HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee for Studying Connection Charge Fee Policy 07-12-1972COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270E
1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
January 12, 1973
RE: JANUARY 3RD PUBLIC HEARING -- PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION
CHARGE ORDINANCE NO. 303
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
S40-2910
962-2411
This is to advise that the District No. 3 Board of Directors
continued the subject hearing to March 7, 1973, at 7:30 p.m.,
in response to several requests due to the holidays.
The firm of Stone and Youngberg, Municipal Financing Consultants,
has been engaged to study the District's funding requirements.
Their report and recommendation will be considered at the March
7th hearing. On or about March 1st the recommendations of the
consultant will be forwarded to those interested persons and
entities receiving this notice. The complete report will be
available for study and review at the District's office.
The Board has directed the District's staff to proceed with
discussions with the local sewering entities concerning an
agreement for collection of sewer connection charges which will
be necessary in the event a connection charge ordinance is
adopted by the District.
Norman E. Culver
Chairman
cc: Directors, District No. 3
Agenda item No s
COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANaE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
'i
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
October 27, 1972 (714) 962-2411
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING ANNEXATION AND
CONNECTION FEE POLICY - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS., 2
AND 3
Committee Meeting
October , 197 .
Thursday - 12:00 Noon
Present (District 2) Present (District. 3)
Don Smith, Chairman Norman dulver, Chairman
Henry Wedaa Wade Herrin
Mark Stephenson Mark Stephenson
Wade Herrin
Absent
Absent
• Donald Fox
Edward Just Jack Green
Preset -At
Fred A. Harper
Paul G. Brown
Conrad Hohener '
Don Martinson
The two Districts' special committees have met -jointly on
three occasions to consider several connection charge concepts.
The committees are recommending the enclosed draft ordinance for
consideration by the two Districts' Boards at a special meeting
to be held November 2nd at 7:00 p.m. _
At the last meeting of the committees, the staff was
directed to modify the proposed connection charge ordinance
to reflect a minimum connection charge for single
family dwellings and industrial and commercial developments. The
enclosed draft ordinance establishes the following charges for
new construction:
1. Single family dwelling buildings, $50 per dwelling unit
2. Multiple family dwelling buildings, $125 per dwelling
unit
e
3. Commercial, industrial and public buildings:
Diameter of Building Sewer Charge
6 inches or less .$50
8 inches 100
10 inches 200
12 inches 300
The basic connection charge -is the single family .dwelling.
charge of $50. It is recommended that the single family
dwellings be charged the minimum charge in that the District's
sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of
general development.
Multiple Dwellings. The type of densities which are
accompanied by development of apartments places an unusual
demand on the sewer system when compared to single family
development. Also, the District tax revenue received from
high density properties is not adequate when the volume.of
sewage produced -is considered. I ,
Commercial and 'Industrial Charges. The one-time connection
_16*
charge for new commercial and industrial properties is based'on
the size of the building sewer. These charges are nominal as
they are subject to an excess capacity connection charge based
on the actual. use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in
Article 6(b) of the ordinance.
As the Directors will recall, -the District No. 2 Board re-
affirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation
policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369
per acre.
The original proposal which was submitted to the -various
cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the
following connection charges:
$100 per dwelling unit for single family
and multiple dwellings, and $50 per
1000/sq. ft. building for commercial and
industrial properties
JUSTIFICATION FOR CONNECTION CHARGES
1. Necessity for Additional Funds for Capital Outlay.
The Districts' Master Plans for the construction of needed
interceptor sewers to provide the communities within the Districts
-2
4
.with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based on the
land use plans developed by the local communities and will re-
quire a large capital expenditure during the next five years.
The cash -flow projections for the Districts indicate that it
is necessary to raise additional funds to accomplish the pro-
gram. Alternative methods of proceeding are:
(A) Not build the facilities - there would be re-
strictions on new connections in many areas
of the Districts. This is contrary to the
• basic function of the Districts.
(B) Raise the tax rate to finance the program.
(C) Pass a bond issue, which all taxpayers would
pay for the next 20 years by increasing the.
tax rate,
(D) Establish connection charges for new con-
struction throughout the District.
2:. Equalize Costs Among Users.
Connection charges are very common. Many large sewering
agencies have established such a charge in order that at least
a portion of the capital outlay funds.necessary are provided
by new users to the system i. ho are creating -Fro ner.vess- ty for
• v v the � • ..r w� . V W V the V M V✓ .L V
the capital outlays.
3. To Hold Down Tax Rates.
It is quite obvious that the State and Federal governments
are attempting to devise measures to relieve -the homeowner of
a portion of his property tax burden. If the Districts chose
to increase property tax rates for the purpose of financing
capital outlay projects for future users it would, in the ' staff' s
opinion, create a serious inequity in that the present users
have been paying Sanitation District taxes on their improvements
and to raise the rate further to accommodate'newcomers would be
unjust.
4. Difficulty in Passing a Bond Issue.
A bond issue for new capital outlay projects for the
Districts, even if successful (and in the present climate -of
public gpinion it is seriously doubted that an election could
be successful), would require present users to pay principal
and interest on bonds which are primarily for the purpose of
providing facilities for newcomers. At current interest rates,
the interest to be paid would be excessive and also would impose
the burden on present users.
-3-
ti
•
5. Success in other Districts.
Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge for
many years which has met with very little opposition and have
raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are
financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. The
public easily grasps the concept of a new user paying for at
least a portion of the necessary future outlays.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
The committees recommend that if the proposed ordinance
appears acceptable to the Boards, public hearings be held to
permit expressions of opinion by -the public prior to the
adoption of any connection charge ordinance.
The committee further recommends that the enclosed standard
agreement for collection of sewer connection charges, which
provides for a collection fee equal t.o 5% of the fees collected,
be authorized.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. O. BOX 5175
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708
(714) 540-2910
October 24, 1972 (714) 962-2411
SPECIAL COMMITTEES FOR STUDYING ANNEXATION AND CONNECTION FEE
POLICY - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS9 2 AND 3
Committee Meeting
October 2b , 197
Thurs ay -Noon
Committee Members (District 2
Don Smith, Chairman
Henry Wedaa
Mark Stephenson
Edward Just
Wade Herrin
Committee Members (District 3
Norman Culver, Chairman
Wade Herrin
Mark Stephenson
Jack Green
Robert Battin
Chairmen Smith and Culver have called a meeting of the
Special Committees for 12:00 noon on Thursday, October
26, A light lunch will be served.
Fred A. Harper
General Manager
FAH: j
cc: Don Martinson
Conrad Hohener
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
J
October 3, 10
D. O. BOX 5175
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708
(714) 540.2910
(714) 962.2411
DISTRICTS 2 AND 3 CONNECTION CHARGE COMMITTEE
Meeting - September 28, 1972 - Noon
District No. 2
Present:
Don Smith, Chairman
Edward Just
Wade Herrin
Absent:
Henry Wedaa
Mark Stephenson
Others present:
Don Martinson,
Conrad Hohener,
Fred A. Harper
Paul G. Brown
District No.
Present:
Norman Culver, Chairman
Wade Herrin
Donald Fox
Absent:
Mark Stephenson
Jack Green
Lowry & Associates
Boyle Engineering
The purpose of this report is to advise the committee
members who were unable to attend the September 28 meeting
of the discussion held at that time. The Chairmen advised
that they had met jointly the previous day with the Districts'
General Manager and the Manager of the Garden Grove Sanitary
District, Walter Bressel, to discuss the connection charge
policy presently under consideration. The Chairmen reported
that most objections to a connection charge appeared to be the
concern that property owners within the District who have been
paying taxes on undeveloped property would be penalized if a
connection charge were to be imposed.
The material which was mailed to the committee members
prior to the meeting was temporarily set aside for the purpose
of discussing a concept which was submitted during the closing
minutes of a previous meeting by Director Just. He proposed
that the Districts establish a connection charge which would
apply to those properties which are developed at a higher
density than planned for in the Districts' Master Plans.
c
_
Following a lengthy discussion concerning some of the
problems that might be involved, the engineers representing
the two Districts, Low.Ly and Associates for District No. 2
and Boyle Engineering for District No. 3, were directed to
investigate the feasibility of the administration of such a
concept and report back to the committee at its next meeting
which will probably be scheduled for the latter part of October.
