Laserfiche WebLink
CLOSING OF EQUESTRIAN AND The Clerk of the Council <br />HIKING ACCESS BETWEEN MAR-LES reported that a letter dated <br />DRIVE AND SANTA ANA RIVER December 3, 1971 had been <br /> received from the Orange <br />County Flood Control District stating that the public access gate to the <br />equestrian and hiking trails on the Santa Aha River has been closed.. <br /> <br />The letter from the Orange County Flood Control District petition of <br />residents and the report of staff dated December 2, 1971, were received <br />and ordered filed on motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Council- <br />man Evansj and carried on a 5-1 vote, Councilman Villa voting NO. <br /> <br />REFUSE COLLECTION The Mayor announceufl that <br /> during the afternoon session, <br /> Ordinance NS-1093 had been <br />passed to second reading, and that Councilman Patterson's motion, seconded <br />by Councilman Villa, to approve the proposed amendment to the agreement <br />and to extend its termination date to October 31j 1978 was being considered. <br /> <br />Councilman Evans asked if Great Western Reclamation, Inc., could sell <br />or merge with another corporation without Council approval. The City <br />Attorney stated that the only thing not covered in the contract would be an <br />involuntary assignment; that Council could not prevent any sale of stock but <br />that the contract could be voided. <br /> <br />Councilman Herrin stated he would not be in favor of an extension in the <br />first year of the prior extension; that the contractor wishes to buy land and <br />extend his facility to do a better job, and he would be happy to support the <br />proposal in the last year of the contract. He also stated there might be <br />legal problems involved due to the extent of modifications to the. original <br />agreement. Councilman Patterson compared the situation to a lease, wherein <br />the lessee would make improvements and the landlord would give him a long <br />enough lease to amortize the debt over a number of years. <br /> <br />Councilman Markel stated he was opposed lo extension of the contract for the <br />purpose of purchasing property and buildings. <br /> <br />Councilman Evans requested clarification of legal problems; stating he had <br />been concerned that the business could be sold and the contract would still <br />be valid with the new owners. The City Attorney stated that by. Subdivision <br />6 of the contract, in the event the business were sold or the contract assigned, <br />it would require the consent of the Council to be bound to the contract with a <br />vendor or assignee; that there is no legal problem because of not putting it <br />out to bid when extending it; that the City has the right to reasonably alter <br />and amend contracts. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-412 - <br /> <br />December 6, 1971 <br /> <br /> <br />