Loading...
CC - Item 9A - Minutes 5-25-10Minutes of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 25, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council C Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner/ Council Member Polly Low INVOCATION: Chair /Mayor Gary Taylor PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro TemNice Armenta, Council Member/Commissioner Low„and Council STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City d Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks ai Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Clerk'Molleda ..72- 1. RESOLUTIONS AND OF By motion, unanimou resolutions an6ordin entirety. =i' fr_:.,.. up This item was 2. PUBLIC THE AUDIENCE - None 3. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 -18 Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 1 of 22 BY TITLE ONLY asked that this item,be deferre Commission was called to d at 8838 East Valley aylor, Council Member/Commissioner mmissioner Ly. 3e1opment Director Wong, Economic Development ctor Marcarello, and City shall be instructed to read by title only all a which are required by law to be read in their the next City Council meeting because there was not back- the nez Pty Council muting. ITEM NO. CjA Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 -18, entitled: RESOLUTION NO.2010 -18 FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,482,583.39 DEMAND NOS. 10083 THROUGH 10085 AND NOS. 11267 THROUGH 11271. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low to approve the Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: 4. ad ie m f the hotel ission. itors, ions and is. alconsent eceive coney ;tall to course of Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and e the direct Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures and staff as to any further actions to be taken. Director of Finance Steve Brisco reviewed the staffreport. City Manager Jeff Allred stated that prudent business practice would include an invoice and if they didn't pay then the City would send the Rosemead Inn Hotel Partners to collections; that would be short of initiating litigation. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 2 of 22 Mayor Taylor felt that going to a collection's agency the process would drag out. Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to keep pressure on the hotel operators because there has been a number of violations and lack of reporting on their part since they opened. He added that it was total insufficiency and lack of collaboration. Council Member Low stated that she agreed with Mr. Taylor and added that the City needed to get their money back and hold the hotel operators accountable. Mrs. Low stated that the City had given these people money to operate the hotel and if they could not show how they utilized the money,then they needed to give it back to the City. She asked what measures could be taken to force the hotel operators to pay what they owe the City. Mr. Allred responded that the first step would be to send the invoice with the r then it would be sent to a collection's agency at that point if there was still not Council's to consider initiation of litigation. Mayor Taylor stated he did not want the City Council to`drop;this issue agencies. Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to to :issue ke care ofthis the attorneys of involved. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the report brought o,them at a report and asked if it would be brought back to Gounbil;afa dif report and he was just wondering what the update4was on the Mr. Brisco stated that more Mayor Pro Tern Ly responded as well. Mr. Ly explained that ii and in addition staff would bdn( this was the final report:?\\ l~Nrf r A Council'Member Low asked if Mr. Allred statetl.that this was tl previously givenrto;Council and Mayor Pro Tern Ly e was no response would be up to the ,e this could be done to other ild a bigger paper trail before u§-meeting was not included in this staff N., time. He added that it was a very thick ig Glendon Hotel report. be broright back to Council with an additional report. that he,wanted staff to wrap up that report and include the audit information i,a previousCouncil meetng)t was said that staff would present this report back-the,complete,reporttO Council; he asked for clarification and asked if staff knew! whatikind of additional information Mr. Ly was asking for. psule of the report and it could be put together with the information would make it a complete report. complete file be brought back to Council/Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Allred stated that was"riot a problem Mayor Taylor asked if the complete report would have additional information that Council had not received. Economic Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez responded probably not. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 3 of 22 Mayor Taylor stated that the reason he was pushing this was because $55 thousand was a reasonable conclusion that they could come up with and he would like to pursue this because the contract will be terminated June 30th. Mr. Allred stated that they would be ceasing operation May 31St and the will be vacating the building June 30th. Mayor Pro Tern Ly stated he totally agreed with moving forward tonight on try ng,ttq re-collect the City's dues but he also wanted the complete report brought back to Council for a final review. Mr,Ly added he wanted to make sure all the IV' were cross and all the "i's" were doffed in the report•tb ensure that as a City, Council has done their obligation to go through as much as possible to find out,what`happened with this project. Council Member Clark stated that in efforts to save paper if s~taff,`can\ my provide4hd`additional information because it was a pretty thick report. Mayor Taylor responded that