Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-01-08COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 January 5, 1970 TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-291 a 962-2411 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DIS'l1RICT NO. 7 Gentlemen: Pursuant to the adjournment of the adjourned regular meeting on December 16, 1969, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting: Thursday, January 8, 1970 at 7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California This meeting will be a public hearing ori a resolution of intention to provide sanitary sewers within Assessment District No. 8. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 0 F 0 RA NG E C 0 U NT Y, CAL I F 0 RN I A INFORMATION REGARDING THE FORMATION OF A SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCT! NG LOCAL COtLECTOR SEWERS At the fime, date and place indicated on the enclosed notke, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County will hold a public hearing on the formation of a sewer assessment district for your area to be known as Assessment District No. 8. A vicinity mop is attached which shows the public and private streets within I the boundaries of f·he proposed osse~sment disiT!ct v1h kh a:c to rece!vc sc:nitary sc-..vcrs. Before Coun-~)' Sonitotion Disfricl No. 7 could sponsor this ~issessrncnt disi'rict, it was necessary for the residen1·s within the area i·o request annexation to County SanHation District· No. 7. The two annexations involved, known as the Newport Annexation and the Doniger Annexation, have been completed. The Districi· hos received peHtions requesting the formai"ion of an assessmen1 district from the p:·operty owners. In addition, the health officer of Orange Co1Jnty has filed with the district a leHer indicating the the need for tbc installation of local collector sewNs in order to preserve the healf·h and we I fare of the cornmunHy. The boaid of directors by passage of the Resolution of Intention has taken the initial step in the formation of on ossessrncnt district for the purpose of providing a public sewer sysh.~m to servt":! your land. The plans, specification and cost estimaf·e for the work have been presented f·o the board ~ of directors. Fol lowing the approval off he plans the board, on November 25, 1969, adopted the Resolution of lntenf-ion to form this assessment districi· and all proper~y owners, as shown on the last equalized assessment role, are being notified by means of the enclosed notice. In addition to a legal notice in the Tustin News and this written notice to the properfy owners, large notices willb3pos1·ed along the line of construction withir) the proposed disfri ct. The hearing is required by law and is for the p:.Jrpose of cd lowing propedy owners to express their desires relative to f·he proicct af· which time they may appear to present any written protests or statements relative to npprovol of the proposed assessment district. Following the hearing, the Board of Direci01·s of Sanitation Dis:Ticl-No. 7 will make a cJetermi nof-ion whether to proceed with i he formation of the assessment district OS proposed in the Resolution of Intention. If the beard elects to proceedwiththe construction of the collector sewers as proposed, they will then advertise for public bids for the construction of said foci I itics and the contract for the construction thereof wi II be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Following the corr.pletion of your ;;roiect which should i·ake approximately three months, the total cost will be spread 9gainst all properties receiving benefit from the new local sewers. Each property owner will then rcc..:ive a written notice of the tentative assessment and a notice of a hearing to be he Id ot which time the property owners can be heard re I ative to the assessment !evi ed against their respecf ive properties. The board will hear the pro1·e:;ts and will finally confirm the assessment roll. Following the confirmof·ion of 1he assessment, the bills for the assessment will be mailed by the contractor or his assigns. The property owners will be given 30 days from the date of mailing of 1'he bills in which to pay for their assessmenf's in cash (all or port) or they may individually elect to let their assessments go to bond. If the property owner allows his assessment to go to bond, the payment will be spread over approximately ten (1 O) years with eoch annL;a! paymcn!