Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-01-03. I I -,, .BO A RUi S OF OE<E CTO ~S Co unty Sanita t ion Districts of O ra n~e Coun ty, Ca lifo rn ia DIST RIC T No. P. 0. Box 81 2 7 10 844 Ellis Aven ue Fountain Val le y, Cal i F., 927 08 Prelimi n a ry A G E N D A 1 2/29/7 2 (1). Rol l Ca ll Adj 9urne d Regul a r Meet i ng J a n uary 3 , 1 9 73 -7:30 p .m. (2 ) Appo i ntment o f Chai r ma n pro te rn, if n ecessary (3) Pu b li c Hear ing r e p r opo se d s e we r c onn ec t ion Ordinance No . 30 3 , ame n ding Uniform Connect i o n a nd Use Ord ina n ce No . 302 (a ) Op e n public h earing (b) Re port of staf f o n Dis t rict 's fin a ncia l r e quir e rn e nt5 . See page 11 A 11 (c) Re p or t of En g ine er re S tudy of Poss i b l e Re v enu e Derive d f r om Con ne ct i o n Ch a rge s . Se e pa ge 11 B11 (d) Wri tt en cor..m unicati o ns r ece ive d . Sec page (e ) Oral st atE me nts f r om those in att e n da nce (f) Cl ose pub l ic h earing 11 ,.. II v (4) Co n s iderat i o n of Or d i nance No . 303 , an ord ina nce ame ndi~g Uniform Conne c t ion and Us e Ordi n a nc e No . 302 (5 ) Con s ide rat i o n o f motion to r e c e ive a nd fil e l et t e r fr o n1 Ci t y o f West minste r, dated Decembe r 2 8 , 19 72 , a p p r ovi ng a wa rd of c on t~ac t f o r Bo l sa Rel:i.e f Trunk Se\·1er , Reach 10, Co n trac t No . 3-17 -1 f or Count y Sanitation Di stri ct No . 3 and Bolsa Av e nue Storm Drain for the Ci ty of We s tmi nster , t o the l ow bidder , Mc Gui r e Co nst ruc t i on , Inc . (Co py in Dir e ct o rs ' mee ting fold e rs ) ( 6 ) Co nsj.d e r ation o f Res oluti o n No . 72-164 -3 , to r ece i ve a n d fi le bid tabu :!.atlon a nd r ecomm e ndat i o n, a n d a.Nard. contrac t for Bo l s a Relief Trunk Sewe r , Rea c h 10 } Co nt r act No . 3-1 7 -1 fo r Co unty Sanitatio n Di st ric t No . 3 and Bo l s a Avenue Storm Dr a in for t he City o f Wes tmins ter , t o M c G ~i re Cons tr uct i on , Inc . in t h e a mo unt o f $3 82 ,IH4 .00 . See p age s 11 n 11 a n d "S " ( 7) Ot h e r business a n d c on unu n i ca tions , i f a ny (8 ) Co n s i deration o f mo tion to ad journ ... "" ( ,, I Rr, '" rH''>f: -'""' r-rt.··~r!''" .. 7011').f' ... v ,~ir .. v,z. ~~ !.\ ... 11 . .,.11»·-1.. 11 :!'>~ I Coun ty SeziitaHon Di stricts P. 0 . Box 8127 108h4 t:!lis lwen'.!f";) Fountcin \'clley, C al iF., 927C8 o f Orange Co t1!1t y 1 California I -11 (1) (2) (3) FllE ...... --- lETTER - A/C •••. TKlR - (4) FILE ....... ,.. ..... £5 ) $ LETTER ... __._N\ \."" A/C .... TKLR - ?.,<\~ .. Y- FILE ' .............. ~.6) ____, ~ ~~m~ ..... -.V-"' A/C .... TKlR .... ['/\ \ S Roll Call 3 _ Adj ourned Re g ul a r Meet ing J anuary 3, 1973 -7:30 p .m. Final Appointment o f Chairman pro tern, if necessary AGENDA 1/3/73 ADJOURN MENTS POSTED • .: COMP & MILEAGE ..... ':::'.".: ... . FIL ES SET UP ..................... . RES OLuTIONS CER TI FI ED .. V LETIERS VJP.ITTEN ..... .k":' .... MINUTES WRITIEN .... .v.:'.'.: •• MINU TES mrn ....... ~ ... . Public Hearing r e propo sed sewer conne ction Ordinance No . 303, amending Uniform Conne ct j.on and Use Ordinance No . 30 2 (a) Open public hearin g ~ Re port of staff on District 's financial requir ements . See page 1f A 11 -......._ "<_g_l) Report of Enginee r re S tudy of Possible Revenue Derived from Connection Char ges . See page __ '.'B~-- (d) Hritten communications received. See page "C" @ Ora l statement s f rom those in attendance (f) Close public h ear ing Consideration of Ordinance No . 303 , an ordinan c e amend.irlg Uniform Connec tion and Us e Ordinanc e No . 302 Consideration of mo ti on to re c e ive and file letter from City of Westminster , dated December 28, 1972, ap proving award of contract for Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer ~ Rea c h 1 0, Contract No . 3-17-1 for Coun~y Sanitation District No . 3 and Balsa Avenue Storm Drain fo r the City of We stminster , to the low bidder, McGu ire Construction, Inc . (Copy :i .. n Directors ' meeting folders) Consideration of Resolution No. 72-164-3, to receive and f ile bid tabulation and recommendation > and av;ard contract fo r Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer , Reach 10 , Contract No . 3-17-1 for County Sanitation District No . 3 and Balsa Avenue Storm Dr a in f'or the City of Westminster , to .McGuire Construction , Inc . in th e a mount of $382,414 .00 . See p ages 11 D11 and __ nE1 1 __ ~ Other busin e ss and c:onlffiunic.atj_ons~ if any (8) Considera t ion of motion to adjo u rn q -.o l.Q STAl£ OF \:Al!f0~~1A.-1HE P.ESOU::CES AGENCY r STATE V/ATER RESOURCES CC. [P.OL BOARD 2e>pM 1015, F:ESCt:i:CES WILDING \°"J6 NINTH STUCT • SACP..AIAENTO 9581.C ·. \ .. October 20, 1972 Mr. Robert F. Finnell Joint Cbair~an, Board of Directors Coun"bJ Sa.nitation Districts of OraJ1GC County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Finnell: . . Pursuant to your rcq_uest ~ i.·m have reviewed your "Project Report lJo ~ 1 ~or 1972-73 Joint WoI"ks Improver.ents and Additions 11 to·sce if your :r;roposal appears to coincide with the Stnte Board's intent for i!:lnlc:nentation of the Ocean Plar1. Your project report ind1.ca~es that 46 !!1gd of secondo..:ry trcat:r:ent will be nroviclcd at trcatncnt ulnnt i!o. i" and ir:rnroved treatment '.'!ill be added as i1ecded at treo.t;Jenl-;· nl~-rit lfo. 2. You also indicate the availability of your"'" source control ·ordine11ce for liI2i ti:r:g constituents which carmot be re:noved at the treatment plants. The general approach of staged improvecent at trcatr~ent plant Ho. 2 fC?r ~eeting ·,.;ater q_uc.ili t--:y objectives and nini- mum effluent rcq_uirc:-:-.cnts ('I'c:..blc 13) do es appear to be in confon.1ance with our intent for providi..."'lg necess2..ry '.-Jaste trcatr:1ent at a minim.wn cost. To firm up your in.tent to comply t·:ith the Ocean Pla.."l, ·..:e feel it is necessar-J for the -district to provide us \·1i th a resolutio~ co~i ttir,.g you to the staged· ir1pi ... ove::::ent plan at tree.trGent pl ant . ·· No. 2 and to the t1iliGent e!lf orcement of ~lour source control ordin8Ilce to achieve the objectives of the Ocecn Plan. --These conLrr'.ents are based on the cxnectation that the State Board 1 s Water Qucli ty Control PlcL"1-for Ocean ·waters of California. \·!ill satisfy the federal ocean wastewater dis- charGe rcquirenents. Sincerely, _lrJ;_rc/-,r:&~ W. W. Ad~:..:13 Chair~an Agenda Item #3(b) .. c A-1 .. District 3 ( COUNTY ~.l\NITAlTOl~ DIS 1rRICT NO. 3 STATEMENT OF \ JJECTED C~SH FLOW ASSUMES CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I SECONDARY TREATMENT ONLY FISCAL· YEARS 1972-73 THROUGH 1976-77 > i f,) Description T~1x I\(•venue (at current tax rate of $. 4740) · Other Revenue Federal & State Participation Joi;~ Works Projects District Projects Sale of Capacity Rights f·1iscellaneous Cnrry-Over from Previous Fiscal Year TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE Di.stri~.t Construction ;_>c.:re of Jo:tnt Works Construction Bond R0tirernent & Interest ·share of Joint Operating ~ District Operatin~ & Other Expenditures (,) q TOTAL EXPENI;ITURES r-'· 0 ~-·1· _•) G:J.:-·1·y-Over to Fol lowing Fiscal Year Less: Necessary Reserve for Following Year Dry Period :"·~~:1J. !').::.lane e or (Deficit) 1972-·7 3 $ 5,661,000 2,735,000 192,000 177,000 721,000 11,821,000 $21,307,000 $ 8,949,000 3,247,000 858,000 792,000 382,000 $14,228,000 $ 7,079,000 7,043,000 cl. 36,000 -~) $ 119'1110 1973-711 1974-75 $ 5,944,000 $ 6,211,000 . 2,655,000 5,018,000 182,000 1,000 1,000 220,000 150,000 7,079,000 2,201,000 $16,081,000 $13,581,000 $ 7,478,ooo $ 5,952,000 4,464,ooo 6,149,000 827,000 797,000 812 ,.000 855,000 299,000 319,000 $13,880,GOO $14,072,000 $ 2,201,000 $ (491,000) 7,135,000 4,242,000 $(4,934,000) $(4,733,000) <.'- -+:> 12:5 ']81 $ 131,381 ( 1975-76 $ 6,491,000 3,169,000 566,000 150,000 (491,000) $ 9,885,000 $ 4,383,000 1,689,000 777,000 1,116,000 341,000 $ 8,306,000 $(1,579,000) 2,873,000 $(4,452,000) $ 136,919 9-23-'{ ~?. I Revised ... 1976-77 $ 6,78],0CO 675,000 15,000 151,000 (1,579,000) $ 6,044,000 $ J.,470,000 1,G88,GOO 756,000 1,158,ooo 365,000 $ 5,437,000 $ 607,000 2,522,000 $(1,915,000) $ 143~0SG '. J I \ December 29, 1972 . . .. ;• ... COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL \ \ Study of Possible Revenue Derived from Connection Charges Revenue would be derived from charges made for the connection to the district's sewerage facilities from primarily new construction of single-family and multiple-family dwelling units and commercial and industrial units. In order to determine how long new connections might be made and, subsequently, how much revenue might be generated by the levy of a connection charge, information con- taining tbe number of building permits issued in 1971 for the various classifications . was gathered for ~ach city and the number falling ~ithin the district's boundaries estimated. The infonnation on bl}ilding pennits issued in 1971 for single-family , ·-/ and multiple-family dwelling units was obtained from the "Orange County Progress Report, Volume 9 •11 This information is tabulated in Table I. Information _on com- ·- mercial and industria I bui I ding perm its issued in 1971 was obtained from materia I collected for a similar study done for District No.· 2 and from the bui I ding depart- ments of the various cities. This information is listed in Table II. The estimated revenue which could be generated from various connection charges for single-family and multiple-family dwelling units is: - / Agenda Item #3(c) B-1 District 3 . . .. :• ... Connect ion Charge - Per Unit Single Family Multiple Family Total $ 50 $ 210,000 $ 282,000 $ 492,000 100 420,000 565,000 985,000 -\ 150 630,000 847,000 1,477,000 200 840,000 1,130,000 1,970,000 250 1,050,000 1,412,000 2,462,000 Revenue which might be collected by the proposed connection fees in District No. 3, based on 1971 building figures, is as fo flows: .... Class i fi cat i·on Single Family Multiple Family Commerc ia I/I ndustria I J Units 4,195 5,645 337 - ) t /Charge Total $ 50 $210,000 J 125 706,000 100 34,000 TOTAL $950,000 The proposed charge for commercial and industrial connections varies from $50 to $300 .. per connection, depending on the size of lateral sewer. An average charge of $100 per connection was used. \ r / Agenda Item #3(c) B-2 District 3 I TABLE I . . .. :• .. ' . BUILDING PERMITS FOR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 1971 Singf e Multiple Estimated in 9-!l. Famify . Family · Total District No. 3 Anaheim 950 1,346 2,296. 