The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972-05-24 COUNTY SANITAT AREAA COON DE 714ION DISTRICTS ;;° TE DE OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 4 D-2 9 1 O �' � 62-2411 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) May 18 , 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO, 2 WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1072, 5: 30 P 1 M 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen : Pursuant to adjot;rnrient of the regular meeting held. May 10, 1972, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation Distract No. 2 will meet .in an adjourned regular meeting at the above . hour and date . 4c r IdZ e. t fr,y JWS:rb NOW BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation districts P. o• Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 r-,is-r -r L)i i RIC.. I NO. AGENDA j� ADIOURN.MENTS P2STED — COMP & MILEAGE_.f., Adjourned Regular Meeting FILES SET UP May 24, 19 7 2 - 5 : 3 0 P.M. RES0LUT1OPiS Cc21;; 7D �.� LETTERS WRITT,7N ............... MINU•IES WRITTEN .............. (1) Roll Call MINUTES FILED,,.- F;L'c __.............. LETTER ---_-------- (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary d A/C ....TKLR (3) Verbal progress report of Special Committee to Study, { Annexation Fee. and Connection Charges � �� ..............._...... .. p y Ly, (4 ) Report of the staff relative to the availability of sewer G� capacity to serve 1, 337 acres in the Santa Ana Canyon area presently outside the District (Annexation requests of th.eFiLE �, �. City of Anaheim and the firm of Anaheim Hills, Inc . )1, QA A, LETTER ........{.6} Consideration of Resolution No . 7;2 ' z, authorizing A/C ....TKLR .... initiation of proceedings to annex approximately 1, 337 .24 -....................._ acres of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No . 6 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No . 1 ) \Lt�_ W 5a 9c ' aAr . FILE 1.&)........ Consideration. of request of the City of Anaheim for waiver cov 7 , LETTER .............. of annexation fees for portion of proposed Anaheim Hills A/C ....TKLR .... Annexation No . 1 encompassed by Anaheim Hills Golf Course and Walnut Canyon Reservoir, excepting therefrom that area0 �� of approximately 4 acres comprising the clubhouse and L parking lot of said golf course . See page "All FILE (7 ) Consideration of request of Anaheim Hills, Inc . for waiver ' . LETTER of annexation fees for 19 . 15 acres of proposed Anaheim .4P& A/C ....TKLR ... T , �, {. Hillsi�_ Annexation o . 1 consisting of existing utili_uy �� ......................~- easements . See page "B" 1�, (. 4a LETTER ...(8 ) Consideration of request of Anaheim Hills , �Inc . that ✓('/J ........... . A/C ...TKLR .... annexation fees for 1, 024 . 89 acres of proposed Anaheira �,_^`* ,n Hills Annexation No . 1 be paid in five equal annual t�ti ."...........••..... installments on the tax bill . See page q "B" 4�` '� W ELETTER ....._....._(9 ) Staff report and recommendation for future Master Plan , µ. projects . See pages "C" _ and "D" � A/C ._._TKLR " construction ro ects . k a W yf Consideration of motion_ authorizing the General Manager to request proposals from Lowry & Associates , District ' s { Engineers , for the following: . FILE I t 7 LE: LETTER (a) Design of the Santa Ana River Interceptor from A/C ....TKLR .... Katella to Jefferson (Riverside Freeway) M .....__..........e ('L`rr , . (b ) Preliminary engineering design to determine the RILE ............,,--•- routing and cost for facilities to relieve the Newho e-Placentia Trunk Sewer (State College Blvd. ) LETTER p g7j p (11) 0Lr_er bslnee�}`c� and oIIke mu ni(( atlons , (if ny(� J .....................++• W V_` 1 --_.c._ Y/ , ,wC++ `✓r"1,1^_-3.6.• 1 L --.....-••••• 1.2 ) Consideration of motion to adjourn \\� �'� 1 COUNTY SANITATIUN 1ISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFOR":IA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92703 April 7, 1972 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 STAFF REPORT RE : REQUEST OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO ANNEX A PPROXI14ATELY 300 ACRES DESCRIBED AS THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE AND WALNUT CANYON RESERVOIR TO SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 - Letter Dated March 6, 1972 The District ' s staff has had several meetings with representatives of the Department of Public Works, City of Anaheim, concerning the City' s plans to develop the Anaheim Hills Golf Course . They have requested