HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-20I
~--
Ji-ixr
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714) 962-2411
August 12, 1987
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO. 11
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1987 -5:00 P.M.
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of August 12, 1987, the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 will meet at the above hour and
date to consider the District's long-range financial program.
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
of Orange County, California
Roll cal 1
DISTRICT No. 11
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1987 -5:00 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Te lephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Board on specific
agenda items or matters of genera l interest should do so at this time.
As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific
item is taken for discussion and remar ks may be limited to five minutes.
Verbal status report on the review of proposed territory/facilities
capacity exchanges between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 11
Verbal status report on the request for annexat~on of the Bolsa Chica area
Staff report on long-range financial projections
(a) Operations and maintenance requirements
(b) Capita l requirements
(c) Discussion re alternative means of funding District's long -range
financial needs
(d) Consideration of action(s) directing staff to proceed with planning
and implementation of selected financing alternative(s)
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DISTRICT No. 11
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 1987 -5:00 P.M.
( 1) Roll call '):1 z.-
Post Offi ce Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones :
Area Code 71 4
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
(2) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Board on specific
agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time.
As determ i ned by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific
item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes.
(1li) Verbal status report on the review of proposed territory/facilities
capacity exchanges between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 11
~Verbal status report on the request for annexation of the Balsa Chica area
U.i2) Staff report on long-range financial projections
(a)
(b)
@
@
Operations and maintenance requirements
Capital requirements
Discussion re alternative means of funding District's long-range
financial needs
Consideration of action (s) directing staff to proceed with planning
and implementation of selected financing alternative(s)
(6) Other business and communications, if any
(7) Consideration of motion to adjourn 5:5°
II
MANAGER 'S A G ENDA REP O RT
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DIST RICT NO. ---=1=-=--1 _
MANAGER'S REPORT TO DIST RICT NO. 11 DIRECTORS
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 20, 1987
Post Office Bo x 8 127
l 0844 Ellis Avenu e
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
T elepl-ones:
Area Code 71 4
540-2910
962-2411
Item No. 3: Review of Proposed Territory/Faci1ities Capacity Exchanges
Between County Sani t ation Districts Nos. 3 and 11
At the Apri1 15th adjourned meeting, staff reported that it was underta king a
review of the engineering and economic aspects of a territory and faci1ities
capacity exchange re1ative to two 1and area s within County Sanitation Districts
No. 3 and 11 for which sewer service in one District is now provided by the
other District. The first area, genera11y bounded by Garfie1d Avenue on the
south, Beach Bou1evard on the east and the Huntington Beach Centra1 Par k on the
west and north, is within County Sanitation District No. 3 (CSD #3) but is served
by County Sanitation District No. 11 (CSD #ll) faci1ities. The second area,
bounded by the Orange County Flood Contro1 District Ta1bert Channe1 on the south
and west, the Santa Ana River on the east and Hami1ton Avenue on the north, is
within CSD #ll but served by CSD #3 (see enc1osed map).
Each month, sewage f1ow reports from the two Districts are adjusted to account
for the inter-district exchange. This adjustment assures that operating and
maintenance charges are correct1y al1ocated. The larger prob1em, however, is
providing an equitab1e cost sharing for construction of co11ection system
faci1ities. The first area, now wi t hin CSD #3, is 1arge1y served by the CSD #ll
Slater Pump Station, which is no w operating at capacity, and by the
New1and-Delaware Trun k Sewer System, which is rapidly approaching capacity. The
second area is served by CSD #3 faci1ities which have avai1able capacity.
The Master Plan of Sewers for CSD #ll includes the extension of the Coast Trunk
Sewer, from the existing terminus at Golden West Street and Orange Avenue, to
allow abandonment of the Slater Pump St ation. Accordingly, the study will also
consider an area within CSD #ll easterly of Gothard Street, served by the Slater
Avenue Trunk Extension , Slater Avenue Gravity Sewer and Nicho1s Street Gravi t y
Se wer, and possible capacity exchange in portions of the Knott Interceptor Se wer
and Interplant Trun k.
The objectives of thi s study are to determine the long range capital and
operating costs associated with the transfer of each area to the Sanitation
District which provides se wer service. The general goal would be to have
political boundaries of the Dis t r i ct simil ar t o drainage area boundaries.
Staff will present a verbal status report on this study at the meeting.
Page Two
August 20, 1987
Item No. 4: Verbal Status Report on Request for Annexation of the Balsa Chica
Area
Staff and the General Counsel expect to meet with Signal Landmark, proponents of
the proposed Balsa Chica annexation, prior to the adjourned Board meeting, and
will update the Directors on the status of the annexation at the meeting .
Item No. 5: Staff Report on District's Long -R ange Financial Require ments and
Alternative Financing Plans
For many years the Districts, as part of the annual budgetary process, have
forecast revenues and expenditures on a five-year basis and last year commenced
forecasting on a ten-year horizon. The purpose of this long-range financial
planning is to assure adequate funding to carry out the Districts' wastewater
management program for the benefit of the communities and the two million
citizens which the Districts serve in metropolitan Orange County.
A major benef it of the long-range cash flow projections is that they enable us
to determine well in advance when revenue shortfalls will begin to occur so that
the Board of Directors will have adequate time to consider alternative funding
sources and take the necessary corrective action to ensure each District's
financial integrity.
For some time, our projections have indicated that funding shortfalls in
District No. 11 would begin to occur as soon as 1989 and that the District would
have to consider additional revenue sources to meet the District's long-term
funding requirements for sewerage facilities improve ments and expansion, and
ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Property taxes have historically been
the major source of local financing of the District's activities. However, the
costs of providing service continue to rise beyond the ability of the property
tax apportionments to keep pace with the stringent requirements of the federal
and state regulatory agencies for advanced treatment and the need to provide
additional capacity to meet the increasing demands on the sewerage system .
A report on financing alternatives to meet the District's long-range funding is
being prepared by staff and will be provided to the Board members under separate
cover.
COUNTY SANITATION
IN
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
h-.1~~":_~
LEGEND
EX ISTING COUNT Y SANITATION DI STRICT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED REVISION TO CSD BOUNDARY
COUNTY SA NIT ATION DISTRICT 11 TO DI STRICT 3
CO UNTY SANITATION DISTRIC T 3 TO DI STR IC T 11
c:=:::::=i
c:;:::;;;::::::
~I l ___...._~1----1 I·
.f!-.'. ·l-""'"-''---1-----t----+-
-I -
NOI1~X3NN~ ~JIHJ ~SlOH G3SOdO~d :3~
NOil~W~OjNI sno3N~ll3JSIW
' • I
I ' w
Excerpted fran Minutes of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. 11
April 15, 1987
~Directing staff to study request
for annexation of Bolsa Chica
area further (Annexation No. 19 -
Signal Bolsa Annexation> and
Mr. Dawes reported on the request for
annexation of 1,520 acres of territory
in the Bolsa Chica area received fran
Signal Bolsa Corporation, the principal.
landowner. '!be Balsa Chica area is
presently outside the boundary of
report back at a future meeting
District No. 11 but is included within its sphere of influence and is totally
surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. The District No. 11 Master Plan and
the Coast Trunk Sewer system were designed to provide sewerage service to the
Balsa Chica area, based on the assumption that it would eventually annex to the
District.
Several issues were addressed in connection with the annexation request,
including the steps required to canply with the califomia Environmental ()Jality
Act relative to preparation of an Enviromrental Impact Report1 funding--both
capital financing and operations and maintenance financing1 determination of
necessary ease.rents in order to construct the sewerage facilities needed to serve
this territory1 consent to the annexation by the other property owners1 advance
funding by developer and construction scheduling 1 and the execution of an
agreement with the major landCMler setting forth the terms and conditions of the
annexation. With regard to who will provide the local sewer system it was
pointed out that the local sewering agency for territory now within the
boundaries of District No. 11 is the City of Huntington Beach, but that a
determination was yet to be nade because the landCMlers had sponsored a bill in
the State Legislature providing for the f onnation of the Balsa-Bay Harbor and
Ccnservation District which, aioong other things, would be empowered to provide
sewage collection and treatment services.
The Directors entered into a lengthy discussion relative to the issues involved
in connection with the proposed annexation. It was pointed out that resolution
of the issues previously discussed and the terms and conditions of an annexation
agree.rent with Signal Balsa Corporation had not yet been worked out. '!he Chair
recognized Mr. Carl Neuhausen, representing Signal Iandnark, who stated that he
would like to review his canpany's proposed annexation agreenent. The General
Counsel reported that Signal landmark had presented a draft agreenent but that it
was unacceptable in its present fonn. It was the consensus of the Board members
that discussion of the proposed agreenent should be held in abeyance until the
District's General Counsel and staff had an opportunity to review the terms and
conditions with Signal Iandnark and present an acceptable agree:rent to the Board
members for review and consideration.
The Chairman then observed that at the present time, based on the status of the
request received by the District, the Board of Directors have essentially the
following options:
-Approve the.annexation request and adopt a resolution after public hearing
initiating the annexation procedures and authorizing the filing of an
application, in the name of the District, to IAFC for its conduct of
hearings.
-To deny the annexation request. This would be done based on findings by the
Board that it is not in the best interests of the District at this time.
-Take no fonnal action, but refer the matter to the General Counsel and staff
for further study and report back to the Board at a later date.
It was then iooved, seconded and duly carried:
That the request for annexation of 1,520 acres of territory in the Balsa Chica
area (proposed Annexation No. 19 -Signal Balsa Annexation to County Sanitation
District No. 11)" be referred back to the General Counsel and staff ·for further
study and discussions with representatives of the City of Huntington Beach,
Signal Balsa Corporation and other property owners to address the issues that
need to be resolved and to attempt to work out terms and conditions of an
annexation agreement and report back to the Board.
The Chairman requested the General Counsel and staff to prepare a time schedule
for the annexation proceedings for consideration by the Board at a future
meeting.
May 13, 1°' PRELIMINARY SCHEOOLE
PROFOSED BOISA CHICA ANNEXATION TO DIS'IRICT 00. 11
At the April 15 Mjourned Maetir¥J, the Directors of District NJ. 11 requested a schedule for providing information on
several items relative to the Bolsa Olica annexation, incltrling the disposal of wastewater fran oil fields within Bolsa
Olica, information relative to the cost of service for the annexation, and step:; required to canply with the California
Envirormental ().lality Act relative to the annexation.
Action
1. Resolution of c~
2 . Capital Financ ir¥J for
Coast Trunk Se~r
3. Q;>eration and Maintenance
Costs r:evelopnent
4. r:etermination and
Acquisition of Easements
for Coast Trunk Se~r
5. lDcal Se~r Service
6. Consent o f Property o..mers
7. Execution of Pqreeme nt
8. Oil Fie ld W:istewater
Prod ucti on Industrial W:iste
Permit
1987 1988
Jun Jul Aug Sep Q::t N:>v I:ec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul .Aua Sep Q::t
I I I I ---·--------------
1 I I I ------------------·--·------
(Time is unknown }
I I I
(Time unknown)
I
Attac hed i s backg round information o n the scheduling.
' '
May 13, 1987
PROfOSED BOISA CHICA .ANNEXATION
TO DISTRICT NO. 11
Baqkground Infonnation
1. Resolution of CEQA for the Bolsa Olica Annexation
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
P.O. SOX 8127
FOUNTAIN VALLE Y. CALIFORNIA 92728-81 27
[7141962-241,
'lllere are t'l./wO issues for which CE~ canpliance must be finalized. 'Ihe first
environmental docunent 'l./wOuld pertain to the annexation of the Bolsa Olica area
to CSD #11. Staff believes that documentation relative to this action should be
included as part of the CE~ canpliance for the developnent of the area. Staff
anticipates that about four months will be needed to canplete the CEQ,Z\
canpliance before the annexation. 'Ibis will be the responsibility of the
developer.
'Ihe second is for the construction of the extension of the Coast Trunk Se-wer.
'Ihe District, in 1983, canpleted a master plan and in February 1984 approved an
Ehvirormental Impact Peport for collection facilities to serve District tb. 11.
H::>~ver, the aligrment of the Coast Trunk Se-wer was general in nature, and it is
anticipated that prior to a construction project for the extension, a focused
EIR on the specific alignnent will be required. 'Ibis will be the Districts
responsibility.
2. Capital Financing -Coast Trunk Extension
Staff reported that the extension of the Coast Trunk Se~r fran its existing
tenninus at <?olden West Street and Orange Avenue to F.dwards Street at Slater
Avenue with a leg in Slater Avenue to Slater Pllrnp Station, 'l./wOuld cost
approximately $13,250,000. Pevenue sources 'l./wOuld include existing funds,
expected annexation and connection fees fran the developer of Bolsa Cllica,
expected fees fran other major developnents, and expected connection fees fran
within existing District tb. 11 boundaries. 'Ihe developer of Bolsa Olica has
prop:>sed a annexation agreanent which 'l./wOuld provide for advance payment of con-
nection fees. Staff will need to canplete a financial plan for the construction
of Bolsa Olica Trunk Se~r and repayment of the advanced connection fees, and it
is estimated that about six months will be required for developnent of the plan
and meeti~s with land owners.
3. cperation and Maintenance Costs Associated with Annexation of Bolsa Chica
'Ihe Directors have inquired about revenue and costs associated with the Bolsa
01.ica Annexation. 'Ihe developnent, including sane 5700 residential un i ts plus
ccmnercial uses, would generate bet~en t'l./wO and three mill ion gallons of sewage
per day . <n-going O:Peration and maintenance costs for the collection, treatment
and disi;x:>sal of the wastewater could cane fran several sources. '!he first 'l./wOuld
be by negotiation of an a;;Jreement which 'l./wOuld provide CSD tb. 11 its historic
share of the basic tax levy, around three percent. Staff estimates that in 1987
1
dollars the assessed valuation \<.Ould be at least $400,000 per house, and with
camnercial developnents, an ultimate total assessed valuation of $2.4 billion
may be anticipated. Three percent of the one percent basic tax levy \<.Ould yield
~ut $700,000 per year for the service. A second. source could be a user fee to
.._provide the necessary funds for se'M9rage service.
Staff estimates that detailed revenue information could be developed in about
three months. 'Ihe time is necessary to get accurate information fran the
developer and Oran;;ie County Assessor and others in order to calculate better
estimates of ex~cted revenue. In addition, a period of up to six months should
be allocated for negotiations with agencies which now share in the basic tax
levy. Each agency will have to be contacted and a separate agreenent negotiated
for sharing in tax revenue •
4. I:Etermination/Acquisition of Easements
Construction of the Coast Trunk Se'M9r extension throu;Jh the Huntington Beach
~sa (Seacliff developnent area) and the bluff area adjacent to 13olsa Olica will
require dedication of necessary easements for the pennanent facilities (the
se'M9r and pump station) and construction easements. 'Ihe easements will follow
an aligrment which will be determined pr:imarily by input fran the land owner,
the oil producer, city and county requests, and avoidance of serious impacts in
\rtetlands areas. Staff estimates that the \<.Ork can begin when the decision is
made to proceed with the design of the Coast Trunk Se'M9r, about six months fran
row, and \<.Ould take about six months to canplete.
'Ihe easanent \<.Ork can be largely independent of annexation proceedings.
5. IDcal Se'M9r Service
Die Directors requested that the staff review options to provide local se'M9r
service. CSD U 1 prov ides trunk se'M9r, treatment and disposal services. In
District NJ. 11 the local se'M9r service (i.e. the se'M9rs within the streets to
which houses are connected) is provided by the City of Huntington Beach. 'Ihe
developer is proposirxJ formation of a new special district which, amorxJ other
things, proposes to provide local and regional sewage services. Prior to an
offer of trunk se\rter, treatment and disposal services, a local se'M9ring agency
should be identified. 'Ihe length of time for this to be canpleted is unknown if
the special district is formed; annexation to the City \<.Ould probably resolve
this issue in a few months.
6. Consent of Property Q.mers
Signal 13olsa Corporation has sul::mitted a petition for the annexation of 13olsa
0-lica,. lb'M9ver, there are other property owners involved, including parcels in
private ownership, local g011errment, regional goverrment and state government.
Final annexation \<.Ould require that these agencies join in the annexation and
pay necessary fees on their parcel. 'Ihe length of time to canplete this consent
process is approximately four months.
2
' .
7. Execution of P.greanent
'!he Signal Balsa Corporation has prepared a draft agreanent which has been
t"evie~ by staff and General Counsel. Based on the above discussions, Counsel
.oelieves that the cgreanent needs to be modified substantially and a new
cgreanent which deals with the problems discussed herein noted. It is estimated
by staff that an cgreement with the developer could be concltx:led in about six to
nine months, assuning all of the issues discussed above can be resolved.
8. Oil Field wastewater Production
'!he Balsa Chica area for many years has been oil production reg ion. Most of the
\t.ells produce large quantities of water with the oil. The water is disposed of
either by reinjecting to the oil zones to maintain pressures or offshore
disposal via a pipeline owned by the oil producer. The mineral rights and
production facilities have recently been purchased by Shell Oil Corporation .
They incltx:le production facilities which serve offshore state leases (included
within CSD #11) and \t.ells located in the Balsa Chica area. Most of the oil
production area within Balsa Chica is incltx:led within .the area proposed for
deferral of annexation fees, and as such would not be eligible for se\t.er service
unless an industrial waste permit was executed which would provide payment of
full costs of that service. W'lile the same permit would be required if the area
\t.ere annexed , the fees would be less •
The Industrial waste permit w::iuld address the issue of extra capacity in both
trunk se\t.er facilities and treatment plant facilities in the event the area did
oot annex with full payment of fees. Staff would estimate that it w::iuld take
about four months to prepare such a permit. 1b date, there has been no request
for the permit; therefore, this issue does not affect District' s schedule.
&mmary
z.t:>st of the w::irk can be canpleted within four months as shown on the attached
schedule. Several items have larger schedules, however, the annexation could
proceed in parallel with these items.
3
f Tuesday, ~ugmt iS.. l987. . . ; -~ ... ~.
~-~......-~·~----~~~~~--------.;...--~..:.......:.,;,_ ____ 11!1111 . r~Qltef~Ma~t.er~:-gp~ --·.~
: eerges01itO:De1ay. :-: Y ·.J
·~ .. . . • .. :'--. .. ' .: · .. :: __ .:. ;' .. ::<,.~::·:·~·, ... ;: ...... :_:' ·.:i .· -~·· .:'. .. ;. :·\!::: ---=-~; .. J
Bill fot-.BolS8 Chica:_ .... :_-i
• •:•• • • -_:·.· '•:i •: ;:":·"·?=.';,'>•r::i:~~; ;·,::;._,·.:I ·.""·;.·:·::?•:<:::_.::J :
: .BYCLAUDIALUT!ila.OnirigeC~ntyPolitfcalWriter. ·· ·. " ·_.: .. -·>.:.'..§
SACRAMEN~O~Faced · ~itli · · ·. ·~ :.~~·s \~ill -.hi · ~~ .. ·tc; .... ': --~
con~ern over fun4i11g for wetlands· ·· these·· conc.erns~. the-. bill•. was .~ _-. ~
~~on, _Sen. Marian Berg~~· . amendecMo provide.~~ $1,800 as-: : :~
(R-Newport Bea~) on Monday ~ sessmentoneachhomeb1.lilt.-mtlie· ·;. ·:·
-~Ded until next-~ -contra-· · p~. which: would ~ .. abQut ·.: .... i
.. versiB;l le~atlon affec.Ung ~~e. · ... ~.5-. ~n • .Wetlands restc>ration . . -.~
Countys en~nmentally .. ~nm-._~· .JS esUma~.~ cost.µp.· wards .. · of $12 : d tlve Balsa Chica wetlands. · -. ·. .· . : ·, million. · ·-: ·. · · ., " ·. ·'.·.: .-1 :. • • .-• '· ... r ~
''Wef'.lidaJotof99ul-searc:hing," '_.;But .As&eml)b~iii~"syi-0~"_ Sher<'. ;::·~
· Bergeson= said of. her bill, ·which · (D-Palo Alto>l chairman of. the · · .. ~
. wo~d ~tea privately ~n~lled ~ Assembly NaiuraUtesources Com7 ·~: "J
special Clistrict to ~em the early : ._mittee where. the bill .. was tt;>· have ; . ~
stages of· a propOsed marina and been· heard Monday, said. he told , ... ':
residential devel~pment in th.e · ··"Bergeson .that he_ 0 wanted ·ironclad . ·' · 1l
· marshl~ next . ~ Huntington .. ··.assurance& that wetlands restora-.~ Bea~· . · : ··• < .. ·-. ,-:: ·. ,.o;·::-~-~ would g0.:·f0rward-and ·that · .. · :lt
.. "Ra~er ~ ~g exP.edfent.at · :f-cing.woWdbe~ere." :::_.. , · >.:..~:, ... ::
this -~t, we feel 1t s. more impor-: ".,. · :.: EVen • wjthout·;;~er's-. Concerris~ ··. -. .·
tant. for us· to· have a piece ot· . ·· -·~,;·:. : .. ····; ;_:;.-:•· .:/·:;!: ::~:.· .. _.,;.-: • .. :; ·:,~:~~i
legisla~n that is ~~~e and l1ae .. . .· , · '. '.. . . · · : · \~
. the substance. to geUhe job don~·:-.·~:· 1,'..;.; ::nt:· .·fi:: 'I·::.;:·~:· .... .-. --.·~ · ·. ·,.t=· ·<
. Thafsg0ini,~mak~.ev~one~ee~ _.:.-:.·/~::r~·e. ... ~~:~~\~~-~O~:_> _::i ... :.£. :'.~ij
.comfortable, sh~saJ<t . .' . '! . . ... !.JJDwrtantfor us to ... ·. . ~ The-bill, SB-1517,. n«>w 'Will. .. . . . .. . . . ;:... . . .. L'
. beco~e a "two-year.bill.'~_meaning:_. --~ve a pi~ 9( . . -, .: ~-. _j~ ·. / .. ~:--~
'> •
....
..
: :: ....... :. ·.
-~ :··. \.::.
;~. : : : .
. ·.·
•' -.. : .. ·:...· "'' ...
,,, ... . .. • .... . ... ·'· ;· .. :.:··· ..
The 1~downer•~ :si~ .. Laild-.·· .~·credible>'aiit·trulS:the' <;._)~~ -~ · ., ~~:~,·~:".;::(::-._ . 1-1:-~t .. ~:·t;~~ .. ·--~~~.~.·.i-~~ .. ~~.~f.: ... -J.egis.-.· .•. Iatigrit.·ha. tis ........ ·:.·~ ... ~ .. · ....... < ~,
mark_ In~. had ·hoped.~-win ap-. ._ ;:: .·'· .. ~ r .;._ ..... >· '-' · ... .; .• _. : ..... , ,,..,._ · · ·
proval· for . µie .. ~ill· ·m. ~er ~ ·:. ~J;st8rice to get'theJOb-: ~·-_. . :.:":_.··_:."-"::>·
I unprove its chances or ,getting a.: do 0
• .. ••• •. :;: • ,"' .. -. '-, '. '_ • .;. .:.: .. •: i
. $44.8"-JDilllon fed~ loan•to help . · one.. : · -._.'. ·;.:;:.~' .... ·_, ·--:,;::" ;~ :·.•H :::-: . . ==~e!o~~J::i:::. -; .. _:.: >· · ~·~~~~>-:,:~~ . ..'.: ... ;_·.~i .•
the 1.200-acre P&rcel tO the ocean. _.·~ -~.. . · .. · · ._;, · . · :·. ·. · ·· ·'· '-= -~ · · "~. ·::·: ., " ·
· ·Sigrial has long wanted the channel : ·= the 1?fil was destmed. ~or a dff!icult . : . l.. . , . • : .. . .
as a ke.v·element ·m· · the·~ev 1 ·· heanngt>eforethe.committee. This.-· ~ , . . • _ ... _.. . · .. ~ . ·"" . e op-'.was in·~ beea'Use·the Cit ".of~·~ -· ... ---·-·--~· .... ~ ...... ~--... -... '• . .... --=--... ------=~=~:~~t~~=: =~~--H~~::Beach~--w~ch. ~m~~l _: !'." · •:=+.·~-~ ::.··~:-i' :·~·· .···.: • .· .. na.~~~1s-~ ~;-~.~-=~~~--=:.! .. B.P~~ 911.~A:_-B~ Is De~ayed spa on · ·· · ··· .. '-··.~~ .. ...A con-" over not ha:v ·1 ·'' · ............ · · · · · .. >;:_, .. .,-... t·.-· · .. .. • • ••. :,·· .. ·: •.. •.· •• ---~?~: --.~~~ '-"'iiiiii4'&Afi1. ' -:, • • ,, •• •• •• .; • • • • •• • :i ,, ••.
· ~~am,~~IO~J~o~ :·''.::::.''Ing a·.~c~-.. to·ffil.ly e~aiuate ~ .~. ~~,inu~-~~P~1e·1 · ;. ~--.. ···:.:·thatSignalwouldpay."forwetlandS
.. But environmentalists have ob-~:-~ute .~n~ents proposed. . Bergeson:~.said. she wantec1··-more restoration as the company had
jected." that. :a pavigable channel.''.: by S~ ·· ~· -: ._: . .: ' .. ) " :·· ~ . .-. ;;..-:· : th8' ~-~rity· support f~~ the ~mised; she add~ .. But some of
would take the most.vaJuable wet--, · Huntington Bea~,,. which nas· lep1lation;. · · · -. : .. · ·it JS ·based on trust; And I think
. lands;· .which are ~USed ·as feeding been. working with Signal on: a· : . ~~said she·alSo wanted support you've got to have a better system
·and neSting gro. urids. for, migratory... . pre-annexatl. on· and. · dev~lOpm~nt l · . troi» som. . e _of :the state agencies. · · of locking that down with stat.utory
btrdsandotherWildlife .. .-. . . ·· ~ment, had_'1J>POrted the bill, . < in~~lved in· w~~ds--~ration· .~surances, and this. is what the
-:.. Undera1985.8greementwiththe·". b~t recently.city offi~als-~ad ·ex::1 ··J. an~1other ~es surroll;'ldinl'~e···· committee.nee4~l':--:·''. -<; .. -.
. Califomi_a-_ Coastal. Commission,''·. pr~ discomfort over some pro-.· h · -~~~opment of·Bolsa Chica. Agen-~ ...... Sfgiial lawyer· It\JSsell"G~ ·Beh-
Signal may go . fo~ with i~ : ·. pos~ amendments, and ·Bergeson _; .· cles• such ~ the state. ~partment rens said Monday that the company
development in .return fozt-restor:.. .>.was aware of that discomfort: · . -· --1 · · ·of i'ish and ~~e and th~ State . is "disappoin~" . over . the bill's
ing n1 ~ acr.es-, of ·w~~ds ~~ ·~ -~: . Even .bad she .taken -_a chance to · ~:· 'bulthr CoJDllllSSlon. ·have not. op-, delay "because it's going to slow us
tur -~emover~th~stat~ .-_ ... wuvthe se:ve~<-vo~es on Ute 12-: : pos~ the bilJ but have express~ . ._down, and we have a lot of negotl-
.. .. ;......../ugh · Slgn~l: has . said it · ._ · mem~ ~omnuttee needed .to send -1 ., .som~ concerns .~bou~ c~ Prc:w1.. ating to do with state and federal
: would finance the restoration,. en-. . the bill .td the Assembly floor-~d · ~ siorlS. ! ··•. , • . · : ·:. ~ • .· . agenclt!s." . , ..
virQnmentalfsts . have . 0een con-~ there were indications that s~e. was' :: · · "'1e don t like neutrality; we like . : . . . . .. . . . ·
: cernecl ·that .ru11 ·:funding for. µie short ~ne ·vote~ and perhaps ~o7 ~\ .· suppo~ ~ Berg~n said. , · · . •. But. he, adde¢ "I.~ th:t on
: costly_ project was. no.t provi~ed for. · meale iee BO~A ~CA, Page·3 :_ . w.inie she 881~ ~e ~~~~dent ~ce~ its a g~ ~~~.e~ ••.
;.:: ... ::.:~L::.~z~"'~~~-:·iJt'-,:;..:.1.:~··.~:.-:~~s'·J.:~~,,~ .. i.i.·:r.~:,~~~:~:~~~-J:.;<> ~-:~-: · =·"· .... ·:.-.'.~:.:::? . .--..... -.. ~_.,..-:_r-. ; ·
~\~~~~~·f~.~~:-2-&~:tsf!~~~}:t~~tt~-:.5%~~~?~·;.r.·:=i~~:r!-tY.</f::~~~#~ .. ~!%~~~1.:~=t'..;.~~~;~~~~~~~;rJ~-.~f§:.~~~ji.7~:~7f;~~~~~\~~.:
i I f
• 1
.I
~ ,
. J
. I
. !
~-~
_T_u"_d_a_y_, _A_u_g_u_s_t _1_s_, ·_1_ss_1 __ T_he_o~.ran_· ..;;g;..e_co_u_n....;ty;.;..· _R_eg,;;.i_st_e_r _ __;A~~;
·---..... :·· . . ·-· ·--!_. .· ..... . · .. , ... :·.:·· •• ·:.· .
