Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1978-06-22
• COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $ , TE N ES: a � AREAA C CODODE 714 S40-291 O OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 ter`. P. 0. BOX 6127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706 10644 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY June 15, 1978 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 51 61 7 & 11 THURSDAY, JUNE 221 1°07S — 6:00 P s M 10344 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of June 14, 1978, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. It 2. 1 31 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. ec. tary JWS:jc r ' POA^ 5 Or D [CTO 5 County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: A JOINT BOARDS r962-9e1114 FINAL AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 1978 - 6:00 P.M.. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) ALL DISTRICTS Report re dedication ceremonies for 50 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1 (5) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of available alternatives for funding 1978-79 operating/capital budgetary requirements: (See enclosed goldenrod sheet) (a) Report of General Counsel re continued levy of ad valorem special assessment (tax rate) on the basis of legal opinions that sanitation districts' levy is �► a special assessment and, therefore, not subject to Jarvis-Gann - Alternative III (See enclosed white package) (b) Establishing a flat rate special assessment for sewer service and immediate availability to be collected on the tax roll - Alternative II (See enclosed yellow package) (c) Discussion (d) Consideration of motion declaring intent to fund 1978-79 budgetary requirements by levy of a special assessment (tax rate) based upon the ad valorem assessment roll in the same manner as before enactment of Proposition 13 (e) (1) Consideration of motion declaring intent to fund 1978-79 budgetary requirements by establishing and collecting a flat rate special assessment for sewer service and immediate availability on the tax roll, in the event the Districts receive an unfavorable County Counsel opinion regarding (d) above (2) Consideration of motion directing the General Counsel to draft an agreement between the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Districts, providing for the Orange County Tax Collector to collect the flat rate special assessment on the tax roll, as authorized by the Health $ Safety Code (f) Other action items, as appropriate (6) EACH DISTRICT (a) Consideration of motions to read ordinance of each respective District by title only, and waiving reading of each ordinance in its entirety (Must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present in each District) See page "A" DISTRICT TITLE ASSESSMENT 1 "Ordinance No. 104, an Ordinance Establishing $39.79 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 2 "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance Establishing 39.50 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 3 "Ordinance No. 306, an Ordinance Establishing 42.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 5 "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing 59.70 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 6 "Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing 39.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 7 "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing 38. 12 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 11 "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing 55.03 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" (b) Discussion and comment V (c) Consideration of motions to introduce ordinance of each repective District establishing sewer service and availability charges, and pass to second reading on July 19, 1978, at 6:00 p.m. , in the Districts' administrative office: DISTRICT TITLE ASSESSMENT 1 "Ordinance No. 104, an Ordinance Establishing $39.79 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 2 "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance Establishing 39.SO Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 3 "Ordinance No. 306, an Ordinance Establishing 42.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 5 "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing 59.70 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 6 "Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing 39.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 7 "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing 38.12 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" 11 "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing 55.03 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" (7) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motion of each respective District to receive and file written report describing each parcel of real property subject to flat rate -.� special assessment for sewer service and immediate availability charges and the amount to be charged each parcel; and establishing July 19, 1978, at 6:00 p.m. , in the Districts' administrative office, as the time and place for hearing re said report: DISTRICT ASSESSMENT 1 $39.79 2 39.50 3 42.92 S 59.70 6 39.92 7 38.12 11 55.03 (8) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications, if any (9) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions to adjourn: District No. 1 District No. 2 District No. 3 District No. 5 District No. 6 District No. 7 District No. 11 -3- vra t b/lq/ /u 2nd 6/19/78 ORDINANCE N.O. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SEWER SERVICE AND IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of. Orange County, California does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a system of sanitary sewer service assessments together with immediate availability assessments required to be- paid by property owners for the services and facilities furnished by the District in connection with its sanitation treatment works and sewage collection system. Pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 92-500, and Public Law 95-217 commonly referred to respectively as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Water Act of 1977, the District is mandated thereby to provide a system of user charges. Revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District, together with costs of administration, debt retirement and provisions for necessary reserves. Section 2: Annual Sewer Service Assessments. Each parcel of real property located within the District which is improved with structures designed for residential, commercial or industrial use, shall pay a flat rate special assessment for sewer service in the sum of $ Section 3: Annual Immediate Sewer Availability Assessment. Each parcel of real property located within the District which is "A-l" AGENDN ITEM #6(A) - EACH DISTRICT "A-l" unimproved with structures shall pay annual flat rate special assessment for immediate sewer availability in the sum of $ Section 4: Application of Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be in addition to Ordinance No. of the District establishing regulations for use of Districts' sewage facilities including provisions for payment of charges - or fees related thereto. Section 5: Exemptions. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all properties in the District and no exemption shall be provided for properties otherwise deemed exempt by provisions of the State Constitution or statute such as properties owned by other public agencies or charitable foundations. Section 6: Credits Against Other Charges Due: The annual flat rate special assessment for sewer service established by the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be applied as a credit against use charges. imposed upon a parcel of property pursuant ) to Ordinance No. , Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities (Industrial Wastewater Ordinance) as amended. . Section 7: Assessment Based on Fiscal Year. The flat rate special assessments for sewer service and immediate sewer avail- ability established by this Ordinance, shall be for the fiscal year commencing July 1 and terminating June 30 and there shall be no proration of such assessments. S'ection 8: Pursuant to the authority granted by California Health and Safety Code Section 5473, all assessments established herein shall be collected on the County Tax Roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes. The County Tax Collector is authorized and hereby ordered to make said collections in accordance ~2- "l-2" AGENDA ITEM #�tA) - EACH DISTRICT "�1_2" r with the terms and conditions of agreements between the County of Orange and this District. Section 9: Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by order of court, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or in other circumstances shall not be affected. Section 10: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by vote of two-thirds of the members of the Board. Section 11: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District as required by law. �,,► PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1978. Chairman Attest: "A-3" AGENDA ITEM n6(A) - EACH DISTRICT "A-3" _3- BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 . JOINT BOARDS. 542_2411962-2411 DRAFT AGENDA ADJOURNED -REGULAR .MEETING JUNE 22, 1978 - 6:00 P.M. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) - Recognition of special guests (5) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Report re proposed sewer use/availability charge to be collected on the tax bill (b) Discussion (6) EACH DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motions to read ordinance of each respective District by title only, and waiving reading of each ordinance in . its entirety (Must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present in each. District) (See copy in Directors' meeting folders) : (1) DISTRICT NO. 1: "Ordinance No. . 104, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (2) DISTRICT NO. 2: "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (3) DISTRICT NO. 3: "Ordinance No. 306, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability. Charges" (4) -DISTRICT NO. 5: "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (5) DISTRICT NO. 6: "Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (6) DISTRICT NO. 7: "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (7) DISTRICT NO. 11: "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (b) Discussion and comment '(Item #6 continued on page 2) (6) EACH DISTRICT (Continued from page. l) (c) Consideration of motions to introduce ordinance of each respective District establishing sewer use .and,availability charges, and. pas.s to second reading on July 19, 1978, at 6:00 p.m., in the Districts' administrative office: / - 1 DISTRICT N0. 