that approximately 300 acres of City-owned land be annexed to the District; however, only 4 acres (site of the clubhouse and the adjoining parking lot ) will require sewer service . The City staff has suggested that the annexation fee for this annexation be applicable only to the 4 acre.s which will require sewer service. Although there is no District precedent to permit the waiving of annexation fees, it would appear that in the case of publicly owned land not requiring sewer service, a waiver would not be inconsistent with the District ' s policy. The other alternatives considered by the District ' s staff were : (1) Require all fees to be paid; however this would place an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers of the City when no benefit is derived. . (2 ) Not include the unsewered portion of the City-owned property in the annexation, but this would create endless problems for the Tax Assessor, in that, a special tax code area would have to be established for the excluded property. It would be an island within our District even though the City-owned land is exempt from taxes . t The staff therefore recommends that the property be annexed as requested by the City of Anaheim, that is, annexation fees Agenda Item #6 A-1 District 2 be waived for the designated unsewered portion of the proposed annexation area, provided, however, that at such time as any of the aforesaid undeveloped land requires sewer service, that portion to be developed be subject to a District charge equal to the then-applicable District annexation fees. Agenda Item #6 A- 2 District 2 �PNE�M C A � CITY OF ANAHEINI, CALIFORNIA O, g JtiO E o_`$ Office of City Manager March 6, 1972 FILED In the Of'- of r � - -rstary Countj _.z-nratlon - . r;ct No APR Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #2 10844 Ellis Avenue - - Fountain Valley, California Gentlemen: The City of Anaheim desires to annex to Orange County Sanitation District #2 the property described in the enclosed legal descriptions. The legals. describe the City's Anaheim Hills Golf Course and Walnut Canyon Reservoir comprising about 300 acres of the former Nohl Ranch. With the exception of the club house on the golf course, this land will not need sewer service. Therefore, we request consideration of the Board of Directors that annexation fees be waived with the exception of the club house and parking lot. This area is approximately 4 acres. The City of Anaheim is endeavoring to create a green belt area in this portion of Santa Ana Canyon. if these areas are to be preserved, government agencies should cooperate so that undue financial burdens are not placed on the .taxpayers. Very truly yours, Keith A. Murdoch City Manager KAM:j r P. 0. Box 3222, Anaheim, California 92803 Agenda Item #6 A•- 3 District 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 April 7. 1972 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 STAFF REPORT Re : REQUEST OF ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. , AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC. , FOR ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT NO. 2 The enclosed letter dated April 3, 1972, from Anaheim Hills, Inc. , requests annexation of approximately 1025 acres to the District, with the following conditions or exceptions : (1) That the acreage annexation fee be waived for utility easements totaling approx- imately 19 acres. (2) That the annexation fee be collected through a special tax on the land and improve- ments over a five-year period of time. The staff has held discussions with representatives of Anaheim Hills, Inc. , and staff members of the City of Anaheim concerning the proposed development of the area. The densities anticipated by the City for the area are substantially consistent with the District ' s Master Plan. • The District ' s staff has the following recommendations : (1) Deny the request that the annexation fee for the undevelopable easements be waived . This recommendation for denial is made on the basis that if the fee for easements is to be waived, then the fees for all other undevelop- able areas such as streets, hillsides, etc . , should also be waived. If this should occur, sufficient funds would not be generated to finance the needed facilities. (2 ) Approve the request that the annexation fees be collected through taxes over a five-year period . This arrangement appears equitable to both the District and the property oiv-ner since the developers, Anaheim Hills , Inc . , will be requiring sewer service for the annexed area in phases. The $3903000 annexation fee will be collected through a special assessment against the land and improve- ments within the annexed area. Agenda Item #7 & #8 B- 1 District 2 (3) If Item No. 2 above is acceptable to the Board of Directors, it is recommended that ..