopment projects could be substantial. -2- RECENT REDEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN ORANGE COUNTY Based upon data relating to assessed valuations developed by the County Auditor-Controller, two major trends have developed since the passage of Propositio n 13. The following depicts the increase over the last five years in assessed valuation within redevelopment projects available for tax increment purposes in relation to the total assessed valuation in the cities with redevelopment projects : Fiscal Year 78-79 79-80 80 -81 81-82 82 -83 83-84 Cities' Assessed Valuation Within Redevelopment Areas AV Subject to Tax Increment Financing As a % of Total City AV 5 .05% 6.49 7.54 7 .89 8.82 8.39 This trend is paralleled by a similar increase in the Countywide percentage of the total assessed valuation that is committed to redevelopment projects as presented in the following: Fiscal Year 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 Countywide Assessed Valuation Within Redevelopment Project Areas AV Committed to Redevelopment As a % of Countywide AV 2.44% 2 .84 3 .19 3.51 3.92 4.56 These trends highlight the probl em faced by other taxing agencies within redevelopment areas as a result of increased redevelopment projects within the county. The higher the percentage of assessed valuation subject to tax increment financing, the higher the amount of tax revenues lost by these agencies to redevelopment projects . OVERALL IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT ON THE DISTRICTS Redevelopment projects have three major impacts on the Districts: a. Tax Revenues Frozen. The major impact of redevelopment projects relates to redevelopment agencies' use of tax increment financing to generate revenues and pay for improvements within the project area . This financing method freezes the Districts' ad valorem tax -3 - revenues from the project area. The assessed valuation of the p r operty within the project area is fixed at the value of the property during the year in which the project is approved , and remains at that same level throughout the life of the project, which is usually 30 to 40 years. Any incremental tax revenues resulting from improvements, new development or property resales that increase the assessed valuation over the base year levels accrue solely to the redevelopment agency . b. Increased Operating Costs . If a redevelopment project results in improvements or increased densities that discharge a higher volume of sewage than the previous development, the Districts will experience additional operations and maintenance costs to provide service to the redevelopment project area. c. Increased Copacity Requirements. As in b . above, if sewage volume generated by the project is higher than provided for in the District's master plan, additional capital facilities may be required . In most cases, this will not cause a significant financial impact as the new or expanded development will be required to pay District connection fees for capital improvements. The cities currently collect these fees on behalf of the Sanitation Districts. Over their life, redevelopment agencies often revise their projects to increase the density of development . Therefore, the Districts must follow each redevelopment project as it progresses to ensure that sufficient trunk sewer capacity is available in the individual District to serve the redevelopment area as development progresses . In some cases it may be necessary to require the redevelopment agency to provide funding to construct new facilities needed to serve the expanding needs of the project, but both existing and proposed redevelopment projects can generally be accommodated by the Districts' trunk sewer system. As noted previously, new development is charged a connection fee by the Districts at the time the building permit is issued to pay for facilities capacity. In the 1983-84 fiscal year, the total assessed valuation of the property serv ed by the Districts was $53.0 billion. The Districts' share of the property tax revenues from the 1% basic levy on this amount of assessed valuation and its bond redemption tax levy revenues totaled $18 .1 million. Another 4 .56%, or $825,000, would have been received by the Districts were there no existing redevelopment projects in our service area. Five of the most recently approved projects identified in Table 1 will generate an average of 800,000 gallons per day of a d ditional wastewate r over the next five years at an estimated cost of $265,000, with no additional pro perty tax revenues from the project areas to offset this increase in cost. Table 2 details the financial impact of these five recent redevelopment projects . Table 3 presents the existing and planned levels of development for these five projects. Similar data is not available at this time for several of the other existing projects, however, these projects are representative of the types of redevelopment occurring throughout the Districts' serv ice area. -4- ALTERNATIVE FOR FUNDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS There are several alternatives that could be considered to address these financial impacts: 1. Incremental Tax Pass-Through -Seek a pass-through of incremental tax revenues that accrue to the Redevelopment Agency to cover the Districts' added costs. Our historical share of the ad valorem tax is approx i mately 3% of the 1% basic levy. This alternative provides for the Agency to "pass-through" to the new Districts their historical share (3%) of the incremental tax accruing to the Agency. Such agreements have been executed with both the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency and the Placentia Redevelopment Agency. (Sample standard agreement attached). 2a. User Fee Collected by District on Tax Bill -Establish a zone for the redevelopment agency and levy a use fee to be collected on the property tax bill. 2b. User Fee Collected by Redevelopment Agency -An alternative to 2a. would be for the redevelopment agency to collect a use fee, on behalf of the Districts, and remit the amount to the Districts, keeping 5% to cover their administrative costs. This method would be similar to the existing agreements providing for the cities to collect the Districts' connection fees. 2c . Commercial/Industrial User Fee Combined with Another Alternative for Residential -For commercial/industrial properties. the Districts could issue a permit under the provisions of the current uniform industrial waste ordinance and levy and collect user fees from those properties where the yearly cost of services provided exceed the annual poroperty tax paid to the Districts. Since the majority of redevelopment projects are commercial/industrial, this option could be utilized for those properties in combination with one of the five other alternatives for residential properties. 3a. Project Life Subsidy -Subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13. 3b. Interim Subsidy -As in 3a ., subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13 only until such time as it is necessary to adopt District-wide user fees. At such time, the adopted fee would also apply to redevelopment properties. It should be noted that the options listed above under alternative 3 may be in conflict with the Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in compliance with state and federal regulations that provide that all users pay their proportionate share of Districts' costs. POLICY DIRECTION Because of the potential financial impact o f redevelopment projects on the Districts, and the affect on the redevelopment agencies, staff is seeking policy direction from the Directors on this matter. -5- 9/19/83 Revised 7/11/84 TABLE 1 EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA Project Project City District Title Type Acreage Anaheim 2 Project Alpha Commercial/ 2,566.00 1972 Industrial River Valley* Commercial/ 128.00 Industrial Brea 2 & 3 Area A & B Commercial 747.26 Area c Commercial/ Industrial 254.00 Buena Park 3 CBD -1980 Commercial 190.00 CBD -1981 Commercial 300.00 Costa Mesa 6 RDFl -1973 Resid~ntial/ 200.00 Commercial/ Industrial RDP2 -1967 Residential 75.00 Fountain 2 & 3 Industrial Area Industrial 650.00 ....,,., Valley Civic Center Area Commercial 000.00 Fullerton 2 & 3 Orange fair Commercial 193.25 Central Fullerton Commercial 800.00 East Fullerton Residential/ 1,042.42 Commercial/ Industrial Garden Grove 2 & 3 Garden Grove Commercial 1,335.00 Community Buena Clint on Residential 38.00 Huntington 11 Talbert Beach Residential/ 25.48 Beach Industrial Yorktown -Lake Residential/ 40.68 Commercial Oakvie w Residential/ 68.43 Commercial Main -Pier Residential/ 43.26 Commercial La Habra 2 & 3 Alpha Two Commercial 5.00 Alpha Th ree Commercial 2.02 Beta One I nd us trial 23.50 Beta Two Commercial/ 17.43 Industrial Beta Three I nd ustrial 33.37 Gamma One* Co mm e rcial 10.97 La Palma Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Westminster Yorba Linda Buena Park TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA District Project Title Project Type 3 2 & 7 2 La Palma Community Development Tustin Street* Redevelopment Project* Commercial Commercial Industrial 1,2,3 & 7 Downtown Area South Main Commercial Commercial/ Industrial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Commercial/ 3 3 1 & 7 3 2 3 Inner City South Harbor North Harbor Riverview Surfside Redevelopment Project* Town Center South-Central* Commercial Jtl* Redevelopment Project* Industrial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Residential/ Commercial Public Improve- ment (Seawall) Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Commercial Residential Commercial Residential/ Commercial TOTAL ACREAGE (EXISTING) PENDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA Project No. 2 Commercial Acreage 110.00 363.60 174.30 697.00 1,485.00 536.00 1,050.00 428.00 134. 00 34.00 197.68 360.00 260.16 179.40 2,640.00 18,238.21 Original Proposal 689.5 (Proposed reduction in average not available) * Projects approved within last year (8 projects/3 ,95 4 .11 AC/27.67 % increase in acreage) ( ( 9/26/83 Jevised 7/ll/84 '.11\BlE 2 PR'.ml:lm Ilfl"Cl' CF~ Rl:IEllFl.mrnr PIOJFO"S rn \IARICl6 mSJRicrs (1982-63 [(UAR)) (A) (U) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) REVl!NlE C:HlWl'I!'l; '10IJ\L FIOCJ\L llE\IEN.E cmwrm:; a:s.r 'IOD\L FUOIL 'lUl1IL 'IOIY\L 'lUIJ\L Fis::JIL Avrnta;: ProIB::r ICS5ES OBI' IN.'.lU'7\SES IWJ'Cr r.cssi;s IlOIDISCS IWJ'Cr'llnont !&'ENE ~m:; Clli'I' JM>JICI' CMR 11.'-N.W. DlSllUCT/PfOJl:CT l.IFE lSr YE7\R isr YE7IR lSr YE7\R 9lll 'lE7\R !mi IDIR 5~ Ul:lSES llOlE7ISFS PlOJtn' Lim JMPl'Cl' --- 2 -Pla:entla IC:lev. Project 20 $ 600 $ -$ 600 $ 19,350 $ 7,000 $ 26,350 $ 527,000 $ 230,787 $ 757, 707 $ 37,890 -llrohelnvtliver Valley 35 180 151500 151680 121395 129,000 201,395 1,167,750 1,509,500 2,677,250 76,493 -0.:aw;ie/llast:ln Street 45 18,665 91595 281260 93,325 471975 1411300 2,0181528 8151583 316941111 ~Q2L SUl-'lOIN:, Dist. 2 $19,445 $ 25,095 $44,540 $105,070 $ 183,975 $ 369,045 $ 4,573,278 $2,555,870 $ 7,129,148 $196,474 3 -Wc~bnlt\S t.e r O:mrecciat llL'<hv. Pro j ect It>. l 40 $ 673 -$ 673 $ 10,000 $ 32,525 $ 42 ,525 $ 1,640,691 $ 640,000 $ 2,200,691 $ 57,017 ti -lh ntlng tt:n Beach Main Street -Pier lC:lev. Project lllrarl1mt tb. 1 35 $ 1, 750 $ 61000 $ 7,758 $ 91957 $ 481555 ~~ ~_8,0J.4,14J. _ _il,5()5 ,J§O $ 9,539,303 $272,551 '1011\lS $21 ,876 $ 31,095 $52,971 $205,027 $ 265,055 $ 470,082 ~248,1l2 -1!. 701,030 ~ ~M49, 14£_ 1 526 ,042 District 2 3 11 Project Title Placentia Redevelopment Project Anaheim/River Valley Project Orange/Tustin Street Westminster Commercial Redevelopment Project No. 1 Huntington Beach Main Street Pier Redevelopment Project Amendment No. 1 TABLE 3 PLANNED LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS SELECTED Residential Dwelling Units Existing 25 -o- 11 208 1,100 Total Units After Redevelopment 25 -o- -0- 618 5,500 9/26/83 Revised 7/11/84 • Commercial/Industrial Square Footage Total Square Footage Existing After Redevelopment COMM: -o-COMM: 163,241 IND: 100,000 IND: 659,498 (est.) COMM: -0-COMM: 778' 000 IND: -o-IND: 416,000 COMM: 3,200,000 COMM: 3,997,125 IND: 1,000 COMM: 689,000 COMM: i, 038, 000 COMM: 240,000 COMM: 2,900,000 { TllmE 4 Pil<N'IED l£VEIS CF IEllElmlENl' wrum1 ~ ~DI!' ProJECT AREAS Ie>iclential I.kil ts Chmerclal ~· Fcx:>t.~ IrdJStr lal s,. Fcx:>tage llennrks City Project Title ~ EXlstirq Prq:xiood EXisti.rr:i Prqxised -~istirY;J _ ... l'J:gxxied (Project 'l'jpc) Araheim Project Al(ila -1972 2,566.00 (C & I) Drea l\rea A & D -1972 747 .26 N:::re N'.TIC A -Ible 1\ -Ible B -ltne Brea ~1all B -N::ne B -N::ne (Chm~ llrea c 254.00 Limited Limited Limited Limited Dtena Park OD -1900 190.00 @ 200 @ 200 (Chnn) OD -1901 300.00 @ 200 @ 350 (Chnn) Ccsta ~le&l IUPl -1973 200.00 3000 6000 300 ,000 500,000 250 ,000 250,000 (C&T&R) FUU Bulllh1t: 2000 rol?2 -1967 75.00 1500 2625-3750 N::ne N::ne N::ne N::ne (~s) Full Builrb.Jt: 1998 ~'osltain Valley I rd.lstr ial Area -1975 400 .00 ltne tb-e N::ne N::ne 3,000,000 6 ,000,000 Civic Colter Area -1975 40.00 N::ne N::ne 1,200,000 1,215 ,000 N::ne Ible FulJ.ertcn Orarge f air -1973 193.25 Limlted N:> Charge ~rensive lev i talizatiai N::ne N::ne (LimiteJ .Inc:rease of Central B.ls. District) Centra l F\Jllertx:n -1974 800.00 Limited It> Charr;ie E)ctensive levitalizatiai Limited It> In::i:ease Ea s t Mlertx:n -1974 1,042 .42 Limited It> Charge EX tensive Ievitallzatiai Limited Sore )')(pansim (Several new 11 igh--r ise B.lrlgs ) G:u:den Grove G'.lrden GcOJe Cl::mnnity 1,335 .00 . Du;na Clinl:.cll 38 .00 llLnti n;Jtal Do:d1 'l'alber t -Deach 25.40 llllal'.Mn Jldj'l 47 0 inits Ulkro..n lt"t-e l.klkra.rl l'd:l ' l 100,000 ft Yo rktv..n-Lake 40.68 Uflkro..n rd:i'l 150 inlts U"lkn:wl lld:'l' l 200 ,0Cl0-400 ,000 ~1 N::ne 9:J. f t. o:xnn. Center Oalcview 68 .43 ~ Ad:l 'l 10\l mlts l.klkra.rl Jldj. l 300 , 000 Ulkro..n N:::re ~ti i.n-i' i er Attm:lnmt It>. l 43.26 1100 5500 240,000 2,900,000 U1kro.-in N::ne La l\abca Deta cne 23.50 5 N:::re N:::re N:::re 16.75 acres 18.3 acres Cleta '1'.o 17.45 1 N:::re 3.89 acres 7 .78 acres 2 .85 acres 5.7 acres l\l(ila 'l\.o 5.00 t b'le N:::re 3.91 acres 3.91 acres N:::re N:::re l\lp1a 'ltu:ce 2.02 N:::re N::ne 2.02 acres 2.02 acres N:::re N::ne Beta 'lhree 33.37 5 N:::re N:::re N::ne 22.49 acres 22.49 acres Inc 10. 88 ac sch:JOl Galina cne 10.97 N:::re N::n e 68,000 s:i ft llB,000 S] ft N:::re N:::re La Pal.Jm La Palna O::mnnity DevelcpTmt 160.00 N:::re N:::re 500 ,000 l,000 ,000 N:ne N:::re It> les/lrd D.1 lprt:. Ch1tenpl.ated Silflta l\ro °""11:own a rea 697.00 Soo th ~b ln 1 ,485.00 170 160 1,400 ,000 2,000,000 15,000,000 24,400,000 Imer City 536.00 so 1500 2,200,000 2 ,000,000 3,500 ,000 2 ,100,000 Sooth 11.:lrl.xx 1 ,050.00 N::ne ltne 500 ,(1()() 500,000 11,000,000 16,000,000 Ncx th llru:l:xx 428.00 27 4 576 1,275,000 1, 775,000 170,000 2,370,000 Sea l !leach RiverCr:t:nt 13 4.00 Limited 1200 Limited 3 crl:i ' l acres N.:re N.:re Surfside 34 .00 lb1e N:::re N.:re lb1e N::ne lb1e 5e.'M:ll.l. Project 'Iwtin 10...n Center Llmit.ed It> irl:l' 1 1091 Parcel.3 TCv i ta llzatiai N.:re lb-e 1 \ August i, I 1984 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE C.OUNTY , CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (7 14)540.2910 (714)962-2411 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Present: Richard B. Edgar, Joint Chairman Don Griffin, Vice Joint Chairman Robert Hanson Henry Wedaa Don Roth James Wahner Don Smith Absent: Director Ruth Bailey Supervisor Roger Stanton Convene: Adjourn: 5:30 p.m. 7:17 p.m. July 25, 1984 Others present: Director Henry Frese Director James Neal Director Richard Olson Suzanne Atkins, General Counsel's Office Staff present: J, Wayne Sylvester, General Manager Blake P. Anderson, Director of Operations William N. Clarke, Superintendent Gary Streed, Accounting Supervisor 1) Fiscal Policy Cormnittee Recommendations. a) EDP ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM REQUIREMENTS. The Districts' existing electronic data processing (EDP) system is rapidly reaching its processing capability limits because of significant increases in volumes of accounting transactions due to additional personnel, increases in numbers of material and supply purchases necessary to support our expanded facilities, and increased cost accounting and management information reporting requirements. Fiscal Policy Committee Recommendation. Fiscal Policy Cormnittee Chairman Frese reported that after reviewing the enclosed staff report, a consultant's report and the Districts' computer installation, the Committee recommends a phased approach for addressing the Districts' accounting computer needs: Phase IA: For the immediate needs it is recommended that staff be authorized to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $88,000 plus tax and freight for purchase, installation and testing of an ITG /Integrity Computer System to upgrade the the Districts' existing Data General minicomputer system. This change would provide us with enough system capacity for 3-5 years . E.C. 7/25/84 Phase IB: The short-term (or intermediate) recommendation, is to direct staff to complete evaluation of the Districts' present and anticipated management information system needs and report back to the Committee regarding: a) The feasibility and anticipated cost of engaging a software vendor to develop enhancements to existing software and reporting capabilities to provide expanded management information. b) The feasibility and anticipated cost of further upgrading the Districts' EDP system with micro-computers to provide improved management information and analytical capabilities. Phase II: Long-term recommendation. Once pending matters are resolved such as the creation of proposed Districts Nos. 13 and 14; determination on the volume of industrial and commercial permittees that the Districts will eventually have; final definition of management information system requirements and the County's capability of interfacing our user charge billings, we will be able to clearly define our long-term needs. At that time (one to two years from now), it is recommended that a study and report be prepared for consideration by the Boards on proposed long-term systems requirements and solutions to meet our accounting and management information needs over the subsequent five to ten-year period. Prior to commencing Phase II the Fiscal Policy will report back to the Executive Committee with its recommendations on how to proceed with the study of long-term needs. Executive Committee Recommendation The Executive Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Fiscal Policy Committee. b) EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM. Over the past three years the Districts have benefited from stable conditions in the excess liability insurance market. Our insurance broker has recently advised us, however, that the market for this type of coverage has started to shift upward in the last few months, and that the premium on the Districts' excess loss policy on the self-funded liability plan will increase from $35,000 to $40,800. The Districts presently self-insure the first $100,000 of each liability claim. The excess liability coverage picks up after $100,000 with a $20 million limit. Fiscal Policy Committee Recommendation It is the Committee's ·recommendation that the staff be authorized to pay the increased premium for a total amount of $40,000 for 1984-85. Executive Committee Recommendation The Executive Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Fiscal Policy Committee. -2- . ~ c) ACQUISITION OF NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM. E.C. 7/25/84 Nate! & Co., a telecommunications consultant engaged by the Boards, completed their study of the Districts' telephone system requirements early this calendar year. A formal Request for Proposal (RFP) was then issued to eleven vendors including GTE, the local telephone company from which we lease our present phone system. Enclosed is a brief staff report summarizing the results of Natel's analysis of the five RFP responses that were received. The consultant has prepared a rather extensive analysis and report and is recommending that Districts' acquire the Centel Business Systems, Inc. SL-lMS telephone system in the amount of $141,300. This system will not only save the Districts an estimated $217,000 during the next 10 years over the cost of retaining the existing system which is leased from General Telephone, but will also provide us with additional capabilities for controlling telephone toll calls through least cost routing provisions in the system, and other measures. Fiscal Policy Committee Recommendation The Fiscal Policy Committee recommends that staff be authorized to negotiate and issue a purchase order cor.tract to CENTEL Business Systems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $141,300 for purchase and installation of an SL-lMS telephone system. It is also recommended that staff be authorized to direct Natel to proceed with Phase II of their consulting contract in the amount of $8,500. to assist the Districts with contract negotiations with the vendor and serve as the Districts' project manager during insta llation. Executive Committee Recommendation The Executive Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Fiscal Policy Committee. d) IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ON THE SANITATION DISTRICTS Chairman Frese reported that the Committee had been considering the fiscal impact of redevelopment agency project financing on the Districts and noted that because of the dual role of our Board members who sit as Directors of the redevelopment agency, as well as Directors on the Sanitation Districts' Boards, this matter is a policy issue which must be decided by the Boards. The Committee reviewed a report that had been requested of staff at considerable length. It appears as if the major impact is on residential properties within the redevelopment projects. This is because the majority of projects are commercially ~r industrially oriented and these properties can be permitted and charged an annual user fee under the Districts' current Industrial Waste ordinance. Mr. Frese observed that several alternatives {which are shown on Page 5 of the enclosed staff report) are available to the Directors in considering this policy issue. He stated that the Committee is continuing to study this matter -3- E.C. 7/25/84 and does not have a recommendation at tijis time. However, the Committee requested that each of the Directors take this issue back to their respective cities to discuss it and report back. The Executive Committee authorized the Joint Chairman to write a letter to each Director requesting that they take this matter up with their respective agencies and provide their input back to the Districts. The Joint Chairman was also authorized to send the letter to those other cities within the Districts' jurisdictional boundaries that are not members of the Joint Boards. 2) Request of the City of Fountain Valley for Reimbursement of Manhole Repair. Staff reported that the City of Fountain Valley had submitted the enclosed letter requesting that the Districts reimburse the City for repairs to ten City sewer manholes estimated to cost $10,000. The City contends that the deterioration of the manholes was caused by sewer gases from the District 3 Miller-Holde~ trunkline and believes that the Districts are, therefore, liable for the repairs. Staff reported that it had investigated the claim and found that the City's manholes had sufferred corrosive damage, probably from hydrogen sulfide gas, similar to that experienced by the Districts in its large sewers. The General Coun~el's office had also been requested to review the claim and Suzanne Atkins, representing the General Counsel, reviewed Mr. Woodruff's findings. Although there is no case precedent, the attorney's opinion (copy enclosed) observes that the City may likely be able to establish the causation of their damage as being the Districts' sewers. After thoughtful cons i deration, it is the Conunittee's recommendation that District 3 approve settlement of the claim from the City of Fountain Valley in the amount of $10,000 for damage to ten City sewer manholes: provided that the City agree to: a) install a protective coating on said manholes to prevent further deterioraticn, and, b) hold the Districts harmless from any claim for future damages. 3) Extending the Terms of the Interim Agreement with Falcon Services for Out-of-County Trucking and Disposal of Residual Solids. The Boards have previously approved an interim agreement with Falcon Services for out-of-county trucking and disposal of residual solids at a private landf ill for an amount not to exceed $252,000 through August 15, 1984. Falcon Services i s the firm that provided us with the lowest cost quote for out-of-county trucking and disposal as an alternative short-term solution for sludge disposal approved by the Boards last November in compliance with EPA's 30l(h} Waiver/NPDES permit require ments. Falcon Services is hauling the Plant No. 1 waste-activated sludge (WAS) that cannot meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board's 22~% solids content requirements for disposal at the County's Coyote Canyon landfill , and grit a nd screening material which we are not allowed to dispose of at Coyote Canyon. This interim measure was approved pending evaluation of proposals from the private sector for long-term off-site -4- E.C. 7/25/84 reuse/disposal of our residual solids. The proposals were received in March and have been under review by the Select Committee of Directors. Respondents have been narrowed to a firm that proposes to truck the sludge to an off-site location in Orange County and further process it to produce a humus material to be marketed in the Southern California area. The Committee has authorized the staff to enter into negotiations with the firm and it is hopeful that an agreement will soon be ready for consideration. Pending execution of a long-term agreement, staff recommends that the contract with Falcon Services for interim out-of-county trucking be extended up to 60 days, from August 15th through September 15th, and that the maximum authorized amount be increased from $252,000 to $352,000 to carry us through the September Board Meeting. Once an agreement is executed with the long-term disposal/reuse vendor, staff will renegotiate the contract for interim sludge disposal with Falcon Services to provide short-term disposal services until the long-term contractor can begin taking the Districts' daily sludge production which is now anticipated to be July, 1986. The renegotiated agreement would be brought back to the Committee for consideration at that time. Executive Committee Recommendation The Executive Committee concurs with the staff 1s recommendation. 4) 301(h) Waiver/NPDES Permit Update. Staff reported that on July 13th the Regional Water Quality Control Board had approved the Districts' proposed 301(h)/NPDES Permit. The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX will now forward the permit to its Washington, D.C. headquarters for concurrence. If approved by EPA, the tentative time table calls for signature and issuance on or about August 28th, after which there is a 33-day public notice period. The effective date of the permit would then be October 1, 1984. Staff then reported on two matters that relate to the Districts' NPDES Permit. BOD Limitations: One of the permit requirements is that the Districts must comply with a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentration limitation of 100 parts per million through the outfall. We are presently meeting this limit, but with some difficulty. Staff reported that in order to maintain compliance during the five-year term of the NPDES Permit it will be necessary for the Districts to impose restrictions on industries (primarily food processors) that discharge high quantities of BOD and reviewed t h e probable impact on those firms. In accordance with the existing provisions of the Districts' Regulations for Use of District Sewage Facilities, our Industrial Waste Division is developing a plan for implementing pretreatment requirements and progressively stricter limi tations for BOD. Implementat i on would occur in a manner similar to the phased program that was used for heavy metal dischargers. Staff reported they would keep the Directors apprised of th~ program as it develops. -5- E.C. 7/25/84 Department of Health Services/SAWPA Proposal to Dispose of Treated Stringfellow Wastes Into Districts' Sewerage System: The staff also reported on communication that had been received from representatives of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (S AWPA) regarding the California Department of Health Services' (OOHS) propose d plan for disposing of waste from the Stringfellow site in Riverside County. The OOHS, in conjunction with SAWPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, has developed a plan which proposes to construct a facility at Stringfellow to pre-treat the extracted contaminated groundwater (estimated volume of 288,000 gallons per day) to strict standards and then dispose of it into the Santa Ana River Interceptor System which would transport it to the Districts' Joint Works for further treatment and disposal. SAWPA presently owns capacity rights in the Districts' Interceptor and the Joint Treatment Works. SAWPA has issued an RFP for design and construction management engineering services for the proposed interim program, and had requested the Executi ve Committee's consideration of the matter. S t aff reported to the Committee that it had advised SAWPA that before the Committee or the Boards of Directors could consider their request, it would be necessary for all the regulatory agencies having direct or indirect authority over our activities to endorse the project and provide written assurances of the feasability of the proposal. SAWPA has also been advised by staff that before any proposal could be considered viable, it would have to include provisions for full and consistent compliance with the strict conditions contained in the Districts' Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities. Following a discussion of the proposal unde r consideration by SAWPA and the State and Fe d e ral agencies, staff wa s directed to reiterate the Districts' posi t i o n on the program and request additional information from SAWPA. -6- ~-... COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE July 11, 1984 FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALI FO RNIA 92708 (714) 540.2910 (714)962·2411 STAFF REPORT ON SHORT-TERM EDP SYSTEM UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS AND LONG-TERM PLANNING SCHEDUI..E The purpose of this staff report is to: Present a recommendation regarding immediate and short-term data processing system upgrade requirements. Present a summary of long-term plans for data processing improvements. BACKGROUND The growth in the size and complexity of the Districts' collection and treatment facilities has been paralleled over the last five years by a corresponding growth in the volumes of transactions processed via our existing data processing system. Major increases in volume have occurred in various areas, including: Subsystem Payroll Accounts Receivable Purchasing/Accounts Payable Job Cost Accounting System Reasons for Increase New employees added to operate/maintain new advanced treatment facilities and ensure compliance with Federal/State regulations. Number of industries under permit has increased from 300 in 1980 to more than 1,000 today. 25% increase in volume of purchase orders/payments due to expanded materials/supplies requirements for new facilities. Significant increase in work order cost accounting activity to collect costs for additional facilities added within the last two years. The Districts' existing EDP equipment, originally installed in 1978, presently processes accounting transactions virtually 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is rapidly approaching its maximum processing capability. Late last fall the Finance Department contracted with B. D. Whetstone & Associates, a data process ing consulting firm that has provided periodic EDP consulting, programming and processing services to the Districts for the past three years, to assist the staff in evaluating both short-term and long-term solutions to address these significant increases i n volume and meet the Districts' growing need for additional data processing capabilities. Mr. Whetstone and the staff identified a series of alternatives ranging from low-cost, short-term options to long-term, high-cost alternatives to determine th~ most cost-effective solutions available to the Districts in expanding our data processing system. As indicated above, the major reason for initiating this type of planning study was that the Districts' current MICOS/Data General mini-computer system was beginning to become overloaded during routine processing, resulting in slow response time, extended processing time and inability to perform new processing applications. PLANNING STUDY ALTERNATIVES The consultant and staff explored the costs and benefits of the following alternatives: 1. Decrease system demand through procedural changes. 2. Off-load existing system requirements to a stand-alone microprocessor. 3. Use of outside service bureaus for major applications such as: A. Payroll B. User Charges 4. Acquisition and development of new /upgraded software. 5. Acquisition of new/upgraded hardware. 6. Acquisition of new hardware and development/acquisition of new software. REPORT SUMMARY The consultant has concluded that there are two feasible solutions to the Districts' current systems expansion requirements from the six alternatives outlined above. These solutions are: A. Acquisition of new mainframe computer equipment and development/ acquisition of new software (identified in the enclosed report as alternative 6), at an estimated cost of $1.9 million over a five-year period. B. A combination of two alternatives, including: (1) Use of the County of Orange to perform user charge processing for both Districts 5 and 6 as well as other districts moving to user charges in future years (identified in the report as alternative 3B) , and (2) Acquisition of new/upgraded hardware and retention of the existing software operating on the Districts' present system (identified in the report as alternative 5), at an estimated cost of $610,000.00 over the next five years. -2 - Table A compares these two feasible alternativ es. The other four alternatives were rejected for the following reasons: Alternative 1 -Decrease demand through procedural changes 2 -Offload applications to microprocessor 4 -Acquisition of new/upgraded soft~are 3A-Outside service bureau: Reason for Rejection -Limited, short-term solution to response time/capacity issue -No expansion capabilities for existing system -Would require implementation of further source document control procedures -Unable to accommodate inventory control application -Requires development of system network interface -Limited expansion capabilities -Doesn't improve overnight processing overloads Requires considerable programming effort/time, thus not a realistic short-term solution -Limited expansion capabilities -Doesn't improve overnight processing overloads -Would not accommodate custom inventory control application -Limited expansion capabilities for Districts' system We have reviewed the recommendations in the report with the consultant, and have concluded that the combination of alternatives 3B and 5, i.e., use of the County of Orange data processing capabilities for user charge system requirements, along with acquisition of new/upgraded hardware to enhance the capabilities of the Districts' current mini-computer system, is the most cost-effective, short-term approach to meet the Districts' increased processing requirements for the next 2-3 years. EVALUATION OF NEW/UPGRADED HARDWARE There is one system on the market that would allow the Districts to upgrade the hardware yet retain our current software. This system is offered by the International Technology Group, Inc., (ITG) with local offices in Newport Beach, and is called the Integrity Computer System. In order to evaluate the performance of the Integrity System, we tested several of our existing programs and applications at the ITG facility. Our experience was favorable and the operating results, fast response time and excellent performance of the installation made this the f i rst choice as the recommended alternative for improving/upgrading our current hardware without requiring major software rewrites. -3 - In order to accurately define the cost for the hardware upgrade relative to the ITG/Integrity System, we solicited a proposal from ITG as a replacement for the Districts' current MICOS/Data General system, and the cost of this new hardware, including installation and testing of the system, is $88,000.00. Both the consultant's report and a copy of the ITG/Integrity System proposal are included for your review and evaluation. Current System Item Capacity Nova 3/12 CPU 96 KB (2) CDC Disk Drives 80 MB ea. (2) CDC Tape Drive 1600 BPI Pertee Printer 600 LPM (4) Midas CRT N/A Terminals Upgraded System Item ITG/Integrity CPU Capacity 256 KB -Retain existing disk drives for backup Winchester Disk 160 MB ea. Drives -Retain existing hardware -Retain existing hardware -Retain existing .hardware TOTAL COST OF PROPOSED UPGRADED SYSTEM Added Cost $60,000 N/A $28,000 N/A N/A N/A $88,000 No decision of this type should be made without first determining how it will fit into our plans and affect our options for future years. Staff is currently conducting a Management Information Survey which will tell us what additional kinds of information and types of reports are needed to most effectively manage our expanding operations and activities . We can then contract with a software house to program these reports or to change existing reports as required. With the ITG upgrade, the Districts would have a mini-computer capable of communicating/interfacing with the IBM micro-computer. This capability would present a future option to provide Management and Department Heads with personal computers, spreadsheet applications (like Visicalc or Lotus 1-2-3) , and instantaneous access to the budget and job cost accounting system data base . The potential for timely access to meaningful, useful management information is an important step forward in our overall EDP plan. Although the Integrity System will operate smoothly using the existing Districts' software, we anticipate that some software enhancements may be desirable to improve the effectiveness of the system. Therefore, we propose to also systematically review all current software to identify improvement opportunities to assure optimum utilization of the hardware and available processing time. -4- IMMEDIATE/SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (Phase I) The staff recommends the following actions to provide capability to meet our immediate needs and enable us to process the increased volumes of transactions we are now experiencing and expect to handle in the near future: Phase IA -Immediate: Authorization for staff to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc., Newport Beach, CA, in an amount not to exceed $88,000.00 plus tax and freight, for purchase, installation and testing of an ITG/ Integrity Computer System to upgrade the capabilities of the Districts' existing Data General minicomputer system. We would continue our existing practice of establishing and maintaining individual Districts' user data bases and performing supplemental user fee billing via the County of Orange EDP system capabilities, presently used in Districts 5 and 6. Table B sets forth the proposed schedule for immediate implementation of the recommendations defined above to resolve our short-term processing deficiencies and evaluate the potential of the upgraded system for providing better management information capabilities to Districts' staff via use of micro-computers and software enhancements for the upgraded system. Phase IB-Short-Term: Direct the staff to complete its evaluation of the Districts' present and anticipated management information needs and report back to the Committee regarding: (1) The feasibility and anticipated costs of engaging a software vendor to develop enhancements to existing software and reporting capabilities to provide expanded management information. (2) The feasibility and anticipated costs of interfacing the Districts' upgraded EDP system with micro-computers to provide improved management information and analytical capabilities. As indicated on Table B, installation of the upgraded system could be completed before the end of this calendar year. If a decision is made to proceed with software enhancements and micro-computers to support our MIS requirements, we would expect to be able to complete .both the immediate and the short-term plan phases within 18 months. LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (Phase II) There are several matters pending that will affect our long-term EDP needs. These include: -Creation of proposed Districts 13 and 14 -Assessment of the accounting/EDP impact of permitting all commercial. customers versus the current 1,000 IW accounts. -Assessment of the County's long-term capabilities to provide user charge data base maintenance and billing services as additional Districts employ supplemental user fees to meet O&M expenses. -5 - -Final definition of MIS requirements to enhance effective administration of the Districts and compliance with federal and state regulations. As indicated earlier in this report, our consultant estimates that the five-year cost of acquiring and installing new hardware and software (alternative 6) is $1,935,000. Table A compares the proposed immediate recommendation for upgrading our existing system and continuing to use County EDP resources for supplemental