HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-18 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
`�►' P.O.BOX 8127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 9272"127
I0 ELLIS,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92 7018
(714)540-2910 (714)962-2411
July 12, 1985
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 1
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1985 - 7:30 P .M,
SANTA ANA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
v SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of July 10, 1985,
the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 will
meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date
for a public hearing on the Sewer Service Report for 1985-86 and
proposal to collect the annual charges on the 1985-86 property
tax bills pursuant to Ordinance No. 107 adopted June 12, 1985.
Secretary
4�
aOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts vp.r Orrice so" 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 9270E
Teleph..v
Area Cade 714
DISTRICT No. 1 9540-2910
622411
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1985 - 7 :30 P .M.
SANTA ANA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(1) Roll Call
(2) Public hearing on proposal to collect adopted annual sewer service charges
on the property tax bills and Sewer Service Charge Report for 1985-86
pursuant to Ordinance No. 106, as amended
(a) Open hearing
.. (b) Staff report on proposed use of the County of Orange property tax bill
for collection of the annual sewer service charge
(c) Receive and file written comments, if any
(d) Oral public comment
(a) Staff/Board response to oral comments
(f) Close hearing
(3) Consideration of motion to adopt a finding that a majority of the owners of
property have/have not protested
(4) Consideration of motion to receive, file and consider adoption of County
Sanitation District No. 1 Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year
1985-86. See enclosed
(5) Consideration of Resolution No. 85-129-1, directing the County Auditor-
Controller to include sewer service charges on property tax bills for
collection, pursuant to Ordinance No. 106 of County Sanitation District
No. 1 of Orange County, as amended. See page "A"
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn YQ SC ri w�
RESOLUTION NO. 85-129-1
DIRECTING COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO
COLLECT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON 1985-86
PROPERTY TAX BILLS
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE COUNTY
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO INCLUDE SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES ON THE 1985-86 PROPERTY TAX BILLS
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 has
heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 106, as amended, Establishing Sanitary Sewer
Service Charges; and,
WHEREAS, California Health S Safety Code Section 5473 provides that such
charges, as adopted by District Ordinances, may be collected on the County tax
roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together
with and not separate from, its general taxes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District
No. 1 of Orange County, California.
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That pursuant to California Health 5 Safety Code Section 5473,
the County Auditor-Controller is hereby ordered and directed to include sewer
service charges as established by Ordinance No. 106, as amended, on the 1985-86
property tax bills in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time
as, together with and not separate from, the general taxes and the property tax
bills for each year thereafter for so long as the rates do not increase and this
resolution remains in effect; and,
Section 2. That pursuant to California Health a Safety Code Section 5473,
this resolution shall remain in full force and effect until amended or repealed or
until such time as the rate of sewer charges as established by Ordinance No. 106,
"A-1" AGENDA ITEM #5 - DISTRICT 1 "A-1"
..'i.- .
as amended by Ordinance No. 107, is increased; and,
Section 3. That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized and
directed to execute any necessary documents or agreements to effect the order set
forth in Section 1 herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held July 18, 1985.
"A-2" AGENDA ITEM #5 - DISTRICT 1 "A-2"
I
MANAGER'S AGE?1S2A REPORT
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Dom 812710844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
TelepFanes:
Area Cade 714
540-2910
DISTRICT NO. i 96224111
MANAGER'S REPORT TO DISTRICT NO. 1 DIRECTORS
MEETING DATE: JULY 18, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Public Bearing on proposal to collect the adopted annual sewer service charges
on the County of Orange property tax bills and 1985-86 Sewer Service Charge
Report.
The District's cost of providing sewerage service to the community has been
escalating rapidly because of increasingly stringent federal and state laws and
regulations requiring advanced treatment of wastewater to remove toxic materials
and other pollutants from the sewage to assure protection of the public health
and safety. To comply with the new, stricter requirements the Joint Sanitation
Districts have recently constructed new sophisticated treatment facilities at a
cost of more than $124,000,000.
14/
In fiscal year 1983-84, property tax revenues were insufficient to meet the
District's operating costs, and the Board authorized a transfer of $1,132,000 in
capital reserves from the District's Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund to
the Operating Fund to pay the full costs of operating and maintaining the
District collection system and its proportionate share of the 0 6 M costs of the
Joint Treatment Works. In fiscal year 1984-85, it was again necessary to dip
into capital reserves in the amount of $2,031,000 to meet the District's
operating expenses and maintain the solvency of the fund through the fiscal year
due to insufficient tax revenues.
In 1984-85, after considerable study of the District's long-range funding
requirements, the Board adopted a long-range financial program to avoid
projected revenue shortfalls and provide the necessary income required to
finance the District's rising operating expenses, as well as major capital
expenditures for construction of master-planned treatment facilities.
The following fee schedules have been adopted by the Board to fund the
District's requirements:
7712/85
FEE TYPE AMOUNT
Capital Facilities Costs
One-time Connection Fee: Residential Property $500/1)welling Unit
Commerical, Industrial and $100/1,000 Square Feet
Governmental Property
0 & M Costs
Annual User Fee: Water Meter Size
5/8" + 3/4" (Residences) $ 26.40
1" + 1 1/2" 52.50
2" 105.00
3" 210.00
4" 420.00
6" 840.00
The one-time connection fee, to be used to pay for facilities expansion to serve
new development, is collected for the District by the cities when building
Permits are issued, and the cities retain 58 for their services.
The staff has identified and evaluated the following three methods of billing
and collection of the annual user fee to be used to pay for 0 & M:
- direct billing and collection by the District
- placement of the user fee as a separate line item on the City of Santa
Ana utility bill and remittance of the fees collected by the City to the
District
- placement of the supplemental fee as a separate line item on the County
of Orange property tax bill and remittance of the fees collected by the
County to the District.
Placement of the user fee as a separate line item on the County of Orange
property tax bill is significantly less expensive than the other two available
methods as indicated in the following table:
Annual Billing/ Total Total
Billing & One-Time Processing First-Year Five-Year
Collection Method Setup Costs Collection Costs Costs Costs
1. District billing/
collection method $22,000 $188,000 $210,000 $962,000
2. City utility bill
method 20,000 94,000 114,000 490,000
3. County property
tax bill method 75,000 10,000 85,000 125,000
7712/85
Alternative No. 3, use of the County of Orange property tax bill method, is
clearly the most cost-effective of the three methods. Districts Nos. 5, 6 and
13 have already adopted this method for billing their user fees, and it has
v, proven to be quits effective in keeping administrative costs for billing and
collecting fees under control in these three Districts.
California Health and Safety Code Section 5473.1 requires that a District
considering collection of its annual sewer service charges on the property tax
bills must hold a public hearing to consider any objections or protests to the
proposed collection method. it is not a hearing on the fee itself, as that has
previously been fixed by Ordinance No. 106, adopted in October, 1984, and
amended by Ordinance No. 107 on June 12, 1985. This public hearing is one of
the final steps to be taken by District No. 1 to implement its long-range
financing program to fund ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
On July 5th, 36,288 notices of the hearing (copy attached) were sent to property
owners. We have received approximately 100 phone calls as of Thursday, July 11,
1985. Staff will elaborate on the comments of these property owners at the
hearing.
Although the purpose of the hearing is to receive public commentary on the
proposal to collect the annual user fee on the tax bill, not the fee itsel.`, we
expect that many citizens attending the hearing will wish to comment on the user
fee. Staff will, therefore, present an oral report at the hearing briefly
outlining the background and financial position of the District, as well as
addressing the reasons for adopting the proposed billing and collection method.
The items appearing on the agenda are the actions required to commence
... collecting the District's annual user fee on the property tax bill beginning in
1985-86.
v
.July 1, 1985
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 5473.1 of a public
hearing to be held by County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California at 7:30 p.m.
on Thursday, July 18, 1985, in the Council Chambers at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center
Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
Said hearing is to be held for the purpose of reviewing written reports pertaining to the providing
of sewer service for all properties within County Sanitation District No. 1, and to consider public
comments regarding use of the County of Orange property tax roll for billing of District sewer
service charges for sewer collection,treatment and disposal services for the fiscal year commencing
July 1, 1985.
County Sanitation District No. 1 provides sewage collection, treatment and disposal services to your property.
Your residence or business is connected to a city sewer in the street and you pay the city a sewer service
fee to collect the sewage from your property and deliver it to the County Sanitation District's sewerage
system. District No. 1 collects your wastewater from the local street sewer system and transports it through
its large interceptor sewers to the treatment plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach where the
sewage is treated and disposed of in accordance with strict state and federal laws. District No. 1 has also
established a sewer service fee for its services of treating and disposing of your sewage.The District sewer
service fee is $2.20 per month ($26.40/year) for residences, and ranges from $4.38 to$70.00 per month
for commercial and industrial customers with larger discharges.
Federal and state law makers and environmental agencies, including the U.S. Congress and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency at the federal level; and the State Legislature, State and Regional
Water Resources Control Boards at the state level, have adopted increasingly stringent laws and regulations
to protect our environment. To comply with the new, more stringent requirements, the County Sanitation
Districts have constructed $124.000,000 of new advanced sewage treatment facilities. The District's sewer
service fee helps defray the higher costs of operating and maintaining these treatment and disposal facilities
which remove the toxic materials and other pollutants from the sewage and dispose of the treated wastewater
in a safe manner to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
PROPOSED BILLING AND COLLECTION METHOD
County Sanitation District No. 1 is proposing to collect its sewer service fee on the annual property tax
bill. Use of this more cost-effective alternative method would allow the Districts and its customers to save
the costs of producing, mailing and handling separate utility bills for direct payments.
Every property owner within the District receives an annual property tax bill from the County Tax Collector.
California Health and Safety Code Section 5473 allows the District to place our sewer use fee on this bill
as a separate line item,and allows the convenience of including payment for District No. 1 sewerage services
with property tax payments.
Therefore effective with the billing year beginning July 1, 1985, the Board of Directors of District No. 1 is
proposing to use this billing method to help keep the cost of service dawn.The above noticed public hearing
is to consider the proposal to use the property tax to collect the annual sewer use fee instead of a direct
separate and more costly billing method.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you have questions or wish further information, call the Sanitation District office at (714) 540.291Q
Extension 5.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
.July 11, 1985 Of ORANGE COUNTY.CALIFORNIA
P.O.Bor 812]
108"ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY.C LIFOIRNIA 92208
vCOO SANITATION DISTRICT N0. 1 p14)MQ91
NTR 1
O119623b1
SEWER SF.RVICB CNARGS REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
This report is prepared pursuant to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code
Section 5473.
County Sanitation District No. 1 is responsible for the collection, treatment and
disposal of wastewater generated within its boundaries. These services are essential to
the protection of the health and safety of the public served by the system. District No.
1 revenues from ad valorem taxes on real property decreased significantly after passage
of Proposition 13 in 1978, Future tax revenue, estimated in reports on file in the
office of the Secretary of the District, will be insufficient to provide the funding
necessary to operate, maintain and rehabilitate the system. Therefore, a long-range
financial program, including a sewer service charge, has been adopted by ordinance of the
District to supplement the District's revenue sources in the upcoming fiscal years.
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 proposes consideration of a
resolution authorizing billing and collection of its annual sewer service charges as set
forth in Table A of Ordinance No. 107, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 1 of orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 106
Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, on the 1985-86 County of Orange property
tax bills. The purpose of this charge is to pay for sanitary sewer services provided by
the District to be charged to the respective parcels of improved property within the
territorial jurisdiction of the District. This report contains a description of each
✓parcel of real property that will receive the services of the District and have access to
utilization of the facilities, said parcels of real property being described by reference
to maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code and on file in the office of the County Assessor, which maps are hereby incorporated
herein by reference. The ordinance established the annual fee to provide revenues that
shall be used only for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance,
operation and rehabilitation of sanitary sewer facilities, and shall not be used for the
acquisition, construction or maintenance of new local street sewers or laterals as
distinguished from main trunk, interceptor and outfall sewers provided by the District.
The approved sewer service charge for fiscal year 1985-86 to be assessed against each
user of the District's sewerage system based on the user's connected water meter size is
set forth in Table A attached hereto. Said table also sets forth exception provisions.
The 1905-86 charge for each parcel based on the last equalized assessment roil is on file
in the office of the Secretary of the District.
If the proposed resolution is adopted, the Board of Directors will direct the County
Auditor-Controller to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the
tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with
and not separately from, the general taxes of the District and the County of Orange.
At the time and place stated in the notice setting the public hearing on this report, the
governing Board of Directors shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any,
to said report referred to in said notice, and may continue the hearing from time to
time.
William H. Butler, Director of Finance
F TABLE A
CONNECTED WATER METER SIZE 1981-82 ANNUAL CHARGE
5/8" and 3/4" S 26.40
1.1W 1" and 1�" 52.50
2" 105.00
3" 210.00
4" 420.00
6" 840.00
If a parcel contains more than one water meter, then the charge applicable to
each meter shall be added together and the sum levied against the parcel.
In recognition that certain legal parcels of real property exist within the
District which are not connected to the District system and that other
properties acquire considerably greater potable water than is ultimately
discharged to the District's system it is the intent of the District that said
parcels be exempt totally or in part from the payment of charges as prescribed
herein.
Any property owner may appeal the assessment of the charges and submit a claim
for rebate to the District on the forms prescribed and provided by the District,
within one hundred twenty (120) days after the annual property tax bills are
mailed by the Orange County Tax Collector. All applications for rebate of an
assessment will be determined by the General Manager of the District, who may
.grant a partial or full rebate or adjustment of the charge based on receiving
satisfactory proof that an inequity exists between the amount or assessment and
the amount of wastewater discharged to the District's system. Such inequities
may include, but are not limited to:
a) the number of connections on the parcel differs from the assessment;
b) no service connection to the District system exists from the parcel
assessed;
c) principal water use is agricultural;
d) any other use wherein the amount of wastewater discharged to the
District's system is significantly less on a regular basis than the
amount of potable water received as measured by the meter on the
property.
Pursuant to the authority granted by California Health and Safety Code
Section 5473, all charges established herein shall be collected on the County
Tax Roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as,
together with and not separately from, its general taxes.
In the event District determines that errors or inequities exist in the amount
of charges to be collected by the County Tax Collector, District may submit a
bill for any difference directly to the property owner. Said invoiced amount
.'shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of invoice date.
A credit shall be allowed to all dischargers permitted pursuant to Article 3 of
Ordinance No. 104 for the annual sanitary sewer service charge established by
this Ordinance in the same manner as credit is allowed for ad valorem taxes
pursuant to Section 302.6, 303.6 and 304.5(B) (4) of Ordinance No. 104.
RE: AGENDA ITEM NO.- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
July 11, 1985 of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P0.e0X8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CAUFORNIA 92708
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 ITta)%2-2812at1
Ina)982- t
SEWER SERVICE CHARGE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
This report is .prepared pursuant to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code
Section 5473.
County Sanitation District No. 1 is responsible for the collection, treatment and
disposal of wastewater generated within its boundaries. These services are essential to
the protection of the health and safety of the public served by the system. District No.
1 revenues from ad valorem taxes on real property decreased significantly after passage
of Proposition 13 in 1978. Future tax revenue, estimated in reports on file in the
office of the Secretary of the District, will be insufficient to provide the funding
necessary to operate, maintain and rehabilitate the system. Therefore, a long-range
financial program, including a sewer service charge, has been adopted by ordinance of the
District to supplement the District's revenue sources in the upcoming fiscal years.
