Loading...
CC - Minutes - 04-08-2025MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 8, 2025 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta at 6:30 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT:, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Dang and Low ABSENT: Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly (excused) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): (1 potential case) City Attorney Richman announced she would report out of closed session at the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta recessed the special meeting at 6:34 p.m. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta at 7:12 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT:, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Dang and Low ABSENT: Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly (excused) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Low INVOCATION was led by Council Member Dang STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua, Director of Public Works Gutierrez, Director of Community Development Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, and City Clerk Hernandez Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 1 of23 City Attorney Richman stated there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session by the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine Pang, District Representative for the Office of Senator Sasha Renee -Perez stated the Senator's office was looking forward to working with the City and the Rosemead community. 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation Declaring April 2025 as "Fair Housing Month" in the City of Rosemead Alicia Nguyen, Outreach Coordinator for Fair Housing, accepted the proclamation. The City Council presented Ms. Nguyen the Fair Housing Proclamation. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low and seconded by Council Member Dang to approve the Consent Calendar Items A — E. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; Absent: Clark and Ly A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2025-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,981,298.26 CHECKS NUMBERED 118887 THROUGH NUMBER 118987, DRAFTS NUMBERED 7969 THROUGH NUMBER 7988 AND EFT NUMBERED 53139 THROUGH NUMBER 53186 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-18. B. Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the regular meeting minutes of March 25, 2025. C. Accept Completed Improvements and Authorize Filing of a Notice of Completion for City Project No. 41026 — Rosemead Park Restroom Renovations On November 12, 2024, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract to Bridgerock Construction, Inc. The total construction budget for the project, which included a 10% construction contingency, was $284,680.00. The project involved the renovation of deteriorated structures including installation of Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 2 of 23 ADA -compliant fixtures, restroom stalls, plumbing upgrades, interior surface modifications, and lighting improvements. During construction, several change orders were necessary due to unforeseen adjustments to an existing concrete masonry wall and the actual thickness of the existing concrete slab flooring that were not shown on the project plans. All contractual items, including the unforeseen change order, have been completed and accepted by city staff as substantially complete and the restrooms have been reopened to the public. However, after reopening, staff requested additional work to address a couple of maintenance concerns. These include closing an opening above the main gates that allows unauthorized access to the restrooms and modifying the flooring surface to reduce slipping. Notably, these additional tasks do not impact the project's completion date. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: Accept the substantial project completion for the Rosemead Park Restroom Renovation Adjacent to Aquatic Center — City Project No. 41026 as performed by Bridgerock Construction, Inc. with the final contract amount of $275,890.44; and 2. Authorize the recordation of Notice of Completion with the Los Angeles County Recorder and the release of retention funds 35 days thereafter. D. Accept Completed Improvements and Authorize Filing of a Notice of Completion for City Project No. 24009 — Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Concrete Replacements On December 10, 2024, the City Council authorized the award of a construction contract to CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. with a total construction budget of $390,487.08 (including 10% construction contingency). This project included removal and replacement of existing damaged sidewalks, damaged curb and gutter, non-compliant ADA curb ramps, damaged concrete crosswalk headers, and removal and replacement of existing trees that have caused damage to concrete infrastructure within the City's right-of-way. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Accept project completion for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Concrete Replacement Project No. 24009 as performed by CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. with the final contract amount of $386,125.29; and 2. Authorize the recordation of Notice of Completion with the Los Angeles County Recorder and the release of retention funds 35 days thereafter. E. 2025 NALEO 42nd Annual Conference — July 22nd — 24th, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia The City Council will consider authorizing the attendance of any Council Member who wishes to attend the 2025 NALEO 42nd Annual Conference in Atlanta, Georgia on July 22-24, 2025. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 3 of 23 Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the attendance and finance of any Council Member that wishes to attend the 2025 NALEO 42"d Annual Conference in Atlanta, Georgia on July 22-24, 2025. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions In 2024, the City engaged Public Sector Personnel Consultants to review and make recommendations to the compensation structure for all City positions and propose strategies for improvement. This report summarizes the study's findings and its connection to the recommended compensation adjustments. Additionally, staff recommends aligning below-market salaries with current market rates. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-20, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE SALARY SCHEDULE TO MEET THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 AND 571 TO REFLECT APPROVED RATES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD 3. Approval to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua introduced Kay Tisler from Public Sector Personnel Consultants who was going to present part of the presentation. He noted that Ms. Tisler has over 30 years of human resource experience and has been working with Public Sector Personnel Consultants for 20 years. Kay Tisler, of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, presented an overview of the survey objective, stating that the purpose of conducting a salary survey was to examine what other organizations were paying in order to gauge where the City of Rosemead stood in relation to the competitive marketplace in terms of both salary and benefits. The competitive marketplace was assessed based on employers that were in relative competition with the city, both in recruiting employees and potentially contributing to employee turnover. The compensation plan examined the external competitiveness of the City of Rosemead's compensation, while also considering internal equity, affordability, and sustainability as major components. The survey comparators included in the study were selected based on their proximity to the city, the level of competition they Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 4 of 23 presented in terms of the city's ability to recruit employees, and the extent to which they competed by recruiting employees away from the city. We considered where the City's employees were coming from and where they were going, as well as the similarity of services offered by other employers. When conducting a survey like this, the focus is on evaluating the value of each occupation and understanding where those occupations are situated within the market. We also examined where City employees live. To support this analysis, we created a heat map to visualize employee locations and identify whether there are other employers within commuting distance where these employees might potentially seek employment. The data gathered came directly from the selected comparator agencies. We contacted each comparator or obtained their salary structures and benefit plans. The City of Rosemead served as the basis for making comparisons. We reviewed the comparator organizations' org charts, budgets, and job descriptions to determine whether they had positions similar to those in the City of Rosemead. Rosemead was the reference point, and we examined all relevant documents from the comparators to identify matches to your job classifications. This allowed us to collect information on both base salary and benefits. The big question then once we've gathered the salary survey would be, well, where does the city of Rosemead want to be in relationship to those competitive employers? The methodology used focused on analyzing the salary range maximums. In discussions with the City of Rosemead, we reviewed their pay philosophy and strategy and determined that the salary survey would be based on maximum salary levels. This means we looked at the highest possible salary attainable for each job classification within the City and then collected the corresponding maximum salary data from the comparator agencies. This approach allowed for a direct comparison of maximum -to -maximum salary ranges. The prevailing market rate was then calculated by averaging the maximum salaries across all comparator agencies. So when saying prevailing rate or the market rate, it's the average for each of those job classes, all the maximums for each employer that are included in each individual job classification or benchmark. We analyzed the base maximum specifically, the highest salary attainable for each job classification and then added the City's contributions to employee benefits to calculate total compensation. We considered all major benefit components that typically contribute to total compensation, including medical, dental, and vision coverage. We evaluated how much each comparator city pays on behalf of the employee for these benefits. Recognizing that benefit plans often have multiple tiers, we focused on the maximum contribution each city would make, assuming the employee enrolled their entire family. Additionally, we included any deferred compensation offered by the comparator agencies as part of the total compensation analysis. In addition, added any allowances for auto and technology devices respectively. We know that many executive level classifications receive auto and technology allowances, which can sometimes be significant amounts of money. We also reviewed offerings related to bilingual certification, educational incentives, and longevity pay. These are what we Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 5 of 23 refer to as "big-ticket items", the types of compensation that can significantly impact the difference between base salary and the maximum salary attainable through additional incentive programs. The results from 16 comparators with a total of 55 positions, we were successful in benchmarking almost every one of the city's job classes. The ability to benchmark it, hinges on whether those 16 comparators have a comparable job class. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, or it may be something that's a blended job class. We looked at the City of Pasadena, their job class might not match the City of Rosemead sufficiently to say that it's really a comparable job. We were able to collect a substantial amount of market data for 55 positions. In total, the survey included data on over 639 comparable jobs, resulting in a robust database of competitor job information. When analyzing the data, the base compensation refers specifically to the value of the salary range maximums for each position. 18 of the benchmark job classifications were more than 5% below the market, representing approximately 33% of the survey sample. About half of the positions were found to be comparable when comparing base salary to base salary. Additionally, approximately 16% or nine positions were more than 5% above the market. Roughly, 67% of the jobs were at or ahead of the market when we compared just base compensation. When we added in the total compensation, the medical, dental, vision, the auto, where it was applicable, and then the incentive programs, certification, education, bilingual. We added the value of that, and we had a little bit of a shift, so the City of Rosemead does offer some very generous benefits. The number of positions that were more than 5% below market, there were 11 of them, approximately 26%. Within 5% of the market, the comparable job classes, we had 23, just over half. There were a few that are still ahead of the market by more than 5% when we look at the combined value of base compensation plus the benefits. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained about the number of positions that are below or above market by employee groups. The group that was impacted the most is the Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential, which was 74%, of the position classifications being below market with 17 below, six above. In the Rosemead Employee Association, there were 12 positions benchmarked, six are below market and six are above market on base compensation. The unrepresented Executive Management Group consists of seven positions, five are below market share, two are above. The unrepresented part-time, five below and eight above. Mr. Chua referenced slide no. 8 of the presentation, noting that the compensation survey results for the Executive group monthly rates compared to the market 5 positions below market, 2 positions above. The variance ranges anywhere between 9.3% above market for the City Clerk position to a negative 7.3% below market for the City Manager's position. Referring to slide no. 9, the compensation survey results for the Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential group, has 18 positions below market 6 above. The variance between the positions ranged anywhere from a negative 19.1 %, which is the Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 6 gj23 Human Resource Manager position and 7.1% above which is the Public Safety Supervisor. Slide No. 10, the compensation survey results for the Rosemead Employee Association has 6 positions below market, and 6 positions are above. The variance with this group was anywhere between plus 9.4% and negative 8.3%. The negative 8.3% was a Code Enforcement Officer position and the plus 9.4% is the Accounting Specialist. Slide No. 11 is the Part -Time group, the variance for these positions range from anywhere between plus 14%, which is the Office Specialist position, and negative 10.8%, which is the Youth Worker position. Ms. Tilser continued by explaining that vacation time is not necessarily considered part of total compensation, since employees must actually use the time off to receive the cash value. We did examine the amount of paid time off offered in the market and compared it to what Rosemead provides. To normalize the data, because each comparator offers vacation and adjusts accrual rates at different points (some at two years, others at seven), we used five-year increments for comparison. Specifically, looked at vacation accrual at one year, five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and beyond 20 years. The "20 -plus" category represents the maximum vacation accrual offered by each employer. Some organizations extend their accrual rates up to 30 years, providing different rates for very long-term employees. We compared these figures, and you can see a breakdown of vacation accrual by years of service (referring slide no. 12). For the first four service intervals, Rosemead is either ahead of or competitive with both the marketplace offerings and the market average. However, at the 20 -year mark, Rosemead begins to fall slightly below the average at approximately 10% less than what the market offers at that level. On Slide No. 13, she explained further that other leave accruals don't necessarily change based on years of service. The market average for sick was measured in hours per year and then holidays, the number of days per year. Rosemead was ahead of the market average on both of those. Personal hours the City does not offer, however, the market average per year was 24 hours, which would typically be three hours or three days. But when you look at how generous the sick and holidays are, that's not anything that requires any further attention to it, unless the city desires to offer personal time off. The exempt level employees, Administrative Management and Executives are expected to work salaried schedules and don't get the benefit of paid time off or overtime, they're afforded some management leave to make up for the overtime that they work. That is within the 5% parameter that Public Sector Personnel Consultants usually identifies as the threshold for competitiveness, the City of Rosemead is competitive in the management and admin level paid leave that is offered by the comparator employers. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua continued with the presentation stating that staff recommendation was based on the consultant's report and based on the data presented to increasing salaries below market level to attract and retain Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 7 of 23 qualified employees. It's going to impact 33 classifications covering 39 full-time and 8.5 full-time equivalent part-time positions, excluding the City Manager and City Clerk, it's going to help reduce turnover, boost morale, improved productivity and cut recruitment and training costs. What we are recommending to the City Council is to approve increases in the Mid -Management group, Part -Time group, and Executive group for those that are below market. For example, the Human Resources Manager was about 19% below market. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to receive an automatic 19% increase. Because when we create the new range, that's going to also create a new step system, and we currently have a 10 -step system for each position. So based on where they currently are in the step system, they're going to fall out of place within the new structure, so they would have to move incrementally and we're calculating anywhere between 0.01% to a 2.9% increase for those employees. The impacted employees will range anywhere from 0.3% to 2.9% for salary adjustment. Raises will depend on performance evaluations, tenure and other factors. For those positions that are above the market, we did want to maintain them at their current rates to maintain morale, fairness and competitiveness. So we're not recommending that those above market positions be reduced. Mr. Chua explained there were three recommendations for the council to consider, 1) to receive and file the city-wide total compensation study report. 2) Approve Resolution no. 2025-20, to amend the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions adjusting salary ranges to align below market classifications with market rates for the Executive Group, Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential Group, and the Part Time Group. 3) Since the Rosemead Employee Association is a bargaining unit, we would have to meet and confer about the salary adjustment and come back to the City Council at a later time after we had met with the union. Mayor Armenta asked for clarification about the correction noted to the Youth Worker about the $16.60 on the chart of page 6 of 8 of the staff report. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that the $16.60 was the current rate for the Youth Worker. The proposed revised schedule had a maximum rate, that when calculated backwards, should have a start step of $16.60, instead of $16.65 that is on the proposed chart. The compensation study just took a look the position maximums. The current chart excludes steps two to five, and the current rate of $16.60 is considered the maximum. On the proposed table, steps two to five are included, which now provides for a maximum hourly rate of $18.39 to align with the markets. City Manager Kim clarified that the current maximum for the Youth Worker position is $16.60, and staff recommendation is based on the salary to amend that $16.60 to a new maximum of $18.39 based on the salary survey. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta reiterated that the proposed chart has $16.60 and added steps to reach $18.39. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated that every single position outside of the Youth Worker has steps. A Youth Worker is an entry level position Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 8 of 23 that a lot of times they're only in step 1, and they transition into other positions within the organization like parks and recreation. Council Member Dang asked for clarification of staff recommendation no. 3. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that staff could not ask for approval of salary adjustments to the Rosemead Employee Association yet. City Manager Kim interjected and explained that the city has three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUS). The first MOU is the Executive group, which are the directors. The second is the Executive and the Middle Management Professional Confidential group, which neither is represented as part of a union, therefore the City Council has the discretion to approve the resolution amending the salary ranges. However, the third group, which is a general employee, is the Rosemead Employee Association, which is represented are a unionized group. Before we can make the salary adjustment, the union rules require that the City meet and confer and solicit their consent before bringing it back. Because we haven't done the meet and confer, and we're bringing it to the City Council for the first time, we're not able to approve a resolution amending their salary range at this time until we meet and confer with the union group. Council Member Dang stated he had difficulty with the idea of a meet and confer with the union group after the information has already been presented. City Attorney Richman stated that a resolution for the union group is something that will be approved again by the City Council. But as a part of the meet and confer negotiation process, we can't just impose it because then that could be considered not negotiating in good faith. Council Member Dang stated that normally there are discussions with the union in closed session with the proposals or recommendations and Council reviews that in closed session. He inquired why this could not be the same process as before. He said that now the Council was sharing the information too early in the negotiation process. City Manager Kim explained that the salary adjustment to bring the positions up to market rate was not a request by the Rosemead Employee Association or the union group. This effort was started by him as his authority as a City Manager, which is noted in the Municipal Code to look at employee salaries and recommend adjustments to the City Council. That's why we did not discuss or did not have a meet and confer prior to that because it wasn't a request by the union. Secondly, out of respect for the City Council, he noted he wanted to bring this to the City Council first to get the Council's feedback on the salary survey and the results and seek direction from the City Council. City Attorney Richman stated that the second item, the City Manager was trying to indicate, were adjustments that would be made outside of the meet and confer process can be discussed and determined, but the rest would just be as part of the meet and confer. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 1015 Page 9 of 23 Council Member Dang reiterated that item number two, the unrepresented group, he would have much preferred a meeting with the unions first and then have the salary presentation come afterward. He references it's like having the horse before the cart. Mr. Dang noted that the Council was showing their cards before the negotiations with the union. It just seems out of sequence. City Manager Kim stated that staff were not negotiating at this point, only conducting the salary survey equitably for every single position, and we're bringing the salary survey to City Council as a matter of to discuss. Later on, the meet and confer is not a matter of negotiating with the REA group but rather disclosing or talking to them about the salary survey and request feedback on moving forward. There's no negotiation. The negotiations with the REA are coming up and that's a separate process. Council Member Dang stated as an example, illustration to make his point clear. Suppose Council approved every single item on the list, and as a result, an individual ends up receiving, a 15% increase in compensation. The salary range itself is increasing by 15%. During negotiations, the employee also requests a cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) of an additional 5%. Within the same year, an individual could receive a 15% increase from the range adjustment, plus another 5% from COLA. Altogether, that's a substantial increase of 20% in total which is quite significant. City Manager Kim clarified that employees are not receiving a 15% increase. The timing overlaps with the upcoming MOU negotiations but believed this needs to be viewed separately. The salary survey report is not about negotiating COLA, benefits, or any other part of the compensation structure. Its sole purpose is to review the current salary ranges for every position in the City of Rosemead. The last time the City conducted such a review was 15 years ago, so it's long overdue. The report simply presents findings to the Council, showing which positions are below market, which are above, and which are in line. The ask is to adjust the salary ranges of those positions that are currently below market, bringing them up to market level. This process is separate from any negotiations and is about ensuring the pay structure is competitive and current. Council Member Dang stated Mr. Kim was within his rights to bring this to the Council's attention. He also supports the efforts to ensure that the City is staying competitive in the market. Where he expressed different opinions on the idea of a giving blanket approval based solely on a consultant's report. By "blanket approval," adopting the recommendations across the board just because the consultant categorized positions as above or below market using their data model. The second concern was about the broader market conditions. We're entering a period where some cities are even considering layoffs, and in that context made him cautious about making across-the-board blanket approval. From the perspective of our residents looking in from the outside, reading the news and headlines and then seeing that Rosemead is giving some employees a 15% increase, the optics aren't great. More importantly, the timing feels off. When you add the possibility of entering negotiations that could result in not just a 15%, but potentially an 18% or even 20% increase, it only adds to the concern. Given the current economic climate, the overall appearance of this move could be poorly received. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 10 of13 Council Member Low stated she was trying to understand Council Member Dang's point of view. She stated that staff conducted the study to show whether certain positions were below or above market level. She asked if this got approved, would the union come back to ask for more to the ranges? City Manager Kim stated that the union could ask, but it would be very difficult to justify the increase because the City just did a legitimate salary survey to show every single position what the market rate is, and the City made in good faith in adjusting the market positions below to the market rate. It doesn't prevent anybody from asking. Council Member Low reiterated that in good faith the City did the market study, and this is what the City would be willing to offer to adjust the range. City Manager Kim further stated that the proposal only applies to positions that are currently below market value. To clarify during the negotiation process, an employee group could request a 10% increase to the salary range for all positions within their bargaining unit. If that were approved, then every position in that group regardless of whether it's below or above market would receive that 10% adjustment. For example, if a position is already 5% above market and the Council grants the 10% increase, that position would then be 15% above market. That's how across-the-board negotiation increases work. But what staff is recommending here is not that. This is not a blanket increase for all positions. The proposal strictly targets positions that are below market, and only those would see an adjustment. Positions already at or above market would remain unchanged. Council Member Dang expressed that it would not be fair to reduce the salary for those positions that are above market. City Manager Kim assured that positions above the market would not change. He reiterated that unless the City Council was to make all positions market rate, which would reduce the salary to those currently at above market rate. In an effort to keep employee morale we don't want to hurt the employees that are above market already. Council Member Dang stated as an example, the Director of Parks and Recreation is currently just 0.1% above market. It might not seem fair if, after this process, he comes back that nearly 85% of City Hall received a pay increase, and he is being left out, he is not getting the same benefit. That could understandably feel unfair from his perspective, even though technically his position is already above market. City Attorney Richman clarified to the City Council to not keep referring to individuals, but it's important to understand that we're actually talking about salary ranges, not individual salaries. If we approve an increase for a specific position, that doesn't mean the person currently in that role automatically jumps to the top of the new range. It simply means the range itself has been updated for that position. What is being asked is to adjust the ranges, not approving raises for specific individuals. During negotiations, employee groups often request that all salary ranges go up across the board, for example, by 10% claiming that they're under market. But when we don't have a current salary survey to reference, we don't have a strong basis to Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 11 of23 counter those requests. She noted that she did not want employees or members of the public to think that by approving this, anyone is automatically getting a 15% raise. When we mention a 15% increase, we're referring to adjustments in the salary range, not individual pay. No one is receiving a 15% salary increase just because a new range is being approved. Council Member Low agreed with the City Attorney and stated when she first read the report, one thing that confused her was the lack of emphasis on the salary range. The report mostly showed the maximum of each range, and it's easy to assume that's the number employees will immediately receive. For example, when we see that a position is 6.8% below market, her initial assumption was that the person in that role would automatically get a 6.8% raise. But that's not actually the case, after speaking with the City Manager. She noted that what's missing in the presentation is a clear explanation that these adjustments are to the ranges, and that employees move through steps within those ranges. After having a side conversation with the City Manager, she also realized the financial impact is actually smaller than expected, since these changes usually mean moving someone to the next step, not jumping them straight to the top of the new range. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that if the Council approved the staff recommendation, the estimate for the remaining fiscal year is as follows: • For the Mid -Management, Professional, and Confidential group, the cost would be approximately $15,000, based on the fiscal impact report. • For the part-time group, estimate about $2,000. In total, we're looking at around $17,000 for these two groups, as we're only adjusting the salary ranges, not directly increasing individual salaries. To clarify, for positions like the Human Resources Manager, which was 19% below market, the person will see an increase due to the movement in the range and the steps within that range. However, it won't be a full 19% increase. If we were to annualize the $15,000 for the Mid -Management group, the total would be roughly $71,000. For both groups combined, we're looking at an estimated total of about $80,000 for the year. City Manager Kim reiterated as an example, if the current salary range is at the one end of a step position, and the new range is further out, and the employee is at step five in the current range, they will remain at step five in the new range. However, there may be a slight adjustment in the spread between steps due to the updated range. The smallest spread between steps is 0.2%, but it's important to note that the employee's step won't change, it's just the range that's being adjusted. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that based on the data, employee rankings fall between 0.3% and 2.9%. If the range changes significantly, an employee who is at step five in the current range might find themselves at step three or even step two in the new range. This could happen if the range shifts enough that they need to move back a few steps. However, despite potentially being at a lower step, the employee will still be earning more than they are currently making due to the overall adjustment in the range. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes ojApril 8, 2025 Page 12 of23 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta interpreted the difference between one step and the next step was $20 in the old range. If the new range sets the step difference at $25, the employee is not receiving both $20 and $25. They would only receive the additional $5 to reach the new step. City Manager Kim stated that the employee would move within the new range to the next step next closest step up. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua further explained that we have a 10 - step salary structure, with a 3% increase between each step, for example, from step one to step two, and from step two to step three, it's a 3% difference. That's why, if an employee is somewhere in the middle of the range, like at step five, the estimated increase from the range adjustment is relatively small, typically between 0.3% and 2.9% because the step intervals themselves are only 3%. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated her initial reaction was, are employees really going to be getting a 13% increase? She wanted to make it clear, especially to those watching from home, that employees will not automatically receive a 13% raise. Any increase still goes through the regular process, step system, performance evaluations, and merit -based increases. They don't just jump to the top of the new range. She noted she had the same concern if someone appeared to be getting a 13% raise while others weren't, it could affect morale. But these adjustments are about aligning with market value, and employees still have to progress through the step system over time to reach that value. She asked, when determining whether a position is below or above market value, is that it's based solely on base salary, or does it also include benefits? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua replied the majority is based on base salary. It can be challenging to make accurate compensation comparisons, especially when we have legacy employees who may have more generous benefit packages. These differences often exist because they were hired before certain cutoff dates that made them eligible for benefits that are no longer offered to new hires. Depending on when someone joined the organization, their total compensation, particularly in terms of benefits, can vary significantly. To avoid confusion, we've chosen to focus primarily on base salary when discussing compensation. This is because base salary is typically what prospective candidates look at first when considering a position. Many applicants, especially those who may not be familiar with public sector benefits, often overlook the value of the full benefits package. From a recruitment and marketing perspective, highlighting the base salary made the most sense, as it's the most visible and easily understood component of compensation. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta expressed appreciation, because one of her concerns was how legacy employees, those who've been here for many years, often have different benefit packages. If benefits were included in the comparison, it could significantly skew the base pay. She thanked staff for focusing solely on base salary because that provides a fair and more accurate comparison. She noted you can't compare the benefits of someone who's been here 25 or 30 years with someone who just started two years ago. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 1025 Page 13 q(23 Council Member Low stated many of our positions in the study, at least at the maximum range are below market value. She acknowledged what Councilmember Dang was getting at, which is the idea of actually showing the numbers. The question is whether it's too early to do that. But by approving the salary ranges, we're essentially saying that Rosemead is willing to either bring in new employees or pay our current employees at least at market value. When looking at the data, a significant number of our positions are under market, and that raises a bigger question. What message does that send to both the public and to our employees about how the City values its workforce. If the issue were that we financially couldn't afford it, that would be one thing. But if we can afford it, she expressed it was only fair for the City to pay employees at least what the market is offering elsewhere. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta agreed with Council Member Low because many have seen firsthand that the struggle to attract more experienced employees. Unfortunately, they tend to go to other agencies where they can earn higher compensation. As a result, we often end up hiring individuals who are fresh out of college which is great, because they bring energy and potential, they gain valuable experience here. Once they've built that experience, they leave for other cities that offer better pay. These are talented employees, and we'd love to keep them, but compensation is the main reason we lose them. I think that's a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated that the biggest variances below market, is the City Engineer, which took a very long time to recruit. In addition, it has been difficult to fill the position of the Planning and Economic Development Manager, which is currently being filled by a current employee in an acting role. Furthermore, the Building Official position is currently 9.2% below market. It's been about three years since we opened the recruitment for that role, and we still haven't been able to find a qualified candidate to fill it. This really highlights the challenge we're facing. In order to attract and retain highly qualified professionals and to keep the best employees we believe it's necessary to bring those below-market positions up to market level. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she remembered that before Mr. Chua came on board, the City had a difficult time hiring for the Director of Finance position. It was challenging to attract qualified applicants or retain someone in that role. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua reiterated that from both an employee perspective and a fairness standpoint, it was a smart and transparent decision to hire a third -party consultant to conduct this study. They were responsible for collecting, comparing, and compiling the data independently without any undue influence from management. That gives this report credibility and ensures it presents a fair and objective view of the current salary market. This wasn't an internal review, it was conducted by a highly qualified professional with over 30 years of experience in HR, and a long tenure with Public Sector Personnel Consultants. That level of expertise and neutrality is exactly why we're basing our recommendations on the findings of the report. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 14 of23 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she appreciated the unbiased assessment and having a tool that can show the City is doing their due diligence and making sure positions are at market value. Council Member Dang asked about CaIPERS for non -legacy employees and who pays for that? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained there are a few components to consider. First, legacy employees tend to be more expensive because of their benefit structure. They are typically on a 2.7% at age 55 plan. Then, there are employees in-between, those who fall somewhere between legacy and classic plans. These employees are typically on a 2% at age 55 plan. Finally, there are the PEPRA employees, who are on a 2% at age 62 plan, and they all have different city contributions. On top of this, we also have to account for the unfunded liability, which is another financial obligation we need to address. Council Member Dang interpreted if for newer employees, there's a contribution they have to make in to the retirement system, which is part of the PEPRA plan. This money is deducted from their paycheck to help support and strengthen the existing retirement fund. Then, the city contributes to replenishing that fund on their behalf. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated there is a City contribution and there is an employee contribution for those in legacy and PEPRA. If you're a 2.7% at 55 the City is going to be contributing more than those employees who are in PEPRA. Council Member Dang asked if the amount was I% or was it a wash. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director interjected that it was between 8.7 or 8%. City Manager Kim explained that PEPRA worked liked social security, the employee and City pay respectively to the Ca1PERS system, approximately about 8%. In addition, sometime after 2012, the classic formula went away and then went to PEPRA which is 2% at 62. For employees who were previously in the Classic system, if they had a break in service of six months or more, they would not be able to return to the Classic system. Instead, they would enter the PEPRA system as new employees. Employees in PEPRA have a two-tier system, Classic and PEPRA. The key difference with PEPRA is that it doesn't matter how much an employee earns. In the Classic system, retirement benefits were typically based on the highest salary earned during the last year or sometimes the last three years of service. There wasn't really a salary cap, which meant that an employee could have a very high retirement benefit. For example, someone who earned $650,000 and then retired, collecting $400,000 or $500,000 in retirement benefits. This happened because there was no salary cap under the Classic system. However, PEPRA significantly changed this. Under PEPRA, there is a cap on the salary used to calculate retirement benefits, regardless of how much an employee earns. Right now, that cap is around $156,000. So even if an employee retires with a salary of $500,000, their retirement benefits under PEPRA would be calculated based on the $156,000 salary cap, not their highest salary. This system works somewhat like Social Security, where there's a cap on Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 15 of23 contributions. Once you reach a certain income level, you no longer contribute to Social Security. Similarly, PEPRA has a salary cap for retirement benefit calculations. Council Member Dang stated that he wanted to point out something about the data set used by the consultant. In reviewing the cities that were used for benchmarking Rosemead's positions. For example, if we look at the Assistant Planner position, the consultant included cities like Pasadena, Arcadia, San Marino, El Monte, Monterey Park, and others. While it's true that some of these cities are in the San Gabriel Valley, there's an issue with comparing Rosemead to certain larger cities, especially Pasadena. Pasadena is much larger, with high-rise buildings, extensive developments, and areas like Colorado Boulevard and Old Town Pasadena, these are major metropolitan areas. He noted that, when comparing the Assistant Planner in Pasadena to the Assistant Planner in Rosemead, he expressed it was not an apples - to -apples comparison. While it makes sense to benchmark the Assistant Planner against cities of similar size and scope, like El Monte or South El Monte, it doesn't seem appropriate to compare Rosemead to a big city like Pasadena. Pasadena's numbers are much higher, which, from an engineering perspective, skews the average. It affects the overall benchmarking data, making it less representative of what we should expect in a city like Rosemead. Mayor Pro Tem Armenia asked for clarification on how the cities were chosen for the study. Was cost of living a factor? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated staff weren't simply focusing on nearby cities in the area. While Pasadena, for example, is somewhat larger in terms of population and workforce, there was a clear rationale behind the selection of the comparator cities chosen. To identify the cities included in the survey, we examined where current City of Rosemead employees live. If a significant number of employees reside in a particular city, that city could be considered a competitor or comparable agency since those employees were more likely to seek job opportunities there. If a city like Pasadena had an opening for a position similar to one held by an employee in Rosemead, it was reasonable to assume that employees might consider applying, given the proximity and appeal. City Manager Kim stated that he has been with the City for seven years, and during that time, the City has consistently faced challenges in hiring for certain positions. Recruitment cycles can be lengthy and costly. A six-month recruitment effort doesn't just mean six months of expenses; it also involves significant staff time and resources. When key positions remain vacant for extended periods, it impacts on the overall efficiency of the organization and the quality of service provided to the community. It also places added stress on existing staff, who often have to take on additional responsibilities to cover the gaps. One major factor contributing to these challenges is the salary structure. In some cases, the City simply hasn't been competitive enough to attract or retain qualified candidates. There's also been a question about why larger cities like Pasadena were included in the survey. The reality is, if you're a strong candidate, you're not limiting your job search to cities of a certain size or population. You're applying to a range of cities, regardless of whether they're five square miles or have 50,000 residents like Rosemead. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 16 of 23 The job market is highly competitive. To attract top talent, the City needs to be competitive not only in salary but also in offering a clear path for professional growth. It's not just about hiring someone, its about bringing in people who are motivated to stay and grow with the organization over time. Mr. Kim continued that at one point, the Public Services maintenance team had a 40% vacancy rate, meaning 60% of the staff were doing 100% of the work. It was an incredibly stressful time. Despite the reduced workforce, the expectations of the residents, businesses, and himself as the Public Works Director at that time, and the City Council remained the same, delivering full service. That kind of strain takes a toll on morale. He noted that as an example, he was performing the responsibilities of two roles, and at one point, even three. Yet, he was only being compensated for one position, and that salary was below market rate. When asked why certain cities were included in the survey, we need to be competitive in the job market. We shouldn't just compare ourselves to cities that are similar to us today. We should also look at aspirational cities, the ones that reflect where Rosemead wants to be in the future. It's important to include comparable cities, but we should also include those that deliver the level of service we hope to achieve. We should strive to improve, to provide higher -quality services, and to become a city that attracts and retains top talent. At a minimum, staff recommendation to the City Council is to bring salaries up to the market rate, the midpoint. Staff is not asking to be the highest -paying city, but to be competitive enough to hire and retain the people. The consultant and staff surveyed 16 cities and used the market average, the true midpoint, as the basis for comparison. If the Council adopts the proposed adjustments, eight of those cities will still offer higher pay, meaning we will continue to compete with them for talent. The analysis included a diverse mix of comparable, aspirational, and future oriented cities, providing a broad and strategic perspective rather than focusing on only one type of city. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta thanked City Manager Kim for the clarification as she assumed staff chose the cities based on cost of living, but rather it was for aspiration to capture talent. Council Member Low stated that she believed the selection of cities included in the survey was reasonable. While Pasadena may be on the higher end in terms of salary and size, other cities like Alhambra, Azusa, and El Monte are more directly comparable and represent realistic competitors for staffing. With 16 cities in total, the inclusion of one higher -paying city is balanced out by the rest, making the overall group reasonable for the study. Council Member Dang commended City Manager Kim for initiating the study but expressed the timing was off since the REA negotiations were coming up. He commented on the methodology of the consultant's way of doing the survey's; however, argued that it lacks meaningful data analysis. He felt the report merely collected job descriptions, calculated averages, and presented the results without deeper context. As an example, he pointed out a comparison involving park rangers, where Rosemead's significantly lower pay wasn't analyzed in relation to factors like the number or size of parks managed, compared to the City of Pasadena that has more Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 1025 Page 17 of 23 parks. He noted his expectation was to have more robust report to better justify salary differences based on the scope of responsibilities. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated that when you bring in different factors, you're being biased instead of being unbiased. In addition, she commended Mr. Dang for his comments as an engineer, he brings a different analytical perspective. Mrs. Armenta shared an example of an HR manager who left a higher paying position in Rosemead to return to a lower paying role in Pasadena, where they dealt with one set of responsibilities. This highlights that factors beyond salary such as job scope and work environment can influence employment decisions, and that larger cities don't always equate to higher pay or better fit. She emphasized the importance of using a variety of variables in the compensation analysis to avoid repeating past issues, such as being below market value. She acknowledged and expressed respect towards Councilmember Dang's perspective but believed that incorporating multiple factors allows for a more accurate and tailored outcome for Rosemead. A broader approach was applied in the current analysis to determine what best fits the city's needs. Mrs. Armenta reiterated staff recommendations and asked for a motion. Council Member Dang asked to separate each recommendation for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation no. 1, receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Dang to receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; Absent: Clark and Ly Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation No. 2, adopt Resolution No. 2025-20, entitled: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, Amending the Comprehensive Salary Schedule to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to reflect approved rates for all employees of the City of Rosemead. Council Member Dang made a motion and then retracted his motion. City Manager Kim clarified that the motion was for the resolution of the Executive group and the Mid -Management Professional, and Confidential group and the Part - Time group. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua added the motion includes the correct $16.60 step for the part-time Youth Worker. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta to adopt Resolution No. 2025-22, Amending the Comprehensive Salary Schedule to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to reflect approved rates for all employees of the City of Rosemead. Motion was carried out by Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes ofApril8, 2025 Page 18 of 23 the following votes: AYES: Armenta and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Dang; ABSENT: Clark and Ly City Attorney Richman stated the motion died on the floor for lack of 3/2 votes required for adoption of a resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated the resolution could be brought back for consideration when more Councilmembers are present. She asked for a motion. Council Member Low made a motion to direct staff to bring back the resolution for consideration when more Council Members are present. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta to direct staff to bring back Resolution No. 2025-22 to another meeting when more City Council Members are in attendance at the meeting. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Clark and Ly Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation No. 3, approval to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. Council Member Dang asked if Recommendation No. 3, required a vote since the resolution did not pass? City Attorney Richman explained that staff would like some direction, although the resolution did not pass, it's not required to have a vote but would like direction to bring back the resolution after a meet and confer has occurred with the union. Council Member Dang clarified that a meet and confer can happen without City Council approving any resolutions. City Attorney Richman noted that the resolutions for the unrepresented haven't gone into effect, nor is it going to be going into effect for the represented. The motion would just indicate that staff will be using this information as a part of the meet and confer. Council Member Low stated that initially she thought the decision on the current item, which pertains to a union group, should be postponed similar to a previous resolution that was delayed until all council members were present. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta clarified that Recommendation No. 3 is asking to give direction to staff to bring back a salary adjustment resolution. City Attorney Richman explained that if City Council did not give staff this direction, it was fine. She wanted to make it clear since the resolution didn't pass, it's not applicable to unrepresented or applicable to the represented group because staff will be dealing with this through the negotiation process. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 19 of 23 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated as good practice since the resolution was tabled to be brought back, Recommendation No. 3 should also be tabled. Council Member Dang expressed that he did not think a vote was needed for recommendation no. 3 because City Council does not always meet and confer for other times. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated with all due respect, just because Mr. Dang didn't want to move forward, it did not mean the rest of the City Council felt the same. She asked Mr. Dang if he was making a motion not to move forward to vote on the item. Council Member Dang stated that Recommendation No. 3, simply reflects the usual process of meeting and conferring to discuss salary adjustments. Since this is standard practice, he questioned the need to present it as a separate action item for the council to vote on. City Attorney Richman explained that Recommendation No. 3, was included to reassure staff as they begin the meet and confer process. It's not a binding resolution, just a form of direction. Even if the City Council doesn't take action on it, the standard process will still be followed. The intent is simply to clarify that not adopting the item doesn't mean the process won't happen. If the resolution had passed, it wouldn't affect the union group directly. Any changes would still need to go through the meet and confer process. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta explained that for her this was in good faith to show the union that the City is working in good faith and directing staff. City Attorney Richman explained that she believed it wouldn't hurt to take action, but it's not necessary since the resolution had been adopted and it's already clear it would not apply to the represented group. If the item returns in the future, clarification can be added then. Therefore, no immediate action is required. Council Member Dang explained that if Recommendation No. 3 did not exist, staff would still have to meet and confer due to the rules of negation with the union. City Attorney Richman replied that her legal view she wouldn't want to commit to that. The reason staff added the recommendation is, so the union understands that staff is intending to meet and confer. She further explained that the purpose was to demonstrate good faith by showing that a salary survey was conducted, which was not done before, and to clarify how it will be used. She emphasized that no decisions will be made until the meet and confer process takes place. Council Member Low suggested Recommendation No. 3 be tabled to another meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2015 Page 20 of23 ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Dang to table Recommendation No. 3, directing to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. Motion was carried out by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Clark and Ly B. Consideration and Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, Amending Chapter 12.44 of Title 12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Park and Recreation Areas Hours of Use and Enforcement City staff in conjunction with the Chief of Police have been looking at ways to address public safety issues that are effecting the residents and community of Rosemead. One area that has been a source of ongoing public safety issues relates to individuals remaining in City parks and recreation areas after park hours have ended. The proposed Ordinance will establish park and recreation hours and provide an enforcement process to exclude violators in addition to criminal violations. Recommendation: That the City Council consider, introduce by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 1028, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.44 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK AND RECREATION AREAS HOURS OF USE AND ENFORCEMENT City Attorney Richman reported that the Council is considering an ordinance at the Sheriffs Department's request to address ongoing issues in city parks, including loitering after hours, homelessness, and criminal activity. Currently, park violations are treated as minor infractions with a $50 fine under the county code, which the city adopts by reference. The proposed ordinance would update the city's code to clearly set park hours from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., with violations potentially charged as misdemeanors. It would also establish a process for banning repeat offenders from parks for 30 days up to 60 days. Similar ordinances have been effective in neighboring cities. Council Member Low asked Chief of Police, Lieutenant Tiwari, about the proposed park closure hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), suggesting they may be too restrictive for residents who work late and want to use the park for exercise, such as jogging late at night. She asked whether the Sheriffs Department would be open to extending the closing time to 11 p.m. or midnight to better accommodate these individuals. Chief of Police, Lt. Tiwari replied the proposed ordinance mirrors the current county code and aligns with surrounding cities to maintain consistency in park hours. He explained that the ordinance allows for discretion in enforcement, such as issuing warnings instead of immediate penalties, reflecting both the letter and spirit of the Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 21 of23 law. Although the violation is classified as a misdemeanor, deputies have the flexibility to use their judgment when responding. Council Member Low emphasized the importance of fairness in enforcing the 10 p.m. park closure, noting that everyone should be treated equally. She suggested considering a later closing time and asked whether the City Council would support that change. Council Member Dang asked the Director of Parks and Recreation what the operating hours of the parks were. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking replied 10 O'clock. In response to Council Member Low's comments, he noted that by possibly extending park hours, the City Council must also consider that most of the parks are located in residential neighborhoods. Extending the hours means activities could continue later into the night, not just jogging. It could also require keeping the park lights on longer, which may lead to noise and disturbances. Currently, everything shuts down at 10 p.m., but extending the hours could impact nearby residents and potentially lead to complaints about late night activities. Council Member Low withdrew her request to extend the park hours. Council Member Dang stated if deputies were to approach someone and ask them to leave, it shouldn't come as a surprise, they should already be aware that they're not supposed to be there at that time. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking replied that it's correct. We would update the signage to reflect the new city ordinance. Currently, the signs display the county code, but they would be changed to show the updated city regulations. Council Member Dang expressed support for the proposed recommendations, citing concerns about disturbing nearby residents with extended park hours and lighting. He emphasized the importance of consistency with current rules, surrounding cities, and neighborhood dynamics. Keeping the 10 p.m. closure also provides law enforcement with a useful tool to manage park activity. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta also agreed and expressed appreciation for bringing the ordinance to a vote, noting that 10 p.m. has historically been the park closing time. She emphasized the importance of consistency and clear enforcement, stating that this ordinance formalizes the rule under the City's code and gives the Sheriffs Department the authority to address inappropriate activities in the parks. Council Member Dang asked if the $50 fine was a new county fine. Chief of Police Lt. Tiwari replied no, that fine has been in place as part of the county's bail schedule. Since it's based on the county ordinance, we are required to follow it and abide by those rules. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 22 of 23 City Attorney Richman further assured that we are now following our own city code. Previously, we relied on the county code by reference, but now we've incorporated the county's rules directly into our ordinance. By including it specifically in our code, we no longer depend on the county's code. Everything is now outlined in the ordinance. Council Member Dang asked if the previous County code was not sufficient for enforcement? Is that the reason we need to make it a Rosemead specific ordinance? Chief of Police Lt. Tiwari explained they were going from treating this as an infraction under the county code to making it a Rosemead municipal code violation, which will be classified as a misdemeanor. City Attorney Richman explained that it's important to note that we're not just issuing citations; we also have the ability to suspend individuals from the park for a period of time, such as 30 or 60 days. This helps break the cycle of repeatedly issuing citations that may go unpaid. The Sheriffs Department has requested this measure and has seen success with it in other cities. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Dang to introduce by title only, and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 1028, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.44 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK AND RECREATION AREAS HOURS OF USE AND ENFORCEMENT Motion was carried out by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Clark and Ly MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Council Comments Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced the upcoming City events. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Armenta adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Ericka Hernandez, City Clem - APPROVED: MA -t Marg d et Clark, Mayor Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2025 Page 23 of23