Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
022316 CC Agenda
In 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 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 23, 2016 –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. 5:30 PM - 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 LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to three matters of pending litigation: (1) Hill v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1501349; (2) Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880; and (3) Scharpen Foundation v. Kamala Harris et al; Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1514022. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Next in Order: Ordinance: 16-02 Resolution: 16-12 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: The Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard Invocation: Pastor Zachary Elliot of Fusion Christian Church Flag Salute: Council Member Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar 1 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to The Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to 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 may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. 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 may 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. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of February 9, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of February 9, 2016. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: 2 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City's Participation in a Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study with Contract Cities (At the Request of Council Member Comerchero) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the City's participation in a Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Feasibility Study with other contract cities within Riverside County; 4.2 Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Participation/Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of San Jacinto for the City's share of the Feasibility Study. 5 Approve an Agreement with Michael Baker International for Additional Analyses for Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Temecula Creek Inn RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement for Additional Analyses with Michael Baker International, in the amount of $174,455, for an Environmental Impact Report for proposed Temecula Creek Inn. 6 Award a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Award a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc., in the amount of $1,471,777, for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the Contingency Amount of $147,177, which is equal to 10% of the Contract Amount. 7 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc. for Routine Maintenance Services RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc., in the amount of$60,000, for Routine Maintenance Services. 3 8 Grant Non-Exclusive Easements to Rancho California Water District in Connection with the Interstate-15/ State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FOR THE RELOCATION OF WATER FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERSTATE-15 / STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE, PW04-08 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-210-057, 922-210-059, AND 922-210-060) 9 Establish a Time Limited Parking Restriction on Ritter Court Near Great Oak High School RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING A TIME LIMITED PARKING RESTRICTION ON RITTER COURT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 12:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS ******************** 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 ******************** 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 16-01 Resolution: CSD 16-02 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to 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 may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. 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 may 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. 10 Approve the Action Minutes of February 9, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of February 9, 2016. 11 Approve an Agreement with Timmy D' Productions, Inc. for Entertainment and Technical Services RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the Board of Directors approve an Agreement with Timmy D' Productions, Inc., in the amount of$75,000, for entertainment and technical services. 5 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 8, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY— No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY— No Meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY— No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 12 Community Development Monthly Report 13 Police Department Monthly Report 14 Public Works Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 8, 2016, 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 and public Closed Session information)will be available for public 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 agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. 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 viewing 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.org—and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 7 PRESENTATIONS City of Temecula Certificate of Recognition Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: T he Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard The City Council congratulates The Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard on their outstanding accomplishments at the state, national, and international level. The Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard, led by Director, Jerry Burdick-Rutz, has earned several awards and recognitions including Bronze Medalists in the 2015 Winter Drum Line Championships, 2014 Winter Drum Line International Championships finalists and placing 7th overall in the world, and 2014 Winter Guard Association of Southern California Silver medalists. The Jazz Ensemble performed at the American Cathedral in Paris, France in 2015. The band played in honor of Her Majesty the Queen of England's Diamond Jubilee New Year's Day Parade in 2013 and performed in La Grande Parade de Paris — Champs Elysse New Year's Day Parade in 2016. The students worked hard to raise money through fundraising events and received generous donations in order to perform at these notable events. We are proud of The Spirit of Great Oak Band & Guard members and their dedication and talent to music. We wish them continued success with their future accomplishments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty- third day of February, 2016. Michael S.Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Item No . 1 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No . 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 9, 2016 —7:00 PM The City Council meeting convened at 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Sadad Khwajazada, Katrina Meier and Jillian Rawlins Invocation: Pastor Dave Cope of Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship Flag Salute: Council Member Michael McCracken ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of A Purple Heart City Proclamation PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Jim McLauglin • Jennifer Swank • Darell Farnbach • Patrick McCobb • Joan Hoover • Mark Katan CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. Action Minutes 020916 1 2 Approve the Action Minutes of January 26, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 26, 2016. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2015. 5 Approve Fiscal Year 2015-16 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET, BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES, AND SALARY SCHEDULE B Action Minutes 020916 2 6 Authorize the City Manager to Process and Settle Workers' Compensation Claims and Litigation - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DELEGATING TO THE CITY MANAGER CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO PROCESS AND SETTLE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND LITIGATION 7 Approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Michelle's Place for the 2016 Reality Rally,_a Fundraiser Event for Michelle's Place - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Michelle's Place for city-support costs, in the amount of $5,600 and in-kind promotional services of $11,415, for the 2016 Reality Rally. 8 Approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Temecula Valley Foundation for Excellence in Education for the 2016 Taste of Temecula Valley - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Temecula Valley Foundation for Excellence in Education for city-support costs, in the amount of $6,700 and in-kind promotional services of $11,415, for the 2016 Taste of Temecula Valley. 9 Approve the Continuation of the Annual Planning and Implementation of the Temecula Rod Run, Southern California's Premiere Car Show (At the Recommendation of the Economic Development Committee Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards and Council Member Comerchero) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 020916 3 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the continuation of the annual planning and implementation of the Temecula Rod Run, Southern California's Premiere Car Show to be managed by Community Services Department staff. 10 Approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Trauma Intervention Program of Southwest Riverside County, Inc. for Traumatic Incident Citizen Support - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Trauma Intervention Program of Southwest Riverside County, Inc., in the amount of $10,000, for traumatic incident citizen support. 11 Grant Non-Exclusive Easements to Eastern Municipal Water District in Connection with the Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR THE RELOCATION OF SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERSTATE-15 / STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE, PW04-08 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-210-057, 922-210- 059, AND 922-210-060) 12 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for the Design of the Library Parking — Phase II, PW13-09 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 020916 4 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Hall & Foreman, Inc., in the amount of $67,500, for additional Design Services for the Library Parking — Phase II, PW13-09; 12.2 Increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by $6,750, which is 10% of the Amendment amount. 13 Receive and File Temporary Street Closure for 2016 Springfest Events - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2016 Springfest Events: TEMECULA ROD RUN REALITY RALLY TASTE OF THE VALLEY 14 Approve the First Amendment to the Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with McCain, Inc. for Traffic Signal Equipment - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with McCain, Inc. increasing the Purchase Price amount by $30,000, and extending of the Term of the Agreement. RECESS At 7:39 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting. At 7:44 P.M., the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL Action Minutes 020916 5 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 18 Review and Approve Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Affordable Housing Development - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 That the City Council direct staff to release a request for proposals (RFP) for an affordable housing development. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT (None) ADJOURNMENT At 7:56 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 020916 6 Item No . 3 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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. 16- 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 $3,358,961.70. 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 23rd day of February, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 01/28/2016 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 2,589,541.00 02/04/2016 TOTAL CHECK RUN 368,930.49 01/28/2016 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 400,490.21 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/23/2016 COUNCIL MEETING: $3,358,961.70 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 582,402.57 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 1,032.96 150 AB 2766 FUND 3,409.80 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1,921.26 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 142,368.73 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 100.07 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 852.97 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"L"LAKE PARK MAINT. 11,789.12 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 4,229.65 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 37,287.07 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 212.00 300 INSURANCE FUND 20,414.00 305 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 10,750.00 310 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FUND 28,202.15 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 48,505.85 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 12,400.33 340 FACILITIES 22,169.07 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 349.24 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,947,275.85 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 25.36 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 25.36 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 25.36 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 25.36 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 25.36 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,855.00 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 2,304.10 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,611.02 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,428.01 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 304.00 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 1,738.47 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 902.68 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 1,001.80 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 7,012.98 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 120.52 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 439.73 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 74.71 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 4,222.77 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 1,351.78 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 972.72 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 740.45 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 889.92 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 111.01 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 5,467.78 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 1,994.34 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 10,948.77 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 11,985.45 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 217.26 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 254.57 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 12,629.93 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 2,006.10 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 86.36 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 313.66 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 8,175.72 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 510.39 $2,958,471.49 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 255,300.91 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 1,628.15 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2,793.78 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRI 91,694.74 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 252.67 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,178.27 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"L"LAKE PARK MAINT 410.84 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 616.92 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,162.03 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 23,389.01 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 6,113.49 340 FACILITIES 11,200.32 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 63.95 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 63.95 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 63.95 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 63.95 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 63.95 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 383.77 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 75.22 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CRE 50.56 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLAND 59.90 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 10.76 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 121.20 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COU 22.09 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 31.02 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 206.18 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.37 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 9.59 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 6.20 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 137.44 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELO 29.40 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOME 16.97 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTAT 14.74 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 34.32 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 2.91 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 127.49 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 68.03 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 184.89 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 312.57 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 7.37 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 8.18 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 175.92 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 56.65 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITI 2.54 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 8.18 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 259.39 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTR 3.48 400,490.21 TOTAL BY FUND: $3,358,961.70 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 2884 01/19/2016 000246 PERS(EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT 39,223.22 39,223.22 RETIREMENT) 2885 01/31/2016 003577 CALIF STATE BOARD OF SALES&USE TAX RETURN JAN-DEC 5,810.00 5,810.00 '15 2886 01/27/2016 005460 U S BANK 11 RDA TABS SERIES D/S PMT 542,675.21 542,675.21 2887 01/27/2016 005460 U S BANK '10 RDA TABS SERIES B D/S PMT 484,640.31 484,640.31 2888 01/25/2016 005460 U S BANK RDA'06 B BONDS DEBT SRVC PMT 339,917.79 339,917.79 2889 01/25/2016 005460 U S BANK RDA'02 BONDS DEBT SRVC PMT 580,042.54 580,042.54 2890 01/16/2016 000444 INSTATAX(EDD) UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 4TH QTR 2015 3,519.86 3,519.86 2891 01/25/2016 018098 ACME ADMINISTRATORS,INC WORKERS COMP CLAIM WITH ACME 10,000.00 10,000.00 2892 01/28/2016 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,128.45 1,128.45 SUPPORT 2893 01/28/2016 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 9,240.90 9,240.90 SOLUTION 2894 01/28/2016 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA-PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,131.64 2,131.64 SOLUTION PAYMENT 2897 01/28/2016 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 457 5,807.30 5,807.30 303355 PAYMENT 175067 01/28/2016 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES,LLC EMERG HVAC REPAIRS:CIVIC 1,141.87 CENTER EMERG HVAC REPAIRS:CIVIC CENTER 208.78 EMERGENCY REPAIR SVCS:CIVIC CENT 298.25 1,648.90 175068 01/28/2016 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL JAN 16 POLICE K-9 TRAINING AND 316.68 316.68 INC EQUIPMENT 175069 01/28/2016 015083 AIR GAS USA,LLC MISC STAGE SUPPLIES:THEATER 36.36 36.36 175070 01/28/2016 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT ASPHALT SUPPLIES:PW STREETS DIV 525.60 ASPHALT SUPPLIES:PW STREETS DIVIS 768.17 1,293.77 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175071 01/28/2016 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING&MAINTENANCE: 555.00 555.00 THEATER 175072 01/28/2016 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT LINENS DRY CLEANING:HUMAN 47.00 SERVICES MISC.RENTALS:VAR TCSD EVENTS 120.37 Rentals:nye grape drop event 1,798.32 Rentals for event:hatch chile festival 692.76 EQUIP RENTALS:WINTER WONDERLANC 2,333.60 Rental items:Christmas dinner at MPSC 172.75 Rental supplies:mpsc event 142.05 5,306.85 175073 01/28/2016 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES FEB 16 STAND BY FEE:POLICE DEPT 1,248.00 1,248.00 (AFN) 175074 01/28/2016 003520 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MUSIC LICENSE FEE:OLD TOWN 805.00 805.00 COMPOSERS 175075 01/28/2016 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE NOV 15 ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS: 10,000.00 10,000.00 VALLEYS TEMECULA 175076 01/28/2016 000101 APPLE ONE INC DEC 15 TEMP STAFF SRVCS:VARI 2,524.28 2,524.28 DEPTS 175077 01/28/2016 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JAN 15 DRINKING WATER 34.83 SYSTEMS:MPSC JAN 15 DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS:CIVI 184.14 JAN 15 DRINKING WATER SRVCS:IT DEF 28.35 JAN 15 DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS:JR( 28.35 JAN 15 WATER SRVCS:POLICE STORE F 28.35 304.02 175078 01/28/2016 004307 ARCH CHEMICALS,INC. JAN WATER MAINT SVC:HARV 3,900.00 3,900.00 LAKE/DUCK POND 175079 01/28/2016 014451 ARCHITECTURAL SIGN WALL OF HONOR 6,421.44 6,421.44 IDENTITY CORRECTIONS/INSTALLATION 175080 01/28/2016 011954 BAKER&TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 20.42 20.42 175081 01/28/2016 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET 127.44 MAI NT MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 563.46 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 152.37 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 134.78 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 417.31 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 487.39 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 96.00 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 54.78 2,033.53 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175082 01/28/2016 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL JAN 16 POOL MAI NT SERVICES:CRC 340.00 340.00 SERVICE AND TES 175083 01/28/2016 013265 CALIF BUILDING 4TH QTR PAYMENT OF SB1473 2015 621.00 621.00 175084 01/28/2016 000638 CALIF DEPT OF 2015 4TH QTR PMT:STRONG MOTION 2,271.33 2,271.33 CONSERVATION (OCT-DEC) 175085 01/28/2016 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DEC 15 DOJ ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: 490.00 490.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING POLICE DEPT 175086 01/28/2016 018623 CASTILLO,EMILIE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 175087 01/28/2016 004462 CDW,LLC SMALLTOOLS&EQUIP:INFO TECH 90.76 90.76 175088 01/28/2016 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO NOV CITY VEHICLE FUEL:POLICE 1,632.23 1,632.23 DEPT 175089 01/28/2016 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES,C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 175090 01/28/2016 000447 COMTRONIX REPLACE RADIO SYS:PW STREET 250.00 250.00 COMMUNICATIONS MAI NT DIV 175091 01/28/2016 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: 79.92 79.92 DIST. LIBRARY 175092 01/28/2016 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE,LLC RFRSHMNTS:GOAL DISABILITY 1,624.86 1,624.86 EMPLOYEE INITI 175093 01/28/2016 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 REFRSHMENTS:INTERN:ECO DEV 54.56 MISCSUPPLIES:PREVENTION 91.77 SUPPLIES FOR REOPENING OF FIRE ST. 387.86 534.19 175094 01/28/2016 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 SUPPLIES:JRC 75.01 THEATER HOSPITALITY&OFFICE SUPPI 94.53 169.54 175095 01/28/2016 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING& REBUILT MANIFOLD:OLD TOWN 6TH 786.71 HVACINC ST PLUMBING REPAIRS:CIVIC CENTER 175.00 FACILITY MAINTENANCE:STA95 378.50 1,340.21 175096 01/28/2016 003561 D F M ASSOCIATES 2013 CALIF ELECTIONS CODE:CITY 54.00 54.00 CLERK 175097 01/28/2016 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE THEATER PERFORMANCE:FEB 6,2016 10,000.00 10,000.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175098 01/28/2016 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:LAND DEV 45.05 LUBRICANTS &NPDES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TCSD 108.53 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:POLICE DEP' 45.25 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW 668.55 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TRAFFIC DIV 142.71 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW MAI NT 674.36 1,684.45 175099 01/28/2016 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DEC WATER METER:39656 DIEGO DR 246.35 DIST DEC WATER METER:39569 SERAPHINA F 14.08 DEC WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING 18.14 DEC WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING 14.86 293.43 175100 01/28/2016 016839 EHS INTERNATIONAL,INC. Consultant srvcs:employee safety 1,812.50 1,812.50 175101 01/28/2016 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY MISC SMALL TOOLS&EQUIP:PW 458.94 458.94 TRAFFIC 175103 01/28/2016 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE,INC. DEC 15 LNDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VAR 21,610.97 LOCATIONS DEC 15 LDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VAR LOCAL 9,993.13 DEC 15 LNDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VARI PARK 18,094.70 DEC 15 LNDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VARI PAR 51,365.88 MISC LNDSCP MAINT SRVCS:PALOMA D 397.72 DEC 15 LDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VAR LOCAL 34,844.87 IRRIGATION REPAIR:MIRADASLOPES 259.18 IRRIGATION REPAIR:HARVESTON SLOP 166.46 IRRIGATION REPAIR:HARVESTON SLOP 166.46 DEC 15 LNDSCP MAI NT SVCS:VARI PAR 48,525.10 185,424.47 175104 01/28/2016 011145 FOSTER,JILL CHRISTINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,064.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 387.10 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,929.50 4,380.60 175105 01/28/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 414.05 414.05 175106 01/28/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 350.00 350.00 175107 01/28/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 150.00 150.00 175108 01/28/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 45.00 45.00 175109 01/28/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD LEVY C#546961500 40.50 40.50 175110 01/28/2016 016184 FUN EXPRESS,LLC MISCELLANEOUS REC.SUPPLIES 16.00 MISCELLANEOUS REC.SUPPLIES. 256.95 272.95 Page-.4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175111 01/28/2016 018625 GARCIA,ADELINA REFUND:PICNIC RENTAL:HARVESTON 62.50 62.50 COMM PARK 175112 01/28/2016 016519 GARIBAY,ISAAC RFRSHMNTS: MID MGR STAFF MCP 78.48 78.48 UPDATE 175113 01/28/2016 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS DEC 15 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: 59.88 59.88 INC FOC/CIP/LAND D 175114 01/28/2016 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT:THEATERARTIST 5,000.00 5,000.00 SOCIETY PROCUREMEN 175115 01/28/2016 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE '16 GFOA MEMBERSHIP:PB/RG/JH/SJ 840.00 840.00 OFFICERS 175116 01/28/2016 018608 HAMEL CONTRACTING INC. REFUND:INSPECTION FEES315-3023 2,030.00 2,030.00 175117 01/28/2016 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC DEC 15 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES:CIVIC 1,740.31 1,740.31 CENTER 175118 01/28/2016 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT:IT& 1,350.00 LIBRARY IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.-INFO TE 1,800.00 HP SUPPORT RENEWAL FOR BLADES AI 4,759.50 IT Infrastructure Support:lnfo Tech 3,600.00 IT Infrastructure Support:lnfo Tech 1,668.75 13,178.25 175119 01/28/2016 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, MISC MAI NT SUPPLIES:VARIOUS 122.93 THE CIVIC CENTE misc maint supplies:various facilities 55.27 178.20 175120 01/28/2016 010530 1 PC INDUSTRIES INC GOLF CART RENTALS:12/4-12/5 1,277.40 1,277.40 175121 01/28/2016 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT DEC 15 COPIER 502.58 SOLUTIONS MAI NT/REPAI R/USAGE:CITYWI D DEC 15 COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:( 4,614.93 5,117.51 175122 01/28/2016 000820 K R W&ASSOCIATES 12/16-01/07 ENG PLAN CHECK SRVCS: 4,180.00 4,180.00 PW 175123 01/28/2016 017730 KASHMERE FAMILY TRUST, FEB 16 FACILITY LEASE 5,307.84 5,307.84 THE PAYMENTS:HARVESTON 175124 01/28/2016 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC SWIMMING POOL TEST KIT:CRC POOL 97.85 97.85 175125 01/28/2016 017118 KRACH,BREE B. NAME BADGES FOR THEATER 129.60 129.60 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175126 01/28/2016 018500 LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, 01/02-01/08 TEMP HELP: 1,479.60 1,479.60 INC STREET&PARK MAI NT 175127 01/28/2016 016110 LDCO,INC. RELEASE NOTICE:HUB 8,821.20 8,821.20 CONSTRUCTION SPEC. 175128 01/28/2016 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 2016 MEMBERSHIP DUES 100.00 100.00 175129 01/28/2016 009263 LOWES HIW INC WASHER/DRYER&BBQ W/COVER 2,826.53 2,826.53 FIRE STA 73 175130 01/28/2016 014392 MC COLLOUGH,JILL DENISE JAN 16 MAINT SVCS TO INTERIOR 200.00 PLANTS:LIB JAN 16 MAINT SVCS TO INTERIOR PLAN500.00 700.00 175131 01/28/2016 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. NOV DESIGN SRVCS FOR YNEZ RD 4,504.80 4,504.80 SIDEWALKS: 175132 01/28/2016 016297 MID-AMERICAARTS ALLIANCE EXHIBITRENTAL:TVM 1,250.00 EXHIBIT RENTAL:TVM 3,750.00 5,000.00 175133 01/28/2016 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC MISC.BOOKS,AUDIO,DVDS.:LIBRARY 97.16 97.16 175134 01/28/2016 016445 MKB PRINTING& BUSINESS CARDS:PW MAI NT DIV 100.99 PROMOTIONAL INC MISC.PRINTING SVS:TEMECULA POLIC 222.60 323.59 175135 01/28/2016 004040 MORAMARCO,ANTHONY J. Design services:TCSD Activity Guide 2,800.00 2,800.00 175136 01/28/2016 014464 MSA SYSTEMS,INC pda batteries:temecula police 705.93 705.93 175137 01/28/2016 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH 11/17-12/16 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: 6.47 AMERICA TVHS 11/23-12/22 WATER DELIVERY SVCS:CH, 6.47 11/23-12/22 WATER DELIVERY SVCS:TE: 6.47 19.41 175138 01/28/2016 002292 OASIS VENDING KITCHEN&COFFEE SUPPLIES:MPSC 358.70 MISC KITCHEN SUPPLIES:CIVIC CENTEF 270.90 MISC KITCHEN SUPPLIES:FOC 56.08 685.68 175139 01/28/2016 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS TICKET SALES SETTLEMENT FRANK 8,036.14 8,036.14 SI NATRA 175140 01/28/2016 018624 ORR AND ASSOCIATES REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 175141 01/28/2016 018609 PV POWER SYSTEMS REFUND:PERMIT/INSPECT 227.52 227.52 FEES:B15-3738,39 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175142 01/28/2016 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DEC LNDSCP METER:41951 MORAGA 194.19 DISTRICT RD DEC LNDSCP METER:CALLE ELLENITA 96.55 JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW YMCA 549.91 JAN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE' 6,718.98 7,559.63 175143 01/28/2016 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL SPRAY PRE-EMERGENT MAJOR 18,838.50 18,838.50 MANAGEMENT ARTERIALS 175144 01/28/2016 017761 REYNOLDS BUICK,INC 2016 gmc cargo van:pw facilities maint 28,202.15 28,202.15 175145 01/28/2016 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCY NOV'15 TRANSIT AGREEMENT PMT 1,704.90 1,704.90 175146 01/28/2016 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC supplies to paint legends:street maint. 215.30 215.30 175147 01/28/2016 012260 ROSS,TATIANA REIMB:LASERFICHE EMPOWER'16 478.52 478.52 CONFERENCE 175148 01/28/2016 012251 ROTH,DONALD J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 378.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 819.00 175149 01/28/2016 012174 RUHNAU RUHNAU CLARKE& ENGINEER SRVCS FOR FIRE STN 73 2,640.00 2,640.00 ASSOC. 175150 01/28/2016 009980 SANBORN,GWYNETH A. COUNTRY LIVE!@ THE MERC 1/16/16 618.75 618.75 175151 01/28/2016 017699 SARNOWSKI,SHAWNA, PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:TEMECULA 1,000.00 1,000.00 M.PRESTON CITYWIDE 175152 01/28/2016 017365 SELSTAD,LONNIE DIXIELAND @ THE MERC 1/17/16 121.50 121.50 175153 01/28/2016 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV- SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 CENTRAL 175154 01/28/2016 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/21 &1/22 940.10 JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/14/16 388.50 1,328.60 175155 01/28/2016 013695 SHRED-IT US JV,LLC 1/8/16 DOC.SHRED SRVCS:POLICE 16.54 16.54 MALL STN 175156 01/28/2016 004498 SIEMENS INDUSTRY,INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAI NT SRVCS:PW 4,337.28 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAI NT SRVCS:PW 3,535.30 7,872.58 175157 01/28/2016 014818 SKYFIT TECH,INC. GYM EQUIP MAINTSRVCS:CIVIC 195.00 CENTER GYM EQUIP MAINT SRVCS:CIVIC CENTE 319.19 514.19 Page-.7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175158 01/28/2016 000645 SMART&FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PGRM 127.25 127.25 175159 01/28/2016 000537 SO CALIF EDISON DEC 2-29-974-7568:26953 YNEZ RD TC1 153.18 DEC 2-31-693-9784:26036 YNEZ RD TC1 434.12 DEC 2-33-237-4818:30499 RANCHO CAL 99.02 DEC 2-31-419-2659:26706 YNEZ RD TC1 156.22 DEC 2-27-560-0625:32380 DEERHOLLOW 2,355.34 DEC 2-29-223-9571:30395 MURR HOT SP 51.88 DEC 2-26-887-0789:40233 VILLAGE RD 1,441.95 DEC 2-00-397-5059:33340 CAMINO PIEDF 6,384.22 11,075.93 175160 01/28/2016 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY DEC 055-475-6169-5:32380 137.49 DEERHOLLOW WAY DEC 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD 463.39 600.88 175161 01/28/2016 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FY 15/16 EMISSIONS FEES:TVE2 121.44 FY 15/16 OPERATING FEES:TVE2 346.54 467.98 175162 01/28/2016 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS:SKATE PARK EVENT 83.96 83.96 175163 01/28/2016 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN 22.05 ADVANTAGE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC 124.69 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HUMAN SRVCS 103.33 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CITY MANAGEF 9.05 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CITY MANAGEF 107.47 Misc office supplies:Old Town 415.67 Misc office supplies:Old Town 6.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN 164.91 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CONF CENTER 164.91 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC 22.35 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC 27.33 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HISTORY MUSE 4.63 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HISTORY MUSE 147.06 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HISTORY MUSE 57.95 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HISTORY MUSE 31.74 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HISTORY MUSE 58.30 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 62.53 1,530.05 175164 01/28/2016 003840 STRONGS PAINTING PAINTING SRVCS:HARV LAKE PARK 3,000.00 3,000.00 GAZEBOS 175165 01/28/2016 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC JAN SWEEPING SVCS:PARKING 500.00 500.00 STRUCTURE 175166 01/28/2016 010046 TEMECULAVALLEY NOV'15 BUS.IMPRV DISTRICT 123,596.80 123,596.80 CONVENTION& ASMNTS Page.8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175167 01/28/2016 018610 THE BARN AT WILDOMAR REFUND:PLAN CHECK FEES:B15-3023 1,573.00 1,573.00 175168 01/28/2016 017415 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR ELEVATOR REPAIR:THEATER 10/13 428.35 428.35 CORP 175169 01/28/2016 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:FIRE STN 120.30 92 JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:29119 MAR( 73.73 194.03 175170 01/28/2016 009709 U H S OF RANCHO SPRINGS, DECASSAULT EXAMS-POLICE 1,800.00 1,800.00 INC 175171 01/28/2016 002185 U.S.POSTAL SERVICE JAN-JUN POSTAL SVCS FOR CIVIC 749.00 749.00 CENTER 175172 01/28/2016 000325 UNITED WAY EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 5.00 5.00 PAYMENT 175173 01/28/2016 004261 VERIZON JAN XXX-0073 GEN USAGE:SR CTR, 126.85 126.85 SKATE 175174 01/28/2016 004789 VERIZON JAN INTERNET SVCS:CITY HALL 289.99 JAN INTERNET SVCS:SENIOR CENTER 144.99 434.98 175175 01/28/2016 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 12/1-15 TREE&PLANT MAINT:VAIL 1,106.00 RANCH 12/1-15 TREE TRIMMINGS:OLD TOWN 931.00 12/1-15 TREE TRIM,PLNTG&REMVLS:C 4,692.00 12/1-15 TREE MAINT SRVCS:VINTAGE HI 504.00 12/1-15 TREE MAINTSERVICES:VILLAGE 350.00 11/1-15 TREE TRIMMINGS:OLD TOWN/Sl 168.00 10/16-31 TREE TRIMS AND REMOVALS:C 414.00 12/1-15 TREE TIMMING&REMOVAL:VAR 2,824.00 12/1-15 TREE&PLANT MAINT:HARV.SLO 6,667.00 12/16-31 ANNUAL ROW TRIMMINGCITYV 1,372.00 19,028.00 1000876 01/21/2016 018612 BERMAN,LISA REFUND:TOT'N POTS 1660.101 35.00 35.00 1000877 01/21/2016 018613 BITTER,GABRIELE REFUND:BARRE STRETCH&TONE 48.00 48.00 1930.101 1000878 01/21/2016 018614 CARPENTER,RACHEL REFUND:MUSIC FOR YOUNG 65.00 65.00 CHILDREN 1000879 01/21/2016 018615 HAAN,REBECCA REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000880 01/21/2016 018616 HILL,STEVE REFUND:JR SPORTS 4-5 YRS 2206.101 105.00 105.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1000881 01/21/2016 018617 MORSE,KRISTIN REFUND:TENNIS LEVEL 5/6 1404.101 65.00 65.00 1000882 01/21/2016 018618 PALACIOS,VANESSA REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4010.102 152.00 152.00 1000883 01/21/2016 018619 RHODES,RENCHELL REFUND:JR SPORTS 4-5 YRS 2206.104 105.00 105.00 1000884 01/21/2016 018620 SHARMA,MEREDITH REFUND:MUSIC FOR TODDLERS 48.00 48.00 2900.103 1000885 01/21/2016 017971 SHAW,JESSE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 150.00 150.00 CTR A/B Grand total for UNION BANK: 2,589,541.00 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 01/28/2016 10:36:26AM CITY OF TEMECULA 130 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2,589,541.00 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 2895 02/01/2016 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 78,156.42 78,156.42 2896 02/01/2016 000444 INSTATAX(EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 22,175.74 22,175.74 2898 02/02/2016 000246 PERS(EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT 39,440.92 39,440.92 RETIREMENT) 175176 02/04/2016 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES,LLC HVAC REPAIR&INSTALL PARTS:JRC 1,012.26 HVAC REPAIR SRVCS:THEATER 119.30 HVAC MUNTERS PREV MAINT:CIVIC CEI 1,119.10 HVAC REPAIR SRVCS:THEATER 238.61 2,489.27 175177 02/04/2016 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, FEB 16 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 655.60 655.60 LLC PRGM 175178 02/04/2016 016450 AIR EXCHANGE,INC. PLYMOVENT MAINTENANCE:STA 92 238.82 238.82 175179 02/04/2016 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW REPAIR BACKFLOW:THEATER 197.00 REPLACE BACKFLOW COMPONENTS:TF 397.00 594.00 175180 02/04/2016 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY SECALARM BATTERIES:PARKING 168.48 168.48 CORPORATION GARAGE 175181 02/04/2016 018649 AMERICAN TRAILS MEMBERSHIP:PETERS,MATT 60.00 60.00 175182 02/04/2016 004623 AQUA SOURCE INC POOL TEST REAGENTS:AQUATICS 247.02 247.02 175183 02/04/2016 011752 ASAN SOCIETY GROUP- REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 175184 02/04/2016 017149 B G P RECREATION,INC. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,596.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,596.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,835.00 6,027.00 175185 02/04/2016 011954 BAKER&TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 216.22 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 1,166.42 1,382.64 175186 02/04/2016 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 126.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 140.00 266.00 175187 02/04/2016 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT:CABARETAT THE MERC 2,115.00 2,115.00 THE 01/31/16 175188 02/04/2016 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 1,067.94 DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 780.00 DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 394.04 2,241.98 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175189 02/04/2016 012583 BLANCAY PRICE SEP 15 LDSCP PLAN CHECK& 8,159.00 8,159.00 REVIEW 175190 02/04/2016 003138 CAL MAT ASPHALT SUPPLIES:PW ST MAI NT 375.76 ASPHALT SUPPLIES:PW ST MAI NT 304.23 679.99 175191 02/04/2016 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DOJ ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:TEMECULA 385.00 385.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING POLICE 175192 02/04/2016 004462 CDW,LLC SMALLTOOLS&EQUIP:INFO TECH 138.96 138.96 175193 02/04/2016 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL var.park site elec.supplies:park maint 689.31 DIST. MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:OLD TOW 421.20 var.park site elec.supplies:park maint 84.24 var.park site elec.supplies:park maint 440.64 var.park site elec.supplies:park maint 123.12 1,758.51 175194 02/04/2016 013379 COSSOU,CELINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 315.00 315.00 175195 02/04/2016 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 REFRESHMENTS FOR INTERNS 147.02 147.02 175196 02/04/2016 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 MISC.OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC 18.99 18.99 175197 02/04/2016 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC Traffic count data collection: pw 1,920.00 1,920.00 175198 02/04/2016 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN, BIO-HARZARD CLEAN-UP:TEMECULA 750.00 750.00 LLC POLICE 175199 02/04/2016 018491 CRONBERG PHOTOGRAPHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 560.00 560.00 175200 02/04/2016 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES parts and supplies:pw street maint div 51.32 51.32 175201 02/04/2016 008810 CROSSTOWN ELECTRICAL& 12/17-1/15/16 MAI NT&REPAIR SVCS: 3,950.00 3,950.00 DATA PW 175202 02/04/2016 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE SETTLEMENT:DANCEXCHANGE 84.00 84.00 01/19/16 175203 02/04/2016 001393 DATA TICKET,INC. DEC 15 PARKING CITATION 1,263.47 1,263.47 PROCESSING:POLIC Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175204 02/04/2016 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOMS:LASERENA 52.80 SRVCS WAY PORTABLE RESTROOMS:RIVERTON PAI 52.80 PORTABLE RESTROOMS:LONG CANYOI 52.80 PORTABLE RESTROOMS:VAIL RANCH PF 52.80 211.20 175205 02/04/2016 016756 DOCTOR'S NUTRITIONAL K-9 FOOD-POLICE 82.80 82.80 PRODUCTS 175206 02/04/2016 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:BLDG 250.53 LUBRICANTS INSPECTORS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOF 737.10 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:CODE ENFOF 111.59 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:BLDG INSPE, 187.46 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOF 797.97 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOF 89.23 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PLANNING& 140.54 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TCSD 331.37 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOF 154.78 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TRAFFIC DIV 252.33 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:POLICE DEP' 94.75 3,147.65 175207 02/04/2016 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES:HELP 30.84 30.84 DESK 175208 02/04/2016 011202 EMH SPORTS USA,INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 379.05 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 262.50 816.55 175209 02/04/2016 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE NOV 15 SPPLMNTL EIR:TV HOSPITAL 1,837.05 1,837.05 ASSOC. HELIPORT 175210 02/04/2016 015966 ERGO SOLUTION INC ERGONOMIC EVAL:MILLER,JONES& 750.00 750.00 MCNABB 175211 02/04/2016 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION DEC 15 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SRVCS:B 10,199.50 &S DEPT OCT 15 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SRVCS:B& 7,114.44 17,313.94 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175212 02/04/2016 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE,INC. IRRIGATION REPAIRS:WOLF CREEK 315.84 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:RED HAWK COMK 281.22 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:JOHN MAGEE PAI 191.89 MEDIAN MAINT:REDHAWK 278.68 IRRIGATION REPAIRS WOLF CREEKSLC 241.20 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:GALLERY PORTR 379.16 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VILLAGES RANCF 191.89 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:PRESLEY BRIDLE 258.79 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAIL RANCH SLOI 236.89 IRRIGATION UPGRADE INSTALL:VAIL RP 193.36 IRRIGATION UPGRADE INSTALL:VAIL RP 221.72 IRRIGATION REPAIR:VILLAGES SLOPE 278.53 MASTER VALVE INSTALL:VAIL RANCH S 523.05 MEDIAN MAINT:REDHAWK 355.67 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:PALOMADEL SOL 193.49 4,141.38 175213 02/04/2016 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 1/7-1/12 EXP MAIL SVCS: 120.29 CLERK/TCSD/CI P/F 1/13-1/19 EXP MAIL SVCS:IT/TCSD 199.19 319.48 175214 02/04/2016 018565 FORZA FOR ALL SOLES SETTLEMENT:MERCRENTAL 01/31/16 342.00 342.00 175215 02/04/2016 013076 GAUDET,YVONNE M. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 470.40 470.40 175216 02/04/2016 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SETTLEMENT:CLASSICS...MERC JAN 641.20 641.20 SOCIETY 2016 175217 02/04/2016 016552 GONZALES,MARK ALLEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 90.00 90.00 175218 02/04/2016 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL JAN 16 LEASE COPIERS:CITY 289.44 SVCS HALL/OFF-SITE JAN 16 LEASE COPIERS:CITY HALL/TVE: 1,341.70 JAN 16 LEASE FOR 6 COPIERS:LIBRARl 788.41 2,419.55 175219 02/04/2016 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. SAN SUPPORT RENEWAL:INFO TECH 6,184.50 6,184.50 175220 02/04/2016 018054 1 AM MUSIC GROUP INC Theater Performance:Feb.12,2016 3,000.00 3,000.00 175221 02/04/2016 014435 INLAND EROSION CONTROL erosion control supplies:street maint 1,080.00 1,080.00 SRVCS 175222 02/04/2016 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY sanitizing chemical supplies:var pools 460.24 460.24 INC 175223 02/04/2016 018352 JAMES ELLIOTT PERFORMANCE:THEATER 2/11/16 3,500.00 3,500.00 ENTERTAINMENT, Page-.4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175224 02/04/2016 015673 JDS VIDEO&MEDIA VIDEO PRODUCTION 850.00 850.00 PRODUCTIONS SRVCS:ECONOMIC DEV 175225 02/04/2016 015358 KELLY PAPER COMPANY,INC. PAPER,BINDING SUPPLIES:CENTRAL 413.91 413.91 SERVICES 175226 02/04/2016 013722 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES INC TRAFFIC I M PACT ANALYSIS:HILTON 3,480.00 3,480.00 SUITES 175227 02/04/2016 004905 LIEBERT,CASSIDY& DEC 15 HR LEGAL SVCS FOR 1,950.00 1,950.00 WHITMORE TE060-00001 175228 02/04/2016 018648 LORENZ,JULIE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 175229 02/04/2016 013982 M C I COMM SERVICE JAN XXX-0346 GENERAL USAGE 32.18 JAN XXX-0714 GEN USAGE:PD MALLALP 35.34 67.52 175230 02/04/2016 008610 M C R STAMPS PERFORMANCES:HIGH HOPES 25.00 25.00 PROGRAM 175231 02/04/2016 017427 MATCHETT,VIVIAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 72.80 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 182.00 254.80 175232 02/04/2016 012962 MILLER,MISTY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 308.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 336.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 84.00 728.00 175233 02/04/2016 012264 MIRANDA,JULIO C. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 166.25 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 166.25 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 133.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 532.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 266.00 1,263.50 175234 02/04/2016 004040 MORAMARCO,ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 423.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 392.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 28.00 843.50 175235 02/04/2016 016883 MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT MEMBERSHIP:LEHNER,LYNN 75.00 75.00 175236 02/04/2016 001986 MUZAK LLC FEB 16 DISH NETWORK 140.85 PROGRAMING:FOC FEB 16 DISH NETWORK PRGM:41952 6TI 59.06 199.91 175237 02/04/2016 014391 NICHOLS,KELLIE D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 252.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175238 02/04/2016 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 97.19 DIV MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HR 57.11 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 21.49 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 391.68 Misc.office supplies:finance- 28.43 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW NDPES 86.38 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HARVESTON CE 4.74 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HARVESTON CE 70.03 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HARVESTON CE 119.20 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CIP 86.38 962.63 175239 02/04/2016 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE&SERVICE veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 288.22 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 728.42 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 502.51 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 69.95 VEHICLE REPAIRS&MAINT:PW CIP 148.95 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 50.39 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 452.48 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 75.00 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 186.95 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 1,208.32 vehicle repairs&maint:pw street maint 2,149.20 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT:PW LAND DE' 781.55 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 37.54 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 812.66 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 50.39 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 135.40 veh maint&repairs:parks&facilities 315.60 7,993.53 175240 02/04/2016 017888 PACIFIC HYDROBLASTING INC PAINTING MAI NT SVCS:JRC 2,670.00 2,670.00 175241 02/04/2016 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 652.51 652.51 175242 02/04/2016 010338 POOL&ELECTRICAL POOL SUPPLIES:CHEMICALS:CRC 461.63 PRODUCTS INC pool supplies:chemicals:var pool sites 283.50 WATER CHEMICAL SUPPLI ES:SPLASH Pj 567.01 1,312.14 175243 02/04/2016 010338 POOL&ELECTRICAL POOL SUPPLIES& 362.83 362.83 PRODUCTS INC CHEMICALS:SPLASH PAD 175244 02/04/2016 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS SETTLEMENT:COMEDY AT THE MERC 352.80 352.80 1/30 175245 02/04/2016 013725 PROCRAFT INC GARAGE DOOR REPAIR:FIRE STN 92 800.00 800.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175246 02/04/2016 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL NOV UNIFORM/MATS SVCS:PW 1,282.23 1,282.23 SUPPLY PARKS/C.CTR 175247 02/04/2016 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER JAN WATER METER:30875 RANCHO 521.87 DISTRICT VISTA JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW VARIOUS; 1,271.31 JAN VAR WATER METERS:VAR FIRE STN 204.49 JAN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE' 4,093.51 6,091.18 175248 02/04/2016 002412 RICHARDS WATSON& DEC'15 LEGAL SERVICES 67,826.72 67,826.72 GERSHON 175249 02/04/2016 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 12/4/15 LAW ENFORCEMENT:HOLIDAY 311.25 311.25 DEPT PARADE 175250 02/04/2016 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCY DEC TRANSIT AGREEMENT 1,704.90 1,704.90 :HARVESTON SHUTTLE 175251 02/04/2016 001365 RIVERSIDE,COUNTY OF RENEW PERMIT:MARG PARK SPLASH 385.00 PAD RENEW PERMIT:FOC/MAINTYARD 1,610.00 1,995.00 175252 02/04/2016 012251 ROTH,DONALD J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 157.50 157.50 175253 02/04/2016 018012 SAUNDERS,CATHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 277.41 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 140.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 1,537.41 175254 02/04/2016 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC SETTLEMENT:JAZZATTHE MERC 1/28 630.00 630.00 175255 02/04/2016 000645 SMART&FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES:MPSC 278.46 MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PRGM 136.11 414.57 175256 02/04/2016 000537 SO CALIF EDISON DEC 2-28-331-4847:32805 PAUBA RD 115.43 LS3 JAN 2-34-624-4452:32131 S LOOP RD LO" 657.87 JAN 2-35-164-3770:43487 BUTTERFIELD; 29.46 JAN 2-35-164-3663:42335 MEADOWS PKC 27.70 JAN 2-35-164-3515:32932 LEENA WAY 27.70 JAN 2-35-164-3242:44270 MEADOWS PKC 28.63 JAN 2-33-357-5785:44747 REDHAWK PKV 34.74 DEC 2-30-099-3847:29721 RYECREST 25.52 DEC 2-30-296-9522:46679 PRIMROSE AVE 390.78 1,337.83 175257 02/04/2016 008023 STATER BROTHERS MARKETS RFSHMNTS:W/FIRE FIGHTERS 204.12 204.12 PRGM:FIRE Page-.7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 175258 02/04/2016 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 147.00 INSTRUCTION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 236.25 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 560.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 126.00 1,069.25 175259 02/04/2016 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC DEC SWEEPING SVCS:PARKING 500.00 500.00 STRUCTURE 175260 02/04/2016 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:POLICE 434.02 434.02 LLC 175261 02/04/2016 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY Bus bench placement&maint:pw— 2,512.50 2,512.50 FOUND. 175262 02/04/2016 012676 THERMAL SOLUTIONS INT'L HEAVY THERMAL PAPER:POLICE 444.50 444.50 175263 02/04/2016 016311 TIERCE,NICHOLAS MISC VIDEO SERVICES:HISTORY 1,575.00 1,575.00 MUSEUM 175264 02/04/2016 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:40820 1.60 WINCHESTER FEB HIGH SPEED INTERNET:41000 MAIN ST 4,225.47 4,227.07 175265 02/04/2016 018647 TORRES-MICHEL,NORMA REFUND:SEC DEP:KITCHEN 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:CRC 175266 02/04/2016 004124 TRUELINE REPLACE CAULKING:FOC 13,869.00 13,869.00 175267 02/04/2016 008977 VALLEY EVENTS,INC. PERFORMER:FACE PAINTER NYE 110.00 GRAPE DROP PERFORMER:FACE PAINTER NYE 325.00 435.00 175268 02/04/2016 004261 VERIZON JAN XXX-5072 GENERAL USAGE 2,288.86 DEC XXX-0074 GENERAL USAGE 4,432.30 6,721.16 175269 02/04/2016 004789 VERIZON JAN INTERNETSVCS:LIBRARY 184.99 184.99 175270 02/04/2016 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS Broadband Svcs City-wide 2,005.10 2,005.10 175271 02/04/2016 006248 WALKER,JESSICA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 201.60 201.60 175272 02/04/2016 000348 ZIGLER,GAIL REIMB:SUPPLIES FOR MARDI GRAS 113.28 113.28 1000886 01/28/2016 018631 ABIFADEL,HAROLDINE REFUND:MOTHER'S DAY TEA EVENT 30.00 30.00 Page.8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1000887 01/28/2016 018632 DENNIS,DIANE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1000888 01/28/2016 016001 HOFMASTER,NICOLE REFUND:TOTS'N POTS 1660.101 35.00 35.00 1000889 01/28/2016 018633 HUNTINGTON,ADRIANN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 1000890 01/28/2016 018634 KIEFER,DENISE REFUND:TOT'N POTS 1660.101 35.00 35.00 1000891 01/28/2016 018635 KLEEMANN,ANA MARIA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 1000892 01/28/2016 018636 LANGERUD,LEIF REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000893 01/28/2016 018637 LOPEZ,MICHELLE REFUND:SEUSSICALYOUTH MUSICAL 200.00 200.00 1000894 01/28/2016 018638 MEAS,CARRIE REFUND:MUSIC FOR YOUNG 65.00 65.00 CHILDREN 1000895 01/28/2016 018639 MONARREZ,MYRNA REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000896 01/28/2016 018640 OTT,KATHLEEN REFUND:TEM ROD RUN CAR ENTRY 35.00 35.00 1000897 01/28/2016 018641 PEARSON,LAURA REFUND:BRIGHT START FOR KIDS 152.00 152.00 LITTLE TOTS 1000898 01/28/2016 018642 RASHID,ORMAD REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000899 01/28/2016 018642 RASHID,ORMAD REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000900 01/28/2016 018643 ROSSER,ALICIA REFUND:BALANCE ON ACCT:TCSD 52.80 52.80 1000901 01/28/2016 016985 ROQUE,PRUDENCIO REFUND:PRACTICE TEST SAT 10.00 10.00 9020.102 1000902 01/28/2016 018644 SALAZAR,DEANNA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 150.00 150.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 1000903 01/28/2016 018645 SCHILLER,CAMILLE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1000904 01/28/2016 018646 SIMMONS,MARINA REFUND:BRIGHT START FOR KIDS 152.00 152.00 LITTLE TOTS Grand total for UNION BANK: 368,930.49 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 02/04/2016 10:08:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA 119 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 368,930.49 Page:11 Item No . 4 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the City's Participation in a Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study with Contract Cities (At the Request of Council Member Comerchero) PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the City's participation in a Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Feasibility Study with other contract cities within Riverside County; 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Participation/Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of San Jacinto for the City's share of the Feasibility Study. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has contracted with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office since 1989 when the City incorporated. The City currently has 100 sworn officers and 19 Community Service Officers. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 Police contract totaled $24,151,300. Since 2007, contract rates have increased by 33.4% and based on the projections provided by the Sheriff's Office, contract rates are expected to continue to increase between 7-8% per year. With this level of escalation, by Fiscal Year 2019-20 the contract cost for Temecula would exceed $31 million for the same level of service. Since May 2015, the contract cities have been working together to address the concerns regarding the unsustainable escalation in contract costs. A Mayor's Summit on Public Safety was held May 28, 2015. While all cities are currently satisfied with the Sheriff's Office services, it was agreed that cities should examine alternatives as part of their own due diligence. One alternative discussed among participating contract cities was the concept of forming a JPA in order to better contain costs. The City of Moreno Valley, as the largest contract city, agreed to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a police services feasibility study. Once approved by the interested cities, the City of San Jacinto issued the RFP and a total of seven proposals were received, ranging in cost from $123,000 to $580,000. On January 7, 2016, a panel of City Managers and Finance Directors from the interested cities conducted interviews of the top candidates and unanimously selected Matrix Consulting to prepare the feasibility study for a cost of $195,000 with a five-month timeline. The scope of work, as outlined in the attached RFP, is summarized below: • Determining the potential of a JPA to manage police services consistent with the level currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. • Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of creating a JPA as compared to the current services. • A detailed review of existing police management and operations. • Establishing a recommended organizational structure for the JPA as compared to the existing organization and staffing levels of each participating agency. • Defining the services and method of service delivery under the JPA for all necessary functions of the police organization. • Defining and determining cost factors for the administration, capital purchases, and start-up of the JPA structure. • Determining how the JPA would have access and use of necessary Riverside County Sheriff's Office regional law enforcement services. • A comprehensive salary and benefit survey with recommended compensation ranges for each job classification, including pension options. • Potential areas of financial savings in the immediate and long term compared to current costs. • A proposed implementation schedule, considering that Phase 2 (how to execute implementation) and Phase 3 (full implementation) will follow subsequently. Specifically, Temecula will receive a detailed staffing study on the Police Department that will include recommendations for efficient service delivery and potential cost savings measures. The City of San Jacinto is anticipating the award of the contract with Matrix on March 1St, and the participating cities will enter into a Participation/Cost Sharing Agreement for their pro rata share of the feasibility study. To date, the cities of Moreno Valley and Jurupa Valley have received approval from their respective City Council to participate in the feasibility study. The cities of Menifee, Perris, Coachella and Lake Elsinore are expecting to bring the item to their City Council in February. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the Feasibility Study is $195,000, which will be shared proportionately among participating cities. Of the 17 contract cities, it is expected that ten cities will participate; in which case Temecula's cost would be $19,500. In the event not all cities participate, the FY15-16 Mid-Year Adjustment included an appropriation of $25,000 in the City Manager's Operating Budget for this study. ATTACHMENTS: Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study RFP 2015-019 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA matrix consulting group TABLE OF CONTENTS Proposal Section Page 1. COVER LETTER i 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 3. APPROACH TO THE SCOPE OF WORK 5 4. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULES 19 5. CONSULTANT TEAM 20 6. CONSULTANT REFERENCES 34 7. ADDENDA 38 8. SAMPLE WORK PRODUCTS 39 9. FEE PROPOSAL 40 1 . COVER LETTER matrixst consulting group October 20, 2015 Tim Hults, City Manager City Manager's Department City of San Jacinto 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto, CA 92583 Dear Mr. Hults: The Matrix Consulting Group is pleased to submit our proposal to the City of San Jacinto to conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study (RFP 2015-019). The Matrix Consulting Group is comprised of highly experienced management consultants who specialize in the analysis of law enforcement systems and operations. We have conducted law enforcement assessments for more than 300 communities in California, elsewhere in the West and across the United States, including many feasibility studies. The firm and project team assigned to this study have significant experience analyzing law enforcement service alternatives for communities wishing to evaluate other approaches to providing these services. The table, below, summarizes this experience, which includes many service delivery alternative studies in California such as our just-completed studies for La Quinta and Laguna Hills: Contract Service Evaluation Feasibility Studies Consolidation Analysis I Kenmore, WA Broome County, NY Augusta/Richmond County, GA Laguna Hills, CA Citrus Heights, CA Bergen County, NJ La Quinta, CA College Park, MD Boston Area Agencies, MA Lynwood,CA Cupertino, CA Broome County, NY Palmdale, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA CarthageNVest Carthage, NY Patterson, CA Goleta, CA Endicott/Vestal, NY Pinellas County, FL Hilton Head Island, SC Hall County/Gainesville, GA San Bernardino County, CA Lauderdale Lakes, FL High Desert Cities, CA This breadth of experience will allow us to quickly identify and understand the law enforcement issues facing the Riverside County contract cities. Our approach to conducting studies is based on thorough research, detailed analysis and interaction with our clients as the project proceeds, as characterized by the following points: • The President of the firm will be directly involved in the project. I have personally worked on and directed over 250 police studies during my 30+ year career, including all of the feasibility analyses listed in the table above. I am based in our California Headquarters office. • We staff our projects with functional specialists, not generalists. In addition to myself, our experienced law enforcement analytical team includes: 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148 Mountain View, CA 94040 650.858.0507 650 917.2310 fax California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas Washington Byron Pipkin, a Senior Manager, who has been a law enforcement consultant for 10 years. He was a Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale (CA) DPS. He has played a lead role in several of our recent police feasibility studies, including the La Quinta and Laguna Hills projects. Greg Mathews, Senior Manager, who has 25+ years of experience, having started his career at the Pasadena Police Department. He is a specialist in evaluating smaller public safety agencies, with recent experience at Kenmore (WA); Montville (NJ); Goleta (CA); and Eastpointe (MI). • We believe in high levels of client participation and input. We will conduct interviews with a broad range of municipal, County and regional officials; we will also conduct focus group meetings of residents on the subject of police services. • We work closely with our clients through interim reports and meetings. We anticipate three or four meetings with the project steering committee. We commit to bi-weekly briefings during the duration of the project. • We provide detailed analysis for each recommendation. Our reports are fact-based, not founded on generalities or simplistic notions such as officers per thousand. The Matrix Consulting Group is a California corporation with its headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area (Mountain View, California), as well as offices in Massachusetts, Texas, Washington and Illinois. We were formed in 2003. Official communications can be made through the letterhead contacts or to me at rbrady_a matrixcq.net. We have thoroughly reviewed the Request for Proposals and understand the requirements for this project_ Our attendance at the project Bidders' Conference on October 8th confirmed that understanding. We are highly qualified to conduct this work given of the depth of our experience generally in police services analysis and feasibility studies specifically. We have no exceptions to the terms and conditions proposed. As President of the firm, I am authorized to sign this proposal, negotiate on its behalf and bind it contractually. There is no proprietary information in this proposal document. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Matrix Consu)inga droup Richard P. Brady President matrix consulting group 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section provides a brief, but comprehensive overview of our proposal to conduct this JPA Feasibility Study. 1. SCOPE OF WORK This study is designed to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to manage the services of 11 cities — Canyon Lake, Calimesa, Coachella, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. The initial analysis, the first of three phases, is designed to be a comprehensive feasibility study of the police services needs and costs of a JPA and will include: • Determining the potential of a JPA to manage police services consistent with the level currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. • Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of creating a JPA as compared to the current services. • A detailed review of existing police management and operations. Establishing a recommended organizational structure for the JPA as compared to the existing organization and staffing levels of each participating agency. Defining the services and method of service delivery under the JPA for all necessary functions of the police organization. • Defining and determining cost factors for the administration, capital purchases, and start-up of the JPA structure. • Determining how the JPA would have access and use of necessary Riverside County Sheriffs Office regional law enforcement services. • A comprehensive salary and benefit survey with recommended compensation ranges for each job classification, including pension options. • Potential areas of financial savings in the immediate and long term compared to current costs. • A proposed implementation schedule, considering that Phase 2 (how to execute implementation) and Phase 3 (full implementation) will follow subsequently. While most communities are satisfied with the Sheriff's Office's handling of and Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) response to crime and service needs, examining joint service alternatives is 'due diligence' on these contract services. These issues underscore the cities' interest in this study. For this study, however, there is an important test that is the focus of much of the analysis — is the JPA cost effective yet still provides proper police services for all entities involved as compared to current levels of service. The overall structure of this evaluation is envisioned to be comprise three phases — this feasibility evaluation and subsequent implementation phases (2). The next section of the proposal describes in detail how the Matrix Consulting Group would evaluate the feasibility in Phase 1. 2. WORK APPROACH This study to be defensible and usable needs to be based on a number of principles: • Extensive input from local managers and elected officials. • Reaching out to citizens on law enforcement services and alternatives. • Be extensively and thoroughly fact based. • Be subject to extensive reviews with a project committee. • The final report needs not only to recap this but to start implementation. The table, below, graphically displays the steps and tentative schedule to conduct the Police Services JPA Feasibility Study. As can be seen from the chart, we are proposing that the study be completed in 20 weeks (five months). 1. Project Initiation 2. Law Enforcement Profiles 3. Community Input 4.Assumptions for Alternatives 5. Salary Survey 5.Alternative Resource Needs 6.Alternative Organizations 7.Alternative Costs 8. Start-up Costs 9. Final Report As extensively described in the task plan later in this proposal there would be a deliverable associated with each project task. Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 3. THE PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to utilize a senior project team, including our President and other experienced personnel with direct law enforcement experience. The most senior members of the team have between 10 and 30 years of professional experience as consultants and/or law enforcement professionals. Our team includes no subcontractors. All of our experienced team members are Matrix Consulting Group staff who have worked together regularly on law enforcement projects. RICHARD BRADY is the President of the Matrix Consulting Group. He is the leader of our management studies and law enforcement analytical practices. He has been a consultant to local governments for over thirty years. During that period, he has specialized in the analysis of police services, having conducted studies involving over 250 law enforcement agencies. Mr. Brady has managed and/or significantly participated in every law enforcement study cited as experience in this proposal. Mr. Brady has conducted over 200 policing studies in California and in 38 other states across the country. Mr. Brady has a BA from California State University, Hayward; and a doctorate from Oxford University, U.K. Mr. Brady would function as project manager. BYRON PIPKIN is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has over 32 years of experience as a public safety officer through the rank of Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Byron Pipkin has extensive consulting experience which includes analysis of law enforcement operations for Sunnyvale's Department of Public Safety as a client project coordinator. Byron Pipkin is a graduate of the FBI National Academy; received California POST Management, Supervisory and Advanced certificates; and he received his BA from San Jose State University in their Justice Administration program. JERRY HOOVER is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has a strong background in law enforcement, including having previously served as the Chief of Police in Reno, Nevada and in the City of St Joseph, Missouri. Mr. Hoover has also served as interim Police Commissioner to the United Nations in Sudan, and was recently Contingent Commander in support of police training in Afghanistan. GREG MATHEWS — Mr. Mathews, a Senior Manager, has over 27 years of private sector and government experience, performing as both a senior management consultant and executive manager. He concluded his public sector career in 2005 as Deputy Director of Auditing for the Los Angeles City Controller's Office where he managed the day-to-day functions of the Performance Auditing, Follow-up, and Management Assessment sections in the Performance Audit Division for a city-wide elected official. He began his formal career with the Pasadena Police Department, supervising the Crime Analysis Unit and became a POST-certified Level 1 Reserve Police Officer. He holds a B.A. degree from UC Davis and M.P.A. from the University of Southern California. Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) IAN BRADY is a Consultant with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our Mountain View office. Recently, before joining the Matrix Consulting Group as a full-time consultant, Mr. Brady previously served as an intern for two years. He received his BA in Political Science from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. 4. EXPERIENCE The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience conducting police services analyses of all types. We have worked extensively with law enforcement agencies of all sizes and diverse operating environments and communities — in all, over 300 departments. A partial list of our police management, staffing and operations study experience in the past 10 years is provided below (with projects in California bolded): Albuquerque, New Mexico Goodyear, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona Arlington, Texas Greenfield, California Pittsburg, California Arlington, Washington Gresham, Oregon Portland, Oregon Asheville, North Carolina Hanford, California Richmond,Virginia Aurora, Colorado Hayward, California Rohnert Park, California Bayonne, New Jersey Jacksonville, Florida Roseville, California Berkeley, California Kenmore, Washington San Antonio, Texas Beverly Hills, California Lawrence Twp., New Jersey Seaside, California Birmingham, Alabama Las Vegas Metro, Nevada Southlake, Texas Brattleboro,Vermont Lowell, Massachusetts Spokane,Washington Chula Vista, California Milwaukee, Wisconsin St. Petersburg, Florida Clearwater, Florida Monrovia, California Suffolk, Virginia Coral Gables, Florida Montville, New Jersey Suisun, California Corvallis, Oregon Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania Sunnyvale, California Cotati, California Napa, California Tacoma, Washington Des Moines, Washington Newburgh, New York Vancouver,Washington Des Peres, Missouri Onondaga County, New York Venice, Florida Elko, Nevada Omaha, Nebraska Vernon, California " Galt, California Ontario, California Watertown, Massachusetts Gilroy. California Pacifica, California Winnipeq, Manitoba (Canada) The firm and this proposed project team has extensive prior experience conducting new agency feasibility studies and evaluations of contracting for law enforcement services. The following table provides a summary of the feasibility and related studies conducted by the firm. Contract Service Evaluation Feasibility Studies Consolidation Analysis Kenmore, WA Broome County, NY Augusta/Richmond County, GA La Quinta, CA Citrus Heights, CA Bergen County, NJ Lynwood, CA I College Park, MD Boston Area Agencies, MA Laguna Hills, CA Cupertino, CA Broome County, NY Palmdale, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA Carthage/West Carthage, NY Patterson, CA Goleta, CA Endicott/Vestal, NY Pinellas County, FL Hilton Head Island, SC Hall County/Gainesville, GA San Bernardino County, CA Lauderdale Lakes, FL High Desert Cities, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 3. APPROACH TO THE SCOPE OF WORK CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 3. APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK The section, which follows, presents a detailed description of the analytical tasks we will complete to achieve the study objectives of this Police Services JPA Feasibility Study. This study would be conducted in three phases — the first phase encompassing fact finding, issues identification, analysis and recommendations; then implementation assistance. The task plan, which follows, describes how this study would be conducted in Phase 1 only. 1. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING. This study is designed to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to manage the services of 11 cities — Canyon Lake, Calimesa, Coachella, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. The initial analysis, the first of three phases, is designed to be a comprehensive feasibility study of the police services needs and costs of a JPA and will include: • Determining the potential of a JPA to manage police services consistent with the level currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Office. • Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of creating a JPA as compared to the current services. A detailed review of existing police management and operations. • Establishing a recommended organizational structure for the JPA as compared to the existing organization and staffing levels of each participating agency. • Defining the services and method of service delivery under the JPA for all necessary functions of the police organization. • Defining and determining cost factors for the administration, capital purchases, and start-up of the JPA structure. • Determining how the JPA would have access and use of necessary Riverside County Sheriffs Office regional law enforcement services. A comprehensive salary and benefit survey with recommended compensation ranges for each job classification, including pension options. • Potential areas of financial savings in the immediate and long term compared to current costs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) • A proposed implementation schedule, considering that Phase 2 (how to execute implementation) and Phase 3 (full implementation) will follow subsequently. This is expected to be an empirical study — based on data reflecting the needs and uses of law enforcement services by all governmental entities participating, but also predicated on intensive input from staff within the these agencies. (1) Current Contract Services The Riverside County Sheriff's Office currently provides police services for seventeen (17) cities and one (1) Indian Reservation through individual contracts. Those cities include: • Calimesa ** • Moreno Valley** • Canyon Lake** - Morongo Indian Reservation • Coachella** Norco • Eastvale Palm Desert Indian Wells Perris** Jurupa Valley** Rancho Mirage Lake Elsinore ** San Jacinto ** • La Quinta Temecula** • Menifee** Wildomar Cities interested in a feasibility study for a JPA as of release of this proposal (2) Contract Costs: The principal motivation for this study are increases in contract costs. Cities pay a set rate for the number of patrol hours they need to provide adequate police coverage, plus more for additional services. The cost per hour is adjusted annually and, while the Great Recession slowed the rate of increase, they are increasing again and cumulatively have been great over time. The rates for the past eight fiscal years, along with the increase over the previous year, are as follows: 2007-08: $111.80 (up 5.03%) 2008-09: $117.30 (up 4.84%) 2009-10: $121.97 (up 3.98%) 2010-11: $125.37 (up 2.79%) 2011-12: $126.74 (up 1.09%) 2012-13: $132.69 (up 4.69%) 2013-14: $139.29 (up 4.97%) 2014-15: $149.09 (up 7.04%) Cumulative Change: 33.4% Source: Riverside County Sheriffs Office Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Trends in these contract cost per hour changes are shown graphically below: 160 150 - 140 - - - 130 --- 120 - 110 100 -�— O� NO N"- N� NO N ND LOO,I• �000, ti000 ti0�0 N 00^� ti The cities participating in this study together paid almost $120 million for contract law enforcement services to Riverside County in 2015 (not including the Morongo Indian Reservation). Contract costs for participating cities in this study are shown in the following table along with the range of costs per capita for each city. Contract City Contract Cost Cost Capita Calimesa $1.4 m 1 $166 Canvon Lake $1.5 m $136 Coachella $7.5 m $170 Jurupa Vallev $12.6 m $127 Lake Elsinore $11 m $183 Menifee $10.4 m $122 Moreno Valley $33.4 m $165 Perris $13.5 m $183 San Jacinto $8.2 m _1 $176 Temecula $22.3 m 1 $203 • Depending on size and services contracted for the costs per community range from $1.4 million for Calimesa (and $1.5 million for Canyon Lake) to $33.4 million for Moreno Valley. • On a cost per capita, the costs range greatly —from $122 for Menifee to $203 for Temecula, a variation of 65%. In conclusion, due to the increase in cost annually averaging more than 4% for the first seven years and more than 7% over the previous year, cities are looking at having to make choices between current service levels and the ability to pay the Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) predicted costs for police services. The Sheriff's Office is expecting to increase costs by 7% for the next several years due to its own projected budget shortfall. This is a primary reason for the commissioning of this study. (3) Crime As demonstrated in the following tables, the number of violent crimes and property crimes for the cities (and not including the Reservation) covered in this study vary considerably. Violent Crimes 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Calimesa 18 10 13 14 17 Canyon Lake 10 21 11 3 13 Coachella 193 276 265 118 166 Jurupa Valley 0 150 312 267 287 Lake Elsinore 108 122 130 103 128 Menifee 64 53 87 99 107 Moreno Valley 724 732 706 638 584 Perris 160 167 240 241 180 San Jacinto 108 118 137 124 101 Temecula 74 951 97 91 1 100 Property Crimes 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Calimesa 166 159 202 165 259 Canyon Lake 223 225 209 157 128 Coachella 1623 1697 1547 1372 1152 Jurupa Valley 0 1414 3174 3065 2586 Lake Elsinore 1571 1611 1932 1494 1662 Menifee 1339 1611 1942 1680 1501 Moreno Valley 5222 5762 6371 5872 6410 Perris 1735 2124 2081 2038 1905 San Jacinto 1371 1462 1479 1805 1875 Temecula 2351 2406 2440 2848 2535 As with costs, it is valuable to adjust for community size and examine crime rates. These figures are shown in the following table. Violent Crimes/1,000 pop Property Crimes/1,000 pop Calimesa 1.60 24.83 Canyon Lake 1.01 19.17 Coachella 6.30 36.80 Juruua Valley 3.20 32.53 Lake Elsinore 2.41 35.84 Menifee 1.09 24.26 Moreno Valley 3.54 31.91 Perris 3.40 29.47 San Jacinto 3.00 32.41 Temecula 0.94 23.59 Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) While most communities are satisfied with the Sheriff's Office's handling of and response to crime and service needs, examining joint service alternatives is 'due diligence' on these contract services. These issues underscore the cities' interest in this study. For this study, however, there is an important test that is the focus of much of the analysis - is the JPA cost effective yet still provides proper police services for all entities involved as compared to current levels of service. The overall structure of this evaluation is envisioned to be comprise three phases - this feasibility evaluation and subsequent implementation phases (2). The next section of the proposal describes in detail how the Matrix Consulting Group would evaluate the feasibility in Phase 1. 2. TASK PLAN The task plan, which follows, provides a detailed description of the steps that the project team would take to conduct and complete this study for the agencies participating in this study ('agency', including the participating cities and the Morongo Indian Reservation). Task 1 Initiate the Project and Document Law Enforcement Trends and Issues Which Led to This Study. The purpose of this first task is to develop a thorough understanding of issues and expectations of all parties to the study. Completion of this task will include: • Interview the City Managers and, if desired, representative elected officials from each of the participating agencies. During the course of these interviews, the project team will explore the following: - Attitudes toward current service levels and service responsiveness of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. Views toward any unmet law enforcement related needs. An understanding of cost of service trends and issues. - Identification and views toward any viable alternatives. Identification of issues regarding regional service delivery issues. • Interview key representatives of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office (RCSO), including each local contract police chief. These interviews would review and discuss such issues as the following: How the RCSO currently serves each agency and surrounding areas. Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Methods by which the RCSO communicates with officials and citizens. Trends and issues that have arisen over the past few years. Budget and resource allocation issues facing the RCSO that could further impact contract service operations. The project team would also collect budgets, recent service and performance reports provided and demographic information / projections for each agency. Task Result: The result of this task would be a final project work plan reflecting the project team's improved understanding of the interest of each agency in participating in this project. We would present this project plan to the project committee. Task 2 Document and Compare Law Enforcement Services, Staffing, Workloads and Service Levels in Each Jurisdiction. To establish a basis for structuring and comprehensively evaluating the law enforcement organization alternatives, we will develop a portrait of staffing, workloads and service levels. We will gather and analyze detailed information about staffing, deployment, crime and service workloads, and service levels from the RCSO. In order to understand the system of law enforcement service delivery and the basis for organizational alternatives, we will document the following: • Contract service requirements. • Community-generated calls for service (CFS) workloads by time of day and day of week; similarly, document deputy-initiated workloads. Develop long term trend data on calls for service and deputy-initiated activities. • Part I and Part II crime rates and arrests in each jurisdiction (by type) over 10 years. • Field deployment levels by the RCSO in each jurisdiction and surrounding areas. • Response times by priority or urgency of call. • Document the types of deputy-initiated activities currently accomplished by field patrol personnel. Develop an understanding of the ways in which these activities are planned and staff help accountable. Other workloads of patrol (as well as other personnel) such as court appearances, public education, etc. Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) • Number of cases forwarded to investigative staff for follow-up as well as the results of these cases. • Traffic enforcement workloads and traffic enforcement activities. • Nature and scope of crime prevention programs currently provided. • Document how the contract `works' from the perspective of generating base and supplemental costs to each of the participating agencies. In developing this database of information the project team would document workloads and service levels in each jurisdiction and across jurisdictions, deployments of staff in the jurisdiction and in surrounding areas, and costs. Task Result: A summary of the contract and how it compares to actual service delivery would also be developed. The project team would summarize this information in a narrative and statistical descriptive profile. This document would be reviewed with the project committee as well as with the Riverside Sheriff's Office. Task 3 Understand Community Views About Law Enforcement Services. It is critical for the project team to attempt to develop some input regarding current law enforcement services as well as viable alternatives from the communities served. To provide a major avenue for input at the outset of the project, we plan to conduct a citizen online survey to gauge views toward current services and regional alternatives. We would conduct an electronic survey that could be completed by any member of the public in all of the jurisdictions to provide additional feedback and input to the project team regarding law enforcement services. Information regarding the perceptions of the law enforcement services provided and the current satisfaction with these services will provide unique insight. Attitudes toward some of the following questions would be sought: Document attitudes toward the types. levels and quality of law enforcement services provided. Document attitudes toward responsiveness of RCSO personnel. Document perceptions reaardina kev management issues. Identifv service gaps and new proarammatic and service needs. Questionnaires would be confidential and completed via an online survey instrument (SurveyMonkey). This is a cost effective method to obtain community input into the study. We would work with each jurisdiction to develop mechanisms to inform and promote this survey to their citizens. Matrix Consulting Group _a Page 11 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Task Result: Summaries of the findings from the survey identifying major themes, comments received and suggestions for change by agency. Task 4 Develop Assumptions for Use in the Analysis of Alternatives. The project team will evaluate the feasibility of consolidation of law enforcement among contract agencies in Riverside County. The feasibility of these alternatives will be compared, in terms of service and cost effectiveness, with the existing approaches of independent police agencies. The project team will review the results of the first three tasks and develop an issues list and a set of service level objectives that can be employed as a basis for structuring and costing JPA and other shared service alternative approaches to providing law enforcement services. Issue areas could include: • Field deployment levels. Use of civilian personnel. • Response time targets. • Scope of prevention and community programming. • Level of investigative services in each jurisdiction and shared. • How support services should be handled and the degree to which communities could cooperatively provide some or all of these services. • Which services best lend themselves to functional consolidation or increased shared services? • Which services make sense to continue to be provided through the County (e.g., communications or detention system facilities and systems). • How shared service alternatives would be organized, governed and costs allocated. Task Result. Once these issues have been formulated, we will review them with the project committee at a progress meeting. Based on the guidance provided by the committee, these objectives would be adjusted as appropriate, and will provide the basis for structuring consolidation alternatives. Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Task 5 Conduct a Comparative Compensation Survey. The project team would develop a comprehensive salary and benefit survey for the participating agencies as a way to gauge comparative costs within the current contract and to set the stage for the analysis of JPA alternatives. Working with the project committee, as well as with human resource representatives in the cities, we would develop a preliminary list of surveyed cities, develop a comparative assessment tool and decide which agencies to include. We would contact each of the agencies and obtain information on: • Salary levels and ranges for relevant law enforcement positions. • Fringe benefit descriptions and costs for all benefits and each fringe benefit. • Explore the extent to which alternative benefit programs have been established or are being evaluated (e.g., defined contribution retirement plans, ACA, etc.). The project team would develop a comprehensive comparative document which documents the results of the survey and implications for the JPA feasibility assessment. Task Result: The results of the compensation survey would be reviewed with the project committee, together an assessment of the impacts of this data on the development of assumptions relating to the feasibility analysis. Task 6 Identify the Resources Needed for JPA or Other Alternatives. In this task, the project team will evaluate the feasibility of consolidating law enforcement services or increasingly sharing services involving the participating agencies. In developing the analysis in this task, we will explore: • The number of full time and part time sworn staff required to handle each function based on workloads, service level targets and geography. — Patrol — Investigations — Administrative services — Support services — Command staffing • The project team would analyze deployments for the participating agencies. This is critical for contiguous agencies because of the potential to share resources in a regional effort rather than assuming that each agency stands alone in field services. The Matrix Consulting Group has an innovative approach to evaluating deployments as evidenced by the sample map on the next page. Additional information can be found on our web site at www.matrixc .net/beats Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Current 18 Beat Structure CFS Inequity Between Beats Berkeley,CA f ]YfANQA4! $l� 17 18 3 .'r =� � �= uta 1 AVC '�c •� ' �_qq,, 41r 6 c y tttV�--• 16 7 :?itHa'' .,� r�Vl1C:NTWitY ��-�, --•'� ..- wit},,�� 14 �f 20%or more below average t, 1 � - 12 10-20%below average 1 5� 13 �l-10%of average 10-20%above average . x 1 nLCA1R+".AVE l� cAle �r 20%or more above average ; 4L{h��� '} ;iA bike unit patrol area Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) What is the best use of civilians in the agency, including in core service areas currently provided by sworn personnel (for example in the response to low priority/ risk crime and service calls). Opportunities to share staff and/or programs among groups of agencies. These could include: Management Administrative services Emergency communications Investigations of major crimes Crime prevention Special services (such as SWAT, K9, accident investigations, forensics) Support services (such as fleet and facility maintenance) • Opportunities to share certain infrastructure (e.g., administrative facilities, detention facilities and/or equipment) among groups of agencies. Alternatives explored would include organizational as well as functional consolidation alternatives (i.e., by function). Task Result. The product of this work task will be a detailed analysis of the staffing and organizational needs for public safety in consolidated service delivery alternative(s). This analysis will be reviewed with the project steering committee. Task 7 Identify Approaches for Organizing Law Enforcement Services to Participating Agencies in a Joint Powers Agreement. Once staff requirements have been determined, the project team will structure an organizational approach for delivering police services, including both organizational and functional consolidation. The organizational approaches would be analyzed in terms of the following: • How each would be structured legally — inter-local agreement or separate authority or, if there are fewer participants, contracts for service. • How each would be governed. • How each would be impacted by any current or potential labor agreements. • How each would impact other municipal services. • The advantages and disadvantages each alternative approach. Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Task Result: The project team will develop analyses of the organizational alternative and review these with the project committee. Task 8 Develop Analyses of the Operating Costs for the Consolidated Police Service Alternative. We feel it is important to develop and evaluate the consolidated police agency alternatives at a level of detail sufficient for the communities to pursue the choice(s) with a level of confidence. As a result, we will structure and estimate the cost of consolidation as follows: • Summarize the number of line staff required, by position type; evaluate part time staff availability and use options. • Develop plans of administrative, command, and support staffing necessary to support operations. • Once the consolidated organizational structures have been defined, estimate the competitive labor costs associated with the staffing plan. Base the analysis on the following: — Prepare a likely compensation schedule, by position, for the staffing plan based on existing compensation in the three communities or in the region. — Convert the staffing plans to estimated salary costs. — Estimate fringe benefit costs based on competitive local benefit packages. • Then, develop detailed operating expense budgets by cost component for the service delivery alternative. • Identify the `indirect' costs associated with assuming a large new service such as law enforcement. This will include such costs as vehicles, technologies, facilities, and the provision of support services (e.g., HR, IT, etc.). • Alternative cost allocation approaches would be identified, costed and evaluated. • Project costs for ten (10) years and compare these costs to potential increases in contract services. Task Result: The results of the above would be pro-forma operating budgets for consolidated organizational approach. The results of these analyses of operating costs would be reviewed with the project committee. Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Task 9 Identify Start-Up and Capital Requirements. This work task will involve developing capital budget and transition strategies for police consolidation or shared service. This would include: • Determining the types and numbers of equipment needed. • Identifying facility issues for addressing facility needs — centralized or centralized with satellite facilities. Identifying short, medium and longer term alternatives associated with such major functions as emergency communications and short term holding facilities. • How to transition service responsibility from independent agencies to new service agencies to ensure services are maintained, yet duplication minimized. • What interim operational steps could be taken to move from current approaches to any new service delivery model adopted. • The cost impacts of alternative shared facilities and equipment among sub- regional groups of agencies. • A detailed schedule for implementation. Task Result: The results of this task will be capital budget and transition plan for implementing public safety alternatives. Task 10 Provide the Results of the Consolidation Feasibility Analysis. With the completion of the previous tasks the project team will develop draft and final reports for the project committee and the communities to review. The final report will be comprised of the following: • A summary and comparison of current law enforcement services provided by the RCSO. • A summary of the community surveys. A summary of the analysis of the feasibility of shared law enforcement services in a JPA or other shared services environment, including: — Organizational and service needs — Operating, capital and start up costs — Transition strategies Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) - Governance - Cost allocation - The advantages and disadvantages of each approach - Implementation strategies and timetables, including approaches for subsequent phases for this feasibility effort. We are prepared to present the final report to the public in an information work session to collective city councils and other officials. We would accommodate any interest in additional meetings for minor costs described in the cost section of this proposal. Task Result: The results of this task will be the final report and presentation(s) to the public. Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 4. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULES CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 4. PROJECT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE The table, below, graphically displays the tentative schedule to conduct the Police Services JPA Feasibility Study. The chart shows the sequencing of each proposed work task, the elapsed time it would take to complete each task. As can be seen from the chart, we are proposing that the study be completed in 20 weeks (five months). 1. Project Initiation 2. Law Enforcement Profiles 3. Community Input 4.Assumptions for Alternatives 5. Sala Survey 5.Alternative Resource Needs S. Alternative Organizations 7.Alternative Costs 8. Start-up Costs 9. Final Report As described in the task plan earlier in this proposal there would be a deliverable associated with each project task. Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 5. CONSULTING TEAM CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 5. CONSULTANT TEAM This section of the proposal provides a comprehensive portrait of both the firm's and the project team's qualifications and experience. 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP The Matrix Consulting Group was formed by senior consultants who created it in order to pursue a service in which the senior people actually do the work in a low overhead environment. Our only business focus is the provision of organization and management analytical services to local government. Our firm's history and composition are summarized below: • We were founded in 2002. However, the principals and senior staff of our firm have worked together in this and other consulting organizations as one team for between 10 and 30 years. • Our only market and service focus is management, staffing and operations analysis of local government. • While we provide a variety of services to local government our most significant service area is public safety. The Matrix Consulting Group project team has conducted studies of more than 300 police and sheriffs departments in California and throughout the United States. This experience includes both operational studies and alternative service delivery studies. • Our firm maintains offices in California (where we are incorporated domestically), Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington and Texas. We currently have 15 full-time and 5 part-time staff. • Our proposed project team would be led and largely staffed from our California Headquarters office. We are proud of our track record in providing analytical assistance to local governments in general, and to police departments specifically. This track record is bolstered by our rate of successful implementation, which exceeds 80% of recommendations made. 2. PERSONNEL The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to utilize a senior project team, including our President and other experienced personnel with direct law enforcement experience. The most senior members of the team have between 10 and 30 years of professional Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) experience as consultants and/or law enforcement professionals. The organization chart, which follows, depicts the project team: PresidentRichard Brady Project Manager Byron Pipkin Jerry Hoover .. Senior Manager Senior Manager Senior Manager - . Project Analyst Project Analyst Project Analyst Project Ana1yaL-..,' It should be reiterated that our team includes no subcontractors. All of our experienced team members are Matrix Consulting Group staff who have worked together regularly on law enforcement projects. Summary descriptions of each team member are provided below beginning with our proposed project manager, with more detailed resumes following these biographies: • RICHARD BRADY is the President of the Matrix Consulting Group. He is the leader of our management studies and law enforcement analytical practices. He has been a consultant to local governments for over thirty years. During that period, he has specialized in the analysis of police services, having conducted studies involving over 250 law enforcement agencies. Mr. Brady has managed and/or significantly participated in every law enforcement study cited as experience in this proposal. Mr. Brady has conducted over 200 policing studies in California and in 38 other states across the country (a listing since 1990 can be found in the more detailed resume which follows this section of the proposal). His recent police contracting and feasibility studies include La Quinta and Laguna Hills as well as Patterson (CA) and Park Ridge, Montvale and Woodcliff Lake (NJ). Mr. Brady has a BA from California State University, Hayward; and a doctorate from Oxford University, U.K. Mr. Brady would function as project manager and primary contact for the City on this project but would include participation in every phase of the project. • BYRON PIPKIN is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has over 32 years of experience as a public safety officer through the rank of Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Byron Pipkin has extensive Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) consulting experience which includes analysis of law enforcement operations for Sunnyvale's Department of Public Safety as a client project coordinator. His consulting experience also includes analysis of the police departments in Spokane (WA), Goodyear (AZ), Galt (CA), Gilroy (CA) and Omaha (NE), Onondaga County Sheriffs Office (NY) as well as Newburgh (NY) and Park Ridge, Montvale and Woodcliff Lake (NJ). He also worked on our police feasibility studies for Laguna Hills (CA) and three Boroughs in Bergen County (NJ). He also completed a study of the Winnipeg Police Service (Manitoba, Canada). Byron Pipkin is a graduate of the FBI National Academy; received California POST Management, Supervisory and Advanced certificates; and he received his BA from San Jose State University in their Justice Administration program. Byron would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating the service feasibility. • JERRY HOOVER is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has a strong background in law enforcement, including having previously served as the Chief of Police in Reno, Nevada and in the City of St Joseph, Missouri. A demonstrated leader and nationally recognized expert in his field, with broad expertise in police training and operations consulting, Mr. Hoover is regularly chosen to lecture at Universities and conferences throughout the country and is an Assistant Professor, coordinating the Criminal Justice Program for Feather River College. He has also served as the Senior Police Advisor to the U.S. Department of State, and as a consultant to the Royal New Zealand Police. Among his many distinguished roles, Mr. Hoover has served as interim Police Commissioner to the United Nations in Sudan, and was recently Contingent Commander in support of police training in Afghanistan. He has worked with Matrix Consulting Group on recent police assignments in Portland (OR), Elko (NV) and Pacifica (CA). Jerry would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating management and citizen service issues. • GREG MATHEWS — Mr. Mathews, a Senior Manager, has over 27 years of private sector and government experience, performing as both a senior management consultant and executive manager. He concluded his public sector career in 2005 as Deputy Director of Auditing for the Los Angeles City Controller's Office where he managed the day-to-day functions of the Performance Auditing, Follow-up, and Management Assessment sections in the Performance Audit Division for a city-wide elected official. He began his formal career with the Pasadena Police Department, supervising the Crime Analysis Unit and became a POST-certified Level 1 Reserve Police Officer. For fourteen years he has provided government consulting services to states, cities, counties, and special districts throughout the U.S., emphasizing public safety, public utilities and public works engagements that include, most recently, Goleta and Chula Vista (CA), Grand Rapids (MI), Springfield (MO) and Albuquerque (NM). He holds a B.A. degree from UC Davis and M.P.A. from the University of Southern California. Greg would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating the financial feasibility. Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) • IAN BRADY is a Consultant with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our Mountain View office. Recently, Mr. Brady has worked on police management studies for Winnipeg (Canada), Hanford (CA), Berkeley (CA), Laguna Hills (CA), Huntington Beach (CA) and Arlington (WA). His experience also includes studies of the Rockingham County (NH) Department of Corrections and the Orange County (FL) Pretrial Release Program. Ian Brady was the lead analyst on our just completed beat redesign project for the Berkeley Police Department, including development of our firm's GIS and statistical analytical approaches for evaluating existing and alternative beat structures. Before joining the Matrix Consulting Group as a full-time consultant, Mr. Brady previously served as an intern for two years. He received his BA in Political Science from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. Ian would assist with data analysis and would be responsible for the comparative and GIS analysis as well as general data support. More extensive resumes for the proposed project team are provided in the following pages. Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) RICHARD P. BRADY President, Matrix Consulting Group Project Manager BACKGROUND Richard Brady is the Matrix Consulting Group's President. Mr. Brady has been a management consultant to local government for more than thirty years. Prior to joining the Matrix Consulting Group, he was the MAXIMUS national Vice President in charge of its local government consulting practice, and before that the managing partner of the California-based management consulting firm of Hughes, Heiss & Associates. Mr. Brady has conducted numerous studies of every local government function. However, the vast majority of his work is in the law enforcement, criminal justice and public safety areas. PROJECT EXPERIENCE The following points summarize Mr. Brady's project experience. Alabama Birminqham Alaska I Anchorage Arizona Goodyear, Phoenix, Prescott Valley California Alameda County,Anaheim, Butte County, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Contra Costa County, Galt, Gilroy, Goleta, Glendale, Hayward, Kern County, Los + Angeles, Los Angeles County, Los Gatos, Lynwood, Monrovia, Napa, Ontario, Orange County, Palmdale, Palo Alto, Pittsburg, Poway, Roseville, San Jose, Pasadena, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, San Mateo County, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara County, Santa Monica, Sonoma County, Sunnyvale Colorado Aurora Connecticut Stamford Florida Alachua County, Coral Gables, Jacksonville, Jupiter, North Miami Beach, Oranqe County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, Port Richey and Venice Georgia Americus, Augusta-Richmond County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, Gainesville, Hall County, Chatham County. Illinois Lansinq Louisiana Alexandria Massachusetts Beverly, Boston, Lawrence, Milford, Mansfield, Burlington, Pelham, Watertown, Wayland, Westwood, Whitman Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) State Illustrative Law Enforcement Management and Staffing Studies Michigan -7 Alpena and Detroit Minnesota ,_Anoka County Missouri Des Peres and Raymore Nebraska Omaha Nevada Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Elko, Sparks and Reno New Hampshire Portsmouth and Rockingham Count New York Albany, Carthage, Endicott, Newburgh, Vestal and Briarcliff Manor North Carolina Burke Countv and Durham Ohio Fairborn Oreqon Portland, Clackamas County and Grants Pass 1 Pennsylvania Mount Lebanon and York South Carolina Beaufort County, Charleston County, Hilton Head Island, Sp#_qanburg Count Tennessee I Nashville-Davidson County and Knox County Texas Arlington, San Antonio, Terrell, EI Paso, Grand Prairie and Southlake Utah 1 Salt Lake City Vermont Brattleboro and Montpelier Virginia Richmond, Leesburq, Suffolk and Loudoun County Washington l Arlington, Spokane, Kirkland and Snohomish County Wisconsin Sun Prairie, Milwaukee, Dane County Canada Winnipeq He is currently working to complete police studies in Hennepin County (MN), Redding (CA), Carlisle (PA), Cooper City (FL) and Columbia (MO). Law Enforcement Program Studies: Mr. Brady has performed a wide variety of studies of law enforcement programs and services. Selected studies have included the following: • Emergency Communications — over 75 studies of existing communications centers (e.g., Monterey County, CA) as well as consolidation alternatives (e.g., San Mateo County, CA). Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) • Personnel policies and procedures studies for Escondido (CA), Danville (VA) and Fluvanna County (VA). Secondary employment policy development for all San Mateo County (CA) police agencies and the Sheriff's Office. • Support staffing needs for Beverly Hills and Santa Ana (CA). • Regional Law Enforcement Feasibility Studies: Mr. Brady has been involved or managed several law enforcement regionalization studies. These have included the following: Police Services Feasibility Study for Laguna Hills and La Quinta — Mr. Brady developed a police services plan for these contracts with the Orange County and Riverside County Sheriffs Offices. Regionalization Opportunities in Training and Communications for the Boston Metropolitan Area. The Regionalization Commission chose members of this project team to work with over 110 agencies on public safety regional issues. Law Enforcement Consolidation Feasibility Study for Broome County, New York: all police Services have begun to consolidate all support functions (communications, records, information systems, training) as well as shift supervision as a first step to consolidation. - Regional Law Enforcement Feasibility Study for San Bernardino County, California Contract Cities: Nine cities receive contracted law enforcement services from the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Office. Because the County changed its philosophy of contracting, costs increased dramatically. Three Community Police Consolidation Feasibility Study — for Montvale, Woodcliff Lake and Park Ridge (NJ). EDUCATION BA, California State University, Hayward Ph.D., Oxford University, United Kingdom Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) BYRON K. PIPKIN Senior Manager, Matrix Consulting Group Project Analyst BACKGROUND Byron Pipkin brings a public safety manager's perspective to the project team. He has thirty-two years of experience in law enforcement and fire service, including fourteen years in management positions in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (CA) — a fully integrated police and fire agency. During his career he managed every major law enforcement and administrative function, including patrol operations, investigations, narcotics/vice operations, internal affairs, records, recruiting and hiring, training, administration, school resource officers, traffic operations, crime prevention, emergency preparedness, the mobile field force, and the SWAT team. He is also currently an instructor for the California Peace Officer Standards and Training Executive Development Course, teaching a course on effective management of law enforcement organizations. Mr. Pipkin is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mr. Pipkin has experience as a lead with the following public safety agencies. • Arlington, TX • Aurora, CO • Beverly Hills, CA • Birmingham, AL • Cotati, CA • DeKalb County, GA • Galt, CA • Gilroy, CA • Goodyear, AZ Grants Pass, OR • Gresham, OR • Newburgh, NY • Omaha, NE • Onondaga County, NY • Pacifica, CA • Phoenix, AZ • Portland, OR • San Antonio, TX • Spokane, WA • Springdale, AR • University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO • Vancouver, WA • Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) He just completed a study of Internal Affairs in the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department. He completed a police consolidation studies for Laguna Hills (CA), La Quinta (CA) and the Boroughs of Park Ridge, Montvale and Woodcliff Lake (NJ). He is currently working with us to complete a police study in Carlisle (PA). MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS Command of Sunnyvale DPS Special Operations Bureau, 2001-2005 Liaison with the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force 2004-2005 Command of Police Field Operations Bureau, 2000-2001 Special Assistant to the Chief, 1999-2000 Fire Marshal, managed the Fire Prevention Bureau, 1997-1999 Command of Police Field Operations Bureau, 1994-1997 Community Services Bureau, Recruitment and Hiring, Training and Records, 1991-1994 EDUCATION Graduate of the FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia B.S. in Administration of Justice, California State University, San Jose PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES P.O.S.T. Management Certificate, 1993 P.O.S.T. Supervisory Certificate, 1986 California Community College Lifetime Teaching Credential, 1983 P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate, 1980 Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) JERRY L. HOOVER Senior Manager, Matrix Consulting Group BACKGROUND Jerry Hoover is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has a strong background in law enforcement including having previously served as the Chief of Police in Reno, Nevada and in the City of St Joseph, Missouri. A demonstrated leader and national recognized expert in his field with broad expertise in police training and operations consulting, Mr. Hoover is regularly chosen to lecture at Universities and conferences throughout the country and is an Assistant Professor, coordinating the Criminal Justice Program for Feather River College. He has also served as the Senior Police Advisor to the U.S. Service of State, and as a consultant to the Royal New Zealand Police. Among his many distinguished roles, Mr. Hoover has served as interim Police Commissioner to the United Nations in Sudan, and was recently selected by Dyncorp International as the Principal Deputy Training Manager and Contingent Commander in support of police training in Afghanistan. EXPERIENCE IN POLICE SERVICES AND TRAINING Mr. Hoover has spent more than 35 years in police service and advisory roles, including the following selected capacities: • Coordinator, Administrative Justice Program, Feather River College, California • Principal Deputy Program Manager/Contingent Commander, Afghanistan • Senior Police Advisor, U.S. Service of State (D.C.) • International Police Transition Team Leader, U.S. Dept. of State, Iraq • Interim Police Commissioner, United Nations, Sudan Police Reform and Restructuring Coordinator, United Nations, Sudan Chief of Police, Reno Police Service, Nevada • Chief of Police, St. Joseph Police Service, Missouri • Commander, City of Boulder Police Department, Colorado • Lieutenant, City of Boulder Police Department, Colorado Mr. Hoover has taught more than 200 national seminars to law enforcement agencies in police training, ethics, community policing and problem solving. Areas of interest include Forensic anthropology, terrorism, government response to terrorist activities, new religious movements, adult-learning methodology, and policing in conflict-torn nations. Additionally, Mr. Hoover has authored a range of publications and training manuals and has received national recognition for his services, including such awards as the Champions of Industry Award, for Innovation in Government and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Award from the Service of Justice, for most innovative COPS funded project. Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) ADDITIONAL RELATED EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Consultant to Royal New Zealand Police, Wellington, N.Z. • Police Advisor to U.S. State Service, Kathmandu, Nepal. • Consultant to Sacramento Fusion Center—Training course for terrorism analysts International Law Enforcement Academy in Botswana, Africa. Taught counter- terrorism class for FBI/FLETC. • National consultant to police and presenter at national conferences on topics of Community and Problem-Oriented Policing and Leadership. • Committee on Terrorism (2003-2006), International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Commission on Substance Abuse and Treatment (1997-99), Governor's appointee. • Chair, Committee on Community Policing (1996-97), Missouri Police Chief's Association. University of Nevada: Adjunct lecturer, teaching courses in leadership and terrorism. Nevada State College: Adjunct lecturer, teaching courses in public administration. • Pennsylvania State University: Instructor for national seminar program on leadership. • Sam Houston State University: Instructor for seminar on Community Policing. • Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board: Instructor for seminar in Executive Institute. ASSOCIATION AFFILIATIONS Mr. Hoover maintains memberships in the following associations: Police Executive Research Forum American Anthropological Association International Association of Chiefs of Police Society for Applied Anthropology EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Hoover has a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received his Associates degree in Law Enforcement from Southwestern College, his BA in Anthropology from San Diego State University, and an MA in Anthropology from Colorado State University. Mr. Hoover also trained at the FBI Academy and the Law Enforcement Executive Training School. Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) GREG MATHEWS Senior Manager, Matrix Consulting Group BACKGROUND: Greg Mathews has over 27 years of private and public sector experience, performing as both a senior management consultant and executive manager. As Deputy Director of Auditing for the Los Angeles City Controller's Office, he managed the day-to-day functions of the Performance Auditing, Follow-up, and Management Assessment sections in the Performance Audit Division for this elected official. This work was preceded by seven years at the Orange County Sanitation District—the third largest wastewater organization west of the Mississippi— as Administrative Services Manager and part of the Executive Leadership Team. He began is public sector career at the Pasadena Police Department later moving to the Public Works' Parks Division. For nearly fourteen years he has provided public sector consulting services to states, cities, counties, and special districts throughout the U.S., and has completed comprehensive management studies, encompassing over 120 operating departments. He has participated as project manager or lead consultant in over 80 consulting engagements, with emphasis in various public safety, public works, parks/recreation, public utilities and administrative fields. Agency-Wide Studies: Conducted studies of entire city and county organizations. Scopes of work included organizational structure and allocation of functions, management spans of control, service and staffing levels, operational requirements, information technology assessment, as well as policies and procedures review. Albuquerque (NM) Matanuska-Susitna Borough (AK) Barstow (CA) Monroe County (MI) Carlsbad (CA) Rancho Mirage (CA) Douglas (AZ) Roseville (CA) Goodyear (AZ) San Rafael (CA) Hanford (CA) Spokane (WA) Public Safety Studies: Conducted studies of dispatch, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical response throughout the country to include feasibility studies, organizational and operational reviews, policy and procedure audit, staffing/scheduling practices, implementation of key performance metrics and use of information technology. Alameda County (CA) Milwaukee (WI) Aurora (CO) Mission Viejo (CA) Beverly Hills (CA) Monterey County (CA) Burbank (CA) Montville (NJ) Corvallis (OR) Omaha (NE) Chula Vista (CA) Orange County (CA) Dane County (WI) Orange County (FL) Eastpointe (MI) Placer County (CA) Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Glendale (CA) Reno, Sparks and Washoe Co. (NV) Goleta (CA) Republic (MO) Glenn County (CA) San Clemente (CA) Greene County (MO) San Juan Capistrano (CA) Inglewood (CA) San Mateo County (CA) Jackson County (OR) San Rafael (CA) Kenmore (WA) Santa Monica (CA) Laguna Beach (CA) Simi Valley (CA) Laguna Nigel (CA) South Pasadena (CA) Lake Forest (CA) Stamford (CT) Long Beach (CA) Tacoma (WA) Los Angeles (CA) Medford (OR) He is currently working with us to complete police studies in Hennepin County (MN), Sherwood (OR) and Redding (CA). EDUCATION: Mr. Mathews received his B.A. from UC Davis and M.P.A. degree from the University of Southern California. Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) IAN BRADY Senior Consultant, Matrix Consulting Group BACKGROUND Ian Brady is a Senior Consultant with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our Mountain View (CA) office. He began with the firm as an intern, but now has 4 years of consulting experience. He specializes in public safety and is dedicated to providing analytical support for all of our police, fire, emergency communications and criminal just system studies. Mr. Brady also developed the firm's GIS analytical tools for analyzing field service workloads and service levels, beat design and efficiency, and alternatives to deployment and scheduling of resources. EXPERIENCE IN POLICE STUDIES Mr. Brady has experience conducting law enforcement management, staffing and operations studies, including recently for the following clients: • Arlington, Washington • Berkeley, California • Birmingham, Alabama • DeKalb County, Georgia • Hanford, California • Hayward, California • Laguna Hills, California Orange County, Florida Patterson, California • Portland, Oregon • Raleigh, North Carolina Suffolk, Virginia - Winnipeg (Manitoba) He is currently working with us to complete police studies in Hennepin County (MN), Cooper City (FL), Columbia (MO) and Redding (CA). EDUCATION Mr. Brady received his BA in Political Science from Willamette University in Oregon. Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 6. CONSULTING REFERENCES CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 6. CONSULTANT REFERENCES In this section of the proposal is provided a summary of the police study experience of the firm together with reference information. 1. POLICE STUDIES CONDUCTED The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience conducting police services analyses of all types. These assignments have included management studies, staffing studies, feasibility studies and master plan studies such as this one. We have worked extensively with law enforcement agencies of all sizes and diverse operating environments and communities — in all, over 300 departments. A list of our police management, staffing and operations study experience in the past 10 years is provided below (with projects in California bolded): Albany, New York Goodyear,Arizona Perrysburg, Ohio Albuquerque, New Mexico Greenfield, California Phoenix, Arizona Americus, Georgia Gresham, Oregon Pittsburg, California Arlington, Texas Hanford, California Portland, Oregon Arlington,Washington Hayward, California Richmond,Virginia Asheville, North Carolina Jacksonville, Florida Ridgewood, New Jersey Aurora, Colorado Kenmore, Washington Rio Rancho, New Mexico Bayonne, New Jersey Lansing, Illinois Rohnert Park, California Berkeley, California Lawrence Twp., New Jersey Roseville, California Beverly Hills, California Las Vegas Metro, Nevada San Antonio, Texas Birmingham,Alabama Lowell, Massachusetts Seaside, California Brattleboro, Vermont Manchester, New Hampshire Southlake, Texas Chula Vista, California Mansfield Massachusetts Spokane,Washington Clearwater, Florida Milford Massachusetts Springdale, Arkansas Coral Gables, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin St. Petersburg, Florida Corvallis, Oregon Monrovia, California Suffolk,Virginia Cotati, California Montville, New Jersey Suisun, California Des Moines, Washington Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania Sunnyvale, California Des Peres, Missouri Napa, California Tacoma,Washington Elko, Nevada Newburgh, New York Vancouver, Washington Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Onondaga County, New York Venice, Florida Fort Morgan, Colorado Omaha, Nebraska Vernon, California Franklin Twp., New Jersey Ontario, California Watertown, Massachusetts Galt, California Pacifica, California Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) Gilrov. California Peachtree City, Georgia York, Pennsylvania In addition, we are presently completing other police department studies throughout the U.S. including Redding (CA), Carlisle (PA) and Columbia (MO). The firm and this proposed project team has extensive prior experience conducting new agency feasibility studies and evaluations of contracting for law enforcement services. The following table provides a summary of the feasibility and related studies conducted by the firm. Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) TUC- 7Kenmore, • • • e .WA Broome County, NY Augusta/Richmond County, GA ta, CA Citrus Heights, CA Bergen County, NJ Lynwood, CA College Park, MD Boston Area Agencies, MA Laguna Hills, CA Cupertino, CA Broome County, NY Palmdale, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA Carthage/West Carthage, NY Patterson, CA Goleta, CA Endicott/Vestal, NY Pinellas County, FL Hilton Head Island, SC Hall County/Gainesville, GA San Bernardino County, CA Lauderdale Lakes, FL High Desert Cities, CA We also are completing a police and fire contract service evaluation for Cooper City, Florida. 2. REFERENCES We are providing in this section of the proposal, references for selected analytical projects that have been performed by the firm in the past 10 years. The RFP asks for comprehensive reference information for all project conducted for California agencies in the past 10 years. However, as the previous section demonstrates this is a list too long for purposes of a proposal in addition to the fact that many referees move on to other jobs or retire. The references provided projects include law enforcement feasibility studies as well as police management studies. Laguna Hills, Laguna Hills had received law enforcement Don White California services from the Orange County Sheriff's Assistant City Manager Department since incorporation in the early Police Services Study 1990's. In spite of demonstrated high service 949-707-2610 levels and support from the community problems 2013 surfaced—costs had escalated during the last recession as personnel costs, especially pension $50,000 costs, rose faster than inflation; assigned deputies were out of the City a large amount of time, often on lower priority responses; and the service lost a level of proactivity that is critical. Key recommendations included changing policies to restrict out of City responses, additional compensation from neighboring Laguna Woods for the provision of all late night services, and sharing the cost of the Administrative Sergeant with another contract city(savinqs of$122,000). Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) La Quinta, California Based in extensive public input and support to Chris Escobedo the process this project evaluated the contract for Assistant to the City Police Services Study service from the Riverside County Sheriff's Manager Office. Principal recommendations included— 2014 modify the contract to allow the Chief the 760-777-7010 discretion to allow patrol staffing levels to fall $50,000 below the contracted level up to 15%; the City should work with the Sheriffs Office and management from gated communities to evaluate the options available to facilitate quick entry of police officers; Expand the regular duty hours of the Traffic Unit to provide coverage from 0600— 1900 or 2000 hours on weekdays but increase their productivity; reduce the number of daily Patrol Officer hours from 150 daily to 140 hours daily;this results in an annual savings— estimated at$581,965 in FY 2015-16. Danville, Lafayette and This study provided analysis of a wide range of Joseph Calabrigo Orinda, California alternatives for these three Contra Costa County Town Manager communities, including improvements in the exist Town of Danville Law Enforcement sheriffs office contract, contracting with a Services Alternative different external service provider—Walnut Creek 925-314-3302 Study or San Ramon, consolidation and contracting opportunities in various grouping of these three 2008 communities and a fourth in one alternative (Moraga). The project team's financial analysis $50,000 supported one of the consolidation alternatives. The communities, however, have elected to pursue improvements in the existing sheriff's office contracts. Chula Vista, California In this two-phased study the project team Ed Chew recommended a redeployment of patrol (now) Information Management and resources to better match field workloads and Technology Services Staffing Study of the proactive enforcement objectives, a beat Director Police Department redesign, implementation of a differential police response system, and ultimately an increase to 619-691-5031 2010-13 the size of the patrol force because of its inability to come close to appropriate response time and $90,000 proactivity targets. We have just completed the Phase 2 study which examined non-field functions. In this portion of the project we recommended re-funding several key internal support functions which were eliminated during the last recession relating to training and administrative support;we also recommended conversion of report transcriptionists to quality control and completely implement field reporting. Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) Berkeley, California In this study the Matrix Consulting Group Lt. David Frankel developed a patrol redistricting plan for the Project Coordinator Beat Structure Project Berkeley Department. While the study developed extensive analytics which evaluated calls for 510-981-5792 2014 service, major crime, total workloads and other beat design issues,the project would not have $44,000 successfully transitioned the Department from a 30 year old 18 beat structure to a more workable 14 beat one which allows for the deployment of a flex team without the active involvement of line patrol personnel, management and the community(including a citizen survey and 7 'town hall' meetings). The team created detailed maps of beat alternatives. Raleigh, North In this just completed study the Matrix Consulting Sergeant Goodwin y Carolina Group developed a plan to redesign an old beat Research and Planning structure now for this 450,000+city and plan for a Beat Redesign Project growing city to be 800,000 within the next 20 919-996-1062 years. The beat inequities were great in this old 2015 beat structure, some beats had workloads 75% over and under the average. Suggestions to $55,000 reassemble beats within Districts were also made. The project team also made several recommendations regarding shift management— clarifying the roles of watch commanders, district captains, shift lieutenants and sergeants. The structure and roles of community policing units was also addressed. These recommendations are being implemented by the Department. Portland, Oregon In this project Matrix worked with the outgoing Captain John Scruggs and new Chief of Police and command staff to Portland Police Police Department develop a plan for the Police Department which Department Staffing Study addressed the needs of an effective community policing organization in an environment in which 503-793-8995 2014 organizational culture transformation needed to be supported. The study resulted in $145,000 redeployment of patrol staff, additional school resources officers,the reorganization of organized crime investigations and the development of a performance management system which supported managers while better informing the Mayor and Commission as well as the public. While it occurred a number of years ago, two members of our proposed team worked with 9 contract cities in San Bernardino County to evaluate individual and collective alternatives to the Sheriff's Office. Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 7. ADDENDA CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 7. ADDENDA In spite of the fact that a bidders' conference was held, which a representative of our firm attended, no addenda were issued. Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 8. SAMPLE WORK PRODUCTS CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 8. SAMPLE WORK PRODUCT We are proud to provide, under separate cover, our recently completed contract evaluation study conducted for La Quinta, California (in Riverside County). This project is also provided as a project reference. Matrix Consulting Group c Page 39 9. FEE PROPOSAL CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Police Services JPA Feasibility Study(RFP 2015-019) 9. FEE PROPOSAL The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to conduct the Crime Trend and Service Study project for a fixed price of $195,000. The detailed calculations of our pricing structure are provided below. Professional Project Task Partner Managers Additional Total Cost by 1. Project Initiation 40 40 0 80 $15,000 2. Service Profiles 40 80 40 160 $27,000 3. Community Input 8 0 16 24 $3,600 4.Assumptions 40 40 0 80 $15,000 5. Compensation Survey 8 8 40 56 $8,000 6. Resource Needs 40 120 40 200 $34,000 7. Organizations 40 40 0 80 $15,000 8.Alternative Costs 40 40 40 120 $20,000 9. Start-up Costs 40 40 40 120 $20,000 10. Report 40 80 40 160 $27,000 Total Staff Hours 336 488 256 1080 Hourly Billing Rates $200 $175 $125 Professional Staff Time $67,200 $85,400 $32,000 $184,600 Cost _ Travel-Related Cost $10,400 TOTAL COST $195,000 We typically contract on a fixed price basis with monthly billings representing our progress on the project. We are, however, open to other approaches for payment. Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 RFP 2015-019 - Police Services JPA Feasibility Study CITY OF SAN JACINTO POLICE SERVICES STUDY The fee information is relevant to a determination of whether the fee is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided. This fee proposal shall include the proposed costs to provide the services desired. POLICEFEASIBILITY STUDY OF SUPERVISORY ADDITIONAL TASK DESCRIPTION PARTNERS) MANAGER(S) STAFF 'STAFF OTHER TOTAL HOURLY RATE $ $ $ $ $ N/A No.of Hours 48 40 16 104 i I. Meetings Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $18,600 II. Review of Existing Operations and No.of Hours 40 80 40 160 Management Including Field Tours 27,000 Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $ III. Establish Organization Structure No,of Hours 120 200 40 360 Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $64,000 IV. Salaries and Benefits Survey No.of Hours 8 8 40 56 Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $8,000 V. Develop infrastructure/equipment No.of Hours 80 80 80 240 cost estimate and financing plan Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $40,000 VI. Prepare Final Draft JPA No.of Hours 20 60 40 120 Cost by Area $ $ $ $ $ $20,000 VII. Prepare Final JPA No,of Hours 20 20 40 Cost by Area $ $ S $ $ $ 7,000 TOTAL No.of Hors 336 448 256 1 080 Total Cast $67,200 $ 851400 $ $32,000 s $184,606 All inclusive lump sum fee for performing the entire feasibility study described within the Scope of Work, to include travel, per diem, and any other associated costs: 195,000 Please include the cost for additional on-site meetings (if necessary), inclusive of travel costs and assume a two (2) hour meeting: $ 1,000 per meeting Page 16 of 19 Item No . 5 Approvals i�- City Attorney 11 Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Michael Baker International for Additional Analyses for Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Temecula Creek Inn PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an Agreement for Additional Analyses with Michael Baker International, in the amount of $174,455, for an Environmental Impact Report for proposed Temecula Creek Inn. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Creek Inn property currently consists of a 27-hole golf course, 128 hotel rooms, a conference room, and a restaurant/clubhouse. The Specific Plan will expand Temecula Creek Inn into a master-planned 18-hole golf course resort and community on 305 acres located 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. The Specific Plan proposes four Planning Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel by 99 rooms from 128 to 227 guest rooms (active adult option on 126 units) and the addition of a spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837 square feet. Planning Areas 2-4 include a maximum 409 single family and multi-family residential units ranging in size from 1,600 to 4,300 square feet. On September 27, 2011, City Council approved the initial Agreement for consulting services with RBF Consulting for the preparation of an EIR. Since that time, the applicant has made considerable changes to the project description, as currently described above, triggering additional environmental analysis, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, Michael Baker International has purchased RBF. Because of the new scope of work, and acquisition, staff will enter into a new agreement with the consultant for the remainder of the analyses. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the City. The applicant has deposited sufficient funds in a miscellaneous deposit account to cover the costs of the Environmental Impact Report. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL ADDITIONAL ANALYSES FOR PROPOSED TEMECULA CREEK INN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of February 23, 2016, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Michael Baker International, a 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 February 23, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than February 23, 2017, 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, perform 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. 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 Exhibits A and B ,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 Exhibits A and B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed one hundred seventy four thousand four hundred fifty five dollars ($ 174,455), 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. 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. S. 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. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 Dollars ($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 Dollars ($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 Dollars ($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 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 in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. 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 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Michael Baker International Attn: Darren Edgington 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92591 951.506.2074 dedgington@mbakerintl.com 14. 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. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. 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. 17. 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 his/her 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor John Tanner III, Vice President ATTEST: By: By: Rand! Johl, City Clerk Mark Cappos, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Michael Baker International Attn: Darren Edgington 40810 CouOy Center Drive,Suite 100 Temecula CA 92591 951.506.2074 dedgington@mbaker!nti.com PM Initials ��-j Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed, Payment Rates, and Schedule The specific elements(scope of work) of this service include: I ASK A — 1 ECHNICAL STUDY UPDATES Task A-1:Traffic Impact Analysis Update................................................................................ $23,000 Update Traffic Analysis(Assumes 385 Single Family Dwelling Units) • Update Project trip generation. • Review recent traffic counts including counts from Pechanga Expansion and Altair SP TIAs and adjust existing traffic volumes as necessary. Add new counts and Bayhill Drive. • Update cumulative Project trips and trip distribution. • Re-analyze traffic conditions for all study scenarios: o Existing Conditions(as required) o Existing Plus Project o Cumulative Development/Opening Year 2023 Without Project2 o Cumulative Development/Opening Year 2023 With Project o Build-out Year 2035 Without Project With Eastern By-Pass o Build-out Year 2035 With Project With Eastern By-Pass o Build-out Year 2035 Without Project Without Eastern By-Pass o Build-out Year 2035 With Project Without Eastern By-Pass • Add section to report that discusses interim year Rainbow Canyon Road traffic operations and improvement needs between Pechanga Parkway and TCI and including a review of the most current RCR Phasing Plan through the Project site. The City has specifically requested that traffic counts be performed at Bay Hill Drive for inclusion in the RCR analysis. • Re-analyze and Update Mitigation Measures for Identified Project Impacts • Update Signal Warrants • Update Caltrans Analysis Note: It is suggested that the "collision data" section and "sight distance analysis" be removed from the TIA since these issues are already addressed in the Rainbow Canyon Road Improvements phasing plan. Update Report Prior to preparing the updated Report, Michael Baker will communicate to the City/Applicant the preliminary findings of the traffic impact analysis described above. Upon receipt of City-approval,Michael Baker will prepare the updated Report,as follows: • Exhibits-The change in the number of dwelling units and the updated cumulative projects will result in the need to revise most all of the traffic volume exhibits and many other exhibits need to be revised to reflect the updated analysis and mitigation requirements. • Tables—Most report tables will need to updated with the updated analysis results • Text—The entire report text will be reviewed and updated to reflect the current revised analysis and findings. Note:The analysis and results of the Partial Eastern Bypass will be removed from the report. Update Report Appendices Update TIA report Appendices including: • (A) Existing Count Data—This appendix will need to include the documentation of the post- processing adjustments made to the peak hour volumes along Rainbow Canyon Road. • (B) LOS Analysis Worksheets Sheets • (C)Signal Warrants Analysis Worksheets Draft Report Reproduction Includes hard copy reproductions and delivery/distribution of Draft Report Update Project Fair Share Calculations Updated Report Review Meetings and City Coordination Includes a total of four meetings and additional limited conference call participation. Response to City Comments and Preparation of Final Draft Report for Public Review Includes report revisions(5 hours)and hard copy reproductions and delivery/distribution of Draft Report Task A-2:Cultural Resources Assessment Update ....................... ..... .. $7,700 Research BCR Consulting will review the updated Project footprint figures against cultural resource records from the original assessment to verify that they do not encroach on any mapped resources. Field Check BCR Consulting field staff will perform a field check of the perimeter around proposed impact areas to ensure avoidance of all known cultural resources.During this Task,BCR Consulting staff will carefully check the surface for evidence of cultural resources in a 10-meter buffer outside impact area boundaries located in the vicinity of known cultural resources.Survey of areas outside the buffer is not anticipated as part of this task. If field personnel confirm that no cultural resources extend into that buffer, avoidance will be accomplished, and a finding of no impact to cultural resources will be recommended.The field check will be completed in cooperation with representatives of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians (Pechanga). Negative findings are anticipated.Discovery of any new cultural resources(including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic buildings)would necessitate a budget and schedule adjustment. Technical Report Update BCR Consulting will update the Cultural Resources Assessment Temecula Creek Inn Project, Riverside County, California to reflect the findings of the research and field check. The new report will contain adjusted results and recommendations to reflect the new findings. A finding of no significant impact to (i.e. avoidance of) cultural resources will be recommended, if appropriate. Since this Project contains Traditional Cultural Properties with boundaries that are defined by Pechanga, these recommendations will require Pechanga and the City to concur before they are considered final. Task A-3:Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,and Acoustical Analysis Update..................... $6,400 Michael Baker will update the Air Quality,Greenhouse Gas(GHG),and Acoustical Analyses per the current Traffic Impact Analysis and Project phasing.This task includes re-running CalEmod for Project contribution calculations.The GHG analysis and threshold will be prepared in accordance with the latest relevant court decisions, as well as the thresholds proposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (it is noted that the analysis originally used an efficiency based threshold and not the reduction from business as usual threshold that came under scrutiny in the recent Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife decision). Additionally, the GHG analysis will discuss the Project in the context of the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). This task does not include new noise measurements and will utilize the measurements that were originally taken in March 2012. Task A-4:Biological Habitat Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Update....$6,200 The site is located within the fee area of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). Michael Baker(formerly RBF Consulting)prepared a Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Report in 2011. Riverside County, under the guidelines adopted for the implementation of the MSHCP, only recognizes a Habitat Assessment as valid for one year. As noted below,Michael Baker will review the 2011 Habitat Assessment and provide an update based on this scope and budget. This scope and fee are valid up to one(1)year from the date prepared. HABITAT ASSESSMENT Literature Review Michael Baker will review all technical reports previously prepared for the Project site and surrounding vicinity to determine which sensitive biological resources are likely to occur onsite or within the general area. The updated Habitat Assessment will include a detailed discussion of the movement of wildlife through the Project site, in particular, mountain lion using Proposed Linkage 9. The release of recent studies on mountain lion movement and the growing concern by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)that oversee the County MSHCP requires that the updated Habitat Assessment include a rigorous discussion of the Project's potential impacts on wildlife movement. In addition to the specific information mentioned above, a database search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society(CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California listings regarding sensitive biological resources known to occur in the region and site vicinity will also be conducted. Sources to be reviewed will also include historic/current aerial photographs as appropriate to define the habitat requirements for sensitive species potentially occurring onsite,topographic maps, soil surveys, flood maps, hydrology/climate information, and watershed data. This research will allow Michael Baker to focus its field visit on those sensitive biological resources present or likely to be present onsite. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation The site will be re-examined/surveyed to document the most current existing condition,identify its ability to support any special-status or MSHCP-covered species, sensitive habitat types, and jurisdictional drainages,and document areas that would support the movement of wildlife species. Notes will betaken on all flora and fauna species observed. This survey will provide an understanding of the overall Project setting and biological resources occurring with the area. Biological Technical Report MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and HANS Analysis Prior to preparing the Biological Technical Report, Michael Baker will communicate to the City/Applicant the preliminary findings of the Literature Review and Habitat Assessment described above. Upon receipt of City-approval, a Biological Technical Report will be prepared with the results from the habitat assessment that will document all plant and wildlife species and habitats currently occurring onsite, the site's potential to support any special-status (including MSHCP-covered) species, and whether the site supports potential jurisdictional and riparian/riverine features.The report will include a map of the plant communities occurring onsite and their respective acreages.The report will be prepared to satisfy CEQA requirements and will include an analysis of the Project impacts to biological resources, suggestions for updating previous clearances issued for the Project that may be needed prior to development, and recommended mitigation measures,if needed. In addition, an MSHCP consistency analysis will be completed that will specifically address the MSHCP requirements for the Project site. The analysis will address potential jurisdictional waters and riparian/riverine habitat, the suitability of the habitat to support all aforementioned special-status species,and the potential for site development to create urban edge effects.The report will also include a Habitat Assessment& Negotiation Strategy(HANS)analysis.The HANS analysis is used for the approval of projects located on properties that lie within conservation Criteria Cells. The final report will be sufficient to make the appropriate consistency determination for compliance with the MSHCP. This Task does not include any new Jurisdictional Delineations, permitting, or HANS evaluation processing. Task A-5:Wildlife Corridor Analysis............................................................................................. $7,000 Michael Baker biologists will review the recent literature and reports on wildlife movement through the Project area, as well as the previously prepared MSHCP compliance documents (Habitat Assessment, DBESP and HANS Analyses)and relevant sections in the Western Riverside County's MSHCP for Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (CL-14). CL-14 is an essential part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation strategy to provide habitat and movement corridors for mountain lion. This constrained linkage provides a connection between the Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests and core conservation areas to the east and south in using both Temecula and Pechanga Creeks. Key crossings under the 1-15 Freeway occur in the area. Several recent biological studies, both private and public,have focused on this corridor, including work by Adam Malish,who is tracking wildlife for the MSHCP Regional Conservation Authority(RCA). Although the RCA evaluated the proposed Project plans and determined that it did not conflict with the MSHCP's goals and objectives, these recent studies raise concerns regarding this decision. Michael Baker will conduct an updated investigation into the issue of wildlife movement to supplement its previous biological studies for the Project,in light of these recent studies on wildlife movement. Following a review of all available technical studies on wildlife movement in the vicinity of CL-14 and the Project area, Michael Baker will re-evaluate the proposed Project against the results of these new studies and determine if the Project, as proposed,could conflict with the use of CL- 14 by mountain lions and other mammal species. The results of this analysis will be used to prepare a technical memorandum on wildlife movement along Temecula and Pechanga Creeks, constraints that could be created by the development of the Project area, and recommendations for avoiding or minimizing any identified impacts to wildlife movement within the vicinity of the Project area,if required. The technical memorandum will include a series of GIS maps to support the analysis, identified impacts, and recommended mitigation. TOTAL COST FOR TASK A..................................................................... ..... $50,300 `xx -- SCRLLNCIILCK EIR UPDAIL Task B-1:Project Description Update...........................................................................................$1,200 Michael Baker will update the Project Description per the most current Specific Plan site plan and phasing. Task B-2:Screencheck Draft Analysis Sections Update....................................................$10,000 Michael Baker will "refresh"all relevant EIR analysis sections with current data, considering the time that has elapsed since preparing the original Screencheck Draft EIR sections. Specifically, since the initial Preliminary Draft EIR was submitted to the City in May 2012 (over 30+months ago).This task includes re- contacting public service/utility agencies, and verifying third party information sources are still current, since the Draft EIR is now anticipated to be released for public review in 2016. Task B-3:Screencheck EIR Submittal........................................................................................$20,000 Michael Baker will assemble all completed sections,incorporating team comments from early EIR section submittals into a single consolidated EIR submittal, including technical appendices. The intent of the Screencheck EIR submittal is that the Screencheck EIR is as close to 100% ready for public review as possible, to minimize City review and EIR revision time. The Screencheck EIR will not only reflect team comments,but will also reflect changes in Project materials and related technical studies. The EIR will include exhibits to enhance the written text and clarify the proposed Project environmental impacts. Using state-of-the-art computer design equipment and techniques,our in-house graphic design team will create professional quality, black and white or full color exhibits,dividers and covers for the EIR and Appendices. This Task assumes high quality digital base maps are provided by the Applicant or City for Project-related graphics and graphics related to technical studies prepared by others. Task B-4:Screencheck EIR Workshop......__....................................... ...................................$2,750 Upon completion and submittal of the Screencheck EIR document to the City for its review, Michael Baker will conduct a review workshop,which will include City staff and, if requested,the Applicant's consulting team. The completed Screencheck EIR will be reviewed during the workshop and Michael Baker will receive comments and revisions. This task assumes two Michael Baker staff at eight(S) hours each for a total of 16 man-hours of meeting attendance. The Screencheck EIR document will be revised based on comments received at the workshop and submitted to the City for review;see Task C-1 below. TOTALCOST FOR TASK B............................................................................................................. $33.950 TAc.K C — PRLPARA I ION or DRAI I EIR TaskC-1:Completion of Draft EIR...............................................................................................$16,500 Upon receipt of one consolidated set of comments from the City on the Screencheck EIR, Michael Baker will prepare a"Check Copy"of the Draft EIR responding to the City's comments. Upon approval from City staff, Michael Baker will begin preparing the Draft EIR document for public review. Michael Baker will prepare a Notice of Availability(NOA)and Notice of Completion(NOC)for City review/approval. Michael Baker will distribute the EIR to the State Clearinghouse (15 hard copies of the Executive Summary, plus the 15 CDs with the Draft EIR,Appendices and NOA). Michael Baker will post the NOA with the County Clerk,and will draft a newspaper notice for local publication. In addition, Michael Baker will send the NOA to an interest or radius list developed in conjunction with City staff (the radius list is assumed to be provided by the City or through other tasks). Michael Baker will distribute up to 50 NOAs (and CDs, if desired) to affected agencies/interested parties. Michael Baker will distribute up to 20 Public Review Draft EIRs(in hard copy)to the City and designated parties. Michael Baker will also distribute two Public Review Draft EIR Appendices to the City and Library. Additional copies can be provided at direct cost. This Task assumes 100 hours to complete. Task C-Z:Public Meetings and Workshops.............................................................................. $13,660 Michael Baker will work with City staff in arranging and conducting: a public meeting for the Draft EIR (not required by CEClA,but recommended)and two Planning Commission Workshops during the Draft EIR circulation period. Michael Baker will prepare a public meeting notice for approval by City staff, to be included as part of the NOA. Michael Baker will attend the public meeting,to be facilitated by City staff. Michael Baker assumes that City staff will provide/arrange for meeting locations. Michael Bakers Stakeholder team, expanded to include Susan Harden, an expert in consensus building and workshop facilitation, is available to work with City staff to coordinate implementation of a stakeholder outreach program that will help explain the process and involve the community in constructive dialogue to facilitate the smooth completion of the EIR and minimize/avoid Project delays(as a potential optional task,fee not included in this task). The Michael Baker Project Manager and up to two key Project Team personnel will attend the Draft EIR public meeting. This Task also includes costs for a Senior Environmental Planner to attend one Planning Commission Hearing and one City Council Hearing. Michael Baker also assumes that two Planning Commission Workshops will be conducted during this period. Michael Baker will assist and support City staff in the preparation of staff report(s)and PowerPoint presentation(s)as part of its participation in these workshops. A maximum of eight(8) hours of time per staff member is assumed for up to two Michael Baker staff to attend a total of three(3) meetings/workshops(allowing for preparation and follow-up)for a total of 48 man-hours of meeting attendance. Any additional requested meetings will be invoiced on a time and materials basis per the Michael Baker International Hourly Rate Schedule(Attachment A). TOTALCOST FOR TASK C.............................................................................................................. $30,16o TnsKD—FINALEIR The following tasks will culminate in the completion of the Final EIR for the proposed Project. In accordance with the proposed schedule, these tasks will commence as early as possible during the process, and will be completed and submitted to the City for review prior to distribution for public hearings. Task D-1:Responses to Comments................................................................................................. $9,185 Upon completion of the Public Review period, Michael Baker will prepare thorough, reasoned, and sensitive responses to relevant environmental issues. This task includes written responses to both written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period (includes review of hearing transcripts, as required). The Draft Responses to Comments will be prepared for review by City staff. It is noted that it is unknown at this time the extent of public and agency comments that will result from the review process. Michael Baker has budgeted conservatively 60 hours for preparation of the Draft Responses to Comments. Should the level of comments and responses exceed our estimate, Michael Baker will submit additional funding requests to the City,in order to complete the responses. Following receipt of one consolidated set of City comments on the Draft Responses to Comments,Michael Baker will finalize this section for inclusion in the Final EIR, and will distribute the Comments and Responses packet to Responsible Agencies,as required by CECIA. TaskD-2:Errata...................................................................................................................................... $1,760 Michael Baker will prepare an Errata section for inclusion in the Final EIR,identifying all proposed changes to the Draft EIR, based on public comments or staff-initiated technical corrections. A maximum of 12 hours has been budgeted for this task. Task D-3:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program......................................................$3,410 Michael Baker will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP)to be defined through in a coordinated effort between Michael Baker,City staff, and City Counsel. Michael Baker will prepare a Draft MMRP that will be submitted to the City for review. Michael Baker will respond to one consolidated set of City comments on the Draft MMRP. This document will be attached to the City's staff report and resolution for Plan approval, and provided to City staff in electronic format (staff report to be prepared by City staff or others). Task D-4: Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations................................... $4,400 Michael Baker will assist City staff in preparing draft Findings and a draft Statement of Overriding Considerations, for use by City staff in the Resolution for Plan approval. Michael Baker will respond to one consolidated set of comments on the draft Findings and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations. This document will be attached to the City staff report and resolution, and provided to the City in electronic format. TaskD-5:Certified Final EIR............................................................................................................$4,290 Following Final EIR certification, Michael Baker will prepare and file the Notice of Determination, upon City review/approval. The NOD will be posted at the County Clerk and filed with the State Clearinghouse, within five (5) days after deciding to carry out or approve the Project. This scope excludes payment of any CDFW filing fees, if applicable. In addition, Michael Baker will prepare one electronic master and provide up to ten (10) copies of a post-certification "Final EIR" that incorporates all Project approval documents related to CECIA, including the revised Draft EIR text(based on Errata), Draft EIR Appendices, Comments, Responses to Comments, EIR certification resolution, MMRP, Findings, and Notice of Determination. This task excludes preparation of the Administrative Record, which could be provided under separate scope and fee. Michael Baker assumes the City will be responsible for all recording and newspaper notification fees. TOTALCOST FOR TASK D............................................................................................................. $23.045 TASK E —PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS All items under this portion of the EIR preparation process are considered time and materials with initial estimates provided. Task E-1:Project Management.......................................................................................................$15.000 The Senior Project Manager, Rita Garcia, will be responsible for management and supervision of the Project Team,and will provide oversight as well as consultation with City staff to incorporate City policies into the EIR. The Senior Project Manager will also review the EIR for compliance with CEClA requirements and guidelines and City CECIA procedures. The Senior Project Manager, with the assistance of Michael Baker staff personnel, will consult with State and local agencies regarding the Project and will coordinate with all technical staff,consultants,support staff and word processing to ensure timely completion of the EIR. Michael Baker has expended the Project Management and Meeting budget. Michael Baker's current contract, as amended,assumes Project completion by end of December 2016. Assuming Michael Baker receives Notice to Proceed by February 1,2016,the revised EIR completion/certification date is estimated at December 23, 2016, representing an additional ten (10) months in Project coordination, meeting, and management time. Michael Baker requests an additional $15,000 for Project Management at a rate of $1,500/month. Task E-2:Project Status Meetings.............................................................................................$10,000 The future Project management and meeting budget will depend in part upon the frequency and nature of future meetings and coordination with the Applicant,City staff,and stakeholders. In the past, Michael Baker was participating in bi-weekly conference calls,which have been very effective in resolving Project issues. At the City's request, this Task assumes that bi-weekly progress meetings or conference calls will continue to be conducted to keep the team informed and updated on Project status.This task assumes two Michael Baker staff and two 1.5-hour meetings per month for an 8 month duration for an estimated 48 total man-hours. REIMBURSABLES........................................................................... .... .. . . ........................... $12,000 Estimated costs that Michael Baker will incur for document copies/reproductions, notifications/mailings and travel expenses. TOTALCOST FOR TASK E................................................................................. ... - ................ $37,000 �174,455 EXHIBIT B Consultant Staff Payment Rates Michael Baker International Inc. HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Effective January 2016 through December 2016 OFFICE PERSONNEL $1 Hour SeniorPrincipal.............................---------_...............-....................-..-.......................,........ ..$285.00 Principal........-•..........................................................................................................................................255.00 Program Manager........... _... .............._......_.__..................... ... .. ....235.00 SeniorProject Manager.......................................................................................-.................-.-....•... ....220.00 ProjectManager.......................................................................................................................................200.00 StructuralEngineer...................................................................................................................................200.00 TechnicalManager..................................................................................,.............................................. 190.00 SeniorEngineer....................................................................................................................................... 175.00 SeniorPlanner.........................................,;................................................................................._.........-. 175.00 Electrical Engineer .. . . --.. . . _ . . ......................._................,.,,..........---------------_----- • .. ............•.-•-170.00 Biologist... .... ........... - ......................................................................................,..._.._.........165.00 LandscapeArchitect.................................................................................................................................160.00 SeniorGIS Analyst_.................................................................................................................................154.00 ProjectEngineer..............................................................................................................................---......152.00 ProjectPlanner................................................................................................... ..._..................v.............152.00 Survey Crew Support Manager..................................................................,..--,..................•......................152.00 Environmental Specialist...-.--...---...----..__....................................._. __ ... ....--............... .........___------142.00 Design EngineeflSeniof Designer/Mapper......................................................___.............,...............-,..140.00 GIS Analyst........ ...... ...................._-......... 125.00 Designer/Planner......................................................................._............_......._.._._._.............___..............125.00 ProjectCoordinator...................................................................................................................................113.00 GraphicArtist_...........................................................................................................................................100.00 Environmental Analyst/Staff Planner..._........................_,....................................................................100.00 DesignTechnician .............................................................................................................100.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner—...._.......................................................................................................96.00 PermitProcessor........................................................................................................................................85.00 Engineering AidlPlanning Aid----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .............77.00 OfficeSupport/Clerical...............................................................................................................................65.00 Note: Blueprinting, reproduction, messenger service and other direct expenses will be charged as an additional cost plus 15%. A Sub-consultant Management Fee of fifteen-percent (15%)will be added to the direct cost of all sub- consultant services to provide for the cost of administration, sub-consultant consultation and insurance. Vehicle mileage will be charged as an additional cost at the IRS approved rate. Item No . 6 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc., in the amount of $1,471,777, for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the Contingency Amount of$147,177, which is equal to 10% of the Contract Amount. BACKGROUND: On June 12, 2007, the City Council approved an agreement with AAE, Inc., to design a park and ride facility, to be located at the easterly corner of La Paz Street and Temecula Parkway. On September 22, 2015, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the subject project and authorized staff to solicit construction bids. On February 3, 2016, 19 bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on the City's online bidding service PlanetBids. The bid results were as follows: No. Bidder Amount 1 Hazard Construction Company $1,439,807.00 2 Aghapy Group, Inc. $1,471,777.00 3 Sully-Miller Contracting Company $1,489,747.00 4 Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. $1,491,671.50 5 Interlog HYM Engineering $1,499,989.00 6 CS Legacy Construction, Inc. $1,526,887.00 7 All American Asphalt $1,588,145.00 8 Roadway Engineering & Contracting, Inc. $1,596,640.50 9 PALP, Inc. $1,628,507.00 10 Griffith Company $1,686,216.00 11 Spiess Construction Co., Inc. $1,691,455.18 12 Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. $1,691,525.00 13 Riverside Construction Company, Inc. $1,696,855.00 14 Western Rim Constructors, Inc. $1,721,777.41 15 Paim Engineering Construction Company, Inc. $1,780,365.00 16 Sean Malek Engineering and Construction $1,793,130.00 17 Wier Construction Corp $1,873,406.40 18 JRH Construction, Inc. $1,932,403.23 Mamco, Inc. dba Alabbasi Non-Responsive During staff review of the bid proposals, it was determined that Mamco, Inc. had omitted certain required documents from their submittal which rendered their bid non-responsive. This constituted grounds for rejection of Mamco's bid proposal, leaving Hazard Construction Company as the apparent low bidder. After we notified Hazard Construction Company that they were the apparent low bidder, the company requested relief from their bid due to a mathematical error. The City has determined that Hazard Construction Company's request was based on legitimate grounds and they were granted relief from their bid. This resulted in Aghapy Group becoming the apparent low bidder. Aghapy Group has public contracting experience, and has completed similar projects for other public agencies in Southern California. The specifications call for a construction duration of 140 working days, which is an approximate duration of seven months. The engineer's estimated cost of the project was $1,828,000. 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 ninety 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 Temecula Park and Ride project is being constructed outside the public right of way, and will disturb a total of 3.13 acres, resulting in a total required fee of $20,798.85, based on the current fee schedule of $6,645 per acre. FISCAL IMPACT: The Temecula Park and Ride is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2016-20, and is funded with AB 2766 (State funds available for programs that reduce air pollution), as well as federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Developer Impact Funds (DIF — Police Facilities) are being utilized to fund security camera system infrastructure. Adequate funds are 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 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE PROJECT NO. PW06-09 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 23rd day of February, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Aghapy Group, 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 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PROJECT NO. PW06-09, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (latest edition) where specifically referenced in the Plans 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 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PROJECT NO. PW06-09. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 990 Park Center Drive, Suite E Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-1113 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PROJECT NO. PW06-09. 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 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PROJECT NO. PW06-09. 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: One Million Four Hundred Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($1,471,777), the total amount of the base bid. Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed 140 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 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. Payment for Work Performed. 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. Payment of Interest. 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. a. Liquidated Damages. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) 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. b. Extension of Time. 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. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 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 $200.00 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. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. 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. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov The Federal minimum wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are included in Exhibit "B" of the project specifications. Future effective general prevailing wage rates which have been predetermined are on file with the California Department of Industrial Relations and are referenced but not printed in the general prevailing wage rates. Contractor shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and if there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and the general prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations for similar classifications of labor, Contractor shall pay not less than the higher wage rate. 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 the 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. CONTRACT ASSURANCE. The Contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The Contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the Contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such remedy, as recipient deems appropriate. 20. 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. 21. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body 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 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 and Delivery Address: Thomas W. Garcia, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR: Aghapy Group, Inc. 10900 Hartland Street Bakersfield, CA 93312 (562) 900-2936 mmichael(cD-agc7.com Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations By: Signature Print or type Name Print or type Title By: Signature Print or type Name Print or type Title DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Ce Capital Improvement Program +,o..�er soutkxn c.A,r« Fiscal Years 2016-20 T" W..Country TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE Infrastructure/Other Project Project Description: This project includes the acquisition of property, design, and construction of a Park and Ride facility in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street. The Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment(FF&E) covers camera system infrastructure, access control, and other identified Information Technology needs. Benefit/Core Value: This project enables and encourages Temecula residents to carpool when commuting. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of A Sustainable City. Project Status: The design and environmental document are being updated to accommodate City requests and the use of the federal CMAQ funds. This project has been designated as a Transportation Control Measure(TCM) project pursuant to the Air Quality Management Plan/State Implementation Plan (AQMP/SIP) to meet air quality conformity. The 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the current 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) identifies the Temecula Park and Ride as a committed (programmed in the first two years of the FTIP)TCM project. Once a TCM is committed for implementation in the first two years of the FTIP, the committed TCM must be operational by the completion date in the prevailing FTIP or FTIP amendment. The Temecula Park and Ride must be completed by December 31, 2015 in order to fulfill these requirements. Department: Public Works-Account No. 210.165.747 Level: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Project Cost: Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 92,465 $ 186,415 $ 25,000 $ 303,880 Acquisition $ 187,530 $ 187,530 Construction $ 1,578,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,828,000 Construction Engineering $ 64,000 $ 25,000 $ 89,000 Design/Environmental $ 138,683 $ 37,000 $ 175,683 Fixtures/Furn/Equip $ 100,000 $ 100,000 MSHCP $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ 418,678 $ 2,045,415 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,764,093 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost AB 2766 $ 99,228 $ 644,665 $ 120,322 $ 864,215 General Fund Contributions $ 319,450 $ 179,678 $ 499,128 *CMAQ $ 1,300,750 $ 1,300,750 DIF(Police Facilities) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Total Funding: $ 418,678 1 $ 2,045,415 1 $ 300,000 1 $ - I $ - I $ - $ - $ 2,764,093 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 *Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ)Funds approved by the RCTC on January 8,2014. 117 THE CITY OF TEMECULA Temecula Park and Ride - Project Location �k p� Legend 0 city "q` 4 Parcels A-1.12012 01 , PE�NPNGA c�pFN . ���� 1 �w r:. N 0 400 800 ft. Scale: 1:6,834 Map center: 6292015,2118622 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. Item No . 7 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc. for Routine Maintenance Services PREPARED BY: Jerzy Kanigowski, Facility Services Manager Bruce Wedeking, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc., in the amount of$60,000, for Routine Maintenance Services. BACKGROUND: On June 9, 2015, City Council approved a Minor Maintenance Services Agreement with Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc., in the amount of $120,000, to provide maintenance services and emergency call-out services as required. The routine maintenance services include repairs and maintenance of plumbing, heating and cooling systems at various locations upon real and personal property of the City. Due to additional repairs and maintenance, and increased facilities rehabilitation at the Senior Center, and various other city facilities, it is necessary to increase the Agreement amount to continue emergency repairs as required, and to provide general maintenance, including city facilities rehabilitation projects, for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015-16. The First Amendment amount of $60,000 is expected to cover the cost of continued repairs and maintenance, as well as any emergency repairs, and city facilities rehabilitation projects as programmed in the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2016-20. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available to fund the increase of $60,000 within the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2016-20, and the Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2015-16, Public Works, Facilities Maintenance Division. With the approval of the First Amendment, the resulting Agreement amount will be $180,000. ATTACHMENT: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR MINOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING HEATING & COOLING, INC. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THE FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of February 23, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services," in the amount of$120,000. b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of $60,000 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 3 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms 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. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) for additional repair and maintenance services for a total Agreement amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000). 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling, Inc. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Denny McKee, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Laura McKee, Treasure APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Craftsmen Plumbing Heating & Cooling. Inc. Contact Person: Denny McKee 27636 Ynez Rd Temecula, CA 92591 Phone Number: (951) 676-6838 Initials: Date: �- 2 Item No . 8 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Grant Non-Exclusive Easements to Rancho California Water District in Connection with the Interstate-15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FOR THE RELOCATION OF WATER FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERSTATE-15 / STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE, PW04-08 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-210-057, 922-210-059, AND 922-210-060) BACKGROUND: As part of the Interstate-15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange project (Project), the City purchased land identified by Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 922-210-057, 922-210-059, 922-210-060 and 922-210-061, located at the southerly terminus of Old Town Front Street, south of State Route 79 South. As purchased, APNs 922- 210-059, 922-210-060, and 922-210-061 include an easement for water pipelines and appurtenances in favor of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Construction of the Project will place new freeway on- and off-ramps in areas which overlap the RCWD easement and its facilities within the easement. These facilities must be relocated to comply with Caltrans' policies of curtailing utility encroachments within State right of way. Accordingly, the City is obliged to provide equivalent, replacement easements for the RCWD facilities to be relocated. The proposed replacement easements span portions of APNs 922-210-057, 922-210-059, and 922-210-060. They are based on utility relocation plans designed by the City and RCWD. The Grants of Easements provide rights in the proposed replacement easements that are comparable and equivalent to those of the existing RCWD easement. After the Project has been constructed and RCWD has accepted the relocated water facilities, RCWD will release the portions of its existing easement that were vacated by the utility relocations. Since RCWD will not benefit by accepting the replacement easements and releasing the existing easement, and since the City will not benefit from granting the replacement easements and accepting the released easements, there will be no payments exchanged between the parties in either of the transactions. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the resolution to grant Rancho California Water District the non-exclusive easements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Grant of Easement (APN 922-210-057, 059) 3. Grant of Easement (APN 922-210-060) 4. Project Description 5. Project Location RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FOR THE RELOCATION OF WATER FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERSTATE-15 / STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE, PW04-08 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-210- 057, 922-210-059, AND 922-210-060) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. A. The City of Temecula is the sponsor and implementing agency for the Interstate-15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange project (Project). The Project proposes to modify freeway facilities, which are the jurisdiction of the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). B. The City of Temecula owns properties identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-210-057, 922-210-059, 922-210-060, and 922-210-061, located at the southerly terminus of Old Town Front Street, south of State Route 79 South. C. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns and operates water facilities within its easement recorded on APNs 922-210-059, 922-210-060 and 922- 210-061. D. The proposed Project will construct new freeway on- and off-ramps in areas which overlap the RCWD facilities and easements. E. Caltrans maintains policies to curtail utility encroachment within State right of way. F. As Project sponsor and implementing agency, the City must provide for the relocation of the RCWD facilities which would be in conflict with the proposed State right of way, per Caltrans policies on utility encroachment. G. As Project sponsor and implementing agency, the City must provide for replacement easements and rights for the relocated RCWD facilities. Such easements and rights shall be equivalent in practice to the easement and rights being replaced. H. The Grants of Easements have been prepared based on utility relocation plans designed by the City and RCWD and in consideration of the terms and rights of RCWD under the existing easement. The new easements span City-owned properties identified as APNs 922-210-057, 922-210-059, and 922-210-060. I. After completion of the Project, and RCWD acceptance of the relocated water facilities, RCWD will release portions of its easement that were vacated by the relocated water facilities. Section 2. Approval of the Grants of Easements. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves the Grants of Easements, granting to the Rancho California Water District non-exclusive easements and rights of way for water facilities relocated as part of the Interstate-15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange project. Section 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 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 for Recorder's Use Pursuant to Government Cods section 27383, no fees shall be charged by the recorder for services rendered to the State, to any municipality, county of the State, or other political subdivision thereof. Also see 54 Ops. Att. Gen 28, 11-3-71 Rancho California Water District is a California Water District organized and existing pursuant to the California Water Code section 34000 et.seq. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(s). 922-210-057 and 922-210-059 PROJECT NO. E1631 GRANT OF EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR UTILITY PIPELINES AND APPURTENANCES CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereinafter designated Grantor, owner of the hereinafter described lands, for a valuable consideration, does hereby GRANTS to RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation, its successors and assigns, herein designated Grantee,a perpetual non-exclusive easement and right-of-way upon,through, under, over, and across the hereinafter described real property for the ingress and egress, installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and reconstruction of water pipelines, and all fixtures or appurtenances incidental thereto, and placement of tools, implements, and materials thereon as necessary to exercise the rights conveyed hereunder, together with a right-of-way for ingress and egress from adjacent roadways over a reasonable path to such real property and the perpetual right to remove buildings, structures,trees, bushes, soil, undergrowth, flowers, and any other obstruction the Grantee deems are interfering with the use of said easement and right-of-way by Grantee, its successors,or assigns. The real property referred to herein and made subject to said easement and right-of-way by this grant is situated in the City of Temecula, in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is more particularly described within Exhibit"A" Legal Description and Exhibit"B" Plat Map,attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Grantor reserves the right to use the surface of the above-described real property in a manner that will not interfere with or be detrimental to the use of said easement and right-of-way by Grantee, its successors, and assigns, provided, however, that the Grantor shall not increase or decrease or permit to be increased or decreased the ground elevations of said easement existing at the time this document is executed except for grade changes required for construction of the Grantee's utility pipelines, appurtenances,and/or facilities, as shown on plans approved by the Grantee. The Grantor shall not plant any trees or shrubs (including irrigation), construct or permit to be constructed any building, structure, concrete slab, concrete pavement, block wall, fence, improvement, or other encroachment upon said easement without the previous written consent of Grantee in the form of an encroachment permit or plans approved by the Grantee; provided, however, Grantor shall have the right to install asphalt pavement over the easement area, along with any striping and/or directional signs required for vehicular travel. Grantee may remove from the easement any tree, shrub, building, structure, concrete slab, concrete pavement, improvement, or other encroachment Page 1 00 installed or constructed by Grantor and not consented to in writing by Grantee. Grantor shall reimburse the reasonable costs of Grantee's removal of such obstructions or structures that were installed or constructed in the easement area by Grantor. Grantor waives any right under California Civil Code section 845, and any other right,to compel Grantee to repair,grade,surface, or otherwise improve or maintain said easement as a roadway or private right of way. Upon Grantee's completion of maintenance and/or repair of Grantee's pipeline or appurtenant facilities involving excavations of the easement surface, Grantee, its successors and assigns shall restore, or cause to be restored, the surface or subsurface areas of the subject easement to as close to the condition that said easement area existed prior to Grantee's maintenance and repair of its pipeline or appurtenant facilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this instrument has been executed this day of , Day Month Year GRANTOR City of Temecula,a municipal corporation By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Attest: By: Randi Johl,City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson &Gershon By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE UNDER SECTION 27281 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the grant of easement dated from the City of Temecula to Rancho California Water District,a public agency and subdivision in the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on behalf of the Board of Directors pursuant to the authority conferred by Resolution No. 2004-5-2 of the Board of Directors adopted on May 13, 2004 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT By: Jeffrey D. Armstrong, General Manager Dated: Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER AND ACCESS EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION That certain parcel of land, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being a portion of Parcel "A" of Lot Line Adjustment No. PA98-0331 recorded November 14, 2000 as Instrument No. 2000-453434 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the westerly terminus of that certain course in the general southerly line of Parcel "A" of said Lot Line Adjustment No. PA98-0331, described as having a bearing and distance of"South 82044'46"West 214.20 feet" on said Lot Line Adjustment; thence along said general southerly line North 82°42'10" East 6.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing on said general southerly line North 8204210" East 40.00 feet; thence leaving said general southerly line North 07°14'03"West 218.20 feet to the southerly line of Parcel "A" of that certain grant deed recorded February 14, 1997 as Instrument No. 1997-0506047 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County; thence along said southerly line of Parcel "A" South 82°42'10"West 40.00 feet: thence leaving said southerly line South 0714'03" East 218.20 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 8,728 square feet, or 0.20 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direction. John Duquette, PLS5�6 Date My li erase expires 12/31"'5 c © No 1556 ExP t2-31- y 61 1of1 H 1pdafal70f06054L4dminvegalsl605ilg1022.doc EXHIBIT "B" TERN ®YF'ASS CORK I DOR 0 WES - PCL. „A" GRANT DEED RECORDED 2/14/1997 d INST . NO- 1997-050647 O.R. 3 10 s, DATA TABLE BEARING/DELTA LENGTH 0. 1 1 N82°42' 10"E 6.49'y '� 2 N82'42' 10"E 40.00' a 3 N82"42' 10"E 40.00' r c 0 0 N R •S 'g � � ��A � R 1'�oAa/53A33� 2©pp Q (N8 '44' 46"E 214.20' ) 2 PL n REMAINDER 1 —j A Nfl 10p—�O2 -- PM 2pp fl - EXISTING RCWD EASEMENT RECORDED 5/14/1986 AS INST . NO. 111405, O.R. ( ) - INDICATES RECORD DATA PER L .L.A. PA 98-0331 REC. 11/14/2000 SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 INSTR. N0, 2000-0453433, O R. a 0 a 40810 COUNTY CENTER DR.. � Michael Baker SUITE 100 RAN=CLal IA WATER DWI= o TEMECULA.CA 92591 PHONE (951)676-8042 WATER AND N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERWL COM 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 for Recorder's Use Pursuant to Government Code section 27383, no fees shall be charged by the recorder for services rendered to the State, to any municipality, county of the State, or other political subdivision thereof. Also see 54 Ops. Att. Gen 28, 11-3-71 Rancho California Water District is a California Water District organized and existing pursuant to the California Water Code section 34000 et.seq. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(s). 922-210-060 PROJECT NO, E1631 GRANT OF EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR UTILITY PIPELINES AND APPURTENANCES CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns,. hereinafter designated Grantor, owner of the hereinafter described lands, for a valuable consideration, does hereby GRANTS to RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation, its successors and assigns,herein designated Grantee,a perpetual non-exclusive easement and right-of-way upon,through, under, over, and across the hereinafter described real property for the ingress and egress, installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and reconstruction of water pipelines, and all fixtures or appurtenances incidental thereto, and placement of tools, implements, and materials thereon as necessary to exercise the rights conveyed hereunder, together with a right-of-way for ingress and egress from adjacent roadways over a reasonable path to such real property and the perpetual right to remove buildings, structures,trees, bushes, soil, undergrowth, flowers, and any other obstruction the Grantee deems are interfering with the use of said easement and right-of-way by Grantee, its successors,or assigns. The real property referred to herein and made subject to said easement and right-of-way by this grant is situated in the City of Temecula, in the County of Riverside, State of California, and is more particularly described within Exhibit"A" Legal Description and Exhibit"B" Plat Map,attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Grantor reserves the right to use the surface of the above-described real property in a manner that will not interfere with or be detrimental to the use of said easement and right-of-way by Grantee, its successors, and assigns, provided, however, that the Grantor shall not increase or decrease or permit to be increased or decreased the ground elevations of said easement existing at the time this document is executed except for grade changes required for construction of the Grantee's utility pipelines,appurtenances, and/or facilities,as shown on plans approved by the Grantee. The Grantor shall not plant any trees or shrubs (including irrigation), construct or permit to be constructed any building, structure, concrete slab, concrete pavement, block wall, fence, improvement, or other encroachment upon said easement without the previous written consent of Grantee in the form of an encroachment permit or plans approved by the Grantee; provided, however, Grantor shall have the right to install asphalt pavement over the easement area, along with any striping and/or directional signs required for vehicular travel. Grantee may remove from the easement any tree, shrub, building, structure, concrete slab, concrete pavement, improvement, or other encroachment Page 1 of 3 installed or constructed by Grantor and not consented to in writing by Grantee. Grantor shall reimburse the reasonable costs of Grantee's removal of such obstructions or structures that were installed or constructed in the easement area by Grantor. Grantor waives any right under California Civil Code section 845,and any other right, to compel Grantee to repair,grade, surface,or otherwise improve or maintain said easement as a roadway or private right of way. Upon Grantee's completion of maintenance and/or repair of Grantee's pipeline or appurtenant facilities involving excavations of the easement surface, Grantee, its successors and assigns shall restore, or cause to be restored, the surface or subsurface areas of the subject easement to as close to the condition that said easement area existed prior to Grantee's maintenance and repair of its pipeline or appurtenant facilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed this day of , Day Month Year GRANTOR City of Temecula,a municipal corporation By: Michael S.Naggar, Mayor Attest: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Richards, Watson & Gershon By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Page 2 of CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE UNDER SECTION 27281 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the grant of easement dated , from the City of Temecula to Rancho California Water District,a public agency and subdivision in the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on behalf of the Board of Directors pursuant to the authority conferred by Resolution No. 2004-5-2 of the Board of Directors adopted on May 13, 2004 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT By: Jeffrey D. Armstrong,General Manager Dated: Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER AND ACCESS EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION That certain parcel of land, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being a portion of the "Remainder Parcel" of Parcel Map No. 28627-1, on file in Book 200, Pages 100 through 102, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, Records of said Riverside County, described as follows: COMMENCING at the westerly terminus of that certain course in the general southerly line of Parcel "A" of Lot Line Adjustment No. PA98-0331 recorded November 14, 2000 as Instrument No. 2000-453434 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as having a bearing and distance of "South 82°44'46"West 214.20 feet " on said Lot Line Adjustment; thence along said general southerly line North 82°42'10" East 6.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing on said general southerly line North 82'42'10" East 40.00 feet; thence leaving said general southerly line South 07°14'03" East 3.50 feet to the northerly line of that certain Rancho California Water District Easement recorded May 14, 1986 as instrument no. 111405, of said Official Records; thence along said northerly line South 73030'56"West 40.53 feet; thence leaving said northerly line North 0714'03"West 9.97 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 270 square feet, more or less. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direction. t,c lb S �. iDuo D John . Duquette, PLS 7P66 Date c a 75f.z L x My'jense expires 12/31M5 1 of 1 H odata1101060514AdminVegalsl6051fg1014-doc EXHIBIT "B" G N DATA TABLE BEARING/DELTA LENGTH N 1 N82°42' 10"E 6 .49' 2 N82042' 10"E 40.00' 3 N07014'03"W 3.50' 4 N73'30'56"E 40.53' f� 5 N07' 14'03"W 9.97' I 13-7/16'18 R .8 pCL P Ag g-0331 LLA NC7 1W 43 p.R 433 ¢QC•2000_ x}453 0 44, 46 ,E 214 .20' I�sl N (N82 3 5 1 4 PCL . REMAINDER A �- E 1VrfD 5 No 1 d©_102 PM Sao ! ? 61�� u rc Q - EXISTING RCWD EASEMENT 0 RECORDED 5/14/1986 AS INST. NO. 111405, O.R. ( } - INDICATES RECORD DATA PER L.L .A. PA 98-0331 REC. 11/14/2000 SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 INSTR. NO. 2000-0453433, O.R. a 40810 COUNTY CENTER DR ' Micha .. Baker SUITE 100 PANCW CALFMIA WATER DWTIWT TEMECULA,CA 92591 WATER AM PHONE (951)676-8042 a N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MBAKERiNTL COM �J' (3"o .l Q Capital Improvement Program np.n.r,rsae c.rwA.e Fiscal Years 2016-20 INTERSTATE-151 STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH ULTIMATE INTERCHANGE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction of a ramp system that will improve access to Interstatel5 from Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 South. The interchange will accommodate traffic generated by future development of the City's General Plan land use as well as regional traffic volume increases forecasted for the year 2037. This project is crucial, as the projected traffic volume increases currently exceed the capacity of the existing interchange improvements constructed by the Riverside County Transportation Department. Benefit I Core Value: This project will improve circulation, freeway access, and level of service at the Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway t State Route 79 South intersection. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The plans, specifications, and estimates package are currently being prepared for review by California Department of Transportation(Caltrans). Acquisition was completed during FY 2013-14. Construction is scheduled to start during FY 2015-16. Department: Public Works-Account No. 210.165.662 Level: Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 589,258 $ 50,274 $ 216,000 $ 162,000 $ 108,000 $ 1,125,532 Acquisition $13,032,131 $ 187,010 $13,219,141 Construction $ 104,088 $13,759,244 $7,826,825 $3,759,467 $2,506,311 $27,955,935 Construction Engineering $ 1,750,000 $1,750,000 $ 3,500,000 Design $ 3,837,457 $ 255,058 $ 4,092,515 MSHCP $ 753,000 $ 753,000 Totals $17,562,934 $1,245,342 $15,725,244 $9,738,825 $3,867,467 $2,506,311 $ - $50,646,123 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost CFD(Crowne Hill) $ 502,211 $ 502,211 Reimbursement/ Other(Morgan Hill) $ 1,190,582 $ 1,190,582 SAFETEA-LU $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Senate Bill 621 $10,018,141 $1,245,342 $ 2,966,503 $ 162,000 $ 62,837 $14,454,823 STP(RCTC)t') $ 7,158,741 $5,817,359 $12,976,100 TUMF(RCTCICETAP)t2) $ 4,452,000 $ 4,452,000 TUMF(RCTC/Region)(') $ 1,400,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 5,400,000 TUMF{wRCOG}(^) $3,759,466 $3,804,630 $2,506,311 $10,070,407 Total Funding: $17,562,934 $1,245,342 $15,725,244 $9,738,825 $3,867,467 $2,506,311 $50,646,123 Future Operation& Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 $ 6,242L$ 6,367 $ 6,494 (1)Surface Transportation Program(STP)per RCTC call for Projects as approved by the Commission on January 8,2014($12,976,100.) (2)TUMF{RCTC/Region}-Funding is pursuant to RCTC Agreement No.06-72-506{$4,452,000} (3)TUMF(RCTC/CETAP)-Funding is pursuant to RCTC Agreement No. 11-72-041-00($5,400,000;$1,400,000 ROw;$4,000,000 CON). (4)TUMF wRCOG 2014 Southwest Zone 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program(llP)adopted on January 6,2014($10,157,154). Fiscal Years 2016-20 Capital Improvement Program 49 " r , r All- ONk AO �t o4 V.I I � s+¢ Ile g� Al lid I s: •, I i . 1 1 Item No . 9 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Establish a Time Limited Parking Restriction on Ritter Court Near Great Oak High School PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer- Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING A TIME LIMITED PARKING RESTRICTION ON RITTER COURT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 12:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS BACKGROUND: A request was received from the Board of Directors of the Redhawk Homeowners Association and residents to consider the feasibility of implementing a parking restriction program on Ritter Court to discourage Great Oak High School students from parking in the neighborhood. Because the proposed parking restriction program could potentially shift the displaced vehicles to adjacent streets, a written notice and survey was also mailed to owners and occupants on Dorset Court to solicit their response on potentially expanding the parking restriction to their street. The survey mailed to Ritter Court and Dorset Court residents explained that a two-thirds majority of the affected residents on each street was needed to implement a parking restriction program on their street. The survey also indicated that residents were not exempt from the parking restriction and that a permit parking program for residents was not being proposed. Based on the results of the survey the two-thirds majority was achieved on Ritter Court and a parking restriction program is justified. Since sixty-two percent of the Dorset Court residents did not respond to the survey, this indicates that there is limited interest in pursuing a parking restriction program at this time. At their meeting of January 28, 2016, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommended (4-0) that the City Council approve the implementation of a parking restriction program on Ritter Court from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Holidays, to maintain consistency with other school related parking restriction programs adjacent to Great Oak High School. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Sign Maintenance Account No. 001.164.602.5244, for installation of appropriate signing. ATTACHMENT: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING A TIME LIMITED PARKING RESTRICTION ON RITTER COURT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 12:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The California Vehicle Code provides local jurisdictions the authority to establish regulations prohibiting the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on certain streets by Ordinance or Resolution. A. The City Council desires to prohibit the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on certain streets during certain hours. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.13.160, of the Temecula Municipal Code "Parking Prohibited or Time Limited on Certain Streets", authorizes the City Council to establish parking prohibitions by Resolution on certain streets as show in Exhibit "A". A. The City Council authorizes the City Engineer to maintain by appropriate signing and/or markings certain no stopping zones, no parking zones and restricted parking areas. B. The City Council hereby establishes a time limited parking restriction on Ritter Court between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Holidays. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of February, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk rnrcrrti Iso- TEMECtiLA LOCATION MAP ri41 I'rn6ixx.�M rygxinwx. C), Legend 13 City I o NQS ,/ Streets � Parcels T. t � Aerial 2012 r " w ` to M T F Lu R OT _ rn o LZ o N 0 275 550 825 ft. Scale: 1:2,791 Map center: 6305697,2108474 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. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT CALENDAR Item No . 10 ACTION MINUTES February 9, 2016 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:39 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 15 Approve the Action Minutes of January 26, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director McCracken made the motion; it was seconded by Director Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 26, 2016. 16 Approve Fiscal Year 2015-16 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director McCracken made the motion; it was seconded by Director Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD Action Minutes 020916 1 CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:43 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 020916 2 Item No . 11 Approvals �- City Attorney 11 Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Timmy D' Productions, Inc. for Entertainment and Technical Services PREPARED BY: Dawn Adamiak, Recreation Supervisor RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve an Agreement with Timmy D' Productions, Inc., in the amount of$75,000, for entertainment and technical services. BACKGROUND: On September 29, 2015, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting proposals for Entertainment and Technical Services which was reviewed by an objective internal panel for the following factors: Responsiveness, Qualifications & Experience, Technical Approach & Timeline and Price. The filing deadline of October 22, 2015, was met by two qualified responders. On November 4, 2015, the panel met and based on the rank of the RFP's deemed Timmy D' Productions, Inc. the most qualified responder. Founded in 1979, Timmy D' Productions, Inc. is one of Temecula Valley's leading providers of entertainment services. Timmy D' Productions, Inc. has successfully provided outstanding entertainment, sound services and technical support for numerous City sponsored programs and major special events for many years. They have a proven record in providing superior services and quality support. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds for Fiscal Year 2015-16 are available in the Temecula Community Services District budget. Funds for Fiscal Year 2016-17 will be adequately appropriated within the Temecula Community Services District operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TIMMY D' PRODUCTIONS, INC. ENTERTAINMENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of February 23, 2016, between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Timmy D' Productions, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Entertainer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on February 23, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Entertainer shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Entertainer shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Entertainer shall at all time faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Entertainer shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Entertainer hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. LOCATION AND REALIABILITY OF PERFORMANCE The date, time, and location of Entertainers performance shall be determined at the time of City's request for "Event Price Quote/Agreement". All entertainment shall be provided within City limits. Time and reliability are of the essence in this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Entertainer 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 not exceed Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($75,000.00) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Entertainer 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 1 receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Entertainer's fees, it shall give written notice to Entertainer 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, Entertainer shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 6. NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT Entertainer understands this is a non-exclusive Agreement between the City and Entertainer and no guarantee of work or cost as outlined in Sections 2 and 5 is given or implied. 7. EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS Entertainer(s) shall provide their own sound equipment and any other special equipment and materials that are required for the performance, unless other arrangements are made in writing and approved with the City prior to the performance. Sound equipment shall be adequate for the size of the anticipated audience and location of the performance. The City reserves the right to inspect all equipment and/or materials being used for any performance. 8. USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL The Entertainer shall be fully responsible for paying any legally required royalties of fees for the use by the Entertainer of copyrighted material and shall comply at all times with all applicable copyright laws. 9. ASSIGNMENT The Entertainer 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, Entertainers 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 and Entertainer. 10. SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, OR CANCELLATION OF PERFORMANCE AND AGREEMENT WIITHOUT CAUSE a. A performance may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended at any time, with or without cause, at the sole discretion of the Executive Director or his delegate without default or breach of this Agreement by the City. The City may also at any time, for any reason, with or without cause suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Entertainer at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Entertainer shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates this Agreement, or 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 Entertainer 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 Entertainer will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 2 11. DEFAULT OF ENTERTAINER a. The Entertainer's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Entertainer is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Entertainer for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Entertainer. If such failure by the Entertainer to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Entertainer's control, and without fault or negligence of the Entertainer, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the Executive Director or his delegate determines that the Entertainer is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Entertainer with written notice of the default. The Entertainer 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 Entertainer 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. 12. INDEMNIFICATION The Entertainer 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 Entertainer'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. 13. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Entertainer 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 Entertainer, 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 Entertainer 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 Entertainer has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Entertainer shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 3 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Entertainer's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Entertainer 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 Entertainer'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. 2) 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. 3) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Entertainer 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. Entertainer 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 Entertainer's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 4 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Entertainer 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 Entertainer shall at all times be under Entertainer's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Entertainer or any of Entertainer's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Entertainer 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. Entertainer 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 Entertainer in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Entertainer as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Entertainer for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Entertainer for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 15. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Entertainer 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 Entertainer 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 Entertainer to comply with this section. 16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Entertainer in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Entertainer without City's prior written authorization. Entertainer, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the Executive Director 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 Entertainer gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Entertainer shall promptly notify City should Entertainer, 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 Entertainer and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Entertainer agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Entertainer. 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. 5 17. 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: Executive Director 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Timmy D' Productions Aftn: Timothy Daniels 41655 Reagan Way, Suite J Murrieta, CA 92562 18. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Entertainer shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 19. GOVERNING LAW The City and Entertainer 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. 20. 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 Entertainer, or Entertainer's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Entertainer 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 Entertainer or Entertainer's sub-contractors on this project. Entertainer 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. 6 21. 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. 22. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Entertainer warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Entertainer and has the authority to bind Entertainer to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The Executive Director 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. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES TIMMY D' PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRICT (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President Timothy W. Daniels, President ATTEST: By: By: Rand!Johl, Secretary Tori M. Daniels, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, General ENTERTAINER Counsel Timmy D' Productions, Inc. Attn: Timothy Daniels 41655 Reagan Way, Suite J Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 693-1680 timmyd@timmyd.com Initialis Date: 8 EXHIBIT A TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Entertainer and/or his sub-contractors shall provide performances, on an as needed basis, upon request of the City of Temecula. Entertainer recognizes and agrees that this Agreement is for the purpose of establishing a contractual relationship between the City and the Entertainer for future performances at City events and recreational activities. The procedure for assigning work is set forth as follows: 1. The City Manager and/or the Director of Community Services or their designee's shall submit to the Entertainer a written or verbal request for performance. The type of performance, location, date, and time shall be described or conveyed to the Entertainer. 2. Within five (5) business days of the date of the written or verbal request for performance, the Entertainer shall respond in writing with an event price quote/Agreement. 3. Upon acceptance of the Entertainers response by the City Manager and/or the Director of Community Services or their designee's, the Entertainer shall proceed to "book" the event. The Entertainers performance or the performance of any sub-contractors of any event shall be pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 4. Perfomances throughout the term of the Agreement, may include, but not limited to the following: a. Temecula Rod Run b. Teen Night Light Egg Hunt c. Easter Egg Hunt d. Temecula Special Games e. 4th of July Extravaganza f. Summer Concert Series g. Moonlight Movies in the Park h. Memorial Day Event i. Pool Parties j. Family Fun Nights k. Human Services Events & Programs I. New Year's Eve Grape Drop 5. Scope of Services a. The Entertainer shall provide professional Disc Jockey/Master of Ceremony (DJ/MC), Entertainment and Technical Services for a variety of special events throughout the year. b. The Entertainer will provide sound, stage & lighting services and inflatable movie screens as necessary. c. Responsibe to ensure the availability of complete concert quality sound system(s) and component equipment, as and where required. d. Rental, transportation, set-up and tear-down of all sound systems and equipment including lights, stage and movie screens. e. Provide sound technician, monitoring services and light technician, as and where required. 9 f. Sound monitoring level devices on all stages and equipment for all events and personnel shall respond to the requests of event staff regarding noise levels during performances. g. Signature events may require set-up of equipment one day prior to the event including sound checks. h. Booking quality, family-friendly bands and managing the stage. L Entertainer employees must present themselves in a professional manner both in appearance and attitude while on-site. j. Sound technician should be on-site prior to opening of event and stay throughout the end of the event as designated by City Event Staff. k. DJ/MC shall provide professional public speaking, proper use of a microphone, posture, staging and movements. I. Technical aspects include proper introductions, opening and closings, transitions, and presiding over ceremonial aspects of an event. m. Clear understanding of current music and trends, appropriate lyrics and what works for a variety of people, ages and backgrounds. 10 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE Exhibit B shall be the Event quote/Agreement as provided by the Entertainer for each individual performance as requested by the City. In any event, the cost of such services, while not guaranteed as per Section 5 of this Agreement, shall not exceed a total of $75,000.00 for the total term of this Agreement. 11 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No . 12 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (SY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following are the highlights for the Community Development Department for the month of January 2016. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases: In January, Planning received 23 new applications, including 4 pre-applications,and conducted 4 Public Hearings. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached to this report. Audi Dealership: On February 18, 2015, staff received a pre-application for a 37,000 square foot Audi dealership to be located on Temecula Center Drive, adjacent to 1-15 and south of the existing Mercedes-Benz of Temecula dealership. A Development Plan application was filed for the project on April 6,2015. A community meeting was held with the Harveston community on March 25,2015 to discuss the plans for the dealership. Approximately 20 Harveston residents attended the meeting and were positive about the addition of the Audi dealership to the community. A Supplemental EIR is being prepared for the project and went out for public review from July 20,through September 8, 2015. A second community meeting was held with the Harveston communityon August 13,2015,to discuss the findings of the Supplemental EIR and to provide updates on the project. The Planning Commission approved Audi on October 21, 2015 and construction is anticipated to begin in February 2016. (FISK) Temecula Promenade Expansion: On December 3,2015,staff received an application for a Major Modification to the Promenade Mall to convert a portion of the existing enclosed retail mall (Macy's wing) to an open-air shopping experience. In addition, two new restaurants will be constructed adjacent to the Macy's wing in the existing mall parking lot. Modifications to the existing mall area include removal of the roof, construction of open air concourse/plazas, addition of new exterior wall finishes with new tenant storefronts, new decorative paving, landscaping, lighting and amenities in public areas. Additional site changes include modifications to the access/circulation at the Ring Road and Promenade Mall South, adjacent parking lot, and restriping of parking areas throughout - 1 - the site. Staff met with the applicant and with the Promenade Subcommittee on January 11,2016 to discuss the plans. (KITZEROW) Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ambient Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and multi-family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Staff is currently reviewing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Report and has prepared an Initial Study. The City entered into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates in July 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December 3,,2014. Keyser Marston Associates has prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the project. Staff is working through environmental issues associated with the MSHCP and wildlife corridors as well as negotiating the Development Agreement.A Draft EIR is anticipated to be circulated in March 2016. (PETERS) Temecula Valley Hospital: City Council approved the Temecula Valley Hospital project on January 22, 2008. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital bed tower was received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) on July 19, 2013. United Health Services obtained State licensing to open the hospital for patients on October 14, 2013. On May 31, 2013, staff received a Major Modification application to modify the site plan and heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from an area nearthe northeast corner of the hospital building. UHS indicated that the heliport needs to be relocated based on concerns from the FAA and the aeronautical division of Caltrans. UHS proposed two phases of movement for the heliport: Phase I would place the heliport to the west of the hospital building, in one of the parking lot areas. Phase II would place the heliport on the roof of the second hospital tower. In both cases, the proposed locations result in a change to the flight path that move it away from the Madera Vista residential project and changes the path to either head directly into or away from the prevailing wind direction (rather than perpendicular to the prevailing winds), as directed by the FAA and Caltrans. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). In July 2014, the applicant indicated intentions to add a 5,000 square foot facilities maintenance building to the hospital site. Staff has provided information regarding this new building to ESA for analysis in the SEIR, and the 45-day public review was from November 12, 2014 through December 29, 2014. The project was reviewed at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and received a 4-0 vote (Guerriero absent) recommending approval. Staff has worked with the applicant's consultant and ESA to respond to comments received from the community at the Planning Commission hearing and has worked with the applicant's consultant to prepare additional graphics for use at the City Council hearing. The project was scheduled for the July 28, 2015, City Council hearing but was continued off calendar so that staff and the Supplemental EIR consultant could make revisions to the Supplemental EIR to address comments received from Ray Johnson on July 22, 2015. Staff anticipates that the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR will be available for public review from February 8, 2016 thru March 23, 2016. Staff anticipates bringing the project before the Planning Commission in April 2016 and before the City Council in May 2016. (FISK) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: In 2013, the Planning Commission approved KB Homes, Standard Pacific, and Van Daele Developments' applications for Home Product Reviews in the Roripaugh Specific Plan Area. KB Home plans to construct 98 single-family homes. Standard Pacific plans to build 200 single-family homes under the names Montego and Cambridge. Van Daele Development will construct 113 single-family homes, 56 marketed as Verona, and 57 as Sorrento. The three builders will construct 411 homes in four of five available planning areas in the area commonly referred to the "panhandle."Three hundred sixty six(366) residential permits have been issued to date. (PETERS) - 2 - Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment: In March 2014, Roripaugh Valley Restoration (RVR) applied for an amendment to the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement to modify the timing of infrastructure improvements and building permit thresholds for"pan" area the Specific Plan. Staff has been working with RVR to refine the deal points of the Development Agreement Amendment(DAA). RVR worked with the second owner in the "pan" area of the Specific Plan, Wingsweep, to come to agreement on improvement cost sharing. The Specific Plan Amendment is only for the purpose of consistency of the Specific Plan infrastructure timing requirements with the proposed Development Agreement Amendment. A Community Outreach meeting was held on November 19, 2015 for the applicant to present their proposed DAA changes to the Nicholas Valley and Roripaugh Ranch communities. The DAA and Specific Plan Amendment is scheduled forthe February 17, 2016 Planning Commission hearing and staff anticipates bringing the project to a City Council hearing in March 2016. (FISK) Temecula Gateway: On November 3, 2014, staff received applications related to the proposed Temecula Gateway project. The proposed project will consist of a Planned Development Overlay/Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Community Commercial and the zoning designation to Planned Development Overlay 14, a Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the creation of seven lots from four, a Development Plan to allow for the construction of four commercial buildings totaling approximately 23,666 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an automobile service station with a corresponding carwash and convenience store that will serve alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive-thru for a restaurant. The City has entered into an agreement with Michael Baker International/PMC to conduct an Environmental Impact Report for the project. (JONES) Cypress Ridge: On December 21, 2015, staff received applications Development Plan to construct 245 market rate residential units in the form of duplex, triplex, attached and detached cluster units. The project will be located on the northeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. Along with the Development Plan are applications for a Tentative Tract Map(for condo purposes), a Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay, and a General Plan Amendment. The applicant is also proposing to upgrade Pala Park to include amenities and play equipment for special needs. (JONES) LONG RANGE PLANNING Uptown Temecula Specific Plan: The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area encompasses approximately 560 acres and is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan is based upon the eight visioning recommendations of the community and as directed by the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council along with the certification of the Final EIR on November 17, 2015. Staff is developing the scope of work for the Request for Proposal for the Streetscape Beautification Plan for the Specific Plan area. (WEST) Hike Bike Temecula (Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update): On May 14, 2013, City Council awarded a contract to KTU+A to update the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. A community workshop was held on October 26, 2013, and attendees provided feedback on bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, hiking paths, and equestrian connections. Community input was also collected through a survey via the project website www.hikebiketemecula.org. A Steering Committee meeting was held on February 25, 2014, with over 30 participants in attendance. The focus of the meeting was to summarize the survey results and to get feedback on proposed improvements in Old Town. The Old Town improvements include sharrows(shared bike lane markings) on Old Town Front Street, Bicycle Friendly Community signs, and strategically placed bike racks. On March 25, 2014, City Council approved an amendment to the contract that included Phase II of the Master Plan Update and additional sidewalk analysis. Phase I concluded with a community walk-ride event on May 10, 2014, highlighting priority locations for future trails and - 3 - bike lanes based on the community's feedback. Phase II is nearly complete. Staff is currently reviewing the Draft Master Plan. Presentations to the Community Service Commission,Traffic Public Safety Commission, and Planning Commission will be held in March and April before going to City Council in May. (PETERS) SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Town Square Marketplace: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement(ENA)with Truax Development(Truax) in order to negotiate the disposition and development of the two, currently Successor Agency owned, vacant lots in front of the Civic Center, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. On June 23, 2015, City Council extended the term of the ENA for an additional six months. While both Truax Development and the City have been negotiating in good faith, the complexities of the project require that the ENA be extended to allow for additional work to be completed. Upon agreeing to terms, the City and Truax envision drafting a disposition and development agreement that will be brought back before the Council for approval. (WATSON) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind-down of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)outlining the financial and debt obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due in the six month period being reviewed, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the appropriate payments. On March 2, 2015, the Oversight Board resolution approving ROPS 15-16A was delivered to the California State Department of Finance, the California State Controller, and the Riverside County Auditor Controller per the requirements of the redevelopment dissolution legislation. The ROPS 15-16B was approved by the SARDA Oversight Board in September 2015. The ROPS 16-17 was approved by both the SARDA Board and the Oversight Board in January. (WATSON, LEHNER) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) & HOUSING Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The City will receive $540,214 in CDBG grant funding for Fiscal Year 2015-16. The funding will be allocated as follows: 20 percent for program administration ($108,042), 15 percent for public services ($81,032) to be divided evenly between nine non-profit service providers ($7,892 each) and $10,000 to the Fair Housing Council. The remaining 65 percent was allocated for infrastructure improvements. The Old Town Sidewalk Improvement project will receive$351,140. In April, the City processed a Substantial Amendment to redirect$160,561 of unspent funds from previous fiscal years. A total of$26,223 was allocated to Habitat for Humanity for the Critical Home Maintenance and Repair Program, $12,000 to GRID Alternatives for the Solar Affordable Housing Program, and $122,338 to the Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement project. The City entered into an agreement with MDG Associates on November 1, 2016 for the administration of CDBG services. Staff held two community and technical workshops for potential applicants on December 7, 2015. The application period for the 2016-17 fiscal yearwas open from December 1 through December 17, 2015. Staff has reviewed 14 applications for eligibility and will present them to the Finance Subcommittee for review and recommendations in February 2016. (LEHNER) Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014- 2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28,2014, and the City received certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) on March 10, 2014. A project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3. The project is in the initial planning phase. Staff is currently conducting research and anticipates completing the ordinances for adoption in early 2016. - 4 - ENERGY & CONSERVATION Temecula Energy Efficiency Management (TEEM) Fund: The TEEM Fund is a self-sustaining fund that utilizes rebate incentives while also re-directing annual utility cost savings from energy efficiency projects into the fund. City Council established the fund in June 2013, with an initial deposit of $119,728.90 in SCE and SCG rebates. As energy efficiency projects are completed, rebates are deposited into the fund for future energy efficiency project. The current fund balance is now $196,797.00. Staff worked with Public Financial Management, funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership, to develop a policy manual for the TEEM Fund, focusing on policies and methodologies for determining the amount of utility savings to be deposited into the fund after projects are completed. (WEST) Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern California Gas (SCG), provides incentives for participants to develop energy efficiency programs. Temecula was the first City in the Partnership to achieve Gold Level status by completing 13 energy efficiency projects in FY 2012-13, resulting in nearly$100,000 of annual utility cost savings. In FY 2013-14, the City has upgraded the Community Recreation Center parking lot lights with new LED lighting fixtures. This resulted in 9,155 kWh saved and an additional $2,280 in annual savings. Staff recently completed a comprehensive energy audit of the Temecula Library with assistance from the Partnership. The audit identified 9 energy efficiency measures which could save an estimated 107,429 kWh annually,which also equates to an estimated annual cost savings to the City of $17,278. If all efficiency measures are implemented, the City would receive approximately $20,952 in rebate incentives from SCE and SCG. Implementing these measures would allow the City to achieve Platinum Level in the Partnership kWh savings requirements, giving the City higher rebate incentives for future energy efficiency measures. (WEST) Solid Waste and Recycling Program: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. Staff also assists with outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the Backyard Composting Workshops. The Residential Organics Recycling Program was adopted by the City Council in June 2015 to be implemented in 2016. Staff is working with CR&R to develop outreach materials, which include a letter to be mailed to each resident/home, an article in the City's Newsletter, information on the City's website, and information on the Public Information Channel and the City's Facebook page. Implementation will begin following the completion of the CR&R anaerobic digestion facility. CR&R anticipated their anaerobic digestion facility to be operational in the spring of 2016. (WEST) BUILDING & SAFETY Inspections: During the month of January, Building and Safety conducted 1,239 inspections. On average there were 61.95 inspections per day or 15.49 inspections per day, per inspector. Permits: During the months of January, Building and Safety issued 295 building permits. Of these permits, 53 were photovoltaic permits. Some of these permits from this month included: New Construction Diamond Hearts/Plant's Choice Non-Construction Certificate of Occupancy Napolean's Coffee and Wine Cafe Temecula Speed and Marine - 5 - CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month of January, Code Enforcement responded to 79 web complaints. In addition, the division opened 66 code cases and forwarded 25 referrals to Public Works, Police,Animal Control, and Fire. Code Enforcement also pulled 300 non-conforming signs in the community and assisted 30 people at the Community Development Counter. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can be found in the following chart: TYPE OF CODE CASE TYPE TOTAL Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle 3 Vacant Home/ Property Maintenance/ Rodent infested 4 Business or Home Occupation w/o license/CUP 2 Trash and Debris/ Parking lot maintenance 2 Overgrown Vegetation /Weeds/ Fire Hazard 1 Green Pool/Vector Control 1 Graffiti 5 Noise 0 Trailer/ RV Stored/Boat 11 Construction w/o Permit/Building Code 4 Encroach Public ROW/Trash Cans 5 Other/Homeless Encampment 10 Signs Pulled -Violations 18 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES 66 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate the past six months of activities in Temecula. Residential Foreclosure Tracking August September October November December January 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 DEFAULT 67 75 76 80 81 84 FORECLOSED 49 49 57 50 45 60 REO 88 1 87 1 79 1 85 1 90 1 81 TOTALS 204 1 211 212 215 216 225 Commercial Foreclosure Tracking August September October November December January 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 DEFAULT 2 2 2 2 2 2 FORECLOSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 REO 12 11 12 11 10 10 TOTALS 14 13 14 13 12 12 - 6 - PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0001 Jaime Cardenas 01/04/2016 01/04/2016 JAMES SILVA (714)728-3690 Approved Case Title/Description: Handy Solutions(Home Occupation) PA16-0003 916-570-004 System 01/04/2016 Hunter Jones (858)888-2616 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Tom Jones California Inc PA16-0006 910-470-035 Scott Cooper 01/05/2016 02/04/2016 Nicole Mosier (970)690-8225 NUMBER 2 PC Approved Case Title/Description: The Paint Barrel PCN:A Public Convenience or Necessity application for The Paint Barrel Art&Wine Studio which allows the applicant to sell wine and beer during painting classes. The project is located at 40573 Margarita Road, Suite K. PA16-0016 921-260-023 Brandon Rabidou 01/07/2016 01/21/2016 Raegan Aasted (541)868-2385 AmericanWest Approved Bank Case Title/Description: Tower Sign Program Amendment:A sign program amendment to the Tower Plaza sign program(#21)to include the Banner Bank located at 27425 Ynez Road(APN: 921-260-023) PA16-0019 953-290-016 System 01/07/2016 01/08/2016 I. Elizabeth Rios (951)775-1954 Approved Case Title/Description: S.R. Building Maintenance-Home Occupation PA16-0020 953-050-036 Jaime Cardenas 01/08/2016 Shanna Berry (800)344-2944 Plan Review ext 26 Case Title/Description: Heritage Zoning Letter:A Zoning Letter for the property Heritage Mobile Home Estates located at 31130 South General Kearny(APN 953-050-036). PA16-0024 909-310-017 James Atkins 01/08/2016 01/11/2016 Sherrie Munroe (951)296-3466 Diamond Approved ext 213 Hearts Ranch Case Title/Description: Diamond Hearts Phasing MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to allow for modifications to the phasing of the approved Development Plan(PA14-0008)that includes parking configuration modifications for the first phase of construction.The site is located at the Fuller Road and Winchester Road. PA16-0025 965-410-003 James Atkins 01/11/2016 Rose Corona (909)208-7848 Corona Family Plan Review LTD Partnership Case Title/Description: Big Horse Pumpkin and Harvest Festival Major Temporary Use Permit:A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a Harvest festival to be located on the north east corner of Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road.The festival will feature pumpkin picking, corn maze, car show and a 5K run. The event will be held October 1st thru 31st 2016 from 10 am to 5 pm.Weekend hours will be from 1 pm to 6 pm. Page 1 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0026 Jaime Cardenas 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 Hannah Warner (951)595-1665 Approved Case Title/Description: Temecula Music Teacher(Home Occupation) PA16-0028 962-530-031 01/11/2016 NICHOLAS Plan Review SANDERCOCK Case Title/Description: Aqua Pool Supply(Home Occupation) PA16-0030 962-573-002 Jaime Cardenas 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 Joyce Santiago Approved Case Title/Description: Joyce Santiago Nursing Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0032 955-462-016 Jaime Cardenas 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 Delmer Tipps Approved Case Title/Description: Staging Tips(Home Occupation) PA16-0033 966-010-013 Scott Cooper 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 Andrew Call (602)808-8600 Mark Esbensen Approved Case Title/Description: Les Schwab Minor Mod:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to modify the path of travel from the previously approved Development Plan (PA14-2796)to accomodate and existing trellis, the removal of two parking spaces, and adding a fire riser room access door. The project is located at 43890 Butterfield Stage Road. PA16-0034 959-080-037 James Atkins 01/12/2016 John Bohannon Acie Inv Plan Review Case Title/Description: De Portola MB Landscape: a Minor Modification to PA11-0261 De Portola Medical Buildings to allow for modifications to the approved landscape plan. The modification includes changes to the landscape areas as a result of required changes to internal access points. The site is located at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. PA16-0037 916-560-001 Brandon Rabidou 01/12/2016 01/26/2016 Robert Wallace (626)533-5066 Cape Approved MayHarveston Co Case Title/Description: Cape May At Harveston Mod:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to allow for two enlarged trellis areas and two barbecue units at the community pool located at 40140 Village Road PA16-0047 953-441-012 Scott Cooper 01/13/2016 01/13/2016 Environmental Environmental (951)216-3650 Approved Landscape Landscape Maintenance Inc Maintenance Inc Case Title/Description: Environmental Landscape Maintenance Inc(Home Occupation) PA16-0048 916-400-040 Scott Cooper 01/14/2016 Mark Doty (951)676-8042 Harveston-SA Plan Review B North Case Title/Description: Hoehn Audi TUP:A Temporary Use Permit for an on and off site construction yard, laydown area, and a vehicular access road. The project is located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive. Page 2 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0051 961-290-007 Jaime Cardenas 01/14/2016 Brian Hopely (775)813-9931 Episcopal Plan Review Diocese of San Diego Case Title/Description: Sweetheart Car Show TUP: a Major Temporary Use Permit(Non-Profit)to allow for a car show, BBQ, sale of merchandize, and a DJ, on Saturday, February 13 between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Volunteers will arrive at 8:00 a.m.for set-up, and the site will be cleared by 3:00 p.m. The site is located at 44651 Avenida De Missiones. PA16-0052 909-270-045 Brandon Rabidou 01/14/2016 Fenn Moun (949)466-8978 JEFFERSON Plan Review AVENUE TEMECULA Case Title/Description: Jefferson Starbucks MOD: a Major Modification to allow for Starbucks to conduct a remodel of the exterior and interior of an existing free-standing structure. The modification also includes updating site landscaping and drive-thru boards. The site is located at 27375 Jefferson Avenue. PA16-0053 921-320-058 Jaime Cardenas 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 Rhonda (800)344-2944 ACM 2006 5 Completed Chancellor ext 4493 RANCHO CALIF LTD PARTNERSHI P Case Title/Description: Temecula Town Center ZL:A Zoning Letter for the property at 27468 Ynez Road located within the Temecula Town Center(APN 921-320-058). PA16-0055 965-010-037 Jaime Cardenas 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 MAHBOUBEH Approved ARABSHAHI Case Title/Description: Evergreen Consulting(Home Occupation) PA16-0057 953-572-022 Jaime Cardenas 01/14/2016 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Morning, Noon&Night(Home Occupation) PA16-0059 945-040-002 Jaime Cardenas 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 William Dawson Approved Case Title/Description: Total Concepts Internatinal LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0063 909-370-042 Scott Cooper 01/15/2016 Richard Macklin (949)422-2042 Jenise Luttgens Plan Review Case Title/Description: Dendy Parkway Industrial DP:A Development Plan for a 141,180 square-foot industrial building located on the north side of Dendy Parkway approximately 315 feet northeast of Winchester Road. Previous Pre-Application was PR15-1215 PA16-0064 921-412-005 Jaime Cardenas 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 Felicia Durling (541)788-0970 Approved Case Title/Description: The Durling Group-Home Occupation Page 3 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0066 919-362-009 Jaime Cardenas 01/15/2016 Robert Flores Plan Review Case Title/Description: Flores Turnovers-Home Occupation PA16-0072 957-221-038 Jaime Cardenas 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 Kyle Morris (702)767-7779 Approved Case Title/Description: 4-D Gaming, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0073 945-160-021 Jaime Cardenas 01/19/2016 01/20/2016 Richard Sherman (951)227-6516 Approved Case Title/Description: Rochelle Sherman Small Family Home(Home Occupation) PA16-0074 945-160-021 Jaime Cardenas 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 Rochelle Approved Sherman Case Title/Description: Richard Sherman Plumbing(Home Occupation) PA16-0075 962-280-011 Jaime Cardenas 01/19/2016 02/05/2016 Reba Marabotto (951)553-8279 Approved Case Title/Description: Mehe'ula Music Productions(Home Occupation) PA16-0077 953-531-021 Jaime Cardenas 01/20/2016 01/20/2016 Miroslav Mike (951)642-2038 Approved Smekal Case Title/Description: Used Car Ck Up(Home Occupation) PA16-0079 922-033-009 Brandon Rabidou 01/20/2016 Christina Conway Crush &Brew Plan Review Case Title/Description: Liberty Kitchen MOD:A Minor Modification (Planning Review)to allow for the amendment of an existing sign program, repaint the exterior door, and hang porch swings at 28544 Old Town Front Suite 100 PA16-0081 910-272-033 Scott Cooper 01/20/2016 01/26/2016 Kris Jenson (210)557-6796 Kaiser Approved Foundation Health Case Title/Description: Kaiser Minor Mod:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for Kaiser to add a landscape finger, stop sign, and remove one parking space located at 27305 Madison Avenue. PA16-0083 922-170-012 Eric Jones 01/20/2016 M D M G Inc M D M G Inc (951)296-3466 B&P Oil Plan Review ext 216 Services Inc Case Title/Description: Gateway Lot Line Adjustment:A lot line adjustment for Tentative Parcel Map 36862 (APNs: 922-170-012, 922-170-013, 922-170-015) PA16-0084 945-240-030 Jaime Cardenas 01/20/2016 01/20/2016 Tiffany Approved Alleshouse Case Title/Description: Realty RX(Home Occupation) Page 4 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0085 960-202-009 Jaime Cardenas 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 Michelle Bovee (760)208-5032 Approved Case Title/Description: Passion4Fitness(Home Occupation) PA16-0090 922-170-013 Eric Jones 01/21/2016 Sherrie Munroe (951)296-3466 B&P Oil Plan Review ext 213 Services Inc Case Title/Description: LA Fitness Development Plan:A Development Plan to allow for the construction of a 37,000 square foot LA Fitness facility located on the Temecula Gateway project site. Generally located on the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and La Paz PA16-0092 921-280-001 James Atkins 01/22/2016 Peter Klein (619)990-4602 DONALD Plan Review MANDERSCH EID Case Title/Description: Ballast Point Sign Program: a Sign Program to allow for signage to be used for identification of the Ballast Point restaurant. Signs include multiple wall signage, monuments, and flagpole. The site is located at 28551 Rancho California Road. PA16-0097 Dale West 01/22/2016 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Municipal Code Amendment to create performance standards for microbreweries PA16-0098 944-060-005 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 Matthew Smith (951)775-3861 Approved Case Title/Description: Temeculawn (Home Occupation) PA16-0099 960-150-015 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 JOSE GARCIA (951)375-1723 Approved Case Title/Description: GJ Engineering Construction Inc(Home Occupation) PA 16-0100 921-040-010 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 Nghiem Le (714)622-0544 TEMECULA Plan Review MASONIC TEMPLEASSN Case Title/Description: Big Mama's Hot Dog Stand: Vendor Permit:A Vendors Stand Permit Renewal to operate Big Mama's Hot Dog Stand at the Temecula Masonic Center. The stand will be located at 27895 Diaz Road. PA16-0101 922-120-010 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 Steve Harriman Richard Quaid Plan Review Case Title/Description: Harley Davidson Fight&Bike Night TUP:A Temporary Use Permit for a boxing event to raise funds for Wounded Warriors and Southern California State Boxing Tournament. The event will take place March 18th, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m at Temecula Harley Davidson. PA16-0103 957-721-006 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 Andrew Vasquez Approved Case Title/Description: Haven House Events(Home Occupation) Page 5 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0104 Jaime Cardenas 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 Jose Tello (951)880-5592 Approved Case Title/Description: Tello Janitorial Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0107 959-090-012 Eric Jones 01/26/2016 Andrew Dixion (951)240-5261 Thomas Olds Plan Review Case Title/Description: Temecula Healthcare Center Minor Modification:A Minor Modification to allow for revisions to the recently approved Temecula Healthcare project. Revisions include: addition of a portecochere, internal courtyard inclosure, and additional square footage(11,584). PA16-0108 921-280-001 Scott Cooper 01/26/2016 01/27/2016 Dana Tsui (858)793-4777 DONALD Approved MANDERSCH EID Case Title/Description: Ballast Point Minor Mod:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for the addition of a three foot mechanical high screen to the top of the existing building. The project is located at 28551 Rancho California Road. PA16-0109 919-490-005 System 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 Lisa Pachuta Approved Case Title/Description: TWWF Services-Home Occupation PA16-0110 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 Paul Pachuta Approved Case Title/Description: Wireless Workforce, Inc(Home Occupation) PA16-0116 961-271-007 Jaime Cardenas 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 Nancy Vestal Approved Case Title/Description: Nancy Vestal Bridal Hair(Home Occupation) PA16-0118 Jaime Cardenas 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 Jennifer Holmes (951)303-7702 Approved Case Title/Description: Run-Jen-Run (Home Occupation) PA16-0119 919-501-011 Jaime Cardenas 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 Rose Jacobson (951)805-4470 Approved Case Title/Description: The Verson Vault(Home Occupation) PA16-0121 965-100-006 Brandon Rabidou 01/27/2016 01/28/2016 Ann Potter Approved Case Title/Description: Potter Residence MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to add 996 square foot addition to an existing residence located at 33101 Pampa Court PA16-0122 960-020-059 Jaime Cardenas 01/28/2016 David Nichols (951)757-4668 SWANGER Plan Review FAMILY Case Title/Description: Killarney's St. Patricks TUP: a Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Killarney's to conduct a St. Patrick's Day event on March 17, 2016. The event will include outdoor live music(approximately between the hours of 10:00 a.m.to 1:00 a.m.with many intermissions), alcohol sales, retail vendors, and outdoor games. Page 6 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0124 957-741-012 Jaime Cardenas 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 Pauline (951)240-0845 Approved Fernandez Case Title/Description: Golden Summer Travel Service Inc(Home Occupation) PA16-0126 Jaime Cardenas 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 Malcolm Greyson Approved Case Title/Description: Stratum Healthcare LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0128 921-330-033 Jaime Cardenas 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 Carl Ogata (310)650-6569 Approved Case Title/Description: C KO Constulting LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0131 916-570-047 System 01/29/2016 Erin Wuertz (773)316-8101 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Purely Simple Lotion-Home Occupation PA16-0132 955-510-008 Jaime Cardenas 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 Nicole (951)201-0922 Approved Lewchenko Case Title/Description: Nicole Lewchenko(Home Occupation) PA16-0138 921-381-025 Jaime Cardenas 01/29/2016 Evia Kosman (951)587-0104 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Evia La Juatta-Home Occupation PA16-0141 01/29/2016 Crystal Braught Plan Review Case Title/Description: The Knotty Bird Company-Home Occupation PREAPP16-000 961-440-016 James Atkins 01/04/2016 01/21/2016 Sam Thomas Lenity Architecture (503)399-1090 Borchard Completed 4 Temecula Case Title/Description: Temecula Senior Living and Memory Care Pre-App: a pre-application to allow for the construction and operation of a 2 to 3 story, 46,000 square foot senior living and memory care facility.The project proposed up to 56 beds with services provided 24 hours a day. The site is located on 1.8 acres at the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Pechanga Parkway. PREAPP16-001 953-390-002 Brandon Rabidou 01/06/2016 Matt Vigil (562)889-7925 Rancho Cancelled 3 California Water District Case Title/Description: T-Mobile Propane Pre-app:A pre-application to allow T-Mobile to install a 120 gallon propane tank& generator at an existing telecommunications facility located at APN: 953-390-0002 PREAPP16-005 910-310-007 James Atkins 01/14/2016 Ken Payne (661)979-8481 J &G Gosch Plan Review 4 Case Title/Description: Staybridge Suites Pre-App: a Pre-Application to allow for Staybridge Suites to locate an approximately 79,000 sq.ft., 5-story structure,with 114 rooms. The site is located 27500 Jefferson Avenue. Page 7 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PREAPP16-007 921-030-012 Scott Cooper 01/20/2016 02/04/2016 Michael Liuzzi Completed 6 Case Title/Description: All About Storage Pre-App:A Pre-Application for a 2-story self storage facility located on Blackdeer Loop(APN: 921-030-012) Page 8 of 8 Item No . 13 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of January 2016. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service..............................................................................................3,178 "Priority One" calls for service ...................................................................................................54 Average response time for "Priority One" calls......................................................... 6.32 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours................................................................................................240 SpecialEvents hours ................................................................................................................35 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours ....................................................................................797 Reserve officer hours (patrol)....................................................................................................51 Traininghours.............................................................................................................................7 TotalVolunteer hours............................................................................................................1222 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted..................................0/1 Safety presentations/Training.....................................................................................2/0 Specialevents..........................................................................................................0 Residential/Business security surveys conducted ....................................................................0/0 Businessesvisited ......................................................................................................................0 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up...........................................................0/0 StationTour................................................................................................................................1 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits...........................................................16/3 Sq. Footage of Graffiti Removed....................................................................................1,086 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served...........................................................................................................197 Sets of fingerprints taken ..........................................................................................................38 Policereports filed ....................................................................................................................12 Citationssigned off ...................................................................................................................28 Totalreceipts .....................................................................................................................$3,224 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP/ SET) Onsight felony arrests................................................................................................................7 On sight misdemeanor arrests ..................................................................................................12 Felony arrest warrants served.....................................................................................................4 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served..........................................................................................3 Follow-up investigations................................................................................. ...........25 Parole/Probation Searches ...................................................................................................5/10 PedestrianChecks...................................................................................................21 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks ...................................................................................................69 Crime Free Housing Checks ....................................................................................................71 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations ................................................................................907 Grant funded D.U.1. /Traffic safety checkpoints..........................................................................0 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket .............................................................................................0 D.U.I. Arrests ............................................................................................................................20 Non-hazardous citations .........................................................................................................448 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations.......................................................44 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations...............................................................137 Parkingcitations......................................................................................................................208 SchoolZone..............................................................................................................................47 Seatbelts...................................................................................................................................40 CellPhone Cites .......................................................................................................................71 Injurycollisions..........................................................................................................................27 INVESTIGATIONS BeginningCaseload................................................................................................................198 TotalCases Assigned ..............................................................................................................46 TotalCases Closed ..................................................................................................................52 Search Warrants Served ............................................................................................................7 Arrests ........................................................................................................................................4 Outof Custody Filings.................................................................................................2 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Callsfor service ......................................................................................................................535 Felonyarrest/filings.....................................................................................................................2 Misdemeanor arrest/filings........................................................................................................25 TrafficCitations...........................................................................................................................8 Fingerprints/Livescans ............................................................................................................153 Totalreceipts .....................................................................................................................$6,475 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felonyarrests.............................................................................................................................2 Misdemeanor arrests ..................................................................................................................7 Reports.....................................................................................................................................18 Youthcounseled .....................................................................................................................170 Meetings...................................................................................................................................80 Item No . 14 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (Sr CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. City ®f 9emecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT FERUARY 23, 2®16 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets $658,750 • City Council approved the solicitation of Slurry arterial streets (Winchester, Jefferson, and construction bids at the January 12, 2016meeting Temecula Parkway) with the goal to prolong their useful life and avoid much more costly roadway rehabilitation measures Interstate-15/ State Route 79 South $50,646,123 • Processing project approvals through Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Caltrans Construction of ramp system that will improve •Anticipate soliciting construction bids in access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway/ summer of 2016 State Route 79 South Pechanga Parkway Widening, PW15-14 $5,000,000 • Request for Proposals (RFP) for Widening of Pechanga Parkway between Via engineering design services and environmental document was posted on Gilberto to North Casino Drive PlanetBids on February 3, 2016 • Responses to the RFP are due February 25, 2016 Winchester Road at Roripaugh Ranch $92,000 • City Council approved the solicitation of Road Signal construction bids at the January 12, 2016 Provides for the design and construction of meeting modifications by providing designated left run movements from Roripaugh Road onto Winchester Road INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS City Hall Exterior LED Lighting/"Light It $67,482 . Received one Proposal to the RFP Up", PW15-05 . An additional appropriation has been Installation of exterior LED lighting at City Hall for recommended to complete this project the "Light It Up" events Fire Station 73 Living Quarters Upgrade, $1,859,500 . This project is complete PW13-07 . Grand Re-Opening is scheduled for Improvements to living and sleeping quarters to February 20, 2016 accommodate staff City ®f 9emecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT FEBRUARY 23, 2®16 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (continued) INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (continued) Pavement Rehabilitation Program $770,000 • This project is currently being re-advertised Old Town Front Street Pavement and for construction bids on PlanetBids Storm Drain Rehabilitation, PW12-14 • Bid Opening is scheduled for February 18, 2016 Replacement of the cross gutter at the south end of Old Town Front Street with underground pipes; rehabilitate Old Town Front Street from Temecula Parkway to First Street Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 $2,764,093 • Bid Opening was conducted on February 3, 2016 Design and construction of a park and ride facility in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground $648,888 • Notice to Proceed with Design and Enhancement, PW12-20 Fabrication was issued on June 9, 2015 Design and construct a new innovative play area • Design plans (90%) have been reviewed to replace the existing equipment and comments were provided to the designer •An agreement for construction will be executed at a later date PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED /CURRENT MILESTONES COST MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Playground Equipment Enhancement and $275,000 Priority list and replacement program being Safety Surfacing prepared Replace aging play structures and associated safety surfacing City ®f 9emecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT FEBRUARY 23, 2®16 PROJECT NAME ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES BRIEF DESCRIPTION LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DePortola Professional Building . Sewer tie in submittal back to EMWD for the fourth Located at the corner of DePortola Road and Margarita time due to existing utility conflicts Road Murrieta Creek Restoration Project . Creek restoration has been suspended until after Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood the rainy season Control and Water Conservation District Old Town Sewer Project . Sewer pipe installation from Third Street to the EMWD project located at located at Front Street and North Entrance to Old Town (North Arch) is Moreno Road to First Street currently underway • Portions of sewer pipe installation between the U- Haul site and Third Street, and Moreno Road and the North Entrance to Old Town (North Arch) are complete • Staff is working with EMWD and the Contractor on preparing Old Town Front Street for the Rod Run on March 3-4, 2016 Single Oak and Business Park Dr. . Re-aligned handicap ramps are under construction at this location • Expect narrow travel lanes during and after construction Terracina . The sewer main segment along Deer Hollow Standard Pacific Housing Development in County between Peach Tree Street and Peppercorn Drive is complete • Anticipate the sewer main segment between Pechanga Parkway and Peachtree Street will be constructed during the summer of 2016 Ynez Median Improvements . Re-alignment of center median to establish a south Ynez Road bound left turn pocket at the GMC Dealership is complete REQUESTS TO SPEAK City Council Meeting 02/23/16 i REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: 2, - 23-- 2-621t', 1 wish to speak on: lie omment CITY NCIL/ CSD/SARDA/THA/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: ub ❑ Agenda Item No. For F-1 Against El Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your 767Z--�- fcord. Name: p 7 Address: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or grou please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.