MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL HELD APRIL 28, 2014

A regular meeting of the Cypress City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Mills in the Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California.

Members present:
Mayor Leroy Mills
Mayor Pro Tem Rob Johnson
Council Member Doug Bailey
Council Member Prakash Narain
Council Member Mariellen Yarc

Staff present:
Interim City Manager Richard Storey
City Attorney William Wynder

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

None.

CLOSED SESSION:

The City Attorney reported that the City Council would be meeting in Closed Session regarding Public Employee Appointment, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, to Consider Filling the Position of City Manager. 

The City Attorney reported that the City Council would be meeting in Closed Session regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, Agency Negotiator:  William Wynder, Employee Title: City Manager. 

At 6:02 p.m., the Mayor recessed the meeting.

7:00 P.M. SESSION:

The 7:00 p.m. session of the City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Mills.

Members present:
Mayor Leroy Mills
Mayor Pro Tem Rob Johnson
Council Member Doug Bailey
Council Member Prakash Narain
Council Member Mariellen Yarc

Staff present:
Interim City Manager Richard Storey
City Attorney William Wynder
Police Chief Jackie Gomez-Whiteley
Public Works Director Doug Dancs
Recreation and Community Services Director June Liu
Assistant Finance Director Matt Burton
Assistant City Engineer Kamran Dadbeh
Planning Manager Doug Hawkins
Associate Planner Kori Sanders
Administrative Services Manager Andrew Tse
City Clerk Denise Basham

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Yarc.

INVOCATION:  The invocation was given by City Attorney Wynder.

PRESENTATIONS:

The Mayor presented a Certificate of Special Recognition to Debbie Bourne for 30 years as a Recreation Program Instructor.

Ms. Lisa Telles, Transportation Corridor Agencies, made a presentation regarding toll roads and all electronic tolling.

REPORT OF WORKSHOP AGENDA/CLOSED SESSION:

The Mayor asked for the report of the Closed Session Agenda items discussed earlier in the evening.

The City Attorney reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding Public Employee Appointment, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, to Consider Filling the Position of City Manager.  He stated that the City Council has completed its independent review of the applicants for the position of City Manager and has conducted such interviews as it deems appropriate, and has directed the City Attorney to contact certain of these candidates to obtain additional information.  He stated that this item would be continued to the next regular City Council meeting of May 12, 2014.

The City Attorney reported that the Closed Session regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, Agency Negotiator:  William Wynder, Employee Title: City Manager was not held.

No other action was taken in Closed Session, nor was any solicited.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:   LIMITED TO ONE-HALF HOUR.  (THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, SPEAKING ONCE.)

Mayor Mills asked anyone who wished to speak on any topic not included on the meeting Agenda to come forward.

Elizabeth Sharzer, Jewish Family & Children’s Service (JFCS), spoke regarding the Race With a View 5K/10K Walk/Run on May 18, 2014 in Long Beach.

George Pardon, Cypress, spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 6.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:   7:00 P.M. (PUBLIC COMMENTS RESTRICTED TO TEN MINUTES PER SPEAKER, UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL).

Item No. 1:   PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-13, A REQUEST BY AT&T MOBILITY TO EXPAND THE LOWER ARRAY AND THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE OF AN EXISTING MONOPINE-TYPE ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED AT 4129½ BALL ROAD WITHIN THE CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONE.

The Associate Planner provided background information on this item.

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked about other sites located in the City.

The Associate Planner responded that another monopine-type antenna facility is located at the corner of Valley View Street and Cerritos Avenue, behind the car wash on the southeast corner.  She stated that it has one antenna facility located on it, and that this is the only co-location with two antenna purveyors on the same antenna. 

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if there would be a financial benefit to the City or the landowner, and if there would be noise concerns. 

The Associate Planner replied that the City would obtain business license fees and that the property owner would get a monthly lease payment, and that no noise would be emitted. 

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked if AT&T Mobility had an advantage over other wireless providers. 

