The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972-11-02COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 108 44 E LLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen: October 27, 1972 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 2 & 3 THURSDAYJ NOVEMBER 2J 1972) 7:00 P,Ml 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEYJ CALIFORNIA TELEPHDN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 We are calling a special meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 2 and 3 at the above hour and date to conside r the recommendations of the Special Committees for Studying Annexation and Connection Fee Policy for the r espectiv e Districts. ~ Chairman, County 0anitation District No. 2 · -2 irm n, Count '~--'-.- ,/"u~stric t No . 3 · BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT f'.~o. 2-3 P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 II AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING November 2, 1972 -7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENTS POSTED .: COMP & ~;ILEAGE .. Z ... FILES SET UP ....................•. RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED ... LETTERS Wl1!TTEN ...........•••. MINUTES WRITTEN .....•.•••••• MINUTES ~ILED ................. . (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary (3) Report of the General Manager (4) Report of the General Counsel FILE ·-·····-·-······· LETIER ·······--···( 5 ) we .... TKLR •••• ... -.. -.......... --- ~ ... -·············-·..:, .. ~-······-··-·-·-·~ETTER ••••••••• .(.6 ) we ... .TKLR •••• .......................... - Consideration of the reconunendations of the Special Committees for Studying Annexation and Connection Fee Policy Discussion of proposal of Boettcher and Company to refund certain outstanding general obligation bonds of Districts Nos. 2 and 3 ( 7) Consideration of motion to adjourn \:) :1 -~ · J....D ~~-~-3 Mt:ETHIG DA-T E liovember-2 , 1 9 72 TIME 7:0 0 p,m, DI STRICTS --=-2__,.._&_3..___ ____ _ DIST RICT 1 ~HE RR!N) • ·• •• lCA SPcRS ) •••• (WELSH) •••••• DISTRICT 2 ACTI VE DIRECTORS GR ISET· • • • • ·--___ _ BATTIN.) ..•• _____ _ MILLER ••••• _____ _ PORTER. • • • • ____ -- lPEREZ) •••••• SMITH······ -4 y-J;:-__ CULVER···· • -/-vr-__ ~ NGER) ••••• FINNELL •••• ~-__ ( KOviALS [<I) . . . FO X • • • · • • • • __fc:::_ ---- (GR I SET) ••••• HERRIN ••••• _-1 ____ _ (HOLLINDEN) •• JUST······· ---j----- (ROBERTS)···· NEVIL······ -,----- (CASPERS) • • • • PH I LL I PS • • • -./----- (RE I NHARDT) •• ROOT ••••••• ~ ---- (DUTTON) • • • • • STEPHENSON. -r ---- (CASTRO) ••••• WEDAA •• • • • • -1----- (POTTER) ••••• WI -NN ••••••• ------ t"V'1 DISTRICT 3 CULVER ••••• _{ft __ _ (CASPERS) •.•• BATTIN ••••• _e_ ___ _ lHINE S) ...... DAVIS ...... --2:::_ ___ _ KOviAl-S l<I) ••• FO X • • • • • • • • _ ()/ ___ _ COEN) •••.•.• GR EEN •••••• --;-. ___ _ (GR I S ET).·.·· HERRIN·····. -;pjj:--- (FRANKIE WICH). LACAY O····· ------ (NUIJE NS ) ••• • LE WIS······ _L ---- (MILLE R) .... • LONG • • .... • / MC WHINNEY ·. ~ ---- ~ ) -,/----- RE I imARDT •• ROOT • • • • • . . _ 1 ___ -- BLACKMAN) •.•• SAL ES •••.•• _./ ____ _ !HOLLI NQE N) ••• SCO TT •.•••• _/ ____ _ DUTTO NJ •••••• STEPHENSON. --r ___ _ ROBERTS) ••••• STEV ENS .••. _____ _ BYRNE) ••••••• VANDERWAAL • -~-· ___ _ DISTRICT 5 M~'4 (CROUL) .•••••• MC INNIS ••• (BAKER) ••.••••• CASPERS •••• KYMLA •••••• DISTRICT 6 PORTER • • • • • ~PHILLIPS)··· CA SP ERS···· \MC INNIS) ••• STORE······ DISTRICT 7 (WELS H) ...... MILLER·· .. · (CASPE RS) • • • • CLA RK······ (HERRI N) • • • • • GR I SET····· PORTER ••••• !FISCHBACH) •.• QUIGLEY •••• MC INNIS) ••.• RO GERS ••••• PEREZ) •••••• SMITH •••••• D fRICT 11 (COEN) ....... GIBBS .... .. (CA S P(:RS) •••• BAKER • • • • • • (COEN) • • ••••• DUKE • • • · • • • DISTRI CT 8 (J OH Ms q N ) .•••• BOYD • · •• · · • (CL ARK 1 ••••••• CASPERS · •· • • MITCHEL L··· 9/2 5/?2 JO I NT BOA RDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS LA NG ER .·, •.••• FINNELL ••••• ____ ·_ CASPE RS 1 ..•• BAKER • • • • . • • · CASPERS ) •.•• BATTIN •••••• ==== · CA SP ERS .•••• (CASPERS) •••• CL ARK ••• _ •••• == == CUI.VER .••••• ___ _ (HINE S) ....... DAVIS ....... ___ _ (COEN) .••••••• DUKE •••••••• ___ _ (KO WA LS KI). • • • FO X ••••••••• ___ _ (COEN) ........ GIB BS ....... ___ _ (COEN) •...•••• GREEN •.•• •• · ----- (HERRIN ) .••••• GR I SET •••••• ---- (GR I SET) ....•• HERRI N ..•••• ___ _ (HOLLINDEN) ••• JUST •••••••• ___ _ (MC INN IS).··· KYMLA • • • • • • • ---- (FRAN KIE WicH). LACAYO ······ ---- !NU I JE NS) •••• • LE W IS · · · • · • · ---- MILLER) ...... LONG ........ ---- CROUL) •••••.• MC I NNIS •••• ---- MC WHINNEY •• ---- !WELSH).". ••••• MILLER •••••• ---- RO B ERTS ) ..... NEV IL ....... ---- CASPE RS) ••••• PHIL LI PS ••• • ---·- PORTER •.•••• ___ _ (FISCH BACtJ) .•• QUIGLEY .••• • ___ _ (MC IN NI S) •••• ROGERS • · • • • • ___ _ (REINH ARDT).·· ROOT········ ---- (B LAC KM AN) • • • SAL ES • • • • • • • ---- (HOLLI NDEN). • • SCOTT······· ---- (P EREZ) •.••••• SM I TH ••... • • ---- (DU TT ON) ••••.• STEPHENSON •• ---- (ROBERT S ) .••.• ST EVENS .. • • • ---- (MC I NN I S) •••• STORE •. • • • • • ----- (BYRNE) ...•••• VA NDERWAAL •• __ -·-·--- (CAST RO)······ WE DAA • • • • • • • ---- (POTTER) .. • .. • WI NN ........ ----- (JOHNSON) OTHERS * * * * * BOYD·····•·· ---- MITCHELL···· ----- HARPER BROWN SYLVESTER LE WIS DU NN CL AR KE SIGLE R NI SSON TAYLO R BRO V-/N BOETTNER CARLSO N F INST ER GALLOWAY HO HENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYNCH MADD OX MARTI NS ON MURO NEY PIE RSA LL STE VEN S KEN NEY T l4Jowry Y-lssociates CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Agenda Item No. 5 mst 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 Ocotber 27, 1972 Mr. Fred Harper Sanitation Districts of Orange County Box 8127, 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Connection Charges -District No. 2 Dear Mr. Harper: TELEPHONE 71'4 I 5'41-5301 I have gone through our information that we have gathered over the past few months to determine how much revenue might be co 11 ected by the proposed connection fees in District 2. The results are as follows: FOR 1971: Cl ass i ffra tion Units Charge Amount Single Family 2,730 $50 136 ,500 Multiple Family 3,377 $125 422,125 Commercial/Industrial 332 $100* 33"200 TOTAL $5911825 *Charge varies from $50 to $300 per connection depending on size of sewer lateral. Average charge assumed to be $100. The number of connections in District No. 2 have been estimated from Building Department records as shown on the enclosed sheets. Very truly yours, Lowry and Associates Jl~,9~~~ Donald J. M~rtinson DJM:skc Enc. •--~--·-·-----.1..... --·-.. ~-- BUILDIITG PE?J/iITS FOH DHELL E TG unrrs Sin8le Multiple Estimatf)ci tn -Cit)'.: Family Family Total Distr:i.ct No. 2 Anaheim 862 l_,4~-3 2_,305 1 ,000 Brea 271+ 2 276 1 50 Fountain Val l ey 1,560 1~8 1,608 400 Fullerton 2ll-4 l_,273 l_,517 700 Garden Grove· 193 675 868 1+00 La Habra 62 7 26 788 300 Orange 2Ln 933 1,174 800 Placentia " 684 229 913 913 Santa Ana 592 l_,519 2_:,11 1 500 Villa Park 96 0 96 96 Yorb a Linda __J_]9 69 81~8 8L~8 ----... TOTALS -5:_2_37 6 0 17 :::..;~_-.;:_._ 1 2 ,504 ==-·--: -·-..::::::::: 6 > ]~0 7_ Est 'd. District 110 . 2 Units 2.730 _,, ___ J.2.J.T[ 6~10'[ ----- Est 'd. Connection Ch a rge Revenue Gen e r a.ted at following assumed fees :-x- @. $ .50 per unit $137 ,000 $169 ,000 $ 306 ,000 $100 per unit 273,000 338 ,000 611,000 $1 50 per unit 410,000 506 ,000 9 1 6,000 $200 per.unit 546>000 675;000 1)221 ,000 $250 p e r unit 683,0 00 8LJ.4,ooo 1,52 7,000 *To ne a r est $1 ,000 lo. - August 11, 1972 -!~-:.~a > iii.' ·ey Co mme rcial 97 5 17 ~:'.). Ci ) 4 1 18 10 9 2 1 22 3 BUILDING PE RM ITS 197 1 Indus tria l 38 2 6 13 Total 135 7 23 54 46 I 1 27 25 273 . Est . Dist . #2 59 4 (6) 25 21 4 18 25 65 .. ::.::) hDt Av ai I.* 28 1 18 4 50 91 91 91 0 14 14 251 706 332 ... :;._~-, : t !<p e of bui l d ing; e g . mote l, bank, service station ··:. ~· 2:• so ing thro ugh records) .If· incl ude: motels, service stations, stores, i nc lude: manu f acture, industry .. ·: ~~J:f:'·?~·~i:~~·f.~· :i:~. ~, .· . ,..:.: __ ·.· :· • '· I -~-i -,·:~er c atego ry: hosp it a l s, s chool s , muriicipal bul!dfngs, church es , pub.lie recreation .. ,_, .. ,. . .. ,.. BUILDING PERMITS FOR DWELLIHG UIHTS Single Multiple Estimat~q :J-!1 ·Cit~ Fam ill Fam ill 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 2h4 1,273 1, 51'"{ 700 Garden Grove· 193 675 868 400 .. La Habra 62 726 788 300 Orange 21~1 933 1,174 Boo .. Placentia ~ 684 229 913 913 Santa Ana 592 1,519 2.5111 500 Villa Park 96 0 96 96 Yorba Linda _]J9 69 8~.S 8l~8 -TOTALS ~587 6,917 ~.2__,:50~ 6,101_ Est 1 d. District ijo. 2 Unj_ts 2.730 _,, ___ 3~J77 6,107 -- Est'd. Connection Charge Revenue Generated at following assumed fees : ·X· @. $ .50 per tmit $137,000 $169,000 $ 306,000 $100 per unit 273,000 338,000 611,000 $150 per unit 410,000 506,000 916,000 $200 per unit 546,ooo 675,000 1,221,000 $250 per unit 683,000 8l1.4 J 000 1,527,000 -~ -¥.·To nearest $1,000 ill:L Commercial Anaheim (43.38) BUILDING PERMITS 1971 Indus tr 1a1 38 August 11, 1972 Est. Dist. #2 59 1:;-, ··,.;_, .... Brea (54.34) 97 5 2 Total 135 7 4 ·,: ·:.: ·~ ' ... I; . ~! -·t \.- ().~:.: '.-\ .; .." ~>.~ J,' . " ~ .: '/: ·,,:·.ff ' ' :'I~' '~ ' . t '.~ ,, ... •J' • 1, [, k• "'I ;·,,,·,·! Fountain Valley (24. 87) 17 Fullerton (46.14) 41 Garden Grove (46.08) 18 La Habra{38.07) 10 Orange (68.14) 9 Placentia ( 100. 00) 21 Santa Ana (23.68) 223 Vi 11 a Pk. ( 100. 00) Not Yorba Linda ( 100. 00) J4 - TOTALS 455 Avail.,·~ 6 1 3 28 1 18 4 50 91 0 251 23 54 46 l 1 27 25 273 - 91 14 706 (6) 25 21 4 18 25 65 ~ 91 14 332 R Listed by specific type of building; eg. motel, bank, service station (could be obtained by going through records) ~- ,..~ •. :.~~~;;~/t1C~~~ ~-i·1:;),;:· ..;.. ' -. ~ .-,,, NOTE: Commerc1a1 buildings include; motels, service stations, stores, 4 '' < ~ »~~-r~· ~; . ' \ ·~ l '• .... ~ ,.,,, / ;· I ' office buildings. lndustr.tal buildings include: manufacture, industry Not included in either category: hospitals, schools, m~riicipal bul~dlngs, churches, public recreation itU&;(Ql@:UW~~ OGT ~ 0 1972 ~ounty Sanitation Districts of Orange County Aier.da Item No _ 5 October 27, 1972 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING ANNEXATION AND CONNECTION FEE POLICY -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 2 AND 3 Conunittee Meeting October 2b, 1972 Thursday -12:00 Noon Present (District 2) Present (District 3) Don Smith, Chairman Henry Wedaa Mark Stephenson Wade Herrin Absent Edward Just Present Norman Culver, Chairman Wade Herrin Mark Stephenson Absent Donald Fox Jack Green Fred A. Harper Paul G. Brown Conrad Hohener Don Martinson *"* * ***7<•** ******* The two Districts' special committees have met jointly on three occasions to consider several connection charge concepts. The committees are recommending the enclosed draft ordinance for consideration by the two Districts' Boards at a special meeting to be held November 2nd at 7:00 p.m. At the last meeting of the committees, the staff was directed to modify the proposed connection charge ordinance to reflect a minimum connection charge for single family dwellings and industrial and commercial developments. The enclosed draft ordinance establishes the following charges for new construction: 1. Single family dwelling buildings, $50 per dwelling unit 2. Multiple family dwelling buildings, $125 per dwelling unit 3. Commercial, industrial and public buildings: Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $50 8 inches 100 10 inches 200 12 inches 300 The basic connection charge is the single family dwelling charge of $50. It is recommended that the single family dwellings be charged the minimum charge in that the District's sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of general development. Multiple Dwellings. The type of densities which are accompanied by development of apartments places an unusual demand on the sewer system when compared to single family development. Also, the District tax revenue received from high density properties is not adequate when the volume of sewage produced is considered. Commercial and Industrial Charges. The one-time connection charge for new commercial and industrial properties is based on the size of the building sewer. These charges are nominal as they are subject to an excess capacity connection charge based on the actual use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in Article 6(b) of the ordinance. As the Directors will recall, the District No. 2 Board re- affirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369 per acre. · The original proposal which was submitted to the various cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the following connection charges: $100 per dwelling unit for single family and multiple dwellings, and $50 per 1000/sq. ft. building for commercial and industrial properties JUSTIFICATION FOR CONNECTION CHA~GES 1. Necessity for Additional Funds for Capital Outlay. The Districts' Master Plans for the construction of needed interceptor sewers to provide the.communities within the Districts -2- with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based on the land use plans developed by the local communities and will re- quire a large capital expenditure during the next five years. The cash-flow projections for the Districts indicate that it is necessary to raise additional funds to accomplish the.pro- gram. Alternative methods of proceeding are: (A) Not build the facilities -there would be re- strictions on new connections in many areas of the Districts. This is contrary to the basic function of the Districts. (B) Raise the tax rate to finance the program. (C) Pass a bond issue, which all taxpayers would pay for the next 20 years by increasing the tax rate. (D) Establish connection charges for new con- struction throughout the District. 2 ~-Equalize Costs Among Users. Connection charges are very common. Many large sewering agencies have established such a charge in order that at least a portion of the. capital outlay funds necessary are provided by new users to the system who are creating the necessity for the capital outlays •. 3. To Hold Down Tax Rates. It is quite obvious that the State and Federal governments are attempting to devise measures to relieve the homeowner of a portion of his property tax burden. If the Districts chose to increase property tax rates for the purpose of financing capital outlay projects for future users it would, in the staff's opinion, create a serious inequity in that the present users have been paying Sanitation District taxes on their improvements and to raise the rate further to accommodate newcomers would be unjust. 4. Difficulty in Passing a Bond Issue. A bond issue for nevr capital outlay projects for the Districts, even if successful (and in the present climate of public opinion it is seriously doubted that an election could be successful), would require present users to pay principal and interest on bonds which are primarily for the purpose of providing facilities for newcomers. At current interest rates, the interest to be paid would be excessive and also would impose the burden on present users. -3- 5. Success in other Districts. Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge many years which has met with very little opposition and raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. public easily grasps the concept of a new user paying for least a portion of the necessary future outlays. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: for have The at The committees recommend that if the proposed ordinance appears acceptable to the Boards, public hearings be h~ld to permit expressions of opinion by the public prior to the adoption of any connection charge ordinance. The committee further recommends that the enclosed standard agreement for collection of sewer connection charges, which provides for a collection fee equal to 5% of the fees collected, be authorized. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE. COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 25, 1972 MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 2 AND 3 RE: PROPOSAL OF BOETTCHER AND COMPANY TO RE-FUND CERTAIN 01JTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF DISTRICTS NOS_. 2 AND 3 TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Enclosed for the Directors' study and consideration.' are proposals to re-fund several outstanding bonds of the Districtss This matter will be considered at the Boards 1 November 8th meeting. According to the schedules, District No. 2 could effec~ a long-term saving of nearly $285,000 and District No. 3 could save $51~0, 0000 If the bonds are re-funded as pro- posed, the District No. 2 tax rate would be increased by approximately ·}¢ during the seven-year payoff period. District No. 3 tax rate would be increased 1¢ during the six-year payoff period. • The Districts 1 General Counsel's comments concerning these proposals are enclosed. «"'\ ( ~ti. ff~---' FAH:j Enclosures Fred A. Harperf General Manager Draft 10/27/72 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ----------' 1972, by and between the City of~~--~----------' a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California, herein- after called "District", W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District has by the enactment of Ordinance No. ' as amended, established a schedule of sewer connection charges; and WHEREAS, all or a portion of the improved territory of the District is within the city limits of City; and WHEREAS, the City by and through its building department regulates all new construction within the City; and WHEREAS, it is for the mutual benefit of City and District that the sewer connection charges provided for in said Ordinance No. , as amended, of the District be collected in a manner most expedient and least burdensome on the Gwners of property within the City; and WHEREAS, the City will benefit by the construction and maintenance of sewerage facilities of the District within the city limits of City by District from the funds to be collected from said sewer connection charges. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. City as agent will and does hereby agree to issue permits and collect the charges established by District under said Ordinance No. , as amended. 2. District shall prescribe those clas9ifications of charges to be collected by City. 3. City will account for the_charges collected and remit to District monthly the monies so collected. 4. District does hereby appoint and nominate City and its agents and employees as the same may be designated by City as agents of the District for the purpose of issuing pennits and detennining and collecting the sewer connection charges established under Ordinance No. , as amended. This does not authorize City to act as agent for the General Manager or to perform the duties of the General Manager of the District as set forth and established in said Ordinance No. . , as amended, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. 5. City agrees to act as agent for District. as herein provided for a fee equal to five (5) percent of the fees collected by City for permits issued pursuant to the provisions of this agreement, and District agrees to pay said fee monthly upon receipt of itemized invoice from City. 6 .. It is agreed that at the request of either party hereto fonnal renegotiation of this agreement shall be made at two years from the effective date hereof. 7. This agreement may be terminated by either party giving 180 day written notice to the other party designating a termination date, which date shall be the first day of a calendar month. 8. This agreement shall become effective on the day of ' 1972. (SEAL) (SEAL) CITY OF a municipal corporation By ----~--~~~--------__.,,....-~~~---City Clerk CITY COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 (3), of Orange County, California, a ·public corporation By ------~-----=-~~--~-=--=~--:--------~~ Chainnan, Board of Directors By --~~------~----------~~ Secretary, Board of Directors ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 10/27/72 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California, does ordain as follows: ARTICLE 1 Article 2 of Ordinance No. is hereby amended by adding thereto the following sections: (o) District Connection Charge. Is a connection charge imposed by District No. as a charge for the use of District's sewerage facilities whether such connection is made directly to a District sewerage facility or to a sewer which ultimately discharges into a District sewerage facility. (P) :. District Sewerage Facility. Shall mean any property belonging to County Sanitation District No. used in the treatment, transportation, or disposal of sewage or industrial wastes. (q) Domestic Sewage. Shall mean the liquid and water borne wastes derived from the ordinary living processes, free from indus- trial wastes, and.of such character as to permit satisfactory disposal without special treatment, into the public sewer or by means of a private disposal system. (r) Sewerage Facilities. Are any facilities used in the collection, transportation, treatment or disposal of sewage and industrial wastes. (s) Family Dwelling Building. Is a buildi.ng designed and used to house families and containing one or more dwelling units. (t). Dwelling Unit. Is one or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating. (u) Building Sewer. Is the sewer draining a building and ex- tending beyond the exterior walls thereof and which connects to a District sewerage facility or to a pri vat·e or public sewerage facility which u.ltimately discharges to~ Distrlct sewerage facll:i~y. (v) Other Terms. Any term not herein defined is defined as being the same as set forth in the International Conference of -Building Officials Uniform Building Code, 1970 Edition, Volume I. ARTICLE 2 (a) Section (a) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. is amended to read as follows: )(a) District Connection Charges. Before any connection permit shall be issued, the applicant shall pay to the District or its agent the charges specified herein. {l) Connection Charge for New Construction, Famill Dwelling Buildings. For each new single family dwelling building constructed, the connection charge shall be $50 per dwelling unit. For each multiple family dwelling building (more than six dwelling units per acre) constructed, the connection charge shall be $125 per dwelling unit. (2). Connection Charge for New Construction, Other Than Family Dwelling Building. For all other new construction, including but not limited to commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge for each building sewer shall be as follows: Diameter of Buildin~ Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $ 50 8 inches $100 10 inches $200 12 inches $300 (3) Connection Charge for Replacement Buildings. For new construction replacing fo~er buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (2) hereinabove. If such replacement construction is commenced withl.n two years after demolition or -2- destruction of the fonner building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed, calculated on the basis of the current connection charge applicable for the new construction of the building demolished or destroyed. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charge. (4) Connection Charges for Additions to or Alterations of Existing Buildings. In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be used for other than family dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $50 for each dwelling unit added or created and in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings which requ~res the construction of a new building sewer, the connection charge for each new building sewer shall be as follows: Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $ 50 8 inches $100 10 inches $200 12 inches $300 When Char~e is to be Paid. Payment of connection charges shall be required at the time of issuance of the building permit for all construction within the District, excepting in the case of a building legally exempt from the requirement of obtaining a building permit. The payment of the sewer connection charge for such buildings will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumb.ing connection permit for any construction within the territorial limits of the