� the developer be required to pay to the District prior to annexation the sum of $5,000 to defray the annual expense to the District to determine for the County Tax Collector the sums assessable to the various owners within the area for which the annexation fee has been deferred. Agenda Item #7 & #8 B-2 Di.stri ct 2 e i nEAS�eh IIS' r,c• A Subsidiary-of Grant Corporation FILED April 3, 1972 In the Office of the St�cr,?tary County Sanitation Oistrict No ._ Board of Directors APP fi 23 1972 Orange County Sanitation District ^, Number Two 1.0844 Ellis Avenue -- Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Fred Harper General Manager Subject: Request For Annexation Into Sanitation District Number 2 Gentlemen: On behalf of Anaheim Hills Inc. , and Texaco Ventures, Inc. , I respectfully submit to you this request for annexation into Sanitation District Number Two for 1024.89 acres of land as described in the map and legal description attached. Also, enclosed is a check in the amount of $325 to cover the orig- inal application fee. Anaheim Hills is presently develODing on part of the former Nohl Ranch. During this first phase of annexation, we are requesting annexation into the district for that portion of the Anaheim Hills project for which more specific plans of development are now being prepared. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that within the annexation area there presently exists three easements which prevent any development from occurring on these three areas. We therefore, request that the acre fee for these un- developable easements be waived although they will be enclosed in the total annexation area. These easements are as follows: Four Corner; Pipeline, �ie- tropolitan Water District and Southern California Edison. This amounts to a total of 19.15 acres. We understand that the present annexation fee per acre into Sanitation District Number Two is $369. Because of the large area of land requested in this annex- ation, we respectfully request another payment method of these fees. We have discussed this matter with members of your staff and have been advised that we may proceed by placing our total amount of fees on our taxes and prorate them over a five year period of time in five equal encrements. 1665 SOUTH RROOKHURST, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804. TELEPHONE (714) 530-7960 Agenda Item #7 & #8 B- 3 District 2 Board of Directors -2- Orange County Sanitation District Number Two We look forward to working very closely with you on this annexation. We know that it will enhance not only the development of this specific area, but will assist the Sanitation District by increasing your total assessable land inven- tory. If there is any additional information we may be able to provide for you, we will certainly do so as soon as possible. Sincerely, \ William J. St r President WJS:lm Agenda Item #7 & #8 9- 4 District 2 Revi s ad 1972 ti`I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 �01 REVISED SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Project Total Upstream Dist. No. 2 1970/71/72 1972-?3 1973-74 1974-?5 1 75-76 Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor (Plant No. 1 to Kat;ella Avenue) $ 8,4503000 $ 2,6o0,o00 $ 53850,000 $3503000 $2,750,000 $2,750,000 Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor (Katella Ave. to Riverside Freeway) 331003000 1,2003000 13900,000 5003000 1,400,000 River Crossing - Jefferson Street 100,000 100,000 100,000 Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor (Riverside Free- way to near County line) 5,9005000 3,700,000 25200,000 1,1003000 $1,1001000 Water Reclamation Plant 8,500,000 5,100,000* 3,40o,0o0 1,000,000 2,400,000 Yorba Linda Pump Station and Force Main 7955000 7935000 396,0o0 3973000 Palm Avenue Interceptor 394,00o 394,000 197,000 1973000 . Carbon Canyon Interceptor 1,478,0o0 1,478,000 739,000 739,000 South Santa Ana River Interceptor 7455000 745,000 $ 745,OOC Kraemer Interceptor 323,000 323,000 323,000 Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor 549,000 549,000 2753000 271t,CCC $30,3322000 112,6002000 $17,7322000 350,000 $ ,582,000 $8,006,000 $3,775,000 $1,o]9,00r c� NOTES: (1) Cost-s include engineering and contingencies Demineralization Facilities to be constructed by Orange County Water District is Oate: ';lay 11, 1972 - 11 : 00 A.M. 1 NGINEHIt' S isSTIi1AT]": y ALTE,R,NATIi I $5,622, 610.( Oq rn ALTERNATE II 6, 510, 921 .3/ ALTERNATE III 3 , 942 , 015 . 31 w CONTRACT FOR: SA14TA ANA RIVl:i: INTERCI:PTOI: S1iI�IiP, c CONTRACT NO. 2-14-1 - SO ',IGD (54" pipe) 80 ICO (63" pipe) 134 TIM) (34" pipe) C:O �`T1Z�\CfOlt ALTEI RATE I ALTiii::jATE. II ALTMIIN E III t*1 . Sully-`filler Contracting Co . Long Leach $S , 515 , 616.83 $63*273, 936.40 $7 , 676 , 112 . 54 Zarubica Company 2 ' Sun Valley S , 973 , 761 . 24 6, 677 , 770 . 31 S , 13O , 091 . 70 ]:ordick ", Rados , Inc . �• Huntington Beach 6, 332 ,473 . 94 7 , 0329073 . 06 8 , 635 , 34S . 71 4 . TAB Construction ' Las Vc,;as 8 , 484 , SS7 . 25 990771, 969 . 61 1002969SSS459 N S. 7 . 9 c 10. }J. n — ct I N �1 . 12 . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 PROJECTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT 5-18-'72 , e FISCAL YEARS 1971-72 THROUGH 1975-76 Revised Description J 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1 7. 9 5-76 (U REP VENUE Tax Revenue (at current tax rate of $.4255) $ 450175000 $ 4,083,000 $ 4,287,000 $'435025000 437275000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation Joint Works Projects 1,428,000 1,841,000 1,423,000 1,0135000 998,0o0 District Facilities 800,Oo0 1,920,000 CB0 ,M Treatment Capacity 553,000 8453000 227,000 Miscellaneous 653,000 500,000 40o,o00 350,000 3503000 Carry-Over from Previous Fiscal Year 8,567,000 10,692.2000 83262,000 2,899,000 2,292,000 Total Funds Available $14,665 OOO $17,669,o00 $153217 .000 $ 9,7915000 ,$10,287,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 74,000 $ 4,582,000 $ 8,006,000 $ 3,7755000 $ 13019,000 Bond Retirement - 6345000 6125000 5905000 571,000 554,000 Operating and Joint Works Expansion (Does not anticipate new requirements for secondary treatment) 3,,265,000 4,213,000 327225000 351532000 3,224,000 Total Expenditures $ 3,973,000 $ 9,407,000 $12,318,000 $ 7,499,0o0 $ 4,797,000 Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year $lo,692,000 $ 8, 262,000 $ 2,899,000 $ 25292,000 $ 5,490,000 N �Ct Less , rTecessary Reserve for following year dry period 4,785,000 6, 236,000 3,835,000 2,478,000 3,016,000 Fund Ba.la:nce or (Deficit) $ 52907: 000 $ 2,026 ,000 $ .(9362000) $ (186,00o) $ 2,474,000 One cent added to tax rate will raise $ 91, 300 $ 95,960 $ 100,758 $ 105,800 $ 111,o86 1 (II County Sanitation Districts�e. P. O. Box 5175 I County,Orange of O CCalifornia0844 Ellis Avenue I g y, _,aEifornia Fountain Valley, Calif., 92701E Telephones: Area Code 714 k _ bra 540-2910 ISTRI is `1 �e— 962-2411 EE'EI' District No. 2 - 5 :30 p.m. May 24, 1972 No. 3 - Report of Special Committee Chairman Smith advises that the special committee to study annexation fees and connection charges will make a verbal progress report. To date, the committee has met with the staff and engineers on two occasions. Nos. 4 through 8 - Further Consideration of the Request of the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills, Inc. , to Annex to the District 1337 Acres in the Santa Ana Canyon Area. The staff has met with engineering staff members of the City of Anaheim concerning the City' s desire to provide sewer service for the proposed development in the Santa Ana Canyon area currently outside District No. 2. Sewer flow measurements have been taken in various reaches of the District ' s system which would serve the proposed develop- ment. Based on this information, we have determined that - a discharge could be accepted from the proposed annexation up to 350,000 gallons per day during the low-flow period into the District ' s Olive Subtrunk Sewer without restrict- ing the development of any area within the District. It is the staff ' s recommendation that the Board advise the City. of Anaheim and the firm of Anaheim Hills, Inc. , that annexation to the District at this time could only be accomplished with the understanding that for at least two to three ,years the maximum. flow acceptable from the proposed annexation area would be 350,000 gallons per day to be dis- charged during the low-flow period. To handle this discharge, larger pumps will be needed in Anaheim' s Santa Aria Canyon Lift Station at an approximate cost of $4,500, and the City or the developer would be required to construct some type of retention basin to control the discharge to the District ' s system. It must be further understood that it is not known at this time when the District will