Loading...
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: