Laserfiche WebLink
EKO PROTECTION'SERVICE The modified proposal <br />FREE BUS SMELTERS.PROPOSAL of ~KO Protection <br />REFERRED Service presented to <br /> Council at its meeting <br />of April 19, 1976, was referred to Staff to determine whether <br />or not the City's agreement with the Orange County Transit <br />District to install 22 bus shelters would be jeopardized <br />in any way should Council choose to allow EKO Protection <br />Service to install an additional 22 bus shelters at other <br />locations in the City, on a one year trial basis, on the <br />motion of Councilman Bricken, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, <br />and carried (S:i), with Mayor Garthe dissenting. <br /> <br />Councilman Ward suggested that due concern be given to the <br />location of the shelters with respect to the rights and <br />interests of adjacent commercial and private property owners. <br /> <br />Prior to the motion,,Michael Silvas, 1140 West Santa Aha <br />Boulevard, Attorney for EKO Protection Service, stated that <br />the Orange County Transit District approved their proposal <br />commenting that it would save.tax money, and:suggesting that <br />they go to the individual cities for approval of the plan; <br />that $55,000 will be expended for the 22 shelters to be <br />constructed by the Orange County Transit District; that <br />Council might consider allowing EKO to install their shel- <br />ters for a one-year trial period at no cost to the City-; <br />that they feel that a three-sided shelter as proposed by <br />OCTD might encourage vandalism and graffitti; and that EKO's <br />shelter design .would be sufficient to shelter bus patrons <br />and encourage use of the transit system.~ . . CA 84 <br /> <br />ADJUSTMENT IN,PAYMENTS TO <br />TRASHCOLLBCTION CONTRACTOR <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />rate increase following their <br /> <br /> Councilmen Evans and <br /> Ortiz requested absten- <br /> tion from voting on <br /> the trash collection <br />declaration of a conflict of <br /> <br />interest in accordance with Section 2-105 of the Municipal <br />Code. Both Councilmen declared that they accepted gifts <br />in excess of $25 from a person who is believed to have some <br />interest in the Great Western Reclamation Company. The <br />Councilmen left the Council Chambers:following a motion by <br />Councilman Bricken, seconded by Councilman Ward, and <br />c~rried (5:0) to declare that Councilman Evans had a con- <br />flict of interest for the reason stated, and was therefore <br />disqualified from voting; A similar motion by Councilman <br />Bricken, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, carried (4:0), <br />for Councilman Ortiz. <br /> <br />Council authorized the following compensation adjustments <br />for Great Western Reclamation, Inc., for residential trash <br />collection, for incorporation in amended contract, effective <br />May 1, 1976: <br /> <br />1. An increase of 15 cents per water meter per month; <br /> <br />Cancellation of the pay-back clause which was <br />established in December, 1973, when SCA acquired <br />Great Western S%ock. <br /> <br />CA 11.4 <br />A-6-21-71 <br /> <br />Councilmen Evans and Ortiz were asked to rejoin the meeting. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 175 MAY 3, 1976 <br /> <br /> <br />