Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-08COUNTY SANITATION DISTRI CTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLE Y . C A LIFORN IA 9270 8 10844 ELLIS AV ENUE (EUCLI D OFF-RAMP. S AN DIEGO FREEWAY) February 3, 1982 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICT NO, 2 & DISTRICT NO. 7 MONDAYJ FEBRUARY 8J 1982 -6:00 P~M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEYJ CALIFORNIA We are calling a joint special meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 2 and 7 of Orange County, California, at the above hour and date. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss policies relati v e to annexation of new territory to the Districts. No. 2 cc: Joint Chairman Vice Joint Chairman ~IJ ;) .5'_,L,~ Chairman District No. 7 Fiscal Policy Committee Chairman TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 7 14 5 4 0-2910 962-2 411 February 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTORS OF DISTRICTS 2 AND 7 REFERENCE: Criteria for Annexation of New Territory COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 During the Joint Special Meeting of Districts 2 and 7 on February 8th, the Directors considered the enclosed proposed criteria for annexation of new ~ territory to Districts 2 and 7. The staff was directed to send this material to the absent members of the two Boards for their study prior to the February 10th Joint Meeting. Section II. o. has been expanded relative to the sharing of tax revenues. The Directors expect to discuss this in more detail at Wednesday night's meeting. FAH:rb Enclosure Fred A. Harpe General Manager '-""' I • Draft 12/22/81 PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY INTRODUCTION The County Sanitation District of Orange County is a special district governmental agency, separate from the County government, formed under certain provisions of the State of California's Health and Safety Code for the purpose of providing for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewaters from all properties within the boundaries of the Districts. Before any sanitary sewer service can be provided to any property, one of the first requisites is that the property must be within the Sanitation District jurisdiction. For those properties which are not within the Sanitation District, the property must be annexed to the District before sanitary sewer service can be provided. The annexation procedures contained herein are specifically detailed to provide the applicant sufficient information which, if followed, will expedite the annexation process. II. GENERAL POLICY A. All applications, forms, supporting data and documents with all fees must be filed in the office of the County Sanitation District at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708. B. No use of any sewer line will be allowed until after the date of approval of the proposed annexation by the Boa~d of Directors. c. A request for annexation will not be accepted for any irregularly shaped territory which consists of subdivisions where isolated (island) parcels of property or lots are excluded from or are not included within the territory to be annexed. D. Pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 et seq., the District must negotiate and execute an agreement with all other public agencies that serve the property and which share in the present ad valorem tax levy and reveQues. Such agreement shall provide for the exchange of a portion of the ad valorem tax revenue for the subject property. In the event any agency refuses to execute such an agreement which would provide some share of taxes to the District to pay for the annual cost of sanitary sewer service, the annexation may fail. III. ANNEXATION PROCEDURES NOTE: All applicants should allow a minimum of 120 calendar days for processing any proposed annexation. APPLICANT'S PETITION AND JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE* Uninhabited annexation -less than 12 property owners (For inhabited annexation, more than 12 property owners, request special instructions.) *Petitions must be filed with LAFC within six months from date of first signature and/or 60 days after last signature on said petition. Rev. 12/81 "I-1" 1. Letter requesting annexation must be directed to the Bofr~·of Directors of the County Sanitation District (see attached sample) which must contain a statement requesting the District to annex the territory and must be signed by all property owners. The letter must be accompanied with the following: ~ a. Owners within territory. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all property owners within said territory and a designation of the portion or interest owned by each person. A copy of a title report or property deed shall be submitted to verify ownership. b. Assessed value. The assessed value of each separate parcel of land within the territory having a separate assessment, as shown on the last preceding equalized assessment roll of Orange County. Copies of latest tax bills or assessor's valuation notices shall be submitted. c. Legal description. The true and correct and complete legal description of the territory for which annexation is requested (TAX BILL DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT NUMBERS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE). The legal description must be typed and submitted on 8~ x 11 inch paper. The description shall contain, within the territory described, reference to the County Sanitation District boundary. d. Map. A map shall be drawn on 8~ x 11 inch or 8~ x 14 ~ inch vellum, cloth, or mylar (for reproduction). The exterior boundaries of the territory shall be dimensioned with the bearings of each line noted. The boundary of the District adjacent to the proposed annexation shall be noted also. The map scale shall be l" = 600' or larger. If the area cannot be completely drawn on the above size sheet, the map shall be drawn on a reproducible medium not to exceed 14" in height but with a larger width. The north arrow and point of beginning of the legal description shall be noted on the map. e. Area. The area (acreage) of the territory for which annexation is requested shall be noted both in the legal description and on the map submitted. Calculations for the determination of the area shall be submitted or certified by a California licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. (NOTE: For assistance in items c, d and e, guidelines and samples are attached herewith. For additional information, please contact the District's Engineering Department.) "I-2" i f. Environmental Impact. The "Justification of Proposal Questionnaire" required by the Local Agency Formation Commission must be completed, answering all questions, and submitted. If an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for a project within the proposed annexation, submit the EIR along with the "Justification of Proposal Questionnaire". 2. District Processing Fee. When the request is filed, it must be accompanied by payment of the sum of $500.00, made payable to County Sanitation District No. , to cover processing costs. Should these processing costs exceed the $500 fee, applicants will be requested to deposit the amount of such excess with the District. 3. For Developed Properties. A $500.00 per lot service charge will also be due. For developed properties other than resi- dential, the service charge will be calculated by the District upon application. PLEASE NOTE: BEFORE THE DISTRICT'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND INITIATE PROCEEDINGS, ALL ITEMS OUTLINED IN PART I MUST BE COMPLETE AND ACCOMPANIED BY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS Upon approval by the Board of Directors to initiate annexation proceedings, the applicant will be notified, in writing, of the Board's action and of the fees which must be submitted before the proposed annexation is submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission for its consideration. AFTER THE BOARD'S ACTION TO INITIATE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS, THE APPLICANT MUST PAY ALL APPICABLE FEES WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS. AFTER SIX (6) MONTHS, THE APPLICANT'S PETITION IS VOID AND THE PROCESSING FEE IS FORFEITED. IF ANNEXATION IS STILL DESIRED, THE PROPONENT MUST COMMENCE NEW PROCEEDINGS. The following fees must be received by the District before the proceedings can be submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission: 1. Local Agency Formation Commission Fee. (LAFC) -Must accompany requests to LAFC to initiate annexation proceedings. Minimum fee is $125.00 for territory consisting of 0.1 to 5 acres. The fee increases depending upon the acreage. This fee is refunded if annexation fails. 2. State Board of Equalization Processing Fee -Minimum fee is $130.00 for territory consisting of 0.1 to 10 acres. This fee increases depending upon the acreage. This fee is refunded if annexation fails. "I-3" 3. Annexation Fee -The gross acreage annexation fee will be determined in accordance with the applicable annexation fee schedule which is set forth below. This fee is refunded if annexation fails. These fees and processing fees determined to be required by other V agencies shall be deposited with County Sanitation District No. for submission to said agencies before the annexation may proceea:- NOTE: (1) All fees are subject to change without notice. THE FEE SCHEDULE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF ANY FEE SHALL APPLY. (2) The Annexation Acreage fee is subject to increase July 1st each year. See following schedule for current fees required. DISTRICT 7 ONLY If the property proposed to be annexed is located within unincorporated territory of the County of Orange or within the Cities of Irvine or Tustin, said property must also be annexed to either the 7th or 70th sewer Maintenance District. A separate legal description and map must be prepared for annexation to the appropriate Sewer Maintenance District and submitted along with a separate processing fee computed at the rate of $42/acre or any portion therof (note this fee is charged by the County Surveyor and is subject to change without notice). A check for this fee payable to the County of Orange must be submitted to the District along with the petition, map and legal V description before annexation proceedings will be initiated. For further information with regard to the preparation of said documents, plase contact Mr. Joe Rycraw in the Districts' Engineering Department at (714) 540-2910, Ext 240. EFFECTIVE MARCH 9, 1978, pursuant to Resolution No. 78-52-7, adopted by the Board of Directors on March 8, 1978, an area-wide planning study fee of $100 per acre shall be paid by the proponents of any application for annexation of territory in the Cowan Heights/Lemon Heights/Crawford Canyon areas tributary to Peters Canyon and generally described as "easterly of Newport Boulevard between Chapman Avenue and Irvine Boulevard." ANNEXATION FEE SCHEDULE The following is a list of annexation fees presently in effect for the respective Districts. These fees shall remain in effect until the next adjustment date (July 1st): Rev. 12/81 District No. 2 3 5 7 11 "I-4" Gross Acreage Fee $1616.00/acre 1676.00/acre 1581.00/acre 1403.00/acre 2008.00/acre • NOTE: In addition to all fees set forth in these instructions for annexation, ALL properties within the Districts are subject to connection fees for the respective District pursuant to the District's "Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities". Connection fees are due and payable at the time the application is made for direct connection to the sanitary sewer facilities. Annexation to the District does not grant connection to the sanitary sewer system. ~~ ~- For further information relative to legal description and map, please contact Mr. Joe Rycraw in the Districts' Engineering Department at (714) 540-2910, Ext. 240, and for information relative to procedures, fees and the status of pending annexations, please contact Rita Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Board, at (714) 540-2910, Ext. 207. "I-5" T y I-z UJ ~ UJ 0::: u z >< <:( I- z >- .....I z 0 UJ 0::: <:( :c (/) (/) I- u a:: I- (/) Cl -. I u.J (/) <:( Cl) >< <:( 1- J_ 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. 6 . b-:"' 9. 10. 11. 12 . (A) ' ( ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. .......................... " ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. ............................. .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. ............................. .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEFORE ANNE XA TION Count y $ 95 .35 Ci t y 70.40 Other Spec . Di sts . 34 .00 Sch oo l s 300.25 CS DOC -0- $500 .00 TAX ES PER ACRE Co unt y $ 95 .35 Ci ty 70.40 Othe r Sp ec . Di sts. 34 .oo School s 300 .2 5 CS DOC -0- $500.00 T ,\V C C o i:-o 11 ro c I MP ACT OF AB 8 TAX EXC HANGE S RE ANNE XA TI ONS TO CSDOC (Unde velope d Propert y) (B) DI STR I CTS SHA RE ON LY IN INCREA SED TAX INC REMEN T I I . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . .............................. . ........................... . . ............................ . . ............................ . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . ............................. . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... .. . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ............................ . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . . ........................... . . ............................ . AFTER ANNE XA TI ON BEF ORE RE ASS ESS MENT Co un ty City Othe r Sp e c. Sc ho ols CS DOC $ 97. 13 7 1. 71 Di sts. 34 .6 4 306 .25 .27 $5 10 .00 ' I ~ . .... 10/14 /8 1 (C) l I 1 111 .. . ............................ . .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·;·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· . ·:·:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-:-·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : . : . :~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: -:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:·:·:::.:·:·:· ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-:·:·:·:·:·:-:-:·:·:·:·:-:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-:-:-:·:·: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-:-:-:·:·:·:::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: AFTE R ANNE XA T I ON AFTER REA SS ESS MENT Coun ty City Oth e r Spec . Sc hoo l s CS DOC $ 397.68 29 3 .63 Di s t s. 141.72 1,32 1 .07 45,90 $2,2 00.00 I-z UJ ~ UJ 0::: u z >< <:( I- :z >- .....I :z 0 UJ 0::: <:( :c (/) (/) I-u 0:: I- (/) Cl L.l.J (/) <( cc >< 1 AS SU MI NG ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE Co un t y $ 97. 13 Co un ty $2 ,745.17 C{t y 71. 71 city 2,026.92 Ot her Spe c. Di sts. 34 .64 Ot her Spec . Dis t s . 978.2 1 Sch ools 306 .25 Sc hoo l s 9,2 47 .40 CS DOC .27 CS DOC 40 2 .30 I $15 ,400 .00 ) $5 10.00 I I\ CC l l U I )r.l f"' C C \fC )r.I r"\\ IL i I I )r.lf" :1 >.l I\".'." :"') r-n ",.. n~ 2 3 4 5 6 J (A) TAX REVENUE LO SS I ~ _ERO TAX EXCHANGE ON ANNEX ING PROP ERTI ES {B) ( c) {D) 10/14/8 1 {E) ( F) {G) Estimated Annual Loss of Tax Revenue Per Acre Assuming Following Dwelling Units Per Acre Und eveloped Land 1 2 _1__ 4 5 1st Year (After development) $ 46 $ 105 $ 16 5 $ 224 $ 284 2nd -4th Years Av e r age I 47 108 168 229 289 5th Year (after resale) 76 165 25 4 343 432 Developed La nd 1st Yea r 2 4 5 6 2nd -4th Years Average 2 5 7 10 12 5th Year (after r esa l e ) 30 59 89 11 9 14 9 Ass ump tions/Comments -$220,000 market va lue s in g le fami l y dwe lli ng (the current median va l ue in Orange County) -Original l and va lue $50,000/ac -5th year assumes property wou ld be r eso l d (current average turnover i s 5 years) and be revalued 50 % higher (actual expe ri e nce for past five years i s 100 %) -District r eve nu e factor .027 (A ve r age o f Dists. 2 & 7) 6 - $ 343 350 52 1 7 14 178 -Note that Districts do not s hare in base . Distri cts s ha r e on l y in incremental taxes after annexation {H) 7 $ 402 411 6 10 8 1 7 20 8 Undeveloped Property Base Year 1st Yea r after Annexation 2nd Year after Annexation 3rd Year after Annexation 4th Year after Annexation 5th Year after Annexation 6th Year after Annexation De veloped Property P~se Year l s t Year after Annexation 2nd Year after Annexation 3rd Year after Anne xat ion 4th Year after Annexation 5th Year after Annexation 6th Year after Annexation ILLUSTRAT I ON OF PROPERTY TAX IMPACT ANNEXATIONS TO CSDOC SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL Market Taxes Value I Al 1 Other 1 A2end es CSDOC (b ) $ 50,000 $ 500 $ -0 - 220,000(d) 2' 15 4 46 224,000(a) 2, 193 47 228,000(a) 2,232 48 233,000(a) 2,281 49 330,000(a) 3,224 76 337,000(c) 3,293 77 $220,000 $ 2,200 $ -0- 224,000(a) 2,239 228,000(a) 2,278 2 233,000(a) 2,326 4 238,ooo(a) 2,375 5 330,000(c) 3,270 30 337,000(a) 3,338 32 (a) Annual increase 2% per statute (b) CSDOC wou ld share in the annual tax increment only, per statute (c) Revaluation of property pursuant to resale (d) Revaluation of property pursuant to construction of dwelling 10/14/81 Total $ 500 2,200 2,240 2,280 2,330 3,300 3,370 $ 2,200 2,240 2,280 2,330 2,380 3,300 3,370 ANNEXl\BLE DIST. NO. 2 7 11 TOTAL o"' v TERR I TOR Y ACRES 2 700 24 ,058 PACIFIC OCEA N LOS -pn!I DU! •yp COU NTY SANITATI ON DISTRICTS OF ORAN GE C OUNTY, CALIFOR NIA 1980 Map "l " See Map "2 " IRVIHE -· MEETING DATE February s·, 1982 TIME 6 :00 P.M. DISTRICTS ~---------------------- 2 & 7 .DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS (EDGAR),,,,,,,,SHARP,,,,,,, (,SRI CKE NJ,,,,,, LUXEMBOURGER-- (CRANK),,,,,,,, HANSON,,,,,,---- (RILEY) I ••••••• STANTON. I. I·== DISTRICT 2 (FRIED) •••••• I .WEDAA. I I I ••• .,,,,, (SEYHOUR),,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,~ == (WINTERS)t•••••BORNHOFT,,,, (LE BARONJ, •••• Fox......... --------- (ECKENRODEJ •••• HOLT •••••••• ~ -------- (ODL UM) It I I. I I I KAWANAM 1. I I ,_jz == :::: !BRICKENJ,,,,,,LUXEMBOURGERi WIEDER),,,,,,,NESTANDE,,,, ~::::: VAN DASKJ,,,,,NIELSEN,,,,, (CULVER),,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,, -------- (WEDEL),,,,,,,,ROGET,,,,,,, ~ -------- (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH.,,,,,,~ -------- DISTRICT 3 (COLLI NS) ••• ·• I • VAN DYKE. I I I (SEITZ),,,,,,,,LASZLO,,,,,,==::::::::::: (VAN OASKJ,,,,,ADLER,,,,,,, (PERRY)•t••••••CULVER, •••••==:::::::: (EDWARDSJ,,,,,,FINLAYSON,,, __ __ (MANDIC),t•••••FINLEY,,,,,,== ____ ::::::: (LE BARONJ,,,,,GAMBINA,,,,, ______ __ (BR I CKEN >. I I I I IL UXEM BOURGER-- ( ROWAN) •••••••• MULL EN •••••• ------------ (OAVIS),,t•••••REESE,,,,,,,==:::: == (MARSHOTTJ,,,,,ROHAGNINQ,,, (SEYHOUR),,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,----::::::::::: (ZOMMICK),,,,,,SYLVIA,,,,,,----__ __ (ROGET),,,,,,,,WARO,,,,,,,.::::: ____ ::::: (NESTANOEJ,,,,,WIEDER,,,,,, __ __ (BORNHOFT),,,,,WINTERS,,,,,== ____ == DISTRICT 5 (HAURER),,,,,,,HEATHER,,,,, (STRAUSS) •••••• cox ••••••••• ---- (STANTON) •• I I. I RILEY I I I I I I·== DISTRICT 6 (CRANK>. I. I I I I I HUTCHISON ••• (HEATHER),,,,,,PLUMHER,,,,,------------ (RILEY),,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,,:::::::::::: DISTRICT 7 (SHARP),,,,,,,,EDGAR,,,,,,, vi" (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,~-------- (HEATHERJ,,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,-'A.t,_ ----- (BRICKEN),,,,,,LUXEMBOURGER~ == == (WJEDER),,,,,,,NESTANOf,,,,...Q.t_ (SILLS). I I I. I. I VARDOULIS. I·~ ---(GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,~== == DISTRICT 11 (MAC ALLISTER),BAILEY,,,,,, (NESTANOE),,,,,WIEDER,,,,,,---- (FINLEY),,,,,,,PATTINSON,,,== 7/8/81 (VAN DASK),,,t,ADLER,,,,,,, (MAC ALLJSTERJ.BAILEY •• I ••• -- (WINTERS) •••••• BORNHOFT •••• ---- !STRAUSS) •••••• cox ••••••••• ---- PERRY) •••••••• cuLVER •••••• ----SHARP),,,,,,,,EDGAR,,,,,.~---­ (EDWARDSJ,,,,,,FINLAYSON,,,---- (MANDIC),~,,,,,fINLEY,,,,,,-------- (LE BARON ••••• Fox ••••••••• ==:::::: (LE BARON ,,,,,GAMBINA,,,,, (CRANK),,,,,,,,HANSON,,,,,,-------- (HEATHER),,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,-------- !MAURER).' I I I I. HEATHER •• I •• ---- ECKENRODE) •••• HOLT •••••••• -------- CRANK),,,,,,,,HUTCHISON,,.:::::::::: ODLUM),,,,,,,,KAWANAMI,,,, (SEITZ),,,,,,,,LASZLO,,,,,,-------- !BRICKEN).'. I I .LUXEMBOURGER---- ROWAN)t ·······MULLEN •••••• == ---- WIEDERJ, 'I. I I .NESTANDE •• I. (VAN DAlK) I •• I. NI ELSEN. I I I.-- (FINLEY ,,,,,,,PATTINSON,,,---- (CULVER ,,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,,---- !HEATHERJ,,,,,,PLUMMER,,,,,== DAVIS),,,,,,,,REESE,,,,,,, __ __ STANTONJ,,,,,,RILEY.,,,,,, (WEDEL). I •• I •• I ROGET I. I •• I·== (MARSHOTT),,,,,ROMAGNINQ,,, (SEYMOUR),,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,---- (SALTARELLI),,,SHARP,,,,,,,---- (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,-------- (RILEY),~,,,,,,STANTON,,,,,-------- (ZOMHICK ,,,,,,SYLVIA,,,,,,==== (COLLINS ,,,,,,VAN DYKE,,,, (SILLS),,,,,,,,VARDOULJS,,,-------- (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,-------- (ROGET),,,,,,,,WARD,,,,,,,,-------- (FRIED),,,,,,,,WEDAA,,,,,,,-------- (NESTANDE),,,,,WIEDER,,,,,,--------- (BORNHOFT),,,, ,WINTERS,,,,,==== OTHERS HARPER,,,,,, SYLVESTER,,,== ____ LEWIS,,,,,,, ______ __ CLARKE,,,,,, ______ __ DAWES ...... I ANDERSON,,,,==== BROWN. I ••••• BAKER,,,,,,,-------- CONATSER,,,,-------- YOUNG,,,,,,,==== WOODRUFF,,,,-------- HOHENER,,,,,-------- HOWARD,,,,,,-------- HUNT,,,,,,,,-------- KEITH,,,,,,,----- LYNCH ••••• I I MART I NSON. I • STEVENS,,,,, MEETING DATE February a·, 1982 TIME 6 :00 P.M. DISTRICTS ~------------------- 2 & 7 0 IS TR IC T 1 JOINT BOARDS {EDGAR)•t••••••SHARP,,,,,,, ( BRICKENJ,,,,,, LUXEMBOURGER-- (CRANK),,,,,,,, HANSON,,,,,,--- (RILEY),,,,,,,,STANTON ••••• :::: DISTRICT 2 (VAN DASK),,,t,ADLER,,,,,,,_ (MAC ALLJSTERJ,BAILEY.,,.,, (WJNTERS),,,,,,SORNHOFT, •• ,--- ! STRAUSS) •••• I. cox I I I I I • I I .--- PERRY) •••••••• CUL VER •••••• -- SHARP)•t••••••EDGAR,,,.,,~--­ (EDWARDSJ,,,,,,FJNLAYSON.,,--- (FRIED),~,,,,,,WEDAA,,,,,,, _________ ~ (MANDIC),~,, ••• FJNLEY,,,,,.::::: (SEYMOUR •••••• ROTH •••••••• ___ -------!LE BARON ••••• Fox ••••••••• __ __ (WINTERS t•••••BORNHOFT,,,, LE BARON ,,,,.GAHBINA,,,,, (LE BARONJt'. I .FOX •• I •••••• -----v CRANK). I I •• I •• HANSON ••• I •• -- (ECKENRODEJ •••• HOLT •••••••• -----~ (HEATHER),,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,------ (OOLUM),t••••••KAWANAHJ,,,,:::::::::: ~ (MAURER),•t••••HEATHER,,,,,::::::::: ! BRICKENJ,,,,,,LUXEMBOURGER ~ !ECKENRODEJ,,,,HOLT,,,,,,,, WIEDER),t•••••NESTANDE.,,.:::::::::: CRANK),,,,,,,,HUTCHISON.,.::::::::: VAN .DASK J •••• I NI ELSEN •••• ·-----ODL UM) •••••••• KAWANAM I •••• (CULVER),,,,,,,PERRY,,,,,,, ~ (SEITZ),,,,,,,,LASZLO,,,,,,---- (WEDEL),, •••••• ROGET ••••••• ----'"' !BRICKENL I •••• LUXEMBOURGER==::::: (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,----------~ ROWAN)t•••••••MULLEN,,,,,, WIEDERJ,t•••••NESTANDE •• ,,::::: __ __ DISTRICT 3 (VAN DASKJ.,, •• NIELSEN ••••• (FINLEY),,,,,,,PATTINSQN,,,----. --- (COLLINS).,,·,, ,VAN DYKE,,,, (SEITZ),,t•••••LASZLQ,,,,,,:::::::::::::::: (VAN DASKJ,,,,,ADLER,,,,,,, ___ (PERRY),t••••••CULVER,,,,,,::::: ___ ::::: (EDWARDSJ,,,,,,FINLAYSON,,, -- (MANDIC),t•••••FINLEY,,,,,,:::: ___ ::::: (LE BARONJ,,,,,GAMBINA,,,,, ______ __ (BRICKENL,,,. ,LUXEMBOURGER--___ _ (ROWAN),,,,,,,,MULLEN,,,,,,---___ (OAVJS),,t•••••REESE.,,,,,,:::: ____ :::::: (MARSHOTTJ,,,,,ROHAGNJNQ,., (SEYMOUR),,,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,::::::::::::::: (ZOMMICK),,,,,,SYLVJA,,,,,, _______ __ (ROGET) •• t ••••• WARD. I •••••• (NESTANDEJ,,,,,WIEDER,,,,,,::::::::::::::: (BORNHOFT),,,,,WJNTERS,,,,, _________ _ DISTRICT 5 (HAURER)t••••••HEATHER,,,,, (STRAUSSJ •••••• cox ••••••••• :::::::::: ---(STANTON) •••••• RILEY ••••••• _________ __ (CULVER)t••••••PERRY,,,,,,,------ !HEATHERJ,,,,,,PLUHHER,,,,,::::::::::: DAVIS),t••••••REESE,,,,,,, STANTONJ,,,,,,RILEY,,,,,,,------ (WEDEL),,,,,,,,ROGET,,,,,,,------ (HARSHOTT),,,,, ROM AGNI NO,,,-- (SEYMOUR),,,,,, ROTH,,,,,,,,------- (SALTARELLJ),,,SHARP,,,,,,,------ (BEYER),,,,,,,,SMITH,,,,,,,----- (RILEY),~,,,,,,STANTON,,.,,------ (ZOHMICK ,,,,,,SYLVIA,,,,,,::::::::: (COLLINS ,,,,,,VAN DYKE,,,, (SILLS),,,,,,,,VARDOULIS,,,-----. - (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,----- (ROGET),,,,,,,,WARD,,,,,,,,------ (FRIED),,,,,,,,WEDAA,,,,,,,------- (NESTANDE),,,,,WIEDER,,,,,,------- (BORNHOFT),,,,,WJNTERS,,,,,::::::::: OTHERS___ ,, .1 . . J} i~ tt{ o DISTRICT 6 (CRANK)•t••••••HUTCHISON •• , (HEATHERJ,,,,,,PLUMHER,,,,,--- ·--,fPv UJ(; 'r-· ~ ·1 C--"' r,;<-t. ·, \ v \)1;· s~l~-.e ) -~-AiPER •••••• ~ \ , ~ 4 ~ ~lt, SYLVESTER, .. __::::._ \:t)r<-~1 ~ __ / LEWIS,,,, ••• ~_ (RJLEY),,,,,,,,STANTON ••••• :::::: :::: ____ ---- DISTRICT 7 (SHARP),,,,,,,,EDGAR,,,,,,, (BEYER),t••••••SMITH,,,,,,,---------~ (HEATHERJ,,,,,,HART,,,,,,,,----------- (BRICKENL ·.I. ,·.LUXEMBOURGER------v (WJEDER),,,,,,,NESTANDE,,,,---------- (SJLLS),,,,.,,,VARDOULJS,,,-----------{ (GREEN),,,,,,,,WAHNER,,,,,,::::::::: ----.~ DISTRICT 11 (MAC ALLISTER),BAILEY,,,,,, (NESTANDE),,,,,WJEDER.,,,,,--- (FINLEY),,,,,,,PATTINSON,,.:::: 7 /8/81 --./ _ .• CLARKE •• ,,,, v . tfJ' .f ~~ DAWES. I ••••• ~::::: V WA I ANDERSON,,,, ,( 1h.J./'} JJ BROWN •••• I I I ./ ::::: J} f" l ' ~,,__ BAKER. I I ••• ·--. (,_;,,v CONATSER, • , , ~, ,~c L vouNG ••••••• __ WOODRUFF,,,,~::::: HOHENER,,,,, ______ __ HOWARD,,,,,, HUNT,,,,,,,,------- KEITH,,,,,,,--- LYNCH,,,,,,, MARTINSON. I.-- STEVENS ••••• :::: __ _ . • DISTRICTS 2 & 7 SPECIAL MEETING February 8, 1982 (Recording Secretary's Summarized Notes -Not for Release ) Chairman Wedaa announced that this meeting had been called at his request as District 2 Chairman and Chairman of the AB 8 Committee and by Richard Edgar, District 7 Chairman, for the purpose of discussing where we have b e en and where we are re AB 8. Referred to yellow portion of map on wall which indicated area in Districts 2 and 7 that could be annexed . He advised that Supervisor Nestande who sits on the 2 & 7 Boards, indicated he had a previous commitment and could not be at this special meeting. Chairman Wedaa then briefly revie wed the history of the AB 8 Committee. He stated that the Committee had been unable to make any significant progress. Joint Chairman Holt asked the Board of Supervisors to appoint one or more members. Riley was appointed and has tried to help resolve the problems. At the last Committee meeting, h a ving talked out various alternatives and approaches, all felt that we are at an impasse. Getting no place. Stuck on dead center. Discussed moratorium as one solution. Perhaps all equally bad. Advised that in discussions with General Counsel, is really up to the individual Districts to decide on their annexation policy. If District 2 wants to do something, District 7 really doesn't have to follow it. vote must be majority within each District. Are not here tonight to take any positions. Just want to give everybody the opportunity to discuss the issues so each can decide by Wednesday at the Joint Meeting. Referred to Bill (Proposition 13 implementation) that indicates those who are short of money should institute user fees. If we institute user fees, the County will also keep our share of the A.V. If any homeowner moves in will pay higher taxes but none will be remitted to Sanitation Districts. Really not fair. Double taxa- tion. Said his position is somewhat in variance with other members of the Committee which is that ultimately we should be going to user fees. Everybody in the County (all Districts) should be going to user fees. Would take a couple years to do. Not a good alternative for now. Could institute user fees now which comes back to double taxation. The County says if we n eed any money, apply to Special District Augmentation Fund. Don't really need the money now because Districts have money in the bank. Future years will be the problem. Chairman Edgar stated that what we are striving for is something we can defend to people who voted for us and to ourselves that it is equitable and fair to everybody. Joint Chairman Holt stated that they had addressed the issues very well. We have, indeed, an impasse. Don't know that the County has really negotiated. Don't believe their position has changed in the last six months. Everything that is offered is regarding SDAF monies which are already legally ours anyway. Commended the negotiation team which has bent over backwards to negotiate Director Sharp asked, when you say impasse, are you considering their silence on our last offer (formation of new District) as being a rejection or are we still expecting to hear from them. Wedaa replied that Supv. Riley said at the last meeting, I guess we are at an impasse. Is a word we would have used too. We aren't expecting to hear another word from them. Director Roth added that he has been involved in this for one year now. Frustrating to spend this much time and end up where we were a year ago. Really isn't a true understanding by all Directors of the problems that exist. Is Committee's responsibility to give informa tion to Directors. The Sanitation Districts are presently operating from funds received from a portion of the ad valorem taxes. County says from now on we have to look for money from user fees added on top of A.V. tax. Penalizing property owners in new annexations. They say if we don't like that, give in an be g for Augmentation Funds. Because of financial condition due to prudent management that we have seen in this District, particularly Districts 2 and 3, that would be out. Wouldn't qualify for Augmentation Funds. Said he differed with Chairman Wedaa relative to taking a look at the whole picture and changing from A.V. taxes that we have now. Anytime that I have given up something, have lost the battle. Don't believe we should tell County we would give up A.V.and go to County-wide user fee. Taxpayers in Anaheim have made it very clear re user fees and circumventing the tax situation. Think what we really need to do is educate Directors. Position of County is strictly unfair. County has not moved off center one bit and strictly want what they wanted l~ years ago. That is the position we are at right now. He indicated he was saying this only for Directors' information. Director Smith stated he felt basically the same as Don Roth. They keep saying that the State is going to force us to go to user fees eventually but that is way down the road. Their idea is coming in each year and line up for augmentation money but won't give any guarantee of any amount of funds. How can we give up our rights to ad valorem taxes without guarantee. The Committee has a little difference of opinion but, basically, all feel that we are at an impasse. Said County never would give him an answer relative to where our A.V. money would go if we go to user fees. Director vardoulis indicated he wanted to make two points. (1) With regard to this whole argument that Supervisors and staff are involved in that we are holding development hostage and are holding up developers as a means of getting leverage, referred to example of Lighting District dispute with County. They put in writing to his city (Irvine) that they were not going to approve any more development in the County Lighting District until we agreed 'with them to take over funding of these Lighting Districts. Reversed it on us and put us in a box. All developers came before them and forced them to find some means of taking over Lighting District. They should not use that argument on us now, and (2) They keep coming back to this argument that by law they cannot agree to include any funding to the Districts by ad valorem tax. This has never been tried in court. Asked Tom Woodruff if we can get judicial ruling on this? TLW referred to SB 80 which was first legislation providing for cities and counties to negotiation for exchange of tax revenues but no language relative to special disticts when they annexed. Said the books are full of arguments as to whether that was an oversight or intentional. From 1980 forward says special districts shall negotiate with all other agencies including County's General Fund. On that point the County has continually thrown at us that the intent of the Legislature is that special districts go to a user charge. Referred to Government Code Section 16270. Read section. Legislature finds that a lot of districts can levy user charges and it is the intent of the Legislature that such Disticts use this method. We have responded that it may be the Legislature's "intent" but is nothing mandatory. Said Directors are a group of elected officials who can also declare whether you want to go to user charges or not. Legislation in 1980 also states special districts have the right to negotiate with County to receive a share of the A.V. taxes. We can only make our responses to them so many times, but County comes back (re memo of January 26th) that Legislature intends for us to go to user charges. People's intent in Proposition 13 was to not let user charges be levied by those who have the ability to do so. -2- , birector Smith added re user fees, that the little old house pays the same as the big house on the hill. Are inequities even in user fees. Seems ad valorem taxes are most fair. Wedaa stated that his reaction to user fees is that in the final analysis we are going to go to them whether we like it or not. Said what he would like to see done is to give the task to our Finance Committee to examine different approaches including user fees and ad valorem taxes for future years. Edgar added that he thought that today with ad valorem taxes supporting our activities, sewer fee is out of the picture. District 5 had to go to user fees for other reasons. Other Districts may not have sufficient funds for capital improvements and operations. Then user fees must be added in addition to tax. Think there is a point in time when treatment facilities make it clear that more money is needed than can get in taxes, then should use user fee in addition to tax. Wedaa said he agreed on that point but discussion re user fees really doesn't apply to current resolution of issue. Pattinson asked, what would happen if we sued the County for fees? Vardoulis added, that is what I was leading to. Tom Woodruff replied that he had looked at that as an avenue we may have to address. One of the things we can do is try to file a lawsuit that just says we want them to give us X-dollars or to make a specific case where County has refused to negotiate with us such as Annexation No. 28R. In our opinion could make a reasonably sound argument that County has not negotiated in good faith. Other idea is to state, in general, that the County has not allowed us to carry on our job because they refuse to negotiate. Never forced that issue but OCTD and Vector Control District have refused to negotiate. If we are going to consider litigation, need some time to formulate the facts. If AB 1071 signed Governor, it authorizes us to negotiate for those annexations that occurred back in window period. Bryant Ranch Annexation will be a good one to challenge because County probably won't negotiate. Vardoulis asked if AB 1071 passed. TLW advised he had tried to find out today but didn't know if it did. Director Sharp stated that we operate on a certain principle and it takes a certain amount of money. Have done it very effectively for a number of years with our share of the ad valorem and provide the best service for the money and should continue that way. Should not, as managers, allow any other entity to slip one in on us. We should be fired then. If we have done what the bill provides for us to do which is to negotiate in good faith with the County on how we can continue to secure the income it takes us to provide the services, can't philosophically buy double taxation. Then we are at a place where only one thing can occur. That is we can't annex anything from now on until those that we are supposed to be negotiating with make a move in our direction. They sit pat and don't give in our direction. We should also sit pat. Smith said he didn't think we should go into litigation because is afraid County would cut their highway funds off and would have to answer to his city council on that. Wedaa stated that if that recommendation was made to our General Counsel, Directors would first have to go back to their city councils. No way would a decision be made on that at this meeting. -3- Holt mentioned one word that has been used throughout discussions - "proportionate". Believe there is some misunderstanding as to what the law is talking about in reference to negotiating. Referred to the Transit District situation. Because it was asked by the Sanitation District to negotiate, the Transit District's staff asked that the Board of Directors take a position on a broad policy and in reference to Peters Canyon, along with Vector Control. Transit District had voted in ~ of 1% tax levy several years ago. It still today enjoys the same proportionate amount of A.V. tax dollar. Should continue to receive it the same as this agency. Should receive its proportionate amount of A.V. tax. We have to negotiate with other agencies to give up their tax dollars. Other agencies should receive proportionate share. County should give up money. He then referred to the Draft Procedures for Annexation to the Sanitation Districts prepared by staff back in December for the AB 8 Conunittee for discussion. The procedures are not new other than Section II.D. relative to an agreement for exchange of a portion of the ad valorem tax revenue, which adds •••.••••• In the event any agency refuses to execute such an agreement which would provide some share of taxes to the District to pay for the annual cost of sanitary sewer service, the annexation may fail. Said that may be an alternative position for us to take. We would not be establishing a moratorium but criteria for acceptance of property to the Sanitation Districts. Director Fox said he thought we should realize that we are operating with the basis of power. We have the power. Directors think the County is the one in power. The A.V. belongs to the people. That is not negotiable as far as he is concerned. Wouldn't even negotiate. Would tell them that. Should establish a moratorium. No more annexations. Should set up a plan. This is what we will 1·• do. We will negotiate and this is the criteria. This is what it is going to be. County has taken highway taxes away from his city and from Vardoulis' city (Irvine). Can't understand why other counties can come to terms with districts just like that. Should get that plan together and don't back off one bit. Trump card is having the developer wanting to develop and not being able to get into the District. Said Conunittee has done admirable job but he wouldn't have had the patience. Director Roget said he agreed with a lot of the conunents here tonight. Commended Committee. Said Sharp hit it right on the head and Fox and Holt also. We are at an impasse. Set up the rules and carry it one step further. Have mayors and council members going out with PR program for all Sanitation Districts. Let's lay it on the County as their fault, not Sanitation Distrticts' fault. They have not been fair to us. Agree with Don Fox. Sharp indicated he supported Fox and Roget. Only negotiated with the County's staff because this Board of Directors chose to do that and then after our first report that we weren't getting anywhere, because Harriett asked us to do it, voted to try some more. Not getting anywhere. Are reconunending that we take a vote District by District to see whether we want to continue to take on obligations without any guarantee that we are going to be able to pay for the service we provide and we don't get to participate in any of the benefits because of the annexation. They are pocketed by the County at no risk to them. We take all the heat and crap and they get all the money. In a simple report should articulate that to the rest of the Boards and vote fairly. Take a vote with an enlightened Board. Think we are going to have to find that the fairest way possible is no additional ad valorem support, no annexation. No other way to do it. Passed out copies of the Draft Procedures for Annexation to the Districts. -4- -- : ' Director Vardoulis advised that there were three supervisors up for re-election and all seem to have an easy shot. Think we should publicize this. Should let the people who were here at the parking lot meeting know what the supervisors are trying to do--are trying to force us to charge user charge while they are still collecting ad valorem tax. Holt added we are talking about $15 million extra dollars in the County's General Fund. Pattinson commented re formation of a new District, that if it comes down to litigation, think the Bryant Ranch would be a classic for this new District. Tom Woodruff then stated that based on comments tonight re litigation, the odds are a lot higher that somebody will sue us. Then we would have to sue the County, which would be more desirable. Recommend that we not litigate because we might be able to negotiate . With regard to negotiating, when we have an annexation proposed, all of our efforts to date have centered on the County only because of their bigness. They have authority to negotiate for some of the other districts if those Districts choose not to appear on their own such as Cemetery District, Vector Control and Transit District. We will have to meet and bargain a deal, including with each of your cities as well. Everybody will have to give up a sliver unless we choose not to take anything. We don't have to strike an identical deal. Probably not a good idea but are legally empowered to do that. Have taken a position at this point of making a uniform proposal for all. Pattinson wondered why District 11 wasn't invited to this meeting also as there is some property annexable in that District also. No current annexations in progress though. Wedaa stated they were not excluded intentionally. Didn't realize they had that much property that could be annexed. Roth added that he thought that there is a point that must be brought out when this is brought to all Directors. Must tell them if we are talking about some 24,000 acres and if we don't get any fees, burden will be borne by all the Districts. Other Districts have just as much to lose as Districts 2 & 7. Chairman Edgar referred to draft procedures. Asked if we were saying that each individual annexation would then be handled by itself and that would give the County the prerogative of negotiating on some and not on others. Tom Woodruff replied that under the law are obligated to negotiate . They could more generously negotiate on some and not on others. Referred to Section II.D. of annexation procedures again. Holt stated that we would be amending criteria re annexation procedures. Tom Woodruff advised that if policy adopted, staff needs to be advised as to whether we allow them to hook up and provide facilities by service agreements. Those agreements are very difficult to administer and very speculative re financial burden. Virtually impossible to annex them later. Will have islands out there. Imperative the Boards take a position against them. Wedaa agreed that was an important point. Lusk case and Anaheim Hills have exceedingly special situation. Takes something very, very unusual before we agree to do anything. Once we adopt a position, are no exceptions to it. -5- Fox said he agreed with that and would reinforce it as much as possible. Runs up the cost of doing business for the District. Think we do owe it to certain people that we have been dealing with to strike some kind of a deal with them but would be the only exception. Should almost be an act of God to circumvent this. Holt asked if we take $500 per unit for a service agreement and then later are able to negotiate and have them annex with the understanding that they are going to get their $500 back, would think that would be a positive posture. Tom Woodruff advised that if you start with $500 and five years downstream take off what it costs for service and add in interest, hard to say what developer would get back, or who should get it back. Holt then quoted a few phrases from a speech made by Supervisor Ralph Clark relative to other agencies and what they should and shouldn't do. Said, "other agencies who do not want to take the heat, have an unpopular decision like charging user fees." County said they did not want to take the heat. Said Ralph Clark gave us a challenge. Wedaa stated that we should recognize that some of the current Board members may not be members after April and would like to have this resolved before then. Tom Woodruff said each District will adopt their own annexation policy. Was asked if they could take action tonight and he replied, yes. Wedaa urged that they do not take a vote then but consider voting at Wednesday's Joint Meeting. Directors requested that a copy of the draft annexation procedures be forwarded to the District 2 & 7 Directors absent from this meeting. Perry commented that he would need direction from his people, the Garden Grove Sanitary District Board, before he could vote. Wedaa advised that the AB 8 issue is on the agenda for the February 10th Joint Meeting and he would move that Districts 2 and 7 adopt the draft procedures for annexation at that time. Vardoulis commented re publicity, maybe the Joint Chairman and Vice Joint Chairman should do some kind of letter to every council member, mayor or sanitary district representative pointing out that what the County is doing is contrary to Proposition 13 and give letter to the press also . Fox added should have an informative press release every week. Should wait until after Wednesday's meeting though. -6- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOS. 2 AND 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING February 8, 1982 -6:00 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to the call of the respective Chairmen, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation District Nos. 2 and 7 of Orange County, California, met in a special meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts' administrative offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DISTRICT 2 DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: ~DISTRICT 7 DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: DISTRICT 2 & 7 Discussion re Annexation Policy Heriry Wedaa, Chairman, Don Roth, Don Fox, Don Holt, Carol Kawanami, Robert Luxembourger, Bob Perry, Earl Roget and Don Smith Wayne Bornhoft, Bruce Nestande and Ben Nielsen Richard Edgar, Chairman, Robert Luxembourger, Don Smith, Bill Vardoulis and James Wahner Evelyn Hart and Bruce Nestande Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, Bill Clarke, Tom Dawes and Rita Brown Director Ron Pattinson, Vice Joint Chairman, Director James Sharp, Chairman, Fiscal Policy Connnittee, Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Phil Stone, Jim Martin and Lydia Levin * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Wedaa announced that he and Chairman Edgar had called this special meeting of their respective Districts to discuss annexation policies. The two Districts are most directly affected by the AB 8 tax exchange issue because most of the territory outside present Districts' boundaries would be annexable to Districts 2 and 7. Districts 2 and 7 2/8/82 Chairman Wedaa stated that in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee re Negotiations for Tax Exchanges for New Annexations (AB 8) he could report to the Boards that the Districts and the County of Orange, after more than a year of earnestt..-> and intensive negotiations, have been unable to agree on a method of assuring that the Districts receive revenue from newly annexing properties to pay the costs of providing sewerage service. The AB 8 Committee has proposed that the Districts receive the proportionate share of the basic ad valorem tax levy (increment only) that they receive within their present boundaries {approximately 3%) reduced by the same proportionate share of the loss suffered by all agencies that would be giving up some revenue. The County's position is that the Districts should waive any share of taxes, implement a user fee and apply for Special District Augmentation Funds for interim financing. As an alternative, the AB 8 Committee suggested recently that the County consider forming a new sanitation district encompassing the 24,000 acres that would logically annex to the Districts. However, the County subsequently rejected the idea. After comments by Chairman Edgar and AB 8 Committee members Don Holt, Joint Chairman, Don Roth, Don Smith and James Sharp, Chairman of the Fiscal Policy Committee, the Board entered into a lengthy discussion of the tax exchange issue. It was pointed out that although negotiations to date have been with the County, any final decision on a tax exchange policy would have to consider similar arrangements with all affected agencies including the cities and the other special districts. Chairman Wedaa also distributed draft copies of annexation criteria that had been prepared by staff at the direction of the AB 8 Committee. .The draft represents a revision of current annexation policies and procedures, incorporating a provision for a tax exchange agreement as a prerequisite for annexation of property to the District. Following further discussion, it was the concensus that the proposed criteria should be referred to the Directors for study and consideration at a future meeting. The \..J staff was instructed to send copies of the draft criteria to Districts 2 and 7 Directors that had been unable to attend the meeting. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment 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 7:20 p.m., February 8, 1982. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:20 p.m., February 8, 1982. Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District Nos. 2 and 7 of Orange County, California Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California -2-