Loading...
CC – Approval of Minutes 05-26-98 NOT ;_:-FCIAL UNTIL ADOPTED BY THE ROSE"=.iZAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MAY 26, 1998 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tern Vasquez The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Bruesch ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 12, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 26, 1998, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: -None 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Gilbert Villa, Durham Transportation and the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Council for their support during their recent golf tournament and invited everyone to the Chamber's monthly mixer at the Vagabond Inn on June 11th. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 98-16 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 98-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $341,460.65 NUMBERED 23360 THROUGH 23405, AND 23415 THROUGH 23538 INCLUSIVELY. CC 5-26-98 Page 91 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 98-16. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 98-17 - A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-17 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. Councilmember Taylor requested that this item be deferred as Exhibit A, Amendment to the Contract does not show what was stricken from the contract. Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that this will be returning for a second reading of the Ordinance, and that this amendment was prepared by PERS and is basically a new contract stating all of the provisions. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution Na 98-17. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B.I. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ORDINANCE NO. 786 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council waive reading in full of Ordinance No. 786. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 5-26-98 Page 142 B.2. ORDINANCE NO. 786 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING 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 - INTRODUCE The following Ordinance was introduced to the Council. ORDINANCE NO. 786 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING 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 - INTRODUCE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council introduce Ordinance No. 786 on first reading, and schedule the item for second reading at the meeting of June 23, 1998. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING IT TO OBTAIN STATE SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING OR CERTIFICATION PURPOSES C.1. RESOLUTION NO. 98-19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT BACKGROUND CHECKS Councilmember Taylor asked if the employee, applicant or volunteer would have a right to access to their own personal background check? Mr. Taylor requested that the policy include verbiage stating that the employee or applicant shall have the right to inspect the criminal background check information of his or her personal report if it is potentially disqualifying. Mr. Taylor stated that he is in favor of the general intent of the Resolutions. Mr. Kress stated that he will investigate the language required to include such a statement. Councilmember Taylor asked if the volunteers and Commissioners would be subject to this background check also. Mr. Tripepi responded that Commissioners were Council appointments and would not be included. After further discussion and there being no objection, the Mayor deferred this item to the next meeting. CC 5-26-98 Page 03 D. RESOLUTION NO. 98-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEL MAR AVENUE AS PART OF THE SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 98-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEL MAR AVENUE AS PART OF THE SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the Council adopt Resolution No. 98-20. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 98-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SPECIFIED PROJECT GRANT PROGRAM FOR GARVEY AVENUE COMMUNITY CENTER The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 98-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SPECIFIED PROJECT GRANT PROGRAM FOR GARVEY AVENUE COMMUNITY CENTER MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution No. 98-21. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item CC-D was removed for discussion purposes, CC-E was reconsidered after vote occurred) CC-A APPROVAL OF FIREWORKS STANDS CC-B APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL- DEVELOPMENT OF WEBSITE CC 5-26-98 Page 44 CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES EXECUTIVE FORUM - MONTEREY, JULY 22-24, 1998 CC-E APPROVAL FOR JUNE 9, 1998 BUDGET STUDY SESSION MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approve. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-D SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR CDBG ADMINISTRATION VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. In the past I've questioned a lot of the administrative and the overhead cost, I']1 call them, as far as some of the proposal that have come before us. In this particular proposal, if you'll look on page 4, the first item up there for fiscal year 1998-1999, under the Community Development Block Grant/Home Administration, the corporation USE and the corporation Willdan, the two headings that are up there. There's been an attempt to work out the differences in the following pages. But, I don't feel comfortable with...I'd like the explanations line itemed out. As it is here, as an example, USE has the administration cost of$37,790. Willdan has the administration cost of$124,145 or roughly in the neighborhood of$90,000 more. But then you go to the next item, Residential Rehabilitation, USE has a higher price of$79,950, Willdan has a Residential Rehabilitation of$36,120. I'd like a better explanation of the money that the USE Corporation - how they intend to spent their approximately$80,000 and Willdan only spending $36,000. It appears to me by just looking at this that the $80,000 is more directly geared right to the 30 cases. In other words, if they have 30 cases, they have $80,000 to deal with the 30. Willdan has $36,000 set aside to deal with 30 cases, or a little bit over $1000 per case. Whereas, with USE, it's in the neighborhood of$2700 or so. MAYOR BRUESCH: What type of information do you need? TAYLOR: Well, I'd like it broken down, line item, a little clearer. And then you go to the next fiscal year, 1999, the year 2000, USE has their administration cost of$38,911; Willdan has $129,115. That's again $90,000 higher. • BRUESCH: OK. Let's do this. We can defer this to the next meeting. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to work with Mr. Taylor to make sure we re-vamp it to his satisfaction. BRUESCH: In a different format, right? TAYLOR: Yes. What you did in the back there were several items listed, but their not... TRIPEPI: So, you want those items just incorporated to a front sheet like this. TAYLOR: To a line item so we can compare them better. JEFF STEWART, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: This is a warehouse approach. What you have with Willdan is more a staff cost being at City Hall and they handhold people and walk them through the process. USE is basically...they charge a flat rate and then they're going to charge for additional hours. CC 5-26-98 Page 85 TAYLOR: They may- But, I want to clarify it because you get down to the next year, it's $40,000 administration for USE and $100...there is $90,000 for the 3 years difference. Then the residential, again for the year 2000 and 2001, Residential Rehab, USE has $83,730; Willdan has $37,710. Again a little over $1000. There's something that is disproportionate here. STEWART: In every instance of this if you'll look at the USE proposal, there's a proviso, an additional cost that's built into this hourly rate. What we're going to have to do is set up a theoretical circumstance where we're doing "x" amount and apply the cost and calculate expected fees and get it back to you. Is that what you're looking for? BRUESCH: Why don't we do this, Mr. Stewart. Basically, you could take a couple cases and see how much man hours it took. Then, do the USE man hours and... STEWART: Just for clarification, we will take the proposals and average the amount of cases - there are lots of cases we've done over the last 3 years - and then just apply the cost we anticipate covering for each proposal. TAYLOR: OK. What we've done for the last 3 years? TRIPEPI: Yes. TAYLOR: I'd like to find out what this USE Corporation has to say how they would match up what we've done for the past 3 years and find the discrepancy. My point is here that this is._it may be misleading, but it's telling me that they're putting 2 1/2 to 1 ratio into these residential programs, and I don't know how they're doing it. STEWART: Here's how basically. USE would charge us, for lack of a better term, for instance like commercial rehabilitation. That's the $12,780 just for the right to be the consultant. Then whatever work they do over and above that is going to be billed in a... TAYLOR: OK. You said $12,000, Willdan is charging us $36,000. STEWART: That's an actual figure, that's an average of what they're actually going to do on the cases. That figure accurately reflects the amount of staff time that's going to be built in. We're going to come up with something close to that when we actually get the cost in. Willdan obviously has much experience in the City where.... TAYLOR: I have to look basically at what the dollars and there's a $164,000 difference in the bottom line. STEWART: If you take an average year, with the types of things that the program does and you plug in the cost based on the average year, is that what you're looking for? TAYLOR: I want to know if the residential rehab, if they're really going to get more service out of this. The bottom line is if Willdan, I'm just using this as an average, 30 cases per year, it's $36,000 one year, $37,000 the next, $37,000 the next for 30 cases. That just a little over 1000. If you go over to the USE Corporation, they're putting in roughly $80,000 at 2 1/2 to 1 ratio. Is the resident actually going to get that much more service out of these rehabs. STEWART: I think what you're going to find is that USE quotes their rates at a base line rate that they don't know. They haven't done business in this City- when they finally come into the City and work the actual hours, we're going to be billed hours on top of that and the numbers are going to be far closer than they appear in the proposals. TAYLOR: All right. If you can get a line item type arrangement. CC 5-26-98 Page 46 BRUESCH: Extrapolate it out in the hours, cost hours. We'll defer this to the next meeting then? Everybody is in agreement? (Council is in agreement) VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. CC-E.1. AMEND AGENDA TO RECONSIDER ITEM IV. CC-E: APPROVAL OF JUNE 9, 1998 BUDGET STUDY SESSION Councilmember Clark requested that the Budget Study Session be changed from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. as she has a prior meeting that day. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council approve amending the agenda to reconsider this item. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-E.2 CHANGE THE JUNE 9, 1998 BUDGET STUDY SESSION HOUR TO 5:30 P.M. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council approve changing the Budget Study Session hour from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION -None VI. STATUS REPORTS -None A. STATUS REPORT- DUES REQUEST FROM SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mayor Bruesch stated that information is still forthcoming regarding the aforementioned item. B. PROPOSED REDUCTION OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEES (VLF) Frank Tripepi, City Manager, stated that information was distributed to Council tonight regarding a survey the City sent to the League member cities of the San Gabriel Valley requesting information the impact of the State proposal to repeal the VLF will have, and from this survey, use the information to create a percentage column to the General Fund Budget. Mr. Tripepi continued that a request will be made to the League of California Cities asking that each of their divisions contact their City Managers'to conduct a similar survey and then compile that information. Mr. Tripepi stated the possibility of allocating our VLF revenues to a debt service for a bond issue to prohibit the State from being able to take our city's revenues. CC 5-26-98 Page a7 • VH. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. SB 2010 (HAYDEN) LOS ANGELES RIVER AND SAN GABRIEL RIVER CONSERVANCY MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK to oppose this bill because it would put the entire river watershed of the San Gabriel River and the Los Angeles River under the jurisdiction of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Ms. Clark stated that it would create a board with jurisdiction over this area which would be subject to veto power of any expenditure of public funds that that Conservancy deemed an imprudent cost. Ms. Clark continued that this board would have power over land use decisions and eminent domain. Ms. Clark stated that she was shocked and angry to read last Thursday that the bill had been moved out of the Senate after Senator Hayden promised that he would not move the bill until the concerns of the cities had been heard. Ms. Clark stated that meetings had been scheduled one week prior for discussions to be held the same day that the news article appeared. Mayor Bruesch added that the Conservancy is already controlling a major portion of Prop A monies and can determine where the new parks will go and determine how other agencies/cities in other jurisdictions can spend their money. Councilmember Taylor shared the feasibility of having two separate entities controlling their own areas, rather than being pitted against each other. Councilmember Clark added that the water issue is a complex one in southern California and that the San Gabriel Water Basin is under a court order with the Watermaster having jurisdiction over it, and that another entity will not be able to grasp the complexity of local water related issues. Mr. Tripepi stated that Senator Solis, who is a co-author of this bill, may be under the misconception that the cities are concerned with the seats on the Conservancy Board, rather than the issue of the power of eminent domain over all the projects in that area, and the Santa Monica Conservancy having the final authority over any projects. Mr. Tripepi suggested that the Council notify Senator Solis that the City's concerns are not just about seats and representation, but go much deeper than that. Mayor Pro Tern Vasquez stated that he supports Councilmember Clark's opposition to this bill and requested that staff express Councils concerns to Senator Solis. Councilmember Imperial called for the question. Councilmember Clark requested that letters of opposition go to every Assemblymember and the Governor as well and to include that this is a local issue which should be addressed regionally and that legislators from northern California are not in a position to make decisions which would have a negative impact on local governments in the southern part of the state. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council oppose SB 2010 (Hayden) and send letters of opposition to every Assemblymember and the Governor. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 5-26-98 Page P8 VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to June 9, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. for an adjourned meeting of the 1998-99 Budget Study Session. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk MAYOR CC SQ6-98 Page#9