Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-291 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen: June 22, 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO, 2 THURSDAY) JUNE 29, 1972 1 5:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS. AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held June 14, 19'12, the Board of Directors of' County Sanitat:ton District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned ~egular meeting at the above hour and date . JWS:rb ... II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DICTDICT Iv I l'I 2 Adjourned Regular Meeting June 29, 1972 -5:30 p.m. Roll Call Appointment of Ch~irman pro tern, if necessary P.O. Box 8127 108Lt4 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 AGENDA ADJOURNMENTS ••••• = ......... COMP & MfLEAGE ••••••• t-::.::: FIL!:$ SET UP ...... ~ ...... ., RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED.;;- LITTEP.S WRITTEN ... P.::' .... MINUTES WRITTEN ..... C- MINUTfS FILED ...... ~ Report of Special Committee fo~udying An~exationt":1d ~.~·~ /-o Connection Fee Policy {l.J 1--4 'Mo-t ......_ fl"'..dU.>.--~ D" ~ "c,....~ Consideration of motion directing the staff to request ~ N fn.r-rv LETTER •••••••• ._ ... A/C .•.. TKLR .... comments from various public entities who have local U~ collection systems throughout the District on the proposed connection charge concept (6) FILE'Q..~-·-- Further consideration of request of Anaheim Hills, Inc. that annexation fees for 1,024.87 acres of p~oposed Anaheim ments on the tax bill. See page "A" . . _,,, /v Hills Annexation No. 1 be paid in five equalJfn ua~l in1tall- u Proposal submitted by Richard Terry & Associates for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Santa Ana River Interceptor from Katella Avenue to the Riverside Freeway, and the Robert F. Finnell River Crossing. See page "B" LETTER ···-··--j-a1 A/C •••• TKLR ·- Consideration of motion to receive and fil~_proposal. submitted by Richard Terry &-Associates, dated June 16 ,. 1972, and amendment to said proposal, dated June 22, 1972. J.lr). ~erbal staff report --~, / ~:_:6(c/ Consi~eration of proposal submitted ~;y Richct:'d Terry & '~~.~-~· Associates, as amended, for preparation of the Ate .... TKLR ;;_ Environmental Impact Statement for the Santa Ana 1 --··············-River Interceptor from Katella Avenue to the Riverside /Je /) -··-··········-··---·Freeway, and the Robert F. Finnell River Crossing. µ)<l U/ (7) Progress report on grant application for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer from Treatment Plant No. l to Katella Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1. See page "C" (8) Other business and communications, if any (9) Consideration of motion to adjourn 7;1~ TO: FROM: RE: Gentlemen: M E M 0 R A N D U M The Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 2 C. Arthur Nissan General Counsel Anaheim Hills Annexation Deferred Payment of Annexation Fees I was in error when I advised you at the last Board meeting that there was no legal authority ~o authorize the payment of annexation fees over a period of time as an additional special tax. It is true that the Annexation District Act does not authorize the Sanitation District to do this on its own. However, Government Code §56470 permits LAFCO to authorize such a special tax with the concurrence of the District to which anne~ation is being sought. This procedure has been followed b~ District No. 7 in its Annexation No. 14 and there appear to have been no amendments to the Act which would change the proceedings at this time, so, at your discretion you could recommend to LAFCO that you would be receptive to spreading the annexation fees over a period of time, plus interest, and as a special tax levy. CAN:ac Agenda Item #5 A-1 C. Arthur Nissan General Counsel District 2 ' April 3, 1972 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District Number Two 10844 Ellis Avenue Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley , California 92 708 Attention: Mr . 'Fred Harper General Manager FILED In the O ffice o f t he S ec r ?t.ary County S a nita tion D istrict No __z.,._,;.... ______ _ ADO ,, r ) '9 72 ,I I\ 1 G t Subj ec t: Request Fo r Annexation Into Sanitation District N u~ber 2 Gent l emen: On b eha l f of Ana h eim Hi lls Inc ., and Texaco Ventures , Inc ., I respectfully submi t to you this request for annex a tion into San itation District Nu!!lbe r Two fo r 1 024 .89 acres of land as described in the map and l egal description at t ach ed . Al3o , enclosed is a check in the amoun t of $325 to cover toe orig- i nal a p plication fee. Anaheim Hills i s presen tly develooing on part of the former No hl Ranch . During this f i rst phase of annexat ion, we are requesting annexation into the distric t for that portion of the Ana he im Hills p~ojec t for wh i ch more specific p lans of development are now bein3 prepared . I would like to draw your attention t o the fact tha t within the annexation a re a t he r e presently exists three easements which prevent a ny develo pment from occurring o n these three areas . We therefore , request th at the acre fee for th ese un- d evelopab l e easements be waived a l thoug h they will be enclosed in the total ~nnexation area . These easements are as follow s : Four Corners Pipeline , Me - tropo l itan Water District and So uthern California Ed iso n. Th i s amounts to a total of 19.15 acres . We und e r stan d that the present annexa t ion fee per acre into San i tation District Number Two is $369 . Because of the larg e area of land requested in this anne x - a t ion , we r espectfully r eques t another paymen.t me thod of these fees . We have discuss e d this matter with membe r s of your s t aff a nd have b ee n advi sed that we may proceed by placing our total a:no unt of fees o n o ur t axes a nd prorate them over a five year period o f time in five equal encr ements . 1665 SOUTH B ROOK HU O.S T. ~NAHE IM _ CALIFORN l ft_ 92804, TEL EPHON E (7 14) 530 -7960 Ag e nd a Item i/5 A-2 Di s trict 2 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District Number Two -2- 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 <lo so as soon as possible. Sincerely, \ w~\~ Yilliam J. s~ President WJS:lm Agenda Item #5 ·A-3 District 2 June 9, 1972 Board of Directors County of Orange Sanitation District No. 2 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Fred Harper Subject: Anaheim Hills An.nexation No. 1 Into Sanitation District Gentlemen: Included in this filing for annexation is a request that annexation fees for 1,024.89 acres of the annexation area be paid in five equal annual install~ents on the tax bill. The directors might possibly be concerned as to how these tax paY1Tients will be made in lieu of the fact that over the next f{ve years much of the property will be sold to building companies and in turn to individual home owners. As you know, property taxes, as they become due, must be paid by the in- dividual owners of the property. lfaen we as land owners sell our property, full notice of all taxes and/or assessnents against the land must be made · publicly. In turn, any builder who acquires land from Anaheim Hills must make a public disclosure to any potential buyers of the sa!!le taxes and/or assessments to be assumed. • ·Using this method, required by law, all buyers are completely advised of the condition of the land under purchase and ·all encumbrances thereon. I hope this will help to clarify our request. Please let me know, if you need any further information. Sincerely, o~~ James L. Barisic Vice President JLB:lm 380 ANAHEIM HILLS R0.'\0, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 PHONE (714) 998-2000 Agenda Item #5 A-4 District 2 r;-:.-)f:' ."?::.! ,.; r {-., .,.~. 'f"rl fr 0 f'!9 ~II L,.._ ~ :t i ""'~ tJ Q ;t M" 11 \....r /; M lA .~ u LL AND ASSOCIATES ~ '~" .-:u~ r;.q ..-~ r.""tt-1 t._-;; !l 1 ~1' u u:JJ n ! i.::: 1 1. en science &. services 116 North Carousel St. Anaheim, Calif. 92806 Tel. ( 714) 630-2930 16 June 1972 Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (Santa Ana River Interceptor) Richard Terry & Associates/Environmental Science & Services (RT&A/ES&S) is pleased to submit a proposal to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Districts. The following is submitted for your consideration. Part I --Statement of Work ~-Scope of Work Prepare an EIS for the proposed 4-mile long Santa Ana River Interceptor pipe between Ball Road to Jefferson Street, Anaheim. B. Format of Impact Statement The EIS shall be prepared in accordance with the State and Federal Environmental Impact Statement guidelines that are currently ·available. C. Briefings and Liaison Agenda Item #6 1) For the purposes of preparation of the EIS the Consultant shall be thoroughly briefed about the pro- posed projects by County Sanitation Districts per- sonnel, and all relevant fact~ shall be divulged. 2) A Project Engineer from the Districts shall be assigned, to act as liaison, to resolve any problem areas, and with Lowry & Associates. 3) The Consultant shall interface with the Districts' engineers, Lowry & Associates, cognizant agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Orange County \'later District, the Orange County Flood Control District, other State and local offic- ials and agencies, as required, as part of the effort in preparing the EIS. · B-1 District 2 -2- 4) Progress reports or progress meetings will be held periodically, if requested by the Districts. D. Relevant Reports and Doclliuents 1) In addition to the oral briefings presented by the Districts and Lowry & Associates, all relevant doctnnents and reports shall be made available to the Consultant. 2) All reports, drawings and documents provided to the Consultant as part of this contract shall be re- turned to the CSDOC or Lowry & Associates at the completion of the contract. E. Deliverables 1) A preliminary (rough) draft EIS shall be submitted to the Districts for review by 15 August. Comments provided by reviewers shall form the basis for the preparation of the Final Impact Statement. All problem areas shall be resolved, insofar as practicable, be- fore typing the Final Impact Statement. The Final Impact Statement shall be an approved Rough Draft report. 2) A total of 50 copies of the EIS shall be submitted to the Dis~ricts. The Final EIS shall be submitted by 1 September, or earlier. 3) Prior to printing the Final EIS a copy of the Final EIS shall be submitted to the Districts for final approval. If the Districts require no more than a week for review, the deadline will be met. No major revisions are anticipated during thi~ final approval/ review process. 4) The Districts shall make available to the Consultant reproducables of any drawings, maps, or other material to be used in the Final Impact Statemen~. Part II --Terms and Conditions A. Richard Terry & Associates/Environmental Science & Services acts as an independent coµtractor rendering professional services. RT&A/ES&S, or its agents, will not hold the Districts or the County of Orange liable for any injuries incurred as a result of providing professional services under the terms of this contract. B. Work performed shall be based upon the tasks outlined in Part I of this proposal. The Consultant shall make as detailed Environmental Impact study as considered necessary to fulfill the requirements of the State and Federal governments. Agenda Item #6 B-2 District 2 -3- C. The Consultant ~;hall not be penalized for any signif- icant delays resultin9 from changes in engineering plans, Environmental Statenent guidelines, or changes in the State, Federal or local regulations. D. The Consultant shall not be penalized for delays that are beyond his control_ E. Under the terms of this contract the Consultant shall be reimbursed for any work performed. \·Jork on this con- tract shall be considered complete when the Final EIS has been submitted to the Districts. Any additional work after the EIS has been submitted shall be at the same rate as the basic contract. F. RT&A/ES&S proposes to perform professional services on a per diem basis. The rates are as follows: Agenda ~tern #6 Dr. R. D. Terry In-town/in-of £ice Out-of-town Air Pollution/meteorologist Economist (Ecolomist) Sanitary Engineer/Chemical Engineer Marine Biologist/Ecologist Technical (Engr.) Assistant Secretary Estimated Expenses for Proposed Work· Preparation of Final EIS Photocopy work Collation Covers Binding Graphics Reproduction of dwrs., maps etc. Other Misc. Expenses Xerography Photography Misc. office expenses Travel JJocal travel Total expenses are estimated as $800.00. B-3 $280/day 320/day 320/day 300/day 150/day 150/day 80/day 40/day $200 20 40 50 100 ·so $460 $150 20 125 $245 $100 District 2 G. The maximum cost to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement shall not exceed $4,500.00 without further authorization, inclu4ing expenses. H. The Consultant, RT&A/ES&S, shall bill the District on actual work performed, based upon a per diem basis, including expenses (and travel) . The Consultant shall bill the Districts monthly. I. Work on the environmental report can be started by RT&A/ ES&S as soon as notified in writing by the Districts . Yours truly, RDT:gbd Agenda Item #6 . . B-4 District 2 ~· ·.; ~n richard terry · W ""-..AND ASSOCIATES 116 North Carousel St. Anaheim, Calif. 92806 22 June 1972 Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 . Dear Mr. Harper: environmental science & services Tel. ( 714 J 630-2930 Enclosed is a new last page of our proposal for the Santa Ana River Interceptor that I would like you to consider for sub- stitution. The only change is the fee. My reason and need for increasing the fee is based upon several factors that were unknown to me at the time the proposal was submitted. First, the comments on the Santa Ana River Interceptor EIS pre- pared by James M. Montgomery were not available. These corrLments suggest that considerable additional work will be absolutely mandatory. Thus, in reviewing these comments it is apparent that the air quality factor must be answered. Hence, this will require the expertise of our air pollution expert, as well as . gathering planning information for his use. The depth of study required for adequately appraising this single important factor is large and complicated, as .I'm certain you appreciate. Second, the letter frora the Department of Fish and Game also suggests additional work efforts; and if ocean investigations are later considered necessary to effectively answer their criticisms, the cost may well go even higher. Third, already I have received telephone calls regarding the interceptor, which were negative. Planning Department personnel argue for an entirely new study, and specifically mention the fact that Montgomery's EIS did not mention the nature (chamical composition of the waste) and ocean impact ought to be considered. The Department of Fish and Game also alludes to further objec- tions (page 2) which surfaced during public hearings held in July and September 1970. The nature of these objections are not known to us at this time. Clearly, this means that we will have considerably more research, public contacts, objectionsto overcome, public hearings, etc. which were not progranulled in the original budget --because these environmentally-oriented problems were unknown at that time. Agenda Item #6 B-5 District 2 ·; tred A. Harper, General Manager, 22 June 1972, Page 2 I presume that the Districts have not yet had their meeting to respond to our proposal. In fairness, to all concerned, I believe that it might be appropriate to indicate at the Board meeting the potential difficulties that we foresee in preparing this environmental report. And, indeed, this is likely to be a very difficult problem for all concerned. At the same time I want to assure you that we will do only as much work on the EIS as necessary to fulfill EIS requirements. Thus, the higher fee does not ipso facto mean that we will re- quire that amount. But it would be. unwise to undertake the interceptor study knowing at the onset that we could not ade- quately answer the known existing problem areas with the smaller budget. If you have any comments or recommendations as to what course that we should follow, please let me know. -.fro~ I have had one follow-up call ~ the Planning Department re the activated sludge project. They wanted to know to what extent we intend to study the ocean, with special reference to the impact on ocean life! I suppose, the best answer to that question is to ask a question: Since certain projects involve air quality, are we required to study the multitude of medical/health aspects of air pollution and to correlate these health data with the proposed project? Sincerely, Richard Terry & Associates/ Environmental Sci nee & Services ~_;;::u~ Richard D. Terry Executive Director RDT:gbd Encl Agenda Item #6 B-6 District 2 ,: -4- G. The maximum cost to prepare the Environmental Impact Report shall not exceed $7,000.00 without further authorization, including expenses. H. The Consultant, RT&A/ES&S, shall bill the District on actual work performed, based upon a per diem basis, including expenses (and travel) . The Consultant shall bill the Districts monthly. I. Work on the environmental report can be started by RT&A/ ES&S as soon as notified in writing by the Districts. Yours truly, Richard Terry & Associates/ Environm ntal Scien _;;& Services (-:<-:-.. /~ ~ ;:;~:L:~;' ;y Ph;t Executive Di ector RDT:gbd Agenda Item #6 B-7 .· District 2 I 0 I .0 i <l .J ate : ; .1a y 11 , 19 7 2 -11 : O 0 J\ • l·L ENGINEEl~'S 1~STii1ATE: ( COi'.:'I'lU\CT FOll: SJ\lrfA A1~A HIVEi: INTEI~CEPTOR COHT1tACT ~JO. 2-14-1 co.rn~ACTOl{ 50 :.IGD (54" pipe) **1. Sully-~Iillcr Contractinr, Co. Long Beach $5,515,616.83 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . . 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Zarubica Cor.1pany Sun Valley KorJick [~ l~aJos, Inc. l l u n t i 11 g ton .ik a c h TAB Construction Las Vegas 5 ' ~) 7 3 ' 7 {J 1 • 2 4 6,332,473.94 3,484,557.25 ALTERNATE I ALTElU·JATE I I ALTERNATE III $5,622,610.( 6,510,921.~1 8,942,015.31 80 'IGD (63" pipe) 134 ~ 1rin ("l" 0· J\LTim~ATE II AL TE !~;\ATE III $6,273,936.40 $7,676,112~54 6,677,770.81 S,130,091.70 7,0~2,078.06 s ' 6 3 5 , 3 ·1 s . 71 CJ,077,968.61 10,296,555.59 pipe) •...::i 11' .-(" . ,~MA~~:{\ '-lEft'S: A\~~NDA ~iEt')OR 'f P. 0. b x 5175 10344 Elli s f..venu e t< r" • r .. . ')' ... ! '\..Ull fllY .JiHllC<JU011 t J ~t r t i.:ts 'of"Orange Ct~unty , Cilifornis F ountllin V~!ley, Cll lif:, 927C3 T de;>hon~s: I '1 , ~II ==-~====---== 2 Areo C c<l e 7 1 l; 540 -29i0 962 -2 41 1 Jw1e 29th.-5 :30 p.m. Agendc;. Item Uo . 4 ·-Reco1:rr11endat ions of t he Specia.l Crn:'1Yn :i.ttee for s·cudJin,g_; Annexation e.nc Connect}-ori Fee .rrOiicy . Enclosed H:l th the agenda. material i s a repQrt of t he Special ConiI:1itti;;e ':ihich recorr .. 1Tle nd s th e a.doption of e..n &.n.ne :-::a - tion fee f or the 1972-73 year at ~273 per acre . Said fee to be increaf:>ed e.nnur,;,lly at the ra t e ·of $10 p e r acre pe:c year . In ad.di tion; the Cornrni ttee is recormnending the.t a c onnection charge for ne~ connections be established throughout the District at ;plOO per dHelJ.ing m1i t (see conun :Lt tee repoTt 2-n the agenda materjal). ABendo. It.L-rn Ho. 5 -Request of Anal1eirn Eills, Inc., fo r Deferr:-:c nt o].' .ii.nnG xa ti on :i•ec s . At the J":...u,e 11.J th li1 ee·cJ.11g of th e Board ,, the Distri c:t.:> 1 General Coun sel advised the Directo rs that to defer annexe tion fees i t would be necessary for an applicant to enter into 2n agreement Hi th the Di st :c:Lct 1·rhicl1 would be secured by sor:1e typ e o f negotiable instrt~rn e nt . He h a ve no':r r e ceived 2, co::-:-_":":u_r1ice..- tion from the Gene r a l Counsel which advises that th e re is a pro - c edure by which the Local Agency f'ormation Cor.1miss2.on could a.utho:c:Lze a spec ial tax on the property to be annexed i-.:i tr, t he conc u r rence of the District 3oar d . In view of this ne:·1 2-nfor!~:3.­ tion, we have placed this matte r on the agenda for possible r ec on siderat ion . Agenda Item No . 6 -P r oposa l for Prepa r ation of Environmental 1rnpact Staten ent ~- Pur suant to the direction of the Board , we have r eceived a proposal from Hi chard 'I'er r y and Associates for the p r epa:-.'ation of th e r equired Environ .. inental I mpact Sta ternent for the Sante. .:~r:e. Ri ver Int erceptor from Kate lla Av en u e to t he Hi verside ?ree1·ray . On June lLJ th , the :Boa rd e.uthorizcd the prc;pa:ca t ion of pl a ~s ar.d s pecifj_ca tions for this segment of the Santa Ana Ri ver L1te r - c eptor . Richard Terry and Associat es of Anaheim has been previ ous ly engaged by the Joint Districts to prepare Environme ntal Impact Statemen ts and vre hav e found the firm 's work ve ry satisfactory. Dr. Terry has had recent experience in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a Santa Ana Rive r Canyon County proje ct; therefore, it is t he staff 1 s recommendation that the proposal to prepare t he Environme nt al. Impact Statement for the Santa Ana River Inter-- cept or from Katella to t he Riverside Free way be authorized i n an amount not to exceed $4 ,500 . Agend a Item No . 7 -Progress Repo rt on State and Fe d era l Grant .P1pplic at ion for fhe Construction of the Santa Ana River Inter- ceptor . Hopefully , by June 29th, we will have some favorab l e news from the State Wat e r Resources Control Board concernin g the District 's app lication fo r State and Federal financial assistance for t he construction of the joint use facility . The State Board staff is ready to c e rtify th8 project for this f i scal year as it implements a n important segment of their adopted I nter im Basin Plan to imp rove water quality in t he Santa Ana Rive r watershed. However , they a r e holding up c ertifica tion pending the outc om e of the Ore,nge Cour1ty Plannin g Comrnission 1 s r evievr of the Di strict 1 s Rnvi ronmental Impac t Statement concerning thi s p roj e ct on June 27th . T~e project must be c ert ifi ed by J une 30th to be eligib l e for State and Federal fu:.nding . The joint construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor 1.-1:L th the Chin o Basin Municipal Water Dis trict will save the taxpayers of District No . 2 $2 .7 million . If the Grant is not fort hcom in g , the Chino Bas in Munic i pa l Water District will not participate j_n the project. Fred A. Harper Gene r al Manage r MEETING DATE June 2 9 , 19 7 2 T I M E 5 :30 p.m , DIST RICTS -------- DISTRICT 1 ACTI VE DIRECTORS (HE RR I N) ...... GR I SE T .•..•. (CAS PERS ) •..•. BA TTI N .••.. ·====== (W ELSH) • • • · •• , MI LLER ...•.. ___ __ ·-- PO RT ER •••..• ~~ ___ _ r -~T R I CT 2 ::>.-s .,/ (PEREZ)· .... · SMITH .. • • .. ------ CULVER . .. .. / ¥ --~LANG ER) . ._. • . . F INN ELL • . . . / ---- ~ KOWA LS !( IJ .... FO X ......•. --:71~.JJF--- ~GR I SET) ...... HERRI N ••.•• -~-./-D.:___ ----' ) v \HOLLINDEN ... JUST ....•.• ------ (ROBERTS). : · · · NEV IL ..•••• _{_ ---- ~CASPERS).···. PHILLIPS .•• ~ ----~REINHARDT) .•• ROOT ...•.•. __:!.._ ___ _ !DUTTON) ...... ST EPHE NSON • _../ ____ _ CASTRO) ...... WE DAA. ..••.• -. ..;-___ _ POTTER) ...... W I N ~ .•••..• _I ____ _ DISTRICT 3 CULVER····· -----· - (CASPERS ).;,·· BATT I N····· ------ (HINES) .... • .. DAVIS ...... __ --__ !KOWAl,.SKI) · · · FO X ········ ------ COEN).······· GREEN •. · ..• _____ _ FRANKIE WICH). LACAYO · .... _____ _ (NUIJENS ) · · • • LEWIS······ ------ !MILLER}····· LONG ······· _____ _ GRISET} .. · .. HERRIN .... • _____ _ BARNES}····· HOLDEN··· .. _____ _ MC WHINNEY. _____ _ 1 REI NHARDT) ... ROOT······· _____ _ HOLLINDEN) · · SCOTT···· •. _____ _ DUTTON) · · • • · STEPHENSO N. _____ _ (ROBERTS)···· STEVE NS ···· _____ _ (BYRNE)······ VANDERWAAL • _____ _ DISTRICT 5 1 CROUL) • · .. • · • MC INNIS · • · BAKER)· · · · · · CASPERS . · • · MC INNIS)··· KYMLA • •• · · · DISTRICT 6 PORTER····· (PHILLIPS)··· CASPERS···· (MC INNIS)··· STORE······ DISTRICT 7 (WELSH)· • • • • • (CASPERS)· • • · (HERRIN).···· I "ISCHBAC~) •• C INNIS J • • • (PEREZ)· · · · • • DISTRICT 11 MILLER····· ------ CLARK· • • · • • ------ GR I SET .•••. ·----- PORTER .••••• ------ QUIGLE Y ••.. ·----- ROGERS .•.... ----- SM ITH ..•.••• ----- (COEN) .. • • • • GIBBS · · · • .. ------ (CASP(:RS) •..• BAKER .•....• ------- (COEN)··· •.•• DUKE .••.•.• ----- DISTRICT 8 GOLDBERG • • • ----- (CLAR K)······ CASPERS • • • • - --- MITCHELL • · • ----- 5/1 0/72 1 JO I NT BO,~RDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS (HO LLI ND EN) .•. J US T ..•..... ___ _ (CASPERS) ...•• BAK ER ...•... ___ _ ( r " ro :-"\ r-R· " \ '"'A..,..~ ,. •' ,...,,_,,1 rc.; ;:;,1 • • • • • .0 I I il'l • • • • • • ___ _ CAS PERS .. ,,· ___ _ f ,..11 ""~.-Rs" C'·A~" \1....1-\.::>r c. / • • • • • L K l\····•·· ___ _ CULV ER······ (HINES)······ ·DAV IS······· ---- (COE N)···· ····DUK E········====== (LANGER)······ FINN ELL····· ----(Km~A l..SKI ) ····FOX········· ---- (COEN ).··.·.· ·G IBBS······· ___ _ (CO EN)·· · • • • • ·GR EE N· · · · · • · ___ _ (HE RRIN)····· ·GRIS ET · • • • • · ---- (GRIS ET ) .••••• f-IERRIN· · · • · · ---- (BARN ES) •••• •• HOLDE N······ ---- (M C INN I S) .•• • l<YM LA · · · • • • • ---- (FRANK IE WICH ) .LACA YO ••••.. ---- (NUIJENS) .•.•• LEWI S······· ----(M ILLE ~) .. ·••· LO NG ········ ---- (CRO UU ••.••• -M C I NNIS···· ---- MC WH I NN EY·· ---- (W ELSH )······ ·MILLER······ ---- (RO BERT S)···· ·N EVI L ······· ---- (CAS PER S)···· ·PHIL LIP S···· ----· PORTER··· • · · ----(F ISCHBACH ) .. ,QUI GLE Y, •••. ___ _ . (M C INNI S ) ..•• ROGERS ••••.• ___ _ (R EINHA RDT ) ROOT· ••. •••· ---- (HO LLINDEN) ··.SCOTT······· ---- (P EREZ)······ ·SM I TH······· ---- (DUTTON)······ STEPHENSON·· ---- (R OB ERTS)···· -S TEVENS····· ---- (M C INNIS)··· ·STORE······· ---- (BYRN E )······ ·VAND ER WAA L · • ---- (CAS TRO )····· ·WEDAA · • • · • · · ---- (POTTER)····· ·W INN········ ___ _ OTHERS I 1~.~ * * * * * GOLDBERG· • · · ---- MITCHELL···· ---- HARPER BROWN SYLVESTER LE WIS DUNN CLARKE SIGLER NISSON TAYLOR BROWN BOETTNER CARLSON FINSTER GAL LO WAY HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEI TH LYNCH MADD OX MAR TI NSO N MURO NEY P IERSALL -( -r- -r- ·-- ST EV ENS ~A'l'1 S1 c_ --v:7' /IA or<, <;.L.'f lc... £!<; e> V\ Aienda Item No. 5 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE April 7, 1972 FOUNTAIN VALLE)', CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 STAFF REPORT Re: REQUEST OF ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND TEY~CO 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 ovmer since the developers, Anaheim Hills, Inc., will be requiring sewer service for the annexed area in phases.· The $390,000 annexation fee will be collected through a special assessment against the land and improve- ments within the annexed area. (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. ___ ,.. ~ --... COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE Cou~nv. CALIFORN!A ... t P. 0. E!OX 8127 June 27, 19'/2 10844 ELLIS /N!:N 1..:E FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714). 54::>-2910 (714) 962-241 I REMARKS BEFORE THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Don E .. Smith Chairman, County SanitatJ.on District No. 2 Councilman, City of Orange Re: Santa Ana River Intereeptor Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Construction from Sanitation Districts 1 Treatment Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue The Santa Ana River Interceptor project in it3 entirety extends from the Orange Cow1ty Sanitation Districts' treatment plant in Fountain Valley north1.