Loading...
CC – Item 7A – Staff Report – Unapproved City Council Minutes of the June 25, 1996 Meeting F F, O e�® st oflp e ort TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: NANCY VALDERRAMA, CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1997 RE: UNAPPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE JUNE 25, 1996 MEETING After the City Council meeting of June 25, 1996, I discovered that my tape was not decipherable. After several weeks, little progress was made to develop a set of minutes, especially the verbatim section that the Council had requested regarding Item V.B. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL OF REFUSE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CONSOLIDATED SERVICE. In an attempt to resolve this matter, I requested a copy of Councilman Taylor's tape, which he graciously provided. After listening to his tape over a period of time, it became apparent that I could not develop a set of minutes as Mr. Taylor's tape only picked up the sound directly in front of him and not the other Councilmembers or speakers at the podium. Since that time, I endeavored to construct a set of minutes that would be acceptable. As you are aware, during the months leading up to the March 1997 election and shortly thereafter, there had been lapses in the continuity of the minutes. My goal after the election was to bring the minutes up-to-date. Since then, the minutes have been up-to-date and have remained that way. That is the norm and I will continue to strive for that. I apologize that this particular set of minutes will not be as complete as requested and that there was such a delay. However, I have attached a set of abbreviated minutes from the above meeting and a set of draft minutes that include the verbatim section reflecting Mr. Taylor's comments and partial comments from the remaining Councilmembers, Consolidated Disposal representatives, and comments from the audience. RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL AGENDA It is recommended that the City Council approve the Action Minutes. OCT 2 8 1997 ITEM NQ. 77- • /4- /VOT 0.7FICIAL UNTIL ADOPTED BY THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCILJUNE 25, 1996 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Taylor The Invocation was delivered by Councilmember Bruesch ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tern Bruesch, and Mayor Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 4, 1996 -REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4 , 1997, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 11, 1996 -REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 11, 1996, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: Taylor The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested a status report on the Closed Session portion of that meeting as he was not in attendance. PRESENTATIONS: -None 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE -None H. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented by the City Attorney. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons wishing to address the Council on any public hearing item. CC 6-25-96 Page #1 A. PUBLIC HEARING- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 -AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1989-98 PLANNING PERIOD; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-23 -APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02,AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PLANNING PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1998. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing for those wishing to speak on this item. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, inquired about any proposed changes to the Housing Element. Peter Lyons, Planning Director, responded that there will be no changes in the development standards or zone changes. John Rauth, 3558 Bartlett, Rosemead, expressed his concerns regarding the lack of shelters for the homeless in Rosemead and that the Housing Element should have included Sally Tanner Park also as a congregating area. Mr. Tripepi responded that the homeless problem needs to be handled regionally rather than jurisdictionally. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Taylor asked if the County is still handling Section 8 Housing and does the City receive full finding. Mr. Tripepi responded that the City receives direction from HUD upon becoming an Entitlement City and Section 8 Housing is mainly run by the L.A. County Housing Authority. Councilman Bruesch, in referring to the non-profit construction section of the Element, asked if any other cities have been involved in this type of housing. Mr. Lyons responded that various cities use this method and have negotiated with non-profits to provide subsidized housing. Councilman Bruesch requested examples of this type of subsidized housing used by other cities. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 96-23, approving General Plan Amendment 95-02 with a finding of a Negative Declaration. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $354,654.05 NUMBERED 16812 THROUGH 16964. CC 6-25-96 Page#2 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 96-22 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 96-24-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROCLAIMING JULY 23, 1996 AS NATIONAL PARENTS' DAY The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEADPROCLAIMINGN JULY 23, 1996 AS NATIONAL PARENTS' DAY Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that approving this resolution will cause a myriad of other organizations to demand equal representation also. After further discussion, there being no objection, the Mayor deferred this item pending further information. C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-25 - ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S 1996-97 APPROPRIATION LIMIT AND ANNUAL BUDGET The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION FOR THE 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR 1996-97, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 96-25 approving the 1996-97 Appropriation Limit according to Article XIII (Gann Initiative) of the Constitution of the State of California, and approving the 1996-97 Annual Budget, and making the appropriation for amounts budgeted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR(CC-B was removed for discussion purposes) CC-A APPROVAL OF CONCESSION STAND LICENSE AGREEMENT- AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION CC 6-25-96 Page#3 CC-C AWARD OF BID - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM- SENIOR CITIZEN LUNCHES MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR HIGHCLIFF STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if these agreements involve building walls around the perimeter of the property as discussed as a previous Council meeting. Councilman Taylor responded that the right-of-way agreements replaces the existing fences. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council accept the attached easement and direct the City Clerk to record the deed together with the Certification of Acceptance and authorize the City Manager to execute the Right-of-Way Agreement on behalf of the City. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. SELECTION OF DATE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS After discussion, it was decided to schedule the Planning Commission interviews on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, beginning at 6:00 p.m. B. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL OF REFUSE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE After discussion , the following action took place. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH that the Council approve the second amendment to the City's exclusive franchise agreement with Consolidated Disposal Services (CDS) and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary documents. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. STATUS REPORTS -None CC 6-25-96 Page#4 VH. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR CLARK Reported that at the National League of Cities Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, they visited that Strategic Air Command Post. Ms. Clark stated that she was impressed with the protection measure in place, especially those that will protect the White House from enemy missile attack. Ms. Clark asked what type of protection will Los Angeles have should mainland China launch a missile attack. Ms. Clark stated that the representative responded that while it was a concern, this area does not have installation of any anti-missile attack system, and, therefore, is unprotected. Ms. Clark urged that our Congressman and President be contacted to rectify this situation. B. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH Requested that this meeting be adjourned in memory of Jim Smith's mother. C. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER Announced that Sgt. Wallace is still recuperating and will return in September, and that Sgt. Kaylor will be filling in for him. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE -None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. in memory of Jim Smith's mother. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk MAYOR CC 6-25-96 Page#5 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL JUNE 25, 1996 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Taylor The Invocation was delivered by Councilmember Bruesch ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Bruesch,Taylor,Vasquez,Mayor Pro Tem Imperial,and Mayor Clark Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 4, 1996 - SPECIAL MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4, 1996, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 11, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 11, 1996, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: Taylor The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested a status report on the Closed Session portion of that meeting as he was not in attendance. PRESENTATIONS: - None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1989-98 PLANNING PERIOD; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-23 -APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02, AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PLANNING PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1998. CC 6-25-96 Page #1 An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented by the City Attorney. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing for those wishing to speak on this item. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, inquired about any proposed changes to the Housing Element. Peter Lyons, Planning Director, responded that there will be no changes in the development standards or zone changes. John Rauth, 3558 Bartlett, Rosemead, expressed his concerns regarding the lack of shelters for the homeless in Rosemead and that the Housing Element should have included Sally Tanner Park also as a congregating area. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that the homeless problem needs to be handled regionally rather than jurisdictionally. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Taylor asked if the County is still handling Section 8 Housing and does the City receive full funding. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that the City receives funding direction from HUD upon becoming an Entitlement City and Section 8 Housing is mainly run by the L.A. County Housing Authority. Councilman Bruesch, in referring to the non-profit construction section of the Element, asked if any other cities have been involved in this type of housing. Mr. Lyons responded that various cities use this method and have negotiated with non- profits to provide subsidized housing. Councilman Bruesch requested examples of this type of subsidized housing used by other cities. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 96-23, approving General Plan Amendment 95-02 with a finding of a Negative Declaration. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $354,654.05 NUMBERED 16812 THROUGH 16964 CC 6-25-96 Page #2 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 96-22 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 96-24 - PROCLAIMING JULY 23, 1996 AS NATIONAL PARENTS' DAY The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROCLAIMING JULY 28, 1996 AS NATIONAL PARENTS' DAY Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead,stated that approving this resolution will cause a myriad of other organizations to demand equal representation also. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial and Councilman Bruesch requested more information on this organization before voting on this item tonight. There being no objection, the Mayor deferred this item pending further information. C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-25-ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S 1996-97 APPROPRIATION LIMIT AND ANNUAL BUDGET The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION FOR THE 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR 1996-97, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 96-25 approving the 1996-97 Appropriation Limit according to Article XIII-B (Gann Initiative) of the constitution of the State of California, and approving the 1996-97 Annual Budget, and making the appropriation for amounts budgeted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A APPROVAL OF CONCESSION STAND LICENSE AGREEMENT - AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION CC-C AWARD OF BID - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - SENIOR CITIZEN LUNCHES CC 6-25-96 Page #3 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH,SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR HIGHCLIFF STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Juan Nunez, 2703 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if these agreements involve building walls around the perimeter of the property as discussed at a previous Council meeting. Councilman Taylor responded that the right-of-way agreements replaces the existing fences. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council accept the attached easement deed and direct the City Clerk to record the deed together with the certification of acceptance and authorize the City Manager to execute the Right-of-Way Agreement on behalf of the City. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. SELECTION OF DATE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS After discussion, it was decided to hold the Planning Commission interviews on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, beginning at 6:00 p.m. B. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL OF REFUSE CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY AND CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. Mr. Tripepi mentioned to me two weeks ago that this would be coming before us. I got the impression that it was an extension for another year of the existing contract, basically, rather than putting it out to bid. After reading and reviewing it, I find too many questionable sections in here that I'd like to get some answers on it before we vote on it. Starting with Page 1 of the cover letter - the Evergreen Clause..."CDS is requesting an "evergreen clause" in the agreement. That clause states quite simply that the contractor is granted a one-year extension to the agreement annually so that the term of the agreement shall remain constant at five-years." As soon as we approve this, the way I interpret that is that we go for one-year and we are automatically saying that this is a five-year contract..."For example, on August 1, 1997, a one-year extension of the agreement would automatically take place. On August 1, 1998, another one-year extension would be granted, and every year thereafter until the City states its intent to sever the agreement at the end of the then current five-year term." By approving this, it basically is a five-year extension. Is that correct. CC 6-25-96 Page #4 ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: It's a five-year extension and elsewhere in the document it states that there is an initial term of five-years, that for each one-year that is served, unless the Council takes action to send a Notice of Termination of the Evergreen Clause, one year extension is added. This would be, if adopted this evening, a five-year deal. You could, tomorrow, if you choose, send a Notice of Termination of the Evergreen Clause and it would make this a single five-year term. If you don't do that, one year passes, then that point in time, it would again be a five-year deal. What it really means is that for the future, as presently drafted, the Council would need to give a five-year notice to terminate this agreement. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I can see the importance in this, the monetary importance in his thoughts. I can see the reason for that. In this day and age everybody time that we that have to this new looking at the trade papers, I realize that the multi-cost, it's going to cost the contractor, or any contractor for that matter,millions of dollars, they need to have some kind of guarantee that their franchise agreements, that there would be a good return on this. I would also like to reissue the five year Evergreen agreement or we can back to three years so that we would be would that be possible? JOHN TELESIO, PRESIDENT, CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE: Madam Mayor and members of the Council, it's not for a moment that I want to appear ungrateful. I appreciate any type of support, but if I can share with you from our perspective what is happening. Five years, although it may seem like so far in the future, in the context of the working world, at least in contract, it's actually a very short term. In fact, of all of the franchises that we at Consolidated, for example, this would the shortest franchise agreement that we have -on an Evergreen basis. And for this very reason, as Councilman Bruesch has pointed out, we have an on-going need to, basically, recapitalize, all the time. We just have to do that. We can't continue to run the vehicles that we constantly run, they are beaten to death just by the nature of the vehicle. There is an on going capital need. And, then, what I want to talk to you about here really enhances the automation type containers. So, not only are we talking about the MRF, which is a huge capital outlay, but we're also talking about tremendous outlay for the cans, the automated containers, which are very nice, the Cadillac type of containers. And, they are actually very expensive, about $50 to S60 each. They have to be replaced on an on-going basis. We're seeking this in conjunction with the Evergreen Agreement. Basically, it will be all automatic self-extending...for yours, for example, this is the shortest one, I don't want to appear negative, but it would be very difficult, three years isn't very long. We would appreciate it if it would be five and that's not unreasonable if you , what is a standard term. Not only, with all the other companies that have this, other regional carriers have the same magnitude in costs and responsiblities. BRUESCH: Isn't it true that most of these are re-negotiated on the basis of what the original cost is and the MRF when you go back to the development of the TELESIO: Well, Sir. That's actually...that's become an additional motivation. But, not necessarily as I stated. Some of our franchises that have this exact same feature date back ten years, I'm serious. It's become...l can remember Santa Fe Springs since 1960 has had a ten year contract for years. We have demonstrated that we can get the job done. In this case,the idea of the capital outlay which is required for MRF is just an additional motivation. It really goes a lot deeper than that. That happens to be one area that , he's here everyday-from the citizenry versus state legislature and you know from one sense of responsiblity, recycling is important. Now we need to find an economic way to do it, MRFing is the way to do it, most economic way to do it. So that's just another motivation. It has to do with the basic fundamental delivery of the service. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. You mentioned you have twelve other cities. What cities are those? TELESIO: Artesia, Avalon, Bell, Cudahy, Hawaiian Gardens, La Mirada, Naples, Norwalk, Rosemead, South El Monte, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte and Whittier. CC 6-25-96 Page #5 TAYLOR: Have we made a comparison of the rates of those cities, those twelve cities compared to Rosemead...those twelve in comparison to Rosemead? Just strictly those twelve? TRIPEPI: Which cities, as an example, Mr. Taylor. Clark: Bell TAPE BLANK FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 SECONDS TAYLOR: How much is that, what page is that? So Bell is paying almost double our rate and they have automated service? TELESIO: They will be. TAYLOR: They are not now, but they will be? How about Artesia. TRIPEPI: Artesia pays $11 .1 5 for automated service. TELESIO: If I may, Gary. The rates are definitely more affordable, among all of the twelve cities you'll find the rates are very TRIPEPI: There are only two cities lower, Mr. Taylor, they don't pay at all. Those services are picked up by.... TAYLOR: I'm not against some increase, that's reasonable. I have some other questions I'd like to continue on here. On page 2. it states, "upon commencement of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) operations, a separate formula shall be set forth which takes into account the disproportionate"...it doesn't say set for which takes into account..."disposal costs associated". It states "disproportional", and I'll read a couple more items. That sounds to me like its kind of unknown. BRUESCH: Where is it? TAYLOR: On Page 2., the second paragraph. The summary of it, then in the contract there's some items there that I'd like clarified. But it states that a separate formula shall be set forth. What is this formula? And how are the primary...the businesses are the ones that are going to get this extra charge. Is that correct? The residential rate is not going to be effected too much by this. TELESIO: I'm going to have Enrique Vasquez our Vice President speak. ENRIQUE VASQUEZ, VICE-PRESIDENT, CDS. In reference there to the marketing items, significant to the existing contract, there is a portion of the range is for disposal and a portion for collection. Historically, that distribution has been pretty stable. As disposal costs have increased, I understand so far, when we go to MRFing, the proportion, the relationship changes dramatically, about 50% of the costs are for taking the , the disposal, 50% of the collection. If we were to maintain the old relationships we could not account for the higher proportion of the cost. TAYLOR: What is the old relationship, in perspective? E. VASQUEZ: It's been in between 25 and 30%, which will include 70-75% collection. TAYLOR: So, they are still going to have the 75% collection? E. VASQUEZ: Your regular businesses would be 70-30, and would retain that. The smaller.... TAYLOR: What happens to our businessman. I get this as it's primarily going to hit the businessmen, August 1st of this year. CC 6-25-96 Page #6 E. VASQUEZ: . The initial step would be a recycling campaign, would start as soon as August 1st. We would start distributing materials, Consolidated can offer staff to go into businesses and offer them technical advice on setting up recycling programs on a , materials that would qualify or be candidates for recycling, full-service offered on an individual basis. Then as we see the results come back it would three months, six months, depending on the responses, the next phase as we move forward and we happen to know about AB 939 and certainly the rules that they have, the first phase would not be sufficient, in our opinion, to MRF material to reach the goals. The next step is actually a MRFing step. At that point we could decide some type of future dependent on the rates that are being charged at the MRF facilities in the vicinity and then we would have to discuss what those rates would be in terms of.... TAYLOR: Then we would have to discuss it. So it is open-ended. KRESS: May I just interject here. I'm reading from Page 7. of the amendments which deals with this issue. It says, "An implementation plan and initial rate schedule for commercial accounts with Materials Recovery Service shall be subject to the City Council's review and approval". When we drafted this, not knowing what the numbers are, but requiring them to come before the Council for review of that formula and initial instruction. TAYLOR: OK. Let's go back to Page 2., regarding what Mr. Kress just read. Of more importance, this section also includes language stating that..."Upon commencement of the Material Recovery Facility operations, a separate formula shall be set forth which takes into account the disproportionate disposal costs associated with commercial Material Recovery Facility serviced account". In essence, this clause is an "agreement to agree" and that in parenthesis or quotation marks. In essence this clause is an "agreement to agree" at a later date. So even though it's going to come back to us with approval and such, I question how much we can say no to it. Continuing this, "As indicated in the attached proposal, CDS is planning to utilize a MRF in order to undertake a viable commercial recycling effort". Again, it states "commercial recycling effort and meet the diversion requirements of AB 939". This "agreement to agree" at a later date, this contract is on a one-year renewal, automatically giving them a five-year renewal every time we give it one year. But this "agreement to agree", I'll come back to that later. Going down to item No. 3, Refuse Containers..."In its proposal, CDS seeks to implement an automated collection program by December 1, 1996. In so doing, they would distribute a single 100 gallon container to be used in the program to each household in the City. Should a resident require additional containers, they would be charged $1 .50 each month for each additional container. There would no cost, of course, for a replacement container. As proposed, no additional containers of refuse would be collected by CDS once the program is underway". What happens to the greenwaste as far as the bags and boxes that are put out. rRIPEPI: They will service those. TAYLOR: OK. "That, of course, does not include greenwaste and recyclable materials currently collected at curbside. Please note that CDS included in its proposal a brochure for the 100 gallon containers to be used in the automated collection program". MAYOR PRO TEM JAY IMPERIAL: Madam Mayor. My turn now. Let me say this. My memory is not so short that it wasn't so long ago that we sat here with nine people, all waiting to knife each other, I think, to get this contract. The best contractor that came up was this gentleman that is sitting right here. From the time that we've had him, and I wouldn't want to go back to that nine thing again because one or two decided they wanted to sue us because they didn't get the contract. The time that we've had his contract here, this man has been nothing but honest. He went overboard to do his job in this City and I think, myself, that we can stand here and pick on this all day long. People do that with the Constitution. I think we've gotten good service, I think this is an excellent contract, and I think it deserves some kind of a vote. TAYLOR: All right. I'd like to continue. Going over to page 2, collection costs...page 2 BRUESCH: CC 6-25-96 Page #7 CLARK: What type of with the containers? TAYLOR: I'll get to that. Now we're into the agreement, that was the summary of what happens. Now I want a clarification that says ..."if the containers leak or are damaged, that the homeowner will buy them", I want that clarified, what it means. O.k., I'll go on through with it. Going to page 2 of the Franchise Agreement. First item - "Collection Costs. The Collection Cost component consists of the contractors cost for the collection and hauling of the waste". OK, "Collection Cost Rate Freeze. Contractor agrees that there will be no increase in the collection cost component for residential customers effective prior to August 1, 1997." What happens to all the residential, excuse me, the commercial customers? What happens to all of our businesses in the community? BRUESCH: Could I make a comment on that? What has happened except for your large . There hasn't been a lot of clients . Consolidated, that said, up to a point that have done a very good job of educating small commercial accounts and getting recycling. The problem is this that, the consumer as a whole actually over the next couple of years subsidizing small commercial accounts because they are not recycling. What I see is a chance for small commercial accounts to begin as a cost factor which it should be, . Your homeowners are expected to look at their trash and separate it and TAYLOR: OK. I'd like to ask a questions again..."The contractor agrees that there will be no increase in the collection cost component for residential customers effective prior to August 1, 1997". Now, the next sentence..."Except for the rate freeze on the collection cost component for residential customers,". Again,there's a magic word missing here,commercial or business. ..."the following rate adjustment formula shall apply: Contractor shall be entitled to rate adjustments, effective on the anniversary date of the franchise (August 1) based upon the following formula..." What happens to the businesses on August 1st? Where is it in here? TELESIO: Actually, I've spoken of I'd like to address a couple of the items. appears to be some confusion about whether or not the automated containers will limit the disposal of the green waste, it doesn't , in fact, page 2 of the staff report where it says, "That of course, does not include greenwaste and recyclable materials currently collected at curbside". What that is saying that the description of just one large can is more than enough, is ample, but does not restrict the greenwaste. TAYLOR: OK. That's clarified on the greenwaste at this time. TELESIO: But, I think what's important and I think concern is the "agreement to agree". And it also relates to your concern about the potential of cost increases to the commercial rates. I think if I give you the background on this situation, that also can be something that can be dispelled. It might appear that it's open-ended, but in fact, it's not. All it's meant to do is allow us an opportunity to remain When we approached our this proposal we, and it's always a with the City. What you will need in order to comply with AB 939 The issue became what was the specific cost of MRF servicing fee. That's hard to predict because that is influenced by commodities market. We can give you a basic range of these things, but specifically . Right not, for instance anywhere in that range. And, that will contrast tremendously with the landfill that we experienced with the Puente Hills Landfill BRUESCH: So, what you said is not to E. VASQUEZ: . Therefore, the concern was if we attempt to establish a formula now, we either potentially harm ourselves or you could potentially be . In other words, you can't predict an accurate rate. So all this "Agreement to Agree" is basically . You should be aware that cost items is currently unknown. Most when we CC 6-25-96 Page #8 find out, that "Agreement to Agree" that will be whole exercise to be determined, the best MRF to the lowest cost. We're going to do that . Once we've done that to your satisfaction, unless we know that specific number will be the overall rate. And also specific, what John was talking about, the percentage thing cost factor. I can elaborate on that for just a moment. I'll give you a real simple example. Let's assume that we have a rate of 5100 a month to take away a bin from a hypothetical group. Let's assume that about 25% or $25 of that $100 is in the the other $75 is for collection cost. For all intents and purposes, we're not going to see a huge change in that collection cost. We might go up a small percentage, but, let's even go as far as to say that static number, stay at 575. But let's say then that we can the rest of the and rather than $25 extra, it that shoots up to $75, you not longer have the 25-75 percentages, that not . And,that what we're referring to when we say that we need to establish at a future time what this formula will be. The only thing we are leaving undefined at this moment is what the exact percentage will be because either it will unnecessarily expose you or unnecessarily expose us. All we're seeking is a marked up items. We're just going to stop taking them to the landfill and begin taking them to a MRF. The only thing that is happening is the ability to reimburse and this would give us that possibility. But, again, what's important, you're the ultimate decider. You say , your formula doesn't work, negotiate properly , we'll do it to your satisfaction. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. Question about this when MRF kicks in will there be a need for curbside recycling. E. VASQUEZ: Most likely BRUESCH: And the other question is in term cost of businesses. If a commercial business were to establish a recycling program in that they cut down their by half, would they be a way to reward them? E. VASQUEZ: at a reduced rate of their existing trash bill. If they produced a lot of trash and they can cut down a number of bins we allow putting in recycling bins, those are very reduced rate and , MRF talks about recycling, they no rate . Whatever is left, say they have 5 bins and were able to cut it down to 3, those 3 would be charged , would be on a different schedule of reduced rates. BRUESCH: What about small commercials that only have and they find that their is half of what it was, would there be a chance that would get a Could they negotiate with you is there a way to cut cost E. VASQUEZ: Today, we physically do that. We collect one six days, which we have four days and cut down to one day, we have to a as far as aur BRUESCH: In other words, we they can cut their waste generation in half you would then, E. VASQUEZ: I can't say that BRUESCH: . I think that in this day and age, commercial enterprises have to begin to think of waste as a cost of business. And being that it is really a cost of business, I think that it would be apropo to give them a way to cut that cost of business if they do TELESIO: This system has to be investigated quite . To a large extent, our experience in other cities with that . In so many cases we have such a turnout, we have such small participation. I tend to think it's only because, in many cases, recycling doesn't justify its own cost. In fact, it's more of an inability to generate . So the conscientious small business person, there's not an economic incentive. That's a good point. There is an entire disposal with MRFing itself CC 6-25-96 Page #9 TRIPEPI: I think what Mr. Bruesch is looking for is . What you're telling me is businesses in town now that have 3 1/2 yard bins and they get picked up 4 times a week. They call you and say " I want it picked up twice a week." What Consolidated is going to tell them is you can't do that because it's BRUESCH: . The point is that we get a cost . In other words that is of recycling. TRIPEPI: I'd like to go to Section 8 of the contract. That is a mistake in the contract, page 6..., the actual executed by the Mayor a change where customers providing their own trash bins, there will be no charge...the tag time, there will be no charge to the resident of replacement of the 100 gallon container. TAYLOR: Where are you reading, Frank? TRIPEPI: I'm reading on Section 8. "Any refuse container which will no longer hold refuse without spilling, which leaks or is not water tight shall be replaced by the person from whom refuse is collected". That is a carry over from the existing contract where they provide their own trash barrels. TAYLOR: Then what is it doing in here, when... TRIPEPI: What we're trying to say is any refuse container which no longer holds refuse without spilling which leaks or is not water tight shall be replaced by the Contractor upon notification of the customer. That takes care of it. No charge to the customer. TAYLOR: The way I read this, once this system... TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor, you are absolutely right, it does read correct as it is . It is a mistake, I want to replace Section 8, in answer to your question, by recommending replacement line in Section 8. It shall now read "Any refuse container which will no longer hold refuse without spilling, which leaks or is not water tight shall be replaced by the contractor upon notification by the person from whom the refuse is collected,within ten 110) days of the contractor being notified". That will be that new section. TAYLOR: All right...I've got it marked here someplace, that after this systems begins, no other containers will be picked up except the automated containers. Where is that Section...boxes, plastic bags, nothing else will be permitted. So what good does it do to have other refuse containers that will not be picked up because they can't be handled in the automated system. Is that correct? KRESS: I understand the confusion. The reason I left that in is because the automated system is going to be phased in. It's not going to start tomorrow. TAYLOR: But once it is phased in, no other containers will be picked up. Is that correct? KRESS: Absolutely. CLARK: How does recycling containers KRESS: All the containers at that point will be contractor provided. TRIPEPI: At no cost to the customer. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. That doesn't change the 4 days of bulk items TAYLOR: No, that's still in here. BRUESCH: In other words, what Councilman Taylor asked is large odd-shaped items, is this going to have to wait for 4 times a year? CC 6-25-96 Page #10 TAYLOR: Right, we still have to do that, Bob. Here's the part, page 5..."Once automated, customers must place all refuse in the automated container(s) provided. No trash bags, cardboard boxes, loose debris or waste placed in other non-automated containers will be collected with the exception of appropriately sorted and tagged green waste and disposal items on designated quarterly 'bulky item' Citywide collection days". So are far as in other non-automated containers...that was the reason for Section 8 where any refuse containers, that's cleared up. TRIPEPI: Under the old contract. TAYLOR: OK. Then on page 2 of the summary..."In its proposal, CDS seeks to implement an automated collection (program by December 1, 1996". So in six months, this program is to be implemented. I would agree that you take all the containers out there and "bingo" it's ready to go. OK, than as of that date, all containers, Section 8 clause is gone. TRIPEPI: Maybe I didn't explain that right. The reason Section 8 is a carry over from the old...from the existing contract, which doesn't provide 100 gallon barrels, was left in there by mistake. Those 100 gallon containers are going to be replaced by the contractor at his expense. . You're absolutely right, once there is automated pickups throughout the City, everybody must put all their trash in the 100 gallon containers, whether they use 1 , 2 or 3 of them. That's what they will be collecting. TAYLOR: We talked about the statement here that's in the actual agreement..."The Recovery Facility"...page 3, top paragraph..."The Recovery Facility operations, a separate formula shall be set forth which takes into account the disproportionate disposal costs associated with commercial Materials Recovery Facility serviced accounts". Now go back to page 7, here's the word again. Now it's not just disproportionatly, it saying "substantial additional disposal costs". "The Commercial recycling program. The Contractor shall undertake the program described in its Waste Services Franchise Renewal Proposal. Prior to the implementation of Phase II - Material Recovery Facility, the Contractor and City shall negotiate a rate to be paid by commercial accounts"... and this is the "Agreement to Agree". OK, we agree on that, the "Agreement to Agree" has to be implemented somewhere. And it states that this MRF is where it comes into play. Continuing here, I'll read the whole thing again..."Prior to implementation of Phase II - Materials Recovery Facility, the Contractor and the City shall negotiate a rate to be paid by commercial accounts that will reimburse the Contractor for the substantial additional disposal costs associated with the Materials Recovery Facility. An implementation plan and initial rate schedule for commercial accounts with Materials Recovery Facility service shall be subject to the City Council's review and approval. Upon adoption of the initial rate schedule, a separate rate adjustment formula shall be set forth which taken into account the disproportionate disposal costs associated with commercial Materials Recovery Facility serviced accounts". We know it's coming. If you got in some other cities, how are we going to let these businesses know that they will get substantial additional costs? I see it coming, and it's in here. TELESIO: There will be an educational program. TAYLOR: Yes, but we're locked into a contract and they're locked into a contract. TELESIO: I don't want to . It's only our intention to provide the services you need. And, I'm only intending to do it to the extent, economically speaking, to the extent that we will be reimbursing... TAYLOR: I don't disagree with that. But, let's tell them up front what the cost is before we give you, basically, a five-year extension. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. That is exactly what I was suggesting doing, educational . Gary, what I'm trying to get across is now it has to be conceded that as a cost of doing business, not just set cost thing. It going to cost to businesses for . I think part of the plan, is raise your educational level, , it's going to cost you an X amount of dollars, we're not sure exactly how much it is. CC 6-25-96 Page #11 TELESIO: That's the thing of the educational program. The first phase is interactive with the business community. And we could spend time...we'll make a big effort to assist people to begin recycling. For the purpose of cost we have to remember we're all in this together. We're all being victimized, if we're shot as the messenger. This is, first of all, mandated, we need to recycle certain percentages, whether or not it makes economic sense. Whether or not it's going to cost , you have to do it. Here we all are, stuck in the middle. So, it's just a matter of how effectively we can communicate this reality. That's what we've begun to specialize in,we've got an educational program that is more than just literature, it's interactive, we got people , really engaged in people, and to a certain extent, as I said earlier, sometimes we don't have the turnout we'd like to see, but in many cases we do receive a good response, we have people that do recycle and allows them to avoid some of that additional cost which is inevitable. The cost of businesses, the fact that BRUESCH: Madam Mayor , major cities commercial enterprises that are highly fined, maybe provide IMPERIAL: Madam Mayor. I think we've beaten this thing to death. There is no doubt in my mind as to the integrity of this man. We've dealt with him right now. I have to go back and think about what we had 22 years of in this City, and I wonder if we've forgotten when we're well off. I look at this contract, I don't see anything. Maybe I'm...what I'm seeing in reality is we've dealt with the man here, it shows a good image. He's been honest with his, he's tried to work with us right along. I have no doubt in my mind that if something comes up, he would work it out. COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ: Madam Mayor. I have one question, but before I ask my question I'd just like to make a comment that Gary has some good questions and I think he deserves some answers. A lot of questions given to Gary were questions that I had. My question is in past experience with other cities, when you implement this plan, I was thinking every year after Christmas, what happens, that's when everyone brings out more than enough trash to fill 100 gallons. What do you do? They will complain to the Council that they didn't pick up all my trash. What happens during that time. TELESIO: We've demonstrated an extreme sensibility in contracting. . During the transition period when customers are converting from their existing cans...the capacity they have now is 2 or 3 small cans, will be exceeded by the large ones, the capacity is larger. But let say the idea of conversion, they're used to de-containerizing, they put out in bags. Sometimes we establish a transition period of 3 to 6 months, during which we pick up everything. Remember now that's detrimental to the whole motivation of this program. This creates a uniform appearance in your neighborhood. I promise you this, , once this program is in place for about 6 months to a year, you not even fathom that those containers would ever . You won't even be able to remember what the community looked like with all those containers. It's nice and uniform, it's clean, you don't see bags strewn all over the curbs. It will be a nice . You'll begin to not welcome it, you'll appreciate it, you won't want to ever . That's the experience that we've had. What happens during this time? We work with people. We've attended these transition periods for years. People say I can't get used to it...etc., we've worked with our Councils, Hawaiian Gardens, we've a transition period in place for a year. J. VASQUEZ: I know, every year after Christmas we.... TELESIO: It's important for us and the citizenry as well, we work as a team E. VASQUEZ: I would like to speak about that we've had it happen in other cities. What we find is that the initial time, people get used to it. They become comfortable with it. People will then decide if they can handle the one container or if they want a second container. Very few people will need a second container. Most people want it for the convenience and they order it strictly for the convenience. They only use it three times a year,they just want to have it. So, most people's needs will be met. Also, because you have the recycling program, people will be actually motivated to put more into their recycling cans and green waste cans to leave more for their waste. Your recycling will CC 6-25-96 Page #12 Makes people more aware and conscientious that if they own management program, whereas the more they put in the blue bin and the green bin, the more space in my trash and after a while people find gauge how much to put out there and if second container, they will order one. You don't use it every week...we haven't had a problem. BRUESCH: I agree with Councilman Imperial and Mr. Taylor. We've discussed this the fact is , right now refuse has to be cut back. 7 years is in front of us. . What we have to do is look up the amounts that we're putting in and basically cut it in half. CLARK: I just want to say something. I understand that is there and by the year 2000 we have to cut our garbage, our refuse by 50% and there will be penalties if we don't. . The other thing that is important to remember, I agree with Mr. Telesio that the other communities cans they're orderly. Sometimes I go around on trash days and it's people put bags out there, they don't even use their cans. I think in the long run, it's going to benefit us a lot, and also the contractor has agreed that if you don't the requirements you will TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. You mentioned the bags that are put out. I saw probably 10 or 12 bags at a particular house today with grass trimmings, leaves and raking up stuff. How are those going to be put out in the future where they will be picked up. CLARK: , they're still have the green waste... TAYLOR: No, the green waste where it's... CLARK: It's blue, a blue can for green waste. My can is blue, my dark blue is the recyclable. Are you going to change the color? TAYLOR: I saw 10 to 15 bags today that were not in the blue container. CLARK: Did they have some in the blue container? TAYLOR: I just noticed the bags that were out with leaves and grass in them. E. VASQUEZ: If they're put out with the green waste container, those are picked up in a different truck. TAYLOR: So all of that is picked up. E. VASQUEZ: What is meant by the other materials put out as trash is an automated truck, there won't be a trash truck other than the automated truck of the City, that for the automated containers. There will be a green waste truck to pick up the green waste for container and put out with the green waste. CLARK: I have a question. Will there be any further separation of recyclables, such as card board and light paper. E. VASQUEZ: We're going to have cardboard as an additional item . We're going to add cardboard, again, take advantage of the containers that we have to encourage more recycling. IMPERIAL: I've got a Motion on the floor... TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. You didn't get a second, but there's two more items - 9 and 10. They shouldn't even be in here as Mr. Rauth mentioned a while ago, they won't fly. As an example,number 10, "Residents electing to use large capacity container..." They're not going to elect anything, we're going to do it. This is mandatory. Once it starts, you use the containers, period. I have no objection, but the contract... CC 6-25-96 Page #13 KRESS: Large capacity containers refers to bins...first line of number 9. TAYLOR: OK. "The Contractor shall provide large capacity containers (bins)...", I put up here not the automated plastic, ok. KRESS: This is from the existing contract. TAYLOR: That's correct. If they chose to have the large capacity bins, this clarifies it..."for mechanical loading wherever customers so request their use, and the use thereof shall be in accordance with the rates established herein. Each container provided shall have the Contractor's name, or company name, placed and maintained on one or more locations on the outside in letters not less than three (3) inches in height. The Contractor shall regularly inspect all large capacity containers, repair or replace any damaged containers and maintain an inventory. All such containers shall be maintained by Contractor so as not to leak". This is the large bin, not the automated. That understood. CLARK: This is commercial bins, what is the problem? TAYLOR: Go to the next one, number 10..."Residents electing to use large capacity containers for mechanical loading shall use such containers exclusively..." KRESS: What that means is multi-families collection points - on bin service. TAYLOR: Multiple residents? TRIPEPI: Multiple dwelling...instead of using the barrels, buy a bin. TAYLOR: This is multiple residents. OK. The biggest loophole that remains is what is the cost that is going to be charged, and incidentally, I've worked for private contractors and businesses all my life, I know the ones that salvaged the steel, they salvage the aluminum, they salvage the brass from the different companies. The market salvages the cardboard, they know what recycling is. They're in the business of making money off of whatever they can resell. They do know. But, there's a hidden trap in here and the businessmen are going to let us know. I don't doubt that at all. TELESIO: There's not a hidden trap in here. TAYLOR: There's going to be substantial added costs that's written right in the agreement. TELESIO: That's a . There's not a hidden trap. TAYLOR: Well, indirectly, obscure stumbling block. When those costs come in, we'll see how they do. And, Madam Mayor, I'd like this conversation in the Minutes verbatim with the promises and guarantees that we got. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. At this time I'd like to second the Motion, JUAN NUNEZ: A lot of other questions, that I'd much more discussed. I was going to ask about the rates and I spoke to the representative of Consolidated. They said that the rates were residential rates rates. According to what Gary was reading, you have this rate, I don't have anything and I don't know anybody in the audience that has this rate. TRIPEPI: In all fairness to everybody, you come into City Hall any day, all week long, all you have to do is ask for it. NUNEZ: Yes, I know. TRIPEPI: CC 6-25-96 Page #14 NUNEZ: We don't have this information to read on it. As Gary is saying that the rates will be going up in August '97. TAYLOR: Residential, that's the way I read it. But, commercial can go up August 1st this year, the way I read it. NUNEZ: OK. Another thing is that on the five-year contract, the other Councils were locked into 30 to 35 year with Modern. TAYLOR: Every year they get a renewal for five-years, perpetually. NUNEZ: One year is another five years. Two years is another year and they have 7 years, if they have 3 years, they another 7 or 8 years. It's going to be locked in like Modern was for 30 to 35 years. IMPERIAL: I take offense to the fact that you're equating this contract with that we had with Modern. If sugar is sweet, that was a sweetheart, that contract. I nor Gary or anybody else had anything to do with that contract, we inherited it. We've learned a lot from it, ok. NUNEZ: As Council, you can protest as much as you want. But, it seems to me that you're going to be locked into something like that. IMPERIAL: You know something, I have no fears. I have no fears, ok. I'll take that much of the man's integrity that he's worked with us right along. I don't see any change now. You have to know the man before you can get up here and say that. As far as I'm concerned he's been fair, he's going to take real good care of you. NUNEZ: I hope that continues. I'm afraid that... TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. We're not talking individuals, we're talking written contract agreements here. It doesn't matter who is on one side or the other, it's the language in this contract that I'm questioning. No impugning or reference made on any individual at all. I want that clearly understood. IMPERIAL: I clearly understand that, Mr. Taylor. I'm looking at this thing and knowing that if we've got a problem, this man will work with us on it. I couldn't say that with the last contractor. I clearly understand that. J. VASQUEZ: Madam Mayor. Call for the question. CI ARK: Question has been called for. We have a Motion and a Second to approve the contract - please vote. Vote taken my voting slip: Yes: Vasquez, Clark Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR CLARK Stated that she was the City's representative at the National League of Cities, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Meeting in Omaha, Nebraska and visited the Strategic Air Command Post. Ms. Clark continued that she was impressed with the protection measures in place, especially those that will protect the White House from enemy missile attack. Ms. Clark asked what type of protection will Los Angeles have should mainland China launch a missile attack. Ms. Clark stated that the representative responded that while it was a CC 6-25-96 Page #15 concern, this area is does not have installation of any anti-missile type system and, therefore, is unprotected. Ms. Clark urged that our Congressman and President be contacted to rectify this situation. B. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH Requested that this meeting be adjourned in memory of Jim Smith's mother. C. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER Announced that Sgt. Wallace is still recuperating and will return in September and that Sgt. Kaylor will be filling in for him. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned in at 9:25 p.m. in memory of Jim Smith's mother. The next regular meeting will be held on July 9, 1996, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk MAYOR CC 6-25-96 Page #16