Loading...
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