HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-17 Agenda packetCOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
q, 10644 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
714)962-2411
March 10, 1988
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO . 6
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988 - 2: 30 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of March 9, 1988,
the Board of Directors of county sanitation District No. 6 will
meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date
to review the District's long-range financial program.
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts PW off1m S. 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephenae:
Area Code 714
DISTRICT No. G 6z 241 T
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988 - 2 :30 P .M .
1 ) Roll call
2) Public CotmnentsllrAll persons wishing to address the Boards
on specific agenda items or matters of general interest
should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman,
speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken
for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes.
3 ) verbal status report on the District' s sewer rehabilitation
program and Master Plan of facilities to serve the District.
4 ) Consideration of items re long-range financial program:
a) Staff report on financial projections
b) Discussion
c) Consideration of actions relative to Ordinance No. 612,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California,
Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer
Service Charges: (Copy enclosed with agenda material)
1 ) Report of General Counsel re proposed ordinance.
2 ) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 612,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County,
California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining
to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, by title only,
and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must
be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors
present) .
3 ) Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance
No. 612, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County,
California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining
to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and pass to
second reading on April 13 , 1988
5 ) Other business and communications, if any
6 ) Consideration of motion to adjourn
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post OHke Bar 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Arne Cade 714
DisrRicr No. G 9540-291062-2471
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1988 - 2:30 P.M.
1) Roll call
2) Public CommentsM'All persons wishing to address the Boards
on specific agenda items or matters of general interest
should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman,
speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken
for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes.
3 ) verbal status report on the District' s sewer rehabilitation
program and Master Plan of facilities to serve the District.
4) Consideration of items re long-range financial program:
a) Staff report on financial projections
r
b) Discussion
c) Consideration of actions relative to Ordinance No. 612,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California,
Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer
Service Charges: (Copy enclosed with agenda material)
1) Report of General Counsel re proposed ordinance.
2) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 612,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County,
California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining
to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, by title only,
and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must
be adopted by unan mo s vote of Directors
present) . 60
3) Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance
No. 612, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County,
California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Pertaining
to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and pass bp
second reading on April 13, 1988 Qa
5) Other business and communications, if any
6) Consideration of motion to adjourn 3'- D
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
Pwt Office Box 8127County
a County, Californiaricts10844 Ellis AvenueofOrangeCounty, eliomi Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
TskpheAmCode 714
540-291DISTRICTNO. 962.2411
MANAGER'S REPORT TO DISTRICT NO. 6 DIRECTORS
MEETING DATE: MARCH 17, 1988 - 2:30 P.M.
Following is a brief report on the matters to be considered at the adjourned
meeting. Please note that the meeting is at 2:30 p.m. in the Districts'
administra ve o Ices.
Item No. 3: Master Plan Status Report
County Sanitation District No. 6, which includes most of the City of Costa Mesa,
portions of the City of Newport Beach and unincorporated territory, is
approximately 10,000 acres in size. The northerly half drains to existing
sewers which roughly parallel the San Diego Freeway and are tributary to the
Fountain Valley Reclamation Plant. The southerly portion of the District
drains to facilities in Pacific Coast Highway jointly owned with County
Sanitation District No. 5 and are tributary to the Huntington Beach Treatment
Plant. Districts 5 and 6 have had a systematic program for several years of
rehabilitating the Coast Highway Trunk Sewer system which will be completed in
1989.
The backbone of the sewer system which serves the northerly portion of the
District was acquired from the Federal Government in 1955. These trunks, called
the "Air Base" Trunks, were built by the U.S. Army, circa 1943, to serve the
old Santa Ana Army Air Base and dedicated at no cost to the Sanitation District.
The Air Base trunks include a siphon under the Santa Ana River and two parallel
sewers, one an 18-inch sewer and the other an 18 to 33-inch sewer constructed in
1942 and 1943. In 1960 the District participated in the construction of the
Gisler-Redhill Trunk Sewer System with County Sanitation District No. 7 and has
an ownership of 5% of the capacity in that system. In total , County Sanitation
District No. 6 owns capacity of about 71 mgd to serve the northerly portion of
the District while future requirements are estimated to be approximately 15 mgd.
One of the major problems with the northerly trunk sewer system is that it is so
heavily dependent upon the Air Base sewers constructed some 45 years ago. The
sewers are in poor condition, and in some cases the grades are adverse to the
flow. Staff has estimated that these sewers have a maximum expected remaining
life of 10 years.
Construction of a new District No. 6 sewer between the Fountain Valley Plant and
Baker Street at Fairview Road, a distance of some 3 miles, would cost an
estimated $7 million. However, a much more economical alternative for
replacement of the old Air Base lines would be for District No. 6 to participate
March 17, 1988
with Districts 7 and 14 in the new Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer. Districts
No. 7 and 14 must construct the new conveyance facilities from their recently
built Main Street Pump Station to the Joint Treatment Works at Plant No. 1.
Routing the sewers through the northerly portion of Sanitation No. 6 would allow
District 6 to participate in that project. Sharing capacity ownership of the
joint facilities with Districts 7 and 14 will reduce the estimated cost from $7
million to about $1.4 million for District No. 6. Sharing construction costs of
a larger conveyance facility is a much more economical way of obtaining the
necessary capacity.
In addition to the joint project, District 6 must parallel lines also built in
1942 and 1943 by the Army in Fairview Road from Baker Street to Wilson Street at
an estimated cost of about $2.3 million.
In summary, District No. 6 needs to replace the existing northerly outfall sewers
built in the early 1940's by the United States Army during World War II with
larger capacity sewers. Sharing in the joint construction project with County
Sanitation Districts 7 and 14 reduces the total project cost from $9.3 million
to $3.7 million as shown below:
District Participation
No. 6 alone in Baker-Gisler
Interceptor
Sewer
Replacement of Air Base Trunks, Plant
No.1 to Baker Street @ Fairview Road 7,000,000 1,400,000
Fairview Trunk, Baker Street to
Wilson Street 2,300,000 2,300,000
9,300,000 3,700,000
Staff will review the master plan needs and the enclosed Schedule of District
Collection System Projects in more detail at the Board meeting.
Item No. 4: Update on Long-range Financial Program and Consideration of
Amendments to Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges.
Background
In 1983 the Board modified the District's long-range financial program and
implemented a supplemental user fee to make up the shortfall of ad valorem tax
revenues and provide the additional financing necessary for both operations and
maintenance as well as major facilities rehabilitation. User fees are charged
to all properties connected to the sewer. Funds for facilities expansion are
currently provided from connection fees on new development paid by the
developer.
During the public workshops and hearing held in 1983 to present the District's
proposed user fee program to its constituents, the public was advised that the
initial user fee schedule was expected to increase substantially (77%) in the
2-
March 17, 1988
second year (1984) of the program to cover rising costs, and then remain at the
increased level for several years. However, the District was able to delay any
increase in both the connection fee and supplemental user fee until 1986 due to
a significant decline in inflation rates and receipt of favorable bids on
various District and Joint Works construction and rehabilitation projects, all
of which reduced District expenditures below anticipated levels. But in 1986
changes in land use restrictions and the taxable status of major properties in
the District resulted in lower ad valorem tax revenues (to pre-1984-85 levels)
and necessitated increases in the District's fee structure to maintain the
financial integrity of the capital and operating funds.
Based on further projected financing shortfalls, the Board has previously
directed staff to plan an increase of 10% per year in the supplemental user fee
beginning in 1986-87) to help meet the District's funding needs. The Board has
also systematically increased the one-time connection fee to help fund capital
expansion requirements.
Following is the current fee schedule:
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial/Ind/
Fee Type Residential Residential Governmental/Other
One-time Connection $1,500 per 1,500 per 300 per 1,000 sq.
Fee dwelling unit dwelling unit ft. of building
Annual User Fee 31.68 per 19.02 per 22.68 per 1,000
dwelling unit dwelling unit sq. ft. of building
Future Financial Projections
Our financial projections continue to reflect funding shortfalls, particularly
in the capital accounts. In 1986 the nine Joint Sanitation Districts considered
debt financing for capital needs to take advantage of then existing tax laws.
Although some Districts elected to proceed with the issuance of Certificates of
Participation to raise capital funds, the District No. 6 Board considered and
rejected debt financing.
Our projections indicate that District No. 6 will exhaust its capital funds as
soon as 1989-90, and the Board will have to determine how to best finance the
District's share of the treatment plant construction and the trunk sewer
construction. For discussion purposes, staff has prepared three scenarios:
Schedule A (pink) reflects the annual 10% increase in supplemental user fees
over the next ten years previously directed by the Board and the current
connection fee schedule. Although connection fee rates will continue to
rise as the cost of constructing sewage facilities escalates, connection fee
revenues will be inadequate for financing all of the District's capital
needs. Schedule A continues to show a capital funding deficit in 1989-90.
Schedule B (green) adds to Schedule A to the issuance of $9 million of
Certificates of Participation, one possible method of raising additional
capital monies. These certificates would be sufficient to fund the north
3-
March 17, 1988
District 6 sewer replacements and the joint works projects for
rehabilitation/reconstruction and increased levels of treatment. Retirement
of the certificates would be made by further increasing the supplemental
user fee which would have to be increased to $52.28 in 1989-90, and 20%
annually thereafter to pay the annual debt service of $880,000.
An alternative would be to not issue debt certificates but to raise the
annual user fee an amount basically equivalent to what the debt service
would be and to use those fees directly for capital needs. Schedule C
blue) reflects this approach using the same user fee rates as in Schedule
B. The advantage of this alternative is that at the end of the 10-year
period the capital fund balance is relatively close to what it would be
under Schedule B. The District would not be faced with an outstanding debt
of $14,960,000. The disadvantage is that the cash is not received
up-front" in the early years when it is needed for capital projects.
It is clear that the user fee rates will have to continue to escalate - and at
an accelerated pace - to maintain the District's financial integrity. However,
there are several unknowns that will have a major impact on the District's cash
flow requirements.
The District's major funding shortfalls are for capital funding. The
projections herein assume that all construction projects proceed on schedule.
Thus, the estimates can be considered "worst case" scenarios. However, we
continue to experience delays in major projects such as the Central Power
Generating System because of SCApMD requirements. Further delays in this $53
million project of which District 6's share is $2.7 million, would also delay,
or at least spread out, when capital funds need to be raised. The same is true
for other capital projects. Conversely, as the Directors are aware, if the EPA
does not renew the secondary treatment waiver in 1990, the Districts capital
needs will increase substantially.
Recommendations
We hope to have a decision on the Central Power Generating Project from SCAOMD
by July. In addition, by July the consulting engineers will have provided
preliminary information on the updated Master Plan for the Joint Works that will
be incorporated into the new budgets. Because of the major impact of the Joint
Works capital project on the District's cash flow and overall funding needs,
staff is recommending that consideration of any major changes to the District's
long-term financial plan be held in abeyance until some of these unknowns are
better focused.
We have, however, drafted an ordinance revision to increase the supplemental
user fees by 10% in 1988-89 as previously directed by the Board as follows:
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial/Ind/
Fee Type Residential Residential Governmental/Other
Annual User 34.85 per 20.92 per 24.95 per 1,000
Fee dwelling unit dwelling unit sq. ft. of building
4-
March 17, 1988
Ordinance No. 612 (attached to the agenda) incorporates the proposed fee
schedule and is presented for consideration by the Directors. As discussed
above, it is clear that the Board will soon have to accelerate the rate of user
fee escalation, and the Directors may wish to consider doing that beginning in
1988-89. No change in the connection fee schedule is recommended at this time.
The current fee pays the basic cost of sewerage system capacity for new
development.
Staff will review the the attached cash flow projections, the proposed
supplemental user fee increase and the proposed Ordinance with the Directors in
greater detail at the meeting.
as
5-
4:25 PB
Coo1TT SABITATI01 DMICT NO.;
3CUOULI of OISTIICT COLLICTIa STSTIB 9eUJICIS
Beginning
P6OJBCT TOTAL I C.I.P. 15e7-11 191B-19 1919-10 199U-91 1991-92 1912-91 1333-9
1 ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -I
lathe Listed 3leeetri leg 1e,100 I 10,000
I
Basler Plan(ll9 Update 40,016 I 41,000
Coast Trunk Force Music: I
1. Bitter Point tap started
to Newport Bled. 5-19-13 ill 1a)e so,000 49,000 1,001
2. Newport Blvd. to Back Bay aid
Sam he liver to Bitter Paint
hip Station 5-29 131 (alp 400,000 I 2,000 10,000 361,000
3.Bitter Sides to Newport Blvd.I
ISoptb Bide) 5-31 1,31 (a) 90,000 1 90,000
1. Bitter Polar Pimp Ste. Upgrade 5-32 (111a1• 37.000 1 11,000 5,001 15,000
5. lusty Pont Bap Sri. Upgrade s-32 (3) (ale 24,000 1 16,100 10,000
I
Biscellaena Projects 111 151,000 1 1,001 25.060 25,001 25,006 25,000 25.111 25,100
sib-total BCD fad 6oA0uo 60,000 51,000 558,010 25,000 2s,010 25,010 25,000 25,000
I ........... ........... ---------- ----------- ........... ........... ........... ----------I
District I,1 a 16 leliei Systeess (31 (e) 11IM010 1 53,000 610,010 525,000 212,000
1
fairvia load, Baker Street I
to Nilson street p1 (of 21290,006 1 75,000 1121s,000 1,000,000
I
Biscellenecal Projects lb) 150,000 1 25,001 2s,00o 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
I ........... ........... ........... ........... .--------- ----------- ...........son-total It had 3,130,010 I 53.000 0 710,010 1,765,010 11231,069 25.000 25.001 25.004
I ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
ewe TOTAL 4,632,001 1 121,01/Is" 112511161 1,116,010 1,262,111 51,0/0 50,101 51,000
a) tally tended 1. lister-plmied facilities presently elder construction
Ill Partially faded 2. Saster-pleoned facilities presently ostler design
Icl Not loaded 3. Ba,ter-planed facilities scheduled for futon desiga/coastactice
Partially paid by District 5
n Partially paid by Districts 7 ad If
3111!e( Page 1
SCRIDULI A
COUNTY SANITATION DISMCT go. 6
STATISM OF PROJECTED CASK FLOW
113CAL TEARS 1987-80 THROUGH 1996-97
1992-93d
LINE 1987-80 1980.85 1999-90 1990-91 1931-92 l $-Tear Total 1996-97 10-feat Total LIRE
OPERATING ?m
1
1 Reserves 6 Carry-Over Frog Last Year 1,696,000 1,291.000 1,5S8,000 1,802,000 2,071,000 1,696,000 2,381,000 1,636,000 1
MAKEE
2 Share of IT Tax Allocatton 1,007,000 1,237,000 1,355,000 1,E61,000 1,625,000 6,700,000 10,767,000 17,475,000 2
3 fees-Industrial Waste 114,000 151,000 177,000 - an,00o 233,000 901,000 1,105,000 2,706,000 1
suppleaeatal user 1,011,000 1,154,000 1,401,000 1,594,000 5,270,000 11,407,000 16,671,000
1 Interest 6 Miscellaneous Iacono 119,000 161,000 1151000 117,000 198,000 I 631,000 13S,000 1,069,000 1
S Other Revenue I 0 0 5
i ----------- ----------- .---.------
6 TOTAL RE91m00 1,260,000 2,501,000 2,815,000 3,225,000 3,710,D0o I 13,513,000 21,111,000 37,927,000 6
I ----------- ----------- ...........
1 TOTAL AVAILABLE PONOISG 2,956,000 3,754,000 4,373,000 5,027,000 S,781,00o I 15,209,000 26,795,000 39,623,000 7
I ----------- ----------- ...........
EIPINDITCIIS I
1
8 Share of Joist Works N 6 0 1,196,000 I,060,000 2,369,000 2,724,000 3,131,000 11,102,000 21,317,000 36,099,000. 1
9 Collection Systei K 6 0 and Other Oper. 163,000 116,000 202,000 232,000 267,000 1,046,000 2,070,001 31116,000 9
10 Other 11penditares 0 0 10
I...... --......... .......... 1 ----------- ----------- -----------
11 TOTAL 1IPENDITURKS 1,565,000 2,236,000 2,571,000 2,956,000 3,400,000 1 12,828,000 26,307,000 39,215,000 11
I....... ........... ........... .......... 1 ----------- ----------- -----------
12 Reserves 6 Carry-over to Next lair 11291,000 11556,000 1,002,000 2,071,000 2,381,000 I 2,361,000 108,000 400,000 12
13 Next Year's Try Period finding Regoiraients 133,000 1,110,600 1,286,000 1,478,000 1,700,000 I 1,700,000 3,423,000 31123,000 13
l ----------- ----------- ..---------
11 °nod Balance or (Beftettl 458,000 110,000 516,000 193,000 631,006 I 681,000 -3,015,000 -3,015,000 if
supplemeatal use: fee for Slagle family Residence 131.60 631.05 639.31 HC.17 646.39 611.70
Scpplegental User fees allocated to Oper Fund and ',.CO Toed to ealptain Oper Find 201 reserve
Sappleaeotal User Pee eacreased 101 per yr
COIF projects as est:uted is 86-89 prelxaenary budget worksheets
3111/B Page 2
COUNTY SANITA7101 DI61A1CT NO. 6
STA7ANII7 01 PROJECTED CASE PLOW
IISCAL YEARS 1987-88 7NIOU6N 1996.97 SCBIOULI A
CAPITAL ROME)
1992.93/
1987-80 1989.89 1989-90 1910.91 1391.92 Me"Total 1996-97 10-lean Total AREA
r.
15 Reserves 6 Cary-over Pram Last Year 6,426,00 7,216,000 2,480,000 -1,556,000 -6,132,000 6,426,000 -7,604,000 6,425,000 If
I ------------ ........... ...........
REVENUE
16 Greece 62,000 I $2,000 2,000 16
17 lees: Coanectios 250,000 251,000 291,000 234,000 234,000 I 1,253,100 1,170,000 21823,000 11
IN Supplemental User Fees 1,100,000 265,000 240,000 143,000 6,000 I 1,752,000 1,752,000
Other 32,000 22,000 37,000 43,000 69,000 I 193,000 371,000 71,000 18
19 Sale 0f Capacity Rights 13,000 41,000 31,000 626,000 21,000 I 739,000 19,000 31,000 19
20 Interest 6 Wiseellmeous imaae 556,000 346,000 0 0 0 I 902,000 0 902,010 20
21 later-bad Transfer 3,000 I 3,000 3,000 21
22 Other 2nem 1,104,000 I 1,101,000 1,104,000 22
I ----------- .--------.. ...........
23 TOTAL REVENUE 3,058,000 1,0S7,000 559,000 1,046,000 308,000 I 6,020,000 1,647,000 7,675,000 23
I •---------- ----------- ------.----
21 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 9,424,000 8,335,000 3,047,000 -1,510,400 •5,824,000 I 12,154,000 .6,037,000 14,101,000 21
I ----------- ........... ...........
I1PI10I79RIS I
25 Share of Joint Works Treatment Plant 211S5,000 1.589,000 3,813,000 3,E0,000 1,810,000 15,127,000 5,661,000 21,588,000 25
26 District Collection System 51,000 1,258,000 1,710,000 1,262,000 50,000 4,411,000 250,000 1,661,000 26
27 Other Expenditures 0 0 27
28 TOTAL IIPINDITURIS 2,204,000 5,647,000 5,603,000 4,612,000 1,060,000 20,128,000 6,111,000 26,249,000- 21 i
29 Reserves 6 Carry-over to Neat Year 7,273,000 2,488,000 -2,5S6,000 -6,112,000 -7,688,000 •7,664,000 -12,148,000 -12,140,401 21
Page 1
cowl SANITATION DISTRICT 10. 6 S."11UM A
l
6TATIM6NT Of PIO3ICTID CASH[LOW
II8CAL BASIN 1987.81 THROUGH 1196.97
199i-91/
LINK 1167.68 I999.09 1169.90 1190.91 1991.92 I MARL total 1156.91 10-Tor total 6111
I ............ ----------- ............. ----
BOND FORTIN)I
30 Reserves A Carry-Over From Lent Year 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 21,000 30
0. ........... .......... I ........... ........... ...........
SIMON I
31 tar Levy I 0 0 31
32 Interest 6 M cellameom Income 2,000 0 0 0 0 I 1,000 0 2,000 12
33 Other Income I 0 33
4... .......... ........... ........... ...........
31 TOTAL RETURN 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 2,000 31
I -------.... ........... ...........
35 TOTAL ATRIUM FUNDING 30,000 0 0 0 0 I 30,000 0 30.500 35
I ........... ........... ...........
IIPINDITOIBS I
36 load Principal 6 Interest 21,000 27,000 27,000 36
37 [Ater-fund Transfer 3,000 3,000 3,000 37
38 Other lrpead9[nres 31
39 TOTAL IIPKHDITORIS 30,000 0 0 0 0 I 30,000 0 30,000 39
I ........... ........... ...........
10 Reserves 6 Carry-Over to Next Year 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 40
It seat Yearn Dry Period fondiaq Requirements 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11
I ........... ----------- -----------
12 food Balance or (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12
BUMMAIT (Adjusted for Inter-Pend Traasfern)
13 Reserves 8 Carry-Over Iron Last Year 81150,000 01569,000 4,046,000 .751,000 -1,061,000 0,150,000 .5,303,000 1,150,C30 13
I0 TOTAL RIVINUK 1,320,000 3,560,000 30371,000 /,271,000 1,018,000 19,543,000 26.061,000 /5,601,:00 11
0 ...........
IS TOTAL AVAILAHLI 1UNDING 12,170,000 12,129,000 7,120,000 3,511,000 -43,000 27,693,000 20,751,000 53,75/,K00 15
16 TOTAL IIP110ITURIS 3,901,000 1,083,000 6,171,000 7,578,000 5,260,000 I 32,996,000 32.116,000 65,/9/.:" SL
0......0.. .0.0....... .......... I ........... ----------- ...........
17 Reserves A Carry-Over to Nest Year 6,569,000 4,016,000 -750,600 -1,061,000 -5,303.000 I -5,303,000 -11.'10,000 •IL110,:30 17
18 Next Year's Dry Period Finding Requirements 033,000 1,110,000 1,386,000 1,08,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 3.423,000 3,123.000 0
0...... ........... ........... ........... .......... I ---------4- ----------- ...........
49 FUND SALANCI Of IDVICIT) 7,735,000 2,921,000 -2,040,000 -5,539,000 -1,003,000 -7,001,000 -15.111,000 -15,161.300 I3
3/fIIIB Page I
OOOM MITA7101 DISTRICT M. 6 SCRLLILI B
671171111117 Of OOJICTLL CASE 110E
FISCAL TILLS 1907-80 TLL006V 1996-97
1192-131
Lill 1997.19 1918-19 1909.90 U110.91 1911-92 I S-leu Total 1996.97 10-year Total Lill
OPI ATIBO f0O
1 Reserves B Carp-Over SIDE Last Year 1,696,005 1,291,000 1,833,000 1,963,000 2,161,OIO I 1,696,000 2,133,ODB 1,611,000 1
I ---------- ----------- .....
REVENUE
2 Share of 11 In Allocation 1,07,000 1,231,000 1,355,000 1,464,000 1,625,000 I 6,701,000 10,767,006 17,115,000 2
3 Pees-14destrlal Vista 134,000 154,000 177,000 203,000 233,000 I 901,000 1,005,000 2,706,000 3
Supplelental Isar 1,276,000 1,911,000 2,101,000 1,531,000 I 7,922,000 19,970,000 27,092,000
1 Interest 6llacellmeous form 119,000 111,000 135,000 116,000 163,000 . 1 61/,000 - 1,215,000 I,IB9,000 1
S Other Revenue I 0 0 S
I ........... ---------- ....
6 TOTAL lima] 1,260,000 2,776,000 3,91,000 4,031,000 4,552,010 I 16,205,000 33,757;000 19,962,000 6
l ........... ........... ...........
7 TOTAL AVAILABLE IMIVG 2,956,000 1,069,000 5,410,000 5,117,000 6,713,000 I 17,901,000 36,190vo00 $1,651,000 i
I ........... ........... -----------
EXPENDITURES I
B Share of Joint Works A 6 0 11/96,000 21060,000 2,369,000 2,724,000 3,133,000 I 11,712,000 24,317,000 36,099,000 1
9 Collection Systet 16 0 and Other Open. 165,000 176,000 202,000 232,000 261,000 I 1,046.000 2,070,000 3,116,DD0 9
10 Other upedditures BBD,000 080,000 880,000 I 2,640,000 1,400,000 7,040,OD0 10
I ........... ........... ...........
It VITAL RIPIRDITLLLL 1,665,000 2,236,000 1,151,000 3,916,000 4,210,000 I 15,460,000 30,707,000 16,255,000 11
I ........... ........... ...........
12 Reserves 6 Carry-Over to Meet Year 1,291,000 1,033,000 1,963,000 2.161,000 2,433,000 I 2,433,000 5,403,000 5,403,000 12
13 Seri Year's Dry Period Pudding Regulreaeats 033,000 1,110,040 1,121,000 1,916,006 2,140,000 I 2,140,000 3,860,000 31360,000 13
I ........... ......... -----------
II Peed Balance Or IDeficitl 456;000 715,000 237,000 213.000 293,000 I 291,000 1,543.000 11543,000 11
Seppleteatil Isar fee for Single Penfly Residence 131.6E $31.85 IS2.21 $62.11 175.25 167.34
Supoleeedtel year lees allocated to Oper toad and AID Fund to maintain opt fond rescue
19 Billion COP issue 1 1 112 1 111/09
Suppieemtal liar he fantasied 01 in 68-69, 501 in 69.90, and 201 per yr thereafter
COPY projects as estltaled In 89-89 ptelitOary budget vorhsbeets
7/11(IB Plot 2
mm 1AIRATIU DIITIICT SO. 6
STATIKUT OP PIWICIID CAI!fin UNDO61'i
FISCAL IUM 1917.11 FROM 1996.97
COITAL Fulfil 199E-131
1917.01 1911.19 1909.90 1991.91 1991.92 1 S-Tau Total t996.97 10.9ear Total LIU
1 ------------ ----------- .._--------- ....
3 Reserves A CauFmu Ira list lea 6,426,000 7,271,000 2,213,010 6,226,090 2,930,000 I 6,426,000 1,763,000 6,126,000 15
1 ..._------- ------._-- _.........
Itno
16 RUSS 12,000 62,000 62,000 16
17 lees: Collection 250,000 201.040 211,00 231,000 E31,000 1 I,2S7,an0 1,170,000 1,423,000 17
it toppleaantal vast Pas 1,100,000 16,100 125,010 I I,IE2,oU 4,631,000 61053,000 to
other 31,000 22,000 37,010 13,000 19,000 1 197,n0 311,100 571,000
19 late of Capacity lights 13,110 II,OU 31,000 626,000 21,000 I 739,200 99,000 630,000 19
20 Interest 6 Dlscellmou leans 556,000 736,01D 291,000 325,000 166,000 I 1,602,000 610,000 2,362,n0 20
21 Inter-fad Transfer 3,000 I 3,000 3,000 21
22 Other Iame 11101,000 9,000,000 I 10,104,000 10,101,000 11
1 ... ._... ........... ...........
23 TOTAL 110a01 3,056,000 702,800 9,611,000 1,321,000 615,000 1 15,477,U0 6,965,000 22,112,000 11
1 ......_... ........... ...........
21 TOTAL AIAILULI IMI6 9,491,000 1,06Dn000 11,01,000 7,152,000 3,625,000 J 21,003,000 6,110,000 21,160,000 21
1 ._........ ......_... ...........
UPU01fa13 ' 11
25 Share at Saint Voris Trutuat Plant 2,155.000 1.569,000 3,813,000 1,360,00D 1,110,000 1 11,721,000 5,661,000 21,560,000 25
26 District Collection Film 51,000 1,258,000 1,710,000 1,262,on0 50,000 I 4,411,000 250,000 1,661,000 26
27 Otter gliouditeres I 0 0 27
1 ----------- ........... .._.......
21 TOTAL sulni?OAa 2,206,000 5,811,000 5,603,000 1,622,000 1.160,000 1 21,138,000 6,111,000 HAT,OU 20
1 ._-------- ........... ...........
29 Ieaerves 6 Cary-over to gut Teat 7,276,000 2,213,000 6,220,000 2,930,000 1,763,000 I 1,765,000 2,611,000 2,611,000 23
3111/Bt Page 3
COOBT7 INITIATION DISTBICI ID. 6 SCBTROLI B
STATIBINT 07 PROTICTID CASH!LOT
PISCAL INDIA 1987-83 TIROUGI 1916.97
199E-93/
Lin 1987-80 1980.19 1969.90 1990.91 1991.9E 1 S-Yea Total 1596.97 10dest Intel LTRI
BOB 7111(s)
1
30 Reserves I Carry-Over Iran Last leer 28,000 0 0 0 0 I 28,000 0 28,000 30
I ........... ........... —-------_
RIVINDI 1
31 In levy 1 0 0 31
32 Interest L Slscellaoeo0e Inane 2,000 0 0 0 0 1 2,000 0 2,015 32
33 Dust Incase I 0 33
I ----------- _......... -----------
31 TOTAL Indeed 2,000 0 0 0 0 1 2,030 0 2,000 31
I ----------- ----------- -----------
35 TOTAL AVAILABLE TRADING 30,000 0 A 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 35
0_... .......... ........... ........... ...........
WIN DITOBss 1
36 Bond Principal 6 Interest 27,000 I 27,000 27,000 16
37 Inter-toad Transfer 3,000 I 3,000 3,000 37
36 OtOer Ixpeadituras 30
I ........... ----------- ...........
39 TOTAL INHIBITIONS 30,000 0 0 0 0 1 30,000 0 30,000 39
I ----------- ........... ...........
10 Reserves 6 Csrry-Over to Next leer 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10
11 Beat her's Or/Period Pmd10q Requirements 0 0 0 0 D I 0 0 0 11
I ---•------- ....------- ...........
12 had Balance or IDef:Cit2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 IT
3OMIT (Adjusted for later-Pond 7nanEers) I
13 Reserves a Carry-Over Prue last Year 8,150,000 8,369,000 /,016,000 8,191,000 5,091,000 I 6,150,000 4,198,000 6,150,000 13
1 TOTAL BANNER 4,320,000 3,S60,600 13,119,000 S,3S1,000 S,217,0/0 1 31,684,000 40,722,000 72,406,000 0
I ----------- -----------
15 TOTAL AVAILABLI PUNNING 12,170,000 12,121,000 17,215,000 11,519,000 10,336,000 I 31,631,000 41,920,000 160,556,000 Is
16 MAL RIPIR MIS 1,901,000 1,083,000 5,051,000 0,156,000 6,110,000 I 35,636,004 36,196,000 71,534,000 16
I ........... ........... ...........
