CC - 02-07-84 - Adjourned Meeting0
•
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 7, 1984 AT 8:00 P. M.
APP' o-V D
CI' y 0, (j'~ ti ; h.ll
DA..T a a
n.- lam'
The Adjourned Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called
to order by Mayor Cleveland at 8:10 p. m., in the Council Chambers
of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Imperial.
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Pro Tem Taylor.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmen Cichy, Imperial, Taylor, Tury and
Mayor Cleveland
Absent: None
I. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
Modern Service Company (Verbatim)
(a) Approval of Revised Franchise Agreement
Taylor: There are a couple of items that I would like to get
straightened out. On page 8, this pertains to the bonds, under
subsection (j): The Contractor shall continue to provide to City
a good and sufficient surety bond, to be approved by the City
Clerk and the City Attorney in the amount of $25,000-1 feel
that this fee is way to low-that the Contractor let 19 years ago.
This fee or this bond has not been changed. Keep in mind that
this bond is to cover any default or urgency or need that the
City may have to take over the pick-up service if that was.fore-
seeable. The billing for the City is done quarterly in advance.
This proposal or we have figures in here of approximately 30,000
single family residential units that are billed three months in
advance. At $6.00 per month times 10,000 is $60,000 times three
months makes it $180,000 is billed three months in advance. If
it was to happen where there was a default and the City had to
take over and try to find a rubbish contractor, even on a emergency
basis, in a pay as you go type of thing, $25,000 wouldn't cover .
eight days of service. I think it is only reasonable that this
fee be increased to $250,000. That would almost be the equivalent
of the three months that are paid in advance, and that's my reason-
ing for trying to have this money or this bond raised. I don't
think it is a hardship on the contractor. Especially since he
does have that money in advance. I think another interesting
thing is that if the City had a $150,000 in advance think of how
much interest that draws, short term over the week-end. We do
that many times when we get checks. We put it in for three days
interest in the bank. So there is quite a bit still to be gained
by the Contractor. I don't think it is an imposition to have this
bond raised to the $250,000 or an amount similar to that.
Cichy: Contrary, I would like to see the particular bond deleted
totally. Surety Bonds,as we've seen over many contracts in the
past. Building contracts, the people at the tennis courts down
the street, whatever, is typified by not having exactly the type
of stake in the total product being completed.By the very fact
that the total product has been completed for almost 20 years,
the necessity of having a Surety Bond, itself, has gone by the
wayside in that the value of the contract speaks for itself.
Traditionally,Surety Bonds are to insure for the eventuality
of a failure. In this case, we have more than good faith, we
have compliance. Many times the Council has stated,over and over,
what a fine Trash service we have. The collection is outstanding.
We have no ..even during the times that there have been strikes,
and they have had to go out and really bust it to keep everything
going out on time. Even in the worst of times, we haven't had any
problems. The particular item is just another added cost to the
Contractor which we would be happy to delete, certainly in other
areas where we would have such a long standing relationship. $dj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #1
i
Cichy Continues:
I would move that we delete that item totally.
Mayor: Do you make that as a motion?
Cichy: Yes.
Mayor: Do we have a second?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor the motion dies for a lack of a second. I
would like to make a motion that we increase the faithful per-
formance bond to $250,000.
Tury: I second that Mr. Mayor.
Mayor: It has been regularly moved and seconded that we increase
the surety bond from $25,000 to $250,000.
Kress: Mr. Mayor, prior to voting on this, Mr. Robert Andrews,
who is counsel for Modern Service would like to be heard.
Mayor: I was going to call on him.
Taylor: Very,interesting how the interjection comes after one
motion is made and turned down, but I certainly want to hear it.
Go ahead, Mr. Andrews.
Andrews: Well, first off the thing that concerns me is how we
are nit-picking this contract again after four years from this
month. There were certain changes that were called, I understand
at a certain Councilmen's request the other day at my office after
we had spent many hours and many days getting the agreement drafted.
They had asked for an increase in our liability coverage from $500,000
to $2,000,000. My understanding that the increase in our cost for
that little tidbit is about $50,000 a year to increase coverage by
a.million and half dollars on those per truck. As Mr. Cichy says,
a surety bond isn't a forfieture bond. Assuming that Modern Service
after 25 years of supplying service to this City, decided all of
a sudden that they are going to breach this contract and drivers
and trucks are not going to show up some day, it is not like you
can go to the bonding company and say 'Guys, give me that $250,000,
you are requesting. The Bonding Company is going to put it right
back on Modern Service's back and say 'defend.our bond'. So that
means you are going to have to sue Modern Service, and if you pre-
vail after years of litigation against Modern, thenthe Bonding
Company, if Modern Service is broke, will come up with the $250,000,
or $25.00 or $2.50.. But it is not as if this $250 or $25 is avail-
able. It is only.available if you prevail, and obtain a..judgement
against Modern Service for some kind of a breach.that falls within
the bonds. Quite frankly, in my.experience I have never seen an
on going relationship for an excess of twenty years, where a bond
has even been required. That is really all I want to say about it.
Quite frankly, I think there is a point where my client must.say
'enough'. Everything that has been requested that we make over the
past several months with this one exception, a minor item, a $25,000
bond, they.have gone along with. I think I was called with something
like 10 changes the other day. Everyone of them, the big one which
I can understand the City's position, $250,000 or $500,000, if one
of our trash trucks runs over and kills somebody is probably not
enough money today. You run over a doctor in a crosswalk and my
Lord, it can be a $2,000,000 judgement. So Mr. Griegorian and I
discussed that and we said we will bite the bullet on that because
it is needed. But a $25,000 or a $250,000 surety bond, I don't
think it really accomplishes anything. I don't think it does the
City any good and all it does is cost my.client a few more dollars.
Taylor: I would like to read a section of the contract pertaining
to the motion:Mr. Cichy made to delete it from the contract, an
additional item on Page 25 it states under miscellaneous items #2
F. (2) In the'event that contractor should fail to perform the pro-
visions of this Agreement on Contractor's part or should become
bankrupt or make an assisgnment for benefit of creditors, or if a
receiver or other officer should be.placed in change of Contractors
office or equipment and not be removed within 10 days, or in the
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page N2
•
Taylor continues:
event of a substantial number of recurring complaints as to
Contractor's service due to Contractor's failure to perform
as herein provided and should contractor fail to correct such
deficiency in performance within 30 days after notice in writing
by the City Manager to do so, City may cancel and terminate this
agreement and Contractor shall have no further rights under or
with respect to this agreement. In the event of such cancella-
tion or termination by the City due to Contractor's default as
aforesaid,,the bond provided for in Paragraph B.l(j) hereof
shall assure payment to City by Contractor of any additional
cost of collection of garbage, custible and non-combustible
rubbish, miscellaneous debris and combined rubbish for the re-
mainder of the term hereof, together with any other expense or
damages occasioned by Contractor's breach of contract.
What Mr. Andrews stated, I believe it makes reference in the
Contract here somewhere on one of our back-up sheets that we
would be hardpressed to collect this money until we did get a
judgement. As I stated there is not enough money. A $25,000
bond does not cover 8 days, whatever the reason may be. The
fact that we have this section in the agreement makes good
sense, and to even suggest that we delete it entirely leaves
us with absolutely no protection. I still feel strongly, if
the $250,000 feels high, perhaps $150,000 might be agreeable,
but I think it should be raised and my motion still stands
unless some one cares to amend.it.
Tury: Listening to both of the sides, I think possibly a one
month time, $50,000 would be a little more reasonable and it
would give the City some protection. If the maker of the motion
would agree to that.
Taylor: What is the amount, Lou?
Tury: $50,000, Gary, that would be about one month.
Taylor: That's about one month, correct, $56,000 or...
Tury: I don't think the bond would cost that much.
Taylor: I am not sure of the figures or the cost of it.
Tury: It seems like a compromise..
Imperial: What does Mr. Andrews say about the $50,000.
Andrews: Sold.
Tury: Shall we make that the motion?
Imperial: Before we get into that, I would like to say that we
have been batting this thing around for a long time. I had some
real problems with this contract and I had some big problems
with Mr. Andrews.as far as I am concerned. One time I wouldn't
think he would even try to cooperate. I think he tried. I
think he has worked very well with Mr. Kress. I don't see any
reason why we:can't iron this out. They have just agreed to
$50,000. I can go along with that. Why don't we go on to the
next item, if there isn't a problem..
Taylor: I would like to withdraw the previous motion and make
the motion that the bond be increased to $50,000.
Imperial: I second it.
Mayor: It has been regularly moved and seconded that the Surety
Bond be increased from $25,000 to $50,000. Would you please vote?
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENTED VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Taylor: Another item that I would like to.have verified here
has to do with the unlimited household service on page 22, sub-
paragraph 5, the last sentence that has been added on page 23.
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page N3
0 0
Taylor continues: No such single item placed for regular collection
shall exceed sixty pounds in weight. We talked about this at the
last meeting and at that time I had asked Mr. Tripepi to locate some
photographs that he had taken of chunks of concrete that were left
in front of my home. He couldn't locate the photographs at that
meeting, and we were going to have them for this meeting, I thought.
Is Don going to get those? Alright. While he is getting those
photographs I would like to refresh the Council's memory that a
chunk of concrete no bigger than this water pitcher in front of us
here, six inches square and 12 inches long, about the size of this
water pitcher is sixty pounds approximately. I had asked that
that item be deleted out and when the Assistant City Manager brings
back the photographs, you will see my reasoning for that. I had
three similar pieces of concrete that I had in the parkway. I didn't
think that was an abuse of the rubbish contract at the time. As I
had stated I took out a gate-post and replaced it and what this tells
me now, we will no longer be able to put that piece of concrete out
there, or two pieces of concrete or else you would have to call for
that special $30 bin pickup. I would like that sentence amended to
state that "no such item placed for regular collection shall exceed
60 pounds in weight". That would cover the main concern that if
they are too heavy the employees of Modern Service may be injured
or hurt, but it would still allow for that miscellaneous items to
be put out occassionally.
Kress: Councilman Taylor are you looking at a draft that has that
sentence underlined?
Taylor: Yes, on page 23, the one that was in the package. Is yours
underlined?
Kress: Uh huh.
Mayor: That's exactly what you have requested.
Kress: That's what you requested. If you will look at the previous
draft and the problem you just explained. I thought we took care of
that. I would sincerely like to think that. Let me read you the
memo that was put in this packet also. This is requested changes.
If you read through these items,several of these have been corrected,
and stated as such.
Andrews: What we did on that, Mr. Taylor, was in the original it
was 60 pounds in one week and it was requested that we change it
to 60 pounds for any single item with no restriction as to quantity
has been made, only the weight per item.
Taylor: Alright.
Mayor: This, Councilman Taylor, reads exactly as you projected it,
no such single item placed for regular collection shall exceed 60
pounds in weight.
Taylor: O.K., now, I think that is clever. No such single item,
and from what Mr. Andrews just said, that you would be allowed to
one item per week not more than 60 pounds.
Mayor: No.
Taylor: Would I be allowed to put out, in the photographs that we
have here, if the Council cares to look at them. This is a kitchen
waste basket, eight inches wide, about 12 inches, 8 X 12 and 20 inches
high. Next to that three chunks of concrete from around the fence
post. I know it is a far way to see, but if you could see the two
waste baskets, and right next to that is two or three chunks of con-
crete. Would 'I be allowed to put out those three pieces of concrete?
Andrews: A dozen of them as long as none of them weigh more than
60 pounds.
Taylor: Fine,, that's all I have as a clarification on that.
The reason I state that 'no such single item placed for regular
collection shall exceed 60 pounds in weight' and if that is not
eluding to one item, I have no complaints with that one. On
page 16, paragraph was added for the temporary three cubic yard
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #4
11
0
Taylor continues: bin on request of customer for up to 15 days
usage, plus delivery, pick up service and one dump, paid in ad-
vance, priced $30. Right under that it states Roll off bodies
including delivery, pick-up and dump, $130. What is the differ-
ence between plus delivery and including delivery,
Andrews: The cost should be all inclusive.
Taylor: Then the upper part should be changed, then the.plus
delivery for the three yard bin should be including delivery.
Alright. On the following page, Page 17, we still have the
sentence and not to read the entire first paragraph, but the
last three lines, 'at such times and upon such reasonable rates
as may be agreed upon by Contractor and the person requesting the
special collection service'. I think we were looking for an elim-
ination of that and that's why the three yard bin rate was added,
the roll off body was added, the charges, the compaction service.
Is there a need to have that'reasonable rates that may be agreed
upon by the Contractor and the person requesting the special col-
lection service'. It get down to again an individual negotiating
basis. What is the need for keeping that sentence in there?
Tury: Mr. Mayor, I have that same thing underlined, and it was my
understanding that we were going to have these rates as listed on
the previous page posted at the City Hall and that was it. Was
that what we had agreed to at the last meeting?
Taylor: That is the way I recollect it. That is why I raised the
issue.
Tury: Variable rates for the same service.
Kress: Well, we put those rates in and Mr. Andrews and I tried
to think of all those circumstances and put in those particular
three services. Mr. Andrews do you think that can come out?