user charge processing/billing (a combination of alternatives 3b and 5) at a cost of $610,000. Considering the major differences in cost and the requirement to develop an in-house EDP staff to support a major EDP installation, staff believes it would be prudent to await resolution of the unresolved issues identified in the previous paragraph before embarking upon execution of Phase II of the proposed EDP System Review and Implementation Plan. Once these determination have been made, our long-range needs can be clearly defined and a system developed to meet our EDP requirements for the forseeable future. With the dramatic changes in state-of-the-art computer technology and our ever-changing demands on the system to handle the day-to-day work loads and provide the necessary information to optimize management of the Districts' activities, this will, in the future, be an ongoing effort -as it has in the past. The attached Long-Term EDP System Review and Implementation Plan, Table C, outlines the proposed long-term plans and time schedules for defining our EDP systems requirements and identifying solutions to meet our accounting, budgeting and management information systems needs over the subsequent five to ten-year period. -6- July 11, 1984 COUNT Y SANITATIO N DISTR I CTS STAFF SUMMARY REPORT OF TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY NATEL & CO. of Q RAN GE C OUNTY, C ALIF ORNIA P.O .BOX 8 127 10844 ELLI S AVEN U E FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-29 10 (714) 962·241 1 Based upon a Fiscal Policy Conunittee recommendation, the Boards authorized Natel & Co., a local telecommunications consultant, to perform an in-depth study of the Districts' telephone needs for the purpose of acquiring a new, updated telephone system to replace the existing GTE system currently in use. A significant part of this study involved preparing detailed specifications for competitive bidding to acquire a new system to replace the overloaded GTE system, performing an analysis of the vendor responses, and presenting a recommendation on the results of the competitive bidding process. Formal Requests for Proposals (RFP) were sent out to eleven suppliers, and a total of five vendors submitted responsive proposals. COST ANALYSIS The adjusted cost totals for purchase and installation of a comprehensive telephone system to replace our existing system are presented in the following table: ADJUSTED TELEPHONE SYSTEM BID AMOUNTS Vendor CENTEL CCA AT&T Information Services NTI GTE Adjusted Cost $ 141,310.00 142,662.00 176,879.00 182,322.00 217,274.00 Natel performed a financial analysis for the five responsive bidders in which they uniformly adjusted the individual bid prices to properly reflect the least expensive system configuration while at the same time including cost additions (or deletions) for system equipment needed to match the desire d, specified system requirements that Natel wrote into the original bid package. The tabulated summar y of these adjusted system capital costs f o r the five bidders pre sented above reflects t h ese cost adjustments. -- Staff Summary Report July 11, 1984 Page Two In addition, Natel also performed a net present value (NPV) analysis of the potential cost savings available to the Districts by installing a new system compared to the estimated cost of remaining with our current system. The results of this analysis are presented in the following table: COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES OF SAVINGS OVER EXISTING SYSTEM Vendor CCA CENTEL NT! AT&TIS GTE ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION 10 Years NPV Savings Over Existing System $ 219,209.00 217,169.00 180,427.00 172,109.00 143,696.00 Natel also prepared a decision matrix which assigned relative point values for four different criteria used to compare each of the vendors. Following are the results of this assessment: TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANALYSIS RESULTS Financial Vendor End-User Total System Analysis Capability Opinion Points CENT EL 1,175 490 500 360 2,525 NT! 1,175 410 500 380 2,465 CCA 1,125 500 300 300 2,225 GTE 1,100 325 400 345 2,170 AT&TIS 750 400 450 370 1,970 Attached is Natel's final report. Chapter III of the report explains the decision matrix criteria, presents a comparative rating of the five vendors, and recommends that the Districts enter into a purchase and installation contract with CENTEL Business Systems, Inc. CENTEL has proposed installation of an SL-lMS system, and the company has a large maintenance facility and staff in Irvine to install the system and provide routine maintenance support. The Staff concurs with Natel & Co.'s analysis and reconunends that the Districts award a contract to CENTEL Business Systems for purchase and installation of the new telephone/communications system in an amount not to exceed $141,310.00. - • COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE COUNT Y, CALIFORNIA P.0 .BOX 8127 July 7, 1984 10844 ELLIS AVENU E FOU NTAIN VALLEY, CALI FORNIA 92708 (7 14) 540-2910 (71 4)962-2411 STAFF R.SPORT IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON DISTRICTS' TAX REVENUES AND OPERATING COSTS The purposes of this report are to: Review the impact of redevelopment agency project financing on Districts' revenues and operations Present various options available to the Districts for recovering property tax revenues lost by the Districts by virtue of tax increment financing methods employed in the existing or proposed redevelopment projects within the Districts' service area. Seek policy direction from the Boards of Directors relative to redevelopment projects. INTRODUCTION An initial report has previously been presente d to the Fiscal Policy Committee a nd Executi ve Committee outlining the impact of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects within the Districts' service area on the Districts' tax revenues and operating costs. The staff was requested to review the exist ing redevelopment projects underway to define both the types of projects (residential/ commercial/industrial) and the scope of the redevelopment activity within each project area. This report: Provides background data on the redevelopment process throughout the County , with a focus on redevelopment activities within our service area Defines the types and scope of redevelopment activity within the Districts' service area Assesses the overall impact of the tax increment financing o n the Districts' tax revenues and ability to meet our operating cost requirements Defines the estimated impact of exemplary pro jects on individual Districts' financial position over the life of each proj ect Outl i nes several options available to the Districts to recover ad valorern tax revenues lost to the Districts through use of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects. BACKGROUND All of the Districts except District No. 5 have existing redevelopment projects in their service areas, and several Districts have more than one active or proposed project. Even though cities within the Districts' service area have engaged in redevelopment activities for many years, there has been a substantial increase in establishment of new projects since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. While the revenues generated for redevelopment agencies using tax increment financing have been restricted due to the limitations placed upon the property tax by Proposition 13, many cities are still turning to this financing method to provide funds for upgrading blighted areas, installing infrastructure improvements, and inspiring private sector investment in areas that might not otherwise be attractive to business. Presently, eighteen of the cities served by the County Sanitation Districts have established redevelopment projects encompassing 18,238 acres. During the past year, nine new projects have been initiated and all of these projects, totaling an additional 3,954 acres, have received authorization from their respective city councils to move forward. Table 1 identifies the 18 active projects within the Districts' existing service area. The nine projects that have been authorized within the last year are highlighted in the table. These projects have a significant financial impact on the Districts and this report highlights estimates of the impact. The primary reasons why redevelopment projects impact the Districts are, first, these projects typically employ a financing mechanism established by State law called tax increment financing, an approach that effectively places a ceiling on the tax revenues available to the taxing agencies serving the redevelopment project and allocates the future incremental increase in tax revenues generated by the property within the redevelopment area to the redevelopment agency to finance project activities. Second, one of the major purposes of redevelopment projects is to create a proper climate for increased development within the project area. This new development often generates additional operating costs for the Districts in collecting, treating and disposing of the increased levels of wastewater discharged from the project area, but these additional costs are not accompanied by higher revenues necessary to offset the added expense of serving the area. The Districts are responsible for providing sewerage services for property within redevelopment project areas. Our operations and maintenance costs are escalating rapidly due to federally mandated requirements, energy impacts and inflation. Because we currently rely on ad valorem taxes to finance operations and maintenance in all Districts {Districts 5 and 6 also levy a use fee because taxes are insufficient to cover operating costs) , the freezing of taxes will mean that the cost of services provided by the Districts to existing and future users in the redevelopment areas may not be adequately covered. Although an individual redevelopment project may or may not significantly impact the Districts, the cumulative effect of several redevelopment projects could be substantial. -2- RECENT REDEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN ORANGE COUNTY Based upon data relating to assessed valuations developed by the County Auditor-Controller, two major trends have developed since the passage of Proposition 13. The following depicts the increase over the last five years in assessed valuation within redevelopment projects available for tax increment purposes in relation to the total assessed valuation in the cities with redevelopment projects: Fiscal Year 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 Cities' Assessed Valuation Within Redevelopment Areas AV Subject to Tax Increment Financing As a % of Total City AV 5.05% 6.49 7.54 7.89 8.82 8.39 This trend is paralleled by a similar increase in the Countywide percentage of the total assessed valuation that is committed to redevelopment projects as presented in the following: Fiscal Year 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 Countvwide Assessed Valuation Within Redevelopment Project Areas AV Committed to Redevelopment As a % of Countywide AV 2.44% 2.84 3.19 3.51 3.92 4.56 These trends highlight the problem faced by other taxing agencies within redevelopment areas as a result of increased redevelopment projects within the county. The higher the percentage of assessed valuation subject to tax increment financing, the higher the amount of tax revenues lost by these agencies to redevelopment projects. OVERALL IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT ON THE DISTRICTS Redevelopment projects have three major impacts on the Districts: a. Tax Revenues Frozen. The major impact of redevelopment projects relates to redevelopment agencies' use of tax increment financing to generate revenues and pay for improvements within the project area. This financing meth od freezes t h e Districts' ad valorem tax -3 - revenues from the project area. The assessed valuation of the property within the project area is fixed at the value of the property during the year in which the project is approved, and remains at that same level throughout the life of the project, which is usually 30 to 40 years. Any incremental tax revenues resulting from improvements, new development or property resales that increase the assessed valuation over the base year levels accrue solely to the redevelopment agency. b. Increased Operating Costs. If a redevelopment project results in improvements or increased densities that discharge a higher volume of sewage than the previous development, the Districts will experience additional operations and maintenance costs to provide service to the redevelopment project area. c. Increased Capacity Requirements. As in b. above, if sewage volume generated by the project is higher than provided for in the District's master plan, additional capital facilities may be required. In most cases, this will not cause a significant financial impact as the new or expanded development will be required to pay District connection fees for capital improvements. The cities currently collect these fees on behalf of the Sanitation Districts. Over their life, redevelopment agencies often revise their projects to increase the density of development. Therefore, the Districts must follow each redevelopment project as it progresses to ensure that sufficient trunk sewer capacity is available in the individual District to serve the redevelopment area as development progresses. In some cases it may be necessary to require the redevelopment agency to provide funding to construct new facilities needed to serve the expanding needs of the project, but both existing and proposed redevelopment projects can generally be accommodated by the Districts' trunk sewer system. As noted previously, new development is charged a connection fee by the Districts at the time the building permit is issued to pay for facilities capacity. In the 1983-84 fiscal year, the total assessed valuation of the property served by the Districts was $53.0 billion. The Districts' share of the property tax revenues from the 1% basic levy on this amount of assessed valuation and its bond redemption tax levy revenues totaled $18.1 million. Another 4.56%, or $825,000, would have been received by the Districts were there no existing redevelopment projects in our service area. Five of the most recently approved projects identified in Table 1 will generate an average of 800,000 gallons per day of additional wastewater over the next five years at an estimated cost of $265,000, with no additional property tax revenues from the project areas to offset this increase in cost. Table 2 details the financial impact of these five recent redevelopment projects. Table 3 presents the existing and planned levels of development for these five projects. Similar data is not available at this time for several of the other existing projects, however, these projects are representative of the types of redevelopment occurring throughout the Districts' service area. -4- -ALTERNATIVE FOR FUNDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS There are several alternatives that could be considered to address these financial impacts: 1. Incremental Tax Pass-Through -Seek a pass-through of incremental tax revenues that accrue to the Redevelopment Agency to cover the Districts' added costs. Our historical share of the ad valorem tax is approximately 3% of the 1% basic levy. This alternative provides for the Agency to "pass-through" to the Districts their historical share (3%) of the incremental tax accruing to the Agency. Such agreements have been executed with both the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency and the Placentia Redevelopment Agency. (Sample standard agreement attached) . 2a. User Fee Collected by District on Tax Bill -Establish a zone for the redevelopment agency and levy a use fee to be collected on the property tax bill. 2b. User Fee Collected by Redevelopment Agency -An alternative to 2a. would be for the redevelopment agency to collect a use fee, on behalf of the Districts, and remit the amount to the Districts, keeping 5% to cover their administrative costs. This method would be similar to the existing agreements providing for the cities to collect the Districts' connection fees. 2c. Commercial/Industrial User Fee Combined with Another Alternative for Residential -For commercial/industrial properties, the Districts could issue a permit under the provisions of the current uniform industrial waste ordinance and levy and collect user fees from those properties where the yearly cost of services provided exceed the annual property tax paid to the Districts. Since the majority of redeve lopment projects are commercial/industrial, this option could be utilized for those properties in combination with one of the five other alternatives for residential properties. 3a. Project Life Subsidy -Subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13. 3b. Interim Subsidy -As in 3a., subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13 only until such time as it is necessary to adopt District-wide user fees. At such time, the adopted fee would also apply to redevelopment properties. It should be note d that the options l is ted above under alternative 3 may be in conflict with the Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in compliance with state and federal regulations that provide that all users pay their proportionate share of Districts' costs. POLICY DIRECTION Because of the potential financial impact of redevelopment projects on the Districts, and the affect on the redevelopment agencies, staff is seeking policy direct ion from the Directors on this matter. -5- Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach La Habra TABLE 1 EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA 9/19/83 Revised 7/11/84 District Project Title Project Type Acreage 2 2 & 3 3 6 2 & 3 2 & 3 2 & 3 11 2 & 3 Project Alpha 1972 River Valley* Area A & B Area c CBD -1980 CBD -1981 RDPl -1973 RDP2 -1967 Industrial Area Civic Center Area Orangef air Central Fullerton East Fullerton Garden Grove Community Buena Clinton Talbert Beach Yorktown -Lake Oakview Main -Pier Alpha Two Alpha Three Be t a One Beta Two Beta Three Gamma One* Commercial/ Industrial Commercial/ Industrial Commercial . Commercial/ Industrial Commercial Commercial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Residential Industrial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Commercial Re sidential Residential/ Industrial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Commercial Commercial Industrial Commercial/ Industrial Industrial Commercial 2,566.00 128.00 747.26 254.00 190.00 300.00 200.00 75.00 650.00 800.00 193.25 800.00 1,042.42 1,335.00 38.00 25. 48 40.68 68.43 43.26 5.00 2.02 23.50 17.43 33.37 10.97 La Palma Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Westminster Yorba Linda Bue na Park TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA District Project Title Project Type 3 2 & 7 2 La Palma Community Development Tustin Street* Redevelopment Project* Commercial Commercial Industrial 1,2,3 & 7 Downtown Area South Main Commercial Commercial/ Industrial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Commercial/ 3 3 1 & 7 3 2 3 Inner City South Harbor North Harbor Riverview Surfside Redevelopment Project* Town Center South-Central* Commercial #1* Redevelopment Project* Industrial Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Residential/ Commercial Public Improve- ment (Seawall) Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial Commercial Residential Commercial Residential/ Commercial TOTAL ACREAGE (EXISTING) PENDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE DISTRICTS' SERVICE AREA Project No. 2 Commercial Acreage 110.00 363.60 174.30 697.00 1,485.00 536.00 1,050.00 428.00 134.00 34.00 197.68 360.00 260.16 179.40 2,640.00 18,238.21 Original Proposal 689.5 (Proposed reductio n in aver age not availab le) * Projects approved wi t hin last y ea r (8 pro j e cts/3 ,95 4.11 AC /27.67 % increas e in acreage) 9/26/83 llevised 7/11/84 'D'IBCE 2 PlUJECIED Ilfl'Cl' CF m:mr lal:."Vnffi-ENr PIOJECTS (}l VAIUa.6 IDSTIUCIS (l982-83 IXIlMSl (l\l (Ill (Cl (Dl (P.) (Fl (G) (II) (Il (Jl (Kl (f,l REVEN IE Cl'mATilC '101!\L FIOCJIL ~ a~cmr 1Ul1\L FIOCAL '1017\L 'IUI71J, 101J\L FI9:7\L 1\1/Fll/G", Prom::!' IJml!S (ll;'l' IN'.llFJISliS I M'fCT lffiSffi DO@l.SES n-Pl'Cl' ·nun.or ffi'V!;NlE Cl'!il11\T.INJ OEl' JWl'Cl' OVER m.a.w, DUl'ffiICl:/l'ffiJErr _IJF'f:~ lSr YEM 1Sl' YE11It isr YEllR !7m Yl:llR 9.lH YE1IR 5 YEl\RS II ffi·S IlllWISJ,S m:mcr urn JNPl'Cl' ------ 2 -Ptco?ntla Ie'lev. Project 20 $ 600 $ -$ 600 $ 19,350 $ 7,000 $ 26,350 $ 527,000 $ 230, 787 $ 757,787 $ 37,090 -l\rohe i nvtHver Valley 35 160 ---15,500 15,680 72,395 129,000 201,395 1,167,750 1 ,509,500 ~-2&77.~ 76,493 -CXaYJe/l\Jstin Street 45 18,665 9,595 28,260 93,325 47,975 141,300 2,878,520 ~!)OJ__ --3,694,111 82,09L Sl&'IOJJ\l, Dist. 2 $19,445 $ 25,095 $44,540 $185,070 $ 183,975 $ 369,045 $ 4,573,278 $2,555,870 $ 7,U9,l48 $196,474 3 -l'b>trnl nster O:mrerc lal Ra~1 . Project It>. l 40 $ 673 -s 673 $ 10,000 $ 32,525 $ 42,525 $ 1,640 ,691 $ 640 ,000 $ 2,200,691 $ 57 ,017 ll -I~ ntlnglnl Deadl Ma ln Street -Piec lelcv. Project 1'irarlre1t It>. l 35 $ 1, 750 $ 6,000 s 7,758 $ 9,957 $ 48,555 $ so 1 so2 $ 0,034,143 $11505 1 160 $ 9,539,303 $272,551 'IUU\lS $21,876 $ 31,095 $52,971 $205,027 $ 265,055 $ 470,082 $14 1 248 1 lU $4, 701,030 $18 1 949 1 142 ~516,042 District 2 3 11 Project Title Placentia Redevelopment Project Anaheim/River Valley Project Orange/Tustin Street Westminster Commercial Redevelopment Project No. 1 Huntington Beach Main Street Pier Redevelopment Project Amendment No. 1 TABLE 3 PLANNED LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS SELECTED Residential Dwelling Units Existing 25 -0- 11 208 1,100 Total Units After Redevelopment 25 -0- -o- 618 5,500 ( 9/26/83 Revised 7/11/84 Commercial/Industrial Square Footage Total Square Footage Existing After Redevelopment COMM: -0-COMM: 163,241 IND: 100,000 IND: 659,498 (est.) COMM: -o-COMM: 778, 000 IND: -0-IND: 416,000 COMM: 3,200,000 COMM: 3,997,125 IND: 1,000 COMM: 689,000 COMM: 1,038,000 COMM: 240,000 COMM: 2,900,000 ( 'lY\111".E 4 Pl.JIN !En I£VEI S CF ll'NIU:tMNl' Wl1JIJN EXISl'~ ~r mlJECI' Mf1IS Jesiclcntial U'lits Q:Jlrrerclal ~· FOO~ IrdJS tcial SrJ. Fl:o~ lletmrkn City Project Titl.e ~ EXistirq Pr~ EXlstirg Prq:n9cd EKistirg Pr•1oied ~~ojcct 1'yp'!) 111aieim Project Al[tia -1972 2,566.00 (C & I) n.-ea llcea I\ & B -1972 747 .26 ltne NToc II -N::ne ]\ -Ible D -lt:re Brea M.;1ll B -N:::oe B -ltnc (Chun) llrea C 254.00 Limited Limited Llmlt.cd Limi ted Utrra Park OD -1900 1.90.00 @ 200 @ 200 (Chnn) OD -1961 300.00 @ 200 @ 350 (0-.im~ Cc.sta t•tr,a IVPl -1973 ~0.00 JO()() 6000 J00 ,000 500,000 250 ,000 250,000 (C&T&R) f\JU 0.Jilrb.tt: WOO ror2 -1967 75.00 1500 2625-3750 ~l::ne N::l'le ltrc ~l::ne (~S) F\J.ll 0.Jilrh.Jt: 1998 Fruntain Valley InJust.c ial /lrea -1975 400.00 ltne N:::oe N:::oe N:::oe 3,000,000 6 ,C00 ,000 Civic Cmter llrea -1975 40.00 ltne ltnc 1,200,000 1,215,000 Nme N:::oe Fullertco Or arr;iefa lr -1973 193.25 Limited 1'b~ EXt:cosive JCvitalhatioo N:::oe N:::oe (Limited Increase of. Central B.ls. District) Ca1tral F\J.llertx:n -1974 000.00 Limited ~ Otange E-<tensive Jevitalizatioo Limited 1'b I rccease Eas t F\lllertx:n -1974 1,042.42 Limited ~ Otarqe EXtens ive Jevitalizatloo Limited Sare ~ioo (Several rew Hi gh-rise Bldcjs) G'.U'.den GrOIC G:tr<len Gro.1e O:xml.lli ty 1,335.00 . Ou:!na Clintcu 38.00 lll.l'ltingtm l.le.:ld l 'la lber t--Oeitch 25.40 U'lkn::lwn /\d'.I ' l 470 units Unkronn N:::oe tklkronn l'Lli 'l 100,000 ft Yo rkll::r.n-Lake 40.60 UnkOOnl1 .1\dj I l 150 \J1 its ll'lkro..n /\d'.l 'l 200 ,~00 ,000 lklkro..n ltrte SJ.ft. o::mn. Center Oalwiew 60.43 U'\kro..n /\d'.I' l 10() \J'lits Ulkro..n hid' l JOO, 000 unkro..n N::ne ~Uin--P ier llmnlsrmt 1'b. l 43.26 llOO 5500 :.!40 ,000 2 ,900 ,000 Ulkro..n ltJie l..a IW:>ca Beta Qie 23.50 5 N::ne ltrc ltJ1e 16.75 acres 16 .3 acres Deta 'l\.Q 17.45 l ltJie 3 .89 acres 7.78 acres 2 .65 acres 5 .7 acres lll(ha 'l"° 5 .00 ltne N::ne 3 .91 acres 3.91 acres ltne ltrc II l[tta 'lhree 2.02 ltTie ltne 2.02 acres 2 .02 acres N::ne ltJie aeta 'lhree 33 .37 5 Nale ltJ1e Ible 22 .49 acres 22 .49 acres Ire 10.68 ac sch :io l Ga1111a Oie 10.97 N::ne lbie 60 ,000 Eq ft 110,000 Eq ft ltJie N::ne La Palnn I.a Palna O:m1 u 1lty Develq.11a1t 160.00 ltJ)c ltrc 500,000 1,000 ,000 Ible ltJie 1'b len/lrrl Dvlp1t . O::rttenpl.a ted San Lil llnrt i::o..ntown area 697.00 Sooth ~bin 1 ,485.00 170 160 1,400,000 2,000,000 15 ,000 ,000 24,400,000 lmer Cit y 536.00 so 1500 2,200,000 2,800,000 3 ,500,000 2,100,000 Sru U1 llarbc:c 1,050.00 ltJie N::ne 500 ,(l()() 500,000 ll,000,000 16 ,000,000 Nor th Har toe 428.00 27 4 576 1,275,000 1, 775,000 170,000 2 ,370,000 Seal Dc.xJ i Riverfca'lt D4.00 I.i..mi.ted 1200 Limited 3 ad:l' l acres ltrc tbie Surfs ire 34 .00 lbie tbie ltJie ltJie ~le lt:ne Sea>all Pro j ect 'J\t!;tln 'Jl.J,..n Cent.er Limited N:> cd:l' 1 1091 ParOP.ls IevitaU?..:itirn l>i'TIC N::ne .. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into, to be effective this day of , 1982, by and betwe'?n COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (hereinafter referred to as "District")~ and ------------------- (hereinafter referred to as "Agency"). RECITALS WHEREAS, District is a County Sanitation District orgapized and existing pursuant to the County Sanitation District Act (California Health and Safety Code Sections 4700 ~ seg.) and constitutes an independent special district providing wastewater collection and treatment throughout most of the Cou~ty of Orange, ~and specifically within the area of the , ------------------------- and WHEREAS, Agency is a redevelopment agency existing pursuant to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 ~ ~·> and which has been authorized to transact business and exercise the powers of a redevelopment agency pursuant to action of the legislative body of the community1 and WHEREAS, Agency is proposing to carry out a project pursuant to a specific Redevelopment Plan adopted by the legislative body, which Plan includes properties located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District; and -1- WHEREAS, the adopted Redevelopment Plan contains ~ provisions for the allocation of tax revenue increment; and WHEREAS, the Agency project, by reason of the tax increment provisions in the approved Redevelopment Plan, together with informational data provided by District, will have certain adverse impacts on the financial planning and administration of District: and WHEREAS, Agency, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401 may, in any year during which it owns property in a redevelopment project, pay directly to District an amount of money in lieu of taxes if District would have received the benefit of a tax which would have otherwise been levied upon such property had it not been exempt under the Redevelopment.Plan; and "'-"' WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401, Agency may also pay to District as a taxing agency ~ith territory located in the project area, an amount of money which,-in the Agency's determination, is appropriate to alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to the District by the redevelopment project; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the authority provided by law, the parties wish to provide for the alleviation of financial burdens or detriments to District in accordance with the specific terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree: -2- Section l: Agency agrees to pay to District, and District ""'-'agrees to accept from Agency, specific financial payments as provided in this agreement, as full alleviation of any financial burden or detriment caused by Agency's Redevelopment Plan to District. Section 2: For each year in which Agency receives revenue from properties within that portion of the project area located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b), Agency will pay to ·District ·percent of the amount of such revenue . attributable to the i·evy of the one percent basic tax rate. Section 3: Agency and District agree that the percentage used in Section 2 above, represents District 1 s share of.tax \.,,,,1 generated in the Base Year of the redevel9pment project of Agency (1981-82), from the levy of the general one percen~ basic tax rate. Section 4: The agreed upon payments to District as set forth above, are subject to the followi-ng conditions· and limitations: A. Agency's obligation under this agreement is deemed to constitute an indebtedness of the redevelopment project. B. Payments to District are to be made solely from that revenue received by Agency pursuant to the provisions of Health & Safety Code Section 33670(b). J -3-. c. Agency's obligation to make the above-referenced payments to District is expressly subordinate to the pledge of tax revenue by Agency to repayment of Agency indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, issued for purposes of carrying out the redevelopment project. D. Agency, in determining the annual amount of Agency indebtedness and debt ·service on any said indebtedness (other than indebtedness to District as a result of this agreement), shall not include in the estimated tax revenue of Agency, the amounts estimated as payable to District under this · .agreement. E. If, during any year while this agreement remains in effect, District is not one of the public entities sharing in the tax revenue generated by ·application of the. general one percent basic tax levy against the Base Year assessed value of the properties located within the project, then Agency1 s obligation to make payments provided for herein shall cease. Section S: This agreement shall remain in force and effect for so long as Agency continues to exist or until such time as District receives its share of the general one percent tax levy on the full assessed value as provided by Health and sa=ety Code Section 33670(b). Section 6: This agreement constitutes the entire \_,I agreement between the Agency and District, and any changes, -4- modifications, or amendments thereto shall be legally binding and ~effective only upon the duly ·executed written amendment hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel ATTEST: Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By --------------------------------Chairman, Board of Directors By -....-------------------------------Secretary, Board of Directors REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By --------------------------------Chairman -s- CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE FOUNTAIN VA L LEY , CALIFORNIA 92708 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR June 27, 1984 County Sani t ation Districts of Orange County , california P .O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attent ion: Mr . Fred A. Harper, General Manager SUBJECT: GAS LEAKAGE FRCM SEWER MANHOLE COIERS Dear Mr . Harper : CCSD c The City of Fountain Valley has identified 10 sewer manholes that have major deteri- oration on the inside of the manho l es. These sewer manholes have deteriorated due to the corrosive gases seeping fran the Sanitation District 's lines to the City sewer lines . All 10 of these manholes are adjacent to the Orange County Sanitation Dis- trict 's main lines. The City estimates that the cost to place a protective rubber liner on the interior of the sewer manholes will be $1,000 per manhole . The damage caused is a direct result of the sewage fran areas outside Fountain Valley remaining in the District's lines for an extended period of time . The City hereby formally requests that the Sanitation District authorize reimbursanent to the City of Fountain Valley for the pl acement costs for the liners on the interior of the sewer manholes . At the June 13 Board of Directors ' meeting, i ten rn.nnber 9W was approved for the re- habilitation of 19 manholes on the Miller-Holder trunk sewer . The City realizes that our request wil l not reach the magnitude of the $824,240 awarded for the manhole rehabilitation , but we realize that the damage to the District 's manholes is also fran the corrosive nature of the gases that develops in the large sewer lines. The Ci t y is requesting reimbursement for the manholes within our jurisdiction. TI'le sewer manholes scheduled for repair are as follows : 1. Southbound Mangolia, North of La Stella ( 2) 5 . Magcolia and Jay (2) 2 . Magnolia and El Presidente (2) 6 . Magnolia and Garfield 3 . Magno l ia and Talbert 7 . San Ysidro and Slater 4 . Magnolia and Slater We look forward to your p::>sitive resp::>nse to our request . Very truly yours, CITY CF FOUNTAIN VALLEY /1 ,1) }! !a/)/t0~ r tf,,kxc., MARVIN P . ADLER Mayor July 20, 1984 NOTICE TO THE FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE Henry Frese, Chairman Don.Griffin Carol Kawanami James Neal James Wahner . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ot0RANGECOUNTV, CALIFORNIA ·. P.O.BOX 8127 10844ELLISAVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714)962-2411 RE: Committee Meeting -Tuesday, July 24, 1984 -4:30 p.m. Chairman Frese has asked us to advise-you that the next Committee meeting will be held at the above time and date at the Districts' administrative offices. A light dinner will be served at 5:30 p.m. Following is a brief report on the items to be discussed at the meeting: 1. EDP ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM REQUIREMENTS. The Districts' existing electronic data processing· (EDP) system is rapidly reaching its processing capability limits because of significant increases in volumes of accounting transactions due to additional personnel, increases in numbers of material and supply purchases necessary to support our expanded facilities, and increased cost accounting and reporting requirements. The attached report outlines the staff's recommendation for immediate procurement of upgraded computer hardware to extend the life of the existing system software and presents both short-term and long-term plans for improving system performance and capabilities over the next five to ten years. Staff will review the report and recommendations in greater detail with the Committee at the meeting. 2. EXCESS LIABILITY AND ALL-RISK INSURANCE RATES. Excess Liability Coverage. Over the past three years the Districts have benefited from stable market conditions in the excess liability insurance market. Our insurance broker has recently advised us, however, that the market for this type of coverage has started to shift upward in the last few months, and we should anticipate significant increases in future premiums for this type of insurance. Following is the present and anticipated annual premium levels of the excess liability coverage maintained by the Districts: Type of Coverage Excess Liability ($20 million limit) Current Premium Level $ 35,000 Renewal Date July 1, 1984 Estimated Premium Level $ 40,800 ... , ii Notice to the Fiscal Policy Conunittee Page Two July 20, 1984 3. The Districts presently maintain $20 million in excess liability coverage, and $150 million in all-risk coverage. we were able to increase our excess liability coverage last fiscal year from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 at no additional cost, but the recent hardening of the insurance market requires a premium increase from $35,000 to $40,800 to maintain this level _of coverage. Staff recommends that we maintain our existing coverage levels, and requests authorization to pay the increased premium.of $40,800 for the period from 7/1/84 to 6/30/85 for excess liability coverage. All-Risk (Fire/Flo6d(Earthguake) Coverage. In April, 1983 the ·eonunittee and the Boards authorized a major increase in our all-risk coverage to include earthquake and flood protection after a rather thorough analysis by the Fiscal Policy Committee (see attached summary). The current premium is $187,500. However, based on the market trends, the broker estimates that the premium may increase to $282,000 by renewal time next April. This ·is presented only for the Committee's information at this time. Staff will update the Connnittee·next spring during our 1985-86 budget deliberations regarding any further changes in the market that might affect the anticipated premium and/or level of coverage for our ·all-risk insurance. ACQUISITION OF NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM. Natel & Co., a telecommunications consultant, completed their study of the Districts' telephone system requirements early this calendar year. A formal Request for Proposal (RFP) was then issued to eleven vendors including GTE, the local telephone company from which we lease our present phone system. Enclosed with the Fiscal Policy Committee's agenda material is a brief staff report summarizing the results of Natel's analysis of the five RFP responses that were received, and a copy of Natel's report. Based upon our review of Natel's report as well as the proposal responses submitted by the five vendors, staff recommends the following actions: a. Auth~rization for staff to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to CENTEL Business Systems, Inc., of Irvine, CA., in an amount not to exceed $141,300.00 for purchase and installation of an SL-lMS telephone system. b. Authorization for staff to direct Nate! to proceed with Phase II of their contract with the Districts in the amount of $8,500.00. During Phase II, Natel will assist the Districts in contract negotiations with the vendor and serve as the Districts' project manager for the installation, testing and acceptance of the new system. Staff will review the Nate! report and our r.ecommendations with the Committee at the meeting. .... .... 'i.,,,,,I Notice to the Fiscal Policy Conunittee Page Three July 20, 1984 4. IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ON THE SANITATION DISTRICTS. Earlier, the Fiscal Policy Committee and the Executive Committee reviewed the fiscal impact of redevelopment project financing on the Districts. The Committees directed the staff to study all the existing and proposed redevelopment projects within the Districts•' service area to determine the types of projects (residential/ commercial/industrial) underway or proposed within our service area. Attached is a staff report which identifies the types of active redevelopment projects within our service area, defines the immediate and long-term fiscal effects of tax increment financing for selected projects, and outlines some options for recovering lost revenues needed to meet increased service requirements and O&M costs due to redevelopment activities. The staff is seeking policy direction from the Directors on this matter. cc: Richard B. Edgar, Joint Chairman Thomas L. Woodruff / General Counsel SUMMARY OF ALL-RISK COVERAGE/PREMIUM ALTERNATIVES ANNUAL PREMIUM PLAN A PLAN B PLAN C PLAN D Limits of Plants & Plants, PS's Plants, PS's Plants, PS's Coverage Pump Stations & Sewers Sewers & Outfall & Outfall 1. $100 million $103,500 $140,000 $152,500 $122,500 150 million 133,500 170,000 187,500 155,000 Deductibles: Quake $500,000 Flood 25,000 Other 5,000 2. $100 million 99,500 134,500 146,500 117,000 150 million 129,500 164,500 181,500 150,000 Deductibles: Quake $1,000,000 Flood 100,000 Othe.c 10,000 3. $100 million 98,000 133,000 145,000 116,000 150 million 128,000 163,000 180,000 148,500 Deductibles: Quake $1,000,000 Flood 250,000 Other 25,000 -~ RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS · AUGUST 8, 1984 -7 :·30 P .M •. ::: )::a I ~ ' ::: I'• . ' 11 I• " 'I '.··· )::. G') rri 2 t:::1 ):::. ....... -I rri 3 :;:t:: 00 ):> .--.-- t=1 ....... (/) --i :::0 ....... ('I --i (/) . ::: 1l> I ... 1--' ~ . :: ( FU~JC:o r;c t.r r, R P. r.r.ir r·rn • tf. ': E1 3'.1 0(~(·4:') f'f.'?f4 l f1f,Ql'4~ ''6 ~: E• ,, .!. f"!J ~i· 411 1: i;. c, t: 4 ~. "! (-. '! fo '• (, ':' ,, ':' t< ,, 7 f.'6".lf '"'' r f, :1 t! ti':! ~· f ':·El~ ~; •' (·~··I·!: l ( f,c;?t> !:;; fj(. ~ f: ~ ... "( r.• f' 5.1, r ~ r:>f 5r. r (· C:f ')h r"(,C:-fl!:7 l~f::: f 51' !" '-•.· t~ ~·· r. fl(. c. ~·I~,. ti(.. t; p (, 1 r;(,t:j fl l'.'<l ((.~ISlf! re: 9 f f,11 r (. c; H (·~· I.(,~' fl f ( r' (, c:· i: ( 7 r·~'·H·1' .. , ,, ~~ ,, ( ,, • ~: ·.~,. 71! ,, ( 'J1'71 f.f. 9!\ 7~' "•f C• ~I 7 !_, t"f• C: /:' 7'I ·'.'~l ~!~ 7~ i'bnf7~ r(,~P 77 ~:~«:I· 7 H nc ':JP 7G n~ 'ihll 1 r· f. u I. 11 1 ('lf.9f-.P? ~·r, 'JFH.' ~ ( n r~ >! 4 ( ,( 9Jqy -JT DIST WCRKING CAFJTAL PROCESSING DATE 7/~3/R4 FAGr REFORT NUMBEP AP~3 COUNTY SANITATION otstRltts OF b~A~~t roUNTi VfN[lOR A&W ELECl. M010RS AT 8 T INFORHATIO~ SYSTf ~S AQANSON JNrUSlRJfS, INC. bERCO CCMPRESSORSt I~C. t~rnICA~ SCIENTIFIC FROCUCTS T~f ~NC~CR PACKl~G to. fl~K[ r. ~NOER$0~ 4~G~LICA RENTAL S[RVICf~ ~cco VALVE ~ PRIMER CG~P Afll.11.. bEN CCf!P. A~~o~-RISCO. INC. tkPGW TRUCK 001)1f5 R fQllJPHUH A~~OWH£AO [LECTRlr ro~P. AS~~fJATro rr.NCR(T[ P~oo •• INC f>S~OCJATEC L~eo~ATORlfS eAK~P PLY~COO CO •• INC. EhNK Of A~ERJCA NT & SA ~ECKMAN JNSTkU~[NlS ~ECK~AN IN~U5TRJAL nCC$CN SA~C & GR/V[L, JNC. !:EVCr ~J~ eo~ RE~l/lL cc. ~Rl~TOL P~RK H(DJCAL GRr., INC CK PU~P ANO OEW~TlRJNG fDR~. (Pl CALIFC~NJA. INC. C~LIFORNJ~ OISTRJPUTORS C ~I.IF ORf\ I A ~·lliv 1R ON~"lflJT AL CENTU~Y SERVJCf co. Ct! .l M f) [ R -M 1 X C 0 NC R f H: , Jfl: f • CH~VPO~ u.~.A., •~c. co~~CLirAlfn £LfCTRJf~l Cl~T. C () :1: l 1 f~ [ I'\ T /l l r 11 l M 1 Cf> l C O r.ooi::· [R fN E p c;y ~f. 1:v ICES COST~ MESA AUrn ~IFTS· JNC. cour1n 1.Jltf Jo.Mc Q\"f£LS TJ~r S[PVJCL l•VALS iALLS CC~f ANY c.n. DAVIS ~urrLv co. r: u:,., Drl.C:Cl SAL[ S ')[lf"Hl c:-ysro~s. INC. r ICl(SOf~S r· I f l l. I pr: 0 A~ s 0 c I /I Tf s ronADO ENTf~PRIS[S, INC. l'I.' ~J ,., f f' !JI p {I$ c r.1~ I" • [ ft ~ T fl A t; • I ~ C • CLAIMS PAID Jl/11/8~ AMOUNT u 75 .33 Stt6~ o5 --- u ,934 .30 $2R.19 S249.~2 $l.6lf2.'l5 Sl7J.b5 ·u11.~e $ .. 50~.:S6 ! llf .s~1.53 17!18.41 j. 3lf :!I .It 4 n 15. 10 1-~5 '. 82" 1273.~0 $16~.8(1 i2,71S.8f:l 1361.12 $'1'12. 77 S477.~0 f.297.~3 $J,8E-O.OO $55~.'JO $13t2A5.01 '.t2fJ(l. lj~ !..!>SCJ.50 •t5!:,.~1p !.2t%6.00 U•J':l3.62 H3t.H 1. 