District. -3- Schedule of Charges. A schedule of charges specified herein will be· on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in the Building Department of each city within the District. Biennial Review of Charges. At the end of two years from the effective date of this ordinance, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall review the charges established by this article and if in its judgment such charges require modifi- cation, an amendment to this ordinance will be adopted establishing such modification. ARTICLE 3 Section (b) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. adding thereto Section (3) to read as follows: is amended by (3) When an excess capacity connection charge is payable by a user, as hereinabove provided, a credit equal to the connection charge paid by the user, if any, shall be allowed against such excess capacity connection charge. ARTICLE 4 Except as herein amended, Ordinance No. affirmed and is to become effective is ratified, re- ' as amended by ----------------- this Ordinance. The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall sign this Ordinance and the Secretary of the Districts shall attest thereto and certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published once in the -----------------------~---- , a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the District, within fifteen (15) days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by said Board of Directors and said Ordinance shall take effect -4- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the· Board of Directors of County Sani- tation District No. , of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1972. -------------~ ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange -County, California ' -5- Chairman, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California ' i ! \ COU NT Y SAN I TATION DISTRICT NO. 2 STATE MEN T OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW ASSUMES CONSTR UCT IO N OF PH ASE I SECONDAR Y TREATMENT ONLY FISCAL YEARS 1972-73 THROUGH 1976 -77 pescription P.EVENU E Tax Re venue (at current tax r ate o f $.4254) Othe r Revenue Federal & State Participation Joint Wor~s Projects District Projects Sale of Capacity Rights Miscellaneous Carry-Over from Previous Fiscal ~ea r TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENDITURES District Const ruction Share of Joint Works Construction Bond Retirement & Interest Share of Joint Operating District Operating & Other Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year Less : Necessary Reserve for Following Ye '.l r' Dry Perio9. Fund Balance or (Deficit) One cent on tax rate will raise 1972 -73 $ 4 ,364 ,000 2 ,556 ,000 758 ,000 618 ,000 10 ,72 0 ,000 $19,016 ,000 $ 4 ,654 ,ooo 3 ,034 ,ooo 612 ,000 767 ,000 196,000 $ 9,263,000 $ 9 ,753 ,000 6 ,985 ,000 $ 2 ,768 ,000 $ 102 ,585 1973-74 $ 4 ,605 ,000 2 ,479 ,000 845 ,000 37 5 ,000 9,753 ,000 $18,057 ,000 $ 8 ,031 ,000 4,169,000 590 ,000 787,000 211 ,000 $13 ,788 ,000 $ 4 ,269,000 5 ,669 ,000 $(1,irno,000) $ 108,227 1 974 -7 5 $ 4 ,835 ,000 4 ,687 ,000 227 ,000 275,000 4 ,269,000 $1 4,293 ,000 $ 3 ,800 ,000 5 ,744,000 571,000 828 ,000 227 ,000 $11,1 70 ,000 $ 3 ,12 6 ,000 2 ,333 ,000 $ 793 ,000 $ 113 ,638 1975-76 $ 5 ,077 ,000 2 ,960 ,000 31 ,000 225,000 3,12 6 ,0 00 $11,41 9 ,000 $ 1 ,044 ,000 1 ,578,000 55 4 ,000 1 ,081 ,000 1 ,372,000 $ 5 ,629 ,000 $ 5 ,790;000 2,188 ,000 $ 3,.602,000 $ 11 9 ,321 9-28 -72 Rev ised 1976 -77 $ 5 ,331 ,000 630 ,000 I 15 ,000 225,000 5,790 ,000 $11 ,991 ,000 $ 583 ,000 1~577 ,000 536 ,000 1 ,123,000 265 ,000 $ 4 ,o84 ,ooo $ 7,907 ,000 2,285,000 $ 5,622 ,000 $ 125,287 I • ( COUNTY SANITATI0N DISTRICT NO. 3 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW ASSUMES CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I SECONDARY TREATMENT ONLY FISCAL YEARS 1972-73 THROUGH 1976-77 REVENUE Description Tax Revenue (at current tax rate of $.4740). Other Revenue Federal & State Participation Joint ~arks Projects District Projects Sale of Capacity Rights Miscellaneous Carry-Over from Previous Fiscal Year TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENDITURES District ~onstruction Share of Joint Works Construction Bond Retirement & Interest Share of Joint Operating District Operating & Other Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year Less: Necessary Reserve for Following Ye:.:r Dry Period Fund Balance or (Deficit) One Gent to tax rate will raise 1972-73 $ 5,661,000 2,735,000 192,000 177,000 721,000 11,821,000 $21,307,000 $ 8,949,000 3, 24 7, 00.0 858,000 792,000 382,000· $14,228,000 $ 7,079,000 7,043,000 $ 36,000 $ 119,410 1973-74 $ 5,944,000 2,655,000 182,000 1,000 220,000 7,079,000 $16,081,000 $ 7,478,000 4,464,ooo 827,000 812,000 299,000 $13,880,000 $ 2,201,000 7,135,000 $(4,934,000) $ 125,381 1974-75 $ 6,211,000 5,018,000 1,000 150,000 2,201,000 $13,581,000 $ 5,952,000 6,149,000 797,000 855,000 319,000 $14,072,000 $ (491,000) 4,242,000 $(4,733,000) $ 131,381 ( 1975-76 $ 6,491,000 3,169,000 566,000 150,000 (491,000) $ 9,885,000 $ 4,383,000 1,689,000 777,000 1,116,000 341,000 $ 8,306,000 $(1,579,000) 2,873,000 $(4,452,000) $ . 136,919 9-28-72 Revised 1976-77 $ 6,783,000 675,000 15,000 150,000 (1,579,000) $ 6,044,000 $ 1,470,000 . i,688,ooo 756,000 i,158,000 365,000 $ 5,437,000 $ 607,000 2,522,000 $(1,915,000) $ 143,080 MILLER, NISSON £1 KOGLER CLARK MILLER ~ C. ARTHUR NISSON NELSON KOGLER H. LAWSON MEAD Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2014 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706 October 9, 1972 County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Dear Fred: In response to your letter of October 2, 1972 concerning proposal to refund certain outstanding bonds, Distr1cts 2 and 3, please be advised of the following: TE:LEPHONE AREA CODE 714 542-6771 Mr.