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