have facilities con- structed to Imperial Highway in the Santa Ana Canyon which is the drainage area point of permanent connection proposed in the District•' s Master Plan. MO No. 10 - Request for Engineering Proposal On May Ilth, bids were opened for the construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor to Katella Avenue. Attached to the agenda is a bid tabulation for the three alternate size sewers being considered. The bids are well within the engineer' s estimate. This project will take approximately two years to construct . As a result of the request for annexation in the Santa Ana Canyon area, we have made many flow measurements throughout the system to determine the system' s capability to accept additional flows. Other than the Olive Subtrunk Sewer, a major bottleneck exists in State College Boulevard northerly of the Riverside Freeway to Yorba Linda Boulevard. The District ' s Master Plan proposes that this be relieved by the construction of relief facilities to divert the northerly flows to the Santa Ana River Interceptor in the vicinity of the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River. It is the staff' s recommendation that Lowry and Associates, District engineers, be requested to submit, at the June loth Board meeting, a proposal to design the Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor from Katella to Jefferson (Riverside Freeway) . It is also recommended that the engineers submit a preliminary engineering design proposal to determine the routing and costs for the State College Boulevard Relief Facilities. The staff has included with the agenda material a Projected Cash Flow Statement for the fiscal years 1971-72 through 1975-76 which considers the District construction program to relieve the overburdened portion of the system. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH: j MEETING DATE 5/24/72 T i l-iE 5:30 P.m. DI STR I CTS 2 DISTRICT 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS JOINT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS 4ERR_IN . . . . . . GRISET. . . . . . HOLLINDEN • • •JUST• • • • • • • • CASPERS). . . . . BATTIN. . . . . . SCASPERS) . . . . . BAKER. . . . . . . .WELSH) •. _ , . . . MILLER. . . . . . CA,PERS) . . . . •BATTI;J. . . . . ' --__ PORTER. . . . . . . CASPERS• • • • • (CASPERS) • • • • • CLARK• • • • • • r -STRICT 2 CULVER-' • • • - (PEREZ) • . . . . . SMITH • • • • - (HINES) . . . . . . .DAVIS• • • • • • • CULVER . . . . . — — (COEN) . . . . . . . .DUKE• • • • • • • • LANGER). . . . . . FINNELL ✓ (LANGER) • • • • • FINNELL• • • • • KOWALS' I ). . . . FOX . . . . SSKOWA' SKI ) . . . • FOX. . . . . . . . . GRISET • • • • . HER IN . . . . tCOEN�• • • • • • • •GIBBS. . . . . . . (COEN) . . . . . . . *GREEN. . . . . . . HOLLINDEN)• • • JUST . . . . . . . ROBERTS)• • • • •. NEVIL • �`'�` . ✓ (HERRIN • • • • • •GRISET• • • • • • CASPERS)• • • • • PHILLIPS6'�9?�iT GRISET • • • • • • HERRIN• • • • • • REINHARDT). . . ROOT . . . . . . . ✓ BARNES • • • • • • HOLDEN• • • • • • DUTTON • • • • • • STEPHENSON . ✓ MC INNIS) • • • • KYMLA. . . . . . . CASTRO • . • • • . WEDAA . . . . . . (FRANKIEWICH) • LACAYO• • • • • • POTTER.• • • • • • WINO . . . . . . . ✓ �MILLE7) NUIJENS) . . . . . LEWIS. . . . . . . • • LONG •DISTRICT 3 (CROUL . . . . . . .MC INNIS- • • - MC WHINNEY• - CULVER • • • • • (WELSH) . . . . . . .MILLER. . . . . . (CASPERS)• • • • • BATTIK . . . . . (ROBERTS) • • • • •NEVIL. . . . . . . NINES)• • . . . . . DAVIS . . . . . . (CASPERS) • • • • •PHILLIPS • • • • KOWA SKI) • • • FOX . . . . . . . . PORTER • • • • • • COEN • • • • • GREEN . . . . . . FISCHBACH) . . .QUIGLEY. . . . . FRANKIE • II � LACAYO . . . . . �MC INNIS) . . . .ROGERS • • • • • • NUIJENS) • • • • LEWIS . . . . . . ROOT. . . . . . . . MILLER • • • • • LONG • • • • • • �PEREZ HOLLI( DEN) • • •SCOTT. . . . . . • GRISET • . . . . HERRIN • • • • • )) • • • • • •SMITH • • • • • • • BARNES • • • HOLDEN . . . . . �ROBERTS) DUTTON) • • • • • • STEPHENSON • •MC WHINNEY • • • • • • STEVENS • • • • • REINHARDT�- . . ROOT . . . . . . . I (MC INNIS) . . . .STORE . . . . . . . HOLLINDEN SCOTT . . . . . . BYRNE) • • •VANDERWAAL• DUTTON) • • • • • STEPHENSON • CASTRO� . . . . . .WEDAA. . . . . . . ROBERTS) • • • • STEVENS . - - - POTTER • • • •WINN . . . . . . . . BYRNE) . . . . . . VANDERWAAL • DISTRICT 5 CROUL) . . . . . . MC INNIS • • • GOLDBERG - - - - BAKER) . . . . . . CASPERS • • • • MITCHELL• • • - MC I NN I S) • • • KYMLA • • • • • • OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER PORTER- - - - - BROWN