Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042412 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 (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET APRIL 24, 2012 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. 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 P.M. 6:00 P.M. — The City Council/Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency consisting of approximately 30.2 acres (APN 909-370-002) located northwesterly of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for the sale of this property are: Agua Caliente Inc., Wild Rivers Temecula, LLC, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale of the property to Agua Caliente Inc. 2) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of the City of the YMCA building located at 29119 Margarita Road, Temecula 92591 on a portion of Margarita Park. The parties to the negotiations for the acquisition of this building are: YMCA of Riverside City and County and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Aaron Adams, and Tamra Irwin. Under negotiation are the price and terms for the acquisition of the building. 3) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) and (c) to decide whether to initiate litigation on behalf of the City and the Temecula Financing Authority. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that based on existing facts and circumstances a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and Authority and a need to determine whether to initiate litigation. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. Next in Order: Ordinance: 12-04 Resolution: 12-31 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chuck Washington Prelude Music: Serena Sepersky Invocation: Pastor Charles Patmon of Great Oaks Apostolic Church Flag Salute: Council Member Roberts ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Autism Awareness Month Proclamation Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District Environment Award Presentation Certificate of Achievement to Anthony Pena for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout Asthma Awareness Month Proclamation PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 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, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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. 2 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of April 10, 2012. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Review and Approval of Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5 Approval of Cooperative Agreement for advance and reimbursement of administrative, overhead, and other expenses by and between the City of Temecula and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 6 Purchase of 50 Computer Workstations RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize the purchase of 50 Hewlett Packard 8200 computer workstations in the amount of $43,158.74 with CDW-Government, including applicable tax and shipping charges. 7 Grants of Access Easement and Temporary Construction Easement to Rancho California Water District for Installation of a Groundwater Monitoring Well (located adjacent to Temecula Creek Trail Park) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND A GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATED ADJACENT TO TEMECULA CREEK TRAIL PARK 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to forward the approved Grant of Access Easement and Grant of Temporary Construction Easement to Rancho California Water District for their acceptance and recordation. 8 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 1, PW10-08 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the construction of the Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Margarita Road Project 1, PW10-08, as complete; 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 8.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 4 9 Construction Contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, PW10-14 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accelerate the appropriation of $2,500,000 from Fiscal Year 2012-13 appropriations to cover construction, administration, and construction engineering costs; 9.2 Award a construction contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, PW10-14 to EBS General Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $2,082,110; 9.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $208,211, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 9.4 Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 10 Construction Contract for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the transfer of the balance of Proposition 1B funds from Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Road ($37,995); Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Cabrillo Avenue, and Vallejo Avenue ($19,163); and Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2009-10 ($202,358), totaling $259,516, to the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09; 10.2 Award the construction contract for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09, portions of Paseo Del Sol, California Sunset, Rainbow Canyon, and Starlight Ridge areas, to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $700,791.50; 10.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $70,079.15, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 10.4 Make a finding that the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 Project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 11 Agreement for Professional Geotechnical, Material Testing, and Special Inspection Services for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09 RECOMMENDATION: Approve an Agreement with LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. to provide professional geotechnical, material testing, and special inspection services associated with the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, portions of Paseo Del Sol, California Sunset, Rainbow Canyon, and Starlight Ridge areas, PW11-09, in the amount of $54,985; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $5,498.507, which is equal to 10% of the Agreement. 5 12 Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Concrete Repairs — Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW12-07 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs — Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW12-07. ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 6 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 12-01 Resolution: No. CSD 12-02 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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 Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 13 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the action minutes of April 10, 2012. 14 Joint -Use Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for use of the Tennis Courts at Great Oak High School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, Temecula Middle School, and James L. Day Middle School RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Joint -Use Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for the joint -use of the tennis courts located at Great Oak High School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, Temecula Middle School, and James L. Day Middle School. 7 15 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2012-13 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH CSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 16 Community Services Department Monthly Report CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. SARDA 12-01 Resolution: No. SARDA 12-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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 Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 17 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve the action minutes of February 28, 2012. 18 Adoption of Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES 19 Approval of Cooperative Agreement for advance and reimbursement of administrative, overhead, and other expenses by and between the City of Temecula and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 9 RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 20 Adopt a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 21 Approval of Preliminary Administrative Budgets for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 10 TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — no meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY — no meeting 11 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Community Opinion Survey RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Receive and file presentation and analysis of Community Opinion Survey results. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 23 Planning Department Monthly Report 24 City Council Travel/Conference Report — March 2012 25 Public Works Department Monthly Report 26 Police Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694-6444. 12 PRESENTATIONS n®� 1p� Hr pa WHEREAS, autism behavioral, and physical WHEREAS, autism fastest growing developmental WHEREAS, while autism and related disorders individuals to lead significantly WHEREAS, autism prevention; and WHEREAS, the annual treatment, and appropriate professionals, and the NOW, THEREFORE, Temecula, hereby proclaim and encourage all citizens appropriately treated throughout r � }.��.�� . i!yRpLYyj .E agr .>a It.� o� The PROCLAMATION is a pervasive, aspects of those now affects disability there is no receive improved is a complex observance education general public I, Chuck the month "Autism to work together their lives. 1PJi City of Temecula neurodegenerative disorder that affects the social, cognitive, affected by it; and one in every 88 children born in the United States and is the in the world; and cure for autism, it is well-documented that if individuals with treatment early in their lives, it is often possible for those lives; and disorder that requires further research to find a cure and of Autism Awareness Month advocates for the rights, humane of all persons with autism, while educating families, to better understand this lifelong disorder. Washington, on behalf of the City Council of the City of of April, 2012 to be Awareness Month" to ensure that individuals with autism are accurately diagnosed and IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this twenty-fourth day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MIVIC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends' the outstanding achievement of AnthonyPena of Troop #309 We congratulate Anthony for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout. We are proud to present Anthony with this Award, and we wish him success in his future accomplishments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-fourth day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk y - Nq�$�.iXP� Cpl mPA JP�wtV� WHEREAS, asthma constrict, causing wheezing, WHEREAS, asthma million people; and WHEREAS, asthma and school absenteeism; WHEREAS, each and WHEREAS, exposure WHEREAS, the reduce their exposures environmental controls NOW, THEREFORE, Temecula, hereby proclaim X _ i�1,It —IOV a.�sazaau^ i4;�vefi ' 1ICH HREN �p� �pBGPNn Nn�n � PJB The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION is a long-term, inflammatory disease in which the airways of the lungs breathlessness, chest tightness, and coughing; and has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, affecting almost 25 is one of the leading causes of childhood hospitalizations, long-term illness, and year, nearly two million people are rushed to the emergency room from asthma; to allergens and irritants can bring on an asthma episode; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages Americans to identify and to environmental triggers in homes and schools, and to incorporate into their asthma management plans. I, Chuck Washington, on behalf of the City Council of the City of the month of May, 2012 to be "Asthma Awareness Month" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this twenty-fourth day of April, 2012. aqz .. I Chuck Washington, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MIVIC, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET APRIL 10, 2012 — 7:00 PM 6:00 P.M. — The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding three parcels of real properties owned by Front Street Service Station consisting of approximately of 1.194 acres for the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, Project Number PW04-08. The subject properties are commonly known as 44987 Old Town Front Street, City of Temecula, California, and are identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-201-057, 922-210-058, and 922-210-059. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Front Street Service Station. The City negotiators are Greg Butler and Amer Attar. 2) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency consisting of approximately 30.2 acres (APN 909-370-002) located northwesterly of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for an amendment to the terms of sale of this property are: Wild Rivers, Inc., the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale of the property to Wild Rivers, Inc. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. At 6:00 P.M., Mayor Washington called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session Meeting to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chuck Washington Prelude Music: Temecula Valley Children's Chorus Invocation: Bishop Glenn Frazier of Beracah Faith Ministries International Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar Action Minutes/041012 1 ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation Mental Health Month Proclamation Presentation of Art Donation — Bronze Statue in memory of Bruce Beers PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Aaron Collins • Gabriel Barrera • John Panique • Judy Zulfigar • David Rosenthal • Lorena Spencer • Wayne Hall CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure. - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of March 27, 2012. 3 List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. Action Minutes/041012 2 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012. 5 Reallocation of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize transfer of $295,531 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 131 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project; 5.2 Authorize transfer of $9,442 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 210 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project. 6 Indemnity Agreement for Southern California Edison Triton Substation Project, PRO9-0011 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Southern California Edison (SCE) Indemnity Agreement for SCE's Triton Substation project, PRO9-0011. 7 Quitclaim Deeds granting five Drainage Easements for the Wolf Valley Storm Drain Improvements to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) — Tract Map No. 23065 (Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. Action Minutes/041012 3 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION MADE ON TRACT MAP NO. 23065 AND BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) FIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE WOLF VALLEY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM (TRACT MAP NO. 23065) 8 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for Old Town Infrastructure (Town Square, Mercedes and Main Street Improvements), PW06-07 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the subject project as complete; 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond 35 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion; 8.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 9 Award of a Construction Contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-1,1, Council Member Comerchero abstaining and Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval, with Council Member Comerchero abstaining and Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Award a construction contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $3,476,502.55; Action Minutes/041012 4 9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $347,650.26, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 9.3 Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation — Margarita Road Project 2 is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 10 1st Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party — Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events (at the request of Mayor Washington) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Council Member Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $7,500 for Fiscal Year 2011- 12 for event costs to include rentals of tables/chairs and entertainment for the 1st Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party - Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events on June 9, 2012; 10.2 Approve city -support costs for the event in the amount of $1,000; 10.3 Authorize that all proceeds from the event be awarded to the Temecula Rotary Club Military Project which is a program that provides support and social services to military personnel and their families who reside in Temecula. PUBLIC HEARING 12 Draft 2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan which includes the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2012-13 — Approved staff recommendation amending Section 6. Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Mayor Washington and electronic vote reflected approval (3-0-2, with Council Member Edwards and Roberts absent) Council Member Edwards did not participate in the Council discussion or vote on these items and was not present in the Council Chambers during the consideration of the items because she is the Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club, an IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization serving the applicable communities, that will be a possible participant in the Project. Action Minutes/041012 5 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN (2012-2016) AND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (2012-2013) AS AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 By way of a Power Point presentation, Associate Planner, Dana Weaver, presented the staff report as per agenda material. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Appointment of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee for the Inclusive Play Structure Project (at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Naqqar) Mayor Washington made the motion to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Naggar and Council Member Comerchero to the Inclusive Play Structure Ad Hoc Subcommittee; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. (4-0-1, Council Member Roberts absent) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Appoint two individuals to serve as the Inclusive Play Structure Ad Hoc Subcommittee. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that with respect to Closed Session Item No. 1, City Council reviewed the appraisals, confirmed the fair market value and authorized staff to make an offer to the property owners. With regard to Item No. 2, Mr. Thorson noted that City Council provided direction to the City's negotiators. No final action will be taken on either property until it comes back to Council in open session. Action Minutes/041012 6 ADJOURNMENT At 8:09 P.M., the meeting was formally adjourned in honor and remembrance of Major Thomas A. Budrejko, U.S. Marine Helicopter Pilot, to Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes/041012 7 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager 7670 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Wilson, Director of Finance DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Leah Thomas, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE 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, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $4,013,638.86. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of April 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 03/29/2012 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 3,167,436.51 04/05/2012 TOTAL CHECK RUN 444,766.56 03/29/2012 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 401,435.79 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/24/2012 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 4,013,638.86 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 2,720,564.01 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 3,460.15 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 7,829.95 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 303,921.73 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 243.13 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 867.01 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 4,092.05 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 8,531.91 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 408,844.47 300 INSURANCE FUND 20,468.82 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 33,508.07 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 10,297.23 340 FACILITIES 30,445.91 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 1,314.63 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,408.90 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,433.09 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 199.85 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 1,314.05 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 735.26 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 559.67 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 6,802.44 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 52.51 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 263.54 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 40.64 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 3,839.82 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 1,095.24 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 431.61 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 479.36 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 1,069.38 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 52.71 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 3,682.18 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 1,907.94 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 6,270.78 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 9,730.04 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 166.92 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 255.22 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 5,644.30 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 1,705.17 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 91.77 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 300.23 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 8,134.59 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 146.79 $ 3,612,203.07 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 242,873.95 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 11,188.68 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 100,599.67 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 344.08 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,532.40 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 934.45 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,229.59 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,348.96 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 21,200.85 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,643.66 340 FACILITIES 11,373.70 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 79.61 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 53.41 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 63.37 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 11.58 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 128.51 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 23.33 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 32.98 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 218.25 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 1.69 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 9.81 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 5.99 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 145.57 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 30.93 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 17.86 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 15.67 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 36.34 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 2.91 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 134.90 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 72.15 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 195.59 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 331.21 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 8.17 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 8.69 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 186.28 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 60.14 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 2.66 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 8.69 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 274.58 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 4.93 401,435.79 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 4,013,638.86 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1896 03/29/2012 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment SOLUTION 1897 03/29/2012 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD Support Payment SUPPORT 151114 03/29/2012 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES piano tuning svcs: theater piano tuning svcs: theater piano tuning svcs: theater 2,662.70 2,662.70 738.45 738.45 170.00 170.00 170.00 510.00 151115 03/29/2012 004205 BALLET FOLKLORICO TCSD Instructor Eamings 280.00 280.00 151116 03/29/2012 013482 BAS SECURITY security svcs: bluegrass festival 585.85 585.85 151117 03/29/2012 000128 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE BA6072X147 bus auto ins 2/12-13 14,252.00 14,252.00 151118 03/29/2012 003138 CAL MAT PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 742.30 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 739.80 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 852.39 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 372.00 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 253.20 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 447.83 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 370.51 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 372.74 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 450.81 4,601.58 151119 03/29/2012 014726 CHAPTER 13 STANDING SUPPORT PMT 182.77 182.77 TRUSTEE 151120 03/29/2012 007598 COLLEGIATE RISK travel insurance: Japan sister city trip 53.00 53.00 MANAGEMENT 151121 03/29/2012 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH Community Health Charities Payment 27.00 27.00 CHARITIES 151122 03/29/2012 009232 COT INV CFD 88-12 reimb FY 05/06 3,010.70 CFD 88-12 reimb FY04/05 5,238.84 8,249.54 151123 03/29/2012 013379 COUSSOU, CELINE TCSD Instructor Eamings 189.00 189.00 151124 03/29/2012 012600 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES FEB CNSLT: BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD INC EXT 142.50 142.50 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151125 03/29/2012 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Fuel for City vehicles: PW Idv/npdes 162.47 Fuel for City vehicles: Police Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD Fuel for City vehicles: B&S Fuel for City vehicles: PW cipAd/npdes Fuel for City vehicles: PW Maint Fuel for City vehicles: PW Traffic Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf/Pln 151126 03/29/2012 014742 DUFOE CONSULTING refund:overpmt on bus lic #035235 151127 03/29/2012 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER eng review dep: rohpaugh mch fire stn DIST 151128 03/29/2012 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, TCSD Instructor Eamings AILEEN 151129 03/29/2012 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings Feb landscape maint: parks Feb landscape maint: medians Feb landscape maint: north slopes Feb landscape maint: south slopes Feb landscape maint: parks 81.18 2,538.02 526.89 469.24 1,863.46 651.37 681.54 6,974.17 20.00 20.00 500.00 500.00 392.00 364.00 294.00 98.00 196.00 238.00 98.00 171.50 50,935.88 16,469.70 19,749.97 34,844.87 47,825.10 1,851.50 169,825.52 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151130 03/29/2012 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 006952 PAYPAL PR regist: 3rd dist eco dv mtg 3/21 35.00 011121 FORM BASED CODES PR regist:web trn Peters, Matt 250.00 INSTITUTE 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING PR regist:'12 natl cf LA Jones, Eric 695.00 ASSOCIATION 014529 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. AA supplies: teen egg hunt 543.06 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING PR regist:'12 natl cf LA Weaver,Dana 695.00 ASSOCIATION 014748 RUBBER STAMPS UNLIMITED, GB wood rubber stamp: PW CIP 36.75 INC. 008669 VONS SJ meal: council closed mtg 2/15 9.99 007045 GOURMET ITALIA SJ meal: closed council mtg 2/15 226.63 000733 ABBEY PARTY RENTS SJ equip rental:budge wkshp 2/28 97.50 006952 PAYPAL RJ regist: 3rd dist eco dv mtg 3/21 35.00 011035 CONGRESS FOR THE NEW RJ '12 CNU mb: Johnson, Robert 195.00 URBANISM 011035 CONGRESS FOR THE NEW PR' 12 CNU mb: Richardson, P 195.00 URBANISM 014747 CALIFORNIA TRAILS PR regist: ca trails cf 4/18-20 Peters, 295.00 006952 PAYPAL AA Verisign Pay0ow Pro Transaction 260.70 014750 INFOGROUP AA salesgenie.com web access:ecodv 166.67 013556 WESTERN AUDIO VISUAL MH net Jinx controller: info tech 2,168.58 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC MH appointments plus: info tech 20.00 014751 ID SUPERSTORE MH lanyards: tcsd 105.00 6,029.88 151131 03/29/2012 011145 FOSTER, JILL C. TCSD instructor earnings 1,260.00 TCSD instructor earnings 743.16 TCSD instructor earnings 2,502.50 TCSD instructor earnings 1,619.80 6,125.46 151132 03/29/2012 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 50.00 50.00 151133 03/29/2012 014745 GARCIA, NANCY refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 150.00 150.00 151134 03/29/2012 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. TCSD instructor earnings 207.90 207.90 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151135 03/29/2012 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Office Supplies: CC/CM 234.33 Office Supplies: CM 352.88 Office supplies: PW 50.43 Office Supplies: Info Tech 144.13 Office Supplies: support svcs 289.87 Office Supplies: Finance 51.69 Office Supplies: Records 11.87 Office Supplies: TV Museum 148.35 Office Supplies: B&S 91.69 Office Supplies: Library 506.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PLN/CODE ENF 402.31 151136 03/29/2012 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC sttlmnt: Classics at the Merc SOCIETY 151137 03/29/2012 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 151138 03/29/2012 014402 GROEPPER, BROOKE 151139 03/29/2012 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2,283.89 970.90 970.90 12/13 GAAFR newsletter: Finance 50.00 12/13 gfoa mb: GW/PB/RG/HS 840.00 12/13 new gfoa mb:Cardenas, Robert TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Hardware supplies: MPSC Hardware supplies: CRC Hardware supplies: TCC Hardware supplies: Maint Facility Hardware supplies: TV Museum Hardware supplies: Ch Museum Hardware supplies: Library Hardware supplies: Parking Garage HARDWARE SUPPLIES: PW MAINT Hardware supplies: B&S Hardware supplies: Civic Ctr Hardware supplies: Harveston Hardware supplies: parks Hardware supplies: parks Hardware supplies: Theater Hardware supplies: Aquatics 151140 03/29/2012 014474 HANNAH-MEISTRELL, KENDRA reimb:supplies team pace egg gifts 151141 03/29/2012 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 150.00 1,040.00 2,402.40 2,395.95 1,601.60 1,601.60 14.18 516.14 23.16 18.04 18.26 15.06 66.19 7.63 423.86 86.24 381.96 75.16 6.81 1,548.83 25.58 306.43 8,001.55 3,533.53 200.00 200.00 182.00 455.00 375.38 1,012.38 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151142 03/29/2012 013695 INLAND EMPIRE SHRED IT Description Amount Paid Check Total 3/12 doc shred svc: Library 3/12 doc shred svc: CRC 3/12 doc shred svc: PD mall ofc 15.00 15.00 15.00 45.00 151143 03/29/2012 014743 INLAND VALLEY refund:overpmt on bus lic #037638 20.00 20.00 151144 03/29/2012 006924 INTL MUNICIPAL SIGNAL '12 IMSA mb: Uribe/Beardsh ear 160.00 160.00 ASSOC. 151145 03/29/2012 014491 JOE O'CONNELL CREATIVE cnslt exp: IBC presentation 12/13 457.92 457.92 151146 03/29/2012 014675 KESLER, SAMUEL TCSD Instructor Eamings 470.40 470.40 151147 03/29/2012 009336 KOPIE SHOP LLC promotional items: Theater 367.59 367.59 151148 03/29/2012 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 4/11-2/12 geotech svc: P Pkwy 2,238.00 2,238.00 151149 03/29/2012 009904 LIVING DESERT, THE mpsc excursion: living desert 3/20 162.00 162.00 151150 03/29/2012 008610 M C R STAMPS Entertainment:high hopes pgrm 3/16 25.00 25.00 151151 03/29/2012 014746 MAIN STREET CHAMBER - refund:sec dep:rm rental:Conf Ctr 150.00 150.00 151152 03/29/2012 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS MISC SIGNS:PW MAINT 5,686.88 5,686.88 151153 03/29/2012 004141 MAINTEX INC Misc supplies:csd maint 60.82 60.82 151154 03/29/2012 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC Traffic signal equip:pw traffic 3,007.85 3,007.85 151155 03/29/2012 014653 MCINERNY, PAT refund:Vegetarian cooking 1013.102 65.00 65.00 151156 03/29/2012 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. Reimbursement:marketing expenses 183.88 183.88 151157 03/29/2012 005690 MICHELLE'S PLACE WOMENS FY11/12 Council community srvc funding 5,000.00 5,000.00 BREAST 151158 03/29/2012 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1/29-2/25 eng srvcs:french vly 2,198.00 2,198.00 ENGINEERS Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151159 03/29/2012 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY INC Install fencing/netting:rrsp 13,015.00 13,015.00 151160 03/29/2012 007613 MORELLI, ANTHONY refund:Senior excursion 4100.102 32.00 32.00 151161 03/29/2012 001986 MUZAK LLC Apr music broadcast:Old Town 123.18 123.18 151162 03/29/2012 013634 MYRA LINN ELEMENTARY refund:overpmt on acct-com srvc 185.50 185.50 151163 03/29/2012 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3/1/12-2/28/13 agency membership 6,965.00 6,965.00 151164 03/29/2012 014391 NICHOLS, KELLIE D. TCSD Instructor Eamings 245.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 210.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 495.83 TCSD Instructor Eamings 490.00 1,440.83 151165 03/29/2012 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Feb public ntcs:City Clerk/Pln/PW 151166 03/29/2012 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV 151167 03/29/2012 013198 ORTENZO-HAYES, KRISTINE 757.44 757.44 business cards: T. Cole 36.29 Misc office supplies: theater MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PD MALL OFFIC Misc office supplies:public works Misc office supplies:public works TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151168 03/29/2012 013115 PETERSON NUGENT, KRISTIN TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151169 03/29/2012 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 151170 03/29/2012 008024 QUARTERMASTER INC Uniform patches:police 151171 03/29/2012 004272 RANCHO ARMY NAVY STORE purchase jackets for csd maint staff 106.79 117.33 33.87 150.85 498.75 266.00 239.40 485.45 455.00 455.00 182.00 105.00 245.00 273.00 364.00 913.89 426.85 445.13 2,931.60 637.00 913.89 426.85 387.73 387.73 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 151172 03/29/2012 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 151173 03/29/2012 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 151174 03/29/2012 014691 RAUDA, JOSE LUIS 151175 03/29/2012 000271 RBF CONSULTING 151176 03/29/2012 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 151177 03/29/2012 010777 RIVERSIDE CO EXECUTIVE OFFICE 151178 03/29/2012 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPARTMENT 151179 03/29/2012 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 151180 03/29/2012 014347 ROBERTS, PATRICIA G. 151181 03/29/2012 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. 151182 03/29/2012 000815 ROWLEY, CATHY 151183 03/29/2012 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE 151184 03/29/2012 013827 RYAN MONTELEONE EXCAVATION INC 151185 03/29/2012 014744 SERVICE ELECTRIC (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total Mar D.C. water meter:30650 Pauba Rd Mar misc water meter:30650 Pauba Rd Mar water meters:30875 Rancho vista Mar var water meters:TCSD & PW Mar var water meters:TCSD svc lev C Reprographic srvcs:butterfield ext Reprographic Services: F. V. Pkwy Entertainment:cinco de mayo festival Dec EIR temecula creek inn EQUIP RENTAL & MAINT:PW MAINT EQUIP RENTAL & MAINT:PW MAINT EQUIP RENTAL & MAINT:PW MAINT credit:equipment rental-pw maint MAR ANIMAL SHELTER PAYMENT SCFA FY 11/12 debt service payment Oct -Dec '11 fire services 12/15/11-01/11/12 law enforcement TCSD Instructor Eamings reimb: NLC Wash DC 3/11-14 TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings IRRIGATION STATION RELOC:MADISON/MCCABE refund:overpmt on bus lic #031631 151186 03/29/2012 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV- SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 19.13 229.79 524.30 1,322.17 6,320.12 49.18 453.47 200.00 41,874.51 33.40 11.93 380.36 -246.69 10,549.40 44,263.00 915,605.01 1,371,803.32 175.00 693.52 252.00 196.00 140.00 525.00 819.00 39,771.50 10.00 8,415.51 502.65 200.00 41,874.51 179.00 54,812.40 915,605.01 1,371,803.32 175.00 693.52 588.00 1,344.00 39,771.50 10.00 100.00 100.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151187 03/29/2012 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 151188 03/29/2012 014371 SMOKIN JOE KUBEK 151189 03/29/2012 000374 SO CALIF EDISON 151190 03/29/2012 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 151191 03/29/2012 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 151192 03/29/2012 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS 151193 03/29/2012 009061 STURDIVANT, ANGELA P. Description Amount Paid Check Total Jazz © the Merc 3/22/12 Performance: theater 3/30/12 New srvc fee:Roripaugh Ranch fire stn Mar 2-18-937-3152:28314 Mercedes Mar 2-31-282-0665:27407 Diaz RD PED Mar 2-31-536-3481:41902 Main St Mar 2-31-536-3655:41904 Main St Mar 2-31-419-2873:43000 Hwy -395 Mar 2-29-223-8607:42035 2nd St PED Mar 2-29-807-1093:28079 Diaz Rd PED Mar 2-29-807-1226:28077 Diaz Rd PED Mar 2-31-031-2616:27991 Diaz Rd PED Feb 2-33-357-5785:44747 Redhawk pkwy Mar 2-29-933-3831:43230 Bus pk dr Mar 2-19-171-8568:28300 Mercedes Mar 2-02-351-4946:41845 6th St Mar 2-32-903-8293:41000 Main St Feb 2-28-331-4847:32805 Pauba LS3 Feb 055-475-6169-5:PH BSP Install window film:finance dept TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151194 03/29/2012 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 9/13-2/24/12 consult srvcs:f.v. pkwy/I15 9/13-2/24/12 consult srvcs:wnchstr/I15 611.00 611.00 2,790.00 2,790.00 121.16 121.16 497.88 22.54 238.53 925.82 22.03 445.01 22.16 22.16 22.54 28.35 1,405.03 55.21 767.41 9,707.69 109.72 14,292.08 138.47 138.47 2,462.00 2,462.00 308.70 63.00 371.70 167,134.13 131,563.83 298,697.96 151195 03/29/2012 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS MOTORCYCLE 190.39 LLC REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. 355.73 546.12 151196 03/29/2012 010493 TEMECULATOINNE CENTER Apr lease payment:pd mall office 1,458.33 1,458.33 ASSOC LP 151197 03/29/2012 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC RECOGNITION AWARDS:REAGAN 930.42 930.42 MONUMENT 151198 03/29/2012 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER State of the City4/26 RG, RC, & HS OF 120.00 120.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151199 03/29/2012 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY Jan' 12 Bus. Impry District Asmnts CONVENTION & 151200 03/29/2012 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTR 151201 03/29/2012 001403 TEMECULA VALLEY SOCCER ASSN 151202 03/29/2012 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 151203 03/29/2012 004124 TRUELINE 151204 03/29/2012 014413 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 151205 03/29/2012 000325 UNITED WAY 151206 03/29/2012 004261 VERIZON 85,159.20 85,159.20 Locksmith services: Civic Center 40.00 locksmith services: paloma del sol park 132.37 locksmith srvcs:temeku hills snackbar 736.09 908.46 refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 200.00 200.00 Apr high speed intemet:41000 Main St 4,385.47 4,385.47 court striping srvcs: pala prk 850.00 850.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 128.35 128.35 United Way Charities Payment 46.00 46.00 Mar xxx-5072 general usage 1,395.39 Marxxx-0074 general usage 2,515.46 3,910.85 151207 03/29/2012 004789 VERIZON Mar Internet svc: Library 174.99 Mar Internet svc:Tem PD DSL 49.99 Mar Internet svcs:Harveston Ctr 82.14 307.12 151208 03/29/2012 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 2/16-3/15 gen usage:Council,IT,PD 266.07 266.07 151209 03/29/2012 003487 VETERANS OF FOREIGN FY11/12 Council community srvc funding 5,000.00 5,000.00 WARS 4089 151210 03/29/2012 010399 VOLKER LUTZ ENTERPRISE refreshments:Tem.Crk Inn meeting 3/20 78.66 INC Refreshments:eco dev mtg 3/19 142.77 221.43 151211 03/29/2012 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES:CRC 57.99 57.99 151212 03/29/2012 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC FEB PLAN CHECK SRVCS:PW TRAFFIC 11,946.35 11,946.35 151213 03/29/2012 000230 WILLDAN FINANCIAL Apr -Jun assessment admin srvcs:csd 5,625.00 5,625.00 SERVICES Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 3,167,436.51 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 03/29/2012 12:32:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA 102 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 3,167,436.51 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1898 04/05/2012 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 130,921.43 130,921.43 RETIREMENT) 1899 04/04/2012 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 21,695.09 21,695.09 1900 04/04/2012 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 74,680.86 74,680.86 151214 04/05/2012 004918 A W DIRECT INC fire equipment: Stn 84 97.69 fire equipment: Stn 84 47.39 fire equipment: Stn 84 30.15 175.23 151215 04/05/2012 004973 ABACHERLI, LIN DI TCSD instructor earnings 680.00 680.00 151216 04/05/2012 011322 AIR CLEANING SYSTEMS INC plymovent svc: Stn 84 509.88 509.88 151217 04/05/2012 014531 ALLEN EMBROIDERY SERVICE uniforms: code enf/park rangers 156.24 156.24 151218 04/05/2012 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT equip rental: bluegrass festival 522.65 522.65 151219 04/05/2012 014761 AMAVISCA, ALEXIS reimb: live scan fee 42.00 42.00 151220 04/05/2012 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY batteries: fire vehicles Stn 84 20.91 20.91 CORPORATION 151221 04/05/2012 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING 12/13 APA mb: Fisk, Stuart 545.00 545.00 ASSOCIATION 151222 04/05/2012 003520 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF license fee: ASCAP Old Town 772.48 772.48 COMPOSERS 151223 04/05/2012 014764 AMIO, JOCELYN refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 150.00 150.00 151224 04/05/2012 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO Mar drinking water svcs:civic ctr 148.70 148.70 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151225 04/05/2012 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 151226 04/05/2012 014377 ATYIM, TAMMY, A. 151227 04/05/2012 008868 BANK OF SACRAMENTO 151228 04/05/2012 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS INC 151229 04/05/2012 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS 151230 04/05/2012 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE 151231 04/05/2012 014299 BOOKS ON TAPE Description Amount Paid Check Total Bottled wtr svcs: Ch Museum 32.34 Bottled wtr svcs: MPSC 118.68 BOTTLED WTR SVCS: TES AQUATICS 645 BOTTLED W1-1:4 SVCS: CHS AQUATICS 645 Bottled wtr svcs: CRC 55.39 Bottled wtr svcs: Theater 40.32 Bottled wtr svcs: TV Museum 18.99 Bottled wtr svcs: TCC 20.38 Bottled wtr svcs: Library 84.66 Bottled wtr svcs: Fld Op Ctr 115.39 Bottled wtr svcs: Council 38.79 BOTTLED WTR SVCS: PBSP 39.12 BOTTLED W1-1:4 SVCS: SKATE PARK 645 Bottled wtr svcs: VRMS 37.09 TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings escrow: RJ Noble PW10-11 guardrail repair: Date Street shirts: temecula special games STAFF SHIRTS: LT. DAN BAND EVENT TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings vehicle repair/maint: pw maint (1) BOOK ON TAPE: LIBRARY (1) BOOK ON TAPE: LIBRARY 620.50 660.80 247.80 908.60 1,840.22 1,840.22 2,885.00 2,885.00 3,969.00 910.00 756.00 346.50 89.16 24.24 48.49 5,981.50 89.16 72.73 151232 04/05/2012 000128 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE 105758224 travelers ins: crime 4,001.00 68712337 cna surety: Jones, Susan 350.00 4,351.00 151233 04/05/2012 009082 C B C TECHNICAL INC MISC TECHNICAL SUPPLIES: 150.88 150.88 THEATER 151234 04/05/2012 003138 CAL MAT PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 301.37 75.53 1,048.07 1,629.44 445.60 451.55 121.22 117.73 4,190.51 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151235 04/05/2012 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS CALBO Training 4/24: BC/MT/SL 450.00 450.00 151236 04/05/2012 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Mar copier lease: Fire 182.55 INC Apr copier lease: civic center 3,004.54 3,187.09 151237 04/05/2012 004006 CARROLL, JOSEPH photography svc: council photos 862.00 862.00 151238 04/05/2012 014758 CARTER, JASMINE refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 200.00 200.00 151239 04/05/2012 005417 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY first aid kit supplies: civic ctr 222.10 first aid kit supplies: theater 108.46 first aid kit supplies: Library 101.97 first aid kit supplies: Fld Op Ctr 216.60 first aid kit supplies: Civic Ctr 280.08 929.21 151240 04/05/2012 005708 CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING INC ADVERTISINGS: HOT SUMMER NIGHTS advertising:old town quilt show ADVERTISINGS: HOT SUMMER NIGHTS ADVERTISINGS:HOT SUMMER NIGHTS 151241 04/05/2012 004017 COMERCHERO, JEFF reimb: N LC cfwash,DC 3/9-13 151242 04/05/2012 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. 150.00 250.00 1,270.00 1,000.00 2,670.00 87.32 87.32 electrical supplies: tcsd parks 776.88 misc electrical supplies: civic ctr misc electrical supplies: old town electrical supplies: var park sites electrical supplies: var park sites electrical supplies: var park sites 151243 04/05/2012 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE misc supplies: '12 egg hunt 351.53 257.52 247.83 17.00 698.22 2,348.98 57.68 57.68 151244 04/05/2012 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC traffic count svc: pw traffic 200.00 traffic count svcs: pw traffic 2,700.00 2,900.00 151245 04/05/2012 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & pillar removal: CRC 800.00 HVAC INC concrete repair/replace svcs: CRC 4,400.00 5,200.00 151246 04/05/2012 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Mar legislative cnslt svc: CM 3,500.00 3,500.00 151247 04/05/2012 014759 DECASTROVERDE, LUCY refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 150.00 150.00 151248 04/05/2012 007057 DERN BACH, ESTHER MARIE TCSD instructor earnings 465.50 465.50 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151249 04/05/2012 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Description Amount Paid Check Total Apr restroom svc: GOHS 52.78 portable restrooms:bluegrass fest Mar restroom svc: Lng Cyn park Mar restroom svc: Riverton Park Mar restroom svc: Vail Ranch park Mar restroom svc: Veterans park 498.14 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78 762.04 151250 04/05/2012 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 220.96 220.96 FUELING INC 151251 04/05/2012 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT qtrly bkfast: Yates, Grant 3/22 35.00 35.00 CORP 151252 04/05/2012 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY Apr legislative cnslt svc: CM 3,500.00 3,500.00 LLC 151253 04/05/2012 011202 EMH SPORTS & FITNESS TCSD instructor earnings 731.50 731.50 INSTITUTE 151254 04/05/2012 011203 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING Mar restroom maint: tcsd parks 5,265.00 5,265.00 151255 04/05/2012 013735 ESECURITYTOGO, LLC Fortinet Fortigate Firewall: Library 5,647.64 5,647.64 151256 04/05/2012 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Feb landscape maint: city facilities 9,443.13 9,443.13 151257 04/05/2012 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 2/9-3/6 city express mail services 374.18 374.18 151258 04/05/2012 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK sttlmnt: Dora the Explorer 13,228.07 13,228.07 151259 04/05/2012 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 006952 PAYPAL GW Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 59.95 002111 TOGOS RESTAURANT GW lunch:revenue mtg 3/21 77.86 000871 HILTON RR htl:SCAG mtg LA 2/29 126.50 007527 RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE RR meal:N LC cf Wash,DC 3/10-14 169.05 014765 BISTROT DU COIN RR meal:N LC cf Wash,DC 3/10-14 99.98 006942 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR parking:N LC cf Wash,DC 3/10-14 90.00 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL RR meal:N LC cf Wash,DC 3/10-14 28.38 001256 MARRIOTT HOTEL RR htl:N LC cf Wash,DC 3/10-14 1,140.44 1,792.16 151260 04/05/2012 011145 FOSTER, JILL C. TCSD instructor earnings 252.00 TCSD instructor earnings 403.20 655.20 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151261 04/05/2012 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD #330383649 2012 Form 592 521.00 521.00 151262 04/05/2012 000172 G A S B '12 GASB subsc: Wilson, Genie 225.00 225.00 151263 04/05/2012 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Mar power washer exchg: Stn 73 63.58 63.58 151264 04/05/2012 014725 GARCIA, ANTHONY wafter santos art exhibit 4/6/12 200.00 200.00 151265 04/05/2012 014234 GEARS 2 ROBOTS, LLC TCSD instructor earnings 787.50 787.50 151266 04/05/2012 005405 GILLILAND, ROBIN reimb: interpreter/guide japan Kaneko 2,341.00 2,341.00 151267 04/05/2012 000177 GLENN IES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office Supplies: Fire 349.18 349.18 INC 151268 04/05/2012 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS video svcs: tunnels to towers 3/1 1,500.00 1,500.00 151269 04/05/2012 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: Fire 199.45 199.45 151270 04/05/2012 001135 HEALTH POINTE MEDICAL emp industrial care svcs: HR 70.00 70.00 GROUP INC 151271 04/05/2012 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Eamings 1,312.50 TCSD Instructor Eamings 612.50 1,925.00 151272 04/05/2012 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE hardware supplies:special events 138.90 hardware supplies: tcsd maint 75.36 maint supplies: civic ctr 144.18 358.44 151273 04/05/2012 002701 HUB INT'L INSURANCE Mar '12 special events premiums 1,149.63 1,149.63 SERVCS INC 151274 04/05/2012 013695 INLAND EMPIRE SHRED IT 3/12 doc shred svc: civic ctr 50.00 50.00 151275 04/05/2012 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT Feb copier maint/usage: Library 556.33 SOLUTIONS Feb copier maint/usage: Citywide 3,124.21 3,680.54 151276 04/05/2012 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY chemicals: citywide pools 908.85 908.85 INC 151277 04/05/2012 013612 INTERNATIONAL CHILI sanction fee: chili cookoff 5/20/12 SOCIETY 350.00 350.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151278 04/05/2012 001186 IRWIN, JOHN 151279 04/05/2012 013200 JAROTH INC Description Amount Paid Check Total TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Apr pay phones:duck pond,Library,CRC 352.80 70.70 423.50 212.64 212.64 151280 04/05/2012 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS emergency generator repair: CRC 2,469.00 rental equip: old town 221.09 2,690.09 151281 04/05/2012 012285 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY maint supplies: Stn 73 115.89 115.89 151282 04/05/2012 003046 K F R 0 G 95.1 FM RADIO advertising: bluegrass festival 1,500.00 1,500.00 151283 04/05/2012 014757 KITTANI, DILSHAD refund:applicantw/d permit B11-2312 768.70 768.70 151284 04/05/2012 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC pool operatortmg:john maisey 395.00 395.00 151285 04/05/2012 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC misc parts/supplies: pw maint 98.28 98.28 151286 04/05/2012 013879 LAKESHORE LEARNING misc supplies: crc 24.49 24.49 MATERIALS 151287 04/05/2012 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings 220.50 TCSD instructor earnings 808.50 1,029.00 151288 04/05/2012 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & Feb HR legal svcs for TE060-01 WHITMORE 151289 04/05/2012 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC 151290 04/05/2012 013982 MCI COMM SERVICE 151291 04/05/2012 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics 480.00 480.00 361.97 158.30 116.93 171.68 163.82 414.66 1,387.36 Marxxx-0714 gen use:PD mall alarm 31.49 Marxxx-0346 general usage 30.77 62.26 ELECTRIC VEH PARKING SIGNS:CIVIC 68.96 68.96 CTR 151292 04/05/2012 014694 MC CULLOH, DOUGLAS F. Art framing:Santa marg river cont rm 1,099.05 1,099.05 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151293 04/05/2012 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC Description Amount Paid Check Total TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151294 04/05/2012 003752 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY Vehicle supplies: Fire Stn 84 COMPANY 151295 04/05/2012 006571 MELODYS AD WORKS INC. Postage:Chili Cook apps to chief judge MARKETING & PROMO SRVCS:OLD TON 151296 04/05/2012 012962 MILLER, MISTY TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151297 04/05/2012 009835 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND PLAY SURFACING: VARIOUS PARKS - SALES INC 140.00 210.00 665.00 252.00 162.56 6.05 1,700.00 1,267.00 162.56 1,706.05 539.00 196.00 171.50 906.50 479.45 479.45 151298 04/05/2012 001067 MITY LITE INC Varequip:mpsc 1,956.01 1,956.01 151299 04/05/2012 013375 MYERS-RUSSO, ERICA TCSD Instructor Eamings 180.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 50.40 TCSD Instructor Eamings 252.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 151.20 TCSD Instructor Eamings 117.60 TCSD Instructor Eamings 56.00 TCSD Instructor Eamings 33.60 TCSD Instructor Eamings 151.20 992.00 151300 04/05/2012 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS Veh repair & maint: Fire Stn 84 24.30 24.30 151301 04/05/2012 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Advertising: Temecula Presents 725.76 Advertising:Bluegrass Festival 2012 870.91 1,596.67 151302 04/05/2012 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE Vehicle repair & maint: Fire Prev 679.13 679.13 151303 04/05/2012 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE veh ice repair & maint: park & fac 532.65 532.65 151304 04/05/2012 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS Settlement:Theater Co -Prod 4,081.24 4,081.24 151305 04/05/2012 012833 PC MALL GOV, INC. Misc supplies:lnfo Tech 127.15 127.15 151306 04/05/2012 002012 R D 0 EQUIPMENT COMPANY Backhoe parts & supplies:pw maint 506.13 506.13 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151307 04/05/2012 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Digital svcs:PW 151308 04/05/2012 009725 RAZAVI, MANDIS TCSD Instructor Eamings 151309 04/05/2012 014760 REYES, ANNE MARIE refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 151310 04/05/2012 014762 REYES, VANESSA refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 151311 04/05/2012 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & 11086-0166 overland dr ext GERSHON 151312 04/05/2012 014693 RILEY, MARY ELIZABETH TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151313 04/05/2012 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & Notice of exempt:filing fee PW12-03 RECORDER 151314 04/05/2012 012251 ROTH, DONALD J. 151315 04/05/2012 013827 RYAN MONTELEONE EXCAVATION INC 151316 04/05/2012 005329 SAFE ALTERNATIVE FOR EVERYONE TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 25.26 25.26 308.00 308.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 1,706.15 1,706.15 196.00 3.50 199.50 64.00 64.00 504.00 168.00 672.00 excavating:date st basin repairs 14,117.50 excavating:date st basin repairs 23,756.00 Council CS Funding FY 11-12 1,000.00 151317 04/05/2012 008404 SAFE CHECKS Accts payable checks:Finance 151318 04/05/2012 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151319 04/05/2012 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Settlement:Jazz at the Merc 3/29 151320 04/05/2012 014763 SHUGHROU, CORINNE M. refund:sec dep:kitchen rental:TCC 151321 04/05/2012 009746 SIGNS BYTOMORROW Signs:TCSD special events 151322 04/05/2012 014741 SIMONES HOLDINGS, INC. ADVERTISING: PENNYPICKLE'S WORKSHOP 37,873.50 1,000.00 1,244.69 1,244.69 756.00 14.00 504.00 1,274.00 633.00 633.00 150.00 150.00 124.77 124.77 595.00 595.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151323 04/05/2012 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 151324 04/05/2012 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Description Amount Paid Check Total Mar 2-27-371-8494:42189 W nchester Mar 2-29-295-3510:32211 Wolf vly rd Mar 2-29-224-0173:Fire Stns Mar 2-30-520-4414:32781 Tem pkwy LS3 Mar 2-28-904-7706:32329 Overland trl Mar 2-21-981-4720:30153 Tem pkwy TPP Mar 2-25-393-4681:41951 Moraga Rd Mar 2-30-220-8749:45850 N Wolf crk dr Mar 2-29-953-8447:31738 Wolf vly PED Mar 2-29-657-2332:45538 Redwood PED Mar 2-28-629-0507:30600 Pauba Rd Mar 2-02-502-8077:43210 Bus pk dr B Mar 2-29-657-2563:42902 Butterfield Mar 2-31-936-3511:46488 Pechanga Mar 2-29-458-7548:32000 Rancho cal Mar 2-29-953-8249:46497 Wolf crk PED Mar 2-29-953-8082:31523 WIf vly rd Mar 2-00-397-5042:43200 Bus pk dr Mar 2-29-657-2787:41638 Winchester Mar 2-14-204-1615:30027 Front st rdio Mar 2-31-912-7494:28690 Mercedes Feb 181-383-8881-6:Museum Feb 196-025-0344-3:Childrens Museum Feb 129-535-4236-7:Civic Center Feb 125-244-2108-3:Library Feb 101-525-0950-0:Comm Ctr Feb 026-671-2909-8:Comm Theater Mar 055-461-2483-4:40135 Village Rd Mar 091-085-1632-0:TES pool Feb 129-582-9784-3:43230 Bus pk dr Feb 133-040-7373-0:Maint Fac Feb 021-725-0775-4:Senior Ctr Feb 091-024-9300-5:30875 Rncho vista Mar 101-525-1560-6:27415 Enterprise Mar 095-167-7907-2:30650 Pauba Rd 151325 04/05/2012 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest control svcs: childrens museum CONTROL INC 151326 04/05/2012 001505 STEFFEN, SUE 151327 04/05/2012 011897 TAG/AMS INC 33.81 615.94 1,553.20 762.21 149.70 34.06 352.49 448.00 22.03 22.16 5,135.42 335.12 179.06 42.68 309.29 23.59 24.23 759.52 21.26 30.33 1,083.85 11,937.95 85.81 106.89 1,240.14 497.92 47.90 272.83 78.92 2,098.02 227.95 22.92 207.26 2,229.05 314.76 266.14 7,696.51 94.00 94.00 reimb:Harvard bus review mag. 182.64 reimb:misc supplies:council mtgs 140.11 322.75 Testing:Annual renewal fee:HR 125.00 125.00 151328 04/05/2012 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD Misc supplies: MPSC SRVCS 212.31 212.31 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151329 04/05/2012 010679 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR/RADIATOR 151330 04/05/2012 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC Description Amount Paid Check Total Veh repair & maint: Fire Stn 84 250.00 Veh repair & maint: Fire Stn 84 250.00 500.00 Plate for mural:HR 32.33 Engrave perpetual plates:HR 151331 04/05/2012 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER State of the City:hogan,fox,mccracken OF 151332 04/05/2012 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE Fire extinguisher maint svc/equip:FS84 EQUIP. CO 151333 04/05/2012 003862 THYSSENKRUPP Elevator Inspection:citywide facilities ELEVATOR.BRNCH 37 151334 04/05/2012 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 73.27 105.60 120.00 120.00 22.50 22.50 4,200.00 4,200.00 Apr high speed intemet:40135 Village Rd 224.95 Apr high speed intemet:30600 Pau ba Rd 527.34 Apr high speed intemet:42081 Main St 58.49 151335 04/05/2012 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC DJ svcs:CRC middle school dance 2/3 151336 04/05/2012 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL Equip repair & maint:PW maint div 151337 04/05/2012 001561 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC 3/20-6/19 paging/rental svcs:tcsd,pw 151338 04/05/2012 014670 VALLE, MARISOL refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 151339 04/05/2012 013010 WALKER, CHARLES reimb:youth innovation conf 3/24 151340 04/05/2012 006248 WALKER, JESSICA TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings 151341 04/05/2012 014754 WATERMAN, MYLENE computer loan pgrm 151342 04/05/2012 012343 WEST COAST PERFORMING Settlement:Shake...Roll 20123/31 151343 04/05/2012 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC Feb feasibilitystudy:GOHS ped acc 151344 04/05/2012 014734 Z & E CREATIVE Give-a-way:father/daughter date nite ENTERTAINMENT 810.78 500.00 500.00 76.71 76.71 95.23 95.23 200.00 200.00 212.68 212.68 280.00 3.50 283.50 1,226.70 1,226.70 9,780.01 9,780.01 2,800.00 2,800.00 350.00 350.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 444,766.56 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 04/05/2012 2:07:09PM CITY OF TEMECULA 134 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 444,766.56 Pagel 1 Item No. 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Por CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones, City Clerk Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development April 24, 2012 Review and Approval of Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BACKGROUND: The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., (the "Political Reform Act") requires the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to adopt a conflict of interest code. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a Model Conflict of Interest Code (the "Model Code"). The Model Code, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, can be incorporated by reference by the Agency as its conflict of interest code. That Model Code will be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission from time to time to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act. A copy of FPPC Regulation 18730 is attached. Resolution No. SARDA 12-_ of the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopts the Fair Political Practices Commission Model Code and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, codified at FPPC Regulations Section 18730. The Resolution also adopts Exhibit A to the Conflict of Interest Code which sets forth the designated positions and the disclosure categories for each position of the Successor Agency. The City Council of the City of Temecula is the "Code Reviewing Body" responsible for reviewing the Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency. Government Code Section 82011 (c) provides that that for "city agencies," the Code Reviewing Body is the City Council. The term "city agencies" is not defined in the PRA but has been interpreted by the FPPC to mean local government agencies located solely with the boundaries of one city. In the past, the FPPC has interpreted a redevelopment agency as being a "city agency" and the City Council as being the Code Reviewing Body for the redevelopment agency. In the case of a Successor Agency of a former redevelopment agency that operates solely within the boundaries of one city, the Successor Agency will riot have a jurisdictional boundary that extends beyond the boundary of the city. The City Council, as Code Reviewing Body, is required to review and approve the Successor Agency's Conflict of Interest Code riot later than six months from the date the Successor Agency came into existence (Gov. Code Sec. 87303.) FISCAL IMPACT: Minor costs of the City Clerk's Office in filing and maintaining the Economic Disclosure Form 700 for the designated positions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 12-_ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency 2. Exhibit A to Successor Agency Conflict of Interest Code, Designation of Positions of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Disclosure Categories 3. FPPC Regulation No. 18730, Conflict of Interest Code RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds and determines that: A. The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., (the "Political Reform Act") requires the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to adopt a conflict of interest code. B. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a Model Conflict of Interest Code (the "Model Code"). The Model Code, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, can be incorporated by reference by the Agency as its conflict of interest code. That Model Code will be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission from time to time to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act. A copy of FPPC Regulation 18730 is attached. C. Resolution No. SARDA 12- of the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopts the Fair Political Practices Commission Model Code and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730. The Resolution also adopts Exhibit A to the Conflict of Interest Code which sets forth the designated positions and the disclosure categories for each position of the Successor Agency D. The City Council of the City of Temecula is the Code Reviewing Body responsible for reviewing the Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula has reviewed the Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and finds that it complies with the requirements of the Political Reform Act and the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby designated as the Filing Officer for the Statements of Economic Interests Form 700 for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the requirements of the Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk SECTION 1. EXHIBIT A DESIGNATED CITY OF TEMECULA EMPLOYEES FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES The following positions entail the making or participating in the making of decisions which could have a material effect on financial interests. Designated Position Disclosure Categories Accounting Manager 1 Building Official 1 City Clerk 1 Consultant * 1 Deputy City Manager 1 Executive Director of Community Services 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 Director of Development Services 1 Exempt Officials 0 Fiscal Services Manager 1 Director of Public Works 1 Revenue Manager 1 Senior Debt Analyst 1 Senior Management Analyst 1 Senior Planner 1 * Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose all of the information required to be disclosed by designated employees subject to the following limitations: The City Manager or his designee may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a designated position, is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirement described in this Section. Such written disclosure shall include a description and based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same mariner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. ** The Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Treasurer are all required to file disclosure statements pursuant to State Law and are thus not included herein. (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations.) § 18730. Provisions of Conflict -of -Interest Codes. (a) Incorporation by reference of the terms of this regulation along with the designation of employees and the formulation of disclosure categories in the Appendix referred to below constitute the adoption and promulgation of a conflict-of-interest code within the meaning of Section 87300 or the amendment of a conflict-of-interest code within the meaning of Section 87306 if the terms of this regulation are substituted for terms of a conflict-of-interest code already in effect. A code so amended or adopted and promulgated requires the reporting of reportable items in a manner substantially equivalent to the requirements of article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Sections 81000, et seq. The requirements of a conflict-of-interest code are in addition to other requirements of the Political Reform Act, such as the general prohibition against conflicts of interest contained in Section 87100, and to other state or local laws pertaining to conflicts of interest. (b) The terms of a conflict-of-interest code amended or adopted and promulgated pursuant to this regulation are as follows: (1) Section 1. Definitions. The definitions contained in the Political Reform Act of 1974, regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (Regulations 18110, et seq.), and any amendments to the Act or regulations, are incorporated by reference into this conflict-of-interest code. (2) Section 2. Designated Employees. The persons holding positions listed in the Appendix are designated employees. It has been determined that these persons make or participate in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on economic interests. (3) Section 3. Disclosure Categories. This code does not establish any disclosure obligation for those designated employees who are also specified in Section 87200 if they are designated in this code in that same capacity or if the geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction in which those persons must report their economic interests pursuant to article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Sections 87200, et seq. In addition, this code does not establish any disclosure obligation for any designated employees who are designated in a conflict-of-interest code for another agency, if all of the following apply: (A) The geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction of the other agency; (B) The disclosure assigned in the code of the other agency is the same as that required under article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Section 87200; and (C) The filing officer is the same for both agencies. ]' Such persons are covered by this code for disqualification purposes only. With respect to all other designated employees, the disclosure categories set forth in the Appendix specify which kinds of economic interests are reportable. Such a designated employee shall disclose in his or her statement of economic interests those economic interests he or she has which are of the kind described in the disclosure categories to which he or she s ass gned in the Appendix. It has been determined that the economic interests set forth in a designated employee's disclosure categories are the kinds of economic interests which he or she foreseeably can affect materially through the conduct of his or her office. (4) Section 4. Statements of Economic Interests: Place of Filing. The code reviewing body shall instruct all designated employees within its code to file statements of economic interests with the agency or with the code reviewing body, as provided by the code reviewing body in the agency's conflict-of-interest code.2 (5) Section 5. Statements of Economic Interests: Time of Filing. (A) Initial Statements. All designated employees employed by the agency on the effective date of this code, as originally adopted, promulgated and approved by the code reviewing body, shall file statements within 30 days after the effective date of this code. Thereafter, each person already in a position when it is designated by an amendment to this code shall file an initial statement within 30 days after the effective date of the amendment. (B) Assuming Office Statements. All persons assuming designated positions after the effective date of this code shall file statements within 30 days after assuming the designated positions, or if subject to State Senate confirmation, 30 days after being nominated or appointed. (C) Annual Statements. All designated employees shall file statements no later than April 1. (D) Leaving Office Statements. All persons who leave designated positions shall file statements within 30 days after leaving office. (5.5) Section 5.5. Statements for Persons Who Resign Prior to Assuming Office. Any person who resigns within 12 months of initial appointment, or within 30 days of the date of notice provided by the filing officer to file an assuming office statement, is not deemed to have assumed office or left office, provided he or she did not make or participate in the making of, or use his or her position to influence any decision and did not receive or become entitled to receive any form of payment as a result of his or her appointment. Such persons shall not file either an assuming or leaving office statement. (A) Any person who resigns a position within 30 days of the date of a notice from the filing officer shall do both of the following: (1) File a written resignation with the appointing power; and (2) File a written statement with the filing officer declaring under penalty of perjury that during the period between appointment and resignation he or she did not make, participate in the making, or use the position to influence any decision of the agency or receive, or become entitled to receive, any form of payment by virtue of being appointed to the position. (6) Section 6. Contents of and Period Covered by Statements of Economic Interests. (A) Contents of Initial Statements. Initial statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the effective date of the code and income received during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the code. (B) Contents of Assuming Office Statements. Assuming office statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the date of assuming office or, if subject to State Senate confirmation or appointment, on the date of nomination, and income received during the 12 months prior to the date of assuming office or the date of being appointed or nominated, respectively. (C) Contents of Annual Statements. Annual statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the previous calendar year provided, however, that the period covered by an employee's first annual statement shall begin on the effective date of the code or the date of assuming office whichever is later, or for a board or commission member subject to Section 87302.6, the day after the closing date of the most recent statement filed by the member pursuant to Regulation 18754. (D) Contents of Leaving Office Statements. Leaving office statements shall disclose reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the period between the closing date of the last statement filed and the date of leaving office. (7) Section 7. Manner of Reporting. Statements of economic interests shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and supplied by the agency, and shall contain the following information: (A) Investment and Real Property Disclosure. When an investment or an interest in real property3 is required to be reported,' the statement shall contain the following: 1. A statement of the nature of the investment or interest; 2. The name of the business entity in which each investment is held, and a general description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged; 3. The address or other precise location of the real property; 4. A statement whether the fair market value of the investment or interest in real property equals or exceeds $2,000, exceeds $10,000, exceeds $100,000, or exceeds $1,000,000. (B) Personal Income Disclosure. When personal income is required to be reported,5 the statement shall contain: 1. The name and address of each source of income aggregating $500 or more in value, or $50 or more in value if the income was a gift, and a general description of the business activity, if any, of each source; 2. A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source, or in the case of a loan, the highest amount owed to each source, was $1,000 or less, greater than $1,000, greater than $10,000, or greaterthan $100,000; 3. A description of the consideration, if any, for which the income was received; 4. In the case of a gift, the name, address and business activity of the donor and any intermediary through which the gift was made; a description of the gift; the amount or value of the gift; and the date on which the gift was received; 5. In the case of a loan, the annual interest rate and the security, if any, given for the loan and the term of the loan. (C) Business Entity Income Disclosure. When income of a business entity, including income of a sole proprietorship, is required to be reported,6 the statement shall contain: 1. The name, address, and a general description of the business activity of the business entity; 2. The name of every person from whom the business entity received payments if the filer's pro rata share of gross receipts from such person was equal to or greater than $10,000. (D) Business Position Disclosure. When business positions are required to be reported, a designated employee shall list the name and address of each business entity in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or in which he or she holds any position of management, a description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged, and the designated employee's position with the business entity. (E) Acquisition or Disposal During Reporting Period. In the case of an annual or leaving office statement, if an investment or an interest in real property was partially or wholly acquired or disposed of during the period covered by the statement, the statement shall contain the date of acquisition or disposal. (8) Section 8. Prohibition on Receipt of Honoraria. (A) No member of a state board or commission, and no designated employee of a state or local government agency, shall accept any honorarium from any source, if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. This section shall not apply to any part-time member of the governing board of any public institution of higher education, unless the member is also an elected official. Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 89501 shall apply to the prohibitions in this section. This section shall not limit or prohibit payments, advances, or reimbursements for travel and related lodging and subsistence authorized by Section 89506. (8.1) Section 8.1. Prohibition on Receipt of Gifts in Excess of $420. (A) No member of a state board or commission, and no designated employee of a state or local government agency, shall accept gifts with a total value of more than $420 in a calendar year from any single source, if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. This section shall not apply to any part-time member of the governing board of any public institution of higher education, unless the member is also an elected official. section. Subdivisions (e), (f), and (g) of Section 89503 shall apply to the prohibitions in this (8.2) Section 8.2. Loans to Public Officials. (A) No elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date that he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan from any officer, employee, member, or consultant of the state or local government agency in which the elected officer holds office or over which the elected officer's agency has direction and control. (B) No public official who is exempt from the state civil service system pursuant to subdivisions (c), (d), (e), (t), and (g) of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution shall, while he or she holds office, receive a personal loan from any officer, employee, member, or consultant of the state or local government agency in which the public official holds office or over which the public official's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made to a public official whose duties are solely secretarial, clerical, or manual. (C) No elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date that he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan from any person who has a contract with the state or local government agency to which that elected officer has been elected or over which that elected officer's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made by banks or other financial institutions or to any indebtedness created as part of a retail installment or credit card transaction, if the loan is made or the indebtedness created in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to the elected officer's official status. (D) No public official who is exempt from the state civil service system pursuant to subdivisions (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution shall, while he or she holds office, receive a personal loan from any person who has a contract with the state or local government agency to which that elected officer has been elected or over which that elected officer's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made by banks or other financial institutions or to any indebtedness created as part of a retail installment or credit card transaction, if the loan is made or the indebtedness created in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to the elected officer's official status. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made to a public official whose dut office. es are solely secretarial, clerical, or manual. (E) This section shall not apply to the following: 1. Loans made to the campaign committee of an elected officer or candidate for elective 2. Loans made by a public official's spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, or the spouse of any such persons, provided that the person making the loan is not acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not otherwise exempted under this section. 3. Loans from a person which, in the aggregate, do not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) at any given time. 4. Loans made, or offered in writing, before January 1, 1998. (8.3) Section 8.3. Loan Terms. (A) Except as set forth in subdivision (B), no elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan of $500 or more, except when the loan is in writing and clearly states the terms of the loan, including the parties to the loan agreement, date of the loan, amount of the loan, term of the loan, date or dates when payments shall be due on the loan and the amount of the payments, and the rate of interest paid on the loan. (B) This section shall not apply to the following types of loans: 1. Loans made to the campaign committee of the elected officer. 2. Loans made to the elected officer by his or her spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, or the spouse of any such person, provided that the person making the loan is not acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not otherwise exempted under this section. 3. Loans made, or offered in writing, before January 1, 1998. (C) Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from any other provision of Title 9 of the Government Code. (8.4) Section 8.4. Personal Loans. (A) Except as set forth in subdivision (B), a personal loan received by any designated employee shall become a gift to the designated employee for the purposes of this section in the following circumstances: 1. If the loan has a defined date or dates for repayment, when the statute of limitations for filing an action for default has expired. 2. If the loan has no defined date or dates for repayment, when one year has elapsed from the later of the following: a. The date the loan was made. b. The date the last payment of $100 or more was made on the loan. c. The date upon which the debtor has made payments on the loan aggregating to less than $250 during the previous 12 months. (B) This section shall not apply to the following types of loans: 1. A loan made to the campaign committee of an elected officer or a candidate for elective office. 2. A loan that would otherwise not be a gift as defined in this title. 3. A loan that would otherwise be a gift as set forth under subdivision (A), but on which the creditor has taken reasonable action to collect the balance due. 4. A loan that would otherwise be a gift as set forth under subdivision (A), but on which the creditor, based on reasonable business considerations, has not undertaken collection action. Except in a criminal action, a creditor who claims that a loan is not a gift on the basis of this paragraph has the burden of proving that the decision for not taking collection action was based on reasonable business considerations. 5. A loan made to a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy and the loan is ultimately discharged in bankruptcy. (C) Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from any other provisions of Title 9 of the Government Code. (9) Section 9. Disqualification. No designated employee shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the making of any governmental decision which he or she knows or has reason to know will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official or a member of his or her immediate family or on: (A) Any business entity in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect investment worth $2,000 or more; (B) Any real property in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect interest worth $2,000 or more; (C) Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating $500 or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made; (D) Any business entity in which the designated employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management; or (E) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating $420 or more provided to, received by, or promised to the designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (9.3) Section 9.3. Legally Required Participation. No designated employee shall be prevented from making or participating in the making of any decision to the extent his or her participation is legally required for the decision to be made. The fact that the vote of a designated employee who is on a voting body is needed to break a tie does not make his or her participation legally required for purposes of this section. (9.5) Section 9.5. Disqualification of State Officers and Employees. In addition to the general disqualification provisions of section 9, no state administrative official shall make, participate in making, or use his or her official position to influence any governmental decision directly relating to any contract where the state administrative official knows or has reason to know that any party to the contract is a person with whom the state administrative official, or any member of his or her immediate family has, within 12 months prior to the time when the official action is to be taken: (A) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public, regarding any investment or interest in real property; or (B) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public regarding the rendering of goods or services totaling in value $1,000 or more. (10) Section 10. Disclosure of Disqualifying Interest. When a designated employee determines that he or she should not make a governmental decision because he or she has a disqualifying interest in it, the determination not to act may be accompanied by disclosure of the disqualifying interest. (11) Section 11. Assistance of the Commission and Counsel. Any designated employee who is unsure of his or her duties under this code may request assistance from the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to Section 83114 and Regulations 18329 and 18329.5 or from the attorney for his or her agency, provided that nothing in this section requires the attorney for the agency to issue any formal or informal opinion. (12) Section 12. Violations. This code has the force and effect of law. Designated employees violating any provision ofthis code are subject to the administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Sections 81000-91014. In addition, a decision in relation to which a violation of the disqualification provisions ofthis code or of Section 87100 or 87450 has occurred may be set aside as void pursuant to Section 91003. 1Designated employees who are required to file statements of economic interests under any other agency's conflict-of-interest code, or under article 2 for a different jurisdiction, may expand their statement of economic interests to cover reportable interests in both jurisdictions, and file copies of this expanded statement with both entities in lieu of filing separate and distinct statements, provided that each copy of such expanded statement filed in place of an original is signed and verified by the designated employee as if it were an original. See Section 81004. 2See Section 81010 and Regulation 18115 for the duties of filing officers and persons in agencies who make and retain copies of statements and forward the originals to the filing officer. 3For the purpose of disclosure only (not disqualification), an interest in real property does not include the principal residence of the filer. 4Investments and interests in real property which have a fair market value of less than $2,000 are not investments and interests in real property within the meaning of the Political Reform Act. However, investments or interests in real property of an individual include those held by the individual's spouse and dependent children as well as a pro rata share of any investment or interest in real property of any business entity or trust in which the individual, spouse and dependent children own, in the aggregate, a direct, indirect or beneficial interest of 10 percent or greater. 5A designated employee's income includes his or her community property interest in the income of his or her spouse but does not include salary or reimbursement for expenses received from a state, local or federal government agency. 6Income of a business entity is reportable if the direct, indirect or beneficial interest of the filer and the filer's spouse in the business entity aggregates a 10 percent or greater interest. In addition, the disclosure of persons who are clients or customers of a business entity is required only if the clients or customers are within one of the disclosure categories of the filer. Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87103(e), 87300- 87302, 89501, 89502 and 89503, Government Code. HISTORY 1. New section filed 4-2-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 14). Certificate of Compliance included. 2. Editorial correction (Register 80, No. 29). 3. Amendment of subsection (b) filed 1-9-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 2). 4. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(B)1. filed 1-26-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 5). 5. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(A) filed 11-10-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 46). 6. Amendment filed 4-13-87; operative 5-13-87 (Register 87, No. 16). 7. Amendment of subsection (b) filed 10-21-88; operative 11-20-88 (Register 88, No. 46). 8. Amendment of subsections (b)(8)(A) and (b)(8)(B) and numerous editorial changes filed 8-28-90; operative 9-27-90 (Reg. 90, No. 42). 9. Amendment of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8) and renumbering of following subsections and amendment of Note filed 8-7-92; operative 9-7-92 (Register 92, No. 32). 10. Amendment of subsection (b)(5.5) and new subsections (b)(5.5)(A)-(A)(2) filed 2-4-93; operative 2-4-93 (Register 93, No. 6). 11. Change without regulatory effect adopting Conflict of Interest Code for California Mental Health Planning Council filed 11-22-93 pursuant to title 1, section 100, California Code of Regulations (Register 93, No. 48). Approved by Fair Political Practices Commission 9-21-93. 12. Change without regulatory effect redesignating Conflict of Interest Code for California Mental Health Planning Council as chapter 62, section 55100 filed 1-4-94 pursuant to title 1, section 100, California Code of Regulations (Register 94, No. 1). 13. Editorial correction adding History 11 and 12 and deleting duplicate section number (Register 94, No. 17). 14. Amendment of subsection (b)(8), designation of subsection (b)(8)(A), new subsection (b)(8)(B), and amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(B), (b)(9)(E) and Note filed 3-14-95; operative 3-14-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 11). 15. Editorial correction inserting inadvertently omitted language in footnote 4 (Register 96, No. 13). 16. Amendment of subsections (b)(8)(A)-(B) and (b)(8.1)(A), repealer of subsection (b)(8.1)(B), and amendment of subsection (b)(12) filed 10-23-96; operative 10-23-96 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 96, No. 43). 17. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1) and (9)(E) filed 4-9-97; operative 4-9-97 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 97, No. 15). 18. Amendment of subsections (b)(7)(B)5., new subsections (b)(8.2)-(b)(8.4)(C) and amendment of Note filed 8-24-98; operative 8-24-98 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 98, No. 35). 19. Editorial correction of subsection (a) (Register 98, No. 47). 20. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1), (b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 5-11-99; operative 5-11-99 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 99, No. 20). 21. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 12-6-2000; operative 1-1- 2001 pursuant to the 1974 version of Government Code section 11380.2 and Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18312(d) and (e) (Register 2000, No. 49). 22. Amendment of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(10) filed 1-10-2001; operative 2-1-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 2). 23. Amendment of subsections (b)(7)(A)4., (b)(7)(B)1.-2., (b)(8.2)(E)3., (b)(9)(A)-(C) and footnote 4. filed 2-13-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office ofAdm inistrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 7). 24. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) filed 1-16-2003; operative 1-1-2003. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2003, No. 3). 25. Editorial correction of History 24 (Register 2003, No. 12). 26. Editorial correction removing extraneous phrase in subsection (b)(9.5)(B) (Register 2004, No. 33). 27. Amendment of subsections (b)(2)-(3), (b)(3)(C), (b)(6)(C), (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A), (b)(9)(E) and (b)(11)-(12) filed 1-4-2005; operative 1-1-2005 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4 (Register 2005, No. 1). 28. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(A)4. filed 10-11-2005; operative 11-10-2005 (Register 2005, No. 41). 29. Amendment of subsections (a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(8.1), (b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 12-18-2006; operative 1-1-2007. Submitted to OAL pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2006, No. 51). 30. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 10-31-2008; operative 11- 30-2008. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office ofAdministrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2008, No. 44). 31. Amendment of section heading and section filed 11-15-2010; operative 12-15-2010. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2010, No. 47). Item No. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Genie Wilson, Director of Finance Patrick Richardsion, Director of Planning and Development April 24, 2012 Approval of Cooperative Agreement for advance and reimbursement of administrative, overhead, and other expenses by and between the City of Temecula and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: Upon dissolution of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency on February 1, 2012 pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was constituted and is governed by a board of directors consisting of the members of the City Council. Pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency. For example, the Oversight Board may direct the staff of the Successor Agency to perform work in furtherance of the Oversight Board's duties and responsibilities under ABX1 26 and the Successor Agency must pay for all of the costs of meetings of the Oversight Board. In addition, the Successor Agency will have a number of ongoing responsibilities, such as paying debt service on enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency and preparing an administrative budget and Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for each six-month fiscal period. Each proposed administrative budget must include all of the following: (1) estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six-month fiscal period; (2) proposed sources of payment for the administrative costs; and (3) proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or other entity. ABX1 26 provides that the Successor Agency may include the cost of Oversight Board meetings in its administrative budgets, but otherwise does not specify which expenses are appropriate for including in the administrative budget. However, allowable administrative expenses likely include, among others, the value of City staff, including employee retirement and other benefits, necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; and the cost of other resources of the City necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, such as office space, supplies, equipment, utilities, and insurance. Staff recommends that the Successor Agency and the City enter into an agreement whereby the City will advance these costs to the Successor Agency. ABX1 26 provides for an "Administrative Cost Allowance" to annually be paid to the Successor Agency of not less than $250,000 a year (although this likely will not commence until fiscal year 2012-13). However, in the event there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, some or all of the Administrative Cost Allowance will be used to pay for the enforceable obligations, and these funds will not be available for administrative expenses of the Successor Agency. The Administrative Cost Allowance will exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax. However, the use of bond proceeds to pay administrative expenses is subject to certain limitations. The attached draft Cooperative Agreement for Advance and Reimbursement of Administrative, Overhead and Other Expenses between the City and the Successor Agency provides for the Successor Agency to use the City's staff, facilities, and other resources for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the City will advance the costs of the foregoing to the Successor Agency and the Successor Agency will reimburse the City for such advances. The Cooperative Agreement must be approved by the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency. The Riverside County Auditor -Controller will make distributions of property tax revenues to the successor agency's Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund twice a year, on January 16th and June 1st. These distributions will include the Administrative Cost Allowance for payment of administrative costs which are set forth in an approved administrative budget and are required to be paid from former tax increment revenues. However, in the event there are insufficient funds to pay the former redevelopment agency's enforceable obligations, some or all of the Administrative Cost Allowance will be used to pay for the enforceable obligations, and these funds will not be available for administrative expenses of the successor agency. FISCAL IMPACT: ABX1 26 provides for the Successor Agency to receive an annual Administrative Cost Allowance of not less than $250,000. The Administrative Cost Allowance will exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax. The Administrative Cost Allowance is subject to reduction if there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Cooperative Agreement between the Successor Agency and the City of Temecula RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Pursuant to Part 1.85 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 34170) ("Part 1.85"), the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency") is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(h). B. In connection with the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency is and will be utilizing the staff, facilities, and other resources of the City. The City Manager of the City serves as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, the Temecula serves as Finance Officer of the Successor Agency, and the City Clerk serves as Secretary to the Successor Agency. Planning, finance, engineering, public works, and other City departments devote and are expected to devote substantial time with respect to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, including gathering information relating to the Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, conferring with public officials representing governmental agencies, and undertaking other activities in connection with administration and operations of the Successor Agency. C. By providing and making available to the Successor Agency the staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the City has advanced and will continue to advance the cost of the foregoing to the Successor Agency. The City and the Successor Agency desire to enter into an agreement to provide for an appropriate method of reimbursement of such advances by the Successor Agency to the City. D. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)(1)(F), contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the Successor Agency are enforceable obligations and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34178(a) and 34180(h), the Successor Agency may enter into agreements with the City with the approval of the oversight board for the Successor Agency (the "Oversight Board"). E. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(j), the Successor Agency is required to prepare a proposed administrative budget for each six month fiscal period and submit each proposed administrative budget to the Oversight Board for its approval. Each proposed administrative budget shall include all of the following: (1) Estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six- month fiscal period; (2) Proposed sources of payment for the costs indentified in (1); and (3) Proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or another entity. F. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(k), the Successor Agency is required to provide administrative cost estimates, from its approved administrative budget that are to be paid from property tax revenues deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, to the County Auditor -Controller for each applicable six-month fiscal period. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Part 1.85. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the Cooperative Agreement for advance and Reimbursement of administrative, overhead and other expenses by and between the Successor Agency and the City attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the "Agreement") and the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement in substantially the form presented. Section 4. The officers and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution and the Cooperative Agreement, and any such actions previously taken by such officers and staff are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of April; 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD AND OTHER EXPENSES THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD AND OTHER EXPENSES ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula the "City") and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (the "Successor Agency"). In consideration of the mutual promises and the premises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes: A. The Successor Agency is required to undertake a number of actions pursuant to Part 1.85 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 34170) ("Part 1.85"), including winding down the affairs of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(h). B. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)(1)(F), contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the Successor Agency are enforceable obligations. C. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34178(a) and 34180(h), with the approval of the oversight board, the Successor Agency may enter into agreements with the City. D. In connection with the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency is and will be utilizing the staff, facilities, and other resources of the City. E. The City Manager of the City serves as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, the Director of Finance serves as Finance Officer of the Successor Agency, and the City Clerk serves as Secretary to the Successor Agency. Planning, finance, engineering, public works, and other City departments devote and are expected to devote substantial time with respect to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, including gathering information relating to the Agency's enforceable obligations, conferring with public officials representing governmental agencies, and undertaking other activities in connection with winding down the affairs of the Agency. F. By providing and making available to the Successor Agency the staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the City has advanced and will continue to advance the cost of the foregoing to the Successor Agency. G. The City and the Successor Agency desire to enter into this Agreement to acknowledge the foregoing recitals and to provide for an appropriate method of reimbursement of such advances by the Successor Agency to the City. Section 2. Successor Agency Staffing and Use of City Resources. The City shall make available to the Successor Agency its staff, facilities, services, and other resources, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency shall have access to the foregoing staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City. The City shall provide Successor Agency with such staff, facilities, services, and other resources as of January 1, 2012. Section 3. Value of Services. The value of the City staff, including all employee retirement and other benefits, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency made, and to be made, available to the Successor Agency for each six-month fiscal period beginning with the fiscal period commencing on January 1, 2012 and ending on June 30, 2012, determined in accordance with Section 4 hereof, shall constitute an advance to the Successor Agency by the City for each six-month fiscal period, to be repaid in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement. Section 4. Reimbursement for City Services from Successor Agency. Following the end of each six-month fiscal period, beginning with the fiscal period commencing on January 1, 2012 and ending on June 30, 2012, the City Manager shall prepare and present to the Successor Agency a summary schedule of costs for (i) the value of City staff, including all employee retirement and other benefits, based on time records prepared by City staff, which shall describe the time devoted exclusively to matters directly related to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; (ii) the value of consultants and legal counsel based on invoices for services devoted exclusively to matters directly related to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; (iii) the fair rental value of office space and equipment made available to the Successor Agency; and (iv) the value of supplies, insurance and other services and facilities provided by the City to the Successor Agency. Section 5. Reimbursement of City Costs. Within ten (10) days after the City submits a summary schedule of costs to the Successor Agency pursuant to Section 4, the Successor Agency shall reimburse the City for any funds in the amount of the costs from available funds of the Successor Agency. In the event that insufficient funds are available to the Successor Agency, any unpaid amounts shall be carried over to the next six-month fiscal period. Section 6. General. A. The parties hereto agree to take all appropriate steps and execute any documents which may reasonably be necessary or convenient to implement the intent of this Agreement. B. Each party shall maintain books and records regarding its duties pursuant to this Agreement. Such books and records shall be available for inspection by the officers and agents of the other party at all reasonable times. C. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and is to be so construed. D. This Agreement will be become effective upon approval of the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency. E. This Agreement may be amended at any time, and from time to time, by an agreement executed by both parties to this Agreement and approved by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Chuck Washington, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson General Counsel CITY OF TEMECULA Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager far CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Deputy Director of Information Technology DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Purchase of 50 Computer Workstations PREPARED BY: John De Gange, GIS Administrator RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase of 50 Hewlett Packard 8200 computer workstations in the amount of $43,158.74 with CDW-Government, including applicable tax and shipping charges. BACKGROUND: In order to maintain the City's computer life cycle management program, workstations that are no longer under warranty and not able to meet the technical requirements necessary to run the City's applications will be replaced. It is estimated that approximately 115 workstations throughout the Civic Center and City facilities will require replacement because the workstations do not meet the Windows 7 requirements. The proposed 50 workstations will be completed within this fiscal year with the remaining workstations to be replaced in Fiscal Year 2012-13. The proposed purchase through CDW-Government is a CalSave Technology contract which assures competitive government pricing. Therefore, this purchase would be exempt from competitive bidding requirements. In addition, it has been determined that the CalSave Technology program is consistent with the City's procurement policies and regulations and one that is used by many cities as an industry standard. The City has standardized utilizing Hewlett Packard (HP) equipment to provide cost efficient management of the enterprise computer environment. This purchase will also be consistent with the City's emphasis on Green Energy Conservation initiatives in that these workstations are HP Star Energy compliant. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Information Technology Budget. ATTACHMENT: CDW-Government Price Quotation BILL TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PO BOX 9033 Accounts Payable TEMECULA , CA 92589-9033 Customer Phone #909.694.6440 CDWG.com 1 800.594.4239 SHIP TO: CITY OF TEMECULA Attention To: CAZI BRASGA PO BOX 9033 TEMECULA , CA 92589-9033 Contact: CAZI BRASGA 951-308- 6331 Customer P.O. # HP DESKTOP QTY 50 OE400SPS SALES QUOTATION CQLR228 5426957 3/27/2012 ACCOUNT MANAGER SHIPPING METHOD TERMS EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE MARK DEASON 877.829.1698 TUPS Ground (1 - 2 Day) j Net 30 Days -Govt 1I State/Local 1 QTY ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE 50 50 2599232 1746157 CDW Government 230 North Milwaukee Ave. Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Phone: 847.371.5000 HP SB 8200 15-2400 750GB 4GB W7P Mfg#: B2B12UT#ABA Contract: Ca1SAVE Technology Contract 523868 HP SB DISPLAYPORT TO DVI -D ADAPTER Mfg#: FH973AT Contract: Ca1SAVE Technology Contract 523868 Fax: 847.371.7873 SUBTOTAL FREIGHT TAX This quote is subject to CDUU's Terms and Conditions of Sales and Service Projects at http://www.cdw.comicontentiterms-conditions/product-sales.asp For more information, contact a CDW account manager. 777.67 23.42 38,883.50 1,171.00 40,054.50 0.00 3,104.24 us currency TOTAL 4 43,158.74 Please remit payment to: CDW Government 75 Remittance Drive Suite 1515 Chicago, IL 60675-1515 Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Grants of Access Easement and Temporary Construction Easement to Rancho California Water District for Installation of a Groundwater Monitoring Well (located adjacent to Temecula Creek Trail Park) PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND A GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATED ADJACENT TO TEMECULA CREEK TRAIL PARK 2. Direct the City Clerk to forward the approved Grant of Access Easement and Grant of Temporary Construction Easement to Rancho California Water District for their acceptance and recordation. BACKGROUND: Rancho California Water District (RCWD), in behalf of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is proposing to install a groundwater monitoring well within the private property located immediately north of the Temecula Creek Trail Park boundary for the purpose of monitoring long-term water quality within the Temecula Valley. The well will be part of a valleywide network that will provide improved geologic understanding, water -quality data and real-time water -level monitoring to aid local government agencies in management of water resources. In order to access the well site in perpetuity, RCWD will need certain easements granted to them from the City for temporary construction staging purposes and for future access rights to cross the park site. The Access Easement (approximately 20 feet in width from Butterfield Stage Road to the well) will provide RCWD with entry rights, across the city park, to periodically access the well. Where proposed "access easement" areas are located over existing turf, RCWD will install a plastic -type turf protection product that will safeguard the turf from vehicle loads, but will also allow turf to grow through it. The Temporary Construction Easement will allow for the construction work and a temporary staging area needed by RCWD's contractor to install the monitoring well on the adjacent property. The USGS has completed hundreds of wells in similar park settings throughout southern California. The well will need to be in use for 40+ years and will be accessed occasionally; perhaps, as often as monthly to retrieve data from loggers installed in the vault that will house the well head. TCSD staff has concurred and agreed that the proposed location is appropriate and would not adversely impact use and/or maintenance of the park. Approval by City Council of the attached documents will grant a temporary construction easement and an access easement with perpetual right-of-way to RCWD to access the above- mentioned groundwater monitoring well located on private property adjacent to Temecula Creek Trail Park. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 12_ 2. Figure 1 — Location of Proposed Well 3. Grant of Access Easement with Legal Description labeled Exhibit "A" and Plat labeled Exhibit "B" 4. Grant of Temporary Construction Easement with Legal Description labeled Exhibit "A" and Plat labeled Exhibit "B" RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND A GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ADJACENT TO TEMECULA CREEK TRAIL PARK THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Rancho California Water District ("RCWD"), in behalf of the United States Geological Survey (`USGS'), has proposed the installation of a ground -water monitoring well within private property located north of and adjacent to the City's Temecula Creek Trail Park ("Park"); and WHEREAS, a monitoring well, located near Temecula Creek and adjacent to the Park, will provide the ability for USGS to monitor long-term water quality, real-time water - levels and to aid local government agencies in management of water resources within the Temecula Valley; and WHEREAS, RCWD requires a Grant of Access Easement and a Grant of Temporary Construction Easement from the City in order to construct and access said monitoring well located within an adjoining property, immediately outside the Park boundary; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby desires to grant to RCWD a Grant of Access Easement and a Grant of Temporary Construction Easement to construct and access the monitoring well site described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" of said easements attached hereto. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approved the `Grant of Access Easement' and `Grant of Temporary Construction Easement' attached hereto and authorizes the Mayor to execute the two easements on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Pauba Valley Ground Water Monitoring Well Proposed Easement Exhibit T 2 2 ()8,1 \ , \‘\\ W‘ \ Ov \\ C \ v \\ \CPI ‘C- -t. \ ‘\ \ 1 \\:\\/\\!!:::\1::\i:\-\\:::\:\\\ \\ \ \ ---- ‘ V ' \\\ \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\/\ c\\N \\ \\\ \ \ \\\ \ST\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ ,., • , \ „: \\ • \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\Y" \\ \ \ \\ \ \ / 7PRoPOSe.6WLLLOC/NI-OM/ CITY o pp1/4RK RECEIVED JAN d 1 2012 CITY OF TEMECULA "YORKS DEPARTMENT 20 20 40 60 GRAPHIC SCALE FIGURE 1 Easement Legend 1 PROPOSED WELL SITE rz7/ 2 PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT \ Vicinity Map: NTS ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • LANDPLANNING 25631-8" ADDISON Si. MURR1ETA. CA 92562 951.696.9902 951.696.9961 FAX City of Temecula Proposed Easement Exhibit ACCOUNT NO. MARX REVISIONS APPR DATE DESIGNED BY DRAW BY CI-ECKED BY APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER DATE Rancho California Water District BLM Monitoring Well 01517 SI-EET 1 Op HORIZ. SCALE: AS NOTED VERT. SCALE: AS NOTED J.N. 4433 RECORDING REQUESTED BY RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT AFTER RECORDATION RETURN To: RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 42135 WINCHESTER ROAD POST OFFICE Box 9017 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9017 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Temecula, a Municipal Corporation Hereby GRANTS) to RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRCIT, a public corporation, a perpetual non-exclusive access easement and right-of-way over, upon, along, through, and across the real property situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, hereinafter described: See Exhibits "A" and "B", Attached and Made a Part Hereof Together with the right to enter upon and to pass and repass over and along said strip land for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities to be constructed in adjacent property by the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. It is understood and agreed that the easements and rights-of-way acquired herein are subject to the right of the owner, his successors and assigns, to use the surface of the land within the boundary lines of said easements and rights-of-way to the extent that such use is compatible with the full and free exercise of said easements and rights-of-way by the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT; provided however, that no fences, block walls, structures, or other improvements shall be constructed upon, over, and along said easements and rights-of-way without first obtaining the written consent of the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. No additional fill and/or paving of any nature shall be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground, nor shall any earth be removed from the cover of said access easement after construction, without first obtaining the written approval of the RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed this day of , 2012 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed CITY OF TEMECULA by deed or grant dated , 2012 from the CITY OF TEMECULA to Rancho Califomia Water District, a public agency and subdivision in the Sate of Califomia, is By: hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on Chuck Washington, Mayor behalf of the Board of Directors pursuant to the authority conferred by Resolution No. 2004-5-2 of the Board of ATTEST: Directors adopted on May 13, 2004 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized By: officer Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Approved As To Form: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" WELL ACCESS EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, being a portion of Lot 2 and Lot 16 of Tract No. 29432 recorded in Book 308 pages 59 through 68 of Maps, as adjusted by Lot Line Adjustment No. 4463, recorded June 13, 2002 as Instrument No. 323116, records of Riverside County California more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point in the westerly boundary of Lot 2 of the aforementioned Tract No. 29432, said point lying on the northerly right-of-way of Butterfield Stage Road, 50.00 foot half - width, said right-of-way being a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 1950.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears S.57°48'02"W.; Thence northwesterly along the arc, through a central angle of 01°19'33", a distance of 45.12 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continue northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 00°40'43", a distance of 23.10 feet to the point of curve of a non tangent curve to the left, of which the radius point lies N.62°53'43"W., a radial distance of 20.00 feet; Thence departing said right-of-way northerly along the arc, through a central angle of 47°10'52", a distance of 16.47 feet; Thence N.20°04'35"W., a distance of 85.77 feet to a point of curve to the right having a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 88°34'19"; Thence northeasterly along the arc a distance of 30.92 feet; Thence N.68°29'43"E., a distance of 70.12 feet to a point of curve to the right having a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 18°59'35"; Thence easterly along the arc a distance of 6.63 feet; Thence N.87°29'19"E., a distance of 18.35 feet; Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" WELL ACCESS EASEMENT Thence N.02°30'41 "W., a distance of 55.92 feet to a point on the northerly property line of that parcel of land vested in the County of Riverside, on behalf of County Service Area NO. 143, per deed recorded April 15, 2003 instrument number 2003-263648 official records of Riverside County recorder; Thence along said northerly property line vested in the County of Riverside, S.66°13'52"E., a distance of 33.46 feet; Thence southeasterly departing said northerly property line S.02°30'41 "E., a distance of 41.11 feet; Thence N.87°29'19"E., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence S.02°30'41"E., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence S.87°29'19"W., a distance of 77.30 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 18°59'35"; Thence westerly along the arc a distance of 6.63 feet; Thence S.68°29'43"W., a distance of 33.79 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 18.00 feet and a central angle of 48°06'14"; Thence southwesterly along the arc a distance of 15.11 feet; Thence S.20°23'30"W., a distance of 16.49 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 18.00 feet and a central angle of 40°28'05"; Thence southerly along the arc a distance of 12.71 feet; Thence S.20°04'35"E., a distance of 79.36 feet to a point of curve to the right having a radius of 18.00 feet and a central angle of 79°30'33"; Thence southerly along the arc a distance of 24.98 feet; Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" WELL ACCESS EASEMENT Thence S.59°25'58"W., a distance of 0.50 feet to the true POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 6,226.49 square feet, 0.1429 acres more or less. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This Description was prepared by me Or under my direction: Rudy E. Nunez P. E. '. .S. PLS No. 7394 Exp. /31/13, February 13, 2012 Page 3 of 3 \SI Coo r \ � SCO 0- (6g, SCO \°°8 EXHIBIT 'BT WELL ACCESS EASEMENT BJFi71JN OF' Lo -r Ja FiAC r 29432 MB 308/68- 68 SHEET 1 OF 2 NORTHERLY DEED LINE AS RECORDED APRIL 15, 2003 INST. NO. 2003-263648 OFFICIAL RECORDS 42;1 00005:09.11111160 SOUTHERLY DEED LINE AS RECORDED ` APRIL 15, 2003 INST. NO.- 410`� 2003-263648 OFFICIAL RECORDS ` 0,\A let O POB PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: RUDY E. NUNEZ L.S. 7394 2/13/12 TPOB NO. 7394 Exp. 12/31/2013 B OF;71 ON D LJ -r2 R NOTE: SEE SHEET 2 FOR CURVE AND LINE INFORMATION LEGEND TPOB = TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING POB = POINT OF BEGINNING PROPOSED EASEMENT AREA EXHIBIT "Br WELL ACCESS EASEMENT POPETY LI\E DATA O DELTA/BRG RADIUS LENGTH 1 A= 01°19'33" 1950.00' 45.12' 2 0= 00°40'43" 1950.00' 23.10' 3 0= 47°10'52" 20.00' 16.47' 4 N20°04'35"W -- 85.77' 5 0= 88'34'19" 20.00' 30.92' 6 N68°29'43"E -- 70.12' 7 A= 18°59'35" 20.00' 6.63' 8 N87°29'19"E -- 18.35' 9 NO2°30'41"W -- 55.92' 10 S66°13'52"E -- 33.46' 11 S02°30'41"E -- 41.11' 12 N87°29'19"E -- 20.00' 13 S02°30'41"E -- 20.00' 14 S87°29'19"W -- 77.30' 15 0= 18°59'35" 20.00' 6.63' 16 S68°29'43"W -- 33.79' 17 0= 48°06'14" 18.00' 15.11' 18 S20°23'30"W -- 16.49' 19 0= 40028'05" 18.00' 12.71' 20 S20°04'35"E -- 79.36' 21 0= 79°30'33" 18.00' 24.98' 22 S59°25'58"W -- 0.50' PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: RUDY E. NUNEZ L.S. 7394 2/13/12 NO. 7394 Exp. 12/31/2013 SHEET 2 OF 2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT AFTER RECORDATION RETURN To: RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 42135 WINCHESTER ROAD POST OFFICE Box 9017 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9017 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Temecula, a Municipal Corporation Hereby GRANT(S) to RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRCIT, a public corporation, a temporary construction easement and right-of-way over, upon, along, through, and across the real property situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, hereinafter described: See Exhibits "A" and "B", Attached and Made a Part Hereof It is understood and agreed that this easement shall expire upon completion of construction IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed this day of , 2012 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE CITY OF TEMECULA This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant dated , 2012 from the CITY OF TEMECULA to Rancho By: California Water District, a public agency and Chuck Washington, Mayor subdivision in the Sate of California, is hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on ATTEST: behalf of the Board of Directors pursuant to the authority conferred by Resolution No. 2004-5-2 of the By: Board of Directors adopted on May 13, 2004 and the Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer Approved As To Form: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" WELL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, being a portion of Lot 16 of Tract No. 29432 recorded in Book 308 pages 59 through 68 of Maps, as adjusted by Lot Line Adjustment No. 4463, recorded June 13, 2002 as Instrument No. 323116, records of Riverside County California more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a point in the westerly boundary of Lot 2 of the aforementioned Tract No. 29432, said point lying on the northerly right-of-way of Butterfield Stage Road, 50.00 foot half - width, said right-of-way being a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 1950.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears S.57°48'02"W.; Thence northwesterly along the arc, through a central angle of 05°43'21", a distance of 194.76 feet; Thence departing said curve northeasterly along the northerly property line of that parcel of land vested in the County of Riverside, on behalf of County Service Area NO. 143, per deed recorded April 15, 2003 instrument number 2003-263648 official records of Riverside County recorder, N.64°04'47"E., a distance of 30.33 feet; Thence East, a distance of 15.28 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 16.68 feet and a central angle of 64°42'34"; Thence northeasterly along the arc a distance of 18.84 feet; Thence N.18°42'45"E., a distance of 34.59 feet; Thence N.65°23'17"W., a distance of 14.26 feet to a point of curve to the right having a radius of 20.71 feet and a central angle of 89°41'51"; Thence northerly along the arc a distance of 32.42 feet to a point of compound curve to the right having a radius of 22.95 feet and a central angle of 60°00'39"; Thence northeasterly along the arc, a distance of 24.04 feet; Thence S.89°18'22"E., a distance of 26.08 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continue easterly along said line, a distance of 16.64 feet to a point of curve to the right having a radius of 36.51 feet and a central angle of 19°28'25"; Thence easterly along the arc a distance of 12.41 feet; Thence S.66°13'52"E., a distance of 51.84 feet; Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" WELL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Thence N.76°09'32"E., a distance of 35.57 feet; Thence southeasterly departing said northerly property line of that parcel of land vested in the County of Riverside S.02°30'41 "E., a distance of 45.56 feet; Thence S.87°29'19"W., a distance of 88.35 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 18°59'35"; Thence westerly along the arc a distance of 6.63 feet; Thence S.68°29'43"W., a distance of 16.01 feet; Thence N.02°30'41"W., a distance of 71.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 5,688.92 square feet, more or less. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This Description was prepared by me Or under my direction: Rudy E. Nunez P.i L.S. PLS No. 7394 Exp. 12/31/13, February 14, 2012 rk E. 4, )<, NO. 7394 Exp. 12/31/2013* Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT "B" WELL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT pQr,71J1\1 OF LO-J� 20432 TPOB J\113 308/58-5 0 O rm \ SHEET 1 OF 2 NORTHERLY DEED LINE AS RECORDED APRIL 15, 2003 INST. NO. 2003-263648 OFFICIAL RECORDS SOUTHERLY DEED LINE AS RECORDED APRIL 15, 2003 INST. NO. 2003-263648 OFFICIAL RECORDS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: AI II I dr. .inii11111111111111..i..-: RUDY E. NUNEZ L.S. 7394 2/14/1 POB NOTE: SEE SHEET 2 FOR CURVE AND LINE INFORMATION ,02�� 55io tkai LEGEND TPOB = TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING POB = POINT OF BEGINNING PROPOSED EASEMENT AREA EXHIBIT "B" WELL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PPOPEPTY LINE DATA O DELTA/BRG RADIUS LENGTH 1 0= 05643'21" 1950.00' 194.76' 2 N64°04'47"E -- 30.33' 3 N90°00'00"E -- 15.28' 4 A= 64°42'34" 16.68' 18.84' 5 N18°42'45"E -- 34.59' 6 N65°23'17"W -- 14.26' 7 0= 89°41'51" 20.71' 32.42' 8 0= 60°00'39" 22.95' 24.04' 9 S89°18'22"E -- 26.08' 10 S89°18'22"E -- 16.64' 11 A= 19°28'25" 36.51' 12.41' 12 S66°13'52"E -- 51.84' 13 N76°09'32"E -- 35.57' 14 S02°30'41"E -- 45.56' 15 S87°29'19"W -- 88.35' 16 0= 18°59'35" 20.00' 6.63' 17 S68°29'43"W -- 16.01' 18 NO2°30'41"W -- 71.52' PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: RUDY E. NUNEZ L.S. 7394 2/14/12 SHEET 2 OF 2 Item No. 8 City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Margarita Road Project 1, PW10-08 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar Associate Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept the construction of the Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Margarita Road Project 1, PW 10-08, as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond and accept a one year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 3. Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On July 26, 2011, the City Council awarded a construction contract to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $2,843,759.99 to complete the Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Margarita Road Project 1, PW10-08. The work for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Margarita Road Project 1 consisted of full -depth pavement rehabilitation on Margarita Road between Rancho California Road and Avenida Barca. More specifically, the project included the following: removal of existing pavement, aggregate base, and subgrade structural section to a depth of 1.50 feet; placement of a 1.10 foot thick Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) section with Geogrid/Fabric; construction of a 0.25 foot thick Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) section; construction of a 0.15 foot thick Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA) section; adjustment of various facilities to grade, installation of traffic striping, pavement markers, and legends; and miscellaneous appurtenant work. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All work will be warranted fora period of one year from January 26, 2012; the date the City obtained "beneficial use" of the project improvements. The retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Margarita Road Project 1, PW10-08 is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2012-2016 and is funded with Measure A funds and Capital Project Reserves. The base amount of the construction contract was $2,843,579.99, contract change orders totaled $115,768.69, contract item under runs totaled $678,034.59, which results in a total cost of $2,281,494.09 for the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Maintenance Bond 3. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to R.J. Noble Company, 15505 E. Lincoln Ave., Orange, CA 92856 to perform the following work of improvement: PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 Project No. PW10-08 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on April 24, 2012. That upon said contract the Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 Project No. PW10-08 6. The location of said property is: Margarita Road between Avenida Barca and Rancho California Road, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 24th day of April, 2012. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk 0 Program Files (x86)1NIeevia.Com\Document Conveiterlternp1796.docx Fonn STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 24th day of April, 2012. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk C:1Program Files (x86)1Neevia.Com\Document Converterttemp1796.docx Form EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND FOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATIONMARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 (RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO AVENIDA BARCA) PROJECT NO. PW10-08 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT: R.J. NOBLE COMPANY, 15505 E. LINCOLN AVENUE, ORANGE, CA 92865 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTRACTORS a CORPORATION (fill in w ether a Corporation, Pa n r hip or individual) hereinafter called Principal, and TRAVE ERS ASUALTY SURETY COMP, OF AMERICA 2 688 GATEWAY CENTER DR. DI CA 91765 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of TWO 1RED EIGHTY—FOUR THOUS 1 SEVEN 11 RED FIFTY—NINE NO/100 —DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($ 284 75 00 in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not lessthanten (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER, dated the 16th day of APRIL 2012 a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PAVEMENT REHABILITATION -MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 (RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO AVENIDA BARCA), PROJECT NO. PW10-08. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final estimate approved on 2012. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. MAINTENANCE BOND MB -1 PW 10-08 Maintence Bond As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed this 16th day of APRIL 2012. (Seal) SURETY TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY OMPANY F AMERICA By: MIC (Name) ATTORNEY—IN—FACT (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Petero son, City Attorney Attach Notari I Ackno I d MAINTENANCE BOND men PRINCIPAL R. By: NOBLE COMPANY MICHAEL J. CARVER (Name) PRESIDENT (Title) SECRETARY (Title) urat for both the Suretv and Princi sal S. na ures MB -2 PW 10-08 Maintence Bond CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ��L CODE .§ 1189 01 State of Calrfornia Orange County of 10 1,0 `^" � ----- _.u�_ ongh, No��_um'��On o��~^~m�' o*° personally appeared Michael lCarver ` , J. "`.~.`.. m ~�, Commission # 1954610 ~~^^---� � • Notary Public California - uann z Orange County � �`���� `. .'__ ,.—~Oct ,o °015� mv�v�m�c Place Notary Seal Above Here insert Name and Title of the Officer Name(s) of igner(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenceto be the peroonL81m/hoao name^=)/ia/ar& suhscrihed to the witNn instrument and acknowledged to me that h executed the same in hio/4eFitl.refr authorized oapad and that by his/her/their signature(6)* on the instrument the personV, or. the entity upon behalf of which the porsonV acted, executed the instrurnent. | certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing WITNESS,paragraph is true and correct. �/ hend��cfioia1 seal. N, q/"""*.,". �' "'y''"`"`�„ OPTIONAL J e of Notary Public Though the information below is no/required by law, it may prove valuable mpersons document a��umpnmm/�a��nr��mxa��o��m�,orm��nm�anom�'document. Descrption of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Narned Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: O Corporate Officer —TWe(a): U Individual O Portnar—OUmited General O Attorney in Fact O Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other: Signer Is Representing; Top o humb -ere Number of Pages: Signer's Name: LI Corporate Offtcer -- TitIe(s): U Individual HI Partner — OUmbed OGenera El Attorney in Fact UTrustee [1 Guardian or Conservator OOther: 9. Signerin Representing: :91 ©2010 National Notary Association • NationalNotary.org 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item 115907 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKN*WLEDGmENT MR. CODE § 1189 State of California CountyofOmoge � on _04/16/2012 before me, J. DeIongh, Nota Public Date personally appeared Steve Mendoza Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer Narne(s) of Signer(s) J.oEmwo* Commission # 054610 Notary Public California Orange County MyComm. Expires Oct u8.2o10 Place Notary Seal Above � who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory • evidence to be the peroon/4whoae nomeWis/ane subscrihed to the within nstrurnent and acknowledged to me that he/`~. executed the same in his/ • 'eh authorized capacitn,esf, and that by his/her/their signatureK. on the instrument the personc21, or the entity upon behalf of which the -,3 peraonV acted, executed the instrurnent. certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand official seal. � . vir Signature:— i °—ature of ^_~^.—~^lic' PTIONAL Thoug/7 1! e inforrnatior; be/ow is not required by /aw, 11 mayprove valuabie to persons relying on the documerit and could prevent fraudulent rernoval and reattachment of This form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Nurnber of Pages: 1 Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: O Corporate O'Fficer --- Title(s): U Individual n Parme,—nLimited General U Attorney in Fact O Trustee O Guardjan or Conservator D Other: Signer |sRopreaenhng: Top of t )umb here Signer's Name: P1 Corporate Officer -- Titfe(s): U Individual U Partner — O Limited OGeneral LI] Attorney in Fact Li Trustee P1 Guardian or Conservator ILI Other: Signer Is Aepresentinq: Top of thumb here ©2010 National Notary Association t NationalNotary.org 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5207 CALIFO --P OSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNO State of California County of RIVERSIDE On q - before me, personally appeared D. STONG (Her in EDGMENT "NOTARY PUBLIC" c and title of e ) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personKwhose name . :. subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that het executed the same in his authorized capaci * and that by his - - 4 * '... signatureKon the instrument the personX, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and co - ct. W ESS my hand and official seal, /7c e fNotury Publk DESC TONOFTHEAT AC (Title or description of ch itkord p .0110 Number of Pages (Notary Seal) . . R. NAPP1 COMM, #1796916 NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDECOUNTY My Comm.Explros shine 7,2012 ADDIIIONAL OPTIONAL INFO TION INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLE 1 0 1. S FORM Any = owledgment conwieted In Califi2rnia must Contain verbiage exactly as appears above in the notary section or a separate aclotowletigment fonn must be perly completed and attached to that document. The onb= exception is ff a document is to be recorded outside of California in such instances, any alternative acknowledgment verbiage us may he printed on such a clocument so king as dee verbiage does not require the notary to do something Mat is illegal „for a natal', in California (Le. certOing Me authorized capacity of the signer). Pre= check the document careflOftr r aoiorlat warding and attach this Arm ifrequired, 1 DOCUMENT dcmm document c tinued) Doc ent Date (Additional information) CAPACITY CLAIMED 13Y O Individual (s) O Corporate Officer (Title) o Pl er(s) O Attorney -in -Fact o Trustee(s) O Other IGNER . State and County information must be the State and County where the dccument signer(s) personally ap * before the n public for acknowl a Date of notarization roust be the date that the signer(s) personally whicli must also be the same date the acknowledgment is completed. • The notary public' most print his or her name as it appears within his or her commission followed by a comma and then your title (notary public). • Print the nasne(s) of document signer(s) who personally appear at the time of notarization. a Indicate the correct singular or plural forms by crossing off incorrect forms (i.e. Itehlte/e , is It ) or circling the correct forms. Failure to correctly indicate this information may lead to rejection of document recording • The notary seal impression must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not cover text or lines. if seal impression smudges, re -seal if a cient*q permits, otherwise complete a different acknowledgment form, • Si re of the notary public must match the signature on the with the offite of the county clerk, 11- Additional information is not required but could help to ensure this acknowledgment i5 not misused or a heti to a different document, <' Indicate tide or type of attached document, number of :es and date. Indicate the capacity claimed by the signer, If the claimed c ty is a corporate officer, indicate the title (Le. CEO, CFO, Secretary). O Securely attach this document to the signed document 2008 Version CAPA v12.10.07 800-873-9R65 www.N TRAVELERS WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER PO R OF NFTORNEY Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St, Paul Guardian Insurance Company Attorney -In Fact No, 222079 St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company CertIticak No. 004687088 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That St. Paul. .Fire and Marine insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and SL Paul Mercury Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, that Farmington Casualty Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are corporations duly organized. under the laws of the State of Connecticut, that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Michael D. Stong, Rosemary Nappi, and Jeremy Pendergast of the City of Riverside State of California , their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or peanntred in any actions oi proceedings allowed by lav,. IN WITNESS E January OF, the Companies have caused this instrainaut to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this 2012 day of Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Compare Fidelity and Guaranty Insuiance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company 11tia St Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. By: Thompson, nior ice Presidenl: On this the 11thday of January 2012 before me personally appeared George W. Thompson, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof, 1 hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 2016. 58440-6-11 Printed in U.S.A. WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED Okap :akvemmummassamm.mweimvay..mumgva, Ammum. nommvomsaam. • WARNIN6711:41d1561WER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the .Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, arty Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in --Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the Company and may glee such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is tiled in the office of the Secretary; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or t.Yriting obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Com.pany's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is FURTI-IER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached. I, Kevin E. Hughes, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Cornpany, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and GUM nay Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. LN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affl xd the seals of said Companies this day of , 2O/ Kevin E. Hughes, Assistant To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call I.-800-42]-3880 or contact us at www.travelersbond.corn. Please refer to the Attorney -In -Fact number, the above-named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached. WARNING: THS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER ,:,„:aa,,.a,,,a,„a,,a,aammamammeAa..a.a.a,amaaammaawm,.*aammv,,avaa.,a,.a.amaaaamamaw...w.a,...,a„aataama.aa.ammm...a.aaaama.sawaa,,,,aaa,iaa:,m...,a.m. CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION -MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 (RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO AVENIDA BARCA) PROJECT NO. PW10-08 This is to certify that R.J. Noble Co , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PAVEMENT REHABILITATION -MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 1 (RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO AVENIDA BARCA), PROJECT NO. PW10-08, situated in the City of Temecula, State of Califomia, more particularly described as follows: Margarita Road INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute CCO# 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 $ 9.978.32 Progress Billing #5 $ 12,873.90 10% Retention held $217,467.20 Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: 4 /5 /2012 By: RELEASE CONTRACTOR Signature Ryan Overman / Project Manager Print Name and Tale R-1 PW 10.08 -Project 1 -Bid Docs Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager far frAi CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Construction Contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, PW10-14 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accelerate the appropriation of $2,500,000 from Fiscal Year 2012-13 appropriations to cover construction, administration, and construction engineering costs; 2. Award a construction contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, PW10-14 to EBS General Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $2,082,110; 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $208,211, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 4. Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. BACKGROUND: As part of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11, the City Council approved appropriations to support a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program that would implement the recommended maintenance activities identified in the previously completed Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS prioritized the existing areas in need of repairs and identified the recommended method for these repairs. On February 14, 2012 the City Council approved the Plans and Specifications and authorized staff to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road, PW10-14. The work for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road will be between Winchester Road and Solana Way and consists of pulverizing existing asphalt, aggregate base and subgrade to a depth of 1.44 feet, removal of an additional 0.46 feet thick material from the finished grade to provide for the proposed pavement structural section of 1.90 feet, construction of 0.45 feet of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) section, placement of 0.15 feet Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA) section, adjusting various facilities to grade, installing traffic striping, pavement markers and legends and miscellaneous appurtenants work. On April 3, 2012 four bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on the City's on-line bidding service, PlanetBids. The results were as follows: 1. EBS General Engineering, Inc. 2. All American Asphalt 3. Hardy and Harper, Inc. 4. RJ Noble, Inc. $2,082,110.00 $2,177,177.00 $2,333,000.00 $2,608.277.50 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found EBS General Engineering, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder. EBS General Engineering, Inc. has public contracting experience and has completed similar projects for the City and other agencies. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road is $2,417,500. The specifications allow for a schedule of 90 working days, which is an approximate duration of four and one half months. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008 the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90 -days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Ynez Road Project involves reconstruction of an existing roadway, entirely within the original road width, therefore there is no new disturbed area subject to the 5% MSHCP fees, and the project is thus exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years FY2012-16 with funding from Measure A and Capital Projects Reserves. With the acceleration of $2,500,000 from Fiscal Year 2012-13 appropriations, adequate funds will be available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — YNEZ ROAD (WINCHESTER ROAD TO SOLANA WAY} PROJECT NO. PW10-14 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 24th day of April, 2012 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and EBS General Engineering, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM —YNEZ ROAD (WINCHESTER ROAD TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-14, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — YNEZ ROAD (WINCHESTER ROAD TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-14. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — YNEZ ROAD (WINCHESTER ROAD TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-14. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — YNEZ ROAD (WINCHESTER ROAD TO SOLANA WAY) PROJECT NO. PW10-14 All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: Two Million Eighty -Two Thousand One Hundred Ten DOLLARS and No CENTS ($2,082,110.00), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed "Ninety" (90) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $50.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY OF TEMECULA, TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, and/or SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CONTRACTOR. 12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the CITY who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any CITY officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the CONTRACTOR has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or will administer this project shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR EBS General Engineering, Inc. 1320 E. Sixth Street, Suite 100 Corona, Ca. 92879 (951) 279-6869 By: Joseph A. Nanci Print or type NAME President Print or type TITLE By: Print or type NAME Print or type TITLE (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney DB 2013-14 2011-12 CITY OF TEMECULA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM—CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: Project will include the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit: Project will improve pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. Project Status: This project is ongoing. Department: Public Works—Account No. 210.165.655 Priority: 1 Project Cost: Actua Is to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Total Project Years Cost Administration $ 49,076 $ 309,606 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 S 160,000 $ 160.000 $ 998,682 Construction $8,931,000 $ 4,570,000 $ 4,570,000 S 4,570,000 $ 4,570,000 $27,211,000 Construction $244,017 $8,682,022 $ 1,191,157 $1,214,980 $ 1,239,280 $ 12,571,456 Engineering $ 98,645 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 S 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 298,645 Design S 194.941 $ 168,897 $ 230,000 $ 230.000 S 230,000 $ 230.000 $ $ 1,283,838 Totals S244 017 S 9,508.148 $ 5.010.000 S 5.010 000 S 5.010.000 $ 5,010,000 S - 5 29.792.165 Source of Funds: to Date Actua Is 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Total Project Years Cost Capital Project Reserves $ 826,126 S 5.010 000 $ 5,836,126 Measure A $244,017 $8,682,022 $ 1,191,157 $1,214,980 $ 1,239,280 $ 12,571,456 Unspecified* $ 3,818,843 5 3,795,020 $ 3,770,720 $ 11,384,583 Total Funding: S244 017 $9,508.148 $ 5.010.000 5 5.010.000 S 5 010.000 $ 5,010,000 $ $ 29.792.165 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2012-13 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identifed. 63 2014-15 2015-16 THE CITY OF TEMECULA "OH Traditions, New Opportunities" Location Map-Ynez Road 0 - si...\/ t „F. x, 441. SIN $yr'sr.4: It tCo 1111111ria Ai ii n O.. 114 ignition*, ifir 11 1/41,11 ausual wr � _�ru� rrr li Min �1V!VI N. 4. im 147ii am m iii. *110111 111! 111 `yam 1 4? ill .apit l 1400 2800 4200 ft. Map center: 6285152, 2134663 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Legend - City Streets Parcels Scale: 1:14,424 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Construction Contract for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW 11-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Assistant Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: Approve the transfer of the balance of Proposition 1B funds from Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Road ($37,995); Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road, Cabrillo Avenue, and Vallejo Avenue ($19,163); and Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2009-10 ($202,358), totaling $259,516, to the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW 11-09; 2. Award the construction contract for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09, portions of Paseo Del Sol, California Sunset, Rainbow Canyon, and Starlight Ridge areas, to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $700,791.50; 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $70,079.15, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 4. Make a finding that the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 Project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. BACKGROUND: The Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 is an annual project that will utilize Rubber Polymer Modified Slurry (RPMS) to seal the roadways in the project area against water intrusion and help protect the asphalt concrete pavement wearing surface. Ideally, slurry seal is applied every five to seven years to prolong pavement life and delay more costly rehabilitation measures such as asphalt concrete overlays or removal and reconstruction. Slurry sealing involves cleaning and sealing the existing cracks on the roadway surface, applying the slurry, and restoring pavement delineation. On January 10, 2012, the City Council approved the Plans and Specifications and authorized staff to solicit construction bids. On April 5, 2012, seven bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on PlanetBids. The results were as follows: 1. American Asphalt South, Inc. $ 700,791.50 2. All American Asphalt $ 779,100.00 3. Valley Slurry Seal $ 862,274.00 4. Pavement Coatings Company, Inc. $13,672,804.00 Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. Western Pavement Solutions Doug Martin Staff has reviewed the bids and found American Asphalt South, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder. American Asphalt South, Inc. has public contracting experience and has successfully undertaken similar projects for other public agencies in Southern California. Staff has deemed the bids submitted by Roy Allen Slurry Seal, Inc., Western Pavement Solutions, and Doug Martin as non-responsive due to the fact that the City did not receive their original bid bonds within the 24-hour after bid opening as required by the project Specifications, Notice Inviting Bids Section Number "7" and Instruction to Bidders, Section 2, "Proposal", Item Number "i." The Engineer's Estimate for the work is $659,400. The specifications allow for a work schedule of 40 working days. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008 the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90 -days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. The Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 consists of removing existing striping, crack sealing and slurring existing streets, therefore there are no new disturbed areas subject to MSHCP fees, and thus this project is exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 is funded with Department of Public Works Maintenance Division Budget for Routine Street Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and Proposition 1B funds. With the transfer of the $259,516 from prior projects funded by Proposition 1B funds, adequate funds will be available to cover the requested budget of $770,870.65, which includes the $700,791.50 contract plus the 10% contingency of $70,079.15. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Slurry Street Lists CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL FY 2091-12 PROJECT NO. PW11-09 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 24th day of April, 2012 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and American Asphalt South, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL FY 2011-12, PROJECT NO. PW11-09, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL FY 2011-12, PROJECT NO. PW11-09. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL FY 2011-12, PROJECT NO. PW11-09. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: CITYWIDESLURRY SEAL FY 2011-12, PROJECT NO. PW11-09 All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY-ONE DOLLARS and FIFTY CENTS ($700,791.50), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed "Forty" (40) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations' Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $50.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY OF TEMECULA, TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, and/or SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR shall defend and indemnify (including the appointment of competent defense counsel) the CITY from any claims, demands, legal proceedings, writs of mandate, and the like, initiated by any third parties challenging the award of this Contract to the CONTRACTOR. 12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the CITY who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any CITY officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the CONTRACTOR has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or will administer this project shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR American Asphalt South, Inc. 14436 Santa Ana Avenue Fontana, CA 92337 (909) 427-8276 By: Jeff Petty, Vice President By: Lyle Stone, Secretary (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney DB Pechanga Parkway Area FY 2011-12 Ma& 44,10 Pechanga Pechanga Centerline Parcels 0 175 350 11 10 Slurry 2011-12 100 Parkway Area A Parkway Area B S,� September 8, 2011 700 1,050 1,400 Feet r:gis\ammap projects\public works\slurry seal areas 2011-2012 white kb.mxd THE CITY OF TEMECULA "Old Traditions, New Opportunities" 0 Rancho Vista Road FY 2011-12 QLINAjVERDE� 700 1400 2100 ft. Map center: 6294933, 2126799 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Legend - City Streets Parcels Scale: 1:7,212 Slurry 2011-12 Paseo del Sol Area A - Paseo del Sol Area B - Paseo del Sol Area C Centerline Parcels r\giskarcmap projects\public works \slurry, seal areas 2011_2012 white kb.mxcl SLURRY SEAL 2011-2012 (August 25, 2011) AREA NAME STREET LENGTH GENPLAN WIDTH PAVING AREA Pechanga Parkway Area A CUPENO LN 515.14 40 20,605.59 Pechanga Parkway Area A CUPENO LN 300.00 40 12,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area A CUPENO LN 305.00 40 12,199.95 Pechanga Parkway Area A CUPENO LN 1,157.87 40 46,314.83 Pechanga Parkway Area A PECHANGA DR 622.40 40 24,895.89 Pechanga Parkway Area A PECHANGA DR 900.00 40 36,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area A PECHANGA DR 1,147.69 40 45,907.43 Pechanga Parkway Area A WABASH LN 200.00 44 8,800.00 Pechanga Parkway Area A WABASH LN 300.00 44 13,200.00 TOTAL 5,448.10 219,923.69 Pechanga Parkway Area B BARDMOOR DR 421.23 40 16,849.38 Pechanga Parkway Area B BARDMOOR DR 312.43 40 12,497.36 Pechanga Parkway Area B BAYHILL DR 409.31 40 16,372.46 Pechanga Parkway Area B BAYHILL DR 300.99 40 12,039.49 Pechanga Parkway Area B BAYHILL DR 301.36 40 12,054.48 Pechanga Parkway Area B BRIDGEVIEW CIR 212.41 40 8,496.60 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLASSIC WY 649.37 40 25,974.69 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLASSIC WY 2,051.43 40 82,057.06 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLASSIC WY 280.32 40 11,212.88 Pechanga Parkway Area 8 CLUBHOUSE DR 221.64 40 8,865.70 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 411.86 40 16,474.32 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 306.11 40 12,244.27 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 1,017.08 40 40,683.17 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 386.96 40 15,478.50 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 466.89 40 18,675.79 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 364.24 40 14,569.48 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 536.67 40 21,466.97 Pechanga Parkway Area B CLUBHOUSE DR 215.37 40 8,614.71 Pechanga Parkway Area B CREEKSIDE WY 267.80 40 10,712.15 Pechanga Parkway Area B CREEKSIDE WY 296.61 40 11,864.53 Pechanga Parkway Area B CREEKSIDE WY 250.00 40 10,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area B DORAL CT 250.00 40 10,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area B GLENEAGLES CT 419.02 40 16,760.65 Pechanga Parkway Area B GLENEAGLES CT 200.00 40 8,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area B GREENSBORO DR 455.42 40 18,216.71 Pechanga Parkway Area B GREENSBORO DR 393.30 40 15,732.01 Pechanga Parkway Area B GREENWAY CIR 200.00 40 8,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area B MASTERS DR 1,261.15 40 50,445.96 Pechanga Parkway Area 8 MASTERS DR 430.67 40 17,226.94 Pechanga Parkway Area B MURFIELD DR 219.58 40 8,783.19 Pechanga Parkway Area B MURFIELD DR 302.40 40 12,095.80 Pechanga Parkway Area B MURFIELD DR 484.27 40 19,370.92 Pechanga Parkway Area B OLYMPIC WY 298.27 40 11,930.76 Pechanga Parkway Area B OLYMPIC WY 300.45 40 12,017.85 Pechanga Parkway Area B OLYMPIC WY 294.78 40 11,791.15 Pechanga Parkway Area B OLYMPIC WY 286.39 40 11,455.41 Pechanga Parkway Area B OLYMPIC WY 276.66 40 11,066.28 Pechanga Parkway Area B OPEN CT 233.96 40 9,358.44 Pechanga Parkway Area B PALMETTO WY 287.25 40 11,490.15 Pechanga Parkway Area B PALMETTO WY 337.36 40 13,494.54 Pechanga Parkway Area B PALMETTO WY 576.06 40 23,042.38 Pechanga Parkway Area B SAWGRASS CT 200.00 40 8,000.00 Pechanga Parkway Area B SILVERADO LN 886.38 40 35,455.20 Pechanga Parkway Area B TOURNAMENT LN 350.96 40 14,038.34 Pechanga Parkway Area B TOURNAMENT LN 845.66 40 33,826.31 Pechanga Parkway Area B TOURNAMENT LN 447.48 40 17,899.13 Pechanga Parkway Area B WAILEA CT 301.15 40 12,045.94 TOTAL 21,462.81 808,748.05 SLURRY SEAL 2011-2012 (August 25, 2011) AREA NAME STREET From East Mira Loma Drive to Margarita Road Rancho Vista Road LENGTH GENPLAN WIDTH PAVING AREA (SF) 3,800.00 64 243,200.00 TOTAL 3,800.00 243,200.00 SLURRY SEAL 2011-2012 (August 25, 2011) AREA NAME STREET LENGTH GENPLAN WIDTH PAVING AREA Paseo del Sol Area A EMPEZAR ST 222.63 40 8,905.28 Paseo del Sol Area A FESTIVO ST 545.54 40 21,821.44 Paseo del Sol Area A FESTIVO ST 162.15 40 6,486.20 Paseo del Sol Area A PARCELA CT 226.91 40 9,076.58 Paseo del Sol Area A PAVIA WY 197.77 40 7910.80 Paseo del Sol Area A PENSADOR ST 858.60 40 34,343.91 Paseo del Sol Area A SEMENA ST 203.34 40 8,133.79 Paseo del Sol Area A TERRAZA CT 590.33 40 23,613.31 Paseo del Sol Area A TERRAZA CT 204.12 40 8,164.72 Paseo del Sol Area A TERRAZA CT 202.48 40 8,099.01 Paseo del Sol Area A VIA DESTELLO 547.22 40 21,888.96 Paseo del Sol Area A VIA DESTELLO 883.57 40 35,342.61 Paseo del Sol Area A VIA DESTELLO 280.83 40 11,233.03 Paseo del Sol Area A VIA DESTELLO 297.58 40 11,903.21 Paseo del Sol Area A VIA DESTELLO 286.38 40 11,455.29 TOTAL 5,709.45 228,378.14 Paseo del Sol Area B AUGUSTA WY 177.94 40 7,117.58 Paseo del Sol Area B AVOLA CT 393.75 40 15,750.11 Paseo del Sol Area B BARSANTI DR 388.39 40 15,535.79 Paseo del Sol Area B BASSANO DR 355.80 40 14,232.09 Paseo del Sol Area B BELLOTA CT 303.20 40 12,127.82 Paseo del Sol Area B CAMINATA DR 212.42 40 8,496.96 Paseo del Sol Area B CAMINATA DR 129.99 40 5,199.57 Paseo del Sol Area B CASERTA DR 409.88 40 16,395.18 Paseo del Sol Area B CASERTA DR 226.12 40 9,044.77 Paseo del Sol Area B CASERTA DR 211.27 40 8,450.80 Paseo del Sol Area B CASERTA DR 150.91 40 6,036.60 Paseo del Sol Area B CASTANA DR 329.19 40 13,167.51 Paseo del Sol Area B CENON WY 117.27 40 4,690.92 Paseo del Sol Area B CHARMES CT 295.39 40 11,815.59 Paseo del Sol Area B CHARMES CT 236.44 40 9,457.72 Paseo del Sol Area B DELUCA WY 248.85 40 9,953.98 Paseo del Sol Area B GABBIANO DR 252.64 40 10,105.79 Paseo del Sol Area B GABBIANO DR 220.14 40 8,805.77 Paseo del Sol Area B GABBIANO DR 226.73 40 9,069.37 Paseo del Sol Area B GUEVARA DR 199.72 40 7,988.89 Paseo del Sol Area B GUEVARA DR 738.17 40 29,526.61 Paseo del Sol Area B GUEVARA DR 329.31 40 13,172.24 Paseo del Sol Area B JAMARA CT 268.00 40 10,719.85 Paseo del Sol Area B MARTINA CT 364.47 40 14,578.82 Paseo del Sol Area B MATERA CT 502.14 40 20,085.66 Paseo del Sol Area B PAVIA WY 174.53 40 6,981.39 Paseo del Sol Area B PRIMAVERA DR 577.48 40 23,099.00 Paseo del Sol Area B PUERTO ORO ST 225.02 40 9,000.87 Paseo del Sol Area B PUERTO ORO ST 223.36 40 8,934.47 Paseo del Sol Area B PUERTO ORO ST 222.79 40 8,911.67 Paseo del Sol Area B ROVATO ST 218.09 40 8,723.64 Paseo del Sol Area B ROVATO ST 220.00 40 8,800.05 Paseo del Sol Area B ROVATO ST 235.50 40 9,420.09 Paseo del Sol Area B ROVATO ST 187.02 40 7,480.61 Paseo del Sol Area B SERENO DR 299.89 40 11,995.51 Paseo del Sol Area B SIENA DR 216.65 40 8,666.18 Paseo del Sol Area B SIENA DR 135.00 40 5,400.05 Paseo del Sol Area B TERAMO ST 516.38 40 20,655.19 Paseo del Sol Area B TERAMO ST 703.31 40 28,132.56 SLURRY SEAL 2011-2012 (August 25, 2011) AREA NAME STREET LENGTH GENPLAN WIDTH PAVING AREA Paseo del Sol Area B VOLTA WY 185.02 40 7,400.64 Paseo del Sol Area B VOLTERRA ST 436.39 40 17,455.53 Paseo del Sol Area B VOLTERRA ST 362.05 40 14,482.03 TOTAL 12,426.61 497,065.47 Paseo del Sol Area C ABANA CT 252.46 40 10,098.27 Paseo del Sol Area C ADELANTE ST 154.39 40 6,175.55 Paseo del Sol Area C ADELANTE ST 967.07 40 38,682.86 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 680.02 40 27,200.92 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 387.23 40 15,489.24 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 463.25 40 18,530.07 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 178.77 40 7,150.94 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 34.24 40 1,369.47 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 284.97 40 11,398.98 Paseo del Sol Area C ALCOBA DR 215.06 40 8,602.51 Paseo del Sol Area C BONITA MESA ST 1,252.15 40 50,085.94 Paseo del Sol Area C CAPRI WY 238.30 40 9,532.10 Paseo del Sol Area C CARINI CT 188.38 40 7,535.12 Paseo del Sol Area C CASALA CT 451.22 40 18,048.96 Paseo del Sol Area C CESENA ST 374.49 40 14,979.62 Paseo del Sol Area C CORBIE ST 189.81 40 7,592.54 Paseo del Sol Area C MANTOVA DR 204.82 40 8,192.71 Paseo del Sol Area C NOVARA CT 339.50 40 13,580.07 Paseo del Sol Area C PATERNO ST 1,069.38 40 42,775.37 Paseo del Sol Area C PATERNO ST 405.55 40 16,222.06 Paseo del Sol Area C SASSARI ST 229.90 40 9196.00 Paseo del Sol Area C SASSARI ST 211.74 40 8,469.67 Paseo del Sol Area C SASSARI ST 311.97 40 12,478.90 Paseo del Sol Area C SASSARI ST 203.93 40 8,157.02 Paseo del Sol Area C SAVONA ST 185.28 40 7,411.02 Paseo del Sol Area C SAVONA ST 837.31 40 33,492.27 Paseo del Sol Area C SAVONA ST 366.82 40 14,672.67 Paseo del Sol Area C TIRANO DR 319.73 40 12,789.04 Paseo del Sol Area C TIRANO DR 262.17 40 10,486.68 Paseo del Sol Area C TIRANO DR 262.23 40 10,489.35 Paseo del Sol Area C TIRANO DR 309.33 40 12,373.03 Paseo del Sol Area C TIVOLI ST 444.00 40 17,759.86 Paseo del Sol Area C VALENCE CT 743.98 40 29,759.22 TOTAL 13,019.45 520,778.03 Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: April 24, 2012 )9P -r SUBJECT: Agreement for Professional Geotechnical, Material Testing, and Special Inspection Services for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW 11-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Assistant Engineer — CIP RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve an Agreement with LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. to provide professional geotechnical, material testing, and special inspection services associated with the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, portions of Paseo Del Sol, California Sunset, Rainbow Canyon, and Starlight Ridge areas, PW11-09, in the amount of $54,985; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $5,498.507, which is equal to 10% of the Agreement. BACKGROUND: On April 24, 2012, the City Council will consider awarding a construction contract for the Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW11-09. The purpose of the subject Professional Services Agreement is to provide the necessary geotechnical, material testing, and special inspection for the work included in the project. This project will utilize Rubber Polymer Modified Slurry (RPMS), to seal the roadways in the project area against water intrusion and help protect the asphalt concrete pavement wearing surface. RPMS sealing involves cleaning and sealing the existing cracks on the roadway surface, applying the RPMS and restoring pavement delineation. For quality control and quality assurance, the City requires material testing throughout the duration of the slurry placement. These tests are in conformance with the Greenbook and the project specifications. Staff requested a proposal from LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. because they are the only known laboratory in the area that performs the required slurry tests. The firm has the ability to perform all of the required material testing for this project per the Greenbook, including the calibration tests on the slurry seal trucks. LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. has extensive experience in material testing services and has undertaken similar projects. They have successfully performed the material testing services for the City's slurry seal project for Fiscal Year 2010-11. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Slurry Seal Project Fiscal Year 2011-12 is funded with Department of Public Works Maintenance Division Budget for Routine Street Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and Proposition 1B funds. Adequate funds are available in the project accountforthis agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Service Agreement with LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND LABELLE-MARVIN, INC FOR MATERIAL TESTING AND SPECIAL INSPECTION THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of April 24, 2012, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and LaBelle -Marvin, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on April 24, 2012, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than December 31, 2012, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and 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, performs all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute by this Consultant from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub -contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $50.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement. 5. PAYMENT 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, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall riot exceed Fifty - Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty -Five Dollars and No Cents ($54,985.00). for the total term of this 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 up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall the total sum of the Agreement exceed thirty thousand dollars and no cents ($30,000.00), or the amount approved by City Council. 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 between the first and fifteenth 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 non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 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 entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 7. 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 the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (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 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. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 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. All 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 there from 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 final 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 containing data generated for the work, 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 containing data generated for the work, 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. 9. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers 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 arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 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. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form 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: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their 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 agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage 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. All 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 affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT 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, agents, or volunteers 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. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, 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 ordinances, 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. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All 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 performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. 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. 14. 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. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Use this Address for a Delivery Service: City of Temecula or Hand -Deliveries ONLY Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 (714) 546-3468 (714) 546-5941 fax Attention: Steven R. Marvin 15. ASSIGNMENT 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. 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. 16. 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 Ag ree me nt. 17. GOVERNING 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 geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during hislher tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All 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. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT 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. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of thecorporation.) By: By: Robert C. Johnson, City Manager Steven R. Marvin, President ATTEST: By: By: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. Mary Might, Secretary, Treasurer 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 (714) 546-3468 (714) 546-5841 fax smarvin@labellemarvin.com PM Initials: n Date: (� IJ EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS (SCOPE OF WORK) OF THIS SERVICE INCLUDE: EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule • ANALYSIS • DESIGN March 20, 2012 LaIIeIIe • Alarvi.i PROFESSIONAL PAVEMENT ENGINEERING A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION City of Temecula CIO Chris White Public Works Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Mr. White • SOILS, ASPHALT TECHNOLOGY LaBelle -Marvin, Inc., is pleased to present the following daily cost proposal for materials testing services relative to the FY 2011/2012 Slurry Seal Program. Assume Fourteen (24) days of production. Assume three trucks used for production. (Two samples per truck per day. Test one per truck, hold second.) Prevailing wage rates applicable. Aggregate Slurry Seal operations: LaBelle Marvin will confirm that the aggregate slurry seal complies with project specifications in accordance with the specification as outlined within SSPWC sections 203-5 and 302-4. Bulk samples of the finished product will be sampled at a rate of two samples per truck for each day. Aggregate samples will be sampled once daily and tested for aggregate gradation and sand equivalent. Bulk samples of the completed mixture will be tested for total moisture content, residual binder content, % emulsion, wet track abrasion loss, and consistency at a rate of one sample per truck per day Hold second for further testing if necessary. Production Testing Technician/Sampling 48 Hours @ $80 3,840.00 144 Hours @ $110 15,840.00 % Moisture 72 @ $40 2,880.00 Extraction, % Residual Asphalt 72 @ $230 16,560.00 Aggregate Gradation 24 @ $100 2,400.00 Sand Equivalent 24 @ $110 2,640.00 Cook Off, (Emulsion) 3 @ $155 465.00 W.T.A.T. 72 @ $110 7,920.00 Subtotal $52,545.00 2700 S. GRAND AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CA 92705-5404 • (714) 546-3468 • FAX (714) 546-5841 INFO@'LABELLEMARVIN.COM Page 2 Slurry Proposal City of Temecula Office Support Report Preparation/Typing 24 Hours @ $65 Principal Engineer 4 Hours @ $220 1,560.00 880.00 Subtotal $2,440.00 Grand Total $54,985.00 Requested additional laboratory tests for hold samples not included in this cost estimate. Charges would be for actual services performed at the above stated rates in accordance with our current Schedule of Fees. The opportunity to present this proposal for services is sincerely appreciated and should you have any questions, kindly call. Very truly yours, c7k01--,#(-.1. Q00.1GP-- ' Thomas S. Williams Lab & Field Supervisor TS W: mm Enclosure LaBelle • Marvin : Schedule of Fees Effective: Mardi 15, 2008 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Principal Engineer $220.00 AT Project Engineer $150.00 Ar Engineer Aide $135.00 Ar Laboratory & Field Technician $80.00 ihr prevailing wage $110.00 fir with Nudear Gauge $100.00 Ar prating wage $130.00/tr _ (A mileage charge of $0.60 shall apply for all travel to and from jobs and/or mailings) EXPERT WITNESS Preparation for Court Appearances and/or Deposition $325.00 iv Deposition and/or Court Appearance .. $450.00 Ar OFFICE SERVICES Computer Compilation of FWD Data 195.00 AT Report Preparation / Typing $65.00 Ar Drafting 1135.00 it LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-546-3468 (P) 714-546-58.410+) BASIS OF CHARGES REGULAR TIME First eight hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. OVER77ME Over eight hours worked in one day (Monday through Friday), we& before 7:00 am. and after 5.:00 p.m., Saturdays and Sundays, time and a half will be charged. Double time and a half will be charged for .work performed on holidays. Special schedule nighttime field work between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. w0 be subject to a • 25% premium of the Regular line hourly rate. OUTSIDE SERVICES AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Outside services and reimbursable expenses such as rental of special equipment, fabrication of special test apparatus, long distance phone calls, plane fares and car rental will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent REPORT A maximum of three copies of the report will be issued to the Brent for doer. Copies of report in excess of three wiQ be provided and charged at our nomral fret* Report Preparation rate. LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-546-3468 (12) 714-546-58.41 (F) -3 - SPECIAL SERVICES DEFLECTION TESTING Road Rater with Operator (full-day) $3,000.00 Road Rater with Operator (half-day) $2,000.00 Mobilization and Travel Road Rater with Operator $180.0Qac Engineered Pavement Evaluation ByQuotie SKID TESTING (ASTM E 670-941 By Quote CORING (half-day minimum) $140.00 Ar Traffic Control (technician and additional trick) $1lSA0ae Special Traffic Control / Lane Closure By ___ PLUS: Asphalt Concrete - Per Cored Inch $8.00 Portland Cement Concrete - Per Cored Inch $10.00 Core Trimming - Per Cut $25-00 SURVEYING - Two Man Crew IMAM hr PROFILOGRAPH TESTING Profilograph with Operator - Portal to Portal LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Crazed Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714546-3468 (P) 714-546-58.41 (F) $175.00 or -4 - Data Analysis $80.00 fir LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-546-3468 (P) 714-546-58.41 (F) -5 - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL This price has been condensed for your convenience. The cost of additional tests wit be furnished upon request. A preparation charge will be added to all samples submitted to our laboratory that am not ready for testing. This preparation charge will be based on the actual time required at the Laboratory Technician's rate per hour. AGGREGATES. SOILS AND AGGREGATE BASE Sieve Analysis, Coarse ASTM C136 or CA 202-C $85.00 Sieve Analysis, Fine (including wash) ASTM C136 or CA 202-0 $100.00 Specific Gravity, Bulk SSD, Coarse ASTM C127 or CA 206 $80.00 Specific Gravity, Fine ASTM C128 or CA 207 $130.00 Specific Gravity, Apparent Ane CA 208 $130.00 Absorption: Coarse, ASTM C127 or CA 206 $90.00 Fine, ASTM C128 or CA 207 $130.00 Sand Equivalent (average of three) ASTM D2419 or CA 217 $110.00 Durability Factor, Coarse or Ane ASTM D3744 or CA229 $135.00 Cleanness Value CA227 $135.00 Los Angeles Rattler, ASTM C131 or CA 211 $300.00 Unit Weight. ASTM C29 or CA 212 $100.00 Hydrometer Analysis, ASTM D422 or CA 203 $220.00 LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714346-3468 (P) 714-546-58A1(F) -6 - Plasticity Index, ASTM D 424 or CA 204 $155.00 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture ASTM D1557 or CA 216 $190.00 R -Value, ASTM D2844 or CA 301 $240.00 Lime Treated $300.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) ASTM D 1883' $400.00 (One Point $225.00) Lime Treated` $480.00 *Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture not included pH - Per Determination ASTM C 977 $110.00 pH — Eades t£ Grimm $210.00 Unconfined Compression (sample preparation not inducted) $85.00 Crushed Particle, CA 205 $135.00 Flat & Elongated Particle, ASTM D4791 $215.00 Moisture Content CA 226 or ASTMD 2216 $40.06 Subgrade Density (drive tube) ASTMD 2937 $100.00 STABILIZED SOILS AND AGGREGATE Emulsion, Cement or Lime Stabilization Investigation Investigation, Design, Specifications and Quality Control By Quote 13y Quote PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE Flexural Strength ASTM C293 or CA 523 $105.00 ASPHALT CONCRETE LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Alia, CA 92765 714-546-3468 (P) 714-546-58.41(19 -7 - Asphalt Concrete Mix Design, Marshall Stability (one aggregate plus one asphalt) By Quote Hveem Stabilometer Method (one aggregate, plus one asphalt) By Quote Stability Tests - Pre -mixed or Cored: Hveem (S -Value) ASTM D1560 and D1561, or CA 304 and 366 $260.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility, CA 307 $275.00 Combined Hveem and Moisture Vapor Susceptibility $440.00 Swell, CA 305 $175.00 Combined Hveem and Swell $310.00 Combined Hveem, Moisture Vapor Susceptibility and Swell $525.00 Marshall Stability and Flow, ASTM D1559 $260.131 Combined Marshal( and Retained Stability $390.00 Maximum Laboratory Density - Pre -mixed or Cored: Marshall or Hveem $200-00 Ma dmum Theoretical Unit Weight (Rice Gravity) ASTM 02041 $130.00 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) $750.0. with Freezefibaw $800410 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR — CT 371) $1775.00 Extraction, % Asphalt CA 310 $280.00 Binder Content - Ignition Oven, CA 382 $230.00 Extraction, % Asphalt (Reflux) ASTM D2172 $230.00 Centrifuge Correction . $90.00 LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-546-3468 (P) 714-546-58.41 (F) -8- % Rubber $90.00 Extraction, % Asphalt Recovery (Abson Method) ASTM D 2172 and ASTM D 1856 $325.00 CKE (Gradation and Specific Gravity not included) CA 303 or ASTM D 5148 $190.00 Gradation of Extracted Aggregate (including wash) CA 202 ar ASTM 0136$100.00 Density and Thickness on Core Samples ASTM D1188, ASTM D2726 and ASTM D3549 or CA 308 $60.00 Stripping (pre -mixed sample) ASTM D1664 or CA 302 $125.00 Permeability, VDOT $215.00 ASPHALT CEMENT RT.F.C., ASTM D2872 or CA 346 R.T.F.C., ASTM D2872 ar CA 346 with Loss on Healing Absolute Viscosity cif. 140F° (60C), Poise, ASTM D2171 Haake Viscosity (Caltrans LP 11) Kinematic Viscosity 275F° (135C°) or 140F° (60C°), cSt, ASTM D2170 Penetration © 77F° (25C1, 100g15 sec., ASTM D5 Penetration After Treatment with Rejuvenating Agent Ductility © 77F° (25C°), cm., ASTM D113 Flash Point, COC or Pensky-Martens ASTM D92 or ASTM D93 Softening Point, ASTM D36 Solubility in Trichloroethylene, %, ASTM D2042 Spot Test, AASHTO T 102 Specific Gravity, ASTM D70 LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-546-3468 (11 714-546-58A1 (Er) $290.00 $350.00 $175.00 $175.00 $175.00 $80.00 $110.00 $27000 $170.00 $170.00 $185.00 $150.00 $130.00 -9 - LIQUID ASPHALT Viscosity SSF C T7F° (25C1, sec., ASTM 13244 $160-00 Viscosity SSF @ 122P (50C°) 5190.00 Settlement Five or Seven Day, %, ASTM 13244 $440.00 Demulsiblity, ASTM 13244 $130.00 Particle Charge, ASTM D244 or CA 343 $160.00 pH Determination $120.00 Sieve Test, %, ASTM D244 $115..01 Stripping (pre -mixed sample) ASTM D1664 $115.00 Cement Mixing Test, ASTM D244 5170.00 Distillation and Percent 011 Determination ASTM 13402 or ASTM D244 5330 .01 Residue by Evaporation Cook -Off or CA Method 330, CA 331 $155.00 Wet Track Abrasion Test (WTAT) ASTM D 3910 (sample preparation not included) _ $110.00 Storage Stability, One Day, ASTM D244 $41411.111 Float Test, ASTM D139 and ASTM D244 $120-1116 Cone Penetration, ASTM D243 and D5 $120.00 Solids Content by Muffle Oven Bum -Off AASHTO T 267 $150.00 Non Volatile Components $90.00 LaBelle -Marvin, Inc. 2700 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 9a5 714-546-3468 (P) 714-545-5841 Q?) Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager grAi CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Concrete Repairs — Fiscal Year 2011- 12, PW 12-07 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Assistant Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs — Fiscal Year 2011-12, PW12-07. BACKGROUND: This is an annual project which repairs various concrete facilities maintained by the City. The Department of Public Works Maintenance Division has surveyed the City and compiled a list of existing improvements in need of repair. Under this project, damaged curb & gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, under sidewalk drains, cross gutters, ADA ramps and spandrels at various locations will be removed and replaced. Project specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for the project is $144,645. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works Maintenance Division Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget for Routine Street Maintenance. ATTACHMENTS: Citywide Concrete Repair List City of Temecula Department of Public Work FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List Project No. PW12-07 SCOPE OF WOR K Sidewal k or Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive Approach (SF) Cross Gutter (SF) Spandrel Under (SF) :Sidewalk Drain (EA) 31581 Seastar Place Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 W/B Loma Linda 200' Before Pechanga (by Iightpole) Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 SIE c/o Pechanga @ Deer Hdlow Ramp Panel R & R Ramp Panel 8 6 48.00 31163 Lahontan Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 Greenboro Drive @ Murfield Drive Cross Gutter R & R Cross Gutter 20 6 120.00 SUBTOTALS - AREA 1 0.00 378.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 W/B Sunny Meadows 150' wto Capri Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 Temecula Parkway @ Meadows Parkway (SIW Corner) Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 5 6 30.00 33365 Via Chapparo Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 33365 Via Chapparo Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 25 25.00 Across from 32156 Calle Resaca Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 35 6 210.00 Across from 41637 Corte Higuera Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 Across from 32504 San Marco Drive Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 32462 San Marco Drive Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 Across from 43786 Calabro Street Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 16 6 96.00 43683 Alcoba Drive Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 1 of 7 City of Temecula Department of Public Work 32935 Valence Court SCOPE OF WORK Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List 10 6 Sidewal k or Ramp Panel (SF) 60.00 ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive ApproacKH. (SF) Cross Gutter (SF) Project No. PW12-07 Spandrel (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) 32913 Adelante Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 7 8 56.00 E/B Sassari Court 50' before Adelante Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 Across from 43869 Sassari Court Sidewalk R & R Sidewal k 20 6 120.00 Across from 43877 Sassari Court Sidewalk R & R Sidewal k 10 6 60.00 43502 Modena Drive Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 E/B Campanula Way 50' past Vdta Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewal k 10 6 60.00 E/B Campanula Way 150' before Camino Del Sd Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 Capri Way (West Side) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 40 6 240.00 32482 Rosa Court Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 32012 Calle Espinoza Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 31976 Calle Espinoza Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 43001 Corte Cabrera Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 32009 Calla Gerona Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 16 6 96.00 Across from 31390 Calla Carrasco Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 30 6 180.00 31530 Calla Carrasco Driveway Approach R & R Driveway Approach 3 6 18.00 2 of 7 City of Temecula Department of Public Work FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List Project No. PW12-07 LOCATION S/E clo Calle Ballentine SCOPE OF WOR K: ADA Access R & R ADA Access Ramp Ramp 20 8 Sidewalk or Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) 160.00 Res. Drive Approach (SF) Cross Gutter (SF) Spandrel (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) S/E clo Corte A meria Ramp Panel R & R Ramp Panel 8 8 64.00 31490 Corte Rimda Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 31495 Corte Rimda Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 36 6 216.00 31435 Corte Rimda Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 31747 Via Campanario Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 SIB Margarita Road 30' past Pio Pico Sidewalk R & R Sidewal k 12 6 72.00 Campo Drive @ Corte Portofino (south side) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 NIB Margarita Road 100' Nio Lucky Center Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 30 6 180.00 E/B Campanula Way 100' past Volta Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 E/B Deportola Way 100' past Dives Way Sidewalk R & R Sidewal k 24 12 288.00 NIB Margarita Road between Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road (by school drive entrance) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 NIB Margarita Road between Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road (by school drive entrance) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 SUBTOTALS - AREA 2 45.00 3738.00 160.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30566 Spica Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and 10 Gutter 1 10.00 3 of 7 City of Temecula Department of Public Work FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List Project No. PW12-07 30566 Spica Driveway R & R Driveway Approach Approach 20 6 Sidewal k or Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive Approach (SF) 120.00 Crass Gutter Spandrel (SF) (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) Across from 41875 C Street (by cemetary Under Sidewalk R & R Under drive approach) Drain Sidewalk Drain 1 1.00 42879 Santa Suzanne Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 41864 Borealis Drive Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 42466 Cosmic Drive Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 42189 Agena Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 12 6 72.00 42220 Agena Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 Across from 42234 Agena Street Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 16 6 96.00 42106 Cosmic Drive Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 Via La Vida @ Margarita Road Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 5 6 30.00 30020 Santa Cecelia Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 Preece Lane @ Via Mondo (S/W corner) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 Preece Lane @ Via Mondo (S/E corner) Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 Preece Lane @ Via Mondo n/s Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 Preece Lane @ Gatewood Way sie corner ADA Access R & R ADA Access Ramp Ramp 20 12 240.00 43870 Gatewood Way Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 20 6 120.00 4 of 7 City of Temecula Department of Public Work FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List Project No. PW12-07 LOCATION SCOPE OF WOR K: Sidewal k or Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive Approach (SF) Cross Gufter (SF) Spandrel (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) Gatewood Way @ Longvale Court Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 8 6 48.00 Gatewood Way @ Longvale Court Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 5 1 5.00 29891 Longvale Court Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 25 6 150.00 Preece Lane 50' w/o Tierra Vista Curb and Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 10 1 10.00 Preece Lane 50' w/o Buckeye Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 120 6 720.00 Preece Lane 180' w/o Buckeye Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 50 6 300.00 Preece Lane 200' w/o Buckeye Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 43531 Calle Carabana Ramp Panel R & R Ramp Panel 8 8 64.00 43531 Calle Carabana Ramp Panel R & R Ramp Panel 8 8 64.00 43531 Calle Carabana Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 SUBTOTALS - AREA 3 65.00 2444.00 240.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 33211 Pujol Street Driveway Approach R & R Drive Approach 10 6 60.00 28434 Pujol Street Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 15 6 90.00 S/E clo Mercedes @ Moreno Road Spandrel R & R Spandrel 8 6 48.00 S/E cio Mercedes @ Moreno Road ADA Access Ramp R & R ADA Access Ramp 12 8 96.00 S/E clo Mercedes @ Moreno Road Ramp Panel R & R Ramp Panel 24 10 240.00 5 of 7 City of Temecula Department of Public Work FY 2011-2012 Concrete Repair List Project No. PW12-07 LOCATION SCOPE OF WOR K: Sidewal k or Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive Approach (SF) Cross Gutter (SF) Spandrel (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) SIE c/o Mercedes @ Moreno Road Cross Gutter R & R Curb and Gutter 12 8 96.00 SUBTOTALS - AREA 4 0 00 330.00 96.00 60.00 96.00 48.00 0.00 Across from 29731 Calle Palmas Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 38 6 228.00 Across from 29960 Corte Cantera Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 Across from 30006 Corte Cantera Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 27587 Swallow Ct Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 39560 Linnit Court Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 39560 Warbler Circle Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 30165 Deer Meadow Road Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 41998 Via Renate Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 5 6 30.00 SUBTOTALS - AREA 5 0.00 258.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 NIE corner of Margarita Road @ Overland Drive Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 Margarita Rd westside 40' past Courtney PI Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 Margarita Rd westside 100' past Courtney PI Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 35 6 210.00 41770 Margarita Road Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 6 60.00 6 of 7 City of Temecula FY 2011-2012 Project No. PW12-07 Department of Public Work Concrete Repair List LOCATION Item SCORE OF WORK EIAVE C&G (LF) Sidewal k ar Ramp Panel (SF) ADA Access Ramp (SF) Res. Drive Approach (SF) Cross Gutter (SF) Spandrel (SF) Under Sidewalk Drain (EA) Humber Drive @ Rio Grande N/E corner Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 48.00 Yukon Road @ Rancho California Road Curb and Gutter N/W corner R & R Curb and Gutter 8.00 41770 Margarita Road Cross Gutter R & R Cross Gutter 40 240.00 41770 Margarita Road Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1.00 Across from 29657 N. General Kearny Road Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 30 1.5 45.00 Across from 29657 N. General Kearny Road Sidewalk R & R Sidewalk 10 60.00 W/B Rancho California Road 150' w/o Ynez Road Sidewal k R & R Sidewalk 10 SUBTOTALS - AREA 6 E/B Zevo 500' before Diaz Road Under Sidewalk Drain R & R Under Sidewalk Drain 1 SUBTOTALS - AREA 7 GRAND TOTALS 8.00 0.00 118.00 60.00 543.00 0.00 7691.00 0.00 0.00 496.00 0.00 0.00 198.00 240.00 0.00 456.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 7 of 7 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 13 ACTION MINUTES of April 10, 2012 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:50 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, with Director Roberts absent) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Director Roberts absent. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the action minutes of March 27, 2012. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:51 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to a meeting on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager grAl TEMECULACOMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Joint -Use Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for use of the Tennis Courts at Great Oak High School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, Temecula Middle School, and James L. Day Middle School PREPARED BY: Tamra Irwin, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Joint -Use Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District for the joint -use of the tennis courts located at Great Oak High School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, Temecula Middle School, and James L. Day Middle School. BACKGROUND: In an effort to provide additional athletic services and opportunities to the community, the City of Temecula has entered into several Joint Use Agreements with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). In 1998, the City of Temecula negotiated a Joint Use Agreement with TVUSD for the joint use of the tennis courts at Temecula Valley High School during evening and weekend hours. The City used this time to schedule and provide tennis instruction, tennis tournaments, and allow for open court hours for use by the general public. Interest in the sport of tennis continues to grow resulting in overcrowding and impacting the open court time at Temecula Valley High School. The City has renegotiated the Joint -Use Agreement with TVUSD to include additional tennis courts within the school district. By entering into this new agreement, the availability of courts for City programmed tennis instruction and City sponsored tennis events will increase the number of available courts from 12 to 34. With the addition of these courts, the City plans to increase the number of tennis opportunities for contract tennis instruction, added tennis programs for the special needs population, middle school intramurals and increase opportunities for tournament play. The TCSD operations and maintenance responsibilities will include replacing the windscreens every three years, or as necessary; provide tennis court nets for installation by School District personnel; power washing the courts once every other month; opening, closing and cleaning adjacent restrooms; and opening and locking gates at the parking lot and field access points to secure the school site. These responsibilities represent normal maintenance that the City would perform regularly if the courts were located on City property. The TVUSD's responsibilities shall include resurfacing the tennis courts as necessary, maintaining tennis court surfaces by ensuring lines and nets are in good condition at all times; providing the labor to replace tennis court nets as needed, ensuring the walkways and parking lots of the tennis courts are in a neat and clean condition, including, but not limited to daily removal of trash and debris, and providing keys to City personnel for restroom facilities, tennis court facilities and parking lot gates, as necessary to permit access to those facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: Operations and Maintenance funds will be budgeted in the FY 2012- 13 Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Joint -Use Agreement AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE JOINT USE OF SCHOOL TENNIS COURTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of March 020 , 2012 by and between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district ("TCSD"), and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is entered into with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties: a. District is the owner of certain real properties within the City of Temecula known as Great Oak High School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Temecula Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, and James Day Middle School (collectively, the "Schools"). b. Title I, Division 1, Part 7, Chapter 10, commencing with Section 10900 of the Education Code, authorizes public school districts and cities to cooperate with one another for the purpose of authorizing, promoting and conducting programs of community recreation which will contribute to the attainment of general recreational and educational objectives for children and adults of the State. In this regard, school districts and cities may enter into agreements with each other to aid and cooperate in carrying out these objectives. The governing body of any school district is authorized by these provisions to use the buildings, grounds, and equipment of the district, or any of them, to carry out the recreational and educational objectives, or may grant the use of any building, grounds, or equipment of the district to any other public authority for such purposes, whenever the use of the buildings, grounds, or equipment for community recreational purposes will not interfere with use of the buildings, grounds, and equipment for any other purpose of the public school system. Accordingly, the District and TCSD are authorized to enter into this Agreement. c. District and TCSD desire to jointly develop and utilize a portion of the Schools for park, recreational and education purposes benefiting the people of Temecula as specifically provided in this Agreement. d. The portion of the Schools to be developed for these joint purposes consists of the tennis courts located on the Schools' properties, and is depicted in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G, which are all attached hereto and are all incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the "Properties"). -1- 1 1 !IR f._nnn7\ 141 ROARv7 .Inn 2. Use of Properties as Park. a. District hereby grants to TCSD a license to (1) use the Properties as public parks within designated time frames and for the designated uses, (2) use the designated parking lot areas within the Schools as parking for users of the Properties, (3) use designated walkways within the Schools for access to the Properties, and (4) use YQL, square feet of temporary office space at Temecula Valley High School as depicted on Exhibit B, all in accordance with the terms and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. b. TCSD shall schedule the tennis courts on the Properties for public play, youth tennis programs and tournaments. c. Use of the Properties shall be subject to such park rules and regulations for the use of the parks as the TCSD may enact. 3. Term of Agreement. The term of the license granted by this Agreement shall be for a period of twenty (20) years from March az , 2012, unless terminated or extended as provided in this Agreement. TCSD shall have an option to extend the term for one five (5) year period. TCSD shall exercise the rights of the option prior to six (6) months of the end of the first twenty (20) year period. 4. Apportionment of Use .of Properties by TCSD and District. a. TCSD shall use the tennis court portions of Great Oak High School and Temecula Valley High School, as depicted in Exhibits A and B, from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and District Holidays, except that the District shall have priority for scheduled school activities. TCSD shall be entitled to use1412 square feet of land on the parking lot at Temecula Valley High School for the placement of a trailer for operation of a pro shop. b. TCSD shall use the tennis court portions of Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School,' , Temecula Middle School, Vail Ranch Middle School, and James Day Middle School, as depicted in Exhibits C, D, E, F and G, from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and District Holidays,. except that the District shall have priority for scheduled school activities. c. District Holidays shall be defined as those days or portion of days when the Schools are not in session, including the summer when the Schools are not in session. On or before August 1 of each year the District shall notify the TCSD of the dates of District Holidays when the Schools will not be in session and scheduled school activities. 5. District Maintenance Responsibilities. The District shall, at its sole cost and expense, unless otherwise provided herein, perform the following maintenance on the Properties and the improvements which currently exist upon it or which are to be constructed upon the Properties pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in accordance with reasonable maintenance standards and schedules: -2- 1 s nsm_nm-n i e s 9o4si..1,In, a. For the first five years of this Agreement, District shall maintain the walkways leading to the Properties, and parking for the Properties in a neat and clean condition, including, but not limited to, daily removal of trash and debris, and at the beginning of the sixth year of this Agreement, TCSD shall be responsible for the maintenance described in this subparagraph; b. Provide access to Properties and parking areas for the public during public use hours; c. Maintain and pay utilities for the office space at Temecula Valley High School; and d. Provide keys to the key TCSD personnel for restroom facilities, tennis court facilities, and parking lot gates, as necessary, to permit access to those facilities. 6. TCSD Maintenance Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the TCSD shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform the following maintenance on the Properties and the improvements which currently exist upon it or which are to be constructed upon the Properties pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in accordance with reasonable maintenance standards and schedules, including: a. Resurface the tennis courts as necessary to be determined by the TCSD; b. Maintain tennis court surfaces and lines in good condition at all times; c. Maintain the lights on the tennis courts in accordance with manufacturers standards including, but not limited to, replacement of bulbs; d. Pay all electric utility costs necessary for lighting the tennis courts; e. Maintain the tennis court area in a neat and clean condition, including removal of trash and debris; Power wash the courts once every other month; g. Open restrooms adjacent to tennis courts for public access during TCSD court usage times; and h. Clean and lock restrooms adjacent to tennis courts after each day used for TCSD usage time; i. Maintain tennis courts consistent with City park standards during times of TCSD use; J. Maintain the windscreens and replace windscreens at least every three years, as necessary, as determined by TCSD; and -3- 11ARA_nnm\iniuoiQ„1 k. Maintain nets in good condition at all times and replace nets as necessary as determined by TCSI). 7. Indemnification a. TCSD agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the District, 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 District, 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 the TCSD'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 negligence or wrongful conduct of the District. b. District agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the TCSD, 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 TCSD, 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 the District's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, or which may arise from the ownership of the Properties, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence or wrongful conduct of the TCSD. 8. Defaults and Remedies a. Subject to the extensions of time set approved in writing by a party, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default (claimant) shall give written notice of default to the other party specifying complained of. b. The claimant shall not institute proceedings against the other party nor be entitled to damages if the other party within fourteen (14) days from receipt of such notice immediately, with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Such cure, correction and remedy shall include payment of any costs, expenses (including attorney fees) or damages incurred by the non -defaulting party resulting from the default or during the period of default. c. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. d. Any failures delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any -4- 1 1 (19A 4_ 11(1ur, nrnY1A1ROAR .l)rine- actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce an such rights or remedies. e. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other part for any damages caused by such default, and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. f. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the nondefaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of terms of this Agreement. g. In the event litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 9. Termination of Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon written notice of one year to the other party. 10. Force Majeure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, if the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either District or TCSD is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or any other cause (except financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment by a party as required by this Agreement or the performance .of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 11. Notice to Parties. Written notices, demands and communications among the District and TCSD, shall be sufficiently given by 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: District: Temecula Valley Unified School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, California 92592 Attention: Superintendent TCSD: Temecula Community Services District 41000 Main Street Post Office Box 9033 -5- 11naF_nnnr\1n1SO,.9 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: City Manager 12. Agreement Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and lawful assigns of the parties hereto. 13. Assignment. Neither Party shall assignor transfer this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided however that TCSD may assign this Agreement to the City of Temecula without consent of the District. 14. Sole and Only Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between District and TCSD respecting the joint use of the Properties for school and park purposes. Any agreements or representations, either oral or written, respecting any matter discussed in this Agreement not expressly set forth in this Agreement are null and void. 15. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence in this Agreement. 16. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her governmental entity and warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to bind his or her entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. -6- 1 1(1Q4_nrn-7\ I A I ROAR..) ,;,., IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT President of Governing Board Attest: 0A,Pac" Secretary to the Governing Board -7- 1 1 fl JVV 1 1 n 1 QOARsol flew, TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Jeff Comerchero President Attest: Susan W. Jones, MMC City clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney DB -8- 11 flQiCNV1911.41 QORQ.A .Me Item No. 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services April 24, 2012 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2012-13 PREPARED BY: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection and unpaved road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. The four current service levels of the TCSD include: 1. Service Level B — 2. Service Level C 3. Service Level D 4. Service Level R Residential Street Lighting. — Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. — Recycling and Refuse Collection. — Unpaved Road Maintenance. Service Level B — Residential Street Lighting The TCSD Rates and Charges for Service Level B are not proposed to increase from last year's rates. Service Level C — Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance As a result of various property owner elections there are four (4) zones that are subject to an annual increase in their rate and charge based on the CPI change from December to December. The CPI change from December 2010 to December 2011 was 2.2%. As a result, the following zones will see a slight increase in their rates for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Zone No. and Name 6 - Woodcrest County 29 - Gallery Portraits 31 - Roripaugh Ranch 32 - Vinyard View 11-12 Rate $ 98.06 $ 350.00 $ 28.88 $ 660.64 12-13 Rate S 100.22 $ 357.70 $ 29.52 $ 675.18 Zones 31 and 32 were previously established however due to delays in construction these developments will not be assessed in Fiscal Year 2012-13. All other zones are not proposed to increase at this time. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Service An increase is proposed to the annual rate and charge for Service Level D from $223.04 to $237.28 per residential unit beginning Fiscal Year 2012-13. This is a $14.24 increase. The increase is due to a CPI increase of 2.67% and a Diesel Fuel Component Index (DFCI) increase of 35.81%. Per our Franchise Agreement the CPI, DFCI, and land -fill tipping fee increases may cause our Service Level D rate and charge to change. Service Level R — Unpaved Street and Road Maintenance The TCSD Rates and Charges for Service Level R are not proposed to increase from their approved per parcel rate. The TCSD is required to complete an annual levy process which includes adopting a resolution accepting the filing of a report on the proposed rates and charges necessary to provide the aforementioned services; noticing each affected property owner in the City; and conducting a public hearing to consider approving the proposed rates and charges. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the report on the proposed rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and schedule a public hearing concerning these issues for June 12, 2012. Staff will then proceed with noticing each affected property owner in the City regarding the proposed rates and charges within a minimum of forty five (45) days on or prior to the June 12, 2012 public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue generated for the TCSD Fiscal Year 2012-13 Rates and Charges will fund residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection and unpaved road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The proposed TCSD budget for Fiscal Year 2012-13 is $9,562.010. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Intention 2. Public Hearing Notice RESOLUTION NO. CSD 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"), to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for the services furnished by it, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, property taxes collected within the TCSD in the same manner prescribed by Government Code Section 61115. The TCSD proposes to continue such rates and charges for the operation, maintenance, servicing and administration of street lights, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, refuse collection, and unpaved street maintenance for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, shall be applicable to these rates and charges, except for the California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115, the TCSD has caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD. This Report contains a description of each parcel of real property and the proposed amount of the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. The Report is based upon a budget adopted by the Board of Directors for the proposed services for specific areas where such services are provided including necessary staff and administrative expenses. A summary of the Report containing the proposed rates and charges is attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Project Summary", and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Report is on file in the office of the Secretary of the TCSD, and is available for public inspection. Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and appoints the 12th day of June, 2012, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, as the time and place for the public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors will hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the Report. The Board may continue the hearing from time to time. Section 5. The District Secretary is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the Report and of the time and place of the hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 61115. The District Secretary is further directed to give notice, pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, regarding any increases proposed in the Report with respect to any of the rates and charges. Section 6. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 24th day of April, 2012. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City ClerklBoard Secretary EXHIBIT A PROJECT SUMMARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT On January 1, 2011, Willdan Financial Services was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013. Pursuant to Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61115, the TCSD has the power to levy and collect rates and charges in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished by it. The levy and collection of the rates and charges is accomplished by the identification and description of each parcel within a specific service level. A Service Level is a defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that service level. The TCSD is currently composed of four (4) service levels. The descriptions of the service levels are as follows: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lights. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and administration of all residential streetlights. 2. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. Operations, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. 3. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection. Operations and administration of the recycling and refuse collection program for single-family residential dwellings. 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance. Maintenance of unpaved streets and roads. The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level including their totals for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 as follows: SERVICE LEVEL/LEVY BUDGET $/SFR Service Level B $ 975,962 $25.68/$12.84 Service Level C $ 2,034,890 Variable Service Level D $ 6,541,008 $237.28 Service Level R $ 10,150 Variable TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 2012-2013 $ 9,562,010 The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 are as shown on the Levy Roll on file with the City Clerk/District Secretary. Temecula Community Services District Fiscal Year 2012-2013 (July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2012) Levy and Collection of Rates and Charges NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides street lighting, perimeter landscaping, slope maintenance, unpaved street and road maintenance, and refuse collection services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are the same as those of the City of Temecula, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District (the 'TCSD") will hold a public hearing on the levy and collection of rates and charges within the TCSD on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SERVICES FOR FY 2012-2013 Property owners in the City of Temecula only pay for the services used and made available to their property. Attached to this notice, and incorporated herein, is a page summarizing the rates and charges applicable to your parcel. All rates and charges are levied on an annual basis and collected along with property taxes. The services provided by the TCSD are divided into four Service Levels: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lighting. Operation, maintenance, utility costs and administration of residential streetlights. This established rate of $25.68 is not proposed to increase from last year. 2. Service Level C — Perimeter Landscaping. Operation, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration of all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. The rates for Zone 6 (Woodcrest Country) and Zone 29 (Gallery Portraits) will increase as approved by property owners. All other zones' rates are not proposed to increase from last year. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection. Operation and administration of the refuse and recycling program for single-family dwellings. The proposed rate for Fiscal Year2012-2013 is $237.28. 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance. Operation and administration of certain unpaved streets and roads maintained by the TCSD. These rates are not proposed to increase from their approved per parcel rate. The TCSD rates and charges are based on the written report prepared in connection with the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 (the "Report"), which is on file with the District Secretary. A copy of the Report is available for public inspection at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CHANGES FROM LAST YEAR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE — SERVICE LEVEL C The following zones' rates will increase based on a CPI adjustment: Zone 6 Woodcrest Country annual assessment will increase from $98.06 to $100.22. Zone 29 Gallery Portraits annual assessment will increase from $350.00 to $357.70. - 1 - CHANGES FROM LAST YEAR - CONT - RECYCLING AND REFUSE — SERVICE LEVEL D An increase is proposed to the annual rate and charge for Service Level D (Refuse Collection/Recycling) from $223.04 to $237.28. UNPAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE — SERVICE LEVEL R For 2012-2013 the parcels will be assessed at the full rate in the amounts of $115.26 for improved parcels and at $57.62 for unimproved parcels within Service Level R. RATES AND CHARGES APPEAL PROCESS Any property owner subject to the rates and charges who wants a review of the classification or application of the rate or charge to the owner's property, or alleges that an error has been made with respect to the application of the rate or charge to the property, must file with the District Secretary a written appeal in accordance with District regulations prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2012. Any property owner subject to a rate and charge who believes that payment of all or a portion of the rate and charge would create a hardship for such property owner during fiscal year 2012-2013 must file with the District Secretary a written hardship appeal in accordance with District regulations prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2012, in order to be considered under the hardship appeal program. Appeal forms are available at City Hall. TCSD BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 (JULY 1, 2012 TO JUNE 30, 2013) The proposed budget for the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 is as follows: Service Level B $975,962 Service Level C 2,034,890 Service Level D 6,541,008 Service Level R 10,150 Total $9,562,010 PUBLIC HEARING At the Public Hearing scheduled for June 12, 2012 at 7:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Directors will review and consider any written protest received in person by the District Secretary at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, or by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, prior to the scheduled hearing. The Board will also listen to public comments by all interested individuals concerning the proposed rates and charges of the TCSD for FY 2012-2013. PUBLIC WORKSHOP A community workshop will be held at City Hall in the Main Conference Room on Wednesday evening, May 16, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. to answer questions and concerns prior to the Public Hearing. City Hall is located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. The workshop is open to the public, and all property owners are encouraged to attend. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact the Community Services District at (951) 694-6480. The Temecula Community Services District is located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. The mailing address is P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA, 92589-9033. Thank you for taking the time to review this information and we are looking forward to serving you. - 2 - TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Altd TEMECULACOMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Community Services Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Gail Zigler, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: The following provides an overview of the Community Services Department's programs, activities and events: The Community Recreation Center on Rancho Vista Road is currently under renovation. The project is on schedule and it is anticipated the center will reopen early May. The Community Services Department Recreation Division held the annual Teen Egg Hunt on March 30, 2012, and the Annual Easter Egg Hunts held at Ronald Reagan Sports Park, Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park and Harveston Community Park on April 7, 2012. The events were well attended and deemed a success. The Recreation Division is currently programming for the following: the Community Services Department Expo on May 12th, Daddy/Daughter Date Night on May 18th, and 4th of July festivities. Events taking place in Old Town this month include the Reality Rally held on April 14, 2012 and the Taste of Temecula to be held on April 28, 2012. These events attract thousands of visitors both locally and regionally. Upcoming Old Town events for the month of May include Western Days and the Chili Cook -off. The Community Services Department Human Services Division is busy preparing for the College Fair, and programming a variety of classes and activities for Temecula's youth and the Special Needs community. The Community Services Department Cultural Arts Division will host a Cinco de Mayo Festival to be held on Saturday, May 5, 2012 at the Temecula Duck Pond from 11am to 3pm. This event is free and will include authentic mariachis, ballet folklorica dancers and the Susie Hansen Latin Band, and will include food, crafts and games in recognition of the Mexican Independence Day. The Cultural Arts Division held an artist reception at the Gallery at the Merc on April 6th. Renowned landscape artist Walter Santos is the featured artist and his work will be on display at the Gallery at the Merc and the Temecula Public Library through April 29th. May 4th will host a reception for a new show featuring the work of local nature photographer Stanley Azevedo. The Temecula History Museum currently has on display an exhibit entitled "Wine Country — From the Missions to Modern Day' through June 17, 2012. The exhibit details the growing of grapes for winemaking which has been a part of the Temecula Valley's history since the days of the early Spanish missions. The Old Town Temecula Community Theater will be wrapping up the Temecula Presents 2011- 2012 season with the All Star Big Band: The Great American Songbook with Troy Clarke on May 6th and the Oregon Ballet Theater on May 11tH The Community Services Department is partnering with the County of Riverside Mobile Health Clinic, operated by Riverside County Regional Medical Center, to provide accessible health care in a non-traditional clinic setting to the residents of Riverside County. We are scheduled for this service on the third Monday of every month from 9am-4pm starting in April. The unit will be stationed at the Mary Phillips Senior Center. Under the supervision of the medical director, care is provided by a healthcare provider, a pharmacist, a licensed vocational nurse, a health services assistant and supporting staff. The unit is equipped to handle drop-in care for non -emergency, non-complex medical conditions, follow up care and basic laboratory tests for purposes of completing medical screening examinations. Program services include, but not limited to healthcare education, general medical exams, preventive screenings, immunizations, physical exams, sports physicals as well as screening and treatment of chronic health conditions for adults, children and families. By providing healthcare services "on the go", the MHC reaches out to both urban and rural areas throughout Riverside County at no cost to the city or residents. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Item No. 17 ACTION MINUTES of FEBRUARY 28, 2012 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Joint Special Meeting of the Temecula City Council Acting as Governing Body of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency convened at 8:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Washington ROLL CALL: Board Members Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. SARDA BUSINESS ITEMS 19 Designation of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula under ABX1 26 (Part 1.85 of the Health and Safety Code) and establishment of rules and regulations for the operation of the Successor Agency — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the City Council Acting as the Governing Body for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO PART 1.85 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY AS A NEW LEGAL ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 20 Actions by the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency under ABX1 26 (Part 1.85 of the Health and Safety Code) to: (1) adopt an Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule; (2) adopt a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule; (3) authorize Successor Agency Investments in Local Agency Investment Fund; (4) create a Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund — Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 20.2 The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A DRAFT INITIAL RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 20.3 The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT OF MONEYS IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 20.4 The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled: 2 RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CREATING A REDEVELOPMENT OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34170.5 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 21 First Amendment to Owner Participation Agreement and Grant Commitment between the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Front Street Partners, LLC, for the property located at the southwest corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street in Old Town - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND GRANT COMMITMENT WITH FRONT STREET PARTNERS, LLC ADJOURNMENT At 8:14 P.M., the Joint Special Meeting of the Temecula City Council Acting as Governing Body of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 13, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] 3 Chuck Washington, Chairperson Item No. 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Board of Directors Susan W. Jones, City Clerk Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development April 24, 2012 Adoption of Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES BACKGROUND: The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., (the "Political Reform Act") requires the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to adopt a conflict of interest code. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a Model Conflict of Interest Code (the "Model Code"). The Model Code, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, can be incorporated by reference by the Agency as its conflict of interest code. That Model Code will be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission from time to time to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act. A copy of FPPC Regulation 18730 is attached. The proposed Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency would adopt the Fair Political Practices Commission Model Code and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730. The proposed Resolution also adopts Exhibit A to the Conflict of Interest Code which sets forth the designated positions and the disclosure categories for each position of the Successor Agency. Persons holding designated positions listed in Exhibit A shall file Statements of Economic Interest pursuant to Section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Code with the information required for the disclosure category assigned to them unless exempt from filing such Statements pursuant to Section 3 of the Conflict of Interest Code. Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, a person holding a designated position listed in this Conflict of Interest Code that violates any provisions of this Code is subject to administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act. In addition, if a person who holds a designated position makes, participates in making or otherwise attempts to use his or her official position to influence a decision of the Agency in which he or she has a financial interest, he or she may also be subject to additional administrative, criminal and civil sanctions and the decision may be set aside and voided pursuant to Government Code Section 91003. The City Council and the Executive Management Staff filed Assuming Office and Annual Statements Economic Disclosure Statements Form 700 by March 1, 2012, which was 30 days from the establishment of the Successor Agency. FISCAL IMPACT: Minor costs of the City Clerk's Office in filing and maintaining the Economic Disclosure Form 700 for the designated positions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. SARDA 12-_ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency 2. Exhibit A to Successor Agency Conflict of Interest Code, Designation of Positions of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and Disclosure Categories 3. FPPC Regulation 18730, Conflict of Interest Code RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE CONTAINING DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency hereby finds, determines, and declares: A. The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., (the "Political Reform Act") requires the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to adopt a conflict of interest code. B. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a Model Conflict of Interest Code (the "Model Code"). The Model Code, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, can be incorporated by reference by the Agency as its conflict of interest code. That Model Code will be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission from time to time to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act. Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts the Fair Political Practices Commission Model Code and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, codified at 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full (the "Conflict of Interest Code"). The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts Exhibit A to the Conflict of Interest Code which sets forth the designated positions and the disclosure categories for each position of the Agency, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. These two documents shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Section 3. Persons holding designated positions listed in Exhibit A shall file Statements of Economic Interest pursuant to Section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Code with the information required for the disclosure category assigned to them unless exempt from filing such Statements pursuant to Section 3 of the Conflict of Interest Code. Section 4. Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, a person holding a designated position listed in this Conflict of Interest Code that violates any provisions of this Code is subject to administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act. In addition, if a person who holds a designated position makes, participates in making or otherwise attempts to use his or her official position to influence a decision of the Agency in which he or she has a financial interest, he or she may also be subject to additional administrative, criminal and civil sanctions and the decision may be set aside and voided pursuant to Government Code Section 91003. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is hereby designated as the Filing Officer for the Statements of Economic Interests Form 700 for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the requirements of the Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations. Section 6. The Secretary of the Successor Agency shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall submit a copy of Conflict of Interest Code to the City Council for its approval as the Code Reviewing Body for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SARDA 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary EXHIBIT A DESIGNATION OF POSITIONS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES SECTION 2. EXHIBIT A DESIGNATED CITY OF TEMECULA EMPLOYEES FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES The following positions entail the making or participating in the making of decisions which could have a material effect on financial interests. Designated Position Disclosure Categories Accounting Manager 1 Building Official 1 City Clerk 1 Consultant * 1 Deputy City Manager 1 Executive Director of Community Services 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 Director of Development Services 1 Exempt Officials 0 Fiscal Services Manager 1 Director of Public Works 1 Revenue Manager 1 Senior Debt Analyst 1 Senior Management Analyst 1 Senior Planner 1 * Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose all of the information required to be disclosed by designated employees subject to the following limitations: The City Manager or his designee may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a designated position, is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirement described in this Section. Such written disclosure shall include a description and based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same mariner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. ** The Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Treasurer are all required to file disclosure statements pursuant to State Law and are thus not included herein. (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations.) § 18730. Provisions of Conflict -of -Interest Codes. (a) Incorporation by reference of the terms of this regulation along with the designation of employees and the formulation of disclosure categories in the Appendix referred to below constitute the adoption and promulgation of a conflict-of-interest code within the meaning of Section 87300 or the amendment of a conflict-of-interest code within the meaning of Section 87306 if the terms of this regulation are substituted for terms of a conflict-of-interest code already in effect. A code so amended or adopted and promulgated requires the reporting of reportable items in a manner substantially equivalent to the requirements of article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Sections 81000, et seq. The requirements of a conflict-of-interest code are in addition to other requirements of the Political Reform Act, such as the general prohibition against conflicts of interest contained in Section 87100, and to other state or local laws pertaining to conflicts of interest. (b) The terms of a conflict-of-interest code amended or adopted and promulgated pursuant to this regulation are as follows: (1) Section 1. Definitions. The definitions contained in the Political Reform Act of 1974, regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (Regulations 18110, et seq.), and any amendments to the Act or regulations, are incorporated by reference into this conflict-of-interest code. (2) Section 2. Designated Employees. The persons holding positions listed in the Appendix are designated employees. It has been determined that these persons make or participate in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on economic interests. (3) Section 3. Disclosure Categories. This code does not establish any disclosure obligation for those designated employees who are also specified in Section 87200 if they are designated in this code in that same capacity or if the geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction in which those persons must report their economic interests pursuant to article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Sections 87200, et seq. In addition, this code does not establish any disclosure obligation for any designated employees who are designated in a conflict-of-interest code for another agency, if all of the following apply: (A) The geographical jurisdiction of this agency is the same as or is wholly included within the jurisdiction of the other agency; (B) The disclosure assigned in the code of the other agency is the same as that required under article 2 of chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act, Section 87200; and (C) The filing officer is the same for both agencies. ]' Such persons are covered by this code for disqualification purposes only. With respect to all other designated employees, the disclosure categories set forth in the Appendix specify which kinds of economic interests are reportable. Such a designated employee shall disclose in his or her statement of economic interests those economic interests he or she has which are of the kind described in the disclosure categories to which he or she s ass gned in the Appendix. It has been determined that the economic interests set forth in a designated employee's disclosure categories are the kinds of economic interests which he or she foreseeably can affect materially through the conduct of his or her office. (4) Section 4. Statements of Economic Interests: Place of Filing. The code reviewing body shall instruct all designated employees within its code to file statements of economic interests with the agency or with the code reviewing body, as provided by the code reviewing body in the agency's conflict-of-interest code.2 (5) Section 5. Statements of Economic Interests: Time of Filing. (A) Initial Statements. All designated employees employed by the agency on the effective date of this code, as originally adopted, promulgated and approved by the code reviewing body, shall file statements within 30 days after the effective date of this code. Thereafter, each person already in a position when it is designated by an amendment to this code shall file an initial statement within 30 days after the effective date of the amendment. (B) Assuming Office Statements. All persons assuming designated positions after the effective date of this code shall file statements within 30 days after assuming the designated positions, or if subject to State Senate confirmation, 30 days after being nominated or appointed. (C) Annual Statements. All designated employees shall file statements no later than April 1. (D) Leaving Office Statements. All persons who leave designated positions shall file statements within 30 days after leaving office. (5.5) Section 5.5. Statements for Persons Who Resign Prior to Assuming Office. Any person who resigns within 12 months of initial appointment, or within 30 days of the date of notice provided by the filing officer to file an assuming office statement, is not deemed to have assumed office or left office, provided he or she did not make or participate in the making of, or use his or her position to influence any decision and did not receive or become entitled to receive any form of payment as a result of his or her appointment. Such persons shall not file either an assuming or leaving office statement. (A) Any person who resigns a position within 30 days of the date of a notice from the filing officer shall do both of the following: (1) File a written resignation with the appointing power; and (2) File a written statement with the filing officer declaring under penalty of perjury that during the period between appointment and resignation he or she did not make, participate in the making, or use the position to influence any decision of the agency or receive, or become entitled to receive, any form of payment by virtue of being appointed to the position. (6) Section 6. Contents of and Period Covered by Statements of Economic Interests. (A) Contents of Initial Statements. Initial statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the effective date of the code and income received during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the code. (B) Contents of Assuming Office Statements. Assuming office statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the date of assuming office or, if subject to State Senate confirmation or appointment, on the date of nomination, and income received during the 12 months prior to the date of assuming office or the date of being appointed or nominated, respectively. (C) Contents of Annual Statements. Annual statements shall disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the previous calendar year provided, however, that the period covered by an employee's first annual statement shall begin on the effective date of the code or the date of assuming office whichever is later, or for a board or commission member subject to Section 87302.6, the day after the closing date of the most recent statement filed by the member pursuant to Regulation 18754. (D) Contents of Leaving Office Statements. Leaving office statements shall disclose reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions held or received during the period between the closing date of the last statement filed and the date of leaving office. (7) Section 7. Manner of Reporting. Statements of economic interests shall be made on forms prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and supplied by the agency, and shall contain the following information: (A) Investment and Real Property Disclosure. When an investment or an interest in real property3 is required to be reported,' the statement shall contain the following: 1. A statement of the nature of the investment or interest; 2. The name of the business entity in which each investment is held, and a general description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged; 3. The address or other precise location of the real property; 4. A statement whether the fair market value of the investment or interest in real property equals or exceeds $2,000, exceeds $10,000, exceeds $100,000, or exceeds $1,000,000. (B) Personal Income Disclosure. When personal income is required to be reported,5 the statement shall contain: 1. The name and address of each source of income aggregating $500 or more in value, or $50 or more in value if the income was a gift, and a general description of the business activity, if any, of each source; 2. A statement whether the aggregate value of income from each source, or in the case of a loan, the highest amount owed to each source, was $1,000 or less, greater than $1,000, greater than $10,000, or greaterthan $100,000; 3. A description of the consideration, if any, for which the income was received; 4. In the case of a gift, the name, address and business activity of the donor and any intermediary through which the gift was made; a description of the gift; the amount or value of the gift; and the date on which the gift was received; 5. In the case of a loan, the annual interest rate and the security, if any, given for the loan and the term of the loan. (C) Business Entity Income Disclosure. When income of a business entity, including income of a sole proprietorship, is required to be reported,6 the statement shall contain: 1. The name, address, and a general description of the business activity of the business entity; 2. The name of every person from whom the business entity received payments if the filer's pro rata share of gross receipts from such person was equal to or greater than $10,000. (D) Business Position Disclosure. When business positions are required to be reported, a designated employee shall list the name and address of each business entity in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or in which he or she holds any position of management, a description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged, and the designated employee's position with the business entity. (E) Acquisition or Disposal During Reporting Period. In the case of an annual or leaving office statement, if an investment or an interest in real property was partially or wholly acquired or disposed of during the period covered by the statement, the statement shall contain the date of acquisition or disposal. (8) Section 8. Prohibition on Receipt of Honoraria. (A) No member of a state board or commission, and no designated employee of a state or local government agency, shall accept any honorarium from any source, if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. This section shall not apply to any part-time member of the governing board of any public institution of higher education, unless the member is also an elected official. Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 89501 shall apply to the prohibitions in this section. This section shall not limit or prohibit payments, advances, or reimbursements for travel and related lodging and subsistence authorized by Section 89506. (8.1) Section 8.1. Prohibition on Receipt of Gifts in Excess of $420. (A) No member of a state board or commission, and no designated employee of a state or local government agency, shall accept gifts with a total value of more than $420 in a calendar year from any single source, if the member or employee would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. This section shall not apply to any part-time member of the governing board of any public institution of higher education, unless the member is also an elected official. section. Subdivisions (e), (f), and (g) of Section 89503 shall apply to the prohibitions in this (8.2) Section 8.2. Loans to Public Officials. (A) No elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date that he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan from any officer, employee, member, or consultant of the state or local government agency in which the elected officer holds office or over which the elected officer's agency has direction and control. (B) No public official who is exempt from the state civil service system pursuant to subdivisions (c), (d), (e), (t), and (g) of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution shall, while he or she holds office, receive a personal loan from any officer, employee, member, or consultant of the state or local government agency in which the public official holds office or over which the public official's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made to a public official whose duties are solely secretarial, clerical, or manual. (C) No elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date that he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan from any person who has a contract with the state or local government agency to which that elected officer has been elected or over which that elected officer's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made by banks or other financial institutions or to any indebtedness created as part of a retail installment or credit card transaction, if the loan is made or the indebtedness created in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to the elected officer's official status. (D) No public official who is exempt from the state civil service system pursuant to subdivisions (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution shall, while he or she holds office, receive a personal loan from any person who has a contract with the state or local government agency to which that elected officer has been elected or over which that elected officer's agency has direction and control. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made by banks or other financial institutions or to any indebtedness created as part of a retail installment or credit card transaction, if the loan is made or the indebtedness created in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to the elected officer's official status. This subdivision shall not apply to loans made to a public official whose dut office. es are solely secretarial, clerical, or manual. (E) This section shall not apply to the following: 1. Loans made to the campaign committee of an elected officer or candidate for elective 2. Loans made by a public official's spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, or the spouse of any such persons, provided that the person making the loan is not acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not otherwise exempted under this section. 3. Loans from a person which, in the aggregate, do not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) at any given time. 4. Loans made, or offered in writing, before January 1, 1998. (8.3) Section 8.3. Loan Terms. (A) Except as set forth in subdivision (B), no elected officer of a state or local government agency shall, from the date of his or her election to office through the date he or she vacates office, receive a personal loan of $500 or more, except when the loan is in writing and clearly states the terms of the loan, including the parties to the loan agreement, date of the loan, amount of the loan, term of the loan, date or dates when payments shall be due on the loan and the amount of the payments, and the rate of interest paid on the loan. (B) This section shall not apply to the following types of loans: 1. Loans made to the campaign committee of the elected officer. 2. Loans made to the elected officer by his or her spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, or the spouse of any such person, provided that the person making the loan is not acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not otherwise exempted under this section. 3. Loans made, or offered in writing, before January 1, 1998. (C) Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from any other provision of Title 9 of the Government Code. (8.4) Section 8.4. Personal Loans. (A) Except as set forth in subdivision (B), a personal loan received by any designated employee shall become a gift to the designated employee for the purposes of this section in the following circumstances: 1. If the loan has a defined date or dates for repayment, when the statute of limitations for filing an action for default has expired. 2. If the loan has no defined date or dates for repayment, when one year has elapsed from the later of the following: a. The date the loan was made. b. The date the last payment of $100 or more was made on the loan. c. The date upon which the debtor has made payments on the loan aggregating to less than $250 during the previous 12 months. (B) This section shall not apply to the following types of loans: 1. A loan made to the campaign committee of an elected officer or a candidate for elective office. 2. A loan that would otherwise not be a gift as defined in this title. 3. A loan that would otherwise be a gift as set forth under subdivision (A), but on which the creditor has taken reasonable action to collect the balance due. 4. A loan that would otherwise be a gift as set forth under subdivision (A), but on which the creditor, based on reasonable business considerations, has not undertaken collection action. Except in a criminal action, a creditor who claims that a loan is not a gift on the basis of this paragraph has the burden of proving that the decision for not taking collection action was based on reasonable business considerations. 5. A loan made to a debtor who has filed for bankruptcy and the loan is ultimately discharged in bankruptcy. (C) Nothing in this section shall exempt any person from any other provisions of Title 9 of the Government Code. (9) Section 9. Disqualification. No designated employee shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the making of any governmental decision which he or she knows or has reason to know will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official or a member of his or her immediate family or on: (A) Any business entity in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect investment worth $2,000 or more; (B) Any real property in which the designated employee has a direct or indirect interest worth $2,000 or more; (C) Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating $500 or more in value provided to, received by or promised to the designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made; (D) Any business entity in which the designated employee is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management; or (E) Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating $420 or more provided to, received by, or promised to the designated employee within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (9.3) Section 9.3. Legally Required Participation. No designated employee shall be prevented from making or participating in the making of any decision to the extent his or her participation is legally required for the decision to be made. The fact that the vote of a designated employee who is on a voting body is needed to break a tie does not make his or her participation legally required for purposes of this section. (9.5) Section 9.5. Disqualification of State Officers and Employees. In addition to the general disqualification provisions of section 9, no state administrative official shall make, participate in making, or use his or her official position to influence any governmental decision directly relating to any contract where the state administrative official knows or has reason to know that any party to the contract is a person with whom the state administrative official, or any member of his or her immediate family has, within 12 months prior to the time when the official action is to be taken: (A) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public, regarding any investment or interest in real property; or (B) Engaged in a business transaction or transactions on terms not available to members of the public regarding the rendering of goods or services totaling in value $1,000 or more. (10) Section 10. Disclosure of Disqualifying Interest. When a designated employee determines that he or she should not make a governmental decision because he or she has a disqualifying interest in it, the determination not to act may be accompanied by disclosure of the disqualifying interest. (11) Section 11. Assistance of the Commission and Counsel. Any designated employee who is unsure of his or her duties under this code may request assistance from the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to Section 83114 and Regulations 18329 and 18329.5 or from the attorney for his or her agency, provided that nothing in this section requires the attorney for the agency to issue any formal or informal opinion. (12) Section 12. Violations. This code has the force and effect of law. Designated employees violating any provision ofthis code are subject to the administrative, criminal and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Sections 81000-91014. In addition, a decision in relation to which a violation of the disqualification provisions ofthis code or of Section 87100 or 87450 has occurred may be set aside as void pursuant to Section 91003. 1Designated employees who are required to file statements of economic interests under any other agency's conflict-of-interest code, or under article 2 for a different jurisdiction, may expand their statement of economic interests to cover reportable interests in both jurisdictions, and file copies of this expanded statement with both entities in lieu of filing separate and distinct statements, provided that each copy of such expanded statement filed in place of an original is signed and verified by the designated employee as if it were an original. See Section 81004. 2See Section 81010 and Regulation 18115 for the duties of filing officers and persons in agencies who make and retain copies of statements and forward the originals to the filing officer. 3For the purpose of disclosure only (not disqualification), an interest in real property does not include the principal residence of the filer. 4Investments and interests in real property which have a fair market value of less than $2,000 are not investments and interests in real property within the meaning of the Political Reform Act. However, investments or interests in real property of an individual include those held by the individual's spouse and dependent children as well as a pro rata share of any investment or interest in real property of any business entity or trust in which the individual, spouse and dependent children own, in the aggregate, a direct, indirect or beneficial interest of 10 percent or greater. 5A designated employee's income includes his or her community property interest in the income of his or her spouse but does not include salary or reimbursement for expenses received from a state, local or federal government agency. 6Income of a business entity is reportable if the direct, indirect or beneficial interest of the filer and the filer's spouse in the business entity aggregates a 10 percent or greater interest. In addition, the disclosure of persons who are clients or customers of a business entity is required only if the clients or customers are within one of the disclosure categories of the filer. Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87103(e), 87300- 87302, 89501, 89502 and 89503, Government Code. HISTORY 1. New section filed 4-2-80 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 80, No. 14). Certificate of Compliance included. 2. Editorial correction (Register 80, No. 29). 3. Amendment of subsection (b) filed 1-9-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 2). 4. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(B)1. filed 1-26-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 5). 5. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(A) filed 11-10-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83, No. 46). 6. Amendment filed 4-13-87; operative 5-13-87 (Register 87, No. 16). 7. Amendment of subsection (b) filed 10-21-88; operative 11-20-88 (Register 88, No. 46). 8. Amendment of subsections (b)(8)(A) and (b)(8)(B) and numerous editorial changes filed 8-28-90; operative 9-27-90 (Reg. 90, No. 42). 9. Amendment of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8) and renumbering of following subsections and amendment of Note filed 8-7-92; operative 9-7-92 (Register 92, No. 32). 10. Amendment of subsection (b)(5.5) and new subsections (b)(5.5)(A)-(A)(2) filed 2-4-93; operative 2-4-93 (Register 93, No. 6). 11. Change without regulatory effect adopting Conflict of Interest Code for California Mental Health Planning Council filed 11-22-93 pursuant to title 1, section 100, California Code of Regulations (Register 93, No. 48). Approved by Fair Political Practices Commission 9-21-93. 12. Change without regulatory effect redesignating Conflict of Interest Code for California Mental Health Planning Council as chapter 62, section 55100 filed 1-4-94 pursuant to title 1, section 100, California Code of Regulations (Register 94, No. 1). 13. Editorial correction adding History 11 and 12 and deleting duplicate section number (Register 94, No. 17). 14. Amendment of subsection (b)(8), designation of subsection (b)(8)(A), new subsection (b)(8)(B), and amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(B), (b)(9)(E) and Note filed 3-14-95; operative 3-14-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 11). 15. Editorial correction inserting inadvertently omitted language in footnote 4 (Register 96, No. 13). 16. Amendment of subsections (b)(8)(A)-(B) and (b)(8.1)(A), repealer of subsection (b)(8.1)(B), and amendment of subsection (b)(12) filed 10-23-96; operative 10-23-96 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 96, No. 43). 17. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1) and (9)(E) filed 4-9-97; operative 4-9-97 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 97, No. 15). 18. Amendment of subsections (b)(7)(B)5., new subsections (b)(8.2)-(b)(8.4)(C) and amendment of Note filed 8-24-98; operative 8-24-98 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 98, No. 35). 19. Editorial correction of subsection (a) (Register 98, No. 47). 20. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1), (b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 5-11-99; operative 5-11-99 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 99, No. 20). 21. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 12-6-2000; operative 1-1- 2001 pursuant to the 1974 version of Government Code section 11380.2 and Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18312(d) and (e) (Register 2000, No. 49). 22. Amendment of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(10) filed 1-10-2001; operative 2-1-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 2). 23. Amendment of subsections (b)(7)(A)4., (b)(7)(B)1.-2., (b)(8.2)(E)3., (b)(9)(A)-(C) and footnote 4. filed 2-13-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office ofAdm inistrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 7). 24. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) filed 1-16-2003; operative 1-1-2003. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2003, No. 3). 25. Editorial correction of History 24 (Register 2003, No. 12). 26. Editorial correction removing extraneous phrase in subsection (b)(9.5)(B) (Register 2004, No. 33). 27. Amendment of subsections (b)(2)-(3), (b)(3)(C), (b)(6)(C), (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A), (b)(9)(E) and (b)(11)-(12) filed 1-4-2005; operative 1-1-2005 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4 (Register 2005, No. 1). 28. Amendment of subsection (b)(7)(A)4. filed 10-11-2005; operative 11-10-2005 (Register 2005, No. 41). 29. Amendment of subsections (a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(8.1), (b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 12-18-2006; operative 1-1-2007. Submitted to OAL pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2006, No. 51). 30. Amendment of subsections (b)(8.1)-(b)(8.1)(A) and (b)(9)(E) filed 10-31-2008; operative 11- 30-2008. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office ofAdministrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2008, No. 44). 31. Amendment of section heading and section filed 11-15-2010; operative 12-15-2010. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2010, No. 47). Item No. 19 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Board of Directors Genie Wilson, Director of Finance Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development April 24, 2012 Approval of Cooperative Agreement for advance and reimbursement of administrative, overhead, and other expenses by and between the City of Temecula and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: Upon dissolution of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency on February 1, 2012 pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was constituted and is governed by a board of directors consisting of the members of the City Council. Pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency. For example, the Oversight Board may direct the staff of the Successor Agency to perform work in furtherance of the Oversight Board's duties and responsibilities under ABX1 26 and the Successor Agency must pay for all of the costs of meetings of the Oversight Board. In addition, the Successor Agency will have a number of ongoing responsibilities, such as paying debt service on enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency and preparing an administrative budget and Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for each six-month fiscal period. Each proposed administrative budget must include all of the following: (1) estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six-month fiscal period; (2) proposed sources of payment for the administrative costs; and (3) proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or other entity. ABX1 26 provides that the Successor Agency may include the cost of Oversight Board meetings in its administrative budgets, but otherwise does not specify which expenses are appropriate for including in the administrative budget. However, allowable administrative expenses likely include, among others, the value of City staff, including employee retirement and other benefits, necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; and the cost of other resources of the City necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, such as office space, supplies, equipment, utilities, and insurance. Staff recommends that the Successor Agency and the City enter into an agreement whereby the City will advance these costs to the Successor Agency. ABX1 26 provides for an "Administrative Cost Allowance" to annually be paid to the Successor Agency of not less than $250,000 a year (although this likely will not commence until fiscal year 2012-13). However, in the event there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, some or all of the Administrative Cost Allowance will be used to pay for the enforceable obligations, and these funds will not be available for administrative expenses of the Successor Agency. The Administrative Cost Allowance will exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax. However, the use of bond proceeds to pay administrative expenses is subject to certain limitations. The attached draft Cooperative Agreement for Advance and Reimbursement of Administrative, Overhead and Other Expenses between the city and the Successor Agency provides for the Successor Agency to use the City's staff, facilities, and other resources for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the City will advance the costs of the foregoing to the Successor Agency and the Successor Agency will reimburse the City for such advances. The Cooperative Agreement must be approved by the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency. The Riverside County Auditor -Controller will make distributions of property tax revenues to the successor agency's Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund twice a year, on January 16th and June 1st. These distributions will include the Administrative Cost Allowance for payment of administrative costs which are set forth in an approved administrative budget and are required to be paid from former tax increment revenues. However, in the event there are insufficient funds to pay the former redevelopment agency's enforceable obligations, some or all of the Administrative Cost Allowance will be used to pay for the enforceable obligations, and these funds will not be available for administrative expenses of the successor agency. FISCAL IMPACT: ABX1 26 provides for the Successor Agency to receive an annual Administrative Cost Allowance of not less than $250,000. The Administrative Cost Allowance will exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax. The Administrative Cost Allowance is subject to reduction if there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Cooperative Agreement between the Successor Agency and the City of Temecula RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD, AND OTHER EXPENSES BY AND BETWEEN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Pursuant to Part 1.85 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 34170) ("Part 1.85"), the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency") is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(h). B. In connection with the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency is and will be utilizing the staff, facilities, and other resources of the City. The City Manager of the City serves as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, the Temecula serves as Finance Officer of the Successor Agency, and the City Clerk serves as Secretary to the Successor Agency. Planning, finance, engineering, public works, and other City departments devote and are expected to devote substantial time with respect to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, including gathering information relating to the Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, conferring with public officials representing governmental agencies, and undertaking other activities in connection with administration and operations of the Successor Agency. C. By providing and making available to the Successor Agency the staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the City has advanced and will continue to advance the cost of the foregoing to the Successor Agency. The City and the Successor Agency desire to enter into an agreement to provide for an appropriate method of reimbursement of such advances by the Successor Agency to the City. D. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)(1)(F), contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the Successor Agency are enforceable obligations and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34178(a) and 34180(h), the Successor Agency may enter into agreements with the City with the approval of the oversight board for the Successor Agency (the "Oversight Board"). E. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(j), the Successor Agency is required to prepare a proposed administrative budget for each six month fiscal period and submit each proposed administrative budget to the Oversight Board for its approval. Each proposed administrative budget shall include all of the following: (1) Estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six- month fiscal period; (2) Proposed sources of payment for the costs indentified in (1); and (3) Proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or another entity. F. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(k), the Successor Agency is required to provide administrative cost estimates, from its approved administrative budget that are to be paid from property tax revenues deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, to the County Auditor -Controller for each applicable six-month fiscal period. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Part 1.85. Section 3. The Board hereby approves the Cooperative Agreement for Advance and Reimbursement of administrative, overhead and other expenses by and between the Successor Agency and the City attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the "Agreement") and the Chair is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. Section 4. The officers and staff of the Successor Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution and the Cooperative Agreement, and any such actions previously taken by such officers and staff are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SARDA 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD AND OTHER EXPENSES THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, OVERHEAD AND OTHER EXPENSES ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula the "City") and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (the "Successor Agency"). In consideration of the mutual promises and the premises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes: A. The Successor Agency is required to undertake a number of actions pursuant to Part 1.85 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 34170) ("Part 1.85"), including winding down the affairs of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(h). B. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)(1)(F), contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the Successor Agency are enforceable obligations. C. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34178(a) and 34180(h), with the approval of the oversight board, the Successor Agency may enter into agreements with the City. D. In connection with the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency is and will be utilizing the staff, facilities, and other resources of the City. E. The City Manager of the City serves as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, the Director of Finance serves as Finance Officer of the Successor Agency, and the City Clerk serves as Secretary to the Successor Agency. Planning, finance, engineering, public works, and other City departments devote and are expected to devote substantial time with respect to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, including gathering information relating to the Agency's enforceable obligations, conferring with public officials representing governmental agencies, and undertaking other activities in connection with winding down the affairs of the Agency. F. By providing and making available to the Successor Agency the staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the City has advanced and will continue to advance the cost of the foregoing to the Successor Agency. G. The City and the Successor Agency desire to enter into this Agreement to acknowledge the foregoing recitals and to provide for an appropriate method of reimbursement of such advances by the Successor Agency to the City. Section 2. Successor Agency Staffing and Use of City Resources. The City shall make available to the Successor Agency its staff, facilities, services, and other resources, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency shall have access to the foregoing staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City. The City shall provide Successor Agency with such staff, facilities, services, and other resources as of January 1, 2012. Section 3. Value of Services. The value of the City staff, including all employee retirement and other benefits, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency made, and to be made, available to the Successor Agency for each six-month fiscal period beginning with the fiscal period commencing on January 1, 2012 and ending on June 30, 2012, determined in accordance with Section 4 hereof, shall constitute an advance to the Successor Agency by the City for each six-month fiscal period, to be repaid in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement. Section 4. Reimbursement for City Services from Successor Agency. Following the end of each six-month fiscal period, beginning with the fiscal period commencing on January 1, 2012 and ending on June 30, 2012, the City Manager shall prepare and present to the Successor Agency a summary schedule of costs for (i) the value of City staff, including all employee retirement and other benefits, based on time records prepared by City staff, which shall describe the time devoted exclusively to matters directly related to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; Op the value of consultants and legal counsel based on invoices for services devoted exclusively to matters directly related to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; (iii) the fair rental value of office space and equipment made available to the Successor Agency; and (iv) the value of supplies, insurance and other services and facilities provided by the City to the Successor Agency. Section 5. Reimbursement of City Costs. Within ten (10) days after the City submits a summary schedule of costs to the Successor Agency pursuant to Section 4, the Successor Agency shall reimburse the City for any funds in the amount of the costs from available funds of the Successor Agency. In the event that insufficient funds are available to the Successor Agency, any unpaid amounts shall be carried over to the next six-month fiscal period. Section 6. General. A. The parties hereto agree to take all appropriate steps and execute any documents which may reasonably be necessary or convenient to implement the intent of this Agreement. B. Each party shall maintain books and records regarding its duties pursuant to this Agreement. Such books and records shall be available for inspection by the officers and agents of the other party at all reasonable times. C. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and is to be so construed. D. This Agreement will be become effective upon approval of the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency. E. This Agreement may be amended at any time, and from time to time, by an agreement executed by both parties to this Agreement and approved by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Chuck Washington, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson General Counsel CITY OF TEMECULA Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney The Item No. 20 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Adopt a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 PREPARED BY: Luke Watson, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula was a redevelopment agency in the City of Temecula, duly created pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, Part 1, commencing with Section 33000, of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (hereafter the "Temecula Redevelopment Agency"). On June 12, 1988, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside adopted Ordinance No. 658 adopting and approving the "Redevelopment Plan for Riverside County Redevelopment Project No. 1988-1." On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was incorporated. The boundaries of the Project Area described in the Plan are entirely within the boundaries of the City of Temecula. On April 9, 1991, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinances Nos. 91-08, 91-11, 91-14, and 91-15 establishing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and transferring jurisdiction over the Plan from the County to the City. Pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-15, the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula assumed jurisdiction over the Plan as of July 1, 1991. The Plan has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 94-33, 06-11 and 07-20 adopted by the City Council. The Agency duly adopted its Implementation Plan for 2010-2014 on December 8, 2009 in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490. ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were signed by the Governor of California on June 29, 2011, making certain changes to the Redevelopment Law, including adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) ("Part 1.85") to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Health and Safety Code"). The California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Matosantos, et al. (Case No. S194861)) alleging that ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were unconstitutional. On December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Matosantos case largely upholding ABX1 26, invalidating ABX1 27, and holding that ABX1 26 may be severed from ABX1 27 and enforced independently. The Supreme Court generally revised the effective dates and deadlines for performance of obligations in Part 1.85 arising before May 1, 2012 to take effect four months later. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, on February 1, 2012, all redevelopment agencies, including the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, were dissolved and replaced by successor agencies established pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173. The City Council of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 12-02 January 10, 2012, pursuant to Part 1.85 electing for the City to serve as the Successor Agency for the Temecula Redevelopment Agency upon the Agency's dissolution. The City Council of the City of Temecula, Acting as the Governing Body for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 12-01 on February 28, 2012 declaring the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency duly constituted pursuant to law and establishing rules and regulations for the operation of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency"). Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177, successor agencies are required to prepare a draft initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule by March 1, 2012. On January 10, 2012 the Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. RDA 12-02 adopting a Draft Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. Accordingly, the Successor Agency adopted resolution SARDA 12-03 adopting the Draft Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the periods of January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177, successor agencies are required to prepare in advance a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) that is forward looking for six months and covering the periods of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. Following the approval of ROPS by the Successor Agency, the approved ROPS must be submitted to the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency for that body's approval. Upon approval of the ROPS by the Oversight Board Agency staff are required to submit the certified ROPS to the County Auditor Controller, the State Controller and the State Department of Finance. Preparation of a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule is in furtherance of allowing the Successor Agency to pay enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed resolutions will enable the Successor Agency to fulfill its enforceable obligations. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34173(e), the liability of the Successor Agency, acting pursuant to the powers granted under Part 1.85, shall be limited to the extent of, and payable solely from, the total sum of property tax revenues it receives pursuant to Part 1.85 and the value of assets transferred to it as a successor agency for a dissolved redevelopment agency. The debts, assets, liabilities, and obligations of the Successor Agency shall be solely the debts, assets, liabilities, and obligations of the Successor Agency and not of the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule for the periods of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula was a redevelopment agency in the City of Temecula, duly created pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, Part 1, commencing with Section 33000, of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (hereafter the "Temecula Redevelopment Agency"). On June 12, 1988, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside adopted Ordinance No. 658 adopting and approving the "Redevelopment Plan for Riverside County Redevelopment Project No. 1988-1." On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was incorporated. The boundaries of the Project Area described in the Plan are entirely within the boundaries of the City of Temecula. On April 9, 1991, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinances Nos. 91-08, 91-11, 91-14, and 91- 15 establishing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and transferring jurisdiction over the Plan from the County to the City. Pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91- 11 and 91-15, the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula assumed jurisdiction over the Plan as of July 1, 1991. The Plan has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 94-33, 06-11 and 07-20 adopted by the City Council. The Agency duly adopted its Implementation Plan for 2010-2014 on December 8, 2009 in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490. B. ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were signed by the Governor of California on June 29, 2011, making certain changes to the Redevelopment Law, including adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) ("Part 1.85") to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Health and Safety Code"). C. The California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Matosantos, et al. (Case No. S194861)) alleging that ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were unconstitutional. D. On December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Matosantos case largely upholding ABX1 26, invalidating ABX1 27, and holding that ABX1 26 may be severed from ABX1 27 and enforced independently. E. The Supreme Court generally revised the effective dates and deadlines for performance of obligations in Part 1.85 arising before May 1, 2012 to take effect four months later. F. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, on February 1, 2012, all redevelopment agencies, including the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, were dissolved and replaced by successor agencies established pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173. G. The City Council of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 12-02 January 10, 2012, pursuant to Part 1.85 electing for the City to serve as the successor agency for the Temecula Redevelopment Agency upon the Agency's dissolution. H. The City Council of the City of Temecula, Acting as the Governing Body for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 12-01 on February 28, 2012 declaring the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency duly constituted pursuant to law and establishing rules and regulations for the operation of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency"). I. Health and Safety Code Section 34177(1), as modified by the California Supreme Court, provides that by March 1, 2012, the Successor Agency must prepare a draft initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (I). The draft schedule must be reviewed and certified, as to its accuracy, by an external auditor designated at the county auditor -controller's direction pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34182. The certified Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule must be submitted to and approved by the oversight board. Finally, after approval by the oversight board, a copy of the approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule must be submitted to the county auditor -controller, the State Controller and the State Department of Finance ("DOF"), and be posted on the Successor Agency's web site. The first Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule submitted to the State Controller and the DOF will be for payments for the period of January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, inclusive. J. Accordingly, the Board desires to adopt this Resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the periods of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 in accordance with Part 1.85. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177. Section 3. The Board hereby approves the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the periods of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference (the "ROPS"). The Executive Director of the Successor Agency, in consultation with the Successor Agency's legal counsel, may modify the ROPS as the Executive Director or the Successor Agency's legal counsel deems necessary or advisable. Section 4. The Board hereby designates the Finance Director as the official to whom the DOF may make requests for review in connection with the ROPS and who shall provide the DOF with the telephone number and e-mail contact information for the purpose of communicating with the DOF. Section 5. The officers and staff of the Successor Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution, including submitting the certified Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule to the oversight board for approval, and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SARDA 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board Members of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary EXHIBIT A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIODS OF JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 Name of Redevelopment Agency: Project Area(s) Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency) No 1-1988 DRAFT RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34177 (") FORM A - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Project Name / Debt Obligation Contract/Agreement Execution Date Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year 2012-2013" "" Funding Source Payable from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Payments month by July 2012 1 August 2012 September 20121 October 2012 1 November 2012 December 2012 (aa) Total 1) Trustee Admin Fees 4/24/02 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Trustee Fees for TAB Bond Issues No. 1-1988 36,160 36.160 RPTTF 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 3,013 $ 18,078.00 2) Abbott OPA 2/12/02 Abbott Vascular Property Tax Reimbursment No. 1-1988 1,949,191 162.737 RPTTF 162,737 $ 162,737.00 3) Abbott OPA 2/12/02 Abbott Vascular Reibursement for Development Improvements No. 1-1988 750,000 750,000 RPTTF 750.000 $ 750,000.00 4) ""Promissory Note 4/23/02 City of Temecula 6th Street Parking Lot No. 1-1988 1,903,333 879,244 RPTTF 439,622 439,622 $ 879,244.00 5) SERAF Payment Reimbursment 5/10/11 Low -Mod Housing Fund Loan of Low Mod to Redeye. Fund for SERAF No. 1-1988 5,250,954 RPTTF $ - 6) Temecula Gardens L.P Loan Agreement 7/1/98 Temecula Gardens L.P. Loan for Affordable Housing No. 1-1988 4,880.000 305.000 RPTTF 305,000 $ 305,000.00 7) 2002 TAB FY 2012/13 Debt Service (aa) 4/24/02 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Redevelopment Activities No. 1-1988 44,598.491 1,773.899 RPTTF 1,155,356 618,543 $ 1,773,899.00 8) 2006 TAB Series A FY 2012/13 Debt Service (aa) 12/1/06 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Redevelopment Activities No. 1-1988 30,588,675 996,137 RPTTF 638,319 357,818 $ 996,137.00 9) 2006 TAB Series B FY 2012/13 Debt Service 12/1/06 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Redevelopment Activities No. 1-1988 5,511.857 197.372 RPTTF 126,754 $ 126,754.00 10) 2007 TAB FY 2012/13 Debt Service 10/17/07 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Redevelopment Activities No. 1-1988 30,281,825 1,085.100 RPTTF 680,668 $ 680,668.00 11) 2010 Housing TAB Series A & B FY 2012/13 Debt Service (aa) 2/24/10 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Affordable Housing No. 1-1988 32,285,618 1,258,046 RPTTF 757,798 500.248 $ 1,258,046.00 12) 2011 Housing TAB Fiscal Year 2012/13 Debt Service (aa) 3/1/11 US Bank as Trustee for Bondholders Bonds Issues to Fund Affordable Housing No. 1-1988 39,649,294 1,010.061 RPTTF 750,997 554.047 $ 1,305,044.00 13) Professional Services Agreement 5/13/08 Lance Soli & Luggard Agency Auditing Services No. 1-1988 6,965 6,965 RPTTF 6,965 $ 6,965.00 14) 15) 16) 17) 18), 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) $ - 30) $ - Totals - This Page (RPTTF Funding) Totals - Page 2 (Other Funding) Totals - Page 3 (Administrative Cost Allowance) Totals - Page 4 (Pass Thru Payments) Grand total - All Pages $ 197,692,363.00 $ 8,460,721.00 N/A $ 4,807,070.00 $ 3,013.00 $ 442,635.00 $ 165,750.00 $ 810,435.00 $ 2,033,669.00 $ 8,262,572.00 $ 11,757,470.00 $ 11,703,170.00 N/A $ 764,562.00 $ 271,538.00 $ 271,538.00 $ 81,394.00 $ 81,394.00 $ 7,021,323.00 $ 8,491,749.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 N/A $ 19,863.00 $ 25,687.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 125,002.00 $ - $ - N/A $ - $ • $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 209,699,833.00 _ $ 20,413,891.00 $ 5.591,495.00 _ $ 300,238.00 $ 734,036.00 $ 267,007.00. $ 911,692.00 _ $ 9,074,855.00 $ 16,879,323.00 " The Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) is to be completed by 3/1/2012 by the successor agency, and subsequently be approved by the oversight board before the final ROPS is submitted to the State Controller and State Department of Finance by April 15, 2012. It Is not a requirement tha the Agreed Upon Procedures Audit bo completed before submitting the final Oversight Approved ROPS to the State Controller and State Department of Finance. "" All totals due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected. Note: """ Funding sources from the successor agency: (For fiscal 2012-13 only, references to RPTTF could also mean tax Increment allocated to the Agency prior to February 1, 2012.) (aa) = Debt Service payments included in the month of December 2012 for the 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds """City loan to former Redevelopment Agency. Inclusion in Future ROPS dependant on pending legisltatton (AB 1585) are duo to bondholders on February 1, 2013. Property tax revenue is being requested in December 2012 to ensure sufficient *****Payment due in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 lead time for funds to be remitted to trustees by their due date, which is approximately one week prior to the February 1st debt RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc service date. LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance Name of Redevelopment Agency: Project Area(s) Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency) RDA Project Area All DRAFT RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34177 (*) FORM B - All Revenue Sources Other Than Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Project Name ! Debt Obligation Contract/Agreement Execution Date Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year 2012-2013"" Funding Source "" Payable from Pa Other Revenue Sources ents by month July 2012 August 2012 September 20121 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 Total 1) AMCAL Pujol Fund L.P. OPA 2/22/11 AMCAL Pujol Fund. L.P. Grant for construction of Affordable Housing No. 1-1988 5.579.021 5.579.021 Bond Proceeds 190,144 190,144 190.144 1,859.667 $ 2,430,099.00 2) Front St. Plaza Partners. Inc. OPA 2/22/11 Front Street Plaza Partners Inc. Grant for construction of Affordable Housing Old Town Infrastructure Improvements No. 1-1988 No. 1-1988 4,000.000 182.220 4,000,000 182.220 Bond Proceeds Bond Proceeds 30.370 30.370 30.370 30.370 30.370 4,000,000 30.370 S 4,000,000.00 S 182.220.00 _ 3) Old Town Infrastructure Projects Multiple Dates RBF / Pardell / LH Engineering / Edge 4) Promenade Parking Garage OPA 7/24107 Forrest City Loan for Public Parking Garage No. 1-1988 20,000 20.000 Bond Proceeds 20,000 S 20.000.00 5) Professional Services Agreement 3/23/11 Brown Bortz & Coddington Community Development Block Grant Entitlement No. 1-1988 29,000 1,400 LMIHF 1,400 $ 1.400.00 6) Professional Services Agreement Professional Services Agreement Annual 3/22/11 Keyser Marston Associates Environmental Science Associates Real Estate/Economic Analysis Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan EIR No. 1-1988 No. 1-1988 50.000 189,220 50.000 189.220 LMIHF LMIHF 4.166 31.537 4.166 31,537 4.166 31.537 4.166 31.537 4.166 31,537 4.166 31.537 S 24,996.00 $ 189.222.00 7) 8) Professional Services Agreement 3/22/11 Inland Planning & Design Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan No. 1-1988 81.123 54,423 LMIHF 9.071 9.071 9.071 9.071 9.071 9.071 $ 54.426.00 9) Professional Services Agreement Annual Richards, Watson & Gershon Agency Legal Services No. 1-1988 75.000 75.000 LMIHF 6,250 6.250 6.250 6.250 6.250 6,250 $ 37,500.00 10) CSUSM Campus Funding Agreement 11/24/09 Cal State San Marcos Satellite Campus Development No. 1-1988 471,624 471,624 Reserves 471.624 $ 471,624.00 11) Summerhouse Housing Associates, L.P., OPA 9/22/09 Summerhouse Housing Associates. L.P. Loan for Affordable Housing No. 1-1988 1.080.262 1.080.262 LMIHF 1.080,262 $ 1.080.262.00 12) $ - 13) $ - 14) $ - 15) $ - 16) $ 17) $ - 18) $ - 19) $ - 20) $ - 21) $ - 22) $ - 23) S - 24) S - 25) S - 26) $ - 27) $ 28) $ - 29) $ - 30) $ - 31) $ - 32) $ 33) $ - Totals - LMIHF Totals - Bond Proceeds Totals - Other Grand total - This Page $0.00 $ 11,757,470.00 10 $ - $ 764,562.00 $ 271.538.00 $ 271,538.00 3 81,394.00 $ 81,394.00 $ 7,021.323.00 38,491,749.00 $0.00 S 11.757.470.00 $ 11,703.170.00 ; to the State Controller $ 764,562.00 and State 1$ 271.538.00 Department of Finance $ 271.538.00 11=739L=. by April 15, 2012. It is not $ 81.394.00 a requirement that 1$ 7.021,323.00 the Agreed Upon $ 8.491.749.00 Procedures ` The Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) is to be completed by 3/1/2012 by the successor agency, and subsequently be approved by the oversight board before the final ROPS is submitted Audit be completed before submitting the final Oversight Approved ROPS to the State Controller and State Department of Finance. "' All total due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected. "' Funding sources from the successor agency: (For fiscal 2012-13 only, references to RPTTF could also mean tax increment allocated to the Agency prior to February 1, 2012.) RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance Name of Redevelopment Agency: Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency) FORM C - Administrative Cost Allowance Paid With Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Project Area(s) RDA Project Area All DRAFT RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34177 (*) Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year 2012-2013** Funding Source ** Payable from the Administrative Allowance Allocation **** Payments by month July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 Total 1) Agency Administration - Personnel Agency Staff Agency Staff Compensation No. 1-1988 151,442 151,442 RPTTF 11,650 17,474 11,650 11,650 11.650 11,650 $ 75,724.00 2) Agency Administration - General Multiple Payees Ongoing Agency Administration No. 1-1988 98,558 98,558 RPTTF 8,213 8.213 8,213 8,213 8,213 8,213 $ 49,278.00 3) $ _ 4) $ - 5) $ _ 6) $ - 7) $ _ 8) $ - 9) $ - 10) $ - 11) $ _ 12) $ - 13) $ - 14) $ - 15) $ _ 16) $ - 17) $ - 18) $ - 19) $ - 20) $ - 21) $ _ 22) $ - 23) $ - 24) $ - 25) $ - 26) $ - 27) $ - 28) $ _ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - Totals - This Page $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $19,863.00 $ 25,687.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $ 19,863.00 $125,002.00 * The Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) is to be completed by 3/1/2012 by the successor agency, and subsequent Controller and State Department of Finance by April 15, 2012. It is not a requirement that the Agreed Upon Procedures Audit be completed before submitting ** All total due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected. *** Funding sources from the successor agency: (For fiscal 2012-13 only, references to RPTTF could also mean tax increment allocated to the Agency RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance **** - Administrative Cost Allowance caps are 5% of Form A 6 -month totals in 2011-12 and 3% of Form A 6 -month totals in 2012-13. The calculation should _ y be approved by the oversight the final Oversight Approved prior to February 1, 2012.) not factor in pass through _ board before the final ROPS is submitted to the State ROPS to the State Controller and State Department of payments paid for with RPTTF in Form D. Name of Redevelopment Agency Temecula Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency) Project Area(s) RDA Project Area All OTHER OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE Per AB 26 - Section 34177 (*) FORM D - Pass -Through Payments Project Name / Debt Obligation Payee Description Project Area Total Outstanding Debt or Obligation Total Due During Fiscal Year 2012-2013** Source of Fund"** Pass Through and Other Payments **** Payments by month July 2012 August 2012 September 201: October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 Total 1) $ - 2) $ - 3) $ - 4) $ - 5) $ - 6)$ - 7) $ - 8) $ - 9) $ - 10) $ - 11) $ - 12) $ - 13) $ - 14) $ - 15) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Totals - Other Obligations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - _ $ - _ $ - - $ - _ $ - $ - * The Preliminary Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) is to be completed by 3/1/2012 by the successor agency, and subsequently be approved by the oversight board before the final ROPS is submitted to the State Controller and State Department of Finance by April 15, 2012. It is not a requirement that the Agreed Upon Procedures Audit be completed before submitting the final Oversight Approved ROPS to the State Controller and State Department of Finance. *" All total due during fiscal year and payment amounts are projected. *** Funding sources from the successor agency: (For fiscal 2012-13 only, references to RPTTF could also mean tax increment allocated to the Agency prior to February 1, 2012.) RPTTF - Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Bonds - Bond proceeds Other - reserves, rents, interest earnings, etc LMIHF - Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Admin - Successor Agency Administrative Allowance *""" - Only the January through June 2012 ROPS should include expenditures for pass-through payments. Starting with the July through December 2012 ROPS, per HSC section 34183 (a) (1), the county auditor controller will make the required pass-through payments prior to transferring money into the successor agency's Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund for items listed in an oversight board approved ROPS. Item No. 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager THESUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Executive Director/Board of Directors Genie Wilson, Director of Finance Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development April 24, 2012 Approval of Preliminary Administrative Budgets for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177 PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: Upon dissolution of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency on February 1, 2012 pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was constituted and is governed by a board of directors consisting of the members of the City Council. Pursuant to ABX1 26, the Successor Agency is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency. For example, the Oversight Board may direct the staff of the Successor Agency to perform work in furtherance of the Oversight Board's duties and responsibilities under ABX1 26 and the Successor Agency must pay for all of the costs of meetings of the Oversight Board. In addition, the Successor Agency will have a number of ongoing responsibilities, such as paying debt service on enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency and preparing an administrative budget and Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for each six-month fiscal period. Each preliminary administrative budget must include all of the following: (1) estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six-month fiscal period; (2) proposed sources of payment for the administrative costs; and (3) proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or other entity. ABX1 26 provides that the Successor Agency may include the cost of Oversight Board meetings in its administrative budgets, but otherwise does not specify which expenses are appropriate for including in the administrative budget. However, allowable administrative expenses likely include, among others, the value of City staff, including employee retirement and other benefits, necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency; and the cost of other resources of the City necessary for the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, such as office space, supplies, equipment, utilities, and insurance. Staff recommends that the Successor Agency and the City enter into an agreement whereby the City will advance these costs to the Successor Agency. ABX1 26 provides for an "Administrative Cost Allowance" to annually be paid to the Successor Agency of not less than $250,000 a year (although this likely will not commence until fiscal year 2012-13). However, in the event there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, some or all of the Administrative Cost Allowance will be used to pay for the enforceable obligations, and these funds will not be available for administrative expenses of the Successor Agency. The Administrative Cost Allowance will exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax. However, the use of bond proceeds to pay administrative expenses is subject to certain limitations. The first administrative budget is for the six-month fiscal period commencing on January 1, 2012 and ending on June 30, 2012, and the second administrative budget is for the six-month fiscal period commencing on July 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2012. The Successor Agency is required to submit each preliminary administrative budget to the Oversight Board for its approval. The Successor Agency is also required to provide administrative cost estimates, from its approved administrative budget that are to be paid from property tax revenues deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, to the County Auditor -Controller for each six-month fiscal period. The attached Resolution approves the preliminary administrative budgets for the first two six- month fiscal periods, which are attached as Exhibits A and B to the Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: As discussed above, AB X1 26 provides for the Successor Agency to receive an annual Administrative Cost Allowance of not less than $250,000 (but likely not until fiscal year 2012-13). However, the allowances are subject to reduction if there are insufficient funds to pay the former Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A — Administrative Budget for January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 3. Exhibit B — Preliminary Administrative Budget for July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Pursuant to Part 1.85 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 34170) ("Part 1.85"), the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency") is required to undertake a number of actions related to winding down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(h). B. In connection with the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency is and will be utilizing the staff, facilities, and other resources of the City. The City Manager of the City serves as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, the Temecula serves as Finance Officer of the Successor Agency, and the City Clerk serves as Secretary to the Successor Agency. Planning, finance, engineering, public works, and other City departments devote and are expected to devote substantial time with respect to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, including gathering information relating to the Redevelopment Agency's enforceable obligations, conferring with public officials representing governmental agencies, and undertaking other activities in connection with administration and operations of the Successor Agency. C. By providing and making available to the Successor Agency the staff, facilities, services, and other resources of the City, including, without limitation, consultants, legal counsel, office space, equipment, supplies, and insurance, necessary to the administration and operations of the Successor Agency, the City has advanced and will continue to advance the cost of the foregoing to the Successor Agency. The City and the Successor Agency desire to enter into an agreement to provide for an appropriate method of reimbursement of such advances by the Successor Agency to the City. D. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34171(d)(1)(F), contracts or agreements necessary for the administration or operation of the Successor Agency are enforceable obligations and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34178(a) and 34180(h), the Successor Agency may enter into agreements with the City with the approval of the oversight board for the Successor Agency (the "Oversight Board"). E. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(j), the Successor Agency is required to prepare a preliminary administrative budget for each six-month fiscal period and submit each preliminary administrative budget to the Oversight Board for its approval. Each preliminary administrative budget shall include all of the following: (1) Estimated amounts for Successor Agency administrative costs for the applicable six- month fiscal period; (2) Proposed sources of payment for the costs indentified in (1); and (3) Proposals for arrangements for administrative and operations services provided by the City or another entity. F. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177(k), the Successor Agency is required to provide administrative cost estimates, from its approved administrative budget that are to be paid from property tax revenues deposited in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, to the County Auditor -Controller for each applicable six-month fiscal period. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Part 1.85. Section 3. The Board hereby approves the preliminary administrative budget for the six-month fiscal period commencing January 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2012 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference and the preliminary administrative budget for the six-month fiscal period commencing July 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012 attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The officers and staff of the Successor Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken by such officers and staff are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 24th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Chairperson ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SARDA 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Board Secretary EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE SIX-MONTH FISCAL PERIOD COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2012 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 Successor Agency Administrative Budget by Funding Source 1/1/2012 through 6/30/2012 Property Other Tax Sources Total 999 5100 SALARIES & WAGES 76,018.46 167,239.39 243,257.85 999 5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5102 P.E.R.S. RETIREMENT 12,436.77 55,154.39 67,591.16 999 5103 CAL CASH OUT 1,884.05 8,355.35 10,239.40 999 5104 MEDICARE 680.50 3,017.89 3,698.39 999 5105 BENEFITS FLEX 1,824.12 8,089.60 9,913.72 999 5106 AUTO ALLOWANCE 235.15 1,042.86 1,278.01 999 5108 VOL LIFE INSURANCE 70.77 313.83 384.60 999 5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX 204.31 906.07 1,110.38 999 5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE 355.64 1,577.18 1,932.82 999 5112 WORKERS' COMP 381.05 1,689.89 2,070.94 999 5113 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,516.13 11,158.51 13,674.64 999 5114 DENTAL INSURANCE 610.34 2,706.73 3,317.07 999 5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSMENT 140.73 624.10 764.83 999 5116 VISION INSURANCE 84.07 372.83 456.90 999 5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT 73.60 326.40 400.00 999 5119 PART-TIME (PROJECT) 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5121 OVERTIME WAGES 156.40 693.60 850.00 999 5180 WELLNESS PLAN 204.81 908.30 1,113.11 999 5190 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE 244.75 1,085.39 1,330.14 SALARY AND BENEFITS Total 98,121.65 265,262.31 363,383.96 999 5208 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5220 OFFICE SUPPLIES 92.00 408.00 500.00 999 5222 PRINTING 23.00 102.00 125.00 999 5226 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 900.86 3,995.14 4,896.00 999 5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES 516.12 2,288.88 2,805.00 999 5228 PUBLICATIONS 23.00 102.00 125.00 999 5230 POSTAGE & PACKAGING 23.00 102.00 125.00 999 5231 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN FEES 4,287.20 19,012.80 23,300.00 999 5234 RENT/FACILITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5242 SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT 92.00 408.00 500.00 999 5246 LEGAL SERVICES -GENERAL 9,200.00 40,800.00 50,000.00 999 5248 CONSULTING SERVICES 448.65 1,989.68 2,438.33 999 5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES 0.00 169,886.00 169,886.00 999 5254 ADVERTISING 184.00 816.00 1,000.00 999 5258 CONFERENCES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5260 PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS 115.00 510.00 625.00 999 5261 STAFF TRAINING/EDUCATION 188.60 836.40 1,025.00 999 5262 MILEAGE 36.80 163.20 200.00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Total 16,130.23 241,420.10 257,550.33 999 5330 INSURANCE 3,377.78 14,979.72 18,357.50 999 5340 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2,614.73 11,595.77 14,210.50 999 5345 SUPPORT SERVICES 298.63 1,324.37 1,623.00 999 5350 FACILITIES 4,456.98 19,289.02 23,746.00 999 5380 CITY ADMIN CHARGES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5383 COUNTY ADMIN FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 INTERNAL SERVICE ALLOCATION Total 10,748.12 47,188.88 57,937.00 999 5444 OVERSIGHT BOARD OBLIGATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 Project Total 125,000.00 553,871.29 678,871.29 NON -DEPARTMENTAL Total 125,000.00 553,871.29 678,871.29 EXHIBIT B PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE SIX-MONTH FISCAL PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 2012 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012 Successor Agency Preliminary Administrative Budget by Funding Source 7/1/2012 through 12/31/2012 Property Other Tax Sources Total 999 5100 SALARIES & WAGES 50,765.82 70,105.18 120,871.00 999 5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5102 P.E.R.S. RETIREMENT 15,306.27 21,137.23 36,443.50 999 5103 CAL CASH OUT 1,842.75 2,544.75 4,387.50 999 5104 MEDICARE 762.93 1,053.57 1,816.50 999 5105 BENEFITS FLEX 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5106 AUTO ALLOWANCE 252.00 348.00 600.00 999 5108 VOL LIFE INSURANCE 7.56 10.44 18.00 999 5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX 205.38 283.62 489.00 999 5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5112 WORKERS' COMP 569.10 785.90 1,355.00 999 5113 HEALTH INSURANCE 5,803.56 8,014.44 13,818.00 999 5114 DENTAL INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5116 VISION INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5119 PART-TIME (PROJECT) 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5121 OVERTIME WAGES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5180 WELLNESS PLAN 205.80 284.20 490.00 999 5190 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 SALARY AND BENEFITS Total 75,721.17 104,567.33 180,288.50 0.00 999 5208 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5220 OFFICE SUPPLIES 210.00 290.00 500.00 999 5222 PRINTING 52.50 72.50 125.00 999 5226 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5228 PUBLICATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5230 POSTAGE & PACKAGING 105.00 145.00 250.00 999 5231 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5234 RENT/FACILITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5242 SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5246 LEGAL SERVICES -GENERAL 15,750.00 21,750.00 37,500.00 999 5248 CONSULTING SERVICES 1,462.65 2,019.85 3,482.50 999 5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES 11,025.00 15,225.00 26,250.00 999 5254 ADVERTISING 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5258 CONFERENCES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5260 PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS 315.00 435.00 750.00 999 5261 STAFF TRAINING/EDUCATION 420.00 580.00 1,000.00 999 5262 MILEAGE 52.50 72.50 125.00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Total 29,392.65 40,589.85 69,982.50 0.00 999 5330 INSURANCE 5,782.56 7,985.44 13,768.00 999 5340 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 4,476.36 6,181.64 10,658.00 999 5345 SUPPORT SERVICES 511.35 706.15 1,217.50 999 5350 FACILITIES 6,615.91 11,193.59 17,809.50 999 5380 CITY ADMIN CHARGES 0.00 0.00 0.00 999 5383 COUNTY ADMIN FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 INTERNAL SERVICE ALLOCATION Total 17,386.18 26,066.82 43,453.00 0.00 999 5444 OVERSIGHT BOARD OBLIGATIONS 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Total 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 Project Total 125,000.00 171,224.00 296,224.00 NON -DEPARTMENTAL Total 125,000.00 171,224.00 296,224.00 COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 22 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ygo CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Community Opinion Survey PREPARED BY: Tamra Irwin, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file presentation and analysis of Community Opinion Survey results. BACKGROUND: This study was designed to provide statistically reliable "resident satisfaction" on a variety of services that the City provides. True North Research, Inc. designed the research plan and conducted the study. True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. This Community Opinion Survey is an integral part of the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP) process. The survey results will ensure that our priorities and goals remain aligned with our citizen input and the QLMP. As community priorities change, the QLMP can be adjusted to reflect those changes. It's recommended that the survey be repeated every two years to ensure that the City is working on the most current priorities and goals of our citizens. The study was also designed to: • Identify key issues of concern for residents • Measure residents' overall satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide municipal services • Evaluate perceptions of issues such as traffic, healthcare, and economic development • Determine the effectiveness of the City's communication efforts • Collect additional background and demographic data that is relevant to understanding residents' perceptions, needs and interests True North will be providing the City Council a macro -level presentation on the results of the survey. However, the following is a highlight of the results: Quality of Life • The overwhelming majority of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Temecula, with 96% rating it as good or excellent. City Services • The vast majority (92%) of Temecula residents indicated that they were satisfied with the City's efforts to provide municipal services, with 62% indicating that they were very satisfied. Community Facilities and Programs • Nine out of ten (92% of) respondents reported that someone in their household had visited a park or open space area in Temecula during the 12 months prior to the survey. • All respondents were asked to rate the overall quality, safety, accessibility, and appearance of Temecula's parks and recreation facilities. An overwhelming majority of residents rated each of the four dimensions as excellent or good: overall quality (97%), safety (90%), accessibility (92%), and appearance (96%). Traffic • Seventy percent (70%) of residents indicated that they were very (30%) or somewhat (40%) satisfied with the City's efforts to improve circulation. Old Town • Nine -in -ten (90% of) respondents said their Old Town Temecula experiences were excellent (50%) or good (40%). City -Resident Communication • Three-quarters (74%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied with City efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. This survey was also conducted in 2007, in substantially the same form, This data has been very valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of our existing services as well as planning for future programs. Several years have passed since the last study so it was determined that another study should be conducted. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 2012 Community Opinion Survey COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA )(/ - TRUENORTH R E S E A R C H 741 GARDEN VIEW COURT, SUITE 208 ENCINITAS CA 92024 760.632.9900 WWW.TN-RESEARCH.COM APRIL 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Introduction 1 Purpose of Study 1 Overview of Methodology 2 Statistical Significance 2 Organization of Report 2 Disclaimer 2 About True North 2 Just the Facts 3 Quality of Life 3 City Services 3 Community Facilities & Programs 4 Traffic 4 Economic Development 4 Spending Priorities 5 Healthcare, Schools & Old Town 5 Staff & Council 5 City -resident Communication 6 Conclusions 7 Quality of Life 10 Quality of Life 10 Question 2 10 Factors Contributing to Quality of Life 11 Question 3 12 Ways to Improve Quality of Life 13 Question 4 13 City Services 15 Overall Satisfaction 15 Question 5 15 Specific Services 16 Question 6 17 Question 7 18 Performance Needs & Priorities 20 Community Facilities & Programs 23 Community Facility Household Visits 23 Question 8 23 Community Facility Ratings 24 Question 9 24 Rec Program or Special Event Household Participation 24 Question 10 25 Question 11 25 Traffic 26 Traffic Circulation 26 Question 12 26 Satisfaction With Efforts to Improve Circulation 27 Question 13 27 Economic Development 29 Question 14 29 Question 15 30 Spending Projects 31 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 Question 16 31 Healthcare, Schools & Old Town 33 Emergency Hospital Care 33 Question 17 33 Question 18 34 Quality of Education 35 Question 19 35 Old Town Temecula Visits 36 Question 20 36 Question 21 37 Staff & Council 38 City Leadership 38 Question 22 38 City Staff 39 Question 23 39 Question 24 40 Question 25 41 City -Resident Communication 42 Overall Satisfaction 42 Question 26 42 Information Sources 43 Question 27 44 City Council Meeting Viewership 45 Question 28 45 Background & Demographics 46 Methodology 47 Questionnaire Development 47 Programming & Pre -Test 47 Sample 47 Margin of Error due to Sampling 48 Data Collection 49 Data Processing 49 Rounding 49 Questionnaire & Toplines 50 City or Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 207 2 Il ST OF TABLES Table 1 Like Most About Living in Temecula: 2011 to 2000 12 Table 2 Changes to Improve Temecula 2011 & 2007 14 Table 3 Satisfaction With Services: 2011 to 2000 19 Table 4 Needs & Priority Matrix 21 Table 5 Household Community Visit: 2011 & 2007 24 Table 6 Spending Project Priorities: 2011 & 2007 32 Table 7 Rating City Staff: 2011 & 2007 40 Table 8 Top City Information Sources by Age 44 Table 9 City Council Viewership in Past 12 Months: 2011 & 2007 45 Table 10 Demographics of Sample: 2011 & 2007 46 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 III OF FIGURES Figure 1 Quality of Life 10 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Home Ownership Status 11 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Regularly Commute Outside City & Age 11 Figure 4 Like Most About Living in Temecula 12 Figure 5 Changes to Improve Temecula 13 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction 15 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Home Ownership Status 16 Figure 8 Overall Satisfaction by Regularly Commute Outside City & Age 16 Figure 9 Importance of Services 17 Figure 10 Satisfaction With Services 18 Figure 11 Resident Service Needs 22 Figure 12 Household Community Facility Visit 23 Figure 13 Rating Park & Recreation Facilities: 2011 to 2000 24 Figure 14 Household Participation in Recreational Program or Special Event: 2011 & 2007 25 Figure 15 Quality of Recreation Programs & Special Events: 2011 & 2007 25 Figure 16 Rating Traffic Circulation: 2011 & 2007 26 Figure 17 Rating Traffic Circulation by Area of Residence 27 Figure 18 Satisfaction With Traffic Circulation Improvement Efforts: 2011 & 2007 27 Figure 19 Satisfaction With Traffic Circulation Improvement Efforts by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Regularly Commute Outside City 28 Figure 20 Satisfaction With Traffic Circulation Improvement Efforts by Gender & Age 28 Figure 21 Desire Additional Retail Stores in Temecula: 2011 & 2007 29 Figure 22 Desire Additional Retail Stores in Temecula by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Regularly Commute Outside City 29 Figure 23 Desire Additional Retail Stores in Temecula by Gender & Age 30 Figure 24 Additional Stores Desired in Temecula 30 Figure 25 Spending Project Priorities 31 Figure 26 Satisfaction With Emergency Hospital Care Access: 2011 & 2007 33 Figure 27 Satisfaction With Emergency Hospital Care Access by Years in Temecula & Area of Residence 33 Figure 28 Satisfaction With Emergency Hospital Care Access by Gender & Age 34 Figure 29 Awareness of Hospital Construction 34 Figure 30 Awareness of Hospital Construction by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Age 35 Figure 31 Quality of Education in Public Schools: 2011 & 2007 35 Figure 32 Quality of Education in Public Schools by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Age 36 Figure 33 Frequency of Household Old Town Temecula Visits: 2011 & 2007 36 Figure 34 Rating Old Town Temecula 37 Figure 35 Rating Old Town Temecula by Age & Frequency of Old Town Visits 37 Figure 36 Agreement With Statements About City 38 Figure 37 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months: 2011 to 2000 39 Figure 38 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Area of Residence, Home Ownership Status & Age 39 Figure 39 Rating City Staff 40 Figure 40 Contact With Council in Past 12 Months: 2011 & 2007 41 Figure 41 Contact With Council in Past 12 Months by Area of Residence, Home Ownership Status & Age 41 Figure 42 Satisfaction With Communication: 2011 to 2000 42 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 iv Figure 43 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in Temecula, Area of Residence & Home Ownership Status 43 Figure 44 Satisfaction With Communication by Gender & Age 43 Figure 45 City Information Sources: 2011 & 2007 44 Figure 46 City Council Viewership in Past 12 Months 45 Figure 47 Maximum Margin of Error 49 City or Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 207 2 v INTRODUCTION Located in southwest Riverside County, the City of Temecula is known for championship golf courses, hot-air ballooning, and award-winning wineries. Incorporated in 1989 and currently home to an estimated 100,097 residents,' the City has a team of full- and part-time employees that provides services through more than a dozen departments, agencies and programs, includ- ing Building and Safety, City Clerk's Office, City Manager's Office, Code Enforcement, Commu- nity Services, Economic Development, Finance, Fire, Human Resources, Information Systems, Planning, Police, Public Works, and Redevelopment. As part of its commitment to provide high quality services and responsive local governance, the City of Temecula engages its residents on a daily basis and receives regular feedback on issue, policy, and performance matters. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the commu- nity as a whole. Informal feedback mechanisms typically rely on the resident to initiate the feed- back, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased regarding a particular topic, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City's resident population as a whole. PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents' satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and anal- yses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas, including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, and planning. To assist it in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to: Identify key issues of concern for residents. Measure residents' overall satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide municipal services, as well as their satisfaction with a variety of specific services. Evaluate perceptions of issues such as traffic, healthcare, economic development, and edu- cation. Determine the effectiveness of the City's communication efforts. Collect additional background and demographic data that is relevant to understanding resi- dents' perceptions, needs, and interests. This is not the first statistically reliable `resident satisfaction' survey conducted for the City— similar studies were conducted in 2000 and 2007. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City's performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in the previous studies. 1. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 201 0 Census. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 47). In brief, a total of 400 ran- domly selected adult residents participated in the resident survey between December 6 and December 14, 2011. The telephone interviews averaged 21 minutes in length. cTATicTir-n' cirikupirn i Many of the figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2011 alongside the results found in the prior 2007 survey for iden- tical questions. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical signifi- cance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion during this period— as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the t symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2011. r.7 n1-"�,'. This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let -point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question -by -question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col- lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report, and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A, which is bound separately. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Temecula. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational devel- opment, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 800 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 250 studies for California municipalities and special districts. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 2 JUST THE FACTS The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader's conve- nience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appro- priate report section. LIFE The overwhelming majority of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Temecula, with 61% reporting it is excellent and 35% stating it is good. just 4% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, and less than 1% used poor or very poor to describe quality of life in the City. When asked what they most liked about living in Temecula, the most common response was the City's small town feel and community involvement among residents, mentioned by 32% of respondents. The cleanliness of the City (19%), low crime rate (18%), access to local retail stores and services in Temecula (17%), quality of schools and education (1 5%), and parks and recreation opportunities (14%) were also popular responses as to what residents most like about living in Temecula. When asked what one thing the City could change to make Temecula a better place to live, the most common response was that the respondent did not know or could not think of any improvements (22%). Among specific improvements, reduced traffic congestion was men- tioned most frequently (20%), followed by improving and repairing roads (10%), attracting employers and businesses to the City (9%), limiting growth and development (7%), improving government process and leadership (5%), and improving parks and recreation services and facilities (5%). CITY SERVICES The vast majority (92%) of Temecula residents indicated that they were satisfied with the City's efforts to provide municipal services, with 62% indicating they were very satisfied. Approximately 5% of residents reported dissatisfaction with the City's overall performance, and 3% were unsure. Residents were asked to rate the importance of 24 specific services provided by the City of Temecula. Overall, maintaining a low crime rate as the most important of the services tested, followed by providing emergency paramedic services, and providing fire protection and prevention services. The survey also asked about satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide the same 24 ser- vices. Although residents were generally satisfied, they were most satisfied with efforts to provide fire protection and prevention services, followed by providing reliable garbage and recycling services, maintaining sidewalks and curbs, and satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES & PROGRAMS Nine out of ten (92% of) respondents reported that someone in their household had visited a park or open space area in Temecula during the 12 months prior to the survey. Eight in ten (81% of) of households had visited the Temecula Public Library, and 73% had vis- ited a City -operated recreation or sports facility. A smaller percentage of households had visited the Temecula Community Theater in Old Town (48%), the Civic Center (38%), the Children's Museum (36%), the History Museum (28%), and the Senior Center (16%) in the past year. All respondents were asked to rate the overall quality, safety, accessibility, and appearance of Temecula's parks and recreation facilities. An overwhelming majority of residents rated each of the four dimensions as excellent or good: overall quality (97%), safety (90%), accessi- bility (92%), and appearance (96%). Almost half (49%) of Temecula households had participated in a recreational program or special event offered by the City in the past year. Of those residing in households that had participated in a recreational program or special event, nearly all (98%) rated the quality their quality as excellent (60%) or good (38%), and only 2% rated them as fair, poor, or very poor. TRAFFIC, Approximately one-fifth (21%) of residents rated overall traffic circulation in the City as poor or very poor. Traffic circulation on major streets received similar ratings, with 26% citing it as poor or very poor. Traffic circulation in residential areas was view much more positively, with only 5% of respondents indicating it is poor or very poor. Seventy percent (70%) of residents indicated they were very (30%) or somewhat (40%) satis- fied with the City's efforts to improve circulation, whereas 27% were very (9%) or somewhat (18%) dissatisfied. ECONOniiiC DEVELOPMENT Thirty-eight percent (38%) of residents indicated that there are stores they patronize outside the City that they would like to have available in Temecula. The most commonly desired store was Nordstrom, named by almost half (46%) of all respon- dents who desired additional stores in the City. Other common mentions were: Fry's Elec- tronics (8%), clothing and fashion accessory stores in general (7%), The Cheesecake Factory (4%), restaurants in general (4%), and IKEA (4%). City or Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 207 2 4 SPENDING PRIORITIES When provided with thirteen projects that are candidates for future City spending and asked to indicate the priority they would assign to each, providing incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City was assigned the highest priority, followed by attracting state-of-the-art medical facilities and healthcare services, making infrastructure improve- ments to improve traffic circulation, and attracting and or expanding institutions of higher learning such as a college or university. HEAL I -iC ► E, sciiuuLS ULL i OWN Half (50%) of residents were very (22%) or somewhat (28%) satisfied with current access to emergency hospital care in Temecula. Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents were either very (25%) or somewhat (20%) dissatisfied with current emergency hospital care access in Temecula. Three-quarters (75%) of residents indicated they were aware that a new hospital is under construction in the City. More than three-quarters (76%) of residents felt that, in general, the quality of education in Temecula was excellent (46%) or good (31%). Eight percent (8%) cited the quality of educa- tion as fair, 2% said poor, and 1% very poor. A significant portion (1 2%) of respondents were not sure of the quality of education and thus did not have an opinion. When asked how frequently they visit Old Town Temecula, one-quarter (25%) of residents said they visit Old Town Temecula at least once per week. Almost a third (32%) said they visit the area two to three times per month, 20% said once per month, and 19% indicated that they visit less than once per month. Only 3% of residents said they never visit Old Town Temecula. Nine -in -ten (90% of) respondents said their Old Town Temecula experiences were excellent (50%) or good (40%). Seven percent (7%) said their experiences in Old Town were fair, only 1% said poor, and no one said very poor. STAFF & COUNCI Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents agreed with the statement, 1 trust the City of Tem- ecula. Eight -seven percent (87%) agreed that the City is responsive, 84% agreed that the City manages its finances well, and 82% agreed that the City listens to residents when making important decisions. Twenty-nine (29%) of residents indicated they had contact with City staff in the 12 months prior to the interview. Seventy-two percent (72%) of respondents felt that City staff was very courteous, 68% said it was very professional, 60% said it was very knowledgable, and 57% considered staff to be very helpful. Ten percent (10%) of residents indicated they had been in contact with a Council member in the 12 months prior to the interview. City or Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 207 2 5 CITY -RESIDENT COMMUNICATION Three-quarters (74%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied with City efforts to com- municate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City's efforts in this respect (18%) or unsure of their opinion (8%). The most frequently cited source for city -related information, mentioned by 43% of respon- dents, was the Internet in general. Other popular sources were the City Newsletter (21%), the City's website (20%), television (16%), and The Californian (14%) and Press Enterprise 01%) newspapers. In the 12 months prior to the survey, approximately one-quarter (24%) of residents had viewed a Council Meeting on television, 10% had attended a Council Meeting in person, and 8% had viewed a meeting via the Internet. Overall, 36% of residents had viewed a Council Meeting through at least one of the three available methods during this period. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 6 CONCLUSIONS As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Temecula with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of residents' satisfaction, priorities, and needs as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. As such, it can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas, including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, and planning. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to 'see the forest through the trees' and note how the collec- tive results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North's interpretations of the results, as well as the firm's experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State. How well is the City per- forming in meeting the needs of Temecula resi- dents? Temecula residents are among the most satisfied resident groups that True North has encountered. Moreover, the results of the 2011 study indicate that, despite ongoing state and national economic struggles and their impacts on the City's budget in recent years, Temecula has man- aged not only to sustain its exceptionally high level of performance in providing services and facilities to the community in all areas, it has also made significant gains in several specific areas. In the 2007 study, 92% of residents indicated that they were generally satisfied with the job the City of Temecula is doing to provide municipal services. Although the overall satisfaction level remained steady at 92%, the intensityof satisfaction improved more substantially. The percentage of residents who indicated that they were very satisfied with the City's overall performance increased from 54% in 2007 to 62% in 2011. As was the case in 2007, the high level of satisfaction expressed with the City's performance in general in 2011 was echoed when residents were asked to comment on the City's efforts to provide specific services across a variety of departments. For 19 of the 24 of the services tested, the City is meeting the needs of more than 80% of residents. Moreover, when compared with the 2007 study, satisfaction increased for all but a few of the specific services tested, with significant increases in managing residential growth in the City, managing commercial growth in the City, providing local public transportation and shuttle services, coordinating traffic signals, and providing senior services. The City's performance in providing municipal services has contributed to a high quality of life for its residents. Nearly all residents (96%) sur- veyed rated the quality of the life in the City as excellent or good, which is a significant jump from 91% found in 2007. Moreover, the City's efforts to foster a small-town feel and ensure public safety were among the top things residents like about Temecula. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 7 Where should the City focus its efforts in the future? To the extent that the survey results can be viewed as a report card on the City's performance, the City receives straight A's for all but a few ser- vice areas. When compared with more than 200 similar studies for Cali- fornia municipalities conducted by the Principals at True North, the results found in this study place the City of Temecula comfortably within the top 10% regarding service performance and overall quality of life. Perhaps the most important recommendation, and one that is occasion- ally overlooked in customer satisfaction research, is for the City to recog- nize the many things it does exceptionally well and to focus on continuing to perform at a high level in these areas. As noted throughout this report, residents were generally pleased with the City's efforts to provide services and facilities and have a favorable opinion of the City's performance in all areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides. However, as the City continues to strive for improvement, the results of this study do suggest opportunities to further bolster resident satisfac- tion. Considering the list of services and their respective priority status for future City attention provided in the body of this report (see Perfor- mance Needs & Priorities on page 20), as well as respondents' open- ended responses about ways the City can be improved (see Figure 5 on page 1 3), the top priorities were promoting jobs development in the City, coordinating traffic signals and managing traffic congestion2, man- aging residential growth in the City3, and providing teen services. With the recommendation that the City continue to focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving resident satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combina- tion of better communication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that some residents are simply not aware of the City's ongoing economic development efforts to attract employers and jobs, and residents are instead reacting more to the sluggish national and regional economic environments that make weekly headlines. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving residents' overall satisfaction and satisfaction with specific services in the future. 2. Although managing traffic congestion remains a top priority for residents, it must be noted that there was a significant increase in satisfaction with the City's efforts to coordinate traffic signals in 2011 (from 70% to 77%), as well as with overall efforts to improve traffic circulation by improving roads and intersections, tim- ing traffic signals, and other measures (from 58% to 7096). Indeed, perception of traffic circulation through- out the City improved significantly between 2007 and 201 1 (see Figure 16 on page 26). 3. Although still a priority for the City, residents' satisfaction with the management of residential growth increased significantly from 61% in 2007 to 79% in 2011. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 8 How well is the Citycom- The aforementioned recommendations regarding public information are municating with Temec- underscored by residents' modest level of satisfaction with the City's ula residents? efforts to communicate with them through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. Although nearly three-quarters of residents in 2011 indicated that they were satisfied with the City's communication efforts, this figure is unchanged from 2007 when it dropped from 83% in 2000. Furthermore, the intensity of satisfaction was not strong (only 32% were very satisfied with the City's communication efforts). When compared with similar studies conducted for other high -performing cities, the findings of the 2011 study suggest that communication is one of the key areas the City should focus on in the coming years. Fortunately, the survey also pro- vides clear guidance on why this pattern is occurring and how it can be improved. In True North's experience, a high level of satisfaction with a city's com- munication efforts is generally associated with and likely caused by a greater reliance among residents on city -sponsored sources of informa- tion such as newsletters, websites, and related publications. In the cur- rent study, however, the most frequently -cited source when residents were asked about where they find out about Temecula news, informa- tion, and programming was the Internet in general. In fact, the Internet in general was cited by more residents as their source for city informa- tion than Temecula's Newsletter and the City's website combined. Residents' reliance on secondary sources for city information limits the City's ability to shape the stories and information that residents receive and prevents the City from targeting its messages to specific demo- graphic subgroups (e.g., households with teenagers, seniors), which ulti- mately decreases satisfaction with city -resident communication overall. Moreover, the city does not receive "credit" for outreaching and commu- nicating with residents when residents find themselves relying on sec- ondary sources of information for Temecula news, events and programming. Improving residents' satisfaction with the City's efforts to communicate with them is thus less an issue of content at this point as it is of penetra- tion, frequency and readership. Although it is certainly more costly, one simple and effective strategy for increasing resident's exposure to city - sponsored publications is to mail newsletters to each household rather than relying on residents to sign-up for e -blasts or visit the City's web- site. Based on our research with many other California cities, mailed newsletters are the single most effective method for communicating with residents, and also the method that is preferred by most adults. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 9 QUALITY OF LIFE The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents' top of mind per- ceptions about the quality of life in Temecula, what residents like most about the City, and what City government could do to improve the quality of life in Temecula. QUAL! FY OF LII -k At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City, using a five -point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, the overwhelming majority of respondents shared favorable opinions of the qual- ity of life in Temecula, with 61% reporting it is excellent and 35% stating it is good. just 4% of res- idents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, and less than 1% used poor or very poor to describe quality of life in the City. Residents' assessments of the quality of life in the City improved significantly since the 2007 study. Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excel- lent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 34.6t 60.9t 2011 44.4 46.1 Study Year 2007 Not sure • Very poor • Poor Fair • Good • Exc a !lent t Statistica ly significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. For the interested reader, figures 2 and 3 on the next page show how ratings of quality of life in Temecula varied by years of residence, area of residence, homeownership status, whether or not the respondent regularly commutes outside of Temecula, and age of the respondent. Regardless of subgroup category, respondents generally shared very positive assessments of the quality of life in the City. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 10 FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS 100 90 80 70 60 S 50 40 ae 30 20 10 0 Good 27.5 Excellent 69.5 Fewer than 5 5 to 9 111 10to 14 15 or more Years in Ternecula(Q1) fJ of R. CA Rd R. CA. Rd to S of Wie; 79 Hwy 79 Area of Residence (Q D1) FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY REGULARLY COMMUTE OUTSIDE CITY & AGE % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Regular Commute Outside. City (QD6) 18to24 25to34 35to44 45to54 Age (QD8) 34.6 Own Rent Home Ownership Status )CiD2) 111 31.6 55 to 64 65 and older rArTnRC ( flMT72, 11TUNIC TO (IIA!TV (IF ! ! F The current survey, as well as the 2007 and 2000 surveys, asked respondents what they most liked about living in Temecula. The question was asked in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents to mention any aspect that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 4 on the next page. Multiple responses were allowed for this question, which means that the percentages shown in the figure represent the percentage of respondents who mentioned each aspect. The most common response in 2011 was the City's small town feel and community involvement among residents, mentioned by 32% of respondents. The cleanliness of the City (19%), low crime rate (18%), access to local retail stores and services in Temecula (17%), quality of schools and education (15%), and parks and recreation opportunities (14%) were also popular responses as to what residents most like about living in Temecula. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 Question 3 What are the one or two things that you like most about living in the City of Temec- ula? FIGURE 4 LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN TEMECULA Small town feel / Community involvement Cleanliness of City Public safety / Low crime rate Proximity to shopping, services in City Schools / Quality of education Parks / Recreation opportunities Proximity to areas, attractions outside City Family/ Friends / Neighbors Good climate, weather Quality of life / General positive comment Newness of City, infrastructure City planning / Local government Aesthetic beauty, landscaping of City Open space / Mountains Minimal traffic Wineries / Vineyards Jobs / Business, economic opportunities Good air quality Religious focus of community General negative comment Casinos / Indian reservations 9.2 6.5 5.6 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.7 ■ 1 .7 ■ 1.7 1.1 10.8 10.8 18.8 17.7 16.5 ■ 14.9 ' 13.5 1 2.5 1 2.5 32.1 0 5 10 15 20 % Respondents 25 30 35 The qualitative nature of recording, categorizing, and coding verbatim responses limits the abil- ity to perform statistical significance analysis of the findings between surveys, but for the most part the top responses and their relative ranking have changed little in the time between studies. Table 1 below shows the top five categories from the 2011, 2007, and 2000 studies. TABLE 1 LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN TEMECULA: 2011 TO 2000 City of Temecula 2011 Study Year 2007 2000 Small town feel / Community involvement Cleanliness of City Public safety / Low crime rate Proximity to shopping, services in City Schools / Quality of education Small town feel / Community involvement Cleanliness of City Public safety / Low crime rate Schools / Quality of education Parks / Recreation opportunities Small town feel/ Community involvement Cleanliness of City Public safety / Low crime rate Aesthetic beauty, landscaping of City Good climate, weather True North Research, Inc. © 2012 12 WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate the one thing the City could change to make Temecula a better place to live, now and in the future. As with the previous question, Question 4 was asked in an open-ended manner, and the verba- tim responses were recorded and later grouped into the categories shown in Figure 5. The most common response to this question was that the respondent did not know or could not think of any improvements (22%). Among specific improvements, reduced traffic congestion was mentioned most frequently (20%), followed by improving and repairing roads (10%), attracting employers and businesses to the City (9%), limiting growth and development (7%), improving government process and leadership (5%), and improving parks and recreation services and facili- ties (5%). All other improvements were mentioned by fewer than 5% of respondents. Question 4 If the City government could change one thing to make Temecula a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE TEMECULA Not sure / Cannot think of anything Reduce traffic Improve, repair roads 10.0 Attract employers, high end businesses _ 8.9 Limit, reduce growth, development 70 Improve government process, Council 5.2 Improve, develop parks, recreation - 4.9 Lower taxes, fees - 4.4 Improve police protection, public safety 4.2 Improve education ME 3.7 Improve hospitals, healthcare 3.6 Improve public transit 1.2.4 Provide more entertainment options, nightlife I. 2.1 Reduce cost of housing - 2.0 Improve shopping, commercial development ■ 1.8 Address homeless issue ■ 1.4 Clean up, beautify City 10.9 Do not change anything 10.6 Address illegal immigration issue 10.6 19.7 22.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 % Respondents City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 13 TABLE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE TEMECULA 2011 & 2007 Study Year 2011 2007 Not sure / Cannot think of anything Reduce traffic Improve, repair roads Attract employers, high end businesses Li mit, reduce growth, development Reduce traffic Not sure / Cannot think of anythi ng Limit, reduce growth, develop ment Improve, repair roads Im prove public transit Similar to the prior question, the qualitative nature of recording, categorizing, and coding verbatim responses limits the ability to perform statistical sig- nificance analyses of the findings between 2007 and 2011. Table 2 on the left, which displays the top five response categories from the two studies in which this question was asked, shows that reduce traffic congestion dropped to the second most common response, just below not sure / cannot think of any- thing. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 14 CITY SERVICES After measuring respondents' perceptions of the quality of life in Temecula, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City's performance in providing various municipal services. OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Temecula is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City's performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City. As shown in Figure 6, the vast majority (92%) of Temecula residents indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City's efforts to provide municipal services. Only 5% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, and another 3% were unsure. There was a statistically significant increase in the intensity of satisfaction between 2007 and 201 1 , with 62% of respondents indi- cating they are very satisfied in the current study, compared with 54% in 2007. Question 5 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R 53.9 Mt 2011 2007 2000 Study Year • Refused I. Not sure ■ Very dissatisfied • Somewhat dissatisfied ■ Somewhat satisfied ■ Very satisfied t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. For the interested reader, the next two figures display how residents' opinions about the City's overall performance in providing municipal services varied by years of residence, area of resi- dence, homeownership status, whether or not the respondent regularly commutes outside of Temecula, and age of the respondent. The most striking pattern in both figures is that the high levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 6 above) were also found across all resident subgroups. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Smwt sat is fie d 27.7 Very at is fie d 61.8 26.6 62.8 Fewer than 5 51o9 32.0 63.5 34.0 60.2 10to14 15 or more Years in Temecula (Q1) 31.6 63.6 N of R. CA Rd 28.7 62.4 R. CA Rd to Hwy 79 30.9 57.7 S of Hwy 79 Area of Residence (QD1) FIGURE 8 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY REGULARLY COMMUTE OUTSIDE CITY & AGE % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Smut sat isfied 26.9 Very sat isfied 64.5 Yes 31 .6 60.3 No Regularly Commute Outside City (QD6) 38.5 57.7 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 Age ('QD8) 30.9 61.6 Own Pent Home Ownership Status (QD2) SS to 64 F5 nsl older SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City's overall performance, the next two questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked whether they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Figure 9 presents the services sorted in order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. Overall, Temecula residents rated maintaining a low crime rate as the most important of the services tested (96% extremely or very important), followed by providing emergency paramedic services (95%), and providing fire pro- tection and prevention services (93%). City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 At the other end of the spectrum, providing local public transportation and shuttle services (44%), and satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities (49%) were viewed as less important, overall. Question 6 For each of the services 1 read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. FIGURE 9 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES Maintaining a low crime rate Providing emergency paramedic services Providing fire protection and prevention services Maintaining local streets and roads Promoting jobs development in the City Coordinating traffic signals Providing reliable garbage and recycling services Providing a variety of parks and recreation facilities Providing neighborhood police patrols Providing library services Managing residential growth in the City Maintaining sidewalks and curbs Providing a variety of recreation programs Acquiring and protecting open space Providing senior services Enforcing traffic laws Providing teen services Providing services to those with special needs Maintaining bike lanes and trails Providing special events Managing commercial growth in the City Providing cultural arts, public art, theater, museums Satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities Providing local public transportation and shuttle services ■Extremely irrportant ■Very important 47.8 48.1 44.4 50.1 33.5 59.4 22.4 64.7 36.6 48.2 31.6 53.0 22.8 60.9 23.2 56.4 24.7 53.1 22.4 51.7 24.6 47.9 18.3 53.6 13.5 52.2 19.4 45.3 16.1 47.9 19.4 44.2 16.6 46.2 17.4 43.5 15.4 44.0 13.8 44.7 16.7 40.9 13.8 43.0 7.4 41.4 11.1 32.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96 Respondents 100 Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 10 on the next page sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were either very or some- what satisfied with the City's efforts to provide the service. For ease of comparison across ser- vices, only respondents who provided an opinion (either satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in Figure 10. Those who did not share an opinion were removed from this analysis, and the per- centage who offered an opinion and were included in this analysis is shown in brackets to the right of each service label. Thus, for example, among the 89% of respondents who expressed an opinion about the City's efforts to provide fire protection and prevention services, 83% were very satisfied and 16% were somewhat satisfied. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 7 7 Respondents were most satisfied with the City's efforts to provide fire protection and prevention services (99%), followed by providing reliable garbage and recycling services (98%), maintaining sidewalks and curbs (98%), and satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities (98%). At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were Tess satisfied with the City's performance in promoting jobs development in the City (68%), coordinating traffic signals (77%), managing resi- dential growth in the City (79%), and providing teen services (81%). Question 7 For the same list of services 1 just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 10 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES Provide fire protection and prevention services [89%] Provide reliable garbage and recycling services [1 00%] Maintain sidewalks and curbs [95%] Satisfy residents' needs for shopping opportunities [94%] Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities [98%] Provide library services [96%] Maintain a low crime rate [97%] Provide special events [93%] Provide emergency paramedic services [89%] Provide a variety of recreation programs [93%] Provide cultural arts, public art, theater, museums [92%] Maintain local streets and roads [99%] Provide senior services [70%] Provide services to those with special needs [71 %] Manage commercial growth in the City [89%] Maintain bike lanes and trails [89%] Provide neighborhood police patrols [91 %] Enforce traffic laws [94%] Provide local public transportation, shuttle services [78%] Acquire and protect open space [85%] Provide teen services [73%] Manage residential growth in the City [90%] Coordinate traffic signals [96%] Promote jobs development in the City [88%] ■Very satisfied ■Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied •Very dissatisfied 82.7 83.2 71.0 27.2 71.5 26.6 71.9 24.3 69.4 26.0 75.3 19.8 62.1 32.3 76.6 1 7.3 58.5 34.6 56.2 36.6 57.4 34.7 41.2 50.3 38.5 53.1 51.9 38.4 50.7 39.2 59.5 29.6 51.1 35.4 45.3 40.6 6 36.5 45.4 10. 31.9 49.3 12. 37.1 42.1 1 1 .1 9.7 44.7 32.7 12.3 lo 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % Respondents Who Provided Opinion 80 90 100 Table 3 provides the percentage of respondents who expressed satisfaction with each service tested in the 2011, 2007, and 2000 surveys, as well as the change in satisfaction over the past four years. Since 2007 there were statistically significant increases in satisfaction with the City's efforts to: manage residential growth in the City (+18%), manage commercial growth in the City (+14%), provide local public transportation and shuttle services (+1 3%), coordinate traffic signals (+8%), and provide senior services (+7%). There was a significant decrease in satisfaction with efforts to promote jobs development in the City (-7%). City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 18 TABLE 3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES: 2011 TO 2000 t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 :101 Study Year 2007 2000 Change in Satisfaction 07 to 11 Manage residential growth in the City ( 79.2 60.8 62.2 +1 8.4t Manage commercial growth in the City 90.3 76.6 80.2 +13.71 Provide local public transportation, shuttle services 85.9 73.3 77.2 +12.71 Coordinate traffic signals Providesenior services 77.4 91.6 69.7 84.8 67.1 N/A +7.7-1- 7.71-Provide +6.81- Maintain local streets and roads 92.1 86.6 86.7 +5.5 Provide neighborhood police patrols 89.1 84.7 86.3 +4.5 Enforce traffic laws 86.5 82.1 81.6 +4.4 Maintain bike lanes and trails 89.9 85.8 88.2 +4.1 Maintain s idewalks and curbs 98.2 95.2 95.2 +3.0 Provide teen services 81.2 78.4 N/A +2.8 Satisfy residents' needs for shopping opportunities 98.1 95.7 98.0 +2.3 Provide a variety of recreation programs 93.1 91.1 N/A +1.9 Provide reliable garbage and recycling services 98.3 96.9 97.2 +1.4 Maintain a low crime rate 95.1 94.1 94.8 +1.0 Provide fire protection and prevention services 98.8 98.2 96.5 +0.6 Provide special events 94.5 94.5 N/A +0.0 Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities 96.2 96.8 N/A -0.6 Provide library se ry ices 95.4 96.2 N/A -0.7 Provide emergency paramedic services 93.9 95.1 94.7 -1.2 Promote jobs development in the City 68.4 75.1 78.8 -6.71- Provide cultural arts, public art, theater, museums 92.8 N/A N/A N/A Provide services to those with special needs 91.6 N/A N/A N/A Acquire and protect open space 81.8 N/A N/A N/A t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 PERFORMANCE NEEDS & PRIORITIES With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents' needs. Rather than rely on sample averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed and refined an individualized approach to identifying priorities. This approach is built on the recogni- tion that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents' needs.4 Table 4 presents a grid based on the importance and satisfaction scales. The horizontal axis corresponds to the four importance options, and the vertical scale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meet- ing, or not meeting, a resident's needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows: Exceeding Needs Meeting Needs, Moderately Meeting Needs, Marginally Not Meeting Needs, Marginally The City is exceeding a respondent's needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance the respondent assigned to the service. The City is moderately meeting a respondent's needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service. The City is marginally meeting a respondent's needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City's efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service. The City is marginally not meeting a respondent's needs if the respon- dent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important. Not Meering Needs, Mod- The City is moderately not meeting a respondent's needs if a) a respon- erately dent is very dissatisfied with efforts to provide the service, but the ser- vice is viewed as somewhat or not at all important, or b) a respondent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very important. Not Meeting Needs, Severely The City is severely not meeting a respondent's needs if a) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is viewed as extremely important, or b) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very impor- tant. 4. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally dis- torted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City's perfor- mance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals' opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this varia- tion that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 20 Not meeting Not meeting needs, marginally needs, marginally TABLE 4 NEEDS & PRIORITY MATRIX Satisfaction Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Importance Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Extremely im portant Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately Not meeting needs, derately Not meeting needs, erately Meeting needs, moderately Meeting needs, moderately Meeting needs, marginally Meeting needs, marginally Not meeting needs, moderately Not meeting needs, severely Not meeting needs, severely Not meeting needs, severely Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 24 ser- vices tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that promoting jobs development in the City was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City's efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., maintaining local streets and roads) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City's efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important. Figure 11 on the next page present each of the services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpreta- tion, the color -coding in these figures is consistent with that presented in Table 4. Thus, for example, in the service area of promoting jobs development, the City is exceeding the needs of 6% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 26% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 36% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 1% of respondents, mod- erately not meeting the needs of 9% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 22% of respondents. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted in order of priority. Thus, promoting jobs development in the City is the top priority, followed by coordinating traffic sig- nals, managing residential growth in the City, and providing teen services. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 21 FIGURE 1 1 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS Promoting jobs development in the City Coordinating traffic signals Managing residential growth in the City Providing teen services Acquiring and protecting open space Providing local public transportation and shuttle services Enforcing traffic laws Providing neighborhood police patrols Maintaining bike lanes and trails Managing commercial growth in the City Providing senior services Maintaining local streets and roads Providing services to those with special needs Providing cultural arts, public art, theater, museums Providing a variety of recreation programs Providing emergency paramedic services Providing special events Maintaining a low crime rate Providing library services Providing a variety of parks and recreation facilities Satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities Maintaining sidewalks and curbs Providing reliable garbage and recycling services Providing fire protection and prevention services 6 26 36 9 22 7 44 26 12 13 34 31 13 10 44 28 14 39 29 24 42 17 i52 13 50 20 46 25 42 10 52 4 61 13 51 25 49 20 g 6 19 52 23 1113I2 4 Mr 75 15 52 4 20 59 15 X11 8 19 � 5 18 47 26 3 24 3 5 24 3 E' 30 3 4 27 13 4 28 3 4 73 19 3 13 70 13 I 11 68 17 ii 2 45 14 1 16 66 16 LI 12 76 10 80 14 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % Respondents Who Provided Opinion 100 • Exceeding needs • Meeting needs moderately • Meeting needs marginally Not meeting needs marginally • Not meeting needs moderately • Not meeting needs severely City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 COMMUNITY FACILITIES & PROGRAMS By providing areas and opportunities to recreate, relax, and play, the City of Temecula's parks, recreation facilities, community centers, and scheduled activities, classes, and special events help promote a sense of community in the City, improve property values, enhance the business climate and local economy, and generally contribute to a higher quality of life for residents and visitors. The next four questions of the survey sought to profile residents' use and perceptions of community parks and recreational facilities, as well as their participation in, and opinions about, City -sponsored programs and special events. COMMUNITY FACILITY HOUSEHOLD VISITS The first question of this series mea- sured household visits to, or use of, eight different facility types, both general and specific. As shown in Figure 12, nine out of ten (92% of) respondents reported that someone in their house- hold had visited a park or open space area in Temecula during the 12 months prior to the sur- vey. Eight in ten (81% of) of households had visited the Temecula Public Library, and 73% had visited a City -operated recreation or sports facility. A smaller percentage of households had vis- ited the Temecula Community Theater in Old Town (48%), the Civic Center (38%), the Children's Museum (36%), the History Museum (28%), and the Senior Center (16%) in the past year. Question 8 As 1 read each of the following community facilities, please tell me whether you or another member of your household has visited this facility in the past 12 months. FIGURE 12 HOUSEHOLD COMMUNITY FACILITY VISIT % Households That Visited in Past 12 Months 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 91.9 80.9 72.6 47.9 38.0 35.8 28.0 15.6 City park or Temecula City rec or Temecula The Civic Children's The History The Senior open space Public Library sports facility Community Center Museum Museum Center area Theatre Q8 Community facilities visited in past 12 months ... Table 5 on the next page displays the percentage of households that visited or used each facility in the past 12 months by study year. When compared with 2007, there was a statistically signifi- cant increase in the percentage of households that had visited the Temecula Community Theatre (+11%), Temecula Public Library (+6%), and a City park or open space area (+5%). City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 23 TABLE 5 HOUSEHOLD COMMUNITY VISIT: 2011 & 2007 t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. COMMUNITY FACILITY RATINGS All respondents, regardless of a visit mentioned in Question 8, were asked to rate the overall quality, safety, accessibility, and appearance of Tem- ecula's parks and recreation facilities. The responses from the 201 1, 2007, and 2000 studies are presented below in Figure 1 3. An overwhelming majority of residents in 2011 rated each of the four dimensions as excellent or good: overall quality (97%), safety (90%), accessibility (92%), and appearance (96%). Compared with 2007, ratings of the overall quality, safety, and accessibility of Temecula's parks and recreation facilities improved significantly in 2011. Question 9 How would you rate the of Temecula's park and recreation facilities? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 13 RATING PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES: 2011 TO 2000 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 8t 62.71 4.8 3 37.5 49.3 2011 2007 2000 Overall quality 34.3 t 46.7 42.4 49.5 3 8.0 2011 2007 2000 1 2011 2007 2000 Safety Accessibility Q9 Rating parks and rec facilities .. . 2011 2007 2000 Appearance t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. • Not sure • Very poor • Poor • Fair • Good • Exc e l lent OGRt - OR SPECIAL EVES HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION The City of Temecula provides extensive opportunities for active and passive recreation and personal enrichment for its residents, such as Summer Concerts, the Holiday Lights Bus Tour, and an Eas- ter Egg Hunt, as well as organized sports, dance, art, and wellness classes. Question 10 of the survey asked respondents if they or anyone in their household had participated in such a pro- gram or event in the past 12 months. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 Study Year 2011 2007 Change in % Households That Visited 07 to 11 Temecula Community Theatre 47.9 36.2 +1 1 .7t Temecula Public Library 80.9 74.8 +6.1 t City park or open space area 91.9 87.3 +4.7t Children's Museum 35.8 31.2 +4.6 City rec or sports facility 72.6 71.5 +1.1 The Civic Center 38.0 N/A N/A The History Museum 28.0 N/A N/A The Senior Center 15.6 N/A N/A t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. COMMUNITY FACILITY RATINGS All respondents, regardless of a visit mentioned in Question 8, were asked to rate the overall quality, safety, accessibility, and appearance of Tem- ecula's parks and recreation facilities. The responses from the 201 1, 2007, and 2000 studies are presented below in Figure 1 3. An overwhelming majority of residents in 2011 rated each of the four dimensions as excellent or good: overall quality (97%), safety (90%), accessibility (92%), and appearance (96%). Compared with 2007, ratings of the overall quality, safety, and accessibility of Temecula's parks and recreation facilities improved significantly in 2011. Question 9 How would you rate the of Temecula's park and recreation facilities? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 13 RATING PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES: 2011 TO 2000 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 8t 62.71 4.8 3 37.5 49.3 2011 2007 2000 Overall quality 34.3 t 46.7 42.4 49.5 3 8.0 2011 2007 2000 1 2011 2007 2000 Safety Accessibility Q9 Rating parks and rec facilities .. . 2011 2007 2000 Appearance t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. • Not sure • Very poor • Poor • Fair • Good • Exc e l lent OGRt - OR SPECIAL EVES HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION The City of Temecula provides extensive opportunities for active and passive recreation and personal enrichment for its residents, such as Summer Concerts, the Holiday Lights Bus Tour, and an Eas- ter Egg Hunt, as well as organized sports, dance, art, and wellness classes. Question 10 of the survey asked respondents if they or anyone in their household had participated in such a pro- gram or event in the past 12 months. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 FIGURE 14 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION IN RECREATIONAL PROGRAM OR SPECIAL EVENT: 201 1 & 2007 % Households 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No household participation ho use ho Id partic ipated 49.2 2011 51.8 47.8 Study Year 2007 Question 10 In the past 12 months, have you or any member of your household participated in a recre- ational program or special event offered by the City of Temecula? As shown in the figure to the left, almost half (49%) of Temecula house- holds had participated in a recreational program or special event offered by the City in the past year, which was virtu- ally identical to the finding from the 2007 study. Respondents who reported that one or more members of their household had participated in a recreational program or special event in Temecula in the past 12 months were asked to rate the overall quality of the programs or events using a five -point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As displayed in Figure 15 below, nearly all respondents (98%) rated the quality of Tem- ecula's recreation programs and special events as excellent (60%) or good (38%), and only 2% rated them as fair, poor, or very poor. Residents' assessments of the quality of Temecula's recre- ational programs and special events improved significantly since the 2007 study. FIGURE 15 QUALITY OF RECREATION PROGRAMS & SPECIAL EVENTS: 2011 & 2007 100 _, — Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of Temecula's recreational pro - 80 grams and special events 70 ^� q that your household partici- pated in? Would you say it 60 was excellent, good, fair, 50 poor or very poor? % Respondents 90 Not sure • Very poor • Poor ▪ Fair ■ Good ■ ExceIle nt 40 30 20 10 2011 2007 Study Year t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 I 29.3 5.3 TRAFFIC In nearly all southern California cities, traffic congestion ranks among the most pressing prob- lems that residents would like local and regional governments to solve. As noted previously (see Figure 5 on page 13), a reduction in traffic congestion was the second most frequently men- tioned improvement that residents feel is needed to make Temecula a better place to live. .rri� . ir« �v�► �.,�. As with the 2007 survey, the 2011 survey measured residents' perceptions of traffic circulation in the City overall, on major streets, and in residential areas. As shown in Figure 16, approximately one-fifth (21%) of residents rated overall traffic circulation as poor or very poor. Traffic circulation on major streets received similar ratings, with 26% citing it as poor or very poor. Traffic circulation in residential areas was view much more positively, with only 5% of respondents indicating it is poor or very poor. Perhaps the most notable finding in Figure 16 is that the perception of traffic circulation overall, on major streets, and in residential areas have all improved significantly since 2007. Question 12 Next, 1'd like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circula- tion, 1 mean the ability to drive around Temecula without encountering long delays. Would you rate: within the City as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor? FIGURE 16 RATING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: 2011 & 2007 Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 32.5 36.51- 15.4 21.1 1 9.6 j- 31.5j - 1 7.4 26.0 21.5 ME= 2011 2007 2000 2011 2007 Ove rall On major streets Q1 2 Rating traffic circulation ... 32.2t t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. 58.5 19.2 2011 2007 In residential areas • Not sure • Very poor • Poor Fair • Good • ExceIle nt For the interested reader, Figure 16 on the next page presents the findings of Question 12 by the respondents' area of residence. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 26 FIGURE 17 RATING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION BY AREA OF RESIDENCE % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 NofR.CARd R. CA Rd to Hwy 79 Overall 5 of Hwy 79 Nof R. CA Rd R. CA Rd to 5 of Hwy 79 Hwy 79 On major streets Q12 Rating traffic circulation ... Nof R. CA Rd R. CA Rd to 5 of Hwy 79 Hwy 79 In residential areas • Not sure • Very poor ▪ Poor ▪ Fair ■ Good ■ Excellent SATISFACTION WITH EFFORTS TO IMPROVE CIRCULATIO!< The Traffic Engineer- ing Division and the Public Traffic and Safety Commission work together to address day-to-day traffic operations, safety issues, and future transportation needs for the City of Temecula. The next question in this section of the survey asked respondents about their satisfaction with City efforts to improve traffic circulation. Figure 18 shows that 70% of residents indicated they were very (30%) or somewhat (40%) satisfied with the City's efforts to improve circulation, whereas 27% were very (9%) or somewhat (1 8%) dissatisfied. Also shown in the figure, satisfaction with efforts to improve traffic circulation has improved significantly since the 2007 study. FIGURE 18 SATISFACTION WITH TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS: 2011 & 2007 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 8.81- 30.2f .8f 30.2f 1 9.2 2011 2007 Study Year ▪ Not sure • Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied ■ Somewhat satisfied • Very satisfied Question 13 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to improve traffic cir- culation by improving roads and intersections, timing traffic signals, and other measures? For the interested reader, the two figures on the next page show the responses to Ques- tion 13 varied by a variety of demographics. t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 FIGURE 19 SATISFACTION WITH TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & REGULARLY COMMUTE OUTSIDE CITY % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5mwt satisfied 45.5 Very satisfied 29.3 34 9 Fewer than 5 5 to 9 42.8 27.8 29 4 10 to 14 1 5 or more Years in Temecula (Q1) 26.2 37 1 37.7 28.1 NofR.CARd 6CARdto 5 of Hwy 79 Hwy 79 Area of Residence (QD1) 29 5 Yes 41.7 30.5 No Regularly Commute Outside City (QD6) FIGURE 20 SATISFACTION WITH TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS BY GENDER & AGE 100 90 80 70 c 60 m o 50 a 40 30 20 10 Smwt sat isfied 43.5 Very sat isfied 28.5 Male 32.0 Female Gender (QD9) 18to24 251034 24.0 35 to 44 45 to 54 Age (QD8) 55to64 65 and older City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 ■ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT One of the key challenges for any City is to create sustainable economic development and rede- velopment initiatives that will support the tax base required for current and future needs. Natu- rally, the success and sustainability of future retail economic initiatives will depend in part on the shopping behaviors and preferences of Temecula residents. Businesses that meet these prefer- ences will thrive, whereas those that do not will not succeed. Accordingly, the survey included two questions designed to identify residents' desire for new shopping opportunities. All residents were first asked to indicate whether, among the retails stores their household cur- rently shops at outside the City, there are any they would like to have available in Temecula. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of residents answered this question in the affirmative, which was sim- ilar to the finding of the 2007 study (see Figure 21 below). FIGURE 21 DESIRE ADDITIONAL RETAIL STORES IN TEMECULA: 2011 & 2007 Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Do not desire additional stores 57.5 Yes, desire additional stores 38.1 54.0 2011 2007 Study Year Question 14 Thinking of the retail stores that your household currently shops at outside of the City, are there any that you would like to have avail- able in Temecula? The next two figures examine responses to Question 14 by a variety of demographics. In general, those who have lived in the City fewer than 15 years, women, and those between 45 and 54 years of age were the most likely subgroups to desire additional retail stores in Temecula. FIGURE 22 DESIRE ADDITIONAL RETAIL STORES IN TEMECULA BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & REGULARLY COMMUTE OUTSIDE CITY 60 m o_ -o m 50 -o Q u E 40 ‘c13 v o 30 No n = 20 M o o 10 0 39.1 44.3 Fewer than 5 5 to 9 43.4 40.6 27.7 ■ 10to14 15ormore Years in Temecula (Q1) 35.9 41.2 • N of R. CA Rd R. CA Rd to S of Hwy 79 Hwy 79 Area of Residence (QD1) 39.1 37.5 Yes No Regularly Commute Outside City (QD6) City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 29 FIGURE 23 DESIRE ADDITIONAL RETAIL STORES IN TEMECULA BY GENDER & AGE ndents That Desire Additional 60 50 rs 40 I 30 m `o ., 20 ace 10 cc 0 34.4 45.0 42.0 40.4 42.1 23.1 37.5 36.7 Male Female Gender (Q09) 18to24 25to34 35 to 44 45 to 54 Age (QD8) 55to64 65 and older Those who were interested in new retail stores were next asked to name the one or two stores they were most interested in having located in Temecula. Question 15 was asked in an open- ended manner, allowing respondents to name any store or business that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the ver- batim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 24. The most commonly mentioned store was Nordstrom, named by almost half (46%) of all respon- dents who received the question. Other common mentions were: Fry's Electronics (8%), clothing and fashion accessory stores in general (7%), The Cheesecake Factory (4%), restaurants in gen- eral (4%), and IKEA (4%). No other categories were mentioned by at least 4% of respondents. Question 15 What are the names of the one or two stores you would most like to have located in the City of Temecula? FIGURE 24 ADDITIONAL STORES DESIRED IN TEMECULA Nordstrom Fry's Electronics Clothing, accessory stores Cheesecake Factory Restaurants IKEA Whole Foods Grocery stores Toys R Us Neiman Marcus Bass Pro Shop San's Club Target Shoe stores Harbor Freight Tools 8.1 6.6 - 4.4 - 4.3 - 4.0 M3.9 - 3.8 •3.2 M3.1 M2.9 • 2.7 • 2.5 • 2.5 • 2.2 45 6 0 10 20 30 40 % Respondents Who Desire Additional Stores in Temecula 50 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 30 SPENDING PROJECTS It is often the case that residents' desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city's finan- cial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects and programs based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents. Question 16 was designed to provide the City of Temecula with a reliable measure of how resi- dents as a whole prioritize a variety of projects, programs, and improvements to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the question was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all projects and programs that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each project or program shown in Figure 25 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future City spending— or if the City should not spend money on the project at all. The projects and programs are sorted in Figure 25 from high to low by the percentage of respon- dents who indicated that an item was a high or medium priority for future City spending. Among the projects and programs tested, providing incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City was assigned the highest priority (93% citing it as at least a medium priority), followed by attracting state-of-the-art medical facilities and healthcare services (92%), making infrastructure improvements to improve traffic circulation (88%), and attracting and or expanding institutions of higher learning such as a college or university (83%). Question 16 The City of Temecula has the financial resources to provide some of the projects and programs desired by residents. Because it can not fund every project and program, how- ever, the City must set priorities. As 1 read each of the following items, 1'd like you to indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low pri- ority for future City spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities. FIGURE 25 SPENDING PROJECT PRIORITIES Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City Attract state-of-the-art medical facilities, healthcare services `o Make infrastructure improvements to improve traffic circulation Attract, expand institutions of higher learning Expand services, programs for people with special needs Build a Teen Center and expand teen services Acquire and protect open space and natural habitat areas `o Increase recreational programs E a Develop arts, culture, history, sporting events, facilities Revitalize Jefferson Corridor, outdated commercial areas of City 1° Improve the appearance of public infrastructure and landscapes 9 Expand and improve the network of recreational trails Build additional park -n -ride lots for carpoolers City of Temecula •High priority •Medium priority 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Respondents True North Research, Inc. © 2012 31 Nine of the thirteen items tested in Question 16 were also tested in the 2007 survey. As shown in Table 6 below, in 2011 there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of respon- dents who considered providing incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City a high priority for future City spending (+22%). There was also a significant decrease in the percentage of respondents who cited as high priorities: making infrastructure improvements to improve traffic circulation (-1 7%), acquiring and protecting open space and natural habitat areas in and around the City (-1 3%), and building a Teen Center and expanding teen services (-8%). TABLE 6 SPENDING PROJECT PRIORITIES: 2011 & 2007 t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 32 StudyYear 2011 2007 Change in % High Priority 07 to I 1 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 74.8 52.6 +22.1 t Attract, expand institutions of higher learning 56.2 54.8 +1.3 Increase recreational programs 22.1 22.0 +0.2 Improve the appearance of public infrastructure and landscapes 16.7 1 8.6 -1.9 Expand and improve the network of recreational trails 14.8 17.4 -2.6 Build additional park -n -ride lots for carpoolers 1 7.8 21.3 -3.5 Acquire and protect open space and natural habitat areas 39.4 47.5 -8.0f Build a Teen Center and expand teen services Makeinfrastructure improvements to improve traffic circulation 31.8 44.4 61.5 78.4 -12.71- 12.7fMake -17.0f Expand services, programs for people with special needs 33.2 N/A N/A Attract state-of-the-art medical facilities, healthcare services 74.2 N/A N/A Revitalize Jefferson Corridor, outdated commercial areas of City 25.4 N/A N/A Develop arts, culture, history, sporting events, facilities 21.9 N/A N/A t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 32 J HEALTHCARE,SCHOOLS OLD TOWN The next section of the survey touched upon three topic areas that each contribute to residents' overall quality of life: access to and satisfaction with emergency hospital care, the quality of edu- cation, and the City's Historic Old Town Area. EMtRGENLY hiusPITAL I.AK The first of two healthcare -related questions asked respondents about their satisfaction with current access to emergency hospital care in the City. As presented in Figure 26 below, 50% of residents were very (22%) or somewhat (28%) satisfied, which represents a significant increase in satisfaction since the 2007 study. Nevertheless, nearly half (45%) of respondents remained either very (25%) or somewhat (20%) dissatisfied with current emergency hospital care access in Temecula. FIGURE 26 SATISFACTION WITH EMERGENCY HOSPITAL CARE ACCESS: 2011 & 2007 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 25.0j - MIL 28.0 21.6j- 2011 38.1 18.7 24.1 1 4.2 Study Year 2007 • Not sure • Very dissatisfied ■ S o me w hat dissatisfied ■ S o me w hat satisfied • Very satisfied Question 17 Are you satis- fied or dissatisfied with your access to emergency hospital care in Temecula? For the interested reader, the next two figures display the level of satisfaction with emergency hospital care access by a variety of demo- graphics. t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. FIGURE 27 SATISFACTION WITH EMERGENCY HOSPITAL CARE ACCESS BY YEARS IN TEMECULA & AREA OF RESIDENCE 80 70 60 50 ,s 40 a 30 20 10 0 Fewerthan 5 City of Temecula 20.2 5 to 9 1 7.8 10to14 15ormore Years in Te rrec u la (Q1) 28.1 21.5 NofR.CARd R. CA Rd to Hwy S of Hwy 79 79 Area of Residence (QD1) True North Research, Inc. © 2012 33 FIGURE 28 SATISFACTION WITH EMERGENCY HOSPITAL CARE ACCESS BY GENDER & AGE 80 70 60 c 50 o 40 a v 30 ae 20 10 0 Smwt satisfied 30.0 Very satisfied 26.4 Male 25.8 16.4 Female Gender (QD9) 26.9 42.3 25.0 21.4 18 to 24 25 to 34 26.6 1 7.0 30.9 1 8.2 35 to 44 45 to 54 Age (QD8) 27.8 16.5 31.6 19.3 55 to 64 65 and older To meet the Temecula area's growing need for healthcare access, City Council approved plans for a new hospital in early 2011. Ground breaking on the Temecula Valley Hospital took place a few months later in June, and the 140 -bed, five -story facility built on 37 acres is scheduled for completion in the summer of 201 3. Question 18 was added to the survey to measure awareness of this ongoing construction. As shown in Figure 29, three-quarters (75%) of residents indicated they were aware that a new hospital is under construction in the City. FIGURE 29 AWARENESS OF HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION Not aware of new hospital under construction 24.3 Not sure 0.7 es, aware that new hospital is under co nstructio n 75.0 Question 18 Prior to taking this survey, were you aware that a new hospital is under con- struction in the City? Figure 30 on the next page displays awareness of the hospital construction by years of resi- dence, area of residence, and age. Long-time residents, those in the southern portion of the City, and older residents were the most likely to be aware of the construction. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 34 FIGURE 30 AWARENESS OF HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & AGE � o Z • E 6 V• o � a a 50 • 40 o ° 30 20 22 100 90 80 70 60 10 0 61.5 77.7 79.5 86.6 Fewer 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or than 5 rnore Years in Temecula(Q1) 64.9 77.2 81.6 57.7 73.2 71.3 83.3 82.3 80.7 NofR.CA R. CA Rd Sof Hwy 18to24 25to34 35to44 45to54 55to64 65 and Rd to Hwy 79 79 older Area of Residence (QD1) Age (QD8) JALITY OF Ji The Temecula Valley Unified School District serves the City of Temecula and includes 17 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 5 high schools, 4 charter schools, a K -through -8 home school, and an adult school. Question 19 of the survey asked resi- dents to rate the overall quality of education provided by Temecula's public schools using a five - point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. Question 19 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in Temecula's public schools? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 31 QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 2011 & 2007 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2011 Study Year 2007 LNot sure • Very poor ▪ Poor r Fair Good ▪ Exce Ile nt Figure 31 presents the find- ings of this question and shows that 76% of residents felt that, in general, the qual- ity of education in Temecula was excellent (46%) or good (31%). Eight percent (8%) cited the quality of education as fair, 2% said poor, and 1% very poor. A significant por- tion (12%) of respondents were not sure of the quality of education and thus did not have an opinion. These find- ings are nearly identical to those from the 2007 study. Figure 32 on the next page displays opinions regarding the quality of education by years of resi- dence, area of residence, and age. Although some variation exists between groups, quality of education was rated consistently high throughout, with at least 80% of each subgroup (among those who provided an opinion) citing it as excellent or good. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 11 Excellent ■ FIGURE 32 QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & AGE % Respondents Who Provided Opinion 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Good 31.0 32.6 41.0 Fewer 5109 1010 14 15 or than 5 more Years in Temecula (Q1) N of R,. CA 9. CA Rd Sof Hwy Rd to Hwy 79 79 Area of Residence (QD1 ) 31.8 54.5 33.3 r 18to24 251034 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older Age (QD8) 7-^",1!" -rFRl!' ' A ►„' rrr Old Town Temecula blends historic 19th century build- ings with hundreds of antique stores, specialty food stores, boutiques, gift and collectible stores, museums, and hotels. Old Town Temecula is also the site of many special events includ- ing car shows, Western Days, and the popular Farmer's Market. The next question of the survey asked respondents about the frequency of their visits to Old Town. As shown in Figure 33, one-quarter (25%) of residents said they visit Old Town Temecula at least once per week. Almost a third (32%) said they visit the area two to three times per month, 20% said once per month, and 19% indicated that they visit less than once per month. Only 3% of res- idents said they never visit Old Town Temecula. There was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of visits in 2011 compared with 2007. FIGURE 33 FREQUENCY OF HOUSEHOLD OLD TOWN TEMECULA VISITS: 2011 & 2007 % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Question 20 How often do • Not sure you visit Old Town Temecula? At !east once per week, two to three times per month, once ID Never per month or less often, or never. :lx/ ninth I x / mnth ■ 2-3x / mnth ■ lx/wk t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 New to the 2011 study, Question 21 asked respondents to rate their experiences in Old Town Temecula. Figure 34 shows that responses were overwhelmingly positive, with nine -in -ten respondents citing their Old Town Temecula experiences as excellent (50%) or good (40%). Seven percent (7%) said their experiences in Old Town were fair, only 1% said poor, and no one said very poor. FIGURE 34 RATING OLD TOWN TEMECULA Good 39.8 Poor Very poor 0.8 0.0 Fair 6.9 Not sure 2.1 Excellent 50.4 Question 21 Overall, how would you rate your expe- riences in Old Town Temecula? Would you say they've been excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Figure 34 below looks at ratings of Old Town Temecula experiences by respondent age and the frequency of his or her visits. Ratings were high across the board, although those under 25 and those who frequently visit the Old Town area were the most likely subgroups to cite their experience as excellent or good. FIGURE 35 RATING OLD TOWN TEMECULA BY AGE & FREQUENCY OF OLD TOWN VISITS % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Good 44.0 Excellent 5644 40.9 41.7 40.3 39.3 18t024 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older Age (QD8) 50.4 38.3 r Once per Twoto Once per Less than Never week three times month once per per month month Frequency of Old Town Vis its (Q20) City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 37 STAFF & COUNCIL Although much of the survey focused on residents' satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide specific services, like other progressive cities, Temecula recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is responsive to their needs and listens to them when making important decisions? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional and courteous manner? Do residents trust the City of Temecula? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy -related questions in measuring the City's performance in meeting residents' needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the survey. CITY LEADERSHI New to the 2011 survey, the first question in this series was designed to measure how residents perceive the City regarding its responsiveness to residents' needs, man- agement of funds, and tendency to listen to residents when making important decisions, as well as their trust of the City in general. For each of the statements shown at the bottom of Figure 36, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Percentages shown in the figure are among those with an opinion.5 Among those with an opinion, the City received favorable marks for each of the aspects tested in Question 22. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents agreed with the statement, / trust the City of Temecula. Eight -seven percent (87%) agreed that the City is responsive, 84% agreed that the City manages its finances well, and 82% agreed that the City listens to residents when making important decisions. Question 22 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Temecula. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Here is the (first/ next) one: Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 36 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT CITY % Respondents Who Provided Opinion 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 32.0 1 35.7 31.3 City is responsive City manages finances well City listens to residents Itrustthe City ofTemecula [86% provided opinion] [78% provided opinion] [80% provided opinion] [92% provided opinion] Q22 Agreement with statements about City ... • Strongly agree Somewhat disagree • Somewhat agree • Strongly agree 5. The percentage of respondents who provided an opinion for each statement is shown below it in brackets. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 38 CITY STAFF Residents were next asked if they had been in contact with City of Temecula staff in the past 12 months. Figure 37 provides the findings of this question and shows that 29% of residents indicated they had contact with City staff in the 12 months prior to the interview, which was not significantly different than the findings of the 2007 study. Question 23 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of Temecula staff? FIGURE 37 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 201 1 TO 2000 Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0 No contact w City staff 70.8 Yes, contact with City staff 28.9 2011 2007 Study Year 2000 Figure 38 below shows that contact with City staff in the past 12 months differed considerably by the respondent's area of residence, home ownership status, and age. FIGURE 38 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & AGE 40 35 }' c 30 , o b 2 c0 N 25 u. • — rd 20 � a c a 15 c oi Presented only to residents who had been in contact with City staff in the past 12 months, Ques- tion 24 asked respondents to rate staff on four dimensions: courteousness, helpfulness, profes- sionalism, and knowledge. The findings of this question are presented below in Figure 24. As shown in the figure, City staff received high marks on each dimension of customer service tested. Seventy-two percent (72%) of respondents felt that City staff was very courteous, 68% said it was very professional, 60% said it was very knowledgable, and 57% considered staff to be very helpful. Question 24 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very , somewhat , or not at all 7 FIGURE 39 RATING CITY STAFF Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0 0 r •3 Courteous Helpful Professional Knowledgeable Q24 Rating City staff... • Not sure • Not atall ■ Somewhat • Very When compared with the findings of the 2007 study, the percentage of respondents who used very decreased for each of the four dimensions, although none of the differences was statisti- cally significant (see Table 7 below). TABLE 7 RATING CITY STAFF: 2011 & 2007 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 Study Year Change i n % Very 2011 2007 07 to 1 1 Courteous 72.4 73.9 -1.5 Knowledgeable 59.8 61.6 -1.8 Professional 67.7 73.5 -5.8 Helpful 56.5 65.8 -9.3 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 The fourth and final question of this series asked respondents if they had been in contact with a member of the City Council in the past 12 months. As shown in the next figure, 10% of residents indicated they had been in contact with a Council member during that period, which was nearly identical to the finding from the 2007 study. Figure 41 at the bottom of the page shows that, similar to contact with City staff, contact with a Council member in the past 12 months differed considerably by the respondent's area of residence, home ownership status, and age. Question 25 In the past 72 months, have you been in contact with a member of the City Coun- cil? FIGURE 40 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 2011 & 2007 Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 No contact with Council 89.5 Yes, contact 2011 12 4 Study Year 2007 FIGURE 41 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & AGE 20 En }' 15 '.+ N u — 1 10 •E a, = c = O O a0 v 5 a� z.• 22 0 7.6 1 3.9 9.6 NofR.CA R. CA Rd to S of Hwy 79 Rd Hwy 79 Area of Residence (QD1) 1 3.5 0.9 Own Rent Home Ownership Status (QD2) 7.7 3.6 8.5 14.7 11.4 1 7.5 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older Age (QD8) City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 CITY -RESIDENT COMMUNICATION The importance of City -resident communication cannot be overstated. Much of a city's success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to its residents and vice -versa. This study is just one example of Temecula's efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand residents' concerns, perceptions, and needs. In this section, we present the results of several communication -related questions. OVERAI__ „wTISFAC Question 26 of the survey asked residents to report their satis- faction with City -resident communication in the City of Temecula. Overall, 74% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with City efforts to communicate with residents through newslet- ters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissat- isfied with the City's efforts in this respect (18%) or unsure of their opinion (8%). These findings were similar to those of the 2007 study, although there was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of respondents who were very dissatisfied. Question 26 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 42 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION: 2011 TO 2000 Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 32.2 7.4 i 28.9 2011 2007 Study Year 46.0 2000 Not sure ■ Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied • Somewhat satisfied • Very satisfied t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 201 1 studies. For the interested reader, figures 43 and 44 on the next page display how opinions about the City's efforts to communicate with residents varied by demographic subgroups. Although satis- faction with City -resident communication differed between subgroups, more than 65% of each subgroup was at least somewhat satisfied with the City's efforts in this respect. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 42 fin FIGURE 43 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN TEMECULA, AREA OF RESIDENCE & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Smut satisfied 38.6 Very satisfied 31 .0 48.1 29.8 39.7 33.2 Fewer than 5 5 to 9 101014 Years in Temecula (Q1) 15 or more 36.7 35.2 25.1 N of R. CA Rd R. CA Rd to S of Hwy 79 Hwy 79 Area of Residence (QD1) FIGURE 44 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY GENDER & AGE % Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Smwt satisfied 44.9 Very satisfied 29.1 Male Female Gender (QD9) 42.9 18to24 25to34 35to44 45 to 54 Age (QD8) 41.2 32.0 Orlin 43.0 32.0 Rent Home Ownership Status (Q D2) 55to64 65 and older To help the City identify the most effective means of communi- cating with residents, it is helpful to understand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. In an open-ended manner, residents were asked to list the sources they typically use to find out about City of Temecula news, information, and programming. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to three sources, the percentages shown in Fig- ure 45 on the next page represent the percentage of residents who mentioned a source. As shown in Figure 45, the most frequently -cited source for City information, mentioned by 43% of respondents, was the Internet in general. Other popular sources were the City Newsletter (21%), the City's website (20%), television (16%), and The Californian (14%) and Press Enterpri Question 27 What information sources do you use to find out about City of Temecula news, information, and programming? FIGURE 45 CITY INFORMATION SOURCES: 2011 & 2007 Internet in general City Newsletter City website Television Californian Newspaper Press Enterprise Valley News Friends, family Flyers, brochures Do not receive info Social media Email from City Radio City Council Meetings (in person) Community events City Council Meetings (televised) 8.9 10.5 f 8.7 IME 8.3 6.8 16.6 5.6 6.7 2.1 1 .2 • 2.0 0.0 • 1.7 10.7 • 1.6 1 .4 .11.3 5 0.7 0.5 0.4t MI 3.8 1 5.7t 1 4.2f 16.1 21 .3t 20.2 19.4 22.2 27.2 28.6 42.6 t ■2011 12007 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Respondents t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. For the interested reader, Table 8 shows the responses to Question 27 by age of the respondent. The top five mentions within each age group are highlighted green. As one might expect, use of different media varied by respondent age, although there was considerable overlap among the top choices across age groups. TABLE 8 TOP CITY INFORMATION SOURCES BY AGE City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 44 18 to 24 25 to 34 Age (Q08) 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older Internet in general 46.2 33.9 48.9 50.4 44.3 22.8 City Newsletter 30.8 17.9 19.1 19.0 25.3 17.5 City website 11.5 30.4 28.7 16.1 19.0 7.0 Television 15.4 5.4 14.9 14.8 20.3 28.1 Californian Newspaper 15.4 8.9 9.6 10.1 24.1 22.8 Press Enterprise 7.7 5.4 6.4 11.6 12.7 24.6 Valley News 15.4 10.7 5.3 9.1 5.1 8.8 Friends, family 7.7 3.6 6.4 3.5 8.9 14.0 Flyers, brochures 11.5 3.6 3.2 5.7 7.6 3.5 Do not receive info 0.0 3.6 2.1 2.2 1.3 3.5 Social media 3.8 3.6 1.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 Email from City 3.8 0.0 3.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Radio 0.0 1.8 1.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 City Council Meetings (in person) 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.5 Communityevents 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.0 City Council Meetings (televised) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 .3 1.8 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 44 CITY COUNCIL MEETING VIEWEF The Temecula City Council meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month at 7:OOPM in Council Chambers. Because the City recognizes that its residents have busy schedules with often limited flexibility, it has made efforts to provide a vari- ety of options for residents to view the Council Meetings. These options include: attending Coun- cil Meetings in-person, viewing a televised version of the meeting on Channel 3, or viewing it online, either during the meeting, or on -demand from an archive located on the City's website. The final substantive question of the survey asked respondents to identify their viewership of City Council Meetings across the three possible methods. As shown in Figure 46, approximately one-quarter (24%) of residents had viewed a Council Meeting on television, 10% had attended a Council Meeting in person, and 8% had viewed a meeting via the Internet. Overall, 36% of resi- dents had viewed a Council Meeting through at least one of the three available methods in the 12 months prior to the survey. Table 9 shows that since 2007 there has been a statistically sig- nificant decrease in the percentage of respondents who reported viewing a Council Meeting on television in the past 12 months (-7%). Question 28 In the past 12 months, have you FIGURE 46 CITY COUNCIL VIEWERSHIP IN PAST 12 MONTHS 40 35 30 a) 5 r 25 rt od od H � c 20 c c • v 15 o �v o_ e a 10 0 0 5 0 35.5 In person, on television, or on Internet 24.4 On television 7 9.7 8.3 In person On Internet Q28 Viewed Council Meeting in past 12 months ... TABLE 9 CITY COUNCIL VIEWERSHIP IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 2011 & 2007 t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 45 Study Year Change in Viewership 2011 2007 07 to 11 On Internet 8.3 5.5 +2.8 In person 9.7 8.6 +1 .1 In person, on television, or on Internet 35.5 37.5 -2.0 On television 24.4 31 .0 -6.5f t Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2007 and 2011 studies. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 45 BACKGROUND & DEMOGRAPHICS TABLE 10 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE: 2011 & 2007 Table 10 presents the key demographic and background information that was collected during the survey. Because of the probabil- ity -based sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table are representative of adult residents in the Town of Temecula. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demo- graphic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substan- tive questions of the survey vary by demo- graphic characteristics (see Appendix A for more details). City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 46 Study Year 2011 2007 Total Respondents 400 400 Years in Temecula (Q1) Fewer than 5 33.0 34.1 5to 9 21.5 27.3 10to14 19.8 19.4 15 or more 25.4 19.2 Refused 0.2 0.0 Area of Residence (QD1) Old Town Area 4.5 3.7 North of Rancho California Rd 31.1 32.2 Between Rancho California Rd, Hwy 79 S 33.9 39.3 South of Hwy 79 S 26.8 21.6 Refused 3.8 3.1 Home Ownership Status (QD2) Own 74.2 79.7 Rent 25.3 19.6 Refused 0.4 0.7 QD3 Home type Single family 84.5 N/A Apartment 9.6 N/A Condo 2.7 N/A Mobile ho me 2.2 N/A Refused 1.0 N/A QD4 Home type in five years Single family 86.3 N/A Apartment 5.3 N/A Condo 3.3 N/A Mobile ho me 1.9 N/A Refused 3.3 N/A QD5 Employment status Full-time 47.6 56.3 Part-time 10.7 8.7 Student 5.9 7.0 Homemaker 9.6 9.1 Retired 16.7 14.4 In-between jobs 8.1 2.4 Refused 1.4 2.1 QD6 Regularly commute outside Temecula Not employed/Not astudent 35.8 28.0 Yes 36.3 37.3 No 27.9 34.7 QD7 Commute destination County Not employed / Not student / Do not commute 63.7 62.7 LA 2.9 1.7 Orange 2.4 2.1 Riverside 8.2 10.1 San Bernardino 1.9 1.9 San Diego 19.0 16.1 Ventura 0.0 0.0 Other 1.2 4.7 Refused 0.8 0.7 QD8 Age 13.4 16.0 18to24 25to34 17.3 17.4 35 to 44 21.7 24.2 45 to 54 19.7 20.7 55to64 16.6 10.4 65 and older 11.2 9.7 Refused 0.0 1.5 QD9 Gender Male 51.7 49.1 Female 48.3 50.9 Table 10 presents the key demographic and background information that was collected during the survey. Because of the probabil- ity -based sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table are representative of adult residents in the Town of Temecula. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demo- graphic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substan- tive questions of the survey vary by demo- graphic characteristics (see Appendix A for more details). City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 46 M ETHODOLOGY The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques. OULS 1 IONNAIKE DEVELOPMEN1 Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Temecula to develop questionnaires that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position -order effects, wording effects, response -category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent. Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who were employed full- or part-time were asked about their com- mute. The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions. Most of the questions asked in the 2011 survey were tracked directly from the 2007 and 2000 surveys to allow the City to reliably track its performance over time. "�OGRAMM�" ""' T"" Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- domizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrity of the question- naire was pre -tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City of Temecula prior to formally beginning the survey. MPLL Households within the City of Temecula were chosen for this study using a random digit dial (RDD) sampling method. An RDD sample is drawn by first selecting all of the active phone exchanges (first three digits in a seven digit phone number) and working blocks that ser- vice the area. After estimating the number of listed households within each phone exchange that are located within the area, a sample of randomly selected phone numbers is generated with the number of phone numbers per exchange being proportional to the estimated number of house- holds within each exchange in the area. This method ensures that both listed and unlisted households are included in the sample. It also ensures that new residents and new developments have an opportunity to participate in the study, which is not true if the sample were based on a telephone directory. In addition, 1 5% of the sample was dedicated to cell phone numbers so that those who rely on cell phones were represented in the study. Although the RDD method is widely used for community surveys, the method also has several known limitations that must be adjusted for to ensure representative data. Research has shown, for example, that individuals with certain demographic profiles (e.g., older women) are more likely to be at home and are more likely to answer the phone even when other members of the household are available. If this tendency is not adjusted for, the RDD sampling method will pro- duce a survey that is biased in favor of women—particularly older women. To adjust for this City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 behavioral tendency, the survey included a screening question which initially asked to speak to the youngest male available in the home. If a male was not available, then the interviewer was instructed to speak to the youngest female currently available. This protocol was followed—to the extent needed—to ensure a representative sample. In addition to following this protocol, the sample demographics were monitored as the interviewing proceeded to make sure they were within certain tolerances. Additionally, because the City of Temecula shares phone exchanges with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas of the County, respondents were initially asked the ZIP code of their resi- dence (see Question SC1). Only those in ZIP codes 92590, 92591, and 92562 who indicated that they live inside the City limits of Temecula (QSC2) were eligible to participate in the study. "�" r-� �r �� By using an RDD probability -based sample and monitoring the sample characteristics as data collection proceeded, True North ensured that the sample was representative of adult residents in the City of Temecula. The results of the sam- ple can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents in the City. Because not every adult in the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statisti- cal margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 400 adults for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 69,407 adults in the City6 had been interviewed. For example, in estimating the percentage of adult residents who have been in contact with a member of City Council in the past 12 months (Question 25), the margin of error can be calcu- lated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below. +t CN-n}p(1-p) N ) n-1 wherep is the proportion of adults who said they visited the website (0.10 for 10% in this exam- ple),N is the population size of all adults (69,407),n is the sample size that received the ques- tion (400), andt is the uppera/2 point for the t -distribution withn— 1 degrees of freedom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error of ± 2.94%. This means that, with 1 0% of survey respondents indicating they had been in contact with a member of City Council in the past 12 months, we can be 95% confident that the actual percentage of all adult residents in contact with a Council member during this period is between 7% and 1 3%. Figure 47 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e.,p = 0.5). For this sur- vey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.89% for questions answered by all 400 respondents. 6. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 48 Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as area of the City, age of the respondent, and years of residence. Figure 47 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups. FIGURE 47 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR Margin of Error 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0 T 1 T 1 L 1 r t 1 L Sample of 400 Adult Residents ± 4.89% 7 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents) r-fATA r-rr! ! rrT!rr • The method of data collection for this study was telephone interview- ing. Interviews were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (1 0AM to 5PM) between December 6 and December 14, 2011. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling dur- ing those hours would bias the sample. The interviews averaged 21 minutes in length. DATA PROCESSIN+, Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing fre- quency analyses and cross -tabulations. Where appropriate, tests of statistical significance were conducted to evaluate whether a change in responses between the 2007 and 2011 studies was due to an actual change in opinions or was likely an artifact of independently drawn cross-sec- tional samples. ROIJNnING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given question. City or Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 207 2 49 QUESTIONNAIRE & TOPLINES _.)\)L —,TRUENORTH City of Temecula 2011 Resident Survey Final Toplines Section 1: Introduction to Study Hi, my name is and I'm calling on behalf of TNR, a public opinion research company. We're conducting a survey about issues in your community and we would like to get your opinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la). I'm NOT trying to sell anything and I won't ask for a donation. If needed: The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to the measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the survey, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview. Section 2: Screener for Inclusion in the Study For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. (if there is no male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age, then ask): Ok, then I'd like to speak to the youngest female currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. (If there is no adult currently available, then ask for a callback time) NOTE: Adjust this screener as needed to match sample quotas on gender & age SC1 To begin, I have a few screening questions. What is the ZIP code at your residence? (Read zip code back to them to confirm correct) 1 to 4 years 1 92590, 92591, 92592 100% Go to SC2 4 2 Any other ZIP code 0% Terminate SC2 Do you live inside the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la), or outside of the city limits? Refused 1 Inside 100% Qualified 2 Outside 0% Terminate 99 Refused 0% Terminate Section 3: Quality of Life I'd like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la). Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? 1 Less than 1 year 8% 2 1 to 4 years 25% 3 5 to 9 years 22% 4 10 to 14 years 20% 5 15 years or longer 25% 99 Refused 0% True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 1 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 50 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? 1 Excellent 61% 2 Good 35% 3 Fair 4% 4 Poor 0% 5 Very poor 0% 98 Not sure 0% 99 Refused 0% Q3 What are the one or two things that you like most about living in the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Small town feel / Community involvement 32% Cleanliness of City 1 9% Public safety/ Low crime rate 1 8% Proximity to shopping, services in City 16% Schools / Quality of education 1 5% Proximity to areas, attractions outside City 1 3% Parks / Recreation opportunities 1 3% Family / Friends / Neighbors 1 3% Good climate, weather 9% Quality of life / General positive comment 7% Newness of City, infrastructure 6% Open space / Mountains 4% Aesthetic beauty, landscaping of City 4% City planning / Local government 4% Wineries / Vineyards 3% Minimal traffic 3% Jobs / Business, economic opportunities 2% Good air quality 2% Casinos / Indian reservations 1% Religious focus of community 1% General negative comment 1% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 2 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 rD (20 0 CD (/1 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q4 If the City government could change one thing to make Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Q5 Not sure / Cannot think of anything 22% Reduce traffic 20% Improve, repair roads 10% Attract employers, high end businesses 9% Limit, reduce growth, development 7% Improve, develop parks, recreation 5% Improve government process, Council 5% Improve education 4% Lower taxes, fees 4% Improve police protection, public safety 4% Improve hospitals, healthcare 4% Improve shopping, commercial development 2% Improve public transit 2% Provide more entertainment options, nightlife 2% Reduce cost of housing 2% Address illegal immigration issue 1% Clean up, beautify City 1% Address homeless issue 1% Do not change anything 1% Section 41111,Services Next, I'm going to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la). Q5 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 62% 2 Somewhat satisfied 30% 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 4% 4 Very dissatisfied 2% 98 Not sure 3% 99 Refused 0% Split Sample for Questions 6 & 7. Subsample A gets items A -L, Subsample B gets items M -X. True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 3 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Make sure respondent understands the 4 point scale. Randomize Extremely Important c w Q E Somewhat Important Not at all Important 0 0 o 0 z Refused A Enforcing traffic laws 1 9% 44% 30% 6% 0% 0% B Maintaining a low crime rate 48% 48% 3% 0% 0% 0% C Providing neighborhood police patrols 25% 53% 18% 4% 0% 0% D Providing fire protection and prevention services 33% 59% 7% 0% 0% 0% E Providing emergency paramedic services 44% 50% 4% 1% 0% 0% F Satisfying residents' needs for shopping opportunities 7% 41% 41% 10% 0% 0% G Maintaining local streets and roads 22% 65% 12% 1% 0% 0% H Managing commercial growth in the City 1 7% 41% 32% 8% 2% 0% I Maintaining sidewalks and curbs 1 8% 54% 25% 3% 0% 0% J Providing reliable garbage and recycling services 23% 61% 1 5% 1% 0% 0% K Coordinating traffic signals 32% 53% 14% 0% 0% 0% L Providing local public transportation and shuttle services 11% 33% 42% 13% 0% 1% M Maintaining bike lanes and trails 1 5% 44% 31% 9% 0% 0% N Managing residential growth in the City 25% 48% 20% 6% 1% 0% 0 Promoting jobs development in the City 37% 48% 13% 2% 0% 0% P Providing a variety of recreation programs 14% 52% 30% 4% 0% 0% Q Providing a variety of parks and recreation facilities 23% 56% 20% 0% 0% 0% R Providing library services 22% 52% 22% 3% 1% 0% S Providing teen services 1 7% 46% 26% 9% 3% 0% T Providing senior services 16% 48% 28% 7% 0% 0% Providing special events, such as the Fourth of July Parade and summer concerts 14% 45% 35% 6% 0% 0% V Providing cultural arts, public art, theater and museum services 14% 43% 36% 7% 0% 0% W Providing programs and services to those with special needs 1 7% 44% 34% 4% 0% 0% X Acquiring and protecting open space 1 9% 45% 26% 8% 2% 0% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 4 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q7 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If `satisfied' or `dissatisfied', then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 0 0 E -Q 0 0 z Refused A Enforce traffic laws 48% 33% 8% 5% 6% 0% B Maintain a low crime rate 73% 1 9% 3% 2% 3% 0% C Provide neighborhood police patrols 54% 27% 3% 7% 9% 0% D Provide fire protection and prevention services 74% 14% 1% 0% 11% 0% E Provide emergency paramedic services 68% 1 5% 2% 3% 11% 0% F Satisfy residents' needs for shopping opportunities 67% 25% 2% 0% 6% 0% G Maintain local streets and roads 57% 34% 4% 4% 1% 0% H Manage commercial growth in the City 46% 34% 7% 2% 10% 0% I Maintain sidewalks and curbs 67% 26% 1% 1% 5% 0% J Provide reliable garbage and recycling services 83% 1 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% K Coordinate traffic signals 43% 31% 12% 1 0% 4% 0% Provide local public transportation andL shuttle services 35% 31% 5% 6% 22% 0% M Maintain bike lanes and trails 45% 35% 4% 5% 11% 0% N Manage residential growth in the City 33% 38% 10% 9% 9% 0% 0 Promote jobs development in the City 20% 40% 16% 1 2% 11% 1% P Provide a variety of recreation programs 54% 32% 4% 2% 7% 0% Q Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities 70% 24% 2% 1% 2% 0% R Provide library services 66% 25% 4% 1% 4% 0% S Provide teen services 23% 36% 9% 5% 26% 1% T Provide senior services 29% 35% 4% 2% 28% 2% Provide special events, such as the Fourth of July Parade and summer concerts 58% 30% 4% 1% 7% 0% V Provide cultural arts, public art, theater and museum services 51% 34% 3% 4% 8% 0% W Provide programs and services to those with special needs 27% 38% 3% 3% 27% 2% X Acquire and protect open space 31% 38% 9% 6% 14% 1% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 5 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 54 (D iC 0 CD (/1 1 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Sect Q8 on 5: Community Facilities and Programs As I read each of the following community facilities, please tell me whether you or another member of your household has visited this facility in the past 12 months. Randomize r z° av ' w O'' v z" A A city park or open space area 92% 8% 0% B A recreation or sports facility operated by the City 73% 26% 1% C The Children's Museum 36% 63% 1% D The Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) Community Theatre in Old Town 48% 52% 0% E The Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) Public Library 81% 1 9% 0% F The Civic Center 38% 60% 2% G The History Museum 28% 71% 1% H The Senior Center 16% 83% 1% Q9 How would you rate the of Temecula's (Tuh-Mek-you-la) park and recreation facilities? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Read item A first, then randomize E v X Lu -0 °o U Fair °o a Very Poor Not sure v v A Overall quality 63% 34% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% B Safety 56% 34% 6% 1% 0% 3% 0% C Accessibility 63% 29% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% D Appearance 63% 32% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% Q1 0 In the past 12 months, have you or any member of your household participated in a recreational program or special event offered by the City of Temecula (1uh-Mek-you-la)? 1 Yes 49% Ask QII 2 No 50% Skip to QI2 98 Not sure 1% Skip to QI2 99 Refused 0% Skip to QI2 True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 6 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q1 1 Overall, how would you rate the quality of Temecula's (Tuh-Mek-you-la) recreational • programs and special events that your household participated in? Would you say it was excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Q12 1 Excellent 60% 2 Good 38% 3 Fair 1% 4 Poor 0% 5 Very poor 0% 98 Not sure 0% 99 Refused 0% Sect. on 6: Traffic Q12 Next, I'd like to ask you a few questions about traffic circulation. By traffic circulation, I mean the ability to drive around Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) without encountering long delays. Would you rate: within the City as excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Read in Order v w Good ,_o LL 85 a w o o z Refused A Overall traffic circulation 9% 37% 33% 1 3% 8% 1% 0% B Traffic circulation on major streets 8% 32% 34% 20% 7% 0% 0% C Traffic circulation in residential areas 32% 52% 10% 4% 1% 1% 0% Ql 3 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissat'sfied with the City's efforts to .mprove traffic circulation by improving roads and intersections, timing traffic s.gnals and other measures? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 30% 2 Somewhat satisfied 40% 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 1 8% 4 Very dissatisfied 9% 98 Not sure 3% 99 Refused 0% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 7 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Section 7: Economic Development Next, I'd like to ask you a few questions about your retail shopping. Q14 Thinking of the retail stores that your household currently shops at outside of the City, are there any that you would like to have available in Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? 1 Yes 38% Ask Q15 2 No 58% Skip to Q16 98 Not sure 4% Skip to Q16 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q16 Q1 5 What are the names of the one or two stores you would most like to have located in the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Nordstrom 46% Fry's Electronics 8% Clothing, accessory stores 7% Cheesecake Factory 4% Whole Foods 4% IKEA 4% Restaurants 4% Grocery stores 4% Bass Pro Shop 3% Neiman Marcus 3% Toys R Us 3% Sam's Club 3% Bloomingdales 2% Target 2% Crate and Barrel 2% Saks Fifth Avenue 2% Mall / Shopping center 2% Ethan Allen 2% Harbor Freight Tools 2% Cardenas Market 2% Furniture stores 2% Shoe stores 2% Car dealerships 2% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 8 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 57 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Section 8: Spending Priorities The City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) has the financial resources to provide some of the projects and programs desired by residents. Because it can not fund every project and program, however, the City must set priorities. Q1 6 As I read each of the following items, I'd like you to indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future City spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities. Here is the (first/next) one: . Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City, or should the City not spend any money on this item? Randomize High Priority `o M.- Low Priority Should not spend money Ln z Refused A Acquire and protect open space and natural habitat areas in and around the City 39% 35% 20% 5% 0% 0% B Expand and improve the network of recreational trails 1 5% 44% 33% 7% 1% 0% C Increase recreational programs 22% 48% 25% 4% 1% 0% D Attract and or expand institutions of higher learning such as a college or university 56% 27% 13% 3% 1 % 0% E Make infrastructure improvements to improve traffic circulation 61% 27% 8% 3% 1% 0% F Build additional park -n -ride lots for carpoolers 1 8% 34% 36% 1 0% 2% 0% GBuild a Teen Center and expand teen services 32% 43% 21% 3% 1% 0% H Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 75% 1 8% 4% 3% 0% 0% Improve the appearance of public infrastructure and landscapes 1 7% 46% 31% 6% 0% 0% J Expand services and programs for people with special needs 33% 44% 17% 3% 3% 0% K Attract state-of-the-art medical facilities and healthcare services 74% 1 7% 6% 2% 1% 0% Revitalize Jefferson Corridor and otherL outdated commercial areas of the City 25% 38% 28% 6% 3% 0% M Develop high quality arts, culture, history and sporting events and facilities 22% 47% 27% 3% 1% 0% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 9 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Secton 9. Healthcare, Schools & Old Town Q1 7 Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your access to emergency hospital care in Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? Get answer, then ask; Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 22% 2 Somewhat satisfied 28% 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 20% 4 Very dissatisfied 25% 98 Not sure 5% 99 Refused 0% Q1 Prior theiity? to taking this survey, were you aware that a new hospital is under construction in 1 Yes 75% 2 No 24% 98 Not sure 1% 99 Refused 0% Q1 9 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in Temecula's (Tuh- Mek-you-la) public schools? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? 1 Excellent 46% 2 Good 31% 3 Fair 8% 4 Poor 2% 5 Very poor 1% 98 Not sure 1 2% 99 Refused 0% Q20 How often do you visit Old Town Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month or less often, or never. 1 Once per week 25% 2 Two to three times per month 32% 3 Once per month 20% 4 Less often than once per month 1 9% 5 Never 3% 98 Not sure 0% 99 Refused 0% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 10 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q21 Overall, how would you rate your experiences in Old Town Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? Would you say they've been excellent, good, fair, poor or very poo Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek- you-la). For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Here is the (first/next) one: Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)? 1 Excellent 50% 2 Good 40% 3 Fair 7% 4 Poor 1% 5 Very poor 0% 98 Not sure 2% 99 Refused 0% Sect'on 10: Staff & Council Mir Q22 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek- you-la). For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Here is the (first/next) one: Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)? RandomizeQ c,, T, m Smwht Agree w s 2 g g T v �2 c Don't Know Refused A The City is responsive to residents' needs 27% 47% 7% 4% 1 3% 1% B The City manages its finances well 28% 38% 7% 5% 21% 1% C The City listens to residents when making important decisions 25% 40% 8% 6% 1 9% 1% D I trust the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) 41% 40% 8% 3% 8% 0% Q23 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) staff? 1 Yes 29% Ask Q24 2 No 71% Skip to Q25 98 Not sure 0% Skip to Q25 99 Refused 0% Skip to Q25 True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 11 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Q24 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very , somewhat , or not at all ? Randomize 14 o cn Not at all d N o z w A Courteous 72% 25% 2% 1% 0% B Helpful 56% 37% 5% 1% 0% C Professional 68% 30% 2% 1% 0% D Knowledgeable 60% 35% 1% 4% 0% Q25 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with a member of the City Council? City Council Meetings (televised) 1 Yes 10% 2 No 90% 98 Not sure 0% 99 Refused 0% Section 11: City -Resident Communication Q26 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 32% 2 Somewhat satisfied 41% 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 1 5% 4 Very dissatisfied 3% 98 Not sure 8% 99 Refused 0% Q27 What information sources do you use to find out about City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you- la) news, information and programming? (Don't read list. Record up to first 3 responses). 1 City Newsletter/inside Temecula 21% 2 Californian (paper) 14% 3 Press Enterprise (paper) 10% 4 Valley News/Temecula Valley News 9% 5 City Council Meetings (televised) 0% 6 City Council Meetings (in-person) 1% 7 Radio 2% 8 Television (general) 16% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 12 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 rD 2o 0 CD City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 Section 12: Background & Demographics 9 City's website 20% 1 0 Internet (not City's site) 43% 1 1 Email notification from City 2% 1 2 Flyers or brochures (displayed at public facilities) 6% 1 3 Community events I% 1 4 Social Media like Facebook or Twitter 2% 15 Friends/Family/Associates 7% 1 6 Other source 6% 1 7 Do Not Receive Information about City 2% 98 Not sure 2% 99 Refused 0% Q28 In the past 12 months, have you ? Askin order z 2_, 7) ' 2 ov z`2 A Attended a Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) City Council meeting in person 10% 90% 0% B Watched a City Council meeting on TV 24% 75% 0% C Watched a City Council meeting over the Internet g% 91% 0% Section 12: Background & Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes. Dl Which of the following best describes where you live in Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la)? 1 Old Town Area 5% 2 North of Rancho California Road 31% 3 Between Rancho California Road and Temecula Parkway/Highway 79 South 34% 4 South of Temecula Parkway/Highway 79 South 27% 99 Refused 4% True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 13 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 rD 2o 0 rD (/1 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 D2 ■ Do you own or rent your residence in the City? 1 Own 74% 2 Rent 25% 99 Refused 0% D3 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home 85% 2 Apartment 10% 3 Condominium 3% 4 Mobile home 2% 99 Refused 1% D4 Thinking ahead five years, which of the following best describes the type of housing you expect to live in at that point? 1 Single family detached home 86% 2 Apartment 5% 3 Condominium 3% 4 Mobile home 2% 99 Refused 3% D5 Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are emp oyed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now? 1 Employed full-time 48% Ask D6 2 Employed part-time 11% Ask D6 3 Student 6% Ask D6 4 Homemaker 10% Skip to D8 5 Retired 1 7% Skip to D8 6 In-between jobs 8% Skip to D8 99 Refused 1% Skip to D8 D6 Do you commute outside of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la) or Murrieta (Mur-ee-yet-uh) on a regular basis for your job/school (response from D5)? 1 Yes 57% Ask D7 2 No 43% Skip to D8 99 Refused 0% Skip to D8 True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 14 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 rD YC 0 rD (/1 City of Temecula Resident Survey December 2011 D7 In what county is the City that you commute to located? 1 Los Angeles (L.A.) 8% 2 Orange 7% 3 Riverside 23% 4 San Bernardino 5% 5 San Diego 52% 6 Ventura 0% 7 Other 3% 99 Refused 2% D8 In what year were you born? Year recorded and grouped into categories shown below. 18 to 24 13% 25 to 34 17% 35 to 44 22% 45 to 54 20% 55 to 64 17% 65 or older 11% Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Temecula (Tuh-Mek-you-la). True North Research, Inc. C. 2011 Page 15 City of Temecula True North Research, Inc. © 2012 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS Item No. 23 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Planning Department Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the month of March, 2012. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 47 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations including 3 applications for public hearings during the month of March. Special Protects & Long Range Planning Activities The Long Range Planning Division commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities currently in progress are described in the paragraphs below: • Temecula Regional Hospital— This project was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008. On December 30, 2009 the applicant submitted an application for a one year extension of time and Council approved this extension on January 26, 2010, extending the approval until January 22, 2011. The applicant submitted a Major Modification application on June 18, 2010, to reduce the number of hospital beds in the first phase from 178 beds to 140 beds and to change the construction of the building from concrete to framed construction. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Major Modification application on December 15, 2010 and City Council approved the Modification application on February 8, 2011. A grading permit was issued for rough grading operations on June 8, 2011. Clearing and grubbing operations began on June 9, 2011, cut/fill operations began on June 21, 2011, and import operations began on June 30, 2011 and have been completed. The applicant obtained their 401 Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board on September 26, 2011, their 404 Permit from Army Corps on September 30, 2011, and clearance from the California Department of Fish and Game on August 1, 2011. With these permits the applicant was able to complete the mass grading of the entire site. Precise grading for the first hospital tower pad is completed. UHS obtained foundation plan approval from OSHPD for the first hospital bed tower on October 18, 2011, and construction of the building footings and pilings has begun. Vertical construction (erection of structural steel) for the first hospital bed tower began on February 13, 2012 and erection of the structural steel was topped out on March 22, 2012, and will be substantially complete by approximately May 16, 2012. The first concrete deck pour is scheduled for April 24, 2012. A sign program for the hospital campus was submitted on March 6, 2012. Staff provided comments to the applicant regarding the sign program on March 29, 2012 and is awaiting resubmittal. (FISK) • Jefferson Avenue StudyArea Visioning and Public Outreach —On January 11, 2011 the City Council established the Jefferson Avenue Ad Hoc Subcommittee comprised of Mayor Ron Roberts and Council Member Jeff Comerchero. On July 25, 2011 staff met with the Jefferson Avenue Ad Hoc Subcommittee to discuss the status of the Jefferson Avenue Planning effort and the status of the SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Grant which was awarded to assist the city with the public outreach and visioning process. Through SCAG's RFP process, MIG, Inc. was selected as the planning and public outreach consultant. This firm is tasked with conducting a total of five Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning Workshops over 9 months. These workshops are intended to solicit community input and feedback which will be developed into a community-based vision for the future. The community-based vision would set the foundation for a future specific plan which would guide the future revitalization of this area over the next 15-30 years. At the conclusion of the July 25, 2011 subcommittee meeting, the subcommittee members authorized staff to move forward with the public outreach and visioning effort for the Jefferson Avenue StudyArea. In preparation for the first Visioning Workshop, staff met with Mayor Roberts on September 26, 2011 and with Council Member Comerchero on September 28, 2011 to discuss the following items: 1) Draft layout/content of project website; 2) proposed marketing/branding effort for visioning process; 3) stakeholder interview process; 4) agenda for Visioning Workshop # 1; and, 5) the press release strategy. Additionally, as part of MI G's scope of work, stakeholder interviews were conducted with a number of stakeholders and community members. The first Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning Workshop was held in the Conference Center at the Temecula Civic Center on October 18, 2011. The meeting agenda included a presentation from planning staff discussing the project purpose and overview, existing conditions, project background, followed by an interactive and livelyfacilitated discussion by MIG to solicit the stakeholder's ideas for the future vision of the area, the future opportunities for the area and potential challenges that may need to be overcome. Over 50 stakeholders attended this first visioning workshop. The second Jefferson Avenue Visioning Workshop was held on December 6, 2011. The project website: www.envisionjefferson.org was also launched on December 6, 2011. The second workshop discussed urban design and placemaking strategies for the study area. This meeting included a presentation on urban design principles and placemaking strategies. Over 40 stakeholders attended this second visioning workshop and provided their ideas and feedback. The third visioning workshop was held on February 2, 2012. This workshop presented two different approaches to identifying potential districts within the study area: 1). land use approach, and 2) physical form and character approach. The workshop format was interactive, with MIG soliciting stakeholder feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the conceptual district concepts presented, alternative district considerations, and additional ideas/areas for further study, consideration or discussion. The fourth visioning workshop will be held on April 5, 2012. The fourth workshop will focus on mobility, transportation and complete streets within the Study Area and will solicit community feedback and visioning ideas related to these topics. (RICHARDSON/WATSON/INNES/WEST/KITZEROW) • SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan — The update to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is underway. The RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a new component to the RTP as a result of the passage of SB 375. Staff has provided land use, employment and population data to SCAG and the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research to establish Base Year Conditions and General Plan Based Growth Forecast/Distribution and land use for years 2020 and 2035. The Regional Transportation Plan, including the SCS, is scheduled to be adopted by SCAG by November 2012. (WEST) • Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant — The City of Temecula was awarded $248,200 from Caltrans for a Community Based Transportation Planning grant. This grant will fund a multi -jurisdictional transportation corridor planning effort for the Highway 395 Corridor for the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar, and Lake Elsinore. The City of Temecula is the lead agency and primary recipient of the grant funding. WRCOG is a sub -recipient for the purposes of administering the grant. The City of Murrieta, City of Wildomar and City of Lake Elsinore are grant participants. The Highway 395 Corridor is a 16 -mile central north/south arterial that parallels the west side of Interstate 15. The planning effort will promote public engagement, livable communities, and will address mobility, access and safety along the Highway 395 Corridor. As a part of this effort, the City of Temecula will analyze affordable housing opportunities, and the opportunities and impacts of increased intensity and density, mixed-use development and impacts and opportunities related to the transportation network. The final product emerging as a result of this grant will be a "Multi -Jurisdictional Corridor Plan for the Highway 395 Corridor" which is a 20 -year transportation plan for the Corridor. The Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning grant is anticipated to complement the ULI Technical Advisory Panel study completed for the Jefferson Avenue which focuses on future land use and transportation planning efforts related to the high speed rail alignment through the City of Temecula. The City Council approved the contract with Fehr and Peers on August 9, 2011. The project kick-off meeting with the consults and City staff was held on August 16, 2011. The community outreach and engagement effort of this project is being coordinated through the SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project in conjunction with the Jefferson Avenue Study Area. A project website will serve as the hub for information accessed by staff and the general public (http://www.highwav395corridorstudv.orq). The next two workshops will focus on multi -modal transportation, housing and economic development. The workshops will cover the same information but will be held at two different locations along the corridor. The first workshop was held on March 15, 2012 at the City of Temecula Conference Center. The second workshop was held at the City of Wildomar City Council Chambers on March 22, 2012. The Historic Highway 395 Corridor project will be completed by February 2013. (WEST/INNES) • SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Grant for the Historic Highway 395 Corridor and Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning and Public Outreach Process — The City of Temecula was awarded a Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project grant by SCAG in February 2011 to provide visioning and public outreach assistance for the Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant funded by Caltrans, and to provide visioning and public outreach assistance with the Jefferson Avenue Study Area. The objective of the grant is to establish a vision for the future of the Jefferson Avenue Study Area through public outreach and an extensive visioning process. The visioning process is intended to promote SCAG's four key principles of livability, mobility, sustainability and prosperity and also focus on achieving the goals of SB 375. The future Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan area is intended to become a mixed-use, transit -oriented corridor designed to support the feasibility of the future High Speed Rail station that is slated to be located north of the specific plan area in the City of Murrieta, and the planned Cherry Street Transit Station located on the boundaries of the City of Murrieta and Temecula. The public outreach efforts will include visioning workshops and a website dedicated to the visioning and public outreach process. MIG was the consulting firm selected as a result of the interview process. MIG is under contract with SCAG and will provide professional planning consulting work for the public outreach effort for both the Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning Process and the Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant. (WEST/INNES) • Development Code Amendment to address concerns with off -sale alcohol sales for businesses that require a Conditional Use Permit — On May 24, 2011 the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a 45 -day moratorium on the issuance/approval of Conditional Use Permits for off -sale alcohol businesses (i.e. Convenience Markets and Liquor Stores). On June 28, 2011 the City Council adopted an extension to the Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend the moratorium until May 13, 2012. This extension provided staff time to prepare studies to determine the appropriate locations in the City for Off -Sale Alcohol CUP businesses and to determine whether additional regulations should be imposed upon these businesses or whether these businesses should be prohibited in certain areas of the City. Since adoption of the moratorium ordinance on May 24, 2011, Staff has studied potential provisions for the City's Zoning Ordinance that would mitigate the detrimental impacts on public peace, health and safety expressed in the moratorium ordinance, including review of ordinances from other cities addressing these issues. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the draft ordinance on February 1, 2012. On February 28, 2012, the City Council approved the proposed Ordinance. The second reading of the Ordinance will occur on March 13, 2012, and the ordinance will become effective on April 12, 2012. (KITZEROW) • Consolidated Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds — On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted a resolution to request that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designate the City of Temecula as an Entitlement City. On November 1, 2011, the City Council adopted a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that set forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five-year Consolidated Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Staff held two community workshops on November 16, 2011, and one technical workshop on November 17, 2011. The workshops along with an online survey were used to broaden participation and collect public input on the Plan. Staff, in collaboration with the City's consultant, BBC, and HUD representatives, has been writing the Consolidated Plan over the last several months. The draft Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 201212013 project and service funding recommendations were reviewed by the Finance Committee on February28, 2012. The draft Five -Year Consolidated Plan was available for public review and comment from March 2, 2012 through April 2, 2012, and is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 10, 2012. (WEAVER) • Bike Lane and Trail Program — As of January 1, 2012, City Staff has been working on an update to the inventory map and implementation program for the City's Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Staff completed a field survey of existing and proposed bike lanes and trails, and has been working with GIS to prioritize trail routes in order to complete an Old Town to Wine Country Trail (east -west connection), a Lake Skinner Trail (north -south connection), and a Temecula Loop around the entire city. This loop system will generally be located along Temecula Creek on the south side of the City, Butterfield Stage Road on the east side, Santa Gertrudis Creek on the north, and Murrieta Creek on the west. Staff is in the process of developing a recommendation for Capital Improvements over the next five years. (PETERS) Sustainability Program Activities • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Activities - In March 2010, the City of Temecula was awarded grant funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to develop energy efficiency programs. The City was granted $940,700 from the Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG). The grant ends on September 24, 2012 and all funds must be expended by this date. The following activities were identified to be funded with grant funds: the Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization Project, the Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program, and the Municipal Facilities Energy Retrofit Project. (WEST) • Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization Project — In August 2010, the City Council authorized the purchase and installation of the Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization equipment along the Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway and Jefferson Avenue corridors. The adaptive traffic signal synchronization system continuously analyzes and evaluates traffic data along the corridor and selects the most appropriate traffic signal timing, resulting in improved roadway operations and reduced fossil fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. The project was completed in August 2011. • Municipal Facilities Energy Retrofit Project — In December 2010, the City completed a preliminary comprehensive energy survey of the Community Recreation Center (CRC). The preliminary survey evaluated energy conservation measures that could be made at the CRC. The CRC energy retrofit project involves the replacement of 13 outdated heating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems with high efficient HVAC systems, the installation of window tinting on west, east and south facing windows and the replacement of the existing light fixtures in the gymnasium with more efficient T5HO and T8 fixtures. The project also includes the implementation of server virtualization software for City computers. In March the installation of window tint and the replacement of HVAC systems began and is expected to be completed within the next month. • Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program — The Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program (REEP) is designed to make low interest loans available to low and moderate income homeowners to make energy efficient improvements to their homes. The Program allows for specific types of energy efficiency improvements based on the year of construction, which coincides with the changes to Energy Codes of the California Building Standards. The program was approved by the City Council on September 14, 2010 and staff began accepting applications on January 1, 2011. The three applications that were being reviewed were determined to be ineligible for funding. Currently, there are no applications pending. Prior to the Council's authorization of the REEP, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) expressed an interest in developing a similar financing program for energy efficiency retrofit projects. The City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 09- 96, expressing support and an interest in participating in the program subject to the outcome of the feasibility analysis and development of program guidelines. In May 2011, the City of Temecula entered into an Implementation Agreement with WRCOG, for WRCOG to implement and administer their program. Based on the new program being implemented by WRCOG and the underutilization of REEP funds, staff will be recommending reallocation of REEP funds to retrofit traffic safety and bridge lighting. • Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership (Partnership) - The Partnership, consists of 11 WRCOG member cities and Southern California Edison (SCE) provides performance- based SCE's programs and incentives for participating cities to demonstrate energy efficiency leadership within their communities through energy saving actions, including retrofitting and implementing measures at municipal facilities, GHG emissions analysis, energy action plans, as well as providing opportunities for the community to take action in their homes and businesses. The project is scheduled to be completed in October 2012. Staff is working on the following activities as part of the Energy Partnership. (WEST) • Municipal Facility Energy Benchmarking — This activity will establish the baseline performance of City facilities by assessing energy performance, water efficiency, and carbon emissions using Environmental Protection Agency's Portfolio Manager. Staff is collecting and inputting data in order to begin tracking facility performance. This effort will enable the City to track the performance of facilities over time and determine the cost effectiveness of policies affecting operational decisions and energy efficiency measures. Work on this activity began in February 2012. • Energy Action Plan — This activity will establish policies and procedures to curtail energy use at City facilities based on energy data gathered and input into the Benchmarking activity. • The Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory—The Green TAC selected 2007 as the base year for GHG emissions inventory analysis. Two inventories were prepared: 1) a municipal operations inventory and, 2) a communitywide inventory. The next steps are to select a target emission reduction and identify implementation measures that will achieve the selected target. The Green TAC established a test target of 15 percent below the 2007 base year. Work on the emissions inventory is has begun again with the participation in the Partnership. Data collection needed to quantify GHG emissions has begun and the first draft of the analysis is anticipated to be completed during the 4th quarter of 2012. • Solid Waste and Recycling - Staff assists with coordination and public outreach of the by Citywide Clean -Up, the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event, and the Backyard Composting Workshop. The Citywide Clean -Up was held on March 24, 2012 at Chaparral High School. The event is sponsored by the City's Franchise Waste Hauler and open to only Temecula residents to properly dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the residential waste can. The temporary Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events (HHWE) and the Backyard Composting Workshops are County of Riverside Waste Management programs and are open to all Riverside County residents. The HHWE was held on March 24, 2012 at the Murrieta City Hall parking lot. The Backyard Composting Workshop will be held on Saturday May 12, 2012 at the Murrieta Public Library. Staff assists with public outreach by distributing flyers at City facilities and providing information on the Public Access Channel and the City's website. (WEST) Planning Agenda Report 3/1/2012 through 3/31/2012 1. Recently Approved APN # • PA12-0028 Circus Vargas @ Promenade TUP 910420010 CHERYL KITZEROW A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Circus Vargas to conduct circus performances from March 29 thru April 9 from 12:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at 40820 Winchester Road (Promenade Mall - Lower Macy's parking lot). Same as PA11-0036. Submitted Date Approved Date Feb 13 2012 Mar 6 2012 APN # • PA12-0039 Promenade Mat! Stand MTUP 910420030 ERIC JONES A Major TUP for a strawberry stand to be located at 40820 Winchester Road. The stand will operate from March 1, 2012 through July 31, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. Submitted Date Approved Date Feb 24 2012 TBD • PA12-0042 Highway 79 Strawberry Stand APN # 959070031 ERIC JONES Major TUP for a strawberry stand to be located at corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road. The stand will operate from March 1, 2012 through July 31, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. Submitted Date Approved Date Feb 27 2012 Mar 16 2012 APN # • PA11-0226 Neighbor Health Major Mod 909282006 ERIC JONES A Major Modification Application to allow for a 3,771 square foot addition to an existing structure located at 41840 Enterprise Circle North (APN: 909-282-006) Submitted Date Approved Date Aug 22 2011 Mar 21 2012 1 of 4 Planning Agenda Report 3/1/2012 through 3/31/2012 2. Scheduled for Hearing APN # • PA11-0274 PDS Campanula Apartments DP 959390008 CHERYL KITZEROW A Multi -family residential Development Plan to construct the Campanula Way Apartments within Planning Area 6B of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Project includes 288 apartment units (1 bedroom/2 bedroom flats/2 bedroom townhomes/3 bedroom townhomes) ranging in size from 595 square feet to 1,471 square feet. Also proposed is a clubhouse with pool, tot lot, dog park and other amenities for future residents. Project is located at the northwest corner of Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway. (PR11-0016) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Oct 27 2011 12/1/2011 Apr 18 2012 • PA12-0032 Soro's Mediterranean Grill APN # 922023022 MATTHEW PETERS A Conditional Use Permit for Soro's Mediterranean Grill to upgrade their liquor license from a Type 41 (beer and wine) to Type 47 (beer, wine and distilled spirits) at 28464 Old Town Front Street. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Feb 21 2012 8/4/2011 May 2 2012 APN # • PA11-0180 Villages @ Paseo del Sol DP2 959390009 CHERYL KITZEROW A Development Plan to construct 186 single family attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt units) with 3 floor plans and 2 elevation styles. Units range in size from 1,743 square feet to 2,582 square feet. Project site is located in Planning Area 6A of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Associated with Tentative Tract Map (No. 36212). (Note: this project replaces the withdrawn applications PA09-0209 & PA09-0210) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Jun 29 2011 8/4/2011 Apr 18 2012 • PA11-0178 Villages @ Paseo del Sol TTM2 APN # 959390009 CHERYL KITZEROW A Tentative Tract Map (No. 36212) to subdivide 15.98 gross acres into a one lot subdivision map for Condominium Purposes for 186 single family attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt units), located in Planning Area 6A of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Associated with Development Plan/Product Review application PA11-0180. (Note: this project replaces the withdrawn applications PA09-0209 & PA09-0210) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision Jun 29 2011 8/4/2011 Apr 18 2012 • PA12-0009 Aftershock Minor CUP APN # 922093003 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow Aftershock Brewing Co. to operate a brewery (ABC License Type 23) totaling 1,467 square feet, including 214 square feet to be used as a tasting room. The project is located at 28822 Old Town Front Street (APN: 922-093-003) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jan 13 2012 TBD 2 of 4 Planning Agenda Report 3/1/2012 through 3/31/2012 3. New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting APN # 922045033 • PA11-0255 Art Walk Major TUP ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Art Walks to be conducted within an existing parking lot in Old Town from 10 am to dusk. Project is located at 28677 Old Town Front Street (APN:922-045-033) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Sep 28 2011 TBD • PA11-0281 American Life TPM APN # 909370006 ERIC JONES A Tentative Parcel Map (Waived Final Map) application to subdivide one partially developed lot (18.79 acres) into two lots. The project is located at 42000 Zevo Drive (APN: 909-370-006) Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Nov 3 2011 TBD • PA12-0026 APN # Taste of Temecula Valley 922360001 DAWN ADAMIAK A Special Event Permit for Taste of Temecula Valley, a one day event with food, wine, beer and entertainment. Event allows local restaurants the opportunity to showcase thier restaurant to new customers on Saturday, April 28th from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. in Town Square Park. Mercedes Street will be closed from 3rd Street to 4th Street and the Main Street ''Y" will be closed from Friday, April 27th at 7am through Sunday, April 29th at 7a.m. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Feb 8 2012 TBD • PA12-0027 Rod Run APN # 922026008 DAWN ADAMIAK A Special Use Permit for the annual Rod Run to display cars and for vendors and entertainment. The event will take place on March 9th and 10th. Old Town Front Street and adjacent side streets will be closed on Friday from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. and on Saturday from 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Administrators Hearing Feb 10 2012 Mar 102010 • PA12-0044 Crosswalk Major TUP APN # 910300014 DAWN ADAMIAK A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a Crosswalk to occur on Friday, April 6, 2012 from 11 a.m. to 3 p. m. The walk will take place from Temeku Cinemas in the Palm Plaza at 26447 Ynez Road to Sam Hicks Park. A community celebration with a stage and band will be conducted at Sam Hicks Park once participants arrive. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Feb 29 2012 TBD • PA12-0059 Wiens Brewing Co. Minor CUP APN # 921040003 MATTHEW PETERS A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the Wiens Brewing Co. (existing ABC License Type 23) to open a 947 square foot retail and tasting area at their existing location at 27941 Diaz Rd, Suite A. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Mar 21 2012 4/19/2012 TBD APN # 3 of 4 Planning Agenda Report 3/1/2012 through 3/31/2012 • PA12-0064 Rancho Community Church TUP 959070018 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Ues Permit for a spring fund raiser carnival to be held at Rancho Community Church located at 31300 Rancho Community Way on Friday April 20th from 5 p.m. - 9 p.m., Saturday April 21st and Sunday 22nd from 10 a.m. - 9 p.m. The carnival will include a talent show, kid's rides, an obstacle course, and carnival games (APN: 959-070-020). Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Mar 272012 TBD APN # • PA12-0021 Iron Fire Brewery CUP 909372032 CHERYL KITZEROW A Minor Conditional Use Permit for Iron Fire Brewery to operate a beer manufacturing facility with incidental tasting room/sales located within an existing industrial building addressed as 42095 Zevo Drive. Proposed hours of operations are manufacturing, M -F 7 a.m.-9 p.m., and tasting room M -F 2 p.m. -8 p.m. and Sat -Sun 12 p.m. -8 p.m. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Feb 22012 TBD • PA11-0157 Arco Major Modification APN # 950100011 ERIC JONES A Major Modification application to allow an existing gas station to install three new fuel pumps and add 1,000 square feet to the existing convenience store to make room for a deli. Outside seating will also be provided. The project is located at 44239 Margarita Road (APN: 959-080-017). Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jun 62011 TBD • PA12-0007 Great Oak 5k Run Special Event APN # 962020009 DAWN ADAMIAK A 5k run fund raiser to be held on Sunday, March 18, 2012 from 6:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. for the Great Oak High School band. The event will take place in the vicinity of Great Oak High School. No formal street closures required. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date Hearing Planned Jan 11 2012 TBD 4 of 4 -#7*, 4. • kvairt kolt *** re?bwoo... vv 11/0""W btf* op -fiegul,,, eitttrAvg ek 4 ibralk•Ati61:0 A4*- 401141birq040, _Foar 0 rAwa._ WE II 1. Recently Approved 2. Scheduled for Hearing 3. New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting Item No. 24 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Robert C. Johnson, City Manager DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report - March 2012 PREPARED BY: Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file On March 9, 2012 Council Member Jeff Comerchero traveled to Washington D.C. to attend the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference and the Community and Economic Development Policy and Advocacy Committee Meeting. On March 10, 2012 Council Member Ron Roberts traveled to Washington D.C. to attend the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference and the Transportation Infrastructure and Services Policy and Advocacy Committee Meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Agendas NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE Saturday, March 10 — Sunday, March 11 Saturday, March 10 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration Leadership Training Institute Seminars* 1 Seminar Descriptions Sunday, March 11 Tentative Agenda Committee, Council, and Panel Meetings 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Registration 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. NLC Board and Advisory Council Meetings 9:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. Committee, Council and Panel Meetings 9:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Leadership Training Institute Seminars* 1 Seminar Descriptions 1:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. Full Policy Committee Meetings 4:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. Policy Steering Committee Meetings 4:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. Constituency Group Meetings 5:15 p.m — 6:45 p.m. New Member Orientation *additional fees required Monday, March 12 Tentative Agenda Committee, Council, and Panel Meetings 7:00 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Registration 7:30 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. Celebrate Diversity Breakfast* 9:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m. Opening General Session Speakers Ed Gillespie, Former Counselor to the President and Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Terry McAuliffe, Former Chairman of the Democratic National CommitteeChairman of Hillary Clinton for President Read More 11:00 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. Concurrent Workshops 1 Workshop Descriptions 2:00 p.m. — 3:30 p.m Concurrent Workshops 1 Workshop Descriptions 3:45 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. Afternoon General Session Speakers Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 5:30 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. Constituency Group Meetings and Events* 5:30 ..m. — 9:00 ..m. State Lea •ue Activities Tuesday, March 13 Tentative Agenda 7:00 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. Committee, Council and Panel Meetings Constituency Group Activities 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration 9:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m. Concurrent Workshops 1 Workshop Descriptions 10:45 p.m. — 12:15 p.m. Concurrent Workshops 1 Workshop Descriptions 12:30 p.m. — 2:00 p.m. Delegates General Session/Luncheon Speakers David Brooks, op-ed columnist for The New York Times Read More 2:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. CityFutures Panel, Committee and Council Meetings Constituency Group Activities 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. State League Activities 6:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. The Capitol Steps Wednesday, March 14 All -Day Delegates' Pre -scheduled Capitol Hill Visits 1 aLe vv1 L5avootvluat \..ity l.iVt11G1 G11�iG YY V11�J1tU�JJ Monday, March 12 rage 1 or 1 Tuesday, March 13 » 11:00 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. The Housing Debacle: What's Working, What's Not, and What Can Cities Do About It? Since 2006 when the housing bubble began to burst, federal policy makers have struggled to respond in ways that would both help homeowners keep their homes and stabilize the housing market. As a result, a patchwork of unrelated and sometimes conflicting programs has developed that borrowers and lenders continue to find difficult and cumbersome to navigate. This panel will survey existing and proposed federal programs, including the U.S. Department of Justice's recent $25 billion agreement with the nation's largest mortgage servicers, and offer advice on actions local leaders can take to help connect homeowners with mortgage foreclosure prevention programs and to impact the policy process to improve programs at the federal level. The Federal Budget: Understanding the Deficit Debate What does the national debate over debt and deficit reduction mean for our hometowns? If current projections are correct, our national debt in ten years will be 90 percent of our national income. That is the projection motivating Congress and the Administration to try and restore balance to the federal budget. Attendees at this workshop will have an opportunity to learn and discuss the underlying facts, as well as the different strategies, being considered to reduce the nation's deficit and the potential impact these strategies could have on local govemments and residents. Cities and Cybersecurity While the Internet provides opportunities for cities to increase efficiency and transparency and to offer citizens greater access to public services, it also presents new challenges and vulnerabilities. Municipal networks have recently been subject to cyber theft and online vandalism, and the risk of cyber -attacks that could cripple critical infrastructure is a very real threat. Panelists will discuss intergovernmental efforts to boost cybersecunty. Creating Jobs—Tapping Federal, State and Local Resources to Help Put People to Work Though the economic picture may be improving in parts of the country and in certain sectors of the economy, job growth remains sluggish and unemployment remains too high. Millions of Americans lack the necessary skills to find jobs, and large numbers of employers are unable to fill well -paying jobs because they cannot attract workers with required skills. Learn why this is happening and how the federal government can assist your efforts at the local level to help put people back to work. A panel of experts will discuss strategies for partnering with local businesses and industries to create jobs using some of the important tools available through the federal government, including retraining, job placement, and economic development assistance. 2:00 p.m. — 3:30 p.m. Influencing Congress in 140 Characters or Less...And More Technology Is transforming not Just the way we communicate with each other, but also how we receive the information needed to make important decisions. Learn about some of the latest social media tools and strategies city leaders are using to influence the debates on Capitol Hill whether they're in Washington or at home. Connecting the Dots: Education, Workforce Development, and Jobs Federal government funding supports secondary, post -secondary, and workforce development institutions so they can educate and train youth and adults to succeed in the workplace. Leam from experts in education and workforce development about how your city or town can align its secondary, post -secondary and workforce development institutions and training programs to help ensure that youth and adults can develop the skills they need to be competitive. The Court Report: What Cities Need to Know Every day, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state courts decide issues important to local governments. From the constitutionality of health care reform to land use authority, the First Amendment, governmental immunity, and preemption of local authority, this workshop will survey recent cases and others in the pipeline that are of interest to city leaders. The panel will put them into context, focusing on how they may change local govemments' modus operandi. Moderator: Don Moler, Esq., Executive Director, League of Kansas Municipalities, Topeka, Kansas; Chair, NLC Legal Advisory Committee Speakers: Jon Sheiner, Esq., Principal, Jonathan Sheiner, LLC, Washington, DC Lisa Soronen, Esq., Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center, Washington, DC Charles W. Thompson, Jr., Esq., Executive Director, International Municipal Lawyers Association, Bethesda, Maryland; Ex Officio Member, NLC Legal Advisory Committee 02010 National League of Cities 1 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550, Privacy Policy Site Map Washington, DC 20004 ilitil:IIWWW nlr•, nra/P\7Pnf .0(4,Awnrireilnr,o •-141^1 N1n 1n a uwuuy 1r1L11 V11 1 J I 1111.0.v16 Tuesday, March 13 « Back to Monday 9:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m. rage 1 of 1 How Low Can They Go: The Future of Community Planning and Development Funding As pressure to cut federal spending continues, city leaders are re-examining the federal funding streams that might be available to support local community and economic development activities in the future. Already impacted by the overall decrease in federal spending called for in last year's budget deficit agreement, the Community Development Block Grant program, HOME, Sustainable Communities Grants, Rural Development and other programs remain vulnerable to future cuts. Panelists will explore future prospects for funding these initiatives and discuss how local officials can help influence the outcome of the federal debates concerning these programs. Energy Investments for Economic Growth Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy can drive economic recovery by spurring growth and creating jobs. Local govemments are leading the way supporting the nation's economy through clean energy development. This session will explore federal policies that are needed to support local efforts and examine the federal government's effort to establish national energy policy goals. Pathways to Employment for Disadvantaged Youth With the latest estimates of "opportunity youth" who are out of school and out of work at 6.7 million — many concentrated in cities and towns — federal agencies and local governments alike are mobilizing to provide new, larger scale opportunities to introduce young people to the world of work. Learning to work through on-the-job experience and drawing a first paycheck offer proven benefits for keeping young people on track educationally, lessen reliance on social welfare systems, and prevent involvement with the criminal justice system. Learn from key federal officials and peer municipal leaders about how to become engaged with the White House's Summer Jobs+ initiative, the Department of the Interior explorations toward a 21st century version of the Civilian Conservation Corps, and locally led efforts to provide more youth jobs during the summer and year- round. Explore the best roles and connection points for city governments with business groups, the workforce system, and natural resources agencies and walk away with concrete action steps. 10:45 a.m. — 12:15 p.m. The Case for Investing In Tomorrow's Technologies In a rapidly changing environment, city leaders are making decisions about intergovernmental investments in wireless technology that can provide smarter city services, new information and interoperability for first responders, and improved access to public service for citizens. Panelists will discuss how congressional action to free up additional wireless spectrum and create a secure network for public safety will provide more efficient and effective services at the local level and drive innovation. Turning the Food Desert into an Oasis: Prospects for Improving Food Access and Public Health Local governments have an important role to play in improving our local food systems and ensuring access to healthy food. With a tremendous impact on how food is grown and what kinds of foods are grown, the "Farm Bill" has implications for the environment, local economies, and public health. This session will examine how federal policies and programs can support local efforts to improve the health of their community and promote strong rural, urban and regional economies. © 2010 National League of Cities 11301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550, Privacy Policy Site Map Washington, DC 20004 }lthl://www n1r.r11'O/PVPnfcir`r`r`/\117nrtrc}lnr,c/Fre r_mnrnl,_1'i 'lInn I' n1"a NATIONAL LEAGUE of CITIES FEDERAL RELATIONS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES POLICY AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEE MEETING CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Meeting Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington Room 6 Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. Presiding Lee Dunlap, Chair Council Member Plano, Texas NLC Staff Leslie Wollack Program Director (202) 626-3029 wollack(a�nlc.org TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES POLICY AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1:30 p.m. WELCOME AND MEETING OVERVIEW The Chair will provide an overview of the committee, its role and its work, and expected outcomes from this meeting. • Lee Dunlap, Chair Councilmember, Plano, Texas 1:40 p.m. NLC 101: ROLE OF THE POLICY AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEES An overview of the role of the TIS Committee in developing policy and advocating on behalf of priority issues. Learn what resources NLC has to offer in the area of transportation. • Leslie Wollack Program Director, Infrastructure and Sustainability, NLC Center for Federal Relations • Julia Pulidindi Senior Associate, Infrastructure, NLC Center for Research and Innovation 2:00 p.m. INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Mr. Brahms will introduce the Institute of Transportation Engineers as a valuable resource for local officials and ways that ITE's membership of transportation professionals can be valued partners in meeting community needs. • Thomas Brahms, Executive Director Institute for Transportation Engineers 2:30 p.m. 2011 TIS WORK PLAN DISCUSSION Discuss recommendations on issue priorities for further consideration by the TIS Steering Committee. 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 2 NATIONAL LEAGUE of CITIES 444 March 2012 NLC Group Leaders' Meeting Committee, Council, and Panel ChairsNice Chairs and Constituency Group Leaders Presiding: NLC President Ted Ellis Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:15 - 8:45 a.m. Marriott Wardman Park Hotel: McKinley Room [Continental Breakfast will be available at the meeting.] [DISCUSSION A SNDA • Welcome and Introductions • Update on 2012 Group Work Agendas: Opportunities for Collaboration to Maximize Outcomes • Leadership Ideas for Enhancing Group Meeting Effectiveness • White House Briefing Update • Next Steps: Staying Connected • Adjournment 000 California Transportation Leaders and Stakeholders Cordially invite you to attend the annual California Transportation Reception Transportation Investment: The Key to California's Future Prosperity Tuesday, March 13, 2012 House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.Room 21`65 Rayburn Must Off= Building Washington, D.G RSVP by March 11 rsvpnlindarothpr.conn or 703.417.2709 Enjoy refreshments and California -inspired cuisine. c-`40.tArl Event Sponsors Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Foothill Transit California Transit Association Long Beach Transit Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metrolink Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mobility 21 Municipal Transit Operators Coalition Omnitrans Orange County Transportation Authority Port of Long Beach Port of Los Angeles Port of Oakland Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Southern California Association of Governments Transportation Corridor Agencies Ventura County Transportation Commission NATIONAL LEAGUE 0f CITIES FEDERAL RELATIONS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEE MEETING CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Meetin Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Washington Room 3 Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. Presiding Neal Andrews, Chair Councilmember Ventura, California NLC Staff Michael Wallace Program Director, Housing and Community Development (202) 626-3025 wallace@n1c.org COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1:30 p.m. WELCOME Welcome and meeting overview; • Neal Andrews, Chair Councilmember, Ventura, California 1:45 p.m. NEW MEMBER RECOGNITION Overview of CED Committee and expectations for committee participation • Tony Thomas, Vice -Chair Council Chair, Savannah, Georgia 2:00 p.m. CED REVIEW OF 2011 Review of 2011 CED policy and advocacy accomplishments • Priscilla Tyson, Vice -Chair Council Member, Columbus, Ohio 2:15 p.m. NLC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PRESENTATIONS NLC and Home Depot Foundation Project to Support Veteran Housing • Jim Brooks Program Director, Community Development & Infrastructure, NLC Center for Research and Innovation NLC Welcomes the Sustainable Cities Institute • Tammy Zborel Senior Program Associate, Sustainability, Research & Innovation 2:40 p.m. PRESENTATION Where to turn for Housing Research, Resources and Policy Options • Jeffrey Lubell Executive Director, Center for Housing Policy 3:00 p.m. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Federal legislative update and overview of NLC 2012 legislative agenda • Michael Wallace Program Director, Housing and Community Development, NLC Center for Federal Relations 3:15 p.m. 2012 CED WORK PLAN DISCUSSION The committee will discuss the proposed CED policy work plan and advocacy goals for 2012 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 2 Item No. 25 City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the attached Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Reports for the month of March 2012. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Supervisor DATE: April 6, 2012 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - March, 2012 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of March, 2012: SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 107 B. Total signs installed 9 C. Total signs repaired 106 D. Banners Replaced 95 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 40 5.113 B. Total Tons 113.5 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 149 B. Down Spouts 0 C. Under sidewalks 0 D. Bowls 26 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 5.600 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total location 44 B. Total S.F. 1.989 VII. STENCILING A. 525 New and repainted legends B. 0 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D. 0 Thermal Plastic E. 16 RPMs Installed R:1MAW[AIMMOACTRPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 50 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 34 service order requests for the month of Februarv, 2012. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 211.75 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of March. 2012 was $101,770.00 compared to $90.223.00 for the month of February. 2012. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer $ 101,770.00 $ -0- $ -0- - Capital Improvements - Land Development - Traffic Division RAMAINTAINIMOACTRPT STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of March, 2012 DATE STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: IMPERIAL PAVING COMPANY Date: 03.09.12 GREENSBORO AT PALMETTO REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED ASPHALT TOTAL COST $ 7,932.00 Date: 03.09.12 45557 TOURNAMENT LANE REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED ASPHALT TOTAL COST $12,936.00 Date: 03.12.12 TOURNAMENT LANE AT BAY HILL DRIVE REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED ASPIIALT TOTAL COST $ 12, 199.00 Date: 03.12.12 # 45703 MASTERS DRIVE REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGED ASPHALT TOTAL COST $16,476.00 CONTRACTOR WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. Date: 02.29.12 CITYWIDE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING TOTAL COST $15,640.00 Date: 03.15.12 # CITYWIDE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING TOTAL COST $34,787.00 CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 03.09.12 # OLD TOWN MISCELLANEOUS TRASH & DEBRIS CLEAN-UP FROM ROD RUN TOTAL COST $ 1,800.00 Date: TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 - 0 - TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $101,770.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 - 0 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT STREET MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 rd QUARTER Date Submitted: Submitted By: Prepared By: April 6, 2012 Greg Butler Rodney Tidwell SCOPE OF WORK WORK COMPLETED JAN. 12 COST FOR FEB. '12 WORK COMPLETED FEB. 12 COST FOR FEB. '12 WORK COMPLETED MARCH 12 COST FOR MARCH '12 TOTAL COST FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR TOTAL COST FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 4,287 $12,732.39 0 $5,583.60 5,113 $15,185.61 $91,131.48 $95,917.63 Tons: 91 43 114 $0.00 $0.00 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $545.65 $6,242.18 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 244 $1,952.00 358 $2,864.00 525 $4,200.00 $24,048.00 $27,488.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: 27 $1,350.00 93 $4,650.00 107 $5,350.00 $33,450.00 $41,500.00 Labor: 0 $712.53 $2,454.27 $2,823.73 $17,654.91 $21,903.37 SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 0 $0.00 5 $250.00 9 $450.00 $9,400.00 $5,100.00 Labor: 0 $0.00 $131.95 $237.51 $4,961.32 $2,691.78 SIGNS REPAIRED Material: 74 $3,700.00 149 $7,450.00 106 $5,300.00 $29,250.00 $39,486.50 Labor: $1,952.86 $3,932.11 $2,797.34 $23,988.51 $15,965.95 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 4,847 1,880 1,989 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 143 $3,773.77 238 $6,280.82 175 $4,618.25 $50,035.46 $69,854.33 Channels: 1 $0.00 1 $17,500.00 $0.00 $82,650.00 $177,505.50 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: 119 33,140.41 310 38,180.90 40 31,055.60 $23,830.17 $26,812.24 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 51 34 50 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 56 32,197.24 35 31,385.65 212 38,383.18 $42,084.17 348,200.99 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 0 8,400 3285.60 5,600 $190.40 $2,055.44 32.332.84 TOTALS 331,511.20 360,948.90 350,591.62 $435,085.11 $581,001.31 R:\MAI NTAI NWOACTRPT\STRE ETMAI N i\JAN. F EB.MAR.\07-08 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 SECOND HALF Date Submitted: Submitted By: Prepared By: 06 -Apr -12 GREG BUTLER RODNEY TIDWELL CONTRACTORS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE 2ND HALF TOTALS YEAR-TO-DATE Asphalt Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage Channels 0 1 0 1 1 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 S17,500.00 $49,543.00 $67,043.00 $171.989.00 CONTRACT STRIPING Striping Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 0 Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TREE CONTRACTORS Trees (rimmed 611 1,090 1,055 2,156 2,(56 Trees Removed 6 11 7 24 24 TOTAL COSTS $32,102.00 $55.446.00 $50,427.00 $137,975.00 $137,975.00 R.O.W. SPRAYING Square Feet 520,000 520,000 520,000 TOTAL COSTS $28,725.00 516.800.00 $1,800.00 847.325.00 $105,833.00 CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Banners 94 80 95 269 854 Signs Replaced 27 93 107 227 671 Signs Installed 0 5 9 14 968 Signs Repaired 74 149 106 329 909 Catch Basins Cleaned 143 238 175 556 1,896 Trees Trimmed 119 310 40 469 1,087 R.O.W. Weed Abatement 0 8,400 5,600 14,000 59,660 New & Repainted Legends 244 358 525 1,127 2,915 After Hours Call Outs 56 35 212 303 1,064 Service Order Requests 51 34 50 135 483 Graffiti Removal - Sq Ft 4,847 1,922 1,989 8,758 30,391 TOTAL COSTS $25,858.34 $43,448.85 $50,591.62 $119.898.81 $ 604.826.67 a: AV:YTAWJOACIO'V MIna. WCNKCOMOLETED lJAN TOS..NL SQUARE FOOTAGE January 4,847 February 1,922 March 1,989 April May June July August September October November December CITY OF TEMECULA 2012 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January 117 February 61 March 44 April May June July August September October November December 51000 49000 47000 45000 43000 41000 39000 37000 35000 33000 31000 29000 27000 25000 23000 21000 19000 17000 15000 13000 11000 9000 7000 5000 3000 1000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Totals for the Year To Date: April 1, 2012 Sq. Foot 8,758 Calls 222 -•- SQ FT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report March / April 2012 Prepared by: Amer Attar Submitted by: Greg Butler Date: 4/24/2012 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work, Contractor is gearing up of restarting work, which will be undertaken as the mainline utilities are installed & brought on line in April/May of 2012. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and Mercedes & Main Street This project constructed the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Streets. Show power in the Town Square in now complete. The City Council accepted the project at the April 10th of 2012, meeting. The Notice of Completion is in the process of being filed. Old Town Civic Center This project constructed the Old Town Civic Center. Dedication ceremony was held on 12/9/10 and the City started operations from the new structure on 12/20/2010. Resolution of punchlist and added work items are ongoing. Closure of the project is being delayed by business concerns of the general contractor. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' long ped/bike bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S. Site construction began on 10/10/11. Project is complete A ribbon cutting ceremony was held on 04/10/2012. French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase I Project includes widening of southbound 1-15 from Warm Springs Creek to the Winchester Road off - ramp, widening of the Winchester Road off -ramp, construction of the new southbound off -ramp at French Valley Parkway, and construction of the westbound portion of French Valley Parkway from the off -ramp to Jefferson Avenue. Construction contract awarded 03/27/12 to Flatiron West, Inc. Notice To Proceed is anticipated MAY 2012 pending utility relocations. Utility relocations began in OCT 2011 and are estimated to be complete in MAY 2012. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements - Phase I 1 Phase I improvements involves construction of wet and dry utilities, sidewalks, medians and new roadway section on Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to CaIIe Chapos, a portion of MHSR, CaIIe Chapos, South Loop Road. The project will also complete utilities feeds to the Fire Station and future amenities (e.g, traffic signals, park, ..etc.). Work continues on installation of storm drains and underground utilities. Placing of aggregate base on Butterfield Stage is scheduled for the second week of April. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Desilting Basin Environmental Mitigation This project installed landscape and irrigation improvements on a 0.26 acre Habitat Creation Area and maintaining it for five (5) years in accordance with a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The work was completed on 01/20/11. The project is now in the 5 -year maintenance/monitoring program. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements - Calle Fiesta This project consists of extending an existing City -maintained storm drain line an additional 200 feet to eliminate slope erosion at the current storm drain discharge point. Bids were opened on 02/23/2012. The City Council awarded the contract to Ted Enterprises at the March 13, 2012 meeting. Margarita Road Right -of -Way Enhancement This project enhanced the east side of Margarita Road parkway areas from Ramsey Court to Avenida Cima Del Sol. The Contractor has completed all construction on this project. The 90 day maintenance period began on November 21, 2011 and ended on February 18,2012. A Notice of Completion will be filed shortly. Library Parking Expansion This project will add on -street parking adjacent to the Temecula Library and Fire Station #84 on Pauba Road. Construction began on March 6, 2012 and is expected to be completed by the end of June. Citywide Concrete Repairs - FY2010-11 This project is an annual maintenance project. The project involves removing and replacing various damaged concrete facilities throughout the city. The contractor has completed all of the work. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Margarita Road Project 1 This project rehabilitated Margarita Road between Rancho California Road and Avenida Barca. Roadway construction began the week of 9/26/11. Project is substantially complete. Acceptance of the project and filing of the Notice of Completion is to be presented to the City Council on 4/24/2012. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Winchester Road This project rehabilitated Winchester Road between Roripaugh Road and Nicolas Road. The project is substantially complete. The project will be scheduled for City Council acceptance shortly. CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL FY 2011-12 This project will slurry remaining portion of Paseo Del Sol, portion of Starlight Ridge, portion of Pechanga Road tract and Rancho Vista Road. The City Council authorized staff to solicit construction bids at the January 10, 2012 meeting. Bid were opened on April 5, 2012. The apparent low bidder is American Asphalt South, Inc. Project will be presented to City Council for award at the 04/24/2012 meeting. 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Margarita Road Project 2 This project will rehabilitate Margarita Road from Avenida Barca to Solana Way. Authorization to bid was received from the City Council on 2/14/2012. Bids opened on 3/15/12 - R.J. Noble Company is the apparent low bidder. City Council awarded the Contract award at the 4/10/2012 City Council meeting. Community Recreation Center (CRC) Energy Management Retrofit This project replaces the outdated HVAC systems at the Community Recreation Center with new energy efficient models and provides a new DDC Control System for the entire building. The work began on March 19, 2012 and progressing well. It is scheduled for completion by May 21, 2012. Community Recreation Center Roof Replacement This project will replace the built up roofing at the Community Recreation Center. This work will be performed in conjunction with the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Energy Management and Retrofit Project No. PW 11-05. The work began on March 19, 2012 and progressing well. It is scheduled for completion by May 21, 2012. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Ynez Road This project will rehabilitate Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Solana Way. Authorization to bid was received from the City Council on 2/14/2012. Bid were opened on April 3, 2012. The apparent low bidder is EBS General Engineering, Inc.. Project will be presented to City Council for award at the 04/24/2012 meeting. 3 PROJECTS IN DESIGN Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements - Environmental Mitigation This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Improvements - Stage I. Site visits for a new proposed location was conducted with the Department of Fish&Game (DFG) and Regional Water Board. City has hired a consultant to map the new proposed area and obtain resource agencies approval. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. Proposals from consultants were received and reviewed by staff. The City Council will approved an agreement with the selected consultant at the 03/27/2012 City Council meeting. Completion of the environmental document is underway. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. All resource agency permits have been acquired, encroachment permit was issued by RCFCD on 3/8/12. Request for Authorization (RFA) to construct was submitted to Caltrans the week of 3/12/12 and is under review. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Review of the 100% Plans and Specs is on-going. Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. Consultant is finalizing the design plans. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Diaz Road. The alignment study has been completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved on 05/01/09. The consultant is working on 90% plans, specifications and estimate. 1-15 / SR -79S Ultimate Interchange 95% PS&E (4th Submittal) will be submitted to Caltrans in APR 2012. Appraisal of ROW impacts is complete and under review by the City. Pavement Rehabilitation Program 4 These rehabilitation projects will rehabilitate portions of Winchester, Rancho California, Ynez, Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads. City is currently in plan check review with Caltrans to obtain an Encroachment Permit for Rancho California Road and Winchester Road. French Valley Parkway / Interstate -15 OverCrossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase II Project Management Plan under Caltrans review. Aerial photogrammetry, and project control / ground surveys are under way. Applications for permits to conduct geotechnical investigations have been initiated. Preliminary geometrics are under way. Inclusive Play Structure This project will install play structure for youth and special needs kids. Designated park locations will be decided by Park and Recreation Subcommittee and is expected in April 2012. Consultant will be sought upon confirmation of scope of work. Tennis Court Lighting - Great Oak High School This project will Install lights around the tennis courts at Great Oaks High School. The Joint Use Agreement with TVUSD is expected to be executed in April 2012. A consultant will be sought to initiate design. 5 Item No. 26 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager tar ,-a CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: April 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of March 2012. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service 2,648 "Priority One" calls for service 55 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 5.44 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours 203 Special Events hours 390 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 1,122 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 2 Training hours 186 Total Volunteer hours 1,930 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops /Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 0/2 Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/0 Businesses visited 5 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 6/4 Station Tour 1 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits 9/13 Square Footage of Graffiti Removed 1,989 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served 182 Sets of fingerprints taken 61 Police reports filed 13 Citations signed off 42 Car Seat Inspections 0 Total receipts $5,087.00 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP / SET) On sight felony arrests 13 On sight misdemeanor arrests 6 Felony arrest warrants served 2 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 2 Follow-up investigations 4 Parole/Probation Searches 3/18 Pedestrian Checks 16 Traffic StopsNehicle Checks 24 Crime Free Housing Checks 27 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations 1,135 Grant funded D.U.I. / Traffic safety checkpoints 1 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0 D.U.I. Arrests 32 Non -hazardous citations 309 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 222 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 38 Parking citations 237 School Zone 158 Seatbelts 46 Cell Phone Cites 93 Injury collisions 26 INVESTIGATIONS Beginning Caseload 155 Total Cases Assigned 71 Total Cases Closed 80 Search Warrants Served 13 Arrests 9 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service 655 Felony arrest/filings 14 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 45 Traffic Citations 50 Fingerprints/Livescans 94 Total receipts $7,938.00 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felony arrests 1 Misdemeanor arrests 17 Reports 23 Youth counseled 94 Meetings 72 REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date I/' ii - / I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Subject—re /VI COWL i4 v y /4 /- Lel` t J Deoe },kei1 For Against Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Name: Phone: _- Address:. - City/State/Zip MU /E'/e / E % l(' i4 q 2-3-0 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date 1 1 r` [ �) di 2. 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Subject AQr,' 1 i S 11%J1on !'t'v t-1+Sl'1 /14., A'KAL2r» l ' `D,��kv For Against Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Name: s;e UanderhQa Phone: Address: City/State/Zip [ Pxlew a . 7r).1% If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date D "I `� I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Subject ❑ For ❑ Against Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Name:MPartI 120 vli,(.L Phone: Address: City/State/Zip If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: 3 REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date p? - c 3 / eQ) Subject I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For n Against [blic Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record All information provided is optional. Name: lti � vl Ait , •` o a Phone ST-esHe4-1-4 041. Address: • City/State/Zip If you are representing an or anization or group, please give the name: ei2,,.Q �L,� 2 0k Date Subject ❑ For ❑ Against REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. ❑ Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional Name: Phone: Address: City/State/Zip If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: