Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990-04-18(REVISED) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.2 OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 18,1990 —7:30 p.m. Orange Public Library 101 North Center Street Orange,California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 11,1990,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County,California,met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date at the Orange Public Library. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT:Roland E.Bigonger,Chairman,Norman E.Culver,Dan Griset,William 0.Mahoney,James Neal,Carrey J. Nelson,Irv Pickier,and Don E.Smith DIRECTORS ABSENT:A.B.“Buck”Catlin,Arthur Newton,Wayne Silzei and Roger R.Stanton STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:J.Wayne Sylvester,General Manager,Rita J.Brown, Secretary,Gary G.Streed,Thomas M.Dawes,Corinne Clawson,Jeff Esber and Judy Lee OTHERS PRESENT:Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel,Malcolm Jahr, Elisabeth Charron,Eileen Larcome,H.R.Kinder, Lewis R.Mote,Richard P.Thomas,Robert V. Peringer,Carole Walters,Dennis Duffy,Perry Walker,Bill Leming,Jan Duffy,George Gorham,Lee Kearney,Mildred Jahr,Robert Engelhardt,Chris Barnes,Dave Barnes,Lorraine John,Mira Arthur, Greg Bogart,C.F.Credell,M.Moore,D.Ebert,Ron Sands,Jim Houk,Al Burd,Charles A.Miles,Edward Mozer,Morris and Elsie Haniiiond,V.Bonaddlo,Audrey Herdrich,Maynard Herdrich and Arlene Hughes ****************** Public Hearing on proposal to collect adopted annual sewer service charges on the property tax bills and on the Sewer Service Charge Report for 1990—91 Open Public Hearing The Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:32 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 1990-91 fiscal year. 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 Staff Report on proposed use of the The General Manager stated that the County County of Orange property tax bill Sanitation District is responsible for for collection of the annual sewer transporting,treating and disposing of service charge 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. The Director of Finance then reviewed the staff’s reports on District No0 2’s financial plan,summarized as follows: 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 reserves0 In fiscal year 1990—91,without appropriate measures to protect the Districts financial integrity,it would have been necessary for the Board to authorize a transfer of $12 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 1993—94 the District will require additional revenues in the amount of $80.3 million to meet its operating expenses and maintain the solvency of the fund due to insufficient tax revenues, To address this fiscal challenge,in 1989,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 $2,270 per dwelling unit for residential property and a $450 per 1,000 sq.ft.charge for commercial,industrial and governmental property. The connection fee is used to pay for expansion of capital facilities to serve new development.Mr.Streed advised that in 1986 District 2 issued $44.3 million in long—term debt to protect their capital reserves. 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— 1~4~!L!~j~t~g A i ~ •4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 Type of Property Annual Fee -Single—family Residence $55.00 -Multi—family Residence/Mobile Home 33.00 —Commercial 39.00/1,000 sq.ft. —Industrial 39.00/1,000 sq.ft. —Governmental 39.00/1,000 sq.ft. The Director of Finance noted that the large commercial 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 industrial dischargers pay as much as $729,211 per year under this program. The Director of Finance,utilizing a slide presentation,summarized 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 $432,000 plus an annual cost of $302,400,making the total cost for the first year $734,400.The projected five—year cost for the direct billing alternative would be $1,944,000. —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.2.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 $374,000 plus an annual cost of $726,800, for a total cost for the first year of $1,100,800.The estimated five—year cost of performing this billing service is $4,008,000. —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 the property tax bills for all properties within District No.2.The setup cost would be $374,000.The annual cost of billing under this method is only $67,700.The total first—year cost would be $441,700 and the five-year cost is estimated to be $712,500. —3— 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 Mr.Streed observed that this method would save the property owner H both directly because of significantly lower costs to the District, and indirectly because the cost of making periodic payments by the property owner would be reduced0 Staff recommended this alternative as it is clearly the most H cost-effective billing and collection method available0 Districts 1,3,5,6,11 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 six Districts0 H H The Director of Finance reiterated that the rising costs to operate the District are due to higher mandated levels of treatment and increased H H energy costs0 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 H H requirements without an additional revenue source0 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, ‘H he recognized that the citizens have a genuine interest in the H H activities of the Sanitation Districts and he,therefore,summarized H H responses to those questions that had been raised thus far in the three H workshops and in telephone inquiries.He explained the role of the District as an operating utility providing an essential service H H necessary for the protection of the public health and safety,and H H indicated that the District was established solely to provide wastewater collection,treatment and disposal services to the community. The Director of Finance further explained that while the District has always had the statutory authority to levy a sewer service fee,it had H:historically financed its operations,maintenance and rehabilitation activities from the property tax.The adopted sewer service charge is H based upon use,thus,he reported,it is not a tax and is not subject to Proposition 13 and 62 provisions0 Property taxes are based on the value H 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. H H 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 H the statutory provisions under which the fees were adopted,and then H H reviewed cash flow projections.The reduction in tax revenues resulting H:from the passage of Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation, combined with the higher energy costs,the effects of inflation over the H.past several years,and more stringent treatment requirements mandated by federal,state and local regulatory agencies,would result in H H depleting reserves and projected operating deficits for the District H without the new fees. -4- Iii 11 I j ~~ 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 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. The General Manager then reiterated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive public commentary 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 during the latter part of February and early March to 139,611 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 March 28,1990 and again on April 4,1990. The hearing notice included the District’s telephone number for citizens to call with questions or for more information.The staff received approximately 120 calls.Staff also conducted two workshops to answer questions about the proposal and the District’s operations.The workshops were held at 7:30 p.m.on Tuesday,March 13,at the Fullerton Museum Center,15 people attended;and Thursday,March 22,at the Backs Building in Placentia,7 people attended. Receive and file Sewer Service Moved,seconded and duly carried: Charge Report for Fiscal Year 1990—91 That the County Sanitation District No.2 Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year 1990—91 be,and is hereby,received and ordered filed. Receive and file written comments The General Manager reported that 89 written communications had been received regarding the sewer service fee and proposed method of collection and summarized 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. Oral Public Comments Chairman Bigonger 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. —5— 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 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 (9 February 14,1990 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 2’s sewer system and its share in the operation and maintenance of the joint treatment and disposal facilities. Mr.Bigonger 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 hearing0 He asked that any testimony or statements given address solely the collection method,and not whether the fee was liked or disliked0 The Chairman invited anyone with some specific concerns regarding the charge to leave their name and address and the staff would contact them0 He added that if they wished to write the District,their request would be given due consideration and answered at a later date0 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: -Malcolm Jahr,17292 E.Orange,Yorba Linda Mr0 Jahr questioned the cost differential between the alternative utilizing local water service bills for collection and remittance to the District or utilizing the County of Orange property tax bill for collection0 It was his contention that since local water service companies already had a billing system in place,the cost shouldn’t be as high as indicated by the District to add their sewer service fee.He objected to use of the tax bill and requested that the charge be collected on the local water bills,which would,in his opinion,afford him the opportunity to lodge any protest regarding the sewer service fee with his elected City representatives rather than with the District 2 Board0 In response,staff reiterated that there were numerous local water purveyors,and it would be difficult to develop agreements with each of them,In addition,the service charge to collect said fee on behalf of the District (probably 57.),would be added to the user fee in order to provide the necessary revenue to meet the District’s financial obligations.Additional staffing required for recordkeeping associated with this method of collection