Loading...
CC - 08-09-941 APPROVED CITY OF R SE 4IEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE _ ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL BY AUGUST 9, 1994 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Clark. The Invocation was delivered by Councilmember Imperial ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Imperial, Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tem Taylor, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 12, 1994 - REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Imperial made a correction of his vote on Page 4, Item IV. CC-K, of the Minutes to reflect a No vote. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 12, 1994, be amended as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: Taylor - excused absence The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 26, 1994 - REGULAR MEETING Mayor Pro Tem made a correction to his statement of Page 4 of the Minutes. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 1994, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None PRESENTATIONS: - NONE I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated his concerns about the homeless, vagrants and public drunkenness problem in Rosemead. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 94-37 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $304,265.86 NUMBERED 10317, 10326 THROUGH 10445 S CC-08-09-94 Page 1 6 0 Councilmember Imperial questioned check no. 15954 and 16102. Staff was directed to provide the Council with an update on the two checks. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 94-37 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered A. RESOLUTION NO. 94-38 - ADOPTING A NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING A NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that Resolution No. 94-38 be adopted and authorize staff to forward a copy of the Resolution and NDFE document to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-B, CC-F, AND CC-H REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - GARVEY AVENUE PEAK HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION STUDY CC-C CITY-WIDE CURB ADDRESS MARKING AND CATCH BASIN STENCILING PROJECT CC-D SCHEDULING OF A TOWN HALL MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 AND OCTOBER 4, 1994 CC-E REQUEST FROM CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC. FOR ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REFUSE RATES CC-G APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT DEL MAR AVENUE AND HIGHCLIFF STREET - WILLIAMS SCHOOL MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered CC-B REQUEST FOR ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT - DAVE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. CC-08-09-94 Page 2 Councilmember Imperial stated that the request for a cost-of-living adjustment for Dave Transportation Services, Inc. is a suggestion only and not part of the contract, and since City employees did not receive a cost-of-living increase this year again, he will vote No. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council approve a 1.1% cost-of-living adjustment for DAVE Transportation Services, Inc., effective August 1, 1994. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that the Shopper Shuttle drivers will occasionally fail to pick up passengers waiting at the stops. MAYOR BRUESCH, responded that sometimes that happens, especially during the training process, and if the problem continues, DAVE Transportation system will be notified. CC-F REQUEST FOR CROSSING GUARD FOR RIO HONDO AVENUE AT DE ADALENA STREET - SAVANNAH SCHOOL Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked if any petitions were received prior to this item, referring to the student that spoke at the Youth Service Recognition Day in April requesting that the council approve a crossing guard at Savannah School. James Troyer, Administrative Aide responded that no petitions were received for a crossing guard, but has received letters and requests for traffic controls in the area. Frank Tripepi, City Manager stated that the petitions in the Council packets are for speed bumps around the school, a "Stop" sign at Rio Hondo, a complete red zone at Rio Hondo K-1 parking area, and on the public street at Rio Hondo. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ that the Council approve a crossing guard for the intersection of Rio Hondo Avenue and De Adalena Street, and appropriate $4,000 for fiscal year 1994-95 to fund the position.' Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-F AWARD OF 51ST HANDYMAN BID PACKAGE Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked that this item be deferred to the next meeting and requested a Dun and Bradstreet rating on the contractors. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. APPEAL OF QUIMBY ACT FEES - DOLLY LEONG VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: MAYOR BRUESCH: We have two requests to speak. This is not a public hearing, before this item is open for Council discussion we will have our first speaker, Mr. Lawrence Speight. CC-08-09-94 Page 3 LAWRENCE SPEIGHT, P.E., PRESIDENT, SPEIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY, 9101 E. SLAUSON AVENUE, PICO RIVERA: I would just want to add to my letter that... COUNCILMAN JAY IMPERIAL: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. In what capacity is this gentleman here, is he an attorney? SPEIGHT: No, I am not. I am representing the owner, Dolly Leong. BRUESCH: You are the developer? SPEIGHT: I am the Project Engineer. I have been before you on this development previously. What I would like to add, which was not added to the letter, are a few points. That is, emphasizing the impact issue. Ordinance No. 721, emphasizes considerably in the findings section, the increased cost, with respect to the project. I want to emphasize that issue in the sense that this project that was proposed on Mission Road had five existing residences that had been there since 1932. Granted, in recent years they had deteriorated due to age and what have you. But, certainly, the new Park Fees would be reflected, or at the least the increased demand for parks is reflected in the increase in occupancy of the subdivision. And, it is on that basis where you see throughout Ordinance 721, that the emphasizes on new dwelling units, effectively meaning new development adding to existing demands on your infrastructure. Also, in the subdivision map act section under the Quimby Act, this is a planned development. There is private open space provided within this project on each one of the lots and does permit you to allow a credit for that private open space. That concludes, apart from my letter, enumerates the other points that I wanted to raise. Thank you. BRUESCH: We have a request to speak from Mr. Nunez. JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 DEL MAR AVENUE, ROSEMEAD: Yes, I also understand that the charge is being done on the entire project. Is there a deletion for the homes that were there before? There were some homes there... BRUESCH: That is exactly the grounds for Ms. Leong's request. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a staff report, a letter, and a packet. I have a few questions of staff. First of all, has the Quimby Act fees ever been adjudicated to apply only to new housing not housing that replaces old housing? This is a fairly new way of applying fees to building, and is quite similar to the builder's fees that the school districts charge. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: I am not aware of such a determination. BRUESCH: Is the wording in there specifically stating that it is for new dwellings only. KRESS: That is correct. It just question in exploring this that I history of the property, how long units were occupied. specifies new dwelling units. One would have is knowing some of the has it been since any of those BRUESCH: That brings me to my third question. In developer fees for schools, you don't have to build a house, all you have to do is add on a room. If these new homes are increased in size, would the Quimby Act apply even if they did say not including new for old. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: The Quimby Act does not deal with tear downs. MAYOR PRO TEM GARY TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. discussion as far as the conditions of depreciated, substandard homes built in such a condition that they needed to be The fact that whether we agree with the to be uniformly implemented. As far as There may be some rational Dlder, dilapidated, 1932 are today. They were in boarded up and demolished. Quimby Act or not, it needs picking and choosing, then CC-08-09-94 Page 4 0 the Council and City will be open to accusations of treating each differently and favoritism. At this particular point, the City had imposed those fees and whether we agree with them or not, I think it is reasonable to imply and to apply the fees to this particular case. If we want to scrap the procedure, I would be willing to do that. But, to arbitrarily pick and choose, I cannot go along with that. I think the fees there... BRUESCH: I would like to inform the Council that our Housing Authority, in the senior housing project, even through there are landscaped walkways and other recreation areas in that plan, had to pay Quimby Act fees. IMPERIAL: I would like this verbatim because I feel very strongly about it. We, about seven or eight years ago went against the Alhambra School District because they were trying to build a school here. It would have cost a lot of homes, from 250 to 500 homes if they were allowed to do this. We've come across the Alhambra School District again, but, this time it was an assessment that we were fighting. This city said that we didn't want any part of it, it would affect our southern area and the Garvey School District. We also managed to be taken off the Lighting Assessment District. As far as I am concerned, a tax is a tax. Call it what you want to, but it is a tax. The people have been taxed until they are blue in the face and we're still getting taxed. I'm not trying to defend Dolly Leong or anybody else. I'm saying this is a tax. If you want to build a room onto your house that costs over $20,000, you have to go to the school district to get permission before you come to the City. Am I correct. OK. Now, we have an $800 fee that is added on to a brand new house, so for example Mr. Gonzales or Mr. Jones works hard all his life and manages to get enough money to build a house. Here's a guy that is working from hand to mouth and he's going to pay a fee to the school district and an $800 fee. This just goes on and on and it is not going to stop. Unless the people in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. stop spending our money foolishly, I'm not in favor of any tax, period, whether it be a dime, twenty cents, or twenty dollars. This is a tax, whether it be the Quimby Act or anything else, it's a tax. I am totally against it. I think we ought to look at it as an assessment district, the same kind that we have been fighting in Alhambra that we are talking about putting here. BRUESCH: Do I have a motion? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I tend to agree with the philosophy that Mr. Imperial has. If you want to bring this back and reconsider it, I don't have a problem with that. All I'm saying is now we've been imposing it on uniformity and we either have it or we don't have it. We open a "Pandora's box" of letting anybody choose how we decide up here. He's right, I don't like it,. but it's here. At this time I move that we deny the appeal and impose the fees. COUNCILMEMBER JOE VASQUEZ: I second the motion. BRUESCH: Any further discussion? IMPERIAL: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would like this brought back for Council's reconsideration. I was not on the Council at that time. BRUESCH: On the Quimby Act? IMPERIAL: Yes. VASQUEZ: I would like to make a comment that the City of E1 Monte's fee is $5,000 per housing unit, Alhambra is $2,000. We're only charging $800, which is a modest fee. IMPERIAL: They're doing it to their people, we don't want to do it to ours. VASQUEZ: I understand that, Mr. Imperial. CC-08-09-94 Page 5 0 9 TAYLOR: Until we change it, I think we have to be uniform about it and that is the only reason that I made the motion. COUNCILMEMBER MARGARET CLARK: Mr. Mayor, may I comment also. On the appeal itself, I had to take issue with the request that because the houses were deteriorated through "natural causes through aging, attack of environmental effects, and invasion of wood destroying insects and molds", is not anybody's fault but the person that neglected to maintain the homes. In Europe they have homes that are centuries old and they are maintained. If you don't get rid of your termites, you cannot call that a natural cause of act of God or anything else. BRUESCH: OK. We've had a motion and a second. Please vote. Taken from voting slip. Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE B. CONSIDERATION OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LIBRARY DISTRICT REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as members of the Council are aware, the County Library District is proposing to establish the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. They are proposing to do this district-wide. I am sure the Council well understands the process, especially after the recent fight with the Alhambra School District over a similar issue. We have tried to give you a menu of options. The action has to be taken by August 30 and we've left you a meeting in between that deadline to ask for further information or clarification, or if you have other ideas or options of your own. For those of you in the audience, of which most you are here for this issue tonight, I will go through the six options that were given to Council. The first option is approval of Resolution No. 94-38 and consent to be included in the CFD. Secondly, we can investigate the possibility of assuming responsibility of the library by withdrawing from the existing library district. This is only a possibility if the City would receive the current tax base allocated to the District from the 1% ad valorem property tax paid in Rosemead. Unfortunately, we're unable to get any information on that amount. Until we can, we would not recommend item No. 2. MAYOR ROBERT BRUESCH: Point of information. In essence, we would be forming our own library district. TRIPEPI: You would be withdrawing from the district, paying for the district facilities and then, basically, running your own library. There are bills in Sacramento that talk about being able to get the revenue that is presently going to that special district. However, until we receive an accurate figure, we do not recommend this possibility. The third option we have is that the Redevelopment Agency has an existing pass through agreement with the County Library District. This Council holds the trigger on that pass through. It does not kick-in with other Agencies in the county, unless, or until this CC-08-09-94 Page 6 • 0 Agency builds a second facility in the southern part of the City. Therefore, the pass through agreement is on paper. It would probably qualify under AB 1290 as an existing agreement. What the Agency could elect to do, if they wish, is have the staff meet with Sandra Reuben and Sally Reed, CAO of Los Angeles County. We would propose a one year pass through agreement at 4% which would generate approximately $160,000 to $180,000. With this option, the Agency would inform the County that when they are doing the assessment spread, we want the assessment to our residents reduced, or off-set, by that $160,000 or $180,000. Therefore, the residents in our City would be paying less of an assessment than other residents in other parts of the district. The next option is to take no action whatsoever. However, if you do not approve the Resolution setting up the district, the library has indicated that they will reduce the hours of service in your community. Not just Rosemead, but any community that does not approve the Resolution and does not join the district. I know there are questions as to what if Rosemead does not opt in and Temple City does. How are you going to keep Rosemead residents from going to Temple City and using their library on the expanded hours. I don't know that you can. Even though we are not in the assessment district, they certainly are still part of the Los Angeles County Library District, part of their 1% ad valorem tax based on the value of their property does somehow, someway, get funneled to the library system. That is an issue more for the library than for us. What we have tried to do this evening, again, is give you an opportunity for an open discussion and give you the options that are available BRUESCH: Before we start the discussion, we have some facts and figures that are in our packets about the number of hours the library is open. If we opt for the 1% ad valorem tax, the library hours allocated to Rosemead would be 14 hours spread over.two days. Before I open this up to Council discussion, I have a request to speak from Lisa Castaneda of Rosemead Library. LISA CASTANEDA, Rosemead Library Manager, 8800 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead: I just wanted to urge you to consider joining the CFD. Rosemead Library is a very busy library. We are currently open four days a week, 28 hours a week. We average 1200-1400 people in the library each day in a seven hour period. Too many people would be displaced if you had the library close two days a week. We've already had one library in Rosemead close. I am concerned about where the students are going to go during the school year. We average 1800 people per day during the school year. As far as the details of the CFD, I would like to introduce Roger Wolfell, who is the Area Manager of our Library and will answer any questions you may have. ROGER WOLFELL: Thank you. My name is Roger Wolfell and I am an Area manager with the County Public Library. You discussed six options, I only understand three of them myself, but, I'll basically tell you what I see are the possible scenarios. We've been talking with a number of cities and a lot of questions have come up. Because of that, we've asked and gotten answers from County Counsel. So, I can go through a few of those and it might clarify it a little bit for you. The first thing I would like to do is to emphasize three points, or to make three reassurances. The first is that the CFD revenue is a dedicated source of revenue that would only be used for the library. We have had other cities ask about the "big" County getting their hands on the money, etc. As we understand it, this is not a legal possibility. The money would be only for the library. Secondly, the County Public Library is a special district whose regular source of revenue, property taxes, is also a dedicated source of revenue. Because of that the County Board of Supervisors does not have the legal authority to take that money either from us, at this point, and give it to the General Fund Departments. The third point is that the State, obviously, can come in in the future and take local taxes to balance their budget. However, there is legislation CC-08-09-94 Page 7 0 • in Sacramento, SB 1648, which would prevent that. Regardlessly, the State cannot take any more County of Los Angeles Public Library money because they have taken it all. What is left is the dedicated revenue from the'property taxes. That is what we consider our base budget and that is what we have to work with at this point. BRUESCH: Point Iof information. Is that from the 1% ad valoreum and what is the total figure. Not the pass through or anything from the State, but your share of the property taxes. WOLFELL: Last year it was $35 million. In 1992-93, we had a $66 million, we lost $31 million from the State shift. We ended up with $35 million. We gained another $12 million because of one-time grants from the County Board of.Supervisors from the General Fund and through other grants. We ended with a budget of $47 million this past year. We see three scenarios in the case of Rosemead. The first is four days a week at 28 hours per week. If you do not chose to join the CFD„ the one thing that will be certain is that there will be a reduction of service. It will be reduced through the amount that the"property tax would support. It is called the base budget, which would have been the amount that we had this past year if we didn't gets those one-time grants from the County and other sources. In the case of some libraries, this would mean closure. Most of our libraries, at this point, are open two days a week, 14 hours. Rosemead is an exception because you are a larger library. In Rosemead's case, the figure would go down to two days; 18 hours. The third option was that if you did join, our plan would be to restore to the 1992 levels. In Rosemead's case this would be 6 days and 50 hours per week. There is a caveat there. i BRUESCH: Yes, there is a big caveat there. WOLFELL: First of all, the one question that we've had asked, is there a minimum number of cities that need to join to make this work. It would work better with more cities, but, there is not a minimum number. Secondly, the revenue generated in this City by the CFD would go to'enhance service in this City. The County Library has made that commitment to you. All revenues, I'll quote the County Librarian, "If the City opts to be included in the financing district of the library,l,its constituents will receive the value in service additions of every penny of the CFD dollars collected within its borders, plus its fair share of the existing property taxes. If it does not opt in,, its service level will be that which is possible from the remaining property tax. We must live within our available revenue." The third point is more of a caveat. Our aim would be to restore the service, as we mentioned, at six days and 50 hours a week at the 19.... BRUESCH: But, that only happens if most of the cities join. WOLFELL: Yes. What I want to say is that, for example, look at the materials budget. When we were fully funded, we have a material budget of $8 million a year. If most cities opted to join, and we were able to restore a book budget of $5 to $8 million a year, with that volume of purchases, we could get a 40% discount on the purchases we make. Now, if only a few cities opt to join, say only 10 cities with a $500,000 book budget, we may only realize a 5% discount. So, even though the amount of revenue from this City would be fixed, even though every dollar would be going to enhancing the service in the City, how far that dollar would go would be influenced by the number of cities that joined. BRUESCH: The bottom line, in reality, is by guarantee to maintain the four days a week. that we can go to six days. WOLFELL: Yes. All we can guarantee is that over that than if you did not join. You are you a few quick things that came out recentl have the joining you can only You cannot guarantee service will be enhanced correct. Let me give f. One, the City does CC-08-09-94 Page 8 • • option to withdraw on an annual basis as long as notice is given by May 1st. The second is that the County will indemnify and defend the City at the County's own expense against any legal challenge that the City may come up against. One other item that has come up frequently, is, as your know, the California Library Association has been sponsoring another piece of legislation in Sacramento, SB 1448, that we've been behind for two years. If the Governor signed that legislation today, there would not be enough time for it to be on the ballot. It would not help us during this fiscal year. It has passed the Senate with a 2/3 majority needed for an Urgency Measure. It did not pass the Assembly with a 2/3 majority. However, it will be reconsidered. At this point there is doubt that the Governor will sign, because he vetoed a similar legislation last year. BRUESCH: That is that bonding issue. COUNCILMEMBER MARGARET CLARK: Can you refresh our memories on that bill. WOLFELL: SB 1448 is the California Library Association. It was SB 566 last year and was vetoed by the Governor. It's not a bond issue. It is a library assessment. However, it does require a vote. It is an assessment. It was amended to require a vote prior to being implemented. In other words, it's not an assessment where you have a majority of protest, etc. You have to take it to the voters. MAYOR PRO TEM GARY TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question pertaining to the actual proposal. It's about a 1/2" thick. I read in there that there are 5 or 6 additional elements that the Library will implement if this is funded. Do you recall what those were? WOLFELL: No, I don't. TAYLOR: Special programs that can be implemented and added to the library. WOLFELL: The services will be restored that have been cut out. Basically, that was probably a laundry list of our services. TAYLOR: No, there were additional services to be provided. I don't have it with me tonight. Mr. Tripepi, do you recall that. I would like this gentleman to explain it. If he says he hasn't seen it then there is something wrong. TRIPEPI: It was the packet that was given out at the library headquarters, the first day of the meeting. I would like to clarify to the Council that one of the options we gave you was the implementation of the pass through agreement for one year. During that period when the Agency is subsidizing the assessment district, the Council would be able to call a Special Advisory Election in November. You could then put it to a vote to the residents of Rosemead as to whether they support the assessment or not. And, as stated before, we can withdraw at any given point of time on a yearly basis. What was the vote by the Board of Supervisors? WOLFELL: It was 3 ayes, l abstention, and 1 no. TRIPEPI: Was one of the ayes asking for a reduced rate? I've heard that one of those 3 has basically said that they will not support anything over $20-22. WOLFELL: Supervisor Molina was raising that question last week. She had us investigate a $15 rate and a $20 rate. The County Librarian met with her yesterday and Supervisor Molina is now in favor of the $28.00. TRIPEPI: She is now committed to the $28. CC-08-09-94 Page 9 .WOL•FELL: Yes, I have J1 the document, but ''in the document. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wolfell, have you seen that document and read it (packet discussed earlier). BRUESCH: There is a section there that lists all the auxiliary activities, other than book lending and such. It deals with video and... TAYLOR: It has to do with expanding the mail-out program. There are 5 or 6 items they intend to expand. Yet, being on a restricted budget, just to have the library open is critical. But, to get excess money and do some of these other programs ...the $30 is fine, if the people can vote on it. BRUESCH: We have an answer back there. ALBERT TOVER, ROSEMEAD LIBRARY AREA MANAGER: I'm Albert Tover, the other Area Manager in this region. At the July 20th meeting, there was a packet given out called "You Can Make a Difference." That included our fund raising ideas. Those are services that we currently have which we broke down and priced out. That is what was included with the packet basically as fund raising ideas. TAYLOR: I didn't bring the packet with me, but it mentioned being able to expand. TOVAR: Currently, many of those services in that packet have been restored. TAYLOR: Then, it says expand, I believe, and increase these programs. Our main purpose is to keep the libraries open so that the kids can use them. BRUESCH: May I interject something. A couple of those services that I looked at was the "talking books" for the blind, and the mobile library for the shut-ins. When we say maintain or expand services, I don't see that as just opening the 'doors for a couple of more hours each week. If we are going to talk about expansion of service, we have to talk about expansion of services to all people. That means the shut-ins, the blind, the hard of hearing, and the disabled. I see nothing wrong in expanding those other services because they are services, obviously, that are needed by a segment of our population. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. It is very interesting that you mentioned that. Maybe some of you saw the television program two nights ago on the National News about a committee in the Congress and Senate that will not open the hearings on the taxes because they need an 85% increase in all taxes. This cuts out the military. Everything they are paying now, will not be enough money in 20 years. Everything will be bankrupt. They will not hold the Hearings on it because no one has any idea what to do with it. I agree with some of the compassion that needs to be shared. But, this is an issue they don't want to discuss due to enough problems currently. It is a hard "bullet to bite," so to speak, when things have to be cut back. But, I find this very disgusting in one sense. In reading the cover letter it states that the L.A. County District has lost more than 50% of its property tax revenues. And, you refer to millions of dollars. When you lose 50% of that, we know that the taxes have still been going in. If the State is saying that we are going to cut the library because we will really make the people "squeal" about two or three days a week. This is the intimidation that goes on when someone higher up controls the money. The money has been paid in. Is that correct. The property tax continues to be paid. How can they arbitrarily cut it back 50%. What I am saying is, and Mrs. Clark has made the comment at the School Board Meeting, that the State is implementing all these rules to make the local agencies support, endorse, and approve these assessments. It's a rotten situation. As Mr. Imperial stated, "a tax is a tax no matter how you look at it." That's what this comes down to. I don't mind the $30. I can understand the need for it. I like to see the libraries open and I I haven't Sn what you're talking about CC-08-09-94 Page 10 • • would vote for the assessment myself. But, I'm not going to impose it on all the residents of our community because a higher up bureaucracy has said let's intimidate those people and force them to do our job and we'll take their money and won't give it back to them. As you've said, Mr. Wolfell, they may take even take more. If we give them this money, like they have done with so many other programs, additional funding will be cut. Their feeling is they implemented something, let's try it again. That is sickening when we, as residents and citizens of this County and state, are now in what is called a "shark feed". My brother was in the Navy and whenever they threw something overboard at the back of the boat, the, sharks would attack each other in the swarm as they tried to feed. That is what is being created within the local government agencies - turning it into a "shark feed". WOLFELL: That is how we have felt also. To get back to your other comment on expansion. Expansion was a poor choice of words. The intent was to restore service. We have no intention, in our budget situation, to expand beyond what you would consider basic library service in any foreseeable future. TAYLOR: I think the bottom line is putting it before a vote to the people, such as the City of La Verne is doing. My position is letting the people vote on this. We cannot keep being the in-between person that says Rosemead residents will pay this. The other objection I have is the County threatening that by not voting for this district, you will not have any of the other benefits that the cities vote on. If we did or didn't vote on it, I know that people from San Gabriel, Alhambra, or Temple City will be using our library. I'm not criticizing that fact, it's a fact of reality. No matter who votes for it, the L.A. County Public Library system is open to everyone. It is not a fair share type deal. Those that do open up will get an influx from other cities whether they vote or not for it. They will still benefit and use Rosemead's resources. WOLFELL: The other side