Andrews: Well, the only thing about that-Let's say that for
example, a client wants a bin for 15 days for $30 and that in-
cludes one dump, and let's say for some project, that person
needs to have it taken to the dump three times a week. We would
not necessarily charge him $30 for each time. The $30 includes
one dump so ...it is hard to take care
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, it is still reasonable to amend that if the
person wants a if it is a commercial service of some nature
or a project that is almost commercial. Then they could use the
commercial rate above. One container, once weekly, every 7 days,
is $40, twice weekly is $53. Personally I thought, 15 days is
I thought 7 days is more appropriate. They are going to have
your bins parked out there that long, fill them up and get them
out. If there has to be another charge for two dumps, we could
come up with something on that. Then it would possibly switch
over to the commercial rate. The first dump at $30 other dumps
to be...I am not sure how you would want to do that. Just make
an extra stop as you made reference to, two or three extra dumps
during that week.
Andrews: I have no objection to that paragraph coming out.
Taylor: $30 is reasonable, that's the going rate.
Andrews: Included in the $30 is the cost of taking the.bin out
and bringing back to the yard. The cost would not necessarily
be $30 for the, second dump, and they may not want to go on regular
monthly service for a year. I have no objection to striking the
paragraph.
Taylor: I think it eliminates the potential of conflict and every-
one that applies for any service whatsoever. Even the way it is
worded tells me that the customer has a one shot deal for 15 days
for $30, if it is over that then they can pay another $30. I don't
see anything unjust about that. If your bin is tied up. You could
be making that $30 off of someone else. It makes them act faster
and it keeps it good and clean. But I would ask that the last
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #5
•
0
Taylor continues:
sentence be stricken out of there. I say the last sentence, but
if you clarify,it....
Kress: The whole paragraph.
Taylor: Alright. Now, this is under the Commercial services,
the way it is listed, and I am assuming that on page 15, 'Charges
for Regular Commercial Services and Special Services and Charges
Therefor'. There is no reference made that this would really
apply to the previous section which is you have to go back
to page 12. 'Charges for Regular Household Services' I just want
this clarified that this is an option that is made available to
commercial or residential. Well, excuse me, maybe not commercial,
if they are going to...Mr. Andrews as far as a one shot deal on
commercial, wouldn't most of them have the $40 bin to begin with
if it is a commercial business?
Andrews: That's what we assume.
Taylor: Then they can go to twice a week commercial for $53 or
three times a week for $67. Some way that this incorporates that
this is also for the homeowner. The entire sentence 'Contractor
shall provide, upon request from a householder or from an owner or
proprietor of an apartment house, multiple dwelling, mobile home,
trailer park, or from an owner or operator of a business, commer-
cial or industrial establishment, collection and removal of garbage,
combustible and non-combustible rubbish, miscellaneous debris and
combined rubbish. Is that agreeable just to stop that sentence?
Do you see the point that I am referring to?
Andrews: We can delete the entire paragraph.
Taylor: The wording is just fine to that point and delete the last
five lines of that sentence.
Kress: Where would you be placing the period?
Andrews: After rubbish.
Taylor: Another clarification I would like to check is on page 19.
Reimbursement for Dump Fees, subparagraph (i) In addition to the
increases as provided herein, Contractor shall also be reimbursed
for increases in dump fees, and at this point I think it should be
dump fee rates as follows: Aren't we basically talking about any
increase in the rate fees, rather than general dump fees?
Andrews: No, not at this time.
Taylor: Reimbursement of Dump Fees. Now what dump fees are we
going to reimburse?
Andrews: My understanding is that we are to be reimbursed all in-
creases in dump fees over the $3.75.. My understanding is that we
will bill directly to the City over the base of 3,335 tons, if it
goes up a quarter, we will multiply a quarter times 3,335 tons and
send a bill for that on the first of the month following the in-
crease to the City. Then of course you know it is going up and
the City has the right then to be 'aware of it, and go through and
approve that. Then there is to be a direct reimbursement from the
City to Modern.
Taylor: That's fine, but wouldn't you say that the dump fee rate
of $3.75 is the current rate. I am only asking that the word "rate"
be inserted there. It is the dump fee rate of $3.75. Dump Fees is
inclusive of whatever ...I don't know what else it could include.
Andrews: Contractor shall be reimbursed for increases in dump fees.
Taylor: Yes, increases in dump fees, and dump fee rates.
Kress: Perhaps,.instead of using the word rates., if we could say
over the base level as defined below. I think that is the point
you are reaching. Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #6
• •
Taylor: Over the base level of
Kress: As explained in the next paragraph.
Tripepi: Two 'paragraphs below, $3.75 is called out.
Taylor: It calls that out as said rate. In the event of any in-
crease in said rate, then the reimbursed dump fees shall be billed
to the City on a monthly basis. I just feel more comfortable....
the dump fee rates. Whenever those are increased, if they go up
a dollar, they get a dollar more. If they go up 25 cents then you
get the 25 cents. Let me read a little further. Over to page 20,
Section C. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CUSTOMERS'. The sentence right
above that. All future billings for dump fee increases and any
subsequent increases...now that is two items to me. All future
billings for dump fee..and again, rate increases, I would ask
that rate be inserted there, and I need an explanation of what is
the supplemental, and any subsequent increases, or strike those
four words out. There is two items referred to there. I don't
think that needs to be in there. If we strike those four words
then it reads, all future billings for dump fee rate increases
shall be handled in like manner for the term of this contract.
I don't think that those four words need to be in there. The
four words being 'and any subsequent increases'.
Kress: I think you are correct. I think it is redundent the way
it is stated.
Taylor: Again, going back to the sentence directly above that.
Go to the top of the page, the first sentence, the second line
down. The City shall then verify the aforesaid increase commenc-
ing on the effective date of the increase or the first of the next
month following the effective date of the increase, Contractor
shall then bill to the City.and City shall pay within a reasonable
time, the full amount of the rate increase, and I am inserting rate,
for the base number of tons heretofore agreed to. I just think
that they are talking rate increase here and it should be clear.
If there is no objection, I would like to make that motion that
in this paragraph (i) that rate, dump fee rate be used instead of
dump fee increases.
Imperial: Second.
Mayor: Regularly, moved and seconded, to change this sentence to
read as...
Tury: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I have no objection to the verbage
change, however, I do question whether the agreement was to start
picking up the dump fee increases in 1984 and not 1985. Reading
Mr. Kress's memo, on that same one, it says, In discussion,. of
this item with Robert Andrews, he points out that the cost of
living increase the Contractor was otherwise entitled to for 1984
was reduced from 7% to 6% because the City agreed to pick up any
increases in the dump fees. Well, it seems to me as though in
1984 you are going to be going instead of from 7% to 6%, you are
going from 7%'to 15% increase in 1984.
Taylor: Mr. Tury, if I may say something here.
Tury:. You go from $5.24 a month...
Kress: Commercial..
Taylor: Lou, if I may, you are correct in what you think because
in the requested changes, it states that reimbursement of the dump
fees to begin in 1985. That August 1, 1984 date, is that what you
question?
Tury: That's what I am questioning for the residential, however,
Mr. Kress just told me that was commercial. I don't see commercial
there anyplace. They are getting a 15% increase on the residentials
this year. That quite frankly is not a decrease. On the commericials
I will buy.that. I didn't think about the commercials, however, I
don't think the City is picking up...had agreed to pick up all the
dump fees increases including everything. It was my understanding
that the first years increase would take care of the dump fees this
year. Page k7
Tury continues: Using the base of $3.75 a ton starting in 1985
on January 1, by that time it had gone to $4.75, the City then
would be obligated to pay $3,335 a month increases across the
board. I can see the commercials.
Andrews: Then do you want a 7% increase for commercials instead
of the 6%? My understanding is....
Tury: It is already a very inflated figure. I hate to go any much
more than it is.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, on page 18, it states in the first paragraph,
Contractor shall be entitled to a 6% increase in all prices on
commercial services effective April 1, 1984 and on April 1 of
each year thereafter during the term..That states 6% as of April
1st and that's what you will get.
Tury: Mr. Mayor, if we can get this amended and the City starts
picking up dump fees in 1985, I:think we are willing to let the
commercials increase to 7% this year and then 6% commencing in
1985.
Taylor: There.is..what Mr. Tury's comment was on the residential
rate. I figure that you mentioned 15 or 16 percent, that is very
ironic. If you add that on Lou, it comes out higher than the annual
7% increase for the next 7 years because of that 16% increase the
first year. So there is no loss in dollars really.
Tury: I think,that in exchange for that taking effect in 1985,
the commercials should possibly be allowed to take 7% this year
as normal but next year it drops to 6% because the City at that
point will be picking up the dump fees. Dump fee increases I
should say. What do you guys think?
Mayor: Is there any other discussion?
Tury: I just threw it out for discussion.
Taylor: It states in here for example. If the County of Los
Angeles at the Palasear dump effectuates a $1 per ton increase
in dump fees effective July 1, 1984 and assuming that the base
figure per month of tonnage removed from the City of Rosemead
is 3,300 tons.... am I correct that this is just an example or
is this a factual date? What happens on August 1, 1984?
Kress: Nothing unless there is an increase.
Taylor: 0. K. if there is an increase. Do we pay it.
Tury: I think that the figures that we decided to do this under
was 1985.
Taylor: I think you had some information requested, Lou, in that
little booklet. I am not sure that it is in there, but some of
those dates...
Tury: The figures that we have for the financial estimates for
the cost to the City,for the subsidizing of the trash rates were
picking up the trash rates in 1985.
Taylor: The clarification does state that. Requested changes
on page 18 reimbursement of increased dump fees to begin 1985.
That's on page 18 does it state that?
Tury: No, it actually.says 1984, now, but if you look at the
Attorney's memo, it mentions page 18 dump fees. Actually I
don't happen to agree with that.
Taylor: It does state that to me, Lou, on Section 2, it states:
Contractor shall be entitled to an increase of 6% for all billings
on residential collection services from and after January 1, 1985.
Oh, I am sorry you are correct. This is only a 6% increase so
what is it stating here when it refers to page 18....
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #8
0 0
Tury: It is.actually on page 19. It is not on page 18. It is
the second paragraph from the bottom, the last section, Reimburse-
ment for Dump Fees.
Taylor: Yes, I see what you are referring to now.
Tury: The only question I have here now. Is that we are picking
it up in January of 1984 and the same time that is basically 15%
rate increase.
Taylor: I wouldn't accept it, Lou, you are absolutely right.
Tury: We hadn't agreed to that. If it is important that the
commercials pay a 7% increase instead of a 6% increase, I think
we would have to do that, however, I think that 6% across the
board sounds fair when you consider the rates that they are
paying now.
Taylor: I see your point and I didn't quite understand it to
begin with. That was the reasoning. You had mentioned in the
past to allow such a 15% increase to off-set that dump fee not
to pick it up. Otherwise, they get 15% or 16% plus the dump fee
subsidies.
Tury: That was my understanding of what we had agreed to it in
the first place and whether that had been agreed to by all parties
I don't know. That was my understanding that the City was going
to pick up all the dump fee increases in 1985.
Mayor: Do you wish to make that as an amendment, Councilman Tury?
Tury: I would like the City to pick up the dump fees in 1985,
January 1985, yes.
Taylor: That's if we have an increase. We don't have it as of
now. .
Clerk: There is a motion on the floor that has not been voted on.
Taylor: Yes, we are getting to another motion..
Tury: Oh, I am sorry. Let's get to Gary's motion, but before
we voted on that I just wanted to bring that up.
Taylor: With my motion I would include in that motion since we
are discussing this paragraph, that that date be January 1, 1985.
Tury: I just didn't want that section passed without that coming
up. That all. If you will put it your motion,that is fine.
Taylor: So amend the motion.
Mayor: Will you read that motion back Mrs. Poochigian?
Clerk: The motion by Councilman Taylor, seconded by Councilman.
Imperial that the word rate be added to dump fee on page 19 (i).
Taylor: Alright if I may clarify that, Ellen, on the first sentence
there, Reimbursement for dump,fees. In addition to the increases as
provided herein, Contractor shall also be reimbursed for increases
in dump fee rates as follows: Then continuing down to: It has also
been determined that the charge per ton, as of January 1984, of re-
fuse dumped at the Palasear dump in Los Angeles County, California
is $3.75. In the event of any increase in said rate at the Palasear
dump, then the reimbursed dump fee rate shall be billed to the City
on a monthly basis. Next sentence, prior to this billing,the con-
tractor shall notifiy the City immediately upon receipt from the
County of Los Angeles of a dump fee rate increase and on the next
page, the sixth sentence down, the full amount of the rate increase
for the base number of tons heretofore agreed upon, the ninth sen-
tence down, If the County of Los Angeles at the Palasear dump ef-
fectuates a $1 per ton increase in dump fee rates, effective July 1,
1984 and assuming that the base figure per month of tonnage removed
from the City of Rosemead is 3,300 tons, then on August 1, 1984 and
each month, thereafter, Contractor would bill to the City the sum of
$3,300 to offset the dump fee rate increase. 2-7-84
Page #9
•
0
Taylor: Lou, did you find the section that you were looking for?
Tury: I am still trying to find where it says that it takes effect
in 1985.
Kress: The sense of the Council, as I understand it, that this
Section should take effect on January 1, 1985. Is that correct?
Taylor:. Yes, reimbursement for dump fees. That would be the
effective date, but it is not called out as such in here. Maybe
that is just a clarification on your memo.
Kress: I think it is the second sentence in the third paragraph
of section (i), but this was left because there was Council dis-
cussion and there did not seem to be unaminity at the last meeting.
No changes were made.
Taylor: I think it is an extremely valid point, though. That
justifies the 16% increase in the residential rates.