· bei:·;s 011e··lench of the principl8 of the assessment and two semiannual interes1· paymenf·s of-the rol·e of seven (7) percent on the unpaid balance. The bills for the annual paymer,·1-s and the ini·erest paymenl·s will be· mailed to the property owner by the county l'reasurer of Orange County. The assessmenl·s can be paid off at any time during 1·he Ii (e of the bond, however, there wi II be a five (5) percent payoff penalty in connection with paying off a bond thal· may be neces- sitated by sale or refinancing of a property. At the present f"ime it is not possible to determine the exact amount of the assessment against each parcel unf"il the construci"ion bids are received. However, ii' is felt that the assessmeni·s wilhin lhis assessment clisHr:1 will be approximately $1300 for a typical 125·~foot wide lot. This amount includes i'he cost of a house lateral wHhin the limits of the pub Ii c or prival·e streel" and a $ 36 bond service charge required by the county treasurer but does nof· include any costs of extending !·he loteral to the house and abandonmen1· of exisf"ing private disposal systems (pumping and backfilling sepi"ic 1·anks, cesspools, seepage pits, etc.). A ,, , .... 1 • ,. 1 n 1 [ • • •I I h ..1· I • • I' s rne 01srr1c1 s engineer or v~'orK, L>oyre n8111cer1ii8w11 represeni· t e u1s Tiet in a 1 phases of the work. Should you have any qucsf"ions concerning f·he improvemen1·s proposed under f·hese proceedings, ca II 54 7-4471 and ask for f·he cffi ce hand Ii ng the Dis1Tict No. 7 Assessment Distric1". Boyle Engineering's office is located at 412 South Lyon Street, Santa Ana. : r ·-.. ·. r -· : , .. ~ ' . ~i,,..' .... .::1· .. ~- I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 25th day of November, 1969, the Board of Directors of COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 of ORANGE COUNTY, California, by virtue of the "Improvement Act of 1911, 11 being D ivi si on 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and Division 5 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of Ca I iforni a, passed and adopted Resolution of lntenti on No. 69-l 04-7 / for the construction of sanitary sewers and appurtenances and appurtenant work in that certain assessment district to be known as "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 8 11 in said County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County. Said resolution designated the 8th day of January, 1970, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.mo, in the Chambers of the Board of Directcrs of said . County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, Orange County, California, as the time and place any and all persons having any objections to the extent of the proposed district to be assessed or to the proposed improvement may appear before said Board and show cause why said proposed improvement shou Id not be carried out in accordance with said resolution of intention. Protests or objections may be filed with the Secretary of said Board at any time prior to the time fixed for the hearing o Protests or objections must be in writing end must contain a" description of the property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and no other protests or cbjections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of Orange County as the owner of the property described in the protest, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described. The estimated costs and expenses of the said work and improvement, including the incidental expenses thereof, are $90, 000.00. ,----·~ N _J 0 z VICINl"fY FRED A. HARPER, Secretary County Sanitation Dist ri ct No • 7 of Orange County >-ll c:rl ~ 3;' ci z z 0 I-.._ ,w z 'W I I Cf> >-0 er _J w 0 z 1-w w I (f) D <! 