The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972-12-20COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen: December 15, 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 2 ·WEDNESDAY) DECEMBER 20) l972J 7:30 P.MM 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 13, 1972, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:rb MEETING DATE Dec.20,1972 TIME 7:30 p.m . DISTRICTS 2 ~--'-'------~ DISTRICT 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS (HE RR I N)····· GRISEi····· (CA S PERS) •..• BAT T IN .•..• (WELSH) •••.•• MILLER ••••. PORTER •.••• DISTRICT 2 (P~REz) ... ····SM ITH······ \..._,D AA) • • • • • • ·CASTRO· • • • • CU LVER· • · • • (LAN GER)······ FINNELL···· (KOWA LSKI)· ···FO X········ (GRISET)· ·····HERRIN····· }HOLLiNDEN)· ··JUST······· 'ROBERTS) • • • • ·NEV IL.~~. • • (CASPE RS) • · • · ·PH I LLI PS· · • (RE I NHA[WT) • • ·ROO T· · • • • • • (DU TT ON )··· ···S TEPHENSON · (DUNN E) • • • · • · ·WINN · • · · • · · DISTRICT 3 CULV ER ••••• BA TTIN ••.•• DAV IS •••••• FOX ....... . l: ~:"~;} 1 '11 (A --.:::----c;-· ~ ---LL-jJ_ --~ -..bL. --..........---y ----.----- __.i.::::::::.. _bl_ -- ~ + --,/ '{ === ~_y__ ~__& __ V--_Y_ -- CL..--1'1 --_lL _I_ -- (CASPERS) •••• (HINES) •••••. (KO~'Al-SKI) ••• (COt:.N) ...... . GR EEN • • . • • • _____ _ (GR I SET)····· (FRANK I EW I CH). (NU IJE NS) •..• (MI LL ER) • • • • • HERRIN ····.: ------ LACAYO ••••• ----__ LE\'H S · ·, · · • _____ _ LONG • • • • • • • _____ _ MC WHINNEY. __ ---- (REINHARDT) .• ROOT •.••.•• _____ _ (B LACK MAN) ..•. SALES •..••. _____ _ (HOLLIN~EI~) ••• SCOTT •.•.•• _______ _ ~DU TT ON; ••••.. STEPHENSON. _____ _ ROBE RT S) ••••• STEVENS ••.. _____ _ BYRNE) ••••••• VANDERWAA L . ______ _ DISTRICT 5 (C ROUL) ••••.•• MC I NN I S ••• (BAKER) ••••••• CASPERS •••• KYMLA •.•••. DI STRICT 6 PORTEH • • • • • (P~ILLIPS). • • CAS PER S···· (MC I NN I S) ••• STORE······ DISTRICT 7 (\llJ ELSH) ...... MILLER···.· (CA S PER S ) · • • • CLAR K • • • · • • (HERRIN) • • • • • GR I SET····· PO RTE R ••. • · ~FI SCH BAC~) .•• QLJ I GLEY •••• MC INN I SJ ••.• ROGERS ••••• PJ:REZ ) •••••• SM ITH ...... D~RICT 11 -. (COEN) .•....• GI BBS • • • • • • (cASP[:RS) •. • • BAK ER • • • • • • (CO EN) • • • • • · • DUKE • • • • • • • DIS TRI CT 8 CJOHN SQN ) .••.• BOYD . ' ••.•• (C LA RK) •....•• CASPER S · • • · MITCHELL • • • 1?./J./7 2 JOI NT BOARDS ACTZVE DIRECTORS (LANGER)·,···· FINNELL····· ---- (CASPER S )· • • • ·BA KER· • • • • • • ---- (CASPERS)···· ·BA TTIN······ ---- . . CASPERS·· • • • ----- ( i"IEDAA) • • • • • • ·CASTRO· • • • • • ---- (CASPERS)····· CLARK······· ---- CULVER······ ---- (HINES) .•••••• DAVIS······· ---- (COEN)· • • • • ···DUKE· • • • · • • • ----KOWA~S KI)··· ·FOX········· ---- COEN ········GIBBS······· ----- COEN • • • • • • • ·GR EEN· • • • • • • ---- HERRIN)····· ·GR I S ET · • • • • • ---- GR I S ET) ••••• ·H ERR IN······ ---- (HOLL.I ND EN) ···JUS T· · • • • • • • ---- (MC I NNIS)···· KYMLA· • · • • • • __ -- (FRANKi EWICH) ·LACAYO ······ ---- (NUIJENS) ·····LEWIS······· ___ _ (MILLER) • • • • · ·LONG· · • • • • • • ___ _ (CROUL) ·······MC I NN I S ···· ___ _ MC WHINNEY · • ___ _ (WELSH)······· MI LLE R······ ___ _ (ROBERTS)·····NEV IL······· (CASPERS) •••. ·P HILLIPS···· === ==== POR TE R· • · • • • (FI SHB ACH) ····QU I GLEY ····· ---- (MC I NN IS)··· ·ROGERS······ -- -- (RE I NHARDT)·· ·ROOT········ ---- (BLACKMAN)· • • ·SA LES· • • • • • • ---- (HOLLI NDEN) · · ·SCOTT · • • • • • • ---- (PEREZ)······ ·SM I TH ······· ---- !DUTT ON)· • • • • ·STE PHENSON· • ---- ROBERTS)· • • • ·STEVENS·· • • • ---- MC Il~N IS) •.•. STORE ······· ---- BYRNE) ...... I VANDERWAAL .. ---- (DU NNE )······ ·WINN········ ---- (JOHNS ON) OTH ERS * * * * * BOYD ········ ---- MITCH ELL • · • • ---- HARPE R BROWN SY LVESTER LEWI S DUNN CLAR KE S IGLE R NISSON TAYLOR BROWN BOETTNER CARL SON FINSTER GALLOWAY HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYN CH MADDO X MARTIN SO N MUR ONEY P I ERSA LL S TE VEr~s KEN NE Y MEETING DATE Dec . 20 , 1 972 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 2 -~~~-~~- DISTRICT 1 (HERRIN) • • • • • (CASPERS) •.•• (WELSH) .••••• ACTIVE DIRECTORS GR I S ET····· --___ _ BATTIN •.••• _____ _ MILLER ••••• _____ _ PORTER • • • • • _____ _ DISTRICT 2 rwJ 7 1 ~o~t Yv\,~ (o ~PEREZ)······ ·SMITH·····. _!_ t-f __ -:DAA ) • • • • • • ·CASTRO· • • • • _..;_ ~ __ CULVER····· _.;_ =1r --~LANGER)····· ·FINNELL···· ./ ) -/---KOWAL S l< I ····FOX········ __ _i_ __ (GRISET)··· ···HERRIN····· / ~ l HOLLIND~N) ···JU ST ··· fl :Hi · -,---V -- ROBERTS)·· ···NEVIL··~· ~ ---Y-=== CASPERS)··· ··PHILLIPS··· J ---;J- lREINHARDT)···ROOT· •••••• J V === DUTTON)· • • • ··STEPHENSON· ~ ___ _ DUNNE) • · • •. • • ·WINN· • • • · • • _j ___ ;J __ _ DISTRICT 3 CULVER ••••• _____ _ (CASPERS) •••• BATTIN ••••• _____ _ !HINES) ...... DAVIS ...... _____ _ KO~~Al-S KI) • • • FO X • • • • • • • • _____ _ COEN) ••••••• GREEN ••.••• _____ _ (GR I SET) •••• • HERRIN····._-__ ---- (FRANKIEWICH). LACAYO····· ------ (NUIJEN S) •••• LEWIS.····· ----__ (MILLER) ••••• LONG ••• •••• _____ _ MC WHINNEY. --__ -- (REINHARDT) •• ROOT ••••••• _____ _ (BLACK MAN) ...• SA LE S •••••• _____ _ (HOLLINDEN) ••• SCOTT •••••• _____ _ !'DUTTON) ...••• STEPHEN SON . _____ _ ROBERTS) ••••• STEVENS •••• _____ _ BYRNE) ••••••• VANDERWAAL • _____ _ DISTRICT 5 (CROUtJ .••••.• MC INNIS ••• (BAKER) ••.•••• CASPER S •••• KYMLA •••••• DISTRICT 6 PORTER • • • • • (PHILLIPS)··· C/l.SPERS · • • • (MC I NNIS)··· STORE······ DISTRICT 7 T°WELSH ) •.•••• MILLER • • • • • (CASPERS) • • • • CLAR K······ (HERRIN)····· GRISET • • • • • PORTE R •• • •• !FISCHBACH) ••• QUIGLEY •••• MC lf~~IS) •••. ROGERS .•••• PEREZ) •••.•• SM I TH •••••• D fR ICT 11 - (COEN) ...... ·GIBBS .... •• (CAS P~RS) • • • • BAKER • · • • • · (coEr~; .•.•••• DUKE •••••.• DISTRICT 8 CJ OHNSQN ) ....• BOYD ••...•• (CLA RK) •...••. C/\SPERS · • • • MI TC HELL • • • 12/1/7 2 JO INT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS (LANGER)······ FINNELL····· ---- (CASPERS)····· BAKER······· ---- (CASPERS)···· ·BATTIN······ ---- . CASPERS ····· ----- (WEDAA) ·······CASTRO······ ---- (CASPERS)····· CLARK······· ---- CULVER······ ---- (HINES)······ ·DAVIS······· ---- (COEN)··· • • • • ·DUKE· • • • • • • • ---- KOWAlS KI)··· ·FOX· .•.••••• ___ _ COEN ········GIBBS······· ----- COEN • · • • • · • ·GREEN· • • • • • • ---- HERRIN)····· ·G RIS ET· • • • • • ---- GRISET) ······HE RR IN······ ---- (HOLLI NDEN) ···JUST········ ---- lMC INNIS)····KYM LA······· ---- F RANK IEWICH) ·LACAYO······ __ -- NU I JENS)····· LEWIS······· ___ _ (MILLER)· • • • ··LONG· · • • • • • • __ _ (CROUL) ·······MC I NN IS···· ___ _ MC WHINNEY· • ___ _ (WE LSH) •.•••• ·MILLER······ (ROBERTS)····· NEVIL······· ---- (CASPERS) ..• • ·P HILLIPS ···· ==== ==== PO RTER· • • • • • (FISHBACH) ••• ·QUIGLE Y····· ==== === (MC INN IS) ••• ·R OGERS······ RE INH ARDT)·· ·ROOT ········ ---- BL ACKMAN) • • • ·SA LES· • • • • • • ---- HOLL I NDEN) ···SCOTT······· === ==== PEREZ)······ ·SMI TH······· DUTTON) · • • • · • STEPHEr~SON · • ---- ROBERTS)····· STEVENS····· ---- MC IN NIS)··· ·STORE ······· ---- BYRNE)·· e • • • • VANDERWAAL · · ---- (DUNNE)······ ·WINN ········ ---- (JOHNSON) OTHERS Sa )-l_,, ~ * * * * * BOYD········ ---- MI TCHELL···· ---- HARPER BROWN SYLVESTE R LEYJ.I S DUNN CL ARKE SIG LE H NISSON TAYLO R BRO\rm BOETTN ER CARLSON FI NS TE R GA LLO WAY HOHENE R HOv~ARD HU NT KEITH LY NC H MADDOX MA RTINSON MU RONEY PIE RSAL L S TE VENS KE NNEY \2.-v\A.r~ _"'""., I I I I !I II II II BOARDS OF DIRECTOR;<; Coun ly San ita tion Di stricts of Orange Coun ty, California , - P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Ca lif., 92708 Preliminary AG END A 1 2/15/72 (1) Rol l Ca ll Ad journed Regular Meeting Dec ember 20 , 1 972 -7:30 p .m. (2) Appo intment of Chairma n pro tern , if necessary (3) Public Hearing re proposed sewer c onnection Ordinance No . 203 , amending Uniform Connec tio n and Use Ordinance No . 202 (a) Open public hearing (b) Report of staff on District 's fi nancial requirements (c) Written communications received (See attached) (d) Oral statements from those in attendance (e) Close public hearing (4) Consideration of Ordinance No. 203, an orainance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No . 202 (5) Consideration of Resolut ion No . 72-167 -2, order i ng annexation of approximately 1,33 7.24 acres of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No . 6 -Anaheim Hi lls Annexation No . 1 to County Sanitation District No . 7), subject to certain conditions to be met by the proponents of said annexation . (Copy in Directors ' meeting folders) (6) Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any (7) Other business and communications , i f any (8 ) Consideration of motion to adjourn Agenda Item No.3.~ Otange. County Sanitation District #2 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 An excerpt from the minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council, City of Orange, California, held December 5, 1972. IN RE COHHlJNICATION RELATIVE TO SEWER cmmECTION CHARGE ORDINA.i.~CE - COUNCILMAN SMITH, CHAIR.~~ OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2: Councilman Smith orally outlined his written report on the proposed sewer connection ch 0 arge ordinance indicating that its implementation would circumvent not building the facilities, raising the tax rate, passing a bond issue, or establishing connection char~es for new construction throughout the District. Councilman Smith further indicated that adoption of this ordinance would equalize costs relative to the present development ratio. Councilman Smith notified Council members of the impending public hearing to be held by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County on December 20, 1972 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the District's administrative office at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley and urged that Council support the adoption of this ordinance. Moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Perez, and duly adopted, that the fine oral written report as submitted by Councilman Smith concerning the sewer connection char~e ordinance be received and filed; and that Council go on record in support of Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 proposed Ordinance No. 203 amending Uniform Connection and Use O~dinance No. 202 relative to sewer connection charges. Dated this 13th day of December, 1972 cc: Councilman Don E. Smith Charlotte M. Johnston City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the Council /7-~a~ by: Marilyn Jensen, ~ty Chairman, Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 bmc ·. : .,... : "' . ~ .. ~ December 6, 1972 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Public Hearings for December 20, 1972 and January 3, 1973 Dear Sirs: · Ag d 1t N __ 3_( c.. ... • )_ aen a I em o, - We appreciate receiving the November 14 notices concerning the notice of intent to adopt Ordnances No. 203 and 303. The December 20 date relative to the hearing of Ordnance No. 203 and the January 3rd date relevant to proposed Ordnance No. 303 occur at a time that is difficult for representatives of our Chamber of Commerce to attend the hearings. Therefore, we would concur with the request of postponement of the two probable hear- ings. as suggested by the Garden Grove Sanitary District to a date later than the 15th of January. At this time it is the present intent of our Chamber of Commerce to register protest testimony ordinances. Therefore, a change of date will be of great assistance. JE/jtb Sincerely, John Harl, Vice President Economic Development Council Chamber of Commerce -{'... ·-• ., • ~pt .. ... . · .. _, ...... Agenda Item No. 3Cc) CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 11391 ACACIA PARKWAY, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92640 Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary Board of Directors December 8, 1972 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Sylvester: In behalf of the Garden Grove City Council, this is to request that public hearings scheduled by Orange County Sanitary District No. 2 for Decem- ber 20, 1972, and by Orange County Sanitary District No. 3 for January 3, 1973, to consider funding alternatives for Sanitary District facilities and the adoption of ordinances concerning sewage connection charges, be postponed until February 1973. The Council so requested this postponement during its regular meeting December 5, 1972, and we would appreciate receiving statistical informa- tion or any other material which may be helpful to us in the review of this matter. This background information would also aid us in fully participat- ing in the upcoming public hearings and provide us opportunity to express Garden Grove's position on the alternatives. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to receiving the data. Sincerely, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE :-.~·-~·. ·-.... '. ', . ·~ ....... . ; • : .-.-•. •• '-.! .; . ,:._'J /vas CITY CLERK OFFICERS Chairman of th<! Board Carl l\.nnla Moulton '.'\igul'l WatPr Di~trict President and General .lla1uwn Lucien D. Truhill Yice Chairman·.\lemhl'Tship Rt>lations Beau Clemen:- Beau Clemen;; & .-h,;ocialt·s Vice Chairman-City ChamberJ Adriso~· Ste,,·art l\.0t·pcke McDonnell Douglas . .\stronautics Company Treasurn Robert E. Han~on Arthur Young&: Com pan\· Chairman Executfre Committee E. IL Fin"tt'r Hoyle Engineering President, Senators Club • Lou l'et·k. II Peek Family Colonial Funeral Home DIRECTORS Ot'rrick A . ..\nder"on Frank L. Hope & Assoriall'>' Winn Bandv Airporter Inn llotrl Ro\· C. Bolt .K"ik:-et Donald W. Bo\l•'S Airport Service, Inro~orated Beau Clt.·men' Beau Clemeru & ;\,;,.;ociatl's R. W. Cliiford Air California Edward 0. Ethel! Au tone tics E. IL Finskr Boyle Engineering Robert E. llan,.on Arthur Young & Companv John lla~kell BeeC'O, I irni ted H. Rodgrr Ho"·ell Rutan&: Tucker Fenton E. Joni'" West Orange County ~lunicipal Court Leon fl. Jones Jones, Elliott & As..~oriatcs Gordon Jone,; The Irvine Company Stewart Koepcke McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Al Koch Voorheis-Trindle & :"elson, Incorporated Cari ~vmla Moulton ~!f!.uel Wat_n Di;trict \\ill H. Lmdsav, Jr. Consulting Ernrineer John B. \ll'mll. II Wyatt & \lt'mll Joe ~lcCormick Ernst & Emst \lei \tiller Bank of :\merira Westinghou.~ Electric Corporation DaJe Post First American Title fn;;urance Company James IL _:;alter Kimberly-Clark Corporation Hichard .I. ~mith "-11' Hunt-Wesson Food,;. lracorporat .. d Arthur W. W,H.:rll'r Ralph C. Sutro Comp.1nr C. E. \\nod,; Sign~I Oil&: Gas Company William:\. Wn:n Huntington Beach Company Agenda Item No. 3 C <!... )_ NGE COUNTY CHAMB~R OF COMMERC~ 401 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER. THE CITY• ONE CITY BLVD. WEST, ORANGE, CALIF. 92668 • 17141 639-6460 December 8, 1972 Mr. Fred Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Off ice Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92705 Dear Fred: We have received a request from the Garden Grove Sanitation District requesting a delay in the public hearing on the proposed sewer connection charge. If there are no technical difficulties with such a change we would like to suggest that this re- quest be given consideration. Cordially, Will Lindsay, Jr., Chairman Sanitation Task Force WL/jwc ;; BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 of Orange County, California I i II -· II FILE - (1) (2) (3) LETTER···-·-- A/C .... TKLR - (4) FILE - LETTER!• .• ~ A/C •... Tl<lR - ~· h~.v' ~~~ (6) M\~~ DISTRICT ~~o. 2 Roll Call Adjourned Regular Meeting December 20, 1972 -7:30 p.m. Final AG EN D A 12/20/72 ADJOURNMENTS ........ -;-7 COMP & MILEAGE ......... ..- FILES SET UP ..•.•••• W::.: ...... .. RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED.}( LETIERS WRITTEN ..... ~ .... MINUTES WRITTEN .•.• ~ ... MINUTES FILED •.•••• ~ ...... Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary Public Hearing re proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 (a) Open public hearing ·~ Report of staff on District's financial requirements (c) Written communications received. See page "A" @ Oral statements from those in attendance ~J-t.~-~ ~-.~lo $1 ·. s g (e) Close public hearing Consideration of Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-167-2, ordering annexation of approximately 1,337.24 acres of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 to County Sanitation District No. 2), subject to certain conditions to be met by the proponents of said annexation. See page "B" Consideration of motion approving the following Operating Fur.ld warrant: No. 19429 Payee State of California Board of Equalization Amount $350.00 (7) Other business and communications, if any (8) Consideration of motion to adjourn q ·A& -~-.;_~~ \-( -1'. ~ t) Agenda Item No. 3 (.c..) Otange. County Sanitation District #2 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 An excerpt from the minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council, City of Orange, California, held December S, 1972. IN RE CO}~fiJNICATION RELATIVE TO SEWER C0~1NECTION CHARGE ORDINAJ.~CE - COUNCILMAN SMITH, CHAifu"'iAN OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2: Councilman Smith orally outlined his written report on the proposed sewer connection charge ordinance indicating that its implementation would circumvent not building the facilities, raising the tax rate, passing a bond issue, or establishing connection charges for new construction throughout the District. Councilman Smith further indicated that adoption of this ordinance would equalize costs relative to the present development ratio. Councilman Smith notified Council members of the impending public hearing to be held by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County on December 20, 1972 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the District's administrative office at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley and urged that Council support the adoption of this ordinance. Moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Perez, and duly adopted, that the fine oral written report as submitted by Councilman Smith concerning the sewer connection charge ordinance be received and filed; and that Council go on record in support of Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 proposed Ordinance No. 203 amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 relative to sewer connection charges. Dated this 13th day of December, 1972 Charlotte M. Johnston City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the Council cc: Councilman Don E. Smith Chairman, Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 bmc Agepda Item #3(c) A-1 District 2 Agenda ttem No. 3 ( c_) GARDEN GROVE _ fliiamlkr-aC ,gammerce # -.... • •• December 6, 1972 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, Cali.fornia 92708 ke: Public Hearings for December 20, 1972 and January 3, 1973 Dear Sirs: . We appreciate receiving the November 14 notices concerning the notice of intent to adopt Ordnances No. 203 and 303. The December 20 date relative to the hearing of Ordnance No. 203 and the January 3rd date relevant to proposed Ordnance No. 303 occur at a time that is difficult for representatives of our Chamber of Commerce to attend the hearings. Therefore, we would concur with the request of postponement of the two probable hear- ings. as suggested by the Garden Grove Sanitary District to a date later than the 15th of January. At this time it is the present intent of our Chamber of Commerce to register protest testimony ordinances. Therefore, a change of date will be of great assistance. JE/jtb ' Sincerely, (j/ John Harl, Vice President Economic Development Council Chamber of Commerce : --·: "!. /' .: : ~ ~ , .. .~. <;i • : .. •· :·~I . -(: ,. ·: •. -i ~ • '_j c ..... ~. Agenda Item #3(c) A-2 District 2 Agenda I tern No. 3Cc )_ CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 11391 ACACIA PARKWAY, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92640 Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary Board of Directors December 8, 1972 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 812 7 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Sylvester: In behalf of the Garden Grove City Council, this is to request that public hearings scheduled by Orange County Sanitary District No. 2 for Decem- ber 20, 1972, and by Orange County Sanitary District No. 3 for January 3, 1973, to consider funding alternatives for Sanitary District facilities and the adoption of ordinances concerning sewage connection charges, be postponed until February 1973. The Council so requested this postponement during its regular meeting December 5, 1972, and we would appreciate receiving statistical informa- tion or any other material which may be helpful to us in the review of this matter. This background information would also aid us in fully participat- ing in the upcoming public hearings and provide us opportunity to express Garden Grove's position on the alternatives. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to receiving the data. Sincerely, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ; c. ~-· ... -CITY c1I£K ~ ~:.~.: \~· ~ .. :-a. : .. ~ /vas Agenda Item #3(c) A-3 District 2 Agenda Item No .. 3CQ..) ~}~Mt: ~ J·,'· ANGE COUNTY ~rr~ . CHAMB~R oi= COMM~RC~ OFFICERS Chairman of the Board Carl K rn1la Moulton ~igucl \\' atrr Di~trict President and General .ll1w1J/!•'r Lucien D. Trul1ill Vice Chairman-Membf'rship Rt>lation.f Bt·au Llt'mrns Beau Clemen5 &. .\ssoriates Jlice Chairman-City Chamf1ns Ad1·iso')· SlC\•·art KO!·pd,c McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Treasurer Robert E. I lamon Arthur Youn~,~· Cornpanv Chairman ExecutiPe Committ1•(' E.11. Fimler Boyle Enltinr1·ring President, Senators Cluh ~ Lon Pr1·k. II Peek Family Colonial Funeral llome DIRECTORS £knick A. Ander,;on Frank L. Hope&: A~soriatc• Winn Bandv Airporter Inn llolrl Rov C. Bolt 'Kwik!'t't Donald W. Bm I"" Airport Scni('(', lnro!'P.oratt"d lkau U<'mrns Beau Clemrn ... & :\s..;oriatrs R. \\'.Clifford Air California Edward 0. [thdl Autonetics E. IL Finster Boyle En[tineering Rohf-rt E. II an son Arthur Young & Cornpa11v John 11.i~krll Bt-eco, Limited H. Rodger Howell Rutan & Turker Frnlon E. Jone.; West Orange County '.\lunicipal Court Leon IL Jones Jones, Elliott & Associates Gordon Jones The lndne Company Stewart Kot·pcke McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Al Koch Voorheis-Trindle & :\elson, lncorporalt·d Carl l\.vmla Moulton ~~uel Watrr fli;trict Yt"ill H. Lindsay, Jr. Consulting Engineer John B. '1errrll. JI Wyatt & M1•rrrll Joe McCormick Ernst & F:m~t '.\!el ~tiller Bank of America Westinghouse Electric Corporation IJalc Po~l First American Title Insuranre Co1111lJl1r James IL .::alter Kimberly.Clark Corporation ....__~ HicharJ I. :'mi th ..._.. Hunt-Wesson Food~. lru:orpor.11,·d Arthur W. \\ .1crn·r Ralph C. Sutro Co111p.1nr C. E. \\oods Signal Oil,\ Gas Company William A. Wrt'fl Huntington Beach Company Agenda Item #3(c) 401 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER, THE CITY• ONE CITY BLVD. WEST, ORANGE, CALIF. 92668 • (7141639·6460 December 8, 1972 Mr. Fred Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Off ice Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92705 Dear Fred: We have received a request from the Garden Grove Sanitation District requesting a delay in the public hearing on the proposed sewer connection charge. If there are no technical difficulties with such a change we would like to suggest that this re- quest be given consideration. Cordially, ~-~ Will Lindsay, Jr., Chairman Sanitation Task Force WL/jwc A-4 District 2 ORANGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 625 East Chapman Avenue • Orange, CaliCornia 92667 Board of Directors TELEPHO:"tE 538-3581 AREA CODE (714) December 14, 1972 Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Reference: Public Hearings for December 20, .1972 and January 3, 1973 Gentlemen: In reviewing. our busy holiday schedule for the next several weeks, we of the Orange Chamber of Commerce have noted the difficulty of attending the abovementioned public hearing on December 20, 1972. It is the opinion of the chamber that this public hearing set for the proposed Sewer Connection Change Ordinance is too important to hold during a holiday period which may restrict attendance. We would appreciate your cooperation in setting a more convenient time for everyone concerned. PSI:kd ..... --s r.; .. ,, l . c c : Mr • W a 1 t e r M . ·. Br e s'. s e 1 ~. Mr. John Snetsinger .. . ,, . ·.·: :.-" ,.,: , ':: :}, . ~r ~.~,:.~\~;, \;. . Agenda Item #3(c) A-5 Sincerely, )· ) l ;'.._, l-·r·/ ~ <---· · ,_-: J Philip S. Ingle~ Chairman of the Industrial Committee District 2 1972 OFFICERS: Orlano E. "Bud" Hanson President William "Bill" Winstead 1st Vice President Floyd A. Colglazier 2nd Vice President Thelma Hanscom Secretary Ben Neely Treasurer 1972 DIRECTORS: Gene Flecky John B. Gerry Tom Hoffman Walt Mahler Frank Margarit Virginia McCormick Dick Y. Nerio . ; -.. · Ann Benjamine • ,. 4 • I• l - . '. j i · Exec. Vice President ". ·- ·: ...... ' ·:~f ·.• ·'· _. Agenda Item #3(c) 10042 Lampson I Garden Grove, California 92640 I (714) 539·9573 MEMBER OF HATIONAL ASSOCATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS I CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION December 15, 1972 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 P.O. Box 8126 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Public Hearings for December 20, 1972 and January 3, 1973 Gentlemen: our Board of Directors, meeting December 13, unanimously went on record to support the Garden Grove Sanitary District in requesting a postponement of Hearings scheduled for December 20 and January 3 and ask that they be rescheduled for February. This is a matter of .grave importance to the future develop- ment of our area and one that concerns many citizens. It is therefore important for all.of us to allow plenty of time to study the proposals and to provide that such Hearings be held at a time when the greatest ntnnber of people can attend. Very truly yours, ~L £e1.' tt-v~Lz------ Ann Benjamine,1 ec. Vice-President West Orange C nty Board of Realtors cc Garden Grove Sanitary District A-6 District 2 RESOLUTION NO. 72-167-2 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 6) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXATION NO. 6 -ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That application has heretofore been made by the City of Anaheim to County Sanitation District No. 2 for annexation of approximately 312.35 acres of territory to the District by means of a letter dated March 6, 1972; and Section 2. That application has heretofore.been made by Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. to County Sanitation District No. 2 for annexation of approximately 1,024.89 acres of territor~ to the District by means of a letter dated April 3, 1972; and Section 3. That pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California application has heretofore been· made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 2 by means of Resolution No. 72-46-2, filed with said Commission by the District; and, Section 4. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 to County Sanitation District No. 2", the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference rr.ade a part of this resolution; and, Section 5. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and, Agenda Item #5 B-1 District 2 Section 6. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory; and, Section 7. That the City of Anaheim has paid annexation fees in the amount of $1,476.00 for approximately four acres of said annexation and entered into an agreement with the District, authorized by Resolution No. 72-154-2, for waiver of fees for the remaining 308.35 acres,provided that at such time as any of the land for which fees have been waived requires sewer service, that portion to be developed be subject to a charge equal to the then applicable District annexation fee and any other fees that may be in effect at that time; and, Section 8. That Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. have entered into an agreement with the District, authorized by Resolution No. 72-133-2, providing for deferred payment of annexation fees of $378,184.41 in five equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance; and, Section 9. That as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56261, the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be and it is hereby ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 2 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held December 20, 1972. Agenda Item #5 B-2 District 2 ii -,, BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Disfricts P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 9?..708 of Orange County, California ( 1) . (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) DISTRICT /'~oe 2 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 20, 1972 -7:30 p.m. Final AG E N D A 12/20/72 Roll Call Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary Public Hearing re proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 (a) . (b ). ( c) Open public hearing Report of staff on District's financial requirements Written communications received. See page IT A II ~~ I (d) Oral statements from those in attendance ~ ( e) Close public hearing ~, f ~ '\n . Y' Consideration of Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance 1 arqendi~~. 1 Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 ~t-1~ -U >o~ Consideration of Resolution No. 72-167-2, ordering annexation of approximately 1,337.24 acres of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 to County Sanitation District No. 2), subject to certain conditions to be met by the proponents of said annexation. See page "B" Consideration of motion approving the following Operating Fund warrant: No. 19429 Payee State of California Board of Equalization Other business and communications, if any Consideration of motion to adjournr:f 7 ;fr i 7 \0 \ l?~o ~ Amount $350.00 Agenda Item No. 3 (c_ l. Otange. County Sanitation District #2 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 An excerpt from the minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council, City of Orange, California, held December 5, 1972. IN RE CONHUNICATION RELATIVE TO SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE ORDINAi.~CE - COUNCILNAl'-1 SMITH, CHAIR.'tk'-1 OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2: Councilman Smith orally outlined his written report on the proposed sewer connection charge ordinance indicating that its implementation would circumvent not building the facilities, raising the tax rate, passing a bond issue, or establishing connection charges for new construction throughout the District. Councilman Smith further indicated that adoption of this ordinance would equalize costs relative to the present development ratio. Councilman Smith notified Council members of the impending public hearing to be held by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County on December 20, 1972 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the District's administrative office at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley and urged that Council support the adoption of this ordinance. Moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Perez, and duly adopted, that the fine oral written report as submitted by Councilman Smith concerning the sewer connection charge ordinance be received and filed; and that Council go on record in support of Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 proposed Ordinance No. 203 amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 relative to s~ver connection charges. Dated this 13th day of December, 1972 Charlotte M. Johnston City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the Council ~-,~~ by: Marilyn Jensen, eputy cc: Councilman Don E. Smith Chairman, Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 bmc Agepda Item #3(c) A-1 District 2 Agenda Hem No. 3Cc..) GARDEN GROVE _ ~fwm1Je1< aC ~awimerce 12653 MAIN ST. -P.O. BOX 464 -PH. 638-7950 -GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92640 .. l' ... December 6, 1972 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Public Hearings for December 20, 1972 and January 3, 1973 Dear Sirs: . We appreciate receiving the November 14 notices concerning the notice of intent to adopt Ordnances No. 203 and 303. The December 20 date relative to the hearing of Ordnance No. 203 and the January 3rd date relevant to proposed Ordnance No. 303 occur at a time that is difficult for representatives of our Chamber of Commerce to attend the hearings. Therefore, we would concur with the request of postponement of the two probable hear- ings. as suggested by the Garden Grove Sanitary District to a date later than the 15th of January. At this time it is the present intent of our Chamber of Commerce to register protest testimony ordinances. Therefore, a change of date will be of great assistance. JE/jtb Sincerely, I .-.t'. ;_,f;· . I ; I /_L' ~ J ___ / rvi;v I Y-u /--C (;/ John Harl, Vice President Economic Development Council Chamber of Commerce .. ; .. ;: . : . . ~--:~ ! .. , ..... ·i. ;·,~. r ·-, , .... ·: ', .... } . ,.,~ I . ---. '. 1· '·'. ~ • Agendc Item #3(c) A-2 Dlstrict 2 Agenda Item No. 3L.c) CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 11391 ACACIA PARKWAY, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92640 Mr. J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary Board of Directors December 8, 1972 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Sylvester: In behalf of the Garden Grove City Council, this is to request that public hearings scheduled by Orange County Sanitary District No. 2 for Decem- ber 20, 1972, and by Orange County Sanitary District No.3 for January 3, · 1973, to consider funding alternatives for Sanitary District facilities and the adoption of ordinances concerning sewage connection charges, be postponed until February 1973. The Council so requested this postponement during its regular meeting December 5, 1972, and we would appreciate receiving statistical informa- tion or any other material which may be helpful to us in the review of this matter. This background information would also aid us in fully participat- ing in the upcoming public hearings and provide us opportunity to express Garden Grove's position on the alternatives. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to receiving the data. Sincerely, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE : ~::~.: \7 ~ .· ··~ CITY CLSRK ...... --. : IS ... ! /vas Agenda Item #3(c) A-3 District 2 OFFICERS Chainnan of the Board Carl KvmlJ Moulton '.'\iguel Watf'r Di~trict President and Cei1eral .\la111w1•r Lucien D. Truhill Viu Chairman·Membl'rship Relation.f Bt•au Clt·mt·n~ Beau Clcmt'ns & ;\ss.)riat•·~ Vice Chairman-City Chambers Adt·isor.'