1,296 Brea 272 8 280 130 Buena Park 72 252 324 324 Cypress 499 655 1, 154 1, 154 Fountain Valley 1,560 48 1,608 1,208 Fullerton 244 1,273 1,517 817 Garden Grove 193 675 868 468 Huntington Beach 1,483 2,347 3,830 1,320 La Habra 62 734 796 496 La Palma . 241 404 645 645 Los Alamitos 9 66 75 75 Seal Beach 242 60 302 302 Stanton 473 540 1,013 1,013 ~ Westminster 222 370 592 592 TOTAL 6,522 8,778 15,300 9,840 Total units estimated in District No. 3 4, 195 5,645 9,840 Agenda Item #3(c) B-3 District 3 . . . . :• ... TABLE II BUILDING PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 1971 Estimated in 9.!l_ C~mmercial Industrial Total District No. 3 Anaheim 97 38 135 76 Brea 5 2 7 3 Buena Park 36 15 51 51 Cypress 10 11 11 Fountain Valley 17 6 23 17 Fullerton 41 13 54 29 Garden Grqve ,, 18 28 46 25 Huntington Beach 40 10 50 17 La Habra 10 11 7 La Palma 4 0 4 4 Los Alamitos 11 12 12 Seal Beach 3 0 3 3 .. Stanton 7 '--7 14 14 Westminster 51 17 68 68 . TOTAL 337 Agenda Item #3(c) B-4 District 3 . . --........ . FORECASTS A plot of dwelling units authorized by building permits in Orange County and in District No. 3 from 1960 through 1971, inclusive, is shown on Plate A. The yearly average over th is 12-year period in District No. 3 is 4, 320 units for single-family dwelling and 4,208 for multiples. As can be seen from the curves, there is a wide variation in units authorized from permits issued over a period of several years. This is somewhat attributable to overbuilding and then a slacking off unti I demand has caught up with supply. However, knowledgeable people in the housing industry fee I fluctuations will not be as pronounced in the future because of slower popu lotion growth in the county and fairly tight money conditions • . Several lending institution economists have predicted that 1972 will show a 12-1/ipercent rise over 1971 in dwelling-unit permits. They also expect 1973 new dwelling-unit permits to fall 14-1/2 percent below 1972. We have talked to several of the leading developers in the county and their expectations for 1973 are a continuing heavy demand for single-family dwellings with a drop-off in multiple- dwelling construction. Using the 12-year average perm it figure an~ the proposed connection 'charges r of $50 for a single-family dwelling unit and $125 for a multiple-family dwelling unit, a yearly average of $740,000 would be generated exclusive of commercial and industrial charges. This is $200,000 lower than the 1971 figure. Taking into account the projections for 1972 and 1973 in the averaging, it would be reasonably safe to assume that for the next few years, connection charges shou Id be able to generate be~een $700, 000 and $850, 000 per year. Agenda Item #3(c) B-5 District 3 ) cl u z< ..... Cl Ill ~:i ~z o- w"' z~ w I CJ ::J "' Q'. .... D. ~~ :r l: D. u ~z l'.l i.. zJ IJ < CJ J: ~5 ~ Q. Oa ~­oX -;o ~ M d z < 1960 Agenda Item #3(c) : ::-.: t :.:·:-: : : ~: s-:--=:: : :-: : t: :.:·: :-: :.:-i~::.: -----·-·---' ·+---+----'~··-·-·-·+-·-'-_·-..+-......J'----t-+---+----1--~--+---.;-1--+-:~_· _· :_+._· _:.:-_:_:+-::_:-::.t : :·:: : :.:.: t·: : : : ·-·-·. -·-. • .. -· .. --.. -.::t::-:::: .•.. t •••• :-:_-~-:-:-:~-::: -:_::.:!::_·:: ::::.-t~::~ ~:~:r:_~:: ~~~} ~~~~ ~~~ J~~~:~~~ -~-~:~.f:~~~ . l~-~~=-;~[~~ ~~~j~-i-~:~-~. -•' "" ......... • --·-··I. -• -·-·-!. -··- +----·· f'. --·· _..__. +---·--. :: : ::1 :::: : : ::.:: + :.:::.~ -...... ·-.r:-:-: t--:-:.:·: ::~ i:: :: •.•. I .... . . ~ -·• ·-.---._ -:-:::: i:...: ~ : : : : t:.::: :_ : =~:::::: t:: :::-t~ :_:: 1965 YEAR B-6 .. ---~ -. ·-• ---t-· . - 1970 PLATE District 3 A ORANGE BOARD OF ~ 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 . 'Exe~. Vice President I Agenda Item #3(d) 10042 Lampson I Garden Grove, California 92640 I (714) 539·9573 MEMBER OF HATIONAL ASSOOATIOH OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS I CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE ASSOOATIOH December 15, 1972 Boarri 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 number of people can attend. Very truly yours, t~ ·~~': {t-1.-v~'l.--f.--- Ann Benjamine,1 xec. Vice-President West Orange C nty Board of Realtors cc Garden Grove Sanitary District C-1 Distri2t ~ OFFICERS Chairman of the Board Carl t\ nnld Moulton :Xiguf'I W a In IJ1.~I ricl President and General .\l111uJ~···r Lucien D. lruhill Vice Chairman-JlembP.rship H.r·LJtinru B .. au Cl.-m'"n' Beau Clemt'n;: & :\,;;.oriates Vice Chairman-City Chamhns Ad1·i.-n')· ~lewarl t\oqicke McDonnell Douglas Astronautic~ Company lr1'iJsur.·r Hobert E. llan;:on Arthur Youn!! & Com~Jm Chairman Executirce Comm ill•'•' · E. II. Fir1,lt'r Boyle Enicine•·rin~ President. Sf'naton U11h • Lon Pe1·k. If Peek Family Colonial Funeral llome DIRECTORS Derrick A . ..\nd··r,-on Frank L. Hope & ..\!'-,.ocialrs Winn lfan<h· Airportrr Inn Hol1;l Roy C. Bolt K"'ik"°I ~ Donald\\'. Ho\ I··~ Airport Senire. lnroT.ora led Be.1L1 Ut·1111•11;; Beau Clemens & ..\~~1>r1Jles R. W. Clilioni Air California Edward 0. Elhi-11 Autonclic,- E. It Finster Boyle Enginri-ring Robert E: llansor.1 Arthur You~g & Cornpanv John !iJ~krll Bt>eco. Lirnitt'd H. Rodgn Howell Rutan&: Turl-;rr Fenton E. Joni-.; West Orange County ~lunitipal Court Li-on R. Jones Jones. Elliott & ..\s.,ori.ilt•s Gordon J oni-s The ln·ine Company Stewart t\ot•prkr McDonnell Douglas Astronautic~ Companv Al 1'uch Voorheis-Trindle & ~clson, lnrorporated C<1rl K\mla Moulton Ni~yel W at_l'r [h;trirt Will H. Lrnd,;ay, Jr. Conc;ul ting [11gi11t'cr John B. 'lemll. II Wyatt & \lrmll Joe ~lcCormick Em~t & Em-;t ~lt'l \tiller Bank of Arnrrira Westinghouse Elt>clric Corporation IJ.11•: l'o,;t Hrst American Title Insurance Company Jame:: I: .. 'allcr Kimbcrl).Clark Corporal11>n Hirh;ir1l .I. ~mith ~Hunt-Wes.son Food~. lnrnrporatrd Arthur\\. \\.u.•ncr Ralph C. Sutro Cnrnp.mr C. E. \\ood,; Signal Oil &: <~a:-c.,mpany William A. Wrt•n Huntington Beach Conrpany Agenda Item #3(d) ANG~ COUNTY CHAMB~R OF COMMERC~ 401 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER, THE CITY• ONE CITY BLVD. WEST, ORANG=. 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 C-2 District 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 CITY CLERK /vas Agenda Item #3(d) C-3 Dlstrj_ct 3 GARDEN GROVE fliiadett aC ~ammettee 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 Agenda Item #3(d) C-11 Sincerely, ti John Harl, Vice President Economic Development Council Chamber of Commerce District 3 RESOLUTION NO. 72-164-3 APPROVING AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 3-17-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AWARD OF BOLSA RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, REACH 10, CONTRACT NO. 3-17-1 FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 AND BOLSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN FOR THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written reco:rru~endation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Boyle Engineering, District's Consulting Civil Engineers, and concurred in by the Deputy Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to McGuire Construction, Inc. for BOLSA RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, REACH 10, CONTRACT NO. 3-17-1 FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 AND BOLSA AVENUE STORM DRAIN FOR THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, and the tabulation of bids and the proposal fer said work, ~re hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That award of contract to McGuire Construction, Inc. in the total amount of $382,414.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the successful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held January 3, 1973. Agenda Item #6 -D-District 3 .. . ' Engineer's Estimate: $372,000.08 B I D 'rABULATION S H E E T Date December 7~ 1972 Contract For: .Balsa Relief Trunk Sewer -Reach 10 Contract No. 3-17-1 and Balsa Avenue Storm Drain ~. McGuire Construction, Inc. Placentia 2~ S. S. Zarubica Sun Valley 3. ~·'iatt J. Zaich ·construction Company North Holl;~n·iood . 4. Bebek Corporation Irvine 5. K.E.C. Company Hawaiian Gardens ·6. Mi trovich, Inc. Arcadia 7. Kordick & Son, Inc. Bald1vin Park 8. Steve Kral Corporation Baldwin Park 9. 10. Agenda Item #6 -E- .... TOTAL BID $382,414.oo 392,023.08 L~ 34, 535 ~ 00 lt'l7' 352. 40 5-40,240.00 541,777.00 623,775.00 District 3 MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. Meeting Date: January 3, 1973 P. 0. Box 5175 . 10844 Ellis Ave nue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Te lephones: Aree Code 714 540-2910 962 -2411 No. 3 -Public Hearing on Proposed Sewer Connection Charge Ordinance. On Novembe:c J)J.th, all city councils, sanitary districts , chambers of commerce, and Distr:Lct discharge·permit holders within the boundaries of the District were sent notj_ces of the January 3rd public hearing on the proposed connection charge ordinance. Included with the notice was a copy of the proposed ordinance, a map of the District , and an j _nfor - mat ion .sheet entitled "Justification for Connection Charges". A reminder of the January 3rd hearing is being mailed today, Decembe1n 29_, with additional information entitled "study of Possible Revenue De rived f:com Conne ction Charges" and a District cash flow s hee t indicating the anticipated revenuea and e xpenditures for the next five years . I~o. 6 -Awar-d of Contract No . 3 -17-1 (B?lsa Relief Trunk Sewe r, Reach 10 , for Count y Sani tation District No . 3 and Eolsa Avenue Storm Drain f'or the C:Lt y of '.-,-estminster J . On December r(, 1972, the bids were opened for Contract Y o . 3-17-1. This project, which totals $382,414 , will construct a storm drain 1$223_,88 4) for the City of Wes tminster and a 33-inch sewer ($158,530) extending from Newland to Magnol ia in Bo lsa Avenue within the City. The engineers' estimate for the Distrj_ct's portion of the work ':ms $163,000. We have received authorization from the City of Westminster to award the contract and it is the staff's recommendation that the contract be awarded to McGuire Construction, Inc., in the runount of $382,414 . FAH :j Fred A. Harper General Manager .. -~~4~~=--(!J:ity nf B.estmiust.er Agenda Item No_S...__ ., .. . i rF' • •. /. CIVIC CENTER 8200 WESTMINSTER AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714 CODE 893-4511 December 28, 1972 Orange County Sanitation District No. 3 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Mr. Ray Lewis Gentlewen: On December 27, 1972, the Westminster City Council approved .the bids for the joint sewer and storm drain project on Bolsa Avenue between Magnolia and Newland Streets and authorized award of the contract to McGuire Construction Company. The city will reimburse the sanitation district for its portion of the work as itemized in the bids. Please proceed with the contract and be assured the City of Westminster will assist in any way possible during the course of construction. WLC/h Sincerely yours, CITY OF WESTMINSTER .. ? /7 µ.t-~ . .._/ ·c,(' f..·i:&t-~~1__1'~ .'' "-. Warren L. Cavanagh / Assistant City Administrator Agenda Item No. 3 <c.) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO. 3 AND NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY Study of Relationship Between the Assessed Valuation and Generated Sewage Flow of Various Land-Use Classifications within County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 7 OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between the assessed valuation and sewage flow for different land-use classifications and to com- pare the results on a unit basis. These comparisons are considered important in view of the district1 s proposed connection charge program for financing capita I improve- ments. At the present time, most of the revenue for construction, operation, and maintenance of sewerage facilities is derived from the ad valorem property tax. GENERAL In the master plan reports of trunk sewer facilities for both Districts Nos. 3 and 7,. a number of specific sampling areas were used in determining the unit flow coefficients to be used for design. Flows from these sampling areas were measured and the results tabulated in the respective reports. Since these areas could readily be isolated, the specific lots for each area were identified and, subsequently, the assessed valuation determined from the 1972 county assessment for each lot and then totaled for each sampling area. In order to compare the various land-use classifications, using the above para- meters, it was necessary to establish a relationship between the assessed valuation and the sewage flow generated for each sampling area. The relationship used for compari- son is the total assessed valuation per basic unit of flow generated. For this study, the basic unit of flow used is million gallons of flow generated per day (mgd). During the preparation of the District No. 3 master plan, no suitable multiple residential areas for flow measurement were found within the district's boundaries and, therefore, it was necessary to use similar areas from District No~ 7. For this study, two multiple residential developments-one in the city of Garden Grove and one in the city of Huntington Beach-of approximately the size as those sampled in the city of Tustin were located in District No. 3 and their assessed valuation determined. The average flow was arrived at by prorating the flow measured from the 606-unit develop- ment in the city of Tustin. Also, the assessed valuation for two hypothetical multiple residential develop- ments within the city of Huntington Beach, comprised of the same number of dwelling units as those developments in the city of Tustin where the flow was actually measured, was determined by using the city's average assessed valuation figures obtained from the city of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Using the same average flow figures that were measured from the developments in Tustin, the assessed valuation per basic unit of flow relationship was determined for these two hypothetical average develop- men ts • . RESULTS The results of the investigations are tabulated in Table 1 for District No. 3 and in Table 2 for District No. 7. These findings indicate for District No. 3 that the assessed valuation per average flow generated for the low-density residentia I development is from between 1 .4 to 4.5 times that of the high-density residential developments, based on actual measured flow. Using the city of Huntington Beach -2- average assessed valuation figures, this relationship is between 2.0 and 6.3. In District No. 7, this factor is from 3.7 to 4.5 times, based on actual measured flow. When compared with industrial development in District No. 7, the assessed valuation per average flow generated from low-density residential development is between 4. 0 to 4. 9 times greater, based on actua I measured flows. -3- ( ( . TABLE 1 County ... tation District No. 3 of Orange County ( RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSED VALUATION AND SEWAGE FLOW FOR SELECTED LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS ACTUAL MEASURED FLOW Total Average Assessed Vo luation Dwelling Area Density Assessed Average Flow Unit Flow Per Unit Flow Location Units {acres) (D. U ./Acre) Valuation (mgd) (mgd/Acre) ($/mgd) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Fu! lerton (Hillside) 972 482 2.0 $10,118/7/.0 0.21 0.0004 $48,184,380 Garden Grove (Level) 521 132 4.0 $ 3,387,193 o. 18 0.0014 $18,817,739 Huntington Beach (Level) 263 63 4.2 $ 1,520,610 0.10 0.0016 $15,206,100 La Habra (Ro II i ng) 477 114 4.2 $ 3,184,880 o. 14 0.0012 $22,749,142 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Tustin (Level) 606 29 20.8 $ 1,820,000 0.168 0.0058 $10,706,000 Tustin (Leve I) 302 14 21.6 $ . 785,000 0.064 0.0046 $13,083,000 *Garden Grove (Level) 400 11 35.4 $ 1,185,570 o. 111 0.0101 $10,680,810 *Huntington Beach (L~ve I) 310 14 22.2 $ 791,560 0.086 0.0061 $ 9,204,186 *Huntington r Beach 302 12 25.0 $ 634,197 0~064 0.0053 $ 9,909,328 , I *Huntington Beach 606 24.2 25.0 $ 1,271,88') 0.168 0.0069 $ 7,570,714 *No actua I fie Id measurement. Average flow figures prorated from Tustin measurements. ( ( ( TABLE 2 County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSED VALUATION AND SEWAGE FLOW FOR SELECTED LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Dwelling Area Location Units (acres) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Orange (Leve I) 307 78 Tustin (Level) 296 87 Orange (Leve I) 303 75 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Tustin (Level) Tustin (Leve I) INDUSTRIAL Irvine Industrial Complex (Leve I) 606 29 302 14 55 Density (D.U./Acre) 3.9 3.4 4.0 20.8 21.6 ACTUAL MEASUREMENT FLOW Total Average Assessed Valuation Assessed · Average Flow Unit Flow Per Unit Flow Valuation . (mgd) (mgd/Acre) ($/mgd) $2,898,000 0.063 0.0008 $48,300,000 $2,361,000 0.057 0.0007 $39,350,000 $1,992,000 0.046 0.0006 $39,840,000 $1,820,000 0. 1680 0.0058 $10,706,000 $ 785,000 0.0646 0.0046 $13,083,000 $1,768,000 o. 1835 0.0033 $ 9,822,000 -If' Agenda J ~em No._,-:5 ___ _ ORDINANCE NO. 303 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orai."1ge County, California, does ordA.j_n as follows: ARTICLE 1 Article 2 of Ordinance No~ 302 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following sections: (o) District Connection Charg~. Is a connection charge imposed by District No. 3 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) .Distr~ct Sewerage Facility. Shall mean any property belonging to County S3.nitation District No. 3 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. I (r) Sewerage Facilities. Are any facilities used in the collection, transportation, treatment or disposal of sewage and industrial wastes. ( s) :F'c..mily n-.. rnllinr! Building c Is a. building designed and used to house families and containing one or more dwelling units. (t) Dwelling Unit. Is one or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one ~· famj_ly with facilities for li vj_ng, sleeping, cooking and eating. (u) Buildin~ Sewer. I$ the sewer draining a building and ex- tending beyond the exterior ':mlln thereof a!1d which com1ects to a District sewerage facility or to a private O!' public sewerage facility which 11ltimately discharges to a District sewerase 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 Unlform Building Code, 1970 Edition, Volume I. Article 2 (a) Section (a) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 302 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 dwelling 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- --. > destrJction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allbwed, 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 ~onstruction of a new building sewer, the connection charge for each new building sewer shall be as follo;·,rs: Dlameter of Buildinp; Sewer 6 inches or less 8 inches 10 inches 12 inches When Charge is to be Paid. Payment of Charp.:e $ 50 $100 $200 $300 connection charges shall be required at the time of issuance of the building pennit for all construction within the District, excepting in the case of a building legally exempt from the requirement of obtaining a building permit. 'I'he payment of the se;,_·er connection charge for such buildirigs will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing· of a plwnbing connection permit for o.ny construction within the territorial limits of the District. -3·- Schedule of Ch~rges. A schedule of charges specified herein will be on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in the Building Department of each city within the District. Biennial Review of Charges. At the end of two years from the effective date of this ordinance, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall review the charges established by this article and if in its judgment such.charges require modifi- cation, an amendment to this ordinance will be adopted establishing such modification. ARTICLE 3 Section (b) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 302 is amended by adding thereto S~ction (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. 302 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 and said Ordinance shall take effect -4- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Eoard of Directors of County Sani- tation District No. 3, of Orange County, Califor~~a, at a regular meeting held on the day Of , 1972. -------------------- ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3, of Orange County, California -5- Chairman, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3, of Orange County, California COUNTY SANITATION DI S 'i'~ T_CT NO. 3 STATE ME NT OF PR O J E CTE~ JA SH FLOW ASSUMES CONS TRUC TIO N OF PHA SE I SECONDARY TREATMENT ONLY F ISCAL YEARS 1972-73 THRO UGH 1976-77 REVENUE Descrip tion Ta x R&i enue (at curr ent tax rate of $.474 0 ) • Other Revenue Federa l & State Participation Joint Works Projects Dis t rict Projec ts Sale o f Capacity Rights Misc1e llaneous Ca rry-Ov e r from Pre vious Fiscal Year TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPE NDIT UR ES Di stric t Construc tion Shar e o f Joint Works Construction Bond he tireme nt & ~Interest f S ha r e of Joint Ope r at ing t::J ~ Di strict Op e rating & Other Expenditures r:Jl q TOTAL EXPENDITURES I-'· () rt Ca rrs -Ove r to Following Fiscal Year w Less ; Ne c e ss a ry Reserve for Following Ye a r Dry Period Fu n d D ~lance or (Deficit) rn e oen t t o tax rat e will rais e 1972-73 $ 5,661,000 2 ,735,000 1 92 ,000 177 ,000 721,000 11,821,000 $21 ,307 ,000 $ 8 ,949 ,000 3 ,247,000 8 5 8 ,ooo 792 ,000 382,000 $1 4 ,228 ,000 $ 7,079,000 7,043 ,000 $ 3 6 ,000 $ 119,LllO 1973-74 $ 5 ,944 ,000 2 ,655 ,000 1 82 ,000 220 ,000 7,079 ,000 $16 ,081,000 $ 7 ,478 ,000 4,4 64 ,000 8 2 7 ,0 0 0 8 1 2 ,.000 299,000 $13,88 0 ,000 7 ,135,000 $(4 ,93 4 ,000) $ 125 ,381 1974 -75 $ 6 ,211 ,000 5,018,000 1,000 150,000 2 ,201 ,000 $13 ,581 ,000 $ 5 ,952 ,00 0 6 ,1 49 ,000 797 ,000 855 ,000 319,000 $1 4,072 ,000 $ (491 ,000) 4 ,2 42,000 $(4 ,733,000) $ 1 3 1,38 1 1 975 -7 6 $ 6 ,4 91 ,000 3 ,1 69 ,00 0 566 ,000 150 ,000 (49 1,0 00) $ 9 ,885 ,000 $ 4,383,000 1,689,000 777,000 1 ,116,000 341 ,000 $ 8 ,3 0 6 ,000 $(1 ,579 ,000) 2,873 ,000 $(4 ,45 2 ,000) $ 1 36 ,91 9 9 -28 -7 2 Revised 1 976 -7.1_ $ 6 ,783,00 0 675,00 0 15 ,0 00 (1,579,0 00) $ 6,044 ,000 $ 1,470 ,00 0 1,6 88,00 0 7 5 6 ,o oo i,1 58 ,00 0 3 6 5 ,000 $ 5 ,437,00 0 $ 6 07,0 00 2 ,522,000 $(1,915,00 0 ) $ 1'> ' ,, . ,. City o:f Garden. Grove INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Richard Powers Dept: City Manager Subject: Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance by Orange County Sanitation Districts Numbers 2 and 3 From: Richard 0. Rafanovic Dept: City Manager's Office Date: January 3, 1973 . The Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation Districts 2 and 3 are considering the adoption of a sewer connection ordinance recommended by the joint District staff and reviewed by a special corrunittee of the respective sanitation districts. The proposed ordinances would levy connection charges on new developments with various rates being applied to residential, commercial, and industrial improvements. The details of the proposals are attached and part· of a report from the special committee of the Sanitation Districts dated October 27, 1972. The collection of the connectinLV..-o:harges is proposed to ~e done by the· 1 various municipalities o:t:.. .. the local .sewe:i:.ing agenq''i..es, as the case may be. The Sanitation Districts propose to enter into separate collection agreements with the local agencies a~d to recommend that local agencies perform this service for. a charge equaling five percent of the fees collected unde r the proposed ordinance. In Garden Grove the local sewering agency is the Garden Grove Sanitary District and the City of Garden Grove falls within the Orange County Sanitation Districts Numbers 2 and 3. The various municipalities and portions of unincorporated County area are served by local sewering agencies which are either city or separate sanitary districts. These in turn are served by seven County Sanitation Districts which construct and maintain the major trunk lines. Jointly, the County Districts operate and administer the treatment facility .to dispose of the collected sewerage. The sewer connection ordinance under consideratio~ is a means to levy additional funds to construct proposed trunk lines and the adoption of the ordinance is to be considered during public hearings in January. District 2 includes the territory in Garden Grove generally east of Euclid Avenue and will consider this matter on January 17, 1973. District 3 includes the remaining portions of Garden Grove west of District 2 and has a scheduled hearing set for January 3, but is expected to be adjourned to the end of this month. The Directors of the Garden Grove Sanitary District do not support the proposed sewer connection ordinances and are ~sking varibus ·· · questions. RE.CElVEO -JAN Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance by Orange County Sanitation Districts Numbers 2 and 3 January 3, 1973 Page 2 Included in their questions are the following concepts: 1. Are the proposed facilities needed now? 2. Are the proposed ordinances the fairest method to levy additional funds? Implicit in these questions are the following thoughts: 1. The proposed facilities are based on ultimate development of the respective districts and areas presently lying outside of the districts - both based on development criteria gathered during the late sixty's. How do these proposals then comply with the recently mandated general plan requirements by the State of California with the respective land use and population growth policy? 2. Do the proposed facilities include the environmental impact policies, part of the general plan require- ments? ('j;. Alternate financing proposals include: "<>-/~ ~==-'Phe raising of the £ax~-~-t_e_t_o_f_i_n_~--e_t_h_e ___ p_r_o_g _____ r_am_9 ~- 2. The proposal of a bond issue •• 3. The establishing of connection charges. 4. Not to build the facilities. In Garden Grove there are basically four customer categories which may be affected under either of the proposals, should the facilities be built at this time. 1. Land presently undevelope~ which has paid County Sanitation District taxes since the inception of the Districts and has not received any benefits during that time and-which now may have to pay an additional levy. 2. Land that has been undeveloped since the inception of the Districts but has development proposals either just recently completed or under consideration at this time. I. t ~ ,. ..... Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance by Orange County Sanitation Districts Numbers 2 and 3 January 3, 1973 Page 3 •T--·-~--~~ •. .._._.._...,_ __ ...,_ .. .,, •. _ .................. __._.__._.! 3. Land that has been developed for a long time but is ready for redevelopment in the very near future. 4. Land that has been developed for a long time and does not anticipate a change in developme~t. While the above noted issues may have been part of the County Sanitation Districts Special Committee's considerations, many of the answers have not been included in their submittals and documen- tations. Initial public hearings were scheduled for District 2 on December 20, 1972 and for District 3 January 3, 1973. The December meeting had very little public attendance and was adjourned to January 17, 1973. While City staff has no specific recommendations, we certainly join the Board of Directors of the Garden Grove Sanitary District in their questions regarding the necessity and timeliness of the proposed facilities as well as the proposed method of financing. The Council of the City of Garden Grove may wish to take this matter up at this time or could request answers to questions raised in the body of this memorandum. RICHARD O. RAFANOVIC Assistant City Manager Attachments .. :·.' \f. ;: ;•·.; :·. · ... I . ' •.• ··••• !.2.··· y F~;;~:~!).t~t~:,IJ,;:;;[~~1~{J~·~.};.)t''tl·t •• ,..,t • iu I•,.,'.' . ; 5. Success in other Districts • ... .:'.: . : ·If. ., . _. · . Districts. Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection~''c~rge"'for ;~ .. :{ many years which ~as met with very little oppos~:ti'oi{ andH:lave:~\.·.': raised su:fficient ···funds so that these two Districts are ..... -). financially in better shape than Districts Nos., 2 arid:-3.· }Che·-~;;: : ... ·public easily grasps the concept of a new user· paying .for. at: .. __ .· ·. · least· a portion of the necessary future outlays. . . ,· ·,,-·, ''..,, ....... :. " ., " .. . , .. ><. :.?.:~:;; :.;./. :' ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS_: . . .• , .. ··. " .,, · ·:e:~;J,' .. L .. The committees recommend that if the·proposed·Ordinanc.e<:. appears acceptable to the· Boards,, public hearings.· be ·held.':'°t'.9 : .... '.:.: permit expressions of opinion by the public prior to ·.~!l~ .. r~}:·.l':.'):')·.· ·adoption of any connection charge ordinance. · · · · .. '·,'.;:-.·, ·' .· ' ! I < ' 'J.j' :~[~ .. ~-.~· ~.' :]_~ • ,; ~ The committee further recommends .that. the enclosed·:stanqard agreement for collection of sewer connection charges,,·. which:.~·.-: .. -provides for a collection fee equal to 5% of the _fees<colle._c~ed,:··· f. 1 be·authorized. . . . . .. .• ·.~8:.: ! ~ :\~ • J • '-~ •• 7 . , ' ..• : .~. . .~ ' .·: ! ·, .... ' ~· . ·1 ·- ~ '·f I ' -r ~ ' J ': T · . . . •-.··.·,···,· . I. ··.' .. ' .. , .. .. , .. · ... DISTRICT 3 -1/3/73 Meeting (#3-b) Mr. Harper reported that agenda material had been mailed to all pe ople involved in District 3 and that the Districts had notified all of the city councils, sanitary districts , chambers of commerce and new permit holders within the District of the public hearing tonight . A reminder of the hearing was sent on Dec . 29th with some additional infor- mation. Wi th regard to the letter from W. W. Adams attached to agenda , five-year expenditures based on anticipation that District will spend $41 million within the next several years for improved trea t ment . Actually may be much higher than that if we are required to go to h i gher degree of treatment. Will be into a deficit situation this corning year-- close to $5 mil lion. (#3-c) Conrad Hohener briefly explained the Master Plan of the District for facilities that need to be constructed within District. June 1968 Mast e r Plan should carry District through 2000. Explained costs then and how they had been updated to current fisca l year. Mas t er Plan wi ll sewer entire a r ea for full deve l opment . Based on land use plans or zoning maps in effect in 1968. Di strict has two trunks --Magnolia and Miller-Holder . Plan adopted relieves existing system . Reported that Kn o tt I nterceptor ($6 mi lli on project) was to be completed in June 1 973 . Also have $3,650,00p extension of this project through the City of Westminster. Presently t runks are surcharging near the point where facilities have to be built. Afte r two years, have to ~e hew system built or sewage will be corning out manho l es and into street .. Have to start at the bottom and build upwards--start with large r size pipe and work down so won 't be so expensive Ja.ter. Re cash flow statement , Mr . Harper stated that tax rate in Dis t rict is $ .475 per $1 00 assessed valuation. Based on increasi n g assessed valuation in the District, anticipated revenue is rather subs t ant i a l. FAH briefly reviewed makeup of District 3 and went over items on c a sh flow stat e ment and explaine d what each one represented. Said t hat Distric t 3 pays about 1/3 of operation costs of treatm;nt