1994 AGN AUG 02 I29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AGENDA REPORT City Council Meeting July 27, 1994 establishment of a city-wide refuse hauling program. It does not appear that such a report or recommendation has yet come before the Council. On April 4, 1990, written notice of the City's intention to terminate all existing refuse collection franchises was given. At the time that the notice was given, there were six franchised refuse haulers within the City. Over the next year or so, three franchisees were terminated for failure to comply with existing regulations. Amendment of City Refuse Collection Ordinance At the City Council meeting on November 5, 1991, Ms. Stratton recommended adoption of certain amendments to the City's refuse collection ordinance. The amendments essentially created a "freeze" on all refuse haulers in the City with regard to acquisition of new business. At this time, the City had also been advised by Mr. Steven DeBaun at Best, Best & Krieger that there was a way to short-cut the five year notice requirement. Based upon that advice, Ms. Stratton recommended accelerating the termination of all private haulers to January 1, 1992, more than three years sooner than the original notice had provided. Mr. Steve Berry, representing Loma Linda Disposal, Inc. (a BFI company) spoke on behalf of his company opposing the proposed ordinance changes and abbreviated notice period. The minutes for the November 5,1991 Council meeting reflect the following: "Mr. Steve Berry, ... spoke to the City Council stating he has serviced the City of Colton for over 20 years with Loma Linda Disposal, Inc., and was hopeful that he could continue. Mr. Berry said the City gave a 5 -year notice and the company planned around that 5 -year time; now the City has revoked the 5 -year notice in just one and on -half years and informs us that we will be out of business in 64 days. Mr. Berry said this is not fair to us." The Council adopted the proposed ordinance revisions on the motion of Councilmember Cisneros, seconded by Councilmember Roman. Immediately following this action, Best, Best & Krieger was contacted by attorneys for BFI who contended that the City's action had been in error and that it was not possible for the City to accelerate the notice period required by California law. At that point, the issue was turned over to me at Best, Best & Krieger for additional legal research and analysis. Upon further review and consultation with City Attorney John Brown, we determined that Best, Best & Krieger's earlier legal advice had been incorrect and that the position taken by BFI that its franchise could only be terminated with five years notice was valid. Accordingly, the City was so advised and BFI's attorneys responded as follows: