Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
052504 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meefing, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE MAY 25, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acquisition of three real properties located at First Street, a portion of the Temecula Rancho, County of Riverside, State of California, APN 961-010-004. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Rainbow Canyon, LLC. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady and Bill Hughes. 2. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation Involving the.City. The following case will be discussed: 1) City of Temecula v. County of Riverside (RCIP litigation — Riverside County Superior Court Case No. 402766). Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2004-06 Resolution: No. 2004-53 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Geoff Ryle Invocation: Pastor Ted Miller of Crossroads Church Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, Naggar R:Wgenda\052504 National Foster Care Month Proclamation California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 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, ten (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. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A RA1Agenda\052504 Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2004. 4 Amendment No. 2 to the License Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone S.A.F.E. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) for use of office space at the Temecula Community Center. Second Amendment to the Pool Maintenance Services Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Second Amendment with Certified Pool Water Specialists, which will exercise the City's option for a second one-year extension of the Agreement for an annual amount of $29,370.00, including contingency. The Agreement will be extended through June 30, 2005. First Amendment to Prudential Overall Supply Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the First Amendment with Prudential Overall Supply Company, which will exercise the City's option for a one-year extension of the Agreement for an annual amount of $13,660 including contingency. The agreement will be extended through June 30, 2005. Support of Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill (At the request of Councilman Roberts) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL SIX -YEAR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL R:Wgenda\052504 ite, Amendment No. 2 to Loan Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the City's Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Wolf Valley - Antelope Place Lateral, Project No. 7-0-0269, Tract Map No. 29798-4, Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the City of Temecula, and Wolf Creek Development LLC. 9.2 Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Ic1X6161T, Fir, ► • 10.1 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 10.2 Accept the Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond as security for the agreement. 11 Winchester Road (SR 79N) Maintenance Agreement with Riverside County 11X •uu FA 1097-1•► 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR A SEGMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (SR 79) LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AS PART OF THE FUTURE RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE ROUTE 79 TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SENATE BILL 87) 11.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Maintenance Agreement between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. RAAgenda\052504 11.3 Authorize the City Clerk's Office to forward five (5) executed copies of the Agreement and Resolution to the Riverside County Transportation Department for action by the Board of Supervisors. 12 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II, Project No. PW02-26 Award of a Construction Contract and Approval of Reimbursement Agreements 13 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PW02-26 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II, from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road to Griffith Company in the amount of $1,997,758.95 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 12.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $199,775.90, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 12.3 Approve a budget transfer in the amount of $760,000.00 from the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project to the Jefferson Avenue Rehabilitation — Phase II project to cover the construction costs. 12.4 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and the City of Temecula in the amount of $28,780 for Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II and authorize the City Manager to execute the reimbursement agreement. 12.5 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the City of Temecula in the amount of $6,720 for Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II and authorize the City Manager to execute the reimbursement agreement. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW04-11, Citywide Concrete Repairs — FY2003-04. 14 Traffic Signal for SR 79 South and Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09. Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Solicitation of Construction Bids RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the installation of a traffic signal on State Route (SR 79) South at Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09. R:Wgenda\052504 15 Irrigation Easement Deed within the Crowne Hill Development for Tract Mao No. 23143- 11 lots 102 & 103 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept irrigation easement deed from Greystone Homes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation for the perpetual easement and right-of-way for maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing irrigation equipment over and within the boundaries of Tract Map Nos. 23143-11 lots 102 and 103. 15.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the Irrigation Easement Deed. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:Wgenda\052504 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2004-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2004-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Washington PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of May 11, 2004. 2 Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2004. R:Wgenda\052504 DISTRICT BUSINESS 3 S.M.A.R.T. Program Presentation RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file report and PowerPoint presentation regarding the "Summer Months Activities and Recreation in Temecula" (S.M.A.R.T.) program. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:Wgenda\052504 ***#►'R##YrIYY�*#Yf**'t**##*'f**'f*#***k'tk**#"A`**********************#######i*##########*#######*****1t*****i#tl#######i## TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2004-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2004-07 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Stone, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of May 11, 2004. 2 Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004. R:\Agenda\052504 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 8, 2004, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Hgenda\052504 10 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 16 Citywide User Fee Study with Community Services Programs and Facilities Fees RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW CITYWIDE USER FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO.93-46 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FEE SCHEDULE, INDOOR/OUTDOOR FACILITY USE PROCEDURES AND FEE SCHEDULE, AND ATHLETIC FIELDS USE FEE SCHEDULE COUNCIL BUSINESS 17 Art in Public Places Ordinances =010 NA N14,29a 1C*]ZI 17.1 Hear and consider comments related to the establishment of an Arts in Public Places Ordinance. 17.2 Direct staff to incorporate any changes as specified by the City Council and include in the first reading on June 8, 2004. RAAgenda\052504 11 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:Wgenda\052504 12 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the family, serving as the primary source of love, identity, self-esteem, and support, is the very foundation of our communities and our State; and WHEREAS, in our Nation, there are 542,000 children and youth in foster care being provided with a safe, secure, and stable home, along with the compassion and nurture of a foster family; and WHEREAS, foster families, who open their homes and hearts to children whose families are in crisis, play a vital role in helping children and families heal and reconnect and launch children into successful adulthood; and WHEREAS, dedicated foster families frequently adopt foster children, resulting in a greater need for more foster families, and; WHEREAS, there are numerous individuals and public and private organizations who work to increase public awareness of the needs of children in foster care. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael S. Naggar, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim May, 2004 as "National Foster Care Month" and urge all citizens to volunteer their talents and energies on behalf of children in foster care, foster parents, and the child welfare professional staff working with them during this month and throughout the year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 25'" day Qf May, 2004. W , ' aggar, Mayor Susan W. Jogfes, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Calvin Devault of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Calvin and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25`" day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Jordan Blanchard of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Jordan and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25 h day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Cody Beeson of the California Cadet/Junior state Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Cody and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25th day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Patrick Martinez of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Patrick and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 250' day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Jeremy Dods of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Jeremy and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25s' day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Ethan Hall of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Ethan and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25 s day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Joseph Kubes of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Joseph and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 256day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Jake Meredith of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Jake and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25 " day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of Aaron Navarrete of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of Aaron and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25th day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of David Navarrete of the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team Who was chosen to travel to Japan to represent the State of California and will compete in several wrestling tournaments throughout the country. The team members were selected to take this excursion based on their accomplishments. Each wrestler was required to raise the money for this trip and was successful in meeting their goal. We are proud of David and the California Cadet/Junior State Championship Team. We wish them a fun and safe trip to Japan and the best of luck during their wrestling competitions. We are proud to have them represent the State of California and the City of Temecula. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 25 ° day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04- 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 RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $3,133,371.64. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 25'" day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 04-_ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 25`h day of May, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04- CITY OF TEMECULA ' LIST OF DEMANDS 05/07/04 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 1,631,941.23 05/13/04 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,170,662.29 05/06/04 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 330,768.12 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 05/25/04 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,133,371.64 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 532,807.63 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 12,879.54 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 193,526.89 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 39,251.87 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 40,352.36 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 686.16 210 CAPITAL IMPROV PROJECT FUND 1,627,733.53 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 2,750.00 274 JOHN WARNER AD 957.50 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -CIP PROJECT 298,203.54 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,934.90 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 30,176.15 330 SUPPORTSERVICES 3,387.38 340 FACILITIES 15,831.07 473 CROWNE HILL CFD 03-1 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,125.00 ' $ 2,802,603.52 001 GENERAL FUND 229,209.88 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 5,341.06 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 57,744.73 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 108.37 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 4,988.05 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 788.53 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -CIP PROJECT 2,474.05 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,028.08 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 21,458.24 330 SUPPORTSERVICES 1,854.20 340 FACILITIES 5,772.93 330,768.12 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,133,371.64 PREPARED BY RETA W ESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST 1 6"" - HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. GENE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINAN E I , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ' 0'i/ SH ELSON, CITY MANAGER apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 313 05/06/2004 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIU PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 59,087.78 59,087.78 314 05/06/2004 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA), OBRA - Project Retirement Payment 315 05/06/2004 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME PERS ER Paid Member Contr Pmt 316 05/06/2004 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SO Nationwide Retirement Payment 317 05/06/2004 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 318 05/06/2004 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 91678 05/04/2004 007638 PARDELL, CHRISTOPHER, A. 1st Pmt:Dsgn Svc:Veterans Memorial 91679 05/07/2004 005126 A E G SOLUTIONS CIP Auto CAD drawing supplies CIP Auto CAD drawing supplies 91680 05/07/2004 003552 A F L A C AFLAC Cancer Payment 91681 05/07/2004 003679 AEI CASC ENGINEERING Feb -Mar svcs: Jefferson Rehab Ph II 91682 05/07/2004 001916 ALBERT A W EBB ASSOCIATES And admin srvcs:CFD 01-3 Crwn Hill Consulting srvcs:CFD 88-12 Admin Consulting svcs:CFD 88-12 sales tax 91683 05/07/2004 005772 AMTEK INC Misc. Cell Phone Accessories Misc. Cell Phone Accessories 91684 05/07/2004 007645 ANDREWS, TERRI Refund: Golf Temeku Hills 91685 05/07/2004 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 91686 05/07/2004 002713 BALLOONS GALORE Bottled wtr servs 0 City Hall Bottled wtr servs 0 PW Mntc Bottled wtr servs 0 CRC Bottled wtr servs ® T.Museum Bottled wtr servs 0 Skate Park egg hunt balloons 0 4locations 91687 05/07/2004 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Install expansion value: TCC freezer 2,418.54 59,848.73 20,824.15 61,805.30 15,647.52 7,500.00 287.81 72.99 1,807.20 10,898.44 2,125.00 1,500.00 1,250.00 28.45 9.48 667.67 370.46 149.60 53.00 17.02 387.90 376.50 2,418.54 59,848.73 20,824.15 61,805.30 15,647.52 7,500.00 360.80 1,807.20 10,898.44 4,875.00 37.93 85.00 1,257.75 387.90 376.50 Page:1 apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check If Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91688 05/07/2004 003466 BASKET & BALLOONS TOO! Promotional Baskets for Econ Devel 431.00 Promotional Basket for Econ Devel 53.88 Prom Baskets S&H chrgs:Econ Devel 16.00 500.88 91689 05/07/2004 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Mar -Apr dsgn svc: R.C.Rd Widening 5,542.00 5,542.00 91690 05/07/2004 004423 BIG EDS CHAINSAW SERVICE I Large rotary saw for Fire Stn 73 - 1,357.65 1,357.65 91691 05/07/2004 005312 BITCH'N STITCH'N TCSD Uniform- XL winter Jacket 102.36 102.36 91692 05/07/2004 006721 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE Office Supplies: Finance 88.71 Office Supplies: Fire Prevention 68.60 Office Supplies: Fire Prevention 44.27 201.58 91693 05/07/2004 007082 BOUCHARD, TRACIE Refund: Yoga - Mom & Baby 48.00 48.00 91694 05/07/2004 004176 BROADW ING Apr Long distance &Internet svcs 2.088.46 2,088.46 91695 05/07/2004 004462 C D W GOVERNMENT INC HP/Cisco Interface Cards: IS 1,817.57 1,817.57 91696 05/07/2004 005384 CALIF BAGEL BAKERY & DELI Refreshments: Council closed session 168.09 168.09 91697 05/07/2004 000647 CALIF DEPT OF CONSUMER A Membership: Amer Attar 54853 150.00 150.00 91698 05/07/2004 000647 CALIF DEPT OF CONSUMER A Membership: Mayra De La Torre 482 150.00 150.00 91699 05/07/2004 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION S Membership: Herman Parker 19942 415.00 Membership: Cathy McCarthy 4842 125.00 540.00 91700 05/07/2004 007641 CALIFORNIA BUILDING Refund: Security Depst: 4/21/04 100.00 100.00 91701 05/07/2004 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 2,485.00 2,485.00 91702 05/07/2004 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refreshments: Library Prgm Mtg 138.27 138.27 91703 05/07/2004 007608 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL 03/04 Comm Service Funding Award 2,500.00 2,500.00 91704 05/07/2004 004653 COLLINS, NANCY E. Old 88-12 reimbursement 192.48 192.48 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91705 05/07/2004 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHART Community Health Charities Payment 163.00 163.00 91706 05/07/2004 007648 CONNELLY, LINDA Refund: Digital Cameras 2 70.00 70.00 91707 05/07/2004 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE Final Payment per OPA 291,527.84 291,527.84 91708 05/07/2004 003986 COZAD & FOX INC Mar -Apr dsgn svc: Pauba Rd waterline 3,213.50 Apr surveying svc:Pauba Rd Library 2,190.00 5,403.50 91709 05/07/2004 006490 CUMMINGS, KHRISTI Reimb: Fire Prev 2a Tmg:6/8-12 14.34 14.34 91710 05/07/2004 006535 DAVIS, TYRELL Reimb:CA Fire Exploring:4/11-16 385.28 385.28 91711 05/07/2004 007161 DIAMOND CENTRAL INVESTOR Refund: Grading Depst: PM 19353 995.00 995.00 91712 05/07/2004 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles: TCSD 61343 1,015.03 Fuel for city vehicles: Ld Devel 61345 778.89 Fuel for city vehicles:PW Mntc 61353 535.27 Fuel for city vehicles: B&S 61348 516.06 Fuel for city vehicles: Planning 61347 451.78 Fuel for city vehicles: Trffc 61953 221.09 Fuel for city vehicles:CIP 61351 190.85 Fuel for city vehicles: Code Enforc 87.14 Fuel for city vehicles:City Van 61349 68.00 3,864.11 91713 05/07/2004 002981 DYNA MED Aquatics supplies 178.57 178.57 91714 05/07/2004 003223 EDAW INC Mar mitigation plan: R.C.Rd Widening 1,062.50 Mar bio svcs: Pala Rd Bridge 399.63 1,462.13 91715 05/07/2004 003171 EMPIRE ECONOMICS LLC Market absorption svc:Harveston II CF 7,500.00 7,500.00 91716 05/07/2004 002438 ENGEN CORPORATION Mar 04 Geotech Srvcs:John Warner 957.50 957.50 91717 05/07/2004 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot Book Reports: Paisner 150.00 Lot Book Reports: Maniscalco 150.00 Lot Book Reports: Lord 150.00 450.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91718 05/07/2004 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER ACCELA.COM AE Accela Cf:7/19-22:C.Brockmeier 1,425.00 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC JC 4/23/04 Airfare fees 720.76 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & L DU CEOA subscription svcs 389.66 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES JC 4/21/04 AirFare fees 342.90 HERTZ RENT -A -CAR RR 4/20/04 Car rental svcs 259.09 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS AE ann'I mb CALBO: Anthony Elmo 215.00 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES RR 5/12/04 AirFare fees 193.40 BLACK ANGUS GT Refreshments:Assessment Group 143.59 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC[ DU Tmg:Place Making:5/26:Ubnoske 130.00 HYATT RR HtI:SCAG Regional Mtg:3/31-4/1 120.04 CAROL'S RESTAURANT AT JM Refreshments:Dept Team Building 101.00 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL GR Htl:CMTA Conf:4/19-23:Roberts 71.20 ONTARIO AIRPORT RR Overnight Prkg fees 69.00 UNIVERSITY CALIF SAN DIEGO JS UCSD Book purchase 63.97 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GT AirFare:Planner's lnst0ute:Papp 57.00 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL DU Plantmemory/OT Chairman spous 53.82 INTL ASSN OF PLUMBING AND AE Publications: UPC Study Guide 47.87 INTL ASSN OF PLUMBING AND AE Publications:UMC Study Guide 43.56 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURAN DU Refreshments:Planning Comm Mt 30.61 CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY RR 4/20-4/21/04 Meal expense 22.64 FATBURGER RIVERSIDE JM Refreshments:Educ Ctr Mtg 18.91 4,519.02 91719 05/07/2004 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS/CARE Bal Priorities Sem:7/8/04:Beswick 195.00 195.00 91720 05/07/2004 007639 GAMBLE, TRACY Refund: Picnic Shelter rental 25.00 25.00 91721 05/07/2004 007650 GONSMAN, GEORGEANNE Refund: Digital Cameras 2 70.00 70.00 91722 05/07/2004 004053 HABITAT WEST INC 3rd yr 4th Otr: Lg Cyn Basin mntc svc 700.00 4th yr 2th Otr: Lg Cyn Basin mntc svcs 650.00 4th yr 1st Otr: Lg Cyn Basin mntc svcs 650.00 Lg Cyn Basin mntc fees not billed 325.02 2,325.02 PageA apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91723 05/07/2004 007643 HAERR, DENISE Refund: Kitchen Survival 12.00 12.00 91724 05/07/2004 007459 HAMMARSTROM, GWEN WEND TCSD instructor earnings 134.40 134.40 91725 05/07/2004 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 568.32 Hardware supplies: TCSD 551.78 Hardware supplies: CRC 286.53 Hardware supplies: City Hall 172.86 Hardware supplies: C. Museum 60.72 Hardware supplies: PW Mntc 57.43 Hardware supplies: Recreation 9.80 1,707.44 91726 05/07/2004 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD 5 computers for C. Museum 9,191.07 146GB Hard Drive:lnfo System 3,478.17 12,669.24 91727 05/07/2004 002107 HIGHMARK INC Voluntary Supp Life Insurance 637.00 637.00 91728 05/07/2004 007640 HILTON, SHEILA Refund: Picnic Shelter rental 40.00 40.00 91729 05/07/2004 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS 1 Qtr Sales tax consultingtrecovery fee 23,342.40 23,342.40 91730 05/07/2004 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support Payment 17.03 17.03 91731 05/07/2004 006052 HORTON, MIKE Reimb: Voorburg gift packaging fee 80.82 80.82 91732 05/07/2004 003624 HOW ELL, ANN MARIE San Diego/Anaheim Ad layouts 131.99 131.99 91733 05/07/2004 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 1 C M A Retirement Payment 7,235.26 7,235.26 91734 05/07/2004 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 368.72 368.72 91735 05/07/2004 004908 JIFFY LUBE 1878 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs:B&S 32.33 32.33 91736 05/07/2004 003280 JON LASKIN BAND Sound Eng: Youth Jazz Event 500.00 500.00 91737 05/07/2004 002575 JONES, SUSAN W. Reimb:'04 CCAC Conf:4/21-23 25.03 25.03 91738 05/07/2004 003046 K F R O G 95.1 FM RADIO 4117 Broadcast: Youth Jazz Event 500.00 500.00 Pages apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91739 .05/07/2004 006929 KING, LISA Refund:intro: Flower Design 75.00 75.00 91740 05/07/2004 006120 LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED 4117 Performance: Youth Jazz Event 200.00 200.00 91741 05/07/2004 007644 IANGTON, KAREN Refund: Golf Temeku Hills 85.00 85.00 91742 05/07/2004 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES Pub:'04 CA Muni Law Handbook 166.00 166.00 91743 05/07/2004 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Paramedic squad supplies: Fire 2,283.04 2,283.04 91744 05/07/2004 004697 LOWES HIW INC PW Trffc Signal Tech tools & equip 944.16 944.16 91745 06/07/2004 007630 MACY'S ee recognition: W. Maxwell 100.00 100.00 91746 05/07/2004 004141 MAINTEX INC City Hall Custodial Supplies 252.33 252.33 91747 05/07/2004 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS Mrkt/Promotion Svcs:Westem Days 2,000.00 Reimb. Expenses:Jazz Festival 124.00 2,124.00 91748 05/07/2004 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE Met Life Dental Payment 8,244.32 8,244.32 91749 05/07/2004 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING I Repair Gate @ the Sports Park 250.00 250.00 91750 05/07/2004 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Business Cards: R.PJ15 PW Eng. St 757.32 Business Cards: PW Comm./4 Traff. 745.63 Busness Cards: G.BJA.AJEng. Staff 743.69 Business Cards:B.HJB.B./PW Admin 401.05 Business Cards:Tem. Citizen Corps 128.49 Business Cards: B. Gutierrez 42.83 2,819.01 91751 05/07/2004 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIP Playground Equipment Labels 34.03 34.03 91752 05/07/2004 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSD Instructor Earnings 201.60 201.60 91753 05/07/2004 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES May EOC Stn Satellite Phone Svcs 70.71 70.71 91754 05/07/2004 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING remove sand/debris from desisting bas 21,500.00 Citywide R-O-W Dirt Shoulder Grading 4,350.00 Citywide Dirt Shoulder Grading 1,265.00 27,115.00 Pages apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91755 05/07/2004 007649 MOORE, PAM Refund: National Scrap Day Wkshp 27.00 27.00 91756 05/07/2004 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALIFORN May Music Broadcast: Old Town 64.86 64.86 91757 05/07/2004 002995 MYRON MANUFACTURING CO promotional pens: Econ. Dev. 296.82 296.82 91758 05/07/2004 006077 N T H GENERATION COMPUTIN Backup Exec Windows v9.1 SAN 1,027.00 1,027.00 91759 05/07/2004 004508 NAGGAR, MICHAEL S. Reimb: Cities Policy Committee: 3/19 17.00 17.00 91760 05/07/2004 002898 NIXON EGLI EQUIPMENT COMP Patch Truck Parts: PW Maint. Div. 119.26 Patch Truck Parts: PW Maint. Div. 97.50 216.76 91761 05/07/2004 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Renew Subscription: I.S. 457129 100.80 100.80 91762 05/07/2004 004401 NU VISION PRODUCTIONS Dpst:taping/edit video:every 15 min 1,240.50 1,240.50 91763 05/07/2004 006901 NUGENT, RANDY Reimb:Fire-Rescue Med:4/25-27/04 709.85 709.85 91764 05/07/2004 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies:PD Storefront Stn 129.62 Office Supplies:Planning 92.52 Office Supplies:Aquatics 66.03 Office Supplies:PD Storefront Stn 60.91 349.08 91765 05/07/2004 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 363.21 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 291.24 City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 49.09 703.54 91766 05/07/2004 007646 OMOTO, MARGARITA Refund:Tennis - Beginning Adult 55.00 55.00 91767 05/07/2004 006206 ON THE BORDER '04 Cinco De Mayo Fiesta 50.10 50.10 91768 05/07/2004 001619 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER I as recruitment ads for H.R. Dept. 492.49 492.49 91769 05/07/2004 003955 PANE CONSULTING SERVICE ( Staff Shirts: TCSD Team Bldg 895.99 Tote Bags:MPSC Event:5/15/04 389.93 1,285.92 91770 05/07/2004 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG PERS Long Tenn Care Payment 288.65 288.55 91771 05/07/2004 000249 PETTY CASH Petry Cash Reimbursement 300.72 300.72 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91772 05/07/2004 005539 PINKHAM, ROCHELLE Refund: Teen -Kitchen Survival 6.00 6.00 91773 05/07/2004 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES I Prepaid Legal Services Payment 360.70 360.70 91774 05/07/2004 002880 PRO -CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY Res Imp Prgm: Jacques, Jesse 4,111.00 4,111.00 91775 05/07/2004 005563 R E FLEMING CONSTRUCTION Rel. Retention: C. Museum: PW02-01 25,954.13 25,954.13 91776 05/07/2004 000981 R H F INC - Repair/Maint:P.D. Radar Equipment 13.55 13.55 91777 05/07/2004 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Feb Dsgn Svcs:Wolf Crk Sports Compl 5,638.64 5,638.64 91778 05/07/2004 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Apr 01-99-02003-0 Floating Mir 309.31 Apr 02-79-10100-1 NW Sports Prk 91.72 401.03 91779 05/07/2004 005062 RAWLINGS, PHIL Reimb:Medio/Emerg. Med. Text Books 425.94 425.94 91780 05/07/2004 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE ApplJHerbicides:City R-O-W's/Lots 12,000.00 12,000.00 91781 05/07/2004 007402 RICHARD BRADY & ASSOCIATE Mar Dsgn Svcs:West Wing Expansion 10,777.50 10,777.50 91782 05/07/2004 006832 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK OF THE Deposit:Diaz Rd. Prjt:apn 921-040-028 161,362.00 161,362.00 91783 05/07/2004 006932 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK OF THE Deposit:Diaz Rd Prjt:apn 921-020-039 7,460.00 7,460.00 91784 05/07/2004 006832 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK OF THE Deposit:Diaz Rd Prjt:apn 921-020-075 2,000.00 2,000.00 91785 05/07/2004 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Mar Police Radio Rental/Websit 4,563.80 4,563.80 91786 05/07/2004 000357 RIVERSIDE CO 3rd Otr Traf. SgnVLighting Maint. 35,172.00 35,172.00 91787 05/07/2004 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD Instructor Earnings 624.00 624.00 91788 05/07/2004 007642 S.R. BRAY CORP. Refund:Temp Power Pole Permit 125.00 125.00 91789 05/07/2004 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION Safeguard Vision Plan Payment 1,039.42 1,039.42 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91790 05/07/2004 005929 SAN BERNARDINO CO FIRE Fire Prev. 3A:6/7-11/04:M. Horton 325.00 325.00 91791 05/07/2004 002191 SAN DIEGAN San Diegan Ad Space: Econ. Dev. 6,027.00 6,027.00 91792 05/07/2004 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment 33.24 33.24 91793 05/07/2004 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment 12.50 12.50 91794 05/07/2004 007660 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO Grant Supplies/Bolt Kit: Fire Dpt. 140.04 140.04 91795 05/07/2004 000645 SMART & FINAL INC TCC Recreation Supplies 70.34 70.34 91796 05/07/2004 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Apr 2-00-397-5042 City Hall 5,418.65 Apr 2-02-502-8077 West Wing 1,334.59 Apr 2-20-798-3248 C. Museum 769.31 Apr 2-00-397-5067 Various Mfrs 764.90 Apr 2-10-331-2153 TCC 678.61 Apr 2-19-683-3263 Various Mfrs 400.52 Apr 2-22-575-0876 O.T. Front St. 210.77 Apr 2-18-528-9980 Santiago Rd. 42.64 9,619.99 91797 05/07/2004 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY permit for emerg. generator @ CRC 201.77 emission fee:emerg generator @ CRC 75.00 276.77 91798 05/07/2004 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST Pest Control Svcs: CRC 90.00 Pest Control Svcs: T. Museum 42.00 Pest Control Svcs: West Wing 40.00 Pest Control Svcs: TCC 36.00 Pest Control Svcs: Wedding Chpl 32.00 Pest Control Svcs: Sr Ctr 29.00 Pest Control Svcs: P.D. Caboose 29.00 298.00 91799 05/07/2004 005786 SPRINT 3115-4/14/04 Call Phone Svcs 6,585.44 Cell phones:Council/Code Enf/PW 2,185.77 8,771.21 91800 05/07/2004 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN April 2004 Workers' Comp Premium 41,572.64 41,572.64 91801 05/07/2004 003840 STRONGS PAINTING Painting Svcs: Vail Ranch Wall 2,900.00 2,900.00 91802 05/07/2004 000305 TARGET STORE MPSC Recreation Supplies 56.46 56.46 91803 05/07/2004 007095 TEAM TEMECULA WRESTLING 03104 Comm Service Funding Award 1,600.00 1,500.00 Page9 apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Final Check List CITYOFTEMECULA Page: 10 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91804 05/07/2004 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 3,483.00 3,483.00 91805 05/07/2004 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN City Tile Plaque:49th Congressional 115.62 Engr. Easel: Sister Cities April 2004 12.72 128.34 91806 05/07/2004 003067 TEMECULA VALLEY R V SERV Repair/Maint:P.D. Command Post Tlr 316.84 316.84 91807 05/07/2004 003715 TMT PATHWAY LLC Traf. Marking Paint: PW Stencil Trk 608.80 608.80 91808 05/07/2004 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL Parts/Supplies: PW Maint. Div. 91.68 91.68 91809 05/07/2004 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTIO Prgs Pmt #1: Comm. Thtr: PW02.23 517,938.97 517,938.97 91810 05/07/2004 005873 TRI AD ACTUARIES INC Child Care Reimbursement Payment 6,748.11 6,748.11 91811 05/07/2004 005873 TRI AD ACTUARIES INC Mar Administration Fees 340.00 Apr Administration Fees 323.00 663.00 91812 05/07/2004 005592 TWINING LABORATORIES Mar Geotech Testing Svcs 429.00 429.00 91813 05/07/2004 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 385.00 385.00 91814 05/07/2004 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI Longterm Disability Payment 6,734.06 6,734.06 91815 05/07/2004 003497 VAIL RANCH MIDDLE SCHOOL Entertainment: Dickens:12/13/03 150.00 150.00 91816 05/07/2004 006807 VANIR CONSTRUCTION Feb Constr. Mgmt Svcs:Comm. Thtr 15,389.03 Jan Constr. Mgmt Svcs:Comm. Thtr 13,110.00 28,499.03 91817 05/07/2004 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA Apr xxx-9897 General Usage 89.73 89.73 91818 05/07/2004 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Internet svcs: xx0544 69.95 Internet svcs: xx7411 69.95 139.90 91819 05/07/2004 006612 WEATHERPROOFING TECH, I Senior Center Roof Restoration 36,452.84 36,452.84 91820 05/07/2004 003835 WEST COAST SAFETY SUPPLY Parts/Service: PW Maint Div. 59.99 59.99 91821 05/07/2004 000339 WEST PUBLISHING CORP Legislative Svc Subscr.City Clerk Opt. 255.00 255.00 Page:10 apChkLst 05/07/2004 9:54:12AM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check Date Vendor 91822 05/07/2004 007634 WING, SALLY Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Description Amount Paid Refund:Sec.Deposit:MPSC 100.00 Grand Total All Checks: Page: 11 Check Total 100.00 1,631,941.23 Page:11 apChkLst 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 319 05/11/2004 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE APN 922-0420-007 property purchase 260,950.00 260,950.00 320 05/11/2004 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE APN 922-032-021,22,28 properties pu 429,767.02 429,767.02 321 05/13/2004 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE APN 922-035-015, 016 properties pure 108,947.00 108,947.00 91823 05/13/2004 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD instructor earnings 663.24 663.24 91824 05/13/2004 004064 ADELPHIA May high speed internet svcs 28.95 28.95 91825 05/13/2004 003129 ALBERTOS TCC Cinco de Mayo Event 301.70 301.70 91826 05/13/2004 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 362.40 DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 90.00 452.40 91827 05/13/2004 005772 AMTEK INC Cell phone car charger: IS 60.34 60.34 91828 05/13/2004 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALL Apr Animal control services 7,250.00 7,250.00 91829 05/13/2004 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help PPE 5/1 Wills 580.80 Temp help PPE 4/24 Wills 580.80 Temp help PPE 4/24 Douvres 540.00 Temp help PPE 4/24 Lee 528.00 Temp help PPE 5/1 Lee 528.00 Temp help PPE 4/24 Alexander 312.18 Temp help PPE 4/24 Medina 275.88 Temp help PPE 5/1 Barrett -Scott 108.00 3,453.66 91830 05/13/2004 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY TCSD mntc staff uniform shirts 727.31 727.31 91831 05/13/2004 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGERA Electrical repairs 0 Fire Stn 84 430.00 430.00 91832 05/13/2004 007675 BEACON SEMINAR Field Mntc Sem:6/23:Wiechec7Thurma 198.00 198.00 91833 05/13/2004 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Apr temp Bldg & Sfty inspector help 15,353.58 15,353.58 91834 05/13/2004 006721 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE Office Supplies: Code Enforcement 46.83 Office Supplies: Finance 33.10 79.93 Page:1 apChkLst 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91835 05/13/2004 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES May Old Twn Restroom lease 826.00 826.00 91836 05/13/2004 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS ABM Prof Devel:Donaldson 155.00 155.00 91 B37 05/13/2004 000647 CALI F DE PT OF CONSUMER A License: William Hughes 36617 150.00 150.00 91838 05/13/2004 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD 28.40 28.40 91839 05/13/2004 007664 CHIMILESKI, ROSSANA Refund: Cartooning - Funny People 30.00 30.00 91840 05/13/2004 004210 CIRCUIT CITY Digital camera for Fire Inspector 382.43 Digital camera for Fire Inspector 382.43 Digital camera for Fire Inspector 382.43 Flash memory for Fire digital camera 64.65 1,211.94 91841 05/13/2004 001193 COMP U S A INC Misc computer supplies: Into System 462.45 Misc computer supplies: Info System 118.74 Misc computer supplies: Inf System 62.96 644.15 91842 05/13t2004 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & Mother/Son date night entertainment 190.00 190.00 91843 05/13/2004 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Install panic button: City Hall 60.00 60.00 91844 05/1312004 005017 CONGRESS OF HISTORY Membership: Wendell Ott T.Museum 12.00 12.00 91845 05/13/2004 001264 COSTCO W HOLESALE Confetti cut shredder:Finance 172.39 172.39 91846 05/13/2004 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVA Repair main line @ Margarita Prk 140.00 140.00 91847 05/13/2004 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON GIS Plotter Paper and Ink 220.35 220.35 91848 05/13/2004 004569 DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATE Dec -Jan Special tax svcs:Rodpaugh C 2,715.96 Feb -Mar Special tax svos:Roripaugh C 951.82 Oct Special tax svcs:Roripaugh CFD 84.48 3,752.26 91849 05/13t2G04 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES May Federal lobbyist svcs 3,000.00 3,000.00 91 B50 05/13/2004 000684 DIEHL EVANS & COMPANY LLP Review Franchise Fee:CR&R 900.00 900.00 91851 05/13/2004 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Apr special events premiums 1,263.90 1,263.90 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91852 05/13/2004 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Temp help PPE 4/16 Grove 2,213.60 Temp help PPE 4/16 Rush 239.13 2,452.73 91853 05/13/2004 005052 EMCOR SERVICE H.V.A.C. repair @ C.Museum 347.99 347.99 91854 05/13/2004 003665 EMERITUS COMMUNICATIONS Apr long distance phone svcs 70.29 70.29 91855 05/13/2004 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD Refreshments: Stakeholders Mtg 240.55 240.55 91856 05/13/2004 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Mar Idscp svcs: Slope Area 25,731.00 Mar Idscp svcs: Medians 6,924.00 Mar Idscp svcs:Var. City Fac 6,686.00 39,341.00 91857 05/13/2004 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 431.72 Express mail services 203.66 Express mail services 160.40 795.78 91858 05/13/2004 007663 FEINBERG, CAROLE Refund: Fun -Fit -Fab 22.00 22.00 91859 05/13/2004 002932 FENCE BUILDERS Res Imp Prgm: Lovell, Beverly 1,941.50 1,941.50 91860 05/13/2004 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GY AirFare:Ckizen Corp:Arbogast:5/4 193.40 007652 SOUTHEN CALIF EMERG SVC A GY Emerging Lessons:Adams:4/27 95.00 007517 PECHANGA RESORT & CASINO GY Refrshmnts:State of the City Prep 56.80 000310 TEMECULA CREEK INN INC GY Refrshmnts:Staff teambuilding 42.00 007651 FILIPPIS PIZZA GROTTO GY Refrshmnts:Business Mtg 39.00 426.20 91861 05/13/2004 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL MED EE physicals and drug testing 185.00 185.00 91862 05/13/2004 004239 FISHER SEHGAL YANEZ INC Apr design svcs:Old Town Theater 8,540.63 8,640.63 91863 05/13/2004 006531 FORMOE, GARY Reimb: IAPMO certification 185.00 185.00 91864 05/13/2004 000173 GENERAL BINDING CORPORAT Binding and lamination supplies 493.29 493.29 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91865 05/13/2004 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office supplies: PW 660.65 Office Supplies: City Clerk 344.02 Office Supplies: Ctd Svcs 210.53 Office supplies: Eco Devel 163.88 Office Supplies:Records Mgmt 151.52 Office Supplies: Info System 130.55 Office Supplies: Bldg & Safety 117.08 Office Supplies: City Mgr 67.58 1,845.81 91866 05/13/2004 007661 GONZALEZ, MAGGIE Refund: Golf Temeku Hills 85.00 85.00 91867 05/13/2004 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 91868 05/13/2004 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD 91869 05/13/2004 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE 91870 05/13/2004 000193 1 C M A 91871 05/13/2004 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE 91872 05/13t2004 001186 IRWIN, JOHN 91873 05/13/2004 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC 91874 05/13/2004 000548 KIPLINGER LETTER, THE 91875 05/13/2004 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. 