Loading...
CC - Minutes 03-09-10Minutes of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 9, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:02 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member/Commissioner Armenta INVOCATION: Council Member/Commissioner Low PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro TemNice-Chairman Taylor, Council Member/Commissioner Armenta, Council Member/Commissioner Low, and Council Member/Commissioner Ly. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE- None 2. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 - 09 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010-09 for payment of Commission expenditures in the amount of $21,352.73 demand nos. 11237 through 11240. Commissioner/Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council Member Armenta, to approve Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 1 of 28 3. MATTERS FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & STAFF A. The Glendon Hotel - Request for Proposal (RFP) On July 2, 2008, the Rosemead Community Development Commission acquired the Glendon Hotel located at 8832 Glendon Way for $4.4 million using non-restricted tax increment dollars to fund the transaction. Immediately following the purchase of the property, proposals were solicited from reputable companies specializing in hotel operations thereby continuing the operation of the hotel while a long term development plan for the site was finalized. The Commission selected Rosemead Inn Hotel Partners, LLC as the operator for the hotel. The purchase of the Glendon Hotel was originally part of an overall larger development project (the Glendon Way Project). However, the Commission is no longer working on a conceptual development plan for the Glendon Way Project and the property is no longer need for the purposes for which it was acquired. Due to the interest by the development community to acquire vacant parcels of land for the purpose of development in the City a Request for Proposal (RFP) to sell the Glendon Hotel is being proposed. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids from qualified entities for the purchase of the Glendon Hotel property through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Economic Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez reviewed the staff report Council Member Polly Low stated that in 2008 the Commission was interested in purchasing the Glendon Way property to development that site. Mrs. Low referenced the statement "the Commission is no longer interested in doing so" and asked what that meant. Mrs. Ramirez stated that the Agency is no longer in an exclusive negotiation agreement with any entity for that property or those original properties where the agency originally was looking in developing. The agency was in an ENA with Jacobson Family Holdings for a while when the original site was out for proposal. Council Member Low reiterated that the agency wanted to partner up with them so it would develop that entire area. Mrs. Ramirez replied yes; that was the intention and there were five parcels at that time. Council Member Low clarified that she had a discussion with Mr. Wong about developing that area. Her concern was that the agency purchased the hotel with the intent that the city would have control over the development agency and have control of that parcel. Mrs. Low added that if the developer was interested and if they bought other parcels the agency could partner up and work with them and have better use of the land. However, her other concern was that if the agency sells that parcel then they might bring in a third owner and make it more difficult to develop. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 28 Community Development Director Wong stated that the agency did not have control of the other parcels that are not part of the RFP. At this time staff would recommend Council to approve this and in addition staff wants to see what redevelopment proposals or economic developments might be of interest for this parcel. If the agency has some interest we would hash it out with the other adjoining properties and use a redevelopment tool to assist on a project that's agreeable that the city may be interested in or beyond that. At this time staff would like to see what the best use of the property for redevelopment is. Council Member Low stated that the RFP was not just for selling the hotel; it's to see what other developers have in mind and what kind of ideas they have. Mr. Wong replied that was correct and the agency was not tied or bound to any RFP; it's strictly the Council's decision to determine if they want to sell the property or a project that's of interest to the agency. Council Member Low asked if the agency approves the RFP and they don't like any of the proposals are they allowed to reject all the proposals. Council Member Ly stated that he believed there was a time limit as to actually how long an agency can hold onto a property. City Manager Allred replied that normally redevelopment agencies may hold public land for no more than five years. Council Member Ly stated that the agency was approaching year number two and that in the analysis report the city has only received about $17,000 in Transit Occupancy Tax. Mr. Ly asked what was the original estimated TOT expected. Community Development Director Wong replied that the TOT was estimated at about $50,000 a year. Council Member Armenta stated by holding onto the property, the city was losing money every single day, the intentions were great at one time but ff obviously it has resulted in a decision where the city is losing millions of dollars. Ms. Armenta also added, she felt that the agency should look into the process and see what could be developed if not a better hotel, other things that are going on. Juan Nunez - stated that when the hotel was purchased, did staff ever find out if they could run it as a hotel. Council Member Steven Ly clarified Mr. Nunez question; what was the purpose of the purchase of the property when it was being negotiated at the time. Mrs. Ramirez replied the purpose of purchasing that property was for a larger development that the agency was hoping to tie-in with the Levitz property. Mr. Wong stated since the former Levitz property reached out to UFC for the long term, it just made sense to continue with the current redevelopment plan. Mayor Margaret Clark clarified the UFC Gym has a long term lease there so things have changed. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 3 of 28 Mr. Nunez asked if the city does not pay any taxes on the property they own. Mrs. Ramirez replied that the city does not pay any property taxes but the hotel operator does as the operator. Mr. Nunez expressed concern and stated the agency is running out of money Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that he knew there would be great concerns about that project and felt it was going from bad to worse. Mr. Taylor added that the agency has not received any money and asked how they would know if the property taxes have been paid. City Manager Jeff Allred stated that they didn't know and explained that when a party leases public owned land they are responsible to pay property taxes and the agency does not know if they actually paid or not. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated if they cannot pay anything to the agency, they cannot afford to pay property taxes of $40,000 or $50,000 a year when you look at the operating budget they have. Mr. Taylor asked if the agency has the right to reject any or all bids; and how can the agency reject a legitimate offer of someone buying it for the asking price. Mr. Allred replied that this was an opportunity to find out if there are any interested parties whether they are viable; the agency board has the full discretion as to whether of not to accept any offers. The agency will evaluate the validity of the offers; the agency is in great position to see if there is anything out there and this is a free look to what the market will provide. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that the free look was the risky part of it. Mr. Taylor reiterated on the minutes when Mr. Adam Sedlack of UFC Gym, gave an hour long run down as to what was going to happen and in those minutes he has a tram system running to three hotels of clientele using the Ultimate Fighting Gym of UFC. He also, stated that they would bring the most unique customers in the City Of Rosemead. What can possibly be meant by "the most unique customers". Mr. Taylor asked would they be Rosemead residents that are going to be coming in or El Monte, San Gabriel, Monterey Park, who are these unique customers going to come in and has a deep seeded fear where they are going from bad to worse. When there is a clientele, Mr. Taylor stated in the minutes that he didn't like where they beat up people and they beat them into submission; because there is a certain element of people that enjoy it. Ms. Low mentioned that she would go home and her kids would have it on and she would tell her kids to turn it off, they don't need to watch it. Well that goes on in different neighborhoods and we're contributing to that type; to me for a business opportunity it's a golden apple and getting into that hotel business and what if we can't reject a legitimate offer. Just as this council stated we cannot deny them the right to have that ultimate fitness gym, it's zoned that way and we could put restrictions on it; they didn't want to go with restriction where the city took the most aggressive activities as far as having events down there where people could come in or promotions events; its great to have a gym down there but his concern about it's a golden opportunity, they can expand rapidly and we have no control over it. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 4 of 28 City Attorney Montes clarified that the RFP that was being requested to be approved was not a request to list the property as a sale and it's not a request to approve a future sale of that property. It's a request to approve a floating RFP on the street and soliciting proposals from potential developers and see what they plan to develop there and what would they be willing to pay for the property. If the agency board ultimately liked one of those proposals they can enter into negotiations with a successful proposer and then approve a sale of the property to that individual. But if they don't like any of the proposals, there is absolutely no obligation to dispose of the hotel property at this time or even when those proposals come in. This is not a situation where you list property and somebody submits an offer based on the listing price and then you have problems rejecting that offer. This is not a list of the property for sale. Council Member Low asked if the agency had to put in money to the hotel or is the agency just not getting the $6,000 amount that was committed; also asked about the $100,000 operational agreement that the agency put into the hotel. Community Development Director Wong replied no, the $6,000 a month is subject to the excess profit and there is no excess profit so the agency is not receiving $6,000 a month. Council Member Low reiterated that it was good to sell the RFP; the whole goal of that area is to develop it. So if we sell the RFP just to see what the developer has in mind and what kind of ideas they have it might be a good thing. Ms. Low clarified that she just did not want to sell the hotel for the sake of selling it and have the agency lose money. Council Member Ly stated this has cost tax payers $4.5 million to get the hotel and put together this complex deal which fell through horribly and was bought when it was at the top of the market; now its worth about half of the original price. Mr. Ly asked how much longer the city was going to hold onto an asset that is causing everyone including this council heart burn; he added that the RFP gave the agency the opportunity to find any potential developer that may want to make a good project at that location. It's a great location near the freeway and next to the Rosemead Square area; it offers the opportunity to remove that albatross that has been hanging for 2 years. Mr. Ly made a motion to accept the RFP. Council Member Armenta asked how the agency might find out if the operator has not been paying their property taxes. City Attorney Montes explained that if they have not been paying their property taxes, it's a possessory interest tax; it's an unsecure tax lien. That is a property tax lien that the County would have to enforce to the property owners; Mr. Montes does not think the Agency can enforce against the property; In terms of the city efforts to collect the property tax, unless the city has a special assessments we are collecting on the property, we don't really have standing to pursue, that would be the county. What we could possibly do is pursue remedies we have under our agreement. If the agreement requires them to pay and they are not paying it, then we might be able to seek specific performance of that agreement or to that manner. Council Member Low asked Mr. Wong what other agencies do when they purchase property; usually the intent is to have it developed but in the mean while what do they do. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 5 of 28 Mr. Wong replied that normally for this you slowly acquire other parcels in the targeted area and go with a RFP, attract a developer to develop the property. Council Member Low stated it takes time to develop the property and in the mean it just sits there City Attorney Montes clarified that there is no five year restriction. However if the agency had acquired a property through eminent domain you are required to use that for the purpose you acquired it within seven years; but if you acquired it through a negotiated purchase, Mr. Montes was not aware that you have to dispose of it in five years time and would verify for the agency. Council Member Low stated that in other cities or other redevelopment agencies purchase property and they hold on to it until they purchase several of them before they develop. Mr. Wong replied yes or the agency assists the potential developer in developing the area. Commissioner/Council Member Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council Member Low to authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids from qualified entities for the purchase of the Glendon Hotel property through a request for proposal process. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: Taylor Absent: None Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that he'd like his general comments in the minutes and expressed concerns of that project; added that the agency will have to see the proposals when they come and see what their options are. 4. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS A. Report on the Acquisition of the Glendon Hotel and the Subsequent Operating Agreement In accordance with a request made at the February 23, 2010 joint meeting of the City Council and Community Development Commission, a report has been prepared by staff on the acquisition of the Glendon Hotel property by the Community Development Commission on July 2, 2008. The report also contains information relative to the management agreement with Rosemead Inn Hotel Partners, LLC that became effective on October 14, 2008. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the report. Economic Development Administrator Ramirez reviewed the staff report. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 6 of 28 Council Member Ly stated that in speaking with staff about the Glendon Hotel he became alerted about certain items. First, there was an agreement made where the agency would put in about $100,000 for upgrades and cost of repairs. The way it was supposed to be divided up was in $50,000 increments, with a list of projects or upgrades that were supposed to be made. Mrs. Ramirez explained that the operating agreement states that the agency would give $50,000 within 7 days of that agreement being signed; the additional would be given $50,000 upon permits being pulled, plans being checked, and everything being submitted to the city for their approval. Instead the full $100,000 was given to the hotel operator at one time without any plans being submitted to the city or any permits being pulled; following the expenditure of the $100,000 all receipts along with all accounting were supposed to be submitted to the city which the agency has not received. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor clarify that the agency got the first two months report from the hotel. Mrs. Ramirez stated that staff received the February and March reports, which were given to the commission in a staff report when their budget was brought to the commission for their approval. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor reiterated that for the past year, almost twelve months, the hotel operator has not followed up with the monthly requirement report to the commission. Mrs. Ramirez confirmed that as of today, she received two statements for November and December 2009 only. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked what they have said as far as April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, seven months are missing. Why didn't they report it, that's for us to find out? But it's another continuing mess that they have not fulfilled their contract obligations. So can the commission pursue for the other reports? Council Member Low asked if the city has met with the hotel operator Mrs. Ramirez replied yes, starting in January, she was asked to take a look at the project; immediately contacted the hotel operator and has been contacting them weekly; she has been asking for this information from them. Also, formally submitted two letters to them and the agency has received two months emailed to staff today. Council Member Low asked if the hotel operator gave an explanation as to why they are not paying the agency. Council MemberArmenta asked how did this happen and why they did not provid any building permits Mrs. Ramirez stated that she was not involved in the project until now. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor clarified that in all fairness the employees that worked on the project are gone. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 7 of 28 Council Member Ly stated on the minutes of April 28, 2009, of the CDC near the end of page four it notes that "Interim Executive Director Stewart- explained that the city is guaranteed a minimum payment of $6,000 under the terms of the agreement" that is not exactly the case. Mrs. Ramirez explained the agreement states that the city would only receive 60 percent of any profits that were made. Council Member Ly asked if there are reasons why staff would think that the agency would be guaranteed $6,000 a month regardless. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that it was his understanding that there was a $6,000 minimum that the agency would be paid. The keyword in the whole situation was excess profit and that affected the whole thing for last year because there has been no profit. Council Member Ly stated that the agreement was that the agency would get $6,000 a month for the first year and then $10,000 a month for subsequent years. In the proposed agreement and the budget that went along with it, the Commission was solely optimistic as to how they would perform. Knowing what we know now, were there signs where staff should have not recommended this hotel operator. Mrs. Ramirez explained it wasn't until staff started looking at it in January that staff began to question this. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor clarified that the commission had another option to take when this was out. But the other person or hotel had a different agreement, he didn't have all the exceptions, he didn't have that word excess profit. It stated right in there that he was going to pay us $5,000 or $6,000 but there were no restrictions. Mrs. Ramirez confirmed that is was going to be $5,000 and with no restrictions Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated it was a better deal but this one had a little more, if you read the proposal when it came in it was very optimistic they presented a good case. So there was another option of another hotel person taking charge of it. For whatever reason we thought it was a better one when it was voted on. Council Member Armenta asked if staff knew the amount of time that they've been in operation or their background or how long they've been operating under conservatorship of hotels. Mrs. Ramirez stated that they created the Rosemead Inn partners as part of managing this site and they have been managing that. It opened in February of 2008. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor explained as part of Ms. Armenta's question about other experience; they did list a couple of other hotels but they also listed other four to six potentials that were to be built or under discussion. Ahmed Seirafi - Rosemead Inn Hotel operator stated the company's address wasl6388 Colima Road, Suite 206. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 8 of 28 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor confirmed that was the address to the corporate headquarters where the other hotels operate, as well as, how it was stated in the agreement. Mr. Seirafi replied no, his signature was not on the agreement it was his father's signature. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked if the property taxes have been paid. Mr. Seirafi replied to his knowledge no, they have not received a property tax bill Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated it was out of their control they have not received any bills and added that the commission will need to find out from the county assessors; Mr. Taylor reiterated that the hotel operator didn't make any excess profit. Mr. Seirafi replied no, it's been a perfect storm for the past twelve to eighteen months in terms of the economy, tourism, and the general operation of the hotel. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated they didn't go to purchase or lease the hotel in the sense to lose money. There were five other projects that were approved that were multi-story facility and they got all the plans and not a single one has been built. Council Member Ly inquired about the upgrades and the renovations that were done; specifically with the $100,000 the city gave to them. Mr. Seirafi replied the city did not actually put in $100,000; the city received a credit from the seller at the end of escrow of $70,000. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor explained there was a wire transfer for $100,000. Mr. Seirafi explained the $70,000 credit plus an additional $30,000 from the city was put into the hotel. The original agreement was $4.4 million when the city purchased it from the original owner. At the close of escrow the original owner did not perform accordingly to the purchase agreement and the City Manager at the time was able to negotiate a $70,000 credit from the seller which in turn was put back to the renovation of the hotel. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor asked where was that reference to that in the documents the commission had. Mr. Allred replied it was the first time he heard this. Mr. Seirafi explained to the commission that the city put in an additional $30,000 not an additional $100,000. Council Member Low stated the commission might have to go back to the documentation when they closed escrow to see what the credit was. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 9 of 28 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned the transaction; how would that work when there is a wire transfer of $100,000 put through City Bank. Mr. Seirafi replied the commission had to look at it as two separate transactions; first transaction is when the city purchased the property for $4.4 million. At the close of the escrow, a $70,000 was negotiated between the city and the seller, thus turning the $4.4 million transaction to $4,330,000. After the close of escrow the city put in the $100,000 for the renovation. Council Member Low reiterated that because the city got $70,000 as credit, even though the city gave him $100,000 the city really only gave $30,000. Council MemberArmenta stated that the city wired money; therefore the city did paid $100,000. Mr. Seirafi replied that above and beyond the $4.4 million, originally it was and additional $30,000 above the $4.4 million. Council Member Low asked Mr. Seirafi if the city had wired $100,000. Mr. Seirafi replied yes they did. Mrs. Ramirez replied that she recalled there was a credit but it was above the $4.4 million and would have to go and pull the agreements to look and see what the final document stated. Council MemberArmenta stated that the city paid $100,000 regardless. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated Council was supposed to get a report back on how the $100,000 was spent. Mr. Seirafi replied yes, he sent it but it was not a 100% complete breakdown of cost, of renovations, that $100,000 was applied to; I think is in the range of $85,000 to $90,000 so far. Council Member Ly stated that he'd like to make a motion to receiv and file this report but also to send a copy of this report to the District Attorney's Office Public Integrity Unit for their review at the very least. Mr. Ly stated the hotel had been an albatross to the city and there have been so many mistakes, and missteps and miscommunications on this issue. On the Council level, it would definitely comfort me to know that he city council is trying to fix any promises' of the council past and a good faith effort to send this to the District Attorney's office would definitely do that. My motion is to receive and file the staff report as well forward a copy to the District Attorney's office. Council Member Armenta seconded the motion. Mayor Clark stated she would like to postpone that motion to at least one more meeting. Mrs. Clark added that she'd like staff to have more time to answer some more of these questions; I am confused as to what actually happened I don't' think sending it to the DA's office without us even knowing what we are dealing with is a good idea yet. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 10 of 28 Mr. Seirafi stated he was pretty much involved from the beginning with the previous council members so if you have any questions how the transactions transpired or what the original intent was. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated when you say you were involved with the previous council members I never met or talked to you before. Mr. Seirafi stated the previous council members and the desire to develop the property, in terms of sense the property was acquired and understanding their desire in terms. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked Mr. Seirafi if he'd been here before to explain it. Mr. Seirafi replied yes he's been to city council meetings but didn't explain anything then. Mayor Clark asked if he had private conversations with prior council members. Council Member Armenta asked so just for the record you never had any meetings with the prior council members to determine what the fate of that hotel would become. Mr. Seirafi replied no, and stated that in the meetings of the redevelopment to move forward of the redevelopment of the whole area. Council Member Ly stated he would like staff to bring this item back with an updated summary in one month. Council Member Low asked if there was discussion about some receipts during the renovation of the hotel. Mrs. Low asked if those receipts were all submitted to the City. Mr. Seirafi replied that he turned in copies of the receipts and an excel spreadsheet of monies that were spent for the renovation. Mrs. Ramirez clarified that in late February he submitted an excel spread sheet that does not match the receipts he submitted; they don't add up and like he said they are "shoe box" receipts and he did indicate they were not complete at that time and we are still waiting for a complete accounting of that $100,000 and that is why we did not bringing that to you today. Council Member Armenta stated the original agreement stated the hotel operator would receive $50,000 on the completion of obtaining the necessary building permits. Mrs. Armenta asked Mr. Seirafi how was he able to do that without submitting the proper permits. Mr. Seirafi replied there were no permits requested or required. We were not doing any type of construction or demolition. Council Member Armenta asked if the language was added in case of. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 11 of 28 Mr. Seirafi stated he thought in case of, as legal language in the agreement Council Member Low asked if he needed any type of occupancy permit. Mrs. Ramirez stated he was actually going through that license process right now and as far as permits go the City is not sure if he does need permits. The excel sheet shows that there might be some things that may need permits. It indicates air condition, electrical and so forth, unfortunately since we don't' have a plan what he was going to do we're not sure if permits were actually needed or not. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated it wasn't just permits; he understood there was no license. Mrs. Ramirez stated he is actually going through that process right now in obtaining a business license and also his occupancy permit. Council Member Low stated that since this would be tabled for a month she asked Mr. Seirafi if he could submit more "shoe box" receipts. Mr. Seirafi replied he'll put them together in a better format to better understand were the money went. He stated that at that time it was moving quickly to do my best to get the place renovated and operating as soon as possible take it from what it was, which was not the prettiest picture and getting it operating as soon as possible so I was moving pretty quickly. City Attorney Montes announced that the council would recess to closed session at 6:52 pm 5. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Labor Negotiator Government Code Section 54957.6; Classification and Compensation Negotiator for the City: Jeff Allred and Su Tan Employee Unit: Rosemead Employee Association B. Conference with Legal Counsel 1) Government Code 54956.9(c): Initiation of Litigation (1 matter) Council reconvened back from closed session at 7:10 p.m. City Attorney Joseph Montes announced that Council would be reconvening back to Closed Session at the end of the regular meeting. City Council Meeting Agenda The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:10 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 12 of 28 FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Armenta INVOCATION: Council Member Low PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Taylor, Council Member Armenta, Council Member Low, and Council Member Ly. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 6. PRESENTATIONS • Safe Communities Month Proclamation Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami accepted the Safe Communities Month Proclamation and thanked staff, Council and the community. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor commended the Sheriffs department on a great job in arresting two suspects of a bank robbery in the city. Hometown Hero Military Banner Program Min Wang - of the Chamber of Commerce gave a brief presentation on the military banner program and policy. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked for clarification on the qualification for veterans between the Iraq and or Afghanistan war. Mr. Wang explained that the program focuses on active duty but also veterans; they also include those who served on the Vietnam War or the Iraq War. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked how.would a current soldier that served on the Iraq war right now and has served their four year term be classified as. Mr. Wong stated that they would be classified as current active military CERT Training Graduates Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami explained the concept of the CERT training by training the community and training people how to put out fires. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 13 of 28 Council MemberArmenta stated that she along with other council members will be at a conference in Washington D.C. and will meet with legislators and hopes to talk to them about funding needed for the CERT program. Don Kuni - L.A. County Fire department explained that the CERT program started as a federal funded program; now they are being funded out of a L.A. County Grant. Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami presented each CERT graduate with a certificate of recognition. Caltrans Presentation Marlene Martinez - representative of Caltrans District Seven spoke about restoration of the 10 freeway Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked if there are any provisions of the off ramp modifications for the vehicle mileage fee. Council Member Ly reiterated is Mr. Taylor meant the hot lanes. Ms. Martinez explained that the hot lanes are being handled by Metro. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked about the VMF Fee, anyone going on the off ramp will be scanned a mileage fee. Ms. Martinez replied people that use the carpools lanes can use the toll lanes free of charge when.there are at least two people in the car and the Vehicle Mileage Fee is not part of this project. Mayor Clark asked how the hot lanes would identify if there are two people in the vehicle. Ms. Martinez stated that there will be cameras involved and scanners. • High Speed Rail Presentation Jose Martinez - regional manager for the California High Speed Rail Power Point Presentation is available in the City Clerk's office. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE Chuck Lyons - encourages that the city repair the Dinsmoor Heritage House and work on future activities and be more proactive with the community. Juan Nunez - spoke in regards to the workers compensation issue on past Council Member Nunez and how they are not supposed to collect unemployment insurance. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 14 of 28 Council Member Ly clarified that the city did not grant Mr. Nunez unemployment claims and the State was the one that approved it. The city has challenged it and is working with Senator Gloria Romero for a bill to not have elected officials receive unemployment insurance. Mayor Clark stated that Senator Romero and Senator Dutton's bill will clarify that elected officials are not to receive unemployment benefits. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth explained that staff has to rely on EDD to collect the funds from Mr. Nunez; staff is speaking with them and waiting because the city does not have the authority to collect it themselves. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor explained that they may not collect any money from Mr. Nunez, they will have to wait and see and we have to wait to pursue it, the State said it's not their fault and we have to bite the bullet. 8. PUBLIC HEARING A. Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance Adopted by Ordinance No. 873 and Extended by Ordinance No. 874 Establishing Moratorium on Mixed-Used Developments On March 24, 2009, the Rosemead City Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 873, which imposed a moratorium on the approval of applications for land use entitlements for mixed- use commercial and residential developments for a period of 45 days. On April 28, 2009, the City Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 874, which extended the moratorium for an additional period of 10 months and 15 days. In the time allotted under the Initial Ordinance and the First Extension, staff has compiled and is continuing to study the substantial health and safety issues regarding the inconsistencies between the City's current zoning regulations and the City's adopted General Plan, as it relates to residential and commercial mixed-use developments. Over the last twelve months, the City has hired a land use consultant and created a subcommittee of Council members to work with staff to study the zoning regulations and General Plan to identify and address conflicts that exist regarding mixed-use developments permitted under the existing General Plan and uses under the zoning code. Due to a change in the General Plan Work Revision Program the twelve month period has not provided a sufficient amount of time to complete the required tasks. Additional time is needed to address the reclassification of parcels that are currently designated for mixed-use development in the existing General Plan to other land use designations. Therefore, such factors warrant the City Council's consideration of the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance 888 to extend the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted by Ordinance 873 and extended by Ordinance 874 for an additional period of one year (March 21, 2011). Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 15 of 28 Recommendation: That the City Council introduce (read by title only) a City Council Ordinance, and adopt, as an urgency measure pursuant to California Government Code section 65858 (b) Ordinance No. 888 entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, extending the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted by Ordinance 873 and extended by Ordinance 874 prohibiting the approval of entitlements for mixed-use commercial and residential developments and making findings in support thereof." Principal Planner Sheri Bermejo reviewed the staff report Mayor Clark open public hearing 8:19 pm; there being no comments Mayor Clark closed the public hearing at 8:19 pm. Council Member Low asked what the time frame was and how long the City can have the moratorium for City Attorney Mantes explained that under government code the moratorium can last for a maximum of two years. The first time you adopted the moratorium it only last's for 45 days. Then you have the right to extend the moratorium two times for up to two years total, so this will be your second extension and staff has requested that you grant the full year; we do not anticipate taking the full year but because you are allowed to extend two times we want to make sure that if something were to happen, if it gets delayed, if it's determined that an additional zoning ordinance modification is needed we don't run out of time. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that it's now going on three years when Council started to get this done. The General Plan that was processed through where Council had to void and redo, we got that pretty hashed out; asked where the hang up for the zoning classification. City Attorney Mantes if you recall the general plan was amended to include areas of mixed used up and down in the city's east and west, north side corridors, that was passed. The zoning code was never amended to conform to that; Subsequent to that it was the decision of this council that that needed to be revisited, the general plan needed to be revisited, and that the general plan would be modified and you will see that in April. Those modifications will include with them a zoning code amendment that will make some of the consistencies issues go away b/c the new general plan amendment proposed and zoning code amendment should bring things into conformance if any development comes forward and can proceed because everything is now consistent. Staff may present on April or the zoning code may trail off a little bit. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the General Plan is targeted to be presented on or about April 13th and the zoning code about April 27th. Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to introduce Ordinance No. 888. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 16 of 28 9. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes February 6, 2010 - Regular Meeting B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 -18 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010-18, for payment of City expenditures in the amount of $959,835.97 numbered 100747 through 100759 and 68986 and 69105, inclusively. C. Del Mar Avenue Resurfacing Project, Phase 2- Authorization to Solicit Bids As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved a program titled "Del Mar Avenue Resurfacing", which consists of asphalt concrete overlay, sidewalk repairs, traffic striping, signage installation, curb ramps construction, traffic signal upgrades, street trees installation, and appurtenances. The limits of this project are from Garvey Avenue to Hellman Avenue. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids to complete the improvement project. D. Award of Contract for Lead Based Paint and Asbestos Testing and Risk Assessment Services The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations require that lead based paint and, in some instances, asbestos testing, assessment, and clearances be completed on all Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Programs and Down Payment Assistance Loan Programs funded through either the Community Development Grant (CDBG) Program or HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program. Over the past three (3) years, the City has contracted with Barr & Clark for this service. As part of the procurement requirement under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, an organization may only receive funding for up to three years for the same program or activity before a new Request for Proposal must be completed. The City's contract with Barr & Clark will expire on June 30, 2010. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Barr & Clark, Inc. for lead based paint and asbestos testing, assessment and clearances tests of properties according to federal and state laws for FY 2010-2011 with an option to extend the contract for two (2) additional years. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 17 of 28 Whitmore Street Resurfacing Project - Award of Contract As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the "Residential Street Resurfacing Project", which consists of the rehabilitation of various streets within the City. The project includes the rehabilitation of Whitmore Street from Del Mar Avenue to the Alhambra Wash. Funding for this project is available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Community Development Block Grant program (ARRA 2009, CDBG). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations require that funds be spent on specific project types and in specific target areas. This project meets the CDBG requirements. Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve plans and specifications for this improvement project; 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Sully Miller Contracting Company for the construction of the Whitmore Street Resurfacing Project in the amount of $220,066; and 3. Establish an amount of up to $22,000 (10%) as contingencies to cover the cost of any potential and additional unforeseen construction work. Council Member Ly made a motion, seconded by Council. Member Armenta, to approve Consent Calendar items with the EXCEPTION of E and G. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None E. Award of Contract for Senior Nutrition Meals Provider Over the past three (3) years, the City has contracted with Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. (MMS) to provide meals for the Senior Nutrition Program. The Senior Nutrition Program's mission is to provide high quality, cost efficient, nutritious meals to seniors and to promote the role of nutrition in preventative health and long term care. As part of the procurement requirement under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, an organization may only receive funding for up to three years for the same program or activity before a new Request for proposal must be completed. The City's current contract for this service will expire on June 30, 2010. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 18 of 28 Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Morrison Management Services, Inc. for a Senior Nutrition Program for FY 2010-2011 with an option to extend the contract for two (2) additional years. Council Member Ly asked if Morrison Management Services listed the nutritional values of how much protein is included in each meal. Economic Development Administrator Ramirez replied it was not included and will get that information. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked what the charge is for the residents if the company is charging the city $3.95 or $3.96. Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott replied the fee is currently $1.25 for residents. Mayor Clark stated that if someone can't pay the City does not turn them away. Council Member Low stated that the contract expired June 30, 2009. Council Member Taylor stated wasn't worded properly and the dates needed correction. Council Member Low asked if the contract was for three years. Mrs. Ramirez explained the contract was year to year with a maximum of three years and after three years the city is required to go out and bid. Council Member Low stated that it turns out that they were the only company that submitted a proposal. Mrs. Ramirez stated there are not a lot of providers out there that provide this service; She found a total of three that could possibly provide the services and two of them did not respond to the proposal. Council Member Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Low, to approve the professional services agreement with Morrison Management Services, Inc. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 19 of 28 G. Dinsmoor Heritage House Short Term Rehabilitation Project During its regular meeting of February 9, 2010, City Council took receipt of the Dinsmoor House Preservation Plan. The plan included a series of projects aimed at rehabilitating the property. As a result, City Council directed staff to propose short-term rehabilitation efforts at Dinsmoor Heritage House with a focus on exterior improvements so as to immediately enhance the buildings current appearance. These should include select projects already identified in the Preservation Plan. Recommendation: That the City Council 1. Determine the scope of proposed improvements to the Dinsmoor House; and 2. Appropriate funds from the undesignated General Fund balance in the amount of $55,342.14 (equal to funds received for property insurance claims due to 2008 flooding incident); and 3. Determine whether to appropriate additional funds from the undesignated General Fund balance (up to $28,157.86) to complete all proposed exterior and seismic improvements. Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report City Manager Allred explained that if Council did approve the recommendation it would be necessary to come back with a budget amendment at a future meeting to take the $28,157.86 from the general reserve balance. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that $55,000 of those reserves is insurance money for that. Council Member Ly stated he was very supportive of the Dinsmoor Heritage House and he just wanted to make sure everyone knew what the city was doing. Julie Gentry - stated that when she was here previously she gave council a set pictures and new additional pictures of the balcony show how fast the wood deteriorated. Ms. Gentry reiterated that she wants to preserve the Dinsmoor Heritage House and preserve it and have activities; gave a short history of the house, thanked council and staff for their support. Council Member Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly, to approve the appropriation of funds from the undesignated General Fund balance in the amount of $55,342.14 and appropriate additional funds to complete all proposed exterior and seismic improvements. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No:None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 20 of 28 10. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. City Investment Policy Modifications The City's Investment Policy (Policy) is reviewed annually to ensure that it best reflects current investing conditions. As those conditions change, minor modifications to the policy should be made to allow the continuation of reasonable returns on investments while maintaining the priority of safety first. With the continuing decline of yield in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and money market funds the City needs to move its surplus cash into a more productive investment; to do so requires minor modifications to the investment policy. The modifications will increase the potential for interest rate fluctuation (up or down) but investments will remain secure and there is no risk of losing invested principal. Staff continues to review the Policy for ongoing compliance with Government Code Section 53601 and recommends changing the investment term for certificates of deposit (CD) from 180 days to a maximum of five years as well as allowing investments in callable, step-up rate government-sponsored enterprises (agencies). Recommendation: That the City Council approve the attached modified Investment Policy for the remainder of the 2009-10 fiscal year. Mayor Pro Taylor asked that this item be deferred for some more information; in their report he asked for a current listing of the deposits and which ones want to be changed. Mr. Taylor stated that he didn't know where the dollars were coming from and where they are going from. Mr. Taylor reiterated that he wanted to know how much is being moved out and how much is being moved where. We are approving a policy and we don't know how many millions of dollars are being shifted out and what's the interest rate going to be. Council Member Low asked if the city is changing the policy or is the city actually shifting money. City Manager Allred explained that this allows the city to invest in longer term CD's and asked Finance Director Brisco to explain. Finance Director Brisco explained it shifting our money out of LAIF, which is the state pool, and the state pool interest rate has continually declined. If we can invest our money in still very safe instruments like CD's and move agency funds we can still be just as safe like we are in LAIF and earn a higher yield. Also, explained that at this moment we still have to see what is available in the market; it might be a CD form Bank of America or Wells Fargo or some other banks. These things come and go in the market and just like agency bonds they come available and if it's what you are looking for, you buy them. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that he would like to have all those figures of how much we are talking about and how we choose who is going to pay the most interest. City Manager Allred stated staff can provide council with how much the city has in LAIF and a current snap shot where the money is now. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 21 of 28 Finance Director Brisco explained the current policy is conservative because of the market, now its changed and it's very difficult to earn at least 5 percent. LAIF lags in their interest rates; with the change in the market its time to update our policy. B. Preliminary Capital Improvement Project List for the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan The purpose of the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan is to evaluate programs and facilities and, with community input, to devise a 15-year strategy for meeting residents' ongoing recreational needs. One important element of the Master Plan is a long- range Capital Improvement Projects plan. At its February 23, 2010 meeting, City Council reviewed a proposed Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) list for the Master Plan. City Council recommended that priority be given to those projects deemed of concern to patron safety-particularly, playgrounds. A preliminary list of proposed projects, reflecting those recommendations, is respectfully submitted for City Council review and prioritization. Council's approval of the CIP list will facilitate completion of the Master Plan as only chapters on capital projects and funding considerations remain unfinished. Recommendation: That the City Council approve a prioritized preliminary capital improvements projects list for inclusion in the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan. Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked what has been shifted to priority number 1,2,4,6,8,10, 12, 13 and its roughly $19 million in first phase and at the last meeting Mr. Allred mention the City has five million left in the redevelopment fund and that here were about seven million available. City Manager Allred replied that the redevelop agency bond proceeds the city has $5.4 million now that we have access to; and the city has the capacity to generate $7 million in redevelopment agency bond proceeds if we were able to do the bond issuance. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor asked for clarification because when the council decided to buy a property the Redevelopment Agency didn't have the $4.4 million; we were going to borrow money form the city and some how staff found $4 million. City Manager Allred explained that the money that the Community Development Commission used to purchase the property Glendon Hotel, those were redevelopment agency tax increment dollars. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor reiterated that he was talking about the Pham parking lot that was almost $4 million; staff said we didn't have the $4 million and we needed to borrow from the city. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 22 of 28 Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth explained if the Pham parcel would have been acquired by the redevelopment agency, the city would have loaned the money to the redevelopment agency to acquire the parcel. However, roughly the $5.5 million that the agency had of an existing bond proceeds, those are tax exempt proceeds so those could be used to acquire the parcel; it could only be used for public infrastructure projects such a park development or pool construction. You cannot use that money to acquire a property such as the Pham parcel for economic development purposes with those bond proceeds. City Manager Allred clarified there are two different pots of money, one is tax increment money that was just in the accounts. There is bond proceeds money that must be used for capital projects and the agency has $5.4 million available on bond proceeds money for capital projects; and the ability to generate another $7 million. We have projects that show the needs of $19 million in phase 1; and we're $12 million short, it won't pay for the whole thing. That's why we are preparing a master plan and part of the master plan work program that the council already paid for is to have Willdan Financial as part of this MIG contract for the master plan, they will provide how we can generate the short fall. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that all the time this was being planned; one critical statement was that it had to be able to be financed. That was the priority before we did any of these projects. Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott stated as we presented the important thing is that one is merely strategy in taking a look at the city's public infrastructure. Identify the needs expressed by the community, we've identified on the bases of evaluation existing facilities and their conditions. We then categorized them based on priorities 1, 2 and 3 based on their present conditions. All this does, is identify that there are needs within the community to improve facilities, to expand facilities and replace facilities. However, the master plan approval of prioritized capital improvement project list does not commit the city any action whatsoever. It simply identifies that there is a need and the desire of the community at large to meet those needs over the next 15 years if that is fiscally possible. City Manager Allred stated every year staff will determine that if we have funds to accommodate to achieve some of these projects. Council Member Low replied that approving this list does not mean that for sure Council is going to do all this or right now by approving the list or mean we are going to spend any money. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor reiterated that the city got it self into a bind when they voted to accept the plan with the priorities at that time; that's why they are back changing these priorities. At the last city council meeting we had a discussion about kids getting hurt and falling off equipment, and that's why we went back to fix these things first and before you take the $10 million to fix the pools and let these kids sit for another five years. Director of Park and Recreation Montgomery-Scott explained it was a combination of phase 1 projects. The purpose of presenting these were in two fold, in general approve a list, second you would establish the priorities for these projects specially with MIG; staff would do the best they did was recommend based on what they saw; but ultimately what is included in this list and their priority would be established by this council. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 23 of 28 Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that's why we are in a revised state were all the safety issues are going to be done first, that is why I couldn't figure out why they were listed as phase 2; which is 5 - 9 years and phase 1 is for is 1-4 years. Council Member Low stated that if we have the money to do it Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that is exactly the whole point now, we're getting around to it to make sure that there was funding. Another thing that was a concern on the proposal is who is De La Rosa, who is the bonding company. City Manager Allred stated that De La Rosa is one of the bonding firms that staff has talked with. We have interviewed a number of them. Staff proposed to come to the council sometime in April to make a presentation to council if we should proceed. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor reiterated what we have done in the past we've had three or four different companies come and tell us what their rates are going to be for the money that is going to be loaned out City Manager Allred stated staff received proposals from multiple companies and we'll provide all the information to the council when we bring it forward. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated then we are not going to support that motion tonight. I need to get clarified as to why that company was picked and we don't know what the other rates are. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated that staff will bring back on April 13th a formal proposal to the council and in that proposal it will include rates charges, all other information and scenarios we received from all the different companies Mayor Clark expressed concern and had a correction on the issue of constructing a skate park; we have not even looked at the liability issues. It might work it might not so I am not sure I rather move it to priority 3; so that some of the things that are safety issues and are more pressing needs are already a priority 2. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor agreed, I don't want to be apart of it because of the liability. Nobody mentions how these kids get hurt, it always goes to the deep pockets of the public tax payer. That's my only objection; I like the skating, I know three people that have used skateboards and all had broken bones. I am concern with the safety and liability. Council Member Ly made a motion, second by Council Member Armenta to approve a prioritized preliminary capital improvement projects list for inclusion in the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 24 of 28 11. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Council Member Steven Ly is seeking City Council Support for a Vacant Position on San Gabriel Valley Sector Governance Council Recommendation: That the City Council give staff further direction on this matter. Council Member Ly asked for support to be on the board for San Gabriel Valley Sector Governance Council. Mayor Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta to support Council Member Ly in seeking a position on the San Gabriel Valley Sector Governance Council. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION Appointment of Mayor - City Clerk Presiding Appointment of Mayor Pro Tern - Newly appointed Mayor Presiding A swearing-in ceremony for the newly appointed Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern will be conducted at the next regular scheduled meeting on March 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Rosemead Community Recreation Center. City Clerk Molleda asked if there were any nominations for the next Mayor of the City of Rosemead. Council Member Lystated he would like to nominate Gary Taylor as Mayor for the City of Rosemead. Also stated that Mr. Taylor has served and continued to serve the City honorably for many years. Council MemberArmenta stated she would like to second that nomination. Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded Council Member Sandra Armenta to appoint Mr. Gary Taylor as Mayor of the City of Rosemead. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 25 of 28 Newly appointed Mayor Taylor stated he would like to nominate Steven Ly for Mayor Pro Tern of the City of Rosemead. Council Member Armenta stated she would like to second that nomination. Commented on Mr. Ly has shown that he has gone above and beyond and shown an interest in Rosemead. He's shown that he cares for the residents and shows integrity in representing the City of Rosemead. Council Member Clark stated that it was Council Member Low's turn since she has served on the Council for three years. Mayor Taylor stated that he's had several disagreements with Council Member, Low. If you recall when we tried to get a 64 page report about what happened with Mr. Nunez, we could not get that report. It was concealed for a year and Council Member Low was the third vote that would not approve to allow the rest of the council get that report. Mr. Taylor reiterated that he did not go into the closed sessions because council was not getting the report from the investigator. Also, stated that the employees suffered and cost the city $400,000 in the lawsuit. Council Member Low stated for the record Mr. Taylor was entitled to attend the closed sessions and that there was information given in closed session when Mr. Taylor did not attend. Also, stated that Council Member Clark was at all the closed sessions and knew what was going on. Mayor Taylor stated that Mr. Nunez was not entitled to closed session under State Law because he was an elected official (Government Code Section 54950-54963). Council Member Clark reiterated that maybe they could not get the notes from the investigator and recalled that the City Attorney stated they could not get the notes. Mayor Taylor also disagreed when Council Member Low in regards to the minutes. Mr. Taylor added that she was the 3rd vote to stop putting information in the minutes for discussion that the council had. Council Member Low stated that she recalled asking those minutes in tape and broadcast because we were going back and forth about what should be in the minutes. Mr. Low stated that it takes staff more time when minutes are on verbatim and at that time things were very political. Mayor Taylor replied that it was not political, it was information to the public of what the council is doing and three of the council members voted to not disclose any comments that were made and put in the minutes. Council Member Low reiterated that the tapes record word by word of the minutes. Mayor Taylor stated that the City Clerk verifies what was said at the meeting and no one gets to change them. Council Member Low stated that there were situations where the City Clerk had to go back after time because council did not agree what should be in the minutes. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 26 of 28 Mayor Taylor stated that the City Clerk did not do anything wrong and she only summarized the minutes but sometimes they needed to be changed because the importance of the discussion was not in the minutes. Mr. Taylor also asked Mrs. Low why she voted to spend $40,000 to send him to the grand jury for not participating at those closed sessions. Council Member Low stated that she agreed to send him to the grand jury because Mr. Taylor had disclosed closed session information that was not public. Mayor Taylor asked Ms. Low what was the closed session information he disclosed. Council Member Low replied that it was information related to the lawsuit and felt that certain information should not be disclosed because it could hurt the case and the city. Council Member Armenta asked who paid for the attorney in the case. Mayor Taylor replied that Joint Powers Authority Insurance paid, which is taxpayers money. Mayor Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, to appoint Mr. Steven Ly as Mayor Pro Tern of the City of Rosemead. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Low, Ly, Taylor No: Clark Abstain: None Absent: None 12. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tern Ly asked for a report regarding an Edison vacant land on Hellman and Stallo Avenue. Second, encourages all to fill out the census because the data will help the city improve and provide services. Council Member Low stated she received a letter regarding a complaint about the senior center and has received another letter of other complaints about code enforcement and building Inspectors. Generally the complaints refer that employees are being rude and not professional. Asked city employees to show professionalism and conduct themselves. Mayor Taylor asked City Manager Allred if he was aware of the complaints Ms. Low was talking about. City Manager Allred stated that he was aware about the building inspectors; we are meeting with the department head to resolve the issue. I have not heard about any code enforcement problems. Mayor Taylor stated that council should be informed so everyone is on the same page. Council Member Armenta stated that she received the letter Ms. Low is talking about and also added that many staff have done an excellent job trying to resolve the issues. Also, spoke to Mr. Montgomery-Scott and Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 27 of 28 is fully capable of working with staff to resolve the problems. Also, spoke to Willdan about her concerns about the building inspectors. Mayor Taylor asked that council stay informed about complaints about staff. Mayor Pro Tem Ly commended former Mayor Clark for working hard and her service to the city as Mayor of the City. City Council recessed back to closed session at 9:15 pm and reconvened back at 11:45 pm with no reportable actions. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:45 pm. The next joint Community Development Commission and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on March 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., respectively at the Rosemead Community Recreational Center at 3936 North Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead. L i7A~ Gary Taylor ayor ATTEST: 1 loria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2010 Page 28 of 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes of March 9, 2010 were duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead City Council on the 27th of April 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None GI ao irit Molleda City Clerk