1985-164RESOLUTION NO. 85R-164
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS
FOR DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the District Reorganization Act of 1965
(Division 1 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of
California, commencing with Section 56000) provides for the change
of organization of certain districts, such as the Municipal Water
District of Orange County ("MWDOC"), through the approval by the
Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim is an "affected city" as
that term is used in the District Reorganization Act of 1965; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Special District Task Force,
in its January 17, 1984, report to the Board of Supervisors,
identified certain inefficiencies resulting from multiple
governmental agencies providing similar municipal-type services
within the corporate limits of a city; and
WHEREAS, said report endorsed the full service
municipality concept and recommended that the cities assume
provision of certain services provided by such agencies; and
WHEREAS, the MWDOC is considered by the City of Anaheim
to be such an Agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim concurs
with the Task Force finding that multiple governmental agencies
performing similar public works functions within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Anaheim contribute to the complexity of
local government and may hinder the ability of residents to
readily identify and contact the agency responsible for providing
service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim believes
that residents of the City of Anaheim would benefit from a
full-service municipal concept and endorses the full-service
concept presented by the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the MWDOC provides services which are a
duplication of services already provided by the City of Anaheim as
an original Member Agency of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim desires this resolution to
be deemed a resolution of application proposing a change of
organization pursuant to Section 56195 of the California
Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim as follows:
1. That the City of Anaheim hereby applies to the Local
Agency Formation Commission of Orange County for the detachment of
certain territory from the MWDOC pursuant to the District
Reorganization Act of 1965, Division 1 of Title 6 of the
Government Code of the State of California, commencing with
Section 56000.
2. That the territory proposed for detachment is inhabited
and is shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
3. That the City intends to assume full responsibility for
providing the services currently provided by the MWDOC within the
corporate boundaries of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the proposed detachment provide for and be subject
to the following conditions:
a. That commencing with the first year that the
reorganization is effective for property tax purposes as provided
in California Government Code Section 54902, all property tax
revenues which would have accrued pursuant to California Revenue
and Taxation Code Section 97.5 to the MWDOC from the area in the
corporate limits of Anaheim, had it remained in the District,
shall be allocated to the City of Anaheim.
b. That upon completion of said reorganization
detaching territory within the City of Anaheim from the MWDOC,
said territories shall be relieved from the liability for payment
of all or any part of principal or interest or any other amounts
which may be due or become due on account of all or any part of
any bonded indebtedness, contracts, or obligations, including, but
not by way of limitation, any judgment or judgments against the
MWDOC County, and that said territory be relieved from the levying
or fixing and the collection of any taxes or assessments as may be
made for the payment thereof except for the contractual
obligations of the City of Anaheim relating to the Allen McColloch
Pipeline.
c. That any election called upon the question of
confirming an order for the reorganization shall be called, held
and conducted upon such reorganization only within the territory
affected by such reorganization.
F~ d. Funds accumulated in Reserve by the MWDOC for the
purpose of capital improvements, operations and maintenance, and
administration thereof shall be allocated to the City of Anaheim
based on the proration of property tax revenues generated within
the City of Anaheim and allocated to the District as a percentage
of the total property tax revenues of the District.
-2-
5. That the reason for this proposed detachment is that the
City of Anaheim, an original Member Agency (1929) of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, is not
adequately represented on the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California Board of Directors since Anaheim's Director
- represents only approximately 11$ of the City, the remainder being
represented through MWDOC. Commencing in 1984-85, the Board of
the MWDOC instituted Annual Retail Service Connection Charges and
a Water Increment Charge for water used in Anaheim within their
jurisdictional boundaries, even though much of this water is not
purchased from them. The services provided by MWDOC within
Anaheim are duplications of services already provided by the City
or services which can be provided by the City at lower cost to its
constituents.
6. That the City of Anaheim desires to be a full-service
city.
7. That the City of Anaheim hereby requests that proceedings
be taken and commenced for a change of organization in connection
with the hereinabove described proposed detachment of territory
from the MWDOC.
8. That the Clerk of the Council of the City of Anaheim is
hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency
Formation Commission.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 30th day of April, 1985.
~~_
~~
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PRO i'EM
ATTEST:
c
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW : f m
3458M
042285
-3-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 85R-164 was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on
the 30th day of April, 1985, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Anaheim signed
said Resolution No. 85R-164 on the 30th day of April, 1985.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 30th day of April, 1985.
i ` ~~o~~~
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 85R-164 duly passed and
adopted by the Anaheim City Council on April 30, 1985.
CITY CLERK
'"","~,
~ ;:Q
EXHIBIT A
DETACHMENT OF
TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FROM THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
OF ORANGE COUNTY
That portion of the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as follows:
Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary of the
City of Anaheim as established by "Annexation No. 66 South
Anaheim", said angle point being the southwest corner of said
annexation, said angle point also being at a point lying 30
feet easterly of the centerline of Euclid Street, being 95.5
feet wide, and lying 1,317 feet southerly of the centerline of
Orangewood Avenue, being 90 feet wide; thence, following along
said existing boundary line as established by "Annexation No.
66 South Anaheim", "Annexation No. 82 Midwood Manor",
"Annexation No. 98 Katella Park", "Annexation No. 93
Brookhurst-Katella", "Annexation No. 82 Midwood Manor",
"Annexation No. 53 Nutwood-Ball", "Annexation No. 85
Brookhurst-Ball #2", "Annexation No. 54 Brookhurst-Ball",
"Annexation No. 87 North Brookhurst-Ball", "Annexation No. 44
Orange Avenue", "Annexation No. 143 Brookside", "Annexation No.
174 Brookside #2", "Annexation No. 81 Brookhurst", "Annexation
No. 132 Orange-Thistle", "Annexation No. 83 Urange-Brookhurst",
"Annexation No. 44 Orange Avenue", "Annexation No. 138
Broadway-Brookhurst", "Annexation No. 107 Broadway-Gilbert",
"Annexation No. 205 Greenwich #2", "Annexation No. 203
Greenwich", "Annexation No. 114 Disney School", "Annexation No.
107 Broadway-Gilbert", "Annexation No. 37 Gilbert Street",
"Annexation No. 56 Gilbert Street #2", "Annexation No. 183
Ball-Gilbert", "Annexation No. 56 Gilbert Street #2",
"Annexation No. 108 Magnolia-Cerritos", "Annexation No. 88
Magnolia-Winston", "Annexation No. 74 Ball-Dale", "Annexation
No. 94 Knott-Cerritos", "Annexation No. 74 Ball-Dale",
"Annexation No. 95 Knott-Orange", "Annexation No. 74
Ball-Dale", "Annexation No. 70 West Anaheim #2", "Annexation
No. 75 Butler-Harbour", "Annexation No. 70 West Anaheim #2",
"Annexation No. 196 Colorado-Crescent", "Annexation No. 52
Magnolia-Crescent", "Annexation No. 37 Gilbert Street",
"Annexation No. 33 Delco-Remy", "Annexation No. 110
Manchester-Dale", "Annexation No. 32 Houston Avenue",
"Annexation No. 55 Houston-Magnolia", "Annexation No. 32
Houston Ave.", "Annexation No. 63 Houston #2", "Annexation No.
190 Anaheim Hills #7", "Annexation No. 39 Euclid-Romneya",
"Annexation No. 69 Romneya West", "Annexation No. 51 Miles
Rancho", "Annexation No. 268 Transfer of territory from
Fullerton to Anaheim", "Annexation No. 11 South Spadra",
"Annexation No. 35 Acacia Street", "Annexation No. 64 East
Sycamore", "Annexation No. 77 Northeast", "Annexation No. 91
Northeast #2A", "Annexation No. 106 Dowling-Orangethorpe",
1104m041285 -1-
"Annexation No. 96 Orange Co. Water Dist.", "Annexation No. 91
Northeast #2A", "Annexation No. 184 Tustin-Miraloma #2",
"Annexation No. 140 Linda Vista #1", "Annexation No. 188
Tustin-Miraloma #3", "Annexation No. 195 Tustin-Miraloma #4",
"Annexation No. 141 Linda Vista #2", "Annexation No. 195
"` Tustin-Miraloma #4", "Annexation No. 257 Tustin-Atwood",
"Annexation No. 256 Jefferson-Orangethorpe #2", "Annexation No.
206 Jefferson-Orangethorpe", "Annexation No. 256
Jefferson-Orangethorpe #2", "Annexation No. 115 Northeast #3",
"Annexation No. 265 Lakeview-Orangethorpe #6", "Annexation No.
149 Lakeview-La Palma", "Annexation No. 265
Lakeview-Orangethorpe #6", "Annexation No. 247
Lakeview-Orangethorpe #5", "Annexation No. 137
Lakeview-Orangethrope", "Annexation No. 265
Lakeview-Orangethorpe #6", "Annexation No. 246
Lakeview-Orangethorpe #4", "Annexation No. 115 Northeast #3",
"Annexation No. 121 Rinker", "Annexation No. 260 Municipal
Reorganization #55", "Annexation No. 135 Orchard Drive",
"Annexation No. 116 Yorba", "Annexation No. 175 Cresthill
Drive", "Annexation No. 194 Orangethorpe-Nixon Freeway",
"Annexation No. 116 Yorba", "Annexation No. 142
Imperial-Esperanza", "Annexation No. 155 Esperanza-Fairmont",
"Annexation No. 156 Esperanza-Roth", "Annexation No. 158
Esperanza-Carrillo", "Annexation No. 264 Santa Ana Canyon #11",
"Annexation No. 241 Santa Ana Canyon #7", "Annexation No. 229
Serrano #1", "Annexation No. 249 Serrano #2", "Annexation No.
229 Serrano #1", "Annexation No. 166 Anaheim Hills #4",
"Annexation No. 197 Anaheim Hills #11", "Annexation No. 252
Anaheim Hills #29", "Annexation No. 233 Anaheim Hills #22",
"Annexation No. 252 Anaheim Hills #29", "Annexation No. 233
Anaheim Hills #22", "Annexation No. 237 Anaheim Hills #25",
"Annexation No. 233 Anaheim Hills #22", "Annexation No. 252
Anaheim Hills #29", "Annexation No. 233 Anaheim Hills #22",
"Annexation No. 252 Anaheim Hills #29", "Annexation No. 244
Anaheim Hills #28", "Annexation No. 238 Anaheim Hills #26",
"Annexation No. 227 Anaheim Hills #18", "Annexation No. 215
Anaheim Hills #17", "Annexation No. 116 Northeast #3",
"Annexation No. 236 Anaheim Hills #24", "Annexation No. 253
Reorganization #51 Transfer to City of Orange", "Annexation No.
112 Olive Hills Reservoir", "Annexation No. 91 Northeast #2A",
"Annexation No. 250 Frontera #3", "Annexation No. 119 La
Palma-Rio Vista", "Annexation No. 109 Wagner-Sunkist",
"Annexation No. 117 Wagner-Rio Vista", "Annexation No. 212
Ball-Freeway", "Annexation No. 261 Ball-Freeway #3",
"Annexation No. 150 Douglass-Katella", "Annexation No. 218
Douglass-Katella #2", "Annexation No. 78 Katella", "Annexation
-- No. 79 Haster", "Annexation No. 103 Sirius-Tiller", "Annexation
No. 100 Chapman-Harbor", "Annexation No. 66 South Anaheim",
through the various courses in a general northerly, westerly,
northerly, easterly, southerly, westerly direction to the point
of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion described as follows:
1104m041285 -2-
Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary of the
City of Anaheim as established by "Annexation No. 146
Orchard-Orangethorpe", said angle point being the northwest
corner of said annexation, said angle point also being the
northeast corner of Tract 4926; thence following along said
existing boundary line as established by "Annexation No. 146
Orchard-Orangethorpe", "Annexation No. 126 Warner-Lambert",
"Annexation No. 115 Northeast #3", and "Annexation No. 135
Orchard Drive", through the various courses in a general
southerly, westerly, northerly, easterly direction to the point
of beginning.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of the City of Anaheim
known as the "Original Metropolitan Water District Area" and
never a part of the Municipal Water District of Orange County,
a total of 4.45 square miles, referred to in the Municipal
Water District of Orange County Annual Report as "Member's
Area", namely that portion of the City of Anaheim as it existed
in 1920, plus the following annexations: "Annexation No. 1
North Anaheim Add.", "Annexation No. 2 North ~ East Add.",
"Annexation No. 3 North ~ West Add.", "Annexation No. 4
Industrial Site", "Annexation No. 5 Helen ~ Lynch", "Annexation
No. 6 Commercial St.", "Annexation No. 7 Kirven", "Annexation
No. 8 East Anaheim", "Annexation No. 9 So. Palm St.",
"Annexation No. 10 Manchester Ave.", "Annexation No. 11 So.
Spadra", "Annexation No. 12 Kennedy", "Annexation No. 13 West
La Palma", "Annexation No. 14 Manchester Ave #2", "Annexation
No. 15 So. Palm St. #2", "Annexation No. 16 So. Los Angeles
St.", "Annexation No. 17 East Vermont Ave.", "Annexation No. 18
Roberts", "Annexation No. 19 Morris", "Annexation No. 20 Euclid
Ave.", "Annexation No. 21 Morales".
The area to be detached contains 39.09 square miles, more or
less.
Attached, and made a part of, is a map designated as Exhibit B.
This legal description and map was prepared under my
supervision.
This proposal does meet the
approval of the Orange County
Surveyor's Office.
C. R. Nelson, County Surveyor.
By Deputy County Surveyor Date
Ray A. Auerbach, R.C.E. 20236
1104m041285 -3-
OFFICcRS
STANLEti" E. SPRAGvE
.ENERa~ M~•. 4~Fr
LORRAI'rE M. CRGSS
S:PET4P~
JAN L ALLNUTT
TP; a5, ~+~ F
RUSSEL_ ~~ 9EHRENS
DIRECTORS
KENNETH H. WITT
PRE S.u ENT
WAYNE A. CLARK
VICE PRESIDENT
WILLIAM F. gAVENPORT
H.E. 'BI~~ t-tARTGE
GERALD E. PRICE
MUNICIPAL
~` WATER
- DISTRICT
OF
ORANGE
CUUNTY
P.O. BOX 15229 • 1950 EAST 17TH STREET, SU17E 150 • SANTA ANA, CALlFORN1A 92705-0229 • (714) 973-1023
April 15, 1985 ~ ~ ~? ~~~ iti Ij 1y~ ~ ~ ~; ;
~J'
~~ N~'K 15 i°85 '---
Local Agency Formation Commission ~{ii~•J ~• ~~,::~ =.=_.I.._ C,:iC~l-;
10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 458 ~~~~ ~=tw~s ~L'--~`~~.~~='~ ~.'~~:i~~~;Gta
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Proposed Detachment by the City of Santa Ana from
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Application for Determination that Municipal Water
District of Orange County is not a "District"
Within the Meaning of Division 1 of Title 6 of the
Government Code
Gent lemer.:
Application is hereby made under Section 56015 of the
Government Code that it be determined by the Commission that the
Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is not a
district Within the meaning of Title, 6, Division 1, of the
Government Code commencing with Section 56000 (District Reorgani-
zation Act of 1965). Enclosed is a resolution of the District
requesting such determination.
This application is not made to circum:~ent the public
process involved in government reorganization and change, but is
advanced in order to preserve the MwTJOC's position concerrliny its
administrative remedies and procedures. It appears that the City
is asking for detachment to obtain relief from a modest financial
burden. However, the City's detachment will have the effect of
redistributing the financial burden among the MWDOC's other
customers, less of representation on behalf of 80$ of Orange
County at Metropolitan Water District of Southern Caliz"ornia
(PiET), ar.d disturbing long-standing operational and intergovern-
mental arrangements.
The initiation by the City of Santa Ana of proceedings for
detachment of approximately 16.84 square miles of territory from
- MWDOC raises some very significant concerns with far reaching
impacts on Orange County regional water supplies. In addition
to potential impacts on available water supplies in the times of
water shcrtage and the potential for continued fragmented repre-
sentation of water agencies, the proposed detachment will defi-
nitely result in the net loss of at least one of the County's
Directors at MET. As you know, F~IET is the only source of import-
ed water supplies for Orange. County. At present, MET has 52
Local Agency Formation Commission
April 15, 1985
Page 2
Directors on its Board from•all over Southern California. Those
Directors determine the course of action by MET in securing
adey~.:zte water supplies and determining how water distribution
systems and water supplies-are to be allocated throughout Scuth-
ern California, including Orange County. At the present time,
Orange County has eleven Directors representing Orange County's
interest at Metropolitan: 6 from M4v~OC, two from Coastal Munici-
pal Water District, one from the City of Santa Ana, one from the
City of Anaheim and one from the City of Fullerton.
According to law, each member of MET is entitled to one
Director based on membership above and one additional Director
for each 3$ of that agency's "A.V." as it relates to the total
MET "A.V."
If the detachment is allowed, MWDOC and the County of Orange
would lose one MET Director from MWDOC who would not be replaced
by any other Orange County agency. Distribution of Directors
based on assessed valuation is shown in an enclosure to this
letter entitled "Effects of Detachment."
In addition, because of the regional nature of M4dDOC's
activities and the regional issues with which it deals, the
detachment will not result in any lower costs. The amount
received by reason of, the area detached may well have to b?
redistributed to M.WDOC's remaining territory and customer
agencies.
MWDOC believes that it is in the best interest of the County
and its agencies to maintain maximum representation at NIET and to
keep costs at efficient levels for all its customer agencies
including the City of Santa Ana. It does not appear that the
detachment sought by the City of Santa Ana will support achieving
those goals. The District is striving to work toward a meaning-
ful solution to the problem of protecting the interests of all
concerned. The course of action chosen by the City, in our
opinion, could, in the long run, work to the detriment of the
best interests of all of Orange County. Our review of the law
indicates that while we are attempting to resolve these compli-
cated issues, there may be a way of maintaining stability in
water representation that would provide sufficient time to
address and solve these issues.
Under Section 56015, a district is entitled to apply to
LAFCO for a determination that it is not a "district" for pur-
poses of the District Reorganization Act. If the Co:^~issior.
finds under Section 56016 that MWDC~C is not engaged in the
distribution and sale of water for any purpose other than for the
purpose o` resale, i.e., a wholesaler, then LAFCO must find that
MF'DOC is not a "district" subject to the District Reorganization
Act.
• MWDOC is a district of the kind that, based on its limited
activities, may be excluded from that Act. It only engages ir.
Local Agency For tion Commission
April 15, 1985
Page 3
the sale of Metropolitan Water for purposes of resale to its
customer agencies and makes no sales to ,y~~.,i_~t~te consumers .
In light of the fact that the law requires that the District
must make this application within 1C days of notification by the
~• Commission of the initiation of a proposal for a change of
organization, we feel compelled to make this application in order
to preserve this issue and potential avenue towards solution of
the problem with long-range goals intact. MWDOC feels that the
requirements of Section 54796 of the Government Code can be
better achieved for the good of all by denying the proposal by
the City o£ Santa Ana for detachment. .~
It is the MWDOC's intention to oppose the City's petition
for detachment. You will be provided a report and other perti-
nent information at a later time according to your presented
schedule. The report and other pertinent information will
explain in more detail the facts and circumstances supporting our
position, and request is hereby made that in considering this
application the Commission refer to those documents for further
particulars.
Very truly yours,
~~~~~
p
Stanley E. Sprague
General Manager
SES:ggg
Enclosure
EFFECTS OF DETACHMENT
CURR~:1vT
AGENCY 190^4 P..V. 1984 A.V. DIRECTORS VOTES
($ Billicn) $ MWDSC
MWDCC 63.9 15.75 6 6,3_93
Anaheim (MWD) 1.0 0.25 1 103
Fullerton (M~TD) 2.7 0.66 1 267
Santa Ana (MWD) 2.1 - 0.53 - 1 214
Subtotal: 69.7 17.18 9 6,977
Total MWD: 405.8 40,581
DETACH - ALL
M4~'DOC 50 .9 12 .54 5 5, 088
Anaheim 8.6 2.12 1 860
Fullerton 3.9 0.96 1 390
Santa Ana 6.3 1.55 1 629
Subtotal: 69.7 17.18 8 6,977
DETACH - SANTA ANA ONLY
MWDOC 59.7 14.72 5 5,968
Ar_aheim 1.0 0.25 1 103
Fullerton 2.7 0.66 1 267
Santa Ana 6.3 1.55 1 629
Subtotal 69.7 17.18 8 6,967
RESOLUTION N0. 1259
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF __
MDNI~IPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY
MAKING APPLIrnTION TO TEE L•OCAL• AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
FOR A DETERMINATION THAT SAID AGENCY IS NOT
A "DISTRICT" FOR PURPOSES OF THE
a,,. DISTRICT REORGANIZATION ACT
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1985, the City Council of the City of
Santa Ana, adopted and thereafter filed with the Executive
Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County
(LAFCO) Resolution No. 85-2 proposing the detachment of certain
territory from the Municipal Water District of Orange County
(MTrtDOC) ; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 1985, the Executive Officer of LAFCO
issued a Certificate of Filing for the proposed detachment and
provided notice to MWDOC as required by Government Codz 55261;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of MWDOC has determined that
the proposed detachment is in conflict with the best interests of
these agencies i;,u ediately affected by the proposal and will ha:%?
a detrimental impact generally upon the acquisition and
distribution of imported water supplies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of MWDOC does hereby
resolve, determine and order as follows:
1. That application be and the same is hereby made pursuant
to Sections 56015 and 56016 of the Government Code for
determination by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange
County that MWDOC is not qa "district" within the meaning of the
provisions of the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (Division
1, Title 6 of the Government Code).
