Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-21COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. D. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) G0ntlc:m2n: March 16, 1973 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 2 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21) 1973, 7:00 P,M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held March 14, 1973, the Board of Directors of County.Sanitatio~ District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. JWS:rb MEE.T I NG DA TE March 21 , 19.1..3_ T I ME 7:00 p.m . DIS TRICTS 2 -=-~~~~~~~ DISTRICT 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS (H ERR IN)) • ." •.• GR I SE T····· _____ _ (C ASPE RS ••.• BATTIN ••... _____ _ (WE LSH ) ••.••• MIL LE R •...• ______ _ PORTER. • . • • _____ _ DI STR I CI 2 (J_:}/) (P ERE Z)······ SM ITH ·····:· _1L:"_ _j_ -- r DAA) • • · • • • CAS T RO · • • · • ~ _bJ_ -- ( AS PERS) • • • · CLARK ······ .iJ..L__ ~ -·- (LANGE R)·· · • · ~ KO\'IAL~~I ) · · • ~GR ISE iJ ····· (HOLLI ND~N) • • CULVER ····· 1.../ -1:!__ __ FI NN ELL···· ~ _t,_ __ F 0 X • • • • • • • • L--"" tJ HERR IN · .'1 ~~C: i..--_:/__ == . (R OBERT S) • • · • (RE INH AR DT).· (DU TTON)·· · • • (DU11NE ) • • • • • • JUS T······· ..-LL. _i_ -- NEV I L · • • • • · __=::::__ --t--__ ROO T· • • • · • · i----~-__ STEPHENSO N· ~ -L __ vHNN · • • • • •• ,__.,.......--Af_ __ DI STR ICT 3 CULVER ••••• BA TTIN ••••• DAV IS •••••• (C ASPER S) •.•• )H INES ) .••••• CKOWA LSKI) ... FO X ........ COEN) ••••..• GREEN .••••• (G RISET) ••••• HERRIN ····· (FRA NK ! EWICH). LACAYO · •••• (NUIJENS) •••• LEW I S ······ (MILLER) ••••• LONG ••.•••• MC ~mINNEY. ~RE I NHAR DT) •• ROO T •.••••• n 1.ACKMAN)., •.• SA LES •••••• \~LL l t~l.)f;N J, • , ~COTT .••••. i DUTT O~J ••••.• STEPH EN SON • ROBERTS) .•••• STEVEN S •.•. BYRNEl ...... VANDERWAAL. DI STRI CT 5 (CRO UL) ••••••• MC INNI S ••• (BAKER) ••..••• CASP ER S •••• KYMLA •••••• DI STRI CT 6 PORTER • • • • • ((:.ASPE;RS •••• BAT TIN •••• (MC INN IS) •• • STORE···~·· DI STRIC T 7 ""CWELSHJ •••..• MILLER ····· (CA SPERS ) • • • • CLARK ······ (H ERRIN) • • • · • GR I SE T····· PORTER • • • • • ~FISCH B ACH) ••• QUIGLEY •••• MC INNIS) ••.. ROGERS ••.•• PER EZ ) ...... SMIT H ...... ~TR ICT 11 ------ fcOEN) ..... · · GIBBS · .... · (c ASP~Rs ) •••• BAKER •••.•. (COEN) • • • • • • • DUKE · • • • • • • DISTRICT 8 (J O!-l NS QN ) .• • · • BOYD • • • • • • • (C LARl<J •.•••.• CA SPE RS • • · · MITCHELL • · • 2/J.1V '73 --.---- --~-- ------ ------ ------- ---~ ------ ----·-- ------ JO I NT BOARDS ACTIVE DIREC'.!!ORS (LANGE R):····· F"I Ni~ELL· • · · • ---- (CASPE RS/· • · • ·BAKE R · · · · • • • ---- (CA SP ERS )···· ·BA TTn1 • • •••• ---- . CAS PE RS · · · • · -----·- (WEDAA) ·······CASTR O······ ----- (CASPE RS )····· CLARK······· ----- CUL VE R······ ---- (HI NES )······ ·DAVIS······· ---- (COEN)······· ·DUl<E· • • • • • • • ---- (KOW/\l-SK J ) •••• f OX· • • • • · • • • ---- !COEN)········GIBBS······· ----- COEN)······· ·GREEN······· ---- HERR I N)····· ·GRISE T· • · • • • --'-- GR I SET)·· ····H ERRIN ······ ----·- (HOLLI NDE N) ···JU S T ········ ----·--- !MC INNI S ) .. ··KYMLA······· ___ _ FRANKI EYHCH) ·LACAY O······ ___ _ NUIJ EN s) •.•• ·LEWIS······· (M ILLE R) • • • • • ·LONG · • • • · • • · ---- (CROUL). ······MC IN NIS···· ==== ==== MC l~HINNEY· · ___ _ (WEL S H).····· ·MILLER······ (ROBERTS)·· ···NEVIL······· === ==== PO RTER······ (FISHB ACH )· ···QUIGLEY ····· (Mc INNI S )· ···ROGERS ······ (RE I NH ARD T) •• ·R OOT ········ (BLACK MAN )···· SA LE S ······· 1 HO LL I NDEN) ••• scorr •••.••. PEREZ) · • · · • • ·SM I TH· • · • · · • DU TT ON).··· ··STEPHENSON ·· ROBERT S)···· ·STE VENS····· lMC INt1s). ···STOR E····· .. (BYRNE ·•• •· ··VANDERWAA L·· (DUNNE · • • · · • :l~I NN · • · • · • · · (JOHNSON) OTHER S. BOYD · · · · · · · · --~--- MIT CHEL L····. ----- RAR PER SYLVES T ER LEW I S DU NN CL AR KE SIG l_ER NI SSON TA YLOR BROvlN BOETTNER CARLSO N FINSTER GALLOWAY HO HE NER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON 1Y\URONEY PIE RSA LL STEVENS KENNEY ME E Tl ~lG DA TE Mar ch 21 , 1 9 7 3 T I M E 7 : 0 0 P . m . D i ST R I CT S 2 ·-------- DISTRICT l ACT.fVE DIRECTORS (HERR I N)····· GR I SET · · • · • _____ _ (c;\SP ERS ) ..•. BATTIN ••••. ______ _ (Wt::LS H) •••.•• MILL ER ••.•• _______ _ 1-0 RTER.. • . . _____ _ DISTRI CT 2 ( "REZ) · • • · · · (WE DAA) • · · · • • (CAS PE RS) · · • • f LANGER) .. ··· i<m~A L S l<I) · · · . GR I SE T )·· • · • (HO LLI NDt:N ) · • (ROB ERTS ) .. •· (RE I NHARD T ).· (D UTT ON) •. ••• (DUN NE)······ DIS TRICT 3 SM I TH· • • • • • CAS TRO····· e LAR K · • • • • • CUL VER · • • · • FIN NELL···· FO X · · · · · · · · HE RR I N····· JUST······· NE VIL· .. • .. RO OT······· S T EPHEN SO N· WI NN .. • .... ~ == ~ == _w _ __§=___ -- _ _Jj_ _ __ _j_ __ _ _JL_ __ _:j_ -- _ _j_ _ __ _j_ __ ,, == _!/_ == --__ N_ --- ) CULVE R ••••• _____ _ (CASPERS ...• BATTI N ••••• (HI NES) ...... DAVI S ...... ------ (K O¥/Al-S KI ) ••• FO X •..••••. ------ (CO EN) ..••.•• GREEN •••••• === == == (GR I SET)····· HE RRIN·.·· .. ~------ (F RANK ! EY.I I CH). LACA YO ••• •• ----__ (N UI JE NS ) • ••• LEWIS.·.··· _____ _ (MILLER) ..... LONG ....... _____ _ r MC WHI NNEY . ----__ ,DE I NHA RDT) •. ROOT ..••••• _____ _ ~A Cl <Mi\N)., .•• SA LE S •.•••• _____ _ \HOLl .l.N UENj.,, SCOTT., •••. _____ _ !DU TTON) •..••• ST EP HE NSON •. _____ _ ROBERT S ) •.••• STEV ENS •••• _____ _ BYRNE ) ••••••• VA NDER WA AL. _____ _ DIS TRICT 5 (CR-OUL) •••.•.• MC INNIS ••• (BA KER ) ••••••• CASPERS •••• KY MLA •••••• DIS TRICT 6 ·PO RTE R . • • • • (CASP~~~ c •••• BA TTI N •..• (MC I NN 10) • • • STO RE······ DISTRICT 7 . (VffLSH) ...... MI LL ER ... ·• (CASPERS) · • · • CLARK ······ (HERR I N) ·····.GR I SE T····· PORT ER •.... ~F IS CH BAq1) .•• QUI GLEY .••• >M~ I ~N I S)., •. ROGERS ••.•• :RE ... ) ..•... SMI TH •.•••. DISTR I CT 11 (COEN) ....... GIBBS · ... •• (CASPl=RS ) • • • • BAKER • • • • • • (COEN ) • • • • · • • DUl<E · • · · • · · DISTR ICT 8 (JO!-W SQN ). • • .• BOYD .• • •.•• (CLARK ) ..•..•. Cf-\SPERS •. • • MI TC.H ELL • • · 2/ :}_l!/7 3 -------· - J O I NT BOA RDS A CTIVE DIR ECTORS (!_ANGE R)······ F I NN ELL····· ---- (CASPERS)· · · • ·BAKER · • · • · • • ---- (CASPE RS )···· ·BA TTI N······ ---- . CASPER S · • · • • ----- (\.-J EDA A) ·······CAS TR O······ ---- (CASPE RS )····· CL ARK······· ---- CULV ER····.· __ ......_ __ (HINEs ) •...••• nAVIS······· ---- (C OEN)······· ·DU KE········ ---- ! l<OWA lS KI)· · · ·FO X ••.•.•••• ___ _ COEN ········GI BBS······· ----- COEN ········GR EEN······· ---- HERR IN)····· ·GR I S ET· · · · · · --__ (GR I SE T)····· ·HERR I N······ __ -- (HOLL I NDEN) ···JUS T ········ ___ _ (MC INN I S) ••. ·KYMLA······· ___ _ (FRANKIE~II CH) ·LACAY O······ ___ _ (NU IJE NS) .. ···LEW IS······· (M I L ~ER) ... ···LON G········ ==== == (CR OULJ ·······MC I NNIS···· ___ _ MC WHI NNEY · · ___ _ (WE LSH ) ••. ••• ·MILLE R······ (ROBER TS)····· NEVIL·".····· == == PORTER····· · (F I S HBACH) ····QUIGLEY····· (MC I NN I S)·.·. ·RO GERS ······ (RE l NH ARDT) •• ·RO OT········ (BLA CKMA N) •• • ·SALES······· ·{HOL LI ND EN) · · ·SC OTT· · • • • • · (PER EZ)······ ·SM ITH······· (DUTTON ) .. ·· ··STEPH ENSON ·· )ROBER TS).··· ·ST EV ENS····· !MC I NNIS ) ••• ·ST ORE ······· BYRN E) .•..• · ·VANDERWAA L·· DUNNE )······ ·WINN ········ (J OHNS ON) OTH ERS * * * * * BOYD········ ------- MITCHEl_L • • • • ---- RARPER SY LV EST ER LEW IS DUNN wrv CL ARK E SI GL ER NI SS ON TAYL OR B R P\1~ nci.-v -t W~ BO ETTNER CAR LSON F INSTER GAL LOWP,Y HOH EN ER HO\"JARD HUN T · KEI TH LYNC H MADDO X o<'~-· 1 'MAR T INS ON P" MU RONEY PIERS ALL STEVE!~S KENNEY II ,r BOARDS Of DiRECTO ~S County Ssni foti on Districts Post Office Box 8127 o f Orange County, Californi a 2 10844 Ellis Avenue Founta i n Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: DISTRICT No . Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 Preliminary AG 1£ N D A 3/16/73 (1) Roll Call MEET ING DATE ADJOURNED REGULAR .MEETING MARCH 21, 1973 -7:00 P,M, (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if nece ssary (3) Furthe r consideration of establishing conn e ction charges (a) Revi e w a nd comparison of r e c omm e n de d c~n~ecti on charges fer Distri c t ~2. 3, and c o nne ction charges cur r ently prop o s e d for District No . 2 (See enclo se d Su mma ry and Reco mm endations for Dist ri ct No .· 3) (b)· Report of Engineer re eva l uation of current District needs and ~a ster Plan sewer construction scheduling (4) Other business and communications; if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn II BOAiR DS OiF DERECTO ~S County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8 127 of Orange County, Californ ia 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Cal if., 92708 Telephones: (1) (2) (5) DISTRICT No. 2 Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 Fina l AG F; N 0 A 3/21/73 Roll Call MEETING DATE ADJOURNED REGULAR .MEETING MARCH 21) 1973 -7:00 P,M, Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if nec essary ADJ OURNM ENTS ....•• :: ....... _ COMP & MILEAGE ..... :::::. .. .. FI LES SET UP .................... .. RESOLUTI Ol'<S C::!'?TlFIE D .. ., LmERs IVRIT1 rn ............. . MIN UTES WR'.TTEN ............ . M INUTES fJLED ............... _ Further consideration of es~ablishing connect ion charges (a) Review and comp arison of r.ecommended ~nnnA~tinn chP~~~R ~0~ D~strict ~n. 3 5 and connection cl10.rges C"Lt .f'.r.enLly proposed for District No. 2 (Summary and Re cormne ndations for District No. 3 enclosed in Directors' folders) (b} Report of Engineer re evaluation of current District needs and Master Plan sewer construction scheduling Other business and communications, if any Consideration of motion to adjourn 9:tjb ; .. '(~ ..... ftfs7g{!n1es CON~~L:l~G CIVIL ENCl~EERS 121 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 Ocotber ~7. 197~ Mr. Fred Harper Sanitation Districts of Orange County Box 8127, 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley. California 92708 Subj~ct: Connection Charges -District No. 2 Dear Mr. Harper: TELEPHONE: 7141 I 64'-1-15301 I have gone through our information that we have gathered over the past few months to determine how much revenue might be co 11 ected by the proposed connection fees in District 2. The results are as follows: FOR 1971: Classification Uni ts Char~ Amount Single Family 2,730 $50 136 ,500 Multi p 1 e Family 3,377 $125 422,125. Commercial/Industrial 332 $100* 33. 200 TOTAL $5911825 - *Charge varies from $50 to $300 per connection depending on size of sewer lateral. Average charge ass.urned to be $100. The number of connections in District No. 2 have been estimated from Building · De~drtment records as shown on the enclosed sheets. V.ery truly yours, Lowry. and Associ at.es !6~u0?~~ ... Donald J. ~tinson · · DJM:skc Enc. I •• •·•· • '·• J'. .. ... '. . ..• '-. ........ " • . ' • ..•• •• &.v\.,i lu\.1 1, • l 1 I l o I • l : ' .. ' I ; • -I•• I I 0 •. I ,.L. ; t •, •• • ••• • l / \ • •I l • 1, I • • i 1 1 1 J ~ 4 a l 1 , •I. • J ~' • • I I .. . t' . .... 4·· .. BUILDING PERMITS FOR DHELLI!·TG UHITS 1971 s+nele Multiple· Estimated in c1tx: Fam ill Fam ill Total District No.'· 2 .. ~1heim 862 1,443 2,305 1,.000 Brea 274 2 276 150 Fountain Valley 1,560 h8 1,608 400 Fullerton 2Ii4 1,273 i,517 700 Garden Grove· .193 675 868 400 La Habra 62 726 788 300 . Oranse 21~1 933 1,171~ 800 Placentia -684 229 913 913 Santa Ana 592 1,519 2,111 500 Villa Park 96 0 96 96 Yorba Linda 779 69 848 8L~8 TOTALS 5i587 6,917 12~504 6,10(_ : : I -- ~t 1 d. District No. 2 Units b. 73S_ 3,377 6,,107 Est'd. Connection Charge Revenue Generated at following assrnned fees:* @. $ 50 pe!' tmi t $137,000 $169,000 $ 306,000 $100 per unit 273,000 338,000 611,000 I $150 per unit 410,000 506,000 916,000 $200 per unit 546,ooo 675,000 1,221,000 $250 per unit 683,000 81-t-4,ooo 1,527,000 *To nearest $1,000 -. ~ .,, . ·-, .. August 11 , 19 72 '. I i· :• . .. .. i •. ~ : i ·~1-,,.,,.4:,'.j·~. ·~<: \ ... , . ·,. , ... ·;~~·,:;: i : •· .... · ·~ / ~ •.;_; : .~: .. '.r.:'.~- • i. • £.!.!t. Anaheim (43.38) Brea (54. 311) Fountain Valley (24.87). Corrrnerclal 97 5 Fullerton (46. 14) 17 41 Garden Grove (46.08) . 18 . f ·-'a.' :·:.: :<· La Habra (38.07) ~·ft( 10 }~:r.tr Orange (68.14} 9 Placen~la (100.00) 21 Santa Ana (23.68) 223 ~f ... ,: .,._;, .. . . -_· :. ~ ! ; · 'J: ... ~.. V 11 1 a Pk • ( 1 0 0 • 0 0 ) No t Av a i 1 • * l .' 'f ·· I " · • .t•:i 2 '.::.: · Yorba Linda ~ .. ~~ .. :"::!.'". (100.00) &;.E./: . .14 .. ~-(.:~_,.; _. .-TOTALS t\~~-.; ... 455 ;~ BUILDING PERMITS 1971 I n-d us t r 1 a 1 Total Est . Dist. H2 38 135 59 2 7 4 6 23 . (6} .. 13 54 25 28 46 21 1 l 1 4 18 27 18 4 25 25. 50 273. 65 91 91 91 0 1 '* 14 25l 706 332 ~~':~~~·~\,' •. ~: , I ; .. JJ1.:;l/)·· "' Listed by specl fie type of building; eg. motel, bank, service station ;.;;:-:r·~:.~. 1~:r · , .-~-(could be obtained by going th rough records) ;"~? 1 ·. ' '. ' .. · .. ' ':~~ " NOTE: Commercial buildings include~ motels, service stations, stores, :.:·;75 • ' ... office buildings. l :·;.. . ·"'·. ··;··. 1 •·. Industrial buildings tnclud~, rnanufactu.re, in~ustry .. ; .. ·~t": •/· :~ ~~~ !'~ : .. :\ ' Not tnc1uded in either category: hospitals, schools, ml:ln·icipal buildings, \if:: v'.: • ;'. • .·. ··, ... ::; , ..... :• . . .. .. . ~~;:~:~:;· I; ": • I . • • r: . " .......... . ::·-:: c . ' . :~.r 0 .. I I r~~ , .•. . . ,. ... ;,,,, '.{~~--: .; '. ;: ~- :~ : . ,. ~\· ,· ' . . . .• : i ~· :'.' . ·\·, . : ~·~--: ...... ~. -.. ···,~ ' ... ·. .. ·.· .f, • ~ ·.~\ '. . ~ ' . ~ . : . . . , . churches, public recreation · . ·-----·---.. --------- Jurisdiction Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa . .:-. I .~~ •' . ',I · ... ·.~·· ~1-:.; . 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 Capistr ... no ;~ .. Santa Ana •, ;.., ... ·. : .. }\ ... Seal Beach \ .... ·. Stanton Tustin '~(~·t. \' ,.. (. .... :', .t Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda >Total Incorporated Area : Unincorporated Area • >-... ~ ·Total County . ' !'.~d ·4 .-' .... :.{:~. . 1 t · .. ·:~,, , Estimated Estimated Feb.1,1972 Jan.l,1971 64, 161 59,266 6,300 5,688 18,12i 17,913 26,660 .25,095 9,546 8,634 12,880 10,534 29,862 ~8,426 37,321 36,628 42,297 39,054 6,644 NIA 7,769 7,681 ·-. 14,579 13,475 2,715 2,808 3,401 3,263 24,989 22,964 25,916 ,1 t; . :1 ' 25,028 ! 7,026 6,356 8,046 7,593 2,145 i 1,504 54,584 52,246 .. 13,235 12,115 l 7,317 j 5,677 10, 121 I 9,456 j 908 I 822 j 18,055 17,261 I 4,895 3,838 I I 459,493 i 423,325 I 57 ,709 I 60,461 I 51i,202 i I 483,786 I .. . , : ·~<~ .. SOURCE: :t ...... ·. Orange County Planning Department, and State Dept. of Financ~. ': .. 1.. ·,·~;~~{ I •!j'. • :°'.~~. i I . -:·.:~~::> .... . ~'" I j I I I I I I ! i ., I I Numerical Increase Over Jan. 1, 1971 4,895 612 208 1,565 912 2,346 1,436 693 3,243 NIA 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 33,416 ~·- 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 I 6.9 ' 83 ,...,,~.~~~----~----~-·~-----------------._..--~--------------------------·-~,---~:;..,. ·s P~enda Item No. __ ....;;:;;o. __ October 27, 1972 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE Coutff'(, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 108.(.C ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92703 (714) 540-2910 (71.C) 962-2411 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING ANNEXATION AND ~ CONNECTION FEE POLICY -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 2 AND 3 Committee Meeting October 2b, 1972 Thursday -12:00 Noon Present (District 2) Present (District· 3 )· Don Smith, Chairman Henry Wedaa Ma.rk Stephenson Wade Herrin Absent Ed\vard Just Norman Culver, Chairman Wade Herrin Mark Stephenson Absent Donald Fox Jack Green Pred A. Harper Paul G. Brown Conrad Hohener Don Martinson **************** The two Distr:lcts 1 special co:rnmi ttees have met_ jointly on three occasions to consider several connection charge concepts. The committees are recommending the enclosed draft ordinance for consideration by the two Districts' Boards at a special meeting to b~ held November 2nd at 7:00 p.m. At the last meeting of the committees, the staff was directed to modify the proposed connection charge ordinance to reflect a :minimu_m connection charge for single faml.ly ~1·1ellings and industrial and commercial developments. The encLosed draft ordinance establishes the following charges for new construction: 1. Single farni.ly dwelling buildings, $50 per dwelling uJ1i t 2. Multiple family dwelling buildings, $125 per dwelli~g unit 3. Commercial, industrial and public buildings: Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or less $50 