Laserfiche WebLink
. A_ 6, -.1- 71 <br /> • <br /> c.e ad .cc)�e-el <br /> EKO PROTECTION SERVICE The modified proposal <br /> FREE BUS SHELTERS PROPOSAL of EKO 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 (5 : 1) , with Mayor Garthe dissenting. <br /> Councilman Ward suggested that due concern be given to the <br /> r- location of the shelters with respect to the rights and <br /> interests of adjacent commercial and private property owners . <br /> Prior to the motion,. Michael Silvas , 1140 West Santa Ana <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, andsuggestingthat <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 /> 4r1,1'* shelter design would. be sufficient to shelter bus patrons <br /> "'a and encourage use of the transit systems - . CA 84 <br /> ADJUSTMENT-IN, PAYMENTS TO Councilmen Evans and <br /> TRASH- COLLECTION CONTRACTOR Ortiz requested absten- <br /> APPROVED tion .fromvoting on <br /> - the trash collection <br /> rate increase following .their declaration of a conflict of <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 Chambersfollowing -a motion by <br /> Councilman Bricken, seconded by Councilman Ward, - and <br /> carried (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 /> 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 /> 1. An increase of 15 cents per water meter per month; <br /> 2 . Cancellation of the pay-back clause which was <br /> established in December, 1973 , when SCA acquired <br /> Great Western Stock. CA 11. 4 <br /> A-6-21-71 <br /> Councilmen Evans and Ortiz were asked to rejoin the meeting . ,,. <br /> v. <br /> lµ t. <br /> 4: <br /> CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 173 MAY 3 , 1976 <br />