91876 05/13t2004 007665 LEE, DINA Hardware supplies: Bldg & Safety Hardware supplies: Fire Dept Hardware supplies: Info System HP Designjet Printer for Police 7 SDRAM Memory Upgrade Design city profile/quick facts brochure Website tourism mstrhead design Mb: James O'Grady 163374 Microfilm and backup tape storage TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Balloon & Wine banners date chg Sub: Michael Nagger 0054669163 TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Refund: Color Me Mine -Kids 91877 05/13/2004 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICE Apr svcs-library system agrmnt Apr Svcs -library system agrmnt 91878 O5/13/2004 006897 LORY, SUSAN, J. TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 623.62 103.06 99.96 3,518.04 1,681.98 754.25 150.85 1,268.70 SrP-1Pk! 388.00 56.00 1,078.78 79.00 708.00 492.00 60.00 8,794.46 1,286.90 392.00 301.00 238.00 189.00 168.00 826.64 5,200.02 905.10 1,268.70 402.25 444.00 1,078.78 79.00 1,200.00 60.00 10,081.36 1,288.00 PageA apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 O5/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91879 05/13/2004 000394 MAINTENANCE Mbrshp Renewals:Hughes/Buron/Wes 120.00 120.00 91880 05/13/2004 004141 MAINTEX INC Custodial Supplies: West Wing 91881 05/13/2004 004068 MANALILI, AILEEN TCSD Instructor Earnings 91882 05/13/2004 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN Apr Softball Officiating Svcs 91883 05/13/2004 007210 MIDORI GARDENS 91884 05/13/2004 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 91885 05/13/2004 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 91886 05/13/2004 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES 91887 05/13/2004 003382 O'GRADY, JAMES B. 91888 05/1312G04 002292 OASIS VENDING Apr Neighborhood Parks Ldscp Svcs Correction Notices: B&S Dpt. Business Cards: B. Yasinosky Business Cards: J. Oldham Business Cards: M. Adarbeh equip parts/supplies: PW equip partstsupplies: PW equip parts/supplies: PW Apr Public Ntcs:City Clerk Apr recruitment ads for H.R. Dpt. Apr Easter Egg Hunt Ad:TCSD Solid State Stamping Lobby:5/3-4 City Hall Kitchen/Coffee Supplies 91889 05/13/2004 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:PD Storefront 91890 05/13/2004 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs 91891 05/13/2004 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES Apr Duck Pond Water Maint. Svcs 91892 05/13/2004 005152 PACIFIC PRODUCTS & Post anchors for signs: PW Hardware/Sign Posts:PW 91893 05/13/2004 003955 PANE CONSULTING SERVICE( Central Svcs Uniforms/Shirts 91894 05/13/2004 006812 PAPAGOLOS, GUS Reimb:Teambldg:5/06/04 121.18 379.20 3,525.00 30,000.00 375.24 42.83 42.83 42.83 96.96 29.08 1.64 729.30 656.00 195.73 97.89 212.24 195.50 932.03 134.10 34.19 19.19 750.50 1,508.50 1,067.26 214.64 114.51 121.18 379.20 3,525.00 30,000.00 503.73 127.68 1,581.03 97.89 212.24 195.50 1,119.51 750.50 2,575.76 214.64 114.51 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91895 05/13/2004 003218 PELA Apr Planning Plan Check Svcs 10,516.00 10,516.00 91896 05/13/2004 002331 PEP BOYS INC Misc. Parts & Supplies: PW Maint Credit: Item Returned: PW Maint 91897 05/13/2004 007679 PERFORMANCE INSTITUTE, TH Homeland Sec.Summit:6/28-30:J.P. 91898 05/13/2004 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 91899 05/13/2004 007484 PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS I Heartstart Onsite Trainer Infant/Child SMART pads/cartridge 91900 05/13/2004 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA Apr Film/Photo Dev:PW/Econ Dev. 91901 05/13/2004 000253 POSTMASTER Express Mail & Postal Svcs 91902 05/13/2004 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Apr Recruitment Ads for H.R. Dpt. 91903 05/13/2004 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPL Apr Fir Mats/Twls/Uniform Rentals 91904 05/13t2004 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 91905 05/13/2004 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 91906 05/13/2004 004594 REGENCY LIGHTING 91907 05/13/2004 000266 RIGHTWAY 91908 05/13/2004 000352 RIVERSIDE CO ASSESSOR 91909 05/13/2004 005785 RIVERSIDE CO EMS Various Water Meters Various Water Meters Various Water Meters Various Water Meters Dup Blueprints:Jefferson Pvmnt Reha Dup. Blueprints:Pechanga Pkwy Impry Dup. Blueprints:Murrieta Crk Parks Electrical Supplies Old Town Electrical Supplies Old Town Electrical Supplies Credit: Items Returned: Parks Equip Rental - Paseo Park May Assessor Maps: B&S Dpt. EMT/Paramedic Re-Certif:R.Nugent 91910 05/13/2004 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Triathlon Patrol Svcs:3/14/04 Bluegrass Festival Patrol Svcs:3/20-2 253.35 -75.98 1,495.00 388.18 762.87 289.63 160.11 90.45 3,747.10 796.40 18,853.92 859.03 283.41 100.41 75.02 45.33 23.08 675.33 83.98 83.98 -675.33 rA'l:7 24.00 50.00 3,272.20 1,493.65 177.37 1,495.00 388.18 1,052.50 160.11 90.45 3,747.10 796.40 20,096.77 143.43 167.96 60.78 24.00 50.00 4,765.85 Pages apChkLst 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check M Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91911 05/13/2004 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP DUI/Hor.Gaze: 5/19-20:B.DeLoss 70.00 70.00 91912 05/13/2004 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF renew permit: West Wing 473.00 473.00 91913 05/13/2004 001624 ROBERTS, GENIE Reimb:CMTA Conf:4/19-23/04 13.36 13.36 91914 05/13/2004 006205 ROSAS CAFE & TORTILLA FAC Refreshments:TCC special event 74.73 74.73 91915 05/13/2004 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Neighborhood Events Rec. Supplies 91.88 91.88 91916 05/13/2004 007666 SAFFELL, MONICA Refund:National Scrap Day Wksp 27.00 27.00 91917 05/13/2004 001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN Effective Presentations:4/1:Fisk/Cole 270.00 270.00 91918 05/13/2004 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE Apr recruitment ads for H.R. Dpt. 474.58 474.58 91919 05/13/2004 006615 SCAN NATOA INC Cable Svcs/Renew Franchise:5/20 125.00 125.00 91920 05/13/2004 004609 SHREDFORCE INC Apr Document Shred Svos:Rcrd Mgmt 110.00 Document shred smc:Police O.T. Sin 24.00 134.00 91921 05/13/2004 000645 SMART & FINAL INC CIP Workshop Supplies:Finance 20.88 20.88 91922 05/13/2004 000537 SO CALIF EDISON May 2-01-202-7330 Various Mfrs 35,743.61 May 2-01-202-7603 Arterial St Lt 13,502.31 May 2-02-351-5281 CRC 5,073.50 May 2-00-987-0775 Vail Ranch 4,521.56 Apr 2-05-791-8807 Various Mira 4,117.02 May 2-06-105-0654 Various Mtrs 2,014.15 May 2-10-331-1353 Fire Stn 84 764.82 May 2-23-693-2810 Pala Rd 34.86 May 2-24-077-3069 Pala Rd 31.09 May 2-23-548-1975 Various Mire 27.09 65,830.01 91923 05/13/2004 000926 SO CALIF EDISON Electr. Svcs Connection:R.CJBus.Prk 4,313.79 4,313.79 91924 05/13/2004 000926 SO CALIF EDISON Electr. Svcs Connection:Diaz/Rancho 3,725.94 3,725.94 91925 05/13/2004 007677 SOS PRINTING AND GRAPHICS violation notice door hangers: Code En 141.23 141.23 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: a 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 91926 05/13/2004 004163 SPORTS CHALET (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total Tiny Tot FUNdamentals Equipment 70.74 70.74 91927 05/13/2004 007417 STRACK, MARIA Refund:Overpmt:Miss Sues Dance 8.75 8.75 91928 05/13/2004 007273 STUMPS PRINTING COMPANY I Decorations for volunteer recogn event 148.72 148.72 91929 05/13/2004 003449 T H E SOILS COMPANY INC Site Assessments:Main/Mercedes St. 8,950.00 environment svcs assessments ph 1 1,650.00 10,600.00 91930 05/13/2004 000305 TARGET STORE Tiny Tot FUNdamentals Supplies 124.98 TCC Recreation Supplies 93.79 Aquatics Program Supplies 77.88 MPSC Recreation Supplies 69.11 Office Supplies for PW Dpt. 63.02 428.78 91931 05/13/2004 005985 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION G Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 1,021.95 Printer Supplies:I.S.Dpt. 647.58 Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 608.79 Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 586.16 Printer Supplies/Cartddges:I.S.Dpt. 490.96 Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 463.20 Printer Supplies:I.S.Dpt. 457.94 Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 290.93 Printer Supplies/Cartridges:I.S.Dpt. 159.47 Printer Supplies:I.S.Dpt. 94.43 Credit: Price Adjustment -21.21 Credit: Price Adjustment -36.56 Credit: Price Adjustment -48.85 Credit: Price Adjustment -54.95 Credit Freight Charges -55.00 Credit: Price Adjustment -74.64 Credit: Price Adjustment -101.29 Credit: Price Adjustment -109.26 Credit: Price Adjustment -292.00 Credit Freight Charges -422.95 Credit: Price Adjustment -490.98 Credit: Price Adjustments -1,385.96 1,727.86 91932 05/13/2004 006465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Vehicle Maint Svcs:Fire Prev. 298.27 298.27 91933 05/13/2004 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Copier & Fax Supplies:Central Svcs 517.20 517.20 91934 05/13/2004 004260 TEMECULA STAMP & GRAPHIC Stamps for Plan Checks:Fire Prev. 175.02 175.02 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91935 05/13/2004 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY Oct -Dec Bus Bench PlacemenUMaint 3,000.00 Jan -Mar Bus Bench PlacemenUMaint 3,000.00 Apr -Jun Bus Bench PlacemenUMaint 3,000.00 9,000.00 91936 05/13/2004 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN Overland Bridge Dedication Plaque 1,040.87 2" City Seal Coins 994.75 Sports Recreation Supplies 108.72 2,144.34 91937 05/13/2004 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & SU CRC Valve Parts for Shower Handles 470.44 470.44 91938 05/13/2004 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA T. TCSD Instructor Earnings 48.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 36.00 84.00 91939 05/13/2004 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL Replacement Parts/Supplies: PW 152.53 152.53 91940 05/13/2004 005567 TOTL GEAR LLC 1st Place Winter Softball Awards 2,081.77 1st Place Winter Softball Awards 1,005.25 2nd Place Softball Awards:TCSD 730.77 Turkey Trot Tourney 2003 Awards 351.69 Summer Basketball 2003 Awards 313.18 Labor Day Tourney 2003 Awards 207.28 Labor Day Tourney 2003 Awards 114.65 Turkey Trot Tourney 2003 Awards 48.86 4,853.45 91941 05/13/2004 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP Temp Help w/e 05/02 Bradley 520.00 Temp Help We 04125 Bradley 520.00 1,040.00 91942 05/13/2004 004895 TUMBLES, J.W. TCSD Instructor Earnings 230.40 TCSD Instructor Earnings 140.80 TCSD Instructor Earnings 76.80 TCSD Instructor Earnings 76.80 TCSD Instructor Earnings 70.40 595.20 91943 05/13/2004 006637 V C A CODE GROUP Apr Plan Check Svcs: B&S Dpt. 12,094.24 12,094.24 91944 05/13/2004 004504 VAIL RANCH SELF STORAGE May Offsite Storage:Records Mgmt 30.00 30.00 PageB apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 05/13/2004 1:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 91945 05/13/2004 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA Apr xxx-5029 General Usage 653.14 Apr xxx-1408 P.D. O.T. Stn. 297.11 Apr xxx-5509 General Usage 146.79 Apr xxx-1540 O.T. Parking 89.73 Apr xxx-1999 General Usage 34.97 Apr xxx-5780 General Usage 31.20 Apr xxx-5840 General Usage 30.16 Apr xxx-2629 Nagger 28.79 Apr xxx-0049 General Usage 28.22 Apr xxx-2670 911 Auto Dialer 27.91 Apr xxx-2730 Elevator 27.91 1,395.93 91946 05/13/2004 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. Apr access -CRC phone line 347.84 Apr access-Rvsd Cc phone line 271.75 619.59 91947 05/13/2004 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Internet svcs/EOC backup @ Stn 84 69.95 69.95 91948 05/13/2004 001890 VORTEX DOORS Stn 84 Garage Doors MainVRepairs 91949 05/13/2004 001881 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS I Summer Aquatics Prgm Supplies 2004 Summer Aquatics Prgm T-Shirts 91950 05/13/2004 007482 WE CARE COMPANY Install fire safety trailer interior 91951 05/13/2004 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Citywide Tree Trimming Maint Svcs 91952 05/13/2004 007662 WEST, OLIVIA Refund:Overpmt:Miss Sues Dance 91953 05/13/2004 005995 WESTWAYS & JOURNEY PUBL May/Jun Westways Magazine Ads 91954 05/13/2004 002109 WHITECAP INDUSTRIES INC Misc. Maintenance Supplies: PIN 91955 05/13/2004 004829 WILSON GROUP LLC, THE State lobbyist svcs for City issues 91956 05/13/2004 004774 WOODCREST UNIFORMS Uniforms for P.D. Motorcycle Squad P.D. explorertvolunteer pgrms uniform 91957 05/13/2004 007678 WYNDHAM MGMT CORP HO:Homeland Sec:6/28.30:#30678817 2,687.04 818.15 195.00 27,376.00 1,344.50 17.50 4,120.00 258.11 3,500.00 693.63 230.29 515.25 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 2,687.04 1,013.15 27,376.00 1,344.50 17.50 4,120.00 258.11 3,500.00 923.92 515.25 1,170,662.29 Page10 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTO CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 PREPARED BY: Jason Simpson, Assistant Finance Director Y1s Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant M V RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the City for the nine months ended March 31, 2004. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Combining Balance Sheet (Internal Service Funds) as of March 31,2004 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings (Internal Service Funds) for the Nine Months Ended March 31,2004 Combining Balance Sheet (Community Facilities Districts) as of March 31, 2004 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (Community Facilities Districts) for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 and the Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 And the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes In Retained Earnings For The Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department City of Temecula Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Advances to other funds Deposits Land held for resale Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Due to other funds Other current liabilities Deferred revenue Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances Please note that these balances are unaudited General Gas Tax State Trans Dev Impact CDBG Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund $ 22,322,498 $ 73,121 $ 14,914,940 3,907,932 257 52,171 1,868,097 $ 3,010,280 49,609 $ 31,158,416 $ $ 73,378 $ 14,967,111 $ 7,231,831 627,604 $ 69,971 7,859,435 69,971 3,059,889 19,957,178 $ $ 73,378 $ 14,897,140 $ 281,914 23,298,981 73,378 14,897,140 $ 31,158,416 $ $ 73,378 $ 14,967,111 0 City of Temecula Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Advances to other funds Deposits Land held for resale Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Due to other funds Other current liabilities Deferred revenue Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances Please note that these balances are unaudited AB 2766 AB3229 Measure A CIP Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 116,375 $ 4,230,518 $ 22,743,456 $ 64,400,908 351 14,928 57,895 4,033,534 - 361 271,733 1,730,706 3,870,897 3,010,280 49,609 $ 117,087 $ 4,517,179 $ 24,532,057 $ 75,365,228 $ 2,944,597 $ 2,944,597 2,088,260 9,320,091 1,512,500 2,210,075 6,545,356 14,474,762 3,059,889 $ 117,087 $ 4,517,179 $ 39,561,962 $ 17,986,701 18,268,615 117,087 4,517,179 17,986,701 60,890,466 $ 117,087 $ 4,517,179 $ 24,532,057 $ 75,365,228 6 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund For the Nine Months Ended Marchr 31, 2004 Revenues: Sales tax Developmental services: Planning Building & Safety Land Development Fire Grants Motor vehicle in heu Properly tax Property transfer tax Franchise fees Transient occupancy tax Reimbursements Reimbursements from TCSD Reimbursements from RDA Reimbursements from CIP Investment interest Business licenses Vehicle code fines Miscellaneous Parking citations/impound fees Operating transfers in Total Revenues Annual Amended YTD Budgie[ Activity Encumbr. $ 23,900,000 $ 16,919,804 397,650 346,083 1,855,400 1,613,055 2,203,727 2,323,351 255,000 179,790 222,823 144,707 2,461,660 2,323,583 2,602,180 1,708,756 863,960 712,184 2,052,000 974,967 1,672,540 1,594,602 371,600 308,363 162,000 121,500 225,000 168,750 1,699,908 1,068,758 530,000 345,412 215,000 256,956 839,230 792,637 51,500 78,452 78,000 58,868 1,515,350 1,174,541 44,174,528 33,215,118 Total Percent Acfivi of Budget $ 16,919,804 71% 346,083 87% 1,613,055 87% 2,323,351 105% (1) 179,790 71% 144,707 65% (2) 2,323,583 94% 1,708,756 66% 712,184 82% 974,967 48% 1,594,602 95% 308,363 83%a 121,500 75% 168,750 75% 1,068,758 63% 345,412 65% 256,956 120% (3) 792,637 94% 78,452 152% (4) 58,868 75% 1,174,541 78% 33,215,118 75% 3 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund For the Nine Months Ended Marehr 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budge[ Activi Encumbr. Activity of Budge[ continued Expenditures: City Council 434,250 262,121 $ 3,582 265,703 61% Community Support 477,000 384,021 53,596 437,617 92% City Manager 941,751 665,294 24,640 689,934 73% Economic Development 821,833 579,814 33,638 613,452 75% City Clerk 956,785 596,478 10,596 607,064 63% City Attorney 915,000 583,170 583,170 64% Finance 1,678,060 1,061,498 35,029 1,096,527 65% Human Resources 447,480 311,187 28,519 339,706 76% Planning 3,048,895 1,957,436 146,318 2,103,754 69% Building & Safety 2,492,503 1,635,008 127,421 1,762,429 71% Land Development 1,825,125 1,230,387 24,485 1,254,872 69% Public Works 5,463,558 2,894,629 500,427 3,395,056 62% CIP Admin 2,101,882 1,375,267 13,164 1,398,431 66% Police 11,549,785 8,871,270 90,847 8,962,117 78% Fite 4,255,823 3,049,840 86,732 3,136,572 74% Animal Control 132,000 67,243 67,243 51%(5) Non -departmental 6,522,246 5,074,438 5,074,438 78% Total Expenditures (Excluding Transfers) 44,053,966 30,599,101 1,178,984 31,778,095 72% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Beginning Fond Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 120,562 2,616,017 6,027,955 6,027,955 (5,907,393) (3,411,938) 26,710,919 26,710,919 $ 20,803,526 $ 23,298,981 Notes: (1) The variance is due to several development plan reviews collected during this quarter. (2) The variance is due Homeland Security grant which have not been spent during this quarter. (3) The variance is due to several late unexpected business license renewals. (4) The variance is due to increased Temeka advertising revenue collected. (5) The variance is due to actual expenditures for animal control were reduced to a monthly charge of $7,250.00 for this fiscal year. 4 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Gas Tax Fund For the Nine Months Ended Match 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Section 2105-2107 $ 1,365,350 $ 919,867 $ 919,867 67% Investment interest 3,500 1,233 1,233 35% (1) Total Revenues 1,368,850 921,100 921,100 67% Expenditures: Operating transfers out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 1,368,850 1,062,818 (141,718) 141,719 141,719 $ 141,719 $ 0 Notes: Investment interest rate is lower than expected during this quarter. 1,062,918 78% 5 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual State Transportation Fund For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Revenues: Investment interest Traffic congestion relief Total Revenues Expenditures: Operating tmnsfers out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 916 916 $ 20,435 20,435 (20,435) (19,519) 92,897 92,897 $ 72,462 $ 73,378 $ 916 916 20,435 100% 6 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Development Impact Fund For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encundr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Open Space $ 75,000 $ 257,245 $ 257,245 343% Investment interest 156,709 156,709 Public facilities 10,000 10,000 Quimby 682,500 985,106 985,106 144% Street improvements 1,145,324 1,487,087 1,487,087 130% Traffic signals 240,777 233,850 233,850 97% Parks 914,195 1,057,711 1,057,711 116% Corporate facilities 389,936 304,067 304,067 78% lire protection 107,616 243,907 243,907 227% Library 354,787 352,817 352,917 99% Public Art 25,000 13,900 13,900 56% Police 70,279 70,279 Total Revenues 3,935,035 5,172,678 5,172,678 131% Expenditures: Operating transfers out 9,627,812 1,153,650 1,153,650 12% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (5,692,777) 4,019,028 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 10,879,112 10,878,112 $ 5,185,335 $ 14,897,140 Notes: (1) The variance is due to developers pulling more permits than anticipated thereby increasing the DIF revenue collected at the time of building permit issuance. (2) The variance is due several CIP projects funded through DIF that have not started yet. (1) (2) 7 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Community Development Block Grant For the Nine Months Ended Much 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encundr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Grant revenue $ 396,964 $ 91,305 $ 91,305 24% Total Revenues 386,964 91,305 91,305 24% Expenditures: Other outside services Operating transfers out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 58,044 58,044 328,920 33,261 386,964 91,305 58,044 100% 33,261 10% 91,305 24% Notes: (1) The variance is due to Old Town Gymnasium and Rancho California Sports Park Cip projects that have not yet completed during this quarter. (1) (1) 8 ICity of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual AB 2766 Fund For the Nine Months Ended March 31. 2004 I Revenues: AB 2766 Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Operating transfers out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31,2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 70,000 $ 41,357 $ 41,357 59% 885 885 70,000 42,242 42,242 60% 85,000 (15,000) 42,242 74,845 74,845 $ 59,845 $ 117,087 INotes: The Temecula Park and Ride CIP project budgeted from this fund has not yet started during this quarter. (1) 9 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual AB 3229 COPS For the Nine Months Ended Much 31, 2004 Revenues: AB 3229 - COPS Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Operating transfers out Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Budget Activity $ 145,000 $ 111,723 1,500 146,500 111,723 146,500 111,723 Total Percent Encumbr. Activity of Budget 111,723 77% 111,723 76% 111,723 76% 10 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -Budget and Actual Measure "A" For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Measure"A" $ 2,162,000 $ 2,212,256 $ 2,212,256 102% (1) Investment interest 46,815 46,815 Total Revenues 2,162,000 2,259,071 2,259,071 104%a Expenditures Debt service - principal 432,600 323,064 323,064 75% Debt service - interest 134,000 101,603 101,603 76% Operating transfers out 3,485,121 1,020,000 1,020,000 29% (2) Total Expenditures 4,051,721 1,444,667 1,444,667 36% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (1,889,721) 814,404 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 3,702,775 3,702,775 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 $ 1,813,054 $ 4,517,179 Notes: (1) The variance is due to a ROTC audit adjustments in revenue recognition which results in additional payments from the county for this year only of $375,690. (2) The CIP projects (Rancho CA Widening Old Town Front Street, Jefferson Pavement Rehab and Pavement Rehab) budgeted from this fund have yet completed during this quarter. 11 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capital Improvement Projects Fund For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Operating transfers in $ 28,340,776 $ 11,306,329 $ 11,306,329 40% Grants 1,282,403 574,412 574,412 45% Reimbursements 38,530,006 241,379 241,379 1% Investment interest 204,360 204,360 Total Revenues 68,153,185 12,326,480 12,326,480 18% (1) Expenditures: Munieta Creek Bridge/Overland Ext 165-602 420,471 10,989 $ 405,998 416,987 99% Pauba Rd Improvements 11 165-606 12,016 5,430 6,186 11,616 97% Intersection monitoring system 165-607 518,769 376,221 140,695 516,916 100% Winchester Rd Widening 165-608 1,534,475 52,384 984 53,368 3% Rancho Ca Rd Wide/Ynez Rd 165-611 697,379 153,112 544,116 697,228 100% Guardrail Installation/Rainbow Can 165-619 328,918 10,694 19,467 30,161 9% Jefferson Pavement Rehab 165-621 1,798,770 94,917 46,944 141,861 8% Medians Citywide 165-622 149,924 Rancho Ca wide old town front 165-624 892,300 30,295 119,841 150,136 17% 79 South Medians 165-625 724,103 116,152 95,361 211,513 29% Traffic Signals-Diaz@Rancho Way 165-626 100,000 421 579 1,000 1% Bus Bench Upgrades 165-629 242,550 4,011 4,011 2% Pala Rd. bridge 165-631 48,191 4,987 43,184 48,171 100% Diaz realignment 165-632 244,883 153,389 181 153,570 63% Pavement management 165-655 2,127,614 682,891 65,630 748,521 35% I15/795 interchange (ultimate) 165-662 2,594,193 5,691 136 5,827 0% Pala Road improvements 165-668 11,760,226 2,452,743 655,615 3,108,358 26% Flashing Beascons 2002 165-670 20,000 Diaz road extension at Cherry St 165-684 120,794 114,257 114,257 95% 115/Santiago interchange 165-705 27,201 11,707 56 11,763 43% Rancho Ca Bridge/Murrieta Creek wide 165-710 4,159,327 2,418,958 1,725,606 4,144,564 100% Traffic signal equipment installation 165-712 209,986 Localized Storm Drain Imp 165-715 50,000 3,514 3,514 7% Date/Cherry Street S.B. offramp 165-719 3,429,032 104,939 280,306 385,244 11% Bridge Barrier Rail Replacement 165-722 246,632 2,401 20,666 23,067 9°% Butterfield Stage Rd Extension 165-723 18,375,000 12 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capital Improvement Projects Pond For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Date/Cherry I-15 Offramp 165-726 5,865,402 2,543,404 480,838 3,024,242 52% Fire Station Wolf Creek 165-733 2,493,731 4,203 53,905 58,108 2% 79S Sidewalk/Landscape 165-734 305,289 36,516 10,635 47,151 15% Murrieta Creek Imp 165-735 150,000 Info Systems 165-740 1,199 1,199 1,199 100% Fire Station - Roripaugh Ranch 165-741 3,049,180 1,756 1,756 0% Maintenance Facility Expansion 165-742 305,876 114,608 89,928 204,536 67% Main St Bridge/Murdet Creek 165-743 500,000 24,452 336,524 360,976 72% Meadows @ La Serena 165-744 120,000 14,725 393 15,118 13% Meadows @ Rancho Vista 165-745 160,000 10,250 393 10,643 7% Long Canyon Detention Basin 165-746 90,000 Temecula Park & Ride 165-747 87,470 Murrieta Creek multi -purpose trail 190-142 240,396 57,132 166,979 224,011 93% Vail Ranch Park Site D 190-160 24,904 Children's Museum 190-165 1,353,544 836,307 302,740 1,139,047 84% Community Theater 190-167 8,981,142 111,811 8,415,670 8,527,481 95% Northwest Sports Complex 190-173 6,383,066 600,643 327,763 928,406 15% RC Sports Park ADA access 190-180 55,571 33,873 7,097 40,970 74% Vail Ranch Amenities 190-182 305,265 14,423 3,894 18,317 6% Mercantile Building Retrofit 190-183 813 349 313 661 91% Margarita Community Park Erosion 190-184 90,000 Multi -Trails System Citywide 190-185 65,230 3,449 59,780 63,229 97% Old Town Gymnasium 190-186 310,500 Rancho Ca Sports Park Channel Silt 190-187 90,000 Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball 190-188 150,000 1,456 1,456 1 % Veteran's Memorial Phase I 190-189 200,000 Library 199-129 548,767 16,846 169,257 186,103 34% Old Town Puking Lot 199-130 3,000,000 2,103,339 2,103,339 70% Total Expenditures (Excluding Transfers) 85,760,099 13,225,385 14,713,016 27,938,401 33% (1) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (17,606,914) (998,905) Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 18,885,606 18,885,606 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 $ 1,278,692 $ 17,986,701 Notes: (1) The variances in CIP Fund revenues and in projected expenditures are due to the timing of when the various projects are actually stetted and costs are incurred. 13 Internal Service Funds Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Prepaid assets Property, plant and equipment (net of accumulated depreciation) Total assets Liabilities and fund equity: Liabilities: Current liabilities Capital leases payable Total liabilities Fund equity: Contributed capital Retained earnings Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity Information Support Insurance Vehicles Systems Services Facilities Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 1,348,833 $ 2,785 $ 883,831 $ 233,220 $ 115,842 $ 2,584,510 4,404 6,126 691 792 12,013 245,873 245,873 1,518,488 426,110 86,886 2,031,484 $ 1,599,110 $ 1,521,273 $ 1,316,067 $ 320,797 $ 116,633 $ 4,873,880 $ 258,890 $ 438,162 $ 85,219 $ 11,603 $ 39,865 $ 833,739 101,133 101,133 258,890 438,162 85,219 112,736 39,865 934,872 1,340,220 1,083,111 1,230,848 208,061 76,768 3,939,008 1,340,220 1,083,111 1,230,848 208,061 76,768 3,939,008 $ 1,599,110 $ 1,521,273 $ 1,316,067 $ 320,797 $ 116,633 $ 4,873,880 Please note that these balances are unaudited. 14 City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Internal Service Funds For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Information Support Insurance Vehicles Systems Services Facilities Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total Revenues: Charges for services $ 414,638 $ 238,583 $ 1,292,131 $ 199,023 $ 382,811 $ 2,527,186 Investment interest 15,539 2,366 7,090 2,192 374 27,561 Miscellaneous 2,702 5,491 946 69 9,208 Total Revenues 432,879 246,440 1,300,167 201,284 383,185 2,563,955 Expenses Salaries & wages 31,688 636,836 77,629 205,280 951,433 Operating expenses 383,640 454,064 56,216 177,963 1,071,883 Interest 2,791 2,791 Depreciation 200,791 208,316 64,588 473,695 Total Expenses 415,328 200,791 1,299,216 201,224 383,243 2,499,802 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 17,551 45,649 951 60 (58) 64,153 Retained Earnings, July 1, 2003 1,322,669 1,037,462 1,229,897 208,001 76,826 3,874,855 Retained Earnings, March 31, 2004 $ 1,340,220 $ 1,083,111 $ 1,230,848 $ 208,061 $ 76,768 $ 3,939,008 15 Community Facilities Districts Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Current liabilities Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances CFD 88-12 CFD 01-2 AD 03-4 CFD 03-3 CFD 88-12 Admin John Warner Admin Debt Expense Improvement Admin Expense Expense Service Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund $ 1,370 $ 3,534,778 $ 368,793 $ 12,500 3,073,131 18,158 146 1,800 $ 19,528 $ 3,534,778 $ 368,793 $ 12,646 3,074,931 $ 10,736 $ 2,725 $ 2,497 10,736 2,725 2,497 8,792 3,532,053 368,793 12,646 3,072,434 8,792 3,532,053 368,793 12,646 3,072,434 $ 19,528 $ 3,534,778 $ 368,793 $ 12,646 3,074,931 Please note that these balances are unaudited 16 Community Facilities Districts Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Current liabilities Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balances Total liabilities and land balances CFD 01-2 CFD 98-1 CFD 03-1 Harveston Admin Debt Service/Admin Expense Service Fund Fund Fund $ 2,144,383 $ 11,472 $ 5,913,870 $ 2,277 40 1,103 $ 2,146,660 $ 11,512 $ 5,914,973 $ 2,146,660 11,512 5,914,973 2,146,660 11,512 5,914,973 AD 03-4 CFD 03-3 Debt Debt Service Service Fund Fund Total $ 25,275,371 $ 40,335,668 23,525 $ 25,275,371 $ 40,359,193 $ 602 $ 16,560 602 16,560 25,274,769 40,342,633 25,274,769 40,342,633 $ 2,146,660 $ 11,512 $ 5,914,973 $ $ 25,275,371 $ 40,359,193 Please note that these balances are unaudited 17 I City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Community Facilities Districts For the Nine Months Ended March 31. 2004 Revenues: Investment interest Reimbursements Special assessments Bond Proceeds Operating Transfers In Total Revenues Expenditures: Trustee Admin Fees Legal services Consulting services Other outside services City Admin Charges Expense to developer CIP Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Bond Premium Expense Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Pand Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 CFD 88-12 Admin Expense Fund $ 392 $ 2,770 3,162 3,300 5,500 2,000 22,500 CFD 01-2 AD 03-4 CFD 03-3 CFD 88-12 Non- Admin Debt Improvement Departmental Expense Service Fund Fund Fund Fund 14,705 $ 146 $ 116,907 1,210,000 $ 155,000 14,705 1,365,000 664840 996,207 714,427 50,000 50,146 831,334 37,500 700,000 811,788 425,998 33,300 1,090,828 996,207 37,500 1,511,788 (30,138) (1,076,123) 368,793 12,646 (680,453) 38,931 4,609,177 3,752,987 $ 8,792 $ 3,532,053 $ 368,793 $ 12,646 $ 3,072,434 18 I City of Temecula Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Ch Community Facilities Districts For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Revenues: Investment interest Reimbursements Special assessments Bond Proceeds Operating Transfers In Total Revenues Expenditures: Trustee Admin Fees Legal services Consulting services Other outside services City Admin Charges Expense to developer CIP Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Bond Premium Expense Operating Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, Much 31, 2004 CFD 01-2 CFD 98-1 CFD 03-1 AD 03-4 CFD 03-3 Debt Admin Debt Debt Debt Service Expense Service Service Service Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total $ 9,255 $ 145 $ 23,379 $ 9,896 $ 16,491 $ 191,315 757,013 423,751 94,019 1,991,980 12,205,000 30,940,000 44,405,000 155,000 766,268 145 12,652,130 103,915 30,956,491 46,743,296 10,158 1,433 5,849 20,740 1,929 1,929 10,000 4,250 19,750 2,000 18,750 63,500 142,250 664,840 996,207 700,000 139,195 379,596 27,457 245,631 1,602,666 6,289,377 76,458 5,428,313 11,794,149 425,988 178,102 6,737,157 103,915 5,681,722 16,370,518 589,166 145 5,914,973 (0) 25,274,769 30,372,778 1,558,494 11,367 9,969,856 $ 2,146,660 $ 11,512 $ 5,914,973 $ (0) $ 25,274,769 $ 40,342,633 19 ITEM 4 APPR� O�VQ CITY ATTORNEY �U FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the License Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) PREPARED BY: -,V-P Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) for use of office space at the Temecula Community Center. BACKGROUND: Safe Alternatives for Everyone was established in 1998 by concerned citizens and community leaders to help families suffering from abuse and violence. S.A.F.E.'s goals are to help all children and families in the Temecula Valley live in violence -free homes, schools and communities. S.A.F.E. works with local law enforcement agencies, domestic violence agencies, local hospitals, schools and community organizations to help families remove violence from their lives and deal with the effects that violence has had on each family member's well-being. Rather than deal with the individuals involvement in a violent act, S.A.F.E. works in a case management capacity with the entire family to ensure all family members utilize existing community services to "help families help themselves". The S.A.F.E. program provides family case management, referral and resource support, public education and family assessment. The license agreement between the City and S.A.F.E. provides office facilities to the S.A.F.E. staff at the Temecula Community Center located at 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The office space enables the S.A.F.E. program to conduct normal business, meet clients and provide public services. The S.A.F.E. programs expand the human service components offered through the City and enhance our overall ability to meet the needs Within the community. The term of the agreement is for two (2) years ending June 30, 2004. Staff recommends the extension of the term by two (2) additional years ending June 30, 2006. The extended term will allow S.A.F.E. to continue providing needed services to the community. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with Amendment No. 2 to the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and S.A.F.E. The license calls for rent in the amount of $1 per year. S.A.F.E. will continue to make the annual $1 rent payment and be able to offer human service programs and resources to the community far in excess of this amount. R:\RUSEP\AGENDAS\SAFE Amendment No 2 4-27-04.doc AMENDMENT NO. 2 LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND SAFE ALTERNATIVES FOR EVERYONE (S.A.F.E.) FOR USE OF REAL PROPERTY May 25, 2004 The Agreement dated August 27, 2002 between the City of Temecula and Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement') is hereby amended as follows: Section 1 Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: "3. Term of License to Use Office Space. Licensee shall have the right to use the Office Space pursuant to this Agreement from the date of this Agreement until June 30, 2006. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing a sixty (60) day written notice of termination to the other party." Section 2 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. The parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year above written. S.A.F.E., City of Temecula a California Non -Profit Corporation IS Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Name: Melissa Donaldson Title: Executive Director Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney R:\RUSEP\CONTRACT\SAFE Amendment No. 2 4-27-04.doc ITEM 5 APPROVAL,p� CITY ATTORNEY ((.•�� FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Second Amendment to the Pool Maintenance Services Agreement PREPARED BY: AN Kevin T. Harrington, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Second Amendment with Certified Pool Water Specialists, which will exercise the City's option for a second one-year extension of the Agreement for an annual amount of $29,370 including contingency. The Agreement will be extended through June 30, 2005. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Swimming Pool Maintenance, Repair and Services on June 4, 2002. Certified Pool Water Specialists (CPWS) was determined.to be the lowest qualified vendor for the required services. CPWS has been successful in meeting the City standards. Therefore Staff recommends extending their service for an additional one-year term. The original base contract amount plus the First Amendment total $41,370.00. Extending swimming pool maintenance services for fiscal year 2004-05 is $ 18,700.00. In addition an estimated $8,000.00 will be required for chemicals, repair and installation services. This increases the total contract amount, including contingency, to $70,740.00. FISCAL IMPACT: The amountof the contractwith Certified Pool Water Specialists forswimming pool maintenance and services, including the 10% contingency for fiscal year 2004-05 is $29,370.00. Sufficient funds have been included in the Annual Operating Budget for fiscal year 2004-05 in accounts, 190-186- 999- 5250 and 5212. ATTACHMENTS: Original Agreement RAWEDEKIBV2 M2002 Pool Maint\HMAgenda Report FY04-05.doc Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 2 R:\WEDEKIB\RFPS\2002 Pool Maint\H2OAgmda Report FY04-05.dm SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CERTIFIED POOL WATER SPECIALISTS THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City') and Certified Pool Water Specialists ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes A. On July 31, 2002 the City and Certified Pool Water Specialists entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Vendor Services CRC Pool Maintenance" ("Agreement"). After the initial term, this agreement provided an option for two one-year extensions. B. On July 22, 2003 the parties amended the agreement to the term until June 30, 2004. C. The parties now desire to increase the payment amount of the Agreement in the amount of Twenty -Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($26,700) plus add a 10% contingency ($2,670) as set forth in this Amendment. 2. TERM. The term of the Agreement is extended to June 30, 2005. 3. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Attachment A, 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. The second amendment amount shall not exceed Twenty —Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars ($29,370.00). The total contract amount (including contingency) is amended to Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Dollars and No Cents ($70,740.00) for swimming pool service, inspection and repair for the term of the Agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein and in the First Amendment, all otheF terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect C: 00CGMEN7S AND SETTINGSWEVIN.HARRINGTOMLOCAL SETTINGSITEgfPORARYIATEANET FILEMOLK3431H2O 2ND AMENDMENT2004-5.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Li'i Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk Approved As to Form: MR Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: Certified Pool Water Specialists BY: NAME: TITLE: BY: NAME: TITLE: C.-IDOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSIGUS. PAPA GOLOSILOCAL SETTINGSITEMPORARY INTERNET FILESIOLK511N20 2ND AMENDMENT2004-5.DOC Attachment "A" PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE SWIMMING POOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DESCRIPTION PRICE PER YEARLY NUMBER PRICE PER MONTH OF MONTHS YEAR Community Recreation Center, Two (2) Pools -Wader and Large Pool $1,062.50 11 $11,687.50 with water slide. Service five (5) days a week -Monday through Friday Temecula Elementary School' $7,012.50 One pool serviced Three (3) days a $637.50 11 week -Monday, Wednesday & Friday. Estimated costs for pool chemicals, repairs and installation services. These services will be performed as 12 $8,000.00 requested by the City, based on rates shown in "Alternate Bid Items" below. ALTERNATE BID ITEMS -For small emergency repairs or extra work authorized by City. City has the option to use any vendor or contractor to make repairs. MARK-UP ADDED TO VENDOR'S WHOLESALE PRICE OF PARTS & EQUIPMENT 20% HOURLY RATE PER REGUALR MAN HOUR-8am To 5pm $50.00 Monday through Friday HOURLY RATE PER OVERTIME MAN HOUR -After-hours, $75.00 Weekends, Holidays, etc. POOL MA/NPH2O 2ND AMENDMENT2004-5.DOC 3 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CERTIFIED POOL WATER SPECIALISTS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 22, 2003 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Certified Pool water Specialists ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 31, 2002 the City and Certified Pool Water Specialists entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Vendor Services CRC Pool Maintenance" ("Agreement"). B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement asset forth in this Amendment. 2. TERM. The term of the Agreement is extended to June 30, 2004. 3. PAYMENT. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby deleted from the Agreement and in its place anew Exhibit B is added to the Agreement asset forth on Attachment "B" to - this Amendment. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terns 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 Forty-one Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars and No Cents ($41,370.00) for swimming pool service, inspection and repair for the term of the Agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 4. EXHIBIT A to the Agreement is hereby deleted from the Agreement and in its place a new Exhibit A is added to the Agreement as set forth on the Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terns and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect C: IDOCUMEMSAND SEMNGSIKANIGII EWMPiN207SIAMENDM£N77703.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA F F. Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRA TOR• WJl�I� A _• _J !� � A I]A NAME: TITLE: O`V /W- BY: NAh POOL MAINiH2O 1ST"ENDMEN W3.DOC 2 Attachment "A" EXHIBIT "A-1" CITY OF TEMECULA SWIMMING POOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SPECIFICATIONS/SCOPE OF WORK 1. Preventative maintenance duties described in this Scope of Work are to be performed on three pools at the following location: A. Two pools, at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road. This facility has a large pool with water slide and a small wader pool. B. One pool at Temecula Elementary School, 41951 Moraga Road. 2. The two pools at Community Recreation Center are to be serviced five (5) days a week (Monday through Friday), and the pool at Temecula Elementary School will be serviced three (3) days a week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday), each for an eleven (11) month period. The Vendor will invoice City, at the rate shown in the Pricing Sheet (Exhibit B), for only those months pool service is requested. Vendor will provide pool chemicals for Temecula Elementary School Pool. Vendor will provide a separate monthly invoice for chemicals. 3. Vendor's daily maintenance of pools will vary with public use. It is the Vendor's responsibility to schedule pool maintenance tasks on days and at times that will avoid disruption of customer/public use of the pool. At times, therefore, it may be necessary for Vendor to perform duties before pools open at 5 AM or on weekends. Vender should note that the pools are used, at times, seven days a week. Vendor's maintenance schedule will vary during the year as pool used varies. It will be the Vendors responsibility to meet with the pool manager, in order to schedule required maintenance. 4. Daily service is to include the following for each pool: • Test water chemistry. Required tests shall include, but are not limited to: Free Available Chlorine, Combined Chlorine, Total Chlorine, PH Value, Total Alkalinity, Calcium Hardness, Cyanuric acid, Calcium Saturation Index (Target of 0) • Add all chemicals necessary to maintain the swimming pool water chemistry at the industry and Riverside County Environmental Health Department's standard for a public swimming pool • Calibrate chemical feeders • Monitor and maintain water level • Clean gutters and skimmers • Clean strainer baskets • Clean tile • Net pool for trash • Remove any trash from pool deck • Maintain pool equipment rooms in a safe, clean and organized condition at all times • Brush pool walls • Complete "Water Quality Control Report" and "Strainer Cleaning Report" attached as Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A- 3. Deliver completed reports to the Maintenance Supervisor at City Hall as directed • Complete daily log of work performed. Log in times maintenance staff was on site. 5. Other maintenance items that are to be completed are as follows: • Grease pump motors every six months • Super Chlorinate pool(s) every six (6) months or as needed • Treat algae growth if any • Vacuum each pool two times per week 6. A daily schedule, showing service times and dates, shall be provided on a weekly or monthly basis. Schedule will be delivered to the Maintenance Supervisor at City Hall. 7. The City will provide all chemicals and equipment. 8. It is the responsibility of the Vendor to notify the City when any equipment is faulty or in need of repair, or if the pool water chemistry is in a condition deemed hazardous to public health. The City, at its option, will use City staff, the Vendor or another contractor to perform repairs. R.IWEDM RFPS12002 POOL MAINnH201ST"EADMEN2".DOC 3 Attachment "B" EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE SWIMMING POOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DESCRIPTION PRICE PER YEARLY NUMBER PRICE PER MONTH OF MONTHS YEAR Community Recreation Center, Two (2) Pools -Wader and Large Pool $1,062.50 11 $11,687.50 with water slide. Service five (5) days a week -Monday through Friday Temecula Elementary School' $7,012.50 One pool serviced Three (3) days a $637.50 11 week -Monday, Wednesday & Friday. Estimated costs for pool chemicals, repairs and installation services. These services will be performed as 12 $8,000.00 - requested by the City, based on rates shown in "Alternate Bid Items" below. ALTERNATE BID ITEMS -For small emergency repairs or extra work authorized by City. City has u w vpuvn w vac q o...... .............. .� ...�..� . �,.�.. �. MARK-UP ADDED TO VENDOR'S WHOLESALE PRICE OF PARTS & EQUIPMENT 20% HOURLY RATE PER REGUALR MAN HOUR-8am To 5pm I $50.00 Monday through Friday Weekends, Holidays, etc. $75.00 R:IWEDEKBIRFPSjXX POOL MAINnHW ISTAMENDMENnWIDOC 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR VENDOR SERVICES CRC POOL MAINTENANCE THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 31, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and H2O Pool and Spa Service, ("Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2003, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City reserves the option to extend the contract(s) under the same terms and conditions for a maximum of two (2) additional one-year terms per the attached pricing schedule in "Exhibit B". 2. SERVICES. Vendor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Vendor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Vendor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Vendor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Vendor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Vendor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub -contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Vendor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8,1775,1776,1777.5,1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Vendor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Vendor 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 Twenty-five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Vendor 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. Vendor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City RdKANIGOWAContractor agreement\H20 Agreement 2002.doc Manager and Vendor at the time City's written authorization is given to Vendor for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or $25,000.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. C. Vendor 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of Vendor's fees it shall give written notice to Vendor within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Vendor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Vendor 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 Vendor 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 Vendor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF VENDOR. a. The Vendor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Vendor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Vendor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Vendor. If such failure by the Vendor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Vendor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Vendor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Vendor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Vendor with written notice of the default. The Vendor shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Vendor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Vendor 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. Vendor 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. Vendor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at R: KANIGOWAContractor agreementl112O Agreement 2002.doc 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 Vendor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Vendor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. C. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Vendor shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Vendor. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Vendor'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. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Vendor 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 Vendor, 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 Vendor 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 Vendor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Vendor 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 Vendor's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Vendor shall maintain limits no less than: K\KANIGOWA\Contmetor agreemenM20 Agreement 2002.doc (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or otherform with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project1location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) 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. C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Vendor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 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, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Vendor; products and completed operations of the Vendor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Vendor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Vendor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its .officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Vendor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Vendor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Vendor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. RAKANIGOWAContractor agreement\H2O Agreement 2002.doc e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Vendor 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 Vendor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Vendor 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 Vendor shall at all times be under Vendor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Vendor or any of Vendor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Vendor shall not at anytime 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. Vendor 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 Vendor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Vendor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Vendor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Vendor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Vendor 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 Vendor 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 Vendor to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Vendor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Vendor without City's prior written authorization. Vendor, 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 Vendor gives City notice, of such court order or subpoena. b. Vendor shall promptly notify City should Vendor, 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 obli- gation, to represent Vendor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Vendor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any R:WANIGOWAContracmr agreement\H20 Agreement 2002.doc response to discovery requests provided by Vendor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (1) 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. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Vendor: H2O Pool & Spa Service 31652 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Vendor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any partthereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without priorwritten consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Vendor'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 Vendor. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Vendor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Vendor 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 parry against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no 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 Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor 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. R:TKANIGOWI\Contmctor agreemenN120 Agreement 2002.do 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Vendor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor and has the authority to bind Vendor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. RAKANIGOW,I\Contmctor agreemenNA20 Agreement 2002.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager Attest: Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney VENDOR H2O Pool & Spa Service By: Name: .) 0 1/4 �1 2 � Title: a✓n IC /Z RM 5 Title:— cFe�l (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) RAKANIGOWAContractor agreement\H20 Agreement 2002.do EXHIBIT "A-1" CITY OF TEMECULA SWIMMING POOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SPECIFICATIONS/SCOPE OF WORK 1. Preventative maintenance duties described in this Scope of Work are to be performed on two pools at the following location: A. Two pools, at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road. This facility has a large pool with water slide and a small wader pool. 2. The two pools at Community Recreation Center are to be serviced seven days a week, for a ten (10) month period. The Vendor will invoice City, at the rate shown in the Pricing Sheet (Exhibit B), for only those months pool service is requested. 3. Vendor's daily maintenance of pools will vary with public use. It is the Vendor's responsibility to schedule pool maintenance tasks on days and at times that will avoid disruption of customer/public use of the pool. At times, therefore, it may be necessary for Vendor to perform duties before pools open at 5 AM or on weekends. Vender should note that the pools are used, at times, seven days a week. Vendor's maintenance schedule will vary during the year as pool used varies. [twill be the Vendors responsibility to meet with the pool manager, in order to schedule required maintenance. 4. Daily service is to include the following for each pool: • Test water chemistry. Required tests shall include, but are not limited to: Free Available Chlorine, Combined Chlorine, Total Chlorine, PH Value, Total Alkalinity, Calcium Hardness, Cynanuric acid, Calcium Saturation Index (Target of 0) • Add all chemicals necessary to maintain the swimming pool water chemistry at the industry and Riverside County Environmental Health Department's standard for a public swimming pool • Calibrate chemical feeders • Monitor and maintain water level • Clean gutters and skimmers • Clean strainer baskets • Clean tile • Net pool for trash • Remove any trash from pool deck • Maintain pool equipment rooms in a safe, clean and organized condition at all times • Brush pool walls • Complete "Water Quality Control Report" and "Strainer Cleaning Report" attached as Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A-3. Deliver completed reports to the Maintenance Supervisor at City Hall as directed • Complete daily log of work performed. Log in times maintenance staff was on site. 5. Other maintenance items that are to be completed are as follows: • Grease pump motors every six months • Super Chlorinate pool(s) every six (6) months or as needed • Treat algae growth if any • Vacuum each pool two times per week 6. A daily schedule, showing service times and dates, shall be provided on a weekly or monthly basis. Schedule will be delivered to the Maintenance Supervisor at City Hall. 7. The City will provide all chemicals and equipment. 8. It is the responsibility of the Vendor to notify the City when any equipment is faulty or in need of repair, or if the pool water chemistry is in a condition deemed hazardous to public health. The City, at its option, will use City staff, the Vendor or another contractor to perform repairs. 9 RAKANIGOWAContmetor agreement\H2O Agreement 2002.doc G' O a° w � o d a O� d� a F0. o Q V xaaazwN� Vaay..a� � a x s °az J a OU ao °� o x a � U U z a a a x ��yjyj F F F O V V a �w F ` A dFw �i C4 W �F ..1 U C4 rn .a O qF Z O U F F A EXHIBIT °B" PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE SWIMMING POOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR DESCRIPTION PRICE PER YEARLY NUMBER PRICE PER Community Recreation Center, MONTH OF MONTHS YEAR Two (2) Pools -Wader and Large Pool with water slide August 1, 2002 until June 30, 2003 $1,200.00 or $300 10 $12,00.00 Per Week City has option to extend service after June 30, 2003 for two (2) additional $1,700 11 $18,700.00 one-year terms at the following rate ALTERNATE BID ITEMS -For small emergency repairs or extra work authorized by City. City has the option to use an vendor or contractor to make repairs. MARK-UP ADDED TO VENDOR'S WHOLESALE PRICE OF PARTS & EQUIPMENT 20% HOURLY RATE PER REGUALR MAN HOUR-8am To 5pm $50.00 Monday through Friday HOURLY RATE PER OVERTIME MAN HOUR -After-hours, $75.00 Weekends, Holidays, etc. ITEM 6 APPR VA CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: First Amendment to Prudential Overall Supply Agreement PREPARED BY: Kevin T. Harrington, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Approve the First Amendment with Prudential Overall Supply Company, which will exercise the City's option for a one-year extension of the Agreement for an annual amount of $13,660 including contingency. The Agreement will be extended through June 30, 2005. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Uniform, Floor Mat, Dust Mop and Towel Cleaning/Rental Services on May 17, 2002. The TCSD received several proposals, which were evaluated to determine qualifications and to assess the competitiveness of the pricing. Prudential Overall Supply was determined to be the lowest qualified bidder for the required services. A two year Contract with the option of 2 one- year extensions was awarded to Prudential Overall Supply effective July 1,2002 thru June 30, 2004. The First Amendment is now requested to authorize a one (1) year extension, as permitted per the Agreement. The current contract is for $25,000.00. The cost to provide services for fiscal year 2004-2005 is $13,659.58. This additional year of service will increase the total contract amount to $38,659.58. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficientfunds have been included in the Annual Operating Budgetforfiscal year 2004-05 in accounts: 190-180, 190-181, 190-182, 190-184, 190-185, 190-188, 340-701, 340- 702, 001-164. R:\WEDEKIB\RFPS\2002 Uniform RFP\Prudential Agend Report 1st Amend 04-05.doc ATTACHMENTS: 1) Original Agreement 2) Amendment No. 1 R:\WEDEKIB\IRFPS\2002 Uniform RFP\Prodential Agend Report Ist Amend 04-05.doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Prudential Overall Supply ("Contractor'). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 1, 2002 the City and Prudential Overall Supply entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Vendor' ("Agreement"). B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement asset forth in this Amendment. 2. TERM. The term of the Agreement is extended to June 30, 2005. 3. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, 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. This amount shall not exceed Thirty -Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty - Nine Dollars and Fifty -Eight Cents ($38,659.58) for uniform, floor mat, dust mop and towel cleaning services for the term of the Agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 4. Exceptforthe changes specifically set forth herein, all otherterms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect R:IWEDEKLBIRFPS12002 UNIFORMRFPIPRUDENTIAL 1STAMENDMEN7-2001DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA MN Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: M Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Vendor: Prudential Overall Supply 2485 Ash Street Vista, CA 92083 BY: NAME: TITLE: BY: NAME: TITLE: R:IfVEDEKIMRFPS12002 UNIFORM RFPIPRUDENTIAL ISTAMENDMEN7200TOC EXHIBIT "A" 2004-2005 PAYMENT SCHEDULE CUSTODIAL ITEMS Location aty. Sizelltem Unit Price Weekly Price Annual CITY HALL 3 4x6 mat (charcoal) $2.64 $7.92 3 3x5 mat (teal) $1.65 $4.95 1 24" dust mop $0.60 $0.60 5 3X10 Mat $3.30 $16.50 20 Towels (blue) $0.10 $2.00 Total $31.97 $1,662.44 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 1 4x6 mat (teal) $2.64 $2.84 4 3x5 mat (teal) $1.65 $6.60 1 24' dust mop $0.60 $0.80 10 Towels (white) $0.10 $1.00 Total $563.68 $10.64 OLD TOWN TEMECULA SENIOR CENTER 3 4x6 mats (charcoal) $2.64 $7.92 1 36" dust mop $0.79 $0.79 4 3X5 mats (charcoal) $1.65 $6.60 20 Towels (blue) $0.10 $2.00 $17.31 $900.12 TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER 3 06 mats (blue) $2.64 $7.92 1 3x5 mat (blue) $1.65 $1.66 1 3x10 mat (blue) $3.30 $3.30 1 36' dust mop $0.79 $0.79 20 Towels (white) $0.10 $2.DO $814.32 $15.66 TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM 2 46 mat (tan) $2.64 $5.28 1 3x5 mat (tan) $1.65 $1.65 1 24" dust mop $0.60 $0.60 10 Travels (white) $0.10 $1.00 $8.53 $443.56 COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER 5 4x6 mat (gray) $2.64 $13.20 3 3x5 mat (gray) $1.65 $4.95 2 36' dust mop $0.79 $1.58 2 48' dust mop $1.15 $2.30 40 Towels (While) $0.10 S4.00 $1,353.56 $26.03 CHILDREN'S MUSEUM 3 4x6 mats (charcoal) $2.64 $7.92 1 3T dust mop $0.79 $0.79 4 3X5 mats(charcoal) $1.65 $6.60 20 Towels (blue) $0.10 $2.00 $17.31 $900.12 $6,637.80 Total for Facilities UNIFORM SERVICE Location Qty. Sizelitem Unit Price Weekly Price Annual Community Services 7 Workers 35 Dark Brown Parse $0.50 $17.50 15 LS White Shirts $0.50 $7,60 20 SS White Shirts $0.50 $10.00 $35.00 $1,820.00 'Miscellaneous Fees' Not To Exceed-100 Ball caps $8,10 as $810.00 $2,630.00 Public Works 9 Workers 45 Dark Brown Pants $0.50 $22.50 45 Orange Shirts $0.50 $22.50 $45.00 $2,340.00 'Miscellaneous Fees' Not To Exceed $ 810.00 $ 3,150.00 Contingency Fees 10% $ 1,241.78 ANNUAL TOTAL -CUSTODIAL B UNIFORMS $13,650.58 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR VENDOR SERVICES (PROJECT NAME) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Prudential Overall Supply, ("Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City reserves,the option to extend the contract(s) under the same terms and conditions for a maximum of two (2) additional one-year terms per the attached pricing schedule as contained in "Exhibit A". 2. SERVICES. Vendor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Vendor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Vendor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience; and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Vendor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Vendor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Vendor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub -contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Vendor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8,1775,1776,1777.5,1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Vendor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 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. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Vendor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, 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 "A-2" other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Vendor 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. Vendor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Vendor at the time City's written authorization is given to Vendor for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or $25,000.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. C. Vendor 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 nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of Vendor's fees it shall give written notice to Vendor within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Vendor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Vendor 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 Vendor 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 Vendor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF VENDOR. a. The Vendor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Vendor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Vendor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Vendor. If such failure by the Vendor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Vendor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Vendor, it shall -not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Vendor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Vendor with written notice of the default. The Vendor shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Vendor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Vendor 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. Vendor 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. Vendor 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 Vendor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Vendor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. C. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Vendor shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Vendor. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against anyand 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, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Vendor'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. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Vendor 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 Vendor, 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 Vendor 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 Vendor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Vendor 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 Vendor's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Vendor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other 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: $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) peraocidentfor bodily injury or disease. C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Vendor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 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, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Vendor; products and completed operations of the Vendor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Vendor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Vendor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Vendor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Vendor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Vendor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's.liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Vendor 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 Vendor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 41. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Vendor 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 Vendor shall at all times be under Vendor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Vendor or any of Vendor's officers, employees, or agents except asset forth in this Agreement. Vendor 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. Vendor 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 Vendor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Vendor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Vendor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Vendor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Vendor 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 Vendor 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 Vendor to comply with this section. 53. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Vendor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Vendor without City's prior written authorization. Vendor, 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 Vendor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Vendor shall promptly notify City should Vendor, 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 obli- gation, to represent Vendor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Vendor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Vendor. However, Citys right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 64. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other parry under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (1) 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 parry 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. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Vendor: Prudential Overall Supply 2485 Ash Street Vista, CA 92083 Attention: Corporate Sales Representative 75. ASSIGNMENT. The Vendor 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, Vendor'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 Vendor. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Vendor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 87. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Vendor 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 Courts judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractors sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no 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 Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Vendor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor and has the authority to bind Vendor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. C"TileEW-L Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager Attest: Approved As to Form: �.