2. That the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange
County be and the sane is hereby reg;~ested to initiate and
conduct proceedings pursuant to Government Code, Sections 56015
and 56016, and:
a. Find that MWDOC is a wholesale water agency and as
such is not engaged in the distribution and sale of
water for any purpose other than the purpose thereof; and
b. Find that MWDOC is not engaged in any ~of the other
activities described in subsections (a) through (d),
inclusive, of Government Code 56016; and
c. Determine that M.WDOC is not a "district" under the
definition of that term by Section 56039 of the
Grvern:^.ent Code and that none of the provisions fir
cha;~ges of organization or reorganization. conducted
pursuant to the District Reorganization Act are
appl icabl e to tdWDOC.
3. That the Secretary of MWDOC be and the same is hereby
authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency
Formation Commission of Orange County.
Said resolution was adopted, on roll call, by the following
vote:
AYES: Directors Davenport, Hartge, Price and Witt.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Director Clark. --
ABSTAIN: None.
Adopted and approved this 12th day of April, 1985,
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
ORANGE COUNTY
By -E-~ ~ ~
President
By ~ Q'~~~-
Secr tary
I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. 1259 adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Municipal Water District of Orange at its
Special Meeting held on April 12, 1985.
(SEAL)
Lorraine M. Cross, Secretary
Municipal Water District of
Orange County
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR INCREASED PARTICIPATION
IN MWDOC FUNCTIONS BY
THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM, FULLERTON, AND SANTA ANA
MwQO~
Water issues facing Orange County water agencies and consumers are
becoming more and more complex. Dealing with these issues requires
coordination and increased participation among the water retailers and the
wholesale agencies in the county. MWDOC has been cooperating with the
cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Santa Ana and others to increase the
effectiveness of the representation at Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California and to increase communications within MWDOC. The
Three Cities are unique in wholesale water distribution because of their
original city membership in Metropolitan and also in MWDOC. They feel
they should not have to pay as much as other MWDOC water constituents
because of an~overlap of service. The City of Santa Ana precipitated
serious negotiations on the issue by passing a resolution to detach from
MWDOC. The parties of this Memorandum of Understanding feel there are
constructive alternatives to solving the problem other than detachment
that will preserve the representation at Metropolitan and achieve
equitable representation on the MWDOC Board.
On March 5, 1985, representatives from MWDOC and the Three Cities met to
discuss the issues of water rates, representation, and participation with
the MWDOC Board and Metropolitan representatives. The Three Cities
presented a proposal consisting of six points and a deadline of March 31,
1985. It was agreed that the staffs from the Three Cities would meet with
MWDOC staff to analyze and discuss the proposal and if possible formulate
an agreement for resolving the issues.
Since that meeting, the staffs of the Three Cities and MWDOC met on March
14, 19, 22, and 26 to discuss the proposal. The following concepts have
been agreed to:
1. Water Rates and Fees
MWDOC and the Three Cities have evaluated the MWDOC cost of service
to the Cities and have determined the value of the Three cities'
membership in Metropolitan, and have found the aggregate value to be
a charge of not greater than 35 percent of the water rate being
charged to other agencies in MWDOC. This proportion charge will be
applied to any type of assessment levied by MWDOC against the Three
Cities except for a standby charge on undeveloped acreage which
shall be levied in full on the Three Cities. MWDOC will evaluate the
economic, political, and legal feasibility of a standby charge on
undeveloped acreage by September 1985 and will proceed with
implementation if feasible by August of 1986.
~~r~~o~
MAR 2 S 1985
1
2. Metropolitan Directorship
MWDOC will form a sixth division for the Three Cities' membership
and will structure the selection procedure for Metropolitan
Directorships to allow the agencies within each of the five original
`~ MWDOC divisions to select a nomination for the Metropolitan
Directorships as they become available. The Three Cities will
collectively select a nomination for the sixth division and submit
it to the MWDOC Board who shall approve it and appoint said Director
to MWD. The Three Cities will select a nominee for the next
position that becomes available. The Three Cities shall have the
right to report to the MWDOC Board on the effectiveness of the
Metropolitan Director selected by them and request a change in
representation if deemed necessary. The MWD Board shall honor said
request if made by the Three Cities.