Kress: My understanding is that the rate is frozen as of January
1st of 1984, and the City will begin paying increases as of January
1, 1985.
Tury: Right, using the $3.75 as a base. If it goes up dramatically
we will pick up the full increase as of January 1985. If the base
doesn't change, then the base stays at $3.75.
Kress: Mr. Andrews and I will do a better job in clarifying that.
Tury: Go ahead, Gary, I just wanted to get that one thing in.
Taylor: That's o. k., that's the motion with the deletion of the
four words, Ellen.
Clerk: With the deletion of 'and any subsequent increases'.
Taylor: Yes, that would be the motion.
Mayor: You've got that straight, Mrs. Poochigian?
Clerk: Yes.
Taylor: Clarification on this. Why is reference made to 3,335
tons as the base. What bearing does that have on the rate fee?
Tury: If I may, Gary, if you remember we got a audit from Ron
Barsam that said that that is how much tonnage they were dumping
from the City of Rosemead every year, every month I'm sorry, with
the assumption that there is not any dramatic growth or dramatic
decrease in the City. It was sort of agreed to as a base to use
for the dump fees. You have to have something to start off with.
We started with $3.75 a ton, and 3,335 tons per month. I think
that is a pretty good gauge of what is going to happen in the
next 8 or 9 years.
Taylor: I agree wholeheartedly with the rate and the rate increase,
but I don't understand or do not see the need for a tonnage listing
in there.
Tury: I think they have to have a base because the trash contractor
could say he has dumped 5,000 tons and we could say he has dumped
500 tons and no one has agreed where we are starting from. I think
we almost have to have a base, Gary, I really do.
Taylor: 0. K. are we saying that the first 3,335 tons we don't
pay a rate increase on?
Tury: No, what we are saying that when we do the rate increase,
say the rate increase is one dollar, we are going to assume and
use as a base 3,335 tons per month which means we are going to
pay,him $3,335 and that tonage is bound to vary from month to
month. But you 'almost have to have a base to start with.
Taylor: Correct me if I am wrong. That is the reason for the
monthly dump fee accounting methods to be had. Adj.C/M
Page #10
Tripepi: Mr. Taylor, if I might. Let's look at it to go the
other way. Modern Service might dump 8,000 tons a month of
trash. 3,300 tons of that is going to be allocated as Rosemead
trash. We will not pay rate increase on the other 5,000 tons
because it is not the City of Rosemead's trash. So we will not
pay his dump fee increases for his entire operation. That's
why we had to come up with an allocation formula to determine
how much of that business. How much of the 100% of that business
is allocated to Rosemead. Our independent auditor who worked on
those books came up with that 3,300 figure and that is why it is
in there. That's why it is reasonably what Mr. Griegorian has
taken out of this City on a monthly basis for a fixed period of
time that the accountant felt.comfortable with saying that's the
base and it isn't going to deviate too much from that. It isn't
right for us to pay on the 7,000 tons that he dumps because 4,000
tons of that does not come from Rosemead.
Taylor: Alright, looking at it from another standpoint now. If
we start getting a request back in here from Modern that states
'Hey I've got dump tickets from my trucks that list us at 3,700
tons per month'. Are we going to pay the extra 4,000 tons?
Tripepi: They have agreed to that base and we have agreed to it.
It has been fixed. Both of.our auditors from our auditing firm
that went through those books feel comfortable that it is a valid
computation and a valid figure to start with. There will be no
deviation from that base figure and Modern has agreed to that.
Tury: That is if you don't put out too much concrete, Gary.
Taylor: Alright. Then we have a motion on that.
Mayor: It has been regularly.moved and seconded. Motion by
Councilman Taylor and seconded by Councilman Imperial. Are you
ready for the question?
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN,IMPERIAL
that the word "rate" be added to read "dump fee rate increase" in
section (i) on Page 19 and date be changed to January 1, 1985 in-
stead of 1984, and four words "and any subsequent increase" be
deleted from page 20. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor delcared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, another item on page 26,paragraph 3. I raised
this more or less for discussion. 'Contractor may without prior
written approval of the City Council of City, assign or otherwise
transfer this Agreement to a corporation, etc., as it continues.
I would like to get the Council's opinion on rewriting that first
portion. Contractor may not without the prior written approval of
the City Council, such approval shall not be withheld unreasonably.
Tury: I read that and I had similar feelings, but I think if you
keep reading, I think all that this really does is allows him to
form a corporation. He would have to be a 51% owner and it would
really not change his responsibility towards the City whatsoever.
Taylor: The reason I bring that up, Lou, is it gives us a chance
to be informed. I recall in this particular amendment it states
that the Contractor exercised the option to increase the term of
this agreement an additional 5 years from 1986 to 1991, and that
happened in December of 1978 and it was not brought to this Council
at all to my knowledge. Because it states without approval, he.
could do that at any time. And the reason I insert 'such approval
shall not be withheld unreasonably, it is just to inform us that
there is something going on. What brought it to my mind was in
the cities east to us, I can't recall if it was E1 Monte or Industry
or whichever, there were some sales going on or potential sales of
the rubbish contract to out of state companies. We can't do any-
thing about it, really. Unless we say, we think there is a problem.
At least we are informed of it. It doesn't say,that we can disapprove
of it. It just says that it can't be'done unless it has been brought
to our attention, and we cannot withhold approval unreasonably.
Tury: Mr. Mayor, I really think the second paragraph really gives
us that.handle. He still has control of 517 of the stock. Adj.C/M
Page #11
• 0
Tury continues: Basically, it wouldn't change it,as a business-
man I would be objectionable to someone telling me that I could
no longer operate as a sole proprietorship and that I had to in-
form them if I was going to incorporate. Even if I were the single
stock holder in it. As long as you control 51% of the stock it
really... nothing really changes. I would object to it more if
that 51% of the stock were not in there. Then I could see that
there would be a valid question.
Tripepi: As Councilman Tury tried to point out, if you read a
little further down in that paragraph. When Mr. Griegorian is
not involved in 51% of this business, which means basically a
transfer or a sale, I believe that it is handled.from the point
where it begins with: Except as hereinabove specifically provided,
Contractor shall not sublet or subcontract any work or services
hereunder and this Agreement or any interest herein shall not be
assigned or tansferred by Contractor, or by any such corporation...
which means if he doesn't incorporate, he is going to basically
give it off to another corporation which he doesn't.have 51%
ownership in. Then without the prior written approval of this
City Council, he can't do it. That is my understanding.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, clarification. The very first words of.that
sentence: Except as hereinabove specifically provided, and spe-
cifically above it provides that the Contractor may without the
prior written approval of the City Council assign or otherwise
transfer...correct me if I am wrong, but it gives that exception
above. Down below it says he must do it in writing and up above
it says he can do it without prior written approval.
Andrews: He can transfer it £o himself. He can only transfer it.
