HomeMy WebLinkAbout050791 CC AgendaA G~.:NDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REOULAR MEETING
TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE
MAY 7, 1991 - 7:00 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:00 PM - City Hall- Closed Session' of the City Council pursuant
to Govemmont Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss init/at/on of'litigation 'regarding
SB2557 and Government Cede Sect/on 54957.6 to instruct the City~ dosig~ated
representatives regarding negotiating salary end fringe benefits of the 'C/ty's employees.
7];MECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:30 pm - Closed
Session pursuant tO Government Code Section 54956.9(aj to discuss Dawes vs the
County of Riverside et el.
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Ronald J. Parks
Councilmember Moore
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 91-20
Resolution: No. 91-42
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 1 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda,
a pink 'Request To Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers. ~..
05/03/91
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Resolution Designating Certain City Officers to Siqn Checks
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DESIGNA TING CERTAIN CITY OFFICERS TO SIGN CHECKS ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY
2
Resolution Reeuestinq the Riverside Transit Agency Provide a Local Fixed Bus Route
to Serve the City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING OPERATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE
TEMECULA CITY LIMITS BY THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
COUNCIL BUSINESS
3 Award of Bid - Waste Manac~ement
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
3.2
Award bid for residential and commercial collection, disposal and
recycling of solid waste to CR&R.
Direct staff to negotiate an exclusive franchise with CR&R to provide
residential and commercial collection, disposal, and recycling of solid
waste.
2/egende/0607~ 1 2 06K) 3/~ 1
- 4 Policy Reeardinp Prooosed Murrieta Material Recovery Faci!itv
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Direct staff to attend the County Planning Commission meeting on May
22, 1991 and request all processing of the MRF be held in abeyance
until County staff, Waste Management, the Murrieta City Council-elect
and the City of Temecula can coordinate and discuss mutual concerns
and Southwest Riverside County's waste management needs.
5
Consideration of Pronosed Fiscal Year 1991-92 Annual Ooeratina Budc3et
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Consider the proposed annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1991-92
and provide necessary direction to staff to proceed with the budget
process.
CITY MANA OER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: May 14, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community
Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - 8:00'PM
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
President J. Sal Mur~oz
DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mufioz
PUBLIC COMMENT
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a
completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are
called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address
for the record.
06/03/81
DISTRICT BUSINESS
'Consideration of Proposed TCSD Caoital Improvement Budoet for FY 91-92
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Discuss and if desired, approve a Parks and Recreation Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 1991-92
1.2
Consider the proposed TCSD Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal
Year 1991-92 and provide necessary direction to staff to proceed with
the budget process.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:* May 14, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center,
27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California
I TEMECULA REDEI/ELOPMENT AGENCY
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding
PUBLIC COMMENT
Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed
pink 'Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to
speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the
record.
AGENCY BUSINESS:
Pass-throuoh Agreement with the County of Riverside
(Continued from the meeting of April 23, 1991)
ADJOURNMENT:
May 14, 1991, immediately following the City Council
meeting,Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce
Center Drive, Temecula, California
21egendW060781 4 06/03/91
ITEM NO. 1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FI m CE OF IC .R
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECUI. A
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
May 7, 1991
Resolution No. 91- Pertaining to Signature of Checks
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Temecula Designating Certain City Officers to sign checks on behalf of
the City.
DISCUSSION: In order to facilitate the efficient operation of the payment
of claims and demands, we are requesting that the Assistant City Manager be added
to the list of authorized check signers. In so doing, we will not be compromising the
system of internal accounting controls, because the Assistant City Manager does not
have access to accounting records.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
Resolution No.91- entitled, A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Temecula Designating Certain City
Officers to sign checks on behalf of the City
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING CERTAIN
CITY OFFICERS TO SIGN CHECKS ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Checks drawn on any account of the City shall be signed both by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, and by the City Manager, Assistant City Manager or City Treasurer.
None of the above officers shall sign any check unless it has been approved by the City Manager
pursuant to Section 3.16.060 of the Municipal Code, or it has been approved by the City Council
pursuant to Section 3.16.080 of the Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. Resolution No. 89-20 pertaining to the signature of checks is hereby
repealed.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 7th day of May, 1991.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Resos 168
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution 91- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 7th day of May, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Resos 168
ITEM NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
City Clerk
May 7, 1991
Resolution Requesting the Riverside Transit Agency Provide a Local
Fixed Bus Route to Serve the City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING OPERA TION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE
TEMECULA CITY LIMITS BY THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
BACKGROUND: Councilmember Mu6oz requested that this resolution be
prepared and placed on the agenda for your consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT: No direct impact anticipated.
A TTA CHMENTS: Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING OPERATION OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE TEMECULA CITY LIMITS
BY THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula recognizes a need for
the operation of local fixed route public transportation within the City of Temecula,
and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the public to offer such service not
only to improve citizen mobility but also as an alternative to the private automobile as
a means of improving air quality, conserving fuel, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula at its meeting of
August 14, 1990 became a party to the Joint Powers Agreement of the Riverside
Transit Agency;
WHEREAS, the Riverside Transit Agency was formed for the sole purpose of
providing public transportation within Western Riverside County, has done so since
its formation and is desirous of assisting the citizens of the City of Temecula with
their transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Authorizing and requesting the Riverside Transit Agency
to develop and implement local fixed route transportation service for the citizens of
Temecula.
SECTION 2. Said fixed route service should be established as soon as
operationally possible.
2\resos\170
Resolution 91-
Page 2
Resolution.
1991.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of Jaxluary,
ATI'EST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th
day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
C OUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
2\reaoa\170
ITEM NO. 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~ /-~
FINANCE OFFICER~--'-
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Integrated Waste Management Request For Proposal Review
Committee
DATE:
May 7, 1991
SUBJECT:
AWARD OF BID - RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
COLLECTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING OF SOLID
WASTE
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Award CR&R the bid for residential and
commercial collection, disposal, and
recycling of solid waste.
Direct Staff to negotiate an exclusive franchise
with CR&R to provide residential and commercial
collection, disposal, and recycling o f s o l i d
waste.
DISCUSSION: At its January 15, 1991 meeting, the City Council
approved and authorized the issuance of a residential and commercial
collection, disposal, and recycling of solid waste Request For Proposal (RFP).
At its February 19, 1991 meeting, Mary Jane Henry, Joe Hreha, and
Councilmembers Moore and Linderoans were appointed to the Integrated Waste
Management RFP Review Committee. Seven RFPs were received on the March
8, 1991 deadline, publicly opened, and were made available for public review.
Since that date, the Committee has thoroughly reviewed all of the proposals
and recommend that CR&R be awarded the bid, as they submitted the lowest
and most responsible bid. The Committee further recommends that Staff
negotiate an exclusive franchise with CR&R, which will be brought back to the
City Council for approval on May 28, 1991.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
The RFP Review Committee was tasked to analyze 58 various bids, from seven
haulers, representing the different alternatives for providing refuse services.
The Committee reviewed all of the hauler's financial statements, competency
submissions, and the bids that were required by the Request For Proposal.
Additionally, the Committee spent considerable time analyzing the proposals and
recommendations presented by the bidders.
The Committee then analyzed the specific waste management alternatives, that if
implemented would provide an efficient and effective service to the residents and the
business community, in addition to, satisfying the goals and objectives of AB 939.
The Committee's recommended alternatives and a brief summation of the
Committee's conclusions are attached hereto. The alternatives that required analysis
were:
Should a mechanized or non-mechanized service be chosen?
Mechanized meaning trucks capable of picking up trash cans by
mechanical means and not requiring the driver to handle the cans.
Should an exclusive or non-exclusive franchise be granted? Exclusive
meaning only one hauler granted a franchise to provide refuse service to
the entire City.
Should Recycling Program "A" or "B" be chosen? See the explanation
of both programs attached hereto.
Should a Parcel Charge be implemented for single family detached homes
instead of the hauler performing the billing function?
With the Committee's alternatives selected, each proposal was again reviewed. The
Committee narrowed the seven candidates to the three lowest bidders that were
considered responsible to provide the services selected. Oral interviews with three
finalists were conducted and the Committee chose one hauler for a site visit. The
Committee visited the hauler's operation and toured their facility. The Committee
voted unanimously to recommend the hauler identified in the Agenda Report.
The actual bids received representing the alternatives recommended by the Committee
is also attached hereto.
Finally, the additional incentives that were offered by one hauler are noted at the
bottom of the bid analysis attached hereto.
RFP REVIEW COMMITTEE'$ RECOMMENDED AL TERNA TIVE
MECHANIZED VS. NON-MECHANIZED
Mechanized would require haulers to provide refuse trucks that are capable of picking
up trash cans, emptying the cans into the truck, and returning the cans to the ground
without any human handling of the refuse can. Another term for this alternative is
automated service.
Mechanized advantages
Pick-up times at each stop are significantly reduced which allows
the hauler to increase route size.
Less trucks needed to provide the service; therefore:
- Less pollution from trucks
- Less time spent in front of each house
- Less damage to City streets
Less noise pollution from trucks
Less trash dropped or blown away due to style of
mechanized vs. non-mechanized truck.
Mechanized disadvantages
Not all haulers desire to perform mechanized service due to
mechanized truck costs are higher and current inventories may
become obsolete. Therefore, all bid prices averaged $0.77 higher
for mechanized vs. non-mechanized service. One hauler's
mechanized bid was actually $1.20 per household lower than non-
mechanized. All other mechanized bids were higher than non-
mechanized.
The Committee favored mechanized over non-mechanized service.
RFP REVIEW COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED AL TERNA TIVE
EXCLUSIVE VS. NON-EXCLUSIVE
An exclusive franchise agreement would grant only one hauler the contract to provide
the refuse services to the entire City. A non-exclusive franchise agreement could
grant multiple haulers a contract to provide refuse services to the entire City.
The RFP and draft franchise agreement assigns waste management
responsibility to the hauler. It also assigns AB 939 responsibility to the
hauler. With an agreement other than exclusive, responsibility is difficult
to manage and enforce.
Advantages for an exclusive franchise
All residential, commercial, industrial, and multi-family rates
are less due to the volume the hauler can expect to receive.
For example, the average residential bids averaged $0.72
less per household for exclusive vs. non-exclusive.
Commercial bids averaged $1.16 less per 3 cy bin for
exclusive vs. non-exclusive.
AB 939 and waste management responsibility can be
assigned, monitored, and expected.
Programs and data gathering will be facilitated.
Changes to the franchise, ordinance, and programs can be
easily accomplished.
Public education program and materials will be standardized
and less expensive to operate and produce.
Disadvantages for an exclusive franchise
One hauler has all accounts and customers are provided no
choice in hauling companies.
- The Committee favored an exclusive vs. a non-exclusive franchise.
RFP REVIEW COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED AL TERNA TIVE
PARCEL CHARGE VS. HAULER BILLING
A parcel charge is a benefit assessment administered through the Temecula
Community Services District as a separate zone for refuse collection. All single family
detached homes in the City of Temecula would be a part of this benefit zone. Refuse
collection costs would be paid by these homeowners as part of their tax payments to
the County of Riverside. Hauler billing is where the hauler chosen to provide the
refuse service would individually bill the recipient of the services. The recipient would
be responsible to remit monies to the hauler for refuse services rendered.
Parcel charge advantages
Bids were an average of $1.06 less per household if a parcel
charge is assessed,
Hauler does not require a larger administrative staff to
perform an increased billing function.
Hauler does not incur bad debt since all parcel charges are
eventually collected,
Customers do not receive quarterly bills.
Customers do not have to write checks and provide
postage stamps to process quarterly bills.
Parcel charge disadvantages
Mis-perception by some residents that the City is raising taxes.
The Committee favored a parcel charge over hauler billing for single
family detached homes.
RFP REVIEW COMMITTEE'$ RECOMMENDED AL TERNA TIVE
RECYCLING PROGRAM "B" VS. PROGRAM "A"
Recycling Program "A" is a one can and one bin curbside program. The service
recipient would be required to put all garbage in a 101 gallon can; all recyclables,
except newsprint, in a 17 gallon bin; and newsprint may be bundled or bagged
separately. No greenwastes would be separated and would be placed in the 101
gallon can and disposed of in the landfill.
Recycling Program "B" is a two can and two bin curbside program. The service
recipient would be required to put all garbage in a 101 gallon can; all recyclables,
except newsprint, in a 17 gallon bin; newsprint in the other 17 gallon bin; and all
greenwastes in a 90 gallon can.
Program "B" advantages
Provides separate containers for recyclables and does not require
the customer to bag or bundle recyclables separately.
Provides a totally responsive and effective recycling program by
capturing all recyclables, including greenwastes.
Provides a separate container for the greenwastes that is provided
to each customer.
Program "B" disadvantages
Hauler bids averaged $4.00 more for the Program "B" system to
cover the increase of two containers and providing the
greenwastes recycling services.
The Committee favored the recycling Program "B" over the Program "A"
system; however, the program will be modified to make it not only
effective, but state-of-the-art. The change is simple: instead of
providing two 17 gallon containers for recyclables and newsprint, one
mechanized container will be provided for all recyclables. Sorting will
take place at a Material Recovery Facility.
THE BELOU ABSTRACT OF THE BIDS RECEIVED REPRESENT THE ALTERNATIVE RECOI~ENDED BY THE RFP REVIEW COI~ITTEE, I.E.,
EXCLUSIVE, #ECHANIZED, RECYCLING PROGRAM B, I#PLEMENTING A PARCEL CHARGE FOR SINGLE FAH1LY DETACHED HOMES ONLY
Bid Category Bay Cities BFI CR&R Five Star Inland NEWCO Western
Single Family Residences Per Month $13.32 $20.08 $12.25 $17.57 $17.40 N8 $13.49
Pick-Up 1 x Week *
Multi-Family - 3 CYB Per Month $51.00 NB $55.00 $65.31 $61.05 $79.62 $58.20
Pick-Up 1 x Week
Multi-Family Recycling 3 CYB $35.00 NB $45.00 $42.31 $45.33 $90.00 $35.00
Recycling 1 x Week $ TO rUST
Commercial Service 3 CYB Per Month $50.00 $51.87 $55.00 $65.31 $61.05 $79.62 $61.40
Pick-Up 1 x Week
Commercial Service 3 CYB Per Month $88.00 S103.74 $110.00 $116.73 $109.12 $133.48 S93.20
Pick-Up 2 x Week
Co~rmercia[ Service 3 CYB Per Month $125.00 $155.61 $165.00 $171.24 $161.7'5 $183.17 $125.00
Pick-Up 3 x Week
Comnerciat Service 3 CYB Per Month $160.00 $207.48 $220.00 $219.49 $213.04 $223.84 $156.75
Pick-Up 4 x Week
Conmercial Service 3 CYB Per Month $200.00 $259.35 $275.00 $270.86 $263.05 $278.69 $188.50
:k-Up 5 x Week
Co~nercial Service 3 CYB Per Month $240.00 $311.22 $330.00 $361.45 $311.76 $329.53 $256.30
Pick-Up 6 x Week
Commercial Recycling 3 CYB $35.00 NB $45.00 $42.31 $45.33 $90.00 $35.00
Recycling 1 x Week $ TO CUST
· Includes trash, recyc[ables, and greenwastes pick-ups. ALso includes two bulky wastes pick-ups and two household
hazardous wastes pick-ups.
Only CR&R proposed that the entire mu[tiofamily and commercial waste stream be processed through a Material Recovery
facility. Therefore, the additional bin and associated recycling charge is not applicable in the majority of situations.
CR&R exclusively proposed that if awarded this franchise that they would provide ro[[-off containers to any non-profit
group, free of charge, and pay them top do[[ar for their recyc[ab[es that they collect.
CR&R exclusively offered to provide annual Christmas Tree round-ups, free of charge.
CR&R exclusively offered to provide two new street sweepers (broom and air) and sweep all City streets once each week on the
area's designated trash pick-up day.
CR&R exclusively offered to assist and cooperate in organizing City clean-up days by providing, free of charge, twenty
roll-off bins (40 CY). City to provide Landfill fees.
~m&R exclusively offered to provide earthquake prepardedness containers to the City and all schools in the City.
ITEM NO. 4
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems~_-~~~"/
May 7, 1991
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CONCERNING THE PROPOSED
MURRIETA MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF)
RECOMMENDA T/ON:
That the City Council:
Direct Staff to attend the Riverside County Planning
Commission meeting on May 22, 1991 and testify
that the Temecula City Council requests that all
processing of the MRF be held in abeyance until
County Staff, Waste Management, the Murrieta
Council-elect, and the City of Temecula can
coordinate and discuss the MRF concerns and
Southwest Riverside County's Waste Management
needs.
DISCUSS/ON: Waste Management of North America, the parent of Inland
Disposal, is working with the County's Waste Management Department, the County's
Planning Department, and the Murrieta Council-elect to construct a 50,000 square
foot Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in Murrieta. The following information is
provided:
Location: Adams Avenue and Elm Street in Murrieta.
Only two access points to the MRF exist: Winchester Road in Temecula
and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in Murrieta.
Estimated 375 trucks per day carrying 400 tons of solid waste is
projected to be serviced by the MRF.
Reportedly, the Murrieta Council-elect has reached an agreement with Waste
Management concerning the MRF, which is:
Murrieta would collect a host fee from Waste Management.
Murrieta would have the power to decision trash routes.
Waste Management would pay Murrieta road maintenance fees.
Issues of concern that face the City of Temecula are:
Waste Management advised Staff on April 17, 1991 that their trucks
were planned to come through the City of Temecula to be serviced by the MRF. This
decision, dependent on truck traffic and weight, could damage Temecula's streets.
No road maintenance fees have been negotiated between Murrieta,
Waste Management, and the City of Temecula to reimburse Temecula for any wear,
tear, and/or damage that may be caused to Temecula's streets. Murrieta would
receive a host fee; yet, Temecula could provide a primary route to the facility.
If Staff's recommendation for the award of the trash bid was approved,
Temecula trash would not go to the Murrieta MRF.
- If an EIR was completed, addressing truck air and noise pollution, road
damage, traffic congestion, etc., it has not been shared with the City of Temecula.
Although it appears that there may be impacts to the City of Temecula based on the
information known, to date, the Riverside County Planning Department has not
noticed the City of Temecula on past and future County Planning Commission
meetings concerning this subject.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ITEM NO. 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER~_~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECUI. A AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Finance Director
May 7, 1991
Proposed Fiscal Year 1991-92 Annual Operating Budget
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the proposed annual Operating Budget for Fiscal
Year 1991-92 and provide necessary direction to staff to proceed with the budget
process.
BACKGROUND: The proposed budget has been transmitted under separate
cover. Staff looks forward to presenting this to you and addressing any questions or
concerns you may have.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
APPROVAL
FINANCE OFFI C~ER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON
MAY 7, 1991
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - FY 1991-92
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the Board of Directors:
Discuss and if desired, approve a Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for FY 1991-92.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Contingent upon desired projects (see handout).
DISCUSSION: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) is in the
process of formulating a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to address the future parks,
recreation and facility needs for the next twenty (20) years in the City of Temecula.
It is estimated that the master plan will be completed the first part of calendar year
1992.
With FY 1991-92 beginning July 1, staff has developed three (3) possible capital
improvement options for consideration on an interim basis until the master plan is
completed. The capital improvement options include a reserve fund, issuance costs,
capitalized interest, and operation and maintenance costs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed possible capital improvement options
at the April 8, 1991 meeting. Of the several options mentioned by the Commission,
the main emphasis was placed on the acquisition and development of community and
neighborhood parks and the development of the Community Recreation Center (CRC).
Hence, staff has attempted to develop possible options that will address concerns
raised by the Board of Directors, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public.
Plan A consists of the development of a twenty-three (23) acre community park
(Kingsway) north of Pala Road; construction of the Community Recreation Center
(CRC) and Amphitheater; development of additional parking at Sports Park; and the
construction of a twenty-five (25) meter community pool with a one hundred seventy-
five foot (175') water slide.
Plan B consists of the development of Kingsway; acquisition and development of two
(2) neighborhood parks, and construction of additional parking at Sports Park.
Plan C consists of construction of the CRC and Amphitheater; development of
additional parking at Sports Park; and the acquisition and development of two (2)
neighborhood parks.
Enclosed are copies of the development and financing costs, the financing
alternatives, and the estimated assessments associated with each CIP option. All
costs are staff's estimate of the costs of design and construction. These costs are
not based on firm construction estimates as this work has not been completed.
The options listed are provided for the discussion and review of the Board of
Directors. Any of these options may be revised, consolidated, or other alternative
projects may be substituted at the pleasure of the Board.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
FY 1991-92
I. Proposed ClP Options
Plan A
1. Development of Kingsway
2. Development of CRC/Amphitheater
3. Sports Park Parking
4. Community Pool w/water slide
Sub Total
Issuance (4%)
Capitalized Interest
Reserve Fund (10%)
TOTAL
Plan B
1. Development of Kingsway
2. Acquire & develop neighborhood parks
3. Sports Park Parking
Sub Total
Issuance (4%)
Capitalized Interest
Reserve Fund (10%)
TOTAL
Plan C 1. Development of CRC/Amphitheater
2. Sports Park Parking
3. Development of neighborhood parks
Sub Total
Issuance cost (4%)
Capitalized interest
Reserve Fund (10%)
$2,300,000.00
3,500,000.00
500,000.00
750,000.00
7,050,000.00
240,000.00
282,000.00
600,000.00
172,000.00
$2,300,000.00
1,200,000.00
500,000.00
4,000,000.00
160,000.00
188,000.00
400,OOO.O0
$4,748,000.00
$3,500,000.00
500,000.00
1,200,000.00
5,200,000.00
208,000.00
244,400.00
520,O0O.OO
TOTAL $6, 172,400.00
Temecula Community Services District
Financing Alternatives
Financing Plan A Plan B Plan C
Estimated Project Cost $ 7,050,000 94,000,000 $ 5,200,000
Estimated Financing Cost 1,122,000 748,000 972,400
Sub Total 8,172,000 4,748,000 6,172,400
Less Mello Roos (2,000,000) 0 (2,000,000)
TOTAL 6,172,000 4,748,000 4,172,400
Estimated Annual Debt
Service
Estimated Operation &
Maintenance
Total Annual
'Costs
532,168 414,312 350,568
224,000 170,000 114,000
756,168 $ 584,312
464,568
Temecula Community Service District
Estimated Assessment Calculations
FY 1991-92
Land Use
Single Family
Multi-Family
Vacant Residential
Agricultural
Commercial Imprv.
Commercial Vac.
Current Plan A Plan B Plan C
33.40 49.43 45.76 43.42
25.05 37.07 34.32 32.57
66.80* 98.86* 91.52* 86.84*
16.70* 24.72* 22.88* 21.71 *
200.40* 296.58* 274.56* 260.52*
133.60' 197.72' 183.04' 173.68'
* Per Acre.
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM NO. 1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
May 7, 1991
RDA Item No. I Pass-through Agreement with the County of
Riverside
PREPARED B~
City Clerk June S. Greek
RECOMMENDA T/ON: Approval
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and
forward it to you under separate cover.
JSG