Loading...
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.