If he decides to form a corporation rather than a proprietorship,
he can form a corporation as long as he still owns 51%, and that
doesn't require your approval. He is still the controlling entity. '
If sells that to anybody else and he doesn't control 517 interest,
he would have to come back to the Council for approval.
Taylor: That's fine, Mr..Mayor. The way it was explained we
can leave it as is. I have a question on page 30, under Late
Charges. The Contractor shall be entitled to charge each customer
late charges for the non-payment of any bill following thirty days
from the last day of the month for which the services were rendered.
Now, this next sentence. However, Contractor shall not charge late
charges for any portion of the bill that is for pre-payment for
services until such time as the payment has become delinquent for
15 days for services rendered. Then continuing: For Example:
If Contractor bills in advance for the month of January, February
and March and no payment is received during the month of January
no late charge would be assessed until February 30th, when a late
charge can be assessed for the month of January only. That is to
say late charges cannot be charged for periods of time for which
the services have not yet been rendered, but may be assessed 30 days
following the rendering of such service, if it is also 30 days be-
yond the payment date of the billing. That second sentence. I
don't understand why it needs to be in there. It can be stricken
out. To me it is redundant or ambiguous.
Tury: To me it says two different things.
Taylor: I do to, and I think it doesn't need to be there. There
is a statement above that says: Contractor shall be entitled to
charge each customer late charges for the non-payment.of any bill
following 30 days from the last day of the month which services
were rendered. Then., For Example: it states very.clearly how it
is to be effectuated. That sentence, I need to have it explained.
Kress: I think that second clause actually gives a few extra days.
Taylor: How is that, Bob, you need to explain that.
Kress: You've got a payment due date, just talking as an example,
in our January, February and March, if the due date was January
15th, I believe that second clause would actually give in other
months following the initial month some extra time. I might be
reading it wrong.
Adj. C/M
2-7-84
Page #12
• 0
Tury: It is confusing I know that.
Kress: I think the example is clearer than the last sentence.
Taylor: It is. It definitely is. That second sentence: However,
Contractor shall not charge late charges for any portion of the
bill that is for pre-payment for services until such time that the
payment has become delinquent for 15 days. The example is excep-
tionally clear.
Andrews: We had talked about this. We originally had it for 15
days, and I think what happened here, was that the computer changed
that 15 to a 30. I think that we were trying to make it very clear
that nobody would be charged a late charge on any portion of pre-
payment. I think what we intended there was, however, contractor
shall not charge late charges for any portion of the bill that is
for pre-payment for services until such time as the payment has been
delinquent for 30 days for services rendered. I think that is what
I had intended.
Taylor: That's fine. It would be repetitious, but I agree it
states the same thing over. Change the 15 to 30 days in that
sentence also, because the first sentence where it was corrected
there 30 days from the last day of the month for which services
were rendered. Then the second sentence can stay, change it to
30 days. On page 31, under Item #9, Second sentence in the first
paragraph, Second sentence from the bottom. In the case of any
amendment proposed by contractor prior to January 1, 1987, the
Contractor shall provide all financial data for the period com-
mencing January 1, 1984. I have some reservations about that.
What if we have an item come up January 1, 1985, dump fee rate
increase, whatever it may be. I would like to see this particular
item, that date changed to January 1, 1981. Giving us a chance to
check some backlog information. Otherwise, it looks to me that we
are shut-off completely, going back beyond January 1, 1984.
Kress: Councilman, part of the problem of the litigation and
getting this matter resolved, at least this far, has been that
the contractor has not kept these kinds of records. We sent our
auditor in, he got together with their auditor, and they came up
with exhibit C. It is very difficult,if not impossible, to apply
that kind of a rule retroactively. That's why that second sen-
tence says: the basic rule, is you provide the data for three
years. But if anything comes up in the next three years, you
provide all the data from January 1, 1984.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, again I bring that up, and I have to say that,
I think our auditor has done an exceptionally fine job by having
the opportunity to at least go back to the records of this year,
which would be excluded. We could not make reference to the re-
cords used this year the way this contract is written, and that is
why I say that if there is a discrepency in this years rates and
1981 is three years earlier. I just feel that we are closing the
door contracturally and legally by approving this particular date.
Mayor: Those records aren't kept back to 1981, Councilman Taylor.
Where would you get the information?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, the records were not kept in 1983 either, but
yet the auditor was able to look at the books and piece the infor-
mation together. So your statement is correct. If they weren't
kept in 1981, they were not kept in 1983, where did we get the in-
formation.
Tury: It seems to me that compromise is possible. It was a great
deal of work to sort out the figures in 1983, and I'm not sure that
we want to go through that again. Why don't we change that to Jan-
uary 1, 1983? Those figures are what basically all of our discus-
sions are around.
Taylor: O. K. That's fine. At least it gives us something on the
current year. Where basis were established.
Mayor: Anything further, Councilman Taylor?
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #13
Tury: Most.of my questions were answered by Mr. Taylor, but I
just have a couple. Page 10, the underlined addition, can we
change the words 'householders served' to 'users served' or
something that would include the commercials because that infor-
mation is also part of the franchise fees.
Taylor: What sentence is that, Lou?
Tury: It is the second paragraph. The one that has the underlining
on it, the last two words, householders served. It says here the
Contractor shall report gross revenues each month, but it says house-
holders served and commercials are part of the franchise fee. I
would like to have that changed to something that would include both._
Can you think of a word for that? Any one of you?
Kress: Customers.
Mayor: Customers?
Tury: That just makes it clear.
Taylor: Excuse me Lou, how would that read now? To accurately
reflect...
Tury: Customers served. Is that a good enough word for everybody?
Taylor: That's all. Reflect all customers served.
Tury: Page 15, third paragraph down. I objected to it the last
time and I will object to it again. It is the intention of all of
the parties that all commercial locations in the City shall be.on
service except as expressly excluded herein. We did not resolve
the bin rate. I am prepared to give up the bin rate to fight for
a separate bin rate as an option. Barrel rate, I'm sorry. But I
think that in torn f.or.giving up that fight for.barrel rate, I
would like to see that sentence stricken. I have talked to a
couple of people and they tell me that's implied in an exclusive
contract. I don't agree with that. With this sentence in here,
that is the thing that I disagree with. I would like that sentence
stricken if it is possible. If it is, like I've been explained,
a part of an exclusive franchise anyway. I prefer not to have it
restated. It is really up to Bob.
Andrews: Do you mean I get to vote?
Tury: No, I'm just curious as to what your reaction is, Bob, You
tell me and I'll see if I still want to fight for barrel service.
Andrews: We have had a lot of.discussions in the past four years
about whether it is a full service City, a mandatory service City.
On the one hand you ask for.unlimited pick-up and the other hand
you don't want to make it mandatory service. To me, we are really
creating a problem if we don't make it clear that everybody other
than a grandfathering that we have agreed to in here, commercials
now in service, and the barrels that are now out there, we are
going to continue to pick-up. You are inviting people to share
their facilities and take it to their houses and put it out in
front of their house and pick it up there so we are picking up
two for one. We know that is already happening with people that
aren't on service. For some reason.we are.grandfathering, 135 are
just special, whatever they are, they are a special breed of cats.
They don't have to be on service. I think that is going to mush-
room.and spread and they will start taking it somewhere else and
dumping.it.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, I don't know of the specific incidents that
Mr. Andrews refers to, but I have to say I disagree with it, in
the sense that if they are taking some of the waste or rubbish
home ...I know we have heard comments from small businesses within
the community that come protesting the rates of $40 a month when
they are maybe a hairdresser or some minor amount, there is pro-
bably the potential of that happening. I don't know what the
answer is to tell you the truth. They are charged $500 a year
for a small business and I know there's haircuttings and such,
but we have heard of litigimate complaints of some very small
businesses. I can't tell you what the waste that is generated.
Adj. C/M
Page #14
Taylor continues:. And when they say, well, gee, I am hit with
$500 a year that they have to come up with. I wish there was some
compatible way. Whether it be the barrels rate or what?
Andrews: Those people are listed on Exhibit "B". I know we've
got cleaners, bicycle shops, hardware stores, furniture stores and
all kinds of things that are not on service so it is hard for me
to see that that type of business does not generate trash. Maybe
they don't. We have made a provision in here for a place with
common ownership, shopping center or whatever, and they can share
the cost. I suppose you could say the same thing about the phone
rates.
Tury: Bob, why have you been so adamantly opposed. If we were to
leave this in, but leave a way that the small barber or something
to have a reasonably costing collection service. I would have no
problems whatsoever with a mandatory commercial, but when you are
taking-now we,are going to mandate, except for a few selective
people, they are going to mandate a service that probably, may or
may not be needed. I doubt if too many of these small barber shops
are going to use a bin, and I think you would have to agree with
that. Yet, when I try to come up with a way of providing a more
reasonable service for those people, you have also objected to that.
My objection is, that I can live with one or the other, but
apparently,we cannot come to terms on either of them.
Andrews: The problem is that, first off, commercial trucks operate
with one man. They do not operate with a driver and a swamper like
the residential truck where everybody has got their stuff out in
front and it is limited in weight and we can pick it up. One guy
drives the truck and the swamper walks and throws it in the back.
On a commercial truck, there is one guy out there. He's got to
drive the truck and goes in and picks those bins up with those forks
and dumps them. Well, if.we start creating a.... if we go back to
the commercial barrel service, but apparently, long before I was
involved with this, they fought years to get away from. It puts
two people on those commercial trucks which obviously increases
costs. The weight becomes excessive. The zoning ordinance is
against those barrels. It really creates problems. I would much
rather see.... I don't want to get into that ...I don't know what the
answer is. Obviously, I don't think everybody can have a bin. I
don't think a little barber shop that sweeps up hair cuttings off
the floor needs a bin, or even have room for the bin. So that is
why we tried to make provision for those people that are on it.
Everybody else is on a bin, and they have got a bin. I don't know
if any of those present customers are complaining or not. We are
not hearing that they are. We grandfathered those.
Tury:. My biggest concern is what if a new barber shop comes in.
Believe me, I can understand where you are coming from. We have
been kicking this around for three years. Nothing.new. We have
cut it down to two things that I feel very strongly about. About
the only two things I really felt strongly about. I find it hard
to imagine that we cannot come to some accomodation for this small
business. We are allowing 200 and some people to take barrels at
$15 a month and.it is a reasonable charge and I can see it as being
a mandatory service. I would have no objection to that, but to
saddle a guy in a barber shop to $40, and that's.just starting,
those rates are not going to be frozen rates. Everything gets a
6 or 7 percent increase on a $40 and you know how it multiplies.
Andrews: Is there more of that kind of business going in or are
they new businesses coming into the centers? Is there really
that much little....
Tury: No, there isn't really that much, No. In order to fill the
smaller buildings, you almost have to have something like that for
them.to entice them to fill the small buildings on Valley Boulevard
and the small buildings on Garvey. They are not going to go away
and just leave shopping centers tomorrow. There is no question
about that. If they do fine. There is provisions for that.
Andrews: Where do you draw that line? The guy that should have
a bin and the guy that should have a barrel.
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #15
• 0
Tury: Bob, I don't know. But it seems to me that there should
be some way to accomodate that small guy because $40 a month
maybe a little extra nudge and he will not want to struggle with
it any more. Here I get a bill and when you are billed for three
months and you are billed in advance, it is $120.
Andrews: No,•they are not billed in advance on commercials.
Tury: Oh, you are not billed in advance
still monthly. But it still seems to me
why we can't find some way to do that.
just going to have to learn to live with
We are probably going to wind this thing
still going to make those two objections
on commercials. It is
a lot. I cannot imagine
Maybe we can't and I am
both of these things.
down tonight, but I am
known.
Andrews: We have a problem with it. We have one guy out there
on some of those bins that do weigh 60 pounds,or whatever they
weigh sometimes at those locations. The workmen's comp rate...
Tury: I understand that..
Taylor: A couple of comments were just made that, Mr. Andrews you
mentioned that the commercial were not billed in advance. There
are three points I have to ask at this point. Page 15 it states:
the property owners shall be responsible for the payment of all
billings for such facilities and services. This is under common
ownership and all billings would include.... this is what I don't
understand, is that if it is under common ownership, and it is
under one landlord, the property owner shall be responsible for
all billings for such facilities and services.It's the intention
of the.parties that all commercial locations in the city shall be
on service except as expressly excluded herein. Again, it is all
commercial locations and then going on"to page 17, under billings,
Contractor will bill each householder and each business, commercial
or industrial establishment directly... now, each one of them'is
going to be billed. Then you go to the Ordinance which is being
asked to adopt tonight. It states Billing and Collection #5411.
Every occupant or owner of property in the City, shall be billed
periodically in advance, either monthly or quarterly. Now that
does not say commercial or householder, it says every occupant
or.owner of property in the City shall be billed periodically in
advance, either monthly or quarterly. We need a clarification
there. It is contradictory.
Andrews: I didn't draft that Mr. Taylor. We don't bill..we bill
commercial one month behind.
Taylor: Yes, but.that doesn't say that,in the Ordinance that they
are asking for tonight. So that has to be corrected then. Sub-
paragraph B, on the next page 2 on the ordinance, Should the occu-
pant or the owner of any property in the City, fail or refuse to
pay in accordance with the provisions hereinabove the fee assessed
for the collection of garbage, etc. it goes on. They are talking
about everybody.
Kress: Well, that can still.stand if the first correction is made.
