Jun 15, 2020 6:30 PM City Council

THAT ANSWERS. ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THE AUDITED DEMANDS OR IS THAT IT?

>> THEN WE WILL MOVE ON.

>> THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR THE REGISTER OF AUDITED DEMANDS.

>> NOW WE MOVE TO THE NEXT WHICH WAS. [OVERLAPPING]

>> BUT YOU NEED.

>> WHAT?

>> MARION, YOU NEED A MOTION ON THAT.

>> I WAS MOVING TO THE NEXT ONE.

YOU WANT TO DO A MOTION FOR EACH ONE, FOR EACH ITEM THAT WAS PULLED?

>> PROBABLY, BEST.

>> I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION.

>> MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> I WILL SECOND.

>> ANNOUNCEMENTS ALLOW. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I, RAISE YOUR HAND, I.

THOSE OPPOSED, NONE? MOTION CARRIES.

>> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE ABOUT THOSE.

THE REFUNDS TO THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY WAS THE ASSESSMENTS THEY GET AS BEING MEMBERS OF THE OLD TOWN.

SO IT WASN'T A BROAD BUSINESS TAX REFUND, IT WAS SPECIFIC TO OLD TOWN.

THEN THE OTHER PIECE, WHILE IT'S NOT AN OBLIGATION OF THE CITY, IT IS THE CITY APPROPRIATELY RESPONDING TO A LEGAL ORDER.

SO IT'S NOT AS IF THE CITY REALLY MADE ANY DECISION AS TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS, IT WAS ORDERED BY THE COURTS.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABIDING BY LEGAL RULES.

>> THANK YOU MR. DAVIS. WE MOVE TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 2051,

[8. Resolution No. 20-51 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and AUTHORIZING ANNUAL CITY AGREEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 - Once a year, the City Council considers annual agreements for renewals or extensions. As such, attached are the services proposed for the coming fiscal year for City Council consideration. A summary of the agreements which includes purposes of the agreement, cost changes proposed (if any) is also included Staff recommends that the City Council should approve the annual City agreements by adopting Resolution No. 20-51, which authorizes the Mayor and Assistant City Clerk to execute the annual agreements as listed in the Resolution.]

THE ANNUAL CITY AGREEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/2021.

>> THEN WE HAVE PUBLIC REQUESTS, BUT I KNOW, MR. MAYOR, YOU WOULD ASK TO HAVE THAT CALLED.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU.

>> I THINK WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST IS FINE.

I THINK MISS BOWEN HAD PULLED THAT.

ANYWAY, START FIRST.

>> THIS IS AGAIN, I HAVE MR. BOWEN ON THE PHONE READY TO GO.

MR. BOWEN, YOU ARE NOW LIVE.

>> THANK YOU JR. MR. MAYOR, LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE, IN THE SAME MEETING, THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 22 NON BID CONTRACTS.

IT WAS QUITE A DISCUSSION LAST YEAR AND ONE INCLUDED ALMOST SIX MILLION DOLLARS EXTENSION TO WASTE MANAGEMENT WITH NO COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THE BID.

THIS YEAR, IT APPEARS THERE'S 27, MOSTLY ROLL OVERS, A FEW NEW, BUT LOOKING AT THE PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE CITY, IT CLEARLY SPELLS OUT A VOLUME THAT NEEDS TO HAVE COMPETITIVE BIDS, SOME FORMAL, SOME NOT SO FORMAL.

MY QUESTION IS THIS, THERE'S A LIST OF THE 27 AGREEMENTS, BUT THERE'S NO MONEY ATTACHED TO ANY OF THEM.

HOW DOES A CITIZEN LOOK AT YOUR PURCHASING POLICY DATED EFFECTIVE 11, 2, 19, MADE WE ISSUED IN MAY OF 98, AND REVISED APPARENTLY FOUR TIMES SINCE.

IT CALLS FOR FORMAL BIDDING FOR ANY AGREEMENT THAT'S OVER $75,000 A YEAR, YET WE KNOW EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO DOLLARS ATTACHED TO THE ONE IN THE PACKET, WE KNOW THAT MANY OF THEM ARE OVER $75,000 A YEAR.

SO MY QUESTION I GUESS IS, WHY DO WE KEEP DOING THIS? THIS YEAR, 27 NO BID OR ROLL-OVER AGREEMENTS THAT ARE APPARENTLY IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OWN PURCHASING POLICY.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR BOWEN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT CHAIR? FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> YES. WE HAVE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL, BUT I'LL READ THIS IS FROM PANBURY.

THERE ARE 27 NO-BID RENEWALS AND MINIMAL INFORMATION FOR EACH.

THESE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ACCORDING TO THE POLICY FOR BIDDING CONTRACTS WITHIN THE CITY.

RENEWING WITHOUT BIDS AS A ROUTINE PROCEDURE IS CAUSED FOR RESIDENT CONCERN.

[00:20:03]

I SEE A LOT OF RESOLUTIONS IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR, AND USING THIS NO-BID RENEWALS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD SEE AS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE.

CAN YOU GIVE MORE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS PUT TO BID AND WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS ARE, PANBURY? [NOISE] ANY OTHERS, CHAIR?

>> THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAD RECEIVED.

>> OKAY. I DID ALSO ASK FOR THAT TO BE PULLED.

I DO HAVE THE SAME FEELING THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A COMPETITIVE INDIVIDUAL.

NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE, ARE SINGLE SOURCE AND NOW THERE WAS ONE WE HAD LAST MONTH THAT WAS REGARDING COMPONENTS THAT WERE USED FOR THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS THAT WERE COMPATIBLE, THAT WERE THE SAME TYPE OF COMPONENTS THAT THE EMPLOYEES USED.

IT WAS A LARGE CONTRACT, BUT IT MADE SENSE.

I THINK THE CONTRACT'S EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT'S FOR AND IF IT'S A SINGLE SOURCE THAT'S FINE AS LONG AS IT'S EXPLAINED AND WHY FOR THE EMPLOYEES.

BUT I KNOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE ATTORNEY FIRMS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NUANCES OF DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS THAT ESPECIALLY WITH POLICE AND FIRE AND JUST WATER AND [INAUDIBLE] AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I REALLY THINK THAT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO PROBABLY LOOK AT A WHEEL HOUSE OR TWO OF DIFFERENT ATTORNEY FIRMS THAT CARRY ATTORNEY PULLS THAT ARE IN TUNE TO THAT, SO WE DON'T HAVE SO MANY.

THAT'S JUST AN OPINION OF MINE.

I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IN THESE RULES, IT'S EVERY FIVE YEARS THAT WE SHOULD GO AND DO A COMPETITIVE BID TO SEE WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR SERVICES.

THAT'S WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING THAT NOW.

I ASKED KRISTY TO PULL TWO YEARS ON THESE CONTRACTS AND ON A NUMBER OF THEM, JUST CIVIL TECH ENGINEERING WAS $238,000 IN 2019 OR 2018, $130,000.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL RECEIVED THAT, BUT THESE ARE LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

ECONOLITE, WHICH IS THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, $64,000 IN 2018, $81,000 IN 2019.

IN OUR COMMON SECURITY SYSTEMS IT WAS $135,000, $113,000 FOR 2019.

JONES AND MAYOR, FAIRLY NEW BECAUSE I JUST HAD THEM PULLED OUT, IT WAS $68,000 FOR 2019.

LIEBER CASSIDY WHITMORE, $71,000, 2019 OR 2018 AND $30,665.

ANOTHER LARGE NUMBER'S MACLEAY SERVICES, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING.

THEY HAVE SERVICE CONTRACTS, $43,000 IN 2018, AND $72,000 IN 2019.

THEN WE GO TO RK CONSULTING, WHICH IS OUR CONSULTING GROUP FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY, WHICH IS OUR ENGINEER, AND THEN ALSO FOR THE OTHER SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE FOR US, $499,000 IN 2019 AND $334,000 IN 2019, EXCUSE ME.

THEN RK CONSULTING FOR ANOTHER ENGINEERING, THE SAME FIRM BUT DIFFERENT CONSULTING GROUP, $285,000 IN 2018 AND $233,000 IN 2019.

THEN GENERAL PUMP COMPANY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES WE USE FOR STUFF FOR THE WATER DISTRIBUTION, $91,000 WAS 2018 AND ONLY $295 IN 2019.

SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SPORADIC BECAUSE OF THE NEEDS FOR WATER AND STUFF FOR THE PUMPING FACILITIES.

THEN WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE] , WHICH IS ANOTHER COMPANY FOR PUMPING FOR EQUIPMENT AND I THINK REMOVAL OF STUFF.

IT'S $22,000 FOR 2018 AND $13,000 FOR 2019, AND THEN TRI-COUNTY PUMPS, WHICH WAS $61,000 FOR 2018 AND $29,000 FOR 2019.

LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR, I TRUST OUR EMPLOYEES, THEY DO A FANTASTIC JOB.

BUT AS STEWARDS OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY, WE NEED TO HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES AS FAR AS WHO WE'RE HIRING AND WHAT WE'RE HIRING.

WE HAVE THIS RULE IN PLACE.

IT STATES SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO FOR PURCHASING OF A CERTAIN DOLLAR VALUE EACH TIME WE GO, WE SHOULD FOLLOW THAT.

I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR STAFF.

AGAIN, STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB.

BUT ONCE YOU INSTITUTE A POLICY FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING,

[00:25:05]

IF IT'S A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, THE FOURTH YEAR WE START REVIEWING, SO IT DOESN'T HIT US ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

YOU START REVIEWING THAT OR EVEN IN THREE YEARS, THAT WAY YOU'RE READY FOR THE FIFTH YEAR.

I JUST THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US, FIRST OF ALL, TO BE STEWARDS IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO TO HAVE A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS.

IT MAY BE THAT SOME OF THESE FIRMS ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS, AND THAT'S WONDERFUL, AND THE CITY USES THEM BECAUSE THEY SERVED, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE WHEELHOUSE WE HAVE AS FAR AS PUBLIC WORKS AND WATER DISTRIBUTION, STREETS, LAWNS, EQUIPMENT, MAINTENANCE FACILITIES.

BUT MY FEELING IS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO FOLLOW OUR OWN PROCEDURES.

NOW, SOME WILL SAY, "OH, WELL WE FOLLOW THEM." BUT IF WE FOLLOW THEM, WE HAVE TO HAVE COMPARISONS TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR, WHAT THE COMPETITIVE MARKET IS FOR MULTIPLE TO SEE THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING COMPETITIVE, THE MONEY WE'RE PAYING UP TO THESE SERVICES IS COMPETITIVE. THAT'S IT.

>> THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL COLUMN THAT WE MISSED BECAUSE IT WAS SENT IN YESTERDAY.

SO I'LL NEED TO CALL THAT PERSON. [OVERLAPPING]

>> DO WANT TO GO AND DO THAT NOW OR YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH COUNCIL DISCUSSION?

>> YEAH. PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSION WHILE I DO IT AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN SHE'S READY.

>> PERFECT. MR DAVIS?

>> YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT TIME IS IN CHECK NAMES AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GO BACK AND REWRITE SOME OF THE PURCHASING POLICY TO MAKE IT MORE EASILY READABLE AND FOLLOWING THIS.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE INDEED BEEN FOLLOWING THIS WHERE WE SAY THAT CITY DESIRE IS TO PROCURE THE BEST QUALITY IN SERVICES, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT AT THE LEAST EXPENSE, AND EXPECTS EACH DEPARTMENT TO SUPERVISE THE INSPECTION OF PURCHASES TO ENSURE PERFORMANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS.

I THINK OUR DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN DOING THAT, HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THAT ORDER.

IN REALITY, IN THE WORLD OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ALL THESE CONTRACTS ARE OPEN FACE.

SO THERE IS AN EASE OF WHICH TO SURVEY OTHER CITIES, TALK INTO THEM, FIND OUT HOW WELL THEIR SERVICES ARE IN COMPARISON TO OURS.

THERE'S ALSO A SECTION OF EXEMPTIONS AND I THINK THAT THOSE EXEMPTIONS RELATE TO MANY OF THESE CONTRACTS, AND YET, WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC ON EACH CONTRACT AS TO WHICH SECTION AND PARAGRAPH IS THE APPROPRIATE SECTION AND PARAGRAPH ADDRESSING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE CONTRACTS.

I THINK WE DO NEED TO DOCUMENT MORE OF THOSE THINGS, BUT IN ALL CANDOR THERE'S AN EXEMPTION ON SECTION 3E UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, SECTION 6 ON PAGE 15, THAT BASICALLY SAYS IF THIS CONTRACT IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXTENSION FOR OTHERWISE EMPLOYING SOMEBODY, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE BIDS PROCESS.

BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, WHO'VE ENGAGED IN MANY, INTO COMPETITIVE SOLICITATIONS, IS AWARE THAT COMPETITIVE BIDS DON'T ALWAYS GET YOU THE LEAST COST PRODUCT.

IN SOME CASES, IT RAISES THE PRICE.

SO I THINK THAT WE WANT TO BE BALANCED IN OUR APPROACH.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN BE MORE TRANSPARENT IN THE LOGIC BEHIND THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF EACH OF THESE AGREEMENTS.

I THINK DOING THAT WOULD HELP A GREAT DEAL.

>> HOW MUCH COUNSEL. THANK YOU, MR DAVIS.

>> I DO HAVE THE CALLER IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO THAT NOW.

>> GO AHEAD.

DO THAT FIRST.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I HAVE THE CALLER, SHE'S LIVE.

THIS IS MS KELLY.

>> HI.

>> GOOD EVENING MS KELLY.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>>OKAY. I DON'T WANT FEEDBACK.

I SEE WHERE MR DAVIS WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FACT UNDER ALL THESE CONTRACTS UNDER SECTION 6, CERTAIN PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED BELOW.

THE PRIME EXAMPLES OF THIS INCLUDE THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY ENGINEER, AND CERTAIN CONSULTING CONTRACTS.

WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT TO AN EXTENT, BUT OCTOBER 4TH OF 1990, THAT IS ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, AFTER CONSIDERING CANDIDATES FROM 16 LAW FIRMS, 16, NOT ONE NOT JUST APPROVING YEAR AFTER YEAR, GOT A CALL, ONE DEFINED AS ANNUITY WITH THE NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

KRAFT OF THE SANTA MONICA LAW FIRM,

[00:30:02]

[INAUDIBLE] WHATEVER THE FIRM NAME WAS.

COUNCILMAN THOMAS HARVEY, WHO EARLIER THIS YEAR SUGGESTED CHANGE IN CITY ATTORNEY SAID HE FELT BETH AND KRIEGER COULD HAVE BETTER DEFENDED AT A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO BLOCK PROPOSED EDWARDS THEATRE COMPLEX.

SO OUR LAST LAW FIRM THAT WE HAD REPRESENTING THE CDF RETURNS WAS 30 YEARS AGO? MR. KRAFT, ALTHOUGH HE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB FOR THE COMPANY, PROBABLY MANY COMPANIES, FORGIVE ME, I'M A BUSINESS PERSON, FOR THE CITY FOR 30 YEARS, WE ARE NOT EVIL LOOKING AT OTHERS, WE'VE GONE THROUGH LAWSUITS, WE'VE GONE THROUGH OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'RE OKAY TO BE STATUS QUO TO THE SAME ATTORNEY FOR 30 YEARS GOING THROUGH MULTIPLE FIRMS. IF WE'RE HIRING A CITY ATTORNEY, WHY ISN'T HE AN EMPLOYEE? HE WON'T LIST HIMSELF AS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AS AN EMPLOYEE BUT ON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT'S LISTED AS THE CITY OF LA VERNE.

NO OTHER AFFILIATIONS THAT [INAUDIBLE] MAYOR AND HE'S NOT LISTED ON THEIR WEBSITE.

SO FOR 40 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN HONORING HIS CONTRACT EVERYWHERE HE'S MOVED WITHOUT PUTTING IT OUT FOR OTHER BIDS.

WE'VE HAD LAWSUITS, BUT THERE'S NO CONSISTENCY HERE.

SO I'M GOING TO FIGHT FOR INTERJECTING THIS PART OF IT.

YOU ASK WHY PEOPLE NEED [INAUDIBLE] , THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS.

THIRTY YEARS, NOBODY QUESTIONED ANYTHING.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER, JR?

>> THOSE WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT WE HAD.

>> OKAY. MR DAVIS HAS SPOKEN.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO JUST SPEAK ON THIS? MR. CROSBY? NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER LAU

>> MY COMMENT IS WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT THE LAW FIRMS. I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM IN TERMS OF TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE TO TRY TO POTENTIALLY OBTAIN A BETTER RATE.

AT LEAST AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT LAW FIRMS AND WHAT THEY WERE SOLICITED TO PERFORM FOR US, THEY ARE VERY SPECIALIZED AREA, SO UNLESS YOU'RE GOING WITH A PRETTY BIG FIRM THAT HAS A BROAD BREATH OF PRACTICE AREAS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THESE LITTLE NICHE MARKETS, LIKE FOR RIPARIAN RIGHTS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY SPECIALIZED AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T USE THEM THAT OFTEN BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT YOU PULLED.

I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT AT LEAST THAT'S THE EXPLANATION I WAS PROVIDED WITH.

I THINK THERE ISN'T ONE PARTICULAR FIRM, AND I WOULD ONLY CAUTION THAT IF YOU DO FIND A FIRM THAT DOES MULTIPLE AREAS, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU'LL LIKELY SEE AN INCREASE IN THE HOURLY RATE AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING A BIGGER FIRM TO DO THE WORK.

SO THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NUMBER OF LAW FIRMS THAT WE HAVE ON THERE, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPECIALIZED AREAS, A SINGLE LAW FIRM DOESN'T NECESSARILY DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN ONE PLACE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> YES TIM, I HAVE A COMMENT HERE.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH WHAT WENDY IS SAYING.

WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE DIFFERENT TOPICS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

BOB KRIS HAS BEEN WITH US FOR MANY YEARS.

THEN LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS AGO, HE LEFT THE FIRM THAT HE WAS WITH AND HE'S WITH THIS NEW FIRM REPRESENTED BY A LARGER FIRM THAT CAN HANDLE MORE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE FIRM THAT COVERS DIFFERENT AREAS.

THAT'S WHAT WE SAW LAST YEAR AS AN ADVANTAGE TO THE SITUATION THAT MR. KRIS IS WITH.

I CONCUR WITH WHAT MUIR DAVIS SAID, AND THAT THE BIDDING PROCESS, NOT NECESSARILY IF YOU GO OUT TO BID LOW BID IS GOING TO BE A BETTER PRICE THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING NOW, AND SO YOU HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS OF THAT ALSO.

YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ON THAT.

EVERY BUSINESS DOES NOT GO OUT EVERY YEAR FOR BIDDING.

SOME OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN WITH US, ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC WORKS, THEY'VE BEEN USING THOSE FIRMS TO DO THE TYPE OF WORK THAT THEY NEED TO.

[00:35:02]

THERE'S NOT MANY COMPANIES THAT MIGHT DO THAT, SO YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT TOO, AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEIR BUSINESS, SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL ROBIN CARDER. MR. CROSBY.

>> I BELIEVE IN IN LOOKING AT EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

THERE ARE CASES WHERE KNOWING OUR BUSINESS IS GOOD FOR OUR BUSINESS AS WELL.

KNOWING OUR SEWER SYSTEM, KNOWING OUR CASES THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE LOOKING AT EACH ONE OF THEM TOO.

PART OF ALL THESE ITEMS AS WELL, LOOKING THROUGH IT, THERE ARE FIVE THAT HAD RISEN IN THEIR PRICES.

THEY WERE, I BELIEVE, ALL PUBLIC WORKS, CONTRACTS AS WELL, AND THE REST OF THEM WE HAVE NOT RISEN.

WE NEED TO FOLLOW OUR POLICIES.

MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT OUR POLICY AND ALWAYS FOLLOWING THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS A HANGING STATEMENT.

WE DO FOLLOW OUR POLICY.

OUR POLICY GIVES US FULL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WHICH MOST OF THE ONES THAT WERE LISTED IN THAT HIGHER AMOUNT WERE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

THERE ARE SOME THAT WEREN'T, AND IN THOSE CASES, WHERE THERE WERE PUBLIC WORKS, DAN HAS LOOKED AT THOSE AND HE HAS RATIONALE, WHICH HE'S ALLOWED TO AS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD UNDER THE POLICY, TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE BE RETAINED.

IN HIS EVALUATION, AND I WON'T SPEAK FOR HIM IF HE WANTS TO GET INTO DETAIL ON SOME OF THOSE, HE'S DETERMINED AT EXTENDING THOSE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL EXPERIENCE THEY HAVE PLUS THE QUALITY OF SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE, HAS AFFORDED THE CITY THE BENEFITS THAT WE HAVE AND CONTINUING OUR CONTRACT.

IF WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD CERTAINLY EXPLORE GOING OUT TO BID.

I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT IN SOME OF THESE, PROBABLY FROM 21 THROUGH 27, THOSE CONTRACTS ARE FOR ON AS NEEDED TO SOME EXTENT, AND IT'S JUST FOR AN ASSURANCE, THEY'RE NOT EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS.

DAN HAS ENGAGED THOSE PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF IF HE NEEDS AN IMMEDIATE SERVICE, HE KNOWS HE'S GOT A CONFIRMED RATE AND HE CAN COUNT ON THEM TO COME AND DO IT.

BUT IF HE'S GOT SOMETHING THAT'S A BIGGER PROJECT, HE CERTAINLY HAS THE ABILITY TO GO OUT TO BID SHOULD HE CHOOSE.

>> WELL, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THE POLICY IS CLEAR AND THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE POLICY, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ARE.

BUT I ALSO THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR BOTH THE COUNCIL, AT LEAST FOR ME AND I ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF BEING NEW, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR ME AND FOR OTHER RESIDENTS FOR AN EXPLANATION.

I THINK THERE WAS A VERY GOOD JOB DONE IN TERMS OF THE MEMO EXPLAINING THAT SOME OF THESE ARE ONGOING.

THERE WAS A COMPARISON OF THE RATES THAT THERE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN RATES.

MY PRESUMPTION IS, AND SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT IF WE WERE EXPERIENCING BAD SERVICE, OR DID NOT HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WHERE WE FELT LIKE THIS VENDOR WAS PROVIDING US WITH A LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE NEEDED, WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE LOOKING ELSEWHERE.

I THINK ON AN ONGOING, THIS IS A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT, SO THAT WE CAN FEEL ASSURED AND THE RESIDENTS CAN FEEL ASSURED THAT THE CHOICES WE'RE MAKING ARE PHYSICALLY RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE.

TO ECHO SOME OF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS, I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SYSTEMS, HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE WORK, A RAPPORT BECAUSE THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATE AS WELL TO THE BIDDING PROCESS THAT TAKES UP STAFF TIME AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY NOT NETTING OUT WHERE WE THINK IT'S GOING TO NET OUT, BECAUSE IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE NEW WHO HAS TO LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT US, THEY'RE GOING TO BILL US FOR IT.

ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, IT'S GOING TO GET BILLED TO US.

I THINK JUST BEING VERY COGNIZANT OF THE NUMEROUS ASPECTS IN WHICH WE CAN BE EFFECTED FINANCIALLY IS IMPORTANT, AND JUST BEING VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT WITH COUNCIL, AND AGAIN WITH US EXPLAINING TO OUR RESIDENTS HOW AND WHY WE'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL LAU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MR. RUSSI.

>> JUST FOLLOWING UP ON COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, IS WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE RAR AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A CLEANER WAY SO IT'S NOT CONFUSING TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE POLICY THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED.

BUT WE CAN WORK ON DOING IT.

>> FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, OUR TERRORS ARE VERY SPECIFIC SO WE CAN POINT TO RULE 21, SECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, 3C(III), IN THAT WAY WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I THINK IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT'S SIMPLE THAT IT COULD BE IDENTIFIED ON EACH ONE WITH THE PARAGRAPH THAT'S DRIVING THAT DECISION,

[00:40:02]

WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS HELP.

>> OKAY. I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS.

I HAVE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS.

IN RELATION TO THE ATTORNEYS AND THE ATTORNEY'S GOALS, I WILL START WITH THAT ONE.

I WAS ON THE SAN GABRIEL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, WE REVIEWED FIVE, ACTUALLY SIX OR EIGHT ATTORNEY FIRMS. AS WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SAN GABRIEL COUNCIL GOVERNMENTS AND THE ACE AUTHORITY HAVE MERGED WHICH IS HUGE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS, IF NOT BILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS WITH STREETS, FREEWAYS, AND ACQUISITIONS, A POOL OF ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SKILLS IN THE WILL HOUSE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE ACQUISITION, WHETHER IT WOULD BE PROPERTY OR DEALING WITH UTILITIES.

THERE ARE MANY FIRMS OUT THERE, BUT IF YOU NEVER TEST THE WATER YOU NEVER KNOW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S CONVENIENT, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S DIFFICULT, IT TAKES A LOT OF STAFF TIME.

ONCE YOU CREATE A PROCESS AND YOU FOLLOW THESE CRITERIA THAT'S IN OUR RULE BOOK HERE FOR COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS, IT'S A NATURAL PROCESS.

SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT WE USE, I DO AGREE, MR. RUSSI, THEY ARE ONE TIME OR PARTIAL TIME.

THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE SO MUCH AS THE FACT THAT IT'S THE OVERALL PROCESS, NOT EVERY SINGLE VENDOR WE USE IS BECAUSE IT'S A NECESSARY VENDOR, THERE ARE OTHER VENDORS THAT MIRROR THIS AND HAVE OTHER SKILL SETS THAT CAN DO THE SAME THING, AND THAT'S THE THING WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING.

WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.

WE DIDN'T DO IT AND I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK, THE LAST TIME IT'S A LOT OF WORK WHEN WE WENT TO OUR WASTE MANAGEMENT.

WE OWE IT TO OUR RESIDENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME THING, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERY CONTRACT, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS COMPETITIVE BIDS SITUATION, SO THAT IF SOMETHING DOES ARISE THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T COME AND SAY, "YOU'RE NOT DOING COMPETITIVE BIDS," OR WELL, UNDER SECTION 6, THAT'S JUST SHOWS RIGHT THERE, THESE SERVICES ARE NECESSARY SERVICES.

NOT ALL SERVICES ARE NECESSARY.

MOST SERVICES CAN GO OUT TO COMPETITIVE BIDS TO AT LEAST SAY, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CHEAPEST CONTRACT, I'M TALKING ABOUT COMPETITIVE BIDS WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK.

WE HAVE USED SOME OF THESE COMPANIES FOR A LONG TIME, MANY YEARS.

BUT UNLESS WE SEE THAT WE JUST GO, OKAY, THIS IS FINE BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING TO PASS THIS THROUGH, THEY'RE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB.

WELL, THAT DOESN'T SAY DOLLARS AND CENTS, I'M SORRY.

I'VE BEEN IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FOR 43 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN IN THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS FOR ALL THAT TIME FRAME, PROBABLY A GOOD 30 OF THOSE YEARS.

YOU MUST GO TO COMPETITIVE BID.

SOME OF THESE CONTRACTS LIKE SEQUEL CONTRACTORS, [INAUDIBLE] , WE DON'T USE THEM ALL THE TIME, THEY'VE SPECIALTIES IN THE FIELD AND THEY'VE FAIRLY COMPETITIVE RATES, SO THERE WAS NO POINT.

BUT I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE RULES THAT WERE STATED HERE, OTHERWISE, GET RID OF THEM.

[NOISE] WE DON'T NEED THEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING THEM.

I'M SORRY. I'VE BEEN ON HERE FIVE YEARS NOW, I'M NOW A MAYOR.

IT'S LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT, IT'S JUST THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE [OVERLAPPING], PARDON.

>> BUT WE ARE. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THEM, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, BUT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE POLICIES.

>> WE'VE HAD COMPETITIVE BIDS ON ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT MR. KEESEY IS DONE ON SOME OF THE OTHER SERVICES WE'VE DONE, WHICH IS GREAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE DO IT.

WE REVIEW IT, LOOK AT IT.

PURCHASING VEHICLES, GREAT, THEY HAVE EXPLAINED THAT.

MR. KEESEY IS ALWAYS EXPLAINING IT WHEN THERE'S A QUESTION, BUT STILL, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THESE MORE CLOSELY.

ONCE IT'S IN PROCESS, IT'S NOT A LOT MORE WORK, IT'S NOT.

ONCE YOU DO IT, YES, IT'S HARD AT FIRST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT.

>> IF I MAY, I'M SORRY [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE] YOU BROUGHT MY NAME UP.

IT'S VERY EASY TO DO THE COMPETITIVE BID IN WHICH YOU MENTIONED WHEN WE HAVE A SPECIFIC PROJECT OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO BE A $400,000 PROJECT OR A MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT HALF OF THESE CONTRACTS ON HERE, JUST ABOUT HALF OF THEM ARE PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS.

NOT ONE OF THEM REALLY SPECIFIES A PARTICULAR SCOPE THAT I NEED THEM TO BID OTHER THAN TO GIVE ME AN HOURLY RATE FOR DOING THE WORK THEY DO BECAUSE THE WORK THAT WE WILL HAVE THEM DO VARIES WIDELY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MACLEAY, WHO GIVES ME A BID AND GIVES ME A CONTRACTED PRICE TO DO THE BASIC HVAC MAINTENANCE ON OUR BUILDINGS.

[00:45:05]

BUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE MIGHT DO FOR US, LET'S SAY WE HAVE AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT GOES OUT, I ASK THEM, MY STAFF ASKS THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH A QUOTE SO WE CAN VERIFY THAT IT'S SOMETHING REASONABLE IF WE NEED TO REPLACE A PARTICULAR UNIT ON TOP OF CITY HALL.

THE GENERAL PUMP, [INAUDIBLE] , AND TRI-COUNTY PUMP, THESE ARE ALL WATERWELL CONTRACTORS, PUMP REPLACEMENT CONTRACTORS, WELL DRILLERS.

THEY DO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

THE CONTRACTS I HAVE WITH THEM DO NOT SPECIFY THE PARTICULAR WORK.

THERE'S A WIDE SCOPE THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT OR IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I MIGHT ENGAGE THEM FOR.

BUT BELIEVE ME, WHEN SOMETHING BREAKS, AND IT'S THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER AND IT'S 120 DEGREES HOT, I NEED SOMEBODY IN HERE TO GET THAT THING FIXED.

WE WANT THAT THE RUNNING.

WITH THESE THREE CONTRACTS, ALL OF WHICH HAVE NON-EXCLUSIVE CLAUSES IN THEM SAYING I CAN USE ANYBODY I WANT TO USE.

WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE AVAILABLE TO US TO DO THAT WORK.

SECONDLY, AND THIS MAYBE A POINT OF CONFLICT FOR YOU, IS HAVING THESE PEOPLE ON YOUR CONTRACT TO DO THESE VARIETY OF THIS WIDE SCOPE OF TOPICS OR WORK.

IT ALLOWS US TO MOVE QUICKLY WITH A REPAIR OR OR FIX OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE WITHOUT GOING TO COUNCIL.

NOW, IF I HAVE TO BRING SOME OF THESE THINGS TO COUNCIL, OUR AGENDA TAKES 3-4 WEEKS TO GET PREPARED, IT'S NOT REASONABLE.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE THINGS WITHIN OUR POLICY, WITHIN STATE LAW THAT ALLOW YOU OR ALLOW ME TO GO OUT AND CONTRACT WITH THINGS WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING TO COMPETITIVE BID IN THE MANNER THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IF WE WERE TO GO OUT AND CHASE ALL THESE CONTRACTS, CIVILTEC ENGINEERING FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT I NEED YOU TO DESIGN X, Y, AND Z FOR ME FOR A CERTAIN PRICE.

IT SAYS, GIVE ME YOUR HOURLY RATE AND THAT OF YOUR VARIOUS TEAM MEMBERS AND THINGS, AND THEN I GET A PRIZE FROM HIM WHEN I NEED HIM TO DO SOMETHING OR WHEN I NEED THAT FIRM TO DO SOMETHING.

FRANKLY, IF WE WENT OUT TO BID AND CIVILTEC DID BID THAT PROJECT AS WELL, IT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CIVILTEC BECAUSE IT'S A VALUE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, IT'S THE RELATIONSHIP THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED WITH THESE FOLKS.

THEY KNOW WHAT TO ASK AND I KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THEM, AND THEY KNOW OUR SYSTEM.

AS COUNCIL MEMBER LAU POINTED OUT, NEW PEOPLE HAVE TO COME IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT OUR SYSTEMS, OUR OPERATIONS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BILL US FOR IT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.

THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

NEARLY, EVERY OTHER CONTRACT THEY HAVE, AS I SAID, IT'S THERE AND ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REPLACEMENTS, WITH MAINTENANCE.

WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING NEW WITH THESE PEOPLE, IT'S JUST TO HELP MAINTAIN AND OPERATE SYSTEMS WE HAVE IN PLACE THAT ARE FOR THE COMMUNITY'S BENEFIT.

THAT WAS A LONG RANT, I'M SORRY, BUT I FELT THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE IN PUBLIC WORKS UTILIZE THESE VARIOUS CONTRACTS.

>> FOR CLARIFICATION SAKE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY AND WHAT'S BEING COMMUNICATED IS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS, AND I DON'T WANT TO DRAW A DISTINCTION HERE BECAUSE I THINK YOU MADE A VERY GOOD POINT, [NOISE] THAT THESE CONTRACTS ARE NOT FOR A SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK.

WE ARE NOT BUILDING A NEW BUILDING OR WE ARE NOT DOING A VERY SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK THAT YOU WOULD PRICE OUT.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED THIS MANY ENGINEERS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED THIS MANY LAYPEOPLE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC SCOPE, IT IS A CONTRACT FOR ONGOING SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IF WE WERE TO GO OUT TO BID ON EVERY SINGLE ONE, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A SPECIFIC SCOPE OR PROJECT, THIS IS ONGOING SERVICES, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CREATING A DETRIMENT TO OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE LET'S SAY A WATER MAIN BREAKS OR WHATNOT, IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ENTIRE PROCESS, OUR RESIDENTS WOULD BE IN LACK OF SERVICES, I GUESS,

[00:50:03]

BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PERSON COMING OUT TO FIX IT, CORRECT IT, WHATNOT. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?

>> I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING, YES.

>> I SHOULD POINT OUT TOO THAT, I THINK, ALL OF MY CONTRACTS WITHIN PUBLIC WORKS, THERE IS A SECTION, AND I BELIEVE IT'S SECTION 8, THAT LIMITS ANY PARTICULAR SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT WE MAY TRY TO ENGAGE EACH OF THESE FIRMS FOR, IT LIMITED TO $175,000.

AFTER THAT, I HAVE TO GO OUT TO BID.

WE'VE PUT A RESTRICTION ON OURSELVES WITHIN THESE CONTRACTS AS WELL.

>> OKAY. I THINK THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS A POINT.

THERE IS A THRESHOLD THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HIT A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT, IT WILL COME BACK.

BECAUSE THESE ARE NON-EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS, WHICH MEANS WE ARE NOT BOUND TO THESE PEOPLE, IF WE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE SERVICES, IF WE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE CHARGING, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK SERVICES FROM A DIFFERENT VENDOR AT THAT TIME. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THEN THE OTHER THING I WILL POINT OUT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER FOLKS ARE AS GEEKY AS I AM, BUT I DID LOOK AT THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE OBLIGATED BY THESE SUBCONTRACTORS OR BY THESE VENDORS TO US AS THE CITY, AND WORKING IN CONSTRUCTION.

I WAS VERY PLEASED, SO THANK YOU, DAN, FOR FINDING FOLKS THAT NOT ONLY HAD VERY HIGH LEVELS OF GENERAL LIABILITY, BUT ALSO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY AND AN UMBRELLA POLICY, AND A GOOD INDEMNITY CLAUSE FOR US, AND A GOOD ATTORNEYS' CLAUSE IN OUR FAVOR.

THAT IS REALLY HARD TO FIND WITH CERTAIN ENTITIES AND SUBS.

I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP THAT I'M NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE BENEFIT TO US IN TERMS OF JUST STRAIGHT DOLLARS AND CENTS AND SERVICES.

I'M ALSO LOOKING AT PROTECTIONS THAT SHOULD SOMETHING GO WRONG, I WANT A SUBCONTRACTOR WHO IS PROPERLY INSURED AND HAS THE WHEREWITHAL TO TAKE CARE OF THE CITY SHOULD THEY SCREW SOMETHING UP.

I JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> ANY THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, REGARDING THIS SUBJECT? MR. KEESEY, THANK YOU, I DO APPRECIATE THAT, AND COUNCIL MEMBER LAU.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MR. KEESEY AND I WENT OVER WHEN I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL WAS THE INSURANCE UMBRELLA COVERAGE [INAUDIBLE] TO THE AGGREGATE.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE COVERAGE BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, AN INCIDENT OCCURS.

AS YOU KNOW, IN THE LEGAL FIELD, THAT CAN BE EXTREMELY COSTLY FOR THE CITY.

I UNDERSTAND AND AGAIN, MR. KEESEY AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH, REGARDING THESE.

AGAIN, EVERY FIVE YEARS, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST REVIEW THE LABOR RATES.

THERE ARE COMPETITIVE COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT DO THE SAME THING.

RK CONSULTING, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG RK CONSULTING WE'VE HAD FOR THE CITY, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS.

MR. KRESS, MR. RUSSI, HOW LONG?

>> MORE THAN 30.

>> MORE THAN 30. HAVE WE EVER HAD A COMPETITIVE BID FOR RK CONSULTING OR HAS IT EVER GONE OUT TO BID?

>> FOR THE TIME THEY'VE BEEN WITH US, I DON'T WHO [INAUDIBLE].

>> WHEN MR. KRESS WON IN CREST?

>> MR. MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER?

>> CAN WE JUST CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.

>> I'M NOT DONE YET, MR. DAVIS.

MY POINT IS NOT FINISHED, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND ALL THE LETTER AND EVERY PIECE OF THIS INFORMATION FOR HOW TO DO CONTRACTS, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A CONTRACT AND WE SHOULD REVIEW EVERY FIVE YEARS.

>> IF I CAN CUT IT HERE AGAIN, SIR, THAT'S WHY THESE AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED FOR YOU EVERY YEAR BECAUSE WE, AS A STAFF, DO REVIEW THEM.

WE DO ENGAGE OUR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER AREAS TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR SIMILAR SERVICES, EVEN WITH THE SAME COMPANIES AT TIMES.

YOU DO HAVE THOSE, AND WE DO HAVE CONTRACTS THAT TRULY MAKES SENSE AND ONLY MAKES SENSE TO FLY PUBLICLY FOR A SOLICITATION OF BIDS.

THOSE ARE OUR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES.

THERE'S ONE OR TWO OTHER ONES, BUT WE DO PUT THOSE CONTRACTS OUT EVERY 3-5 YEARS.

GENERALLY, WE DID, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RECENTLY, ASKED YOU TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT OF SOME OF OUR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT COMPANIES THAT TAKE CARE OF OUR SPORTS PARK AND OUR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS AND CITY WHITE AREAS BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THE SERVICE WAS EXCELLENT, NUMBER 1.

AGAIN, THE RELATIONSHIP THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED WITH

[00:55:04]

THESE CONTRACTORS AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE EXPECT THEM TO DO IN THESE LARGE VARIED AREAS IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AT THE TIME THAT WE ASKED YOU TO EXTEND THOSE CONTRACTS, THE CITY OF CLAREMONT WENT OUT TO BID ON THEIR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS.

MUCH TO THEIR SURPRISE, THEIR CONTRACTS CAME BACK A MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY PAYING, AND NOW THEY ARE PAYING A MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT THEY WERE PAYING.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SPECIFIC SERVICES, FOR THE SPECIFIC SCOPE, WE DO BID THOSE PROJECTS.

AGAIN, EVEN WITH THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, IF I TOLD ELAINE CHRISTIAN SAME AS I NEED A NEW WELL, I'M GOING TO PUT THAT OUT TO BID.

I'M NOT GOING TO JUST GET A PRICE FROM HIM.

WE WILL PUT THAT PROJECT OUT TO BID.

BUT IF I HAVE A PIPE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, THAT IS DELIVERING A GOOD CHUNK OF OUR WATER TO OUR SYSTEM AND THEY CAN GET TO IT RIGHT AWAY, THAT IS MY GO-TO PERSON.

SO AGAIN.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE WENT OUT TO GREENSCAPES?

>> THAT'S ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO, AND THAT WAS A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT INITIALLY IN GREENSCAPES. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE OTHER FIRM? CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPES.

WE EXTENDED THOSE CONTRACTS A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN WE ASKED YOU TO GIVE THAT CONSIDERATION.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

MY FEELING IS FIVE YEARS, AND THEN YOU'D GO AT FIVE YEARS.

YOU HAVE BEFORE THAT, YOU REVIEW.

IF THEY ARE GOOD, WE DO AN EXTENSION.

I THINK IT'S GREAT BECAUSE YOU DO NEED THOSE PEOPLE, BUT STILL, AGAIN, COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS, COMPETITIVE RATES, THAT'S MY MANTRA.

>> I HAD NO PROBLEM DOING WHAT YOU WANT.

WE WILL DO WHAT YOU ASK, WHAT THE COUNCIL ASK.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS WE OPERATE THE WAY WE DO.

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, MR. KRESS.

>>TIM, MAY I ASK A QUESTION?

>> OKAY, MY QUESTION'S FOR MR. KRESS.

BOB, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> OKAY. JUST BECAUSE I'M TAKING PROTOCOL, AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND BEFORE WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION OR NOT? BUT ALL MY ONLY OTHER MEETINGS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

>> ON AN ITEM THAT WAS PULLED?

>> ROBERT'S RULES DOES INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN IT'S DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM.

>> WE HAVEN'T ADOPTED ROBERT'S RULES.

>> WE DON'T FOLLOW THAT GUY'S, NOT YET ANYWAY.

>> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE DOING IT LEGALLY.

>> YOU'RE DOING IT LEGALLY.

>> WELL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, RESOLUTION 2051? NO? WE HAVE A MOTION? [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO TO REVIEW AS PER STATED, THAT WE WOULD REVIEW FIVE YEARS.

WHETHER THAT FIVE-YEARS CONTRACT, IT COULD BE A THREE-YEAR REVIEW, AND THEN SET A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT OR A FOUR-YEAR REVIEW, AND THEN A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT TO GO OVER ALL THE CONTRACTS WE HAVE IN THE CITY. THAT'S MY MOTION.

>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT DID NOT.

>> WE MUST FOLLOW THE RULES AS FAR AS A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, THAT WE REVIEW THOSE CONTRACTS WHATEVER LEVEL AT WHAT TIME TO PUT IN PLACE SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOING IT ON THE FIFTH YEAR AND WE'RE SCRAMBLING TO APPROVAL, THAT WE DO IT AT A MID-LEVEL REVIEW AND THEN WE SET IN PLACE FOR THAT FIFTH YEAR OR WHATEVER IT IS.

IF IT'S A FOURTH YEAR, REVIEW IT FOR THE FOURTH YEAR FOR THE FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> MR. MAYOR, THERE ARE NO FIVE-YEAR CONTRACTS, THESE ARE ALL ANNUAL CONTRACTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IN THIS HERE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWED AND DO A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR FIVE YEARS. I CAN MAKE A MOTION.

>> SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

SO IF THESE ARE ANNUAL CONTRACTS AND WE'RE REVIEWING THEM ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THEY'RE NOT TIED TO A SPECIFIC SCOPE, SO THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT TIED TO THE CONTRACTS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT RATES.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING IF THESE WERE FIVE-YEAR CONTRACTS, YOU'D WANT TO REVIEW THEM EVERY FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE IF HE'S SAYING IT'S ANNUAL, IT WOULD COME BACK TO US EVERY YEAR ANYWAY.

IF WE LIKED THEM AND WANTED TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION.

[01:00:02]

>> MOST OF THESE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE ARE LONG-TERM CONTRACTS.

WHETHER THEY ARE EVERY YEAR, WE REVIEW THEM AND WE CONTINUALLY RENEW THEM WITHOUT AN OBSERVANCE OF THEIR RATES.

SO EITHER WE FOLLOW A GUIDELINE ON HOW TO REVIEW THE RATES AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE US WITHOUT A COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE AS FAR AS WHAT THESE COMPANIES CHARGE WITHOUT OTHER TWO OR THREE OTHER COMPETITIVE BIDS ALONGSIDE THEM.

TO SAY, INSTEAD OF DOING IT EVERY YEAR, WE CAN CHANGE THIS TO A THREE-YEAR OR FIVE-YEAR TERM WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO GO WITH THIS EVERY YEAR. WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

THEY'VE GOT A CONTRACT THAT WAS A COMPETITIVE BID AND WE MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT I DO WITH MY CONTRACTS, THAT'S USUALLY THREE YEARS.

IT'S A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT.

THEY GO FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM OR A FIVE-YEAR TERM DEPENDING.

BUT OURS IS FIVE ON HERE.

>> THEN CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION.

>> IS THERE A SPECIFIC CONTRACT ON HERE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO PULL?

>> I'M NOT PULLING ANYTHING.

WHAT I'M STATING IS THAT ALL THESE CONTRACTS HERE THAT WE HAVE, LET'S PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE TO WHERE WE HAVE A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALL THE SERVICES ARE REVIEWED, AND THEN THEY CAN HAVE EITHER A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT ON THE RATES THAT THEY'VE DONE A COMPETITIVE BID AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

SO WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING IT EVERY FOUR YEARS.

>> SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, MR. MAYOR, YOU'RE PROPOSING A CHANGE TO OUR PURCHASING POLICY?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT'S THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, BECAUSE A CHANGE TO THE PURCHASING POLICY THOUGH, WOULD BE SEPARATE THAN WHAT THE RESOLUTION IS RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS TO PASS OR TO APPROVE.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THESE CONTRACTS. SO THE MOTION AT HAND [OVERLAPPING]. I'M SORRY.

>> OUR MAYOR IS INSERTING ANOTHER MOTION INTO THE PROCESS.

>> CORRECT.

>> WELL, THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

SO YOU CAN'T REALLY AMEND THE PURCHASING POLICY.

>> WE CAN'T AMEND THAT NOW, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS ONE AND WE'LL BRING THAT BACK FOR LATER DISCUSSION.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KRESS?

>> YES, AND I THINK TIM, MUIR COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS HAS INDICATED AS WELL THAT WE DO NEED TO BE CLEAR AND LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING VERY SPECIFIC AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS.

WHAT DOES THIS RELATE TO? IS THIS AN EXEMPT CONTRACT, IS THIS NOT? SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I THINK DAN IS VERY GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES AND HE'S VERY RESPONSIBLE ABOUT GOING TO OTHER CITIES TO VET WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE PAYING.

ARE WE COMPARABLE OR ARE WE NOT COMPARABLE? WHAT SERVICES ARE WE LOOKING AT? SO I THINK WE HAVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THESE AND THEN WE CAN SEPARATELY PUT ON AN AGENDA, A DISCUSSION FOR WHAT CHANGES WE WISH TO SEE IN THE PURCHASING POLICY, AND THEN VOTE ON THAT FOR ALL OF YOU.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY.

>> WE CAN'T DO IT ANYWAY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> MIGHT I RECOMMEND A FIRST STOP, MIGHT BE YOUR FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK IS COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS AND MAYOR HEPBURN?

>> THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD FIRST STOP IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF LET'S LOOK AT THESE PURCHASING POLICIES AND THEN AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING FORMULATED THAT GETS BROUGHT BACK.

>> RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD.

SO MAY I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 2051, A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ANNUAL CITY AGREEMENTS BY ADOPTING THIS RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ASSISTANT CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THESE AGREEMENTS.

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I APOLOGIZE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ME, I OPPOSE IT.

>> MAYOR, I THOUGHT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY THAT YOU WANTED TO PULL.

>> I'M OPPOSING IT ALL.

>> OH, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

>> WE MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, NUMBER 6, INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY, SPCA.

[a. Inland Valley Humane Society & S.P.C.A. (IVHS) - The City’s animal service provider, is requesting an extension of their contract under provisions of the existing contract. Their request is for a CPI adjustment of 2.96% as well as an increase in two fees. The effect of that change is an increase of $7,200 for next fiscal year.]

>> YES, MR. MAYOR. I WILL TAKE THIS ITEM.

WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY THAT PROVIDES OUR ANIMAL SERVICE, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW.

THE CITY'S AGENCIES HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR THAT, THEY CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICE THEMSELVES, HIRED STAFF, OR CONTRACT OUT WITH ANOTHER ENTITY.

SOME CITIES IN THE SAN DIEGO VALLEY CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY.

WE, FOR MANY YEARS, HAVE USED IN THE VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY FOR THAT SERVICE,

[01:05:02]

WHICH ALSO PARTNERS WITH CITIES THROUGHOUT THE EASTERN SAN DIEGO VALLEY, AS WELL AS THE INLAND PART.

THEY ARE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THEIR CONTRACT.

WE WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY PUT THIS UNDER YOUR FEE INCREASE BEFORE.

THE REASON IT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS BECAUSE OF THE FEE INCREASE ITS ASSOCIATED TO IT.

BUT THEY CAME TO US AT A LATE DATE IN AND REMOVED THEIR PRIOR CONTRACT REQUEST, WHICH WAS FOR A $50,000 INCREASE.

THEY WERE BASICALLY GOING TO SWITCH HOW THEY HANDLE THEIR CONTRACT.

IT WAS GOING TO BE MORE, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH REVENUE A CITY BROUGHT IN, COMPARED TO THE EXPENSES OF THAT ASSOCIATED AGENCY.

THEY'VE CHOSEN TO JUST DO A CPI THIS YEAR.

SORRY, I LOST MY PAGE.

LET ME GET BACK TO IT. WHAT IS IT, TWO? [NOISE]

>> SEVEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> PERCENTAGE WAS THE CPI, WHICH WAS A 2.9 PERCENT.

BUT ASSOCIATED TO THAT, THEY'RE REQUESTING TWO FEES TO BE INCREASED.

ONE IS IN THE UNALTERED DOGS AND THE OTHER IS IN THE LATE REGISTRATION.

THE REASON THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED THAT IS THEY'RE ENCOURAGING MORE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP IN THE SENSE OF TRYING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF UNNECESSARY POPULATION OF ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO REALLY WORK TO GET TO ZERO IN THEIR ADOPTION AND ADOPTING OUT.

THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS, THIS IS A BLANKET ACROSS THE BOARD POLICY THAT THEY'RE ADOPTING FOR ALL OF THEIR AGENCIES TO HAVE THIS STANDARDIZED UNALTERED REGISTRATION FEE, AS WELL AS LATE FEE.

WE'RE JUST BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AGAIN, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR THE RATE INCREASE, BUT THEN ALSO JUST THE EXTENSION OF A ONE YEAR, WHICH IS CONSISTENT ON THE CURRENT CONTRACT.

>> ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL FOR MR. RUSKIN REGARDING THIS?

>> I HAVE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE RECEIVED ANY.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> HAVE WE RECEIVED ANYTHING YET, MR.RUSKIN?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M GOING TO CHECK CHECK WITH JR.

>> WE ORIGINALLY DID THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

I THOUGHT HONESTLY, YOU CLOSED THAT PORTION.

WELL, SORRY, I'M SKIPPING ITEMS. [OVERLAPPING] WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I DON'T PROBABLY THINK WE'RE GOING TO.

WE NEED A MOTION FOR THIS, CORRECT?

>> YES, PLEASE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?

>> YES. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO REMAINING IN CONNECTION VIS A VIS A CONTRACT WITH THE INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY.

I THINK THEY'RE AN ADVOCATE FOR THE ANIMALS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND I THINK THEY'RE APPROPRIATELY REQUESTING THAT THE OWNERS HAVE SAID ANIMALS BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR DOGS AND CATS SO WE DON'T GET UNWANTED DOGS AND CATS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER?

>> NO.

>> I HAVE TO CONCUR THAT THEY DO A GREAT JOB AND I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS?

>> I'LL MOVE.

>> MR. DAVIS MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> SECOND, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> AYE.

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NONE.

WE MOVE TO OTHER MATTERS.

ADOPTION OF VEHICLE [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY.

>> WE HAVE ONE MORE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WE GOT B,

[b. Hearing to Determine Necessity of Utility User’s Tax -The provisions of Ordinance No. 955 require an annual hearing to determine the necessity of continuing the City’s Utility User’s Tax (UUT). The City’s proposed 2020/21 budget fully utilizes the $2,940,000 in UUT revenue estimated for the fiscal year indicating the UUT should be continued. Interim Finance Director Alvarado recommends approval.]

[OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] USER UTILITIES TAX.

I'M SORRY. [OVERLAPPING] SORRY.

>> [INAUDIBLE] IMPORTANT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] AND ELECTRICITY. COME ON, MAYOR.

>> YEAH, WE WANT TO GIVE HIM. WE WANT GIVE MR. DAVIS' COMPANY FOR THIS.

MR. RUSSI?

>> WE'LL GET THERE. [OVERLAPPING] NO PROBLEM.

>> I'LL GET SOMEBODY.

>> SOMEBODY WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE? ANYONE?

>> YEAH, GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THIS IS PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UTILITY USER TAX THAT WAS THEN MODIFIED IN 2015, I GUESS.

THERE WAS A STIPULATION THAT THERE IS AN ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR CONTINUATION OF THE UUT.

AS YOU HEARD IN YOUR BUDGET PRESENTATION EARLIER TONIGHT, THAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO RUN A DEFICIT THIS YEAR, SO THE NEED FOR THIS CONTINUED REVENUE SOURCE AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL IS NECESSARY.

WE'RE JUST REQUIRED TO POST THAT.

IT'S EXPECTED TO GENERATE $2.9 MILLION, WHICH IS A PRETTY FLAT LINE WITH WHAT LAST YEAR OR THE CURRENT YEAR'S REVENUE IS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN SEEING THIS DROP OVER

[01:10:04]

THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND SO WE'VE FINALLY GOTTEN TO A PLATEAU POINT.

SO WE'RE JUST SEEKING COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH EXTENDING THIS UUT AND THE NEED FOR IT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY COUNCIL COMMENTS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> [INAUDIBLE] OR A QUESTION, MR. KRESS, I'M NOT CONFLICTED IN THIS RIGHT?

>> NO, YOU'RE NOT. IT'S NOT A TAX ON EDISON.

IT'S REALLY A PASS-THROUGH TO THE PEOPLE.

>> IT SAYS TAXING OURSELVES THROUGH THIS VEHICLES.

SO IT'S NOT A CONFLICT.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SHOULD WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? I THINK WE'RE GOING TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

CAN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? JR, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> NOTHING RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM, SIR.

>> THEN WE'LL MOVE BACK TO COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER COUNCIL COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT? NO COMMENTS, I ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> IS THAT MR. CROSBY?

>> YEAH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CROSBY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NO. NOW WE ACTUALLY MOVE TO ITEM 7.

>> YOU'VE GOT THE ENTIRE PARTY IN HERE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

>> RIGHT NOW, I SEE CANDICE'S IPHONE.

>> RIGHT HERE.

>> ARE WE JUST IN PUBLIC WORKS? [NOISE]

>> MS. [INAUDIBLE] , HOW ARE YOU?

>> HI, GOOD. HOW ARE YOU?

>> REAL GOOD. THANK YOU. WOW, YOU'RE IN YOUR OFFICE?

>> I AM. [LAUGHTER]

>> HUSBAND IS MAKING DINNER. [LAUGHTER]

>> YEAH.

>> OH, GOOD. JOHN'S THERE.

>> GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

THIS ITEM IS THE ADOPTION FOR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED,

[a. Adoption of "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - Due to changes in the State law, the City is required to adopt new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance for transportation impacts. For the purposes of CEQA, these changes will modify how the City evaluates projects for transportation impacts. Specifically, the City is required to use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS) as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts in CEQA documents such as Environmental Impact Reports. Outside of the CEQA process, the City can choose to continue to evaluate projects using the LOS metric. Based on guidance provided through an implementation process led by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, City staff has prepared new CEQA transportation impact thresholds for consideration by the City Council. This report summarizes the state mandate that requires modifying the CEQA thresholds, discusses the City staff recommendations, and includes a draft Resolution to adopt the new CEQA transportation thresholds.]

WHICH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS VMT, AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, WHICH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS CEQA.

I HAVE JOHN LOVELY, OUR CONTRACT CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH [INAUDIBLE] ON THE CALL TO EXPLAIN VMT AND THE CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW THAT NOW REQUIRE THE CITY TO ADOPT NEW CEQA THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS.

HE WILL ALSO GO OVER THE REVISED RESOLUTION THAT WAS SENT TO YOU ALL EARLIER AND THE NEW TABLE THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED.

SO WITH THAT, HERE'S JOHN LOVELY.

>> THANK YOU, CANDACE. THIS IS THE SAME EXACT ITEM WHICH WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THEY'VE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN THE RESOLUTION, AS WELL AS THE TABLE, IS TO MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG WANTED TO MAKE THE THRESHOLDS AND GUIDANCE MORE CONSISTENT AND WITH THE NEW TRANSPORTATION MODEL, WHICH THIS IS BEING BASED ON.

THE COG ALSO HIRED A COMPANY CALLED FEHR & PEERS TO ASSIST ALL THESE LOCAL AGENCIES WITH THE FORMATION AND GUIDANCE OF THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.

[INAUDIBLE] AND WE SHOULD HAVE STEVE BROWN FROM FEHR & PEERS EITHER IN THE WAITING ROOM OR ON WITH US.

NOT SURE IF I'M GOING TO GET HIM OR NOT.

>> I'M HERE.

>> OKAY. SO STEVE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND, GO FOR IT.

>> YES, THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A MANDATE FROM THE STATE THAT STARTED IN 2013, WAS ACTUALLY WHEN THE LAW WAS PASSED, BUT IT'S BECOME FINAL AS OF JULY 1ST THIS YEAR, IT WILL BE FINAL, SUCH THAT EVERY AGENCY IN THE STATE MUST COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAW.

AT THE SIMPLE LEVEL, IT'S REPLACING LEVEL OF SERVICE, WHICH WAS A MEASURE OF CONGESTION WITH VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH IT'S A SURROGATE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES.

SO THE INTENT OF THIS CHANGE IS TO NOW MEASURE PROJECTS, TO ANALYZE PROPOSED PROJECTS THROUGH THE CEQA PROCESS USING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED INSTEAD OF LEVEL OF SERVICE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN DECISIONS THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE AS TO HOW TO APPLY THIS VMT PROCESS AND THOSE ARE CONTAINED IN THE RESOLUTION.

I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THROUGH THIS RESOLUTION, THAT YOU RETAIN THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT CONGESTION, NAMELY LEVEL SERVICE, BUT DO SO IN PARALLEL TO THE CEQA PROCESS, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE CEQA PROCESS SO THAT YOU CAN STILL HAVE AN EVALUATION OF CONGESTION,

[01:15:03]

BUT IT JUST WOULD BE IN A SEPARATE PARALLEL PATH.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED ANY LONGER TO DO IT WITHIN CEQA.

SO I'LL PAUSE THERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN? I DON'T SEE ANY.

ANY QUESTIONS? BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS, IT'S TAKING OUT A CEQA, AND PUTTING IT IN ITS OWN PLACE WHERE WE'VE COMPARED IT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE LEVEL SERVICE PROCESS WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM CITY.

SOME CITIES ARE CHOOSING NOT TO APPLY LEVEL SERVICE AT ALL.

>> YOUR CITY IS AT LEAST IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO APPLY A CONGESTION MEASUREMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE IN PARALLEL WITH CEQA AND WITHIN CEQA, YOU'LL BE APPLYING FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, YOU'LL BE LOOKING AT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH AGAIN, IS A SURROGATE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES.

>> THIS IS ALL JUST TO FOLLOW THE 2013 LAW?

>> CORRECT. WHICH TOOK MANY YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT, YES.

>> JUST A FEW. [LAUGHTER]. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN?

>> WE DO HAVE SOME ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> YOU DO HAVE SOME?

>> I DO.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT THEN.

>> THE ONE THING I'LL TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THESE IN AN INCORRECT E-MAIL, SO WE ALMOST MISSED THEM, THEY WENT DIRECTLY TO AN EMPLOYEE.

ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CITY CLERK SO THAT WAY WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE E-MAIL THAT WE'RE TRACKING DURING THE MEETINGS.

JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY OUT THERE ABOUT THAT.

>> THIS IS FROM GAIL [INAUDIBLE].

DEAR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG, THIRD VICE PRESIDENT, TIM HEPBURN.

I'M WRITING TO ENCOURAGE YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES TO PASS A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A ONE-YEAR DELAY REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED REQUIREMENT.

IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSING NEW LAWS THAT WILL INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSING AND POTENTIALLY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, FORCING RESIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES INTO EXPENSIVE HIGH RISE HOUSING AND ONTO CROWDED BUSES AND TRAINS IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY AND NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED.

BY IGNORING THE CRITICAL ROLE THAT SOCIAL DISTANCING HAS PLAYED AND SLOWING THE SPREAD OF CORONA VIRUS, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED DOES NOT PROTECT OUR AGING POPULATION FROM FUTURE VIRUS PANDEMICS.

I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING A ONE-YEAR DELAY SO THAT THE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CAN BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT TIMES FOR ALL OF US.

I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK AND YOUR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN OUR ECONOMY AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

THIS IS FROM MICHAEL ROBINSON.

DEAR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG, THIRD VICE PRESIDENT, TIM HEPBURN.

I'M WRITING TO ENCOURAGE YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES TO PASS A RESOLUTION OR LEGISLATION IN SUPPORT OF A ONE-YEAR DELAY REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED REQUIREMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSING NEW LAWS THAT WILL INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSING AND POTENTIALLY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH.

FORCING RESIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES INTO EXPENSIVE HIGH-RISE HOUSING AND ONTO CROWDED BUSES AND TRAINS IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY AND NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED.

BY IGNORING THE CRITICAL ROLE THAT SOCIAL DISTANCING HAS PLAYED IN SLOWING THE SPREAD OF CORONAVIRUS, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED DOES NOT PROTECT OUR AGING POPULATION FROM FUTURE VIRUS PANDEMICS.

I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT A SOLUTION ENCOURAGING A ONE DAY DELAY SO THAT THE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CAN BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT TIMES FOR ALL OF US.

I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK AND YOUR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN OUR ECONOMY AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

I WILL JUST SAY, JUST LOOKING THROUGH THESE, THIS IS THE EXACT COMMENTS SUBMITTED.

I CAN READ EACH OF THE LETTERS OR I CAN JUST READ THE NAMES FOR EACH OF THE PEOPLE, BUT IT'S LITERALLY WORD FOR WORD, THE EXACT SAME COMMENTS I JUST READ.

>> YEAH. IS IT EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT READ ON THE LAST TWO? THE OTHER TWO?

>> YEAH, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

>> I WOULD NAME THEIR NAMES, BUT MR. KRESS, IS THAT?

>> YES, THAT'S FINE.

>> LET'S GO WITH THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT SUBMITTED SO WE CAN PUT THAT IN RECORD, PLEASE.

>> EMELDA PARETO ALSO HAD THOSE COMMENTS, A JUDY THOMSON, PETER ARNOLD, AND ANNA [INAUDIBLE].

THOSE ARE ALL THAT WE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.

>> 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6.

I'M NOT SURE WE GOT ALL OF THOSE.

IS THAT CORRECT AS FAR AS THEY SENT TO A DIFFERENT ADDRESS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO? THAT'S IT?

>> YEAH. I'M CHECKING WITH LUPE RIGHT NOW,

[01:20:03]

SHE'S BRINGING ME SOMETHING. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

>> [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS THE PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE] CULTURE.

>> THE ONLY ADDITIONAL ITEMS ARE FOR LATER, NOT ON THIS ITEM.

>> OKAY. THEN WE SHALL GO BACK TO MS. [INAUDIBLE].

IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM COUNCIL? ANY COMMENTS AFTER PUBLIC HEARING? SO WE SHOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO BACK TO COUNCIL FOR COMMENTS.

>> I'D LIKE TO SEE IT FROM STAFF BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE MESSAGE THAT WAS DELIVERED IN THOSE CONNECT TO THE ITEM THAT WE'RE APPROVING.

CAN ANYBODY HELP OUT WITH THAT?

>> RUSSI, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND COMMENT ON THAT.

THE [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION IS ACTUALLY BEING MADE THROUGH THE BIA FOR THE DELAY.

THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW THIS.

MOST OF THE AGENCIES ARE ALREADY PASSED IT THROUGH THEIR PLANNING COMMISSION AND THIS MONTH ARE ACTUALLY TAKING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS WE ARE DOING.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS HAS BEEN VETTED THROUGH CITY STAFF FOR APPROXIMATELY THE LAST 12-18 MONTHS AND WE ARE MOVING IT FORWARD.

THE IMPETUS AGAIN IS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION, WHICH OF COURSE TAKES PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS, BRINGS THEM INTO DENSER POPULATION.

THAT IS THE THEORY BEHIND THE BIA'S REQUEST FOR A DELAY IN THE ADOPTION OF THIS.

THE STATE, OF COURSE, IS WANTING THE LOCAL AGENCIES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ADOPTION AND TO MEET THE JULY 1ST DEADLINE.

STEVE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT.

>> JUST THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS LEGISLATION OR YOUR ACTIONS THAT WOULD NECESSITATE HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING OR GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF CARS, IT'S SIMPLY A MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE.

SO IT'S REPLACING ONE MEASUREMENT WITH ANOTHER.

NOW IT IS TRUE THAT HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING WOULD GENERALLY SCORE BETTER AGAINST THIS MEASUREMENT.

BUT IT DOES NOT TIE THE CITY'S HANDS TO ANY PARTICULAR ACTION.

IT'S FOR CEQA PURPOSES, WHICH IS A DISCLOSURE PROCESS.

SO IT'S PROVIDING INFORMATION, IT IS NOT NECESSITATING ANY TYPE OF HOUSING OR ANY SPECIFIC ACTION ON YOUR PART.

>> WE STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

>> YES. THAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE JULY 1ST DEADLINE THAT YOU JUST STATED?

>> GO AHEAD, STEVE.

>> AS OF JULY, THE LAW GOES INTO FULL EFFECT LIKE 1ST, ACTUALLY, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A MANDATE BY THE STATE THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER USE LEVEL SERVICE.

SO IN THE ABSENCE OF REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING, THERE'S THIS BIG AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD DO.

LEVEL SERVICE IS ALREADY DEAD, THE STATE HAS MADE REALLY YOU CANNOT USE IT.

IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AS OF JULY 1ST, YOU NEED TO ADOPT SOMETHING TO REPLACE THAT.

IF A PROJECT WERE TO COME TO YOU THAT NEEDS A CEQA REVIEWS AFTER JULY 1ST, THEY WOULD BE A HIGH-LEVEL RISK AS TO THAT BEING LITIGATED BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HAD PUT IN PLACE WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES.

>> MR BROWN, HOW MANY OF THE CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THIS, DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER?

>> NOT A SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY HALF PLUS OR MINUS A LITTLE.

>> OKAY. COUNSEL, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN OR?

>> ACTUALLY MAYOR, I HAD ONE FOR YOU.

DID SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PASS THIS ALREADY, OR WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

>> I HAVE TO CHECK WITH THAT.

WE BRING UP SO MANY ITEMS WITH THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS THAT THIS ONE HAS BEEN FLOATING AROUND FOR A WHILE, I'D HAVE TO CHECK.

THEY'VE PUSHED IT TO APPROVAL BECAUSE FOLLOWING THEIR GUIDELINES THROUGH THE SERVICE THAT GENERAL, MR. BROWN IS FROM.

MR. BROWN, YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE COG NEEDS TO ADOPT ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE LAND USE DISCRETION, AND SO I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE THE LEAD AGENCY FOR ANY CEQA RELATED LAND USES.

SO THEY MAY NOT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS.

WE ARE WORKING ON THEIR PATH FOR THE 26 CITIES WITHIN THE COG TO MOVE THIS FOG IN A COORDINATED FASHION.

SO WE'VE HAD MEETINGS THAT HAVE HAD ALL OF CITIES ON THE LINE TO GO THROUGH THIS TOGETHER AND THAT THE COG HAS FACILITATED THAT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS HEARING RIGHT.

[01:25:02]

IT'S THE BIA THAT IS OPPOSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OR WANTS TO DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THE BIA IS ACTUALLY THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN ROUTING EMAILS AND LETTERS REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCIES GO AHEAD AND TAKE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF ONE-YEAR ADDITIONAL LOOK AT THIS.

SO THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I'M AWARE OF, THE ONLY AGENCY, THE ONLY ENTITY OUT THERE WHO HAS BEEN REQUESTING THAT.

>> OKAY. JUST SO THAT I'M NOT CONFUSING MY ACRONYMS BECAUSE THE BIA I'M THINKING OF IS THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, AM I THINKING OF THE RIGHT ONE OR NOT?

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. THANK YOU.

>> JOHN, ON THAT POINT, JUST TO CLARIFY, I BELIEVE WHAT THE BIA HAS BEEN ASKING FOR IS FOR CITIES TO SUPPORT STATE-LEVEL LEGISLATION TO DELAY IT A YEAR.

I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE ASKING INDIVIDUALS CITIES TO DELAY FOR A YEAR BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

>> THIS IS STATE MANDATED.

>> RIGHT. OKAY.

>> I'M GLAD YOU CLARIFIED [OVERLAPPING] HAVE TO BE A STATE MANDATED.

>> THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION THERE.

SO WE'RE JUST PASSING IT.

THE STATE SAYS, "OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT ON HOLD, WE DON'T WANT TO ADOPT IT." ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR?

>> I JUST WANT TO STATE, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING BIA BECAUSE I HAD THE WRONG ACRONYM IN MY HEAD.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF ACRONYMS GOING AROUND, ISN'T THERE? ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF? THEN WE PROBABLY NEED A MOTION TO, THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR INPUT AND EXPLANATION, WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> PUBLIC HEARING.

>> TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK WE CLOSED IT ALREADY DIDN'T WE?

>> RIGHT.

>> THAT HAS TO BE A STATE MANDATED. THAT'S A CLARIFICATION.

>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

>> I THINK SOME HAS THEIR FACEBOOK AND SO DO I.

>> I THINK WE'RE QUEUING UP FOR THE NEXT ITEMS.

>> THE YOUTUBE, I SHOULD SAY.

>> IGNORE THE QUEUING.

>> IGNORE THE QUEUING. SO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING]

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, VMT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYZING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA.

>> VERY NICE. SECOND ON THAT ONE?

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I, RAISE YOUR HAND.

[BACKGROUND] ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO. MOTION CARRIES.

[b. Consider Approval of the Draft Partnership Agreement with the La Verne Chamber of Commerce for 2020-2021 - The La Verne Chamber of Commerce has submitted an updated Partnership Agreement for a 12-month term; July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. The Chamber of Commerce is requesting a total financial subsidy of $40,000 over the 12-month term, in four equal quarterly payments of $10,000. This subsidy represents a status quo amount, as compared with the prior agreements. The proposed Agreement also includes renewal of the Incentive-Subsidy Program for Business Recruitment up to $3,000, and the previously approved line of credit. A Chamber representative will also provide the Council with an update on their events. The City Council Chamber Liaison Committee and Community Development Director Scherer recommend approval.]

WE GO TO CONSIDER ITEM B, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE LA VERNE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR 2020-2021.

>>YES, MR. MAYOR, I HAVE THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LA VERNE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LEAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE CHAMBER, REALLY QUICK TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PROGRAMS. BUT BASICALLY, I WANT THE COUNCIL TO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE AGREEMENT FROM LAST YEAR OR PREVIOUS YEARS.

THE CITY'S SUBSIDY OF $40,000 FOR THE YEAR REMAINS THE SAME AS DOES OF $3,000 BUSINESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM, UP TO $3,000 FOR NEW LA VERNE BUSINESSES.

THE PROGRAMS BASICALLY ARE STILL THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IDENTIFYING THE COVID EVENTS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME CHANGES AND MAYBE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO LEAH.

LEAH, YOU'RE MUTED.

>> THERE SHE IS. GOOD EVENING, MS. SKINNER, HOW ARE YOU?

>> I'M GREAT. LONG EVENING.

[LAUGHTER] I LIKE YOUR BACKDROP.

WE'VE BEEN PROMOTING LA VERNE ON THE VERY MANY ZOOM WEBINARS WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

THANKS TO JOSENA FOR TEACHING ME HOW TO DO IT.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING RENEWAL ON OUR CONTRACT AGAIN THIS YEAR.

I'LL JUST START WITH SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM OUR PAST YEAR, AND THE NEWEST ADDITION TO LA VERNE CHAMBER PROGRAMS WAS CREATING A SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR LA VERNE GRADUATES.

SO THIS YEAR WE AWARDED $2,000 TO 2019 GRADUATES WHOSE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS IN THE CITY OF LA VERNE, AND THE FUNDS WERE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS DONATIONS FROM OUR MEMBERS.

[NOISE] LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR WE WORKED WITH THE CITY IN PARTNERSHIP AND WE DID AN ADA PRESENTATION TO FULFILL

[01:30:02]

AN OBLIGATION BASED ON MONIES THAT WERE RECEIVED WITH BUSINESS LICENSES.

ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT HAVE A HIGH IN-PERSON TURNOUT, WE DID ACTUALLY RECORD THE ENTIRE EVENT AND WE HAD THAT INFORMATION ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, ON OUR WEBSITE, AND ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS.

SO IT IS INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL LA VERNE BUSINESSES ONGOING.

ONE OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE DID THAT WAS NEW THIS YEAR WAS THE LA VERNE OPEN FOR BUSINESS WEBSITE.

AGAIN, THIS WAS TO HELP PROMOTE OUR BUSINESSES DURING THE RESTRICTIONS UNDER COVID-19.

AS OF MAY 31ST, LA VERNE OPEN BUSINESS RECEIVED 5,787 UNIQUE VIEWS.

WE'RE PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THAT NUMBER.

WE DID GET A LITTLE HELP FROM THE EAT LA VERNE GROUP WHICH DID ALLOW US TO PROMOTE THAT WEBSITE ON THAT GROUP.

I DO KNOW OUR BUSINESSES WERE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY AND IT DID HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON KEEPING A LOT OF DOORS OPEN.

WE ALSO CREATED A COVID-19 RESOURCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS WEBSITE, WHICH HAD 632 UNIQUE VIEWERS, AND THAT INFORMATION WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR BUSINESSES.

IT'S INCLUDING THE GUIDELINES ON REOPENING AND ALL THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT AVAILABLE.

OUR COMMUNITY YARD SALE, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 18TH, AND IS A PROGRAM THAT WE DO TO HELP REDUCE LANDFILL AND MEET CALIFORNIA OBLIGATIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN UNTIL THE FALL OF THIS YEAR.

OUR TRADITIONAL VENUE OF BENITO HIGH SCHOOL PARKING LOT IS NOT OPEN TO HAVING A LARGE EVENT ON THEIR SCHOOL GROUNDS, AND BRACKETT FIELD AS OUR ALTERNATIVE VENUE, BEING A COUNTY FACILITY, IF THEY'RE NOT OPENING COUNTY BUILDINGS UNTIL JULY ONCE WE FEEL THE WEATHER WILL NOT BE CONDUCIVE FOR A SUCCESSFUL EVENT.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A SEPTEMBER DATE, WHICH MEANS WE WILL NOT HAVE HAD THE EVENT IN THE FISCAL YEAR, BUT WE WILL STILL HAVE IT IN THE 2020 CALENDAR YEAR.

>> WE HAVE COMPLETED THE DATA ENTRY OF ALL OF OUR BUSINESSES INTO OUR DATABASE BASED ON THE BUSINESS LICENSE LIST THAT WAS PRESENTED IN JANUARY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ADA SEMINAR.

BY THE END OF THE YEAR, WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR SOFTWARE PROGRAMMER AND ALL BUSINESSES IN LA VERNE WILL BE LISTED ON OUR ONLINE DIRECTORY AS SOON AS THAT SOFTWARE ISSUE IS FIXED, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

CHAMBER MEMBERS WILL BE HIGHLIGHTED AND FEATURED ON THE DIRECTORY, BUT ALL BUSINESSES IN LA VERNE WILL BE LISTED BY THEIR CATEGORY.

ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ANTICIPATE HAPPENING IS THE INABILITY TO HAVE A LARGE EVENT IN OCTOBER WITH OUR SCHEDULE WHERE TASTE OF LA VERNE WOULD BE, AND WE ALREADY ARE IN THE PROCESS, WE STILL WANT TO TAKE THAT TIME TO SHOWCASE ALL OF OUR FINE RESTAURANTS AND WE ARE CREATING A NEW PROGRAM, A RESTAURANT WEEK.

SO THAT WILL RUN FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21ST THROUGH SUNDAY, THE 25TH.

ALL THE DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS WILL HAVE A PREFIXED MENU WITH DISCOUNTED PRICE POINTS.

SO WE'LL STILL BE ABLE TO SHOWCASE OUR RESTAURANTS IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

WITH THAT, WE'RE A LITTLE EXCITED BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE CONTINUING GOING FORWARD, WHEREAS OUR TRADITIONAL TASTE OF LA VERNE A WEDNESDAY, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE MINI RESTAURANT WEEK IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, BEGINNING IN 2021, SO THAT WILL GO STAY THROUGH SUNDAY.

PEOPLE WILL BE EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THEY TASTED AT THE TASTE AND THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY GO OUT AND EAT AT ONE OF THE RESTAURANTS.

ONE OF THE OTHER EFFECTS RIGHT NOW THAT'S ACTUALLY LEADING INTO A GREAT NEW PROGRAM, THANKS TO COUNCIL MEMBER LAU AND HER INTRODUCTION TO THE DEAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE COLLEGE OF LAW.

WE ARE CREATING A WHITE PAPER PROGRAM WITH STUDENTS TO HELP OUR BUSINESSES THROUGH THE POTENTIAL OF LITIGATION DURING THE REOPENING FROM COVID-19.

IT WILL BE A FREE RESOURCE FOR OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER LA VERNE BUSINESSES, AND POSSIBLY A REVENUE STREAM FOR OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING THE INFORMATION THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY.

IT CAN ALSO BE AN ON-GOING PROGRAM GOING FORWARD WHERE THE LAW STUDENTS CAN HELP

[01:35:02]

OUR BUSINESSES WITH BASIC LEGAL INFORMATION THAT THEY COULD NEED, LIKE CORPORATION FORMATION, EMPLOYMENT HANDBOOKS, ALL THE INFORMATION THAT A NEW BUSINESS OWNER HAS TO FIGURE OUT ON OUR OWN.

SO IT IS A GREAT AND EXCITING NEW PROGRAM AND WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO BE PARTNERING WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON THAT.

OUR LAST NEW PROGRAM THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO NEXT YEAR WILL BE IN THE SPRING OF 2021 AND IT WILL BE AN ALL COMMUNITY DAY OF VOLUNTEERING.

THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION CALLED LOVE OUR CITIES AND IT IS A MODEL THAT I'M PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON, BUT THEY DO WORK WITH 60 OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CONCEPT IS THAT WE WORK WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, ALL THE NON-PROFITS THAT NEED VOLUNTEER WORK AND WE INVITE ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY TO COME TOGETHER FOR ONE DAY AND HAVE A FULL DAY OF GIVING.

IT'S VERY EXCITING AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY OF LA VERNE WILL BE VERY OPEN AND ENTHUSIASTIC TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SKINNER?

>> NOT QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE A COMMENT FOR LEAH.

WENDY AND I BOTH ARE ON THE COMMITTEE WITH THE CHAMBER AND IT'S BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT YEAR AND I KNOW I DID NOT EXPECT ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE.

YOU ALWAYS THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND YOU WORK CONTINUOUSLY, AND YOUR HEART IS THERE FOR THE BUSINESSES IN TOWN, AND THEY KNOW THAT, AND WE HEAR THAT ALL THE TIME.

SO I THANK YOU FOR CARING ABOUT LA VERNE, THE BUSINESSES, THE PEOPLE, AND WHATEVER I CAN DO, I'M ONE OF FIVE, WE ARE THERE FOR YOU.

SO LET US KNOW WHENEVER YOU NEED SOME HELP, OR IDEAS, OR ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO.

>> I WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER AS WELL.

LEAH, I GET ALL YOUR E-MAILS, FORWARDING YOUR MESSAGES AND THE SHOP LA VERNE, THE EAT LA VERNE, [INAUDIBLE] FACEBOOK ALL THE TIME.

REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL WHAT YOU'RE DOING PUTTING OUT LA VERNE AND HELPING OUR BUSINESSES AROUND TOO.

I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'RE DOING.

>> ARE THERE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MS SKINNER?

>> I'LL JUST THROW MY CONCURRENCE IN THERE AND SAY I SUPPORT THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAMBER.

I THINK YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.

>> THANK YOU, MR DAVIS. I WILL SAY THAT LEAH HAS BEEN AMAZING.

WORKING WITH THE SUPERVISOR BARTER AND SANDRA OVER AT THEIR OFFICE TO SIFT THROUGH AND SORT THROUGH THE OPENINGS FOR OUR CITY, AND ESPECIALLY OUR RESTAURANTS, AND OUR HAIR SALONS, AND OUR PET SALONS.

IT'S BEEN TRYING, BUT THEY HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP.

I THINK WE'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE, I THINK ALMOST EVERY TWO OR THREE DAYS, WE'RE TEXTING AND E-MAILING.

WHAT CAN OPEN NOW? WHAT CAN OPEN NOW? LET'S GO, LET'S GO, LET'S GO.

WHAT CAN WE OPEN SAFELY? BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AND YOUR WEBSITE IS FANTASTIC.

PEOPLE THAT HAVE BUSINESSES CAN GO LOOK AT THE PPE STUFF, OR ANY LOANS, OR ANY NEW STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING, OR METHODS OF OPENING WITH THE CEC GUIDELINES.

YOU'VE JUST GIVEN THE BUSINESSES JUST AN AMAZING PLETHORA OF INFORMATION, AND ALSO THE ASSOCIATION WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] HAS BEEN JUST FANTASTIC.

EVERYBODY IS WORKING TOGETHER BECAUSE WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

THE RESIDENTS WANT THEM OPEN, BUT THE BUSINESSES EVEN MORE SO, THEY NEED TO BE OPEN IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AND YOU'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB.

I CAN'T SAY ENOUGH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP WITH SUPERVISOR CARDER'S OFFICE. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING.

I KNOW MR. RUSSI, AND IT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST, BUT THEY'VE BEEN WONDERFUL AND THEY GIVE US THE INFORMATION QUICKLY AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MS. SKINNER? YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> WE HAVE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS?

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT ON THIS ITEM, DO WE [INAUDIBLE]?

>> WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING ON THIS ITEM.

>> THEN WE'LL CLOSE AND I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER.

>> OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO APPROVE AGREEMENT NUMBER 12-03, AN ADDENDUM TO THE LA VERNE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S 2011/'12, PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE AN ASSESSABLE LINE OF CREDIT.

I'M READING THE WRONG ONE, AREN'T I?

>> THAT'S OKAY, BUT YOU'RE GOOD, IT'S 2048.

>> SECOND, MR. CROSBY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> YES, THERE YOU GO.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

[01:40:01]

>> AYE.

>> THOSE OPPOSED, NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LEAH.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT.

>> GOODNIGHT.

>> WE MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. JR.

[8. PUBLIC COMMENTS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - This is the time set aside for anyone wishing to address the City Council on items not listed in any other place on the agenda. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the legislative body is prohibited from talking or engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. There is a three-minute limit per speaker. Please email the Assistant City Clerk at cityclerk@cityoflaverne.org before 5 pm on the day of the meeting with your public comments.]

>> JUST GIVE ME ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO QUEUE UP THIS FIRST CALL.

[NOISE]

>> MR. MAYOR, I HAVE HUGH KELLY ON THE LINE FOR YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. KELLY. HOW ARE YOU?

>> WOW, GOOD. HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

A TRANSPARENT LA VERNE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OR PACK IS NOW ACCUSING LV3C OF BEING AN UNREGISTERED PACK ACCORDING TO MR. PRENTISS.

THAT'S LAUGHABLE. MS. CARDER ON A RECENT FACEBOOK COMMENT SAID SOME HATERS AND TROUBLEMAKERS NEED TO STOP.

[INAUDIBLE] LA VERNE PACK IS YOUR TROUBLEMAKER, MA'AM.

ACCORDING TO MR. PRENTISS, WE GAVE $1,000 TO A CANDIDATE.

WHERE IS HE GETTING THIS? THE LV3C'S TOTAL DONATIONS WERE LESS THAN ONE 1,500 FOR 2 YEARS.

MOST WENT TO CHURCH HALL RENTALS FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, MICROPHONES, TRIPODS, AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, PLUS DONATIONS TO MEALS ON WHEELS.

SOUNDS LIKE HATERS? NO. HOWEVER TRANSPARENT LA VERNE PACK AT THE OLD [INAUDIBLE] HAS RAISED OVER 11,900 AS MAYOR CANDIDATE.

LV3C WILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS.

[INAUDIBLE] MY FAVORITE IRISHMAN CONTRIBUTED OVER 3,800, FIRST GENERAL ADDED MORE THAN 3,500, BOB CARDER CONTRIBUTED 2,500, OTHERS LESS THAN 500, BUT MOST READ LIKE THE NAMES OF LA VERNE'S OLD GUARD, PRENTISS, [INAUDIBLE] WHEATLEY.

ACCORDING TO THE FORM 497 PUBLIC RECORDS, ALL JUSTICE SMEAR.

LIKE LA VERNE AND POLITICIANS SMEARED OTHER CANDIDATES.

THIS IS YOUR LA VERNE HATE.

SOME OTHERS CLAIM THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CAMPAIGN, BUT NOT TO TRANSPARENT LA VERNE PACK.

NOT VERY TRANSPARENT.

THOSE ARE YOUR HATERS AND TROUBLEMAKERS, MS. CARDER.

MR. KENDRICK HAD A SEVEN-VOTE MANDATE IN HIS LAST MATCH UP BEFORE THIS ONE WITH OUR CURRENT MAYOR.

HOWEVER MR. HEPBURN HAD OVER 1,200 VOTE MANDATE IN OUR LAST ELECTION.

THEY VOTED FOR CHANGE.

CHANGE. SO LET'S START WITH A CHANGE.

IF WE CONTINUE WITH THE FULL ONE VOTES, WE'LL REMEMBER THIS AND KEEP REMINDING EVERYONE ALL THE WAY UP TO ELECTION DAY.

TONIGHT, YOU VOTED FOR NO-BID CONTRACTS AGAINST YOUR OWN LA VERNE POLICY AND THE PACKS GIVING TAX MONEY TO FAVORED EMPLOYEES AS GIFTS.

I LEFT THE FAA AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SHOULD, WITH A HANDSHAKE AND A PLAQUE, YET YOU GIVE VACATION CHECKS TO EX-RETIREES, AND YOU WONDER WHY A FORENSIC AUDIT COMES UP? STOP FEEDING OFF OF US.

WE'LL KEEP TALKING OF A FORENSIC AUDIT BECAUSE WE NEED IT.

IT'S QUITE APPARENT.

ARE YOU HIDING SOMETHING? PROVE IT ISN'T TRUE.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE ON.

I'M BEGINNING TO SEE WHY THERE ARE FULL ONE VOTES, IT SMELLS LIKE THE CITY OF [INAUDIBLE].

>> THIRTY SECONDS.

>> NOTHING FURTHER. GOODNIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. KELLY. JR.

>> MR. BOWEN, CAN YOU ME HEAR ME? YOU'RE NOW LIVE.

>> YES