·mrd along the Santa Ana Ri"ver to the Orange County-Sa.n Bernardino County line. There are two general purposes for the project. One is to pro"vide interceptor sewer capacity in Orange County for County Sanitation District No. 2 and the other is to provide a safe means of disposal of high saline \-:aters from Riverside and San Bernardino Counties for the protection of the ground and surface ·waters of the bar.; in. An average of 100,000 tons of dissolved salts each year are being added to the grotmd '·:aters of the Upper Basin (above Prado Dam), over and above that being exported from the ground water basin. This general situation, coupled with other pro- jections of water use over the future years, has resulted in the prediction that the quality of water passing Prado Dam will 6ontinue to deteriorate unless substantial changes are made in the water use and \·:aste disposal r.1ethods of the basin. Tl~e proposed Santa Ana River Interceptor is a feasible method to deal with a part of the problem, that is, to syphon off the collectible fraction of saline wastes and remove them to the ocean. For several years the Orange County Sanitation Districts have been holding discussions with upstream water pollution control agencies as well as State and Federal representatives to provide a means whereby waste ·water from Upper .Santa Ana River Basin dischargers that would be deleterious to the ground water supply of Orange County, can be transported through a closed system to the Sanitation Districts! treatment facilities. The contractual agreements provide for the joint construction of waste water transportation facilities and waste treatment capacity rights for the Upper River Basin interests in the existing and future facilities of the Sanita- tion Districts. The quality of the waste water discharged into the Sanitation Districts' facilities at the Orange County line will meet the same quality criteria established for any dis- 6harger within the Sanitation Districts' system, now and in the future. A daily quality monitoring program for the Upper Basin will be established and all costs thereof will be borne by the Upper Basin dischargers.. In the event the ·waste water delivered by Upper Basin dischargers fails to meet the quality criteria, the Sanitation Districts ·reserve the right to suspend all or part of the Upper Basin's use of the existing facili tj_es of the Sanitation Districts. The joint County Sanitation Districts have petitioned the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a review of the Districts' ocean discharge·requirements with particular reference to establishing specific numerical standards on toxicants discharged to the ocean.in conformance with the Water Quality Plan for the Ocean Waters of California estab- lished by the State Water Resources Control Board. These standards will be applicable to upstream waste water discharged to the proposed Interceptor. Based on the present construction program to accomplish the actual building of the Interceptor Sewer, this facility will not be ready for use by the Upper River Basin dischargers W1til late 1975. State and Federal regulatj_ons concerni.ng the discharge of liquid wastes to the marine· envirori..rnent will then be firmly established and the Sanitation Districts will be well W1der way with the construct:ion of those facilities which will be required to meet the established requirements. If current Federal legislation is passed as proposed in both Houses of C8ngress, the Sanitation Districts will construct and have in operation by January 1, 1976, secondary treatment facilities for all flows processed through its facilities. In addition, and probably more importantly, the Districts will have implemented their rigorous point-source control program (see attached) which significantly restricts the.industrial discl1arge of hazardous substances. We are placing specific controls on YJ10vm, or highly suspect, toxic materials that. can damage the marine environment. The costs of implementing the portion of the project to improve the ground water supply of Orange County are being borne by the Upper Santa Ana Hiver Basin dischargers and State and Federal Water Pollution Control agencieso In fact, this multiple participation in the construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor will save the taxpayers of Coun-ty Sanitation District No. 2 (which encompasses all or parts of the Citles of Orange, Placentia, Villa Park, Brea, La Habra, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Anaheim, Fountain Valley, the Garden Grove Sanitary District and a considerable portion of unincorporated territory) $2.7 million dollars, in that additional sewerage facilities are required in the northeastern portion of the District which must be provided if this joint project is not constructed. This often misunderstood project will help enhance Orange County's ground water supply at no co$t·to us, and, at the same time, place the determinatj_on and control of discharges to the marine environment in the hands of Orange County citizens. COUNTY SANITATION DIS1~RICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92700 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 February 8, 1972 INDUSTHIAL WASTE MONITOHING For many years our Districts have recognized the need for comprehensive lmmrledge of the discharge quality of the 2500 \·1et industries located v1i thin Orange County. Historically, industrial discharges that cause major treatment and disposal problems to many sewering entities , throughout the country have not been located within our collection system as Orange County has never attracted the stereotype industries that are the nemesis of many treat- ment processes. However, as additional data became available to indicate that discharges of a more subtle nature, i .·e., ·heavy metals, ~ay cause deleterious effects to the marine environment, the Districts adopted a Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance that is designed to serve a tv10-fold purpose. First, to more equitably distribute the cost among users for use of the Districts' facilities. Secondly, and probably of greater significance, the Ordinance estab- lished a monitoring program to individually sample, on a routine basis, the discharge of industries discharging to the Districts' system of trunk sev1ers. During the calendar year 1971, the Districts' Industrial Waste Division collected more than 1300 samples of industrial discharges with 4300 laboratory analyses being performed. We are searching for heavy metals and other lmovm toxic materials, as 1·re believe that point-source .· control can significantly reduce the discharges of hazardous substances to the marine environmeQt. At present, we are concerned about the industrial discharge of the following constituents: : Arsenic Cadmiwn Chromi wn· (total) Copper Lead Mercury Zinc Cyanide .Phenolic Compounds Total Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Ammonia (N) Chlorine Iron Nickel Silver In addition, we are considering establishing maximuro allowable concentrations of the following: Aluminum Antimony Barium Beryllium Cobalt Seleniwn Incorporated in our.Districts' new $300,000 laboratory is the instrumentation needed to accomplish a meaningful monitoring program. The acquisition of a Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer with a flameless mercury analyzer has not only increased the detection limits for most analyses, but has also increased productj_vity to the point where many samples can be analyzed quickly and accurately. Organic compo1mds such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and phenols are being determined on two Hewlett Packard Gas Chromotographs with dual flame ionization detectors. During the first six months of 1971, 45 industries were cited for violation of the Ordi.nance 1 s quality requirements. By the end of the year, 90 percent of these industries had remedied their quality problems vri thout the n~cessi ty of legal action initiated by the Districts. The technique of point-source control has been used by many responsible public entities. For example, the City of Los Angeles has maintained an effective industrial ·waste control program for many years. They currently operate an industrial permit system which involves the surveillance of i3;000 industrial discharges. Copies of their current ordinance and regulations are enclosed. The City of Phoenix, Arizo1E implemented an industrial waste control in 1964. They have been successful in enforcing their ordinance· and many of their industries have installed pre-treatment facilities in order to comply with the regulations; in fact, there are fifty metal finishing industries connected to their sewer system. All except two are pre-treating to acceptable limits and the re- maining two have pre-treatment facilities under construction. ~ Again may~we re-state our belief that using the technique of point-source control to prevent discharge of toxic sub- stances to the marine environment can significantly reduce pollution and at the same time save the taxpayers millions of dollars in expensive treatment processes to remove minute quantities of toxicants from a homogeneous wastewater flow. June 2.0, 1972 COUNTY SANITAT!ON DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.EOX8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALiFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-241 I SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING A:NNEXATION AND CONNECTION FEE POLICY -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Recommendations: Committee members: Don Smith, Chairman Edward Just Wade Herrin Mark Stephenson Henry Wedaa The Committee has met on three occasions and has considered information which was supplied by the staff and engineers. We have determined that a more equitable annexation policy can be established which not only con- siders the acreage to be annexed but also the land use. Based on the ·enclosed information:, it is the Committee's recommendation that the annexation fee for the 1972-73 year be adopted at $2'l3 per acre, to be increased $10/acre/ year, and that a dwelling connection charge be established throughout the District at 100 per dwelling unit; com- inerc-ia1 and industrial connection fees wil be consistent with the charges for individual dwelling connections. The Committee recognizes that the establishment of a connection charge throughout the Di.strict will affect all of the local sewering agencies, such as the cities, the Garden Grove Sanitary District, and water districts having authori t~r over individual connections to the sewer system. It is therefore recommended that if the connection charge concept appears to be feasible and acceptable to the Board on June 29th, that each Director submit this information to his individual council or Board for their comment. If the concept is considered favorably, it would be the Cc~ittee's recommendation that our District Board enter into agreements with each of the local sewering entities within the District to collect the connection charges for·new connections. The District would reimburse the local entity for the expense of collecting the District's connection charges. In District 5, the City of Newport Beach collects the District's connection charges; these funds are forwarded to the District monthly. The expenses incurred by the City are reimbursed by the District at the rate of $4.00 for each single family detached residential unit, and $4.00 for each 20 "fixture uni ts 11 for all other types of construction, including commerc:Lal buildings and multiple residential buildings. Based on the anticipated new construction within the District, the $100 connection fee will generate between $600,000 and $1,000,000 per year (see Page 4 -blue en- closure). This is equal to a 6¢ to 10¢ eventual reduction in the District's tax rate. Enclosures ,3-n/(_2r.-L--z>?JQ Don E. Smith Chairman Effective Date Ma.rch 12, 1969 Ja.nuary 1, 1970 Ja1ma.ry 1, 1971 January 1, 1972 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of 0RA~GE CoUNlY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAJN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 Janu_ary 22, 1971 ANNEXATION POLICY DISTRICT NO. 2 Fee $250 per a.ere $260 per a.ere $297 per acre $369 per acre Ba.sis Established by Resolution No. 69-17-2 Minimwn increase ner Resolution No. 6~-17-2 Based on increase in Federal Hater Quality Administra.tion per construction costs index for Los Angeles metro- politan area as follows: Oct. '68 Oct. '69 Oct. '70 ( 114·. 5 x $260 Oct. '71 ·index Base Index (Oct. '69) ~ 140.6 142.9 157.4 i4.5 = $297.70) 184.8 142.9 ( 141. 9 x $ 260 -- 41.9 $368.94) - I I· L I Annual indexes 1913=100 . ·. ' I .. I ·I .• E .. N GIN E" E ·n·r NG NEWS. :• R E C 0 R D I.·N D E X·. .. --~. BUILDIHG PEPJ·lITS FOR D~·TELLING U!TITS 1971 Single Multiple. Estimated in City Family Familz Total District No. 2 Anaheim 862 1,443· 2,305 1,000 Brea 274 2 276 150 Fountain Valley .. 1,560 48 1,608 400 Fullerton 24~-1,273 1>517 700 Garden Grove 193 675 868 400 . La Habra 62 726 788 300 Orange 241 933 1,174 800 Placentia 684 229· 913 913 Santa Ana 592 1,519 2,111 500 Villa Parl~ 96 0 96 96 Yorba Linda 772 69 848 848 TOTALS ~587 ~17 12~501+ 6,107 .--c--- Est'd. District No. 2 Units 22730 3,377 6.107 . .~ BUILDH~G PER~·fl TS FOR DHELLI~G UNITS 1970 . ., Multiple Estimated.in City Single Fardly Family Total District No. 2 Anaheim 376 3,993 4,369 2~000 Brea 188 18 206 150 Fountain Valley 768 688 1,4~6 300 Fullerton 150 1,045 l, 195 . 500 Garden Grove 14 305 319 150 La Habra 0 881 881 300 Orange 137 274 411 300 Placentia 89 72 161 161 Santa Ana 191 2,624 2,815 800 Vil Hi Park 103 0 103 .· 1.03 Yorba Linda 450 8 458 458 TOTALS 9,908 12,374 5, 22_2 . . .· .· June COUNTY SANI TAT I ON DISTRICT NO. 2 AREA OU TSID E OF EXI ST I NG DIST RICT Land Use Area Flow Number of (l) Connections AC mgd Low Density 18,856 12.314 35 ,180 Med. Density 716 l. llO 3 ,170 Med. High Density 225 .872 2,490 High Density 129 . 751 2,150 Commercial 87 .282 800 Recreational 514 .098 280 Oil Production 4,782 4.782* 13,670 TOTALS 25,309 20.209 57 ,740 (l)350 gal per day p e r connection Equivale nt to me dium-low density resi de ntial FUNDS TO BE RAI SED FROM OUT SID E OF DIS TR I CT 20 mgd 160 mgd = ExistiE .. 8 Sewer Syste m: 12.5% $12 ,279,000 x 12.5% = $1.53 million Future Sewe r System: $18,644,000 x 12.5 % = $2 .33 million Future Treatment Pl a nt Ca pacity: 20 mgd x $410 ,000 = $8 .20 million TOTAL $12.06 million (1) 8, 1972 Perc ent of Tot al Fl ow 61 6 4 4 l 24 100 FUNDS TO BE RAISED BY ACREAGE AND CONNECTION CHARGES Percent Raised Acreage (1) Percent Raised Connection By Acreage Charge Charge by Connection Chg_. Charge 100% $524 0% $ 0 75% 393 25% 52 50% 262 50 % lOL1 25% 131 75 % 156 10% 52 90 % 187 0% 0 100% 209 (~)23~000 AC assumed for ultimate annexation (2) Land Use Low Density Med. Density Med. High Dens. High Density Commercial Industrial Recreational Oil Production Unclassified TOTALS June 8, 1972 ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHI N EXISTING DISTRICT Number. of (l) Percent of Area Flow Connections Total Flow AC mgd 6,568 4 .26 1 2,170 2.8 24,522 38 .00 108,570 25 .3 2,462 9 .55 27 ,290 6 .3 4 '726 27.50 78,570 18.3 5 ,894 19.04 54 ,400 12.7 9,526 36.96 105,600 24 .5 2,609 .50 1,430 3,636 3.64(2 ) 10,400 2 .5 5 t 724 11 .45 32,700 7.6 65,667 150.90 431,130 * 100 (l) 350 gallons per day per connection ( 2) Equivalent to medium-low density r esidenti al * Total Potential Number of Connections (3 ) .. FUNDS TO BE RAISED WITHIN DISTRICT Future Sewer System: $18,644,000 x 87.5% = $16.31 million Future Treatment Pla nt Capacity: 150 mgd x $410,000 $61. 50 million TOTAL $77. 81 million POTENTIAL FUNDS Tll.A.T COULD BE RAISED BY CONNECTION CHARGES Charge Per Connection $ 50 15.0 100 30.0 150 45.0 200 60.0 25 0 75.0 Present Average Flow in District -45 mgd Ultimate Average Flow in Present District Boundaries -150 mgd Potential Number of Future Connections 105 mgd 350 = 300,000 Total Amount Eer Ye a r Amount er Year Amount 6,000 Conn./Year 10 ,000 Conn. Year " millio·n $ 300,000 $• 500,000 million 600,000 1,000,000 million 900,000 1,500,000 million 1,200,000 2,000,000 million 1,500,000 2,500,000 (4) COUNTY SANrrNI1IO N DISTRICT NO . 2 ,J .i REVISED SCHEDULE OF DI STRICT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ·- .) I Pro.ject Santa Ana Ri v e r Inter- c ep tor (Plant No . 1 to K a t<.:!lla Avenue) Sa nt a Ana River Inter- ceptor (Kate lla Ave .. to Rive r side Fr eeway) Robert F . Finnell River Cro.:;sing Santa i\na Rive r Inter- c e pt or (Riverside Free - ~ay t o near Co u nty l ine ) 1:Jate r Re clam2.tion Plant Tot a l $ 8,450,000 3,100,000 100,000 5,900,000 8,500,000 $ 2,600,000 1,200,000 3,700 ,00 0 5 ioo ooo* ' ' ( Yo r ba Linda Pump St at ion 2nrj Foree Hain 795,000 394,ooo 1,478,000 ~n~n Avenu e Interceptor Cci.rbon Ca.ny on Inte rc ept or S out h Santa Ana River Int e rceptor Y...r a eme r I n te rceptor Ca r b oa Canyon Dam I ritercep tor I\OTJ.::S : 745,000 323,000 __ 5_l~~9..2 000 $30,332 ;000 1 11 I Costs include engineering and cont ingencies Dc min?r a lization Faci litie s to be constructed by Orange County Wa ter Dis t r ict Dist . No . 2 $5,850 ,000 1,900,000 1 00 ,000 2,200 ,000 3,Lwo ,ooo 793,000 39l~' 0 0 0 1,478 ,000 7 45,000 323,000 __ 5 4_9,000 $17,7 32 _~ 1:9-70/71/72 1972-73 $350 ,000 $2,750,000 _$350' 000 500,000 396 ,oo o· 1 97 ,000 739 ,000 1973 -74 $2,750 ,000 1,400 ,000 1 00 ,000 1 ,100 ,000 1,000 ~0 00 397,000 1 97 ,000 739,0 00 323,000 $8 ' 006·, 0 00 Ma y 18 <' ~a··-,,~~­ Rev i sec -~7 4 -7 5 $1 JlOO,OOO 2,4-oo ,ooo 275,000 h1'75,000 1975 -76 $ 7 4 5,00( __ 2_7_1L ~GC\ $] 01 () ')" . l ,_ l \... '-'..: I I:: I t_j I ( COU~'TY SANITATION DISTIUCT NO. 2 PRO,JEC1'ED CASH FLOW STATE~illNT FISCAL YEARS 1971-72 THROUGH 1975-76 Descriotion REVEr!UE Tax Revenue (at current tax rate of $.4255) Other Revenue Federal & State Participation Joint Works Projects District Facilities C:ql:1HD Treatment Capa.ci ty Mis cellane<?_us ~ ~. ' ... Carry~bver from Previous Fiscal Year Total Funds Available EXP:Z~mITU3ES .... - District Construction Bond Retirement Operating and Joint Works Expansion (Does not anticipate new requirem.~nts for secondary treatment) Total Expenditures Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year Less: Necessary Reserve for following year dry period Fund 3al~nce or (Deficit) One cent added to tax rate will raise 1971-72 $ 4,017,000 1 ·428 000 ' ' 653,000 8.,567,000 $14;665;000 $ 74,ooo 634,ooo 3,265,000 .. $10, 692, 000 . $ 5,907,000 . $ 91,300 1972-73 $ 4,083,000 1,841,000 553,000 500,000 l0,692.,000 $17,669,000 $ 4,582,000 612,000 4,213,000 $ 9,407,000 $ 8,262,000 6,236.,000 $ 95,960 1973-74 $ 4,287,000 1,423,000 845,000 4o·o ,ooo 8,262,000 $15,217,000 $ 8,006,000 590,000 3,722,000 $12' 318.'I 000 $ 2,899,000 3,835,000 $ (936,000) $ l00,758 ( 1974-75 $ 4,502,000 1,013,000 800,000 227,000 . . .. 350,000 2,899,000 $ 9,791,000 $ 3,775,000 571,000 3,153,000 $ 7,499,000. $ 2,292,000 2,478,000 $ ( 186' 000) $ 105,800 5-18-72 Revised $ 4,727,000 998,000 1,920,000 350,000 2,292,000 $10.,287,000 $ 1,019,000 554,ooo 3,224,ooo $ 4,797~000 $ 5,490,000 3,016:000 $ 111,086 .. ' June 20, 1972 Mro Fred A. Ha~per General .. Manager County Sanitation Districts,,· · P. o. Box 8127 : .! Fountain Valley; California.92708 Re: Request of Anaheim Hill's" etco Dear Fred: R~sponding·to your letter of June 16" 1972 and the enclosures therein, please be adv-ised that I was in error in my statements regardir1g the ability of ·the District to collect annexation fee over a period of timeQ My conversa- tion with the attorney for the developer ·related to provlsions in the Health and Safety Code with refer·ence to tile ability or the District to spread such annexation. fees., The District in its own act does no~ have such power but·LAFCO does under the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code. This is a LAFCO power and I overlooked its application to the District in this annexation proceedingm The procedure followec ·'!:ly Distr'ict No. ·7 in Annexation No.14 is the correct procedure to be followed ir\ this matter. CAN:cp Y~trt~ly, c. Arthur Nissan TO: FROI:i: Gentlemen; . ; MEMORANDUM The Board of Directors County Sanitation District No: 2 c. Arthur Nisson General Counsel Anaheim Hills Annexation Deferred Payment·of Annexation Fees I was in e:cror when I a.dv~.sed you at the last Boa::d meeting that there ~ ... ;as no legal authori·::y to authorize the payment of annexation fees ave= a period of time ~s an additional special taxo It is t~ue that. the ~~nne;~Qtion Di.strict Act ·does not authorize the Sanitation District to· do this on its owno However 0 Government Code §56470 permits LAFCO to authorize such a special ta:~ ,,Ji th the . concurrence of the District to which annelr.ation is being sought. This procedure has been followed by District No •. 7 in its Annexation Noo 14 and there appear to have been no amendments to the } .. ct which would change the procs-edings at .this time, sov at your discretion you could recommend to LAFCO that you would be receptive to spreading the annexation fees over a period of tima, plus interes~, and as a ~pecial tax levyo CAN~ac e~_L_2-_ c. LJ:tnur Nissan <'.:::~:~:~~:c~l counsel .,.._ . ' .... #3 DISTRICT 2 6,/29/72 The Chairman reviewed the activities of the Special Committee for Studying~ Annexation and Connection Fee Policy ~District No . 2. The Committee has determined that a more equitable annexation policy should be established which not only considers the acreage to be annexed, but also the land use. It was the Committee's recom- mendation that the annexation fee for the 1972 -73 year be adopted at $273.00 per acre and be increased $10.00 per acre per year~ and that a dwelling connection charge re established throughout the District at $100 .00 per dwelling unit ~ 3 ommercial and ,.1.;t-eJJ;..Lv~c..-{ ~ industrial connection fees should beAconsistent with the charges for individual dwelling connections . ~@4-nteil mit-tJaa.t., {;---;-;;;. the most part,~u:tr ;-;,l -charg~resently covered by the District 's Uniform Connection ,.-and Use Ordinance . Chairman Smith pointed out that the Committee 's recommendation would provide 1iX;di~'tr or facilities needed to serve the area presently 4 :t.