70 $3,973.~(l $1,998.1(: ii.111.c,2 U!H.15 129.Q] $4,£,'l~.19 $:J53.J~ tq20.'tl $If"~• O(t ~1')4.1~ 1513.23 t.24.i2 Utl.:'H.3'1 ~ H • ~ 1l \J • (• :) $l e44').4(.I 17~::'.12 otSCRJPTJON TOOLS · iEL~~fi~~E-iQujp~ L~AsE TRUCK PARTS COMPRESSOR PARTS LAB EQUIPMENT HAiNTENANCE PUHP PARTS CONFERENCE EXPENSES · ·towEL RENTAL VALVES CHEMICAL COAGULANTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLtES TOOLS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES euiLDiNG MATERIALS LAB ANALYSIS LUMBER TRAVEL EXPENSES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES .. BUILDING MATERIALS ELECTRIC CART PARTS TRASH DISPOSAL PRE EHPLOVHENT E*A~S RETENTION PW-099 WORD PROCESSOR MAINTENANCE. SUPPLIES SHALL.HARDWARE PIPE SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS BUllDtNG MATERIALS GASOLINE, ENGINE OIL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CHLORINE ENGINE PARTS TRUCK PARTS TRUCK PARTS TRUCK TIRES PI PE SUPPLIES SHEETING ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS COMPUTER PROGRAHH I NG•· SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE FORMS, SUPPLIES INLET GATE REPAIRS PAINT SUPPLIES OFF I CE SUPPLIES .. , ::: )> .. I N ' ::: )> G) rn 2 t:j )> ....... -I ,,., 3 ::i:a:: 00 )> I r· t:j ........ (./".' -I :::0 ......... Cl -I U:· ::: . ::I:> I N ::: FUND NC "1 fl RR /dJl ff{'• ( 6 c: fl f'f· f..if, ~PE f, ~l·SMIJ .; 6 ~I· ,;1; ~(,CiFPC; ~ 6 91' c. ~. ~ (, ~ ~· ~· j U.'if~~ "t ~· f ~:.~ l:t; .• q 1: ~· ... ':(,0(1~5 ( f.'ifl Go u,c t1c:7 r t r;; f• r: n ;. ' c ~c::c;: ~· (, '?" !' ll f:6C C;f} ~ £, '· r. r· :> 'f.. c: 'J (: '".;oc;;c;4 6 ~: ~\ :; ~. be. c:. ... ~ ( c, C' (• 1 f' r, r . .;; Cl-. ;1 f. '~ •: I. ·• r. f, 'j q 11' \ f; r:-'1] l :If. :a•!~ "t.. c;: c J .. '!~.~9 l •• ·~&-:.. q J !°l P6':'91l (' (CL} 7 ··~ ':' <_; l f I' f.: :; '1 J c. f.f· r: '? 211 'j~ Cl'°"?} ~~~c~~ C6c~~! a~c~;4 rEq~2~ rfq9?~ r6cr~7 'i~~~~ l(on;o ~£~07~ 91ac -JT PIST ~CRKJNG CAf JTil P~OCESSIN~ DATE 7/U3/A4 PAGE Rf PORT NUMO(~ AP•3 ~ COUNTY SHIJHTIOU OISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY .. vrNOl'P. El. q: rn IC MAC II INf f\ Y ~F G • C 0 • r"lr111N1rn, me. fACTfRY FEf~CSENTATIVF, INC. F Ill CON 01 SFO~ Al SER VJCT f[[lf.~H EYf-RES$ cnRr. FJ'"tlfH CQr\Tl\OL5 FL'l ' VfRTICAL CONCRETE rl~Jr H~NCLJ~f SYSTf·~s. J~r. VAt F'Oltt g so~~ FOUMTAIH V~LLEY CA~[~A F~UJT GROMFRS LA~OPATOPYt INC. FVLLLRTGN MFG. ro. G!~APL LU~Ef~ CO. GEN[PAL TELtFHONE er.. GPAVLAP llFCTRI~ CO. lif.'1 DJESf.L MACMHlf fll.NK•S ELECTF.lU·l Sl:PPLlfS 1~ O ll Sf Cr F A 1 Tf. ~ I ES hCYAPO 5UPPLY co. r,.~. lllJ(;Hf.5 co., INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON REiCH HllNTINGTCf\ UFHH lllJH•l!l ~T/.,_.P ~U~TIN~TO~ SUf~LY t-lY~HOKIHTICS ID~Al fA~GUST CO. J~f[RlAL kEST CHFMICAL co. Jl\IOUSTl1 I Al /lSfllftl T I~~USTf14l TH~£~CEU PRODUCT~ JJ,~lll\f' PAP[fl JNTO•ow AMER.JO JQVJNr P4~CH WATfR nI~TRICT ,JfT co., lt\!C. K.r:.r:. ro ... P/INY l<~LtY fH'E CO. ~·~~ RfA~INEt l~C. KlHSl i.:urw e. fl.t.CllJf\lr lo!OFI<~ l. • fl • lJ. ~ • t I fJC • LIFfCOr.'-SHfTY HfVJCf ~l•Hl~ ll~~TJ~[ rI5TRJ~LTOF~. I~r. LU~ ANClLES CHlHJC/ll Ct. l(I~ /\NGELE5 Gl·lVAtJIZJNC, ro. LO~RY t A5SUCJAT[S l.Y(:l\:S H.1 'l ~(.(l.lt ITYt JN .• r~~TTN I~CUSTRJfS• !~C • r~rr -r~Lo~, 1Nc. HtrA~llR-CARP SUfPlY CQ. CLAIM£ PAID 07111/R4 Af.iouN r "167.:?2 f.,~ t 5 ,HJ • (I 0 $6511.JO 3.719A9.6lf ~Jlf~.75 $2')4.'+5 t 195. (I 0. U33.56 S.9 t •192. 62 $239.51 $2(,. \10 $!3JJ. J ~ .u .3~8.lt5 1.4•7.76 \258.27 :ll7fu51' 'H73.SO u .na.20 u,:n1.ett $2t6tt9.42. i~. ·~n l~:.i. '-'" t.<iH • o-:, !229.5~ !·21544.00 $tf.lf.'55.5it $~fj.3;\ t42H.97 !-,\77.~l · 1·1ltf.8fl.S~ 1-11 • r1 :i t11H.6;A!l~· S.53t6,5.lf9 13'12.t,~ 11111923.7!.> 12·786.~'I tl'.'8.'19 BE .n :f.1194. fi6 1.1,11~.20 J: 6'f"l. 4r: l.2. 3 l il. 7 ~ s 1. 91) ~. ·J Ct sc-~·2P 12tlE-8.75 -t4 r1 tt .H? O(SCRJf'TJON ENGINE PARTS OCEAN MONITORING SAFETY SEMINAR REGISTRATION SLUDGE DISPOSAL DELIVERY SERVICE REGULATOR PARTS CONCRETE CUTTING ELECTRICAL ~UPPLIES RETENTION PW-109 FILM PROCESSING, OFFICE SUPPLIES LAB.ANALYSIS USE CHARGE OVERPAY~ENT SHALL HARDWARE, BUILDING MATERIALS TELErHONE -. PAGER SUPPLIES TRUCK REPAIRS --ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES GAUGES, SHALL HARDWARE SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE PUHP PARTS SAWDUST FERRIC CHLORIDE BUILDING MATERIALS SHALL HARDWARE JANITORIAL SUPPLIES HYDROGEN PEROXIDE WATER USEAGE "TRUCK PARTS CONTRACTOR 3-2~-I, CSDOC #11 SEWER REPAIRS PIPE SUPPLIES BEAR I NG SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS WELD I NG SUPPLIES SAFETY SUPPL I ES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ~ HERBICIDES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGR. #13 FORMATION PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL TRUCK PARTS PI PE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE ( ( ( .. lll ,.,: ! i :·1 : ' ::: :::t> I \..N ::: fllt!U t.C ( ~, " r. ~ fit-' 1 l.j( • ):> G'> rn z t:::j ):::> ......-t --1 ~ :i:t:: 00 :::t> r-r- t:::j ......-t (/) --1 ::::c ......-t Cl -I en ::; :::t> I .. " \..N I. ::: (•6 ... ~_r.1 '!(,'Jr, 3:> f'~ r: ~ : .. '1. fl{:".'(!::. 4 :_'h ~-s ~' .:· E· ~l ~· ,: ( (. o~. 7 r'(;"C!~,p ;_of;U«j~:; '.If<.' c: lj ~' ,, f r; ':" ,, ] ':,:; ~011 ~ •;(, c. g4 "": r f. r:. '=''1 '1 ,. ~-~· 011 '· r c, ~ ci "~ .. :(,~~47 I'(:~:'}'• l' '.' r, ~I~ I; r· ~ ~'=t':i~ 'J ~ (, '1 ~~ l ~ ! ~~ c:. ~. ~' ,,,_ r; ')~ -~. '!bC'<l"ij ';t;ll~C: ~ 1'.f Qr.;~(. '· {. c •.l~ ., "1: r~ t:: ~; ! :'(.CH'l~.c, '·'~.fl '.I ( I' ... ( "n(• 1 r·c; ~ c: f: :> ::f'l';'(' ': '·"''?f·4 nr,"1~6!"' !: (· c. c,f:: !' n,_-1 t. o~. ·1 ~(;C~f.f. '"tf: '"l':l!)q (.(, :i ':17 ;J f"f' .. Hl <: (-( ".-., ;. '".f, ': r; 7: ~ 1. ~~ 'l 7 ij ('() ';!C: 7~: t:'6•:C'J 76 ( { 915~ -JT ~IST ~OPKlNb CAFJlAL PPOCESSJNG OATF 7/~3/04 PAGf R£PORT NUHO~P AP43 ~ COUNTY SANIT,TION DiSTPicts OF O~ANCE COU~TY CL~JMS PAJO J7/lt/84 VENr.iOR ~[-SU~EHENT VAPJA~LES M(C~ANJCAL rRJV[S en. Pl~E SAFETY ~PFLJ,NCES en. f:"~UL ~. t1ITCtlEl.l f'G~.'ITEI<, lNr. ~P~TfO~E~Y CLEVAlO~ CO~P~NY 'OOFE FROrLClS CO. ~ORG{N CRAN£ co., lNC. f. • f • M C:R I T Z F C> U ~·CRY ~r J~STRU~ENTSt INC. ~Af ICNAL SAFETY COUNCJL fff ~ lff. '4r-H: S • HJC • NOiPC\PTF.R um CC:C:JO(t\'TH CHEl-'.JC/.L COP.F'. CLY~PJr CHEMICtl co. CR~~~[ COl~TY FAPM SUPPLY CO. ~RA~LE YALVl R FITTJN~ CO. ~STFRBAUER COMFHES~OR ~[PVICF UXYHN ~;fl(VJCf CGL•NTY CF GP. JINH hHIFIC SHf.TY FCWHt•ENT CCl. PflCJflC EELL r-,'\~CAL ~. LU[llJJ~ PfAT, ~~RWJCKt MJTC~FLL & ro. ~· J O:~II f.t<: PAl'fP. Pf'C'LH~CTS i.: nm:v noH~ rLt~T SlRVICrs. IMC. PO~· T ... AHn VAPOLn PRJHR0$[ 1Cf R~J~lR[[ cc~ru1[~ ~YSTfYS TllL J1[GISH~ ff( FEF'LHH' SUFFll' CO. OF CALIF., INC. ~~CPl',INS & f.'fYEPS S •, ,J OiEVtiOLfl !:AF ~JFr. me. ~ '\ 1-. 1 f 0 Al' t HI C • ~ "t-: c er~ 1 N c. ~t~D DCLL~R ~USJhf~~ FOR~S !'.Oil A Ar~A fcl lJf. Pfc Jt:t C(I. f.AIHti MJA l'OrJ(j[ ShNT~ ANA flECTPJC ~OlCR~ SE4R~, ROEPUCK R CG. ~1ir.11r.ocK ~UPPL y ~ • c • s fl, ITH c 0 N !: lP. ll r T If, r~ ( (} • ~OUTH COAST OFF Jff rnu1n.fi'IT so. CALJF. f0A5T~L w~1rr RESEARCH PROJECT AMOUNT s2,111.09 · :t.ic,1.56 $928.6£. $2'1. (I') :r.t!•ft.58 !S?6.lf8 :.t642.2f. $259.5'1 S3,87~.f,O UtH6.75 '1.200.uD 1.240.91 $2.R5').lf3 ·14,J69.t10 i1n.1117.55 $2:\1.n ~i9Lt.42 $121\.7(1 ~.:H7.22 14~1?8.i=.t ~4CJ4.15 $125.~l $3;';148.'15 u1.222.H1 $7'!0.P.1 Jll3.04 i3ti:59.'lf ~2.:J(l1.illl 'i.~ 1. JG $7~):J.'}{\ '5Lt 4. l f. Slt5£.7.59 'i51:\5.41 :t572.40 $')q ~Ct: Ut3'J4.5G $13'J.3J9.eO 1299.98 Hl.1)2 $13\leO~ ~'l2'.S.f.f .u t17'1 .04· !-27~.47 $~' 28 0. ,, 0 ~3.!1:!6.lP $4,6~.,.0(' nrscRJP11of.J ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS SAFETY SUPPLIES, TUBING SEMINAR EXPENSES PUMP PARTS PLANT #2 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE VALVES CRANE.PARTS MANHOLE RINGS AND COVERS PIPE SUPPLIES ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE SHALL HARDWARE USE CHARGE OVERPAYMENT CAUSTIC SODA CHLORINE LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES VALVES COMPRESSOR PARTS DEHURRAGE, OXYGEN TANKS SURVEY. 3-2~-1, ~RE .EkPLO~HEMT EXAMS SAFETY SUPPLIES TELEMETER I NG PW-099 REPAIRS 1983-8~ AUDIT EXPENSES JANITORIAL SUPPLIES POSTAGE HETER RENTAL PW-097 REPAIRS, COAST TRUNK SEWER REPAIRS POSTAGE INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLING ICE WASTEHAULER STATION PROGRAMMING LEGAL ADVERTISING PIPE SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS TRUCK PARTS "ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES SOLVENTS CONTRACTOR l-2R-2&3 OFF I CE FORHS BLUEPRINTING TRUCK PARTS ELECTRIC MOTOR PARTS TOOLS TOOLS, HOSE P2-23-6 STOP NOTICE RELEASE TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE, OFFICE EQUIPMENT DEEP OCEAN SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY ... , ::: )> I ..J::" ::: I· UNfJ r-..o rq :, a -,JT Pl S T I.I 0 HK I N Ci C A f J TA l FROf.ESSJNG DATf 7/G~/8~ PA~r Rf PORT NUHnLR AP~~ If CUlJMTY SAtJITATlfltJ DJSTP.ICTS OF OffANGE tomnv CLAIMS PAID ~7/11/6~ •..:APR/INT flO. vErmrm AMOUfH )> G> rn ::z t:j )> ....-4 --i fT1 3 :it: 00 )> I I t:j .,_ (./) --i ::::0 .,_ n -I (./) ::: )> I J::" ::: :!£ 9ri77 r•r.."1?7r '•f.~C} 7'· r i.r 'H-: LI i:(.~9~1 "'!3<i~lo;: '•(, c q ... ! ': F.-~-c; .Clj 'J6'' l~fd; 1' (., ('. 5 ~ s 1£,':'.Hi7 t' 4:, CJ '3 ldl ;; f. <.? 1 ~~ f) ,... 6 ''C: '1 ,., ,.. (. c. ~i r) l !" (-~·r,fl" t;.;.,r:.11-: ... •. :.•c,c·~r.4 "(, '•5''!', "( ~· r, }(. ,· r.,cq<, 7 ' (," r.i '.~I. r,br; •;c.n ':7:1 ::H SUMMARY H 1 OPER FUND 82 OPER FUND 83 OPER FUND #3 F/R FUND #5 OPER FUND HS F/R FUND #6 OPER FUND 117 OPER FUND #II OPER FUND #13 ACO FUND !'WUTllfNN CALIF. EDIS0~1 CO. so. fALlf. YATf~ en. ~OVTH[~N COUNT1£~ OIL CO. ST At-: nw SH El H1r SUPH J tRS J. ~AYN( SYLVEST£P Tt•OHJ'S SCIENTIFIC T~AfFfC CC~TROL Sl~VICft J~C. TRANSA~fklCA OELAVAlt INC. H<llVEL lRAVEL TRUCK £ ~UTO SUPPLY, INC. J.G. TUC~E~ & ~ON, JNf. llNJTfO F~llCrL S[f\VJ CE V~P. H HNTIF IC V~LLrv ClllfS ~UPrLY cc. Vl~IN~ F~EJGHT SY~TEHS, JNC. ~ALLACE ~ TIERNtN ,JQ•HJ P. ~' tPL ES WAUKE~~A [N~JNL ~fNVJCf NlE~ MrsrrkN ST~TlS ~JLFJ[LO rrnv • ~! ~ S T IN G It 0 l SE EI. F C Tf: 1 C CORF- )' [ 1-: 0) CORP. G[OP.C( Y61?0LEY ~SSOCIAHS Z Jr-' Tt: ~F'Ollt!H I·[ HSOt..N[L TOlAL CLAl~S ~tie ~7/11/64 H 3&9 OPER FUND #5&6 OPER FUND #6&7 OPER FUND JT OPER FUND CORF JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL ( .IHS PAID 07/11/Bla t231tA75.:33 $22.3P S6t?R0.50 Htl.57 Ht657.15 i2.11q.q3 u11. 1e 1.13'.>.00 t.lt677.1.>P $3'il.OO $) .~~l).'tD s.~rne. a 1 1-2~.12 :tl6i'.!.3'1 $450.Bl ,,CJ!).lf4 ith37!J. n~ 1.lf i.'2. (1(1 !.2tH31.33 :t75.(,] '·218.7ll n2u.s1 Ut259.47 ~657.6r. Hlf9t4Hu51 ================= AMOUNT $ 1,473.55 ·798.)0 424.58 47.994.86 306.10 s.86 20.38 2,801.32 9,la83.92 2,351.]lt 3,879.60 815.05 3,048.21t 363,322.92 2117,838.94 64,911.15 m(.,6.51 OESCRIHlON POWER WATER USEAGE DIESEL FUEL STEEL STOCK SHALL HARDWARE, SAFETY SUPPLIES PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT LAB SUPPLIES SAFETY SIGNS ENGINE PARTS AIR FARE TRUCK PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DELIVERY SERVICE .LAb. SUPPL I ES VALVES FREIGHT FERRIC CHLORIDE PUMPS ODOR CONSULTANT ENGINE PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES VALVES TEHPORARY HELP w" ( ::: t:d ,J h-1 . ' . ~ .... I .... ! ·l· I I I' I, ~ . I ( FUND NO l 1 WARRANT NO. ' ~ '.( 'la :):::ii G> rr1 :::z t=' J:> ......... :--1 ·rn .3 I =tt: 00 ):::ii I I t::j ........ U') -I ::::0 ........ ~ U') .,I ::: to I I-' ::: (17(1015 li70•Jl6 070017 07LOlO 07r.019 070020 jj7{\021 07C!022 (l7UQ23 (l7(10i'lf r.70025 070G26 GH:027 07 l'32~ 07(:029 (;7(•1)30 07"031 07C(l32 b7!iC3.3 {170034 07llC35 r-7 •) u3f· ll7CC.~7 070038 07C0~9 fl700't0 n 70Clf1 t7(:042 U7rO't3 1:; Hl\1't'I 07C.J45 (:7 (l ::~ 't6 l!7COlf 1 C·7011lfA (17 0Clf9 070C.50 070051 070fJ52 II 7 •1053 (17 tHl5lf CHc55 'l70056 C.70057 07:1056 i!70C!'i9 07(10f0 ( 9199 -JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL FROCESSING DATE 7/19/84 PAGE ~E~b~T ~uMijtR AP4~ ( 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAH1S PAID _07/25/~~-··-··-···· ····--· ··-· .. VENDOR AGM ELECT~ONICS, INC. A.s.u. ACME INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. AIR CONDITIONING SPECIALTIES AIR rROOUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC. AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMJCALS,JNC. ALL-STATE VEHICLES, INC. ALLIED ELECTRONICS ALLIED SUFPLY CO. AH~RICA~ C~EHICAL SOCIETY THE ANCHOR FACKJNG CO • ANGfLICA RENTAL SERVICES APCO VALVE & PRIMER COPP AQUA lJEN CORP. ARROM•FISCOt IMC. ASSCCIATiCN OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES AUTO SHOP [QUIFM£NT CO. AZON CORP. BC INDUSTnIAL SUPPLYt INC. B~NK OF AMERICA NT 8 SA B[CKHAN INDUSTRIAL EIERLY & ASSOCl~TESt INC. CLUE DIAMOND HAT[RIALS BONNfVILLE EGUIP., INC. 80YLE ENGIN[ERING CORP THE euRKf COMPANY CPT CALIFORNIA, INC. CS COMPANY CALIFORNIA ENVJPONHENTAL CARMENITA FORD TRUCK SALES, INC. JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS COAST I~SURANCE AGENCY COIT DRAPERY SERVIC£ COMFRCSSOR & INCUSTRJAL ENGINE SUPPLY CONSOLIDATEU ELtCTRICAL DIST. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CONSOLiOATED REPPOOUCTIO~S CONTROLCO COOP£P ENERGY SERVICES CORE•kOSJON PROOUCTS COSTA MESA AUTO P~RJS, INC. CR~NE vrYCR CORP. CROWN FENCE & SUPPLY CO., lNC. CAL CONSOLJDATEU ~ATER STATE Of C~LIFORNIA sTaTE or CALIFORNIA .\MOUNT sa-4~s·o $151.36 $l3U.95 $296.80 '1231.43 S326e'l8 Sltlf98.10 S87.04 $2"7. 52 S28.00 $'t8'le50 UOIJ.00 Sl62.09 $35t783.34 $332.99 i6tfl00.0!I. S257.H :H88.6(1 S413.l:f0 !198.84 u,310.13 S.550.00 $110.03 uoo.oo S10t0'18.12 S59el!2 S2,089~~2 t.200.31 U98.12 ~23.85 $19,ll:fl.98 Sl'9B33 • 00 $28l.6r. Slfe245.3o sq39.33 $57.58 si,636.'tl S2q5.27 U2t43b.25 Sl7t398~84 t13G.02 U'tl.55 s.2,101.94 $206.~0 S6t58.3e99 $160. 00 DESCRIPTION .Elict~ICAL SUPPLi~s LAB SUPPLIES WELDING SUPPLIES AiR CONDITiONiNG SUPPLiES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES SPECIALTY GASES VEHiCLE LEASE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES PI PE SUPPLIES LAB SUBSCRIPTION Pf PE SUPPLIES TOWEL RENTAL VALVE SUPPLIES CHEMICAL COAGULANTS E(ECTRICAL SUPPLIES ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE TRUCK PARTS OFFICE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE TRAVEL EXPENSES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES WORKERSi COMP. ADMINISTRATORS BUILDING MATERIALS ELECTRICAL REPAIRS ENGR. ]-8 LUMBER WORD PROCESSING MAINTENANCE Pl~i SUP~LiES. . PIPE SUPPLIES TRUCK PARTS ENGR .. Pi-2,, P2-2a, Pl-21 INSURANCE PREMIUMS DRAPERY CLEANING ENGINE PAi\ts· ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FREIGHT BLUEPRINT REPROOUCTiON CONTROL EQUIPMENT ENGINE REPAIRS -. . FERRIC CHLORIDE STORAGE TANK TRUCK PARTS HEAVY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES CHAiN .LINK FENCING RESIN TANK EXCHANGE, WATER SOFTENER RENTAL 1983-84 SALES TAX LIABILITY ANNEXATION #94 PROCESSING FEE - ::: t::C I .~ i!ll , I .! ·I :i> cw rn 2 t::::t ):> ........ ' -I rn 3 =t.t: 00 ):>. ,r-r- t::J ........ (/) -I :::::0 I ......,. :=t (/) :::: t::C I 'N ::: ' FUND NO 9199 -JT DIST WCRKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 7/19/84 PAGE REPORT NUMBER AP43 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ~ARRANT NO. VENDOR 117 fJ 061 H00!2 rna~63 fl7 0064 (171)065 ll 7 il OfiF. 07(1067 070068 ~7(1069 070£170 070071 010012 tl7Ui)73 U7u074 Ci7U07~ ') 7'J 0 76 C7 •)077 t17C:078 ('7{!079 e7r..:ieo (J 1 J IJE\ l ll1l·0£12 'l7li083 (17(; 061f IJJC.085 071lCl\6 &7ll087 'J 7(10(40 (\7 ')(if>~ 07CG90 u7 llll91 r.7 0 092 07!1093 G7 Ufl94 G7ooq5 on 0% 0 7(1fJ97 07"1198 ll7flt)99 070100 ll7ll 1 Cl 1)7f! 102 Ci 7l1 1 (13 07010/f 0701 •15 07:ll06 ( STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE Of C~LIFOR~IA STATE OF CALIFO~NIA OANJfLS TIRE SERVICE DAON CORPORA TI ON PETER C. DAVID CO. DAYTON FOUNDRY DECO DELTA SCIENTIFIC OJGIPYNE COMPUTER SERVICES DORADO ENTf.RFRISESt INC. DRIVER TESTING CENTER DUMAS DIESEL INJECTION DUNN ED~AROS CORP. EAS TMA Nt l t.IC • EFFECTIVE VISUAL l~~GERY ELECTRONIC BALANCING CO. ENVIRONHENT~L RESOURCE ASSOC. FALCON DISfOSAL SERVICE FJBCP.GRAH CORP. MICHAEL J. FJLECCIA FISCHER & PORTER CO. Fl SHER COIHROLS FLAT & VERTICAL CONCRETE FRUIT GP.OWEPS LABORATORYt INC. CITY Of FULLERTON G&C PCADY HIXED CONC~ETE G~C TRUCK & CO-CH GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. FREO GEORG£ CO. TOM GERlll\GER GOULD, INC. GRAYeAR ELECTRIC CO. HA~RINGTO~ INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS HARTZELL FAN HEAT ANO POWER (QUIPHENT CO. R.S. HUGHES co., INC. CI TY OF tlUNTI NG TON Bl A CH HUNTINeTO~ BEACH RUtBEP ST~~F HUNTINGTO~ SUPPLY HURLEY ELECTRONICS, INC. ISCO COMPANY IDEAL SAWDUST co. IMPERIAL "'(ST CttEMJCAL co. INGERSOLL-~ANO co.-EESO INSTRU~ENTATION & ~EChANJCAL CLAIMS PAID 07/25/84 AMOUNT ( $160.00 Sl60.0G !160.0~ $69.03 SltOO'i.27 $3~346.20 $839.65 $361.30 $137.95 u.026.ne S6t'iOO.OO $28.00 Slt412.AO Slt968.20 S917.~4 $249.10 $42.fii) S2He5C) S31t973.12 $88.36 $12.10 s2.112.13 $283.52 S325e00 uo.oo SH0.93 $695.63 U'4t360. ilf $9,214.58 Slt855.00 Sl.:S.53 $79. 38 S644.'t8 $72.33 $4 t541.91f Ut765~QA .$977.1'1 $6,376.08 $128.20 S93.92 S9.69 Slll0.78 u,212.00 $7,52p.cn S.1h725.IJO Sltf'OIJeOO DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION 6105 PROCESSING FEE ANNEXATION 6106 PROCESSING FEE ANNEXATION #110 PROCESSING FEE TRUCK TIRES ANNUAL PAYMENT-BIG CANYON SEWER PROJECT CONTRACTOR PW-102 CHAIN -. . ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES .. HINi -COMPUTER MAINTENANCE PW-131 REPAIRS DRIVER EXAHS .. ENGINE REPAIRS PAINT SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES FILM PROCESSING SCROLL BALANCING LAB ANALYSIS, PESTICIDES SLUDGE ~AULIN~/DISPOSAL FREIGHT EMPLOYEE MILEAGE PIPE SUPPLIES REGULATOR PARTS CORE DRIL~ING LAB ANALYSIS WATER USEAGE BUILDING MATERIALS FLAT-OED TRUCK TELEPHONE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES ·sHALL HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES AIR CONDITIONING MAINTENANCE SAFETY SUPPLIES . WATER USEAGE OFF I CE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CONTROL EQUIPMENT WOOD SHAVINGS FERRIC CHLORIDE PUHP BLOWER SYSTEM REPAIRS ( ::: to I VJ ::: :·: 1.: ! ' )::> G'> rn , :z ·.i t::1 )::> t--1 -I rn 3 :;t: 00 )::> I I 0 t--1 (/) -I ::::c ~ n -I (/) ::: .to I VJ ::: ( F UNO NO WARRANT rm. 07fll07 ti 7 '11 Oft 0701('9 070110 ll 71) 1 J l 070112 ('70113 07011'1 OH115 071)116 073117 Cl7GlJ8 (i 7 fl l }CJ tl70120 ll7C121 070122 il70H3 1170124 r.7fl125 u7012b "70127 nr112a liH•l29 OJIJ 130 f\7Cl31 fl7ll132 07f.1~3 07t)13'• 0701~5 070136 070137 07(1130 C701~9 0Hl4fl 070H1 fl 7u142 ll7Gl'f~ r.7(illf4 ll7rdlf~ G7lil% ll7flH7 071H4El fl7Cl49 07(t150 r, 7lt 1~1 (17'11 ~2 ( ( 9199 -JT DIST WCRKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DAT( 7/1~/84 PAGr REPO~T NU~Bt~ AP43 '!- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLA ms PA I~ 07 ns./84 VENDOR JNTEROX AHERICA THE IRVINE co. THE IRVINE COMPANY IRVINE INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE IRVINE SWEEPJNf, SERVICE B.P. JOHN HAULING KAS SAFETY F~ODUCTS KELLY PIPE CO. KENNEDY/JENKS ENGINEEPS KING eEARING, INC. KIPST PU~P & MACHINE WORKS KLEEN-LINE CORP ROBIN KUHNl<l LA MOTTE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LAURSEN CCLOR LAB LEMCO ELECTRIC CO. LIGHTING CISTRIBUTORSt INC. K.P. LINDSTROM, INC. LOWRY & ASSOCIATES LYONS INT•L SECURITY, INC. ~4NNING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. MARVAC CLECTRONICS VONDA MCGEE HC~ESSCh CHEMICAL CO. MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. HINE SAFETY AFPLIANCES CO. GEORGE & A. ~!ORGAN co •• me. "40TOROLA, INC. MULE EMERGENCY LIGHTING CO. NATIONAL LUMBER SUPPLY NATION~L SANITARY SUPPLY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R.J. ~COLE COMPANY o.T.S. OISTRIBUTO~S OCCJOENTAL CHEMICAL CORP. f PANK A. OLSEN CO. OLYMPIC cun11cu CCJ. OMICRON WELDING surrLYt INC. CITY OF ORH~GE OSTLRBAU[R COMµRESSOR SE~VICE llXYGEN SERVICE COUNTY Of ORANGf COUNTY SANITATION OISTRIClS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT PACIFIC MO~ILf OFFICES FACO AMOUNT $If t889.31t Sl2tll51.27 $16,938.62 $s12.~o S249.00 $466.40 s211.10 Slt972.'t3 $23t260.(•8 u,:>91.s1 $l't9.76 Sl83e 17 $847.78 $159.33 $31f9.97 S64i.73 $1,293.63 $3,877.~3 S9t't13.00 sJ,998.no Sl t468. 28 S53.31f $26.30 Ulf,993.67 $19.29 u t670.61 $lt?66.30 $49.82 Slt3~6.91 $'125.64 $.526.59 $l:l.54 Slt2U&J.OU sif5.e3 $'1,806.09 s3,72a.s1 S30t492.27 $10.11 S2t799.2R !.557.55 u 79.92 $699.93 S6t739.22 $603.6,0 $150.~2 u41.~3 DES CR IPT!ON HYDROGE~ ~E~OXIDE ANNUAL BIG CANYON SEYER PROJECT PAYMENT BIG CANYON INTEREST PAYHENT PLANT ii MAINTENANCE PLANT SWEEPING SERVICE WOOD SHAVl~GS ·SAFETY SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGR. PW-061R BEA~ING SUPPLiES PUMP PARTS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES LIABILITY CLAIH SETTLEMENT LAB CHEMICALS FILM PROCESSING ELECTRIC CART PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES OCE~N WAIVER STUDY, BELT FILTER PRESS STUDY ENGR. 2-10-IA PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL PI PE SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE CHLORINE SHALL HARDWARE SAFETY SUPPLIES CONTRACTOR PW-106 ELt~TRltAL SUPPLIES BATTER I ES SHALL HARDWARE, LUMBER JANITORIAL SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE CSDOC #l_HANHOLE REPAIRS LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES CAUSTIC SODA VALVES. CHLORINE WELDING SUPPLIES CSDOC #7 SEWER PURCHASE COMPRESSOR PARTS SPECIALTY GASES ANNEXATION HAPS, PRE-EHPLOYHENT EXAMS REPLENISH WORKERS' COMP. FUND WATER PRODUCT I ON PLANT #2 TRAILER RENTAL PUMP PARTS :; td I .~ . l • ·1 I ; 1:1 I I i' ! : 'I ."I \·,; :):;. G'> 111 2 I t=:J )> ........ -I 111 3 =t::t:: 00 t I )> <F • t=' -(.I) -I ::::0 -Cl -I (.I) :; td I .J::" :::: FUrJCJ NO WAPRANT NO. 070153 c 7 '1154 OH 155 07C!l56 070157 070158 1170159 0701E:O 070161 070H2 070163 OHH4 c. 7 0 lf ~ r.1 ill66 07(1161 07ll16(-; 07016~ tlH170 070171 070172 (1711173 C7fJ174 07&175 07lH 76 (!70177 070178 070179 070180 li 7G 1 f\l 070lf? 0701~3 ,. 1 r1 u~" (l7(1)8~ 0 7 i.1 l ll6 070187 U701~8 r.101e9 0701q0 07Cll91 f17(1192 !.170193 07f}194 07(1155 07f.1% (.i 7n1 ~7 070198 c· 91~9 -JT DIST WCRKING CAPITAL _P~oc~s~•N~-Q~J~ 71l7/0~_P~Gr ~ REPO~T NUMBCR AP~3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAIMS PArn _(J7{?5/84 ____ ---··· ___ ·---------· -----------· ·--.. ·-· ___ -·--__ VENDOR PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. PAC If IC BELL FARTS UNLIMITED J.M. PETERS CO., iNC. PICKWICK PAPER PRODUCTS HAROLD PRIMROSE ICE RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. RAINTREE COMPUTER SYSTEMS THE REGISTER THE-REGISTER ROBBINS & MEYERS ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS co. SANIFOAM, INC. SANCON INC. CITY OF SANTA ANA YVONNE SCHWAB SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. SEE OPTICS SHAMROCK SUPPLY SMALL BUSINESS REPOPT SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY, INC SO. COAST AIR QUALltY HANAGEHENT .DISTRICT. SOUTH COAST OFFICl EQUJP~ENT SOUTHCRN CALIF. EDISON CO. SO. CAL. GAS CO. SOUTHERN COUNTllS OIL CO. 5PARKlfTTS DRINKING WATER STEEL rxcHANG[, INC. J. WAYNE SYLVESTER Tr.TKCt INC. THOMAS SCIENTIFIC lONY'S LOCK & SAFE SERVICE TOFAZ ELECTPONJCS TRANSAPERJCA OELAVAlt INC. TRAVfL DUFFS TRAVfl TRAVEL TRUCK & AUTO SUFfLYt INC. UN I C 0 El EC TR I C UNION OIL CO. Of CALIF. UNilED PARC[L SERVICE UNITCO STATES EQUIPMENT co., INC. vwn SCIENTIFIC VALVl g STtEL surPLY co. VAUGJIAN•S INDUSTRIAL REPAIR CO VOTO MACHINE CARL MARREN & CO. AMOUNT DESCRIPTION -··-$~80 .96 SAFETY SUPPLIES $21.26 TELEMETERING ________ ~~27.09 _____ ,, _________ JRUCICJ~ABU .. ---·-··--· S71029.91 ANNUAL BIG CANYON PAYMENT $20.35 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES ~?0.00 . ---· .. ····· __ ... .INDUSJRl.AL WA.HE .SMP.Ll.NG ICE .... $334.00 TRASH DISPOSAL S350.00 WASTEHAULING COMPUTER PROGRAMMING __ S_2tl?.?•_?9 _______________ Cl,AS~J.flfP. .. A.D.YE.l'.\U_Sl_N~-------_______ ·--------___ _ S474.32 LEGAL ADVERTISING S238.09 PUMP PARTS ___ S~8~.0l ___ ._ ....... ____ CQNTf\PL ... ~QUl.r.f1~NT ..... __ _ S31923.89 SOLVENTS Sl157s.no SCUM BOX LIDS REPAIR S828e75 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE REFUND . ---..... --"!ii ~-i>a -------·--.. -----· "it1fil.ov£'E .. Hi'ieAc-t -----. - $~5.91 TOOLS $931. no ---.. -·--~AF~.H---~'=-~~H-~--------------·--···· ------·-·----.. ·-S66~. 93 TOOLS, SHALL HARDWARE S56.00 PUBLICATION S1~1!H ----·-------Pl~f; .. SUPfbJU ________________ ------·- $193.00 PERMIT FEES S57.50 TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE Sl0Lt541.77 POWER it6,672.s6 ,. · --·· NATURAi--GAS ··---· S6ta24.99 DIESEL FUEL $877.00 BOTTLED WATER S909.5'1 -... --.. ··-·STEEL STOCK ------. ----------- S546.58 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT S6le63 .~LECT~J~AL. $UPPLIE~ S56.44 LAB SUPPLIES S45.5U LOCKS ~937 • 20 .. . ... __ . WASHl1A!Jt. Lt:Hi -~Q.NJJQR_lt'fG _EQU I PttENT .... __ _ . $11265.49 ENGINE PARTS S178.00 AIR FARE H•?8~.ou ------~I~ fA.R~. _ ............. _____ ............. ___ .. _ $l130~.7n TRUCK PARTS S639e32 ELECTRICAL REPAIRS Sl5Q.30 GASOLINE s11~:51 0£L1v£itv-sEiviH. -----· $590.02 COMPRESSOR PARTS, VALVES $482.55 LAB SUPPLIES $~1821~7~ iTEEi-~tritK Sl1150~00 PUMP REPAIRS s4eq.50 PUMP PARTS ~300.60 ilA~fiii~ ~iAIH~ ADMINISTRATORS ( ( l:i .1 ';I' ' ' .1 ,.I :.I ··1' " "' ----,, ., ' ··' I':"! ;·,,' II :j "' _,: ' ----·'.·1' .. .. I ,,, ---··---'1•1! 1 11; ... ·-·~--;::; --·1 . 1'' .... ···--·--·---J t:'; 1:.i 1'::! .•1; 1:-' ... -·1, I ,,, •.,,t "I, 1,,! I:; .., ., .. -: •. : . 1 ·: !:' I L: ; .I I; 11 ! y ' ~ ! ::: bj I ''V1 ' t • ~ :: 11 1 1 .. ·!· 1'i ,.I h FUNO NO ( ( 9199 -JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING OATt 7/19/8~ PAGE it~ti~T NU~~fR AP4~· . -- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAIMS PAI~ 07/25~~~- :•i WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCIHPTION ENGINE PARTS .. !v' !1,: . I ; ~ I ' ; I ... i ·" : ,'J:> Ci> IT1 . :z . ' 't::::j :, .. :J:> :..._. .. -I . IT1 3 . " ::r:t: :' 00 J:> I .1• t::::j ....... (/) -I ::::c ....... .. \) . :-I ': (/) ·t! i I ::: ... bj I U1 ::: 070199 070200 c,7 0201 il7<12lJ2 070203 07Cl204 07&205 07(,2(16 070207 SUHHARV 11 OPER FUND H2 OPER FUND /12 F/R FUND 13 OPER FUND #3 ACO FUND #3 F/R FUND #5 OPER FUND #5 ACO FUND 15 F/R FUND 1/6 OPER FUND #7 OPER FUND 117 F/R FUND I 11 OPER FUND WAUKESHA ENGINE SFRVICENTER WESTERN TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES WESTE~N WIRE & ~LLOYS WESTJNG~oust £LECTRIC CORP LllTEG SCIENTIFIC PUSSELL WOLD THOMAS t. WOOORUff t INC. >CEROX CORF • ZIP TEMPORARY PERSONNEL TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 07/25/84 15&6 OPER FUND 15&6 ACO FUND /113 ACO FUND JT. OPER FUND CORF SELF FUNDED LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND SEL~ FUNDED WORKERS 1 -iO~P. INSURANCE FUND JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 07/25/81, sin9.26 $265.00 Sl6Ae96 i.687. H $71.03 $31.98 Ult.532.00 Ut192.69 S328.8Q $576,437.70 ---------------------------------- AMOUNT -$ .. 136.QO 5,060.21 9,576.51 2,91f8.73 52. "1 6.76 17,332.90 13.67 20,085.1t5 116.36 If, Olf3. 82 12,847.lfO 6,713.36 ..... 2,392.48 23.85 1,761.11f 324,002.02 103,lf00.23 1,357.28 15,1f89.22 49,077.90 - $ 5 7 6 • 4 3 7 • 7 o .. .... HANWAY COVERS WELD I NG SUPPLIES . ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE LEGAL SERVICES XEROX REPRODUCTION TEMPORARY HELP .. --.... . . -. . .. -· ---·--· .. ( 5 ..- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -1084~ ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Page l of~ 3 · ' CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO~ N/A -------------------~\w)-c ·. 0. NO. One ( 1) CONTRAC.TQR,:..Frank Ultimo, General Building ContractO?QATE July 24, 1984 JOB:OFFICE PARTITIONS AND LAVATORY AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-112 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (CJ.SX.ICX) $ 609.43 Jn accordance with contract provisions, the following changes tn the contr~et and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the fntlowing additions to or dedticti ons from the contract price are hereby approved. ~; Item A Cut and cap existing 3-inch ABSP sewer line and relocate existing 1/2-inch PVCP city water line to clear new 6-inch PVCP sewer line. Item B Relocate tie-in for new 1-inch PVCP city water line. Item C Frame out window in east wall of lavatory. Item D Delete plywood exterior on north lavatory wall. Item E Provide vent through roof for new lavatory exhaust fan. $ 71.27 205.83 199.00 (67.91) 96.77 "C-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(B)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "C-1" ) • I \ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY , P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEYJ CALIFORNIA 92708 Page 2 of 3 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A --------------------c. 0. NO• One ( l) CONTRACTOR: Frank Ultimo, General Building Contractor DATE July 24, 1~84 JOB: OFFICE PARTITIONS AND LAVATORY AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-112 Item F Change lavatory light fixture model. Item G Remove unforeseen underground obstruction at new 6-inch PVCP sewer tie-in to existing manhole. Item H Change lavatory power-wire to Type THHN in steel flex from Romex cable. ~ Item K Change lavatory sanitary waste plumbing to ABS from cast iron. Item L Lower office partitions ceilings from 9'-6" to 8'-0" requiring longer A/C ducting. Item M Change lavatory water closet from flush- ometer to tank type-. Item N Change office doors from teak veneer to stained birch. $ 54.02 205.45 173.57 (260.48) 173.56 52.84 (243.80) "C-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(B)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS ''C-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 3 of 3 P.O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY~ CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A --------------------c • O . No • One · ( l) CONTRACTOR: Frank Ultimo, General ~ui lding Contractor DA !E ______ J_u_l __ y_2_4_,_1_9_8_4 __ _ . J·oe·: OFFICE PARTITI.ONS AND LAVATORY AT PLANT NO •. 2, JOB NO. Pw-·112- Item Change all three door knob internals from stainless steel to brass. NET TOTAL ADD THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 609.43 The additional work contained in this change order can be performed incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original contract. It is, therefore, mutually agreed that no time extension is required for this change order and no direct or indi- rect, incidental or consequential costs or expenses have been or will be incu~re~ by contractor. 'suMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Original· Contract Date Orig~nal Contract Time Original Completion Date Time Extension this ·change Order Total Time Extension Revised Contract Time Revised Completion Date March 28, 1984 120 Calendar Days July 25, 1984 0 Calendar Days 0 Calendar Days No Change No Change Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes This Change (ADD) ~tt) Amended Contract Price $ 19,969.00 $ 0.00 $ 609.43 $ 20,578.43 Board authorization date: August 8, 1984 Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By----------~-------------------~ e pu ty Chief Engineer \.._,) By ---------------------------Contractor "C-3" AGENDA ITEM #9(B)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "C-3" RESOLUTION NO. 84-134 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-112 AS COMPLETE A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING OFFICE PARTITIONS AND LAVATORY AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-112, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOU'l' AGREEMEN'I' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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, Frank Ultimo & Sons, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, on July 25, 1984; and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Deputy Chief Engineer has recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the term~ of the . .....,_;contract, which said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated March 28, 1984; and, Section 4. That the Districts' Deputy Chief Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section S. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Frank Ultimo & Sons, settin9 forth the terms and-conditions for acceptance of Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, is hereby approved and accepted in form approved by the General Counsel; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, s, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized -....,,; and directed to execute said aqreement on behalf of the Districts. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August a, 1984. "D" AGENDA ITEM #9(B)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "D" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, .CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO·. N/A ----------------------- CONTRACTOR: Paramount Metal and Supply, Inc. c. o. No. ___ on_e __ {l_) ____________ ~~ DATE July 26, 1984 JOB: STAIRWAY ANO WALKWAY ADDITIONS AT PLANT NO. 2 -JOB NO. PW-115 . Amount of this Change Order (ADD) (DEDUCT) $ 0.00 -------------------In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contrqc~ !nd/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the fot1owing !dditions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. This change order is to grant the contractor an extension of time of 68 calendar days because of unavoidable delays-in materials supply and the inability to shutdown critical process operations within the treatment plant to accommodate the work. The additional work contained in this change order can be performed incidental to .the prime work and within the time ailotted for the original contract plus the 68 days :time extension granted hereby. It is, therefore, mutually agreed that no time extension other than ·the 68 days approved herein is requi.red for this change order and no direct or indirect, incidental or consequential costs or expenses have been or will be incurred by contractor. 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 .. February 6 1 1984 90 Calendar Days May 5, 1984 68 Calendar Days 68 Calendar Days 158 Calendar Days ~ July 12, 1984 Original Contract Price $ __ 2_8_,_4_8_3 .._.0_0 ___ _ Prev. Auth. Changes $ 0.00 ----------This Change (ADO) (DEDUCT) $ 0.00 --------- Amended Contract Price $ 28 ,483 .oo ----------- oard authorization date: August 8, 1984 Approved: COUNTY SANliATION r?. ·7' )·' .J°6_.-(_ I . I . I •• • ' ;.(,, . _,.:/,"; L.i, "J, ;., /-re. . . . ....:. , (._ ,• \ I . '&-.. , y ____ ~\--·-~~-~--~_ .. _\~L~l-··~~_( ___ P_~_-_. __ l ____ __ I. . Contractor AGENDA ITEM #9(c)(l) Deputy Chief Enc i ne=r ALL DISTRICTS · "E" "E" RESOLUTION NO. 84-135 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-115 AS COMPLETE A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING STAIRWAY AND WALKWAY ADDITIONS AT TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-115, 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, Paramount Metals, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, on July 12, 19847 and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Deputy 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 filed7 and, Section 3. That Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated February 6, 19847 and, Section 4. That the Districts' Deputy Chief Engineer is nereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor7 and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Paramount Metals, setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, is hereby approved and accepted in form approved by the General Counsel1 and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized "'-I. and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the Districts. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August 8, 1984. "F" AGENDA ITEM #9(c)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "F" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER Page 1 · '· GRANT NO·. N/A -----------------------c. o. NO. Two (2) CONTRACTOR:.. Pasca 1 & Ludwig Engineers DATE July 26, 1984 . ---------------------------~ ~OB: PIPING FOR RETURN SLUDGE CHLORINATION AT PLANT NO. 2 -JOB NO. PW-123 Amount of this Change Order (ADO) (8!8~Sf) $ 10,466.09 •• I Jn 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. "G-1" This ctHlnge order is for replacement of additional existing 10-inch rubber lined steel chlorine piping found to be unsuitable during hydrotesting, concrete encasement of underground section of new chlorine line due to . interfer.ence from existing underground facilities, and removal and relocation of other unforeseen underground obstructions. The contractor is granted a 12 day time extension for the extra work. The additional work contained in this change order can be perform~d incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original contract plus the 12 days time· extension granted hereby. It is, therefore, mutually agreed that no time extension other than the 12 days approved herein is required for this change order and no direct or indirect, incidental or conseque~tial costs or expenses have been or will be incurred by contractor. TOTAL ADDED COSTS THIS CHANGE ORDER: $10,466.09 TOTAL TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER: 12 Calendar Days AGENDA ITEM #9(n)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS . ~ "G-1" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P.O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER Page 2 GRANT NO. N/A ------------------c. o. NO. ___ T_wo __ (_2_) __________ _ CONTRACTOR: Pascal & Ludwig Engineers DATE July 26, 1984 JOB: PIPING FOR RETURN SLUDGE CHLORINATION AT PLANT NO •. 2 -JOB NO. PW-123 SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TI~E 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 date: August 8, 1984 . ;"\ ··~ ! / ,· ) , -·) 1 :" , -; ": ~ ~ &.. Contractor April 23, 1984 45 Calendar Days June 6, .1984 12 Calendar Days 42 Calendar Days 87 Calendar Days July 18, 1984 Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Changes $ 52,495.00 $ 9,653.63 This Change (ADD) (~&:x) $ 10,466.09 Amended Contract Price $ 72,614.i2 Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ::angPL, ZiM:~ . Deputy Cn1ef Eng1~ee; "G-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(n)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "G-2" RESOLU'l'ION NO. 84-136 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-123 AS COMPLETE A JOINT RESOLUTION OF TBE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OP COON'l'Y SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OP ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING PIPING FOR RETOBN CHLORINATION AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-123, AS.COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOU'l' AGREEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, s, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETEBMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, Pascal & Ludwig Engineers, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for Piping for Return Chlorination at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-123, on July 18, 19841 and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Deputy 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 Piping for Return Chlorination at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-123, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated April 23, 1984: and, Section 4. That the Districts' Deputy Chief Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor: and, Section s. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Pascal & Ludwig Engineers, setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Piping for Return Chlorination at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-123, is hereby approved and accepted in form approved by the General Counsel: and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the Districts. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August 8, 1984 •• "H" AGENDA ITEM #9(n)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "H" COObfTY SANITATION DIS'l'RIC'l'S OF ORANGE COtJN'l'Y P. O. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENCE POtmTAnt VALLEY, CALIFOllNIA 92708 cimNGE ORDER C. O. NO. l --------------------CONTRACTOR: Sancon Engineering, Inc. DATE July 25, 1984 REHABILITATION OF BOSHAim TRUNK, PHASE II, ADAMS AVENUE TO HAMILTON AVENUE, JOB NO. I-2R-2, AND PHASE III, HAMILTON AVENUE TO "C" BEADWORXS JOB: AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. I-2R-3 Amount of this Change Order (Add) (Bed~ct) $ 22,680.87 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from.the contract price are hereby approved. 1. When the Bushard Trunk Sewer was taken out of service to allow the contractor to clean the interior pipe surfaces prior to the installation of a protective coating, it was discovered that large accumulations of rock and other debris were deposited between manhole No. 3, located about 1,000 feet north of Hamilton Avenue, and manhole No. 5, located about 1,300 feet north of Atlanta Avenue, a distance of approximately 2,640 feet. The contractor was directed to remove and dispose of this material and was allowed the cost in accordance with Section 10-4 of the General Provisions, in the amount of $ 22,680.87 TOTAL ADD: $ 22,680.87 The additional work contained in this change order can be ~ performed incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original contract. It is, therefore, mutually agreed that no time extension is required for this change order and no direct or indirect, incidental or con- sequential costs or expenses have been or will be incurred by contractor. 0 calendar Days SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Oriqinal Contract Date Original Contract Time Original Completion Date Time Extension this c.o. Total Time Extension Revised Contract Time Revised Comoletion Date Board authorization date: March 28, 1984 210 Calendar Days October 23, 1984 0 Calendar Days 0 Calendar Days 210 Calendar Days October 23, 1984 Original Contract Price S __ _,_84_2 ___ ,4_9_6_._o_o __ _ Prev. Auth. Changes $ ______ o_._o_o __ This Change (Add) (BeducL) $ __ 2 .... 