CC - 11-22-88• APPROVED
CITY OF ROSFMEAD
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL BY
NOVEMBER 22, 1988
The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to
order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor.
The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Garth Hyde of the Church
of the Nazarene.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmen DeCocker, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem McDonald,
and Mayor Bruesch
Absent: Councilman Imperial - Excused (Still recovering from
the effects of a recent automobile accident.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 8, 1988 - REGULAR MEETING
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM MCDONALD
that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 8, 1988, be
approved as submitted. Vote resulted:
Aye: DeCocker, Taylor, Bruesch, McDonald
No: None
Absent: Imperial
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
PRESENTATION:
A proclamation was presented by the Council to Mrs. Tai Muh for
her quick actions resulting in the prevention of a student being
taken from the playground during a recess period at Bitely School.
Mrs. Muh, the student's teacher, reacted without regard to her own
welfare.
I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
A. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, reported a problem with
the new street sweeping services, stating that the area adjacent to
his residence was dirty.
Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated the company is
in the process of purchasing a new machine which should be in service
by November 28, 1988.
Mayor Bruesch directed staff to notify the sweeping contractor of
this problem with Garvey Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tem McDonald noted that this is a new company the City
is using and it takes some time to become familiar with the City's
requirements and schedules.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. None
III.LEGISLATIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. 88-54 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for
adoption:
CC 11-22-88
Page #1
•
RESOLUTION NO. 88-54
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF
$552,438.30 NUMBERED 1218-1241 AND 23106 THROUGH 23224
Councilman Taylor questioned Page 16, Warrant No. 1241 in
reference to the payment of $250,000 to Freeway Nissan to offset its
relocation expenses. Mr. Taylor expressed concern over paying this
amount before the project is started.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the contract that the
Council approved has certain safeguards if the dealership does not
relocate or reopen providing for these funds to be returned to the
City.
Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, explained that these
funds were being provided from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, which also provides safeguards.
Mr. Taylor expressed the opinion that some type of escrow account
for the monies might have been more appropriate rather than just
turning the entire amount over in advance.
Mayor Bruesch asked for a memo explaining Warrant No. 23156,
$991.28 for advertising and recruitment expense, including the amount
of time the ad was run and the size of the ad.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM McDONALD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER
that Resolution No. 88-54 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes:
DeCocker,
No:
Taylor
Absent:
Imperial
Abstain:
None
Bruesch, McDonald
The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Taylor asked the record to show his belief that this
money should have been in an escrow account for the Nissan payment.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-I REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION)
CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE
OFFICERS' ANNUAL SEMINAR - FEBRUARY.~22.-24, 1988 - SANTA
ROSA, CALIFORNIA
CC-B ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENT - BARTLETT AVENUE AND LA
PRESA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES
LEGISLATIVE ORIENTATION TOUR, JANUARY 17-19, 1988
CC-D LINCOLN TRAINING CENTER - REQUEST FOR ADVERTISEMENT FOURTH
ANNUAL TRIBUTE DINNER
CC-E PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT 4930 NORTH EARLE AVENUE
CC-F CITY PARTICIPATION IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND NARCOTICS
EDUCATION (SANE) PROGRAM
CC-G. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS
CC-H ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS - STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS IN NEWMARK AVENUE AT KELBURN AVENUE
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM McDONALD
that the aforementioned items on the Consent Calendar be approved.
Vote resulted:
CC 11-22-88
Page #2
11
Yes:
DeCocker,
No:
None
Absent:
Imperial
Abstain:
None
Taylor, Bruesch, McDonald
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-I JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIES OF ROSEMEAD AND
MONTEBELLO FOR THE USE OF POTRERO HEIGHTS PARK AND
NORTHRIDGE MINI-PARK
Councilman Taylor stated his intention of voting "NO" on this
item because of the distances involved; that its location in
Montebello is just too far for many Rosemead residents to travel and
also the 49-year length of the contract as being too long.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM McDONALD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER
that the Council approve the agreement with the City of Montebello.
Vote resulted:
Yes:
DeCocker,
No:
Taylor
Absent:
Imperial
Abstain:
None
Bruesch, McDonald
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION
A. MODERN SERVICE CONTRACT
VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS:
BRUESCH: We now have Item #5, MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION,
Modern Service Contract. I requested that this be put on in response
to a request from Mr. McDonald. We have a couple of people who wish
to speak on this. First of all, I'll open it up to the general
public, Mr. Jim Donohoo.
(Mr. Donohoo says something about just being there to represent
Modern Service)
BRUESCH: Now, what I'd like to do this is have our contractee,
Modern Service, come up and present the case that he would like to in
front of the City Council so that we know the,:eparame,ters of his
situation. I would like to have this time set aside for him. Would
you come up, please?
DONOHOO: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen. I'm Jim Donohoo, the C.P.A. for
Modern Service Company. I assume we're here because of the recent
correspondence about the dumping? Is that correct? All right, very
good. I'm sure we're all aware with the problem with dumps; not only
here but around the world that we read in the paper about dumped
material floating at sea. Nobody wants it anymore. We're faced with
the situation where dumps are closing. There won't be a place to
dump the material. Also, we're faced with the situation with dumps
closing earlier. In 1983 when this particular contract was entered
into there was a provision to allow Modern Service Company to pass
through its increased dumps fees to the city of Rosemead with the
intent, as I understand from reading the contract, of freezing the
amount that the individual residents would pay, as far as rubbish
fees. And also, freezing the amount that the Contractor would be out
as far as dump costs. At that particular time, the Contractor used
three dumps; Pelliser dump, which is close to us here; BKK; and Azusa
dump. At that particular time, in reviewing the contract, the C.P.A.
who was hired by the City came out and did an audit and determined
CC 11-22-88
Page #3
r •
correctly that the dump fees for the Pelliser dump were $3.75 per
ton. That rate has been frozen in the Contract which is no problem.
The problem is now, that the dump there is now $9.50 per ton and it
closes early, every day; sometimes as early as 11 a.m. As soon as
they reach their quota for the day, they close. Therefore, it's
necessary for Modern Service to take its rubbish to the next nearest
dump which may be BKK or Azusa. Just to fill you, Azusa, at 2 p.m by
the time Pelliser dump has closed, raise their fees to $19 per ton.
BKK is roughly $15 per ton. Even though Modern attempts to take all
its rubbish to the nearest dump, it can't legally store the material
overnight, it must dump it. It's caught between a rock and a hard
place. According to the contract, we feel the City should reimburse
Modern Service for the dumpage at these other dumps. At the time the
contract was entered into, the discrepancy or the variance in the
rates between dumps was not very much; it might have ranged from
$3.75 to $4.50. Now, you can see it ranges from $9.50 to $19.00 a
ton. The other thing we've discovered, in doing some auditing
ourselves, is that the population in Rosemead has increased, as we're
all aware of. Taking statistics from the census bureau there's now
more tonnage in Rosemead than there was under the original contract.
We estimate the tonnage now to be 800-900 more tons a month than
under the original contract. I think this is due to two things; (1)
the population increase, and (2) we recognize there's maybe a
considerable amount of illegal dumping. Many of the cities will have
a special pickup for couches, refrigerators, those heavy household
items, maybe once a year. Under our contract, we pick those up
continuously. So, we find people from outlying areas, such as maybe
Temple City, will come in and leave this material at their friend's
home so that your contractor could pick them up, again, increasing
the amount of tonnage. What we would like to ask, is for a meeting
at a later time with the appropriate members of the Council or
whoever you designate to discuss this matter in more detail. The
position being not to put more money in the contractor's hands but
simply to alleviate some of the increased dumpage costs. That's all
I have. Would you like to ask any questions?
