Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050791 CC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 7, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:12 PM at City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, and Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry. FXI:CUTIVF Sr:SSlON Mayor Parks declared a recess at 5:12 PM, to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss initiation of litigation regarding SB2557 and Government Code Section 54957.6 to instruct the City's designated representatives regarding negotiating salary and fringe benefits of the City's employees. Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at 6:00 PM, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss Dawes vs the County of Riverside et al. Mayor Parks declared a recess at 6:42 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 7:05 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Parks at 7:04 PM with all members present. Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott Field and City Clerk June S. Greek. nut es \05 \07\91 - 1 - City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Mindiola, 45644 Master Drive, asked that Council continue Item No. 2 requesting the Riverside Transit Agency provide a local fixed bus route to serve the City of Temecula. Mr. Mindiola stated he had been working with the City for some time to develop a workable bus system. He distributed material to the Council and staff outlining a new proposal in which there would be no charge to ride the buses. He stated that if the City chose to start a bus service with the RTA, it must go out to bid. CONSFNT CA! FNDAR Mayor Parks removed Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Resolution Designating Certain City Officers to Sign Checks 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY OFFICERS TO SIGN CHECKS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY Hinutes\05\07\91 City Council Minutes May 7, 1991 Resolution Requesting the Riverside Transit Agency Provide ~ ! ocli Fixed Rus Route to Serve the City of Temecula Councilmember Mu~oz stated that the RTA has indicated they can provide a start-up bus system for the City of Temecula within 30-45 days. He reported that in order for this to be put into place, this resolution must be approved before the RTA Board Meeting of May 23, 1991. Mr. Mu~oz expressed his concern over the many delays in working with Mr. Mindiola, stating that the last time the issue was heard, it was continued off calendar. He said, however, one route provided by the RTA would not preclude Mr. Mindiola from developing his bus system. Mayor Parks asked if the RTA Bus Route must go up for bid. City Attorney Field stated that the City is currently a member of RTA and this does not require going out to bid. Mayor Parks asked if the City would have advertising requirements with the RTA for their bus services. Councilmember Mu~oz reported that none would be required. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING OPERATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE TEMECULA CITY LIMITS BY THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIl BUSINFSS 3. Award of Bid - Waste Management #inutes\05\07~1 -3- City Council Minutes May 7, 1991 Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, introduced the staff report. Robert Nelson, County of Riverside Waste Management Director, 11728 Magnolia, Suite A, Riverside, requested that the City Council consider the implications of hauling refuse to a remote location in Perds. He asked that the City make a commitment to the local MRF in Murrieta, instead of diffusing the waste stream to distant MRF's. He suggested all of the cities in the County need to work together on Waste Management. RFCFSS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:10 PM to accommodate the scheduled Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD meeting at 9:03 PM. 3. Award of Bid - Waste Management (Cont.) Verlyn Jensen, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, representing Inland Disposal, stated Inland Disposal has been the primary provider for this area for the past 20 years. He stated that the permitting process for a MRF is a time consuming, difficult process and choosing a company where this is in question could be an economic risk for the City. He said the technology being proposed is not only "state of the art", but may be beyond current capabilities. William Harker, 31130-85 South General Kearny Road, Director of the Old Town Temecula Museum, requested the City reconsider its recommendation and continue to use the services of Inland Disposal. He stated Inland Disposal has been generous to the museum and feels this ¢ompany's past contributions should be considered. Barbara Pearson, 30150 Via Monterey, stated Inland Disposal has made a commitment to this community and has done an excellent job. She asked that the Council reconsider its recommendation. Evelyn Harker, 31130-85 South General Kearny Road, asked that the Council use local firms for its services, and asked that Inland Disposal be awarded the bid. Jeanne L. Burns, 30112 Santiago Road, stated that Inland Disposal has served this community well through the years and asked that the bid be awarded to Inland Disposal. #inutes\05\07\91 -4- City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 Byron Georgio, San Diego, representing Bay Cities, stated they have purchased two local haulers, and a lot to house a maintenance yard in Temecula. He stated that Bay Cities submitted the lowest bid on everything but the first item and explained the reason for coming in higher on the first item is due to a bulky waste pick-up charge, which is normally a fee that is charged when citizens make special requests. He also stated that Bay Cities would have been happy to offer incentives such as those offered by CR&R, however they were told by City staff to simply bid on the RFP's. Mr. Georgio reported that Bay Cities visited the proposed site in the City of Perris, and the City of Perds had no knowledge of CR&R's plans. Gary Jackman, P.O. Box 6160, Canyon Lake, representing Bay Cities, suggested that the Council check with the LEA on the proposed facility in Perds, stating it is not licensed to handle co-mingled trash. He asked that this matter be continued until this can be accomplished. Joe Schneider, 29951 Camino Del Sol, asked that all RFP's include the requirement that haulers use vehicles that can use clean burning fuels. Michael Silva, 11311 Lampsoil, Vice President of CR&R, stated he would appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Temecula. He said the company has been in business for over 25 years and are licensed to handle co- mingled waste. He stated the City of Perris is aware of intentions to utilize a facility in their city. David Fahrion, 21172 Ponderosa, Mission Viejo, advised that CR&R operates a fully operational MRF system in the City of Stanton presently. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if an EIR is required for establishing a MRF. City Attorney Field stated it is not a requirement in all circumstances, but in a majority of cases it is. Mayor Parks asked if all charges are included in the bid. Mr. Silva answered that all costs are included with the exception of the processing costs or landfill rates, that every hauler must pay. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if CR&R would be willing to go to another MRF if requested by the Council. Mr. Silva answered that CR&R would do whatever is cost effective. Councilmember Mu~oz asked that the statement by Bay Cities that they were the lowest bid be addressed. Minutes\05\07~91 City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, presented several slides outlining the City's method of determining CR&R to be the lowest bid. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Robert Nelson, County Waste Management, asked that local processing be added to any contract drawn up by the City. Councilmember Moore stated that by approving staff recommendation, staff would be given authorization to negotiated the franchise agreement. She stated the City would not be bound by this action and negotiations could begin. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations. Mayor Parks expressed concern that as a part of the County's Waste Management District, the City needs to work together with the County and use a waste facility that the County can agree upon. City Manager Dixon suggested modifying the motion to direct staff to negotiate the franchise agreement and award the bid after these negotiations have taken place. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Moore to amend the motion to approve staff recommendation 3.2 as follows: 3.2 Direct staff to negotiate an exclusive franchise with CR&R to provide residential and commercial collection, disposal, and recycling of solid waste; and delay consideration of 3.1 until after the franchise is completed and presented to the Council. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ~inutes\05\O?\91 -6- City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4. Policy Regarding Proposed Murrieta Material Recovery Facility Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, introduced the staff report. Jim Astor, 28636 Front Street, Inland Disposal, asked the City Council not to further delay the process of creating a MRF in the City of Murrieta, stating this will also be of benefit to the City of Temecula. He asked that the City meet and discuss points of concern prior to the County Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 1991. Robert Nelson, County of Riverside Waste Management Director, 11728 Magnolia, Suite A, Riverside, asked that the City to support the local MRF instead of further delaying the progress. Councilmember Moore suggested that all parties meet together to address the concerns of the Council and staff. City Manager Dixon suggested that between now and May 22, 1991, a meeting should be arranged to include the County staff, Waste Management Company, the Murrieta City Council-elect to address points of concern in the hopes they can be resolved. He further suggested that staff be authorized to attend the County Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 1991 to express any concerns identified. He stated the recommendation should be changed to reflect that staff is not authorized to request that the MRF be held in abeyance. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, Lindemans to extend the meeting to 11:00 PM. carried. seconded by Councilmember The motion was unanimously It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to direct City staff to arrange a meeting of the parties to include the County staff, Waste Management Company, the Murrieta City Council-elect and authorize staff to attend the County Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 1991 to express any concerns identified, but not to request the MRF be held in abeyance. Hinutes\05\07\¢1 -7- City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks Moore, NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5. Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 1991-97 Annual Operating Budget City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. He reported the intent of the budget is to incorporate the mission statement in the upcoming plans for the City. He stated a one percent (1%) reduction in costs has been achieved and a number of new projects and programs have been incorporated. He also stated a 10% contingency fund is proposed. Mr. Dixon reported that copies of the proposed budget would be available for review at City Hall, Chamber of Commerce and the library. Mr. Dixon recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of May 28, 1991, at which time comments from the public and Council can be incorporated. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue this item to the meeting of May 28, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. RFCFSS Mayor Parks called a recess at 10:50 to accommodate the scheduled Redevelopment Agency meeting. Following the Redevelopment Agency meeting, the City Council meeting was reconvened at 10:51 PM. CITY MANAC, FR RFPORTS None given. Hinutes\05\07~91 -8- City Council Minutes May 7. 1991 CITY ATTORNFY RFPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIl REPORTS Councilmember Birdsall requested that formation of a Main Street Revitalization Committee be placed on the agenda of May 14, 1991. ADJOURNMFNT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 10:58 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor [SEAL] #inutes\05\07\91 -9-