� PeL& M. Thorson, City Attorney VENDOR Prudential Overall Supply 2485 Ash Street Vista, CA q?D,83 Title: 6!Vt -/1'L 9 Gy :y: a � .rc r , ■x� _y i (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL UNIFORM, FLOOR MAT, DUST MOP AND TOWEL CLEANING/RENTAL SERVICE PART I: SELECTION CRITERIA A final contract will be awarded to the Vendor who can best meet the requirements as specified; and provide the highest quality and cost effective professional uniform, floor mat, dust mop and towel cleaning/rental service to the City, as determined by the City Council based on the following factors (which are listed without implication of priority): Information regarding the Vendor's experience and qualifications to successfully provide, clean and deliver on a weekly basis uniforms, floor mats, dust mops and towels in the quantity requested by the City in Exhibit A. 2. The ability and willingness of the Vendor to meet all requirements as outlined in the Specifications/Scope of Work (see Exhibit A-1). 3. Vendor's ability to supply copies of all current licenses and/or permits required by the City and State of California, as applicable. 4. A list of client references and an outline of any experience the Vendor has had in meeting the needs of other governmental organizations, or any organization that the Vendor has provided and cleaned uniforms, floor mats, dust mops and towels. 5. Name and references of any subcontractors who will be utilized to supply the services as .outlined in the Specifications/Scope of Work (see Exhibit A-1). 6. The thoroughness and conformity of the proposal package, cost of services to be provided, and quality of parts and materials used. 7. Overall cost of the service to the City, including, but not limited to, pricing of the services, delivery schedule, terms of payment and the ability of the Vendor to successfully provide, clean and deliver on a weekly basis uniforms, floor mats, dust mops and towels. 8. Ability of Vendor to maintain adequate inventory of parts, equipment and labor to perform all work necessary to fulfill the contract. 9. Financial ability of Vendor to provide the services as outlined in the Specifications/Scope of Work (see Exhibit A-1). PART If: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Provide pricing on all requirements as outlined in Exhibit "A-1". If there are discrepancies between services, labor, parts, materials, maintenance costs, unit prices and extensions, the City reserves the right to clarify pricing with the affected Vendors. 2. A failure on a Vendor's part to list all cost components related to the service will not be accepted by the City as an acceptable justification to re -quote the proposal. The City will treat the original proposal and costs provided as final. However, Vendor has the option of withdrawing a proposal at any time until a final contract is executed. 3. Delivery schedules shall be a part of the consideration. Time of delivery must be stated in service call request within twenty-four (24) hours. 26. The standard form of the City's Agreement for Vendor Services is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The selected Vendor will be required to enter into this Agreement. By submitting a Proposal, Vendor certifies to the City that he/she has reviewed the Specifications of the RFP and the terms of the Agreement and has incorporated all direct and indirect costs of complying with Specifications and the Agreement into its Proposal. 27. The City's terms for payment are net 30 upon receipt of invoice. Vendor shall submit invoices 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 undisputed fees. 28. The City reserves the right to add supplementary items to the Scope of Work of the Agreement for Vendor Services, as new facilities are constructed or additional services are required. Vendor agrees pricing will be the same as quoted for any additional facilities in year one (1) of the contract agreement. Terms may be re -negotiated should the City opt to extend the contract upon its expiration date. 29. Prohibited Interest— No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one yearthereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no 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 Contractor or Contractor's sub- contractors on this project. Contractor 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. PART III: GENERAL INFORMATION Vendor is required to carefully and fully investigate all of the requirements of this RFP, as well as, the sites where the work will take place and all work or arrangements needed to fulfill the terms of the Proposal. By submitting a Proposal, Vendor represents and certifies to the City that such investigation has been completed and that it fully understands the Specifications/Scope of Work. 2. The Specification Sheet/Scope of Work (Exhibit A) shall be signed by an authorized official of the company. 3. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals where deemed necessary in City's sole discretion. 4. The City will not reimburse Vendors for any costs involved in the preparation and submission of proposals. Furthermore, this RFP does not obligate the City to accept or contract for any expressed or implied services. Nothing herein shall be construed as an offer. 5. The City reserves the right to request any Vendor submitting a proposal to clarify its proposal or to supply additional material deemed necessary to assist in the selection process. 6. If an Exhibit "A" requirement cannot be met by a Vendor, then the Vendor should submit a "No Proposal" response for the items affected. Alternate or equivalent items may be submitted for consideration by the City, unless otherwise specified. 7. All submitted proposals and information included therein or attached thereto shall become public records upon contract award. 8. Vendor is requested to provide any exceptions, additional information or suggestions that will aid in the City's selection process. 9. The attached Exhibit "A" is a suggested list only. If Vendor needs to revise or make additions to the exhibit, computer or typed alterations are allowed as long as the City format is maintained, 10. Any questions regarding this RFP should be referred, in writing, to Kevin Harrington, or Bruce Wedeking at fax number (909) 694-6488. Questions may also be mailed or delivered to the address stated herein. EXHIBIT "A-1" UNIFORM, FLOOR MAT, DUST MOP AND TOWEL SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS/SCOPE OF WORK Please submit the proposal based upon the following specifications: 1) Initially provide fifteen (15) male employees with eleven (11) uniform sets each (a uniform set equals one pants and one shirt), as follows: a) Nine (9) Public Works maintenance staff. Uniforms will consist of dark brown pants and orange front button shirts. Shirts shall have placard fronts, sleeves and pockets. b) Six (6) Community Services maintenance staff. These uniforms will have dark brown pants with white front button shirts. Shirts shall have placard fronts, sleeves and pockets. 1. Each week the employee will return to Vendor five (5) sets of soiled uniforms and the Vendor will return to each employee five (5) sets of cleaned uniforms. 2. The pricing per a uniform set will include any combination of long and/or short sleeves shirts, as selected by each employee. 3. Uniforms will match, in color and design, those presently in use by City. Employees will have the option to choose 100% cotton uniforms or a cotton/polyester blend. 4. Initial uniforms provided by Vendor will be new. If employees are added during the term of this agreement, they also will initially receive eleven (11) sets of new uniforms. Vendor will be responsible to measure each employee to insure uniforms fit properly. 5. Vendor will be responsible for repairing and/or replacing uniforms during the term of this contract as they become wom or damaged. Weekly cleaning/rental fee, as shown in the Price Sheet Exhibit A-2, will include all repair and/or replacement of uniforms as needed, during term of agreement. Replacement will be with new shirt and/or pants. 6. Any pants or shirt that is damaged beyond repair or is no longer serviceable, at the City s sole discretion, will be replaced with a new shirt or pants. 2) The weekly fee or unit price as shown in Exhibit A-2 includes the following: a) The weekly rental of each item, as well as the total cleaning, pickup and delivery costs for the item. Exhibit A-2 prices are the only fees Vendor charges for services. b) Weekly delivery of clean and picked up of soiled uniforms at two City facilities. o) Weekly delivery of clean and pickup of soiled Dust mops, floor mats and towels at six (6) City facilities. Handles will be provided for dust mops at each location. d) Vendor will be responsible for picking up soiled mats at various locations within each of the six (6) facilities and replacing with clean mats. e) Provide a separate laundry bag(s) for uniforms, which are in need of repair. f) Provide lockers for each employee, for the delivery of clean uniforms. g) Price includes all nametags and City logos emblems to match existing. h) The repair or replacement of any damage item(s). i) The weekly fee includes all set up fees; including both initial set-up fees and/or a subsequent set-up fees as additional employees are added to staff. j) Towels provided by Vendor will be for cleaning glass and dusting. Greasy shop type towels are not acceptable. k) Provide separate invoicing for each account and/or location as directed by City. Initially there will be eight (8) weekly invoices for the items listed in Exhibit A-2. 3) The Vendor will sell to the City ball caps to match existing. Caps will be provided with City Seal sewn on front. The caps will be sold and not part of the weekly service. Price for each cap, with Seal, will be listed in Price Sheet, Exhibit A-2. Caps to be purchased as needed. Total number of caps to be purchase during term of agreement, is unknown at this time. EXHIBIT "A-1" 4) Following is a list of locations. Weekly uniform, floor mat, dust mop, and/or towel service will be required at each site as indicated. Sizes and colors of each item are shown on this list. Also the address and an itemized list of required services are shown for each site: CUSTODOAL ITEMS/SERVICES WEEKLY Location Qty. Item CITY HALL, 43200 Business Park Drive 7 4x6 mat (charcoal) 2 3x5 mat (teal) 1 24" dust mop 20 Towels (white) 5 3x10 mats (charcoal) MAINTENANCE FACILTY, 43210 Business Park Drive 1 4x6 mat (teal) 4 3x5 mats (teal) 1 24" dust mop 10 Towels (white) SENIOR CENTER, 41845 Sixth Street 3 46 mats (charcoal) 3 3x5 mats (charcoal) 1 36" dust mop 20 Towels (white) TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER, 28816 Pulol Street 3 46 mats (blue) 1 3x5 mat (blue) 1 3x10 mat (blue) 1 36" dust mop 20 Towels (white) TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM, 28314 Mercedes Drive 2 46 mat (tan) 1 3x5 mat (tan) 1 24" dust mop 10 Towels (white) COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER, 30875 Rancho Vista Road 5 4x6 mat (gray) 3 3x5 mat (gray) 2 36" dust mop 2 48" dust mop 40 Towels (white) EXHIBIT "A-1" UNIFORM SERVICES WEEKLY Location City. Item CITY HALL, 43200 Business Park Drive Community Services 30 Uniform Dark Brown 6 Workers Sets* Pants/White Shirts Public Works 45 Uniform 9 Workers Sets* Dark Brown Pants Orange Shirts A uniform set equals one (1) shirt and one (1) pants. Each worker receives five (5) uniforms sets per week, which equals five (5) shirts and five (5) pants per man per week. For example: thirty (30) uniform sets are comprised of thirty (30) pants and thirty (30) shirts. 5) Anticipate an agreement for a two (2) year term, starting July 1, 2002. The agreement would also allow for two (2) one year extensions subject to City's approval. 6) The City, from time to time, may adjust the number of services required from Vendor. Also delivery locations may be changed or increased. The unit prices provided in Exhibit A-2 will be used to adjust the total weekly costs, as services are increased or decreased. ITEM 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City C ncil FROM: Gra tes, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Support of Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill (at the request of Councilmember Roberts) PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 04-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL SIX - YEAR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL BACKGROUND: At the request of Councilmember Roberts, the following request specifically urges Congress to pass and the President to sign a six -year surface transportation reauthorization bill that is no less than $319 billion. It is the recommendation of staff as well as the National League of Cities that we support a six -year rather than a two-year bill because transportation projects here in Temecula and nationally require long-term planning and funding stability that, in turn, helps ensure cost effective projects. The last federal transportation reauthorization bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21s` Century, or "TEA-21," expired last year. TEA-21 is currently operating on a 3rd temporary extension that ends on June 30, 2004. This bill is currently stalled in Washington which reauthorizes federal transportation programs and spending on highways and transit. Transportation networks serve as the nation's circulatory system. That system connects commerce and consumers, work and workforce, family and friends in and through our nation's cities and regions. Nationwide, local governments own and operate about 75 percent of the nearly4 million -mile highway and roadway network. Local governments also own close to 300,000 bridges and manage about 90 percent of the nation's transit systems. A long-term bill, lasting no less than six years, provides a steady investment in the economic infrastructure of America's hometowns, which are the local and regional engines of the national economy. Transportation reauthorization also pays for itself because federal gas tax revenues collected at the pump help pay the bill. Every gallon of gas purchased means more money deposited into the federal Highway Trust Fund to invest in highways and transit. Particularly in a tight economy, investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure is vital because it helps create new jobs and preserve existing ones. A six -year bill that provides sufficient flexibility to local and regional officials will help improve transportation safety and reduce the stranglehold of roadway congestion that pollutes our shared environment and steals people's time from more productive activities at home, work, and play. Transportation reauthorization is also an investment in homeland security because our nation's transportation systems help move people out of harms way and transport emergency personnel where needed. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Attachment: Resolution 04- RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL SIX -YEAR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress has not completed its work to reauthorize federal transportation programs and policies necessary to improve our nation's mobility. WHEREAS, reauthorizing federal transportation programs is essential to improve our nation's economic health because transportation infrastructure constitutes the circulatory system through which consumers and commerce flow in and through our nation's cities and regions. WHEREAS, reauthorizing federal transportation programs are a jobs -saving as well as a jobs - creating bill. The City of Temecula cannot afford to lose another construction season while Congress debates reauthorization. The longer Congress delays the greater the risk transportation projects and programs currently underway will either slow down or stop, jeopardizing existing jobs and the creation of new ones. WHEREAS, reauthorizing federal transportation programs pays for itself because federal gas tax revenues collected at the pump help paythe bill. WHEREAS, reauthorizing federal transportation programs will help reduce the stranglehold of roadway congestion that pollutes our shared environment and steals peoples' time from more productive activities at home, work, and play. WHEREAS, reauthorizing federal transportation programs is an investment in homeland security because our nation's transportation systems help move people out of harms way and transport emergency personnel where needed. WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, and cities and towns across our nation desire a six -year rather than a two-year bill because transportation projects require long-term planning and funding stability that, in turn, helps ensure cost effective projects. WHEREAS, Congress must build on the legacy of the Transportation Equity Act forthe 21sr Century ("TEA-21 "), and improve the long-term funding and program flexibility of federal transportation programs and policies at the state and local le%els. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Temecula urges the Congress to pass and the President to sign a six -year surface transportation reauthorization bill that is no less than $319 billion. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 2004. Mike Naggar, Mayor Resos\99-88 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Resos\99-88 ITEM 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY` DIRECTOR OF FIN J E CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Managbl,,. DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Amendment #2 to Loan Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment #2 to the City's Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the City provided a loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest Riverside County, which allowed them to construct a permanent facility in Temecula. The loan was in the amount of $374,846, and was structured so that the loan is repaid at the rate of $1500 per month in cash, and the balance of the monthly payment ($1578 per month) is paid through in -kind services to the community. The loan was amended in 2000, which provided for purchase and operation of a van in lieu of the cash portion of the payment for a three year period, ending January 1, 2004. The amendment further provided that the City would consider other in -lieu funding after a three-year period. The loan balance is currently $ 280,860 and is scheduled to be fully repaid in the year 2015. DISCUSSION: We have received a request from the Boys and Girls that the $1500 cash portion be used for scholarships for low-income families, effective January 1, 2004. (see attached letter) Staff has discussed this with Mayor Naggar and Councilmember Stone, the ad -hoc Community Services Funding Subcommittee, and they are supportive of this request. They are also supportive of amending the agreement so that the City Manager and Executive Director could administratively approve changes to the use of those funds for alternate programs if needed. Staff recommends approval of Amendment #2 to the City's Loan Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County, which reflects these changes. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement provides for continued services in lieu of the $1500 per month payment. No adjustment to the current or proposed FY 2004/05 budget is required if the Agreement is approved. Z:\Ogradyj\Boys and Girls Club, Council Report for Loan Amendmbnt #2 05-25-04.doc ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Boys and Girls Club dated March 12, 2004 2. Amendment #2 to Loan Agreement Z:\Ogradyj\Bays and Girls Club, Council Report for Loan Amendn@nt #2 05-25-04.doc BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY March 12, 2004 Shawn Nelson City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Shawn, c/rl,41 OFFC4ppR,S. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County — Temecula Branch is requesting that the $1,500 cash portion of our loan payment go towards providing urgently needed scholarships for low- income families to attend our before & after school program and that it be retro-active as of January 1, 2004. The Boys & Girls of Southwest County — Temecula Branch will be providing transportation to and from Temecula schools for youth grades 1 — 8 and after school programming. Our facility is open from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday and from 9:00-2:00 on Saturday. The demand for scholarships is growing along with the community and our current scholarship funding is not meeting the need. Our before and after school program woas developed trireef the needs'of our community in addressing the problem of "latch key". Today, over 1.5 million youth in California are unsupervised during their non -school hours, according to the California Health and Welfare Agency. The number one reason is cost. It is a well-known fact that the most common time for juvenile delinquency to occur is between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. As an integral part of our community, it is imperative that we provide as many healthy alternatives as possible. Currently the Temecula Site of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County is serving over 1000 youth per year and 40% of them are on scholarships. All other participants are subsidized as well. The participant subsidy funds come from fundraisers and contributions. The funds requested would be used to provide enrollment subsidies or complete payment for those children whose families are unable to afford the full cost of before and after school program. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County programs are designed to increase the self-esteem of youth participating at the Club. Our youth development strategy includes educational activities focusing on personal. development. These activities will develop skills in getting along with'others, problem 'solving, communications, goal ,setting, and decision -making. They are Boys & Gids CIL& of Southwest County . P.O. Box 892349 . Temmb, CA 92589-2349 . Tel 9O9M9.1526 . Fwi 9091 A 3 Website-Bgc-swc.org The POSIt%Ve Place For Kids aA United Way Agency 4 BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY designed to give young people the sense that they can do something well, are competent and have individual worth. Through social and recreational activities, members will have fun while acquiring self- confidence and skills in developing interpersonal relationships. Our pre -teen participation activities include career exploration, public speaking, discussing and debating important issues such as drug prevention and child abuse prevention, and publishing a club newsletter. The Board of Directors of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County has targeted two areas of youth programming that are of the greatest concern to our community. The Board has targeted the "latch key" situation that includes before and after school programming as well as, all day camps when they are out of school. The second priority is that we provide accessible youth recreation programs. Because of these goals, the scholarship program will have a direct impact. The scholarships will be offered to low income families. The hours of operation will coincide with hours where parental supervision is missing. Plus, the program will be providing the children with recreational and social programs that they may not be able to participate in because their parents cannot afford them. The new funding will increase the participation of children from the City of Temecula. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 40„ / Mi helle Arellano Michelle Ray President/CPO Director of Resource Development cc: Jim O'Grady Boys 8 Girls ClLbs of Southwest County • P.O. Box 892349 . Temecula, CA 92589-2349 • Tel 909M94526 • Fax 9094M94273 Website-Bgc-swing The POS%f%V@ Place For Kids A United Way Agency SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT LOAN FUNDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY, INC. THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County, Inc., a California non-profit corporation ("Club"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties agrees to be true and correct: a. On July 22, 1993, the City and Club entered into that certain "Agreement Loan Funds for Public Purposes" ("Loan Agreement'). Concurrently, with the approval of the Loan Agreement, the Club executed a Promissory Note for $323,846 in favor of the City ("Promissory Note"). b. On December 12, 2000, the City and Club entered into that certain "First Amendment to Agreement Loan Funds for Public Purposes Between the City of Temecula and the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc." ("First Amendment'). C. The purpose of the Loan Agreement was to provide funds to the Club to have a permanent facility in the City of Temecula so as to enable it to provide programs for recreation and social programs youth in Temecula. d. Pursuant to Section I.B. of the Loan Agreement, the twenty (20) year loan repayment period commenced on July 1, 1995, the date the Boys and Girls Club facility was dedicated and open for operation. e. Pursuant to Section LB.2.(b) of the Loan Agreement, the Club is currently obligated to pay to the City the sum of $3,078.00 per month on the loan. Of this monthly amount, Section I.B.2 currently requires the Club to pay $1,500.00 of the month payment in cash and the balance in of the monthly payment in in -kind services, calculated pursuant to subsection (a). f. The Club provides recreational and social activities for the young people in the City of Temecula 774239.1 May 9,2004 -1- g. The City and the Club have determined that the public purposes of the loan would be enhanced and the youth of the City of Temecula would receive additional public benefits by expanding the in -lieu services which the Club could perform in order to receive credit for a portion of its monthly loan payments. h. The Club was formerly named the "Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc." The Club changed its corporate name to "Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County, Inc," but did not dissolve the corporation. The Club warrants and represents to the City that its corporate entity remains the same with a change of name only and that Club has not assigned or conveyed the Loan Agreement or the Promissory Note. 2. Section I.B.2 of the Loan Agreement is amended to read as follows: "2. Repayment of the principal and interest of the loan commenced on July 1, 1995, which is the date the facility was dedicated and open for operation. Repayment shall be fully amortized over a twenty (20) year period from said date with an interest rate of seven and eight tenths percent (7.8%). Monthly payments on the loan shall be three thousand seventy eight dollars ($3,078.00) for the balance of the loan. "(a) Commencing on January 1, 2004, the City agrees to accept payment of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per month in cash and the balance of the monthly payment in in -kind services. "(b) In -kind service hour credit shall only be available for services provided to youth that are residents of the City of Temecula. Club shall provide programming to youth based on a rate of one dollar and five cents ($1.05) per child per hour. "(c) Commencing after December 31, 2003, pursuant to Section 2e of the First Amendment, the $1,500.00 cash payment portion of the monthly payment shall be deemed satisfied by the following actions of the Club: "(1) Club shall provide scholarship enrollment subsidies in the amount of $1,500.00 per month or greater or complete payment for those children who live in the City of Temecula and whose families are unable to afford the full cost of the Club's before and after school programs. The 774239.1 May 9, 2004 -2- Club shall reasonably and fairly determine which children should receive the subsidies or payments in accordance with Club policies. "(2) Club shall provide a written report to the City which verifies the amount of scholarship subsidies or payments made to qualifying children living in the City of Temecula in an amount not less than the balance of the loan payment, in a form required by the Director of Finance. The reports shall be due on the first business day of January, April, July, and October of each year. "(3) The City Manager of the City, or his or her designate and the Executive Director of the Club, or his or her designate, shall meet annually in February of each year to review the viability of the scholarship program and to determine any adjustments which need to be made to the program. The City Manager may enter into an amendment of this Second Agreement on behalf of the City with the Club to provide for alternate programs in lieu of the scholarship program described in I.B.2(b)." 3. Section N.A. of the Loan Agreement, the notice provision, is amended to change the addresses of the City and the Club as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Attention: Director of Finance Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County, Inc. 28790 Pujol Street Post Office Box 892349 Temecula, Ca. 92589-2349 Attention: Executive Director 4. Except as otherwise set forth in this Second Amendment, all other terms of the Loan Agreement and the Promissory Note remain in full force and effect. 774239.1 May 9, 2004 -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed on behalf of the parties as of the date first written above. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY, INC., a California non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: [Signatures of two corporate officers required.] CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation Attest: Michael Naggar Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 774239.1 May 9, 2004 -4- ITEM 9 APPROVAL DITY RECTOR OFFI 'Gd DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: ^City Manager/City Council FROM: * I�Villiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: VVV May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Wolf Valley —Antelope Place Lateral, Project No. 7-0-0269, Tract Map No. 29798-4, Cooperative Agreement PREPARED BY: fl' Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve Wolf Valley —Antelope Place Lateral, Project No. 7-0-0269, Tract Map No. 29798- 4, Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the City of Temecula, and Wolf Creek Development LLC. 2. Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk. BACKGROUND: Tract Map No. 29798-4 is located north of Wolf Valley Road and east of Wolf Creek Drive North, a portion of the Wolf Creek Development. As a condition of approval, the developer must construct certain flood control storm drain facilities in order to provide flood protection for this planned development. The required facilities to be constructed include approximately 1427 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe as shown on Exhibit "A". Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the developer will construct said facilities, and the County Flood Control District will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility of mainline storm drain improvements excluding all associated catch basins and connector pipes. Furthermore, in accordance with the cooperative agreement, County Flood Control District will review and approve all construction plans associated with the storm drain improvements, inspect the construction of the project (County and City Inspectors will have indirect contact with the contractor via District Inspectors), and accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of Antelope Place Lateral after construction. Participation by the City includes the review and approval of plans and specifications prepared by the Developer, granting permission to the County Flood Control District to inspect, operate and maintain Antelope Place Lateral within City rights of way and acceptance of the operation and maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes located within City rights of way. The City will accept and hold Faithful Performance Bonds for the storm drain improvements. Following City Council adoption of the Cooperative Agreement, it will be sent to the County Flood Control District and County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for their approval. 1 RMGENDA REPORTS12004\052504\TR297983COOP.AGR.dm FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map (Exhibit "A") Cooperative Agreement (6 copies) 2R:WGENDA REPORTS�2004\052504%TR297983COOP.AGR.dm Exhibit A N�pp�,�1t y Q H �9 N\GN�p. REDHAWK PARKWAY Q- P vaO e WOLF VALLEY ROAD n9 p Rago PROJECT SITE RAINBOW CANYON ROAD VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Cooperative Agreement, Tract 29798-4 Wolfe Valley -Antelope Place Lateral Project No. 7-0-0269 1 of2 Exhibit A � -py :E> m> SHW �� I N {ELOPE I PLACE p� Y z m v� N WAY ULL z ELEMENTARY o SCHOOL SITE ° SHEET 3 2 n c0i a o s.4 COURT 0. 00- . LINE JAWAR (A- — I� 3.10 Oq�3.46 oo= . oo= . Cho-7-7 ,FA, =t1.s3, �- o=o.00 aw=4. 0 PHEASANT ao--8s5 PLACE aoo=13.26 i g I r VICINITY MAP Dc > �o THOMAS GUIDE Pg. 979 (E-4)A�0 Tract 8S, Range 2W, Section 20 O P. Supervisorial District I- WOLF V�AL�OAD Cooperative Agreement, Tract 29798-4 Wolfe Valley -Antelope Place Lateral Project No. 7-0-0269 2 of 2 87224.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AGREEMENT Wolf Valley -Antelope Place Lateral (Tract Map No. 29798-4) The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC, a California limited liability company, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby agree as follows: RECITALS A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Map No. 29798-4 in western Riverside County and as a condition for approval, DEVELOPER must construct certain storm drain facilities in order to provide flood protection and drainage for DEVELOPER'S planned development; and B. The required facilities include approximately 1,427 lineal feet underground storm drain, hereinafter called "PROJECT" as shown in concept in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. PROJECT will connect to a proposed storm drain, hereinafter called "STORM DRAIN" and shown in concept in green on Exhibit "A", to be constructed by DEVELOPER pursuant to a Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA) between DISTRICT, CITY, DEVELOPER; and the Temecula Public Financing Authority District is to inspect STORM DRAIN construction and accept STORM DRAIN for operation and maintenance pursuant to the provisions of said JCFA. C. Associated with the construction of PROJECT is the construction of various catch basins, connector pipes and laterals located within CITY held easements or rights of way, hereinafter called "APPURTENANCES". D. DEVELOPER and CITY desire DISTRICT to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT. Therefore, DISTRICT must -1- 87224.1 1 review and approve DEVELOPER'S plans and specifications and subsequently inspect the 2 construction of PROJECT; and 3 E. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT desire CITY to accept ownership and; 4 responsibility for operation and maintenance of APPURTENANCES, therefore, CITY must) 5 review and approve DEVELOPER'S plans and specifications, and subsequently inspect the 6 7 construction of APPURTENANCES; and 8 F. DISTRICT is willing to (i) review and approve DEVELOPER'S plans and 9 specifications for PROJECT and APPURTENANCES, (ii) inspect the construction of 10 PROJECT, and (iii) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of 11 PROJECT, provided DEVELOPER (i) complies with this Agreement, (ii) pays DISTRICT the 12 amount specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S plan review and construction inspection costs for 13 PROJECT, (iii) pays DISTRICT the amount specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S estimated 14 cost to operate and maintain PROJECT for a period of ten (10) years commencing upon 15 16 DISTRICT'S acceptance of PROJECT as complete for ownership, operation and maintenance, 17 (iv) constructs PROJECT and APPURTENANCES in accordance with plans and specifications 18 approved by DISTRICT and CITY, (v) accepts ownership and sole responsibility for the 19 operation and maintenance of PROJECT and APPURTENANCES following completion of 20 PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for 21 the operation and maintenance of PROJECT and CITY accepts ownership and responsibility for 22 operation and maintenance of APPURTENANCES as set forth herein, and (vi) obtains all 23 24 regulatory permits as set forth herein; and 25 G. CITY is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications prepared 26 by DEVELOPER for PROJECT and APPURTENANCES, (ii) accept and hold faithful 27 performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (iii) grant 28 -2- 87224.1 1 DISTRICT the right to inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way, and 2 (iv) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of 3 APPURTENANCES provided PROJECT and APPURTENANCES are constructed in 4 accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY. 5 6 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 7 SECTION I 8 DEVELOPER shall: 9 1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT, hereinafter called 10 "IMPROVEMENT PLANS", in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit to 11 DISTRICT and CITY for review and approval. 12 2. Continue to pay DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of periodic 13 billings from DISTRICT, any and all such amounts as are deemed reasonably necessary by 14 DISTRICT to cover DISTRICT'S costs associated with the review of IMPROVEMENT PLANS 15 16 and with the processing and administration of this Agreement. 17 3. Deposit with DISTRICT (Attention: Business Office — Accounts 18 Receivable), at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT 19 construction as set forth in Section I.10. herein, the estimated cost of providing construction 20 inspection for PROJECT, in an amount as determined and approved by DISTRICT in accordance 21 with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the County of Riverside, including any amendments thereto, 22 based upon the bonded value of PROJECT. 