8 inches· 100 10 inches 200 12 inches 300 The basic connection charge is the single family dwelling charge of $50. It is recommended that the single family dwellings be charged the minimum charge in that the District's sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of general development. Multiple Dwellings. The type of densities which are accompanied by development of apartments places an unusual demand on the sewer system when compared to single family development. Also, the District tax revenue received from high densj_ty properties is not adequate when the volume. of. sewage produced ~s considered. Commercial and 'Industrial Charges. The one-time connection charge for ne~·r commercial and industrial properties is based· on the size of the building se1·Ter. These charges are nominal as they are subject to an excess capacity.connection .charge based on the actual use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in Article 6(b) of the ordinance. As the Directors will recall, the District No. 2 Board re- affirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369 per acre. The original proposal which was submitted to the various cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the following connection charges: · $100 per dwelling unit for single :family and multiple dwellings, and $50 per 1000/sq. ft. building for com.~ercial and industrial properties · JUSTIFICATION FOR co~~IBCTION CHARGES 1. Necessity for Additional Funds for Capital Outlay. The Districts' Master ·Plans for the construction of needed interceptor sewers to provide the communities ·within the Districts -2- .with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based on the land use plans developed by the local communities and will re- quire a large capital expenditure during the next five years. The cash-flow projections for the Districts indicate that it is necessary to raise additional funds to accomplish the pro- gram. Alternative methods of proceeding are: (A) Not build the facilities -there would be re- strictions on new connections in many areas of the Districts. This is contrary to the basic function of the Districts. {B) Raise the tax rate to finance the program. (C) Pass a bond issue, which all taxpayers would pay for the next 20 years by increasing the tax rate. (D) Establish connection charges for new con- struction throughout the District. 2 ~-Equalize Costs Among Users. Connection charges are very common. Many large sewering agencies have established such a charge in order that at least a portion of the capital outlay funds necessary are provided by new users to the system who a~e ~~e~tin~ the ne~essity for the capital outlays. 3. To Hold Down Tax Rates. It is qui·te obvious that the Sta'te and Federal governments are attempting to devise measures to relieve· the homeo~mer of a portion of his property tax burden. If the Districts chose to increase property tax rates for the purpose of financing capital outlay projects for future users it would, in the staff's opinion, create a serious inequity in that the present users have been paying Sanitation District taxes on their improvements and to raise the rate further to accommodate newcomers would be unjust. 4. Difficulty in Passing a Bond.Issue. A bond issue for new capi ta.l outlay projects for the Districts, even if successful (and in the present climate of public opinion it is seriously doubted that an election could be successful), would require present users to pay principal and interest on bonds which are primarily for the purpose of providing facilities for newcomers. At current interest rates, the interest to be paid would be excessive and also would impose the burden on present users. -3- ~ ~· ' ' 5. Success in other Districts. Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge many years which has met with very little opposition and raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. ·public easily grasps the concept of a new user paying for least a portion of the necessary future outlays. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE RECOMMErIDATIONS: for have The at The committees recommend that if the-proposed ordinance appears acceptable to the Boards, public hearings be held to permit expressions of opinion by the public prior to the adoption of any connection charge ordinance. The committee further recormnends that the enclosed standard agreement for collection of sewer connection charges, which provides for a collection fee equal to 5% of the fees collected, be authorized. -. i · . .... ~·· .. BUILDING PEHMITS FO R mTELLP-TG UirITS 1971 S~pele Multiple · City Famill Famil~ Total -theim 862 1,41+3 2,305 J Brea 274 2 . 276 . Fountain Valley 1,560 48 1,608 Fullerton 21~4 1,273 i,517 Garden Grove · .193 675 868 . Ir.t Habra 62 726 788 . Orange 21a 933 1,174 Placentia -684 229 913 Santa Ana 592 1,519 2,111 Villa Parle 96 ·O 96 Yorba Linda 779 6Q 8~.8 TOTALS 5~587 I 6,917 12,504 ~t'd. District No. 2 Units ~73i. ,3, 377 • Est 1 d. Connection Charge Revenue Generated at following assrnned fees:* @ .. $ 50 p·e ·~· tmi t $137,000 $169,000 $100 per unit 273,000 338,000 !· $150 per unit 410,000 506,000 '. $200 per unit 546,ooo 675,000 $250 per unit 683,000 81.J.4,ooo *To nearest $1,000 Estimated in District No:· 2 i,poo 150 400 700 400 .; 300 Boo 913 500 96 8l~8 ?,1oz 6,107 $ 306,000 611,000 916,000 1,221,000 1,527,000 ORDINANCE NO. 203 AN ORDINANCE Al·IBNnnm UNIFORM CON1TECTION AND USE ORDIJ'JAiTCE HO. 202 The Board of' Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California: does ord:dn· ::l.~ follows: ARTICLE 1 Article 2 of Ordinance No. 202 is hereby amended by adding thereto the f'ollowing sections: (o) District Connection Charge. Is a connection charge imposed by District No. 2 as a charge for the use -0f 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 se~erage facility. (P) District Sewerage Facility. Shall mean any property belong~ng 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 p~ocesses, 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 sew2r draining a building and ex- tending beyond the exterior walls thereof ar1d which connects to a District sewerage facility or to a private or public sewerage facility whi~h 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. {l) Connection Charge for New Construction, Family Dwelling Buildings. For each new single family d~elling building constructed, the connection charge shall be $50 per dwelling unit. For each multiple family dwelling building constructed, the connection charge shall be $125 per dwelling unit. (2) Connection Charge for New Construction, Other Than \ F9.!!!ily Th·:rell:!.!:.g B'!l:!.ldi!!0 . ~er ~ll other !le~·! construction, including but not limited to commercial and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and public buildings, the conne~tion charge for each building sewer shall be as follows: Diameter of Building Sewer Charge 6 inches or lens $ 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.fs commenced within two years after demolition or -2- destructj.on of the forrn.er building,, a credit against such charge shall be allowed, calculated on the basis of the current connection charge applicable for the new construction of the building demolished or destroyed. In no case shall such credit exceed the connection charge. (4) Connection Charges for Additions to or Alterations of Existing Buildings. In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling buildings or the area of buildings to be used for other than family dwelling buildings, the connection cha~ge 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 Diameter of Building Sewer 6 inches or less 8 inches 10 inches 12 inches Charge $ 50 $100 $200 $300 When Charge is to be Pald. Payment of connection charges shall be required at the t.;tme 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 Char~es. A schedule of charges _______ __..._.... ... _,..._ specified herein ~"'ill be on file in the office of the Secretary of the District and in the Building Department Qf each city within the District. Biennial Review of Charges. At the end of two years from the effective date of this ordinance, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall review the charges established by this article and if in its judgment such charges require modifi- cation, an amendment to this ordinance will be adopted establishing such modification. ARTICLE 3 Section (b) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 202 is amended by -adding thereto Section (3) to read as follows: (3) When an excess capacity connection charge is payable by a user, as hereinabove provided, a·credit equal to the connection charge paid by the user, if any, shall be allowed against such excess capacity connection charge. ARTICLE 4 Except as herein amended, Ordinance No. 202 is ratified, re- affirmed and is to become effective , as am.ended 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 circulatjon, 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 ~irectors 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 ( COUI'ITY SANITATI(i!