· Ste\,·art I\ 1.wpckc McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Treasurer Robert E. llan_:;on Arthur Young & Company Chainrnm Executfre Commitl•'•' E. H. fimter lioyle En)tint'1°ring Pre.Jident, Senators U11l1 , Lon l'e,·k. II Peek Family Colonial Funeral Home DIRECTORS Derrick A. Anderson Frank L. Hope & A~soriat1·s Winn Bandv Airportrr Inn Hotel Roy C. Bolt l\wik~t Donald W. Rnvli·~ Airport ~nice. lnco~wr~trd Beau Uerrwns Beau Clemens & :\$!'oriatrs R. W. Cliiionl Air California Edward 0. [thell Autondic.; E. H. Fi11ster Bovie Eng1nrering Robert E: llari~on Arthur Young & Cornp.111v John llaskdl Beeco, Limited H. Rodgrr llowell Rutan & Turkcr Fenton E. Jont'~ West Orange County ~lunicipJI Court Leon IL J out's Jones, Elliott & .-\s::oriate . .; Gordon J oru·s The Irvine Company Stewart l\oepd .. e McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company Al Kod1 Voorheis-Trindle & Nelson, Incorporated Carl Knnla Moulton N!f.uel \\'at.er Di;trict \\ill H. Lmd:;Jy. Jr. Consulting En~nerr John B. \kmll. 11 Wyatt & \lerrcll Joe \kConnir.k Ernst & Em~t ~l<'l ~tiller Bank of :\rnrrira Westinghouse Elf'ctric Corporation Dale l'o.;;t First American Title Insuranre Company Jame~ R . ."alter Kimberly.Clark Corporation Rirhanl .I. ,:O:rnith .._,.,Hunt-Wesson Food:<. lneorporJtl'd Arthur\\'.\\ a~n··r Ralph C. Sutro Comp.my C. E. \\ oo<l" Signal Oil & Ga~ Compan) William.-\. Wren Huntington Beach Company Agenda Item #3(c) Agenda Item No. 3C.~) ANGE COUNTY CHAMB~R OF COMMERC~ 401 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER. THE CITY• ONE CITY BLVD. WEST, ORANGE, CALIF. 92668 • 17141639-6460 December 8, 1972 Mr. Fred Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Off ice Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92705 Dear Fred: We have received a request from the Garden G~ove Sanitation District requesting a delay in the public hearing on the proposed sewer connection charge. If there are no technical difficulties with such a change we would like to suggest that this re- quest be given consideration. Cordially, Will Lindsay, Jr., Chairman Sanitation Task Force WL/jwc A-4 District 2 . ..._,. ~ ORANGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 625 East Chapman A\·enue • Orange, CaliCornia 92667 Board of Directors TELEPHO~E 538-3581 AREA CODE (71') December 14, 1972 Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Reference: Public Hearings for December 20, .1972 and January 3, 1973 Gentlemen: In rev{ewing our busy holiday schedule for the next several weeks, we of the Orange Chamber of Commerce have noted the difficulty of attending the abovementioned public hearing on December 20, 1972. It is the opinion of the chamber that this public hearing set for the proposed Sewer Connection Change Ordinance is too important to hold during a holiday period which may restrict attendance. We would appreciate your cooperation in setting a more convenient time for everyone concerned. PSI:kd ,..,. .. -, t .'•"'' -~ .. l . . · .... cc: Mr. Walter M. ·_Bres·se1:·'. Mr. John Snetsinger · ,·. , .. '·' • ' ~l -~ ·.·,' i .·-' \?:'':~·;~.-, ~-r~~.::~}>,( ... ,_. Agenda Item #3(c) A-5 Sincerely, } ,?_1 I /'/. 1-/ .. I _.,,· .. c. -. --" ~-.. . 7 / • -_,: L \../ / '-'f. ~. ~--r·,.-- . I : j ~ Philip S. Ingle~ Chairman of the Industrial Committee District 2 1972 OFFICERS: Orlano E ... Bud" Hanson President William "Bill" Winstead 1st Vice President Floyd A. Colglazier 2nd Vice President Thelma Hanscom Secretary Ben Neely Treasurer 1972 DIRECTORS: Gene Flecky John B. Gerry Tom Hoffman Walt Mahler Frank Margarit Virginia McCormick Dick Y. Nerio . · -. ,· Ann Benjamine • .. • ~ I• I . . : j j Exec. Vice President ... ·- .• .~ .. . I Agenda Item #3(c) 10042 Lampson I Garden Grove, California 92640 I (714) 539·9573 MEMBER OF HATIOHAL ASSOCATIOH OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS I CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION December 15, 1972 Beard of Directors Orange County Sanitary Districts No. 2 & 3 P.O. Box 8126 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Public Hearings for December 20, 1972 and January 3, 1973 Gentlemen: Our Board of Directors, meeting December 13, unanimously went on record to support the Garden Grove Sanitary District in requesting a postponement of Hearings scheduled for December 20 and January 3 and ask that they be rescheduled for February. This is a matter of grave importance to the future develop- ment of our area and one that concerns many citizens. It is therefore important for all.of us to allow plenty of time to study the proposals and to provide that such Hearings be held at a time when the greatest m.unber of people can attend. Very truly yours, tL .~1, {t1.-vL-v-"'1-.£---- Ann Benjamine,, ec. Vice-President West Orange C nty Board of Realtors cc Garden Grove Sanitary District A-6 District 2 RESOLUTION NO. 72-167-2 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 6) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXATION NO. 6 -ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That application has heretofore been made by the City of Anaheim to County Sanitation District No. 2 for annexation of approximately 312.35 acres of territory to the District by means of a letter dated March 6, 1972; and Section 2~ That application has heretofore been made by Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. to County Sanitation District No. 2 for annexation of approximately 1,024.89 acres of territory to the District by means of a letter dated April 3, 1972; and Section 3. That pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California application has heretofore been· made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 2 by means of Resolution No. 72-46-2, filed with said Commission by the District; and, Section 4. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 to County Sanitation District No. 2", the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section 5. That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and, Agenda Item #5 B-1 District 2 Section 6. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory; and, Section z. That the City of Anaheim has paid annexation fees in the amount of $1,476.00 for approximately four acres of said annexation and entered into an agreement with the District, authorized by Resolution No. 72-154-2, for waiver of fees for the remaining 308.35 acres,provided that at such time as any of the land for which fees have been waived requires sewer service, that portion to be developed be subject to a charge equal to the then applicable District annexation fee and any other fees that may be in effect at that time; and, Section 8. That Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. have entered into an agreement with the District, authorized by Resolution No. 72-133-2, providing for deferred payment of annexation fees of $378,184.41 in five equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance; and, Section 9. That as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Corrunission pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56261, the territory hereinbefore referred to and described hereinabove, be and it is hereby ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 2 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held December 20, 1972. Agenda Item #5 B-2 District 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) November 14, 1972 (Sent to all City Councils of cities in District No. 2) TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Re: Proposed Dist. No. 2 Sewer Connection Charge Ordinanc~ In July of this year notices were sent to each of the cities within County Sanitation District No. 2 advising that the District's Board of Directors was considering the adoption of a connection charge ordinance for all new connections to the sanitary sewer system within the District's boundaries. A copy of the proposed connection charge ordinance and a copy of a tentative agreement, which provides reimbursement to the local entity for the expense of collecting the District's connection charges, accompanied the July notice. On August 2nd a meeting was held at the Sanitation Districts' offices for city representatives to discuss the proposed ordinance and the local entity collection agreement. Following this meeting, the comments were relayed to the District's Board of Directors on August 9th. The Board referred the matter back to a Special Committee of Directors for further study and possible revision based on the comments that vrere received. The enclosed pr-cposed ordinance has been revised considerably to reflect the concern expressed by the cities. In addition, the tentative uniform agreement with the municipalities provides that the District will reimburse the local entity for the expense of collecting the District connection charges equal to 5% of the connection charges collected. The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 3 have been prompted to seek means to finance the construction of needed trunk sewer facilities to relieve overloaded existing lines. Based on the financial requirements dictated by the construction schedule for the next few years, additional revenues are needed over and above those that will be produced by the current tax rete. November 14, 1972 Page 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 A public hearing on the proposed connection charge ordinance will be held for District No. 2 at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 20, 1972, and for District No. 3 at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 3, 1973. The following fee schedule is being considered by County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 3 for new connections to the sewer system: (a) Single Family Dwelling Buildings - $ 50.00 per dwelling unit (b) Multiple Family Dwelling Buildings -125.00 per dwelling unit (c) ·Commercial, Industrial & Public Buildings Diameter of Building Sewer Char~e 6 inches or less $ 50.00 8 inches 100.00 10 inches 200.00 12 inches 300.00 Single Family Dwellints. The basic connection fee 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 develop- ment. 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 c~pacity connection charge based on the actual use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in Article 6(b) of the ordinance. The District No. 2 Bbard reaffirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369 per acre. • COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 November 14, 1972 Page 3 (714) 962-2411 The original proposal which was submitted to the various cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the following connection charges: Enclosures cc: Director $100 per dwelling unit for single family and multiple dwellings, and $50 per 1000/sq. ft. building for commercial and industrial properties Don E. Smith, Chairman County Sanitation District No. 2 City Manager Building Department Planning Department -i COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) November 14, 1972 (Sent to Garden Grove Sanitary District, Yorba Linda County Water District and Orange County Building & Safety only) TELE PH ON ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Re: Proposed Dist. No. 2 Sewer Connection Charge Ordinance In July of this year notices were sent to each of the cities and other local sewering entities within County Sanitation District No. 2 advising that the District's Board of Directors was considering the adoption of a connection charge ordinance for all new connections to the sanitary sewer system within the District's boundaries. A copy of the proposed connection charge ordinance a~d a copy of a tentative agreement, which provides reimbursement to the local entity for the expense of collecting the District's connection charges, accompanied the July notice. On August 2nd a meeting was held at the Sanitation Districts' offices for city and Sanitary District representatives to discuss the proposed ordinance and the local entity collection agreement. Following this meeting, the comments were relayed to the District's Board of Directors on August 