CC - 09-15-81 - Adjourned MeetingCITY C?t iCiS:ii;?AO MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 AT 7:00 P. M.
The Adjourned Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was
called to order by Mayor Imperial at 7:00 p. m., in the Confer-
ence Room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, Calif.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Tury.
The Invocation was delivered by Councilman Taylor.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Hunter, Councilmembers Taylor,
Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial
Absent: None
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
A. MODERN SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Councilman Hunter requested a closed session to discuss
possible litigation regarding this matter.
Mayor Imperial stated that if there is no objection, the
Council would recess to a closed session.
Mayor Imperial reconvened the Council Meeting, and inquired
if there was anyone who would care to speak.
Councilman Taylor inquired if Council had any questions of
Mr. Griegorian on the proposed contract.
Mayor Imperial stated that he supposed that the Council
would ask a lot of questions of Mr. Griegorian and if anyone would
like to ask these questions, feel free to do so.
Mayor Pro Tem Hunter: A question to Mr. Griegorian. I have
a letter from our City Attorney addressing several comments.made
by Councilman Taylor which we had and read. Mr. Mayor that would
be the first point of business to discuss the questions that have:
already been raised.
Mayor Imperial stated that he wanted the record to show that
even though these questions are written as questions from Council-
man Taylor that he just happened to be the person that asked the
questions because many of these items were questioned in my mind
also. We are not pointing toward one person.
Councilman Taylor requested that these five questions be placed
in the Minutes.
Mayor Pro Tem Hunter requested that both the questions and
answers in the record.
Mayor Imperial stated that he had no problems with either re-
quest.
Letter of September 2, 1981 from City Attorney to City Council
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: City Attorney
RE: TRASH CONTRACT
DATE: September 2, 1981
My notes indicate the following requests for information and
questions from Councilman Taylor:
1. Copy of document exercising optionto extend franchise.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #1
• •
2. How can we create an escalating disincentive for the
contractor seeking reimbursement of delinquencies?
3. Exemption from charges provision for those who can
prove non-use of property or lack of necessity for service.
4. What are the City's options to terminate the franchise?
5. Can the Contractor refuse to pick-up trash from delin-
quent accounts and then can these individuals be cited for
failure to have their trash removed?
I will address these points in a memo to the Council next
week. If there are other points you wish me to address prior to
the scheduled study session on September 15, 1981.
Letter of September 10, 1981 from City Attorney to City Council.
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: City Attorney
RE: TRASH CONTRACT
DATE: September 10, 1981
The following will address the questions raised by Councilman
Taylor at the last discussion of the trash contract. As of this
writing I have had no further requests for information. I also
have had no contact from Modern's attorney regarding the draft ord-
inance and franchise agreement amendment submitted last month.
1. Enclosed, marked Exhibit "A" is a copy of the document
by which the contractor exercised his option to extend the franchise
through June 30, 1991.
I have no doubt that the contractor has legally exercised his
option and that the franchise now runs through June 30, 1991. I do
not agree with the contractor's position that the exercise of the
option to extend automatically entitled him to an additional per-
centage increase. The contractual provision mandating an annual
increase of between 4 and 10% is not inconsistent with the current
annual cost of living increase of 7%.
2. The City is currently contractually obligated to pay
Modern's delinquent accounts. As part of an overall renegotia-
tion, if agreeable to both Modern and the City, a system was sug-
gested to encourage Modern's best efforts at collection prior to
turning.over delinquencies to the City for collection on the pro-
perty tax,bill. Councilman Taylor suggested that Modern receive
a small percentage of the .delinquencies as the size of the total
amount of the delinquencies grows. For example:
For the first $15,000 in delinquencies submitted in a calendar
year, Modern would receive 90% as soon as the funds were. actually
collected. For the next $10,000 Modern would receive 85% and 75%
for all amounts submitted over $25,000.
.There is no legal impediment to such a system, however both
parties must agree. The example is by the way of illustration only.
3. An exemption from charges has been suggested for persons
who prove that no garbage, rubbish, etc., will be placed or offered
from their property. As I stated in our last discussion of this
item, I do not recommend it because it will result in "sharing"
arrangements. The City Manager or other administrative personnel
would be required to review and rule upon the exemption claims,
creating many potential problems.
The language for such an exemption provision is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B I did not incorporate the language in the proposed
ordinance revision for the reasons heretofore stated.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #2
•
4. Councilman Taylor indicated that he felt the franchise
agreement left all of the options to the contractor. He inquired
what are the City's options under the current agreement.
First and foremost, the City's control of the contractor and
assurance of adequate service come with rate regulation. This is
why I have argued against any "automatic" increases beyond a 2-3
year period. Once a rate increase is granted, it is next-to-im-
possible to take it back. Review of the service performance and
economic conditions on a periodic basis is the best way, I believe,
for the City to assure the Contractor's continued performance under
the agreement.
A variety of responsibilities are imposed on the Contractor
by the franchise agreement. To my knowledge, no one has ever
asserted that Modern is not performing up to the standards set
forth in the agreement. If Modern failed to provide substantial.
service, (as it did in street sweeping) the City would have the
option to declare a breach of the contract and award another
franchise.
Again, although the agreement does not have a number of
separately stated penalties the City may impose, the power of
the Council to approve rate increases is the ultimate control.
5. The final question posed by Councilman Taylor is the
extent to which a citation process could be used to encourage
the prompt payment of trash bills. If I understand the suggestion
Councilman Taylor has inquired if the contractor could stop pick-
ups on delinquencies and then the City would cause the trash to be
picked up on delinquent addresses by another means. At the same
time, a citation would be issued for failure to have trash removed
from the parkway, etc.
There are several problems with this suggestion, I believe.
First, it would really be a use of the criminal system to force
payment of bills. Debtor's prisons have long since been abolished.
The proposal to add penalties and collect delinquencies on property
tax bills would appear to be the more appropriate solution.
I also believe that the citation system would increase the
City's payroll and prosecution costs. Establishing the requisite
criminal intent to support conviction would also be a problem.
Municipal Court judges are not going to be willing to sort out
problems between Modern and its customers (except on small claims
days).
Please contact me prior to the study session if you would
like any further information.
Mayor Imperial inquired how the Council wanted to handle this.
Councilman Taylor stated that Councilman Hunter brought up
the five questions, and he would like to go into those first if
Grieaorian has questions on them.
Mayor Imperial read the letter from the City Attorney regard-
ing the Trash Contract dated September 10, 1981.
Mayor Pro Tem Hunter stated that we should take each item at
a time, and discuss the answer from the attorney.
Item 1. Mayor Pro Tem Hunter stated that from what our Attorney
tells us, he thinks it is correct that at this point and time the
7% I believe Modern Service has already taken and a letter indicat-
ing that they are going to take another 3%. The 10% is in question
the way I understand it. I've talked with every Councilman indivi-
dually about this problem with the exception of Mr..Taylor and
each of us have had different discussions.on the points. I have
talked to the City Attorney about it. Now if the City Attorney will,
the contract the way it is presently written entitles, or Modern
Service can take 7% every year.
City Attorney: That's correct. April of each year, their anni-
versary, they are entitled to 7%. Adj.C/M 9-15-81
Page #3
0
Hunter: O..K. the other.3%.
has advised the City that they on
the other. 3%.
40
We have a letter where Modern
a given date they plan to take
Tury: I would like to know how they arrived at the fact that
they are entitled to 10%. I really personally don't have an ob-
jection to the 10%, but arbitrarily saying we are going to take
it. I wonder how that was derived-at.
Mr. Andrews, Modern's Attorney: Originally, the last Contract
was 7% before they exercised the option. The option' provided that
after the exercise of the option the contractor was taking something
between 4% and 10%. I think under current standards the cost of
living has been substantially larger than the 7% indicated in the
letter of Kress dated September 10th, where he indicates that it
is not inconsistent with the annual cost of living increase of 7%.
I think that the cost of living has gone up substantially more
than 7% in the last 12 months, in fact, I think it is closer to
13.7% would be closer to what is realistic. So they are somewhere
between 4% and 10%. I think any standard that you want to use on
a petroleum based industry their costs have increased more than
10%. So where do we arbitrarily come up with the cost of 6% or 5%.
We feel that they are entitled to the full amount of the increase,
which is 10% based upon any reasonable standards.
Hunter: To our City Attorney: If the latest exercised contract
or amendment to that contract if it says an annual increase of be-
tween 4% and 10% is that in there?
City Attorney: The language indicates the parties shall agree
to an annual cost adjustment by whatever formula not less than 4%
nor to exceed the sum of 10% per annum. 7% is the figure that was
agreed upon, 7% is the amount the contractor is entitled to at this
particular time in accordance with the contract. There can be an
agreement, certainly, to a different figure but the contractor's
assertion that due to increased costs that somehow that entitles
him to unilaterily take the additional 3% as he has threatened to
do in correspondence is totally without merit based upon the lan-
guage of the contract.
Taylor: Mr. Kress, can you refer to the section of the con-
tract what his current cost is allowed to be. If you know where
it is fine. My question is in the 1976 agreement to the Contract
is states'Cost Adjustments' Should the Contractor exercise the op-
tion set forth in paragraph 2 hereof the percentage increase shall
be negotiated with the City Council at the time of said option, and
the parties shall agree to an annual cost adjustment by whatever
formula not less than 4% and not to exceed the sum of 10% per annum.
That is the 1976 Contract under 'Cost Adjustments'. We go to the
1978 amendment to the Contract and it states on page #2 'Adjustments
for Increase in Costs of Services' The parties hereto recognize that
due to generally prevailing conditions the pressures of inflation
are reasonably foreseeable and will increase the cost of providing
services set forth in this agreement, it is therefor agreed that
the schedule of charges set forth in B 2.a (3) B 2.a (5) B 2.a (7)
shall be adjusted as follows: Contractor shall forego all adjust-
ments in price which may be legally permitted under the terms of
this agreement or any amendments thereto for all billing periods
through and including April 1st, 1978. Contractor shall be entitled
to an increase of 7% for all billings from and after April 1, 1978
through and including March 31, 1979. For each year thereafter
Contractor shall be entitled to a flat rate increase of 7% over
the price of the preceeding 12 months. Such increase shall become
effective the lst day of April for each year the Contract remains
in effect., That is very clear to me that it is 7%. So when Mr.
Tury asks where it came from that the option from 4% to 108,' I
still don't have the correct answer to that.
Tury: Mr. Kress which one takes precedent. Do we exercise
the option or this.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #4
• •
Kress: Again, the language regarding the exercising of
the option is somewhat ambiguious. It appears that a negotiation
and a agreement is mandated. The contractor in the language that
Councilman Taylor.just read a couple of years ago accepted the 7%
figure. He is asking for something over and-above that. At the
same time, he is telling you that if there isn't an agreement he
intends to take it. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't
think that if he intends to take an additional 3% increase that is
legally supportable. That is not to say that it is not supportable
in terms of increased costs. That is an entirely different concern.
The question is as I understand it is "is he entitled pursuant to
the terms of the contract to take that without your permission and
my answer is no".
Taylor: I would like to read another section of our 1976
Contract and it states: Option to extend Term. At the Contractor's
option, the agreement may be extended for a period of five years
from and after June 30, 1986 to and including June 30, 1991 subject
to the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 4 hereof. Para-
graph 4 states that should the contractor exercise the option set
forth in paragraph 2 hereof the percentage increase shall be nego-
tiated with the City Council at the time of the exercise of said
option and the parties shall agree to an annual cost adjustment
by whatever formula not less than 4% nor to exceed the sum of 100.
Now, this is where some of the ambiguity comes in and we have a
current contact of 1978 which the Attorney can correct me if I'm
wrong, which supersedes the.previous agreement it is now at 7%. I
think he did agree to that. Now we are open to negotiation again
and I refer back to the paragraph 2. 'Option to Extend Term'.
I fully believe that the extending of this term is subject to the':
terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 4 hereof. So we have
to decide what these terms will be before the options are renewed
is the way I see it.
Kress: I guess I would disagree in part. I believe that the
franchise has been extended as I stated in my letter. I wasn't a
part of the negotiation of the particular amendment that you just
read. I think that perhaps the intent of the paragraph you just
read,paragraph 4, was that at the time that the contractor exercised
the option, the time he said o.k. I want to provide the service from
1986 to 1991, I read this language as the Council and Contractor
getting together and deciding on a percentage increase for those
years with the realization that perhaps the present rules of the
ball game would not. hold for the period between 1986 to 1991. I
think that is a reasonable construction to be given to the language
that you just read, but I would not agree that in asmuch as there
is some ambiguity concerning the actual state of negotiation between
4% and 10% that has somehow deprived the Contractor of the exercise
of the option for the final 5 years of the contract.
Hunter: O.K. the way I understand it Mr. Mayor is that the
majority of this Council believes that it is 7% '.'.and that Modern
at this time does not have the right to go the other 3%.
Mayor: I would assume that the majority of the Council feels
that way.
Hunter: O.K. then we should move along.
2. Taylor: The second question.is how can we create an excalating
disincentive for the contractor seeking reimbursement of delinquencies?
I have requested this item in the line of reasoning in that we.don't
know the collection effort made for these bills because it was a very
easy thing for delinquent bills to be mailed to the City and after
a certain period of time the City automatically paid those bills.
That procedure could continue and even more so. I think there should
be a disincentive and the memo from the City Attorney states possible
way of doing this. The higher the delinquencies the more we charge
to collect the delinquencies. One line of reasoning on those delin-
quencies, they are going to be somewhat smaller. I believe as time
goes on, as they are paid, the staff time put into those is going
to be higher for collecting a few of them than it is the simple pro-
cess that we go thru right now. A six month cycle. It is really
hard to say what will really happen. Tf we get into the commercial
account and follow this procedure. Mr. Hunter stated it could be
$40,000 or $50,000. Adj.CM 9-15-81
Paqe #5
r •
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, I don't agree. The question was fine.
The explanation given by the Attorney was fine. But, to penalize...
In other words if we have a contractor that we feel is not trying
in earnest to collect on them is a breach of contract. There is
no doubt in my mind about that, and if we have such a thing then
that's the way it should be considered. Well, to say that you try
a little then we will take a few percentages off. To me that is
absolutely garbage. If the contractor is not living up to his
part of the contract then let us do something about it. If the
City is not living up to theirs then let's make the corrections.
Not some graduated system. So I'disagree with Mr. Taylor's sug-
gestion. It was in question form and the answer is an illustra-
tion.
Mayor: I don't know if I agree in its entirety with comments
made here,' but I think what the City Attorney was trying to prevent
here. We use breach of contract, Mayor Pro Tem Hunter, breach of
contract is a great big word that takes a whole lot.of effort to
try and prove and then I'm not sure that you can do that. Where
is our safety lever. I realize that we are dealing with an honorable
person in Mr. Griegorian. I venture to say that he has served the
City well as far as trash collection is concerned, but I don't
think that's the point that we are getting at right now. What kind
of man Mr. Griegorian is or whether we should go for a breach of
contract as soon as we have an infraction. 'What kind of a safety
valve do we have. I think that is the question he is asking whether
we want to agree with the figures there or not.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor I'm not sure I follow your line of discussion.
What was given us by the City Attorney was a question by Mr. Taylor.
The illustration given us on a percentage type basis Mr. Mayor; I
said before you go into a graduated situation, if there is some
doubt about the contractor's efforts in collecting them then you
do have a breach of contract. I did not challenge Mr. Griegorian
personally or his staff.
Mayor: I didn't say you did.
Hunter: That is exactly what you said.
Mayor: No, it wasn't and I don't want to picking my words
in a study session.
Hunter: That was what the personnel was about so we could
avoid that.
Mayor: If there was that kind of an understanding, then I
will project an apology.
Hunter: That is not necessary. It is simply so that the record
and I understand that these will be verbatim minutes because this
Contract has been part of Election and suspect it will be a large
part of the next one. If I have to make it. Let's make no mistake
that what is being said here tonight will be used next April.
Mayor: I don't think we are here to determine whether we are
going pro or con on the next campaign.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor my mind was made up at the last meeting. I
don't know about yours.
Mayor: My mind was made up to come to some kind of conclusion
on this contract, and not worry about an Election that is the furthest
thing on my mind.
Hunter: As a matter of fact, when I was elected in 1970, I
tried to take this apart.
Cichy: In regards to this particular item. In my own personal
knowledge of receiving bills...both business and residential..it
seems to me that it is a practice has taken in the past of sending
not just one bill, but following bills,having some people from their
office go to the door and 'say you haven't paid your bills when we
sent them to you'. I don't know what else can be done. I don't
know what else Modern could do beyond that without exercising force
and violating someones rights or something. Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #6
• 9
Cichy: This point here in trying to establish some rationale
in decreasing the amount of money they receive for some lack of
collection service doesn't seem to exist as it is. The point is
moot in itself and I don't think any contractor should be penalized
for producing a service and especially this type of service that is
required and if the people don't pay him then he has every right,
given those standards I have seen them perform in the past. It is
sort of a moot issue.
Tury: I have nothing against paying the residential delin-
quencies, but I have a major problems with the commercial delin-
quencies. Especially in the way they are trying to handle it.
I have no problem with the residential we can recoup that money.
We are going to have to find some other way to billing the commer-
cials because I don't want to have those kind of bills.
Hunter: I agree with what Mr. Tury said if that is the
point that we are going to now, and it is the area where the
delinquency we.are talking about. To keep paying them until
we can get it on the tax rolls as early as possible I would
agree to. But not a prolonged just paying them. I would like
to see them be part of the delinquents, become part of the taxing
of the properties and the City Attorney tells me that we can do
that legally. Is that right Mr. City Attorney?
Kress: Yes, in August I prepared and submitted to the Council
and to Modern's Attorney what I thought was a Contract amendment
and an Ordinance that would allow for that procedure. Perhaps,
when we are done with this we can move on to a discussion and
perhaps, Modern has some comments about that proposal. On the sub-
ject of the Contractors best efforts and whether or not there
should be a monetary escalating disincentive. I think what Council-
man Cichy has suggested is that Modern currently practices certain
procedures and at least he feels , and perhaps the majority of the
Council feels, that those procedures when properly followed in each
instance are satisfactory and perhaps the contract could be amended
to specifically state what Modern's obligation regarding billing
and rebilling and contacting and so forth are. Perhaps, that would
be better than a general'clause that the Contractor must use his
best efforts regarding collection. Then if he does not then the
violation of the Contract would be clear and other steps could be
taken rather than simply determining.the largeness, the size of
the overall delinquencies is someway directly attributable to the
lack of effort on the part of the Contractor.
3. Exception from charges. Mayor Imperial read the question and
answer on item 3.
Tury: Mr. Kress, does that apply to commercial and residential?
Kress: I think it does. There can be certain businesses that
do not generate that recycle or do not generate trash period and I
think that classifications or some sort of a standard could be set.
The language that is included from Paramount, this is something
that Mr. Andrews and I have agreed upon, sometime in the case of
residences there will just be certain stops on each block that will
apply for this sort of an exemption and say whatever is necessary
with the penalty of perjury will be very difficult for the admini-
strative staff of the City to determine otherwise.....,.They will simply
put their trash out with their neighbors. That is not the intent.
The contractor in taking on a franchise of this sort is providing
the City with a totality of service. He is responsible for every
single piece of trash created in the City that moves out of the City.
Tury: That answered my question in part. What bothers me is
like Universal Square across the street. I don't know what kind
of trash they have. I know that the threat is to bill them indivi-
dually. I am going to assume that they have one of.those great big
bins.. That center is probably under one ownership and probably have
lease arrangements and probably have one big bin and that is where
everyone dumps their trash. To tell me that ten people should have
their own bin, I can't buy that.
Frank: Planning and aesthetics the Center was designed with
a central location for the bins.
Adj. CM 9-15-51
Page #7
0 •
Tury: That makes good sense.
Kress: I think that we have to approach the commercial
sharing problem from this prospective. The trash is being taken
care of. We have built as the City Manager indicates shopping
centers, especially small shopping centers, and we have quite
a few of those have been designed and approved with central
sharing of large trash bin. I don't believe there has ever been
the proper construction of this agreement or the application of
it by the Contractor that each and every business in the City is
required to have a large bin. That just isn't in the cards. It
would ruin parking in some of your smaller shopping centers, and
it would like
Tury: You say that Bob, but if you read that letter that
came with these delinquencies at this time, it says there are
a hundred that are sharing barrel stops that we will begin to
bill, and 75 non-user commercials that we will begin to bill.
Now we. are looking at $45,000 every six months so now we are
looking at the.situation that we looked six months or a year ago.
We are looking at a whole new situation. The Contractor is going
to do something that he feels that the Contract allows him to do.
He has a right to his opinion. So we are looking at something
that we..are taking out $45,000 every six months for someone who
is not even receiving service, $90,000 a year. That where it
bothers me with what you said where you don't feel that there
should be any exemptions. I agree with that with residentials
because you have grass clippings and etc. Once again I think
Universal Square across the street, I really can't see ten indi-
vidual bins out there. That's where my problem came into for
that particular thing. I never had any idea of exempting any
simple thing or single business.
Mayor: I can't realize any reason why residential would
not have trash pick up service, I really can't see why they
shouldn't because they.have to generate trash. Like Mr. Tury
says I,also, have trouble for instance, there is a little
Beauty Salon in there next to the Palms, they have never had
trash service there before and they are being billed for a bin.
Right now, they cannot possibly generate that kind of trash for
a bin. Mr. Tury for 'example has a machine shop, not to bring you
in this, Lou, but just point as an example, he sells all his
scrap. What would he do with a bin? I really have problems with
this. As far as exemptions for residential I have no problems
with that, but as far as commercial I have problems with billing
every one.
Taylor.: Mr. Mayor, if there are these small businesses and
such why is it mandatory that they be on a bin rate. In other words,
if they go on 'a barrel rate, 1 barrel, one barrel is what they get
billed for and one barrel is all that is picked up.
Tury: The 1978 Agreement did away with the barrel.service.
Taylor: My understanding of the letter that you referred to
there Lou, doesn't it say that barrel service was going on for
several businesses.
Turyi It was the 1976 Agreement that the Barrel Service was
done away with and bins were made mandatory.
Taylor: It was suppose to have been done away with as far as
maybe the agreement, but our rate schedule and such still includes
that in our ordinances and it was never amended out, and the letter
that you referred to even to this day there are still people on
barrel services according to that letter. So how does that happen?
Is it.arbitrary? We will let some stay on barrels and some we will
start billing now. If it was out, I don't understand how that was
happening. The rate was still in our ordinances-and it's still be
done by Modern Service and all of a sudden we are told it is out.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #8
Kress: As you will recall, in several of the proposals that
have been passed back and forth over the past couple of years.
Modern has indicated that there is some flexibility on the impo-
sition that the requirement that each business have a large size
bin. They have indicated that a compromise that they are willing
to make in barrel service at a 2/3 bin rate. That may even be
further negotiable, I don't know. They have indicated a willingness
to address.that problem.with barrel service rather than put in bins
at each location. You have to remember I think in considering this
I guess I would disagree with Councilman Tury because I don't think
a lot has changed in the past six months except that you have a
threat on the table from Modern Service to escalate its billing of
non-subscribing customers and change the rate from barrel rates to
full bin rates. We may well have some litigation on that point.
One of the requirements of the bin rate is that Modern provide the
bin,I;.don't think they have done that.
Mayor: For instance we had a gentleman approach the Council
and said he had not used Modern Service for years. This very same
gentleman not to mention any names not only operates a business on
Valley Blvd., a business which in my opinion does generate trash
and lives behind the business. On the other hand the small beauty
salon generates less trash than I do and that I am paying residential
rate for.. I think what we are really talking about is exception of.
policy and who makes them.
Hunter: Mr. Griegorian, on the commercial, and that seems
to be what everybody is uptight about. There are users that do
not need a bin per se. There are users that have no place for a
bin. Is that negotiable from where you sit?
Mr. Griegorian: Sure, we can negotiate the contract in a lot
of ways. We have submitted you a proposal and if you go back to
the proposal we could iron out all these things that you are talk-
ing about very readily. Just like your: talking about the beauty
shop. If you are going down to negotiate, I thought you were going
give a proposal to me tonight. That's what you told me. That you
were going to give me a counter proposal for the proposal I had
given you, but.I am easy.
Mayor: Who said you were going to have a counter proposal?
Frank: It was stated in a couple of Council Meetings ago.'
Cichy: I understood it was the intention of this Meeting to
discuss that option and discuss the option of a counter proposal.
Mayor: Were we suppose to have a proposal tonight.
Cichy: I thought that the reason we continued to this date
so that the Council in an open forum would discuss that particular
issue.
Mayor: I didn't assume that we would definitely have a proposal
tonight.
Hunter: The way I understood that ...when I asked for the closed
session to discuss a plan of attack was really what I suggested to
take the points.. No one really wanted to do that and when we opened
the meeting you asked for suggestions four times so I figured a good
way to start is with what Mr. Taylor asked for. That's what brought
it on. We do have Modern's letter and proposals right here in our
stack. The eight points that he brought up and the Attorney recom-
mended that we could discuss it but we cannot take a vote because
we are in a study session. I understand that. We could have a
feeling of what kind of proposal we are going to make to Modern
Service Company'on their proposal if any.
Cichy: We are almost done with these questions, the first
five questions. When we finish them we can go right to the content
of the proposal by Modern.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #9
• •
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, I brought it up for two reasons. Number
1. is that when you opened up the meeting you were getting no com-
ments and number 2. the Attorney states that the only comments
he had had were from Mr. Taylor. I figured it was a good place
to start and like Mr. Cichy pointed out we have just about.covered
them so why don't we cover them and then the questions that Mr.
Taylor has asked has been eluded to. Then we can go on and if
you want to discuss the eight points,fine.
4. Mayor Imperial read item 4. from the September 10th letter.
Hunter: Could we have the City Attorney elude just a little
bit. I think I understand it but just for the record. From the
beginning.you were against an automatic increase and I think that
the majority of the Council agrees with that. It should come to
the Council on an annual basis. What are some of the other options
that we might or might not have?
Kress: I have seen in several proposals from Modern that
there is always a bottom line of something like 10% to 14% for
every year for ever. I think that is a real problem because
it adds up that the analogy is I think to your employees you
certainly wouldn't do something like that for your City Hall
employees every year, and maybe you don't want to look at this
kind of an agreement every year,two to three years has been done
in the past and that is the point I am making.' Councilman Taylor
as I understand the point, I just took some notes of the general
discussion at the last Council Meeting, and I think the gist of
what he was saying was what are our options and what can we do,
and all I am really trying to say is that you have got hold of
the purse strings"and certainly time change and there may be
pressures of inflation that indicate the need for a review of the
rate structure, but I certainly would not entertain the notion
that the balance of the ten years of the Contract should be dealt
with tonight or at a particular meeting. I think that is for
future times and future Councils to also consider those matters
and review the performance of the contractor and review his costs
the changes in the economy and the changes in dump regulations and
whatever else there is. That is the point. I think you have
plenty of control in terms of dollars and cents and I think that
is what this whole discussion is about.
Taylor: Part of my questioning for that particular item
number 4. was that we do not have a clause in our ordinance
and the City Attorney can correct me if I am wrong a Section
that states our power of defaults how to void the contract. Is
that actually in our contract as such?
Kress: I don't believe it is.
Taylor: That was my reason for asking Mr. Mayor. Several
months ago we had asked for copies from the adjoining cities
and we have Alhambra, Arcadia, Baldwin Park, El Monte, Glendora,
Montebello, Monterey Park,Paramount,Pico Rivera, San Dimas, San
Gabriel and Temple City. Several of those contracts were specific.
Three of four listed the right to declare default. We have nothing
stating that we have the right to declare default. The City of
Montebello is the one I have in my hand here. They have two pages
more or less clarifying that the City does have the option and
the right and such. Simply if there is default it explains that
they do have that option. Our contract was lacking that. That
was why I asked that be put it. Not specific items, but in general,
and staff can review those contracts that I had asked for several
months ago. There are three or four in there, since we won't be
approving this contract tonight, we could have something put in
our contract clarifying that we can declare a default. One other
item that I did ask on this,first item, a copy of document exer-
cising the option to extend franchise. Modern Service clearly
had that option. Contractor's option it stated. He could come
in and he declares that it will be extended. The Attorney stated
that we cannot challenge that in the sense there has been no default
or such. We simply cannot challenge that.but he has that option.
I don't think that was very clearly written in our ordinance because
I interpret it a little bit different, but not to belabor the point
that why I asked for a clarifying clause for default.
Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #10
J
Hunter: I have got no objection to your suggestion, but Mr.
Kress in your letter there is a document where the intent of the
Contract has been implemented to extend to 1991.
Kress: That is correct.
Hunter: It is your understanding that it has been exercised.
Cichy: I do not disagree with that particular suggestion,
but I do not think it is necessary. We have a Contract and any
breach of the contract is going to be litigated anyway, and
someone else is going to make that decision. Obviously, if we
feel that there is a material breach of that contract or there
some type of default of performance of the contract then we would
have to exercise our powers in order to protect our citizens and
take some immediate action which we would do under any circumstances,
unless there is something in particular that would specify default.
Default to me under the terms of this contract with this particular
type of contractor would mean that he couldn't perform the contract.
I cannot think of any instance in the past where that has arisen.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, I would like to reiterate the comment where
Mr. Griegorian has extended the option, and what I have just noticed
on this that this option is almost three years old and is dated
December 18, 1978. It says pursuant to Paragraph 2 ,of the amendment
to Agreement Dated December 29, 1976 Contractor hereby exercises
his option to extend the term of the reference agreement for a period
of five years from and after June.30, 1986 to and including June 30,
1991 subject to the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 4
of the amendment Dated December 24, 1976. Now we-are saying that
paragraph 4 is ambiguous or part of it.had been superceded by the
1978 agreement. But it is again referring back to the 1976 document.
In any case I would like the staff review that and come back with
an:~option for us to have the default clarification in the contract.
Kress: Understand, if I may, on that point, that is a suggestion
and I will glad to review that language, but I agree with Councilman
Cichy that the State Law probably covers it but since I have not had
a chance to review the other contracts perhaps there is something
in there that would be of benefit. However, just I found fault with
Modern's unilateral action, we cannot amend that contract on our own
and there is a gentleman sitting behind me that have to agree to it.
You have an agreement and there is a proposal on the table from them.
We may give them a counter proposal and reject portions of their
proposal. I don't know what is going to happen. But that is some-
thing to keep in mind that we may want, but we cannot take that
unilateral action.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, the City Attorney stated that the two
gentlemen here we'.re going to give them a proposal tonight?
Kress: I don't believe that is what I said.
Taylor: Clarification, we are studying this in a study session.
Once it is resolved what we are to do, then we are going to have to
put this thing together and vote on it.
Kress: Study.Session...I don't care what you call it..we had
this as an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and action
can be taken if Council wishes to take it. I don't believe that
everything is coming together and tonight is the night, but I may
be proven wrong.
Andrews: Mr. Mayor may I appoint a couple of comments? First,
in reference to the option. Most options are unilateral options.
They.lare not bi-lateral. You lease a house with an option to buy.
The Lessee has the option to buy it or not buy it. That is the case.
A bi-lateral option...we exercise the option if you agree to let us
exercise the option is truly no option. This does not consitute in
the eyes of the law an option. As far as a default provision in the
Contract for substantial breach, I concur with the other two Attorneys
that the law covers it, but if you would feel more comfortable with
some kind of a default provision within the four corners of the docu-
ment. I would have no objection to us setting forth in the document
what the law already provides. Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #11
i •
5. Mayor,Imperial read item 5 from the letter of September 10th.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, the reason I had asked that this possible
procedure be taken was in no intent to have a debtors prison recreated.
I don't know where Mr. Kress got that particular phrase, but it is
beside the point. My question was raised in the sense of putting
in a municipal ordinance similar to this exact contractor in the
sense that this contractor has a street sweeping contract with this
City and when his equipment is going around sweeping the streets
we have a police patrol, a police escort at times who at times writes
traffic tickets if a.car is parked. What is basically involved?
There are leaves left on the street. That becomes a municipal of-
fense and a ticket is issued for that matter. Now there is a case
where we could use debtor's prison. I say that with a little pun
because it is the same type of an incident. I asked for a.Municipal
Ordinance and maybe we could enforce it another way rather than
going through the staff time of putting it on the tax bill. Now, I
reiterate, we have sheriff patrol for his street sweeping, why can't
we have a municipal ordinance for citing for non-payment of a muni-
cipal responsibility because several of the other contracts of 12
cities that I referred to state the different procedures that are
followed. A couple of those, 2 or 3, can stop the collection of
rubbish pick-up. I know our contract says we have an obligation
to pick it up, we can't stop. These other contracts state that
they can stop, and then those people are cited for violation of
the code. They gave certain code numbers. I don't.recall what they
are but it is in those 12 contracts that we have. So asked the
question in good faith. I did not intend to install a debtors prison.
Mayor: I can certainly hear where you are coming from. But
what is the ordinance now on how long prior to pick up that they
can put their trash on the street.
Taylor: 6:00 p. m. the nite before.
Frank: 24 hrs prior to the pick-up, it was changed a while back.
Mayor: If we determine that would be the type of method we
would use then we also have to take into consideration that people
would have to be cited for having trash on the streets too premature
to pick-up.
Frank: We have caused a citation to be issued. There is one
on Valley Blvd., here that was a blatant violator.' They would have
it out 4 or 5 days ahead of time. I think more than trying to talk about
debtors prison, what you have to look at is those citations for the
Council's edification are only as good as the judge is willing to slap
those fines on people, and I think what is going to happen or what
Bob sees is happening is that you are going to have these things con-
tested and there is not a judge in the land that is going to want to
sit there and start contesting contractor disputes between the user
of the service and the service company and the City stuck in the middle
by issuing the citation. It is not..He is not going to take the time
to resolve that. He is going to more than likely going to toss it
out of court or he is going to tell the people to settle it with either
Contractor or the City. We are back from where we started. That is
negotiations again with someone.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, is that the procedure that"s handled on our
traffic ticket for parking when the sweeper is suppose to be there?
Does the judge act on those? Does he decide whether wants them or
not? Or does he cite them for a violation of our code?
Frank: No, that is a different situation. You have a violation
of the Vehicle section and a parking sign. In this case what you are
going to do...It is not going to be as simple. I have seen a judge
throw out the moving citation because he felt that in fact that site
obstruction had taken place, he had written a ,letter asking us to
look at a left hand movement on Walnut Grove at Hellman. The Traffic
Commission had studied it and Council, in fact instructed to rewiden
that left turning lane because the Judge in asmuch as told us, if I
get any more tickets on this or if there are any more accidents on
this I am throwing it out because you people need to take a look at
the width of the left turn lane. O.K. on those parking cites if
there are any extenuating circumstances, the judge will look at those
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #12
• 0
Frank: (Continued) circumstances and considering their
parking citation and whether or not the person should pay. In
this case the person is merely going to stand up say 'but your
honor I don't generate trash'. Gary, you are talking about the
black and white case where the guy puts out five bundles of
trash and it doesn't get picked up. Now, let's talk about the
one where the guy doesn't pay it because he says why should I
pay it when I don't use it. Now you are going to cite him
because he has given.me notice that he is not picking up that
location. The guy is going to walk into court and tell the
Judge that I'm not going to pay it because I don't use it.
Those are the kind that I am saying the Judge is going to take
another look at. It is not cut and dry for him and he is not
going to set himself up there as being a negotiator between the
City, the Contractor and the user. I could be wrong, but I
think that is the point that we are trying to make.
Taylor: You are making a valid point. But then, the other
side of the coin is that we as a City adopt an ordinance that
is mandatory against all, no exceptions, all residential property
you will pay this fee whether you use it or not. The point being
that we have adopted an official ordinance saying that and there
again they are in violation of that ordinance so what do we do
to correct that. We turn around and put it on the tax rolls, and
go through the procedure of our staff, county staff and such having
to collect those bills for private contractors. Anyway Mr. Mayor
I asked the question in good faith and that was the reason for
doing it . Other cities do do it.
Kress: I attempted to answer the question in.good faith.
I think everything is said. We can quible.about terms but I
think that you are trying to suggest using the criminal system
to require people to pay dollars for services rendered. We don't
do that. As I invision use of the tax rolls, I think that is
going to have a much smaller impact in a one time or perhaps semi-
annual impact as far as staff time rather than having a new employee
run after a trash truck or I guess one runs to tell the driver no
don't pick this one up cause he is delinquent and I'll take care
of this one, we will get him.... Everyone is talking about the same
thing and I think that's to make the people who use the service
pay for it. I think that the tax roll..., maybe it is not perfect,
but it comes close to it. The instance of ownership of property
people of this City or any other City are going to vary in exactly
how much use they make of the trash collection system. Just owning
property in Rosemead, some of the municipal trash, that is hauled
away pursuant to this contract. Just owning property in Rosemead
that is a benefit that you are getting because the litter is taken
away by the Contractor. That is part of this agreement.
Mayor: Any further comment?
Tury: Mr. Mayor, I think that we made that decision in 1978.
We were to pick up the delinquencies or pick up the trash ourselves
or cause it to be collected. That was brought on by a law suit by
someone who wasn't getting their trash pick-up who weren't paying
the bill. I am not sure it was the smartest thing that we have
ever done, but on the other hand, I don't see that that we had any
option.
Frank: That is a good point and one that can be amplified here.
It was brought by a person who did not pay for. the service and wanted
to use the service. Did not get the trash picked up and nor did he
pay the bill. But what are you going to do with the person who says
.'but I have none to pick up'. Are you going-Ito make me take it?
Do I have to pay for service I am not getting? Again, you are not
going to do anything with the contract on a unilateral basis. The
Contractor has to agree whether or not he is willing to forego that
particular location if in fact, and the question he is going to have
is how are we going evaluate if the person uses the service. This
guy on the corner brings his at midnight and puts it in the guys bin
down the street and gets it picked up there. Who is going through
and sort it and find out whose got mail and at what address. I sure
I am not and I don't that staff and I don't think that is the Council s
intention either. Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #13
• 0
Taylor: Mr. Mayor as far as I'm concerned that answers the
questions that I had put forth.
Mayor: Any other comment, if not gentlemen, we will recess
this study session for ten minutes.
The Council Meeting reconvened.
Mr. Griegorian: I think you should do the rest in private
and we will leave and any questions that you want to answer or if
you want to send us a counter offer whatever you want to do,we
will wait til we get it.
Mayor: That is your prerogative.
Hunter: The terms that Mr. Griegorian used 'in private'
this is a public meeting.
Taylor: That's right.
Cichy: That is why we had it so that we could discuss in
public.
Kress: He indicated to me in the coffee area that again as
he,stated that he thought that something was forth coming in terms
of a proposal and I-tried to tell him that Ii.think that the Council
has some concerns and we are getting around to discussing the pro-
posal now and for whatever reason he decided to leave that to you
and perhaps he believes that you might speak more freely without
his presence and come up with something that he can respond to.
Mayor: I just had a brief conversation with Mr. Griegorian
and I told him that I don't want him to feel like he is obligated
to stay here while we discuss the eight points that had submitted
to us in way of a proposal. He said that he would rather not and
hear this and I said that was your prerogative to exercise. I
will call the meeting to order, and at that time you can make
whatever decision you see fit. Apparently, that was what he just
did. The term private goes without saying is a study session
which is being taped and so I don't think we have any problems
in that area.no matter what his choice of words were.
Kress: That is correct. I would also report to the Council
that I had the opportunity to speak briefly with Mr. Andrews and
I asked him if he had any reactions or problems with the proposed
ordinance amendment or the proposed amendment to the Franchise
Agreement that would take care of placing these delinquencies on
the property tax rolls for collection. He indicated that he had
reviewed it and that it was very close as far as he was concerned
and there might of been a couple of minor points. He indicated
a concern however, that he did not wish to settle the varies
differences regarding the Contract on a piece-meal basis. What
he and Mr. Griegorian and I think what this Council should aim
for is something that is a.package that can be put together with
some compromise on both sides. Maybe that is possible and maybe
that's not.
Tury: I think it has to be. We have kicked around a lot
of things here that we would like to see into it, but in order
to get something you have to give something. We have to sit
down and decide what are we going to give and what do we expect
in return. I don't know how far we can go and I don't know
how far....I don't know what everybody-?wants. I' think that
there are certain areas in this proposal that makes some sense.
And as far as I'm concerned there are others that make absolutely
no sense. I have told him so that during the negotiations.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, the City Attorney made the statement that
Mr. Griegorian or his Attorney, I don't know which one, stated
that they did not want to go on this contract on a piece-meal basis.
Am I correct then that they want us to make a decision on the total
contract and then we should give them a counter-proposal.
Mayor: I think that is what they are striving for. Yes.
Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #14
Kress: Well, for example, they would not want you to take
action with reference to the property tax aspect of it without
addressing the other points as well.
Hunter: Are we talking about the eight points that we have
before us, or like Mr. Taylor said the total contract?
Kress: The total Contract is a given. Councilman Taylor
suggested somethings that are not there and that he would like
to see there. Perhaps, we can get those. Modern is not asking
for contract language. They are asking for money.
Mayor: I don't think they were too much affended by what
was said tonight. I think that their primary concern is what
are we going to do with their eight points. I think that should
be the next part of the Agenda.
Taylor: As far as the eight points, we have a letter dated
August 7th, 1981. The letter:
The Honorable Mayor Re: Modern Service Proposal
and Members
Rosemead City Council
Sirs:
At the last regular meeting of the City Council, the Council had
requested that Modern Service Company submit their proposal to
modify the current franchise agreement. We have received their
proposal dated July 28, 1981.
As in the past, we have analyzed the implications of the request,
and it is attached for your review.
Respectfully submitted:
FRANK G. TRIPEPI
City Manager
Taylor: continues: This review covers the eight items that
was proposed by Modern Service and we have a summary sheet. On
the last page of this particular item and the page preceeding that
it states the last sentence and paragraph: Present Contract agree-
ments with Modern Service are financially more advantageous to
the City and to its residents. The summary sheet states that under
the current contract additional revenues that Modern Service is to
receive under each proposal $47,937 proposed amendments $892,626.
Again reiterating the current Contract $47,937. To clarify the
one issue as far as the total package goes, I cannot accept the
proposal as submitted.
Taylor: I would like to make the motion to start off that
we reject this proposal and then we can start with a new one, a
counter proposal. to Mr. Griegorian.
Tury: I have no objection to doing that but I think we should
take them one by one, and see if we cannot come up with something
that we can agree with on some of the areas.
Hunter: The figures that Mr. Taylor just read by staff would
be true if this Council approved the eight points as presented to
us. I read that same letter and I don't think the staff ever
thought that the.Council would approve it in its entirety. So it
is really nonsense. As it was.said earlier, I believe by Mr. Tury,
to get something, you have to give something. What are the points
that we want to get. I might add that one of the things that has
become a problem has been delinquents. If you look over the list
you will see some prominent business people in this City. That
for one reason or another has decided that they did not want to
pay their bills. If you really scrutinize it. It is not because
they are broke. It is the same old group and they have had several
names over the past years. The most recent is the RCCA and one of
them is one of those members. I'm not taking shots at the RCCA
they have some good points. But you have certain people that take
advantage in how they get the word that the City will pay your bills.
I don't know how do we get rid of the delinquents..Adj.CM 9_15-81
Page #15
• •
Hunter: (Continued) I have asked the Attorney can we break
that contract. I have heard a lot of discussion back and forth
that it was not a court order that we followed.
Kress: A court order interpreting state law is that the
City is resonsible in its police powerfor the removal trash.
That is true in this City and if it were to be litigated in
any of those other contracts that Councilman Taylor was bring-
ing up. Our contract prior to the litigation gave the contrac-
tor the opportunity to simply stop service and any residence
or business that did not pay their bill for a specified period
of time. As part of the settlement of the litigation the
Council approved an, amendment to the agreement that changed
everything around. It said o.k. the Contractor now obligates
itself to do everybody all the time regardless of payment. To
the extent he is not paid on a time limit basis twice a year
he submits his invoices to the City and we have paid them. We
are contracturally obligated in the area of delinquencies.
Tury: Bob, a question when we started to talk about that
and we made the vote and I voted for it, and I accept whatever
responsibility I have for that decision. But did that include
the commercials?
Frank: May I separate something? There are two issues
that have to be looked at very carefully. While they included
the commercial delinquencies the amendment that we agreed to
pay all delinquencies did not include the Contractor going out
and billing an additional 133 people who have never subscribed
to a commercial service and then claiming them as delinquent
and submitting the bill to the City.
Hunter: Mr. Tury that is one of the points that we need to
clarify. If it was a mistake or the courts have interpreted it
one way and it has funneled down to us that we that we have two
choices pay it ourselves or break the contract. 0. K.
Tury: I don't want to break the Contract.
Hunter: I don't think anyone of us do. The tab could get
higher. That's one point that we could get out..the delinquents.
In the contract supposedly he can bill every business in this
City.
Kress: There is an ambiguity there.
Hunter: 0. K. now the point I think that the decision
that this Council has to reach is do we try to negotiate this out
to a reasonable settlement for not only the City but its citizens
and Modern.or do we not pay them and we go to court.
Tury: I think it is mandatory that we solve that problem.
Hunter: Mr. Tury I think there is two points that have to
be settled at this time. One,they have asked for more money.
That doesn't mean necessarily that they are going to get it.
Tury: That is. what I say Herb, you have to give something
to get something. But we have to decide what we want. What
problems do we need to resolve. One of them is we have to find
out someway... I'll be honest with you I don't mind putting the
delinquents on the tax bill but when I look at a commercial billing
that may or may not be receiving a service and at the end of the
year it goes on the tax bill $420.00 for services never rendered.
I think we are really going to be in deep trouble.;
Hunter: Except this brings out another point. Our City has
since its incorporation has had a problem of tax shelters. Garvey
and Valley Blvd. both, they say are never being used either for
storage or illegal aliens several ways where business will say
no we don't use them, we don't have a trash service and by golly
they do.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #16
Tury: I was not on the Council then when did they do away
with bin rate schedule, 2 bins for x.number of dollars-3 bins
x number of dollars. That would to me resolve the problem.
If he can't put in a bin he puts in two barrels. I can't see
$10.00 per barrel. Two barrels for $10.00 per month.
Hunter: My notes to myself, and tried to do some research,
there are two years missing, the two years that I was off the
Council, 74 thru 76. I don't know what transpired then, or
at least I have no record then. On the bin service, my;notes
to me are absolutely "no" only as needed. Every business gener-.
ates trash. The Mayor eluded to a Barber shop I happen to per-
sonally know the tenant and know some history behind it and I
know how that operates. They don't pay a trash bill in their
apartments, their trash is brought down. I know this person
leased from me for 2h years. I know how that works. So these
people who say they generate no trash. Probably if we had a
way to get to the truth of it, there is maybe 20 that does not
generate trash. But if they take the trash out of here and
take it to another City and deposit it at their home, what have
we done there.
Tury: What I'm saying is if you could come up with a way
saying O.K. the minimum you could take a one owner... I'm talk-
ing about across the street..
Hunter: Well, you see I disagree with you over there...
Where you have the multi-use you have a lot of abuse. Let
them pay it. I think if you are going to give any relief, you
give it to the one on one. The one owner the one little
the air conditioning fellow that spoke to us..you know if you
are looking for relief I think it should be given. These multi-
users don't give a about us. They even moved their general
headquarters to another city.
Tury: I am thinking of the gentlemen who owns Pants City
who rents this building and I am going to assume they have one
those great big bins ...I've never seen it and those things are
humongous..and everybody walks out throws their trash in this
one great big bin. That is part of their rent and part of their
doing business. I really can't see ten buildings each one having
a separate trash bin out back.
Mayor: In the case of Universal, Lou, for instance, I go
by there quite often and their bin is really loaded and overflow-
ing. In a case like that I can't see everyone having their bin
but I can see Griegorian walking up to the bin and saying that
every time I walk into that place the trash is all over the ground
and therefore I think you need one~more bin, or extra service.
Tury: Extra service.
Mayor: I can see that because then Griegorian is taking a
beating then and that's not fair.to him. On the other hand, I
can very well see and maybe it is opening pandora's box, I'm
just throwing this out for discussion. If that person and I am
not going to use that beauty salon any more.. If a person has no
more trash than what supposedly a business that size has then
why couldn't they get the same rate as a residential. I put out
six containers. If that business is not going to generate more
than that then why couldn't they get the same rate. On a case
by case situation.
Tury: Jay I think ;.you could say $10.00 but you can't do
it for $4.58 because at $4.58 is because they can run down the
street and they can dump those things in 30 seconds. Those guys
really hussle, they really work. I wish I had workers like that.
0. K. a business say for $10.00 a month you can have 2 barrels
out. or one barrel or whatever we can arrive at. If it exceeds
that then they have to have a yard bin or whatever it is. But
I can't see paying like the proposal says 2/3 of the cost which
would be approximately $20.00 for one barrel, that would be
$5 a week to have the barrel dumped. Then, if he comes into
here and says this guy is not picking up trash, I would not have
a problem saying hey you know it is only $10.00 a month.you do
generate some trash. Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #17
•
Changed tape...
Hunter: We have an
except tons and tons and
them are in Modern bins.
C
automobile rebuilding shop for used parts
tons of cores.that are damaged. Most of
Tury: If we could come up with some reasonable minimum
charge I could see it.
Hunter: These are the two problems that we have to come to,
and they are exceptions. But to make an exception, and I think
we should now, on the various trash bills. We cannot justify
the illegal use in our City. How do they get in and how do they
get occupancy permits with no parking. How do they get power
hooked up with no parking. So we can't justify and say look we're
going to give you a tax break when they are here illegally to begin
with.
Cichy: When we opened our business in West Covina, four days
later we got our bill from the chamber of commerce and the fire
department was there and our poor little business is $800.00 a
year for doing business in the City.
Hunter: I don't agree with that. There has got to be...
We feel sorry for them because we have some old timers here..
I've been here when it was County.
Frank: The other alternative that has been talked about
is that you call it a benefit assessment and it is a benefit
assessment to the property owner and you forget about the user
that is there. It makes no difference. If that is tied into
that man's rent that he is paying to that landlord and he knows
that he is paying for that service indirectly, he is going to
use it. Why should he take the trouble to walk 35 yards down
the street to dump it when he knows that the reason his rent
is what it is, because it includes an assessment for the trash
to be picked-up.
Tury: You are talking about major changes. Maybe we need,
but we are talking about really major changes.
Hunter: There are two areas that we have to resolve, and
I think these eight points some we will give and take or what-
ever if the majority says no let it be litigated. To let him
bill every business in this City status quo,of course, they
are not going to pay it, and most of them will be at Council
Meetings telling what they think of us, and then it will come
in on a delinquency bill and then we have another decision to
make do we pay him or do we litigate it. I think there is
two major points. Now do we get them. Do we say to him we
take eight of these points and some of them. For one, take
the first one an immediate increase to $5.50, I totally disagree
with that. I think $5.15 to $5.25 is actually fair. O.K. what
is his present rate? $4.58 O.K. I thought it was $4.85 so I
will retract that so I would say $5.00 would be fair. That is
just to throw it out and if in fact that passed and you give the
man 50C per household that is a pretty good increase. So if
you give him 42C and make it an even $5.00 you have an increase
there but he has got to go back. I don't know how you would de-
cide which business would be $10.00 and which business would be
$35.00.
Tury: That is the big problem. He keeps saying to me, and
I believe that he is quite honest. I'll work with you guys, but
unless it is down on paper... I'll be honest with you his way of
billing every business in town really has changed my opinion. I
think any thing that we do should be down on paper. If it is
going to be a bin rate or whatever it has to be down on paper,
it can't be that I will work it out with each individual business
man. That can't happen any more.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #18
Frank: On his commercials there has not been a lot of....
if you could take and track his commercial yearly payments, I
doubt if you could see any kind of a decline whatsoever.. It is
probably over the last five years it is a very stable line and
you have about these 100 out of 900 businesses in the City
that have just never paid for the'bin service. How they get
rid of it I can't answer. Herb you don't know. None of us
know. We don't know where it goes or what they are doing with
it. Some of them I would say probably, I know as an example
the ones across the street part of their lease they pay to
Universal they get the use of the bin for their trash. They
probably have a lot of locations like that. At this point in
time, it is interesting that that point of the contract wasn't
brought up until the Council agreed to make the payment on the
delinquencies. It has been going on for years and years and
years and nothing..,. he always had his commercials and maintained
the same account but when we picked up the delinquents he wanted
to add the 100 and have them sign up for the bins. If you make
enough points on this.thing that you are going to give the Con-
tractor,.you can just ask him to forget those people. Those
people are being service. How they are being serviced I don't
know. Some of those are legitimate and some of those are viola-
ting.
Hunter: If in fact we give this man whatever, 50t, 40t, 30~
and maybe a couple of other points to forget the bin service. It
is in there we didn't modify the contract, he can still come back
when this Council is gone and I'm sure most of us won't be sitting
here in 1991.
Tury: I think you have got to come to a resolution if we
are going to give him anything we have got to have a resolution
to the,problem so that we can see down on paper. Get something
for giving something. Close it.
Hunter: I don't know what the final resolution should be
on that, but every business should pay something. What kind of
formula we would come up with I have no idea. But some of the
people who have personally complained to me I looked at it and
they do generate trash. I found one exception and that was
the air conditioning guy.it does go to the dump, but he is the
only one.
Frank: You have residences on Garvey they put out a barrel
and if the guy is just coming along Garvey anyway why should this
guy get his barrel picked up for $4.58 cause it is residential
and the other guy pays $10.00 because he happens to have a commer-
cial permit..but it is still one barrel and it is the amount of
trash.
Tury: We have an ordinance against commercials putting
their barrels out in front.
Kress: I think we have established a system in this Country
right or wrong where Commercial accounts pay more for Electricity,
water, all these kinds of services.
Mayor: You call the telephone company and tell them you want
a commercial line versus a residential line for the same amount of
use and see what you come up with.
Tury: You'have to pay for every single call made on a commer-
cial phone.
Hunter: What I was surprised at was what you pay for putting
in a pay phone.
Tury: I think we should resolve the problems to the best of
our ability. Also after everything is said and done, approved and
disapproved, let's put the thing together in a cohesive contract.
I think that Bob has already written one and we could put the new
changes into it and get something that he has agreed to and that
we have agreed to and put the thing to bed for a couple of years.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #19
Tury: (Continued) I agree with what you said though I don't
want any long term raises you don't know what is going to happen.
I think two years is fair.
Hunter: Do it every year, then no one get slighted.
Kress: Then the process never stops.
Cichy: I think that,every two or three years is fair.
Clerk: Lou.did you want a whole new contract typed?
Tury: When the whole thing is done let's have a cohesive package.
Taylor: No reference to amended agreements, they are to be incor-
porated in the current contract. If the amendments have to be in
there, I spent seven hours on those contracts going and reading, he
by reference refer to each contract with only four numbers and I
had to go back and check those, cross them out, delete it and
go back to the contract that deleted them, and then read on and
go back to those 1978, 76, 74 contracts. I think... that is some
of the ambiguity that we had. What was deleted in the 76 contract
and what was in the 78 contract kept in tact by having one cohesive
Contract as Lou is refering and get rid of all this by reference
stuff where you go back and forth on it. He can still incorporate
it but they will be new sections right in order.
Kress: I have already done that and it is in the hands of the
Council since March 25th and it was attached to this lengthy
memorandum. It has been put together and I would intend if
we do reach an agreement to most assuredly that Modern signs
on an entire new agreement that is in one piece that we could
store on the word processor.
Tury: -I am sure that he would be happy with that too.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, there is no sense in asking for what Mr. Kress
has there in contiguous form. He says he gave it to us and I have
misplaced mine, but whatever the current contract is when it is
adopted I hope it will be in that form.
Tury: Why.don't we go through and see what we would like to give
and receive on this thing. Then we would have something to work
with instead of a hodgepodge.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor 'I have no objection to that if we-go through
all eight.items.. Let's decide what we want and then add our
items.
Mayor: I think that would be the best bet.
Item 1. An immediate rate increase on all single family residential
units to $5.50.
Mayor Imperial: I.can't go along with that.
Hunter: Just for discussion purposes I am going to throw
out five dollars ($5.00) I don't know what Modern is making and
really I am riot concerned with that. I do know that the area
that supplies him has been the highest increase being transpor-
tation, automobiles, in his case trucks, tires, fuel have all
gone up. I have not talked to him and I don't know what he is
paying his people in the yard or if he is paying them union scale
or not. I know he has had some increase there. So he has had
an increase in his costs to service us. I would suggest for dis-
cussion purposes $5.00.
Tury: I don't think $5.00 would be unreasonable. I am
paying $6.00 on a house I own in South E1 Monte right now.
Kress.:: I think that timeliness is somewhat important in
looking at this matter. Under the present circumstances he is
entitled to 7% again next April 1, 1982 and if we are going to
do something we are now at the mid-point, we will be in October
from his last increase, and then to the forthcoming increase in
April, and perhaps to the citizens it might be more palatable:
Paqe #20
Ll
Kress: (Continued) at this particular time. Not to suggest
a particular rate but again recall in six months unless that parti-
cular provision is also changed you give 7% on top of that.
Hunter: I would suggest that any changes that we recommend
would go to April 1, 1982. I am asking for clarification of dates.
Kress: April 1st 1982 is the next date on which an automatic
increase would take effect. Anything that you could do, that you
would be willing to do here, could be negotiated to supercede that
particular date.
Hunter: O.K., Bob, if this Council were to come to an agree-
ment tonight which is doubtful 'about the delinquents going on the
tax bill. How long would it take to implement that?
Kress: The delinquents going on the tax roll? ....I have
to give you a report on that...to just study the mechanics of
it. The Ordinance could be effective immediately. The first
collections would be deferred. You have to report. You have to
have hearings. It is just like your street assessments.
Frank: It is only twice that you send them into the County
to be recorded to be on the following tax bill.
Hunter: So in other words before we can do that, in other
words, you are telling me that we are going to pay the delinquents
for a year.
Kress: No, I am just saying there is going to be time lag.
Perhaps, I misunderstood, but there is going to'be a'time lag
from the time that the Council approves that process by ordinance
and by negotiated agreement with the Contractor. The time lag
from that point to the point that actual funds flow to the Con-
tractor. He is giving something up. Understand by doing that.
Because right now, justlike clock-work twice a year, he gives
you an invoice and you pay it. The ballgame is going to change
because now he is going to wait. Some of these things are going
to be paid as soon as there is a threat to put it on the property
tax bill. Others are not going to be paid until it goes on the
property tax bill for a variety of reasons. Some of them are
going to be delayed for a long time. What I propose and what you
had in front of you last month was a system whereby the Contractor's
actual payment was deferred until such time the funds were received
from the County Tax Collector to the City, and the City at that
time would remit 90% of those funds to the Contractor. He is agree-
able to that. As I understand it,'he will accept that, but he is
giving something up in terms of immediate payment. He is accepting
a certain percentage of what will amount to slow pace. You have
got an untimate guarantee I think that it will be paid sometime in
the future.
Frank: In. layman's terms, Herb, what we are saying is that
he has agreed on the operation and the effect of that ordinance
we no longer have to pay him delinquencies until they come in from
the County. So we are not going to be making delinquent payments
for a year. We stop making payments the night you adopt the Ordin-
ance to,in effect-make this thing available.....
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, I personally find some ambiguity in my
mind with that 90% of what is collected goes to Modern Service.
Because that same proposal listed that our administrative costs
would be deducted from.that also. Now, can we recoup all that in
a 10% cost that we retain. That is my recollection that we are
entitled to all of:,our administrative costs for collecting those,
or= billing and what have you.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #21
Kress: October.
Frank: Somebody mentioned May 1st, then he would have to
bill for the quarter before for April at one rate then May and
June would be at another rate.
Kress: He has done that in the past.
Taylor: Yes, he has. I have gotten an odd month in my
bill.
Hunter: I think that causes confusion and unhappiness.
What is out now?
Frank: He bills a quarter ahead so that is October,November,
and December.
Hunter: I would not be opposed to that.. The increase could
go in October the 1st, but the 7% would have to wrap over until
next April or May before that could go into effect.
Taylor: That is agreed. He gets
Frank: In other words what you are saying he can go to $5.00
a month effective April 1st. Is that what you are saying?
Tury: No, the next billing period.
Frank: That is October the 1st. This is September 15th, and
he billed for that quarter already. That quarter has been billed.
He bills a quarter ahead.
Hunter: Alright, then let's say January 1, 1982.
Taylor: O.K. then April 1st would be the next quarter. It
says here May 1st.
Cichy: You changed it last time and put it way ahead.
Tury: I think there should be six months between the increases.
Hunter: It would be better if he could start next month.
Tury: The billing is probably already out.
Frank: He has billed because he bills a quarter ahead. Gary
did you get your bill yet.
Taylor: I'think it is a month old.
Kress: Everyone doesn't get a bill for the same 3 months do
they throughout the 'City?
Tury: He sends them all out at once, I'm sure.
Frank: We went over this thing in the past and the only dif-
ference is that you have some staggered for changing of ownership
midway in the quarter, but some one is nice enough to call up and
tell him about. Partial payments and they pro-rate and that sort
of thing. Generally, I am sure, I would not want to bet on it,
but I am almost positive that the bills for October, November, and
December have gone out already.
Taylor: Yes, you are right they have to be paid in advance.
Hunter: Most people stagger out when they pay. Some people
pay midway through and some people pay....
Frank: When they pay is another point. Let's say he has
mailed out 7000 bills and you tell him as the result of action
tonight effective October 1st you can now bill at $5.00, he is
going have to send 7,000 new bills with the new rate on it.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #23
0
Kress: Again, it has not been approved. The.way I drafted
it modern is required essentially to do the paperwork, to bring
in the notices of the hearing to the City postage pre-paid and we
send them out and we as a staff and City Council conduct the Hear-
ing for any protests. I don't think that is atremendous burden.
I think that 90% is in my own mind, much closer to what you were
suggesting earlier. Some sort of a incentive for him to use his
best efforts to get the money right here and now.
Taylor: Let me ask this question, then. Does that Contract
also state that he is entitled for all reimbursement costs?
Kress: His costs on collection?
Taylor: Yes.
Kress: We proposed a late fee and regarding collection costs
I can't be sure. Whether he had a separate charge in there br if
there is a clause in there for reasonable collection charges.
Frank: What you are getting at, Gary, is that you want to be
sure that there is no incentive for the Contractor to wish those
things to be on the tax roll.
too.
Taylor: Whatever happens, we should recover our costs on it
Frank: Agreed. When we first talked about collecting our
administrative costs that was prior to the Contractor and his
Attorney agreeing with Bob Kress that they would in fact prepare
all the documentation,pay for the printing of all the notices:
of the lien, and in essence do everything that it would take and
bring the packages to us to merely send out. They would be pre-
paid,in postage and we would conduct the Hearing.
Taylor: My interpretation of that proposal was that he would
also be reimbursed plus the late costs that we referred to.
Kress: A copy of the proposal was attached to the latest
mailing you received.from me.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, before we go on to another issue right
now, as far as that proposal. Would there be any objection in
going back to the points as we go through. We started on No. 1
and did not get it completed.
Mayor: O.K. It was suggested that a five dollar($5.00) from
$4.58.
Taylor: 42fi that is an additional 7% or is it 9%. An addi-
tional 94 on top of the 7% making it 16% for six months.
Tury: May 1st would be the next increase.
Taylor: April 1st was referred to May 1st would be fine.
I think that the fact that he was at 7% this year whether we want
to say you have a contract, live by it. I think in all honesty
that I could not object to a one time increase for six or seven
months to bring it back up to whether it be a loo inflation rate.
Mayor: So what you are saying in realty you doleagree with
that $5.00 figure. As far as Mr. Hunter's suggestion going to
$5.00.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, at least if could get a straw vote, we.
will know exactly where we are going. I suggested the $S.OO.That
is a 42C increase.
Kress: When are talking about?
Hunter: I thought you eluded to April.
Frank: He bills in quarters. You don't want to break up a
month either.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #22
• 6
Tury: Why don't we make it January and make the next increase
after;-six months.
Taylor: O.K. we are'amending the contract where he comes back
May lst or April 1st whatever and asks for his 7% at that time
instead of June 1st because we have bumped him two months increase
there.
Kress: No. As I understand it. He will get $5.00 on January
1st, and he would get 7% or whatever other percentage you agree upon
on June 1st.
Taylor: So he is getting 2 increases.
Kress: So the potential is that he would have to give up in
order to get this package. He would have to forego his otherwise
payable April 1, 1982 increase.
Frank: Except that he is getting it earlier on January 1st.
Maybe when you mention six months,Louie, let us, for confusion
sake let us do away with these First of June, First of May throw
it out. Basically he has to stay at $5.00 for two billing quarters.
When he sends those bills out, that is his date and it is up to him
but for two quarters he bills at $5.00 and the third quarter he is
eligible for 7% or whatever the Council wants to give.
. Taylor: So that in effect will give him... let's figure it
out...... it is almost a $50,000 increase right there.
Frank: Do we want to take a dollar amount on this?
Tury: I think the $5.00 for the next billing period is fine
with me. I don't have any problems with it, but with multiple units
I do have a problem.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, why don't we see on that one if we have a
concensus?
Frank: You can vote on items, gentlemen, because it is an
adjourned meeting. So if you want to vote on $5.00....
Tury: I think we are throwing this out in sort of work session
type of thing. When we put the whole thing together maybe we can
adjust this or adjust that before we actually send out a proposal.
Mayor: I am assuming what we are trying to do right here, is
we are trying to come up with some kind of ball park conclusion.
Tury: I think we should, maybe not taking a vote, but maybe
three people could agree with that basically, informally without
taking a vote. Snap your finger, nod your head or whatever.
Mayor: Before we go on to Item #2.and so forth.
Tury: We are not committing a vote for it until the whole
package is put together.
Mayor: Fine I have no problems with that. When it is all
put together and it is costed out and given back to us to see what
it is going to entail. Is there any problems with that? I thought
basically that was what we were doing.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, I would like to see us do it that way, then
we've got a feeling and if anyone is violently opposed to $5.00 then
let us hear it now. Give us the reasons and maybe we can come up
with something more palatable. When we cost it out like Mr. Taylor
with $50,000, we 'don't know what his expenses have actually been.
Now, we can come pretty close on.trucks, trucks are like about 30%
increase and financing those trucks are about 8% increase, fuel,
well we all know what that is, so we can come pretty close to what
his increases have been. In other words, if we say that this is
cost effective and it is costing the citizens of Rosemead $75,000
but how are we going to know that his increases of costs have been
just throw a figure of $48,000 so we have actually netted him $12,000.
Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #24
C
Tury: Without seeing his books you don't know what his
depreciation schedule is.
Hunter: I disagree with that schedule.
Mayor: I;don't want to get ourselves in any traps either.
I can see the writing on the wall. He has been talking to me
and to you time and time again that 'my tires went up this way
and rear tail gate went up this way' and I am not concerned
because we have got a contract with the man. O. K. I want to
treat him fairly and on the other hand, I am not going to try
to take any consideration of all his expenses. His ideas might
differ from mine. Herb, when you.,sold a membership to that club
your expenses were not as high as they are now. So I am not even
going sit down and consider that stuff. What he pays for tires
and stuff. He can't write member a letter and saying my expenses
for gone up $30.00 per month so therefore I am going to increase
the amount of your membership fees. I don't want to get into
that kind of trap.
Cichy: No, because we don't know what his expenses are.
Tury: No, you know you can make money by buying equipment
and if his depreciation schedule is right and he is a very sharp
man and I am sure _he has the best accountants available. It may
cost you $50,000 but in real pure raw dollars, it may cost you
$20,000. But it is really none of our business. What we really
have to decide is what is fair. I think that the $5.00 is a fair
price to pay for trash.
Taylor: You want to make that into a motion, I'll second it
for $5.00 to keep a list of the items.
Hunter: For Item #1 I would propose the increase or make
the motion to authorize him up to $5.00.
Kress: To incorporate that in our proposal.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that Modern Service be authorized up to $5.00 on all single family
residential units be incorporated into the entire proposal;to::be-
effective January 1, 1982 for two quarters. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER
that whatever action is decided on it becomes effective January
1st, 1982 and Modern Service has to go two quarter billings be-
fore he can take an increase. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Kress: I don't know if we are going to resolve any of this
tonight. I know the clerk always likes to prepare minutes the
next day and get them out to and it is going to show a whole bunch
of things voted on and I hope it won't get into the Contractors
hands but if it is going to be a public document.so.....
Taylor: That is exactly what it is. The man was invited to
sit here tonight, but he chose to leave so if he were sitting here
he would hear every bit of it.
Hunter: I would agree with that.
Kress: The only point is, that at various points we are talk-
ing about looking at the totality of the package before we are ac-
tually presented as such. We are going down and trying to deter-
mine the concensus but
Hunter: Bob,
standpoint, but we
about it and we go
the suggestion is
if in fact we have
I understand what you are saying from a legal
have got eight items. We come here and talk
.to 2..and we talk about it. Regardless, what
up or down. We really don't have a concensus
done anything. Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #25
Item 2. An immediate increase on all multiple units to $4.50 per
unit.%
Hunter: On the second item it is kind of in line with the
first one. I would suggest instead of a 48C increase a 51~. The
way I am reading this the second unit is $2.29. O.K. Make it
$4.51 and bring it out to $2.80 even. !:Am I right on that Bob.
Your second unit is $6.87 and that includes the first unit at
4.58 and-that means that the second unit is now being picked up
at $2.29. So if you have two houses on the lot each has a.
family of three in it they generate the same trash. But the
fact is that the contractor gets to pick them both up at the
same time which cuts his cost. Now, we are billing our citizens
now at $2.29 and I am suggesting that on Item I it was a 48C
increase and I am suggesting a 51C increase on the second unit
which would bring it to $2.80.
Tury: I think if we go with approximately a 9% increase
on the first one, I think we should keep the same percentage
increase down the line.
Taylor: I would agree with that.
Mayor: No problem. What would 9% bring it to?
Kress: Whatever it is...
Joey: 9.1% on the $5.00 one.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that
the increase will be 9.1% increase for residential and multiple
unit rates. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Item 3. The normal commercial rate, or three cubic yard bins
once a week pick up, to remain the same at $35.20.
Hunter; I think that is high and we should note it, I don't
know that we can do anything about it but simply I would like to
say that it is a bit high.
Taylor: Are we going to give them a 9% increase?
Mayor: What you are recommending is that that stay the same?
Tury: Part of that we are going to have to work at later on
to make some adjustments to barrel service.
Hunter: The barrel service I don't think will have any re-
lationship to the now existing bin rate.
Frank: From the contractors standpoint be careful that you
are only talking about when you are talking about a negotiation
for a barrel versus a bin you are.only talking about the 100 plus
services that don't have service now. The contractor is very
worried that if you open this up, he feels that a lot of people
are taking a bin that if they only fill it up a quarter of the
way they are going to say well, I,don't want the bin, you bring
me two barrels then. Contractor does not want to get stuck with
that. He says that if they are now signed up for a bin, he wants
the Council to assist him in keeping those people on bins and he
will negotiate with those 100+ or - who don't have service at all..
Taylor: I won't do that. You pit business men against each
other. One get preferential treatment and the other doesn't.
Frank: I am just telling you what he is going to say.
Taylor: I know and I would say the same thing. But I won't
pit one against the other.
Hunter: I was just going to suggest that we by-pass Item 3.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #26
E
0
Taylor: Let's vote on it to see if we accept it or reject
it. He is asking that it remain at $35.20.
Kress: Are we suggesting to the contractor that current
increases scheduled to go into effect April 1st 1982 are all
going to be July 1, 1982 instead?
Hunter: Yes.
Kress: Alright then that is...he is proposing this but we
are saying is we are going to keep it for an extra three months
from April through the end of June. So we are getting something
there.
Taylor: Yes.
. Kress: So that is a slight modification. That that rate
remains through June 30th, 1982.
Taylor: Is that a motion on that item?
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that the rate remain the same at $35.20 thru. June 30, 1982.
Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Tury and Cichy
NAYES: Councilmen Hunter and Taylor Imperial
Mayor Imperial stated that he would prefer to bypass that
to see what we have to give on the other items and come back to it.
Taylor: I have to object to that if we are going issue by
issue I voted no on it and I would like the record to show because of
a uniform increase. If we do it to the homeowners and we do it to
the multiple.units and such then why do we favor the businessman?
Hunter: 0. K. Mr. Mayor, I voted no for a different reason.
I think it is too high. Mr. Taylor wants to increase it. The
increase in the commercial rates have far exceeded the homeowners
in establishing-bin rates. The reason that Mr. Taylor voted no
was that the homeowners are paying more than the businessman so
he would vote for an increase for the businessman. Mine is the
reverse of that. I think it is too high now.
9%.
Tury: Does someone want to make a motion to increase it
Tury:. O.K. lets go back to it later.
Mayor: No,Mr. Taylor objects to that. What is the concensus
of opinion.
Taylor: I stated my objection for the record.
Hunter: So did I, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor: We will by-pass that and go to the next item.
Item 4. Items 1, 2 and 3 above will be increased by loo by May 1,
1982 and may 1, 1983.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that
there be a 7% increase effective July 1, 1982 for a period of two
years. Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Cichy, Taylor, Tury and Mayor Imperial
NAYES: Councilman Hunter
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so
ordered.
Frank: You are giving him 9% so you are giving him 2% more
than he is entitled to and three months earlier.
Kress: You are deferring his April increases to July.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #27
0 s
Taylor: That is correct.
Kress: Then that is the way you should phrase it. You are
not just giving it to him for two years, you are changing the dates
around.
Taylor: We are changing the dates to take effect on July lst.
Cichy: At the end of the two years, then the rates will be
renegotiated.
Taylor: Fine.
Kress: That is fine if he buys off on that. He gets 7% on
the life of the Contract, but I am not sure that he really wants
to give up those last eight years at a guaranteed increase of 7%.
Mayor: We will find out.
Taylor: What we are going to do when this is finished, we
are going to get a cost analysis back and Mr. Griegorian can
run his cost analysis on it and then we are going to see if that
is actually what we are going to approve.
Mayor: That has been the concensus of opinion and it has
been moved and seconded, and all in favor and all opposed. That
is four to one.
Item 5. Small businesses that are not currently on bin service.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor for those who can't use a bin I would
suggest $10.00 per month and this is decided by Modern and one of the
staff.people
Tury: Why don't you say $10.00 per month for two barrels or
$20.00 for four barrels and $35.00 per month if the person needs a
bin. I think that is a normal progression.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that small businesses that are not currently on bin service be
allowed two barrels.'to be picked up once a week for $10.00 per
month to meet OSHA weight limits and that are not physically cap-
able of utilizing bin service. Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial
NAYES: Councilman Taylor
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Taylor: I would like the record to show that I am in favor
of the barrel service but the other small businesses who have
been trapped into the existing bin rate, I think they should have
the option if they are not generating the trash to also use the
barrels.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, maybe there is a solution to that. I
think that Mr. Taylor has made a valid point.
Mayor: I think you are opening pandora's box.
Hunter: No, when, Mr. Tripepi, did Modern Service start
billing those people that wasn't on service.
Kress: April 1, 1981.
Hunter: 0. K. then let's back up to April 1, 1981 and any
body that wasn't on service as.of April 1, 1981 has the option.
Wouldn't that solve one of our on-going problems?
Frank: They just started billing 135 businesses in April.
Hunter: Let us go back to April and that would clarifies
Mr. Taylor's objection so that these people now have an option.
7di. CM 9-15-81
Page #28
• 0
Taylor: No, my point is the small businesses that have
been on for two years. The small businesses that have been
on that bin and they are not generating the trash and they paid
it because they didn't want to question it or harass it because
there is no use to go to City Hall whatever their reason was.
They should have the option to put their small trash out.
Frank: You took a bin at the Racquetball Club because you
never argued and thought I'm a commercial I'll pay the commercial
rates for the bin. If you don't generate enough trash, if you
could get by on two barrels once a week pick-up'Gary is saying
that you as a business man should have that option available to
you to tell Modern to come pick-up the bin and bring me two
barrels and I will pay $10.00 per month.
Hunter: There is another problem to be generated. You take
the bin from Rosemead Racquetball and you will have an intersection
there that is a Garbage pit. Well, I am not say that business, Herb,
but I am saying any business. Gary, is saying he is objecting, your
going back to April 1st doesn't cover his objection. He still ob-
jects to a business that has not had the option of having two bar-
rels if they can get by with it.and not being one of the 135 people.
Mayor: I can see opening a pandora's box. Everyone is going
to cut down until such time they have proven their point then we
are opening everything up. I really have a problem with that,Gary.
Tury: I think what Bob inserted in here "don't have the
physical capabilities to accept a bin'.
Mayor: Before Griegorian stated hitting the businesses that
never had been collected before, how many complaints did we have
for the $35.00 bin service? What kind of complaint problems did
we have? We did not have one.
Frank: Now, you may have a whole bunch.
Mayor: I really have a problem with that and I think that
we should leave well enough alone there.
Kress: I think that in the extent that this is all packaged
that at some point that another thing we should ask for that is
related in some way that the City Council have the opportunity
to review any correspondence that he sends out on this item. We
have already had a problem with him sending out letters saying
that the City requires this and I think that we ought to be
able to negotiate exactly how the people are going to be informed.
Item 6. ;All delinquencies shall be placed on the tax rolls.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, on Item #6 on the delinquencies, I would
move that we put this on the tax bill at the earliest possible time.
That means for the City Attorney and staff that the various legal
steps that we have to take. Let us get them done.
Kress: The ordinance has been prepared and as soon as Modern
signs off on it or makes recommendations.
Hunter: Let us give Modern a time on that. Regardless, if
Modern accepts the proposal that we give them or they try to counter
it. This is one thing that we are either going to put on the tax
rolls or quit paying.
Mayor.: How about six days?
Tury: I think.we almost have to have..we said earlier in the
meeting that everything takes effect January 1st, 1982. I think
that we did make that decision earlier.
Hunter. Fine.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that
the delinquents be placed on the tax rolls effective January 1, 1982
Vote resulted:
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #29
•
AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial
NAYES: Councilman Taylor
Whereupon the mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, my no vote is that Mr. Griegorian is
a businessman and we do not cnllect for the electric bills,
the water bills, telephone bills, gas bills. Any delinquencies
that they have they have to collect their own. So I can't vote
for that.
Hunter: Mr. Mayor, I understand Mr. Taylor's objection,
and I would have to say to him, that we have what I think is
a court order. We either pick the trash up ourselves or pay
the contractor. Is that right Mr. City Attorney?
Kress: Not quite. We have a court order that says the City
shall cause the trash.to be picked up and we have a franchise agree-
ment that says Modern Service is the only that does the work and
we have an agreement that says we pick-up his delinquencies.
Hunter: But what I am saying that Mr. Taylor voiced his ob-
jections and they are well-founded and well-taken except that in
this particular case we break a Contractor, and with a new fran-
chise we would have to negotiate the dead-beats anyway.
Kress: That is the key. I think that if we were negotiating
a brand new franchise we would certainly be aware of the court order
and handle it in a different way.
Hunter: But we would still have to negotiate it. There is no
one in their right mind,any corporation in its right mind •that says
we will pick up all the delinquencies. So that it is going to nego-
tiated now or later under a new franchise.
Turyi.. I would like the Attorney's comments made as part of
the minutes, Ellen.
Clerk: I think everything is verbatim.
. Taylor: I would like the record to show that we have copies
of the adjoining cities, 12 different cities that some of those
cities do not pay the delinquencies they leave that to the Contractor.
Joey: What do we do with the delinquent bills between now and
January 1982?
Bob?
Hunter: We just hold them and it is retroactive, can't we
Kress: If the Council adopts the Ordinance sometime between
now and the end of the year, I think what Councilman Tury was
suggesting was that we pay the invoice from Modern covering the
last six months of the year, and start with a clean slate on January
1, 1982. Those dates are flexible.
Tury: This whole thing takes effect on January 1, 1982.
Joey. There are two bills. ..There is one from January to
June, 1981 that we haven't paid and then there will be one from
July 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981-which we will pay.
Hunter: We will pay them only after they have been scrutinized
and the businesses known out of business we will just delete the
commercials.
Item 7. There will be additional increase on the multiple provided
for in Item 2.
Kress: In considering Item 7. you have already made somewhat
of a decision there by applying the same 9% and in essence in re-
jecting the Contractor's proposal to up-grade over a period of time
all multiples into a single rate. He wants to do that. There
are obvious reasons why he wants to to do that. I think there are
equally obvious reasons why it hasn't been done in the past.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #30
• •
Taylor: So item V. really requires no action because we
have already taken care of it. Well, excuse me as of May 1,
1984.
Frank: I think we should answer it.
Hunter: Then I would make a motion to deny Item #7. Call
for the question Mr. Mayor.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that Item #7 be denied. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Item 8. Contractor will offer to pay as and for the Franchise
Fee, for the exclusive privilege of picking up the refuse, the
sum of $1000.00 a month and in return the City agrees to pay
normal collection rates for their refuse service, or alternat-
ively contractor will offer to pay $500.00 a month as a Franchise
Fee and give free service to the City for their refuse collection
made.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that Item #8 be.denied and have the Contract remain the same.
Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Item #9
Taylor: I would like to make a motion that we reject the
proposal submitted by Modern Service on July 28, 1981 and due
to the recommendation of staff....
Frank: How about instruct staff to prepare a counter
proposal per tonights meeting.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER _
that the proposal submitted by Modern Service on July 28, 1981
be rejected and the staff be instructed to prepare a counter
proposal. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Item #10. Reconsider item #3
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that we reconsider Item #3. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL,.:ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
to increase the Commercial rate 9.1%. Vote resulted:
AYES: Councilmen Taylor and Cichy
NAYES: Councilmen Tury, Hunter and Mayor Imperial
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion was not approved.
Taylor: Again.Mr. Mayor my reason is that it is an equal
increase as'we did to the single family and the multiple units.
Mayor: I'll entertain a new motion.
MOTION BY MAYOR IMPERIAL,to lower the rate to $30.00 per bin
per month with once a week pick-up.
The motion died due to a lack of a second.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that it remains the..same at the rate of $35.20. Vote resutled:
AYES: Councilman Hunter, Cichy, and Tury
NAYES: Councilman Taylor and Mayor Imperial
Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and
so ordered.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #31
• •
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, we have covered this eight items, but
did we clarify any additional items that the City wanted?
Tury: We wanted included was the right to declare a default
which he had no objection to. Clarifications to what the legality
is.
Kress: We want essentially our package, I don't think there
is total uninimity amoung the Council yet on the exact language on
property tax amendment to the agreement and the ordinance.
Hunter: What do you mean it isn't clear.. What is not clear?
Taylor: It says to draw up something with the City Attorney.
We had nothing to vote on.
Kress: You have already had it to vote on. It is prepared.
Frank: Gary, your point is correct. It says that it will
be added to the bill and the sum together with any cost incurred
by the Contractor may be recovered. The question asking whether
the contractor gets reimbursed for all of his charges under this
ordinance.
Gary: He get reimbursed. But the 90% that we agreed to
refund to him will that cover our cost is all that I asked. You
clarified he gets paid all of his costs.
Frank: Our administrative expenses will not be that much.
I can't tell you right now if 10% will cover it because we have
never had to do it.
Mayor: We have given you something to work with and you are
going to come back with the cost on this thing. I think that's
when the final decision will be made.
Frank: That doesn't answer Mr. Taylor's question.
Taylor: Staff is to put this proposal together with a cost
analysis before it is presented to Mr. Griegorian.
Frank: I am not going to pass that onto him. There is
no problem.
Mayor: Mr. Griegorian has given me a proposal. That he did
not handed out to anyone but the Council. O.K. it was not handed
out to anyone but the Council. Mr. Griegorian should understand
that if he had that type of wish too, so he can understand that
we don't want it handed out til such time we come up with something
that we can live with.
Taylor: I would like a written opinion from the City Attorney
we had correspondence between the Councilmembers their proposals
that they would like presented to Modern Service. Do you recall
those? We had those presented and with the Attorneys answer to
some of those items all under confidential memorandums. My questions
that I proposed and the City Attorney replied to...I did not want
them confidential, but that was not stated prior to the Meeting.
I would like to know why he decided that my papers go to Modern
Service and the other were not.
Kress: I would like to tell you right now. I did not make
that decision. I think the Mayor and the Council made that deci-
sion. I indicated that I think that the questions that you ask
in public,in a public discussion, deserved an answer in like terms.
I did not copy Mr. Griegorian or his Attorney on that particular
memo but I did not feel that I was giving the Council any particu-
lar negotiation strategy I was responding to specific questions.
Mayor: I personally have no..make no qualms about this parti-
cular matter on going to Mr. Griegorian with anything.:right now
until we come up with something that everyone can live with.
Adj.CM 9-15-81
Page #32
Mayor: (continued) Gary, you have said on many occassions
that this is a matter of public record. O. K.
Tury: You accused me of holding secret meetings.
Taylor: Mr. Tury I questioned that it said confidential.
I did not believe that it would be because we are talking in a
study session about the same items more or less just worded a
little different.
Tury: Mr. Taylor at the time the whole thing it came up,
it was my belief then and it is my belief now, that you cannot
negotiate in a public forum. That is a personal opinion. I am
not trying to hold anything secret.or holding secret meetings
or getting secret votes. I did request that my information to
Mr. Kress be confidential with the Council and I saw no reason
for it to go any further than the Council until we agreed on
a proposal. Possibly when I presented the proposal that I pre-
sented it was wrong the way it was done, but I still believe
that to try to do this in a public forum it is just a sham.
Mayor: We would be in a bad shape if the President of the
United States said everything publicly until the decision is
made.
Kress: I think you have done a fine job on this, and I
think it was difficult getting started once you did you put
together a good package that isn't final but once it is final
and once it is accepted it should put this whole thing to bed.
It is not that dissimilar from what then Mayor Tury proposed a
few months ago, and it isn't a whole lot different from what
Mr.Tripepi and I negotiated about a year and half ago. I think
that is kind of funny. I think if it has some sort of uninimity
from this Council, which I heard a lot of tonight, I think that
is positive, I think he is going to have no choice but to accept
it.
Taylor: When I questioned the confidential'memo's it was
in no...there was no intent at all to question your integrity
or Mr. Tury's at all. I questioned because I believe it was
a public document negotiating for a public business and where-
ever the guidance came from or that it was a personal request
that they be confidential that is fine. I question that it
should have.been just as we did tonight with Mr. Griegorian
and his Attorney here if they want to participate fine. It was
no reflection on you or Mr. Tury.
Tury: In my opinion, this tonight was much superior as far
as Council working together than the way we did it before. The way
it was done was a mistake but I still think that when it comes down
to the final analysis there are decisions that have to be made that
I really wonder... there are certain perimeters that we each know in
our own minds that we think that we can live with as far as these
things go. It may or may not be our very best effort. Each only
knows that in our own heart. To tell him that in my heart I may
be able to go a little bit more or something like that, you are
giving your best shot at one time. That doesn't seem to be negotia-
tion.
Mayor: I think this was a very fruitful study session. I
would like to believe that it was not a mistake but something that
was very constructive that happened while I was Mayor.
Joey: On.the last decision of Item #3 you want to leave the
Commercial ..rate as is and that is the way it passed.
Tury: That stays the same nothing changes.
Taylor: The motion was clarified by Mr. Hunter that the 7%
not be added and it remain the same.
Hunter: They do not get an increase in July of 1982, it re-
mains the same.
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #33
Taylor: We are going to review it and it will be coming up
again.
The Adjourned Meeting was adjourned to the regular Meeting
of September 22, 1981 at 8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted:
City C1 k
APPROVED:
Modern Service Study
Adj. CM 9-15-81
Page #34