\~ Dij'nRICT NO. 2 REVISED SCHEDULE OF DIST~CJ 1 co\ _,rRUC'rION PROJECTS (A) rrotal Ups trea'!l Dist: No. 2 ~970/71/72 1972-73 1973-74 1971+-75 !'- to MGD $ 8,450,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 5,850,000. $303,000 ~ $2,797,000 $2,750,000 r- to nd ver r- ee - ine) ant ti on tor eptor r or s 3,200,000 5,900,000 8,500,000 793,000 394,ooo 1,478,ooo 745,000 323,000 549,000 178,ooo 380,000 204,ooo 1,200,000 2,000,000 3,700,000 2,200,000 5,100,ooo(B) 3,400,000 J 793,000 394,ooo 1,478,000 745,000 323,000 549,000 178,ooo 380,000 204,ooo 79,000 500.,000 396,000 197,000 739,000 25,000 1,500,000 1,100,000 $i,100,ooo ~,000,000 2,400,000 397,000 197,000 ,..(39' 000 323,000 275,000 25,000 25 .. 000 v 1,A.!..J -'-I .• .;. ~· I -- ( ~evised 1975-76 $ 745,000 274-:000 ·~, 78 u"0 ·" .p...... ' ,_,'.j 3po , . ...,,-. .) V." ,,, ' ' '-. -· 25,000 $31,094,ooo $12.,600,000 $18,491~,ooo §382.ooc $4., 654' 000 $8' 031. 000 $3 ~ 800' 000 $1 ~ 044. 000 ~ h ~' ~.:._:-~_2_··_ ngineering and contingencies n Facilities to be constructed 'cy Water District ASSUMES De .::cription REVEN UE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 STATEMENT OF PROJEC'2ED f SH FLOW CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I (46 MGD~ SECONDARY TREATMENT ONLY FISCAL YEARS 1972-73 '.rHROUGH 1976-77 197 2 -73 1973-74 1974-75 Tax Revenue (at current tax rate-of $.4254) $ 4,364,ooo $ !4 J 6 0 5 ' 0 0 0 $ 4,835,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation Joint Works Projects District Projects Sa le o f Capacity Rights Miscellaneous Carry-Over from Previous Fiscal Year TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPEN DITURES Dist~ict Construction Share of Joint Works Construction Bonds Reti rement & Interest Share o f Joint Operating District Operating & Obher Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES . Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year Less: Ne cess a ry Reserve for Followi ng IYear Dr y Period Fund Balan ce o r (Deficit) One ce n t on t ax rate will raise 1,680,000 758,ooo 618,000 10,720,000 $18,140,000 $ 4,654,ooo 2,891,000 612;000 767,000 196 000 . $ 9,120,000 $ 9,020,000 6,978,000 $ 2 ,0~2 ,000 $ 102,585 2,809,000 845 ,000 375,000 9,020,000 $17,654,ooo $. 8,031,000 4,156,000 590,000 787,000 211 ,000 $13,775,000 $ 3,879,000 5,609,000 $(1_,73 0 ,000) $ 108,227 5,745,000 227,000 275,000 3,879,000 $14,961,000 $ 3,800,000 5,625,000 571,000 828 ,000 227,000 $11,051,000 $ 3,910,000 2,769,000 $ 1,141;000 $ 113,638 1975-76 $ 5,077,000 3,553,000 31,000 225,000 3,910,000 $12,796,0~0 $ 1,044,000 2,449,000 554,ooo 1,0 81,000 1,372,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 6,296,000 2,509,000 $ 3,787,000 $ 119,321 --29-72 Revised 1976-77 $ 5,331,000 809,000 15,000 225,000 6,296,000 $12,676,000 $ 583,000 936,000 536,000 1,1 23,000 265,000 $ 3,443,000 $ 9,233,000 2,285~000 $ 6,948,ooo $ 1 25,287 ASSUMES COUNTY SAN ITATION I 'ISTRICT NO . 2 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED( \SH FLOW CONSTRUCTIO N OF THREE PHASES (19v MGD) SECONDAR Y TREATMENT FISCAL YEARS 19 72 -7 3 THROUGH 1976 -77 Description REVENUE Tax Revenue (at current tax rate o f $.42 54) Other Hevenue Federal & State Participation Joint Works Projects Di $tric~ Projects Sale of Capacity Rights rfiiscGllaneous ' Carry -Ove r from Previous Fiscal Year TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENDITURES Dist ri ct Construction . . Sha~e of J o 5.nt Work s Construction Bon d Ret irement & Interest Share of Joint Operating District O~erating & Other Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES Carry-r ver to Following Fiscal Yea~ Less: Ne cessary. Reserve for Fo llowing . Year Dry Period Fund Balanc e or (Deficit) One cent on tax rate:will raise 1972-73 1 973 -74 1974-75 $ 4 ,364,000 1,680,000 758,000 618,000 1 0 ,720 ,000 $18,140,000 $ 4 ,654 ,ooo 2,891,000 612,000 767 ,000 196 2·000 $ 9 ,1 20 ,000 $ 9,020,000 7 23922000 $ 1,628 ,000 $ 102,585 $ 4 ,605 ,000 2,809,000 845 ,0 00 375,000 9,020,000 $17,654 ,000 $ 8 ,031,000 4 ,409 ,000 590 ,000 787,000 211 ·2 000 $14 ,028 ,00 0 $ 3,626,000 7 2392 2000 $(3,766,000) $ 108 ,227 $ 4 ,835 ,000 5,745,000 227 ,000 275 ,000 3 ,626,000 $14,708 ,000 $ 3,800,000 8,852 ,000 57 1,000 828,000 227 20 00 . $14, 278 , ooo· $' 430,000 727812000 $(7,351,000) $ 113,638 { ·29 -72 Revised 1975-76 $ 5,077 ,0 00 9,771 ,000 31 ,000 225 ,000 430 ,000 $15,534,000 $ 1 ,044 ,ooo . 11, 665 '000 554,ooo 1,081 ,000 1 2372 2000 $15 ,716 ,000 $ (1 82 ,000) 7 2442 2000 $(7,624 ,000) $ 119,321 1976-77 $ 5 ,331 ,000 11,1 41 ,000 15,000 225,0 00 (182 ,000) $16 ,53 0 ,000 $ 583 ,000 9 , 4 4 8 , ooo · 5 36,000 i,256,000 ~65 2 000 $12 ,088 ,000 ~ 4 ,442 ,0 00 2 2285 2000 $ 2,157,000 $ 125 ,287 MANAGER'S AGENDA REPOR T County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. 2 Post Office Box 8 127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Cal if., 92708 Teleprcnes: Arec Cede 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 Meeting Date: March 21, 1973 -7 :00 p .m. At the February 14th Joint meet ing, the District No . 2 Board deferred .cons ideration of.a proposed connection charge o rdinance until such t i me as the members could have the opportunity t o review the recommendations of a special financing report which was prepared for District No . 3 . A copy of the conc l usions and r ecommendations were mailed to the Directors March 9th (see enc l osed). ,· On March 15th, the Board o f Dir.ecto r s of District No . 3 considered the conclusions and recommendations of their financing consultant concerning the funding of the construction needs of that District . The action taken by that Board fo llowing a lengt hy discussion concurred with the recommendations of the financing · consultant . The District No. 3 Boa rd determined ·that the District 's construction program would be financed by the use of general obli - gation bonds which will be repaid from revenues r ece ived from the establishment of connection charge fees throughout the District . The leve l of the connec tion charge will be $250 per dwelling unit and approximately $500 per 10,000 square feet of facility fc·r commercial and industrial users . The District No . 3 Boa rd a rthorized the appointment of a special committee of Directors tu study the cash flow needs of the Distri ct with regard to the anticipated secondary treatment requirements . This committee will recommend the bond issue amount (between $5 and $13 million) to be voted on by the electorate of the Di strict . Enclo~ed for the Board membe rs' study and review are the District No . 2 projected cash flow figures for the five -year period beginning this fiscal year . The yel l ow sheet assumes the currently-adopted program of the District to provide secon - dary treatment at Plant No . 1 only. The b l ue cash-flow sheet anticipates comp l ete secondary treatment at both Plants . The Board may wish to cons ider the future financ i ng needs of the District in the event we are req ui r ed by the Federal an d State regulat ory agencies to construct complete secondary treatment faciliti es . FAH:j Fred A o Harper Gen er-al Manager ... ST'\() .N 1 ~ '<-.... Y·O 1 · -~ 1NT G· 11 ·1·~ J.~:; r". --l2J {._..._ .. \_) • •... _:_J •. L...__.J M U N ! C I PAL F I N A N C I N G C o·N S U LT A hi TS, I N C. March 9, 1973 The Honorable Board of Directors Orunqe County·Sc::.nit<1tion District #3 P. 0. Box '812 7 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Gentlemen: Agenda I tern N o.