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-