Loading...
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-