HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2004 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 15 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order
at 3:07 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information
Manager; Kim Crews, Senior Administrative Analyst; Sharon Gomez, Senior
Management Analyst, Ken DesForges, Assigned Technician -and Tommye
Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
► City Council Goals and Objectives
► FY2004-2005 Budget Discussion
► Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
CM/Lowry stated that staff's report included a compilation of input from
each of the five Council Members as well as the list of last year's goals
and objectives. Staff did not include clean up freeway entrances and
improve slopes in the City and that staff was cleaning slopes but not
freeway entrances at this point. Also, JCC and the pre -annexation
agreement with Shell Oil were removed.
C/Huff felt the City should continue working to produce a pre -annexation
agreement.
CM/Lowry believed that DCM/DeStefano felt this was covered in his
Economic Development Decision package that he would present later this
evening. Plant more trees was an ongoing budget item and was therefore
excluded from the list. Further, staff omitted annexation of the Boy
Scout property.
MPT/Herrera felt that that issue would be covered under the Sphere of
Influence and LAFCO process.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry proposed that ongoing goals not necessarily having a direct
impact on the next year's work plan should be eliminated from the current
list. She explained that the list was unwieldy and needed to be pared in
order for staff to make sense of action -oriented priority matters.
M/Zirbes stated that in his opinion, every item should be brought forward
and reprioritized so that items would remain on the radar.
CM/Lowry asked if Council would be agreeable to two lists — one for short-
term goals and one for long-term goals.
C/Chang felt Council should prioritize all of its goals based on input from
staff and that these types of discussions should be held earlier in the year
in preparation for budget considerations.
CM/Lowry felt there should be a joint discussion between Council and staff
about priorities and how the items might fit into the overall budget, move
into the budget discussion and continue with the decision packages. When
staff met today to review this matter there was discussion about the study
session during. which short-term, mid-term and long-term strategies for
economic development were discussed.
DCM/DeStefano believed that if the City had $10 million it should keep it a
secret and not necessarily establish a detailed game plan as to how the
dollars would be spent because the development community would, if
given the opportunity, consume every nickel. Instead, the City needed to
set forth a general framework for the kinds of things the City might be
willing to invest in, for example, but not attach a dollar amount because
there was too much information that was yet unknown.
CM/Lowry encouraged the Council to make a commitment to follow
through with the original plan to use the $10 million for economic
development and no longer agonize over whether to do economic
development or retire the bonds. She asked Council to give staff a
direction to "engage in economic development and find a prudent and
appropriate way to invest $10 million."
C/Chang agreed with CM/Lowry and DCM/DeStefano.
M/Zirbes said he agreed that Economic Development should be a priority
and there should be a strong game plan.
CM/Lowry said that in that vein, priorities 3, 4, and 8 would be included
inside the No. 1 Economic Development goal.
C/O'Connor saw economic development as one main goal with objectives
listed under that main goal.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry said the bottom line for staff was the work plan so that staff
knew how to proceed. Accordingly, at the end of each year Council could
determine whether staff was able to complete the goals.
CM/Lowry referred to Priority #2 — Signal Management System; ongoing
with no outlay of City funds.
M/Zirbes pointed out that this was an example of why items needed to
remain on the list. Although this item was ongoing and required no outlay
of City funds it would require monitoring so that the system was controlled
locally and if the item were removed from the list of goals the system
would likely fall to the County's control. D.B. knows how its traffic flows
and should be in total control of how the system is monitored.
CM/Lowry asked for comment on the "dynamic center, the supermarket"
and how it related to the #7 goal of "in partnership with -the Chamber
and business owners survey the City to see what people want to
happen."
M/Zirbes believed they should be tied together along with Site D. Site D
was under consideration for purchase by a developer and the City needed
to make certain the developer understood what the City wanted on the
site. Until the developer brought forth a design it would be better for the
City to remain proactive. "Evaluating Site D" was purely for economic
development reasons so all economic development items should be pulled
together.
DCM/Doyle concluded that if the goal were to create an economic strategy
all of the other items would be bullet points under that goal.
C/Chang agreed with M/Zirbes and "work with the Chamber" should also
be a subcategory of Economic Development. To him a dynamic/lifestyle
center should consist of a commercial complex with a theater, restaurant,
retail shopping, etc.
M/Zirbes agreed and expanded it to multi -story, mixed use, theater,
restaurant and possibly third story co-op apartments. He pointed to Birch
Street as an example. He, having spoken to a staff member who lives on
Birch Street, felt it would be a great place to live. He also felt that all
Council Members were like-minded that these types of things should be
explored for Site D unless there were differing thoughts about what the
City should be doing with economic development.
CM/Lowry verified that the supermarket could be included as a
subcategory. The 51h priority was the bond retirement fund included in
the decision packages with an estimate of the transfer amount of
$800,000. The library goal of creating a strategy if the funding failed was
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
priority No. 6 but the goal to establish a fund for current library
enhancements has a priority of 14, with a priority 20 for studying alternate
uses of the library if the funding failed. In short, the library goals pull in
opposite directions. Moreover, staff believed that no separate budget
appropriation was needed at this time because the grant outcome was
unknown.
C/O'Connor said that in the event the City were unsuccessful in obtaining
the funding would it be another year before the City decided to fund a new
library?
DCMIDoyle said the Council could decide now that if the application failed
the $8 million allocation would be included in the budget or, they could
wait until that eventuality and determine the money should be taken out of
reserve funds. The other option would be to look at alternative financing
mechanisms (go to a vote of the people) to fund the library. Does Council
intend to build a library with City money or does Council want staff to
pursue other funding measures?
MPT/Herrera felt the City did not have 100 percent of the funds to build a
new library. She would not want the City to pay for the library in whole but
reaching out to the community to see if there was support through an
assessment district, for example, might be an option.
DCM/Doyle said staff had completed a survey on that possibility and
asked if Council would want to update the survey and whether they would
want to hold a special election or wait for the next election cycle? If
Council wanted to hold a special election, those funds would have to be
set aside and the City would be prohibited by law from spending money to
promote such a measure. He reminded Council that staff would not know
whether the grant application was successful until at least
August/September. On that basis, would Council want to appropriate
money at this time not knowing whether it would be spent in the next fiscal
year?
M/Zirbes felt that "talking about alternative uses of that site" could be
eliminated from the list because everyone was focused on having a library
at Summitridge Park. That left two items under the library goal — to create
a strategy to build the library if the State funding failed and establish a
fund for the current library. With those two items as a) and b) once the City
received word from the State, Council could get together to discuss the
matter. He felt last night's task force meeting was very productive with a
lot of creative ideas coming from the members. However, there was no
reason to talk about this today because if grant funds were forthcoming
from the State, the City would be committed to building the library. At this
point, with Council concurrence, the third item should be removed, move
forward with the Library Task Force and discuss what types of
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
improvements could be made to the present facility in the interim and how
the City would proceed to obtain funds to build the library at the
Summitridge location once the City knew its direction.