-.;;:i3..._ ___ aa In accordc:mce wi~h your cJ.utl1orizution and direction, \\ie have prepared a recommended financing plan for your consideration to implement major sewercge improvement programs which are to be carried out over the "next several ye0rs • We have concluded that the cs.timated 1mn:imum cash flow needs to implemcn(the prog~·ams can be met from the sale of $13, 000, 000 General Obligation Bonds. This is the amount that vvould be required should equivalent to activated sludge for total district flows. Consµlting engineers are of the opinion that federal und state standards will even tu ally require this level of treatment. Should fede~al and state standards be set at lower ievels, the full amount of authorized bonds need not be sold to implement the program. The recommended financing plan suggests that the Board of Directors initiate a connection charge as an additional source of revenue to meet district funding needs and recover the costs of providing excess capacity jn facilities to meet future users. The level suggested for your consideration is $ 2 50 per dvvelling unit. Suggestions ·are also made regarding comrnercial and industrial user connectiC?n fees. I would like to take this opportunity to express our .appreciation to Mr. Fred/\.~ Harper, Genernl J\.1unager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Director of Finance, Mr. Graham Hazlett of the District Staff, Mr. Conrad ,Hohrier, Boyle Engineering, nnd Mr. Walter Howard, Carollo Engineers, for their assistance in the completion of this study. rf.!) • 23'.:"J SUITE 77~,o. ONE CAL.lrORNl.11. ~ .. THEET. SAN FFU~NCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111 .. (.11~,;<:~A;lj ···~ The i-:T onorublc Bocud of Directors Orange County Sunitation District ~r3 March 9, 1973 Page Tv.·o We are available to provide any further information you need to assist the District in implementing its sevverage program. Yours very truly, STONE & YOUNGBERG Municipal Financing Consultants, Inc. EBB:ac enclosure • 1. 2. 3~ '. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS l\ND RECOMMEl.JDATIONS To meet its existing and anticipated future needs, Di strict No. 3 initiated a seven-year trunk sewer improvement program v1hich is estimated to cost more than $29 million over the period 1971/72 through 1977/78. In conjunction v.dth six other Orange County sanitation districts, the Dis- trict in the process of upgrading jointly owned sew0ge treatment works to meet State wuter quc:llity control standards. The estimuted cost of up- grading jointly owned primary tre2tmcmt focilitics is approxinwtely $21. 2 million. The consulting engineers estimutc the cost of uctivated sludge sec·Jndary treatment \Vhich evcnt:u~lly v1ill be required by Federal and State standurds at appr_oxir:wtely $100. 8 million. On the basis of the consulting engineers' cost. estimates and construction schedules, the Director of Finance has proj ectecl funding needs of Dis- trict No. 3 to implement the master plan trunk. sewer program; meet its share of estimated cupital costs of the proposed joint treatment works im- provement program; provide for the District's share of projected operutions and maintenance costs; and debt service costs on District bonds. Projec- ted cash flow Deficits range from approximately $4. 85 million to $12. 5 million dependent upon the level of secondary treatment required of the District to meet federal and State standards. General obligution bond financing is the most practical and fea sjblc finan- cing alternative available to District No. 3 to implemen.t the master plan trunk sewer and joint treatment works improvement progrum as scheduled. It is recon1mended that District No. 3 seek authorization of $13 million o:. general obligation bonds since the consulting engineers are of the opinion that Federal and State standards will eventually require secondury treatment equivalent to activated sludge. I ... •. 4. Authorization of $13, 000, 000 of general obligation bonds does not mean that the full amount will be issued. Should Federal and State standards provide for secondary treatment at an equivalent less than activated sludge for total District flow, facilities could be financed with the issu- ance of that portion of the authorization needed to complete the program. 5. Recent development trends within the area served by the District have indicated the following: A trend toward increased higher density residential types of development in the Di strict. The potential property tax base provided by single family unit land uses tends to be significantly greater than the potential '• -. property tax buse provided by a multiple fomily unit. Engineering data indicate avcrnge daily flov1s per dwelling unit jn .single family residential lc.:nd uses avcrugc about 38 5 gallons per unit. In high density residential lund uses, flov..-s averaged about 256 gallo:;-is per dciY per unit, or approximutely 2/3 that of 10\ver density single family lt.md uses. Vvithin cities S(;rvcd by District No. 3, there are significant difforc:~:1ces in present users of the District's scvrnraoe facilities. . ~ medicm value of ovvner occupied housjn9 units ranges from $22, 800 to $3 11, 700. Population per ovrner occupied housing units ranges from 2. 1 to 4. 0. Land val'..1es withjn the District have increased significantly in recent years. Land suitable for lovv density residential develop- ment has increased frorr. approximately $10,000 -$12,000 per acre in 19GO to current levels of $28,000 -$30,000. Land suitable for high density resjdcntial development is now valued at approxi-. mately $50 I 000 per acre. Land suituble for commercial develop- ment js now valued at approximately $100, 000 per acre. Tho District's property tax base of $1. 259 billion consists· of land havrn9 an assessed valuation oi $4UU million (~~·u percent oi total tax base) and improvements on land \·vhich is ovmed and occupied by present property owners having an assessed valuation of $778 million (62 percent of total tax base). 6. Demands for sewerage services are created by two broad classifications: (l ~: present users, and (2) potential users (owners of improved or unim- :rr':lved land not connected to the system but adjacent to it). A system of assessing and recovering the costs of these benefits .must consider the following: 1. Equity among present users 2. Equity among potential users. 3. Equity between present and potential users. The distribution of costs in relation to complete equity in all cases is highly unlikely. vVhat must be attempted is the achievement of optimum equity in. relation to the degree of benefits received by broad categories of present users and potential users within the constraints posed by statutory provisions and practical administrutive procedures. .. . -. . 7. On the ba~is of our analysl~S, ·evaluations, and consJdcrntions to optimize equity c.:mong users e.1nd. potentic.11 users of the Dj strict' s sewer- age system, it is our recommend~1tior1 thut the governjng board of Dis- trict No. 3 consider the use of a scvv·cr connection fee as a new source of revenue. The purpose of the connection fee v:ould be to recover costs of providing facilities in the ncur future v:hich \vill have sufficient buHt- in capacity to serve future usurs. V\1e also recommend that the connection fee be nwde upplice:1ble to connections made to o District ovnied facility or to any locul collccto sev.rcr ':-7hich di schargcs into the District's se·t.r2r- age system. 8. As the basis for formulating connection charges, we suggest unit costs of providing trunk sev:ur and sev.1 agc trc0tmont-dj sposul capucity. V/e esti- mate the unit costs of providing such faciliUes at approximately $645, 000 per million gallons. 9. As the bu sis for computing connection churge fees, we recommend that the governing board of District No. 3 consider using average anticipated sev1- age flows from rcsjdcntiul land uses vihich huve served as the basis to design ma st er plan trunk sewer faciHtics 'in District No. 3. 10. Based on the estimated capita 1 cost of providing sewerage facilities, pro- jected flows from residentic:11 land uses, and current land use develop-. m0nt~ wi1 l1in th~ DistrJct; it 5 s rec0mmC'!:cle0. th~t c-o~sidc!"2ti0~ be gi•.1 c~ to the establishment of a residential unit connection charge of $ 250. 