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