Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1989-04-27COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.3 OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 27,1989 -7:30 p.m. Garden Grove Comunity Center -Room B 11300 Stanford Avenue Garden Grove,California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 12,1989,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California,met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date at the Garden Grove Community Center. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. Polls,Chairman,Edward L.Allen,Wes Don R.Griffin,Dan Griset,John Kanel, Carrey J.Nelson,Bob Perry,Irv R.“Bob”Siefen,Charles E.Sylvia A.B.“Buck”Catlin,William D.Mahoney and Roger R.Stanton J.Wayne Sylvester,General Manager,Rita J.Brown, Secretary,Gary G.Streed,Thomas M.Dawes and Jeff Esber Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel,Clark Ide, Dewey Wiles,Robert Sheere,Paul Gray,Mr.&Mrs. Kenneth C.Turner,Edward Cho,Edna Murray,Roger L.Nicholas,Steve Sarkis,Bob Main,Willard Pool, Ray Littrell,S.Cowley,Jr.,Winford L.Covington, Mabel Covington,Lupe Lopez,Neal Houston,Barbara Vander Molen,Martha J.McCormick,Miri Kaul,Craig Lewis,Robert H.Vessell,C.Mathis,Danny Brulra, Cesar D’Luis,George and Ruth Foxhoven,Leonard Justice,M.Goorchin,Dawn Penner,Laura Fisette, N.Whitman,Heather Propetick and Christopher Gray The Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:35 p.m. He then announced that the purpose of the public hearing was to consider a written report pertaining to the providing of sewer service for all properties within the District,and the proposal to collect the adopted sewer use fee on the property tax roll beginning with the 1989-90 fiscal year. Richard T. Banni ster, James Neal, Pickler,J. and Edna Wilson DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Public Hearing on proposal to collect adopted annual sewer service charges on the property tax bills and on the Sewer Service Charge Report for 1989-90 Open Public Hearjnq 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 Staff Report on proposed use of the County of Orange property tax bill for collection of the annual sewer service charge ____________________________________ The General Manager stated that the County ____________________________________ Sanitation District is responsible for ____________________________________ transporting,treating and disposing of ___________________________________ sewage in a safe manner in accordance with strict federal and state laws to protect the public health and safety and the environment.He observed that some of the citizens attending the hearing had not had an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the role that the District plays in managing wastewater and showed a video presentation on the Districts’activities. 0 The General Manager then reported that the Orange County Sanitation Districts’cost of providing sewerage service to the comunity has been escalating rapidly because of the increasingly stringent federal and state laws and regulations requiring advanced treatment of wastewater to remove toxic materials and other pollutants from the sewage to assure protection of the public health and safety and the environment.To comply with the new stricter requirements,the Joint Sanitation Districts have constructed sophisticated treatment facilities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years. For several years property tax revenues have been insufficient to meet the District’s operating costs,and it has been necessary for the District to draw down its reserves.In fiscal year 1989—90,without appropriate measures to protect the District’s financial integrity,it would have been necessary for the Board to authorize a transfer of $3.4 million in capital reserves from the District’s Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund to the Operating Fund to pay the full costs of operating and maintaining the District collection system and its proportionate share of the operating and maintenance costs of the Joint Treatment Works.By 1992—93 the District will require additional revenues in the amount of $24.2 million to meet its operating expenses and maintain the solvency of the fund due to insufficient tax revenues,and capital reserves will have long been exhausted. To address this fiscal crisis,in 1987,after considerable study of the District’s long—range funding requirements,the Board adopted a financial program to avoid projected revenue shortfalls and provide the necessary income required to finance the District’s rising operating expenses,as well as major capital expenditures for construction of master-planned sewerage facilities. The Board’s adopted financial program includes a one—time connection fee of $1,500 per dwelling unit for residential property and a $300 per 1,000 sq.ft.charge for corr~iercial,industrial and governmental property. The connection fee is used to pay for expansion of capital facilities to serve new development. As the second element of the long—range financial program,to pay for costs of operating,maintaining and rehabilitating the sewerage system,the Board adopted annual sewer service fees,as follows: 0 -2- 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 Type of Property Annual Fee —Single-family residence $30.36 -Multi—family residence/mobile home 18.22 —Comerclal 21.71/1,000 sq.ft. —Industrial 21.71/1,000 sq.ft. —Governmental 21.71/1,000 sq.ft. The General Manager noted that the large comercial or industrial dischargers that place an inordinant demand on the District’s system are also subject to an additional surcharge under a separate industrial waste ordinance that has been in effect since 1976.Some large industrial dischargers pay as much as $450,000 per year under this program. The General Manager then reiterated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive public comentary on the District’s proposal to collect the annual service charge on the property tax bill.He also advised that official notice of the hearing was mailed the week of March 13,1989 to 167,361 property owners of record on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Orange,in accordance with the provisions of Section 5473.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. As prescribed by law,a legal notice of the hearing was published in the Orange County Register on April 14,1989 and again on April 21, 1989.The hearing notice included the District’s telephone number for citizens to call with questions or for more information.The staff received approximately 150 calls.Staff also conducted three workshops to answer questions about the proposal and the District’s operations. The workshops were held at 7:30 p.m.Tuesday,March 28,at the Hunt Branch Library in Fullerton,21 people attended;Wednesday,March 29, at the District’s office in Fountain Valley,9 people attended;and Thursday,April 6,at the Stanton City Hall,19 people attended.The General Manager then surrrnarized the types of questions raised at the workshops and in the telephone calls received by the District,which dealt primarily with: —Propositions 13 and 62,the issue of tax vs.fee —The equitability of the system of charges —Efficiency of the District’s operation —Whether or not the proposed fees would be used to pay for sewers to accon’rnodate growth —The relationship of the local street sewer system provided by the cities and sanitary districts to the regional system of Sanitation District No.3 —Other methods of collection,such as the water bill,or by billing the cities and sanitary districts directly —Several property owners also indicated that their properties were not connected or they were unsure whether their properties were connected to the local sewer system,or felt that their fee should be modified,or advised of a change in ownership. —3— 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 Mr.Sylvester then introduced Gary Streed,the District’s acting Director of Finance,and asked him to review the alternative and the proposed method for collecting the annual service charge,the District’s finances and the questions raised at the workshops and in the telephone inquiries. The Director of Finance,utilizing a slide presentation,sumarized the District’s organizational make—up and their wastewater management program.He also reviewed the following three billing and collection alternatives that had been identified and evaluated by the staff: —Direct Billing and Collection by District This approach would require the Sanitation District to send a direct bill on a periodic basis.to every property owner within the District.The one—time setup cost for this method is estimated at . H $84,000 plus an annual cost of $359,000,making the total cost for the first year $443,000.The projected five—year cost for the direct billing alternative would be $1,879,000. —Placement of User Fee on Local Water Service Bills for Collection and Remittance to District Under this method the sewer service charge would be included as a separate line item on the bill of the more than 20 water utilities that serve the properties within District No.3.He noted that a major problem of this method,is that with the numerous water purveyors involved it would be difficult to establish a uniform system which adds significantly to the cost;’and the reluctance of the water utilities to become the billing agent.The setup cost for this alternative would be $59,000 plus an annual cost of $555,000, for a total cost for the first year of $614,000.The estimated five—year cost ‘of performing this billing service is $2,834,000. —Placement of User Fee on County of Orange Property Tax Bill for Collection and Remittance to District Under this alternative the sewer service charge would be included as a separate line item on 1~he property tax bills for all properties within District No.3.The setup cost would be $59,000.’The annual V cost of billing under this method is only $30,000.The total first—year cost would be $89,000 and the five—year cost is estimated . .to be $209,000. Mr.Streed observed that this method would save the property owner both directly because of significantly lower costs to the District,. , H and indirectly because the cost of making periodic payments by the property owner would be reduced. Staff recomended this alternative as it is clearly the most cost—effective billing and collection method available. Districts 1,5,6,11 and 13 have already adopted this method for billing their user fees,and it has proven quite effective in keeping the administrative costs for billing and collecting fees under control in these five Districts. -4- ~II~ ~irw~ 4 ~ 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 The Director of Finance reiterated that the rising costs to operate the District are due to higher mandated levels of treatment and increased energy costs.The long—range financial program was adopted by the District because the District’s revenues and reserves were decreasing and soon the District would not have been able to meet its operational requirements without an additional revenue source. Mr.Streed then observed that although many of the issues posed by the public were not really relevant to the specific purpose of the hearing, he recognized that the citizens have a genuine interest in the activities of the Sanitation Districts and he,therefore,summarized responses to those questions that had been raised thus far in the three workshops and in telephone inquiries.He explained the role of the District as an operating utility providing an essential service necessary for the protection of the public health and safety,and indicated that the District was established solely to provide wastewater collection,treatment and disposal services to the cormiunity. The Director of Finance further explained that while the District has always had the statutory authority to levy a sewer service fee,it had historically financed its operations,maintenance and rehabilitation activities from the property tax.The adopted sewer service charge is based upon use,thus,he reported,it is not a tax and is not subject to Proposition 13 and 62 provisions.Property taxes are based on the value of the property and have no direct relationship to use.Mr.Streed reiterated that the reason for the proposal to collect this fee on the tax bill is because it is the most cost—effective method,and has no bearing on whether it is defined as a tax or a fee. Mr.Streed also reiterated the impact of evolving federal and state regulatory requirements on the District’s activities and costs,the cost reduction measures implemented by the Districts,the basis of the fee structure for various purposes and for the various classes of users and the statutory provisions under which the fees were adopted,and then reviewed cash flow projections.The reduction in tax revenues resulting from the passage of Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation, combined with the higher energy costs,the effects of inflation over the past several years,and more stringent treatment requirements mandated by federal,state and local regulatory agencies,would result in depleting reserves and projected operating deficits for the District without the new fees. The Director of Finance then highlighted the appeal process available to allow for an adjustment of fees in the event of a demonstrated inequity. Appeals relative to inaccurate billings or properties that are not connected to local sewers are handled on a case—by—case basis. Receive and file written cormients The General Manager reported that 60 written communications had been received regarding the sewer service fee and proposed method of collection and sumarized the comments;whereupon, It was moved,seconded and duly carried: That the written communications received from the property owners listed on Attachment 1 to these minutes,be,and are hereby,received and ordered filed. —5— -. 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 Oral Public Comments (~) Chairman Polls reported that It has been the Board’s experience that most residents of the County do not have the information nor knowledge concerning the importance of the role that the County Sanitation Districts play in their lives.In order to guarantee the protection of the public health and our environment,particularly the ocean waters,as described and shown earlier in the meeting,very elaborate and complex and costly procedures must be undertaken to provide the sewage treatment service for the residents. The Chairman reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was not for the Board to consider the adoption of a sewer use charge or to consider increasing an existing use charge.The sole purpose was to select the method by which the charge,which was adopted by the Board on March 8, 1989 after two years of study and five public meetings,is to be collected.It is now Important to find the most cost—effective way of collecting this revenue,which is necessary to pay for District 3’s sewer system and Its share In the operation and maintenance of the joint treatment and disposal facilities. Mr.Polls acknowledged that some persons were concerned about the adoption of fees,charges and taxes,but again stressed that this is not the scope of this hearing.He asked that any testimony or statements given address solely the collection method,and not whether the fee was liked or disliked.The Chairman invited anyone with some specific concerns regarding the charge to leave their name and address and the staff would contact them.He added that if they wished to write the District,their request would be given due consideration and answered at a later date.~:ID The Chair then recognized the following persons who addressed the Board regarding the proposed method for billing and collection of the annual sewer service charge: —Robert Sheere,9112 La Grand Avenue,Garden Grove Mr.Sheere stated his opinion that the sewer service charge was an Illegal tax under Article XIIIA of the State Constitution. —Paul Gray,8221 Flight,Midway City Mr.Gray also stated his opinion that the sewer service charge was a tax and not a fee.He also commented that because the hearing was to consider the use of the property tax bill for collecting the fee, that the other alternatives were not being given due consideration and objected to the unavailability of a detailed cost analysis of the collection alternatives;that the hearing notice should have been sent to users rather than just property owners;and that use of the tax bill to collect the fee creates a lien on the property.He also stated his belief that the fee was inequitable because it is based on assessor property classifications and an inappropriate engineering analysis from another Sanitation District and treatment facilities design versus actual use;and that rehabilitation work should be funded by a one—time charge rather than an ongoing charge. Mr.Gray also stated that he believed the proposed billing method ignores the role of cities and sanitary districts and creates a conflict of interest and that perhaps the local agency should pay the District rather than the property owner.Mr.Gray requested that the Board continue the hearing until detailed cost analyses of collection alternatives is made available,and that the Board consider direct billing to the cities and sanitary districts. —6— 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 —Kenneth C.Turner,14263 E.Eastridge Drive,Whittier Mr.Turner inquired on the procedures for removing the charge from the tax bill if the property is not connected. Staff reiterated the procedures for fee adjustments described earlier in the hearing. -Edward Cho,9132 Helm Avenue,Fountain Valley Mr.Cho complained that he is unable to develop his property because of inadequate local sewer system capacity. —Edna Murray,10592 Keel Avenue,Garden Grove Mrs.Murray stated that she was not in favor of the fee,asked about the basis of different fees for single family homes and apartments, and asked if staff had estimated whether the fee would increase in the future. Staff responded that the basis of the fee differential between single family dwelling units and apartments is based on engineering studies that show that,on average,what various classes of users discharge and apartments discharge less wastewater than single family homes.Staff also stated that based on recent master planning reports the total cost to homeowners for sewage service (District’s share of property tax and user fee)would double by the turn of the century. —Roger Nichols,1001-200 W.Lambert Road,La Habra Mr.Nichols stated that he represented Friendly Village Mobile Home Park which had written the District asking for consideration of a reduced fee for the park’s residents because they are all senior citizens,and Inquired as to whether that was to be considered at this hearing. Mr.Nichols was advised that the fee schedule had already been adopted and was not under consideration at this hearing. —Steve Sarkis,8137 Cardiff Drive,Stanton Mr.Sarkis stated that he represented a firm that manages condominium/townhouse properties and observed that many parcels are for greenbelt irrigation only and questioned if user fees are charged when the only use was landscape irrigation. Staff advised that the ordinance allows for adjustments where there is no use of the sewer system from the property and that such parcels are exempt from the fee.Parcels connected to the sewer are charged the fee. Mr.Sarkis also stated his belief that the sewer service charge violates Proposition 13,that his firm represented 10,000 homeowners in the District and 80,000 overall and that they would lobby for repeal of the statutory provisions that allow implementation of the fee and that if unsuccessful,would actively work to defeat elected officials at the polls. —7— 4/27/89 DISTRICT 3 —Bob Main,12662 Lana Kila Lane,Garden Grove ci~ Mr0 Main commended the Boards and the Districts for their fine work over the years in providing sewerage service to the communities that they serve,and stated that he favored use of the property tax bill to collect the fee.Mr.Main also asked why District 3 had a fee but District 2 did not;questioned the equity of the fee structure, i.e.single family dwellings versus apartments versus large comercial users such as restaurants;and asked why there were nine Sanitation Districts with several Directors instead of a single District with a smaller board, Staff responded that the financial condition of several Districts varied and that supplemental sewer service fees were implemented by a Sanitation District as the respective District’s fiscal situation dictated.Districts 1,3,5,6,11 and 13 have already instituted fees and District 2 will institute fees in 19900 With respect to the equity of the fee structure,staff reiterated that the fees were based on engineering studies by the District and other sewerage agencies that multi—family dwelling units discharge,on average,60% less than single family dwelling units.Staff also reiterated that large commercial dischargers are monitored and pay user fees based on the demand they place on the sewerage system under the separate industrial (and comerical)waste ordinance. With regard to the organizational structure of the County Sanitation Districts,staff reported that it was determined by an extensive engineering study in the late 1940’s,The several Districts boundaries were fomed based on drainage basins to most equitably design the sewerage collective system and allocate sewage collection costs.This assures that Districts with high sewage collection and transportation costs,such as the coastal areas where all wastewater must be pumped to the treatment plant,are not subsidized by other Districts users where the wastewater flows by gravity.For economic reasons the treatment facilities are jointly owned and operated and all users pay the same cost.Concerning the multiple Districts and the Board make—up,it was pointed out that it has proved most effective for the citizens of Orange County.The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County are recognized throughout the country as a leader in the field of wastewater management and for their ability to protect public health and safety and the environment,whereas comunities both to the north and south of Orange County that are more traditional municipal entities,have experienced serious difficulties,The Districts’success can be attributed to the fact that it can focus its entire energies on its wastewater management program,without competing demands,and the fact that the Board make—up allows for representatives of each of the communities served by the Districts,all of which have a significant vested interest in the Districts’activities. —Willard Pool,12550 Brookhurst,Garden Grove Mr.Pool also commented on the basis of the fee structure and that he believed it was arbitrary.He also observed that his condominium would pay less if it were charged at the commercial rate which is based on square footage. -8- ~~~~ILg~i~~~~~~ 4 /27/89 DISTRICT 3 —Ray Littrell,12091 Blackmer,Garden Grove Mr.Littrell stated that he agreed with the coments of Mr.Main regarding the Districts’wastewater management program and that the property tax bill is the best way to collect the fee.He also stated,however,that he believed that the sewer service charge was a tax and not a fee and asked if the District had observed the requirements of Proposition 62 when Implementing the fee,and requested a copy of the Proposition 62 analysis required for establishing fees. The staff and General Counsel responded that the District’s fee was not subject to Proposition 62 but that nevertheless the District had determined the fees after extensive study and that they were consistent with the intent of Proposition 62.Staff also offered to review the financial information in the District offices with Mr.Littrell. -S.Cowley,Jr.,P.O.Box 2894,Anaheim Mr.Cowley offered several observations on the benefits of modern sanitation systems and the value to the users.He also stated his support of the principles of Proposition 13 and that citizens should vote on all fees.Mr.Cowley also questioned the descriptions of charges on property tax bills and the basic levy,and whether any District funds were transferred for other uses such as parks and recreation by other governing bodies. Staff responded that District funds were soley under the control of the District’s Board of Directors of the Sanitation District,are not used for any other purpose than its wastewater management program.Counsel also reported on the legality of the fee and that it was adopted in accordance with statutory procedures and did not require voter approval. Close hearing There being no further public coments,the Chairman then declared the hearing closed at 9:32 p.m. Adopting a finding that the majority of property owners have not protested relative to That the Board of Directors does hereby collecting annual sewer service find that a majority of the owners of charges on the property tax bills the property,which is the subject of the Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year 1989—90,have not protested the proposed collection of annual sewer service charges on the property tax bills. Receive,file and adopt Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year 1989—90 That the County Sanitation District No.3 Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal year 1989—90 be,and is hereby,received,ordered filed and adopted. Moved,seconded and duly carried: Moved,seconded and duly carried: —9— ___________________________________ That the Board of Directors hereby ___________________________________ adopts Resolution No.89—41-3, directing the County Auditor—Controller to include sewer service charges on property tax bills beginning in fiscal year 1989-90 for collection,pursuant to Ordinance No.309 of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County.A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Authorizing payment to Towne Moved,seconded and duly carried: Advertiser’s Mailing Service,Inc That payment to Towne Advertiser’s Mailing Service,Inc.in the amount of $36,253.69 for preparing,printing and mailing individual public notices of the workshops and public hearing required in order to use the County of Orange property tax roll for billing of District sewer service charges comencing with the fiscal year beginning July 1,1989,be,and Is hereby,authorized. 4/27189 DISTRICT 3 Directing the County Auditor— Controller •to include sewer service charges on property tax bills beginning in 1989—90 Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of No.3 be adjourned. 9:35 p.m.,April 27, the Board of The Chai man 1989. Directors of County Sanitation District then declared the meeting so adjourned at Secretary,Board of Directors County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California Moved,seconded and duly carried:0 0 -10- ATTACHMENT 1 April 27,1989 DISTRICT 3 PROPOSAL TO COLLECT USER FEE ON PROPERTY TAX BILL Summary of Written Comments Received PROPOSITION 13 Charles A.McLuen Ralph A.Weber 2781 Engle Drive 13012 St.Thomas Dr. Rossmoor,CA 90720 Santa Ana,CA 92705 PREFER DIRECT BILLING Jack &Wanda McGinnis 7752 Laurelton Ave. Garden Grove,CA 92641 PREFER USE OF WATER BILLS Doug Swift (Property Address Unknown) 2901 Wisconsin,NE Albuquerque,NM 87110 FEE ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF USAGE Fred E.Golding Kojo Vedder Park Management 12100 Knott St.18100 Kovacs Cr.1521 W.Glendale Blvd. Garden Grove,CA Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Glendale,CA 91201 DISTRICTS SHOULD CUT COSTS A.A.Maxfield,III 1126 North Brookhurst Anaheim,CA QUESTIONED IF PROPERTY IN DISTRICT Ralph B.Clark 1608 W.Orangewood Avenue Anaheim,CA 92802 MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHO PAYS FEE Mr.&Mrs.David M.Tobey 8051 Acacia Space 18 Garden Grove,CA 92641 SUPPORT PROPOSAL William R.Kincaid Donna L.Myrdal 1317 Fox Drive 571 W.Greenwood Ave. Fullerton,CA 92635 #13 La Habra,CA 90631 PROPERTY VACANT OR NOT CONNECTED James F.Ackerson Tom C.Donovan 124 W.Hidden Lane 905 S.Western Ave. La Habra,CA 90631 Anaheim,CA 92804 Jerry Banvelos John T.Dresbach 10385 Calle Madero 1302 Walker Lane Fountain Valley,CA 92708 La Habra,CA 90631 Mae E.Beat Jesus B.Flares 2040 W.Broadway 107011 Reagan St. Anaheim,CA Los Alamitos,CA 90720 Jirair Bodourian Rose M.Fogarty 11230 Dover Way 9081 Randall Ave. Stanton,CA 90680 La Habra,CA 90631 Ronald P.Borghetti Lee Freeman 10208 Disney Cr.9131 Sharon Way Huntington Beach,CA 92646 La Habra,CA 90631 Maxine E.Briock Patricia G.Kavakas 8552 Mac Alpine Rd.751 Hensel Dr. Garden Grove,CA 92641 La Ilabra,CA 90631 Abundio J.&Natalie M.Calderon Lee F.Lawson 10942 Garza Avenue 176 N.Batavia St. Anaheim,CA 92804 Orange,CA 92668 California Domestic Water Co.Jessee W.Lee (Property address unknown for 2380 W.Gregory Ln. 20 separate parcels)La Habra,CA 90631 15505 E.Whittier Blvd. Whittier,CA 90609 Frank Lindquist 1102 Hidden Lane Antonio Chavez La Habra,CA 90631 10422 Calle Madero Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Robert T.Longbotham 1322 Koopmans Way Henry E.Coleman La Habra,CA 90631 2349 W.Valdina Anaheim,CA 92801 Clarence J.Luis 7831 Liberty Ave. Eunice L.Davidson Huntington Beach,CA 92647 1342 Koopmans Way La Habra,CA 90631 M.H.Marow Encyclopedia Lots William Davis in Huntington Beach 9161 Randall Ave.864 N.Bundy Drive La Habra,CA 90631 Los Angeles,CA 90049 Mark &Leah De Saucy Paul Michalko,Jr. 1072 N.Cypress 1031 Hidden Lane La Habra,CA 90631 La Habra,CA 90631 Maurice D.De Saucy John C.Milhaus 1281 Walker Lane 150 W.Hillside Ave. La Habra,CA 90631 La Habra,CA 90631 PROPERTY VACANT OR NOT CONNECTED (CONT’D Gilbert E.Miller John A.Thomas P.O.Box 863 (property address unknown for Westminster,CA 92683 27 separate parcels) 19782 Scenic Bay Lane Emanuel Nuval Huntington Beach,CA 92648 5706 Cerulean Ave. Garden Grove,CA Martin G.Vertson 900 Rancho Cr. Doris E.Parmus Fullerton,CA 92635 9142 Randall Ave. La Habra,CA 90631 Margaret M.Weber 7052 Kermore Lane Gertrud E.Pasku Stanton,CA 90680 1440 Bexley Lane Brea,CA 92621 Timothy White 1431 North Idaho Virgil J.Ranken La Habra,CA 90631 6601 Berry Ave. Buena Park,CA 90620 William H.&Bernice V.Williams 9312 Randall Avenue Helen A.Rice La Habra,CA 90631 7072 Kermore Lane Stanton,CA 90680 William S.Yeomans 1341 N.Euclid St. Grace Robertson La Habra,CA 90631 1041 N.Cypress St. La Habra,CA 90631 John W.Samarin 9141 Randall Ave. La Habra,CA 90631 Eugene W.Schenet 8441 Balsa Ave. Midway City,CA 92655 Robert L.Schweinbmeyer 11861 Shady Crest Lane La Habra,CA 90631 Beatrice Shupp 1341 Baldwin St. La Habra,CA 90631 Audie B.Stewart 9121 Chapman Garden Grove,CA Mrs.Marvin Streiff 928 S.Webster Ave. Anaheim,CA Audry A.Suttle 1361 N.Euclid St. La Habra,CA 90631 I certify that the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California,on April 27,1989, reporting the actions of said District,are a true and correct report of said minutes. • ~ Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California Secretary,Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board Meeting of District No.3 held on ,19~~was duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the District’s offices on ~~J1 A ~ ,19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand this o?O’~ day of __________________,1 9~.1. Rita J.Brown,Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.3 of Orange County,California . S S