HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1969-12-16 Dists. 1 and 7DISTRICTS NOS.1 AND 7’
~NUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
December 16,1969 -4:30 p.m
lO~k4 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley,California
12/16/69
1&7
(Q Pursuant to adjournments of the regular meeting held
Deceinbe,r 10,1969,the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos.1 and ‘7,of Orange County,California,met in an
adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.The
roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each
District’s Board.
DISTRICT NO.1
Directors present:Lorin Griset (Chairman),
Clifton C.Miller,Ellis N.
Porter,and Win.Hirstein
Directors absent:None
DISTRICT NO.7
Directors present:Clifton C.Miller,Lorin Griset,
Ellis N.Porter,Howard Rogers,
Don E.Smith,and Win.Hirstein
Directors absent:None
OTHERS PRESENT:Paul G.Brown,Mike Babbitt,
William Clarke,Conrad Hohener,
Jack McMinn,C.Arthur Nisson,
Jay Panchal,John Sigler,Wayne
Sylvester,and Fred A.Harper,
Secretary
DISTRICT 1
Publie hearing on “Engineer
Report -County SanitatI~
District No.1 -November
~969 submi~~d by Boyle
Engineering
‘S
______________________________
This being the time and place fixed by
___________________________
the Board of Directors for the hearing
__________________________
of any objections on the report of
____________
Boyle Engineering,Consulting Engineers,
___________________
entitled “Engineer’s Report,Couflty
______________________________
Sanitation District No.1,of Oran~e
County,California -November 1969
the Chairman declared the hearing open.The Secretary then
reported that this hearing was being held per notice as
published in maimer provided by law,(Register,December 8,9,
10,11 ancFl2).
The Chairman called upon the Secretary to
objections filed with him as Secretary of
Secretary reported that there had been no
filed with him.
There being no verbal objections,it was moved,seconded and
duly carried:
That the public hearing on Engineer’s Report of Boyle Engineering.
dated November 1969,be closed.
read any written
the Board.The
written objections
S
S
S
1 12/16/69
l&7
DISTRICT 7
Review of “Financin&
Sewerage Improvements
report by Bartle Wells
Associates,dated
Novembe~iqbq
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
That the Board of Directors adopt
________________
Resolution No.69-116-1,overruling
____________________________
all protests both oral and written to
the re~ort of Boyle Engineering,
Consulting Engineers,entitled ‘Engineer’s Report,County
Sanitation District No.1,of Orange County,California,dated
November 1969”and adopting said report as made.Certified
copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICT 7
Adoption and approval of
report of Boyle Engineering,
Consulting Engineers,dated
November 1~b~
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
__________________________
That the Board of Directors adopt
________—~
Resolution No.69-115-7,overruling
-
all protests both oral and written to
the reVort of Boyle Engineering,
Consulting Engineers,entitled ‘Engineer’s Report,County
Sanitation District No.7,of Orange County,California,dated
November 1969??and adopting said report as made.Certified
copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICT 7
Finding and determining that
the public interest and
necessity of the District
demands the issuance of
additional boncis
_____________________________
That the Board of Directors adopt
____________________________
Resolution No.69-112-7,finding and
____________________________
determining that the public interest
____________________________
and necessity of the District demands
-—the issuance of additional bonds.
Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made
a part of these minutes.
______________________
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
_________________________
That the Board of Directors adopt
Resolution No.69-113-7,declaring its
intention to call a special election for the purpose of sub
mitting to the qualified electors of County Sanitation District
No.7,a proposition of incurring a bonded indebtedness in the
principal amount of $6,000,000.Certified copy of this reso
lution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
-
—2—
____________________
Mr.Jack McMinn of Bartle Wells
_____________________
Associates reviewed the recommendations
_______________________contained in the financing report and
________________________
answered questions from the Directors
and staff members.Mr.McMinn was
______________________
directed to revise Table 8,Estimated
Annual Debt Service -General
Obligation Bonds,to reflect interest expense at 7%rather
than6~.
DISTRICT 7 Following a brief discussion,it was
Directing Districtts moved,seconded and duly carried:
Legal Counsel and staff
~~prePare alternative That the District’s Legal Counsel and
methods of establishing staff be directed to prepare for the
connection charges Board’s consideration,changes in
present connection charge ordinance
~Ordinance No.709),reflecting the recommendations of
Financing Sewerage Improvements”report of Bartle Wells
Associates,dated November 1969,and other alternatives as may
be deemed advisable.
