Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1972-06-29COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING June 29,1972 —5:30 p.m 1084~4 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held June 14, 1972,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2, of Orange County,California,met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date,in the District offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.The roll was called arid the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT:Don Smith (Chairman),Robert Finnell,Donald Fox,Wade Herrin, Edward Just,Robert Nevil, Robert Root,Mark Stephenson, Henry Wedaa and Donald Winn DIRECTORS ABSENT:Norman Culver and William Phillips STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:Fred A.Harper,General Manager, J.Wayne Sylvester,Secretary,and W.N.Clarke OTHERS PRESENT:Donald Martinson,Jim Barlsic, Don Seitz and Mrs.Mark Stephenson Approving recommendations of The Chairman reviewed the activities Special Committee for Studying of the Special Committee for Studying the Annexation and Connection the Annexation and Connection Fee Fee Policy of the District Policy of District No.2.The and ordering that Connection Committee has determined that a more Fee Ordinance be drafted equitable annexation policy should be established which not only considers the acreage to be annexed,but also the land use.It was the Committee’s recommendation that the annexation fee for the 1972—73 year be adopted at $273.00 per acre and be increased $10.00 per acre per year;and that a dwelling connection charge be established throughout the District at $100.00 per dwelling unit.Commercial and industrial connection fees should be established that are consistent with the charges for individual dwelling connections, recognizing that industrial charges are presently covered by the District’s Uniform Connection and T~ise Ordinance.Chairman Smith pointed out that the Committee’s recommendation would provide financing for facilities needed to serve the area presently outside the Districts by funding approximately one—half from annexation fees and one—half from connecticn charges..Based on the antici pated new construction within the District,the $100 connection fee will generate between $600,000 and ~l,000,O00 per year.This is equal to a 6~to l0~eventual reduction in the District’s tax rate. The Committee further recommends that if the connection charge concept appears to be feasible and acceptable to the Board,that each Director submit this information to their indIvidual council or board for their comments.If the proposal is considered favorably,District No.2 would then enter into an agreement with each of the local sewering entities in the District to collect the connection charges within their respective jurisdictional boundaries for remittance to District No.2.The District would then reimburse the local entity for the cost of collecting the connection fees. #2 6/29/72 The Board then entered Into a lengthy discussion of the Special Committee’s recommendations,during which It was pointed out that the boundary between District No.2 and District No.3 cuts through several of the cities.It was the consensus that perhaps it would be advisable to request that District No.3 consider establishing a connection fee equivalent to that proposed by District No.2. Following further discussion of the procedures which must be followed to implement the Special Committee’s recominenda— tions,It was moved,seconded and duly carried: •That the recommendations of the Special Committee for Studying the Annexation and Connection Fee Policy for County Sanitation District No.2,dated June 20,1972,be received,ordered filed,and approved;and, FURTHER MOVED:That the staff be directed to draft an ordinance providIng for implementation of connection fees,and a standard agreement which could be entered Into with the local sewering agencies to provide for collection of said connection feest for review and comment by the respective public entities following further consideration by the Board. Deferring consideration of The Board reviewed a communication request of Anaheim Hills from the GeneralCounsel in connection Inc.that payment of with the request of Anaheim Hills, annexation fees for proposed Inc.that annexation fees for.proposed Anaheim HIlls Annexation Anaheim Hills Annexation No.1 be No.1 be made in five equal paid in five equal annual installments annual payments on tax bill on the tax bill.The Counsel’s memorandum advises that there is a procedure by which the Local Agency Formation Commission could authorize a special tax on the property to be annexed wIth the concurrence of the District Board. Following further discussion concerning the method of spreading the annual charges and a provision for Interest on any unpaid balance,it was moved,seconded and duly carried: That further consideration of the request of Anaheim Hills,Inc. that annexation fees for l,02~4.87 acres of proposed AnaheIm Hills Annexation No.1 be paid in five equal annual installments on the tax bill,be deferred to the regular meeting to be held on July 12,1972;and, FURTHER MOVED:That the staff be directed to study means by which payment of fees could be guaranteed and report back to the Board. Accepting proposal of The General Manager reported that Richard Terry &Associates subsequent to mailing of the agenda r~preparation of Environ material,the staff had received an mental-Impact Statement amendment to the proposal submitted for Santa Ana River by Richard Terry &Associates for Interceptor preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement çor the Santa Ana River Interceptor from Katella Avenue to the Riverside Freeway, and the Robert F.Finnell River Crossing.Following a brief discussion of the amended proposal,it was moved,seconded and duly carried: That the proposal submitted by Richard Terry &Associates,dated June 16,1972,arid the amendment to said proposal,dated June 22, 1972,be received,ordered filed,and accepted;and, -2— #2 6/29/72 FURTHER MOVED:That the General Manager be authorized to direct Richard Terry &Associates to proceed with preparation of said Environmental Impact Statement on a per diem fee basis in accordance with ~he terms of the proposal,for a maximum amount of $7,000.00,as follows: Dr.R.D.Terry In—town/in—office $280/day Out—of—town 320/day Air Pollution/meteorologist 320/day Economist (Ecolomist)300/day Sanitary Engineer/Chemical Engineer 150/day Marine Biologist/Ecologist 150/day Technical (Engr.)Assistant 80/day Secretary 110/day Incidental Expenses At Cost Report on grant application The General Manager reported on the for Santa Ana River Inter status of the grant application for öeptor,Contract 2.~ll4 the Santa Ana River Interceptor from Treatment Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue,Contract No.2~114~1.Th~State Water Resources Control Board is expected to certify the project on June 30th and the Environmental Protection Agency within 60 days.The grant applI cation for the proposed project was,submitted on the $6.3 million Alternate II pipe size (80 mgd capacity).The grant would provide 80%funding to Chino Basin Municipal Water District for their 30 mgd share of the joint project. Mr.Harper pointed out that Alternate III would increase the capacity from Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue to l8L~mgd for an additional investment of only $lil million.The larger facility would provide District 2 wIth an extremely flexible system which could utilize upstream reclamation facilities,or provide for transmission of the total flow to the joint treatment facilities.Present cash flow projections indicate that Alternate III could be constructed without increasing the District’s tax rate. The Board then entered into a general discussion of the feasibility of constructing the i8~4 mgd capacity Santa Ana River Interceptor from Treatment Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue. Following the discussion,Chairman Smith reported that he had appeared before the Orange County Planning Commission in connec tion with the Santa Ana River Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed construction from Plant No.1 to Katella Avenue.He advised the Board that the Planning Commission had overruled their staff’s recommendation and approved the project. Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: 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 7:15 p.m.,June 29,1972. Chairman Board of Directors of County ATTEST:Sanitation DistrIct No.2 Secretary,Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 —3—