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 proposes consideration of a
resolution authorizing billing and collection of its annual sewer service charges as set
forth in Table A of Ordinance No, 107, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 106
Pertaining to Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, on the 1985-86 County of Orange property
tax bills. The purpose of this charge is to pay for sanitary sewer services provided by
the District to be charged to the respective parcels of improved property within the
territorial jurisdiction of the District. This report contains a description of each
'Parcel of real property that will receive the services of the District and have access to
utilization of the facilities, said parcels of real property being described by reference
to maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code and on file in the office of the County Assessor, which maps are hereby incorporated
herein by reference. The ordinance established the annual fee to provide revenues that
shall be used only for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance,
operation and rehabilitation of sanitary sewer facilities, and shall not be used for the
acquisition, construction or maintenance of new local street sewers or laterals as
distinguished from main trunk, interceptor and outfall sewers provided by the District.
The approved sewer service charge for fiscal year 1985-86 to be assessed against each
user of the District's sewerage system based on the user's connected water meter size is
set forth in Table A attached hereto. Said table also sets forth exception provisions.
The 1985-86 charge for each parcel based on the last equalized assessment roil is on file
in the office of the Secretary of the District.
If the proposed resolution is adopted, the Board of Directors will direct the County
Auditor-Controller to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the
tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with
and not separately from, the general taxes of the District and the County of Orange.
At the time and place stated in the notice setting the public hearing on this report, the
governing Board of Directors shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any,
to said report referred to in said notice, and may continue the hearing from time to
time.
William H. Butler, Director of Finance
TABLE A
CONNECTED WATER METER SIZE 1981-82 ANNUAL CHARGE
5/8" and 3/4" 6 26.40
1" and ly" 52.50
2" 105.00
3" 210.00
4" 420.00
6" 840.00
If a parcel contains more than one water meter, then the charge applicable to
each meter shall be added together and the sum levied against the parcel.
In recognition that certain legal parcels of real property exist within the
District which are not connected to the District system and that other
properties acquire considerably greater potable water than is ultimately
discharged to the District's system it is the intent of the District that said
parcels be exempt totally or in part from the payment of charges as prescribed
herein.
Any property owner may appeal the assessment of the charges and submit a claim
for rebate to the District on the forma prescribed and provided by the District,
within one hundred twenty (120) days after the annual property tax bills are
mailed by the Orange County Tax Collector. All applications for rebate of an
assessment will be determined by the General Manager of the District, who may
grant a partial or full rebate or adjustment of the charge based on receiving V
satisfactory proof that an inequity exists between the amount or assessment and
the amount of wastewater discharged to the District's system. Such inequities
may include, but are not limited to:
a) the number of connections on the parcel differs from the assessment;
b) no service connection to the District system exists from the parcel
assessed;
c) principal water use is agricultural;
d) any other use wherein the amount of wastewater discharged to the m
District's system is significantly less on a regular basis than the
amount of potable water received as measured by the meter on the
property.
pursuant to the authority granted by California Health and Safety Code
section 5473, all charges established herein shall be collected on the County
Tax Roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as,
together with and not separately from, its general taxes..
In the event District determines that errors or inequities exist in the amount
of charges to be collected by the County Tax Collector, District may submit a
bill for any difference directly to the property owner. Said invoiced amount
shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of invoice date. l�„I
A credit shall be allowed to all dischargers permitted pursuant to Article 3 of
Ordinance No. 104 for the annual sanitary sewer service charge established by
this Ordinance in the same manner as credit is allowed for ad valorem taxes
pursuant to Section 302.6, 303.6 and 304.5(B) (4) of Ordinance No. 104.
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS lQ "Q�' q to")
County Sanitation Districts Post office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephc w:
Area Code 714
DISTRICT No. 1 9540-2910
423411
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
SANTA ANA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(1) Roll Call
(2) Public hearing on proposal to collect adopted annual sewer service charges
on the property tax bills and Sewer Service Charge Report for 1985-86
pursuant to Ordinance No. 106, as amended
(a) Open hearing
(b) Staff report on proposed use of the County of Orange property tax bill
for collection of the annual sewer service charge
(c) Receive and file written comments, if any-
(1) Jeanette McCoy, 2311 N. Resperian Street
(2) Virgil J. Wynn, 821 N. Louise Street
(d) Oral public comment
(a) Staff/Board response to oral comments
(f) Close hearing
(3) Consideration of motion to adopt a finding that a majority of the owners of -
property have/have not protested
(4) Consideration of motion to receive, file and consider adoption of County
Sanitation District No. 1 Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year
1985-86. (See enclosed report)
(5) Consideration of Resolution No. 85-129-1, directing the County Auditor-
Controller to include sewer- service charges on property tax bills for
collection, pursuant to Ordinance No. 106 of County Sanitation District
No. 1 of Orange County, as amended. See page W
(6) Other business and communications, if any
V.✓ (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn to 7:30 p.m., July 24, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-129-1
DIRECTING COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO
COLLECT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON 1985-86
PROPERTY TAX BILLS
�.✓ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE COUNTY
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO INCLUDE SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES ON THE 1985-86 PROPERTY TAX BILLS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 has
heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 106, as amended, Establishing Sanitary Sewer
Service Charges; and,
WHEREAS, California Health 6 Safety Code Section 5473 provides that such
charges, as adopted by District Ordinances, may be collected on the County tax
roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together
with and not separate from, its general taxes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District
No. 1 of Orange County, California.
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That pursuant to California Health 6 Safety Code Section 5473,
the County Auditor-Controller is hereby ordered and directed to include sewer
. service charges as established by Ordinance No. 106, as amended, on the 1985-86
property tax bills in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time
as, together with and not separate from, the general taxes and the property tax
bills for each year thereafter for so long as the rates do not increase and this
resolution remains in effect; and,
Section 2. That pursuant to California Health S Safety Code Section 5473,
this resolution shall remain in full force and effect until amended or repealed or
until such time as the rate of sewer charges as established by Ordinance No. 106,
"A-1" AGENDA ITEM #5 - DISTRICT 1 "A-1"
as amended by Ordinance No. 107, is increased; and,
Section 3. That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized and
directed to execute any necessary documents or agreements to effect the order set
V
forth in Section 1 herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held July 18, 1985.
"A-2" AGENDA ITEM #5 - DISTRICT 1 "A-2"
RE: AGENDA ITEM
F
RE. AGENDA ITEM F'D. a<<
8 County Sanitation District Frst Class Presort
'- Number 1 U.S. Postage Paid
P.O. Box 8127 Santa Ana, CA
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Permit No. 15
00503729 01
.d 11003
WYN
23 LOOISE S9IRGIL j .
821 H T
SABTA ABA, CAL
92703
July 1, 1985
httS Srnmils wars*. t6mvi t6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
U.Notice r e.a.� a.to cF•� 4-c� d Notice is hereby given pursuant to California ealt and Safe y e cti n 5473.1 of ublic
hearing to be held by County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange C my, California at 7 0 p.m.
on Thursday, July 18, 1985, in the Council Chambers at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civ' Center
\serve
a Ana, California.
is to beheld for the purpose of reviewing written reports pertaining to a providing
ice for all properties within County Sanitation District No. 1, and to consider public
egarding use of the County of Orange property tax roll for billing bf District sewer
ges for sewer collection,treatment and disposal services for the fiscat�ear commencing
.
7pt
County Sanitation\Dtst &t No. 1 provides sewage collection, treatment nd disposal services to your property.
Your residence or busin' s is connected to a city sewer in the str and you pay the city a sewer service
fee to collect the sewage om your property and deliver it to t County Sanitation District's sewerage
system. District No. 1 collet,, our wastewater from the local st et sewer system and transports it through
its large interceptor sewers to he treatment plants in FounLaln Valley and Huntington Beach where the
sewage is treated and dispose f in accordance with stricet state and federal laws. District No. 1 has also
�..i established a sewer service fee fo 'Is services of treatingeand disposing of your sewage.The District sewer
service fee is $2.20 per month ($26,00/year) for residences, and ranges from $4.38 to $70.00 per month
for commercial and industrial customers with larger ischarges.
Federal and state law makers and envirorlrnental gencies, including the U.S. Congress and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency Abe f eral level; and the State Legislature, State and Regional
Water Resources Control Boards at the state I` , have adopted increasingly stringent laws and regulations
to protect our environment. To comply with t e-nLew, more stringent requirements, the County Sanitation
Districts have constructed $124,000,000 of w advanced sewage treatment facilities. The District's sewer
service fee helps defray the higher costs o perating�'and maintaining these treatment and disposal facilities
which remove the toxic materials and oth r pollutants frorli the sewage and dispose of the treated wastewater
in a safe manner to protect the publ' health and safe ,•and the environment.
PROPOSED BILLING AND COL CTION METHOD
County Sanitation District No. is proposing to collect its sewer service fee on the annual property tax
bill. Use of this more cost-e five alternative method would allow-the Districts and its customers to save
the costs of producing, m ing and handling separate utility bills fD�direct payments.
Every property owner wi in the District receives an annual property tax bill from the County Tax Collector.
California Health and fety Code Section 5473 allows the District to place.our sewer use fee on this bill
as a separate line its , and allows the convenience of including payment for District No. 1 sewerage services
with property tax ments. a
4
Therefore effec' a with the billing year beginning July 1, 1985, the Board of Directors of District No. 1 is
proposing to a this billing method to help keep the cost of service down.The above n2ticed public hearing
is to consi the proposal to use the property tax to collect the annual sewer use feeinstead of a direct
y, separate nd more costly billing method.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you have questions or wish further information, call the Sanitation District office at (714) 0-2910,
Extension 5.
v �
( 7)le ON N311 VON30V '3V
RE: AGENDA ITEM N0.- a
F '��p tea. Frst Class Presort
Noun Sanitation District U.S. Postage Paid bilk �_� Number t Santa Ana, CA
P.O. Box 8127 Permit Na. 75
Fountain Valley, CA 927284127
00503129 01
11003
VIRGIL J
N LOOISN S2
821
SANTA ANA, CAL
92703
v
July 1, 1935
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
W-h t reta.'I- 4L4J taj
Notice is hereby given pursuant to California ReaitTi and Safety a i�n 5413.1 of ublic
hearing to be held by County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange Cmnty, California at 7 p.m.
on Thursday, July, 18, 1985, in the Council Chambers at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civ' Center
Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
\serve
is to be held for the purpose of reviewing written reports pertaining to a providing
ice for all properties within County Sanitation District No. 1, and to�,onsider public
egarding use of the County of Orange property tax roll for billingbf District sewer
esfor sewer collection,treatment and disposal services tr the fiscal�year commencing. -
LL
County Sanitation D 0 No. 1 provides sewage collection,treatment nd disposal services to your property.
Your residence or business is connected to a city sewer in the str and you pay the city a sewer service
fee to collect the sewage-from your property and deliver it to t County Sanitation District's sewerage
system. District No. 1 collecctts&'�our wastewater from the local st et sewer system and transports it through
its large interceptor sewers to treatment plants in Founta n Valley and Huntington Beach where the
sewage is treated and disposedd''Df in accordance with stria state and federal laws. District No. 1 has also
established a sewer service fee forgts services of treating a�nd disposing of your sewage.The District sewer
service fee is $2.20 per month ($213,40/year) for residerices, and ranges from $4.38 to $70.00 per month
for commercial and industrial customers with larger ischarges.
Federal and state law makers and envirdnyentalencies, including the U.S. Congress and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency atal level; and the State Legislature, State and Regional
Water Resources Control Boards at the statve adopted increasingly stringent laws and regulations
to protect our environment. To comply wit more stringent requirements, the County Sanitation
Districts have constructed$124,000,000 of nced sewage treatment facilities. The District's sewer
service fee helps defray the higher costs otfiperati4and maintaining these treatment and disposal facilities
which remove the toxic mate/an(d
r pollutants from the sewage and dispose of the treated wastewater
in a safe manner to protechealth and safety.•and the environment.
PROPOSED BILLING ANDON METHOD
County Sanitation District osing to collect its service fee on the annual property tax
bill. Use of this more cost-enative method would allow-{he Districts and its customers to save
the costs of producing, mndling separate utility bills fq direct payments.
Every property owner wi in the District receives an annual property tax bill from the County Tax Collector.
California Health andFafety Code Section 5473 allows the District to place.our sewer use fee on this bill
as a separate line ite , and allows the convenience of including payment for District No. 1 sewerage services
with property tax menis.
Therefore efiec ' a with the billing year beginning July 1, 1985, the Board of Directors of District No. 1 is
proposing to this billing method to help keep the cost of service down.The above ribticed public hearing
is to CO the proposal to use the property tax to collect the annual sewer use fee"instead of a direct
separate nd more costly billing method.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you have questions or wish further information, call the Sanitation District office at (714) 0-2910,
Extension 5.
JULY 18, 1985
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
PUBLIC HEARING TO COLLECT USER FEE ON
PROPERTY TAX BILL
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED COLLECTION OF SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES FOR CSD NO. 1 ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR 1985-86
STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED USER FEE
- CHAIRMAN HANSON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS THE TIME
AND PLACE NOTICED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING A WRITTEN
REPORT PERTAINING TO THE PROVIDING OF SEWER SERVICE FOR
ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSAL TO
COLLECT THE ADOPTED SEWER USE FEE ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL
BEGINNING WITH THE 1985-86 FISCAL YEAR.
- THE BOARD WILL NOT BE CONSIDERING THIS EVENINGf ANY NEW
FEE OR ANY CHANGE OF AN EXISTING FEE, BUTX RATHER, THE
METHOD OF COLLECTING THE ALREADY ADOPTED SEWER USE FEE
THAT TOOK EFFECT ON JULY 1ST.
- THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
TRANSPORTING, TREATING AND DISPOSING OF SEWAGE IN A SAFE
MANNER)4 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRICT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS,<
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT.
-1-
RECOGNIZING, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT SOME OF THE CITIZENS
v ATTENDING THE HEARING TONIGHT HAVE NOT YET HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE ROLE THAT THE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PLAYS IN HANDLING THE SEWAGE
THAT COMES FROM THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES , AYE
REI AWN r:3F+9r .S�''-.'S��11�-�SEifER'"C'OL`Cf C'Pft]1V"9'r9'fiEM, WE
HAVE PREPARED A BRIEF SLIDE PRESENTATION ON THE DISTRICTS'
ACTIVITIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR. BLAKE ANDERSON, THE
DISTRICTS' DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, WHO WILL MAKE A
PRESENTATION 09�T4f&T"-� AT THIS TIMER oN rA- � zfRn tS r MctlmJ
Ai.f9 �� ps-YL�[?'S (�t2�T7ouS✓, 1� IAITr1 ila-ti Cm�', �.o uc 5�7�.sr[ 5`/St�"l
— MR. CHAIRMAN, AS MR. ANDERSON HAS POINTED OUT, ATO COMPLY
WITH THE NEWR STRICTER FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS , THE
SANITATION DISTRICTS HAVE RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED
SOPHISTICATED TREATMENT FACILITIES AT A COST OF MORE THAN
$124,000 ,000.
I
i
AS A RESULT, THE COSTS OF PROVIDING SEWERAGE SERVICE TO
THE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN ESCALATING RAPIDLY BECAUSE OF THESE j
INCREASINGLY STRINGENT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS REQUIRING ADVANCED TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER TO
REMOVE TOXIC MATERIALS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM THE
SEWAGE TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
-2-
- IN FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 , PROPERTY TAX REVENUES WERE
�./ INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE DISTRICT' S OPERATING COSTS , AND
THE BOARD AUTHORIZED A TRANSFER OF $1 , 132,000 IN CAPITAL
RESERVES TO PAY THE FULL COSTS OF OPERATING AND
MAINTAINING THE DISTRICT COLLECTION SYSTEM AND ITS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE 0 & M COSTS OF THE JOINT
TREATMENT WORKS.
- IN FISCAL YEAR 1984-85, DUE TO INSUFFICIENT TAX REVENUES,
IT WAS AGAIN NECESSARY TO DIP INTO CAPITAL RESERVES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,031 ,000 TO MEET THE DISTRICT' S OPERATING
EXPENSES AND MAINTAIN THE SOLVENCY OF THE OPERATING FUND
THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR.
- TO ADDRESS THIS FISCAL CRISIS, IN 1984-85, AFTER
CONSIDERABLE STUDY OF THE DISTRICT' S LONG-RANGE FUNDING
REQUIREMENTS , THE BOARD ADOPTED A FINANCIAL PROGRAM TO
AVOID PROJECTED REVENUE SHORTFALLS AND PROVIDE THE
i
NECESSARY INCOME REQUIRED TO FINANCE THE DISTRICT' S RISING j
OPERATING EXPENSES , AS WELL AS MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MASTER-PLANNED TREATMENT FACILITIES.
- THE BOARDS' ADOPTED FINANCIAL PROGRAM INCLUDES:
E YP AM
A ONE-TIME CONNECTION FEEj, 0f
%w.✓
-3-
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY $500/DWELLING UNIT
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL $100/1 .000 S0. FT.
AND GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
— THE ONE—TIME CONNECTION FEE, TO BE USED TO PAY FOR
FACILITIES EXPANSION TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT, IS
COLLECTED FOR THE DISTRICT BY THE CITY WHEN BUILDING
PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND THE CITY
RETAINS 5% FOR ITS SERVICES. THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO
COLLECT THE CONNECTION FEE ANDaK THEREFORE THE MEANS OF
COLLECTING IT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF THIS HEARING.
AS THE SECOND PART OF THE LONG—RANGE FINANCIAL PROGRAM, TO
PAY FOR iL COSTS OF OPERATING, MAINTAINING AND
REHABILITATING THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, THE BOARD HAS ADOPTED
xvx-IL
AN ANNUAL1USE# FEE:
'B4—M'CO5�5.
'iNC dt1' i5 M1hd ri ',�
ANN13�FE- A WATER METER SIZE LN'4' :
5/8" + 3/4" (RESIDENCES) $ 26.40
1" + 1 1/2" 52.50
2" 105.00
3" 210.00
4" 420.00
6" 840.00
-4-
- I MIGHT ADD PARENTHETICALLY THAT LARGE COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS THAT PLACE AN INORDINANT DEMAND ON
OUR SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO A SURCHARGE UNDER A SEPARATE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE
1976. SOME INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS NOW PAY AS MUCH AS
Fox- -�x-RN«
$80,000/PER YEAR UNDER THAT PROGRAM.
- THE PURPOSE OF THIS E0a0Z HEARING IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC
COMMENTARY ON THE DISTRICTS ' PROPOSAL TO COLLECT THE
ANNUAL WATER METER SIZE BASED USER FEE ON THE PROPERTY TAX
BILL.
- AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR.
WILLIAM BUTLER, THE DISTRICTS' DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, WHO
WILL REVIEW THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED METHOD OF
COLLECTING THE DISTRICT'S ANNUAL USER FEE, AND BRIEFLY
1� COMMENT ON THE DISTRICT' S FINANCES.
�r - OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS MAILED ON JULY 5, 1985
TO OVER 36,288 PROPERTY OWNERS OF RECORD ON THE LAST
EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE , IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5473.1 OF THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
- AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, A LEGAL NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS
PUBLISHED IN THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER ON JULY 1 , 1985
AND JULY 8, 1985.
-5-
- THE HEARING NOTICE INCLUDED THE DISTRICT' S TELEPHONE
�.d NUMBER FOR CITIZENS TO CALL WITH QUESTIONS)OR FOR MORE
INFORMATION,
- THE STAFF HAS FIELDED APPROXIMATELY CALIS OVER THE
PAST TWO WEEKS.
- THE QUESTIONS RAISED HAVE DEALT PRIMARILY WITH:
PROPOSITION 13 AND THE ISSUE OF TAX VS . FEE
zFFiceiENeY-OF-TH"ISTRI-CT'S" OPERA-TI-ON
--WHETHER-OR -NOT--THE-PROPOSED-FEES WOULD BE USED TO PAY-FOR '
S EWE-R3-T0--ACCOMMODATE .GROWTH
V
- THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOCAL STREET SEWER SYSTEM
PROVIDED BY THE CITY TO THE REGIONAL SYSTEM OF
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. I
- AND OTHER METHODS OF COLLECTION, SUCH AS THE CITY WATEIC
si-tows
BILL -M144 VHOw69T 'THE n44&ir om —,� O^f we Tm 61LI QF'7 '=.Ai ML 50' a-
sam
- IN ADDITION, WWakY PEOPLE CALLED TO TELL US:
- THAT THEIR PROPERTY WAS NOT CONNECTED OR THAT THEY WERE .
UNSURE, OR THEY FELT THEIR FEE SHOULD BE MODIFIED
--40-Q4E9fiPON-T tE-DATA--BASE—INFORMATION OR THE- CAL-CUL-INd-0N--
-6-
02 '
— t,TO ADVISE US OF A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
SEid€R-5£RPY'C£---
— AND SOME PEOPLE CALLED TO ASK WHERE TO SEND IN A CHECK
IN PAYMENT OF THE FEES
— WORTH NOTING THAT VIRTUALLY NONE OF THE CALLERS
COMMENTED ON T CIE�SP-E_ FIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS HERRING
IS BEING HELD--THAT IS TS THE P AL TO COLLECT THE
ADOPTED ANNUAL USER FEE ON THE PROPERTY iA BILL.
90SE j e(,5? '4
ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE ISSUES R.*S*ED ARE NOTARELEVANT TO THE
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE
CITIZENS HAVE A GENUINE INTEREST IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
$ANITRTION DISTRICT AND WE WOULD✓ THEREFOREf, LIKE TO TAKE
A FEW MINUTES AND SUMMARIZE, FOR THE RECORD, THE RESPONSES
TO THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BEFORE THE HEARING IS
OPENED UP FOR ORAL PUBLIC COMMENTARY.
— WITH REGARD TO PROPOSITION 13
— WE RECOGNIZE THAT PROPOSITION 13 IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE
WITH THE TAXPAYERS, THAT IT WAS A VOTE TO REDUCE THE
COST OF GOVERNMENT. THERE PROBABLY ISN' T A PERSON IN
THIS ROOM THAT DESN'T AGREE--AT LEAST IN PRINCIPLE--WITH
ITS CONCEPT.
1./ —7—
- BUT MANY CITIZENS HAVE TOLD US THAT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR
IT THEY THOUGHT THAT THE SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL
SERVICES--THE PROPERTY-RELATED SERVICES--IF YOU
WILL--POLICE , FIRE , WATER AND SEWER, WOULD BE
FULLY-FUNDED AND THAT OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES WOULD
SHARE IN WHAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM THE 1% LEVY.
- UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE SANITATION DISTRICT, THAT DIDN' T
HAPPEN. THE STATE LEGISLATURE DECIDED THAT ALL
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WOULD DIVIDE THE MONEY BASED ON
THEIR PREVIOUS HISTORICAL RATIO OF TAX REVENUE.
- IN FACT, IN THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION, SB 154, SIGNED
BY THE GOVENOR ON JUNE 24, 1973 FWHYt' 9PA5"eA'tER
9UkFTEHE*1&-D BY—AI =$}, THE LEGISLATURE WENT SO FAR AS TO
DECLARE ITS INTENT TO REMOVE ANY SPECIAL DISTRICT WITH
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO LEVY USER CHARGES--WHICH OUR
DISTRICT HAS--FROM THE TAX ROLL ENTIRELY.
- FORTUNATELY, THAT HAS NOT COME TO PASS, OR WE WOULD ALL
BE PAYING HIGHER TAXES.
- THE SANITATION DISTRICT IS AN OPERATING UTILITY--JUST
THE SAME AS THE GAS COMPANY AND THE EDISON COMPANY--THE
ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE OPERATE UNDER A DIFFERENT
SECTION OF THE LAW.
- OUR SOLE FUNCTION IS THE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE.
V/
-8-
- WE PERFORM NO OTHER SERVICES.
- WE DO NOT HAVE THE PROBLEM OF CONVINCING ANYONE THAT WE
HAVE A SERVICE TO OFFER THAT THEY, IN FACT, NEED.
- THE DISTRICTS' ROLE , AS WE SAID EARLIER, IS TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
- UNFORTUNATELY, PROPOSITION 13 REDUCED DISTRICT REVENUES
BY OVER 60%. SEVEN YEARS LATER WE ARE STILL RECEIVING
LESS THAN WE DID PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION. WITH HIGHER
ENERGY COSTS , THE EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM INFLATION AND
MORE STRINGENT TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES , WE SIMPLY CANNOT
PROVIDE THAT PROTECTION, FACED WITH SUCH A DEFICIT.
WITH REGARD TO WHETHER IT IS A TAX OR A FEE , THERE IS Pig
it IS nrvRiJ
A FEE
- THE PROPOSED FEES ARE BASED UPON USE , WHEREAS PROPERTY
TAXES ARE BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NO
DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO USE.
- FURTHER, THE DISTRICTS HAVE HAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY
SINCE THEIR ENABLING LEGISLATION--LONG BEFORE
PROPOSITION 13--TO ADOPT USER FEES AND TO COLLECT THEM ON
THE PROPERTY TAX BILL.
-9-
- THE REASON WE PROPOSE TO COLLECT THE FEE ON THE TAX BILL
IS THAT IT IS THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE METHOD.
- THE PROPERTY TAX BILL IS A MECHANISM THAT IS ALREADY IN
PLACE AND IS THEREFORE THE MOST CONVENIENT AND LEAST
COSTLY METHOD. ANY OTHER METHOD WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY
MORE EXPENSIVE, THE COST OF WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED
TO THE USE FEE AND, THUS, INCREASE IT.
WIT REGARD TO THE EQUITY ISSUE, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE
PROGR M THAT EVERYONE PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE; HOWEVER, THERE
IS NO E FEE SYSTEM FOR SEWER SERVICES THAT IS TOTALLY
EQUITABL
- THIS IS T REASON THE FEE ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD PROVID S AN APPEAL PROCESS TO ENABLE AN ADJUSTMENT
OF FEES WHERE A GROSS INEQUITY IS DEMONSTRATED.
- WE HAVE DEVELOPED UR PROPOSED CHARGES FROM STUDIES THAT
HAVE DETERMINED THE 'AVERAGE USES BASED ON THE WATER
METER SIZE ON THE PROPERTY.
- AGAIN. I MIGHT ADD PARENTH TICALLY THAT LARGE COMMERCIAL
OR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS TH Q PLACE AN INORDINANT
DEMAND ON OUR SYSTEM ARE SUBJECC}\ TO A SURCHARGE UNDER A
SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE\ THAT HAS BEEN IN
EFFECT SINCE 1976. SOME INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS NOW PAY
AS MUCH AS $80,000 PER YEAR UNDER THAT PROGRAM.
-10-
�}C1UAL UpLUAL - 4 SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE INSTALL METERS AND
N'V Ft.
MEASURE THEISEWAGE DISCHARGE.
- FIRST, TH€RRE IS NO RELIABLE SEWAGE METERING DEVICE THAT
MEASURES FLDW FROM HOUSEHOLD AND OTHER SMALL
CONNECTIONS.
EVEN IF THERE WERE, WOULD NOT HAZARD A GUESS AT THE
COST TO PURCHASE 36,000 €TERS, DIG 36,000 HOLES IN THE
STREET AND THE FRONT YARDS 0 P�TY OWNERS TO INSTALL
THEM AND THEN ASK THE CITIZENS PAY THE ADDED AND THE
ONGOING EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING THE ETERS.
OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE BASE THE CHARGE ON THE
A TUAL WATER USAGE. THIS METHOD IS WROUGHT WITH
PRO \WATETHAT
v
- FIE INHERENT INEQUITIES BECAUSE ALL OF
THIS USED THAT DOES NOT END UP IN THE
SE- ANOBLEM IS THE FACT THERE ARE FOUR
SEUR \AND
DISTRICTS.
- EACH WITH ITS OWN SM, SOME OF WHICH ARE
NOT VOLUME BASED BUE A FLAT RATE, NONE OF
WHICH ARE CURRENTLYITH OUR SYSTEMS.
- IT WOULD BE MOST DIPE IVE TO DESIGN A
BILLING SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE'-FOR ALL OF
-11-
THE EPARATE AGENCIES, EITHER TO TRANSFER TO THE
PROPERTY T LL OR TO INSTITUTE A SEPARATE BILLING
SYSTEM, AND IT WOULD NHSTANTIA LLY INCREASE THE COSTS
OF ADMINISTERING THE SYSTEM, AME AM DDi ISXPI� TO YO$ TO THE
COST.
F'/9 'l 'iYVSc w•:v `-v G��••-.�-�. : • :rT 'illy <%EL &r C.L.C'CTrG 00 Tr+C r
- F9aomR, OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT THE WATER AGENCIES ARE
ecc --B TI V lC TD Als . l W'-
NOT - fi T-%*1N$ THE
a 4z_
HEADACHES ASSOCIATED WITH COLLECTING-4 SEWER SERVICE
CHARGE VIA THEIR WATER BILL.
- -'y3B F-@£—tIIttE'CT-E'0-V1Q"
rNcro w I WOULD SIMPLY STATE THAT THERE ARE
MANY PROBLEMS WITH DOING THAT.
THAT IS WHY WE FEEL--ALL FACTORS CONSIDERED--THE
PROPOSED SYSTEM IS THE BEST ONE AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME,
THAT IT ACHIEVES REASONABLE EQUITY WITHOUT INCURRING
HIGH COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION.
�c4UkL
H RESPECT TO BASING THE CHARGE ONp MEASURED VOLUMES, I
WOULD TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE FEE WILL BE COLLECTED
ON THE PROPERT X BILL, TO BASE IT ON ACTUAL USE WOULD
REQUIRE A CONSIDERABL EATER EFFORT TO OBTAIN THE
ACTUAL WATER VOLUME FOR EACH ERTY, CALCULATE A
CHARGE AND TRANSFER THE INFORMATION T -THE COUNTY'S
\\
PROPERTY BILLING FILE.
�./
-12-
- 41 , I/ REITERATE„, THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES DO PROVIDE
A MECHANISM WHEREIN GROSS INEQUITIES CAN BE CORRECTED ON
A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
` I,`�UCY�•� - ��! THE ISSUE OF EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS, LET ME JUST
TO\U�H ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE DISTRICT DOESTO
KEEP `COSTS DOWN
- ALTH H THERE ARE EIGHT -SANITATION DISTRICTS , THERE
IS BUT E STAFF TO ADMINISTER THE BUSINESS OF ALL
EIGHT. CC STS ARE CHARGED TO EACH DISTRICT AS SERVICES
ARE PERFORMM FOR IT THROUGH A SOPHISTICATED COST
ACCOUNTING S '$TEM.