23 24 4. Pay DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the 25 start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section I.10. herein, the one time cash sum of 26 $2,450.00 (two thousand four hundred and fifty dollars), the amount agreed upon to cover 27 DISTRICT'S estimated cost to operate and maintain PROJECT for a period of ten (10) years 28 -3- 87224.1 1 (Zone 7 Maintenance Trust Fund) commencing upon DISTRICT'S acceptance of PROJECT as 2 complete for ownership, operation and maintenance. 3 5. Secure, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, agreements,', 4 permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, operation and 5 6 maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing 7 written notice to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.10. herein, with 8 sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured such necessary licenses, agreements, 9 permits and rights of entry, as determined and approved by DISTRICT. 10 6. Furnish DISTRICT with copies of all permits, approvals or agreements 11 required by any Federal or State resource and/or regulatory agency pertaining to the construction, 12 operation and maintenance of PROJECT and any amendments thereto. Such documents include 13 but are not limited to those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional 14 Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and State Water 15 Resources Control Board. 16 17 7. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the 18 start of construction as set forth in Section I.10. herein, with faithful performance and payment 19 bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of PROJECT as 20 determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the 21 approval of DISTRICT and CITY. The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until 22 PROJECT is accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may be 23 24 reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any defective work, labor or materials. 25 26 8. [This section intentionally left blank] 27 9. [This section intentionally left blank.] 28 -4- 87224.1 1 10. Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention — Mark H. Wills), at least twenty 2 (20) days prior to the start of construction of PROJECT. Construction shall not begin on any 3 element of PROJECT, for any reason whatsoever, until DISTRICT has issued DEVELOPER a 4 written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate construction. 5 6 11. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to enter upon 7 DEVELOPER'S property where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining access to, 8 and performing inspection service for, the construction of PROJECT as set forth herein. 9 12. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of 10 the start of construction as set forth in Section I.10., with a complete list of all contractors and 11 subcontractors to be performing work on PROJECT, including the corresponding license number 12 and license classification of each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall farther identify in writing 13 its designated superintendent for PROJECT construction. 14 15 13. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of 16 the start of construction as set forth in Section I.10. a construction schedule which shall show the 17 order and dates in which DEVELOPER or DEVELOPER'S contractor proposes to carry on the 18 various parts of work, including estimated start and completion dates. As the construction 19 progresses, DEVELOPER shall update said construction schedule as requested by DISTRICT. 20 14. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar IMPROVEMENT PLANS and 21 assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of PROJECT construction. 22 15. Not permit any change to or modification of the IMPROVEMENT PLANS 23 24 without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT. 25 16. Comply with all Cal/OSHA safety regulations including regulations 26 concerning confined space and maintain a safe working environment for DEVELOPER and 27 DISTRICT employees on the site. 28 -5- 87224A 1 17. Furnish DISTRICT, at time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the 2 start of construction as set forth in Section 1.10. herein, a confined space procedure specific to 3 PROJECT. The procedure shall comply with requirements contained in California Code of 4 Regulations, Title 8 Section 5158, Other Confined Space Operations, Section 5157, Permit 5 Required Confined Space and DISTRICT Confined Space Procedures, SOM-18. The procedure 6 7 shall be reviewed and approved by DISTRICT prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed. 8 18. During the construction period of PROJECT, provide Workers' 9 Compensation Insurance in an amount required by law. A certificate of said insurance policy 10 shall be provided to DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant to 11 Section I.10. 12 19. Commencing on the date notice is given pursuant to Section I.10. and 13 continuing until DISTRICT accepts PROJECT as complete for ownership, operation and 14 maintenance: 15 16 (a) Provide and maintain or cause its contractor(s) to provide and 17 maintain comprehensive liability insurance coverage which shall 18 protect DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury, 19 including accidental and wrongful death, as well as from claims for 20 property damage which may arise from DEVELOPER'S construction 21 of PROJECT or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether 22 such construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by any of its 23 contractors, subcontractors, or by anyone employed directly or 24 25 indirectly by any of them. Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, 26 County of Riverside and CITY as additional insureds with respect to 27 this Agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. 28 -6- 97224.1 1 Such insurance shall provide for limits of not less than two million 2 dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence. 3 (b) Cause its insurance carrier(s) or its contractor's insurance carrier(s), 4 who shall be authorized by the California Department of Insurance 5 6 to transact the business of insurance in the State of California, to 7 famish DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice 8 to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.10. 9 with certificate(s) of insurance and applicable policy endorsements 10 showing that such insurance is in full force and effect and that 11 DISTRICT, County of Riverside and CITY are named as additional 12 insureds with respect to this Agreement and the obligations of 13 DEVELOPER hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall state that 14 15 the issuing company shall give DISTRICT, County of Riverside and 16 CITY sixty (60) days written notice in the event of any cancellation, 17 termination, non -renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies 18 evidenced by the certificate(s). In the event of any such 19 cancellation, termination, non -renewal or reduction in coverage, 20 DEVELOPER shall, forthwith, secure replacement insurance 21 meeting the provisions of this paragraph. 22 Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be 23 24 deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for 25 DISTRICT, at its sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section 26 IV.3. 27 28 -7- 87224.1 1 20. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT and APPURTENANCES 2 at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY approved 3 IMPROVEMENTPLANS. 4 21. [This section intentionally left blank] 5 6 22. [This section intentionally left blank.] 7 23. Within two weeks of completing PROJECT construction, provide 8 DISTRICT with written notice (Attention: Contract Administration Section) that PROJECT 9 construction is substantially complete and requesting that DISTRICT conduct a final inspection 10 of PROJECT. 11 24. Accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance 12 of PROJECT and APPURTENANCES, until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and 13 responsibility for operation and maintenance of PROJECT and CITY accepts ownership and 14 15 responsibility for operation and maintenance of APPURTENANCES as set forth herein. Further, 16 it is mutually understood by the parties hereto that prior to DISTRICT acceptance of ownership 17 and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein, PROJECT 18 shall be in a satisfactorily maintained condition as solely determined by DISTRICT. 19 25. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the 20 completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable 21 attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees 22 shall be computed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. 23 24 26. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT 25 acceptance of PROJECT for ownership, operation and maintenance, DEVELOPER'S civil 26 engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of 27 California, shall provide DISTRICT a redlined "as -built" copy of IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 28 -8- 87224.1 1 After DISTRICT approval of the redlined "as -built" drawings, DEVELOPER'S engineer shall 2 schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the redlined changes onto DISTRICT'S original 3 mylars at DISTRICT'S office, after which the engineer shall review, stamp and sign PROJECT 4 plans "AS -BUILT". 5 SECTION II 6 7 DISTRICT shall: 8 1. Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prepared by DEVELOPER 9 prior to the start of PROJECT construction. 10 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review and approve IMPROVEMENT 11 PLANS prior to DISTRICT'S final approval. 12 3. Upon execution of this Agreement, record or cause to be recorded, a copy 13 of this Agreement in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder. 14 IS 4. [This section intentionally left blank.] 16 5. Inspect PROJECT construction. 17 6. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT costs associated with the 18 review and approval of IMPROVEMENT PLANS and in the processing and administration of 19 this Agreement. 20 7. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection 21 costs, and within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being 22 complete, submit a final cost statement to DEVELOPER. If the deposit, as set forth in Section 23 I.3. exceeds such costs, DISTRICT shall reimburse DEVELOPER the excess amount within 24 25 sixty (60) days after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. If at any time the 26 costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT to exceed the deposit, DEVELOPER 27 28 -9- 87224.1 1 shall pay such additional amount(s), as deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to complete 2 the inspection of PROJECT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of billing from DISTRICT. 3 8. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of 4 . PROJECT upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete, (ii) 5 acceptance by CITY of all necessary rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT and 6 7 CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT and APPURTENANCES, and (iii) 8 acceptance of STORM DRAIN pursuant to the provisions of the JCFA. 9 9. Provide CITY with a reproducible duplicate copy of "as -built" 10 IMPROVEMENT PLANS upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. 11 SECTION III 12 CITY shall: 13 1. Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prepared by DEVELOPER 14 prior to the start of PROJECT construction. 15 16 2. Accept the CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and 17 payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section I.7. and hold said bonds as 18 provided herein. 19 3. By execution of this Agreement, grant DISTRICT, the right to construct, 20 inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way. 21 4. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept 22 ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of APPURTENANCES. 23 SECTION IV 24 25 It is further mutually agreed: 26 1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT and 27 shall not be deemed complete until approved and accepted in writing as complete by DISTRICT. 28 -10- 87224.1 1 2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect all work being 2 done on PROJECT, but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT personnel who shall be solely 3 responsible for all quality control communications with the DEVELOPER'S contractor(s) during 4 the construction of PROJECT. 5 3. DEVELOPER shall complete construction of PROJECT within twelve (12) 6 7 consecutive months after execution of this Agreement and within thirty (30) consecutive 8 calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly understood that since time is 9 of the essence in this Agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed 10 upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require 11 DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, CITY 12 shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred. 13 4. DISTRICT shall endeavor to issue DEVELOPER a Notice to Proceed 14 within twenty (20) days of receipt of DEVELOPER'S complete written notice as set forth in 15 16 Section I.10.; however, DISTRICT'S construction inspection staff is limited and, therefore, the 17 issuance of a Notice to Proceed is subject to staff availability. 18 In the event DEVELOPER wishes to expedite issuance of a Notice to 19 Proceed, DEVELOPER may elect to furnish an independent qualified construction inspector at 20 DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense. DEVELOPER shall furnish appropriate documentation 21 of the individual's credentials and experience to DISTRICT for review and, if appropriate, 22 approval. DISTRICT shall review the individual's qualifications and experience and, upon 23 24 approval thereof, said individual, hereinafter called "DEPUTY INSPECTOR", shall be 25 authorized to act on DISTRICT'S behalf on all PROJECT construction and quality control 26 matters. If DEVELOPER'S initial construction inspection deposit furnished pursuant to Section 27 I.3. exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), DISTRICT shall refund to DEVELOPER up to 28 -11- 87224.1 1 eighty percent (80%) of DEVELOPER'S initial inspection deposit within forty-five (45) days of 2 DISTRICT'S approval of DEPUTY INSPECTOR; however, a minimum balance of five 3 thousand dollars ($5,000.00) shall be retained on account. 4 5. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, waive the 5 6 provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating to fees and charges. Such waiver is 7 accomplished with the understanding that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the obligation to 8 accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and 9 DEVELOPER is not required by DISTRICT to enter into this Agreement. 10 6. PROJECT construction work shall be on a five (5) day, forty (40) hour 11 work week with no work on Saturdays, Sundays or DISTRICT designated legal holidays, unless 12 otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. If DEVELOPER feels it is necessary to work 13 more than the normal forty (40) hour work week or on holidays, DEVELOPER shall make a 14 15 written request for permission from DISTRICT to work the additional hours. The request shall 16 be submitted to DISTRICT at least 72 hours prior to the requested additional work hours and 17 state the reasons for the overtime and the specific time frames required. The decision of granting 18 permission for overtime work shall be made by DISTRICT at its sole discretion and shall be 19 final. If permission is granted by DISTRICT, DEVELOPER will be charged the cost incurred at 20 the overtime rates for additional inspection time required in connection with the overtime work 21 in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of the 22 County of Riverside. 23 24 7. DEVELOPER shall not request DISTRICT or CITY to accept any portion 25 of PROJECT or APPURTENANCES for operation and maintenance until PROJECT is complete 26 in accordance with Section II.8. herein. 27 28 -12- 87224A 1 8. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought against DISTRICT or 2 CITY in connection with this Agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by 3 DEVELOPER, including but not limited to design, construction or failure of PROJECT, 4 DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY harmless therefrom, 5 6 without cost to DISTRICT or CITY. Upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and 7 CITY shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPER all of their costs and expenses, including, 8 but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. 9 9. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY, 10 their respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from 11 any claim or legal action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the 12 California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law 13 or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage caused by from the diversion 14 15 of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except claims and litigation arising 16 through the negligence or willful misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY, which claims shall be 17 shared by the parties on a pro rata basis based on their respective responsibilities. DEVELOPER 18 shall defend DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon 19 DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled to recover from 20 DEVELOPER all of their costs and expenditures, including, but not limited to, reasonable 21 attorneys' fees. 22 10. DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns hereby releases 23 24 DISTRICT and CITY, their respective officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, 25 demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or 26 future, including, but not limited to any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, 27 Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States 28 -13- 87224.1 1 Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, 2 whatsoever, for damage caused by the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing 3 contained herein shall constitute a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their 4 officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind 5 arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance 6 7 of PROJECT and APPURTENANCES, after the acceptance of PROJECT and 8 APPURTENANCES by DISTRICT and CITY. 9 11. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any one or more of 10 the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other 11 breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to 12 require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this Agreement shall not be 13 construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from 14 enforcement hereof. 15 16 12. If any provision in this Agreement (with the exception of Section IV.5) is 17 held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining 18 provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any 19 way. Should it be held by a court of competent jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.5 is 20 invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code 65913.8(b) shall apply. It 21 shall, therefore, be determined that this fee is extended for a period of ten years, commencing 22 upon DISTRICT'S acceptance of PROJECT for ownership, operation and maintenance. 23 13. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State 24 of California. 25 26 14. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this 27 Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: 28 -14- 87224.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 Wolf Creek Development, LLC c/o Standard Pacific Homes 225 E. Rincon Street, Suite 200 Corona, CA 92879 Attn: Adam Smith CITY OF TEMECULA Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 Attn:Chris White 15. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by the Agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county. 16. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared as a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this Agreement in its final form. 17. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding's upon all heirs, successors and assignees. 18. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with. respect to any and all of the obligations and duties contained in this Agreement. 19. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of DEVELOPER hereby certify that they have the authority within their respective companies to enter into and execute this Agreement, and have been authorized to do so by any and all boards of directors, -15- 87224A 1 legal counsel, and or any other board, committee or other entity within their respective 2 companies which have the authority to authorize or deny entering this Agreement. 3 20. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a final expression of 4 their understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive 5 statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and 6 7 contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This 8 Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16- 87224.1 1 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on (to be filled in by Clerk to the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel By LEE A. VINOCOUR Deputy County Counsel Dated %kkz-a.1C1%4 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By WILLIAM G. HUGHES Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT By JAMES A. VENABLE, Chairman Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors ATTEST: NANCY ROMERO Clerk to the Board as (SEAL) CITY OF TEMECULA MIKE NAGGAR Mayor ATTEST: SUSAN W. JONES, CMC/AAE City Clerk (SEAL) Cooperative Agreement: Tract Map No. 29798-4 KEC:bj 4/22/2004 -17- 87224.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131 14 15 16 17 18 MA 20 21 22 23 24 25 II F�71 28 II WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC a California limited liability company Standard Pacific A Delaware corl Its managing m5 MICHAEL J. WI Auffiodzed (NOTARY) Cooperative Agreement: Tract Map No. 29798-4 4/22/2004 -18- CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of _Riverside On _May 12, 2004 before me, _D_Soriia, Notary Public_ Date Name and personally appeared Michael J_White rr. personally known tome ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persoDiar whose namg(ey islere- subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shoA4ey executed the same in his/heO#wir authorized capacity(iee}, and that by his/heNfhei-- signature(sron the instrument the perso*r or the entity upon behalf of which the persoro< acted, executed the instrument. WIT" my hand and official seal. J- Signature of Notary Public Though the Information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Agreement Document Date: __ __ Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ____________________ . Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: —Michael—J. White ❑ Individual El Corporate Officer— Title(s): _Vice President of Project Management ❑ Partner —? Limited ? General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Standard Pacific Homes and/or Wolf Creek Development LLC 9 P 9------------------------------------------------- 20 Exhibit A ---L- . _Vk �MLAKE ATHEWS R pERRIS ERRI 'Cary ��AA . E191N� MURU IET DIEGO� TEME N JACINTO 0 ET EASTSIDE RESERVOIR t:VSWNNER LAKE PROJECT SITE `VAR LAKE RI�RSIDE CO. A SAN DIEGO. CO. HEMET RESERVOIR DESERT OHOT SPRINGS A' N VICINITY MAP NTS . Cooperative Agreement; Tract 29798-4 Wolfe Valley -Antelope Place Lateral Project No. 7-0-0269 1 of 2 Exhibit A EtiF'p���pl Q y J9 N�ON�P REDHAWK PARKWAY P �O Q WOLF VALLEY ROAD F� p� Rogo PROJECT SITE � L tT � RAINBOW CANYON ROAD VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Cooperative Agreement, Tract 29798-4 Wolfe Valley -Antelope Place Lateral Project No. 7-0-0269 1 of 2 Exhibit A K �z D 9 = WAY ULL ELEMENTARY ^3 fi SCHOOL SITE°� 3 2 fi n Q� 4 COURT-- n _.� LINE 'F" � `• i JAGUAR — _ CIA WAY . ao= Q�3.46 wo= . Qio=7.7 00=77.9 'FA' Qo=o.00 Qoo=4. PHEASANT �� ass 00 / �=13.26 ID � r VICINITY MAP < �o THOMAS GUIDE Pg. 979 (E-4) W -o Tract 8S, Range 2W, Section 20 I �o 3rd. Supervisorial District I C1) WOLF ROAD Cooperative • Cooperative Agreement, Tract 29798-4 Wolfe Valley -Antelope Place Lateral Project No. 7-0-0269 2of2 ITEM 10 APPROVAL CITYATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER tr CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: I City Manager/City Council ,. VIA FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: TM29639 - Approval of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Acceptance of Bonds for Winchester Road and Ynez Road Improvements as part of Harveston Development (CFD03-06) PREPARED BY: 0 Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1) approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and 2) accept the Faithful Performance Bond and Labor & Materials Bond as security for the agreement. BACKGROUND: On August 14, 2001, the City Council approved the Conditions of Approval for PA00-0295 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29639). As part of the Conditions of Approval the developer was required to improve the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road including the addition of northbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, and a southbound right turn lane. Also, the developer was required to construct an eastbound left turn lane, an eastbound through lane and a west bound through lane (within the State right-of-way) at the same intersection. A Subdivision Agreement and Surety Bonds were secured by the developer for the Ynez Road portion of the improvements (City right-of-way) and are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Temecula as follows: Harveston, LLC 391 N. Main Street, Suite 301 Corona, CA 92880 Attn: Mary Rauschenburg Accompanying the subdivision agreement were surety bonds posted by Insurance Fidelity and Deposit Company as follows: Faithful Performance Bond No. 0874 5269 in the amount of $700,000 for street and drainage improvements at Ynez Road. 2. Labor and Materials Bond No. 0874 5269 in the amount of $350,000 for labor and materials. The Faithful Performance Bond will be held until and upon satisfactory completion of the public improvements. The Labor and Materials Bond for the improvements will be maintained for the contractual six-month lien period following acceptance of the public improvements. R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2004\052504\TM29639-CFD03-06.AgreementBonds.DOC FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Subdivision Improvement Agreement (On file with Clerk) 2. Faithful Performance Bond (On file with Clerk) 3. Labor and Materials Bond (On file with Clerk) 4. Vicinity Map RAAGENDA REPORTS\2004\052504\TM29639-CFD03-06.AgreementBonds.DOC C Z O a O O z F _O Q ON S° Q. F J LL W 0 W O om 9 d M Q LL oSNo' y yaW00 "'to <Z z3�acF o oho O� U=�WQ ��=20 QF j. W W � R o u m � oial�nry mi o0 U.OZm °suZ LL 0 ul ZLLIv3c gacp W m' W � o O ose a �� yg a yr, �j mEo o ¢ z Q W S �F a 0a W O C a — Z OIx W L Z o aoarol3 e` N�r _ sod a2t -�� ¢Va Ow Ol JOWO� 14 ¢�u poi ao w _ N - K F OFOO O� t- 000� O O I .� _xie�¢uo Tin ua O✓.¢i w 0 ,.O ,o � n8b o 6 ICI �S F. ¢ � e J W 38 I f W e O H U $IIIII � I oomia -os o w � � I � Z,W 0 F - (76f o 90� 7Ya SI 31 ot7y 1 F m N � Z � - 90i 00 a0ala Wg V m m Y V 3 � _o ao mN ti in -p of r van e � 1 ieo i�i�l•if_i����i ��Y _ t��n�In1MNM�miatpT l�iN i0i 0it�ttOn nm ii •it �90 tMttt i it0 - ITEM 11 APPROVAL // CITY ATTORNEY `Ml DIRECTOR OF FINA /C& CITY MANAGER /�y) ► CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: I-kwWilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Winchester Road (SR 79N) Maintenance Agreement with Riverside County PREPARED BY: Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR A SEGMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (SR 79) LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AS PART OF THE FUTURE RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE ROUTE 79 TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SENATE BILL 87) 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Maintenance Agreement between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. 3. Authorize the City Clerk's Office to forward five (5) executed copies of the Agreement and Resolution to the Riverside County Transportation Department for action by the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 87 (SB 87), sponsored by Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, will provide for the State of California's Department of Transportation (Caltrans) relinquishment of ownership and maintenance responsibilities to the City of Temecula for those segments of Winchester Road (SR 79N) and State Route 79 South (SR 79S) located within the City's boundaries. As part of this legislation, Caltrans District 8 is responsible for preparing the Relinquishment Agreement for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), which will essentially complete the relinquishment process. R:\agdrpt\2004\0525\County-CityMaintAgrmt.SR79 However, Caltrans has raised concerns regarding the City's boundary limits on Winchester Road (SR 79N), just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. At this location, the City's eastern boundary does not evenly intersect the highway. The boundary is configured in such a way that the City and Riverside County share the centerline boundary of Winchester Road for approximately 2,065 linear feet. Thus, for the area of Winchester Road located within 2,065 feet of the eastern City boundary, approximately one-half of Winchester Road is in the City and one- half is in the County of Riverside. As part of the relinquishment process, Caltrans has requested that the City maintain the unincorporated right-of-way area in conjunction with its maintenance of the remainder of Winchester Road as set forth in SB 87. In order to accomplish this, it is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Maintenance Agreement between the City and the County of Riverside for the aforementioned segment of the Winchester Road right-of-way. Pursuant to the Maintenance Agreement, the City shall improve, modify, maintain and repair the highway and its drainage facilities, and traffic signals, etc. beginning upon the effective date of the State's relinquishment of jurisdiction over Winchester Road, and will continue in effect unless the State terminates the agreement or upon the City's future annexation of the subject right-of-way. Given the unique configuration of the Winchester Road right-of-way relinquishment area, this Maintenance Agreement will benefit both the City and County by allowing for uniform and efficient maintenance of the highway. The Riverside County Transportation Department and County Counsel has also reviewed and approved the provisions of the Maintenance Agreement. Upon approval by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, the fully executed document will be forwarded to Caltrans District 8 for incorporation into the Relinquishment Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will not assume the maintenance responsibilities for this portion of Winchester Road until the Relinquishment Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of SB 87, has been approved and recorded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). As a result, there is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Maintenance Agreement between the City and the County of Riverside at this time. Upon formal relinquishment of this segment of Winchester Road (SR 79N), the associated maintenance costs will be included in the City's annual road maintenance budget. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 04- Exhibit A — Maintenance Agreement and Description of Winchester Road Right -of -Way area R:\agdrpt\2004\0525\County-CityMaintAgrmt.SR79 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR A SEGMENT OF WINCHESTER ROAD (SR 79) LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AS PART OF THE FUTURE RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE ROUTE 79 TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA (SENATE BILL 87) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Senate Bill 87 (SB 87) will provide for the State of California's (Caltrans) future relinquishment of ownership and maintenance responsibilities to the City of Temecula for those segments of Winchester Road (SR 79N) and State Route 79 South (SR 79S) located within the City's boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City's eastern boundary does not evenly intersect the highway at this location and the City and County of Riverside share the centerline boundary of Winchester Road for approximately 2,065 linear feet; and WHEREAS, Caltrans has requested that the City enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the County of Riverside to maintain the unincorporated right-of-way area in conjunction with its maintenance of the remainder of Winchester Road. The Maintenance Agreement and subject right-of-way area are described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, given the unique configuration of the Winchester Road right-of-way relinquishment area, the Maintenance Agreement will benefit both the City and County by allowing for uniform and efficient maintenance of the highway; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Maintenance Agreement will satisfy Caltrans' concerns regarding this segment of the highway with relationship to the future Relinquishment Agreement as set forth in SB 87. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby agrees to the terms and conditions of said Maintenance Agreement with the County of Riverside for the maintenance of that portion of Winchester Road (SR 79N) located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Section 2. The terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement shall become effective in accordance with the approval and recordation of the Relinquishment Agreement by the California Transportation Commission as set forth in SB 87. R:\agd rpt\2004\0525\County-Ci tyMaintAg"t. SR79 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\agdrpt\2004\0525\County-CityMai ntAg"t. S R79 4 EXHIBIT A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD (SR79N) RIGHT -OF- WAY AREA R:\agdrpt\2004\0525\County-CityMai ntAg"t. S R79 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of , 2004 by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and the County of Riverside ("County"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each party hereto acknowledges as true and correct: a. State Route 79 North ("SR 79N") is currently a state highway which runs through the City of Temecula from Interstate 15 past the eastern City boundary and into the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside. SR 79N is also known as Winchester Road. b. Senate Bill 87 ("SB 87") is pending in the Legislature. If enacted, SB 87 will provide for the State of California's relinquishment and transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibilities to the City of Temecula for that portion of SR 79N from Interstate 15 to the eastern City boundary. The State, through Caltrans, would retain jurisdiction over SR 79N east of the City's eastern boundary within unincorporated Riverside County. The transfer of jurisdiction will be complete upon the execution of a relinquishment agreement between the California Transportation Commission and the City of Temecula. C. The City's eastern boundary at SR 79N does not evenly intersect SR 79N. The boundary is configured in such a way that it runs down the center of SR 79N for approximately 2,065 feet from the boundary. Thus, for the area of SR 79N located within 2,065 feet of the eastern City boundary, roughly one half of SR 79N is in the City and one half is in the County of Riverside. A map depicting this portion of SR 79N and the portions of the right of way within the City and County, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Subject Right of Way'). d. In order to most efficiently provide for the maintenance of SR 79N at this location, Caltrans has requested that the City of Temecula agree to maintain the Subject Right of Way in conjunction with its maintenance of the remainder of SR 79N right of way as set forth in SB 87. e. This Agreement benefits both the City and the County by allowing for uniform and efficient maintenance of the Subject Right of Way given its unique configuration. 2. Maintenance Responsibilities. The City shall: (i) improve, modify, maintain and repair the roadway, drainage facilities, traffic signals, signs, lighting, and irrigation and landscaping within the Subject Right of Way; (ii) govern use of Subject Right of Way by others through encroachment permit process (iii) remove all trash and debris from the Subject Right of Way; and (iv) pay all utilities, including, but not limited to, water and electricity necessary to provide for the operation of facilities, lighting and traffic devices within the Subject Right of Way. City shall maintain the Subject Right of Way in accordance with applicable law and the City's roadway and right of way maintenance standards. 3. Term. This Agreement shall commence upon the effective date of the State's relinquishment of jurisdiction over SR 79S and shall continue in effect until such time as: (1) Caltrans approves the termination of this Agreement by either party; (2) the effective date, if any, of the City's annexation of the area within the Subject Right of Way. R: VAg reements\Traff cagnnts\County-CityMai ntAgrmt. S R79 4. Right of Entry. County hereby grants to the City a non-exclusive license to go onto the Subject Right of Way in order to perform the maintenance as provided by this Agreement. 5. Indemnification. a. City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the County, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the County, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the City's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, or which may arise from the ownership of the Property, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the County. b. County agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the County's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 6. Defaults and Remedies a. Subject to the extensions of time set approved in writing by a party, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default (claimant) shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default complained of. b. The claimant shall not institute proceedings against the other party nor be entitled to damages if the other party within fourteen (14) days from receipt of such notice immediately, with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Such cure, correction and remedy shall include payment of any costs, expenses (including attorney fees) or damages incurred by the non -defaulting party resulting from the default or during the period of default. C. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. d. Any f ailures o r d elays b y e ither p arty i n a sserting a ny of i is r ights a nd remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. e. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the non -defaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. R:\Agreements\Trafcagrmts\County-CityMai ntAgrmt.S R79 f. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the non -defaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of terms of this Agreement. g. In the event litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses incurred in the action. 7. Force Maieure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, if the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either City or County is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or any other cause (except financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment by a party as required by this Agreement or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 8. Notices to Parties Written notices, demands and communications among the City and County, shall be sufficiently given by either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: City: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Director of Public Works County: Chief Administrative Officer County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, 12'" Floor Riverside, Ca. 92501 County Engineer: Director of Transportation Department County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor Riverside, California 92501 9. Agreement Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and lawful assigns of the parties hereto. 10. Assignment. Neither Party shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided however that either party may assign this Agreement to a related public entity without the consent of the other; provided however, that nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, prohibit the City from employing contractors to perform its maintenance obligations within the Subject Right of Way.. R:\Agreements\Trafficagrmts\County-CityMaintAgrmt.SR79 11. Sole and Only Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between City and County respecting the matters contained herein. Any agreements or representations, either oral or written, respecting the matters discussed in this Agreement not expressly set forth in this Agreement are null and void. 12. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Lease. 13. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her governmental entity and warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to bind his or her entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 14. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than the County, the City, and their respective successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. CITY OF TEMECULA Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney R:\Agreements\Trafficag"ts\County-CityMaintAgrmt. SR79 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Bv: Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Approved as to Form: William Katzenstein, County Counsel Bv: Deputy County Counsel R:\Agreements\TrafficagffntsNCounty-CityMaintAgmt.SR79 ITEM 12 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: 'HAVilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation— Phase II, Project No. PW02-26 Award of a Construction Contract and Approval of Reimbursement Agreements PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Award a construction contract for Project No. PW02-26 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II, from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road to Griffith Company in the amount of $1,997,758.95 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $199,775.90, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 3. Approve a budget transfer in the amount of $760,000.00 from the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project to the Jefferson Avenue Rehabilitation — Phase II Project to cover the construction costs. 4. Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between Rancho California Water District (RCW D) and the City of Temecula in the amount of $28,780 for Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II and authorize the City Manger to execute the reimbursement agreement. 5. Approve the Reimbursement Agreement between Eastern Municipal Water District (EMW D) and the City of Temecula in the amount of $6,720 for Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II and authorize the City Manager to execute the reimbursement agreement. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 2004, the City Council approved the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the subject project. The project will include complete pavement reconstruction, lowing the crown of the roadway within the project limits, replacement of problematic driveways and broken curb & gutter, utility relocations, signing & striping, and traffic control. This project will improve and extend the life of the roadway and correct bottoming out problems at many driveways due to the high crown in the road. RAGENDA REPORTS\2004\052504\PW02-26 Jeff Rehab AWD.DOC Four (4) bids were received and publicly opened on Tuesday, May 18, 2004. The results were as follows: 1. Griffith Company 2. All American Asphalt 3. R.J. Noble Company 4. Vance Corporation $1,997,758.95 $2,014,920.00* $2,080,524.89 $2,318,335.80 *Bidder no. 2 above had a mathematical error in their bid. The number above reflects the corrected bid. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Griffith Company of Santa Ana, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Griffith Company has extensive experience in road construction projects and has successfully completed similar projects for other Cities throughout Southern California. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $2,500,000.00. The Reimbursement Agreement with RCWD states that RCWD will reimburse the City for the following water relocations: Bid Item #20 Relocate Existing Water Meter $ 4,950 Bid Item #23 Relocate Air Vac $ 2,700 Bid Item #24 Relocate Fire Hydrant $ 3,850 Bid Item #25 Adjust Existing Valve Cover to Grade $17,280 Total: $ 28,780 The Reimbursement Agreement with EMWD states that EMWD will reimburse the City for the following sewer relocations: Bid Item #26 Adjust Existing Manhole to Grade $6,720 Total: $ 6,720 The transfer of $760,000.00 from the Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II project is to cover the construction costs of $2,197,534.85, and related costs for construction management, geotechnical material testing and administrative costs. FISCAL IMPACT: The Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II is a Capital Improvement Program Project and funded with Measure A and Capital Project Reserves. The transfer of $760,000.00 from the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project is necessary to cover the construction and administrative costs for this project. The total construction cost is $2,197,534.85, which includes the contract amount of $1,997,758.95 plus 10% contingency of $199,775.90. All costs associated with both Reimbursement Agreements will be paid for by RCWD and EMWD at no fiscal impact to the City. RAAGENDA REPORTS\2004\052504\PW02-26 Jeff Rehab AWD.DOC ATTACHMENT: 1. Location Map 2. Project Description 3. Contract 4. Reimbursement Agreement with RCWD 5. Reimbursement Agreement with EMWD 3 RAAGENDA REPORT&2004\052504\PW02-26 Jeff Rehab AWD.DOC s W 7 F d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 6s 'n `TS 11 es ao 'C F o 'En v U W u 0 F 0- O 0 u u N F RI •0 m o m N d F d d U U A MW-1 -31 8 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW02-26 JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE H FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 25th day of May, 2004 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY', and Griffith Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." W ITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 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 PROJECT NO. PW02- 26, JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications for Construction of Local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW02-26, JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714)517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW02-26, J EFFERSON AVENUE P AVEMENT R EHABILITATION — P HASE I I F ROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD. 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. CONTRACT C-1 RAD"ROJECTWWOMW02-26 Jefferson Avenue Rehati &ton -Phase IMgreement Contwt-ComMOonAm Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW02-26 JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE II FROM SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 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 NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT DOLLARS and NINETY FIVE CENTS ($1,997,758.95), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed sixty (60) 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 City Engineer 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 City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. CONTRACT C-2 RAO"ROJECT6NW02NW02-26 Jefferson Avenue Rehabilbton- Phase PlAgreements Contact-ComrLdonAac B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. 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. CONTRACT C3 RACIPPROJEUSTWONW02-26 Jeff s nAvenue RehaWhi on-PhaeIMA�&Conte-ComtruNon,tl 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relations's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, 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 CITY. 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 he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way 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 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. CONTRACT CA RIC"R0JECTSIPW021PW02-26 Jefferson Avenue RehahMon-PhaseIMgre menWContr -COMS JonE 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. CONTRACT C-5 R:0PJ'ROJECT51PWUPW02.26 Jeflermn Avenue RehadlAl n - Phase K4mm MContr -COI6E Mn.0 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT C-6 R.ICIPPROJECTSTWOMM-26 Jefferson Avenue Rehadl!t n- Phase K4memen%kContW-ComW n,dm IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR Griffith Company 2020 S. Yale St. Santa Ana, CA 92704 (714) 549-2291 James D. Waltze, President/CEO Thomas L. Foss, Executive Vice President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Michael S. Naggar, Mayor CONTRACT C-7 R9CIRPROJECTS MONW02-26 Jefferson Avenue Rehabililadon - Phase IIfteemenWContacb Conshuotion.doc JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE II PROJECT NO. PW02-26 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 2004, between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Eastern Municipal Water District, a public agency organized and existing pursuant to Division 20 of the California Water Code, hereinafter referred to as "EMWD". In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Section I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish reimbursement to CITY by EMWD for the cost of the relocation and installation of certain sewer improvements made necessary by the construction of Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road, Project No. PW02-26 hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". Section If. EMWD shall reimburse CITY for one hundred percent (100%) of the costs (hereinafter referred to as "REIMBURSEMENT"), for the relocation and installation of certain sewer improvements within the PROJECT area that are affected by the PROJECT. The costs for the REIMBURSEMENT to CITY by EMWD shall include the following items as shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet: A. Sewer Item Extended Bid Amounts Bid Item#26 Adjust Existing Manhole to Grade $ 6,720 Total $ 6,720 Section III. Costs are based on construction bids received for the PROJECT shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet as bid item #26 (Adjust Existing Manhole to Grade). CITY has evaluated and analyzed all bids received and selected the lowest responsible bidder for the PROJECT as Griffith Company (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"). EMWD has reviewed the bids and concurred with the appropriate costs, prior to the commencement of the work on the PROJECT. EMWD shall maintain as a contingency an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the total estimated costs of constructing the sewer facilities to account for unforeseen changes to the work. The CITY shall obtain approval from EMWD prior to the approval of any change orders associated with the relocation and installation of these facilities, and authorizing the contractor to proceed unless failure to act immediately may affect public safety. The cost of any delay in the work due to the delayed action of EMWD in approving change orders associated with the sewer facility construction shall be borne by EMWD. EMWD shall respond to sewer facility change orders within three business days. CITY shall make payment to CONTRACTOR for work performed. Actual costs shall be identified and billed to EMWD for payment on the following basis: A. Payment: Upon completion of construction and determination of final costs, City shall invoice District for District's share of the project costs. District shall make payment to City within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of an approved invoice. r.\cip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimbursea9rmt Section IV. It is acknowledged that EMWD has reviewed and approved all CITY plans and specifications for the relocation and installation of the sewerfacility improvements and has approved the bid amount as reasonable. Management and administration of the terms expressed herein shall be performed by CITY for the PROJECT. CITY agrees to designate Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer, Capital Projects, as the contact for CITY in regards to this agreement. EMWD agrees to designate Mr. Victor J. Barreto, Senior Civil Engineer, as a point of contact for EMWD to facilitate the reimbursements identified herein. Section V. INSPECTION Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) shall be responsible to inspect the work related to the adjustment of sewer manholes performed by City's contractor for compliance with EMWD standards, specifically, Bid Item "Adjust Existing Manhole to Grade". EMWD's inspection personnel shall have the authority to require that any and all unacceptable materials, workmanship and/or installation to replace, repaired or corrected by the City's contractor without cost to EMWD. All inspection costs incurred by EMWD will be solely financed by EMWD. Section VI. INDEMNIFICATION The District and the City each hereby agree to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the other party and their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, of and from any liabilities, claims, demands, suits, action and cause of action arising out of or in any manner connected with any act or omission of such indemnifying part, performed in connection with such party's duties and obligations hereunder. Section VII. INSURANCE For the period during which City or its contractor(s) controls the job site, City will provide, or cause to be provided, for the entire period of construction, a policy of worker's compensation insurance and comprehensive general liability insurance with coverage broad enough to include the contractual obligation it may have under the construction contract and having a combined single limit of liability in the amount of $2,000,000 covering District's officers, employees and agents as additional insureds. Section Vill. NOTICES All notices under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: EMWD: Eastern Municipal Water District P.O. Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Attn: Victor J. Barreto, Senior Civil Engineer CITY: City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer, Capital Projects Either party may change its address for notices by notifying the other party. All notices given at the most recent address specified shall be deemed to have been properly given. r.\cip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimburseagrmt This Agreement is dated as of the date set forth above. District: EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT By: Anthony J. Pack, General Manager ATTEST: By: Rosemary V. Howell, Board Secretary City: ylfi'Kel��IT, LX OX-111 By: Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk r:lcip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimburseagrmt JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION — PHASE 11 PROJECT NO. PW02-26 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 25, 2004, between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Rancho California Water District, a public agency organized and existing pursuant to Division 20 of the California Water Code, hereinafter referred to as "RCWD". In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Section I. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish reimbursement to CITY by RCWD for the cost of the relocation and installation of certain water improvements made necessary by the construction of Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation — Phase II from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road, Project No. PW02-26 hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". Section II. RCWD shall reimburse CITY for one hundred percent (100%) of the costs (hereinafter referred to as "REIMBURSEMENT"), for the relocation and installation of certain water improvements within the PROJECT area that are affected by the PROJECT. The costs for the REIMBURSEMENT to CITY by RCWD shall include the following items as shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet: A. Water Item Extended Bid Amounts Bid Item#20 Relocate Ex. Water Meter $ 4,950 Bid Item#23 Relocate Air Vac $ 2,700 Bid Item#24 Relocate Fire Hydrant $ 3,850 Bid Item#25 Adjust Ex. Valve Cover to Grade $17,280 Total $28,780 Section III. Costs are based on construction bids received for the PROJECT shown within the attached Bid Result Spreadsheet as bid item #20 (Relocate Ex. Water Meter), bid item #23 (Relocate Air Vac), bid item #24 (Relocate Fire Hydrant) and bid item #25 (Adjust Ex. Valve Cover to Grade). CITY has evaluated and analyzed all bids received and selected the lowest responsible bidder for the PROJECT as Griffith Company (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR"). RCWD has reviewed the bids and concurs with the associated costs, prior to the commencement of the work on the PROJECT. RCWD shall maintain as a contingency an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the total estimated costs of constructing the water facilities to account for unforeseen changes to the work. The CITY shall obtain approval from RCWD prior to the approval of any change orders associated with the relocation and installation of these facilities, and authorizing the contractorto proceed unless failure to act immediately may affect public safety. The cost of any delay in the work due to the delayed action of RCWD in approving change orders associated with the water facility construction shall be borne by RCW D. RCWD shall respond to water facility change orders within three business days. CITY shall make payment to CONTRACTOR for work performed. Actual costs shall be identified and billed to RCWD for payment on the following basis: A. The CITY shall invoice RCWD on a monthly basis for all RCWD facilities completed r:\cip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimburseagrmt by the CONTRACTOR. RCWD shall remit payment to the City within twenty-five days of receipt of invoice. Section IV. It is acknowledged that RCWD has reviewed and approved all CITY plans and specifications for the relocation and installation of the waterfacility improvements and has approved the bid amount as reasonable. Management and administration of the terms expressed herein shall be performed by CITY for the PROJECT. CITY agrees to designate Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer, Capital Projects, as the contact for CITY in regards to this agreement. RCWD agrees to designate Mr. Michael G. Meyerpeter, Development Engineering Manager, as a point of contact for RCWD to facilitate the reimbursements identified herein. Section V. INSPECTION RCWD shall provide and pay for inspection of all new and relocated facilities specifically, Bid Items "Relocate Ex. Water Meter', "Relocate Air Vac", "Relocate Fire Hydrant" and "Adjust Existing Valve Cover to Grade". Section VI. NOTICES All notices under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: RCWD: Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Michael G. Meyerpeter, Development Engineering Manager CITY: City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: Mayra De La Torre, Associate Engineer, Capital Projects Either party may change its address for notices by notifying the other party. All notices given at the most recent address specified shall be deemed to have been properly given. r.\cip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimburseagrmt This Agreement is dated as of the date set forth above. District: RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 0 J. Brady, General Manager 0 City: CITY OF TEMECULA M M Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC, City Clerk r:\cip\projects\pw99\pw99-01\RCWD reimburseagrmt ITEM 13 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: ►V# William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Citywide Concrete Repairs - FY2003-04, Project No. PW04-11 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Solicitation of Construction Bids PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW04-11, Citywide Concrete Repairs - FY2003-04. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Maintenance Division has completed their annual survey of damaged City maintained concrete improvements which include sidewalks, curb & gutter, cross gutters, spandrels, driveway approaches, access ramps, and under sidewalk drains. The facilities needing immediate repair are included in this project and have been grouped into localized areas to allow for cost effective bidding. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. These Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $140,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Department Maintenance Division FY2003-04 Budget for Routine Street Maintenance, Account No. 001-164-601-5402. ATTACHMENT: 1. Concrete Repairs List - FY2003-04 r:\agdrpt\2002\0423\pw02-05 bid/AJP DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONCRETE REPAIR LIST LOCATION - AREA #1 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY L F S F 45771 CLASSIC WAY 22 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK 132 457711 CLASSIC WAY 4 X 6 R & R DRIVE APPROACH 6" DEPTH 24 27479 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST 6 X 5 R & R SIDEWALK 30 27479 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST R & R CURB & GUTTER 10 30807 LOMA LINDA 20 x 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 120 30807 LOMA LINDA R & R CURB & GUTTER 15 42221 MAIN STREET D/A BY BRIDGE 10 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 60 42135 WINCHESTER ROAD (WATERDISTRICT) R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN 1 EA. CORTE GANZO AT CALLE HILARIO R & R SPANDRAL 13 X 12 6" DEPTH 156 W/S MERCEDES STREET- MORENO STREET BY SO. R & R SIDEWALK 80 X 6 480 41915 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE 75' WO 2ND D/A OF HEXFET R & R SIDEWALK & R00T PRUNE 35 X 5 175 NM CORNER JEFFERSON AVENUE 0 OVERLAND DRIVE R & R SIDEWALK 10 X 8 8 X 2 96 FELIX VALDEZ ® VINCENT MORAGA R & R CROSS GUTTER 30 X 6 6" DEPTH 180 28373 FELIX VALDEZ R & R CURB & GUTTER AT D/A 21 BALDARAY CIRCLE AT FELIX VALDEZ AVENUE R & R SPANDRAL 10 X 14 6" DEPTH 140 BALDARAY CIRCLE AT FELIX VALDEZ AVENUE R & R HANDICAP RAMP 14 X 17 238 42255 BALDARAY CIRCLE R & R CURB & GUTTER 22 42255 BALDARAY CIRCLE 16 X 11 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 176 C STREET AT SANTIAGO ROAD 25 X R & R SPANDRAL IF DEPTH 175 C STREET AT SANTIAGO ROAD 12 X 11 R & R CROSS GUTTER 6" DEPTH 132 C STREET END OF CUL DE SAC NORTH 31 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 186 ACROSS FROM 29775 SANTIAGO 40 X 6 16 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 336 N/S SANTIAGO 100' E/0 C STREET 23 X 2 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 46 N/S SANTIAGO 75 E/O C STREET 41 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 246 N/S SANTIAGO 25 E/O C STREET 20 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 120 N/S SANTIAGO AT C STREET 20 X 6 12 X 10 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 240 S/E CORNER SINGLE OAK @ WESTERNLY BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 19 X 5 95 REPAIRS LISN0 QUANTITY LOCATION - AREA #1 SCOPE OF WORK L F SF PECHANGA AT MASTERS 13 X 10 22 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK 262 26201 YNEZ ROAD S/B 50' PAST D/A TO GOLDS GYM R & R CURB & GUTTER 10 REPAIRS LISM2 LOCATION - AREA #2 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY L F SF 32194 VIA BANDE 5 X 6 R& R SIDEWALK 30 S/W CORNER COSMIC DRIVE AT NORTH STAR 23 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 138 N/B YNEZ ROAD 100' W/0 CALLE HALCON 45 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 270 WB YNEZ ROAD 125' WO CALLE HALCON 25 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 150 WE CORNER PAUBA ROAD AT YNEZ ROAD 16 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 96 E/B PAUBA ROAD 75' E/O YNEZ ROAD 25 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 150 E/B PAUBA ROAD 300' E/O YNEZ ROAD 25 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 150 E/B PAUBA ROAD 100' W/O VILLA ALTURAS 35 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 210 E/B PAUBA ROAD 20' W/O VILLA ALTURAS 15 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 90 S/B VILLA ALTURAS 20' W/O VILLA ALTURAS 20 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 120 NE CORNER CALLE HALCON AT VILLA ALTURAS 6 X 5 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 30 WB VILLA ALTURAS AT PAUBA 8 X 4 25 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 150 W/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD 50' W/O MARGARITA ROAD 80 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 480 W/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD 75' W/O ARGO COURT 100 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 600 W/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD 75 W/O SOUTHERN CROSS 110 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 660 W/0 RANCHO VISTA 1s' MIRA LOMA W/B 12' IS HANDICAP 125 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 750 W/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD 200' E/0 MIRA LOMA SIGNAL 40 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 240 E/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD EVEN WITH POOL AT CRC 20 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 120 E/B RANCHO VISTA ROAD EIS OF D/A MAIN D/A TO CRC 21 X 11 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 231 E/B RANCHO VISTA D/A CLOSEST TO ARGO COURT D/A 46 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE V DEPTH 276 E/B RANCHO VISTA O/A CLOSEST TO ARGO COURT D/A R & R CURB & GUTTER 46 E/B RANCHO VISTA D/A CLOSEST TO ARGO COURT D/A R & R SIDEWALK 15 X 8 120 WE CORNER LA SERENA ROAD @ S. GENERAL KEARNEY 31 X 14 R & R 2 HANDICAP RAMPS 434 S/W CORNER S. GENERAL KEARNEY ® LA SERENA 10 X 10 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 100 WE CORNER RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA ROAD R & R CURB & GUTTER 20 PAUBA ROAD APPROX. 50V W/O FIRE STATION N/S R & R SIDEWALK 20 X 6 120 NIB MARGARITA RD US OF ST. APPROX. 2000' E/0 RANCHO VISTA R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 20 X 6 120 COSMIC DRIVE AT NORTH STAR 20 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 120 R:\t.WNTAM\CONCRETE\CONCRETE REPAIRS LIST\2 QUANTITY LOCATION - AREA #2 SCOPE OF WORK L F S F 42801 LAS VIOLETTA 16 X 5 R & R DRIVE APPROACH & ROOT PRUNE 6- DEPTH 80 42781 LAS VIOLETTA 19 X 7 R & R DRIVE APPROACH & ROOT PRUNE 6- DEPTH 133 42781 LAS VIOLETTA R & R CURB & GUTTER 38 W/S MARGARITA ROAD APPROX. 800' S/0 SOUTHERN CROSS R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN 1 EA. REPAIRS U5� LOCATION - AREA #3 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY L F S F 30088 CORTE SAN LUIS 10 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 60 YUKON ACROSS FROM SWEETSHADE R & R CROSS GUTTER 20 X 6 6- DEPTH 120 41209 PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS SIDE OF HOUSE R & R SIDEWALK 5 X 6 30 S/W CORNER LA SERENA AT CALLE PIMA COLADA R & R SIDEWALK 18 X 6 108 30148 CORTE PLATA 24 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK 144 41940 KAFFIRBOOM COURT 15 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 90 41990 HUMBER 15 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 90 ANACONDA A T HUMBER 37 X 7 R & R CROSS GUTTER 6- DEPTH 259 31082 RIVERTON 21 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 126 31082 RIVERTON 6 X 4 R & R DRIVE APPROACH & ROOT PRUNE 6" DEPTH 24 41986 ROANOAKE STREET 20 X 11 R & R HANDICAP RAMP & ROOT PRUNE 220 30278 MERCY COURT 14 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 84 ANACONDA COURT AT HUMBER 37 X 6 R & R CROSS GUTTER 6- DEPTH 222 R\MAINiNN\CONCRETE\CONCRETE REPAIRS LISM2 LOCATION - AREA #4 SCOPE OF WORK QUANTITY L F S F AVENIDA VISTA LADERA 8 X 6 R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 48 DEER MEADOWS AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY (10 X 6) R & R SIDEWALK 10 X 6 120 ITS SOLANA ROAD W/B 309 E/0 MARGARITA ROAD R & R UNDERSIDEWALK DRAIN 1 EA. N/S SOLANA ROAD W/B 300' E/0 MARGARITA ROAD R & R SIDEWALK 11 X 6 66 W/S NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY S/0 NICHOLAS ROAD (20 X 6) (15 X 6) R & R SIDEWALK & ROOT PRUNE 10 X 6 15 X 6 360 29829 VIA SEVILLE R & R SIDEWALK 18 X 6 108 29831 VIA SEVILLE R & R SIDEWALK 11 X 6 66 29831 VIA SEVILLE R & R DRIVE APPROACH 17 X 6 6" DEPTH 102 TOTAL ACCESS RAMP 892 SO. FT. TOTAL CROSS GUTTER 913 SO. FT, TOTAL CURB AND GUTTER 182 SO. FT. TOTAL SPANDRAL 471 SO. FT. TOTAL SIDEWALK 9.821 SO. FT. TOTAL UNDERSIDEWALK DRAINS 9 EA. TOTAL DRIVE APPROACH 363 SO. FT. LISM ITEM 14 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: 'Alliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Traffic Signal for SR 79 South and Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Solicitation of Construction A Bids PREPARED BYMmer Attar, Principal Engineer teven W. Beswick, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Installation of a Traffic Signal on State Route (SR) 79 South at Country Glen Way, Project No. PW04-09. BACKGROUND: The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents for the Installation of a Traffic Signal on SR 79 South at Country Glen Way, Project No. PW 04-09, have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. Conditions of approval for Parcel Map 27987, Vail Ranch Commercial Center, obligated the developer for the design and construction of a traffic signal at this location. The condition related to the signal stated that the traffic signal would need to be installed when the traffic warrants required the installation. The developer has completed the design of the traffic signal. In addition, since this signal will be installed within State right of way, the developer has obtained an Encroachment Permit for the installation of the traffic signal. From this point forward, staff will be completing this project. The Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $130,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: The developer of Parcel Map 27987 has deposited $150, 000 for the installation of the traffic signal. Theses monies will be used for this project. ► Vt]F-W2.1\5F4Zk6 1. Project Location RAGENDA REPORTWO04\05250CM04-09 Bid.DOC } Q Z W J } Z Z) O O 0 Z Q F- O En rn n cr U) F- J Q Z 0 U) U LL LL Q cc F- z� a ITEM 15 APPRO A CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MA, CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Servicevw DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Irrigation Easement Deed within the Crowne Hill Development for Tract Map No. 23143-11 lots 102 & 103. PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Management Analyst O RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept irrigation easement deed from Greystone Homes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation for the perpetual easement and right-of-way for maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing irrigation equipment over and within the boundaries of Tract Map Nos. 23143-11 lots 102 and 103. 2. Authorize the City Clerk to record the Irrigation Easement Deed. BACKGROUND: Crowne Hill (Tract Map Nos. 23143 —1 through —11 and Final) is a large residential development in the eastern area of the City south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) will be annexing the perimeter landscaping of this development into our Service Level C maintenance program on July 1, 2004. One of the perimeter areas that TCSD will begin maintenance responsibilities is Lot 104 within Tract 23143-11 which is south of Pauba Road between Butterfield Stage Road and Crowne Hill Drive. Design of the irrigation needed to service the landscaping within lot 104 falls within two (2) lots 102 and 103 which will be owned and maintained by the Crowne Hill Homeowner's Association. As a result the current property owner, Greystone Homes, has provided an Irrigation Easement which will allow the TCSD to enter the lots to repair or maintain the irrigation equipment as needed. Exhibits A and B (legal descriptions) have been approved by the Public Works Department. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Copy of Irrigation Easement Deed R:\smlthb\Easements\Staff Report Irrigation Easement Deed, Greystone Homes.dm 05/I3/2004 Legend Centerline N Parcels A City 100 0 100 200 Feet Temecula Community Services District Easement April 16, 2004 OPEN 5PgCE LOT JD¢ TNa map was mane by the Cdy d Temecula Ge pN M tluR �«s ice' Wma epe ark the Tmnsporlatlon a t Manage APalcy d RNe "Canty. The Clty d Temealla assu m waaanty or kpW maponsiblity tar iM Idorrnellon mnleke0 on ft. mep. D enJ Inlormeaon raPrmereea pn Ws mep m subject k update eN mpCiflcallan. The GappraPNC IMamatlan System aM other aavma shook be yuWW tarihe moat aereM lMormeeon. Thla map le w for reprlM or r . r:lpis*WlilerWowpr je \psube_bubereWE.Wr Recording requested by and when Recorded, mail to: City Clerk City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Exempt from Recording Fee per Govt. Code Sec. 27383 City of Temecula (Space above this line for Recorder's use) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE. Public Agency exempt. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11922 IRRIGATION EASEMENT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Greystone Homes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Grantors") hereby grants and conveys to the Temecula Community Services District ("Grantee") a public corporation, a perpetual easement and right-of-way for maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing irrigation equipment over and within the boundaries of that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, hereinafter described as follows in Exhibit "A"which is attached. If GRANTEE, or its, successors, or assigns, determine it is unable, incapable, or unwilling to maintain said Easement Area maintenance shall, after notice, become the responsibility of the GRANTOR, with all covenants and agreements of this easement extending to and becoming obligations of all heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assignees of the GRANTOR. All as illustrated on the plat attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B" IN WITNESS WHERE OF; this instrument has been executed this 16 day of March , 2004. Signature: Print/Type Name: Tom Banks Position: Vice President Signature: Print/Type Name: Position: C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GLotus.Notes.Data\TSCD Ease.w.doo RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 September 29, 2003 JN 15100418-M17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT "A" TRACT NO.23143-11 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT EASEMENT Those certain parcels of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being all of Lots 102 and 103 of Tract No. 23143-11 filed in Book 314, Pages 13 through 24 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County. CONTAINING: 7,678 square feet or 0.176 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights -of -Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direction. 