· Tom Baxter, Urban Schreiner and Fritz Stradling were in my office on Thursday, October 5th, to answer questions I might have concerning their proposals. I discussed the matter with them and pointed out some of the things which I will discuss later in this letter concerning their proposal. Following that, I checked the law und.er which the proposed transaction could be enacted and found that it is permissible upon approval of the directors. I have the following observations for your considera- tion: 1. Assuming the figures are correct and the ultimate savings to the Districts as presented by the proponents of this scheme, there would be a substantial savings to the District and.the principal owed over the period on which the bonds are outstanding. 2. The effect of the proposal would be to, in the case of District 2, pay off in principal and interest $403,534 conunencing the date November l, 1973 and ending November l, 1980. In the case of District 3, during the same pay-out periods they would have to pay in principal and interest $754,734. The effect of these advancErlpay schedules would be to substantially increase the cash flow requirements for Districts 2 and 3 for the years conunencing November 1, 1973 and ending November 1, 1980. Mr. Fred A. Harper Page 2 October 9, 1972 The precise determination of the exact amount in excess of the amounts required to fund the existing bonds during this period can be calculated by Wayne and a more accurate comparison can be made. However, without going into the exact figures it is apparent that the general statement concerning cash flow requirements during this period is ~ccurate. The other consideration which should be mentioned is that the facilities for which the bonds were used had a life existence of 30 or 40 years depending on the bond period. Whether or not we should require the taxpayers in existence during the period 1973 to 1980 to pay these obligations in full as opposed to spreading the burden over the full bond period is a question for determination by the Directors. Another factor to consider is that apparently one financial institution now owns all the bonds sought to be re- financed. This would of course save considerable running around trying to recall these bonds at a future time if such a course of action was to be undertaken. Lastly, the matter should be resolved at least tentatively by the general meeting in November in that time is of some consideration to the proponents. In this connection, it should be noted that by that meeting on November 8, we will know whether or not the Watson amendment has passed. This brings up the further consideration which should be kept in mind and that is what the future of the Districts will be with reference to their ability to raise funds by direct taxation. The increased pressure to make direct charges for sewerage services based upon the amount of use made is a factor which should be considered in all future planning and estimation of cash needs and availability. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss any of these points in detail, please advise. Yours very truly, CAN:CP -_-;,;.-.. t:.NV!:A ·<"•ll~Clc.R ft IE" t;MJAC,.·t -.( • •.;~'" .. .., cr~t_[;t t-IE~6~•-,!; N('Ji .,.~,~··: .:.ro::f(. (llCHf.~:::;t• At-1~r1:c1,,·1 '.;,TOCY. ("1.C~'.H:t;t: -------·-·-. ~ r-{ t.c,:> :,r·r:••:.-~!., MID'/.i~~r 5rocK EYCl!l,NCf. tr:~:;~z;o f f)OT COLLlt·:~. C'FJ. ·.:~ .;.;:.;c T·o~: C.~rEfl.E.T P-.JE~l..v v1;..LA I TA~•I, P.;E# YORI'. C:tllCl.C.0 Board of Directors Boettcher and Company 828 SEVENTEENTH STREET· DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 292-1010 Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 Fountain Valley. California Gentlemen: At the present time, Orange County Sanitation Dist. #2 has butstanding $ 2,900,000 of its General Obligation Bonds, dated Januarv 1, 1959. The last four IP.aturities of this issue are composed of the following: Maturity 1/1/86 -U-178/. 1/1/88 1/1/89 ~ ~ Par Value 150,000 150L000 150 2 000 150,000 600,000 Interest Rate 1.00% 1 00% 1. 0072 l. 007, .· These bonds can be refunded at the present time in accordance with the Californi~ Statutes; and in our opinion, can effect a substantial reduction in principal, interest, and total debt requirements to the District. Accordingly, we offer the following proposal for your consideration and acceptance: 1. Subject to our acquisition, we will exchange with the District the $ 600,000 of the District's General Obligation Bonds, Dated January 1, 1.959, listed abo'Je and also on Schedule No. 1 attached hereto (which by reference is made an integral part hereof) f6r $ 340,000 par value of Oran£'~ Countv S2nitation Di.strict No. 2 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Dated November 1, 197~ which mature and bear interest as set forth on Sc[lcdule No. l· The refunding bonds will be in $5,000 denominations and will be non-call- able. The District will pay to us th~ accrued interest on the $ 600,000 of bonds refunded from the last interest paynent date to the date of tender to the District and cancellation by the District, and we will pay to the District the accrued interest fro~ Ncvenber l, 1972 to the date of exchange and c lasing on the $ 3l+O, 000 of Re fonding Bonds. (Since we are acting as principals for our own account, and not agents for the District, we will pay .the expenses o.f this transaction as enumerated below as well a!? the cost of acquirin.; the $ 600,000 of bonds to be refunded. w·e anticipate paying these costs .:ind expt;nses: from the proceeds from the snle of the Refunding Bonds; and after paying such costs and expenses, we arc anticipating making a profit on this transaction.) .... E?oettcher and Company 2. At our expense, we will: A. Engage a 'firm of nationally recognized Municipal Bond Attorneys to draft and direct all proceedings, and the District agrees to adopt said proceedings in order to legally effect the Refunding in an expeditious manner; it being understood and agreed that all provisions of the bond resolution will be mutually agreeable. B. Furnish printed bonds with steel engraved borders ready for signature. 3. This proposal is subject to: A. The unqualified legal opinion of a firm of nationally recognized Munic ipa 1 Bond Attorneys as re lat es· to the legality of the refund i.ng bonds and their exe~ption from present Federal Ircome Tax. B. Our confirmation within (10) business days after a·cccptance by the District. Respectfully submitted, .. BOETTCHER AND CO~IPANY The abov~ proposal is hereby accepted for and on behalf of Orange Countv San. pist. #2, Orange Countv, Calif. pursuant to authorization by its governing body this day of , 1972. ATTEST: ' .. ( ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA COMPARISON OF DEBT REQUIREMENTS ON PROPOSED REFl!NpING BONDS TO REQUIREMENTS ON PROPOSED BONDS TO BE REFUNDED AS OF KOVEXBER 1. 1972 . Schedule No. 1 ~roQosed Refunding Bonds 2 Dated November 12 1972 ProQosed Bonds To Be Refunded 2 Dated Janua:?;:I 1 2 1252 Year Ending January l Principal ];nterest 1973 197 4 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 !987 1988 1989 TOTAL .(Que lLl) $ 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $3401000 Rate 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4. 50io 4.50% * For purposes of comparison, interest is : computed from November 1, 1972. Amount $ 2 ,434-lr 14,600 13,000 11,000 9,000 6, 750 4,500 2,250 $63,534 Tota 1 Principal Principal and Interest {Due 1/1) $ 2,434 $ 54,600 63,000 61,000 59,000 56,750 54,500 52,250 150,000 150,000 150 ,000 1502000 $403,534 $600,000 SUMMARY Principal Interest from November 1, 1972 to maturity. TOTAL Interest Total Principal Rate ~ and Interest $ 1,000* $ 1,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6.000 6,000 6,000 6,000 1.00% 6,000 156,000 1.00% 4,500 154' 500 1.00% 3,000 153,000 l.OOio 1,500 15L500 ~881000 $688,000 Proposed Proposed Refunding Bonds to be Increase Bonds · B,efunded {Decress~) $340,000 $600,000 $(260,000) ~.!t 882000 { 241466) ~4032534 ~6881000 H284 1466l !ncrease (Decrease) in Annual Interest Cost $ 1,434 8,600 7,000 5,000 3,000 750 ( 1,500) ( 3' 750) ( 6,000) ( 6,000) ( 6 '000) ( 6 ,000) ( 6,000) ( 6 ,000) ( 4 '500) ( 3 ,000) ( 1,500) ~F4 1 466~ . .. . .. OE:f-!Vi. ~~ f!'Jl•• ()tJt Ttlr~ CH'..JAaP.· .. C•1r.r,;1 f' CP£f ~ .-·-. -~···------------··--------·~ -·----· MEMl:>:.r..;. c..r .. rJ:-1.r,ne; ~.r , .. ,.c;.~. N~·,1 v-;.,; .• ~ ··.r•>'.:K f.'.< ~"·"'""·~ 1,~/EP·':n1 ~ro::;i: C:t •11-:.;c.: r·11o::r.' .. f ::,rc;cr. r.1 ~·;,,,c,t 1 ;:woou f.._,. C(JLLli-1 • cac.t.t1:::> Ju:-.-:.r!"''· C.F1L.E:LC: ( PUtD1..0 Vlll.A ITAL!/, t·a:v/ YOftK CH•CAC.O .~ Boettcher and Cornpa_ny 828 SEVSNTEENTH STREET · DEtlVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 292-1010 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District No. 3: Fountain Valley, California Gentlemen: At the present time, Orange County Sanitation Dist. #3 has outstanding $ of its General Obligation Bonds, dated January 1, 196Q The last three naturities of this issue are composed of the follo~·1ing: Maturity 1/1/87 1/1/88 1/1/89 Par Value $ 37 5' 000 375,000 375,000 ' $1, 12 5 '000 Interest Rate i.00% 1.00% 1.00% These bonds ca11 be refunded at the present time in ·a~cordancc with the Cnlifornia Statutes; and in our opinion, can effect a substantial reduction in principal, interest, and total debt requirements to the District. Accordingly, we offer the following proposal for your consideration and acceptance: 1. Subject to our acquisition, we will exchange with the District the $ 1,125,000 of the District's General.Obligation Bonds, Dated January 1, J9SO, listed above and also on Schedule No. 1 attached hereto (which by reference is nade an integral part hereof) for $ 630,000 par value of Orange County Sanitation District ~fo. 3 Genera 1 Obligation Refunding Bonds, Dated Noyenber l, 1972, which mature and bear interest as set for th on Schedule No. 1 The refunding bonds will be in $5,000 deno~inations and will be non-call- able. The District will pay to us the accrued interest' on the $ 1 , 12 5 , 0 0 0 of bond s re fun cl e d fr cm the 1 as t int e re s t pa yrn en t date ~to the date of tender to the District and cancellation by the District, and we will pay to the District the accrued interest fro~November 1, 1972 to the date of exchange and closing on the $ 630,000 of Rcfundi~g Bonds. (Since we are a.ct ing as pr inc ipa ls for our m·m account, and not agents for the District, we will pay the expenses of this tra~saction as enumera tcd be low ns we 11 as the ·c os't of acqu i r-ing the ~ _L._125, 000 of bon23 to be refunded. We anticipate paying_these costs and expenses from the: proceeds from the sale of the Refunding Bonds; c.nd after paying such costs and expenses, we are anticipating makirig a profit on this transaction.) ..... -----·~ ~-·--·---------·-----.. -·. ---.. ~-- Boettcher and Company 2. At our expense, we will: A. EnBage a firm of nationally recognized Municipal Bond Attorneys to draft and direct all proceedings, and the District agrees to adopt said proceedings in order to legally effect the Refunding in an expeditious manner; it being understood and agreed that all provisions of the bond resolution will be mutually agreeable. B. Furnish printed bonds with steel engraved borders ready for signature. 3. This proposal is subject to: A. The unqualified legal opinion of a firm of nationally recognized Municipal Bond Attorneys as relates to the legality of the refunding bonds and their exemption from present Federal In::ome Tax. B. Our confir~ation within (10) business days after ~cceptance by the District. Respectfully submitted, BOETTCHER AND C0:1PANY The above proposal is hereby accepted for and on behalf of !ll:aQc;e County San. Dist. #3, Orange Countv, California pursuant to authorization by its governing body this day of , 1972. ATTEST: .• . -- ( ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OFA.~GE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Schedule No. 1 COMPARISON OF DEBT REQUIREMENTS ON PROPOSED REFUNDING BONDS ' TO REQUIREMENTS ON PROPOSED BONDS TO BE REFUNDED Pro2osed Refunding Bonds 2 Dated November Year Ending Principa 1 Interest January 1 (Due lll} Rate Amount 197 3 $ $ 4,534* 1974 30~000 4.00% 27,200 1975 100,000 4.00% 26,000 1976 100,000 4.00% 22,000 1977 100,000 4.50% 18,000 1978 100,000 4.50% 13 ,500 1979 100,000 4.50% 9,000 1980 100,000 4.50% 4,500 1981 1982 1983 1984 1~85 1986 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL $630.000 ~1241734 * For purposes of comparison, interest is computed from November 1, 1972. AS OF NOVEMUER 1. 1972 1 z 1972 ProEoscd Bonds Total Principal Prine ipal and J;nterest (que lLll $ 4,534* $ 57,200 126,000 122,000 118 '000 113 ,500 109,000 104, 500 375,000 375,000 3751000 $7541734 ~111251000 SUMMARY Principal Interest from November 1, 1972 to Maturity TOTAL to be Refunded 2 Dated JanuarI lz 1960 Interest Tota 1 Principal Rate Amount and Interest $ 1,875* $ 1,875 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11, 250 11,250 11,250 11, 250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11, 250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11, 250 11,250 11, 250 11,250 1.00% 11,250 386,250 7,500 382,500 3 1 750 3781750 ~1701§25 $L295 ,625 Proposed Proposed Refunding Bond to be Increase ~Qnds B.~fond~d rne~resise) $630,000 $1,125,000 $(495,000) 124 1 734 1701625 ( 451891} ~7541 734 ~11295~625 ~(540,891} ( Increase (Decrease) in Annual ;!;nterest Cost $ 2,659 15,950 14,750 10,750 6,750 2,250 2,250) ( 6,750) (11,250) (11,250) (11,250) ( 11,250) (11,250) (11,250) (11,250) ( 7 ,500) ( 3175Ql. ~(451891J. BOETTCHER AND CO~·IPAi-N REFUND I:·; GS COMPLETED su;cE DECEMBER 1, 1970 (AS OF AUGUST 1, 1972) Managed by Boettcher and Com~any: Issuer City of Aurora, Colorado Natrona Co., Wyoming Campbell Co., Wyoming City of Gillette Wyoming El Paso Co., Colo. School District No. 2 El Paso Co., Colo. School District No. 3 Larimer Co., Colo. Park School District No. R-3 Pueblo Co., Colo. School District No. 160 Boulder, Larimer, Weld, Cos., Colo. St. Vrain Valley School District Re-lJ Cortez Sanitation District, Montezuma Co., Colo. University of Colorado Recreation Building Refunding Revenue Bonds Campbell Co., Wyoming, School District No. 1 Larimer Co., Colo. Poudre Valley School District University of Colorado Family Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds· D9uglas Co., School District No. Re-1 Douglas and Elbert Co., Colorado Ft. Collins, Loveland Water District, Larimer Co., Colorado Lincoln Park Sanitation District, Fremont Co., Colorado. Fremont County, Wyoming R-1 Bou:Jer Valley Water and Sanitation District, Colo. Prowers Co., Colo. School District Re-2 Thornton, Colorado General Obligation Water Bonds Las Vegas, Nevada Manitou Springs, Colorado Albany County, Wyoming Hospital District Eagle Co., Colorado School District No. Re-50J LaPorte Water and Sanitation District, Colorado Roswell, New 'Mexico, Hater and Sewer Revenue Bonds Thornton, Colorado General Obligation Recreation Bonds Central Held Co., Water District, Colo. El Paso Co., Colo. School District No. 14 Estes Park, tolo. General Obligation Water Bonds Vail Water and Sanitation District Southern Colorado State College ~ast Larimer County Water District __ Monterey County, California Flood Control District ..-Santa Clara County, California Flood Control District -Santa Naria, California Airport Authority Adams and Weld Counties School Distr~ct 27J Fremont County Vocational High School District Aurora, Colorado I· Par Amount $ 3,805,000 1,730,000 760,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 650,000 480,000 16,050,000 6,145,000 975,000 5 ,410' 000 3,799,000 5,900,000 1,350,000 3,430,000 1,370,000 790,000 1,245,000 1,375,000 2 ,·oos, ooo 2,460,000 ·--12 '855) 000 550,000 1,565,000 2,490,000 385,000 4,950,000 290,000 4,600,000 610,000 750,000 2,140,000 2,540,000 i,305,000 3,300,000 5,815,000 1,120,000 925,000 900,000 3 ,805 ,.000 $113 , 5 7 4 , 000 Date of Issue Decer!lber 1, 1970 March 1, 1971 April 1, 1971 April 1, 1971 May 1, 1971 July 1, 1971 July 1, 1971 August 1, 1971 August 1, 1971 September 1, 1971 Novenber 1, 1971 Nover.iber 1, 1971 November 15 1971 December 1, 1971 December 1, 1971 December 1, 1971 January 1, 1972 January 1, 1972 March 1, 1972 Narch 1, 1972 March 1, 1972 :March 1, 1972 Harch 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 Apr i1 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 Hay 1, 1972 Nay 1, 1972 May 1, 1972 June 1, 197 2 June 1, 1972 June 1, 1972 June 1, 1972 June 1, 1972 September 1, 1972 On the follo~ing refunding issues, Boettcher and Company acted as a Principal Underwriter: Issuer Pueblo Co., Colo. School District No. 70 Boulder Co., Colo. School District Re-2 Arapahoe Co., Colo., School District No. 12 Arapahoe Co., Colorado School District No. 6 Jefferson Co, Colo. School District R-1 Larimer, Weld and Boulder Cos. , Colorado Thompson School District R2-J El Paso Co., Colo., School District No. 11 Adams Co., Colo., School District No. 12 Summit Co, Colo., School District Re-1 Aspen Colo., General Obligation Water Refunding Bonds Kit Carson Co., School District Re-6J Las Cruces, New Mexico General Obligation Bonds Las Cruces, New Mexico Utility Revenue Bonds Adams Co., Colo. School District No. 50 Arapahoe Co., School District No. 1 Clear Creek Co., Colo. School District No. Re-1 Shaw Heights Water District, Colo. Pueblo Co., Colorado School District No. 70 Weld Co., Col~. School District No. Re-1 W~ld Co., Colorado School District No. 7 State of Nevada Larimer, Weld and Boulder Cos., School District R-2 Westminster, Colorado Water and Sewer Adams County School District #50 Aspen Metro Sanitation District Summit County School District Re-1 Sheridan, Wyo~ing ~eneral Obligation Water Pitkin County, Colorado School District Re-1 GRAND TOTAL Par Amount 1,100,000 18' 97.?, 000 1,660,000 2,690,000 8,500,000 2,895,000 4,700,000 3,700,00 821-, 000 1,540,000 965,000 2,885,000 970,000 570,000 2,955,000 1,075,000 735,000 385,000 875,000 760,000 5_: 25 0' 000 2,000,000 3,800,000 1,075,000 1,365,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 2,855,000 ~ 77 .. 20ll000 "$190, 775 .ooo Date of Issue July 15, 1971 September 1, 1971 Septer:iber 1, 1971 Scpte7nber 1, 1971 . October 1, 1971 November 1, 1971 December 15, 1971 December 1, 1971 January 1, 1972 February 1, 1972 March 1, 1972 March 1, 1972 March 1 ' 1972 March 1, 1972 Har ch 1, 1972 March 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 April 1,.1972 April 1, 1972 April 1, 1972 May 1, 1972 May 1, 1972 Hay 1, 1972 Nay 1, 1972 Hay 1, 1972 June 15, 1972 June 28, 1972 June 30, 1972