1: "Ordinance No- 104, an Ordinance Establishing ( ) Sewer Use and Availability 'Charges" (2) DISTRICT NO. 2: "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance- Establishing Sewer Use and -Avai.lability Charges" (3) DISTRICT NO. 3: ."Ordinance No. • 306, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (4) DISTRICT NO. 5: "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (5) DISTRICT NO. 6: "Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (6) DISTRICT NO. 7: "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (7) DISTRICT NO. 11: "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing , Sewer Use and Availability Charges" (7) EACH DISTRICT . (a) Consideration of motion of each respective District to receive and. file written report describing each parcel of real property subject to sewer use and availability charges and the amount to be charged each parcel; and establishing July 19, 1978, at 6:00 p.m., in the Districts' administra tive office, as the time and place- for hearing re said .report: . (1) DISTRICT NO. 1' . (2) DISTRICT NO. 2 (3) DISTRICT NO. 3 (4) DISTRICT NO. 5 (5) DISTRICT NO. 6 (6) DISTRICT NO. 7 (7) DISTRICT NO. 11 (8) ALL DISTRICTS Other busines's and communications, if any (9) EACH DISTRICT (a) Consideration of motions to adjourn: . (1) DISTRICT WO. 1 (2) DISTRICT NO. 2 t�l (3) DISTRICT NO. 3 (4) DISTRICT N0: 5 (5) DISTRICT NO. 6 (6) DISTRICT NO. 7 (7) DISTRICT NO. 11 -2- II 00j-4.k"DiS OF p-.. County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Oran3e County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area 962-24e1114 540.2910 FINAL AGEMDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENTS POSTED,,,' COMP R MILEAGE... ..... JUNE 22, 1978 - 6:00 P.M. rrus scr UP.......... RES01.u1i01I3 CERTIFIED.,/ LETTERS WRITTEN.........-- (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation MINluEs ariTENv!W�1_ MINUTES FILED......(/ (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) ALL DISTRICTS Report re dedication ceremonies for 50 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1 (5) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of available alternatives for funding 1978-79 FILE -- operating/capital budgetary requirements: (See enclosed goldenrod sheet) LETTER (a) Report of General Counsel re continued levy of ad valorem special assessment VC _SNLR (tax rate) on the basis of legal opinions that sanitation districts' levy is `Am" a special assessment and, therefore, not subject to Jarvis-Gann - Alternative III (See enclosed white package) NLE """"._.._ (b) Establishing a flat rate special assessment for sewer service LETTER ..._._..._ and immediate availability to be collected on the tax roll - A/c .-.naR ._ Alternative II (See enclosed yellow package) (c) Discussion FILE (d) Consideration of motion declaring intent to fund 1978-79 budgetary LETTER ____ \ requirements by levy of a special assessment (tax rate) based CIS upon the ad valorem assessment roll in the same manner as before A/Cenactment of Proposition 13 (e) (1) Consideration of motion declaring intent to fund 1978-79 budgetary requirements by establishing and collecting a flat FILE rate special assessment for sewer service and immediate LETTER " availability on the tax roll, in the event the Districts receive an A/a -.-TKLR — unfavorable County Counsel opinion regarding (d) above (2) Consideration of motion directing the General Counsel to draft an agreement between the Orange County Board of FILE �.._.._._ pl�lS Supervisors and the Districts, providing for the Orange County LETTER ____ Tax Collector to collect the flat rate special assessment on A/c _.TnR _ the tax roll, as authorized by the Health $ Safety Code _�� "�` (f) Other action items, as appropriate (6) EACH DISTRICT Qjaj) Consideration of motions to read ordinance of each respective District by title only, and waiving reading of each ordinance in its entirety FILE .......... nA �S (Must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present in each FLE{ER __......... °� District) See page "A" Mc -MR - DISTRICT TITLE ASSESSMENT 1=ZAR VOTE..,..._M� 1 "Ordinance No. 104, an Ordinance Establishing $39.79 F'...—— -- Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE.,;,,,-* 2 "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance Establishing 39.50 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE.......,,MI5 3 "Ordinance No. 306, an Ordinance Establishing 42.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE_-I�l 5 "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing 59.70 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE......--11(5 6 _"Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing 39.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service ,�^ and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE.........Mj5 7 "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing 38.12 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE......,,,,--k1r> 11 "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing 55.03 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" (b) Discussion and comment FILE _.__.._„_ (c) Consideration of motions to introduce ordinance of each respective MITER District establishing sewer service and availability charges, and pass Nc R to second reading on July 19, 1978, at 6:00 p.m. , in the Districts' - 10 ✓ administrative office: M�5 DISTRICT TITLE ASSESSMENT ROLL CALL VOTE,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 "Ordinance No. 104, an Ordinance Establishing $39.79 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service M' and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE..... 2 "Ordinance No. 205, an Ordinance Establishing 39.50 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLE CALL VOTE..............M\S 3 "Ordinance No. 306, an Ordinance Establishing 42.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" Aq�S 5 "Ordinance No. 510, an Ordinance Establishing 59.70 ROLL CALL VOTE,,,.,.,,_,,._ Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE..............MlS 6 "Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Establishing 39.92 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE..........91S .7 "Ordinance No. 717, an Ordinance Establishing 38.12 1.� Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" ROLL CALL VOTE .. M1� 11 "Ordinance No. 1105, an Ordinance Establishing 55.03 Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability" r' (7) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motion of each respective District to receive and file written report describing each parcel of real property subject to flat rate special assessment for sewer service and immediate availability charges and FILE -.--"-"-"" the amount to be charged each parcel-; and establishing July 19, 1978, at UMR ----------- 6:00 p.m. , in the Districts' administrative office, as the time and place A/C*-MR -• for hearing re said report: DISTRICT ASSESSMENT i— M tr> 1 $39.79 MIS 2 39.50 Mls 3 42.92 MIS 5 59.70 M l-> 6 39.92 M15 7 38.12 Mks 11 55.03 (8) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications, if any (9) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions to adjourn: District No. 1 Cv 4(o District No. 2 ...i District No. 3 District No. 5 Co '• q District No. 6 (.0 '- 4 (o District No. 7 Ll 6 District No. 11 cc' '{ LP -3- Draft 6/14/78 2nd 6/19/78 ORDINANCE NO. �j AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SEWER SERVICE AND IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a system of sanitary sewer service assessments together with immediate availability assessments required to be paid by property owners for the services and facilities furnished by the District in connection with its sanitation treatment works and sewage collection system. Pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 92-500, and Public Law 95-217 commonly referred to respectively as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Water Act of 1977, the District is mandated thereby to provide a system of user charges. Revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District, together with costs of administration, debt retirement and provisions for necessary reserves. Section 2: Annual Sewer Service Assessments. Each parcel of real property located within the District which is improved with structures designed for residential, commercial or industrial use, shall pay a flat rate special assessment for sewer service in the sum of $ Section 3: Annual Immediate Sewer Availability Assessment. Each parcel of real property located within the District which is "A-1" AGENDA ITEM P6(A) -- EACH DISTRICT "q-1" •A ' unimproved with structures shall pay annual flat rate special assessment for immediate sewer availability in the sum of $ Section 4: Application of Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be in addition to Ordinance No. of the District establishing regulations for use of Districts' sewage :facilities including provisions for payment of charges or fees related thereto. Section 5: Exemptions. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all properties in the District and no exemption shall be provided for properties otherwise deemed exempt by provisions of the State Constitution or statute such as properties -owned by other public agencies or charitable foundations. Section 6: Credits Against Other Charges Due: The annual flat rate special assessment for sewer service established by the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be applied as a credit �✓ against use charges. imposed upon a parcel of property pursuant to Ordinance No. , Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities (Industrial Wastewater Ordinance) as amended. . Sectiori 7: Assessment Based on Fiscal Year. The flat rate special assessments for sewer service and immediate sewer avail- ability established by this Ordinance, shall be for the fiscal year commencing July 1 and terminating June 30 and there shall be no proration of such assessments. Section 8: Pursuant to the authority granted by California Health and Safety Code Section 5473, all assessments established herein shall be collected on the County Tax Roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes. The County Tax Collector is authorized and hereby ordered to make said collections in accordance -2- „A_2„ AGENDA ITEM #6(A) - EACH DISTDICT "A--211 i with the terms and conditions of agreements between the County of Orange and this District. Section 9: Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by order of court, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or in other circumstances shall not be affected. Section 10: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by vote of two_thirds of the members of the Board. Section 11: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1978. Chairman Attest: "A-3" AGENDA ITEM 1#6(A) - EACH DISTRICT "A-3" 1 \4 TELEPHONES: C7 NTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ) AR5EA 40 29104 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA / 962-2411 P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) June 20, 1978 Mr. V. A. Heim County Auditor-Controller County of Orange 630 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Vic : As you know, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County were founded in 1948 , pursuant to provisions of the County Sanitation District Act and pursuant thereto , each of the in- dividual Districts has annually adopted a budget to provide for the joint operations , the capital outlay, and the individual District construction and operation. Upon adoption of that �./ budget, it was forwarded to your office and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors for purposes of establishing an assessment charge to be determined based upon the ad valorem real property tax rolls . While it is in the appearance of a normal ad valorem real property tax, in point of legal fact, however, it has been determined simply to be a "special assessment" as distinguished from a tax in that it is designed to serve a special purpose and furthermore is levied only upon those properties contained on the secured roll , i.e. , land and improvements . This year, in the preparation of our individual and joint operation budgets , the Board of Directors took into consideration the practical impact of the Jarvis/Gann Initiative. As is indicated in the legal opinion of the Districts ' General Counsel, which I am en- closing for your reference, this special assessment, not being a tax, is outside of the scope of Proposition 13 , and therefore, the limits created thereby are not applicable. We have not adopted any new procedure relative to the raising of necessary revenue to fund the Districts ' budgets nor for the col- lection of same . The Districts feel quite comfortable in their position that a special assessment that is levied based on an ad valorem rate is COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708 Mr. V. A. Heim (714)540-2910 June 20, 1978 (714)952-2411 Page 2 not only the most equitable solution, but is expressly contem- plated in the law and has been so established by opinion of the Orange County Counsel dating back as far as July, 1950. Addi- tionally, as the General Counsel's opinion points out, this analysis has been supported by the decisions of the California Supreme Court, and therefore, we do not see any basis upon which to change the present method of revenue raising in order to operate the Districts . If any particular change in your processing of- the Districts ' budgets and establishing a rate based on ad valorem, which will produce the necessary revenues, is required, the Districts must take immediate action through their Boards of Directors . May I have the benefit of your thoughts at the earliest possible moment? Fred A. Harper General Manager CC: Members of the Boards of Directors LAW OFFICES OF ROiir jjIce & Woo(1]ruf(' JAMES G.ROURKE SUITE 1020 AREA CODE 714 THOMAS L.WOODRUFF CALIFORNIA FIRST BANK BUILDING 83S-6212 ALAN R.WATTS TOSS NORTH MAIN STREET OF COUNSEL ALAN R.BURNS SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 KENNARD R.SMART.JR. June 20, 1978 Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange Co. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 O P I N I O N This letter constitutes the opinion of this office in response to the following question which you have submitted. Question - Do the provisions of the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Propostion 13T as approved by the voters on June 6, 1978, prohibit the Districts from levying the charges against all real property and improvements in the Districts, that have been levied in all prior years? Answer - While Proposition 13 applies in general to the Districts, it es NOT bar them from levying a charge for service, based upon the ad valorem assessment roll of the County, in the same manner as was done before Proposition 13 was enacted. Discussion - The conclusion reached in this opinion is based primarily upon two separate judicial determinations of 1946 and 1950 respectively together with previous written opinions of the Orange County Counsel dated July 13, 1950 and February 11, 1970. The fundamental basis for this opinion rests upon the rather clearly defined legal distinction between a "tax" and a "special assessment" . If the Districts were to levy a "tax" based upon the ad valorem property rolls of the County, then the provisions of Proposition 13 would govern and only a pro rata allocation of the maximum 1% levy could be expected. However, Proposition 13 does not address itself to assessments in the restrictions recited in Section 4 thereof, therefore it is not applicable and no limits of levy are imposed. Initially, reference is made to the levying authority contained in our District enabling legislation, the County Sanitation District Act (Health and Safety Code Section 4700 et seq. ) Section 4747 thereof Mr. Fred A. Harper June 20, 1978 Page 2 provides as a District power, the authority to. . . "cause to be levied and collected taxes upon all the taxable real property in the District, Further, Section 4815 provides that after the District board furnishes a written statement for operations and maintenance, together with capital improvements for the forthcoming year (the "budget" ) the County Board of Supervisors " . . . shall, at the same time and in the manner of levying other county taxes, levy separately and cause to be collected a tax upon the taxable real property in the district. . . . " Initially, it would appear that the levy on behalf of the Districts is in fact a "tax" . However, as indicated above, the interpretation of "tax" has been rendered by both the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. In the case of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. State Board (1946) 73 Cal App 2d 748 discussed at some length that in the case before it, involving the Los Angeles Flood Control Act, the use of the word "tax" throughout the act was not controlling or conclusive , but rather when reviewed in light of special benefits conferred on real property, a determination must be made that it is an assessment. The Court in Northwestern further held: "There is a broad and well-recognized distinction between a tax levied for general governmental or public purposes and a special assessment levied for improvements made under special laws of local character' . . . . 'While the .power of assessment comes from the general power of taxation it must not be confounded with it, for as we have seen. . .the words 'taxation' and 'assessment' are employed in the Constitution to represent different modes of exercising the general power of taxation, and also as indicating different objects and purposes in aid of which a resort to the taxing power may be had. In their origin and legal or constitutional complexion they are the same; but in the mode of their exercise, and in the effect of such exercise upon the property of the taxpayer they are essentially 'different' . . . .A special assessment is taxation in the sense that it is a distribution of that which is originally a public burden. Clearly, however, a special or local assessment is not a tax in the sense of a tax to raise revenue for general government purposes. Taxes for revenue, or ' general taxes ' as they are sometimes called by distinction, are the exactions placed upon the citizen for the support of their government, paid to the state as a state, the consideration of which is protection or service by the state, whereas special or local assessments, sometimes called special taxes, are imposed upon property within a limited area for the payment for a local improvement supposed to enhance the value of all property within that area. To enumerate significant differences between a special assessment and a tax, it may be observed: Mr. Fred A. Harper June 20, 1978 �..✓ Page 3 (1) A special assessment can be levied only on land; (2) a special assessment cannot (at least in many states) be made a personal liability of the person assessed; (3) a special assessment is ordinarily based wholly on benefits; and (4) a special assessment is exceptional both as to time and locality. The imposition of a charge on all property, real and personal, in a prescribed area, is a tax and not an assessment, although the purpose is to make a local improvement on a street or highway. A charge imposed only on property owners benefitted is a special assessment, rather than a tax, not withstanding the statute calls it a tax. It has been ruled that a special assessment is not, in the constitutional sense, a tax at all. " In a later case, Cedars of Lebanon Hospital vs. Los Angeles County et al (.1950) 35 Cal 2d 749, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Northwestern, which drew a distinction between a "tax" and "assessment" and again held that despite constant references to "tax" in the act, it in fact conferred authority upon District merely to levy an "assessment" . The Court in Cedars further held that the levy for services being ad valorem rather than a specific lien type of special assessment, is not the determinative factor but instead the criteria is whether the exaction is compensation for a benefit to the property upon which it is made. Conclusion The above cited authorities are not only clear, but still controlling and therefore the proposed levy by the Districts based upon ad valorem of real property constitutes a "special assessment" and not a "tax" and it therefore not restricted in amount by Proposition 13. The revenues received are for a limited purpose and provide a direct Xbe fit to those properties upon which the charge is levied. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel JUNE 14, 1978 AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR FUNDING AGENDA ITEM #5 { 19 -79 OPERATING/CAPITAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS U JARVIS-GANN WILL REDUCE THE DISTRICTS' CURRENT (1977-78) $21 .4 MILLION TAX LEVY BY A MINIMUM OF 58% IF THE DISTRICTS RECEIVE A PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE TAXES ALLOWED TO BE COLLECTED BY THE TAX LIMITATION INITIATIVE, TO A MAXIMUM OF 100% IF THE DISTRICTS RECEIVE NO TAXES UNDER THE ALLOCATION METHOD YET TO BE DECIDED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING THE DISTRICTS SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES FOR 1978-79 ARE AS FOLLOWS: I - FUND 1978-79 REQUIREMENTS FROM CONSTRUCTION RESERVE FUNDS MAJOR ADVANTAGE - NO ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COSTS FOR 1978-79 MAJOR DISADVANTAGES - FUNDS RESERVED FOR CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS WOULD BE DIVERTED FROM CAPITAL TO OPERATING - NEEDED AND/OR REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WOULD BE DELAYED - FUNDS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPAID TO CONSTRUCTION RESERVES IN FUTURE YEARS REQUIRING DISPROPOR- TIONATELY HIGHER CHARGE IN THOSE YEARS - LOSS OF INTEREST EARNINGS II - FUND 1978-79 REQUIREMENTS BY ESTABLISHING A FLAT RATE USER/AVAILABILITY CHARGE AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF PROPERTY TO BE COLLECTED BY THE TAX BILL - MAJOR ADVANTAGES - PROVIDES FINANCING FOR 1978-79 OPERATING AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL USE OF CONSTRUCTION RESERVES - STABILIZES PROPERTY OWNER CHARGES AND DISTRICTS CASH FLOW - ACCOMMODATES PHASING OF USER CHARGE/REVENUE PROGRAM REQUIRED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 1979-80 BY EPA AND SWRCB - MAJOR DISADVANTAGES - REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARINGS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME TO IMPLEMENT - DISTRICTS WILL INCUR ADDED ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COST TO IMPLEMENT (ESTIMATED AT BETWEEN $75,000 TO $105,000) PLUS ADDED CHARGE TO COLLECT ON TAX BILL - POSSIBLE PUBLIC BACKLASH IN VIEW OF JARVIS-GANN MANDATE - FLAT USE CHARGE IS NOT EQUITABLE III - CONTINUE TO LEVY FULL TAX RATE NECESSARY TO FUND 1978-79 REQUIREMENTS ON THE BASIS OF PREVIOUS COUNTY COUNSEL OPINION THAT SANITATION DISTRICT LEVY IS A "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT". SAID OPINION MAY THUS EXCLUDE THE DISTRICTS FROM APPLICATION OF JARVIS-GANN. MAJOR ADVANTAGE - NO ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COSTS FOR 1978-79 MAJOR DISADVANTAGES - COUNTY COUNSEL HAS NOT YET PULED ON THIS OPINION RELATIVE TO JARVIS-GANN - MAY RESULT IN LITIGATION AND THE COURTS MAY FIND AGAINST THIS INTERPRETATION .. 3y.sz 3� . z �+ AGENDA ITEM NO. 5b ,o/ ALTERNATIVE II Establishing Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability to be Collected on the Tax Roll *Awe vft/ LEGAL OPINION LACY OMCtS OF SU1TC 1020 _ �A«ICS d.ROURKE �. J►REA GODS?1+ . 1stKONhtf L V100O0AVPr CA%L%P*1V14W P1►V8T P^MK eUII.t 440 92$6 d21t • . . FLAN R-WATTS tQb1i6 NORTH 14A1" QTR[£T T6LCCOtl�R •' AC?# 1ARb R.aMAA1..iR_ -.-... ..-. SAhitA fiNA.CALIFORNIAA2tpi � (71+/1 6i6-�'74T . ^LAN A.ISURMa MMORAMUM TO: fir. F.A. Harper, ' County Sanitation Districts Fxo�ns general Counsel Date: :June 22, 1978 lte: Supplement" 012ini.on •re '•Assessments This memorandum will`.,.serve -as'.-.a..'supplement* to 'that opinion which was. forwarded from*. this office dated June 20 F 1978, pertaining to the levy of .a special assessment-... charge on behalf of the Districts for purposes of funding the budgetary requirements for the forthcoming fiecal year.. I- am advised•that -in addition to the preparation of a budget and the action of -the• Board of Directors to proceed in the exact same manner.-that has -been undertaken -in previous years .relative to establishing a rate that when applied- to :the ate valorem property rolls in the bounty . will produce --sufficient revenue to meet the budgetary- . requirements, an alternate -form of '-a flat rate charge_ to be -applied universally tti ..all parcels :in the property, _ is aAso -being considered. . As S indicated .to you previously, to establish such . a charge and have -it collected with the annual tax bill, would- require compliance with the provisions of Califo= a Health and Safety Code Sections -5471 et ,seq, , which 2 under- stand is 'presently being studied to determine the Costs and -necessary procedures to give the required statutory notices. 'in reviewing the proposal . to establish a uniform flat rate charge for the services rendered by the Districts 1 have concluded that -to.do so is essentially the same as outlined in the variable charge. procedure which you have utilised in the past and which you contemplate using during fiscal year 1979-79. Specifically, and for the reasons set forth -in my opinion latter of ,rune 20, 1 an of the- further opinion that such a charge would also be deemed "a special assessment charge" ;and not a "t.ax11 as that term has been. judicially defined and these cases cited -in the June- - 20th memorandum. For that reason,-' the conclusion relative to Mr. F.A. Harper Page Two June 22, 1978 the variable charge is identical with respect to the- flat •. rate charge--namely, that -the -restrictions imposed by the enactment -of Proposition 13- would not be applicable to the Distract, and therefore, the amount-to be levied as a :. . ..... flat rate can be established by the Board Of Directors -as ' that which is necessary. to ..fund the budget without concern " . to receiving a proportionate allocation out of the one ..perbent tax levy that will be made by the County hoard. of Supervisors. . .. -. • . :. 'As indicated previously, if either a flat rate or a rate based .upon the ad'.valorem of real property is cones sidered to be- "a• tax" ,.- it could not be levied in an amount.- -beyond 'that .which is -authorized per allocation by action - of the Board.-of Supervisors.-from the total tax rate levy : permitted -by ..Proposition l3. • r: It Aid :my:-further 0' ina.on. :-�hat In point of fact, the establishment .'of a -f lat rates .*Spedial-serVice charge : . a constitutes a "user charge", which beyond the legal 'distinction as se • tfar th in the June 20 opinion, app'eare to be clearly beyond h ' Scope -of--Proposition 13 limitationsr:. and .could be permissible for levy in any amount necessary• to provide the service_:to the ind' • . - . .: . . - - _ .. . : •. a.vidaai users. - • ' - �...� :.' Thomas Woodruff : . general Counsel. TLt t 3 :. . Report Required By Section 5473 .,of the Health and Safety Code • COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O.BO%8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)5404910 REPORT RE SEWER SERVICE FEES-- (714)9622411 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREFACE This report is prepared pursuant to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 5473 . The purpose of said report is to give public notice of the intent of the County Sanitation Districts to consider the adoption of an Ordinance that will prescribe fees and charges for sanitary sewer services provided by the Districts and to be charged to respective parcels of property within the territorial juris- diction of the Districts. This report contains a description of each parcel of real property that will receive the services of the Districts and have access to utilization of the facilities, said parcels of real property being described by reference to maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and on file in the office of the County Assessor, with copies on file in the office of the Clerk of these Districts. Additionally, this report sets forth the amount of the charge for each parcel for fiscal year 1978-79. The Ordinance under consideration by the governing Board of Directors of these Districts will provide revenues which shall be used only for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of sanitary sewer facilities , and shall not be used for the acquisition or construction or mainte- nance of new local street sewers or laterals as distinguished from main trunk, interceptor and outfall sewers provided by these Districts. If the proposed Ordinance is adopted, the legislative authority may elect to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes of these Districts and the County of Orange. At the time stated in the notice setting the public hearing on this report, the governing Board of Directors shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to said report referred to in said notice, and may continue the hearing from time to time. DATED: June 22, 1978 Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Supporting Material for Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service and Immediate Availability Charge ALL DISTRICTS PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL -FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE & I"iPIED I ATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 41 ,662,824 25,933,200 (15,729,624) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 61 ,058,000 85,075,000 24,017,000 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 6,817,884 8, 153,000 1 ,335, 116 District Operating & Other Expenditures 7,009,700 8,548,8o0 1 ,539, 100 Distribute Upper Basin Joint Works Equity to other CSD' s 1 , 141 ,000 1 , 14l ,000 TOTAL REQUIREME14TS 116,543,408 128,851 ,000 12,302,592 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 14, 152,000 13,759,000 ( 393,000) Sale of Capacity Rights 660,000 1 ,213,000 553,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 3,858,000 4,236,0oo 378,000 Interest & Misc. Income 3,629,637 3,517,000 ( 112,637) Other 3,003,000 1 ,500,000 (1 ,503,000) Carry-over 71 ,836,318 87,461 ,000 15,624,682 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 97, 138,955 111 ,636,000 14,547,o45 Amount to be raised by Assessment 19,409,453 17, 165,000 ( 2,244,453) imated Number of Parcels in the Tristrict 400,560 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability $42.85 per parcel (Average) 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. (ALL) PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASK FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $ 87,461 ,000 $ 76,830,000 $70,277,000 $60,969,000 $39,335,000 REVENUE Assessment at $ /parcel 17,165,000 17,165,000 17,165,000 17,165,000 17,165,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 13,759,000 18,749,000 30,583,000 36,063,000 29,563,000 Loan in Aid of Construction 1 ,150,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 1 ,213,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 Fees 4,236,000 3,697,000 3,491 ,000 3,232,000 2,857,000 Miscellaneous 3,867,000 3,066,000 2,798,000 2,435 000 1 ,557,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $128,851 ,000 $119,580,000 $124,387,000 $119,937,000 $90,550,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 10,868,000 $ 5,577,000 $ 4,054,000 $ 6,163,000 $ 2,999,000 Share of Joint Works Construction 29,639,000 30,434,000 43,c48,004 50,618,000 38,213,000 Repay Loan in Aid of Construction 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 1 ,141 ,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 335,000 Share of Joint Operating 8,151 ,000 10,667,000 13,343,000 20,448,00o 26,118,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 2,022,000 2,325,000 2,673,000 3,073,000 3,533,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 52,021 ,000 $ 4L 03,000 $63,418,0o0 $80 602 000 _ ._.. $71 ,398,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $ 76,830,000 $ 70,277,000 $ 60,969,00o $39,335,000 $19,152,000 Funds Necessary to Meet Co,roitnents Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 24,653,000 32,210,000 40,303,000 35,700,000 35,700,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $._52-177.000 _ $ 38,o67,000_ $ 20,666,000 $ 3,635,000 ($ 16,548,000) DISTRICT N0, 1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 900,000 638,000 (202,000) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 6,566,564 7,075,000 508,436 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 789,511 924,000 134,489 J District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves 607,450 747,000 139,550 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 8,863,525 9,384,000 520,475 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 1 ,234,000 1 ,249,000 15,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 32,000 154,000 122,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 234,000 244,000 10,000 Interest & Misc. Income 410,300 352,000 ( 58,300) Carry-over 5,656,452 6,026,000 369,548 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 7,566,752 8,025,000 458,248 Amount to be raised by Assessment 1 ,296,773 1 ,359,000 62,227 Estimated Number of Parcels in the strict 34,.155 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 39.79 r 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING E CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 8o-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $6,026,000 $5,599,000 $5,086,000 $4,150,000 $2,168,o0o REVENUE Assessment at $39.79/parcel 1 ,359,000 1 ,359,000 1 ,359,000 1 ,359,000 1 ,359,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 1 ,249,000 1304,Ooo 2,780,000 3,278,000 2,687,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 154,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Fees 244,000 260,0o0 279,000 302,000 302,000 Miscellaneous 352,000 323,000 295,000 239,000 127,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 9,384,000 $9,252,000 $9,806,o00 $9,335,000 $6,650,000 E7.?ENDITURES District Construction $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Share of Joint Works Construction 2,694,000 2,767,000 3,913,000 4,601 ,o00 3,474,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury -0- 9,000 9,000 9,000 30,000 Snare of Joint operating 924,000 1 ,209,000 1 ,512,000 2,317,000 2,959,000 District Operating S Other Expenditures 92,000 106,000 122,000 140,000 161 ,000 . TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,785,000 $ 4,166,000 $5,656,000 $7,167,000 $6,724,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $ 5,599,000 $5,086,000 $4,150,000 $2,168,000 $ (74,000) Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 2,083,000 2,828,000 3,584,000 3,362,000 3,362,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $ 3,516,00o $ 2,258,000 $ 566,000 ($1 ,194,000) ($3,436,000) DISTRICT N0, ? PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SE H SERVICE & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 I ncr::ase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 10,710,993 5,799,000 (4,911 ,993) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 22,474,534 28,005,000 5,530,466 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 2, 123,089 2,625,000 501 ,911 District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves 1 ,781 ,OOo 2,261 ,000 480,000 gistribute Upper Basin Joint Works 1 141 000 1 141 ,000 _ Equity to other CSD`s ' TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 37,089,616 39,831 ,000 2,741 ,384 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 4,356,000 4, 114,000 ( 242,000) Sale of Capacity Rights 455,000 22,000 ( 433,000) Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 1 ,580,000 1 ,530,000 ( 50,000) Interest & Misc. Income 1 ,024,000 1 ,089,000 65,000 Carry-over 24,425,236 28,588,000 4, 162,764 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 31 ,840,236 35,343,000 3,502,764 Amount to be raised by Assessment 5,249,380 4,488,000 ( 761 ,380) imated Number of Parcels in the District 113,610 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 39.50 , ' r 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $28,588,000 $24,751 ,000 $24,125,000 $21 ,820,000 $16,144,000 REVENUE Assessment at $39.50/parcel 4,488,000 4,488,000 4,488,000 4,488,000 4,488,OD0 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 4,114,000 5,591 ,000 9,120,000 70,754,000 8,816,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Fees 1 ,530,000 1 ,400,000 1 ,300,000 1 ,200,000 1 ,000,000 Miscellaneous 1 ,089,000 936,000 914,000 827,000 609,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $32,831 ,000 $37,188,000 $39,969,000 $39,111 ,000 531 ,079,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 2,108,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 700,000 $ 200,000 Share of Joint Works Construction 8,838,000 9,075,000 12,837,000 15,094,000 11 ,395,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 1 ,141 ,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100,000 Share of Joint Operating 2,625,000 3,435,000 4,296,000 6,584,000 8,410,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 368,000 423,000 486,000 559,000 643,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 15,080,000 $ 13,063,000 $18,149,000 $22,967,000 $20,748,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $ 24,751 ,000 $24,125,000 $21 ,820,000 $16,i44,000 $10,331 ,000 Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 6,532,000 9,074,000 11 ,484,000 10,374,000 10,374,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $ 18,219,000 $ 15,051 ,000 $ 10,336,000 $ 5,770,000 ($ 43,000) f DISTRICT N0, 3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSINENT FOR SEWER SERVICE & If•iPIEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 15,720,559 9,389,4o0 (6,331 , 159) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 14,935,524 25,939,000 11 ,003,476 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 2, 192,631 2,587,000 394,369 District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves 2,077,600 2,483,60o 406,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 34,926,314 40,399,000 5,472,686 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 4,775,000 4,546,0oo ( 229,000) Sale of Capacity Rights 75,000 561 ,000 486,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 1 ,243,000 1 ,370,000 127,000 Interest & Misc. Income 1 , 119,225 1 ,076,o00 ( 43,225) Carry-over 20,422,189 26, 127,000 5,704,811 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 27,634,414 33,68o,000 6,045,586 Amount to be raised by Assessment 7,291 ,900 6,719,000 ( 572,900) r `imated Number of Parcels in the _,strict 156,555 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 42•92 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $26,127,000 $21 ,247,000 $20,460,00o $18,382,000 $12,816,000 REVENUE ,Assessment at $42.92/parcel 6,719,000 6,719,000 6,719,000 6,719,000 6,719,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 4,546,Do0 6,201 ,000 10,114,000 11 ,927,000 9,777,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 561 ,000 24,000 24,000 24,0o0 24,000 Fees 1 ,370,000 1 ,200,000 1 ,100,000 1 ,000,000 900,000 Miscellaneous 1 ,076,000 871 ,000 839,000 753,000 527,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $40,399,000 S36,262,000 $39,256,000 $38,805,000 $30,763,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 6,258,000 $ 1 ,740,00o $ 1 ,703,000 $ 1 ,960,000 $ 100,000 Snare of Joint Works Construction 9,802,000 10,064,000 14,236,000 16,740,000 12,637,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury -0- 33,000 33,000 33,000 111 ,000 Share of Joint Operating 2,587,000 3,384,000 4,234,000 6,488,000 8,287,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 505,000 581 ,000 668,000 76B4O00 883,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 19,152,000 $ 15.802,000 $20,874,o00 $25,989,000 $22,018,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $ 21 ,247,000 $20,460,000 $18,382,000 $12,816,000 $ 8,745,000 Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 7,901 ,000 10,437,000 12,995,000 11 ,009,000 11 ,009,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $ 13,346,000 $ 10,023,000 $ 5,387,000 $ 1 ,807,000 ($ 2,264,000) DISTRICT N0, 5 PRELI[IINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSME11T FOR SEWER SERVICE & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 3,605,945 21170,000 (1 ,435,945) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 4,732,950 6,560,000 1 ,827,050 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 396,801 462,000 65,199 District Operating '& Other Expenditures & Reserves 719,000 828,000 109,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 9,454,696 10,020,000 565,304 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants g14,000 940,000 26,000 Sal,e of Capacity Rights 24,000 116,000 92,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 142,000 50,000 (• 92,000) Interest & Misc. Income 233,000 237,000 4,o00 Loan in aid of Construction 1 ,150,000 1 , 150,000 Carry-over 5,520,764 6,371 ,000 850,236 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 7,983,764 8,864,000 880,236 Amount to be raised by Assessment 1 ,470,932 1 , 156,000 ( 314,932) '.imated Number of Parcels in the -vistrict 19,365 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 59.70 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $ 6,371 ,000 $6,562,000 $5,160,000 $3,797,000 $1 ,917,00- REVENUE Assessment at $59.70/parcel 1 ,156,000 1 ,156,000 1 ,156,000 1 ,156,000 1 ,156,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 940,000 1 ,282,000 2,092,000 2,467,000 2,022,000 Loans In Aid of Construction 1 ,150,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 116,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Fees 50,000 50,000 50,000 40,Ooo 40,000 Miscellaneous 237,000 241 ,000 190,000 140 000 71 ,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,020,000 $9,296,000 $8,653,000 $7,605,000 $5,211 ,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 450,000 $ 875,000 $ 525,000 $ 375,000 $ 75,000 Share of Joint Works Construction & Equity 2,027,000 2,082,000 2,945,000 3,462,000 2,614,000 Repay Loan in Aid of Construction 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 7,000 7,000 7,000 23,000 Share of Joint Operating 462,000 605,000 757,000 1 ,159,000 1 ,481 ,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 319,000 367,000 422,000 485,000 557,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,458,000 $4,136,000 $4,856,000 $5,688,000 $4,950,000 Carry-over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $ 6,562,000 $5,160,000 $3,797,000 $1 ,917,000 $ 261 ,000 Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 2,068,000 2,428,000 2,844,060 2,475,000 2,475,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $ 4,494,000 $2,732,000 $ 953,000 ($ 558,000) ($2,214,000) DISTRICT N0 , -5- PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE .. & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating .& Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction Reserves 967,000 305,000 (662,OOQ) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 3, 168, 114 4,111 ,000 942,886 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 419,300 492,000 72,700 District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves 394,800 477,000 82,200 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 4,949,214 5,385,000 435,786 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 792,000 802,000 10,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 20,000 99,000 79,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 35,000 40,000 5,000 Interest & Misc. Income 147,700 150,000 2,300 Carry-over 3,106,445 3,424,000 317,555 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 4,101 ,145 4,515,000 413,855 Amount to be raised by Assessment 848,069 870,000 21 ,931 imated Number of Parcels in the Vistrict 21 ,795 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 39.92 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-75 79-80 8o-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $3,424,000 $3,012,000 $2,614,000 $1 ,979,000 ($ 21 ,000) REVENUE Assessment at $39.92/parcel 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 870,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 802,000 1 ,095,000 1 ,786,000 2,106,000 1 ,726,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 99,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Fees 4D,OD0 40,000 40,D00 40,000 40,000 Miscellaneous 150,000 131 ,000 114,000 85,000 -0- TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $5,385,000 $5,152,000 $5,428,000 $5,084,000 $2,619,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 795,000 $ 525,000 Share of Joint Works Construction 1 ,731 ,000 1 ,777,000 2,514,000 2,956,000 2,231 ,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 6,000 6,000 6,000 20,000 Share of Joint Operating 491 ,000 643,000 804,000 1 ,233,000 1 ,5751000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 76,000 87,000 100,000 115,000 _ 132,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,373,000 $2,538,000 $3,449,000 $5,105 000 $4 483,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $3,012,000 $2,614,000 $1 ,979,000 ($ 21 ,000) ($1 ,864,000) Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 1 ,269.000 2,225,000 2,242,000 2,242,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) _$1 ,743 000_ $ 389,000 ($ 574.000) ($2,263,000) ($4,106,000) l t DISTRICT N0, 7 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 4,492,327 3, 170,300 (1 ,321 ,527) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase & Reserves 5,937,058 8,022,000 2,084,942 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 444,526 526,000 81 ,474 District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves ' 806,050 985,200 179, 150 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 11 ,679,961 12,704,000 1 ,024,039 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 1 ,147,000 1 , 161 ,000 14,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 30,000 144,000 114,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 384,000 405,000 21 ,000 Interest & Misc. Income 312,612 332,000 19,388 Due from Cities 1 ,853,000 350,000 (1 ,503,000) .Carry-over 6,345,668 9,280,000 2,934,332 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 10,072,280 11 ,672,000 1 ,599,720 Amount to be raised by Assessment 1 ,607,681 1 ,032,000 ( 575,681) F—imated Number of Parcels in the „strict 27,075 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 38. 12 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $9,280,000 $8,777,000 $7,842,000 $6,406,000 $4,596,000 REVENUE Assessment at $38.12/parcel 1 ,032,000 1 ,032,000 1 ,032,000 1 ,032,000 1 ,032,000 Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 1 ,161 ,000 1 ,584,000 2,584,000 3,047,000 2,498,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 144,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Fees 405,000 350,000 325,000 300,000 275,000 Miscellaneous 682,000 312,OOD 278,000 229,000 162,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $12,704,000 $12,061 ,000 $12,067,000 $11 ,020,000 $8,569,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 456,000 $ 490,000 $ 625,000 $ 210,000 $ 185,000. Share of Joint Works Construction 2,505,000 2,572,000 3,637,000 4,277,000 3,229,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 8,000 8,000 8,OOD 28,000 Share of Joint Operating 525,000 688,000 861 ,000 1 ,319,000 1 ,685,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 401 ,000 461 ,000 530,000 610,000 702,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,927,000 $4,219,000 $5,661 ,000 $6,424,000 $5,829,000 Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $8,777,000 $7,842,000 $6,406,000 $4,596,000 $2,740,000 Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 2,110,000 2,831 ,000 3.212.000 2.915,000 2,915,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $6,667,000 $5,011 ,000 S3_194,o00 _$_1 ,68.1 ,000 (S 175,000) f DISTRICT NO, 11 PRELII9INARY ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLAT RATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE & IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY 1978-79 Increase 77-78 78-79 (Decrease) Estimated Operating & Capital Requirements District (Collection System) Construction & Reserves 5,266,00o 4,461 '000 ( 805,000) Joint Works (Treatment Plant) Construction and Equity Purchase &. Reserves 3,243,256 5,363,000 2,119,744 Joint Operating (Treatment Plant) Expense 452,026 537,000 84,974 District Operating & Other Expenditures & Reserves 623,800 767,000 143,200 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 9,585,082 11 , 128,000 1 ,542,918 Extended Revenue Federal-State Grants 934,00o 947,000 13,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 24,00o 117,000 93,000 Connection Fees & Industrial User Charges 240,Ooo 597,000 357,000* Interest & Misc. Income 382,800** 281 ,000 (101 ,800) Carry-Over 6,359,564 7,645,000 1 ,285,436 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 7,940,364 9,587,000 1 ,646,636 Amount to be raised by Assessment 1 ,644,718 1 ,541 ,0o0 ( 103,718) `Includes 1977-78 fees not remitted by City **Includes $141M Equity Sale in 77-78; -0- in 78-79 .tlmated Number of Parcels in the —District 28,005 Estimated Annual Flat Rate Special Assessment for Sewer Service & immediate availability 55.03 6/22/78 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW OPERATING & CAPITAL ONLY (EXCLUSIVE OF DEBT SERVICE) FISCAL YEARS 78-79 THROUGH 82-83 DESCRIPTION 78-79 79-80 8o-81 81-82 82-83 CARRY-OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS $7,645,000 $6,882,000 $4,990,000 $4,435,000 $ 1 ,715,000 REVENUE Assessment at $55.03/parcel 1 ,541 ,000 1 ,541 ,000 1 ,541 ,000 1 ,541 ,Ooo 1 ,541 ,00o Other Revenue Federal & State Participation 947,000 1 ,292,000 2,107,000 2,484,000 2,037,000 Sale of Capacity Rights 117,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Fees 597,000 397,000 397,000 350,000 300,000 Miscellaneous 281 ,00o 252,000 168,000 162,000 61 ,000 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $11 ,128,000 $10,369,000 $9,208,o00 $8,977,000 $ 5,659,000 EXPENDITURES District Construction $ 1 ,4o6,000 $2,272,000 $ 576,000 $2,023,000 $ 1 ,814,000 Share of Joint Works Construction 2,D42,000 2,097,000 2,966,Ooo 3,488,000 2,633,000 Refunds of Capital Cost Recovery to Federal Treasury 7,000 7,000 7,000 23,000 Share of Joint Operating 537,000 703,000 879,000 1 ,348,000 1 ,721 ,000 District Operating & Other Expenditures 261 ,000 300,000 345,000 396,000 455,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,246,000 $5,379,000 $4,773,000 $7,262,000 $ 6,646,COo Carry-Over Balance to Following Fiscal Year $6,882,000 $4,99o,000 $4,435,000 $1 ,715,000 ($ 987,000) Funds Necessary to Meet Commitments Prior to Receipt of Tax Apportionments 2,690,000 2,387,000 3,631 ,000 3,323,000 3,323,000 Fund Balance or (Deficit) $4,192,000 $2,603,000 $ 804,000 ($1,608,00o) ($ 4,310100 A`^o� June tb. 1978 ESTIMATED OPERATING/CAPITAL USER CHARGE TO PROVIDE 1978-19 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS (b) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1978-79 COMBINED TAX/USER CHARGE 1978-79 COMBINED TAX/USER CHARGE FINANCING BASED ON 1977-78 FINAIICI,IG BASED ON RECOMMENDED FUNDING LEVEL JOINT WORKS REDUCTION IN CHARGE TO PROPERTY CVVER i IF DISTS DO RECEIVE PRO-RATA SHARE OF AMOUNT TO BE MAXIMUM OPER/ TAXES UNDER JARVIS MAXIMUM OPER/ RAISED BY OPER/ CAPITAL USER CAPITAL USER CAPITAL USER 1477-78 TAX FUNDING LEVEL CHARGE IF DISTS AMOUNT TO BE CHARGE IF GISTS CHARGE IF DISTS RECEIVE NO PRO- RAISED BY RECOMMENDED RECEIVED NO PRO- RECEIVE Pr.:-RATA RATA SHARE OF OPER/CAPITAL JOINT WORKS I RATA SHARE OF ;HARE CF TAXES ESTIMATED NUMBER TOTAL TAX OPER/CAPITAL TAXES UNDER JARVIS MAXIMUM OPER/ USER CHARGE TAX LEVY- TAXES U14DER JARVIS 0N�ER :Ao:15 DISTRICT OF PARCELS LEVY DEBT SERVICE (1) - (2) (1) - (2) CAPITAL TAX LEVY (4) - (5) REDUCTION (3) - (7) (3) - (5) - (7) - 1 S1,382.548 $ 85,775 $ 1.296.773 $ 1,296,773 $ 505.781 S 790,992 S 142,437 $ 1.154.336 $ 648,555 2 5.729,496 480,116 5,249,380 5,249,380 1,907,846 3,341.534 388,407 4,860,973 2.953.127 3 7.970.515 678,615 7.291.900 7,291,900 2,524,808 4.767.092 572.085 6,719.815 4.195,007 5 1,497.464 26,532 1.470,932 1,470,932 579,860 891,072 106,664 1.364,268 784.L03 6 879.992 31,923 848,069 848,069 330,324 517.745 103.377 744.692 414.368 7 2,238,815 631,134 1,607,681 1,607,681 654,780 952,901 156,938 1,450.743 795.563 11 1.729,839 85,121 1.644,718 1,644,718 510,039 1,134,679 103.407 1,541,311 1,031.272 TOTAL $21,428.669 $2,019,216 $19.409,453 $19,409.453 $7,013,438 $12,396,015 $1,573,315 $17,836,138 $10.822,700 OPERATING CAPITAL USER CHARGE PER PARCEL - 1 34.155 $ 37.97 $ 23.16 $ 33.80 S 18.99 2 113,610 46.21 29.41 42.79 25.99 3 156.555 46.58 30.45 42.92 26.80 5 19.365 75.96 46.01 70.45 40.5 6 21,195 38.91 23.76 34.17 19.01 7 27,075 59.38 35.19 53.58 29.40 11 28,005 58.73 40.52 55.04 36.82 AVERAGE 400,560 $ 48.46 $ 30.95 S 44.53 S 27.02 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5a ALTERNATIVE III Levy of Full Ad Valorem Tax Rate on the Basis of Legal Opinions that Sanitation Districts Levy is a Special Assessment and, therefore, not Subject to Jarvis-Gann •V i.n,q V� TEIEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS �`�(�,���� AREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA , 962-2411 P. O. ©0X 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 927013 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, BAN DIEGO FREEWAY) Agenda Item flo,,. �/�; •) June 20 , 1978 Mr. V. A. Heim County Auditor-Controller County of Orange 630 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Vic: As you know, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County were founded in 1948 , pursuant to provisions of the County Sanitation District Act- and pursuant thereto , each of the in- dividual Districts has annually adopted a budget to provide for the joint operations , the capital outlay, and the individual District construction and operation. Upon adoption of that *./ budget, it was forwarded to your office and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors for purposes of establishing an assessment charge to be determined based upon the ad valorem real property tax rolls . While it is in the appearance of a normal ad valorem real property tax, in point of legal fact, however , it has been determined simply to be a "special assessment" as distinguished from a tax in that it is designed to serve a special purpose and furthermore is levied only upon those properties contained on the secured roll , i. e. , land and improvements . This year, in the preparation of our individual and joint operation budgets , the Board of Directors took into consideration the practical impact of the Jarvis/Gant Initiative. As is indicated in the legal opinion of the Districts ' General Counsel, which I am en- closing for your reference, this special assessment, not being a tax, is outside of the scope of Proposition 13 , and therefore, the limits created thereby are not applicable. We have not adopted any new procedure relative to the raising of necessary revenue to fund the Districts ' budgets nor for the col- lection of same . The Districts feel quite. comfortable in their position that a special assessment that is levied based on an ad valorem rate is r✓ c • COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.0-BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFOfiNIA 92708 Mr. V. A. Heim (714)s40.2910 June 2 0, _19 7 8 (714)9G2.2411 Page 2 not only the most equitable solution, but is expressly contem- plated in the law and has been so established by opinion of the Orange County Counsel dating back as far as July, 1950. Addi- tionally, as the General Counsel's opinion points out, this analysis has been supported by the decisions of the California Supreme Court, and therefore, we do not see any basis upon which to change the present method of revenue raising in order to operate the Districts . If any particular change in your processing of• the Districts ' budgets and establishing a rate based on ad valorem, which will produce the necessary revenues , is required, the Districts must take immediate action through their Boards of Directors . May I have the benefit of your thoughts at the earliest possible moment? Fred A. Harper General Manager cc: Members of the Boards of Directors LAW OFFICES OF Ro Cite 1�r()UC1riIl I DAMES G.ROURKE SUITE 1020 CALIFORNIA FIRST BANK BUILDING AREA CODE 714 THOMAS L.WOODRUFF 835-6212 ALAN R.WATTS 1055 NORTH MAIN STREET or COUNSEL ALAN R.BURNS SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92701 KENNARD R.SMART.JR. June 20, 1978 Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange Co. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 O P I N I O N This letter constitutes the opinion of this office in response to the following question which you have submitted. Question - Do the provisions of the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Propostion 13T as approved by the voters on June 6, 1978, prohibit the Districts from levying the charges against all real property and improvements in the Districts, that have been levied in all prior years? Answer -- While Proposition 13 applies in general to the Districts, it does NOT bar them from levying a charge for service, based upon the. ad valorem assessment roll of the County, in the same manner as was done before Proposition 13 was enacted. Discussion - The conclusion reached in this opinion is based primarily upon two separate judicial determinations of 1946 and 1950 respectively together with previous written opinions of the Orange County Counsel dated July 13, 1950 and February 11, 1970. The fundamental basis for this opinion rests upon the rather clearly defined legal distinction between a "tax" and a "special assessment" . If the Districts were to levy a "tax" based upon the ad valorem property rolls of the County, then the provisions of Proposition 13 would govern and only a pro rata allocation of the maximum 1% levy could be expected. However, Proposition 13 does not address itself to assessments in the restrictions recited in Section 4 thereof, therefore it is not applicable and no limits of levy are imposed. Initially, reference is made to the levying authority contained in our District enabling legislation, the County Sanitation District Act (Health and Safety Code Section 4700 et seq. ) Section 4747 thereof Mr. Fred A. Harper June 20, 1978 ' Page 2 provides as a District power, the authority to. . . "cause to be levied and collected taxes upon all the taxable real property in the District, 0 . . . " Further, Section 4815 provides that after the District board furnishes a written statement for operations and maintenance, together with capital improvements for the forthcoming year (the "budget" ) the County Board of Supervisors " . . . shall, at' the same time and in the manner 'of levying other county taxes, levy separately and cause to be collected a tax upon the taxable real property in the district. . . . " Initially, it would appear that the levy on behalf of the Districts is in fact a "tax" . However, as indicated above, the interpretation of "tax" ,has been rendered by both the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. In the case of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. State Board (1946) 73 Cal App 2d 748 discussed at some length that in the case before it, involving the Los Angeles Flood Control Act, the use of the word "tax" throughout the act was not controlling or conclusive , but rather when reviewed in light of special benefits conferred on real property, a determination must be made that it is an assessment. The Court in Northwestern further held: "There is a broad and well-recognized distinction fir✓ between a tax levied for general governmental or public purposes and a special assessment levied for improvements made under special laws of local character ' . . . . 'While the .power of assessment comes from the general power of taxation it must not be confounded with it, for as we have seen. . .the words 'taxation' and ' assessment' are employed in the Constitution to represent different modes of exercising the general power of taxation, and also as indicating different objects and purposes in aid of which a resort to the taxing power may be had. In their origin and legal or constitutional complexion they are the same; but in the mode of their exercise, and in the effect of such exercise upon the property of the taxpayer they are essentially 'different' . . . .A special assessment is taxation in the sense that it is a distribution of that which is originally a public burden. Clearly, however, a special or local assessment is not a tax in the sense of a tax to raise revenue for general government purposes . Taxes for revenue, or ' general taxes ' as they are sometimes called by distinction, are the exactions placed upon the citizen for the support of their government, paid to the state as a state, the consideration of which is protection or service by the state, whereas special or local assessments, sometimes called special taxes, are imposed upon property within a limited area for the payment for a local improvement supposed to enhance the value of all property within that area . To enumerate significant differences between a special assessment and a tax, it may be observed: Mr. Fred A. harper - June 20, 1978 �..d Page 3 (1) A special assessment can be levied only on land; (2) a special assessment cannot (at least in many states) be made a personal liability of the person assessed; (3) a special assessment is ordinarily based wholly on benefits; and (4) a special assessment is exceptional both as to time and locality. The imposition of a charge on all property, real and personal, in a prescribed area, is a tax and not an assessment, although the purpose is to make a local improvement on a street or highway. A charge imposed only on property owners benef itted is a special assessment, rather than a tax, not withstanding the statute calls it a tax. It has been ruled that a special assessment is not, in the constitutional sense, a tax at all . "' In a later case, Cedars of Lebanon Hospital vs. Los Angeles County et al (.1950) 35 Cal 2d 749, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Northwestern, which drew a distinction between a "tax" and "assessment" and again held that despite constant references to "tax" in the act, it in fact conferred authority upon District merely to levy an "assessment" . The Court in Cedars further held that the levy for services being ad valorem rather than a spec:ificlien type of special assessment, is not the determinative factor but instead the criteria is whether the exaction is compensation for benefit to the property upon which it is made. Conclusion The above cited authorities are not only clear, but still controlling and therefore the proposed' levy by the Districts based upon ad valorem of real property constitutes a "special assessment" and not a "tax" and it therefore not restricted in amount by Proposition 13 . The revenues received- are for a limited purpose and provide a direct be - fit to those properties upon which the charge is levied. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel EE ING DATE June 22, 1978 TIME 6 :00 P.M. DISTRICTS 1,2, 3,5,6 , 7&1.1 I TRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS CKANK , , , , , , , .RIMA. . . . . . . ._� IRILEY . . . . . . . . .ANTHONY• • •- ti�lELSH . . . . . . . .SHARP. . . . . . . tr RILEY . . . . . . . . .CLARK• • •• • - RILEY . . . . . . . .ANTHONY. . . . ....4,G PERRY . . . . . . . . .CULVER• • - • - ti.r� ORTIZ . . . . . . . .EVANS. . . . . . . ORTIZ • • • • • • • • •EVANS• • • • • • DISTRICT 2 COOPER • • • • • • • •Fox• • • • •• • • COOPER - • • • • • • •GAMBINA• • • . FRIED) HUTCIIISON) • • • • •GLOCKNER• • - • • . . . . . .WEDAA• • • • • • •--� ROGET) GRAHAM RASHFORD). . . . .HOLT. . . . . . . ._L/ --" .. .. ' - -- - RILEY) . . . . • . . •CLARK• • • - • • .__._� MSHFORD) YER). . . . . . . . .GRIFFIN• • • - COOPER) . . . . . . ."K-• . . . . . . . .`� • • • • • •HOLT• • • • • • . ROGET). . . . . . . .GRAHAM. . . . . •—�G �WELLS). . . . . . . . .HOUSTON• • - - .WELLS). . • . . . • •HOUSTON. . . • . ✓ LACAYQ)• • • • • • • •HUDSON• • • • - EVANS) . . . . . . • •�-I-z- • • . . . .� SEITZ) • • . . . . • • •LASZLO. . . . . - CULV R) . . . . . . •PERRY. . . . . . . ief RYCKOFF) . . . . . . .MC INNIS• • • ROTH • • • • • • • • •9R•• • • • • WEISHAUPT • • • • •MILLER. . . . . HOYT • • • • • • - • •SMITH• • • • • • • ✓ FINLAYSON • - • • •OLSON• • • • - - ADLER) . . . . . . • -STANTON• • • • • ✓ EVANS)• • • • • • • • •ORTIZ• • • • • •IWINTERS) . . . . . .VELASQUEZ. . .^ SHENKMAN) • • • • • •PATTINSON• - CULVER� • • • • • • • •PERRY• • • • • - DISTRICT 3 NYBORG • • • • - • . .PRIEST• - • • - ANTHOQY) • • • • • • •RILEY• • •• • • ADLER . • • • • • • •SVALSTAD. • • ._� CRANK). . . . . . . . •RIMA• • • •• - - � MEYER)• • • • • • • •GRIFFIN• • • • •.� YOUNG) • • • • • • • • •ROGET• • • • • . �PERRY) . . . . . . . .CULVER- • • • • • NUMME ). . . . . . • •RYCKOFF• • • • COOPER) - - oo - o -GAMBINAo • - • • � WELSH• • • • • - • • •SALTARELLI - LACAYQ) • • • • • • •HUDSON• • • • • • IRILEY)o . . . o . . . .SCHMIT. - * * • SEITZ)) . . • • • • •LASZLO• • • • • • L-� (ROTH). . . . . • . • • •SEYMOUR• • • • WEISHAUPT • • • •MILLER• • • . • • Ov (WELSH) • - • • • • • • •SHARP• • • • - • FINLAYSON) . . . .OLSON. . . . . . .- • • _• � (< . . . EVANS) / SHENMAN) • • •SIEBERT. . . * NYBORG) . . . . . . .� . . . . . . HOYT) - • - • • . • • •SMITH- . . • . . YOUNG •ROGET• • . • • 0 ADLER)• • • • • • • • •STANTON• • • • R I LEY . . . . 66 tizT- RYCKO F) . . . . . . .STRAUSS. . . . ROTH) • - • • • • • • • ADLER SVALSTAD . . . SHEN KMAV). . . . . _ . ZOMMI�K) • • • • • • -SYLVIA• • • • • ZOMMICK)). . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . . . GAIDO • • • • • • • • •VARDOULIS• - IVELASQUEZ) . o . .WINTERS. . . . . Ile= WINTERS) • • • • • • •VELASQUEZ• • FRIED) . . . . . . . . .WEDAA• - • • • - DISTRICT 5 RYCKOFF) • • • • • • •WILLIAMS. . . HUMMEL • • • • • • • - - • • ✓ VELASQUEZ) • • • NTERS- • . • ANTHONY) . . . . o •RILEY• • • • • • •a RYCKOFF • • • • • •STRAUSS• • • • • OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER. . . . . (RYCKO FT_ MC INNIS. . . . Q. SYLVESTER. . �RILEY) CRANK5 . . . . . . . .RIMA. . . . . . ..� LEWIS. . . . . . . . .. . . . •ANTHONY. • . . .. CLARKE. . . . . BROWN. . . . . . DISTRICT 7 (GAIDO)• • • • • • • •VARDOULIS• • - WOODRUFF. . . HOYT) . . . . o . • • •SMITH. . . . . . ._ HOHENER. . . . RILEY • • • • • • • •CLAF;K. . . . . . • ✓ HOWARD. . . . . ORTIZ • • ••• • • •EVANS• • • . • . -� HUNT. . . . . . . HUTCHISON) • • • •GLOCKNER. • • • KEITH. . . . . . WELSH) • • • • • • • •SALTARELLI . •_jC KENNEY. . . . . RYCKOFF)• • • • • -WILLIAMS. . . . LYNCH. . . . . . DISTRICT 11 MARTINSON. . i'BAILEY . . . . . . .SHENKMAN. . . ._J,G PIERSALL. . . SHENKMAN). . . . .PATTINSON. . . j.A. _ STEVENS. . . . RILEY) oo . . . . o GG'IM IT• • • • • -.ram TRAVERS. - * . 6/14/78 MEETING DATE June 22, 1978 TIME 6 :00 P.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7&11 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS CRANK . . . . . . . .RIMA ✓ RILEY ANTHONY . . . .- WELSH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . WELSH . . . . . . . .SHARP. . . . . . `� RILEY . . . • . • . . .CLARK• . . . • . R I LEY . . . . . . . .AI't�P0,NY��.�. .. ✓ PERRY . . . . . . . . .CULVER- • . • . ORTIZ . . . . . . . .EVANS. . . . . . . ✓ ORTIZ . . . . . . . . .EVANS• • •• • • DISTRICT 2 COOPER • • • • • • • •FOX• • • • • • • • COOPER . . . . . . . .GAMBINA•• • - FRIED) . . . • • • • •WEDAA• • • • • • • `� HUTClilSON) • • • • •GLOCKNER• • • RASHFORD). . . . .HOLT. . . . . . . . ROGET) • •! • • • .- • •GRAHAM• •• • • ✓ RILEY) . . . . . . . .CLARK• • • . • • • ✓ �MEYER). . . . . . • • •GRIFFIN• • • •COOPER) �- ✓ RASHFORD)• • • • • •HOLT. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROGET . . . . . . . .r,0 .�1�=•Q�'• • • d �LACAYQ) VIELLS). . - - • • • • •HOUSTON• - - .WELLS�. . . . . . . .HOUSTON. • . . .__� • • • • • • • •HUDSON• • • • •EVANS) - ✓ CULV R} • • • • • • •PERRY. . . . . . . RYCKOFF) . . . . . . •MC INNIS• - • ROTH • - • • • • • • .S•c � • • • • ✓_ _ WEISHAUPT� . . . . .MILLER. . . . . HOYT • - SMITH_ _ FINLAYSON - • • • •OLSON• • • • • • ADLER) . . . . . . . .STANTON � • � � � • • • ��� EVANS} ORTIZ -,�� �. •---'T . . . . . . WINTERS) . . . . . .VELASQUEZ• • • SHENKMAN) • - • • • •PATTINSON• • CULVER) . . . . . . . .PERRY. . . . . . DISTRICT 3 NYBORG) • • • • • • • •PRIEST• • • • . J ANTHOY) RILEY v ADLER . . . . • • • •SVALSTAD . • • `' 1CRANKT0 . 0 . 0 • • - •RIMA• • • • • • • .� -- MEYER) • • • • • • • •E�i;,..f:I�� ✓ YOUNG)• • • • • • • • •ROGET• • • • • • PERRY) • • • • • • . -CULVER• • • • • • HUMME ). . . . . . • •RYCKOFF• • • • COOPER) . . . . . . .GAMBINA• • • • • ✓ WELSH�. . . . . . . . .SALTARELLI• LACAYO) HUDSON- RILEY) SCHMIT (�. SEITZ) . . . . . . . .LASZ/L0. . . . . . ✓ ROTH). . . . . . . . . .SEYMOUR. . . . �. WEISHAUPT • • . •MILLER WELSH) • • • • - • • • •SHARP• • •• • • �Y FINLAYSON) . . . • . . . . . . BAILEY) . . . . . . . .SHENKMAN. . . EVANS} . . . . . . . .Q i+Z. . . • • • • SHENt(MAN) • • • • • •SIEBERT• • • • ''. NYBORG) . . . . . . .R3�I-€�T':• • • • •�� HOM . . . . . . . . . . YOUNG . . . . . . . .ROGET. . . . . . .�� ✓ ADLER) . . . . . . . . .STANTON• • • • RILEY . . . . . . . .SCHMIT . . . . . . ./ P,YCKOFF) . . . . . . .STRAUSS• • • • ROTH).. . . . . . . • •SeYMOVR. . . . . v _ ADLER) SVALSTAD- . . . . . . . . . . . �. SHENKMAO). . . . . 9t-��m. . . . . y . . . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . . . ) ZOMMI CK) ZOMMICK . . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . . . ./ GAIDO) • • • • • • • • •VARDOULIS• • VELASQUEZ) . . ••WINTERS. • . . .q_ WINTERS) . . . . . . .VELASQUEZ• - (FRIED) . . . . . . . . .WEDAA• • •• • - DISTRICT 5 RYCKOFF) . . . . .. .WILLIAMS. . . "UMMEL . . . . . . . -i;. . . . . ✓ �VELASQUEZ) - - - - -WINTERS. . . • ANTHONY) . . . . . .RILEY• • • • • • • ✓ RYCKOFF • • • • • •STRAUSS• • • • • OTHERS DISTRICT_ 6 HARPER. . . . . RYCKO�. . . . .MC INNIS , . . . SYLVESTER. - ✓ CRANK . . . . . . .RII�1A. . . . . .. �T LEWIS. . . . . . CLARKE. . . . . RILEY) . . . . . . . -)L-NTtf0QY , J _ BROWN. . ... . . ✓ DISTRICT 7 ZGAIDO . . . . . . . .VARDOULI 4 --7 WOODRUFF. . . HOYT) • • • • • • • •SMITH• • • • • • _._ HOHENER. . . . RILEY) • • • • • • • •CLARK. . . . . . . L HOWARD. . . . . ORTIZ) • • • •• • • •EVANS• . • • • . • ✓. HUNT. . . . . . . HUTCHISON) • • • •GL0CK14ER.1 A___7_^ KEITH. . . . . . WELSH) . . . . . . . .SALTARELLI . • ✓ KENNEY. . . . . RYCKOFF). . . . . .WILLIAMS• • • • Q- LYNCH. . DISTRICT 11 MARTINSON. - EAILEY . . . . . . .SHENKMAN. . . . -� PIERSALL. • • SHENKMAN) . . . . .PATTINSON. . . &. STEVENS. . . . RILEY) . . . . . . . .� • • • • • • ✓ TRAVERS. . . . 6/14/78 June 22 , 1978 _1 Adjourned Joint Mtg.. lfte4) P1-16 Dedication FAH briefly reported re dedication to be scheduled. Said once thought we were going to have President Carter. Then thought we would have the Regional Administrator from EPA. We have a confirmation for July 12 for Regional Administrator Paul DeFalco but thought we might also invite Chairman of the Board John Bryson. His calendar is full now. Said he recommended we hold off for August Board Meeting and have Regional Administrator and John Bryson of the State Board. Asked Directors if that would be okay. No objections. (5a) Report of General Counsel TLW reviewed discussion and actions taken at June 14th Board meeting. Said in accordance with the unanimous act of this Board, have proceeded to gear up and proceed with variable charge. Have been dealing with County Counsel' s staff who are familiar with problem and are working with it. Submitted letter to Vic Heim two. days ago with his (TLW's) legal opinion attached to it. Said that opinion is an affirmation of what he indicated at the last meeting. While this may appear as a tax, in point of fact, by judicial decision, is quite clear that the charge we levy is an assessment. Said they have ruled on this in 1950 and 1970 that we were levying an assessment. Feel extremely confident in this. Is some question whether Jarvis-Gann covers special assessments . Literal reading of Jarvis-Gann shows special assessments not contemplated. There are other sanitation districts and Flood Control District in LA Co. who are in an identical posture legally as we are. Are trying to establish to County Auditor and County Counsel this is legal and outside purview of Jarvis-Gann. Is both legal and proper. Probably the most equitable is Alternative III. Added that he had another legal opinion in the Directors ' folders re Alternative II . If it is a tax, should still define it as a special assessment charge. Can't see much difference whether it is flat or variable. Don't think the risk of challenge is going to be too great. Cooper mentioned that he heard on TV that Flood Control District in LA Co. was going to cut employees and questioned this as TLW said they were in same situation as we are. TLW said this was not a legal answer. When they cut 400 people, they get them off the drawing boards and stop cutting channels or cutting as weeds as quickly, but we are getting wastewater down the pipes and can't stop it. They can cut but we can' t. Cooper then asked how we determined the assessment of each one. Said JWS would give that report on next item. Culver stated that the tax rate. of 421, per $100 would remain the same if we go with Alternative I. Saltarelli said we really want the opinion to come from the State Attorney General ' s office. Culver asked if it would raise the tax rate or not. Saltarelli answered it probably would in some Districts because would have to go back to 75/76 tax rate. JWS then reported on Alternative II. Referred to yellow package in Directors' folders . Also to green page - TLW' s legal opinion in package. Salmon page is a form required to be filed if we want to be on tax bill. �.r In proceeding with this in case we receive an unfavorable opinion, will be mailing notices to all parcels within our jurisdictional boundaries (400, 000-450,000) . Scheduled to mail July llth. Hearing date tentatively scheduled for July 19th. Explained various figures on yellow sheets in package. $2.2 million deduction for operations and capital expendi- tures in 1978-79, which means will raise $2.2 million less from taxpayers. Cooper stated that each District has certain fee and each District has "X" number of units, adjusted into figure, right? Answered right. Asked if that included industrial and was answered yes, it does . Saltarelli advised that this was the only way we can do it the first year. By the second year, can define each parcel and put in what equitable charge should be. Will be more equitable in the second year. FAH said we do have 300 (?) facilities under Class I Permit which brings in revenues over $ per year. (5d) TLW stated that it was the recommendation of the General Manager and staff and based on the Board' s recommendation last month, to go with one way but if barred from doing that, want alternative open to go to. If Directors want to reaffirm expressed recommendations , would need to move item (d) and (e) (1) both. Want to go the same way if we can but if we can't, will go to (e) (1) . Re (e) (2) TLW advised that County Counsel really couldn't make the decision the County Auditor will properly follow in the event the County Auditor and Tax Collector refuse to implement what we request. Sharp then asked if someone files a taxpayer's suite, can we drop down to the other one? TLW said that is a hard question. Assuming there is a lawsuit and assuming it is successful, question is where are we 6 or 8 months from now? Are we likely to have blown the whole levy and get nothing? Think as a practical matter very difficult to envision we would lose everything. There is risk but don't see any alternative that is not subject. to some risk. If that happens , then we are in the posture of Alternative I. District will be funding on reserves. Said Mr. Harper did discuss this with Vic Heim today. As their Counsel has said, he want to wait for some kind of opinion from the State. We are required by August loth to have whatever we want done to the tax rolls in the Coun�i or's hands. Vic Heim has asked his staff to develop a critical path schedule of what is the last day we can turn this in. Hopefully, could wait until September. What we want to avoid is if we can go to Alternative III, to keep things the way they are, is the postage expense. If we get a reprieve of 10-20 days, then we will have to change the date of the hearing. Or if we go ahead with the hearing, will be the expense of postage that will not be recovered. JWS added that we may not have the answer on item (d) and if we don't get reprieve or answers, will have no choice but to mail . Holt asked if there isn't any way we can get around it. Can't we just go ahead and refer to the taxation and force the County to put it on the tax roll? TLW said if we present our budgets . to County Auditor and they won't do it, what do we do? -2- Laszlo asked how he would explain the assessment for each District if he were asked and it was explained to him. Then the question was moved and seconded. Voice vote. Motion carried. Items 5 (d) , (e) (1) & (2) ?? (7) Cooper asked if the ordinance says the charge is for a one-year period. Was answered yes, was an annual charge. -3-