3. MWDOC Board Structure
The MWDOC Board and staff have reviewed the concept of
restructuring the MWDOC Board and finds that it has merit. The
proper structure will strengthen the MWDOC Board and representation
among water agencies within MWDOC and strengthen representation at
Metropolitan.
A small working Task Force appointed jointly by MWDOC and the Three
Cities will be established to carefully evaluate the following
proposal for restructuring the Board. The proposal is to expand the
MWDOC Board of Directors to include one additional Director for each
of the Three Cities, such director to be a City Council member
approved respectively by each city. Other methods of Board
reorganization may be studied and proposed so long as the Three
Cities' proposal is included. The Task Force will have 60 days in
which to develop, consider, and solicit input on this proposal from
various individuals, agencies, and relevant interest groups. At the
end of the 60 days, the Task Force shall prepare a report of its
findings. If this report is negative and MWDOC will not implement
the Three Cities proposal, then MWDOC will not oppose the detachment
by the Three Cities if they decide to follow that course of action.
4. Sponsor Legislation
MWDOC and the Three Cities shall sponsor legislation to be
introduced in the 1986 session to amend the MWDOC Act to recognize
the uniqueness of the Three Cities and to implement paragraphs 1, Z,
and 3 above.
2
a
Recommended for approval by the staffs of:
Three Cities
City of Anaheim
/~
j ~ ,~ ' ~
Edward G: Alario
Assistant General Managers - Operations
City of Fullerton
Hugh L. erry
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
City of Santa Ana
Samuel.. ohnson
Execut ve Directo of
Utiliti Agency
MWDOC
Municipal Water District of
Orange County
Stanley E. Sprague
General Manager
3
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL
QUESTIONNAIRE
California Government Code Section 54796 requires the Local Agency Formation Com-
mission to consider specific factors in regards any change of organization of local
~.... agencies. In order to facilitate the Commission's review and pursuant to its Bylaw
No. 31, complete the following questionnaire. (Attach additional sheets as necessary)
General Information
1. Name of Proposal: Proposed Detachment of Territory from the
LZunicipal Water District of Orange County
2. Description of Proposal: (check one)
annexation municipal incorporation
X detachment district formation
reorganization (any of the above involving two or more cities and/or districts)
3. Summarize the reasons for the propos-~d action.
See attached Resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim on April 30, 1985
4. Does the application possess 100 percent consent of each property oarner in the
subject territory? yes no Attach letter of consent. N/A
5. List the Assessor Parcel Number, Assessee and Tax Rate Code Area for each
involved parcel. (List available from Orange County Assessor)
N/A
6. What is the total assessed valuation of the subject territory?
(a) land
~` (b) improvements N/A
TOTALS .
7. What i s the total 1 and area? 39.09 sg. miles
Lan~± Use N/A
1. What is the General Plan Land Use designation for the site?
Orange County
~- Affected city .
2. Describe any special land use concerns expressed in the above plans.
3. Indicate the existing land use, including the number of units.
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Detached
Multiple-Family (2-4 units per structure)
Multiple-Family (5 or more units per structure)
Mobile Homes
4. ghat is the proposed land use (include Precise Plan or Development Plan,
where applicable)?
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Detached
Multiple-Family (2-4 units per structure)
Multiple-Family (5 or more units per structure)
Mobile Homes
5. Indicate the existing zoning
6. t•Jhat is the proposed zonino
7. Has the area been prezoned? If yes, what is the prezoning classification?
8. Hoer many persons reside on the site? .
- 2 -
9. List each registered voter ~~lithin the subject territory (list available from
Orange County Registrar of 'Joters).
N/A
10. Describe the surrounding land uses.
N/A
11. Is the site located within a city's boundaries? If yes, name the city.
Yes, City of Anaheim
12. Is the subject territory located ~r~ith in "island" of unincorporated territory?
Yes X '!o.
13. Would approval of this proposal create an "island" of unincorporated territory?
Yes X No. If yes, justify why other unincorporated territory
should not be included in the subject proposal.
14. Describe the proximity of the subject territory to populated areas.
N/A
-~ 15. Is there a likelihood of a significant increase in population in the subject
area within the next ten years? Yes X No Estimate any population
increase.
21,509
16. Is there a likelihood of a significant increase in population of adjacent areas
within the next ten years? Yes X No Estimate any population increase.
No reliable estimate available
- 3 -
Environmental Settin
1. Describe the location of the project area, including the major highway access,
nearest intersection, etc.
N/A
2. Describe the site's topography.
N/A
3. Describe any watercourses, ridgelines, canyons, flood control channels, freeways,
railroads, etc. adjacent to the site.
