Loading...
CC - 01-24-84pp~ APPROVED C1, 17y F:C 2 N1Et~D DATE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 24, 1984 AT 8:00 P. M. The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Cleveland at 8:05 p. m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Tury. The Invocation was delivered by Reverend John Juedes. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Cichy, Imperial, Taylor, Tury and Mayor Cleveland. Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 10, 1984 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Council Meeting of January 10, 1984 be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Cleveland presented a Resolution of Commendation to the City Treasurer, Hugh Foutz, on the occassion of his retire- ment as Senior Chief Yeoman of the United States Naval Reserve following 39 years of naval service. Mayor Cleveland extended, on behalf of the entire City Council, warmest regards and con- gratulations to Hugh and his wife, Burma on this occassion. Photographs were taken of Hugh, Burma, and his son with the City Council. Hugh Foutz, City Treasurer, expressed his appreciation to the Mayor for attending his retirement ceremony in San Diego, and stated that it was a very special day for him since his four past commanding officers were there and it was a great day. Mayor Cleveland presented Roy Bergesen, area manager for Southern California Edison Company, with a Resolution of Commenda- tion for serving the Rosemead community by serving as Director of the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce, Board and President of the Rose- mead Kiwaniis and has been instrumental in facilitating the up- coming construction of the new Zapopan Community Center by secur- ing the necessary agreements with the Edison Company. Mayor Cleve- land, on behalf of the City Council, extended congratulations to Roy Bergesen on this honorable occassion. Photographs of Roy Bergesen were taken with the City Council. Roy Bergesen stated that it has been a pleasure to be involved with the City of Rosemead for these past years and expressed his appreciation to the City Council, and thanked Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager and all the staff for all the support and help that has been given. He introduced John Steelsmith, who will represent Edison at City Council Meetings. John Steelsmith, new area manager, expressed his appreciation to the Council and stated that he would try his best to fill Roy Bergesen's shoes and that he looked forward to working with the Council and the City Manager and his staff. CM 1-24-84 Page #1 I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Robert Bruesch, 3126 Isabel, spoke on behalf of Richard Mustoe, who was too ill to attend the Council Meeting. Mr. Bruesch read a letter written by Mr. Mustoe in regards to a 7-11 Store which is trying to open directly across from St. Anthony's Church and a few feet from their school. He stated in the letter that they have also applied for a liquor license which had been denied by the ABC, however, there will be a public hearing to protest the decision of the ABC on February 7th at 9:00 a.m. in the San Gabriel City Council Chambers, 532 West Mission, in San Gabriel. In his letter he requested the assistance of the Rosemead City Council by sending an official delegate to the public hearing to request that the appeal to the decision be denied. B. Mayor Cleveland introduced Mr. Carrillo, field represen- tative of Congressman Marty Martinez, to the audience and welcomed him to the Meeting. C. Don Henderson, 2200 San Gabriel Blvd., stated that he was the owner of a small business on the corner of Graves and San Gabriel Blvd., and that he had received a letter from the City of Rosemead telling him that his business sign was in viola- tion of the City's sign ordinance. He felt that the ordinance should be changed to accommodate the small businesses that are in the City. Councilman Tury suggested that Mr. Henderson meet with the staff and see what the problems are and possibly work them out. Don Henderson stated that there is still a problem with the corner of Graves and San Gabriel with the children crossing the street without the benefit of a signal. Councilman Tury stated that the Schools were not in favor of moving the signals. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS FOR THE APRIL 10, 1984 ELECTION The following Resolution was presented for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS & POLLING PLACES APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS & FIXING COMPENSATION FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 83-57.OF THE CITY COUNCIL MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that Resolution No. 84-4 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 84-5 ORDERING CANVASS OF APRIL 10, 1984 MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE MADE BY CITY CLERK The following Resolution was presented for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that Resolution No. 84-5 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CM 1-24-84 Page 112 C. RESOLUTION NO. 84-6 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS RESOLUTION NO. 84-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS & DEMANDS IN THE SUM $331,761.95 NUMBERED 8786-8806/8384 THROUGH 8453 EXCEPT FOR NOS. 8417, 8420, 8437, 8438, 8440 and 8442 WHICH WERE VOIDED. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that Resolution No. 84-6 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. RESOLUTION NO. 84-7 - APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT #42946 AT 3416-3426 MUSCATEL AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 84-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #42946 (ONE LOT SUBDIVISION INTO FIVE SEPARATE PARCELS) LOCATED AT 3416-3426 MUSCATEL MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 84-7 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 84-8 - APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT #42930 AT 3127 MUSCATEL AVENUE Councilman Taylor inquired about the parking situation of this tract and commented that on the previous tract, parking violators could be cited. He requested that.the same parking condition be placed on this Resolution as an additional condition. Councilman.Imperial stated that he felt that this project has taken too long to get to this point, and that there has been some hardship put upon the neighbors, specifically in the rear of the project, where the street had been torn up and dust that was flying during the summer months. He felt that this project should be consistently monitored as far as the progress being made and problems created in the area. The following Resolution was presented for adoption as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 84-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #42930 (ONE LOT SUBDIVISION INTO SIX SEPARATE PARCELS) AT 3127 MUSCATEL AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that Resolution No. 84-8 be adopted as amended. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. F. RESOLUTION NO. 84-9 EXPRESSING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO VACATE A PUBLIC STREET (NORWOOD PLACE) Councilman Taylor stated that since this property is similar in size to the other properties on that street, and he inquired if it would be possible to sell that lot as surplus property. Robert Kress, City Attorney, suggested that this matter be deferred to the next meeting and a report will be prepared regard- ing the legality of such a suggestion. Mayor Cleveland inquired if there were any objections to deferring this item. There were none, and it was so ordered. CM 1-24-84 Page #3 • E G. RESOLUTION NO. 84-10 - COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT Councilman Taylor stated that he did not feel that the report justifies the intent of declaring this area subject to the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles and states that there are conditions of underutilized, blighted, and slums, and yet it is reported that the buildings are in fair and good condition. He stated that he could not support this program. Councilman Tury stated that he felt that if there were seven poor buildings and the owners of the 19 good buildings are asking for some assistance to up-grade the whole area, it is the City's obligation to help them if there is a way. He felt that this pro- gram is a way of helping them, and he supports the program. Councilman Cichy stated that the photographs depict the pro- blems in the area and the future problems that will be faced with the new mall coming in and the revitalization of Montgomery Wards. He felt that. this would be one way to try and assist the major streets which have commercial areas to up-grade. He stated that there is a problem and there will be a future problem and this is one way to address it. Councilman Taylor stated that he doesn't disagree with the intent of the Council, and as far as cleaning up some of the pro- perty shown here he agrees with, which is run down parking lots, open trash bins in the back of these properties, however, he felt that some of these problems belong in the Code Enforcement Department. He stated that in the Rehabilitation Appeals Board Meeting, the Board tells people to clean up there property at their own expense, shuttYng off utilities, condemning properties & demolishing buildings throughout the entire City,where ever this conditions are found. He commented that here there are very similar conditions, dilapidated buildings, open and exposed trash areas, and now Federal Grants and benefits would be given to these businesses, and then turn around and tell the residents that they have to clean up their property and that they have to pay for it. Many of these property owners are millionaires, and once it is found out who owns these properties, it will be discovered that they have great substantial wealth. He felt that there was great disparity in this program and he stated that he could not vote for it. The following Resolution was presented for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE VALLEY BOULEVARD CORRIDOR AND ESTABLISHING THE VALLEY BOULEVARD CORRIDOR AS A TARGET AREA FOR THE COM- MUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that Resolution No. 84-10 be adopted. 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. Councilman Imperial stated on the question regarding the way this report was written, he might not be too happy in some areas the way it was written, but he had to realize the full intent of this. He stated that in figure 9, he had made a complaint to try to get the property owner to fix it because cars were losing control and he had seen an elderly lady trip in there. He had sent two letters to the property owner and he replied in a very diplomatic way to go to hell. He felt for the public health and safety, the betterment of the City,.so that this is not a run-down shanty town on the main boulevard. Regardless of whether he agrees with a word here or there, it is a good project and this was his reason for voting for it. CM 1-24-84 Page N4 • 0 Councilman Imperial added that if the City could find ways to help an elderly gentlemen on a fixed income.to clean up his property so that it cannot be demolished, he would have no pro- blems with that. He felt that some research should be done on that. If that program is not available, the elected officials should be notified that there is a need for that kind of program. He stated that there is a program available for revitalization for businesses and that is the reason he can support it whole- heartedly. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR(CC-F and CC-G Deferred) CC-A AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR GRAND AND EARLE CC-B APPROVAL OF SANITARY SEWER AND RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT #37061--1128 WALNUT GROVE CC-C RAMONA BOULEVARD PARKING RESTRICTIONS CC-D APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRATHMORE (GRAVES/GARVEY) AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS CC-E CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY ON BEHALF OF BROWN, MUNOZ, AKRAWI, WILLIAMS, WILDER & MARTINEZ MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS.PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-F APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION PROGRAM DESIGN GUIDELINES Councilman Taylor stated that he didn't really have any ob- jection to the guidelines as far as showing the Chamber and the Business people the intent of the development and he felt that it was a good idea to try to encourage them to do it themselves, however, he again has reservations about the money that will be invested. That was the reason that he had requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that the Design Manual for Commercial Revitalizaton be approved. Vote resulted: 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. CC-G APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR DELTA & WELLS STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS & AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS Councilman Taylor stated that this item has been discussed in the past and he intended to vote "no" on this and that was the reason he removed it from the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that the Plans and. Specifications for Delta and Wells Street and Drainage Improvements and authorization to seek bids be approved. Vote resulted: 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. Councilman Tury stated that he could agree with Councilman Taylor's sentiments on this item, however, the problem does exist and will not go away by itself. Since Edison has agreed to pay a portion of that drain, he could support it with that understanding. CM 1-24-84 Page #5 • • Councilman Taylor stated that he felt sure that every member on this Council is supportive of the street improvement that are going in completing the curb.and gutter. He stated that his vote was primarily against the discharge of the pesticides and fertilizers into the drainage channels. Councilman Tury stated that this would take it off the street and into the disposal channel. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. MODERN SERVICE AGREEMENT Taylor: I think that there is still a lot of discussion to be had on it. This particular meeting, I believe we have an adjournment to next Tuesday night to continue this item. I feel that there is still information that I am missing in the sense that I would like a copy of the existing contract with the amendments. That is really no ones fault as far as staff is concerned. I've read the proposed contract. Actually both, the last one we had in 1981 and the one that is current for this month or this time around. There has been items that have been added in that were not discussed. I think that we are going to have to have some clarification on those. I need some more information and if we have that meeting by next Tuesday, we can still go ahead with that, but I still need those amendments. Tury: Mr. Mayor, there are still a few things I would like to bring up that I was not expecting. I would like to start on page 14. Taylor: Is that the Tury: On the proposed contract-on the new one, Gary. Taylor: 84 ry Tury: Right. I bring your attention to the first paragraph having to do with the barrel service, it was my understanding and I would like to have the Council's understanding, cause maybe I was wrong, that we were going to set up a mechanism to have barrel service where it is physically impossible to have a bin. The way this reads, we are setting up two classes of customers. Ones that can and ones that can't. As there is a list on the back, that lists addresses and names of businesses that will be allowed to continue to use barrels. As those busi- nesses close, the new owner will not be allowed to use barrels. I think that ...I felt as though we had agreed and that Mr. Griegorian had agreed or his attorney had agreed to come up with some sort of a barrel provision excluding those already on bins that could be enacted and allow some of the people who cannot take a bin to use a couple of barrels or who don't need a bin to take a couple of barrels. The next paragraph, I think that's (d) it says: Upon request of a commercial customer, Contractor shall, during the full term of this Agreement, be obligated to provide to each such customer a three (3) cubic yard container (but no other container of any kind) and maintain same, and pick up, gather and remove rubbish, combustible and non-combustible materials. Upon request of a commercial customer..I would like that clarified by the next meeting. Go to the next page 15...the last sentence in the first paragraph is an addition that was not in the old contract. It is the intention of the parties that all commericial locations in the City shall be on service except as expressly excluded herein. Once again we have established two tiers of clientele. Those who have to take service and those that don't have to take service. On page 16, the last sentence in the first paragraph-which ,51 refers to page 17 it says: Charges for regular household services and charges for regular commercial services ...o.k. and person re- questing special collection service. There is no means of arbi- tration for special collection service. In the old contract, it allowed the City Manager to arbitrate that, that disagreement. a CM 1-24-84 Page H6 • 0 0 Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Lou not to interrupt you, but it went a little further than that. The old contract stated that the rates shall be published and I agree that to be, as it states here, reasonable rates that may be agreed upon by Contractor and the person request- ing - that's a wide open contract. Tury: Leaves no option for anyone, Gary. I think that section has to be cleaned up and have an unbiased arbitrator. The City Manager was just fine as far as I was concerned, and have those rates also listed. I thought that section of the contract was to the residents benefit and should be back in there. Taylor: I wonder, Lou, to me its a strong burden to put on the City Manager to evaluate individual cases. Publish lists up front. Everybody knows where they stand. The rubbish contractor can go to the person and say, you want a trash dumpster. Keep in mind the gentleman that was here four months ago and said that he called in three people and got three bids and Modern was high and he could not take the low bid. Tury: I can agree with that Gary, we do have an exclusive Contract though, and we have to work within that framework as far as I under- stand it. Taylor: But there again, it is kind of contradictory, what we are saying that residents have no options and we can get...there are contracting firms available on this type of thing where the resi- dents know that they can get it done cheaper, but like it or not they are forced to take that higher price and now is the time we have got to get it resolved. By having a list, it makes it clear up front to everybody that reads it. The City Manager isn't put on'the spot. The Council is,not on the spot. The Contractor is not on the spot. It is clear right away. Tury: That's fine. A fee list would be just fine with me. Taylor: We have some advantage because we can find out what the rates are with other cities, and try to get that fee down where its reasonable. Tury: I think in this agreement, we have to have something address- ing that particular problem. That was my point. That was taken out of the existing contract. Taylor: I didn't mean to interrupt you. I Tury: That's o.k. Gary. I'm hoping you guys will have more ques- tions than I do. Let's go on to page 17 in the last paragraph (h). Once again it sets up two classes of commercial industrial customers. Ones that are allowed to have barrels and not, and then.very clearly at the end it says, barrel service shall no longer be available to the new occupants and the new occupants shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement as it generally applies to commericial, business and industrial customers. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we had basically agreed with the contractor to set up some kind of a barrel service. Next, page 18, the first paragraph, this allows people sharing bins i.e., the shopping center across.the street and similar items to continue to share a bin making no provisions for the new developments in town. It is my reading of this contract as it is written, that anything new, if they were to build a new Universal Square down the street, that at that point and time, that each and every customer would have to have a bin. I don't think that was the intent of the contractor or the Council. Bin sharing under single ownership, I thought was something that we had pretty well agreed to. Third paragraph down, where it relates to the Palasear dump, that was the first increase. This coming up year included the dump fees, and that should pick up in 1985. From 1985 on forward. I have a couple more here but that was really the heart of what I had and what my misunderstanding of our agreements were, and another thing too, I would like to go back to page 29. As long as we are going to bring up little things ...this is a small item..I am just bringing it up. Page 29, Item 8. Late Charges. CM 1-24-84 Page N7 f J 7 Tury: It allows billing late charges for billings 15 days old. I don't know what businesses around isn't tickled to death to get it in 30 days, and it seems to me to allow late charges after 15 days, seems a little bit short. I think that should be extended to some reasonable time. Kress: It is actually 45 days. Tury: It is 15 days after the service is rendered. Kress: It is 45 days after the bill is sent. Tury: It is 15 days after the service is rendered. Anyhow, that is an area of conjecture that we can kick around. Taylor: Lou, what you were just referring to. Mr. Kress made the comment, 45 days after the billing. Keep in mind that all these services are billed three months and one week in advance. I notice that my bill that I receive is postmarked usually one week ahead of three months so that when you do get that bill, you are paying three months in advance. Which is the only firm that I know of, Gas Co., Phone Co., Electric Co., Water, none of them are paid in advance. So there is a tremendous advantage when the money is up front. If you don't pay for it in 45 days, and your bill is delinquent, is that bill for a three month period or for the 45 days service or the first month out of the three. How is it actually to be delinquent? Kress: The first month only.would be delinquent, Sir. Taylor: O.K. Tury: After 15 days the second month would be delinquent after that month. One other item and it is not the contract itself. Freezing the residential rates at $5.24 appears-to me to be a little expensive for the first year as a base. I would propose that we would allow the rates to go to $5.50 and the City pick up the balance of $..50. That would be a $.26 increase to the residents. A $.50 cost to the City and use that as a base to compute the cost of the City subsidization of the rates from then on. That's my only other comment that I have. Out of curiosity I was looking at the rates charged for bins back in 1978 when this contract was amended, and they were $7 and some cents and that has escalated to $40 and I think that's something that we can't do anything about. Those are the charges and I foresee no roll back of charges, however, I think that the couple items that we are asking for the business community are far outweighed by the price of the service. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, in truthfullness, I have gotten to page 23 re- viewing and I think it is a 31 page agreement or contract that we are trying to get to here. I've got several questions. There are more general here ...I think that one thing that needs to be revised on this, on page 7, we are going back to the original bonding and insurance that must.be carried on this contract. If everything else has gone up similar to what Mr. Tury stated the cost of the bins, the cost of the trucks and such. I think these figures are way too low as far as the insurance coverage that is required for that type of operation. I would like to see the 4th sentence up from the bottom, it is a long sentence, it starts about ten lines up. 'Contractor agrees at his own expense, to carry public liability insurance during the full term of this.agreement, with a company to be reasonably' approved by.the City Attorney, and with City also named as an assured thereunder, covering liability for injuries or deaths and property damage, arising out of or in connection with the operations of the Contractor under this agreement, in an amount not less than $500,000 for injuries.' I would like to see that raised to $2,000,000, and that's the premium on the difference of $500,000 to $2,000,000. 'including accidental death to any one person, and subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less $1,000,000 on account of one accident.' I feel that should be raised to $2,000,000.. 'and property damage in an amount of not less than $50,000.' I think that should be raised to $250,000. CM 1-24-84 Page M8 Taylor continues: One of those trucks alone from what I under- stand, the truck is one thing, but they are close to $90,000 to $100,000 just for the truck. The (j) paragraph half way down that page, I think that $25,000 should be changed to $250,000. That is the surety bond rather the $25,000. Again when you figure the revenue that comes in from one month from this contract, $25,000 isn't going to cover that at all. Here is one of the items that I wanted to review in the other contract and maybe it is in here already. Following subsection (k) and in front of (1) was a clause pertaining to uniforms. Is that in this contract somewhere? Kress: No, it was deleted and that was explained in the memo. Taylor: O.K. I started reading through the contract page by page, Bob, so if it is on your memo, I didn't cross check it as yet. Kress: That was deleted by Mr. Andrews. I checked with the City Manager and was informed the employees have not been required to wear a uniform in this City for some time and employees of private contractors in the industry are not wearing uniforms. That is on page 2 of the January 20th memo. Taylor: O.K. On page 10, Contractor shall report gross revenues annually or from time to time as requested by the City. Have these revenues been reported annually to the City in the past? Kress: I believe they have. I have seen such reports in the Finance Department as part of the distribution of the franchise fee. Taylor: I would