BRUESCH: Exactly, that's what I was going to open it up for right
now. Gentlemen, do you have any questions for Mr. Donohoo? Thank
you, Mr. Donohoo. I certainly think that this Council is going to
have to look at the amount of the subsidy we're paying for and going
to continue to pay for dump fees because as Mr. Donohoo expressed
these dump fees are, what they call the tipping fees, not going to go
down. They're going to be taking quantum leaps forward. I just met
this afternoon, at 4:00, with the Solid Waste Management District.
With all the plans that they have for increased_.dump_sites and
increasing the present dump sites, those are not going to be on-line
for at least another 4 - 6 years. Glendale shut down, various other
dumps have restricted the type of trash that they will accept. It's
a matter of supply and demand. Right now, am I not correct in
stating, that we're subsidizing almost to the tune of $200,000 a
year? Is it more than that? What is it more like?
TAYLOR: $500,000.
BRUESCH: It's approaching $500,000, now? I know that it's nearly a
million over the 4 -5 years that we have subsidized. We can look at
that and say that it's going to be going ever higher. We can look at
the fact that possibly, at the rate we're going at, within the next
4-5 years if there isn't increased capacity that we might be picking
up a tipping fee subsidy of close to a million dollars a year. Is
this what this Council wishes to do?
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I think a couple of the items that Mr. Donohoo
pointed out. If, in fact, people are bringing appliances or
different items from other cities, I believe that the policy is, or
the actual practice is, that a resident must call Modern Service, is
it 48 hours or what is it?...... 24 hours to have an item picked up.
Is that item picked up with a special truck? So, it is a logged-in
item, they can keep track of it. Modern Service is here, how is that
handled?
CC 11-22-88
Page #4
0
FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Do you keep track of that item,
separately? As a special pick-up?
TAYLOR: So, you do have a log book for a year or whatever, when they
call in?
NOTE: REPRESENTATIVES FROM MODERN SERVICE ANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM
THEIR SEATS AT THE REAR OF THE AUDITORIUM RATHER THAN COMING TO THE
PODIUM. THEIR RESPONSES ARE NOT INTELLIGIBLE ON THE RECORDING.
BRUESCH: Mr. Griegorian. I have a question. How much are you
spending, right now, on going to Azusa late in the day? I know for a
fact that as the day goes on, Azusa keeps hiking up the rates. In
your books, how much of Rosemead trash is going into that dump at the
higher rate? So, Azusa, we're looking at 10-150 of the waste.
What is the increased cost to you from that particular dumpage
because of the fact they raised their rates? ...So, $10.00 a ton, more
or less ...What my question is, if you did not have to dump there, if
you could get to the dumps early enough to avoid dumping at Azusa,
how much could you save?...
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. How many trucks are servicing Rosemead on a
given day? ...How many regular trucks? ...You have 9 vehicles, everyday
basically, except Sunday then. Mr. Griegorian mentioned that you
bring in 3 more, or is that included in the 9?...How many trips does
each truck make a day to the dump? ...You say that there's 9 trucks, 3
trips a day.and maybe 4 on some of them... Thank you. Mr. Mayor. The
last report that I recall or newspaper article, one of the comments
or statements was that the San Gabriel valley is taking two-thirds of
its dump waste from Los Angeles city.
BRUESCH: We produce approximately, give or take a percentage point,
about 35-400 of the trash in the Los Angeles county area. Yet, we
accept between 60 and 65% of the trash into our dumps. That is why
we are at the state we are right now. The dumps are overloaded, our
contractor, along with every other contractor that deals in solid
waste management is having to further and further away which adds to
the time and cost in man-hours.
TAYLOR: Let me ask you this since you're on the Waste Management
Board why is it that other cities can close their dumps or regulate
them and ship it to the San Gabriel?
