The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 1973-01-17COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO 2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOU~NED REGULAR MEETING January 17,1973 —7:30 n.m. 10814k Ellis Avenue FountaIn Valley,California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held January 10, 1973,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 7:30 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. Don Smith (Chairman),Rudy Castro, Norman Culver,Robert Finnell, Donald Fox,Wade Herrin,Edward Just,Robert Nevil,David Baker, Robert Root and Donald Winn Mark Stephenson Fred A.Harper,General Manager, J.Wayne Sylvester,’Secretary, Robert Webber and Rita Brown C.Arthur Nisson,Milo Keith, Donald Martinson,Will Lindsay, Barbara Ferguson,Robert Main, Walter Bressel,Ross Johnston ~nd Wc~odrr~w Ritterfi~]d Continuation of hearing Open Public Hearing —The public re Proposed Sewer hearing on Proposed Sewer Connection Connection Ordinance No.203 Ordinance No.203,an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No.202,continued from December 20,1972,was declared open by the chairman. Review of Master Plan Financial Requirements —The General Manager briefly reviewed the funding requirements necessary to finance the construction of the District’s Master Plan of Trunk Sewers,and reviewed the alternative methods of financing staId facilities.It was pointed out that Senate Bill 90,the tax reform bill recently adopted by the State legislature,rules out the possibility of increasing the tax rate as a means of raising the additional $1.!!million in revenue needed to meet the District’s anticipated cash flow requirements. Written Communications —The Secretary read a communication received from the City of Garden Grove,dated January 10,1973, requesting that the Board of Directors withhold adoption of a connection fee ordinance until recommendations from a financial consultant proposed for analyzing the conditions within District No.3 have been completed. It was then moved,seconded and duly carried that the letter from the City of Garden Grove dated January 10,1973,regarding the proposed connection charge ordinance,be received and ordered filed. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: ~r~:~ #2 1/17/73 Oral Comments —The Chair recognized Mr.Woodrow Butterfield, Councilman,City of Garden Grove,who read the following statement into the record: PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION FEE ORDINANCE The City of Garden Grove is protesting the proposed sewer connection fee ordinance both because of the fees themselves and because of the method of collection. All of the undeveloped or underdeveloped property in Garden Grove has been In the Orange County Sanitation District since the beginning and has been paying taxes presumably to buy capacity.Now to be told that the capacity will not be available because it was used by property owners who developed higher density than for which the facilities were designed,and that the non—using tax payer must now pay connection fees in order to pay for provision of capacity for him,is like punishing B for crimes committed by A. It seems to me that,since the facilities were constructed for development envisioned by the Master Plan,that properties should at least be credited for the density authorized by the Plan.For example,if a parcel was planned for a duplex, the owner should be allowed to build a duplex without additional penalty. The practice of having one government entity collect money for another government entity for a commission could lead to abuse.Most cities have all they can handle just collecting fees they need for their own use;it could be very difficult to explain to the taxpayers why the cities are eoileettng fees for others and shIpp~ng 95%of the proceeds out of town to be used somewhere else.To.some of~_ their.taxpayers,the cities could appear to be patsies. If both the State and Federal governments have money to distribute back to the local governments for a variety of purposes,there should certainly be enough available for environmental protection because of the emphasis placed on this area.We would like to see more effort to obtain State and Federal grants before imposing new fees or charges on local property owners.Higher levels of government are striving to alleviate the heavy burden on the property owners;the proposed ordinance is in direct contradiction to those efforts. We earnestly request that you take no action on this ordinance until after the meeting by District No.3 on March 7,at which time the recommendation from the Financial Consultant will •be made public. Garden Grove is split practically down the middle in Districts 2 and 3.The financial conditions in District 3 are far more serious;adoption of the proposed Qrdinance will not come close to solving District 3’s financial problems.We would hate to see this ordinance adopted f~irst by District 2,.thus presenting District 3 with an awkward situation where the Consultant might recommend for example a bond issue under conditions which would be highly unfavorable~ Let’s take care of the bigger problem in District 3 first; then come to grips with the relatively minor one in District 2. —2— #2 1/17/73 The Chair then recognized Walter Bressel,Robert Main and Ross Johnston,all representing the Garden Grove Sanitary District; Will Lindsay of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce;and Barbara Ferguson,each of who addressed the Board in connection with the proposed ordinance. Consideration of Following a review of salient Ordinance 203 projections developed for the Master Plan Report by Mr.Donald Martinson of t~owry and Associates,District’s consulting engineer,it was moved and seconded that Ordinance No.203,an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No.202,be adopted. The Board then entered Into a discussion regarding agreements which would have to be entered into with the local sewering entities to implement collection of the proposed sewer connection charges.The feasibility of implementing a sewer service charge was also discussed.A call for the question was then made and following a roll cal vote the General Counsel announced that adoption of Ordinance No.203 had failed to pass by required two—thirds vote as follows: AYES:Directors Don E.Smith (Chairman),Rudy Castro, Robert Finnell,Wade Herrin,Robert Nevil, Robert Root and Donald Winn NOES:Directors Norman E.Culver,Donald Fox,and David L.Baker ABSENT:Director Mark Stephenson Directing Ordinance 203 The Board discussed at length the be placed on February 114 propriety of reconsidering Ordinance 1973 agenda for further No.203.Several Directors suggested corisiderabion ________ that the Board defer further consider ation of the proposed ordinance until the financial analysis being conducted for District No.3 by municipal financing consultants is completed,to determine if the consultant’s recommendations for District No.3 have application to District No.2’s fiscal position. Following further discussion,It was moved,seconded and duly carried: That further consideration of Ordinance No.203,an ordinance amending Uniform Connection and Use Ordinance No.202,be placed on the agenda for the regular meeting of the hoard of Directors on February 114,1973. 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 ~o adjourned at 8:141 p.m.,January 17,1973. Chairman Board of Directors of~ County Sanitation District No.2 ATTEST: Secretary,Board or Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 —3—