11. Commercial and industrial uses were considered in the same manner as residential. uses. It is anticipated these uses will provide an average ~ flcn of 3555 gallons per day per acre. At a unit capital cost of $65 for providing 100 gullons of sewerage capacfry, the charge would be approximately ~ 2, 300 per acre. On a square footc:1ge basis, the capital cost for sewerage facilities would be approximately $500 per 10, 000 square feet of the facility. This rate is suggested as a general guide in recog- nition of the wide variation in types of industrial and commercial uses. It is suggested the charge for major types of industrial and commercial facilities be administered on the basis of a close study of the capacity requirements., type of discharge, number of employees, and other related factors. 12. Revenue from connection charges under rates suggested in this $tudy could provide as much as $2.4 million on the basis of the December 1972 study of near-term dev~lopment patterns in the District. 13. Based on· the estimated bond service costs for the $13~000,000 of pro- posed general obligatjon bonc;:ls, estimated· connection charge revenues would be more than sufficient to service the bonds. . Connection fee revenues in excess of actual bond service requirements could be held in reserve to rneet future capital nE:;cds·, thereby making it possible for the District to reduce the property tax rate levied for the accumulation of capital reserves. DISTRICT 2 -3/21 /73 #3(a) Mr . Ha r per briefly reviewed consultant's report in District 3 as they are COi1S~de.ein@; identical charges . Stone & Youngbe1·g recmmne n<led air across -the-board charge of $250. One of the significant things in the report was consideration of the possibility of the new federal require- ments of a high degr ee of secondary treatment which would put District 3 in a position of having a $1 3 mi l l ion deficit instead of $5 mi l lion . tOne ·of the reasons for this recommendation was to develop an equity for the people . A committee in District 3 is studying amounts for bond i ss u e , industrial charge and connection charge. Finnell asked if the same rationale were used for District 2 , would the r ecommendation of the consultant be the same relative to the connection char ge? Ernie Bodnar answered that he di d n 't h ave the numbers regarding tr~nk s ewers , etc . but would fol l ow the same basic rationa l e and t r y to pinpoint cost to the District of providing certain excess capacity in its facilities t o accomodate future users . He further stated that by establishing the $50 and $125 charges are attempting to correct some of the bas i c inequities· that we find in ad valorem property taxes . Di strict 3 's report i ndicated b ased on building permits for single fami ly units , they average $25 ,000. F~~ multiple u nits , the evaluation on a per unit basis was between $1 1,000 and $1 2 ,000 . 2:1 differential. I n s i ngle .fam i ly housing, there tends t o be more people per unit as opposed to the multiple unit type home . Also , based on measured f l ows from s i ngle fami l y ,low density, residential l and uses , flows were about one -half more. F l ows from h i gh density areas were about 2/3 as compared to single fami l y un i ts. Mr. Bodnar r ecommended same charge be applied whether high or l ow· densities . Demand i s somewhat the same. I n trying to bal ance the two--high and l ow densities -- . c ame up wi th recommendation . Root commented that one advantage is simplicity of having one charge r ather than two or three. Al so state d another prob l em would be when you get int0 condominiums. Smi th ~ 1en asked Mr . Nisson to review SB 90 . Nissen stated that what h~s 60 i ng to say was subject to whateve r changes the committee in l egi slature on SB 90 makes . Bri ef l y , it means we wi l l not be ab l e to increase taxes over what rate i s for the current fiscal year, so the o nly way the tax rate is going to increase , may be through changes in a s sessed valuation . Have to f i nd n ew s ources . Can 't re l y on traditiona l p r opevty taxes . Either have to have connect i on char ge or service charge. Nevil stated that since they had Stone & You n gberg there , would l ike to h ave a spec i f i c recomme n dat ion that the present u nit charge wou l d be the s ame . Erni e Bodnar answered that assuming the numbers were the same, we would r e c onunend this . St ephe n son said that they needed to know how much t hey needed fi r st . #3 (b) Don Ma r tinson passed out maps showing exis.tirig fac ilities and proposed sewers to relieve Newhope -Placentia Trunk system. Reviewed maps and projects currently under construction . Root inquired further regarding Newhop e-Place n tia Tr unk and Mr . Martinson expla i ned where it was r unning ful l . ~s N J p. 2 Finnell asked if $8-1/2 million on water reclamation plant was the total estimated cost for the plant or the total estimated portion of the Sanitation Districts. Don Martinson ans wered that $5-1/2 million was the Water District's share · and $3 million wa s the S a n:il:ation Dis t ricts. Finnell then asked if this $8-1/2 million gave any consideration to grants and was answered, no, not in this schedule. \ Culver questioned whether Reach 2, Katella to La Palma, was going to be finished before the section from Plant 1 to Katella. Don Martinson answered no,.that the contract calls for completion December 1973 for Plant 1 to Katella. If we can get started by July on Katella to La Palma, can be completed by July 1974. Finnell then asked regarding Santa Ana River Interceptor figures, do they take into consideration our portion or the total cost of the projects? Martinson answered, the total project cost. if any of the Directors felt something should be switched around, the staff would like to know now. A question was asked regarding the District's deficit and JWS reviewed cash flow information. Still $1.7 million deficit. Smith said what we are trying to do with connection fee is to make up t1l'e'11.7 million if possible. Winn asked if ordinance was adopted with connection fees of $150 and $175, et'C":,what would this bring in? Smith refer~ed Directors to pink schedule in their folders and Don Martinson reviewed the figures for them. . Smith stated that one of the things to consider is that we want to ~ e:ualiz~ the charge: . . . . . j//~\t'winn said he was going to have trouble · selling his council on equalizing y~ /'~muitiple and single family dwelling units. if J . ~ Smith stated that he had talked to his council and they had given him an okay to go to a higher fee but not under $50. Said he didn't think a conne~tion fee was going to do the job unless the amount was raised. Herrin ~ommented that he thought most of the Directors had already gotten the approval of their councils. Stated that the last time they voted, lacked only one vote. Just then asked based on projected shortages for the next three years, -are we in a position to be able to borrow that money from another District or something?. Nissan answered that the Districts have loaned money from time . to time lf'ut . fn view of the tax limitations, would have to find a very fat District to be able to find one to borrow from. Stephenson stated that his city council goes along with whatever is necessary. Have no objections to $250 connection fee providing it is . ~for all uni ts, multiple and single. )~ Finnell also stated that his council is agreeable to anything that is ~ equitable in the area. Were thinking specifically of _Districts 2 & 3 \ Board talking about same kind of connection charge. Would agree with whatever is necessary but want to be sure that whatever District 2 charges is the same as what District 3 in the same city is charging. Would want to go back to council and tell them it was going to be equitable in District 3, but really wasn't what they told him to do. r p. 3 Smith then asked if it would be fair to poll the Directors to see if we should go forward with recommendation on what we have ($50 & $125)? ~ said based on what we have been talking about here t o night, think we would be better off not having the two figures. Should pick a number and use the same figure. \ Herrin said that going by what Don Martinson said, to service single family units as opposed to multiple family dwellings, it should be applied that way. Think that user should pay for his proportionate