9th. The Board referred the matter back to a Special Committee of Directors for further study and possible revision based on the corrunents that were received. The enclosed proposed ordinance has been revised considerably ~o reflect the con- cern expressed by the cities. In addition, the tentative uniform agreement with the municipalities provides that the District will reimburse the local entity for the expense of collecting the District connection charges equal to 5% of the connection charges collected. The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 3 have been prompted to seek means to finance the construction of needed trunk sewer facilities to relieve overloaded existing lines. Based on the financial requirements dictated by the construction schedule for the next few years, additional revenues are needed over and above those that will be produced by the current tax rate. November 14, 1972 Page 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 A public hearing on the proposed connection charge ordinance will be held for District No. 2 at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 20, 1972, and for District No. 3 at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 3, 1973. The following fee schedule is being considered by County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 3 for new connections to the sewer system: (a) Single Family Dwelling Buildings -$ 50.00 per dwelling unit (b) Multiple Family Dwelling Buildings -125.00 per dwelling unit ( c) ·Commercial, Indus trial & Public Buildings Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $ 50.00 8 inches 100.00 10 inches 200.00 12 inches 300.00 Single Family Dwellin~s. The basic connection fee 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 develop- ment. 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 corrunercial 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. The District No. 2 Bbard reaffirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369 per acre. ....... November 14, 1972 Page 3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-24 11 The original proposal which was submitted to the various cities and sanitary districts for conunent provided for the following connection charges: Enclosures cc: Director $100 per dwelling unit for single family and multiple dwellings, and $50 per 1000/sq. ft. building for commercial and industrial properties Don E. Smith, Chairman County Sanitation District No. 2 City Manager Building Department Planning Department COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR CONNECTION CHARGES 11/14/72 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 with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based on the land use plans developed by the local communities and will require 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 program. Alternative methods of proceeding are: (A) Not build the facilities -there would be restrictions 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. (D) Establish connection charges for new construction throughout the District. 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. To Hold Down Tax Rates -Based on the anticipated new construction the District's engineer has estimated that the proposed connection fee schedule will generate approximately $600,000 each year; this is equal to six cents of the tax rate. The proposed connection charge ordinance, if adopted, would greatly ease the cash flow problems which are pro- jected to occur during the 1973 and 1974 fiscal years. Difficulty in Passing a Bond Issue - A bond issue for new 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. Success in Other Districts -Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge for many years which has met with very little opposition and have raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. The public easily grasps the concept of a new user paying for at least a portion of the necessary future outlays. ; -. ~ C' x l SCAL C I•, A PPROX .J M l COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORA NGE COUNTY , CALIFOR NI A DISTRICTS AND TRUNK SEWERS 1971 0 C' <" ~ ... cou11 r Y _,-·-I -,---r-A"" .. ~ / I "'«- / ' ,._<> I '";_.,, / ~ -J \~'Zt . -----~-------------<-"' -~'-y '' "~' .... ,. __ __.-·"-'-~ .. , .. , -,~ _, ,-/ ... Fl :_ ,, . -.! •• ; r' ,,.r···-------~-y .. _,r-·'··-,--(:_ N o re: S•l".,s 1ho"'n ,..;,"'" ()iS1r1cl No.7 a r• ~l.l<Isl•rPfon " s~r s only. For offi iu a'1d /t(K.'/ Jt••fJ moif!!ot~d ti; /111 {);sfnd,_su o•s1r1c1_r.:;~.:.·"Jos, ...... ~-·/ ,/: ORDINANCE NO. 203 AN ORDINANCE Af·IBNDING UNIFOPJ-1 CONNECTION AND USE ORDil:rANCE UO. 202 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, does ordain· as follows: ARTICLE 1 Article 2 of Ordinance No. 202 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following sections: · (o) District Connection Charge. Is a connection charge imposed by District No. 2 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. 2 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 building designed and used to house families and containing one or more dwelling units. (t) DNelling 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 private or public sewerage facility which ultimately discharges to a District sewerage facility. (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. 202 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. (1) Connection Charge for New Construction, Family Dwelling Buildings. For each new single family d~elling building constructed, the connection charge shall be $50 per dwelling unit. For each multiple family dwelling building 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 Building 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 former 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 within two years after demolition or -2- destruction of the former 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 $125 for each dwelling unit added or created and in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings which requires 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 plumbing connection permit for Q.ny 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 Qf 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. 202 is amended by adding thereto Section (3) to read as follows: (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. 202 is ratified, re- affirmed and is to become effective , 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 arid said Ordinance shall take effect ------------------------- -4- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County Sani- tation District No. 2, of OraJ1ge CouJ1ty, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1972. ------- ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California -5- Chairman, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) December 22~ 1972 RE: DECEMBER 20TH PUBLIC HR~RING -PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE ORDINANCE NO. 203 This is to advise that the District No. 2 Board of Directors continued the subject hearing to January 17, 1973, 7:30 p.m., in response to several requests due to the holidays. Any additional i.nformation concerning the proposed ordinance rest!.l ting from questions posed at the December 20th hearing will be mailed to all persons ar!d e:r..ti tics receiving th~s notice that the hearing h~s been continued to January 17. The Board has directed the Districts' staff to proceed with discussions with the local sewering entities concerning an agreement for collection of sewer connection charges which will be necessary in the event a connection charge ordinance is adopted by the District. ~~~£.? ~';;< i)on :~. , •Jl!.i th Chairma:1 cc: Directors, District Noo 2 TELEPHDN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 (EXCERPTED FROM THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPA~ CODE RELATIVE TO CONNECTIONS TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM) (h) Subdivisions other than !hose inc:ludcd in Si1hscction (a) hereof maybe: 1. Approved \l\.·ithout the construction of srwcrs or the pavrncnt of the S~\\'eragl!_ f.!cili~iPs ch:ugc where the County Health Offic:cr and the C:ty ~ni.;irwer nctcnn:ncd that ample art.•a i<\ :lV•ti!ahlc for private sewage d!spo::~l. where soil, .!!round watl•r and either factors arc favor- able .. Tlw scwcr~!gc facilit ics ch:i:-ge shall he applicabalc to lots and par- cels m tl1c·se subdi,·isions whPn connections to foturl! s<'wcrs arc re- quested or rcq 11ircd. 2. Permitted or required to construct sewers within the tr;ict and par the sc\a.•erag-c faci1itics charge upon the cletcrn1ination by the Council, U!10n advice of the Boa.rd, that exi:;ting development or trends tustify tI'.e City assuming the responsibility of providing the connect- ing sewers. SEC. f>4.ll.3. {Ad,!\·<l by Ord. No. 140,159> Efr. 5/11/70.) BASIS FOR SE\VEHAGE FACILITIES CH.ARCE: (a) (Araa'm!e<l by Ord. No. l·.W,551, Eif. 6/17170.) The sewerage facilit~es charge shall be fi.\cd in acc:onlanc.:e with the fcllO\ving tahlc: [SEWERAGE FACILITIES CIIAHGE] =======================• Occupancy Sewerage Faciliti\.'s Charge• Amlitori11111s, t:hur('hcs, etc ......................................... S 5.2.5 Per seat Autm11obilc parking which results in aJc!itional flow to tho..> public ~cwcr'i................................................ 2f>.2.) per l<X)() S<!. ft. gross floor area Bars. codtail loun~l·s, etc. ...............•.....•...•.•.....•...... 21.00 pN scat Co11111u:n:ial :-.hops and stores ·····························-····· 105.00 per HX>O sq. ft. gross floor :m.::a l lospitals (sur~ical) .......................•.....•.........•.............. 52.).00 1wr hcd I !o~;pitals (convaleo;ccnt) ·······································-····· k9.2S per l){'J I [otcls ·············································-····························· 1:57.50 per roorn ~fcdic:al hoilµiugs ································-····-················ 315.00 per llKX) sq. ft. gross floor area ?-.tolcls ............................................................................ 157 . .50 per lll•il ~~~~t :;~1il~-i-~~~~ . .".".".·.".'.~·.·.·.·.·.·.~·-~-.~~~~---.~·.·.~~--~~~~:-~:·.·~·-~~----~--~·-~~·.:=~--~-. 2 ~~:~~ g~; ; ;;, >0g.:a;,1~1 ·n~~~s1~c~~~ /~~~ca~ Re:;idcnti.il: Apartment huildin~': Ru·bclor or ~ill~lc dwcllin~ units ..................... . 1-hc<lroom <lwc!ling unib .......................•.......... 2-Lc<lroorn dwt•lling units ......................•.......... 3 or more bedroom dwelling units ...........•...... IA1plcxcs ............................................................. . All ~in).;le family (\wellings ··············-··············· Restaurants, cafeterias, etc ........................................ . ·hools: Elementary or junior high ........................... ~·········· l ligh school., ........................................................... . Universities or cu!le~es ................••••...• · ................ . College dormitories ................................ ·-············ how rate lffi.00 per dwdlini; unit 157 .. ")0 per dwelling unit 210.00 per <lwdlm~ unit 2fi~ . .'l0 p•:r dwcllin~ unit 315.00 pt:r dwdli11g unit 3·18.00 per dwelling unit 52 .. 50 per seat 10.50 per student 15.i5 per ~ln<knl 21.00 per st11d1.·nt 89.2.5 per student•• •These c:har~e-; arc hawd on flows which. in general, ind11de an average allov .. ·anc.:c for operating pcrscmnrl. hospital ~t.1ff, faculty, etc., a.