Taylor: 0. K.
Andrews: Mr. Kress and I were negotiating over this common ownership
thing. What we don't want to get involved with is ..Let's say some-
body puts in a new center in town and has ten businesses in there,
and it is pre-arranged that they are going to put closures for these
trash bins, and we are going to stick three bins in these closures.
What we don't want to have to do is to divide the bill up ten:ways
when they are sharing services. We want to send it to the landlord,
to the prime tenant if you will, and go that way. Otherwise, you
get two and three customers, where it is once a week $40 and you are
trying to bill $16 to each one and one of them doesn't pay and the
other two are paying. The contractor is not getting full pay for
the bin because one of the guys is not paying and say take it out
of the other two guys because his neighbor isn't paying. So that
is what we are trying to accomplish.
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #16
• 0
Taylor: Well, I understand the reasoning for it, but it is also
the other side of the coin which is that it was to help a lot of
the small business people to use these common bins where we don't
want a trash bin parked behind or in front of every store. So
that is what we are shooting for. But the way these are written
up, that everyone of them will be billed individually.
Tury: That was not my understanding. I think my understanding
was that a shared bin would be billed to the property owner or
the owner of the center.
Taylor: That was the way it was to be, Lou, but it is not written
that way.
Tury: 0. K. in the Contract or the Ordinance, Gary?
Taylor: In both. In the Ordinance it states every occupant or
owner of property shall be billed periodically in advance. That
says every occupant and it doesn't make exception. That was what
the big hassle was the last year or two. Every little independent
or small business in a shopping center was being billed.
Tury: I know that was not the understanding of the Contractor or
us. I think that was one thing that we agreed with pretty much.
If we can possibly clean up the verbage on that, if anyone has any
good ideas.
Taylor: On page 17, it states Contractor will bill each householder
and each business, not each location but each business. We are right
back to.where we were.
Kress: I think all we need there is another except as herein provided.
Because we do provide an exception.
Taylor: It doesn't provide for new businesses coming in. It.only
provides for those that are grandfathered,in. If they can have a
bin, it doesn't say... just because it is a small shopping center
bin, they have got a bin and they are going to be charged for it.
Andrews: We have said in here if it is under a common ownership
they can share a bin.
Taylor: And that is not under the grandfathering portion?
Andrews: No, that's a new part.
Taylor: On page 15, on those commercial properties where more than
business entity exists in which the real property is under common
ownership, the establishments contained therein may share commercial
bin facilities so long as such sharing of facilities and services
is adequate for their required needs. The property owners shall be
responsible for the payment of all billings for such facilities and
services. More than one business entity exists. Well, that could
be at a future date.
Kress: That was certainly intended as an expansion over the grand-
fathering and it was done in the past week as a response to the
questions raised by the Council on the January 24th Meeting.
Taylor: Well, we need to come up with the language to clarify it.
Imperial: Mr. Chairman, we have gone over this contract and I.think
we have refined it. I would like to call for the question.
Mayor: Would you like to make that a motion, Councilman Imperial?
Imperial: Yes.
Cichy: The one issue that.we are discussing. We need to clarify
this one item, and we can get to the question in a second. Bob,
you mentioned a second ago that you didn't feel that there were
going to be any new individual businesses, isolated single owners,
in a single dwelling, and nobody anticipates that,.but like Lou
said and you said, how do you accomodate that individual guy, like
a new barber shop and he moved into the old Chiropractors place.
Page 1117
Cichy continues: He would rather take his clippings home in a bag.
It is still exclusive. I think there must be some way to resolve
that through the accomodation of the City Managers office in dealing
with the Contractor so that they can accomodate those specific in-
stances those very limited businesses. We have done it in the past
informally, and the City Manager gets the complaints and then ...we
get the complaint and we tell the City Manager, and then I know
that they go to Mary, and they say we'll take care of it. And that
is the way it has been done in the past. There has always been a
couple of people who object totally and we have left them alone.
Andrews: What I am scared to death of, if we put something in here -
that somehow, that gives people the option of going to a $15 barrel
and a $40 bin service, and everybody in town is going to want to get
barrels out there and get rid of those bins. We understand that.
That's the part that concerns me. I don't know how to define the
grey area, or where to put that line. I would certainly not oppose
some provisions that indicates that at the request of the City
Manager, in the event a new business establishment is formed, that
the City Manager can dictate to or make a recommendation or do
something that would allow that to be an exception to go on barrel
service. But I don't what that customer out there just being able
to decide on his own that I want barrels and not bins, anymore than
you want us to decide that we want him to have bins irrespective
of their size.
Cichy: I agree, and I think everyone agrees that because of the
complications that could arise. I know that we have had informal
assurances and as far as I know we have had total cooperation.
We just need something. Maybe a letter from.Modern to the City
Manager and Council stating that they will make those accomodations
with the City Managers approval on very specific cases. I am just
trying to resolve this one item.
Andrews: I would feel that Mr. Griegorian would go along with
something like that as long as we know that we are dealing with
a small number of isolated incidences. Mr. Tripepi...we can do
it with a letter.
Tury: Let me look at what I have left here.
Mayor: The chair will entertain a motion on the approval of
revised franchise agreement as amended.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that the revised franchise agreement as amended be approved. Vote
resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Cichy, Imperial, and Mayor Cleveland
NAYES: Councilmen Taylor and Tury
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Whereupon the.Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Tury: Mr. Mayor, I would have had no objection for voting for it
if we got the barrels resolved on paper.
Mayor: Approval of the Mutual General Release.
.MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL
that.the Mutual General Release be approved. Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Cichy, Tury, Imperial, and Mayor Cleveland
NAYES: Councilman Taylor
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion (duly carried and so
ordered.
Adj.C/M
2-7-84
Page #18
Mayor: Authorize City Attorney to execute a request for
dismissal of cross-complaint.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that the City Attorney be authorized to execute a request for dis-
missal of the cross complaint. Vote resulted:1
AYES: Councilmen Cichy, Imperial, Tury, and Mayor Cleveland
NAYES: Councilman Taylor
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Kress: Mr. Mayor, I request that Item D be deferred to next week
for introduction. Councilman Taylor did raise a valid point re-
garding clarification of the wording of the ordinance on commer-
cial billing. That Ordinance was prepared a long time ago, and,
it does need to be up-dated by virtue of the fact that the agree-
ment has been approved so with your permission that will appear
on the February 14th Agenda for introduction and for adoption at
the next meeting thereafter.
Mayor: Any objection to postponing the adoption of the Ordinance?
Taylor: No, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor: So be it.
Taylor: Move we adjourn.
Mayor: I think we should declare this a National Holiday in the
City of Rosemead. I am happy that this is the end of it.
The Meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on February
14, 1984 at 8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted:
City Jerk
APPROVED:
MAYOR
Adj. C/M
2-7-84
Page #19