Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-04-04COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.3 OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR METING April 4,1985 —7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of March 13,1985,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts’Mministrative Offices. The Chairman pro tern called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Griffin,Chairman pro tern,Ruth Bailey, Oscar Brownell,Dan Griset,John Holmberg, James Neal,Chris Norby,Richard Olson, Richard Partin,Bob Perry,Richard Polis, Charles Sylvia Carrey Nelson,Don Roth,Sal Sapieri,Roger Stanton 3.Wayne Sylvester,General Manager,Rita 3.Brown,Secretary,Thomas M.Dawes, William H.Butler,Gary Streed OTHERS Thomas Woodruff,General Counsel,Frank Dryden **.*********** Approving March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller—Holder Interceptor System abatement study in the Miller—Holder is the Districts’longest sewer line all the way to Plant 2 in Huntington Dryden,representing Malcolm Pirnie, study and findings. The General Manager reported that in October the Board had engaged the consulting firm of Malcolm Pirnie to conduct a sewer corrosion and odor Trunk Sewer.The Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer and conveys sewage from the City of La Habra Beach.Mr.Sylvester introduced Mr.Frank who reviewed the engineering consultant’s The study evaluated the addition of several chemicals and concluded that the optimum chemical for control of odors as well as corrosion in the Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer would be the injection of caustic soda approximately every ten days during warm weather and every fifteen days during the cooler weather at various points along the trunk sewer.The anticipated annual cost for such a program would be $75,000.00. Following a brief discussion it was then moved,seconded and duly carried: That the March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study:Miller—Holder Interceptor System,prepared by Malcolm Pirnie,Inc.,be,and is hereby, received,ordered filed and approved. —1— 4/4/85 Authorizing staff to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study Authorizing staff to solicit Moved,seconded and duly carried: proppsals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda That the staff be,and is hereby, for odor abatement in the Miller authorized to solicit proposals from Holder Trunk Sewer system suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer system as recommended in the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study. Staff report re Miller—Holder Trunk The staff reported that,for the reasons Sewer Odor Control Study and described in the Malcolm Pirnie report, Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation the Districts’had experienced considerable deterioration in its manhole vaults on the Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer System between Treatment Plant No.2 and Imperial Highway in the city of La Habra.The Dep~.ity Chief Engineer reported that during the last 1½years the Directors of Dist~ict No.3 had awarded two contracts totaling nearly $900,000.00 for the rehabilitation of twenty of the most badly corroded vaults on the Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer.~Mr.Dawes reported that staff had just concluded a survey of the remaining manholes on the Miller—Holder sewer and that an additional 74 were in need of replacement or repair.He estimated the cost for rehabilitation of the remaining manholes to be $1,750,000.111~ It was then moved,seconded and duly carried: That the staff report dated March 28,1985 re Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study and Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation be,and is hereby,received and ordered filed. Authorizing the Selection Committee to solicit proposals and ~gotiate an agreement for the design of 74 vaults on the Mi11~r—Ho1der Trunk Sewer Approving,,policy re settlement of The Deputy Chief Engineer reported that, claims for damages to local sewer similar to the District’s experience, manholes adjacent to the District’s the local sewering agencies trunk sewers (Cities/Sanitary Districts)had also e~cperienced manhole corrosion, apparently as a result of hydrogen sulfide gases migrating from the Districts’ trunk sewers into the local systems,Generally,the local system damage has been limited to the first manhole upstream from the District’s trunk sewer connection. Re reported that requests for compensation for damages to th~localsystem Moved,seconded and duly carried: ___________________________________ That the staff be,and is hereby,, ___________________________________ authorized and directed to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie, March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study:Miller—Holder,Interceptor System. 0 Moved,seconded and duiy carried: _________________________________ That the Selection Committee be,and is --hereby,authorized to ~o1icit proposals _____________________________________ and negotiate an agreement for the~ design of rehabilitati6n of 74 vaults on the Miller—Holder Trunk Sewer for consideration by the Board. —2— facilities have been received from the City of Fountain Valley,the City of Huinc~ton Beach,the City of Buena Park and the Midway City Sanitary District. H&’s~tated that District’s crews have spot—checked manholes owned by local agencies and confirmed damages. The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion concerning a policy regarding the settlement of claims against the District for damage to local agency manholes. During the discussion it was pointed out that the Joint Boards at their regular March meeting had adopted a policy concerning settlement of such claims.However the policy did not fix a settlement amount but rather provided that each individual District determine its settlement basis or amount. There are four basic settlement alternatives.1)The full cost of repairs;2)a percentage of the cost;3)a fixed (average)amount;or 4)denial of the claim. It was pointed out that both the full cost of the repairs or denial of the claim in its entirety appeared to have been precluded by the adopted policy statement which recognizes that there is a shared responsibility of both the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency.As the amount of damage sustained by the local sewering agencies generally increases the closer the agency is to the lower reaches of the trunk sewer,a flat fee per manhole also appeared to be inequitable.Therefore,the concensus was that a percentage of the contract construction cost to repair local agency manholes would be the most appropriate method of settling claims for damages. It was then moved and seconded: That the District establish a policy of paying 90%of the cost of rehabilitating local sewering agency manholes damaged by hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the District’s trunk sewers. The Board then entered into a discussion concerning time limits for filing of claims to be paid pursuant to the proposed District’s policy and time limits for honoring said claims. After the discussion an amendment to the original motion was moved and seconded to provide time limitations for filing of claims and payment of such claims. Following further discussion the amended motion was duly adopted.The Board’s adopted policy statement is set forth below: POLICY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.3 RE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO LOCAL SEWER MANHOLES The Board of Directors,upon receiving a detailed report of its staff and General Counsel,relating to damages incurred by Cities and Sanitary Districts to their local manhole facilities which are located in the proximate vicinity of District’s trunk sewer lines,determined that it was in the best interests of the District to effect a settlement of claims for reimbursement of these damages to each of the entities. The Directors have taken into consideration the relative degree of responsibility between the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency, together with the estimated costs of repair of said facilities,and based thereon,the Board of Directors does hereby adopt as its policy: —3— 4/4/85 “The Board of Directors does approve the settlement of claims made by any~ local sewering agency wherein damage has been incurred to its local trunk E~cqe~~. facilities,including manholes,which are connected to the Districts’trunk sewers. Pursuant to this policy,the District will pay to each local sewering agency,the following proportional amount of the actual contracted construction costs (exclusive of design,inspection,and administration exper~ses)to rehabilitate each manhole proven to have incurred damage resulting,in part, from hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the District’s trunk sewers, provided that claims for said damages be filed with the District within sixty (60)days of notification of this policy: For Rehabilitation Work ~t~i1 Completed Within Following Time Periods After Policy Percent of Contracted Construction Notification Costs To Be Paid By District 24 Months 90% 25 —36 Months 60% 37 —48 Months 30% 49 +Months 0% Further provided that the policy is to be implemented by payment in accordance with the above schedule,subject to: 1.The District receiving a general release of all claims from the local sewering agency including a waiver of any future claims for damages to its facilities. 2.The local sewering agency undertaking the repair of its manhole facilities with materials and in accordance with specifications approved by the District. 3.Agreement by the local sewering agency that all new connections to District facilities will be made with manholes protected in accordance with specifications approved by the District. This policy shall further be limited with regards to reimbursement for manholes already repaired by any local sewering agency to those which have been repaired since January 1,1982.” Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 be adjourned.The Chairman pro tern then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:53 p.m.,April 4,1985. Secretary,Boa~’d of Directors County Sanitation District No.3 —4—