~~~ outside the Districts)Oapprox:fkately one-half from annexation fees and one-half from connection charges . The Committee further recommends that if the connection charge concept appears to be feasible and acceptable to the Board, that each Director submit this information to their individual Q council or board for their comments. If the~t is considered favorably , to aeeemod~te adrninist~ation of the ...-G o.tl.ne.ct i.on--=e-Qa~ges District 2 woul~ter into an agreement with each of the local sewering entities ~ ~h~ D.~st.~ict A tq collect z:e coQPect:ip n '_j,,...· A,1 ~· ~~ ~ ~A;,~o.JL ~Q~ l>''~c'~'~'l')v,~TL'Q charges~f~r andr connectiGHS. The District would then reimburse ~ the local ent it y for the eK~-!re-es collecting the Diatr ict '~ connection ~s. The Board then entered into a l engthy discµs~ion of the Ju /'I/ V.-r i;..IM..J.. Special Committee 's recornrnendations Q-Y' ~t"was a l so pointed out that the boundary between District No. ,2 and District No . 3 cuts • ~ t;Jl,1-~ -rtv.. c..-..... ~ .... '-"? ~ through several of the citi es.~~ perhaps~ i t would be advisable °'-~ to request that District No . 3 consider establishing ~n anne*ation fee equivale~t to t~e~ proposed by District No . 2 . Following furthe r discussion of the p r ocedur es which must be followed to implement :e:mar~i:e the Special Committee 's recommendati·ons , it was moved , seconded and duly carried: That t h e recommendations of the Special Commit tee for Studying · Annexat i on and Co nnecti on Fee Policy for County Sanitat ion District No . 2 , dated June 20 , 1972, be received 1 ~ ordered ~}~~· / filed& and!~ ,; FURTHER MOVED : That the staff be directed to draft an ordinance providing for implementation of a connection fee and a standard ) agreement which co uld be entered int o with the lo cal sewering +u ',£ agencies !WQ~Hg for collection of said. ?O £nection fees, for ~ J CQ\,t.\.~ ..tf,_t-f review l)by the respect ive public e ntitie s .wftd have l oca l co l l ec tion systems throughout the Di st ri ct) ,P.@queoting .{.::J/!~tre on tfic f!!HH p:roposcd connecUQl'L.Qh;i:cge_ concept. ~-~~L,1;....,:. ~ ~ ~~ ---t '-..._ I /turi.~._~f t:_ ~ e.v,.S L-1'1,,,_ '\_ , "' Th e Board entered j nta a dJ ~~u.ssi on !or r > ) ~M. ~~ ,· L. ............ QJ ·] r;;:onc~Fn±irg tfis-w,emorandnm K~ the General Counsel ~.O.vioi ng the Doa:r·d , t.JiiMa.t in connection wi th the request of Anahe im Hills, Inc .~ provisi ans o f the Ge~nt Gode p1·o~e that annexation fees fo r 1;jfe proposed Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 ~ be paid \ft.....~ ~c~ .. L ·~~ 4,J ~h~u~ #2 ~ V"Lt~ ~~a 6 ~~. ~ ... ~. ___ .. ~~.1 p. 3 ~y-(1.. ~'fitc. !JA~tl rfu~~~J'} wifA :-tJ._. ~~IJ1f:L.. ~ ~"'"" , --. .. ' in five equal annual installments on t he tax bill. <Ji'Following funther discussion concerning the method of spreading the annual charges and ~ provisions for ~ interest on any unpaid balance it was moved , seconded and duly carried: J~.~.~,. c..,_;,..k,.~ er-I ThaJ,\tb;"request of Ana~eim Hills, Inc. that annexation fees for 1,024.87 acres of proposed Anaheim Hill s Annexation No. 1 be paid in five equal annual installments on the tax bill, be deferred to the regular meeting to be held on July 12 , 1972)~J) The General Manager reported that subsequent to mailing of the ~enda material, the staff had received an amendment to the pnoposal submitted by Richard Terry & Associates for preparation of the En vironmental Impact Statement for the Santa Ana River I nterce p tor fro m Ka tella Avenue to the Riverside Freeway and the Rob e r t F . F innell River / Crossing. Fol l ow ing a brief discussion of the am e nd e d prop osal, it was moved, seconded and duly carried : That the proposal submitt e d by Richard Terry & Associat e s, dated June 16 ~ 1972, and the amendment to said propos a l, d at e d Jun e 22 , 1972, be receive~ erdered filed, and accepted; and, FURTHER MOVED : That the Genera l Manager be authoriz e d to di r ect Richard Terry & Associates to proceed with preparation of said fee Environmental Impact Statement on a per diem/basis in accordance with the terms of the proposal, for a maximum amount of $7,000 .00, as follows: (See attached) ; -3- .... C. The Consultant shall not be penalized for any signif- icant delays resulting from changes in engi e-f!n'g plans, Environmental Statement guidelines, or nges in the State, Fede~al or local regulation D. The Consultan~,shall delays that are beyond his contra~ . ...... E. Under the terms of contract the Consultant shall be reimbursed for y rk performed. Work on this con- onsidere omplete when the Final EIS has been subnit to the Distr ts. Any additional work after th IS has been submitt shall be at the same the basic contract. F. /ES&S proposes to perfo~ profes~al services on a per diem basis. The rates are as follbws: R. D. Terry In-town/in-office Out-of-town Air Pollution/meteorologist Economist (Ecolomist) Sanitary Engineer/Chemical Engineer Marine Biologist/Ecologist Technical (Engr.) Assistant Secretary I ~~ Es 'mated ~~penses for Proposed Work Prep ration of Final EIS Ph ocopy work Coll tion Cover Binding Graphics Reproducti Other Misc. Xerogra y Photo aphy Mis ·. office travel $280/day 320/day 320/day 300/day 150/day 150/day 80/day 40/day \.,J.\ ,..~ .. ....- ,,. .. ~ $200 20 40 50 100 50 $460 $150 20 125 $245 $100 #7 #2 p. 4 The General Manager reported on the status of the grant application for the Santa Ana River Interceptor from Treatment Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1. The State Water Resources Control Board is expected to certify the project on June 30th and the Environmental Protection Agency ,11 $ . '~ . within 60 days. The grant appl ~ation was submitted on UN.~~~' Alternate II~O ~Q..~apacity) the proposed project. The L,L; grant would provide 80%~~ ct l'°no Basin Municipal Water District~ f~~gd share of the joint project . ~J~~..,(. ~ Mr. Harper pointed out that Alternate ::CII would lp:roui'1eb ~ ~ m:gei ~ tfll M-~ J. 4-ri ~ capacity from Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue/'\~ additional investment of only $1.4 mil l ion., cm tao $7 .6 mi-3_..3..~~e.G.t.- ~ t~ ' ~ 'fa~lity would provide District 2 with an extremely flexible system which could util~ze upstream reclamation ~~-4-IA;,,,. 1 h facilities; or provide for "cl.i veJ;?.s1 on o ~otal flow ~ the joint treatment facilities . Present cash flow projections indicate that Alternate III could be constructed without increas i ng ~ fu,,. then the ~tax rate .'\\The Board/entered into a general discussion of the feasibility of constructing the 184 mgd capacity Santa Ana River Interceptor from Treatment Plant No . 1 to Katella Avenue . ~~f)·-t_~ ~ Chairman Smith reported that he had appeared before the Orange County Planning Commission in connection with the Santa Ana ~ River Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement;for ~proposed construction from Plant No . 1 to Katella Avenue. He advised tNoct the Board that the Planning Commission had overruled their staff's recommendation artd approved the project. Adjournment 7; 1 5