share of ser·vice. Castro commented that he was curious regarding the rationale for the six no votes in District 3. Culver answered that it was probably because of the principle of the fee but also because of the $250amount. CulvE;,r further said that the Board was not bei_ng realistic. Have to rely on information given them. If they tell us this is what we have to have, we have to raise money someway·to do it. Just then moved that we make it equitable and go with $250 charge, the sa:IDe° as District 3. Want to be consistent between the two. Commercial charge should be reviewed by committee also. Finnell seconded motion. Question was asked if it was necessary to raise that much in District 2, and if they needed the same as District 3? Nevil stated that the reason for connection fees is. not just for immediate facilities but for purchase of capital investment. If it gives us a surplus, the logical thing is to reduce the tax rate. Also said that his council felt that the rates should be the same. If anything, thought that the s~ngle family dwelling would utilize the facilities greater than an apartment unit. Would prefer to keep the charge the same. Don't think we should defer this so much longer. Stephenson thought there should be discussion regarding which cash flow figures we will need. Winn th2n commented that he thought if we go along with this, will make us look bad because somewhere along the line we ended up with figures of $50 .anu $125 which was suppose to be adequate to do the job. If those figures were in error, should correct them or adjust them. Now we have come up with five times as much for the charge. Why is ths? Smith answered that new figures have come out since we started this study. Mr. Bodnar stated that in arriving at the $250, did not set out to see how much we needed before setting the $250 figure. Looked at other methods of equity. The way the tax base is in District 3, have funded through taxes collected over last five years or so their capacity in existing and proposed facilities, so we felt in the interest of equity, connection charge should be based, not only on meeting immediate needs, but on having future users pay back or buy into service needed. Present users are providing bulk of that money to provide excess c~pacity to meet future users needs. ~ stated that in District 7 they have $250 on multiple dwellings and $175 on residential. Just said that he was pretty much changing .his position on this. rtriow how much money we are going to need but assume that if this up and it gives us funds, and if they aren't needed, will reduce Also believed in equalization b~tween the two Districts. Don't is set taxes. ~ said he couldn't really buy reduction in taxes. Never happens. I· p. '-t Nevil commented that the bulk of the people who are going to be paying tnis $250 charge are new people who have never been paying taxes. Just then stated that if we had any way of knowing which one of the cash flow sheets we would end up, it would be a different thing. Might as well assume the worst and hope it won't go that way. \ Castro questioned whether it wouldn't affect the communities where there are a large number of septic tanks to connect into trunk lines? Smith answer~d, yes, there would be some inequities in that area. Nisson advised that in District 7 they notified everybody that connection charges were going into effect and if they were in ceptic tank situation and wanted to change, had so many months to do it. Finnell then questioned if this connection charge applied when ceptic tank connections were made, and Nisson answer~d, yes. Finnell then stated that no where in.the proposed ordinance could. he see w'fiere ceptic tanks w"ere included. Nisson said it was not in ordinance now, but should be written clearly in it if adopted. Finnell further questioned if this is on new construction as stated in ordinance. . Nissen advised that the ordinance would have to be · written so it covers any connection to the system, whether new or old buildings; and if you want to provide a period of time to provide for existing buildings to connect before it applies, should do so. (About six months) Finnell then said that we have been talking that whole basis of connection charge is for people who have not used this land and not paid taxes before. Now if we insert ceptic tanks here, are talking about something different. Nisson stated that the people had a six-month period in District 7 to take out permit. Mr. Harper added that District 7 already had a connection charge cf $50 btit were going to raise it so they had that much time before it went up. Mr •. Han ... 2r then asked if · the motion was to declare the Board's intent -~ to go to .the $250 charge, and if so, is this in order since we have held ft~~lll"'~ public hearings on different figures? ~ Nisson advised that the public hearing was closed in District 2, and that there was no legal requirement for a public hearing. Did that as a public relations thing to get feedback from people. SteEhenson ~asked if we had a later building projections than .. 1971, and if there were more building permits in District 3 than there are in District 2? Don Martinson stated that District 3 had 98,140 for 1971, and that · there were more in District 3. Culver said that District 3 estimates $2,400,000 in connection charges. /Finnell added. that it would raise $2.4 million in District 3 and $1.5 in r J' !Ji strict 2. ~\~astro again stated that the matter of ceptic· tanks was certainly bothering \f\~ him, and the difference of rates from what we had originally. When you ~ live in low density area with hardly any apartments, total fee would have 4 to be corning from individual ho~es. Not pleased with this. Would have to vote no. W~ added, so would he. . ".• p. 5 aY Finnell call ed for the question . ~.~Motion was to approve a straight -across -the-board $250 charge and 'f'/'K. a committee be appointed to study commercial and industrial charge. Question was asked if ordinance would be drawn up same as District 3 or if Directors wanted to come back to the Board . Just said that $250 would go into effect now. -Smith asked how soon District 3 would know what their recommendation ~ou l d be , and -Root answered that the Special Commitee will be reporting back on April 11 at Joint Meeting. Motion was again restated to approve an across -the-board charge of $250 , the same as District 3 , and the commercial and industrial charge should be consistent between the two Districts . Herrin stated that this is a ll new information and had not been discussed in his council , but could go ahead and support it. ~ Nisson called for a roll call vote on the motion . Passed 7 :4 .. Advised ~fcJ}l that when ordinance is voted on , need 2/3 vote (8 votes). Sm i th stated that it was up to a ll of them to sell their counci l s on . .,-this unless they had another alternative . He then asked if Direct ors wou l d like the staff to come up with schedules regarding what the $250 will do in connection with the blue and yellow cash flow sheets already prepared. Finnel l added that facts about SB 90 should also be prepared· for Directors . Smith then asked that the latest up -to-date information and reasons , along with District 3 's report, be for~arded to the Directors . ·,Nevil then moved that ordinance when prepared, stipulate one· year 's time for ceptic tanks to connect to system. Castro seconded the motion . It was then stated that this applies to a house that has been in existence , not new construct-ion. Motion carried. #4 -Other business Just stated that he would like to see if anybody has had l chance to talk· to their council regarding Directors' fees and cons c. ..c.idation into one District . Said it was between Alternatives 3 and 4 :n his council meetin g . . Smith said he presented it to his council and told them to study it. Culver said his Board suggested they serve without compensation . ·-Winn asked if the Committee discussed poss i bility of mayor and his alternate getting one fee and one or the other serve . Just answered that it was discussed but because of 24 agencies , would only b~ a short time because of the way State law was written , that it would change back.(??) Nisson then stated that if Boards adopt now , each District adopts. If you want to adopt the rule t hat the mayor must answer, could make it that way. Do not do that now . ~1nn e ll requested that a copy of the report of the Special Committee ~Dir ectors ' fees be sent to ever y city . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO . 2 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING March 214 1973 -7 :00 p .m. 1084 Ellis Avenu e Fountain Valley , Ca l ifornia Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held March 14, 1973 , the Board of Directors o f County Sanitation District No . 2, of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting ~t the above hour and date, in the District offices . The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p .m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT : DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : OTHERS PRESENT : Don E. Smith (Chairman), Rudy Castro, Norman E o Culver, Robert Finnell, Donald Fox, Wade Herrin, Edward Just , Robert Nevil, Robert Root , Mark Stephenson, and Donald Winn Ralph Clark Fred A . Harpe r, General Manager, J . Wayne Sylvester , Secretary, W. N. Clarke , Robert Webber, and Rita Brown C. Arthur Nisson, Ernest Bodnar , and Donald Martinson "****** Review and comparison of rec ommended connection charges for District No . 3 and connection charges currently proposed for District No . 2 and recommendations contained in The General Manager reviewed the consultant 's report entitled Financ ing Major Sewerage Improve - me nts prepared for District No . 3 by Stone & Youngberg , Municipal Financing Consultants, Inc ., and summarized the fol lowing findings the repor t : To optimize equity among users and potential users of the District 's sewerage system, the consultants recommended that District No . 3 consider adoption of sewer connection f ees as a new source of revenue . The purpose of t he connection fee would be to recover costs of providing sewerage facilities in the immediat e future, which would have sufficient built-in capacity to serve futur e users . Based on the es timated capital cost o f p r oviding sewerage faciliti es , projected flows from r esidential l and u ses and current l and use d eve lopme nts within District 3, the c on s ultant recommended establi shing a r esidential unit connection cha r ge of $2500 #2 3/21/73 Commercial and industrial uses were considered in the same manner as residential u ses , and the consultant recommended a gene r al guide l ine for industrial and commercial connection charges on a squ are footage basis of $500 per 10,000 square feet. The consultant further recommended a.general obligation bond issue for District No . 3 to finance their near future construction needs . However, District 3 's cash f l ow demands are considerably greate r than District No . 2, and it does not appear, at this time, that Distri ct .No . 2 need consider a bond i ssue in the immediate £uture to meet their cash flow requir~ments; sub - ject, however, to final determination of the Environmental Protection Agency wit h regard to secondary treatment requirements . The Chair then reco gnized Mr . Ernest Bodnar of Stone &·Youngberg, who had prepared the District No. 3 report . Mr . Bodnar further reviewed the f indings and recommendations contained in his-report prepared for District No . 3 . He pointed out the deve lopments and trenqs observed in the County which influenced the conclusions and recommehdations in .the report and noted that as the bas is·for formulating connection charges, unit costs of providing trunk sewer and sewage treatment and disposal capacity were recommended; and that averag e anticipated sewage flows from residential land uses which have served as the basis to design Master Plan trunk sewer facilitie~ were r ecommended as the basis for computing the connection feeo Mr. Bodnar emphasized that the intent of their recommendation was to establish, insofar as practicable, a revenue program which would demonstrate an equitable method of charges to the users , both p r e - sent and future, of the District 's system . The General Counsel then reviewed provisions of Senate Bill 90, recently adopted by the State Legislature which prohibits an increase in the tax rate over and above the current fiscal year and seriously restricts the tax revenue producing ability of the District. Repo r t of Engineer on evaluation of current District needs and Master Pl a n s ew er con - struction sc h eduling Don .Martinson of Lowry & Associates, District 's con- s ulting engineers, distributed maps depicting the District's existing and proposed trunk sewer sys tem. Mr. Martinson observed t hat certain facilities were present l y flowing at capacity and pointed out those proposed Master Plan facilities which were most urgently needed to relieve the existing system . He a l so reviewed the construction scheduling and the respective share of the cost of the proposed joint facilities of District No . 2 and the upper basin entities . Following the report, Mr . Harper requested direction from the Board in the event the Directors felt that any of the Master Planned facilities should receive priority reconsideration . -2 - Declare intent to implement connection charges #2 3/21/73 The Board entered into a lengthy discussion concerning the propriety of establishing connection charges in District No. 2 identical to those proposed for District No. 3. Several Directors expressed their views with regard to the proposed increase in the fee over what was originally recommended by the Special Committee for Studying Connection Fees and Annexa- tion Policy of the District. A primary concern of the Directors was that fees which are established should demonstrate an equitable charge for services provided by the District. Following further deliberation regarding alternative methods of fundin.g the District's cash flow requirements, it was. moved and seconded, that the Board of Directors hereby.declares its intent to adopt an ordinance implementing connection fees consistent with those fees proposed to be adopted by District No. 3 pur- suant to recommendations of their financing consultant. During the discussion that followed, it was reiterated that the proposed fees ·were recommended as a method of achieving an equitable distribution of charges for District services, not merely as a method to finance the District's short-term cash requirements. In the event connection fee revenues enable acclllll- ulatio~· of adequate reserve funds, the District could the~ con- sider lowering the ·current tax rate to equalize their revenue program. It was recognized that the District's cash flow require- ments could fluctuate considerably based upon final determination by the Environmental Protection Agency of the definition of secon- dary treatment. After a clarification of the intent of the with regard to applicability of connection presently developed and serviced by septic was restated and the question called for. by the following roll call vote: proposed ordinance fees to property tanks, the motion Tne motion carried AYES: Directors Don Smith (Chairman), Robert Finnell, Wade Herrin, Edward Just, Robert Nevil, Robert Root and Mark Stephenson NOES: Directors Rudy Castro, Norman E. Culver, Donald Fox and Donald Winn ABSENT: Director Ralph Clark It was then moved seconded and duly carried, that the proposed ordinance establishing connection fees be amended to provide that currently developed properties discharging into septic tanks be allowed a period of one year to connect to the sewer system without charge; and, FURTHER MOVED: That consideration of the proposed connection charge ordinance be considered at a puqlic hearing, the time and date to be determined by the Board at a later date. Discussion re report of Special Committee on Directors' Fees ror Concurrent Meetings Fo.llowing a brief discussion c·oncerning the report of the Special Committee for Studying Directors' Fees for Concurrent Meetings, distributed at the March 14 Board Meeting, Joint Chairman Finnell stated that he had requested that copies of said report be forwarded to each agency represented on the Joint Boards. -3- #2 3~1/73 .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 8:40 p.m., March 21, 1973. ATTEST: Secr~taryJ Boa~d·of Directors.of County Sanitation District No. 2 -4- Chairman, Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2