Loading...
CC - 06-22-93MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL JUNE 22, 1993 APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD DATF 7.17- 1~3 BY r The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Dennis Alexander of the Church of the Nazarene. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: Councilmember McDonald - Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 8, 1993 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 8, 1993, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. SAN GABRIEL VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF CITIES INVOLVEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN John Oshimo, from Cordoba Corporation and representing the San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities, presented an overview of this process. Mayor Bruesch noted that water quality and needs of the youths of the community were not being addressed by this Plan at this time. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 93-29 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $308,556.92 NUMBERED 6312 THROUGH 6435 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that Resolution No. 93-29 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 6-22-93 Page #1 • B. RESOLUTION NO. 93-30 - ADOPTION OF FY 1993-94 BUDGET The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATION FOR THE 1993-94 FISCAL YEAR AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR 1993-94, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that Resolution No. 93-30 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilmember Taylor stated he had stated his objections in the Budget Study Session and that several items had come up that he had reservations about and they will be discussed as they come before the council individually for approval. Mayor Bruesch asked City Manager Tripepi to report on the status of the State budget process as it relates to local governments. Mayor Bruesch's remarks are entered verbatim as follows: "I'd just like to add my personal comment referring back to the comment that Mr. Tripepi said about the State finally understanding the differences between cities. That understanding didn't come from osmosis, it came from hard work in terms of Mr. Tripepi and Mr. Vasquez and Ms. Clark and Mr. McDonald continually going up to Sacramento over the last year and grabbing the shirt tails, the collars, the cuffs of any legislator they could and giving them an education in what type of City Rosemead is; that Rosemead does not get the benefit of the property tax; that we are a contract city and I think this City owes a debt of gratitude to the hard work and the constant flying trips up to Sacramento that our Council and our City Manager has made to really do a good job of educating the people up there in Sacramento to know that there is a difference and I applaud their efforts and the results are that we are not going to be hit by this type of ax that they are swinging at other public agencies and I would like to give my applause to them. And I would like my comments in the Minutes verbatim, please." C. RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 - ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON NEW AVENUE (750 FEET NORTH OF GRAVES/GARVEY The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON NEW AVENUE (750 ' NORTH OF GRAVES AVENUE TO GARVEY AVENUE) MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 93-31 be adopted. Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None CC 6-22-93 Page #2 • s The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilmember Taylor stated that he was in favor of the project but that it should be a City project and done with City funds. D. RESOLUTION NO. 93-32 - AB 408 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING PENALTIES The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ESTABLISHING PARKING PENALTIES VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: This is a resolution for the Council's consideration this evening. It becomes necessary as a result of signing into law of Assembly Bill 408. What it says basically is that the Council must adopt a resolution which sets the penalties for the vehicle code violations on the parking penalties for all cities that are served by Temple Station. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. How are we actually going to replace this program? BRUESCH: I had that same question. JEFF STEWART, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER: We're not sure yet. There's... everybody's kind of feeling their way around right now and there's several different options we have. Some cities are contracting with the City of Inglewood as it turns out with their program and the County is talking about putting a program into place and there's some private vendors. Right now we're not exactly sure how we're going to.... TAYLOR: Well, at this point I can't support it until we get the information how we're going to do it. Who collects our fines right now? Who do we hire? STEWART: We contract with a firm called Judicial Data Services. TAYLOR: And they're located where? STEWART: Down in Orange County and they collect the fines for us. Those which go on appeal which are about twenty a month, thirty a month, they still run through Rio Hondo Court in E1 Monte. TRIPEPI: And they