The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1973-01-17COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Gentlenen: January 12, 1973 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO: 2 - WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973~ 7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUrff A IN VALLEY, CAL I FORNI A TELE PH ON ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held January 10, 1973, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:rb ·MEET JNG DATE -Jan.· 17., i973 TIME 7:30 p .m. DISTRICTS ~~~~~~~~- 2 DISTRICT 1 (HERRIN)····· (CA S PERS) •..• (WELS:-i) •••••• ACTIVE DIRECTORS GRISET· • • • • --___ _ BATTIN ••••• _____ _ MILLER. • • • • _____ _ PORTER. • • • • _____ _ DISTRICT 2 C~§REz). ······SMITH······ ( ·DAA) ••• ····CASTRO····· CULVER····· (LANGER) •• •• ··FINNELL···· (KOWALSKI)· ···FOX········ !GRISET)······HERRIN····· HOLLI NDE:N) · ··JUST·· • • • • • ROBERTS)· ····NEVIL······ CASPERS) · ... • ·BAKER · · · • · · RE I NHA(<DT) • • ·ROOT· • • • • · • (DUTTON) ••• • ··STEPHENSON· (DUNNE) • • • • • • ·WINN· • • • • • · DISTRICT 3 Q_~ ~-L--- ~_Y __ _ J::::::..... ....J:1_ -- ~ ___,L_ -- _1:::::::... -1L_ -- ~ _r_ __ __i.:::::::... ---1L -- ......i..L-_L -- ~ _f./ __ _ ~_r_ __ Q., a_. ~_r_== CULVER ••••• _____ _ (CASPERS) •••• BATTIN ••••• _____ _ lHINES) •••••• DAVIS •••••• _____ _ KOWALSKI) ••• FOX •••••••• _____ _ COEN) ••••••• GREEN •••.•• _____ _ (GR I SET) ••••• HERRIN···· •. ·------ (FRANKIEWICH). LACAYO····· ------ (NUIJENS) ••• • LEWIS······ ------ (MILLER) ..... LONG .... ••• ------MC WHINNEY. _____ _ (REINHARDT) •• ROOT ••••••• _____ _ (P.LACKMAN) •••• SALES •.•••• _____ _ ~(LLINPEN) ••• SCOTT •••••• _____ _ UTTON) •••••• STEPHENSON. _____ _ ROBERTS), •••• STEVENS •••• BYRNE~ •••••• VANDERWAAL. == == ---- DISTRICT 5 (CROUL) ••••••• MC INNIS ••• (BAKER) ••••••• CASPERS •••• KYMLA •••••• DISTRICT 6 PORTER . • • • • (B AK ER)··· • • • CASPERS • • • • (MC INNiS) ••• STORE· ••• •• DISTRICT 7 (WELSH) ...... MILLER .... • (CASPERS) • • • • CLARK······ (HERRIN) • • • • • GR I SET ····· PORTER •• • • • ~FISCHBACtJ) ••• QUIGLEY.· ••• MC INNIS) •••• ROGERS ••••• PEREZ) •••••• SM I TH .••••• ll~TRICT 11 (COEN) ....... GIBBS .... •• (CASPt:RS) •• • • BAKER • • • • • • (COEN) • •. • • • • DUKE • • • • • • • DISTRI CT 8 (JOHM SQN). · •• • BOYD •• • • • • (CLARK) •• ••·•• CASPERS • • • • MITCHELL • • • 12/1/72 JO I NT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS lLANGER) ······FINNELL··.-~. ---- CASPERS)····· BAKER······· ---- CASPERS)···· ·BATTIN······ ---- . CASPERS····· ----- (WEDAA) • • • • • • ·CASTRO···· • • ---- (CASPERS)···· ·CLARK······· ---- CULVER······ ---- (HINES) ••••••• DAVIS······· ---- (COEN)······· ·DU KE········ ----KOWA~SKI ·) • • • ·FOX···· • • • • • ---- COEN • • • · • • • ·GI BBS· • • • • • • ----- COEN • • • • • • • ·GREEN· • • • • • • ---- HERR JN)····· ·GRISET· • • • • • ---- GR I SET)····· ·HERRIN······ ---- HOLLI NDEN) ···JU S T~······· ---- MC INNIS)····KYMLA ······· ___ _ FRAN :<I EWICH) ·LACAY O······ ___ _ NUIJENS) ·····LEWIS······· ___ _ (MILLE(<) • • • • • ·LONG · • • • • • • • ___ _ (CROUL) ·······MC INNIS···· ___ _ MCWHINNEY·· ___ _ (WELSH) ••• ····MILLER······ (ROBERTS)· ····NEVIL······· ==== ==== PORTER· • • • • • (FISHBACH) ••• ·QUIGLEY····· (MC INNIS)· ···ROGERS······ (RE I NHARDT) • • ·ROOT · • • • • • • • (BLACK MAN)· • • ·SALES···· • • • HOLLINDEN) ···SCOTT ······· PEREZ)······ ·SMITH······· DUTTON) ••• ···STEPHENSON·· ROBERTS) ••• ··STEVENS····· MC INNIS).·· ·STO RE ······· BYRNE)····· ··VA NDERWAAL·· DUNNE)······ ·WINN········ (JOHN SON) OTHERS * * * * * BOYD • • • • ~ • • • ---- MITCHELL···· ---- HARPER SYLVESTER LEWIS DUNN CLAR KE SIGLER NISSON TAYLOR BRO\'IN BOETTNER CARLSON FINSTER GALLOWAY HO H EN ER HOWARD HU NT KEITH LYNC H MADDOX MA RTINSON MU RO NEY PIERSALL STEVEN S KENNEY MEET~NG DATE Jan. lI, 1973 TIME 7:30 p .m. DiSTRICTS 2 ~-=-~~~~~~ f -' . DIST RICT 1 (HERRIN)····· (CASPERS) •••• (WELSH) •••••• ACTIVE DIRECTORS GR I SET····· --___ _ BATTIN ••..• _____ _ MILLER ••••• _____ _ PORTER. • • • • _____ _ DISTRICT 2 (PEREz) ••••••• sMITH······ ,.(· ·-oAA) • • • • • • ·CASTRO· • • • • ~ CULVER····· / LANGER) • • • • • ·FINNELL· • • • KOWALSKI)····FOX········ GRISET) •• ····HERRIN····· HOLLIND~N) ••• JUST······· ROBERTS)·····NEVIL······ CASPERS)· ... • ·B AK ER· • • • • • REINHA~DT)···ROOT···· · · · DUTTON) •••• ··STEPHENSON· DUNNE)·······WINN· •••••• DISTRICT 3 (CASPERS) •••• CULVER ••••• BATTIN ••••• DAV IS •••••• FOX ....... . ~ywPS _:!__~_ _/ _ _L __ ,/ tJ ,/ '! == _v _ _t!_ -- _; _ _j_ -- / ,./ / -1-== ./ " --y-----_ _j_ _ C\, a-,/ ~ === !HINES) •••••• KOWAl-SKI) ••• . COEN) ••••••• GREEN •••••. _____ _ (GR I SET) ••••• HERRIN··· •• _-__ ---- (FRANK I EW I CH). LACAY O • • • • • ------ (NU I JENS) •• •• LEWIS······ ----__ (Ml LLER) •.• • • LONG . • • • • •• _____ _ MC WHINNEY. __ --__ (REINHARDT) •• ROOT ••••••• _____ _ (BLACK MAN) •••• SALES •••••• _____ _ l1r6LL I N~EN ) ••• SCOTT • • • • • • __ _ UTTO N •••••• STEPHENSON • _____ _ ROBERTS) •.••• STEVENS •••• _____ _ BYRNE) •.••••• VANDERWAAL. _____ _ DISTRICT 5 (CROUL) ••••••• MC INNIS ••• (BAKER) ••.•••• CASPERS •••• KYMLA •••••• DISTRICT 6 PORTER • • • • • (BAKER)· • · • • • CA SP ERS • • • • (MC INNIS) •• • STORE·· .... DISTRICT 7 twELSH) •••••• MILLER • • • • • (CASPE RS ) • • • • CLAR K ······ (HERRIN)····· GR I SET····· PORTER • • • • • !FISCHBAC~) ••• QUIGLEY.' .•• MC INNI S) ..•• ROGERS ••••• PEREZ) •••••• SM I TH •••••• ~TRI C T 11 (COEN) .••• •·• GIBBS······ (CA SP~RS) • · • • BAKER • • • • • • (COEN) •• • • • • • DU KE • • • • • • • DISTRICT 8 (JOHN SO N). · · • • BOYD • • • • .. • • (CLARK) ••••••• CA SP ERS • • • • MITCHELL • • • 1 2 /1/7 2 ------ -----·- ----- JOINT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS (LANGER)······ FINNELL··.-·· ---- (CASPERS)· • ···BAKER· • • • • • • ---- (CASPERS)···· ·BATTIN······ ---- CASPERS····· ------ (WEDAA) • • • ····CASTRO· • • • • • ---- (CASPERS)····· CLARK······· ---- CUL VER· • • • • • ---- (HIN Es) ••••••• DAV IS······· ---- (COEN) •••••••• DUKE········ ----I KOWA~SKI ·) ····FOX········· ---- COEN • • • • • • • ·GI BBS· • • • • • • ----- COEN • • • • • • • ·GREEN· • • • • • • ---- HERRIN)····· ·GRISET· • • • • • ---- GRISET) ······HERRIN······ ---- !HOLLINDEN) ···JUST········ ---- MC INNIS)···· KYMLA· • • · • • • ___ _ FRAN .<I Et'J I CH)· LACAYO· • • • • • ___ _ NUIJEN S) ·····LEWIS······· ___ _ (MILLE~)· • • • • ·LONG····· • • • ___ _ (CROUL) ·······MC INNIS···· ___ _ MC WHINNEY· • ___ _ (WELSH) •••• ····MILLER······ (ROBERTS)·····NEVIL·· ••••• == === PORTER······ (FISHBACH) ••• ·QUIGLEY····· (MC INNIS) ••• •ROGERS······ (REINHA RD T)·· ·ROOT ········ (BLACKMAN) • • • ·SALES·· · • • • • !HOLLINDEN) ···SCOT T ······· PEREZ)······ ·SMITH······· DUTTON) •••• ··STEPHENSON·· ROBER TS) • • • • ·S TE VENS · • • • • IMC IN~IS>····STO RE ······· BYRNE)·······VAND ERWAA L·· DUNNE)······ ·WINN········ * * * * * (JOHNSON) BOYD········ ---- MITCHELL···· ---- OTHERS P/~1• d.. Y1 ~,,..-HARPER O(;byil.;-< 1 I t/,f, I -$"; ~ f .(; (,,.'( f (, 7, 2. 10 6, 7 j SYLVESTER LEWIS "DUNN CLARKE 11 7.J $-,R SIGLER i y.c, NI SSON TAYL OR /1... ~ .~ ):~~ ~ /Lu~· 0 ""' . BRO Clu BOETTNER CA RLSON FIN ST ER GALLOWAY HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYNCH MADDO X MARTINSON MU RO NEY PIER SA LL STEV ENS KEN NEY ·-r I' II II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT No. 2 P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fo unta in Valley, Cali f ., 92703 Preliminary AG E N D A 1/12/73 (1) Roll Call Adjourned Regular Meeting January 17, 1973 -7:30 p.m. (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary (3) Continuation of Public Hearing re proposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 (Continued from December 20, 1972) (a) Continue public hearing (b) Written communications received, if any (c) Oral statements from those in attendance (d) Close public hearing (4) Consideration of Ordinance No. 203, a n ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No . 202 (5) Verbal report of staff regarding discussions wi th local sewering entities concerning an agreement for collection of sewer connection charges (6) Other business and communications, if any (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn r. .._BOARDS OF DIRECTORS II County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT No. 2 P. 0. Box 8127 10844 ~llis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Final A G E N D A 1/17/73 (1) Roll Call Adjourned Regular Meeting January 17, 1973 -7:30 p.m. (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary ADJOURNMENTS ...... ::-....... ... COMP & MILEAGE .... ~ .. FILES SET UP ......... ,. ........... . RESQ!_IJT:Ci!S c:RTIFIED.::- LETIERS \'/~:ITTEN .... ::: ....... . MINUTES \'!P.iTTrn ..... L-.. :: •• MINUTES f ILED ......... 1.t.::: ... ( 3) Continuation of Public Hearing re p~:oposed sewer connection Ordinance No. 203, amending Uniform Connection and URe Ordinance No. 202 (Continued from December 20, 1972) (a) Continue public hearing (b) Written communications received. See page · "A" (c) Oral statements from those in attendance (d) Close public hearing (4) Consideration of Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202 (5) Verbal report of staff regarding discussions with local sewering entities concerning an agreement for collection of sewer connection charges (6) .Other business and communications, if any (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn f:V) CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 11391 ACACIA PARKWAY, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92640 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Po st Office Box 812 7 January 10, 1973 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Gentlemen: The Garden Grove City Council, during its regular meeting held January 9, 1973, joined with the Garden Grove Sanitary District in opposing the connection fees for new development, as set forth in proposed Sewer Connection Charge Ordinances No. 203 and No. 303. The Council further requested that the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 withhold the adoption of such ordinances until recommendations from a financial consultant proposed for analyzing the conditions within Orange County Sanitation District No. 3 have been completed. We appreciate your consideration of these requests concerning matters which will seriously affect every resident in this City. Very truly yours, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CITYC •. . t ·~-;j ii!.