Loading...
CC - Minutes - 10-25-2022MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2022 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Dang at 7:04 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Dang, Mayor Pro Tem Ly (Teleconference), Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Kim, Assistant City Manager Bruckner, City Attorney Richman, Interim Director of Community Development Wong, Interim Director of Finance Chamberlain, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Director of Public Works Chung, and City Clerk Hernandez PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Armenta INVOCATION — Council Member Clark 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Dang opened the Public Comment period Barbara Williams, resident, referred to Council Member Clark's comments made at the October 11th Council Meeting pertaining to an emergency preparedness seminar that Council Members Clark and Armenta attended; noted they talked about having the HAM Radio Team in the city that Mandy Wong, Public Safety Supervisor of Emergency Preparedness, oversees. Ms. Williams shared that she comes from a family of HAM operators, stating its wonderful modem technology to have when the infrastructure is wiped away to help in emergency situations and to help other people pass along information. Recalled during the great Japan earthquake on March 11, 2011, she and her brother-in-law were talking shortly after it happened with a friend who was a professor at the University of Kobe in Japan; indicated their friend confirmed they had an earthquake and received tsunami warnings, but they had no communication with the hardest hit areas and the students who had family there and faculty were concerned since they couldn't reach them. Ms. Williams said they had to give them the bad news that the tsunami hit and it's bad; advised them to get some emotional support for those students and people because it's going to be hard, and they thanked us for the information. Expressed support for the City of Rosemead to continue to assess using the HAM operator in case of an emergency to be able to help other cities as much as we can, too. Mayor Dang thanked Ms. Williams for those comments; stated I'm sure Public Safety Supervisor Wong and staff will take those HAM radios into consideration. Sue Yamamoto, Rosemead Library Manager, shared that there is a flu shot and COVID shot clinic on November 3`d, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., in the library's meeting room; stated Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 1 of 26 no reservations are required, reminding everyone to bring their ID and vaccination card; noted that minors need to be accompanied by parents and guardians. Pointed out that the Rosemead Library will be temporarily closed from November 21St, 2022 through May 2023 for an important facility project; emphasized that staff will still be there to help out the residents — they'll still be able to do the following at our sidewalk service table: request books, check out books, the laptop home books and the tool lending. When the California state passes, wireless printing is still going to be available, so staff will be in the building to assist the customers with that service as well. Also, we'll still be distributing the antigen COVID home test kits, while the supplies last; noted there will be a table near the sidewalk with a purple canopy that is visible from the parking lot. Mrs. Yamamoto stated we're going through an electric vehicle charger project, noting the installation began again yesterday and along the way I hope to give you a little bit more details and objectives. Council Member Arrnenta asked to clarify that the library is being closed just to renovate to today's standards, correct? Emphasized I want to ensure we don't have a misunderstanding that it's going to be a repurposed building. Rosemead Library Manager Yamamoto concurred, specifically it has to do with the plumbing of restrooms; indicated since the restrooms will not be available to customers, we must remain closed during construction, however, staff will be there to offer services. Council Member Low inquired if the library is ready to receive any donated books yet? Rosemead Library Manager Yamamoto responded we do receive donations, but we have so many at the moment. Council Member Armenta stated if the library is not taking donations at this time, I know a lot of teachers would be happy to receive books for their classroom libraries. Council Member Low responded I appreciate the suggestion, but the books that I have are more for adults as they are technical, very boring, and difficult. Council Member Armenta apologized, stating being a teacher at heart, my first thought is providing books to children as it is never too early to start. Mayor Dang stated I like Council Member Armenta's spirit that it's never too early to start children on reading. There being no further comments, Mayor Dang closed the Public Comment period. 2. PRESENTATIONS - None 3. PUBLIC HEARING - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 2 q(26 ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ly to approve Consent Calendar Items A through D. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low and Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2022-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,578,377.10 CHECKS NUMBERED 112505 THROUGH NUMBER 112649, DRAFTS NUMBERED 6018 THROUGH NUMBER 6029 AND EFT NUMBERED 51301 THROUGH NUMBER 51318 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-58. B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the special meeting minutes of June 14, 2021, and regular meeting minutes of October 11, 2022. C. Award of Professional Services Agreement with Emergency Planning Consultants to Update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) The Federal Disaster Management Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires every local, county, and state government to have an approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition to minimizing the impact of major hazard events on the community, completion of the Plan also maintains eligibility for future hazard mitigation funding following any significant disaster. As a result of the DMA 2000 legislation, hazard mitigation is now considered to be the first step in preparing for emergencies, rather than the final step in recovery. The City's current LHMP is reaching the end of its five-year lifecycle and is set to expire next year. The City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") and received five (5) proposals from qualified firms. Upon further review and evaluation of the proposals, it is recommended that the City Council authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Emergency Planning Consultants in the amount of $45,000 for the preparation and adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Emergency Planning Consultants in the amount of $45,000 for the preparation and adoption of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 3 of 26 D. Approve Resolution No. 2022-59, Amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget and Award of Construction Contract with HQE Systems Inc., for Citywide Access Control and Security Camera System Upgrade Project The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Plan and General Services operating budgets include $175,000 for the implementation of an access control system and $150,000 for security camera system replacement, respectively, for a total budget of $325,000. On September 1, 2022, the City Manager's Office published Bid No. 2022-25, requesting proposals from qualified vendors to furnish and install an integrated Access Control and Camera System ("ACCS") at twelve (12) City facilities. The City received six (6) proposals by the submittal deadline and after comprehensive review, HQE Systems Inc. ("HQE") was determined to be the lowest responsive bid; however, all qualified proposals received exceeded the City's budget for this project. Recommendation: That the City Council determine that this action does not constitute a project and is, therefore, exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a construction contract with HQE Systems Inc., in the amount of $413,653.92; and adopt Resolution No. 2022-59, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FROM THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND RESERVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,654 TO FUND THE ACCESS CONTROL AND CAMERA SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT Mayor Dang commented on Item D, congratulating HQE Systems, Inc., for their proposal and winning the bid; thanked them for serving our country as they are a distinguished Service -Disabled Veteran owned business. 