Y (PHILLIPS) • • • CASPERS• • • • SYLVESTER (MC INNIS) • • • STORE. . . . . . LEWIS DUNN DISTRICT 7 CLARKE SIGLER � WELSH MILLER. . . . . NISSON SCASPERS) • • • • CLARK. . . . . . TAYLOR — (HERRIN) • • • • • GRISET. . . . . . BROWN PORTER. . . . . . I'SCHBACN)• • QUIGLEY. . . . . . BOETTNER rC INNIS)• • • ROGERS. . . . . . CARLSON pEREZ). . . . . . SMITH. . . . . . . FINSTER GALLOWAY DISTRICT 11 HOHENER COEf�• • GIBBS • • • • . • HOWARD CASP RS). • • . BAKER. . . . . . . HUNT COEN . . . . . . . DUKE . . . . . . • KEITH LYNCH DISTRICT 8 MADDOX ✓ MARTINSON —T GOLDBERG • - • MURONEY (CLARK). . . . . . CASPERS • • • • PIERSALL ✓ MITCHELL • • • s STEVENS 4 C,vl< < 5/10/72 ! �` � ✓ COUNTY SANITAI!ON DISTRICTS of GRANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 r (714) 540-2910 May 22, 1972 (714) 962-2411 PROGRESS REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING ANNEXATION AND CONNECTION FEE POLICIES - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Committee Members : Don Smith, Chairman Ed Just Wade Herrin Mark Stephenson Henry Wedaa The Committee has met on two occasions; Thursday, May llth, and Friday, May 19th. We have reviewed information supplied by the Districts ' staff and engineers, and it appears that the current annexation fee is not adequate to pay for the services to be rendered to serve the annexable areas . Currently the annexation policy of District No. 2 provides that properties may be annexed for $369 per acre. Based on information which is about two years old, the annexation fee should be at least $525 per acre. For the Directors ' information, attached are copies of material pertaining to annexation fees, supplied the Committee by the staff and engineers . On May 19th, the Committee directed the staff and engineers to secure current land use projections for the area which is now outside the District but which will be eventually served by County Sanitation District No. 2. The Committee has been discussing the pros and cons of establishing connection charges with particular emphasis on higher charges for high-density developments as there is an inequity in the tax revenues paid and the services provided. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for June 8th. We are considering; several approaches to the current inequity problem, and we will continue to study several revenue pro- grams which attempt to more fairly charge the user for the services rendered. However, the advice of legal counsel is necessary before a recommendation will be forthcoming. COUNTY SANITAT ION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 �..� (714) 962-2411 With regard to the request for annexation by the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills, Inc. , the Committee recommends that the annexation be subject to an annexation fee to be established by the study now under way. Don E. Smith Chairman DES :j 5-19-72 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Total Stud} Area = 850252 AC Area in Dist. 2 - 62,330 AC Area Outside of Dist . = 22,922 AC Total Average Flow = 160 mgd Flow Outside .Dist. = 20 mgd 20 160 = 12.5% Existing Sewers 12,279,000 x 12.5'/' _ $1.53 million Future Sewers 18,644,000 x 12.5% _ $2.33 million Future Treatment Plant Capacity: 20 mgd x $410,000 = $8.20 million TOTAL $12.06,million Potential Funds from Annexation Fees : 22,922 AC x $369 = $8.46 million 5/11/72 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 COMPUTATION OF DISTRICT NET WORTH PER ACRE AS �.. BASIS FOR ANNEXATION FEE Balance Sheet Summary at 6-30-71 Assets Current Assets $ 691,881 Property, Plant & Equipment 26,160,807 Restricted & Long Term Assets 8,268,626 Total Assets 5 2 Liabilities Current Liabilities $ 4643 547 Long Term Debt 637103000 Deferred Credits 25 Total Liabilities 731745572 Equity $273 946, 42 Computation of Net Worth per Acre $2739463742 Equity/65,667 acres = $426/acre Arbitrary equalization charge for present day value = 150 L76/acre COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CAUFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 January 22, 1971 ANNEXATION POLICY' DISTRICT NO. 2 Effective Date Fee Basis Ma.rch 12, 1969 $250 per acre Established by Resolution No. 69-17-2 January 1, 1970 $260 per acre Minimum increase per Resolution No. 69-17-2 January 15 1971 $297 per acre Based on increase in Federal Water Qua.li I-y Administration per construction costs index for .Los Angeles metro- politan area. a.s follows: Oct. ►68 14o.6 Oct. ' 69 142.9 Oct. '70 157. 4 14.5 (114. 5 x $260 = $297.70) January 1, 1972 $369 per acre Oct. ' 71 index 184.8 Base Index (Oct. 169) 142.9 41, 9 (141. 9 x $26o = $368. 94) 't ... Construction Cost Index 7,1800 1600 1400 V cmam War -i 11200 Buildino Cost Indox i_..J..1000 Korea {+ -� i�Boo II ' Pdice Action" I r� . l l � Ili l Annual indexes 1913=100 I _l F E00 Wc!IdWarll it j 140U YlOtld War I I �"*�-'�� I ' I i�N;alQna:s Comporcm � r i�_ t 11 j •=� �� ` I� � 200 1913 1b 20 25 30 3b co 4b bo S5 b0 ob 70 73 j E. N G I N E E R 'I N `G N E W S R E C O R D I. N D E X - e' EXCERPT FROM 1965 PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT In order to establish equitable annexation fees , an analysis has been made to determine the percentage of the capacity of the proposed facilities that - would be used outside of the present County Sanitation District No. 2. boundary. For instance , in the Carbon Canyon area there are approximately 5600 acres outside of the present District boundary . The esti- mated ultimate peak flow from this area is 5 . 4 mgd . In order to dispose of this sewage , the following facilities would be utilized , as shown below. Percentage of Capacity from Project Project Capacity Outside District Ccst Cost Carbon Canyon Trunk from Dist. Bndry . to Palm. Ave . 8 . 0 mgd. 67 . 5% $ 250 ,000 $168 , 800 From Palm Ave . to Orange- thorpp.- 13 . 8 mgd. - 39 . 10 240',000 93 ;800 From Orange- thorpe to Plant •27 . 3 mgd. 19 . 8% 345 , 000 68 , 300 Plant 70 . 0 mgd . 7 . 70 8 , 700 ,000 671 ,100 TOTAL -T $1 ,002 ,000 As can be seen from the foregoing , it will cost $1 , 002 ,000 to provide for the disposal of th'e sewage from 5600 acres that is presently outside of the District boundary. This amounts to $179 per- Acre . VIII- 2 . The same type of analysis has been made for each of `ow the major drainage areas contributing flow to the proposed treatment plant . The results of this study are as follows : Cost Acreage Per Acre 1. Brea Area, tributary to Rolling Hills Pump Station 870 $413 . 00 2 . East Brea Area, tributary to Carolina Street Trunk 265 190 . 00 3. Carbon Canyon area , tributary to Carbon Canyon Sub-Trunk 5 ,600 179 . 00 .. 4. North Yorba Linda area , tributary to Richfield Trunk 500 155 . 00 5 . North Yorba Linda area , tributary Jo Orchard Trunk 1 ,].00 196 . 00 6. North Santa Ana River area, tributary to North Santa Ana River Trunk 7 ,000 303 . 00 7. South Santa Ana River area , tributary to South Santa Ana River Trunk 8 , 800 238 . 00 Total Area --------- 24 ,135 Average Cost Per Acre 248 . 00 It is recommended that these values be considered as preliminary annexation fees to County Sanitation District No . 2 . For the sake of simplicity and convenience., the Board of Directors of the District may wish to adopt the average cost per acre of $248 . 00 as a general annexation fee for the entire study area. In any event , future modifications to the general plan for the handling and disposing of the sewage in the study area may require periodic revision and updating of the fee or fees adopted �.r by the Board. VIII-3 XTY',� �v-Y)D, " Iry 12-e IVro Ir ryLl n-" 7 TO —rorl 7yrl- 0 2, ot q/ry7 QD n m Ir _T� -ah A. ST m41 1'* i P, c__ :u? F7'1. .-4 'r 41- J. 6, ACACIA% TiN r M 6 j P E I L! S� 47 SUB- UNK (, +-� 4,11 �EW 'E ra� R R 3t 42" 39 36" .33 8 r 77, Xe ,(94 ),OR -n C. rq�L* 144) t ?0, m x rn il- FT1 w r rn C, 6,3 > 7 G1 2 0 (5-0) (5.0 (3.4) I( �"t i+' iCD. rn 0 12 P -t 4Y, KRAEMER INTERCEPTOR 1.1L. 136 vp G . 1 Alo , H. 60 91, 33", I I .,7 27 24 1 (9-9) r 27 _[4 I I k:.- in 6 CA 27" 27" 2 1" 27 on va I -Ii Ov t W AN M INTERCEPTOR 6" CANYON DA R -4 Z 4z Z 47_4 J\, ;P;;z 0 RICHFIELD. INTERCEPTOR• alrn 0 -L y :f(iA C> m 0 33 bc (8.2) C> __7 i A \ ' - 1 `• -v' ..:..�•�,: I' • .,I'll < f ,1 a, I N cn 03 X LL (A VE it wus. t m 30 1 C, m (65) z 'Ilk I ;a C"J. rn 3, -If C I IR 2. ZOR 7-�E2 V�T c, 0. rrr m _ _ R IJ 1� n — HA _...._ I F9 T jji err T t- I 45.. rrar C 39rn ACAr-1A 11 NE WHO E- P1'ACEHTjA 1 �RUNK �t i I ".✓.J 1 f! r I_! � ` 42„ D C FR S$ PCB' `UB-TRUNK _ i i ', i• - /i/y '_l./'"�, -.�_ 3 'r. '' 36 ,T '1 39��, �rl :33'�I�- 1 •� ,cr-' 18'�I ?I' IFl° '+-`�' ( =�' �• ',; r��• / �� kF-A ,h,NT (94wn% RRTO { - ,L ` '�3 �' �"•{ ( ` � y9R - - rL ��" j •i'q, .- - •`�.'( •r 'T'` ='r� .'rl 11,r (�� -ice <�m rn IJ 1 I .LL. Rl 1 .a --F- ' I' l {- i t) ';v 63 V , J ,� �3.. .sluJa-.-L.t.« , I- ; W r"IY I1-,-1.... 20) �_t_ .._ t� N `_1 t;iif I =+' cn � ' -4 < D�t� (5.0) (5,0�� (3.41 ff / ' ' L .• �- II A1.2:l: I '�' ' a"j 15.E � n_ , '�,� - o L R m ra 18 21 18"t ( 'I HIM. (' __.srnra-.i.. IZ .•) ('' ,O V•'r --'F ..:am2.7iv.