1988 MAR 03 CC MINar 7r u• w •• w1 1 u 1 Y.
• •1h Iki •17! • w •• MI 171 1' /•'.� 1•'
CMI TO t• 1:71' by • • Tern Schuldt
PIC OF ALLEGIANCE led by • r Pro Mem Schuldt
ROIL CALL
Councilman • - • present
Co u. .tabs• present
Councilman present
Mayo • Tem Schuldt present
Mayo d absent
•1i7,w /: •'. X11 -iC • :_ �YI�ID.1,
k6i • 7, • •• • >v • '7 •'•1 7171 •• .� 17' . 34
4 • '.! i 1 /• •.b �• • 1171 1 • 8 1:171• 171'
1• h d71•
(a) Shall property owners who do not receive service under the City's
contract have residential refuse collection fees imposed upon them? For
instance, shall multi -unit apartments which currently receive bin
service independent of the City's contract, be liable for City imposed
refuse fees?
The consensus of Council was positive on this question, but they agreed that
a waiver would be made available.
(b) If we are to exclude multi -unit customers from service and fees,
shall we exclude only those locations currently receiving independent
of the City's contract? or shall we establish a threshold in the number
of units beyond which the service shall not be receive under the City's
contract and thus no fee charged, and below which the fee would be
imposed and service made available?
It was the consensus of Council that this issue was not applicable.
(c) Shall we charge for service rendered or readiness to serve?
It was the consensus of Council that the City would have the policy of
readiness to serve.
(d) Shall the City continue to serve those businesses in the downtown
area which currently receive service under the City's contract? If so,
shall these businesses be given the option of receiving service under
the City's contract and being liable for fees, or obtaining service
independent of the City and paying only for that service?
Council's response to staff was negative to both questions in (D).
(e) Shall the cost of refuse service to City facilities be covered by
refuse fees, and thus be borne only by that segment of the City which
is liable for refuse fees? or shall the cost of service to City
facilities be excluded in deta„n;ning the level of refuse fees, and
thus be borne by the City General Fund?
It was the consensus of Council that the cost to the City would be borne by
the City General Fluid.
(f) shall the City administer billing of refuse fees? Or shall the City
negotiate with its refuse collection contractor to effect billing by
the contractor?
It was the consensus of Council that the City administer the billing of
refuse fees and incorporate such fees with the City water billing.
C j= SESSIONS
Pursuant to the California Government Code a Closed Session will be
held on the following matters:
GC 54956.9(a) (City a party to pending litigation)
O matters
GC 54956.9(b) (City might have significant exposure to litigation)
0 matters
GC 54956.9(c) (City might decide to initiate litigation)
0 matters
Personnel Matters
AwcuR w Council adjourned at 9:30 AM
1 11 .0.I. : �,I :r r.