5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Discussion on FiberCity At the March 8, 2022, City Council meeting, SiFi Networks (SiFi) provided a presentation on their FiberCity brand. FiberCity is a privately owned fiber optic network that provides gigabit speed internet service to every property within a city. Through FiberCity, SiFi constructs and maintains fiber optic infrastructure and leases the infrastructure to intemet service providers (ISPs), creating additional and improved broadband intemet service options for the community. At the March 22, 2022, City Council meeting, Council Member Dang requested staff to agendize the FiberCity item for further discussion. Staff has performed a preliminary evaluation of FiberCity, and the services provided by the City's current Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 4 of 26 ISPs. The results of the evaluation include a comparison of current ISP broadband intemet services rates and proposed FiberCity rates, a summary of the potential benefits and costs for the City to implement FiberCity, and outreach to cities that are currently implementing FiberCity. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss this item and provide direction to staff. Director of Public Works Chung provided an overview of the FiberCity brand and staffs evaluation of FiberCity; stated AT&T and Spectrum currently provide broadband intemet services to the city primarily through copper cable infrastructure. However, AT&T also offers fiber optic broadband intemet to residents and businesses in limited areas within the city. The advantages of fiber optic compared to copper cable infrastructure is fiber optics provide larger symmetrical data transfer, bandwidth and faster speeds. Mr. Chung presented a table that highlights the bandwidth for both residential and business in the city and the various intemet service providers. Mr. Chung stated at the presentation provided by SiFil in March, the City Council had several questions regarding the FiberCity's network, infrastructure, the size and location; summarized the scope of FiberCity's infrastructure — comprised of four main components which is the aggregation shelter, cabinet, chamber, and access box; noted these components are all intemet connected by fiber optic cable. Indicated the source of the information or data starts at the data hubs that are located outside of the city limits and that data is transferred from the hubs into the aggregation shelters — approximately two shelters are proposed to be installed within the city limits. From the aggregation shelter, data is transferred to the cabinets, the chambers, and ultimately to the access box, which will be installed in the parkway or sidewalks in front of each property in the city. Director of Public Works Chung asserted that once a resident or a business owner wants to subscribe to an ISP under FiberCity, that ISP will install a fiber optic cable from the access box into the property; the bulk of the infrastructure will be fiber optic cable. SiFi proposes the following installations: 1) approximately 800,000 feet of fiber optic line within the city adjacent to the concrete gutter at the construction joint between the asphalt and the gutter; 2) two aggregation shelters that will require approximately 1,000 square foot of city property per shelter, noting the shelter will require security fencing with a setback of 5 feet; 3) approximately 17 cabinets throughout the city that would be located in the parkway or sidewalks, which would be similar to traffic signal boxes that you see throughout the city at the intersections, except that this is twice as wide; 4) chambers that are located approximately every 1,000 to 1,500 feet along the fiber optic cable with a total of 800,000 feet of fiber optic cable that equates to approximately 800 chambers. These chambers will be located in the parkway or sidewalk and they will be flush to the finish surface, so flush to the ground or the Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012 Page 5 of26 sidewalk. 5) The fiber access box is the last component before it enters the property; they're located in front of every property at the back curb or within the parkway or sidewalk. And there will be a fiber optic conduit that connects from the fiber optic that's trenched in the pavement into this fiber optic box, fiber access box for future connection, potential future connection to a residence or a business. If a resident or business decides to subscribe to an ISP for FiberCity, then FiberCity and ISP would install a lateral connecting to the fiber access box to the property. In addition to evaluation of the infrastructure, staff evaluated the benefits and costs to implement FiberCity. Mr. Chung shared the following benefits: 1) citywide implementation of a fiber optic cable for broadband internet service, providing higher bandwidth and faster data transfer compared to the city's current ISP's primary use of copper cable; 2) provides up to 10 gigabit service to residences and up to 100 gigabit services to businesses; 3) there is no cost to the City. All applicable costs the City incurs in supporting the delivery of privacy, such as but not limited to plan check, inspection, permits, staff time, are reimbursed by SiFi during the project; 4) SiFi will also contribute $150,000 per year towards a dedicated staff to support the installation until the network is fully installed; and 5) FiberCity offers an aid program that focuses on specifically supporting disadvantaged families by offering lower broadband internet rates. SiFi allows the city staff to set the parameters for which households qualify. This is separate from any other local, state, or federal program. Director of Public Works Chung explained there are significant impacts to the City's infrastructure including proposed installation of fiber optic conduits within the majority of City roadways and the aforementioned infrastructure components including chambers, cabinets, two aggregation shelters requiring a 1,000 square foot per shelter of City property. Cost was featured in City utility agencies and infrastructure projects resulting in potential schedule delays and additional costs. Due to the design and construction approval process, the implementation of FiberCity will require significant staff resources to review and approve public permits and perform inspections in a timely manner. FiberCity proposed an aggressive permit review and construction schedule, approximately two years. Based on current engineering staff resources, the proposed schedule will result in disruption in the City's engineering services and operations. Based on FiberCity's development agreement, the term of the agreement is 30 years; upon expiration or termination of the agreement, SiFi is not obligated to remove any part of the FiberCity system; any part of the system abandoned by SiFi would become the property of the City, noting the abandoned system is a potential maintenance liability and burden to the City. Director of Public Works Chung asserted that staff performed outreach to various cities that are currently implementing this FiberCity including Placentia, Fullerton, Rancho Cordova, and Simi Valley. The general feedback from cities was positive and included the following major comments. Additional engineering staff are needed to facilitate the design and construction process. A few cities mentioned that the design and construction process, the resources needed was a full-time inspector; also, in terns of design and plan review, it required 50% of their city Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 6 of 26 engineer's time. They also mentioned that there's been extra effort needed to coordinate current and future CIP projects. An example one of the cities provided was they had a full rehabilitation or reconstruction of one of the major roadways and they had to delay the schedule and wait for FiberCity to come in to implement that project and coordinate that schedule and work. In addition, FiberCity and SiFi were highly responsive during the city request during construction. Also, FiberCity provided effective outreach and communication to the community prior to construction and during the planning process. In conclusion, staff recommends that City Council discuss this item and provide direction to staff; noted the CEO of SiFi, Ben Bawtree-Jobson is available for questions as well. There being no speakers, Mayor Dang opened and closed the Public Comment period. Council Member Clark stated it was her understanding the purpose of this was to provide more internet to parts of the city if they were needed; referred to the table on slide 3 "Monthly Internet Service Rates for ISPs in Rosemead vs. FiberCity ISP" of the presentation, opined it's not that much of a difference when this chart says one gigabyte for residential and business is virtually the same cost as with Spectrum and AT&T; pointed out it takes a long time to install it, while emphasizing there's a lot of downsides and all the disruption that it would cause to install this throughout the whole city. Mrs. Clark referred to page 3 of the Staff Report, stating there were conflicts with future City and utility agency infrastructure projects resulting in potential schedule delays and additional costs, which is very concerning because that's going to be costly; traffic operations will be impacted throughout the city for an approximate 24 -month construction phrase - that's a long time for people to be waiting in traffic or having to take detours. It says the city will incur additional cost to protect and place FiberCity infrastructure during the pavement rehab and roadway projects. Upon the expiration or termination of the agreement, SiFi is not obligated to remove any part of the FiberCity system; opined the abandoned system is a potential liability and burden to the city. Council Member Clark acknowledged staff's efforts in reaching out to the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, Rancho Cordova and Simi Valley; expressed apprehension as there are only a few out of all the cities in California that are utilizing this; opined she does not put a lot creditability with the staff from those other cities positive remarks — indicated not to disparage anybody, but we don't know the staff and of course they're not going to be forthcoming with the downsides since their Council voted and passed this item. Spoke about the City of Fullerton's concerns which included the additional amount of staff time needed to review and approve public works permits and perform inspections in a timely manner, as well as residents being very upset with the noise and disruption as they would work long hours right in front of their houses. Shared the following quotes from an article in the Fullerton Observe, "The jackhammers are loud, the streets are blocked with work vehicles, and bright lights flood through windows as the workers continue Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 7 of 26 after dark. Residents who have had their streets repaved are dismayed that digging and visible patching is being allowed in the street and that their parkway is trenched in preparation for future service if they should choose to have it installed." Also, at the Fullerton meeting this item was being discussed and later approved, one of the Council Members asked whether SiFi would take responsibility for damage to city infrastructure during the construction of the network and was assured well enough to vote for the item. Then later that Council Member responded the city needs to hold them to the same standards as any other utility provider referencing the poor workmanship he has seen. Council Member Armenta stated I know that our Mayor Pro Tem Ly has had a vision of bringing broadband to the City of Rosemead, but also in a way that is not going to be disruptive to our city; indicated many of the comments that Council Member Clark expressed I'm also concerned with, especially those brought up by the City of Fullerton. I know that Fullerton has concerns about the trenches that were open for a long period of time. Moving on, where are these aggregation shelters planned to be installed? Director of Public Works Chung responded that the location of the aggregation shelters has not been identified yet at this stage. Council Member Armenta commented so the shelters could be installed anywhere in our city, even at a park which would take away much needed green space. Asked if these cabinets will be in the parkway, the sidewalk, and if they will be installed belowground, at grade level or aboveground? Director of Public Works Chung asserted that the cabinets are aboveground. Council Member Armenta stated that pedestrians with a wheelchair or a stroller will have difficulties as these cabinets will obstruct their walkway aboveground. Reiterated I know that Mayor Pro Tem Ly has always envisioned bringing broadband to Rosemead, but she does not see how disruption in our city, streets, and the trenches is beneficial to our city. Echoed Council Member Clark's concerns shared. Mayor Dang expressed that he does not know where the data from the Monthly Internet Service Rates for ISPs in Rosemead vs. FiberCity ISP table came from; noted he just paid his Spectrum bill the other night and is paying $85 for 200 megabits, so one gigabyte cannot be $65; opined the table is a little misleading. Secondly, in terms of the installation, my understanding is it's not as disruptive as it may allude to, noting the 24 months is not all at once and just a total of 24 months for the entire city. Stated in regard to the need for staffing and inspection, according to FiberCity's benefits, they are going to contribute $150,000 per year toward a dedicated city staff to support the installation until the network is fully installed. Highlighted page two of the Staff Report, Benefit #5. SiFi will set $500,000 maintenance security in the aggregate per year so every year if the fund gets Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 8 of 26 depleted they will put in another $500,000 per year. For the city to draw against should any maintenance issue arise from FiberCity installation within the public right-of-way. Emphasized they are putting in that much money to stake their claim and reputation while doing their best to hold the city as much harmless as they can. Stated Council Member Armenta brought up a very good point that if this item is approved, staff needs to recognize potential locations of these access cabinets and ADA regulations; opined wherever there's bigger sidewalk would probably be the most advantageous; asked if staff could look at other potential locations with a bigger structure that is not a park such as the Public Works Yard or a city facility. Director of Public Works Chung replied we definitely could explore other potential locations. Council Member Armenta added another question — how will those streets in Rosemead that do not have sidewalks be addressed? Mayor Dang invited Mr. Bawtree-Jobson to the podium to address Council's inquiries. Ben Bawtree-Jobson. CEO of SiFi, provided a brief overview of the construction methodology, confirming Mayor Dang is correct that the trench is an inch to inch and a half wide and is very minimal in terms of its impact as it is 12 inches deep; indicated for a city this size, we'd probably recommend only needing about two crews to be mobilized, so that would equal about 4,000 feet per day. To put that in perspective, that's opened and closed the same day for 50 to 60 properties every day. The traffic management on residential streets envisages a moving mobilization of a convoy of construction fleet going down the street; said any one street is impacted for anywhere between half a day to a day and then it's moved on and out. Asserted that the cabinets will be ADA compliant; confirmed in terms of the locations, they are not just placed anywhere, and we work in sync with Public Works Department before commencing any construction. Stated in other cities, the HUT locations (1,000 square feet) are located on city property where possible, but we have located them on private land where available as well; indicated we try to limit any impact on any park or other city land that might be of use for other purposes; reiterated we always strive to work in sync with the city. In response to Council Member Armenta's question, in terms of running line where there's no sidewalk, it is far easier to locate cabinets on private land, or where there's usually a utility easement strip; explained the following options: we will either go a foot into the street and make sure not to create too much of an island with the existing asphalt; or we can ride along the edge of the street and effectively create a new clean edge to the road; or you can go build in the parkway itself in the softscape out of the street where that's available and then just cut through the driveways and remediate the driveways that you go through instead. Mayor Dang clarified from what I'm hearing is just the edge of pavement is sort of universal if there is a sidewalk or no sidewalk, and if you don't have a sidewalk, it gives you a little bit more flexibility. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 9 of 26 Mr. Bawtree-Jobson replied the most flexible scenario is where you've got parkway with good availability of space to get between and without significant impact to a residential, ornamental driveways and things like that or trees. That's the ideal but most of our cities are built in the asphalt. Director of Public Works Chung noted the way our city is configured in our roadways, if there's no sidewalks, it would likely be located in the parkway; explained there's usually a setback between the curb and the residential property or the business. Council Member Armenta inquired if you would notify the residents whose ingress of their driveways need to be trenched. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson affirmed that we would notify residents impacted by construction. Stated there's a full engineering design initially done throughout the entirety of the city, so the contractors do walkouts in the field in advance and note any anomalies that might need to be taken into consideration. Of course, it's a two-year build and things change; indicated you may have to divert path from where it's originally been allocated based on other circumstances that may arrive; emphasized we are able to adjust and adapt to what goes on in the field to the best of our ability. Council Member Armenta asked in your professional opinion, why do you think there was such concerns or fallout in the City of Fullerton; emphasized it is misleading getting different information — here we are being told it is only a couple of inches of digging versus actual trenches being reported in the articles. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson responded there's certainly no major trenches built in any of our networks, certainly in the City of Fullerton as well, it's always been micro -trenched as a solution there; indicated some of the streets in Fullerton are particularly poor condition and there are challenges in those types of streets; stated we had to change the contractor as they had some difficulties, so we adapted some of our methodologies and are currently working really well with Fullerton and to the fruition of the entire project later on next year. Construction is disruptive, but this is probably the least disruptive method of constructing a network. Highlighted that we work hand in hand with the city to find ways to solve the issues we come across. Council Member Armenta said thank you for clarifying. Council Member Clark expressed confusion to Mr. Bawtree-Jobson's comment that it is easier to locate cabinets on private land; opined I didn't think it would be easy to just use people's land; inquired if the owners are paid for such use. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson replied our preference is always to work with the city but in instances where there hasn't been any available land, we will work with private Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 10 of26 landowners if needed; noted in the City of Fullerton, coincidentally all three of them are private land and non -city owned. Confirmed we pay commercial rates to gain access when necessary. Council Member Low stated I understand the company pays for a lot of the construction costs; asked if you could explain the cost for our residents and businesses that want to use this service. Asserted if we put effort into this big project, I want to ensure that the cost for the residents and businesses are reasonable. The other question I have — Is there any maintenance that the city or the company needs to do? What can go wrong when you put in these fibers? Noted she has been working from home since COVID, indicating she has not always liked Spectrum; however, their service has improved, and their speed is reasonable. Acknowledged everyone wants faster speed, however, expressed concern that there's only a few cities that implemented this; opined she would feel better if we could learn more pros and cons from more other cities so we can protect our city; emphasized I want to make sure we as a city understand this new service and how it will impact the city before we make any decisions. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson clarified we're not just coming in to provide broadband to the home as what we built as a network is far superior, flexible and adaptable than just doing that. Asserted that SiFi networks creates an open access network that's unlike virtually any other operator within the country; explained when we built the infrastructure, we then wholesaled it out rather than provide the services ourselves virtually. Indicated since we wholesale our access, we don't dictate the prices that the ISP brings to the market but rather the competitive marketplace dictates what the price is. Stated when we build the network, we don't wholesale it out just to one ISP, there's usually multiple ISPs on our networks; noted in Fullerton there are two ISPs currently and, in the future, there could well be more ISPs on that network. Explained what the ISPs on that network and the price points look like when they are in closed networks — when they are the only ISP on the network, the pricing tends to be between 20% to 30% higher than when they're active on an open access network. Pointed out the important thing about this investment is the infrastructure we're building, you'll end up with a future -proof network that's going to be competitive for the long term and that means that you're going to get better competitive pricing, customer service and innovation. So even if you let another fiber buyer come in here and they build out network, they would end up being a fiber optic monopoly in 10-15 years' time. Asserted that we call ourselves FiberCity for a reason — we fiber the whole city; stated when we're building a network, we don't just think about providing broadband, we think about providing enterprise class services; indicated that means to the high-end businesses or architecture studios that might require dedicated services or accountants that need reliable services. We also provide key government services with smart city applications that help efficiency in the city; shared we can start to work with municipalities on assisting them with the CCTV cameras around the city getting high definition. Emphasized we're building a network that enables cohesive infrastructure that passes everywhere in the city because without that you end up Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 11 of26 with a disjointed network that you're trying to create intelligent solutions across that aren't able to be brought to fruition as you don't have common infrastructure that can feed everything simultaneously. Council Member Low asked if you have proposed this to your biggest city such as Irvine? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson responded our biggest city is the City of Mesa, Arizona, which is in the Phoenix metro with population of over half a million and comprised of about 280,000 units. Highlighted that the City of Arlington, Texas, with over 350,000 population and 174,000 homes. Reiterated we are working in 33 cities, but 12 months ago, we were only working in 10 cities; indicated in another 12 months, we will already have 30 in process. Stated although the numbers might not sound like much, we are actually the largest fiber optic network developer doing open access in the entire country. Council Member Low inquired what is the maintenance like for fiber optics? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson responded when you build it underground, it's very simple. It is when you build aboveground that you must maintain the poles and depending on the climate you are in, etc., however, the maintenance is very straightforward. It's all set out in our agreement as well that it's our responsibility. Expressed we like to work in sync with Public Works projects as well so that if they are doing work that might impact the network then we can make necessary preparations prior to the project starting; explained we work with Public Works to essentially allow them to rip it up; we notify the network there's going to be a network outage while they rip it up and we'd connect it at the same time as the ground is open so you don't have multiple openings in the ground. All of that's been anticipated, thought through and modelled, which is why we built the network to be incredibly resilient. Asserted when you do get a break in the network, it's more reliable than the existing networks that you have in place today. Council Member Armenta stated let's say that the city would like to explore free broadband to the facilities and our parks. Would you now charge the city, or would that be an incentive to come into our city? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson replied first we get the development agreement in place to make sure that there's an underlying viability, then we have a separate tract where we have entry into smart city agreements with municipalities. Once we've done that, we're either agreed on a contract or in negotiations with every single team that we're working with on a smart city agreement. So, we connect up all of those facilities and then we look at deep discounted rates to enable the city to use smart city applications. The biggest burden is the cost of connectivity; cities just can't afford to deploy it, so by creating it at the same time as we're building out the rest of this network we're really hypothecating finance to enable us to bring low-cost connections to municipalities while making it cost effective Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 12 of 26 to improve your technologies at other sites throughout the city. ISPs often work in sync with municipalities to subsidize and sponsor those types of initiatives in the city; reiterated that we don't provide the services, but ISPs are always good community partners as well. Mayor Dang asked from your understanding, what is the fastest download and upload you could get if it's a copper line? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson answered ADSL2 and you've got to basically be sitting next to their electronic cabinets; estimated you might get 100 meg. Most people you're going to get 20 meg for a copper, which is the telco. Mayor Dang inquired if they are capped at a gig. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson stated it varies on what equipment they've got deployed throughout the city at that time. Director of Public Works Chung responded about one gigabyte. Mayor Dang then asked what is FiberCity's cap? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson it's up to the ISPs on what they offer, but at the moment all of our networks are up to 10 GB. Mayor Dang opined that FiberCity is probably 10 times faster then. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson stated technically the fiber doesn't have a theoretical cap on its speed; clarified to put that in perspective, the electronic cabinets that you were referring to earlier are identical to the AT&T cabinets already out and populated through the city; indicated they have the same exact footprint with just different ingredients inside them. The only difference is the electronics that you put on the end, which emits different light frequencies or more light frequencies down the fiber. Many industries talk about fibers being future proof because essentially there's no real limit to the speeds that you can provide over that fiber. Asserted that the important thing is once you dig it in the ground, you don't have to go back and reinvent the wheel again as these networks are built to last. Mayor Dang opined from a structural engineer and an emergency manager point of view, the fact that it's underground, at least in Rosemead, where it's nice and flat, you don't have the situation where these power poles will pull down the wire. So, in terms of resiliency, emergency planning and management, our network will probably be active even after a big disturbance, such as an earthquake because our infrastructure is built underground and will not fall off or snap off. Mayor Pro Tem Ly opined this has been an interesting presentation; noting he was not here when this was originally presented to Council in March as he was Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 13 of 26 deployed. So, he is playing a little bit of catch up in terms of his questions. Asked if staff has had any meetings with SiFi since March directly outside of the Council meeting? Director of Public Works Chung replied there were no meetings conducted, but we have had discussions to facilitate the Staff Report. Mayor Ly stated correct me if I am wrong — the city currently has a franchise agreement with both Spectrum and AT&T, which are both bound by the state legislature and it cannot be changed, is that correct? Director of Public Works Chung stated he will have to investigate that and get back to Council with a confirmed response. City Attorney Richman stated City Manager Kim indicated it was in 2012 and opined that sounds right. Mayor Ly said I believe both AT&T and Spectrum are both governed through the CPUC, right? So, in terms of rates, services, etc., all of that is more or less governed and regulated through the CPUC. Director of Public Works Chung affirmed that's correct. Mayor Ly asked if there are any franchise fees that we are currently receiving from Spectrum and or AT&T, roughly? Mr. Chung responded I am not aware of any at this point. City Attorney Richman affirmed I don't think we do; reiterated there was legislation that passed which gives them the right to be in our public right of way, and as a result we cannot charge them. Mayor Ly opined I thought there was some sort of franchise agreement in place where we collect some sort of franchise fee, but I guess not. City Attorney Richman indicated we have an actual straight franchise agreement with Edison, however the CPUC exempts these types of uses, so we do not have a franchise fee. Mayor Ly stated because of that agreement, basically no matter what, the city will always maintain having AT&T and Spectrum as options at least until the CPUC or the state legislature decides otherwise. Is that correct? City Manager Kim responded yes; those vendors are allowed to provide service in the city. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 14 of 26 Mayor Ly indicated my understanding is if the city approves the FiberCity proposal, it is really an additional option for residents and businesses, correct? Director of Public Works Chung replied that's correct. Mayor Ly expressed that he knows staff would not have brought this item to the Council without doing their due diligence of research on this. Directed the following questions to both the Director of Public Works and City Manager: What are your thoughts in general in terms of what this proposal looks like, whether it's competitive and feasible? What the impact would be — Is the impact to the community something we can sustain for a greater good or is this too much? Director of Public Works Chung responded I listed out the benefits and costs; noting all the information and prices presented were provided by SiFi and that staff validated the information released in September through the Federal Communications Commission. As far as impacts, for the city to implement this project in partnership with SiFi, it's a significant impact to resources. Currently, staff are being fully utilized; emphasized in order to take on the scope, we would have to add resources in terms of staffing. In my opinion, a full-time inspector and an engineer is needed to absorb these resources. Pointed out FiberCity's ISP and their brand is a significant improvement to what service we currently have. Mayor Ly ascertained so what we're saying is that it is significant in terms of its impact to the community, but at the same time, the quality might be worth it. Is that correct? Director of Public Works Chung affirmed that's correct as the technology with fiber is superior to cable. Mayor Ly asked in terms of the recovery cost and allotting for two staff, is the $150,000 enough or do we need more than $150,000? How is that in terms of what the overall cost looks like? Mr. Chung indicated I believe $150,000 would pay for one full-time staff, however more funding would be needed to pay for two full-time staff. Mayor Ly asked the City Manager for his thoughts as far as if this is a worthwhile endeavor in terms of impact overall to the city? City Manager Kim replied I think in the long term this would be an investment. Indicated I used to have cable, but as soon as the fiber optics came in, I switched; noted it was Verizon back then that was brought out by Frontier. I can tell you as a consumer in the community that I live in that the fiber optics speed is much faster and over a period the costs went down. I think the service that get is 500 megabytes and I pay about $50 a month, tax included. I also know that I have choices to increase my service and broadband speed if I choose to do so. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 15 of 26 Mayor Ly ascertained would it be accurate to say that if Council asked staff for a recommendation, staff would currently recommend at least continuing to pursue this option and proposal. City Manager Kim affirmed I think it is something we should explore. Director of Public Works Chung reiterated we would have to consider the impacts to our current staffing levels, and the additional resources needed to implement this. It's a significant undertaking and basically a citywide project as it will touch every street. You asked the question can the city handle it and impact the residents? Again, we can, but we would need the resources to implement this to make sure it's delivered in a global quality and per state and city standards. Mayor Ly thanked Director of Public Works Chung and'C#ty Manager Kim for their feedback. Stated from my perspective, I think giving residents and businesses more options is always a better thing. Shared I've heard many times from both residents and businesses, and not just in Rosemead but in general, they will complain that they only have Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum and AT&T to choose from. Opined giving residents a third option and letting the residents pick is a good thing in general. Emphasized in terms of negotiations with SiFi and FiberCity, we need to include conversation to ensure we are fully covering those costs and mitigating impact to residents. Mayor Ly stated I understand there's a concern whenever we're digging, but at least the lines are being built underground rather than aboveground so we do not have to worry about adding to the visual blight of the city. From what I've heard so far, expressed it is worthwhile to have further conversations to consider this proposal. Council Member Clark directed her question to the City Manager — you mentioned the city you live in has fiber optics, could tell me what city that is? Is the fiber optics you have underground and is it implemented citywide? City Manager Kim responded I live in the City of Diamond Bar; the fiber optics I have were built underground. I don't know if it's 100% citywide, but it is available within my area. Council Member Clark stated I don't believe that was one of the cities listed. Mr. Kim stated the fiber optics in my city were done by Verizon many years ago. Council Member Clark asked for clarification on what was said earlier that if we allow SiFi to do this, then they are not actually providing the internet service. Inquired if her understanding was correct that SiFi would still be contracting with AT&T, Spectrum, Verizon or another provider to do so. Director of Public Works Chung stated that is correct, it would be another internet service provider. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 16 of 26 Mr. Bawtree-Jobson affirmed we don't have SiFi networks. Explained essentially there's no prohibitions as to which ISPs can access the network. The customer would have a consumer relationship with the ISP directly. Your relationship as a customer, if you were to become one, would be very similar to the existing relationship you have with an ISP. It's just that you would be getting a faster and more reliable service. Council Member Clark asserted that is my point — the statement was made that once SiFi comes in you will have faster intemet. Questioned is there a guarantee that if we decide to move forward with the fiber optics that we're going to have faster speed? Mayor Dang stated that I'm not sure if this is the arena to ask our CEO here to verify his technology or whatnot. Council Member Low opined the general answer to Council Member Clark's question is yes that fiber optics is always faster. Mayor Dang echoed having fiber optics makes a difference; acknowledged it is apparent when I am working from home on my internet versus at my office in downtown Los Angeles, which runs on fiber optics and is amplified as it is a high-rise building. Council Member Armenta offered her perspective — When I work remotely from home, I have to log on to our Senate employees' remote working browser. Many times, the connectivity is not there, and I get kicked off because I don't have the luxury to go on to any browser. It has to be our Senator browser that we all receive when we work remotely from home since it is a secure system. Council Member Clark emphasized my concern is there is no guarantee if we do this that everybody in our city will have no problems with the service provided. Reiterated it's hard for me to balance if the downside and the cost that the city would be committed to and the disruption to the residents is worth it. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson asserted the guarantee is that this is the best infrastructure on the planet to enable the delivery of high-speed services. Council Member Clark questioned if that is the case, then why haven't more cities done it. Pointed out that our neighboring city, South El Monte turned it down. Mr. Bawtree-Jobson responded we are just one company, when we started this business in 2013 and there was about 10% of the country that had access to fiber. Now over 40% of the country has access to fiber, so that's an additional 50 to 60 million homes that have been built over the last 10 years. Fast forward another 15 years and the whole country will be fiberized. Nobody else is investing in cable. Anyone that is deploying, investing, building new infrastructure for communications is building fiber. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 17 of 26 Council Member Clark said I hope we are not trying to pass this item tonight as I still have quite a few questions that I think we need to consider. We and the residents need to ensure we are informed of the pros and cons; suggested polling the residents to see if they want this rather than just moving forward with this. Mayor Dang opined it will be very difficult to run a city if we asked to poll residents for every decision we make. Mayor Pro Tem Ly agreed with Mayor Dang that tonight Council is simply providing direction to staff such as let's continue to have these conversations with SiFi and FiberCity to see if we can flesh out a development agreement and then from there, Council can decide whether that is the best thing to do or not. I will say I think it's worth pursuing if staff is confident that we can mitigate most of these issues and that there is a benefit to our residents to have a third option. Opined in this situation we should trust staff on this. Mayor Pro Tem Ly agreed that there is going to be impact by construction, but that's the case regardless of if Sempra is fixing a gas line, the water companies are installing new lines, Edison coming in and fixing power lines, all these things happen consistently. Pointed out that the city itself, we build things, we fix roads all the time. Emphasized that's impact to our residents, but it's impact for progress. It's so that the roads get better, it's so that the power lines are improved upon, etc. I think if this is a one-time, relatively minimal impact, it makes sense for our residents to have the option of having much faster internet speed. Also, I completely agree that COVID affected how we operate in many ways; COVID made us recognize that a lot of our families at home still don't have access to relatively high-speed internet. For a lot of people, their phone internet is still their main source of internet, which needs to be addressed. Mayor Dang stated Mayor Pro Tem Ly brought up a very good point — to put things in perspective, my phone is faster than my at-home internet. Council Member Armenta stated she knows there are a lot of variables that impact a project, however if the Council decides to move forward with this, can we get a guaranteed timeframe for construction for each section, for example this section will take 2-3 weeks to be completed; indicated this will help us keep the residents informed. Noted in the past when the utility companies come in for a project, they promise that they're going to leave our beautiful repaved streets the way they found them and that's not the case; added she would also like to see a guarantee that if it's a newly repaved or slurred section of our city that it will be left the way it was found. Council Member Low stated we as Council need to think about what the future is for our city. Acknowledged yes, the construction might cause some inconvenience, however we can mitigate that through ways such as what Council Member Armenta just mentioned. We can always ask staff to work with the companies to better understand what the process is, how long it will take to implement, and how it will affect our residents. Expressed support to look into this further as having much faster, more reliable and long-term internet service is a good thing for the city. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 18 of26 Mayor Dang indicated he understands Council wants to see this brought back at a later date; expressed he would like to see this project made a priority because while we wait for more information, they are taking on more clients and that pushes us down the waiting list; opined it's better to get on the list as early as possible. Mayor Pro Tem Ly concurred with Mayor Dang that it does not benefit staff, the company, or residents, to delay this for the sake of delaying this. Staff should negotiate whatever is considered the best possible options and then bring that to the Council for a vote. Asked how much time does staff need to bring this item back? Before staff comes back with a recommendation and a proposal, we as a Council need to decide if that's enough time for us to consider these issues. City Manager Kim indicated due to the holiday break, we only have one meeting in the months of November and December. City Clerk Hemadez reiterated we go dark the last Council meeting in November and December. Director of Public Works Chung stated based on our workload, November and December meetings are not doable; recommended the second meeting in January. Mayor Dang asked what information are we seeking that staff might need that much time? Director of Public Works Chung responded that staff are currently working on Staff Reports for Council approved items agendized at the next several meetings; stated unless the Council would like staff to shift around other items that were already prioritized. Mayor Dang emphasized I would like to move this item to be presented to Council sooner rather than later; asked the City Manager if we can shift around other items on the agenda schedule to make this one a priority. City Manager Kim replied we can look towards December, but we would have to look to see if there are any items that are not urgent that could be shifted. Director of Public Works Chung directed a question to Mr. Bawtree-Jobson — In your previous cities, what has the schedule like regarding development and negotiations with the development agreement? Mr. Bawtree-Jobson explained we've moved from the first discussions with the city to agreeing and signing a development agreement; stated he recalled the fastest turnaround with development agreements was within two months, however we've unfortunately had some that we've worked with for 24 months. Asserted that if everyone's motivated and we've got the adequate discourse between parties, there's no reason we can't wrap it up in a four -to -six-week period. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2021 Page 19 of 26 Mayor Dang asked the Council for clarification, are we asking for an agreement or just a construction timeline and other miscellaneous questions. Council Member Armenta opined I would think all the guarantees I asked for earlier would be encompassed into the agreement, correct? Director of Public Works Chung affirmed that's correct. Mayor Dang stated from my perspective, I don't think it would take that much time. Council Member Clark objected to staff being asked to present in November or December as we need time to reach out to inform the residents, we are considering this project; emphasized we are moving into the holidays and that is not the appropriate time to reach out to residents. Council Member Armenta indicated considering the 2 to 24 months timeframe that the CEO provided, she is in agreement with Mr. Chung that January is an ideal time to bring the item back. Stated she understands that there's a need, but we also don't want to rush into it. Mr. Chung and his staff are catching up on all the projects brought in, so I would hate to bombard him with this now. Council Member Low echoed Council Member Armenta's thoughts; opined if we schedule it for January, that will give staff enough time to work with the CEO to come up with a good agreement and address the questions that we have. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated he agrees with Mayor Dang that we should not be delaying this one way or another too long; stated he would not be comfortable with later than either the December Council meeting or the first January meeting. Also agreed with Council Member Armenta's point that Director of Public Works Chung has a lot of things on his plate. Opined a lot of the things that Mr. Chung is going to manage is really the issue of the Public Works side, the right of way issues, the installation issues, etc., however in terms of the agreement itself, I believe that can be coordinated through the City Manager's Office. Asked City Manager Kim if he has the staff in his office to take project lead on this for the negotiating part? That way we can speed up the timeline a little bit as Mayor Dang is seeking. City Manager Kim responded yes, I have the staffing, but Mr. Chung will need to be heavily involved in the negotiation process as there's a lot of technical aspects to this. Council Member Armenta reminded Council we need to take into consideration that staff is off during the holiday break for vacation. Mayor Dang stated let's shoot for the first meeting in January — January lou' to give staff enough time to prepare. At the same time, I also want to recognize Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 20 of26 that there's some big holidays toward the end of the year and I want to be fair to staff's families as well. Director of Public Works Chung replied thank you; asserted that staff will prepare for the January 10, 2023, Council meeting. B. Naming of the Two Community Gardens and Dog Park at Garvey Park The City Council will discuss and formally name the temporary community gardens and the Dog Park site at Garvey Park. There are two temporary community gardens in the City of Rosemead, the first garden is located at 8828 Glendon Way and the second garden is located at 3224 Del Mar Avenue. The gardens are currently identified as the "I't Temporary Community Garden" and the "2"d Temporary Community Garden". The Dog Park is currently under construction at Garvey Park, 7933 Emerson Place. Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction relative to this matter and establish formal names for the three locations. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated we have two temporary community gardens and the new dog park that we are currently constructing and will hopefully be done at the end of November; indicated we are looking at giving the facilities formal names to identify them to our residents. Staff has come up with a couple of suggestions for Council to consider. Noted because of the temporary locations of the community gardens, staff thought it was best to keep them named after the street; so, we were looking for "Glendon Community Garden", as well as "Del Mar Community Garden". As for the Dog park, which is located at Garvey Park, we had some fun at a staff meeting and came up with these three different options: "Paw Park", "Garvey Park Dog Park", or the "Garvey Bark Dog Park". Provided Council the City's Naming Policy for reference during the discussion in naming the three facilities. Mayor Dang opened the Public Comment period. City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comment received via email from Barbara MWhy. resident, for both Agenda Item 513 and also applies to Agenda Item 6A. "Good evening Mayor, City Council. I believe that public facilities should not be named after people still alive. In Rosemead we have Sally Tanner Park, and I doubt anybody in Rosemead knows who she is or what. We have Jensen and Shuey Schools named after Mildred Jensen and Emma Shuey and no one knows who they are. Those schools built in the 1950s were originally named Marshall School and Wells School. I believe the community gardens and the dog park in the safety center should be named as follows. Glendon Way Community Garden, Del Mar Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 21 of 26 Community Garden, Garvey Park Dog Park, Rosemead Public Safety Center. This makes it easier for residents to understand where these facilities are located and in the future people will wonder who named these facilities and why. Regards, Barbara Murphy." There being no further speakers, Mayor Dang closed the Public Comment period. Council Member Clark opined I prefer having a committee to work on this. Mayor Dang asked if Council Member Clark was seeking a committee specifically for the dog park? Council Member Clark responded I prefer a committee to work on names for all three facilities. Council Member Armenta suggested utilizing our Parks Commission if that's the will of the Council. Stated I think it makes sense to name the community gardens from the street that they are located on because they are temporary. As far as the dog park, I think if we say, "Garvey Park Dog Park", it is repetitive with Park. Suggested limiting the use of the word park in the title once, or just naming it "Paw Park". Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Armenta. Council Member Low agreed with the naming of the community gardens to be named after the street. For the dog park, I think the name "Garvey Park Dog Park", is too much of tongue twister. If those are the three options, I would go for the "Paw Park". Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he agrees with the consensus of the Council when it comes to the two community gardens. As for the dog park, I think "Paw Park" sounds good to me. Mayor Dang indicated he shares the same sentiment of naming the temporary community gardens after their street. I agree Garvey Park Dog Park has too many parks in its name. Stated he is okay with "Paw Park". Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking shared in doing research, I can tell you Paws Park is relatively unused in this area, so that could be a good name. I know the bark and park can be a lot in one name, so we can limit it very simply; noted we're trying to identify, give it its own identity at the park, especially since it's located there. Stated the named will be at the entrance of the actual dog park so it'll just give the identity there as well as city information, website, and brochure. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 22 of 26 ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Armenta to name the two temporary community gardens "Glendon Community Garden" and "Del Mar Community Garden", as well as naming the dog park, "Garvey Paws Park". Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, and Ly; NOES: None; ABSENT: None 6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Renaming of Public Safety Center Discussion This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Ly. He would like to resume discussion on renaming the Public Safety Center to the Tim Murakami Public Safety Center. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction to City staff. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reminded Council that we had talked about this about a year and a half ago, but there was no full consensus on it back then. Opined I think it is an important discussion to have. Expressed with all due respect to Barbara Murphy's comments — acknowledged as time goes on, people forget why they're named after a certain person. However, that's part of why you name things after somebody so that it's not forgotten the impact that person may have made on the community. I remember when I was in fourth grade at Willard Elementary, one of the projects we had was to study why it was named Francis E. Willard and the impact that Francis E. Willard made in general. Also, I remember in sixth grade learning why the Garvey School District was named after Garvey. Reiterated I think these are good opportunities for us to have conversations about really important people who at a certain point in time made a significant impact on our community. Stated I don't think anybody on the Council dais disagrees with the positive impact that Undersheriff Murakami has made; indicated he stayed in the San Gabriel Valley most of his whole career, which includes being our first Chief of Police, serving as a high ranking member in the Sheriffs Department as an Asian American, where in a department we don't have as much of those community members represented means a lot. I also think it means a lot that we, especially in this day and age where we're hearing reports where public safety officers, cops, Sheriffs deputies are being targeted more so than ever. For our community, and I hope one day, 30, 40, 50 years down the road, you know, a fourth grader has an assignment to look up who Tim Murakami was and why Tim Murakami has a facility named after him in the City of Rosemead, so they can learn about him and what that meant to the city to have someone who was so dedicated in protecting our streets and protecting our homes. Stated so one way or another, I figured whether or not there's consensus, it was time to at least close the door on this issue. I continue to support it. I think it's important that we recognize Tim for his accomplishments. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 23 of 26 Council Member Clark stated Sheriff Murakami was an excellent Sheriff for us, so I support Mayor Pro Tem Ly's request. Council Member Armenta stated the city of Rosemead has had a long history of naming streets after people. In my neighborhood to name a few, we have Mary Beth, Guess, and Steele. All of these were the founders of Rosemead and even their children were named after these streets. I think that the impact that Undersheriff Tim Murakami has had in the City of Rosemead is very significant. He was our first Chief of Police and for those that don't understand what that means, we contract with the Sheriff's Department as we do not have our own Police Department. It was Mr. Murakami's vision and how much he vested the Sheriffs Department with our city that made such an impact. Never had we had the sheriffs join our city events as far as the staff goes. And that has really vested our Rosemead Team into the community, and this was all because Undersheriff Tim Murakami brought this great idea to us. Council Member Armenia expressed for these reasons, I think we do need to recognize him and the significance that he had on our city. Council Member Low stated Undersheriff Tim Murakami has definitely have done a lot for the City of Rosemead as well as the Los Angeles County. So I don't want to take away the accomplishment, the effort that he has given to the City of Rosemead. However, I have to reiterate my personal philosophy that I'm really not comfortable about naming a building after someone. Although the person might have done a lot for the city, no one is perfect, so I probably have to stand down on this one. Mayor Dang indicated he was a little confused about the agenda item as he thought we were deciding whether to maintain this admin policy about how to name a facility. At the beginning, I thought that's what Council Member Clark was going to allude to as her prior comment says that they should go through a subcommittee. And item J in our Admin Policy No. 50-09 says, "Subcommittee shall consist of two council members, one city commissioner, one city staff member appointed by city manager, and the city manager recommended by a subcommittee shall be presented before the city council at the regular open session meeting." So I thought we had to go through a policy and then we present, the name of the park and the name of the building that we're going to bestow on. Mayor Pro Tem Ly clarified so you're not off in terms of why the admin policy is in there. That was something that in talking with the City Clerk, she indicated that a policy was being developed. Now prior to the policy being developed though a subcommittee was formed, which was made up of Council Member Low and myself because we were the two people that were most on opposing sides of this issue. I hate that word because I don't think that's necessarily the correct word for this. We talked about it several times, but we could not come up with a consensus. Emphasized I have the highest regard and respect for Council Member Low and her rationale and her judgments. However, I don't agree with her on this matter. It's probably the nicest way I could probably say it and as such I believe that it's now Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 24 of 26 coming back to the Council by saying we could not come up with consensus, so it is up to the overall Council to decide what we want to do. We did put that admin policy in there to show that it doesn't actually go against the proposed admin policy either. At the end of the day it fits more or less the framework of what we want to have that opportunity to name things after people because of the impact they've made in the community. Council Member Armenta stated the Administrative Policy No. 50-09 in front of us, we actually talked about this; explained it was established on May 26, 2020 and I noticed that I signed it because I was the Mayor at the time, but we discussed how we should go about naming facilities or renaming facilities. So everything on here is what the policy now stands. And that's why Mayor Pro Tem Ly mentioned the fact that there was a subcommittee if there was no consensus. Mayor Dang replied I don't recall the city commissioner at that time. City Attorney Richman stated I am remembering that was sort of why we did this. I think what the Mayor might be indicating is he's just concerned if we are supposed to have a subcommittee but I think if you actually look at the item, it does say if no consensus is reached by the city council on a name for a city facility the city council may create a subcommittee. Opined maybe since there's been some time that has passed and again, maybe the subcommittee wasn't exactly what the policy talked about, but there was a subcommittee. Mayor Dang shared that he knows Mr. Murakami by name and face but did not have the great privilege of knowing or that connection that his colleagues have with - -Mr. Murakami. For transparency reasons, I would like staff to prepare a more formal presentation describing Chief Murakami's achievements to validate why we are selecting his name to bestowed on a city building. Asked staff to schedule this presentation for the November 8a' meeting. Council Comments Council Member Armenta stated unfortunately due to work constraints and leading an event for the Senator, I could not attend the city's Pumpkin Patch this past Saturday. I do want to acknowledge Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking and his staff for having a great pumpkin patch. Now I don't want to take away from their efforts, but it's very concerning to me that when I look on Facebook and I see a flyer posted that was not approved by the city that had an agency that had nothing to do with our pumpkin patch. Pointed out on top of the flyer it had Supervisor Hilda Solis as if she was part of our Pumpkin Patch, which takes away from the hard work of Mr. Boecking and his staff. Emphasized that it's important we give credit where credit is due. So, to put an agency on our flyer that had absolutely nothing to do with that and try to make it her own is wrong, especially because this is not the first time that this has happened. If she wants to be part of our events, then she can provide some funding for our events such as the pumpkin patch. Expressed that it is a little disheartening to see that we have not had any funding from the Supervisor for the pumpkin patch, nor for the community garden. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2022 Page 25 of 26 Council Member Low shared this past weekend, Wealth by Health also held the health clinics for people to get their COVID shots and flu shots; shared it was a great event and turnout. Mayor Pro Tem Ly inquired when the Rosemead Boulevard item he requested at the last Council meeting will be agendized. City Manager Kim responded Rosemead Boulevard tem is agendized for the December 8th meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ly thanked City Manager Kim. Mayor Dang wished everyone a Happy Halloween and to have fun at the City's Trunk or Treat event on Monday from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. here in our City Hall parking lot. bl�\ �71LIII1s7►1u1WN Y Mayor Dang adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. The next City Council meeting will take place on November 8, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. Ericka Hernandez,ity Clerk - - I\»KS]U" A�i�n Steven Ly, Mayor Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 25, 1022 Page 26 of 26