collect for approximately how many cities? STEWART: For twenty some cities. BRUESCH: My main concern about this is that if we are going to deal with fines administratively within the city or within a region then there is going to have to be a certain conformity between cities of a region if they join together or within our own code structure so that for instance, definitions are exact, so that if we are going to do it in-house or with a private vendor that a person cannot say well, what do you mean by and I'll give you a case in point. On number 117, no parking on lawns, is it a dirt area, a lawn area, or is it a strip out by the... it's going to...we might have to go back now that we're getting the responsibility in our hands, we might have to go back and look at our parking codes and our parking violations and really go through it with a fine toothed comb and make our definitions more exact, more careful so that we aren't tied up into long winded administrative hearings and so forth. I have a question on this. I noticed that as the increases on page survey of the schedules that the increases are different according to the different violations. Wouldn't it be a much saner way of going about it of saying across the CC 6-22-93 Page #3 • 0 BRUESCH CONTINUES: board 15% raise on everything instead of hitting and missing and leaving some the same way and adding $7.00 to one and $2.00? TRIPEPI: ...We are trying to get these fees similar to the surrounding cities. BRUESCH: So, it's a... TRIPEPI: You can but you're going to have $28.53. BRUESCH: Well, no, no. I'm not saying that. I understand that you want to do it to an even dollar. TRIPEPI: If I might, Mr. Mayor, let me explain something. All we're doing tonight... as the Council knows all of these are on the books and are currently being enforced by Parking Control Officers. We're all aware of that. Right? Lawn parkers, specially. All we're doing this evening is per the requirement of AB 408, if we are to continue to be able to collect the fines as a revenue source we have to adopt a resolution which sets forth the fines that we are going to basically collect. Now, any of these are capable of being changed by any member of the Council, you want to lower them, you want to raise them, it's no problem. It's just a suggested schedule that the staff has come up with. By approving this resolution tonight that is merely all you're doing. You're putting the resolution on the books. That means that we have taken a step that complies with the requirements of AB 408 that allows us to go to the next step which will allow us eventually to collect and retain all the fines. We will no longer have to share these. The percentages are split, right now, considerably. Now, the City will basically retain all of this as a source of revenue. With that, obviously, is going to come some responsibility. I think the Council knows us well enough that we're not going to build a new revenue collection department or that sort of thing with two new people or anything of the such. We will bring a suggested or recommended program back to the Council for its approval once all of the scenarios can be put together in some logical form and evaluated as to what we think is the best bet for the City of Rosemead. Right now, as Mr. Stewart indicated, there isn't enough information about which way every... all of the cities are going to. Again, there's some uncertainty out there but all you're doing tonight is just approving the resolution which is the first step. It doesn't mean we run out and start collecting this amount on these particular violations. It is, however, the first step that we must take in order to comply with the provisions of AB 408 and that's all we're asking for this evening. We will bring back to the Council a program for it to look at and either amend, change or basically approve. CLARK: Is this saying that we will get all the money but we have to pay for administrating it? STEWART: Minus $5.00. CLARK: Hmm? STEWART: The $5.00 goes to the Court, the State and the County. It's a three-way split. There's a $1.00 fee to some State agency and a $1.00 fee to the County and then a $2.00 fee to the court reconstruction fund and we'll take the rest. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Court and jailhouse, neither of which have anything to do with parking. Doesn't make any sense but that's just one of those things. CLARK: Do you foresee an even out, what's the term? Are we losing money or...? TRIPEPI: Oh, no. No. There'll be a big increase in the revenues over what we're getting. CC 6-22-93 Page 14 0 0 CLARK: But the administration costs won't.... BRUESCH: Obviously the costs will be there, too. STEWART: The revenues will outstrip the administration costs. Nobody really knows because nobody has a program in place yet. Not until January 1, 1994, and it looks like all the cities are going to wait until the last minute. Quite honestly it's very strange that there's no private vendors out there expressing a whole lot of interest. BRUESCH: Who wants to hold administrative hearings on...? STEWART: Well, I mean I would... if you're asking for an educated guess, I would think the administrative fee would be around $1.25 per citation, something like that. I don't know off hand until we see some concrete proposals. KRESS: This step is necessary. The