C/Chang felt the Task Force was moving in the right direction during the
interim. This item was proposed to come up with a Plan B only in the
event the grant funding was not forthcoming and he certainly did not
intend for the City to pay for a new library facility.
Council concurred to eliminate "study alternative uses of the site if funding
fails."
C/O'Connor said the "financing mechanisms" should remain.
CM/Lowry asked if Council would be open to staff conducting an in-house
survey or would they prefer to engage an outside consultant:
MPT/Herrera recommended the survey be included as a small section of
the monthly newsletter and suggested that residents could call in to a
certain telephone number, email, or mail in a tear off response.
C/O'Connor asked that information about the possibility of getting a Trader
Joe's be printed in the newsletter because she had received numerous
calls asking what was happening.
DCM/Doyle explained that each tear off would cost the City 47 cents.
MPT/Herrera suggested it be a tear off or cut off and that residents could
mail back to the City using their own stamps.
M/Zirbes agreed and reiterated that this was going to be included under
the major topic of economic development. The next item was to hire an
economic development professional. Perhaps Council needed to work
with the professional to determine what kind of research studies the City
needed to do to satisfy companies such as Trader Joe's that residents
would indeed shop at these establishments.
C/O'Connor asked if hiring an economic professional was over and above
the proposed personnel changes to hire a Planning Director and designate
DCM/DeStefano as heading the economic development phase to which
DCM/DeStefano responded affirmatively.
C/Chang felt Council needed to discuss these potential changes.
M/Zirbes stated that Larry Kosmot had been advising the City for well over
a year and he had not seen any specific or detailed plans from Mr. Kosmot
nor had he brought any retailers to the City. The new consultant recently
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
hired by DCM/DeStefano may prove to be more proficient in this regard. Ii
the City hired a consultant, the Council needed to be assured he could
produce what the City wanted. In fact, the City's current private open
space developer had brought in more interest that any one. If the City
were not realizing the kind of results from the professionals and
consultants currently being used for something as important as the future
economic health of the City, the Council needed the ability to respond
quickly. His thought when he listed the item, was for the City to find
someone with the connections to reach out and bring in particular
businesses that were vital to the long-term economic health of D.B. and
that was what he meant when he said "hire an economic development
professional."
MPT/Herrera recalled that the City did not extend Larry Kosmot's contract
to include a specific plan for the City and that it was her intent that the City
invest more dollars toward economic development in order to get a
specific plan.
M/Zirbes assumed that the consultant would be paid from the money
already set aside for economic development.
C/O'Connor said she interpreted the goal as the City would be hiring an
employee and it would be DCM/DeStefano pursuing economic
development. That is why she rated the item high.
CM/Lowry said that staff felt there would not be a specific person to cure
the City's economic needs but that the combination of approaches to
projects that DCM/DeStefano described in his decision packages would
address economic development.
CM/Lowry stated that "annexation" was discussed to some extent and that
the "golf course" was included as a decision package in the economic
table of five items.
M/Zirbes agreed that the "golf course" would be a natural sub item of
economic development.
CM/Lowry referred to the Trails Master Plan ranked No. 14, specifically
addressing the trails around the Diamond Bar Center. To accomplish this
goal, staff moved the grant writer to CSD/Rose's department for which no
additional funds would be required. Council concurred. The ACE funding
was ongoing and MPT/Herrera suggested the item be moved to 'ongoing
goals."
CM/Lowry agreed.
C/Huff said the truck lanes should be moved to "ongoing goals."
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry said it would be places next to the ACE item. She explained
that as previously discussed, the Sports Complex goal was ongoing and to
some extent would be included in Goal #12 — Joint Use Facilities. These
items were addressed in CSD/Rose's decision packages with special fund
allocations that did not require general fund monies. She stated that the
opportunity to deal with Larkstone Park should be forthcoming if that
development occurred and that it would not necessarily require a budget
appropriation.
M/Zirbes asked why "consider the development of a sports complex"
was not on the list?
CM/Lowry responded that staff felt it had become the actual work plan.
"Purchase lots 1 and 61" and "joint use agreements" could be moved
under a category of "consider the development of -a sports complex"
as sub items.
C/O'Connor asked for information on the condition of Lots 1 and 61 and
what mitigation needed to be done.
M/Zirbes explained that Lots 1 and 61 consisted of about 68 acres and
depending on the amount of grading, there would likely be land available
for a 30 -acre complex with parking and access most likely from Grand
Avenue. He said that Lots 1 and 61 were map and deed restricted
properties and were currently on the market as "mitigation" properties
meaning there were limited biological amenities and that the City would
have to determine their worth. He felt that if the City could find an
agreeable price it could capture a parcel of land offering the potential of
creating additional sports fields, park space, or a temporary tree nursery
for development mitigation. In his opinion, Lots 1 and 61 offered the
greatest potential for a future sports park, -park or some other use at a
reasonable price and he felt it was an opportunity worth pursuing.
In response to C/O'Connor, M/Zirbes said the lots currently belonged to a
land bank broker in Texas.
M/Zirbes responded to C/Chang that the purchase price originally worked
out to just under $2 million. When he spoke with the broker the price was
reduced to $1.5 million. Additionally, there was potential for the City to
swap one acre of currently owned property for the 68 acres of Lots 1 and
61.
C/Chang said he regretted that some years ago the City did not step up to
purchase the SunCal property and with that in mind he would like to see
the City purchase the land for use or open space. He rated Lots 1 and 61
low -priority because he felt the property could not be developed. The
Council could decide to use it as a park. If the community wanted to build
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION
a sports complex on Lots 1 and 61, it would require a vote of the people.
He was concerned about taking that kind of action at this time because
there were many other items to consider with the City's limited resources
and $1.5 or $2 million of the reserve was a huge chunk for a piece of
property that would sit unused. He felt it would be better for the City to
focus on using its money toward economic development.
M/Zirbes rated this item as No. 8. The land may be available five years
from now, but with all of the development occurring a developer could
easily purchase the property for mitigation purposes.
C/Huff suggested the City sell the small piece of property.
DCM/DeStefano suggested selling and putting the proceeds toward the
much larger piece of land.
M/Zirbes said the final price may not be favorable but it should at least be
a goal to pursue. His vision of D.B. was that it was a family destination and
certain components such as high quality schools, libraries, quality park
space, etc. that drew that segment of the population. This city lacks
parkland and this offers D.B. an opportunity to increase the number of
playable fields at what appears to be a favorable price.