works and treatme nt facilities . He then asked Con rad Hohener to co~1ent on attachments to a g enda. Regarding page B-3, Mr . Hohener oaid he was asked to r e vie w permits in the past to see what possible revenue might be derived in the future. Re B-3 , took proration and multip l ied to reach figures indicated . He also reviewed pages B-5 & B-6. Using these figures should be able to generate between $700,000 and $850 ,0 00 per year . Measur ed multiple of 606 units in Tustin because couldn't find in District 3 . Used one mill ion ga l lons per day as unit flow for charts. Mr. Culver stated that Assistant City Manager of City of Garden Grove said that alternate methods of fina nci ng were: rais i ng of taxes , the proposal of a bond issue , estab lishment of connection charge and not to build the facilities at all. FAH has said that ~e are in desperate ne e d of facilities so problem now is how we can get the job done . Mr. Harper reported that we have been able to secure some state and federal fundin g but very limited. Last project didn't even pay the sales tax . All future projects will not be eligible for new type of funding. Regarding situation for next year as far as tax rate is concerned , if we attempt to raise $5 million deficit , we willhave to raise tax rate 40¢ for a to t al of 87¢ and are able to borrow .over a two-year peri od . These alternative s h ave been considered by Committee o f Direc tors appointed and by Board of Directors. The adoption of this ordinance, as proposed , would not solve p. 2 the problem of the District. It appears that a bond issue must be considered or cut back on the program. We do not have a complete financial program even if we do adopt an ordinance. Culver asked if it would be feasible to have an outside consulting firm come in on this? Mr. Harper then mentioned that two Districts had had same problems. District 7 -bond issue passed and connection charge established as part of financing program. Raised taxes from .04 to .40 and connection charge of $50 per house. In 1968 or 69 system put in was about to overflow. Then proposed $6 million bond issue. Financing consultant came in and recommended an increase in connection charges but no increase in tax rate. In District 5 (Irvine areas) very low tax rate. Didn't want to raise taxes so connection charge developed several years ago. Again financial consultant brought in to look at District .situation. Mr. Harper suggested that possibly Directors may wish to consider a financing consultant to look at District's situation with their expertise. In District 2 connection charge could take care of their deficit but could go any of the .other ways also. Question w~s asked how long would it take financial consultant to analyze this situat~on and was answered, two or three months. McWhinney· asked whether the Bill that was just passed didn't limit our tax rate so we couldn't increase it even if we · wanted to? (Bill was to limit special districts as far as raising tax~s). Nisson said he didn't believe that bill had been passed. McWhinney then asked if we could adopt this as an emergency ordinance if we wanted to and save time. Nisson answered that in view of the possible deficit, you may be able to. The side agreements to collect the money is what takes the time. Mr. Harper stated that it would probably take six months for District to implement the program even if ordinance was passed that night. Said that at District 2 hearing the matter was continued but the staff was directed to begin discussions with the cities' personnel so that in the event the ordinance was passed, there wouldn't be any time loss. Is possible if the Boar1l would wish to consider a financing consultant, the same type of action c 1uld be taken. (#3-d) Culver reviewed the written communications received. Said that in all the letters he had read the main objection was that the timing was very poor and nobody was really prepared. Then opened the meeting for statements from those in attendance. Michael Miller: Said he was just in attendance and had ·no statement. ( Barbara Ferguson: Asked if this expansion was based strictly on the 1968 five-year plan submitted. Saiq that since this was a user item, seems it would be more equitable not to penalize new businesses coming into the area to make the situation more fair and not so discriminatory. While bond issues aren't the most popular, the public should have the ability to pay this. If we discourage businesses from coming in, are going to discourage other revenues that are coming in. Conrad Hohener then answered that yes, the sewer system was based on the 1968 projections, and the 1972 projections are slightly less then 1968. Trunks were calculated to flow full with 1968 projections. Many agencies only have trunks 75% full. Don't believe the trunks are oversized. A very small increase in pipe s"ize will hold a much larger increase in capacity. p. 3 Regarding meter readings, Bob Main asked when they were taken? Conrad Hphener answered in 1968. Mr. Main then asked if peak flow didn't indicate that it was coming out at entirely a different time from what we refer to as an R-1 density? Conrad answered, not necessarily. Are two peak flows-- one in the morning and one in the evening. Had over 100 observations and came up with formula for peak average flows, which is now used by EPA. Peak flow in relation to the trunk, since it is all average, doesn't have any effect from the standpoint of cost. If there were no peaks, would use sewers more efficiently. The peaks in any given situation average out in the trunk system. Main then stated that he was anticipating the entire flow and that is what we were building the entire line for. Conrad answered no, that it averages out over a 24-hour basis. The larger the system, the flatterthe curve will be. ~i.r. Main then asked why the District's necessary reserve for following-year dry period decreases so drastically from 1972-73 to 1975-76. Said their dry period remains constant. Mr. Harper answered that it was because of our heavy construction program. JWS also explained further. Nisson then reported that he had checked out McWhinney's question with regard to the Bill that was just passed (Regan-Moretty Compromise??). Bill was passed and provided for no increase in taxes in any special district. This rules out alternative of raising taxes and leaves the bond issue or connection charge. Owen Witthaver: Stated that he was here . to ask Board for continuance on behalf of Garden Grove City Council because they would like to get input from their citizens at some public hearings to be held this month. Would like to ask District to postpone action in order to receive input from these citizens. Respectfully request that this hearing be continued. ·waiter Bressel: Strongly requested that Board continue this meeting. Will Lindsey: Asked when this connection charge was to be paid? Said that it seemed that the objectors that he had heard most strongly from were developers or real estate type. Does this fee become an expense to the developer when he starts his development or when he sells the property? Seems that it would not be a burden if it came about when he sells it. Vanderwaal stated that City of LaPalma had discussed this and intends to collect fees upon issuance of building permit immediately. And Culver stated that was his understanding for any building permit. Nisson said that is the way it was to be enacted at this time. Have privilege of collecting it over longer period of time if you so provide in the o~dinance. Can collect in installments over 15 years, not to exceed 6% on unpaid balance, or lien against the land. But that won't help inunediate problem. Culver said that these fees would be anticipated in costs of developer. Lindsey then conunented that their cost would be higher then and wondered if costswere high enough? Culver answered that developer already takes all of this into consideration. Barbara Ferguson then said that if adopted tonight, would put developer out on a limb because he has to plan ahead for costs. New buyers may not buy if they have to pay added charges. Vanderwaal didn't think $50 charge compared to $35,000 home would make much di .fference. p. 4 Question was asked regarding an earlier report that connection charges would pay off interest on a bond issue. JWS explained h ow a connection charge would pay off interest on bond issue with no increase in tax rate. Vanderwaal asked if consideration was taken regarding many areas of District 3 that are reaching saturation point? Conrad Hohener reported that at time of report, still approximately 50% to be developed. Main then stated that to the best of his knowledge, everything in District 3 has been there for some time, except 140 acres in Westminster ann exed recently. All land paying the same tax rate, developed or undeveloped. Now guy who wants to develop land has to pay for bond issue himself and not the other guy. Vanderwaal stated that developer in his city is paying for parks that people who live there aren't paying for. Reinhardt commented that with regard to the connection fee, City of Garden Grove is adopting a park fee--which is most important? There certainly is a far greater need for our fee. Main said that any fee is a hidden tax. What we are building here is not for the new guy alone but for everybody. Sales then stated that actually passage of this is not enough and s~ould put d~scussion off until we get some financial expertise to advise us. Culver said that maybe fees are not enough or too much. Really don't have all the information here tonight to make a decision. Vanderwaal then asked if it would be in order to make a motion to continue the pub_ic hearing until after financial consultant has conducted analysis and thai the staff recommend a consultant to submit proposal within 60 days. Should ~.ontinue hearing to first Wednesday in March at which time the consult~nt's report should be available. This was made into a motion and seconded by McWhinney. Herrin asked if this would relate to the decision that would be made in District 2 regarding public hearing? and Culver answered no. Fox said that we have had a financial consultant in District 7 on two occasions and in District 5 on one occasion, and looks as though each time he has laid out the same format as to how to go about this. Mr. Harper answered that they were not exactly the same. On $3.7 million program recommended connection charge to build up fund. Cities had same charge for 5 or 6 years but not are on an escalating charge each year. District 5 is determined each year according to what their needs are. Nisson said that in District 7 first thing consultant did was to analyze the District's needs. While staff thought they would put in two or three main trunks, financial consultant thought we should put in longer trunks. Not stereo-type recommendation~. Question was asked regarding what it takes to pass a bond issue, and whether we had a figure on what .a consultant would cost? p. 5 Mr. Harper answered that it would take a 2/3 vote to pass motion on bond issue, and that we aren't familiar with situation in bond market right now and these people are. Don't think it will be too expensive. Reinhardt stated .that if we go to a bond issue, will have to spend a lot of money to promote th~ issue. Didn't think we should call in someone from the outside. Culver stated "that we have to approach this in a professional manner. Green asked for a roll call vote on the motion. Motion passed. Sales then asked if the consultant hired could come up with some other method other than a bond issue and was answered, yes, it was a possibility. Nisson then asked if the Directors wanted to consider the action that District 2 took to direct the staff to make further arrangements with the cities in implementing the collection agreements in the event the ordinance is adopted later. This was made into a motion, seconded and carried. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING January 3, 1973 -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. 3, 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 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Norman Culver (Chairman), Robert Battin, Donald Fox, Jack Green, Wade Herrin, Otto Lacayo, Alicita Lewis, Charles Long, Derek McWhinney, Louis Reinhardt, Frank Sales, George Scott, Mark Stephenson, Charles Stevens, Jr., and Cor Vanderwaal Jesse Davis Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, William Clarke, Robert Webber and Rita Brown C. Arthur Nisson, Conrad Hohener, Harvey Hunt, Milo Keith, Will .Lindsey, Robert Casey, Don Smith, Bob Perry, Walter M. Bressel, Owen Witthauer, Bob Main, Barbara Ferguson an~ Michael L. Miller * * * * * * * * * Public hearing re proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 303 Uniform Connection and Use Open Public Hearing -The Chairman declared the public hearing open on proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 303, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 302. Review of Financial Requirements -The General Manager reviewed in detail the District's funding requirements for the period 1972/73 through 1976/77. Based on the financial requirements dictated by the construction schedule for needed Master Plan trunk sewer facilities, cash flow projections indicate it will be necessary for District No. 3 to raise approximately $5 million, over and above those funds that will be produced by the current tax rate, by the end of the 1973/74 fiscal period. Alternative methods of proceeding are: a. Not build the facilities. There would then be restrictions on new connections in many areas of the district. b. Pass a bond issue which all taxpayers would pay for during the next 20 years. c. Establish connection charges for new construction throughout the district. #3 1/3/73 It was pointed out that Senate Bill 90, the tax reform bill recently adopted by the legislature, would appear to rule out the possibility of increasing the tax rate as a means of raising additional revenues. Review of Master Plan Facilities, and Possible Revenue Derived from Connection Charges -Mr. Harper and Conrad Hohener of .. Boyle Engineering, District's consulting engineers, reviewed the '-11 Master Plan for construction of needed interceptor sewers to provide the communities within 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 $28 million during the next five years. Mr. Hohener also reviewed the written reports entitled "Study of Possible Revenue derived from Cor1nection Charges" and "Study of Relationship Between Assessed Valuation and Generated Sewage Flow of Various Land-Use Classifications Within County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 7". Review of Proposed Connection Fees -The activities of the Special Committee on Connection Fee Rolicy were then reviewed briefly. The committee has considered the matter of connection charges for the District at and recommends the following: Single Family Dwellings - A basic connection fee of $50.000 per single family dwelling unit. It is recommended that the single family dwellings be charged the minimum fee in that the districts 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 connection charge based on the actual use of sewerage facilities. Written Communications -The Secretary reported that four written communications on proposed Ordinance No. 303 had been received, three of which were received and filed by the Board at their regular meeting on December 13, 1972, requesting postponement of the hearing due to the holiday season. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried that the communication from the West Orange County Board of Realtors dated December 15, 1972, in connection with proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 303, be received and ordered filed. Oral Communications -The chair then recognized Walter Bressel and Robert Main of the Garden Grove Sanitary District; Owen Witthauer of the City of Garden Grove; and Barbara Ferguson, who each addressed the Board in connection with the proposed ordinance. -2- #3 1/3/73 Continuing Public Hearing to March 7, 1973 -The board then entered into a discussion regarding the advisability of employing a financial consultant to review alternative methods of financing the District's requirements and to make a re.commendation to the Board prior to further consideration of the proposed connection charge ordinance. It was then moved, seconded and carried by roll call vote: That the hearing on proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 303, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 302, be continued to March 7, 1973 at 7:30 p.m.; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to obtain a proposal from a responsible financial consulting firm for consideration by the Board at the regular January 10th meeting; and, 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. Receive and file letter from Westminster re award of Contract No. 3-17-1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the letter from the City of Westminster, dated December 28, 1972, approving award of contract for Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer, Reach 10, Contract No. 3-17-1 for County Sanitation District No. 3 and Bolsa Avenue Storm Drain for the City of Westminster, to the low bidder, McGuire Construction, Inc., be received and ordered filed. Awarding contract for Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer, Reach 10, Moved, seconded and duly carried: . . ·That the Board of Directors adopt . Contract No. 3-17-1 Resolution No. 72-164-3, to receive_ and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and award contract for Bolsa Relief Trunk Sewer, Reach 10, Contract No. 3-17-1 for County Sanitation District No. 3 and Bolsa Avenue Storm Drain for the City of Westminster, to McGuire Construction, Inc. in the amount of $382,414.00. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:06 p.m., January 3, 1973. ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 -3- ._....... COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. D. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlemen: December 29, 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 7 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1973, 4:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 13, 1972, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District Ne. 7 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. • JWS:rb II BOARDS OF D!RECTORS County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 8127 10844 Ellis lwenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 of Orange County, California DICTR/rT l.J I ~I t\. I I ~0. 7 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 3, 1973 -4:30 p.m. Final AG EN D A 1/3(73 ADJOU~NM'.:.tr~3 POSTED .. :; corliP & ff:ILE.!\GE ..... ~ .. . FILES ~ET UP ....... £.: ..... .. RESOLUTIO'~S CERT!Flt.D.~ LETIERS \':;.:-r-;rn .... L ..... MINUTES v·rn;nrn ..... ~ MINUTES HLED .... .V.:::: ....... (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary (3) Further consideration of Proposed Annexation No. 27 - Mead A~nexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 Fl1E --- LETTER -- A/C •• -TKLR •••• I;...·-·-····---·····- FILE ............... - <~-Consideration of motion to receive and file ~, letter from Richard B. Smith, Inc., dated December 18, 1972, regarding sewerage service for area proposed to be annexed. See page "A" (b) Staff report re letter of Richard B. Smith, Inc. LEmR •.. ~---( C) Consideration of Resolution No. 72-51-7, ordering annexation of territory to the District (Proposed Annexation No. 27 -Mead Annexation to County A/C .... TKLR •••• Si.~Otmv" ·--··-··-··-·-··-.~----~-Sanitation District No. 7) See page "B" (4) Other business and communications, if e.ny ( 5) Consideration of motion to adjourn tf:'I( I n"· .. · .... RICHARD B. SMITH, INC. . BUILDERS OF BROADMOOR HOMES . ·.:·· ... La::.;,,;. *' 17802 Irvine Blvd. • Tustin, Calif. 92680 • (714) 544-4230 r December 18, 1972' Honorable Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #7 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California -....; Attention: Mr. Fred Harper, Manager Reference: Mead Ranch Annexation Gentlemen: Please be informed that Richard B. Smith, Inc. is the agent and lessee of that certain 120 acres known as the Mead Ranch, submitted to your board last week for annexation. My understanding of the results of that meeting is that this subject will be brought back before the Board on January 3, the reason being that some questions were raised as to the status of development con- cerning the 120 acres, now that the property is not proposed for annexation to the City of Orange. There were also questions as to what facilities would be required to serve the property, if developed in the County. Some of the reasons for annexing at this point in time are as follows: 1. The District's proposal to increase the fees in January of 1973. 