DISTRICT 1
Adoption and approval of
-
report of Boyle Engineering~
Consulting Engineers,dated
November I~6!3
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
DISTRICT 7
~Declaring intent to call
~I special bond election
S
H C
b
S
S
That the legal firm of OtMelveny &Myers be retained to review
papers and documentation concerning the election and bond
proceedings for a fee of $6,500 with a minimum payment of $500
If the bond election fails.
DISTRICT 1
Adj ourriment
Di\rectors of
Th~Chairman
DISTRICT 7
Adjournment
Directors of
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of
County Sanitation District No.1 be adjourned.
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
Moved,seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of
County Sanitation District No.7 be adjourned.
~-1
The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
a~
____Secretary
.4
-3-
0
12/16/69
l&7
DISTRICT 7 Moved,seconded and duly carried:
~iquesting services of the
County Clerk in connection That the Board of Directors adopt
with bond election Resolution No.69-1111.-7,requesting
that the Orange County Board of
Supervisors permit the County Clerk to render specified services
relating to the conduct of the Districtts Special Bond Election
tobe held March ~1970.Certified copy of this resolution
is~attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
DISTRICT 7 Moved,seconded and duly carried:
Approve and accept
proposal of C.Arthur
Nisson for legal services
in connection ~iith bond
election
________________________
That the proposal of C.Arthur Nisson,
_______________________—
dated December 16,1969,be approved
_________________________
and accepted,to prepare the papers
_________________________
and documentation concerning the
election and bond proceedings,for a
fee of $2,500 or if the bond election fails,no special fee
but the hours expended credited against Districtts legal counselts
regular monthly report of activities and applied against overage
of retainer;and,in accordance with legal counselts recom
mendation
is
S
S
DISTRICT NO.5
MINUTES OF THE ADJOU~ED REGULAR ~ETING
December 17,1969 -4:30 p.m.
108114 Ellis Avenue
Fou~tain Valley,California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December
10,1969,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District
No.5,of Orange County,California,met in an adjourned regular
meeting at the above hour and date.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.The roll
was called and the secretary reported a quozum present.
DIRECTORS PRESENT:Lindlsey Parsons (Chairman),
Doreen Marshall and Wm.Hirstein
DIRECTORS ABSENT:None
OThERS PRESENT:Paul G.Brown,Joe Devlin,Wm.
Eppinger,Ed Hirth,Gordon Jones,
Ben Nolan,Jay Panchal,Don Simpson,
Ray Stoyer,and Fred A.Harper,
Secretary
***********
Plan t?Afl involves dividing the ultimate service area at
upper Newport Bay,the westerly portion of that area to
be served through the existing system.Wastes from
the easterly portion of the service area would be transported
to a new treatment facility which is presently being con
sidered by the Irvine Ranch Water District at Crystal Cove
which is between Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach.
Plan ttBtl is in general conformity with the plan recommended
in the 1964 report that is,all wastes transported to the
Districts’Treatment Plant No.2.The first phase would
involve construction of the upper bay underwater crossing
and an additional Coast Highway parallel force main to be
constructed from Rocky Point to the Santa Ana River.The
proposed Bayside Drive trunk sewer would need to be con—
structed for its entire length from the Bay Bridge Pumping
Station to the Corona Del Mar Pumping Station.
On November 25th,the Board directed that copies of the report
be forwarded to the Irvine Ranch Water District and The Irvine
Company,requesting that they comment on Plan ttAJ?.The
following communication dated December 16th,from the Irvine
Ranch Water District was submitted to the Board:
tiReference is made to your letter of November 28
requesting our District’s comments regarding the
‘Interim Master Plan Report for County Sanitation
District No.5,November,1969.
The Irvine Ranch Water District has been and is
continuing studies regarding the feasibility of
/
#5
.t~/Th
V
U
Further Consideration of
1’Interim Master Plan Report
for County Sanitation District
No.5 of Orange County,
November,1969,prepared by
Shuirman-Simpson
The Interim Master Plan Report
submitted by Shuirman-Simpson,
Consulting ~gineers,on November
25th,considers two possible
plans to provide sewerage service
for the District.
•12/17/69
#5
furnishing sewer service to the coastal area
between Cameo Shores and Irvine Cove.This area
can be served by either constructing new facilities
somewhere along this stretch of coastline,pre
ferably in the vicinity of Crystal Cove,or by
utilizing the existing facilities of Sanitation
•District No.5 and Laguna Beach.Phasing becomes
an important part of the analysis,for instance:
construction of new facilities at Crystal Cove
could be provided to serve that local area at
considerably less capital outlay than construction
of facilities to provide for transportation of
sewage to existing facilities.However,as the ad-
joining areas develop,it is necessary that provision
has been made to take care of their ultimate needs.