C/O'Connor asked why the property was map and deed restricted to which
DCM/DeStefano responded that the County restricted the property in the
middle 70's when they allowed the subdivision above the property. They
took the permissible hillside density and moved the density to the flat area
above and came back and deed restricted the balance i.e. transferred the
density.
M/Zirbes responded to CM/Lowry that the item should be listed as
"pursue the purchase of Lots 1 and 61."
CM/Lowry reiterated that Item 14 was included with the library goal. Goal
15 "Council and staff team building" offered an interesting discussion
when two Council Members gave it a high priority and two Council
Members gave it a lower priority making it problematic to plan a
consensual event when only two Council Members were particularly
interested.
M/Zirbes felt that since it was likely one Council Member would be moving
on and there would be a new Council Member on board it would be better
to promote this for the next year.
MPT/Herrera said it would be agreeable with her to wait. She rated it high
because it had been on the goals list for a number of years to develop a
strategic plan.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes said the makeup of the Council could change once again in a
short time.
CM/Lowry said the money was set-aside in the current budget for the
visioning process that had not occurred.
CM/Lowry again emphasized the point that the goals list and the budget
contained little pocket appropriations however, the ultimate goal for those
items was not clear. To her a strategic plan was not team building and
visioning was not a strategic plan. For instance, M/Zirbes just explained
how he viewed his community, but she did not hear any of the other four
Council Members cheer that opinion. Again, Council and staff have not
engaged in that type of discussion. And that is "visioning?" There are a
number of different wishes on the wish list. That is one facet of "visioning."
So, if Council wanted to have a team building event some time next year
there was probably an appropriation opportunity within the budget. Before
that happened, however, there needed to be greater discussion about
what visioning is.
C/Chang believed teambuilding meant working with staff. He felt the goal
of the Council was to make certain that the City was going in the right
direction and that was why he ranked the item low. At the same time he
felt it would be a good idea for Council to discuss a vision for the future of
the City.
M/Zirbes agreed that it would be important to hear what each Council
Member viewed as their vision for the future of the City.
C/O'Connor felt the Council needed to work together as a body rather than
going five separate ways which was why staff kept asking which way they
should go.
MPT/Herrera suggested that rather than Council and staff team building it
should be Council and staff visioning and that a visioning event should be
planned for sometime between January and June of 2005.
C/Huff felt it would provide a platform for producing goals and a budget for
next year. As leaders, Council Members have an obligation to be as
efficient as possible and set a vision for the City that reflects the needs of
the citizens and in his opinion, a facilitator would definitely help.
M/Zirbes suggested that a visioning session be scheduled for the third or
fourth week of January.
CM/Lowry said staff was clear on this item
JUNE 15, 2004
PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry said that Item 16, Pathfinder Road Improvements, was included
in the decision packages with indirect funding that would not require a
General Fund appropriation based on the City's success in obtaining
federal funds for the Grand Avenue project. Staff believed that if the City
were successful in getting federal funds for Grand Ave. General Funds
would not be required to do Grand Ave. and those funds would then be
available for the Pathfinder Road Improvements Project.
C/O'Connor wanted to know why the City was spending money on private
property improvements instead of improvements to City property?
C/Huff said because they could not be fixed by private property funds.
C/O'Connor asked if the residents had been surveyed to determine
whether the program was effective. The problem the City faces with
private slopes is that individuals do not maintain them uniformly and the
City continues to struggle with that issue and whether it would eventually
require an assessment district to cure the situation.
M/Zirbes suggested that if the City were successful in getting federal
monies it could use the money that would have been spent for
enhancements on Grand Ave. on Pathfinder Rd. instead, a major
thoroughfare into the City.
C/O'Connor asked what about the slopes along Diamond Bar Blvd. and
could the City use the $400,000 to help irrigate that area to make it look
nice? She felt it was wrong to use public funds for one small area.
C/Huff said it was a goal only.
M/Zirbes explained that the City had an easement over the area where the
improvements would be done and there was no easement over privately
owned slopes.
CM/Lowry stated Site D was incorporated in another goal and that the
contiguous neighborhoods/zip code issue was an ongoing and separate
item. She asked if Council would concur to remove the "clarifying the
goal process" item. Council concurred.
C/Chang said that each time Council discusses goals, staff should be
invited to provide more input as to whether or not the goal was feasible.
CM/Lowry said staff could look into Goal No. 20 without an additional
appropriation. She explained that the increases to the allotment do not
keep pace with the increased insurance costs. Goal No. 21 was
eliminated. Goal No. 22 — "evaluate the business registration" was not
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 11 CC STUDY SESSION
dispatched during the last study session and there was no appropriation to
purchase software or pay for third party administration of such a program.
M/Zirbes rated it last because he was not in favor of the City assuming the
licensing function. He was however, geared to the City pursuing business
registration and felt it was the consensus of the Council.
CM/Lowry restated the goal "for business registration" only and asked
the Council if it would be ranked differently. If Council directed staff to
proceed, there would have to be a budget appropriation request approved.
M/Zirbes suggested rewording the goal to read as follows: "look to bring
the business registration as a requirement to do business in the City
in-house at zero cost" and asked that the matter be listed as a sub item
under economic development.
C/O'Connor did not recall that the Council concurred to do business
registration at zero cost to the City.
C/Chang said he would prefer to have the cost paid by the registrant.
CM/Lowry said that the business registration would be a sub item goal
under economic development.
C/Huff felt there were many items that could be dropped from the list.
C/O'Connor thought staff would redo the list based on tonight's
discussion.
DCM/Doyle said that if Council concurred to drop items, it should be done
on the spot.
MPT/Herrera said she would like to see a dollar figure attached to the
items because the Council may revise their priorities after seeing what the
costs are.
Discussion ensued about the street sweeping program.
M/Zirbes thought to take some of the revenue from the program and put it
into sweeping more frequently, especially during time of increased debris.
With consensus of Council the matter was tabled.
CM/Lowry referred Council to No. 23 and stated that since the Youth
Master Plan was not completed there was no specific budget allocation.
JUNE 15, 2004
PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor felt this was similar to the Parks Master Plan wherein the City
expended funds to do the plan and then did no follow up and she wanted
this item to remain on the radar screen.
Goal No. 25 was reviewing sign matters with no specific budget allocation.
If Council wishes staff to pursue this goal it would do so with the current
staff.
C/O'Connor asked if the Torito Plaza sign needed to be fixed.
DCM/DeStefano said he looked at the signs and discovered that two
businesses and the property owner needed to apply new lettering to the
cans. There was, however,no specific code section that addressed pealing
paint on signs. He suggested that staff could write the property owner a
letter.
C/Chang said he would like to see this item as ongoing.
DCM/DeStefano said staff's concern about this item was uniformity. For
example, some cities required all signs to be blue. Torito Plaza had multi-
colored signs as do many other centers.
C/O'Connor felt the City should have conformity for signage.