0 0:: 0::: w (.9 1--w z LJJ <! I D (I) ~----~-.. ..._···-~·--~---- SCALE : (:.: '100' .. Bartle Wells Associates Municipal Financing Consultants r. 60 California Street, San Francisco 94111 anuary 6, 1970 I I The Honorable Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Sirs: 415 981-5751 As discussed. with you at your December 16 board meeting the municipal bond market has deteriorated further since we published our November 1969 report on Financing Sewerage Improvements. Early in November the Bond Buyer's 20-bond index was 6.11. The last week in December, it was 6. 79. As instructed by you and your staff, to more closely reflect the state of the bond market, we have revised Tables 8 and 9 in our report. Revised Table 8 shows the estimated annual debt service on a $6--million issue of general obligation bonds with a 73 interest rate and 30-year term. In the original table we used a 6% interest rate. Revised Table 9 shows the sources and allocation of construction funds and district revenues witl1 tl1e higher interest rate on the bonds. The final columns in Table 9 show cumulative revenues less expenditures in v.vo ways, first with bond service only and then with bond service plus addition- al construction after 1974 not included in the general obligation bond authorization. With bond service only, for the $6-million worth of construction prior to 1974, projected ad valorem tax and connection charge revenues would be sufficient to create a sizeable surplus by 1979 /80. This assumes that the district would maintain the tax rate at its present level and would institute the suggested schedule of increased, escalate.ct connection charges. With only this amount of construction the district should be able to reduce the tax rate or stabilize tl1e increased connection charge schedule in the near future. Edwin A. Wells John G. Vande Pol Archibald C. Matteson Jack McMinn Virginia Burtt j\genda Item .(/16 A-1 Di E~ tr:L ct lf7 County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Page Two January 6, 1970 Bond service plus the additional construction after 1974 not included in the general obligation bond authorization would create a sizeable deficit of $1.47 million not offset by projected ad valorem tax and connection charge revenues. This would be in spite of the adoption of the increased, escalated connection charge schedule • We believe that a number of financing safeguards, not included in our projection of revenues, probably would offset this deficit. These include: interest on accumulated excess revenues prior to 1975; accumulated delinquent tax payments; industrial and commercial connection charge revenues; and connection charge revenues collected by the cities served by the district. The sizeable projected deficit, however, reinforces the need to adopt the increased escalated connection charge schedule and to program carefully all available resources, including connection charge monies collected by the cities, and reimbursement agreement funds, into the construction program under the engineer's master plan. Jack McMinn and I expect to attend your January 8 board meeting. We will be avai.lable to discuss the material in this letter as well as development of a program to inform registered voters about District 7's proposed capital improve- ment program. Also, we will have with us material related to development of a revised connection charge schedule and ordinance. Very truly yours, BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Edwin A. Wells EAW:scb Agenda Item //16 A-2 District 117-. - -·------~ ·--~----·· --·---·-· ·-·-· ......... ,J,.4 ___ --· ...... _._ -------~-·-··------·'---.. ·--.:...:...·_·~-- (Revised January, 1970) TABLE 8 ESTIMATE('D ANNUAL DI\BT SERVICE -GENERAL on~:::::~N BONDS Fiscal Bonds Interest Redemption Year ' Outstandino· @ 7% At Yr. End 1971/72 $ 6,000,000** $ 420,000 $ 1972/73 I 6,000,000 420,000 1973/74 5,975,000 418,250 1974/75 5,925,000 414, 750 1975/76 5,850,000 409,500 1976/77 5, 775,000 4q4,250 1977/78 5,675,000 397,250 1978/79 5,575,000 390,250 1979/80 5,475,000 383,250 1980/81 5,350,000 374,500 1981/82 5,225,000 365, 750 1982/83 5, 100,000 357,000 1983/84 4,950,000 346,500 1984/85 4,800,000 336,000 1985/86 4,650,000 325, 500 1986/87 4,475,000 313,250 1987/88 4,300,000 301,000 1988/89 4, 100,000 287,000 1989/90 3,900,000 273,000 1990/91 3,675,000 257,250 1991/92 3,450,000 241,500 '1992/93 3, 200, 000 224, 000 1993/94 2,925,000 204, 750 1994/95 2,625,000 183, 750 1995/96 2,325,000 162, 750 1996/97 2,000,000 140,000 1997/98 1,650,000 115, 500 1998/99 1,21~,ooo 89,2so 1999/2000 875,000 61,250 2000/2001 450,000 31,500 $123,550,000 $8,648,500 * Maximum annual debt service 25,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 200,000 200,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 275,000 300,000 300,000 325,000 350,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 450,000 $6,000,000 ..... Total Bond Service $ 420,000 445,000 468,250 489,750 484,500 504,250 497,250 490,250 508, 250''.< 499,500 490, 750 507,000 496,500 486~000 500,500 488,250 . 501, 000 487,000 498,000 482,250 491,500 499,000 504, 750 483, 750 487, 750 490,000 490,500 . 489, 250 486,250 481, 500 $14,648, 500 ** Principal amount is based on estimated construction costs, 1971 through 1973, from Table 1 of Bartle Wells report dated November, 1969 _£\genda Item //16 A-·3 Dis trj_c t /17 H c+ (l) 3 > I r--r- l~ I ~ .~. () c+ ( (Revised January, 1970) TABLE 9 SUURCES Ai\D ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Fiscal Year 1970/71 1971/72 "1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 Projected Expenditures 1 Construction After 1974 $ 1, 574,000 1,027,000 1,215,000 Bond Service 2 $ 420,000 445,000 468,250 489, 750 484,500 504,250 497,250 490,2~0 508,250 Total $ 420,000 445,000 .468, 250 489, 750 2,058,500 504,250 1,524,250 490,250 1, 723,250 Projected Revenues Ad Valor:rm Taxes $263,000 322,000 377,000 417,000 434,000 455,000 477,0QO 499,000 518,000 537,000 Connection Charge Revenue 4 $100,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 275,000 300,000 325,000 350,000 Total $363,000 472,000 552,000 617,000 659,000 705,000 752,000 799,000 843,000 887,000 l. Based on estimated construction costs in Boyle Engineering report dated May, 1969.,. 2. From _Table 8, this report. 3. From Table 7, this report. 4. Based on;r.f_l, 000 new connections annually, at $100 per dwelling unit, escalated to $150 in 1971/72 ~nd $25 a year thereafter. ( Cumulative Revenues Less Expenditures Bond Service Bond Service + Only Construction $ 363, 000 $ 363, 000 415,000 415,000 522,000 522,000 670, 750 670, 750 840,000 840,000 1,060,500 (513,500) 1,308,250 (265, 750) 1,610,000 (991,000) 1,962, 750 (638,250) 2,341, 500 (1,474,500)5 5. This deficit balance should be offset by various sources of revenue including accumulated interest on surplus funds prior to 1975, delinquent ta.x payments, industrial and commercial connection charges, and cmmection charge monies collected by t:i.1"1e cities. DISTRICT 7 ~~~~~~~~- DATE f -F -7 o TIME REGULAR JOIWr BOARDS Miller, C. Amo Bousm an Brooks, Burton C1 ·1ver -- y'man , Paul . Go mez Green Gris et An derson Harvey Herrin Kroesen Mc Innis Marsha ll Marshott Nevil Parsons Porter Reinhardt Rogers Schutte Just Shipley Smit h Sp eer Workman Hirs tein Harper Brown Carlson Clarke Dunn Finster Galloway Hohener Keith Lowry Maddox Martinson Nisson Piersall Sigler Stevens Sylvester rr~'i';m b l.ay lkston OTHERS --~ DISTRICT 8 Mitchel l Vedde r Hirstein Coco Davis Warren Westra Langer Coen Matney . Brooks , Walter Fuhrman ,C onway Gris et Miller, C. Porter Hirste in Speer DISTR ICT 1 DIS TR ICT 2 Kanode ·· Pa tter::rnn Ott e Marshall Rogers Weisha upt Sims Brooks, Burton Culver Root Marshall Clark Harper Gom ez Herri n Nevil Reinhardt Schut te Just Smith Wor lcman Hirstein Culver Amo DISTRICT 3. Hileman Hamilton , Wm . Knuds e n Allen Bousman Furman , Paul Green µ~ ~I~ iJd/ t:. fh I .r -7 7r; -V-7 Herrin Anders on Harvey Kroesen Marshott Nevil Reinhardt Schutte Just . Sp eer Hirs tein Parson s Marsha ll Hirstein Porter Mc Inni s Hirste i n 7 ~,,,--l ,~ ------. / ~ V v V MLLl e r, C •. v v v Griset v v V Port e r C-C<.. V-Rog ers v t/ v Smith O'Sulliva n J\ll cn v Hirste i n Shipley Green Hi1 ·.::t e j_n DIS TRICT 5 DIS TRICT 6 DIS TR IC T 7 v- a.. ~~ ---v t_.,./ DIS TRICT 11 Brooks",-wa1 t -e r Coc o · Allen Hami l ton , Wm . Warren La nger Patterson Sims Roo t Cla rk Harper Hileman Knudse n Allen Dav is Westra Coe n Patterson Fl.ihrrrian , Conw2.'.: K'anode-u Otte Weishaupt Sims Root Clark Harper Hamilt on Allen Rogers Al l en Marshall Al l en ----../ Coco Brooks , Walte"' v Marsha ll Hileman Al l e n Matney Allen v v v /f -,r /ifs-z v~·~4~~. /ZJJZ k/ilrs !/'1-/7re-~ /,f 55c:? jJ ~ ~ 5~ ~%J~~7~~y (!jhP~A/~~p,zJfj,j { ~~/~,)A /)--{,,~[ ~f!~~i_L, J2_(;5 / ~ ~SLttZ_ I A G U> c/ bflL=GIJwfit.~ ~0~, S,+t1>1-~A-. ;~te0-;..._ tJ~~~ ~.A _ L.-/11f3L:l.--;a1 ~ c-i/VJ / s-~~ //-v"' ~~s., ~.G:-L, L.:cc,J:.~,~ ~: r<cr~ ~~ .. '~r ~'~'~' ~,0&.,.,~) ~'~~ 1 11 II ~O;\Fl~S ()if fi)RRECT(:J ~~~ Co unty S2iiHatio11 Di sfr ids P. 0. Box 5175 of Ornnge Co unty, Ca lifomio 1084lf [Jlis Avenue F ou nta in Va ll ey, Ca li F., 9270c' Ja!]~~-:r.'""-Y_8..,_.,, 1970 -7:30 p .m. ( 1.) Roll Call __ (g.)-AF!t>uin.-t:m-e,H.Lof Chairman pro tern., if necessary.: -8--)--Re.p.o.rt_Q.f t _he General Manager ----+4 )--R-er>erF-t-e~t.Be-G-~€3--r-a-l-e-otTITSe1.- (5) (6) (7) Assessment District No. 8 -~roceedings can be referre d to--the special counsel and Engi neer of Work i f des i redo) Secretary r epo rt s time a nd p l ace for h earing of prote s ts re: Res o l ut i on of Intention f or Assessment District No . 8 ; a nd rep orts upon r eceipt of Affidavits of Publ ication and Affidavits of Posting and Mailing Chairman calls for any written protests fi led with the Secretary Secretary reports on writt en protests filed before 7 :30 p.m . (8) Chairman asks audience if anyone wishes to be heard , i .e._, public hearing (9) (1 0) (11) (12) (13) (l~-) (15) ( J.6) Consideratj_on of motion to refer vtritten protests to the Engineer of Wo r k for checking and report Recess or adjournment until engineers can report on prot ests Report of Engineer of Work on percentage of protests Co nsideration of a ct ion on protests Con sideration of adoption of Resolution No . 70-4 -7 , ordering work in Asses sment Di strict Noo 8 . (Copies to be distrlbv.ted at meeting time .) Consi deration o f adoption of ResoJ ution No. 70-5 -7 , authorizing the Secretary to open bids for Sanitary Sewers , Assessment District No . 8, prior to presentation to Board of Directors . (Co pies to be distributed at meeting time.) Considere,tion of the adoption of Or d i na.nce No. 710 _, establi shing standards for sewage and industrial wa stes , and provid ing penalties for violations thereof . (C opies to be distrjJ .1uted at meeting tj_me .) Consideration of motion to rec eive and file , letter from Bartle WcJ.ls Assocj_atef3 , elated J anuary 6, 1970 , re la ti ve t o r evisJ.on of 'I'a1)Jcs 8 a{Jd 9 of t he F'inanc:Lng Sewerage Irnprovemcnts Repo:>~t > dated November 1969 , submitted by Bar·t··L"" r.r,,·1 1"' 11 C'"oc··a ·'·er..! See p"'i:rp 11 11 11 .1 .. -\:,.. VV ;_... -.. • i...> ii.1..J 1..,.1 .. J, ,. l.J "·-" >--• ... • C J~t_.') ._.. -.. -_!_':. .. ____ ._ (17) Discussion of bond election.program (18) Other business and communications, if any (19) Consideration of motion to adjourn -2-