In addition, the General Manager was requested to discuss this
new connection charge proposal with the Districts' legal counsel
to determine if there are any legal restrictions.
Don E. Smith, Chairman
District No. 2
Norman E. Culver, Chairman
District No. 3
Special Committee to Study Connection Charge Policy - District No. 2.
At -the last meeting of the committees, the staff was
directed to modify the proposed connection charge ordinance
for ,District No. 2 to reflect a minimum connection charge for
single family dwellings and industrial and commercial develop-
ments. The enclosed draft ordinance No. 203 (dated September
13, 1972) establishes the following charges for new construction:
• .1. Single family dwelling buildings, $50 per dwelling unit
2. Multiple family dwelling buildings, $100 per dwelling unit
3. Commercial, industrial and public buildings:
Diameter of Building Sewer Charge
6 .inches or less $50
8 inches 100
10 inches 200
12 inches 300
The basic connection charge is the single family dwelling
charge of $50. It is recommended that the single family
dwellings be charged the minimum charge in that the District's
sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of
general development.
Multiple Dweilings. The type of densities which are
accompanied by -development of apartments -places an unusual
demand on the sewer system when compared to single family
development. Also, the District tax revenue received from
high density properties is not adequate when the volume of
sewage produced is considered.
Commercial and Industrial Char es. The one-time connection
charge for new commercial and industrial properties is based on
the size of the building sewer. These charges are nominal as
they are subject to an excess capacity connection charge based
on the actual use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in
Article 6 (b ) of Ordinance No. 203.
As the Directors will recall, the District No. 2 Board re-
affirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation
policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369
Per acre.
The original proposal which was submitted to the various
cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the
following connection charges:
$100 per dwelling unit for* single family
and multiple dwellings, and $50 per
1000/sq. ft. building for commercial and
industrial properties.
Enclosed for the Directors' study and comment is a list of
reasons for establishing a District connection charge.
September 21, 1972
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
JUSTIFICATION FOR CONNECTION CHARGES
1. Necessity for Additional Funds for Capital Outlay,
The Districts' Master Plan for the construction of needed
interceptor sewers to provide the communities within the
District with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based
on the land use plans developed by the local communities and
will require a capital expenditure of $18,112,000 during the
next five years. The cash -flow projections for the District
indicate that it is necessary to raise additional funds to
accomplish the program. Alternative methods of proceeding are:
(A) Not build the facilities - there would be re-
strictions on new connections in many areas of the
District. This is contrary to the basic function
of the Districts.
(B) Raise the tax rate by $.15 to finance
the program.
(C) Pass a $355005000 bond issue, which all
taxpayers woul—d'p—ay for the next 20 years. Probable
tax rate would be .0 per $10.0 assessed*
valuation to pay off bonds.
(D) Establish connection charges for new -con-
struction throughout the District.
2, Equalize Costs Among Users.
Connection charges are very common. Many large sewering
agencies have established such a charge in order that at least
a portion of the capital outlay funds necessary are provided
by new users to the system who are creating the necessity for
the capital outlays.
3. To Hold Down Tax Rates.
' It is quite obvious that the State and Federal governments
are attempting to devise measures to relieve the homeoi%mer of
a portion of his property tax burden. If the Districts chose
to increase property tax rates for the purpose of financing
capital outlay projects for future users it would, in the
staff's opinion, create a serious inequity in that the present
users have been paying Sanitation District taxes -on their
improvements and to raise the rate further to accommodate new
comers would be unjust.
r
4. Difficulty in Passing a Bond Issue.
A bond issue for new capital outlay projects for the
Districts, even if successful (and in the present climate
of public opinion it is seriously doubted that an election
could be successful), would require present users to pay
principal and interest on bonds which are primarily for the
purpose of providing facilities for newcomers. At current
interest, rates, the interest to be paid would be*excessive
and also would impose the burden on present users.
5. Success in Other Districts,
Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge for
many years which has met with.very little opposition and have
raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are
financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. The
public easily grasps. the concept of a new user paying for at
least a portion of the necessary future outlays.
Don E. Smith
Chairman
• DRAr�
g-13--72
ORDINANCE NO. 203
AN ORDINANCE MENDING ORDINANCE NO. 202
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of
• Orange County, California, does ordain as follows:
ARTICLE 1
Article 2 of Ordinance No. 202 is hereby amended by adding
thereto the following sections:
(o) District Connection Charge. Is a connection charge
imposed by District No. 2 as a charge for the use of District's
sewerage facilities whether such connection is made directly to a
l
District sewerage facility or to a sewer which ultimately discharges
into a District sewerage facility.
(p) .District Sewerage Facility. Shall mean any.property
belonging to County Sanitation District No. 2 used in the treatment,
transportation, or disposal of sewage or industrial wastes.
(q). Domestic Sewage. Shall mean the liquid and water borne
wastes derived from the ordinary living processes, free from indus-
trial wastes, and.of such character as to permit satisfactory
disposal without special treatment, into the public sewer or by
means of a private disposal system.
(r)_ Sewerage Facilities. Are any facilities used in the
collectioh, transportation, treatment or disposal of sewage and
s
industrial wastes.
(s) Family Ddelling.Building. Is a building designed and used
to house families and containing one or more dwelling units.
(t) D;felling Unit. Is one or more habitable rooms which are
occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one
family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating.
(u) Building Sewer, Is *the sewer draining a building and ex-
tending beyond the exterior walls thereof and which connects to a
District sewerage facility or to a private or public sewerage
facility which u, :imately discharges to a District sewerage facile "-y,
(v) Other Terms, Any term not herein defined is defined as
being the same as set forth in the International Conference of
Building Officials Uniform Building Code, 1970 Edition, Volume I.
ARTICLE 2
(a) Section (a) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 202 is amended'
to read as follows:
(a) District Connection Charges. Before any connection
permit shall be issued, the applicant shall pay to -the District or
its agent the charges specified herein.
(1) Connection Charge for New Construction, Family
DkTellinng Build For For each new single family
dwelling building constructed, the connection charge
shall be $50 per dwelling unit. For each multiple
family dwelling building constructed, the connection
charge shall be $100 per dwelling unit.
(2) Connection Charge for New Construction, Other Than
Family Dcrelling Building_. For all other new
construction, including but not limited to commercial
and industrial buildings, hotels and motels and
public buildings, the connection charge for each
building sewer shall be as follows:
Diameter of Building Sewer Charge
6 inches or less $ 50
8 inches $100
10 inches $200
12 inches $300
(3) Connection Charge for Replacement Buildings_.
For new construction replacing former buildings,
the connection charge shall be calculated on the
same basis as provided in Paragraphs (1) and (2)' -
hereinabove. If such replacement construction is
commenced within two years after demolition or
-2-
destruction of the former building, a credit against
such charge shall be allowed, calculated on the basis
of the current connection charge applicable for the
new construction of the building demolished or .
destroyed. In no case shall such credit exceed the
connection charge.
() Connection Charges for Additions to or Alterations
of Existing Buildings. In the case of structures
where further new construction or alteration is
made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling
buildings or the area of buildings to be used for
other than family dwelling buildings, the connection
charge shall be $50 for each dwelling unit added or
created and in the case of new construction other
than family dwelling buildings which requires the
construction of a new building sewer, the connection
-charge for each new building sewer shall be as follows:
Diameter of Building Sewer CharEe
6 inches or less $ 50
8 inches $100
10 inches $200
12 inches $300
When Charge is to be Paid.. Payment of
connection charges shall be required at the time of
issuance of the building permit for all construction
within the District, excepting in the case of a
building legally exempt from the requirement of
obtaining a building permit. The payment of the sewer
connection charge for such buildings will be required
at the time of and prior to the issuing of a plumbing
connection permit for any construction within the
territorial limits of the District.
3-
Schedule of Charges. A schedule of charges
specified herein will be' on file in the office of
the Secretary of the District and in the Building
Department of each city within the District.
Biennial Review of Charges. At the end of two
years from the effective.date of this ordinance, and
every two years thereafter, the Board of Directors
• shall review the charges established by this article
and if in its judgment such charges require modifi-
cation, an amendment to this ordinance will be adopted
establishing such modification.
ARTICLE 3
Section (b) of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 202 is amended by
adding thereto Section (3) to read as follows;
(3) When an excess capacity connection charge -is
-payable by a user, as hereinabove provided, a credit
equal to the connection charge paid by the user, if
any, shall be allowed against such excess capacity
connection charge.
ARTICLE 4
Lxcept as herein amended, Ordinance No. 202 is ratified, re-
affirmed and is to become effective , as amended by
this Ordinance.
The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall sign this Ordinance
and the Secretary of the Districts shall attest thereto and certify
to the passage of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be
published once in the , a daily newspaper
of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the
District, within fifteen (15) days after the date of passage of this
Ordinance by said Board of Directors and said Ordinance shall take
effect
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the . Board of Directors of County Sani-
tation District No. 2 r of Orange County, California, at a regular
meeting held on the day of , 1972.
Criairman., Board of Directors o
County Sanitation District No. 2,
ATTEST*
-
of Orange County, California
Secretary, Boara of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 2,
of Orange County, California
-5-
Description
Tax Revenue (at current tax rate of $. 4254)
gther Revenue
Federal & State Participation
Joint Works Projects
Distric-i Projects
Sale of Capacity Rights
Miscellaneous
Carry -Over from Previous Fiscal Year
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE
r' P rT-10ITURD,S
District Construction
S::are of Joint Works Construction
Bond Retirement & Interest
S ,are of Joint Operating
District Operating & Other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Gdrry-over to Following Fiscal Year
Less: Necessary Reserve for Following
Year Dry Period
_�und Balance or (Deficit)
)ne cent on tax rate will raise
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW
7--28-72 Revised
FISCAL YEARS 1972-73
THROUGH 1976-77
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
$ 4,364,000
$ 4,605,000
$ 4,835,000
$ 5,077,000
$ 5,331,000
2;556,000
2,165,000
5,947,000
8,278,000
6,898,000
758,000
845,000
227,000
31,000
15,000
618>000
3?5,000
275,000
225,000
225,000
10,7203000
95753,000
3,786,000
2533000
(i,167,000)
$19,o16,000
$17,743,000
$1550705000
$13,864,000
$11,3025000
$
4, 654, 000
$ 8, 031, 000
$ 3, 800, 000
$ 1, o44, 000
$ 583, 000
3,034,000
4,338,000
93391,000
1o,98o,000
7,84l,000
6125000
5903000
5715000
554,000
536,000
767, 000
787,000
8.28, 00o
1, 081, o00
1, 256, 000
196.,000
211,000
2275000
1,372,000
265,000
$
9.12635000
$13, 957, 000
$14, 817, 000
$15, 031, 000
$lo, 481, 000
$
% 753,000 .
$ 3,786,000
$ 253,000
'$(1,167,000)
$ 8213000
7, 070P 000
_ 7, 493, 000
7, 034, 000
5, 320, 000 '
21285,000
$
2,683,000
$(3,707.,000)
$(6,781,000)
$(6,487,000)
$(1,464,000)
$
102,585
$ 108,227
$ 1133638
$ 119,321
•
$ 125,287
Description
Tax Revenue (at current tax rate of $.474o )
Other Revenue
Federal & State Participation
Joint Works Projects
District Projects
Sale of Capacity Rights
1,1i. sc ellaneous
Carry -Over from Previous Fiscal Year
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE
i,XP!,HDITURES
District Construction
Share of Joint Works Construction
Bond Retirement & Interest
Share of Joint Operating
District Operating & other Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Carry -Over to Following Fiscal Year
Less: Necessary Reserve for Following
Year Dry Period
""Lind Balance or (Deficit)
cent on tax rate will raise
UUUIXTY 6I1N.LUATIUN D1bTh1UT NU. -1
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOW
FISCAL YEARS 1972--73 THROUGH 1976-77
1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
$ 5,661,000
2,735,000
192,000
177,000
721, 000
11,821,000
$ 5, 944, 000
2,317:000
182,000
1, 000
220, 000
7, 079, 000
$ 6,211,000
6, 366, 000
1,000
150,000
1,682,000
7-28-72 Revised
1975-76 1976-77
$ 6,491,000 $ 6,783,000
8,862,000 - T- 385,000
566,000 153000
150,000 1501000
(3,566,000) (5,868,000)
$21,307,000 $15,7�-3,000 $ 1�+,lo,000 $ 12,503,000 $ 8,�65,000
$ 8, 949, 000
3,247,0oo
858,000
792, 000
382,000
$ 7, 478, 000
45 645, 000
827,000
8125000
29%000
$. 5,9523000
101053,000
797,000
8553000
31 % 000
$ 4., 383, 000
11,754,000
77?,000
1,116,000
341,000
$ 13470,000
8,393,000
.756,000
1,296,000
365,000
1 228 000
14o61 000
1 9 6 000
$ 18 71 000
$12 280 000
$ 7,07% 000
' 7,134,000
$ 11682,3000
'9,o86,000
$ (3,566,000)
9,274,000
$ (5,868,000)
6,226,000
$(3,815,000)
25522,000
$ (555000)
$(754043000)
$(12,830,000)
$(125094,000)
$(6,337,000)
$ 119,E+10'
$ 1253381
$ 131,381
$ 136,919
$ 143,o8o
EXCERPT FROM 1972 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT
23
specifications, and estim aces as soon as practicable after the same have
been submitted, and his approrcd of any such plans, specifications, and
estimates shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the united States
for the payment of it-Y proportional contribution to such project.
"(b) The Administrator shall, from time to time as the work pro-
gresses, make payments to the recipient of a grant for costs of con-
struction incurred on a project. These payments shall at nv time exceed
the Federal share of the cost Of construction. incurred to the date of the
voucher cohering such, payment p1my the federal share of the value of
the materials which have been stockpiledin the vicinity of such con-
struction in conformity to plans and speci f cations for the project.
"(c) After completion of a project awl appro teal of the final voucher
by Me Administrator. he dhall pay out of the appropriate sums the un-
paid balance of the Federal share payable on account of such project.
"LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
•"SEc. 204. (a) Before approving.grants for any project for any
treatment works under section 201(g) (1) the Administrator shall
determine --
"(I) that such works are included In any applicable areawide
waste treatment management plait dereloperl, under section 208 of
this Act;
"(Q) that such ivorks are in conformity with any applicable
State plan. under section 303(e) of this Act;
"(3) that such works have been. certified by the appropriate
State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over
such other works in the State in. accordance with. any applicable
State plan under section 303(e) of this Act;
"(4) that the applicant proposing to construct such works agrees
to pay the Mori -Federal eo48 of such works and has made ade-
quate provimorts satisfactory to the Adin.1nistrator for assuring
proper and egelent operatio-ti., including the employment of
brained management and operations personnel, and the viainte-
nanee of such works in accordance frith a J)lan of operation ap-
proved by the State trater pollution. control agency ar, as appro-
priate, the interstate agency, after construction thereof;
11(5) that the sire and capacity of such trorks relate directly
to the needs to be served by such works, itelucling sufft'cient reserve
capacity. The amount of reserve capacity provided shall be ap-
proved by the Administrator on th.e basi.Y of a comparison of the
cost of constructing .-uch reserves as a part of the works to be
funded aced the anticipated cost of providing expanded capacity
at a date when. 811CIL capacity will be rewired; -
"(6) that no speci fle` r160n for bids in connection with .such works
$hall he icritten in such a manner as to contain proprietary, exclu-
sionary, or discHniirtatory requirements other than. those based
upon performance, unleas such requirements are necessary to test
or demonstrate a specific thing or to provide for necessary inter-
changeability of tarts crap equipment, or at least two brand names
or trade narttcs of comparable quality or utility are listed and are
fol7ozeed by the word.1�01'equar.
"(b) (1) Notu:ithstan7ing any other provision of this title, the
Administrator shall not, approve any grant for any treatment, works
24
under section 201(g) (1) of ter :lfarch.l. 1973, unless he shall first have
determined that the applicant (A) has adopted or zaiIZ adopt a Sys-
tem of charges to assure that each recipient of waste treatment serv-
ices within the applica?tt's jurisdiction, a4 determined by the Admin-
istrator, will pay its proportionate share of the costs of operation
and maintenance (including replacement) of any ivaste treat-7nent,
services provided by the applicant; (B) has made provision for the
payment to such applicant by the industrial users of the treatment
works. of that portion of the cost of construction of such treatment
works (ass determined by the Administrator) which is allocable to
the treatment of such industrial wastes to the extent attributable
to the Federal share of the cost of construction • and. (C) has legal,
institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate
construction, operation, and maintenance of treatment works through,:
out the applicant's jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator.
"(2) The Administrator shall.,within one hunndred and eighty dray
after the ate or enactniew of the I'edcral Water Pollution. Catttrol
;tct A men( ntcpits of 1972. and niter con.vu.tatio3p. with. appropriate
a c, Mterstate. muntc•c pa . 5,1 tntTrtn:uwct to areltcaes. u e-
tn.es a > > cca a to pelt ntent of waste tt•eaNnent costs by tncustria
and jto»inclustrial recipie0m of tra_ste tread)?ettt services which, shall.
�..; s�tais I. (mil ) c•la..ie- of a-yejw of such. Sc rvices. includinQcatcgories Of
ant ustruc . uscr.5; II cr;trp•i<[ ar a ItYt ic•lt;ch to determ.aite the cede uaa;
of char( e-v ttpt posed on clir..•.cc..); aiul ratc ooeies of 1141?C s rc ectin la
actors that in. uence the coat of tc•aste. treatnte)tt, includin( stren th
vo .unto, an( c c ? ►•erg Itow rate c laracteri t7v o waste; anc nzvdel
-sz/stem s (711. rates o tcser c pargc=s typical of various rca. Wren wor s
sc'�'t�i�rq nptc�tic.clprr -ttu pcs rta �•omnzuttt ces.
' to grccrp.tee -8hall -shallrc atn an. « aount of the revenues derived
froin the payntv)tt of cots by industrial users of waste treatment
serrires, to the extent costs are attributable to the Federal share of
eligible project costs provided pursuant to this title as deterrtziazed by
the Adnzirrtstra.tor, equal to (A) the amount of the Eton Federal cost
of such. 1project paid by the grantee plus (B) the a.nt�ouat, determnined
in accordance with, regulations p i?uilgated by the Administrator,
necessary - for . future ev pansion. and reconstrvction of the project,
except that such retained amount shall not exceed-50 per centum of
such re rem ie s f rorpt such project. All re c est ues f rout• suck project not
retained by the ,grantee shall he deposited by the Adnz.inistratov in the
Treasury as vn iscellaneous receipts. Thant portion of the revenues
retai:pted by the grantee ath4butable to clause (B) of the first sentence
of this paragrraph. together with a.ny interest thereon shall be used
solely for Ae purposes of future expansio)t atud recanstruction of
the project.
"(4) Approval by the Administrator of a grant to'an interstate
agency established by iWerstate compact fo;, any treatment works shall
satisfy any other requirement, that such works be authorized by Act
of Congress.
"ALLOTMENT
"Sec. 205. (a) Sunzs authorized to be appropriated pursuant to sec-
tiou. 207 for each•jz"sccrl. ,year begitmtittg after June 30, 1972, slcall be
allotted by the Administrator aot later thaat. the Jan.tcary 18t imnze-
diaie71 precedin.,q the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized,
(,w COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
R. o. BOX 5175
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 9270E
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-241I
September 213 1972
TO: MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEES TO STUDY CONNECTION
CHARGE FEE POLICY - DISTRICTS NOS. 2 AND 3
District No.. 2 District No. 3
Don Smith, Chairman
Henry Wedaa
Mark Stephenson
Edward Just
Wade Herrin
Norman Culver, Chairman
Wade Herrin
Mark Stephenson
Jack Green
Donald Fox
Committee Meeting September 28, 1972
Thursday - 1 :00 Noon, Adminis ra ive
Con erence Room
Chairman Culver and I have called a joint meeting of the
Special Committees to further consider the establishment of
connection charge fees for new construction within Districts
Nos. 2 and 3.
Other District Directors who are not members of the
committees are welcome to attend. In the event a Director
wishes to attend who is not a regular committee member, the
staff would appreciate it if he would advise Mr. Harper's
secretary as a light luncheon will be served.
Don E. Smith
Chairman
cc: Directors of Districts
Nos, 2 and 3
C. Arthur Nisson, General Counsel
Don Martinson, Lowry & Associates
Conrad Hohener, Boyle Engineering
Special Committee to Study Connection Charge Policy - District No. 2.
At the last meeting of the committees, the staff was
directed to modify the proposed connection charge ordinance
for District No. 2 to reflect a minimum connection charge for
single family dwellings and industrial and commercial develop-
ments. The enclosed draft ordinance No. 203 (dated September
13, 1972) establishes the following charges for new construction:
1. Single family dwelling buildings, $50 per dwelling unit
2. Multiple family dwelling buildings, $100 per dwelling unit
3. Commercial, industrial and public buildings:
Diameter of Building Sewer
6 inches or less
8 inches
10 inches
12 inches
Charge
$50
100
200
300
The basic connection charge is the single family dwelling
charge of $50. It is recommended that the single family
dwellings be charged the minimum charge in that the District's
sewer system capacity has primarily anticipated this type of
general development.
Multiple Dwellings. The type of densities which are
accompanied.by development of apartments places an unusual
demand on the sewer system when compared to single family
development. Also, the District tax revenue received from
high density properties is not adequate when the volume of
sewage produced is considered.
Commercial and Industrial Charges. The one-time connection
charge for new commercial and industrial properties is based on
the size of the building sewer. These charges are nominal as
they are subject to an excess capacity connection charge based
on the actual use of the sewerage facilities, as covered in -
Article 6(b) of Ordinance No. 203.
As the Directors will recall, the District No. 2 Board re-
affirmed its intent to continue with the present annexation
policy which currently establishes an annexation fee of $369
per acre.
The original proposal which was submitted to the various
cities and sanitary districts for comment provided for the
following connection charges:
$100 per dwelling unit for single family
and multiple dwellings, and $50 per
1000/sq, ft. building for commercial and
industrial properties.
Enclosed for the Directors' study and comment is a list of
reasons for establishing a District connection charge.
-3-
r
September 21, 1972
COUNTY SAWITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
JUSTIFICATION FOR CONNECTION CHARGES
1. Necessity for Additional Funds for Capital Outlay.
The Districts' Master Plan for the construction of needed
interceptor sewers to provide the communities within the
District with proper sewerage facilities have been planned based
on the land use plans developed by the local communities and
will require a capital expenditure of $18,112,000 during the
next five years., The cash -flow projections for the District
indicate that it is necessary to raise additional funds to
accomplish the program. Alternative methods of proceeding are:
(A) Not build the facilities - there would be re-
strictions on new connections in many areas of the
District. This is contrary to the basic function
of the Districts.
(B) Raise the tax rate by $.15 to finance
the program.
(C) Pass a $3,500,000 bond issue, which all
taxpayers would pay for-EHe next 20 years. Probable
tax rate would be per $100 assessed
valuation to pay off bonds.
(D) Establish connection charges for new con-
struction throughout the District.
2. Equalize Costs Among Users.
Connection charges are very common. Many large sewering
agencies have established such a charge in order that at least
a portion of the capital outlay funds necessary are provided
by new users to the system who are creating the necessity for
the capital outlays.
3. To Hold Down Tax Rates.
It is quite obvious that the State and Federal governments
are attempting to devise measures to relieve the homeowner of
a portion of his property tax burden. If the Districts chose
to increase property tax rates for the purpose of financing
capital outlay projects for future users it would, in the
staffs opinion, create a serious inequity in that the present
users have been paying Sanitation District taxes on their
improvements and to raise the rate further to accommodate new-
comers would be unjust.
4. Difficulty in Passing a Bond Issue.
A bond issue for new capital outlay projects for the
Districts, even if successful (and in the present climate
of public opinion it is seriously doubted that an election
could be successful), would require present users to pay
principal and interest on bonds which are primarily for the
purpose of providing facilities for newcomers. At current
interest rates, the interest to be paid would be excessive
and also would impose the burden on present users.
5. Success in Other Districts.
Districts Nos. 5 and 7 have had a connection charge for
many years which has met with very little opposition and have
raised sufficient funds so that these two Districts are
financially in better shape than Districts Nos. 2 and 3. The
public easily grasps the concept ofa new user paying for at
least a portion 'of the necessary future outlays.
Don E. Smith
Chairman
ti