like to see that qualified, Contractor shall re- port gross revenues annually or from time to time as requested by City. Are we going to get those automatically annually or as re- quested. Kress: Well, in the past we have gotten them monthly. Taylor: Yes, it does call for that. Kress: If you are requesting that, it is certainly not a problem to add up the twelve months in a year a prepare an annual report as well. Taylor: Well, the way I read it, that is the way it should have been. As far as both. Kress: Alright, we can clarify that. Taylor: Now, the last sentence or the second sentence from the bottom of this page, there again it is a long one, in addition to the foregoing monthly payments, Contractor agrees,,for the duration of this agreement, to pay monthly to City a sum equal to one percent of the monthly gross revenue received by the Con- tractor from City or those enterprises hereinafter specified in this paragraph, for the collection and removal of garbage, com- bustible and non-combustible rubbish, miscellaneous debris or combined rubbish from commercial and industrial enterprises in the City including such areas that may be annexed to the City, also including multiple unit resdiential facilities, that pur- suant to their request receive 3 cubic yard bin service. This is clarified... this goes back to a clarification where the owner or the manager of a condominium project can request to go on to this service? Kress: Condominium or apartment, yes. Taylor: O.K. The question there, how will the tenant be billed? It states that household includes ...the definition of household includes multiple housing. Kress: It is an~or'definition, Councilman Taylor. Taylor: O.K. CM 1-24-84 Page N9 Kress: And in practice, the customer becomes the billed, I would think, I tractor, it would either would be included in the multi-family service is • in the case of a multiple dwelling, landlord, and the tenants would be know they are not billed by the Con- be an additional amount of rental or rent. The obligation in the case of with the landlord. Taylor: How are they billed right now for the 88 condominium units? Kress: I believe, I know we show one condominium unit as having barrel service, and I'm not sure how that happened. But an 88 unit condominium project that has been serviced, I assume, the homeowners association would be receiving the bill and paying it. Taylor: But it states in here under the householder provision, the first unit is $6.00 and each additional unit is $4.50 does that apply? Kress: $5.40. With the option of the landlord to take at a certain point, and I forget how many units that is, there is certain point in.which it is more advantageous pricewise to take the bin service than the barrel service, and so that is why we have a couple of situations where we have left it either/ or at the option. Modern has agreed to write to these owners and also speak with them about the possibility. Taylor: I think that is an open end type of thing as far.as how will the association, if they bill the condominium develop- ment are they billing them individually at a separate rate or are they billing an association? Tury: I only know one person that lives in one of the condominiums here in town, and it is just part of the association fees. The association pays for the removal of trash. Taylor: I don't know what they are being charged. That is what I was curious about. If in fact, most condominium project don't generate a lot of rubbish or debris, if they are being charged a portion of a 3 yard bin. Especially if it is an older couple that they don't have the yard work or a lot of disposable material. If they are billing the $4.50 rate or at the bin rate. I don't have that answer. Tury: I don't think they have that.option. I think that the one I know of is strictly enough to service the people and they are billed the standard bin rate and I am willing to assume that the association dues are standard for everybody within the tract. However, we don't really set those fees. Taylor: I think on page 13, let me read this part: For the pur- poses of this paragraph,referring to complete service for multiple units. Now, this is a condominium project to me, multiple units, in the residential classification, charges for regular household service and then it refers to multiple units, for the purposes of this paragraph B.2(c) an apartment house or multiple dwelling or a single parcel or constructed as one development, and a mobile home or trailer park shall be deemed to be residential property . consisting of a "first unit" and"additional units", and right above there it states $6 per month and $5.40 per month.for each additional unit, and going back to quote here, as hereinabove set forth; pro- vided however, that the owner or proprietor of such apartment house, multiple dwelling or mobile home or trailer park may elect to utilize the commercial services and rates provided for.in B.2(e) and B.2(g) in lieu of residential services and rates provided for in this paragraph. Now, that would give them the option to go to the ser- vice bin rate. That brings up another question. We grant the raise for residential service as of January 1, 1984. On the previous page it says: Charges for Regular Householder Services. Subject to adjustment as herein provided, commencing January 1, 1984 and con- tinuing thereafter during the term of this Agreement, Contractor agrees to abide by the following monthly service charges. That's January 1st, now on February 1st, if they opt to go to the commer- cial rate, they get another raise. CM 1-24-84 Page #10 Kress: April 1st was that it? It wouldn't be another raise. It would be a different service that would also have an increase in price. It wouldn't be an increase on top of an increase. Taylor: That's what I am hoping you would tell me,.but it states here on page 17 second paragraph: Contractor shall be entitled to a 6% increase in all prices on commericial services effective April 1, 1984. :•:So on January 1 the rates go up for the household service. On April 1 if they switch over to the commercial ser- vice there will be a 6% increase on those commercial rates which was what Mr. Tury referred to, $40 or so whatever it was. There is going to be another 6% as of April 1st? Kress: No, not another 6%. It's otherwise payable 7% increase. If we don't do anything by the terms of the existing agreement and the amendment thereto those prices will increase not by 6%, but by 7% on April.lst. Tury: I think, Gary, if you look at those rates, you will find that those are the rates, I think you will find that those rates are we are paying right now. Those are not new rates or any in- crease in rates. Please correct me if I am wrong on that. Kress: These are the existing rates. Taylor: There is another date in here that refers to February 1st, thirty days later. January 1st, February 1st and April 1st, and I am sorry that I didn't mark it a little better. Kress: I don't recall a February 1st date, but perhaps I'm wrong. Taylor: Mr. Tury made comment about barrel service and trash bin service. On page 16 it states that if a person cannot use barrels and he must use a bin, and due to the nature of the property not only is that.person charged for a bin, but it says forklift service shall be provided at the rates shown in this section. There is another cost that someone may not be aware of. If they are re- quired to take a bin and they can't get it out, it says that they shall be required to pay for that forklift service. There is another section stating that the trash...Frank, do you still have the photographs that we took several months ago, where there was a waste paper basket that I had with are they in the file? Would you get those please? I think the Council may recall what that was. It was approximately a 8 inch wide kitchen wastepaper basket, 8" X 12" or 14" and 20" high. I had.placed 6 or 8 common brick. Rather than lay the brick individually on the parkway. When Frank gets the pictures back, I would like to have you take a look at those, and also there were a couple of other pictures where I had removed a fence post. 'A small footing about 12" in diameter and 2' deep. I broke that up into three pieces of con- crete and that was the week prior to some of the other photographs that Frank took. Small stuff. One of them weighed 45 pounds and one of them weighed 55 pounds and one weighed 65 pounds. I set out three pieces of concrete and Modern did not pick those up. I would sympathize with any home owner throughout the City. Well, he didn't pick it up and now I have to call a special pick-up. That's what the contract states in.here now. It excludes pieces of concrete, brick or sod or whatever construction materials. Anything over 60 pounds.per week. Those three little chunks of concrete, I couldn't have put those out. In the past, we had excellent pick-up service and I am trying to figure out how that got into the contract. That was never mentioned until about two months ago, someone said they would like those items excluded, but the Council never had that before that time. Yet it is in this contract. Page 21, this is the clarification that was added in; the last sentence or a portion of it it says: not to exceed 60 pounds in any one week period, unless placed in a three cubic yard container, under special services. Well, I could put out my three little pieces of concrete or my one waste basket of brick and pay the $40 rate that Mr. Tury referred to in a three yard bin if I so chose. How did that get into this contract? That was never brought to the Council to my knowledge. CM 1-24-84 Page #11 Kress: Well, Councilman, at this point, this is a proposal. You are correct. That is a contractor's proposal. This is in front of you not for action tonight, but for comment. Taylor: Let me ask you something Mr. Kress, not to interrupt. You say that this is a contractors proposal. Who drew up this proposal? Kress: It was jointly drawn up by Mr. Andrews and myself, and I believe that that was seeking to clarify the problem that you are talking about. I understand that you see it as a limitation and perhaps not.a good limitation on the right of the residents who use the service. However, there has been problems,apparently, and this was thought by the contractor as a clarification. Taylor: I would like the Council to have some documentation show- ing the numbers and photographs of the type of abuse that's why Modern is asking for this. The photograph that I had Frank take, I don't think there was the size of a pitcher, this pitcher of C water right here. If that was a chunk of concrete, it would pro- bably weigh about 45 pounds. To have to leave 3 pieces of con- crete similar to that laying in the parkway and say, hey, that's too heavy we are not taking that. Call for a bin pick-up. I think it is ridiculus. It is not justified. He does have an exclusive.franchise with the City. But if it is going to be that restrictive There is another item here on the same page, page 21, this is something new as far as the discarded household furniture, furnishings and appliances that are large or weighty. The customer gives 24 hour notice to Contractor. In the past, I have put out a dishwasher, or a dryer that has failed to keep functioning. I think that needs to be clarified, and the 24 hour notice is that prior to your pick-up day or is that at anytime during the 7 day week period? It doesn't say. It just says 24 hour notice. C\ Kress: I am assuming it can be more than 24 hour notice, but a minimum of 24 hours. Taylor: O.K. but is it on your pick-up day? Your normal day when they are passing by. Kress: I will get that point clarified. Taylor: Explain that Frank, that you can't locate them at this time. Tripepi: I cannot locate them right at this time. They are pro- bably back with the 1983 material that is being filed in the base- ment for the close out of the 1983 year. I will state that those are the photos that the Council saw on a previous occassion. Mayor: Anything further? Taylor: Not at this time, Mr. Mayor. Tury; I think some valid questions have been asked. I think they may be a matter of interpretation. Possibly,we can resolve some of them by Tuesday night. I realize that there are Cichy: I was just going to say that these particular questions, while the minutes are being drafted, can we have an itemized list by page number as expressed by the Council for our next Agenda. Preferably as soon as possible. Clerk: I will be preparing verbatim minutes on Modern Service. Would that be adequate? Cichy: Verbatim minutes would be...if you can extract them from the rest of the minutes. We were talking about specific requests on the different points of information. I am sure that Modern probably wants a copy and Bob so that we can get down to discus- sing these differences. CM 1-24-84 Page #12 Kress: I now.think that enough points have been raised, some anticipated and some, quite frankly, not anticipated, that I am not sure that a week is enough time. Mr. Andrews could not be here tonight. He is involved in a trial. Certainly some of these matters have to be raised with him so that we can address them in a joint manner and present them to you. I would request that we adjourn this meeting rather than to Tuesday, the 31st of January, to Tuesday, February the 7th. Taylor: That's three weeks to the next meeting, Bob? Kress: Yes, there is three weeks to the next regular meeting. The regular meeting is on the 14th. I think that we need some time on this. I am afraid that this project to me is beginning to look like the breaking up of ATT, but I know we can get it done. I have taken notes on what Councilman Tury and Councilman Taylor have raised. I think once I have Ellen's extraction of those questions, we can address them with a memo to you.on some of the why's and wherefor's, I am not sure, especially some of the points that you raised Lou, you will be satisfied. But we will give you an answer on each of those points. Tury: All I want is an answer. Maybe I have misinterpreted what I thought we had agreed to, and if I have so be it. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Lou have you had a chance to review the verbatim minutes? I know we have discussed it in there several times. Tury: Gary, I feel very confident in that what I say is right. Taylor: In those minutes we discussed the barrel option as far as grandfathering in those that are existing. I know that was discussed, and I can't recall if we were going to continue to allow other businesses to take barrels later. I just don't re- call that part. Tury: I got a letter from Modern Service. Taylor: While you are looking for that Lou, a clarification on page 12 where the rates will be adjusted commencing January 1, 1984 and continuing thereafter during the term of this agreement. On page 31 it states in the case of first residential units only (not on commercial service) the City hereby agrees to pay, commenc- ing February 1, 1984, the sum of $.76 per month, per single family or other first residential unit, so that the.rate of the first residential unit remains $5.24 to the customer but the contractors total compensation will increase to a total of $6 per first unit. The billings are all out for the first quarter of the year, as far as January or February, so reinterpreting this as of January 1st the rates will be, the new rate $6 per month and $5.40 per month. The City starts paying as of February 1st, 1984. That was that date. It wasn't that there was going to be another in- crease then. Kress: That is unclear and the intention there, and I apologize for the lack of clarity, but the intention is that the City's obligation will not be a billing in advance. We will be paying in the month of February,for an example for services rendered in January. That can be clarified. That's how that works. Taylor: O.K. Tury: I found what I was looking for and if you package of information, the last package that we proposals and counterproposals. I am going back Modern Service of April 25, 1983. It seems like with this thing everything is a long time. Look page, item 4. will look in the got, which is the to a letter from a long time, but at the second Taylor: Excuse me, Lou, is that the one that was delivered last night? Tury: Yes, it is the one that was delivered last night. CM 1-24-84 Page #13 E Taylor: O.K..what page? Tury: Look on a!proposal from Modern Service, May 9th, 1983. It is right towards the back. It is the last thing in there that came from Modern. May 9th, 1983. Taylor:. What page? Tury: That agreement page 2, item no. 4. and that was what I was referring to.and that is what I thought we had agreed to. The cost was something that was thrown out at that particular point and time. I think that in general principle that they did agree to establish.a barrel service for those customers not currently on bin service. Kress: Well, by way of explanation, Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a very difficult problem within the Contract. What that provision states is that everyone not on service with a bin would pay 2/3 of a bin rate. We are talking about 2/3 of $40 and that is substantial. We talked about this, Frank and I did at some length along with Mr. Andrews and the Con- tractor, we finally quite frankly, threw up our hands and the best thing we can do with this is to simply freeze the status quo. That's the proposal entitled revised counterproposal that we have bound in this very same document. That was what you approved in the fall of 1983 and I would call your attention to specifically paragraph 7 therein. Now that was our counter- proposal to Modern which in fact did not include this 2/3 bin rate. So that's what happened to that. It was before the Council and if there was some misunderstanding then I again apologize, but I think it was clearly in front of you and that is how it happened. Tury:. Well, if the Council feels that resolves the problem, fine. I am not going to sit and argue about it, but it was not my under- standing that it was in the revised counter-proposal. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kress just made reference to item 7..Which date is that item, Bob? Kress: It appears directly after a letter on my letterhead to Honorable Mayor and Council, July 22, 1983. Taylor: O.K. What Mr. Tury was reading Item 4, it did state in the next sentence that there proposal from Modern, that is to say, this rate is limited to those customers who are not currently on regular commercial rates as of April 1st, 1983. That is similar to-what is in the Contract right now.because that is the way Modern's Attorney put it in this time as he still wants it, and it is up to this Council to whether we agree with it or not. That is the grandfathering it in clause. Kress: No, sir, I must take exception to that. I was able to get Mr. Andrews to agree to leave the barrel rate at $15 which you will agree is not 2/3 of $40. Taylor: Agreed. Kress: So he did not put it in his way.' I had him put into that and my,imput was that the Council's wish on this whole matter was to freeze the status quo. If I have misunderstood,then please tell what it is that you want. Taylor: Your understanding is that that would be the grandfathering in the status quo. Kress: $15 the current rate and 6% increase on that on April 1 of each year. Taylor: Only to existing businesses. All new businesses will come in under the new bin rate. Kress: That is the proposal that you have in front of you. I think that we may have further negotiations on that point. I think we will address that in a memo to the Council. Page #14 Kress continues: It has been brought to my attention that perhaps there is a better way to deal with that in transition. It is not the intention of this proposed agreement to allow each new business that comes into town to make a decision whether it wants barrel service at $15 or bin service at $42. We have had bin service, and we have had barrel service out of the contract for a long time that's clear. The contractor has continued to provide barrel service to a certain number of grandfathered, if you will for his own business relations purposes account. We are trying to... Councilman Tury is saying that we are creating two tiers of service Well, yes we are. We are legitimizing what is taking place today. So that we can keep track of it so that this contractural disputes that we have had over the past several years will reoccur. Tury: Similarly, Bob, in the bin sharing. Do you understand this to mean, as I do, that from here on forever, any development that comes into town, new, will be required to have individual bins for business. Bin sharing will simply be out then except for these few exceptions. Kress: Well, as I told you, in the case of new development and new construction, the Planning Commission has spent a lot of time with this and looks very carefully at new development. I know we have had in the past 6 months, we have had multiple developments on a lot in which the contractor is brought into the planning process. There is a discussion about what is the best way for aesthetics, for the trash trucks to get into the commercial development and all these matters. I am sure that we can write a provision that allows for joint use with a single ownership on a lot. There was never an intention to leave that out. We can put that in. Tury: That's great. I must admit although I disagree about a lot, we are pretty close. After all these years it is a real victory. I'll tell you that. I think you guys did a good job. Maybe my understanding was somewhat different than yours. It is not your fault. I told you on the phone today, you know, don't take it personally, I like you and I hate to.get you mad. I think if we resolve those, I think we will have an agreement. Kress: At the risk of prolonging this, the ordinance. This is an ordinance that has been utilized in other cities. You have seen it before back in 1981. If we are going to do a deal based upon this particular treatment of the delinquencies, we need that ordinance. Now, what I would ask you to read it and the provi- sions in that ordinance parallel article 9 of the Agreement. They are basically the same. It is a good provision and I think it gets the.City out of the delinquency business. We are not going to have good residents paying for deadbeats anymore. I think that has been problem for all of us ever since we got our- selves into that. That is the best thing about getting this whole matter settled. Is that those who use the service directly or indirectly,at least the person who owns the property is going to be ultimately responsible for those charges. Tury: I think that's outstanding. I think that was what the main thrust of this has been. Mayor: We would have to adopt that ordinance tonight, wouldn't we? Kress: No, we apologize that this didn't get to you until Friday evening and we didn't ask for any action tonight. Again I appre- ciate the imput. We have a number of things to respond to, but I really hope that we can take action to introduce the ordinance on February 7th and very hopefully take action to approve the agree- ment. Clerk: What time would the meeting start on the 7th? Kress: That would be up to the Council. Imperial: 8:00 p. m. Kress: February 7th at 8:00 p.m. for an adjourned regular meeting for the purpose of considering the Modern Service matter. CM 1-24-84 Page #15 V. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. Councilman Imperial requested that a Resolution of Commendation be prepared for Helen Hasabeles, owner of T & J Restaurant, who recently received the Rob Roy Award, an award of excellence among restaurants. B. Councilman Taylor stated that at the last meeting he had requested an ordinance be prepared revising the City ordinance pertaining to the residency of Councilmembers while they are on the Council, and the City Attorney prepared a memo explaining to the Council that the State Law already addresses itself to that. Councilman Taylor again requested that the ordinance be prepared with the inclusion of the state law supplementing our requirements that a Councilmember must be a resident of the City in order to file nomination papers for the Council. He inquired if there was a problem incorporating that in the City's Ordinance? Robert Kress, City Attorney stated that he did not find a residency requirement in the present municipal code. He stated that the Government Code is not usually restated again in the Municipal Code. The Government Code in this situation would be paramount. It deals specifically with the qualifications for office and residency issues. It would not add anything to the requirement of law. Councilman Taylor inquired if it would be a violation to put it in the City's Municipal Code? Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that it might be, since we are pre-empted from acting differently. Councilman Taylor stated that the Council could adopt any ordinance that. would not-conflict with the State Code, that does not supercede it in certain cases. Such as the Housing Code, Building Code. We have many ordinance that supplement State Codes. He requested that the City Attorney prepare a written memorandum and bring it back to this Council stating that this cannot be put into our Municipal Code. Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that he would be glad to do it. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Ciro Sepulveda, 3120 N. Burton, stated that he felt that Valley Boulevard was not as blighted as the Garvey corridor and that's where the revitalization should be taking place. Al Warot stated that the Garvey corridor and the San Gabriel Boulevard have already been established as target areas for commer- cial.rehabilitation purposes as they do lie in the established Rosemead Redevelopment Area N1. That subject has been addressed in prior action. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the Garvey and San Gabriel Blvd., corridors are already accepted by the Commission of L. A. County as eligible for CDBG funds. The action which was taken at this meeting, makes application to.that same commission to ask them if they will consider Valley Blvd., and place it in that same category so that CDBG Funds can be expended on Valley Blvd. as it has been on Garvey and San Gabriel Blvd. B. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that an invitation had been received for a tour of a number of law enforcement facili- ties and if any member of the Council is interested in attending, an appropriate schedule will be prepared. There being no further business, the Council Meeting was ad- journed to February 7, 1984 at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: / r~0j~yii~4"k~v city Clerk CM 1-24-84 MA R Page #16