HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1978-07-19COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRiCTS NOSS 1,2,3,5,6,7 gil
OF
ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
JULY 19,1978
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
108414 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
L ft —
ROLL CALL
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held July 12,1978,the Boards
of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11.of Orange
County,California,met in an adjourned regular meeting on July 19,1978,at 6:00
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 and 11 as follows:
ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
District No.1:
District No.2:
District No.3
District No.5:
District No.6:
District No.7:
District No.11
X Kerm Rirna,Chairman
X James Sharp,Chairman pro tern
X Philip Anthony
X Vernon Evans
~k X Henry Wedaa,Chairman
v X Donald Holt,Chairman pro tern
____Ralph Clark
____Donald Fox
X Beth Graham
X Bernard Houston
X I)avid Ortiz
____Bob Perry
____John Seymour
v X Don Smith
X Roger Stanton
X Louis Velasquez
XBernie Svalstad,Chairman
2~X Don Griffin,chairman pro tern
Norman Culver
‘~X Sal Gambina
X Donald Hudson
~X Frank Laszlo
X 1-larry Miller
X Richard Olson
X David Ortiz
____Alan Priest
____Earl Roget
X Laurence Schrnit
John Seymour
XRichard Siebert
‘~X Charles Sylvia
XDuane Winters
•X Paul Ryckoff,Chairman
‘c X Thomas Riley,Chairman pro tern
Donald Strauss
X Don Mclnnis,Chairrnan~
X Kerm Rima,Chairman pro tern
X Philip Anthony
X Bill Vardoulis,Chairman
X Don Smith,Chairman pro tern
____Ralph Clark
X Vernon Evans
X Francis Glockner
Y X Donald Saltarelli
X Ray Williams
Ron Sh enkman,Chairman
X Don MacAl.lister
X 1,aiirence Schmit
Orma Crank
____Ralph Welsh
____Thomas Riley
____David Ortiz
_____Irwin Fried
William Rashford
X Thomas Riley
X Sam Cooper
____Earl Roget
James Wells
Vernon Evans
Norman Culver
X Donald Roth
____Robert Hoyt
____Marvin Adler
Duane Winters
____Marvin Adler
____Stanley Meyer
_____Bob Perry
Sam Cooper
____Otto Lacayo
_____Harold Seitz
____Martha Weishaupt
Bruce Finlayson
Vernon Evans
____Ronald Nyborg
____Robin Young
____Thomas Riley
X Donald Roth
Ron Shenkman
Kenneth Zomrnick
Louis Velasquez
Paul Huminel
____Philip Anthony
____Paul Ryckoff
____Paul Ryckoff
Orma Crank
____Thomas Riley
____Mary Ann Gaido
____Robert Hoyt
X Thomas Riley
____Davi.d Ortiz
Elvin 1-lutchison
_____Ralph Welsh
_____Paul Ryckoff
X Ruth Bailey
Ron Shcnkman
Thomas Riley
I)istri.cts 1,2,3,5,6,7 ~11
July 19,1978
Fred Harper,General Manager,J.Wayne
Sylvester,Secretary,Ray E.Lewis,William
Clarke,Rita Brown,Hilary Baker,Janet
Conatser,Wilber Eads,Jean Mosher,Slier
Schroeder,Debbie Taylor,Thomas L.Woodruff
and other staff members
OTHER PRESENT:See attached Exhibit “A”and written state
ments submitted and on file in the office
of the Secretary.
*************
Receive and file excerpt Moved,seconded and duly carried:
re Board appointment
That the minute excerpt from the City of
Huntington Beach,be,and is hereby,received and ordered filed seating
Don MacAllister as active Director for District No.11 for the July 19,
1978,meeting only.
Public Hearing re proposed The Joint Chairman announced that this was
flat rate special assessment the time and place set for a public hearing
to be collected on the tax on the proposed flat rate special assessment
roll for funding 1978-79 for sewer service and immediate availability
budgetary requirements to be collected on the property tax roll by
the County Tax Collector,and declared the
hearing open at 6:10 p.m.
Report on proposed flat rate The Chairman reviewed the Joint Sanitation
charge to be collected on Districts’responsibilities of providing
the tax roll sewage collection,treatment and disposal
services for approximately 1.5 million
residents of metropolitan Orange County and the impact on Districts’current
and projected capital and operating costs of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act that requires the construction of new facilities to upgrade the
degree of wastewater treatment to a secondary level.In compliance with
the new law the Districts have completed a $32 million 50 MGD project at
Plant No.1 in Fountain Valley and will have to spend an additional $200
million at Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach over the next eight years.As
the new facilities are placed into service the Districts must operate them
in compliance with Federal and State permit requirements or be subject to
stringent fines.The Districts are,therefore,in the awkward position of
being forced by Federal and State regulatory bodies to increase expenditures
for construction and operation of advanced treatment facilities on the one
hand;yet,on the other hand,being directed by the voters to curtail
expenditures by virtue of adoption of Proposition 13.
The Joint Chairman assured those in attendance that it was not the purpose
of the proposed flat rate to circumvent the intent of Proposition 13 and
observed that while Californians voted to cut government costs by passing
Proposition 13,the electorate had also endorsed the upgrading of sewage
treatment processes by adopting the State Clean Water Bond Act (Proposition
No.2)on the same ballot and,further,that the public consensus appeared
to support full funding of such essential services as sanitation.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
MEMBERS PRESENT:.
S
.
—3-
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
July 19,1978
With regard to potential savings he pointed out that,largely through the
efforts of the District 1)irectors and staff,Congress recentl.y amended
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow a waiver of full secondary
treatment requirements for deep water ocean dischargers,provided certain
criteria are satisfied.The Districts are applying for such a waiver but
may not have a ruling for as long as eighteen months.If a waiver is
forthcoming,the Districts will recogi-iize substantial savings amounting
to approximately $100 million in capital costs and $7 million i.n annual
operationg costs.Through past long-range financial planning and a
stabilized fiscal program the Districts have been able to continually
reduce their respective tax rates over the years,yet accumulate reserve
funds to provide for construction of the master planned sewerage systems
and mandated treatment facilities without going into debt.The proposed
flat rate charge includes a further reduction of $2.2 million for the
property owners for 1978-79.
The dilemma the Districts now face,within the conflicting context of
Federal and State treatment requirements versus Proposition 13 and its
implementing legislation restricting tax revenue,is to develop a system
of charges to provide sufficient revenues necessary to operate the Districtst
sewerage system.The proposal before the Boards is to levy an interim fla.t
rate charge per parcel for 1978-79 as authorized by existing state statutes
while a fully-equitable system is developed for subsequent years.It has
now been ruled that any variable assessment based on property value is
within the purview of the Jarvis-Gann 1%property tax limitation.Further,
the State Legislature,in adopting SB 154,has declared its intent to
require agencies such as the Sanitation Districts to rely on user charges
after 1978-79 and has encouraged such a transition during the~1978-79
fiscal year.Based on this declaration the Districts would not receive
any pro rata share of the 1%maximum tax levy allowed under Jarvis-Gann
in the future and there presently remains a question as to whether any
such funds will be allocated to the Sanitation Districts by the County in
1978-79.The proposed flat rate,which is substantially lower then what
neighboring communities pay for sewerage service,will enable the Districts
to fully fund operations without diminishing accumulated construction
reserves.Collecting it on the tax bill is the most cost-effective means
of administering the charge.
The General Counsel then reviewed his legal opinions relative to the
proposed flat rate service charge to be collected on the tax bill,the
legal distinction between a tax and an assessment and the recent County
Counsel’s ruling regarding the applicability of Jarvis-Gann’s restrictions
to the Districts.In his opinion,the County Counsel’s ruling qualifies
the Districts for their share of the 1%maximum tax levy under Proposition
13.he also reiterated the statutory authority in the State Health and
Safety Code which enables the Districts to establish user charges and
collect said charges on the tax roll and observed that every Sanitary
or Sanitation District in the State has not only the authority,but the
obligation to establish charges,rates or tolls in order to pay for its
cost of operation and maintenance.Such legal authority has not been
affected by the passage of the Jarvis-Gann tax limitation initiative.
The Director of Finance then briefly reviewed the Districts’fiscal
position pointing out that $70 million of the Districts $88.6 i.n accumu
lated construction reserves are presently committed for treatment plant
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
July 19,1978
and master planned trunk sewer projects currently under construction or
in the design phase and/or necessary dry period funding.The major impact
on financing is from Federal and State mandates for a higher level of
treatment which affect both capital and ongoing operating costs to operate
the advanced treatment facilities.He also pointed out that under the
proposed flat rate charge industrial dischargers would continue to pay
costs based on their actual use of the sewerage system.
The General Manager then referred Directors and the public to the handout
material contàiñing the original listing of available alternatives for
funding 1978-79 operating/capital funding requirements,and two proposed
supplemental alternative funding methods based on the Proposition 13
implementing legislation adopted by the State Legislature and the County
Counsel’s recent ruling that the Districts’ad valorem special assessment
is subject to Jarvis-Gann tax limitation.
Alternative Proposal IA assumes that the Districts will
receive their pro rata share of the 1%tax allocation
provided under the Jarvis-Gann Amendment for the 1978-79
fiscal year and defers the implementation of a flat rate
user fee to the 1979-80 fiscal year.Approximately $10.2
million in District funds reserved for construction would
be diverted from capital accounts to operating accounts as
required during 1978-79 to fund operations.
ALTERNATIVE IA
0
Proposed 78-79 Estimated 79-80
District No.Flat Rate Flat Rate
1 NONE $46.04
2 NONE 45.18
3 NONE 49.62
S NONE 67.14
6 NONE 46.11
7 NONE 41.60
11 NONE 64.24
Alternative Proposal hA also assumes the anticipated share
of the 1%property tax allocation for 1978-79,but implements
the originally proposed user charge per parcel in 1978-79
reduced by the amount of the expected share of the 1%tax
allocation.This proposal,which incorporates a flat rate
fee and ad valorem taxes,provides a substantial degree of
equity.
—...--~-.-—.-..—--~~-———-_-:~:
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
July 19,1978
ALTERNATIVE hA
Proposed 78-79 flat rate
reduced by estimated 1%Estimated 79-80
District No.tax allocation Flat Rate
i $24.98 $39.79
2 22.70 39.50
3 26.79 42.92
5 29.75 59.70
6 24.77 39.92
7 13.93 38.12
11 36.82 55.03
Neither alternative proposal anticipates receiving any of the 1%property
tax allocation after the current year.
Under proposal hA the staff reconunended that rebates and/or exceptions be
provided for properties that are considered unsewerable and properties not
receiving sewer services as follows:
Full Rebate or Exclusion -Properties that are improved but do
not receive sewer service,such as parcels that contain only
carports,greenbelts,drainage channels and incidental or
adjoining undevelopable parcels should be exempt from a flat
rate charge.
Two-Thirds Rebate or Exclusion -Improved and unimproved proper
ties that are not currently receiving sanitary sewer service
should have a 2/3 exemption from the Districts’charges.Capital
improvements have been and are continuing to be made for their
benefit at the treatment plants.
Enter written statements It was moved,seconded and duly carried:
into hearing record
That all written statements submitted on
or before July 19,1978,in connection with the proposed flat rate special
assessment for sewer service and immediate availability to be collected on
the tax roll be,and are hereby,entered into the record.of this public
hearing.
Oral Comments The Chair then recognized the persons
whose names are set forth on Exhibit
“A”,attached hereto and by reference made a part of these minutes,who
presented oral comments in opposition to the proposed flat rate special
assessment for sewer service and immediate availability to be collected
on the tax roll,or suggested that modifications be made thereto.
During the course of the public comment the Boards considered the propri
ety of introducing a motion in consideration of the proposed,or amended,
flat rate special assessment.It was the consensus that any such action
should be considered only after all those in attendance had been afforded
the opportunity of being heard.
-6-
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
July 19,1978
Close Public ilearing Following receipt of the oral comments
it was moved,seconded and duly carried:
That the public hearing on the proposed fiat rate special assessment for
sewer service and immediate availability to be collected on the tax roll
be closed.Whereupon,the Chairman declared said hearing closed at 9:44
p.m.
Rejecting proposed flat rate It was then moved and secoilded:
special assessment to be col—
lected on tax roil,declaring That proposed Alternative IA (amended to
intent to lobby for continued eliminate a user fee program effective
share of tax allocation under July 1,1979,and the estimated 1979-80
Proposition 13 and waiver flat rate)that there be no user charge,
and/or exemptions from Federal be adopted,and that the Districts live
r~~1irements within the contraints of Proposition 13
which is their portion of the 1%(Proposition
13 maximum allowable tax levy);and,
FIJRTFIER MOVED:That everybody here tonight and elsewhere help the Districts
to lobby the State to reject that portion of SB 154 that denies the Districts
a portion of the 1%(property tax 1ev)’in the future);and,
FURTHER MOVED:That everybody here tonight,and all that they can gather,
support a movement to get the State and Federal Government to impose no
new requirements on the Districts and provide waivers or the money for
existing excessive requirements already placed on the Districts.
A substitute motion was then offered and seconded:
That approximately $10..2 million in Districts’funds reserved for construc
tion be diverted from capital.accounts to operating accounts as required
during 1978-79 to fund operations;and,
FURTHER MOVED:That the staff of the Districts be directed to dev~elop an
equitable user fee plan which may be placed before the voters next year
pending the results of efforts to obtain a waiver of State and Federal
mandated requirements.
The Boards then entered into a discussion of the motions on the floor
during which it was clarified that it was the intent of the substitute
motion that no flat rate charge would be imposed in 1978-79.
Following a call for the question on the substitute motion the vote was
polled by roll call and the Chairman declared that the substitute motion
had failed to pass.
The vote was then polled by roil call on the original motion following
which the Chairman declared that said motion approving Alternative IA
(amended to eliminate any declaration of intent to institute a user
fee program effective July 1,1979,and the estimated 1979-80 fiat rate)
that there be no user charge and that the Districts live within the
constraints of Proposition 13,which is their ~portion of the 1%(Proposition
13 maximum allowable tax levy);and th~t everybody here tonight and else
where help the Districts to lobby the State to reject that portion of
—7—
Districts 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
~July 19,l978~
SB 154 that denies the Districts a portion of the 1%(property tax levy
in the future);and that everybody here tonight,and all that they can
gather,support a movement to get the State and Federal Government to
impose no new requirements on the Districts and provide waivers or the
money for existing excessive requirements already placed on the Districts,
had passed.
Adj ournment Moved,seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Boards of
Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7 and 11
be adjourned.The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at
10:00 p.m.,July 19,1978.
of Directors
Districts Nos.1,2,
11
-8-
EXHIBIT ttA”to Minutes of Adjourned Meeting
on July 19,1978
Persons Presenting Oral Comments at Public Hearing on Pro
posed Flat Rate Special Assessments for Sewer Service and
Immediate Availability to be Collected on the Tax Roll
NAME CITY NAME CITY
1)Ward Milihouse Santa Ana 32)Stephen Bedrossian Anaheim
2)Lura B.Labourdette Los Alamitos 33)Clarence Cornell Garden Grove
3)Lorraine Gray Santa Ana 34)Leo Lesnick Santa Ana
4)Dave McHaffie Anaheim 35)Glen B.Jackson Orange
5)Harry J.Appling .Fountain Valley 36)Duane Laible Yorba Linda
6)Harriett Wieder Huntington Beach 37)Lu Manning County of Orange
7)W.L.Chambers Orange 38)Walter Nollac Placentia
•
8)1.B.Barron Garden Grove 39)Lauren Duvall Santa Ana
9)Virgil Elkins Santa Ana 40)L.J.Post Costa Mesa
PlO)Marvin A.Wendt Anaheim 41)Walter Wise Fullerton
11)Stan H.Sabin Huntington Beach 42)Elizabeth Sharon District 2
12)Charleen Wiersma Cypress 43)Bill Weatherill La Palma
13)Paul Holder Fullerton 44)George Maverne Fountain:Valley
14)A.M.Gilmore .Anaheim 45)Ed Wise Yorha Linda
15)Dr.Andrew Erdely Cypress 46)Kenneth G.Hahn Fullerton
16)James C.Harp Buena Park 47)Miles Leach Santa Ana
17)Al Morgan Santa Ana 48)Dave Smith Costa ?~1esa
18)Clarence Herbert Newport Beach 49)Dick Longshore Santa Ana
19)Bob Dinsen Garden Grove 50)Maurice DeMong Tustin
20)Wilbur L.Cassidy Garden Grove 51)William Romo District 11
21)Don Moonier Cypress 52)Adin Dancer Westminster
22)Frank Beskiss Fountain Valley 53)Jay Scannell Westminster
23)Joe Hardcastle Cypress 54)Did Not Give Name
24)Dave Atkinson .Huntington Beach 55)Vance Vote District 1
25)Bill Snelling Anaheim 56)Richard Barrett Santa Ana
26)David Baker Garden Grove 57)Donald Freedland Fullerton
27)Bob Romaris Garden Grove 58)Ken Shank .Did Not State C~
28)John Allen Placentia -~59)Vivian Kirkpatrick Westminster
29)Kay McCloud Huntington Beach 60)Glen Hanson Costa Mesa
30)Fred Woodworth Newport Beach 61)Betty Scott Huntington Beach
31)Arthur Womer Fountain Valley 62)Jack Tubbs Santa Aria
-9-