~·: t~.·rodS:bjm \ ~ .. f'''·'-. j ... \C . ,\i _, : ·:;: ·--~ ~ ..... ! ... : '• Agenda Item #3(b) -A-District 2 Aaenda Item No 'f ORDINANCE NO. 203 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING UNIFORM CO!i"11ECTION · AND USE ORDii'fANCE rm. 202 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, does ordain· a~ follows: ARTICLE 1 Article 2 of Ordinance No. 202 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following sections: (o) District Connecti0n Charge. Is a connection charge imposed by District No. 2 as a charge for the use of District's sewerage facilities whether such connection is made directly to a District sewerage facility or to a sewer which ultimately discharges into a District sewerage facility. (P) District Sewerage Facility. Shall mean any property belonging to County Sanitation District No. 2 used in the treatment, transportation, or disposal of sewage or industrial wastes. (q) Domestic Sewage. Shall mean the liquid and water borne wastes derived from the ordinary living processes, free from indus- trial wastes, and of such character as to permit satisfactory disposal without special treatment, into the public sewer or by means of a private disposal system. (r) Sewerage Facilities. Are any facilities used in the collection, transportation, treatment or disposal of sewage and industrial wastes. (s) Family Dwelling Building. Is a building designed and used to house families and containing one or more dwelling units. (t) Dwelling Unit. Is one or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one ~ family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating. (u) Building Sewer. Is the sewer draining a building and ex- tending beyond the exterior walls thereof and which connects to a District sewerage facility or to a private or public sewe.rage facility which ultimately discharg~s to a District sewerage facility. (v) Other Terms. Any term not herein defined is defined as being the same as set forth in the International Conference of Building Officials Uniform Building Code, 1970 Edition, Volume I. Article 2 - (a) Section (a) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 202 is amended to read as follows: (a) District Connection Charges. Before any connection permit shall be issued the applicant shall pay to the District or its agent the charges specified herein. (1) Connection Charge for New Construction, Family Dwelling Buildings. For each new single family d~elling building constructed, the connection charge shall be $50 per dwelling unit. For each multip~e family dwelling building constructed, the connection ch~rge shall be $125 per dwelling unit. (2) Connection Charge for New Construction, Other Than \ Family Dwelling Building. For all other new construction, including but not limited to commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the connection charge for each building sewer shall be as follows: Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $ 50 8 inches $100 10 inches $200 12 inches $300 (3) Connection Charge for Replacement Buildings. For new construction replacing former buildings, the connection charge shall be calculated on the same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (2) hereinabove. If such replacement construction is commenced within two years after demolition or -2- destruction of the former building, a credit against such charge shall be allowed, calculated on the basis of the current connection charge applicable for the new construction of the building demolished or destroyed. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charge. (4) Connection Charges for Additions to or Alterations of Existing Buildings. In the case of s·tructures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be used for other than family dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $125 for each dwelling unit added or created and in the case of new construction other than family dwelling buildings which requires the construction of a new building sewer, the connection charge for each new building sewer shall be as follows: Diameter of Buildin~ Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $ 50 8 inches $100 10 inches $200 12 inches $300 When Char~e is to be Paid. Payment of connection charges shall be required at the time of issuance of the building permit for all construction within the District, excepting in the case of a building legally exempt from the requirement of obtaining a building permit. The payment of the sewer connection charge for such buildings will be required at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumbing connection permit for any construction within the territorial limits of the District. -3- Schedule of Charges. A schedule of charges specified herein will be on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in the Building Department Qf each city within the District. Biennial Review of Charges. At the end of two years from the effective date of this ordinance, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall review the charges established by this article and if in its judgment such charges require modifi- cation, an amendment to this ordinance will be adopted establishing such modification. ARTICLE 3 Section (b) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 202 is amended by adding thereto Section (3) to read as follows: (3) When an excess capacity connection charge is payable py a user, as hereinabove provided, a credit equal to the connection charge paid by the user, if any, shall be allowed against such excess capacity connection charge. ARTICLE 4 Except as herein amended, Ordinance No. 202 is ratified, re- affirmed and is to become effective this Ordinance. ---------, as amended by The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall sign this Ordinance and the Secretary of the Districts shall attest thereto and certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published once in the , a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the District, within fifteen (15) days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by said Board of Directors and said Ordinance shall take effect -4- " ..... , PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County Sani- tation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1972 . ---------- ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California -5- Chairman, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (.EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) January 12, 1973 MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 17, 2.973 RE: JANUARY 17TH PUBLIC HEARING -PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE ORDINANCE NO. 203 On December 20th, the District Board continued the subject hearing to January 17th at 7:30 p.m., in response to several requests for a continuation due to .the holidays. On December 22nd, notices of the Board's action to continue the hearing were mailed to all int2rested persons and entities. Included with the agenda material is a copy of the letter dated January 11, 1973, and attachments~ addressed to the Garden Grove Sanitary District from the District's engineer. The multicolored 11 ultimate land use map" r2ferred to in the engineer's letter under Paragraph No. 2 is not enclosed because it would not be meaningful if reproduced in black and white. The Board has directed the Districts' staff to proceed with discussions with the local sewering entities concerning an agreement for collection of sewer connection charges ~hich will be necessary in the event a connection charge ordinance is adopted by the District. The staff will make a verbal progress report if deemed necessary. ~/~~';< Don E ~ uf.L. t11. Chairman cc: Directors, District No. 2 TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 ~;P.ROPOSED:·sEw"'ER CONNEC'fION FEE ORDINANCE The City of Garden Grove is protesting the proposed sewer connection fee ordinance both because of the fees themselves and because of the ~ethod of collGction. All of the undeveloped or underdeveloped property in Garden Grove has been in the Orange County Sanitatioh~District since the beginning and has been paying taxes presu~ably to b~y capacity. ~ow to be told that the capacity will not be available because it was used by property owners who developee higher density than for which the facilities were designed, and that the non-using tax payer r~mst now pay connection fees in order to pay for provision of capacity for him , is like punishing B for crir.-.es comni tted by A. It see~s to ~c that, since the facilities were constructed for development envisione~ by the Master Plan, that properties • should at least be credited for t~e density authorized by the. Vlan. For example, if a parcel was planned for a duplex, the owner should be allowec! to build a duple~ T.d.thout acaitional penalty. The practice of ~aving one go7ern~ent entity collect ~oney for another government entity for a co~~ission could L.:.G:i.O. to .::.buse. ~:ost cities have all they czm handle just collecting fees they need for ~heir own use; it could be very difficult: to explain to the tax?ayers whv ~he ·cities are : out of town to be used somewhere else. To some of their taxpayer~,the cities could appear to be patsies. If both the State and Federal qovernments have money to distribu~e back to the local governments for a variety of purposes, there should certainly be enough available for environmental protection because of the e~phasis placed on this area. We would like to see ~ore effort to obtain State and Federal grants before imposing new fees or charges on local property owners. Higher levels of governmerit are striving to alleviate the heavy burden on the property owners; the proposed ordinance is in direct contradiction to those efforts. We