suggested penalty schedule that you have for consideration is not set in concrete, as the City Manager has suggested. It's subject to your review and revision at any time. What you need to be aware of is that as of July 1, 1993, there is no more bail schedule and you need to replace it with something. So, I would strongly suggest that you take this step. In the interim between July 1 and the end of the year, the administrative part of the program will be designed and put into place. The Municipal Courts are available to continue the administrative hearing process through the end of the year. So, there will be an opportunity for people to challenge parking citations. You're not doing anything with a person's ability to challenge a citation. That will remain the same with the Municipal Court until such time as you adopt a replacement process. Cities delayed action to this particular item. There is as part of the State law, it is mandated that to the extent possible as the Mayor mentioned, there be uniformity. There have been a number of meetings throughout LA County to determine what should we do. The closest that any cities have come to a uniform schedule is to deal with it on a court-by-courthouse basis, a judicial district and that's the report that was given to you this evening. The cities that are within the judicial district, what they're doing, trying to present something that's in line with that but practically every city is going to be considering this very close to June 30 and adopting a schedule. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. As Mr. Kress was just stating according to this AB 408, do we have a copy of that here at City Hall? TRIPEPI: Umhum, umhum. TAYLOR: I'd like a copy of that. It states that becomes effective July 1, 1993, but need not be fully implemented until January 1, 1994. TRIPEPI: That's... TAYLOR: Excuse me. The way this is written, I have some real apprehension about what's going to happen when a citation is issued. And I'd like to read a couple of sentences here. It doesn't give you page numbers here but it's technically the third page where it states in the third paragraph "Punishment for parking violations changes from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty. Violators are liable rather than guilty and incur an obligation enforceable through DMV holds, offsets by the State Controller or as civil matters. It remains a rebuttable presumption that the registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for the violation." And the way I interpret this is if you go to the next page, it states "If a citation, this is first paragraph, is contested it is first subject to determination by an administrative examiner hired by the City or other processing agency. A hearing is conducted by the examiner in a fair and appropriate manner. Rules of evidence are not applicable. A statement or appearance by the citing officer is not required unless the examiner so determines. The issuing agency is not required to submit evidence other than the citation itself and the vehicle owner identification. Representation by counsel is not necessary. The burden of proof would be modified from beyond a reasonable doubt to the preponderance of the evidence." Which means simply the citation itself and the vehicle owner identification. CC 6-22-93 Page #5 11 BRUESCH: Which basically is the English mode of law. That's exactly what it is. TAYLOR: Well, as you continue on down, now. It talks about how they're going to get the money. In other words, this is guilty until proven innocent, is what it comes down to. TRIPEPI: Exactly. TAYLOR: The next paragraph. "If a violator fails to pay following a determination which is that individual, that we would hire so to speak, if a violator fails to pay following a determination a hold upon registration would be filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles as under current law. If the delinquency exceeds $400 a civil and that's underlined, this isn't a criminal, you're going to have to go through the courts and probably get an attorney, a civil money judgment may be obtained from the court. A violator objecting to the determination would be entitled to seek review by filing appeal with the Municipal or Justice Court where the matter is to be heard de novo. Ultimately if a money judgment is rendered the obligation would be collectable through existing strategies such as liens on income tax refunds, interception of lottery winnings or the next item, and a contempt citation as a last resort." As I stated, I have serious reservations. I understand because of this AB 408 we have to adopt something but if you'll look in the budget you have right there, I believe that our traffic fines that we receive are estimated at around $200,000 is what's estimated for this year. The expense on the one side is I think $132,000. What are we paying that collection agency right now? Or how was the fine split up when we collect it? STEWART: Well, they write us a check each month. Their administrative fee is...I believe it's $2.25. TAYLOR: $2.25? Well, what's the disparity? Like I say, in that budget the previous year we had $167,000 in revenue brought in and our expenses were $109,000. So, we're already making money and my motion on this that we leave the fees as they are until we get it explained what's going to happen. TRIPEPI: Okay. All right. Wait a...Mr. Taylor, then I have a recommendation then that you adopt the resolution as amended to reflect the current fee schedule. We have no problem with that. TAYLOR: Okay. Then what can we do about modifications or what... TRIPEPI: To 408? TAYLOR: ...options do we have on this 408? TRIPEPI: We'd have to put the legislative advocate, one of his first duties when the legislature reconvenes after the recess, would be to try to amend AB 408, if you don't like the way it's written. TAYLOR: I'm not sure that so much how we need to amend it. Again, not having the bill to review what we've again mandated by the State, we apparently... TRIPEPI: Well, I think the problem is with some of the...Mr. Taylor you seem to have some problem with the language as it reads, like you're presumed guilty until you know you're not presumed innocent until proven guilty. TAYLOR: Well, it's kind of like of the drug enforcement law. They go in, they confiscate the property and then they take it automatically, immediately, then sell it, and then the people can go to court. I make this as a comparable, you're almost presumed guilty until you want to fight, hire an attorney, go to court, appeal it, whatever. TRIPEPI: Okay. CC 6-22-93 Page #6 0 0 TAYLOR: It becomes a civil matter, now. TRIPEPI: Yeah, it's taken out of the realm of criminal, it's civil, I know, Bob. TAYLOR: A $25 ticket isn't worth it. KRESS: Well, at the risk of getting more excited, the next step in this process is traffic violations themselves. You've heard a lot recently about the County Sheriff and the District Attorney's office and what they're going to do in light of proposed budget cutbacks. This is something that is actively being studied by the court system and to the extent that it's parking today, it's all of traffic in the very near future... TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Kress... KRESS: ...so you want to get it right. TAYLOR: Well, your point is well taken and I've said many times in the past that it's the best country in the world but we're governed by a million laws when you start taking everything into consideration and the courts, they are overextended, it takes a couple of years now for a lot of things to even get to trial but again, going back to Mr. Bruesch, do you have the figures in there that...? BRUESCH: Yeah, I do. I was going to just give it to you. Our estimate in 92-93 income from parking citations is $200,000, our estimated parking control costs is $113,000 so there's a difference of about $87,000 there. TAYLOR: Okay. Where's that $87,000 now and yet we're going to raise the fees? TRIPEPI: It comes to the City side, well, I mean right now, as it stands, Mr. Taylor, if we take in $200,000 and you spend $130,000, you have $70,000 left over that stays in the City's general fund. TAYLOR: Okay. I don't think that it's bad enough... I've gotten several calls from people that if they leave their car out on street sweeping day, I simply tell them I can't do anything about it and I'm not going to, it's just the way the ordinances are written and when they're parking on the lawn it's the same situation. I had a call of someone down on south of Garvey there they'd parked on their lawn, they got a ticket, well, we had overnight guests, there's a lot of apartments in the area, we couldn't park on the street, we couldn't park in the driveway, and I says I can't do anything about the ticket. That's the way it is. So, we're already making $75,000 and we're going to turn around and raise the fees more. I don't think it should be a revenue raiser. TRIPEPI: All right. Again, Mr. Taylor, if the Council... if you don't mind, just adopt then adopt the resolution with the amendment that the fees be listed as current fees and we will do that and give it back to the Council to show you that nothing has changed. That's fine. We have no problem with that. TAYLOR: I have no.... BRUESCH: Mr. Taylor, if I may. One of the things that I noticed in looking at the other cities and their fee structure, actually it is a fee, now, is that different communities have different amounts for different violations and you know according to the needs of that particular community you're going to put a greater value on breaking one law than another law and for instance, in some areas commercial parking of big rigs is punishable by $125 or $135 you know. Obviously that's a big thing in that particular community, they don't want trucks in the street. CC 6-22-93 Page #7 • • TAYLOR: That's interesting. Excuse me. Point of information. You're talking about big rigs parking on the street over 80" wide or so. What is it? It's going up $8.00 or something like that for the street sweeping parking or yard but for the 80" trucks, it's not going up a dollar, that's staying the same for commercial rigs parking on the streets. Yet, we're going to increase 350 for somebody that's there on street sweeping day. BRUESCH: You see... and it's our call. It's our call as to which ones are-going to be the ones that are increased or decreased or stay the same because you use those ticket fees and I'll continue calling them fees because they're no longer bail, AB 408 has taken that away, these fees as judging what we feel is important in our community and I agree with Mr. Taylor that I think the whole