17 Reserves 6 Carry-Over to gait lea 8,569,000 4,016,000 8,191,000 5,051,000 1,198,000 ( 1,199,000 8,022,000 0,022,000 I7
16 Next Year's Dry period funding Reguirauats 833,000 1,116,050 1,726.000 1,516,000 2,110,000 I 2,110,000 31160,000 3,660,/00 BB
I ........... ........... ...........
19 193D 9ALUCT OR (03P2CIT3 1,736,000 2,926,000 6,W,000 3,171,004 2,058,000 I 2,059,010 11162,000 4,162,000 49
i'il'5a page I
l
SCB100LI C
COOIR7 SAtlI7A1101 0[sT1;tT (. .
STAT6H11T Of PIOJICTIO CASH FLOW
FISCAL PARIS 1967-Ba THIOV6H 159S-97
19f2.91/
III[ 1967-9/ 196^19 1985-50 1910-91 1951-92 5-felr Total I91F97 10-Year Total tin
I .-----------
OPHATIH: YOUR I
1 Reserves 6 Carry-Over from last Year 1,696,000 1.291,000 1,933,000 1,511,000 1,32I.000 1,696,000 1,993,000 1,656,000 1
SIMON
2 Share of lA In Allocation 1,007,000 :,237,000 1,355,000 1,411,000 1,625,000 6,706,000 10,167,000 17,475,000 2
3 pets-Industrial Waste 134,000 154,000 171,000 203,000 233,000 I 901,060 1,505,100 21706,001 3
Supplemental user 1,276,000 AM OCO 11352,000 1,682,000 4,920,000 15,551,000 20,411,000
1 IOLerett 6 HatcellanenmS lacuna 119,001 1111000 119,000 115,000 132,000 I Sf6,000 1,055,000 1.651,000 /
5 Other Rennie 0 0 S
I ........... ----------- .----------
6 TOTAL i1VIlut 1,260,000 2,771,000 2,261,000 3,151,000 3,672,601 1 13,121,600 29,165,000 42,310,004 6
1 ........... ----------- -----------
I TOTAL AVAILABLI YINDING 2,956,000 4,069.000 1,094,000 1,671,000 S,393,000 11,121,000 11,178,000 //,006,000 1
1 ........... ........... ------....-
IIPIWOIT9111 I
I
8 Share of Joist Worts N 6 0 1,496,000 2,060,000 2,369,000 2,724,000 3,133,000 I 11,782,000 24,317,004 36,Of9,000 1
9 Collection System H A 0 ad Other Oper. 169,000 176,OOo 202,000 232,000 267,000 I 1,016,001 2,070,000 3,116,000 9
10 Other lapeeditures I 0 0 11
I ----------- ----------- ...........
it TOTAL 12PIn0ITURIS 1,665,000 2.236,400 2,511,060 2,956,000 3,400,000 I 12,121,0o0 26,317,000 39,215,001 11
I ........... ........... ...........
12 Reserves 6 Carry-Over to Rest tear 1,291,000 L,833,000 1,521,000 1,721,000 1,913,060 I 1,113,000 1,751,000 1,191,000 12
Neat Year's Dry Period funding Requires at, 633,000 1,111,000 1,286,000 1,178,000 1,700,000 I 1,700,000 3,423,000 1,123,000 13
I
If fond Balaace Or 10eflcitl 158,000 715,000 237,000- 213,000 213,004 291,000 I,3o1,000 11361,040 I1
Supplemental User fee :or Single really Heeideace Time 114.85-- - 152.28 --$62.74 -- $75.23-- 167.31
Supplemental User fees allocated to Oper load mod ACO fund to maintain oper toad reserve I.Supplesental user Fee increased lot is 88-89, 50% 10 69-90, mod 20% per IF thereafter
CORY pro3ecte as estieated is I6.19 preliminary budget vortaheets
C'.HIL06H.ILS 12:16 PN
7111!!9 Page 2
C09ITY SANITATION DISTRICT 10. 6
STATIMIAT OF PIOJICTIO GSN FLOW
FISCAL PIANO 1161.11 TNIOUGS 1996-97 SCWIDOLI C
CAPITAL TCIrISI 1o".231
1517.11 1918.11 1169.10 1990.11 1911.12 5-Tear Total 1596-97 10-fear Total :111
I! Interest 6 Carry-our Prom Last Year 6,46,060 7,2771,000 2,213,000 -1,751,000 -4.525,000 6,426,011 -5,007,000 6.426,000 15
1rR101
I6 0ruts 12,000 I 12,001 12,000 16
17 Peet: collection 150,000 291,060 211,001 231,000 251,000 11251,001 1,170,001 21121.040 17
11 sappleaental pier Pees 1,100,000 1,304,010 915,000 1,074,000 4,123,010 9,150,001 13,471,,000 11
Other 12,000 12,000 17,000 17,000 4l,000 191,010 376,001 5711000
19 Sale of Capuity lights 17,000 11,060 71,000 621,600 21,000 771,060 99,101 111,000 11
20 lalarest a Macellimeoas locale 556,000 276,000 11,010 0 0 901,101 1 901,000 20
21 later-fan0 Transfer 1,000 1,006 1,000 21
22 Other locale 1,101,600 1,101,000 1,104,100 22
21 TOTAL living 3,051,040 712,000 11631,000 11641,010 11171,006 I 1,705,010 10,637,000 19,402,000 23
21 TOTAL IINAIUM PDNDINO 9,111,000 8,060,000 1,152,000 11,000 -7,I41,000 I 15,131,000 S,650,000 25,621,000 2t
I ----------- ----------- ...........
QPlnlntis I
25 Share of Joint larks lreatant Plant 2.155,000 1.MMS 3,613,000 1,360,000 1,610,000 I 15,727,000 51161,000 21,s11,000 25
26 District Collection system 51,000 1,131,004 1,790,000 1,262,600 50,000 4,411,000 250,000 4,661,000 11
27 Otter Ispeaditures 6 0 27
I ........... ........... -----------
26 TOTAL 91PInInns 21206,010 5,117,100 5,603,000 4,622,000 I,160,000 1 20,111,061 6,111,000 26,219,000 21
I ........... ........... ...........
25 Reserves 6 Carry-aser to Nat Test 7,275,000 2,213,000 -1,751,000 -4,525,401 -5,007,000 -5,007,000 421,000 II,000 I1
I
s
3111181 Page 3 is
i
COUNTY INITIATION DISTRICT 10. 6 MARVIN C I,
STATININT Of PIOJLCTID CASE ILO1
f(f,FISCAL TZARS 1907-38 TBIODU 1995-91
1992.531
till 1987.88 1988-89 1985-90 1990-91 1991.92 5-Year Total 1596.97 IQ-Tear Total LIM
BOND TOIDR)
20 Reserves 6 Carry-Over II01 LIS[ Year 20,000...... 0 0 0 0 0 ID
RI""IIUI
31 "11 Levy 0 0 31
32 Interest A N3scella sous YErame 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 I'm 31
33 Other Incise 0 11
31 TOTAL MINOR 2,000 0 0 0 0 I I'm 0 2,000 31
35 TOTAL AVAILAILI PORDIIG 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 3S
EIPIND17VIES
36 --Band Principal a Interest 27,000 2
37 Inter-fund Tumfer 3,000
I
3,
000 i 16
3,
000
I 00D 3,000 n
36 Other Ispeaditmres I 31
I ----------- ----------- -----------
39 TOTAL IIPINDIMILS 30,000 0 0 0 0 I 30,000 0 30,000 1l
10 Reserves : Carry-ever to Rest Ter 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 10
11 last Year's Dry Period loading Requirements 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 11
1: load Islam nr :Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 42
SUBMIT (Adiasted for later-Tend Transfers)
I: leserves B Carry-Over Pram Last Year 8,150.000 81569,000 1.01E,000 -228.000 -21804,060 R,150,000 •3,011,000 1,150,000 13
11 TCTAL RAVISH 4,320,000 3,56C,000 3,900,000 5,002,000 5,050,000 :1,632,000 33,162,000 61,714,000 11 t
05 MAL AVA3LABLI FIRMS 12,110,000 12,129,000 7.916,ODo 1,771,000 2,246,000 E9,902,000 36'sia,000 69,864,000 15
16 TOTAL 1IPIIMIRIS 3,901,000 1,083,000 E,171,000 7,57B4O00 5,260,000 32,196,000 32,456,000 65,194,000 16
V Reserves 6 Cl[ry-aver to Welt Year 1,365,000 4,016,000 -228,000 -2,80I,000 -3,014,000 .3,o11,000 4,370,000 4,370,000 I7
18 Next Lear'6 B:y Period Puodicq Reguireeents 833,000 I,111,000 1.:661000 1,I3,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 3,83,000 3,423,000 t8
If IUD BAIARCE 01 ;01L'CIT) 71736,000 2,918,000 :,511,000 -1,212,000 -1,714,000 •4,114,000 947,000 917,000 /9
CSBT:O1l.IL5 12:16 IN
ORDINANCE NO. 612
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 609 PERTAINING TO SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County,
California, does hereby ORDAIN:
Section 1: Table A, as adopted by Section 2 of Ordinance No. 609, is hereby
amended to read as set forth to Table A of this Ordinance.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall become effective July 1, 1988.
Section 3: The Secretary of the Board 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District
No. 6 of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held
Chairman of the Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 6
of Orange County, California
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 6
of Orange County, California
TABLE A
Basis of Minimum Annual
Charge Annual Rate Charge Per Unit
Single-Family Charge per 34.85 34.85
Dwellings dwelling unit
Multi-Family Charge per 20.92 20.92
Dwellings/Mobile dwelling unit
Homes
Commercial/ Charge per 1,000 24.95 24.95
Industrial/Other square feet of
government building
buildings,
utilities,
non-profit
organizations,
etc.)
Condominiums: Condominiums are considered single-family dwellings. However, in
recognition of the limited potential use of small , converted dwelling units, the
owner of a single unit may apply for a reduction of the annual rate from $34.85
to $20.92, provided the unit has less than 11 plumbing fixture units (determined
as follows) :
Fixture Units Assigned
by Uniform Building Code
Single bath with tub, water 7 Fixture Units
closet and wash basin
Kitchen with sink and/or 2 Fixture Units
dishwasher
Laundry facilities 2 Fixture Units
11 Fixture Units
Commercial/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 $20.92,
provided said building contains less than 11 plumbing fixture units (as
determined above).
Ij S2 o1r Q+aMlo V-(3-17 8,
I
v
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities
to Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7, & 14
March 17, 1988
I. ORIENTATION
II. HISTORY LEADING TO PROJECT REPORT
III. EXISTING CONDITION IN DISTRICT NO. 6
IV. PROPOSED FACILITIES
V. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
VI. SUMMARY
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNT
Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14 Conveyance Facilities
Redamadon Plant No. 1 to Main Street Pump Station
1982 Addendum 1985 Dist 14
Igrn 1982 Master Plan to Master Plan Enaineers Report 1987 Prolect Report 19871RWD Reauest
Length/Slze:
Plant No. 1FelMew/Baker 14,300'/33-&36- 14,300'/60'&66- 14,500'/72'&78' 21,800'/78'&84- 21,800'/90'&81'
Baker St Force Main 14,400'/2,W 16,500'/2-W 9,S00'/2-42-9,S00'/2-4r
Fairview Relief Trunk 9,6D0'/21'-27- 9,600'/21'.27- 9,600'/21'-27- 9,100'/21'-33- 9,100'/21'-W
Avg. Flow at Baker&Fairview:
CSD#6 6.3 mgd 6.3 mgd 6.3 mgd 10.3 mgd 10.3 mgd
CSD#7 8 mgd 11.0 mgd 16.9 mgd 16.9 mgd
CSD#14 33.0 mgd 43.5 mgd 43.5 mgd 43.5 mgd
Construction Cost(1988$):
Baker-Glsler Trunk CSD#6 6,910,000 3,140,000 $ 3,940,000 3,930,000 3,680,000
and CSD#7 1,630,000 2,290.000 3,900,000 3.450.000
Fairview Trunk CSD#14 6.060.000 9.000,000 10.060.000 11.600,000
Total $6,910,000 10,830,000 15,230,000 17,890,000 18,730,000
Baker St. Force Main CSD#7 1,420.000 1,910,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
CSD#14 5.230.000 7.560.000 4,080,000 4-080,000
Total 6,650,000 9.470,000 5,690,000 5,680,000
TOTAL 6,910,000 17,480,000 $24,700,000 23,570,000 24,410,000
i COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO 6, 7, AND 14
SEW46E CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
COST ALLOCATION
i
Iten Description Duanity Unit Unit Price Total Cast CSO 6 CSD 7 CSD 14
BAKER-61SLER INTERCEPTOR
1 90' R.C.P, Sever 13,550 L.F. $730 $9,090,000 $1,190,000 $1,950,000 $6,750,000
2 81' P.C.P. Sever 1,980 L.F.675 1,340,000 10,000 320,000 1,010,000
Fairview Rd. to Mendoza St.)
3 81' A.C.P. Sever 4,890 L.F.645 3,150,000 750,000 2,400,000
Rendara St. to Delhi Channel)
4 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Bristol St. 96 L.F. 2,270 220,000 50,000 170,000
5 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fairview Rd. 120 L.F. 2,270 270,000 60,000 200,000
6 132' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Harbor Blvd. 114 L.F. 2,550 290,000 30,000 60,000 200,000
7 Junction Structure-Fairview and Baker 1 L.S. 50,000 50,000 I0,000 I0,000 30,000
B Siphon-Santa Ana River i L.S. 400,000 400,000 50,000 80,000 270,000
9 Siphon-Greenville/Banning Channel 1 L.S. 550,000 550,000 70,000 110,000 390,000
10 94' Manhole 300 V.F.700 210,000 30,000 40,000 140,000
Treateent Plant No. 1 to Fairview Rd.)
11 84, Manhole 40 V.F.700 30,000 10,000 20,000
Fairview Rd, to Meodaxa St.)
12 84' Manhole 60 V.F.700 40,000 10,000 30,000
Mendota St. to Delhi Channel
SUBTOTAL 616,440,000 $1,390,000 $3,450,000 $11,600,000
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIM
I Two 42- D.I.P. Sewer (Double Barrel) 9,400 L.F.500 4,700,000 1,320,000 3,380,000
2 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Main St. 90 L.F. 2,350 210,000 60,000 150,000
3 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-San Diego Fay. 250 L.F. 2,350 590,000 170,000 420,000
4 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Delhi Channel 70 L.F. 2,350 160,000 40,000 120,000
5 Junction Structure (With Interceptor) 1 L.S. 20,000 20,000 I0,000 10,000
SUBTOTAL 5,660,000 1,600,000 $4,080,000
FAIRVIEW ROAD FELIEF INTERCEPTOR
1 33' V.C.P. Sever 000 L.F.280 220,000 220,000
2 27' V.C.P. Sewer 5,300 L.F.240 1,270,000 1,270,000
3 21' V.C.P. Sewer 2,700 L.F.190 510,000 510,000
4 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Baker St. 90 L.F. 1,140 100,000 100,000
5 54' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fair Dr, 75 L.F.700 50,000 50,000
6 Manhole 72' 143 V.F.650 90,000 90,000
7 Manhole 60' 78 V.F.650 50,000 50,000
SUBTOTAL 2,290,000 $2,290,000
TOTAL 24,410,000 $3,680,000 $5,050,000 $15,680,000
v
DESIGN FLOW AND CAPACITY ALLOCATION FOR
JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILTIES
TO SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
Facility Reach Pipe Projected Average Floe mgd/(i of total)Design Peak Pipe Capacity (69d) Average Flo Capacity egd/(1 of total)
Bice Slope -__-----------_---------------_. Flo (agd) --- 11)(2)-_----_
From To COD No. 6 CSD No. 7 COD No. 14 Total Peak Flow Ave. Flow CSD No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSD No. 14
BAKER-SISLER INTERCEPTOR
Reclamation Plant 1 Fairview Road 90- .0004 10.30 114.6%) 16.99 (23.91) 43.5 161.5%) 70.68 99.33 106.7 85.74 10.30 (12.011 16.N (19.71) 0.57 (60.31)
Fairview Road Nmndoca Drive Oil .0005 .68 11.11) 16.81 (27.61) 43.4 171.2%) 60.96 77.97 90.1 71.34 60 (0.911 16.88 (23.7%) $3.76 (75.411
Mendoza Drive S.A.-Delhi Channel Gil .0005 16.88 (20.02) 43.5 (72.0%) 60.30 77.20 90.1 71.34 I6.18 (23.71) 54.44 (76.311
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN 16.B8 (29.0%) 43.5 (72.01) 60.38 77.20
FAIRVIEW ROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
Baker Street Village Way 9.61 9.61 14.25 9.61
Village Nay Fair Drive 6.20 4.29 9.63 6.2B
Fair Drive Nilson Street 2.12 2.12 3.55 2.12
1) Peak flow raparity based on flow depth to diameter Id/D) ratio w 0.92.
2) Average flow capcity based on relationship Speak a 1.04(Oavel raised to the 0.92, 8 in cfa.
f
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY
Capacity Requirements
Reach Existing Average Required Average
Flow a ac' Flow Capacity
From To mgd) mgd)
ALONG BAKER/GISLER CORRIDOR(')
Plant No.1 Washington Avenue 8.1 15.5
Washington Avenue Michigan Avenue 6.9 14.6
Michigan Avenue Gisler Avenue 5.0 14.4
Gisler Avenue Harbor Boulevard 5.1 13.8
Harbor Boulevard College Street 5.5 10.7
College Street Loren Lane 5.2 10.6
Loren Lane Fairview Road 5.2 10.3
Fairview Road Mendoza Drive 0.5 0.7
ALONG FAIRVIEW ROAD(2)
Baker Street Adams Avenue 2.5 9.6
Adams Avenue Fair Drive 1.8 7.6
Fair Drive Wilson Street 2.6 4.7
1) Includes Air Base Trunks Nos. 1 and 2.
2) Includes Air Base Trunk No. 2 and Fairview Road Trunk Sewer.
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities
to Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7, & 14
March 17, 1988
I. ORIENTATION
It. HISTORY LEADING TO PROJECT REPORT
III. EXISTING CONDITION IN DISTRICT NO. 6
IV. PROPOSED FACILITIES
V. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
VI. SUMMARY
u
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
Districts Nos.6,7 and 14 Conveyance Facilities
Reclamation Plant No. 1 to Main Street Pump Station
1982 Addendum - 1985 Dist. 14
Item 1982 Master Plan to Master Plan Engineers Report 1957 Prolect Report 1987 IRWD Reauest
Length/Slze:
Plant No. 1-Fairview/Baker 14,300'/33'&36' 14,300'/60'&66- 14,500'/72'&78' 21,800'/78'&84' 21,800'/90'&81'
Baker St. Force Main 14,400'/2-W 16,600'/2-42' 9,800'/2-42-9,800'/2-42-
Fairview Relief Trunk 9,600'/21'-27- 9,600'/21'-27' 9,600'/21'-27' 9,100'/21'-33- 9.100'/21'.93-
Avg. Flow at Baker&Fairview:
CSD#6 6.3 mgd 6.3 mgd 6.3 mgd 10.3 mgd 10.3 mgd
CSD#7 8.8 mgd 11.0 mgd 16.9 mgd 16.9 mgd
CSD#14 33.0 mgd 43.5 mgd 43.5 mgd 43.5 mgd
Constructlon Cost(1988$):
Baker-Gisler Trunk CSD#6 6,910,000 3,140,000 $ 3,940,000 3,930,000 3,680,000
and CSD#7 1,630,000 2.290,000 3,900,000 3,450,000
Fairview Trunk CSD#14 6.060.000 9,000,000 10.060.000 11.600.000
Total $6,910.000 10,830,000 15.230.000 17,890,000 18,730,000
Baker St. Force Main CSD#7 1,420.000 1,910,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
CSD#14 5,230,000 7,560,000 4,080,000 4,080.000
Total 6,650,000 9,470,000 5,680,000 51680,000
TOTAL 6,910,000 17,480,000 $24,700,000 23,570,000 24,410,000
r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO 6, 7, AND 14
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
COST ALLOCATION
it" Description Dnanity Unit Unit Price Total Cost C50 6 CSI 7 CSD 14
BAKER-619M INTERCEPTOR
1 90' R.C.P. Sewer 13,550 L.F. 1730 $9,090,000 $1,190,000 $1,950,000 $6,750,000
2 81' R.C.P. Sewer 1,980 L.F.675 1,340,000 10,000 320,000 1,010,000
Fairview Rd. to Mendoza St.)