~ appropriate to the respccti,·c oc.:t:11pancy. • • 1ndudes food ~t·n·ice, l.n111<lry an<l bathing. (b) For occupancies not enumerated in the table set forth in Subsec- tion (a) of this section, and for mixed occupancies, the Iloar<l shall de- .. tennine the apolicahle sewerage facilities charge based upon a S.'30 per 100-gallon per J..iy peak How. The Board may require the owner of property to submit .rbns and such other information as it may need to clctcrminc the applicable sewer- age facilities charge. · SEC. 64.12. HOUSE SEWER CONNECTION -PEHMIT: (a) No person sh:1ll make, construct, alter, or repair any house connec- tion sewer, bonded house connection sewer. special house connection sewer, industrbl W:1Ste sewer connection, inclustri:i l \Vaste stonn dr:li.n connection, storm drain connection, or special drain:1gc connection, or any portion of any such sewer or storm drain conntx:tions, including sampling manholes, or connect any house sewer, soil pipe, or plumbing to any such sewer or storm dru in connections or to a se,-.·cr or storm drain under the jurisdiction of tht! City of Los Angeics, without first obtaining a written pem1it th.:!:-cfor from the Board of Public \Vorks. (b) Persons clcsirin~ to obtain a permit for any of the ;)urposcs enumer- ated in St::~tions 64.l~ to 64.2:! inclusive. shall file '"·ith the Board a writ- -6- ' (EXCERPTED FROM THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO CONNECTIONS TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM) (l,) Subdivisions other than !hose included in Subsection (a) hereof maybe: 1. Approved '\'-'~t'.1?ut the constrnc-tic;n of sPwcrs or the pavmcnt of the s~wcr:ige_ f.-:c1l~~1es eh~rgc where the County Health Offic:cr and the C:ty ~n~mP('f nctcnmnc<l that :unplc area is :rvai!ab1e for private sewage cb~po:.al. whc'.re soil, grourH1 watl•r and either factors arc favor- able. _The sewer~~<' facilities c:ha:gc shall he applicaLalc to lots and par- ce?s m these suhdivisions when c:onnections to future sewers are re- quested or required. 2. Permitted or required to construct sc,vers within the tr~-.ct and pay the scwerag-c faei1itics charge upon the determination by the Council, urxm advice of the Board, that existing development or trends fustify !Le City assuming the re~ponsibility of providing the connect• mg S~\vers. SEC. 64.11.3. (Addt•d by Ord. No. 14lUS9, Elf. 5/11/70.) BASIS FOR SEWERAGE FACfLlTIES CHAH.CE: {a) (Ara1cia!ed by Ord. No. 140,551, Elf. 6/17170.) The sewerage facilit!es charge shall be fi.\cd in acc:ordanc:c with the fellowing table: [ SF.WERAGE FACILITIES CHARGE] ==-=====================t Occupancy Sewerage Facilities Charge• Amlitori11ms, churches, etc ......................................... $ 5.2.5 Per seat Auto111obilc parkin~ which rc~ults in aJditional flow to the public sewers................................................ 2G.2.5 per JCX)() <;<I· ft. brross floor area Bars. coc·ktail lounges, etc. ........................................ 21.00 per scat Commercial ~hops and stores ·····························-····· 105.00 per 1000 sq. ft. gross floor art:a Hospitals (sur~ical) ...................•...•....•............•............ 52.3.00 per bed l!ospitals (convalescent).............................................. 89.2.=) per bed I lotcl~ ·············································-····························· 15i .. 5() p~r roorn ~1c<li<:al huih.lings ..........................•.....•....••..•.............. :llS.CX) per 1000 sq. ft. gross Aoor area ~1otc1' ............................................................ -............. 157.50 per ui.it Olfi<.:c b11ildin~·'-··································-····-······-··········· 210.00 per 101.lO "'l· ft. gro~s floor area In<lustri.il ·················································-··················· 30.00 per l(X) gallon flow per day rat peal Re.;i<lcnt i.il: Apartment huilding<;: Bachelor or ~iugle dwellin~ units .... _ ............... . 1-hc<lroom <lwclling units ................................. . 2-hc<lroom dwelling units ......•.......................... 3 or more bedroom dwelling units ................. . Duplexes .........................................•...................... All single family dwellings .............•................. !Restaurants, cafeterias, etc ........................................ . Schools: Elementary or junior high ..........................•.•......... lligh st·hools ......................................•..•................. Universities or colleges ················-·····-~--·············· College dormitories ·································-············ fiow rate 10:).00 per clwt:lling unit 157 . .50 per dwelling unit 210.00 per dw...!ling unit 2£>'.2.!)() per dwellin.~ unit 315.00 per dwclii11g unit J..t8.00 per dwelling unit 52.50 p~r scat 10.50 per student 15.i5 per student 21.00 per student 89.2.5 per student .. •These char~cs are ho.t.<icd on !lows which. in general, inc.:lude an average allowance for operating persmmrl. hospital staff, faculty, etc .• as appropriate to the rcspct.·tive occupancy. • • 1ndudcs food service, laundry and bathing. (b) For occupancies not enumerated in the tab1e set forth in Subsec- tion (a) of this sectio:1, and for mixed occupancies, the Board shall de- .. tennine the ap~licablc sewerage facilities charge based upon a $.30 per 100-gallon per oay peak How. The Board may require the owner of property to submit plans ~nd such other information as it may need to determine the applicable sewer- age facilities charge. · SEC. 64.12. HOUSE SE\VER CO:\'NECTION -PERMIT: (a) No person sha1l make, construct, alter, or repair any house connec- tion sewer, bonded house connection sewer, special house connection sewer, industri::il waste se\vcr connection, industri:i.l waste storm drain connection, stonn <lrain connection, or spcciJ.l drain~1~c connection. or any poriion of any such scv:er or stonn drain connections, includ!ng sampling manholes, or connect any house se\vcr, soil pipe, or plumbing to any such Sc\vcr or storm drain connections or to a Se\\:cr or stonn drain under the jurisdiction of the Citv of Los Angcll's, \vithout first obtaining a written pem1it thc!"cfor from the Bo~ird of Public \Yorks. (b) Persons desiring to obtain a permit for any of th~ purposes enumer- ated in Scr:tions &U2 to frt22 inclusive, shall file with the Board a writ- -6- ' \ CO UNTY SANIT ATION DISTRI CT NO. 2 STATEMENT OF PnOjECTED CASH FLOW ASSUMES CONSTRUCTIO N OF PHASE I SE CONDARY TREATJ:Vi.ENT ONLY F I SC AL YEARS 1972-7 3 THROUGH 1976-77 De scY'iD ti on T ~x Re v e nu~ (at current tax rate of $.4254) ?ed ~~al & S tate Participat ion J o int Wo rks Projects Djstrict Proje ct s ~~le of Cap a city Ri ghts f>i i s c el laneous C a r ~y -O v e r fro m Previous Fiscal Yea r TOTAL FUNDS AVA ILABLE !·. '{ C::.::D ITURE S D i ~tri ct Co ns t ruction 3h~r e of J oint Works Construc tion I-( H(l Re':;.i r e :n e nt & Int e rest 0 h ~~:':::-o f J o int Op e rating Di s t r i ct Opera ting & Other Expenditures TOTAL EXPErDITURE S C...ir!'Y·-Over to Following Fis cal Year Ld Js : Ne cessary Re s e rve for Follow ing YC!t ~, Dr:y Pe r iod h!.Hl i3 .'..ll'.:l.n c e or (Defic it) O:.,~ c e nt on ta x rate will raise 1 972 -73 $ 4,36L~,ooo 2,556 ,000 758,000 618,000 10,720~0 0 0 $19 , 016 ·' 000 $ 4,654 ,000 3 ,034,000 612 ,000 7 6 7,000 196,000 $ 9 ,263~0 00 $ 9 ,753 ,000 6 ,985 .000 $ 2,768 ,00 0 $ 102 :• 585 1973-74 1 974 -75 $ 4 ,605 ,0 00 $ 4,835 ,000 2 , 4 7 9 , ooo· 4,687,000 845,000 227,000 375 ,000 275,000 9 ,753,000 4,269 ,,000 $13 ,0 5 7 ,0 0 0 $14 ,293 ,000 $ 8 ,0 31 ,000 $ 3,8 00 ,000 J~,169~000 5,744,000 590,000 571,000 787,000 828,000 211,000 22 7~000 $13 ,788 ,ooo $11,17 0 ,000 $ 4 ,269 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,12 6 ,000 5 266 9?000 2 23 33 2000 $(1,li00 ,000) $ '(9 3 ' 000 ,, ;ii 108 ,227 "' ~ 113 ,638 9-28-7 2 R8vis c d 1 975 -76 197 6 -77 $ 5,077,000 $ 5,3 31 ,000 2 ,960 ,000 630 ,000 . 31,00 0 15,000 i 225,000 22~,0 00 l 3,12 6,000 5,7 90,000 $11,419,000 $11,991 ,000 $ 1,044 ,000 $ 583,000 1,578 ,ooo 1,577 ,,000 554 ,000 5 36 ,ooo 1,081,000 1,1 23 ,000 1237 2 2000 265 20 00 $ 5 ,629 ,0 00 $ 4 ,o 84 ,ooo $ 5 ,7 90 ,000 $ 7,907 ,000 221 88 20 00 2,285 2000 $ 3 ,602 ,,0 00 $ 5 ,622 ,000 $ 119,3 2 1 $ 1 2 5 ,287 ,, Desc rip t ion REVENUE Tax Reve nue (at current tax rat e of $.4 254) Other Revenue Fede r a l & State Partici pation Joint Works Projects District Projects Sale of Capacity Ri ghts Misce ll aneous Carry -Ov er from Previ ous F iscal Ye ar TOTA L FUNDS AVAILAB LE EX PENDITURES District Co n s t r uction S h are of Joint Works Construc t ion Bo nd Retirement & Interest Share of Joint Operating District Op erating & Other Exp e nd itur e s TOTAL EXPENDITURES Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Ye a r Less : Necessary Reserve for Fol lowing Year Dry Period Fund Bal ance or (Deficit) One cent on tax rate will raise ~ COUNTY SAN I TATI ON DISTRICT NO . 2 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FI SCAL YEARS 1972 -73 THROUG H 1976 -77 197 2 -73 $ 4,364,00 0 2 ,556 ,000 758 ,000 61 8 ,000 10 , 720 ,000 $1 9 ,016 ,000 $ 4 ,654 ,ooo 3 ,03 4,ooo 612 ,000 767 ,000 196 2.000 $ 9,263,000 $ 9 ,753 ,000 7,0702000 $ 2 ,683,000 $ 102 ,585 1973 -74 $ 4 ,605 ,00 0 •! 2,165 ,000 845 ,000 37 5 ,000 9 i J53 ,000 $17,743 ,000 $ 8 ,03 1 ,000 4,338,ooo 590,000 787 ,000 211 2.000 $13,957,000 $ 3 ,786 ,000 724932000 $(3 ,707,000) $ 108 ,227 1974-75 $ 4,83'5 ,000 5 ,947 ,000 227 ,000 275,000 3 ,786 ,000 $15 ,070 ,000 $ 3,800 ,000 9 ,391,000 57 1,000 828 ,00 0 227 2000 $14 ,817 ,000 $ 253 ,000 7 2 034,ooo $(6 ,78 1 ,000) $ 113,638 1 975 -76 $ 5,077,000 8 ,278 ,000 31,000 225,000 253~0 0 0 $13 ,864 ,ooo $ 1,044 ,000 l 0 ,980 ,00 0 554 ,000 1,08 1,000 l.?3 72 200 0 $1 5 ,031,000 $(1,167 ,000) 5 ,320 2 000 $(6 ,487 ,000) $ 11 9 ,321 7 -28 -72 Revised 1976 -77 $ 5,331,000 6 ,898 ,000 15 ,000 22 5 ,000 (1,167 ,000 ) $11,302 ,000 $ 58 3,000 7 ,841 ,000 536 ,000 1,256 ,000 265 2000 $1 0 ,481 ,000 $ 82 1,000 2 ,285,000 $(1 ,464 ,000) $ 125,287 " COUNTY SANITATION DISTRIC T NO. 2 / July 17, 1972 Revised REVISED SCHEDULE OF DISTRI CT CO NSTRUCTION PROJECTS (A) Project Total Upstream Dist. No. 2 1970/71/72 Santa An a Ri v er Inter- cepto r (Plan t No. 1 to Ka tella Ave nue) 184 .M GD Santa Ana River Inter- cepto r (Kate lla Av e . to Rivers ide F r eewa y ) and Ro bert F . Finnell River Crossing Santa Ana Ri v er I nter - cepto r (Riverside Free - way to near County line) Wate r Reclamation Plant Yorb a Linda Pump Station and F orc e Main Palm Ave nue Interceptor Carbon Cany on Interceptor South Santa Ar.a River Intercep t o r Kraeme r Inte rceptor Carbon Can y on Dam Interc e ptor Orchard Int erceptor Richfi e ld Interc e ptor Other Sm all Proj e cts · NO TES : $ 8 ,450 ,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 5,850,000 3,200,000 5,900 ,000 8 ,500,oo"o 793,000 394,ooo 1,478,000 745,000 323,000 549,000 178 ,ooo 380,000 1,200 ,000 2,000,000 3,700,000 2,200,000 5,1 00 ,ooo(B) 3,400,000 J 793,000 394,ooo 1,478,000 745,000 323,000 549,000 17 8 ,ooo 380,000 204,ooo 204,ooo $31 ,094,ooo ~600 2 000 $18 2494,ooo (A) Cost s include engineering and contingencies (B ) Demine r a l izatio n Fa cilitie s to be constructed b y Orange Co u n t y Wat er Dis trict $303,000 7 9 ,000 $38 22000 1972 -73 1973-74 1974-75 $2,797,000 $2 ,750,000 500,000 1,500,000 1,100,000 $i,100,ooo 396,000 197,000 739,000 1,000,000 397,000 197,000 739,000 323,000 2,400,000 275,000 1975-76 $ 745,000 274,ooo 1976 -77 $178 ,ooo 380,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25 ;0 00 $4,654,ooo $8,031,000 $3 2 800 2 000 $1,044,ooo $5 8 3,00 0 DISTRICT 2 -12/20/72 MEETING Report of staff -FAH referred to Don Martinson, District's engineer. Don Martinson reported that there were basically two major trunk systems in the District -the Edinger and Newhope-Placentia trunks, and the Newhope-Placentia trunk was running full, almost at designed capacity. Potential growth is greatly in excess of designed sewer. Calculated potential flow is 140 MGD compared to capacity of 48 MGD . If Edison areas are annexed, will add 30 MGD more or 170 MGD . 