earnestly request that you take no action on this ordinance until aft~r the meeting by District No. 3 on ~arch 7, at which ti~e the reco~rnendation fro~ the Financial Consultant will be reade public. Garden Grove is split practically down the middle in Districts 2 and 3. The financial conditions in District 3 are far more s0rinus; adoption of the proposed ordinance will not co~e close to solvinq District~3 1 s financial problems. We would hate to see this ordinance ~copted first by District 2, thu~ presenting District 3 with an awkward situation where the Consultant miqht r0co~mend for exa~ple ~bond issue un~er. conditions whic~ would be. highly unfavorable. Let's take grips with th~ :clatively ninor cne i~ D~s~~ict 2. ( ( Zone Description Flow in Gal/ Ac/Day 1. Low Density Housing 650 2. Medium Density Housing 1,550 3. Medium liigh Density Housing 3,880 4. High Density Housing 5,820 ~ 5. " Commercial 3,230 6. Industrial 3,880 1·. Recreational 190 8. Oil Production 1,000 Totals \ TABLE IV-3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE AHD FLOW DATA Total % of Total Area in Total Flow Zone Area in MGD 25,424 30 17 25., 238 30 39 2,687 3 10 4,855 6 28 5,981 7 19 9,526 11 37 3,123 3 1 8,418 10 8 85,252 100 159 ( % of Density Total People Population % of Flow per Ac in Zones Population 10 6 152,544 17 1: 25 15 378,570 42 7 .37 99,419 11 .. 18 56 271,880 30 12 23 5 100 902,413 100 -------------------------~-- December 29, 1972 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY Study of Possible Revenue Derived from Connection Charges GENERAL 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 the number of building permif-s issued in 1971 for the various classifications was gathered for each city and the number falling within the district's boundaries estimated. The information on building permits issued in 1971 for single-family and multiple-family dwelling units was obtained from the "Orange County Progress Report, Volume 9. 11 Th is information is tabulated in Table I. Information on com- mercial and industrial building permits issued in 1971 was obtained from material collected for a similar study done for District No. 2 and from the bui !ding depart- ments of the various cities. This information is listed in Table II. RESULTS The estimated revenue which could be generated from various connection charges for single-family and multiple-family dwelling units is: Connection 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 l, 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 follows: C !ossification Units Charge Total Single Family 4, 195 $ 50 $210,000 Multiple Family 5,645 125 706,000 Commerc ia I/I ndustria I 337 100 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. ~. TABLE I BUILDING PERMITS FOR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 1971 City Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach La Habra La Palma Los Alamitos Seal Beach Stanton Westminster TOTAL Total units estimated in District No. 3 Single Family 950 272 72 499 1,560 244 193 1,483 62 241 9 242 473 222 6,522 4, 195 Multiple Estimated in Family Total District No. 3 1,346 2,296 '1,296 8 280 130 252 324 324 655 1, 154 1, 154 48 1,608 1,208 1,273 1,517 817 675 868 468 2,347 3,830 1,320 734 796 496 404 645 645 66 75 75 60 302 302 540 1,013 1, 013 370 592 592 8,778 15,300 9,840 5,645 9,840 TABLE 11 BUILDING PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 1971 Estimated in City Commercial Industrial Total District No. 3 Anaheim 97 38 135 76 Brea 5 2 7 3 Bueno Park 36 15 51 51 Cypress 10 11 11 Fountain Valley 17 6 23 17 Fullerton 41 13 54 29 Gorden Grove 18 28 46 25 Huntington Beach 40 10 50 17 La Habra 10 11 7 La Palmo 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 FORECASTS A plot of dwe II ing units authorized by building perm its in Orange County and in District No. 3 from 1960 through 1971, inclusive, is shown on Plate A. The yearly average over this 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 until demand has caught up with supply. However, knowledgeable people in the housing industry fee I fluctuations wil I not be as pronounced in the future because of slower population growth in the county and fairly tight money conditions. Several lending institution economists have predicted that 1972 will show a 12-1/2 percent 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- dwel ling construction. Using the 12-year average permit figure and the proposed connection charges 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 should be able to generate between $700, 000 and $850, 000 per year. .,_ . ci u z c( LJ I.Hi N • t-::i LJ -z o- LJLJ z~ LJ I Cl :::> w ( rr LJ Q. < Q. I I ~ lJ re: l'.l~ z ...I lJ < Cl I ~ 5 ~ 0. Co ::::! ~ oX : 0 '¢ M ci z 1960 1965 1970 YEAR PLATE A .. - !Aiowry ·· ·' : ¥1.ssociates CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 January 11, 1973 TELEPHONE: 714 / !5'41-5301 Mr. Walt Bressel Garden Grove Sanitary District ~ 11391 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, California 92640 Dear Mr. Bressel: I have reviewed the data in our master plan reports and other studies that we have made for County Sanitation District No. 2 in an attempt to provide you with the information that you and your Board members requested regarding the proposed new connection fee ordinance. I hope the following information may be of some use to you and your Board. l, Sumnary of Land Use and Flow Data. This is a table taken from our Master Plan Report of March, 1971, and shows the predicted ultimate land use for the exist- ing district and also for the lands that are expected to annex to the district in the future. You will note that the den- sity and people-per-acre for each land use category is also shown in the Table. 