of that is the guarantee that we are making. Those cities who join, every dollar will benefit the service in that city. You can view that as the County holding an axe saying that we won't restore services to cities that don't join. But, the fact is that the specific amount generated in that city will be used for that city. There will not be anything left over to share with other cities anyway. It is a divide and conquer attitude. TAYLOR: Is the library open three days currently? WOLFELL: Four days, 28 hours. TAYLOR: If we don't vote for it, then the implication is that we can be cut back to 2 days. WOLFELL: That is the amount that the property tax generates. TAYLOR: But, you have enough funds to keep it open for 4 days on your limited budget. WOLFELL: That is because of the one time infusion of grants received from the General Fund last year which we do not expect to receive a penny from this year. TAYLOR: So whether we vote for it or not on this particular issue, what you are saying is that it was a one time fund and we would be arbitrarily cut back 2 or 3 days next year. WOLFELL: You would have been at 2 days and 14 hours this year without the intervention of the County General Fund money. TAYLOR: As far as outside money coming in, Mr. Tripepi mentioned that we could take our pass through agreements on a one-shot deal don't want to give a one-shot deal this year and then find out we I CC-08-09-94 Page 11 • gave them all the money this year, whether its $160,000 or not and come back next year asking them to find us another $160,000. It's too open ended now to put the money into it. The biggest objection that I have, and I'll live with the decision one way or another is let the people vote on it. For example, part of Rosemead was to be included in the Alhambra Lighting Assessment District. Those included in that district now have to pay a $30 assessment fee approximately for the Lighting and Assessment District. A few years ago the City of Alhambra passed a bond sale for $27 million. When they pay that back it will be probably be between $50 and $60 million. The people did not get to vote on that. They have an assessment for the jail that was built.there. They have the Lighting Assessment District, Jail Assessment District, and now they are going to have the Library Assessment District, if this goes through. BRUESCH: Don't forget, about 4 years ago we had an assessment for Mosquito Abatement. We tried to pay it ourselves, but, the County would not allow us to. TAYLOR: There are others in the legislature that continue to expand this and allow it to do even more and more. That's the only unfair part of it. It's not that we don't care about the library. At a local level, we need to voice opposition that people are being taxed without allowing them any voice in the matter. We have to get 50% of the people to protest this type of thing. Again, my bottom line is, I can't support it. If we put it on the ballot for November, that's fine. Others may have something to say, Mr. Imperial, but, I will make that motion. BRUESCH: In other words, you want this to go to an Advisory Vote in November. WOLFELL: On this particular issue, after August 30th, it will be dead for this year. That is the deadline that the Board needs to get it on the property tax... BRUESCH: Do we have to wait until next year? WOLFELL: As far as your participation in this particular, it ends on August 30th if you opt not to... TAYLOR: What happens if the people vote Yes on it in November. Do they come in next year or do they say no. WOLFELL: There is not enough time to vote on it in November. What we are concerned about is this coming fiscal year. This measure is a remedy, good or bad, for this fiscal year. BRUESCH: You are saying that you have to get the Aye vote before August so that you can prepare your budget accordingly for this fiscal year. WOLFELL: The modifications in the Library Services, just to be effective October 1st, are based on the whatever the results are by August 30th. BRUESCH: I have to direct my question to Mr. Tripepi. Mr. Tripepi, we have a tentative agreement for the pass through for the Redevelopment Agency which has not kicked-in because the proviso was there that they would provide a new library or extension in the south end of the City. TRIPEPI: The City would, not the Agency. BRUESCH: Is there a way that we can use that as a temporary pass through in order to keep services... TRIPEPI: Mr. Mayor, the $160,000 does not come anywhere near what the $30 assessment is going to generate city-wide. What you have is CC-08-09-94 Page 12 • • an off-set, perhaps $400,000 city-wide. This assessment spread is being handled by Jeff Cooper of BSI. What you do is take the $160,000 and apply it to a one year pass through agreement, which would only be for one year, not the life of the Agency. It is not a long-term pass through for the life of the Agency. You would then off-set the assessment to your residents by the $160,000 amount. For example, your residents would pay $22 per parcel instead of $28 or $30. You then go to an Advisory Election in November. If the residents approve it at a $30 rate, then next year, the pass through ends. The assessment is kicked up and that basically is what is in place. Now, from the County's standpoint, does that work? WOLFELL: We would have to have our fiscal office look at it. It is our belief, however, that it is too late to get on the November ballot. BRUESCH: I was approaching it as a supplemental to what we cIould put on. Hearing the motion and hearing a second, the motion states that we would not put any assessment on until we have had a vote from the people. TAYLOR: Yes. Until it is clarified what is going to happen. If we kick in the $160,000 this year, do it at a lower assessment. We still circumvented the intent as far as letting the people vote. We've still given up the money and have the assessment put on their properties. And, next year, even though we can get out of it, it still leaves a "bad taste" that we're going about it the wrong way. BRUESCH: Would the one year pass through give us enough to keep the library doors from closing down to the 2 days. WOLFELL: We have a number of cities who have opted to buy an extra day of service in addition to what their base budget would allow. I don't know how much $160,000 would buy, but that is an option. We have several cities in this region which do it. We have one city which uses their CRA vehicle to do it. I am sure that we can buy back a service. I don't know exactly what the increment would be. BRUESCH: Then my question is to the maker of the motion, if you wish to go to an Advisory Vote, would you also be willing to use that one year limit on the pass through, which is already agreed to. We would have to vote on the Redevelopment Agency to at least partially use that as a hedge against a "rainy day". If they do start cutting back the time, we could use that as a one year hedge against that and then leave it up to the residents to continue the service at the level they have or see cut backs in days. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor, it could be taken as a separate motion. It is an entirely separate item as far as the concept is that we give them the money in an indirect way. The bottom line is, for this particular assessment to go through, my motion is that we not fund any of it until the people get to vote on it in the City of Rosemead. It's a separate deal. If you want to bring that up, fine. BRUESCH: I can't vote on one without the other. I will not vote on closing down the doors of our library. TAYLOR: We're not closing down the doors of the library. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Just for clarification, the council's vote is whether or not to consent to be included. You're not choosing to impose funding, or any of those issues. It's really a consent as to whether or not to allow all of the parcels within the City of Rosemead to be included in the district. TAYLOR: Which means they will be taxed. CC-08-09-94 Page 13 KRESS: It means there will be an assessment. Just for clarification that is the legally required action of the Council. WOLFELL: Can I tell you that some of the other cities we are dealing with are handling this in a two meeting process. They have a session such as this for information, argument, and so on. Then they hold a hearing during the second session. We are holding public hearings throughout the library district. On your next meeting, we could have our Director of Finance and Planning here to answer more questions. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would be in favor in voting on it tonight. If we bring it up at the next meeting, we will still get the same results. Public hearings, in this case, are not far reaching. They don't reach enough people to enable them to understand what we are doing. Sitting through the Alhambra Lighting Assessment District meetings, the majority of the people did speak and oppose the issue. The opponents questioned how many people in opposition did you get for this item? They responded that at tonight's meeting we had 1008 people in opposition. They had very few people in attendance. But, they didn't tell the people that the 50% majority required by law, in that particular case was (there are approximately 38,000 parcels) roughly 19,001 signatures as a 50% opposition to stop it. Even though they had 1008 written protests that night, they didn't tell the people that they were short and that they had to have 19,000. They couldn't tell the people that, it would have infuriated them. When we say we'll have public hearings, that just doesn't cut it. You are either going to let them vote or not vote. COUNCILMEMBER JAY IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I hear a guarantee by the CFD revenue that this definitely came in. I've heard so many promises like that - the school lottery that would take care of all the problems of the schools. I got out and walked and talked to people and supported that and got absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, if the County says something, it can go in one ear and out the other because they will do what they want to do. That goes from the County on up. I'm certainly in agreement with Mr. Taylor in letting the people vote on this. I'm not in favor of taxing these people in this City unless they want it. Unless they can vote on it, I don't know whether they want it or not. As far as I'm concerned, we should pass this up and wait for a vote of the people in November. That's who we work for. COUNCILMEMBER MARGARET CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I would like to point out what Gary alluded to. I feel very, very strongly about this. When the State took away the money from the counties and cities, there was a cartoon that the League of California Cities was circulating. The first picture had the State Legislature on a soapbox saying, "We refuse to raise taxes on the people of California". The next section showed him with his arm around the cities saying, "We'll make you do it." We said this is going to happen and here we are. This is exactly the prophecy. It's not any fault of the libraries. I'm so angry that they picked the libraries to use because its like apple pie and motherhood. Everybody wants free libraries and they've picked something that they know will be emotional. What angers me so much is that the same State Legislators and the County Supervisors that voted for this, watch them when there are cost cutting issues that affect them, and see if they are willing to take them. See if it isn't taken from the libraries that the children need. I want to make it very clear to the people that are employees of the libraries that we are not in any way reflecting on you. We feel you are victims just like we are. But, if we go along with this, it is going to happen again. I know Mr. Wolfell said that the money will be dedicated to the library, just like the Alhambra School Board said that the money would be dedicated to landscaping and lighting. However, there are ways that public agencies have of freeing up General Fund money. True, all that money will go for the library. But, what they were using for the library could go to CC-08-09-94 Page 14 \7, 0 9 whatever. I was told this by one of the County Supervisors, that we have no guarantee that that wouldn't happen, and that is what angers me also. There are shifts going on all the time and that puts us in a "Catch 22" situation. If we vote for the tax, we've taxed our people. If we vote against it, we voted against libraries, apple pie and motherhood. I'm so angry that the County has shifted this on us, and you're in it with us. I don't want anyone from the libraries to think that we are doing this against them. But, if we go along with it, we're just playing right into their same spending tendencies. IMPERIAL: Absolutely. I agree with that. BRUESCH: Mr. Vasquez, do you have a comment? COUNCILMEMBER JOE VASQUEZ: Yes, I do. I have to agree and vote along with my peers because I feel like there is a gun to our heads. You either vote for CFD or not. I don't like that feeling and it's a shame that it is happening to us. We are at the lower level where we have to see the people, we're face to face with them. Just like Prop 172, which was very vague with no guarantee. A lot of people thought that Public Safety monies were going for law enforcement. I don't know where it went, some went to the District Attorney's office. Public Safety is a large area. A lot of people are very disappointed about that. Again, with this item, it's another disappointment. A lot of people do not trust what is going on anymore. WOLFELL: We appreciate your time. This is an information item for you. We are boxed in a corner to a point where we can't really think of too many alternatives. We have to live within the budget that we have and that is the ad valoreum property tax. That is what we have to live with this next year if that is all we get. It is not an easy situation for anybody. We work with people everyday. We see the difference that a library makes in their lives and it hurts us when we have to turn those people away. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Again, it's not a reflection on the library. It's the principle of it. You either believe in it or you don't. We're not criticizing the library as such. If we vote for this one, then the next one that comes through, it opens everybody up. What do you as a Council stand for? For example, the Quimby Act, you pick one and vote for it, then the next one comes up and you give them an exception. I think that is what is wrong, as Mrs. Clark, Mr. Imperial and Mr. Vasquez has stated. You can't trust your government because you don't know what they are going to do. It's which side of the bed they fall out of. How did they feel about voting for one item or another. There is no consistency. At least if the people know if we agree or disagree with them, we know where they are going to stand on an issue. On this item, I think we have to make a stand and let the County know that we are not opposed to the library, but you've got to let the people vote on these items. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I would like to say at this time that I will not go with taxing the people again without it going to a vote. I will commit, and I think the Council agrees, that we will do anything we can to keep the library syst oin because we feel that it is important. We don't want. (tape unclear) our citizens, to be . that what it boils down too. You have a commitment from me at abused and we least, we'll do anything we can, but we're not aoinq to tax the 'don't want to people. abuse our residents. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. To keep the motion as simple... (tape unclear) BRUESCH: Is it too late to put this on the November ballot TRIPEPI: Mr. Kress and I have been discussing this. There are two resolutions necessary for this. If the Council wishes to do this in November, you have to amend your agenda and pass these two as passible, my - motion'is'thatwe do"not'yote.for anlassessment; that it needs to be put to a vote to the people of the City of Rosemead. CC-U8-0 9-94 Page 15 resolutions this evening. One calls for the election, the second one frames the measure. If the Council wants an Advisory Election and has staff schedule it as soon as possible, you can have a special election in March. La Verne is planning on doing this at a cost of $50,000. TAYLOR: I thought they were trying to get it on the November ballot. KRESS: No. La Verne is on the November ballot. The problem that they face is that the statutory deadline for calling a consolidated election for November is August 12. It is not a policy, it is a State law. We have the resolution here. The approximate cost given to the City of La Verne, with a population of 35,000, for the conduct of this consolidated election in November, was $17,000. If you go to a special election, a stand alone election, for this purpose only, March would be the first opportunity to do that. The cost would significantly increase. On the order of $50,000 to $60,000. BRUESCH: We have to do two things. We have to call the election and then... TRIPEPI: Yes. For the Council, one of them would be Resolution 94-39, it would be a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994 for this admission to qualified voters of an advisory measure relating to an annual benefit assessment to restore library service hours in Rosemead. The second resolution that you would need to adopt this evening, if you wish to do that, is a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to consolidate a special municipal election to be held on November 8th with the State-wide General Election to be held on that date pursuant to Section 23302 of the Election Code. Advisory vote only. Do you support a proposal by Los Angeles County to impose a benefit assessment of up to $30 per year on your property tax bill to increase library hours in Rosemead. Yes or No. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: I don't like the word increase because we have been told it would maintain or increase. Ms. Clark. CLARK: Wasn't that a little bit misleading. If someone has two units on their property, which many of our small R-2 properties have, they would be paying $52. $30 for the first and $22 for the second. Is that correct. To say $30 is misleading to anybody that has more than one unit. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor, that could be corrected. It could be stated the benefit assessment of up to $30 per dwelling. That would clarify that part of it. BRUESCH: It's not only on dwellings, its on businesses too. KRESS: We're limited to 50 words, we cannot put a chart in there. It's in the nature of a straw poll, it's advisory, it's not binding. What you have in front of you is compromise language that seeks to register the opinions of as many people as possible. It really doesn't deal with the commercial aspect of this because it is targeted to registered voters as opposed to property owners and business people. It intentionally says up to $30, at least in La Verne, targeting the most likely scenario. It may be different in Rosemead. Again, I wasn't sure that this is the direction the Council would take. Otherwise we would have formally presented these resolutions to you for your advance consideration. CC-08-09-94 Page 16 $28.50 per unit; multi-family residential, $21.38 per unit; mobile home, $14.25 per unit; non-residential, such as an area of commercial land, they balance that at seven Equivalent Dwelling units per acre. The formula breaks it down further at .75 benefit factor which would be $149.63 for an acre of building land. We cannot put all that into the ballot. NUNEZ: My questions is, if I am using the house as a single family residence... BRUESCH: If you are taxed as a single unit, you're going to be taxed as a single unit. We went through this before when you had your assessment on the trash bill and it was proven at that time you had one unit. In order to expedite these things, the first thing that has to happen is that the maker of the motion will have to rescind the motion because we are going to have to amend the agenda. TAYLOR: Why don't we just not act on it, we haven't voted on it yet. HOLLY KNAPP, 8367 E. Whitmore Street, Rosemead: Do you want to spend $17,000 or more for something you know the people will not vote for. When the other city Councils are probably going through the same turmoil that you are going through, and if they are thinking like you are, and I'm hoping they are thinking like you are, then they are probably going to go for the option of not joining. I think that is where you were heading before this came up. I can see what you are trying to come up with to get the wish of the Council because they want to let the people vote on it. But, I am really thinking, it's going to cost us money no matter how you do it. This thing now sounds as though it is so up in the air that nobody really knows what they are doing anyway. So, maybe by voting No you are giving the Supervisor's and the County a message that you will not pull the wool over our eyes again. Just as a citizen out here who knows the feel of the people and you know they are going to vote No on it. If a thousand people went to those meetings to say don't assess my house for $9, $10, $12 or $14, you know they are not going to say you can tax me for $30. I don't use the library, maybe the kids next door do. VASQUEZ: Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: First of all, Mr. Kress has a comment. KRESS: Just to follow up, there is one other thing before you enact or consider these resolution, I should tell you that the State Election Law provides that this process has to be completed by August 12, and the deadline for removal for of such an item is August 16. If, this whole CFD blows up on August 30 and there are votes to go forward on the board and there isn't sufficient city-by-city approval to be included in the district, you could end up with a ballot measure asking about something that... isn't viable. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Knapp pointed out a valid question as far as it becomes management by crisis. Somebody threw out the date of August 12th and, "my gosh, maybe we better act by August the 12th." If we do, and it still will not go on this year, we'll have time to think about it and see the results of what the County does and then legitimately do it. I agree with what Mrs. Knapp pointed out. We could be stampeded into a decision.. I will leave my original motion as is. IMPERIAL: And I'll second that. TAYLOR: Let's vote on it and send it to the County. VASQUEZ: Right, I agree with what Mr. Taylor said. When we were elected we decided that we wanted to take the burden and that is why the people elected us into this office. We're going to take the heat if that is what it is going to come to. I'm against the CFD. CC-08-09-94 Page 18 IMPERIAL: Would you restate your motion Mr. Taylor. TAYLOR: The motion was that we oppose this assessment and we notify the County Board of Supervisors that we will not approve until the residents of the County get to vote on it, not just the residents of Rosemead. KRESS: May I suggest that we add the language that the City of Rosemead does not consent to inclusion in the Community Facilities District for the current fiscal year. TAYLOR: Fine. Also, in general, and if any other Council members want to clarify this in the sense that we are opposed to the imposition of assessment districts, taxes, and users fees unless the people are allowed to vote on these. I think we get the gist of what we are looking for. IMPERIAL: The Yes vote would be to deny membership in this. Am I correct. TAYLOR: Yes. The motion is that we not join this. BRUESCH: Please vote ...I would like to make a comment to the library people. Being an educator we were told when the State lottery was passed, that one of the things that the money would be used for was to ensure that the school libraries were kept open. They have been kept open, but all the Librarians have been fired. Which means if you are an educator and have been to a school library lately, they are literally unusable because there is no one there to maintain the books in the system. A library is not a frill. It is essential in the community. I've always felt that it is a cultural oasis in the vast desert of mediocrity. For the State and the County to play Chess with the cities and using the libraries as the Pawn, I think is an utter disgrace. I am incensed that the State and County are doing this to our people. I don't use the library too frequently because I have a set of encyclopedias and many books at home. But, 90% of the people in our community do not have that opportunity. Sometimes the only place they can get reading material is at the County library. Sometimes with the visually impaired or blind, that is the only place they can get reading material they can use. I feel strongly about this. I don't know where to go to protest this sham they are foisting upon our public. To use libraries in this way to get more money out of the communities, to me is the epitome of what is negative about our body politic today. It is the exact opposite of what our democratic ideals have said to our people. I wish we could grab the State Legislators by the throat and shake them into reality - you can't do this to our communities. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor, You have said that very strongly and I agree with it. If there is no objection, I would like this item verbatim and we'll send it to the County Board of Supervisor's and our local Legislators so that they will understand that the people at the closest level understand what the taxing is. In Sacramento, we are basically numbers and just exist down here. Then they will understand why we are standing up and saying stop this kind of taxes. There is no recourse. IMPERIAL: There is a lady in the audience that would like to speak. GINNY GAMACHE, Friends of the'Rosemead Library: My name is Ginny Gamache and I am a fourth generation citizen of Rosemead. I feel competent ...If it hadn't been for Mr. Imperial, we would not have been mentioned in the Rosemead newsletter. A lot of people do not realize that we have been here for more than 30 years. We buy things the County doesn't. We sponsor the children's reading program. One of our most recent acquisitions was a tape mender, to mend video tapes so that we can reuse them again. We have an on-going book sale of paperbacks, National Geographical. We have an CC-08-09-94 Page 19 \7 0 up-coming book sale in September. We can no longer have it three days in a row, we have-to split it up now. We buy videos, we were in the parade for the first time this year. We're trying to get community recognition because I am sure there a lot of people out there that don't know that we exist. BRUESCH: Could I suggest something to you only because it came up last year. Get your flyers to the schools as they open up in September. A lot of teachers in my school did not know you were having a book sale. When they went to the library they thought they had found a "treasure trove." They were so glad to get books that would have cost them $4 or $5 at a bookstore for only $.25 or $.50. We had teachers come back with armloads of books. It helps you and helps them. Get your notices to the schools. GAMACHE: Well, I think we generally send them to the Principals. last year and this year we hit all the businesses in Rosemead, every grocery store, every place I could think of that had a counter and left a handful of brochures. If you can't give us monetary support, we need moral support. Bring us a book, magazine. We'll.sell them. I go there every Friday and set up a table for the sale of paperbacks for 3 for $1.00. Just give us your moral support and make sure the people of Rosemead know we're around. Thank you. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'm glad to hear that because I have many books and also I am glad to finally meet you. I've read many of your letters to the Editor. VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. VI. STATUS REPORTS A. ORDINANCE NO. 744 - HOTEL/MOTEL This item is scheduled for the meeting of August 23, 1994. VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. COUNCIIJ MBER JOE VASQUEZ 1. Requested that the water heater building permit fees be brought back for discussion at the next meeting. He expressed his concern that people who are trying to make a living or are unemployed have to pay a fee for installing a water heater. B. MAYOR PRO TEM TAYLOR 1. Stated that the Council had received a memo a few weeks ago regarding changing two ceiling fans at 8414 Fern Avenue and requested a report on that matter. C. COUNCIIJ MBER IMPERIAL 1. Stated that the entire building permit requirements and fees should be reviewed again by the Council and that we have gone overboard with this. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. in memory of Jennifer Barrett who passed away from Leukemia. The next regular meeting is scheduled for August 23, 1994, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: City Clerk CC 08-09-94 Page 20 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. On this particular item, as far as a good faith intent, impose a benefit assessment of approximately $30 per year per dwelling unit. It gives the residents, the voters in the community, the intent. There is never going to be a perfectly written ballot. BRUESCH: Should we want to vote on these two resolutions tonight Mr. Kress, do we need a vote first saying that this was an unusual circumstance or can we use the item V. to be the... KRESS: No, I think you need to formally amend the agenda determining that there is a subsequent need to.take action that arose as part of this discussion and was not available to be posted as part of the regularly posted agenda, and further there is an immediate need to take action in that the deadline for calling a consolidated election is just a matter of days away and will not allow you to take this matter over to the next regular meeting. BRUESCH: Mr. Nunez, you have a comment. JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead: You mention per dwelling per unit. I have 3 dwellings on my property, but I use it as one dwelling. How does that affect me. TAYLOR: Excuse me Mr. Bruesch. He's entitled to an answer and correct me Mr. Kress, if you have three separately taxed listed properties, all three would have an assessment. Is that correct? NUNEZ: They are not separately taxed per se. I get a bill for the whole thing. TAYLOR: Then I would say that per mobile unit it's $14.50 approximately. If it is an apartment, the units are individually taxed but on a prorated basis, it would not be $30 for each of them. NUNEZ: Even so, I am not renting those units. TAYLOR: Mr. Nunez, the bottom line is you either get to vote on it or you don't get to. All I'm saying is that instead of shoving it down everybody's throat, and the County can still do it, with or without our vote, we're just saying that we don't like what you are doing. Whatever the dollar amount is, we are looking out for your interest by saying we want you to vote on this. If we don't vote, you pay the fee no matter what. NUNEZ: That is true, I understand that. I don't like the wording of it. TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Kress says that is not right. KRESS: This is a situation in which the City Council has, what I would term a "front end" veto. If you do not agree to be included in the district, the County can't do this. TAYLOR: I stand corrected on that item. KRESS: One more time for clarification. If you go to an advisory vote in November, that would allow you to join the district the following fiscal year. That doesn't address this fiscal year. IMPERIAL: Then there is no reason to even vote on this then. TAYLOR: It would clear the air, Mr. Imperial. BRUESCH: It would give us a feeling of the community. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor, if I may for clarification. Mr. Nunez, it states, if this is voted through, single family residential is CC-08-09-94 Page 17