Loading...
CC - Minutes 10-12-10Minutes of the Community Development Commission, and City Council Regular Meeting October 12, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 6:02 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner /Council Member Sandra Armenta INVOCATION: Commissioner /Council Member Margaret Clark PRESENT: Chair/ Mayor Taylor, Vice - Chair/ Mayor Pro Tem Ly, Commissioner/ Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low 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 Manager Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. ORDINANCES READ BY TITLE ONLY State law requires that all ordinances be read in full prior to the City Council /Agency Board taking action; however, by motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney can be instructed to read all ordinances by title only. Recommendation: That the City Attorney be instructed to read all ordinances which appear on this agenda by title only, and that further reading be waived. Vice - Chair /Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner /Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve ordinance by title only. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Daniel Garcia - expressed concern with the high speed rail issue. He stated there should be more accessible and affordable housing for seniors and people with disabilities; the State should get involved with the decision making of every city involved with the high speed rail. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 1 of 21 Commissioner Clark asked why the State should be involved. Mr. Garcia - replied because the City cannot afford 300 houses affected and the State can respond and develop those houses. Commissioner Clark stated they are hoping that housing will not be taken away and that Council plans to fight against it. Mr. Garcia - stated we can all agree we should have something that is voted by the people. Commissioner Clark clarified that the people did not know what they had voted on. 3. COMMISSION /CORPORATION CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 — 34 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 — 34, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 34 FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $770,595.71 DEMAND NO. 10091 AND DEMAND NOS. 11346 THROUGH 11368. Vice - Chair /Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner /Council Member Polly Low, to approve Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None The Commission recessed at 6:08 p.m. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 2 of 21 City Council and Community Development Commission, Meeting Agenda The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 7:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Sandra Armenta INVOCATION: Council Member Margaret Clark PRESENT: Mayor Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Ly, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low 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 Manager Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 4. PRESENTATION Proclamation to Captain Richard Shaw City Council presented a proclamation to Captain Richard Shaw for his public service in law enforcement. A representative on behalf of Assembly Mike Eng's office presented a certificate of appreciation to Captain Richard Shaw. Captain Richard Shaw - thanked the City Council for the proclamation and recognition. Council Member Clark thanked Captain Shaw for all his years of service. • Proclamation for Breast Cancer and Domestic Violence Month • Proclamation for Crime Prevention Month City Council presented a proclamation declaring crime prevention month to Chief of Police Murakami. Chief of Police Murakami accepted the proclamation and thanked the City Council, staff, and the community for their crime prevention efforts. Council Member Clark commended Chief of Police Murakami for his work and stated she has heard very good feedback from other people on the work he carries out. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 3 of 21 Council Member Armenta stated the input provided by Chief of Police Murakami and the deputies is an added attribute to the City. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Nathalie Paulovich - addressed the City Council with concerns regarding the Consolidated Waste Disposal contract. Ms. Paulovich stated she contacted the company about the senior discount program and was told there was none available. She stated that after many inquiries she was then sent an application for senior discount. Ms. Paulovich added that according to the contract the rate set for seniors was done in 1996 that was 14 years ago and since then the economy has changed drastically. Mr. Paulovich continued and said the requirements for senior income was outdated as it stated that $1,197 per head of house hold a month was allowed and suggested that it should be higher. She mentioned the company does not let people know about their senior program and asked when their contract will expire with the city. Mayor Taylor replied it is not an annual contract and they still have a couple of years on the standing contract. Ms. Paulovich - asked when was the last contract approved Mayor Taylor explained the contract has an evergreen contract that allows it to go in a five year cycle and it can be renewed consistently; one year is up and it can extend for another five years. Ms. Paulovich - asked if the city had to wait for the one year to be completed before addressing any issues. Mayor Taylor stated that the city is in the process of possibly revising their contract if it is kept. Ms. Paulovich — noted that she is speaking on behalf of other seniors and a great percent of the people in the City who are seniors. She stated she took a survey on her block and 60 percent were seniors; she addressed the issue with them as well as informed them about the program. Mayor Taylor stated they will take the information provided by Ms. Paulovich and put it in a file and considere it as the contract comes up for renewal. Mr. Taylor agreed with Ms. Paulovich that the income requirements are low and outdated. Council Member Clark stated that she checked with Richard Fierro of Consolidated and he stated the number is based on State numbers for low income. Mrs. Clark suggested there should be a graduated level for seniors whose income is over the 34 percent for low income cap requirement. Ms. Paulovich - reiterated that it is unacceptable that people are not told about the senior discount program Daniel Garcia - asked if the city has ever done a proclamation for disability month Mayor Pro Tern Ly replied yes Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 4 of 21 Mr. Garcia - distributed election information regarding the November election in different languages. Also, stated that it is important to know how accessible polling places are for disabled people. Pollworkers should provide information when a person is unable to go to the polls and make it accessible outside the polls. Mayor Taylor explained that the sample ballot is provided in four languages and voters can request which ever they prefer. At the polls they also have to have the ballots marked in the language that is requested and the city has followed State law. Mr. Garcia - asked about the physical access and what if a pollworker cannot help them. Mayor Taylor stated that voters can do vote by mail. Mr. Taylor asked the City Clerk how many of the locations are handicap accessible. City Clerk Molleda replied that all locations have accessibility for special needs and all pollworkers are trained prior to election day to ensure they know how to assist people with disabilities, if needed. Mayor Taylor reiterated to Mr. Garcia that the city does provide handicap accessibility to people with a disability and pollworkers are trained. Mr. Garcia - stated that the City should be more proactive. Mayor Pro Tem Ly explained that the upcoming November election is a County run election and the role played by the City Clerk is to provide certain election information. The city has no control over polling locations, poll workers, and their guidelines. Mr. Ly stated that during the city's election in March the City Clerk will make sure there will be handicap accessibility to all locations and all the language requirements are met. Mr. Garcia - stated voting by mail is not the solution for everyone. Mayor Taylor stated that was an option that is given to voters. Mr. Garcia - asked if pollworkers are required by law to have more practice being involved with people with disabilities. Council Member Armenta stated that the polling locations do show the icon of the handicap accessibility and encourages people with disabilities to go to the polling places. Also, asked Mr. Garcia if he has been informed of any one in Rosemead who feels the city is infringing upon disabled people. Mr. Garcia - replied not in the City of Rosemead but has seen that pollworkers in other places have not helped people when they need help to vote like taking it to their car. Mayor Taylor clarified that you cannot take the ballots outside the polling place. Jean Hall - addressed a complaint regarding the surrounding parking lot and surrounding planting area around the corner building which Universal Bank leases. The shopping parcel has been an ongoing problem; Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 5 of 21 the owners have never cooperated with one another. There has been an ongoing painting project and the planting area has weeds, mounts of dirt piled high and trash is everywhere. Also, the coming and going of porta potties do not enhance the appearance of the area. The boarded up unfinished portion of the building shows neglect, lack of making an owner stay within a time line or guideline from years back; yellow skip loader parked out in front has no positive improvement; the one -way signage in the rear portion of the building does no good, drivers do not observe it. The easterly driveway entrance shows a "Do Not Enter sign," but it's turned out of sight from those entering onto the drive way. The watchman could also remind drivers about the one -way in and out; helping traffic flow. Mrs. Hall also expressed concern with the cleanliness of the building, windows and sliding doors. She has been pleased with the City's efforts in beautifying the community and plead that the neighboring cities do the same. Mrs. Hall suggested writing letters, circulate petitions and ask the property owner to partner with California American Water and do a complete make -over with water saving and other types of landscaping like the Rosemead Chamber office. Mrs. Hall continued with more suggestions on how to get the property owners to clean the shopping center. Mayor Pro Tem Ly agreed with Mrs. Hall's comments and added that the site takes away from trying to beautify the City. Mayor Taylor directed staff to start a file on the issue, take pictures of the property, as well as, send a letter to the property owner. Council MemberArmenta stated that there is a fork lift in that location and it seemed to be growing weeds because it has been sitting there for a very long time. Dolores Weidemann — agreed with Ms. Paulovich's comments regarding Consolidated Waste Disposal. Ms. Weidemann spoke about the Edison property on Mission and Walnut Grove, the debris has been cleared; however, it was cleared because of the rain and the transformers on Halkett Avenue were threatened with the fire that exploded in the air; a neighbor's shed and trees were burned down. Mayor Taylor stated that he was not aware of that situation. Ms. Weidemann - stated that during the rains a few weeks ago she came home and there was no power and was told there was flames shooting out from the transformers. She commented that after the power shortage the weeds were cleaned out and a tractor did not have a water tank that caused a turbine of dirt everywhere and that should be addressed to Edison when they do work. Ms. Weidemann continued to say that the area is still an eye sore and there is a park across the street which needs maintenance. Council MemberArmenta stated that her concern with Edison was with the dilapidated property they own located on the south side of the 1 -10 freeway, on Willard Avenue; there is an elementary school and kids walk through there. 6. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR B. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2010 — 71 Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 6 of 21 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 -71, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 71, FOR PAYMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,004,724.98 NUMBERED 101003 THROUGH 101018 AND 71177 THROUGH 71325, INCLUSIVELY. C. Ordinance No. 904 — Second Reading: Amendment to the Contract between the City Council of the City of Rosemead and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System On September 28, 2010, the City Council reviewed the Ordinance No. 904, for an intention of an amendment to the contract between the City Council and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. The amendment will implement pension reform measures by providing reduced retirement benefits for employees enrolled after July 1, 2010. Ordinance No. 904 is now before Council at the required second reading for adoption. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 904, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, FOR AN INTENTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM D. Ordinance No. 905 — Second Reading: Amending Municipal Code Section 2.24.020 Conflict of Interest Code On September 28, 2010, the City Council reviewed the Ordinance No. 905, amending Municipal Code Section 2.24.020 Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Rosemead, the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency, and the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation. Ordinance No. 905 is now before Council at the required second reading for adoption. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 905, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.24.020 CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 7 of 21 E. City Council Calling and Giving Notice of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to Render Specified Services to the City Relating the Conduct of the same Election Resolution No. 2010 -73 calls for a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, and makes provisions for the conduct of the election in accordance with the California Election Code. Resolution No. 2010 -74 requests that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles render specified services to the City related to the conduct of the same General Municipal Election. Resolution No. 2010 -75 calls for the conduct of a Special Runoff Election for elective offices in the event of a tie vote at the March 8, 2011 General Municipal Election. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010 -73, Resolution No. 2010 -74, and Resolution No. 2010 -75, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT THE MARCH 8, 2011 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve Consent Calendar with the exception of item 6A. Vote resulted in: Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 8 of 21 Yes: Amenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None A. Minutes July 27, 2010 — Regular Meeting August 24, 2010 —Regular Meeting Mayor Taylor stated that he would abstain on the August 24, 2010 minutes because he was not in attendance. Council Member Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve the minutes of July 27, 2010. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Brian Lewin - expressed concern with his comments during the public comment section on the minutes of August 24th. He asked that his comments reflect what he said more accurately in the meeting. He stated that all details were omitted from his comments other than his concerns about transparency and proposing Cal - Cards. Council Member Low asked Mr. Lewin if he felt there was information that was not included and was asking to have more details in the minutes. Mr. Lewin - asked that his comments be representative of what he said. Council Member Low read Mr. Lewin's comments and stated that she recalled he had more comments. Mr. Lewin - asked that the minutes reflect his basic points. Mayor Pro Tem Ly suggested that the minutes of August 24th be deferred and Mr. Lewin's arguments reflected in the minutes and directed the City Clerk to summarize Mr. Lewin's comments in more detail. Minutes of August 24, 2010 meeting were deferred. 7. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Telephone System Replacement Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 9 of 21 Included in the 2010 -11 Budget and work plan is the replacement of the City's existing telephone system. The City's current Mitel telephone and voicemail system is over 10 years old, and replacement parts are no longer available. Approximately six months ago proposals were requested from a number of vendors that specialize in telephone systems and five proposals were received. Each bidder was asked to provide a turn -key solution including all hardware for the phone system itself and a full telephone company solution provided by a vendor of their choice. Through this RFP process these bidders have provided on -site demonstrations for staff to test out the systems, provided site visits to existing customers along with performing an analysis of the City's needs and top priorities. Replacement of the system will result in a cost savings to the City of approximately $20,000 per year. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize: 1. The City Manager to enter into an agreement with Intelesys Communications Company for the acquisition and installation of a Shoretel Phone System in the amount of $89,950.86 plus a 10% contingency. The purchase will be financed over a five (5) year period through a standard lease /purchase contract with a buyout of $1 at the end of the term. 2. The City Manager to enter into an agreement with TelePacific for the implementation of an MPLS telephone and data network for a period of three (3) years at a monthly cost of $4,321.78. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworfh reviewed the staff report. Council MemberArmenta asked if by changing the phone system the phone numbers would be changed as well. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworfh replied no, the phone numbers will not change. Mayor Pro Tern Ly asked that instead of saving $20,000 a year what would the new saving expected to be Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated there is no new saving and the amount provided would be the correct number; Standard Tel submitted a revised proposal, however, staff's recommendation is to accept Intelesys' proposal. Mr. Garcia - asked if the new telephone system will be accessible to impaired people Mayor Taylor asked that this item be differed to the next meeting to get a summary chart listing of all the proposals with the equipment fees and duration of fees: Mr. Taylor stated that some of the proposals are for three years and others are for five years. There are 191 pages and that cannot be consolidated. Mr. Taylor asked for a break down chart showing each company how they proposed and bid the project. Tom Row - representative of Standard Tel Networks stated the company had been working with the City on this project and has provided the phone system for the city for the past ten years. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 10 of 21 Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Row what the argument was regarding not being able to supply parts for the system. Mr. Row - replied it was not that they could not supply parts but rather the manufacture's advance their products and that results in discontinuing products. The manufacture's do discontinue parts and we do have parts in stock for the current system, certain tend to be used or remanufacture parts. Mayor Taylor commented that is not unusual that there are parts available. Mr. Row - stated the system is older, the voicemail system is out of date, and so the support on that is definitely challenged at best. Mr. Row spoke about Standard Tel and the services and products they provide. Standard Tel has been in business for over 31 years, with 8,000 customers; service program includes a 2 hour response time. Mr. Row explained the company puts that in writing and guarantees to give the customer 25 percent cash back if the service commitment is unfulfilled. That is about $18,000 back to the customer and the system Standard Tel is proposing is $74,000, which cover all the hardware, software and labor. Any telephone breakage is covered, if the city elected to back out of the coverage, there is a savings of $140 a month which is a net of $1,680 a year. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Row to explain the $140 and $1,680 figures. Mr. Row - replied that he was referring to the support; if the city decided to op out then that would be the saving. He explained the $1,680 was the calculation for $140 times 12 months. Also the program is all remote which includes program system changes, changing names, and adding speed dials. Mr. Row added that user training was covered by the program, for example if a new administrator was hired to support the system, training is included. Standard Tel comes out on an annual basis and has an annual preventive maintenance schedule to review the system, issues, and upgrade the system. Mayor Taylor asked if they have been doing the maintenance for the past ten years. Mr. Row - replied no, not under this program; this new program is called the CCC program. Mayor Taylor stated that the City Manager's recommendation was to enter into an agreement for three years for a minimum monthly cost of $4,321. The last sentence on the first paragraph under the telephone system it reads, "Replacement of the system will result in cost savings of approximately $20,000 per year." Mr. Taylor stated that is the reason why he asked for a chart to see what the other companies are proposing on their monthly fees. The three year contract adds up to $150,000 and cannot be compared to what the other companies were proposing. City Manager Allred replied that based on Mr. Taylor's request this matter will be deferred and staff will come back with a chart with the information. He added that on page 3 of the staff report it explains how the $20,000 is derived. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated these proposals were kept proprietary because several vendors requested that, however, on the staff report the price of the Shoretel system and TelePacific were published. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 11 of 21 He asked that now that this item was being deferred was the Standard Tels proposal with revised numbers being accepted. If it is now every vendor is going to want to revise their proposals. Mayor Taylor stated that he thought that it's the only fair way to treat it because STN had the opportunity to submit a bid and they claimed there was an error. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied yes, there were features and components that did not need to be included. Mayor Taylor referred to the city attorney and asked if that is a valid reason for declining a bid City Attorney Richman replied it could; it can be considered as a none responsive bid all the components needed where not included. She added that it depended if it was diminutive or something substantial enough and agreed that if they were permitted to revise and submit, that might be something other vendors would like the opportunity as well. Mayor Taylor asked if this could be,done legally. Mr. Row - explained the reason why they asked to resubmit the bid was because of the configurations and discrepancies; there were components in the bid that drove the price up. He added that they removed those components and that was the reason for resubmitting the bid. Mayor Taylor asked how Standard Tel knew the others did not have those same components in their bid. Mr. Row - replied they took apart their quote and through discussions with Mr. Hawkesworth. Mayor Taylor stated we are going to allow the others to do it also to be fair and open about it because we are in a bidding process and then it looks like we pulled a shady deal and let somebody else come in and alter their bid, which does not look good. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated he never saw an itemized price list and as to Mr. Row removed certain things, their prices went down; however, he did not know what amount of their price was for parts that they removed or where they cut cost from. Mayor Taylor inquired about other cost breakdowns. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated some vendors provided a breakdown and some did not. Mayor Taylor stated he wanted to compare apples and oranges and wanted to see that in a chart to make sure they are all bidding the same way and doing the same program. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth asked that council allow him more than two weeks so he can go back to the vendors and make sure that they all submit their bids. Mayor Taylor stated that was no problem. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 12 of 21 Mr. Row - asked if there will be a document that they will receive. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied yes. City Attorney Richman suggested that they start fresh because there might be somebody else who may want to submit their bid at this point. Council Member Low asked if when the city sends out request for proposals are vendors provided with specifications. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied no because of how the phone system opperates; he stated it is very difficult for staff to come up with specs. The City invited vendors to tour facilities, showed them what the City had and then asked them to design specs that would best meet the City's needs through the discussions. For example, Standard Tel Network originally proposed call recording for all calls that came in to the city; our original discussions mentioned that was not necessary. However, it was not removed from the proposal. Council Member Low stated it was their choice. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied they told him it was a mistake and they meant to remove it and it wasn't. Kevin Sewell - representative of Intelesys stated that during the process and in meeting with Mr. Hawkesworth, putting together multiple visits, and visiting sites, they had demonstrated their different products in order to determine what the best disaster recovery and overall best solution was for the City. Mr. Sewell described they implemented the Shoretel system at several cities and it's the fastest selling voice over IP solution in the market. During the process there were timelines that were stipulated by Mr. Hawkesworth, where he wanted to have the system decided upon. Mr. Sewell reiterated they are proposing a solution based on what the City requirements are to make sure the City has the best disaster recovery redundancy possible. He expressed concern regarding allowing other companies who did not provide the right equipment or the right solution within the time frame that was allowed to present a new solution and now open up the bidding process all over again. Council Member Clark stated she had a problem with opening it to other companies that did not bid and asked if the bidding process had to start over. City Attorney Richman stated that council wanted Mr. Hawkesworth to create specifications to send out to those individuals who have already submitted bids; however, there might be a company that want to bid on this but it isn't really available for everyone during the re -bid process. Council Member Clark asked if it was put out for anybody that wanted to bid. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied yes. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 13 of 21 Mayor Taylor asked what item Mr. Row was told not to include. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied the voice recording. Mayor Taylor reiterated before it was to be bid. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied that was his understanding. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Row if that was correct. Mr. Row - replied that the process had been going on for about a year. He added that early on, Mr. Hawkesworth and himself had discussed revolving issues and part of that plan was the voice recording; during the whole process that was never removed. Mayor Taylor asked when it was brought up not to include that item because the staff report states that it is not to be included. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated the other vendors had submitted their proposals after six months of discussion. Because Standard Tel is the City's existing provider he has been talking to Tom Row for approximately a year about the telephone system and options. Staff has been conversing with Standard Tel for longer than what staff has been meeting with other vendors. Mayor Taylor asked what the main discrepancies were, why did his bid come $15,000 lower. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated they removed the document voice recording system and on their itemized list of equipment it's called something else. So when he submitted his itemized list, staff did not see it under the name document that had been previously talked about in the designs. Mr. Hawkesworth stated that when he saw the itemized list he thought it had been pulled out. Mayor Taylor stated that he had a competitive price that was a misunderstanding between staff and him that was not to be in there. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated he also shared that they went back to MiTel and they wanted to give us the best proposal with the best financing rates. Because he did not have an itemized cost and didn't know if the $15,000 was exactly the cost for the document system or $10,000 was the cost for that and $5,000 was the cost for reducing other things. Council Member Low stated staff has gone through the process and asked if Mr. Row requested to lower his price after he was able to see the other companies cost. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied he called all the vendors and informed them that staffs recommendation was going to be to accept Intelesys proposal and the Shoretel System. When talking through the proposals with Mr. Row he stated the call recording was not pulled from his proposal. He added that Mr. Row, did not provide the City an itemized list of every part; it was just a total price. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 14 of 21 Mayor Taylor stated he thought there is some kind of error in the way it was handled because the monthly service fee is $4,321.00. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied that's for the telephone physical lines that are in the ground that allow for calling and connecting to different sites. Mayor Taylor asked who is paying that right now. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth replied the city pays it to AT &T Mayor Taylor asked what is that costing the city. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated he was not sure but that it was thousands of dollars and that is where the City's generating the cost savings. Mayor Taylor asked if the $50,000 a year was what the city is paying to AT &T. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth answered yes and added that the city currently spends approximately $110,000 a year for the AT &T cost, Standard Tel Network, and Charter Cable for data services. Under the new proposal the city would maintain Charter Cable for city hall and the rest of the telephone services and data services will all be provided by Telepacifc; hardware of the phones and phone systems would have been provided by Shoretel Intelesys and the net cost for that would have been about $89,000 a year. Mayor Pro Tern Ly agreed with Mr. Taylor about needing a chart to figure out this issue because there were various numbers being thrown out. Mr. Ly asked if it was possible to remain with the current vendors. City Attorney Richman asked if Council was asking for clarification on the current bids and not asking for anybody else's. Mayor Taylor stated that it was fine with him and that he just needed a chart to figure this item out. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if the new numbers from STN would be considered. Mayor Taylor stated if the other companies wanted to check their bids and revised them that would be fair. Mr. Sewell - expressed concern that most companies through any RFP process have certain guidelines; if the proposing vendor does not meet those guidelines they are automatically disqualified. If you have certain dates that are set that you are requesting proposals back or finalized and you submitted numbers for that particular project, if you submit those after the fact and you find out you missed something during the RFP process, it's considered either you are not going to be part of the project or they won't consider those numbers. Mr. Sewell's concern is if they open this back up and have everyone review the project, is it going to be where they can look at their numbers and say I know Intelesys won and get the job; we will need to come up with something to lower the price in order to do what we can to make us look more feasible. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 15 of 21 City Attorney Richman clarified that Council had given staff direction is to take documents that have already been submitted and these numbers will not be changing. The City is not going back out to bid and staff will utilize the information that has been provided. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth asked if the direction from Council was to provide an itemized list and allow other vendors to back out any items from their original list. City Attorney Richman recommended to accept Mr. Row's bid originally submitted. If Council is not going to reject all bids and start over then whatever Mr. Row's proposal was should stand because there was a deadline set. Mayor Pro Tern Ly reiterated that each vendor had their final cost numbers and they needed to take their numbers and start to disaggregate it all and provide a chart. Also, we are not accepting those numbers from STN. Council Member Clark asked if the $15,000 for the Oasis issue was discussed during the bidding process or after the bidding process. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated staff does not know if their price reduction includes other reductions other than Oasis because staff did not receive an itemized price sheet. City Attorney Richman stated that staff had documents that were provided and the $15,000 request needed to be ignored. She added that this was not a public works project and the city didn't need to look at the lowest bidder or go with the lowest bidder. Staff will look at the proposals provided, try and compare, and if there are things in some of the proposals that the city does not need then that's part of the discussion staff and Council would have. Mrs. Richman said she did not recommend allowing any bidder after bids have come in to make an argument that they take out items to reduce cost. Mayor Taylor stated that it was mentioned what the system did not need. City Attorney Richman stated that the next response that staff would say is that it is not responsive. That discrepancy is sufficient enough for the City to say that the bid is not a responsive bid. Staff is recommending someone based on more professional services and analysis. Mayor Pro Tern Ly stated that he thought the best solution was to have staff disaggregate the data and give Council a chart and also utilize STN original numbers. He agreed with Mr. Hawkesworth's concern regarding the voice recording item is questionable and the financing issues involved. Mayor Taylor reiterated that he felt somebody was being put to a disadvantage either way. Council Member Clark asked if staff communicated that the item should not be in there. Mayor Taylor stated that they told them it should not be in there and somebody inadvertently put it in there. But he didn't understand where the break down came, how it got in there when they were told not to put it in. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 16 of 21 Council Member Clark asked if Standard Tel was told whether the city used a 911 system Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated that his conversations with Standard Tel had been different from all other proposals because Standard Tel knew what the city currently utilizes. They know the system better than the other vendors because it's their system. Standard Tel was not told that the city didn't have a 911 system or a dispatch system because they are here already. They were told the City wanted LCD screens, no paper screens, and noted on eliminating the voice recording system. There was two pieces of equipment they were asked to remove an improvement to the mobile connectivity through the Motorola radios that Public Safety and Code Enforcement utilizes and the call recording. The Motorola feature was taken out of the proposal but the call recoding was not. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Row what gave them the impression that the city would now need a voice recording system. Mr. Row - stated that through the process, at the beginning, through discussions regarding the integration capabilities of the Mitel System with Motorola for hand held radios. He stated that any organization that uses this is very cost saving and helps their communication skills and makes them more efficient. The voice recording was discussed early on in relation of a potential emergency it may be relevant to the city or from a training perspective. Mayor Taylor stated that Mr. Row mentioned it was early on when they knew that was not to be included. Mr. Row - replied no, that was included as part of what they perceived as the specs requirements of the city, the whole premise or the whole driving factor of the project; initially was wrapping around replacing and getting reliable equipment to the city. Council Member Low explained that what Mr. Hawkesworth did was approach different companies and said, here is city hall, we need to upgrade the system, what kind of system do you recommend. She stated it seemed that each vendor had the freedom to recommend what is best for the city. What she gathered from STN was that as part of their design they recommended the voice recording capability as a good feature for the city. Mr. Row - replied that was in there based on direct input which was a verbal core component of the quote stack of what we were working off. Standard Tel design the system based directly on the input of the city on what was need or wanted. Mayor Taylor directed staff to bring the item back. City Attorney Richman reiterated that staff will take the documents that have already been provided as professional service proposals and look at the proposals as they are provided with the understanding it may not work out that way; Council is not rejecting but rather analyzing what has been submitted. 8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 17 of 21 A. Formation of High -Speed Rail Working Group by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments ( SGVCOG) The City Council will discuss participation on a SGVCOG High -Speed Rail Working Group. The City Attorney has advised that under the Brown Act open meeting laws, up to two members of the City Council may serve on the SGVCOG Working Group. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss participation in the SGVCOG High -Speed Rail Working Group by members of the City Council. City Manager Allred reviewed the staff report. City Attorney Richman stated that in the event, whoever is picked as the standing for the Ad -Hoc Committee, one of them can't go where the alternate would go. The alternate should not go back to the member that was appointed and tell them what happened in the meeting because then now you created a serial meeting between three of your members. Whoever is appointed would need to come back at your next meeting and have a full report to everybody when the alternate has been there and everyone has the same information at an open meeting. Mayor Taylor asked if that person did not attend the meeting can they call another member at the meeting not Rosemead city council, and ask them what happened, that is not violating our Brown Act. If they're asking for general information on what happened at the meeting because, we cannot ask my fellow council members. City Attorney Richman stated they can do that. It wouldn't be your council members perspective it would be some other person's. Mayor Taylor stated he didn't want to have someone sit there and be obligated to try to not find out what happened at a public meeting. City Attorney Richman reiterated that it may happen before the next council meeting but it would also happen at the council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ly suggested that after the working group meeting, following the Rosemead Council meeting, whoever was at the meeting give a report. Since this is an issue that is very sensitive right now to the residents because it's an update. Mayor Taylor nominated Ms. Clark and Ms. Armenta to the board to represent because both have the most heart and the most fire to letting them know how they feel. Council Member Low asked since Mr. Ly was interested in serving, would he be the alternate. Mayor Taylor stated that if you want him on the same motion that would be fine. Mayor Pro Tern Ly asked Ms. Clark and Ms. Armenta if there are meetings they cannot attend. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 18 of 21 Council Member Clark stated that the meeting times have not been announced. It would be good to have an alternate in case someone cannot attend. Council Member Armenta stated that the meeting would be held at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Mayor Taylor clarified that Ms. Armenta and Ms. Clark would be the board members and Mr. Ly would be the alternate. Mayor Pro Tern Ly stated that he is fine with the nominations, however expressed concern about the Brown Act situation. He stated that he would feel more comfortable if it's just Ms. Clark and Ms. Armenta and if there is an issue in attending the meetings then council could appoint an alternate then. Mayor Taylor stated we can appoint an alternate or replace the board member that cannot attend the meetings later. Mayor Pro Tern Ly express concern with the Brown Act and if there is a meeting coming up and both Ms. Armenta and Ms. Clark are good in letting council know what meeting they cannot attend, then council can appoint someone on the next agenda meeting. Mayor Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to appoint Council Member Armenta and Council Member Clark to the SGVCOG High -Speed Rail Working Group. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None` Absent: None Council MemberArmenta thanked everyone for the appointment because the issue involves her neighborhood and they will try to represent the city the best they can. Mayor Taylor reiterated why he made the nominations and they both have their heart and their passion in the issue. Also because you are up against the State and Federal Rail Authority. Council Member Clark stated that Ms. Armenta prepared a blue flyer about the upcoming meeting and asked to have that flyer sent out to the same people that were sent a letter before about the High Speed Rail Authority. Mayor Taylor asked if that needed to be added on the agenda as an urgency item. Council Member Clark stated it was not an urgency item and that a letter had already been sent out Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 19 of 21 Mayor Taylor stated that the City Attorney would decide what to do. City Attorney Richman asked if there would be cost associated with doing that. Council Member Clark replied that they had talked about sending a follow -up letter. City Manager Allred replied yes, a follow -up letter will be sent to the same people as before. Council Member Clark stated that there will be at least three more meetings coming up. City Manager Allred stated that flyer could be sent along with the follow -up letter. Mayor Taylor directed staff to include the flyer on the mailing that they are ready to mail. Mayor Pro Tem Ly shared some information with Council on economic indicators as to what is going on a State, regional and local level. The State of California has a current unemployment rate of 12.3 percent and in the San Gabriel Valley which is about 11.3 percent and for Rosemead it is about 11.8 percent. For Rosemead residents it is about 22.6 percent currently that live under the poverty line. Mayor Taylor asked where is the source coming from. Mayor Pro Tem Ly replied that the numbers for the unemployment rate come from the State and are updated about every six months. Council Member Armenta commended Mr. Montgomery-Scott for a great turnout at the Fall Fiesta Festival; she state she received a lot of positive feedback from residents. Ms. Armenta wished the City Manager, Community Development Director and Mayor Pro Tem Ly a safe trip to Taiwan and Asia. Mayor Pro Tem Ly noted that no city money was being used to fund the trip and that it was privately financed. Council Member Low stated that the Fall Festival was a success and thanked staff. Mrs. Low mentioned she attended a Lady Hawks game and they had done a really good job. Mayor Taylor asked for information regarding the poverty level. Mr Taylor stated he wanted information about a handyman program to assist a couple of senior citizens to fix their home. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 20 of 21 City Manager Allred replied that the city has a home improvement program through the CDBG Home Funds. Mayor Taylor asked if there was something in the past about deferment of property taxes for the County and I am not sure what the program was. If the home owner could not afford to pay they would get a lien on their home. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth stated that he had not heard of it but would check with the County. Council MemberArmenta inquired about the handyman program Mr. Taylor was referring to and asked if they needed to pay the loan back. Mayor Taylor stated that they are grants. City Manager Allred stated the city has grants as well. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. The next regular joint Community Development Commission and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on October 26, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., respectively. i _� V 0. Sp / EV06911 Gloria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2010 Page 21 of 21 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 from October 12, 2010, were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 14th of December, 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None .�Z1�61tia lvU Gloria Molleda City Clerk