2. Ultimate Land Use Map. This map is also taken from our 1971 Master Plan Report and shows the ultimate land use for which the District's future trunk sewer system has been designed. It should be noted that the lower end of the trunk sewer system is not designed for the total anticipated flow from the upper reaches of the dis- trict. For the area northerly of a line approximately in the location of the Riverside Freeway crossing of the Santa Ana River, it is anticipated that a water reclamation plant will be constructed in that area that w"ill reclaim water in the upper reaches of the trunk sewer system. This reclaimed water will be-placed into the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge purposes and will not be placed in the downstream sewering system. Therefore, the downstream trunk sewer system is not designed to take the full ultimate flow from the District. . . . 3. Letter of October 27, 1972, regarding Revenues to be Derived from Connection Charges. I • l ; • .• : I .. I ' I. , ,,. ' 1 ··This letter and the supporting information shows what the trend has been in the past few years for the development of single-family. multiple-family, and commercial and industrial developments within District No. 2 . . I ,. 1. ' .• l • la ''": . I .. I. I .• .... ·..c.. Mr. Walt Bressel .January 11 , 1973 Page 2 of 2 I do not have any information as to what percentage of development has taken place in various areas throughout the District. However, the Dis- trict does take flow measurements within the existing trunk sewer system and these measurements indicate that a large portion of the existing sys- tem is now flowing full. If there is any other information I can 9ive you, or be of any other as- '-"' sistance, do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Lowry and Associates !~i~ DJM:skc cc: Mr. Fred Harper ; ;, . 'h1s~{la1es CON~UL:l~GCIVILENGl;EERS , . ., 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 Ocotber 27, 1972 Mr. Fred Harper Sanitation Districts of Orange County Box 8127, 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Connection Charges -District No. 2 Dear Mr. Harper: Tl'.:L£PHONE 71'4 / 841•5301 I have gone through our information that we have gathered over the past few months to determine how much revenue might be co 11 ected by the proposed connection fees in Di~trict 2. The results are as follows: FOR1971: Classification Units Charge Amount Single Family 2,730 $50 136,500 Multiple Family 3,377 $125 422,125 Commerci a 1 /Indus tri a 1 332 $100* 33,200 TOTAL $591 t825 ff, *Charge varies from $50 to $300 per connection depending on size of sewer lateral. Average charge assumed to be $100. The number of connections in District No. 2 have been estimated from Building · Department records as shown on the enclosed sheets. Very truly yours. Lowry. and Associat.es ~~lt~~~ .. DJM:skc Enc.· I •• •·• • ''' I•• 'I i • • • ~ ' • • . . .. JI 1 • • , • • • , ' I \, • •·. .. a • \. • • . • • • • • •... 1" ~ I HI.. I i. II l.1• l ..... I. • •,. • l I \ • • l I . ' • ' I • • I t • • l ~ ' I l A •I. / I ·.c..·· . " -BUILDING PERMITS FOR DWELLI!-TG UirITS 1971 Sipt;le }1ultiple· Estimated in Citl Fam ill Famil;L: Total District No:· 2 ~heim 862 1,443 2,305 1,000 Brea 274 2 276 150 Fountain Valley 1,560 48 1,608 400 Fullerton 2li4 1,273 i,517 700 Garden Grove· .193 675 868 400 La Habra 62 726 788 300 . Oranse 2l~l 933 1,174 Boo Placentia " 684 229 913 913 Santa Ana 592 1,519 2,111 500 Villa Park 96 0 96 96 Yorba Linda 779 69 84-8· 8l~8 TOTALS .2.i.587 6,917 12,50h 6,J.OI -~ =--== ....... .J!!!t t d. District No. 2 Units b,730 3,377 §_, 107 Est'd. Connection Charge Revenue Generated at following assumed fees:* @. $ .50 per unit $137,000 $169,000 $ 306,000 $100 per unit 273,000 338,000 611,000 $150 per unit 410,000 506,000 916,000 $200 per unit 546,ooo 675,000 1,221,000 $250 per unit 683,000 84-4 ,ooo 1,527,000 *To nearest $1,000 . . .. ..... .. August 11 , 1972 .. . ' . ~ : '·. ' ,• . ·;_ .. Anaheim (1~3.38) h!)i,•:,}:,·L Brea (54, 34) ·:,.\:· . ·. · Fountain Valley ·~\-~ -~· ·.·~· .. ' (24. 87) I.. • • I Commercial 97 5 \;~, ·'~: ·': . Fu 11 e rt on ( 4 6 • 1 l+ ) 17 41 t_;~ ·.; " Garden Grove ·.~t.'rt~· (46.08) ~:-l > · .. ~'.:. .A}(.:'. ( . . •. '.:.:~i;;~·~:·_' .. ' . t~·::!~. ·, :/'• h':i\~·'.~·· ' j:\-' ;: .. , .·.,. ~ >fr.~< ;.~~-· ~ r·~' .~,...-.:· .i .. ~·>':,.A~. •_ i ·~ •• '\:, .