2. Our submittal to the County of Orange for a zone change to R-1 10,000 as allowed under the existing County General Plan for the East Orange area, which hopefully will permit this property to be developed in the very near future. Insofar as sewering the property is concerned, we would hope to utilize a pump on an interim basis and construct a sewer main up Chapman Avenue to tie into Sanitation District #9 facilities. We would also consider, as would Leadership Housing Systems who are proposing to develop a 60 acre parcel adjacent to the 120 acres, a joint reimbursement agreement .to construct a District facility through Orange Park Acres and connect .to.the sewer trunk line built by the City of Orange in Santiago Canyon ""' ~ ., ........ Road. .. , .i > V I I <~·"· -. , "~n __________ .-______ ._. ___ :--~----;_. ________________________________________________________________ ....;_ __ __j Agenda Item #3(a) A-1 District 7. r r Honorable Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #7 December 18, 1972 Page 2 ... -·-:•. . . I will appear before your honorable board on January 3 and hope that you will consider a favorable attitude to our request. I will try to answer any further questions you might have concerning our development. Cordially, ;7~2~· L. R. Lizotte Vice President LRL:ew cc: Mr. Jack Hanscom, Leadership Housing Systems .. ) •· : ~ . -=_.~ .i ;.; .;.-.. ._, .... ~ .: ( Agenda Item #3(a) A-2 District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-51-7 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DIS TRI CT ( MEAD AN?mXATimT - ANNEXATION HO. 27 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (MEAD ANNEXATION -ANNEXATION NO. 27 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7) * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of .orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. 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 F?rmation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 7, by means of a petition filed with said Conunission by the property owners of the area to be annexed; and, Section 2. That the territory to be annexed in uninhabited; '-""' and, Section 3. That the designation assigned by said Conunission to the territory proposed: to be annexed is Annexation No. 27 (Mead) to County Sanitation District No. 7, 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 4. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory;. and, Section 5. That provisions for annexation fees in the amount of $44,486.64 have been satisfied by execution of a Straight Interest Bearing Note, payable within 5 years from date of approval of said annexation, secured by a Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents, in a fonn approved by the District's General Counsel; and, Agenda Item # 3 ( c) B-1 Distri.ct 7 Section 6. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to Pivision l(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. 7 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held January 3, 1973. Agenda Item #3(c) B-2 District 7 1'-.. Ii I II BC/.\~05 Of DI~ECTO:"~S County Sanitation Districts of Orange Cou nty, Californi a DJ .. <;Tf(/CT No . 7 P.O. Box 812'/ 10841~ ~llis /\venue Fountain Valley, CaliF., 92708 Pre lirninary A G E N D A 12/29 /72 (1) Roll Call A.dci ourned Re gular Meet in__g Jan uary 3, 1973 -4 :30 p .rn . (2 ) App o intment of Chairman pro tern, i f necessary (3) Further consid e ration of Proposed Annexation No. 27 - Mead Annexation to County Sanitation District No . 7 (a ) Consideration of motion to r eceive and file letter from Richard B . Smith, Inc .) dated December 18, 1972) regarding ser:rerage service for area proposed to be annexed . See page "A" (b) Staff report re l etter of Richard B . Smith , Inc . (c) Consideratio n of Reso luti on No . 72-51-7 , ordering annexation of territory to the District (Pr oposed Annexation No . 27 -Mead Annexation to County Sanit ation District No . 7) See page 11 B11 --- (4) Other business and com munications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn D . r RICHARD B. SMITH, INC. BUILDERS OF BROADMOOR HOMES 17802 Irvine Blvd. a Tustin, Calif. 92680 m (714) 544-4230 December 18, 1972. Honorable Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation vistrict #7 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California -..J Attention: Mr. Fred Harper, Manager Reference: Mead Ranch Annexation Gentlemen: I Please be informed that Richard B. Smith, Inc. is the agent and lessee of that certain 120 acres know::i. as the Head Ranch, submitted to your board last week for annexation. My understanding of the results of that meeting is that this subject wil 1 be brought back before the Board on January 3, the reason being that some questions were raised as to the status of development con- cerning the 120 acres, now that the property is not proposed for annexation to the City of Orange. There were also questions as to what facilities would be required to serve the property, if developed in the County. Some of the reasons for annexing at this point in time are as follows: 1. The District's proposal to increase the fees in January of 1973. 2. Our submittal to the County of Orange for a zone change to R-1 10,000 as allowed under the existing County General Plan for the East Orange area, which hopefully will permit this property to be developed in the very near future. Insofar as sewering the property is concerned, we would hope to utilize a pump on an interim basis and construct a sewer main up Chapman Avenue to tie into Sanitation District #9 facilities. We would also consider, as would Leadership Rousing Sys terns ·h·ho are proposing to develop a 60 acre parcel adjacent to the 120 acres, a joint reimbursement agreement to construct a District facility through Orange Park Acres and connect .to the sewer trunk line built by the City of Orange in Santiago Canyon .... .-. . -···. Road. t .. , ~.:n 1,,.1 -·· -- Agenda Iten #3(~) A-1 Distl·ic: 1 r r .... . :·, .. T Honorable Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #7 December 18, 1972 Page 2 ... :• .. I will appear before your honorable board on January 3 and hope that you will consider a favorable attitude to our request. I will try to answer any further questions you might have concerning our development. Cordially, RIC~ B • 1 SM. r7TH . INC .• ~//?~ L. R. Lizotte Vice President LRL:ew cc: Mr. Jack Hanscom, Leadership Housing Systems ) . ' Agenda Item #3(a) A--2 D1strict 7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-51-7 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF rrERRITORY ~L10 rrHE DIS TRI CT ( !\i8AD ANNEXATION - ANTTEXATION HO. 27 rro COUNTY SANIT'NI1ION DISTRICT NO .. 7) A HESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOo 7, OF ORAIJG E COUNTY, C.A..LIFORNIA, ORDERI HG ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (MEAD. ANNEXATION -ANNEXATION NO. 27 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7) ****7:-7:-** The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of .Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. rrhat, pursuant to Di vision 1 (District Reorganiza.tion Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Goverri.ment Code of the State of California, application has heretofore been made to the Local Agenc·y Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 7, by means of a petition filed with said Commission by the property owners of the area to be annexed; and, Section 2. 'l1hat the territory to be annexed in uninhabited; and, Section 3. That the designation ass.:tgned by said Commission to the territory propose cl: to be annexed is Annexation No. 27 (Mead) to County Sanitation District No. 7, 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 4. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory;_ and, Section 5. That provisions for annexation fees in the amount of $44,486.64 have been satisfied by execution of a Straight Interest Bearing Note, payable within 5 years from date of approval of said annexation, secured by a Deed of True t wl th Assignn1ent of Rents, in a forrn approved by the District 1 s General Counsel; and, P.genda Item # 3 ( c) B-1 Dist:i:ict_l Section 6. That, as authorized by resolu:cion of the Local Agency· Formation Commission pursuant to Pivision l(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. 7 without notice or hearing and without election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned reg~lar meeting held January 3, 1973. Agenda Item #3(c) B-2 Distrl.ct 7 ME ET I ;.1 G DATE __ J_a_n_. ~3 ,,,__l ..::c.9 ...:...;7 3~ TI ME 4:30 p.m. DI STR ICTS 7 --- DISTR.ICT 1 ACTIVE DI REC1'0F?S (HE RRIN)····· GRISE T· • · ·• (CAS PERS ) •••• BATT IN ..... (WELSH) ••••.• MILLER .•.•. PO RTER ••... DISTRICT 2 (PERE z). ······SM ITH······ ( J AA)· ······CASTRO ····· CUL VER · · · • • (LANGER) ••. ·· ·F INNE LL ···· (KOWALSK I).·· ·FOX········ (rqISE T) ······HE RRIN ····· ~ LLI ND~N ) ••• JLJ ST· · ·· ··· (ROB ERT S)··· ··NEVIL ·.····· (CASP ERS) ••• · ·PHILLIPS··· (RE INH A(WT ) ···ROOT······· (DUTTO~). ·····STEPHENSON· (DUl~l~EJ ·······WINN······· DISTRICT 3 (C ASPERS) .... CULVER •••.. BA TTIN ...•. ~HI N ES) ..•••• DAVIS ...... ( KO \'IA ~S KI ) ••• FOX ••.••... COEN •••••.. GREEI~ •••••• ~GRISET) ..••• HE RRI N .. ••• FRANK I E\-'I I CH). LACAY O ····. (NUIJENS). ·. • LEWIS ··· ..• (MILLE R)····· LO NG ••••... ~RE I NHARDT ) •• MC vmIN NEY . ROOT .•••... P 1 .ACKMAr~)., .. SALES ...... ( LL I NDEN) .•. SCOTT ..•..• ~DUTTON) •••.•. STEPH EN SON • (RO BER T S ) .•••. STE VEN S ..•. BYRNE ) ...•••• YAN Df.:RWAA L . DTSTR ICT 5 ( C R 0 U L ). • • • • • • MC I N N I S • . • (BAKER) ••••••• CAS PE RS .•.. KY MLA •..••• DIST RICT 6 POHTER · • · · • (PHILLIP S) · · · CAS PER S···· (MC I NNIS) •. • ST ORE ······ DISTRICT 7 T~·~E L S-H ) ••.••. MIL LER ••... (CA S PERS) · • • · CLA RK ······ (HERRIN) · · · · · GR I SE T ····· PORTER .• • .• (FISC HBA CH) ••• QUIGLE Y .... (MC I NNIS) .... ROGERS ..••• (PER EZ) ....•• SM ITH •.•••• ~IRIC T l J. -(C OEN ) ...... ·GI BBS .. •·•• (CASPf-RS ) .. ·. BAKER · · · · • • ( El~) ....... DUKE .. · · .. · DIST RICT 8 (JO!-msqN ). : ... BOYD ' .•.... (CLARK)• ....•• CASF'E RS • · • • MI TCHEL.L • · · 12/1/7? ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ J O I NT EOP,PDS AC'l'iVE DIRECTORS (LANG ER).···· ·~I NNE LL ·· ..• (CA SPERS).