Loading...
CC - 02-13-96• 0 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 13, 1996 CITY Oi' RO^EMGAD DATE a GY The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Vasquez at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Bruesch The Invocation was delivered by Councilmember Taylor ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, and Mayor Vasquez Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Clark - excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 23, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 1996, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: Clark Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, addressed the problem of vagrants sleeping on private property at the corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue. Mr. Nunez noted that street vendors are selling their wares from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Evelia Curial, 2731 Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, representing M.A.S.O. from San Gabriel High School, thanked the Council for allowing their organization to hold a dance at the Rosemead Community Center on Saturday, February 17th. Ms. Curial explained that this club helps hispanic students with tutoring and other problems that arise. She then invited the Council to attend the dance. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-05 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 96-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $803,723.27 NUMBERED 15436 THROUGH 15658 CC 2-13-96 Page #1 Councilmember Taylor requested information on Check No. 15491, $2000.00 to Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that this was payment for legal services for the OII lawsuit. Councilmember Taylor questioned why Country Village Car Wash is invoicing the City in February with charges dating back to June through November, 1995. Mr. Tripepi responded that that is their method of billing and will provide Council with a copy of the carwash sign-in sheet that City employees sign listing the date, license plate number, and unit number when washing the vehicles. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 96-05 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: Clark Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEM CC-D REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGISLATIVE DELEGATE AND LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 22-23, 1996, SACRAMENTO CC-B 1996-97 BUDGET CALENDAR CC-C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MID-YEAR BUDGET REALLOCATION (CDBG) CC-E ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED FOR STREET PURPOSES - 3133 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: Clark Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-D APPROVAL OF REVISED SECTION 3 PLAN VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. This particular item, I know we're caught over a barrel with it...$2 million, as far as this business about "no strings attached" or following federal regulations. This to me is a primary example of what the federal government is trying to do when it says they are going to return local control, as far as the money that is collected by Washington. Since they can't manage it, and as far as I'm concerned, they've really fouled up the process. They are saying return the money to local control. Well, let them. They know best how to spend the money. But, on page 4 of this particular Section 3 plan, I want to read the statement here, second paragraph from the bottom... "facilitating the training and employment of Section 3 residents and the award of contracts to Section 3 business concerns. The City of Rosemead has established as a reasonable numerical goal for the training and employment of Section 3 residents to be ten (10) percent of the aggregate number of hires for each year over the duration of the Section 3 project." And then the example, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's 10% for fiscal year 1995, then goes to 20% for fiscal year 1996, and then it goes to 30% for fiscal year 1997. The examples that were CC 2-13-96 Page #2 0 • given, basically the 10%, that's just for the first year. Then the next year we go to 20% and the next year we go to 30%. There have been a couple of lawsuits filed about these affirmative action contracts where contractors have been excluded because they were not of a minority status and such. My understanding is that a couple of those have won their lawsuits. But what the outcome is going to be, I don't know yet. But working in the construction and supervision aspect of it for over 30 years, I know that contractors when they bid jobs, they bid it for their staff to do the work. Under these requirements, in two years they would have to hire 30% of local residents. Is that what it's going to be? Is that what they are going to have to do in two years? LISA BAKER, CDBG COORDINATOR: No. This is only for new hires. For example if they have their regular crew ...it does not reflect on their regular crew, but only new hires. The percentages that the City of Rosemead has stated as being reasonable limits are the minimums. TAYLOR: That is 30% in two years. BAKER: The minimum is outlined in the federal regulations. In addition, it should be noted they are targets, not absolutes. The City doesn't make mandates and it talks about the things to increase Section 3 participation. TAYLOR: But, they can and might be audited to see if they fulfill the plan. BAKER: If, indeed... right. TAYLOR: Where does it say here that this is not going to be a requirement. BAKER: They are in the regulations which are attached to the back... TAYLOR: What page is it on and where does it say they do not have to meet this 30%? BAKER: Well, they want you to meet the 30%, but they are stopping short of saying it's a mandate. TAYLOR: They never do say it's a mandate. They just put it in and say you will do the 30% - make up the plan and if we want to audit you, we will. If we have time to audit you, we will. But the point I'm trying to make is that I know that contractors, when they bid a job they bring their people in to do the work and somebody comes and complains, such as a couple of the news events in the past couple of nights where Affirmative Action or ACLU challenges some of the rulings that, "Hey, you're discriminating." My point is that contractors, if they have to replace 30%...and again, I didn't see in here where it said that they can bring their crews in. BAKER: It's only new hires. If you look at the examples, it will say how many new hires... TAYLOR: Where in the actual proposal does it state that, not in the examples. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: You don't want the exhibits, Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: No. I want to know right where ...in the regulations itself where it states that it only applies to new hires. BAKER: On page 7 you'll see is the number of new hires anticipated will be needed for the project. If you have those new hires, then they would not be subject to Section 3 requirements. TAYLOR: This is page 7. BAKER: Page 7, last contract before the example CC 2-13-96 Page #3 • • COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH: Basically what this is saying is that if there are jobs, mainly because of these contracts, that those jobs should go to local people who are needing jobs. BAKER: It should be noted that it's not a program targeted strictly at minority folks so much as low to moderate income folks who reside within the City who would be able to be hired in order to participate in the Block Grant dollars. It is just kind of trying to return the jobs, this is the federal governments intent, jobs and dollars to low to moderate folks who are living in the City, if you're hiring new staff. TAYLOR: OK. Now, clarify this..."If a contractor does not identify the creation of any 'new hires,' the contractor will be encouraged to utilize Section 3 business concerns to meet minimum numerical goals." So, if there's no new hires, what does encourage the, and I take this to be the subcontractors of this general contractor as the example, that the concern will be met with the Section 3 business. BAKER: Section 3 business is actually referred to local businesses within the City from which a contractor would be purchasing supplies such as lumber, nails, tools. TAYLOR: OK. Then what requirement does he have for low-income local residents. BAKER: They will have a descending order and prefer the business be located in an eligible block grant, eligible statistical district. We have low and moderate census tracts. Section 3 business would be located there and or employ people who would reside in one of those census tracts and would be low and moderate income. It would mean that then a contractor doing a job in the City of Rosemead would be encouraged to hire a local firm which was in a low to moderate area in order to give business to that local firm in that particular area. TAYLOR: Would be encouraged or required to hire? BAKER: If he's not hiring subs, then he's encouraged to use local businesses so he can meet his 10% through new hires or be encouraged to use local businesses. TAYLOR: The other side of it is contracting business. When you put out requests for bids, that is just the next level, as you might say, where contractors are comfortable with four or five subcontractors that they work with. They know that they can trust them also. It's not really a matter of trust in the sense that they know they have the ability to get it done. To me it's kind of a ripple effect - now we'll go to the subcontractors to meet the requirements. I use the term subcontractor and here they just state it as "business concerns". But, to me it's a ripple effect that now they're going to impose 30% on the new hires. If you don't "new hire" your own crew, we're going to pass it on to your next level or subcontractors in the business aspect that will have the same 30%. Is that correct? BAKER: It essentially means if the contractor chose to use the Section 3 business concern, it would mean that 70% of his contract supply purchases, for example, would come from someplace besides the City of Rosemead or in the City but outside the census tract. TAYLOR: But, then that, again, takes away the process of low bidding. BAKER: You're not going to exclude bids, we're going to look at the aggregate. If for example, they come in low and are located in the City, they would be encouraged to use that. TAYLOR: When the contractor bids though, he's responsible to get the lowest bid in order to even get the job. The question and problem I have is that now they have to meet all these requirements, that they can't even get qualified subcontractors that they know and work with because now they have to come in and say, "Gee, now I've got to have the other contractors bidding it, and, hopefully, if they're low they qualify". BAKER: I understand. TAYLOR: It's a dilemma and all I see in two years from now is 30% being met one way or the other. We've just had problems with switching over from the County because, what is it Frank, they wanted something like $400,000 back. CC 2-13-96 Page #4 • • TRIPEPI: I think it's about $286,000. TAYLOR: I can't vote for it in the sense that now they are sticking quotas in here and, again, it's bureaucratic "nose butting" where I don't think they belong. Without elaborating on it, I intend to vote No on it for that reason. MAYOR VASQUEZ: Do I have a motion? BRUESCH: So move. IMPERIAL: Second. Vote taken from voting slip: Yes: Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: Clark Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so moved. COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL: Let the record show that I agree with what Gary Taylor said, but we don't need to stop the project from going forward. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would like the comments in there verbatim. I made the opening comment that I know it's $2 million involved here and the fact is this is what the federal government is going to do when they return local control. They'll give you the money, but you've got to follow their program or they are going to take it away from you. They don't want to take the heat. They want to make the local officials take it and they'll sit on their derriere in Washington and say you better do it or we're going to keep your money. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. Let's face it, Rosemead still has suffered from unemployment through the nose. CDBG grants go those areas and anytime we can squeeze new jobs available to those types of people in those areas where unemployment is highest, I think we should go for it. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. When I went into other areas living in the City of Rosemead, they tried to get me fired because I wasn't in that area. So, when you talk about trade offs of who is working where, somebody loses their job, possibly to meet a quota and I personally was subjected to it. So, I know what I'm talking about. VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS A. LORICA STREET UPDATE Councilmember Taylor requested that Lorica Street improvement project be on the next agenda as 12 out of 19 property owners responded favorably to reconstruction. Mr. Taylor stated that if the absentee landlords do not want their property fixed up, then he is in favor of condemning it to improve the street. He continued that the City is improving that street without taking any of their property. Councilmember Imperial requested a status report of Highcliff Street be placed on the next agenda. Councilmember Taylor requested that the Highcliff report include the number of block walls and ornamental iron fences the Council has approved. Mr. Taylor continued that his only objection to the project is the unfairness of giving those four or five property owners elaborate fences and walls which the other neighbors did not receive. CC 2-13-96 Page #5 B. LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AT ZAPOPAN PARK Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, stated that he spoke with the manager at Beach's Market who was going to trim the yucca plants where the transients gather, however, they are still congregating at that area. Councilmember Bruesch reported that parents at his school have noticed the absence of the vagrants at the park and are very appreciative. Councilmember Imperial recited a history of the vagrants congregating patterns and stressed the necessity that management or security officers at the various properties call the Sheriff's Department to report any problems. V. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. SB 805 (MONTEITH) COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES Mayor Vasquez stated that this bill expands the size of the Commission from 5 to 7 with the new public members being a councilmember and a member of a county board of supervisors. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL that the Council support SB 805 and direct staff to send the necessary correspondence. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: Clark Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, asked about the recycling pickup process concerning newspapers and the colored pamphlets inserted within them. Mr. Nunez stated that he observed his neighbors throwing the pamphlets into the regular trash cans and asked if those trucks go directly to the dump. Jeff Stewart, Executive Director, explained that all the trash goes to the recycling center in Santa Fe Springs where it is separated prior to hauling it to the dump. Councilmember Taylor stated that on two occasions he observed the green waste being dumped in with the regular trash. Councilmember Bruesch reported that at Kirko, two car delivery trucks arrive simultaneously. One truck parks in the median and the other at the corner in the red zone creating a visual hazard at that intersection. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on February 27, 1996, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk CC 2-13-96 Page #6