The Associate Planner responded that the project would be awarded to the vendor who obtains City approval. 

Council Member Bailey asked about the appearance of the tree with the addition of the antenna panels. 

The Associate Planner displayed a photo simulation of the tree and stated that it would be more dense.   

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Stephen Bernot, Ericsson, Inc. stated that he accepted the conditions of approval.

Mayor Mills asked if there was anyone who wished to speak on this item.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and seconded by Council Member Narain, that the City Council adopt the Resolution by title only, approving Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, subject to the conditions in Exhibit “A” of the Resolution.  In accordance with CEQA guidelines, a Categorical Exemption, Class 3 will be filed for this project.

The motion was unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:        5    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Bailey, Narain, Yarc, Johnson and Mills
NOES:        0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None
ABSENT:    0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None

RESOLUTION NO. 6415

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2002-13 – WITH CONDITIONS.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

All matters listed on the Agenda under “Consent Calendar” are to be considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the Agenda.

Mayor Mills requested Agenda Item No. 6 be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Council Member Yarc stated she would be abstaining from Agenda Item No. 2.

It was moved by Mayor Mills and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 2 through 5 and 7 through 10.

The motion was unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:        5    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Bailey, Narain, Yarc, Johnson and Mills
NOES:        0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None
ABSENT:    0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None

Item No. 2:   APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 14, 2014.

Recommendation:   That the City Council approve the Minutes of the Meeting of April 14, 2014, as submitted, with Council Member Yarc abstaining due to her absence from the meeting.

Item No. 3:   MOTION TO INTRODUCE AND/OR ADOPT ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY TITLE ONLY AND TO WAIVE FURTHER READING.

Item No. 4:   SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING ORDINANCE ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014-01, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4861 AND 4891 CAMP STREET FROM CH COMMERCIAL HEAVY TO RM-20 RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY.

Recommendation:   That the City Council adopt the Ordinance by title only, adopting Zone Change No. 2014-01.

ORDINANCE NO. 1144

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014-01 CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
4861 AND 4891 CAMP STREET FROM CH COMMERCIAL
HEAVY TO RM-20 RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY.

Item No. 5:   PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 11-17, 2014 AS “NATIONAL POLICE WEEK” IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS.

Recommendation:   That the City Council officially proclaim the week of May 11-17, 2014 at “National Police Week” in the City of Cypress. 

Item No. 7:   REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-13, A CITY-INITIATED PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE T-MOBILE PORTION OF AN EXISTING MONOPINE-TYPE ANTENNA CO-LOCATION FACILITY LOCATED AT 4129 BALL ROAD WITHIN THE CG COMMERCIAL ZONE.

Recommendation:   That the City Council receive and file this report.

Item No. 8:   REVIEW OF INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2014.

Recommendation:   That the City Council receive and file the Investment Report for the month of March, 2014.

Item No. 9:   APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL WARRANT LIST AND WIRE TRANSFERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 FOR WARRANTS NO. 29758 THROUGH 29891.

Recommendation:   That the City Council approve the attached warrant register and wire transfers for Fiscal Year 2013-14.

Recreation and Park District Matters:

Item No. 10:  APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE SENIOR TAXI VOUCHER PROGRAM. 

Recommendation:   That the City Council, acting as the ex-officio governing Board of Directors for the Cypress Recreation and Park District: 1) Appropriate funds in the amount of $2,000 from the unassigned fund balance of the District’s General Fund to the Recreation and Park District’s Senior Citizens’ Transportation Services account 212-90318.4187_036; and 2) Approve the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Contract Services Agreement between the City and California Yellow Cab for the Senior Taxi Voucher Program to reflect changes made to Section 2.0 related to compensation.

Regarding Item No. 6:  APPROVAL OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AND AUTHORIZE THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES CONSULTING FIRM SLOAN VAZQUEZ TO RELEASE THE RFP TO SOLICIT RESPONSES, Mayor Mills spoke of the benefits of a single-pass collection system capability and asked if the Request for Proposal (RFP) could be amended to include consideration for that option. 