1971 Report lays out trunk sewers to carry flows and defer different flows for Newport-Placentia trunk. Estimated cost for all of these facilities is about $18 million, spread over 5-year construction program. FAH: Stated that 'in addition to $18 million for expansion of District's facilities, have a vigorous program of improving treatment at two treatment plants. State & federal grant programs assist the Districts in improving treatment works. Under new a mendments to Water Pollution Control Act, interceptor sewers and some collection systems are eligible. We were denied funds on our portion of the Santa Ana River Interceptor. We have just been asked by State Board if we could stage some of the work programmed for 1972 fiscal year in order to cut back on some of the funds set aside for us. President has not released more than 50% of the funds. 1¢ added to tax rate in District now will raise $102 ,000. Current tax rate $.425 . This District will receive $2 ~1/2 million from state and federal funds; $3 million .for joint wo rks construction. FAH further reviewed financial requirements and explained cash flow statements. Also said that if Ocean Plan meets EPA's requirements, the District will be faced with a deficit of $1.4 million next year. District can borrow for two-year period but this will not get the job done. Problem is the funding of the program. Board has lo oked at several methods of funding: (1) Raise taxes (2) Pass a bond issue (3) Establish connection charge on new construction (4) Not build facilities. The suggested charges in the proposed ordinance for connections to single family dwellings are $50 per dwelling unit, for multiple family dwellings $125, for commercial, industrial, etc . are based on size of sewer, running from $50 to $300. Mr. Harper explained reasons for different charges. Based on 1971 permits issued within District,will generate approximately $600 ,00 0 per year. This would make it possible to proceed without increase in tax rate. Anticipated deficit of $1.4 million next year could be greater if federal government does not accept State's plan. Smith asked if this proposal was adopted, how long would deficit last? FAH answered that if federal and state people continue as they have , and District has connection charge and if construction continues at same rate, could lower tax rate in a few years. Winn asked about connection::charges ·for City of LA and Nisson read a list of various types of connection charges. Herrin asked if this was a one-time charge and was answered, yes. FAH mentioned that Districts 5 and 7 have connection charges, and reviewed the history of the Districts leading up to connection charges. Smith asked to have a little better explanation regarding the differences in charges. p. 2 Don Martinson explained that based o n Boyle's study, multiple family dwellings have more sewage and pay less for their share in the District's sewer. In comparing multiple and single family dwellings with regard to assessed valuation compared to amount of flow coming out, 'there is a 3:1 inequity. Culver moved to receive and file communications .attached to agenda. motion was seconded and carried. 7th communication was read from City of Placentia as it was hand delivered and not attached to agenda. Winn stated that Villa Park, at their council meeting, supported the proposed charges. Fox then said that the communications received were not actually in opposition but asking for postponement. Finnell then summarized what each particular communication stated . -----(City of Garden Grove) Stated that their request is sub- stantially for postponement and for submission of information on which they .could participate in the public hearing that they were invited to . Said we are not directly in sewage business and believe funding is of ·~ federal concern. non't have any information to participate in discussion. Need information in order to make reasonable judgement , which leads to the request for postponement. Smith asked if they received communication regarding public hearing notice and if they contacted the staff. Was answered , yes, on December 5th took action requesting postponement a n d request was in the mail on December 8th. Assumed that their Council's request for input would stimulate some response. Finnell asked if the City of Garden Grove received the letter last July~ and was answered, yes, and participated in work session . Finnell then stated that the City has had six months to secure data. City answered that they could no t get any additional data . Smith asked what sp ec ific data they wanted anctwas answered that they needed information that would help them to decide on one of the alternatives. Could perceive that the District has to have the bonds but can't tell whether it would be beneficial one way or the other . Bob Main (Garden Grove San. Dist .) Stated he also attended July meeting and received a form with some glaring errors in it. Were told that new facts and figures would be sent to all of them and they could discuss it again . However, did write a letter and have been conferring with Mr. Rafanovic . Sent letter to Board wi t h copies to all Board members but did not receive any information . The packet they received was a rehash of July meeting . Did not receive any cash flow statements . Were specific in letter & asked for densities, etc . Smith said that these points were brought before the Board and the Special Committee was appointed to consider these points and that was what the committee did. We went back to the Board and the Board recommended this. (G. G. San. Dist . .) Stated they received some material a few ~-----,,-days ago but did not get what they needed. Smith said that whatever information he got , he turned over to the staff and all information is available . p. 3 Barbara Ferguson stated that from the information she could get, connection charges were descriminatory against new builders. New builders in new areas are going to get zonked. Need 30 days more to do more research. Smith said Board has felt it is important to move along as Committee already took much longer than it had anticipated. As far as new areas are concerned, majority are in Anaheim, Orange and Yorba Linda. Don Martinson stated that development was spread uniformly throughout the District. Castro said City of Yorba Linda studied the figures and instructed him to vote in favor of this resolution (ordinance). With regard to Mr. Ma~n's question on the alternatives, question was asked if he was asking how the figures .were obtained or whether he is opposed to the figures. Main answered, yes, opposed. Data we wanted is what the densities were and how the District arrived at the need to spend this money and what , the cost is of bring this in. Will you be back again next year needing more? Said He was in the building business so maybe a little .,, more sensitive to fees. Questioned Santa Ana River Interceptor contract which was $6 million in July and now was $7-1/2 million. Smith stated that assuming development will continue as it has, figures are based on continuation and averaging out the increase over the last few years. FAH: Re $6 to $7-1/2 million change, pipe size was increased. Bid job for three pipe sizes not knowing about upstream agencies. Recommended pipe size was awarded. Don Martinson L'eported that increase from 72" to 84" pipe size more than doubled the capacity. There was no change in the March 1971 Master Plan. Mr. Harper added that if Board had not decided to do that, in a few years would have been faced with putting another line in to relieve the system. Bob Perry (Garden Grove San. Dist.) Said that with some fancy footwork Board had been overlooking question directly asked for--Why didn't we receive information? Your · answer was to directly contact the staff. Unless we know somebody, we can't seem to get it. Letter from Garden Grove Sanitary District was sent to District. Culver said that package from District was not pertinent information. Board was looking for more than received. Culver moved to continue hearing and Fox seconded the motion. Smith stated that there still were some that wanted to talk. Herrin asked if all City Councils and Sanitary Districts received the same information and did anything else go to anyone else? Smith answered they all received the same. p. Ll Herrin didn't know what else his council would want but realized that Garden Grove had some more problems than Santa Ana . Alt ernatives had been covered and wondered what other information could be furnished. : Stated that he served on the Special Com.mittee and gave -----long and diligent study to all of the input that came to us recognizing that it wasn't going to be possible to come up with a formula satisfactory to everybody and giving everyone equal treatment. Feel that out of all the input that we had every member diligently evaluated in his mind and gave a great amount of time and discussion, and Norm Culver certainly expressed your points of view which were considered, and the majority of the Committee felt that this was a fair and equitable kind of a formula. Just stated that his city council went on record in joining in asking for continuance. Don't feel that the question is so much as to the issue at stake but is an issue of timing. Feel that people who requested continuance of time have varied reasons for asking because of time of year. Winn ·made a substitutemotion to have a brief recess to review with the delegation from Garden Grove, the cash flow figures and have the Director of Finance answer any questions they might have . Herrin seconded the motion. Just questioned whether a 10-minute recess wou ld be adequate to review the figures and whether they would still be in a position to take action. There was a vote on calling a recess by show of hands and the motion passed 7:3·. Recessed from 8 :36 to 8:58 p.m. John Reilly (Disneyland) Stated that he came down out of curiosity. Really haven't very much comment one way or the other. Bill Gair (Disneyland) Asked how sewer with a proposed capacity of 140 million gallon ·per day compares with Treatment Plant capacity? FAH. answered that Treatment Plant was built in modular units and we are projecting eventually for a 1/2 billion gallons per day capacity at the two treatment plants. Current capacit~ is 160 million on an average basis. Expanding from 12 to 15 million gallons per year. Eventual flow anticipated to be 500 million gallons. Within five years ~ill be 200 million gallon capacity. Bressel Several objections to the ordinance. One of the main concerns is that areas in Garden Grove Sanitary District have been in District since inception. Have paid taxes to the District whether developed or not. Have been paying bonded indebtedness as well as for capacity. Now have to pay this extra fee. What happened to the money they have been paying before? Seems unfair to take their money without their consent in taxation without giving them any service for it. Should not have to pay for operation of this system. Regarding fee schedule, does seem to be unfair, particularly in the areas that have been in the District . LA is a completely different situation. We have made studies of that also and you will notice that their fees are based on effluent and use of capacity. We have taken meter readings and we know what the big users of the sewer lines are. They are not apartment users at all. Tests based on peak flow. Different in each type of building. Smith says don't want to take attitude that wili stop development. Will stop development by one fee too many. One other thing--feel strong on subject and want t.o speak if I feel I am right. Not in the building business, but apparently is a critical need for sewers. Haven't had time to dispute any of the figures. Seems to me that pressure should be put on the Supervisors to advocate funds to County