BRUESCH: That's the
Angeles for the last
Angeles is "You have
Newhall/Valencia and
up?" Every time the
particular residents
question
3 years.
space in
one in b
make an
there.
that we've been asking the city of Los
Literally, what.,,weF;re asking Los
your canyons, including one near
ack of Tujunga. Why don't you open them
attempt, there is an outcry from those
TAYLOR: Well, it's a double-edged sword in one sense. So, they have
an outcry but the dumps in the San Gabriel valley just cheer, because
they double their rates. So, in one sense put part of the problem
back on Los Angeles where it belongs instead of the San Gabriel
valley. It's just a pure power play in one sense. If L.A. can force
it down the San Gabriel valley, that's what is going to happen.
We're not going to get the San Gabriel dumps to take a stand on it
because if you can double your money on a daily basis, that's the
name of the game.
BRUESCH: You hit the nail right on the head. The other side of the
coin is that these dumps will be shutting down within the next 4-5
years. Remember, I said to site a new dump will take 6-7 years. So,
we're really in trouble, right now.
McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. I don't think anyone could have foreseen 5-10
years ago exactly what was going to happen with the problem of the
dumping of trash and the building of dumps in the area, the toxic
CC 11-22-88
Page #5
waste, and the hazardous materials over the last five years. People
are concerned about the dumps; people are concerned about what is
going into the dumps; and as Mr. Taylor pointed out, they're going to
try to make the buck as much as they can by allowing outside agencies
to come in there. They know they're going to have to come into these
dumps because they're restricting how much the dumps can actually
take on a daily basis. That's what's increasing the rates. I don't
think a discussion is solving the problem that we have building here
in the city of Rosemead. I think we do subsidize Modern Service, Mr.
Greigorian, on a monthly basis for the increased fees. It's up to
$46,000 a month for the increase in the dump. I think the problem is
that you generate more trash, we have an increasing population here,
and as any other contractor that comes before us, as we just went
over some of the Redevelopment projects and so forth, if there's a
change in the situation at the time that the project is going on, we
take that into consideration. I think, at least in this situation,
which is a major service to this City, we owe this contractor at
least to sit down, talk across the table, and see if we can up with a
proposal that both sides like that maybe can stem this problem for
the short run because we certainly aren't going to solve it, just
Rosemead by itself, when we're talking about dumps, since we don't
have a dump in the city of Rosemead. We could sit down and maybe
come with a proposal or some things that we could both agree on and
solve at least the problem in the short run.
BRUESCH: I think we have to do that. When we do talk, it has to
deal not only with the dump subsidy that we're talking about but also
what Mr. Greigorian alluded to with the special pickup day, possibly
even discussing an earlier pickup hour to allow them to get up to the
dumps earlier. We do not have control over the fees that are charged
by these dumps. I think that the only way we could control them
would be through legislation from Sacramento and if that legislation
came through, I'm quite sure that it would be contested in court, and
maybe the dumps would close down earlier just in spite of it. We're
caught in a dilemma and we have to sit and find out which direction
we're going. What this city council determines will set policy for
this city, well into the next century because we are in a crisis
situation in our solid waste management area. If we drag our feet we
are going to get into this crisis even deeper. At this time I'd like
to have someone suggest a time when we could meet and discuss,
confer....
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Again, before we have a meeting I'd like certain
information which I don't have a list with me tonight on it, as far
as the population increase when that contract...was_,in 1983, we had a
population of a little over 42,000; now we're up to 47,000. We're
talking in the neighborhood of roughly, a loo increase as far as
population goes. If my recollection serves me correctly, the letter,
and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that the tonnage was up like
40-600 of what it was just five years ago. That seems exorbitant and
also that letter stated something about....I don't have it with me.
Does anyone have it here?
BRUESCH: I don't have it but I know...
TAYLOR: It made reference to possibly contractors, also, bringing
debris in. Is there any documentation of that?
BRUESCH: Another thing that we're going to need....
TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Is there any documentation of
that? It's up 27% from when? Okay, but again I thought in
that letter we received last week, there was reference made to
contractors possibly bringing material into the city. Am I wrong?
Mr. Tripepi, do you recall?
TRIPEPI: I think there was reference made to other trash contractors
picking up some areas of the city, if that's what you're referring
to....
CC 11-22-88
Page #6
0
TAYLOR; No, because ...I'm sorry I don't have the letter.....
BRUESCH: Are those the tickets with gross and tare weight? In other
words, they weigh in and weigh out? Mr. Griegorian. Is our
municipal waste, the residential, co-mingled with any of the
commercial? ...Is there any way to determine the effect of just the
residential increase as compared to any type of commercial increase.
What I'm getting at is maybe we have to aim at looking at
differentiation of increases between commercial and
residential okay
TRIPEPI: Mr. Mayor. If I might, I think what Mr. Taylor may be
referring to is there are some parts in that letter that refer to
residents and outside persons bringing in debris and trash into the
city and either dumping it at a specified pickup location or just
dropping it off anywhere, for that matter. That may be what you're
referring to.
TAYLOR: As I say, I don't have it with me tonight. I read it last
week I think that one way that we're going to have to keep track
of that is when someone calls in or it's picked up there, it's easy
enough. It must be logged in. Your trucks can't just drive around
looking for something.... I'm of the opinion that if someone has a
refrigerator or a stove or a couch picked up once every six months,
or once every year, or whatever, it's the only I know of to figure
out if there are certain stops that you're having to go back to too
often....I understand that but when you're going back to a residence
then we have to find out too, then somebody is taking advantage of
it... It would be more or less to me, somebody would review your log
and see if that is a problem occurring in certain parts of the city.
Question to Mr. Griegorian. How many trucks do you have in your
total fleet? Twenty-eight. You have anywhere from 9 - 12 that
could service Rosemead on a given day.... Thank you.
McDONALD: Mr. Mayor
BRUESCH: Yes, Mr. McDonald..... Mr. McDonald.
McDONALD: I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to put
together a committee of city staff and any council people that would
like to sit on it and a group of Mr. Griegorian's people and come up
with a proposal within 60 - 90 days that gives us something that's a
win-win situation. We're not out to gouge Mr. Griegorian and see
that he's not out to gouge us and see if we can come up with a
solution,if there is a solution, or a proposal...that,council can act
upon.
BRUESCH: Would like to include in that meeting, monthly?
TAYLOR: I don't think that's necessary, Mr. Mayor, until we get the
package and see what has to be done with it.
McDONALD: I think the committee, on both sides, is going to have get
information from both sides that we have to put together to come up
with any solution.
BRUESCH: Why don't you say 90 days?
McDONALD: 90 days.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. That's a motion, there.
DeCOCKER: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor.
BRUESCH: It's been seconded. Mr. Taylor? Any discussion?
TAYLOR: Not on that particular item, go ahead and vote on it.
CC 11-22-88
Page #7
•
BRUESCH: It's been moved that city staff, council members, and.....
TRIPEPI: They know what the motion is, just go ahead and vote.
BRUESCH: would you please vote.
Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, Bruesch, McDonald
No: None
Absent: Imperial
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
END VERBATIM DIALOGUE
VI. STATUS REPORTS
A. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE
ROSEMEAD BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
No action was required on this item.
B. CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE
No action was required on this item.
VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. None
VIII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, cited a necessity for
establishing facilities for the dumping of hazardous waste and
suggested the use of biodegradable products and packaging.
There being no objection, it was decided that the City Council
would not hold its second meeting in December which had been
scheduled for two days after Christmas on December 27, 1988.
IX. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council adjourned to a closed session to discuss the
case of Franco v. City of Rosemead and instructed the City Attorney
to continue discussions with the attorney. No other action was
taken.
There being no further action to be taken at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
2c L' P l,Zl~iu-c-/
.511y Clerk
CC 11-22-88
Page #8