<· .. · ·La Habra (38.07) 18 10 Orange (68.14) 9 Placentia (100.00) 21 Santa Ana (23.68) 223 Vl 1 la Pk. (100.00) Not Avai 1.* Yorba Linda (100.00) TOTALS J4 . ., 455 ; . ., BUILDING PERM! TS 1971 lndustrlal Total Est. Dist. 112 38 135 59 2 7 4 6 23 (6) 13 54 25 28 46 21 1 11 4 18 27 18 4 25 25 50 273 -65 ~ .,. 91 91 91 0 14 14 251 706 332 , I r;:.i;r.:·~:°.;''. ,' ~ LI s ted by specl fl c type of bu i l ding; eg. motel , bank, se rvl ce stat I on Hf·:.'~;', · , , , . (could be ob t.a i ned by going th rou9h records) ., .. · . . : :"-. , ·:•: ' . ' NOTE: Commercial buildings include: .motels, service stations, stores. office buildings. ' .''.. ' .! ·" I n d us t r I a 1 b u i 1 d i n gs 1 n c 1 u de ; man u fact u _re • i n d us t ry ; ~.~·.·!t-'7: ~/:~=~~~~ ~"'..; : ._:~ Not included in either category: hospitals, schools, m~n·ictpal buildings, ;; :.· ' I j; ' ~:y' .. ' .·(. I ·'. , ,.., -.. : . . . . ··~ ~( ," . ! ·.t ; I . "·, ... r, .. ·:~ ... . , . .. ···: .'" churches, public recreation ......... .. \ .I. : : ... ... -,·· , '• Jurisdiction Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine Laguna Beach La Habra La Palma Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange . Placentia San Clemente 'an Juan Capistrano Santa Ana ..-;~ ' (' . ,, ... . .. "·:, ,. ·'·· .. •<1. .. ~ ... d:· °¥' . f·:t'. ::J~. .• ··.,"' ........ :. >'· .... ,. ~ ... . Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Vil!a Park Westminster ·Yorba Linda ~.}l';\ .•".;.*: •• , ·Total Incorporated Area : Unincorporated Area ;'.l1i . Total County· .... :;, .1 ; f-~· . __ ... c,. I!' Estimated Estimated Feb.1,1972 Jan.1,1971 64, 16 l 59,266 6,300 5,688 18,121 17,913 26,660 25,095 9,546 8,634 12,880 10,534 29,862 28,426 37,321 36,628 42,297 39,054 6,644 N/A 7,769 7,681 . ,, . 14,579 13,475 2,715 2,808 3,401 3,263 24,989 22,964 25,916 ,11; ; l! 25,028 ·' 7,026 6,356 8,046 7,593 2,145 I 1,504 54,584 52,246 . ' 13,235 12,115 : 7,317 i 5,677 ~ I 10, 121 I 9,456 908 I I 822 18,055 17 ,261 4,895 I 3,838 I I 459,493 i 423,325 57 ,709 I 60,461 I 5li,202 i 483,786 i : . . .. i:· • ·-~· I · ~\ .. SOURCE: Orange County Plann1·ng Department. and State Dept. of Financ,e. ·~ ;~: i ~~· I .... ~.J·'· I I • , ! I ::<~1: .. ,· l '"!":··. .... .;:;·· ... ,, I ·.· 4·,· .• I Numerical Increase Over Jan. 1, 1971 4,895 612 208 1,565 912 2,346 1,436 693 3,243 N/A 88 1, 104 .93 138 2,025 888 670 453 641 2,338 1, 120 1,640 ! 665 86 794 1,057 : 36, 168 ·2,752 I 33,416 I i . , I ~:.:_ __________ _.. .. ,._ .... --..it ______ ......... _ ............... _. ____ ..,.,...,.._ ..................... _......,..,,. .... --------- .. Percentage Increase Over Jan. 1, 1971 8 11.2 1.1 6.0 11.1 22.0 5.2 2.2 ., 8.0 NIA 1.0 8.1 ·3.2 4.0 9.1 4.1 11.2 6.1 43.2 4.0 9.0 29.2 7.1 10.1 5.2 28.1 9.2 ·5.1 6.9 83 l r t COUNTY SANITATION DisrrRICT NO. 2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING January 17, 1973 -7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held January 10, 1973, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the District offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Continuation of hearinB re Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance No. 203 * * * Ordinance No. 202, continued open by the chairman. Don Smith (Chairman), Rudy Castro, Norman Culver, Robert Finnell, Donald Fox, Wade Herrin, Edward Just, Robert Nevil, David Baker, Robert Root and Donald Winn Mark .Stephenson Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Robert Webber and Rita Brown C. Arthur Nissan, Milo Keith, Donald Martinson, Will Lindsay, Barbara Ferguson, Robert Main, Walter Bressel, Ross Johnston and Woodrow ButtPrfield * * * Open Public Hearing -The public hearing on Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use from December 20, 1972, was declared Review of Master Plan Financial Requirement~ -The General Manager briefly reviewed the funding requirements necessary to finance the construction of the District's Master Plan of Trunk Sewers, and reviewed the alternative methods of financing said facilities. It was pointed out that Senate Bill 90, the tax reform bill recently adopted by the State legislature, rules out the possibility of increasing the.tax rate as a means of raising the additional $1.4 million in revenue needed.to meet the District's anticipated.cash flow requirements. Written Communications ~ The Secretary read a communication received from the City of Garden Grove, dated January 10, 1973, requesting that the Board of Directors withhold adoption of a connection fee ordinance until recommendations from a financial consultant proposed for analyzing the conditions within District No. 3 have been completed. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried that the letter from the City of Garden Grove dated January 10, 1973, regarding the proposed connection charge ordinance, be received and ordered filed. #2 1/17/73 Oral Comm8nts -The Chair recognized ~r. Woodrow Butterfield, B~uncilrnan, City of Garden Grove, who read the following statement into the record: PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION FEE ORDINANCE The City of Garden Grove is protesting the proposed sewer connection fee ordinance both because of the fees themselves and because of the method of collection. All of the undeveloped or underdeveloped property in Garden Grove has been in the Orange County Sanitation District since the beginning and has been paying taxes presumably to buy capacity. Now to be told that the capacity will not be available because it was used by property owners who developed higher density than for which the facilities were i designed, and that the non-using tax payer must now pay connection fees in order to pay for provision of capacity for him, is like punishing B for crimes committed by A. It seems to me that, since the facilities were constructed for development envisioned by the Master Plan, that properties should at least be credited for the density authorized by the Plan. For example, if a parcel was planned for a duplex, the owner should be allowed to build a duplex without additional penalty. The practice of having one government entity collect money for another government entity for a commission could lead to abuse. Most cities have all they can handle just collecting fees they need for their own use; it could be very difficult to explain to the taxpayers why the cities are coll.ecting fAes ror others And shipping 95% of the proceeds out of town to be used somewhere else. To some of their taxpayers, the cities could appear to be patsies. If both the State and Federal governments have· money to distribute back to the local governments for a variety of purposes, there should certainly be enough available for environmental protection because of the emphasis placed on this area. We would like to see more effort to obtain State and Federal grants before imposing new fees or charges on local property owners. Higher levels of government are striving to alleviate the heavy burden on the property owners; the proposed ordinance is in direct contradiction to those efforts. · We earnestly request that you take no action on this ordinance until after the meeting by District No. 3 on March 7, at which time the recommendation from the Financial Consultant will be made public. Garden Grove is split practically down the middle in Districts 2 and 3. The financial conditions in District 3 are far more serious; adoption of the proposed ordinance will not come close to solving District 3's financial problems. We would hate to see this ordinance adopted first by District 2, thus presenting District 3 with an awkward situation where the Consultant might recommend for exarr:ple ~ a bond issue under conditions which would be highly unfavorable. Let's take care of the bigger problem in District 3 first; then come td grips with the relatively minor one in District 2. -2- #2 1/17/73 The Chair then recognized Walter Bressel, Robert Main and Ross Johnston, all representing the Garden Grove Sanitary District; Will Lindsay of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce; and Barbara Ferguson, each of who addressed the Board in ccnnection with the proposed ordinance. Consideration of Ordinance 203 Following a review of salient projections developed for the Master Plan Report by Mr. Donald Martinson of Lowry and Associates, District's consulting engineer, it was moved and seconded that Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202, be adopted. The Board then entered into a discussion regarding agreements which would have to be entered into with the local sewering entities to implement collection of the proposed sewer connection charges. The feasibility of implementing a sewer service charge was also discussed. A call for the question was then made and following a roll cal vote the General Counsel announced that adoption of Ordinance No. 203 had failed to pass by required two-thirds vote as follows: AYES: Directors Don E. Smith (Chairman), Rudy Castro, Robert Finnell, Wade Herrin, Robert Nevil, Robert Root and Donald Winn NOES: Directors Norman E. Culver, Donald Fox, and David L. Baker ABSENT: Director Mark Stephenson Directing Ordinance 203 be placed on February 14, 1973 agenda for further consideration The Board discussed at length the propriety of reconsidering Ordinance No. 203. Several Directors suggested that the Board defer further consider- ation of the proposed ordinance until the financial analysis being conducted for District No. 3 by municipal financing consultants is completed, to determine if the consultant's recommendations for District No. 3 have application to District No. 2's fiscal position. Following further discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That further consideration of Ordinance No. 203, an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No. 202, be placed on the agenda for the regular meeting of the Board of Directors on February 14, 1973. Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of.Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:41 p.m., January 17, 1973. ATTEST: Secretary, Board OL Directors of County ·sanitation District No. 2 Chairman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 -3-