Sanitation Districts. No one at meet ing of Supervisors asked for money for CSD's . Took it upon myself to ask for Sanitation Districts and District 3. Will have to have p. ? bond issue anyway but can muddy waters up so won't pass a bond issue. Smith stated that we have to charge the same whether in or out of the District. Because we have the joint system the Districts' savings with the · Upper Basin was $3.7 million on ·the line. Districts try to save money whenever they can. Finnell said that ~egardin g Supervisors public "hearin~, County ruling by Mr. Thompson was that federal revenue sharing funds could not be allocated to Sanitation Districts because of law and that was why he did not appear as ·Joint Chairman from the Sanitation Districts at meeting. FAH said that we certainly appreciated Mr. Bressel's commenting to the Supervisors. Said that what Mr. Thompson was probably referring to was that we have our hand in the federal till already and feel that we get money out of one part of the treasurery and use that as backup money for local agencies to get some mo re federal funds. Do receive some $5 or $6 million or more from federal funds. That is why ·they didn't feel they could receive more funds. Finnell asked if the Garden Grove Sanitary District had a connection charge and was answered, yes. (G.G. San. Dist.) Property in Sanitary District is by choice. =-----They annex and at that time start paying taxes, but have been paying taxes to the County Sanitation Districts. Question was asked if there was any thought to forming ano ther District besides Districts 2 and 3. Also was there any study made to that effect? FAR answered yes, another District could be formed out there. : Stated that he noticed that District were carrying an ---~ annexation for five years and wondered why, if we were hard up for money, or if there was a reasonfor this? Was answered that reason for 5% figure is that developer is bringing in large area that will be on tax rolls for a year and development will not be done for a substantial amount of time. Comment was made that it is understood that they will start paying taxes but money will go to improving treatment facilities and to support whole operation. Is that right? FAR answered that yes, connection charges could help fund the joint works and reviewed wh~t was spent on the treatment works in the past and what will happen in the future. Question asked if fees are annually reviewed? and comment made that review of fees would only go one way. Not fair to compare with LA because don't know their problems. It was then asked if .increase in pipe size was to take care of District, or outside of District, or when Chino Basin came in? Mr. Harp er reviewed r epo rt of engineers and r easons for increasing pipe ~ize. Primary r eason for working with up str eam area is to try to improve water qua lity. p. 6 -...,....,.-,.---: Said that the one that has been paying taxes all along is getting a hidden tax actually in this new fee. Because he hasn't used it butrnw decides to move in, new person is paying a tax that no one else has ever had to pay and they . are enjoying just as many benefits. Just because they came here later are being penalized. Finnell stated that most of the arguments that are being raised tonight have been raised in the past meetings by Norm Culver and Board has heard.these arguments before. Smith asked for motion to close the hearing. · Winn moved to do so and Phillips seconded the motion. Nevil stated that La Habra had not taken an official position but felt that due to the requests, it would be logical to continue the hearing for at least 30 days but not beyond that. Moved an amendment to the motion to not close the hearing .but to continue it to not more than 30 days. There was some discussion on whether the time would be a problem and how much the delay would cost the Districts. FAH mentioned that if the Board did decide to continue the hearing, would like to have the staff authorized to continue to work with cities on collection agreements in the event the ordinance is adopted at ·a later date. Nevil then restated the motion to continue the public hearing to January 17th at 7:30 p.m. and that the staff be authorized to make preliminary preparations and work with the cities on collection agreements in the event the ordinance iB adopted. A roll call vote on continuance of the hearing was taken and the motion carried (6:5) #5 -Annexation No. 6 Nisson stated that he hadn't had a chance to look at the agreement and recommended that approval of it be subject to his approval. Amendment to motion regarding approval of annexation agre ement was made. It was moved that "subject to General Counsel's approval" be added to motion. Motion was seconded and carried. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING December 20, 1972 -7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 13, 1972, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the District offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Smith (Chairman), Rudy Castro, Norman Culver, Robert Finnell, Don Fox, Wade Herrin, Edward Just, Robert Nevil, William Phillips, Robert Root and Donald Winn Mark Stephenson Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, and Rita Brown C. Arthur Nisson, Conrad Hohener, Donald Martinson, James Barisic, Richard O. Rafanovic, Barbara Ferguson, Robert Main, Bob Perry, Walter Bressel, John R. Reilly and William N. Gair * * * * * * * * * Public hearing re proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203 Uniform Connection and Use Open Public Hearing -The Chairman declared the public hearing open on proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 202. Review of Master Plan Finanhial Reauirements -The General Manager summarized the master plan for the construction of needed interceptor sewers to provide the communities with~n the District with proper sewerage facilities. The facilities are based on the land use plans developed by the local communities and will require a capital expenditure of approximately $18 million during the five-year period of 1972/73 through 1976/77. He then reviewed the cash flow projections which indicate that District No. 2 will have to raise an additional $1.4 million in revenue before the end of fiscal year 1973/74 to meet their anticipated funding requirements. Alternative methods of proceeding are: a. Not build the facilities. There would then be restrictions on new connections in ffiany areas of the district. b. Raise the tax rate to finance the program. c. Pass a bond issue which all taxpayers would pay for during the next 20 years. d. Es~a~lish connection charges for new construction throughout the district. #2 12/20/72 Review of Proposed Connection Fees -Chairman Smith then reported on the activities of the Special Committee on Annexation and Connection Fee Policy, during which Mr. Martinson of Lowry and Associates, District'£ consulting engineers, reviewed the relationship between flows generated ... · .t by single family dwellings and multiple family dwelling~ and their respective assessed valuations. The committee has considered the matter of connection charges for the District and recommends the "1111 following: Single Family Dwellings - A basic connection fee of $50.00 per single family dwelling unit. It is recommended that the single family dwellings be charged the minimum fee in that the District's sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of general development. Multiple Dwellings - A fee of $125.00 per multiple dwelling unit. The type of densities which are accompanied by development of apartments places an unusual demand on the sewer system when compared to a single family development, when the relationship of assessed valuation and sewage flow generated by the respective types of units is considered. Commercial and Industrial Buildings -For commercial, industrial and public buildings, a charge of $50.00 for a six-inch building sewer connection increasing, to $300.00 for a twelve-inch building sewer connection. These charges are nominal as the connections are subject to an excess capacity c9nnection charge based on the actual use of sewerage facilities. Written Communications -The Secretary reported that six written Communications on proposed Ordinance No. 203 had been received, three of which were received and filed by the .Board at their regular meeting on December 13, 1972. He then read a communication received from the City of Placentia dated December 7, 1972, stating the support of the City Council for adoption of the proposed ordinance. The Secretary reported that two of the communications received favor adoption of the proposed connection fee ordinance, and five of the communications requested postponement of the hearing due to the holiday season. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried that the communications from the City of Orange dated December 13, 1972; the Orange Chamber of Commerce dated December 14, 1972; the West Orange County Board of Realtors dated December 15, 1972; and the City of Placentia dated December 7, 1972, in connection with proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, be received and ordered filed. Oral Communications -The chair then recognized Walter Bressel, Robert Main, and Bob Perry of the Garden Grove Sanitary District; Richard O. Rafanovic of the City of Garden Grove; and Barbara Ferguson, who each addressed the Board in connection with the proposed ordinance. Following a general discussion, it was moved and seconded that the hearing be continued to a later date. The board then entered into a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed connection charges during which representatives of the Garden Grove Sanitary District requested additional information concerning t~e proposed fees. -2-· -... #2 12/20/72 Recess -The Chairman then declared a ten minute recess and directed the staff and engineers to meet with representatives of the Garden Grove Sanitary District regarding the information which they had requested. Reconvene -At 8:58 p.m. the Board reconvened in regular session. Continuing Public Hearing to January 17, 1973 -Following the recess a substitute motion was then moved and seconded to close the public hearing on proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202. The board then entered into a brief discussion during which several of the Director's stated that their respective councils had not yet had an opportunity to formally consider the proposed connection charges. An amendment to the substitute motion to continue the public hearing on proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202, to January 17, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., was then moved, seconded and carried by a roll call vote. IT WAS FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be authorized to conduct preliminary discussions with the cities within the District regarding agreements for implementing connection fees in the event the Board adopts a connection charge ordinance. Ordering annexation of territory to the District (Annexation No. 6) Following a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-167-2, ordering annexation of approximately 1,337.24 acres of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 to County Sanitation District No. 2), subject to approval by the General Counsel. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Approval of warrants Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the District's Operating Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay the following: Number Payee Amount 19429 State of California, Board of Equalization $350.00 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:47 p.m., December 20, 1972. ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 -3-