Loading...
CC - Minutes 05-25-10Minutes of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 25, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner/ Council Member Polly Low INVOCATION: Chair /Mayor Gary Taylor PRESENT: Mayor /Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice- Chairman Taylor, Council Member /Commissioner Armenta, Council Member /Commissioner Low, and Council Member /Commissioner Ly. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, 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. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES BY TITLE ONLY By motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney shall be instructed to read by title only all resolutions and ordinances appearing on this agenda which are required by law to be read in their entirety. Mayor Taylor asked that this item be deferred to the next City Council meeting because there was not back- up information in Councils' packets. This item was deferred to the next City Council meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM 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 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: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. Matters from Executive Director and Staff A. Glendon Hotel -- Independent Accountant Report on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures between the Rosemead Inn Hotel Partners, LLC and the Rosemead Community Development Commission On July 2, 2008, the Rosemead Community Development Commission acquired the Rosemead Inn located at 8832 Glendon Way. On August 28, 2008 the Commission approved a contract with the Rosemead Inn Hotel Partners, LLC as the operator of the hotel and also approved an Operating Agreement between the Operator and the Commission. On March 9, 2010 the Commission directed staff to engage the Commission's auditors, Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., to examine the financial records of the hotel operations and prepare an Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures. The Agreement with the hotel Operator will be terminated in June of 2010 by mutual consent of the parties. At this point in time, the Commission may pursue two options: 1) Receive and file the Report and take no further action against the Operator to recover the money found to be owed to the Commission; or, 2) receive and file the Report and direct staff to collect the money found to be owed to the Commission by any means used in the course of normal business practices. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures and direct staff as to any further actions to be taken. Director of Finance Steve Brisco reviewed the staff report. 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 report; if there was no response then it would be sent to a collection's agency at that point if there was still not response it would be up to the Council's to consider initiation of litigation. Mayor Taylor stated he did not want the City Council to drop this issue because this could be done to other agencies. Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to take care of this issue and build a bigger paper trail before the attorneys got involved. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the report brought to them at a previous meeting was not included in this staff report and asked if it would be brought back to Council at a different time. He added that it was a very thick report and he was just wondering what the update was on the ongoing Glendon Hotel report. Mr. Brisco stated that more documents could be brought back to Council with an additional report. Mayor Pro Tem Ly responded that he wanted staff to wrap up that report and include the audit information as well. Mr. Ly explained that in a previous Council meeting it was said that staff would present this report and in addition staff would bring back the complete report to Council; he asked for clarification and asked if this was the final report. Council Member Low asked if staff knew what kind of additional information Mr. Ly was asking for. Mr. Allred stated that this was the capsule of the report and it could be put together with the information previously given to Council and that would make it a complete report. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked that the complete file be brought back to Council /Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Allred stated that was not 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 31 and the will be vacating the building June 30th. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he totally agreed with moving forward tonight on trying to 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 Ts" were cross and all the IV' were dotted in the report to 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 staff can only provide the additional information because it was a pretty thick report. Mayor Taylor responded that he would like to see a summary of each item. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he was fine with having the information on the staff report as long as Council received a cumulative of all the information regarding Glendon Hotel. Mayor Taylor stated that he agreed with Mr. Ly and asked staff to send the notice to the hotel operators and continue to have a paper trail on record. Council Member Armenta stated that she was in total agreement with the majority of the Council. Ms. Armenta stated that from day one this company has shown a lack of professionalism. Juan Nunez — stated that option one of the staff report was out of the question and that he agreed with option two; he added that the cost of the audit and the cost to hire a collection's agency should also be invoiced to the hotel operator. Mayor Pro Tem Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Low to pursue the collection of the City's money within 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: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 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 Development Commission approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Qiao Garden Group Real Estate Company, Ltd. for the development of a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Economic Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez reviewed the staff report. Mayor Taylor stated that one question came to mind about the environmental clause; shouldn't this be subject to a negative declaration being an existing building. And on page 4 you have a duplication of Item 98 and C; they are identical. City Manager Allred stated that one was for the commission and the other was for the purchaser. Juan Nunez — stated that in this case the City should include an all expenses associated with the.... (inaudible) that should cover everything. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked that if other than staff time there was any additional transaction costs associated with this project on the City's end. Mrs. Ramirez responded not at this time. Mr. Allred added that a purchase and sale agreement would be brought back to the Commission with all those issues. Mayor Taylor stated he wanted to go back and discuss staffs recommendation on number 5 for the 100 thousand dollar deposit you are 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 Qiao 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 or 22 Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Council recessed to closed session at 6:39 p.m. 5. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Labor Negotiator Government Code Section 54957.6; Negotiator for the City: City Manager Jeff Allred and Human Resources Manager Su Tan Employee Unit: Rosemead Employees Association B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Government Code Section 54957; Council Appointed Officials (City Clerk) City Council and Community Development Commission Meeting Agenda The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 7:05 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner/ Council Member Polly Low INVOCATION: Chair /Mayor Gary Taylor PRESENT: Mayor /Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice- Chairman Taylor, Council Member /Commissioner Armenta, Council Member /Commissioner Low, and Council Member /Commissioner Ly. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, 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 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 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. The City received entries from almost every elementary school in Rosemead; the Kindergarten through 6t^ graders students were asked to share their vision of Rosemead in 2020 in the form of art work. Staff received over 200 entries, the winners will have their art work displayed in the Council Chamber and will receive an award of recognition from City Council. The winners were announced, received their awards, and took a picture with the City Council. Council MemberArmenta 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. Council Member Clark stated she was very impressed with all the student's talent. Mayor Pro Tem Lyjoked about the fact that a student who shared his name, Steven Ly, had submitted an entry as well and he was sad by the fact he had not won. Mayor Taylor thanked all of the students who had participated in the contest and added that all the art work was very well done. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE — None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Increase Maximum Bingo Payout to $500 Don Bosco Technical Institute has approached the City requesting the consideration of amending the City's existing Municipal Code Section 5.20.110 to increase the maximum payout 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.m.; 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 Abstain: None Absent: None B. Ordinance Repealing Moratorium on Approval of Land Use Entitlements for Mixed -Use Residential Commercial Developments The proposed ordinance would repeal the existing moratorium on the approval of land use entitlements for mixed -use residential commercial developments in its entirety. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 898, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 888 Mayor Taylor opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.; there being no speakers on this item the Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Juan Nunez — asked if by approving this ordinance the old 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 designated in the recent general plan amendment. Council Member Steven Ly commended Council Members Clark and Low for their work on developing appropriate levels of mixed -use in the City of Rosemead. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly, to introduce and conduct the first reading 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, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 32, FOR PAYMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $478,799.91 NUMBERED 100831 THROUGH 100849 AND 69677 AND 69829, INCLUSIVELY. C. Ordinance 892 — Second Reading: Amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code by the Addition of a New Chapter 17.82 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) On May 11, 2010, the City Council reviewed Ordinance No. 892 for the required second reading, which approved amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code by the addition of a new Chapter 17.82, which establishes Development and approval standards for Wireless Telecommunications facilities, devices, structures and equipment used for wireless transmission within the City of Rosemead. At this same meeting Ordinance No. 892 was amended and re- introduced for first reading; at this time the ordinance is before Council at the required second reading for adoption. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 892 at its second reading, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 17.82 (WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES) WHICH ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, DEVICES, STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT USED FOR WIRELESS TRANSMISSIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Council Member Polly Low 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. 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 projects, especially because this ensured that the neighborhoods around schools were safe. Mrs. Low added that she noticed this project was in the surrounding areas of Rosemead High School, Encinita Elementary, Muscatel, and Savannah and asked if the same type of project will be conducted in the Garvey area (the southern area of the city). 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 you are awarded more points; in essence staff was able to get more schools in this location. He explained that it was staffs intent to come back next year and apply for the same grant for the Garvey Unified District. Council Member Low suggested that it was probably a good idea to convey that information to the Garvey School District and let them know that the City will also take care of that area so that it is not perceived that the City is only taking care of certain parts of the city. Council MemberArmenta stated that she knew Sanchez Elementary and Temple Intermediate were not part of this project but it was her knowledge that the principals of the schools had met with the Deputy Public Works Director and due to the possible hazard of the traffic flow, Mr. Marcarello was able to work with the schools and repaint certain crosswalks and sidewalks. Council Member Low added that there had also been a project that had been approved by Council near Rice School. Nancy Eng — 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 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 and Garvey Parks At its last regular meeting, City Council delayed action on this item in order to obtain additional input from the community regarding the design of the proposed Rosemead Aquatic Center. With the recent completion of schematic designs of the Rosemead and Garvey Parks Aquatic Centers, the projects are ready to proceed with the full design and construction specifications phase. Recommendation: 1. That the City Council provide direction on the design options for the proposed Rosemead Park Aquatic Center; 2. That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Aquatic Design Group in the amount of $522,450 ($350,041.50 from existing 2006A Bond proceeds and $172,408.50 from funds that will be available through the Redevelopment Agency's repayment of a City loan as Garvey Park is located outside of Rosemead's redevelopment project areas and is, therefore, not eligible for redevelopment bond funding) to complete design development, construction documents and permit drawings, and to perform construction observation for the renovation of aquatics facilities at Rosemead and Garvey Pools; and 3. That the Community Development Commission and City Council adopt CDC Resolution No. 2010 -17 appropriating $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 Director 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 themselves doing so. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he did not mind if the two play areas are placed closer together but that he would still like the benches /delineator as shown on the slide. Mr. Farrell responded that aside from that being a great idea the Health Department was going to want to see some type of barrier to attempt to slow kids down. Mayor Pro Tem Ly added that he did want the kids to have fun and go into the 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 lifeguard by 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 other staff would have to replace them. Mr. Montgomery-Scott reiterated that there would always be a lifeguard station by the pool but in the event of a rescue numbers of staff will get involved in that process and that is why, in terms of clear visual, in terms of design that is always the preference. Council Member Clark stated that she assumed we were starting from scratch regarding the buildings and asked if the building and the pool could both be moved to the right. Mr. Farrell explained that they were trying to take advantage of the existing disabled access from the parking side of the street to the center of the building. He added that he did not foresee a problem with switching the pool because there was not a great distance between the pool and the building. Council Member Clark asked what the cost would be to move the building to the right as well. Mr. Farrell responded that it 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 MemberArmenta 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 cost 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 expanding the shallow area and asked what the advantages were of the peninsulas versus no peninsulas. Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that the only real issue would be defining further delineation between shallow end of the pool and the competitive or deeper end of the pool but code does not require that type of delineation. He added that it will enable lifeguards to get out on those peninsulas and they can potentially have a better view into the pool area. Council Member Clark commented that the only downside was if someone wanted to swim from one end to the other the peninsulas would be on the way. Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that they would be but that the only times the lane lines would be in place would be during lap swim and swim team practice; the lane lines would only be down for open recreation swim and at that point it would not be likely that anyone will be swimming the length because they would run into others that are using the pool. Mayor Taylor stated he intended to vote no on this item because at the last meeting Council had a proposal of bringing back several items; replacing equipment in Klingerman Park, replace equipment at Zapopan Park, replace equipment at Rosemead Park, construct aquatic center at Rosemead Park, expand Rosemead Community Center and its parking lot, develop a new neighborhood park at Rush and Walnut Grove, construct a new restroom at Zapopan Park, develop and install the anniversary 911 memorial, and renovate the fields at Rosemead Park. All those projects are going to cost approximately $19,770,000 and that does not include the Garvey aquatic center, which is before Council tonight, and it is about $3.32 million. There has also been discussion about having only $5.7 million in bond funds left. Mr. Allred stated it was $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 loan and 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 development and commented that no taxes would be raised to complete the development. Mr. Allred responded that is correct; there will be no tax increases for residents or businesses. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that since Council changed the design of the pool he wanted to make sure staff updated the public on the changes. Council Member Clark pointed out that a large amount of money would revert to the County if the City does not spend it. Mayor Taylor responded that he was in favor of spending the money but the problem was the amount spend and at what time. Mr. Taylor asked how the redevelopment agency was being funded for operating in cost and staff. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth responded through tax increment funds that are not required for debt service and past due payments. Mayor Taylor asked where that money came from. Mr. Hawkesworth responded tax increment property tax. Mayor Taylor asked what the percentage was that the City had to pay off the bonds with that tax increment money. Mr. Hawkesworth responded that the proposed bonds that will be before the Council will be paid with surplus tax increment funds that will allow to continue the normal administrative operations of the agency and fund the debt service on these bonds. 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 Community 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 1 B 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 FY 2010.11 The City provides various individualized services (i.e. inspections, permits, variances, etc.) that are not of general benefit. Historically, many of these services have been provided at a cost greater than the price being charged for them 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 of individualized services, the fees charged to users need to be reviewed on a regular basis, preferably each year. Rosemead's business license fees have not been adjusted for some 18 years, and are proposed to be adjusted gradually, over the next three years. Increasing business license fees to appropriate levels in a single year could present a hardship in some cases; therefore, adjustments intended to be consistent with the County's fee structure can be phased over a three year period. However, it is important to note, with all the fee increases, that the proposed fee adjustments and new fees never exceed the cost of providing the service. In the interest of being responsive to the service needs of Rosemead residents and businesses; not all fees need to be increased and some are controlled by statute. Consequently, not every Rosemead fee is being recommended for an adjustment this year. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010 -33, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, UPDATING FEES 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). Playground safety was part of the discussion of proposed Parks, 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 April 27, 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 of 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 government (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 an amount not to exceed $240,000 using existing 2006A bond proceeds. Parks and Recreation Director David Montgomery-Scoff reviewed the staff report. Council MemberArmenta asked if this would take care of any hazardous or safety problem at all the City's parks. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff stated that was correct. Mayor Pro TemlVice -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 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. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2010 -26, entitled: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ANNUAL BEAUTIFICATION AWARD PROGRAM. Management Analyst Pat Piatt reviewed the staff report. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve Resolution No. 2010.26. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None E. September 11th Memorial Donor Program On September 11, 2011, America will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragedies of September 11th. An anniversary memorial commemorating those tragic events was initially proposed as part of the Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan Capital Improvement Projects at 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 artifact 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. Therefore, creation of a donor program is proposed in order to raise the funds needed to create a 10th 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 a September 11th Memorial. Parks and Recreation Director David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report (PowerPoint is available in the City Clerk's office). Council Member Armenta asked if it had been decided which rendering was going to be chosen. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated that would be up to Council. Council MemberArmenta stated that input from the community was needed to make that decision. Mayor Taylor asked if they were selling these pieces of steel and what the shipping cost would be. Mr. Montgomery-Scott responded that those details had not been sent to the city and would not be until the City formally sings the transfer agreement. He added that it was the City's responsibility to pick up the piece and bring it back to the City. Mayor Taylor stated it was only not fair to approve the item now and find out the cost later; he added that he was irritated by this because he was in favor of having this done but not being informed of the cost. Mr. Montgomery -Scott stated that the estimate cost for the entire project was between $50,000 and $60,000. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve staff's recommendations and show the two designs to the community for their preference. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 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 that he has seen contracts that have been with the City for many years put out to bid. Because of this the City has been able to 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; however, he asked staff to explain what the rationale was behind renegotiating rather than going out to bid. Mr. Hawkesworth responded that each contract is reviewed on an individual bases; in this case because it is building and plan checking services and they are truly an integral part of the City's staff. There is a great working relationship with the people Willdan has placed in Rosemead and as mentioned before they have some institutional knowledge that is very valuable for the City. Maintaining that institutional knowledge in this case is very important to the organization as opposed to going out and issuing building permit RFP with the chance of bringing in someone new and really damaging the institutionalize knowledge that we already have. Mayor Pro Tem Ly pointed out that the contract was for 3 years with a potential of an additional 2 years renewal option; he stated that he agreed with the savings portion of the renewal contract given the financial environment but asked that after the 3 year contract the city put the contract out for bid. Council Member Low stated she agreed with Mr. Ly regarding the cost savings; she added that by going out and getting RFP's the City would be saving money as well. Mrs. Low stated that this would make Willdan competitive and maybe bring back a much better cost savings proposal. She suggested that the RFP be conducted now instead of 3 years from now. Mayor Pro Tem Ly responded that normally he is a big fan of RFP's but one of the reasons he is making an exception in this case is because 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 and that he wanted to ensure that there was a balanced budget by July 1st; 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 Mr. Ly in going out to bid after the 3 year contract but as of now she thought the best thing to do is stay with the services provided by Willdan. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he would like to see the elimination of the 2 year renewal option because he thought going out to bid in 3 years would give Willdan the opportunity to prove themselves to the community. He added that he has heard complaints about Willdan but he also recognizes that they have rectified and addressed those complaints and he would like to see Willdan on their toes and know that the Rosemead residents should be treated well. Council Member Clark stated she didn't see the difference 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 process after the 3 years just to be fair; it is done with all the other city contracts. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he wasn't saying that in 3 years this contract be put out for an RFP but rather have a discussion or rather it should be an RFP or if the contract should be renewed. Council Member Low stated that she would make a substitute motion to approve the 3 year contract and then in 3 years put this contract for an RFP. Council Member Clark stated she did not agree with that. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he 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 Tem 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 Absent: None 11. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Mayor's Appointments for 2010 -2011 Each Year, a listing of City Council Member appointments to a variety of regional and state committees and boards is prepared and submitted by the Mayor. On April 27, 2010 the Mayor appointed delegates and alternates to several committees; however, the Council asked that staff and gather more information on five (5) committees and bring it back for their review. During the search it was discovered that the WSGV Planning Committee and Legislative Delegate Program Committee no longer exist. At this time the following committees need an alternate and delegate: • Trust Fund Liability Oversight Committee • Coalition for Practical Regulation • L.A. Area Integrated Waste Management Authority. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Mayor's Appointments for 2010 -2011. Council Member Armenta made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ly, to approve the Mayor's appointments for 2010.2011. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he would like to see staff place on the agenda an item regarding drought tolerant lawns and what 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 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 MemberArmenta 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 no reportable action at 9:45 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 regularjoint 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. r G-t ry f aylor Mayor ATTEST: oria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 Page 22 of 22 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 May 25, 2010 were duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead City Council on the 24th of August 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: Taylor UI � (�.MYNIA lorla Moll da City Clerk