HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-04-24COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.1
OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR METING
April 24,1985 —4:00 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley,California
Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of April 10,1985,the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No.1 of Orange County,California met in an
adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts’Administrative
Offices.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m.The roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present.
DIRECTORS PRESENT:Robert Hanson,Dan Griset,Ronald B.
Hoes terey
DIRECTORS ABSENT:Roger Stanton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:J.Wayne Sylvester,General Manager,Rita
3.Brown,Secretary,Thomas M.Dawes,Blake
Anderson,William H.Butler,Gary Streed,
Richard von Langen
OTHERS:Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel
Receive and file minute excerpt re Moved,seconded and duly carried:
Board Appointments
That the minute excerpt from the City of
Tustin re election of mayor,appointment of an Alternate Director,and seating
new members of the Board,be and is hereby,received and ordered filed,as
follows (*Mayor).
Active Director Alternate Director
Ronald B.Hoesterey Frank Greinke*
Staff report on long—range The General Manager presented an
financial program projections and overview of the District’s fiscal
status of program implementation position,and described the major
changes that have occurred since the
Directors adopted the District’s long—range financial plan in October,1984.He
noted that several major things have occurred that will improve the District’s
short term financial condition:
—delays in construction of major capital improvements at the Joint Works
treatment facilities pending the Joint Boards decision to form proposed
District No.14 to provide sewer service to the Irvine Ranch Water District
service area
—the potential financial benefit to District No.1 as a result of allocation of
funds to the District from IRWD’s purchase of capacity in the Joint Works
facilities relative to formation of proposed District No.14.
-.1—
4/24/85 -
He pointed out that long—term fiscal requirements would be increased because of
the Joint Boards decision to shift calculation of each District’s percentage of
equity in the Joint Works from a three—year weighted average of assessed
valuation and flow to a 100%flow—based equity ownership approach.0
Mr.Sylvester also indicated that since the Board authorizec.~implementation of
supplemental user fees commencing in 1985—86,the staff had been working closely
with the County Assessor to develop a data base of all customers in District
No.1 and to modify existing computer programs developed by the Assessor to
enable the proposed user fee to be placed on the 1985—86 County of Orange
property tax bill.The Assessor’s staff has been working diligently in support
of the District’s user fee implementation program,however,other commitments as
well as the Assessor’s limited staff resources have delayed completion of both
the programming modifications and development of the user data base,specifically
due to the large numbers of commercial and industrial facilities that need to be
identified in District No.1.
The General Manager pointed out that due to these unavoidable delays the staff
had started to evaluate an alternative method for developing a data base of users
in District No.1,and had participated in preliminary discu~sions with the City
of Santa Ana to determine whether or not the District could establish a
supplemental user fee program based upon water meter size data available via the H
city’s computer—based utility billing system.This method has been employed
successfully elsewhere by the Districts.
Following a review of the alternatives available for implementation of the
long—range financial plans the Director of Finance then presented various cash
flow projections outlining the impact of the various changes that have occurred
since the Board adopted the financial program and presented revenue projections
of the alternative implementation plans to the Directors.Q H
The Directors then entered into an extended discussion regarding the relative H
merits of the available methods for developing a customer data base and
implementing a supplemental user fee to put the District on a fiscally sound
basis over the long term.
Authorizing staff to procure Moved,seconded and duly carried:
services for supplemental user fee
data base development and EDP That the staff be,and is hereby,
sqpport authorized to procede with development
of an alternative user ~harge program
utilizing water purveyor information for the basis and data base;and,
FURTHER ~VED:That staff be authorized to procure necessary services for data
base management providing for programming and data processing to provide data
base information,mailing labels and parcel charge tapes relative to planning and
implementation of supplemental user fees to be collected on the property tax bill
for an amount not to exceed $15,000.00.I
Staff report re enforcement action The General Manager reported that
for non—comRliance against Griffin Electronics,an electroplating
Griffin Electronics firm located in Santa Ana,has
experienced difficulties in achieving
and maintaining compliance with the limitations on copper discharge set forth in
the District’s industrial waste ordinance.Mr.Sylvester stated that the staff
had initiated enforcement action and outlined the alternative enforcement actions 0
—2—
~~i~
~~/24/85
available to the Board to force compliance by Griffin.The General Counsel
reported that he had prepared a stipulated agreement specifically defining
conditions for installation of pretreatment equipment to effectively control the
discharge,posting of a $10,000 bond to ensure compliance,and establishing a
detailed compliance schedule as one alternative used by the Board in the past in
similar enforcement actions.He stated that Griffin Electronics had signed the
stipulated agreement and had posted the bond.The firm desires to avoid permit
revocation and has already begun to carry out various provisions of the
agreement.He also pointed out that in the event the permittee violates the
agreement,the Board could simply revoke the companyts permit and call the $10,000
bond,which would protect the District from any additional financial loss.
Approving stipulated agreement with Moved,seconded and duly carried:
Griffin Electronics
That the stipulated enforcement
agreement with Griffin Electronics pertaining to Industrial Waste Permit
No.1—200,dated April 24,1985,be,and is hereby,approved,as recommended by
the staff and General Counsel.
Approving Amendment No.1 to the The General Counsel advised the
stipulated agreement with Directors that the District had
V.A.L.Circuits,Inc previously entered into a stipulated
enforcement agreement with
V.A.L.Circuits,Inc.which included specific compliance dates.Based upon the
Industrial Waste Division’s recent review of the company’s status relative to
compliance with the schedule,the staff had requested certain modifications to the
pretreatment system that would delay the installation.It is,therefore,
necessary to request a modification of certain dates in the schedule and the
Industrial Waste Division and the General Counsel recommended that the Board
approve proposed Amendment No.1 to the District’s existing agreement with
V.A.L.Circuits,Inc.to revise the compliance dates.While certain scheduled
dates would be extended sixty days,the General Counsel indicated that the final
compliance date of August 12,1985,set forth in the original agreement would not
change.-
It was then moved,seconded and duly carried:
That Amendment No.1,dated April 24,1985,to the Stipulated Enforcement
Agreement with V.A.L.Circuits,Inc.pertaining to Industrial Waste Permit
No.1—350,be,and is hereby,approved.
Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried:
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 5:25 p.m.,
April 24,1985.
Secretary,BoMd of Directors
County Sanitation District No.1 of
Orange County,California
—3—