2 ..... ,_6_8_0.._.8_7 __ Amended Contract Price $ 865,176.87 Auqust 8, 1984 Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE.. COU?:rr'!, r~~ORN!rl (// \ By .r.!!:~ .. 1.t.-; Jl i<'-l--r 8/1/84 Deputy Chief Engineer II I II AGENDA ITEM #9(E)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS II I II RESOLUTION NO. 84-137 AUTHORIZING J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, GENERAL MANAGER, TO SIGN CONTRACTS AND DOCUMENTS A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, GENERAL MANAGER, TO SIGN ALL CONTRACTS AND DOCUMENTS NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO BE EXECUTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF A BESPECTIVE DISTRICT, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76-94 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, during the course of ordinary business on behalf of each and all the Districts, certain documents and contracts need to be executed by, and on behalf of, the Districtsi and, WHEREAS, during the course of these business transactions, the authority of the Boards of Director~ by and through the execution of documents by the C_hairman of each District is not required by law or by local rules of the Districts1 and, WHEREAS, for convenience to the Districts, its employees, suppliers and contractors, the ordinary course of business is greatly improved by having the General Manager execute necessary documents. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, s, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, 00 HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, is hereby authorized to execute any and all documents on behalf of each District or on behalf of the Joint Administrative Organization that are required in the ordinary course and scope of the operations of the Districts. This authority shall not empower the General Manager to execute those contracts or documents which are expressly required by law, contract specifications or other local rules, to be· executed by the Chairman of a respective District1 and, Section 2. That Resolution No. 76-94, authorizing the retired General Manager, Fred A. Harper, to sign said contracts and documents, is hereby rescinded and made of no further effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August 8, 1984. "·J II AGENDA ITEM #9(G) -ALL DISTRICTS II J" "K-1" EQUIPMENT CORPORATION July 16, 1984 Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Post Office.Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 RE:· Bid Protest -Specification A-120 Gentlemen: This is a formal complaint on the above listed bid package, its word- ing, and the proposed contract award. McKinley Equipment Corporation is requesting a formal revie~, based on the specification as written. It is believed that McKinley Equipment Corporation is the only bidder that fully complied with the bid based on the following: SPEC III. (D.) CONTROLS --nEnclosed power transistor speed control Power-Tron P.T. 24~ or General Electric EV-10 SCR. Buss bar or rheostat controls will not be accepted." McKinley Equipment Corporation bid the PMC enclosed power transistor speed control as standard, meeting the intent of the specification, and the General Electric EV-10 SCR as an option, meeting the letter of the specification. Taylor-Dunn bid the Power-Tron P.T. 350 without bidding the P.T. 240. When questioned at the opening by Mr. Hoffman, Taylor-Dunn advised him that the P.T. 240 was insufficient to handle the requirement. McKinley Equipment Corporation has been termed unacceptable for not having prior approval of its PMC controller, yet Taylor-Dunn did not have prior ap- proval for the Model P•T• 350 which the District has decided to accept. The District has not seen nor used a Model P.T. 350 before the bid. The fact that it is a Power-Tron does not obscure the fact that it is a dif- ferent, unapproved, and unauthorized model. Page -1- AGENDA ITEM #9(H)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS 17611 ARMSTRONG AVE. a IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92714 a (714) 979-2060 "K-1" • "K-2" Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California RE: Bid Protest -Specification A-120 July 16, 1984 Page -2- If the intent of the District (which was not explicitly stated) was to accept only the Power-Tron Model P.T. 240 or General Electric EV-10 SCR, McKinley Equipment Corporation is the only bidder to respond with a price for the specified model spelled out in its bid. If the intent of the District was to accept an "enclosed power transistor speed con- trol", which may not have had prior District approval, McKinley complied with the lowest price for its PMC controller versus Taylor-Dunn's unau- thorized Moqel P.T. 350. In either event, McKinley Equipment Corpora- tion should have received the successful award of Specification A-120. After careful review, I trust you will agree this order should rightful- ly be placed with McKinley Equipment Corporation. The Sanitation District has been a valued customer of ours for several years and we feel your busi- ness is worth fighting for. We have always been treated fairly by Mr. Hoffman and many others in the District and see no reason that this time should be any different. Our intent is to provide the same quality of equipment and service that the District has come to expect from us. We have provided the District as many options as possible while complying with its written bid request. The decision for purchase was based on this one aspect of the controllers, and close scrutiny shows McKinley to be the only bidder to comply. I will await your review and antici- pated issuance of a purchase order to McKinley F,quipment Corporation. Thank you for your unbiased appraisal and review. Very truly yours, McKINLEY w. Michael McKinley WMM/12.9/ma cc: Mr. Ted E. Hoffman, Legal Counsel AGENDA ITEM #9(H)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "K-2" RESOLUTION NO. 84-146-2 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO TBE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 44 -ALBERS ANNEXATION ) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 44 -ALBERS ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That application has heretofore been made to County Sanitation District No. 2 for annexation of territory to the District by means of a petition filed by the property owner; and, Section ·2. That pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, application has \._) heretofore been made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 2 by Mr. & Mrs. Ken Albers, the owners of said property to be annexed, by means of Resolution No. 80-151-2, filed with said Commission by the District; and, Section 3. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is nAnnexation No. 44 -Albers Annexation.to County Sanitation District No. 2", the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution: and, Section 4. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and, Section 5. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory7 and, ~ Section 6. That provision for payment of annexation acreage fees in the "M-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(J) -DISTRICT 2 "M-1" amount of $1,947.00 has been satisfied~ and, Section 7. That the District hereby agrees, pursuant to Section 99(h) (1) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to waive its ad valorem property tax allocation exchange with other affected taxing agenciesr and Section a. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Conunission pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56261, the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be, and is hereby, ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 2 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August a, 1984. "M-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(J) -DISTRICT 2 "M-2" RESOLUTION NO. 84-148-7 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO TBE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 107 -HOFF ANNEXATION) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TElUUTORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 107 -HOFF ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That application has heretofore been made to County Sanitation District No. 7 for annexation of territory to the District by means of a petition filed by the property owner: and, Section 2. That pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, application has ~ heretofore been made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 7 by Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Burns, the owners of said property to be annexed, and by Mr. & Mrs. Duane Huff, ·former owners of said property, by means of Resolution No. 81-193-7, filed with said Commission by the District1 and, Section 3. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Annexation No. 107 -Huff Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7", the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution1 and, Section 4. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited1 and, Section S. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and '..lprovide public sanitary sewer service to said territory: and, "N-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(L) -DISTRICT 7 "N-1" Section 6. That provision for payment of annexation acreage fees in the amount of $701.50 has been satisfied; and, ~ Section 7. That the District hereby agrees, pursuant to Section 99(h) (1) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to waive its ad valorem property tax allocation exchange with other affected taxing agencies; and Section 8. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Division l (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56261, the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be, and is hereby, ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 7 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August a, 1984. . "N-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(L) -DISTRICT 7 "N-2" RESOLU'l'ION NO. ESTABLISHING USE CHARGES FOR 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO._ OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING USE CHARGES FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II PERMITTEES FOR THE 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. , an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilitiesi 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 permittees. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. _ of Orange County, California, \,.I DOES BEllEBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That pursuant to Section 302.6 of Ordinance No. ____ ,the 1984-85 fiscal year charge for use for Class I permittees is hereby established as follows: 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. That pursuant to Section 302.6 of Ordinance No. _____ ,the 1984-85 fiscal year charge for use for Class II permittees is hereby established as follows: For Flow: $____________ per million gallons of flow PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August 8, 1984. "O" AGENDA ITEM #13 -ALL DISTRICTS "O" "P-1" August 2, 1984 STAFF REPORT Rupture of Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer at 14th Street and Balboa Boulevard The District owns and operates a trunk sewer system on the Balboa Peninsula between Pacific Coast Highway and "G 11 Street, including pump stations at "A" Street, 14th Street and Short Street. That collection system was constructed by the City of Newport Beach in the 1930's and 40's and ownership was transferred to the District in the 1950's. The system has not changed appreciably since it was constructed and many of the pump stations and original pumps are still in operation. On Sunday evening at about 7:30 p.m., a short pressure pipe leading from the 14th Street Pump Station to a gravity sewer about 400' westerly ruptured resulting in street damage to Balboa Boulevard and flooding of the street. The City of Newport Beach contacted our staff which responded immediately. The station was turned off and a bypass sytem installed Sunday evening. The staff contacted contractors and equipment suppliers and was able to begin repairs on Monday morning, July 30. K.E.C. Company is performing the emergency repairs on a time and material basis-in accordance with the District's provisions for contracting.work. The Contractor brought in equipment and a crew which was working on another District job, the Katella Interceptor Sewer. By Monday evening a temporary repair was complete which allowed us to return the pump station and force main to service. Final work on the temporary repair, with the exception of the paving, was completed by Tuesday night. The estimated cost for this repair is between $7,000 and $8,000. Staff examined the SO-year old cast iron force main and found that the failure was partially caused by chemical changes in the iron. The pipe will flake when knocked and because the pipe is shallow, future failures from traffic stress may be expected. Accordingly, staff negotiated a fixed price of $32,000 for the complete replacement of the line and is proceeding with this installation at the time of this writing. The new line is being installed adjacent to the existing line. AGENDA ITEM #25(A) -DISTRICT 5 "P-1" The action before you is to ratify staff actions. and approve both the temporary repair and the permanent replacement in an amount ~ not to exceed $40,000. Staff will also update the Board on the status of tne work at the August 8th Board meeting. The Districts' 5-year capital budget includes $1,105,000 to rehabilitate the entire Balboa Peninsula Sewer beginning in 1986-87. The engineering staff will be evaluating the condition of the line to determine if portions of this work should be expedited, funds permitting. Priority to date in the Districts' major system rehabilitation program has been on the more critical Coast Highway Sewer System. "P-2" AGENDA ITEM #25(A) -DISTRICT 5 "P-2" "Q-1" ORDINANCE NO. 206 AN ORDINANCE OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING SEPARATE SERVICE AREA ZONES AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF CONNECTION CHARGES AND SEWER USE CHARGES FOR THE USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES BY PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PRESENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WHEREAS, there exists considerable real property located outside the District boundaries, but which has a natural drainage into District No. 2 and District No. 7; and, WHEREAS, this District and District No. 7 have presently filed a petition (known as Reorganization No. 65) with the County of Orange Local Agency Formation Commission to form a new County Sanitation District No. 13, and to provide for an exchange of certain parcels of real property between Districts Nos. 2, 7 and 13; and, WHEREAS, County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, s, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California are organized to operate pursuant to a Joint Administrative Organization Agreement, which provides for the joint ownership of sewage treatment works, ·ocean outfall and related facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Joint Administrative Organization has approved of District No. 13 joining as a member agency upon the approval of the formation of said District, provided that District No. 13 is able to meet certain financial obligations, including the purchase of a pro rata share of the existing and future capital facilities, and to pay its annual share of the costs of operation and maintenance of the joint facilities; and, WHEREAS, the District No. 2 Board of Directors has received 1 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-1" ''Q-2" an engineering report on the subject of all applicable costs for the formation of District No. 13; and, WHEREAS, the ~oard of Directors has determined that certain properties that will eventually be located in District No. 13 will be requesting sewer service prior to formation, which service can be provided by District No. 2; and, WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 5471 authorizes a County Sanitation District to establish charges for service and facilities furnished by it to properties located within or without its territorial limits. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section i: District agrees that it shall provide or cause to be provided by other Sanitation Districts who are members of the Joint Administrative·Organization, sewer service to all that certain territory to be included in County Sanitation District No. 13 upon its formation, which is part-icularly legally described in the pending petition for formation with the County of Orange, and the Orange County Local Agency Formation commission and as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. section ~: The territory ultimately to be located outside the Districts Nos. 2 and 7 boundaries and within new District No. 13, as described in Section 1 is divided into three (3) separate zones for purposes of regulation of sewage facility use. Said zones are established as zones A, B and c, and the boundaries of each are set forth on Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance. 2 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-2" "Q-3" ... ' section i: Ordinance No. 205 of County Sanitation District No. 2, and any amendments thereto, hereinafter enacted, shall, except for Section 702 thereof, be applicable to all territory as described in Section 1. Section ~: Connection Fees. Before any connection permit shall be issued, the applicant shall pay to the District, or its agent, the charges specified as follows: Zone A: (1) Connection charge for new construction: For each new dwelling unit constructed, the connection charge shall be $220.00 per dwelling unit. (2) Connection charge for existing dwelling buildings: For the connection of each existing dwelling unit, the connection charge shall be $220.00 per dwelling unit. (3) Connection charge for new construction and existing structures, other than dwelling buildings: For all other new construction, including, but not limited to, commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and mo- tels and public buildings, the connection charge shall be $45.00 per 1,000 square fees of floor aea contained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction shall be $220.00. (4) Connection charge for replacement buildings: For new construction replacing former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (3) above. If such replacement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or 3 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-3" . . destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed and shall be the equivalent connection charge for the building being demolished or destroyed, calculated on the basis of current charges for new construction. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charges. (5) Connection charges for additions or alterations of existing buildings: In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $220.00 for each dwelling unit added·or created, and, in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings,. it shall be $45.00 pr 1,000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new construction, provided such new construction shall contain additional fixture units. (1) Connection charge for new construction: For each new dwelling unit constructed, the connection charge shall be $1,250.00 per dwelling unit. (2) Connection charge for existing dwelling buildings: For the connection of each existing dwelling unit, the connection charge shall be $1,250.00 per dwelling unit. (3) Connection charge for.new construction and existing structures, other than dwelling buildings: For all other new construction, including but not limited to, commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge shall be '--". $250.00 per 1,000 square feet of floor area contained within such 4 "Q-4" AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-4" "Q-5" construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction shall be $1,250.00. (4) Connection charge for replacement buildings: For new construction replacing former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (3) above. If such replacement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed and shall be the equivalent connection charge for the building being demolished or destroyed, calculated on the basis of current charges for new construction. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charges. (5) Connection charges for additions or alterations-of existing buildings: In the case of structures where further new ·construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of dwelling buildins or the area of buildings to be used for other than dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall b $1,250.00 for each dwelling unit added or created, and, in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings, it shall be $250.00 per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new construction, provided such new construction shall contain additional fixture units. Zone ~: (1) Connection charge for new construction: For each new dwelling unit constructed, the connection charge shall be $1,500.00 per dwelling unit. 5 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-5" (2) Connection charge for existing dwelling buildings: For the connection of each existing dwelling unit, the connection charge shall be $1,500.00 per dwelling ·unit. (3) Connection charge for new construction and existing structures, other than dwelling buildings: For all other new construction, including but not limited to, commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge shall be $300.00 per l,~00 square feet of floor area contained within such construction, provided that the minimum connection charge for such new construction shall be $1,500.00. (4) Connection charge for replacement buildings: For _new construction replacing former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (3) above. If such replacement construction is commenced· within two years after demolition or destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed ~nd shall be the equivalent connection charge for the building being demolished or destroyed, calculated on the basis of current charges for new construction. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charges. (5) Connection charges for additions or alterations of existing buildings: In the case of structurs where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be used for other than dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $1,500.00 for each dwelling unit added or created, and in the case of new 6 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-7" constructi9n other than family dwelling build~ngs, it shall be $200.00 per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new construction, provided such new construction shall contain additional fixture units. (6) In addition to the charges set forth in Paragraphs (1) through (5) inclusive, above, each applicant for a connection permit for property located in Zone A shall pay to District or its agent, an initial service fee in an amount equal to the annexation acreage fee that was in effect by the applicable District on the date application for annexation was made by the property owner or its representative. Section ~: Annual Sanitary Sewer JZ§.g Charge. A. Each parcel of real property located within the area described in Section 1 above, which is improved with struc- tures designed for residential, commercial or industrial use and connected to the District's system, shall pay a sanitary sewer use charge _in accordance with the schedule set forth on Table A of this Ordinance. B. The sanitary sewer use charge shall be for the period commencing with the effective date of this..Ordinance and June 30, 1985. Section ~: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District as required by law. 7 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-7" .. ' \_ . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors this __ day of ----------' 1984. Chairman ATTEST: Secretary ( 6.) 8 "Q-8" AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-8" "Q-9" TABLE A SANITARY SEWER USE FEES For those properties-presently situated within the boundaries of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 7, which will be included in County Sanitation District No. 13 upon formation and for which the Districts receive no ad valorem property tax: $70.00 per year For those properties not presently situated within the boundaries of any County Sanitation District of Orange County, Calif ronia, which will be included in County Sanitation District No. 13 upon formation and for which the Districts receive no ad valorem property tax: $140.00 per year 9 AGENDA ITEM #29 -DISTRICT 2 "Q-9" ·-.t COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, ~' 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE coum, CAUFORNIA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEmNG ON JULY 11, 1984 ADmNISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS A VENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, was held on July 11, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the r\.._J was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 anCl"'"ll as follows: DISTRICT NO. l: I - DISTRICT NO. 2: DISTRICT NO. 3: DISTRICT NO. 5: DISTRICT NO. 6: DISTRICT NO. 7: D~RICT NO. 11: AcrIVE DIREC?ORS _L_Robert Hanson, Chairman _L_Dan Griset, Chairman pro tern __ x __ oon Saltarelli __ a __ Roger Stanton _!__Henry Wedaa, Chairman x Don Roth, Chairman pro tern ----Richard Buck Buck Catlin _L_Sam Cooper _!__Dan Griset ~John Holmberg _L_Carol Kawanami ...,L_James Neal ..!...__Bob Perry _a_Don Smith _!__Roger Stanton _!__Don Roth, Chairman ____ Gerald Mullen, Chairman pro tem x Oscar Brownell Buck Catlin ...!.._Norman Culver _L_Henry Frese _L_Don Griff in x Dan Griset x John Holmberg _!__James Neal ____ carrey Nelson _!,__Richard Olson ...,!__Roger Stanton x Charles Sylvia -X--John A. Thomas x Martha Weishaupt x Evelyn Hart, Chairman x Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tern _!,_Roger Stanton x James Wahner, Chairman x Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem _!__Roger Stanton a Don Smith, Chairman -X--Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem -x-Richard Edgar -X--oan Griset x David Sills a Roger Stanton x James Wahner x Ruth Bailey, Chairman ----Ron Pattinson a Roger Stanton -2- ALTERNATE DIREcrORS _orma Crank ____ Robert Luxembourger _Ursula Kennedy ____ Harriett Wieder __ Todd Murphy _____ E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. x Arthur Newton x Chris Norby ____ carrey Nelson Robert Luxembourger Bill Mahoney __ William Odlum __ Marvin P. Adler ____.Norman Culver . Gene Beyer Harriett Wieder __ E. Llewellyn Overh~lt, Jr. __ x __ Richard Partin Joyce Risner -X--chris Norby Bob Perry Norma Seidel ___ Jesse Davis Robert Luxembourger Bill Mahoney ___ Marvin P. Adler x Sam Cooper ---Bruce Finlayson ---Harriett Wieder ----David Lander Robert P. Mandie, Jr. ____ Jean Siriani Philip Maurer ----Jacqueline Heather Harriett Wieder Steven Smith ---Philip Maurer Harriett Wieder __ Gene Beyer Philip Maurer ---Ursula Kennedy Robert Luxembourger Harriett Wieder ___ Harry Green Don MacAllister --x--Robert Mandie ----Harriett Wieder 7/11/84 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita Brown, Board Secretary, William H. Butler, Blake Anderson, Penny Kyle, Richard von Langen, Ted Hoffman, Paul Mitchell, Chuck Winsor, Tony Gutierrez Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Milo Keith, Bill Knopf, Conrad Hohener, Alden Pearce, Mrs. Richard B. Edgar, Christie Popejoy, Bill Vardoulis, Mr. & Mrs. Eric Eklund, Richard Friedrich, Suzanne Atkins * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISTRICTS 3, 7 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive and file minute excerpt and letters re Board Appointments That the minute excerpt from the City of Irvine, re election of David G. Sills as mayor, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and that Mayor Sills be seated as a member of the District 7 Board; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the letter from the City of Huntington Beach, appointing Robert Mandie as an Alternate Director for Ron Pattinson in District 11 for the July 11th Board Meeting, be, and is hereby, received and.ordered filed1 and, FURTHER MOVED: That the letter from the Midway City Sanitary District appoi~ting Richard Olson as the Active Director and Bruce Ffnlayson as the Alternate Director in District No. 3, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 3 Chairman Edgar advised the District 3 \..,.) Election of Chairman Directors that due to a change in Board representation, Chairman Bruce Finlayson would no longer be an active Director and that election of a new Chairman for the District would, therefore, be in order. Director Don Roth was then duly nominated and elected Chairman of District No. 3. DISTRICT 1 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 2 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 3 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 5 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. -3- ..... -~ ; • ; 7/11/84 DISTRICT 6 Aeeroval of Minutes that said minutes be deemed approved, DISTRICT 7 Aeeroval of Minutes that said minutes be deemed approved, DISTRICT 11 AEJ2roval of Minutes that said minutes be deemed approved, ALL DISTRICTS Annual election of Joint Chairman There being no corrections or amendments to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered as mailed. There being no corrections or amendments to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered as mailed. There being no corrections or amendments to the minutes of the regular meeting held June 13, 1984, the Chairman ordered as mailed. This being the annual meeting fixed by the Boards for election of the Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization, the Secretary stated that Director Richard B. Edgar had been nominated at the regular meeting of the Joint Boards on June 13, 1984, in accordance with established procedures. There being no other nominations, the vote was polled and the Secretary cast the unanimous ballot for Director Richard B. Edgar as Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. ALL DISTRICTS Annual election of Vice Joint Chairman. for nominations for the post, This being the annual meeting fixed by the Boards for election of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization, the Joint Chairman called whereupon Director Don R. Griffin was nominated. There being no other nominations, the vote was polled and the Secretary cast the unanimous ballot for Director Don R. Griffin as Vice Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. ALL DISTRICTS Presentation of resolution of commendation to retired Director Bill Vardoulis to public service. Joint Chairman Richard Edgar presented a resolution of conunendation to retiring Director. Bill Vardoulis expressing appreciation to Mr. Vardoulis for his outstanding contributions and dedication ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman reported that the Report of the Joint Chairman Board was proud to announce that J. Wayne Sylvester had been appointed General Manager in the closed session at the June Board Meeting replacing retired General Manager Fred A. Harper. Mr. Edgar then reported on the status of the Districts' 30l(h) Waiver/NPDES Permit that is presently under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Be reiterated that the major concern to the Regional Board members was the extent and expense of the monitoring program required by EPA. Be noted that at the June 8th hearing he had assured the EPA and the Regional Board of our intent to commit the resources necessary to conduct an adequate monitoring program but that we had -4- 7/11/84 requested that after two years experience, EPA and the Regional Board review the pr99ram requirements to make sure meaningful information is being obtained. It is our understanding that Regional Board and EPA staff have agreed to scale down the ocean monitoring program somewhat based on the hearing testimony. Chairman ~ Edgar indicated that the Regional Board is scheduled to approve the Districts' NPDES Permit at their next meeting on July 13. Following the Regional Board's action, EPA Region IX will then forward the permit to its Washington headquarters for approval and for joint signature and issuance by August 28, after which there is a 33-day public notice period, making the effective date of the permit on or about October 1. The Joint Chairman then announced that the Fiscal Policy Committee would meet on Tuesday, July 24, at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Edgar then called a meeting of the Executive Committee for Wednesday, July 25, at 5:30 p.m. and invited Directors James Neal and Dick Olson to attend and participate in the discussions. He also advised that a meeting of the Select Committee to Advise the Staff was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, at 4:00 p.m. immediately preceeding the Executive Committee Meeting. The Joint Chairman reminded Directors that the retirement dinner for the former General Manager, Fred A. Harper, would be held on Sunday, July 22, at the Doubletree Hotel in the City of Orange. ALL DISTRICTS Appointment to Select Committee to Advise the Staff filled by the City of Irvine ALL DISTRICTS Re-appointment of Jim Sharp as Districts' Commissioner to SCCWRP Joint Chairman Edgar announced that the vacancy on the Select Committee .to Advise the Staff, created by retirement of Director Bill Vardoulis, would be repres~ntative, currently Mayor David Sills. The Joint Chairman reported that last year the Boards had appointed former Director Jim Sharp to continue as the Districts' Commissioner to the Southern California Coastal Research Project (SCCWRP) following his retirement as a Director. Chairman Edgar noted that Mr. Sharp has been President of SCCWRP for the past year and recommended that the Boards authorize his re-appointment as the Districts' SCCWRP representative for another year because of his knowledge, experience and position on the Commission. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That retired Director Jim Sharp be, and is hereby, appointed to continue as the Districts• Commissioner to the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) through July, 1985~ and, FURTHER MOVED: That Vice Joint Chairman Don Griff in be appointed to continue as alternate Commissioner to SCCWRP. ALL DISTRICTS Report on Proposed District No. 13 Formation Sanitation District No. 13, which Joint Boards. He stated that for Joint Chairman Edgar reported that the Boards of Districts 2 and 7 would be considering several agenda actions concerning the proposed formation of would eventually have to be approved by the the benefit of newer directors he would summarize the reasons for the formation. -s- ... 7/11/84 District 13 was proposed as a result of a negotiated agreement between the Districts and the County Board of Supervisors to settle the issue of property tax exchanges for newly annexing properties that started over four years ago. District No. 13 will be comprised of approximately 24,000 acres presently outside the Sanitation District boundaries to the north and east of Districts Nos. 2 and 7. Historically, as territory annexed to an existing Sanitation District, they were charged an annexation acreage fee and a connection fee to pay for the sewerage facilities to serve the property. The properties were then placed on the tax roll of the Sanitation Districts and the yearly ad valorem tax was used to pay for annual operating and maintenance costs. However, after adoption of Proposition 13, the State Legislature enacted several measures to provide for implementation of that initiative which require that the affected taxing agencies must negotiate an exchange of property taxes when property annexes to an additional agency. It was the Districts' desire to obtain the same historical share of the property tax that they had received prior to Proposition 13. However, the County being the major tax recipient in the area which is essentially undeveloped territory, was reluctant to give up any of the property tax revenue to the Sanitation Districts. Their long-range financial projections indicate· a funding shortfall for services to be provided and for which they would have limited ability to raise money from other sources~ whereas, the Districts have the ability to levy a user fee for sewerage service. After negotiating the issues for more than two years, the Districts' Boards and the County Board of Supervisors agreed to a settlement wherein we would form a new Sanitation District,· No. 13, to serve the territory that would have otherwise been annexed to Districts Nos. 2 and 7. Mr. Edgar reviewed the initial funding of District 13 which will finance its capital facilities' requirement by connection fee revenue, some of which is already on deposit, and its annual operating and maintenance cost from user fees. The new District will not receive a property tax exchange. It is essentially being formed for financial purposes. It will not build any facilities itself but, rather, will purchase capacity in the trunk sewers of Districts Nos. 2 and 7 and in the joint treatment works, in accordance with existing policies. Following a review of the means of financing the properties that will remain in Districts 2 and 7 that had been previously tax-zeroed, Chairman Edgar stated that since the agreement between the Districts and the County was approved, the District No. 13 Steering Conunittee has been meeting to review the formation proceedings. The Committee is comprised of the Directors representing the cities that will be included in the new District's boundaries (Anaheim, Brea, Orange and Yorba Linda), the County supervisor, and the Joint Chairman and the Vice Joint Chairman representing the Joint Boards. The Committee has submitted a separate interim report which was mailed with the agenda material for Directors of Districts 2 and 7 which included the required Engineer's Report and EIR and details of the final recommended financing arrangements for District No. 13. The Districts' proposal for formation of District 13 has been filed with the Local Agency Formation Conunission and is scheduled for hearing on November 7, 1984. It will then come back to the Joint Boards for approval prior to forwarding to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. It is hopeful that the proceedings will be completed around the first of the year. -6- 7/11/84 ALL DISTRICTS Wayne Sylvester expressed his Report of the General Mana9er appreciation to the Boards of Directors for appointing him the new General Manager to replace Fred Harper who recently ~etired. Mr. Sylvester then reported on the status of the Districts' Deep Ocean Sludge Disposal Research Project. Staff and the Districts' Special Washington DC Counsel are attempting to include a provision in the 1984 Clean Water Act Amendments which are presently moving through Congress. If adopted, they would grant the EPA Administrator, with advice of the Administrator of NOAA, authority to approve this research project. The General Manager briefly reported on Supplemental Agenda items relative to award of Fabrication and Installation of Adaptor Spools for Meter Replacements, Job No. PW-132; and award of Specification No. M-016, Installation of Pressure Relief Bypass Around 10 Positive Displacement Primary Pumps. Be also conunented on a District 5 Supplemental Agenda item to refer to the General Counsel, an appeal received from an industrial waste permittee in connection with a small claims settlement awarded to the District for sewer use fees. Mr. Sylvester called the Directors' attention to the agenda item relative to replacement of old centrifuge equipment at Plants 1 and 2 with more efficient belt filter presses. He noted that there was a correction in the negotiated _price of the spare belts listed in the agenda from $41,184 to $43,884. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ratification of pa;yment of Joint and Individual District Claims That payment. of Joint and individual District claims set forth on pages "A" and "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes, and summarized below, be, and is hereby, ratified by the respective Boards in the amounts so indicated. ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund Capital outlay Revolving Fund - Joint working Capital Fund Self-Funded Insurance Funds DISTRICT NO. 1 DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. 5 DISTRICT NO. 6 DISTRICT NO. 7 DISTRICT NO. 11 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOIN'!' DISTRICTS NOS • 6 & 7 JOINT ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing and directing execution and filing of documents necessary for Federal and State Grants for the 1984-85 Joint Works Improve- ments and Additions 6Ll3L84 6L27L84 $ 178,530.47 $ 335,417.28 34,790.86 375,346.13 53,917.54 62,720.18 3,905.49 2,250.06 127.50 658.73 5,117.57 654.37 29,567.78 10,692.30 321.57 3,041.03 40.38 655.05 68,925.50 2,706.42 6,913.78 696.74 23.29 6,468.40 22.87 $ 382£181.73 $80li329.56 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the following resolutions authorizing and directing execution and filing of documents necessary for Federal Grants under 33 u.s.c., 1251 et seq. and State Grants under Clean water -7- ; . 