N/A
4. State the proximity of the site to any airport and/or flight path.
N/A
5. List any approved spheres of influence for any local agencies which may be
applicable to the site.
N/A
6. Daes the proposal involve territory under an agricultural preserve contract?
If yes, list the parties involved in such contract.
N/A
7. Has either a "NOTICE OF tJON-REP~EtJAL" or "NOTICE OF CANCELLATION" been filed ~vith
the County Recorder's Office? If yes, state the date of filing.
N/A
8. 6Ji11 the proposal decrease the amount of land available for open space or
agricultural uses? Yes No~_.
9. Could the proposal serve to encourage development of presently ur;developed
areas, or increase intensity of development of already developed areas?
Yes No x
- 4 -
COMPLETE THE FOLLOLJING "ENVIRO"JMENTAL IMPACT" SECTION IF THE SUBJECT TERRITORY
IS PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPED. ATTACH ANY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUi~ENTS FOR DE-
VELOPMENT PROJECTS ON THE ANPdEXATION TERRITORY.
ENUIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Are the follo~~~ing items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below
all items checked yes. (Attach additional sheets as necessary).
Yes No
x 1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches,
lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours.
x 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas
or public lands or roads.
x 3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
x 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
x 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
X 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or
quantity, alteration of existing drainage patterns.
x 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the
vicinity.
X 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
x 9. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,
natural gas, etc.)
x 10. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in
the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and infor-
mation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date ~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ G(J ~_.Rt
Signature ~"
For ~~*' ~'~~ ~~r~,~~-~~
- 5 -
Plan of Services
Identify in Column (1) the "existing" service provider for the follovring service
categories. If the service is not currently provided, write "not provided" in the
respective space. Identify in Column (2) all changes in service providers if the
"proposed" change of organization is completed.
(l) (2)
Existing Proposed
PUBLIC SAFETY N/A
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Rescue
Paramedic
Ambulance
Animal Control
UTILITIES
N/A
SEWERAGE
Collection
Treatment
Disposal
Reclamation
WATER
Acquisition City of Anaheim City of Anaheim
Storage
Distribution „
ELECTRICITY N/A
SOLID WASTE N/A
Collection
Disposal
TRANSIT N/A
PUBLIC WORKS N/A
STREETS
N/A
Construction
Maintenance
Stiveepi ng
Lighting
FLOOD CONTROL N/A
- 6 -
(1) (2)
Existing Proposed
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N/A
Planning
Code Enforcement
Redevelopment
LEISURE SERVICES N/A
Park
Recreation
Library
For each service identified in column (2) as being provided by the affected (city}
(district), describe:
1. The location from which each service is to be provided (e.g. nearest present
or proposed fire station, utility line, library, etc.)
N/A
2. The service level to be provided. Reference should be made to service level
standards, such as frequency of street sweeping, average response times for
emergency services, water service pressure zones, sewage treatment capacities,
etc.)
N/A
3. If the service level to be provided exceeds the existing service level
capacity, what action will be taken to increase the existing capacity, and
estimate the cost of increasing such capacity.
N/A
4. If any service is not to be provided upon completion of proceedings, when
will the service be provided?
N/A
- 7 -
5. The estimated cost of extending the service to the affected territory.
N/A
6. Any conditions which would be imposed or required within the affected
territory, such as, but not limited to, improvement or upgrading of
structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, and the estimated cost
thereof.
N/A
7. How will services and improvements be financed?
N/A
8. Describe ~vhat action will be taken to detach the site from any district(s)
where a duplication of service and charges would result if the proposed
action is approved.
N/A
- 8 -
Provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons (3 MAXIi~fU'~i who
are to be furnished copies of the LAFC Agenda and Executive Officer's report
and who are to be given mailed notice of hearing.
Name Address Telephone No.
Lee Sohl, City Clerk P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim,CA 92803 999-5100 ext.5257,
P.O. Box 3222
William O. Talley, City Manager Anaheim, CA 92803 999-5100 ext. 5165
Public Utilities 999-5100
Gordon W. Hoyt, General Manager P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim,CA 92803 ext. 5173
Applicant's Name: Gordon W. Hoyt
Public Utilities General Manager
Address: P.O. sox 3222
Anaheim, CA. 92803
Telephone: ( 714 ) 999-5100, ext. 5173
Signature
'7 _ O `~ ~~
Date
- 9 -