_ .. ..,, .~:?~·· . \· ... ~: ;: :~ . ~ .. <·:·· . ti ~ .. , . ::·L~ · ....... ' .. : . •:·:·
.. ,····.-.·.· · •.. :.: ... ~ .. : :.~:~:
" .-'.···. . .~ "· ~-". ... .. .. : . . . ., ..
. · .. ~ .. :. ..
D •.,_;, ,. · .......
.. . . : :' -. . . .. .. .. ':
.Mo'R! iinit~.8Skedlll!i · :_·:
... for··; 80188 ··chiC8: mf ·: wet1ancs ·: ·bi:11 >-;:. < -~iw· ·•
/" ~~riWalltS_····~2==~~j~~-,-i
,. +.o stu'dy. 'changes . don~ an. d make everyone rem. coiJ!..: ~:
i . ll . · ' fortable," she added. .. · · .. . ~,. ~ • ·
j com' . p' ~o· m1·s'es· . : . The. bfil attempts to. create a sPe-.... ; :j : I ~ cial district~ headed by Signal;.:... .'
:.i · · -. : .... " · · · · · > .. : · i:bat wOuld finance and control pr&.~.~ · -:! · ByJeff Weir · ·> .· .. ··. · ·_._.-. · ·'-·:._'·;". : Uminary· ctevelopmelit of water;;:~ .
: · ~ The Reg~ ' . , " · · . ·. · .... · " < · .· t'J:Oiit homes a marina with oceap
·I . ' . : .::: : • :. . ·,;: .;. ' :·: : ... "": .·' -.~ .. :._. accesS' and~ $l2 million Wetlands-~·
.·:t ··sACRAMENro~··The·neec1ror .. ··~..-.proj~ ·The distri~·
•• .1 JnOre amendments~ and compr& · land, whic~ is in UnincorP>rat~. ~
j :-·mises-=-forced the delay· Monday county temtory, would be annexed;• .
. :1 of a bf 'hearing.on a ·controversial tO ~untington Beach~ J>U!9f S~-: · ~
· bill mi the. development anc;l resto-nal s agree!ll~t with, the ci~'! .. • : . ! · :1 · ratkm of the Bolsa Chica wetlands The hybrid district -quasi-pn·. •· :
• ·in.Huntington Beach. · · · ._ · · ·. ~te". and· quasi•govel'm!lental ~ "". ~ J The bfil's author, state Sen. Mar-1 would have authority to JSsue peJ!'o• •
:~ :· ian Bergeson, R-Newport Beach, mits 'and float bonds ~ finance the. ··
.·i ·now plans to take up the.measure . estimated 5211 million. cost of
·l in ·January. . · · . · " ~ding roads, water lines, sewera~ :"'
-~~ By that time, she said, the bfil's. and-other improvem~~· · ·: ·: ·.", · J . sponsors and .. opponents should · ~ As such, Bergeson said, the bill.:1fL ·• ~-·1 have ample· opportunity to dig~ . more of. a ~·funding mec~sm;·~ ~ ,..~ . and. respond to amendments that than a rubber stamp (o~ Signal s· : . . j
.. ~ : . surfaced during pre-bearing nego-· project. · . -· · .. . · · ' · ·~ : .. ·•-..:-." · . · ·~
·j tiatio~ Monday. · · . .. . · 'lbe bjlfand the ~j·~~ ~~ -. . ·
,. :1 . · The delay was prompted by Air' er, are opposed by environment81-· ..
·t _semblyman Byron. 'Sher; D-Palo ists who are concemed· with prO-
.i .· Alb>andchairmanoftheAssembly · tectjng·the wetlands. The.1,.'
::I Natural Resources Committee. In; member Amigos de Bolsa Cbfca' •
·J ,'; meetings, With.Be~, She~~-. group also contends ~t the bill is;.. I·.
· 1 :-ommended. l'eefing µp the bUI. so · a special interest ve~de for Sii-' · .. : .i that i~ · providei more · concrete nal's p~fit potential. , ~,.' •
· ~ -· ~tees that the wetlands. are · · Under the bfil,·wmch represe~ts1 ~
· .~1 ·. eventually restored. . by Signal a fragile compromise of.competiJlir :f
• · .. · J.andmark Co. · :·~' ·· .. ., ~: .:· · Public ancl private:biterests, the · .. l . Signal spo~red the bfil as part . ~ Cominission and· Huntiq-~ ~. ·
: :1 ' of· a · ~tegy .. to ·'develop luiury · ·ton Beach would retain ·veto,·~ ~
:-] homes .on. 57~ a~s of the 1,600-. thority over Signal'.s development.'· '
.·:~:1 · acre Bolandsa Chi~ re~n... ' .. · ... ·However •. Signal WO~~ ... ~· :
· 1 . . Sher committee· .. analyst three of the. five positions on tlie
!
: . Paul • .. ·Thayer also questioned district's board of directors, wlfile-,
·.'··. whether. the· development .would .. the other two.would' go .to a" min-l:
generate e119ugh money to pay off tington Beach City Council me~·!
· · ~ . loans while financing the restora-ber and a county supervisor~ . • . ~ _, · -:·1
~ · ~n of ~ acres of wetlands. · :. The. delay give& Signal' mid the . . ·,~ ••res apparent that there are a city three months to wor1t·oilt'·de. ·
~ ~ ·. number of key aspects of the bfil · tails of a· preliminary ailnexatiod--~.·:I . that need to be addreised," Berge-. · and-development. agreement thitt: ·
·J · · son s8id after ri1eeting with Sher.. eStabllshes · legal· responsibilities · .
:1 "We bad the votes to get it out of . for die-project.. By then, the state'" ..
) committee,_.~· ra~(~· being. Department .of, FiSh 8l:ld . Game ....
. 1~:-~~-7:~'.·~ ... ~(... . . · ,expedient,' at this point we feel it's· · should have· completed ·a .study On-...
'·:· .. ·.~:.' •;:·>:'~:?:·Y~: .. ~·\:_1_~r_e_important for ~-to·have ~· ~~!..~~~~~~~;·;~~·7.~;i~~--~·c:~:'~~ . -.-.~ ~~. ,.~~: .'". :\:.:_· .. ''. ·.,>~--~-~.' .. ~--
----·--··. ---· ------.··. ·:.--••• ··--•• • •• •• _.., ••••••• ':.. '·. -··~-~ _ •• --.... :~-•• 0-''•!'' ...... __ ~ ..
\.,_/ 8/17/87
STAFF REPORT ON DISTRICT'S LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PLANS
BACKGROUND
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
10844 EWS AVENUE
P.O. BOX 8127
FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
(7141962-2411
For many years the Districts, as part of the annual budgetary process, have
forecast revenues and expenditures on a five-year basis and last year conunenced
forecasting on a ten-year horizon. The purpose of thi~ long-range financial
planning is to assure adequate funding to carry out the Districts' wastewater
management program for the benefit of the co1TDTiunities and the two million
citizens which the Districts serve in metropolitan Orange County.
A major benefit of the long-range cash flow projections is that they enable us
to determine in advance when revenue shortfalls will begin to occur so that the
Board of Directors will have adequate time to consider alternative funding
sources and take the necessary corrective action to ensure each District's
financial integrity.
For some time, our projections have indicated that funding shortfalls in
District No. 11 would begin to occur as soon as 1989 and that the District would
have to consider additional revenue sources to meet the District's long-term
funding requirements for sewerage facilities improvements and expansion, and
ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Property taxes have historically been
the major source of local financing of the District's activities. However, the
costs of providing service continue to rise beyond the ability of the property
tax apportionments to keep pace with the needed funding brought about by
stringent requirements of the federal and state regulatory agencies for advanced
treatment, and the need to provide additional capacity to meet the increasing
demands on the sewerage system.
The District's ability to finance O&M costs has also been impacted by tax
revenue diversions resulting from the tax increment financing employed by the
City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to generate revenue for the
City's four existing redevelopment projects. Redevelopment projects typically
result in increased density of development within a project area, and higher
flows into a District's collection facilities. Thus, redevelopment activities
increase District operating costs while simultaneously freezing the District's
historical revenue base, forcing the District to establish supplemental user
fees sooner than might otherwise be necessary were a pass-through of tax
revenues to be granted to the District by the redevelopment agency. This, in
effect, results in other properties within the Sanitation District underwriting
a portion of the cost of sewering the properties within the r.edevelopment
project areas.
Page Two
8/17/87
The District has the following major options available to finance its facilities '\..,,.)
improvements and expansion activities and ongoing operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs: .
Funding Requirement
Ongoing collection system and
joint treatment/disposal
facility operations and
maintenance
Capital facilities improvements
and expansion projects
FINANCING OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
Source of Funds
-Allocated share of 1% ad valorem
property tax levy
-Supplemental user fees: non-industrial
dischargers
-User fees: industrial dischargers
-Annexation fees on new territory annexing
to the District
-Connection fees on new development
-Capital reserve funds (existing)
-Debt financing (bonds/certificates of
participation)
-Capital replacement/improvement fees:
non-industrial dischargers
-Capital replacement/improvement fees:
industrial dischargers
Background: During budget deliberations over the past two years and at a recent
adJourned meeting held on April 15, 1987, the staff briefed the Board on the
need to consider supplemental user fees in the near future to avoid a projected
deficit beginning as soon as fiscal year 1988/89 in the District's operating
fund. Schedule A, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, reflects this anticipated
deficit on line 14, Fund Balance or (Deficit). The anticipated deficit would
reach as much as $24.3 million by 1996-97 unless additional revenue is
generated.
Assumetions: Schedule A presents the District's projected long-range financial
position under the following conditions:
-Supplemental user fees are not established
-The Balsa Chica area does not annex to District 11 (see discussion
beginning on page four).
Alternative Revenue Sources/Billing Methods: Schedule B, excerpted from the
Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in April 1979, identifies various
alternative revenue sources available to finance projected shortfalls in a
District's operating fund when ad valorem tax revenues are insufficient to pay
the District's operations, maintenance and replacement (OM & R) costs. The most
cost-effective method (and the method adopted by Districts 1, 5, 6 and 13 which
have already implemented supplemental user fees) is to place a supplemental user
fee as a special assessment on the County of Orange property_tax bill and
collect it from all property owners in the District. District No. 3 is also
proposing to use this method. \.,.)
Page Three
8/17/87
\.,.) FINANCING CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREM&NTS
Background: Last spring the Board engaged financial and legal consultants to
assist the Directors in evaluating the potential benefits and costs associated
with issuance of long-term debt financing to take advantage of then-favorable
tax law provisions and low, tax-exempt municipal bond interest rates prior to an
anticipated change in federal tax law which became effective on September l,
1986.
The primary reasons for considering use of long-term debt securities such as
certificates of participation for capital construction financing at that time
were to:
-Provide a partial source of capital financing to meet Joint Works and
trunk sewer system facilities construction requirements and necessary
capital replacement reserves totaling an additional $32.3 million over
the next ten years.
-Allow participating Districts to continue to invest their existing
capital reserves in the County commingled investment pool managed by the
County Treasurer and benefit from the favorable spread between investment
returns and the potentially lower rate of interest paid for the
securities.
-Take advantage of then-favorable tax laws and low capital market interest
rates that would be financially beneficial to the Districts.
-Help preserve existing capital reserves for master-planned sewerage
facilities construction projects.
District ll 1 s Board considered issuing $10.9 million in COP's but ultimately
chose not to participate in this long-range capital financing program with
Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Assumptions: Schedule A presents the District's projected long-range financial
position under the following conditions:
-Connection fees remain at existing levels
-The Balsa Chica area does not annex to District No. 11 (see discussion
beginning on page four).
Exhibit 1, Schedule of District Collection System Projects, identifies the
anticipated collection system projects required to be constructed if the Balsa
Chica annexation does not occur. Schedule A, Line 25, District Collection
System, reflects the cost of these project requirements over the next ten years.
Connection Fee Capital Financing:
The District's primary ongoing source of capital funds is frqm a one-time
connection fee on new development. These fees are used to finance the planning,
Page Four
8/17/87
design and construction of the expanded facilities necessary to accommodate the
flow generated by the new development. District No. ll's current one-time
connection fees are presented below:
Single/Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
$1,250 per Dwelling
Commercial/Industrial/
Governmental/Other
$250 per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
The existing connection fees in other Districts are outlined in the attached
Schedule c.
Schedule A, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, presents the District's
anticipated financial position over the next ten years assuming no changes in
the District's existing fee structure. Line 17 identifies the expected revenue
to be generated from connection fees over the next ten years to be $6,000,000.
The District will experience a deficit in its capital funds by 1989-90 (see Line
29, Reserves and Carry-over to Next Year) of $3,887,000 unless additional
capital revenues are generated.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION
Additional flows from the 5,700 dwelling units anticipated for construction in
the proposed Bolsa Chica annexation will result in increased O&M and capital
costs for both the District 11 collection system and its share of the joint
treatment and disposal facilities • Based on recent discussions with both the·
City of Huntington Beach and the developer, only limited data is available at
this time on proposed development phasing and associated flows from the
dwellings to be constructed in the area, although initial flows are not expected
from the annexing territory until at least 1991-92.
Schedule A, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, presented earlier in this report,
does not include any O&M or capital cost or revenue projections associated with
the proposed Bolsa Chica annexation. Schedule D, Statement of Projected Cash
Flow, presents the District's long-range financial position in the event the
proposed Balsa Chica annexation is approved. The following assumptions are
incorporated into the projections in Schedule D:
-The Bols~ Chica annexation is approved/completed in fiscal year 1987-88
-A tax exchange providing the District with its historical allocation
{approximately 3% of tax allocation) of the ad valorem tax revenue in the
annexing area to pay for a .portion of the increased O&M costs associated
with serving the areas scheduled for development within the proposed
annexation {the resulting tax revenues are reflected on line 2, Schedule
D, Share of 1% Tax Allocation).
-Annexation fee revenues of $2,926,000 from 657.29 acres within the Balsa
Chica ($4,451 per acre assuming that the District receiyes a tax ·
exchange/share of the future ad valorem tax revenue.from the annexed
territory). Signal Landmark is requesting that the District defer \_.)
annexation of an additional 900 acres in the Balsa Chica area as this
acreage is presently proposed as wetlands and is not expected to be .
developed.
Page Five
8/17/87
\...,/ Schedule D, does not reflect any revisions to the Districts long-range financial
plan {i.e., implementation of supplemental user fees or increases in connection
fees) however, Line 21, entitled Other Income, does reflect additional capital
revenues for the next five years from developers to finance District planning,
design and construction of facilities to service the major developments. The
above capital fees associated with the Bolsa Chica annexation are sununarized as
follows:
Revenue
Source 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 5/10 Yr Totals
Annexation $2,926,000 $ --$ --$ --$ 2,926,000
Fees
Developer
Advances in
Aid of
Construction 700,000 5,400,000 7,150,000 2,000,000 15,2502000
Line 21
Totals $3,626,000 $5,400,000 $7,150,000 $22000,000 $182176,000
Exhibit 2, Schedule of District Collection System Projects, includes the
collection system construction projects which must be completed in order for
District 11 to serve the annexing area.
Even if the District began to receive a portion of the 1% ad valorem tax
allocation from the proposed annexation, the District's operating fund would
experience a 10-year deficit of $24.3 million {Schedule D, Line 14, Fund Balance
or {Deficit)).
Schedule D also projects connection fee revenues based upon the District's
existing connection fees. As Schedule D reflects, although the 10-year
estimates still project a capital financing deficit, the above described
financing anticipated as a result of the Bolsa Chica annexation will reduce the
deficit from $10.7 million (Schedule A, Line 29) to $5.2 million {Schedule D,
Line 29).
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
Proposed User Fee Program
To provide the necessary revenues for District operating costs (including
capital.replacement), staff recommends that a supplemental user fee program be
implemented as follows:
Page Six
8/17 /87
Recommended Supplemental User Fee Program
Class of User
Single-Family
Dwellings/Condominiums
Multi-Family
DWe11ings/Apartments/
Mobile Homes
Conunercial/Industrial/
Other
Annual Charge
Effective
Basis of Charge July, 1988
Annual Charge $26.40
per Dwelling
Unit
Annual Charge $15.85
per Dwelling
Unit
Annual Charge per · $18.90
1,000 Sq. Ft. of
Building
This program is identical to that in effect in Districts 1, 5 and 6. District
No. 3 is proposing to implement the same program in 1989. District 6 initially
adopted the same fee schedule, but has found it necessary to increase the rates
10% each of the past two years. District 13, which receives no ad valorem tax
appropriations, has a charge of $70/year.
Schedule E, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, identifies the cash position of
District No. ll's operating fund if the above reconunended supplemental user fee
program is implemented. Based on a July, 1988 implementation date, the
District's operating fund would remain solvent through 1991-92 with the initial
rates in place, although the contingency reserve would be reduced below an
acceptable level.
The Board will need to evaluate the fees on an annual basis because the cash
flow projections for the 1992/93-1996/97 period indicate further shortfalls.
Thus, once implemented, the user fee amounts should be evaluated annually to
make sure that the program provides adequate revenues to meet the District's
funding needs. Based on current estimates, the user fee may have to be
increased to $45.00/single family residence by 1992-93. It should be noted,
however, that District ll's financial position, in the final analysis, will be
significantly affected by the amount of ad valorem tax revenue apportioned to
the District from the proposed Bolsa Chica Annexation.
Attached Schedule.F, Preliminary Implementation Schedule: District No. 11 Long-
Range Financial Plan, reflects the procedures and schedule necessary to
implement a supplemental user fee program to be collected on the annual property
tax bill beginning in July, 1988.
u
Page Seven
8/17/87
~ Proposed Connection Fee Changes
Staff reconunends that the Board consider increasing its connection fee as
follows:
Single/Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
Commercial/Industrial/
Governmental/Other
Basis of Charge
Charge per
Dwelling Unit
Charge per
$1,000 Sq. Ft.
Existing
$1,250
$ 250
Effective
November
1987
$1,500
$ 300
Schedule E presents the District's anticipated financial position over the next
ten years based on implementation of the above recommended connection fee
increases. These proposed fees would generate an additional $1,160,000 in
connection fees (Line 17, Schedule E, 10-Year Total: $7,160,000) as well as an
additional $105,000 in interest income (Line 20, Interest and Miscellaneous
Income: Schedule E, 10-Year Total = $1,673,000) over the next 10 years. These
additional revenues could then be employed to partially finance the District's
share of the cost of construction of the expanded collection and treatment
facilities (Line 24, Share of Joint Works Treatment Plant, and Line 25, District
Collection System). This will reduce the projected deficit from $5.2 million
(Schedule D, Line 29) to $3.9 million (Schedule E, Line 29).
It is reconunended that connection fees be evaluated annually and fixed in an
amount which assures that new development pays the current capital cost of
providing sewerage services. This practice would further reduce the projected
capital financing deficits. However, the Board may have to reconsider debt
financing for capital projects in the future.
Schedule G, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, presents the District's financial
position if the proposed financial program is approved and implemented but the
proposed Bolsa Chica annexation is not approved and implemented.
The Directors are aware that the projected capital requirements assume that the
Districts' 30l{h) NPDES Discharge Permit will be renewed by EPA and the RWQCB in
1990. If it is not, treatment plant construction requests will increase by $285
million {District No. ll's share -$20 million) for the 1991/1996 period.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTIONS
Staff recommends that the Board consider taking the following actions relative
to the District's long-range financial plan:
1. Direct staff to proceed with planning for implementation of a
supplemental user fee to be collected on the property .tax bill beginning
in 1988-89 in accordance with the enclosed implementation schedule.
Page Eight
8/17/87
' /
2. Draft an ordinance increasing connection fees from $1,250/dwelling unit \...,.)
and $250/1,000 sq. ft. to $1;500/dwelling unit and $300/1,000 sq. ft. ·
for first reading at the September 9th Board meeting, to become effective
in November, 1987.
Many economic factors could affect the District's funding requirements over the
next several years. The staff will continue to evaluate the District's -
financial position each year to determine the impact of changing conditions and
brief the Board to seek direction regarding modifications to the District's
long-range financial plan, as needed.
u
,, ...
LINE
8
9
10
11
12
13
OPERATING FUND
Reserves & Carry-Over Fro• last Year
REVENUE
Share of U Tax Allocation
Fees
Interest & Miscellaneous ln co1e
Other Revenue
TOTAL REYEHUE
TOTAL AVAILAB LE FUNDING
EXPENDITURES
Share of Joint Works H & O
Collection Syste• H l 0 and Other Oper.
Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Reserves l Carry-Over to Hext Year
Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requiretents
14 Fu nd Balance or (Deficit)
CAPITAL FUHD( S)
15 Rese rves & Carry-over Fro• last Year
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
H
25
26
27
28
REVENUE
Construction Gran ts
Fees: Connection
Other
Sale of Capacity Rights
Interest & Hiscellaneous lnco1e
Other lnco1e
TOTAL REVENU E
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHDIHG
EXPENDITURES
Share ot Joint Works Treat;ent Plant
District Collection Systn
Rei1burse1ent Agreetent Pay1ents
Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
29 Reserves l Carry-over to He xt Year
COUNTY SAHITAIJOH DISTRICT HO. 11
STATEmT OF PROJECTED CASH FLON
FISCAL YEARS 1987-88 THROUCH 1996-97
1987-88
2·,348,000
2,091,000
100,000
143,000
2,334.000
4,682,000
2,491,000
503,000
2 '994. 000
1,688 ,000
1,497 ,000
1988-89
1,688,000
2,356,000
105,000
88,000
2,549,000
4,237,000
2,865,000
578,000
3,443,000
794,000
I, 722,000
1989-90
794. 000
2,656,000
110,000
14 ,000
2, 780 '000
3,574,000
3,295,000 ·
665 ,000
3, 960,000
(386,000)
1,980,000
1990-91 1991-92
(386,000) (1,830,000)
2,994,000
116,000
0
3 , 110,000
2.m,000
3,789,000
765,000
4,554,000
(1,830,000)
2,277 ,000
3,375,000
122,000
0
3,497,000
1,667,000
4,357 ,000
880,000
5,237 ,000
(3,570,000)
2,619,000
191,000 (928,000) (2,366,000) (4, 107 ,000) (6, 189,000)
::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::
9,430,000
517,000
600,000
JO, 000
306 '000
586,000
2,039 ,000
11 ,469,000
4.071 ,000
190,000
114,000
4,375,000
7 ,094 '000
7,094,000
113,000
600,000
32,000
57,000
294 ,000
l ,096,000
8, 190,000
6,478.000
515,000
6,993,000
1,19 7,000 (3,887,000) (4,574,000)
678,000
600.000
34,000
927 ,000
0
2,239 ,000
678,000
600,000
36,000
864 '000
0
2.178,000
678,000
600,000
38,000
30,000
0
1,346,000
3,436,000 ( 1.709,000) (3,228,0001
5,648.000
1,675,000
1.m ,000
2,690,000
175,000
2.865,000
1,348,000
75 '000
1,m,000
1,197,000 (3,887,000) (4.574,000) (4,651,000)
:::::::: :::: :::::::::::: : :: ::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
5-Year Total
2,348.000
13,472,000
553,000
245' 000
0
14 ,270,000
16,618,000
16,797,000
3,391,000
0
20,188,000
(3,570,000)
2,619,000
1992-93/
1996-97
(3,570,000)
24,511,000
106,000
0
25,217,000
21,647,000
33,822,000
6,826,000
40' 648 '00 0
(19,001,000)
5,273,000
(6,189,000) (24,274,000) ................. ....................
9' 430, 000
2,664,000
3,000,000
170,000
2, 184,000
880,000
0
8,898,000
18,328 ,000
20,235,000
2' 630. 000
0
114 ,0 00
22.979,000
:::::::::::
(4,651,000)
113,000
3,000,000
220,000
136,000
0
3,469,000
(I , 182 '000)
3,283,000
6. 200' 000
9' 483. 000
(4,651,000) (10,665,000)
::::::::::: --·-···--·-----------·
SCH ED
8/14/87
Page 1
IO·Year Total LIHE
2. 348' 000
37, 983,000
I, 259, 000
245, 000
0
39. 487 '000
41,835,000
50,619,000
10,217 ,000
0
60 ,836, 000
(19,001,000)
5,273,000
6
7 .
8
9
10
II
12
13
(24,274,000) 14
:::::::::::
9,430,000
2, 111,000
6,000,000
390,000
2,320,000
880,000
0
12,367,000
21. 797 ,000
23.518 .00b
8,830,000
0
114,000
32.462,000
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(10,665,000) 29
:::::::::::
~·
SCHEDULE A
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRIC T HO. 11 8/14/87
STATmNT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW
FIS CAL YEARS 1987-88 THROUG H 1996-97
Page 2
1992-93/
LINE 1987 -88 1988 -89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 5-Year Iota! 1996-97 10-Year Total LIHE
--------------··-------............................
SOHO fUHO( S)
---------·-·
30 Reserves & Carry-Over Fro1 Last Year 57 '000 47 ,000 33,000 51 ,000 74 ,000 57 ,000 89,000 57 ,000 30
·---------------------....................... ....................... ·---------------------........................ -·---------
REYEHUE
31 Tax Levy 55 ,000 50 ,000 45' 000 35' 000 25,000 210,000 25, 00 0 235 '000 31
32 Inte r est & Miscellaneous lnco1e 4 ,000 3,000 3,000 4 ,000 6,000 20, 000 4 ,000 24 ,000 32
33 Other Incou 0 33 .......................... -----------......................... ------------------------------------------·------------
34 TOTAL REVENUE 59 ,000 53,000 48 ,000 39 ,000 31,000 230,000 29,000 259 ,000 34
----------------------........................ ----------· .......................... ....................... ---------------·------
35 TOTAL AVAILABLE fUNO!HG 116 '000 100 ,000 81 ,000 90,000 105. 000 287 ,000 118,000 316,000 35 ......................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ........................ ....................... .. ....................... .........................
EXPEHOIT UR ES .........................
36 Bond Principal & Interest 69 ,000 67 ,000 30,000 16,000 16,000 198 ,000 89 ,000 287. 000 36
37 Other Expenditures 37 ........................ ........................ ......................... ... ............................. ......................... ........................... ......................... ...........................
38 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 69,000 67' 000 30,000 16,000 16,000 198,000 89' 000 287. 000 38
........................... .......................... .......................... ............................ -----------.......................... ... ........................... ............................
39 Rese rv es ' Carry-Over to Hext Year 47 ,000 33, 000 51,000 74,000 89 ,000 89,000 29 ,00 0 29,000 39
40 Next Year's Ory Period Funding Requi re1ents 47 ,000 33,000 51,000 H,000 89 ,00 0 89 ,000 29 ,000 . 29,000 40 .......................... ---------·-.............................. ............................. .. .......................... .............................. ............................. ..........................
u Fund 8alanc~ or (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 u ...................... :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: . ........................... ......................... ........................... ::::::::::: ......................... .. ......................... ......................... ...........................
SU"HARY (Adjusted for Inter-Fund Transfers)
42 Reserves l Ca rry-O ve r Fro• Last Year 11,835 ,000 8,829,000 2,024 ,000 (4,222,000) (6,330 ,000) 11,835,000 (8, 132,000) 11,835,000 42
u TOTAL REVENUE 4,432,000 3,698 ,000 5,067,000 5,327 ,000 4,874 ,000 23,398,000 28, 715,000 52, 113,000 43
.............................. ........................ .............................. ........................... ... .............................. ............................... .. ........................... ............................
44 TOTAL AVA IL ABLE FUNDING 16,267 ,000 12,527 ,000 7,091,000 1,105,000 (l,456,000) 35,233,000 20,583,000 63, 948 ,000 44
45 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,438 ,000 10,503,000 11, 313' 000 7,435,000 6,676 ,000 U,365,000 50,220,000 93,585,000 45 '
.............................. ................................ .......................... ............................ -----------......................... .......................... .. ..........................
46 Reserves & Carry-Over to Next Yea r 8,829,000 2,024,000 (4 ,222,000) (6,330,000) (8 ,132,000) (8,132,000) (29 ,6 37,000) (29,637 ,000) 46
47 Hext Year 's Or y Period fundi ng Require1ents 1,544,000 l , 755,000 2,031,000 2,JSl,000 2,708,000 2, 708,000 5,302 ,000 5,302,000 47
.......................... ............................ ............................. ........................... ............................. ......................... ... ........................ -. ..............................
48 FUND BALANCE OR (DEFICIT) 7 ,285,000 269 ,000 (6,253,000) (8,681,000) (10,840,000) (10 ,840 ,000 ) ( 34 '939. 000) (34,939,000) 48
::::::::::: ::::::::::: :: ::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: .................. ···········
Dilling Alternative
1. Separate charge as a
special assessment on
the property tax bil 1.
2. Separate char~e collected.
on water puneyor' s utility
hilling .
SCHED ULE ti
ALTERNATIVE PLANS fOR usr:n CllARGP.S Wlll!N
AV TAXES ARE INSUPFICICNT TO l'AY OM&R COSTS
Probable Calculation ~1ethotl
1. Subdivide user classes into sub-
classes such as single fnmily and
multi-family dwellings, office
bulldings, small commercial estab-
1 ishments, etc., and calculate flat
rates attendant to each based on
average discharges and system loading
from representative samplings.
2. Dase charge on water volume
Other ~fajor Relevant Issues
I. (a) Current Statutory authority exists
: . ' ~
.(b) Requires a public hearing and separate
notice of said hearing to al 1 properly
owners.
(c) Utilizes existing assessor file as Ja1 1
. (d)
·base and tax bill as billing mechanis m.
llmrnver, data base would require sub-
stantial annual update at Oistrlcts'
expense and conversion to a computer
tape input by Districts to assess
charge on tax bll 1.
Inaccuracy of Assessor's data base may
result in high percent of billing
errors and. require a customer service
function.
·~ .. ....
~(e) Unsewered properties could be reflectc J
in rate structure once identified and/
or separate provisions made for rebate .
:(f) Maximum charge for tax collector's
service is established at $5/account or
1\ of cpllections, whichever ls greater.
(g) Loa1 iJelinquency factor.
(h) Cush flow ls not spread even I y.
(i) Woultl sntlsfy notlflcntion requirements
2. (a) Current statutory authodt)' exi .sts .
llowever, it is permissive, not manllat-
ory for the water utility.
(b) Would not require a public hearin~.
(c) WoulJ require contractual arrangements
anti sys(em modifications with approx-
imately 150 water purveyors .
(Conti nn e cl)
llill111 6 Alternative
2. (Cont'd .)
r..
3. llirect billing by CSOOC
TABLE III-I (Cont'd)
Probable Calculation ~tethod
3. Same ns 1. above utilizing
assessor's files ns th~ data
base source.
SCHEDULE B
.Page 2
Other Major Relevant Issues
(d) \fo11ld require a minimum of d ;1 ta h;.ise
maintenance lJy the llistricts as tliis
would be nutornjlticnlly clone liy the
wnter utility. Jloh'cver, separate
arrangements mn)' have to be made 1•i t h
the utility to reflect lo<1<li ng s of
small commercial estahlishmcnts.
(e) Charge more directly as!;o c iat ed Hith
actual use (assuming use is rclateJ
to water consumption).
(f) Unsewerccl properties wottld have to b e
identified and n system exception or
rebate provision made.
(g) lligh delinquency.
(h) Cost of service by utility is unknown
and would have to be negotiated or
' established by code amen<lments.
(i) Cash flow would be more unifoi .
(j) \fould satisfy notification require-
ments .
3. (n) Current statutory authoritr exists.
(b) Nould require installation of expen-
sive computerized billing system ill\J
associated personnel and a<lministra-
tive costs or contracting with an
outsi<le bureau.
(c) Host costly methoJ.
(d) nequires extensive data base mai n-
maintonance.
(e) lnaccuracy of tlata base source may
result in high percent of billi ng
errors .
(Continued)
0111 .. 0 Alternative
J . (Cont'd .)
4 . Impose a Separate
AV Tax Levy
TADLI! 111-1 (Cont'd)
SCHEDULE B
Page 3
Probable Calculation ~tethoJ Other Major Relevant Issues
4. Based on property value
(f) Unsewered properties could be ref lecteJ
in rnte structure once identified and/
or separate :provlsion made for rebate.
(g) Expected delinquency factor would be
highest. · ·
(h) Cnsh flow impact would be based on
determination of billing frequency.
(i) Would satisfy notification requirements
' .
4. fa) Requires 2/3 ·voter approval
(b). Unsewered property issue would .ve to
be resolved
(c) Low delinquency fnctor
(d) Most cost effective method
(e) Cash flow not spread evenly
(f) Would satisfy notification requirements
(g) Len st equitable
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT HO.II EXHIBIT I
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT COLLECTION SYSTEH PROJECTS 8/14/87
(WITHOUT PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION)
PROJECT TOTAL c. l.P . 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990 -91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 ·------... ---.......... -................ ---------------------------------............................ ------·-----------------------·-----·-------
Radio Linked Tele1etry (a) 15,000 15,000
Hasler Plan/EIR Update (a) 40,000 25,000 15,000
Slater.Ave. Pumo Station Rehab. (a) 1,900 ,000 25.000 175,000 1,600,0 00 100,000
Ocean Avenue Trunk Rehab . (a) 314,000 14,000 50,000 250,000
Hiscellaneous Projects (a) 175_, 000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
.......................... ......................... .......................... ... ........................ ----------------------........................... ----------------------
Sub-total ACO Fund 2,444,000 14,000 140,000 465,000 1,625,000 125,000 25.000 25,000 25 ,000
......................... -----------.. ........................ .. ........................ ........................... .......................... ---------·-............................ ............................
Edwards Trunk (3) (b) 3,400,000 3,400,000
KcFadden Relief Trunk (3) (c) 750,000 I 750 ,000
Edinger Interceoto r (3) (c) 750,000 750,000
Heil Relief Sewer (3) (c) 750,000 750,000
Edinger Sewer Parallel (3) (c) 400,000 400,000
Kiscellaneous Projec ts (a) 350,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
-----------......................... .............................. ............................ .. ........................ -----------............................ ............................ .........................
Sub-total FR fund 6,400,000 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 6,100,000
-------------------------................. ---·----... --·----------.......................... ----------------------...........................
GRAHO TOTAL 8,844,000 14.000 190,000 515,000 1,675,000 175,000 75,000 75,000 6,125,000
............................... ...... ... ...... ......... ... ...... ............................... ............................... ............................... .......................... ..................... ..... ... ........ ...... --....... ..................... -... ........................... .... .... --........ --............................. ..... .... ... .. .... .. .... .......................... ----................ ..... ......... ........ .... ......... .......... ..... .. ........................
(a) Fully Funded 1. Hasler-planned facilities presently under construction
(bl Partially Funded 2. Kaster -planned facilities presently under design
(c) Hot Funded 3. Hasler-planned faci l ities scheduled for future design/co nstru cti on
District/Zone
1
2
3 (Effective
10/87}
5: Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
6
7: Zone 1
Zone 2
13: Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
SCHEDULE C
8/6/87
CSDOC EXISTING CONNECTION FEES
Single/Multi-Family Commercial/Industrial/
Dwelling Units Governmental/Other
$1,500 per dwelling $ 300 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 220 per dwelling $ 45 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 500 per dwelling $ 100 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 500 per dwelling $ 260 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,100 per dwelling $ 570 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,500 per dwelling $2,400 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,500 per dwelling $ 300 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 250 per dwelling $ 50 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 250 per dwelling $ 180 per 1,000 sq. ft.
-Variable (fees to be the same as when annexed -
see District No. 2 fees)
$1,250 per dwelling $ 250 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,500 per dwelling $ 300 per 1,000 sq. ft.
\ ,
LINE
B
9
10
11
12
13
OPERA TI NG FUND
Reserves & Car ry-Over f roa Last Year
REVENUE
Sha re of U Tax Allocation
fees
Inte rest & "iscellaneous lnco ae
Ot he r Revenue
TOT AL REVENUE
TO TAL AV AIL ABLE fUHOIHG
EXPEND !TURES
Sha re of Joint Works K & 0
Collection Sy s tea K & 0 and Other Oper .
Ot he r Exp enditu res
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Res erves & Car ry-Over to Next Year
Nex t Year's Ory Period funding Require1en ts
14 fun d Balance or (D ef icit)
CAPIT AL fUHD(S )
15 Rese rves & Carry-o ver fro• Last Year
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REVENUE
Construc t io n Gra nts
f ees: Connection
Othe r
Sa le of Capacity Rights
In t erest & Miscellaneous l ncoae
Other Inco me
TOTAL REVENUE
TOTAL AVAILABLE fUHOIHG
EX PENDITURE S
Share of Join t Works Treatment Plan t
District Collecti on Sys t ea
Re i1bursement Agree1ent Payments
Othe r Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
29 Reser ves & Carr y-over to Ne xt Year
COUNTY SAHITATIDH DISTRICT HO . II
STATEMENT Of PROJECTED CASH FLOW
FISCAL YEARS 1987-BB THROUGH 1996-97
1987-BB
2,348 ,000
2,091 ,000
100,000
14 3. 000
2,534 ,000
4,6B2,000
2,m,000
503, 000
2,994,000
I ,68B ,OOO
1,497,000
198B-89
l,6B8,000
2,356,000
105 ,000
88. 000
2. 549. 000
4,237,000
2,86 5,000
57 B,OOO
3 ,443 ,000
79 4. 000
1,722,000
19BMO
794,000
2,656,000
110,000
14 ,000
2. 780 ' 00 0
3,SH,000
5, 295,000
66 5,000
5, 960,000
(386 ,000)
l,9BO,OOO
1990-91 1991-92
(3B6,000) (1,830,000)
2,994 ,000
116.000
0
3,110,000
2, 724 ,000
3,7B9,000
765. 000
4 '554. 000
(1,830,000)
2,277,000
3,420,000
122,000
0
l,54 2,000
I , 712,000
4,595,000
8B7. 000
5,282,000
(3,570,000)
2,641 ,000
191,000 (928,000) (2,366,000) (4,1 07 ,000) (6 ,211,000)
::::::::::: :::::::::::
9,430,000 10,127 ,000
51 7,000
600,000
30,000
306.000
693 ,000
3,626,000
5, 772,000
113,000
600,000
32. 000
57, 000
523 ,000
5. 400 . 000
6 , 725,000
---·---...... .....................
4,6 34 ,00 0
618,000
600,000
34 ,000
927 . 000
213,000
7,150 ,000
9 ,602 ,000
15,202 ,00 0 16 ,852 ,00 0 14.236 .000
4,071.000
B90' 000
114 .000
6 ,478 ,0 00
5 , 740 ,00 0
5. 64B' 000
7,225.000
5,075 ,000 12,218 ,000 12,873 ,000
I0 , 127 ,000
----·······-..............
4 ,634 ,000
::::::::::::
I , 363, 000
::::::::::::
::::::::::: :::::::::::
1,363,000
67B,OOO
600 ,000
36,000
864. 000
79' 000
2,000,000
4,2 57 ,000
S,620 ,000
2,690 ,0 00
2,075 ,000
4.765 ,000
855 '000
::::::::::::
855, 000
67B ,000
600,000
38,000
30 ,000
60,000
1,406,000
2,261,000
l.548. 000
75 '000
1.423,00 0
838. 000
5-Year Total
2,3 4B,OOO
13,517 ,000
553, 000
245,000
0
14,JIS ,OOO
16,663 ,000
16,B35,000
3,39B,OOO
0
20,233,000
(3,570,000)
2,641,000
1992-93/
1996-97
(3,570,000)
25, 966,000
706,000
0
26,672,000
23,102,000
35,061 ,000
7,079,000
42 , 14 0 . 000
(19,038,000)
S,273,000
(6,211,000) (2 4,311 ,000)
:::::::::::
9,430,000
2,66 4 ,000
3,000,000
170,000
2,IB4,000
1.56B,OOO
18,176,000
27. 762 ,000
37,1 92.000
20,235 .000
16,005,000
0
114 ,000
36 ,354,000
B3B. 000
:::::::::::
:::::::::::
B3B. 000
113,000
3,000,000
220,000
136,000
0
3,469,000
4,307,000
3,283 ,000
6,200,000
9. 483, 000
(S,176 ,000)
:::::::::::
SC HED ULE D
8/ 17 /l
Page
10-Year Total LIN E
2,348,000
39. 483 , 000
1,259,000
245 ,000
0
40, 987,000 ' 6
43,335,000
51,896,000
10,477 ,000
0
62,373,000
(19 ,03B ,OOOI
S,273 ,000
B
9
10
II
12
13
(2 4,311,000) 14 ·--·------------------
9,4 30,000
2,777,000
6,000,000
390,000
2. 320 . 000
I ,S6B,OOO
18, 176 ,000
31,23 1,000
40 ,661 ,000
23 .518,000
22, 20 5,000
0
114 ,000
45,837 ,000
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(S,176,000) 29
:::::::::::
SC HED UL E D
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRI CT HO . 11 8/17/87
STAmE HT Of PR OJECTED CASH HOW Page 2
FISCAL YEARS 19B7-BB THROUGH 1996-97
1992-9 3/
LINE I 9B7-B B I 9BB-B9 l 9BMO 1990 -9 1 1991 -92 5-Ye ar To t al 1996 -97 JO-Year Tot al LINE --------------------------------··--
BOHO FU ND( S)
------------
lO Rese rves l Carry-Ov er f ro1 las t Year 57 ,000 47 ,000 ll,000 Sl,000 74 ,0 00 S7 ,000 B9,000 57 ,000 l O
---------------------------------....................... ...................... -----------....................... -----------
REVE NUE
31 Ta x levy S5,000 50 ,000 45 . 000 35 ,000 25. 000 210 ,00 0 25,000 23S ,O OO 31
32 Interest & "isce llane ous Inco1e 4 ,00 0 3,00 0 3,000 4,000 6,000 20 ,0 00 4 ,000 24,00 0 32
33 Other I nco 1e 0 33 -----------........................ .. ...................... .. ..................... .. ..................... ----------------------.. .....................
34 TOTAL RE VEN UE 59 ,000 53 . 000 4B' 000 39. 000 31,000 230 '000 29. 000 259 ,000 34
....................... --------·--.. ....................... --------------------------------------------.............................
35 TOTAL AVAILA BLE FUH DING 116 ,000 100,000 81,000 90,000 IOS,00 0 2B7, 000 llB,000 316,000 35 ......................... .. ....................... .. ...................... ... ................... -----------......................... ----------------------
EXPE NDIT URES
------------
36 Bond Pri nci pal & Interes t 69 ,000 67 , 00 0 30. 000 16 ,00 0 16 ,000 19B,000 B9 ,000 2B7, 000 36
37 Other Expe nditures 37 ....................... ......................... ....................... ....................... ...................... .. ...................... ... ....................... ... ......................
3B TOT AL EXPEN DITURES 69 ,00 0 61,0 00 30 ,000 16 ,000 16,000 l 9B,OOO B9 ,000 287 . 000 38
.............................. -------------------------·-------....................... ... .................... .. ...................... ... .........................
39 Rese rves & Ca r ry-Ove r to Next Ye ar 47 ,000 33 , 000 51,000 74 ,000 89 ,000 89,000 29 . 00 0 29. 00 0 39
40 Ne xt Yea r's Ory Period Fu nding Require1ents 4 7, 000 33,00 0 Sl,000 74 ,000 89 ,00 0 B9 ,000 29 '000 29 ,000 40 ....................... ............................ ............................ -----------............................ .. ...................... .. ......................... .. ........................
41 Fun d Balan ce or (Deficit ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
:::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::
SU""ARY (A djusted for Inter-fu nd Tra ns fers)
42 Reserv es l Carry -Over Fro 1 last Year 11 ,B35 ,000 11 ,B62 ,00 0 5,461 ,000 l ,02B ,000 (901,000 ) 11 , B3S. 000 ( 2. 643. 000) 11,835 ,000 42
43 TOT AL REVENUE B' 165. 000 9,32 7 ,0 00 12 ,430,000 7,406 ,000 4' 97 9. 000 42 ,307 ,000 JO, 170 , 000 72 ,477,000 43 ........................ --------------------·-............................. ........................... -----------... .......................... --·------·-
44 TOTAL AVAIL ABLE FUNDING 20 ,000,000 21,IB9,00 0 I 7 ,B91,000 B,434 ,000 4,07B,OOO 54,142,000 27, 527 ,000 B4,312,000 44
4S TOTAL EX PENDITU RES B, llB,000 IS, 728 ,000 16 ,86 3,000 9,335 ,000 6, 721 ,000 56 , 7BS ,OOO SI , 712 ,000 IOB ,497,0 00 4S
............................ -----------......................... ............................... ....................... ---------------------------·-·---
46 Rese rves & Carry-Over to Nex t Year ll ,B62,000 S,461,00 0 l,02B,000 (901,000) (2,643 ,000) (2 .643 ,00 0) (2 4,1 85 ,000) (24,IB5 .000) 46
47 Nex t Year 's Ory Period f unding Requ irea en ts 1,544 ,000 1,755 ,000 2,031,00 0 2,35 1,000 2, 730 ,000 2, 730 ,00 0 5. 302. 000 5,302 ,000 47
............................ ........................... ........................... .......................... ........................... --------·--....................... .. ........................
4B FU HO BA LANCE OR (DEFI CIT) 10,31 B ,000 3, 706 ,0 00 (1 ,003 ,000 ) ( 3,252 ,000) (S ,373 ,0001 (5,373,00 0) (29.m,OOO ) (29 .487 .000) 4B
...................... ---------·-::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: -----------......................
PROJECT
-----------
Radio Linked Tele1etry (a)
Hasler Plan/EIR Update (a)
Slater Ave. Pu1p Station Rehab. (a)
Ocean Avenue Trunk Rehab. (a)
"iscellaneous Projects (a)
Sub-total ACO fund
EdNards Trunk (3) (b)
Hcfadden Relief Trunk (3) (c)
Edinger Interceptor (3) (c)
Heil Relief Sever (3) (c)
Edinger Sever Parallel (3) (c)
Coast Trunk SeNer (c)•
Slater Relief Line (3) (c)•
Coast Pu1p Station and force
Hain (3) (c)•
"iscellaneous Projects, (a)
Sub-total FR Fund
Sub-Total District Construction
Garfield Trunk Se Ner (3) (C)ll
Sub-Tota l Developer Construction
GRAHO TOTAL
(a) Fully Funded
(b) Partially funded
( c) Hot funded
I Project to be financed by developer
TOTAL C.J.P.
---·-------..............................
15,000
40,000
25,000
ll4 ,000 14,000
175,000
.............................. .. ..........................
569 ,000 I 14,000
.............................. .. .............................
3,400 ,000
750 I 000
750 I 000
750,000
400,000
7,400,000
1,750,000
4,100,000
350,000
........................... ...........................
19,650,000 0 ........................ ..............................
20,2 19,000 14,000
-----------...........................
2,000,000
............................. ............................
2,000,000 0
......................... ...........................
22,219,000 14 ,000
::::::::::: ·------------·--------
COUNTY SAHITATIOH DISTRICT HD.II
SCHEDULE Of DISTRICT COLLECT !OH SYSTEH PROJECTS
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
-----------.......................... .......................
15,000
25 ,000 15,000
25,000
50,000 250,000
25,000 25,000 25,000 .. ......................... ... ............................ .. ........................
140 ,0 00 290,000 25,000
... ............................ ... .......................... ... ........................
500,000 2, 900,000 3,500,000
100,000 500,000 1,150,000
100,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
50,000 50,000 50,000 .. ....................... ... .......................... ..............................
750,000 5,4 50,000 6,700,000
-----·-----... ............................ ..........................
890;000 5, H0,000 6, 725,000
-----------............................ ..........................
500 ,000
-----------... ........................ ...........................
0 0 500,000
-----------... ....................... ............................
890,000 5, 740,000 7,225,000
::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::
I. "aster-planned facilities presently under construction
2. Hasler-planned facilities presently under design
3. Kaster -p lanned facilities scheduled for fu ture design/construction
under Sever Service Rei1burse1ent Agree1ent
u Project to be fully financed by developer
1990-91 1991-92
----------------------
25,000 25,000
............................ ..............................
25,000 25,000 .......................... .. .........................
500,000
50,000 50,000
... ............................ .............................
550,000 50,000 .. ......................... .......................
575,000 75,000
---------·-..............................
1,500,000
... ........................... .. .........................
1, 500. 000 0
... ......................... ... .........................
2,075,000 75,000
::::::::::: :::::::::::
EXHIBIT 2
6/17 /87
1992-93
..............................
25,000
.............................
25,000
............................
50,000
... ..........................
50,000
... ..........................
75, 000 .. .........................
... ..........................
0 .........................
75,000
:::::::::::
f99l-94
.............................
25,000
... ..........................
25,000 .. .............................
3,400,000
750,000
750,000
750,000
400,000
50,000 .. ........................
6,100,000
.. ........................
6, 125,000
... .........................
... .........................
0
.. .........................
6, 125. 000
:::::::::::
,,
LIHE
OPE RATJHG FUHO
Reserves & Carr y-O ve r Fro• l as t Year
REVE HUE
Share of U Tax Allocation
Fees
lntere s l & Misc ellaneous lnco 1e
Other Reve nue (Us er Fees)
6 ' TOTAL REVE HUE
8
9
10
II
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHOIHG
EXPEHDITURES
Shar e of Joint Works K & 0
Co llection Sys te a K & 0 and Other Oper .
Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPEHDIIURES
12 Reserve s & Carry-Over to Hext Year
13 He xt Year 's Dry Period Funding Require aents
14 Fund Balance or (Defici t )
CAPITAL FUHD(S)
15 Reserves l Carry -o ver Fro• las t Year
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REVEHUE
Con struction Grants
Fe es : Connection
Other
Sale of Caoaci ty Rights
lnlerest & "iscellaneous lncoae
Other lnc o1e
TOTAL REVEHU E
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHO IHG
EXPENDITURES
Share of Joint Works Trea t1ent Planl
District Collec l ion Systea
Reuburseaent Agre eaent Pay1en ts
Other Expend1 lures
TOTAL EXPEHDllURES
29 Reser ves & Carry-over to Ne xt Yea r
COUNTY SAHllATIOH OISTRIC T HO . II
STATEm T OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW
FISCAL YEARS 1987 -88 THRO UGH 1996-97
1987 -88
2,m,000
2. 09 1, 000
100,000
143,000
2,334 ,000
4. 68 2. 000
2,491,000
503,000
2. 99 4. 000
1,688 ,000
1,m,000
191 ,000
:::::::::::
1988-89
I ,688,000
2. 356 . 000
105,000
141,000
1,m,000
4,0JJ ,000
5' 725' 000
2,86 5,000
578 ,000
3,443 ,000
2,282,000
I , 722 ,000
560 . 000
:::::::::::
9,430,000 10,210,000
517 ,000
680,000
30. 000
306 . 000
696. 000
3,626,000
5,855,000
113,000
720,000
32,000
57 ' 000
534. 000
5 '400 . 000
6,856 ,0 00
19.89-90
2 ,282 ,000
2,656,000
110,000
177 ,000
1,448,000
4,39 1,00 0
6,673,000
3,295,000
665. 000
3,960 ,000
2,713,000
1,980,000
733,000
:::::::::::
4,848 ,000
678,000
720,000
34. 000
92 7 ,000
233,000
7,150 ,000
9,742,000
15.285.000 17 ,066 ,000 14,590,000
4,071,000
890,000
114 ,000
6,478 ,0 00
5, 740 ,000
S.075,000 12,218,000
10.210,000
.............. ..............
4 ,848 ,000
:::::::::: ::
s. 648 . 000
7,225 .000
12,873,000
I , 717 ,00 0
1990-91
2, 713,000
2, 99 4 ,0 00
116 ,000
200,000
1,469,000
4' 779. 000
7,492,000
3, 789. 000
765. 000
4,5 54 ,000
2, 938,000
2,277 ,000
661,000 ...................... ......................
I , 717 ,000
678,000
720 ,000
36,000
86 4 '000
109,000
2. 00 0. 000
4,407,000
6,124 ,000
2' 690 . 000
2,075,000
4, 765,000
1.m,000
::::::::::::
199 1-92
2, 938 ,000
3, 420. 000
122 . 000
207 ,000
I, 485 , 000
s, 234 ,000
8,172,000
4,395 ,000
887 '000
5,282 ,000
2,890,000
2,641 ,000
249 '000
:::::::::::
1,359 ,000
678 ,000
720,000
38 ,000
30 ,000
101,000
1,567,000
2, 926 .000
l.348 ,COO
75. 00 0
I. 423 , 000
1. 503, 00 0
S-Year Tola!
2,348,000
13, 517 ,000
SSl ,000
868 , 000
5,837 ,000
20, 775,000
23,123,000
16,835 ,000
3,398,000
0
20 ,233,000
2,890 ,000
2,641,000
249 ,000
:::::::::::
9. 430 ,000
2,664 ,000
3,560,000
170,000
2, 184 ,000
1,673,000
18,176,000
28 ,427 ,000
37 ,857 ,000
20.235,000
16.005 ,000
0
114 ,0 00
36, 35 4. 000
1,503 ,0 00
:::::::::::
19 92-93/
1996-97
2,890,000
25, 966,000
706,000
0
7,293,000
33, 965. 000
36 ,855 ,00 0
35,061,000
7,079,000
42, 140. 000
(S,285,000)
5,273,00 0
(JO, 558 , 000)
:::::::::::
1,503 ,000
lll,000
3,600 ,000
220. 000
136 . 000
0
4 ,069 ,000
5,572,000
3, 283 , 000
6,200 ,000
9,483,00 0
(3,911 ,000 )
:::::::::::
SCHEDULE E
8/17/87.
Page 1
10-Year Total LIHE
2,348,000
39,483,000
1,259 ,000
868 ,000
13, 130,000
54, H0,000
57,088,000
51 ,896,000
10,477,000
0
62,373,000
8
9
10
II
( s. 28 5' 000) 12
5 I 273, 000 13
(10,558,000) 14
:::::::::::
9,430,000
2,777,000
7,160,000
390. 000
2. 320 '000
1,673,000
18.176,000
32,4%,000
41. 926,000
2u1s .ooo
22 ,205,000
0
114 ,000
45,837 ,000
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3,911,00 0) 29
:::::::::::
~ .. ~
COUNTY SAHITATIOH DISTRICT HO .
SCHEDULE E
II 8/17/87
STATEmT Of PROJECTED CASH FLO W Page 2 FISCA L YEARS 1987-88 TH ROUGH 1996-97
1992-93/
LINE 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 !99o-91 1991-92 S-Year Total 1996-97 10-Year Iota! LINE -----·-----------------·-------·----
BOHO FUNO (S)
------------
30 Reser ves & Carry-Over fro1 Last Yea r 57 '000 47 ,000 33 ,000 Sl ,000 H,000 57 ,0 00 89 ,0 00 57 ,000 30
............................. -----------·------------------------------·-............................. --·--------... .........................
REVENUE
31 lax Levy SS, 000 S0,000 4S' 000 3S,OOO 2S,OOO 210,000 25,000 235,000 31
32 In t erest & .11is cellaneous Inco1e 4 ,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 6,000 20 , 000 4,000 24. 000 32
33 Other Inco 1e 0 33 ----------------------........................... --------------------------------------------............................
34 TOTAL REVEN UE 59 ' 000 S3,000 48 ,000 39' 000 31,000 230,000 29' 000 259 '000 34 -----------............................ ........................ ......................... ----------------------........................... -----------
3S TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 116,000 100 ,000 81,000 90,0 00 105' 000 287 ,000 118,000 31 6 ,00 0 3S -----------............................ .......................... -------·----------------------------------·-...........................
EXPE NDIT UR ES
------------
36 Bond Principal & Interest 69 ,00 0 61. 000 30 ,000 16,000 16 ,000 198 ,000 89 '000 287 ' 000 36
37 Ot her Expe nditures 37
........................... ........................... ................. _____ --·------·-............................... ................................. .. ......................... .. .........................
38 TOTAL EXPEHOITURES 69 ,000 61 ,000 30 ,000 16 ,000 16 ,000 198 . 000 89 ,000 287 ,000 38 -----------------------............................. ............................ _ ·---·----------------------------..............................
39 Reserves & Carry-Over to Next Year 47 '000 33 '000 51,000 74 ,000 89 '000 89 ,000 29 ,000 29,000 39
40 Next Year's Ory Period fun ding Require 1ents 41,000 33,000 51,000 74,000 89 ,000 89,000 29 ,000 29 ,000 40
----------------------.......................... .......................... -----------.............................. ... ........................... -----------
41 Fund Balance or (Deficit) 0 0 41
:::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ....................... :::::::::::: ::::::::::: ................ ::::::::::: ................... -.. . ...............
SUHH ARY (Adjusted for Inter-fund Transfers)
42 Res erv es & Carr y-Ove r fro• Last Yea r ll,83S ,OOO II , 945;000 ),163,000 4' 481, 000 4,371,000 II ,83S, 000 4,482,000 11,835,000 42
43 TOTAL REYEHUE 8. 248 . 000 10' 946' 000 14,181,000 9,225 ,000 6,832 ,000 49 ,432,000 38 ,063,000 87,495,000 43 ----·-----------------.............................. .... _ ..................... ....................... ......................... .......................... .. .........................
44 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHOING 20,083,000 22' 891, 000 21,344 ,000 13 ' 706 ' 000 11 ,203,000 61,267 ,000 42,54S,OOO 99 ,330,000 44
45 TOTAL EXPEHOIT URE S 8, 138 ,0 00 IS, 728,000 16,863,000 9,3 35,000 6, 721 ,000 S6, 785,000 SI, 712 ,000 108,'97 ,000 45
·--·------------------.......................... ............................. --·--------........................... .............................. .. .......................
46 Reserves & Carr y-Over to Ne xt Yea r 11. 945,000 ) '163 .000 4,481.000 4,371,000 4. 482 . 00 0 4' 482 . 000 (9,167 ,000) (9,1 67,000) 46
4) Ne xt Yea r 's Ory Period f unding Re quiremen t s 1,54',000 1,7 55,000 2,031,000 2.35 1,000 2. 73 0,000 2, 730 ,00 0 S,302 ,000 5' 302. 000 4)
........................... --···------................................ ......................... -----------............................. .. ..................... .. ..................
48 FUND BAL ANCE OR (DEFICIT I 10,40 1,000 S,408,000 2,4S O,OOO 2.02 0,00 0 1,)52. 000 1,752 ,00 0 (1 4,46 9,0001 (14 ,4 69,000 ) 48 -----------::::::::::: ::::::::::: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--
JAN-JUL 87
Cll
z r--~~......,1("111"-~~~~ S _ Approve 1987-88
~ . Budgets -7 /8/87 <
Cll ~ 1-'"ft"'e-v-.-ew--:r~!l"'-x'~~u~g-e~t~
~ Future Cash Fl ow
~ Requirements/Draft
rzt Revision to Long-Rang
~ Financial Plan
Cll
PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
DISTRICT NO. 11 LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN
AUG 87
ev1ew o 1 y ong-
Range Financial Plan
for User Fee/Connec-
tion Fee Recommenda-
tions -8/20/87
SEP 87
EDP Processing to
Extract Data/Evaluate
1988-89 Fee Revenues
OCT 87
repare ra t
Budget/Future Cash
Flow Requirements/
-Imp 1 ement Boa rd .
Direction to Estab-
lish Proposed User
Fee/Connection Fee
Levels
(
SCHEDULE F
8/6/87
NOV 87
DEC 87
00 ,_..~----------------+ ~
H
r-i
~ ...,_ ______________ __
ix ubl c Hearing
Date for Proposed
Billing and Collectio
Method/User Fee Re or
00 ~~~p~----.---:------~ ~ rocess1ng to
H Generate Notices to
~ all Property Owners
re Proposed Sewer Use $ Fee Billing and
r-i Collection Method 00 ..._ _________________ ~
Prepare 1988-89 User
Fee Report for Review
and Discussion with
Board of Directors
JAN-FEB 88
PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
DISTRICT NO. 11 LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN
MAR-APR 88
Con uct Pu 1 c Hear n
on Proposed Billing
and Collection Method
User Fee Re ort
MAY-JUN 88
EDP Processing to Produce 1988-89 User Fees
for Placement on 1988-89 Property Tax Bill·
County Assessor
c
SCHEDULE F
Page 2
8/6/87
JUL-AUG 88
e ver 9 -ser
Fee Billing Tape to
County Auditor-
Contro 11 er for Place-
ment on 1988-89
Pro ert Tax Bill
llHE
8
9
10
11
OPERATIN G fUNO
Rese rv es & Carry-Over fro• Las t Year
REYEHUE
Sh are .of I\ Tax Allocation
fees
I nteres t & "iscellaneou s Inco 1e
Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE
TOTAL AVAILABLE fUNOIN G
EXPEHOITURES
Share of Joint works " & o
Collection Syste1 " & O and Other Oper.
Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPEHOITURES
12 Re serve s & Car ry-O ver to Next Yea r
13 Next Yea r's Ory Period funding Requirements
14 fund Balance or (Deficit)
CAPITAL FUND(S)
IS Reserves & Carry-over fro• Last Year
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
REVENUE
Cons truction Grants
Fee s: Connect ion
Ot her
Sale of Capacity Rights
Interest & "1scellaneous Income
Ot her Inco 1e
IOTAL REVENUE
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHOING
EXPEND! IURES
Share of Join t Works Treat aen t Plant
Dis tri ct Collection Syste 1
Reimbursement Ag reem ent Payments
Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDIIURES
29 Reserves & Carry-over to Next Year
CO UNTY SANITATION DIS TR ICT HD . II
STAT EHEHT OF PROJECT ED CASH FLOW
FI SCA L YEARS l 987-B8 THROUGH 1996 -97
198 7-B8
2,l4B,ODO
2,091,000
100,000
143,000
2,334 ,000
4,6B2 ,000
2,m,000
S03, 000
2,994 ,000
1,688,000
1,497,000
191,000
l 988 -B9
I, 68B, ODO
2,3S6,000
IOS,000
141 ,000
1,m,000
4,037,000
s. 72S . 000
2. 86 S. 000
S7B,OOO
3,443 ,000
2,282,000
1,722,000
S60 ,0DD
::::::::::: :::::::::::
9. 430. 000
SI 7 ,000
680,000
30 ,000
306,000
S89. 000
2.122.000
II, S52, 000
4,071,000
190,000
114 ,000
4 ,375,000
7, 177,000
lll,000
720 ,000
32,000
57. 000
304. 000
1,226,000
8. 403, 000
6,478 ,000
515,0 00
6, 993, DOD
1989-90
2,282,000
2,656,000
110. 000
177 ,000
l,HS,000
4,391,000
6,673,000
3,29S ,O DO
66S,OOO
3,960,000
2, 713,000
I, 980,000
733,000
:::::::::::
199Ml
2, 713,000
2,994,000
116,000
200 . 000
1,461,00 0
4. 771,000
7,484 ,000
3,78 9,000
76S. 000
4. S54 . 000
2, 930,000
2, 277 ,000
6S3, ODO
:::::::::::
1991-92
2, 930,000
3,375,000
122 ,000
206 ,000
I , 474 ,ODO
5,177,000
8,107,000
4,3S 7 ,000
880. 000
S,237,000
2,870,000
2,619,000
251, 000 ........................ ·-----·----
1,410,000 (3,S54,000) (4 ,121,000)
678,000
720,000
34. 000
927 ,ODO
0
2,359,000
678,000
720,000
36, 000
86 4. 000
0
2,298,000
678,000
720 ,000
38, 000
30,000
0
1,466,000
3, 769 ,00 0 ( l ,2S6,000) (2,655 ,000)
S,648 ,000
l,67S,OD O
7,323 ,0 00
2,690,000
175,000
2. 865. 000
1,348,000
7S,OOO
1,423,000
7' 177 ,000 1,41 0,000 (3 ,S5 4,000 ) (4.1 21,000) (4,078,000) ------------------------::::·::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
S-Year Total
2, 348,000
13,472,000
S53 ,000
86 7 ,000
5,818,000
20, 710,000
23, 058 ,DOD
16, 797 ,000
3,391,000
0
20, 188,000
2,870 ,000
2,619 ,000
251,000 ----------------·-----
9,430,000
2,664,000
3,S 60,00 0
170,000
2, 184 ,000
893,000
0
9 ,471,000
18, 901,000
20,235,000
2. 630 . 000
0
114,000
22,979,000
(4,078,000)
:::::::::::
1992-9 3/
1996-91
2,870,000
24,Sl l ,000
706. 000
0
7, 227 ,ODO
J2,W ,000
3S,314,000
33,822, ODO
6,826,000
40 ,6 48,000
(S,334,000)
S,273,000
( 10,607 ,000)
:::::::::::
(4 ,0 78 ,000 )
lll,000
J,600,000
220. 000
136. 000
0
4,069,000
(9 ,000)
J,283,000
6' 200. 000
9,4 83,000
(9,492,000)
.............. -----------
SCHEDULE G
8/17 /87.
Page 1
ID-Year Total llHE
2,3 48 ,000
37,983,0 00
1,259 ,000
867 ,000
13 ,045,000
S3 , 154 I 00 0
55' S0 2. 000
S0 ,619,000
10 ,217,000
0
60 ,836,000
8
9
10
11
(S,334 ,00 0) 12
S,273,000 ll
(10 ,60 7,000) 14
:::::::::::
9,4JO ,OOO
2, 777,000
7, 160, DOD
J90 '000
2, 320, ODO
893,000
0
13 ,5 40,000
22. 970 . 000
2J.rn,ooo
8,830,000
0
114,000
J2. 462' 000
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
(9.H2 ,000) 29
:::::::::::
SCHEDULE \;
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT HO. 11 8/17/87
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW
FISCAL YEARS 1987-88 THROUGH 1996 -97
Page 2
199MJ/
LIHE 1987-88 1988 -89 1989-90 1990-91 1991 -92 5-Year Total 1996 -97 JO-Year Total LIHE ------------------------------------
BOHO FUHD(S)
------------
30 Reserves & Carry-Over fro1 Last Year 57. 000 47 ,000 JJ, 000 51,000 H,000 57 ,000 89' 000 51 . 000 JO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------·-
REVENUE
31 Tax Levy 55. 000 50,000 45. 000 JS, 000 25,000 210,000 25,000 m,ooo 31
32 Interest & Hiscellaneous Income 4,000 qoo 3,000 4,000 6,000 20 ,000 4 ,000 24 .ooo 32
33 Other lnco1e 0 JJ ----------------------....................... ----------· ..................... ----------------------........................
34 TOTAL REVENUE 59. 000 53, 000 48. 000 39. 000 31,00 0 230,000 29 ,000 259. 000 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------·-----------------
JS TO TAL AVAILABLE FUHDIHG 116,000 100,000 81,000 90,000 105,000 287 t 000 118,000 J16, 000 JS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPEHO!TURES
------------
36 Bond Principal & Interest 69 ,000 67. 000 J0,000 16,000 16,000 198, 000 89 ,000 287 '000 J6
37 Other Expenditures J7
----------------------------------------··--------------------------------------·-------
J8 TOTAL EXPEHDITURES 69 ,000 67. 000 J0,000 16,000 16,000 198,0 00 89 ,000 287 ,000 38 ..................... ....................... .......................... ....................... ·-·------------·-·--·-................ _ ......... -----------
J9 Reserves & Carry -Over to Hext Year 47 ,000 JJ . 000 51,000 74,000 89. 000 89 I 000 29 ,000 29,000 39
40 Hext Year's Ory Period Funding Requi r e1ents 4 7. 000 JJ,000 51,000 74 ,000 89 ,000 89. 000 29 ,000 29. 000 40 -·----------·-------------·--·-----------------------·---·-----·--------·----......................
41 fund Balance or (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 41
:::::::::::: ------------:::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: -----·---------------------------------------.......................... ----------------------
SUHMARY (Adjusted for Inter-Fund Transfers)
42 Reserves & Carry-Over Fro1 Las t Yea r 11, 8JS. 000 8,912,000 J, 725,000 (790 ,000) ( l, 117 ,00 0) ll,8J5,000 (l,119,000) 11,835,000 42
4l TOTAL REVENUE 4,515,000 5,3 16,000 6, 798,000 7,108,000 6 ,674 ,000 J0,411,0 00 J6,542,000 66, 95J,OOO 4J
---------------------------------........................... .......................... ....................... ----------------------
44 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHOIHG 16,350,000 14,228,000 10,52J,OOO 6,318,000 5,557 ,000 42, 246, 000 JS,423,000 78, 788.000 44
45 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7. 4J8' 000 10,SOJ ,000 ll ,JlJ,000 7,435,000 6,676,000 4J,J65 ,000 50 , 220. 000 93. 585. 000 45
....................... -----------........................ -----------........................ ---·---------·--·-----.........................
46 Reserves & Carry-Over to Hext Year 8,912.000 J. 725,000 (790,000) ( l, 117. 000) ( l , 119,000 ) (1, 119,000) ( 14. 797. 000) (14,797,000 ) 46
47 Hext Year's Dry Period Funding Require1ents 1,544.000 1,755,000 2,031 ,000 2,35 1,00 0 2, 708,000 2. 708, 000 5,302,000 5,302,000 47
...................... ........................... -----------........................ ........................ --------·--......................... ..........................
48 FUHO BALANCE OR (DEFICIT) 7. 368. 000 1,970,000 (2 ,821 ,000) (J,4 68,000) (J,827 ,000) (J,827,000) ( 20. 099. 000) (20,099,000) 48
::::::::::: -----·-----::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: -----------
MEETING OATS August 20, 1987 TIME 5:00 p.mE>ISTRICTS 11
DISTRICT l
{EDGAR) •••••••• HOESTEREY ••• _____ _
{CRANK) •••••••• HANSON •••••• _____ _
{YOUNG) ••• , •••• GRISET •••••• _____ _
{ROTH) •••• /. •••• STANTON ••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 2
{NORBY). ••••••• CATLIN •••••• _____ _
(FLORA). ••••••• MAHONEY ••••• _____ _
(PICKLER) •••••• BAY ••••••••• _____ _
(FRIED) •••••••• BIGONGER •••• _____ _
(YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• _____ _
(NELSON) ••••••• LEYTON •••••• _____ _
(SCOTT) •••••••• NEAL •••••••• _____ _
{DOWNEY) ••••••• NEWTON •••••• _____ _
{CUL VER) ••••••• PERRY ••• : ••• _____ _
{FASBENDER) •••• SILZEL. ••••• _____ _
{PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _
{ROTH) ••••••••• STANTON ••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 3
{HERMAN) ••••••• POLIS •••••• _____ _
{WEISHAUPT) •••• SAPIEN •••••• _____ _
{PICKLER) •••••• BAY ••••••••• _____ _
{NORBY) •••••••• CATLIN •••••• _____ _
(PERRY) •••••••• CULVER •••••• _____ _
{MC CLINE) •••••• GRIFFIN ••••• _____ _
{YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• _____ _
(CORONADO) ••••• KANEL ••••••• _____ _
(WINCHELL) ••••• KELLY ••••••• _____ _
(FLORA) •••••••• MAHONEY ••••• _____ _
(SCOTT) •••••••• NEAL •••••••• _____ _
(SUTTON) ••••••• NELSON •••••• _____ _
{WILES) •••••••• SIEFEN •••••• _____ _
{ROTH). •••••••• STANTON ••••• _____ _
{BERNAL) ••••••• SYLVIA •••••• _____ _
{CLIFT} •••••••• WILSON •••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 5
(COX) •••••••••• HART •••••••• _____ _
(PLUMMER) •••••• COX ••••••••• _____ _
{STANTON). ••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 6
(JOHNSON) •••••• WAHNER •••••• _____ _
(PLUMMER) •••••• MAURER •••••• _____ _
(STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 7
(KENNEDY) •••••• EDGAR ••••••• _____ _
{AGRAN) •••••••• MILLER, S •• ·--___ _
{PLUMMER) •••••• COX ••••••••• _____ _
{YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• _____ _
(STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _
{PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _
(GREEN, H) ••••• WAHNER •••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 11
(WINCHELL> ••••• KELLY,, ..... 5f ~ __
(GREEN, p). •••• MAYS........ ___ _
(ROTH) ••••••••• STANTON..... ___ _
DISTRICT 13
(BIGONGER) ••••• MURPHY •••••• _____ _
(PICKLER) •••••• BAY ••••••••• _____ _
{STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _
{PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _
{NELSON) ••••••• SUTTON •••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 14
(AG RAN) •••••••• MILLER, S ••• _____ _
(MILLER, D) •••• SWAN •••••••• _____ _
(EDGAR) •••••••• KENNEDY ••••• _____ _
(STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _
(PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _
08/ 12187
~~~~~~~~~~-
JOINT BOARDS
{PICKLER) •••••••••• BAY •••••••••
(F"RIED). ••••••••••• BIGONGER •••• ----
{NORBY) •••••••••••• CATLIN •••••• ----
{PLUMMER) •••••••••• COX ••••••••• ----
{PERRY) •••••••••••• CULVER •••••• ----
(KENNEDY) •••••••••• EDGAR ••••••• ----
(MC CLINE) •••••••••• GRii='FIN ••••• ----
(YOUNG) •••• ·.'r.~· ....• GRISET ••••• ·== ==
(CRANK) ••• ~~ ••••••• HANSON ••••••
(COX) •••••••••••••• HART •••••••• ----
{EDGAR) •••••••••••• HOESTEREY ••• ----
{CORONADO). •••••••• KANEL ••••••• ----
(WINCHELL) ••••••••• KELLY ••••••• ----
(EDGAR) •••••••••••• KENNEDY ••••• ----
(NELSON) ••••••••••• LEYTON •••••• ----
(FLORA) •••••••••••• MAHONEY ••••• ----
(PLUMMER) •••••••••• MAURER •••••• ----
{GREEN, P) ••••••••• MAYS •••••••• ----
(AGRAN) •••••••••••• MILLER, S ••• ----
{ BIGONGER) ••••• · •••• MURPHY ••••• ·== ==
(SCOTT) •••••••••••• NEAL ••••••••
{SUTTON) ••••••••••• NELSON •••••• ----
{DOWNEY) ••••••••••• NEWTON •••••• ----
{CULVER) ••••••••••• PERRY ••••••• ----
{HERMAN) ••••••••••• POLIS ••••••• ----
{STANTON) •••••••••• ROTH •••••••• ----
(WEISHAUPT) •••••••• SAPIEN •••••• ====
(WILES) •••••••••••• SIEFEN ••••••
(FASBENDER) •••••••• SILZEL •••••• ----
(PEREZ) •••••••••••• SMITH ••••••• ====
(ROTH) ••••••••••••• STANTON ••••• ___ _
(NELSON) ••••••••••• SUTTON ••••••
(MILLER, D) •••••••• SWAN •••••••• ----
(BERNAL) ••••••••••• SYLVIA •••••• ====
(GREEN,H/JOHNSON) •• WAHNER ••••••
(CLIFT) •••••••••••• WILSON ••••• ·====
SYLVESTER ••• f..,/"
BROWN ••••••• ~
ANDERSON •••• __
BUTLER •••••• ~
CLARKE •••••• ....!:::::::'.:
CLAWSON ••••• __
DAWES ••••••• ~
DEBLIEUX ••••
HODGES •••••• __
HOLL ••••••• ·--
KYLE ••••••••
LINDER •••••• __
OOTEN •••••• "--T
STREED ••••••
TALEBI. ••••• --
VON LANGEN
WINSOR ••••••
WOODRUFF •••• ~
ATKINS •••••• __
HOHENER •••••
HOWARD ••••••
HUNT ••••••••
KEITH ••••••• __
KNOPF ••••••• __
LINDSTROM ••• __
LYNCH ••••••• __
STONE •••••••
YOUNG •••••••
~ .,,.
PLEASE SIGN IN
DISTRICT 11 -THURSDAY , AUGUST 20 , 1987
NAME
'8'1~~µt~· ~
..... ,,-w. It' CA4M.w'~ ~-
-·-
~
....
•
AGENCY/FIRM
ttumt ~-rtN ~ qi;;;.
~ ()~ -t+~~.
CoUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11
OF ORAOOE OOUNTY I CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF AJlJOURNED REGULAR MEETIKG
August 20, 1987 -5:00 p.m.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of August 12, 1987, the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, net in
an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the District's
Administrative Office.
The Chairnan called the :nieeting to order at 5: 12 p .m. The roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present.
DIRECIDRS PRF.SENT:
DIRECIDRS AB.SENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRE.SENT:
orHERS PRF.SENT:
Jack Kelly, Chairman, Tan Mays,
Roger R. Stanton
None
J. 'Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita
J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes,
William H. Butler, William N. Clarke, Gary
Streed
Thomas L. ~f, General Counsel, Bill
Holman, catherine O'Hara
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Review and actions re long-range
financial program for funding
capital and operating reguirenents
The General Manager reported that for
many years the Districts, as part of the
annual budgetary process, have forecast
revenues and expenditures on a five-year
basis and last year carmenced forecasting on a ten-year horizon. The purpose of
this long-range financial planning is to assure adequate funding to carry out the
Districts' wastewater managem:mt program for the benefit of the ccmnunities and
the two million citizens which the Districts serve in netro:politan Orange County.
A major benefit of the long-range cash flow projections is that they enable a
determination in advance of when revenue shortfalls will begin to occur so that
the Board of Directors will have adequate time to consider alternative funding
·sources and take the necessary corrective action to ensure each District's
financial integrity.
08/20/87.
District 11
For sane time projections have indicated that funding shortfalls in District
No. 11 would begin to occur as soon as 1989 and that the District would have to
consider additional revenue sources to neet the District's long-term funding
requirements for sewerage facilities improvements and expansion, and ongoing ~-_._;
operations and maintenance costs. Property taxes have historically been the ~
ma.jar source of local financing of the District's activities. However, the costs
of providing service continue to rise beyond the ability of the property tax
apportionments to keep pace with the needed funding brought about by stringent
requirements of the federal and state regulatory agencies for advanced treatnent,
inflation and the need to provide additional capacity to meet the increasing
demands on the sewerage system.
The Director of Finance reported that District No. ll's ability to finance
Operation, Maintenance and Replacem:mt CO,M&R) costs has also been impacted by
tax revenue diversions resulting fran the tax increment financing employed by the
City of Huntington Beach Redevelopnent Agency to generate revenue for the City's
four existing redevelopnent projects. Redevelopnent projects typically result in
increased density of developnent within a project area, and higher flows· into a
District's collection facilities. Thus, redeveloprrent activities increase
District operating costs while simultaneously freezing the District's historical
revenue base, forcing the District to establish supplemental user fees sooner
than might otherwise be necessary ~e a pass-through of tax revenues to be
granted to the I:>istrict by the redevelopnent agency.
Mr. Butler then reviewed the following major options available to finance the
District's facilities improvements and expansion activities and ongoing O,M&R
costs:
Funding Requirement
Ongoing collection system and
joint treatnent/disposal
facility operations,
na.intenance and replacement
Capital facilities improvements
and expansion projects
Source of E\mds
-Allocated share of 1% ad valorem
property tax levy
-supplemental user fees: non-industrial
dischargers
-User fees: industrial dischargers
-Annexation fees on new territory annexing
to the District
-Connection fees on new develoi;m:mt
-capital reserve funds (existing)
-Debt financing Cbonds/certif icates of
participation)
-Capital replacement/improvement fees:
non-industrial dischargers
-Capital replacement/improvement fees:
industrial dischargers
With regard to financing operating costs, Mr. Butler reported that during budget
deliberations over the past two years and at a recent adjourned meeting held on
April 15, 1987, the staff had briefed the Board on the need to consider
supplemental user fees in the near future to avoid a projected d~icit beginning
as soon as fiscal year 1988/89 in the District's operating fund. '!he anticipated
deficit would reach as much as $24.3 million by 1996-97 unless additional revenue
is generated.
-2-
08/20/87
District 11
Mr. Butler then reviewed a schedule excerpted fran the Revenue Program adopted by
the Boards in April 1979 pursuant to federal and state regulations which
identifies various alternative revenue sources available to finance projected
shortfalls in a District's operating fund when ad valorem tax revenues are
insufficient to pay the District's operations, maintenance and replacement costs.
The nost cost-effective method (and the method adopted by Districts 1, 5, 6 and
13 which have already implemented supplenental user fees) is to place a
supplemental user fee as a special assessment on the County of Orange property
tax bill and collect it from all property owners in the District. District No. 3
is also proposing to use this method.
Turning to capital financing, the Director of Finance noted that last spring the
Board engaged financial and legal consultants to assist the Directors in
evaluating the potential benefits and costs associated with issuance of long-term
debt financing to take advantage of then-favorable tax law provisions and low,
tax-exempt nunicipal bond interest rates prior to an anticipated change in
federal tax law which became effective on September 1, 1986. District 11' s Board
considered issuing $10.9 million in certificates of participation but ultimately
chose not to participate in this long-range capital financing program with
Districts Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The District's primary ongoing source of capital funds is fran a one-time
connection fee on new development. These fees are used to finance the planning,
design and construction of the expanded facilities necessary to accarm:xlate the
flow generated by the new developnent. District No. 11' s current one-time
connection fees are:
Single/Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
$1,250 per Dwelling
cannercial/Industrial/
Governnental/other
$250 per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
The staff pointed out that additional flows from the 5,700 dwelling units
anticipated for construction in the proposed Balsa Chica annexation will result
in increased O,M&R and capital costs for both the District 11 collection system
and its share of the joint treatnent and disposal facilities • Based on recent
discussions with both the City of Huntington Beach and the developer, only
limited data· is available at this time on proposed development phasing and
associated flows frarn the dwellings to be constructed in the area, although
initial flows are not expected from the annexing territory until at ieast
1991-92.
The Director of Finance then reviewed the 10-year cash flow estimates and
provided a brief overview of the projected cash p:>sition of both the operating
and capital funds based on the current financial program, and the affect of
implementing a supplemental user fee program for O,M&R financing similar to
Districts 1, 5 and 6, as well as an increase in the one-time connection fee for
capital financing. Estinates also included the p:>ssible impact on facilities,
expenses and revenues of the Balsa Chica if it annexes, including the need for
capital facilities advanced funding by developers.
'lb provide the necessary revenues for District operating costs (including capital
replacenent), staff recornnended that a supplemental user fee program be
implemented as follows:
-3-
08/20/87
District 11
Recomnended supplemental User Fee Program
Class of User
Single-Family
Dwellings/Condaniniums
Multi-Family
Dwellings/Apartments/
Mobile Hanes
cannercial/Industrial/
Other
Basis of Charge
Annual Charge
per ~ling
Unit
Annual Charge
per Dwelling
Unit
Annual Charge per
1,000 Sq. Ft. of
Building .
Annual Charge
Effective
July, 1988
$26.40
$15.85
$18.90
Based on a July, 1988 implementation date, the District's operating fund would
remain solvent through 1991-92 with the initial rates in place, although the
contingency reserve would be reduced below an acceptable level if the recomnended
supplemental user fee program is implemented. Staff advised that the Board will
need to evaluate the fees on an annual basis because the cash flow projections
for the 1992/93-1996/97 period indicate further shortfalls. Once implemented,
the user fee anounts should be evaluated annually to make sure that the program
provides adequate revenues to meet the District' s funding needs. CUrrent
estimates the base user fee may have to be increased to $45.00/single family
residence by 1992-93. It was noted, however, that District ll's financial
position, in the final analysis, will be significantly affected by the anount of
ad valorem tax revenue apportioned to the District from the proposed Balsa Chica
Annexation.
Mr. Butler then reviewed a Preliminary Implementation Schedule which reflected
the procedures and schedule necessary to implement a supplenental user fee
program to be collected on the annual property tax bill beginning in July, 1988.
Staff further recarmended that the Board consider increasing its connection fee
as follows:
Single/Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
cannercial/Industrial/
Governnental/Other
Basis of Charge
Charge per
Dwelling Unit
Charge per
$1,000 Sq_. Ft.
Existing
$1,250
$ 250
Effective
November
1987
$1,500
$ 300
The additional revenues generated by the .fee increase \\Ould be employed to
partially finance the District's share of the cost of construction of the
expanded collection and treatrrent facilities.and would reduce the projected
deficit fran $5.2 million to $3.9 million. Staff further recomnended that
-4-
u
-08/20/87
District 11
connection fees be evaluated annually and fixed in an am::>unt which assures that
new developnent pays the current capital cost of providing sewerage services.
This practice would further reduce the projected capital financing deficits.
However, staff pointed out that the Board may have to reconsider debt financing
for capital projects in the future. Staff also pointed out that the projected
capital requirements assume that the Districts' 301Ch) NPDFS Discharge Permit
will be renewed by EPA and the m\tCB in 1990. If it is not, treatment plant
construction requirements will increase by $285 million (District No. ll's share
-$20 million) for the 1991/1996 period.
The Board members then entered into a discussion relative to the timetable for
establishing a supplemental user fee program. 'Ibey also further reviewed the
various income, expenditures and reserve/carryover elements of the cash flow
schedules and financial projections based on implementation of various long-range
financing alternatives to meet the financial obligations of the D~strict. The
purpose of connection fees to pay the full cost of providing sewerage capacity
for new developnent; the need for a periooic review of both the supplemental user
fee and connection fee schedules; and impact of the proposed Bolsa Chica
Annexation we.re also discussed.
It was also pointed out that many econanic factors could affect the District's
funding requirements over the next several years. The staff advised that it
would continue to evaluate the District's financial position each year to
determine the impact of changing conditions and brief the Board to seek direction
regarding m:rlifications to the District's long-range financial plan, as needed.
It was then m::>ved, seconded and duly carried:
That staff be, and is hereby, directed to proceed with planning for
implementation of the recannended supplemental user fee program to be collected
on the property tax bill beginning in 1988-89 in accordance with the proposed
.implementation schedule; and,
FURTHER MJVED: That the staff be, and is hereby, directed to draft an ordinance
increasing connection fees fran $1,250/dwelling unit and $250/1,000 sq. ft. to
$1,500/dwelling unit and $300/1,000 sq. ft. for first reading at the
September 9th Board meeting, to become effective in November, 1987.
Adjournnent MNed, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11
be adjourned. The Chairnan then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5:48 p.m.,
August 20, 1987.
c:~.b..:~~
Secretary, Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. ll·of
Orange County, California
-5-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to Californi~ Government Code Section 54954.2,
I hereby certify that the Agenda for
Meeting of District No. -1.l__ held on
duly posted for public inspection at
District's offices on ~ \ ~
the Adjourned Regular Board
~ .;;!.<!) , 1987 was
the main lobby of the
, 1987.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this \ R~
day of~ , 1987.