also accounts for some of the additional costs. —Elisabeth Charron,10432 Mildred Avenue,Garden Grove Ms.Charron objected that the Notices of Public Hearing were sent as bulk mail.She also criticized the workshop and public hearing Si tes, -6- Aa4 A~i~i~~ 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 Ms.Charron protested that if the user fee is placed on the County tax bill,the property owner would be forced to pay the charge along with their taxes inasmuch as the County will not accept a partial payment of the bill.She contended that the District had not fully investigated the costs of other alternative methods of collection such as local water bills. She also questioned the equity of the fee structure and the process for contesting the charge.Ms.Charron stated her objection to the public notice procedure the District is required to follow in connection with adoption of an ordinance establishing these fees and for any future adjustments in the fees. —Eileen Larcome,4605 Wimaurie Avenue,Santa Ana Ms.Larcome stated that she objected to placement of the sanitary sewer service charge on the property tax bill.She suggested the use of television to publicize the fee.She questioned whether it was an annual fee and if it might be adjusted at some point during the year. She also inquired whether she would know if the fee were increased. In response,the District’s General Counsel explained that this is an annual sewer service charge.Any adjustments in the fee as a result of futher study and recommendation by the staff would require adoption of a new ordinance.The notice of public hearing on adoption of the ordinance would be published in a major newspaper,as required by statute.The adjusted fee would still appear as a separate line item on the tax bills. —H.R.Kinder,1342 E.Hickory Lane,Orange Mr.Kinder also commented on the notice procedure relative to adoption of the sanitary sewer service charge.He also stated that he assumed future fees might decrease rather than increase.He expressed concern that the fee would not be itemized on his tax bill. In response,staff advised that the fee will be shown as a separate line item on the tax bills. —Lewis R.Mote,527 N.Harbor Blvd.,Anaheim Mr.Mote stated that he realized that his questions relative to the District’s high operating costs listed on the Notice of Public Hearing were not the issue that evening,but still wanted to register his concern relative to the increase in expenses projected through 1993—94.He added that he was in agreement with the previous speakers’comments. —Richard P.Thomas,4431 East Olivebranch Way,Anaheim Mr.Thomas addressed the issue of equitability relative to the adopted charges for commercial and industrial buildings.He stated that,in his opinion,it would be more equitable to base the charge on water use rather than on square footage.Mr.Thomas urged the District to find a more equitable method of computing the fee. —7— 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 —Robert V.Peringer,231 So,Parkiane,Orange Mr.Peringer expressed his appreciation for the services of Sanitation District No.2.He then stated his objection to (J~ collection of what,in his opinion,were additional taxes in the guise of a user fee.He commented on the increase in the budget this year for the County of Orange and felt the District’s financial requirements should be included in that amount,Mr.Peringer also inquired whether the Districts collect user fees for other governmental agencies to evade the limitations of Proposition 13. In response,staff pointed out that County Sanitation District No.2 was a special district created under the County Sanitation District Act and was separate and apart from general purpose government known as Orange County government.Accordingly,District No,2’s operation and maintenance requirements are not included in the County budget. Staff also advised that none of the fees collected on behalf of the Sanitation Districts go to any other agency.All fees are solely for the collection,treatment and disposal of sewage. —Carole Walters,534 N.Shaffer Street,Orange Ms.Walters stated that she had mistakenly believed that the hearing that evening concerned the adoption of the sanitary sewer service fee.She also commented that she felt the fee structure should include an allowance for senior citizens. —Dennis Duffy,11752 Reva Drive,Garden Grove ~1D Mr.Duffy expressed his concerns relative to the equitability of the fee.He suggested that the criteria for establishing the charge be based on water usage rather than the type of property connected to the sewer. The Board questioned whether he was suggesting that sewage meters be installed in every household and if he would prefer to pay the higher cost of metering.Mr.Duffy replied that the District should work with the local water companies to receive information necessary to bill the property owners.He did,however,acknowledge that it would be difficult to determine the actual amount of water being discharged into the sewer based solely upon the amount of water received.He contended that the District could obtain the necessary information from the local water companies to compute the bills and still collect the charges on the property tax bills.Mr.Duffy also conceded that he would prefer to pay the lowest cost possible. —Perry Walker,12281 Lampson,Garden Grove Mr.Walker questioned the criteria used by the District to establish the fee for a single—family residence versus an apartment building. -8- U ~li1 ~tiJ~~L.F P I ;~j: Mr.Walker also questioned whether apartment owners would be properly billed for the number of units they owned.He noted that he had observed various apartment complexes in his area that were not on record with the County of Orange as apartments. In response,staff advised that studies conducted by the Districts, as well as other agencies,indicate that the discharge f apartments is approximately 60°!.of the amount discharged single—family residence.Accordingly,the fee structure for a 60%differential in the charge per unit.Multiple units are billed based on the County Assessor’s official property records. —Bill Leming,2720 E.Walnut Avenue,#7,Orange Mr.Leming stated his objection to the method of collection.He also contended that the sewer service charges should be based on water usage,not on the type of property owned.In his opinion,the user fee is more like a property tax and is inequitable,especially for the owners of small corrinercial buildings.He reiterated that his main complaint was that the District didn’t provide for equitability in the fee structure. -Jan Duffy,11752 Reva Drive,Garden Grove Mrs.Duffy also questioned the equity of the fee structure because of different household occupancies.She stated that the charge should be collected on water bills and should be based on usage rather than be a flat fee. In conclusion,in response to the public commentary on equitability of the user fee,staff reiterated that large commercial and industrial dischargers pay under a separate ordinance based upon their demand on the sewer system.Some pay as much as $729,000 per year in District 2. Staff also pointed out that a new study would be conducted to address the equity issue,and that any forthcoming recommendations for changes would be submitted to the Districts’Boards at a later date. Close hearing There being no further public comments,the Chairman then declared the hearing closed at 9:10 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 1990—91,have not protested the proposed collection of annual sewer service charges on the property tax bills. 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 rom from a provides Moved,seconded and duly carried: —9— 4/18/90 DISTRICT 2 Adoption of Sewer Service Charge Moved,seconded and duly carried: Report for Fiscal Year 1990—91 That the County Sanitation District No.2 Sewer Service Charge Report for Fiscal year 1990—91 be,and is hereby, adopted. Directing the County Auditor Moved,seconded and duly carried: Controller to include sewer service charges on property tax bills That the Board of Directors hereby beginning in 1990—91 adopts Resolution No.90—38—2, directing the County Auditor—Controller to include sewer service charges on property tax bills beginning in fiscal year 1990—91 for collection,pursuant to Ordinance No.210 of County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County.Said resolution,be reference hereto,is hereby made a part of these minutes. Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 be adjourned.The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:12 p.m.,April 18,1990. 0 ~Z1~k~S~~Z2~ Secretary,BojId of Directors County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County,California -10- 0 Li A ~~~ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS at ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORMA ~O844 ELLIS AVENUE P0 BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 April 11,1990 (7~4I962-2411 DISTRICT 2 PROPOSAL TO COLLECT USER FEE ON PROPERTY TAX BILL Suirunary of Written Comments Received Through April 10,1990 SUPPORT PROPOSAL PREFER USE OF WATER BILL Marilyn R.Cochran Greene and Frazier 211 S.Redwood Ave~Certified Public Accountants Brea,CA 92621 1240 Lakeview Ave. Anaheim,CA 92807 DISTRICT SHOULD CUT COSTS INEOUITABLE RATE STRUCTURE L.T.Mazzola William S.Harvey 2825 Firethorne Ave.Developer &Real Estate Broker Fullerton,CA 92635 P0 Box 1514 Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 Stanford Park PROPOSITION 13 10352 Stanford Ave~ Garden Grove,CA 92640 Robert M.Ames 1527 W.Harle Place - Anaheim,CA 92802 “ATTACHMENT 1”TO APRIL 18,1990 MINUTES DISTRICT No.2 PROPERTIES NOT CONNECTED TO SEWER Anaheim Barksdale,Anthony W. Barksdale,Patricia A. 181 S.Possum Hollow Anaheim,CA 92807 Barnes,Ronald E. Barnes,Carol M. 7675 Eucalyptus Way Anaheim,CA 92808 Chadez,Victor 5426 E.Orangethorpe Ave. Anaheim,CA 92807 Harris,Paul D. 4910 Santa Ana,Cyn Rd. Anaheim,CA 92807 Liggett,Francis Sherman 571 S.Peralta Hills Dr. Anaheim,CA 92807 Lopez,Antonio H. 1342 N.Miller St. Anaheim,CA 92806 Chavez,David J. 4420 E.La Paima Ave. Anaheim,CA 92807 Fountain,Evart C. 1432 W.Roberta Fullerton,CA 92633 Hale,Patricia Ann 101 S.Eucalyptus Dr. Anaheim,CA 92808 Fullerton Ponteprino,Meyer E. 1471 N.Placentia Ave. Anaheim,CA 92806 Ritter,Larry R. Ritter,Maria E. 191 S.Possum Hollow Anaheim,CA 92808 Vista Del Rio Ro Water Group P0 Box 17073 Anaheim,CA 92817 Donegan,Craig R.. Donegan,Pamela T. 3110 Las Faldas Dr. Fullerton,CA 92635 Moisi,Joseph A. 1300 Sunnycrest Dr. Fullerton,CA 92635 Garden Grove Taylor,Burt L. 1220 Linda Lane Fullerton,CA 92631 Teasdale,Audrey B. 400 E.Las Palmas Dr. Fullerton,CA 92635 Garcia,Joe M. Garcia,Avalon 13141 Palm St. Garden Grove,CA 92643 I ~r 0 0 0 DISTRICT No.2 PROPERTIES NOT CONNECTED TO SEWER Orange Amusement Electronics Co.Moore,Melinda C. 19142 Glen Arran Lane 1638 N.Cambridge Orange,CA 92669 Orange,CA 92667 Buithuis,Albert Oliver,Andrew L. 1962 N.Glassell St.805 N.Lincoln St. Orange,CA 92665 Orange,CA 92667 Byers,Elaine Piper Paulus,Arthur E. 6705 E.Oak Lane P0 Box 3035 Orange,CA 92669 Orange,CA 92665 Coey,Robert C.Perez,Severiano J. 16522 E.Cumberland Ave.Perez,Ruth A. Orange,CA 92665 16542 Heim Ave. Orange,CA 92665 Cooper,Jon W. Cooper,Kathlin M.Ramer,Mary B. 962 Wanda Rd.3042 N.Sheri St. Orange,CA 92667 Orange,CA 92665 Estes,Garmon Jr.Ritter,Maurice A. 1902 E.Collins 16372 Heim Ave. Orange,CA 92667 Orange,CA 92665 Flocken,Marie E.Schuck,Clifford D. 627 Cully Dr.15581 E.Cully Dr. Orange,CA 92665 Orange,CA 92665 Hawkins,G.William Shanafelt,John G.Jr. 6807 E.Oak Lane 3827 W.Chapman Ave. Orange,CA 92669 Orange,CA 92668 Hoffman,William Spielman,Leonard 2396 N.Batavia St.6719 E.Oak Lane Orange,CA 92665 Orange,CA 92669 Jefts,Richard M.Travernier,Ernest 16386 Fellows Dr.16312 Fellows Dr. Orange,CA 92665 Orange,CA 92665 Johnson,Clayton W.Jr.Walker,William R. 12431 El Rancho Place 16352 Heim Ave. Garden Grove,CA 92640 Orange,CA 92665 LeCouix,James E.Witt,Richard D. P0 Box 5887 956 N.Shaffer St. 1432 North Glassell Orange,CA 92667 Orange,CA 92613 DISTRICT No.2 PROPERTIES NOT CONNECTED TO SEWER 0 Placentia Olander,Harold H.Phillips,Leeta M. P0 Box 51 2419 N.Rose Dr. Placentia,CA 92670 Placentia,CA 92670 Santa Ana Quick,Alvin E. Quick,Nellie W. P0 Box 5094 Santa Ana,CA 92704 Villa Park Ehien,Lawrence H.Metz,Raxney B. 10232 Center Dr.18605 S.Mesa Dr. Villa Park,CA 92667 Villa Park,CA 92667~ Henderson,Dortha M. 18916 S.Mesa Dr. Villa Park,CA 92667 Yorba Linda Asta,Donald W.Crowder,Rutherford H. Asta,Ingrid M.5072 Richfield Rd. 5373 Grandview Ave.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Dutton,Roy Atzet,Frank C.5642 Grandview Ave. 18820 Oriente Dr.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Flatten,Orris H. Basham,U.H.17745 Lomita Lane 4202 Merienda Lane Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Flynn,Patrick F. Baxter,Howard L.5521 Grandview Ave. 4551 Rose Dr.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Fox,Gregg G. Covey,Thomas A.16882 Nightingale Lane 5462 S.Lake View Ave.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 DISTRICT No.2 PROPERTIES NOT CONNECTED TO SEWER Yorba Linda (Con’t) Hawkins,Eugene S.Morton,Emery L. 5432 Lakeview Ave.19100 Pradera Lane Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Hoffman,Richard W.Mulkey,Larkin V. 5611 Kellogg Dr.5832 Ohio St. Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Imperial-Rose Co.Oberjuerge,Robert A. 1920 St.Andrews Dr.18847 Via Sereno Seal Beach,CA 90740 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Jagusiak,MarkM.O’Shea,Rita Jagusiak,Mary B.4611 N.Palni 19198 Skyview Knoll Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Page,Raymond A. Jensen,Larry W.P0 Box 89 19192 Skyview Knoll Atwood,CA 92601 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Prosser,Barbara Kroenlein,Dieter 4588 Danita Lane 5571 Fircrest Dr.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Sanderfer,Ruby E. Lankford,James W.18491 Buena Vista Lankford,Judy Yorba Linda,CA 92686 4293 Avocado Ave. Yorba Linda,CA 82686 Shaver,Howard W. 16631 Lathrop Dr. Leonard,James K.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Leonard,Dorothy M. 4911 Shaw Lane Shigekawa,William M. Yorba Linda,CA 92686 206 Copp Kula,HI 96790 Majors,William J. 4561 N.Palm Ave.Staumont,Ferdinand Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Staumont,Lenke E. 18101 Avolinda Dr. Merlo,Joe Yorba Linda,CA 92686 4912 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Stewart,Robert 5641 Mountain View Ave. Meyers,Byron P.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 4761 Palm Ave. Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Studer,Leo L. Studer,Katherine A. McCormick,William C.5374 Douglas Lane 4742 Palm Ave.Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 DISTRICT No.2 PROPERTIES NOT CONNECTED TO SEWER Yorba Linda (Con’t) Warren,Herbert M.Williams,Sidney H. 5251 Highland Ave.5271 Cherrylee Lane Yorba Linda,CA 92686 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 I certify that the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County,California,on April 18,1990, reporting the actions of said District,are a true and correct report of said minutes. Chai rman Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County,California Secretary,Boar’d of Directors of County Sanitation District No.2 of Orange County,California S S S 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.~held on I4~,19~was duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the Districtts offices on ~\.~, 19~O. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of ___________________ ,19 Rita J.Brown,Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.~ of Orange County,California S S S