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-