3 111, R.C.P. Sewer 4,890 L.F.645 3,150,000 750,000 2,400,000
Mendoza St. to Delhi Channel)
4 118- Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Bristol St. 96 L.F. 2,270 220,000 50,000 170,000
5 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fairview Rd. 120 L.F. 2,270 270,000 60,000 200,000
6 132' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Harbor Blvd. 114 L.F. 2,550 290,000 30,000 60,000 200,000
7 Junction Structure-Fairview and Baker 1 L.S. 50,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 30,000
8 Siphon-Santa Ana River 1 L.S. 400,000 400,000 50,000 80,000 270,000
9 Siphon-Brenville/Banning Channel 1 L.S. 550,000 550,000 70,000 110,000 380,000
10 84' Manhole 300 V.F.700 210,000 30,000 40,000 140,000
Treatment Plant No. 1 to Fairview Rd.)
11 84' Manhole 40 V.F.70D 30,000 10,000 20,000
Fairview Rd. to Mendoza St.)
12 84' Manhole 60 V.F.700 40,000 10,000 30,000
Mendoza St. to Delhi Channel
SUBTOTAL 116,440,000 $1,390,000 $3,450,000 $11,600,000
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN
I Two 42' D.I.P. Sewer (Double Barrel) 9,400 L.F.500 4,700,000 1,320,000 3,380,000
2 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Main St. 90 L.F. "350 210,000 60,000 150,000
3 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-San Diego Fwy. 250 L.F. 2,350 590,000 170,000 420,000
4 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Delhi Channel 70 L.F. 2,350 160,000 40,000 120,000
5 Junction Structure (With Interceptor)I L.S. 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
SUBTOTAL 5,680,000 11,600,000 $4,080,000
FAIRVIEW ROAD FELIEF INTERCEPTOR
1 33' V.C.P. Sewer 800 L.F.280 220,000 220,000
2 27' V.C.P. Sewer 5,300 L.F.240 1,270,000 1,270,000
3 21' V.C.P. Sewer 2,700 L.F.190 510,000 510,000
4 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Baker St. 90 L.F. 1,140 100,000 100,000
5 54' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fair Dr. 75 L.F.700 50,000 50,000
6 Manhole 72' 143 V.F.650 90,000 90,000
7 Manhole 60' 78 V.F.650 50,000 50,000
SUBTOTAL 12 290 000 S2,290,000
TOTAL 24,410,000 $3,680,000 $5,050,000 115,680,000
S
DESIGN FLOW AND CAPACITY ALLOCATION FOR
JOINT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILTIES
TO SERVE DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7, AND 14
Facility Reach Pipe Projected Average Flow sgd/l% of total)Design Peak Pipe Capacity (sgd) Average Flow Capacity sgdY(1 of total)
Size Slope _------______________________-______--_-_---_----_ Flow (mgd) -------11)(2)-------- ____________-__----__--_-__--_-_-----__--___
From To COD No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSD No. 14 Total Peak Flow Ave. Flow C50 No. 6 CSD No. 7 CSO MD. 14
BAKER-61SLER INTERCEPTOR
Reclamation Plant 1 Fairview Road 90' .0004 10.30 (14.6%) 16.90 (23.9%l 43.5 (61.5%) 70.68 99.33 106.7 05.74 10.30 (12.01) 16.88 119.7%) 5B.57 (6B.32)
Fairview Road Mendoza Drive 81- .0005 .60 (1.1%) 16.8E (27.61) 43.4 (71,211 60.96 77.97 90.1 71.34 68 (0.9%) 16.08 (73.711 33.76 (75.4%)
Mendoza Drive S.A.-Delhi Channel 01' .0005 16.88 (28.0%) 43.5 (72.011 60.38 77.29 90.1 71.34 16.08 123.7%) 54.44 (76.31)
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN 16.89 (20.01) 43.5 (72.011 60.30 77.28
FAIRVIEW ROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
Baker Street Village Nay 9.61 9.61 14.25 9.61
Village Way Fair Drive 6.28 6.28 9.63 6.20
Fair Drive Nilson Street 2.12 2.12 3.55 2.12
1) Peak flow capacity based on flow depth to diameter (d/D) ratio = 0.92.
2) Average flow capcity based on relationship Opeak = 1.041Bavel raised to the 0.92, 0 in cfs.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY
Capacity Requirements
Reach Existing Average Required Average
Flow aci Flow Capacity
From TO mgd) mgd)
ALONG BAKER/GISLER CORRIDOR tt>
Plant No.1 Washington Avenue 8.1 15.5
Washington Avenue Michigan Avenue 6.9 14.6
Michigan Avenue Gisler Avenue 5.0 14.4
Gisler Avenue Harbor Boulevard 5.1 13.8
Harbor Boulevard College Street 5.5 10.7
College Street Loren Lane 5.2 10.6
Loren Lane Fairview Road 5.2 10.3
Fairview Road Mendoza Drive 0.5 0.7
ALONG FAIRVIIIN ROAD(2)
Baker Street Adams Avenue 2.5 9.6
Adams Avenue Fair Drive 1.8 7.6
Fair Drive Wilson Street 2.6 4.7
t) Includes Air Base Trunks Nos. land 2.
2) Includes Air Base Trunk No. 2 and Fairview Road Trunk Sewer.
MEETING DATE March 17• 1988 TIME 2:30 Tm DISTRICTS 6
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS
EDGAR)........HOESTEREY..._ DAVIS)............ARNOLD......
CRANK)........HANSON...... _ _ (PICKLER)..........SAY.........
YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ _ (MURPHY)...........BIGONGER...._
ROTH).........STANTON..... _ _ (NGRBY)............CATLIN......
PLOWER)..........COX.........
DISTRICT $ PERRY)............CULVER......
KENNEDY)..........EDGAR.......
HOBBY)........CATLIN...... _ YINCHELL).........ERSKINE.....
FLORA)........MAHONEY..... _ MC COME)..........GRIFFIN.....
PICKLER)......BAY......... _ _ (YOUNG)............GRISET......
MURPHY).......BIGONGER...._ _ CRANK)............HANSON......
YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ COX)..............HART........
NELSON).......LEYTON...... _ EDGAR)............XOESTEREY..._
SCOTT)........HEAL........ EDGAR)............KENNEDY.....
TYNES)........NEWTON...... NELSON)...........LEYTON......
CULVER).......PERRY....... FLORA)............MAHONEY.....
FASBENDER)....SILZEL...... PLUNGER)..........MAURER......
PEREZ)........SMITH....... _ _ (GREEN. P).........MAYS........
ROTH).........STANTON..... _ _ (AGRAN)............MILLER. $...-
BIGONGER).........MURPHY......_
DISTRICT 3 SCOTT)............NEAL........
SUTTON)...........NELSOM......
HERMAN).......POLIS ...... _ _ (TYNES)............NEWTON...... _
WEISHAUPT)....SAPIEN......_ _ _ (CULVER)...........PERRY.......
DAVIS)........ARNOLD...... _ _ (HERMAN)...........POLIS.......
PICKLER)......SAY......... _ _ (STANTO0..........ROTH........
HOBBY)........CATLIN...... WEISHAUPT)........SAPIEN......
PERRY)........CULVER...... WILES)............SIEFEN......
WINCMELL).....ERSKINE..... FASSENDER)........SILZEL......
MC CUNE)......GRIFFIN..... PEREZ)............SMITH.......
YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ _ (ROTH).............STANTON.....
FLORA)........14AMONEY....._ NELSON)..........:SUTTON......
SCOTT)........NEAL........ _ MILLER. D1........SWAN........
SUTTON).......NELSON...... BERNAL)...........SYLVIA......
WILES)........SIEFEN...... _ _ (GREEN.H/JOHNSON)..WAHMER......_
BOTH).........STANTON..... CLIFT)............WILSON......
BERNAL).......SYLVIA......_
LIFT)........WILSON......_
DISTRICT S SYLVESTERBROWN.......BROWN.......-
COX)..........HART........_ GNDMM16....._PLOWER)......COX......... _ _ CLAREQ.....STANiON)......ROTH........_ _ CLAWSON.....-
i
AWES......._DISTRICT 6 DAMES....DESLIEUX ...-HODGES............
PLANTER)......MAURER
ROTH........KYLE........STANTON)......ROROTH........ KYLE........_LINOER......
DISTRICT 7 OOTEN.......STREED......J/
NENNED........
MILLER......_ _ _ VONNGENLABI......EDGAR
PLUNGER)......COX......... _ YINSOR......
YOUNG)........GRISCTROTH........STRNTON)......ROTM........_
GREEN)........KAMMER......_GREEN. N).....YAXNER......_ OTHERS: WOODRUFF....
IDE.........
DISTRICT 11 HOHEMER
HUNT........_GREEN. P).....ERYSSKINE....._ _ _
HUNT........
WINCH ELL).....
STANION....._ _ _ KNOPF.......ROTN).........STANTON....._ NNOPF.......LINDSTROM..._
DISTRICT I7 LYNCH ......STONE.......
BIGONGER).....MURPHY......_ _ _ YOUNG.......
PICKLER)......SAY........._
STANTON)......ROTH........
PEREZ)........SMITH.......
NELSON).......SUTTON......
DISTRICT lA
AGRAN)........MILLER, S... _
MILLER. 0)....SWAN........_
EDGAR)........KENNEDY.....
STANTON)......ROTH........
