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