he would like to see a Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he was fine with having the infc received a cumulative of all the information regarding Glendon Mayor Taylor stated that he agreed with Mr. continue to have a paper trail on record. Council Member Armenta stated;that she was in tc Armenta stated that from da11°one this'c`ompany has Juan Nunez - stated that'optibn one of the staff report option two; he added that the cost'of,the audit;andthe invoiced to the hoteLbperator each on the staff report as long as Council to send tf de q6 ice to the hotel operators and a lack majority of the Council. Ms. it of the question and that he agreed with hire a collection's agency should also be Mayor,Pro'Tern Ly made a,motion, secoridefty Council Member Low to pursue the collection of the City's moneyXwithin the appropriate normal business practices (have the City invoice the hotel operators then•if nothing is resolved follow up through a collection's agency). Vote resulted in: 11 No: Low, Ly, Taylor B. Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for the Sale of the Glendon Hotel Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 4 of 22 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. The purchase of the Glendon Hotel was originally part of an overall larger redevelopment 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 needed for the purposes for which it was acquired. At its March 9, 2010 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise and solicit bids from qualified entities for the purchase of the Glendon Hotel property,through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. There were a total of seven (7) proposals submitted with a variety of offers ranging from purchasing the site to leasing/managing the current operation. Each proposal includes continuation of a hotel use. Recommendation: That the Community Negotiating Agreement with Ciao Garden development of a Purchase and Sale Agr Economic Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez reviewed 1l Mayor Taylor stated that one question came4o.mind about the env subject to a negative declaration being an exisQn building. And on and C; they are identical. `a> City Manager Allred stated that one was for the Juan Nunez - stated th (inaudible) that should,c City should include an all Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked with this pr~ojjeect'on tf a Git) Mrs. Ramirez responded Mr. Allred adi those issues. Mayor Taylor s thousand dollar an Exclusive for the clause; shouldn't this be i have a duplication of Item 9B for the purchaser, associated with the.... any additional transaction costs associated reement would be brought back to the Commission with all :to go back and discuss staff's recommendation on number 5 for the 100 deleting that; why was that done. Director of Community Development Stan Wong stated that they were entering an ENA and the applicant hasn't really reviewed the property and he is concerned that he might find some things that are beyond his implications of purchase price and might be tied down to $100 thousand dollar non refundable deposit. Commissioner/Council Member Armenta made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council Member Clark to approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Ciao Garden Group Real Estate Company, Ltd. for the development of a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Vote resulted in: Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 5 of 22 Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. CLOSED SESSION Conference with Labor Negotiator Government Code Section 54957.6; Negotiator for the City: City Manager Employee Unit: Rosemead Employee Public Employee Performance Evaluation Government Code Section 54957; Council The regular meeting of order by Mayor Taylor Boulevard, Rosemead, FLAG PRESENT: Armenta, C STAFF PRESENT: Cit Director of Finance Bri: Administrator Ramirez, Clerk Molleda Officials (City Clerk) Su Tan ty Development Commission was called to Chamber located at 8838 East Valley yor Pro TemNice-Ch airman Taylor, Council Member/Commissioner Low, and Council Member/Commissioner Ly. igdr Allred, City Attorney Richman, Community Development Director Wong, ector of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City City Attorney Rachel Richman stated that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session. 6. PRESENTATION • Bike to Work Month - Proclamation Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 6 of 22 City Council recessed to closed session at 6:39 p.m. No one was present to receive the proclamation. Mayor Taylor informed the public that an additional presentation would be added to the agenda. • Vision 2020 - Art Work Public Affairs Manager Aileen Flores stated that in efforts to inform the community,about the City's Strategic Plan the City had promoted an art contest for elementary students in Rosemead'Tfie.City received entries from almost every elementary school in Rosemead; the Kindergarten throu606t graders students were asked to share their vision of Rosemead in 2020 it the form of art work'S6ff,received over 200 entries, the winners will have their artwork displayed in the Council Chamber and will receive an award of recognition from City Council. The winners were announced, received their aw_ ards and took a;picture with the City Council. /1Mdr ~'"+?n, Council Member Armenta credited and thanked one of her former elementary teacher's that was in the audience for helping her with math when she was in school.' `i V Council Member Clark stated she was very impressed:with all the student's talent. Mayor Pro Tern Lyjoked about the fact that a studehtvlhoshared his name, Steven Ly, had submitted an entry as well and he was sad by the fact he had r of won` G vontest and added that all the art work Mayor Taylorthanked all of the`students who had participated in the was very well done. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - NJ 141 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS, A%, Public Hearingron Increase. Maximum Bingo Payout to $500 Bosco Technical Institute has approached the City requesting the consideration of iding the City's existing Municipal Code Section 5.20.110 to increase the maximum ut from $250,to $500. The State maximum was increased on September 30, 2008 and the officials at,Don Bosco believe that they are losing participants to surrounding communities that currently allow the payouts up to the $500 limit. Recommendation: That the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 896, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20.110 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE MAXIMUM BINGO PAYOUT,AMOUNT Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 7 of 22 Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth reviewed the staff report. Mayor Taylor opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p:in.; there being no speakers on this item the Public Hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Mayor Pro Tern Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, to introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 896. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None 4 Abstain: None Absent: None ti4 51 Y-. B. Ordinance Repealing Moratorium on Approval of Land Use Entitlements for Mixed-Use Residential Commercial Developments' '~✓i The proposed ordinance would repeal the exist g moratorium on the approval of land use entitlements for mixed-use residential commercial.deVelopments in its entirety. Recommendation: That the C yCouncil adopt Ord aNo. 898, entitled: y, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCILOF'THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 8W Jf Mayor Taylor opened the,Public Heaiing)at 7:15 p.m.; there being no speakers on this item the Public Hearing was closed a,0-1 ¢ P. m. 1C Juan Nunez - asked if by approving;this ordinance,theold one would be going away. City Manager Jeff Allred explained that by.repealing the moratorium it will allow for mix-use only in the specific areas that the City Council has design ted in the recent general plan amendment. Council Member Steven Ly commended Council Members Clark and Low for their work on developing appropriate level of,mixed-use in'the City of Rosemead. Council Member Polly; Cow,made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly, to introduce and conduct the first readino of'Ordinance No. 898. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 9. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 8 of 22 A. Minutes April 27, 2010 - Regular Meeting - DEFERRED May 18, 2010 -Special Meeting . B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 - 32 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 - 32, RESOLUTION NO. 2010 - 32, FOR PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF $478,799.91 NUMBERED 100831 TH 69829, INCLUSIVELY. Adht C. Ordinance 892- Second Reading: Amending Title Municipal Code by the Addition of a;New.Chapter Facilities) v On May 11, 2010, the City Council. reviewed Ordinanc reading, which approved amens ing<Title 17 of the Ro; of a new Chapter 17.82, which`establiit es.Developm Wireless Telecommunications facilities, devices; struc transmission within the City of Rosemead fAt"this;san amended andre-introduced for first the required, fi`<': ti Recommeni entitled: AN ORDINA LOS ANGEL ROSEMEAC (WIRELESS for City URES IN THE AND 69677 AND (Zoning) of tlie,Rosemead 32 (Wireless Telecommunications 892 for the required second d Municipal Code by the addition j'approval standards for and equipment used for wireless atina Ordinance No. 892 was at this time the ordinance is before Council at tIr Ordinance No. 892 at its second reading, OFJHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF STATE QF.CALiFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE NICIPALyCODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 17.82 ECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES) WHICH ESTABLISHES AND APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS CATIONS FACILITIES, DEVICES, STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT `_LESS TRANSMISSIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Council Member Polly Love made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve the Consent Calendar with the EXCEPTION of the April 27, 2010 minutes and Item D. 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 May 25, 2010 Page 9 of 22 D. Safe Routes to School Project As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved a program entitled, "Neighborhood Traffic Safety Improvements", which involves traffic safety and calming enhancements at four (4) local schools: Rosemead High School, Encinita Elementary School, Muscatel Intermediate School and Savannah Elementary School. This project is funded through.the State of California Safe Routes to School Program, with a total approved grant of $499,000. /(1% Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids to compete the improvement project. Council Member Low stated that she thought these were.great protects;.especially;tiecause this ensured that the neighborhoods around schools were safe. Mrs. Lo~added that she noticed this project was in the surrounding areas of Rosemead High School, Encinita Elementary, Muscatel, and Savannali>and asked if the same type of project will be conducted in the Garvey area'(thesouthern area of the city). vx r Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello responded that this project was funded by the Safe Routes to School program and it's based on the more money you can bank. For example you pick an area with the most surrounding schools and based on that y'ou are.awarded more points; inesence staff was able to get more schools in this location. He explained that it was staffs intent to come,baclimext year and apply for the same grant for the Garvey Unified District. Council Member Low suggestedtat.it was probablya,good idea to convey that information to the Garvey School District and let them~kr ow tha`the City will also,take care of fhat area so that it is not perceived that the City is only taking care ofpertain parts of the city. Council Member Armenta stated..>.thakhe;knew•Sanchez Elementary and Temple Intermediate were not part of this project tidfit~was her knowledge that the,principals of the schools had met with the Deputy Public Works Directo"r`and due•to;the,possible hazard of the traffic flow, Mr. Marcarello was able to work with the schools,and repaint certam`crosswalks and`sidewslks. Council Member Low added that there had also been a project that had been approved by Council near Rice School. \ \ ~;'_t Nancy Enci - stated'she was glad that the City was addressing the traffic safety issues in the schools. Mrs. Eng stated that she shared some of the same concerns that Mrs. Low had mentioned regarding the Garvey School Districts schools because they had traffic safety issues as well. Mrs. Eng also added that she hoped the City continue to pursue these types of grant funds because it will make the City streets much safer for the children. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids for the Safe Routes to School Project. Vote resulted in: Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 10 of 22 i• Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Design Development of Aquatic Facilities at Rosemead an At its last regular meeting, City Council delayed action on;thhiis ten additional input from the community regarding the design of the;pl Center. With the recent completion of schematic designs of they Ri Parks Aquatic Centers, the projects are ready to'proceed with the construction specifications phase. !`r Recommendation: Parks in order to obtain Rosemead Aquatic I and Garvey 3n and That the City Council provide direction on tlie.design options for the proposed Rosemead Park Aeuatic,.Center; N:;,\, That the City Council auth6h2 agreement with Aquatic Desic existing 2006A Bond proceed the Redevelopment Agency's of Rosemead's•tedeveloomer nding) to cor id to perform uatics f,Manager to entet'ihto a professional services 1-1 in the amount of)$522,450 ($350,041.50 from f2,408.501roefunds that will be available through ant of a it loan as Garvey Park is located outside areas an ?I is, therefore, not eligible for ete design development, construction documents instruction observation for the renovation of trvey Pools; and 3. Th'at.thii Communitq•Development Commission and City Council adopt CDC Resolution No. 2010-.1;7.,appro`priating;$350,100 from the existing 2006A Bond proceeds entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, ROSEMEAD CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING $350,100 FOR ROSEMEAD AQUATIC CENTER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT. Parks and Recreation Direcfor'David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report (PowerPoint presentation is available in the City Clerk's office). Council Member Low stated that previously when the Garvey pool was discussed she had brought up her safety concern with the locations of the pool and the play area and having kids run back and forth. Mrs. Low stated that she thought the Mayor had agreed with her and it had been decided to move the pool to the end and have the two play areas closer together. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 11 of 22 Scott Farrell -stated he saw no problem with doing,that.'He added that his intent to have the pool front and center was because that way the guards and any staff that was supervising from outside and also from the inside of the building would be able to see that pool directly. Council Member Low stated that she had taken into consideration his intent but that she didn't want the safety of the people to be relied upon the staff that is in the office. Mrs. Low added that regardless where the pool was placed it was the responsibility of the lifeguards to watch the people in the pool and she did not want to rely completely on the staff inside the building. Mrs. Low explained that,the further apart the play areas were the more room kids had to run back and forth and maybe hurt themselvesAoing so. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he did not mind if the two play areas aces"placed closer together but that he would still like the benches/delineator as shown on the slide. w Mr. Farrell responded that aside from that being a great ideas Health Department was going to want to see some type of barrier to attempt to slow kids down.. , L Mayor Pro Tem Ly added that he did want the kids to have fun and go'intothe play pad areas with easy access but safety should be a priority and having those'.benches there will facilitate them slowing down. Mr. Montgomery-Scott clarified that in regards to),the,pool location and the staff in the building regardless of where the pool would be there would always be a±lrfeguar6by the pool. He explained that when a rescue is affected there is a system that is enacted; the lifeguard would,blow,a whistle 'and then a variety of support staff would come to the aid of that rescue and otherstaff woul&have to replace them. Mr. Montgomery-Scott reiterated that there would always!be a`ifeguard station by the pool but in the event of a rescue numbers of staff will get involved in that process•and that is why, iri~terms of clear visual, in terms of design that is always the preference. \ Council Member Clark asked if the building'anc Mr. Farrellexplained that they side of _the street to the centei pool because;ihere was not a Council Member Clark asked the right. from scratch regarding the buildings and advantage of the existing disabled access from the parking added that he did not foresee a problem with switching the between the pool and the building. the cost would be to move the building to the right as well. Mr. Farrell responded ttafit would include moving some of the utilities and shifting the road way that is between the existing center and where the chemical room is currently. He suggested that at that point moving the building would be too much trouble when it really doesn't need to be moved. Mr. Farrell told Council that he was very confident that if the pool was moved to have the two play areas together the building would be fine right where it currently is. „ Council Member Armenta pointed out that on the'staff report packet the Garvey Pool address was incorrect. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 12 of 22 Council Member Low asked if there would be a cyst increase if the pool was placed differently from what staff had originally suggested. Mr. Allred stated there would be no cost increase. Mr. Montgomery-Scott asked that in regards to the Rosemead pool if Council wished to approve the existing design or if they wished to expand the shallow, one or two ways, with peninsula or without. Council Member Clark stated that she was very much in favor of f what the advantages were of the peninsulas versus no peninsulas. Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that the only real issue would be shallow end of the pool and the competitive or deeper end of the,p~i delineation. He added that it will enable lifeguards to get ou~n`'thc have a better view into the pool area. A Council Member Clark commented that the only downside the other the peninsulas would be on the way. Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that they would^be but would be during lap swim and swim team practices the la swim and at that point it would not be likely that anyone i into others that are using the pool. Mayor Taylor stated he intended-to,vote no on this item of bringing back several'items; replacing equipment in KI replace equipment at Rosemead Park, construct aquatic Community Center and its parking,lot!develop-a new nei area and asked 3 further'delineation between :ode does not require that type of insulas and they,can potentially to swimIrom one end to that the only times these lane lines would be in place he lines would only`be down for open recreation fil,l ~b6e swimming thedength because they would run se at°the last meeting Council had a proposal an Park, replace equipment at Zapopan Park, at Rosemead Park, expand Rosemead hood park at Rush and Walnut Grove, construct a new festr`oom,at Zapopan;Park, deve16 'and install the anniversary 911 memorial, and renovate the fields atRosemead P,a k ,AII those projects are going to cost approximately $19,770,000 and that does not include'the Garvey aquatic center, wttich,is.before Council tonight, and it is about $3.32 million. There has also tieemdiscussion about havinq,only $5,7million in bond funds left. Mr. Allred statedjCmas $5.4. Mayor Taylor added that we had'a bond sale coming up in June, which is another $9.5 million; there is going to be a trade off, we are'going"to pay off a city loanand pay for part of the Garvey problem but we have approximately a total of $23 million. Mr. Taylor stated he didn't have an answer on how the City was going to pay for all of this Mr. Allred responded that as Mr. Taylor had described; the City will have approximately $15 million to begin towards these needs and they are prioritized. The first things will be the safety of the parks, which is on tonight's agenda, and in addition the next thing will be these aquatic centers. The City has also applied for a grant of $3.5 million from the State. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 13 of 22 Mayor Taylor stated he was puzzled because everyone keeps hearing about how the State is short $19 billion. Mr. Allred responded that this was bonded money that the State already had and they are not dividing it with the cities and other agencies. Mayor Taylor added that as he had mentioned in the past he was also opposed of removing the pool from Garvey Park. He stated it was a good improvement but because of the finances-and the removal of the pool he would be voting no on the item. Juan Nunez - asked if the City had all the money to complete this taxes would be raised to complete the development. Mr. Allred responded that is correct; there will be no tax Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that since Council changed updated the public on the changes. Council Member Clark pointed out that a not spend it. Mayor Taylor responded that he was in favor of and at what time. Mr. Taylor asked how the rede and staff. Assistant City Manag service and past due Mayor Taylor aske&` here that Mr. Mayor Tailor'aske,d what the money ~u:~. Mr. Hawkesworth re tax increment funds the debt service on came of of money ent andd commented that no is or businesses. he wanted to make ure staff to the County if the City does but the•problem was the amount spend 3s being funded for operating in cost increment funds that are not required for debt tax. that the City had to pay off the bonds with that tax increment he proposed bonds that will be before the Council will be paid with surplus to continue the normal administrative operations of the agency and fund Mayor Taylor asked how many funds we have now for the administration of the agency. Mr. Hawkesworth responded that in the current year we had approximately $1.5 million in funds available for fagade improvements, administration, and other programs. In 2013 when project area 1 expires a million of those dollars goes away and we will be reliant for administrative type programs on project area 2 and currently of that $1.5 million, one million comes from project area 1 and $500 thousand comes from project Rosemead Commundy Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 14 of 22 area 2. Once 2013 is here then our administrative economic development funds that we have discretion over will be reduced to about $500 thousand. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion; seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve staff's recommendation with Option 1B and have the Garvey lessons pool moved towards Emerson street so that the two play areas are next to each other. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: Taylor Abstain: None Absent: None B. Annual Comprehensive Fee Schedule for The City provides various individualized services (i.e. inspections, permits,4ariances, etc.) that are not of general benefit. Historically,Nmany of these services have been;provided at a cost greater than the price being charged for ihem,thus•resulting in subsidies of the remaining costs of service from the general taxpayers'/ As a matter of routine fee maintenance and to keep pace,with increasing costs •ofindividualized services, the fees charged to users need to be rewewed•on a regular basis preferably each year. Rosemead's business license fees~have notbeen. adtusted;for some 18 years, and are proposed to be adjusted gradually, over the nextthree;years. Increasing business license fees to app~ropriate'levels in a single year could present a hardship in some cases; therefore, adjust ments`intended.to-be consistent' with the County's fee structure can be phased over a three.year period. However, it is impor*anpt two note, with all the fee increases, that the proposed fee adjtme~nts and new fee never exceed the cost of providing the service. of beinng.respon`sive to.the service needs of Rosemead residents and ot all feesneed to be increased and some are controlled by statute. not every •Rosemead fee is being recommended for an adjustment this year. That'the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010-33, entitled: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES FOR FY 2010.11 Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated'he did not get a chance, to review the revised fee schedule till late last night and he didn't believe that the public had the opportunity to review it either and asked that this item be deferred to the next Council meeting. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 15 of 22 C. Renovation of Playgrounds at Klingerman, Rosemead, and Zapopan Parks Due to safety concerns at four playgrounds, the City Council/CDC Board authorized the replacement of those playgrounds'at its regular meeting on May 11, 2010. Funding in the amount of $280,000 was allocated using existing 2006A Redevelopment Bond proceeds. However, Miracle Playground Sales of Southern California has provided a bid in the amount of $240,000 for the complete renovation of playgrounds at Klingerman Park, Rosemead Park (hilltop and south), and Zapopan Park (north). f. Playground safety was part of the discussion of proposed,Patks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan Capital Improvement Projects at,the regular City Council meeting of March 9, 2010. The City Council, thus, directed staff; at its Aprii'&7 2010 meeting to immediately renovate the playgrounds of greatest concern and allocated the funds for the renovation project at its May 11, 2010 meeting? Miracle Playground Sales has been the"sole provider o~Rosemead's playground"equipment for several decades. Their proposal for renovation..of the,playgrounds at Klingerman, Rosemead, and Zapopan Parks, which includes,demolition and removal of existing equipment and surfacing, playground design and installation, and ADA/safety surfacing (and sand where appropriate), is $240,000. This is 15% less,than the engineer's estimate of $280,000 and 60% less than govemment.(HGAC) pricing'which is estimated at $312,000. Recommendation: That the City Council/CDC Board^authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional-services agreement with Miracle Playground Sales of Southern California for the renovation of four, playgrounds` at Klingerman Park, Rosemead Park (2), and Zapopan Park for.anamount not to exceed $246,60 using existing 2006A bond proceeds. r Parks and Recreation Director~David Montgomery Sc tt.reviewed the staff report. y< Council MemberArmenta asked if this would take care of any hazardous or safety problem at all the City's Mr. Montgomery;Scott stated that was coriect. Mayor Pro Tem/VOc Chair Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Sandra Armenta, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with vi: Miracle Playground Sales, of Southern California for the renovation of four playgrounds at Klingerman Park, Rosemead Park (2); and Zapopan Park for an amount not to exceed $240,000 using existing 2006A bond proceeds. 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 May 25, 2010 Page 16 of 22 D. Annual Beautification Awards Program One of the goals of the 2010-2011,Strategic Plan is the implementation of an Annual Beautification Awards Program designed to increase the curb appeal of Rosemead neighborhoods and boulevards. The Annual Beautification Awards Program provides recognition in both the residential and the commercial sectors for outstanding curb appeal and use of low water/drought tolerant landscaping. Any residential or commercial property located within the City is eligible to participate. /I \R, Recommendation: That the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF AWARD PROGRAM. Management Analyst Pat Piatt reviewed the staff report. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seco_ nded by Resolution No. 2010.26. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, No: None Abstain: None Absent: None E. Seotember11th Memoiial Donor 2010-26, entitled: Sandra Armeiita, to approve On Septembef"I 1, 201 V America will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragedies of September 1 1h An,anniversary;memorial commemorating those tragic events was initially proposed, as part'of the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan Capital ImprovemehtProjectst@t;the regular City Council Meeting of March 9, 2010. The memorial,would be included as part of Rosemead's memorial plaza at City Hall. The costs for transport of an afir'lifact from New York to Rosemead, the development and installation of artwork, and modifications to the plaza to accommodate the artwork are estimated at $50,000 to $60,000. Theref*oreation of a donor program is proposed in order to raise the funds needed to create ap10lh Anniversary 9/11 Memorial. The donor program would encourage a community-wide investment in a significant public art project. The memorial would foster a renewed sense of community pride and reflect the shared values referenced in Rosemead's Strategic Plan. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 17 of 22 Recommendation: 1. That the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign a Transfer Agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to transfer full and complete legal ownership of the steel beam identified as H-0053 to the City of Rosemead; and 2. That the City Council authorize staff to conduct a community fundraising campaign to solicit contributions for the development and installation of aSeptember 11th Memorial. Parks and Recreation Director David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report (PowerPoint is available in the City Clerk's office). fi Council MemberArmenta asked if it had been decided which Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated that would be up to Council Member Armenta stated that input from Ne Mayor Taylor asked if they were selling these pieces of steel and wh Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that those detail ,he d City formally sings the transfer agreement. He addI and bring it back to the City.Mayor Taylor stated it was onlyto approve was irritated by this because.he was in,favor of having Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated chosen. to make that shipping cost would be. sent to the,citftnd would not be until the 1e City's responsibility to pick up the piece now and find out the cost later; he added that he one but not being informed of the cost. project was between $50,000 and $60,000. Mayor Pro~Tein Steibn1'made `inotion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve staff 's,recommendations and'show the two.designs to the community for their preference. Vote Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor F. Renewal of Willdan Engineering Contract for Building Inspection and Plan Check Services The City initially entered into contract with Willdan Engineering for building and plan check services in 1981. Over the years this contract has been amended, however, the last formal updated was in 1994. In order to develop a new contract that is compliant with best risk management practices and to ensure that the City and Willdan are in agreement as to the Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 18 of 22 services being provided, an updated contact is being proposed for approval. The proposed contract term is for three years with two one-year renewal options in conformance with the City's purchasing policy. The hourly rate schedule included is guaranteed for one year and will be updated annually. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the agreement with Willdan Engineering for building inspection and plan check services and authorize the City Manager to sign any necessary documentation. Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth reviewed the staff report. Brian Lewin - stated that what he has enjoyed in the past years is tlikhe has'seen•contracts that have been with the City for many years put out to bid. Because of this the City`has`'been able fo'get better services and in some cases save a significant amount of money. Mr. Lewin,added that he found unusual that a contract that the City has had for 29 years was simply being renewed rather than have it go out to bid: Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he would generally agree with Mr Lewin_hovieder., he asked staff' to explain what the rationale was behind renegotiating rather than going out to bid. - Mr. Hawkesworth responded that each contra s reviewed on an indiv,d1\6a bases; in this case because it is building and plan checking services and they are truly. n integral part of the City's staff. There is a great working relationship with the people Willdan has placed m`Rosemead and as-mentioned before they have some institutional knowledge that is very valuable f69Whe City. Maintaining that institutional knowledge in this case is very important to the orgenization as opposied't6going out and'issuing building permit RFP with the chance of bringing in someone new,and'really damagingthe institutionalize knowledge that we already have. Mayor Pro Tem Ly pointed,out.that the contract was for 31yea~s with a potential of an additional 2 years renewal option; he stated thafhe agreed.witfi the savings~portion of the renewal contract given the financial environment but=as ek di'that after the=3,year cohtract.the"city put the contract out for bid. Council`M" ember Lowsta(4she ag ed with.Mr. Ly regarding the cost savings; she added that by going out and g`etting'RFP's the City would,be saving money as well. Mrs. Low stated that this would make Willdan competitivetan&maybe bring back `a much"better cost savings proposal. She suggested that the RFP be conducted nowinstead of 3 vears from now. Mayor Pro Tem Ly respondedlhat normally he is'a big fan of RFP's but one of the reasons he is making an exception in this case is ccause of the big savings Willdan is offering for the upcoming year and because it is really close to the budget`season he wants to make sure the Council approves a balanced budget. Council Member Low asked if he wanted to approve the 3 year contract because there wasn't enough time for the next budget cycle. Mayor Pro Tem Ly responded that was correct aril that he wanted to ensure that there was a balanced budget by July 15t; he stated that Willdan was doing their part by proving cost savings. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 19 of 22 Council Member Low stated that in that case she agreed with Mr. Ly and suggested that the contract only be renewed for one year and the City go out to bid after the year. Council Member Clark stated that they should pay attention to what Mr. Hawkesworth has stated; that they have proven that they are doing a great job as well as knowing the community. If you get someone new then you have to start from scratch. Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the contract for 3 years. Council MemberArmenta stated she agreed with..Mr. Lewin regarding the RFP,'s;.however, in this case we are talking about people who are actually working in City Hall and working with`;City staff. She added that she assumed cost would go up if staff needed to train new people to perform the duties as well as cost for any errors that may occur. Ms. Armenta commented that she agreed with Wll-y,in going out to bid after the 3 year contract but as of now she thought the best thing to do is stay with'(1the services provided by Willdan. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he would like to see the thought going out to bid in 3 years would give Willdan tl He added that he has heard complaints about Willdan t addressed those complaints and he would like to see N residents should be treated well. 2 year renewaloption because he that they have rectified and i know that the,Rosemead Council Member Clark stated she didn't see with what was currently on the table. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that in 3 years he wanted to make sure this was brought back and it was discussed. Council Member Low stated that she will agree with the,3 year contract but that she really wanted the City to go through an RFP proceI s after the 3~years just to be fair; it is done with all the other city contracts. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that-h6wasn't saying-that ,in.3;years this contract be put out for an RFP but rather have a discussionsor,rather it should be an RFP or",ifitlie contract should be renewed. Low stated that she would-make a substitute motion to approve the 3 year contract and t this contract for, an RFP;., Council Member Clark stated she,did not agree with that. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated,thathe was not comfortable with making the decision about conducting the RFP 3 years from now but he wanted Council to have the.opportunity in 3 years to discuss that option. Mayor Taylor called for the question and asked if there was a second for Council Member Clark's motion; there being none the motion died on the floor. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve the agreement with Willdan Engineering for building inspection and plan check services and authorize the City Manager to sign any necessary documentation (Council agreed to bring back this item in 3 years for further discussion). Vote resulted in: Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 20 of 22 Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor; No: None Abstain: None r Absent: None 11. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011 Each Year, a listing of City Council Member committees and boards is prepared and sut On April 27, 2010 the Mayor appointed delegates and however, the Council asked that staff and gather morE and bring it back for their review. During the:,search it Planning Committee and Legislative Delegate^Prograr time the following committees need an alternate and c • Trust Fund Liability',-Oversight Cor • Coalition for Practical,ftegulation • L.A. Area Integrated~Waste.Maanna dation:That the City Council approve Council Member Armenta"made appointments for 2010-2011 ,°Vc V a motion, seconded rte resulted in: Ly, No: None,,` ; Abstain: None Absent: Nome of regional and state ates to several committees; nation on five'(5)=mmitteE ed that the,WSGV no lonaer exist. At this Appointments for 2010-2011. Pro Tem Ly, to approve the Mayor's Mayor Pro Tem`Lystated that he would like to see staff place on the agenda an item regarding drought tolerant lawns and whit the options are for Rosemead residents. City Manager Allred stated that residents currently have options and asked if Mr. Ly was asking about incentive programs to encourage residents. Mr. Ly responded that was correct. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 21 of 22 .11 Council Member Clark stated that they had postponed minutes and the fee schedule and asked that in the interest of saving trees if Council could leave their current papers so that they are resubmitted to Council in their agenda packet for the next meeting. Council Member Armenta commended staff for the wonderful job that had provided during the Relay for Life event. The City Council returned to Closed Session at 8:55 p.m, and reconvened with noreportable action at 9:45 Z,. p.m. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The City Council and Community Development Commission will adjourn to a joint Budget Study Session on June 1, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. The next regular joint Community Development Commission and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on June 8, 2010 at 6:00 p m, and 7:00 p.m., respectively. vr"+ j, Taylor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 22 of 22