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—