· ···BA KER ······· (CASPE RS)···· ·BATTI N······ CASPERS ····· (WEDA A) ... ····CA STRO ······ (CASPERS) .. ·· ·CL ARK······· CU LV ER ······ (HINES)······ ·DAVIS······· (COEN)······· ·DUl<E· · · • • · • • (KOWA ~SK I ) ••. ·FOX ········· (CO EN · ...... ·GI BBS · ...... (COEN · · • · • • · ·GR EEN · · • • • • • (HERR I N) .. ··· ·GRISET · ··· ·· (GRISET) •. ····HERRI N······ (HO LLI NDEN) ···JUS T ········ (MC INNIS)··· ·KYM LA· · · •· • · (FR ANK IEW ICH)·LACAYO·· · ··· (rW I JENS) ·····LEWIS······· (M ILLE~) · · · · · ·LONG · · • · · · · • (CR OUL)· ······MC I NNIS···· MC l~HI NN EY· · (WE LSH)······ ·MIL LER ······ (ROB ERT S )···· ·NEVIL ······· (CASPERS) .. · ··PHIL LIPS ···· PO RTER···· · • CrISHBAc H) ... ·QUIGLEY· ..•. (MC IN NI S)··· ·R OGERS ······ (RE I NHARD T) •. ·R OOT ········ (BLAC KMAN) .•. ·S ALES ······· (HO LLI NDEN) ···SCOTT ····· · · (PER EZ)······ ·SM I TH······· !DU TT ON)···· ··STEPHENSO N·· RO BERT S).··· ·STEVENS ····· MC I NNIS ).·· ·S TO RE ······· ~B YRNE).···· ··VANDERWAA L· • (DUNN E)······ ·Y1IN N· · · · · · · · -·--- (JOHNSO N) BOYD········ ----· OTHERS MITCHEL L···· ---- HARPER BROWN S YLV ES TER LEWI S DU NN CL ARl<E SI GLER NI SSON TAYLOR BROWN BO ETT NER CARL SO N FI NSTE R G ALLO~IAY HOHENER HO WARD HUN T KEITH LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON MURO NEY PIEHS ALL STEVEl ~S KE~ll~EY / II P. 0. Box 5175 MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10 844 El lis Ave nue Foun tai n Va lley, Calif., 92708 Te lephones : DISTRICT NO. _7_ Meeti ng Date: Jan uary 3, 1 973 No .. 3 -Propo sed Annexation No . 27 (Mead) 1 20-Acre Pa r cel in Orange Park Acres . This matter was deferred at the December 1 3 t h Joint Board meeting f or the purpose of obtaining addi tional information from the ovmer and/or developer concerning the manner in which they intend to sewer t his p r operty Are ~ Code 7 14 540-2910 962-24 11 once it is in the District . Enc losed with the agenda ma:terial is a letter from R. B. Smith, Inc ., concerning this .matte r. They propose two possible methods of sewering the property : (1 ) (2) By means of the construction of a pump station and force main to tie into the existing Assessment District No . 9 facilities The construction of a Master Plan trunk sewer which would permit gravity f l ow through the Orange Park Acres area Both suggested pla ns involve the use of not onl y District fac i lities but also facilities which are current l y m.med and c mtrolled by the City of Orange . The construction and use of sanitary sewers as p r oposed for Annexation No . 27 ~dl l require the approval of the Board of Directors of District No . 7 and the City of Orange. There - fore, the proponents for the annexation must underst ~n d t hat annexation to the District at this time wil l not insure sewer service for their property . FAH :j Fred A. Harper Genera l Manager 0--J 6'..f · J., ~ 1 e ~JJ -i #.£ ·Lr -1.:___ ivz'-'~ wl:·~::::~ ~· -t ~ ... 1 rt-<~ lON-'- ~ c,.l. f kd_ I\>-. µ,_{ ~rL ~ ~ 1 c1""c~ ~· ~ ~I If~+ ~JJ _/i, M-'L' ~~ 1 ~c.-( ( (tu oJS 4 ,~ "-/ (\() \ Ot,•M-~) ~J L L~ -L· ~ ~ M~~ ~ -Iv L ~J ~Vt) Lk ~ ~J~ ·tl q,,,~~/i~ 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) Gentlemen: December 29, 1972 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 3 WEDNESDAY) JANUARY 3J 1973) 7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY) CALIFORNIA TELEPHDN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held December 13, 1972, the Beard of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:rb M EiE T I~ i ~ DA TE Jan . 3 , 19 71__ Tr ME 7 : 3 o p . m. D l s TR Tc Ts ---"'3 _____ _ DISTRICT l ACTIVE DIREC'J:ORS 101 r -En '1 RD "" v , I I , v i·._ J~_ AC1'I VE DIRECTORS (HERRIN)····· GRIS ET· •·· • (CASPE RS) .... BA TTIN •••.. (WELSH) .....• MILLER .••.. PO RT ER •.•.. DISTRI CT 2 (PEREZ)······· SMITH······ (' -DAA) · · · · · • ·CASTRO · • • · · CU LVER····· (LANGER ) .• ·· ··F I NNE LL···· (!<OWALS !<I) ····FOX········ (GRISET)·· ····HE RRIN ····· (HO LL.IIW~N ) ···JUST ······· (ROBERTS)···· ·N EVIL ······ (C ASPERS )···· ·PHIL LIPS··· (RE I Nl-lAfW T) · · ·RO OT · · · · • · · (DUTT ON) •. ··· ·ST EP HENSO N· (DUN NE )······ ·WIN N······· DISTRICT 3 CULVER ••..• (C AS PERS) •••• BAT TIN ••••. (HINES) ...... DAVIS ...... ( KO\IJM .. S l<I) . . • FO X •.•..••• (COEN) ..••.•. GREEN .•.••. >GRIS ET ) •...• HERRIN ····· \F RANK I E\•/I CH). LACAY O · •. ·· (NU I JENS) ·.·.LEWIS ·· •.. · (t·il LLER) ..... LO t!G ....... MC WHINNEY . (RE I NHARDT) .. ROO+-•.•...• (Pl.ACl<MA!l) .... SALES •...•• ( LL I NPE I ~ ). • . SCOT T •••..• ?DUTT ON) •...•. STEPHENS ON . ( ROBERTS) •.••. STEV ENS •••. BYRNE) .••••.. VANDERWAAL • DISTRI CT 5 ( CR 0 UL). . • . . . . MC I N N I S • . • (BA KER) .•.•.•• CASPERS •..• KYMLA ••.••. DIS TRICT 6 PORTER • · • • • ~PH I LLIPS)··· SASPER S • · · · ,MC INNI S )· .• STORE ······ DISTRICT 7 (WELSH) ..••.• MIL LER .. ··· (CA SPERS) · • · · CL ARK • • · • · · (HER R I N)····· GR i SET • • • • • PORTER ••.•• l F I SCH BA Cl-l ) • • • Q U I G LEY • • • • MC INNIS) •••• RO GERS ••••• PEREZ) ..•... SM I TH •••..• D fR l CT l1 (COEN) •...••• GI BBS • • • • • • (CA SPf-RS ) •. · • BAKER • • · • • · (COEN) . · · . · · • DUKE • · · • · • · DISTRICT 8 (J0 4 ~1~QN ) .. · · . BO YD .. • . • . (CLARK) •. • ...• CASPERS · • • · MI TC HELL · • • 12/1/7 2 _ l/__L_ ./ a... ----£;---;::-- _---v_/_ t === /~== _.; _i__ -~-, =f === ./ -1L == / -y -..;-- ~-~.---7--f-T- (LANG ER)······ FI Nfff LL · · · · • ---- (CASPERS) · · • · ·BAKER · · · · · · • ----- (C ASP ERS )···· ·BA TTI N······ ---- . CASPERS····· ----- (WEDA A) ·······CASTRO······ ---- (C AS PERS)····· CLA RK ······· ---- CUL VER ······ ---- (HINES ) •.•. ···DAVIS ······· ---- (COEN)······· ·DU f<E· · · · • • • · ---- KOW M.Sl<l) ····FOX ········· ---- COE N)··· · • · • ·GI BBS ··· · · • · ----- CO EN) · · · · · • • ·GREEN · · • · · · · ---- HERR I N) · · · · • · GR IS ET · · · • · • ----- GR IS ET)······ HERR l N · · ·•·• ----(HOL L INDEl~) ···JUST········ ---- (MC INNISJ·· ··KYMLA ······· ___ _ (F RANK IE\~ICH) ·LACAYO ······ ___ _ (!W IJENs) .. ···LE WIS······· ____ _ (MILLER) • · · • · ·LONG· • · • · · • • ___ _ (CROU L) ..••. ··MC INNIS···· ____ _ MC WHINNEY · • ___ _ (WE LSH) ••••.• ·MILL ER ······ (ROB ERT S)···· ·NEV IL ······· ----- (CASP ERS)···· ·PHILLIPS ···· == == PORTER· · · · · • (FI SHBACH) · • • ·QUIGLEY· · • • • ------ (MC INN IS)··· ·ROGERS ······ ---- (HE I NHARDT) ···ROO T········ ---- (BLACKMAN)· · · ·SALES · · · • · • • ----- (HOL LI ~DEN) · · · ~C~T T · · • · · · • === == !PEREZJ ·······SM I TH······· DUT T OI~) · • · • · · S T E PHE l ~SON · · ---- ROB ERTS)····· STEVENS ····· ---- iMC Ii~tns) .... STORE •...... == == BYR NE) ..... · ·VANDER WAA L ·· DUN HE) · · · · · · ·YHNN · · · • · · • · ---- (J OHNSON) BOYD ········ ---- MITCHELL • • • • ----- OT HERS I J \ L .,._J t: f '-I tAJ .LL = = =·fu->~ I - HARPER BROWN SYLVESTE R LEW I S DU NN CLARl <E SIGLER NI SSON TAYLOR BROVm ------ ------- ~i,..J ~ J-{L.J u.( ~ f2,PpJ~~ BOE TT ND~ CAKLSO N FI NSTER GALLO\•//\ Y HOH EN ER HO\·/ARD HUNT KEITH LY NCH MADDO X MAR TI !\SO N MU RONE Y PIE RSAL L ST EV Er;s l<E IHl EY MEcETI ;~~ DATE _Ja n . 3 ~ 1 97 3 T Ii·lE 7 : 3 O_J;L...m_._ D I s T R I c Ts _ _.__ ____ _ DI STRIC T l ACTIVE DIRECTORS JO I NT BOARDS AC'l'IVE DIP.ECTORS ~HERR IN)····· GRISE T····· \CA S PERS ) •.•. BATTIN •...• (WE LSH) .••••• MI LL ER ..••• POR TER •••.. (LANGER)······ F I NNE LL ····· -- --- ------(CASPERS(···· ·BAl<ER · · • · • · · -- -- (CASPERS )···· ·BATT I N······ ---- C ASP Ef~S · · · • • -----·- DI STRIC T 2 (W ED AA) ...•..• CAS TRO ...•.. ------ (C ASP ERS )····· CL AR I<-······ ---- (rEREz) ...•. ··SMI TH ······ CUL VE R······ ---- ( "DAA) ··· ... ·CAS TRO · ••.. ------(H I NES)······ ·DA VI S ······· ---- CULVER· •••. ------~COEN )······· ·DUKE>······· ---- (LAN GER ) •... ··F INNE LL···· ------l<Ov./A[...Sl<I ) ••. ·F OX········· ----- (1<0WA LS l<I )····FO X·· .•.••• -------(COEN) ..•..•. ·GI BBS······· ----- 1 GRIS ET) · • • • · • HER R It~. . • . • ------~CO EN ) · • · · • • • ·GREE f~ • • • • • • • ---- HO LL I ND EN) •• ·J US T· •••••• ------(HE RR I N)····· ·GR I S ET· · · · • • ---- ROBER T S)····· NEV I L ······ ----- --GR I SET). ·····H ERR I N······ ---- (CA SPE RS )···· ·PH ILLIPS··· -- ----(HOL L!NDEN) •.• JLJ S T ··· ·•••• ---- (R E I NHA[W T) •• ·ROOT · ..•.•• ------!MC I NN I S)···· KY MLA· · · · • • · ___ _ (DU TT ON)···· .. STEP HE NS ON. ------FRAN I< I EW I CH) ·LAC AYO······ ___ _ (D UNNE )···· .. ·\II/I NN · •••... ------NUIJ ENS )·····L EWI S ····· •• __ ·--------------------::=~-------(MI LLE R)······LON G····· ••· ___ _ DI ST RI CT 3 -APJ (CR 0 u L) ....... Mc I N N I s .... ' -vf~u·-.. fl~t)'I MCWHI NN EY·· ---- _ _L _t_ --(\\I ELSH ) ·······MILLER ······ == === (C P,SPERS ) •.•• (HI NES ) •..... ( l<O\'~A L S KI) .•. (COEN ) ....... (GR I SET) ..••• (FRAN I< I E\.I/ I CH). (NU I JE NS ) •••. (MILLER)····· CULVER ...•. BA TT I N ..... DAV I S •••••• FOX ....... . GREEN ••..•. HERR I N ····. LACAY O ...•. LE\IH S · ....• LONG · •.• · •. MC ~~H I NNE Y • (REIN HA RDT) •. ~ ..•••.• (P 1 ACKMAN ) .••• SALE S ••••.• ( LL I tHJE N) •.• SCO TT ..•.•• !D UT TON~ .••.. S T EP HE NS ON . ROBERTS ) •...• STEVEN S •••. BYRNE ) ••••••• VAND ERW AAL . ~ -==--__ (ROB ERT S )····· NEVI L······· -2:::_ -__ (CA SPE RS )· ····PHILLI PS ···· ---- --<~ --l ) PORT ER······ == == _\/_ f'--__ F I SHBA CH • · • ·QUI GLEY· · • • • J"=r:= --MC I N l~rs) ••• ·ROGERS· ....• ---- ~ L_ ___ RE INHAR DT)·· ·ROOT ········ -- ---v _L_ __ BLACKMAN )··· ·SA LE S ······· ---- C/,,._y_ __ >HOLL I NDEN ) ···S COTT ······· ---- L:? ± == !\~~~i ~~): : : : : : ~~~~~~r~~~N :: --_ . ~ ___ ROB ERTS )····· S TE VENS ····· _L__ __ MC I NNI S )··· ·ST ORE ······· ----- ~_L __ \BYf~NE)····· • ·VANDER v4AA L ·· --· -- ~+ == (DUNNE )······ ·\'1INN · · • · • · · · == == -----------------------------------****¥: DI STRIC T 5 ( C R 0 U L ). • • . • • • MC I N N I S • . • (BAKER ) .•.•••• CAS PE RS .••• l<YML A •••••• DIST RICT 6 POR T ER .. • · · (PHI LL I PS )··· CA SPE l~S · • ·• (MC I NN I S ).·· ST OR E······ DI ST RI CT 7 (WELSH) ...... MI LLE R .. • .. (C ASPERS) · • · • CLARK ······ (H ERRIN) • • • · · GR I SE T····· PO RT ER ••... !F l S CHBAq-1 ) ... QU IG LEY •... MC INN I S ) ...• ROGE.RS ••.•• P EREZ ) ...... SMITH ...... D. fRICT 11 (COEN) •.••••• GI BB S • · · ·, • (CA S PE RS ) · · • • B.l\K ER , · · · · · (COEN) • · ... • · DUKE .... • .. DIST RICT 8 (J O!·m~or~ ) ..•.• BOYD .•...•• (CL P..R K) •.••••• CASPERS • • • • MI TC HELL • · · 1 2 /1/7 2 (JOH NS ON) OTHE RS BOYD ········ ---- MI TCH ELL···· ----- HAR PER BFWWN SYL VES TE R LEWI S DUNN CL ARKE SI GLER NI S SO N TAYLOR BRO WN B OE TT!~ER CAR LSON F INS T ER GJ.\LLO\•/AY HOHE NER H O\~/-\RD HUNT l<EI TH LYN CH MADDOX Ml\RT I NSON MU RONEY PIE RSAL L STEVEH S KEfJ NEY