thing has to be studied. I think the fee structure needs to be studied. I think the regulations themselves and the language we use have to be studied. TAYLOR: Well, I think we're apparently stuck with that language and I don't like voting on this 408 without even seeing it. Another point of information. Our little weekly letter that we get each week on an average I'm going to use this, yard parking and street sweeping, 220 number of citations in one wee. BRUESCH: All the time. TAYLOR: So, multiply that almost a thousand a month, that's 12,000 or 11,000 a year that we get. So, we know basically what we're going to be doing with it and we're increasing that fee roughly one-third. TRIPEPI: All right. Mr. Mayor. I got a recommendation to make. I move...I make a recommendation to the Council that the Council adopt the resolution at the current fee schedule. When the program takes effect and it's been running for a year, I'm not a bashful manager, if we're losing money I'll come back to you and tell you we need to raise the fees. Fair enough? TAYLOR: What happens if we don't adopt it tonight? I want to see that AB 408. TRIPEPI: As Mr. Kress told you, there's a deadline to adopt the resolution... TAYLOR: And what happens if we don't? TRIPEPI: ...apparently of July 1st. Well... KRESS: Well, technically there would be no penalty schedule adopted that would be effective for a period of time. TAYLOR: You're saying that our current fee doesn't operate, that our current fees would not apply? KRESS: That's my understanding because the bail system you have never adopted the bail schedule that's adopted by the Municipal Court and it just ceases to be of any force and effect on June 30. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. Can we adopt the fee schedule... BRUESCH: As is? CLARK: ...as is without...? TRIPEPI: That's what I'm suggesting, Mrs. Clark. TAYLOR: Let her finish it. CLARK: ...without giving a stamp of approval to 408? KRESS: You don't have to approve it, it's the law. TRIPEPI: You haven't approved 408 until you approve the implementation. CC 6-22-93 Page #8 0 CLARK: I know that but I think that's Gary and Bob's problem, is they don't... KRESS: Yeah but I mean it's not something... you should understand that you don't have a lot of options. CLARK: I understand that. But what I'm saying is can we adopt the fee schedule and keep the parking fines coming without... KRESS: I don't think there's any implication... BRUESCH: Why don't we do this... KRESS: ...that you're agreeing with the law or disagreeing with the law. You're merely taking a step to comply with it. BRUESCH: Why don't we do this. Adopt the current fees and structure, the fine structure whatever you want to call it, direct staff to contact... TRIPEPI: You don't have to direct us. We already know. I'm going to get a copy of AB 408, I'm going to give you a copy of the analysis of the bill. It'll be on the next agenda because I think there was going to be discussion about some people maybe want to try and change the language of the bill which is what you'd have to do to get relief from that legislation. It's a general law of the State of California and we're a general law city. BRUESCH: Well, wouldn't it be better to have the force of having language in the resolution... TRIPEPI: No, sir. It wouldn't because all the resolution is is an adoption of your fee schedule which I'm telling you leave it at the current level. I have no problem with that. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The fact that we need to adopt this is just an example of the 3,000 bills or so that's introduced in Sacramento and we get a lot of these bills for whatever reason, the timing of it, I'm not criticizing staff or how the legislature works, we're geared into certain programs that we watch for, redevelopment law being one as far as the taxing increment and such but again, this law's been passed and I honestly don't know the full terminology of it and it's approximately,12-15 pages but it sounds to me like we're stuck with another mandated law. Is that correct? BRUESCH: Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. TRIPEPI: Well, all right, now there is one exception. It may be mandated but you have the ability to collect as much as it costs to implement it unlike a state-mandated cost without any reimbursement. TAYLOR: No, Frank, I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about now the procedures that are going to be used. Are those mandated, now, in this bill? TRIPEPI: Yes. That will be the new procedure. TAYLOR: That will be the sticky part that so all this goes out of the courts now and then there are going to be some more administrative costs that I don't know what they are... BRUESCH: Well, Gary, what it appears to me to be doing is almost demanding that cities set up Justice Courts within their boundaries. So that we have a Justice of the Peace and if there's a violation of traffic standards there you don't go to a County Court you go to a city Justice Court and a lot of cities already have them. Rosemead does not. CC 6-22-93 Page #9 • • KRESS: As a practical matter we may end up using the courtroom in the existing courthouse, a retired judge. I know one group of cities is planning to utilize that where although the terminology will be different and outside the criminal system the location could be exactly the same and the type of process. BRUESCH: Another full employment bill, right? TRIPEPI: Well, there's going to be a new class of people who come along that are going to be willing to provide this service, obviously for a fee. I should advise the Council the League took a very positive position on this bill, the League of California Cities, because obviously at a time when finances are tight the courts are looking for ways to dump responsibilities and cities are looking for a way to make money and this was seen as an opportunity to gather revenues. You don't have to share it with the County. BRUESCH: But one thing the League forgot is that on the practical matter of day-to-day living within the community anybody who is an elected official knows, and I think all my colleagues will agree with me, that parking citations take up a third of my time on the phone. People are continually calling elected officials on parking violations and why and where and how and but I didn't do it and what do you mean by and we've all sat through those long conversations with people who say well you're just out to get the bucks you know... TRIPEPI: So, you're already taking that abuse anyway. BRUESCH: Oh yeah, you betcha. TRIPEPI: Then nothing's going to change. BRUESCH: We don't need any more, let's put it that way. VASQUEZ: Mr. Mayor. You know as Frank mentioned, this is subject to review and revision at any time so I'd like to just move and make a motion on this to pass it. BRUESCH: Okay. In other words your motion is that we accept the bail fine fees as are right now, current. Okay. Is there a second? CLARK: I'll second that. BRUESCH: It's been moved and seconded in favor, vote. Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None Any further discussion? All TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like this item in the Minutes verbatim and when it comes back this thing is 19 pages long and I don't think any of us really know how we're going to... supposed to implement it. BRUESCH: I don't think anyone Gary knows how they're going to implement it in this whole State in fact. I would again direct staff to contact our legislative advocate with our concerns and displeasures and I also say that if we continue in this process we are going to have to go back and look at the fee structure and the language we use so that that language can be not misinterpreted in the least because if we're going to do anything in-house or local... TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Excuse heat of the discussion here they are currently? CLARK: Yes. VASQUEZ: Current fees. i me. One point of clarification. In the what was the motion to leave our fees as CC 6-22-93 Page #10 TRIPEPI: Current fees. TAYLOR: Thank you. TRIPEPI: You're welcome. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-D AND CC-G REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A APPROVAL OF EXTENSION TO LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT WITH MARIPOSA LANDSCAPE CC-B ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD CC-C ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, CONCRETE REPAIRS IN VARIOUS STREETS CC-E APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEER BIDS FOR 48th BID PACKAGE ROS04EAD HANDYMAN GRANT PROGRAM CC-F APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEER BIDS FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD (I-10 FREEWAY/VALLEY), NEW AVENUE (750 FEET NORTH OF GRAVES/GARVEY), AND CONDUIT AND LOOP INSTALLATION AT INTERSECTIONS OF TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD/LOFTUS DRIVE AND TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD/MARSHALL STREET CC-H ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD AND MARSHALL STREET MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-D APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND AGENCY FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD (I-10 FREEWAY/VALLEY), NEW AVENUE (750 FEET NORTH OF GRAVES/GARVEY), AND CONDUIT AND LOOP INSTALLATION AT INTERSECTIONS OF TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD/LOFTUS DRIVE AND TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD/MARSHALL STREET MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council approve the agreement. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilmember Taylor stated that he was in favor of the project but that it should be City funds. It was noted that staff was removing the traffic signal at Temple City Boulevard and Marshall Street from this project. CC-G APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO UNDERTAKING AGREEMENT FOR TRACT MAP NO. 47192, DEL MAR/GRAVES AVENUES Bill Lau, 1379 Sunnyslope Place, Monterey Park, apologized for the condition of the property; stated that it would kept clean and asked the Council to approve this request. CC 6-22-93 Page #11 . r i Mayor Bruesch ascertained that the bond amount was adequate for today's construction costs or 150% of estimated construction costs. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the Council approve the Amendment to Undertaking Agreement for TM 47192. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR BRUESCH 1. Introduced Captain Sterling from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 13, 1993. Respectfully submitted: C' y Clerk CC 6-22-93 Page #12