The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About091096 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting 128 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - 7:00 PM 6:30 PM -@@Closed Session. of the@ Ciiy@'@@C 6n6il@@pursuant@to Government:Code Section 54956 8 Conferencelwith@@Real Propertv Negotiator. Prop,6rt W6st@@side of @Froiit@@street,:West ,of @ll. :15/FrontStreet,APN'922-@110-006:and@@9221@10-047;@Negotiatina@Parties-.Ci "bf@Teme661aand. ty Margarita ':Canyon LLC,@ At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 96-18 Resolutions No. 96-112 CALL TO ORDER:Mayor Karel Lindemans presiding Invocation:Pastor Dave Belcher, Sunrise Community Church Flag Salute:Councilmember Stone ROLL CALL:Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans PRESENTATIONS/Certificates of Appreciation - Commander Joseph Wasek, Jr. PROCLAMATIONSand Commander George R. Farmer, Jr. Pollution Prevention Week PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an R:\Age@\091096 1 item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter = listed on the Agenda, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5)minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPOM Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (1 0) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PU@ All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2Resolution A12prov@na List of Dem@ RECOMMENDATION: 2.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A R:\Agenda\091096 2 3City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 3.1Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1996. 4Purchase of City Vehicles RECOMMENDATION: 4.1Approve the purchase of four City Vehicles, which were appropriated in the 1996/97 Annual Operating Budget. 5Overland Drive Overcross*na Improvements, Construction Cool2erative Aareement witb State Department of Transl2ortatoon RECOMMENDATION: 5.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-931, BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS 6Accel2t Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-F (Located Southwesterly of Margarita Road at Highway 79 South) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-F; 6.2Authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond for street, water and sewer improvements to the ten percent (10%) warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. R:@ertda\091098 3 7Acceptance of Public Streets into the C'ty-Maintained Street System (With*n Tract No. 23267-F) (Located southwesterly of the intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 South) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23267-F) 8Release Subdivision Monumentatoon and Traffic Sianalizat*on Mitiaation Securities in Tract No. 24133--a (Located at the northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1Authorize release of the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalization Mitigation securities in Tract No. 24133-3; 8.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. 9Release Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalozation Mitiaation Securities in Tract No. 241 34-3 (Located northeasterly of the intersection of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1Authorize the release of subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation securities in Tract No. 24134-3; 9.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. 10Release the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Sianalization Mitiaation Securities in Tract No. 24134-F (Located at the northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1Authorize the release of the subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation securities in Tract No. 24134-F; 10.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. R:@erwds\091096 4 1 1"No Parking" Zone on Via La V*da between Maraarita Road and Via Renate RECOMMENDATION: 11.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND VIA RENATE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 'Bw 1 2"No Parking" Zone on Ynez Road Between Rancho Hichiands Drive and Rancho Vista Road RECOMMENDATION: 12.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" 1 3Contract Agreement for Street Address Numberina RECOMMENDATION: 13.1Approve a contract agreement with Bruce Stewart, which renews an existing contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis. 1 4Old Town Temecula Logo License Aareement RECOMMENDATION: 14.1Authorize the City Manager to enter into license agreements for use of the City's Old Town Logo. 14.2Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING THE USE OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES WITHIN THE OLD TOWN AREA R:@anda\091096 14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AFEE FOR THE OLD TOWN LICENSING AGREEMENT 1 5The First Amendment to Aareement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 15.1Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between County of Riverside and City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 16Resolution Desianating the Arts Council of the Temecula Valle)t as the Lead Art Organization an Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 16.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY AS THE LEAD ART ORGANIZATION IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING, TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT MEETING, OLD TOWN[WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANC ING AUTHORITY MEETING R:@e@\091096 a TEMECULA:COMMUNITY SERVICES:DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 96-01 Resolutwona No. CSD 96-10 CALL TO ORDER: President Ron Roberts ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Stone, Roberts PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an item = listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Board of Directors gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the re@ CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:kAgendaNO91096 7 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT@@AGENCY@@MEETING Next in 0 ders Ordinance:No. RDA 96-01 Resolution:No. RDA 96-16 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item n= listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996. 2Residential Rehabilitation Program RECOMMENDATION: 2.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS TO REHABILITATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING AND PRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY R:@rid&\OSIO96 8 2.2Authorize the expenditures of up to $200,000. from RDA Housing Set-aside Accour, No. 165-199-813-5804, to establish the Residential Rehabilitation Program. 3Purchase Aareement for APN 922-OF;9-090 and Portions of APN's 922-260-01 5. 024, and = (Located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of First Street) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S 922-260-015, 024, AND 027) 3.2Authorize the expenditures of up to $560,916 from RDA Capital Improvement Program to cover acquisition, escrow, soil testing, and closing costs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:@enda\091096 9 @@,OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY Next Ordere Resolution No.: No. FA 96-12 CALL TO ORDER: President Patricia H. Birdsall ROLL CALL: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item E= listed on the Agenda a pink 'Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address, CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996. ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:@erwda\OSIOOS 1 0 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1 7Temecula Valley School D4str*ct's Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitiaation Plan (PA96-0047) RECOMMENDATION: 1 7.1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP COUNCIL BUSINESS 18Request for Direction on the Process for Making Findinas of Public Necessity or Convenience RECOMMENDATION: 18.1Provide direction to staff regarding the need to develop an ordinance/resolution to guide the process of making findings of public necessity or convenience. 19TEAM Community Pantry Salaries (Continued from the meeting of 8/27/96) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1Review and provide direction to staff regarding funding to the TEAM Community Pantry. R:@ands%O9lOg6 20Temecula Library Service Alternatives Feasibility Study (Continued from the meeting of 8/27/96) RECOMMENDATION: 20.1Approve the proposal submitted by David M. Griffith and Associates to conduct a study to determine the future fiscal viability of the Temecula Library. 20.2Appropriate a maximum of $39,000 from Development Impact Fees - Library to fund the City's portion of the Library Study. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. R:\.Age@\091096 12 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Ciiy of Temecula CeA&cate of Appreciation Pre@@ in &pp on an(I gr&ifiiude on behalf of the ciiizeuo of the C@ of TemecuL To: This expre@on Of the comitnunity's "est appreciation serves to aclmowledge the effo@s of & diiiiinguishea ciiizen, @ gain worldwide name recognition for the City of Temecula in & unique ana creative wa-y. Co@anaer W&sc]L acting with Commanaer George Farmer, Jr., also & Temecula resident, was ins@enw in the recent naming of & U.S. N&val Air Squadmn VR-57, DC-9 AircraR the "City of Temecula". This aircrar wiff join widi the "CitT of Corona4lo- ana the "City of San Diego" in global @is proudl3, bearing our Yi@me. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed MY' hana and official seal this 10th day, of September, 1996 F. Lindemans, Mayor @June S. Gree.1, CMC CiiT Cler]L City of Temecula Ce calee of Appreciaiion Presented in appreciation and gratitude on bchx of the citizens of the Ciiy of Teinecula To: This expre@on of the community'ii "est appreciation serves to ac]Lnowledge the efforiii of & dis@quishe(I citizeu, to gain worldwide n-c recognition for the CitT of Temecula in a unique and creative way. Commander Farmer acting with Commander Joseph W@ Jr., @ a resident of Temecula, was ins@enij in the nam;ng of a U.S. Naval Air Squadmn VR-57, DC-9 @aft the "City of Temecula". This aircraft wdl join with the -CiiT of Coronado- and the -CitT of San Diego" in global flights proudly be@g our name. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed m-y hand and official seal this 10th day, of September,,1996 I F. Lindemans, Maylor @une S. Gree.1, CM7C Ciiy Clerl The Cify of Temecula PROCLAMATION NMEREAS, Temecula is in favor of a clean and safe environment; and @EREAS, pollution prevention focuses on waste prevention, and is therefore the most favorable and progressive strategy for protecting our environment; and @EREAS, pollution prevention can increase efficiency and save businesses money; and V*IIHEREAS, pollution prevention offers both environmental protection and increased competitiveness; and NMEREAS, by, focusing attention on pollution prevention, Temecula win meet the challenges of the 90s for economic competitiveness and environmental protection; and V*THEREAS, Pollution Prevention Week is an oppo@nitt for government, industry, and ci@ens to work together to plan for a prosperous and sustainable future; NOW, THEREFORE, 1, @l F. Lindemanr,, on behalf of the CifT Counca of the CitT of Temecula, hereby, proclaim the week of September 16th, 1996 to be, "Pollution Prevention Week" IN VATNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my, hand and caused the Seal of the CifT of Temecula to be effied this 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk ITEIN4 1 ITEI\4 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMIECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLABB AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHMIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,030,474.71. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 108 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 10th day of September, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk Resos 108 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 08/22/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $115,515.82 08/29/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 245,753.53 09110/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 522,199.94 08/22/96 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 147,005.42 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 09/10196 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 1,030,474.71 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERALFUND $488,177.51 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,321.06 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 5,046.38 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 68,492.69 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 5,120.49 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 60.71 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 10,727.14 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 417.71 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 148,634.00 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP 127,904.96 300 INSURANCE FUND 4,853.98 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3,504.30 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 1,034.80 340 FACILITIES 17,173.56 $883,469.29 PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL 97,378.89 165 RDA-LOW/MOD 1,611.03 190 TCSD 34,813.38 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 70.34 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 175.02 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 2,465.99 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,038.77 280 RDA-CIP 2,754.16 300 INSURANCE 619.75 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,918.19 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 791.07 340 FACILITIES 2,368.83 147,005.42 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 1,030,474.71 PREPARED BY RE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT- Ti ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. DLEY, CITY MANAGE VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA s 08/21/96 14:03 VOLJCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 63,618.13 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,321.06 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 613.88 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 24,457.19 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 633.96 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 8 60.71 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 3,668.56 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 417.71 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 8,072.67 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 6,322.25 300 INSURANCE FUND 428.31 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3,504.30 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 505.62 340 FACILITIES 891.47 TOTAL 115,515.82 'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 /96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 16,338.16 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 174.23 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 4,481.40 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 9.01 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 22.15 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 486.10 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 158.57 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 321.81 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 137.01 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 709.72 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 118.81 708559 08/22196 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 200.44 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 3,670.55 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 56.44 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,245.65 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 2.38 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 5.97 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 91.31 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 36.87 7ng559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 96.87 19 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 23.64 39 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 124.68 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 25.90 708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 78.90 28,616.57 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 94.57 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 2.01 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 158.35 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 2.23 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 11.84 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 16.00 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 4,462.58 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 47.73 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 891.38 794519 08/22196 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 1.69 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 3.90 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 115.26 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 29.01 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 75.16 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 41.70 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 205.45 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 23.61 794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 23.87 6,206.34 30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. RAIN GEAR - PUBLIC WORKS 001-164-601-5218 309.92 30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. FREIGHT 001-164-601-5218 6.71 30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. TAX 001-164-601-5218 24.02 340.65 '6 08/22/96 001910 AMERITECH COMMUNICATION AUG 5535 COPIER MONTHLY LEASE 330-199-999-5217 220.77 220.77 30717 08/22/96 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 8/3 WILLIAMS 001-161-999-5118 216.72 216.72 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 2 08/21/96 14:03 VOLJCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30718 08/22/96 000427 ARTESIA IMPLEMENT, INC. REPAIR/SERVICE TCSD TRACTOR 190-180-999-5214 455.47 30718 08/22/96 000427 ARTESIA IMPLEMENT, INC. TRACTOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 190-180-999-5214 139.04 594.51 30719 08/22/96 002448 B C N LIGHTING & SIGNS INSTALL 36 BANNERS-LIGHT POLES 280-199-999-5270 1,629.00 1,629.00 30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE BASEBALL EQUIPMENT 190-183-999-5380 372.90 30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 20.00 30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE TAX 190-183-999-5380 28.90 421.80 30721 08/22/96 001950 BECHTEL MAINTENANCE SER CRC WINDOW CLEANING 190-182-999-5250 975.00 975.00 30722 08/22/96 002411 BUSINESS BOARDS OF AMER CUSTOM DRY ERASE BOARDS 190-182-999-5301 160.00 30722 08/22/96 002411 BUSINESS BOARDS OF AMER TAX 190-182-999-5301 12.40 172.40 30723 08/22/96 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE #8953 300-199-999-5200 117.00 117.00 30724 08/22/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA INSTALL SAND TOT LOT ROTARY PK 190-2030 2,173.50 2,173.50 30725 08/22/96 000486 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL BU CF:CMBTA 10/30-11/2 Z.SMITH 001-140-999-5261 125.00 125.00 30726 08/22/96 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY MISC WELDING SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 144.76 s 30727 08/22/96 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER MISC. HARDWARE & MATERIALS 001-164-601-5244 252.36 252.36 30728 08/22/96 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 15.27 30728 08/22/96 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-161-999-5262 16.11 31.38 30729 08/22/96 002387 COMMONWEALTH FILMS, INC RECORDS MGMT VIDEOS 001-120-999-5277 590.00 590.00 30730 08/22/96 002106 DA FAMILY SUPPORT 002106 SUPPORT 190-2140 100.00 100.00 30731 08/22/96 000155 DAVLIN TAPING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS 001-100-999-5250 805.44 805.44 30732 08/22/96 DOYLE, LABECCA REFUND:CHILDRENIS ART CLASS 190-183-4982 40.00 40.00 30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 7/26 LAUFER 001-162-999-5118 248.56 30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS (2)W/E 8/2 NICHOLS 280-199-602-5801 2,376.00 30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS W/E 8/7 NICHOLS 280-199-602-5801 801.90 30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS (2)W/E 8/2 MAGNERA 210-199-650-5804 2,320.00 5,746.46 30734 08/22/96 000478 FAST SIGNS SIGNS:HOCKEY ARENA 190-180-999-5244 135.00 30734 08/22/96 000478 FAST SIGNS TAX 190-180-999-5244 10.46 145.46 30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 210-199-650-5804 31.45 30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 280-199-999-5230 9.50 30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-110-999-5230 24.75 65.70 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0180/KL/JUL 001-100-999-5258 177.06 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0222/RR/JUL 001-100-999-5258 560.00 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5258 220.00 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5226 14.63 E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 /96 14:03 VC)UCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5226 .03 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0172/RB/JUL 001-110-999-5260 23.00 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0172/RB/JUL 001-150-999-5260 88.00 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0123/GT/JUL 001-161-999-5260 70.15 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0131/AE/JUL 001-162-999-5258 325.00 30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0131/AE/JUL 001-1170 7.70 1,485.57 30737 08/22/96 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN - DAY PLANNERS 001-161-999-5220 27.96 27.96 30738 08/22/96 FULLY PERSUADED CHURCH REFUND:SEC. DEPOSIT/ROOM RENTL 190-2900 100.00 30738 08/22/96 FULLY PERSUADED CHURCH REFUND:SEC. DEPOSIT/ROOM RENTL 190-183-4990 60.00 160.00 30739 08/22/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-699-8632/GENERAL USAGE/AUG 320-199-999-5208 27.35 27.35 30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-120-999-5220 59.73 30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE DEPT. 001-140-999-5220 29.36 30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5220 13.74 30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5220 185.31 30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE DEPT. 001-140-999-5220 43.05 -n740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-110-999-5220 84.51 415.70 41 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE CAMPACTAPE CARTRIDGES 320-199-999-5221 404.91 30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE ANTI STATIC TOWELETTES 320-199-999-5221 15.16 30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE FREIGHT 320-199-999-5221 13.30 30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE TAX 320-199-999-5221 33.20 466.57 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN ELECTRONIC COMPUTER WORKCENTER 210-199-650-5610 3,008.86 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN FREIGHT 210-199-650-5610 32.93 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN TAX 210-199-650-5610 233.34 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN ELECTRONIC COMPUTER WORKCENTER 210-199-650-5610 198.66 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN FREIGHT 210-199-650-5610 7.03 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN TAX 210-199-650-5610 15.40 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 180.36 30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 438.69 4,115.27 30743 08/22/96 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, OTR 1 ALARM MONITORING-SK PARK 190-180-999-5250 87.25 30743 08/22/96 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, SEPT ALARM MONITORING-STORAGE 340-199-701-5250 35.00 122.25 30744 08/22/96 002053 HARKER GROUP, THE PROF SRVCS ECON DEV PACKETS 280-199-999-5270 425.00 30744 08/22/96 002053 HARKER GROUP, THE CREDIT:WORK NOT APPROVED 280-199-999-5270 212.50- 212.50 30745 08/22/96 001060 HYATT HTL:CMBTA CF 10/31/11/2 Z.SMTH 001-140-999-5261 158.00 158.00 30746 08/22/96 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 001-2080 11462.80 30746 08/22/96 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 190-2080 426.87 30746 08/22196 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 193-2080 7.14 1,896.81 @n747 08/22/96 000199 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC 000199 IRS GARN 001-2140 309.85 309.85 ,8 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-164-604-5118 83.19 30748 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-163-999-5118 83.19 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 4 08/21/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30748 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-165-999-5118 83.22 249.60 30749 08/22/96 KELLY, ANN REFUND:SWIM LESSONS 190-183-4975 85.00 85.00 30750 08/22/96 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 20.11 20.11 30751 08/22/96 001973 LA SALLE LIGHTING SERVI LIGHTING SERVICES -SPORTS PARK 190-180-999-5212 47.00 47.00 30752 08/22/96 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. SEA WORLD DAY CAMP TRIP 190-183-999-5340 30.23 30752 08/22/96 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. SEA WORLD DAY CAMP TRIP 190-183-999-5340 403.50 433.73 30753 08/22/96 002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR JUL ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS 001-172-999-5255 3,546.45 3,546.45 30754 08/22/96 001870 MENK, HELGA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 57.60 57.60 30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR INTERIM STATION AUG RENT 001-171-999-5470 905.00 30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR TAX 001-171-999-5470 70.14 30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR INTERIM STATION AUG RENT 001-171-999-5470 685.00 30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR TAX 001-171-999-5470 53.09 1,713.23 30756 08/22/96 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING MOVE TRFFC SIGNALS-NICH/WINCH 001-164-604-5250 500.00 30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM 1200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS 001-140-999-5222 702.00 30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT 001-140-999-5222 20.00 30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM TAX 001-140-999-5222 54.41 776.41 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0140 001-161-999-5256 31.95 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0040 001-161-999-5256 32.63 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES INVITE TO SUBMIT - 4 VEHICLES 001-120-999-5256 17.38 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN GUIDE 001-161-999-5256 34.93 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH CCXJNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0043 001-161-999-5256 75.15 30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0128 001-120-999-5256 28.88 220.92 30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS LAND DEVELOPMN 001-163-999-5214 63.85 30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE TIRES FOR B&S VEHICLES 001-162-999-5214 101.27 30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS CIP DIVISION 001-165-999-5214 75.11 240.23 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, 12 DOZ SOFTBALLS FOR CRC 190-183-999-5380 491.40 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 12.56 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, TAX 190-183-999-5380 38.08 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, 8 DOZ SOFTBALLS FOR CRC 190-183-999-5380 327.60 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 10.98 30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, TAX 190-183-999-5380 25.38 906.00 30761 08/22/96 001354 P C MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION IS FOR ONE YR 320-199-999-5228 29.97 29.97 30762 08/22/96 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. REVIEWING CITY'S COMPUTER SERV 320-199-999-5250 550.00 550.00 30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY L.A. CENTRAL BUSINESS GUIDE 001-140-999-5228 31.75 30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY FREIGHT 001-140-999-5228 2.86 30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY TAX 001-140-999-5228 3.02 37.63 'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30764 08/22/96 PATEL, KAUSHIK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 190-183-4975 25.00 25.00 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PER REDE 001-2130 278.98 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 14,960.50 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 240.14 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 3,101.24 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 11.02 30765 08/22196 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 27.30 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 366.54 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 169.79 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 263.24 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 103.50 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 292.08 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 115.60 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 367.75 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 60.09 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 .84 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 13.58 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 .05 @0765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .14 15 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.77 j5 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 .97 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 .92 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 .93 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 .93 30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.09 20,380.45 30766 08/22/96 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 40.62 40.62 30767 08/22/96 000249 PETTY CASH INCREASE:CDUNCIL RESOL 96-10 001-1030 700.00 700.00 30768 08/22/96 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 190-180-999-5301 35.32 35.32 30769 08/22/96 PRESBYTERY OF RVSD-TEME REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 30770 08/22/96 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN CITY MANAGER SUBSCRIPT: 1 YR 001-110-999-5228 124.80 30770 08/22/96 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN REPUBLICAN NAT'L AD-6/6/96 280-199-999-5270 43.00 167.80 30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WTR METERS 190-180-999-5240 692.55 30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WTR METERS 191-180-999-5240 107.50 30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VAR WTR METERS 193-180-999-5240 2,432.52 3,232.57 30772 08/22/96 002400 REBEL TEMECULA TEMP OLD TOWN LIGHTING RENTAL 280-199-999-5250 198.00 30772 08/22/96 002400 REBEL TEMECULA CREDIT:OLD TOWN LGHTS DAMAGE W 280-199-999-5250 18.00- 180.00 30773 08/22/96 001675 RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD JUL SERV-WINCH RGT-OF-WAY 280-199-602-5700 116.00 116.00 '4 08/22/96 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 700.00 700.00 5u775 08/22/96 000277 S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS, CRC ACTIVITIES SUPPLIES 190-183-999-5320 92.20 92.20 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA F 08/21/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 3OT76 08/22/96 002384 SECURE BUSINESS CC)MMUNI ENG SERVS-COUNCIL CHMBR VIDEO 210-199-650-5804 2,225.00 2,225.00 30777 08/22/96 001919 SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE EMERG FOOD & AID CDEG REIMB. 140-2030 2,770.03 30777 08/22/96 001919 SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE EMERG FOOD & AID CDBG REIMB. 140-1290 448.97- 2,321.06 30778 08/22/96 000405 SMITH, PHILLIP REIMB:COMB DWELL INSPECT CERT 001-162-999-5261 45.00 45.00 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON VAR METERS 4433 4615 5596 191-180-999-5319 258.68 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON VAR METERS 7154 8053 1010 7222 193-180-999-5240 54.38 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-341-4215 NICOLAS RD IRR 190-180-999-5240 23.91 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-6685 YNEZ RD 191-180-999-5240 13.44 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7345 - 7/11 TO 8/12 193-180-999-5240 15.50 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7345 06/14/96 STMNT 193-180-999-5240 15.48 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-03-761-8410 PALA PARK 190-180-999-5240 1,469.14 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 53-77-850-0106-01 000-0 YMEZ 191-180-999-5319 230.19 30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59-77-820-1003-02 000-5 CRT AN 193-180-999-5240 45.64 2,126.36 30780 08/22/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 021-725-0700 SR CENTER 190-181-999-5240 22.16 30780 08/22/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 091-024-9300 CRC 190-182-999-5240 380.66 402.82 30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4759 TE 001-162-999-5208 35.24 30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-3800 MW 190-180-999-5208 46.19 30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4752 SN 190-180-999-5208 69.85 151.28 30782 08/22/96 SPINELLI, ALLISON REFUND-NEWTON'S PUZZLE CLASS 190-183-4982 19.00 19.00 30783 08/22/96 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 476.00 476.00 30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS LARGE ICE PACKS FOR SKATE PARK 190-180-999-5301 72.00 30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS P.T.P. C.P.R. VALVES 190-180-999-5301 107.70 30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS TAX 190-180-999-5301 13.93 193.63 30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. PLAQUE FOR CRC FOUNDATION 190-180-999-5301 117.00 30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. ENGRAVING 190-180-999-5301 106.44 30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TAX 190-180-999-5301 17.32 30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. SPORTS PRGM AWARDS 190-183-999-5380 161.63 402.39 30786 08/22/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 81.27 30786 08/22/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 20.89 102.16 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 2,860.95 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 165-2080 72.39 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 750.85 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 1.25 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 13.75 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 22.50 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 72.39 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 5.00 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 312.50 30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PESSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CC)MP 340-2080 87.50 4,1,, 'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 /96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 886.60 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 18.90 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PESSCO (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 1,484.26 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 193-2160 20.94 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 280-2160 110.92 30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 320-2160 150.00 2,671.62 30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 001-2120 76.10 30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 165-2120 1.20 30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 190-2120 15.00 30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 280-2120 1.20 93.50 30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNIFORMS RENTAL-PW MAINT CREWS 001-164-601-5243 140.69 30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNIFORM MAINT FOR TCSD PERSONN 190-180-999-5243 90.84 30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL FOR CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 95.92 30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL @ CRC 190-182-999-5250 86.80 30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL @ SR CENTER 190-181-999-5250 44.52 458.77 30791 08/22/96 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI JUL PLAN CK SERVS FOR B&S 001-162-999-5248 4,964.04 4,964.04 12 08/22/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5212 232.52 )2 08/22/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5212 52.25 284.77 30793 08/22/96 002109 WHITE CAP MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 16.85 16.85 30794 08/22/96 ZELDIN, MARVIN DONATION-MEMORY OF MR. ZELDIN 001-100-999-5285 50.00 50.00 TOTAL CHECKS 115,515.82 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 7 08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 54,013.56 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 4,432.50 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 21,223.93 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 3,560.53 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 7,058.58 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 65,341.78 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 69,382.08 300 INSURANCE FUND 4,425.67 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 529.18 340 FACILITIES 15,785.72 TOTAL 245,753.53 E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 L 96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30795 08/22/96 002281 LASSIG CONSTRUCTION REISSUE-CONST(2) COLUMN STRUCT 190-180-999-5244 1,350.00 1,350.00 30797 08/29/96 001104 A R M A INTERNATIONAL PUB:INFO MGR'S TOOLKIT 001-120-999-5228 75.00 75.00 30798 08/29/96 002158 A S A P SERVICES INC. STREET STRIPING PROGRAM 001-164-602-5410 2,902.13 2,902.13 30799 08/29/96 001515 A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR & DRAIN PIPE REPAIR 190-180-999-5212 75.00 30799 08/29/96 001515 A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR & INSTALL DUCK POND AERATION 190-180-999-5212 207.50 282.50 30800 08/29/96 002410 A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN AUG JANITORIAL SRVCS-PARKS 190-180-999-5250 1,020.00 1,020.00 30801 08/29/96 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPL CRC POOL SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 6.45 6.45 30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-SAM HICKS PRK 280-199-805-5802 60.00 30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-DUCK POND 210-190-143-5802 1,280.00 30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-WINCH. CRK PK 210-190-149-5802 2,900.00 30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-ADA PARK IMPR 210-190-148-5802 650.00 4,890.00 30803 08/29/96 000100 ALLIED BARRICADE COMPAN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 001-164-601-5218 1,467.50 7n@03 08/29/96 000100 ALLIED BARRICADE COMPAN TAX 001-164-601-5218 113.73 1,581.23 j4 08/29/96 001912 ALLMON, VYLANI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 720.00 720.00 30805 08/29/96 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 8/10 WILLAIMS 001-161-999-5118 216.72 216.72 30806 08/29/96 001943 8 R W, INC. SIGNAL DESIGN FOR RANCHO CAL 210-165-664-5802 1,306.31 1,306.31 30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 132.50 30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECT LINE -SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5212 280.00 30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 45.00 30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 328.25 785.75 30808 08/29/96 BARCLAYS LAW PUBLISHERS PUB:TITLE 25 DIV 1 CH 2 AMENDS 001-162-999-5228 35.00 35.00 30809 08/29/96 BAYDALA, DAVID REFUND:SPRING BASKETBALL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00 30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA REPAIR BROKEN MAINLINE 190-180-999-5212 635.00 30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VANDALISM REPAIR - VOORBURG 190-180-999-5212 480.00 30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA LDSC IMPROVEMENTS-SENIOR CENTR 190-181-999-5212 761.65 30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VANDALISM REPAIR - VOORBURG 190-180-999-5212 102.50 1,979.15 30811 08/29/96 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M SEM:BUS WRITING-C.KEIRSEY 10/2 001-162-999-5261 145.00 30811 08/29/96 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M SEM:BUS WRITING-P.SMITH 10/2 001-162-999-5261 145.00 290.00 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HODSON, JACK 10/17/95 300-2030 306.65 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MILLER, CHARLES 01/06/95 300-2030 32.38 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HEMME, ROBERT 07124/95 300-2030 277.50 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. INMAN, JENNIFER 12/02/94 300-2030 272.88 ? 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. ORTEGA, KAREN 11/16/95 300-2030 580.68 2 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HUMPHRIES, DONNA 06/02/95 300-2030 236.88 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MATTHEWS, MICHAEL 06/25/95 300-2030 601.40 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 2 08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LORD, ROBERT 08/15/95 300-2030 181.38 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. KINCAID, DARLENE 12/03/95 300-2030 116.63 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. SEGOVIA, WILLIAM 08/14/95 300-2030 223.00 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. PETCH, LISA 02/08/96 300-2030 23.13 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. GROVE, BETTE 02/28/96 300-2030 149.00 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MORENO, EXPERANZA 03/15/96 300-2030 351.15 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. GAY, GREG 03/25/96 300-2030 130.50 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BADDEN, SHEILA 04/06/96 300-2030 26.25 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BADDEN, SHEILA 04/06/96 300-2030 440.38 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LOCKHEED 03/21/96 300-2030 107.38 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BROWN, PATRICIA 04/12/95 300-199-999-5205 149.75 30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. TANNYHILL, ROGER 05/05/95 300-199-999-5205 203.75 4,410.67 30813 08/29/96 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER MISC. HARDWARE & MATERIALS 001-164-601-5244 32.33 32.33 30814 08/29/96 002358 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLA CERT. FOLDER DISPLAY BROCHURES 280-199-999-5270 3,554.88 3,554.88 30815 08/29/96 COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESOU REFUND-MENIS BASKETBALL LEAGUE 190-183-4994 25.00 25.00 30816 08/29/96 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS (2) 1811 CITY SEALS-PARKVIEW 210-190-626-5802 1,191.18 30816 08/29/96 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS 14" CITY SEAL-SAM HICKS PARK 280-199-805-5802 469.52 1, 30817 08/29/96 CRAMER, AMY REIMB: REFRESHMENTS FOR STAFF 190-180-999-5260 65.00 65.00 30818 08/29/96 CRAMER-TERRY, REGINA REFUND:SEC DEPOSIT/RM RENTAL 190-2900 100.00 30818 08/29/96 CRAMER-TERRY, REGINA REFUND:SEC DEPOSIT/RM RENTAL 190-183-4988 49.00 149.00 30819 08/29/96 001873 CROBARGER, RICHARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 60.00 30819 08/29/96 001873 CROBARGER, RICHARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 80.00 140.00 30820 08/29/96 000155 DAVLIN TAPING OF PLANNING COMM MTGS 001-161-999-5250 156.68 156.68 30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/16 KAPRYN,L. 001-110-999-5118 216.72 30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/11/96 KAPRYN 001-161-999-5118 144.48 30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 KAPRYN,L. 001-161-999-5118 205.43 566.63 30822 08/29/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 7/19 LAUFER 001-162-999-5118 333.50 333.50 30823 08/29/96 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER WKSHP:TOPICS TODAY LEADER:9/20 001-100-999-5260 25.00 25.00 30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE CREDIT-PREV INV S/B $77,243.37 210-190-138-5804 267.60- 30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE CREDIT-RETENTION CORRECTION 210-2035 26.76 30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE JUL PRGSS-SPTS PRK CREEK REST 210-190-138-5804 63,176.50 30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE JULY PRGSS-SPT PRK -RETENTION- 210-2035 6,317.64- 56,618.02 30825 08/29/96 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN CATERING FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS 001-100-999-5260 103.00 103.00 30826 08/29/96 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE R.C. SPORTS PARK MAINTENANCE 190-180-999-5212 194.58 191--;8 30827 08/29/96 FALLBROOK NATIONAL BANK REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 1 E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 /96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS PUBLIC RESTROOM SIGNS 0. TOWN 280-199-999-5212 174.26 30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS INSTALLATION OF RESTROOM SIGNS 280-199-999-5212 50.00 30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS TAX 280-199-999-5212 13.51 237.77 30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 89.39 30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-120-999-5277 12.00 30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230 8.75 30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-161-999-5230 15.25 125.39 30830 08/29/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-694-1211/POLICE/AUG 001-170-999-5208 266.86 30830 08/29/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-699-2475/PUBLIC WORKS/AUG 001-164-601-5208 46.98 313.84 30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 001-164-601-5234 440.00 30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 190-180-999-5234 352.00 30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 001-162-999-5234 88.00 880.00 30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-TEM. P.D 001-170-999-5220 86.91 30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-TEM. P.D 001-170-999-5220 46.77 30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR COPY ROOM 330-199-999-5220 118.00 251.68 13 08/29/96 001976 GUEST INFORMANT ADVERTISING IN SAN DIEGO 96/97 280-199-999-5270 3,862.08 3,862.08 30834 08/29/96 002418 HAZPAK, INC HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMOVAL 165-199-812-5804 4,432.50 4,432.50 30835 08/29/96 000388 I C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 2 BLDG CODE 001-162-999-5228 55.00 30835 08/29/96 000388 I C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 4.26 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 3 ELECT CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 2.33 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C 8 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 4 MECH CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 2.33 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 5 PLUMB CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00 30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 @.33 156.25 30836 08/29/96 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212 189.64 189.64 30837 08/29/96 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 246.40 30837 08/29/96 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 190.40 436.80 30838 08/29/96 000203 JOBS AVAILABLE, INC. RECRUITMENT ADS 001-150-999-5254 115.20 115.20 30839 08/29/96 JORDAN, DEAN REFUND:SPRING BASKETBALL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00 30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-164-604-5118 110.92 30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-163-999-5118 110.92 30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-165-999-5118 110.96 332.80 30841 08/29/96 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING 5000 BLDG PERMIT FORMS 3 PART 001-162-999-5222 1,510.42 30841 08/29/96 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING TAX 001-162-999-5222 117.06 1,627.48 +2 08/29/96 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 765.55 30842 08/29/96 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE TAX 001-164-601-5218 59.33 824.88 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 4 08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30843 08/29/96 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I TREE TRIMMING & ROOT PRUNING 001-164-601-5402 705.00 705.00 30844 08/29/96 LANGHAM, NANETTE REFUND-PAID TWICE 001-1190 5.25 5.25 30845 08/29/96 LAURITSEN, TERESA REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 30846 08/29/96 002282 LIEBER, CARON TCSD INSTURCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 416.00 416.00 30847 08/29196 001891 LINFIELD SCHOOL TEMP FIRE STATION SEPT RENT 001-171-999-5470 600.00 600.00 30848 08/29/96 000553 MAGIC MOUNTAIN PMT FOR"TEM DAY" TICKET SALES 190-183-4992 4,020.80 4,020.80 30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. OPERATNG BDGT COVER/COMBS/PAPE 001-140-999-5222 1,831.75 30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CIP COVERS,COMBS AND PAPER 001-140-999-5222 1,831.75 30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CIP DIVIDER TABS 001-140-999-5222 527.98 30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. OPERATING BUDGET DIVIDER TABS 001-140-999-5222 613.10 30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CREDIT-O.BUDGET TABS WERE LATE 001-140-999-5222 56.90- 4,747.68 30850 08/29/96 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS LETTERHEAD STATIONARY/POLICE D 001-170-999-5222 47.81 30850 08/29/96 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS TAX 001-170-999-5222 3.71 51.92 30851 08/29/96 001394 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL BUILDING MAINT SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 31.72 30852 08/29/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 46.62 46.62 30853 08/29/96 000733 PARTY PZAZZ GOP CONVENTION DECORATIONS 280-199-999-5270 147.83 147.83 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 26.61 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-100-999-5260 50.00 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5261 5.66 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 35.00 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265 28.35 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 7.20 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265 23.94 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-199-4070 .25 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5261 24.78 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 5.00 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 25.14 30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5250 25.86 257.79 30855 08/29/96 POFF, DOUGLAS J.,D.C. ORTEGA, KAREN 11/16/95 300-199-999-5207 15.00 15.00 30856 08/29/96 002354 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS BOOKS "SAY NO TO STRANGERS" 001-170-999-5292 525.95 30856 08/29/96 002354 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS FREIGHT 001-170-999-5292 51.80 577.75 30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-120-999-5230 30.15 30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-161-999-5230 15.00 30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-165-999-5230 15.00 30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-164-604-5230 15.00 30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 48.60 RE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5 //96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY 30859 08/29/96 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 30860 08/29/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 30860 08/29/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 30861 08/29196 RICHMOND AMERICA 30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY 30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY 30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY 30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY 30863 08/29/96 000418 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R 30864 08/29196 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT 6508/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S -)65 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S 30865 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S 30865 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S 30866 08/29/96 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE 30866 08/29/96 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL 30868 08/29/96 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 30869 08/29/96 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF 30870 08/29/96 002460 SAURUS SPORT, INC. 30870 08/29/96 002460 SAURUS SPORT, INC. 30871 08/29/96 SELVA, HELEN 30872 08/29/96 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -10873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 73 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ,73 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ITEM DESCRIPTION LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD BLUEPRINTS-TRFFC SIGNAL INTERC VARIOUS WTR METERS VARIOUS WTR METERS REFUND-OVERPMT ON BLDG PERMIT TEMP PWR VOORBURG PARK TOILET RENTAL @ CITY YARD TOILET RENTAL @ RIVERTON PRK TOILET RENTAL @ THE DUCK POND WALCOTT CORR PRJT-DETRMNTN NOT JULY COLLECTED FEES FOR K-RAT PATROL-4th OF JULY EVENTS PATROL-4th OF JULY EVENTS OLD TWN SUMMER NGTS-BIKE PATRL CREDIT-CHRGED MILEAGE-BIKE PAT TCSDINSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSDINSTRUCTOR EARNINGS FUELFOR VEHICLES FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES JOBRECRUITMENT ADS/PRIN ENG REPAIR RADAR FOR POLICE DEPT SUNSCREEN FOR PW MAINT CREW TAX REFUND-MAKEUP AND MODELING SUPPLIES FOR THE SENIOR CENTER 2-03-786-1606 DE PORTOLA 2-00-397-5026 VARIOUS METERS 2-00-397-5042 VARIOUS METERS 2-00-397-5059 VARIOUS METERS 2-00-397-5067 VARIOUS METERS ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 190-180-999-5212 43.64 340-199-701-5212 56.50 190-180-999-5212 45.00 193.74 210-165-640-5804 68.27 68.27 190-180-999-5240 3,03@.01 193-180-999-5240 6,354.25 9,393.26 001-2660 47.94 47.94 190-180-999-5212 729.00 001-164-601-5238 57.39 190-180-999-5238 62.89 190-180-999-5238 172.50 1,021.78 210-165-637-5802 1,328.00 1,328.00 001-2300 29,879.50 29,879.50 001-170-999-5288 3,242.14 001-170-999-5281 313.88 001-170-999-5326 1,328.72 001-170-999-5326 34.00- 4,850.74 190-183-999-5330 120.00 190-183-999-5330 420.00 540.00 001-164-601-5263 511.04 001-165-999-5263 52.73 001-163-999-5263 193.14 001-110-999-5263 51.63 001-162-999-5263 144.90 190-180-999-5263 236.53 1,189.97 001-150-999-5254 237.40 237.40 001-170-999-5215 18.31 18.31 001-164-601-5218 96.00 001-164-601-5218 7.44 103.44 190-183-4982 35.00 35.00 190-181-999-5301 131.66 131.66 190-180-999-5240 13.92 191-180-999-5319 3,533.30 340-199-701-5240 3,835.00 190-180-999-5240 2,465.71 193-180-999-5240 659.58 VDLJCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 6 08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30873 08/29/96 000537 S(XJTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-5252 VIA SABINO 193-180-999-5240 14.03 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-5435 DEL PORTOLA IRR 193-180-999-5240 15.a4 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-7571 BUTTERFIELD STAG 191-180-999-5240 13.79 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7584 CALLE MEDUSA SPR 193-180-999-5240 14.88 30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7790 RANCHO VISTA SPR 191-180-999-5319 13.44 10,579.49 30874 08/29/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 021-725-0700 SR CENTER 190-181-999-5240 4.53 4.53 30875 08/29/96 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T TCSD VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 25.94 25.94 30876 08/29/96 STEFFENS, NATALIE REFUND-NEWTON'S PUZZLE 190-183-4982 19.00 19.00 30877 08/29/96 002430 STRICKLAND, KATIE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 160.00 160.00 30878 08/29/96 STROUD, SHAWN REFUND-FOREFEIT FEE/SPRG BSKBL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00 30879 08/29/96 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 25,000.00 25,000.00 30880 08/29/96 001633 TEMECULA VALLEY ECONOMI INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 25,000.00 25,000.00 30881 08/29/96 000957 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 10,000.00 10, 30882 08/29/96 002474 TEMEKU INC. REMOVAL OF ROOF & POLE SIGNS 280-199-813-5804 1,000.00 1,000.00 30883 08/29/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-164-604-5220 188.85 30883 08/29/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-1(>4-604-5220 25.05 213.90 30884 08/29/96 001078 U I E C RECORDS/INFO MG CF:RECORDS INFO-K.DIMEGLIO 9/3 001-120-999-5261 70.00 30884 08/29/96 001078 U I E C RECORDS/INFO MG CF:RECORDS INFO-P.SARGENT 9/3 001-120-999-5261 80.00 150.00 30885 08/29/96 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI JUL PLAN CHECK SERVS-OLD TOWN 280-199-804-5802 50.00 50.00 30886 08/29/96 001437 VIRACK, MARYANN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 80.00 30886 08/29/96 001437 VIRACK, MARYANN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 32.00 112.00 30887 08/29/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 198.81 198.81 30888 08/29/96 002212 WHITEHEAD, STEVE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 224.00 224.00 30889 08/29/96 001939 WINDSOR PROJECTS, INC. SEPT RENT/AUGUST CAM 340-199-701-5234 11,695.41 11,695.41 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL] CRC COPIER SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 127.15 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CRC COPIER SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 423.46 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI STAPLE CARTRIDGES FOR XEROX 330-199-999-5220 129.00 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI DRY INK FOR XEROX 5343C 330-199-999-5220 160.00 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI COLOR TRANSPARENCIES 330-199-999-5220 92.60 30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI TAX 330-199-999-5220 29.58 961.79 30891 08/29/96 YENDES, JOHN REFUND-FOREFIET FEES/SRPG BSKB 190-183-999-5380 40.00 TOTAL CHECKS 245,753.53 E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 /96 14:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 370,545.82 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 22,811.57 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 926.00 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 75,219.55 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 52,200.63 340 FACILITIES 496.37 TOTAL 522,199.94 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 08/29/96 14:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA R-O-W TREE TRIMMING MAINT 001-164-601-5402 5,990.00 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - PARKS 190-180-999-5415 19,651.37 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5415 245.67 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - CRC 190-182-999-5415 1,692.53 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - CITY HALL 340-199-701-5415 496.37 30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - MEDIANS 191-180-999-5415 926.00 29,001.94 30894 09/10/96 002197 CLOVIS PAVING & SEALING RELEASE RETENTION-PW95-06 210-2035 67,502.35 67,502.35 30895 09/10/96 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY, INC (40)STOCK AMERICAN FLAG BANNRS 280-199-999-5270 6,282.67 6,282.67 30896 09/10/96 000928 LEKOS ELECTRIC, INC. INSTALL BANNER POLES 95/96-31 001-164-601-5402 13,000.00 13,000.00 30897 09/10/96 000843 MCDANIEL ENGINEERING CO JUL SERVS-CONSULT WINCH & 1-15 280-199-602-5804 5,170.00 5,170.00 30898 09/10/96 001713 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. JUL PRGSS-DESIGN Ist ST BRIDGE 280-199-807-5802 4,547.88 30898 09/10/96 001713 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. JUL PRGSS-DESIGN lst ST BRIDGE 280-199-807-5802 21,354.87 25,902.75 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 8,323.72 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 69.00 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 1,962.00 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 11,136.25 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY 96 LEGAL SERVS-TCSD 190-180-999-5246 1,222.00 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 477.50 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-RDA 280-199-999-5246 5,153.33 30899 09/10196 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 722.15 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 919.18 30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-RDA 280-199-999-5246 275.88 30,261.01 30900 09/10/96 000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT APRIL-JUNE FIRE SERVICES 001-2030 283,837.04 283,837.04 30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S MARCH 95 BOOKING FEES 001-2030 7,065.60 30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S APRIL 96 BOOKING FEES 001-2030 9,715.20 30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S JUNE BOOKING FEES INV 97-11983 001-2030 9,936.00 30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFFIS MAY BOOKING FEES 001-2030 11,592.00 38,308.80 30902 09/10/96 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. PAINT SHAKER FOR TRFFC MARKING 001-164-601-5610 5,383.00 30902 09/10/96 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. TAX 001-164-601-5610 417.18 5,800.18 30903 09/10/96 000271 ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & JUL PRGSS-PRJT STUDY I-15/79 S 210-165-662-5804 7,717.20 7,717.20 30904 09/10/96 002198 WEST CONSULTANTS, INC SCOUR STUDY FOR WESTN BYPASS 280-199-807-5802 9,416.00 9,416.00 TOTAL CHECKS 522,199.94 ITEI\4 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY A _,l DIRECTOR OF FI E@ CITY MANAGERI CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1 996 PREPARED BY:Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director Steve Oakley, Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1996. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of July 31, 1 996. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS:1 . City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1 996 2.Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of July 31, 1996 City of Temecula City Treasurees Report As of July 31, 1996 Cash Activity for the Month of July Cash and Investments as of July 1, 1996 $ 54,971,530 Cash Receipts 3,996,201 Cash Disbursements (3,545,966) Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1996 $ 55,421,765 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Contractual/ Maturity Market Par/Book Type of Investment Institution Yield Date (2) Value Balance Petty Cash City Hall $ 800 $800 General Checking First Interstate 245,116 245,116 (1) Benefit Demand Deposits First Interstate 2,725 2,725 (1) Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer 5.587% 39,881,493 39,881,493 (3) Retention Escrow Account Landmark/California State Bank N/A 59,667 59,667 Deferred Compensation Fund ICMA 317,826 317,826 Deferred Compensation Fund PEBSCO 502,896 502,896 Defined Contribution Fund PEBSCO 39,275 39,275 Trust Accounts-TCSO COPs First Trust (Fidelity Treasury 11) 5.160 12,575 12,575 (Money Market Account) Reserve Account-TCSD COPs Bayerische Landesbank 6.870 502,690 502,690 (Guaranteed Investment Contract) Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds First Trust (Fidelity Treasury 11) 5.160 1,521,782 1,521,782 (Money Market Account) Construction Fund-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank @.000 10,886,000 10,886,000 (Guaranteed Investment Contract) Reserve Account-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank 7.400 1,448,920 1,448,920 (Guaranteed Investment Contract) $ 55,421,765 (l)-This amount is net of outstanding checks. (2)-All investments are liquid and currently available. (3)-At July 31, 1996 total market value for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAI F) was $27,262,799,537. The City's proportionate share of that value is $40,145,099. The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance vath the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next six months. Co of Temecula Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances As of July 31, 1996 Community Services Redevelopment city (1) District Agency Total Assets: Cash and investments $32,801,970 $ 2,238,600 $ 20,381,195 $55,421,765 Receivables 4,479,670 681,348 797,225 5,958,243 Due from other funds 773,766 4,996 778,762 Land held for resale 2,103,053 2,103,053 Prepaid assets 336,937 336,937 Fixed assets-net 669,010 669,010 Total assets $ 39,061,353 $2,924,944 $ 23,281,473 65,267,770 Liabilities and fund equity Liabilities: Due to other funds $ 740,966 $ 4,996 $ 32,800 $778,762 Other liabilities 5,047,476 168,817 508,568 51724,861 Total liabilities 5,788,442 173,813 541,368 6,503,623 Fund equity : Contributed capital 1,055,344 1,055,344 Retained earnings 743,324 743,324 Fund balances: Reserved (2) 7,563,340 1,190,096 9,892,691 18,646,127 Designated (3) 19,229,821 1,561,035 12,847,414 33,638,270 Undesignated 4,681,082 4,681,082 Total fund equity 33,272,911 2,751,131 22,740,105 58,764,147 Total liabilities and fund equity $39,061,353 $2,924,944 $23,281,473 $65,267,770 (1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, other special revenue funds, and deferred comp agency funds. (2) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, low/mod housing, and debt service. (3) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, future capital projects, debt service, and continuing appropriations. ITEN4 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR. OF FINAN4;E, CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO:City Manager/City Council FROM:Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE:September 10, 1 996 SUBJECT:Purchase of City Vehicles PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst a/ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of four City Vehicles, which were appropriated in the 1 996-97 Annual Operating Budget, as follows: 1 .Public Works Department: 1997 GMC Sierra TK30903 Full Size 4-WD Pick-up Truck fromPlaza Motors of Palm Springs in the amount of $24,902. 2.TCSD: 1997 Ford F25OHD Supercab Pick-up Truck from Fuller Ford of Chula Vista in the amount of $23,481. 3. Fire Department: 1 997 Ford Fl 50 S/C Pick-up Truck from Ted Jones Ford of Buena Park in the amount of $18,801. 4. Citywide use: 1997 GMC Savana Cargo Van from Plaza Motors of Palm Springs in the amount of $20,796. DISCUSSION:During the June 11, 1996 meeting, the City Council adopted the FY1996/97 AnnualOperating Budget, which allocated vehicles for the Public Works, Community Services,and Fire Departments; and a utility vehicle for staff use citywide. In order to fill these requirements, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was distributed on August 7, 1 996, with a closing date of August 1 9th. On Monday August 19, 1996, the City received five responses to the RFP which was distributed to eighteen car dealers, including ten Temecula Autopark dealers (see attachment 1).Out of the five proposals received, a combination of three vendors was selected to provide thefour vehicles based on the vendors submitting the lowest priced and qualified vehicles for theparticular category. A pricing summary of the five proposals received is provided as attachment 2. In evaluating the proposals, a one percent (1 %) credit for sales tax received by the City was applied to the one local vendor proposal from Paradise Chevrolet. However, even with the one percent credit applied, the prices for both vehicles were well above the successful proposals. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is available in the appropriate accounts to purchase the vehicles for each respective department. Attachments: 1 . Vehicle Vendor List 2.Pricing Summary of Vehicle Proposals Vendor Name/Address Griffin GMC Truck 41872 Motor Car Parkway Temecula, California 92591 Temecula Dodge Chrysler 26755 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591 Quality Chevrolet 1550 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 Nissan of Temecula 41895 Motor Car Park-way Temecula, California 92591 Temecula Valley Toyota 26631 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591 Temecula Mazda 26799 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591 Norm Reeves Super Group 26755 Ynez Road Temecula, CA. 92591 Paradise Chevrolet 26845 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591 Folsom Lake Ford 9479 Madison Avenue Folsom, California 95630 Griffin Acura 41872 Motor Car Parkway Temecula, California 92591 Vehicle Vendor List Phone Number 694-6060 676-0010 619-745-7221 676-6601 694-0575 699-4444 676-0010 699-2699 cannot locate listing 694-6060 Fax Number 694-6069 676-2888 619-745-0652 694-9697 694-0404 699-1232 676-2888 (same as Dodge) 694-0809 cannot locate listing 694-6060 (same as GMC) ATRA Vendor Name/Address Phone Number Fax Number El Cajon NEtsubishi 619-588-2922 619-579-2409 Fleet Division 247 El Cajon Boulevard El Cajon, California 92020 Dick Dickenson City Chevrolet 619-276-6171 619-276-6194 Fleet Sales/Leasing P.O. Box 85345 San Diego, California 92186 Fuller Fleet Center 619-656-2500 619-656-6259 560 Auto Park Drive Chula Vista, California 91911 Plaza Motors 619-325-2571 619-320-1506 290 N. Indian Canyon Drive Palm Springs, California 92262 Ted Jones Ford 714-521-3110 714-739-0120 Attn: Fleet Sales 6211 Beach Blvd. Buena Park, California 90621 Schmacher Auto Sales & 699-6633 699-4665 Leasing 28733 Via Montezuma Temecula, California 92591 Heller Ford 619-745-3361 619-745-4981 1717 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 Rancho Ford 800-997-3725 699-6917 26895 Ynez Rd. Temecula, California 92591 NRICE SUMMARY FOR CITY VEHICLE PURCHASES 1= PUBLIC WORKS ù= TCSD 3= FIRE DEPARTMENT 4= UTILITY VAN TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DEALER SELECTED DEALER MAKE MODEL PRICE PRICE PRICE FULLER FORD 1 FORD F350 26,561 2 FORD F25OHD 23,481 23,481 3 FORD F150 19,774 4 FORD E350 21,676 TOTAL 91,493 TED JONES FORD 1 FORD F350 25,677 2 FORD F35OS/C 25,030 3 FORD F15OS/C 18,800 18,800 4 FORD E350 21,173 'DTAL 90,680 PLAZA MOTORS 1 GMC SIERRA TK30903 24,902 24,902 2 GMC SIERRA TC30953 25,278 3 GMC SIERRA TC 1 0953 20,721 4 GMC SAVANA 20,796 20,796 TOTAL 91,698 SCHUMACHER AUTO 1 CHEVROLET CK20903 25,118 2 CHEVROLET CC30953 26,153 3 CHEVROLET CC10753 20,783 4 CHEVROLET CG31405 22,198 TOTAL 94,252 PARADISE CHEVROLET 1 CHEVROLET CK30903 25,983 2 CHEVROLET 3500 25,837 3 NO PROPOSAL 0 4 NO PROPOSAL 0 TOTAL 51,820 TOTAL COST TO CITY: $87,979 ATTACHMENT 2 i,-i,,EA4 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIREC' CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements, Construction Cooperative Agreement with State Department of Transportation PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-931, BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of finalizing the plans and specifications for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements that includes the construction of a four lane overcrossing structure at Overland Drive and Interstate Route 1 5. This work will be performed over the State highway system and requires the approval of the State Department of Transportation. The State has provided a Cooperative Agreement for Construction of the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements, which give a detailed account of the responsibilities of the City and State and what will be mutually agreed by both the City and State. The City shall prepare the contract documents and then advertise, award, and administer the construction contract in accordance with the requirement of the State Contract Act and the California Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. This agreement defines the terms and conditions under which the project will be constructed, financed, and maintained. The City will provide a resident engineer along with support staff necessary to assure construction is being performed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable State Standards. The project is intended to be funded through CFD88-12 and SB300 funds. When the construction is completed, and accepted by the State, the State will control and maintain improvements within their right-of-way and the City will control and maintain improvements lying outside of the State's right-of-way. R:kAGORPT\96\0910\OVERLAND.IMP rh In summary, the City will provide the contract documents; advertise, award, and administer the construction contract; fund 100% of all construction and staffing costs, except those of the State. The State Department of Transportation will provide oversight of construction activities. The agreement has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact is anticipated from approving Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931. Attachments: 1 . Resolution 96- 2.Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931 R:\AGDRPT\96\0910\OVERLAND.IMP rh RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY OF TEMEECULA APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-931, BETWEEN THE STATE DEPAR OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CrrY OF TEMIECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OVERLAND DRI[VE OVERCROSSING U"ROVFAIENTS WHEREAS, Construction Plans and Specification have been prepared for the Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements which outline the individual project components identified in the approved Project Study Report. MMEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931 establishes the general conditions, methods and procedures of construction, responsibilities of each agency and what areas will be performed mutually by each agency. NOW, .t@R, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula, as follows: Section 1.The City Council approves and authorizes the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931 between State Department of Transportation and the City of Temecula. Section 2.The City Clerk shall ce@ the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\AGORPT\gMglOkOVERLAND.IMP rh [SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OFSIDE ss CITY OFULA I, June S. Greek,City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: - COUNCELMEMBERS: NOES: - COUNC]ILMEMBERS: ABSENT: - COUNCIILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN - COUNC]ILMEMBERS: R:\AGDRPT\96\OOIONOVERLAND.IMP rh 08-Riv-15-6.2/6-3 overland Drive Construct Overcrossing 08303 - 354601 District Agreement No. 8-931 CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into on is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF TEMECULA, a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY. RECITALS (1)STATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways within CITY. (2)CITY desires to construct State highway improvements consisting of construction of a four-lane overcrossing structure at Overland Drive and Interstate Route 15 in the City of Temecula, referred to herein as PROJECT, and is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all capital outlay and staffing costs, except that costs of STATE's oversight of construction activities will be borne by STATE. (3)CITY desires to prepare the contract documents and advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in order to bring about the earliest possible completion of PROJECT. (4)STATE is agreeable to CITY's proposal to prepare the contract documents and advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT. (5)The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be constructed, financed and maintained. 1 District Agreement No. 8-931 (6)Project development responsibilities for PROJECT were covered in a prior Cooperative Agreement executed by STATE and CITY on May 31, 1994, (District Agreement No. 8-793, Document No. 9479). SECTION I CITY AGREES: (1)To advertise, award and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in accordance with requirements of the Local Agency Public Construction Act and the California Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers employed in the performance of work contracted for by CITY, and/or performed under Encroachment Permit, are covered by provisions of the Labor Code in the same manner as are workers employed by STATE's Contractors. CITY shall obtain applicable wage rates from the State Department of Industrial Relations and shall adhere to the applicable provisions of the State Labor Code. Violations shall be reported to the State Department of Industrial Relations. (2)To apply for necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within State highway rights of way, in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures, as more specifically defined in Articles (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section III, of this Agreement. (3)To require that the construction contractor furnish both a payment and performance bond in CITY name, with both bonds complying with the requirements set forth in Section 3-1.02 of STATE's current Standard Specifications. (4)To construct PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications of CITY to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. (5)Contract Administration procedures shall conform to the requirements set forth in STATE's Construction Manual, Local Programs Manual and the Encroachment Permit for construction of PROJECT. (6)Construction within the existing or ultimate STATE right of way shall comply with the requirements in STATE's Standard Specifications and PROJECT Special Provisions, and in conformance with methods and practices specified in STATE's Construction Manual. 2 District Agreement No. 8-931 (7)If CITY uses own staff to perform surveys, such surveys shall conform to the methods, procedures, and requirements of STATE's Surveys Manual. (8)Material testing and quality control shall conform to the State Construction Manual and the State Material Testing Manual, and be performed, at CITY expense, by a certified material tester acceptable to STATE. Independent assurance testing, specialty testing, and off-site source inspection and testing shall be performed by STATE, at no cost to CITY except as noted herein. CITY shall reimburse STATE for any additional travel expenses incurred by STATE for off-site inspection and testing performed by STATE which is more than 300 airline miles from both Sacramento and Los Angeles. Approval of the type of asphalt and concrete plants shall be by STATE, at STATE expense. (9)To furnish, at CITY expense and subject to approval of STATE, a field site representative who is a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California, to perform the functions of a Resident Engineer. If the PROJECT plans and specifications were prepared by a private engineering company, the Resident Engineer shall not be an employee of that company. The Resident Engineer shall also be independent of the construction contractor. (10)To pay one hundred percent (100%) of the actual costs of construction required for satisfactory completion of PROJECT, including changes pursuant to contract change orders concurred with by the STATE representative and any "State-furnished material". (11)At CITY expense, to furnish qualified support staff, subject to approval of STATE, to assist the Resident Engineer in, but not limited to, construction surveys, soils and foundation tests, measurement and computation of quantities, testing of construction materials, checking shop drawings, preparation of estimates and reports, preparation of As- Built drawings, and other inspection and staff services necessary to assure that the construction is being performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Said qualified support staff shall be independent of the design engineering company and construction contractor, except that the PROJECT designer may check the shop drawings, do soils foundation tests, test construction materials, and do construction surveys. 3 District Agreement No. 8-931 (12)To make progress payments to the contractor using CITY funds and pay all costs for required staff services as described in Articles (9) and (11) of this Section I. The STATE representative shall review all contract progress pay schedules. STATE does not assume responsibility for accuracy of itemization on progress pay schedules. (13)Within sixty (60) days following the completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, to furnish STATE a complete set of acceptable full-sized film positive reproducible As-Built plans and all contract records, including survey documents and microfilm copy of all structure plans. (14)Upon completion of work under this Agreement, CITY will assume maintenance and the expense thereof for any part of PROJECT located outside of current STATE right of way until acceptance of any such part of PROJECT into the State highway system by STATE, approval by the Federal Highway Administration, if required, and conveyance of acceptable title to STATE. (15)If CITY terminates PROJECT prior to completion of the construction contract for PROJECT, STATE may require CITY, at CITY's expense, to return right of way to its original condition or to a condition of acceptable permanent operation. If CITY fails to do so, STATE reserves the right to finish PROJECT or place PROJECT in satisfactory permanent operation condition. STATE will bill CITY for all actual expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay said expenses within thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State Controller, may withhold an equal amount from future apportionments due CITY from the Highway User Tax Fund. SECTION II STATE AGREES: (1)To issue, at no cost to CITY and CITY's contractor, upon proper application by CITY and by CITY's contractor, the necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within State highway right of way, as more specifically defined in Articles (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section III, of this Agreement. 4 District Agreement No. 8-931 (2)To provide, at no cost to CITY, a qualified STATE representative who shall have authority to accept or reject work and materials or to order any actions needed for public safety or the preservation of property and to assure compliance with all provisions of the Encroachment Permit(s) issued to CITY and CITY's contractor. (3)To provide, at CITY expense, any "State-furnished material" as shown on the plans for PROJECT and as provided in the Special Provisions for PROJECT. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: (1)All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation commission. (2)Construction by CITY of improvements referred to herein which lie within STATE highway rights of way or affect STATE facilities, shall not be commenced until CITY's original contract plans involving such work and plan for utility relocations have been reviewed and accepted by signature of STATE's District Director of Transportation, or the District Director's delegated agent, and until an Encroachment Permit to CITY authorizing such work has been issued by STATE. (3)CITY shall obtain aforesaid Encroachment Permit through the office of State District Permit Engineer and CITY's application shall be accompanied by five (5) sets of reduced construction plans of aforesaid STATE approved contract plans. Receipt by CITY of the approved Encroachment Permit shall constitute CITY's authorization from STATE to proceed with work to be performed by CITY or CITY's representatives within proposed STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. CITY's authorization to proceed with said work shall be contingent upon CITY's compliance with all provisions set forth in this Agreement and said Encroachment Permit. (4)CITY's construction contractor shall also be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from STATE prior to commencing any work within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities. The application by CITY's contractor for said Encroachment Permit shall be made through the office of 5 District Agreement No. 8-931 State District Permit Engineer and shall include proof said contractor has payment and performance surety bonds covering construction of PROJECT. (5)CITY shall provide a right of way certification prior to the granting of said Encroachment Permit by STATE, to certify that legal and physical control of rights of way were acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. (6)CITY shall not advertise for bids to construct PROJECT until after an Encroachment Permit has been issued to CITY by STATE. (7)CITY's construction contractor shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability in accordance with Section 7-1.12 of State Standard Specifications. Such policy shall contain an additional insured endorsement naming STATE, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. Coverage shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to STATE which shall be delivered to STATE before the issuance of an Encroachment Permit to CITY contractor. (8)Prior to award of the construction contract for PROJECT, CITY may terminate this Agreement by written notice. (9)In construction of said PROJECT, representatives of CITY and STATE will cooperate and consult, and all work pursuant to PROJECT shall be accomplished according to approved plans, specifications and applicable STATE standards. Satisfaction of these requirements shall be verified by the STATE representative. The STATE representative is authorized to enter CITY's property during construction for the purpose of monitoring and coordinating construction activities. (10)Changes to PROJECT plans and specifications shall be implemented by contract change orders reviewed and concurred with by the STATE representative. All changes affecting public safety or public convenience, all design and specification changes, and all major changes as defined in STATE's Construction Manual shall be approved by STATE in advance of performing the work. Unless otherwise directed by the STATE representative, changes authorized as provided herein will not require an Encroachment Permit rider. All changes shall be shown on the As-Built plans referred to in Section I, Article (13) of this Agreement. 6 District Agreement No. 8-931 (11)CITY shall provide a claims process acceptable to STATE and shall process any and all claims through CITY's claim process. The STATE representative will be made available to CITY to provide advice and technical input in any claim process. (12)If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with PROJECT construction or violate STATE's encroachment policy, CITY shall make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation or removal in accordance with STATE policy and procedure for those facilities located within the limits of work providing for the improvement of the State highway and in accordance with CITY policy for those facilities located outside of the limits of work for the State highway. Total costs of such protection, relocation or removal shall be determined in accordance with STATE policy and procedure. CITY shall require any utility owner and/or its contractors performing relocation work in STATE's right of way to obtain a STATE Encroachment Permit prior to the performance of said relocation work. Any relocated or new facilities shall be correctly shown and identified on the As-Built plans referred to in Section I, Article (13), of this Agreement. (13)If any unforeseen potential hazardous waste sites are encountered during construction of PROJECT, STATE and CITY shall meet and confer on a course of action. The responsibilities and costs for any action shall be covered by amendment to this Agreement. (14)Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the Vehicle Code, STATE has determined that within such areas as are within the limits of PROJECT and are open to public traffic, CITY shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. CITY shall take all necessary precautions for safe operation of CITY's vehicles, the construction contractor's equipment and vehicles and/or vehicles of personnel retained by CITY and for the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles or equipment. (15)Upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract by CITY to the satisfaction of the STATE representative and subsequent to the execution of a maintenance agreement, STATE will accept control and maintain, at its own cost and expense, those portions of PROJECT lying within STATE's right of way, except local 7 District Agreement No. B-931 roads delegated t o CITY for maintenance. STATE will maintain at STATE expense, the entire structure below the deck surface of any CITY local road overcrossings. (16)CITY will accept control and maintain, at its own cost and expense, the portions of PROJECT lying outside STATE's right of way. Also, CITY will maintain, at CITY expense, local roads within STATE'S right of way delegated to CITY for maintenance and remaining portions of any local road overcrossing structures, including the deck surface and above, as well as traffic service facilities that may be required for the benefit or control of CITY local road traffic. (17)Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to materials, equipment and appurtenances installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in STATE, and materials, equipment and appurtenances installed outside of STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in CITY. No further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership as hereinabove stated. (18)Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. (19)Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. (20)Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, a District Agreement No. 8-931 STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (21)No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 9 District Agreement No. 8-931 (22)Those portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT by CITY with concurrence of STATE, or on September 29, 1999, whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership, operation, maintenance, liability, and claims clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF TEMECULA Department of Transportation JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS Director of Transportation By Mayor By KEN STEELE, District Director Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: District Resource Manager CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: Accounting Administrator 10 ETA 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORI FINANCE DIR CITY MANAC CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1 996 SUBJECT:Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-F (Southwesterly of Margarita Road at Highway 79 (S)) PREPARED BY: Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-F, AUTHORIZE reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond for street, water, and sewer improvements to the ten-percent (10%) warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On May 26, 1992, the City Council entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreement with: The Presley Companies, a California Corporation 1 501 0 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 23267-F. Accompanying the subdivision agreement were bonds posted by The American Motorists Insurance Company as follows: 1 .Bond No. 11 1 4145 9187 in the amount of $2,286,000 ($1,837,500, $249,500, and $199,000, respectively) for street, water, and sewer improvements for faithful performance. 2.Bond No. 11 1 4145 9187 in the amount of $1,143,500 ($919,000, $125,000, and $99,500, respectively) for street, water, and sewer improvements labor and materials. 3.Bond No. 111 4145 9195 in the amount of $36,190 to cover subdivision monumentation. R: \AGDRPT\96\09 I O\TR23267F. ACC Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts have accepted their items of work. Public Works Staff therefore recommends acceptance of the public improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts to the ten-percent warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore it Is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements $2,057,400 The Faithful Performance Bond amount will be retained in the following amount for warranty purposes: Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements: Bond No. 1 1 1 4145 91 87 $228,600 The subdivision monumentation requirements have not been completed. The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council Resolution No. 96- at this time. The streets within the subdivision to be accepted are Via Santa Ines, Via Lucido, Corte San Gabriel, Corte Capistrano, Corte Taquito, and portions of Calle Los Padres, Corte Veranos, Avenida de Missions, and Via Rio Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT: Location Map R: \AGDRPT\96\09 I O\TR23267F.ACC STATE 7% 12 L3 E LOS PADRES to 74 7 NTA INES CD SITE VICINIl'Y MAP TRACT NO. 23267-1 Location MaD NOTE:NTAPS NOT TO SCALE ITEIA 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Acceptance of Public Streets into the City Maintained-Street System (Within Tract No. 23267-F). (Southwesterly of the intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 (S)). PREPARED BY: @KR Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23267-F) BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract No. 23267-F on May 26, 1992, and entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreement for construction of street, water and sewer improvements with The Presley Companies, . The City Council accepted the public improvements for this tract on September 10, 1 996, and initiated the faithful performance warranty period., The public streets now being accepted by this action are as follows: Via Santa Ines, Corte Capistrano, Corte San Gabriel, Corte Taquito, Via Lucido, and portions of Via Rio Temecula, Avenida De Missions, Corte Veranos, and Calle Los Padres. FISCAL IMPACT: Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8 years. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 96- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive. R:\agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr23267f.mst RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTA -STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23267-F) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted offer of dedication of certain lots for public road and public utility purposes made by The Presley Companies, a California Corporation, with the recordation of Tract Map No. 23267-F; and, WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tract No 23267-F on September 10, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts into the City Maintained-Street System those streets or portions of streets offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a recyular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek City Clerk R:\agdrpt\96\09 IO\tr23267f.mst [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCLLMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: R: @agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr23267f.mst EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 96- Accepting the public streets offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No. 23267-F, and accepting subject public streets into the City Maintained-Street System as described below: Those lots described as L4ots "A" through "I" inclusive, as shown on Tract Map No. 23267-F, filed 11 August 1992, in Book 240 of Maps, Pgs 29-35 Incl., further described as follows: Lot "A"Portion of Via Rio Temecula Lot "B"Portion of Avenida De Missions Lot "C"Via Santa Ines Lot "D"Portion of Corte Veranos Lot "E"Corte Capistrano Lot "FlfCorte San Gabriel Lot ,G,Corte Taquito Lot "H'Via Lucido Lot 'I"Portion of Calle Los Padres R:\agdrpt\96\09 1 O\tr23267f.mst EXHIBIT "S" TO RESOLUTION NO. 96- SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: STATE 79 > <IA7V@%7' L > 13 114 IAO.EL iz 29 of a Jr 66 63 3 o 32 14 42 El No 34 1-1231.1i. L. 134.lz. T-2.7S, LF,GEND E OR PORTIONS OF TO BE ACCEPTED WM Crry- AWM SYSTEM NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE L-T SITE VICIN17'Y MAP ITEN4 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTOF FINANCE DII CITY MANA CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Release Subdivision Monumentation and Traffic Signalization Mitigation Securities in Tract No. 24133-3. (Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) PREPARED BY: 4.0 Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council AUTHORIZE release of the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalization Mitigation securities in Tract No 24133-3, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24133-3, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts: 1 $1,296,500 ($899,000, $134,500, and $263,000, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 2.$648,000 ($449,500, $67,000, and $131,500, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 3. $30,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. On August 1 3, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material assurance. r:@agdrpt\96\091 O\tr241 333.mon The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization mitigation fees at the time of map approval. The developer having now met all requirements for the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows: Instrument of Credit in the amount of $30,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. Instrument of Credit in the amount of $1 5,600 to cover traffic signalization mitigation fees. The affected streetswere accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 96-on August 1 3, 1 996. The streets within the subdivision are Via Ricci, Camino Casillas, ViaRami, Corte Landeros, and a portion of Amarita Way and Corte Cabrera. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Location Map r:\agdrpt\96\091 O\tr241 333.man i,, C) 0, age Ss ?60 2 ' US4 TO CORCI@@ 7i 9 Plf Z4/ 7' 4NO 06 RACT NO. 24133-3 7C S@4 DIEC;C VICINITY MAP To ,4,3 O@"V AREA06 3-a4 ACRES Tract No. 24133-3. Location MaD, ,,@-OTE:-[N/fips not to sc.,ile I EI\4 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT@ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 27, 1996 SUBJECT:Release subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation securities in Tract No. 24134-3. (Northeasterly of the intersection of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council AUTHORIZE the release of subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation securities in Tract No 24134-3, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-3, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts: 1 $1,026,500 ($812,000, $1 1 1,000, and $103,500, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 2.$513,500 ($406,000, $55,500, and $52,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 3. $21,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. On August 13, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material assurance. R: \agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr241343. mon The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization mitigation fees at the time of final tract map approval. The developer having now met all requirements for the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows: Instrument of Credit in the amount of $21,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. Instrument of Credit in the amount of $9,000 to cover traffic signalization mitigation fees The affected streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 96- on August 13, 1996. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Tolosa, Corte Colanda, Calle Espirito, and a portion of Calle Barcaldo, Amarita Way, and Santiago Road. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Location Map R:@agdrpt\96\09 I O@tr241343.mon A c tfAggARI PROJECT VICINITY MAP Tr Location Tqap .,NOTE:i@,f,,ips not to sc,,ile ITEIA 1 0 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO-R CITY MANAGER',,I'@@ 7- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Release the subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation securities in Tract No. 241 34-F. (Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road) PREPARED BY: A*Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the subdivision monument and traffic signaliztion mitigation securities in Tract No 24134-F, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. BACKGROUND: On May 15, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-F, and entered into subdivision agreements with: Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts: 1$773,000 ($515,000, $128,000, and $130,000, respectively) to cover faithful performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 2.$386,500 ($257,500, $64,000, and $65,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements. 3. $24,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. On August 1 3, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and Labor and Material assurance. r:\agdrpt\96\091 O\tr24134F.mon The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization mitigation fees at the time of tract map approval. The developer having now met all requirements for the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows: Instrument of Credit in the amount of $24,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. Instrument of Credit in the amount of $12,000 to cover traffic signalization mitigation fees. The affected streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council Resolution No. 96- on August 1 3, 1 996. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Almonte, Corte Montilla, and portions of Calle Veronica, Calle Barcalda, Santiago Road, and Margarita Road. Margarita Road was a part of the County Maintained-Road System prior to incorporation and became part of the City Maintained-Street System by succession on December 1, 1 989. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Location Map r:\agdrptN96\091 O\tr241 34F.mon p PROJECT VICINITY MAP Tract No. 24134-F. Location AlaD JL NOTE- -i s not to sc,,ile ITEA4 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTO FINANCE DI ITY MANA CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:"No Parking" Zone on Via la Vida between Margarita Road and Via Renate PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Assistant Engineer-Capital Projects/Traffic fl^ RECOMMENDATION: The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND VIA RENATE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B". BACKGROUND: At the August 22, 1996, meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, the Commission reviewed a request to establish a "No Parking" zone on a segment of Via la Vida between Margarita Road and Via Renate. The request for "No Parking" on this segment of Via la Vida was due to the narrow roadway width (approximately 32 feet), parked vehicles on the south side of this roadway and a relatively sharp horizontal curve which limits the visibility of the oncoming traffic. Although parking was not observed on the north side of this street, the proposed 'No Parking" zone will allow centerline striping which will guide the motorists around the existing curve. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Department of Public Works Striping/Stenciling Account No. 001- 164-601-5410. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution No. 96- 2.Exhibit 'A" - Location Map 3.Exhibit "B" - Proposed Parking Restriction and Striping R:kAGDRPT%96\0910\NOPARK-V.IDA rh RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF THE CITY OF TEM[ECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE NORTH SI]DE OF VIA LA VH)A BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND VIA RENATE AS SHO"N ON EXHIBIT "B". The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, 'No Parking' zone is hereby established in the City of Temecula on the northside of Via la Vida between Margarita Road and Via Renate as shown on Exhibit 'B'. Section 2. The City Clerk shall ce@ to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor A=T: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: - COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: - COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: - COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN - COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\AGDRPT'\96\0910\NOPAFtK-V.IDA rh PVEN mw ooo CIR 20 CIR wA@o DR PROPOSED 6@6NO PA CIUA I saw 2 PASEO ,3 PASO 4 I Sycamore Terrace Apartments EXHIBIT'4A" LOCATION MAP 1% N I VACANT PROPERTY PROPOSED "NO PARKINU' i4 w @,4 4 w ;g C) @ :9 SYCAMOIM TERRACE APARTMENTS 00 -1 ;g u :4 EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTION AND STRIPING ITEI\4 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:"NO PARKING" Zone on Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and Rancho Vista Road PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Assistant Engineer-Capital Projects/Traffic RECOMMENDATION: The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A". BACKGROUND: The City received a request to establish a "NO PARKING" zone on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and Rancho Vista Road. Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Pauba Road is designated as a major four-lane roadway on the City of Temecula Circulation Element of the General Plan. The posted speed limit is 45 mph on this segment of Ynez Road. Currently, parking is restricted on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Rancho Highlands Drive. Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and the newly widened segment north of Rancho Vista Road is a narrow roadway which provides only one (1) southbound travel lane. Due to the narrow roadway width, parked vehicles on this segment of Rancho California road impede the flow of traffic and therefore, parking should be restricted on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and the existing "NO PARKING- BIKE LANE' area north of Rancho Vista Road (Exhibit "A"). R:\AGDRPT\96@0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Department of Public Works Striping/Stenciling Account No. 001- 164-601-5410. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution No. 96- 2.Exhibit 'A" - Location Map R:%AGDRPT\96\0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh RIESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A". The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10. 12. 100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, 'NO PARKING' zones are hereby established in the City of Temecula on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and Rancho Vista Road as shown on Exhibit 'A'. Section 2. The City Clerk shall ce@ to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATI'EST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF TEMECULA 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: - COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: - COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: - COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN - COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\AGDRPTA96\0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. c z C) 9 RANCHOJUG S DR. TIEERRA VISTA RD. z 0 z EXHIBIT 66A99 cn LOCATION MAP CHO VISTA RD. ITEI\4 13 7 APPROVAL: CITY ATTORNEY A FINANCE OFFICER MANAGER TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (909) 784-8484, which renews an existing contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis. DISCUSSION: The Building and Safety Department has utilized the services of a consultant to provide the City with the service of assigning street address numbers for new development projects. Staff has utilized Mr. Bruce Stewart to perform these services for the past three (3) years and recommends this contract be renewed for Fiscal Year 1996-1997. Mr. Bruce Stewart has agreed to provide this supplemental service on an as-needed basis for compensation at the rate of twenty-five ($25) dollars per hour. This is an increase of five ($5) dollars per hour over the previous contract agreement. Mr. Bruce Stewart has had experience with the addressing program established by the County of Riverside and has provided street addressing under the program which has been established in the City. FISCAL IMPACT: Monies have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1996-1 997 budget in Account #001 - 162-999-5250, Other Outside Services, for this service. Sufficient funds exist to complete this project within this existing account. V:\.AGENDA.Agenda.Rcp Strwart.96a CITY OF TEMEECLTLA AGRE FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGRF, , is made and effective as of July I 199fL, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Bruce Stew= ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July I , 1996 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 1927, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices ut@ed by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4.PAYMIENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in fun, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This airnount shall not exceed Twenty-Five Hundred dollars ($ for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (1 0 %) of the amount of the LAX2:136829.2 -I- Revised 9/18195 Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. C. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice toConsultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 5.SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGRE T WITHOUT CAUSE. a.The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 3. 6.DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in theperformance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultantwith written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to LAX.2:136829.2 -2- Revised 9/19/95 terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIEP OF DOC S. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. AR such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of fmal payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. C. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. IND CATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE EM NTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. LAX--:-@36829.2 -3- Rcvised 9/18/95 a.Minimum Scol2e of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1)Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2)Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code I (any auto). (3)Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (4)Errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to the consultant's profession. b.Minimum Idmits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1)General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other fon-n with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2)Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3)Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4)Effors and omissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provi@. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1 3 6 8 2 9. 2 -4- Revised 9118/95 (1)The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2)For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3)Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4)The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the ]Limits of the insurer's liability. (5)Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acc=tability of Insuren. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VH, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. f. Verification of Cover-agrI. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting cover-age required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. AU endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. LA-N','-:136829.2 Revised 9/18/95 1 10.INDEPENDENI CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIEBI]LITEES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. IL2. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. AR information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work perfon-ned thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City LA;K--, 136829.2 -6- Revi@ 9118/95 retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceedings Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: To City: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention:City Manager To Consultant: Bruce Stewart 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 14. ASSIG The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Bruce Stewart Rhall perform the services described in this Agreement. Bruce Stewart may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Bruce Stewart from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES.. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 1,AX2:136829.2 -7- Revisc-d 9/19/95 16. GOVFRNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. 17. ENTIRE AGRFFWNT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. AR prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 18. AUTHORITY TO FNFCXJTF, THIS AGR The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMEECULA By Karel Lindemans Mayor Attest: June S. Greek City Clerk Approved As to Form: L.@-' '@36829. 2 -8- Revised 9/19/95 Peter M. Thorson City Attorney CONSLTLTANT By BY: !,,4.X.2: 136629.2 -9- Revisrd 9/18/95 EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart wiR provide address numbering on an as-needed basis for residential and commercial development throughout the City of Temecula. LAY,?-:136829.2 -10- Rovised 9/18/95 EXHI]BIT B PA SCHFDIJTF- It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714) 784-8484, will provide address numbering on an as-needed basis for residential and commercial development throughout the City of Temecula at the rate of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars per hour. LAX@-:136829.2 -11- Revised 9/18/95 ITE14 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY A 17 DIRECTOR OF Fl it CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO:City Council/City Manager FROM:Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director DATE:September 10,1996 SUBJECT: Old Town Temecula Logo License Agreement Prepared by: John R. Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION:The City Council: (1)Authorize the City Manager to Enter into License Agreements for use of the City's Old Town Logo. (2)Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING USE OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES WITHIN THE OLD TOWN AREA (3)Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE OLD TOWN LICENSING AGREEMENT BACKGROUND On July 23, 1996, the City Council continued this item to allow the Old Town Main Street Association (Association) the opportunity to review the draft License Agreement. The Association has declined to enter into an agreement which would have provided them with the authority to administer the license. The Association's letter has been attached for your review. Staff has discussed different options with the City Attorney. In order to protect the City from liability, the Attorney recommended we use the same agreement with each interested party who wishes to use the Logo. Under this scenario, the administration and product review would become the responsibility of staff. lit:\STA LIC.CC3 9/4/96 jnn 1 The Council may, however, allow the use of the logo for signage by adoption of the attached resolution. This resolution would provide a blanket consent to businesses in the Old Town Area (as defined in the Specific Plan) to use the logo as signage. The resolution only requires that an Old Town merchant add the copy right protection notice to the logo when it is used. FISCAL IMPACT The logo has the potential to provide revenue to the City and/or the Old Town Temecula Mainstreet Association. However, as directed by the Council, there will be no royalty payments for the use of the Logo. The City will incur a costs to administer the license. While staff is unable to estimate these costs at this time, the costs are not anticipated to be significant. Therefore staff recommends a nominal licensing fee of $35.00. Attachments: 1 . Resolution No. 96- - Page 3 2. Resolution No. 96- - Page 6 3.Old Town Main Street Letter of August 16, 1996 - Page 9 4. Draft Logo Agreement - Page 10 R:\STA LJC.CC3 9/4/% jnn 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/% jnn 3 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING USE OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES THE OII) TOWN AREA THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Council finds and determines the following: a. In December 1995, the City Council selected a design for the Old Town Logo ("Logo"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. b. As stated in the Old Town Specific Plan, the Logo is intended to be used on various stree@ elements within the Old Town Area, such as the gateway sign, street signs, and intersection paving. C. The use of the Logo by businesses within the Old Town Area on signs identifying the businessis an appropriate use of the @go, consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan, and will assist inthe promotion of the Old Town Area and the City as a whole. Section 2.The City Council hereby consents to the use of the Logo by businesses located withm theOld Town Area on the signs identifying the business or on a separate logo sign in connection withthe business, provided, however, that at all times the user includes the notice "CopyrightP by City of Temecula--All Rights Reserved' on the Logo each time it is used. The Old Town Area shall be defined as the area which is subject to the Old Town Specific Plan as approved by the City Council and businesses shall be defmed as those businesses holding valid City of Temecula business licenses. Section 3. Use of the Logo pursuant to the consent given by this Resolution is intended only to generally promote businesses in the Old Town Area and the City and is not intended to endorse any business or activity. By giving its consent to the use of the Logo to businesses in the Old Town Area by this Resolution, the City does not authorized, endorse or otherwise approve of any particular business using the Logo nor any of the activities conducted by the business using the Logo. Section 4. The consent granted by this Resolution may be revoked by the City Council at any time, for any reason, provided not less that sixty (60) days prior written notice is given to persons with business licenses within the Old Town Area. R:\STAFFRMLOOOLJC.CC3 914196jrm 4 Section 5. The City Clerk shall ce@ the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO on September 10, 1996. by the City Council of the City of Temecula Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I Y CERTIIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996 by the following vote of the Council: AYES:CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:CrrY COUNCIILMEMBERS: ABSENT:CITY COUNCIIL ERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/% jrm 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:NST LIC.CC3 914/% jrm 6 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF THE CITY OF TEMIECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE OLD TOWN LICENSING AGREEMENT The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula orders as follows: WHEREAS, there is an administrative cost to process the Old Town Logo Licensing Agreement. Section 1. There is hereby established a $35.00 fee schedule for the Old Town Logo Licensing Agreement. Section 2. The funds collected for these shall be deposited in the Receiving Account of the General Fund. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor AT=T: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] R:\STA LJC.CC3 9/4/% jrm 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SIDE ss CrrY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, Citv Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIIL ERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCIILMEM13ERS: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk R:\STA LlC.CC3 9/4t% jrm 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 OLD TOWN MAIN STREET LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 1996 R:\STA LIC.CC3 9/41% jnn 9 August 16, 1996 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43106 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 Re:Old Town Temecula Logo License Agreement Dear Mr.Meyer, TheBoard of Directors of the Old Town Temecula Main Street Association met today and addressed the issue of the above mentioned license agreement. Although the Board was pleased with the Council's offer to make the licensing available to the Association, at this @-ime the Board respectfully declines the offer. The decision was based in nart on the following issues: I . Proper implementation would require staffing that, at this time, we do not have. 2.The license was a non-exclusive acreement which could resuIL-in several parties licensing products. 3.The enforcement provisions anticipate legal action, -f necessary, to be borne bv our Association. The Board did not --Feel comfortable entering into a potential legal arena. We fully support the logo and anxiously await implementation. Further, vlease convey t o the Council our appreciation for their efforts on our behalf. And, as always, thank vou John for your ongoina assistance +--o our organization. Sincerely, Old Town Temecula Mainstreet Association t. John- t ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DRAFT LOGO AGREEMENT R:\STA LIC.CC3 914/96 jrm 1 0 01,D TOWN IOGO LICENSE AGRE THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of July 23, 1996, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City") and ("Licensee"). In consideration of their mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1 . Grant of License. 1.1 On the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement, City hereby grants to Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts from City the right, license and privilege ("the License") during the Term to u@ the Old Town Temecula Logo ("Logo," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein) upon and in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of the articles of merchandise ("Goods") approved by the City pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement. 1.2 If Licensee decides to allow others to u@ the Logo, as permitted by Section 1. 1, such permission shall only be granted by written agreement which incorporates the terms of this Agreement and makes the obligations applicable to the sub-hcensee. Licensee agrees to protect the Logo and enforce the terms of this License Agreement if the Logo is allowed to be used by others. 1.3 City shall retain the right to grant any other licenses which authorize the manufacture or sale of the Goods or any other goods or products during the Term of this Agreement. 2. I= 2.1 Duration. The "Term' of this Agreement shall be one (1) year, commencing on the date of this Agreement. 2.2 Notice of De!;ire to F-xtend Term. At least two (2) months prior to the scheduled expiration of the Term, Licensee -.haU give written notice to City of Licensee's desire either to @er extend the Term or to allow the Term to expire in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; if Licensee desires to extend the Term, the parties shall meet to discuss an extension of the Term. However, notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, nothing in this paragraph @ be construed as an obligation of City to extend the Term, nor shall it be construed as granting Licensee any option to extend the Term, regardless of whether or not Licensee provides the notice described herein. 3.Quality Control. 3.1. Licensee @ not distribute or sell any Goods nor allow the use of the Logo on a sign nor shall it issue a sublicense for the distribution or sale of Goods unless and until the R:\STAFFRPT\LOOOLIC.CC3 9/4/%jrm 1 1 nature, quality and style of the Goods as well as any carton, container, packing or wrapping material have been specifically approved by the City in writing, nor shall Licensee use any tag, label or similar item or any advertising, promotional or display material in connection with any Goods or bearing the Logo, unless and until such items and materials have been specifically approved by City in writing. After samples have been approved pursuant to this section, no changes shall be made without the prior written consent of City. The City Council hereby delegates this approval authority to the City Manager, who may delegate this authority further to a City employee or committee composed of members of the Licensee. 3.2 Licensee acknowledges that the image of the Logo requires that any Goods must be in good taste and meet high standards of quality. Because judgments of taste and quality may be subjective, Licensee agrees that City may grant or withhold any approval or consent required under this Section in its sole and absolute discretion. 3.3 Licensee shall cause all Goods to be manufactured, sold and distributed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws. 4.Tabeling. Licensee will cause to appear on each item of Goods and on or within all advertising, promotional or display material bearing the Logo the notice 'Copyright cl by City of Temecula - AU Rights Reserved" and any other notice requested by City; and, where such item or advertising, promotional or display material bears a trademark or serviceman, appropriate statutory notice of registration or application for registration thereof. Should any items of Goods be marketed in a carton, container, packaging or wrapping material bearing the Logo, such notice shall also appear on the carton, container, packaging or wrapping material. All tags, labels, imprints or other devices containing any such notice and all advertising, promotional or display materials bearing the Logo shall be submitted to City for its written approval prior to use by Licensee. Approval by City shall not constitute waiver of City's rights or Licensee's duties under any provision of this Agreement. 5.City's Title and Protec@. 5.1 Goodwill. Licensee acknowledges the value of the goodwill associated with the Logo and acknowledges that the Logo and all rights therein belong exclusively to City, and that the Logo has a secondary meaning in the mind of the public. Licensee shall not during the Term or thereafter attack the title or any rights of City in and to the Logo or attack the validity of the License. 5.2 Protection of Logo. At the option of City, Licensee shall (I) assist City in the procurement of any protection or defense of any of City's rights in the Logo, or (ii) on behalf of City cause to be filed all appropriate registration applications to protect the Logo and the Merchandising Rights. Licensee shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to protect the Logo and City's interests in the Logo. R:\STA LW.CC3 9/4/% jm 1 2 5.3 'Fmforeement of Rights. Licensee shall use its best efforts to detect and abate any unautho@ use of the Logo by other parties. Unless otherwise directed by City, Licensee shall take all reasonable measures on behalf of itself and City to abate such unauthorized use, mcluding without @tation, @g a civil suit in the courts or an opposition or cancellation action in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unless otherwise directed by City, Licensee shall undertake and control the prosecution of such actions. City shall provide reasonable cooperation to Licensee in any such actions, but all legal fees and costs shall be bome by Licensee and included in Permitted Expenses. No@g herein shall preclude City from taking such other or additional actions as City may deem appropriate to protect the Logo. 5.4 A.-qqipnment of Rights by City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be cons@ as an assigm-nent or grant to Licensee of any right, title or interest in or to the Logo; all rights relating to the Logo are reserved by City except for the License to use the Merchandising Rights only as specifically and expressly provided in this Agreement. Upon expiration or termination of the Term Licensee will be deemed to have assigned, transferred and conveyed to City any @e rights, equities, goodwill or other rights in and to the Logo which may have been obtained by Licensee in pursuance of any endeavors under this Agreement (without consideration other dm the mutual covenants and consideration of this Agreement); although such assignment, transfer and conveyance shall be deemed effective without the need for any action by Licensee, Licensee shall exer-ute any instruments requested by City to evidence or confirm such assignment, transfer and conveyance. Licensee agrees that use of the Logo by Licensee shall inure to the benefit of City and ffia Licensee shall not at any time acquire any rights in the Logo by virtue of any use Licensee may make of the Logo. 6.Indemnification of City. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless City, the City Council and each member thereof, and City's officers, employees and agents (all collectively refeffed to as "Indemnitees') from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, liabilities and expenses (mcluding attorneys' fees and costs of defense) incurred in connection with or resulting from the Goods or the use of the Logo by Licensee. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any such claim, Licensee upon notice from Indemnitees shall defend Indemnitees at Licensee's expen&e, by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Indemnitees. 7.Product Liability Insurance-. If Licensee engages in the manufacture or distribution of merchandise pursuant to this License, Licensee and any sub-licensee engaged in the manufacture or distribution of merchandise, @ obtain and maintain at its sole cost and expense, throughout the Term and for a period of at least four years after expiration or termination of the License, customary product liability insurance from a qualified and recognized insurance company, naming City and the other Indemnitees and Licensee as 'additional insureds'. The amount of coverage shall be a minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence of bodily injury, and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for each occurrence of property damage. The policy shall provide for thirty (30) days' written notice to City and Licensee from the insurer by Registered or R:'SRA 11C.CM 9/4/% jfm 1 3 Certified mail, Return Receipt Requested, prior to any modification, cancellation or termination of such insurance coverage. Licensee shall furnish City with a certified copy of the policy providing such coverage, or other suitable evidence thereof, within @ (30) days after the commencement of the Term, but in no event shall Licensee distribute or sell any Goods prior to receipt by City of such evidence of insurance. 8.Default; Termination. 8.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a default and breach of this Agreement by Licensee: (A) The failure by Licensee to observe or perform any of the other covenants, conditions or provisions of this Agreement to be observed or performed by Licensee, where such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days after written notice thereof by City to Licensee; provided, however, that if the nature of Licensee's default is such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its cure, then Licensee shall not be deemed to be in default if Licensee commences such cure within the 30-day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion; or (B) the making by Licensee of any general assignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Licensee of a petition to have Licensee adjudged a bankrupt, or a petition or reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Licensee, the petition is dismissed within 60 days); or the appointment of a trustee or a receiver to take possession of substantially all of Licensee's assets or of Licensee's interest in this Agreement, where possession is not restored to Licensee within 30 days; or the attachment, execution or other judicial sea= of substantially all of Licensee's assets or of Licensee's interest in this Agreement, where such seizure is not discharged within 30 days. 8.2 In the event of any such default or breach by Licensee, City may terminate this Agreement at any time thereafter, in its sole discretion, with or without notice or demand and without limiting City in the exercise of any other right or remedy which City may have by reason of such default or breach. 9.No City Warranties. City has made and makes no warranties or representations on which Licensee has relied in entering into this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence, City specifically has made and makes no warranties or representations regarding the amount of expenses licensee will incur in performing its obligations under this Agreement, and the amounts of Gross Revenues and Net Revenues that Licensee will derive under this Agreement. 10.Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed given as R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4196 jfm 1 4 of the time of hand delivery to the addresses set forth below, or three days after deposit into the United States mail, postage prepaid, by Registered or Certified mail, Return Receipt Requested. Unless notice of a different address has been given in accordance with tius section, all such notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City, to:City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive TemeC,ila, CA 92590 Attn:City Manager With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attn: Peter Thorson If to Licensee, to: 11.Integrated Agreement: Modification. This Agreement contains all agreements of the parties relating to the Logo, the Merchandising Rights and the License, and cannot be amended or modified except by a written agreement. 12.Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of City on any default by Licensee shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by City of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 13.Governing @. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 14.Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal. R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/96 jnn 1 5 15.Re].qtinn-,hip of Parties. City @ not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with Licensee by reason of the provisions of this Agreement, nor shall either party have any authority to obligate or bind the other in any respect, it being intended that each party shall remain an independent contractor responsible for its own actions. 16.Captions. The captions of this Agreement shall have no effect on its interpretation. R:\ST IIC.CC3 9/4/% jfm 1 6 IN WrrNESS F, time parties have executed dus Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF LTLA ('City") Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor A=T: June S. Greek 9 City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney LICENSEE By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: R:\ST LIC.CC3 914/96 jim 1 7 EXHIBIT A COPY OF LOGO R:\STAFFRPT\LOGOLIC.CC3 9141%jrm 18 EXHIBIT A I COPY OF LOGO TEMECULA, CA. i I1-@- ù,4A - - - TEMECULA, CA. R:\STAFFRMLOC,OLIC,CC3 8/29/96 iiiii ITEI\4 15 ,e APPROVA CITY ATTO FINANCE DI CITY MAN,4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:The First Amendment to Agreement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between County of Riverside and City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: Each year it is necessary to amend the agreement with the County of Riverside for law enforcement services based upon budgeted staffing levels. The attached amendment provides for the FY 97 budgeted levels of service which include: Twenty-three (23) Patrol Deputy positions; Two (2) Target Team Deputy Sheriff positions; Four (4) Motorcycle Team Deputy Sheriff positions; One (1) K-9 Deputy Sheriff position; Two (2) School Resource Officers Deputy Sheriff positions; Eleven (1 1) Sheriff's Service Officer positions and the necessary managment staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are budgeted for the attached positions. FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF TEMECULA IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, effective July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000, is hereby amended in the following respects only: 1Attachment A is amended to read as follows: CITY OF TEMECULA 1,FVET, OFIRFRVTCF, AveraTraffic Services 112 supported hours per day. (Approximate equivalent of twenty-three (23) Deputy Sheriff positions a 1,780 annual productive hours standard.) Dedicated Positions Two (2) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) positions-Target Team Four (4) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) positions-Motorcycle Team One (1) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) position-K-9 Deputy One (1) Deputy Sheriff (unsupported) position-Connnunity Oriented Policing Officer Two (2) Deputy Sheriff (unsupported) positions-School Resource Officers (academic year) Eleven (1 1) Sheriff's Service Officer positions One (1) Office Assistant III position IN WITNESS @EREOF, the City of Temecula, by resolution or minute order duly adopted by its City Council, has caused this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested and sealed by its Clerk, and the County of Riverside, by order of its Board H H of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be signed by the Chairman of said Board and attested and sealed by the Clerk of said Board, all on the dates indicated below. CITY OF TEMECULA Date: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Date: By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney Clerk of the Board FORM APPROVED i COUNTY COUNSEL By: Deputy ivL 0 5 199 BY 2 ITEN4 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTO FINANCE 0 MAN,A CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO:City Manager/City Council FROM:Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager DATE:September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Resolution Designating the Arts Council of Temecula Valley as the Lead Organization to Represent the Arts in Temecula RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY AS THE LEAD ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT THE ARTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA BACKGROUND: In the past year, the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley has been actively working to establish itself as the umbrella organization to coordinate arts activities in Temecula. As outlined on the attached Presidential Goals and Objectives for 1996, these activities would include a master calendar of arts events, development of a long range cultural plan, and facilitating communication among art groups. According to President Jerry Novotney, one of the most important reasons to make this designation is to make the Arts Council eligible for various State, Federal and private funding. It is important to note that this designation would not preclude any art organization from applying for the City's Community Service Funding Program. The Arts Council has also indicated that there is no requirement to pay dues to be included in the organization. FISCAL IMPACT: By taking this action, there is no cost to the City, but it may provide opportunities to the arts organization for additional funding opportunities. ATTACHMENTS:Resolution Presidential Goals and Objectives for 1 996 The Arts Council in 1996 Statements of Support RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE ARTS COUNCIIL OF VALLEY AS THE LEAD ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT THE ARTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA WHEREAS, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts; and , The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present and future local art groups; and S, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley can, if so designated, serve as lead agency for all of the arts organization in the Temecula area in applying for State and Federal grants for the Arts. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Temecula supports the efforts of the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley as the lead art organization in the City of Temecula. Section 1. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula on September 10, 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] Resos@ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSI]DE ss CITY OF TEMECULA 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk Reso&\Arts 2 PRESIDENTIAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 1996 Revised 2-9-96 1.To establish the Arts Council office as the center for arts activities with a master calendar of community arts events. 2.To implement the Arts Council's 1995 long range plan by furthering the establishment of the Council as an umbrella organization serving other arts groups. 3.To create and strengthen communications with and between arts organizations in the community. 4.To create an Arts Council Advisory group and establish a meeting schedule for such a group. 5.To strengthen the Temecula Arts Council's relationship with CALAA, CAC, and the Riverside Arts Foundation. 6.To explore new funding sources e.g. Foundations, City of Temecula and expansion of "Friends of the Arts." 7.To have the Arts Council proclaimed by City Council Resolution as the lead arts organization in Temecula. 8.To strengthen the Arts Council's relationship with the local press, C.O.C., E.D.C., and the school system. 9.To present a viable program of quality events for community consumption. 10.To establish a two year plan and time line for the creation of a cultural plan for the Temecula Valley. THE ARTS COUNCIL IN 1996 The founders of the Arts Council believed that it is a mistake to allow any person to serve too long a time on the Board of Trustees. The bylaws therefore specify that a board member shall serve a three year term, and if reelected, may serve a second term. Thereafter, the board member must wait for at least a year to be eligible to return. Thus, all the original board members are now retired from the Arts Council Board of Trustees, with the exception of Dorothy Meyler, who, in her capacity of Secretary is serving one additional year. Bylaws limit the board to 19 members. However, if a board member is married, his/her spouse may attend and if both spouses attend, they are each entitled to one-half vote. Board meetings are held monthly, on the second Monday from 5:30 to 7:00 PM. Executive board meetings are held the first Monday of each month. The current Executive Board consists of President Jerry Novotney, Vice President Marti Treckman, Secretary Dorothy Meyler, Treasurer Carol Stiff and Past President Jim Meyler. The Executive Board serves as an advisory group to the President. It has no legal status. The Arts Council Board has 19 active members. A current listing is attached. Members who have three or more unexcused absences in a 12 month period will be replaced from a waiting list. Offices of the Arts Council are located upstairs in what used to be the "Honda of Temecula" building, on Jefferson Avenue in Temecula. The offices have been made available at no cost to the Arts Council by Donna Reeves and the Norm Reeves Super Group. Conference tables, chairs, a copying machine, two computers, a Fax machine and other office furniture have been donated to the Arts Council office. Barbara Keen, formerly volunteer coordinator for Sharp Healthcare, Murrieta, has offered her services as a volunteer coordinator for the Arts Council and the office is currently staffed to operate Monday through Thursday from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Currently, Jerry Novotney spends most of the day Tuesday and Thursday at the Arts Council Office. Although the Council has determined that it will convert from a "performing" to a itsupport" organization over the next three to five years, there is no desire to discontinue the performing activities. Rather they can be taken over by other organizations, or other groups can be formed to take over the performance activities. For example, the 1996 Arts Festival will have three events provided by other arts organizations - Fine Arts Network will provide Children's Art-in-the-Park, the Temecula Valley Playhouse will provide the closing benefit performance of "Death Trap", and Taste of the Valley will tie in with the final day of the Arts Festival. Flyers and descriptive information for Arts Fest '96 are attached. It is expected that Art Fest '97 will incorporate 20 or more different performing and visual arts organizations in a much larger Arts Festival which will be coordinated by the Arts Council. ESOPA (Emerging Stars of Performing Arts) is a division of the Arts Council which has provided about two performances a year. ESOPA contracts with highly talented young artists to perform in Temecula. This year's Valentine Love Songs concert, featuring the U. C. Irvine Concert Choir sold out every seat at the Community Recreation Center. A symphony concert is planned later this year by ldylwyld School of Music and the Arts concert orchestra. The sixth annual Concert on the Green, featuring the Riverside Philharmonic Orchestra, is scheduled for fall of 1996. The five previous concerts have been held on the grounds of the Embassy Suites Hotel and this is the site hoped for this year, but availability is not certain. Eventually, the new city park at the Duck Pond may be available for this activity. In line with its mission as a "support" organization, the Arts Council organized a meeting of 27 visual and performing arts groups located in Temecula and Murrieta, with one representative from Falibrook. The meeting stressed that the principal purpose of the Arts Council is to assist artists and other arts organizations in the Temecula Valley. President Novotney said that the Council can provide office facilities, telephone answering, ticket sales, credit card acceptance, publicity, bulk mailing and insurance to other art organizations who have need of these services. Representatives of most organizations stressed the need for a Community Arts Calendar and the ability to coordinate the scheduling of activities. Novotney offered the Arts Council's newsletter "ARTifacts", to provide this calendar as well as publicity for arts activities. The group voted their support for the formation of an Arts Advisory Board to meet periodically and further develop efforts to coordinate and unify artistic activities in the Temecula/Murrieta area. Minutes of the meeting and names and organizations attending are attached. President Jerry Novotney has prepared a rather ambitious list of objectives for 1996. The listing is attached. It is hoped that these objectives will be the subject of one of our first meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee. \wpdocs\present.art May 9, 1996 THE ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley was formally incorporated as a 50 1 (C)3 corporation in 1989. It grew from a small group of Tei-necula citizens who, when the town had only 4000 residents, sought to take part in cultural activities being presented in .neighboring larger cities such as San Diego and Los Angeles. The group called itself "The Temecula Cultural Society". Local residents, James and Dorothy Meyler, were part of the original group. Activities of the Cultural Society included seeking out, organizing a group and driving or chartering a bus to attend events out of the area. Gradually the group came to the conclusion that as Temecula grew it would have to provide 'in tow@,i' cultural events foi- its citizens. To foster a movement in this direction The Arts Council was incorporated with a mission statement that stated five purposes: 1.To stimulate the growth of visual and performing arts in the comi-nunity 2.To promote and facilitate arts education 3.To assist individual artists and art organizations 4.To create a network for coordination and sharing of resources 5.To encourage construction of facilities for the performing arts. Since this activity took place before the incorporation of Temecula as a city, it may be said that the rounding members, led by Mary Jo Heimcke (no longer a resident), were people of vision and dedication. So concerned were they that when the city was about to be incorporated and a number of citizens were running for new city council positions, all candidates were invited to an Arts Council sponsored forum to be questioned publicly about their position in regard to supporting the cultural side of community life. All candidates stated unequivocal support for the arts. Therefore the City Council, from its inception, has given funds to various community groups and some $120,000 to The Arts Council to provide a multitude of cultural events in Temecula. With such financial help from' the city and the contributions from a community support group known as "The Friends of the Arts", The Arts Council has become financially stable and continues to advocate the presentation of all visual and performing arts, the development of arts organizations and the education of both adults and children in tile various segments of cultural life. As Temecula looks to its future, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley will use its resources to support and coordinate, where possible, the efforts of individuals and groups interested in enhancing tile cultural life of our valley. As new talent comes into the area as a result of the Old Town revivification project, the Council will strive to identify and incorporate these new elements into the educational and entertainmen segments of community life. The Council will be involved in a continuing effort to act as the communication vehicle for sharing expertise, funding sources and scheduling information with all interested parties. Date: February 1, 1996 COUNCIL OF 7-HE TF-AfE('IILA [,ALLEY P.0 BOX 2337 TENIECULA, CA 92593 (1)09)6()S-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Ste% c and Susan Art Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT John and Tberesa Bell Bob and Jo Di to Z.cN und Viima Buffman TO WHOM IT @Y CONCERN: Mar-% ann and Tom Edward,,. Jti Aurw Flowers Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much RandN and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present Jeff and Marc%. Horton and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the DorothN Min.ler resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated Heten and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula. Iton Jem and Pat No%otnc% I)tiris, and C.J. Ro-t.er Carol and Duane Stiff Z-Z, Date Name of Organization Janet and Jfic T(mch" Marti Tm-ckman Rich2rd and Pe= Wile% COUNCFL OF THE, TEAIEC(@ VALLEY P 0. BOX 2337 TE,N4ECULA, CA 92593 (909)695-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES SteN c and Susan Art Albert and Grace ftil STATEMENT OF SUPPORT John and Thervia Bell @ and Jo Biro &N iind'v'ilma Buffman TO @OM IT @Y CONCERN: Marvann and Tom EdAards Jo Anne Flowen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much Rand% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, Jcff and f*lam@ Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the MrothN fkle%ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated H@n and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula. Jo Moulton Jem- and Put No%,otne% Doris and C.J. Ro%er Vat,,eey Wind,6 Carol and Duane Stiff f)ate Name of Organization Janet and Joe T4A@ Marti Treckman tt) Richard and PeM- Wile-. Signature Title COLJNCFL OF THILTEML--C(ILA F"ALLEY P@0, BOX 2337 TEMECULA, CA 92593 (909)695-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSREES Scei-c and Susan Art Albert mad Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT John and Theresa Bdi Bob and Jo Biro Z,ei and Vilma Buffman TO @OM IT MAY CONCEM: MarNann and Tom Edwards Jo Anne Fk),Acn Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much Rand% and Diane Holl3ind needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present Jcff and Mar@. Horton and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the Mr%jth% M"Ilcr resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated Hekn and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula. )ton Jem@ antl Pat Nfi@-otnc% Doris and C.J. Ro%er -1?6 Carol and Duane Stiff 7&tneavlt, Vcniw@e Date Name ot Organizatioly Janet and Joe Ttnchei Marti Treckman Richard and Ptg* Wilev Title' COUNCIL OF THE TFAFFC(ILA IALLEI' P@0. BOX 2337 TEN4ECLJLA, CA 92593 (909)695-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Ste@-e and Susan Art Albert and Grace Ball STATE@NT OF SUPPORT John and Theresa Bell &k and Jo Biro and Vilma Buffman TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Marvano and Tom Edvv2rds Jo Anne Flovtcrs Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much Rand@ and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, Jeff and Mm rcv Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the @rothn . M@.ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated Helen and Paul Mikier lead art organization in the City of Temecula. Jo Moulton Jerr% I and Pat NoA-otn@ Dori-, and C.J. Ro%. er Can)l and Duane Stiff Date Name of Organization Janet and Joe Totche% Marti Treckman Richard and PeW Wife-. Signatur6,-,j Title COUNCIL 01- THE TFAIF-CIII-A FALLET' P 0. BOX 2337 TENIECULA, CA 92593 (909)6c)5-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Steic and @an Art Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF S@PORT John and Therf-sai Bell B" and Jo Biro ZA-% and Vilms Buffman TO Vv'HOM IT MAY CONCE@: MarN,ann and Tom Edvvards Jo Anne FloAen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much Rand-% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, Jeff and Mskm Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the Truth% . Me,,Ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated Helen and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula. lton Jerr%. and Put Noi,-otnev DD@ and C.J. Roir er Carol and Duane Stiff Janet and Joe T(Ache- Date Name f, anization M2rti'l'reckman Title- Richard and Pcgf,_% Wile,. COUNCIL 01- THF-- TEAfECtILA 1,7ALLEY P.O. BOX 2337 TENIECULA, CA 92593 (909)695-ARTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Stine and Susan Art Albert and Grace BWI STATEMENT OF SUPPORT John and Theresa BO) Bob and Jo Biro Zc% and Vilms Beffman 161arv2nn anduom Edwards TO @OM IT MAY CONCERN: Jo Anne Flov%ers Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much RandN and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present Jeff and Mar4.%. Horton and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the M"hN Me%.Ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated Helen and Paul Miller lead @ organization in the City of Temecula. Jo Moulton Jerr-v and Pat Noiotncn Dori,, and C7-J. Rt)N.er Carol and Duane Stiff @ate N@e of Organization Janet and Joe Toschtm Mitrti Tr#-clman Title' Richard anti PeW WileN COUNCIL OF- THF, TI-@-NEC(ILA P"ALLEY P@0, BOX 2337 TENLECULA, CA 92593 (909)695-,kRTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Stc%-e and Su&an Art Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT John and Theresa Bell ha) and Jo Biro ZA-% and Vilma Buffman M3ir%-unn and Tom EEN-ards TO @OM IT MAY CONCERN: Jo Anne FloAen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much Ranci.% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts, Jeff and Mam Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the Dorothx . Mc%.Icr resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated H@n and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula. lion Jem and Pat No%,otnc% Doris and C.J. Ro% er Carol and Duane Stiff Date Name'of Organization Janet and Joe Tosche% Marti Trc-ckmstn Title RichariJ and P@- Wiln TEN4ECULA COIMN4UNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEI\4 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD AUGUST 27, 1996 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:35 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Vice President Jeff Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone ASSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR Director Ford requested that Item 3 be amended to add a notice of service to the contract. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Stone to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1-3, including amendment made by Director Ford on Item No. 3. The motion was unanimously carried. 1 Minutes 1.1Approve the minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1996. 2Amendment to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contract 2.1Approve contract amendment of $19,600 with Excel Landscape, Inc. To provide landscape maintenance services for the sports Park Improvement Project for FY 1996-97. 3Aareement for Softball Officiating Services 3.1Approve agreement between the City of Temecula and the Margarita Officials Association for providing City softball officiating services. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT None given. r:\minutes.csd\082796 GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT None given. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Stone to adjourn at 7:36 PM to a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Ron Roberts, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ District Secretary r:\minutes.csd\08 27 9 6 -2- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEI\4 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD AUGUST 27, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:36 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR. General Manager Ron Bradley asked that Item No. 6 be continued to the meeting of September 10, 1996. City Clerk June Greek stated she had requests to speak on Item No. 2. Agency Member Stone stated he would abstain on Items 3, 4, and 5. It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Ford to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 3-5, with Agency Member Stone abstaining on Items 3-5 and continue Item No. 6. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Stone abstaining on Items 3-5. 1 Minutes 1.1Approve the minutes of August 13, 1996. 3Contract Amendment No. 1. Professional Services with Tom Dodson & Associates for Environmental Consulting Services for the First Street and Western BY12ass Corridor Bridaes over Murrieta Creek and Phases I and 11 of the Western Byl2ass Corridor - PW 95-08 3.1Approve the Contract Amendment No. 1 for Professional Services for Environmental Consulting Services for the First Street and Western Bypass Corridor Bridges over Murrieta Creek and Phases I and 11 of the Western Bypass Corridor to Tom Dodson & Associates for $1 0,000.00 and authorize the Chairperson to execute the contract. Minutes.rda\082796 -1- The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone 4Award of Construction Contract for Project No. PW95-26, The Sixth Street Parkina 4.1Award a contract for Project No. PW95-26, the Sixth Street Parking Project, to General Consolidated Constructors, Inc., for $593,000.00 and authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract. 4.2Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $59,300.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone 5Amendment to Ground Lease with Dual Development Inc. (Sixth and Front Streets) 5.1Approve the First Amendment to Ground Lease by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Dual Development Inc. 5.2Authorize the City Clerk to record the original lease agreement and this amendment. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone Minutes.rda\082796 -2- 6Residential Rehabilitation Program 6.1Continued to the meeting of September 10, 1996. 2Interim Funding for the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Temecula Vallex Economic Development Corooratoon and the Temecula Valley Film Couwl Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. Joan Sparkman, 30554 San Pasquel Road, representing the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation and gave a brief report on activities and benefits the Chamber of Commerce brings to the City of Temecula. Mark Evans, 32278 Cour Pomeroi, representing the Temecula Valley Film Council, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation and announced the Film Festival is scheduled for September 18-22, 1996. He asked for clarification of what kind of funding should be accepted in the future. Assistant City Manager McLarney stated that funding for the upcoming year is scheduled for discussion on the September 10, 1996 Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Jo Moulton, representing the Temecula Valley Film Council, thanked the City Council for their support and spoke in support of the staff recommendation. It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Ford to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1Approve an interim funding request for the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation and the Temecula Valley Film Council. The motion was unanimously carried. AGENCY BUSINESS 7Temecula Pro Rodeo Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. George Skalsky, representing the Temecula Pro Rodeo Committee, requested that the City Council approve funding a sponsorship package for the Temecula Rodeo in the amount of $2,500. RECESS Chairperson Birdsall called a brief recess at 7:55 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 7:56 PM. Agency Member Stone stated he is not in favor of this request because this is not a non-profit organization. Minutes.rda\082796 -3- Agency Member Lindemans stated he feels this is advertisement for the City and does not have a problem with this request. It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Ford to approve a $2,500 sponsorship package. Chairperson Birdsall suggested removing all elements which are not for advertising and reducing the amount to $2,000. Agency Member Lindemans amended his motion, Agency Member Ford amended his second to approve a $2,000 sponsorship package excluding all of the sponsor award elements which are not for advertising. The motion carried as follows: AYES:3 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Birdsall NOES:2 AGENCY MEMBERS: Roberts, Stone ABSENT:0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBER's REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Ford to adjourn at 8:10 PM to a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 P.M., Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ Agency Secretary Minutes.rda\082796 -4- I ITEI\4 2 CITY ATTOR DIRECTOR 0 CITY MANA( TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO:Redevelopment Agency FROM:Ronald E. Bradley, Executive Director DATE:September 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Residential Rehabilitation Program Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION:The Redevelopment Agency: 1Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH THE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITAION PROGRAM TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS TO REHABILITATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING AND PRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY 2.Authorize the expenditure of up to $200,000 from RDA Housing Set-aside, Account No. 165-199-813-5804, to establish the Residential Rehabilitation Program. BACKGROUND The City Council, through the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, has established goals and policies for the purpose of providing affordable housing for existing and future residents of Temecula. As a first step in meeting these goals, the Agency adopted the First Time Homebuyer Program to assist low and moderate income families in the purchase of single-family homes. As a second step, staff is proposing programs that will provide for the rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing units to assist low and moderate income households. At this time, staff is recommending Board approval of the Multi-family Residential Rehabilitation Program (MFRRP). This program will provide assistance to eligible multi-family property owners to rehabilitate renter occupied housing units. Property owners will be allowed to borrow up to $3,000 per dwelling unit to rehabilitate rental properties. Eligible improvements include painting, landscaping, tot lots, interior and exterior improvements necessary to meet current Uniform Building Code requirement. As a condition of the loan, property owners will be required to record an affordability agreement insuring that the assisted units are guaranteed as affordable units for a minimum 30 year period. Other programs that will be brought to the R:\ST CC2 @ jm 1 Board at a subsequent meeting include a Senior Housing Repair Program, and a Single Family Home Repair Program. FISCAL IMPACTS The 1996-97 CIP budget contains $200,000 for the Residential Rehabilitation Program (Account No. 165-199-813-5804). Attachments: 1. Resolution No. RDA 96- - Page 3 2.Program Parameters - Page 6 R:IST CC7, 9/3196jrm 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- R:\ST CC2 9/.V96jnn 3 ATRACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELAD AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH THE RF-IFARI]LrrATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST PROPERTY 0TO RERABI]LrrATE RES]IDENTI[AL PROPERTY FORTHE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, OVING ANDPRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WMIIN THE REDEVELO PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY THE REDEVELOP AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section1. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: A.Ile Agency is currently implementing the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment ProjectNo. 1-1988, originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1988 prior to the incorporation of the City and subsequently approved and transferred to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on April 9, 1991 (the "Plan"). B. The Agency has established a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33433 for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the supply of low and moderate income housing within the Project Area and the City. C. The Agency proposes to establish the Residential Rehabilitation Program to provide financial assistance to low and moderate income persons in the rehabilitation of residential housing for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the supply of low and moderate income housing within the Project Area and the City. D. The rehabilitation of properties for low and moderate income housing purposes is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and with the Implementation Plan adopted by the Agency. Additionally, rehabilitation of properties and the improvement and preservation of low and moderate income housing thereon will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area. E. The rehabilitation of properties and the units thereon is exempt from the provisions of the Califon-iia Envirommental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Admin. Code 15326. Moreover, the EIR approving the Plan addressed the impacts of housing development in the area of the Properties. Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Residentiat Rehabilitation Program, authorizes the expenditure R:\ST CC2 913196jnn 4 of $200,000.00 from account number 165-199-813-5804, and authorizes the Chairperson to execute agreements with individuals in substantially conformance with the parameters of the program set forth hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3. The Secretary shall ce@ the adoption of this Resolution. Section 4. PASSED, APFROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on September 10, 1996. Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson A=T: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ Agency Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SIDE Ss CITY OF TEMECULA 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk/Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby ce@ that the Resolution No. RDA 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AM: AGENCY ERS: NOES:AGENCY MIEUMERS: ABSENT:AGENCY MEEM13ERS: ABSTAIN: AGENCY ERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary R:IST CC2 @jm 5 I ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROGRAM PARAMETERS R:\.ST CC2 @/96jrm 6 City of Temecula Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Property TypeMulti-family residences. Property LocationWi@ Assigned Communities (Old Town, Rancho Meadows, La Serena, Ynez Road, Winchester Creek) @imijm Loan Amount$3,000 per unit Loan TermsNo payments or interest accrual for years 1-5, fully amo@ for years 6 through 15. Payment of entire loan is due if property is reftmced or sold during the term of the loan. The interest rate is the prime interest rate at the time the agreement is signed. RequirementsProperty owners wiR be allowed to borrow up to $3,000 per dwelling unit to rehabilitate rental properties. Eligible improvements include painting, landscaping, tot lots, interior improvements necessary to meet current Uniform Building Code requirement. As a condition of the loan, property owners will be required to record an affordability agreement insuring that the all units within the property are guaranteed as affordable units for 30 years., with 75 % of the units to be for low income and 25 % very low income. A second condition of the loan will require the property owner to record a maintenance agreement insurance the upkeep of the property. Failure to maintain the property can result in the calling of the loan. R:\STAFFRPT\REHAB.CC2 WV96jrm 7 ITEI\4 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF F114ANCE CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO:Redevelopment Agency Members FROM:Ronald E. Bradley, Executive Director DATE:September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Purchase Agreement for APN 922-062-020 and portions of APN's 922-260-015, 024, and 027. Located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of First Street. Prepared By: John Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1 .Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED ' AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET. IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S 922-260- 015, 024, AND 027). 2.That the Agency authorize the expenditures of up to $560,916 from RDA Capital Improvement Program to cover acquisition, escrow, soil testing, and closing costs BACKGROUND: In an effort to implement the Old Town Specific Plan and the Capital Improvement Program staff has pursued the acquisition of real property for the First Street Bridge and Extension Project. Based on fair market appraisals, staff has negotiated the following purchase prices for the subject properties. 28747 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-020) 12 unit Olde Towne Apartments $ 460,000 Portions of APN 922-260-015, 024, 027 Temecula Villas (no units taken) $ 80.El Total $ 540,916 R:XHOUSING\NORAeURC.CC 9/3/% kb 1 Both purchases are all cash transactions with the Agency paying all closing costs. Additional fund authorization in the amount of $20,000 is requested to cover escrow, closing costs, and soils testing fees, bringing the total fund authorization request to $560,916. FISCAL IMPACTS The $560,916 acquisition cost will be fumded by the RDA CIP First Street Bridge and Road Extension Project which includes $3,500,000 for acquisition and construction (Line Item 280- 199-807-5804). Attachments: 1 . Resolution No. RDA 96- - Page 3 2.Agreement for Acquisition - Page 6 R:\HOUSIKG\NORMPURC.CC 9/3/96 klb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- R:\HOIUSING\NORMPURC.CC 9/31% k% 3 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELO AGENCY OF TIE[E CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AG "AG FOR ACQUISMON OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERT.UES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SI]DE OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET IN THE CrrY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S 922-260-015, 024, AND 027)." THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CULA DOES RESOLVIE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: a. The Agency is currently implementing the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1--1988, originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1988 prior to the incorporation of the City and subsequently approved and transferred to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on April 9, 1991 (the "Plan"). b. The Agency is currently implementing the Old Town Specific Plan and the Capital Improvement Program First Street Bridge and Road Extension Project ('Project'). C. The Agency proposes to purchase the properties described in the attached "Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties" ("Property") for the purposes of implementing the Capital Improvement Program First Street Bridge and Extension Program. d.The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review as part of the OldTown Redevelopment Project EIR certified by the City Council and Agency on June 13, 1995. Thisportion of the Project is exempt from further environmental review as stated in the findings and as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section and 16 California Code Regulation 15160. Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain agreement entitled 'Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Real Property located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of First Street in the City of Temecula (APN 922-062-020 and portions of APN's 922-260-015, 024, and 027)' and authofim the Chairperson to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Secti@ The Secretary shO ce@ the adoption of this Resolution. R:kHOUSING\NO@URC.CC 9/3/% kk 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on September 10, 1996. Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson ATMT: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALEFORNIA COUNTY OF SI]DE Ss CITY OF ULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk/SecreLuy of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, do hereby @ that the Resolution No. RDA 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: AGENCY ERS: NOES:AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY ERS: ABSTAIN:AGENCY MEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary R:XHOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9131% kb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION R:UIOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/31% kl 6 AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISMON OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIUES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SI]DE OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF AFNIS 922-260-015, 024, AND 027) AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AG AND ESCROW INSTRUCNONS ("Agreement") is dated and entered into as of September 10, 1996 by and between RAYMOND A. NORMANDIN AND CELESTINE E. NORMANDIN, husband and wife as joint tenants ("Seller"), and THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CrrY OF TEMECULA, a public body corporate and politic ("Buyer'), and constitutes both an agreement to purchase and sell real property between the parties and the parties' escrow instructions directed to First American Title Insurance Company ('Escrow Holder"). RF,rrrAT,S A. On 1996 the Buyer delivered Seller an offer (the "Offer") to purchase the real property interests described in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property") pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter I of the Government Code of the State of California (Section 7260, et seq.). B.Buyer intends to use the Property for public purposes. C. Seller to sell and Buyer desires to buy, the Property on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises operative provisions and the Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . Purchase sknd Snie. On the Close of Escrow (as herein defmed), Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy the Property from Seller, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 2. Piirrhitge Ptice. The total purchase price for the Property to be paid by Buyer is the sum of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($540,916.00) (the "Purchase Price"), which sum shall be paid in fun in cash on the Close of Escrow. The Purchase Pnce consists of two components: nw first is the compensation for Parcel 1 (as defined in Exhibit A) in the sum of Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($80,916.00); and the second is the compensation for Parcel 2 (as defined in Exhibit A) in the sum of Four Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($460,000.00). 3. Tltle find TU]e'tnsiirance. Upon the Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall order from First American Title Company ('Title Com@y') a title commitment for the R:\HOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/96 kb 7 Property. Escrow Holder shall also request two copies each of all instruments identified as exceptions on said title commitment. Upon receipt of the foregoing, Escrow Holder shall deliver these instruments and the title commitment to Buyer and Seller. Buyer's fee title to the Property shall be insured at the Close of Escrow by a CLTA Owner's Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price (the 'Policy'). The Policy of title insurance provided for pursuant to this Section @ insure Buyer's fee interest in the Property free and clear of all hens, encumbrances, restrictions, and rights-of-way of record, subject only to the following permitted conditions of title ('Permitted Title Exceptions'): (a) The applicable zoning, building and development regulations of any municipality, county, state or federal jurisdiction affecting the Property; and (b)Those non-monetary exceptions approved by Buyer within fifteen (15) business days after the date Buyer receives the title commitment and legible copies of all instruments noted as exceptions therein. If Buyer unconditionally disapproves any such excep- tions, Escrow shall thereupon terminate, all funds deposited therein shall be refunded to Buyer (less Buyer's share of escrow cancellation charges), and this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. If Buyer conditionally disapproves any such exceptions, then Seller shall use Seller's best efforts to cause such exceptions to be removed by the Close of Escrow. If such conditionally disapproved non-monetary exceptions are not removed by the Close of Escrow, Buyer may, at Buyer's option, either accept the Property subject to such encumbrances, or terminate the Escrow and receive a refund of all funds deposited into Escrow Oess Buyer's share of escrow cancellation charges), if any, and this Agreement shall thereupon be of no further force or effect. At the Close of Escrow, Buyer's fee title to the Property shall be free and clear of all monetary encumbrances. 4. Grant Deed. Seller covenants and agrees to deposit with Escrow Holder prior to the Close of Escrow a Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by Seller, granting and conveying to Buyer the Property. The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to Buyer and Buyer's counsel and shall be accepted by Buyer prior to recording. 5. Aiithori7ation to Record Documents and Disburse Ftintle.. Escrow Holder is hereby author to record the documents and disburse the funds and documents called for hereunder upon the Close of Escrow, provided each of the following conditions has then been fulfilled: (a) Title Company can issue in favor of Buyer the Policy, showing the Property vested in Buyer subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions. Escrow Holder shall use the proceeds of the Purchase Pnce to obtam partial reconveyance, if necessary, of any monetary hens encumbering the Property, so @ the Property shall be free and clear of monetary liens and encumbrances at the Close of Escrow. (b) Escrow Holder shall have received Buyer's notice of approval or satisfaction or waiver of all of the contingencies to Buyer's obligations hereunder, as provided for in Section 11; and R:UIOUSING\NO@URC.CC 9/3/96 Ub 8 (c) Seller shall have deposited in Escrow the Grant Deed required by Section 4. Unless otherwise ins in writing, Escrow Holder is autho@ to record at the Close of Escrow any instrument delivered through this Escrow if necessary or proper for issuance of the Policy, including the Grant Deed. 6. F-ccrow. The parties hereby establish an escrow ("Escrow") to accommodate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, Opening of Escrow shall mean the date on which Escrow Holder shall have received a fully executed original of this Agreement from Buyer and Seller. Close of Escrow shall be the date upon which the Grant Deed to Buyer is delivered and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. The Close of Escrow shall be on the date which is not later than the first business day occurring sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement. Before the Close of Escrow, all risk of loss and damage to the Property from any source whatsoever shall be solely that of Seller. Buyer shall pay all escrow costs. 7. Escrow Charges find Prorations. Buyer shall pay for the cost of the CLTA Owner's Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance, the Escrow fees and Escrow Holder's customary out-of-pocket expenses for messenger services, long distance telephone, etc. Buyer shall pay for recording the Grant Deed and any documentary or other local transfer taxes, and any other recording fees. If the Escrow shall fail to close through no fault of either party, Buyer shall pay all Escrow cancellation charges. 8. License to Enter. Seller hereby grants to Buyer and Buyer's authorized agents, contractors, consultants, assigns, attorneys, accountants and other representatives an irrevocable license to enter upon the Property for the purpose of making inspections and other examinations of the Property, including, but not limited to, the right to perform soil and geo- logical tests of the Property and an environmental site assessment thereof. Buyer shall give Seller reasonable notice before going on the Property. Buyer does hereby indemnify and forever save Seller, Seller's heirs, successors and assigns, and the Property, ftee and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damages and costs and expenses, demands, causes of action, claims or judgments, whether or not arising from or occurring out of any damage to the Property as a result of any accident or other occurrence at the Property which is in any way connected with Buyer's inspections or nonpermanent improvements involving entrance onto the Property pursuant to this Section. If Buyer fails to acquire the Property due to Buyer's default, this license shall terminate upon the termination of Buyer's right to purchase the Property. In such event, Buyer shall remove or cause to be removed all Buyer's personal property, facilities, tools and equipment from the Property. 9. W ties and Representnt*ong of Seller. Seller hereby represents and warrants to Buyer the following, it being expressly understood and agreed that all such representations and warranties are to be true and correct as of the Close of Escrow and shall survive the Close of Escrow: R:\IiOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/% M 9 (a) That (i) on the Close of Escrow the Property shall be free and clear of any and all hazardous or toxic substances, materials, and waste, including, but not limited to, asbestos; (ii) the Property is in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations, including environmental, health and safety requirements; (iii) all businesses on the Property have disposed of their waste in accordance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations; and (iv) Seller has no notice of any pending or ed action or proceeding arising out of the condition of the Property or alleged violation of environmental, health or safety statutes, ordinance or regulations To this end, it is agreed dw notwithstanding the conveyance of the Property to Buyer, Seller shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Buyer from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suits, losses, costs, expenses and damages, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of any claim for loss or damage to any property, including the Property, injuries to or death of persons, or for the cost of cleaning up the Property and removing hazardous or toxic substances, materials and waste therefrom, by reason of con- tion or adverse effects on the environment, or by reason of any statutes, ordinances, orders, rules or regulations of any governmental entity or agency requiring the clean-up of the Property, caused by or resulting from any hazardous material, substance or waste existing on, under or about the Property on the Close of Escrow. (b) That Seller is the sole owner of the Property free and clear of all hens, claims, encumbrances, mwments, encroachments from adjacent properties, encroachments by improvements or vegetation on the Property onto adjacent property, or rights of way of any nature, other than those that may appear on the title commitment. Seller shall not further encumber the Property or allow the Property or to be further encumbered prior to the Close of Escrow. (c) Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder including the transfer of the Property to Buyer, violates or shall violate any contract, agreement or instrument to which Seller is a party, or which affects the Property, and the sale of the Property herein contemplated does not require the consent of any party not a signatory hereto. (d) There are no mechanics', materialmen's or similar claims or liens presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Property for work performed or commenced prior to the date of this Agreement. Seller agrees to hold Buyer harmless from all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, charges, fees, including attorney fees, arising from or relating to any such hen or anyhen claimed against the Property and arising from work performed or commenced prior to the Close of Escrow. (e) There are no written or oral leases or contractual right or option to lease, purchase, or otherwise enjoy possession, rights or interest of any nature in and to the Property or any part thereof, and no persons have any right of possession to the Property or any part thereof. R:\HOUSING\NORAeURC.CC 913/% iS 1 0 (f) Seller has no knowledge of any pending, ffi=tened or potential litigation, action or proceeding against Seller or any other Party before any court or administrative tribunal which is in any way related to the Property. 10. FIJII, PAYW@NT OF ATI, OBLIGATIONS OF CM. it is understood and agreed between Seller and Buyer that the payments made to Seller as set forth in this Agreement represent an all inclusive settlement and is full and complete payment for just compensation for the acquisition of all property interests pertaining to the Property and includes and satisfies any and all other payments, if any, winch may be reqtnred by law to be paid to Seller arising out of the acquisition and displacement of the Seller and persons residing on the Property, and specifically includes, but is not limited to, claims for severance and other damages, attomey's fees, interest, expenses of litigation, expert's fees, precondemnation damages, inverse condemnation, owner participation rights under the Redevelopment Plan, relocation assistance and/or benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S. C. 4601, et seq.), if applicable, or under Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (Section 7260, et seq.), and loss of business goodwill under the Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510, and all costs and expenses whatever in connection therewith. Seller hereby acknowledges that Buyer has advised Seller of the possible availability of such relocation assistance rights to Seller and that the waiver of all rights by Seller herein set forth as free and voluntary. 11. Buyer's Continvencies. For the benefit of Buyer, the Closing of Escrow and the Buyer's obligation to consummate the purchase of the Property shall be contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or Buyer's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that Buyer can waive any or all such contingencies) on or before the Close of Escrow: (a) That as of the Close of Escrow the representations and warranties of Seller contained in this Agreement are all true and correct. (b)The delivery of all documents pursuant to Section 4 hereof. (c) Title Company's commitment to issue in favor of Buyer of a CLTA Standard Coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance with liability equal to the Purchase Price showing Buyer's fee interest in the Property subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions. (d)Buyer's approval prior to the Close of Escrow of any environmental site assessment, soils or geological reports, or other physical inspections of the Property or the underlying real property that Buyer might perform prior to the Close of Escrow. 12. Cer-tirication of Non-Foreign Seller covenants to deliver to Escrow a certification of Non-Foreign Status in accordance with I.R.C. Section 1445, and a similar notice pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 18805 and 2613 1, prior to the Close of Escrow. R:KHOUSING\NO C.CC 9/3/% kk 13. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by either Buyer or Seller, the non-defaulting party shall have, in addition to all rights available at law or equity, the right to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow for the purchase and sale of the Property, by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting party and to Escrow Holder, and if Buyer is the non-defaulting party, Buyer @ thereupon promptly receive a refund of all prior deposits, if any. Such termination of the Escrow by a non-defaulting party shall be without prejudice to the non-defaulting party's rights and remedies at law or equity. 14. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, (b) two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, @ed or registered, return receipt requested, or (c) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided Ow if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice: BU@:City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attn:City Manager COPY TO:Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 So. Hope St., 38th Fl. Los Angeles, California 90071 Attn:Peter M. Thorson, Esq. SELLER:Raymond A. Normandin Celestine E. Normandin Post Office Box No. 731 Bonsall, California 92003 ESCROWFirst American Title Company HOLDER3625 Fourteenth Street Riverside, CA 92502 R:\HOUSINGXNORWURC.CC 9/31% M 1 2 15. Broker's Commi-@oYL-g. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller has used no broker, agent, finder or other person in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby to whom a brokerage or other commission or fee may be payable. Buyer represents and warrants to Seller ffig Buyer has used no broker, agent, finder or other person in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby to whom a brokerage or other commission or fee may be payable. Each party mdemnifies and agrees to defend, protect and hold the other harmless from any claims resulting from any breach by the indemnifying party of the warranties, representations and covenants in this Section. 16. Further In@iction-g. Each party agrees to execute such other and further escrow instructions as may be necessary or proper in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 17. Amendment--.. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be effective only when duly executed by Buyer and Seller and deposited with Escrow Holder. 18.Mi-.;celinneoiv.,; (a) ApWicable Liw. This Agreement @ be cons@ and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. (b) F-ntire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement, oral or written, and together with the Exhibits hereto and any agreements delivered pursuant hereto, contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller on the subject matter hereol No subsequent agreement, representation or promise made by either party hereto, or by or to any employee, officer, agent or representative of either party, shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. No person is authorized to make, and by execution hereof Seller and Buyer acknowledge that no person has made, any representation, warranty, guaranty or promise except as set forth herein; and no agreement, statement, representation or promise made by any such person which is not contained herein shall be valid or binding on Seller or Buyer. (c) Successors and Assigus. @ Agreement @ be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. (d) Time of Essence. The parties acknowledge that time is of the essence in this Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Escrow company's general Escrow instructions. (e) Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The R:\HOUSING\NO C.CC 9/3/% kk 1 3 election of any one or more remedies shall. not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. (f) Int tion and Conviction. nm parties @ that each party has reviewed and revised this Agreement and have had the opportunity to have their counsel and real estate advisors review and mm tius agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Agreement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party' include corporation, partnership, f=, trust, or association where ever the context so requires. The recitals and captions of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to expwn, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. (g) Citi ManaLer Auth@ The City Manager is hereby directed and autho@ to execute such other documents, including without hmitation, escrow instructions and amendments thereto, certificates of acceptance, agreements for payments of lost rent, or certifications, as may be necessary or convenient to implement the terms of this Agreement. 19.Attorney .sl Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to enforce, defend orinterpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement or because of a breachof this Agreement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration or settlement shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. 20. Aqqigom@. Buyer may assign its rights under this Agreement or may designate a nominee to acquire title to the Property, provided, however, that any such assignment or designation shall not relieve Buyer of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 21.Escrow Holder Need Not Be Concerned. Escrow Holder is not to be concerned with Section8, 9, 10, and 15 hereof, and Buyer and Seller release Escrow Holder from liability or obligationas to Section 8, 9, 10, and 15 hereof. R: U40USING\NORWtIRC.CC 9/3/96 kk 1 4 IN WrrNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. SF,I,I[,ER Raymond A. Normandin Celestine E. Normandin BUYER REDEVELOP AGENCY: Patncia Birdsall, Chairperson AYMT: By June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey R:\HOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/% Wb 1 5 EXEnrr "An @gal Description of the Property APN 922-062-020 PORTIONS OF APN's 922-260-015, 922-260-024, 922-260-027 1 6 OLD TOWN V;ESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY ITEI\4 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY HELD AUGUST 13, 1996 A regular meeting of the Old Town Westside Community Facilities District Financing Authority was called to order at 8:1 0 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT:5 BOARD MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall ABSENT:0 BOARD MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and Authority Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. FINANCING AUTHORITY BUSINESS 1Minutes It was moved by Board Member Lindemans, seconded by Board Member Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1996. The motion was unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member Lindemans, seconded by Board Member Ford to adjourn at 8:11 PM to a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/Authority Secretary Minutes.fa\072396 -1- ITEI\4 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM:Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning;@ DATE:September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:Temecula Valley School District's Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan (PA95-0047) Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 96- entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP BACKGROUND During the development of the City's General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (District) requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers to fully mitigate the impact of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element stating that if Proposition 1 70 failed to win voter approval in the November 1 993 Election, the City would establish a school mitigation resolution. With the failure of Proposition 1 70, the City Council approved Resolution No. 95-36 on April 1 1, 1 995 establishing the School Mitigation Program. A copy of Resolution 95-36 is included as Attachment No. 5. The Resolution did the following: 0Authorized the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that addresses the impacts on school facilities; 0Set standards for the contents of the School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans; 0Established procedures for the City's review and approval of a proposed Mitigation Plan; and, Stated how the approved Mitigation Plan will be carried out. The District's Plan contains all of the required elements with the exception that TVUSD has not included any costs for central administration and support facilities that may be associated with new development. The District's Mitigation Plan is included with this Agenda Report as Attachment No. 1. R:@SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh To ensure the technical appropriateness and accuracy of the Plan, the City Council retained David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) to undertake a technical review of the Plan. According to DMG, the methodology and results of the proposed Mitigation Plan are technically sound and reasonable. As a result, DMG is recommending only minor changes be to the Districts proposed mitigation plan. These changes are included in the Commission's recommendation. A copy of DMG's evaluation is included in Attachment No. 6. In addition, staff prepared a simple computer model to predict the need for future school facility funding. A copy of the results of this modeling effort are included in Attachment No. 7 and discussed later in this report. Throughout this process there have been several meetings on this issue between TVUSD, City staff, and representatives of the local development industry, including the Riverside County Building Industry Association. In these meetings, the District and development industry representatives have been unable to arrive at any agreement on the mitigation issue. The City Council and School Board have held two Joint meetings to talk about school mitigation. Following the second joint School Board and City Council meeting, a decision was made to present the Mitigation Plan to the Planning Commission. The Commission considered the Mitigation Plan on July 1 5, 1 996 and August 5, 1 996. A draft of the Planning Commission Resolution is included in Attachment No. 3. A detailed discussion of the District's proposed Mitigation Plan and DMG's Evaluation are contained in the July 1 5, 1 996 Planning Commission Staff Report which is included in Attachment No. 4. DISCUSSION Page 15 of the DMG evaluation report noted that there are two non-technical policy areas where the City has some flexibility. The two policy areas are: (1) the future Student Generation Factor (SGF), and the assumption that there will be no future school bond funding. These two issues are addressed below. A complete copy of the DMG Study is included in Attachment No. 6. Student Generation Factor The City's Resolution establishes a specific methodology for determining the appropriate student generation factors for the various types of residential development. According to DMG, there is no correct way to calculate a SGF. Any approach which attempts to fairly estimate the future generation factor is reasonable. According to the Resolution 95-36, the SGF shall be based upon a random sample of at least 250 dwellings constructed in the preceding three years. The District's methodology uses the peak year approach. From their study, the District could have chosen both lower and higher SGF for their calculation. According to DMG, the District's preferred SGF (ie. the SGF for Years Four, Five and Six) is reasonable. The Student Generation Factor for Year Six SGFs is 0.88 students per detached household and 0.64 students per attached household. Future School Bond Fundina The availability of future funding from outside sources is the second non-technical policy issue that affects the net cost of providing future schools funding is the second issue. In the Mitigation Plan, the District assumes that no additional outside funding sources will be available to build new schools. This assumption has raised a concern that with the Mitigation Fee Cap, TVUSD would not aggressively pursue future funding sources. R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 2 The validity of this assumption is challenged by the recent passage of Proposition 203 which will make an estimated $1 1,000,000 available locally to build schools. However, the conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility impact modeling done by City Staff, that included the additional Proposition 203 funds, suggests that the higher mitigation fee may still not eliminate the significant future school funding deficit the District is facing. According to staff's model, including Proposition 203 funds and a higher fee on new residential units, the cumulative 2006 school construction deficit is expected to be at least $37 million. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The Proposed Mitigation Plan was prepared pursuant to, and submitted under, the School Mitigation Program addressed in Implementation Program C.3 of the Growth Management/ Public Facilities Element of the City's adopted General Plan. As a result, the proposed Mitigation Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Mitigation Plan does not have the potential to cause an alteration or have a significant impact on the physical environment. Future specific school projects that may result from the funds raised under this Plan will undergo the appropriate level of environmental review by the School District when specific sites and designs are known. Therefore, the Community Development Director has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 1 5061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. CONCLUSION The decision to address the mitigation of the impacts on schools from new development was made by the City Council in 1993 with the adoption of the City's General Plan. One of the ways to address the issue of constructing adequate schools is to require full mitigation from new resi 'dential units. The recommended per unit fees were considered to be technically justifiable by DMG. If the City Council approves the fee cap, it would apply only to those projects that receive a legislative approval after the Mitigation Fee Cap is approved. Typical legislative approvals include general plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and pre- annexation agreements. Many of the large specific plans that have been recently approved in the County already have a similar mitigation requirement applied to them. The Resolution approving the Plan and setting the fee are included in Attachment No. 2. The Planning Commission's recommended per unit School Facility Cost for detached and attached dwelling units are shown below: SchoolType SCHOOL FEE CAP Elementary Middle High Net Detached Unit Impact $2,990 $2,383 $3,84 $9,213 Net Attached Unit Impact $2,1 45 $ 1,887 $2,612 $6,644 R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8130/96 dwh 3 FISCAL IMPACT There is not expected to be a direct fiscal impact on the City. Attachments: 1.Proposed Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan - Page 5 2.Draft Resolution No. 96-- - Page 6 3.Draft of Approved Planning Commission Resolution - Page 1 1 4.July 15, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 12 5.Resolution 95-36 - Page 13 6.DMG's Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fee - Page 14 7. Results of School Facility Impact Modeling - Page 1 5 R:\SCHOOLS@SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8130/96 dwh 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT NIITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING THE APPROI"RIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP WHEREAS, rapid Population -rowtli in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has resulted in large increases in tile numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existing school facilities and construct new facilities to house tile Students in accordance with the policies of the District and standards specified by state law; and WHEREAS, new Students iiiip-,ictlil- existliic, school facilities are due primarily to L- -- residential uses (except senior citizen development); and WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new developi-nent and the community at lar-e, and are a necessary component of the City's social and infrastructure systems; and WHEREAS, the State Le-islatLire has declared that finaiiciii- the construction of school facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for fundin- Such additional school facilities and has shifted tile primary responsibility for financing of school facilities to local school districts, Which, Linder Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, ("School Facilities Law of 1986"), may establish developer initiation fees for residential, commercial and industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos CoilllllLilllty Facilities Districts to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond iiioiiies, school district imposed developer fees, local school bond measures, and other Sources of financin- have generally been inadequate to provide for tile eiiiaroeiiieiit and coiistrLiCtiOll of school plant facilities sufficient to adequately house new Students In accordance with the lllill'IlllLllll standards set forth by the State of California; and WHEREAS, SC11001 fllild'lllc' Sources Linder Current state laws and available funding are oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanent K- 12 school facilities, InC]Lidiii(y facilities for tile special education needs of special or disadvantage students; and R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CCI 8/30/96 dwh 7 WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to tile California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), has the authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and 'vA'HEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develoi2ment CoMoration v. City of San DiegQ, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S., Hart Hic..,h School District v. Rec,,,ional Plannin,-, Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts includin- -eneral plan ai-nendi-nents, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the impacts on school facilities have not been iiilti(,ated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school systei-n to educate the residents of the City of Temecula is it-nportant to the City's future; and WHEREAS, the TellIeCLI)a Va)IeN@ Unified School District requested that the City of Temecula adopt a resolution providiii,- a I)rooraiii to provide full funding for school facilities froi-n some types of development, and WHEREAS, tile City COL111CII Included laiiouace in tile Growth Managei-nent and Public Facility Elei-nent of General Plan coiiceriiiiic,, tile iiiltlgation of school facility impacts; and WHEREAS, tile City Council adopted Resolution 95-36 which established a Program to mitic,ate the impact of new residential development oil the public school facilities within the City; zn and WHEREAS, the TellIeCLIla Valley Unified School District prepared and subi-nitted a Miti-ation Plan in conformance with the provision of Resolution 95-36; and, WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has had an independent analysis prepared to evaluate the District's submitted Mitioatioii Plan, and, WHEREAS, the independent evaluation confirmed that the reasonableness of the District's proposed Mitioatioii Plan and tile COSTS Ot' COIlStrLICtliio new school facilities; and, WHEREAS, the District's SLIbIllitted Mltlc,yatioii Plan iiieets the provisions of Resolution 95-36; and, WHEREAS. noticed public liearlil-'s before the Plaiiiiljic, Conii-nission were conducted on July 15, 1996 and ALI-Llst 5, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to C, testify either in Support or opposition; and WHEREAS, the Plaiiiiljic, Commission approved the Mitigation Plan and recommended that the City Council establish a iiilticatioii fee of $9,1. 13 for each new detached residential unit and $6,644 for each new attached residential unit; and R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 8 WHEREAS, notice of the proposed initiation plan was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, a public lieariiic, were conducted oil Septei-nber 10, 1996, at which time L- interested persons had an opportunity to testify either '111 Support or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Sectioii 1. Eiivii-oiiiiiei)tal Revieis, The City Council has determined that the Residential Developi-nent li-npact Mitigation Plan Submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District does not have the potential to cause an alteration, or have a significant impact on the physical environment. Because all ftitiire specific school projects, that may result from the funds raised under the Mitigation Plan, Will Lliiderco the appropriate level of environi-nental review when specific sites and desiciis are known. As a result, the project is exempt from California Enviroiii-nental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Plan Ai)i)i- The Residential Development Facilities Impact Miti-ation tn Plan Submitted by the Temecula Vallev Unified School District is approved subject the provisions of Section '-'. Tills approval sliall remain in effect until Such time as it is ai-nended or repealed by the City Council. Section 3. Miti,-,atioii Fee Cti) The School Facility Impact Mitigation Fee for detached 'dent'al units sliall be S9,213. The School Facility Impact Mitigation Fee for attached resi I I I I 'deiit'al units sliall be S6,644. These fees sliall be in effect until Such time as the fee resi I I I I is increased, decreased, or rescinded by the City Council. Section 4. Cei-tificatioll The City Clerk sliall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dvvli 9 Dr. P B. Novanmy Dam D p FA IWACT MMGATION FOR v u @OOLDBMCT Prepared For: CULA V@EY U SCHOOL DisTRICT 31350 Rancho Vista Roaci Temecula, Califomia 92592 Prepared By: DAviD TAusSIG AND AssociATm. INc. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 (714) 752-1554 April 24, 1996 i'a-v'le of Contents Section Pa@e Executive Summary i L intmduction 1 II. City of Temecula Resolution 2 III.Optimum Facility U On 3 A. Class Size 3 B. Multi-Track YearRound 4 rV. Bond Issues and Other Alte@ve Funding Sources 6 A. Fundin- Sources Pursued By TVUSD 6 B. Certification By TVUSD 10 V. Cen@ Administmdon, Suppoyl Facilities and Interim Facilities 11 V7. Coordination of Planning Review For School Site Development 12 'V7I. Methodolo&y of FaciMes Impact Mitigation Plan 13 A. Overview of Methodology 13 B. Student Generation Factors 13 C. Facility Cost Impacts 14 VIII. TVUSD Existing School Facilities Capacity and EnmUment Data 16 IX. Impact of ResidentW Development On School Fac@s Needs 17 A. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit 17 B. 1995-96 TVUSD School Facility Costs 18 C. Facility Cost Impacts Per Residential Umt 19 X.Mechanisms Availabk for New ResidentW Development to Mitigate School FaciMes Impacts 21 F,xhibits Exhibit A: Student Generation Factor Study Exhibit B: School Fac@ Costs Executive Summaa This Residential Development Facilities Impact )&tigation Plan ('Plan") is intended to meet the requirements which are set forth by City of Temecula Resolution No. 95-36, adopted April I 1, 1995, by the City Couneil. The parameters set forth in Resolution No. 95-36 include facilities uantion, TVUSD alternative facilities funding sources, and TVUSD coordination of planning with the City of Temecula ('City'). TVUSD current school facilities capacity has been evaluated to determine if excess capacity is available to house new students generated by residential development. The District's phvsical plant includes seven elementary schools, d= middle schools, and two high schools (one regular education and one continuation high school). Collectively, TVUSD's educational facilities in the 1995-96 school year have a capacity of 10,477 students. Of these seats, 5,292 are at the elementary school level, 2,932 are at the middle school level, and 2,253 are at the hieh school level. The enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. A comparison of the District's enrollment and facility capacity for the 1995-96 school year indicates that enrollment exceeds capacity at the elementary and high school levels and is approaching capacity at the middle school level. In fact, TVUSD projects that all surplus seats at the middle school level will be occupied by the end of calendar year 1995. The Plan evaluates student generation rates and school facilities costs including administrative and support facilities cost impacts for residential development g within TVUSD. Student Generation rates and cost data for school facilities used in the Plan established gross total school facilities costs per dwelling unit ranging from $7,360 to $10,210 per dwelling unit, depending on the type of housing product. Credits based on funding from the State School Building Program and unspent General Obligation bonds were established, with dwelling units receiving .......... credits ranging from $501 to $698, depending on the type of housing product. :.addWoii.@ ............ .. ..:On ipprov Ile net school facilities costs per dwelling unit are $ depending on the type of housing product, as shown in Table F-S-1. 7b@e facility costs are in 1995-96 school year dollars and are to'be adjusted annually for inflation. TVUSD currently collects the maximum residential school fee authorized by AB 2926 and approved by the State Allocation Board on January 24, 1996. The maximum school fee of $ per square foot provides for .......... approximately 22...5 % to :-@3 % of the net school faciliii 'costs, depending on the type of housing product. To satisfy the City's school mitigation requirements, as promulgated by Resolution No. 95-36, it win be necessary for all new residential development, except for PrOjects PmNsed under Senior Citizen Developments zoning, to provide the funding necessary to mitigate 100% of the net school facilities costs. TVUSD must be contacted by a developer at least 120 days prior to the review of the project by the Planning Commission, to permit sufficient time tc) negotiate a hfitigation Agreement. In mitigating a project's school impacts, the Developer and TVUSD may agree to utilize one or more of the following fmancina mechanisms: 1.Payment of school fees 2.Dedication of land .3Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District 4.Levying of a Special Tax 5.Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and TVUSD TABLE ES-1 NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $) School Level CateL High Land Use Yorv Elementary Nflddle Total* Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $.4,272 $10.210 Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) S(203) $(254) Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(444) Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(105) $0 so $(105)_ Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407 Impact Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7.3t, Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178) Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323) Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 so $(76) Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783 Impact Numbers mav not sum due to rounding. In&oduction Throughout the State of California, school districts are seeking to fmance the construction of school facilities required by growing student enrollments. @ is also the case in TVUSD, where student enrollment has grown by 1,100 students over the last year. Combined with growth from past years, enrollment has and will continue to exceed the capacity of existing school facilities within TVUSD. A school district in California has several options available to fmance the construction of school facilities, including the State School Building Program ("State Pro, local debt fmancinc, (such as General Obligation Bonds, MeUo-Roos Bonds, and Certificates of Participation based on tax increment revenues related to an existing project of a local redevelopment a-ency, and statutory school fees ("School Fees"). Unfoitunately, the State Program obtains a majority of its fundin- throuch statewide school bond elections which are proving inadequate for the State's school facilities needs. EV, of ..Of'California in March er-. $7... 0 @. billion. Furthermore, with the defeat of Proposition 170 by the State's voters, local general bond measures will still require a two-thirds approval rather than the proposed simple majority approval. Local debt fmancinc, programs are proving inadequate in many cases, in part due to the difficulty of obtainin- the two-thirds voter approval required for such programs. The only exception to this voter approval requirement is Certificates of Participation, but the sale of this facilities financing instrument is co ed by the need for a stream of revenues to cover lease payments. For these and other reasons, many school districts rely on School Fees as a primary fundinc, source for school facilities required by new development. However, School Fees only provide a portion of the school facilities funding required by new development. This Plan is intended to satisfy the requirements which have been set forth by City Resolution No. 95-36. 'nose requirements include the optimal u@tion of school buildings and administration facilities, the use of bond issues and all other alternative funding sources, and the coordination of planning review for school site development. Temecula Vafiey Un@d School Dis@ City - Residendal Fac@ Impact Miti@n Plan Page I Aprg 24, 1996 II. City of Temecula Resolution On April 11, 1995, the City Council for the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 95-36. @ resolution states that TVUSD may present a request to the City for mitigation of the impact on schools of a development proposal ("b&tigation Payments"). It specifies that a Mitigation Plan must be prepared by TVUSD and adopted by the City. 'rbe NUtiganon Plan shall contain documentation of the need for any level of Nfitication Pavment that exceeds the total revenue anticipated to be received by TVUSD from the School Fee established pursuant to applicable law, plus any other source of funding available or anticipated to be available to TVUSD for the provision of school facilities. In addition, the Mitigation Plan shall contain a review of the following issues: 1 . Student Generation Factors 2.Typical School Facilities 3.Optimum Facility Utfflmtion 4.Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources 5.Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities 6.Level of Support From New Development 7. Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Development Temecula VaUey Unified School City - Residen@ Facil@s impact Midg@n Plan Page 2 April 24, 7996 III. Opdmum Facility Udlization TVUSD is currently optimizing the use of its existin.- educational facilities. Efficient use of classroom resources is being implemented in the following manner: A.Class Size The TVUSD Board of Trustees has adopted a policy to utilize its facilities in accordance with the loading standards recommended by the Office of Public School Construction ("OPSC"). As shown in Table I below, TVUSD meets the loading standards established by the OPSC at every grade level. TABLE I TVUSD A.LND STATE LOADING STANDARDS Loading Standards Grade Level IWSD' OpSC2 Kindergarten (double session) 55 55 Grades 1 - 3 29 29 Grades 4 - 6 33 33 Grades 7 - 8 30 30 Grades 9 -12 1 28 28 1 Tem=Wa Valley Unified School District 2Office of Local Assistance Applicant Handbook (The Office of Public School Construction was formerly the Office of @ Amismnce) The OPSC also fixes a square'footage allowance, by student, for new construction projects. According to a 1987 study by the American Institute of Architects ("AIA"), 15 states besides California mamtam maxunum. per pupil square footage standards. The AIA survey found that California provides the lowest amount of space per student, and that the average maximum square footage provided by the 15 other states is 65 percent higher than the Cahforma standards. TemecuLa VaUey Unoa School City - Residendat Facilities ]mpad Mitigadon plan Page 3 Aprif 24, 1996 B.Multi-Track Year Round Uss than 10 percent of all school @cts in the State are u@g multi-track year-round educational programs to maximize facility capacity. In 1989, TVUSD formed a committee to examine the pros and cons of instituting a year round educational program. In 1993, communities within TVUSD were surveyed regarding the options of providing adequate facilities for all students. The three options included in the survey were year- round education, double sessions, and the placement of additional relocatable buildings. After receiving over 650 responses (see Table 2) and having four public hearinls, the T'VUSD Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a K-12 year-round calendar with a single-track plan at eight schools. Two schools, Red Hawk and Sparlanan Elementary Schools, were approved to be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan in July 1994 and one@scb -.-!.V... ..@El ol.:&:,@f6@r-track @plan ..... In addition, all new elementary and middle schools constructed in TVUSD will be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan. TABLE 2 TVUSD SURVEY RESPONSES Number of Option Responses Percentage Double Sessions 14 2% Relocatables 233 34% Year-Round Education 405 59% Anti-Year-Round Education 25 4% Questions Only 5 1% Total Surveyed 682 100% As for the high school level, u@tion of a year round educational program is very difficult. First, some of the classes offered as pan of a departmentalized program are specialized in nature and may only be taught by one or two teachers. Such classes would be unavailable to students who are attending a track when these teachers are off-cycle. Also, it may not be possible to place ail athletes on a @ which corresponds to the sport in which they are participating. As a result, these students could be forced to either give up their participation in favor of family vacations during the off-cycle or participate in sports when the rest of their track peers are on a between-cycles break. According to Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD is requested to comment on the u@tion of double school sessions as part of its effort to justify @tigation Payments in excess of School Fees presently levied at the amount of 1)er square foot. Based on the results Temecuia VaUty Unified School Page 4 Cify - Residendd Fac@s impact Mitigation PLan Aurz7 24. 1996 of the survey, both the education community and the in TVUSD consider double sessions to be an unacceptable means of educating students. In order to implement such a program, some students must arrive at school in the early morning while other students begin classes in the middle of the day and leave in the late afternoon. In other words, students come and go before and after daylight hours. @ places an artificial @t on the number of instruction minutes which each student may receive. In addition to the limitations on 'instruction time, there are obvious safety hazards which this situation creates. Double sessions also make it difficult to resolve labor disputes caused by the prolonged work day and increase child care responsibilities for parents whose children will be out of school either all morning or all afternoon on a daily basis. For the reasons described above, the Board of Trustees has determined double sessions to be inappropriate. Temecula Vaney U@ Schod Cdy - Re@en@ Fac@s l@ct M@n Pi= page 5 Aprd 24, 1996 IV. Bond Issues and Other Alternadve Fun&ng Sources Resolution No. 95-36 states that "TVUSD shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the mitigation plan that it is pursuing State and alternative facilities fumcing." Listed below are the various State and alternative facilities fmancing sources that TVUSD has or is pursuina. In addition, in accordance with Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD has provided a certification that it is pursuing alternative funding sources. A.Funding Sources Pursued Bv TVUSD- 1.Certificates Of Participation Certificates of Participation ("COP"s) are a means of borrowing funds, as opposed to a new revenue source. In other words, principal and interest costs associated with a COPs issuance must be repaid by TVUSD. The repayment would come from TVUSD's general fund, which obtains funding from the State, or School Fees. As a result of diminishing State fmancial support and School Fee income, COPS are a financial tool which should be used very prudently by school districts in today's economic climate. To the extent that TVUSD needs its General Fund for operations and maintenance, and School Fees for construction of facilities, these funds can not be used to support the issuance of COPS. State School Building Program The State Program obtains its funding through statewide school bond elections which are not providing sufficient revenue for the State's school facilities needs. Even though".. b@n: . ..... ...... .. . ...... ... -h -.16 9..9 :$7 bilh'ori 'befoii... 'a stat,6:. .measure ............ ..... TVUSD has been very active in pursuing funds from the State Program. From the 1992 bond measures, TVUSD has received approximately $14,200,000 from the State Program for 50 percent of the costs of Temecula and Vail Ranch Nfiddle Schools. The facilities were open for the 1992-93 school year and the 1994-95 school.year, respectively, and have,a combined capacity of 2,092 students on a traditional calendar. In the future, both middle schools may serve students year- round and have a combined capacity of 2,510 students. TVUSD has also received $18,300,000 from the State Pro,-= for Chaparral High School. The high school is scheduled to open for the 1997-98 school year and planned to house 2,094 students. Temecula Valley Un@d School Citv - Residen@ Facil@s Impact Mitigation Plan Page 6 Acril 24. 7096 As Temecula and Vail Ranch Mddle Schools and Chaparral E[igh School facilities will serve students generated from future homes, a credit for a share of the State Program funds must be allocated to new dwelling units. Based on school enrollment and capacity for the 1995-96 school year, assuming Temecula and Vail Ranch Nfiddle Schools are placed on a multi-track year-round calendar, 445 middle school seats (2,932 + 418 - 2,905 = 445) and 1, 1 18 high school seats (2,094 - 976 = 1, 1 1 8) are available for students generated from new development. Apportioning the $32,500,000 based on the number of seats available for students generated from new dwelling units, creates a credit of $2,517,530 at the middle school level (SI4,200,000 x (445 / 2,510) and $9,770,487 at the high school level ($18,300,000 x (1,118 2,094)). These credits must then be apportioned between new development in the City and new development in the County. A total of 18,000 new detached dwellina units and 7,800 new attached dwelling units are pmjected in the City and 21,000 new detached dwelling units and 5,500 new attached dwelling units in the County. These will generate 20,832 new students in the City and 22,000 new students in the County. Based on the number of students to be generated in the City versus the County, the credit for new development in the City is $1,228,797 at the middle school level and $4,739,227 at the high school level. ................. .,,Verv ... .......... 1996@.. .. ... ...... ........ ....... . ............... ........... . . .... .... . .... . .... . ...... :Measl new.@.d ... p . . . . ... .... .............. ............... As for any additional State ftlnding, should future referendiimq be passed by the voters of the State, TVUSD will continue to pursue funding. However, because of the uncertainty, any additional State funds beyond the amounts listed above cannot be considered a reliable alternative funding source. Temecula Vailley U4&d School Page 7 City - Residendal Fac@s Impact Midgation Plan April 24, 1996 3.General Obligation Bond On November 7, 1989, two-thirds of the electorate authorized TVUSD to issue $65,000,000 of General Obligations ("GO') bonds. In essence, this aranted TVUSD the right to levy an ad valorem tax on all taxable property located within its jurisdiction. The upper tax rate disclosed to the voters was $0.10 per SIOO.00 of taxable property valuation. As a result of TVUSD's current taxable property valuation, the District has issued and spent $43,400,000 of GO bonds to date. The remaining $21,600,000 of unspent GO bonds are planned to be issued for the construction of facilities to serve students generated in TVUSD by new development. Therefore, a credit must be calculated for new homes. Similar to the State Program, the credit for unspent GO bonds must be apportioned by the number of elementary, middle, and high school students generated from new development in the City and new development in the County. The numbers of elementary, middle, and high school students projected from new development in the City are 9,204, 5,802, and 5,826, respectively. The numbers of students by grade level for the County are 9,730, 6,085, and 6,185. Based on these numbers, the credit is S4,641,539 at the elementary school level, $2,925,925 at the middle school level, and $2,938,028 at the hich school level for new development in the City. 9: As for additional authorization of GO bonds, it is very unlikely that the electorate would grant TVUSD the right to levy any additional taxes in the foreseeable future. 4.Redevelopment Pass-Through California redevelopment law presently allows school districts to share in tax increment income via pass-through agreements with local redevelopment aeencies. However, because school districts cannot unilaterally establish redevelopment project areas and because recently approved legislation (AB 1290) limits school district revenues from redevelopment, the availability and amount of these monies is subject to events outside of the control of the district. These events include the following: the number and scope of project areas which may be formed by the local city or county; the amount of tax increment which the district is able to receive under AB 1290; and future development activity within the project area. Additionally, the availability of pass-through proceeds for school districts may be affected by future actions:of the Governor and Legislature. The transfer of redevelopment funds from local agencies to the State sets a dangerous precedent as far as the future of redevelopment in California is concerned. Hence, this is not a probable source of future revenues, except as to any existing pass-through agreements. Currently, TVUSD receives approximately $500,000 per year of redevelopment pass- through. The District has and plans to continue to use the redevelopment funds for the construction of administrative and support facilities. Since redevelopment pass- Temecula VaUey Unifted School City - Residen@ Fac@s Impact M@ation Plan Page 8 Aprd 24, 1996 through is contingent on development within the project area, TVUSD's amount of redevelopment funds may increase or decrease in any given year. As stated above, the availability of additional tax increment is out of the control of the District. Therefore, these funds cannot be considered a reliable alternative funding source. 5.Community Facilities District The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act provides a method for local -ovenu-nents. like school districts, to fund public facilities and certain services. The Community Facilities District ("CFD") is a special fuiancing entity through which a local government is authorized to levy special taxes either to pay debt service on issued bonds or to pay for the direct construction of facilities or services. A two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district is required to form the CFD. The qualified electors are comprised of (i) the registered voters, if at least 12 persons have been registered to vote within the territory of the proposed CFD for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the protest hearing, or (ii) the landowners of the proposed district. TVUSD has established two CFDs by landowner vote including approximately 6.200 proposed residential units. However, these special = proceeds are intended to replace School Fees which would have been paid on those units. In the case of other new residential developments, TVUSD may be willing to establish a third CFD for the purpose of mitigatin- adequate school facilities. This CFD would be annexable and may include the following features (i) a single payment special tax equal to the impact, which would be levied at the time a building permit is issued, (ii) an annual special tax, which would be equal to the impact amortized over 25 years, or (iii) a combination of a single payment special = and an annual special tax. If the CFD includes an annual special tax, TVUSD will coordinate with the City to assure that the overall tax burden does not exceed 2% of the assessed valuation. As outlined above, two Community Facilities Districts have been established by TVUSD, and a third is possible. Ibis source of income is only available to TVUSD in lieu of School Fees for units within those CFDS. TVUSD intends to continue to utilize CFDs when appropriate for new residential development. 6.Developer Loan Funds With respect to developer loan funds, TVUSD will consider the possible fair-share reduction in future mitigation payments for a particular project based on the receipt of State Program funds, which together with the amount of mitigation payment for that particular project, are greater than the developer's proportionate share of school facilities costs. With to GO bonds and CFDS, new development has already been given a credit for its proportionate share of the unissued GO bonds which have been previously autho@, and it is unlikely that the electorate would grant TVUSD the right to levy any additional taxes in the future. Temecula Vafley Un@d School Dis@ City - Residenfid Facit@s impact Mitigation PLan Page 9 April 24, 1996 B.Certification By TVUSD 1, Dr. Novotney, as Superintendent of Temecula Vallev Unified Sc-.hool District, do I hereby certify that TVUSD has or is in the process of pursuing the above-mentioned alternative funding sources where appropriate and within the constraints described above. Temecula VaUey UnOed School City - Residential Facz7L*s ]*act Mitigadon Plan Dr. Patricia B. Novotney Superintendent Page 10 A ryril 24. 7996 V. Central Administration, Support Fa@es and Intenm Faciliftes TVUSD has gained over 3,900 students during the last four years, an annual increase in excess of ten percent. The new residential development which generated this rapid enrollment --rowth has impacted TVUSD -administration, support, and interim facilities. The District's central atirnini.@tion, maintenance, operations, and transportation facilities have been overcrowded and inadequate for some time. For example, central administration functions are housed in several buildings, including portables and =Hers. TVUSD estimates that provision of ad@ central a tion and support facilities will cost approximately S12.1 million. These facilities will serve a projected 25,000 students in ten years. 'ne State Pro--mm does not normally fund administration and support facilities. Due to the inadequacy of existing fiindin- sources for permanent facility construction. TVUSD is currently utilizing relocatable/portabie facilities on an interim basis. OPSC projects that TVUSD's enrollment will grow at an annual rate of 1,260 students through the 2000-01 school year. This equates to over 6,300 new students in the next five years. It is reasonable to assume that at least a portion of these new pupils will need to be housed in interim classrooms. The lease payments for a single portable classroom over the next ten years will total approximately $70,000. Resolution No. 95-36 states that a school district may include central administration. support, and interim facilities as part of its Nfitigation Payment; however, TVUSD has decided to utilize other revenue funds to cover these facility costs, so these costs are not included in our analysis. Temecula V@ Unified School Cify - Residendd Faca*s Impact MjW@n Pi= Page 11 April 24, 7996 VI. Coordination of Planning ReWew For School Site Development TVUSD has developed and maintained an effective working relationship with the City. This relationship stems from the desire of both the School Board of TVUSD and the City Council to work together to coordinate community-wide goals. Currently, the City notifies TVUSD of each new development application prior to their review by the Development Review Committee ('DRC") of the City. This committee reviews all development agreements, general plan amendments, specific plans, plot plans and other pl@!z issues. This allows the District to coordinate with developers and comment on school matters in the early stages of development. Additionally, TVUSD participates in various meetings of the City Council and Plannin- Commission when an item of interest or concern to TVUSD is on the agenda. This also allows TVUSD to give valuable input at an early stage of development proposals. TVUSD participated in the formation of SAGE 2 (Sustaining A Great Envimmnent and Economy). The purpose of this group is to establish a common infrastructure plannine model for all goverrunent entities and utilities within the Temecula and Murrieta Valleys. This planning organization enables entities that develop cture to coordinate their activities in an attempt to avoid costly expenditures that come from lack of coordination amongst Government entities and utilities. Lastly, Section 65402 of the Government Code and Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources Code require school districts to notify the local p g commission regarding a proposed school site acquisition prior to acquiring title to the property. Within 30 days after receipt of this notice, the planning commission is to investigate the proposed site and present a written report to the school board which includes a summary of the investigation and recommendations for acquiring the site in a manner which is consistent with the general plan. School districts also currently coordinate planning activities for new schools with the local fire marshal. Temecula VaUey Unified School City - ResidentW Facif@s Impact Mitigation Plan Page 12 Aprd 24, 1996 VII. Methodology of Facilities Impact Plan TVUSD has experienced rapid enrollment growth in recent yt:ars. 7-nis growth has created an increased demand for new school facilities within TVUSD, and the need to incur significant costs to meet that demand. As a result, TVUSD has determined that the herein described Miti!zation Payments should be required of all new development to the extent authorized by Resolution No. 95-36. The objective of this Plan is to provide a basis for such findings pursuant to the requirements of applicable law, including Section 66001 and following of the Government Code and the provisions of Resolution No. 95-36. A.Overview of Methodology In order to evaluate the existence of a nexus, this Plan identifies and analyzes the various connections or linkages between residential development and (i) the need for school facilities, (ii) the cost of school facilities, and (iii) the amount of the Mitigation Pavments that can justifiably be imposed by TVUSD. The primary linkages identified include the following: I . Student generation, i.e., household formation within TVUSD generates new students 2.Facility requirements, i.e., student generation within TVUSD leads to the need to incur costs for new school facilities 3.Mitigation Payment requirements, i.e., additional costs for new school facilities within TVUSD lead to the need to levy development fees The above linkages result in a series of impacts which (i) connect new residential development with increased school facilities costs, and (ii) connect fees per residential unit with increased facilities costs. These impacts are identified for two residential land use classes, namely Single Family Detached Units and Multi-family Attached/Mobile Home Units. These "linkage impacts" include two major types: 1 - Student Generation Impacts 2.School Facilities Impacts B.Student Generation Factors Student Generation Factors were calculated by a consultant retained by TVUSD in accordance with the methodology and parameters set fordi in Resolution No. 95-36. This included phone surveying ?'90 residents who occupy dwelling units which (i) are in the District's area, (ii) were constructed in the last three years, and (iii) represent current and anticipated development. TemecWa Vafley Umfied Sch@ Page 13 Cfty - Residen@ F@es Im@ Midgxio, Aprg 24, 19% C.FaciHtv Cost bnpacts Facility Cost Impacts are calculated by dividing the gross facilities cost associated with each grade level by the corresponding category of Student Generation l@-lpa@-ts. Separatc facility cost estimates were prepared for each grade level by TVUSD. The cost data include the costs of site acquisition, school construction and other on-site improvements, and school @hings. Temecula VaUcy Unified SchcW Dis@ City - Residennd Fac@es impact Mitagatwn plan Page 14 Apdl 24, 1996 VIII. TVUSD Exisfing School Facilities Capacity and Enrollment Data In o rder to determine whether TVUSD's existing school facilities contain excess capacity to house students generated by new residential development, cur-rent facilities and projected enrollment data for the- District have been evaluated. At the present time, TVUSD's physical plant includes seven elementary schools. three middle schools, and two high schools (one regular education and one continuation hi-h school). Collectively, these facilities in the 1995-96 school year have a permanent capacity of 10.477 students. Tne District's enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. As shown in Table 3 below, TVUSD's 1995-96 school year enrollment at the elementary and hieh school levels exceed capacity and is approaching capacity at the middle school level. In fact, TVUSD projects that all surplus seats at the midcfie school level will be occupied by the end of calendar year 1995. TABLE 3 EXISTING SCHOOL FAC CAPACM AND ENRO JL995/96 Total 1995/96 Excess Capacity School Level Capacity' Enrollment' (Shorta.-,e) Elementary School (K - 5) 5,292 6,051 (759) Middle School (6 - 8) 2,932 2,905 27 High School (9 - 12) 2,253 1 3,229 1 (976) Total 10,477 1 12,185 -F (1,708) 'Source:Temecula Valley Unified School District. TVUSD currently owns two @s of portables/relocatables: permanent and non-permanent. Table 3 includes permanent portablesjrelocatables. "Source:Temecula Vallev Unified School District. Temecula Valley Un@d School Dis@ City - Res@ndd Faci7ifies impact Mitigation Plan Page 15 April 24, 1996 IX. Impact of Residendal Development On School FaciUdes Needs As discussed in Section VI[, the objective of this Plan is to determine the impact of new residential development on TVUSD's school facilities. Section VII outlined the methodology which was employed-in this Plan to meet that objective. What follows is a step by step presentation of the results of the analysis. A.';tudent Generation Factors Per Residential Unit In order to analyze the impact of new residential development on TVUSD's student enrollment, TVUSD retained a consultant to calculate student generation factors ("SGFs") by land use for each grade level. The methodology employed by the consultant to calculate the SGFs for TVUSD was identical to the methodology depicted in Resolution No. 95-36. The consultant surveyed by phone a minimum of 250 units based on (i) the units being constructed within the last three years, (ii) the units represent the current and anticipated future characteristics of the communities in TVUSD, and (iii) the units not being senior citizen housing. Of the 250 units surveyed, 203 were Detached Units (single family detached). Based on these surveys, there are 89 elementary school students, 36 middle school students, and 26 high school students residing in the 203 units. In order to calculate the cur-rent SGFs by each school level for Detached Units, the number of students in each school level were divided by the number of units surveyed. However, in accordance with Resolution No. 95-36, "the SGFs shall be based on an assessment of student pass-through from new homes over at least a five year period." Using this methodology for each school level resulted in the following SGFS: TABLE 4 TVUSD STLTD@ GENE2RAnON RATES DETACEIED UNITS School Level Student Generation Rates F-lementary School 0.39 Nfiddle School 0.24 High School 0.25 Total 0.88 The identical procedure for calculating the SGFs for Detached Units was used in the rates for Attached Units (multi-family attached and mobile home units). Based on the remaining 47 surveys (250 - 203 = 47), there are 13 elementary school students, 4 middle school students, and 2 hieh school students residing in the 47 units. Based on student pass-through over a five year period of time, the SGFs for Attached Units are shown in Table 5. TemecuLa VaUey UnoUd School Dis@ City - Residenad Fac@s Impact Mitzgadon Plan Page 16 Avril 24, 1996 TABLE 5 TVUSD STUDENT GENERANON RATES ATTACEOED UNITS School Level Student Genemtion tes Elementary School 0.28 @ddle School 0.19 legh School 0.17 Total @0.64 The Student Generation Factor Study prepared for TVUSD is shown in @bit A. B..1995-96 TVUSD School Facilill Costs TVUSD's school facility costs have been estimated for each school level. At the elementary and middle school levels, the capacity of the facility has been increased by 20 percent to reflect the loading of a facility on a multi-track year-round calendar. The school facility costs represent the full cost of land, construction and furnishings for new elementary, middle, and high schools. These costs reflect TVUSD's recent experience in constructing new facilities. It must be noted, however, that these facility costs per student do not include leased interim facilities costs or interest costs associated with debt incurred to fmance facilities prior to receiving sufficient fee revenues to construct such facilities. In addition, the facility costs are in 1995-96 school year dollars and are to be adjusted annually for inflation. The construction costs by school level are shown in Table 6, while the construction costs by item for each school level are shown in @bit B. TABLE 6 DISTRICT FACH= COSTS PER STUDENT (1995-96 $) School Level School FacRity Costs Elementary School S 8,572 Nfiddle School $10,812 High School $17,090 Temecula VaUty Ung%d School City - Residende Facgi*s impact miagadon plan Page 17 April 24, 1996 C.Facilitv Cost Impacts Per Residential Unit By multiplying the information in Tables 4 and 5 by that in Table 6, we arrive at the per unit gross school facility cost impact for each land use type. These impacts are shown by school level and by land use type in Table 7. Table 8 shows the per unit State Program 1992 bonds, GO bond. and level and land use type. By subtracting the info ...bond credits for each school m Table 8 from that in Table 7, we arrive at the per unit net school facility impact for each school level and land use type. These impacts are shown in Table 9. The total net school facility cost for a Detached dwelling unit in 1995-96 school vear dollars is therefore $9 while the total net school facility cost for an Attached dwellin- unit in 1995-96 school year do@ is $ To fuuy mitigate its school impacts, a residential project must provide fundini or facilities equivalent to these fi-ures. TABLE 7 GROSS FACI]LITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $) School Level Land Use Category Elementary I Mddle I High Total- Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272 $10,210 Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7.360 Numbers mav not sum due to rounciing. TABLE 8 CREDITS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $) School Level Land Use Category E3emen@, MdcUe High Total Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203) $(254) Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178) Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(444) Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323) Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(loz Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit s $(76) TemecuLa VaUcy Un&d School City - Residentied Facilities impact Mitigation Plan Page 18 Aprd 24, 7996 TABLE 9 NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 School Level Land Use Cateeorv Elementary NfidcUe High Totad* Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272 SIO.210 Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203) $(254) Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(44-4) Detached Unit n oU. 203 Credit $(105) $0 $0 $(105) Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407 ITgact Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360 Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178) Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)_ Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 $0 $(76) Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783 Impact N,-mtrs mav not sum due to roundiniz. Temecula VaUty Unified SchoW City - Reside@ FacMdes im@ midgatwn Pi= Page 19 April 24, 1996 X.Mechanisms Available for New Residential Development to Mitigate School Facilides Impacts All residential development proposals submitted to the City of Temecula for final le--islative action related to entitlements require review by Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD"), except for residential proposals within the Senior C@ Development Zone. which are regulated under Section 65995.1 of the Government Code. Prior to residential project review by the City Planning Commission, TVUSD must either (1) enter into a Nliti-ation Agreement with the developer, or (2) if Agreement can not be reached. submit to the City a request for certain mitigation procedures permitted under Section 65996 of the Gover=ent Code. In meetin- its school facilities needs, TVUSD shall evaluate both the costs of constructing new facilities to serve the needs of new development, and the phasing of these new facilities. The school construction costs per Detached or Attached dwelling unit shall be based on the impact estimates listed under Table 9 of this Plan. For 1995-96 school year, these costs are $9.407 per Detached dwelling unit and $6.@ -Der Attached dwelling unit. Phasing of new facilities shall be based on current enrollment, existing school capacities, and projected enrollment based on the proposed development and the student Generation rates listed in Tables 4 and 5 of this Plan. IV In determining the commitment required of a developer to mitigate his school facilities impacts, T'VUSD and the developer may consider one or more of the alternatives listed below: 1.Payment of school fees as required under Section 65995 of the Government Code 2.Dedication of land as sites for schools and administrative facilities 3.Formation of or annexation to a MeUo-Roos Community Facilities District 4.Levying of a Special Tax to fund school facilities 5.Other alternatives as proposed and agreed upon by the developer and TVUSD In order to avoid a delay in City processing, TVUSD and the developer must execute a Miti-ation Agreement prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission. To facilitate reaching such an Agreement, TVUSD must be contacted by the developer at least 120 days prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission. J:\CLI]ENTSkTF-MECULA.USD\MMGATEXMM6.Mrr Temecula VaUcy Unified School City - Residenfial Facilities impact Midgation Plan Page 20 ADrd 24, 1996 EXHIBIT A Temecula Valley Unified School District Student Generation Factor Study PRIMARY DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH NEW HOMES TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT For the purposes of this study, School Planning Services (SPS) has conducted a random telephone survey for the Te-,iecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSO") of residents living in new housing in the District's area, with the .primary objective being the determination of the relevant student generation Reactors. The research approach utilized in this effort has been developed and refined by SPS over several years through its involvement as a consultant for school districts throughout California; additionally, it is specified as the approved methodology for determining student generation factors for new homes by Riverside County in its recently adopted Resolutions No. 92-164 and 93-131. For purposes of the survey, new homes are defined as those constructed within the past three years. Only occupants cl@ non-age-restricted developments were polled; because of the randomization of the telephone calls, single-family detached and attached dwellings as well as mobile homes were surveyed in a proportion similar to recent construction activity in the area. A total of 250 completed surveys were obtained in the course of the project, with the final tally at 81,'o detached units, 17% attached units, and 2,'o mobile homes. Respondents were also queried on such topics as number of children in the household by age and grade (if applicable), family size, family description, the age of the head of household and ethnicity. As a result, in addition to providing ancillary empirical support for the student generation data, the survey also produced some interesting demographics for the District which may be useful for planning purposes. DESCRTPTION OF HOUSEHOLD Figure 1 illustrates that the predominant family structure found in the new homes in TVUSD consists of the "traditional' family of two adults with children; this segment comprises 460/. of all the surveyed households. HOUSEHOLD DESCRIPTION NEW HOME RESIDENTS Temecula Valley Unified School District 2, Adults/NC - 3-'% Single/NC - 11% Single/WC - 4% 3- Adults/WC - 5% WC - with Children NC - No Children 2 Acults/WC - 46% (Non-age Restricted Housing) Source:School Planning Services. 1194 Figure 1 Ranking second in incidence is the category of two (or more) adults who have no children present in the household. representing 34% of the sample, followed by households containing childless single adults which accounted for llY. of those surveyed. The remaining two categories, those of single adults with children and of three or more adults with children, constituted only 4% and 5% of the sample respectively. 2 Grouping the responding households by the presence (or absence) of children indicates that over half (550ila) of @Lhe surveyed households have children present in the home (Figure 2). HOUSEHOLDS BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN NEW HOME RESIDENTS Temecula Valley Unified School District With Children - 55% Without Children - 45% (Non-age Restrlctoo Housing) Source:School Planning Services, 1194 Figure 2 3 HOUSEHOLD SIZE When the number of people HOUSEHOLD SIZE residing in the surveyed NEW HOME RESIDENTS households is examined, Temecula Valley Unified School District the most prevalent size C"e - e% of household is found to Five 8% Average HH Size be the two-person house- hold (31%), followed by the household with four Two - 31% Four persons at 25"".. The av- erage household size found in the new homes was 3.1, identical to the Three - 19% average household size (Non-age Restrtctec @cu3it7g) for the City of Temecula I "cures: school P$Anndng Sorvkos, 1194 as published by the De- Figure 3 partment of Finance for 1993. (It is also mar- ginally higher than the MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE County average of 3.0.) NEW HOME RESIDENTS Temecula Valley Unified School Di3trict As shown in Figure 4, the 100 %@ I median household size of so %I the sample, i.e., the point below which half of ao the sample falls, calcu- Median 2.4 4 la4k,.e.s to 2.4 This is 40 %I 3 2 attributable to the rela- tively large number of 20 % one and two-person house- 0 holds, although 14% of the households reported sodtree: 3cneal Plannine Services. 1104 at least five residents. Figure 4 4 AGE )F HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD In surveying the residents of new housino in Temecula, a relatively young segment I of the population was discovered with just over half of the heads of household in this new housing-less than 40 years of age (Figure 5). In fact, the median AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 'NEW HOME RESIDENTS Temecula valley Unified School District 60 and over u Median Age 36 60-59 16% 0-39 33% 0-49 20% (Non-age Restricted housing) saume.- 3chool Planning Services. 1194 Figure 5 age of the sample was 36 years. Additionally, the predominant age category, claiming one-third of the hea@-s of household, was 30-39 years of age. Respondents aged 60 and over, representing persons of retirement age not living in age-restricted communities, ecjalled 12% of the sample. ETHNICITY Respondents were also invited to s@@ate their ethnicity; 86% identified themselves as (non-Hispanic) White. Hispanics comprised 8% of the respondents, with all other categories amounting to a c:mbined total of 6%. 5 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS As stated above, the survey respondents were queried with respect to the number of children in thehousehold attending public school by specific grade as well Table I STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING Temecula Valley Unified School District 1994 Current Grades Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ear 5 1 Pre-K 0.32 ....... K-5 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.37 6-8 1 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.57 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.23 K-12 0.68 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.83 Note: Columns may not total because of rounding. ource: School Planning Services, 1194 as detailing the age and number of any pre-school children. The results o,-- these questions are displayed as average student generation factors ("SGF") for grades K-5, 6-8, K-8, 9-12 and K-12 on Table 1 and Figure 7. 6 The matrix displayed on Table I and illustrated in Figure 7 is the produc'6 of a student generation methodology which is characterized by the aging and progression of the pre-school population discovered in new housing into a K-12 enrollment scenario as the older students matriculate through and out oi-- the elementary grades; -this produces a student generation factor reflecting the measurable peak student load generated by a new unit. STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING Temecula Valley Unified School District Students/Now Home 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.80 - 0.77 - 0.80 0.68 0.60 - - 0.60 0.40 - - 0.40 0.20 - - 0.20 0.00 - 0.00 Current Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 = K-5 M 6-8 EM 9-12 SOUPCO:SChOOt Planning SerViC@S. 1194 Figure 7 The five-year time span which is presented (current year through year is determined and indeed constrained by the age limit factor of the pre-schoolers; that is, all of the children of pre-school age will have reached the school age for kindergarten within five years. (It should be noted that this approach articulates the-SGF over time from the average number of children in an average new housing unit; consequently, cohort survival data is not applicable.) The survey data reveals that TVUSD must be prepared for the eventual i ty that each new housing unit may, on the average, produce a peak load of 0.83 students in 7 grades K-12 within a five-year period. As explained above, this figure is a melded function of the number of children of pre-school age found in the survey sample (the average household reports .32 pre-kindergartners) and school-age children attending public school. This methodology represents an attempt to estimate the real potential impact on facilities generated by the average new home, rather than the simple reliance on a one-time 'snapshot" evaluation. This approach is especially important no,6, only because it results in a more accurate assessment of the impact of new develop- ment, but also because it can be another valuable tool for facility planning purposes. Given the lag time associated with the process of the construction and funding of facilities, this information, when reviewed in conjunction with residential construction activity, can serve as an advanced warning mechanism of enrollment growth. 8 EXHIBIT B Temecula Valley Unified School District School Facility Costs TEMECULA VALIEY SCHOOL D CT SCHOOL FACELM COSTS FOR RESEDENTL4,L FACELRMS @ACT MnGAnON PLAN (ELEM[E.NTARY SCHOOL,L A. SM $1,087,%3 NUMBER OF ACRES 10.00 COST PER ACRE SIOE,796 B. P@S $470,831 ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $409,286 OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $32,294 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA'NON, PLA.N CHECK FEE $2,713 PRELIMINARY TESTS $10,731 OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $15,817 C. CONSTRUCTION $5,437,069 UTILITY SERVICE $49,998 OFF-S= DEVELOPMENT $13,"6 SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $230,009 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT $521,289 NEW CONSTRUCTION $4,348,021 UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES $263,608 OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS $11,708 D. TESTS $81,343 E. INSPECTIONS $72,436 F. & MOVABIE EQUIIPMENT $272,155 G. CONTINGENCY $104,047 H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $7,525,844 MAJOR CONCLUqION,q NUMBER OF STUDENTS 732 YEAR-ROUND CREDIT 20.00% TOTAL CAPACITY 379 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 45,394 SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 51.70 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT $119.79 .TOTAL COST PER STUDENT SI.S71.St. TEMECULA VALIEY UNEFM SCHOOL DLSMCT SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR RES]IDENTL4,L FACELRMS DOACT NMGANON PLAN DLE SCHOOL) A. SnT $2,175,926 NUMBER OF ACRES 20.00 COST PER ACRE $109,796 B. P@S $641,114 ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $552,414 OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $52,941 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $4,759 PRELIMINARY TESTS $5,400 OTHER COSTS - ENERGY A4NALYSIS $25,700 C. CON@UCTION $9,700,OW UTILITY SERVICE $31,618 OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT so SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $195,293 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT $1,177,940 NEW CONSTRUCTION $7,939,286 UNCONVEN71ONAL ENERGY SOURCES so OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS $355,863 D. TESTS $142,800 E. INSPECTIONS $104,400 F. & MOVABLE EQLTIPMENT $586,710 G. CONTINGENCY $218,247 H. TOTAL ESTE\IATED COSTS $13,569,197 i@fOR CONCLU.VlOiV.'q NUMBER OF STUDENTS 1,046 YEAR-ROUND CREDIT 20.00% TOTAL CAPACITY TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 79,500 SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 6335 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT ,TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $10,912.11, TEMCLTIA VALIEY LTNEFM SCHOOL DEMCT SCHOOL FACELITY COSTS FOR RESI]DENTIAL FACILRMS @ACT MNGATION PLAN (HIGH SCHOOL.,) A. SrM $4,895,833 NUMBER OF ACRES 45.00 COST PER ACRE $109,796 B. PIANS $1,497,007 ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS Sl,208,000 OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $147,454 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $14,035 PRELIMINARY TESTS $35,000 OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $911,518 C. CONSTRUCNON $27,000,ON UTILITY SERVICE $113,020 OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT $296,456 SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $3,399,414 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT Sl,893.583 NEW CONSTRUCTION SIB,742,311 UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES $1,278,181 OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS Sl,278,035 D. TESTS $421,000 E. INSPECNONS $259,000 F. & MOVABLE EQLIPNEENT $1,712,916 G. CONTINGENCY so H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $35,785,756 U&IOR CONCLUQIONS ER OF STUDENTS 2,094 YEA]T-ROUND CREDIT 0.00% TOTAL CAPACITY 2,094 TOTAL SQUARIE FOOTAGE 199,945 SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 95.01 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT $135.72 ITOTAL COST PER STEJDEN'T $17,099.66, ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8;30/96 dwh 6 Sectioii 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ day of 1996. Karel F. Liiideiiians, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I HEREBY CERTIFY that the fore-olii,- Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a reOLIlar meeting thereof, held on tile 10th day of September, 1996 by the followin- vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMENIBERS NOES: COUNCILMENIBERS ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwki I 0 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CC1 8/30/96dwh 11 AP T PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existin- school facilities and construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the policies of the District and standards specified by state law; and WHEREAS, new students iiilpactincy existing school facilities are due primarily to residential uses (except senior citizen development); and WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the community at large, and are a necessary coi-nponent of the City's social and infrastructure systems; and WHEREAS, the State Le-islature has declared that financing the construction of school facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for fundin- such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for financing of school facilities to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, ("School Facilities Law of 1986"), i-nay establish developer initiation fees for residential, commercial and industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have -enerally been inadequate to provide for the enlarceiiieiit and construction of school plant facilities sufficient to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the State of California; and WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanent K- 12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or disadvantage zn students; and WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), has the authority to review development proposals for ii-npacts on School Facilities; and R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLI'LAN.IIC2 8/19/96 kib WHEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develoi2ment Corporation v. City of San Die , 205 Cal. App. 3d I'@101 (1988), William S., Hart Hic.,h -ict v. Re-.i@ Plannin.c., Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting, the School Facilities Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts including general plan amendments, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the impacts on school facilities have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City of Temecula is important to the City's future; and WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of Temecula adopt a resolution providing creating a program to provide full funding for school im facilities from some types of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council included languace in the Growth Manacement and Public Facility Element of General Plan concernin- the mitigation of school facility impacts; and ZD WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-36 which established a Program to mitigate the impact of new residential development on the public school facilities within the City; and WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has prepared and submitted a Mitigation Plan in conformance with the provision of Resolution 95-36; and, 'WHEREAS, the District's Submitted Miti-ation Plan meets the provisions of Resolution iz 95-36; and, WHEREAS, the City of Tet-necula has had an independent analysis prepared to evaluate the District's submitted Mitication Plan; and, WHEREAS, the independent evaluation confirmed that the reasonableness of the District's proposed Mitication Plan and the costs of constructin- new school facilities; and, in C) WHEREAS, notice of the proposed mitigation plan was posted at City Hall, County C, Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, public hearincs were conducted on July 15 and August 5, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.PC2 8/16196 kib NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MITIGATION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND APPROVE A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CEILING ON FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF $9,213 FOR DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND $6,644 FOR ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1996. LINDA FAHEY, CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the fore-oin- Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning im @ Commission of the City of Temecula at a re-ular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of Au-ust, ID c 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: FAHEY, MILLER, SLAVEN, SOLTYSIAK, WEBSTER NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE DEBBIE UBNOSKE, SECRETARY R:\SCHOO@SCHLPLAN.PC2 8116/96 kib ATTACHMENT NO. 4 JULY 15, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8,130196 dwh 1 2 MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Commis FROM: Debbie Ubnoskei g Manager DATE:July 1 5, 1 996 SUBJECT:TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION:APPROVE Resolution No. PC 96- entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP' BACKGROUND During development of the City's General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (District) requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers to fully mitigate the impact of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element stating that if Proposition 1 70 failed to win voter approval in the November 1993 Election, the City would establish a school mitigation resolution. With the failure of Proposition 170, the City Council approved Resolution No. 95-36 on April 1 1, 1 995 establishing the School Mitigation Program. The Resolution did the following: 0Authorized the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that addresses the impacts on school facilities; 0Set standards for the contents of the School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans; 0Established procedures for the City's review and approval of a proposed Mitigation Plan; and, 0 Stated how the approved Mitigation Plan will be carried out. Resolution 95-36 states that a Mitigation Plan must documentthe need for additional financial mitigation in excess of the revenues that would be received from Statutory School Fees or other sources of funding available to the District. Specifically, the Mitigation Plan must contain information on the following items: R:\HOGAND\.SCHLP@.PM 7/101% dwh 0The number of students generated by new development; 0Typical school site and construction costs; 0Optimum Facility Utilization; 0Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources; and 0 Level of Support for New Development. The District's Plan contains all of the required elements with the exception that TVUSD has not including any costs for central administration and support facilities that may be associated with new development. A copy of the Resolution 95-36 is attached to this Staff Report as Attachment 3. DISCUSSION The School Facility Mitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District calculated the cost of providing school facilities for an average household. The most recent version of the District's Mitigation Plan is included in Attachment No. 1 - The proposed changes to the Mitigation Plan are highlighted for easy reference. The process for identifying the per unit costs for school facilities are summarized below. STEP 1.The costs of constructing new elementary, middle and high school facilities are determined using the State of California's standard costs. STEP 2.A Student Generation Factor (SGF), for attached and detached residential units, by school type, is calculated using a survey of new homes within the District. STEP 3.The total cost of providing schools for each household is calculated. STEP 4.General Obligation Bond and State School Funding Program credits are calculated. STEP 5.The actual (net) cost of providing schools for each household is determined. The SchoolMitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District was reviewed by David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG), the City's impact fee consultant. A copy of DMG's review is included in Attachment No. 4. The DMG concludes that while much of District's Mitigation Plan is based upon direct verifiable numbers, there are two non- technical policy issues that could affect the net cost of providing future schools funding. The first is the future Student Generation Factor, and the other issue is the assumption that there will be no future school bond funding. School Facility Acauisition and Construction Cost Resolution 95-36 requires that typical facility construction costs be consistent with State standards. The costs of constructing new school facilities used by TVUSD in their mitigation plan are consistent with the State Standards and are less than the actual construction costs forrecentlybuiltschools. Shownbelowarecomparativeactualcostsfortheconstructionfor Redhawk Elementary, Vail Ranch Middle, and Chaparral High Schools and the State approved R:\HOGAND\SCHLP@.PCI 7/9/% dwh 2 acquisition and construction costs that are used in the District's Mitigation Plan. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND THE PROPOSED TVUSD MITIGATION PLAN Actual TVUSD Construction Costs used in Facility Schoo[Type Costs (including school name) Mitigation Plan Capacity*_ Elementary School (Redhawk ES) $7,551,948 $7,525,844 660 Middle School (Vail Ranch MS) $14,404,484 $13,569,197 850 High School (Chaparral HS) $37,790,4671 35,785,757 12,100 , - School capacities assume single tracks; 4-track capacities are 825 and 1063, respectively, for elementary and middle schools. According to DMG, the school capacity figures used by TVUSD exceed state guidelines. As a result, DMG is recommending that the District's proposed fees be reduced by $675 and $51 9, respectively, for detached and attached units. This reduction will be accounted for in the final step of this process. Student Generation Factor The City's Resolution establishes a specific methodology for determining the appropriate student generation factors for the various types of residential development. The Student Generation Factor shall be based upon a random sample of at least 250 dwellings constructed in the preceding three years. The District's Student Generation Factor survey indicated that the SGF for detached dwelling units varied over the six-year life of the survey from 0.74 students per household in the Survey Year to 0.88 students per household in Years Four, Five and Six. The attached unit SGF varied from 0.40 in the Survey year to 0.64 in Year Six. The District proposes to use the Year Six figures for their Mitigation Plan. The Detached and Attached SGFs by year and school type are shown below. DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS (Students per Typical Household) Survey Grade Level Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Pre-Kindergarten .33 n/a n/a nla n/a n/a K through 5 .44 .48 .46 .45 .41 .39 t rough 8 .18 .18 .21 .20 .22 .24 9 through 1 2 .13 .18 .18 .23 .25 .25 TOTAL .74 .84 .88 .85 .88 .88 Column and row totals may not add up bar-ause of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF. R:\HOGAND\SCHLP@.PCI 7/9/% dwh 3 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS (Students per Typical Household) Survey Grade Level Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Pre-Kindergarten .28 n/a n/a n/a n/a nia K through 5 .28 .34 .32 .34 .32 .29 6 through 8 .09 .11 .13 .13 .17 .19 9 through 1 2 .04 .02 .04 1 .09 1 .11 .17 TOTAL .40 .47 .49 1 .55 1 .60 .64 Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF. According to DMG, the methodology used to calculate the new home Student Generation Factor in the District's Plan is technically supportable. (The issue discussed on Pages 9 through 1 2 of the DMG Study.) DMG, in their study, also added that a SGF is highly volatile and is difficult to predict with accuracy over the long-term. City Resolution 95-36 provides for the periodic review and evaluation of the approved Mitigation Plan and its components. Facility Cost per Residential Unit The costs of school facilities for attached and detached residential units are calculated using the per student facility cost estimates and the Student Generation Factor. The unadjusted school facility cost proposed by the District was $10,21 0 for detached units and $7,360 for attached units. DMG in their analysis determined that the gross, unadjusted, costs for residential units were a little less than originally described in TVUSD's Mitigation Plan. The actual amounts are $10,207.11 and $7,357.31 for detached and attached residences, respectively. DMG's unadjusted per unit costs for providing school facilities are included in the following table. Net Cost per Residential Unit for New School Facilities A portion of the cost of providing new schools is from outside funding sources. The major funding sources are the State School Building Program and General Obligation (GO) bonds. To accurately reflect the per residence cost for new schools, these credits need to be calculated and subtracted from the Total Cost described above. The District's Plan identified that detached units should receive a credit of $698 and attached units should receive a credit of $501 for State. Building Fund and general obligation credits. DMG reviewed the District's proposed per unit cost and recommends that an additional $191 for detached units and $138 for attached units will be credited to (deducted from) the total per unit costs. Since the preparation of the DMG Study, Proposition 203 was approved in the 1 995 election. As a result, the District has further modified the proposed Plan to provide an additional credit toward future elementary school construction. This additional credit is $105 for detached residential units and $76 for attached residential units. The additional credit has been incorporated into DMG's technically justified school facility mitigation costs described in the following table. R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/91% dwh 4 RECOMMENDED PER UNIT SCHOOL FACILITY COST SchoolType Elementary Middle High TOTAL DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT $3,341 $2,594 $4,272 $10,207 SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT School Funding Credits ($351) ($211) ($432) ($994) Net Detached Unit Impact $2,990 $2,383 $3,840 $9,213 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT $2,398 $2,054 $2,905 $7,357 SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT School Funding Credits ($253) ($167) ($293) ($713) Net Attached Unit Impact $2,145 $1,887 $2,612 $6,644 Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding. Future School Bond Fundinci The final issue is the assumption that no additional outside funding sources will be available to build new schools. The availability, or lack of future funding, from outside sources is the second non-technical policy issue that affects the net cost of providing future schools funding. There is a concern, that because of this school mitigation cap, TVUSD will not aggressively pursue future funding sources if the fee cap was approved by the City. The validity of this assumption is challenged by the recent passage of Proposition 203. (According to TVUSD, an estimated $1 1,000,000 will be available locally to build schools.) However, the conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility impact modeling done by City Staff, which included additional Proposition 203 funds, suggests that the additional fundswillnoteliminatethesignificantschoolfundingdeficittheDistrictisfacing. According to the modeling, the passage of Proposition 203 and the fee cap will reduce the cumulative 2006 school construction deficit from $65 million to $37 million. A copy of the results of this modeling effort-are included in Attachment No. 5. CONCLUSION The decision to address the mitigation of the impacts on schools from new development was made by the City Council in 1993. The recommended per unit fees are considered to be technicallyjustifiablebyDMG. lfthePlanningCommissionbelievesthatthefeeisappropriate and reasonable, the Commission should recommend the proposed fee cap to the City Council. If the City Council approves the fee cap, it would apply only to those projects that receive a legislative approval after that date. Typical legislative approvals include general plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and pre-annexation agreements. Many of the large specific plans that have been recently approved in the County already have a similar mitigation requirement applied to them. R:\HOGAND\S@P@.PCI 719/% dwh 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The Proposed Mitigation Plan was prepared pursuant to, and submitted under, the School Mitigation Program addressed in implementation Program C.3 of the Growth Management/ Public Facilities Element of the City's adopted General Plan. As a result, the proposed Mitigation Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Mitigation Plan does not have the potential to cause an alteration or have a significant impact on the physical environment. Future specific school projects that may result from the funds raised under this Plan will undergo the appropriate level of environmental review when specific sites and designs are known. Therefore, the Community Development Director has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: 1 . Proposed Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan - Blue Page 7 2.Draft PC Resolution No. 96-(next) - Blue Page 8 3.Resolution 95-36 - Page 12 4.DMG's Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fee - Blue Page 13 5. Results of School Facility Impact Modeling - Blue Page 14 R:@OOLS\S LAN.PM 7/101% vgw 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 95-36 R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CC1 8/30/96 dwli 1 3 'DVCOLUTION NO. 9S-36 A RESOL'EMON OF TBE CITY COUNC-EL OF THE C= OF APIYROVING THE SCHOOL FACE= @ACT NMGATION PROGRAM Wm i-3tr.AS, @ pap@on growth in ye= in the City of Temecula ("Cityo) has resulted in Lup in the numbers of stiltientc that the Tem@ Valley Unified School Dis@ ("D@") is required to educate, and has resdtod in the need to enluge existing school famlities and cons== new facilities to house the stiltientt in accordance with the policies of the @ct and s=dards by state law; and new on school @fles are due y to residential ilgeg (except senior cif= development); and , unpacts from co and ind development are I= significant dm those of residential development and are y offset by the contributions of comm=W and indus=ial uses toward a strong = base in the City which supports public @ces, including schools; and WHF-lRIF,A.q, adequate school @ties arr. a benefit to both new development and the component of the @'s @ and , dw State has d that @cing the construction of school facffities is the of the State of Californ* and , the State of Calif@ has been unable to adequately fall its obligation for funding suchadditional.school facilifm and has the =Wnsibffity for financing of school to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986,. ('School Facilities Law of 1986*), =y estab@ developer mitigation fees for residential, commercial and ind ilses, and may establish M@Roos Community Facilifm Districts to provide for school plant facilities fi=cing as auth and limited by ft laws of dw State of California; and , the combmatlon of s= school bond monies, school district imposed developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of @cing have generally been inadequate to provide for the enlargement and of school plant @ties sufficient to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the State of Calffornia; and ,, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are oriented toward the provwon of interim school @ties, and a need @ to fund permanent K-12 school facilities, including @fm for the education @ of or disadvantaged students; and community at L-irge, and are a systems; and Rews%95-36 the City, pummnt w the California Enviro==tal ty @ Act ("CEQAII), has the authority to @ew development proposals for impacts on School F@f=; and pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develg=ent C City of San Die2o, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), Vrilliam S., Hart frilh S ' ' ' 'ct v. Regional Plannint, Comrnissi=, 226 CaL App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta VaIlCy Unified School District v. Counly of Riversidr. 228 CaL App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities Law of 1986, the City has the auth@ to acts including general plan amendments, sperific pl-ms and amendments th==, and d=ges of zme, if it finds d= the impacts an school facilities have not been mi to a @ of @gaifi=ce; and ,, the on of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City of Temecula is important to the City's @; and VVELEREAS, the Tem@ Valley U@ School District requested that the City of Temecula adopt a resolution providing g a program to provide full funding for school facilities from some Mm of ment; and w H FRIP-AR, the City Council included languagr- in the Growth Management and Public Facility Element of the Gen=Z Plan con=ning the mitigation of school @ty impacts; and , @ Resolution is being adapted at the requ@ of the District which has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the City from claims resulting from the adoption, enforcement, or implemen@ of the Resolution; and , the P g Co on has considered the Program at its November 7, 1994 meeting and recommends that the Council approve this @lution; and , notice of the proposed resolution was posted at City Hall, County Lfl)rary, Rancho Califoniia Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce.. NOW, MMRE, TBE CITY COUNCIL FX)R TBE C= OF CUI[A DOES RESOLVE, D AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. NEtigation of School Facility Impacts A. F-xcept as provided below, all development projects and applications that are submitted to the City of Temecula and that require a GeneW Plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre- on agreement or S Plan approval or amendment. shall be reviewed for their potential school facility impacts and mitigation of such impacts- B. No conditions of on a Gcncml Plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre- on ent or S plm approval or ammdment shall requ= any applicant or developer to provide mitigation in =cm of the amounts autho@ by Government Code Section 65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time to time, unless a School District Nfitigation Plan ('hfitiption Plan') has be= prepared by or on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council. R@W5-36 2 of the C. Any following shau be to be adecp,2te mitigation of school facility impacts with approvals by the City for Plan amendments, Specific Plans and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annex=on agreements and zone changes: 1. A lepuy CnfOrceablc IF@ Impact NfitigatiOn Agreement (-Nfitigatic)n Agreement-) the and developer that specifm the exact nature, amount, process and conditions of mitigation to be by the applicant/developer or other appropriate doeu 2. A finding pursuant to CEQA by the City @w body that no significant lmpa= cm school es shau occur as a result of the development. Provided @er, @gs may also be made Pum=t to CEQA dw ffic unpacts on school facilities have be= mitigated to a level of cance. Section 2. School Fa@ @ct Mitigation A. Any sr-how Partly Or totally vnthm the C'tY may Prepare and submit a School F@ Impact Mdgatic)n Plan to the City to 2titiress the impacts on school within the school submitting the Miti@n Plan. B.The following development projects @ be exempt from the requirements of an approved Nfiti@ Plan. These Proje= @ be to pay only the statutory school fees authorized by Govm=ent Code Section 65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time to time, or any other amount Previously agreed to by the District and the owner/developer of the proposed development Project: 1. Residential projects which have been approved by a hearing body (P g Commission or City Council) prior to the cffectivc date of this Resolution. 2. -Quasi-judicial- land use approvals, including but not @ted to subdivision maps, use permits, plot plans and variances. 3 . Subsequent approvals for the components of a larger project which has already met the requirements of this R=Iution (e.g. a tentative tract map within a specific plan which has :ilreatiy mitigated school @tY impacts). 4. Comm@ or in projects. 5.Senior cif=n housing as defined in Govm=ent Code Section 65995. 1 (a) 6. Any r=dentmi development proposal for wtuch a NfitLgation Agreement has @y been executed between the @opcr and the @CL @%95-36 3 facilities whch may result from new tW City shall review and may consider, at its sole if the Plan adequately ad the impacts t projects WW= that dL=Ct. The oz4 g a proposed Nfitigation Plan gfrom inc=ses in the number of students 7. Any or all changes of zone needed to makr. dw Of&W City Map consistent with the Land Use Designations con@ in the City's f= adopted General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65860, as it now @ or may be amended from time to time, of the State P 9 and Zo@g Law. 8. Any am= ments to a ely approved land use entitlement (including a general plan amendment, zme Chang'-'. t, pre-annexation agreement, c plan approval or amendment) that does not i=rcm the total number of residential housing units within the area of the entitlement Section 3. Preparation of School F LnPact tion A. Tne hfitigation Plan shau contain docun= of the need for any level of mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be @ved by the District from Statutory School Fees authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may be amended from time to time, and any other sources of fimding available to or anticipated by the District. 'ne Nfitigation Plan shall be adopted by the Distdct Board of Trustees. At a minimum, all Nfitiption Plan, shall contain the following information: 1.Student @emtion Factors, a.The District S@t Generation Factor (S GF) shall be based. upon a household survey. Tne SGF shall include peak t loading for all elementary, middle and high school grades. b.The SGF Household Survey shall be based upon and consist of the following: (1)A minimum random sample of 250 occupied dwelling units that were constructed in the g @ years. (2) A tative sample of the current or anticipated future characteristics of the community, including consideration for any resort or second home characteristics of the community. (3)The survey shall exclude senior cid=n housing. (4) A representative sample of the housing product @s within the district (i.e. single family detached, single family attached, or nmlti-fmfly rental properties and mobile homes). (5) Tne SGF be based on an assessment of student 'pass through' from new homes over at least a:five-year period. C. Distdct and any other in The party may propose additional survey factors and conditions to be included in the survey. The use of any additional survey factors and conditions (that could affect the SGF) must be approved by dm @ Council prior to doing the survey. @%95-36 4 2.LMical School Land Cost'FactM a. The Typical School Land Costs Factor be based on the state's standard cost and shall be based upon a finished and @ved, construction ready school site, including the on of in b.Deveiapmem of school ntes shall be based on Califm= Department of Educatinn standards for i , and acreage. C. schoolco costs shau be as auth by dm State Office of Local Assistance (OLA), or as req@ by local and state codes. . d. All costs for pl-ins, =4 fumitm-e and equipment, and contingencies shall be in a=ordance with OLA requirements. 3Qptimum Facility Utilimtion a. This D@ shau demons=m, in the I&tigation Plan, optimum Utili7nfion of its fneilities. b. The Mdgafim Plan shau of a year-m=d, multi-track education program, double school sessions, and al ve t loading progm=. 4 . Bond Issues and Other FundinL, Sources a. The shau , and provide supporting evidence in the Nfitigation Plan that the @ct has used, or committed for use, all its availablr- funding sources. b . Mz Di=ct and provide supporting evidence in the Nfitigation Plan that the D@ct is p@g state and alternate @ties fi=cing. C. If the D@ct is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing alternate financing, it shall @ude an explanation and rationale in the Nfitigation Plan for not doing so. d.The Nfitigation Plan @ include considerations of methods of financing the payment for and construction of School Facffities, to ensure the on of adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future mddents, including the use of developer loan funds based on an@ted state bond fund @ursement and community @ties divficts. 5 . Cen@ Administration and Su= Facilities and Interim Fam'lities 7be shall have dw ty, through the Mfigatim Plan, to present an argument j g mitigation for impacts an 2dministration and support facffif= and interim facilities. 'Tbe justification shall include informatim on g, work loads, and other data to demons=te that the is using its 2timin e funding in a manner which max=zes productivity and mmmuzes costs. In additm, if the Da= ele= to present @k95-36 5 justification, the Nfitigation Plan demo that the mitigation req is proportional to the impacts directly attributable to new development. 6.Level of SM=rt From New Deveigyment ne Plan =y for total mitigation of school @ties impacts that are shown to result from new tial @opments from all potential funding sources. The Nfiti Plan shall not be used to for mitigation of impacts attributable to existing deveIC)PMCnL 7.Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Devel2pment. 'Tbe Wtigatim Plan shall include ons for consultations between the District, the City, and/or the applicant on future school @ty location and site development plans in order to promote compatibility with City land -use, tion, and other plans, and coordination on public improvements, including si and @ic control mechanisms. B. Tne D== shall sub=t = adopted on Plan to the City for its review and approval as to whether it conforms to @ requirements and wiR reasonably and equitably mitigate, in the best interest of ffie City and its @ents, the additional impacts on the District school facilities. Upon submittal of the @gation Plan to um City the following procedures shall be followed: 1 . The District shall submit the adopted 3&tiption Plan to the Director of Planning. 'Tbe submittal shall be accom by the fw to cover the City's Cost of reviewing the District's Plan. 2. NVithin 30 days following receipt of the District's Nfitigation Plan, the Director of Planning shall review the plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirements of this Section. The Planning Dire= shall inform the Building Industry Association for Riverside County of its receipt of the District's hfitigation plan, and invite them to provide written comments or objections. After reviewing the hfitigation Plan, the Director shall take one of the following actions: a. No@, by written notice to the superintendent of the District, that the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements of this Pmlution. 7be notice @ also contain the anticipated meeting date for the Planning Com@on's consideration of the Mitigation Plan. b. Notify, in @g, dz superintendent of the District that the District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of this Section and describing the deficiencies that need to be - Any major changes in the District's Nfltigation Plan must be approved by the District's Board of Trustees. 3. 'Within 60 days following the of Planning's notification of the completeness of the D@'s Nfitigation plan, the p 9 Commission shall review and ResoSX95-36 6 of the t with an ==ted devel@D@ct D. The may or the City Council may initi2t#-,. the proceSS of amending the previously approved Nfitigatim plan at any time. Any a to the Plan shau follow the approval procedures in this Resolu@. Section 4.Review of Resitiential Projects A.For all residential proje=, the Director of Planning @ no@ the District, by means of writtennotice, as to any proposed development located within said District prior to the first Development @ew Committee meeting. 1 . The NotLce to the include the following informaticm: a.The location of the proj@ b.The name of the owner and developer, C.The number and @ of dwelling units proposed; d. A site or development plan; and, e.The date of the DRC meetlng. 2. The Dis=t @ provide written comments on any projea submitted for their review and comment prior to the date of dz Development @ew Committee meeting. 3. 7be failure of the to a written response to the Director of ResasWS-36 7 consider the plan to whether it conforms to the requircmc= of ti" S@ and will reasonably mitig= the impa= of new development on school Mw g the Nfitigation Plan, the Commission shau recommend that the City Council deny, condition, or continue the approval of the Distdct's hfitigation Plan. . . 9 4. Vtrithm 30 days following dw P g I s recomm on the District's Plan, the City Council shall and the Plan to de whether it coffm'ms to the of this S@ and win ly and equitably, in the best interests of the City and its ts, mitizatth the impacts of new development on school facilities. After 9 the bfitiPEM Plan, the Cotmcil she approve-, deny, condition, modify, or continue consid of the D@'s Plan. C. Upon of the City Council, the hfitigation Plan shall th be regarded as the basis for the by the Di=ict of mn@ attributable to individual @dential development proposals, and mitigation measures which may be appropriate to eliminate or reduce to a lwd of..... the impa= attributable to such @dential development proposals. The City shall not adopt any fin2nci:tl m in District's recommended development mitigation measme, imics-t it is found to be the provisions of a @ously approved agreement, or any @tted by St= law. Planning shall constitute dm equivalent of 'No CommcnL' In this case, the City will requi= only the State mandated school impact mitigation fm authorized by G t Code Section 65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time w time. B. All m"ential development proposals dw do not require a General Plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, PrL-ann@on agreement, or Specific Plan approval or amendment by dm City shau be for thmr potential imp= on school facilitiesaspartaftheTniti2lEnvirommental@pir,ii-ig-c N@ginthisresolution@cts the ability of the Dirw= of Planning to that an o c=mpt @ project may have a significant impact on the environment and dw an Environmental Impact Report should be pr . No mitigation of school impacts beyond dz mitigation identified in State law will be required for the= projects. C. All residential development proposals that requ= General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, S@c Plan amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements, and changes of zone shall be @ewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the environment and the mitigation of those impacts in ce with the requirements of State and Local law. 1. If a School Facility Impact Nflti Agreement is required and an Agreement has not been submitted, the Director of Planning shall no@ the applicant that the application is incomplete and that addi@ information (i.e. study or environmental impact report) is required to :1--ses-, the impacts on and mitigation of the effects of the development project on the D@ct's school @f=. 2. Within 30 days of submission of an app@on, the Director of P g shall notify the applicant that either. a.The proposed development project will not ' have a significant adverse impact on the District's school facilities or the nment, and t= no additional. special studies or supplemental mitigation agreement is required. b. Ile proposed development project will not have a significant adverse impact on theDistrict's school facilities, but may have an adverse impact on the environment and that aspecial study or environmental impact report is required. C. Ile proposed development project could have an adverse impact on the District's school facilities and that a detailed impact q-.ses--,ment and mitigation study must be prepared and/or a School Facility Impact Mtigation Agreement must be obtained. d.Ile proposed development project could have an adverse impact on the Dis@'s school facilifm and/or the r. and that a special study or an environmental impact report must be and/or an Impact Nfitigatim Agreement is required. e. The proposed development project wiU have an adverse impact on the District's school facilities and the environment and that a special study or an environmental \95-36 9 impact report must be 3.If the appu=t and/or developer disagr=s with the Dire=,s de on of the project's po=tial impact on the environment or the District's school faciuf=, they may appeal the decision to the P@g within 10 calendar days of r=6pt of the Director's lie appeal shall be m2ric and Med in accordance with the requirements of the P 9 Co , , 4. '%rithin 30 days of @g an appeal of the Dire='s decision, the Director of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the P@g Commission's consideration. 5. If the apphcant, developer, or with the Planning Commission's of the project's potmtial impact on the environment or the-District's school facffities, they may appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Commission's detm-mination. Tne appeal @ be made and filed in accordance with the requirements of the City Clerk. 6.NVithin 30 days of @g an appml of the Planning Commission's the City C'lcrk shau schedule the appeal for the City Council's c The City Council's decisions on these shall be @. D. The evidence of adequate mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on the District's school facilif= shall be @@ed by a b&tigation AgreemenL The terms of the Nfitigation Agreement, @ be incorporated by reference in the conditions of CF-QA Appmval, and on the Conditions of Approval of any S Plan, the Resolution of Approval of any general plan amendment, and in the terms of any development or @ann@on agre=enl Section 5.Implen=tation of @ ResoluUon A.Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability of the Directorof Planning, Planning Commission, or Council to require additional information orstudies on any rmdentlg projects subnutted to the City for approval B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect untu amended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is enacted which supersedes this Resolution. C.This Resolution is adopted at the behest of and for the benefit of the Temecula Valley Unified School District and other school within the @ts of the City of Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or si@ p g 'be' instituted against the City for the adoption, @sitim, or on of the school mitigation requirements under the ons of this Rewlution, shall be the fuU and complete responsibility of the District. To that end, the District shall ind pro@, defend, and hold harml= the City against any loss, cost, , cWm, damage, ent, or judgment, resulting from a lawsuit or any part thereof g to this Rmlution. @\9S-36 9 D. This Rmlution not become effective imiest and =til the D@c acknowledges, in writing, and any and all action related to its obligations as set forth in this Section. Section 6. CertW=atiomL. Mm City Clerk shau the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPM this llth day of April, 1995. E. A=T: Jun@S iG@ City Cler C Is@] STATE OF CAL-EFORNIA) COUNTY OFI]DE) SS C= OFCULA IY CERT7:FY that the foregmng RewlutLon was duly adopted by the City Council of theCity of Tem@ at a regular meeting thereof, held on the llth day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: 3 COLTN ERS: Iindemans, Roberts, Stone NOF-S: 0 COUN ERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUN ERS: None ABSTAINED: 2 COUN ERS: Mufioz, Parks lune S. G Cl@ CMC Resos%95-36 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 DMG'S REVIEW OF PROPOSED TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 14 Poszj-j.".. L@ -A CT ;,,DE. ER,':,1.4 -995:-,., -ZF '7 @idAt-Gri@'&Associat" -Ltd.. (199@)'.. 432OAutw@Bl@d.@ui te,2000.,! -Sa iyito, CA 94841 Review ofproposed MM School impact Afthvation Fees TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary A. Summary of Methodology 4 B. Analysis of Proposed Fees 5 I. Facility Cost 5 2. School Capacity 7 3.Students per Dwelling Unit (Student Generation Factors) 9 4. Funds Available from Other Sources 12 C. Recommendations 14 1 - Technical Corrections 14 2. Policy Issues 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. ]Facility Costs 6 Table 2. OPSC Standards - Square Footace per Student 7 Table 3. School Capacity 8 Table 4. Student Generation Factors for New-Single Family Detached Dwelling Units 10 Table 5. Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Attached Dwelling Units 10 Table 6. Current Student Generation Factors 11 Table 7. Recalculated Nfitigation Fees Using Corrected Student Space Allocation 15 Appendix A Table A- I Breakdown of School Development Costs A-1 Table A-2 Recalculation of Mtigation Fees A-2 December 14, 1995 David M Griffith &Associates Page i Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitijzation Fees EXECUY:F VE SUMMARY David U Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review mitiga- tion fees proposed in the Temecula Valley Unified School District Impact Nfitigation Plan. Our review focused on four factors that- affect the outcome of the fee calculations: (1) facility cost, (2) facility capacity, (3) student generation factors, and (4) availability of funds from other sources. Each of those fi=ors is ed in detail to determine whether the methodology, data, and as- sumptions used in the fee calculations can be supported. Our conclusions regarding each of those factors is summarized below. In addition, this summary and the body of the report identify impor- tant policy issues. Those issues cannot be resolved on technical izrounds, but they affect the amount of the mitigation fees in a major way and should be considered by the Citv Council in evaluating the proposed fees. 1. Facility Cost Our review of facility cost estimates used by TVUSD in the calculation of miti- gation fees shows that they are consistent with facflity costs standards used by the State Alloca- tion Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) for approval of state school construction funding. 2. Facility Capacity. Our review of facility capacity figures used by TVUSD to calculate @ti- gation fees shows that, for elementary and middle schools, square footage per student exceeds OPSC guidelines. The effect is that school capacity is understated and cost per student is over- stated. To correct for the TVUSD's use of facility capacity figures that exceed OPSC guidelines, DMG has recalculated the mitigation fees for elementary and middle schools using OPSC ap- proved square footage per student. The recalculated fees, as shown in Table 7 of the report, are lower than the proposed TVUSD fees by $675 for Single-Family Detached dwelling units and $519 for Single-Family Attached dwelling units. Those figures do not reflect any adjustment for possible policy decisions with respect to student generation factors or future availability of state school construction funds. Deceniber 14,1995 David.,%d. Griffith &Associates Page I Revie,w ofprqposed 7TVSD School Imyact Afitivation Fees 3. Student Generation Factors. Our review of student generation factors (SGFS) used to calcu- late TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees shows that the methods used to derive them are techni- cauy supportable. We note, however, that the projected SGFs would be valid only for the projection period, and may vary in either direction thereafter. Furthermore, the choice of peak year- factors as the basis for mitigation fees is a policy choice that is not dictated by the technical analysis. In addition, a recent District analysis of current student generation factors (November, 1995) supports the projected factors for detached dwellings in the mitigation plan, but indicates that projected factors for attached dwellings (and resulting fees) may be as much as @5% too hiszh. 4. Funds Availablefrom Other Source-L Our review shows that the calculation of proposed mitigation fees reflects a credit for the District's currently authorized bonding capacity and com- mitted state school construction funding. Some other possible sources of fundiniz for future school construction were discussed in the mitigation plan and assumed to have no potential for funding of future TVUSD school facilities. For the most part we concur. However, the assurr tion that no state school construction funds will be available for any future TVUSD schools seems very pessimistic, despite the fact that the most recent statewide school bond issue was rejected by the voters. Since there is no technical basis for estimating the availability of future funding from this source, any allowance for such funding must be based on a policy judgment. 5. Summary of Key Policy Issue-t As indicated previously, some of the factors bearing on the amount of the proposed mitigation fees cannot be evaluated technically. We recommend that the City Council carefully consider the following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees: Student Generation Factors. -Projected student generation factors for attached units, as shown in the mitigation plan, are high compared with recently obtained data on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence. a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice of these factors. A detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report. December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith &.4ssociares Page 2 Review ofprovosed @D School Impact Afitieation Fees Future School Bond Funds. The mitilation fees assume that no state or local school bond funds will be available for any future TVUSD school construction. Neither the District nor the City can know how voters will respond to future proposals for school bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and should be evaluated by the City Council. AV December.14,1995 DavidM. Griffith &.Associates Page 3 Review of Proposed 7TVSD School impact Miligation.Fees REVIEW OF PROPOSED TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEES David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review school mitigation fees proposed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). This report summarizes the approach used to establish those fees, and evaluates key data and assumptions which influence the outcome of the calculations. DMG's review is based on the Residential De- velopment Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan (April 22, 1994) by David Taussig and Associates. That plan incorporates student generation factors projected by School Planning Services and facil- ity cost estimates prepared by the TVUSD Facilities Development Department. A. SU Y OF MMT'HODOLOGY The proposed mitigation fees are intended to represent an averaze cost per dwelling unit (DU) for school Facilities required to accommodate students residing in new developments. The mitiga- tion plan calculates fees for two categories of residential development (sinp-le-family detached and single-family attached), and three types of school facilities (elementary [K-5], middle [6-8], and high [9-12] schools). Student generation factors vary by development category, and costs vary by facility type, so fees are computed separately for each of the six combinations of development categories and facility types. It is important to note that the fee calculation method used in the Impact Mitigation Plan is not dependent on the amount of development projected for a particular period of time. Development projections are used by TVUSD to schedule facility construction, but do not affect the calculation of the proposed mitigation fees. It should also be noted that a considerable amount of future de- velopment in Temecula will occur in vested subdivisions which would not be subject to any new mitigation fee. December 14, 1995 DavidjVI. Griffith &.4.zociates Page 4 Revie,w ofpmyosed 7TWD School Inivact Mitteation Fees The fee calculation method can be broken down into three steps, as shown in the following for- mulas. The result from each of the first two steps is used in the subsequent step. (1)Facility Cost @ Facility Capacity = Cost per Student (2)Cost per Student x Students per DU = Cost per DU (3) Cost per DU - Credits for Other Funds = Fee per DU Four variables are used in these formulas: (1) facility cost; (2) facility capacity- (3) students per I dwelling unit (a.k.a. student generation factor); and, (4) funds available from other sources. The value inserted for each of these variables affects the result of the fee calculation. Those effects will be addressed in the following section. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FEES The methodology, data and assumptions used at each stage of the fee calculations are evaluated below. I. Facility Cost. Facility costs used in calculating the school mitigation fees are based on TVUSD estimates for prototype elementary, middle, and high schools. Those estimates are shown in attachments to the Impact Nfitigation Plan and are summarized in Table I on the follow- ing page. The State Allocation Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) evaluate school development costs for purposes of allocating state school construction funds, and OPSC has developed square foot cost standards for school construction. Application of those standards requires a project-specific breakdown of building area by function, and a detailed analysis of site development costs. Since that type of review is not possible for hypothetical future projects, the best available yardstick for evaluating facility cost estimates in the Impact NEtigation Plan is the cost of similar TVUSD projects approved by OPSC. December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith& Associates Page i Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mittization Fees Table I Facility Costs Cost Elementary Middle High Component School School School Site Acquisition ' 1,087,9632 2,175,926' 4,895,8334 Plans/Compliance . 470,8-31 641,114 1,487,007 Construction 5,347,069 9,700,000 27,000,000 Testin@ection 15-),779 247,200 680,000 Fumiture/Equipment 272,155 586,710 1,712,916 Contingency 104,047 218,247 0 Totals $7,525,844 $13,569,197 $35,785,756 Total Square Footage 45,394 79,500 198,945 Total Cost/Sq.Ft. (TVUSD) $165.79 $170.68 $179.88 Total Cost/Sq. Ft. (OPSC) sigo.50 s $186.026 $192.336 Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $119.78 $122.01 $135.72 iconstruction Cost/Sq. Ft. (OPSC) $119-505 $121,896 $135.536 Source: TVUSD Impact Ntiption Plan and SAB-approved project budgets. I F-stunated site cost = S 109,7%.30 per aae. 2Assumes I @ site. 3 es site. Assumes 4@cre Includes I 0% escalation from 1990 construction cost of S 108.64 and total cost of S 1 73.2 1. 6B@ on SAB ammved b@cts for ==I @SD projects. TVUSD has provided DMG with detailed breakdowns of SAB approved project budgets for three school projects: Redhawk Elementary School (1990), Vail Ranch Nfiddle School (1993), and Chapparal I-ligh School (1994). In Table 1, the average construction cost per square foot for those projects is compared with the costs used to calculate proposed mitigation fees. Because the costs for Redhawk Elementary School go back to 1990, we have escalated them by 10%, the in- crease in the OPSC cost index since that year. It should be noted that the cost figures shown in Table I for Vail Ranch Mddle School and Chaparral High School are based on the SAB ap- proved budget and do not include additional costs funded by TVUSD. Those additional costs in- creased the project budgets by about I.-'i% for Vail Ranch and about 4.5% for Chaparral. As shown by the comparisons in Table 1, square foot construction costs used to calculate the mitigation fees are very close to the OPSC approved costs for similar projects, and total cost per December 14, 1995 DavidVf Griffith &.4ssocjaies Page 6 Review of Proposed 7TVSD School Impact Afiti_vation Fees square foot is lower than for the OPSC approved projects. One reason for the lower total cost is a lower cost for land. our conclusion based on this review of the facility cost estimates is that TVUSD has used reason- able costs to calculate the mitigation fees. 2. School Capacity. For purposes of calculating mitigation fees, TVUSD has estimated the ca- pacity of each prototype facility (elementary, middle and high school) in terms total students ac- commodated. The Impact Mtigation Plan states that TVUSD meets standards set by OLA (now OPSC) for student loadin& in terms of class size and maximum square footage per student. The OPSC square footage per student standards, as shown in Table 1, are for a normal, nine- month school calendar. Since the mitigation plan assumes that all new elementary and middle schools will be on a year round schedule, the allocation of space per student must be adjusted to reflect the fact that a year round schedule allows more students to be accommodated in a given A amount of space. Table 2 OPSC Standards - Square Footage per Student Elementary Jr. High Middle High Component School (K-6) School (7-8) School (6-8) School Base Allowance 55 Sq. Ft. 75 Sq. Ft. Increase for new schools 4 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft. Increase for 30% portables 3 Sq. Ft. ) Sq. Ft. Totals 1 62 Sq. Ft. 83 Sq. Ft. Sou=:TVUSD and the Office of Public School Consuuction 68 Sq. Ft. 86 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft. 6 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft. 76 Sq. Ft. 95 Sq. FL kkddle school equ2ls 1/3 k-6 grade s=dard plus 213 7-8 gmde smndard. 2 legh school standard as shown is for toW of 2 1 00 @ts. Changing from a nine-month schedule to a year round schedule can theoretically increase the ca- pacity of a school by 33%. However, OPSC assumes that a 201/o increase is realistic. TVUSD used a 25% increase in the mitigation plan. Table 3 shows the capacities of the TVUSD Decepnber 14, 1995 DavidAI. Grfftth &.Associates Page 7 Review ofproposed 7TVSD School ItripactMitieation Fees prototype schools for both nine-month and year round schedules, using the OPSC space alloca- tion standards. The table also shows the capacities as presented in the niiti2ation plan. Table 3 School Capacity Elementary Middle High School (K-6) School (6-8) School Square Feet - TVUSD Prototype School 45,394 Sq Ft 79,500 Sq Ft 198,945 Sq Ft OPSC Standard Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched) 62.0 Sq Ft 76.0 Sq Ft 95.0 Sq Ft Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched) 7' )2 Students 1,046 Students 2,094 Students Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round)' 878 Students 1,255 Students N/A Square Feet per Student (Year Round) 51.7 Sq Ft 6' ).4 Sq Ft N/A TVUSD Mitigation Plan Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched) 68.8 Sq Ft 9-'I.5 Sq Ft 94.7 Sq Ft % of OPSC Standard (9 Mo. Sched) 111% 12@)% 100% Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched) 660 Students 850 Students 2,100 Students Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round)2 825 Students 1,06@@ Students N/A Square Feet per Student (Year Round) 55.0 Sq Ft 75.4 Sq Ft N/A % of OPSC Standard (Year Round) 106%1 119% N/A Year round adjustment based on a 20% increase. 2Yew round adjustment @d on a 25% in@. It is clear from Table 3 that the facility capacities used by TVUSD to calculate the mitigation fees for elementary and middle schools are based on a per-student space allocation significantly higher (I 1% for elementary schools and 23% for middle schools) than the OPSC standard. That overal- location is offset to a degree by the District's use of a 25% increase rather than a 20% increase in capacity for year round scheduling. However, after accounting for that offset, the mitigation fees reflect an allocation of 6% more elementary school space per student and 19% more middle school space per student than the OPSC standards would allow. The cost per student would in- crease proportionately. TVUSD has expwned that its capacity estimates were based on students per classroom rather than a square footage allocation, and were based on the District's anticipated space needs for successfw first implementation of the multi-track, year round program which be- gan in July 1994. December 14, 1995 DavidM Griffith &.Associates Page 8 Review ofproposed TnrSD School Imv,7cr MilirahonFees our conclusion regarding school capacitv estimates is that the mitintion ffts are based on Iguue footage 12er student space allocations that exceed OPSC guidelines. The effect is to undm=te ol caraciiy and overstate the cost Rer student. Later in this rerort, the fees are recalculated using the OPSC coa@ Guidelines. 3. Studentsper Dwelling Unit (Student Generadon Factors). In order to forecast the number of students that will be produced by anticipated development in the District, TVUSD engaged School Planning Services to establish the student generation factors which are used in the impact Mtigation Plan. A student generation factor (SGF) represents the number of students at a par- ticular grade level produced by one dwelling unit of a particular type. The SGFs used to calculate TVUSD school mitigation fees were estimated for two types of residential development- s' pje- in - farnfly detached and single-family attached-and for the elementary, middle and high school levels. Those SGFs are based on a telephone survey of households in the District. The survey was ited to residents of dwellings constructed in the three years prior to the survey. The intent of that limitation was to isolate the impact of new housing on the TVUSD student population. The sur- vey identified the number and ages of pre-school and school-age children living in the surveyed households. The District staff reports that children attending private schools were not included. Using information from the survey, the average number of students per dwelling, in each age group, was determined for the detached and attached development types. By projecting the aging of those children over a five year period, School Planning Services forecasted the number of chil- dren per dwelling urut at the elementary, middle and high school grade levels for each of those years. Tables 4 and 5 show the projected student generation factors for each year, for the two types of residential development. The student generation factors used to calculate the fees in the Impact Mtigation Plan are those for Year 6-the peak year for total students, and for two of the three grade levels. The K-5 factor for detached units peaks in Year 2, and declines sharply thereafter. Peak values and the mean fac- tor for each grade level in the tables have been added by DMG. December 14, 1995 DavidAf Griffith &.Associates Page 9 Review ofprovosed 7TVSD School lifidact Mil@eation Fees Table 4 Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Detached Dwelling Units Grade Survey YearJ Year Year Year Year Peak Level Year 2 3 4 5 6 Values Mean Pre-K 0.'@3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A K-5 0.44 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.41 0.39 0.48 0.44 6-8 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20- 0.22 0.24 .0.24 0.21 9-12 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.74 0.84 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.85 Source: School Pla=ing S@ices, 1994. Peak- values and mean afiied bv DMG. The method used to develop these factors appears technically supportable. DMG has not re- viewed the actual survey data, but assuming that the survey year values accurately reflect the sur- vey results, the projections appear mathematically correct. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that those projections accurately reflect the real world situation. Table 5 Student Generation Factors for New Sin- e Family Attached Dwelling Units ei Grade Survey Year Year Year Year Year Level Year 2 3 4 5 6 Peak Mean Pre-K 0.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A K-5 0.28 0.34 0."32 O.'@4 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.31 6-8 0.09 0.11 0. 1.@) 0. Ili 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.14 9-12 1 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.17 1 0.17 1 O..08 tals 1 0.40 0.47 0.49 _0.55 0.60 0.64 1 0.70 O@ Source: School Planning Services, 1994. Peak- values aiid me= added b%, DMG. One usefw way to evaluate the projected student generation factors from the Nfitigation Plan would be to compare them with the number of students actually generated by existing dwellings. Unfortunately, the required information is hard to come by. Student enrollment is tracked for th@ entire District, but dwelling unit counts are not. Conversely, dwelling unit counts are available for December 14, 199S Daviditf. Griffilh &.4ssociaies Page 10 Review ofprovosed 77,T,SD School ItyiDact Afitiq,7tion FL-es the City, but TVUSD enrollment figures do not distinguish consistently between City residents and residents of unincorporated portions of the District. However, TVUSD recently completed estimates of current student generation factors based on November, 1995 enrollment and a count of current dwelling units from aerial photos. The dwell- in_g unit count was performed by the District staff, and covered only the urbanized portion of the District. The Temecula Planning Department has indicated that the dwelling unit counts seem consistent with other available information. Below, the current student generation factors are compared with projected factors from the Mtigation Plan. The Year 2 (1995) projections from the NEtigation Plan would be most comparable with the District's current SGF estimates. The Year 6 (1999) projections were used to calculate mitigation fees. Table 6 Current Student Generation Factors Unit Student Generation Type Factors K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Detached Actual (November, 1995) 0.41 0.20 0.'72 0.83 Projected Year 2 (1995) 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.84 Projected Year 6 (1999) 0.@)9 0.24 0.25 0.88 Attached Actual (November, 1995) 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.38 Projected Year 2 (1995) 0.'@4 0.11 0.02 0.47 'Projected Year 6 (19 0.29 0.19 0.17 0.64 Soume: TVUSD The actual 1995 factors for detached units are reasonably close to 1995 projections--lower in K-5 and higher for the other grade levels, but almost identical overall. For attached units, though, the projected 1995 factors are significantly (24%) higher overall than the actual factors. Of course, the number of attached units is much smaller than the number of detached units so the projections may have suffered from a small sample size in the survey. Changes in the SGF used to calculate mitigation fees will result in directly proportional changes in the fees. In other words, if the SGF is reduced by IO%, the fees would be reduced by IO%. December 14, 1995 Davidjil. Griffith &.Associates Page II Review ofproposed TVLISD School Impact Afltlgation Fees Another important consideration is that student generation factors change significantly during the projection period, and may continue to change in either direction thereafter. It does seems clear from the numbers in Tables 4 and 5 that, as the younger children in the survey sample progress through successive grade levels, the factors for middle and high school students will decline alain, at least for single-famhy detached dwellings, which make up the bulk of households in the Dis- tnct. The data from the survey do not offer any clue as to longer term trends that depend on numbers of children not yet bom at the time of the survey. Thus, the choice of factors to be used as the basis for mitigation fees depends on interpretation and judgment. LJltimately that choice depends on a policy decision. To improve the accuracy of student generation factors in the future, we recommend that the City ask TVUSD to keep student enrollment data in a manner that allows for easier identification of City residents and facilitates computerized address matching. Those changes would provide a better basis for evaluating the impacts of development, and making future policy decisions with respect to developer funding of school facilities. Our conclusion regarding student Lyeneration factors is that the survey results are valid o@v for the projection Reriod, and indicate that SGFs for middle and hiLTh school mav decline after a few years. TVUSD estimates of current student generation rates indicate that the factors for used in the mitigation Rlan for attached units may be too high bv a significant margin- Use of Reak vear factors to proiect facilitv needs is not the oniv reasonable policv choice. In the future, it would be desirable for the District to keep enrollment records in a form that would allow easier analysis of the impacts of new development. 4. Funds Availablefrom Other Sources. The Impact Mitication Plan discusses other funding sources for school development, and applies credits to the mitigation fees for funds available from certain sources-specificafly, the state school building program and TVUSD general obligation bonds approved by voters in 1989. Fund sources which appear to have potential to provide new money for school development by TVUSD are discussed below. December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith &.Associates Page 12 Review ofproposed TV= School ligpact AritigationFees a St uildiniz Proum. The mitigation plan assumes that no additional funds will be available from this source for any Facilities that have not already been funded. Unexpended funds approved for TVUSD from the State School Building Program amount to S25.4 affion, of which approximately S20 million will benefit future development. Roughly $8.5 million of that amount was credited the City's mitigation fees. The remainder was credited to the County portion of the District. That split is based on projections of total numbers of future students to be izener- ated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas. The time frame and method used to forecast the number of students generated in the City and County portions of the District are not clear from the Mtigation Plan. b. General Obligation Bonds. Of $65 million in authorized G.O. bond funding, $31.2 million has been expended and $33.8 million remains to be issued. According to TVUSD, all bonds that can be supported by the current assessed valuation in the District have been, or soon will be, issued. The remaining authorization reflects future increases in assessed valuation which are expected to result from additional development. Of the S'3 3.8 million, approximately 5 14 million, or 4 1 %, is credited against the City's mitigation fees. As with the State school construction funds, the re- mainder was credited to the County portion of the District based on projections of total numbers of future students to be generated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas. c. Redevelopment Pass-through, TVUSD currently receives approximately $460,000 per year in redevelopment pass-through funds. The amount that will be available in the future is uncertain for a number of reasons. The District has established a policy of using redevelopment funds for ad- ministrative and support facilities, and indicates that cur-rent revenue from this source is fully com- @tted to repay bonds issued to construct a maintenance, operations and transportation facility. The mitigation fees do not include the cost of such facilities, nor do they reflect any credit for re- development funds. d. School ImRact Fees. TVUSD is authorized by statute to levy school impact fees. Fees on residential development (Sl.72/Sq. Ft) would be treated as an offset to the proposed @tigation fees, so there is no need to credit them in the fee calculations. However, school impact fees December 14.1995 DavidM. Grffith &.Associates Page 13 Review of PrODosed 7TVSD School Ityipact Afir@eation Fees imposed on commercial and industrial development (SO.28/Sq. Ft.) do represent another source of funding for school development which is not addressed in the Impact Mtigation Plan. According to the TVUSD @ only about S",OOO in commerciavindu@ school impact fees has been col- lected during the current @ year, and the amount typically does not exceed $I 00,000 for an entire year. As long as the amounts are in that range, they would not be significant relative to the proposed mitigation fees. In addition, the District argues that work-related transfers of children from other Districts into TVUSD schools justifies excluding that revenue from the mitigation fee anaivsis. At present, 177 of the District's 1 1,400 students are on work-related transfers. The number of students transferring out of the District at present is 28. Our conclusion reizarding the District's assumptions on future availability of other funds is that thev are generally supportable, except for the assumption that no state school construction funds or local bond monev will be available for anv future TVUSD facilities. That assumption seems quite Ressimistic. Adminedly, the District has no basis for estimating when, or to what extent such funding milht be available, but the Citv Council should consider that validitv of this 12olicv judmnent. C. RECOMMMNDATIONS In the foregoing analysis, we have recommended one techn@cal correction in the calculation of TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees. We have also pointed out some important policy questions that cannot be resolved on technical grounds, but which should be considered by the City. 1. Technical Correctiotm The proposed mitigation fees are based on per-student space alloca- tions that exceed OPSC standards. D@ has-recalculated the mitigation fees usin OPSC ap- proved space allocations. Table 7, on the following page, shows the corrected mitigation fees, and compares them with the fees proposed in the mitigation plan. Details of the recalculation are in- cluded in Appendix A. The recalculation reduces the fee for detached dwellings by $675. It aisr reduces the fee for attached units by $519. In both cases that represents a reduction of about 7%. December 14, 1995 David M. Griffith &Associates Page 14 Review ofprovosed 7TVSD School Impact Mitjration Fees Table 7 Recalculated Mitigation Fees Using Corrected Student Space Allocation Fee Element2ry Middle High Type School School School Total Sin.ale-family Detached Fees from Nfitigation Plan $2,85i S@),828 S9,993 Fees Recalculated b DMG S3,09.5 S2.383 S3,840 S9,318 Single-Family Attached Fees from Mtigation Plan S 2,--) 7 7 $2,'-)59 $1-1603 S7,239 Fees Recalculated by DMG S2,221 SI,887 S2,612 S6,720 See Table 9, TVUSD Impact Nfitiption Plan Z Policy Issu@ As indicated in our analysis, certain assumptions used in calculating the pro- posed mitigation fees are open to question. We recommend that the City Council carefully con- 'der the following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees: si Student Generation Factors. Projected student generation factors for attached units, as shown in the mitigation p@ are hieh compared with recently obtained data on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence. As a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice of these factors. A detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report. Future School Bond Funds. The mitigation fees assume that no state or local school bond funds will be available for any future TVUSD school construction. Neither the District nor the City can know how voters oil] respond to future proposals for school bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and should be evaluated by the City Council. Deceniber 14, 1995 Davidtf. Griffilh &-.Associates Page 15 APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDO(A Table A-1. Bmakdown of TVUSD School Development Costs ACTUAL COSTS (SA@ KPPROVED BUDGET) Redhawk E.S. (I 990) Vail Ranch M.S. (1993) Chapparal H.S. (1994) Site Acres 11.95 Site Acres 21.62 Site Acres 50.00 Bldg So Ft 43,600 Bldq So Ft 77,437 Bido So Ft 196,490 units Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost A. Site Acres $ 1,945,000 $ 162,762 $3,223,500 $149,098 $ 7,505,200 $150,104 S. Plans Sq Ft $ 410,820 $9.42 $675,651 $8.73 $1,489,830 $7.58 C. Construction [1] Sq Ft $ 4,736,626 $108.64 $9,439,110 $121.89 $26,630,004 $135.53 D. Tests Sq Ft $79,900 $1.83 $134,274 $1.73 $410,907 $2.09 E. Inspection Sq Ft $72,000 $1.65 $100,850 $1.30 $264,811 $1.35 F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 258,396 $5.93 $620,913 $8.02 $935,794 $4.76 Subtotal A. thru F Sq Ft $ 7,502,742 $172.08 $14,194,298 $183.30 $37,236,546 $189.51 G. Contingencies Sq Ft $49,206 $1.13 $210,186 $2.71 $553,921 $2.82 Tc-;31 r2l So Ft $ 7.551,948 $173.21 1 $14,404,494 $186.02 1 $37,790,467$192.33 [1) lnci@ separate fummg for s@l oducabon ms (Vail Ranch and Chamrral) 121 Does not include D@ funded @@ in excess of stat@roved @ budget for 50/W match. PROJECTED COSTS FROM MITIGATION PLAN Elementary School Middle School High School Site Acres 10.00 Site Acres 20.00 Site Acres 45.00 Bldg So Ft 45,394 Bldq So Ft 79,500 Bido So Ft 198,945 Item Units Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost A. Site Acres $ 1,087,963 $ 108,796 $2,175,926 $108,796 S 4,895,834 $108,796 B. Plans Sq Ft $ 470,831 $10.37 $641,114 $8.06 $ 1,497,007 $7.52 C. Construction Sq Ft $ 5,437,069 $119.78 $9,700,000 $122.01 $27,000,000 $135.72 D. Tests Sq Ft $81,343 $1.79 $142,800 $1.80 $421,000 $2.12 E. Inspection Sq Ft $72,436 $1.60 $104,400 $1.31 $259,000 $1.30 F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 272,155 $6.00 $586,710 $7.38 $ 1,712,916 $8.61 Subtotal A. thru F. Sq Ft $ 7,421,797 $163.50 $13,350,950 $167.94 $35,785,757 $179.88 G. Contingencies Sq Ft $ 104,047 $2.29 $218,247 $2.75 $ $ - Total Sq Ft $ 7,525,8" $165.79 $13,569,197 $170.68 $35,785,757 $ .179.88 Page A-1 APPENDIXA Table A-2. RECALCULATION OF MITIGATION FEES Mitigation Fees Based on Actual Costs Facility Costs K-5 64 9-12 Totals Facility -cost per Square Foot [1 ) $173.21 $186.02 $192.33 Square Feet per Student (Noffnal Schedule) 62.00 76.00 95.00 Adjustment. for Year Round Schedule 20% 20% N/A Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33 95.00 Facility Cost per Student 1$8.949.17 $11.780.981 $18-271.13 mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 64 1 9-12 Totals Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24 0.25 o.i8- Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $3,490.18 S 2,827.44 $4,567.78 $ 10,885.40 Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $246.00 $211.00 $432.00 $889.00 Net Mitioation Fee per Dwellinq Unit 1 $ 3.2". 1 8 S 2,616." $4,135.78 $9,996.40 Mitigation Fee - Single Family Attached (SFA) K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19 0.17 o.R- Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $2,505.77 $ 2,238.39 $3,106.09 37,850.25 Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $177.00 $167.00 $293.00 $637.00 Net Mitigation Fee per Dwellinq Unit S 2.328.77 1 S 2.071.39 1 $2,813.09 $ 7,213.25 Mitigation Fees Based on Pr:)jected Costs from Mitiqation Plan Facility Costs K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals- Facility Cost per Square Foot [1] $165.79 $ 170.68 $179.88 Square Feet per Student (Normal Schedule) 62.00 76.00 95.00 Adjustment for Year Round Schedule 20% 20% N/A Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33 95.00 Facility Cost Per Student $8,565.79 $10.809.84 $17.088.38 Mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 64 9-12 Totals Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.88 Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $3,340.66 $2,594.36 $ 4,27@.09 $ 10,207.11 Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $246.00 $211.00 $432.00 $889.00 i Net Mitiqation Fee per Dwellina Unit $3,094.66 $2,383.36 $'3,840.09 $9,318.11 Mitigation Fee --Single Family Attached (SFA) K-6 6-8 9-12 Totals Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.64 Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $2,398.42 $2,053.87 $2,905.02 $7,357.31 Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $177.00 $167.00 293.00 $637.00 I Net Mitioation Fee Per Dwellinq Unit $2,221.42 1 $1,886.87 $ $2,612.02 $6,720.31 Ill See Table A-1. Page A-2 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 RESULTS OF SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 1 5 'LDRSULTS OF SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING April 3, 1996 Prepared by: City of Temecula Community Development Department R:ILSCHOOLSXLMODEL.MMO 4/3/96 dwh PLTRPOSE: The purpose of this Report is to document the City of Temecula's School Facility Impact Model. The model was developed by City Staff as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the overall impacts of residential development on school facilities within the Temecula Valley Unif-ied School District (TVUSD). The model is a districtwide simulation; it is not based upon, nor intended to predict, specific developments or their impacts on school facilities. HOW THE MODEL WORKS: The model evaluates the demand for new school funding based upon new home construction. In summary, the model works like this: 0A predetermined number of new homes is added to the existing housing stock each year and school enrollment for the year is calculated; cThe total enrollment is compared to the number of existing schools and the need for additional schools is determined; 0If the model decides that a new school is necessary, it also identifies the need for funding to build the new facility several years before it is needed; 0Any school impact fees to be received are calculated using the number new homes built during the year; and, 0A cumulative balance is kept of the difference between school construction funding needs and available resources. MODEL ASS ONS: For any simulation or modeling of reality, certain assumptions must be made. One of the fundamental assumption of this model is that intentionally underestimates the costs to the District to provide new schools. Listed below are the other major assumptions upon which the model is based. I .The Student Generation Factor (SGF) in the model is based upon average dwelling units and current enrollment. As a result, the modeled SGF is less than the District's projected future Student Generation Factor. 2.Moderate-to-high levels of school overcrowding (districtwide) are assumed. The following school overcrowding rates are assumed: 025 percent over enrollment per high school facility; 020 percent over enrollment per middle school facility; and, 015 percent over enrollment per elemen@ school facility. R:\SCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 4/31% @ 3.The school capacity for all middle and elementary schools is calculated assuming that some schools will be one track and others will be on four-tracks. Future capacity is assumed to be the midpoint between the one-track and four-track capacities. AU high schools are single track facilities. 4.The cost of providing the portable facilities needed to support the assumed levels of overcrowding are not included in the model. 5.No future increases in the costs of site acquisition, materials, or labor are assumed. 6.Future construction costs are based upon the District's proposed Mitigation Plan and the City's independent evaluation. 7.The model assumes that needed construction funding must be available before facility construction can begin. According to the District, the design and construction period for a high school is three years, and the design and construction period for middle and elementary schools is two years. 8.If approved by mid 1996, higher school fees will not be collected until the sixth year. In year 6, it is assumed that 25 % of all school fees collected will be the higher fee. In years 7 through IO, the model assumes that 50 % of all school fees will be the higher fee. Beginning in year I 1, the model assumes that 75 % of all school fees each year will be the higher fee. 9The model assumes that Temecula Valley Unified School District will receive $11 million in Proposition 203 funds. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that these funds will arrive in three annual installments. According to the District, these funds are targeted to reimburse and offset some of the costs associated with the construction of the Paloma, Pauba Valley, and Vintage Hills Elementary Schools. 10.Because the model attempts to mtegrate the current and proposed school funding system, the District's proposed per unit fee has been @culated on a square foot basis. This recalculation consists of dividing the recommended per unit fee of $9,318, by the average size of a new home, 1,812 square feet. This means an equivalent per square foot cost of $5.14 per square foot. 11.For the initial years of the model, the District's existing school construction schedule has been incorporated in the model, overriding the model's facility calculation formulas. R:kSCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 4/31% dwb 2 DESCRIMON OF THE S NONS: For this analysis, two different simulations were prepared. Both simulations use the current $1.84 per square foot for residential construction and include the anticipated $11 million from Proposition 203. The two simulations are as follows. Simulation Number 1 assumes no increase in the $1.84 square foot fee for new residential construction. Simulation Number 2 assumes a City approved increase for all residential development approved after mid-1996. The District's proposed $9,318 per unit fee has been converted to a square foot charge to make it compatible with model format. RESLTLTS: According to these simulations, the estimated cumulative impact for new school construction for the Temecula Valley Unified School District in School Year 2006-07 are shown in Table I below. The annual subtotals for each simulation are included in Tables 2 and 3. TABLE I c S nON SURPLUS OR (DEFICM Number 1. No Increase in School b&tigation Fees for newly approved residential units. The fee ($65,378,934) remains at $1.84 per square foot. Number 2. Higher School Mitiption Fees for residential units that receive their legislative ($37,349,559) approvals after the new fee is required. The new higher ee is presumed to be $5.14 per square foot. R:kSCHOOLS\IMOD@.MMO 4/3/% dwh 3 TABL.E 2 SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FUNDING AS $,,.54 PER SCUAR=- =CC7 V;;-- AN INCREASE TO $1.84 FOR APPLICABI -- HOMES APPROVEE) FROM NOW ON@ SEGINNING OF YEAR BONL- FUNIDS,' 7:',; CUMULATIVE FUND BALANC;: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION =J N D A @' A.%- S--HCOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FUNDS NEEDED FEES ='A::) S'@ PI p @ S. ' -- =- = -- - S-@FOR=- 1995-96 $28.812.000 $24,675,000 [INCLUDED] S.;,137,CCC 1 REMAINDER 1995-96 S4.137.000 $6.445,8" SI,733.722 (S=;75.1 2 1996-97 ($575.122) $13,569,197 $7,834,600 (S6.309.719) 3 1997-96 ($6.309.719) $7,525,844 $7,834,600 (SE.OCC.9e3,@ 4 1998-99 ($6.000,963) $0 $7,834,600 SI.333.637 5 1999-00 $1,833.637 $7.525,8" $4,167,600 (SI.524 607', 6 2000-01 ($1,524,607) $35,785,757 $4,167,600 (S33.142.7641) 7 2OCl-02 ($33.142.764) $21,095,041 $4,167,600 (S50,070.205) 8 2002-03 ($50.070.205) $7,525,844 $4,167,600 (SE3,425,449) 9 2003-04 ($53,428,449) so $4,167,600 (S49.250.849) 10 2004-05 (S49.260.849) $7,525,844 $4,167,600 (SB2.519.093) 11 2005-06 (S52.619.093) $0 $4,167,600 ($48,451,493) 12 2006-C7 (S48,451.493) $2l.Og5.D41 $4,167,600 (S@.378,934) R:\SCHOOLSXIMODEL-MMO 413/% dwb TABLE 3 SUMMARY 0--7HEANNUALSCHOOLCONSTRUCTIONCOSTSANDFUNDINGAS Sl.84 P=RSOUA;Z.=-F--Z:-'@A;17- ANINC:REAS@-TO S5.14 FORAPPLICABLEHOMESAPPROVEE)FROMNOWON- BEGINNING OF YEAR BOND =UN'-IS,' CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION MITIGAT!ON J N:: =- A'- -,%C SCHOOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEFiCIT) FUNDS NEEDED ==--=S C)AI@ =-==Optr- 1995-96 S28.812,000 $24,675,000 [INCLLJC--=@@l S-: 1 REMAINDER 1995-96 S4,137.000 SS,445.844 S,,.733.722 (S57-=.-.22,% 2 1996-97 (SS75.122) $13,569,197 $7.834.600 (SE.309.7i9) 3 1997-98 ($6,309,719) $7,525,844 S7.P-34.600 (SE.OCC).ge:3) 4 1998-99 (S6.000.963) so $7.834.600 Sl.333,637 5 1999-00 $1.833,637 $7,525,544 $-4.167.600 (SI.524.607) 6 2000-01 ($1.524.607) $35,785,757 $6.036,225 (S31.274.139) 2001-02 ($31.274.139) $21,095,041 $7.904.850 ($44 464.330) 8 2002-03 (S44,464.330) $7,525,844 $7.9()4.850 (S4-.08=-.324) 9 2003-04 (S44,085.324) so $7.904.850 (S36.180.474) 10 2004-05 ($36,180,474) $7,525,844 $7.904.850 (S35.801.468) 11 2005-06 ($35,801,468) so $9.773.475 (S26.027.993) 12 2006-07 ($26.027.993) $21,095,041 $9.773.47=; (S37.349.559) R:TSCHOOLSXIMODWT MMO 4/3/% "b ITEI\4 18 APPRO CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF Fl CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM:Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning"@ DATE:September 10, 1 996 SUBJECT:Request for Direction on the Process for Making Findings of Public Necessity or Convenience Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION:It is requested that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding the need to develop an ordinance/resolution to guide the process of making findings of public necessity or convenience. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's decision to make the Finding of Public Necessity or Convenience for the ARCO AM/PM at the corner of Winchester and Nicolas Roads, raised a number of questions and concerns about the criteria used to make this decision. In addition, much of the Planning Commission's discussion on this item included efforts to come to grips with the State's vague criteria for making these findings. The Commission has already discussed the need for some criteria in this area, and continues to struggle with this issue. As a result, staff is requesting direction from the City Council on the following: Should staff prepare special criteria and /or procedures to guide the decision making body (currently the Planning Commission) in making their decision: and If the City Council feels that some ordinance/resolution is necessary; does the Council have any preliminary ideas, concerns or approaches they would like to see investigated? Staff is requesting that the City Council provide guidance and direction on this matter to staff. R:\STAFFRPT\BEERWINE.CC1 8/29/96 dwh 1 ITEI\4 19 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO:City Manager/City Council FROM:Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE:September 10, 1996 SUBJECT:TEAM Community Pantry Salaries RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR. OF FINANCE, CITY MANAGER That the City Council review and provide direction to staff regarding funding to the TEAM Community Pantry. DISCUSSION: At the Council meeting of June 25, 1996 staff was requested to provide information regarding previous funding to the TEAM Community Pantry. The Pantry has received funding from the Community Service Funding program to support their efforts to provide a food program to the needy and homeless, as well as other services to the community. Funding levels for the previous five (5) years are identified below. 1991/92 $15,990 1992/93 10,000 1 993/94 3,500 1994/95 10,000 1995/96 10,000 Total $4 Since the inception of the Community Service Funding program in 1990-91 City policy has required that City funds are to be used for "funding of projects which occur during the fiscal year, excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding." The City Community Service Funding committee has established that the Community Service Funding program will provide funding @l for services and materials provided to the community. The committee has specifically refrained from funding salaries. Mayor Lindemans has requested funding salaries for the pantry in an amount of $6,000 in the form of a matching grant, which requires a change in Council policy. At the August 27th Council meeting, a subcommittee consisting of Mayor Lindemans and Councilmember Ford, to meet with the TEAM Community Pantry Board to discuss the funding allocation. The subcommittee will provide an oral report to Council as to the outcome of that meeting. R: INORTOIVL IA GENDA SIPNTR YSAL. A GN 07116196 TEAM Community Pantry Salaries - Page 2 It should also be noted that TEAM Community Pantry will be directly impacted by the Old Town Entertainment Center project. The relocation of the pantry facility will be required. The proponent of the project will be required to pay all relocation costs with no fiscal impact to the City operating budget. FISCAL IMPACT: The 1996/97 Operating Budget has identified $100,000 for Community Service Funding programs. Attachments: City of Temecula 1996-97 Community Service Funding Program/Policy R:INORTONLIAGENDASIPNTRYSAL.AGN 07116196 of Temecula PaX Drive - Temecula, CA 92590 , wiling Adore=: P. 0 Box 9033 T@- la, CA 92589-9033 (909)694-6444 - Fax (909) 694-1999 CITY OF TEMECULA 1996-97 Community Services Funding Program/Policy The City of Temecula, in its Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget, has allocated funds for community service programs within the community. Purpose To establish a process and evaluation criteria for funding requests received by the City from community based organizations (CBO's) throughout the year. General P@ The City receives requests throughout the year for financial assistance from various organizations which provide a variety of services within the community. It is the City's policy to channel such requests through an annual review, thereby ensuring that all requests are evaluated equitably and consistently; to enter into agreements for specific measurable services; and, to ensure that recipients are held accountable for providing the agreed upon services within the appropriate time frame. Funding Philosophy Requests for funding received from CBO's will be considered annually. Due to limited resources, not all requests received can be funded. Therefore, it is not the City Council's intention to fund each CBO request received; but rather, to evaluate each proposal and, based on available funds, provide money and other forms of financial assistance to those organizations which most effectively serve the needs and improve the well-being of the residents of Temecula. Special consideration will be given to proposals which replace or enhance services the City is responsible for providing. The City Council encourages a goal of self-sufficiency for all local CBO'S. The City Council supports-providing.-seed =ney-to-ne-w programs-that-will provide needed services to the community, but discourages an over-reliance on City financial assistance to maintain such programs on an on-going basis. Therefore, all CBO's requesting funding from the City should continue efforts to develop stable private funding sources. A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7116196 k@ciciej apt, Community Services Funding Program/Policy (Continued) Page 2 ELIGIBILITY Applications are accepted from tax exempt, nonprofit organizations and individuals for the funding of projects which occur during the fiscal year, excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding. Services should benefit the City of Temecula. A written report should be presented to the City Council thirty days after the completion of the project. In the case of an extended project, interim reports may be required. DEADLINES July 22, 1996 - Applications available from the City of Temecula. Auaust 22, 1996 - Deadline for submittal of application for funding period. Award recipients will be announced in October 1996. CRITEBIA In making its recommendations to the City Council for funding, the Adhoc Community Services Funding Committee will consider the following criteria: a.Does the organization provide Community service excellence? b.What is the size and make-up of the community service organization? C.What is the public and critic reaction to the group? d.Does the organization have a high quality of fiscal management? e.Will the organization have longevity in the City of Temecula? f.Has the organization been granted non-profit status? 9.Is there evidence of satisfactory service provided to City's citizens? h.That the organization does not discriminate based on race, color, creed, nationality, sex, marital status, disability, religion, or political affiliation. 1.That the organization does not require attendance or participation in any political, religious or social activity. A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7115196 Community Services Funding Program/Policy (Continued) Page 3 That the organization provide financial statements prepared (using an appropriate method of accounting) to demonstrate sound financial management. k.That the organization provide a budget for the fiscal year of request demonstrating cost-effectiveness. 1. That the organization provide high level of access to services offered. M.That the organization possess ongoing program evaluation tools. A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7IF5196 ITEIN4 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR. OF FINANCE-_ CITY MANAGER @ct CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO:City Manager/City Council FROM:Ron Bradley, City Manager DATE:September 10, 1 996 SUBJECT:Temecula Library Service Alternatives Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council: 1 .Approve the proposal submitted by David M. Griffith & Associates to conduct a study to determine the future fiscal viability of the Temecula Library. 2. Appropriate a maximum of $39,000 from Development Impact Fees - Library to fund the City's portion of the Library Study. DISCUSSION: In September 1 995, the cities of Temecula and Murrieta set up the Temecula-Murrieta Library Committee to explore all resources available to fund the Temecula Library at a service level of 48 hours per week. Library options which have been discussed, in detail, include formation of a library district; formation of a community services district; establishing the library as a municipal library; and augmenting the 32 hours per week basic service level provided by the County by contracting additional services. Although feasibility of these options has been touched upon during the meetings, dedicated resources from the Committee are not available to obtain comprehensive information to determine which course of action the Library should take. Consequently, the Committee has unanimously determined that the next step in the process will require an independent, comprehensive study to be conducted to analyze and evaluate all options available to the Temecula Library. The Committee also unanimously agreed that David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) be selected to conduct such a study. DMG has performed extensive library research in the State of California, and has a highly qualified staff to collect the information and perform the analysis. Selection of this consulting firm without competitively soliciting these services is consistent with the City of Temecula's purchasing procedures. On July 10, 1 996, DMG was requested to provide a proposal to conduct a feasibility study of the governance options available to the Temecula Library. Specifically, DMG was requested to consider the following options: 1.Continuing to operate as part of the Riverside City and County Public Library System (RCCPL), with no augmented services II.Continuing to operate as part of the RCCPL, with augmented services III.Continuing to operate under the RCCPL, with a Library Board to provide more local control IV.Establishing a Library District to include the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore V.Establishing a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to include Riverside County, and the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore VI.Establishing the Temecula Library as a Municipal Library operated by the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, with a JPA in place VII.Establishing the Temecula Library as a Municipal Library operated by the City of Temecula DMG was also requested to provide the following information, at a minimum: 1.Requirements to set up governance option 2."Pros" for going with particular option 3."Cons" against going with particular option 4. Bottom line cost, including back-up documentation Attached is a copy of the DMG proposal to conduct the study. The total proposed cost is a not to exceed amount of $42,200, bdsed on a time and materials billing structure. The rates proposed have been reduced from DMG's standard billing rates through initial negotiations, and have been determined to be fair and reasonable based on the level of work required. Some cost savings may be achieved through different methodology in collecting information (e.g., telephone calls in lieu of face-to-face contact). However, unanticipated costs may also be incurred. Likewise, staff proposes that the contract be awarded for the maximum amount of $42,200. The Committee has requested funding support from the State; County; Cities of Murrieta and Lake Elsinore; and School Districts of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore. To date, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has approved the $1,000 contribution for which they were asked, and the Friends of the Library has provided a check for the $2,200 requested from them. Additionally, the cities of Murrieta and Lake Elsinore have agendized this item for their first Council meetings in September. However, even if funding cannot be secured from these other sources, it is still imperative that this Study be conducted to identify the best course of action for the Committee to ensure the Temecula Library continues to support the community to the maximum extent possible. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this Study is available in the Development Impact Fee - Library fund. This funding source must be used specifically for Library capital improvement related purposes. Since this Study will serve as a tool for future library planning, it is appropriate to use DIF-Library to fund this Study. Attachment - DMG Proposal