- THROUGH TIGHT BUDGETARY CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION,
THE SANITATION DI RICTS PRESENTLY HAVE FROZEN 16% OF
ITS AUTHORIZED PERS\NNEL CLASSIFICATIONS, WHICH REMAIN
VACANT.
- THE DISTRICTS CONTRACT ANY SERVICES WITH PRIVATE
FIRMS RATHER THAN HIRE F LL-TIME PROFESSIONAL STAFF
MEMBERS.
I
- DIGESTER GAS UTILIZATION--$4 ILLION YR.
- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENERGY COAL TION - $100.000/YR.
- PL 92-500/301(H) WAIVER SCENARIO.
-13-
p rVt — ITH REGARD TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT QUESTION, ONCE AGAIN,
NEW D 1�OPMENT PAYS A SEPARATE CONNECTION FEE AT THE
TIME A BUILDING PERMIT IS TAKEN OUT.
THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
CITY' S LOCAL SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND THE DISTRICTS'
REGIONAL CONVEYANCE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM WAS
ADEQUATELY COVERED IN THE SLIDE PRESENTATION.
r — MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
CaIGS Of W?:lW
— WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONSA ffi vTtX+ �'et Ge'YS
JANNETTE McCoy, 2311 N. HESPERIAN
PROP. 13
BILL MONTHLY
VIRGIL J. WYNN, 821 N. LOUISE STREET
TAX VS. FEE
— MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A
FORMAL MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE TWO COMMUNICATIONS
AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
— MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS NOW APPROPRIATE TO OPEN THE HEARING
I
FOR ORAL PUBLIC COMMENT. i
— FORMS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE PERSONS WISHING TO
PRESENT ORAL COMMENTARY.
-14-
I
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I TRUST AND HOPE THAT YOU HAVE FOUND
THE FINE PRESENTATION BY THE DISTRICT'S STAFF TO BE TRULY
INFORMATIVE. IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT MOST RESIDENTS OF
THE COUNTY DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE THAT THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS PLAY
IN THE LIVES OF ALL OF THE TWO MILLION RESIDENTS OF ORANGE
COUNTY. IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT,
PARTICULARLY THE OCEAN WATERS, YOU HAVE JUST SEEN THE VERY
ELABORATE AND COMPLEX AND COSTLY PROCEDURES THAT MUST BE
UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE THE SEWAGE TREATMENT SERVICE FOR THE COUNTY
RESIDENTS.
AS WAS INDICATED AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING THIS EVENING,
THE PURPOSE HERE TONIGHT IS NOT FOR OUR BOARD TO CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A SEWER USE CHARGE, OR TO CONSIDER INCREASING AN
EXISTING USE CHARGE. OUR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SELECT THE METHOD BY
WHICH THE CHARGE WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD LAST OCTOBER IS
TO BE COLLECTED.
AGAIN, I EMPHASIZE THAT THE CHARGES WERE ADOPTED LAST
OCTOBER AT A PUBLIC MEETING HELD FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE
RATES TO BE ESTABLISHED. THE RATES WERE SET, AND THEIR
EFFECTIVENESS WAS DELAYED UNTIL JULY 1 , 1985. IT NOW BECOMES
IMPORTANT TO FIND THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY OF COLLECTING THIS
REVENUE, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO PAY FOR THIS DISTRICT'S SHARE IN
THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN TONIGHT.
�.✓ I KNOW SOME PERSONS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADOPTION OF
`..: FEES. CHARGES AND TAXES, BUT I AGAIN MUST INDICATE THAT THAT IS
NOT THE SCOPE OF THE HEARING TONIGHT, AND I WOULD KINDLY ASK THAT
ANY TESTIMONY OR STATEMENTS WHICH ARE TO BE GIVEN TONIGHT BE
ADDRESSED SOLELY TO THE COLLECTION METHOD, AND NOT AS TO WHETHER
YOU LIKE OR DISLIKE THE USER CHARGE. IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC
CONCERN WITH THE CHARGE, WE WOULD INVITE YOU TO LEAVE YOUR NAME
AND ADDRESS, AND THE STAFF CAN CONTACT YOU, OR IF YOU WISH TO
WRITE THE DISTRICT, WE, AS MEMBERS OF YOUR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS,
WILL GIVE IT DUE CONSIDERATION AND RESPOND TO YOU AT A LATER
DATE.
THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE INDICATED A
DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
= WILL M9N SELL DU THE NAME THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
SUBMITTED E WRITTEN REQUEST bQ ADDRESS BOARD
MEETING DATE July 18, 1985 TIME 7:30 p.m_DISTRICTS 1 _
DISTRICT I JOINT BOARDS Santa Ana City Hall
((((CRANK) HANSON. . . . . . THDMAS/MANDIC), .BAILEY. . . . . ._(SALTAREL. , HOESTEREY, . WISNER)S. , BEVERAGE.. . ._
LU%EMppURGERGRISET. . .. . .JC ZIEGLER . . .. . .. .BUCK, , . .. , . .
WIEDER . . .. . . .
_
STANTONSTANTON. .. . .� _ _ HORSY) . . . . . . , CATLIN. .. . . ._ _
V NELSONS, , , , , ,, , ,COOPER, ,.. . ._ _
STRICT 2 PERRY).. . . . .. . CULVER.. .. . . _
SALTARELLI)... . .EDGAR. . , .. . ._
(WORDY), , ,.,CATLIN.. . . . ._ _ _ JARRELL) „GRIFFIN... . ._
ZIEGLERf.. . . , .BUCK. . .. . . . ._ _ _ LUXEMgOURGER). . .GRISET.. .. . .
NELSON),.. . . .COOPER, . , , . , CRANK),, , ,, , , , , ,HANSON.. .. .. _
LUKENDQURGER).GRISET. . . . . ._ _ _ COX) HART. , ,, .. . ,_ _
SILZE(.) .. . . . .KAWANAMI . . .._ _ SALTARELLIS, , , . .HOESTEREY. .._
WEDELI. ... .. . .MAHONEY. . ..._ _ _ SILZEL). .. . .KAWANAMI .. ,._
SCOTT))) . .NEAL.. . . . . .. _ WEDEL). . .. . .. . . .MAHONEY. .. .._
CULVER3.). .. . .PERRY. . . . ..._ _ _ COX)... . ... ... . .MAURER. . .. .._
OVERHppLT)... . .ROTH.. . . . .. . _ _ SCOTT). . ... .. . . .NEAL.. .. .. .._
BEYER) ... . .SMITH, , , , ,, ,_ _ _ COOPERS„ , , , .NELSON.. .. .._
NIECE"":: . ..STANTON. . .. ._,_ _ FINLAYySONS, ,, , , ,OLSON. .. .. .._
BEVERAGES.. . , .WISNER. . . .. . _ _ KANEL) . ... .. . PARTIN.. .. ..
CULyERS. ... .. . . .PERRY... .. ..
DISTRICT 3 COX) . .PLUMMER, ,, ,,_
COLLINS)�. . .. . . ,POLIS . . ....
OVERHD T)... . .ROTH. . . . ... . _ _ BROWNELL(.. . .RISNER, , .. .._
COOPER . .. . .NELSON, , ,., ,_ _ _ 0 ERHOL71 .. . . .ROTH. .. . .. ..
THOMA .. .. . .BAILEY. . ...._ _ _ SIR I ANI)�. .., . . ,SAPIEN. . ....
NORBY$$!!.. .. . . . .CATLIN. ....._ MILLED) . ... . ..SILLS,, , ,,.,_
PERRY(. CULVER. ..... _ _ BEYER) . . ., . . . .SMITH.. . .. ..
_ _
JARRELL S.. .. � .GRIFF IN WIEDERS, . .., . . .STANTON. .. .. _
LUXEM OURGER3.GRI SET,., ,.,_ _ _ SELYEGGI), ,., ,..SYLVIA. . ....
WEDEL .. .. . . ..14AHONEY.. ..._ _ _ FINLEY),., ,, , , , THOMAS.
SCOTT .. ... ...NEAL. .... ... GREEN/GALLACHER SMANNER. . ...•
FINLAy)SONS, ,, ,OLSON.. . . .. ._ _ _ BEVERAGE),... . . ,WISHER, , ,,..KANEL _ _
COLLINS)..... .. .POLISN.. . .. ..
BROWNEL`).. . . .RISHER. . , ,, ,_ _ _
SIRIANI)..... .SAPIEN. . . .. ._ _
WIEDER) . . STANTON. . ., ,_ _ _
SELVAGGI3... . .SYLVIA. . .... _
DISTRICT 5 STAFF. SYLVESTER. .. ✓
CLARKE. . .. ..
COX). , .. ... . . .HART. ... . ..._ _ _ DAWES.. . ....
CO% MAURER.. . ..._ _ _ ANDERSON.. ..J�
WI,EDERS.... . ..STANTON. . ..,_ _ _ SUTLER. . .. ..JC
DISTRICT 6 BAKER. . .. ...Jc
KYLE.. . .. . ..
GALLACHER).. . .WAHNER. . .., ,_ YOUNG. . ....._
COX) PLUMMER..., ,_ _ _ VON LANGEN
WIEDER3.., ,, , ,STANTON..., ,_ _ _ WINSOR.., , , ,_
DISTRICT 7
STREED.. . ...�G
BEYER)..... . ..SMITH.... . .._ _ _ OTHERS: WWOOODR UFF�,
MILLERS,. , ,, ,SILLS... . . .. _ _ ATKINS, , . , , ,_
SALTARELL13. .EDGAR.. HOHENER.....
LUKEMBOURGER).GRISET. . . ..._ _ _ HOWARD. .....
CO%)) MAURER. . . .... _ _ HUNT,, , ,..,,_
WIEDEg)..... . .STANTON. . .. ._ _ KEITH. . ... ..
(GREEN),, ,, ,, ,.HAMNER. . ... ._ _ _ KNOPF. . .. . ..
LE BLANC. ...
DISTRICT 11 LINDSTROM.. ._
_
LYNCH. . . . ...
MANDIC ,. ,, , ,BAILEY.., ,.._ _ _ MARTIN
SON.. .
_
W IEDER .., ,., ,STANTON. . .. ._ _ = PEARCE. . ... ._ .
FINLEY ..... . .THOMAS. . . .. ._ _ _�;,�A •
DISTRICT 13
BEVER)t, ., , ,.SMITH., ., ,.._
NELSONf,,. , ,.,000PER., , ,.._
WISNER) .. BEVERAGE, ,, ,_
OVERHOI,T), ,., ,ROTH. . . . ... .
_
(WIEDERL...... .STANTON.... .
7/11/85
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC C0MMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/ST '
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUMBER/ST
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC BEARING - JULY 18, 1985 r
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF NEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC SHARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COOLLJLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: 1 O �. ✓ J� I I/ /d
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
qq �9 1
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6L -T �• ®��
NUMBER/STREET
zl,a —
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAM: GkCG K. OHAA/A/ES 1,94
HOME ADDRESS: /Z /D 6t/ PL qce
NUMBER/STREET
SAW T,q gNR
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS: -
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: t•-c�._ =-.nI
NUMBER/STREET
_ LK
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
' DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC RBARING - JULY 18: 1985
HBO UEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF REARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: J--.,! .% ✓ il/ / '�c;�'i�� ii
NUMBER/STREET
i
(" /t
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
MEETING DATE July 18, 1985 TIME 7:30 p.m_DISTRICTS 1
DISTRICT JOINT BOARDS Santa Ana City Hall
(CRANK). ... , . . .HANSON. . . . . ..Ie_ (THOMAS/MANDIC)„BAILEY.. . . . .
(SAL TARE LL I). ,WOE ST E RE Y. . .,1G _ WISNER) ., BEVERAGE. . . ._ _
(LU%EMBOURGER).GRISET. . .. . .JC ZIEGLER).. . . . . . .SUCK. . .. . . . .
l WIEDER)). . . . . . .STANTON. .. . .yC NORBY) .. . . . .. CATLIN.. . . ..
_
(NELSONS. , . . . .., .COOPER, , , ,.._ _
TR T SALTARELLLI ). . . . .EDGAR. . . ... .
(NORBY). . .. . . . .CATLIN. . , . . ,_ JARRELL). . . .. . . .GRIFFIN. , , . .
(ZIEGLEI).. . . . .BUCK, , , , ,. . ._ LUXEMgOURGER). . .GRISET. . . . . .
(NELSON ... , , .COOPER. , ... . CRANX).. . . . . . . . .HANSON. . .. . .
C LUXEMB URGER).GRISET. . . .. ._ COX) HART.. . . ... .
SILZE4) . .. . . .KAWANAMI , . .._ SALTAR[LLIS. ., , .HOESTEREY, , ._
LI WEDE ... .. . . .MAHONEY. . . . . SILZEL).. . . ... . .KAWANAMI .- _
SCOTT))) . „NEAL. . . . . . . ._ _ _ WED[0.. . . .. . . . .14AHONEY. . . . ._ _
CULVERT. . .. . .PERRY. . . . . . . COX) . . . . . . . .MAURER. . . . . . _
OVERNOLT)... . .ROTH. . . . . . . ._ _ _ SCOTTS . . . . . . . . .NEAL. . . . . . . .
BEYER) ,, , , ,SMITH, , , , , , ,_ _ _ COOPERS. . . . . .NELSON, , , , , ,_
WIEDERf, �, , , ,STANTON. . . . .. FINLAYSON). . . . . .OLSON. . .. . . .
BEVERAGES.. . . .WISN ER. . .. . ._ _ _ KANEL . . . . . . PARTIN. . . . . . _
CULyER). . ... . . . .PERRY. . . . . . .
$DI TRICT 3 COX) .. . . . .PLUMMER,, , , ,_
COLLINS)t� ,., , , . ,POLIS. . ,, , . ._
(OVERHO T). .. . .R07H. . . . . . . . BROWNELL1,,, , , . .RISNER, , , , , ,_
COOPER .... . . .NELSON. . . . . ._ _ OVERHOLT . . . . .ROTH. . . .. . .
THOMA BAILEY, , , , , ,_ _ _ SIRIAN ) SAPIEN. .. . ..
MOREY CATLIN. . . . . ._ _ _ 141 LEQ� ,., , , , ,,SILLS. . ., ..._
PERRY CULVER. , , , , ,_ BEYER) SMITH. . .. . ..
JARRELL S,., . ,GRIFFIN WIEDERS. . , , , . ,.STANTON.. . .._
LUXEM@@OURGE0.GRI SET. . . , . . SELVAGyyIS,, , , , , ,SYLVIA.. . ...
WEDELI.... . . . .MAHONEY. . . . . _ {FINLEYI. . . . . . .. THOMAS.. . . ..
SCOTT)).., . . . .REAL . . . . . ._ (GREEN/GALLACHER)WAHNER. . . ...
_
FINLAYSONS,, , ,OL SO N, , . . , _ _ (BE VERAGE)). . . . . . .WISNER.. ....
KANEL). .. . . .PARTIN. , . , . .
COLLINS).. .. . .POLIS
BROWNEL`).. . . .RISHER. . . . . .
_
SIRIAN)). .. . . ,SAPIEN. . . . . ._ _ _
WIEDER STANTON, , , , ,_ _ _
V SELVAGGIS.. . . .SYLVIA. . . . . ._
DISTRICT 5 STAFF. SYLVESTER. . .✓
CLARKE. . .. . .
M%).... ... . . .HART. . . . . . . ._ _ _ DAWES. . . . . . .
X) .MAURER. . . . . ._ ANDERSON. . . .�
EDERS.. . . . . .STANTON. , , , ,_ SUTLER. . . . . ..
BROWN. . . . . . .
DD STI RI CT B BAKER. . . . ...
_
GAL4ACHER). . . .WAHNER. . . .. . KYLE, . . . . . ..
_ _ _ YOUNG. . . . ...
CO% PLUMMER. , , , ,_ _ VON LANGEN
WIEDERf,,., , , ,STANTON, , , , ,_ _ _ WINSOR. . . ., ,_
STREED. . . .. ..I,,
DISTRICT 7 ANSON.. . . .
BEYER) .. . . .SMITH. . . . . . ._ OTHERS: WOODRUFF. .� AjN�
MILLERS., , ,. ,SILLS „_ _ —_ ATKi NS, , , ,.._
SALTARELLI), ,EDGAR. . . . . HOHENER. . . ..
LU%EMBOURGER).GRISET. . . ..._ _ HOWARD. . . ...
COX
S MAURER. . . .. . HUNT. . . . . .. .
EDER ..,, , ,SWTANTON. . . , , KEITH. . . . .. .NRIEEN), AMMER. , , , , ,_
_ = KNOPF.. .. .. ._
DISTRICT ll LE BLANC—._
LINDSTROM.,
LYNCH.. . . ...
(MANDI()..," „BAILEY, , , , . . MARTIN SON...
((((WIEDER I)))„ „STANTON, , , , ,_ _ . PEARCE. . . ...
FINLEY ,. . .THOMAS. . . . . ._ .y:;.� �
DISTRICT 13 � �
�.✓ INEYER) SMITHBELSON[., ., , .000PER.
WISNER BEVERAGE,. . ,., ,., ,.,__(OVERHO4T)... . .ROTH. .. . . .. .
_
(WIEDER .... . . .
STANTON. ....
7/11/85
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OFF jADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: I`
NUMBER/STREET ,
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUPffiER/STREER
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985 r
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME: %
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
v
CITY
v PROPERTY ADDRESS: � `- }:. ✓-_
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COJLLLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
RO CITY i ��) Q
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 02 / J--T
NUMEE STREET
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COlAtnm
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME: G/2EG K• OHAA//,/ES /AAl
ROME ADDRESS: /Z /a W. Cs1,,, DC7,J PLACE'
NUMBER/STREET
SAP/ 7 A Ai✓A
CITY
l..✓ PROPERTY ADDRESS: - `S�Ine AS AeoV� -
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC REARING - JULY 1S, 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
NAME:
ROME ADDRESS i
NUMBER/STREET
li
CITY.
PROPERTY AbDRESB:
NUMBER/STREET
'!(
CITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 18: 1985
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED USE OF THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR BILLING AND
COLLECTION OF ADOPTED 1985-86 SEWER USE FEES
i
NAME:
� 7
HOME ADDRESS.;/
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NUNBER/STREET
CITY
District 1 Public Hearing - July 18, 1985
Director Hanson: The purpose here tonight istto consider the adoption of the
sewerage charge or considering increasing existing discharge.
Our sole purpose is to select a method by which the charge is
adopted by this Board last October is to be collected. I
would like to hear the staff report, please, and presentation.
General Manager: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Orange County Sanitation
District is responsible for transporting, treating and
disposing of sewage in a safe manner in accordance to the
strict Federal and State laws to protect the public health and
safety and the environment.
Recognizing, Mr. Chairman, that some of the citizens attending
the hearing tonight have not yet had the opportunity to
acquaint themselves with the role that the County Sanitation
District plays in handling the sewage that comes from their
homes and businesses, we have prepared a brief slide
presentation on the Districts' activities.
I would like to introduce Mr. Blake Anderson, the Districts'
Director of Operations, who will make a presentation at this
time on the District's function and the District's
relationship with the City's local sewer system.
Mr. Anderson?
Blake Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Sylvester. The Sanitation Districts serve two
million people in the metropolitan portion of Orange County.
V -1
We serve the domestic needs of single family residence as well
as domestic needs of multiple housing dwellings like
condominiums and apartments. We also serve the industrial
needs of the community and the needs of commercial facilities.
Within the Sanitation Districts there are 700 miles of trunk
lines that collect the wastewater from the cities that we
serve. We have two wastewater treatment plants. The one in
Fountain Valley has facilities completed $235 million in the
last few years, and at Plant No. 2 we completed the facilities
totaling $89 million. This plant is located in Huntington
Beach. The Federal Government and the State of California
have mandated very strict discharge standards that we must
meet in our discharge to the ocean. To do that we have very
extensive facilities at the two treatment plants. And, what
those facilities have done for us in the last few years have
significantly decreased the quanitity of pollutants in the
discharge in the ocean of _ chemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids in the green and purple lines and
the dotted lines are the standards that have become
increasingly stringent over the past few years. The treatment
process starts off with metering which allows us to measure
the amount of flow coming into the treatment plants. This
gives us information on how to operate the various processes.
Followed by that we go through the headworks which include
barscreens from moving rags and sticks and other large
materials in the wastewater. Followed by that, we have odor
-2-
control facilities removing odorous material out of the gases
coming down in the trunk lines. Following that we have
primary treatment which consists of wastewater entering into
the center of the circular base and it takes about two hours
to flow to the outside and about half of the pollutants are
removed just by plain settling. There are sludges that
at the bottom of the clarifier and I'll cover that in a
minute. Following the primary treatment we also have chemical
additions to _ odor control as well as overall treatment
efficiencies. We have second stage treatments at the plant
shown here in Fountain Valley. We have treatment filters
which use a naturally occurring biological process for
removing pollutants from the wastewater which is followed by
another clarifying step. We also have secondary treatment
following primary which consists of activated sludge which is
a bacterial culture using oxygen or air for respiration of the
o.i
orgasms. The process occurs underneath these large concrete
covers that are approximately 15 million gallons in capacity.
Following that process we once again clarify the water and end
up with a highly-clarified effluent that is suitable for ocean
discharge. Our discharge is five miles out in the sea and
about 185 feet of water and the design of the discharge pipe
is such as to minimize the impact of our discharge on the
marine environment. The pollutants that are removed from the
wastewater are called sludge and they are processed in these
dome tanks called digesters where it resides for about 20 days
L
-3-
and undergoes decomposition. From there the sludges go to
belt filter presses. We have a total of 14 at the two
treatment plants where water is removed from the sludge so
that it ends up with the consistency of potting soil and it is
hauled away in trucks, a total of 30 truckloads per day leave
our two treatment plants, where it is hauled up to the Coyote
Canyon Landfill where it is disposed with municipal solid
waste. Back to the digesters for a moment, one of the
portions of biproducts of this process is digester gas which
is methane gas which is collected off the tops of the domes
through the pipes you see in the picture and the gas is
compressed in large spheres we have at the two treatment
plants and from there we can burn it directly in the various
engines, powering blowers and pumps, saving us approximately
$3 million per year in power costs. All of these engines are
running on fuel that we derive for free from our treatment
process. To control all of these sophisticated systems we
have a control center that is manned 24 hours per day and
allows us to monitor the status of various pumping systems and
aeration systems and gas moving systems in treatment plants.
We also monitor our electrical use with this computer. We are
also in the Southern California Energy Coalition which is a
group of industries in commercials established in Orange
County that work with Southern California Edison to manage
power use. During a major power problem with Edison we can
curtail our use at their demand and as a result of that we get
_4_
rr
a yearly rebate. This also allows us to delay construction of
new power facilities. Back in the plant we also have
monitoring which allows our operators to check the
status of various processes. We also use computer terminals
located in our treatment plant in Huntington Beach which
allows the operators to monitor pressures and temperatures and
the other functions within the plant. Our operators are
certified by the State of California. We man the plant 24
hours per day checking pressures and various perameters that
are necessary to keep the processes operating. We also have a
troubleshooting group of engineers who visit the plants on a
regular basis and make adjustments to process efficiencies.
We have a full staff of maintenance people to conduct
preventative and emergency maintenance on our pumps and other
equipment. We have a full service shop where we can take much
of our equipment that requires repairs and repair them
ourselves. We are self-contained in most respects. We also
have full electrical instrumentation maintenance capabilities
which allows us to keep the various gauges and meters reading
correctly for the process effiencies. One of the major ways
that we prevent the discharge of toxics into our sewer system
is our industrial waste ordinance which was most recently
adopted in 1983 by our Boards of Directors. In the past we
have had industrial shops such as this which really discharged
toxics mixed in with sludge located on the floor of the plant
and the material was poured directly into the sewer and was
-5-
passed partially through our treatment plants and out into the
ocean. As a result of the enactment of our ordinance and the
activities of our industrial waste inspectors telling
o.�
industries what our needs are and working closely with them
and also sampling either at the industrial plant or out in the
street obtaining data on the quality of their discharge, all
that information is brought into our laboratory for analysis,
on the basis of that we set enforcement strategy, and working
closely with our Board of Directors, we can go as far as
revoking the discharge permit of the district. As a result of
that industry has done a tremendous amount of activity in the
last ten years to improve their facilities, various processes,
pretreatment systems so that they can haul the material away
for proper disposal in Class I landfills. Collectively,
Orange County industries have spent about $11 million and as a
result of their expenditures which significantly improved the
quality of wastewater entering our facilities. As an example
I would like to show you effluent copper in pounds per day we
discharge into the ocean. Beginning in the mid 70's the green
line shows that we were discharging in the neighborhood of 600
pounds per day as a result of industrial discharge. With the
enactment of our ordinance and the activities of our
enforcement staff, industry has significantly dropped the
amount of copper coming into our plants. As a result our
discharge into the ocean is down to the vicinity of 200 pounds
per day. What is good about that is the red line is the ocean
�./ -6-
plan of the State of California which sets a fairly high
limit. We also have a more stringent limit set by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the State of California,
v
and we are in consistent compliance with that limitation as a
result of our activities. This would also be true for another
10 or 12 constituents that we regularly measure. Our
laboratory is a big part of quality control for us. The
treatment plants are sampled on a daily basis to make sure
that they are operating efficiently. All the laboratory data
from our industrial waste program also helps us, and we also
monitor the effects of our discharge on the ocean. Our
laboratory has the capabilities of doing bacterial analysis
and various chemistry and analytical tests with sophisticated
instrumentation. Out in the field our laboratory people
sample the beach on a daily basis to make sure that their
bacteria is safe, which they are. We also have an ocean
�r
monitoring program consisting of two major elements. The
first one is sampling the bottom around our outfall.
This is a clamshell sampler that takes a bite out of the muds
on the bottom of the ocean. The material is brought back up
onto the boat and placed in various sample lots which are
taken back to our laboratory for analysis. One of the things
we look at are the little animals living in the muds. This is
a small clamhole We count them and characterize
these to our discharge by looking at little critters like
these. We also analyze their body content for to
�/ -7-
make sure we are not impacting the environment. We also troll
at eight stations around our outfall. We bring the fish back
on board the ship and count them, sort them and characterize
�r
the kind of catch we are finding out there, and the animals
are also dissected into portions that are brought back into
the laboratory for analysis to make sure that they're
wholesome and they are not being affected by our discharge.
Overall we are convinced that our program of treatment
facilities, industrial waste program and what we have been
able to monitor in the ocean, has shown us that we are
protecting the fundamental uses of the oceans off Orange
County, we are protecting the animals living in the ocean and
protecting the people that populate this County. Challenges
for the 80's have several things facing us in the future. The
first thing is continuing compliance with the stringent
Federal and State limitations imposed upon us. We have new
v
challenges to our sludge handling. I showed you a slide of
the Coyote Canyon landfill where we bring 30 truckloads per
day. That landfill closes in 1988 and we will have to come up
with an alternative method of sludge disposal. We are working
on that very diligently and we thing we have two or three
alternatives that will be in place long before the plant
proposes. Air pollution is becoming more of a problem for us.
The new standards of the Air Quality Management District and
various constituents in our engine exhaust will have to be
better controlled. That will be We have a
e/ -8-
master plan that totals $130 million that includes new
facilities in both plants, odor control and air pollution
abatement. And, finally, the major challenge ahead of us is
sound fiscal management preparing on all these very important
projects. Mr. Sylvester, that ends my part of the program.
General Manager Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Lights, please. Mr. Chairman, as
Mr. Anderson has pointed out, in order to comply with the new
stricter Federal and State requirements, the Sanitation
Districts have recently constructed sophisticated treatment
facilities at a cost of more than $124,000,000.
As a result, the costs of providing sewerage service to the
community have been escalating rapidly because of the
increasingly stringent federal and state laws and regulations
requiring advanced treatment of wastewater to remove toxic
materials and other pollutants from the sewage to assure
.r protection of the public health and safety and the
environment.
In fiscal year 1983-84, property tax revenues were
insufficient to meet the District's operating costs, and the
Board authorized a transfer of $1.1 million in capital
reserves to pay the full costs of operating and maintaining
the District collection system and its proportionate share of
the 0 6 M costs of the Joint Treatment Works.
In fiscal year 1984-85, due to insufficient tax revenues, it
was again necessary to dip into capital reserves in the amount
-9-
of $2 million to meet the District's operating expenses and
maintain the solvency of the operating fund through the fiscal
year.
To address this fiscal crisis, in 1984-85, after considerable
study of the District's long-range funding requirements, the
Board adopted a financial program to avoid projected revenue
shortfalls and provide the necessary income required to
finance the District's rising operating expenses, as well as
major capital expenditures for construction of master-planned
treatment facilities.
The Boards' adopted financial program includes a one-time
connection fee of $500 per dwelling unit for residential
property, and $100/1,000 square feet for commercial and
industrial property.
.. The one-time connection fee, to be used to pay for facilities
expansion to serve new development, is collected for the
District by the city when building permits are issued for the
new development. The city will continue to collect the
connection fee and, therefore, the means of collecting it is
not an issue of this hearing.
As the second part of the long-range financial program, to pay
for costs of operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the
sewerage system, the Board has adopted an annual sewer use
fee. The fee is based on water meter size which reflects the
-10-
use of the system. The costs on an annual basis is $26.40 for
residential units and ranges based upon usage up to $840.00
for larger users.
I might add parenthetically that the large commercial or
industrial dischargers that place an inordinant demand on our
system are subject to a surcharge under a separate industrial
waste ordinance that has been in effect since 1976. Some
industrial dischargers now pay as much as $80,000 per year for
sewer service under that program for District 1.
As was stated earlier, the purpose of this hearing is to
receive public commentary on the Districts' proposal to
collect the annual water meter size based user fee on the
property tax bill.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr.
Bill Butler, the Districts' Director of Finance, who will
review the alternatives and the proposed method of collecting
the District's annual user fee, and briefly comment on the
District's finances. Mr. Butler.
Bill Butler: Thank you, Mr. Sylvester. In the evaluation of the billing
and collection alternatives that are available to County
Sanitation District No. 1, the District has considered three
billing and collection alternatives. The first of these
alternatives is direct billing. There are 36,288 pieces of
property within Sanitation District No. 1. This billing
approach would require the Sanitation District to send a
v -11-
direct bill either on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to every
single one of the 36,288 pieces of property. The second
alternative we considered was to bill the sewer service fee
via the City of Santa Ana and the Mesa Consolidated Water
District utility bills which the customers within County
Sanitation District No. 1 for whom this is a customer of
Sanitation District No. 1 received water service at this time.
And the third alternative that we considered was to bill for
our services via the County of Orange property tax roll. In
evaluating these three alternatives, of course, it was
appropriate for us to consider the costs of these alternatives
and there are two major cost elements related to each of them.
The first cost that we would incur in establishing the direct
billing system would be the set-up costs. We would be
required to make some major modifications to our existing
computer system, change the software and add some additional
equipment, so that is a one-time set-up cost. There are, of
course, annual costs associated with operating any type of
billing system and those include hiring staff, preparing
bills, printing of envelopes, mailing of those envelopes to
the customers and then processing the checks that are returned
to us by the individual customers. This cost, in the case of
the Districts preparing and sending to each of the 36,000
property owners a direct bill, the set-up costs are $22,000,
the annual cost is $188,000 for the cost in the first year of
$210,000 to use that billing approach. Looking at this on a
-12-
long-term basis the total cost of the District over a 5-year
period for us to institute a direct bill for this service
would cost $962,000, approximately $1 million for us to
undertake a direct billing program.
The second alternative which we considered was to use the
City's utility bills which now includes five other charges
including water and refuse collection, city sewer service
charge and soforth. The set-up cost for this alternative
would be $20,000, the annual costs for performing this service
through use of the City of Santa Ana water bill and Mesa
Consolidated water District's water billing system would be
$94,000 for a total first year cost of $114,000. On a
five-year basis, because of the annual costs, the on-going
costs of performing this billing service are relatively high,
the five-year cost totaled $490,000, approximately one-half
million dollars.
In contrast, if we take a look at the cost of placing RP as a
special assessment on the property tax bill, the
set-up costs are higher than the other two alternatives.
There are some major modifications that we have to make to the
County tax roll system, some computer software changes that we
must make that will cost us $75,000. On the other hand, the
annual costs of us billing this way are only $10,000. So, for
the cost of the first year of institution of this billing
alternative, out total costs are $85,000 and on a five-year
..r
-13-
basis the total cost is $125,000 and in contrast, as I point
out again, on a direct billing basis is almost one million
dollars. 1/8 of the alternative that we are considering
tonight is 1/8th the cost of direct billing. It is 1/4th the
cost of placing this charge on the City water bill or the bill
provided to customers by Mesa Consolidated Water District.
So, to summarize the reasons for our proposal to use the
County tax roll to bill our sewer service charge, it is by a
long shot the most cost-effective method of the three methods
that are available to us. It is certainly a required no
additional postage or no additional checks to be written by
our customers because this will be included in the property
tax payments they make twice a year to the County Tax
Collector. These payments, of course, can also be, in the
case of people who do not pay their property taxes directly to
the County Tax Collector and have impound accounts on their
mortgages, those charges will be included in their impound
accounts. So, in fact, it will require no additional check
writing or additional postage. The Districts, of course, will
avoid adding additional staff to run a direct billing method
and the City will also avoid adding additional staff were they
to assume responsibility for billing our charge on the City's
water bill. And finally, of course, we would avoid the cost
of postage for mailing bills under either a monthly or
bi-monthly basis. The cost of handling the checks returned by
the people and processing of those pinks.
-14-
Now, relative to the issue of District finances. We have
touched on that briefly in the presentation on our Districts'
operations. We do face rising costs. We have higher mandated
levels of treatment which have been placed on us by the State
of California and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To
run the advanced facilities that you observed in the slide
presentation, our energy costs are higher. We are the
largest, in spite of the fact that we generate 2/3's of our
own energy, we are the largest electricity user in Orange
County. We pay more than $4 million per year in electricity
bills to Southern California Edison in spite of our energy
conservation program. As we indicated earlier in the
presentation, our existing tax revenues do not adequately
cover our costs. We have transferred money from our capital
reserves which we need, of course, to upgrade our facilities
to meet the higher mandated treatment levels, we have
transferred capital reserves to pay our ongoing operating
costs. This is not a fiscally-sound approach to running an
organization that is complex as the Sanitation Districts. We
cannot continue to draw down on our reserves. In fact, in
this fiscal year we will find ourselves in a deficit position
if we continue to take that approach. Besides, we have
further plans as we have said we have outlined in our previous
presentation which must be made to enable us to comply with
our discharge requirements on a long-term basis and we need
the capital revenues that we can generate to build those
-15-
initial facilities to protect the environment and public
health.
.v, So, of course, we have proposed and the Board of Directors of
Sanitation District No. 1 has adopted a sewer use fee to pay
for the operations and maintenance and rehabilitation of our
facilities and we do finance our capital costs in a separate
way. Development, new development pays via connection fee to
the City for any new construction that will discharge into our
sewer system.
This graph points out the financial position of the Sanitation
Districts in 1984-85 fiscal year ending, this line which is on
the increase is the expenditure line. Our costs are, as you
can see, increasing. The revenues and reserves available to
this District are decreasing if we do not institute a sewer
use fee in fiscal year 1985-86 which is upon us right now. We
are in fiscal year 1985-86. This District will move into a
deficit financial position and will not be able to meet its
operation cost requirements and provide the service necessary
to protect the public health and the environment.
To put this fee into perspective we have contacted the
Southern California Edison Company, the telephone company, the
gas company, the City of Santa Ana and the County, all of whom
provide services to the customers within County Sanitation
District No. 1. The typical cost of electricity in the Santa
Ana area is approximately $39/month. Cable television, if in
. i -16-
fact you use the cable television capabilities provided by the
City, the City's contractor, that is approximately $28/month.
Gas service for the typical resident of Santa Ana is about
$28/month. City water service costs approximately $10.
Telephone, if you have a basic installation and do not make
any zone calls or long-distance calls, costs you $9.75. Trash
collection/refuse, your garbage collection, total cost for
collection/disposal is $5.30. The fee which we are proposing
to place on the County tax bill for the average resident costs
$2.20 and for the cost of local sewer service the sewer system
the collection system which takes the water from the
individual homes and industries in Sanitation District No. 1
and delivers it to our large interceptor lines and carries it
down to the sewage treatment facilities in Fountain Valley and
Huntington Beach, that service costs the local resident in the
Santa Ana area $1.37. For on a total basis, total utility
cost of approximately $125 for the average resident of Santa
Ana and this sewer use fee that we are proposing to collect on
the tax bill, out of that $125 costs $2.20, so less than 38 of
the total utility bill paid by residents within the Santa Ana
area.
We do have, in the event that our customers are billed
improperly, the billing is inaccurate, the water meter size
you have serving your property is not, is wrong for some
reason, we have appeal procedures in place at this point
included in Ordinance No. 107, which allows the fee adjustment
-17-
for cancellation. If the billing is inaccurate or if you
receive no water service, and, of course, if you have no water
it is very difficult to have sewer service, to have any water
coming into the sewer, if the property is vacant or is not
connected to the sewer, we will make an adjustment for any
property owner who advises us that they have received an
inaccurate bill or they should not be billed. So the appeal
procedure at this point is for the individual property owner
to contact the Sanitation District staff and the District's
Board of Directors, and we will consider an adjustment or
cancellation in the event the bill is inaccurate or
inappropriate in the event for instance property is vacant or
is infact not connected to the sewer system because it has
sewer service from a septic tank or other types of sewer
service. Mr. Chairman that concludes my presentation.
General Manager: Mr. Chairman, official notice of the hearing was mailed
on July 5, 1985 to 36,288 property owners of record on
the last equalized assessment roll of the County of
Orange, in accordance with the provisions of Section
5473.1 of the California Health and Safety Code.
As prescribed by law, a legal notice of the hearing was
published in the Orange County Register on July 1, 1985
and July 8, 1985.
The hearing notice included the District's telephone
number for citizens to call with questions or for more
-18-
information. During the past two weeks staff has fielded
approximately 125 calls.
The questions raised have dealt primarily with:
Proposition 13 and the issue of tax vs. fee
The relationship of the local street sewer system
provided by the City to the regional system of Sanitation
District No. 1
Inquiries were also made as to other methods of
collection, such as the city water bill. Many inquirers
thought that the charge on the City water bill paid for
all sewer services
In addition, some people called to tell us:
That their property was not connected or that they were
unsure, or they felt their fee should be modified
Or to advise us of a change in of
Although many of the issues posed are not really relevant
to the specific purpose of this hearing, we do recognize
that the citizens have a genuine interest in the
activities of the Sanitation Districts and we would
therefore like to take a few minutes and summarize, for
the record, the responses to those questions that were
raised before the hearing is opened up for oral public
commentary.
-19-
General Manager: Mr. Chairman, official notice of the hearing was mailed on
July 5, 1985 to 36,288 property owners of record on the last
equalized assessment roll of the County of Orange, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5473.1 of the
California Health and Safety Code.
As prescribed by law, a legal notice of the hearing was
published in the Orange County Register on July 1, 1985 and
July 8, 1985.
The hearing notice included the District's telephone number
for citizens to call with questions or for more information.
During the past two weeks staff has fielded approximately 125
calls.
The questions raised have dealt primarily with:
Proposition 13 and the issue of tax vs. fee
The relationship of the local street sewer system
provided by the City to the regional system of Sanitation
District No. 1
Inquiries were also made as to other methods of
collection, such as the city water bill. Many inquirers
thought that the charge on the City water bill paid for
all sewer services
-20-
In addition, some people called to tell us:
That their property was not connected or that they were
unsure, or they felt their fee should be modified
Or to advise us of a change of ownership
Although many of the issues posed are not really relevant to
the specific purpose of this hearing, we do recognize that the
citizens have a genuine interest in the activities of the
Sanitation Districts and we would therefore like to take a few
minutes and summarize, for the record, the responses to those
questions that were raised before the hearing is opened up for
oral public commentary.
With regard to Proposition 13
We recognize that Proposition 13 is an important issue
..r with the taxpayers, that it was a vote to reduce the cost
of government. There probably isn't a person in this
room doesn't agree - at least in principle - with that
concept
But many citizens also told us that when they voted for
Proposition 13, they thought that the so-called essential
services--the property-related services such as police,
fire, water and sewer, would be fully-funded and that
other governmental services would share in what was left
over from the 1% tax levy.
-21-
Unfortunately for the Sanitation District, that didn't
happen. The State Legislature decided that all
governmental agencies would divide the money based on
their previous historical ratio of tax revenue.
In fact, in the implementing legislation, SB 154, signed
by the Govenor on June 24, 1975, the Legislature went so
far as to declare its intent to remove any special
District with the statutory authority to levy user
charges--which the Sanitation district has--from the tax
roll entirely.
Fortunately, that has not come to pass, or we would all
be paying higher taxes.
The Sanitation District is an operating utility--just the
same as the Gas Company and the Edison Company--the only
.r difference is that we operate under a different section
of the law.
Our sole function is the collection, treatment and
disposal of sewage.
We perform no other services.
We certainly do not have the problem of convincing anyone
that the service we do perform is one, in fact, that they
do need.
The Districts' role, as we said earlier, is to protect
the public health and safety and the environment.
-22-
Unfortunately, Proposition 13 reduced District revenues
by over 60%. Seven years later we are still receiving
less than we did prior to its adoption. With higher
energy costs, the accumulative effects of long-term
inflation and more stringent treatment requirements
mandated by Federal and State regulatory agencies, we
simply cannot provide that protection, faced with such a
deficit.
With regard to whether the user fee is a tax or a fee, it is
clearly a fee.
The proposed fees are based upon use, whereas property
taxes are based on the value of the property and have no
direct relationship to use.
Further, the Districts have had statutory authority since
their enabling Legislation--long before Proposition
13--to adopt user fees and to collect them on the
property tax bill.
The reason we propose to collect the fee on the tax bill
is that it is the most cost-effective method.
The property tax bill is a mechanism that is already in
place and is therefore the most convenient and least
costly method. Any other method would be considerably
more expensive, the cost of which would have to be added
to the user fee and, thus, increase it.
-23-
For those who suggested that the fee be collected on the water
bill, our experience is that the water agencies are not
receptive to assuming the headaches associated with collecting
... our sewer service charge via the water bill.
That is why we feel--all factors considered--the proposed
system is the best one available at this time, that it
achieves reasonable equity without incurring higher costs of
administration.
However, I would reiterate what Mr. Butler said, the proposed
Procedures do in fact provide a mechanism wherein gross
inequities can be corrected on a case-by-case basis.
The questions concerning the relationship between the City's
local sewer collection system and the Districts' Regional
Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal System I believe were
adequately covered by Mr. Butler and Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the staff report this evening.
With respect to Item #2(c) , I would like to report to you that
we have received two written communications, copies of which
are in your meetings folder. The first communication was
from:
Jannette McCoy, 2311 N. Hesperian. Ms. McCoy's comment
related to the Proposition 13 issue and she's referred to
the District's vote a monthly billing system
-24-
The second written communication was from:
Virgil J. Wynn, 821 N. Louise Street. Mr. Wynn expressed
his beliefs that the user fee in his opinion was a tax
Mr. Chairman, it is in order for the Board to consider a
formal motion to receive and file the two communications as
part of the official record.
Mr. Chairman, it is now appropriate to open the hearing for
oral public comment. Forms have been provided for the persons
wishing to address the Boards on the issue on proposed
collection of the adopted annual sewage fee on the property
tax bill commencing with the 1985-86 fiscal year.
Chairman Hanson: Ladies and Gentlemen, I trust and hope that you have found the
fine presentation by the District's staff to be truly
informative. It has been our experience that most residents
of the county do not have information or knowledge concerning
the importance of the role that the County Sanitation
Districts play in the lives of all of the two million
residents of Orange County. In order to guarantee the
protection of our environment, particularly the ocean waters,
you have just seen the very elaborate and complex and costly
procedures that must be undertaken to provide the sewage
treatment service for the county residents.
As was indicated at the outset of the hearing this evening,
the purpose here tonight is not for our Board to consider the
-25-
adoption of a sewer use charge, or to consider increasing an
existing use charge. Our sole purpose is to select the method
by which the charge which was adopted by this Board last
October is to be collected.
Again, I emphasize that the charges were adopted last October
at a public meeting held for purposes of determining the rates
to be established. The rates were set, and their
effectiveness was delayed until July 1, 1985. It now becomes
important to find the most cost effective way of collecting
this revenue, which is necessary to pay for this District's
share in the operation and maintenance of the treatment and
disposal facilities which you have seen tonight.
I know some persons are concerned about the adoption of fees,
charges and taxes, but I again must indicate that that is not
the scope of the hearing tonight, and I would kindly ask that
r.s
any testimony or statements which are to be given tonight be
addressed solely to the collection method, and not as to
whether you like or dislike the user charge. If you have some
specific concern with the charge, we would invite you to leave
your name and address, and the staff can contact you; or if
you wish to write the District, we, as members of your Boards
of Directors, will give it due consideration and respond to
you at a later date.
Thank you.
-26-
We will now hear from those persons who have indicated a
desire to address the Board. The first one I will call is
George Estrada.
George Estrada: I am a taxpayer owner, citizen, voter, concerned
citizen. You mentioned that this hearing was not to consider
the fees that were adopted. Well, I feel they are related to
this proposed form of taxing the property owners. It is very
important to us, these fees are being added to the property
tax and it is my understanding that Proposition 13 under
Section 4 of this constitutional amendment specifically says
that in order for a special district to adopt special taxes
they must have approval _ Now I understand that we're,
the term here being used is user tax service fee but in
reality they are taxes and they are taxes being imposed solely
on property owners. Just on property owners. So this is a tax
and it is very easy under this to be used for
acquisition, construction, reconstruction. Now I have a few
questions I would like to ask How much months are
all of these fees generate, the total amount?
Chairman Hanson: Just a minute, Mr. Estrada. As I explained, the purpose of
this meeting tonight is for the collection of these fees. We
are not hear for the purpose of discussing the fees as they
were enacted. Now they have been enacted several months now.
The purpose tonight is how are we going to collect the fees
and that's what the purpose of this hearing. I would like you
to be able to please stand aside.
-27-
George Estrada: Okay. I'll property taxes. Or this is what we're
talking about. They are going to be added to our property
bill. property tax bill. My property tax bill
will increase 128 in this tax, this year. And, it's in all
probability this will increase year after year. Last year it
was about 13%, the following year 14%, so this will have a big
effect on my tax bill. If I cannot talk about the taxes that
were imposed, I was not aware of this when the meeting was
held.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your comments. I would like to hear from
Mr. Edward Gunn.
Edward Gunn: Mr. Chairman, I came to this meeting tonight. I thought
This is the first mention I've had of it. And I
was concerned that this fee was going on the property
taxes. As Mr. Estrada just said, I feel that this is the
increases in the future which is totally
opposed to what Proposition 13 was meant to be. Thank you.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your comments. Ralph Perez?
Ralph Perez: Mr. Chairman, Board members. I do not believe that four Board
members have the right to put on an assessment on all of these
property owners here in District 1. It should have been, all
of the property owners should have been involved in it. So
according to this meeting you are telling us, well, it's
already cut and dry. The purpose here is for how we're going
-28-
to collect it. We never had a say-so in that or whether we
approved of it or not. If you remember a meeting and talking
about it a few years back and when you people wanted to assess
rs
us on our properties you were 10,000 because you
expected only about 30 or 40 people and there were 3,000 angry
citizens, property owners showed up and therefore you backed
off and now, all of a sudden you say well, this has already
been accepted as of October of last year when no one in Santa
Ana was notified of this action taking place. You mean to
tell me that four Board members are going to decide the future
Of District 1 for Santa Ana for all of the taxpayers of Santa
Ana? I don't think that's right at all. You know it and I
know it.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your comments. Merrell Rent?
Merrell Rent: Well, I want to get up and talk after hearing everything
before on this down here tonight to vote on how to
collect this taxes. I can't comment on anything due to the
way this meeting is conducted.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your comments. Greg Ohannesian?
Greg Ohannesian: Mr. Chairman, Board members, if I understand the County
already collects a tax for the sanitation purposes. I was
told that per the District office of the Department of
Sanitation that 3% of our basic levy amount goes to pay for
the providing of sewage collection in its County inceptor
-29-
lines and treatment of that sewage and disposal of that
sewage. This was told to me by Corinne of that office. What
I would like to ask is, is this an increase or is this a new
tax or is this a fee, as you ray?
Chairman Hanson: I'd like to hear from the staff to answer that question.
General Manager: Perhaps the General Counsel comments but under the
interpretation of Proposition 13 this is, in fact, a fee not a
tax.
Greg Ohannesian: You can call it what you want right now. Isn't there, is
there a 3% of our basic levy amount going to pay for
sanitation services at this time? Yes or No?
General Manager: Approximately 36 of the 1% levy is allocated to the Sanitation
District.
...r Greg Ohannesian: Right. So, instead of $26.40 per year we are talking about
something, let's say a house is assessed at, or basic levy
amount is roughly $567--
Chairman Hanson: Mr. Ohannesian, may I, I should interrupt you, please. As you
claimed on several occasions of this meeting tonight, the
purpose of this meeting is not to discuss the fees. The
purpose of this meeting is to discuss the collection of fees.
Now, if you would like to----
Greg Ohannesian: What I'm trying to find out is how much is being proposed to
being collected? If I am sent a notice that says that the
-30-
service fee is going to be $26.40 a year, well, I'd like to
know is it really going to be $26.40 a year or is it, from
what I'm getting information from the sanitation
office. This is why I came here and this is what I'm trying
to straighten out.
Chairman Hanson: I'll leave it up to staff.
Greg Ohannesian: Now, is this an increase or is this an addition? new
tax or increase?
General Manager: The proposal before the Board to be considered the method of
collection of the supplemental sewage fee that the Board has
previously adopted. The additional amount that was here on
the tax bill is the amount shown in the sewer service charge
report based on water meter sizes made available to us.
Everyone who attends here tonight will not change the basis or
.� the method by which the property tax allocation and levy
Proposition 13.
Greg Ohannesian: From what I understand there _ tax for, 3% 0£ our taxes are
already going to pay for sewage collection. This is already
being charged by tax I cannot understand why
there would be a set-up charge of $75,000 and end up costing
$10,000 and can get of $5,000, if this is added on
to the county tax rolls. This is the point, this is what I'm
trying to get at. Now, if you want to answer my question I
can't understand exactly what the cost is going to be. I
-31-
can't dispute this $85,000 cost of adding to the tax roll if
want to answer my question.
General Manager: Mr. Chairman, the Director of Finance can address the issue of
•.r
how the cost of the collecting of the sewage fees is
determined.
Chairman Hanson: Director?
Bill Butler: Yes sir. First, if you could tell me. Do you happen to have
your notice with you? The notice that we sent to you. The
notice of public hearing.
Greg Ohannesian: Of this public hearing? Yes, right here.
Bill Butler: Can you turn it over on the back please and look in the upper
right-hand corner of the, above the, there is a 2-digit number
in the upper right-hand corner.
Greg Ohannesian: 01
Bill Butler: 01, your charge, your annual charge would be $26.40. You have
either a 5/8" or 3/4• water meter servicing your property and
you will pay $26.40.
Greg Ohannesian: Does that mean that the, does that mean that the $17.01 that I
already pay will be taken off of my taxroll?
Bill Butler: No sir, it doesn't.
Greg Ohannesian: That's what we're talking about here is an increase, isn't it?
I understand that 3% of my basic levy amount, which is $564,
-32-
I'm sorry, $567.04 goes to take for providing sewage
collection in the county interceptor lines, treatment of that
sewage and disposal of that sewage.
Bill Butler: That is correct.
Greg Ohannesian: Okay. Now, is, my question again was, is this going to be an
increase or is this a new fee?
Bill Butler: This is, in fact, a new fee. It is not an increase of the
tax. The tax amount that you pay will remain the same.
Greg Ohannesian: Okay, so I'll be paying $17.01 plus this $26 and some odd?
Bill Butler: Yes, sir. That is correct.
Greg Ohannesian: Okay. So I see this as an increase. I see this as an
increase. It is being interpreted as a tax on our
county taxroll.
Bill Butler: I the method of collection is to collect--
Greg Ohannesian: There is a method of collection. This is my point. My point
is there is a method of collection at this time. Why are we
being charged for it, that this particular service now in a
certain manner, which is on the county taxroll? Part of the
3% of our basic levy amount is going to pay for this. We
already have something established right now. So we should
sitting here discussing how we should be billed for
it. We are, there is something already, there is a
-33-
in motion. I mean, we're already being charged in a certain
manner for these services. Now what you're talking, what
you're discussing or we should be discussing here is that this
is an increase and how should we be billed for the increase.
Bill Butler: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared the answer to the question
relative to how we will incur the $75,000 in costs and then
why $10,000 additional each year. As is clear, yes, there is
an approach to billing for the 18 of which we get 38 of the 18
as set by Proposition 13. That is _ clear. As we, as the
General Manager mentioned, that 14 tax is based on the value
of your property. This fee is not based on the value of the
property. It is based — let me finish, please -- this fee is
based on the tax You have here a 5/8" or 3/4" water
meter serving your property. The reason we established
$75,000 to modify County taxroll processing approach is that
we must take data from the City of Santa Ana Water so that we
can bill you on the basis of use in contrast to the basis of
property value which is the purpose of the tax roll, it is
based on the value of your property. We must make
modifications to the computer system run by the County because
the County property tax roll does not bill you on the basis of
sewer use, it bills you on the basis of property value. So
what we have done is to take water records, computerized
records from the City of Santa Ana which provides the water
service to your home and match those water records, create the
data base based on usage for the 36,288 parcels that exist in
-34-
County Sanitation District No. 1 and match the computer files,
change the computer software on the current approach the
County uses for billing taxes, not sewerage fees, and modify
the County's billing system to accommodate the billing of the
sewer service fee. As I mentioned, we could bill you as I
outlined in this presentation, we could bill you directly.
That would cost us one million dollars for the next five
years. I could put that bill on the City's water bill. I
have the authority, the statutory authority --
Unknown: Well, I understand that the City does not want that to happen
and you don't have any authority---
Chairman Hanson: Let him finish.
Bill Butler: Sir, we do have the authority. I will allow our General
Counsel to answer that later. But Section 5471 of the
California Health S Safety Code gives us that authority. We
have had that authority since 1970. It would cost us one-half
million dollars over a five-year period to add that bill, to
add the bill to the City water bill. It will only cost us
$125,000 to adopt the approach we are proposing to you
tonight. That's only 1/4 of the cost of billing by the City
method or 1/8th of the cost of us billing you directly, mail
you a bill, asking you to slap a postage stamp on an envelope
and mailing it back to us, write us a separate check either
six or twelve times a year to us. And so we feel that either,
that 1/8th of the cost of what it would take this District to
v
-35-
` bill directly you
y y is in your interests as the customer and
certainly our interest as an organization to keep your costs
as low as we can to bill the sewer service fee.
Greg Ohannesian: Your office, per Corinne of the District office of Sanitation
said that the City doesn't want to add to the City water bill
and I think you made a slight reference to that also when you
gave your presentation. Hither you're getting wrong
information or Corinne is getting the wrong information. The
only thing I have to go by is what your office tells me.
Bill Butler: is correct. She is correct. Yes, the City, as you
might know, if you take a look at your individual City water
bill you will notice that on there you have five separate
charges already and an addition of yet another charge would
cost the City, would reguire the City to make some
modifications to their computer system to add some staff to
handle this additional billing. They would, of course, need
an operator to respond to the calls relating to our charge.
They would have to administer that program, permit funds that
they collect on our behalf to us, it would cost them a
significant amount of money as I have indicated to accept
responsibility for collecting our charges. Having discussed
that with the City staff at some length and identifying what
the costs are, again, I would say one-half million dollars
over five years versus the $125,000 that it would cost us to
make minor modifications to the County tax roll, clearly is
-36-
much more cost-effective to both the taxpayers and the
Districts.
Greg Ohannesian: We have explored it?
Bill Butler: Very thoroughly. But it would be much more expensive for you
if we chose to move in that direction.
Greg Ohannesian: Excuse me, here. last night, he was saying that he
has the authority to access to the City's water bill. When I
asked him basically the same question now, because there was a
difference in the information I was getting from his office,
he is now saying that Corinne is correct. Uh, I thought that
he said that your office had the authority to add to the
City's bill.
Bill Butler: We have the authority to ---
Greg Ohannesian: But they don't want to, is that correct? So, in fact, it
won't happen. In reality it won't happen. Is that right? Am
I correct in saying that?
Bill Butler: We are proposing that it not happen because we are proposing
to put it on, to collect the fee on the tax roll in contrast
to collecting by - we do have the authority but we choose not
to ask the City because it would be more costly to you and to
the Sanitation District.
Greg Ohannesian: In other words, if you told them this is the way we're going
to do it, we're going to add it to your bill there would be no
-37-
recourse that they could take. They would have to go along
with it. Is this your statement that you're making?
General Counsel: No, that is not correct. It wouldn't be quite as an incentive
to the City of Santa Ana. When the is and we have
the authority, it means that the statue says that when we
adopt fees we may collect them in several enumerated ways. We
can directly bill it, or we can use the service of a local
utility, in this case principally the City of Santa Ana, or
number three we can use the County Tax Collector's office and
he'll simply add to the regular property taxes. We're not,
there are others who can also take advantage of the
County-wide taxing service even though we're not for
tax.
Greg Ohannesian: From what I understand, the City does not want to do this.
This is correct?
General Counsel I think that's correct.
Greg Ohannesian: Okay. Will the other, which is the 38 of the 1%, will that
also change?
General Counsel: No.
Greg Ohannesian: Based on what we decide, or you decide today, will that also
change? In other words, right now we are being billed 3% of
18 on our County tax--
Chairman Hanson: The answer is no. Do you have any further questions?
-38-
Greg Ohannesian: I would like to add that I feel its, I'm sure from most of the
people here, that I did not receive notice. I just want that
in the record of any hearing of any nature proposing an
e.y increase in the or any type of hearing being held pursuant to
any type of an increase in the sanitation fees.
Chairman Hanson: We'll enter that.
Greg Ohannesian: Thank you.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your continents. Is there another comment? Will,
are there any other staff or board response to our oral
comments?
Female: I'm wondering why we weren't notified? Why you did
and now you make such a big deal about asking us how we want
to be billed. Why didn't you give us input, let us have
input as to ? Why weren't we notified the same way as
we were notified of this hearing tonight when you decided on
this?
General Counsel: Mr. Chairman, may I continent on that? The statue, the
state-wide law as relating to the adoption of ordinances and
the adoption of fees governs all agencies such as ours, the
Sanitation Districts. And it spells out ours specifically.
It is not up to our District to decide whether we think that
procedure is right or wrong. the procedure is set
there by state law and it has been that way as I pointed out
for some 30 to 40 years. The procedure in that case is that
-39-
the notice relative to action the Board of Directors takes is
done by giving notice of its hearing. The Board meets at
regularly scheduled times and places and their business is
all conducted at open public meetings. The agendas are
published in advance. It does not require individual notice
to every taxpayer or every property owner in the County. The
procedure for utilizing services of the Orange County Tax
Collector, again, by State statue going back many, many years,
does require, if we want to take advantage of that service, we
must, then, give notice to every property owner of record on
the last equalized assessment roll. And that is why, in some
, when the ordinance was first considered last October
and again considered in May and June of this year, where the
fee was adopted, the notification was not by individual letter
or a postcard to every property owner or every taxpayer, but
rather by general statutory public notice. The hearing
tonight was, as required by law, given to every property owner
on record.
Female: How was it publicized? Where?
General Counsel: I don't have the publications, but the Clerk does remember.
Rita Brown: The Santa Ana Register.
Female: Where? In the back page------
GeneralCounsel: I can indicate to you the card of that hearing _ seen the
certification of the Orange County Register that, in fact, the
-40-
notice of the hearing, the notice of the intent of the Board
of Directors was, in fact, published as required by law.
Chairman Hanson: Are there any other comments from staff or Board?
Male: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the question?
Chairman Hanson: What question? Briefly state it.
Greg Ohannesian: My question is, was it stated what the hearing pertained to
within that notice? If you recall.
General Counsel: Well, I don't recall, but I may have a copy in the file. I'm
sure that the notice of the hearings that were given, there
are two publications, the notice of the hearing does not
publish the content of the Ordinance but the amount of the
proposed fee. The Ordinance, as it was adopted, was published
in the Santa Ana Register—
Greg Ohannesian: After it was adopted?
General Counsel: Yes, to allow for constitutional referendum clearing. There
is a 30-day period in which to challenge that and that sets
forth a description of the Ordinance that was adopted by the
Board --
Greg Ohannesian: Now most attorneys understand that but most of the public who
is the most important doesn't understand that.
General Counsel: Well, I can appreciate it, Mr. Ohannesian. My point is we
have a constitutional provision in this State that allows the
�.r
-41-
public to call for in effect legal challenge through the
referendum process of any act done by City Council, Board of
Supervisors or a Board of Directors adopted. It is
... subject to the public referendum ----. Sometimes it is a
little complicated, maybe, for people who aren't skilled but I
can't ---
Greg Ohannesian: --question. Was the information given within the notice that
it was pertaining to an increase and I should say that it was
pertaining to a fee---sanitation fee, or--
General Counsel: No. No notice of that, as you describe it, was not published
prior to the meeting in the Santa Ana Register.
Greg Ohannesian: All right. Let me just get my thoughts on close. I feel that
it's important, the public is most important, first to
consider here and I think that the way this has been handled,
.. it's questionable as to how far or I should say how
the County election little is that is
felt in public is Thank you.
Chairman Hanson: Thank you for your comments and and your feelings.
They will be noted. I'll prepare the auditorium
please. I declare the oral public comment
session closed for this hearing. Are there any other staff
reports to the oral comments?
General Manager: There are no further staff comments, Mr. Chairman.
-42-
Chairman Hanson: Okay.
Ron Hoesterey: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two of the complaints
that were raised this evening and I understand the people's
feelings about getting the increase in fees for services that
are provided to them. One of the points that were made was
that four members of the Board sat around and increased user
fees and through various processes, that is not the way that
it transpired. It actually starts in the Congress of the
United States. When they impose higher EPA standards, the
costs are passed down to your local agencies. When they
mandated seatbelts in cars, the price of automobiles went up.
When the EPA mandates higher standards for effluent discharge,
the cost of processing sewage goes up. When those costs under
the spirit of Proposition 13 have been sewered by the District
for a period of years, as it was in order to the reserves
being brought down to an inaccessible level at this point in
time. We are now in a position where, as utility costs goes
up and the fees go up, that is one of the reasons the
primary discussion of this evening. The discussion did center
around the method of billing those and who becomes the
collecting agency for this and who has the most efficient way
of collecting. When those are of the issues that
and listen to this evening on but from the standpoint
of the methods, and that County should do it, we do
have the option to sit down and create another bureaucratic
function of direct billing, putting staff on it that was
-43-
s the intent of creating another agency. to
this agency and the Sanitation District has for the most
of cause and effect of means of handling this
.� County's sewage. The basis of the way that the at
the fee of the property tax rolls and is not a
tax. That agency will do the bookkeeping services required of
the District at the lowest possible cost to the District.
When you look at the structure of fees, the fees are designed
to the most charge the people that use the system
the most. That is why the user fee. The people with the big
water meters, the industrial _, the people that are
paying cost of the District's operations. So with that
I recognize for discussion that we go ahead
with authorizing the staff to place this on the property tax
roll.
v
Dan Griset: I'll second the motion and make comments to the. The concern
it is unfortunate that the folks that are concerned
enough to be here tonight have not had the benefit of rather
intensive work we went through as Board members
recommendations of staff originally brought to us was sound.
They can say personally as we have gone through the issue
that's been important to the Board member to determine the
equity of the fee, accurate amount of fees that are needed to
counter the cost, some, most of which, as Mr. Hoesterey has
indicated, aren't generated by anything we control.
Legislation utility costs other outside factors derives as
-44-
much of what it's doing in making either of us appreciate the
It seems to me the, as we look at this, as
we have understood the process for eroding our capital base,
somebody's got to stand up and face the facts which we have
attempted to do in a fair and business-like fashion. It's
never pleasant to spend money on these type of _
services but I think there is recognition generally that laws
have been passed and prohibits certain collections from ever
going up but many that that's not
So about anytime that as refuse what we are
dealing with here is We have faced _
of proving we have that lowers the annual cost
all of us and that's what I I second the motion.
It's not load more weight on the axle than we have to
already.
Chairman Hanson: I'd like to delay the motion and second _ both of you as
you have two actions to consider before you instead of that
motion.
Ron Hoesterey: I would move that we find that the majority of 36,000
people that have not protested these hearings and the proper
finding to that.
Chairman Hanson: All those in favor say aye
-45-
_ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
July 18, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
�.d Santa Ana City Hall - Council Chambers
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California
Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of July 10, 1985, the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California met in an
adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Santa Ana City Hall
Council Chambers.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present.
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Robert Hanson, Chairman, Dan Griset, Ronald
S- B. Hoesterey
DIRECTORS ABSENT: Roger Stanton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita
J. Brown, Secretary, Blake Anderson,
William H. Butler, Gary Streed, Corinne
Clawson, Soraya Pitrelli
OTHERS: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Don
Griffin, George Estrada, Edward Gunn, Miles
Leach, Greg R. Ohannesian, Merrell Rent,
♦..� Ralph Perez
DISTRICT 1
Public hearing on proposal to
collect adopted annual sewer
service charges on the property tax
• bills and Sewer Service Charge
-a Report beginning 1985-86
Open Public Hearing The Chairman declared the hearing
open at 8:00 p.m.
The Chairman then announced that the sole purpose of the public hearing was
to consider and select the best method by which the District's previously
adopted annual sewer service charge shall be collected.
Staff report on proposed use of the The General Manager stated that the
County of Orange property tax bill County Sanitation District is
for collection of the annual sewer responsible for transporting,
service charge treating and disposing of sewage in
a safe manner in accordance with
strict federal and state laws to protect the public health and safety. He
noted that some of the citizens attending the hearing had not had an
opportunity to acquaint themselves with the role that the District plays in
-1-
7/18/85
handling the sewage. He then introduced Mr. Blake Anderson, the District's
Director of Operations, who gave a thirty minute slide presentation on the
Districts' activities and explained the District's relationship to the
city's local sewer system.
V
The General Manager then reported that the Orange County Sanitation
Districts cost of providing sewerage service to the community has been
escalating rapidly because of the increasingly stringent federal and state
laws and regulations requiring advanced treatment of wastewater to remove
toxic materials and other pollutants from the sewage to assure protection of
the public health and safety and the environment. To comply with the new,
stricter requirements, the Joint Sanitation Districts have recently
constructed new sophisticated treatment facilities at a cost of more than
$124,000,000.
In fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 property tax revenues were insufficient '
to meet the District's operating costs, and funds had to be transferred from
the District's capital reserves. To address this crisis, after considerable
study of the District's long range funding requirements, the Board adopted a
financial program to avoid projected revenue shortfalls and provide the
necessary income required to finance the District's rising operating
expenses, as well as major capital expenditures for construction of
master-planned treatment facilities. This program includes a one-time
connection fee of $500 per dwelling unit for residential property and $100
per 1,000 square feet for commercial, industrial and governmental property.
The connection fee is used to pay for expansion of facilities to serve new
development.
As the second part of the long-range financial program, to pay for costs of
operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the sewerage system, the Board
adopted an annual sewer service fee. The fees are based on water meter size
which reflects the use of the system, as follows:
Water Meter Size Annual User Fee
5/8" - 3/4" (Residences) $ 26.40
1" - IV 52.50
2" 105.00
3" 210.00
4" 420.00 °
6" 840.00
The large commercial or industrial dischargers are also subject to a
surcharge under a separate industrial waste ordinance that has been in
effect since 1976. The General Manager reiterated that the purpose of the
hearing is to receive public commentary on the District's proposal to
collect the annual service charge, based on water meter size, on the
property tax bill. He then introduced William Butler, the District's
Director of Finance, and asked him to review the alternative methods
available for collecting the annual service charge.
The Director of Finance then reviewed the following three billing and
collection alternatives identified and evaluated by the staff:
-2-
7/18/85
- Direct Billing and Collection by District
This approach would require the Sanitation District to send a direct
bill on a monthly or bimonthly basis to every property owner of the
`..� 36,288 pieces of property within the District. The one-time setup cost
for this method is estimated at $22,000 plus an annual cost of $188,000
making the total cost for the first year $210,000. The projected
five-year cost for the direct billing alternative would be $962,000.
- Placement of User Fee on City of Santa Ana and Mesa Consolidated
Water District Utility Bills for Collection and Remittance to District
under this method the sewer service charge would be included as a
separate line item on the utility bills from the City of Santa Ana and
the Mesa Consolidated Water District who serve the properties within
District No. 1. The City's bills now include five other charges
including water and refuse and the City's local sewer service charge.
The setup cost for this alternative would be $20,000 plus an annual cost
of $94,000, for a total cost for the first year of $114,000. The
estimated five-year cost of performing this billing service is $490,000.
- Placement of User Fee on County of Orange Property Tax Bill for
Collection and Remittance to District
Under this alternative the sewer service charge would be included as a
separate line item on the property tax bills for all properties within
District No. 1. There are some major computer software modifications
that must be made to the County tax roll system to implement this
alternative. Therefore, the setup cost of $75,000 is higher. However,
_ the annual cost of billing under this.method is only $10,000. The total
first-year cost would be $85,000 and the five-year cost is estimated to
be $125,000.
Staff recommended this alternative as it is clearly the most
cast-effective billing and collection method available, and results in
lower costs to each property owner. District 5, 6 and 13 have already
adopted this method for billing their user fees, and it has proven quite
effective in keeping the administrative costs for billing and collecting
fees under control in these three Districts.
The Director of Finance reported that the rising costs to operate the
District were due to higher mandated levels of treatment and increased energy
costs. The long-range financial program was adopted by the District because
the District's revenues and reserves were decreasing and soon the District
would not have been able to meet its operational requirements and provide the
services necessary to protect the public health and the environment.
The General Manager then advised that official notice of the hearing was
mailed on July 5, 1985, to 36,288 property owners of record on the last
equalized assessment roll of the County of Orange, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5473.1 of the California Health and Safety Code.
As prescribed by law, a legal notice of the hearing was published in the
Orange County Register on July 1, 1985 and again on July 8, 1985. The
`mod hearing notice included the District's telephone number for citizens to call
with questions or for more information. During a two-week period, the staff
received approximately 125 calls. The questions raised dealt primarily with:
-3-
i/ln/ne
Proposition 13 and the issue of tax vs. fee
- The relationship of the local street sewer system provided by
the City of Santa Ana to the regional system of Sanitation
District No. 1
- Other possible methods of billing and collection such as the
City water bill. Many inquirers thought that the charge
on the City water bill paid for all sewer services.
Several property owners also indicated that their properties were not
connected or they were unsure whether their properties were connected to
the local sewer system, or felt that their fee should be modified, or
advised of a change in ownership.
The General Manager observed that although many of the issues posed were
not really relevant to the specific purpose of the hearing, he
recognized that the citizens had a genuine interest in the activities of `
the Sanitation Districts and that he would, therefore, like to take a
few minutes and summarize responses to those questions. He then
addressed each of the issues raised. He explained the role of the
District as an operating utility providing an essential service
necessary for the protection of the public health and safety, and
indicated that the District was established solely to provide wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal services to the community.
Mr. Sylvester further explained that while the District has always had
the statutory authority to levy a sewer service fee, it had historically
financed its operations, maintenance and rehabilitation activities from
the property tax. The reduction in tax revenues resulting from the
passage of Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation, combined
with the higher energy costs, the effects of high inflation over the
past several years, and more stringent treatment requirements mandated
by federal and state regulatory agencies, have resulted in operating
deficits for the District.
The adopted sewer service charge is based upon use, whereas property
taxes are based on the value of the property and have no direct .
relationship to use. Mr. Sylvester reiterated that the reason for the
proposal to collect this fee on the tax bill is because it is the most
cost-effective method.
The General Manager highlighted the appeal process available to allow
for an adjustment of fee in the event of a demonstrated inequity.
Appeals relative to inaccurate billings or properties that are not
connected to local sewers will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Receive and file written comments The General Manager reported that
two written communications had been
received regarding the sewer service fee and proposed method of collection
and summarized the comments, whereupon,
It was then moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the written communications received from the following property owners
be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed:
- Jeanette McCoy, 2311 N. Resperian Street
- Virgil J. Wynn, 821 N. Louise Street
-4-
7/18/85
Oral public comment The Chair then recognized the
following persons who addressed the
Board regarding the proposed method for billing and collection of the annual
sewer service charge:
George Estrada
Edward Gunn
Miles Leach
Greg K. Ohannesian
Merrell Rent
Ralph Perez
Each addressed the Board and expressed opposition to the fee rather than
addressing the issue of the proposed method of collection of the charge,
expressing their opinion that it is a tax rather than a fee, and questioning
' its relationship to ad valorem taxes that the District receives.
Staff clarified that since the passage of Proposition 13, the Districts only
receive 38 of the 18 property tax allocation allowed. This is used to help
finance the District's operating and maintenance costs. However, the revenue
received from the District's portion of the property taxes has not been
sufficient to meet the District's needs and, therefore, it was necessary to
adopt the additional sewer service charge based on the water meter size. The
sewer use fee is separate and distinct from the property tax that the
District receives and is over and above that amount.
Mr. Ohannesian asked that his opposition to the method of notification
relative to adoption of the annual sewer service charge be made a matter of
record. The General Counsel then explained the State statutes that govern
�.d the procedures that the District must follow relative to adoption of
ordinances and fees and the type of notification that must be given.
Board response to oral comments Members of the Board of Directors
responded to the issues raised by
the public. It was explained that the Board's decision to adopt the
long-range financial plan and sewer service fee was a result of the federal
and state regulations mandating higher standards for effluent discharged and
increased operating costs over which the District has no control. After
considerable study and deliberation, the Board adopted the fee schedule set
forth, which they believe to be fair and equitable to all users. The
Directors added that it is also the Board's responsibility to determine the
moat cost-effective method of collecting these fees. The long-range
financial program was adopted only after due consideration of alternatives
and the Board's responsibility to maintain the financial integrity of the
District, with full recognition of state legislation concerning taxes and
fees. It was the consensus that the alternative of collecting the annual
service fee on the property tax bill is in the best interests of the District
and the property owners.
Close hearing The Chairman declared the hearing
closed at 9:14 p.m.
-5-
7/18/85
Adopting a finding that the Moved, seconded and duly carried:
majority of property owners have
not protested relative to That the Board of Directors does hereby
collecting annual sewer service find that a majority of the owners of
charges on the property tax bills the property, which is the subject of
the Sewer Service Charge Report for v
Fiscal Year 1985-86, have not protested the proposed collection of annual sewer
service charges on the property tax bills.
Receive, file and adopt Sewer Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Service Charge Report for Fiscal
Year 1985-86 That the County Sanitation District
No. 1 Sewer Service Charge Report for
Fiscal Year 1985-86 be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and adopted.
Directing the County Auditor- Moved, seconded and duly carried: ,
Controller to include sewer service
charges on property tax bills That the Board of Directors hereby
beginning in 1985-86 adopts Resolution No. 85-129-1,
directing the County Auditor-Controller
to include sewer service charges on property tax bills beginning in fiscal year
1985-86 for collection, pursuant to Ordinance No. 106 of County Sanitation
District No. 1 of Orange County, as amended. A certified copy of this resolution
is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1
be adjourned to 7:00 p,m„ July 24, 1985, The Chairman then declared the meeting
so adjourned at 9:20 p.m., July 18, 1985.
Secretary, Boar f Directors
County Sanitation District No. 1 of
Orange County, California
-6-