Mr. Enrique, Sloan Vazquez responded in the affirmative and stated that the single-pass collection system had not been considered due to it being tried and eventually abandoned because it actually creates more trips because of the different weighted trash items and the collection volume of those items.  He stated that few cities practice that system mostly due to it being politically driven rather than efficiency driven.  He stated that there is an alternate single-pass collection system whereby the trash materials are not separated until taken to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).  He stated that in the commercial proposal there is an option for a dirty MRF processing.  He indicated that the City would have to implement the programs committed with the State. 

Mr. Joe Sloan, Sloan Vazquez, stated that there are numerous Bay Area cities that use the single-pass collection system and that it would be most efficient if there was a location in the middle of the collection area where both payloads could be dumped.  He commented that past practice indicated that waste division of the single-pass collection system was highly inaccurate, creating additional trips. 

Mayor Mills commented that the City of Oakland has had success and money savings with the single-pass collection system. 

Council Member Narain asked about the timeframe of the two citywide household hazardous waste collection events. 

Mr. Vazquez responded that there would be two household hazardous waste collection events per year. 

Council Member Narain asked about e-waste collection for single-family dwellings.

Mr. Sloan responded that e-waste is included in the bulky item collection section.

Mr. Vazquez stated that the term bulky item has become a common phrase to include e-waste and items that cannot be disposed of with the regular trash. 

Council Member Narain stated that in the workshop discussion, e-waste was not part of bulky item pick-up and should be a separate item. 

Council Member Narain stated that he has found discrepancies with the RFP, and asked if City staff had reviewed it. 

Mr. Sloan stated that the City Council has been provided with Sloan Vazquez’s best professional opinion and that they would proceed as directed.  He stated that e-waste disposal could be listed and cost separately in the RFP. 

Mr. Vazquez clarified that bulky item pick-up is a service to single-family dwellings and that multi-family dwellings are listed as an additional charge proposal.  He clarified that the RFP presented to the City Council tonight is not a final document, and that the City Council has the opportunity to provide input and direction at this time. 

Council Member Narain stated that there are 12 bulky item pick-ups per year and that e-waste collection could be for small items. 

Council Member Bailey asked Council Member Narain if his desire is to have bulky item collection regularly or curb-side service for e-waste. 

Council Member Narain suggested that e-waste collections be held on a more regular schedule yearly such as once a quarter. 

Mr. Vazquez stated that e-waste could be done in conjunction with the twice yearly hazardous waste roundup or more frequently, if City Council so desires. 

Council Member Yarc stated that it was discussed previously that e-waste collections would not be done too frequently as to allow fundraising e-waste collection opportunities for the non-profit organizations. 

Council Member Narain asked about the non-profit organizations working cooperatively with the trash hauler. 

Mr. Vazquez stated that many trash haulers have their own arrangements and agreements for working with the non-profit organizations. 

Council Member Narain requested that a twice per year e-waste collection be included with the hazardous waste collection, as per Section 3.1.1.5 Household Hazardous Waste Collection. 

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked about enhancements that were discussed at the workshop such as extra trucks and impact fees. 

Mr. Vazquez indicated that the City Council should clarify their desires with regard to enhancements, as per Section 3.12.4 Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee. 

Council Member Yarc stated that she has concerns with the Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee and the Annual Water Pollution Prevent Fee, and stated that they look as though they are hidden taxes to citizens.  She stated that some are necessary and that she has asked Sloan Vazquez to find out what local cities are doing about these taxes.  She stated that the former contract had a franchise fee based on a percentage for commercial and residential.  She stated that it appears that it would now be a flat fee and that the City would receive $560,000 per year as a franchise fee, which seems high but is what was received last year in order to cover incidental expenses incurred by the City related to the trash such as staff time and street damage, and that it is customary in most cities’ contracts.  She stated that there would be an administrative fee in that the City would be paid $125,000 to reimburse for this process and a billing reimbursement of $28,000. 