PEBE 2)........SMITH......._
01/13/88
DISTRICT 6 ADJOURNED MTG. NOTES - MARCH 17, 1988
q3 - Verbal status report on rehabilitation program and Master Plan
Tom Dawes reported that the Sanitation Districts are in the process of some
major rehabilitation work and expansion program. Today we have approximately
120 million under contract. Mostly in the treatment plants. In February we
paid $6 million on contracts. We have under design an additional $186 million
in projects, mostly in the treatment plants. All of these projects will be
ready for award within the next two years. The needs of the Sanitation
Districts are very substantial. This will be the biggest year ever but less
than future projections. District 6 shares in those costs. Their needs are
very substantial also in trunk sewer work. The southerly half of District 6
drains toward Newport Beach. Over the past few years the Districts have been
rebuilding force mains. With regard to the northerly half, we haven't addressed
the needs for a few years. This area has been served since the 1940's by lines
constructed by the Army Air Base in World War II. Those lines need to be
rehabilitated and replaced. District 6 did participate in some preliminary
studies regarding those sewer needs. The good news is that the District can
participate in the project with Districts 7 and 14, which greatly reduces their
costs, but the bad news is that it is still a lot of money.
Conrad Hohener from Boyle Engineering then addressed the Board and reported on
the Master Plan of facilities. He said they were commissioned by Districts 6, 7
and 14 to do a study of proposed ways to serve the needs of those Districts. He
stated that he believed it was a good idea to join with Districts 7 and 14.
District 14 has 76,000 acres, District 7 has 2,500 acres and District 6 has
10,000acres. Consolidated Master Plan studies were done in 1982 for Districts
1, 6 & 7; 2, 3 & 11; and 5 & 6. In 1985 District 14 report was done.
Preliminary engineering report culminated into a report for Districts 6, 7 & 14.
District 6 will consider participating in a trunk sewer facility from Plant
No. 1 to Mendoza Street. Also considering paralleling of Fairview Avenue Trunk
Sewer. The rest of the facilities are for Districts 7 and 14. Fairview Trunk
Sewer and Harbor Trunk Sewer are flowing full . Two Air Base lines are also
flowing full and the condition of certain portions is not too good.
An earlier report said the projects would cost $7 million. By participating
with the other two Districts, they could halve that expense for the new relief
trunk for Fairview and the capacity in Baker-Gisler Trunk over to Mendoza and
for taking portions out of service.
It was asked if District 1 would be involved in this at all and the Director was
advised they would not. Also asked if portions of the lines would be taken out
of service permanently and Mr. Hohener replied yes.
Conrad then reviewed the capacities in the proposed system. It meets all the
Master Plan criteria for the City of Costa Mesa. The route has been processed
through the City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and
everyone approved the final selected route. There were 17 proposed route
combinations studied.
He reviewed the construction cost estimates included in a handout given to the
Directors. The previous estimate of $7 million for District 6 would now be
3.77 million. He reported that there has been a revision at the request of
IRWD. They wanted a larger line which is to District 6's advantage.
District 6's cost of the Baker-Gisler Trunk is $1,390,000 and the Fairview
Relief Sewer is $2,290,000. These would come on line in January 1990.
The General Manager added that staff will be contacting them to set a joint
meeting of the three Districts in the next 4-6 weeks.
N4 - Staff report re long-range financial program
The General Manager reported that we currently have three basis sources for
financing. (1) Connection fees paid by developers for new capacity
2) Ad Valorem Taxes which are pretty much fixed by Prop. 13 and are used for
operation and maintenance casts only and (3) Supplemental User Fees which the
Board instituted several years ago to make up shortfalls in funding needs for
operation and maintenance and rehabilitation and improved treatment costs.
Currently, their connection fees are $1,500 per dwelling unit and $300 per
1,000 sq. ft. of commercial. The combination of ad valorem and a portion of
the supplemental user fee used for 0 8 M costs is adequate for the next five
years with a 10% annual increase. However, that increase is not sufficient to
finance the rehabilitation work. The Options available to the District,
depending on cash flow requirements, are to increase the supplemental user fee
or go into debt as Districts 1, 2 and 3 did in 1986, which would require an
increase in the user fee also to pay off that debt. At the end of 15 years, the
District would still be in debt.
Gary Streed then reviewed the various schedules based on different assumptions.
He stated that there are four things that affect cash flow:
1) Revenue
2) Delays in constructing proposed District construction projects
3) District's share of the Joint Operating budget
4) District's share of the CORF budget.
He referred to Schedule A (pink) which was based on increasing supplemental user
fee by 10%. At the end of five years would have $681,000 but at the end of ten
years would have a deficit of $3,015,000. He commented that when the user fee
was first adopted, we projected that they might need to go to $46.80 in 1984 and
so far we are still well below those prophecies. He further reviewed Schedule A
shortfalls.
He then reviewed Schedule B (green) which was based on assumption of issuance of
9 million worth of Certificates of Participation in 1989-90 and raising user
fees enough to pay the debt service. At the end of 10 years would have
4.1 million but outstanding debt at that time is almost $15 million.
Schedule C (blue) would require a 50% increase in supplemental user fees in
1989-90 and 20% annually thereafter. Would have $293,000 at the end of five
years and $1,368,000 at the end of 10 years. Re capital funds without the
Issuance of debt, we would be $1.7 million in the hole but by the end of 10
years would be reduced to only -$421,000. The issue here is truly a cash flow
problem.
Director Maurer compared blue and green schedules. Asked how the staff thought
the people would take the rate increases? The General Manager answered that
the key is line 25 to many of these cash flow problems which is their share of
the joint treatment works expansion. This is based on assumption that all of
the projects would go as scheduled. As Directors know, that doesn't always
happen. Such as the Central Power generation project. We thought we would be
under construction by now but have been delays to getting AQMD permits. Don'texpectanythingearlierthanJulynow. That shifts all of these dollars to the
right. It Is a $53 million project so District 6's 511-share would be
2.7 million. Depending on the cash flow, one of the blue or green scenarios
2-
will fit better than the other. If everything went on schedule, the blue shows
it will be short almost $2 million in 1989-90 because you don't have up-front
money.
He advised that the Board didn't have to a make a decision that day. Said we
think we will have a better handle on this in four to five months. They don't
have to make a decision until next year sometime. If some of these projects
slip, we hope that the blue scenario will work.
Wahner and Maurer stated they would prefer to avoid bonded indebtedness.
Wahner asked if this meeting was to approve the original 10% increase? The
General Manager replied, yes, the agenda was prepared on that basis. He added
that the Board may wish to pump that increase up a little bit. If they wanted
to consider a 20% increase, the revised annual rates were listed on a revised
version of Ordinance No. 612 given to the Directors. Mr. Sylvester also
reported that the bottom portion of Table A was inserted by the Board in 1983
when they adopted the basic ordinance. Districts 1, 5 and 11, all of which have
the same basic fee arrangement, have eliminated that portion in their
ordinances. You may wish to consider that also. There is language in the
ordinance that indicates that if a fee is inequitable, the staff has the
authority to adjust it. Gave an example of when that might be necessary.
Director Roth MOVED introduction of Ordinance No. 612, as amended, increasing
fees by 20% and eliminating wording re Condominiums and Comnercial/Industrial on
Table A. Motion SECONDED by Maurer. Motion CARRIED unanimously.
3-
S -
1
I
j eaewzy " 3 Vcs1c sowectn gout rcim xilof._ Ds-iz> *mv, ne
lII roNul=mUri Pecn - M-1 D of n/6vv pm N SZWAc
s.(ST n„ Gtr9h=1TI
j RIXL"n R4 PKoP 13
XA IN sw-"Qt- - fZavt oa M cent
Su °nua na uszrt raFs — Omv dl( r_-v>=4l(o&.(=
Dn@ C) tm qaD 1MtM-T-
Cu1RReN I CONN1c'ZTW N (4`Z (1' N/I 1N UNiT 07) I>
i NuN-CL 51P'a'S Ih.- (f.dP RTyI ,Mp$uhTL( co,rns
jif F G)sl- OF New Sy4C"W ltttt1cT`'
1 AL CIWNN A-In UT.! ( f?- ho Vft-wo^ <il'% Y4JD /- %,(`R6' ji=
0'r- 'TNLr SuPPLOWf" 1i 4L LkS%M Pwtr un 1 9C SUFPCI Or" rot
04/tn CoagS R 2 m1 s AA:SrT L?S
i
R6-C-9 Oki /A'N A- NUIFe_. 1NCKLASI lu eT1 r i-'L'"
Of= to ro AS QR MouSLy PQ 2ci1,'17 YSy ?lii f3c1t O
I k{U Jtr'vt"12 ` 'C1'ile'r In1cRl'CZc- $ Nor 5 rauex+T eT'D rw Nc<<
i ce {taMA1S) 0rjAnuu A-NO \Pf"U%"D `TLPRAdL-*jT-
II
i
Otl-IIOUr> A\JAILkrSLc au `fiYLL "Ctjo)ag, o1J 7Mt
C4s1k' PCow Q€4ulyl(5-AAFAJT5 AtG
sine:x+a,htiy
11NLOY Aii1N o L $4(lfM/YL. (A lSyL t
su7ss (1c P) LA 4F IU-WLo fomuiA
A A llucq(A¢5L 10 tte-er - Sa5
iotit
IiIZldi_ mkwtt_ 'Dff'f'tnU*4cs=_ f C-W-4 Tr kT__PeyS'r _. .
r r-fm4fu! u` wuul_D Ptov)'Dkz TMi UP- Cks.4
sII-MA'r Tft 'picl.kruc r -AA 4 MAXD R6c AAAOrt PVtQcs tf I
i
i I u' •T- 'fly L 9 (`: `11 _ !0-/,h+L _Ahnr i v
lam N!wZ er . wni q drFut h S 6nnrruur
00 O&W SAC— ?W tg- .7EPOR S' YdJA Lk I L L Lr
f-ft45:0 WITH -r%A ' q)&US/oI
iA-0 Akulf- ?9zVKwQ k sco-wrews I YWV-lt-7
IIprJ VMUu%AS ASS P S `lDMT L WOULD
Uk,E- (I'a ftK AMA s --o arc aeuf&-, 1
I
i
ill
I!I
I
I;
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6
ORANGEOFOUTCALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
March 17, 1988 - 2:30 p.m.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of March 9, 1988, the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California,
met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. The roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present.
DIRECTORS PRESENT: James Wahner, Chairman, Philip Maurer,
Don R. Roth
DIRECTORS ABSENT: None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager,
Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes,
Gary G. Streed, W. N. Clarke
OTHERS PRESENT: Clark Ide, Conrad Hohener, Phil Stone
Review of Master Plan of Trunk The Director of Engineering reviewed the
Sewer System status of the District's sewer
rehabilitation program and its Master
Plan of trunk sewers. He reported that the ,Joint Districts currently have
approximately $120 million worth of new facilities in the construction phase at
the two treatment plants. An additional $186 million worth of projects are under
design. County Sanitation District No. 6, which includes most of the City of
Costa Mesa, portions of the City of Newport Beach and unincorporated territory,
owns 5% capacity in the ,Joint works facilities and shares in the cost of said
facilities in proportion to that capacity.
The northerly .half of District No. 6 drains to existing sewers which roughly
parallel the San Diego Freeway and are tributary to the Fountain Valley
Reclamation Plant. The southerly portion of the District drains to facilities in
Pacific Coast Highway ,Jointly owned with District No. 5 and are tributary to the
Huntington Beach Treatment Plant. Districts 5 and 6 have had a systematic
program of rehabilitating the Coast Highway Trunk Sewer system for several years
which will be completed in 1989.
The backbone of the sewer system which serves the northerly portion of the
District was acquired from the Federal Government in 1955. These trunks, called
the "Air Base" trunks, were built by the U.S. Army, circa 1943, to serve the old
Santa Ana Army Air Base and were dedicated at no cost to the Sanitation District.
These sewers are in poor condition and staff estimates that they have a maximum
expected remaining life of 10 years.
03/17/88
District 6
In 1960 District No. 6 participated in the construction of the Gisler-Redhill
Trunk Sewer system with County Sanitation District No. 7 and has an ownership oi./
5% of the capacity in that system. The District owns a total capacity of about
7.5 mgd to serve the northerly portion of the District while future requirements
are estimated to be 15 mgd.
Conrad Hohener, representing Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's engineers,
then reviewed the results of Boyle's preliminary Master Plan studies relative to
facilities required to serve the needs of northerly District 6. He also reviewed
the previously-approved proposal to prepare a joint study combining the needs of
District No. 6 with those of Districts Nos. 7 and 14. Mr. Hohener indicated that
by sharing in the Project Report and the construction of joint sewage conveyance
facilities with Districts 7 and 14, District 6 would realize approximately a 50%
savings in the cost of their needed facilities. A new sewer between the Fountain
Valley Plant and Baker Street at Fairview Road was previously estimated to cost
the District $7 million. However, a much more economical alternative for
replacement of the old Air Base lines would be for District No. 6 to participate
with Districts 7 and 14 in the new Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer. Districts
Nos. 7 and 14 must construct the new conveyance facilities from their
recently-built Main Street Pump Station to the Joint Treatment Works at Plant
No. 1. Routing the sewers through the northerly portion of Sanitation District
No. 6 would allow them to participate in that project. Sharing capacity
ownership of the joint facilities with Districts 7 and 14 would reduce the
estimated cost from $7 million to approximately $1.4 million for District No. 6.
Sharing construction costs of a larger conveyance facility is a much more
economical way of obtaining the necessary capacity.
In addition to the joint project, District 6 must parallel lines also built in
1942 and 1943 by the Army in Fairview Road from Baker Street to Wilson Street, ar
an estimated cost of about $2.3 million.
Mr. Hohener reported that the City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District had participated in the selection process relative to the recommended
route of the new line. They studied 17 different proposed route combinations.
It was pointed out that the proposed facilities will meet all Master Plan
criteria of the City and Sanitary District.
The General Manager advised that an adjourned meeting date would be set in the
next four to six weeks for Districts 6, 7 and 14 to meet to consider the joint
conveyance facilities.
U date on ion -ran a financial The General Manager reported that in
ro ram and cons eration o 1983 the Board modified their long-range
amendments to ex sin sanitary financial program and implemented a
sewer sery ce charges supplemental user fee to make up the
shortfall of ad valorem tax revenues and
provide the additional financing necessary for both operations and maintenance
costs as well as major facilities' rehabilitation. User fees are charged to all
properties connected to the sewer. Funds for facilities' expansion are currently
provided from connection fees on new development paid by the developer.
2-
03/17/88
District 6
During the public workshops and the hearing held in 1983 to present the
District's proposed user fee program to its constituents, the public was advised
that the initial user fee schedule was expected to increase substantially (77%)
in the second year (1984) of the program to cover rising costs, and then remain
at the increased level for several years. However, the District was able to
delay any increase in both the connection fee and supplemental user fee until
1986 due to a significant decline in inflation rates and receipt of favorable
bids on various District and Joint Works construction and rehabilitation
projects, all of which reduced District expenditures below anticipated levels.
In 1986 changes in land use restrictions and the taxable status of major
properties in the District resulted in lower ad valorem revenues (to pre-1984-85
levels) and necessitated increases in the District's fee structure to maintain
the financial integrity of the capital and operating funds.
Based on further projected shortfalls, the Board previously directed staff to
plan an increase of 10% per year in the supplemental user fee (beginning in
1986-87) to help meet the District's funding needs. The Board has also
systematically increased the one-time connection fee to help fund capital
expansion requirements. The General Manager then reviewed the current fee
schedules of the District, as follows:
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial/Industrial/
Fee Type Residential Residential Governmental/Other
One-time Connection $1,500 1,500 300 per 1,000 sq.
Fee ft. of building
Annual User Fee 31.68 per 18.02 per 22.68 per 1,000
dwelling unit dwelling unit sq. ft. of building
Mr. Sylvester further advised that staff's financial projections continue to
reflect financial shortfalls, particulary in the capital accounts. Projections
indicate that District No. 6 will exhaust its capital funds as soon as 1989-90,
and the Board will have to determine to how to best finance the District's share
of the treatment plant construction and the trunk sewer construction.
The Acting Director of Finance then reviewed three alternative proposals for the
Board's consideration which could provide funding to finance the District' s
needs. Each financial scenario was based on different assumptions. The first
reflected the annual 10% increase in supplemental user fees over the next ten
years, as previously directed by the Board, and the current connection fee
schedule. Although connection fee rates will continue to rise as the cost of
constructing sewage facilities escalates, connection fee revenues will be
inadequate for financing all of the District's capital needs. This scenario
reflects a funding deficit in 1989-90 of $2,040,000.00.
He further reported that one financing alternative would be the issuance of
9 million of Certificates of Participation. The certificates would provide
sufficient funding to cover the District's sewer replacements required in the
northerly portion of the District as well as the joint works projects for
rehabilitation/reconstruction and increased levels of treatment. Retirement of
the certificates would be made by further increasing the supplemental user fee to
52.28 in 1989-90 and 20% annually thereafter to pay the annual debt service of
880,000. It was pointed out that at the end of a ten-year period, the District
u would have a capital fund balance of $4.1 million but their outstanding debtwouldbealmost $15 million.
3-
03/17/88
District 6
Another alternative would be to not issue debt certificates but to raise the
annual user fee by an amount basically equivalent to what the debt service wouldbeandtousethosefeesdirectlyforcapitalneeds. Mr. Streed indicated that
the advantage of this alternative is that at the end of the ten-year period, the
capital fund balance is relatively close to what it would be if Certificates of
Participation were issued, but the District would not be faced with an
outstanding debt of $14,960,000. The disadvantage is that the cash is not
received "up front" in the early years when it is projected to be needed for
capital projects.
The Directors then entered into a discussion of the various alternatives
available to them to provide the necessary funding to meet the District's future
needs. Staff pointed out that all of the projections assume that all
construction projects proceed on schedule. However, the Districts continue to
experience delays in major projects, such as the Central Power Generating System,
because of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements.
Further delays in this $53 million project, of which District 6's share is
2.7 million, would also delay when capital funds need to be raised. The
Districts hope to receive the necessary SCAQMD permit for the Central Power
Generating project by July. In addition, the consulting engineers will have
provided preliminary information by then on the updated Master Plan for the Joint
Works that will be incorporated into the new budgets. Because of the major
Impact of the Joint Works capital projects on Distict 6's cash flow and overall
funding needs, staff recommended that consideration of any major changes to the
District's long-term financial plan be held in abeyance until some of the
unknowns were better focused. No change in the connection fee schedule was
recommended as the current fee pays the basic cost of sewerage system capacity
for new development.
The General Manager reviewed the draft ordinance included with the agenda
material increasing the supplemental user fees by 10% in 1988-89, as previously
directed by the Board, as follows:
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial/industrial
Fee Type Residential Residential Governmental/Other
Annual User Fee $34.85 per 20.92 per 24.95 per 1,000 sq. ft.
dwelling unit dwelling unit of building
Mr. Sylvester observed that the projections clearly Indicate that the District
would soon have to accelerate the user fee increases and with that in mind,
reported that staff had drafted a user fee structure providing for a 20% increase
in supplemental user fees to better offset future projected shortfalls and
provided it to the Board for their consideration, as follows:
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial/Industrial
Fee Type Residential Residential Governmental/Other
Annual User Fee $38.02 per 22.82 per 29.94 per 1,000 sq. ft.
dwelling unit dwelling unit of building
4-
e 03/17/88
District 6
Following further discussion it was the concensus of the Directors that it was
in the District's best interests to adopt the 20% increase to help maintain the
District's fiscal integrity. The Directors also discussed possible revisions to
Schedule A of proposed Ordinance No. 612 in order to be consistent with Districts
1, 5 and 11 ordinances relative to adjustment of any inequities in connection
with condominiums and commercial/industrial property. The Directors expressed
their desire to eliminate these sections from the proposed new ordinance.
First readT ng of proposed It was moved, seconded and duly
Ordinance No. 12 carried:
That Ordinance No. 612, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance
No. 609 Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, 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. 612 by title only, It was then moved,
seconded and duly carried:
That Ordinance No. 612, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance
No. 609 Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, be introduced, as
amended by the Board, and passed to the second reading on April 13, 1988,
at 7:30 p.m. , at the District's administrative office.
Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried:
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
3:08 p.m. , March 17, 1988.
z-
L- *
Secretary, Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 6 of
Orange County, California
5-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954. 2,
I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board
YMeetingofDistrictNo. & held on I 1 , 1999 was
duly posted for public \inspection at the main lobby of the
District' s offices on 1921 .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tit,
day of J 1922.
Rita--J. Brown, Secretary of t e
Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. _(a_
ofOrange County, California