7/11/84 Bond Law of 1970 and/or 1974, for the 1984-85 Joint works Improvements and Additions, be, and are hereby, adopted by the respective Boards of Directors. ALL DISTRICTS District No. 1 2 3 5 6 7 11 Approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications re Job No. PW-102 Resolution No. 84-104-1 84-105-2 84-106-3 84-107-5 84-108-6 84-109-7 84-110-11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Filtrate Line to Distribution Box, Job No. PW-102, authorizing an addition of $3,718.00 to the contract with Peter c. David Company for miscellaneous items of extra work, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. PW-102 .as complete That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-111, accepting Filtrate Line to Distribution Box, Job No. PW-102, as complete, authorizing . execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications re Job No. PW-106 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Job No. PW-106, Replace "C" Headworks Conveyor at · Treatment Plant No. 2, authorizing an addition of $1,407.00 to the contract with George and B. Morgan Company, Inc. for miscellaneous items of extra work, and granting a time extension of 41 calendar days for completion of said.additional work, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. PW-106 as complete That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-112, accepting Job No. PW-106, Replace "C" Headworks Conveyor at Treatment Plant No. 2, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate agreement with John Carollo Engineers to conduct a Digester Gas Utilization Study Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee be, and is hereby, authorized to negotiate an agreement with John Carollo Engineers to conduct a Digester Gas Utilization Study '...I for consideration by the Boards. -8- 7/11/84 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Awarding Job No. PW-083 (Rebid) That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-113, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation ~ and awarding contract for Auto Shop Hoist at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-083 (Rebid), to G. E. Jepson Div./Chas. E. Thomas Company in the amount of $15,913.00. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Awarding purchase order contract for Landscape Maintenance re . Specification No. M-015 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the bid tabulation and recommendation for award of a purchase order contract for Landscape Maintenance, Specification No. M-015, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and, FURTHER MOVED: That said purchase order contract be, and is hereby, awarded to Tak Takamine Landscape & Maintenance, for a total annual amount not to exceed $24,400.00 for Plants 1 and 2 and the Seal Beach Pump Station. ALL DISTRICTS Awarding purchase of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, Specification No .• A-120 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the bid tabulation and recommendation re purcha$e of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, Specification No. A-120, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and,· FURTHER MOVED: That said purchase be, and is hereby, awarded to Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company in the amount of $39,331.00 plus tax. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Awarding purchase of Three (3) Four-Wheel Electric Personnel That the bid tabulation and Carriers recommendation re purchase of Thre~ (3) Four-Wheel Electric Personnel Carriers, Specification No. A-121, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and, FURTHER MOVED: That said purchase be, and is hereby, awarded to Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company in the total amount of $9,384.75 plus tax. ALL DISTRICTS Awarding purchase order contract re purchase of 16 Replacement Dresser Couplings for Metering Facilities, Specification No. E-153 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to receive bids and award a purchase order contract to the low bidder for purchase of 16 Replacement Dresser Couplings for Metering Facilities, Specification No. E-153, for an amount not to exceed $12,000.00 plus tax and freight. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive and file Staff Report re Standard Sewage Samplers That the Staff Report dated June 25, 1984, relative to Standard Sewage Samplers for influent and effluent sampling to meet internal operating needs and to comply with EPA's NPDES Permit requirements, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. -9- 7/11/84 ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing Fabrication, Installa- tion and Covering of 16 Standard Sewage Samplers, Job No. PW-113 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby authorize the staff to proceed on a force account basis with Fabrication, Installation and Covering of 16 Standard Sewage Samplers, Job No. PW-113, for a total maximum amount not to exceed $196,400.00. ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing staff to issue a purchase order for Automatic Sampler Pumps, Specification No. E-154 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby authorize the staff to negotiate and issue a purchase order to Randolph Austin Company in an amount not to exceed $28,240.00 plus tax and freight for purchase of 16 Proprietary Model 880 Peristaltic Pumps, Specification No. E-154, for use in Standard Sewage Samplers, Job No. PW-113. ALL DISTRICTS Amending Resolution No. 75-146 apPointing representatives for the Districts to act as agents in small claims court Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-114, amending Resolution No. 75-146, appointing representatives for.the Districts to act .as agents· on their behalf in the small claims court of the West Orange County Judicial District. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Approving assignment of consulting agreements with K.P. Lindstrom & Associates to K.P. Lindstrom, Incorporated Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Assignment of Contract re consulting agreements with K.P. Lindstrom & Associates, providing for assignment of said agreements to K.P. Lindstrom, Incorporated, in form approved by the General Counsel, be, and is hereby, approved and that execution of said Assignment by the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1 is hereby authorized. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and approve written report of the Executive Committee That the written report of the Executive Committee's meeting on June 27, 1984, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. ALL DISTRICTS Staff Report on 1984-85 Budgets The Director of Finance highlighted the comments in the transmittal for the individual Districts' 1984-85 Budgets included in the Executive Conunittee report. DISTRICT 1 Approving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: -10- 7/11/84 District 1 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 $ 5,179,000.00 8,828,000.00 154,000.00 $14,161,000.00 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 2 Approving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: District 2 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 Bond & Interest Fund -1958 $15,401,000.00 48,255,000.00 20,166,000.00 215,693.00 11 499 I 521. 00 $85,537,214.00 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 3 Approving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: District 3 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 & 1958 $13,686,000.00 43,932,000.00 10,476,000.00 964,276.00 $69,058,276.00 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT S Approving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: District 5 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 $ 3,116,000.00 8,694,000.00 297,000.00 45,885.00 $12,152,885.00 -11- :\...;) ;. ...,_;· 7/11/84 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 6 Aperoving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: District 6 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 $ 2,663,000.00 3,590,000.00 402,000.00 69,648.00 $ 6,724,648.00 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 7 ApProving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year . . budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in ~he following amounts: District 7 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 Bond & Interest Fund -1962 Bond & Interest Fund -1970 $ 3,708,000.00 15,351,000.00 7,095,000.00 67,124.00 1,303,452.00 2,011,866.00 $29,536,442.00 FURTHER t«:>VED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 11 Aeproving 1984-85 fiscal year budgets Moved, seconded and unanimously carried by roll call vote: That the District's 1984-85 fiscal year budget be, and is hereby, approved and adopted in the following amounts: District 11 Operating Fund Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund Facilities Revolving Fund Bond & Interest Fund -1951 Bond & Interest Fund -1958 $ 4,205,000.00 7,411,000.00 1,536,000.00 26,550.00 99,413.00 $13,277,963.00 FURTHER MOVED: That said Budgets be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed • -12- 7/11/84 ALL DISTRICTS Review of Districts' policy re identifying and permitting industrial and commercial users being charged unfairly. The Joint Chairman recognized Mr. Richard Friedrich, owner of Brea Coin Laundry, who addressed the Board in connection with the Industrial Waste permit fees which he contended he is Chairman Edgar advised that since April when Mr. Friedrich previously addressed the Board, the staff and Executive Committee have been re-examining the Districts' policy relative to identifying and permitting industrial and commercial users. Be then introduced the Districts' Director of Operations, Blake Anderson, who briefly reviewed the history of the Districts' Industrial waste permit program. In 1950 the Districts adopted their first ordinance for industrial and commercial users. A few revisions were made in the 1960's. In 1970 the Industrial Waste Division was established and the policy of permitting industrial dischargers was instituted. The Districts adopted a new connection and use ordinance in 1976 which set forth regulations and defined user types for the first time. In 1979 the Boards adopted a Revenue Program for recovering charges for the cost of treatment for both residential and commercial users. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires that all user classes pay their proportional share of the treatment costs. In 1983 the connection and use ordinance was revised once again to· comply with governmental regulations. Mr. Anderson stated that the Industrial Waste Division had approached the matter of identifying dischargers and billing for their use in a methodical, systematic manner over the years. He then reviewed the staff report included with the Board members' Executive Committee Report and out~ined the current practices, possible alternatives and recommended course of action which is to continue utilizing a \,.,.) pre-determined water consumption level as the criteria for identifying potential permittees. He also noted that in the 1984-85 budget the Boards had approved a substantial staffing increase that will expedite the process. He further reviewed the lengthy procedure required to determine if an industry is subject to user fees and the appropriate fee to be charged. With the increased staffing, the staff feels confident that all appropriate industries will be identified and permitted within the next few years. Following a general discussion of the alternatives by the Directors, the Joint Chairman observed that the staff would be reporting back to the Executive Committee next year on the status and would also keep other interested parties apprised of the progress. ALL DISTRICTS Convene in closed session re personnel matters ALL DISTRICTS Reconvene in regular session ALL DISTRICTS Approval of Management Performance The Boards of Directors convened in closed session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 at 8:44 p.m. The Boards of Directors reconvened in regular session at 9:07 p.m. It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Review Program That the Management Performance Review Program be, and is hereby, approved, as recommended by the Executive Committee. -13- 7/11/84 ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of Revised Deferred Compensation Program for That the Boards of Directors hereby -..,,,.,;· Management Employees adopt Resolution No. 84-132, approving '..,/ and adopting the revised Def erred Compensation Program for Management Employees, as reconunended by the Executive Committee. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, fixing salary for position of General Manager It was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-133, amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, fixing the salary for the position classification of General Manager. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Establishing the annual Gann aPPropriations limit for fiscal That the following resolutions, year 1984-85 establishing the annual Gann appropriations lim~t for fiscal year 1984-85 in accordance with the provisions of Division 9 of Title 1 of the California.Government Code, be, and are hereby, adopted by the respective Boards of Directors: DIST. NO. RESO. NO. LIMITATION 1 84-115-1 $1,658,694 2 84-116-2 6,897,324 3 84-ll7-3 8,686,347 5 84-118-5 1,786,119 6 84-119-6 1,039,706 7 84-120-7 2,075,088 11 84-121-11 1,825,690 Certified copies of these resolutions are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Receive, file and aPProve Interim ReP9rt of the Building Committee re additional office space requirements filed and approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Interim Report of the Building Committee dated June 28, 1984, relative to additional office space requirements, be, and is hereby, received, ordered Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing Phase I office modif i- cations by force account work That the Boards of Directors hereby authorize Phase I office modifications by force account work and acquisition of equipment in accordance with the -14- 7/11/84 Districts' purchasing procedures, to provide temporary office space in the administration building and Industrial Waste inspectors' office, for a maximum amount not to exceed $52,000.00, plus applicable sales tax and freight. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing purchase order contracts for the purchase of That the staff be, and is hereby, Nine (9) Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley authorized to issue purchase order (Winklepress) Belt Filter Presses and Appurtenances, Specification No. E-152 contracts in the negotiated total amount of $1,920,384.00 plus sales tax for the purchase of Nine (9) Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley (Winklepress) Belt Filter Presses and Appurtenances, Specification No. E-152, to replace existing worn-out and inefficient sludge dewatering equipment at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 as follows: ITEM AMOUNT TO 9 Belt filter presses $1,710,000 plus tax Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley c/o Gierlich-Mitchell, Inc. 9 Control centers 166,500 plus tax · Gierlich-Mitchell, Inc. 9 Spare sets of belts 43,884 plus tax Gierlich-Mitchell,. Inc. ~1,920,384 plus tax ALL DISTRicrs Moved, seconded and duly carried: Awarding Job No. PW-132 to Floyd- Kordick, a Joint Venture That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-131, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Fabrication and Installation of Adaptor Spools for Meter Replacements, Job No. PW-132, to Floyd-Kordick, a Joint Venture, in the amount of $119,631.00, and rescinding Resolution No. 84-84 authorizing the General Manager to award said contract. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Awarding Installation of Pressure Relief Bypass Around 10 Positive Displacement Primary Pumps, Specification No. M-016, to Advanco Constructors, Inc. hereby, received and ordered filed7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the bid tabulation and recommendation re Installation of Pressure Relief Bypass Around 10 Positive Displacement Primary Pumps, Specification No. M-016, be, and is and, FURTHER MOVED: That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to issue a purchase order to Advance Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $15,810.00 for said work to comply with OSHA safety requirements. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then ~ declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:08 p.m., July 11, 1984. -15- 7/11/84 DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of ~ Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:08 p.m., July 11, 1984. DISTRICT 5 Receive, file and approve Staff Report re Proposed sewer service charges for fiscal year 1984-85 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated July 3, 1984, relative to the proposed sewer service charges for fiscal year 1984-85, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving schedule of sewer service charges for 1984-85 That the schedule of sewer service charges for 1984-85 be, and is hereby, approved at the same rates in effect for 1983-84, as follows: CONNECTED WATER METER SIZE l" or less l~". 2" 3n. 4" 6" an 1984-85 ANNUAL CHARGE $ 26.40 52.50 105.00 210.00 420.00 840.00 1,680.00 If a parcel contains more than one water meter, then the charge applicable to each meter shall be added together and the sum levied·against the parcel. MULTI-UNIT PARCELS PER UNIT DISTRICT 5 Directing the County Auditor- Controller to include sewer service charges established by Ordinance No. 513 on the 1984-85 property tax bills 15.85 Moved, seconded and· duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-125-5, directing the County Auditor-Controller to include sewer service charges established by Ordinance No. 513 on the 1984-85 property tax bills. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 5 Receive and file Notice of ApPeal of small claims award re Robert c. Durkee, Case No. 178390 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Notice of Appeal of small claims award to the District for user fee assessments filed on behalf of Robert c. Durkee, Case No. 178390, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and, FURTHER M:>VED: That said Notice of Appeal be referred to the Districts' General -~ counsel for appropriate action. -16- 7/11/84 DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then ~ declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:08 p.m., July ll, 1984. DISTRICT 6 Receive, file and approve Staff Report re proposed sewer service charges for fiscal year 1984-85 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated July 3, 1984, relative to the proposed sewer service charges for fiscal year 1984-85, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving schedule of sewer service charges for 1984-85 That the sewer service charges for 1984-85 be, and are hereby, approved at the same rates in effect for 1983-84, as follows: Class of User Basis of Charge 1984-85 Annual Rate Minimum Annual Charge per Unit Single-Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings/Mobile Homes Commercial/ Industrial/Other (government buildings, utilities, non-profit organizations, etc.) Charge per dwelling unit Charge per dwelling unit Charge per 1000 square feet of building $ 26.40 $ 26.40 15.85 15.85 18.90 18.90 Condominiums: Condominiums are considered single-family dwellings. However, in recognition of the limited potential use of small, convered dwelling units, the owner of a single unit may apply for a reduction of the annual rate from $26.40 to $15.85, provided the unit has less than 11 plumbing fixture units (determined as follows): Single bath with tub, water closet and wash basin Kitchen with sink and/or dishwasher Laundry facilities Fixture Units Assigned by Uniform Building Code 7 fixture units 2 fixture units 2 fixture units 11 fixture units Conunercial/Industrial: To recognize buildings in this classification where the use of the sewer system may not be directly related to the size of the building such as in a warehousing type of use, any owner of a single building may apply for a reduction of the calculated fee to a minimum annual fee of $15.85, provided "'1.1'· said building contains less than 11 plumbing fixture units (as determined above). -17- -...,_;. 7/11/84 DISTRICT 6 Directing the County Auditor- Controller to include sewer service charges established by Ordinance No. 607 on the 1984-85 property tax bills Moved, seconded and duly carried: . That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-126-6, directing the County Auditor-Controller to include sewer service charges 1984-85 hereto established by Ordinance No. 607 on the property tax bills. A certified copy of this resolution is attached and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:08 p.m., July 11, 1984. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:08 p.m., July 11, 1984. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 50 - Casada Annexation That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-122-2, ordering annexation of .55 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road ·in the City of Anaheim, proposed Annexation No. 50 -Casada Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 2 Approving Addenaum No. 1 to the plans and specifications re Contract No. 2-24 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors hereby . approves Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specification for Modifications to ·Carbon Canyon Dam Pump Station, Contract No. 2-24, providing for the addition.of a minimum cover of three feet over conduits and stating that all metal parts shall be hot-dipped galvanized. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Awarding Contract No. 2-24 That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-123-2, to receive and file bid tabulation and reconunendation and awarding contract for Modifications to Carbon Canyon Dam Pump Station, Contract No. 2-24, to Subgrade Construction Corporation in the amount of $138,630.80. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -18- 7/ll/84 DISTRICT 2 Approving agreement with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. re design of the Taft Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 2-6-2, and City of Orange AHFP street improvements AHFP street improvements, be, and is and, Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee certification re final negotiated fee with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. for design of the Taft Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 2-6-2, and City of Orange hereby, received, ordered filed and approved1 FURTHER MOVED: That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-124-2, approving agreement with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. for design of the Taft Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 2-6-2, and City of Orange ABFP street improvements, on an hourly-rate basis plus overhead, direct expenses and profit, for a total amount not to exceed $26,950.00. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Receive, file and aE?prove Interim District 13 Steering Committee Report filed and approved. · DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Receive and file Staff Summary of Engineer's Report and Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report on proposed District No. 13 ordered filed. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Receive, file and approve Engineer's County Sanitation District No. 13 Formation Report Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Interim District 13 Steering Committee Report dated June 28, 1984, be, and is hereby, received, ordered Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Summary of Engineer's Report and Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report on proposed District No. 13 be, and is hereby, received and Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Engineer's County Sanitation District No. 13 Formation Report, prepared by Lowry & Associates, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Approving Formation Schedule re proposed District No. 13 hereby, approved: Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the following Formation Schedule re proposed District No. 13 be, and is Boards receive & file Draft EIR EIR Hearing 7/11/84 8/08/84 8/27/84 9/20/84 EIR Comment Period ends Final EIR mailed to Boards Adopt EIR 10/10/84 ll/07/84 LAFC Hearing DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Receive and file Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of District No. 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of District No. 13, prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc., be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. -19- 7/11/84 DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Authorizing the General Manager to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 accordance with CEQA requirements. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Establishing August 27, 1984 as the final date for conunents on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact re formation of proposed District No. 13 DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Fixing August 8, 1984 as the date for public hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13, in Moved, seconded and duly carried: That August 27, 1984, be, and is hereby, established as the final date for which all comments must be received on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact re formation of proposed District No. 13. Moved, seconded and duly carried: That August 8, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Office, be, and is hereby, fixed as the date, time and place for public hearing on the Draft Foeused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Authorizing District No. 2, on behalf of itself and District No. 7, to adopt a single ordinance fixing fees for proposed District No. 13 and provide record keeping for all DISTRICT 2 First reading of proposed Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby authorize District No. 2, on behalf of itself and District No. 7, to adopt a single ordinance fixing fees for proposed District No. 13 and to collect fees received on account for District No. 13. Moved, seconded and unanimously carri"ed: Ordinance No. 206 That Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area Zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries, be read by title only~ and, FURTHER MOVED: That reading of said entire ordinance be, and is hereby, waived. Following the reading of Ordinance No. 206 by title only, it was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area Zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries, be introduced and passed to the second reading on August 8, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., at the District's administrative office. -20- 7/11/84 DISTRicr 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:12 p.m., July 11, 1984. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 94 - Moody Annexation That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-127-7, ordering annexation of 2.06 acres of territory to the District located on Greenwald Lane in the vicinity of Newport Avenue and Crawford Canyon Road in unincorporated County territory, proposed Annexation No. 94 -Moody Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 105 - Cormier Annexation .That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-128-7, ordering annexation of 1.23 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Lemon Heights Drive and Lacuesta Drive in unincorporated County territory, proposed Annexation No. 10.5 -Cormier Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRie? 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 106 - O'Toole Annexation That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-129-7, ordering annexation of .89 acres.of territory to the District in the vicinity of Overhill Drive and Sirrine Drive in unincorporated County territory, proposed Annexation No. 106 -O'Toole Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Authorizing the General Manager and General Counsel to engage an appraiser for services re obtaining an easement from the county of Orange for the South Irvine Lift Station, Contract No. 7-7 for a maximum amount not to exceed DISTRICT 7 Approving plans and specifications Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the General Manager and General Counsel be, and are hereby, authorized to engage an appraiser for services in connection with obtaining an easement from the County of Orange for the South Irvine Lift Station, Contract No. 7-7, $7,500.00. Moved, seconded and duly carried: re Contract No. 7-8 That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-130-7, approving plans and specifications for the Von Karman Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-8, 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. -21- 7/11/84 DISTRICT 7 Approving Amendment to Agreement with Electrolurgy, Inc. re Industrial Waste Permit No. 7-162 The General Manager reported that the District entered into a Stipulated Agreement with Electrolurgy, Inc. on January 9, 1984, setting forth certain conditions and time limitations to bring the firm into compliance with the District's Industrial waste ordinance and permit requirements by May 31, 1984. Electrolurgy was unable to meet that time frame but has brought their wastewater discharge into compliance with interim permit limits. The firm requested an extension of the deadline for completion of the installation of pretreatment facilities and staff has set forth certain conditions for such an extension which have now been complied with. Mr. Sylvester stated that the Districts' staff, therefore, recommends approval of their request for an extension of time for compliance with the stipulated agreement to August 7th. The Chair then recognized Mr. Eric Eklund, President of Electrolurgy, Inc., who addressed the Board. He expressed his appreciation for the time extension but indicated that he did not believe he should be required to deposit funds to assure compliance with the agreement as requested by staff. The Districts' General Counsel explained that this deposit is not a fee but simply a guarantee because there has been a series of reoccurring failures over the last few years to comply with deadlines set forth in previous agreements. Mr. Woodruff reviewed the terms of the Stipulated Agr~ement whic~ requires that Electrolurgy pay the cost of enforcing said agreement. It was then iooved, seconded and· duly carried_: That the Amendment to the Stipulated Agreement ·with Electrolurgy, Inc. dated January 9, 1984, relative to Industrial waste Permit No. 7-162, extending the date for compliance to Aug~st 7, 1984, be, and is hereby, approved and authorized in form approved by the Districts' General Counsel. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:27 p.m., July 11, 1984. Secretary, Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 -22- •• : I I! ::: ::z::. I 1-.J ::: nit-•[) l\C tJi'Rl{,!.UT NO. r· f. '?" £, '1 l.1 6q4b~ l';(,'14(.f .. ~f.Olf ~ 7 ~· £ c: "f,1- 'l f 04 f•C f!f.';14 7i• !: f ~ ,, 7l '.lf,U'f 72 '."6llt17-:, f· f 9 4 7'• H •; 1• 7!• hf><l4 7'1 ''f..C/4 77 ·)f, r: 11 7fo 'f 'i'• 7 C! ~ ~ '? •t P II ~· ~c 41-1 ( 'i C> 4 J:' 2 !tE-'34 f3 t• 6 C• 4 fllt ''f:<!lfFc; q, c." ff. 1,f Olfft7 '•!.~1tf f: •if,'?4~'? ff. ',;4 C, I.I "~C:4.,1 f'b:1h 02 "~'H1c.~ • (-''" C:lt ,. ~ CJ4 I?". : (~~4 0(, ':(, t. b 0 7 "f, 0 If c; t5 •J• c4 9':l 1· ( c· ~-(' 11 r,,:.ct>f'l I(; <l')fl~! .. f r>r. •;;•. r~c;.~~tllf "l •,c: ! ~ :.11: <: ~ '•e n f. ":,~~ r 7 \'~c'!) '.IP I'(:~ ~. l• c.. ( 9Jq9 -Jl ~JST ~CRKJNG CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/07/84 PAGF FCFCRT HUHO[R Af43 COUNTY fANIT~TION OISTPICTS OF O"ANG[ COUNTY Vf.NCN: A-A~O [L£CTRONICS StlfS 6~C METALS SUPf·L Y t I NC• AG~ ELEtTPONICS, INC. ACTION INST~UMfNTSt INC. f. Jr. 01. lfCR'VI A AIR P~f0UCT5 & CPEMJCALStINr. AM(rJClN SCIENTIFIC FROOUCTS AN~HEI~ SAW SHOP INC. T~f ANCHOR FAC~ING CO. V • H • A t\ C E Fe ::; 0 ~J M~UA B[f\ cc~r-. AP.P.C~-F Is cc, INC. ARqO~HfAD fl£CTRIC COPP. AS$OCJAT[0 LAOOP.ATCRJ[S r ArHl Ci L HI A IJ S 1 I N r. 0 • AUTO~ATEn cteURFlN~ SUPPLY tACH~~A~~ l~ST. CO. 0AKF.1< PLYl.00[ CO., INC. 131ASSf"TT f~USJNF:SS JNTEf\JOJ-S BE~CON ~AY ENT~PF«ISE~, INC. !:! C ~; C. Bf A TT If_ Elf.Vf l' e1r ~0-RE~TAL co. ALACK i rrc~rn ~rG. co. POYL[ L~GI~l[RJNG CORP rRISlOL ~~RK HE~Jf6L GRr •• l~C CPT CALJFCR~IAe INC. r~ co"1r-.\N v CALJF. A~SGC. or SA~. AG[NfJ[S r~M~PILGE FILTfR CO~P. CA~fY SIG~ GR,~H!CS Clt~f.l"'FST JM;llSJHJr:~, Jt..;C. rH~VPON U.S.A •• J~r. CINfJN~ATJ llMl rcUJF •• INC. f.l4QK CYl ~Aoe~ARf COAST Jl\SL~iNcr AGEhCY CCLl PAqMfR IN~TRUMFNT CO. COMNELL CH~VROLET CO"IROCI< C:C'1Pf\NY ro~SfLIDATr~ [L[[TPJC6L OJ$T. COf.PfR E~fPGY rr 0 VlfE~ ( fl ~ ~ff \o ~ Y f. II f 0 R f • CRC~I\ f(I\('[ ~. ~ui:1 t Y Cf;., Jt..C. CAL CC~SOLIPiTFD ~AT~R P,[('l<f.R ?NSTHm'.l:fl;T r.tJPHY cr1. or co CLAJHS PAID P6/l~/A4 Al'OUNT f.">J.56 "796.66 '17~.t'~ Slt942·6ll !~·n.co $lfJ3.~6 $fi.8. (13 !18i).0[1 $877.e.~ ~3~5.l'S i21'6'.Hie56 $47.7') !372.q~· s. !' '1.,, 'I $457.17 B5.l~ s1,427.1p $497.7'; !375e8ft s.s3c.t10· S961J.O(l i3~2.ec Htlf'O.ttO $51.P.7 $6&,2~.~.7~ S26 •.l'(l. S74Sl.03 :J.l :i. 6(· !'lfl:l.~l'I S?.7.~F !4°?.26 $2tl:.'iJ.:J~ i5.tt9.!':~ u.sq.~.~!:. 115~.4~ !175.0(· $'1·"~ \~.'). ~" ua1.u1 $2tqlf6e'~'? $!),,H!:i.E·fi 11 t5'i1,.f1) $t .. 7<;J.r1:? 'Hlf.7f~ $ l '~lF.> 4 ·" 9 .t 1 ::11° • H f ( OESCPIPTION OFF I CE SUPPLIES STEEL STOCK ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES AIR FARE SPECIALTY GASES LAB SUPPLIES TOOL REPAIRS. PUHP PARTS WELDING SUPPLIES CHEMICAL COAGULENTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRIC CART PARTS LAB ANALYSIS TUBING ENGINE PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE OFFICE FURNITURE TRUCK MAINTENANCE CRANE RIGGING CLASSES ELECTRIC CART PARTS -TRASH DISPOSAL TOOLS ENGR. 7-8 PRE· EHPLOYHENT EXAHS WORD PROCESSING MAINTENANCE FREIGHT CASA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FREIGHT SAFETY· SUPPLIES FERRIC CHLORIDE TANK RENTAL ENGINE OIL CONTRACTOR PW-101 SHALL HARDWARE ANNUAL TRAVEL ACCIDENT INSURANCE PREHIUH SAFETY SUPPLIES TRUCK PARTS BUILDING MATERIALS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ENGINE REPAIRS RETENTION PW-104 RETENTION PW-105 WATER SOFTENER RENTAL GAUGES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES • ( • ..... ::: J:> I N ::: ( F llt!l' liC lo.:f,kfiAf.Jl l'l(l. nfO~Jl1 ''69!:-l 1 f;f 9':!;'> "l <: 51?. %C!°')lf f f,Of1 ! c=, rt•-; 516 q,.:'~·17 ·"'!~ c: ~') p. ,· (; C?~· 19 .. f.'.1 f ?~ r-(' .. t,f:?l l•f. ~!-::;i re-c. ~ 2.i. ";(,<:;',;Hf ' (, .... ~:;: ~ '·ft:5H '! c r,:.;7 • (·<JS: 21.! q.<5"~ I f.C ~:.''I ,. f.., !) :ii J I ~· C ~ ~· 2 rlt!r~~. 1, ~ c: '):7 4 ':!: ,, ~1 ~~. ... ( ... ~-,. '!· f, ;' ~-l' ~-... 7 ... t ~ "':~ J\ '·~': "'~~ .: £.C' !1 4 .,: ,., (-.:) !':: 't 1 , ~ 0 ~J '• :' ,:(,Cl!; 4 ... r ~'. c. i: ta 11 ~ i· '.:' ~ "~) ~ v·~qr, "~. c,.,, 7 !6n~t,~ "ff:-~ 1,c; .' ( ~ ~. !--iJ : (. t'; ~~ !'· 1 "f.c.5~;.i 11(,C!"-f.~ ,, f: q!: ~'· ~· f c; !: f· f'l ( ~1°n -JT Dl~l UCRKING C~rlT~L P~OCESSJNE O~Tf ~/P7/A4 PIG~ R£FORT NUr9fP AP4~ COUNTY SAtlJTATION OI~:TtHf.TS OF Ol<f.NCf cou~:TY VE flll:O .. fJ(Lf,fTFLO fJHP. OllSEL CO~TPOL CfiRJ DIGl~Y~L CC~fUl~~ SERVICES f)RJ-HlOf..t HIC. PU,M EOlARrs CORP. OWYt:P INST'~UMP"lt JtJC:. l.O.r..~,I~r.. 6. "•f'• LINDSTROM flM co~~ANY. INC. f.AST~""-• 11\C. OJCHANH:P. INC, ENGl~Ef PS SAL[S-sr~VICE co. FALCCN CISFCSAL ~EPVJC( FCOE~hL [~F~ESS COPF. t-'l~Ctl[P & OORHR co. FROSJ ENGl~f[PING S(RVJC(S CO. CITY Of FULllRTON GMC TRUCK K COACH ~~~AHL lU~eEP CC. E£~[PAL TLlfP~O~E tO. Gl[RLJCP-~ITC~(LL, JNC. t' t\ C H C C ,_. r: A ~~ Y Ht\l~PJN SLlPPLY re. ~AnQJ~~TO~ INOUSTPl~L PL~STJCS ~· I !: Ii H l ~:; ! N? HOU5( PF ~~11rn1rs 1-!Y(lflOTL l\ JN~USTPJAl lHRFAOEO PPO~UCTS H!GI\ t.M F Ar' ER J,STPU~(NT6TION L~DOR~TORY1Irr IHV!~~ INCU~TRl~L LANOSCAr~ PWfflE RAl~rn ~JATf.R l)J~TRICT J~N~E~ TOOLS & ALLOYS ~~~~N BfA~JNGS E SUFPLV Kfll Y ~ 11"'[ CO. kJ~G ~Et~J~~. J~r.. KIRST ru~P t HArHr~r ~ORKS KLrrr1 -l IN£ C.ORP ~or~r~s co •• JN~. L' ~ U~lfORM SLFPtY CO l , n , \.i • ~ • , I '·l C • y.~. I A~f~IF en. L[WCO Cl~ClFIC to. Lif.hlHiG r,1qp1ri1.iTC1r•.S• rnr. LYONE l\T•L sErv~JTYt JNr. flfDl.ArH' fl'~• cr•o~. NI\ T In:~ l ~CI\! IC~ Clll~S PAID 16/13/~lf AMOUNT 14A9.8C' $7~9.'•'' $9614.(l~) H:99.(l:' i1n.n s,r:;q.14 11'\1'.00 t2,56t.l!l 'f.1?3.R'J $3,5l'O.OI) $.l ' 1}/f 2 • ~· 0 H4t761·'~ j.q5. fS t~71.~? ~j(>~.7~. $15~.6~ $7,6'il!.{l2 s,3,qq3.11A s2.5·J6. 7q !· 5 • E> f ~ • 3 I\' ~3111.qe S21l.41 S3t51'.l.J5 i ~'+. B~ J.I+ 1. tq 1!>~3.41 \5~;\.?t' 'tl2't.l);.J u,~;>11.ir; $2,J77.2'i 1,". "r. "'H.7f-: u (I).~~ $ jf. J. "C) l7t3~·~·"r' ll,!:54.7;( '14lA.3t' i.h.Hn.cn: $3,~1~6.'?!t ur,3.4:~ i1.11.1;>.!>!i t If~. (1 e 4 '1 n 1ts. 22 f 1 •• ~.~?.. !! 0 . 1"-3. 7~ ~ ~~. :! • C)9 rJfSCi;"lf'TION HOSE ENGINE REPAIRS HINI COMPUTER HAINTENANCE -ENGINE OIL PAINT SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DEEP OCEAN SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OCEAN MONITORING ENGINE PARTS SLUDGE HAULING DELIVERY SERVICE PIPE SUPPLIES VALVES WATER USEAGE TRUCKS LUMBER/ ODOR CONTROL CHEMICALS TELEPHONE REGULATOR PARTS LAB SUPPllES PIPE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE EMPLOYEE MI LE AGE BATTERIES ENGINE OIL SHALL HARDWARE OFFICE SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WATER USEAGE TOOLS BEARING SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES BEARING SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MATERIALS UNIFORM RENTAL WELDING SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES ELECTRIC CART PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL FREIGHT LAD SUPPLIES ( .. " .. .. 1 ,:1 ! l 'j . ' ~ I VJ ::: ftJNL NO \HPF< ANT r.10. r•f:C1~!:l i;t,c~~7 "'~'J5~El '.1fOC:.~~ t)~9~!. '.l q,c "-f! • 1 ~J Ct!;,:_? r.b g5,,::_:; :'f.Q5(,4 ~·!=·Cl~f !' ,., '?~611:- ~ f-~;~,, ,, ("'~ftp, •16Ci~f,G ~ ( <; f· 7 ~~ ~~ <:!' 71 ~·f~!'-,7? ; •• i:. c, 7 3 ··~ 'J!) 74 :'fCf.7G ··1ic;f 7o q.c:! 77 t:(. r.: "'·7fl ·' 6'" !1 7~ •cc•:!:" t• "l. i;. !" r 1 ~·1.r.~F~ Cf,'-i~i:3 '.f-.0!;-~t· '! :-r,r~ :. (., 0 !~ J.f n,c~~7 :• f.~ ~·CIP. ff c!"•f"-1 ··f:~~~!j :; (· C1 ~Cl] ,. f: ~: ~2 q.c.c~~ I'( <H Q4 r.1.r.~05 I_. f.. cs;;a 0 r,;..c, ~' q7 '1 (· <: ~' r~ t• :J ~· C~'_ ?".: r·r,c.1: 1i'I I' f: '~ (· ( ql~3 -JT nI~T MC~KING CtPJTAL PROCESSING OATl 5/~7/~4 FAG[ ~(PORT NUMBEP AF43 COUNTY ~AfHHTJON C'JSTPICTS. OF ORANGr COUNTY . VCNOOF' tCCIOf~TAL CHEMICAL CO~F. QLV~PIC CH[MJCiL LO. OMICRON MELOIUG SUtPLYt JNC. OP~N~E VALVl & ~ITTI~G CO. COUHY CF CqANGE COU~TY SA~ITATJO~ DISTRICTS OF PF"G INOU~TRJ£S, INC • FACJFJC SAF~TY lOUJPMfNT CO. F'i\CIFIC P.Ell t'APTS Ul\L 11'1 rrr. ~fA~SO~S LAWN~O~f~ CENTCP POW t.L L CC f'PANY r-fRqy [CUJFM(NT CUP.P. JOH PfStCH PJCl<WIC~ FAPfR P~onucrs f'OSH1ASHR •·Arm LO FR H'f? OS r I CE PAJHPCW GJSPOS~L co. HO VALVf cc-., INC. lttf RfGISrER RIC~CROSO~ P L£~CUEF C~. Th~ODOHE RPeJNS Fr.RO ~ AllJCOtJ INC. S~NO DOLLAR ~USJ"ESS FORMS ~A~TA AN~ PJVfR FLOOO YVONf\'~ <:;Ct-~Ae CITY OF SEAL BftCH SF. /!F: S, 110 Er· UCI< f. CO. HIA,..fWCI< surr-t y SMITH ~fP[ ~ SUFPlYt INC SOllHlfP.~ Clll If. ECJ~ON CO. SO. OL. '.:~f. CC. ~OUTMD<N COUNTJrs ()JL co. SCMT SHVfMS Tl-ff. ~UflJ.:l. 1r:u ~Wf.[Tlt.~r.; CO. C~JPLE~ r. T~O~~s THOHiS bPCS. HAPS Jti0"1PSOr~ LACr.un: co. T~n~ TF~PCfAPY SfPVJCES T~A~SA~EPICJ Vll'V-Lt J~C. H. O. fQffiJr.[ lRUCK ~ t.LTO SUPfLY, JNC. THUl:Sflf, fl LAr~s Tllf1[ SA HS ll ~ 1 or-: (; I L CU • Of C /,LI f • CLAIMS PAlO ~6/l~/84 ~Y.OUNT Sf,6?.B.31 UtJ.721.48 ll6Eu3? $277.59 ~76fi.6t> ORANGE COUNTY $3,B28e99 s1.oq9.6:!1 Slii488.8(, $113.52 1788.0J 1-529.ftl'J S61.9l! $3,(.53.!=1 $575.70. $2~·1.65 s2,ooc.oo $3 '.h lO 1334.0!J J.6?..5/f 'tlf05•1 (l .. 12lt836.30 !.37.tH $7!JO.O~ 15::3.6'• $ l '.s I}".~,, t12•Q2 1121~. 711 1887.~{l $q71. :?4 1121.~Q !22•76.S.lf i !·'h5lf7.70 t3l.4'15.35 ~·t :n .6ti ·12. 77(,. ~? .\ ~'1. t'I~ 'tV56 • .!!} $.!_\~.(:, 'tl ,,.E:f.lf~ i.g:J!'l.'i~ 1.lt356.lf!= S132.r'q s.1,q1,.i:a< $ ~ .... 'J q • !'\ (, . tlf!lef-P '-112.)H ( DESCP JPTIOtJ CAUSTIC SODA CHLORINE WELDING SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES PRE EMPLOYMENT EXAHS REPLENISH WORKERS' COMP. FUND PA I NT SUPPLIES SAFETY SUPPL I ES TELEHETER I NG TRUCK PARTS LAWNHOWER SUPPLIES TOOLS ENGINE PARTS ... CWPCA CONFERENCE EXPENSES JANITORIAL SUPPLIES POSTAGE INDUSTRIAL· WASTE SAHPLI NG I CE TRASH DISPOSAL FREIGHT --· ·LEGAL 'ADVERTISING RETENTION 3-21-2R TRUCK PARTS CSDOC #7 MANHOLE REPAIRS OFFICE FORMS ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE EMPLOYEE MILEAGE WATER USEAGE TOOLS SMALL HARDWARE, TOOLS PLUMBING SUPPLIES POWER NATURAL 'GAS DIESEL FUEL EMPLOYEE MILEAGE PUMP PARTS/PAINT SUPPLIES/TOOLS TUBING ELECTRIC HOT OR OFFICE SUPPLIES PA I NT SUPPLIES TEMPORARY HELP ENGINE PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES TRUCK PARTS A IR SAM.PU NG PIPE SUPPLIES GASOLINE ·, 1 ... ( ,,. :::: ):::> I .+:-:::: ( f Ut!IJ t-.0 q}qQ -JT rlST UCRKING CAPllAL ( PROCESSING OAT( 6/07/Blf -P~Gf Rf PORT NUHDfR Af43 6 COUNTY S~HJTATION DISTRICTS OF OR~NGE·COUNTY LJI. P ft " I·; f ~: ll • ;~!)Cf (l~· ·"E. ~. !i3 "(·~ic. r" f•l c !·~·a:. ~1 6 C:· f ,, ,~ ~·c-:=t,t17 1.l6C:.f-~(I ':( c !: ~" 1: f t, ~ 1 •l ,, f. (;,, 11 ucu:: ·~6 c:~ 1~ I• f• (' ()' ~ H· CJ 13 l !~ r f r, l., 1 f, '· !> l.' ~ l 7 ~:, 1:1:-1 ~ YUJOOR UNISTPUl LOS ANGlllS UNITED F~kCfL SfkVJC[ U~ITEC STATES [LfVATOR CORP. V~~ SClfNTTFIC VAll.~Y CITIFS SU~FLY CC. VALVF SERVIC[St l~C. VARfC, INC. VAHIAN/INSTPUMENT ~IVISJON ~-K-M OIVISJON ~AUKFSH~ fNGINE SERVIC[NTER YfSTfR~ µRCCESS OfSIGN, INr. WESTER~ ~JR[ & ALLGYS ~HITE, fl~f & Vl~VllLE WHITNEY HACHIN~RYt INC. THOMAS L. WOODRUFF. INC. GEORG[ YAqOLEY ASSOCJ~TES 2JP TC~POP5PY fFPSONN[L CLAIMS PAID ~6/13/~lf AMOUNT sq~.59 s22.A.1 $127.2!"1 su2.q3 S38.64 '\617.~2 ss;n.o:i1 S2'H.'51J !.3/f'l.23 $le9,!J.5q $?.25.ttr. 1-6'1 :}. :\F- u, ~1n.!;6 Ut!Blf.oR2 Hl,663.)U t2R5el0 S2R7. :J'I TOTAL CLAIMS f'AIO r.6/13/04 t382tlRt.73 SUHHARY_ #1 OPER FUND 82 OPER FUND 113 OPER FUND //3 ACO FUND #5 OPER FUND #6 OPER FUND #7 OPER FUND 17 F/R FUND I 11 OPER FUND 813 ACO FUND #5&6 OPER FUND JT OPER FUND CORF SELF FUNDED LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND SELF FUNDED WORKERS' COHP. INSURANCE FUND JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CLAIHS PAID 06/13/84 ================= AMOUNT $ 127.50 5,117.57 8,246.38 21 ,321.40 321.57 ~0.38 2 t 691 • 7 5 66,233.75 6,913.78. 300.00 23.29 178,530.47 3lt,790.86 76.50 3,828.99· 53,617.54 $ 3 8'2 t 1 8 1 • 73 DESCRIPTION STEEL STOCK DELI VERY SERVI CE PLANT #1 ELEVATOR HAINTENANCE LAB SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS REGULATOR PARTS WELD I NG SUPPLIES DEEP OCEAN S(UDGE DISPOSAL STUDY ENGINE PARTS LEGAL SERVICES PI PE SUPPLIES ·TEMPORARY HELP ( • J • ~ I 1--' :: flltW NO ~JARR/.l\l NG. !:f. ·J~:' ~ r c c:c-~1t (•6Q6~~· ~f C:(: ~.E: (:£,':If ?i1 l 1 f 'lf,,SP. r.f~f~9 f,(.l.1£40 l)f>C:f 41 ((:~if42 (If C:-f 4~ \:f C", E: 4 4 06 '?f '1~1 q,c.f4E· 0(:,C/:47 i 1f Lf-iftt rf,C!f. 4C:. t-6Gf. !)f. :f.t:•ff,J (tf.<; f:,~ 2 f (-, c·. fr.~ ~I(,~ ( ~4 f'f'i6~,5 Cf Cj f•~lf• r:f C.f;~7 rf .. cE:~iH ti l c· I.! Q If-': bE r. -,F:cr,11 •1( '1(·6~ if: 5bf.3 i''-Clf-.l:lf f.f.'iH!:\ rf:Of (:f. f(:.':U,7 ( f, CljS f: ,?. r. b"f f:CJ ;;f. s ,, 70 tf:nl 71 i'.6C(:72 (If c. f 7:. (if._ c;t, 711 . :( f: 7~ lj(; 6 7h II(, ( 77 (lf 6 7f: ( ~Jn~ -JT OJST MCPKJNG CAPJT~L F~OCESSJNG DATE 6/2~/84 PA~[ PFPORT ~UHOEP AF43 CCUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORAMGE COUNTY VEN[; OR AOC LU~OER CORP. AGM fLECTPONICS. I~C. ftLFJ INDUSTRl~L SUPPLY A.~.lJ. AtVANC(O CFFJCE Slf.VJC[S iov1~co CONSTRUCTCPSt JNl. ~LL-~TATE V[HICLrs, INC. ALLIED SUFFLY CO. AMCPTCA~ SCJENTirJr. PRODUCTS 6LtlYTJCAL ~(ASUH[MfNTS TP.[ ~NC~CR FACKJ~G CO. FLA~l F. ANDERSON 1.~ut. l 1 ni cr~p. ACUAllC CENTfR tRCO GLASS & ~lRRCR ARRCW-~tsco. INC. iRlSCJ, INr. ASSCCIATEC CONCR[Tf PROO., INC lSSCCIATf( LtP.OFATORJ(S AU10f'AT£0 CffUR~l~G SUPPLY L-Gtl c. C!f.llTTIE HVC<' FilRLY ~ ASSOCJ~TES. INC. BLU[ OIA~C~L MATERIALS POSS ~tNUFACTURING ro. fjP.Ofik~ HJ!ilRUHOHf. lH[ rURK[ COfPA~Y f!Ullfli ~NGINE£.RJNG, me. C K P ~ECC~OJTJO~ING CO. CK FUMP A~O OE~ATf~ING CORP. CPT CALJFCRNIA• INC. rs rr.t-1P~NY JGHN C~POLLO [~Gl~fFRS Jth~ C:ARCLLC F~GINf[RS ClifVFON U.S.A., INC. CC/.ST FIRE rcul~~[Nl C:Ol'IPUT[H !NAVE C:ONP.OCI< CCf'rANY CONSOLJOAl[O £L£CTFJCIL ~JST. CONSOLJOATEO RE~kOOUCTJO~S CONTJNl~TAL CHEMICAL CC CCO~[R ENERGY Sf PVlC[S CLST~ ~ESA AUTC rARTSt INC • F. l. fOUll[k CPAN[ RfNT~l rou~TON L ASSOCJATfS fAL CO~SCLJfATE~ YATEF •1 CLftJMS PAID 06/27/A4 AMOUNT S2t278e6A 1443.93 !.33c;.14 i5S.5A is1.a:s 1157,876.06 UtH0.76 $33.13 nts.22 U69.3e S265.UQ S'l5eLO i25tni9.E·l H4e00 $21.91 $1'13.42 s21.20 $153.(13 $<MO.JO ~222.(14 U1545.ll0 -!146.5~ $550.00 f.3't7.U5 S-14C.4S .. $890.40 S615.75 $4At 79i.2A S't,880.fJO !24.165.04 $141.i~ Slt1~5.5f... S5til82.'17 $182.78 S.1h278.Ei3 S':193. 77 1111.f.4 sq1.n Ut287.06 Slt'l9l.~f:. $9,r;l9J.50 S.35J.u{I t.su9. ·s6 $'5tllt"..51l :tt ,q~5.;_1a 'j,;. fJ ti. :1 fl. ( [l[SrPJF'TJON LUMBER ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES CONTRACTOR PW-097, P2-25-2 VEHICLE LEASES VALVES LAB SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS CWPCA CONFERENCE EXPENSES CHEMICAL COAGULANTS LAB SUPPLIES GLASS ELECTRICAL. SUPPLIES OFF I CE SUPPLIES BUILDING MATERIALS LAB ANALYSIS WELD I NG SUPPLIES CRANE RIGGING CLASSES ELECTRIC CART PARTS WORKERS' COHP. ADMINISTRATOR BUILDING MATERIALS SAFETY SUPPLIES MAGNETIC FLOW HETER SHALL HARDWARE .. ENGR. P2-2~. VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION HANAGEHENT PROJ. PUHP REPAIRS CONTRACTOR PW-099 WORD PROCESSING SUPPLIES VALVES ENGR. Pl-20, J-15, PZ-25, ENERGY TASK FORCE ENGR. P2-26 GASOLINE, ENGINE OIL FIRE EXTINGUISHER MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES BUILDING MATERIALS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BLUEPRINT REPRODUCTION CHLORINE ENGINE REPAIRS TRUCK PARTS CRANE RENTAL EIR #1,6,7 MASTER PLAN UPDATE WATER SOFTENER RENTAL, RESIN TANK EXCHANGE ( I ~ .. • ::: td I N :: ( FUND NO ~,,. ~ R H! 1 rm • i•656 7q ff,'tf.fl{! lj (•Cf. F,} (f.C;ff12 t•f:Clf,(-3 •!(, rf,lJlf [If'.?(. f: ~; nf.Cf.Af r. f,'-·f fl7 I: l r f Ii P f!6°f l'9 r b:'-i: nc. ~· E-(' {_. ':l t:f (. c ';;! ~,~~I":'~ f f,'-1(.<)4 ~.,.. '.!(; c;~ l'f.. C,f .. ~f, r. f· '<f.: c 7 f.(1': f C:,f' !'.(.Gt:.'?? q.i;.1~c ( £ ~ 7111 '.'16~7tJ; ".(. ,. H:Z. ff:.~ 7i:lf i'( <qni:,. r,f,C:7% f!f,S7H i 6l.. 71lf• £tti'.~ "/0<1 ·~ ( t; 711. 116fl711 f(C71:' l'(: «q J :! IH: c:' 71'1 ~t,r.:71~· f1f:'-'7J(, f?f.0 717 ~n 11s: II,: c"7 l S r.i:.c;.no ·,c,c; 7;~1 rf.0 n2 f1fS723 1,f!S7~t.1 . ( q l'J '? -J T D I S T M 0 R K I NG C 4 F IT Al . . P R.(l CC SS I NG . 0 ~ ff: 612 21 8 4 PA Gr REPORT NUHBE~ AP43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF OP.ANGE °COUNTY V£NOOR C:ATA SOURCES ~ECKER INSTRU~fNT SUPFLY CO. VEC('I Cl~ JMS pA ID_ ll6/_2J/A.i ... _________ . AHOUNT .. $60.IJO $279.85 CESCRIPTJON ENGINEERING PUBLICATION ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ( c OELPHI SY~l[HSt tNt. P,[~-PAF SALES & SEPVJC[ OJESEL I GAS TURBINE PROCRlSS PJP.(CT SAf f TY CO. $5,~~~.q~ S5:J7 • OtJ S1lfJ.f;t3 siso.no H6a.lf7 HINI COHPUTER SUPPORT SERVICES, PROGRAHHING HANHOLE COVERS UUH~~ CIESEL INJECTION ~U~N EOWAROS C&~r. lAsuur.;. ac. ElfCT~lC PACHJNfRY MF~. CO. ENV 1 ROSFH£H CO• F~LCON CISPCSAL SERVICE FISChER ~ PORTlR CP. F I St-~ rn C 0 t\ 1 R 0 l S FISHER sc1rNl1~tc t6. FLAT & VE~TJCAL CC~C~ET[ FOOT~Ill EARDCN £CUIPHCN1 VAL FGl~ & SO~S CITY OF FCU~TAI~ VALLEY DONALD L. FOX f lLLOCIAlfS TH[ FOXOORO COMFANY FRANCE COFIPRESfOR rROOllCT GW ~Al~TE~~NCft INC. CANl-H lllf'HR CO. ~[~-o•-LITE FL~STlfS CORP. G(Nf PAL TELEPHr~r co. fiPAY&AR (Lf.CTRIC CO. JE At~ GP I GG t-illllt INC. fo!P • 11U6 C Ar- F. S. HUGHES co., JN~. flTY Of tiUt\TlNtHCf.; PEAC~t ~UNllNGTCt\ SUPPLY HYOROHX JHO COflPANY ltlrllHRJ/.l ASPttALT Itd:RM• PAFEP. J~vr~E S~[f~IHG SfFVJCr I< t.P L[[ C:Or-'.PANY KAS SAFfTY PROOUCTS ~[fN-KUT ~~RASIVE er. KllCO SAL[S & fNGINfERJNG CO. Kt'll y F' JPE ro. Kf~N(OY/JEt\KS [~fl~fl~S ~JN~ PE~RINGt INC. SlftU?2.46 !.4H2e73 ! ·12'Q ~·25 !277.61 S4t072.0C sia.462. H s2,220.3~ i.~ (!(> •. 9 .. f.\ 1'104.B'f $13(1.00 U't8~12 :f.2ltbi'JR.'t5 S.573.50 s2,1so.oo $1,342 ."83 f·'t57e95 $1l2.8G H!i.3 .5t: tl~3.97 $6,739.lq t.&44. 'IP s::in.so '196.31 $42.lfC $679.91 Sll.~7 $6.6~ $2tl?38.3~ S38.79 S26.ff,. $l,62r;.21 f2lf9.uO sitH.IJ5 $21)4.43 $71'1.9(1 $62.H $367.3q ue,37q.tJ~ i~t7G~.Lt::- ENGINE REPAIRS SAFETY SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS PA I NT SUPPLIES OFF I CE SUPPL i ES ENGINE PARTS EIR #5&6 MASTER PLAN UPDATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL PIPE SUPPLIES REGULATOR PARTS LAB SUPPLiES CORE DR I Lll NG TRUCK PARTS CONTRACTOR PW-109 WATER USEAGE SAFETY CONSULTANT ELECTRiCAL SUPPLIES COMPRESSOR PARTS PUHP PARTS SHALL HARDWARE GLASS TELEPHONE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LE AGE SHALL HARDWARE TRUCK PARTS SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE SMALL HARDWARE LUBRICANTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BUILDING HATERIALS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES PLANT HAINTENANCE PAINT SUPPLIES SAFETY SUPPLIES TOOLS PIPE SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGR. PW-061R-3 BEARING SUPPLIES \' i. ! ! . ii '·'.,, ! '. ... ~ o3 I \.N ::: fut~D f\O \HI~ R A tJT N Ci • '~b972!:• l:f 97?f l)f-.Q71:7 rE-57211 fo(,972'1 1'6773!) ~f.r..n1 fl£:C.B2 J(-.q73,, 1Jh~7.H t f-C: 7"!5 nr:-7:-b 1lr;<q:~7 Hq7~fl (; 6 , .. 7 39 C.6~·Hr1 '1 f:. cq "1 Jf.<; 7't2 j_:f: 47'13 :-t6~7ltlf \Jf'H't~· ~f,':7% 1i(,".l747 f;E c; Hi.: ilf,C:,·74~ nf ::1~c 'iDC:-7~1 (.f; Cl 7~·0::' ('f; q7!j~ :if t:l 7~· 4 f:f-c;J~~. fi~ 970:.L ·~ f "'7'.,, 7 ~·fq71)fl ('f;.C-7t Cl '!(Q7({. "f.gHI ,.-('17f2 r:c ~-1f.:~ :·f<?7f 4 (,f~7E:5 (1f, ~t 7f(· rf.r.. 7f: 7 l'. f. 0 7 f ,, ... £. c:; 7f C, (if~77~ ( 9Jc9 -JT DIST ~CRKING CAPITAL PPOC[SSING PATE 6/22/~4 FAGf R£POR1 NUMBER Af43 3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANG[ COUNTY CLAIMS PAID ~6/27/R4 vrnooR H UIGf.R Sll£l L.&.\ii.S., INC. LA ~nTTE CHEMICAL PPOOUCTS LAURS[~ CCLOR LAR LJG~TING DISTRIOUTOPSt INC. LOCAL AGE~CY FOR~ATJO~ CO~M LOWRY & A~SUCIATES LYC~S l~T'l SEtURITY, INC. M I l TRLCK AOOY ~AC~ TR~CKS, INC. ~crov TRACTO~ ~ f GUJPrENT MCr.t:SSCI\ CHr.ICAL CC. Mcr•ASTER-CARR Sllf-NY co. M(CHtNJCAL nPIVr SYST£HS ~ESA CO~SCLJOATfO ~~T[f ~INF SAFETY APPLltNC[S CO. fJJOUITrkt J~C. MO~TGO~EPY ELEVATOP COMPANY ~OOFE f-~OCUCTS CO. GEOFf:[ & e. MOPGAN co •• JNr. r.OTJCN JNCU5TRJf.St INC. ~Yt~S TIRE SUPFLY NALAP JNOl~TRIFS JHC. NATH & CC. ~ATJO~AL LU~~Er SUFrLY ~[l~ON-CU~N, INC. ClC ICU.TA l CHEf'l J CAL COF.F. OCEAN SALT CO., J~r. GLY~flC C~frICAl CO. COUNTY OF crn~NGr ro. CF CFAtGE-tUnITOR CO~TMOLF COUNTY 5/.NJHTION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ~ACJflC NCeILf OFFICES FACJFlC ~HETY EOlllP~ENT co. HClflf eELL PtLL U£51EPN [UPP. N~CAL & l.ll!Hll6 F':.11rn copr:. FE~MA FURl PROLUCTEt INC. 11 1.P.Clti ff\ H'ROSf 1cr FULSHE£f,[P ~~Ff[PlY INTER~ATJONAL TPUfKS Ttl( ~EGHHR TH~ 11[l:JSTCR Th[ HFLr.:LJC 5Uf'Fl.Y CO. CF CALIF., INC. Rf>.NCF.Ci [LEClRCNTC ~·ROl'llCT~ .. ~. A .. OUNT iitSlfll.:HJ $~12.91 S.21B.lf3 $.H3.97 $2't3.57 $250.uO $555.90 !666.0C $&:12.08 iJ,240.20 S5.~0 $8' 776. 112 i24e.20 $5 7. 51 !6.;)t) S-371.CJ(f S'tt672.95 132S.4B 023.eo $6 • 71 If• (11) $746.49 1.126.34 15/f.57 u,a1s.oo ~.2a~ ... R3 '.f.367.43 $4,A!l6.~b 04 7.63 i20.s:rn.6u $It t 712e72 ; 75 t900 • fJO u.~ou.oc. U"C .52 i'J83.63 i3~q. n Sl.030.36. no,62&.·10 Ut'.P.t.97 u.11~::>.e1 SH.OU 018.00 :i258.lf3 UtH5.H ( S-!l4 'J .5Q t61f. fl!:. :J.18~.fi~ DESCP.lrTION STEEL STOCK WELD I NG SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES FILM PROCESSING ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ANNEXATION 1120 PROCESSING FEE BLUEPRINT REPRODUCTION PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL TRUCK PARTS TRUCK PARTS FREIGHT CHLORINE SHALL HARDWARE PIPE SUPPUES WATER USEAGE SAFETY SUPPLIES CONTROL EQUIPMENT PLANT #2 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE REGULATOR PARTS CONTRACTOR PW-106 HO TOR TRUCK PARTS ENGINE PARTS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SHALL HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CAUSTIC SODA SALT CHLORINE LAB ANALYSIS COYOTE CANYON GATE FEES REPLENISH WORKERS' COHP. FUND TRAILER RENTAL SAFETY SUPPLIES, FIRST AID SUPPLIES TELEMETER I NG ENGINE PARTS CONTRACTOR PW-123, P2-26 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLING ICE PUMP PARTS TRUCK PARTS CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING PIPE SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ( 1 i I I ,• Ii I I I' 'I !• ~ I: ! . ... o3 I .J:::" ::: ( fUfl.D fl.C \! .t.P r• A rn I\: o • l f..9771 11(; '' 172 u6q773 f'f:,cqH tie c;77~ f.E,';77f. IH~<i777 :tf 5 7 71.1 (Jf,9 775 ~fC:.71-'ir rJ i:. c;. "/l: l r•( CJ 7t-12 1:1£ <;7A3 1tf-';7fllf ilf57E5 :,6 q 7r•6 %"1~1 06"7fl' flf, q7 flCI Hc,7qo r·bC. 79 I f,fC:7~2 u.~1~~ M·0 7C:-'1 t·f:':l7S~ •)(:. c. 7c,f: l.f-c. 7r; 1 i~( fl 75il (€,Q7c;q 16C:8('(1 iioCi8('1 i16'H:.u~ 'if~( (13 (l(,C•!I j;lf !il· Gp(;!' lE· •: ~ 11(· 1lt; C: PL 7 ~· (,-:.I: l"if1 !' {: ~-~ tl•j 1.:f..c;~ l Ci •i(:~-1\) 1 0f •;fl J '.? I: t:r:d; } 3 ;l(l LI fl J 4 r.f "P. J !:· Jb~f' lf, ., .... ( 9199 -JT DIST ~CRKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DAT[ 6122/Rq rAGE REPORT NUMBER AP43 " COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUHTY Cl A IM~. ~~ID .. ~~!V /~4 .. ·--· .. VENDOR REYNOLD ~LLMINU~ SUPPLY co. R G £1 B HJ S t fo1 l YE P S POCC0 1 S TRUCK WP[CKIH6 ROSEfWUU, INC. ~ANCCN INC. SANP DOLLAR PUSl~rss fOR~5 S.\~H f.NA CIC:()Gf SA~TA ANA (lfCTRJC MOTO~S ~AR~E~T-~ELC~ SCl(NllflC CC. HAL P.L.ACI< SUA(t'RQ(K SUJ-FL\' SHJTH FJP[ & SUFPLYt INC !OLAR TU~~JNES INTERNATIONAL SO. CObST AIP r.UALlTY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT sour~ COAST OFFICE (GUJP~ENT ~out~ERN.CALJ~. tb1~o~·co. SO. CAL. GAS co. SQUTPCRN COUNTIES OIL CO. SFA~KLETTS P.RINKING WATrR STEfL f 1C~A~fEt INC. sun~ Ct-I[,., CGRP f.UrERil\lEl\CCNT OF ~CCU~E~ts HI£ SUHL I [F'S SY[! R ON • CA S TU ~IJif.IGLll\:E co. TA 'fl OR ·CUl\N THO~ TE~FCR~PY SERVICES TRAVfl PUFFS TRUC~ « AUTO SUPPLY. INC. 1UP.E~Al£S J.G. TUCKER & SOI\, INC. L.S. CCl\TAIHf\ UN11£0 PARCEL SfRVICf UNITED ~lAlfS £~UJP~[Nl CO., JNt. VWP. SCIENTIFIC VALLfY CITIES SUPFLY CO. VALVE & STffL ~UrPLY CO. VCTC flt:Cl-111\f. JOl-lN P. • ii A PU S ~AUK£ShA £NGINF S(~VICfNTfR ~ESMAP MA~JNf £lfCT~ONJCS ~EST CC~ST INSTALLATJOttS ~[STCGAST ~CTOR, J~C. ~f.STlf~(itlOl!S[ fLErTR JC CORP lrllJH, FIH ~ VERVILLE ltt:ROX CORF. Ar40UNT Ut422.22 t.58/t .E-2 $539-.00 $31\9.83 S.bJ0.00 3-453.~8 !::?99.93 $211f26.'IO $28. fjlt ···· ·si45. 75 Sltlf.8.32 . f.672.(>~ $974.23 S5t1H:eUO $81'-7.'tlt i9i , 3~ n ~ 35 -·· U3t70't.16 Sl8t812.81f f055.50 S2t513.54 s1,Jq3.i3 i3oii.ot• Sl1H53.'H U'J't. GC :f.4R•A1 $9(l.9'i !·361). f)(I $517.fJO f.lttl29.90 .. S~t!IC•S.51 Slt:?'t'l.2C $2~3.Clf S3J.75 tf. f\qlf ~ 4~ S.2t265.0A Ut258.~0 ~-3 '~ 'l7 .·2" $5nc.oG $4'l1.'IC $2,llfil.'19 $45~.18 ~itn7.50 :r.1. 1•e 1. Q6 $J 18lf8.A5 $1,:128.l~ .. i3.ilt5.55 O[SCR Jf'T I ON STEEL STOCK PUHP PARTS TRUCK PARTS ENGiNE PARTS CSDOC 17 MANHOLE REPAIRS OFFICE FORHS TRUCK PARTS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIRS LA.B SUPPL I ES PIPE SUPPLIES PAINT SUPPLIES, TOOLS PIPE SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS PERMIT FEES OFFICE FURN~TURE POWER NATURAL GAS DIESEL FUEL BOTTLED WATER STEEL STOCK SOLVENTS FEDERAL REGISTER RENEWAL ENGINE PARTS/TOOLS/SHALL HARDWARE LAB EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRS ELECTRIC CART PARTS TEMPORARY HELP AIR FARE TRUCK PARTS PIPE SUPPLIES HOSE STORAGE DRUH DELIVERY SERVICE COMPRESSOR PARTS LAB SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES VALVES ENGINE REPAIRS ODOR CONSULTANT ENGINE PARTS LAB SUPPLIES FURNITURE REPAIRS PUMP PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DEEP OCEAN SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY ·XEROX REPRODUCTION ( I I i·I .·I •:: j '' . I : I I I I I . I ; i I I . I . ! ; i l 1 11 I!. : I ''• , I 'I .. FUl\l£J f\O 9J9° -Jl CJST UORKIN6 CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/22/8q P~GE PEFORT NUMeER Af q3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE crUNTY ~J1'RRAll.T l\'O. VF:rWCR ,_If. 'JI:' J 7 1IP TEHPORAPY FER~ONNfl CLAIMS PAID 06/27/84 .AMOUNT $131.52 TOTAL r.l~IMS PAIO ~6/27/84 i a 1H , l 2 9. 5 6 ::: b:j I U1 ::: SUMMARY #I OPER FUND Ht ACO FUND /12 OPER FUND #2 F/R FUND #3 OPER FUND 113 F /R FUtrn 115 OPER FUND 86 ACO FUND HJ OPER FUND H7 ACO FUND 811 OPER FUND 1113 ACO FUND 65&6 OPER FUND #5&6 ACO FUND 86&7 OPER FUND JT OPER FUND CORF SELF FUNDED WORKERS' COHP. INSURANCE FUND JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 06/27/81, (' ~. . .. ~ .. ================= AMOUNT $ 3.68 655.05 180.05 If 74. 32 10,65~.75 37. 55 3,041.03 655.05 2,031.52 674.90 696.7/f 812.l,2 ... 2,396.40 i.,012.00 22.87 335,t,17.28 375,3"6.13 2,250.06 61,907.76 $801,329.56 ( orscrHPTION TEMPORARY HELP •1 . ·' -• I) : i I·! . i II • BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ' County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS SUPPLE MENTAL AGENDA ITE MS AUGUS T 8J 1984 -7:30 P.M. Post O ff ice Box 8 127 10844 Elli s Ave nue Fountain Vo ll ey, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AG E NDA DISTRICT 11 (5) (a) Considera tion of motion to r ece i ve and file letter from the City of Huntington Beach appo i nt i ng Rob e rt P. Mandie , J r . as the alternate repr esenta t ive to Ro n Pattinson in Di str ict No . 11 f o r the August 8, 1 984 me eting o n ly DISTRICTS 5 & 6 (22) (a) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committe e cer tification re final negotiated fee with UMA Eng i neering , Inc . for de sign of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No . 5-26 . See page "I" DISTRICT 7 (2) Consideration of Resolution No . 84 -147, approving agreement with UMA Engineering , Inc . for design of Replaceme nt of Lico Force Main , Contract No. 5-26 , on an hourly-rate basis plus overhead , d irec t expenses and p r ofi t, for a total amount not -to exceed $38 ,885.00. See page "II " (32 ) (a ) Consideration of mo t ion authorizing the General Manager to execute an agreement with t h e City of Irvine , in form a pp r oved by the General Counsel , s e tting forth the respec ti ve r e sponsibili t ies of t he District and the City with regard to constructi o n o f Master Plan sewer facilities within the City of Irvine -..;i ! I I 1 : II I II COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 August 3, 1984 TELEPHCN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Subject: Certification of Negotiated Fee for Engineering Services in Connection with Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26 In accordance with the District's procedures for selection of professional engineering services, the Selection Committee has negotiated the following fee with UMA Engineering, Inc. in conjunction with the preparation of plans and specifications for the Replacement of ·Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26. Engineering Services (hourly rates plus overhead@ ·130%), not to exceed Direct Job Expenses at cost, not to exceed Preliminary Surveys, (hourly rates plus· overhead@ 130%), not to exceed Construction Surveys, (hourly rates plus overhead@ 130%), not to exceed Soils Investigation at cost, not to exceed Fixed Profit: Total Contract, not to exceed $16,100.00 1,000.00 7,990.00 7,750.00 2,500.00 3,635.00 $38,885.00 The Selection Committee hereby certifies the above final negotiated fee as reasonable for the services to be performed and that said fee will not result in excessive profits for the consultant. /s/ Evelyn Hart Evelyn Hart, Chairman Di strict No. 5 Selection Committee /s/ James A. Wahner James A. Wahner, Chairman District No. 6 Selection Committee /s/ Thomas M. Dawes Thomas M. Dawes, Deputy Chief Engineer Selection Committee AGENDA ITEM #22CA)(l) -DISTRICTS 5 & 6 II I II \.,,.! RESOLUTION NO. 84-147 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH UMA ENGINEERING, INC. FOR DESIGN OF REPLACEMENT OF LIDO FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH OMA ENGINEERING, INC. FOR DESIGN OF REPLACEMENT OF LIDO FORCE MAIN, CONTRACT NO. 5-26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, s, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County have heretofore adopted a policy establishing proce- dures for the selection of professional engineering and architectural services; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said procedures an agreement has been negotiated with UMA ~ngineering, Inc. for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26; and, WHEREAS, the Selection Committee, established pursuant to said procedures, has certified the final negotiated fee for said services. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement dated August 8, 1984, by and between County Sanitation District No. 5 and OMA Engineering, Inc. for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That payment for said services is hereby authorized in accordance with the provisions set forth in said agreement, as follows: "II-1" AGENDA ITEM #22(A)(2) -DISTRICTS 5 & 6 "11-1" Engineering Services, Direct Labor (hourly rates plus overhead at 130%), not to exceed ••••••••••••••••••••••••• $16,100.00 Direct Job Expenses, at cost not to exceed ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Preliminary Surveys, Direct Labor (hourly rates plus overhead at 130%) not to exceed ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Construction Surveys, Direct Labor (hourly rates plus overhead at 130%) not to exceed ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Soils Investigation, at cost not to exceed ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Fixed Profit •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1,000.00 7,900.00 7,750.00 2,500.00 3,635.00 TOTAL, not to exceed ••••••••••••••• $38,885.00 Section 3. That the.Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5 are hereby authorized ·and directed to execute said agreement, on behalf of itself and as agent ~ for District No. 6, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held August 8, 1984. "Il-2" AGENDA ITEM #22(A)(2) -DISTRICTS 5 & 6 "II-2" NOTICE TO DIRECTORS RE DISTRICT NO . 13 WORKSHOP Several Directors have expressed an interest in touring the proposed District No. 13 area. Staff is arranging for such a tour that would include a review of the formation process, current status and a bus tour of the area to be served. LAFCO has scheduled a hearing on the formation on November 7, 1984 . If you would like to attend, please indicate your preference as to the most convenient time below . The time chosen will be that preferred by the majority of Directors . D D I would like to attend and would find the following most convenient: D D D Thursda y morni ng tour Thursday afternoon tour Saturday morning tour I would not be able to attend Director PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TONIGHT REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN AUGUST 8, 1984 1) PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION TO FOUR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES. 1 WOULD LIKE TO ASK EMPLOYEES DALE SPARKS, STEVE CALDERWOOD, MIKE FREEMAN AND TED MAUTER TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. LAST MONDAY MORNING A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT AT PLANT No. 2 NEARLY RESULTED IN THE DROWNING DEATH OF A CONTRACTOR'S WORKER, THE CONTRACTOR WAS MAKING REPAIRS TO A SEWER CHAMBER THAT HAD BEEN ISOLATED FROM THE REST OF THE PLANT WITH A TEMPORARY SEWER PLUG, THE PLUG FA.ILED AND A WALL OF WATER WASHED THE WORKER SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET DOWN A DRY SEWER CONNECTED TO THE CHAMBER. THE MEN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT QUICKLY EVALUATED THE SITUATION AND TOOK IMMEDIATE ACTION TO CHANGE PUMPING CONDITIONS IN THE PLANT TO DROP THE WATER LEVEL IN THE SEWER, THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKER WAS THEN ABLE TO MAKE HIS WAY BACK OUT OF THE SEWER AND ESCAPE SERIOUS INJU~Y OR DEATH, THEIR ACTION IS VERY COMMENDABLE AND WE'RE PROUD OF THESE EMPLOYEES. JT TOOK TEAM WORK AND QUICK THINKING AND A COMPREHENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR SYSTEM TO AVOID A TRAGIC DEATH, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THESE AWARDS OF COMMENDATION TO: DALE SPARKS STEVE CALDERWOOD MIKE FREEMAN TED MAUTER 2) STATE OF THE DISTRICTS' LETTER. You MAY WISH TO COMMENT ON YOUR "STATE OF THE DISTRICTS" LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH THE AGENDA MATERIAL FOR DIRECTORS AND STAFF (GREEN COPY ATTACHED). 3) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LETTER. You MAY WISH TO COMMENT ON YOUR LETTER REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCING MATTERS (BLUE COPY ATTACHED). 4) GENERAL MANAGER'S ELECTION AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF TRI-TAC. I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT OUR GENERAL MANAGER, WAYNE SYLVESTER, HAS BEEN ELECTED VICE CHAIRMAN OF TRI-TAC. TRI-TAC IS A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH MEETS REGULARLY WITH MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD. EPA REGION IX ALSO PARTICIPATES IN THE MEETINGS •. MEMBERSHIP IS COMPRISED OF REPRESENTATAIVES FROM THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SANITATION AGENCIES, THE CALIFORNIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION AND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. 5) STRINGFELLOW WASTE SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEF THE DIRECTORS ON AN ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, IT WAS INCLUDED AS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM IN THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT WHICH IS TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED LATER IN THE AGENDA. 1 THINK THAT YOU ARE ALL GENERALLY AWARE OF THE STRINGFELLOW '..,.I WASTE DUMP NEAR GLEN AVON IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND THE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATERS WHICH ARE SEEPING FROM THE SITE AND THREATENING THE SANTA ANA RIVER UNDERGROUND WATER BASIN. -2- PRESENTLY, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES IS "-11 PUMPING THE CONTAMINATED WATER FROM THE SITE AND TRUCKING IT TO A CLASS I DUMP NORTH OF SANTA BARBARA. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY COSTLY DISPOSAL METHOD. THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD HAVE DEVELOPED A PL~N WHICH PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY AT STRINGFELLOW TO PRETREAT THE GROUNDWATER WHICH IS BEING EXTRACTED TO STRICT STANDARns AND THEN DISPOSE OF IT INTO SAWPA's SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM WHICH WOULD THEN TRANSPORT IT TO THE DISTRICTS' JOINT WORKS FOR FURTHER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL. SAWPA HAS ISSUED A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION \.._I MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY AND HAD REQUESTED THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL. THE VOLUME IS ESTIMATED TO BE 288,000 GALLONS PER DAY. SAWPA PRESENTLY OWNS AN 8 MGD CAPACITY RIGHT IN THE DISTRICTS' SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR AND THE JOINT TREATMENT WORKS AND HAS A RIGHT TO PURCHASE UP TO 30 MGD UNDER AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 1972. \._I IT IS PARAMOUNT THAT ANY WASTE FROM STRINGFELLOW BE DISPOSED OF IN A TECHNICALLY SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE MANNER. CLEARLY, THIS DETERMINATION IS THE PURVIEW OF THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCIES. INASMUCH AS THE SAME REGULATORY AGENCIES ALSO HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT JURISDICTION OVER OUR DISTRICTS' ACTIVITIES, WE FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEIR SPECIFIC WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL BE -3- OBTAINED BEFORE IT COULD EVEN BE CONSIDERED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OR DISTRICTS' DIRECTORS, ACCORDINGLY, STAFF HAS BEEN ADVISED TO INFORM SAWPA THAT UNTIL THE STATE AND REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARDS, THE STATE AND COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPROVE AND ENDORSE THE PROGRAM AND THE PROPOSED TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESS, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR OUR DISTRICTS TO CONSIDER THEIR REQUEST. As WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED YOU, ANY PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO HAVE TO ASSURE THAT THE TREATED WASTEWATER WOULD BE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE JO--THE DISTRICTS' INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE AND WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT ANY INDUSTRIAL FIRM IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT DISCHARGES WASTEWATER INTO THE DISTRICTS' SYSTEM MUST MEET, 6) COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ~XECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN KEEPING WITH OUR PAST TRADITION, THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST, BUILDING COMMITTEE HOWEVER, THE BUILDING COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 2lsT AT 5: 30 P.M. <You MAY ALSO WISH TO ANNOUNCE THAT YOU HAVE APPOINTED DICK OLSON TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE), -4- SELF.CT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF WE HAVE ALSO TENTATIVELY SET A MEETING OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29TH AT 5:30 P.M. STAFF AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE VENDOR THAT SUBMITTED THE MOST FEASIBLE PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' RFP FOR LONG-TERM SLUDGE DISPOSAL AND HOPE TO HAVE CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS BY THEN. r -~- .• August 2, 1984 TO: All Directors and Staff Members Since my election to a full-year term as Joint Chairman of our Districts, I have analyzed the challenges to be faced. The talents that I possess do not include silver-tongued oratory, so I will not try to impress you with a long-winded speech. However, as a good engineer, it s.eems logical· to me to identify the course I intend to follow during my term in office. This will scope the challenges to be faced and· also serve as ·a checklist to identify accomplishments. As always, the· most demanding challenge of any. organization is its people. The transition trom Fred to Wayne is a major element of our challenge. As we all "...,I ·know, both of these men are hardworking, talented individuals. However, the Boards have also used this time of transition to reorganize the entire management team along more orthodox lines. This move is ideal from the standpoint that no individual loses out. The challenge that this presents is that the growth in.staff, along with the reorganization, opens up opportunities for advancement for a limited· number of individuals. Growth always challenges talented people to grow in personal ability. A major element of this growth is the necessity to maintain engineering vision. Long-term planning for advance engineering has always been a cornerstone of District philosophy. It must continue to be a major element of ~ur activity. We must all support each other to insure. that these organizational changes achieve the goals for which they were created. Major challenges confront us as we deal with various governmental agencies. The imminent granting of the 30l(h) waiver will assure continuity of the treatment program to which we are presently committed. However, the monitoring program will not only be costly but will regularly expose inconsistencies in the scientific community's measurement techniques, and significance of results. We must m~thodically show compliance to the intent of the program at the same time we react to costly elements that serve no valid purpose. This tightrope will be very difficult since normal emotional reaction to any criticism we voice is usually interpreted that we are trying to get out of doing something. We must regularly strive to achieve our standard of excellence so that we can dispel any invalid criticism. -..,,I. ' Page Two August 2, 1984 A similar challenge is forthcoming as we work toward having our ocean sludge disposal research program. The initial acceptance of· our plan by Congressional direction will simply initiate a program which will be subjected to considerable critique. However, our posture in the academic community must be permitted to prevail so that valid scientific data is recorded leading to new environmentally acceptable methods of processin~ and disposing of waste. Expanded problems of sludge disposal are real elements of our continued challenge. The costs of blind-compliance to arbitrary direction are so high that alternatives must be explored. At the same time, we cannot afford to have a commitment which can be proven to degrade our local environment. The compromise which we reach must accommodate all legitimate local environmental concerns and at the same time be economically sound. These tasks will be high on our agenda during coming months. Another political element requiring attention is the formation of Districts 13 and 14. The justification for both of these Districts is the better service to residents than would be provided otherwise. However, complete equity in the · for·mation of these. Districts is esse~tial to their ultimate success·. ·costs can neither be subsidized by other Districts,· nor should the new Districts pay an ·unfair cost. This equity has been achieved in the action· for District. 13·, but we have not yet reached such a detailed conclusion for District 14. Major capital expansion continues to be needed. This is required for increased flows as well as enhancement of our existing system. It is difficult ·to have vision for the future at the same time that we are r~acting to.problems that continue to be thrust upon us •. Our entire technology must be upgraded as we learn more. For example, the more success we achieve in the removal of heavy metals, the less entrapment of odor- causing materials is achieved. The net.result is that a sati~factory odor program of a few years ago is invalidated by the heavy metal removal success of our industrial waste control program. Continued burning of methane in simple engines does not comply with increasing restraints on air pollution problems. Thus, new technologies must be developed iri place of practices which were completely satisfactory a few years ago. If we maintain our standard of excellence, our new method will exploit everything that we have learned and augment it with new techniques which can be easily defended. Throughout this entire process, my personal goal is to insist upon conclusions which can be presented for each task in a clear and concise form so that an average resident of our Districts can understand exactly what we are doing. Through this process, much uninformed criticism can be dispelled. Again, I thank you for permitting me to be a participant in this aqtivity. I pledge to do my very best. Sincerely, µ Richar~ Joint Chairman Di~ector Marvin P. Adler 8957 La Dona Court Fountain Valley, CA 92708 August 1, 1984 Subject : Impact of Redevelopment Agency Financing on County Sanitation Districts Dear Marv: Redevelopment law in the State of California has provided mechanics in recent years to significantly upgrade the infrastructures in many communities . Cities in Orange County have used this vehicle effectively , as evidenced by the fact that over 18 ,000 acres are now within redevelopment agencies. The principal which has been used in the majority of the cities in Orange County has been to utilize the redevelopment funding as a means to enhance revenue streams within the area. Although there are mandates as far as housing dev elopments are concerned, the main thrust has been the improvement of commercial or industrial property since this provides a much more attractive revenue stream . This principal is quite obvious when an analyses of each redevelopment agency project is made. Regardless of the development that was made in each area, such development results in the discharge of waste material to the Sanitation Districts which must be processed and disposed of to conform to all the strict requirements of the EPA and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The pr9blem faced by the Sanitation Districts is that because of the redevelopment agency tax increment financing, the Districts annual cost of services may not be covered by the Districts' frozen share of the ad valorem taxes. It should be noted that capital facilities i mprovements is not at issue. Each development is obliged to pay connection fees for sewer capacity expansion and these fees continue to be adequate. The problem is t he annual cost of o perations and maintenance . The basic question that must be answered by all of us then is, "How should these treatment costs be paid?" An option that is available is to permit a tax pass-through by the redevelopment agency so that the i ncremental tax will auto matically be forwarded to the District for payment of their escalating operating expenses. However, man y o f us who s i t as Directors of redevelopment agencies are quite reluctan~ to do this because it ma y dilute the e ffectiveness of the agency in achieving its stated purpos e. Director Marvin P. Adler Page Two August 1, 1984 As I have studied the issue, it seems to me that as far as commercial and industrial development is concerned, the user fee will be levied automatically by the Districts pursuant to the existing industrial use ordinance . As we gain a more complete identification of high level users the industrial and comme r cial developments will pay their fair share . Since these fees are reduced by the equivalent ad valorem tax which has been paid by the property owner , the tax credit will simply be a little bit less because of the redevelopment agency. This leads to the observation that the real issue is residential development. Significant development of this nature increases waste flow that must be processed by the Districts but does not increase taxes paid to the Districts to cover costs. In these instances, it might be practical to levy a user fee to cover costs. Many Districts already have such a fee and the mechanics of collecting it are already in place . Our Boards have under consideration several options, a summary of which is attached . However, in order to treat this problem in an equitable fashion, it is important to first determine the nature of the development in all cf the affected agencies which necessitates a response from your redevelopment agency . In this response , a detailed summary identifying the separation of projects between residential and commercial/industrial, as well as the impact of the various options, would be quite valuable . This would enable identification of the magnitude of the problem much better than could be done by our Sanitation Districts ' staff . I would appreciate it if you would respond to this problem . The Boards' Fiscal Policy Committee is scheduled to consider this matter at its September meeting and, so, it would be most helpful if I could hear from you by September 1st. Any suggestions of other systems to achieve equitable payment of fees without creating a new bureaucracy would certainly be appreciated also. RBE :dl Enclosure Sincerely, Richard B. Edgar Joint Chairman ALTERNATIVES FOR FUNDING OF DISTRICT SERVICES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS 8/01/84 1. Incremental Tax Pass-Through -Seek a pass-through of incremental tax revenues that accrue to the Redevelopment Agency to cover the Districts' added costs. Our historical share of the ad valorem tax is approximately 3% of the 1% basic levy. This alternative provides for the Agency to "pass-through" to the Districts their historical share (3%) of the incremental tax accruing to the Agency. 2a . User Fee Collected by District on Tax Bill -Establish a zone for the redevelopment agency and levy a use fee to be collected on the property tax bill . 2b. User Fee Collected by Redevelopment Agency -An alternative to 2a . would be for the redevelopment agency to collect a use fee, on behalf of the Districts, and remit the amount to the Districts, keeping 5% to cover their administrative costs~ This method would be similar to the existing agreements providing for the cities to collect the Districts' connection fees. 2c. Commercial/Industrial User Fee Combined with Another Alternative for Residential -For commercial/industrial properties, the Districts could issue a permit under the provisions of the current uniform industrial waste ordinance and levy and collect user fees from those properties where the yearly cost of services provided exceed the annual property tax paid to the Districts. Since the majority of redevelopment projects are commercial/industrial, this option could be utilized for those properties in combination with one of the five other alternatives for residential properties. 3a. Project Life Subsidy -Subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide share of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13 . 3b . Interim Subsidy -As in 3a ., subsidize the added cost of providing service for the redevelopment areas with the District-wide s h are of the ad valorem tax currently apportioned under Proposition 13 only until such time as it is necessary to adopt District-wide user fees. At such time, the adopted fee would also apply to redevelopment properties . MN-5 It should be noted that the options listed above under alternativ e 3 may be in conflict with the Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in compliance with state and federal regulations that provide that all users pay their proportionate share of Districts' costs. MEE TI NG DATE August 8' 1984 ~ ~""' ~ . ~Cl D I ST R I CT l TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 JOINT BOARDS (CRANK),,,,,,,,HANSON,,,,,, ....... ~~~ (MAC ALL!ST~R),BAILEY,,,,,, 0-- (LUXEMBOURGERJ .GR I SET •••••• ~~ (RISNER) I •••• I .BROWNELL •• I I t::--- (KENNEDY),,,,,, SALTARELLI •• ~ s..ut\Ltp.(NEWTON) ••••••• sucK........ --- (WIEDER) ••••••• STANTON ••••• 1'&!!... ____ ....u,__ (NORBY),,,,,,,,CATLIN,,,,,.~ ---- (NELSON),,,,,,,COOPER,, •••• ~:::::: DlSTRICT 2 (PERRY) •••••••• CULVER •••••• ~ (KENNEDY),,,,,,EDGAR,,,,,,,~ ----(MURPHY),,,,,,,WEDAA,,,,,,.~----(SEIDE~),,,,,,.~RESE,,,,,,, ---- (OVERHO~T),,,,,ROTH,,,,,.,,~ ____ :::::: (OAVIS),,,,,,t,GRIFFIN,,,,, -- (NEWTON),,,,,,,BUCK,,,,,,,,~ ____ (LUXEMBOURGERJ,GRISET,,,,,,-rs:;-:::::: (NORBY)' I ••• I •• CATLIN •••••• ~ -== (CRANK) t •• I. I •• HANSON •• I' I I - (NELSONJ ••••• ,.cooPER •••••• ~ -(MAURERJ, •••••• HART •••••••• ~ ---- (LUXEMBOURGERJ.GRISET •••••• ~ ____ :::::: (MAHONEY),,,,,,HOLMBERG,,,,~:::::: (MAHONEY),,,,,,HOLMBERG,,,,~ ____ -(OOLUM),,,,,,,,KAWANAMI11••~ ____ (ODLUM),,,,,,,,KAWANAMI,,,, ____ ~ (PARTJNJ,,,,,,,MULLEN,,,,,,~ ____ (ADLER) t ••• I. ;.NEAL. I ••• ···~--(ADLER) t ••• I ••• NEAL •• I. I I •• ~ -(CULVERJ,,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,, ........-_ ___ (COOPERJ,,,,,,,fH!._St11Q,,,,,,~ _ (BEYER)t•••••••SMITH,,,,,,,~ _ _ (FJNLAYSON),,,,QLSON,,,,,,,~ ____ (WIEDERJ •• I I ••• STANTON. I •• ·~ ----(MAND IC) •••••• PHTHISQN,. ·-=--(CULVER),,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,,~ DISTRICT 3 (HEATHER)t·····PLUMMER ••••• ~- ( OVERHOLT}. I ••• ROTH •••••• I • --v-- (KENNEDY),,,,,,SALTARELLI •• ~ --(PARTIN),,,,,,,MULLEN,,,.,,.~ ____ _ (RISNER)·,. I •• I .BROWNELL •• I·~----- (NORBY), ••••••• CATLIN •••••• ~ ___ ____ (PERRY),,,,,,,,CULVER.,,,,,~ ____ ____ (SEIDE~J,,,,,,,FRESE,,,,,,,-k::: ____ ____ (OAVIS),,,,,,,,GRIFFIN,,,,,~---_ (LUXEMBOURGER),GRISET,.,,,,-'!:::::.. ____ ____ (MAHONEY),,,,,,HOLMBERG,,,,~ __ (ADLER},.i11111NEAL1 •• I····~ --------(cooPERJ ••••••• Jt&Lseu •••••• ~ ___ _ ~FINLAYSON) OLSON, , , , , , -·~ ____ _ l~VERHO~i),,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,~ _____ __ (WIEDER),, ,,,,,STANTON, •• ,.~ ___ ___ (LANDER),,,,,,,SYLVIA,,,, ,,~ _____ (MANOIC),,,,,,,THOMAS,,,,,.~ ____ ____ (SIRIANJJ,,,,,,WEISHAUPT,,,~ ______ __ DISTRICT 5 (MAURER),,,,~,,HART,,,,,,,, ~ ____ ____ (HEATHER) •••••• PLUMMER. Ill.~ --------(WIEDER) ••••••• STANTON, ,,,.~ ____ ___ DISTRICT 6 (SMITH) •• I ••••• WAHNER •• I •• ·~ ----(MAURER) ••••••• HART •••••••• ~ ____ ____ (WIEDER),,,,,,,STANTON,,,,.~ ____ ____ DISTRICT 7 (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,~ ____ ____ (MAURERJ,,,,,,,HART,,,,,,,.~ ____ _ (KENNEDYJ,,,,,,EDGAR,,,, ,,,~ ____ ____ (LUXEMBOURGER),GRISET,,,,,,~ ____ ____ ( ),,,,,,,,SILLS,,,,,,,__a,::::= ____ ___ (wIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,.,,~ ____ ~ (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,~ ____ _ DiSTR ICT 11 ! ) .. I • I ••• s ILLS' • • • • • • :::::: BEYER)t•••••••SMITH,,,,,,.~ ____ WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,,~ (LANDER),,,,,,,SYLVIA,,,,,, :::: (MANDIC),,,,t••THOMAS,,,,,, (GREEN/SM ITH} I • WAHNER. I ••• ·~ - (MURPHY) ••••••• WEOAA. I. 11.. - (SIRIANJ),,,,,,WEISHAUPT,,, · ·:::: OTHERS: SYLVESTER, , .~ _ CLARKE,,,,,, ____ -- DAWES,,,,,,,~ ____ ANDERSON,•··~ ____ BUTLER,,,,,,~ ___ BROWN,,,,,,,~ ____ BAKER,,,,,,.~ __ KYLE,,,,,,,.~ ____ YOUNG,,,,,,, ____ ____ VON LANGEN ~ _____ WINSOR WOODRUFF,.,,~ __ HOHENER,,,,, ____ __ HOWARD,,,,,, ___ ___ HUNT.,, •••••..J::::::. ___ KEITH,,,,,,, ____ ____ KNOPF,,,,,,, _____ __ LE BLANC,,,, LINDSTROM •• ,~:::::: LYNCH,,,,,,, ____ ---- MARTINSON,,, ____ ____ (MAC ALLISTER),SAILEY,,,,,.~ ~~~ (MAND IC) ....... PATTil4S614,, .~~~{4 (WIEDER),,,,,,.STANiON, ,,, ,-4,..,_ _____ _ PEARCE,,,,,, ______ __ ~~~:::~··'l 8/8/84 (ONLY) ~'4~. ~AS\.~ ... ~~ ~.\.ltMa. ~:~ ~' MEETING DATE August 8, 1984 DISTRICT 1 TIM£ 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 {CRANK),,,,,,,,HANSON,,,,,.~ __ (LUXEMSOURGER),GRISET,,,,, , _________ __ (KENNEDY),,,,,,SALTARELLJ,.~ ______ __ (WIEDER),,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, _________ __ DISTRICT 2 (MURPHY),,,,,,,WEDAA, ••••••~ ____ _____ t OVERHOl.,T),,,,,RQTH,,,,,,,,~ __ _ NEWTON),,,,,,,BUCK,,,,,,,,--!:;._ ______ __ NORBY),,,,,,,,CATLIN,,,, ,, ________ ___ (NELSONJ,,,,,t.COOPER,,,,,,~ ____ __ (LUXEMBOURGER) I GR I SET I . I .. ·----(MAHONEY) •••••• HOLMBERG •••• ..J::::::. ____ __ (ODLUM),,,,,,,,KAWANAMl1111_...!:::'.:_ ____ ____ (ADLER)t•••••;,NEAL,,,,,,,,~ __ (CULVERJ,,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,,--t::_ ______ __ (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,~ ___ __ (WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANiON,,,,, _____ ____ DISTRICT 3 (PARTIN),,,,,,,MULLEN,,,,,,~ ____ __ (RISNER),,,,,,,BROWNELL,,,,~ ____ ~-- (NORSY),,,,,,,,CATLIN,,,,,, ________ ____ (PERRY),,,,,,,,CULVER,,,,,,~ ..-...-___ i SEIDElJ,,,,,,,FRESE,,,,,,,~ ____ ____ DAVIS),,,,,,,,GRIFFIN ••• ,,~ ____ ____ LUXEMBOURGERJ .GR I SET I •••• ·-------(MAHONEY),,,,, ,HOLMBERG1111....t:::::... ___ __ (ADLER),,,,,,,,NEAL, ,,,,,,,~ ~ __ (COOPERJ,,,,,,.~EL58tti,,.,,~ ____ ____ !FINLAYSON) . OLSON •• I I I I ,_L_ --OVERHO~T),,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,~ ___ __ WIEDER),,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ______ __ (LANDER) I I. I I I .SYLVIA. I I I I .--r --- (MAND IC) (I. I I. I THOMAS·.-. •• I.~ ------ (SIRIANI)'. I I •• WEISHAUPT •• ,_L_ ------- DISTRICT 5 (MAURER) ( I •• I ' • HART. I I I ' • I • ./ -- ''---::> ( HEATHE~). I I •• I PLUMMER. I I I ,_L --~ (WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, _____ ____ DISTRICT 6 (SMITH),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,--=:::::::. ____ ____ (MAURERJ,,,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,~ ____ ____ (WIEDER),,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, _________ __ DISTRICT 7 (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,~ ____ _ (MAURERJ,,,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,~ ____ ___ (KENNEDYJ,,,,,,EOGAR,,,,,,,~ ______ __ (LUXEMBOURGER),GRISET,,,,,, ____ ___ ( ),,,,,,,,SILLS,,,,,,,~ ____ ____ (WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ____ ____ (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,::iL':: ____ ___ DI STRICT 11 <lMAC AL~I STER) I SA I LEY I. I I. • . --- MAND I c J ........ HTT I t4SeH ••• :z: ____ ___ WIEDER),,,,, ,,STANTON,,,,, ________ ___ 8/8/84 (ONLY) JOINT BOARDS (MAC ALLISTER).BAILEY,·,. I I. -- (RISNER),,, •••• BROWNELL •••• ~ ---- (NEWTON),,,,,,,BUCK, ,,, ,,,,~ ---- (NORBY),,,,,,,,CATLIN,,,,,,~ ---- (NELSON),,,,, ,,COOPER,,,,,,~ ---- (PERRY),,,,, ,,,CULVER,,,,,,____iL'.:_ ---- (KENNEDY),,,,,,EDGAR, ,,,,,.~:::: (SEIDE~),,,,,,.~RESE, ,,, ••• ~ ___ (DAVJS),,,,,,,,GRIFFJN,,,,,~ __ (LUXEMBOURGERJ,GRISET,,,,,, __ (CRANK), ,,,,,,,HANSON,,,,,,~ __ (MAURER) ••••••• HART. II·····------(MAHONEY) •••••• HOLMBERG •••• ~ ____ (ODLUM),,,,,,,,KAWANAHI,,,,..i:::::.__ ___ (PARTINJ,,,,,,,HULLEN,,,,,,~ ---- (ADLER)('' ,,,,,NEAL.,,,,,,,~ ____ (COOPERJ,,,,,,,NELSON,,,,,,....:.....,_ ___ (FINLAYSON),,,,QLSON,,,,, •• ~ ___ (MAND I c) •••••• PATT HISQH' I .~ -- (CUL VER) ••••••• PERRY ••••••• ~ ___ (HEATHER),,,,,,PLUMMER,,,,,~ ____ (OVERHOLT),,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,~ ____ (KENNEDY),,,,,,SALTARELLI •• ~ ( ),,,,,,,,SILLS,,,,,,,~:::: (BEYER)t••••••1SMITH,,,,,,,~ ____ (WIEDERJ,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,, ____ (LANDER),,,,,,,SYLVJA,,,,,,~ ____ (MANDIC),,,,,,,THOHAS,,,,,,:::;;z: ____ {GREENISH ITH) .. WAHNER I •• I •• ~ (MURPHY),,,,,,,WEDAA,,,,,,,~ ---- (SIRIANI),,,,,,WEISHAUPT, •• ~:::: STAFF: OTHERS: SYLVESTER I I • r;: .... __ CLARKE,,,,,, ____ ____ DAWES,,,,,,,~ ____ ANDERSON,,,,~ ____ BUTLER,,,,,,~ ____ BROWN,,,,,,,~ __ __ BAKER,,,,,,,-t::::_ ____ KYLE,,,,,,,,....=:::: ____ YOUNG,,,,,,,~ ____ VON LANGEN ......c::_ _____ WINSOR -v' _ WOODRUFF •••• ~ ___ HOHENER,,,,, ____ ____ HOWARD,,,,,, ____ _ HUNT,,,,,,,,~ ____ KEITH,,,,,,, ____ ____ KNOPF,,,,,,, ____ ---- LE BLANC •• I I LINDSTROM.,,~:::: LYNCH,,,,,,, ____ ____ MARTINSON. I·---PEARCE,,,,,, ____ ____ \t./ : /j fiv / ~J~ AUGUST 8, 1984 JOINT MEETING NOTES t4 -Recognition of persons Joint Chairman Edgar recognized David Blazer who indicated he wished to address the Board with regard to the Industrial Waste program. The Chairman said he would be heard under item 115. t7(a) -Report of the Joint Chairman (1) Chairman Edgar recognized employees Dale Sparks, Steve Calderwood, Mike Freeman and Ted Mauter and asked them to come forward. He then advised the Directors that last Monday morning a construction accident at Plant No. 2 nearly resulted in the drowning death of a contractor's worker. The contractor was making repairs to· a sewer chamber that had been isolated from the rest of the Plant with a temporary sewer plug. The plug failed and a wall of water washed the worker several hundred feet down a dry sewer connected to the chamber. These employees quickly evaluated the situation and took immediate action to change pumping conditions in the Plant to drop the water level in the sewer. The contractor's worker was then able to make his way back out of the sewer and escape serious injury or death. He stated that their action was very commendable and we're proud of these employees. It took team work and quick thinking and a comprehensive knowledge of our system to avoid a tragic death. On behalf of the Boards of Directors, Chairman Edgar presented awards of commendation to these four employees. (2) Chairman Edgar referred to the two letters he recently sent to Directors relative to the "state of the Districts" and relative to redevelopment projects. He urged Directors to get responses from their agencies with regard to the redevelopment letter. (3) Mr. Edgar then stated that he was pleased to announce that our Assistant General Manager, Wayne Sylvester, has been elected Vice Chairman of Tri-Tac. Tri-Tac is a technical advisory committee which meets regularly with members and staff of the State Water Resources Control Board. EPA Region IX also participates in the meetings. Membership is comprised of representatives from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, California Water Pollution Control Association and the League of California Cities. (4) The Joint Chairman then briefed the Directors on an item that was discussed at the Executive Committee meeting two weeks ago with regard to the Stringfellow waste site. It was included as an informational item in the Committee's report which is to be received and filed later in the agenda. He commented that he thought the Directors were all aware of the Stringfellow Waste Dump near Glen Avon in Riverside County, and the contaminated groundwaters which are seeping from the site and threatening the Santa Ana River underground water basin. Presently, the California Department of Health Services is pumping the contaminated water from the site and trucking it to a Class I dump north of Santa Barbara. This is an extremely costly disposal method. The State Department of Health Services, in conjunction with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have developed a plan which proposes to construct a facility at Stringfellow to pretreat the groundwater which is being extracted to meet strict standards and then dispose of it into SAWPA's Santa Ana River Interceptor system which would then transport it to the Districts' joint works for further treatment and disposal. SAWPA has issued a request for proposals for the design, construction, management and operation of the proposed facility and had requested the Executive Committee's consideration of the proposal. The volume is estimated to be 288,000 gallons per day. SAWPA presently owns 8 MGD capacity rights in the Districts' Santa Ana River Interceptor and the joint treatment works and has a right to purchase up to 30 MGD under an agreement that was entered into in 1972. ~ Mr. Edgar stated that it is paramount that any waste from Stringfellow be disposed of in a technically sound and environmentally safe manner. Clearly, this determination is the purview of the appropriate Federal, State and local regulatory agencies. Inasmuch as the same regulatory agencies also have direct or indirect jurisdiction over our Districts' activities, we feel that it is necessary that their specific written approval of the the proposal be obtained before it could even be considered by the Executive Committee or Districts' Directors. Accordingly, staff has been advised to inform SAWPA that until the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards, the State and County of Orange Health Departments and the EPA approve and endorse the program and the proposed treatment and disposal process, it would be inappropriate for our Districts to consider their request. As previously stated, any proposal would also have to assure that the treated wastewater would be in strict compliance to the Districts' Industrial Waste Ordinance and would have to meet the same requirements that any industrial firm in Orange Counti that discharges wastewater into the Districts' system must meet. (6) Re Committee Meetings. The Joint Chairman advised that in keeping with our past tradition, there is no Executive Committee meeting scheduled during the month of August. Chairman Edgar asked Director Dick Olson to serve on the Building Committee and he accepted. He then called a meeting of the Building Committee for Tuesday, August 21st at 5:30 p.m. (The meeting was later changed to Wednesday, August 22nd). Mr. Edgar tentatively set a meeting of the Select Committee to Advise the Staff for August 29th. The Committee suggested that Wednesday, September 5th would be be better; therefore, Sept. 5th at 5:30 p.m. was established as the tentative date for said Committee meeting. He advised that the staff and General Counsel are in the process of attempting to negotiate an agreement with the vendor that submitted the most feasible proposal in response to the Districts' RFP for long-term sludge disposal and hope to have concluded negotiations by that meeting date. !7(b) -Report of the General Manager The General Manager reported that with regard to the 30l(h) waiver, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has approved the waiver and it is in the hands of EPA's Washington headquarters for approval. It is going through the Office of Research and Development this week and then will be reviewed by EPA's field offices. Hopefully, it will be returned by the end of this month. There will then be a 33-day waiting period. So far the vibrations are still positive. Mr . Sylvester indicated that last month he reported that the House had adopted their version of the 1984 Clean Water Act Amendments in mid-June. Because the Subcommittee hadn't negotiated yet with one last environmental group, we weren't able to submit our amendment. We are hopeful that we can get a provision placed in the Senate's Bill relative to the Districts' Deep Ocean Sludge Dispoal Research Project when they take it up. Congress will be adjourning until after Labor Day and the Senate is not expected to take any action until after they return. There is only a 50/50 chance. The General Manager then reported that District 5 had a sewer failure a week ago on Sunday, July 1st. A 50-year old sewer running down Balboa Peninsula failed. Crews responded rapidly and we were able to get a bypass installed. Lost only 10,000-20,000 gallons of water. It was an old deteriorated pipe. Once we uncovered the section where the break was, we decided to replace the full 400 ft. section of pressure line. District 5 approved a major rehabilitation program about 3 y e ars ago. The proj e ct to rehabilitate the line in the Pe ninsula was sche duled for 1986. Priority was given to the backbone system in -2- Coast Highway which was the most critical. Chairman of District 5 throughout the week. $40,000 for this repair work. We were in communication with the We are requesting authority for Mr. Sylvester then briefly reported on the Supplemental Agenda item under District 7 requesting authority for the General Manager to enter into an agreement with the City of Irvine. We are presently out to bid for a contract to install the first of several Master Plan sewers. This is in von Karman Avenue. We have been working with the City during the de s ign phase of this facility to coordinate the construction. The City has asked us to enter into an agreement to set forth responsibilities re lines to be built over the next several y ears. He then referred to a pink form in the Directors folders and advised that several Directors had requested that we arrange a tour of the District 13 area. Staff is putting ·together a workshop where they would brief the Directors on the background of District 13 and take a bus tour of the area . LAFCO will hear the Districts' proposal to form the District on November 7th. He asked the Directors to check the appropriate blocks indicating their preference for a date or if they could not attend. Will inform Directors when this will be. i7(c) -Report of the General Counsel Tom Woodruff said he had no specific report but would answer any questions on the District 3 item relative to the claim for damages from the City of Fountain valley. We took the claim to the Ex ecutive Committee because of the uniqueness of the facts relative to the claim for damages to a local sewer. The Executive Committee recommended resolution of claim by payment. There were no questions . f 15 ALL DISTRICTS Other Business Joint Chairman Edgar recognized Mr. David Blazer who operates a laundermat in Fountain Valley. Mr. Blazer addressed the Board and stated that he felt that ad valorem taxes should be sufficient to pay for small water users like his customers. Said it was his contention that he provides an alternate place for his customers to put their wastewater. Said the laundermat doesn't generate any additional wastewater other than what the customers would have processed at home. Ad valorem taxes are pafd. by each individual customer. Said we are charging customers at home and then charging again at the laundermat. Are paying twice. Chairman Edgar stated that the Districts addressed this subject in much detail last month. Over the recent years we have been mandated by EPA to fairly apportion the cost of all sewers. We started out with heavy users and have gone down to 750,000 gallon users. Each individual that uses that amount of water is analyzed on an individual bas is and the ad valorem taxes they are paying are considered. This has been discussed very thoroughly . Cooper added that one difference here is that he is a profit-making organization and the homeowner is not. Blake Anderson then explained that as part of the entire user base there is a large number of service-related firms (car washes, laundermats, restaurants, schools, etc .) that take a part of the load that normally comes from home dwellings. We try to spread out the base and try to recover or normalize the user charge across the user base. Director Smith added that EPA and others are pressuring the Districts to have those that use it, pay for it. Hanson stated that only taxpayers pay ad valorem taxes. Asked how many of those that use laundermats are taxpayers? Hanson added that most of them are us ually not homeowners. -3- Director Sylvia suggested that Mr. Blazer submit his contentions in writing and the staff will respond and put this matter on the next agenda. It was so MOVED and SECONDED. Tom Woodruff pointed out that Federal law specifically mandated this District to adopt a Revenue Program. It was reviewed and approved a number of years ago. It requires that we establish an equitable system among classes of users--residential and commercial. If we don't charge the commercial user, then the charge to the residential user would be very high . They have to be proportioned among the classes. The issue has been squarely raised after Prop 13 generated a fundamental inequity. No system is perfect but we do know that it has been tested and it has been mandated by Federal law and the Supreme Court has said that it is valid. The Joint Chairman then reiterated that a motion had been made and seconded to have Mr . Blazer submit a written complaint and the staff would then report on this matter at the next meeting . He added to Mr. Blazer that he may not be happy with what we do but we want him to understand why we are doing it . VOICE VOTE on motion. MOTION CARRIED. f 28 -DISTRICTS 2 & 7 (a) (2) Cecil Sterling from Ultrasystems, Inc., EIR consultant addressed the Boards. He reported that the staff prepared an Initial Study that indicated no significant further action was required except maybe in the area of land use and population, so a focused EIR should be prepared. The conclusion of the analysis with regard to this focused EIR is that there are no unavoidable adverse impacts and no adverse impacts in any way. (a) (3) Hilary Baker advised that a couple of cities indicated they had no comment on the Draft EIR. The Water District asked that a couple of flow meters be corrected which has been done . No other written comments . -4- • • COUNn SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, ~, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 ·OF ORANGE coum, CAUFORNIA . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 011 AUGUST BJ 1984 ADMINISTRATIY,E OFFICES 10844 ELLIS A VENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, was held on August 8, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos •. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 ~ 11 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 1: _!__Robert Hanson, Chairman _orma Crank _!__Dan Griset, Chairman pro tem ____ Robert Luxembourger _!__Don Saltarelli ___ Ursula Kennedy _!__Roger s tan ton ____ Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 2: _!__Henry Wedaa, Chairman _Todd Murphy _!__Don Roth, Chairman pro tem ____ E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. 'i ~ x Richard Buck Arthur Newton a Buck Catlin Chris Norby .. _!__Sam Cooper ____ carrey Nelson _!__Dan Griset ____ Robert Luxembourger _!__John Holmberg _Bill Mahoney _!__Carol Kawanami _William Odlwn x James Neal __ Marvin P. Adler x Bob Perry ____ Norman Culver _!__Don .Smith _Gene Beyer _!__Roger Stanton _...__Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 3: _!__Don Roth, Chairman · E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. ----. _!__Gerald Mullen, Chairman pro tem __ Richard Partin x Oscar Brownell _Joyce Risner a Buck Catlin _Chris Norby ~ _!__Norman Culver _Bob Perry _!__Henry Frese Norma Seidel x Don Griff in Jesse Davis a Dan Griset _Robert LuxembOurger _!__John Holmberg ___ Bill Mahoney _!__James Neal ----.Marvin P. Adler ____ earrey Nelson ..lL_Sam Cooper _!__Richard Olson ___ Bruce Finlayson _!__Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder _!__Charles Sylvia ----David Lander _!__John A. Thomas -Robert P. Mandie, Jr. _!__Martha Weishaupt Jean Siriani DISTRICT NO. 5: _!__Evelyn Bart, Chairman ____ Philip Maurer __ x_Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem ____ Jacqueline Heather _!__Roger ~tanton ____ Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 6: _!__James Wahner, Chairman s teven Smith _!__Evelyn Bart, Chairman pro tem Philip Maurer _!__Roger Stan ton ___ Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 7: _x_Don Smith, Chairman _Gene Beyer _!__Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem ____ Philip Maurer _!__Richard Edgar ____ Ursula Kennedy a Dan Griset ____ Robert Luxembourger x David Sills __ a_Roger Stanton ____ Harriett Wieder \.,.I _!__James Wahner _Harry Green DISTRICT NO. 11: __ a_Ruth Bailey, Chairman Don MacAllister ___ Ron Pattinson -X--Robert Mandie _!__Roger Stan ton Harriett Wieder -2- 8/08/84 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PmsENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita Brown, Board Secretary, William H. Butler, William N. Clarke, Thomas M. Dawes, Blake Anderson, Hilary Baker, Penny Kyle, Ray Young, Richard von Langen, Chuck Winsor Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Suzanne Atkins, Harvey Hunt, Kris Lindstrom, Cecil Sterling, Dale Sparks, Steve Calderwood, Mike Freeman, Ted Mauter, Mr. & Mrs. David Blaser * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 1 This 8th day of August, 1984, at 7:30 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary p.m., being the time and place for the Regular Meeting of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, and there not being a quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 1 was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary. DISTRICT 11 This 8th day of August, 1984, at 7:30 Adjournment of meeting by Secretary p.m., being the time and place for the . Regular Meeting of County Sanitation ·District No. 11 of Orange County, California, and there not being a· quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 11 was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary. DISTRICT 2 There being no corrections or amendments .-- Approval of .Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting \...) held July 11, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 3 Approval of Minutes There being no corrections or amendments to the minutes ·of the regular meeting held July 11, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 5 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held July 11, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 6 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held July 11, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 7 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held July 11, 1984, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. -3- 8/08/84 DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Presentation of Awards of Conunenda- tion to Districts' Employees for lifesaving actions prompt action at Treatment Plant No. injury or possible drowning death of Joint Chairman Edgar presented awards of commendation to Districts' employees Dale Sparks, Steve Calderwood, Mike Freeman and Ted Mauter in recognition of their teamwork, quick thinking and 2 on August 6th which prevented serious a contractor's employee. Chairman Edgar explained that a temporary sewer plug failed and a wall of water washed the worker several hundred feet down a dry sewer. These employees quickly evaluated the situation and took inunediate action to change the pumping conditions in the Plant to drop the water level in the sewer which allowed the worker to make his way out. The Joint Chairman expressed the Boards' sincere appreciation to these employees for their commendable action. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Joint Chairman Edgar commented on a Report of the Joint Chairman letter he previously mailed to all •· Directors with regard to the impact on the Districts of Redevelopment Agency projects within the various cities. He asked that each Director urge their city to respond to his letter in order that the Boards' Fiscal Policy Committee may have the information necessary to consider the alternatives for funding of District services to redevelopment project areas at its September meeting. The Chairman also commented briefly on a separate "State of the Districts" letter that he.had mailed to each Board Member. The Joint Chairman then repc)rted that he was pleased to·announce that the Districts' General Manager, Wayne Sylvester, had been elected Vice Chairman of Tri-Tac. Tri-Tac is a technical advisory conunittee which meets regularly with members and staff of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency,_ Region IX. Membership of Tri-Tac is comprised of representatives from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), California Water Pollution Control Association (CWPCA) and the League of California Cities. The Joint Chairman announced that there would be no Executive Committee meeting during the month of August. Mr. Edgar then reported that the Building Committee would meet Tuesday, August 21, at 5:30 p.m. He then announced that he had appointed Director Dick Olson to serve on the Committee to replace retiring Director Finlayson. The Joint Chairman also advised that a meeting of the Select Committee to Advise the Staff had been tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, September 5, at 5:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Report on Proposed Plan re Treat- ment and Dispgsal of Stringfellow Wastes Joint Chairman Edgar briefed Directors on the joint proposal of the State Department of Health Services, the Santa Ana Watershed.Project Authority (SAWPA), the Environmental Protection Agency and the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards in connection with the Stringfellow waste dump located near Glen Avon in Riverside County. He commented that he thought the Directors were all aware of the Stringfellow Waste Dump near Glen Avon in Riverside County, and the contaminated groundwaters which are seeping from the site and threatening the Santa Ana River underground water basin. Presently, the California Department of Health Services is pumping the contaminated water from the site and trucking it to a Class I dump north of Santa -4- 8/08/84 Barbara which is an extremely costly disposal method. The matter was discussed by the Executive Committee at their July meeting and it was included as an informational item in the Committee's report to be received and filed as an agenda action. The State Department of Health Services, in conjunction with the Santa Ana watershed Project Authority, the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have developed a plan which proposes to construct a facility at Stringfellow to pretreat the groundwater which is being extracted to meet strict standards and then dispose of it into SAWPA's Santa Ana River Interceptor system which would then transport it to the Districts' joint works for further treatment and disposal. SAWPA has issued a request for proposals for the design, construction management and operation of the proposed facility and had requested the Executive Committee's consideration of the proposal. The volume is estimated to be 288,000 gallons per day. SAWPA presently owns 30 MGD capacity rights in the Districts' Santa Ana River Interceptor and the joint treatment works under a 1972 agreement. Mr. Edgar stated that it is paramount that any waste from Stringfellow be disposed of in a technically sound and environmentally safe manner. Clearly, this determination is the purview of the appropriate Federal, State and local regulatory agencies. Inasmuch as the same regulatory agencies also have direct or indirect jurisdiction over our Districts• activities, the Committee believes that it is necessary that their specific written approval of the the proposal be obtained before it could even be considered by the Executive Committee or 'Districts' Directors. As previously stated, any proposal would also have to assure that the treated wastewater would be in strict compliance with the Districts' Industrial Waste Ordinance and would have to meet the same requirements that any industrial firm in Orange County that discharges wastewater into the Districts' system must meet. Chairman Edgar added that the Executive Committee had directed staff to inform SAWPA that until the State and Regional water Resources Control Boards, the State and County of Orange Health Departments and the EPA approve and endorse the program and the proposed treatment and disposal process, it would be inappropriate for our Districts to consider their request. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Report of the General Manager· The General Manager reported on the status of the Districts• application for 30l(h) Waiver/NPD~ Permit presently under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the Districts• NPDES Permit at their meeting on July 13. The permit/waiver has now been forwarded to EPA's headquarters in Washington for review and approval. Joint signature by EPA Region IX and the Regional Water Quality Control Board is scheduled by the end of August, _ after which there is a -33-day public notice period, making the effective date of their permit on or about October 1. Mr. Sylvester briefly reported on the status of the Districts' proposed Deep Ocean Sludge Disposal Research Project. The staff and the Districts' Special Washington, D.C. Counsel are attempting to include a provision in the 1984 Clean water Act Amendments which would grant the EPA Administrator, with the advice of the Administrator of NOAA, authority to approve this research project. As previously reported, the House version of the 1984 Amendments does not include the provision. It is hoped that if the Senate moves a bill this year the language can be included. Congress is now in recess until after Labor Day. '-1) -s- .. 8/08/84 The General Manager then reported that District 5 had experienced a sewer failure on Sunday, July 1st, in a SO-year old Balboa Peninsula Sewer. Crews responded rapidly and were able to inunediately install a bypass. Once the break was uncovered and the damage evaluated, it was determined that the full ~00-foot section of pressure line should be replaced. Mr. Sylvester noted that District 5 began a rehabilitation program about three years ago but priority was given to the backbone system in Coast Highway which was the most critical. Rehabilitation of this sewer line in the Peninsula was scheduled for 1986. He stated that the staff was requesting authority on the Supplemental Agenda for payment of the emergency repairs and replacement of the pressure line in an amount not to exceed $40,000. Mr. Sylvester also briefly reported on a District 7 Supplemental Agenda item requesting authority for the General Manager to enter into an agreement with the City of Irvine, setting forth the respective responsibilities of the District and the City with regard to construction of Master Plan sewer facilities within the City of Irvine over the next several years. The General Manager announced that at the request of several Directors, the staff was arranging a workshop to review the background of the formation of District No. 13 and a tour of the area to be included in the new District. He asked that the Directors complete the form included in their meeting folders indicating whet~er they will be attending this workshop and their preferred weekday. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ratification of payment of Joint and Individual District Claims That payment of Joint and individual District claims set forth on pages "A" and "B~, attached hereto and made· a part of these minutes, and swmnarized below, be, and is hereby, ratified by the respective Boards in the amounts so indicated. ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - Joint· working Capital Fund Self-Funded Insurance Funds DISTRicT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. s DISTRICT NO • 6 DISTRICT NO. 7 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT DISTRICTS NOS • 6 & 7 .JOINT DISTRICTS 2r: 3r: Sr: 6 & 7 Approving Change Order A to Purchase Order No. 15223 to Ponton Industriesr: Inc. re additional engineering design services 7/11/84" 7/25/84 $363,322.92 $324,002.02 247,838.94 103,400.23 71,142.49 50,839.04 16,846.50 798.30 14,636.72 48,419.44 3,007.90 311.96 37,432.02 20.38 116.36 2,801.32 16,891.22 815.05 2,416.33 3r;048.24 $738,519.04 i569r;588.34 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue Change Order A to Purchase Order No. 15223 to Ponton Industries, Inc. for purchase of -6- 8/08/84 Influent Magnetic Replacement Flow Meters, Specification No. E-142, increasing the total amount by $715 from $119,022.00 to $119,737.00 for additional engineering design services for the metering transition equipment on the interplant influent interceptor. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications re Job No. PW-112 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, for an addition of $609.43 to the contract with Frank Ultimo & Sons for miscellaneous modifications and additional work be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. PW-112 as complete That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-134, accepting Office Partitions and Lavatory at Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-112, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications re That Change Order No. l to the plans and Job No. PW-115 specifications for Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, granting a time extension of 68 calendar days to the contract with Paramount Metals because of District-caused delays and unavoidable delays in materials delivery be, and is hereby, approved. 1..._1 DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. PW-115 as complete That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-135, accepting Stairway and Walkway Additions at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-115, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications re Job No. PW-123 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Piping for Return Sludge Chlorination at Plant No. 2 Settling Basins, Job No. PW-123, authorizing an addition of $10,466.09 to the contract with Pascal & Ludwig Engineers for replacement of existing manifolds found to be unsuitable and encasing of the new 8-inch piping, and granting a time extension of 12 calendar days for completion of said additional work be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. PW-123 as complete That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-136, accepting \.,.) Piping for Return Chlorination at Plant No. 2 Settling Basins, Job No. PW-123, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -7- ;. 8/08/84 DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Receive and file Staff Report re Job No. I-2R-2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated July 25, 1984, relative to Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Rehabilitation of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2, and supplemental repair needed on the Bushard Trunk be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications re Job Nos. I-2R-2 and I-2R-3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Rehabilitation of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No. I-2R-2, and Phase III, Job No. I-2R-3, authorizing an addition of $22,608.87 to the contract with Sancon Engineering, Inc. to remove and dispose of accumulated rock and other debris found covering an area approximately 2,640 feet long between Manholes Nos. 3 and 5 be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications re Job No. I-2R-2A Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the preparation of plans and specifications for the Supplemental Repair of Bushard Trunk, Phase II, Job No •. I-2R-2A, be, and is hereby, authorized. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Awarding purchase order contract to.Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for inspection services on cry()genic oxygen equipment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue a purchase order contract to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for the first annual, nturn around" inspection services.and for any repairs required on valves, fittings and appurtenances on the cryogenic oxygen equipment at the Treatment Plant No. 2 advanced treatment facility, for an amount not to exceed $26,000.00. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Authorizing J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, to sign all contracts and documents not re- quired to be executed by the Chair- man of a respective District Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-137, authorizing J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, to sign all contracts and documents not required to be executed by the Chairman of a respective District, and rescinding Resolution No. 76-94 which authorized the retired General Manager, Fred A. Harper, to sign said documents. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and reject protest of McKinley Equipment Corporation re That the protest dated July 16, 1984 award of Specification No. A-120 submitted by McKinley Equipment Corporation re award of purchase of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, Specification No. A-120, to Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company, at the July 11, 1984 Board Meeting, alleging that the low bid of Taylor-Dunn did not fully comply with the specifications, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed7 and, -a- 8/08/84 FURTHER MOVED: That the General Counsel's opinion dated July 23, 1984 that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company is in compliance with the specifications and, in fact, is the low bidder, and recommending that the protest of McKinley Equipment Corporation be rejected, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed1 and, FURTHER MJVED: That the Board hereby finds that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company~ is in compliance with Specification No. A-120, for purchase of 12 Four-Wheel Electric Cargo Carriers, and that the protest of McKinley Equipment Corporation be, and is hereby, rejected, as recommended by the General Counsel. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Approving Change Order D to Purchase Order No. 8695 to K. P. Lindstrom, Inc. re preparation of draft non-industrial source control program Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue Change Order D to Purchase Order No. 8695 to K. P. Lindstrom, Inc. for consulting services to assist the Districts' staff in preparing responses to the Environmental Protection Agency relative to approval of the Districts' application for a 30l(h) waiver of secondary treatment requirements, providing for additional consulting services and technical services re preparation of a draft non-industrial source control program, as required by the Districts' 30l(h) Waiver/NPDES Permit, on a per diem fee basis, at n~ increase in the total maximum authorized purchase order amount of $56,750.00. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and approve written report of the Executive Committee That the written report of the Executive Conunittee's meeting on July 25, 1984, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRIC?S 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Receive, file and approve Staff Report on Short-Term EDP System Upgrade Requirements and Long-Term . Planning Schedule received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Approving Phase IA EDP recommendations and authorizing issuance of a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc. for accounting computer system upgrades Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report on Short-Term EDP System Upgrade Requirements and Long-Term Planning Schedule dated July 11, 1984, be, and is hereby, Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Phase IA EDP reconunendations be, and are hereby, approved7 and, FURTHER MOVED: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to negotiate with and issue a purchase order to International Technology Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $88,000 plus tax and freight for purchase, installation and testing of an ITG/Integrity Computer System to upgrade the Districts' existing Data General accounting mini-computer system. DISTRICTS 2, 3, S, 6 & 7 Approving Phase IB EDP recommendations and authorizing staff to complete evaluation of Districts' present and anticipated management information system needs -9- Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Phase IB EDP recommendations be, and are hereby, approved7 and, FURTHER MOVED: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to complete 8/08/84 evaluation of the Districts' present and anticipated management information system needs and report back to the Fiscal Policy Committee regarding the feasibility and anticipated cost of engaging a software vendor to develop enhancements to existing software and reporting capabilities to provide expanded management information, and the feasibility and anticipated cost of further upgrading the Districts' EDP system with micro-computers to provide improved management information and analytical capabilities. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Authorizing payment to Coast Insurance Agency re Excess Liability Coverage Moved, seconded and duly carried: That payment to Coast Insurance Agency of $40,800.00 for the increased annual premium for Ex~ess Liability Coverage for the period July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985, be, and is hereby, authorized. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: •· Receive, file and approve Staff Summary Report of Telephone System That the Staff Summary Report of Analysis by Nate! & Co. Telephone System Analysis by Natel & Co. dated July 11, 1984, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed, and approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Awarding purchase order contract to CENTEL Business Systems, Inc. for purchase and installation of a SL-lMS telephone system Moved, seconded and duly carried: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to negotiate and issue a purchase order contract to CENTEL Business Systems, Inc. of Irvine in an·amount not to exceed $141,300.00 telephone system, as recommended by Company. for purchase and installation of a SL-lMS the Districts' consultant, Nate! & ·DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Directing Natel & Co. to with Phase II consulting re contract negotiations CENTEL Business Systems, proceed services with Inc. Moved, seconded and duly carried: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to direct Natel & Co. to proceed with Phase II consulting services to assist the Districts in contract negotiations with CENTEL and serve as the Districts' project manager for the installation, testing and acceptance of the new telephone system, for the amount of $8,500.00. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Aperoving Change Order B to· Purchase Order No. 15599 to Falcon Services re Specification No. S-031 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue Change Order B to Purchase Order No. 15599 to Falcon Services for Interim Out-of-County Trucking of Residual Solids, Specification No. S-031, extending the term of the required trucking services from August 15 through September 15, 1984, and increasing the total authorized amount from $252,000 to an amount not to exceed $352,000.00. -10- 8/08/84 DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Establishing charges for Class I, Class II and Class III permittees That the respective Boards of Directors adopt the following resolutions establishing charges for Class I, Class II and Class III permittees, pursuant to \.,.) provisions of the Uniform Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities of said Districts: Dist. No. Resolution No. 2 84-139-2 3 84-140-3 5 84-141-5 6 84-142-6 7 84-143-7 * Flow -Per million gallons of S.S. -Per thousand pounds of B.O.D. -Per thousand pounds of Certified copies of said resolutions minutes. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Receive, file and approve Interim Report of the Select Committee to Advise the Staff re change in calculating joint ownership percentage · Class I & II Fee Class III Fee Flow(*) S.S.(*) B.O.D.(*) Flow(*) $213.34 $65.10 $60.77 $475.78 227.17 65.10 60.77 489.61 286.88 65.10 60.77 549.32 216.56 65.10 60.77 479.00 295.08 65.10 60.77 557.52 flow suspended solids biochemical oxygen demand are attached hereto and made a part of these Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Interim Report of the Select Connnittee to Advise the Staff dated August 2, 1984, recommending a change in the basis of calculating the joint ownership percentage, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. DISTRICTS 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Declaring intent to approve an amendment to the Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards hereby declare their intent to approve an amendment to the Joint Ownership, Operation and Construction Agreement, changing the basis of calculating the joint ownership percentage from flow and assessed valuation to flow only, contingent upon execution of an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District prior to December 1, 1984, providing for the formation of County Sanitation District No. 14, and further providing that the existing Districts not incur a net financial loss as a result of said policy revision and District No. 14 formation, as reconuneded by the Select Committee to Advise the Staff. DISTRICT 3 The Joint Chairman recognized Mr. David Reguest by Industrial Waste Blaser, owner of Gene's Launderland in Permittee for Review of Districts' the City of Fountain Valley, who ;policy re user fees addressed the Board in connection with the industrial waste user fee which he contended he is being charged unfairly. Mr. Blaser believes that he is merely providing a unique alternative to wastewater disposal that would otherwise be •..; - disposed of by residential properties and therefore should not be subject to \w) commercial user fees. -11- i. 8/08/84 Chairman Edgar advised that the Executive Commitee and Directors had recently re-examined the Districts' policy relative to identifying and permitting industrial and conunercial users to comply with federal and state regulations. After a rather thorough review, the Boards determined to continue the current policy for recovering charges for the cost of treatment for both residential and commercial users. Following comments by staff and the General Counsel, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That Mr. David Blaser be requested to submit, in writing, his concerns relative to the Districts' policy of identifying and billing industrial and commercial users; and, FURTHER MOVED: That upon receipt of said letter, the staff be, and is hereby, directed to respond to said concerns and place the matter on the agenda of the next regularly-scheduled Joint Board meeting. DISTRICT 3 Receive and file claim from the City of Fountain Valley re damage to 10 City sewer manholes and approve settlement hereby, received and ordered_ filed; Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the claim from the City of Fountain Valley dated June 27, 1984, for reimbursement for the cost of repairing 10 City sewer manholes be, and is and, FURTHER MOVED: That payment to the City of Fountain Valley in the amount of $10,000.00 for repairing damage to 10 City sewer manholes, provided that the City agrees to -install a protective coating on said manholes to prevent further deterioration and to hold the Districts harmless from· any claim for future "-I damages,· as recommended by the Executive Committee, be, and is hereby approved and authorized. • 4 DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment ·That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:13 p.m., August 8, 1984. DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Approving Agreement with UMA Engineering, Inc. re design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26 No. 5-26, be, and is hereby, received Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee certification re final negotiated fee with UMA Engineering, Inc. for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 84-147, approving agreement with UMA Engineering, Inc. for design of Replacement of Lido Force Main, Contract No. 5-26, on an hourly-rate basis plus overhead, direct expenses and profit, for a total amount not to exceed $38,885.00. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment ...._; That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:14 p.m., August 8, 1984. -12- 8/08/84 DISTRICT 5 Receive and file Staff Report re ruptured line on the Balboa Penin- sula Trunk Sewer Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated August 2, 1984, relative to the ruptured .line on the Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ratifying action of staff in issuing emergency Purchase Order to K.E.C. Company re Balboa Peninsula Trunk Sewer That the action of staff in issuing Purchase Order No. 17041 to K.E.C. Company in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 for emergency repairs to the Balboa main, be, and Peninsula Trunk Sewer and replacement of the deteriorated force is hereby, ratified and approved. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:14 p.m., August a, 1984. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 44 - Albers Annexation That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-146-2, ordering annexation of 1.205 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Imperial Highway and Mohler Drive in the City of Anaheim, proposed Annexation No. 44 - Albers Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 2. A certified copy of this . resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. \..,! DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Public Hearing on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 Open Public Hearing This being the time and place fixed for public hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13, the Chairman declared the hearing open at 8:14 p.m. Verbal report of EIR consultant, The Chair recognized Mr. Cecil Ultrasystems, Inc. Sterling of Ultrasystems, Inc., the Districts' EIR consultant, who briefly reported that the Initial Study prepared in connection with the Districts' proposal for formation of District No. 13 indicated that a focused EIR would be appropriate addressing the areas of land use and population. Mr. Sterling reviewed Ultrasystem's findings relative to the affect of proposed District No. 13 upon said land use and population. He stated that since the formation of District No. 13 is to resolve the means of financing sewerage services to the area that is otherwise tributary to Districts 2 and 7, no additional sewerage facilities will be built that would not have otherwise been constructed by the Districts, therefore, there are no environmental impacts that will be caused by virtue of the formation of ~ District No. 13. Because of this, Mr. Sterling indicated that the written .. . comments received to date on the Draft Focused EIR contain no substantive remarks. -13- i' 8/08/84 Receive and file written comments re Draft Focused EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the following written comments regarding the Draft Focused EIR be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed: Agency City of Brea California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region State of California, Office of Planning and Research State of California, Resources Agency City of Irvine County of Orange Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana August 3, 1984 August 6, 1984 August 20, 1984 August 13, 1984 August 24, 1984 August 21, 1984 July 25, 1984 July 27, 1984 Close Public ·Hearing There being no public oral comments, the Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:17 p.m. '.-1 DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Directing staff and consultant to prepare Final Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of pro- posed District No. 13 after the close of the comment period That staff and consultant be, and are hereby, directed to prepare Final Focused Environmental Impact Report re formation of proposed District No. 13 on August 27, 1984. DISTRICT 2 Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 206 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That proposed Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area Zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the Use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 206 by title only. DISTRICT 2 Adopting Ordinance No. 206 Moved, seconded and duly carried by the following roll call vote: That Ordinance No. 206, An Ordinance of County Sanitation District No. 2 Establishing Separate Service Area Zones and Establishing a Schedule of Connection \.._,! Charges and Sewer Use Charges for the use of District Sewerage Facilities by Properties Located Outside the Present District Boundaries, be adopted: -14- 8/08/84 AYES: Directors Henry Wedaa, Richard Buck, Sam Cooper, John Holmberg, Carol Kawanami, James Neal, Bob Perry, Don Roth, Don E. Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Directors Buck Catlin, Dan Griset, Roger Stanton DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:18 p.m., August 8, 1984. DISTRICT 7 Authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation re Contract No. 7-2C-4 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee be, and is hereby, authorized to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for design of the Main Street Relief Subtrunk, Contract No. 7-2C-4, to provide for surveying services required during construction of said project. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: !!!_thorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the That the Selection Committee be, and is Agreement with Boyle Engineering hereby, authorized to negotiate Addendum Corporation re Contract No. 7-7 No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle . Engineering Corporation for design of the South Irvine Lift Station and Relief Subtrunk, Contract No. 7-7, to provide .. for surveying services required during construction of said project. ~ DISTRICT 7 Authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation re Contract No. 7-8 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee be, and is hereby, authorized to negotiate Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for design of the Von Karman Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-8, to provide for surveying services required during construction of said project. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ordering Annexation No. 107 - Huff Annexation That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 84-148-7, ordering annexation of .45 acres of territory to the District located on Randall Street between Meads Avenue and Clark Avenue in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 107 -Huff Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Authorizing the General Manager to execute an agreement with the City of Irvine re Master Plan sewer facilities within the City of Irvine Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to execute an agreement with the City of Irvine, in form approved by the General Counsel, setting forth the respective responsibilities of the District and the City with regard to construction of Master Plan sewer facilities within the City of Irvine. -15- . . . . 8/08/84 DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:19 p.m., August 8, 1984 • ~~~ Secretary, Boatti.of Directors County Sanitati~n Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 -16- I ,•! :· ·I ··I I 'I .,. =: :l,:> < I I-' :.~ ... - FUN[· r~c \.l /I P. R f.f•' T 11.10 • (: f: (~ P. ~. ~: flfC(.lj~ !',. ~ f: q 1 P(..,Ql''4~ !!6 c: I-"?. l"t;:Of 6/J I: t• l; f II~. ':'f.9fH, %'?flla7 f.'6':1f ">:' I·(·:. fl4 11 ,, ( ~ ~ ~ ~; :j (, <: ,. ~· l Ui9P52 ':(, ~F ~ .• 7. "t C:I' 54 ,., '="f 5S:: ((.C:.f;'.'Jf, r(iC•fl~7 '~f. CJP!;;.f ~·f. "p~ r. (•(•GI' l: f• ... ,.q~i:, 1 ~· (, u 1~ f.<l U·9?f~. rr,9t-f" ' f ~I!(·'~ I,(_,'~~ f: r ... (.:·ff.. 7 ~·(-<; ~· ~p ,, f, ~ p ( Q Af.~'.f71'1 r~f'Jfl71 ',(;t.)(172 '•f c;1_q'!, ( (, c:· fl 1 1• i• ~ .. ~~ l• 7 r-, '"'" E 7f. "l>"•F77 ~'. f; ~-J. 7 f' n{ 9P7G " ( 'i lill; t· f Uf· I') 0(,f:!""=' !I() f;l f )I I '.:F. n1•>ll( ~lq~ -JT DIST ~CRKING CAPITAL PROCESSING OAT[ 7/~3/~~ fAGl Rf PORT NUMBEr A~43 COUNTY SAtJflATJON UISTRJcts OF ORANH fOUNTY vn•noJ< bP.W lLECl. MCTr.RS ~T 8 1 INFORMATION SYST£~S AGi~sON JNrUSTPJFS, INC. lf~~o c~~FRESSCRSt •~c. L~(~TC~~ SCIENTIFIC ~R~CUCT5 l~E ANC~CR PAC~T~G to. ~L~Kf r. ~NOER~O~ h~G[LJCA RE~TAL srRVlCfS hCC~ VALVf ~ P~IM£~ CC~P Ar:t.1t. b£N CCHP. AR~O~-RISCO· J~C. iRPCW TRUCK BOOlfS K fQU1PMCNT A~~OWHf AO [L(ClRJC CORP. AS~~CTATFO rONCRfT( PPOO •• INC t5~0CIAT£[ LAeORATORirs PAKrP PLY~cro ro •• l~C. EAN~ OF A~EPJCA NT R S/I ~ECK~AN INSTfiU~[NlS ~ECK~AN IN~USTRJAL PC~SCN SA~C t ~RIVfL, INC. !:EVCf ~I~ eox ~l~TAL cc. ~Rr~lOL FARK MEDICAL G~r., TNC CK PU~P ANO OEW~T[RJNG ro~~. C"l CALJFCPNJA. INC. C~LJrORNJ~ OJSTRIPUTORS ".:='l.lfORti.lA 'NVlRnNt-•lNTf.L Cf.NTURY SERVJC[ CO. rtf.iMOER-MlX COMCPE.TEt Jf\:f. CH~ VP 0 t\ ll • ~ • A • t I r: C • co~~CLirAl(C £Lf.CTPJCAL CJ~T. ccnrnEIH.H rttlMJCH co COCPER ENEPGY ~[~VICES CCl~TA r.r:s11 tiuro Pl'f.TS· INC. C 0 IJ rJT Y ~I [ f I· MC C ·HH fl ~ T U: r Sf. R V JC l t•VALS ~~llS CG~f ANV C.~. DftVIS ~UFflY CO. CU:'l DH.<:(l SHES 'Jcu·m ~v r.r o;s, rnc. i: lr.l{~Of.•s \·If ll.IHO A~~OCl/ITfS ronAOO fNTfFrRT~ES. TNC. f.' U ~! ~! f. r ~H· P ll ~ C C' J.' f • f !I ~ T :' II t,· • l ~ C • CLAIMS PAID J7/1t/e4 f,MOUNT $175.3.3 h6· 05 U,934.30 l2ft.19 $21J~.f42 $l.f.lf2.~5 ,-.111.e.s tl'il.'1~ 1 .. _Et,~ •. ~f.: Sl't,S::tt.~·~ 1.7•JR.41 '.13#f3.4'+ ~1·15.10 ~.95 ~. t!2 :t2rn. cio $16~.Be i2.11a.att 061.12 $'442.77 1477.10 s.~97. ~:!. Sl•f\fO.~O $55~.')0 UJ,2A5.fl1 1-2f)(l.C9 !.~5'.'. 58 qs~.CJtt S2,9f8.00 11 ,:;cn.6i! f.13t.Hl.70 $!it973.2\t 11,9~0.H tl•771.6~ .tll:H .1!:' $29.ql s.4t6"1~.19 :rnn.1~ j.'120.4) :Pn~.nfl q14.1~ 15 l3.23 1·24.~2 U1L~tt.~'I $,, • ~ ,, ~ • (• ~ $ l • 4 4 9. 4 :, ( '17'.'>~.12 OfSCklPTTON TOOLS TELEPHONE. EQUIP. LEASE TRUCK PARTS COMPRESSOR PARTS . LAB EQUIPMENT HAINTENANCE PUMP PARTS CONFERENCE EXPENSES TOWEL RENTAL VALVES CHEMICAL COAGULANTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES TOOLS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BUiLDiNG MATERIALS LAB ANALYSIS LUMBER TRAVEL EXPENSES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BUiLDING MATERIALS ELECTRIC CART PARTS TRASH DISPOSAL PRE EHPLOYHENT EXAMS RETENTION PW-099 WORD PROCESSOR MAINTENANCE, SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE PIPE SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS BUILDiNG MATERIALS GASOLINE, ENGINE OIL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CHLORINE ENGINE PARTS TRUCK PARTS TRUCK PARTS TRUCK TIRES PIPE SUPPLIES SHEETING ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE FORMS, SUPPLIES INLET GATE REPAIRS PAINT SUPPLIES OFF I CE SUPPLIES .. . ( ( FUND NO \J A R l<fi N1 f'I': • ((;Cflff· f.J(,511 Ff, "f·S 1~1!1 ·~6 Sl-i.1 f. ~(,Ci fl lie; ~ (, ·:· f' c. ·, '."6t:~<;.j U'Hc:=;> ff:~ rc::r. l: (--DI:'(: ii :~0 r~i;15 (E-':~% r 6 ~ ~':' 7 :;: u.gr.cn > f,( C 8c;L~ rS :.,>~~1 f-;, ::: q,cr;r1 '(1 ,, r, f' ;> 'F. r:r;r·;: r .; O ~; (• 4 ··1 ~,Sc:':;~: j; 6 c.c. :•f. ., ( c:c (•7 r: f, r c; l~h jlf,''C':i.{") ~(,'it:tr r !: c" 1 1 flfr'l';"!2 r.t,•.:C)'Y ~l.o':'~lit nf:Ot;J~ f(.~9 lf ~ (;.' r..; 17 ·1~ ':"i J f r• (. r;.-, Jc r. f· c: '? ",, 'J(-~IC??.} r-=-~ ~;i;: :'.(. C~';'~ r: ". cr.~4 !"'£.qc;i~ "f c:y ~,, f f,oc;n r (. ?'.::'f ' ( r:>r. ;..o " ( r. (J7 ~· ( 91ar -JT PIST WCRKING (~flltl PPOCES5J~G DATE 7/UJ/R~ PAGf RFPORT NUMB(R AP43 :-- COUNTY S~NITATJPU OJ~lHIClS OF OP.ANGE COUNTY VfNO(IP. EL~CTRIC HACHINl~Y ~F~. CO. f "1! f. IH N Tf P. • H! C • FACTfRV PEf~[StNTATlVf, l~C. F'l\LCON OISFOSAL Hr1v1r.r F[P[~~L EY~RES~ CORF. F J".ttrn CIJP\TPOLS f L GT ~ \I ( IH I C Al , C Cl~,: C IH. T ( FL~IC Ht~[LJ~G SYSTE~s. J~c. VAL FOTt• a so~s FOUNTAIN V~LLEY CArfRA FRUIT GRO~[RS LA~OPlTOPYe INC.· F~LllP.TCN MFG. r.r.. G~~A~L LU~~f~ CO. G[N[Pll TELEFHONE C(. G~AYBAP ELfCTRIC CO. Hf.P4 01£SfL M~CHI flf" HA~K•S ELECT~ICAL SUPPllE~ t•Qoc;r er f:ATT[r.Tc~ t<l'~JAPO SUF'Pl.Y CO. ~.$. JillGH[S CO.• Hlf. C I TY 0 F liU NT JNG T 0 N ~H:: ACM ~UNTJNGTC~ ur~rH ~UfO(tt ~TA~P t·Uf;TJNC:TO~ SUH'LY PY!:RCK lf\tT H'S IG~AL ~A~DUST CO. I~f[RIAL kEST CHF~ICAL co. INLUSTPJAL ASrH~LT I~~U5Tr!4L TH~f~C[U PRODUCTS Jf\';flAP' F'/\FFP. JIHOlQ)t AM[RJCll l~VJ~r PA~CH ~Al[R OISTEICT .ir T CO., I NC• CLAIMS PAlO ~7111/Rq /.MOUNT f.167.:?2 ~u , 5 .lo • r· :J !.651&. Jl) t7tCJR9.64 ~.H~.75 !·2)4.'t!'.> H95.U!' :J. i3.3. 56 i~' •192. 62 $239.5'4 . t26.il0 S!'IJel3 ilt3R8elt5 i'tH.76 .. 258. ?.1 Sl7f..51' •,773.8{1 u.1313-20 s.1,·~21.e11 $ 2 • 6 ll 9 • ,, ~ 'f.?e97 l!>:,,. t' :i $98.D') t·22!l.5~ ~·2t5lf4.QO Htit'!-5.S'I $;>A.~3 Ol SCP I f'T I C1N ENGINE PARTS OCEAN -MONITORING SAFETY SEMINAR REGISTRATION SLUDGE DISPOSAL DELIVERY SERVICE REGULATOR PARTS CONCRETE CUTTING ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES RETENTION PW-109 FILH PROCESSING, OFFICE SUPPLIES LAB ANALYSIS USE CHARGE OVERPAYMENT SHALL HARDWARE, BUILDING MATERIALS TELEPHONE PAGER SUPPLIES TRUCK REPAIRS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES GAUGES, SMALL HARDWARE . SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE PUMP PARTS SAWDUST FERRIC CHLORIDE BUILDING MATERIALS SHALL HARDWARE JANITORIAL SUPPLIES HYDROGEN PEROXIDE WATER USEAGE TRUCK PARTS ( K.r..-:. ro,.,Pf.NY Hll.Y FIJ'E. CO. 1'126.97 1...H1.:.1 l7ltf-.81•. i;.:: 111.f;~ 11;H.6.fl5 ~53t6-'!'i.49 t3'n.;~ n.9H.75 t.2·186.~4 tl~f.\.'19 CONTRACTOR 3-24-1, CSDOC #II SEWER REPAIRS PIPE SUPPLIES hlh~ R[AhlNft IN~. KIP.~1 f UMP t'. f"/,Cllllff ~!(Jf:I<~ t..1~.lJ.~., INC. LJF[C(l"'-')/.ff.TY ~HVJCE. $l•FTL'i ll~~TJ~( [ISTRJ~LTOP~. ire. lU~ ~N([LES CHlMICAL r~. LO~ ANGELES G~IVANJZING ro. LO~~y ~ A~~OCJ~T[~ l. Y Oi ~ I ~ 1 • L S r. Cl' c I T v • If!(. • r~~TTN ]~[USTRJr~. !~C. t:r-f T -PtUll: t J IH' • f·l C !• ~. ~ J I. P -C Al-: ll SU rj · t 'I' C f) • . Bf.? 7 :f.'IH. (.6 1.1, 11n.2u :~ 61f 7. 'tr: l2t)lil.7~ $ J t ~r.! ft• .• 11) 1~,.~f' :r.;.H-it.75 "4f:lf .Hf ' BEAR I NG SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS WELDING SUPPLIES SAFETY SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES HERBICIDES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGR. #13 FORMATION PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL TRUCK PARTS PIPE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE / lit ·; .; :.: )> I \.N :: fUt!IJ t.C lJfl P.R f. r.• 1 l~I • f'tS;., 5 .l1 ·~ (; ') c. 3 :> ('f '?~?~ :'lf;: 4:1q;t,4 '.!f,~ c; ;:.~, ·~f.';l~ '!·f. ((.~~:q f.'6"C?,f' :.•near,~; '.l(-l~C~4'.' •'fr;~" J ':f. <;-.Cfl 2 •.!(, c:. q1,, ~ f ~.,. ,, ,, n~. c;: o 4 r, ~ '· ~; (j ,, ~ ··· l· '~-:: 4 7 r (· r '·' 4 ~· •.11;qci4r ~·~.~G~~· { (. •:. "~ l : (:-:: c::.;- !1( 'Vl!: ~ ~(:('0"'4 :.f:,OCl~I' '7f.0 5~6 !_ f,C '}~ 7 "( C,G~,: '.'601"l';C• (l~,c19c-•' :. ~ (.~" (,. r•r..c~t.., ~· ( r. ':' ~ I ·:~f''?f\4 nr,'1~6!' (·(. c. C,(·(· ri .; ,.,, !· 1 ~(,CC(f• '· f: -~ ~: !, ;J (·f, Cl~);:_: r'f "'':171 ·:· !~ '· l. 7" ·.1. r· r:. '7 :: ~ /,'l,, 11j !·r,•~c. 7''i "f,'.'':'7f:: 51~~ -JT PIST ~CP~INb CAfJlAL PPOCf~SJMG OATf 7/~~/86 PAGr RfFO~T NUHOrP ~P43 '!· COUNTY SANITITJON OJSTPICTS OF OPANGE COUNTY Cl'l~S rAt~ J7/lt/~4 · VEtJDOR ~E~SU~EH[NT VA~J-PLtS MCCHANJCAL ~RIVES en. ~INE SAF[TY ~PFLJ~~CES CO. Fi\UL f.. MITCHELL 11 0 ~, I T £. I< • l ti: C • flC~Tf Ofl(P. Y (l(V AT OP C OtiP HH ~OGFf FROClClS r.o. ~o~~AN CRANf co •• •~c. r.r. ~CRITZ FOU~CRY ~r [hSTkUfE~Ts. JNC. ~'Id IC N n SA F [ 1 Y C l'l! ~' C IL r\fl\ t-tf.RME5· me. l•'f loiPrP HR I rm ccr TOH'T/IL CllO'. I CAL CCPF'. fl L OH·' J r: Ch E M I C /. l. C 0 • (!H ,'II\!';[ COU\TY r AP M sun l. ,. (' 0. ORANGE VALV( & FITTJNr CO. ~ST[RBAUER COMFR[SSOR SCPVJC[ O;<YC.fN r;rs;.VJCF. r G l' NT Y CF (', P. ANH I ACJfJC S~F[TY FCUJf~ENT C~. f llCIFJC EELL r,\~Cl:L ~. Lt.:fl\.Jlf. PfAT, ,4R~Jck. ~ITC~rLL g rn. PJCKHIC~ PAPER F'PPOrCTS r-1rnr.v roH~ rLtMT S~FVJCfS· IMC. J:I)~. TfAA~Tff1 FA!l(•lfl PHJMP.(tS( JCf P~l~TRrr cc~ru1rh ~vsTr~s Tllf. R.lGIST£1{ n:r. rcnr:LH' SUFH'f ro. er CALIF., me. f'(.l"f'•INS 11. f!fY£?S S •, J CHE\.'f'OlfT ~ 11 r-. rn Fr me. ~!lf.,IFO.M't INC. ~u:crn rnc. ~Ar:fl CCllflR £1U~ll\tr.~ f'JIHi~ U. tH A /\t!A ftl lJ[ pµ If· 1 CO. !~t IH;. t.r-Jf. l'ONif S£~T~ AN~ ELECTPrc ~OT~~~ ~-~ :l !< f. • R 0 [ f ll C K ~. C f; • ~~ ti t. t~ P (l C K SUP r l Y fl.C. ~fw':ITH CCJflJ~lP.llCTJr,r~ f.fl. ~ f) U T H Cr. L ST ('l f-F J ".' £. I: ~ U J rt, f ~I T ~o. C~LJr. COAST~L ~~1r~ RESEARCH PROJECT AMOUNT s2.111.09 ur,7.56 !.928.66 $~'f. \J') 1-J!l~.5~ l3?9.'lt» H~42. 2f. i25q.5q $3.tl7q.6~ u.3%.75 i200.uv "24 0. 91 12-P.5').4.! 14,]f>o;_l.t;~\ 'tJH,Jlf7.55 $2.\7. n ~JC)lf.'12 'tl :?~. 7(l '·~" 7~22 $4,l?.O.r? '4':4.l~ H25.3l !.;!,':14H.'1~ 1-11·2:?2.JG snca.~7 ! 113. ~" $j,f.59.4f $2. )I) 1. •lll $?· ·:. )(i i?!-=t'J.':O 'f!)lf4.Jf. :r.t ,5f,7.~9 1.5~!°). "1 1572.ifO $':Jq. cc:;. Ht3".14.5fJ il.39e3J9.P.O 3.299.98 $11}. '.12 $ J 3 tl. !) ~ •t"J;?).f.I: t.lt174.IJ4 t.275.'+7 $!. 2ft 0. ,, " ~3d~(...JP $ '' • .f, ft n • 11 ~ OfSCRIFllON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ENGINE PARTS SAFETY SUPPLIES, TUBING SEHINAR EXPENSES PUMP PARTS PLANT #2 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE VALVES CRANE PARTS MANHOLE RINGS AND COVERS PIPE SUPPLIES ANNUAL HEHBERSHiP FEE SHALL HARDWARE USE CHARGE OVERPAYMENT CAUSTIC SODA CHLORINE LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES VALVES COMPRESSOR PARTS DEMURRAGE, OXYGEN TANKS SU~VEY 3-2~-1, PRE EMPLOYMENT EXAMS SAFETY SUPPLIES TELEMETERING PW-099 REPAIRS 1983-8~ AUDIT EXPENSES JANITORIAL SUPPLIES POSTAGE HETER RENTAL PW-097 REPAIRS, COAST TRUNK SEWER REPAIRS POSTAGE INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLING ICE WASTEHAULER STATION PROGRAHHING LEGAL ADVERTISING PIPE SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS TRUCK PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES SOLVENTS CONTRACTOR l-2R-2&3 OFFICE FORHS BLUEPRINTING TRUCK PARTS ELECTRIC MOTOR PARTS TOOLS TOOLS, HOSE P2-23-6 STOP NOTICE RELEASE TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE, OFFICE EQUIPMENT DEEP OCEAN SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY ( ( ( .......... ::: > ·1 .:::-::: ( F UNr1 r...u qlS~ -Jl DIST ~OR~ING CAfJTAL ( fPOCCSSJNG O~Tr 7/t~/~q PAff Rf PORT NUMOER AP4~ If Ct'ilHHY SANITATIOtJ J)JSTPICT.S OF OPl'INGE. too~:rv l,/APRflNl flO. ~!£ c~77 '.l r, :107r 'If. 95 7~· , '~ C'· <1 s; :,1 ;,(,~9(.:1 -.~G':li.: ;. '·(, ~ C:H ~ ':' f <? '?-f ,, '..! 6~ .. 'if'"· "(·~ :;..~£. r. c. r:-:i;s 7 {' 'i CJ 9 r~ rt •it=-99H? "(.C.~q;, "f.Jr::i~Q} ~.· (-':' c; Cl;.' ~6 t::t;Cj,7. i: (· C' ~C:'! ~ (. lt(OO~J "(-4:-t": ?(. •' f_, OCIC, J f (,':"qi- ,., (:-::: •• r-, '1 '_'.7:• ~:H Vf.NfHIR SOUTtl[HN CALIF. EDISOf'I C(l. SO. fALTF. lHHF er.. SOCTH[~N COUNTIE~ r.JL CG. S Tl'I F: OW STE EL Thi:" SUHL I ms J. WAYNE SYLVEST£P TllOMftS SCIEfHIFIC TRAFFIC CC~TROL S[~VICf, J~C. THA~SA~fRICl'I Olll'IVAlt INC. TIHVEL TRAVEL TRUC~ & ~UTO SUPPLY, INC. J.G. TUC~E~ & SONt JNC. UNJTfD P~RCfl SlRVICE VWP. ~CIENlJFIC V~llfY CITifS SUPrlY re. Vf~JNG FREIGHT SY~TfMSt INC. ~ALLACE ~ Tl[RNtN JO'if.1 fl. \14PLES W4UKES~A EMf;JN[ SE~Vlf[~lf.P. Mf~TFRN STl'ITES OJLFl[LO PP0U. t..:i:STJNGUOlSE El.f.CTf?IC CORF >'!:P.0) CORP. Gl:ORGE UROLEY ~SSOCil\Jf.~ ZIP TE~POPt~Y ~ERSO~N[L CL•I~S PAID q7/ll/64 AMOUfH 12.5lt875.3! S?.2.3P t6 '2P.!l. a:; 0 u11.s1 11. (·51. 15 s2,11q.~3 HJ7.78 !f.13,.00 $1•677..JP ·iJ:=.i. 0 0 ilt!:.51).t1° :1nf~e.a1 $n.12 i i61J. 34· !£45\1.81 ~-1:>~·'14 in,57!J. n~ 141.'2• 'JO S2,H31.'3! $75.(Jl f.21~.7f\ $72~.51 Ut259.lf7 ~657.611 T016l CLAIMS PtJe "7/11/S't :f.7 1f9,476.51 SUMMARY #1 OPER FUND #2 OPER FUND #3 OPER FUND #3 F/R FUND #5 OPER FUND //5 F/R FUND #6 OPER FUND H7 OPER FUND 811 OPER FUND #13 ACO FUND #3&9 OPER FUND #5&6 OPER FUND #6£7 OPER FUND JT OPER FUND CORF JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 07/11/84 ================= AMOUNT $ 1,473.55 798.30 424.58 H,994.86 . 306. IO 5.86 20.38 2,801.32 9,483.92 2,351.74 3,879.60 815.05 3,0lf8.24 363,322.92 247,838.94 64,911.15 $749,476.51 OE$CRiFTION POWER WATER USEAGE DIESEL FUEL STEEL STOCK SHALL HARDWARE, SAFETY SUPPLIES PETTY CASH REIHBURSEHENT LAB SUPPLIES SAFETY SIGNS ENGINE PARTS AIR FARE TRUCK PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DELIVERY SERVICE LAB SUPPLIES VALVES . FREIGHT ~tRRIC CHLO~IDE PUMPS ODOR CONSULTANT ENGINE PARTS ELECT~ICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES VALVES TEMPORARY HELP ( I !'· ·i FUNC NCi 'l ·! WAR~ANT NO. (17{'015 fJ 7 0 111 E- 070.017 07LOJO U7f.Ol9 00020 ii71102l OH'!22 {l7i)f)23 07 !• 0'14 r.1002~ (170&:?6 (J1f't)21 07 l' 028 07C:029 ::; li7 (11}30 tP 07'J031 I 1---1 fl7Cl1 32 :;: (17 ~!('3.3 f•7 L Cl .34 Ci70C3~· f7•)tl3E- OH c.H G7ll03U 07CL'~9 C'7 0 O't IJ "7 (i c 4 l f,Jr.r.42 f:7l'O't3 ii 7 (.itl 44 t1HJ45 (: 1(I~4f. t: 7 Ci 04 7 r700'tR f'70C'•9 07 (H.50 '!70051 07(JfJ52 fi71)(j53 !17 u fl ~ilf C7(1C55 ')70056 r-7CJCl57 07:J05C :"7{1(!1j'j 071.1ll~O ·~ ( 9199 -JT DIST ~OR~ING CAPIT~L FROCESSING OAT[ 7/J9/8't rAG[ -· REPO~T HUMBER AP43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAIMS FAIO ~7/25/84 VENDOR AGM ELECTPONlCSt INC. 4.s.u. ACME INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. AIR CONDITIONING SPECIALTIES AIR FROOUCTS & CH£HICALSt INC. AIR PRODUCTS & CHEHJCALStlNC. ALL-ST/.TE VEHICLES, INC. ALLIED ELECTRONICS ALLIED SUFPLY ~O. AMERICA~ C~EHICAL SOCIETY TH( ANCHOR PACKING CO. ANGfLICA RENTAL SERVICES APCO VALVE & PRIMER COPP AQUA OEN CO~P. ARROW-FISCO, INC. ASSOCJATICN OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES AUTO SHOP EQUJFM£NT CO. AZON COPP. ~c INDUSTRIAL surPLYt INC. B~NK OF AM[RIC~ NT 8 SA B[CKHAN INDUSTRIAL GIERLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS eONNfVILLE EGUJF., INC. COYLE ENGIN£ERJNG COP.F THE eu~KE COMPANY CPT CALIFORNIA, INC. CS COMFANY CALIFORNIA ENVl~ONHENTAL CARHl::NITA FO.RO TRUCK SALES, INC. JOUN CAROLLO ENGINEERS COAST INSURANCE AGENCY COIT ORAr(RY SERVICE COMFRESSOR & JNCUSTRIAL ENGINE SUPPLY CONSOLJOATEO ELfCTRICAL DIST. CONSOLIOATEO FREIGHTWAYS CON~OLIOATEO REPPOOUCTIONS \.ONTR OL CO COOP£R EN£RGY $lRVJC[S CORE-ROSION PROCUCTS COSTA MESA AUTO P~RTSt INC. CRANE VEYCR CORP. AMOUNT sa4.5V $151. 3fi ~13U.95 S296.RO $231.43 $326.48 Slt498.10 S87.04 S2lf7 • 52 :na.oo S484e50 tlJ)').00 S162.1}9 $35,783.34 $332.99 $6,111)!).U!J 'S257.74 S'f88e6Cl \413.40 tl98.JJ4 u ,31a.13 S.550. t;O s110.03 noo.oo S10t048.J2 $59.02 s2,oe9.62 $21)0.31 q<Jo.12 S23.85 S19tl4l.98 S8,B33.00 t.281.611 S'lt2't5.30 sq39.33 $57.58 Slt636.lf7 $?.~5.27 U?.t43ti.2!- t17t398.8't H30.(12 DfSCRIPTION ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES WELDING SUPPLIES AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES SPECIALTY GASES VEHICLE LEASE ELECTRICA~ SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES LAB SUBSCRIPTION PIPE SUPPL'IES TOWEL RENTAL VALVE SUPPLIES CHEMICAL COAGULANTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ANNUAL HEHBERSHIP FEE TRUCK PARTS OFFICE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE TRAVEL EXPENSES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES WORKERS' COMP. ADMINISTRATORS BUILDING MATERIALS ELECTRICAL REPAIRS ENGR. 7-S LUMBER WORD PROCESSING MAINTENANCE PIPE SUPPLIES PI PE SUPPLIES TRUCK PARTS ENGR. P2-26, P2-28, Pl-21 INSURANCE PREHIUHS DRAPERY CLEAHING ENGINE PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FREIGHT BLUEPRINT REPRODUCTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ENGINE REPAIRS FERRIC CHLORIDE STORAGE TANK TRUCK PARTS HEAVY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES CHAiN LINK FENCING CROWN FENCE & SUPPLY CO •• INC. CAL CONSOLIDATEO W~TER 'f.l'tl.55 !.2t701.94 $206.q\J $6 t5tl.3. 99 'f.160. 00 RESIN TANK EXCHANGE, WATER SOFTENER RENTAL STATE Cf C~LIFO~NIA ST~T£ or CALIFOHNIA ( · 1983-84 SALES TAX LIABILITY ANNEXATION 89~ PROCESSING FEE .. . ( -- " ,,I . ,1' , I , i-1 l.i ' ta .1 • i i 1 •. ! t,I •.• 1 : I ::: to I h.) :: ( ( FUND NO 9199 -JT DIST WCRKING C4PITAL PROCESSING DATE 7/1~/8'1 PAG( REPORT NUHB[R AP'13 2 ( COUNTY SANITATION OJS~RICTS OF ORANG[ COUNTY YARRANT NO. VENDOR tl7 0 06 i 0701'.Jf.2 C70C63 ll7006lf £•70065 tl7 ll 066 070067 070068 l: 7 lti'.165 071J(l70 070071 C7uV72 tl70il7~ 0Hi074 t.7 U :)7~ 1)7•J076 C7Q077 07C:G78 c 7r. 0 79 £17GO~O (17') lj(\ 1 (17 li (J~:.> 0 7 liQ8.3 C17t08't IJH!.165 C7iJC~6 C,70087 ')700148 Cl7'HP9 u7CCi~O ll70C91 r.70Q92 1J7()093 07 0 f'l94 07tl0% (•70 09f. ltHH•97 \J7nfl98 '"rl L 1199 070100 t'JHlCl 1)7f!102 (!7(.ll!J3 07010'1 G70 l •J5 07:1106 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STAT( OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFOPNJA DANifLS TIR£ SERVICF OAON CORPORATION PETER C. DAVID CO. DAYTON FOUNDRY DECO DEL lA SCIENTIFIC OJGIDYNE COMPUTER SERVICES DORADO ENTERPRISES, INC. ORJVER TESTING CENTER DUMAS DIESEL INJECTION DUNN EO~~ROS CVRP. EASTMAN, llllC. EFFECTIVE ViSUAL l~~Gf.RY ELECTRO~IC BALANCING CO. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOC. FALCON DIS~OSAL SE~VICE f JG(P.GR A TE CORP. MICHAEL J. FILECCJA FISCHER & PORTtR CO. FISHER CONTROLS FLAT & VERTICAL CONCRETC rRUIT GPbME~S LAhORATORYt INC• CITY Of FULLERTON G&C Pf ADY Hf XEO CONC~fT[ GMC TRUCK & COACH GENERAL TELEPUONE CO. f~(O G£0HG£ CO. TOM GERLIF\GER GOULD, INC. 6RAYHAR ELECTRIC CO. HAHRINGTOF\ INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS HARTZELL FAN HEAT ANC POWER [QUIPHENT CO. R.S. HUGHES CO., INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BLACH tlUNTINf:TOt\ UEACH P.Uf:BEP STAMP ~UNTINGTON SUPPLY HURLEY ELECTRONICS, INC. JSCO COMPANY IDEAL SAWDUST CO. IMPCHIAL ~[ST CHEMICAL co. INGERSOLL-~AND co.-CESD JNSTRU~ENTATION & MEC~ANICAL CLA)HS P~JO 07/25/Sq AMOUNT i160.0(1 Sl60.0(i U60. 00 $69.03 SltOO'l.27 $3t -~46. 20 $839.65 $361.30 S137.95 Ut026.08 S6t'IOO.OO $28.~0 Utt+l2.AO $11968.20 .S917.9'f .. $249.10 $'12.fiO $2'14.50 $311973.12 $88.36 $12.10 s2.112.1~ $283.52 $325.00 $30.00 SllfO.q3 $695.63 i14t861J.11f S9t21'1.58 S1t855.00 S13.5'3 H9.38 $641f.lf8 $72.33 sq, 5'41. 9lf Slt765.08 . $977~7lf $6,376.08 $128.20 $93.92 $9.69 Ul)lJ.78 u,212.00 S7t520.92 Slft725.ll0 iltOOtJ.OCi DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION #105 PROCESSING FEE ANNEXATION #106 PROCESSING FEE ANNEXAJION #110 PROCESSING FEE TRUCK Tl RES ANNUAL PAYMENT-DIG CANYON SEWER PROJECT CONTRACTOR PW-102 CHAIN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES HINI COMPUTER MAINTENANCE PW-131 REPAIRS DRIVER EXAMS ENGINE REPAIRS PA I NT SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES FILM PROCESSING SCROLL BALANCING LAB ANALYSIS, PESTICIDES SLUDGE HAULING/DiSPOSAL FREIGHT EMPLOYEE MILEAGE PIPE SUPPi.iES REGULATOR PARTS CORE DRILLING LAB ANALYSIS WATER USEAGE BUILDING MATERIALS FLAT-OED TRUCK TELEPHONE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE MILEAGE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES SHALL tiARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES AIR CONDITIONING HAINTENANCE SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES SHALL HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CONTROL EQUIPMENT WOOD SHAVINGS FERRIC CHLORIDE PUMP BLOWER SYSTEM REPAIRS I ; I • · :, FUND NO •.:·. ':t . ,.i ::: to I \..N -... WARR/INT rrn. 07!)107 \l7'>10R 070ll'9 070110 l'7011 J 070112 C70113 07!'Jll'f 07£1115 070116 07U117 fl7GlJ8 (1711119 070120 l'7Cl21 G70122 0701~3 C7l) 124 r.Jr• 12!: 07Pl2b fJ70127 r17n128 Ci7fr129 07(1130 tl7Cl31 fl7Ul32 07f.1~3 07013'1 0701~5 0701~6 07C137 01013a C7Cl139 GH14Q (j 7ll141 ('7Ul't2 1)7lj1'1~ G7ftl44 f)7(aJ "~ 07lil'J6 0701'17 07CllfA Q7!H49 070150 r17t;151 f'7'll~.2 ( 9199 -JT DIST WCRKING CAPITAL PROCESSING OAT( 7/1°/84 PAGf REPORT NUMBER APq3 '!- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF OHANGE COUNTY CLAIMS PAID 07/~5/84 VE NOOR I NTEROX M~ER ICA THE IRVINE CO. Hf( IRVINE COMPANY IRVINE INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE IRVINE SMEEPIN~ SERVICE 6.P. JOHN HAULING KAS SAFETY FROOUCTS KELLY PIPE CO. KENNEDY/JENKS ENGJNEEPS KING CEARING, INC. KIPST PU~P & MACHINE WORKS KLEEN-LIN£ CORP ROBIN KUHNKE LA MOTTE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LAU~S[N CCLOR LAB LEWCO ELECTRIC CO. LJGHllNG CISTRJeUTORS, INC. K.P. LINDSTROM, INC. LOWRY & ASSOCIATES LYONS JNT'L SECURJTYt INC. ~ANNING TECHNOLOGl£St INC. MARVAC [LECTRONICS VONDA MCGEE MCK[SSG~ CHEMICAL CO. MCMASTER-CARR surPLY co. MINE SAFETY AFPLIANCES CO. GEORGE & A. HORGAN CO., INC. ~OTQROLAt INC. MULE EMERGENCY LIGHTING CO. NATIONAL LUMBER SUPPLY NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY CITY OF NEMPORT 8EACH R.J. ~GBLE COMPANY O.T.S. DISTRIBUlORS OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP. FRANK A. CLSEN CO. OLYMPIC CUEHICU CO. OMICRON WELDING surrLYt INC. Cl TY flF ORANGE OSllROAU[R COM~RESSOR SERVICE OXYGEN SERVICE COUNTY OF OR ANGf COUNTY SANITATION DISTPICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY OR~NGE COUNTY ~ATER DISTRICT PACIFIC MOBILr OFFICES F-ACO •l AHOlJN T Slft889 • .34 S12t051.27 U6t938.fi2 $512.00 $249.0D Slt66. If() s211.10 $l 1972.43 S23t260.(IB Sltl97.57 SH9.76 S183. t 7 $847.78 $159.33 \349.97 S.6lfl. 73 Sl ,293.(,3 $3,877.8~ S9,lft.3e00 Slt398.0U S1 t468.2B $53.34 $26.30 S-141933.E-7 U9.29 Sl.670.61 st,266.30 s.49 .82 $1·3~6.91 \425.1)4 SJ26e59 U!l.54 u,2ua.ou S165e83 $41806.09 $3,728.51 \3Dtlf9?..27 uo.11 i2,79q.2n 1557.55 \179.92 $699.93" S6t739e22 $603.60 uso.52 $141.93 ( DESCRIPTION HYDROGEN PEROXIDE ANNUAL BIG CANYON SEVER PROJECT PAYMENT BIG CANYON INTEREST PAYMENT PLANT Hi MAINfENANCE PLANT SWEEPING SERVICE WOOD. SHAVINGS SAFETY SUPPLIES PIPE SUPPLIES ENGR. PW-061 R BEARING SUPPLIES PUMP PARTS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES LIABILITY CLAIM SETTLEMENT LAB CHEMICALS F.ILH PROCESSING ELECTRIC CART PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES OCEAN WAIVER STUDY, BELT FILTER PRESS STUDY ENGR. 2-10-IA PLANT #2 SECURITY PATROL PIPE SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE CHLORINE SHALL HARDWARE SAFETY SUPPL I ES CONTRACTOR PW-106 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES SHALL HARDWARE, LUMBER JANITORIAL SUPPLIES WATER USEAGE CSDOC #3 MANHOLE REPAIRS LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES CAUSTIC SODA VALVES CHLORINE WELDING SUPPLIES CSDOC 17 SEWER PURCHASE COMPRESSOR PARTS SPECIALTY GASES ANNEXATION MAPS, PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS REPLENISH WORKERS' COHP. FUND WATER PRODUCTION PLANT #2 TRAILER RENTAL PUMP PARTS ( tf " ,.! ' i 'j:i I, I I ; ! I t:3 I ··--+- • ( FUfJO NO IJ/IPRANT NO. IJ70153 C7lll5'+ 071.:15~ 07(1156 070157 070158 (170159 070HO {J 701 f..1 n 7Q 1 f.2 07Cll6~ lo 7C 1 ~4 ti 71.llf~. C7i)166 07(ilfi7 07\l lH. 010 1 69 L17Cil70 il7Cil71 07fl172 (17r.J73 f'!7fil74 01ri1 n 070176 r.10111 070178 070179 ('701f.~ (.70Jfll H'lH2 OH•l ~3 1J7fJ1 flit fl7(•10~ 0 7 ll l ~6 ')70187 \!7f•lll8 f17Cl89 n701~0 07(;lql (17(1192 !J7(!1'?3 071:!19'1 07 OJ S5 07r.1% C·701S7 07~l':Hl ( 9199 -JT PIST MCRKING CAPITAL rROCESSING. DATE 7/19/El'+ PAGf REPOPT NUM~CR AP4l " COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGf COUNTY CLAIMS PAID. 07/25/84 VENDOR PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMfNT CO. PACIFIC BELL FARTS UNLIMITEO J.M. PETERS CO., INC. PICKWICK PAPER PROOUCTS HAROLD FPIMROSf ICE R41NBOW DISPOSAL CO. RAINTR£E CCMPUTER SYSTEMS HIF: f?EGISlEP. THE REGISTER ROl1BJNS & MEYERS PO~ERTSHAW CONTROLS CO. SANJFOAM, me. SA NC ON J NC. CITY OF S/INTA ANA YVONNE SCli\IAB SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. SEE OP Tl CS SHAMROCK SUPPLY SMALL fUSINESS REPOPT SMITH fJPE & SUPPLY, INC SO. COAST ~JR QUALITY HANAGEHENT DISTRICT SOUTH COAST OFFICl EQUJP~ENT SOU TJl(RN OLJ F. EDI SON CO• SO. CAL. GAS CO. SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. SPARKLfTTS DRINKING WATER SJLEL rxcHANGE, INC. J. WAYNE SYLVEST[P. Tr.TKO, INC. lHOMAS SCIENTIFIC TONY'S LOC~ & SAFE SERVICE TOFAZ ELECTPONJCS TRANSA~ERICA OELAVALt INC. TRAVEL FJUFFS TIUVfL TRAVll TRUCK ~ AUTO SUFFLYt INC. UNICO ELECTPIC UNION OIL CO. ~F CALIF. UNITED P~RC[L SERVICE UNITED STAT£S Er.UJPMENT co., INC. VWR SC JENT IF IC VALVE & Sl[EL surPLY co. VAUGllAN 1 S INDUSTP.JAL Rfl'AIR CO VOTO MACHJNf. CARL ~ARREN & CO. AMOUNT $480.96 $21.26 1527.09 $7,029.91 i2n.35 $9J.OO 1334.00 $350.00 $2,152.99 1474.32 $238.09 $6A5.0l S3,923.89 Ut57S.fl0 ~028.75 u1.2a $65.91 $937.00 $661f.c;3 $56.00 $461.12 $1<13.DO $57.50 u (12. 541. 77 $16,672.56 $6,;)2't.q9 ~677.flO SCM9.5lf S51t6e58 $6 l. 63 S5b.lt4 $lt5.5U $937.20 $l ~265.'l9 $178.00 ~~t78!J.OO Ut30"1.70 $6.39.32 $15').3" s.77.37 ssqa.n2 HH2.55 S2t82l.76 si,150.00 $lfA•J.5t $3iJtJ. I) f.l OESCklFTION SAFETY SUPPLIES TELEMETER I NG TRUCK PARTS ANNUAL BIG CANYON PAYMENT JANITORIAL SUPPLIES INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLING ICE TRASH DISPOSAL WASTEHAULING COMPUTER PROGRAMMING CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING PUMP PARTS CONTROL EQUIPMENT SOLVENTS SCUM BOX LIDS REPAIR ADHl~ISTRATIVE CHARGE REFUND EMPLOYEE MILEAGE TOOLS SAFETY ~LASSES TOOLS, SMALL HARDWARE PUBLICATION PIPE SUPPLIES PERMIT FEES TYPEWRITER HAINTENANCE POWER NATURAL GAS DIESEL FUEL BOTTLED WATER STEEL STOCK PETTY CASH REIHBURSEHENT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES LOCKS WASTEHAULING MONITORING EQUIPMENT ENGINE PARTS AIR FARE AIR FARE TRUCK PARTS ELECTRICAL REPAIRS GASOLINE DELIVERY SERVICE COMPRESSOR PARTS, VALVES LAB SUPPLIES STEEL STOCK PUMP REPAIRS PUMP PARTS LIABILITY CLAIHS ADMINISTRATORS ( :'; '·i ::: td I Vl :::: FUND NO 919q -JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DAT[ 7/19/B4 fAGE P[PORT NUM~ER AP43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY WARR ANT NO. t170 J <J9 0702CO (:70201 ll7U202 07C;>03 (17!:1204 07Ci205 LIH121>n 070207 VE NOOR WAUKESHA ENGIN[ SfRVICENTER WESTlRN TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES WEST[PN WIRE g iLLOYS WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORF WITEG SCIENTIFIC PUSSELL WOLD THOMAS L. WOODPUfft INC. XEROX CORF. ZIP TEMPORAllY PERSONNEL CLAIMS FAJD Q7/25/84 AMOUNT !lrl9.26 $265.00 U6A.96 $687.74 s 71. fl3 $31.98 Hlt332e00 Utl92.69 028.SO TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 07/25/84 i·576t't37.70 SUMMARY #1 OPER FUND #2 OPER FUND #2 f/R FUND 13 OPER FUND #3 ACO FUND #3 F/R FUND #5 OPER FUND #5 ACO FUND #5 FIR FUND #6 OPER FUND #7 OPER FUND #7 F /R FUND HI 1 OPER FUND #5&6 OPER FUND #5&6 ACO FUND #13 ACO FUND JT. OPER FUND CORF SELF FUNDED LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND SELF FUNDED WORKERS' COHP. INSURANCE FUND JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 07/25/84 (_· •J ... • .,.,, •/ ---------------------------------- AMOUNT $ 136.00 5,060.21 9,576.51 2,9lt8. 73 52. "1 6.76 17,332.90 13.67 20,085.1t5 116.)6 ti ,oti.3 .82 12,sti1.1to 6,713.36 2,392.tia 23.85 1,761.llt 324,002.02 103,lt00.23 1,357.28 15,489.22 49,077.90 $576,1137.70. ( ll(SCll IPTION ENGINE PARTS HANWAY COVERS WELDING SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE LEGAL SERVICES XEROX REPRODUCTION TEMPORARY HELP 4) rf • .. '· ,, ~ (