Council Member Yarc stated that Section 3.12.3 Annual Compliance and Performance Audit Fee indicates that the City shall pay $25,000 annually for a potential audit, which has not been done for several years.  She stated that as a City Council Member she has no objection to the City obtaining monies for the benefit of the community, however as a resident she has concerns with the fees.  She stated that the roadway fee would be $156,250 annually in addition to the annual $54,750 water pollution prevention fee.  She commented that the City would be making $800,000 plus annually and asked if those fees would be rolled into residential rates. 

Mr. Sloan stated that the fees would be rolled into the service costs.  He indicated that the roadway maintenance fee and the water pollution prevention fee are not unusual and that there are municipalities that have invoked those fees.  He commented that none of the adjoining cities have that fee, however the cities of Fountain Valley and Brea have both of the fees, along with several cities in the Bay Area. 

Council Member Yarc asked if the fees were in the last contract. 

Mr. Sloan responded no, and indicated that it is anticipated that the rates would be favorable due to the competitive process, and that if the franchise fees remained the same, it would be a significant revenue decrease to the City.  He assured that the $560,000 franchise fee is average among Orange County cities and that roadway fee and water pollution prevention fee amounts are placeholders in lieu of single-axle payload calculations that would have to be done based on real time data which would not be determined until the hauler selection has been made. 

The City Attorney stated that the roadway fee was a staff motivated item and that concerns were raised with regard to an adverse impact on the life of City streets.  He spoke of a study done by another consultant, whereby the impact calculations were measured.  He stated that is it not a hidden tax of Cypress residents who are paying for street maintenance to have a fee built into its rate structure in order to maintain a certain level of service.  He indicated that this fee is intended to be a revenue neutral measure to cover the costs of the impact of multiple trucks on a weekly basis on City streets in order to source recycle. 

Council Member Bailey stated that he did attend the workshop and that a lot of time was spent on the evaluation criteria and that alternative evaluation percentages were presented by Council Member Narain.  He indicated that Council Member Narain also presented the alternative franchise fee, and that he does not remember discussing a roadway fee or a water pollution prevention fee.  He stated that he does not support the establishment of a separate new fee, however he would support encompassing all of the fees as a franchise fee. 

Council Member Yarc indicated that she was informed that the $560,000 franchise fee would be for the roadways and that it would cover incidental costs related to the franchise contract.  She stated that her understanding was that price would be the number one priority with State regulation compliance the next priority. 

The City Attorney stated that at the conclusion of the workshop, traffic impact fees were discussed.  He clarified that the contract would increase from two trucks every other week to three trucks every week and that there would be significant impact on the roadways.  He stated that the cost of that many trucks be included into the franchise fee, however in terms of transparency, a scientific analysis is recommended.  He stated that for an estimated $7,500 an independent study could be done to measure the roadway impact. 

The Interim City Manager clarified that the increase in the franchise fee is due to doubling the number of truck vehicle miles on residential streets and that $560,000 includes administration for street work, and that there would be additional costs to the City.  He stated that the question is how to pay for that additional annual cost impact. 

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked about fuel sales tax that is used for roads, and the monetary benefits of Measure M2. 

The City Attorney responded that that net income would be part of the calculation from which the roadway impact would be measured. 

Council Member Narain asked if the fees would be revenue neutral or profitable for the City, or if they are unnecessary charges. 

The Interim City Manager replied that the goal is to be cost neutral, whereby the revenues and the costs would match up.  He stated that there may be times that the City makes money and that the audit may cost more than the $25,000 annual set aside.  He stated that the roadway fee and water pollution prevention fee are based on costs with an analysis depicting that there is a cost attached to those fees. 

Council Member Bailey commented that the numbers are place holders and that consideration should be given to allow for amendments to the franchise fee.  He expressed concerns with the establishment of two new forms of fees which still does not address the administrative fee.  He stated that Sloan Vazquez’s fee was originally $75,000 and now it appears to be $125,000, and he asked about the additional $50,000. 

The City Attorney stated that the administrative fee includes the consultant’s hours, staff hours, and City Attorney hours. 

Mr. Sloan stated that $50,000 has been added into the administrative fee that is not being paid to Sloan Vazquez for staff hours and City Attorney hours.  He stated that, prior to the workshop, the Public Works Director requested consideration for roadway impact fees that were erroneously omitted by Sloan Vazquez.  He stated that the City Council could choose to include or not include the impact fees. 

Council Member Yarc expressed concern with justifying new charges and that no other surrounding cities have those charges which would be incurred by the residents. 

The Interim City Manager clarified that following staff’s review of the proposals, Sloan Vazquez would be expected to incorporate into the final proposal amendments such as sales tax language, impact fees, and the park facilities to be serviced.  He stated that possible concerns include matching up a City contract with this contract as it relates to liability, and requested that Sloan Vazquez provide an explanation as to blank areas in the proposal for liquidated damages.  He stated that after conferring with the City Attorney, that further changes be permitted prior to the release of the final document. 

The City Attorney stated that the RFP has been refined and that it is brought to the City Council for consideration of additions and deletions, and that the language needs to be strengthened.  He stated that attached to the Agenda Report is a sample franchise agreement that would have to be negotiated with a successful collector.  He indicated that there is a standard form agreement typically used in professional services agreements with two provisions of a standard service agreement that are not found in the collection agreement that the City Council should be aware of.  He indicated that a professional services vendor would be required to provide errors and omissions insurance, which would not be required of this type of service.  He stated that it is standard in agreements that there be a termination for convenience provision and that the consultant is recommending against it, of which he does not object, however it is important for the City Council to be aware of. 

The City Attorney indicated that if the City Council has concerns with add-on fees and possible adverse effects, the City Council could direct the consultant to amend the RFP except for the basic franchise fee to indicate that the City is considering imposing a fee for the services, what the proposed fee would be and the basis for the calculation.  He stated that these numbers are not intended to be profit making for the City and that there will be a Proposition 218 process in an abundance of caution.  He stated that the City Council has the final decision with regard to impact fees, and that if the City Council is in general pleased with the RFP, a motion should be made to release it subject to City staff and the City Attorney working with the consultant on final language, with a section added for residential e-waste, deletion or rewording of the section regarding audit fees and traffic impact fees to consider them conceptually without proposing a dollar amount.  He indicated that the City Council could request that the process be started over, if that is within their purview. 

Council Member Bailey recommended the removal of Section 3.12.4 Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee and Section 3.12.5 Annual Water Pollution Prevention Fee, and the amendment of Section 3.12.3 Annual Compliance and Performance Audit Fee to include verbiage that if an audit was to be done, those costs would be incurred by the hauler.  He expressed concern with the one-time $125,000 reimbursement to the City for its staff time and out-of-pocket costs incurred in awarding this franchise, as stated in Section 3.12.1 Administrative Fee. 

The City Attorney responded that if the City Council is not willing to recover staff time, there could be a fee to negotiate reimbursement of City staff time that would be billed separately, with the City made whole from all of its out-of-pocket costs associated with the procurement process.

Mayor Mills stated that the sections add a breakdown of cost visibility and that he disagrees with their elimination. 

Council Member Yarc clarified that the City Attorney’s suggestion was for the franchise fee to remain the same and that she agreed with the City Attorney’s language suggestions.  She stated that she does not want the rates affected by costs. 

Mayor Mills asked for clarification on the City Attorney’s language with regard to the single-family dwelling billing reimbursement and the annual compliance performance audit. 

The City Attorney responded that his language suggestion would be, “the City anticipates an annual audit” and not delete the paragraphs.  He clarified that the questions to the hauler would be if they were willing to pay for such an audit and what a reasonable fee would be. 

Mayor Mills agreed to the City Attorney’s suggested language. 

The City Attorney stated that the additional fees could be rewritten in more generic terms and Sloan Vazquez could state what the fees would be if added to the rate. 

Mr. Vazquez stated that they agree with having Section 3.12.4 Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee and Section 3.12.5 Annual Water Pollution Prevention Fee as potential offers by the proposers.  He stated that if a cost is known it is beneficial to state it in the proposal so that it could be priced better.  He encouraged real pricing and that if the pricing is not known, then the proposer could offer a proposal. 

Council Member Yarc asked for clarification on the memorandum regarding anticipated roadway costs from the Public Works Director. 

The Public Works Director stated that costs were not calculated and that there are concerns with the impact of trash trucks on the residential roads, and that the arterials are designed for heavy-duty truck impacts.  He spoke of the importance of conducting an impact analysis at a cost of $7,500 and stated that approximately $800,000 is budgeted in the City’s General Fund for preventative residential road maintenance. 

Council Member Bailey asked about the road impacts from trash trucks versus large mail package delivery trucks. 

The Public Works Director replied that a trash truck is equivalent to 9,400 cars and a large package delivery truck is equivalent to 442 cars. 

Council Member Yarc asked what the current franchise fees are used towards. 

The Interim City Manager stated that a portion of the franchise fees go towards the $800,000 annual residential street maintenance. 

Council Member Bailey asked about gas tax funds.

The Interim City Manager stated that gas tax funds are used for the arterial roads. 

The Public Works Director stated that most of the gas tax funds and Measure M2 funds are used for arterial roads and that the residential component of the dedicated General Fund has helped to keep the roads maintained.  He stated that the proposed impact fees would merely be preservation of the roads.

Council Member Bailey stated that he is not receptive to Section 3.12.4 Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee and Section 3.12.5 Annual Water Pollution Prevention Fee.  He stated that those fees should be included within the franchise fee. 

The City Attorney clarified that the City Council would authorize the consultant to issue the RFP with the incorporated additional comments from staff and legal counsel, including semi-annual residential e-waste events.  He stated that Section 3.12.1 Administrative Fee would be rewritten so that the City recovers its out-of-pocket costs; Section 3.12.2 Franchise Fee would remain the same; Section 3.12.3 Single Family Dwelling Billing Reimbursement would remain the same; Annual Compliance and Performance Audit Fee shall be rewritten generically to include that the City is considering a semi-annual or periodic audit of compliance with the franchise agreement, if so, what amount would be contributed towards the cost of the audit; Section 3.12.14 Annual Roadway Maintenance Fee would indicate that the City conduct an impact study of three trash trucks weekly on residential streets and is considering imposing a maintenance fee, and if the proposer would be willing to reimburse the City its actual impact costs as calculated, and if yes, how much would be contributed towards that; and Section 3.12.5 Annual Water Pollution Prevention Fee could be rewritten generically to state that the City is considering the fee and if the proposer would be willing to reimburse the City its actual impact costs as calculated, and if yes, how much would be contributed. 

Council Member Bailey suggested that Section 3.12.3 Annual Compliance and Performance Audit Fee include verbiage that the hauler shall pay the audit fee and that the audit be done every three years as per the RFP. 

The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. 

Mayor Mills asked if Sloan Vazquez understood the City Attorney’s language amendments. 

Mr. Vazquez responded in the affirmative.

The City Attorney stated that the agreement states that only minor changes would be made to the franchise agreement and that it may change depending upon City Council direction.  He stated that this is a template subject to detail negotiations upon award of contract. 

Mr. Vazquez stated that the contract would be subject to negotiations and that if it is substantial, the proposer may respond with a proposal modification.

The City Attorney stated that that would be a risk the proposer runs if there are substantial modifications. 

Mr. Vazquez stated that a termination for convenience and errors and omission is not recommended because the language states that the City may terminate in six years without reason and that pricing beyond that timeframe would not be obtained. 

The City Attorney responded that it is acceptable to the City. 

Mayor Mills asked if the errors with regard to the paragraph numbering would be corrected. 

Mr. Vazquez responded in the affirmative, and stated that they have done a quality check on all of the references and numbering. 

It was moved by Council Member Narain and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, that the City Council approve the Solid Waste and Recycling Services Request for Proposal (RFP), as amended, and authorize the solid waste and recycling services consulting firm, Sloan Vazquez, to release the RFP to solicit responses.

The motion was unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:        5    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   Bailey, Narain, Yarc, Johnson and Mills
NOES:        0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None
ABSENT:    0    COUNCIL MEMBERS:   None

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

NEW BUSINESS:

No items.

RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT MATTERS:  The Cypress City Council, Acting as the Ex Officio Governing Board of Directors.

No items.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MATTERSThe Cypress City Council, Acting as the Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency.

No items.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:  For Matters Not on the Agenda.

None.

ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Mayor Mills requested reports from the Council Members on their respective committee assignments.

Mayor Pro Tem Johnson:

Attended a PACE graduation at King Elementary School.  Attended a PACE graduation at Morris Elementary School.  Attended a Cypress Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors meeting.  Attended the Cypress Egg Hunt at Oak Knoll Park.  Attended the Orange County Fair City Mayor’s Breakfast.  Gave a Cypress City Hall tour for the Rose Parade representatives.  Attended the Cypress High School Marching Band fundraiser.  Attended the Cypress Employee Service Award luncheon.  Attended an Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors meeting.  Attended Earth Day events at Cypress Nature Park.  Attended the Volunteer Recognition at the Cypress Senior Citizens Center.  Attended the Donate Life Run/Walk at California State University Fullerton.  Congratulated Roberta O’Toole on her Volunteer Service Award and Woman’s Club of Cypress Woman of Distinction recognitions.  Stated that Tim and Linda Keenan will be the Lifetime Achievement Award recipients from the Cypress Chamber of Commerce.  Congratulated George Hallak on his Grace Lachina Award recognition. 

Council Member Yarc:

Attended a League of California Cities Policy Committee meeting.  Attended the Cypress High School Marching Band fundraiser.  Attended a Cypress College Board meeting.  Attended the Volunteer Recognition at the Cypress Senior Citizens Center.

Council Member Narain:

Attended the City of Artesia State of the City address.  Attended the Cypress High School Marching Band fundraiser.  Attended the Cypress Employee Service Award luncheon.  Attended an Orange County Sanitation District Board meeting.  Attended the Volunteer Recognition at the Cypress Senior Citizens Center.

Mayor Mills:

Attended a Mayors Roundtable with California State University Fullerton.  Attended a League of California Cities General Membership meeting.  Attended the Cypress High School Marching Band fundraiser.  Attended the Cypress Employee Service Award luncheon.  Attended an Orange County Council of Governments Board of Directors meeting.  Participated in the American Democracy Project at California State University Fullerton.  Attended the Kentucky Derby favorite California Chrome press conference.  Participated in the Cypress Juried Art Show.  Commended Oxford Academy for being ranked number 33 in the Washington Post’s most challenging high school.  Announced the May 26th Memorial Day event at Cypress Forest Lawn.

ITEMS FROM INTERIM CITY MANAGER: 

The Interim City Manager stated that there have been concerns with regard to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scams and he asked that the Chief of Police provide an update on that issue. 

The Chief of Police stated that there is a pervasive telephone scam occurring with the caller saying they are from the IRS with the hopes of stealing money or the identity of the victims.  She stated that this would be a Federal crime and that incidents should be reported to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. 

The Mayor stated he has also received scam e-mails pretending to be from American Express. 

The Chief of Police responded that that is referred to as a phishing scam, which would not be done by a legitimate business. 

ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Mills adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m. to Monday, May 12, 2014, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Board Room.

_______________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

ATTEST:

___________________________________
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

City of Cypress Department of Administration ~ 5275 Orange Avenue ~ Cypress, CA 90630 ~ 714-229-6780