•It is during this period of development that operating
costs of new facilities could be much higher than
that being experienced in older and larger facilities.
Those agencies already owiüng facilities,however,
face the dilemma Of expansion to provide for new
service areas which could work to their disadvantage
because of present limited capacity.
There are many decisions which have to be made which
are not reducible to strict economic interpretation.
The question raised on page 42 of the Report can
be partly answered by us and,in order to simplify
things,I have listed the answers in the same order
as follows:
(1.Will the Crystal Cove plant be available
when needed?)-
1.The Irvine Company plans call for construction
of some development in the Crystal Cove area by
1972.A small plant could be made available by
that time.
(2.What assurance does the District have that
additional increments will be constructed at
Crystal Cove when required?)
2.Connection charges are such that money can
be put in a sinking fund for future expansion.
Contractual arrangements could provide a guarantee
that requirements would be met.
(3.Can the District’s ad valorem tax be used
to finance required facilities at Crystal Cove?)
3.It is assumed this question is directed to
Sanitation District No.5.
(4.Which plan will best enable the District to
•plan for future needs?)
4.This is District No.5’s decision.
(5.Will it be possible to negotiate a perpetual
contract for use of the Crystal Cove plant
satisfactory to both the IRWD and the District?)
5.The Irvine Ranch Water District has other contracts
which appear to provide a satisfactory solution to the
-•
problems.
-2-
—1
12/17/69
#5
(6.What are the advantages and disadvantages
to the District of contracting for treatment
of sewage from a portion of the District com
pared to treatment of all the sewage of the
District at facilities in which the District
Is a partial owner?)
6.It appears that the transportation of
sewage from the newly developing areas to
a plant close by would be much less expensive
than transporting it several miles to the
existing facility.If Sanitation District No.5
shared in the cost of operation of this plant,
it would not be too different from their present
participation with the joint districts,although
in the early years unit costs in the new facility
would.be much higher.
Effluent of waste discharge on the ocean environment
plays an important part in the decision-making process
in this instance.If stricter requirements are to be
imposed on discharge to the ocean,resulting in higher
degrees of treatment.,then consideration must be given
to the potential market for reuse.However,technology
has not been developed as yet to the point where reuse
of treated effluent can be done economically in an
urbanized area.As long as large open spaces and
agricultural land are available,disposal can be done
on the land.It is this phasing of development,
coupled with the problems of environmental change
created by this development,which hopefully can be
solved by technological advances,that poses the
problem facing us in this decision.
I hope this supplies sufficient information for your
purpose.
Very truly yours,
~VINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT
/s/William H.Eppinger
General Manager”
Staff members of the Irvine Ranch Water District and The
Irvine Company answered questions by members of the Board
of Directors.Following a lengthy discussion,the
communication submitted by the Irvine Ranch Water District
was received and ordered filed,and it was further moved
that consideration concerning the adoption of an ultimate
sewerage master plan for District No.5 will be deferred
to a meeting to be established in February 1970,in order
to provide additiona~J.time for further study evaluation
by the Irvine Ranch Water District and The Irvine Company.
Consideration of staff The Board of Directors reviewed
report on projected funds a financ±al report which indicates
available for construction that the projected construction project
projects for fiscal years of the Upper Bay Underwater Crossing
I~b9-70 through 1972-73 and Coast Highway Parallel Force Main
recommended in Plan “B”of the Interim
Master Plan Report,dated November 1969,would cost $881,000
while the projected funds available for construction are
$6Ll~6,00Q indicating a deficit of $235,000,providing there is
no increase in taxes.The fund projections include repayment
in the amount of $315,000,to The Irvine Company,on an ex:Lstin~
loan in aid of construction The staff reported that if t~e
repayment pxovisionc of the agreement were amended to extend
—3—
12/17/69
#5
the date of commencement of the loan repayment,It would
appear that sufficient funds would be available during
this period to construct the Upper Bay Underwater
Crossing and the Coast Highway Parallel Force Main.
Following a brief discu~sion,it was moved,seconded
and duly carried,that the staff report be received and
taken under submission for study.
Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried:,
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No.5,be adjourned.The Chairman
then deälared the meeting so adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Secretary,Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No.5
.
enairman,~oara or ii~rectors or
County Sanitation District No.5
I,
0
ATTEST: