Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-165P1 -ry COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ,`Y `.ovdunn ppoe dJ O • •q �,na " N OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 p Snea 195� 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 r Z. CO%3 (714) 962-2411 September 10, 1992 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of September 9, 1992, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date to consider and act on the State budget impact on Districts' property tax revenues. Assistant Ubdrul e etary '�'Pn•• vN°�09in COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS � `o4alilan pro �,sr OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 o snci19S� �y 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 RANGE CO'J (714) 962-2411 September 11, 1992 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICT NO. 13 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California I am calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 of Orange County California, at the above hour and date to meet jointly with Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14 regarding Purchase of Spark -Ignited Engines for use in Central Power Generation Systems, Job No. J-19A, and Central Power Generation System at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. J-19-2, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 5��, jg5, �y 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 ORq&GE COO (714) 962-2411 September 11, 1992 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICT NO, 14 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain valley, California I am calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 of Orange County California, at the above hour and date to meet jointly with Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 regarding Purchase of Spark -Ignited Engines for use in Central Power Generation Systems, Job No. J-19A, and Central Power Generation System at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. J-19-2, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Peer A. Swan, Chairman 11m BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127.10844 Ellis Avenue Fountaln Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (744) 962-2411 JOINT BOARDS AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 13 AND 14 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda is posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the Office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Boards for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts of member agencies relating to appointment of Directors, if any. (See listing in Board Meeting folders) (5) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards on specific agenda items or matters of general 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 remarks may be limited to five minutes. (6) The Joint Chairman, General Manager and General Counsel present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Directors. (a) Report of Joint Chairman (b) Report of General Manager (c) Report of General Counsel a 09/16/92 (7) DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 (a) Public hearing relative to the following proposed Ordinances �.✓ of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinances Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: (See enclosures included with Directors' agenda material) Amending Repealing District Ordinance No. Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 1 121 109 118 2 216 210 213 3 319 309 316 5 528 516 525 6 622 609 619 7 729 725 N/A 11 1118 1108 1115 (1) Open hearing (2) verbal Report of General Counsel (3) Receive and file written comments, if any (4) Oral public comments, if any (5) Staff response to comments (6) Close hearing (b) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 121, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 118: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 121 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 121. [ITEM (7) CONTINUED ON PAGE 3] 1WM 09/16/92 7 11-WO/ (7) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2) (c) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 216, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 210 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 213: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 216 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 216. (d) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 319, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 309 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 316: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 319 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance �.�..� (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 319. (e) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 528, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 516 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 525: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 528 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 528. [ITEM (7) CONTINUED ON PAGE 4] -3- 09/16/92 (7) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3) (f) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 622, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 619: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 622 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 622. (g) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 729, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 725 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 729 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors \lm� present) . (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 729. (h) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 1118, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 1115: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 1118 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 1118. -4- 1 09/16/92 1,...E \.. 0✓ (8) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 Consideration of the following resolutions directing the County Auditor -Controller to include sewer service charges on the property tax bills, pursuant to Ordinances of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, commencing with the 1992-93 fiscal year: (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda material) District Resolution No. Ordinance No. 1 92-130-1 121 2 92-131-2 216 3 92-132-3 319 5 92-133-5 528 6 92-134-6 622 7 92-135-7 729 11 92-136-11 1118 (9) ALL DISTRICTS Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Boards, the Chairman may convene the Boards in closed session to consider matters of pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 or 54957.6. Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employee compensation; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Boards during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Directors on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. (a) Convene in closed session, if necessary (b) Reconvene in regular session (c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (10) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (11) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (12) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn -5- 09/16/92 (13) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any IIIM,/ (14) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (15) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (17) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (19) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (20) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (21) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn (23) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (25) DISTRICT 13 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 13 Consideration of motion to adjourn (27) DISTRICT 14 Other.business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 14 Consideration of motion to adjourn -6- MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127.10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 JOINT BOARDS ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. MANAGER'S REPORT The following is a brief explanation of the items which appear on the enclosed agenda. DISTRICTS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7 AND 11 (7)&(8): PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES INCREASING ANNUAL SEWER USE FEES FOR 1992-93 TO REPLACE DISTRICTS' PROPERTY TAXES CONFISCATED BY THE STATE. At the regular Board meeting on September the 9th, the Boards' Fiscal Policy Committee submitted a report and recommendation to increase Districts' user fees to replace the lost property taxes taken by the state as part of the 1992-93 budget agreement between the Governor and the Legislature (35% to 40% of taxes, not to exceed 10% of the total revenue). At that same meeting the Boards introduced and held the first reading of ordinances increasing sanitary sewer service charges to replace the lost property taxes and passed said ordinances to second reading and public hearing on September 16th. The Board also made certain findings declaring that the adoption of the ordinances are statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to the CEQA guidelines. The Fiscal Policy Committee adjustment recommendations were subje additional information that was pendi new budget have since been clarified information on the property tax base and the total revenue base against wh the 10% cap will apply in Districts N to be confiscated by the state for th information, staff has recalculated t the lost property taxes based on a 35 revenue, as summarized on the attache information to the County Auditor for revised Ordinance Table A reflecting course, subject to further refinement 's report notes that the ct to further refinement ng. Certain provisions and we have received mo upon which the shift wil ich the 10% cap applies, os. 5, 7 and 11, thus r ose Districts. Based on he user fee increases n % seizure, not to excee d (gray) table. We hav concurrence. Also att these revised rates. T if updated information (1 of 3) d e specific user fee upon receipt of of the state's re current 1 be calculated, It appears as if educing the amount this new ecessary to replace 10% of total submitted this ached (blue) is a hese rates are, of is forthcoming. Manager's Report September 16, 1992 There remains one additional issue to be resolved as soon as possible. The Directors will recall that in May, when early versions of the state's budget proposal indicated that taxes dedicated to debt service would be exempt from the property tax shift, the Boards adopted resolutions formally declaring our practice of using Districts' property taxes for debt service on our Certificates of Participation issues. This provision was retained in the final budget bill. We have also submitted this information to the County Auditor for their concurrence. It would further reduce the loss of taxes in all Districts as summarized on the attached (ivory) table. Also attached (goldenrod) is a revised Ordinance Table A reflecting these revised rates. The rates in the draft ordinances introduced at the September 9th Board meeting were based upon the best information available at that time. However, it was recognized that updated information might change the fee increase necessary to recover the lost property taxes shifted to the state and therefore the ordinances introduced on September 9th included the following statement: "The final user fee amount established for each District shall not exceed the proposed amounts set forth herein (the rates then recommended by the Fiscal Policy Committee based on preliminary data). If during the course of the public hearing additional facts are developed to support the adoption of lesser fees than proposed, such fees may be adopted without further notice and hearing." We hope to have concurrence from the County Auditor before the September 16th meeting and we will provide the Directors with an update at that time. Pending confirmation by the County Auditor of the revised rates necessary to make up for the property tax reduction caused by the state, the Boards could alternatively consider and adopt the rates as shown in the (blue) Table A or the (goldenrod) Table A. The actions appearing on the agenda for each District are to conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of the ordinances adjusting sewer use fees for 1992-93 to make up for the property taxes confiscated by the state; and to adopt resolutions authorizing and directing the County Auditor -Controller to collect said fees on the property tax bills. ALL DISTRICTS (9): AGENDA FOR CLOSED SESSION. From time to time it is necessary for the Boards to convene in closed session to consider purchase and sale of real property, potential or pending litigation, personnel matters or other matters which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. In order to avoid a situation where a closed session is needed but does not appear on the agenda, this standing item is placed on the agenda each month providing for a closed session at the regular meeting, if deemed necessary by the Boards. (2 of 3) Manager's Report September 16, 1992 The Boards of Directors will convene in closed session regarding Purchase of Spark -Ignited Engines for use in Central Power Generation Systems, Job No. J-19A, and Central Power Generation System at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. J-19-2. JWS:sc Attachments (3 of 3) r PROPOSED 1992-93 USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS To Recover SB 844 Property Tax Confiscation Revised Sept 10, 1992 A Q F. E Sx t! ! I K L Additional Total 91-92 Tax 35% Fiscal 89-90 10% Maximum EOU's Current Annual Fee Revised 1992-93 Fee 1992-93 Fee Allocation SB 844 Revenues SB 844 Confiscation Per 1992-93 To Recover 1992-93 Pro -Rated Pro -Rated District (Co Auditor) Diversion Adj by State* Cap Amount Budget SFR Fee Taxes SFR Fee 7/1-1Oil s/92 10/18/92-8/30/93 1 1,738,758 608,565 8,057,474 805,747 668,565 73,880 75.00 8.24 83.24 21.88 61.36 2 8,679,109 3,037,688 33,680,539 3,368,054 3,037,688 263,783 60.00 11.52 71.52 17.50 54.02 3 11,143,660 3,900,281 42,113,743 4,211,374 3,900,281 280,800 60.00 13.89 73.89 17.50 56.39 5 2,665,499 932,925 5,769,989 576,999 576,999 26,533 75.00 21.75 96.75 21.88 74.87 6 1,403,844 491,345 5,052,947 505,295 491,345 42,830 65.00 11.47 76.47 18.96 57.51 7 4,060,986 1,421,345 10,009,095 1,000,910 11000,910 99,228 40.00 10.09 50.09 11.67 38.42 11 2,527,662 884,682 6,346,664 634,666 634,666 50,910 60.00 12.47 72.47 17.50 54.97 13 0 0 N/A N/A 6,740 100.00 100.00 100.00 14 0 0 N/A N/A Total 32,219,518 11,276,831 111,030,451 11,103,045 10,2 0,455 844,7044 60.01 12.13 72.14 17.50 54.64 • The 1989-90 revenues reported by the Districts were improperly adjusted by the State for prior period adjustments for the 1988-89 gallonage charge allocation, the 1988-89 Interest paid on construction in progress and/or the change in the liability for compensated absences. The effect of these Improper Increases is to raise the 10% tax diversion (Col El allowed in Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5, and to reduce it In Districts 6 and 7. If these improper adjustments can be reversed,'then the Maximum Confiscation Amounts (Col F) will be decreased by $627,166; $752,862; and $2,333 in Districts 2, 3, and 5 and increased by $15,377 in District 7. USE FEE7.XLS 9/11/92 1:04 PM TABLE A 1 1-Sep-92 1992-93 USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS* Required to Replace 35% Property Tax Shift Ordered By the Governor and State Legislature Pro -Rate (7/1-10/15/921 Old New Current District Ordinance" Ordinance 1992-93"" Single Familv Residence Pro -Rate (10/16-6/30/93) Proposed 1992-93 Total Revised nnn nn 1 118 121 $21.88 $61.36 $83.24 2 213 216 17.50 54.02 71.52 3 316 319 17.50 56.39 73.89 5 525 528 21.88 74.87 96.75 6 619 622 18.96 57.51 76.47 7 NIA 729 11.67 38.62 50.29 11 1115 1118 17.50 54.97 72.47 Multi -Family Residence 1 118 121 $13.13 $36.81 $49.94 /unit 2 213 216 10.50 32.41 $42.91 /unit 3 316 319 10.50 33.83 $44.33 /unit 5 525 528 13.13 44.92 $58.05 /unit 6 619 622 11.38 34.50 $45.88 /unit 7 NIA 729 7.00 23.17 $30.17 /unit 11 1115 1118 10.50 32.98 $43.48 /unit Commerciallndustrial/Governmental/Other 1 118 121 $15.65 $43.87 $59.52 /1,000 SF 2 213 216 12.51 38.63 $51.14 /1,000 SF 3 316 319 12.51 40.32 $52.83 /1,000 SF 5 525 528 15.65 53.53 $69.18 /1,000 SF 6 619 622 13.56 41.12 $54.68 /1,000 SF 7 NIA 729 8.34 27.62 $35.96 /1,000 SF 11 1115 1118 12.51 39.31 $51.82 /1,000 SF "The final user fee amount established for each District shall not exceed the proposed amounts set forth herein. If during the course of the public hearing additional facts are developed to support the adoption of lesser fees than proposed, such fees may be adopted without further notice and hearing. teased on fees established by these ordinances. PROPOSED 1992.93 USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS Revised To Recover SB 844 Property Tax Confiscation Sept 10, 1992 COP Service Taxes Excepted A 8 © E F Additional Total Total Total 91-92 Tax 92-93 Taxes 35% Fiscal 89-90 10% Maximum EDU's Current Annual Fee Revised 1992-93 Fee 1992-93 Fee Allocation COP Subject To S8 844 Revenues SB 844 Confiscation Per 1992-93 To Recover 1992-93 Pro -Rated Pro -Rated District (Co Auditor) Service Diversion Diversion Adi by State` Cap Amount Budget SFR Fee Taxes SFR Fee 711.1005192 101161'92-8130193 1 1,738,758 4,328,000 0 0 8,057,474 805,747 0 73,880 75.00 0.00 75.00 21.88 53.12 2 8,679,109 11,086,000 0 0 33,680,539 3,368,054 0 263,783 60.00 0.00 60.00 17.50 42.50 3 11,143,660 10,346,000 797,660 279,181 42,113,743 4,211,374 279,181 280,800 60.00 0.99 60,99 17.50 43.49 5 2,665,499 1,978,000 687,499 240,625 5,769,989 576,999 240,625 26,533 75.00 9,07 84.07 21.88 62.19 6 1,403,844 1,236,000 167,844 58,745 5,052,947 505,295 58,745 42,830 65.00 1.37 66.37 18.96 47.41 7 4,060.986 2,130,000 1,930,986 675,645 10,009,095 1,000,910 675,845 99,228 40.00 6.81 46.81 11,67 35.14 11 2,527,662 2,275,000 252,662 88,432 6,346,664 634,666 88,432 50,910 60.00 1.74 61.74 17.50 44.24 13 0 0 0 NIA NIA 6,740 100.00 100.00 100.00 14 0 0 0 NIA NIA Total 32,219,518 33,379,000 3,836,651 1,342,828 111,030,451 11,103,045 1,342,828 844,704 60.01 1.59 1 61.60 17.50 44.10 The 1989.90 revenues reported by the Districts were improperly adjusted by the State for prior period adjustments for the 1988-89 gallonage charge allocation, the 1 988-89 interest paid on construction in progress and/or the change in the liability for compensated absences. The effect of these improper increases is to raise the 10% tax diversion (Col GI allowed in Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5, and to reduce it in Districts 6 and 7. These improper adjustments have no impact on this schedule as the 35% provision governs. USE FEE6.XLS 9111192 1:07 PM 1 1-Sep-92 TABLE A 1992-93 USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS* Required to Replkace 35% Property Tax Shift Ordered By the Governor and State Legislature Pro -Rate Pro -Rate (7/1-10/15192) (10/16-6/30/93) Total Old New Current Proposed Revised District Ordinance** Ordinance 1992-93** 1992-93 1992-93 Single Family Residence 1 118 121 $21.88 $53.12 $75.00 2 213 216 17.50 42.50 60.00 3 316 319 17.50 43.49 60.99 5 525 528 21.88 62.19 84.07 6 619 622 18.96 47.41 66.37 7 NIA 729 11.67 35.14 46.81 11 1 1 15 1 1 18 1 7.50 44.24 61.74 Multi -Family Residence 1 118 121 $13.13 $31.87 $45.00 /unit 2 213 216 10.50 25.50 $36.00 /unit -- 3 316 319 10.50 26.09 $36.59 /unit 5 525 528 13.13 37.31 $50.44 /unit 6 619 622 11.38 28.44 $39.82 /unit 7 NIA 729 7.00 21.09 $28.09 /unit 11 1115 1118 10.50 26.54 $37.04 /unit Commercial/Industrial/Governmental/Other 1 118 121 $15.65 $37.98 $53.63 /1,000 SF 2 213 216 12,51 30.39 $42.90 /1,000 SF 3 316 319 12.51 31.10 $43.61 /1,000 SF 5 525 528 15.65 44.46 $60.1 1 /1,000 SF 6 619 622 13.56 33.89 $47.45 /1,000 SF 7 N/A 729 8.34 25.13 $33.47 /1,000 SF 11 1115 1118 12.51 31.63 $44.14 /1,000 SF *'The final user fee amount established for each District shall not exceed the proposed amounts set forth herein. If during the course of the public hearing additional facts are developed to support the adoption of lesser fees than proposed, such fees may be adopted without further notice and hearing. 3ased on fees established by these ordinances. RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 September 2, 1992 REPORT OF THE FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE Meeting Date: September 2, 1992 FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE: Charles E. Puckett, Chairman James V. Evans Don Griffin Evelyn Hart Iry Pickler Peer Swan James Wahner Grace Winchell ABSENT: John Gullixson 1) Capital I OTHERS PRESENT: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 108" ELLIS AVENUE P.O. BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 (714) 962-2411 Director William Mahoney, Joint Chairman Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Steve Coma, Merrill Lynch Melissa Waters, Merrill Lynch Steve Cole, Mudge Rose STAFF PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services Thomas Dawes, Director of Engineering Gary Hasenstab, Director of Personnel Ed Hodges, Assistant Director of Maintenance Bob Ooten, Assistant Director of Operations Dan Dillon, Accounting Manager Patti Gorczyca, Financial Manager Program 1990-92 Series IIC'I Certificates of C4nnno4nn Staff reported that Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 11 successfully negotiated sale of the $98,500,000, 25-year, variable rate Certificates of Participation Series 'IC" issue on September 1, 1992. The issuance was backed by a Standby Bond Purchase Agreement provided by Federal Guaranty Insurance Company Securities Purchase, Inc., as well as Municipal Bond New Issue Insurance provided by Federal Guaranty Issuance Company. The ratings assigned to the issue were AAA/A-1+ by Standard and Poor's Corporation and Aaa/VMIG1 by Moody's Investors Service. The proceeds from this financing are being used to finance the cost of acquisition and construction of various capital projects, which consist of certain jointly owned sewage treatment and disposal facilities and certain trunk sewer lines owned by Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11. Additional proceeds will be used to reimburse the participating Districts for the cost of individually owned trunk sewer lines and jointly owned sewage treatment and disposal facilities. Staff summarized the terms of the issue's final structure and the market conditions during the issue's pricing. Based on market conditions, the then \,..� pending California State budget and subsequent note issuance, and the Districts' (1of8) Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 need for capital, the financing team chose to implement a variable rate financing (daily reset) and selected a September 1 date to price and sell the certificates as previously authorized by the Boards. Staff reported that the issue closed with an initial rate of 2.70%. Enclosed is a pricing book summarizing information pertaining to the Series "C" COP transaction. 2) User Fee Increases to Make Districts' Prooerty Taxes. for the State's Confiscation of Staff reported that earlier that day the Governor had signed a compromise budget submitted by the State Legislature which includes a $375 million state-wide property tax shift from special districts to the State to help finance their Proposition 98 school funding obligations. The State's budget provides that 35% of special districts' property tax revenues, not to exceed 10% of total revenues, will be shifted. What constitutes total revenues has not been fully defined yet so we are not sure whether it will be a factor, but there's a possibility that the 10% limit could help some Districts. However, if the 10% cap precludes a total state-wide shift of $375 million, then the county auditors are authorized to shift up to an additional 5% (ie., a total of 40%) of the special districts' property taxes. Following is a table reflecting each District's maximum tax loss under both scenarios, which total $12.0 million and $13.7 million, respectively; and tables showing the impact of both the 35% and the 40% shift on Districts' user fees, in the event the Directors elect to replace the property tax shortfall by increasing user fees in 1992-93: 1992-93 PROPERTY TAX LOSS Current Tax 35% Tax 40% Tax DISTRICT Revenue Loss Loss 1 $ 2,060,000 ($721,000) ($824,000) 2 9,105,000 (3,186,750) (3,642,000) 3 11,665,000 (4,082,750) (4,666,000) 5 2,816,000 (985,600) (1,126,400) 6 1,467,000 (513,450) (586,800) 7 4,430,000 (1,550,500) (1,772,000) 11 2,652,000 (928,200) (1,060,800) Total $34,195,000 ($11,968,250) ($13,678,000) IM 10 (2 of 8) A. M Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 1992-93 S.F.R. USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS Required to Replace 35% Property Tax Shift (7/1-10/15/92) (10/16/92-6/30/93) Current Proposed Annual Fee Total Current 1992-93 1992-93 Increase Revised 1992-93 Pro -Rated Pro -Rated 1992-93 1992-93 DISTRICT SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee 1 $75.00 $21.88 $62.88 $ 9.76 $ 84.76 2 60.00 17.50 54.58 12.08 72.08 3 60.00 17.50 57.04 14.54 74.54 5 75.00 21.88 90.27 37.15 112.15 6 65.00 18.96 58.03 11.99 76.99 7 40.00 11.67 43.96 15.63 55.63 11 60.00 17.50 60.73 18.23 78.23 1992-93 S.F.R. USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS Required to Replace 40% Property Tax Shift (7/1-10/15/92) (10/16/92-6/30/93) Current Proposed Annual Fee Total Current 1992-93 1992-93 Increase Revised 1992-93 Pro -Rated Pro -Rated 1992-93 1992-93 DISTRICT SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee SFR Fee 1 $75.00 $21.88 $64.28 $11.16 $ 86.16 2 60.00 17.50 56.31 13.81 73.81 3 60.00 17.50 59.12 16.62 76.62 5 75.00 21.88 95.58 42.46 117.46 6 65.00 18.96 59.74 13.70 78.70 7 40.00 11.67 46.19 17.86 57.86 11 60.00 17.50 63.34 20.84 80.84 (3 of 8) Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 Staff clarified differences between the final adopted State budget and earlier versions. The original proposal by the Governor would have shifted $347 million state-wide and 100%, or $34.2 million, of the Districts' property tax revenue to the schools. The final budget shifts $375 million, but only 35-40°% of special districts' property tax revenue. The difference is the original $347 million proposal applied only to enterprise special districts, whereas the $375 million final budget shift applies to all special districts. It was also pointed out that the Governor and State Legislators have claimed that they are really not taking any tax monies from special districts since the State provided bailout/special district augmentation funding (SDAF) following Proposition 13; and they argue that consequently they are now merely shifting what has heretofore been a "windfall" for special districts. In the case of the Orange County Sanitation Districts, that is simply a hollow claim. Our Districts never received State bailout funds following Proposition 13, nor have we ever received any SDAF monies since Proposition 13 was implemented. The only property taxes that we have ever received are the historical share of the property tax that we have been entitled to all along. The POTW community vigorously argued that point but the concerns expressed by local government were, for the most part, not well received by the Sacramento majority. We were, however, able to defeat a proposal to fund the State Water Resources Control Board activities by leveying a fee on NPDES Permits that would have cost our Districts between $750,000 and $2.5 million. This proposal has been floated each of the past few years at budget time and so far we have been able to defeat it. The Districts collect their annual user fees on the property tax bill as it is the most cost-effective way to do it. As previously reported to the Boards, the Districts were required to submit the 1992-93 user fees (which were previously adopted by the Boards at the same rates as for 1991-92) by August 24th in order to meet the County Auditor's deadline for placing them on the property tax bill for 1992-93. Accordingly, we submitted the required information to the County Auditor by the deadline. An additional provision in the State's budget action now allows special districts to submit fee information for collection on the tax bill to the County Auditor up to October 1st. At one time the State was considering waiving the public notice and hearing procedures for fee increases caused as a result of the State's property tax shift from special districts to the schools because of the time restraints for implementing changes; however, that did not occur. Staff reported that if it is the Boards' decision to increase 1992-93 user fees to make up for the property tax loss, it could be accomplished by the October 1st deadline as set forth in the following time table: (4 of 8) =, Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 Time Table for Adjusting 1992-93 User Fees September 2 - Consideration and guidance by Fiscal Policy Committee September 8 - Publish notice of proposed user fee increase and public hearing on September 16th September 9 - Joint Board meeting to consider recommendations of Fiscal Policy Committee Declare CEQA Exemption Introduction and first reading of ordinance adjusting user fees for 1992-93 Fix public hearing for Wednesday, September 16th at 7:30 p.m. Adjourn Joint Boards to September 16th September 15 - Second publication of notice of proposed user fee increase and public hearing September 16 - Adjourned Joint Board meeting Second reading and consideration of adoption of user fee increase ordinance Direct County Auditor to collect the fees on property tax bill October 1 - File revised 1992-93 user fee rate computer tapes with County Auditor October 16 - New user fees take effect (5 of 8) Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 Also discussed were potential impacts of possibly reduced assessed valuations because of the current state of the economy. Preliminary information indicates that values are up in all Districts. There is also language in the State's budget act relating to possible exemption from seizure of property taxes committed to debt service. As the Directors are aware that the Boards have previously adopted a resolution so declaring major portions of our property taxes because of the Districts' debt financing capital program and the anticipated inclusion of this provision in the law. Finally, there are some organizations questioning the constitutionality of the State's action and considering bringing suit. The General Counsel is continuing to review these two latter items and will report back. The Committee entered into a lengthy discussion of the impacts on the Districts of the property tax shift ordered by the Governor and State Legislature. The alternatives for making up the $12.0 - $13.7 million property tax loss are summarized in the enclosed staff reports dated September 1, 1992 (tan), August 18, 1992 (white) and August 13, 1992 (gray). One option is issuance of short-term notes similar to tax revenue anticipation notes (TRANS), which is a fairly common practice by many governmental agencies to provide cash -flow funding pending receipt of annual property taxes and which often results in net arbitrage earnings to the agency. The Districts have considered TRANS in the past but it was determined by bond counsel that they could not be utilized because of the Districts' financial structure. However, because of the state's action in confiscating Districts' property taxes, bond counsel has now ruled that the Districts could issue taxable short-term notes as an alternative to raising 1992-93 user fees, and then raise fees in 1993-94 to make up for both the property tax loss and to pay off the notes and interest. The Districts could realize as much as $1.7 million in net arbitrage earnings from such a transaction. It was the consensus of the Committee that inasmuch as there is a strong likelihood that the state will ultimately take all of the Districts' property taxes (see copy of enclosed September 1, 1992 letter from Senator Marian Bergeson [ivory]) that delaying user fee increases would mean that next year the rate increase would probably have to be about double what it would otherwise be, and that such an adjustment would be considerably more difficult to deal with and explain. . Use of existing reserves is another option that could be used to offset the 1992-93 property tax loss. However, dipping into reserves would actually exacerbate the property tax loss problem because the Districts would also lose interest earnings on those reserves that would be depleted. Further, the current reserve strategy is a major reason that the Districts enjoy an extremely favorable reputation and position in the bond market which saves millions of dollars in debt service interest. Lastly, because of the very nature of expansive wastewater treatment activities, a strong reserve position is absolutely essential in assuring that the Districts will be able to weather major emergency situations or other crises. The Committee discussed at great length the matter of further budgetary cuts. It was pointed out that in putting together the 1992-93 budgets, the Committee recognized the current state of the economy and the possibility that Districts' property taxes could be reduced or taken altogether, and therefore (6 of 8) 111t.� Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 sharpened the budget pencil and cut it by $54.2 million under the 1991-92 budget. This was accomplished in spite of the fact that Districts' costs of operation continue to rise because of the added costs of complying with regulatory requirements, both air quality and water quality, and costs associated with increasing sewerage flows resulting from ongoing development and population increases. Part of the costs associated with these two are, of course, the expenses necessary for operating and maintaining the approximately $100 million in new facilities that are placed into service each year. The impacts of inflation also affect our costs. It was noted that due to the probable delay in starting up central generation we anticipate running over the budget because we will not realize the full electrical cost savings anticipated with an earlier start-up. It was also noted that there are few discretionary expenditures in operating wastewater treatment facilities. Although some further operating budget cuts could be made, any meaningful reductions would impair our operating and maintenance capabilities for processing 230 million -gallons -per -day, and thus jeopardize our ability to keep the collection, treatment and disposal facilities in a state of repair that enables us to continuously comply with regulatory requirements and protect public health, the marine environment and the beaches. Research and development is an example of what might be considered discretionary, and there are some others. But, it was observed, Districts' research and development is directed towards the goals of finding better and more efficient ways of doing things, and assuring that the public's health and the environment are being adequately protected. The same can be said of such activities as our involvement in legislative and regulatory affairs which is to bring some rationality to laws and regulations that will, in the long run, save millions of dollars. It is the consensus of the Committee that the staff and the Boards of Directors had, in response to the current state of the economy and in anticipation of reductions in the Districts' property taxes by the State, already acted in an earnest and responsible manner by cutting $54.2 million from the 1992-93 budget and holding 1992-93 fees at the same level as 1991-92; and that further 1992-93 budget cuts would jeopardize the integrity and quality of the Districts' wastewater management program and the Boards' level of service commitment to the citizens, communities and the coastal cities for the protection of public health and the environment. The Committee was also concerned that further cutbacks would jeopardize the Districts' 301(h) Waiver NPDES Permit which saves the citizens of Orange County $50 million a year. However, the Members also agreed that the Fiscal Policy Committee and staff should continue to work together to consider potential future opportunities for budgetary savings and operational economies. For the reasons enumerated above, it is the consensus of the Committee that the action of the Governor and State Legislature in confiscating up to $13.7 (40%) million of the Districts annual property tax, and the likelihood that the State will eventually take 100% or ($34.2 million) of the Districts' annual property taxes, the Directors have no viable alternative but to raise user fees (7 of 8) Fiscal Policy Committee Report September 2, 1992 to make up for the loss. The Committee also feels quite strongly that the Districts should put together a public information program to inform citizens that this action is necessary only because of the State's seizure of local property taxes, ie., to lay the blame exactly where it belongs, at the feet of the Governor and Members of the State Legislature. Recommendations: The Fiscal Policy Committee recommends: a) That the Districts' 1992-93 user fees be increased, in accordance with the time table hereinabove set forth, to make up for the minimum 35% confiscation of Districts' property taxes by the State of California, as follows: 1992-93 S.F.R. USER FEE ADJUSTMENTS (7/1-10/15/92) Current Current 1992-93 1992-93 Pro -Rated DISTRICT SFR Fee SFR Fee (10/16/92-6/30/93) Proposed 1992-93 Pro -Rated SFR Fee Annual Fee Total Increase Revised 1992-93 1992-93 SFR Fee SFR Fee 1 $75.00 $21.88 $62.88 $ 9.76 $ 84.76 2 60.00 17.50 54.58 12.08 72.08 3 60.00 17.50 57.04 14.54 74.54 5 75.00 21.88 90.27 37.15 112.15 6 65.00 18.96 58.03 11.99 76.99 7 40.00 11.67 43.96 15.63 55.63 11 60.00 17.50 60.73 18.23 78.23 This recommendation is made with the understanding that not all of the information pertaining to the impact of the State's budget act is yet available, ie., definition of total revenue vis-a-vis application of the 10% cap provision, and new assessed valuations; and that if forthcoming information prior to the Boards' scheduled consideration of the fee adjustments on September 16th indicates that the required increase would be less, then the proposed fees could be adjusted accordingly on that date. b) That the staff be directed program explaining the need charges to recover property the action of the Governor up to 40% of the Districts' JWS:sc Enclosures to develop and implement a public information to raise Districts' sanitary sewer service taxes confiscated by the State as a result of and State Legislature, that will initially take annual property taxes. (8 of 8) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA August 18, 1992 108" ELLIS AVENUE P.O. BOX 8127 ; FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728.8127 [71 a1962-2411 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: State' Proposed Shift of Districts' Property Taxes and Options to Make Up Lost Property Taxes As reported to the Directors at the August 12th Board Meeting, the "Budget Olympics" are continuing in Sacramento as the Governor and Legislature attempt to resolve the State's budget crisis. As you know, they have proposed to shift all or a portion of enterprise special districts' property tax revenue to the State to satisfy the State's obligations to fund schools under Proposition 98. There are currently two alternative proposals that would affect the Sanitation Districts. One is the so-called "Super Pot". Under this alternative all special districts' tax monies would be put into a single pot. In our case, our total $34.2 million in property taxes would be transferred. This would total just under $1.7 billion statewide. Twenty-five percent of that would then be appropriated for the schools and the balance distributed to special districts in a manner similar to the current Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) monies by County Supervisors. The second alternative that is being discussed is a proposal that would take between 25% and 30% of enterprise special districts' tax revenues and give that to the schools. In our case, 25% of our total property tax of $34.2 million would be $8.5 million. We would keep the rest. Obviously, the Sanitation Districts would prefer the second alternative. But under any proposal the Boards will be faced with a decision on how to make up for whatever property taxes are shifted in order to maintain the Districts' long-term financial integrity. An important point to remember is that the State will apparently continue to experience budgetary problems for the foreseeable future. To a large extent, their approach to solving their budgetary shortfalls has been to raid the treasuries of local government. Thus, it is clear that if they only succeed in grabbing a portion of enterprise special districts' property taxes this year, in all likelihood they will keep coming back for more next year and, ultimately, all of it in future years. Therefore, sooner or later the Districts will have to significantly increase user fees, over and above what will be necessary increases to finance rising costs of providing sewerage services to the communities we serve, to adequately fund the Districts requirements. (1 of 6) f Staff Report re State's Proposed Shift of Districts' Property Taxes/Options August 18, 1992 w There are basically three options for making up lost property taxes: 1. Further budgetary cuts. 2. Use of reserves 3. Increase user fees These options are discussed in some detail below. Although there are numerous variations, we have limited our discussion to the three fundamental options to help focus on the impacts of the loss of the Districts historical share of the property tax. 1. Further Budgetary Cuts Recognizing the current economic situation, in developing the 1992-93 budgets the Fiscal Policy Committee worked with staff to take a hard look at budgeted expenditures and determine where cuts could be made. After considerable deliberation the Committee recommended and the Boards approved a 1992-93 budget that is $54.2 million less than the 1991-92 budget, summarized as follows: Comparative Budget Summar Millions of Dollars Increase 1991-92 1992-93 <Decrease> Operations & Maintenance $ 61.4 $ 59.9 $< 1.5> Sewerage Facilities Construction 144.2 110.0 <34.2> Debt Service 35.5 39.0 3.5 Reserves 351.3 329.3 <22.0> $592.4 $538.2 $<54.2> (2 of 6) y Staff Report re State's Proposed Shift of Districts' Property Taxes/Options August 18, 1992 All property taxes are allocated to the Operating Funds of the individual Districts, primarily to pay for debt service. Other operating maintenance and repair costs are essentially paid by user fees. The budgeted Operating Fund tax revenue and user fees of the respective Districts for 1992-93 are as follows: 1992-93 Budgeted Property Tax/User Fees Current Current Current User Fee District Tax Revenue User Fees Rate 1 $ 2,060,000 $ 5,941,000 $ 75.00 2 9,105,000 18,077,000 60.00 3 11,665,000 18,748,000 60.00 5 2,816,000 2,040,000 75.00 6 1,467,000 2,959,000 65.00 7 4,430,000 4,809,000 40.00 11 2,652,000 3,335,000 60.00 13* -0- 674,000 100.00 14* -0- -0- -0- Total/Avg. $34,195,000 $56,583,000 $ 60.01 1�1w� *District 13 receives no property taxes. District 14 is financed by the Irvine Ranch Water District. Therefore, because they are not affected by the property tax shift they will not be discussed in this report. Most other costs of operations continue to rise for several reasons beyond our control. First are the added costs of complying with regulatory requirements - both air quality and water quality. Second are the costs associated with increasing sewerage flows resulting from ongoing development and population increases. Part of the costs associated with these two are, of course, the expenses necessary for operating and maintaining the approximately $100 million in new facilities that are placed into service each year. Finally, the impacts of inflation affect our costs. (3 of 6) Staff Report re .State's Proposed .Shift of Districts' Property Taxes/Options August 18, 1992 Notwithstanding these increasing costs, $1.5 million in operating budget cuts were made in 1992-93 and, as a result the operating budgets are very tight. In fact, due to the probable delay in starting up central generation we anticipate running over the budget because we will not realize the full electrical cost savings anticipated with an earlier start-up. There are few discretionary expenditures in operating wastewater treatment facilities. Although some further operating budget cuts might be made, any significant reductions would impair our operating and maintenance capabilities and jeopardize our ability to keep the collection, treatment and disposal facilities in a state of repair that enables us to continuously comply with regulatory requirements and protect public health, the marine environment and the beaches. The experience of our sister agencies (for example, the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Diego) has shown that when operating and maintenance budgets are inadequately financed it causes facilities breakdowns, which in the case of these two cities have resulted in repeated beach closures and attendant fines by regulatory authorities, as well as enforcement actions. With regard to the capital budgets, $34.2 million has already been cut fromIthe 1992-93 budget. Additional cuts could be made in the capital budgets, however, the Directors discussed this at considerable length and concluded that it would be counterproductive in that it would further exacerbate the Orange County economic situation and, further, that it is advantageous to continue with the construction program because of the excellent bids that we are receiving. Moreover, most of the capital expenditures this year are for projects already underway. There is very little new work. Further, property taxes are not used to finance capital projects, except to the extent that they retire the securities issued by the Districts to finance the work. The Districts current capital program is being funded by issuance of debt in accordance with the Districts' long range financial plan. These funds are committed and must be spent within the specified time frame to avoid illegal arbitrage. Thus, there would be little advantage to further cutting the capital budget. 2. Use of Reserves Another option is to use existing reserves to offset the loss of property taxes. Enclosed is a separate staff report (gray) on user fees. Attached to the report are revised cash flow estimates for 1992-93 (tan and green) that reflect the impact on reserves for both the 100% tax loss scenario and the 25% tax loss scenario. The cash flows assume that the 1992-93 tax loss would not be recovered but that user fees would be raised in subsequent years to make up for the loss of property tax in each of those years. As a result, the reserves at the end of the five year period, which are shown on Line 17, are reduced by an amount greater than the first year's loss in property taxes because of loss of interest earnings on those monies in 1992-93 and subsequent years. If it were the Boards' desire to recoup those taxes lost the first year then the user fees would have to be increased accordingly in subsequent years over what is shown on Line 22. Following is a summary of the impact on each District for the two scenarios: (4 of 6) Fri Staff Report re State's Proposed Shift of Districts' Property Taxes/Options ✓August 18, 1992 Impact of 1992-93 Tax Loss 1f Made up by Reserves $8.5 Million (25%) Tax Loss Reduction in Reserves 1992-93 District Tax Loss 1992-93 By 1996-97 1 $ 515,000 $ 534,000 $ 739,000 2 2,277,000 2,361,000 3,131,000 3 2,916,000 3,028,000 4,073,000 5 704,000 730,000 970,000 6 367,000 381,000 511,000 7 1,107,000 1,147,000 1,522,000 it 663,000 687,000 913,000 ,-.W,Total ILEL9..000 8 868 000 511,859,000 3. Increase User Fees $34.2 Million Tax Loss Reduction in Reserves 1992-93 Tax Loss 1992-93 By 1996-97 $2,060,000 $2,136,000 $ 2,836,000 9,105,000 9,440,000 12,539,000 11,665,000 12,114,000 16,299,000 2,816,000 2,920,000 3,878,000 1,467,000 1,523,000 2,048,000 4,430,000 4,593,000 6,098,000 2,652,000 2,749,000 3,651,000 134,195,000 135,475,000 147,349,000 The third option is to offset the loss of property tax revenues by increasing user fees in an amount equivalent to recover a portion or the full amount of the loss. Unfortunately, there is a practical problem as well that may dictate what alternatives the Boards have for 1992-93. As the Directors are aware, we collect our annual sewer user fees on the property tax bill because it is the most cost-effective way to do it. In order to do this the County Auditor requires that we have our user fee rates to them on computer tapes by August 24th, which requires that they be processed several days in advance of that. Since the Governor and State Legislators have failed to come to terms on the state budget as of this writing, we have effectively missed this cut-off date. However, it may be that a supplemental tax bill could be issued and staff and counsel are looking into this possibility. There are certain obvious downsides to issuing a supplemental tax bill reflecting a fee increase. (5 of 6) C 1' Staff Report re State's Proposed Shift of Districts' Property Taxes/Options August 18, 1992 The enclosed updated cash flows (blue and gold) reflect the impact on the Districts' financial position of increasing the user fee to make up for the property tax shortfall in 1992-93 and subsequent years. Basically, this alternative keeps the Districts in the exact same fiscal position as if there were no property tax shift; ie., as already budgeted for 1992-93 (see white cash flows), except that user fees would be increased to replace property taxes lost, as summarized below: Fee Increase to Raise $8.9 Million Fee Increase to Raise $34.2 Million Adopted 1992-93 25% Tax Loss 1992-93 100% Tax Loss 1992-93 District SFR Fee Fee Increase SFR Fee Fee Increase SFR Fee 1 $ 75.00 $ 6.97 (+ 9%) $ 81.97 $ 27.88 (+ 37%) $102.88 2 60.00 8.63 (+14%) 68.63 34.52 (+ 58%) 94.52 3 60.00 10.38 (+17%) 70.38 41.54 (+ 69%) 101.54 5 75.00 26.53 (+35%) 101.53 106.13 (+142%) 181.13 6 65.00 8.57 (+13%) 73.57 34.25 (+ 53%) 99.25 7 40.00 11.15 (+28%) 51.15 44.64 (+112%) 84.64 11 60.00 13.03 (+22%) 73.03 57.09 (+ 95%) 112.09 13 100.00 .00 100.00 .00 100.00 I `•✓' Avg 60.01 110.12 +17Z 70.13 40.80 68%1 0.81 JWS:sc Enclosures (6 of 6) l J COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS August 13, 1992 of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � 10844 ELLIS AVENUE P.O. BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA S2728-8127 (714)952.2411 \%0✓ STAFF REPORT 1992-93 SEWER USE FEES BACKGROUND During the 1980's and early 1990's, each of the Districts considered and adopted a sewer use fee for ongoing operations, maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Although property taxes, connection fees and federal and state construction grants have historically been the major sources of financing of Districts' activities, they became inadequate during this period. Since the passage of Proposition 13, all ad valorem property tax revenue has been used in the Operating Funds for maintenance, operations, rehabilitation and retirement of certificates of participation and none has been available for capital improvements. To keep pace with the stringent requirements of the federal, state and regional regulatory agencies for advanced wastewater treatment and air emissions control, all Districts except No. 14 review their user fee annually. No adjustment was made to the fees for 1992-93. The average annual fee for a single family residence is $60. District No. 14 is fully funded by the IRWD. In addition to new regulatory requirements, cost increases are also generally attributable to inflation, to additional flows generated by the natural population increases from the excess of births over deaths and in -migration. Federal and state assistance from the clean water grant program has been eliminated by Congress because of federal funding problems. As a part of the State of California budget deliberations for 1992-93, the Legislature and the Governor have currently proposed diverting all or a portion of the historical share of the property tax which has heretofore been allocated to special enterprise districts. For the Sanitation Districts this amounts to a reduction in budgeted revenue for 1992-93 of between $8.9 million (25%) and $34.2 million (100%), based on the two alternative proposals under consideration. The purpose of this report is to examine the impact of this significant loss of revenue upon the previously adopted user fees of each District. FUTURE FINANCING PROJECTIONS The attached Statement of Projected Cash Flows for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 (white) have been prepared in accordance with the adopted 1992-93 budgets and the "2020 VISION" Financial Plan recommendations that each District's share of the treatment plant construction, and its respective trunk sewer construction 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 2 August 13, 1992 projects, be financed by a combination of increased connection fees to pay for new capacity and borrowing to pay for rehabilitation and improved treatment. Debt retirement and escalating operating and maintenance costs would now be paid by increasing the annual sewer use fees, or dipping into reserves since reduced or no property taxes will be available under the following assumptions: 1. Renewal of NPDES Permit and Continuation of Current Treatment Levels (301 [h1 Waiver) This scenario continues to represents the minimum probable level of construction, rehabilitation and operations and maintenance costs. For the first five years of the planning period, the differences between renewal of our existing permit and full secondary treatment are not significant. Additional sewage flow and sewer connection assumptions are also consistent with the Master Plan. 2. Connection Fees The capital facilities connection fee includes the cost of future and existing facilities on a per unit basis. The reason to include future costs is that we any new flow will require new additional capacity. The connection fee policy provides for an annual adjustment of fees to reflect changes in the Engineering News Record -LA Construction Cost Index. A fee �.►� increase of 5% per year is projected in the cash flows for the years 1993-94 through 2001-02. The 1992-93 fee has been left at the 1991-92 level in accordance with a prior Board action. 3. Debt Over the next 10 years, all of the Districts except Nos. 13 and 14 are projected to issue COP -type debt to meet a portion of Joint Works treatment facilities improvements. Borrowing has been a part of the long-range financial plan for capital improvements since the policy of using all property tax revenues for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation was implemented. Extensive use of the now discontinued Federal and State Clean Water Grant Program enabled the Districts to stretch out their reserves and other income and to avoid borrowing until now. Three primary reasons to issue debt are: to protect and to preserve capital reserves; to avoid major increases and fluctuations in user fees from year-to-year; and to spread the cost of facilities over their useful lives. Vi 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 3 August 13, 1992 11,01, The cash flow projections include regularly scheduled COP issues through 1995- 96 to meet capital project award and cash flow requirements, and to avoid federal interest earnings restrictions on unspent proceeds. The "2020 VISION" Financial Plan projected borrowing approximately $750 million and the Directors may want to extend this plan through 1996-97 in order to reach that target. 4. Reserves As a part of the financial plan developed by the financial team of the Fiscal Policy Committee, staff and consultants, the Boards have implemented a plan to build reserves for certain future events. The approved reserve policy calls for Dry -Period Reserves, Operating Contingency Reserves, Capital Project Reserves, Environmental Requirement Reserves, and Insurance Reserves. When an adequate funding level for these reserves has been reached, a Fee Stabilization Fund will be created. Increasingly stringent environmental standards at the federal, state, regional and local levels, as well as inflationary trends, have made it clear that user fee rates will have to increase - and at an accelerated pace - to maintain each District's financial integrity. However, there are several unknowns that could have a major impact on the projected cash flow requirements, including completion schedules for major facilities and the renewal of the Districts' 301(h) permit. The attached schedules assume all projects are completed as planned and may be considered worst case, or most costly, scenarios with the exception of the 301(h) issue. ANNUAL USER FEE HISTORY The sewer use fee program methodology is identical in each of the Districts; the only difference is the schedule of rates charged to the various categories of users, since each District's financial situation varies. The adopted programs are in accordance with the Districts' adopted Revenue Program required by the Federal Clean Water Act, and have been approved as "fair and equitable" by the State Water Resources Control Board. The user fees are collected as a separate line item on the annual County of Orange property tax bills. District No. 1 In late 1984, District No. 1 modified its long-range financial plan to include a supplemental sewer use fee. The initial fee was set at $60 per year for a single- family residence. Before the 1985-86 fees could actually be assessed, the 301(h) waiver was granted and the fees were reduced to $26.40 per year based upon water meter size. w-- 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 4 August 13, 1992 In August 1986, the State Water Resources Control Board revised their ruling that water meters provided a "fair and equitable" distribution of costs and required the District to change the user fee to a flat rate charge of $26.40 per year for 1987-88. Because of significant financial shortfalls in 1988, District No. 1 declared their intent to increase their use fee 30% annually in order to maintain their financial integrity. For the 1988-89 year, the Board again reviewed the Districts' long-range financial plan and subsequently increased the use fee to $34.32 per year. The single-family residential rate was $45.00 for 1989-90, $55.00 for 1990-91 AND $75.00 FOR 1991-92 AND 1992-93. The Master plan adopted in 1989 projected a fee of $100 by 1992-93. District No. 2 The District No. 2 Board approved the initial user fee for the District for 1990-91, and set the single-family residential rate at $55.00 per year. During the user fee adoption process, the Directors and the public were informed that the annual fee was projected to increase and could be as high as $75.00 for 1991-92. The rate adopted for 1991- 92 and 1992-93 was $60.00 for a single-family residence, consistent with the 1989 Master Plan. District No. 3 �..✓ After several years of discussion, the District No. 3 Board adopted the sewer use fee program in March 1989 for the 1989-90 fiscal year in the amount of $30.36 per year. Future fees were expected to increase, but were not projected pending completion of the 30-year Master Plan. Major rehabilitation/repair of manholes damaged by corrosion, increasing costs described above, and the need to repay existing and future COP -type debt, required a rate increase for 1990-91 to $50.00 The single-family residential rate of $60.00 for 1991-92 and 1992-93 is below the Master Plan projection of $100 for 1992-93. District No. 5 The first District to implement a user fee was District No. 5 in 1981. The initial fee for a single-family residence was $26.40 per year, based on water meter size. When the program was originally presented to the public and adopted by the Board, it was anticipated that it might be necessary to increase the fee by approximately 77%, beginning in the second year, to finance the rehabilitation work on the trunk sewer system. With the exception of the state mandated change from a water meter basis to a flat -rate basis, the rates were unchanged until 1989-90 because of the decline in y' 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 5 August 13, 1992 inflation, favorable bids on rehabilitation projects, delays in major plant projects and unexpected incases in assessed valuations. In accordance with the Master plan and to smooth the transition to the rates needed to retire future debt, the Board adopted the first increase in user fees effective 1989-90, with a single-family residential rate of $45.00 per year and increased it to $55.00 in 1990-91. The rate for 1991-92, $75.00 per year, continued the process recommended in the Master Plan and was consistent with the rate projected in the Master Plan. Maintaining that fee for 1992-93 brought the District below the Master Plan projection of $100. District No. 6 In 1983, District No. 6 became the second Sanitation District to implement a sewer use fee. During the public workshops and hearing, the public was advised that the fee was expected to increase substantially from the $26.40 per year for a single- family residence in the first year, to $46.80 per year in the second year, to cover rising costs and then remain at the increased level. However, the District was able to delay any fee increase until 1986-87, due to a decline in inflation rates, receipt of favorable bids on construction and rehabilitation projects, delays in project schedules, a significant increase in assessed valuation of certain parcels in 1984-85, and the positive impact of the formation of District No. `...' 14. The assessed valuation increase was reversed by the County Assessor in 1986- 87, however, and the use fee was increased by 10% to $29.04 for 1986-87, 10% to $31.68 for 1987-88, 10% to $38.02 for 1988-89, and 14% to $49.00 for 1989- 90 (the 1989-90 fee was slightly above the fee originally predicted for 1984-85), and 12% to $55.00 for 1990-91. The fee for 1991-92 and 1992-93, $65.00 for a single-family residence, reflected a necessary continuation of the fee increase to cover rising costs described above and to provide for debt service. The fee is below the $75.00 fee in the Master Plan projections. District No. 7 District No. 7 was the last of the Districts to adopt a user fee to supplement the property tax revenues. The 1991-92 year was the initial year of user fees and the rate was set at $40.00 for a single family residence; below the $50.00 fee projected in the Master Plan. The same fee and projection applies to 1992-93. 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 6 August 13, 1992 District No. 11 �J District No. 11 modified its long-range financial plan in 1987 to include a sewer use fee to address a shortfall in ad valorem property tax revenues and to provide additional financing necessary for operations and maintenance and major facilities rehabilitation/repair. The use fee for a single-family residence was set at $26.40 per year for 1988-89, and was projected to be $45.00 per year by 1990-91. The Board adopted a fee of $40.00 per year for 1989-90. The increased costs described earlier and the need to repay debt issued in 1990-91 and 1991-92 required an increase in the single-family residential use fee to $60.00 for 1991-92. This fee was again adopted for 1992-93 and is lower than the $150 projected in the 1989 Master Plan. District No. 13 District No. 13 has never received ad valorem property tax revenues as a result of protracted tax exchange negotiations and settlement with the County, which ultimately led to the formation of the District. When District No. 13 was formed in 1985, the Directors set the annual use fee at $70.00 per household, higher than the fees in other Districts, as no property tax revenue is received by the District. A connection fee schedule was also implemented at that time to pay for additional facilities to serve new development. Despite increased costs of operating and maintaining the joint treatment facilities for the reasons described above, the sewer use fee in District No. 13 has increased only twice because proportionately higher development has spread fixed costs over more properties. In 1988-89, the fee was increased 12% to $78.40 per year, and for 1990-91 the annual fee was increased to $95.00 for a single-family residence. The fee adopted for 1991-92 and 1992-93, $100.00 for a single-family residence is lower than the $135 projected in the Master Plan for the slow growth assumption. CURRENT USER FEE ALTERNATIVES With the diversion by the State of between $8.9 million and $34.2 million from current operating fund revenues, the Directors may wish to reconsider the previously adopted user fees for 1992-93. In order to change the user fees on the 1992-93 property tax bills, any changed rates must be given to the County Auditor -Controller by August 24, 1992. Any actions now will not allow sufficient time for the County Data Center to prepare a tape for the Auditor -Controller, and will not be reflected on the regular tax bills until 1993-94 when the annual fees will again be considered. , z 1992-93 Sewer Use Fees Page 7 August 13, 1992 In the hope of an additional extension or a revised tax bill, the Directors may decide 'Imol' to increase the user fees to make up for the property taxes taken by the Governor and the Legislature. These fee adjustments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Fee Increase to Raise $8.9 Million Fee Increase to Raise $34.2 Million Adopted 1992-93 25% Tax Loss 1992-93 100% Tax Loss 1992-93 District SFR Fee Fee Increase SFR Fee Fee Increase SFR Fee 1 $75.00 $6.97 $ 81.97 $27.88 $102.88 2 60.00 8.63 68.63 34.52 94.52 3 60.00 10.38 70.38 41.54 101.54 5 75.00 26.53 101.53 106.13 181.13 6 65.00 8.57 73.57 34.25 99.25 7 40.00 11.15 51.15 44.64 84.64 11 60.00 13.03 73.03 57.09 112.09 13 100.00 .00 100.00 .00 100.00 14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Average $ 6Q $10.12 $ 70.13 $ 40.80 $100.81 The attached Statements of Cash Flow (blue and gold) have been prepared to show the effect of raising the user fee to compensate for the entire amount of property taxes to be lost. The effects of missing the deadline or electing not to increase the 1992-93 fees foregoing the lost taxes and increasing fees for 1993-94 and subsequent years are shown on the attached green and tan schedules. No action is required by Districts 13 or 14 as District 13 has never received any property tax revenue and District 14 is fully funded by the IRWD. REF: WPDOCS%SEWER. FEEIMMUSEFEE.1 OEM 8117/92 CF 938.XLS 10:43 PM LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 16 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 ' Unapprop or Portion of Insurance Reserve COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 THRU 14 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 li-Ysar Total 5-Veer Total 6117192 Pepe 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994.95 1995-96 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 113,690.000 122,748,000 130,470,260 134,994,750 139,883,500 113, 590,000 143,787,500 113, 590.000 34,195,000 35,563,000 36.985,000 38,465,000 40,004.000 185,212,000 225,335,000 410,547,000 5,895,000 8,780,000 7.797.000 8,967,000 10,313,000 39,762,000 79,980.000 119.732,000 52.288,000 68,722,000 68.401.000 70,410,000 89,625.000 346,454,000 534,334.000 880,788.000 8,448.000 9.050.000 9.478,000 9.800.000 10,102,000 46,878,000 58.997.000 105,873,000 1,888,000 2,011,000 2,380.000 2,879.000 2,797,000 11,735,000 13,885,000 25,620,000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102,694,000 112,128,000 125,039,000 138,329,000 151,841,000 630,029,000 912,531,000 1,542,580,000 216,284.000 234,874,000 255.509.250 273.323,760 291,724,500 743,819,000 1,058.318,600 1,856,150,000 48,648,000 51,011,000 56,112,000 61.724.000 67.898,000 285,393,000 455,970,000 741,369.000 11,316,000 10,121,000 10.622.000 11.150.000 11.703.000 54,912,000 67,822.000 122,734,000 33,572,000 43,271,750 53,780,500 60.568.250 08.336,000 259,526,500 341,112,070 600,638,670 93,536,000 104,403,750 120,514.500 133.440.250 147.937.000 599.831.500 884,910,070 1,464,741.570 122,748,000 130,470, 250 134,994,750 139, 883,500 143.787.500 143,787,500 191,408,430 191,408,430 45,903,000 51,299,000 59,286,000 66.878,000 72,842,000 72,842,000 94,680,000 94,580,000 18,708,000 20,880,000 24.103.800 28,689.200 29.587.800 29.587.800 38,497.400 38,497.400 58,137,000 58,291,250 51,604,950 47,518,300 41.357,700 41,357,700 58,331.030 58,331,030 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 User Foe Fee Information 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $60 $67 $79 $89 $101 $129 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 844,704 846,374 849,594 854,124 859,609 889,584 23 24 Estimated User Fees, Excludes IRWD 50,688,000 56,922,000 68,401,000 78,318,000 86,425,000 114,565,430 24 CF1 *3A M9 e/1719k0:67 PM-PV. 1 LINE 1 _OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income B Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserves 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 6/17192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 1 QQ9-1 QQ7 1 QQ7-9rN19 1992-93 1993.94 1994-95 1995-96 1998.97 5-Year Toted 5-Year Total 10-Year Total 9,135,000 8,375,000 0,039,750 8 268 250 91181,000 9.136.000 10,978,000 9 135 000' 2,060,000 2,142,000 2,228,000 2,317,000 2,410,000 11,157,000 13,571,000 24,728,000 400.000 460,000 529,000 608.000 699,000 2.698,000 5,425,000 8,121,000 5,541,000 7.025.000 8,891,000 10.774.000 12,680,000 44.911.000 66,457.000 111,388,000 611,000 572,000 587,0DO 808,000 701,000 3,057,000 5,090,000 8,153,000 281,000 274,000 308,000 339,000 350,000 1,551,000 1,760,000 3,301,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,893,000 10,473,000 12,523,000 14 813 000 16,840,000 63,372,000 92 299 000 155,671,000 18,028,000 18,848,000 20,562,750 22,911,250 26,001,000 72,507,000 103,277,000 164,806,000 4,675,000 4,902,000 5,392,000 5.931,000 6,524,000 27.424,000 43.810,000 71.234,000 850,000 683,000 717,000 753,OD0 791,000 3,694,000 4,695,000 8,189,000 4,328,000 5,223,250 8 185 500 7,066,250 7,708,000 30,511,000 38 540 000 69,051,000 9,653,000 10,808,250 12 294 500 13,750,250 15,023,000 61,529,000 88,945,000 148,474,000 8,375,000 8.039,750 8,268,260 9,101,000 10.978.000 16,978,000 16,332,000 16,332,000 4,827.000 5,404,000 6,147.000 8.875,000 7.512.000 7.512.000 9,613,000 9.613,000 1,931,000 2,162,000 2,459,000 2,750,000 3,005,000 3,005,000 3,845,000 3,845,000 1,617,000 473 7S0 337 750) 4464 000 481 000 1 461,000 2,874,000 2 874 000 $75 $95 $120 $145 $170 $17s 73,880 73,950 74,090 74,300 74,590 77,090 $6,541,000 $7.025.000 08,891,000 $10,774,000 $12,680,000 $13,490,750 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10' 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CFt e3A.xL9 W17/Y7 0;15 PM_Pq. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest & Miaeailaneous Income e Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP,Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 User Fee Data 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 8117/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5. V— T.W C- Y— Te1w1 1892.93 1993.94 1994.95 1995-98 1996.97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 28,843,000 27,480,000 28,060,000 28,918,000 31,008,000 28,843,000 35,487,000 26,843,000 9.105.000 9,469.000 9,848,000 10,242.000 10,852,000 49,316.000 60,001.000 109.317,000 2,250.000 2,588.000 2,976,000 3,422,000 3,935,000 15,171.000 30,512,000 45,683,000 15,827,000 18.505.000 22,588,000 28,723,000 30,996.000 114,619,000 185,860,000 280,479.000 1,907,000 1,947,000 1,994,000 2.117,000 2,349,000 10,314.000 15,379.000 25.693.000 522.000 813.000 712,000 801,000 837.000 3,485,000 4,175,000 7,660,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,011,000 33,122,000 38,099,000 43,30S,000 48,789,000 192,905,000 275,927,000 468,932,000 56 454 ODO 60,602,000 88 158 000 72,223,000 80,377,000 219,748,000 311,414,000 49S,675,000 15.789,000 10,558,000 18,214,000 20,035,000 22,039,000 92,635,000 148,005,000 240,640,000 ' 2.099,000 2,204.000 2.314,000 2,430.000 2,552,000 11.599,000 14.810,000 26.409.000 11,086,000 13,780,000 16,712,000 18,150,000 20,99.000 80,027,000 101 222 000 181,249,000 28,974,000 32,S42,000 37,240,000 40,615,000 44,890,000 184,261,000 2641137 000 448,298,000 27.480,000 28.060.000 28,918,000 31,608,000 35,487,000 35.487,000 47,377,000 47,377.000 14.487,000 16,271,000 18.820.000 20,308.000 22,445,000 22,445,000 29.499,000 29,499.000 15,795,000 8,508,000 7,448,000 8,123,000 8,978,000 8,978,000 11,800,000 11,800,000 7,198,000 5,281,000 2,850,000 3,177,000 41064.000 4,064,000 8 078 000 a 078 000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 680 $70 $96 $100 $115 $120 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 263,783 264,358 265.608 267,233 289,533 281,033 23 24 Estimated User Fees $15,827.000 $18,505,000 $22,568,0DO $28.723.000 $30,996,000 $33.723,960 24 1992-93 Budget CF3 03AALe e/17192 0:24 PM_Pp. 1 Fees Same As 1991-92 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Yser 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 User Fee Date 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 6/17/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 5-Yaer Total 5-Yaar Total 1992-93 1993-94 1994.95 1995.96 1996.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 34,537,000 36,626,000 38,720,000 39,247,000 39,851,000 34,537,000 38,393,000 34,537,000 11.685,000 12.132,000 12.617,000 13.122,000 13.847,000 63,183,000 76,974.000 140.057.000 1,900,000 2,185,000 2.513.000 2.890,000 3,324,000 12,812,000 25,772,000 38.584.000 18.848.000 18.276.000 21.142,000 24.054,000 26.988,000 107,308.000 179,716,000 287,024.000 2.619,000 2,768,000 2,861,000 2.898.000 2.884,000 14,010,000 15.864,000 29.674.000 508.000 687.000 800.000 915,000 978,000 3,886,000 4.890,000 8.776,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 33,530.000 38 0411000 39,933,000 43,879,000 47,801,000 201,199,000 302,916,000 504 115 000 68,075,000 72,674,000 78,653,000 83,126,000 87,652,000 235,736,000 341,299,000 538,652,000 16.068,000 17,477.000 19,225.000 21,148.000 23,283.000 97.781.000 156,224.000 254,005.000 4,435,000 2,900.000 3.045,000 3.197.000 3,357,000 16.934.000 19.476,000 36,410.000 10,346,000 13,577,000 17,138,000 18,930,000 22.649.000 82,638,000 112,950,070 195.588.070 31,449,000 33,954,000 39,408,000 43,275,000 49,269,000 197,353,000 288,650,070 486,003,070 36,626.000 38.720.000 39.247.000 39,861.000 38,383,000 38,383,000 52,848,930 52,648,930 16.726,000 16.977,000 19,703.000 21,638,000 24,635.000 24,635.000 32,170.000 32.170.000 6,290,000 6,791,000 7,881,000 8,655,000 9,854,000 9,854,000 12,868,000 12,888,000 14,611,000 14,9S2,000 111663,000 91558,000 3 894 000 3,894,000 71610,930 7,610,930 $80 $66 $75 $85 1195 280,800 281,185 281,895 282,990 284,085 $10.848,000 $18,276.000 $21,142.000 $24,054,000 $26,988,000 0145 289,560 $41,986, 200 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF5_03A.xL0 e/17/0t 9A4 PM Pq. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 6 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Furls 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 6117/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 r`V... T-1 P-v.., T.t.1 1992.93 1993.94 1994-99 1995.96 1996.97 1992.1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 8,784,000 10,090,000 11,117,000 11,690,000 11 886,500 8,784,000 11,938,500 8,784,000 2,816.000 2.929.000 3,046,000 3,188,000 3,295,000 15,254,000 18,562.000 33,816,000 50,000 58,000 e7,000 77,000 89,000 341.000 087.000 1.028.000 1,990,000 2,131.000 2.277.000 2,424.000 2,573,000 11,395.000 1511511000 28.546.000 859,000 747,000 803.000 831,000 840,000 3,879,000 4,218,000 8,097,000 314,000 124,000 154.000 146,000 131.000 869.000 630,000 1,499,000 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 5,828,000 5,989,000 6,347,000 8,046,000 6,928,000 31,738,000 39,248,000 70,986,000 14,612,000 16,079,000 17,484,000 18,338,000 18 814 S00 40,522.000 61 184 SOO 79,770,000 1,785,000 1.872,000 2,059,000 2,265,000 2,492,000 10,473,000 16,736,000 27,209,000 759,000 797,000 837.000 879,000 923,000 4,195,000 5.352.000 9,547,000 1,978,000 2,293,000 2,878,000 3,305,600 3,463.000 13,917,600 17.315.000 31,232,500 4,522,000 4,962,000 6,774,000 6,449,500 8,878,000 28,585,500 39,403,000 67 988 S00 10,090,000 11,117.000 11,690,000 11,886,600 11.936.500 11,936,500 11,781,500 11,781,500 2,261,000 2,481.000 2.887.000 3.225.000 3,439.000 3,439,000 4,327.000 4,327,000 904,000 992,000 1,165,000 1,290,000 1,376,000 1,376,000 1,731,000 1,731,000 6,925,000 7,844,000 7,648,000 7 371 500 7 121 SOO 79121,500 5,723,500 5,723,500 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 to 17 18 19 20 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $120 22 23 dumber of Equivalent Dwelling Units 26,533 26,633 26,783 26,933 27,083 27,833 23 24 Estimated User Fees $1,990.000 $2.131,000 $2.277.000 $2.424.000 12,573,000 $3,339,960 24 CFe o3A.Xts a/17f0S 9:60 PM_P,p 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miseetlaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 1 1 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19, 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 6/17/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 6 Yam Total 6 Yser Total 1992-93 1993.94 1994.95 1995-98 1996.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 6,741,000 7,620,000 8,065,000 7,891,000 6,976,000 6,741,000 6,582,000 6,741,000 1,467,000 1,526.000 1.587,000 1,850,000 1.716.000 7,946,000 9,685,000 17,611,000 175.000 201.000 231,000 266,000 306.000 1,179,000 2.375.000 3,554.000 2,784,000 3.002.000 3,224,000 3,447,000 3.671.000 16,128.000 30,025,000 46.153,000 531,000 579,000 688,000 547,000 400,000 2,705,000 1,621.000 4,326.000 32,000 63,000 92,000 114,000 121,000 422,000 570,000 992,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 989 000 5,371,000 6,722,000 6,024,000 6,274,000 28,380,000 44,258,000 72,636,000 111,730,000 12,991,000 13,787,000 13,915,000 13,250,000 315,121,000 49,818,000 79,377,000 2,573,000 2,699.000 2.909.000 3.268.000 3.593.000 15,100.000 24.127,000 39,227,000 301,000 316,000 332.000 349,000 366.000 1.664,000 2.120,000 3,784,000 1,236,000 1,911,000 2,595,000 3,324,000 3,729,000 12,795,000 18.645.000 31,440,000 4,110,000 4,926,000 5,896,000 0,939,000 7,688,000 29,659,000 44,892,000 74 451 006 7,620,000 8.085,000 7,891.000 0,976,000 5.562,000 5,562,000 4,926.000 4.926.000 2.055,000 2,483,000 2.948,000 3,470,000 3,844,000 3,844,000 4.991.000 4.991.000 822,000 985,200 11079,200 1,387,800 1,537.600 1,637,600 1,996,200 1,996,200 4,743,060 4,616,900 3783,800 2,118,200 180,400 180,400 (2 061 2001 (2 081 200) LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $65 $70 075 $80 $as $170 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 42,830 42,890 42,990 43,090 43,190 43,690 23 24 Estimated User Fees $2,784,000 $3.002,000 $3.224,000 $3,447,000 $3,671.000 $7.427,300 24 CF7 113AAL3' e/17/94 9:69 PM_Pgw t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Eetimeted User Fees 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 6/17/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 Q-V.., T.t.1 5-V.., T.t.1 1992.93 1993-94 1994.95 1095-96 1996-97 1992.1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 13,799,000 17,783,000 21,228,000 23,855,000 25,841,000 13,799,000 27,629,000 13,799,000 4.430.000 4,607.000 4,791.000 4,983,000 5,182.000 23.993,000 29.189,000 53,182.000 840,000 966.000 1,111.000 1.278,000 1,470,000 6,685.000 11,405,000 17.070,000 3.969,000 3,977.000 3,993,000 4.017,000 4.049.000 20,005,000 22,291,000 42,296.000 1.114.000 1,378,000 1,592.000 1,755.000 1,889.000 7,727.000 11.730.000 19,457,000 147,000 124.000 159.000 191.000 199,000 820,000 970,000 1,790,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500,000 11,052,000 11,846,000 12,224,000 12,788,000 58,210,000 75,585,000 133,795,000 24,299,000 28,835,000 32,874,000 36,080,000 38,629,000 72,009.000 103,213,000 147 594 000 2,798.000 2.933,000 3,226.000 3,549.000 3,904.000 16,410,000 26.214.000 42,824,000 1,588.000 1,667,000 1,7SO,000 1.838,000 1,930,000 8,773,000 11,198,000 19.971,000 2,130,000 3,007,000 4,042,000 4 852 000 5,167,000 19 198,D00 25 83S 000 45,033,000 6,516,000 7,607,000 9,018,000 10,239,000 11,001,000 44,381,000 63,247,000 107,628,000 17,783,000 21,228,000 23,858,000 25,841,000 27.628.000 27,628,000 39,986,000 39,966,000 3,258,000 3,904,000 4,509,000 5,120,000 5,501.000 S,501,000 6,959,000 8,959,000 1,303,000 1,521,000 1,804,000 2,048,000 2 200 000 2,200,000 2,783,000 2 783 000 13 222 000 15 903.000 17,6431000 1 B 873 000 19 927 9 19,927,000 30,224,000 1 30 224 000 340 $40 W $40 $40 $45 99,228 99,428 99,828 100,428 101.228 105,228 $3,969.000 $3,977,000 f:3,993.000 $4.017,000 $4,049.000 $4,735,260 LINE 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF11 03AALe e/17102_10:06 PM Pm. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve j AJI2 L: —1F_1 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 8117/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 1vV.., T-1 r-V.., T.*.1 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-98 1996-97 1992.97 1997-2002 10-Year Total 12,240,000 13,245,000 113,680,500 13,293,500 12,627,000 12.240.000 11,860,000 12 240.000 2,852.000 2.759,000 2,868.000 2.983,000 3,102,000 14,363,000 17,473.000 31,836,000 280.000 322.000 370.000 426,000 490,000 1,888,000 3.804,000 5,692,000 3.055,000 3,322,000 3,602,000 4,145,000 4.694,000 18,818.000 35.700,000 54,618.000 901.000 946.000 947,000 913.000 862.000 4.589.000 4,570,000 9,139.000 66,000 128.000 155.000 174.000 181,000 702,000 900,000 1,602,000 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 8,954,000 7,474,000 7,942,000 8,641,000 9,329,000 40,340,000 62,447,000 102,787,000 19,194,000 20,719,000 211,522,500 21,934.5W 21,956,000 52 SBO DOO 74,307,000 115,027,000 2,809,000 2,943.000 3.237,000 3,561,000 3,917,000 18,487,000 26,307,000 42.774,000 865.000 900.000 953,000 1.001,000 1.051.000 4.778,000 6.100,000 10.878,000 2,27S,000 3,287,500 4,039,000 4 745 500 5.128.000 19,475,000 25 640 000 45,115,000 5,949,000 7,138,500 8,229,000 9,307,500 10,096,000 40,720,000 68,047,000 98,767,000 13, 245.000 13, 580, 500 13.293.500 12,627.000 11.9 60.000 11.8 60,000 16, 260.000 18, 280,000 2,975,000 3.569,000 4,115,000 4,654,000 5,048.000 5.048,000 6,390.000 6,390,000 1,190,000 1,428,000 1,846,000 1 862 000 2,019,000 2,019,000 2 558 000 2,556,000 9 080 000 8,583,500 7 532 500 8,111,000 4,793.000 1 4,793,000 7,314,000 7,314,000 LINE 1 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 16 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $60 $05 $70 $80 $90 $160 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 60,910 51.110 51.460 51,810 52.160 53,910 23 24 Estimated User Fees $3,055,000 $3,322.000 t3,602,000 $4,145,000 $4,694,000 $8,825,600 24 CF1>_e3A.XLe en 7192 10:15 PM --PM. 1 LINE- 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Opsr. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion oflnourance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 1992-93 Budget Fees Same As 1991-92 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 13 8/17/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 R.VAwr Tntol 6-Vwwr TntAl 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 199E-96 1996-97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 1,016,000 1,136,000 1,245,000 1,327,000 1,385,000 11016.000 1 423 000 1,016,000. 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 674,000 684.000 704.000 734.000 774,000 3,570,000 4.984,000 8,554,000 MOOD 94,000 91,000 98,000 100.000 447.000 515,000 962,000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 750,000 768,000 795,000 830,000 874,000 4,017,000 6,499,000 9,516,000 1,766,000 1,904,000 2,040,000 2,157,000 2,259,000 6,033,000 6,922,000 10,632,000 429.000 449,000 494.000 543.000 697.000 2.512,000 4.013,000 6,525,000 173.000 182.000 191,000 201,000 211.000 958.000 1.227.000 2.185.000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28.000 140,000 140,000 280,000 630,000 659,000 713,000 772,000 838,000 3,610,000 080,000 000 8,990,000 1.136,000 1.245,000 1,327,000 1,385,000 1.423.000 1,423,000 1,542,000 1,542,000 316.000 330,000 357,000 386,000 418,000 418,000 631.000 631.000 128,000 131,800 142 600 154,400 167,200 167 200 252 200 25 200 696,000 USES 783,200 827 400 844 B00 837 800 837 800 658 800 658 800 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $110 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 6,740 8,840 7.040 7,340 7,740 11,240 23 24 Estimated User Fees $874,000 $694.000 $704,000 $734,000 $774.000 $1,236.400 24 B117/92 CF 938.XL5 2:51 PM LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 OPERATING FUND Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year REVENUE Share of I % Tax Allocation Fees: Industrial Waste User Fees Interest & Miscellaneous Income Trnnelet from COP Funds Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING EXPENDITURES Share o1 Joint Works M 6 0 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. COP Service TOTAL EXPENDITURES Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 20% Contingency Reserve Unapprop or Portion of Insurance Reserve COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 THRU 14 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 811719 2 Page 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-98 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Yesr Total 1 13, 590,D00 122,748.000 130, 467, 25O 1 34.99 3, 760 13 9, 88 3, 500 113,590,000 143, 789, 500 113,590,000 25,645,000 26,872.000 27,739,000 28,049,000 30.005,000 138,911,000 169.023,000 307,934,000 5.895,000 8,780,000 7,797,000 8,957.000 10,313,000 39.752,000 79,980,000 119,732.000 60,835.000 67,612.000 77,848,000 80,036,000 98,626.000 392,756.000 589.075.000 SS1,831.000 8,448,000 9,050,000 9,477.000 9,800,000 10,102,000 46,877,D00 58.820,000 105.897.000 1,868,000 2,011,000 2,380,D00 2,879,000 2.797,000 11.735,000 13,885,000 25,520.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102,692,000 112,12S.000 125,041,000 138,330,000 151,843,ODO 830.031,000 910,783,000 1,540,814,OD0 210,292,000 234.871,000 255,508,250 273.323,750 291.720,600 743,821,000 1,054,572,SDo 1,654,404,000 48,048,000 51.011,000 S6,112,000 61,724,000 67.898,000 285,393,000 455,976,000 741.369,000 11,316,000 10,121,1300 10,622,DDO 11,150.000 11,703,000 54,912,000 57,822.000 122,734,000 33,572,000 43,271.750 53,780,500 60,585,250 6B,336,000 259,526,500 341,112,070 1500,638.570 93,538,000 104,403,750 120,514,500 133,440.250 147,937,000 599,831,500 864.910,070 1,464,741,570 122, 7 46.000 130, 467, 2 50 134,993,750 139,983,500 143,789,500 143,799,500 189,662,430 189,662,430 45,903,000 51,299.000 59.288,000 65,876,DDO 72,842,000 72,842,000 94,580.000 94,580.000 18.709,000 20,880,D00 24,103,81)0 28,689,200 29,587,800 29,S87,800 39,497.400 38,497,400 58.135,000 58,289,250 51,803,950 47,51B,300 41,359,700 41,359.700 56,585,030 56,585,030 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 12 13 14 15 le 17 18 19 20 21 USER FEE DATA 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $70A3 177,70 1e9.04 6100,61 $112.17 $141.85 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 844,704 846,374 849,594 854.124 859.609 889,584 23 24 Estimated User Fees, Excludes IRWD 59,235,000 65,812.000 75.648,000 85,935,000 96,426,000 128,199,418 24 CF1 e]A.XIe 8117A2 2:21 PM Psss 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reaervee & Carry Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tax Allacetlon 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest S Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer Irom COP Furls 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joird Works M & 0 14 Collection System M R 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves 6r Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Nest Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserves 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 1 Revised 8113192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pepe I FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 19g7-19S7 1997.9002 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995,96 1996-97 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 10-Year Total 9,135,000 8,375,000 8,039,750 8,267.250 9,160,000 9,135,000 f0,977,000 9,13S.000 1,545,000 1,507,000 1,671,000 1,738,000 1,809,pt>D 8,369,000 10,181.000 18,550,000 400,000 460.000 529,000 508,00o 599,000 2,696,000 5,425,000 9,121,000 e,056,000 7,560,000 9.447,000 11,353,000 13,282,000 47.698,000 69,845,000 117,543,000 a11.000 572,000 587,000 SO8,000 701,000 3.057,000 5.096,000 8,153,000 281,000 274.000 308,000 338,000 350,000 1,551,000 1,750,000 3,301,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,893,000 10,473,000 12,522,000 14,643,000 16,840,000 63,371.000 92,297,000 1S5,688,000 18,028,000 18,848,000 20.551,750 22,910.250 26,000,000 72,506,000 103,274,000 184,803,000 4,675,G00 4,902,000 5,392,000 5.931,000 8,524,000 27,424,000 43,810,000 71.234,000 650.000 883,000 717,000 753,000 791,000 3,594,000 4,595,000 8.189.000 4,328,000 5,223,250 6,185,500 7.068,250 7,708,000 30,511.000 38.540,000 89,051,000 9.653.000 10,908,250 12194,500 13,750.250 15,023,000 61,529,000 86,945,000 148.474.000 8,375,000 8,039,7S0 8,287,250 9,180,000 10,977,000 10,977,000 10,329,000 18,329,000 4,827,000 5,404,000 8,147,000 6,875.000 7,512,000 7,512.000 9.613,000 9,613,000 1,931.000 2,162,000 2,459,000 2.750.000 3.005.000 3,005,000 3,845,000 3,845,000 1,617,000 473.750 (338,750) 1485,000) 460,000 460,000 2.871,000 2.871,000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1B1,97 1102.23 1127.51 0152.80 $178.07 $194.49 22 73,880 73,950 74,090 74,300 74.590 77,090 23 16,058,00(1 17,560,000 99.447,000 111,353,000 113.282,000 $14.222.334 24 M 03AALs_8n7n2_2:31 PM,P*" t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 Ueer Fees 7 Interest & Miscelteneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. is COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20%Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence War Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 R. Yw Tn1e1 S. Year Tntwl Revised 8113M2 Pepe 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994.95 1995-98 1998-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Yeei Total 26,843,000 27,479,000 28,080,000 29,920,000 31,611,000 26,843.000 35.491,000 26,841,000 8,828,000 7,101,000 7,385,000 7,680,000 7,987.000 38,981,000 44,989,000 81.969.000 2,250,000 2,588,000 2,976,000 3.422,000 3,935.000 15.171,000 30,512.000 45.683,000 18.103.000 20,874,000 25,032,000 29,288,000 33,862,000 126,957.000 180.878.000 307,835,000 1,907,000 1,947,000 1,995,000 2.117.000 2,349,000 10,315,000 15,383,000 25,698.000 522,D00 613,000 712.000 801,000 837.000 3.485,000 4,175,000 7,660,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,610,000 33,123,000 39,100,000 43,308,000 48,770,000 192,909,000 275,938,000 468,845,000 65,453,000 80,602,000 66,160,000 72,226,000 80,381,000 219.752,1300 311,427,000 495,688.000 15,709,000 15,658,000 18,214,000 20,035,000 22,039,000 92,535,000 148,005,000 240,640,000 2,099,000 2,204,000 2,314,000 2.430,000 2,552,000 11,599,000 14.810,000 28.409,000 11,088.000 13,780.000 16,712,000 18,150,000 20,299,000 130,027.000 101,222,000 181,249.000 28,974,000 32,542,000 37,240,000 40,615.000 44,890,000 184,281,D00 204,037,000 448,298,000 27,479,000 28,060,000 28,920.000 3 1. 61 LOGO 35,491.000 35,491,000 47,390,000 47.390,000 14,487,000 16,271,000 18,620,000 20,308.000 22.445,000 22,445,DDO 29.499.000 29.499,000 5,7S5.000 6,508,000 7,448,000 S.123,000 8.978.000 8,978,000 11,800,000 11,900,000 7,197,000 5,281,ODO 2,852,ODO 3,180,000 4,068.000 4,068,000 6,091,000 6,091,D00 168.63 878.95 194.28 1109.59 1124.89 6131.54 253,783 264.350 255,508 287,233 269.533 281.033 $10.103.000 020,874.000 125,032,000 429,286,000 $33,662,000 136,967,081 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF7 •3A.XL9 el17r02 2AG PM Py. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves h Carry-OVET From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation S Foam: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest 6 Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenua 10 TOTALREVENUE 1 I TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M fir O 14 Collection System M d O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 1B TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves d Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year'a Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 Revised 8113192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 34,537,000 36,62S,000 36,717,000 39,245,000 39,B49,D00 34,537.000 38,382,000 34,S37,000 8,749,000 9,099,000 9,483,000 9.842.000 10,236,000 47,389.000 57,659.000 105,048,000 1,900,000 2.185,000 2,613,000 2.890,000 3,324,000 12.812.000 25.772.000 38,584,000 19,763,000 21,307,000 24,297.000 27,334.000 30,400,000 123,101,000 198,930,000 322,031,000 2,619,000 2,768.000 2.8011000 2,898,000 2,864,000 14.010,000 15,664,000 29.674,000 506,000 687,000 800,000 915.000 978,000 3,886,000 4,890,000 8,778,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,537,000 36.048,000 39,934,000 43,879,000 47,802,000 201,198,000 302.915.000 504.113,000 88,074,000 72,871,000 78,651,000 83,124,000 87,651,000 235,735.000 341,297.000 538,650,000 16,668,000 17.477,000 19,225,000 21.149.000 23.763.000 97,781,000 156,224,000 254.005,OW 4,435,000 2,900,000 3,045.000 3,197,000 3,351,000 16.934.000 19.476,000 36,410,000 10,348,000 13,577.000 17.136,000 18,930,000 22,649,000 82.638,000 112,950,070 195.588,070 31,449,000 33.954,000 39,406,000 43,275,000 49,269,000 197,353.000 288,660,070 488.003,070 38,625,000 38,717,000 39,245,000 39,849,000 38,382,000 38.382.000 52,646,930 52,646.930 1G.725.000 18,977,000 19,703,000 21.638.000 24,635,000 24,635,000 32,170,000 32,170,000 8,290,000 6,791,000 7.881,000 8,655,000 9,854,000 9.854,000 12,869.000 12,868.000 14,610,000 14,949,000 11.661.000 9,556,000 3,893,000 3,893,000 7.608,930 7,609,930 170.38 175.78 186,19 $96,59 $107,01 $159.33 280,800 281,165 291,895 282,990 284.085 289,560 119,763,000 1211,307,000 424,297,000 #27,334,000 130,400,000 $46.135,595 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CFe 03A.Xle erl7fe2 2:3e M Peep 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves d Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste B User Fens 7 Interest f5 Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M 6 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves 6 Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2DOI-2002 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 S-Ywwr Tninl 5-Ywwr Tnrwt Revised 8113192 Page 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.96 1996.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 8,784,000 10,090,000 11,117,000 11 690,000 11 888,500 8,784,000 11,938.500 8,784.000 2,112,000 2,196,000 2,284.000 2,375,000 2,470,000 11,437.000 13.91B.OGO 25,353,000 50,000 S8,000 87.000 77,000 89,000 341.000 687,000 1,029,000 2,694,000 2,864,000 3.039,000 3,217,000 3,398.000 15,212.000 19,796,000 35,008,000 658,000 747,000 803.000 831.000 840,000 3,879,000 4,218.000 8.097,000 314,000 124.000 154,000 148,000 131,000 869,000 B30,000 1,499,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,829,000 6,989 000 5.347 000 15,646,000 6,928,000 31 738,000 39,247,000 70 985,000 14,812,000 16,079 000 17 464,000 12,336 000 19,814,500 40.523 000 51,183,500 79,769,000 1,785.000 1,872,000 2,059,000 2.205,000 2,492,000 10,473.000 16,736,000 27,209,000 759,000 797,000 837.000 879,000 923.000 4,195,000 5,352,000 9,547,000 1,978,000 2,293,000 2,878,000 3,305,500 3,453,000 13,917 500 17,315,000 31,232,500 4,522 000 4 9B2,000 5,774.000 6,449 500 8,878,000 28 585 500 39,403,000 87.988,500 10,090, D00 11,117.000 1 1, 690, D00 1 1, 8 8 8, 500 11,936,500 11,938.500 11,790,500 1 1, 780, 500 2,261,000 2,481,000 2,887.D00 3,225,000 3,439,000 3,439,000 4,327,000 4,327.000 904,000 992,000 1,155,000 1,290,000 1,378,000 1,376,000 1,731 000 1,731,000 6,925,000 7844,000 7,848000 7.371500 7,121,500 7,121.500 5722,500 5.722,500 $101.53 0107.52 1113.4S 1119.44 $125,46 $156.04 28,533 28.633 28,783 28.933 27,083 27,833 62,694,000 12.884,D00 13,039,000 $3,217,000 63,398,D00 14,343,661 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CFO NA.xts e117142iAl PM -Pp- 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial West* 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Shire of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper, 15 COP Samce 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivaieni Dwaliing Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 6 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2D01.2002 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5 Year Tnlel 5 Yeer Tntel Revised 8114/92 Pepe 1 1992.93 1993-94 1994.95 1995-98 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10 Year Total 8,741,000 7.820,000 8,065,000 7,891,000 6,978.000 8,741,000 5,582,000 8,741,000 1,100,DOO 1,144.000 1,190,000 1,238,000 1,288,000 5,960,000 7.260.000 13,220,000 175,000 201,000 231,000 256,000 306,D00 1,179,000 2.375,000 3,554,000 3,151,000 3,384.000 3,621,000 3,859.000 4,099,000 18,114,000 32,425,000 50.539,000 531,000 579,000 588,000 547,000 460,000 2,705,000 1.818,000 4.323,000 32,000 53,000 92,000 114,000 121,000 422,000 570,000 992,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,989,000 6.371,000 5,722,000 5,024.000 6,274,000 28,380.000 44,249,000 72,528,000 11,730.000 12,991.000 13.787.000 13.915.000 13,250.000 35,121,000 49.810,000 79,389,000 2,573,000 2,699,000 2,969,000 3,286.000 3,593,000 15,100,000 24,127,000 39.227.000 301,000 318.000 332,000 349,000 366,000 1,884,000 2.120,000 3,784,000 1,236,000 1,911.000 2,595,000 3,324,000 3,729,D00 12,795,000 18,645.000 31.440,000 4,110,000 4.926,000 5,890.000 61939,000 7,698,000 29,559,000 44,892,000 74,451,000 7.620,000 8,065,000 7,891,000 6,976,000 5,561,000 5,562,000 4,918,C& 4,918,000 2,055,DOO 2.483,000 2,948,000 3.470,000 3,944,000 3,844.000 4,991,000 4,991,000 822,000 985,200 1.179,200 1,387,800 1,537,600 1,537,600 1,998,200 1,996,200 4,743,000 4,616,800 3,783,800 2,118,200 180,400 180,400 12,069,2001 12,069,2001 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 $73.57 •78.91 4B4.23 $99.58 $94.91 1181.89 22 42,830 42,090 42,990 43.090 43,190 43,890 23 $3,151,000 $3,384,000 13,621,000 *3,859,D00 04.099,000 $7,948,337 24 CF7_s 2A,xLa_a117423A4 PM Pq. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Induelrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 interest & Miecellansous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. is COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Ceny Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20%Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 7 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2D01-2002 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5.V.., T-1 S.Yesr TM.1 Revised 8113t92 Page 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.98 1998-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 13,799,000 17.783,000 21,228,000 23,855,000 25,841,000 13.799.000 27.928.000 13.799.000 3,323,000 3,456,000 3,594,000 3,739,000 3,888,000 17.999.DOO 21,904.OM 39,903,DD0 840,000 956,000 1.111,000 1,278,000 1,470,000 5,685,000 11,405,000 17.070,000 5.076,000 5,128.000 5,190,000 5,262,000 5,343,000 25,999.000 28.010,000 54,009,000 1,114,000 1,378,000 1.592,000 1.755,000 1,889,000 7.727,000 11,552,000 19,279,000 147,000 124,000 159.000 191,000 199,000 820,000 970,000 1,790,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500,000 11,052,000 11,646.000 12.224,000 12.788,000 58,210,000 73,841,000 132,051,000 24,299,D00 29.835,000 32,874.000 36.080,000 38,829,000 72,009.00D 101,469,600 145,850,000 2,798.000 2,933,000 3,228,000 3,549.000 3,904.000 18.410.000 28,214,000 42,824,000 1,588,000 1,667,D00 1,750,000 1,838,000 1,930.000 8,773.000 11,199,000 19,971,000 2,130.000 3,007,000 4,042,000 4,852,000 5,187,000 19.198,000 25.835.000 45,033,000 6,518,000 7,607,000 9,019,000 10,239,000 11,001,000 44,381,000 63,247,000 107,828,000 17,783,000 21.229,000 23,856,000 25,841,000 27.628,000 27,628,1500 38,222,000 38,222,000 3,258,000 3,804,000 4,509,000 6.120.000 5,501,000 5,501,000 8.959,000 6,959,000 1,303,0DO 1,521,000 1.804,000 2,048,000 2,200,000 2,200.000 2,783,000 2,783,000 13.222,000 15.903,000 17,543,000 18.673.000 19,927,000 19,927,000 28,480.000 28,480,606 LIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 151.15 151.58 $51 .99 $52.40 452.78 154-95 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 99.228 99,428 99,828 100,428 101,228 105,228 23 24 Estimated User Fees 45,076,000 15,128,DDO 115,190,000 $5.262,000 15,343,000 $5,782.279 24 CFI1 a3A.xLe @I171e2_2:27 M.1_08" I LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves 6 Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest 6 Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M 6 0 14 Collection System M d 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves A Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurenae Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2D02 25% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5-Ye Tnt Al 5-YAAr TMAI Revised 8113192 Page 1 1992-93 1993.94 1994-96 1995-98 1998.97 1992.97 1997.2002 10-Ye or Total 12,240.000 13.245,000 13.580.500 13,293.500 12,627,OD0 12,240.000 11,880,000 12,240.000' 1.989,000 2,089,000 2,152,000 2,238,000 2.323.000 10,776,000 13,115,000 23,891.000 280,000 322,000 370.000 420,000 490,OD0 1,888,000 3,804,000 5,692.000 3,718,000 4,011,000 4,318.000 4,890,000 5,468.000 22.405,000 40,057,000 62,482.000 901,000 948,000 947.000 913.000 862,000 4,569,000 4,570,000 9,139,000 66,000 126,000 155.000 174,000 181.000 702,000 900,000 1,602,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,954.000 7,474,000 7.942,000 8,641,000 9.329,000 40.340,000 62.446,000 102,786,000 19.194,000 20,719.000 21,522,500 21,934,500 21,955,000 52,580,000 74,306,000 115,028,000 2,809,000 2,943,000 3,237.000 3,581.000 3,917,000 16.467,000 26,307,000 42,774,000 865,000 908,000 953,000 1,001,000 1,051,000 4.778,000 8,100,000 70,878,000 2,275,OD0 3,287,500 4,039,000 4,745.500 5,128,DD0 19,475,000 25,840,000 45,115.000 S,949.000 7,138,500 8,229,000 9,307,500 10,098,000 40.720,000 58,047,000 98,767,000 13, 245, 000 13, 580, 500 13, 29 3, SOO 12,627,000 11,060,000 11, B 60,000 18,259,000 16,259.000 2,975,000 3.569.000 4.115,000 4,654.000 5,048,000 5.048,000 6.390,000 6,390,000 1,190,000 1,428.000 1.648,000 1,882,D00 2,019,000 2,019,0001 2.556,000 2.556.000 9,080,000 8,583,SOO 7,532,500 6,111.000 4,793,000 4.793,000 7,313,OOO 7.313,000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 i8 19 20 21 173.03 $78.49 $83,91 $94.38 $104,84 $177.45 22 50,910 51,110 51.460 51.810 52,160 53,910 23 $3,718,000 $4.011,000 $4,318,000 $4,890,000 *5,468,000 09.586,330 24 7l14192 CF 93B.XL5 3:55 PM LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation 5 Fees: Induattiel Wants 6 User Feet 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 9 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Sarvice 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry Over to Next Year 1B Next Year'■ Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Unapprap or Portion of Insurance Reserve COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 THRU 14 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5-Yenr Total 5-Yeat Total 1992-93 1993-94 7994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 113,590,000 122.749,000 130,470,250 134,998,750 139.884.500 113,590.000 143.784.500 113,590.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,895,000 6,780,000 7,797,000 8,987,000 10,313,000 39,752,000 79,980,000 119,732,000 88,483,000 94,285.000 105,387,000 116,882,000 128,825.000 531,662,000 759,671,000 1,291,333.000 8,448.000 9,060,000 9,477,000 9,800,000 10,102,000 46,877,000 50,997,000 105,874,000 1,86B4O00 2,011,000 2,380,000 2,679,000 2,797.000 11,735,000 13,885,000 25.620,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102,594,000 112,128,000 125,041.000 138.328.000 151.837.000 630,026,000 912,533.000 1,542,559.000 216.294,000 234,874,000 255,511,250 273.324,750 291,721,500 743.618,000 1,050,317.500 1,056,149.000 48,648,000 51'011,000 58,112,000 61,724,000 67,898,000 285,393,000 455,976,000 741,389,000 11.316'000 10,121.000 10,622,000 11,150.000 11,703,000 54,912,000 67,822.000 122,734,000 33,572,000 43,271,750 53,780,500 60,588,250 68,336,000 259.526,500 341,112,070 600,638,570 93,538,000 104,403,750 120,514,500 133,440.250 147,937,000 599,831,500 864,910,070 1,464,741,570 1 22.748,000 130,470,250 134,996,750 139.884.500 143,784, 500 143,784,500 191 .407,430 191,401,430 45,903,000 51,299,000 59,296,000 65,676,000 72,842,000 72,842,000 94,580,000 94,580,000 18,70B4O00 20,880,000 24,103,800 28,689,200 29,597,800 29,587,800 38,497,400 36,497,400 58,137,000 58.291,250 51,808.950 47,519,300 41,354.700 41,354,700 58,330,030 58,330.030 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 User Fee Information 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $100.81 1109.27 $121.69 0134.39 $147.07 $183.49 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 844,704 840,374 849,594 854,124 859,609 889,584 23 24 Eelimaled User Fees, Excludes IRWO 84.883.000 92,485,000 103,387,000 114.782,000 126,426,000 163.232,779 24 CF4_11A.xt9_7re4n2_11A3 AM_Pm. t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reaetvne & Corry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Shore of 1 % Tex Allncetion 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Intereet & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 40 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAfLABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 77 Reserves & Cany-Ovet to Next Year t8 Next Yaer's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Raserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserves 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 Revised 7114/93 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2001 -2002 1992-1997 1997-2002 1992.93 1993-94 1994.95 1995-96 1996 97 5-Your Total 5-Year Totat 10-Yea1 Total 9,135,000 8,375,000 8,039,750 8,268,250 9.161,000 9,135,000 10,978,000 9,135,000 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 400.000 460,000 529,000 600,000 699,000 2,696,000 5,42S,000 8,121,000 7,801,000 9.187.000 11,119,000 13,091,000 15.090,000 56,068.000 80,028.000 136.096,000 511,000 572,000 567,000 606,000 701.000 3,057,000 5,096.000 8.153,000 281,000 274,000 308,000 336.000 350,000 1.551.000 1,750,000 3.301,000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.893,000 10,473,000 12,523,000 14,643,000 18,840,000 63,372,000 92,299,000 155,671,000 18.028.000 18,848,000 20,562,7SO 22.911,250 26.001.000 72,507.000 103.277.000 1,64.806,000 4.675,000 4,902,000 5,392,000 5,931,000 6,524.000 27,424,000 43,810,000 71,234,000 650,000 883.000 717,000 753,000 791,000 3,594,000 4,595,000 8,189,000 4,328.000 5,223.250 6,185,500 7,066,250 7.708,000 30.511,000 38,540,000 69.051,000 9,653,000 10,808,250 12,294,500 13.750.250 15,023,000 61,529,000 98,945,000 148,474,000 8,375,000 8,039,7SO 8,268,250 9,161,000 10,978,000 10,978,000 16.332,000 16,332,000 4,827,000 5.404,000 0,147.000 6.875,000 7,512,000 7.512.000 9.613.000 9,613,000 1,931,000 2,162,000 2,459,000 2,750,000 3,005,000 3,005,000 3,845,000 3,845,000 1,617,000 473,750 1337,7501 (464,000) 41, 000 461,000 2,874.000 2.874,000 1102.88 $123.96 6150.07 1176,19 0202.31 73,880 73,950 74,090 74,300 74,590 47,601 ,000 19,167, 000 1111,119.000 11 3,091.000 1 t 5,090,000 $213,02 77,090 $16.421.712 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF2_13AAL9_7714/s7_11:34 AM Pq. 1 LINE I OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTALREVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry,Over to Next Year 18 Next Yem's Dry Pariod Funding Requirement■ 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Porlion of Insurance Reserve 21 Usar Fes Data 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2OOI.2002 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5- Year Totnl 5L Year Total Revised 7114192 Page 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1998-37 1992-1997 1997.2002 10 Yost Total 26,843,000 27.481.000 28,061,000 29.920.000 31,609.000 26,B43,000 35.486.000 26,843,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,250,000 2,588.000 2.978,000 3,422.000 3,935,000 15,171,000 30,512,000 45,683,000 24,933,ODO 27.974,000 32,418.000 38,984.000 41,646,000 163.933,000 225.862,000 389,795,000 1,907,000 1,947,000 1,995,000 2,117.000 2349,000 10,315,000 15,379,000 25.694,000 522,000 613,000 712.000 B01,000 837,000 3,485,000 4,175,000 7,660,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 29,612,000 33.122.000 38,099,ODO 43,304,000 49,767,000 132,904,000 275,928,000 488,832,000 58,455,000 80.603,000 66,180,000 72,224,000 80.376.000 219.747.000 311.414,000 49S,875,000 15,789,000 16,S5B4O00 18.214,000 20,035,000 22,039.000 92,63S,000 148.005.000 240,640.000 2,099,000 2,204,000 2,314,000 2.430,000 2,552,000 11,599,000 14,810,060 28.409.000 11,086,000 13,780,000 16,712,000 18.150.000 20,299,000 80.027,000 101.222,000 181,249,000 28,974,000 32,642,000 37,240,000 40,815,000 44,890.000 184,261,000 264.037,000 448,299,000 27,481,000 28,061,000 28,920,000 31.609.000 35,496.000 35,486.000 47.377,000 47,377,000 14,487,000 16.271,000 16,620.000 20,308,000 22,445,000 22.445.000 29,499,000 29,499,000 5,795,000 6,508,000 7,448,000 8.123,000 8,978,000 8,978.000 11,800,000 11.800,000 7,199,000 5,282,000 2,852,000 3,178,000 4.063,000 4,063,000 8.078,000 6.078,000 194-52 $105.82 $122,O9 1138.32 1154.51 $186.71 263,783 264,358 265,SOB 267,233 289,533 281.033 124,933,000 127,974,000 $32,416,000 436,984,000 141,848,D00 648.682.392 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF3 e3A.xL9_7114re2_t2A3 Pet Prey t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over from Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation 5 Fees! Industrial Waste 6 Uaer Feee 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 User Fee Data 22 Single Family Residence UaeT Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User fees 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 Revised 7114192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape I FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 1992-93 1993.94 1994.95 1995-96 1998-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Yeer Total 34,537,000 36,825,000 30,719,000 39,247,000 39,851,000 34.537,000 38,381,000 34.537,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,900,000 2.185,000 2.513.000 2,890,000 3,324,000 12,812.000 25,772,000 38,584,000 29.512,000 30,408,000 33.780,000 37,176,000 40,633,000 170,489,000 258,591.000 427.080,000 2.a19.000 2,768,000 2.881.000 2,898,000 2,864.000 14.010,000 75.684,000 29,674,000 508,000 687,000 800.000 $15.000 978,000 3,886.000 4.890,000 8,778,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,537,000 38,048,000 39,934,000 43,879,000 47,799,000 201.197.000 302,917,000 504.114.000 88,074,000 72.873,000 78,853,000 83,126,000 87,650,000 235,734,000 341,298,000 538,651,000 18,668,000 17.477,000 19,225,000 21,14B4O00 23,263,000 97,781,000 158,224,000 254,005.000 4,43S,000 2,900,000 3,045,000 3,197,000 3,357,000 16,934,000 19,476,000 36,410,D00 10,346,000 13.577.000 17,136,000 18,930,000 22,649,000 82,638.000 112.950,070 195.598,070 31,449,000 33,964,000 39,406,000 43,275,000 49,269.000 197.353,000 288,650,070 486.003,070 36.825,000 38,719,000 39,247,000 39,651,000 38.381.000 38.381,000 52,647.930 52,647,930 15,725,000 16,977,000 19,703,000 21,838,ODO 24,635,000 24,835,000 32,170,000 32,170,000 0,290,000 8,791,000 7.881,000 8,855,000 9,854,000 9.854,000 12,B68,000 12,868,000 14,810,000 14,951,000 11,663,000 9,558,000 3,992.000 3,892,ODO 7,609,930 7,609,930 LINE 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 $101.54 1108.15 11 19.78 1131.37 1143.03 1202.34 22 280.800 281,185 281,895 282,990 284,095 289,560 23 $28,612.000 030,408,000 033,760,000 037,178.000 140,633,000 459,589.570 24 CF6 e3A.XL5 1044 22_2 06 PM PA. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tax Allocation 5 Few Industrial Waste 8 deer Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Opet. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Owelfing Units 24 Estimated User Fame COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 5 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5-Year Total 5-Yeiv Total Revised 7/14192 Page 1 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.98 1996.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Yent Total 8,784,000 10.090.000 11.117.000 11,890,000 11,8R6.500 8,784,000 11,936.500 8,784.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 58,000 87,000 77,000 89,000 341,000 687.000 1,028,000 4,806,000 5.060.000 5,323,000 5.592,000 5,868,000 26,849.000 33,713,000 60,362.000 858,000 747,000 803.000 831,000 840,000 3,879,000 4,218.000 B4O97,000 314.000 124,000 154,000 146.000 131.000 869,000 630.000 1,499.000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.828,000 5,989.000 6.347,000 6,846,000 8,928,000 31,738.000 39,248,000 70,986.000 14,812,000 18,079,000 17,484,000 18,338,000 18.814,500 40,522,000 51,184.500 79,770,000 1,785,000 1.872,000 2,059,000 2.285,000 2,492,000 10.473,000 18,736,000 27,209,000 759,000 797,000 837,000 879,000 923,DDO 4,195,000 5,352.000 9,547,000 1,978,000 2,293,000 2,878,000 3,305,500 3.463,000 13,917,500 17,315,000 31,232,500 4,522,000 4,962,000 5.774,000 6,449,5DO 6,878,000 28,585,500 39.403.000 67,989.500 10,090,000 1 1,1 17.000 11,690,000 11,888,500 11,936.500 1 1 ,936,500 1 1,781 ,500 11,781.500 2,261,000 2,481.000 2,BB7,000 3,225,000 3,439,000 3.439,000 4,327,000 4,327,000 904,000 992,000 1.155,000 1.290,000 1,376.000 1,376,000 1.731,000 1,731.000 8,925,000 7.844.000 7,648.000 7,371,500 7,121,500 7,121,500 5,723,500 5,723,500 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0181.13 6189,99 $198,73 1207.63 $216.66 $264,04 22 26,533 26,833 28.783 26,933 27,003 27,833 23 14,808,000 d5,060.000 15,323.000 65,592,000 65,868,000 $7,349,025 24 CFa_e}A.xL9-i71A192.2:2f PIA_P." I LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over Fiom Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 Uaer Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carfy-Overto Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fee■ COUNTY SANITATION OISTRICT NO. 6 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 5 Year Total 5 Year Totat Revised 7114/92 Pepe I 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996,97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Yeer Totnl 6,741,000 7,820,000 8,065,000 7.991.000 6,976,000 6,741,000 5,562.000 6.741,000 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 175,000 201,000 231,000 268.000 306.000 1,179.000 2.375.000 3,554,000 4,251,000 4.528,000 4.811,000 5,097.000 5,387,000 24,074,000 39.690,000 63,764,000 531,000 579,000 588,000 547,000 460,000 2,705,000 1.621,000 4,328,000 32,000 63,000 92,000 114,000 121,000 4I2.000 570,000 992,000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,989,000 6,371,000 5,722,000 6,024,000 6,274,000 28,380,000 44.256,000 72,636,000 11,730,000 12,991,000 13,787,000 13.915.000 13.250.000 35,121,000 49.818,000 79,377,000 2.573,000 2,699.000 2,989,000 3,266.000 3,593,000 15,100,000 24.127,000 39,227.000 301.000 318,000 332.000 349,000 386,000 1,884,000 2,120.000 3,784.000 1,236.000 1,911,000 2,595.000 3,324.000 3,729.000 12,795,000 18,845,000 31.440,000 4.110,000 4.928,000 5,890,000 6,939,000 7,688,000 29.559,000 44.892,000 74,451,000 7,620.000 8,085,000 7,891.000 8,976,000 5,562,000 5,562,000 4.926.000 4,926.000 2.055,000 2,463.000 2.948,000 3.470,000 3,844,000 3,844.000 4,991,000 4,991,000 822,000 985,200 1,179,200 1,387,000 1,537.800 1,537,600 1,998,200 1,996,200 4.743.000 4,616,800 3.763,800 2,118,200 180.400 190,400 12,061,2001 (2,061,2001 699.25 $105.58 1111.91 $119.29 $124,73 $217.77 42.830 42,890 42,990 43,090 43.190 43,690 $4,251.000 $4,528,000 $4,811,000 $5.097,000 $5.387,000 19,514,371 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 CF7_i3A.xL9 7/14/62_3O2 PM Page 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTALREVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 CollecOon System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year is Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj. 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 Revised 7114192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page I FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Yeer Tntel 5-Yeer Total 1992.93 1993-94 1954-95 1995.98 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 13.799,000 17,783,000 21,228,000 23,856,000 25,841,000 13,799.000 27.828,000 13,799,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 840,000 968.000 1'111,D00 1,278.000 1,470.000 5,665,000 11,405.000 17.070,000 8,399,000 8,584,000 8,784,000 9,000,000 9,231.000 43,998,000 51,480,000 95,478,000 1,114,000 1,378.000 1,592,000 1,755,000 1,898,000 7.727,000 11,730,000 19,457,000 147,000 124,000 759,ODO 191,000 159,000 820,000 970,000 1,790,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.500,000 T 1,052,000 11,845,000 12,224,000 12,789,000 58,210,000 75,585,000 133,795,000 24,299,000 28,835,000 32,874.000 36,080,000 38.629,000 72,009,000 103,213.000 147,594,000 2,798.000 2.933,000 3,226,000 3,549,000 3,904,000 16,410,000 26,214.000 42,624,000 1,588,000 1,667,000 1,750,000 1,838,000 1,930,000 8,773,000 11,198,000 19,971,000 2,130,000 3,007,000 4,042,000 4,852.000 5,167,000 19,198,OD0 25,835,000 45,033,000 8,516,000 7.607,000 9,018,000 10,239,000 11,001,000 44,381,000 63.247,000 107,629,000 17,783,000 21,228,000 23,856,000 25,841,000 27,628,000 27,628,000 39,966,000 39,966,000 3,258,000 3,804,000 4,509.000 5,120,000 5,561,000 5.501.000 6,959,000 6,959.000 1,303,000 1,521,1300 1,804,000 2,048.000 2.200,000 2,200,000 2.783,000 2,783,000 13,222,000 15,903,000 17,543,000 18.673.000 19.927.000 19,927.000 30,224,000 30,224,000 $84.64 $86.33 $87.99 $89.82 $91.19 $104.91 99,228 99,428 99,828 100,428 101,228 105,22E 48.399,000 18,SB4,000 $8.784.000 19,000,000 $9,231.000 $11.039,469 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF17_03A.xL9 7114ls3 3.51 PM Pp. 1 LINE i OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Leal Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry-over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of inaumnce deserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion Fee Adj, 1992-93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 Revised 7114192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Yeer Tare1 S-Yeer T.W 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-98 1996-97 1992-97 1997-2002 1 10-Year Total 12.240, 000 13,245,000 13,580,500 13, 293,500 12, 627,000 12.240,000 11,860,000 1 2, 240,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280,000 322,000 370,000 428,000 490,000 1,888,000 3,804,000 5,892,000 5.707.000 6,080,000 6,470,000 7,128,000 7,796,000 33,181.000 53,173,000 86,354,000 901,000 946,000 947,000 913,000 882,000 4,569.000 4,570.000 91139,000 ee,000 1211,000 155.000 174,000 181,000 702,000 900,000 1,602,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,954,000 7,474,000 7,942,000 8,641,000 9,329,000 40,340,000 62,447.000 102387,000 19,194,000 20,719,000 21.522,500 21,934,S00 21,956,000 52,580,000 74,307,000 115,027,000 2,809.000 2,943,000 3,237.000 3,561,000 3,917,000 16,467,000 26,307.000 42,774,000 885.000 908,000 953,000 1,001,000 1,051,000 4,778.000 6,100,000 10,878.000 2.275,000 3.287.500 4,039,000 4,745,500 5.128,000 19,475,000 25,840,000 45.115,000 5,949,000 7,138,500 8,229,000 9,307,500 10,098,000 40,720,000 58,047,000 98,767,000 13. 245,000 13.580, 500 13, 293, 500 1 2, 6 27,000 11,860,000 11,860,000 16,260,000 16, 2 60,000 2.975,000 3,589,000 4,115,000 4,854,000 5,049,000 5,048,000 6,390,000 6,390,000 1,190,000 1.428,000 1,646,000 1,862,000 2,019,000 2,019,000 2,556,000 2,556,000 9,090,000 8,583,500 7,532,500 8,111.000 4,793,000 4,793,000 7.314.000 7,314,000 $112.09 $118.98 $125.73 1137.58 $149.47 4230.01 50.910 51,110 51,460 51,010 52,160 53,910 5,707,000 $6,080,000 $6,470,000 $7,128,1500 $7.796,000 112,399,839 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8113192 CF 938.XLS 8:06 PM LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 6 Fees: Industrial Waste B User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Unepprop or Portion of Insurance Reserve COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 THRU 14 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee adj. 1993-94 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 8/13192 Page 1 1992-93 1993-94 1994.95 1995-96 1998-97 1992.1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 113, 590,000 113, 880,000 120, 940, 2S0 124, 728, 760 128, 848, 500 113, 590,000 131, 928, 600 113, 590,000 25,646,000 26.672,000 27,739,000 28,849,000 30,005,000 138,911.000 169,023,000 307,934,000 5,895,000 6.780,000 7,797,000 8.987.000 10,313,000 39.752,000 79,980,000 119.732,000 52,288,000 67,812,000 77.824.000 88,034,000 98,626,000 384,184,000 589,075,000 973,259,000 8,129,000 8,389.000 8,783,000 9,031.000 9,276.000 43,588,000 53.662,000 97,250,000 1,868,000 2,011,000 2.380,000 2.679,000 2,797,000 11,735,0D0 13.885,000 25.620,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.826,000 111.464.000 124,303,000 137,660.000 151.017.000 618,170.000 906,626,000 1,523,795,000 207,418,000 225,344,000 245,243,250 262,288,750 279,865,500 731.760,000 1,037,553,500 1,637,385,000 48.648,000 51,011,000 68,112,000 61,724,000 67,898,000 285,393,000 455,976,000 741,369,000 11,316,000 10,121.000 10,622.000 11,160,000 11,703,000 54,912,000 67,822,000 122,734,000 33.572,000 43.271.760 53.780,500 60,566,250 68,338,000 259,526,500 341,112,070 600,838.570 93,538,000 104,403,750 120,514,500 133,440,2150 147,937,000 599,831,500 884,910.070 1,464,741,570 113,880,000 120,940.250 124,728,750 128,846,500 131,929,500 131,928,600 172, 643,430 172.643,430 45,903,000 51.299,000 59,286,000 65,676,000 72,842,000 72,842,000 94,580,000 94,580,000 18,708,000 20,880,000 24.103.800 26,689.200 29,587,800 29,587,800 38,497,400 38,497,400 49.269,000 48,761,250 41,338.950 s__a=_W — _rs-=W W ----• ra�r_:vsrazucrra-ra-a- 36,483,300 �— _______� 29,498,700 -ar_-.nv_:__=�______......�a•»--��ussusrstttsrs�t:a 29,498.700 39,566,030 �-: 1 39,566.030 -m.•:a_•as LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 USER FEE DATA 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $60.01 $77.76 $89.01 $100.61 $112.17 $141.86 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 844,704 846,374 849,594 854,124 859,009 889,584 23 24 Estimated User Fees, Excludes IRWD 50,688,000 65,812,000 75,624,000 85,934,000 96,426,000 128,199.416 24 CF1 92A.xLk8117N2_2:24 PM_P" 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tax Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserves 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Kumber of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 Revised 8113192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 1992-1997 1997-2002 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 10-Year Total 9,135.000 7,841,000 7,486.750 7.852.250 8,500.000 9.135.000 10 269.000 9.135,000 1,545.000 1,607,000 1.871,000 1,738.000 1.808,000 8,369,000 10,181,000 18.650.000 400,000 460,000 629,000 808.000 899.000 2,698,000 5.425,000 8.121,000 5,541.000 7,560.000 9.447.000 11.353.000 13.282.000 47,183.000 69,845,000 117,028,000 692,000 533.000 525.000 561.000 653,000 2,864,000 4.794,000 7,658.000 281,000 274.000 308,000 338,000 350,000 1,551.000 1.750,000 3,301,000 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 8,359,000 10 434,000 12 480.000 14 698.000 18 792,000 62,883 000 91 995,000 154.658,000 17 494,000 18,275.000 19 946,750 22,250.250 25,292,000 711,798,000 102,264 000 163,793.000 4.675.000 4,902,000 5,392.000 5.931.000 6,624,000 27,424.000 43.810.000 71.234.000 650,000 683.000 717.000 753.000 791.000 3,594,000 4,695,000 8,189,000. 4,328.000 5.223.250 8,185.500 7,006,250 7.708,000 30 511,000 38,640,000 69.051,000 9,653.000 10,80&.250 12 294.500 13 750.250 15 023,000 61,529 000 86 645,000 148.474,000 7.841.000 7.466.750 7,652.256 8,500.000 10,269,000 10.269,000 15,319.000 15,319,000 4.827.000 So404.000 6.147.000 8.875.000 7.512.000 7.612.000 9.613.000 9.613.000 1,931.000 2.162.000 2,459.000 2,750,000 3,005.000 3,005,000 3,845.000 3.845,000 1.083.000 (99,250) (953,750) (1,125,000) 4248,000) il 1248,0001 1861.000 1 1.861,000 $75.00 $102.23 4127.51 $152.80 $178.07 $184.49 73,880 73,950 74,090 74,300 74,590 77,090 $5,541,000 $7,580,000 $9,447,000 $11,353,000 $13,282,000 $14,222,334 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ci C L03AALa e/1ML12:ee PM Pp" 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tax Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste e User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES. 17 Reserves & Ce►ry-Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Revised 8113/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 S- Year Total 5- Veer TaInI 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 28 843.000 26,118 000 26,527,000 26,200 000 28 691.000 28.843.000 32,356,000 28.843.000 6,928,000 7,101,000 7,385.000 7.880,000 7.987.000 38,981,000 44,988,000 81.989,000 2,250,000 2,588.000 2,078,000 3,422,000 3,935.000 15,171,000 30,612.000 45,883,000 15,827,000 20.874.000 25,032.000 29.286.000 33,682.000 124.081.000 180.878,000 305,559,000 1,823,000 1.774.000 1.808,000 1,917,000 2,134.000 9,456.000 14.047.000 23.503.000 622,000 613.000 712.000 801,000 837.000 3,485,000 4.176,000 7.060,000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,250,000 32,950 000 37 813,000 43,1011000 48 555.000 188 774.000 274,800,000 404,374 000 54 093,000 58 089 000 63,440,000 69,308 000 77,248,000 218 617.000 308 956,000 491,217,000 15,789.000 18,558,000 18.214,000 20oO35o000 22.039,000 92,835,000 148,005,000 240.640.000 2.099,000 2,204.000 2,314.000 2,430,000 2.552.000 11,599.000 14.810,000 26.409.000 11,086,000 13,780 000 18 712.000 18,150,000 20 299 000 80 027,000 101,222,000 181,248 000 28 974.000 32,542,000 37 240.000 40,615,000 44 890.000 194 281.000 284,637,000 448.298.000 25,119,000 25,527,000 26,200,000 28,691,000 32,356.000 31,356,000 42.919,000 42.919.000 14,487,000 16.271,000 18.620.000 20.308,000 22,445,000 22,445,000 29,499,000 29,499,000 5,795,000 6,508 000 7,448.000 8,123 000 8,978,000 0,978.000 11 800,000 11 800,000 4,837,000 2,748 000 132.000 260,000 933 000 933.000 1,620.000 1 o620.000 $60.00 $78.98 $94.28 $109.69 $124.89 283,793 284,358 265.508 287,233 269,533 $16.827,000 $20.874.000 $25,032.000 $29.280,000 $33,662.000 $131.54 281,033 038,987.081 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF7 93AALe 9113192_292 PM Pp 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 Ueer Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 5-V~ Tntal &Vear Tntel Revised 8/13/92 Page 1 1992.93 1993.94 1994-95 1995-96 1996.97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 34,537.000 33,598,000 35,457,000 35,734.000 36,068,000 34,537 ODO 34,310,000 34,537,000 8,749,0D0 9.099.000 9.463.000 9.842.000 10.236,000 47,389,000 57,659,000 105,048.000 1,900,ODO 2.185,000 2,513,000 2,890.000 3.324.000 12,812.000 25,772,000 38,584.000 10,848,000 21.307,000 24,297.000 27.334,000 30.400,000 120.186,000 199.930,000 319,116,000 2.507,000 2.535,000 2,810.000 2.628,000 2,573.000 12,863,000 13,836,000 26.689,000 506,000 687,000 800.000 915,000 978,000 3,886,000 4,890,000 8,776,000 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 30 510,000 35,813.000 39,093,000 43,609,000 47.511,000 197.126,000 301.087,000 498.213.000 65 047.000 69,41) 000 75,140,000 79.343.000 83.579,000 231.663.000 335.397.000 532.750,000 1a,668,000 17.477,000 19,225,000 21,148,000 23.263,000 97.781,000 156,224,000 264,005.000 4,435.000 2,900,000 3.045,000 3,197.000 3,357,000 16,934.000 19,476.000 36,410,000 10 346.000 13 577,000 17,138,000 18.930 000 22,e49,000 82.638.000 112,950.070 195.588 070 31."9.000 33,954,000 39,408 000 43,275.000 49.269 000 197,353,000 288,650 070 486,003,070 33,598,000 35,467.000 35.734,000 36,068.000 34.310.000 34.310.000 46,740,930 46.746,930 15,725,000 16,977,000 19,703,000 21,638,000 24,635,000 24.635,000 32,170,000 32,170.000 6,290.000 6,791,000 7.881 000 8,655,000 9.854,000 9,854,000 12,868 000 12.868.000 11.583.000 11,889,000 8,150,000 5,775,000 (179.000) (179.000) 1,708,930 11,708,930 $60.00 $76.78 $88.19 $96.59 $107.01 $159.33 280,800 281,165 281,895 282,990 284,085 289,560 $18,848,000 $21,307.000 $24,297,000 $27.334,000 $30,400,000 $416,135,595 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M a3AALS 0113102 2:27 PM_Pgo 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income B Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 16 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18. Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 ri V— Tnrel 6-Vear Tntel Revised 8113/92 Pape 1 1992-93 1993.94 1994-95 1995.98 1998.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 8,784,000 9,360,000 10,334,000 10,849,000 10 983 SOO 8,784,000 10t986,500 8.784.000 2,112,000 2,198,000 2.284.000 2,375.000 2,470,000 11.437,000 13.918,000 25,353,000 50,000 68,000 67,000 77,000 89,000 341,000 687.000 1,028,000 1.990.000 2,864.000 3,039.000 3.217.000 3.398.000 14,508.000 19,796.000 34,304,000 632.000 694.000 745,000 769.000 773.000 3,613.000 3.806,000 7.419.000 314.000 124.000 154,000 146,000 131,000 869,000 630,000 1.499,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,098,000 5,936,000 8,289.000 6 584 000 6,881,000 30,788,000 38,835,000 69 603 000 13,882,000 115,298,0W 16,623,000 17,433,000 117,844,1500 39,552,000 49,801,500 78,387,000 1,705.000 1.872.000 2,059,000 2,265.000 2.492,000 10,473,000 16,736.000 27.209,000 759,000 797.000 837.000 879,000 923,000 4,195,000 5,352,000 9,547,000 1,978,000 2,293,000 2,878,000 3 305 500 3,483,000 13,917,500 17,315.000 31,232,500 4 522 000 4,962,000 6 774 000 6,449,1500 6,879,000 28.5851500 39,403,000 67,988,500 9,360,000 10.334,000 10, 849,000 10.983,500 10,9 86,600 10, 988, 500 10, 398,500 10, 398,S00 2.261.000 2.481,000 2.887,000 3,225,000 3.439,000 3,439.000 4,327.000 4,327,000 904,000 992,000 1,155,000 1,290,000 1 378 000 1,376,000 1,731,000 1,731,000 6,195,000 6,861.000 6,807 000 8,468 500 8 151 500 6 151 500 4,340.500 4,3401500 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 675.00 $107.52 $113.45 $119.44 $125.46 $158.04 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 26,533 28,833 26,783 28,933 27,083 27,833 23 24 Estimated User Fees $1.990,000 $2,864,000 $3,039,000 $3.217.000 $3.398.000 $4,343.061 24 CF0_e3A.xLe-a113rsk 2:44 PM_Pw 1 LINE 1 OPERATING -FUND 2 Reserves & carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest 6 Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M d O VW Other Oper. 15 COP Service to TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & CerryOver to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 1Q 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees 0 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 6 Year Tetal 6 Year Total Revised 8114/92 Page 1 1992.93 1993.94 1994.96 1995.96 1996.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 8,741,000 7,239.000 7,655 000 7.450,000 6,501,000 6.741 000 5.051 000 6,741,000 1.100.000 1.144.000 1.190,000 1.238.000 1,288,000 5,960.000 7,260.000 13.220.000 175,000 201,000 231,000 206,000 308,000 1.179,000 2.375,000 3,654,000 2,784,000 3,384,000 3.621.000 3.959,000 4,099,000 17.747,000 32,425,000 50.172,000 617.000 650,000 557,000 513,000 424.000 2,561,000 1,398.000 3.949.000 32,000 63,000 92,000 114.000 121.000 422.000 570,000 992.000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,609,000 5,342,000 6,691,000 5,990,000 6,238,000 27,869,000 44,018 000 71.887 000 11.349 000 12 581 ODO 13,34e 000 13,440,000 12,739 000 34.610 000 49,069.000 78,828,000 2,573,000 2.699,000 2,969.000 3,286,000 3.693.000 15,100,000 24,127,000 39.227,000 301,000 316,000 332.000 349,000 368.000 1.664,000 2,120,000 3.784.000 1,236,000 1,911.000 2,595,000 3,324,000 3.729 000 12.795 000 18.845 000 31.440 000 4 110 000 4,926,000 5 888 000 6,939.000 7,088,000 29.559 000 44.892 000 74,451,000 7.239,000 7,655.000 7,450,000 6.501.000 5.051.000 6,051.000 4,177,000 4.177,000 2,055,000 2.463.000 2,948,000 3,470,000 3,844,000 3,844,000 4,991,000 4,991,000 822.000 985,200 1.179 200 1,387.800 1 537 BOO 1,537 600 1,998 200 1,998.200 4,362.000 4,206,800 3,322 800 1.843.200 (330,600) (330 800) 42,810,200) (2,810 200) $65.00 $70.91 $84.23 $89.56 $94.91 $181.88 42,830 42,890 42,990 43.090 43,190 43,690 $2.784,000 $3,384.000 $3.621.000 $3.859.000 $4,099,000 $7,948,337 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M 09AALS 8113102 6:60 PM -pep 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1%Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income e Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19• 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 25% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 9-V.., TM.1 S.V..r T.t.1 Revised 8/13/92 Page 1 1992.93 1993-94 1994.95 less-96 1990.97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 13,799 000 16,636.000 19,997,000 22,635.000 24,423,000 13,799.000 26.106.000 13,799.000 3.323.000 3.456.000 3.594,000 3,738.000 3.888"0 17,999,000 21,904,000 39,903,000 840.000 966.000 1,111,000 1,278,000 1.470,000 5,665,000 11,405.000 17.070,000 3.989,000 5,128,000 5,190,000 6.202,000 5,343,000 24,892,000 28,010,000 52,902.000 1.074,000 1,294,000 1,502,000 1,658,000 1.784,000 7,312,000 10,903,000 18,215,000 147.000 124.000 159,000 191.000 199,000 820,000 970,000 1.790,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9353.000 10,968,000 11.555,000 12,127,000 12,684000 66,688.000 73,192,000 129,880.000 23.152,000 27,604,000 31,SS3,000 34,662,000 37,107,000 70,487.000 99,298,000 143,679,000 2.798,000 2,933,000 3,228,000 3,549,000 3,904,000 16,410,000 26,214,000 42,624,000 1,588,000 1,687,000 1,750.000 1,838.000 1,930,000 8.773,000 11,198,000 19,971,000 2.130,000 3,007,000 4.042 000 4,852,000 5,167,000 19.198,000 25,835.000 45,033.000 6,518000 7.607,000 9,018.000 10,239.000 11.001,000 44,381,000 63,247,000 107,628,000 16,636.000 19,997.000 22,535,000 24,423,000 26,106,000 2f1,106,000 36,051,000 36,051,000 3.258,000 3,804,000 4,509,000 6,120.000 5,501,000 5.501,000 6,959.000 6,959.000 1.303.000 1,521.000 1,804.000 2,048,000 2,220.100 2,200,000 2.783,000 2,783,000 12,075,000 14,672.000 16,222,000 17,255,000 100 8,408,0 18,405,000 26.309.000 26,309,000 $40.00 $51.58 $51.99 $52.40 $52.78 99,228 99,428 99,828 100,428 101.228 $3,969,000 $5,128,000 $5,190,000 $5.262,000 $5,343.000 $54.95 105.228 $5,782,279 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF11 63A.XLe e/13192_10:52 AM Pp" I LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 8 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 8 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 16 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19. 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 25% Tax Diversion No Fee adj. 1992-93 Fee adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 Revised 7114/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 r-Vwwr Tntwl 5-Vaer Tntwl 1992.93 1993.94 1994-95 1995.90 1996-97 1992.97 1987-2002 10-Year Total 12 240,000 12,558,000 12 843,500 12 502,500 11 777,000 12 240.000 10,947.000 12,240,000• 1,989,000 2,069.000 2,152.000 2,238.000 2,328,000 10,776,000 13.115,000 23,891.000 280.000 322.000 370.000 426,000 490,000 1,888,000 3,804,000 5,692,000 3,055.000 4,011.000 4,318,000 4,890.000 5,468.000 21,742,000 40,057.000 61.799,000 877.000 896.000 893.000 854.000 799.000 4.319.000 4,181.000 8,50o,0o0 66,000 126.000 165,000 174,000 181.000 702,000 900.000 1,602,000 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 8 287,000 7,424 000 7,889.000 8,682,000 9,266,000 39.427,000 62 057,000 101,484,000 18.507.000 19,982,000 20,731,500 21,084,500 21 043,000 51 067.000 73 004.000 113 724,000 2.809,000 2,943,000 3,237.000 3.561.000 3.917,000 16.467.000 26.307.000 42,774,000 865,000 908,000 953.000 1,001,000 1.051.000 4,778,000 0,100,000 10,878.000 2.275.000 3,287,500 4.039.000 4,746 600 5,128 000 19,475,000 26 640,000 45,116 000 6,949.000 7,138,500 B 229,000 9,307 500 10,096.000 40.720,000 58,047,000 98 787,000 12,558,000 12,843,600 12,502,500 11.777.000 10.947.000 10.947,000 14,957,000 14,957.000 2,975.000 3,569.000 4.115.000 4.654.000 5,048.000 6.048,000 6.390,000 6,390,000 1,190,000 1,428,000 1,046,000 1,862.000 2.019.000 2,019,000 2 556,000 2 558,000 8,393.000 7,848,500 8,741,500 5261000 3,880,000 3.880,000 8.011,000 8011000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee $60.00 $78.48 $83.91 $94.38 $104.84 $177.45 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 50,910 61,110 51,460 61,810 52,180 53,910 23 24 Estimated User Fees $3,055,000 $4.011.000 $4,318,000 $4,8S0,000 $5,468,000 $9,666,330 24 Oil 3192 CF 93B.XL5 9:37 AM LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tar Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest R Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M; 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves S Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Naxt Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Unepprop or Pardon of Insurance Reserve COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 THRU 14 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Yesr Tntal 5-Year Totei Pepe 1 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1995.97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 113,590,000 87,273,000 92,341,250 94,014,750 95,835.500 113,590.000 96,438,500 113,590,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,095,000 6,7110.000 7,797,000 8,967,000 10,313.000 39,752,000 79,980,000 119,732,000 62,288,000 94,285,000 105,387,000 116.802.000 128,525,000 491,457,000 759,571,000 1,257,138,000 7,168,000 6.398,000 8,624,000 6.733,000 6,805,000 33,726.000 38,415,000 72,141.000 1,868,DD0 2,011,000 2.380,000 2,679,000 2.797,000 11,735,000 13,885,000 25,620,000 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 O 07.219,000 109.472,000 122,188,000 135,261,000 148,540,000 582,680,000 891,951,000 1,474,631,000 180,809,000 196.745,000 214,529,260 229,275,750 244,375,500 096,270.000 988,389,500 1,588,221,000 48,648,000 51,011,000 58,112.000 61,724,000 157,999.000 205,393,000 455,976.000 741,369,000 11,316.000 10,121,000 10,622,000 11.160,000 11,703,000 54,912,000 67,822,000 122,734.000 33.672.000 43,271,750 53,780,500 00,566,250 68.330,000 259,526,50D 341,112.070 60 ,836,570 93,536,000 104,403,750 120,514,500 133,440,250 147.937,000 599,831,500 864.910,070 1,404,741,570 87,273,000 92,341,260 94,014,760 85,835,600 95,438.500 96,438,500 123,479,430 123,479,430 45,903,000 51,299,000 69,280,000 65,078,000 72,842,000 72,842,000 94,580,000 94,680.000 18,708,000 20,880,000 24,103,800 26,089,200 29,597,800 29,587.800 38,497.400 38.497,400 22,682,000 20.1152,250 svrrsrsr rsr __=�arvrnnrvrlusrr-rn_atvivuwmNr�r�s�nsrrnna�w�nnn�uusrrr�nrrr-. 10,624,950 3,470,300 (5,991,3001 (5,991.300) rrnrsrv�rrr�usna�nnnnnnrru�rsrrnr 19,597,970I 19,697.9701 ,nvwwvv,r m LINE 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 i 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 1! 1! 20 21 USER FEE DATA 21 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 160.01 0109.27 4121.69 6134.39 $147.07 $183,49 22 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 944,704 846,374 849,594 854,124 859,609 889,584 23 24 Estimated User Fees. Excludes IRWD 60,088,000 92,485,D00 103,387.000 114,782.000 126,425,000 153,232,779 24 CFI 13A.X1,6 §f13f2 4A3 AM_Psps 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Shwa of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year i8 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of insurance Reserves 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO, 1 Revised 7174133 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 l q97-1997 1 897-2W? 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.96 1990-97 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 10-Year Total 9,135,000 6,239,000 5,746,750 5807,250 6,519,000 9,135,000 8,142.000 9,135,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 460.000 529.000 508.000 699.000 2.898,000 S,425,000 8,121.000 5.541,000 9.167.000 11,119,000 13,091,000 15,090,000 54,008,000 80,028,000 134,036,000 535,000 415,D00 399,000 425,DDO 507,000 2,281,OD0 3,889,000 8,170,000 281,000 274,000 308,000 338,000 350,000 1,551,000 1,750,000 3,301,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.757.000 10,318,000 12,355,000 14,462,000 18,848,000 80.536.000 91,092,000 151.628,000 15 892,000 16,655.000 18,101,750 20.269,260 23,165,000 69,1571,000 99.234,000 160,783,000 4,675,DD0 4,902,000 5,392,000 5,931,000 8,524,000 27,424,000 43,810,000 71,234,000 650,000 1583,000 717.000 753,000 791.000 3.594,000 4,595,000 8,189,000 4,328,000 5.223,250 8,185,500 7,086,250 7,708,000 30,511,000 38,540,000 69,051,000 9.653.000 10,808,250 12,294.500 13,750,250 15,023,000 61,529,000 88,945,000 148,474,000 8,239.000 5,746,750 5,807.250 6,519,000 8,142,000 8,142,000 12,289.000 12,289,000 4,827,000 5,404,000 6,147,000 6,875,000 7,51 2,000 7,512,DD0 9.513,000 9,613,000 1,931,000 2,162,000 2,459,000 2,750,000 3,005,000 3.005.000 3,845,000 3,845,000 1519,000) (1,819,2501 12,798,7501 13,108,000) 12,375,000) (2,375,000) 111169,0001 (1,169,D00) 075,00 0123.98 1150.07 $176.19 0202.31 73,880 73,960 74,090 74,300 74,590 05,541,000 $9,167,000 *11,119.000 $13,091,000 015,090,000 $213,02 77,090 $16,421,712 LINE 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 e 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6F2I3A-xLe WI3A3_e: 13 AM_Pyp t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves f4 Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tea Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste a User Fees 7 Interest i Miseelleneous income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 8 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDtTURES 13 Share of Joint Works M 6 0 14 Collection System M 44 0 and Other Oper. is COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves 4 Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 1s, 209E Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees { i 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Revised 7114f92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Page 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992.1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5- Year Tatel S. Yaw Tntel 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.98 1998-97 1992-1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 26.843.000 19,040.000 17,926,000 18,040 000 19.930,000 26,043,000 22,948,000 26,043,000 0 0 0 0 0 a O a 2,250,000 2,588,000 2,976,000 3,422,000 2,935,000 15,171,000 30,512,000 45,683.000 15,927,000 27,974,000 32,416,000 38,964,000 41,646,000 154,827.000 225,882,000 380,689,000 1.572.000 1,253,D00 1.250.000 1,318,000 1,490,000 8,883.000 10,044,000 18,927,000 522,000 613,000 712,000 801.000 937.000 3,485,000 4,175,000 7,660,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20171,000 32.429,000 37.354,000 42,505000 47,908,000 180,360,000 270,593.000 450,959,000 47,014,000 50.408.000 55,280.000 60,645,000 a7,838,000 207,209,000 293,541,000 477,802,OD0 15.789.000 16,658,000 18,214.000 20,035,000 22,039,000 02,635.000 148,006,000 240,640,000 2.099,000 2,204,000 2.314,000 2,430,000 2,552,000 11,599,000 14,810,000 26.409.000 11.088.000 13,780,000 16,712,000 18,150,000 20 299,000 80,027.000 101,222000 181 249,000 28,974,000 32,542,000 37.240,000 40 615,000 44,890,000 184,261,000 264,037,000 448 298,000 18,040,000 17,920,000 18.040,000 19,930,000 22,948,000 22,948,000 29,504,000 29,604,000 14,487.000 15,271.000 18,620.000 20,308,000 22,445.000 22.445,000 29,499,000 29,499.000 5,795,000 6,508,000 7,448,000 8,123,000 8,978,000 8,978,000 11,800,000 11,800,000 12,242,0001 (4,853,000) 48,028,0001 48,501,DDO) (8,475.0001 t8,475,0001 (11,795,0001 (11.795,0001 $60.00 $105,82 $122.09 $138,32 9154.51 $160.11 283,783 264,358 285,508 267.233 269.533 281,033 615,827,000 627.974.000 132,410,000 $38,964,000 441.645,000 $45,682,392 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M-03A.xl s, 110 ]N7 e:1 a APAP. 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves 61 Carry -Over From Last Yeer 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tex Allocation 5 Foes: industrial Waste 6 Usar Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer Irom COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE is is]Y.IL\7i1L1:18411i]:Is7VIC 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 45 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 1e Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requlrement■ 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwalling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 Revised 704192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pepe 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Year Total 5-Year Total 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995.98 1996-97 1992-1997 1997-2D02 10-Yeer Total 34.537,000 24,512,000 25,673,000 25,196,000 24,719,000 34,537,0DO 22.084,000 34,537.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.900.000 2,105,000 2.513.000 2,890.000 3,324,000 12,812.000 25,772,D00 38,584.000 18,849,000 30,408,000 33,750,000 37,17a,000 40,633,000 158,825.000 258,591,000 415,418,000 2,170.000 1,935.000 1,856,000 1,817,000 1,899,000 9,377.000 9,345,000 17,722,000 506,000 687,000 8130,000 815,000 918,000 3,868,000 4,890,D00 8,778.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,424.000 35,115,000 38.929.000 42.798,000 48,634,000 184,900,000 295,598,000 480.498,000 55,961,000 59,027,000 94,602,000 87,994,000 71.353,000 219,437,000 317,882,000 515.035,000 18,568,000 17,417,000 19,225,000 21,148,000 23,263.000 97.781,000 156,224,0D0 254,005,ODO 4,435,000 2,9D0,000 3.045,000 3,197,000 3,357,000 15,934,D00 19,476,000 36.410,000 10.346.000 13,577,000 17,138,000 18,930,000 22,849,000 82,638,000 112.950,070 195.588,070 31,449,000 33,954,000 39.405.000 43 275,000 49,289,000 197,353,000 288,650,070 488,003,070 24,512,000 25,673.000 25.190,000 24,719,D00 22,084,000 22,084,000 29,031,930 29,031,930 15,725,0DO 18.977,000 19,703,000 21,638,D00 24,635,000 24,635,000 32,170,000 32.170,000 6,290,000 8,791,000 7,881,000 8,655,000 9,854.000 9.854,000 12,068,000 12,888,ODO 2.497,000 1,905.000 (2,388,0001 (5,574,000) (12,405.0001 1 112,405.0001 1111.006,070) 116,006,070) 660.00 1108.15 4 i 19.78 290,800 281,105 281,895 $18,848,000 $30,408,000 $33.750,000 0131.37 4143.03 282,990 284.086 $37,178,000 640,633,000 4 202-34 289,560 159.589,570 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IB 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CTe_a3A.AL90113la2 0:22 AM Ps� 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1% Tax Allocation 5 Feee: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous income 9 Transfer from COP Furls 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & O 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Numhef of Equivalent Dwelling Units 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj, 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 Revised 7114/92 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pepe 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5-Yenr Total 5-Year Total 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-98 1996-97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 8,784,000 7,170.000 7,983,000 8,326,006 8,274,500 8,784,000 8,058,500 8,784,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 58,000 87,000 77,000 89,000 341.000 687,000 1,028,000 1.990.000 5.060,000 5,323,000 5.592,000 5.868.000 23,833,000 33,713,000 57.540,000 554.000 533,000 573,000 583,000 574,000 2,817,000 2,587,000 5,384,000 314,000 124,000 164,000 148,000 131,000 869,000 630,000 1.499,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,908,000 6,775,000 6,117 000 45,398.000 6,662,000 27,860,000 37,597,000 65.457 000 11,692,000 12,945,000 14,100,000 14 724r000 14,936,500 36,844,000 45,655,500 74,241,000 1,786,000 1,872,000 2,059,000 2,265,000 2,492,000 10,473,000 10,730,000 27,209,000 759,000 797,000 837,000 879,000 923,000 4,195,000 5,352,000 9,547,000 1,978,000 2,293,000 2.978.000 3,305,S00 3.483,000 13.917.500 17,315,000 31,232,500 4,522,0013 4.962,000 5,774,000 6,449,500 0,878,000 28,585,500 39,403,000 87,988,500 7,170,000 7,983,000 8,326,000 8,274,500 8,058,500 9,058,500 8,252,500 6,252,500 2,281,000 2,481,000 2,807.000 3,225,000 3,439,000 3,439,000 4.327,000 4,327.000 904,000 892,000 1,155.000 1,290,000 1,378,000 1,376.000 1,731,000 1,731,000 4,005,000 4,510,000 4,284,000 3,759.500 3,243,500 3,243,500 194,500 794,500 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 8 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 18 20 475.00 4189.98 $198.73 $207.63 4216.68 $264.04 22 26,533 26,633 28,783 26,933 27,083 27,833 23 11,990,000 15,080,000 $5,323.000 $5,592.000 15,868,000 $7,349,025 24 CFO _e3A.xL9 a113M2_e'2e AM Pp t LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tax Allocation 5 Fear, Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joant Works Nl & 0 14 Collection System M & 0 and Other Oper. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Reeidence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling UNta 24 Estimated User Fees 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6 Revised 7I14192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 5 Yeer Total 5 Yeer Total 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-98 1998-97 1992-1997 1997.2002 10-Year Total 6,741,000 6,097,000 6.425,000 5.125,000 5,074.000 6,741,000 3,514,000 8,741,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175,000 201.000 231.000 256.000 306,000 1,179.000 2,375,000 3,554,000 2,784,000 4.528,000 4,811.000 5,097,000 5,387,000 22.607,000 39,690,000 62,297,000 475,DDO 462,000 462,000 411.D00 314,000 2,124,000 7DO,000 2,824.DOG 32,000 83.000 92,000 114,000 121,000 422,D00 570,000 992,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,468,000 5,254,000 5,595,D00 5,888,000 6,128.000 26,332,000 43.335.000 89,867,000 10,207,000 11,351 000 12,021,000 12,013.000 11,202,000 1 33,073,D00 46,849,D00 75,408.000 2,573.000 2,699,DO0 2,969,000 3,266.000 3,593,000 15,100,000 24,127,000 39,227.000 301.000 316,000 332,000 349,000 386.000 1,884,000 2,120,000 3,784,000 1,230,000 1,911,000 2,595,000 3,324,000 3,729,000 12,795,000 18,845.000 31,440,000 4,110,000 4.926,000 5,896,0(>0 6,939,000 7,688.000 29,559,000 44.892,000 74,451,000 6.097.000 8,425,D00 6,125,000 5,074,000 3,514.000 3,514,000 1,9S7,000 1,957,000 2,055,000 2,483.000 2.943,000 3,470,000 3,844,000 3,844,000 4.991,000 4,991,000 822,000 905,200 1,179,200 1,387,800 1,537,500 1.537,1500 1,998,200 1,998,200 3.220.000 2,976,800 1,997,800 218,200 11,887.600) [1,887,6001 (5,030,200) 15,030,2001 465.00 $105.58 $111.91 1118.29 $124.73 $217.77 42.830 42,890 42.990 43,090 43.190 43,690 62.784,000 14,528,000 64.811,000 $5,097,000 $5,387,000 $9,514,371 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 CF7 /3A.xLS i113/Y7 s;2s AM Prey 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Lest Your 3 REVENUE 4 Share of 1 % Tex Allocation 5 Fees: Industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Interest & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTALREVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other OPeF. 15 COP Service 16 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Reserves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency R6aerve 20 Portion of Insurance Rasarva 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residsnoe User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent DwelNng Units 24 Estimated User Fees COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01-2002 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj, 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 5-Year Total 5-Year Total Rev sad 7114192 Pepe 1 1992-93 1993-84 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1992.1997 1997-2002 10-Year Total 13,799,000 13,190.000 18,298,000 18.564,000 20,180,000 13,799,000 21,530.000 13,799,000 o D 0 0 0 0 0 0 040,000 966,000 1,111.000 1,278.000 1,470,000 5,665,000 11,405,000 17,070.000 3,869,000 8,594,000 8,784,000 9,0D0,000 9,231.000 39,568,000 51.480,000 91,048,000 951,000 1.041.000 1.230,000 1,366,000 1,471,000 8,059,000 9,134,000 15,193,DOO 147,000 124.000 159,000 191,000 199.DOD 820,000 970,000 1,790,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,907.000 10,715,000 11,284,000 11,835,000 12,371,000 62,112.000 72,989,000 12S.101,GOO 19,708,000 23,905,DDO 27,582,000 30,399,DOO 32,531 DOO mg11,000 94.519,000 138,900,000 2,798,000 2.933,000 3,226,000 3.549,000 3,504,000 16,410,000 28.114.000 42,624,000 1,S88,000 1.687,000 1,760,000 1,838,000 1,930,000 8,773,000 11,198,000 19.971,000 2,130,000 3.007,000 4,042,000 4,852,D00 5,167,000 19.198,000 25,835,000 45.033,000 6,516,000 7.607,000 9,018,000 1D,239,000 11,001,000 44,381,000 63,247,000 107,628,000 13,190,000 10,298,000 18,664.000 20,150,000 21,530,000 21,530,000 31,272.000 31.272,000 3,268,000 3,804,000 4,SO9,000 5,120.000 5,501.000 5.501,000 6,959,000 6,959,000 1,303,000 1,521,000 1,804,000 2,048,000 2,200.000 2,200,000 2,783,000 2.783,000 8,629,000 10,973,000 12,251,000 12,992,000 13,829,000 13.829,000 21,530,000 21.530,000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 140,00 $88,33 $87.99 409.62 $91.19 6104.91 22 99,228 99,428 99,828 100,428 101,228 105,228 23 43,969,000 $8,584,000 49,784,000 $9,000,000 $9,231.000 $11,039,469 24 cF 11 93A.ALS 9f131e2 e:5a MA ►,p 1 LINE 1 OPERATING FUND 2 Reserves & Carry -Over From Last Year 3 REVENUE 4 Share o1 1% Tax Allocation 5 Fees: industrial Waste 6 User Fees 7 Internet & Miscellaneous Income 8 Transfer from COP Funds 9 Other Revenue 10 TOTAL REVENUE 11 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 EXPENDITURES 13 Share of Joint Works M & 0 14 Collection System M & O and Other Dpar. 15 COP Service 18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17 Renerves & Carry -Over to Next Year 18 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements 19 20% Contingency Reserve 20 Portion of Insurance Reserve 21 USER FEE DATA 22 Single Family Residence User Fee 23 Number of Equivalent Dwelling Unite 24 Estimated User Foss 100% Tax Diversion No Fee Adj. 1992-93 Fee Adj. 1993-94 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 Revised 7/14192 STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW Pape 1 FISCAL YEARS 1992-1993 THROUGH 2O01.2002 5-Y.., Tnr J S. V.xr Tnr.l 1992.93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1998.97 1992-97 1997-2002 10-Year Total 12,240,000 10,496,000 10,529 500 10,125,500 9,226,D00 12,240,D00 8 209,D00 12,240,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280,000 322,000 370,000 426,000 490,000 1,888,000 3.904,000 S,692,000 3,055.000 6,080,000 8,470,000 7,128,000 7,796,000 30,529,000 53,173,000 83,702,000 804,000 744,000 730,000 680,000 612,000 3,570.000 3,017,000 8,587.000 68,000 128,000 155,000 174,000 181,000 702,000 900,000 1,602,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,205.000 7.272,000 7,725,000 8.400,000 0,079.000 38,989,000 00,894.000 97,583,000 16,445,000 17,788,DD0 18,354,500 18,533,500 18,305,000 48,929,000 69,103,000 109,923.000 2,009,000 2,943.000 3,237,000 3,551,000 3,917,000 16,467,000 28,307,D00 42,774,000 885,000 909,000 953,000 1,001,000 1,051,000 4,778.000 8,100,000 10.878,000 2,275.000 3.287,500 4,039,000 4,745,500 5,128,000 19,475.000 25,640,000 45,115,000 5,949,000 7,138,500 8,229,000 9.307,500 10,090,000 40,720,000 S8,047,000 90,767.000 10,496,000 10,829,500 10.125,500 9,226.000 9,209,000 8,209.000 11,056.000 11.056,000 2,975,000 3,569,000 4,115,000 4,654.000 5,048,000 5,048.000 6,390,000 6,390,000 1,190,000 1,428,000 1,646,000 1,862,DD0 2,019,000 2,019.D00 2,556,D00 2,558,OD0 6.331,000 5,832,5DO 4.364.500 2,710.000 1,142,000 1,142,000 2,110,000 2,110,000 LINE 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 s 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 160.00 1118.96 $125.73 4137.58 6149.47 $230.01 22 50.910 51,110 51,460 51,810 52,160 53,910 23 $3,055.000 16,080,000 68,470,000 17,128,000 17,796,000 $12,309.039 24 RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California, does hereby FIND: A. That a Comprehensive 30-year Master Plan of Capital Facilities entitled "Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan - 1989," hereinafter the "Master Plan," which includes detailed financial and engineering reports, has been prepared, approved and adopted by the Board of Directors setting forth and identifying the required future development of District and jointly -owned facilities, including the financial projections for providing sewer service to all properties within the District service area; and, B. That the financial and engineering reports of the Master Plan have been made available to the public and have been subject to noticed public hearings, all in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66016 and other provisions of law; and, C. That the revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance will be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities, wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District; the repay principal and interest on debt instruments or to repay federal and state loans issued for the construction and reconstruction of said sewerage facilities, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves; and, D. That the properties upon which the fees established by this Ordinance are levied, discharge wastewater to the District's collection, treatment and disposal facilities. The costs of operating and maintaining said facilities have constantly increased due in part to increased regulatory requirements to upgrade the treatment process; and, E. That the need for upgraded and improved treatment of all wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities is required to protect the public health and safety to preserve the environment without damage; and, F. That the new fees established by this Ordinance do not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the sewer service for which the fee is levied, as provided in Government Code Sections 66013 and 66016; and, G. That the change in rate structure will not necessarily result in an expansion of facilities to provide for growth outside the existing service area. The adoption of these rates will not result in any specific project nor result in a direct physical change in the environment; and, H. That the District has, on July 19, 1989, adopted a Final Program Environmental Impact Report in accordance with legally required notices and public hearing, related to the Master Plan, including the financial program; and, 1. That the proposed increases in the sewer service charges are established upon a rational basis between the fees charged each customer and the service and facilities provided to each customer to the District, a portion of which are necessary to replace the loss of ad valorem property taxes which have been diverted from the District to the State General Fund as a result of state legislative action on September 2, 1992; and, J. That the adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act from further environmental assessment pursuant to the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and California Code of Regulations Section 15273(a). NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN: Section 1: Section 1 of Ordinance No. is hereby amended to read: "Section 1: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the established system of sanitary sewer service charges required to be paid by property owners for the services and facilities furnished by the District in connection with its sanitation treatment works and sewage collection system. Revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities, wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District; to repay principal and interest on debt instruments or to repay federal and state loans issued for the construction and reconstruction of said sewerage facilities, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves." Section 2: Section 2 of Ordinance No. is hereby amended to read: "Section 2: Annual Sanitary Sewer Service Charge. Commencing October 15, 1992, each parcel of real property located within the District which is improved with structures designed for residential, commercial or industrial use and connected to the District's system, shall pay a sanitary sewer service charge based on the average volume of wastewater discharged by a class of users in the sum or sums as set forth in Table A of this Ordinance." Section 3: If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or entity is held invalid by order of court, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or entities shall not be affected. Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective October 16, 1992. Section 5: Ordinance No. is hereby repealed. Section 6: The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District, as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the affirmative vote of greater than two-thirds of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, .1 California, at an adjourned regular meeting held September 16, 1992. Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. _ of Orange County, California ATTEST: Assistant Secretary of the Board of Director, County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 92- DIRECTING COUNTY AUDITOR -CONTROLLER TO COLLECT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON 1992-93 PROPERTY TAX BILLS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR -CONTROLLER TO INCLUDE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE 1992-93 PROPERTY TAX BILLS WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. _ has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. _, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. _ of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. ; and, WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 5473 provides that such _y charges, as adopted by District Ordinances, may be collected on the County tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separate from, its general taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No, of Orange County, California. DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 5473, the County Auditor -Controller is hereby ordered and directed to include sewer service charges, as established by Ordinance No. on the 1992-93 property tax bills in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separate from, the general taxes; and that such sewer service charges be included in the annual property tax bills for each year thereafter, for so long as the rates do not change and this resolution remains in effect; and, Section 2. That pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 5473, this resolution shall remain in full force and effect until amended or repealed or until such time as the rate of sewer service charges, as established by Ordinance No. , is changed; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to execute any necessary documents or agreements to effect the order set forth in Section 1 herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held September 16, 1992. September 11, 1992 ✓Mr. Wayne Sylvester General Manager Mr. Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 Dear Wayne & Tom: I am in receipt of the September 3 letter from your counsel. I am very disappointed with the tone and attitude of the letter. We have had an excellent working relationship with the Sanitation Districts, and had felt they were very progressive in their thinking. We thought they would work towards a resolution rather than pay more money to lawyers to blame someone than solve the problem. In our meeting with you on August 18, we said there were no facts to date to convince us that any of the problem is Brinderson's. On the other side of that coin, the amount of legal bills that will be spent to find out what really happened in a court of law will be in excess of a million dollars, and we all know that. In the spirit of maintaining our customer relationship with the Orange County Sanitation Districts, we put an offer on the table that we would participate in the cost of the problem, and would continue to put all of our effort (which we have) into finding the fastest, most economical solution, and help implement that. I am disappointed to receive a letter of this nature after we had made such an offer. We've always believed that the Orange County Sanitation Districts have been progressive in problem solving, not the typical bureaucratic "walk away from the problem and let the lawyers figure it out ........ and we all spend three times the public's money that's necessary to solve the problem. Brinderson still takes the stand at this time that there's no evidence this issue is ours. But we are sensitive to our customer and continue to make the offer to make a contribution towards solving this problem and put our energy forward in a progressive way to get the problem solved in the most economical way. We would appreciate your response in a positive framework to solve this problem. Very truly yours, �p Gary L. rinderson Chairman GLB:Ip 11 . P.S. We request that a copy of this letter be given to everyone on your Board of Directors. ADJOURNED FETING DATE: September 16, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING DATE September 16, 1992 TI DISTRICT (RICHARDSON) � .... ✓ — (BEYER) BARRERA .... % — (PO..) ... SALTARELLI . . (ROTH)TH) ...... STANTON. — j (FERRYMAN) ... WANNER ... — `�' pig 191a (GULLIXSON) .. WEDAA .....— (SCOM ..... COLLINS .... J� — (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... _a e — (NORBY) ..... CATLN ..... Me — (SELL) ...... DENES ..... ae — (FLORA) ..... MAHONEY ... �L — (CULVER) .... MAIN ....... — (PARKER) .... NELSON ..... .✓/ (TYKES) ..... NEWTON .... -f— (HUNTER) .... PICKLER ... . (flRISEn ..... PULIDO .... — (ROTM ...... STANTON. . DISTRICT 3 i (NEL SON) .... SAPDUNIEN ..... _� — (NELSON) .... DUNLAP ..... (NORBY) ..... CATLIN ..... (SCOTT) ..... COLLINS ... — (MAIM CULVER .... — (RICE) ...... EVANS .... — (MAHONEY) ... FLORA ..... — mcCUNE) .... GRIFFIN .... — (FORSYTHE) ... LASZLO .... (RICHARDSON) . McGUIGAN .. — (HERMAN) .... MINER ..... — (AGE) ....... PARTN .... — (HUNTER) .... PICKLER ... — (ROBITAILLE) .. SILVA ..... (ROTH) ...... STANTON .... — (BATES) ..... SYLVIA .... DISTRICTS (HART) ...... PLUMMER .... � y — (Cox) ....... •e0lcau�.... — (STANTON) .... ROTH ..... — DISTRICT 6 (SHERRICK) ... WANNER .... — {PLUMMEA) ... HART ..... (STANTON) .... ROTH ..... — DISTRICT 7 (SALTARELLI) .. PUCKETT .... — (READE) ..... WAHNER .... — (BEYER) ..... BARRERA ... — (PLUMMER) ... COX ...... — (PULIDO) ..... RICHARDSON . (STANTON) .... ROTH ...... — (HAMMOND) ... SHERIDAN .. — 31 DISTRICT 11 (MOULTON-t,�D PATTERSOM .. WNCHELL ..: — (MacALL137ER)(ROTH) ...... STANTON ... — DISTRICT 13 A4I- (WEDAA) ..... GULLIXSON .. — (BEYER) ..... BARRERA ... — (DUN.AP) .... PARKER ..... � — (HUNTER) .... PICKLER .... (STANTON) .... ROTH ..... — DISTRICT 14 (MILLER) ..... SWAN ..... — (PUCKET) .... PONTIOUS .. — (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... (STANTON) .... ROTH ..... — (HAMMOND) ... SHERIDAN .. — TIME: 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 ME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS IS & 14 JOINT BOARDS (BEYER)...............BARRERA... — — — (NORBY) ............... CATLIN — — — (SCOTT)...............COLLNS ... — — — (PLUMMER) ............. COX ...... — — (MAIM ................ CULVER ... — (BELL)................DENES .... — (NELSON) .............. DUNLAP ... — (RICE) ................ EVANS .... — (MAHCNEY) ............FLORA .... — (McCUNE) .............. GRIFFIN .... — — (RICHARDSON) ........... GRISET .... — (WEDAA) .............. GULLIXSON — (PLUMMER) ............. HART ..... — (MacALLISTER) ........... KELLY ..... — (FORSYTHE) ............ LASZLO .... — (FLORA) ............... MAHONEY .. — (CULVER)..............MAN ..... — (RICHARDSOM ........... MCGUIGAN .. — (HERMAN) .............. MINER ...... — (PARKER) .............. NELSON ... — (TYNES) ............... NEWTON ... — (DUNLAP)..............PARKER ... — (AGE) ................ PARTN .... — (HUNTER) .............. PICKLER .... — — (HART) ................ PLUMMER .. — (PUCKETT) ............. PONTIOUS .. — (SALTARS............. PUCKETT ... — (GRISEn .............. PULIDO .... — (PULIDO) .............. RICHARDSON — (STANTOM ............. ROTH ..... — (PONTIOUS) ............. SALTARELLI — (COX) ................ SANSONE .. — (DOTSOM .............. SAPIEN .... — (HAMMOND) ............. SHERIDAN .. — (ROBITAILLE) ............ SILVA ..... — (ROTH ............... STANTON ... — (MILLER) ............... SWAN ..... — (BATES) ............... SYLVIA .... — (FERRYMAW ERRICKfREADE) . WAHNER .... — — (GULLIXsCN) ............ WEDAA .... — (MOULTON-PATTERSO) ..... WNCHELL STAFF OTHER SYLVESTER ...... _L[ WOODRUFF .. BROWN ....... ANWAR..... — ANDERSON..... DBOR...... — CLAWSON ....... FLEMING ... — DAWES ....... HOHENER .. — GORCZYCA..... HOUGH .... — HASENSTAB .... HOWARD ... — HODGES ....... HUNT ..... — KYLE ......... KNOPF .... — LNDER LEE ...... — NELLOR ....... LNDSTROM . NELSON ....... LYNCH .... — NICHCLS ......SHAW ..... _ OOTEN . STONE .... — RENESCU ....... WASON .... — SIMPSON ....... YOUNG .... — STREED ........ _6 VNCENT ....... — 0494- A&4o WINSOR ........ RMI 9-2.92 ADJOURNED MEETING DATE: September 16, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING DATE September 16, 19�2 TI DISTRICT 1 0� (RICHARDSON) . GRf9EPr ..... - (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... ✓ - (PONTCUS) ... SALTARELLI .. (ROTH) ...... STANTON .... - (FERRYMAN)... WANNER .. - DISTRICT 2 (GULLIXSCN) .. WEDAA .... - (SCOTT) ..... COLLINS - (BEYER) ..... BARRERA. - - (NORBY) ..... CATLIN - - (BELL) ...... DENIES .... - - (FLORA) ..... MAHONEY ... - - - (CULVER) .... MAIN ....... (PARKER) .... NELSON ..... - - (IYNES) ..... NEWTON ... - (HUNTER) .... PICKLER ... - (GRISET) ..... PULIDO ..... - - (ROTH) ...... STANTON .RICT 3 AIST (DOTSON) .... SAPIEN .... - (NELSON) .... DUNLAP ..... ✓ - (NORBY) ..... CATLIN .... - (SCOTT) ..... COLLINS ... ✓ - (MAIN) ...... CULVER ..... ✓ ^ (RICE) ...... EVANS .7 - (MAHONEY) ... FLORA ..... "/ - (McCUNE) .... GRIFFIN ..... .7 - (FORSYTHE) ... LASZLO ..... / - (RICHARDSON) McGU1GAN I_ �_ (HERMAN) .... MINER CD) . � ✓ - (AGE) ....... PARTIN .... '� - (HUNTER) .... PICKLER ... - (ROBITAILLE) .. SILVA ...... T (ROTH) ...... STANTON (BATES) ..... SYLVIA .... - DISTRICT S �✓ (HART) ...... PLUMMER .... (COX) ....... S - (STANTON) .... ROTH ...... DISTRICT 6 (SHERRICK) ... WAHNER .. ✓ - (PLUMMER) ... HART ..... - (STANTOM .... ROTH ..... - DISTRICT 7 (SALTARELLI) .. PUCKETT (READE) ..... WAHNER .... V - (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... - (PLUMMER) ... COX ........ - (PULIDO) ..... RICHARDSON - (STANTOM .... ROTH .. (HAMMOND) ... SHERIDAN - pISTRICT 11 (MOULTON- PATTERSON) .. WINCHELL .. (MaCALLISTER) RPre1c. ... - (RON ...... STANTON ... ✓ - DIMICT 13 (WEDAA) ..... GULUXSON ... ✓ - (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... - (DUNLAP) .... PARKER ..... . - (HUNTER) .... PICKLER .... � - (STANTON) .... ROTH ..... - DISTRICT 14 N�1?7�. (MILLER) ..... SWA) .. - (PUCKETT) .... PONTIOUS .. - (BEYER) ..... BARRERA .... ✓ - (STANTOM .... ROTH ...//.�.. ✓ (HAMMOND) ... SHERIDANI�! ..may - TIME: 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 & 11 ME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 13 & IG JOINT BOARDS (BEYER)...............BARRERA... - (NORBY) ............... CATLIN .... - (SCOTT) ............... COLLINS ... - (PLUMMER) ............. COX ...... - (MAIM ................ CULVER ... - (BELL) ................ DENES .... - (NELSON) .............. DUNLAP ... - (RICE) ................ EVANS .... - (MAHCNEY) ............. FLORA .... - (McCUNE) .............. GRIFFIN .... - (RICHARDSON) ........... GRISET .... - (WEDAA) .............. GULLIXSON- (PLUMMER) .. r .......... HART ...... - - - (MacALLISTER) ........... KELLY ...... - - - (FORSYTHE) ............ LASZLO ..... - - - (FLORA)...............MAHONEY .. - (CULVER) .............. MAIN ...... - - (RICHARDSON) ........... MCGUIGAN ... - - (HERMAN).............. MINER..... - (PARKER) .............. NELSON ... - (TYNES) ............... NEWTON ... - (DUNLAP)..............PARKER ... - (AGE) ................ PARTIN ..... - - (HUNTER) .............. PICKLER ... - (HART) ................ PLUMMER .. - (PUCKETT) ............. PONTIOUS .. - (SALTARELU) ............ PUCKETT .... - - (GRISET) .............. PULIDO .... - (PULIDO) .............. RICHARDSON (STANTON) ............. ROTH ...... - - (PONTIOUS) ............. SALTARELLI- (COX) ................SANSONE - (DOTSON) .............. SAPIEN .... - (HAMMOND) ............. SHERIDAN (ROBTTAILLE) ............ SILVA ..... - - (ROTH) ............... STANTON ... - - (MILLER) ............... SWAN ..... - - (BATES) ............... SYLVIA ..... - - (FERRYMAWSHERRICKlREADE) . WANNER .... - - (GULLD(SON) ............ WEDAA ..... - - (MOULTON-PATTERSOM ..... WINCHELL .. - SYLVESTER ...... WOODRUFF .. - BROWN ....... ANWAR..... - ANDERSON ..... DEMIR ..... - CLAWSON ...... FLEMING ... - DAWES ........ HOHENER ... - GORCZYCA...... HOUGH..... - HASENSTAS ..... HOWARD ... - HODGES ....... HUNT..... - KYLE ......... KNOPF .... - LINDER ....... LEE ...... - NELLOR ........ LINDSTROM .. - NELSON........ LYNCH ..... - NICHOLS ....... SHAW ...... - OOTEN ....... STONE .... - RENESCU ....... WASON .... - SIMPSON ....... YOUNG .... - STREED ....... - VINCENT ...... - WINSOR ........ - Pols 9.2.92 9/16/92 ADJOURNED JOINT BOARD MEETING NOTES .0 p3 . JC: At this time, we will ask if there is anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board on any matters on the agenda this evening. Seeing none, we will move along. We have no reports of the Joint Chairman. Do we have a General Manager's report? JWS: No report. JC: General Counsel? #7 - Proposed Ordinances Amending Ordinances Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges JC: This is a public hearing concerning a proposed ordinance of the Boards of Directors of the Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 Amending Ordinances Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges. At this time I will open the public hearing and I will ask for a verbal report from General Counsel. TLW: The ordinances that are presented to each of the seven districts (the other two are convened but are not considering these ordinances) are the ordinances that were introduced at the regular meeting one week ago tonight. Staff will be reporting to you immediately following this about the agenda materials which are set forth in the multi -colored pages behind the General Manager's report. In the event that the ordinances are to be considered and include any of the variations set forth in the staff report, then the actual ordinance will be reflection of those changes. We've noticed the ordinances for this public hearing on the basis of the amounts that were set forth in the original draft of the ordinances with the notation that the Boards without further notice and hearing could set a lesser rate. There is no authority to set a higher rate unless we re -notice and reschedule. You can'adopt the ordinances if it is the desire of the Board at the rate of the ordinances as introduced or at any lesser amount. Other than that, if there are questions I'll be happy to respond. JC: Questions? I'll entertain a motion to receive and file written comments, if any. Seeing none, it will be approved. At this time, we will ask for those wishing to make oral comments or presentations to the Board. If you would at this time, limiting your comments to 5 minutes per person. Seeing no one coming forward, there is not need for staff responses. I will close the public hearing and move to considerations. Let us have staff review schedules and the information that was sent out to you so that we can make some decisions this evening as to what we're going to do in each particular District. JWS: The Directors will recall that during the budget process the Boards considered reports from staff and counsel concerning the potential impact of the State's action that was initially proposed in the spring to take property taxes away from the special districts in general and particularly our Districts. As -1- those discussions between the Governor and the legislature narrowed during the summer months,,in mid -August Staff prepared reports and provided them to the Directors on the potential impacts based upon the best information we had at that time, as well as the alternatives that the Boards had in order to address those impacts. On the very day that the Governor signed the new budget, September 2nd, the Fiscal Policy Committee (FPC) met and considered those alternatives and you have before you a report from the committee reviewing the alternatives with the staff's report attached, as well as a recommendation to adjust the user fees. Those fees as contained in that September 2nd FPC report are the fees that Mr. Woodruff mentioned that were introduced at your Board meeting a week ago tonight. Since that time we've been holding on -going discussions with the County Auditor. We've had several of the issues become clarified, both at the state level and the County Auditor's level and we have more refined data for you. That information,is included in the Manager's Report that was part of your agenda package (the yellow report). Attached to that are four schedules reflecting the most current information that we have. I would like to ask the Director of Finance, Mr. Streed to take a moment to review the tables that are contained in that staff report. The Directors have the most current information before them, before they consider the proposed actions. GGS: Thank you very much. There are four tables attached to the Manager's Report. I am sure that most of you had a chance to take a look at them. I had a couple of questions that I was able to answer on the telephone for just a few Directors. Maybe if I go through those tonight, the rest of you will have your questions answered. I would like to draw your attention to the grey report. It is the first page behind the yellow pages. This schedule, I think, has all the information that you need on it. It starts with 1991-92 tax allocation that the County Auditor has told me they would use for the tax adjustments for next year. That is in Column D. The next column is the 35% reduction. As you will recall, the Senate --- has a couple of provisions in it, starts with a 35% reduction of those 1991-92 taxes, subject to a 10% cap. That is that the 35% cannot exceed 10% of the revenues in some base year which happens to be 1989-90, the most recent year that the State Controller has issued the annual report of financial transactions for special districts. That report is about two inches thick; it's extremely dry reading; it's probably no surprise that it is two years late on those reports now. That 10% cap is good news for a couple of our Districts and that is reflected in Column D and E. D is the actual revenues reported by the State. In case of four of our Districts there happens to be an error in accounting or reporting by the State in those reports. The numbers that we reported to them are not the numbers that they published. They didn't bother checking with us about that. We're trying to find out if that makes any difference; if we can get those changed or if the Auditor is stuck on the numbers that are published. In any case the numbers that are published are the worse case for us and those are the ones that are reported in Column D. Column E is simply 10% of that and Column F would be the lesser of either C or D. It happens that for District Nos. 5, 7 and 11, the 10% cap comes into play. The adjustments that I believe need to be made to the State Controller's report are prior years expense adjustments that we reported as adjustments to fund balance. They have reclassified those as revenue in 1989-1990; they are certainly not revenue if we prevail on that and it would reduce the 10% cap for District Nos. 2, 3 and 5, the total of $1.3 million and would increase the cap in District No. 7 by $15,000. That may be the price we have to pay. I think we would pay $15,000 any day to get back $1.3 million so we are fighting that fight right now. I don't have a report to give you. -2- The number that you are probably most interested in is in Column I. That is the fee change that would be required to recover the amount lost to this tax shift or diversion. It ranges from the low of $8.24 in District No. i to the high of $21.75 in District No. 5. Average overall is $12.00. The average for the base fee already adopted is $60.00 so that $12.00 increase raises the average fee to $72.14, reflected in Column J. Those numbers that are in Column J are the average single family dwelling rate. We use that for ease of conversation and calculation. If you choose to raise the fees, you would be raising fees for multi -family dwelling on a per dwelling unit and for commercial or non-residential for a per 1,000 square foot basis. Those numbers are shown on the very next page, the blue page labeled "Table A". If you choose to adopt the ordinance for the fees then it would be a "Table All for each of the Districts and it would only have those fees for that particular District. The top section is the Single Family Residence (SFR) annual rate and the far right column "Total Revised 1992-93" should be the numbers that you saw on the grey sheet. Multi -family Residence is 60% of the SFR rate. You see those fees and then commercial/industrial is on a per 1,000 SF with the minimum of 1,000 SF. The next two pages, the buff and the golden rod are essentially another sort of information. The only difference in those is in Column C of the buff sheet and that is the 1992-93 COP service. If you recall several months ago this Board took an action to dedicate our property tax revenues first to the payment of COP's. The language in the budget exempts taxes used for debt service. That may be a ----- argument, it may be a little more than that. At this point, the County Auditor will use the constitutional definition of debt and they will not honor that resolution that this Board took. I talked with them as recently as today, sent them a copy and opinion from our General Counsel saying that we think we are right and they told me that "maybe you or but it will take me at least a 1%z months to determine that and will require some guidance from the State". My suggestion would be that this information is strictly informational at this point and if the Directors choose to adjust the fees, that you adjust the fees presuming that we would not be able to protect those tax revenues. If it turns out that we are, we will certainly adjust the fee next year. Our fees are always based on our needs starting from the funds we have on hand so that would be a little prepayment of fees for next year. The difference though is on Column K on this report as the additional annual fee needed to recover those taxes should we be successful and protecting our COP taxes. It ranges from 0 in District Nos. 1 and 2 to $9.00 in District No. 5, an average of $1.59. I've left District No. 13 out of my comments. You've probably noticed that there is no fee adjustment required in 13. District No. 13 has been 100% supported by user fees since it's formation so this budget deal has no impact on them. I don't believe I have any other comments unless there are some questions, I have some additional information that we could discuss. Director Collins: Before the Fiscal Policy Committee met last week, the numbers of the current tax revenue were different than you just outlined and presented in the documentation. GGS: That is the good news for tonight. The calculation of the tax diversion is 35% of those property tax numbers so the lower they are the less tax is diverted. The reason for the difference in those numbers is the numbers that were in the Fiscal Policy Committee report are the current year budget numbers for property taxes and the Senate bill asks us to use the 1991-92 actual allocation of taxes. That wasn't clear to me when I made the original projections. MCI Director Sapien: Tom, do we have any chance of challenging -----. TLW: There are two issues. One is just the overall challenge to SB 844 and while I have not personally done anything to pursue that we are watching it closely in our office. There is an association of water agencies that are talking about mounting a very serious legal challenge. As far as our own proposal relative to the calculations, we weren't totally surprised by the position of the County Auditor/Controller's office today when they said "we're going to need a month or six weeks". They are waiting to see if they can get an opinion or get a decision or some directive ruling from the State Treasurer's office. That will probably take the position of, for example, COP's are not debt service and do not fall within there. Therein lies the crux of whether we would want to fight on a legal battle to challenge that opinion. I've given an opinion to Wayne for the benefit of the Districts. Today it is pretty broad and generic saying that the day to day budget and financial operations of this District certainly looks at these four issuances of COP's (86, 90, 91 and 92) of several hundred million dollars that we got money from somebody else and we promised to pay it back. Everybody in this room I could convince that is a debt. You don't have to have a great education but I would tell you candidly that bond counsel, the financial industry, the underwriters and the bankers would take a different position. We have noted that when we issued the certificates that they are basically a partnership contract and they aren't technically in the operations by which the industry works. They may not treat them as "debt". Whether we want to challenge that remains. One of the reasons we had the District's Directors adopt a resolution to dedicate it was just in anticipation of this very scene which has developed. We came to you and said, here is a resolution and I put some findings there and said we pledge to use our ad valorem tax revenues first to pay to service i.e. the annual interest that is due on each of the certificates. Gary I think has mentioned to you that has gotten the attentign of the County and we're probably the only ones that have done that. They summarily dismissed the others but they said that maybe if you've done that it's different. Now today, they said they may need six weeks to tell you for sure. The Board is just going to have to come to grips with it I suppose when we hear from them in six weeks and decide whether they want to consider a legal challenge. We can at that time get the benefit of our bond counsel. Director MacAllister: I don't see in the backup data of readjusting the budget. Has that discussion been had or re-evaluate the budget and how can we reduce the budget better? JWS: The Fiscal Policy Committee has spent a great deal of time discussing that very issue at their meeting on September 2nd. In developing the 1992-93 budgets, perhaps the good news was that we had information at that time to indicate that there was a strong likelihood that we were going to lose property taxes because of the proposal of the Governor early in the Spring. In developing the budgets, the FPC took that into consideration. Overall in the nine districts they cut $54 million out of the budget. The committee also discussed at considerable length the fact that they felt further cuts to the budget would jeopardize the Districts ability to meet the commitments of these Boards to the level of service that we have provided to the community for wastewater and environmental protection and most particularly, the coastal communities because of the ocean pollution issues. There is a summary discussion in the committee's report but they did address that. -4- Director Richardson: I would ask for Mr. Streed to review of that $54 million dollars what those items were so we can be aware of that. GGS: The total budget for 1991-92 was $592.4 million. The 92-93 budget as adopted was a decrease to $538.2 million hence the $54.2 million cut. Of the major budget categories (that is both requirements and funding) the budget does balance. The Joint Treatment Works (the two treatment plants operations, maintenance and rehabilitation) budget was cqt from $50 million to $48.5 million or a decrease of $1.4 million, a 9% cut. The collection systems (that's the trunks and pump stations in the outlying areas) budget was cut from $11.4 to $11.3 million or $100,000. The significant decrease was in the treatment plant construction appropriations. That was decreased $33.5 million, down from $114 million to $80.5 million. The Districts also have the capital improvement progam and remember they're both in accordance with the Master Plan approved in 1989, the 2020 Vision Plan and have been able to defer some of those projects. The District budget for Capital Improvements was decreased $700,000 down from $30.0 million. General obligation debt and COP service is the one item that increased. Remember that we just issued $98.5 million in COP's on the 1st of September and that increased $3.5 million on the budget side. I should tell you that is gross costs. The savings that we have reported to this committee before on for the investment of the proceeds not yet being used during the construction period are not included in that. They show on the revenue side. For those five categories then there is a budget decrease of $32.2 million and that is the funding that we have to raise each year. The rest of the budget the difference between the $208.0 million and the $538.0 million is attributable to our reserves program that we discussed several times last year several times the new five -prong reserve approach including operating reserve, cash flow reserves, contingency reserves, insurance reserves and environmental reserves and capital improvement reserves. Remembering now that on the operational side that our cash flow is essentially two receipts a year from the property tax money in December and in April. So for the time period between the first of the year and July and the first property tax payment in December we have to rely on our reserves to pay our bills. We have a 50% reserve for that and then a 20% reserve in the operating fund for contingencies. That reduction overall in the reserves was $22.0 million. The $32.0 and the $22.0 make the $54.0 million reduction in the budget. Director MacAllister: I'm just trying to look at numbers. If you have $538.0 million and we're asked to give $11.0 million back to the State or they're keeping it from us, that is about 2% of the budget. The costs and fees that you're suggesting are passed on to users are some 20%. How come the difference and can we adjust the budget by 2%? GGS: The difference is that a large portion of our funding comes from our initial reserves. The property tax account for almost 15% of our revenue of the current year, excluding the reserves. That's the reason. The proposal before you is a proposal to replace the property tax money with user fees. Could the budget be reduced a few percentage points? It's the decision the Directors have to make. They did look at it long and hard during a four -month budget deliberation process. -5- Director Richardson: I just had one question. As far as the budget was concerned last year, what sense do we have about how close expenditures match that what was budgeted for 1991-92? In other words, does that give the Directors some information in terms of knowing how close we approach those ---? GGS: Last year the two major items in the budget were the Joint Works Operations, Maintenance, Rehabilitation costs.and the Capital Improvement costs. w We had $114.0 million budgeted for Capital Improvement in the Treatment Plant last year and we spent about $90.0 million. We were a little short of the budget on the cash flow part. Now those contracts have been awarded and it's just a question of whether we pay those costs in the first year they are budgeted or in the subsequent year. On the Joint Works Operations and Maintenance budget we were about $4.5 million left on that budget last year. That budget amount has been reduced by $1.5 million. There were several items that went into the increase and we can go through that budget process again if you like. But remember that there are power costs and salary and wages are big items, and we're in a second of a three-year Memorandum of Understanding with our employee units. Director Culver: I wanted to verify we had heard from our Board that the income was going to be from 1989-90 and you're saying 1990-91? GGS: That is a good question. That is a little bit confusing and I'm not quite sure of the reason. The property tax base (35% which will probably turn out to be 40%) is on the 1991-92 numbers from the Auditor's office. They have given me those numbers. The 10% cap is based on the total revenue from the most recent report from the State Controller's office and that is for the year 1989-90. So there are two different years and two different factors. They could probably make it a little more confusing for us but I haven't figured out how. Director Griffin: I just have a couple of comments. Gary did a excellent job explaining of where the budget was cut. It is noteworthy that the committee ---recommendation to the Joint Board. It is the reduction of those recommendations that were made by the staff. ------- I think the FPC looked at I think our General Manager mentioned that if we're going maintain the type of programs for our communities that we have to recognize we have to do certain things to accomplish that. If we do any kind of reduction of that we possibly --- can't afford the loss of some of the programs we currently justify. We have the 301 (h) waiver that is --- by the MPDS program and if we fall out of sync with that, then ---- and go with --- of treatment, that could cost us millions of dollars. I think the last report was in the neighborhood of $275.0 million if I remember correctly. I think we want to look not just at the immediate issue. I think we need to look very directly at what we have to do here. I think the bottom line of the committee was that we went on record with a very proactive program to cut our budget and not to raise user fees to our constituents. I think we need to look at who the culprit is. The culprit is not here in our audience today. They are in another environment and I don't think we need to solve their problems. I think we need to move on with our work and let our constituents know who that culprit is and who is stealing our money. They're taking our real property tax money which we historically had to support this District. What it is, is their step to take the whole thing. They are going to be back at our doorsteps next time (next year or the year after). We have got to be tough about this but yet practical for our constituents. I think it's a hard bullet(?). I don't like it but if we don't put it on the line and tell our constituents who the culprit is then I think we've lost the ----- I support staying with the recommendations that are with us tonight. Director Roth: My comment is that we are deliberating this problem for this fiscal year and I was assured by some of -------- that this problem is not going to go away and we are going to be sitting a year from now ------ I think it's with great reluctance for anyone in this room ------ I am not satisfied that there is not a further study of some type of delay of some type of capital improvements which are very expensive in the Sanitation District that we try to get by this year by reduction of capital improvements and reduction of personnel, a hiring freeze like we at the County have done. You know we have reduced at the County 10% of our personnel ...... (Tape Ended) (Comments from the other Directors are missing from the tape between Director Roth and Director Stanton) Director Stanton: This is one of things from last week that has some movement as for as --- considered as favorably and the arguments we could have used on the --- last week. We really did our part. I can't use that argument anymore. What I'm a little confused about is that we're now going down this single path as far as what we have to do tonight. The alternative is to not do it tonight and perhaps do it next year. Peer said that if we don't do it tonight we have to make up for both years next year. I don't know if that is the case. If the State comes after us again for another substantial amount of money next year as everybody seems to think they will, maybe we'make it all up, maybe we make up this year's next year. The other alternative that you might consider ----- the white sheet dated August 18th it says that sooner or later the Districts will have to significantly increase user fees because the State is going to continue to eat away our property taxes. ----- over to this committee recommendation. Don, with all due respect to your comments where you say we can't let the State do this. What the hell are we going to do to stop them? There is nothing we can do to stop them. They expect us to raise the fees; they've broadcast that very clearly that we are going to raise the property taxes and they are going to pass this burden down to us. We're not doing anything to hurt those Legislators at all. You talk about a public information program to lay the blame exactly where it belongs at the feet of the Governor and the State Legislature. Come on, the constituents are not going to say yes, we're right with you folks, you've raised the fees because of those so and so's up in Sacramento. It ain't going to work. Maybe we have to get to the point where it hurts a little bit here before the constituents will understand that maybe there is a need to adjust these fees. I don't think reacting exactly the way the Legislature wants you to react --- to raise these fees because that is what they had in mind all along. It's not going to teach them anything. Basically what you are saying is that yes you took our tax money, you want us to bear the brunt of this and raise the fees and we're going to show you right now that we're going to raise those fees. I don't think that would stop them from doing anything so I don't see alot of logic. I understand the problem. I'm sorry I don't have any great solutions but it's basically a -------- to do exactly what the State Legislature wants us to do. Director Sheridan: (Can't understand her comments.) TLW: That is right. Each District will have to address this issue individually and consider their own ordinance. Director Sheridan: I think we should get on with this and the ones of us that -�- are sure that that is what we want to do, go ahead and then there could be more discussion for those that don't feel as comfortable ------. -7- Director Plummer: It seems to me that when Prop. 13 W-- that the District as a whole used up our reserves. I recall that Jim Wahner and I sat in a Costa Mesa City Council meeting because it was the first District to have to raise our fees because we had no more reserves and they were in the hole. Let me tell you, we were talking about $.25?? a month and you would think that we were crucifying these people and I personally don't want District No. 5 to run out of its reserves because that is something I learned. JWS: What you stated is correct. Your recollection is correct. Director Laszlo: I just have the feeling that the State is going to be saying we're crying wolf and that is going to be the crime. Next year we'll be at their mercy and there is no way to stop it next year. JC: Let me take a shot here. I don't know, Roger, if I agree with what you said. Let me say that I think that in looking at this philosophy "can we do anything about what they have done and we're playing into their hands". I don't agree with that. I think that they have the attitude that we're fat down here and we can just go ahead and absorb all of these things and just continue to operate. I think that if we don't do something in reaction to that and I'm not suggesting that we necessarily approve this tonight but I'm just saying I will argue the other side of the coin. If we don't do this and something doesn't happen, then they are going to say "see they can handle another one. We can do it as much as we want to because they've got the money; they can go ahead and ride along with these things and they've been crying all the time that they are going to get hurt and look at them, they're making it". The other thing that I think we have to recognize is that there is no question that they are going to hit us again and they will hit us. I don't care if you believe it or not; this is testing the water. That is why they didn't take 100%; it's test the water, see what happens and if we can make it this year, we're going to be back next year fishing again. Let's just say we can weather the storm but we see that next year we really have a problem. We do have to increase user fees; then you have to go the the people and say "well, we need to up user fees" and they're going to say "you made it last year, what are you here knocking on my door". We've got a problem and I think we need to address that problem. We may not tell everyone in this county what the cause of this is but I think we need to be very careful that we don't allow them. My firm belief is that when the FPC went through this budget, they didn't leave alot of fat and frills in this budget. I think they did a real good job; I think they went through and looked at those things that they felt we should cut so that we could hold the line on user fees and this screws us up. We can either bite the bullet and do something now or we're going to be knocking on the door of the users next year and we're going to be saying, "by the way, what we projected this year is just to make up and make this year". We've got to do more than that the following year because we have to make up what we're going to feed the animal this year or we're going to feed this amount every year and then try to make up what they steal next year. Anyway you look at it you're going to make up this year next year even though we might fund it from reserves this year. You're going to make up that $10-11 million next year plus another $10-11 million. I think we are kidding ourselves here; I think we need to begin to be responsible, move this thing, increase the user fees accordingly, whatever amounts we feel needs to be done and recognize it. If next year they don't up It we don't up the fees either; we leave them right like they are. We maintain status quo but if we don't do it, don't kid yourself. We're not playing into their hands. I've heard Marian Bergeson has already said she hopes we don't make an issue of this. I think we better make an issue out of it, personally. We may not be as effective but we better make an issue out of it. 10 Director Collins: I see that Sacramento wants this to be passed on and wants to bury this and not make an issue out of it. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the City of Westminster who on water rates for years kept burying it. Instead of going to the people and having some increases, they buried it and kept on pulling it out of the reserves and the general fund. They had to go to the people at a 100% vote. The recall action started. That's a sin and that's what we have to be careful of. Do it in moderation and point to Sacramento and say "here is your blame; we're just passing it through". Director Catlin: This is what is going to happen. Bills are going to come up and people are going to call you up and say why have our taxes raised and I'm going to say, "That's not a tax, that's a fee. The reason that we are raising it now is because you are paying for education and what the State did ----", Now I'm going to have no trouble saying that we have to pay for the system that you're getting. It's a part of your plumbing system, it's not a tax. I have no trouble explaining that to my constituents and I think the Joint Chairman is absolutely right. This is the time to do it. Director MacAllister: Just a point of clarification from what someone said earlier is that each individual district is going to vote on whether they want it or not. My concern is, is not the budget as a whole approved by everybody? JC: No, every District approves their own budget. You will be as a District representative representing the increasing or not increasing your individual District. TLW: Director Sapien has ask what happens if some Districts pass and some don't. There is no effect on one another. Each of the seven Districts are to consider this tonight and act independently of each other. If the District adopts an ordinance, it will in its District realize the increase revenue. Those Districts that do not enact the ordinance will not get the additional revenue. You will have to do whatever is requisite for adjusting your budget. (Roll Call Vote Followed and motion to adopt the ordinances passed in District Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Motion failed to adopt ordinance in District No. 11.) 1 n BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California *14 P.O. Box 8127 • 844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714) 962-2411 JOINT BOARDS AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 13 AND 14 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda is posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the Office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Boards for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts of member agencies relating to appointment of Directors, if any. (See listing in Board Meeting folders) (5) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards on specific agenda items or matters of general 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 remarks may be limited to five minutes. (6) The Joint Chairman, General Manager and General Counsel present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for j information only and require no action by the Directors. (a) Report of Joint Chairman (b) Report of General Manager (c) Report of General Counsel 09/16/92 (7) DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 (a) Public hearing relative to the following proposed Ordinances �..� of the Boards of Directors -of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinances Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: (See enclosures included with Directors' agenda material) Amending Repealing District Ordinance No. Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 1 121 109 118 2 216 210 213 3 319 309 316 5 528 516 525 6 622 609 619 7 729 725 N/A 11 1118 1108 1115 (1) Open hearing (2) verbal Report of General Counsel (3) Receive and file written comments, if any (4) Oral public comments, if any (5) Staff response to comments (6) Close hearing (b) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 121, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 118: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 121 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 121. (ITEM (7) CONTINUED ON PAGE 3] -2- 09/16/92 (7) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2) (c) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 216, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 210 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 213: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 216 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 216. (d) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 319, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 309 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 316: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 319 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 319. (e) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 528, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 516 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 525: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 528 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 528. [ITEM (7) CONTINUED ON PAGE 4] -3- 09/16/92 (7) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3) �..►� ( f ) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 622, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 619: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 622 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 622. (g) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 729, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 725 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 729 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors �✓ present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 729. (h) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of the following actions relative to proposed Ordinance No. 1118, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 1115: (1) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 1118 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). (2) Consideration of roll call vote motion adopting Ordinance No. 1118. -4- 09/16/92 (8) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 Consideration of the following resolutions directing the County Auditor -Controller to include sewer service charges on the property tax bills, pursuant to Ordinances of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, commencing with the 1992-93 fiscal year: (Copy enclosed -with Directors' agenda material) GwsR District Resolution No. Ordinance No. "S 2 92-130-1~ 92-131-2 121 Van w�- 216 � ��-�" 3 92-132-3 319 c- ,s ,..Ltvc, 5 92-133-5 528 5 6 7 92-134-6 92-135-7 622 729 V'QS (9) ALL DISTRICTS Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Boards, the Chairman may convene the Boards in closed session to consider matters of pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 or 54957.6. Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employee compensation; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Boards during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Directors on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. (a) Convene in closed session, if necessary (b) Reconvene in regular session (c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (10) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (11) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (12) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn -5- e 09/16/92 (13) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, �...j if any (14) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (15) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (17) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (19) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (20) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (21) DISTRICT 7 �..r/ Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn (23) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (25) DISTRICT 13 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 13 Consideration of motion to adjourn (27) DISTRICT 14 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 14 �� Consideration of motion to adjourn COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF DISTRICTS NOS. 19 29 39 51 6, 79 AND 11 AND THE SPECIAL MEETING OF DISTRICTS NOS. 13 AND 14 W SEPTEMBER 169 1992 ioTATI sotitate p 'since 1SS�► �NGE COU% ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, and a Special Meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on September 16, 1992 at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS �J DISTRICT NO. 1: Dan Griset, Chairman x Robert Richardson x Fred Barrera, Chairman pro tem Gene Beyer x Thomas R. Saltarelli Leslie A. Pontious x Roger Stanton Don R. Roth x James A. Wahner James Ferryman DISTRICT NO. 2: x Henry W. Wedaa, Chairman John M. Guilixson x John Collins, Chairman pro tem George Scott x Fred Barrera Gene Beyer x Buck Catlin Chris Norby x Barry Denes Bob Bell x William D. Mahoney James H. Flora -7 —Robert H. Main Norman Culver x Carrey J. Nelson Glenn Parker a Arthur G. Newton John 0. Tynes x Iry Pickler Fred Hunter —a--Miguel Pulido Dan Griset x Roger Stanton Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 3: x Sal A. Sapien, Chairman Harry M. Dotson -7 —Burnie Dunlap, Chairman pro tem Carrey J. Nelson x Buck Catlin Chris Norby 7-John Collins George Scott x Norman Culver Robert H. Main x James V. Evans Margie L. Rice x James H. Flora William D. Mahoney x Don R. Griffin Rhonda J. McCune x Frank Laszlo Gwen A. Forsythe x Pat McGuigan Robert Richardson x Eva G. Miner Larry Herman �✓ x Richard Partin Cecilia L. Age -x-Iry Pickler Fred Hunter x Jim Silva Earle Robitaille -x-Roger Stanton Don R. Roth x Charles Sylvia Ronald Bates DISTRICT NO. 5: x Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman Evelyn Hart Phil Sansone, Chairman pro tem x John C. Cox, Jr. x Don R. Roth Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 6: x James A. Wahner, Chairman Dick Sherrick x Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem Ruthelyn Plummer x Don R. Roth Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 7: x Charles E. Puckett, Chairman Thomas R. Saltarelli 7—James A. Wahner, Chairman pro tem Nate Reade x Fred Barrera Gene Beyer x John C. Cox, Jr. Ruthelyn Plumner x Robert Richardson Miguel Pulido -7 —Don R. Roth Roger Stanton x Sally Anne Sheridan Barry Hammond DISTRICT NO. 11: x Grace Winchell, Chairman Linda Moulton -Patterson Jack Kelly, Chairman pro tem x Don MacAllister x Roger Stanton Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 13: x John M. Gullixson, Chairman Henry W. Wedaa x Fred Barrera, Chairman pro tem Gene Beyer x Glenn Parker Burnie Dunlap x Iry Pickler Fred Hunter x Don R. Roth Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 14: x Peer A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller x Leslie A. Pontious, Chairman pro tem Charles E. Puckett x Fred Barrera Gene Beyer x Don R. Roth Roger Stanton x Sally Anne Sheridan Barry Hammond -2- 09/16/92 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G. Streed, Penny Kyle, Assistant Board Secretary, Nick Arhontes, Corrine Clawson, Gary Hasenstab, Ed Hodges, Bob Ooten, Mary Simpson OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Dick Sherrick ************* DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 Public hearing and adoption of ordinances increasing sanitary sewer service charges Public Hearing The Joint Chairman announced that this was the time and place fixed by the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 for a public hearing on the following proposed Ordinances, Amending Ordinances Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: District Ordinance No. Amending Repealing Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 1 121 109 118 2 216 210 213 3 319 309 316 5 528 516 525 6 622 609 619 7 729 725 N/A 11 1118 1108 1115 Open Public Hearing Public Comments DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 The Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:42 p.m. The Chairman called for public comments. There were none. Report and Discussion. The General Counsel reported that the the proposed ordinances, which increase 1992-93 sewer service fees to make up for the loss of local Districts' property taxes confiscated by the State, were introduced for first reading at the September 9, 1992 Board meeting. He referred the Directors to the reports of staff and the Fiscal.Policy Committee pertaining to this matter and included with the agenda material, and stated that if any of the variations set forth in the General Manager's Report, which include a recalculated lower sewer service fees based on subsequent information received from the County Auditor, were included in the ordinance by action of the Directors, then the actual adopted -3- r 09/16/92 ordinances will reflect those changes. The legal notification of the ordinances included a notation that the Boards, without further notice and public hearing, could set a lesser rate. However, there is no �..i authority to set higher rates without further legal notification and public hearings. The General Manager then reported that during the budget process the Boards considered reports from staff and General Counsel concerning the potential impact of the State's action that was initially proposed in the spring to take property taxes away from special districts. As the discussions between the Governor and the Legislature narrowed during the summer months, in mid -August staff prepared and provided the Directors with reports on the potential impacts based upon the best information available at that time, as well as alternatives that the Boards could consider in order to address those impacts. L✓ Mr. Sylvester stated that on September 2nd, the day that the Governor signed the new budget, the Fiscal Policy Committee met and considered those alternatives. He referred to the Committee's Report included in the Directors' agenda material, reviewing the alternatives along with a recommendation to increase the 1992-93 sewer service fees to make up for the loss of Districts' property taxes seized by the State. Those fee increases were introduced at the September 9th Board meeting. Since then staff has been having on -going discussions with the County Auditor. Several issues have become clarified at.both the State level and the County Auditor's level, and this data was included in the General Manager's written report included with the agenda material. He then asked the Director of Finance to review the tables contained in that report. Gary Streed, Director of Finance, referred to the four tables included with the referenced General Manager's Report and reviewed them with the Directors. He reviewed the provisions of the State's budget action which shifts 35% of special districts local property taxes to the State. However, if the 35% transfer does not meet the State's $375 million state-wide target, then the County Auditor is authorized to shift up to an additional 5%, up to a total of 40%, all subject to a 10% cap based on total revenue of the agency. He pointed out that the Fiscal Policy Committee's report notes that the specific user fee adjustment recommendations were subject to further refinement upon receipt of additional information that was pending from the County and State. Certain provisions of the State's new budget have since been clarified and we have received more current information on the property tax base upon which the shift will be calculated, and the total revenue base against which the 10% cap applies. It appears as if the 10% cap will apply in Districts Nos. 5, 7 and 11, thus reducing the amount to be confiscated by the State for those Districts. The amounts in each of the other Districts has also been reduced somewhat. Based on this new information, staff has recalculated the user fee increases necessary to replace the lost property taxes based on a 35% seizure, not to exceed 10% of total revenue, as summarized in the report, and which are less for each District than the rates introduced by -4- 09/16/92 ordinances at the September 9th Board meeting. The single family residential fee increases now calculated range between $8.24 and $21.75 per year and the 1992-93 average total fee would be $72.14; whereas the fee increases introduced at the September 9th meeting ranged between $9.16 and $37.15 per year and the average annual fee total was $74.18. Mr. Streed also pointed out that several months ago the Directors took an action to dedicate property tax revenues to the payment of outstanding debt. The language in the State's budget exempts taxes used for debt service, however, this issue is still in question as it pertains to our Districts. At this time, the County Auditor will only use the constitutional definition of debt and will not honor the resolutions the Boards took. A copy of the resolutions and General Counsel's opinion have been sent to the County Auditor and they are reviewing them but they have said it will take them at least 1�1 months for a final determination and will require some guidance from the State. He further noted that because of the time requirements for action for 1992-93, any favorable decision could be taken into account in setting rates for 1993-94. In response to Directors' questions concerning the possibility of a legal challenge to SB 844, the State's budget act which includes the tax shift provisions, and any unfavorable ruling on the debt exemption issue, the General Counsel reported that some agencies and/or state-wide associations are considering that and his office was monitoring it, but a lot would depend on any forthcoming interpretations or rulings on the various issues. In response to a question concerning the consideration of future budgetary cuts as an alternative to increasing sewer service fees, the General Manager reported that the Fiscal Policy Committee had spent a great deal of time discussing that very issue at their meeting on September 2nd. In developing the 1992-93 budgets, perhaps the good news was that we had information at that time to indicate that there was a strong likelihood that we were going to lose property taxes because of the proposal of the Governor early in the Spring. In developing the budgets, the Committee took that into consideration. Overall in the nine Districts they cut $54 million out of the budget. The Committee also discussed at considerable length the fact that they felt further cuts to the budget would jeopardize the Districts' financial and operational integrity and, thus, the Districts' ability to meet the commitments of these Boards to the level of wastewater service that we have provided to the community and for environmental and public health protection, and most particularly the coastal communities because of the ocean pollution issues. He also referred to the summary discussion in the Committee's report on the issue of budgetary cuts. Directors asked for a review of the $54 million budget cutback by the Director of Finance. Mr. Streed reviewed the 1992-93 budget cuts in some detail, summarized as follows: -5- 09/16/92 The total budget for 1991-92 was $592.4 million. The 1992-93 budget, as adopted, was a decrease to $538.2 million, hence the $54.2 million cut. Of the major budget categories the Joint Treatment Works budget was cut from $50 million to $48.6 million, a decrease of $1.4 million or a 9% cut. The collection systems' budget was cut from $11.4 million to $11.3 million, or $100,000. The most significant decrease was in • the treatment plant construction appropriations. That was decreased $33.5 million, down from $114 million to $80.5 million. He further reported that the individual Districts also have trunk sewer capital improvement programs. Their budget for capital improvements was decreased $700,000 down from $30.1 million to $29.4 million. General obligation debt and COP service was the one item that increased because the Districts just issued $98.5 million in COPs on September 1st which increased debt service $3.5 million in the budget. He observed that the remainder of the budget difference is attributable to the reserves program that was reviewed and discussed several times by the Boards during the last year. The new reserve approach including operating reserves, cash flow reserves, contingency reserves, insurance reserves, environmental reserves and capital improvement reserves are all part of the Boards' adopted long-range financial strategy. That overall reduction in the reserves of $22.0 million, coupled with the $32.2 million in the aforementioned budget categories, add up to the $54.2 million reduction in the total budget. There followed a general discussion of the issues pertaining to the State's current and projected seizures of Districts' property taxes vis-a-vis the Districts' budget and short and long-term financial position and strategy. In response to questions, staff clarified certain operational, capital and debt service budgetary items, budgeted versus actual expenditures, and the effect of major multi -year construction projects on annual budgetary requirements, cash flow and carryover. The Directors also further discussed the issue of additional budget reductions or project/program delays and the relationship to maintaining the Districts' operational and financial integrity and the Boards' commitment to the residents and communities for standards of service and environmental and public health protection. Also pointed out was the possible impact of compromising the Boards' adopted 2020 VISION Wastewater Management Plan on the Districts' 301(h) NPDES Permit which saves ratepayers about $50 million annually. Also discussed were the pros and cons of acting this year to raise fees to make up for the loss in property taxes seized by the State versus delaying any action until next year, and how that might be viewed by State legislators and the Governor when they are considering whether to confiscate remaining Districts' local property taxes in future years. It was the consensus of Directors that the Boards had acted responsibly in previously cutting the 1992-93 budget and holding the line on fees, o and that the disadvantages of alternatives to raising the 1992-93 sewer service charges to make up for the loss of property taxes diverted by the State outweighed by the advantages and, further, that not increasing the fees would send the wrong message to Sacramento and Districts' users. `...✓ The following actions were then taken: Close Hearing The Chairman declared the hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. -6- 09/16/92 DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed - Ordinance No. 121 That proposed Ordinance No. 121, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 118, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 121 by title only. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 121 the following roll call vote: AYES: Fred Barrera, Chairman pro tem, Robert Richardson, Thomas R. Saltarelli, James A. Wahner NOES: Roger R. Stanton ABSENT: None That Ordinance No. 121, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 109 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 118, be, and is hereby, adopted. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: - Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 216 That proposed Ordinance No. 216, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 210 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 213, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 216 by title only. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 216 the following roll call vote: AYES: Henry W. Wedaa, Chairman, Fred Barrera, Buck Catlin, John Collins, Barry Denes, William D. Mahoney, Carrey J. Nelson, Iry Pickler NOES: Robert H. Main, Roger R. Stanton ABSENT: Arthur G. Newton, Miguel Pulido That Ordinance No. 216, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 210 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 213, be, and is hereby, adopted. -7- 09/16/92 DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 319 That proposed Ordinance No. 319, An `..� Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 309 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 316, be read by ` title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 319 by title only. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 319 the following roll call vote: AYES: Sal Sapien, Chairman, Buck Catlin, John Collins, Burnie Dunlap, James H. Flora, Don R. Griffin, Frank Laszlo, Pat McGuigan, Eva G. Miner, Richard Partin, Iry Pickler, Charles E. Sylvia NOES: Norman E. Culver, James V. Evans, Jim Silva, Roger R. Stanton ABSENT: None That Ordinance No. 319, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 309 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 316, be, and is hereby, adopted. �•+� DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 528 That proposed Ordinance No. 528, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 516 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 525, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 528 by title only. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 528 the following roll call vote: AYES: Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman, John C. Cox, Jr. NOES: Roger R. Stanton t ABSENT: None That Ordinance No. 528, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 516 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 525, be, and is hereby, adopted. 10 09/16/92 DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 622 That proposed Ordinance No. 622, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending -- Ordinance No. 609 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 619, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 622 by title only. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 622 the following roll call vote: AYES: James A. Wahner, Chairman, Evelyn Hart NOES: Don R. Roth ABSENT: None That Ordinance No. 622, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 609 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 619, be, and is hereby, adopted. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 729 That proposed Ordinance No. 729, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 725 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 729 by title only. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried by Adopting Ordinance No. 729 the following roll call vote: AYES: Charles E. Puckett, Chairman, Fred Barrera, John C. Cox, Jr., Robert Richardson, Sally Anne Sheridan, James A. Wahner NOES: Don R. Roth ABSENT: None That Ordinance No. 729, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 725 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, be, and is hereby, adopted. INI 09/16/92 DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 1118 That proposed Ordinance No. 1118, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. it of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and �...� Repealing Ordinance No. 1115, be read by title only; and, IL FURTHER MOVED: That the second reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived, whereupon the Secretary read Ordinance No. 1118 by title only. DISTRICT 11 It was moved that proposed Ordinance Ordinance No. 1118 failed to pass No. 1118, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Amending Ordinance No. 1108 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, and Repealing Ordinance No. 1115, be adopted. The motion failed by lack of a second. DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Directing the County Auditor - Controller to include sewer service That the Boards of Directors hereby charges on property tax bills adopt the following resolutions commencing with 1992-93 fiscal year directing the County Auditor -Controller to include sewer service charges on the property tax bills, pursuant to Ordinances of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Orange County, California, commencing with the 1992-93 fiscal year: District Resolution No. Ordinance No. 1 92-130-1 121 2 92-131-2 216 3 92-132-3 319 5 92-133-5 528 6 92-134-6 622 7 92-135-7 729 Director Roger R. Stanton requested that his opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-130-1 be made a matter of record. Director Roger R. Stanton requested that his opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-131-2 be made a matter of record. Directors Norman E. Culver, Jim Silva and Roger R. Stanton requested that their opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-132-3 be made a matter of record. Director Don R. Roth requested that his opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-133-5 be made a matter of record. Director Don R. Roth requested that his opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-134-6 be made a matter of record. Director Don R. Roth requested that his opposition to voting on Resolution No. 92-135-7 be made a matter of record. L� Said resolutions, by reference hereto, are hereby made a part of these minutes. -10- 09/16/92 ALL DISTRICTS General Counsel reported to the General Counsel's Comments Prior to Directors of the need for a closed Closed Session session as authorized by Government Code Section 54956.9 to review: 1) Request for authorization to initiate litigation against the manufacturer and general contractor on Districts' two jobs relating to the co -generation internal combustion engines. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Convene in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 The Boards convened in closed session at 9:13 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Confidential Minutes of the Closed Session held by the Board(s) of Directors have been prepared in accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.2 and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Meetings. ALL DISTRICTS At 10:29 p.m. the Boards reconvened Reconvene in regular session in regular session. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment+. That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation Distri"ct No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. -11- 09/16/92 DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment �•.i That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. it be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:29 p.m., September 16, 1992. i 4woo�c As istant SecUtaryUf the Boards of Directors Iff Cou ty Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 -12- �1 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held at the hour of 7:30 p.m., September 9, 1992, at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. Page 2 DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned to Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., for a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing District reports and state budget reports affecting the 1992-93 sewer service charges and consideration of ordinance to increase sewer service charges, if necessary. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:07 p.m., September 9, 1992. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, PENNY KYLE, Assistant Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of minute entries of the meeting of said Boards of Directors on the 9th day of September, 1992. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of September, 1992. Assistant S r to of the -Boa-rds �f Directors of-CounW Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11 and 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board Meeting of Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 held on 19� was duly posted for pub is inspection at the main lobby of the Districts' offices on , 19 9� . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 19?2'. Penny KyleVA&Vistant Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, California