�,,s.�:�..........;.a .._ _ ` \ i l{♦ may. tV !, , I ' J t y /L" �r 'J j{8� �'' c�'n, KRAEMER INTERCEPTOR �' I :} I, .P!.s !�• � i t �• ,l. ' �(`. . Z�)'na '✓ i NT'� \ ,� I'. l� �-CU, I , r ' �•' )7; !, -�1T >1 r I ; 'ia"• I �I ) 3 ru 6.2,1 -' 60 .c�v: 3 c �\ Y ,•� _- /•.ii I , { T '�'i°'..i -. 33 ,2� �- � �` ' `•. I ! r' It. _�1 � ��) t rrgrl� { cj4� t" T1��C SERCEPTO Y JJ1l (9.9) j I ' Ca>A90 , l�„ R �wv 272a" 9), I 1 60 'J ;CARE , `7 7„' 2 27 -. N rn \0 - N' CANYON DAM INTERCEPTOR )•' ' I TIN M >;C� t 01, NA '7C, rn O, R10HFIELD, ((iL( i I I• I j+ ( �'' ,lf � < �: �oINTERCEPTOR �.I. :.{.I f. p u N O _].�1.. 1 .✓ r ! j it TIr 1. ICI ��1 1 r^ _ >. 33 l�! (8.2) I . f' )�a.l.i- '� ti ' _r tff `1• = T\. ` .« _:.w •��. •..�.- I� \�111`' / � � i As 'i` 3oNrx� _ < .-r�� r: ,.L.:,, _ �,-. .:.;�l '.,,F1 t- LIE:-'l I- .. � ..� 1. j' _` \ �.;��' �.,� A"�•�y.�•�• �__ \�_ �.._..1.: ,qT ! rl rsewEs �•�� +~ _.l S r 1 1 ` ... lei Q "f�1, � � _-,- z , ►. � I � � -4 t ��aG ,�. y{; �. ,i \ r , 1 i �' ..• � 'V 1 v � , _ ,�ORA OE .� _ � 5 0,T 1,�y 'c��J.v, � \� �•I`� .. ' .� V. , ,. I p ..--•- ,. �. � - "(�' � � t�, !s PSG ._.�.."..,i I Ol � A � rj(, << V� MEETING DATE 5/24/72 TIi'lE 5:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 2 DISTRICT 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS JOINT DOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS HERRIN5. . . . . . GRISET. . . . . . HOLLINDEN . . . JUST• • • • • • • • CASPERS). . . . . BATTIN. . �CASPERS) . . . . . BAKER. . . . . . . (WELSH) .. . • . • . MILLER. . . . . . i .CA:,PERS) . . . . • EDATI Ti!v. . . . . . PORTER. . . . . . CA.SPERS. • • . • (CASPERS) • • • • • CLARK• • • • . • DISTRICT 2 CULVER. . . . . . (PEREZ) • . . . . . SMITH . . . . . . (HINES) . . . . . . .DAVIS• • • • . • • CULVER . . . . (COEN) . . . . . . . . DUKE. . . . . . . . SLANGER)• ... . . . FINNELL : : : : (LA NGER) • • : : • FINNELL: ; : : : ttKOWALS 1 ). . FOX . . . (�<"►V,", SKI ) • • FOX. (GRISET� . . . HERRIN . . . . . (COEN�• • • • • • . • GIBBS• • • • • • . (HOLLINDEN). . . JUST . . . . . . . (COEN) . . • • • • • •GREEN. . . . . . . ROBERTS)• • • • • NEVIL . . . . . . (HERRIN) • • • • • •GRISET• • • • • • CASPERS). • • • • PHILLIPS . . . GRISET) • • • • • • HERRIN • • • • • • REINHARDT). . . ROOT . . . . . . . BARNES) . . . . . . HOLDEN • • • • • • DUTTON • • • • • . STEPHENSON . + MC INNIS) . • • • KYMLA. . . . . . . CASTRO . • • • . • WEDAA . . . . . . (FRANKIEWICH) • LACAYO• • • • • • POTTER . . . . . WIND . . . . . . . (NUIJENS) • • . • • LEWIS • . • • • • • (MILLE ) • • • • • • LONG • • • • • • • • DISTRICT 3 (CROUL� . . . . . . .MC INNIS • • • • MC WHINNEY• - CULVER • • • • • (WELSH) • • • • • • -MILLER • • . • • • (CASPERS)• • BATTIK . . . . . (ROBERTS) • • • • •NEVIL• • • • • • • (HINES). . . . . . . DAVIS . . . . . . (CASPERS) • • • • • PHILLIPS . . . KOVIA SKI ) • • • FOX . . . . . . . . PORTER . . . . . . COEN) • • • • • • • GREEN . . . . . . FISCHBACH) . . .QUIGLEY . . . . . FRANKIEWICHI LACAYO . . . . . �MC INNIS) . . . .ROGERS • • • • . • NUIJENS) • • • • LEWIS . . . . . . ROOT• • • • • • • MILLER • • • • • LONG . . . . . . . (HOLLINNDEN) • • •SCOTT• . GRISET� . . . . . HERRIN . . . . . (PEREZ) . . . . . . .SMITH• • . • . . BARNES� . . . . • HOLDEN . . . . . �ROBERTS) DUTTON) • • • • • •STEPHENSON • . MC WHINNEY • • . • • •STEVENS • • • • • REINHARDT . . . ROOT . . . . . . . (MC INN�1 IS) • • • •STORE . . . . . . . HOLLINDEN • • SCOTT . . . . . . (BYRNP . . . . • • •VANDERWAAL• - DUTTON) • • • • • STEPHENSON • (CASTRO� • • : • • •WEDAA . . . . . . . ROBERTS) • • • • STEVENS . . . . (POTTER • • • • •WINN . . . . . . . . BYRNE) . . . . . . VANDERWAAL • DISTRICT 5 CROUL) • • • • • • MC I fJfJ I S GOLDBERG - • • • M ITCHELL BAKER) • • • • • • CASPERS • • • • -- MC I NN I S) • • • KYMLA • • . • • • OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER PORTER. . . . . BROWN SYLVESTER (PHILLIPS) • • • CASPERS • • • • LEWIS (MC INNIS) • • • STORE. . . . . . DUNK DISTRICT 7 CLARKE SIGLER WELSH • • • • • • MILLER. . . . . NISSON �CASPERS) . . . . CLARK. . . . . . TAYLOR HERRIN) • • • • • GRISET. . . . . . BROWN PORTER. . . . . . FISCHBACN)• • QUIGLEY. . . . . BOETTNER MC INNISJ• • • ROGERS. . . . . . CARLSON (PEREZ). . . . . . SMITH. . . . . . . FINSTER DISTRICT 11 GALLOWAY HOHENER COEN • • • • • • GIBBS • • • • • • HOWARD (GASP RS). . . . BAKER. . . . . . . HUNT (COEN . DUKE I KEITH LYNCH DISTRICT 8 MADDOX MARTINSON GOLDBERG • • • MURONEY (CLARK). . . . . . CASPERS • • • • PIERSALL MITCHELL • • • STEVENS 5/10/72