M/Zirbes suggested the Planning Commission revisit the Sign Ordinance
with an eye toward mitigating disrepair. Council concurred to leave it on
the fist of goals and directed the Planning Commission to revisit the Sign
Ordinance.
C/O'Connor suggested removing Goal #26 because it was too expensive.
Aziz Amiri, D.B. Chamber was impressed with the Council's
accomplishments and was glad that economic development was a top
priority for the Council and staff. He also understood and appreciated
CM/Lowry's concern that it was essential for staff to have a clear
understanding of the Council's goals and expectations.
2. FY2004-2005 BUDGET DISCUSSION:
CM/Lowry indicated that staff, department by department would discuss
their specific budget to and comment on important aspects of specific
items and that the study session goal was to provide backup information
for Council approval during tonight's regular meeting.
DOM/Doyle commented that the proposed budget remained status quo
with no major changes. The only change was found on Page 25 indicating
the City Manager and City Clerk offices were merged.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 13 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor asked which budget would include a special election.
DCM/Doyle responded that it would be included in the City Clerk's budget
and he was not aware of what the cost would be. The cost for the last
County election was approximately $48,000 and he assumed it would be
slightly more costly for a special election.
FD/Magnuson reported that the basic change to the Administration and
Support portion of the budget was the incorporation of the bank courier
service moved from General Government. Secondly, a $50,000
appropriation was moved from General Government to Administration and
Support in anticipation of a retirement or separation opportunities that
might presents themselves during the forthcoming fiscal year. Page 37
indicated the Employee Recognitions Program specifically targeted for
certificates and plaques, retirement gifts, watches, service pins, etc. On
Page 38 was a $12,000 allocation for Education and Training. This item
was previously designated as a $7,000 allocation and staff moved an
additional $5,000 from the General Government Services Budget to this
allocation for purposes of consistency.
Decision packages for Employee Recognition Luncheon, Section 125 Plan
and Codes and Personnel Regs update. Organization Development
pieces with Pacific Institute were removed.
DCM/Doyle referred Council to the Information Systems area that
indicated a jump in the cost. During the current year the City had a six
month contract that staff was requesting be extended for one full year.
Staff was very happy with the contract services and excited about the
company coming on board. Also included were a number of software
maintenance items. In short, the current budget reflected true costs since
there were a number of software licenses that were not renewed and
those were currently being reviewed by AS/DesForges. Staff also
proposed to replace some servers, complete license upgrades and make
a concerted effort to keep the licenses current. Further, staff removed the
additional Kiosk from the budget and current plans were to move the
existing D.B. City Hall Kiosk up to the Diamond Bar Center. Under
General Government a number of items were eliminated and moved to
other departments. One item that was not included was an allocation for a
Diamond Bar Community Foundation grant writer. That item was included
in the Parks and Recreation budget.
C/O'Connor asked for an explanation of the $7,000 Information Systems
Education and Training (Page 41) and in Human Resources Education
and Training allocation of $12,000 for a total of $19,000.
DCM/Doyle explained that the Education and Training in Human
Resources was for general staff and included computer training and other
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 14 CC STUDY SESSION
training and educational opportunities. The Information Systems
Education and Training was strictly for the two -person IT staff.
AS/DesForges explained that $7,000 was the actual cost for one staff
member for the HP and Microsoft Training Center. Last year
MIS/DeFriend attended several classes and money for those classes
came directly from the General Fund. In keeping with the philosophy to
more accurately track the funds this allocation represents the actual line
item.
C/O'Connor wanted to know if this was specialized training to which
DCM/Doyle responded absolutely.
AS/DesForges stated that only the hardware (HP) and software
(Microsoft) vendors offer these classes. In fact, there are only three such
classes offered on the west coast.
C/O'Connor asked about the Strategic Planning Program facilitator on
Page 47.
DCM/Doyle explained that this was the $15,000 allocation for Council's
visioning for the community workshop.
CM/Lowry said the allocation was in response to an item Council included
on its goals list.
MPT/Herrera said this item was not a new item and that it had been
carried forward for several years.
C/O'Connor asked if on Page 50 the $3,000 for employee items was
different from the $3,000 allocated in Human Resources.
PMS/Blakey explained that employee items were staff shirts and the
$3,000 Human Resource allocation was for other items. Within Special
Services there was a Cost of Living increase due to changing vendors and
increasing the quantity of printing. Also within Professional Services there
was an item included in the first draft that was moved to a decision
package - a new design for the trade show groups. The second area of
change was in the advertising budget. In the past the City obligated its
advertising dollars to local publications and now that the Diamond Bar
Center was online those advertisements in trade and regional high-end
publications were essential and significantly more expensive than local
publication advertisements. If the City were to obligate itself to one ad per
month in the Chamber publication the budget item would have to be
increased by $8,000.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 15 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry explained that the City would equally obligate itself to other
publications in the community. The nature of the advertising that the
Chamber could provide the City would have to change dramatically and
the circulation that /the City would have from its $10,000 guaranteed
amount of advertising with the Chamber per month would be significantly
different because the Chamber would be changing their entire format with
respect to how they publish and to whom the materials were mailed.
C/Huff was uncertain this was the year to cut back on the Chamber
advertising because they were attempting to become a more self-sufficient
business. While the Council grumbled about the budget item the Chamber
had depended on the City's allocation for its survival. He would like to
have the City enter into a three-year agreement, for example, to continue
giving them the same payment this year and perhaps cut it down over the
next two years so that there would be motivation for them to become more
self-sufficient.
MPT/Herrera agreed.
M/Zirbes said he could not agree because he had not seen the new
publication and could not speak to what it would do and what it would cost.
C/Huff said the Chamber would have to make a presentation to the
Council.
M/Zirbes suggested Council could increase the budget, accept a
presentation and proposal from the Chamber and make a decision
accordingly.
CM/Lowry recommended that PIM/Blakey's advertising strategy would be
left in tact.
C/O'Connor felt the Chamber was looking for a guarantee of $36,000, the
amount the City guaranteed last year.
DCM/Doyle said staff would add $4,000 to the Economic Development
line item for the Chamber of Commerce.
DCM/Doyle reported that there were no dollar changes in Public Safety.
The major change was to the team. In accordance with the Sheriff's
Department recommendation to add a motorcycle officer, the team leader
position at the same cost was being eliminated. Accordingly, the team
leader was offered and accepted the position of motorcycle officer at the
same salary. The LAT position was not included in the original budget
however, there was no increase over the prior fiscal year, it was merely
not included with monies from COPS funds.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 16 CC STUDY SESSION
FD/Magnuson explained that the difference in the Sheriff figures from the
first budget draft was due to the fact that she did not have current
numbers and a correct classification for the team leader.
DCM/Doyle continued stating there was no significant impact regarding
the Volunteer Patrol. Fire protection that was included for Tres Hermanos;
Animal Control Service increased slightly from the first budget projections.
There was a significant reduction in Emergency Preparedness from
$50,000 to $10,000 because it is not necessary chose not to rehire the
consultant doing the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
DCM/DeStefano stated that on the Development Services side there was
a slight bump over last year for the Planning Division that had to do with
salaries. The department was also asking for additional dollars for printing
based on a desire to provide more handouts and "how to" manuals for the
general public and that there was an increase in Membership and Dues
associated with the American Planning Association and others. One of the
other changes on Page 74 having to do with Professional Services was
videography that was reduced from $15,000 to $3,000 by amending the
service for on-call services only and eliminating Business of the Month
videos. The Building and Safety budget was significantly increased
reflective of an increase in activity that was estimated to occur during this
budget year. Staff anticipates construction of a couple of office buildings,
hopefully the Home Depot and related residential development and as a
result, there will be significantly more revenue offset by additional
expenditure. On the Neighborhood Improvement side there was an
increase over last year, most of which was in salaries and small tools and
equipment. With respect to Economic Development, the budget was
decreased over last year due to the business incentive program needing
fewer resources. Although SigmaNet was scheduled to leave D.B. in July
the City would be responsible for the six months' of 2004 share of the
generated sales tax. Based upon the company's growth, staff estimates
the City's portion to be $100,000. The Professional Services category was
increased by about $15,000 for the additional services expected from Carl
Morgan, the new consultant for economic purposes. The Community
Development Block Grant Budget on Page 149 remains at about $500,000
approved by the Council in January 2004. One change under Economic
Development was a $5,000 recommendation for membership in the San
Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that the designee for the
Partnership could be a member of Council or staff.
CSD/Rose reported that the biggest difference in the Community Services
budget was due to the opening of the Diamond Bar Center with a separate
budget. The $19,000 administration budget increase was due to moving
the grant writer to the Community Services Department as previously
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 17 CC STUDY SESSION
mentioned. He referred Council to the notation
marketing allocation for rental brochures. The
or may not be done this fiscal year. $10,000
Marketing Efforts.
on page 90 regarding the
Capital improvements may
was eliminated for Special
C/O'Connor said she understood there was a problem this past week
because the City blocked the Diamond Bar Center driveway with a vehicle
that she understood was permitted to be there but unfortunately, a softball
team was unable to access the field. If the City installs the electric gate
would staff guarantee that the gate would be opened at sunrise?
CSD/Rose said that staff needed to talk about that issue. The truck was to
have been moved closer to the monument sign but the message did not
reach the responsible individual.
CSD/Rose reported that one item not listed was the possible replacement
of the banquet room projection camera and that staff was currently
seeking bids on a new unit.
C/O'Connor asked if the current projector could be returned and
CSD/Rose said he was told it could not and that instead, the City would
use it as a portable unit at the Center.
C/Huff suggested staff revisit the fee schedule based on the higher cost
unit.
M/Zirbes suggested the projector could be sold to another city.
CSD/Rose said the projector could be used in other meeting rooms and
he felt there was a need for a portable unit.
CSD/Rose stated there was only one change in the Park Maintenance
budget. The Maple Hills Park restroom roof needed replacement and
rather than increase the budget request staff moved $10,000 from
Heritage Park. The main difference in the recreation budget was a
reallocation of a position to Prop A funds. Staff's goal was to begin selling
transit tickets at Diamond Bar Center to accommodate the seniors.
Additionally, there were small changes between the Recreation and
Diamond Bar Center budgets to eliminate duplication.
C/O'Connor pointed out that Page 97 should indicate the 16th birthday
party instead of the 151h birthday party.
PWD/Liu stated under Professional Services the Public Works Division
staff budgeted $50,000 for the SR 57/60 Traffic Management Program in
response to
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 18 CC STUDY SESSION
the Caltrans construction activities. Again under Professional Services
were line items pertaining to compliance related items. Under contract
services staff would be looking at a Pavement Management Program and
a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in this fiscal year. The
budget also included $30,000 for speed hump installations.
FD/Magnuson reported on the following transfers out: $20,000 Community
Support Fund (ongoing), Self -Insurance Fund — same, $35,500 Computer
Replacement Fund (new), CIP — changes.
DCM/Doyle reported that $180,000 was allocated from the Air Quality AB
2766 fund for computer software in anticipation of possible funding for an
on-line permitting system, a GIS System and/or on-line transit sales in the
next fiscal year.
FD/Magnuson explained the changes in the CIP program. The document
presented to the Council tonight shows $286,000 from Proposition 40 for
the Summitridge Park restrooms, tot lot and drinking fountain and the
number should be $209,600 with the balance of $116,800 from the Park
Development Fund. The Transfer out for the CIP from the Park
Development Fund would be increased accordingly.
C/O'Connor asked what the cost was for constructing a new building at
Sycamore Canyon Park.
CSD/Rose responded that it would depend on the type of building. A stick
built building with a 2000 sq. ft. meeting room and restrooms would cost
about $1 million.
C/O'Connor recalled that it was a high priority for the Parks and
Recreation Commission and asked what Council decided and wondered if
Council wanted to consider using a portion of the Park Facilities Fund for
the building and CM/Lowry said that CSD/Rose would come back to
Council with a presentation in July to review various proposals.
FD/Magnuson continued stating the amount under miscellaneous
improvements for landscaping on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Maple Hill
and Mountain Laurel was changed to $125,730 with funds coming from
the Landscape Maintenance District 38. Staff removed the $250,000
General Fund budget item for the Pathfinder median project to a decision
package. With those changes, the grand total for CIP was $5,572,295.
C/O'Connor questioned why the note for Pathfinder said $600,000.
PWD/Liu responded that when he formulated his wish list he took two
approaches: Option 1) take the median only for the length of the D.B.H.S.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 19 CC STUDY SESSION
frontage at a cost of $250,000 and Option 2) take the median from Fern
Hollow/Brea Canyon Rd. all the way down to Diamond Bar Blvd. at a cost
of $600,000.
FD/Magnuson concluded her presentation stating that at its June 8
meeting the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding that the
FY 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the
City's General Plan.
Decision Packages:
CM/Lowry reported that in consideration of the Decision Packages, the
Council had $824,000 of current un -appropriated revenue and a bundle of
Decision Packages. The $400,000 economic package for example, would
not be required to come out of the current revenue, but out of the fund
balance or out of the $10 million allocation for economic development.
Secondly, the list of Decision Packages on the second sheet would
require an additional $1.9 million from the General Fund. However,
included in those numbers were establishing the Bond Reserve Fund for
$800,000, a restriction of the already ending fund balance that would not
necessarily have to be appropriated out of the current revenues i.e.
creating savings accounts out of the reserves.
MPT/Herrera asked what amount was budgeted for the bond payments for
the coming year.
FD/Magnuson explained that monies from the bond proceeds was paying
next year's debt service based on a 1.2 percentage rate. When the bonds
were issued sufficient dollars were held in reserve to pay the debt service
on the loan at 4.5 percent. This amount was earmarked "debt service" and
was held by the trustee. That money cannot be drawn down, it is used
only to pay the interest. The money has been used to pay the debt service
for the past year and three months or so and there is still enough money in
the reserve to cover next year's interest.
MPT/Herrera believed that since 4.5 percent was set aside and the
interest rate was only 1.2 percent, the remaining money should be set
aside to pay of the bond earlier if possible.
DCM/Doyle explained that the excess money was never budgeted and
remains in the General Fund Reserve Account.
CM/Lowry said that one way to approach this would be to determine how
much money had been saved and restrict that amount in the reserve
account or take the extra savings out of the reserves and restrict it in a
bond payment fund. She urged the Council not to adopt a policy of
restricting current revenues and shrink the "future -building" in order to
JUNE 15, 2004
further expand the reserves.
PAGE 20 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Chang suggested that all or at least 50 percent of the $315,000 should
be used — set aside to create a bond retirement fund. At some point the
interest rate would go up and the excess should be set aside to take care
of that eventuality.
At the same time, the City wanted to create funding resources and he felt
the City could accomplish both.
CM/Lowry suggest the amount to budget could be shown as $250,000,
staff could transfer the actual amount and bring forward a resolution
defining the restricted fund and the manner in which the money would be
transferred.
FD/Magnuson wanted to know if she should use the 4.5 interest rate or 5
percent (potential fixed rate).
CM/Lowry explained that if selected, the fixed rate would have been 5
percent and if Council wanted to see that actual savings the 5 percent rate
should be applied.
C/O'Connor asked if the resolution would need to be approved by the
Public Financing Authority and the City Council and CM/Lowry responded,
the City Council only.
CM/Lowry stated that if Council wanted to approve $50,000 for the MTA
study in partnership with the City of Industry it could be funded out of
Proposition A funds.
PWD/Liu proposed that $50,000 for the MTA study and $200,000 for signs
could be funded from the sale of Prop A funds.
C/O'Connor suggested eliminating the No. 5's.
DCM/Doyle said that one of the No. 5's could potentially be done in-
house.
CM/Lowry confirmed that CSD/Rose's staff could complete the Parks
Master Plan update.
C/Huff asked if Council could agree to use the $900,000 revenue offset for
disposal of property toward the purchase of Lots 1 and 61. If not that, at
least include it in a capital acquisition fund.
DCM/DeStefano explained that were other issues staff wanted to discuss
with Council and that the fundamental issue was to move forward to
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 21 CC STUDY SESSION
dispose of property.
CM/Lowry said staff would take this item off of the Decision Packages and
insert it in the goals and when the sale was consummated Council could
then decide how the money would be used.
DCM/Doyle confirmed for C/O'Connor that the first three items on Page 1
of the Decision Packages would fall under the Economic Development
goal and would be paid for out of the $10 million economic package.
C/Chang felt it would be advisable to use the term Economic Development
instead of Redevelopment.
Council concurred to eliminate Item #1 and move forward with items 2 and
3 under economic development.
DCM/DeStefano said staff hoped that the City of Industry would buy into
the Tres Hermanos project (Item No. 4). However, D.B. and Chino Hills
needed to proceed toward a plan for their respective futures with or
without the City of Industry.
CM/Lowry said that if the cities do a good job they would bring a plan that
would work for the City of Industry as the property owner as well as for
Diamond Bar and Chino Hills.
DCM/DeStefano explained that Diamond Bar and Chino Hills would begin
looking at •a potential palette of uses. For D.B. it might be relocating the
golf course and for Chino Hills it might be relocating Boys Republic.
DCM/DeStefano responded to M/Zirbes that it would be prudent to move
forward at this time and that it would likely be a two-year planning process
for development five to ten years from now. In addition, this works hand -in
glove with other economic development pursuits set forth for this year.
C/O'Connor asked if Chino Hills was open to this proposal and
DCM/DeStefano responded not completely because they have no money
budgeted for this project.
CM/Lowry said Chino Hills did not have this item in their Budget
documents and that they were waiting for THCA representatives to make
their recommendation to Chino Hills City Council. D.B. staff had been too
busy to bring the matter to Council through THCA.
Council concurred to move forward with Item No. 4 - $175,000.
M/Zirbes felt the Trade Show Booth should have a priority of No. 1.
J
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 22 CC STUDY SESSION
2004.
C/Huff felt it was a necessity for a minimal amount.
CM/Lowry asked if the bottom line for Page 1 was less $75,000 for a total
of $331,000.
Page 2 — Lose the #5 item for a $310,000 savings.
C/O'Connor and FD/Magnuson reiterated the elimination of $815,000,
$250,000, $10,000, $50,000, $200,000 and $50,000 equaling a bottom
line of $532,010 for Page 2.
Page 3 - $725,000 total. Council agreed that whatever PUSD was
currently spending to maintain the field that would be replaced by the
artificial turf should be put back into the maintenance fund.
C/Chang felt $20 per hour for use was not onerous.
Council concurred to move forward with the first three items on Page 4.
CM/Lowry asked Council if they had sufficient information to adopt the
budget as amended. There was general Council concurrence.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Delilah Knox Rios, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce thanked Council
for approving the Chambers funding request and for showing confidence
in the organization.
There were no public comments offered on the Closed Session agenda
items.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the
City Council, M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the Closed Session
at 6:37 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, City Cler
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 6th day of July
Bo es, Mayor
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 15, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at
3:07 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information
Manager; Kim Crews, Senior Administrative Analyst; Sharon Gomez, Senior
Management Analyst, Ken DeForges, Assigned Technician and Tommye Cribbins,
Deputy City Clerk.
► City Council Goals and Objectives
► FY 2004-05 Budget Discussion
► Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session to Closed Session at 6:37 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Closed Session to order
at 6:37 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the SCAQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley
Drive.
• Conference with Real Property Negotiators: Government Code
Section 54956.8
Property: 5.4 acre parcel located on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the
Pomona SR 60 freeway to the City; Parcel 2 of Tract 10208
(Assessor's Parcel 8703-002-029).
CITY NEGOTIATORS:
NEGOTIATING PARTY:
Linda Lowry, City Manager;
James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager and Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney.
Canyon Wash, LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and terms of Payment
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
• Anticipated Litigation — Two cases under Government Code Section
54956.9(b).
Pending Litigation — Government Code Section 54956.9 (Chung v.
City of D.B. Case No. KC 041832 R)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council
meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during the 3:00 p.m. Study Session, Council discussed its
goals and objectives for 2003/04 and 2004105, continued the 2004/05 budget
discussion and adjourned to Closed Session during which the Council discussed
real property negotiations and two anticipated litigation cases and one pending
litigation case. There was no reportable action taken during the Closed Session.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Chang led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic
Church gave the Invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information
Manager; Kim Crews, Senior Administrative Analyst and Tommye Cribbins,
Assistant City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Council Members O'Connor and Chang presented Certificates to
Industry East Project Advisory Committee Members.
1.2 MPT/Herrera presented Recognition Certificates to individuals who
completed the City's First Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) Program. Asst. Fire Chief Nieto introduced instructor Kevin
Taylor who spoke about the CERT Program.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
NEW BUSINESS RECOGNITION:
1.3 M/Zirbes presented Certificate Plaque to owner Sun Won, owner of
Business of the Month "It's A Grind."
1.4 Ryan Wei, Assistant Public Relations Manager, Project D.R.1.P.
(Drought Resistant Indigenous Plants) made a presentation regarding
the possibility of cities adopting a practice of requiring new
developments to use drought resistant plants in order to save water.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Lowry
announced that today the City received an invitation from Governor
Schwarzenegger to gather signatures in remembrance of former President
Ronald Reagan that would eventually be bound in book form and presented
to the family of Mr. Reagan for The Ronald Reagan Library. Additionally, due
to a scheduling conflict the Council would need to calendar an adjourned
meeting for June 29, 2004 in order to review the proposed Lewis
Development immediately following the Planning Commission's review.
MPT/Herrera stated that the proposed project offered economic opportunities
for the City and she felt Council should move forward expeditiously to avoid
the possibility of losing much needed business opportunities to other
jurisdictions. She supported a special June 29 Council meeting.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Huff that on June 29 the Council would be
asked to consider a General Plan change for the hospital (Citrus Valley)
property from Commercial to Residential and to consider a Specific Plan and
Zone Change that would reclassify a good portion of the 70 acres to
Residential for the eventual construction of up to 200 town homes;
Commercial for the construction of one big box operator such as Home
Depot or Target and related land uses, and an additional sanctuary and
parking spaces for expansion of the Calvary Chapel. Further, Council would
be asked to review and consider a Development Agreement, setting forth
terms, obligations and benefits to the developer and to the City and be asked
to take action on the Environmental Assessment for the proposal. Staff was
preparing documents for the Planning Commission, a duplicate of which
would be forwarded to the Council along with Commissioner Comments
following their June 22nd meeting.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that the Council would consider
traffic impacts to a certain degree using the Environmental Assessment and
that the City had not dealt with a project of this magnitude since
incorporation. Public Notice would be 10 days in advance of the June 29
meeting.
C/O'Connor was uncomfortable about rushing through the process without
first having an opportunity to digest the material.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
C/Chang believed the project was good for the developer and good for the
City, that timing was important and that the process should move forward. He
favored a June 29 meeting.
Council concurred to adjourn tonight's meeting to June 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Cougars on a Mission" a group of
concerned students from Chaparral Middle School spoke about their mission
to promote a letter writing campaign in support of a new D.B. Library.
Marsha Hawkins, Friends of the Diamond Bar Library, thanked the students
for their efforts and the Diamond Bar High School Key Club for presenting the
Friends of the Library with a $5,000 check toward the new library -building
fund.
Lydia Plunk asked if an EIR was available for the proposed Lewis project.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
DCM/DeStefano again stated that the only document that was prepared and
transmitted to the Planning Commission was the Environmental Assessment,
a copy of which was available at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Library as of
Thursday, June 17.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING —June 17,2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
Room CC -8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — June 22, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — June 24,
2004 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center,
21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK—Jumpin' Jaz Band - June 30,2004- 6:30-
8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive.
5.5 4T" OF JULY BLAST CONCERT AND FIREWORKS SHOW— (Gregg
Young and the 2nd Street Band & "Hot August Night" Tribute to Neil
Diamond) - July 4, 2004 — 6:00 -9:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden Springs Drive.
5.6 4`h of JULY HOLIDAY — Monday, July 5, 2004 — City Offices will be
closed in observance of the July 4`h Holiday. Offices will re -open,
Tuesday, July 6, 2004.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
5.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — July 6, 2004 — 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive,
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, C/O'Connor seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.9. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera ,M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Approved Study Session Minutes of June 1, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.1.2 Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes — May 25, 2004 — Received and filed.
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of April
29, 2004 — Received and filed:
6.4 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS dated June 3, 2004 and June
10, 2004 for a total amount of $418,399.47.
6.5 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES — filed by Paul and Barbara
Royalty on April 16, 2004.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-26: APPROVING THE
INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON PROSPECTORS ROAD AT
NORTH ROCK RIVER DRIVE.
6.7 AUTHORIZED INCREASE AMOUNT WITH NAKOMA GROUP BY
$5,000 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR FY 2003-
2004 OF $60,000 AND APPROVED CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,500.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-27: CONFIRMING THE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BOARD
OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
6.10 APPROVED COST-SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WALNUT
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (WVWD) AND THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR FOR SLOPE EROSION REPAIRS WITHIN CITY -OWNED
PROPERTY SITUATED BETWEEN WVWD'S EASTGATE
RESERVOIRS SITE AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 828
PANTERA DRIVE AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT,
6.11 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO.1 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BONTERRA CONSULTING IN AN AMOUNT
NOT -TO -EXCEED $15,425 FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR
REPORT FOR PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
53670 (HORIZON PACIFIC/JERRY YEH),
6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-28: ADOPTING THE
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY.
6.13 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO A PROFESSIONAL
AGREEMENT WITH BONTERRA CONSULTING IN AN AMOUNT
NOT -TO -EXCEED $77,610 FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR
PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430
(STANLEY CHUNG).
6.14 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-29: SETTING FORTH
PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-45 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
6.15 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-30: OPPOSING CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 2406 (BERMUDEZ): FIRE PROTECTION
WHICH WOULD MANDATE CONFORMITY TO SPECIFIC
RESPONSE TIMES, STAFFING OBJECTIVES, AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS.
6.16 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-31: SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1802 (BOGH): ILLEGAL DUMPING:
PENALTIES WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE MONETARY FINES
FOR ILLEGAL DUMPING OF SOLID WASTE.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.9 AMENDMENT TO A CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GARY L. NEELY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTING
SERVICES.
MPT/Herrera requested that the contract with Mr. Neely be amended
to a two-year period instead of a one-year period with a beginning
date of July 1, 2004 and continuing through June 30, 2006.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Huff, MPT/Herrera, M/ irbes
Chang, O'Connor
None
8.1 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-32: APPROVING AND
ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING
JULY 1, 2004 AND ENDING .TUNE 30, 2005, INCLUDING
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL FUNDS AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND
PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH.
CM/Lowry reported that in accordance with Council's reviews of goals
for FY 2004/2005 and approval of decisions packages and budget
items this item sets forth a total General Fund appropriation of
$15,217,750. In addition, $581,475 would be appropriated from the
General Fund Reserve to include Economic Development decision
packages and establish a Bond Reserve Fund. Council approved an
additional appropriation of $345,000 of Proposition A funds to pay for
new street signs and a transportation study to be shared with the City
of Industry regarding the future SR57/60 interchange construction.
Council also approved an additional $1,575,100 in a combination of
Proposition 12 and 40 funds for Sycamore Canyon Park
improvements and implementation of the first phase
recommendations from the Sports Complex Task Force report.
There were no public comments offered.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No.
2004-32. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-33: SETTING THE
PROPOSITION 4 (GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004-2005 FOR THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE.
CM/Lowry reported that in 1979 voters passed the Gann limit.
Accordingly, the City sets forth its spending cap each year. Each year
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
the cap is increased to the greatest extent possible. With a cap in
excess of $24 million and fund subject to the cap being less than $10
million, there is room to spare.
There were no publiccomments offered.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/O'Connor seconded to adopt Resolution No.
2004-33. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(c) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-34. ESTABLISHING
SALARY RANGES FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT
EFFECTIVE THE PAY PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 2004 AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-43 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
CM/Lowry explained that each year when Council approves the
budget, staff brings forward an accompanying resolution setting forth
salary ranges for the City employees. The proposed schedule
replaces last year's schedule and includes the two -percent Cost of
Living increase included in the budget document and enters into the
salary schedule the Planning Deputy position that was approved by
Council in the decision packages.
There were no public comments offered.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No.
2004-34. Motion carried by the following Rall Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.2 CONSIDERATION OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY
OF INDUSTRY BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT.
DCM/DeStefano stated that this matter is coming to Council at the
request of C/O'Connor and involves the pending almost 600 -acre City
of Industry project that encompasses Industrial, Office and Retail. The
project has issues that could affect D.B. residents and businesses and
Council is requested to determine whether an advisory committee
should be created to provide comments to the City Council.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Herrera felt that advisory committees were important to the
governmental process and certainly the Industry East Advisory
Committee played an important role in obtaining mitigation. However,
she supported such a committee only when the City received more
definitive plans from the City of Industry.
MPT/Herrera moved that an Industry Project Advisory Committee be
created and activated when the City of D.B. received a more specific
plan from the City of Industry.
C/Huff seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. C/Huff
recommended that Council form a subcommittee to watch the City of
Industry development.
MPT/Herrera said her motion was intended to create a committee but
not fill the positions until the information was available.
C/Huff concurred and suggested two Council Members be appointed
to serve as a subcommittee later to interface with the citizen's
committee.
MPT/Herrera accepted C/Huff's amendment.
C/O'Connor felt that since the City had received an EIR and must
comment on the document by July 16 there was, in fact, information
for the committee to review.
DCM/DeStefano explained that staff would be responding to the EIR
and the citizens could respond on their own if they chose to do so.
C/Chang felt that due to the complexity of the project the City should
take time to be prepared about its response. He asked if the July 16
date could be postponed?
CA/Jenkins responded that the City could make the request but the
City of Industry was under no obligation to provide an extension.
DCM/DeStefano responded to MPT/Herrera that the City would
respond to the EIR.
There were no public comments offered.
C/O'Connor encouraged residents to review the EIR prior to the
response deadline.
C/Huff cautioned citizens that the City would offer a more technical
response to the EIR and that D.B. would be working with the City of
Industry in a proactive manner to benefit its residents.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Herrera restated her motion with the inclusion of a Council sub-
committee being appointed. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBERS
COMMENTS:
C/Chang spoke about the support for the "Paint the Town" project and
thanked the many volunteers who participated. The Library Task Force
continues to pursue possibilities for the current facility and a new facility if the
City were successful in obtaining the grant funds. He thanked the Task Force
members for their participation and input. He stated that the nation lost a
great leader with the passing of former President Ronald Reagan. Mr.
Reagan ended the cold war without firing a shot and without losing one
soldier and, he avoided the possibility of a nuclear disaster. Because of his
actions the world is a more peaceful place today. Mr. Reagan is a treasure to
a nation and world.
C/Huff spoke about his participation as a member of the Boys' State
sponsored by the American Legion and his opportunity to travel to
Sacramento to listen to then Governor Reagan spread his optimism and joy
about being a Californian. He shook the hand of Governor Reagan and got
his autograph. Governor and then President Reagan led this nation in an
unparalleled fashion and will be sorely missed.
C/O'Connor stated that she had been honored to meet Ronald Reagan in
1964. She echoed the words of her colleagues and was very sorry that Mr.
Reagan and his family were faced with such overwhelming challenges during
the last 10 years of his life. This afternoon she returned from a two-day
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Conference, one of the most
informative meetings she had attended in some time. She especially enjoyed
interacting with Council Members from cities through southern California and
listening to CA/Jenkins address the group in his capacity as opening speaker
on Monday morning.
MPT/Herrera reassured residents that D.B. was fiscally sound as compared
with some surrounding cities. Representatives from other cities at the League
of California Cities State Board told her they were considering imposing utility
taxes to help balance their budgets. She was proud of the Council and staff
for practicing due diligence and accumulating reserves over time. This City
had made wise decisions and done remarkable things and she was grateful
to live in D.B. and not in a city that was in serious financial jeopardy.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
M/Zirbes thanked staff for guiding the Council through the budget this year
and thanked Council Members for their cooperation and positive attitude
during the study sessions. D.B. was in excellent financial shape and was able
to continue providing the quality of life in the City the residents had grown to
expect. There are exciting projects on the horizon, some of which were
approved in the budget documents this evening. He was very optimistic that
this would be an excellent year for the City and that next year would look
even better. Last meeting he spoke to the residents about the need for
revenue in order to continue to fund the types of services and programs the
residents had come to expect and with that in mind, he hoped residents
would participate in the June 29 meeting to discuss a major project that had
been pending for about a year. This project represented a potential for 200
new housing units and a major retail center with related traffic impacts. He
asked residents to join Council on June 29 and stay informed. Staff had kept
Council apprised of this matter for more than a year and the Council would
not make a decision unless it was in the best interest of the community. He,
too, paid homage to former President Reagan saying that though he had
been out of site for the past 10 years, his achievements were not out of mind.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes
adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. to June 29, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. and in
memory of Ronald Reagan, former Governor of the State of California and
the 40'h President of the United States of Amertta. /%
Lifida C. Lowry, CIT` L1,ERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 6th day of jij u
2004.
Bob it es, MAYOR