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