0* E. VEq�01 NO. LS 5348 "Thomas E. Vedo p, L.S. 5348 My license expires 12/31/05 EXR 12131105 H:\PDATA\15100418W DM M egals\4181g1017.do GRAPHIC SCALE DATA TABLE ® BEARING/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH 1 04"58'22" 1200.00' 104.15' 2 N77'07'57"E -- 284.78' 3 35'42'49" 1200.00' 747.98' 4 N41"25'08"E -- 279.93' 5 N48"34'52"W -- 114.03' 6 N41"25'08"E -- 45.00' 7 90000,00" 70.00' 109.96' 8 N41"25'08"E -- 47.00' 9 N86"25'08"E -- 32.53' 10 N48'34'52"W -- 47.00' 11 N04"26'08"W -- 103.06' 12 N85"33'52"E -- 55.00' 13 N04"26'08"W -- 50.92' 14 N35028'33"E -- 29.51' 15 01'44'43" 1156.00' 35.21' 16 N77"07'57"E -- 15.53' 17 99"28'57" 140.00' 121.54' \ � -"Z-16 1 15 'Y 14 103 0.08 Ai f Q 11 13 V� z 9 12 �ke,6 � . DETAIL "B" SCALE 1"=100' 0 14' WIDE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENT REVERVED FOR PRIVATE USE PER TRACT NO. 23143, P.M.B. 314/25-38 EXHIBIT ''B' TEMECULA SERVICES EASEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT 400 600 i SEE DETAIL "A" \ 4 1, bWj1� HILL 1_ / DETAIL "A" �`• SCALE 1"=100' D 1 11 / /TRACT NO. 23143-11 3 / 104 / OPEN SPACE f M.B. 314/13-24 2/ \ / SEE DETAIL "B" 17 13 I� 1s / 20 / 21 ��9 ( 22 \ 9a SHEET 1 OF 1 2 3 4 e e i[r. 0 1 SHEET PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SURE 400 TBuIECULA, CAUFORNIA 92591-4679 CONSULTING 909.6768042 " FAX 909.676.7240 " w RW.w SCALE JUn NU. SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 1"= 200' 15100418-M17 a 0 0 W CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Riverside I ss. On -O efore me, Julie Chrisman, Notary Public Dale Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public') personally appeared Tom Banks JULIE CHRISMAN commissiont1328288 Notary Public- Cel'domie 7 Rivemide County [ 8� My Comm. Fires Oct21,2m)5m personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( whose name(ka) is/g(rk subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sflkRiS¢y executed the same in his/0¢0#Nr authorized capacity("), and that by his/NefkYhk signature(Q on the instrument the person(i), or the entity upon behalf of which the person() acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand d fficial seal. I f Place Notary Seal Above Signature or Notary Public OP NAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Number of Pages: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER 0 1999 Nananal Notary A iatm • 9350 De Solo Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • oha%woM, CA 91313-2402 • w natlonalnotary.org Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free "00-876668U CITY OF TEMECULA Office of the City Clerk 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the attached Irrigation Easement Deed document has been accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. May 25, 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA By: Chuck Washington, CSD President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk ►1,�:T��9�7��fi73d.7�F By: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 11:18AN MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAY 11, 2004 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:57 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Washington None Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 20, 2004. Sports Complex — Proiect No. PW01-17CSD — Approval of Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Sports Complex at Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow — Project No. PW01-17CSD. (Pulled for separate discussion; see page 2.) 3 Award the Construction Contract for Proiect No. PW02-02 — Pablo Apis Park Add Amenities RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PW02-02 Pablo Apis Park Add Amenities to Vido Samarzich, Inc. in the amount of $327,081.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 3.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $32,708.10 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; Minutes.esd\051104 3.3 Approve a budget transfer in the amount of $90,000.00 from the Rancho California Sports Park Channel Silt Removal project to the Pablo Apis Park Add Amenities Project to cover construction and administration costs. 4 First Amendment to the Excel Landscape, Inc. Maintenance Services Contract RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the First Amendment to the contract with Excel Landscape, Inc. to include the landscape maintenance services of sports parks, north slope areas and to allow for the addition of supplemental landscape maintenance service areas/sites; 4.2 Authorize the expenditure of $406,205.00 for landscape maintenance services for sports parks, north slopes and supplemental landscape maintenance service areas/sites and approve 15% contingency for extra work items in the amount of $60,930.00. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 3 - 4 (Item No. 2 was pulled for separate discussion; see page below.) The motion was second by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 2 Sports Complex — Proiect No. PW01-17CSD — RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Sports Complex at Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow — Project No. PW01-17CSD. By way of an overhead rendition of the proposed Sports Complex, Community Services Director Parker presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the proposed 43-acre Sports Complex. Wanting to apprise the community of this project and as well highlight the previous Council's and staffs associated efforts, President Washington expressed his excitement with this state-of- the-art park. Having worked with Director Stone on the Design Committee for this complex, Director Comerchero echoed President Washington's delight with this project and praised the City on its accomplishments with the upcoming construction of this Sports Complex. In response to Director Stone, Community Services Director Parker advised that the proposed synthetic turf will have a 15-year life; that the City will be the first in the State to construct a four - field configuration such as proposed; and commented on the savings associated with the use of synthetic turf as far as maintenance, irrigation, field availability, etc. MOTION: Director Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 2. The motion was second by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Minutes.md\051104 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No additional comments. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comment. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comment. ADJOURNMENT At 8:03 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, for the purpose of the Annual Operating/CIP Budget Workshop. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csdk051104 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER C TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 PREPARED BY: Jason Simpson, Assistant Finance Directot Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant �'Q RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Receive and file the Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Community Services District for the nine months ended March 31, 2004. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for The Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 And the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department Temecula Community Services District Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Other current liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances Please note that these balances are unaudited Parks & Service Service Recreation Level B Level C $ 557,144 $ 64,463 $ 184,083 11,260 349 2,532 $ 568,404 $ 64,812 $ 186,615 $ 192,728 $ 25 $ 38,125 192,728 25 38,125 $ 375,676 $ 64,787 $ 148,490 375,676 64,787 148,490 $ 568,404 $ 64,812 $ 186,615 1 Temecula Community Services District Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Other current liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances Please note that these balances are unaudited Service Service Debt Level Level Service Total $ 116,556 $ 25,353 $ 134,464 $ 1,082,063 760 86 394 15,381 0 $ 117,316 $ 25,439 $ 134,958 $ 1,097,444 $ 10,481 10,481 $ 241,359 241,359 $ 106,835 $ 25,439 $ 134,858 $ 856,085 106,835 25,439 134,858 856,085 $ 117,316 $ 25,439 $ 134,858 $ 1,097,444 2 Temecula Community Services District Citywide Operations Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Special tax $ 2,742,295 $ 1,417,460 1,417,460 52% (1) TCSD admin fee credrV" REST" 3,117,275 2,337,956 $ 2,337,956 75% Recreation programs 810,000 515,297 515,297 64% Investment interest 15,000 2,509 2,509 17% (2) Miscellaneous 156,365 108,256 108,256 69% Operating transfer in Total Revenues 6,840,935 4,381,478 4,381,478 64% Expenditures: Parks, medians and arterial street lighting 4,315,003 2,897,233 $ 328,176 3,225,409 75% Seniors 190,315 109,705 41,896 151,601 80% Community Recreation Center (CRC) 427,792 272,051 20,226 292,277 68% Recreation programs 626,138 461,309 25,275 486,584 78% Temecula Community Center (TCC) 146,690 106,419 4,771 111,190 76% Museum 199,525 118,011 18,898 136,909 69% Aquatics 410,800 260,122 17,851 277,974 68% Sports 206,065 119,406 15,734 135,139 66% Children's Museum 177,800 52,284 2,636 54,920 31% (3) Operating transfers out 554,200 554,200 554,200 100% Total Expenditures 7,254,327 4,950,740 475,464 5,426,204 75% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (413,392) (569,262) Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Notes: 944,938 944,938 $ 531,546 $ 375,676 (1) Special Tax revenue is scheduled to be received by the end of May of this fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to lower interest than expected during this quarter. (3) The Children's Museum Grand opening day is scheduled for June 2004, therefore operating cost related to Otis facility were lower than expected. 3 Temecula Community Services District Service Level B Residential Street Lights Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Revenues: Assessments Street lighting fees Operating Transfer in Total Revenues Expenditures: Salaries & Wages Street lighting Miscellaneous Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Notes: Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 454,022 $ 234,677 $ 234,677 52% (1) 20,000 8,688 8,688 43% (2) 57,075 56,804 56,804 100% (3) 531,097 300,169 300,169 57% 4,690 3,301 3,301 70% 535,000 343,062 343,062 64% 18,250 5,680 5,700 11,380 62% (4) 557,940 352,042 (26,843) (51,874) 116,661 116,661 $ 89,818 $ 64,787 357,742 64% (1) The second Assessment installment is scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year. (2)The variance in street lighting fees is due to the timing of developers pulling permits for estimated lighting fees for the fiscal year. (3) The variance is due to timing of the operating transfer in during this fiscal year. (4) The variance in Miscellaneous revenue is due to a decrease in collection during this quarter. 4 Temecula Community Services District Service Level C Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Assessments $ 988,935 $ 502,968 $ 502,968 51% (1) Investment interest 4,000 2,184 2,184 55% (2) Plan check and inspections 56,000 32,213 32,213 58% (3) Miscellaneous 400 300 300 75% Total Revenues 1,049,335 537,664 537,664 51% Expenditures: Salaries and wages 230,165 151,798 151,798 66% Landscape maintenance 603,750 365,821 197,625 563,446 93% (4) Utilities 214,000 151,388 151,389 71% Other expenditures 90,000 52,607 7,687 60,294 67% Total Expenditures 1,137,915 721,614 205,312 926,926 81% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (88,580) (183,949) Beginning Fond Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Notes: 332,439 332,439 $ 243,959 $ 148,490 (1) The second Assessment installment is scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year. (2) Investment interest market rate is lower than expected for Otis quarter. (3) The variance is due to Developers pulling less permits for Plan check and inspections than expected during this quarter. (4) The variance is primarily due to encumbrances that are recorded for landscape maintenance services for the entire year. 5 Temecula Community Services District Service Level D Refuse Collection, Recycling and Street Sweeping Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Assessments $ 3,375,938 $ 1,693,298 $ 1,693,298 50% (1) Grants 38,024 20,499 20,499 54% Investment interest 4,500 1,572 1,572 35% (2) Recycling program 5,000 5,000 5,000 100% (3) Operating Transfer in 73,125 73,125 73,125 100°%(4) Total Revenues 3,496,597 1,793,494 1,793,494 51% Expenditures Salaries and wages 36,100 25,380 25,380 70% Refuse hauling 3,375,940 1,690,790 1,690,790 50% (5) Other expenditures 60,069 43,095 13,250 56,345 94% Total Expenditures 3,472,109 1,759,265 13,250 1,772,515 51% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 24,478 34,229 Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 72,606 72,606 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 $ 97,084 $ 106,835 Notes: (1) The second Assessments portion are scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal yen. (2) Investment interest rate is lower than expected this year. (3) The second half of refuse/recycling hauling payments are scheduled to be paid by the end of this fiscal year. (4) The variance is due to timing of operating transfer in during this quarter. (5) The Variance is due to second payment to CR& R for waste is scheduled to be made in June of this fiscal year. 6 Temecula Community Services District Service Level R Streets and Roads Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Revenues: Assessments Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Emergency street maintenance Other expenditures Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 12,754 7,675 $ 7,675 60% (1) 300 250 250 83% 13,054 7,925 7,925 61% 17,080 2,790 3,210 6,000 35% 80 84 84 105 °% 17,160 2,874 3,210 6,084 35% (4,106) 5,051 20,387 20,387 $ 16,281 $ 25,439 Notes: (1) The second Assessment installment is scheduled to be received by the end of May during this fiscal year 7 Temecula Community Services District Debt Service Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Revenues: Operating transfers in Investment interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Debt service - principal Debt service - interest Other expenditures Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fond Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Pund Balance, March 31, 2004 Notes: Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget $ 499,125 498,125 498,125 100% (1) 20,000 462 462 2% (2) 519,125 498,587 498,587 96% 225,000 225,000 225,000 100% (3) 269,625 136,000 136,000 51% (4) 4,500 3,850 450 4,300 96% 498,125 364,850 450 365,300 73°% 20,000 133,737 1,121 1,121 $ 21,121 $ 134,858 (1) The variance is due to the fining of operating transfer in during this fiscal year. (2) The variance is due to interest is lower than expected during this quarter. (3) The variance is due to Debt Service Principal payment being paid in October of this Fiscal Year. (4) Debt service interest payments are scheduled to be paid in October and April of this Fiscal Year. a DISTRICT BUSINESS ITEM 3 APPRQV/�L�,� CITYATTORNEY ``ZZ!!�� FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: S.M.A.R.T. Program Presentation PREPARED BY: Julie Crowe -Pelletier, Recreation Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file this reportand PowerPoint presentation regarding the "Summer Months Activities and Recreation in Temecula" (S.M.A.R.T.) program. BACKGROUND: As a direct result of a request made by Council member, Jeff Stone and approved by all members of the City Council, the program known as S.M.A.R.T became a reality in June 2001. This seasonal program is designed to offer youth ages 7-15 years, the opportunity to participate in a free, drop -in supervised summer program. The program includes games, arts and crafts, sports, water games, special events, excursions and much more at a number of neighborhood parks throughout the community. This year the program will be held Monday — Friday from 9:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. at Margarita Community Park, Pala Community Park, Temeku Hills Park, Vail Ranch Park, Meadows Park, Crowne Hill Park and the City's soon to be annexed park in the Red Hawk Development known as Red Hawk Community Park. Tonight we have a special PowerPoint presentation that illustrates the highlights of the fun -filled summer youth program known as S.M.A.R.T. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:\CROWEJ\AGENDAS\Programs\SMART Program\SMART04.doc TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Serviced DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary Harveston Community Park is located in the Harveston Development, a large Specific Plan development in the northern part of the City east of Interstate 15. The park site will include two dedicated full size lighted soccer fields; 2 lighted ball field with 90' bases; age appropriate play areas; a group picnic area; community building; restroom/concession/maintenance building; parking with approximately 300 spaces; benches; tables; drinking fountains and walkways. This park site is currently under construction. RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail Ranch Park Site "C" Pablo Apis Park adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. A contract for the construction project was awarded on May 11, 2004. Staff anticipates construction will begin in the next 45 days. The conceptual Master Plan for the Wolf Creek Sports Complex is complete. The 43 acre park will offer parking, restroom/concession buildings, maintenance building, four lighted basketball courts, four lighted soccer and four lighted softball/baseball fields, tot play equipment, picnic areas and walkways. This project is currently in third plan check submittal. Staff anticipates this project will go out to bid in late April. On October 28, 2003, the City of Temecula was awarded the library grant application in the amount of $8,500,000. A kick-off meeting has been scheduled with the State and City staff. The design development packet was submitted to the Office of Library Construction. Plans have been submitted to DSA and the City for final plan check. The Erie Stanley Gardner exhibit at the Temecula Valley History Museum is currently in plan check. This project recreates Erie Stanley Gardner's office in his Temecula residence known as Rancho Del Pisano. The exhibit area will also include other Erie Stanley Gardner artifacts and memorabilia. RAZI0LERGOCDEPTRPTW504. doc Construction of the tenant improvements (TI's) at the Children's Museum are complete. Sparks Exhibits and Environments is currently constructing the exhibits. Staff anticipates this facility will be opened to the pubic sometime in early summer. The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of all City parks and facilities, and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events. The Recreation Division is finalizing the 2004 Summer/Fall Guide to Leisure Activities. Staff is busy planning and programming for the July 4t' festivities, Summer Day Camp, S.M.A. R.T., summer swim programs and the Summer Sunset Film and Concert Series. ISMALyaASHA DI400Ra101F311irrM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAY 11, 2004 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:03 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Washington, and Comerchero ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 20, 2004. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comments. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R Minutes.rda\051104 ADJOURNMENT At 8:04 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 20, 2004 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, for the purpose of an Annual Operating/CIP Budget Workshop. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CIVIC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R: \ M i n u to s. rd a\0 51104 IWAR APPROVAL CITY ATTORNE FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 PREPARED BY: Jason Simpson, Assistant Finance Director Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members: 1. Receive and file the Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004. DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the nine months ended March 31, 2004. Please see the attached financial statements for an analytical review of financial activity. The requested budget adjustments are the result of the RDA sixth street bridge advance that was moved to the debt services fund at fiscal year end 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the nine Months Ended March 31. 2004 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2004 And the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 (Unaudited) Prepared by the Finance Department Temecula Redevelopment Agency Combining Balance Sheet As of March 31, 2004 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Land held for resale Advances Total assets Liabilities and fund balances: Liabilities: Due to other funds Other current liabilities Deferred revenue Total liabilities Fund balances: Reserved Designated Undesignated Total fund balances Total liabilities and fund balances Please note that these balances are unaudited Low/Mod CIP Debt Fund Fund Service Total $ 7,090,741 $ 7,191,504 $ 1,196,927 $ 15,479,172 1,038,967 314,908 8,132 1,362,007 2,103,053 2,103,053 251,184 251,194 $ 8,129,708 $ 9,609,465 $ 1,456,243 $ 19,195,416 251,184 251,184 $ 122,126 $ 58,630 1,497,780 $ 1,678,536 602,391 157,059 759,440 724,507 466,873 1,497,780 2,689,160 7,405,201 9,142,592 16,547,793 $ (41,537) (41,537) 7,405,201 9,142,592 (41,537) 16,506,256 $ 8,129,708 $ 9,609,465 $ 1,456,243 $ 19,195,416 1 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency Low/Moderate Income Housing For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Property tax increment $ 2,223,971 $ 1,184,697 $ 1,194,697 53% (1) Investment interest 186,000 98,612 98,612 53% (2) Rental income 30,000 (3) Miscellaneous 201,000 230,616 230,616 115% (4) Total Revenues 2,640,871 1,513,925 1,513,925 57% Expenditures: Salaries and wages 246,685 170,502 170,502 69% Operating and administrative expenditures 389,716 194,427 $ 22,185 206,611 53% Homebuyer programs 300,000 23,922 23,922 8% (5) Residential rehabilitation programs 269,325 63,023 17,800 80,823 30% Housing development & acquisition 6,099,036 2,358,281 283 2,358,564 39% (5) Affordable housing / future obligation 305,000 305,000 305,000 100% (6) Total Expenditures 7,609,762 3,105,155 40,267 3,145,422 41% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures (4,968,891) (1,591,230) Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 8,996,430 9,996,430 $ 4,027,539 $ 7,405,201 Notes: (1) The second portion of property tax increment is scheduled to be received by the end of May. (2) Investment interest was lower than expected during this quarter. (3) Rental income revenues from Mission Village for Temecula Gardens are scheduled to be received by the end of April of this fiscal year. (4) Residential loan program repayments received were much higher than anticipated as a result of many homebuyers refinancing their existing loans which then requires the repayment of the loan. (5) The variance is due to several CIP RDA Housing acquisition projects which have not yet started during this quarter. (6) The variance is a result of the payment to Mission Village per DDA was made during this quarter. 2 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency-CIP For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Total Percent Budget Activity Encumbr. Activity of Budget Revenues: Investmentinterest $ 200,000 $ 76,877 $ 76,877 38% (1) Rentalincome 190,000 114,121 114,121 63% Loan interest 12,000 9,040 9,040 75% Miscellaneous 10,000 67,622 67,622 676% (2) Operating transfers 1,000,000 750,000 750,000 75% Total Revenues 1,402,000 1,017,660 1,017,660 73% Capital Projects: First Street bridge 280-807 69,617 1,403 64,617 66,020 95% Gateway LandscapeOT 280-833 193,349 7,851 6,249 14,100 7% (3) Erle Stanley Gardner 280-834 38,930 2,500 980 3,480 9% (3) Operating Expenditures: Salaries and wages Operating and administrative expenditures Owner participation agreements ERAP Old Town plan implementation Old Town building facades Banner program Operating transfers out Total Expenditures Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 99,970 71,161 71,161 341,260 238,429 13,574 252,003 300,000 446,000 132,270 84,040 11,301 95,341 85,428 72,689 7,058 79,747 4,080 1,688 631 2,319 8,908,852 2,693,165 2,683,165 10,619,755 3,162,926 104,410 3,267,336 (9,217,755) (2,145,266) 11,287, 959 11,287,859 $ 2,070,103 $ 9,142,592 Notes: (1) The variance is due to investment interest was much lower than expected during this quarter. (2) The variance is due to reimbursement from CIP accounts of RDA bond proceeds for Children's Museum project for prior year RDA operating transfer out. (3) The CIP projects Gateway Landscape and Erle Stanley Gamer that have not yet started during this quarter. (4) The Costco Owner Participation Agreement and ERAF obligation are not paid until May of each fiscal year. (5) The variance is due to CIP projects funded through RDA bond proceeds that have not been started yet. 71% 74% (4) (4) 72% 93% 57% 30% (5) 31% 3 City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Redevelopment Agency - Debt Service For the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Percent Budget Activity of Budget Revenues: Property tax increment $ 8,895,485 $ 4,738,787 53% (1) Investment interest 55,000 17,283 31% (2) Advances from other funds 65,000 Total Revenues 9,015,485 4,756,070 53% Expenditures: Passthrough agreements 6,154,000 3,399,427 55% (3) Debt service - principal 95,000 95,000 100% (4) Debt service - interest 1,385,795 1,426,516 103% (4) Trustees admin fees 135,500 4,600 3% Operating transfers out 1,000,000 750,000 75% Total Expenditures 8,770,295 5,675,543 65% Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures 245,190 (919,474) Beginning Fund Balance, July 1, 2003 877,937 877,937 Ending Fund Balance, March 31, 2004 $ 1,123,127 $ (41,537) Notes: (1) The second portion of property tax increment is scheduled to be received by the end of May. (2) Investment interest is lower than expected during this quarter. (3) The second portion of passthrough agreements is scheduled to be paid by the end of May. (4) The variance is due to Debt Service principal & Interest payments that were due and payable in August and February of this fiscal year. Also RDA 61h loan advance interest was reclassed to this fund at Fiscal Year 2003/04. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Phrad Baron, Maintenance Superintendent DATE: May 6, 1004 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - April, 2004 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of April, 2004: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement V1. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. VII. STENCILING A. 55 New and repainted legends B. 10,576 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping 134 7 59 6 3,483 79 231 0 11 659 RM AINTAINWOAMM2WY2WC\APRIL Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 35 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 49 service order requests for the month of March, 2004. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 49 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of April, 2004 was $56,615.00 compared to $34,691.00 for the month of March. 2004. Account No. 5402 $ 26,350.00 Account No. 5401 $ 29,000.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ 1,265.00 cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development) R:WAIN AINWOAC RPTIW3 ?g \APRIL Y 0 W d 3a0o �MWaM m } W c a>z0: O cti�w Y Z } J JW W 0 Q 00) w O O LL H U N y VW } O J H b N b W N b w O O 0. O O w N N N W W W b w O O V O O O w O W O W O r O N Oh 0 V w w O W O V O W O O Wb b N N N W O C w W O M O A N N W WHO N M w N w O W 1` M O V O O O N (p N W b N w V W b N N O W m h w LL r O O O O N 0 0 N O N O O O O p W N M N m Qom o� wed o= �e m 00 LL IV N Z O , U , W y W o Oaz 30 U' a E 0' e Oo N O U O w Y� y o W Oy) oaf U R pQ. N O N O O O O O W W O O O V O O O N O O N N b O O b M O O W O O m nN NN ON N p ' pb N N M N C pO W M t00 O y� N OO N N w NN ww W yW YIN w W O U yOj V W N ww. v N 3 m O U W e W O o E A O m O d w q d- O~ 1 A J q J U G m N LL O} W LL U y �G �2 O LL ZWZ L W W ] W f V1 z N w N w U w N f O LL W � W J ZW pW] 3 Q J c7 a w y rc f z F f h w J s W 3 z Z O > w 3 O Ya} o rc x x u LL� O r » Q 41 LLI G 0 W I c NM M O c0 (V W m .- N N N (D CT M oi OOOJO MOM M MO OO f^p� MOON N OJ aRa M M N N y M N Ci O M M O M 0 H � W Z 'a O O V MOM N M O O O N V M N N r 00 O M O M N cp J 0 N O M y� O O V O O O O O O O O O O O N V ttllOJJ 00 r N aN ((0O0 O m N In � M N W LU LL 0 0-� 000 —No co N N 0 M O W ro M M M O O N Y N M ' N M m W it LL W m FO 0 _ y d U 'O aci c y m W N E z B a�o' gn m co z o xO`i 03 O m F Oo CO OW W = c E Fy uw Z O EE 0 Z oU E V U m U m rc=M as �� LU o O m Om 6UOY- 0 ctAF FFF H U5nU 42zQia F STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of April, 2004 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST SIZE ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNELBRIDGE OF WORK CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Date: 04/07/04 REMOVE SILT & DEBRIS FROM DESILTING JEDEDIAH SMITH CHANNEL PONDS TOTAL COST $ 3,000.00 # 5401 Date: 04/04 A.C. SAW CUTTING FOR P.W. MAINTENANCE CITYWIDE CREW # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 5,000.00 CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Date: 04/04 SHOULDER GRADING ON DIRT R.O.W.'s CITYWIDE # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 4,350.00 Date: 04/26/04 SANTIAGO ROAD REMOVAL OF 3 DESILTING PONDS MARGARITA DESILTING BASIN # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 21,500.00 Date: 04/27/04 SERVICE LEVEL'R' GRADING OF DIRT ROADS # 999-5402 TOTAL COST $ 1,265.00 ONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT rDate:04/15/04 REMOVAL OF WEEDS WITHIN CHANNELS CITYWIDE CHANNELS 5402 TOTAL COST $ 4,500.00 Date 04/04 CITYWIDE 2ND APPLICATION OF POST EMERGENT HERBI- CIDES TO CITYWIDE R.O.W.'s # 0402 TOTAL COST $ 17,000.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 29,000.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 26,350.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 $ 1,265.00 R:WMA AIM OAC RMW3-200 PRIL CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF MAY, 2004 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS 04/01/04 PASEO KAYO DEL SOL R & R A.C. 260 6.5 04/06/04 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 125 3.5 04/07/04 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE A.C. OVERLAY 510 4.5 04/07/04 WILLOW RUN AT WHITE ROCKS R & R A.C. 143 3.0 04/08/04 PUESTA DEL SOL A.C. OVERLAY 262 2.5 04/12/04 CHURCH HILL R & R A.C. 265 7 04/13/04 CHURCH HILL R & R A.C. 360 13 04/14/04 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE R & R A.C. 168 5 04/19/04 LA SERENA W/O SO. GENERAL KEARNEY R & R A.C. 150 4.5 04/20/04 LA SERENA W/O SO. GENERAL KEARNEY R & R A.C. 130 5 04/21/04 BALDARY R & R A.C. 220 5.5 04/22/04 FELIX VALDEZ R & R A.C. 108 3.5 04/26/04 FELIX VALDEZ R & R A.C. 208 5.5 04/27/04 FELIX VALDEZ R & R A.C. 196 5 04/28/04 FELIX VALDEZ R & R A.C. 110 3.5 04/29/04 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE A.C. OVERLAY 268 1.5 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 3.483 TOTAL TONS 79 RM1AINTAINIWKCMPLMD SPHALT.RPR\03.NV AY CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF APRIL, 2004 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/01/04 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS 04/06/04 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 7 CATCH BASINS 04/07/04 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 38 CATCH BASINS 04/12/04 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 37 CATCH BASINS 04/13/04 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS 04/19/04 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 34 CATCH BASINS 04/20/04 AREA #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS 04/21/04 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 20 CATCH BASINS 04/22/04 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS 04/27/04 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS 04/28/04 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS 04/29/04 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 231 RM1A1NTAIMWKCMPL TMCATCHBASW3 W4 PRIL CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF APRIL, 2004 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/01/04 YNEZ COURT REMOVED 100 S.F. OFGRAFFITI 04/01/04 RIVERTON PARK REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/02/04 PIO PICO REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/05/04 PUJOL AT RED TRAIN REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/05/04 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 37 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/08/04 YNEZCOURT REMOVED 32 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/15/04 TARGET SHOPPING CENTER REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/15/04 AVENIDA VISTA LANDERA AT CORTE FALDAS REMOVED 32 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/19/04 CITYWIDE REMOVED 135 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/26/04 LONG VALLEY AT ROANOAKE REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 04/26/04 HUMBER AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 659 TOTAL LOCATIONS 11 I i I i I CD O O 00 p p O O CO N f0 Lc) a M N O O 00 N O A 0 z Q m w LL 6 H LL a N 0 lU I V1 NN N ON 66 N � � T a+ �y w Q rnUU o oo�n vi h V ri O 7 V O. fH 69 V3 fA Faros "EPEE �¢�ro E��'o r E U OZLI 3 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF APRIL, 2004 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/01/04 DIAZ N/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED W-41 04/01/04 MARGARITA N/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R2 " 45" 04/01/04 LA SERENA W/O MARGARITA REPLACED W-41 04/01/04 RORIPAUGH AT ROSEBAY REPLACED R-2 " 25" 04/01/04 NICHOLAS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY REPLACED W-17 04/01/04 30924 MILANO REPLACED R-2 " 25" 04/01/04 39860 NO. GENERAL KEARNEY REPLACED R-2 " 25" 04/01/04 31639 LEIGH LANE REPLACED W-53 04/01/04 VIA AGUILA AT LA SERENA REPLACED R-1 04/01/04 WHITE ROCKS AT BITTER CREEK REPLACED W-53 04/01/04 VIA LOBO CHANNEL REPLACED W-19 04/01/04 40502 CALLE MEDUSA REPLACED 2 R-2 "25" 04/01/04 LA SERENA @ PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS REPLACED R-2 "45" 04/01/04 LA SERENA E/O MARGARITA REPLACED R-81 04/01/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 4 SIGNS 04/05/04 BUTTE FIELD STAGE ROAD @ HWY 79 SO. REPLACED W-41 04/05/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 7 SIGNS 04/07/04 SOLANA REPLACED R-28 04/08/04 CORTE CASTRO @ CORTE VIALLSO REPLACED R-1 1104/08/04 PAUBA AT VIA TORRES REPLACED R-2 50 04/12/04 BUTTERFIELD AT HWY. 79 SO. REPLACED 8 DELINEATORS 04/12/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 7 SIGNS 04/13/04 SANTIAGO W/B YNEZ REPLACED 1 W-41 R:WAlWAIMWKCMPLMD lGN.Wl M\ Ml DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/13/04 AMARITA AT VIA RAMI REPLACED R-1 04/13/04 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT VIA LUCIDO REPLACED R-1 04/13/04 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT CORTE CAPISTRANO REPLACED R-1 04/13/04 YNEZ AT YNEZ COURT REPLACED R-2 "45" 04/14/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 16 SIGNS 04/15/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT VIA LAS COLINAS REPLACED R-18-2 04/15/04 NICHOLAS AT WINCHESTER REPLACED 66 DELINEATORS 04/16/04 LA PAZ REPLACED R-2 " 35" 04/16/04 30275 DEL REY ROAD REPLACED W-17 04/19/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 04/20/04 MEADOWS AT ROYAL OAKS INSTALLED 2 R-1, 2 W-17, 3 R-1-A 04/21/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD / I-15 FAY TO CITY LIMITS REPAIRED 14 SIGNS 04/22/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT TARGET CENTER REPLACED 3 DELINEATORS 04/22/04 DIAZ AT DENDY PARKWAY REPLACED W-3 04/22/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT FRONT STREET REPLACED R-2 "40" 04/22/04 RANCHNO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MARGARITA REPLACED I DELINEATOR 04/22/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 5 S.N.S. 04/27/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT FRONT STREET REPLACED DELINEATOR 04/27/04 CORTE SANCHEZ AT CAMINO GONZALES REPLACED R-1 04/27/04 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 04/28/04 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT FRONT STREET REPLACED DELINEATORS 04/28/04 LOMA LINDA AT RANCHO VISTA REPLACED R-2 "30" 04/28/04 28991 FRONT STREET REPLACED R-48, 4 R-26 04/28/04 WINCHESTER AT ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NO. REPLACED W-73 04/29/04 NICHOLAS REPLACED 12 CARSONITES 04/29/04 JEFFERSON AT OVERLAND REPLACED W-73 04/29/04 SANTIAGO AT YNEZ REPLACED R-18-02 TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 134 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 7 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 59 WkAPan CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF MAY, 2004 DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 04/01/04 PAUBA AT LA PRIMAVERA TREE TRIMMING 04/01/04 04/05/04 VIA DEL NORTE AT PAUBA R-1 DOWN 04/05/04 04/05/04 43300 CIELO DEL AZUL TREE TRIMMING 04/05/04 04/05/04 31133 CAMINO DEL ESTE BROKEN LIMB 04/05/04 04/05/04 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT HWY 79 SO. POTHOLE 04/05/04 04/05/04 DEER MEADOWS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/05/04 04/05/04 31133 CAMINO DEL ESTE TREE TRIMMING 04/05/04 04/07/04 31871 LEIGH LANE S.N.S. MISSING 04/07/04 04/07/04 MARGARITA AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD CLOSURE 04/07/04 04/08/04 PINA COLADA AT VIA NORTE R.O.W. WASH -OUT 04/08/04 04/12/04 LEIGH LANE AT CALLE KATERINE S.N.S. MISSING 04/12/04 04/12/04 COLINA VERDE AT ESTERO STREET S.N.S. MISSING 04/12/04 04/12/04 42976 VIA ALHAMA STANDING WATER 04/12/04 04/13/04 1 43147 SIENA DRIVE DEAD TREE 04/13/04 04/14/04 39130 PALA VISTA DEBRIS PICK-UP 04/14/04 04/14/04 GEORGETOWN AT MARGARITA STANDING WATER 04/14/04 04/16/04 39370 LIEFER ROAD ROAD GRADING 04/16/04 04/16/04 31257 CORTE ALHAMBRA RAISED SIDEWALK 04/16/04 04/19/04 29770 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL SNS KNOCKED DOWN 04/1904 04/21/04 41513 AVENIDA DE LA REINA TREE REMOVAL 04/21/04 04/21/04 RAINBOW CANYON VILLAGES INSTALL SIGNS 04/21/04 04/21/04 VIA GILBERTO AT PUMAS TREE TRIMMING 04/21/04 04/22/04 30915 BRANFORD DRIVE OIL SPILL 04/22/04 04/22/04 29763 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL S.N.S. REPAIR 04/22/04 04/22/04 1 27465 STANFORD DRIVE SNS DOWN 04/22/04 RAMAINTAIMWRKCOMPLTD\SORSW3-WU AY DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 04/22/04 41585 YANKEE RUN COURT A.C. REPAIR 04/22/04 04/26/04 28681 PUJOL STREET TREE REMOVAL 04/26/04 04/26/04 CALLE REVA DISEASED TREES 04/26/04 04/27/04 42720 SAN JULIAN PLACE TREE TRIMMING 04/27/04 04/27/04 MARGARITA ROAD AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY DEBRIS REMOVAL 04/27/04 04/27/04 29690 DEAL COURT TREE TRIMMING 04/27/04 04/27/04 30260 SANTIAGO ROAD POTHOLES 04/27/04 04/27/04 30260 SANTIAGO ROAD DUST ON DIRT ROADS 04/27/04 04/27/04 WINCHESTER AT JEFFERSON GRAFFITI 04/27/04 04/28/04 28900 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET DEBRIS 04/28/04 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 35 RMIAIPTAIM W R KC0MPLTDWRS\03-N�MAY CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS/STRIPING MONTH OF APRIL, 2004 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/01/04 AREA #1 REPAINTED 36 LEGENDS 04/20/04 AREA #I REPAINTED 19 LEGENDS 04/21/04 AREA #1 REPAINTED 7,841 L.F. RED CURB 04/29/04 AREA #1 REPAINTED 2,735 L.F. RED CURB TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 55 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB Si STRIPING L.F. 10,576 R:WAiNTAIMWRKCOMPLTD6TRIPINGW3- 3NAPRIL CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF APRIL, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 04/12/04 RANCHO VISTA AT MEADOWS TRIMMED 4 R.O.W. TREES 04/13/04 PUMA VALLEY AT BOGART TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 6 R:\MAINTAIMP KCOMPLTD\TREES\03- 4\ PRIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agenc emb rs FROM: John Meyer, Redevelopment Director DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of May 25, 2004 for the Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuvers Program Funding in the amount of $100,000 is available for FY 03 —04, with $24,000 funded to date. Residential Improvement Programs The program budget for FY 03/04 is $250,000, with $84,720 funded on 22 units. Affordable Housing The Cottages of Old Town project consists of 14 new single-family detached homes and 3 rehabilitated single-family homes located on Sixth Street. The first 14 Homeowners have . moved in with the remaining 3 scheduled to move in sometime in May/June 2004. Habitat for Humanity Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for Humanity on February 11, 2003 to develop a home -ownership project within the Pujol Neighborhood. The project located on the northwest corner of Pujol and First Streets, will consist of 6 new single-family detached homes. The total project site is approximately 37,000 square feet with approximate lot sizes of 5,000. The houses are arranged along Pujol Street and a private lane. The groundbreaking was held on July 26, 2003. RASYERS KW10NTH LLYVnay25.doc Senior Housing Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) on January 14, 2003 with Community for Better Housing (CBH) for a 66 unit affordable senior housing project on Pujol Street. The project will be two-story garden -style apartments and project amenities, which will include a community room, and swimming pool. The project will be completed in early 2004. Old Town Community Theater The bid opening was held on January 14. Council awarded the construction contract to Tovey/Shultz Construction, Inc. at the February 10, 2004 City Council meeting in the amount of $7,168,000. Construction has begun and should be completed in 14 months. Bally's Restaurant Council entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Chris and Kim Baily on March 25, 2003 to develop a restaurant on the property located at Old Town Front and 2otl Street. The building will consist of casual and patio dining on the first floor with a fine dining restaurant on the second floor. Construction has begun and should be completed in the Fall 2004. Campus Project The Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with AGK Group, LLC, on March 16, 2004 to develop, construct and operate an educational facility. The facility will consist of mixed -income apartments, retail facilities, parking and participating college universities. The project should be completed in Fall of 2006. Facade Improvement/Non-Conforming Sign Program The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been completed: Hitching Post - Sign Program Penfold Building - Sign Program - Completed Homes Magazine - Sign Program — Completed RASYERSKUA0NTHLLYtrnay25.doc Old Town Promotions/Marketing WESTER DAYS Western Days was held in Old Town Temecula May 22 and 23. Hosted by the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters, the weekend included old west skits, demonstrations and western exhibits. At high noon, the Old Town Temecula Gunfighters treated the crowd to a loose interpretation of the famous 1930s bank robbery where the bank's cashier chased and captured the robber. The original shootout was merely the cashier firing four shots at the robber as he drove away in his Model -A, yet Old Town Temecula's Gunfighters add a bit more excitement with the sheriff calling a halt to Dynamite Dick's escapade. Gunfight clubs from all over Southern California joined the Temecula Gunfighters in a series of competitions at 4`h and Front Street Both Saturday and Sunday. The groups competed for authenticity, humor and originality and were scored by a panel of judges. There were also a variety of western exhibits and displays. The American Civil War Society recreated life during the Civil War in an exhibit at the corner of Mercedes and Main Streets. The encampment moved in Friday evening and was on exhibit throughout the weekend. Old Tyme Folk performed on Saturday and Older than Dirt on Sunday. Both bands performed at Rosa's Cantina's Alcove from 1lam. to 2 p.m. The Lost Canyon Rangers offered a special western performance to families as they sang old western songs on Sunday from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. This group is popular around southern California, playing tunes made famous by Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Audie Murphy. Other activities included craft exhibits, wood carving demonstrations, and gold panning. There were also stagecoach rides and pony rides for a small fee and a variety of exhibits. Kids panned for gold at the gold Prospector's booth located at 6`h and Front in the Wild Cactus parking lot. Additional Old Town events will be held to include the Street Painting Festival, June 21 & 22 and Summer Nights beginning June 17 —August 27, 2004. R:\SYERSKN0NTHLLYVnay25.doc DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 8, 2004, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. RAAgenda\052504 11 ITEM 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Citywide User Fee Study with Community Services Programs and Facilities Fees PREPARED BY: Karin A. Grance, Revenue Managx RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopts the following resolutions: RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW CITYWIDE USER FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-46 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FEE SCHEDULE, INDOOR/OUTDOOR FACILITY USE PROCEDURES AND FEE SCHEDULE, AND ATHLETIC FIELDS USE FEE SCHEDULE BACKGROUND: In July 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-81, providing a Consolidated Schedule of Fees for Land Use and Related Functions for Planning, Public Works and the Fire Department that were consistent with the fees charged by Riverside County. Building Fees were based on the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and corresponding authority's method of calculating fees. Based on a study conducted by the Cordoba Corporation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-46 in June 1993 adding new user fees to the already existing fees and repealing Resolution No. 90-81. The basis for building fees did not change. In August 2002, the City contracted with Maximus, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the City. User fee services are those services performed by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The assumption underlying most fee recommendations is those costs of services benefiting individuals —and not society as a whole —should be borne by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees in RAAgendasW Agendas\StaH Report - User Fees.doc government is like establishing prices for services, but making a profit is not the objective for local government in providing services to the public. The intent of the study was to determine the full cost, including all legitimate direct and indirect costs, associated with providing each service. Direct costs include support from other departments and indirect costs include citywide overhead rates. The study used three methodologies in determining the cost for service. They are NEXUS, MAXFEE and Cost - Recovery. The NEXUS methodology, which is designed to establish a strong connection, or nexus, between project cost and fee levels (revenues), was used in determining the Building and Fire fees. MAXFEE was used for the other department's fees for service. This method is a unit cost "build-up" approach to calculating cost components with the assistance of specialized software. The Cost -Recovery approach along with MAXFEE was used due to the programmatic nature of activities that occur in the Community Services Department. The study addresses the different types of methodology in greater detail. Staff began meeting with Maximus in September 2002. Many hours were spent providing cost information to Maximus including payroll spreadsheets of salary and benefits, fixed asset records, year to date actuals in FY 2001-02, adopted budget for FY 2002-03 along with various units of measurement, staff time to perform each function and various statistical information. This fee analysis was based upon FY 2002-03 final budget figures that staff provided. The study proposes an overall fee increase to offset the full cost of service with most fees increasing and a few decreasing. Also, certain fees are subsidized to encourage compliance with health and safety codes. For example, the full cost of issuing a water heater permit would be $98, however, a flat fee of $30 is recommended. Police operations will continue to be paid for by the general taxes of the City. However, fees related to specific services that only benefit the few will still be charged a fee. Some services that have never had fees associated with them will now be recommended for recovery. These services are: various Fire services, TCSD plan check and inspection of parks, medians, and slopes. The Community Services Department traditionally will be subsidized to be more economical and provide greater participation by the public in the activities. A separate resolution is being presented to address their programs and facilities. The Community Services Department has reviewed and completed an analysis of fees that are charged for major on -going programs and activities as well as for use of City recreation facilities. Fees have been compared to other municipalities, which include Moreno Valley, Carlsbad, Escondido, Corona and San Marcos, to ensure that we are charging rental fees for public use that is in line with other municipal fees throughout our area. Facility and field usage are grouped into four categories that have been used for the past 13 years. These categories are listed on Exhibit "B". These established categories provide reduced rates for resident community users and other local non-profit youth sport and civic organizations. Other community users or non-profit local organizations will use our facilities at a substantially reduced cost as opposed to commercial users and in -like entities. New fees being recommended are: adult basketball tournament play and adult volleyball leagues. In reviewing our fees for programs and facility rentals, TCSD is subsidizing these users in excess of $200,000 annually. The new fee for recreation programs and facility rentals is estimated to generate an additional $150,000 annually. It is important to keep in mind that our rental fees for facilities are still 2/3 less than any other rental facilities in the City of Temecula. Since this study reflects costs that will change over time, it is recommended that the fees be updated periodically to account for these changes. Three alternatives are presented in the study to include: an annual update, CPI factor, and City Labor Cost. The study recommends the City Labor Cost alternative since the majority of changes from year to year occur in labor RMgendw\04 Agwdw\SYeli Repon - User Fees.d= costs. Common CPI factors are not specific to the regional economy surrounding the City and would not be an appropriate method and an annual update would be time and cost prohibitive. Community Services' program fees would not be subject to the annual update method. The Maximus study has been reviewed by staff and legal counsel as to the appropriateness of the information provided. Briefings were conducted with council members and a development community workshop was held on May 11, 2004. Staff is making the following recommendations: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 04- Establishing and Imposing New Citywide User Fees Effective July 1, 2004 and Repealing Resolution No. 93-46, with attached exhibits that state those fees at full -cost recovery and those that are subsidized. 2. Update the fee study annually by using the City Labor Costs Alternative. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 04- Approving a Parks, Recreation and Community Services Programs and Activities Fee Schedule, Indoor/Outdoor Facility Use Procedures and Fee Schedule, and Athletic Fields Use Fee Schedule, with attached exhibits. FISCAL IMPACT: With development expected to continue and if annual volumes in the study occur, the potential revenue offset is as follows for the various departments: Building & Safety $ 510,000 Fire Prevention (Bldg) $ 189,000 Planning $ 478,000 Public Works $ 304,000 Community Services (Program) $ 926,000 Community Services (Non -Program) $ 955,000 Fire Prevention (Other) $ 604,000 Police (Other) 74,000 Total $4,040,000 ATTACHMENTS: (1)Resolution No. 04--(Establishing and Imposing New Citywide User Fees) (2) Resolution No. 04- (Parks, Recreation and Community Services Programs) with exhibits A, B, and C (3) Citywide User Fee Study -Final Report with appendices R:Wgendast04 Agendws Stag Report - User Fees.dm RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FEE SCHEDULE, INDOOR/OUTDOOR FACILITY USE PROCEDURES AND FEE SCHEDULE, AND ATHLETIC FIELDS USE FEE SCHEDULE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This resolution is adopted in recognition of the following facts and circumstances: A. The City of Temecula desires to provide parks, recreation and community services programs and activities to the public. B. It is necessary to establish fees to help defray costs associated with providing the required staffing, supplies, utilities, facilities maintenance, and similar program costs. C. The City also desires to provide public access to indoor and outdoor city recreation facilities and athletic fields. D. It is necessary to establish fees to help defray costs associated with providing the required staffing, utility costs, maintenance, and other services at such facilities. Section 2. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted. Section 3. The revised Indoor/Outdoor Facility Use Procedures and Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", is hereby adopted. Section 4. The Athletic Fields Use Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", is hereby adopted. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution with fees effective July 1, 2004. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 2004. Michael S. Nagger, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RAUser Fee Study\reso-2004 recreation fee and rental schedules.DOC [SEAL] 6�f�L�i73�L1>l17i]i�fGG\ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RAUser Fee Studylraso-2004 recreation fee and rental schedules.DOC EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Adult Sports PER TEAM PER PERSON Softball League — Competitive $450-$525 Softball League — Non -Competitive $30 Softball Tournament $170-$250 Basketball League $250 Basketball — Open Play $3 Basketball Tournament $125 Soccer League $340 Soccer Tournament $170 Volleyball League $225 Volleyball Tournament $125 Volleyball — Open Play $3 Protest Fee each writtenprotest) $35 Tennis Tournament $40 Non -Residents pav an additional s10.0o per person/per season to participate. Aquatics Per Person Per Person Resident Non -Resident Swim Lessons $45 $55 Private Swim Lessons $70 $80 Lap Swim $1 $5 Family Night Swim $1 $5 Open Public Swim 0-12 & Seniors $1 $5 13 and Over $2.50 Local Non -Profit Swim Team Rental $12 Per Hour Additional $10 Per (applicable when pools are open and Person/Per Season for heated) each non-resident on the $10 per hour staff fee if required) roster. Contracted Classes — 30% Ci !70% Instructor Day Camp $200 - $240 Per Person Per Two Week Session - based on program cost Tiny Tots Program $64 Per 8 Week Session Parent and Me 1 1 $3 Per Class Skate Park $2 Per Session Resident $5 Per Session Non -Res $20 12 Session Value Pass Children's Museum 2 and Younger Free 3 —103 $4.50 Grou s 25 or More $3.50 R:Wser Fee Studylreao-2004 recreation fee and rental schedu1es_D0C EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Indoor Reserved Use 1. All reserved use of public recreational facilities requires review an approval of a "Facility Request Form" by city staff. Request forms may be obtained at Temecula City Hall, located at 43200 Business Park Drive or at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, located at 30875 Rancho Vista Drive. Requests must be submitted at least ten (10) working days prior to the intended use and all appropriate fees must be paid at the time of the request. 2. Facility Use Permits shall be issued only to responsible adults, age 21 years or older, who must comply with all rules and regulations. Such person is responsible for payment of all applicable charges and must be present at the function for which use is authorized. 3. A refundable cleaning/security deposit of $150 may be required with the completed request and applicable fees, depending upon the use of indoor facilities. Upon receipt, the facility will be tentatively reserved for the applicant pending availability and review by city staff. If alcohol will be used, served or sold in conjunction with an indoor facility rental, the cleaning/security deposit required will be in the amount of $400. The cleaning/security deposit will be returned to the applicant if the facility is found to be in a condition similar to it being found immediately before the event and no additional security costs were incurred. The applicant may expect the returned deposit(s), or an appropriate portion thereof, within twenty (20) working days after the scheduled event. Should repairs to the facility be necessary that exceed the funds deposited, the City will hold the applicant financially responsible for such repairs or security costs. 4. No facility shall be scheduled more than six (6) months in advance. 5. Facilities are provided "as is" with limited support items. A preview of the facility will be encouraged before a request is submitted to ensure facilities meet applicant's needs. 6. A $5 processing fee will by levied by the city if an applicant cancels a reservation within five (5) days of the event. 7. Until the required Facility Request Form, cleaning/security deposit, rental fees, required insurance, and other requirements are received by the city, the city shall have the right to cancel the applicant's request. All required insurance verifications must be submitted at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the use of the facility. 8. The city retains the right to deny any building utilization request that is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City Council of the City of Temecula, Community Services Department. RAUser Fee Studykeso-2004 recreation fee and rental scheduleS_DOC 9. The applicant is responsible for all set-up and clean-up. Necessary clean-up not performed by user will be considered by the city and applicable costs will be assessed to the user's cleaning/security deposit. 10. All use is restricted to the day of the rental. A facility will not be available for set- up the day before, or clean-up the day after use without additional fees. 11. User must comply with instructions of city employee(s) on duty or risk immediate eviction from public premises. All noise, music amplification, etc. must b kept at a reasonable sound level as determined by security or the staff person on duty. The city staff member may cancel a function at any time if persons involved in the function are not conduction themselves in a lawful manner and/or are causing damage to city property. The authorized applicant is responsible for the supervision and actions of those in attendance. 12. The city is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. 13. No city equipment or furnishings shall be removed from the premises. 14. Decorations must be approved prior to installation and must be removed immediately after the event. All decorations must be of a flameproof material. No nails, tacks, tape or other material considered harmful or defacing to the building is permitted. 15. The city may require security personnel at applicant's expense for functions where the Director of Community Services or his/her designee deems it necessary or in the best interest of the city. 16. All admission fees charged by the applicant require the approval of the Director of Community Services or his/her designee. Additional permits or licenses may be required. R1Usor Fee Studyveso-2004 recreation fee and rental schedule&DOC CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE INDOORIOUTDOOR FACILITY USE GROUP I — TCSD sponsored or co -sponsored leisure and recreational activities GROUP 11- Youth groups conducting non-profit youth oriented sports activities, and non profit athletic/civic organizations conducting community oriented leisure or sports activities. GROUP III - Base standard rates for community users on a non-profit basis. GROUP IV - Profit making, commercial business or non-resident individuals and organizations conducting activities that are for profit and are either open or closed to the public. Community Recreation Center (CRC) GROUP I HOURLY RATE GROUP II HOURLY RATE GROUP III HOURLY RATE GROUP IV HOURLY RATE Multi -Purpose Room No Charge $24 $42 $70 Meeting Room A/B No Charge $16 $21 $40 Meeting Room A, B or C No Charge $9 $11 $25 Gymnasium (Sports Programs Only) No Charge $7 $55 $75 Amphitheater — No Entry Fee No Charge $25 $45 $73 Amphitheater — Entry Fee No Charge $32 $50 $125 Kitchen (in conjunction with meeting room or multi -purpose room rental only) No Charge $5 $8 $14 Temecula Community Center GROUP I GROUP 11 GROUP III GROUP IV (TCC) HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY RATE RATE RATE RATE Multi -Purpose Room No Charge $18 $36 $60 Meeting Room A No Charge $9 $11 $25 Kitchen (in conjunction with meeting No Charge $5 $8 $14 room or multi -purpose room rental only) Mary Phillips Senior Center GROUP 1 GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV (MPSC) HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY RATE RATE RATE RATE Multi -Purpose Room No Charge $18 $36 $60 Meeting Room A/B No Charge $16 $21 $40 -Meeting Room A, B or C No Charge $9 $11 $25 Craft Room No Charge $12 $20 $38 Kitchen (in conjunction with meeting No Charge $5 $8 $14 room or multi -purpose room rental only) Harveston Community Park GROUP 1 GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV (Clubhouse) HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY RATE RATE RATE RATE Multi -Purpose Room No Charge $16 $21 $40 R9User Fee Studyueso-2004 recreation fee and rental schedules.DOC GROUP GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV Picnic Facilities — Small Group HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY Picnic Areas RATE RATE RATE RATE Meadows Park (30 maximum No Charge $8 $12 $20 capacity) Temeku Hills Park (50 maximum No Charge $8 $12 $25 capacity) Picnic Facilities — Large Group GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV Picnic Areas HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY RATE RATE RATE RATE Rancho California Sports Park No Charge $10 $15 $30 150 maximum capacity) Harveston Community Park No Charge $10 $15 $30 150 maximum capacity) Pala Community Park No Charge $10 $15 $30 150 maximum capacity) Margarita Community Park No Charge $10 $15 $30 150 maximum ca aci Special Events/Corporate Events GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV Areas HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY RATE RATE RATE RATE Margarita Community Park No Charge $16 $30 $45 (350 maximum capacity/ upper and lower areas Note: • Indoor Facility Use: Three (3) Hour Minimum • Picnic Shelter Use Four (4) Hour Minimum • $12 per hour staffing fee for every hour of use beyond the normal hours of operations. • $150 Cleaning/Security Deposit may be required. $400 Cleaning/Security Deposit if alcohol will be used, served or sold. • 25% Cancellation Fee plus a $5 processing fee for cancellation of a facility if cancelled 72 hours or less from the date and time of scheduled use. RAUser Feo Stud)Areso-2004 recreation foo and rental sehedrdes_DOC EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE ATHLETIC FIELD USE Fee Payment: The fees applicable to the use of facilities are contained herein and are due and payable at the TCSD office (72) hours prior to the use of that facility. Outdoor Use GROUP 1. Softball/Baseball Field' No Field Preparation No Lights 0 0 $7.00 $14.00 Lighted 0 $5.00 $14.00 $24.00 2. Soccer/Football Field' No Field Preparation No Lights 0 0 $7.00 $14.00 Lighted 0 $5.00 $14.00 $24.00 3. Tournaments/Sports Clinics (per field per day) No Field Preparation 0 0 $120.00 $195.00 4. A $5.00 Administrative Fee will be charged for processing refunds! 5. Individuals who do not reside within the boundaries of the City of Temecula registering for a TCSD sponsored activity or facility will be subject to a $10.00 per person non- residency fee. Fees listed herein are on an hourly basis per group, per field unless otherwise noted. R:\User Fee Studykeso-2004 recreation fee and rental sohedules.DCC RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW CITYWIDE USER FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-46 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 90-81 a Consolidated Schedule of Fees for Land Use and Related Functions on July 24, 1990 that were consistent with the fees charged by Riverside County. Section 2. The City Council amended the user fees by Resolution No. 93-46 on June 8, 1993 to incorporate certain revisions to the existing fee schedule to correct obvious inequities per the Cordoba Corporation study. Section 3. The City Council approved a contract with the Maximus, Inc. in August 2002 to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the city. The Maximus study determines the full cost of providing services and provides the City with a true representation of what it costs to provide services to the public and create a fair and equitable basis to determine the rate of recovery/subsidy. Section 4. The State of California Government Code Section 66014 et.al. allows local agencies to charge fees for various activities as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is intended. Section 5. The study also addresses a change in methodology for charging Building and Safety and Fire fees. Section 6. The study lists three alternatives to update the fee schedules periodically to account for changes in cost over time. The labor cost alternative is recommended. Section 7. Exhibit A is the Fee Recommendation Summary. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the fees with the appropriate cost recovery percentage as detailed in the report. Section 8. Exhibit B lists fees that were not included in the study but have been identified by staff as important fee items that should not be omitted. Section 9. These Citywide User Fees will be effective July 1, 2004. RAUser Fee Study\reso-user foe 2004.doo PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of May, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R .User Fee Study\reso-user fee 2004.doo EXHIBIT "A" FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Building and Safety Department Appendix 1 Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees Pages 1-18 Fire Prevention (Building) Appendix 2 Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees Pages 1-13 Planning Department Appendix 3 Fee Recommendation Summary Pages 3 & 4 Public Works Department Appendix 4 Fee Recommendation Summary Pages 3 & 4 Community Services Department Appendix 5 Fee Recommendation Summary Page 1 Fire Prevention (Other/Non-Building) Appendix 6 Fee Recommendation Summary Pages 4-6 Police Department Appendix 7 Fee Recommendation Summary Page 2 RrUser Fee Study\reso-user fee 2004.doc APPENDIX 1 RAUser Foe StudyVaso-usor fee 2004.doc City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I FR, B FR Cormtruc0on Types: 01-NR, 1014IR, V taiR Construction Types: 0N, III N, IV, VN UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost �ThreshoW SW CostforEach Additional 100 s.L' Bess Cost Threshold Size CostforEach Additional 100 s.f. • Base Cost ®Thresho SW Cost for Each Additional 100 s.L' Theater $0 $106.66 $0 $88.89 n.a. n.a. Restaurant 10,000 $10.666 $28.61 $8,889 $23.84 n.a. nA. 25,000 $14,958 $21.94 $12,465 $1828 na. na. 50,000 $20.444 $557 $17,036 $4.64 n.a. nA. 100,000 $23,228 $23.23 $19,357 $19.36 n.a. na. [A-1 Theater 0 $77.00 so $64.16 n.a.Restaurant $7,700 $20.90 $6,416 $17AI na. n.a. Tenant Impovements 10,834 $16A5 $9,029 WAS n.a. n.a. 14,871 $4.08 $12,392 $3.40 n.a. n.a. 16,909 $16.91 $14,091 $14.09 na. n.a. Aud0odum$0 %0,6'3 $294.65 $0 $245.54 Sd $196.43 Church 14.733 $77.94 $12.277 $64.95 $9,822 $51.96 Restaurant 20,578 $5921 $17.148 $49.34 $13,719 $39.47 - -31,760 27.978 $15.12 $23,316 $12.60 $18,653 310.08 56352 $26,467 $52.93 $21.174 $42.36 A3 Auditorium $0 $233.90 $0 $194.91 $0 $155.93 Church 5,000 $11,6951 $62.04 $9.746 $51.70 $7,797 $41.36 Restaurant 12,500 $16.3481 $4721 $13.623 $39.34 $10.898 $31A7 Tenant Improvements 25,000 $22.2491 $12.05 $18,641 $10.04 $14,833 $8.03 50,000 $25,2601 $50.52 $21,050 $42.10 $16.Wl $33.68 B AD 'B' Occupancee $0 $236.94 $0 $197.45 $0 $157.96 (non -repetitive) 5,000 $11,847 $6622 . $9,872 $55.18 $7,898 544.15 12,500 $16.813 $52.13 $14,011 $43.44 $11,209 $34.76 [Please complete all rows- 25,000 $23,329 $13.00 $19,441 $10.83 $15,563 $8.67 This section also used for scaling] 50,000 $26,579 $53.16 $22.149 $44.30 $17.720 $35.44 B At *B" Occupancies $0 $157.96 $0 $131.63 $0 $105.30 Tenant Improvements 2,500 $3,949 $89.91 $3,291 $74.93 $2.633 $59.94 6,250 $7,321 $46.90 56,101 $39.08 $4,880 $31.27 - - 12,600 $10,252 $32.56 $8,543 527.14 $6.835 $21.71 25,000 $14,a22 $57.29 $11,935 $47.74 $9,548 $38.19 E-1 [see UBC class designation] - $0 $212.63 $0 $17720 $0 $141.76 E-2 2,000 $4263 $63.70 $3,644 553.08 $2,835 $42.46 - 5,000 $6,164 $52.22 $5.136 $43.51 $4,109 $34.81 10,000 $8,774 $12.68 $7,312 $10.57 $6,860 $8.45 20,000 $10.0421 $50.21 58,368 541.84 $6.695 $33.47 %Plan Check % Inspection 46% 54% 48%1 52% 43% 57% 43% 57% 55% 45% 36% 64% 69% 31% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 1 of 18 1 V ll"I ►US City of Temecula -Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I Fit, 0 FR Construction Types: 014NR, 101-NR, V"R Construction Types: ON,ill N, IV. VN UBC Class UBC occupancyType Project Stre@Thmhold Threshold Bsse Cost Slur Cost for Eac AddNbnal 100 s•6 • Base Cost @Threshold SW Cost for Eac Additional 100 s.f.' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Eac Additional 100 61 * E-1 [see UBC class deslgnationj so $136.69 $0 $113.91 so $91.13 E-2 Tenant Impnmements 2,000 $2.734 $40.39 $2278 $33.66 $1,823 $26.93 51000 $3.946 $32.85 $3288 $27.38 $2,630 $21.90 10.000 $5488 $8.02 $4,657 $6.68 $3,725 $5.36 20,000 $6,390 $31.95 W325 $26.63 $4260 $21.30 E-3 [see UBC class designation SO $211.73 $0 $176.44 $0 $141.16 2,000 $4235 $61.35 $3,529 $51.13 $2.823 $40.90 5,000 $6,075 $49.35 $5,063 $41.13 $4.050 $32.90 10,000 $8,643 $12.13 $7.119 $10.11 $5,695 $8.09 20,000 $9.756 $48.78 $8,130 $40.65 $6,504 $32.52 E3 [sea UBC class designation] -SO 5769.39 SO 5741.16 $0 $112.92 Tenant lmpmvements 2,000 S%M $49.08 52,823 $32.90 $3240 $26.32 5,OOD $4,860 $39.48 54,050 $32.90 $3,240 $28.32 10,000 $6,8341 $9.71 S5,695 $8.09 $4.556 SSA7 20,000 $7,805 $39.03 $8,504 $32.62 $5203 $26.02 F-1 [see UBC cland"'mln$0 $711.78 $O $93.15 $O $74.52 F-20 $5.589 $30.49 $4.668 $25.41 $3,726 $20.32 0 S7,876 $23.63 $6563 $19.69 $52510 $10,830 55.96 59,025 $4.96 $7220 $3.97 0 $12,318E20.53 58,212 $16.42 F-1 [sea UBC cl$0 $49.82 $0 $41.51 $0 $3321 F-2 Tenant lmpi0 $2,491 $14.55 $2.076 $12.13 $1.661 $9.70 00 $3.682 $11.76 $2.985 $9.80 $2,388 $7.84 - 25,000 $5.053 $2.88 $4,211 $2.40 $3.369 $1.92 60,000 $5,774 $11.66 $4,8111 $9.62 $3,849 $7.70 H-1 [see U8C class designation] - $0 E540.70 SO 5450.58 $0 $3117 H_2 1,000 $5,407 $171.99 $4,506 $143.32 $3,605 $114.66 H-3 2,500 57,987 5145.53 $6,666 $121.28 $5,325 02 $97q$2107 5,000 $11,625 $34.61 $9,688 528.84 $T,T50 10,000 513,356 5133.56 511.130 5111.30 S8,eo4 [see UBC Gass designationj - $0 $431.34 $0 $359.45 $0 $287.56 Tenant Improvements 1,000 $4,313 $135.76 $3.695 $113.13 $2.876 $9051 21500 $6,350 $95.22 $4,233 $76.175,000 rH-3 $9206$7,672 $22.72 $6,138 $18.1810,000 S10,570$8.808 *$114.26E5,292 388.0a $T,047 $70.47 %Plan Check % Inspection 67% 33% 62% 38% 62% 38% 49% 51% 36% F82r 18% 80% 20% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 2 of 18 M1A3e1E1'1'r lUS♦ City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I FR, 6FR CO an Types: 81•HR, ill R,Vi-HR Construction Types: 0N,ill N. N,VN UBC Class H4 H5 UBC Occupancy Type [see UBC class designation] Pm]sd Size Threshold - 1,000 2,500 Bass Cost Cost aThreshoW SW SO $2.734 $4,010 for Eu Additional 100 61 • $273.41 $85.04 $71.13 Bass Cost Cost �Thrssttol SW SO 52,278 53,341 for Eac Additional 100 s.t • 3227.84 5T0.86 558.27 Base Cost �Threshokl Shre SO 51,623 S2,6T3 Cost for Each AddPoerl 100 s.f. $182.28 556.69 547.42 _ 5.000 $5.788 $17.04 S4,823 $14.20 _ 10,000 $6.640 566.40 $5,533 $55.33 $4,427 54,427 $44.27 544.27 H4 H5 [see UBC class desertion] Tenant lmpmvemenls - 1,000 2500 $0 $2,541 $3,645 $264.08 $73.62 $59.22 $0 $2,117 $3.038 $211.73 $61.35 $49.35 $0 $1,694 $2,430 $169.39 $49.08 $39.48 5.000 10,000 $5.126 $5,854 $14.56 $58.64 S4,271 $4.878 $12M $48.78 $3,417 $3,903 39. 71 $9A3 H5 H-T [see UBC class desertion] 2,000 5,000 SO $5.198 $7,290 $259.92 $69.73 $53.47 $0 $4,332 $6.075 $216.60 S58.t1 $44.56 $0 $3,466 $4.860 $1T3.28 $46.49 $35.65 10,000 $9.964 $13.57 $8,303 $11.31 $6,643 $9.05 20,000 $111321 $56.61 $9.434 $47.17 $71547 $37.T4 H5 H-7 [acc UBC class designation] Term Im mvemenis 2A00 5,000 10,000 $0 $3.623 $5.079 $6,938 $181.14 $48.53 $37.19 $9.44 so $3,019 $4,232 $5,782 MGM $40.45 $30.99 $7.87 $ $2,415 $3,386 $4.625 $120.76 $32.36 $24.T9 6. 20,000 $7,883 $39A1 $6,669 $32.84 $5255 $2628 1-1A see UBC class desigrtbnl - 10,000 $0 591T75 $97.75 $28.66 $0 $8,146 $81.46 $23.88 $0 $6,517 $65.17 $19.11 _ M000 $14.074 $23.21 $111729 $19.34 $9,383 $i5A7 _ 50,000 $19,877 $5.68 $16,564 $4.73 $13.262 $3.79 _ 100,000 $22,718 $22.72 $18,932 $18.93 $15,145 $15.15 1-1.1 [see UBC Gass designation] Tenant lmpmvements - 10,000 25.000 $0 $7,312 $10,591 $73.12 $21.86 $17.90 $0 $6.093 $8,826 $60.93 $18.22 $14.92 $0 $4,875 $7,061 $48.75 $14.57 $11.93 50.000 $15,067 $4.35 $12,556 $3.62 $10,044 $2.90 100,000 $17242 $17.24 $14,368 $14.37 $11,494 $11.49 1.1.2 [see UBC class des nation] 2,000 $0 W021 $251.03 $74.76 $0 $41184 5209.19 562.30 $0 $3,847 $167.35 $49.84 5,000 $7263 $61.08 $6,053 $50.90 $4,842 $40.72 _ 10,000 20,000 $101317 $11,804 $14.86 $59.02 $8,595 $9,836 512.39 $49.18 $6,878 $7.869 $9.91 $39.35 %Plan Check % Inspection 78% 22% 62% 38% 46% 54% 45% 55•k 65% 35% 69% 31% 68% 32% MAMMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 3 of 18 1 V 1!'1XIMUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Coestruotbn Types: IFR,OFR Combucuon Types: 01-HR, 11114411, V 1-HR ColtslrueWn Typos: ON,ill N, IV, VN UBC Class 1-12 UBC Occupancy Type JseeuBC class des nation] Tenant lmpmvetnents Pm]ect Size Thmshold 2A00 6,000 Base Cost @Thmhold Sim $0 $3,475 $6,027 CostforEach Additional 100 s f. • $173.15 $51.75 $42.28 Bsse Cost QThmhold Stul $0 $2,896 $4,190 cogtforEach Additional 100 51 • $144.79 $43.12 $3524 Bese Cost GThnshold Size . $0 $2,317 $3.352 Cost for Each Additional 100 s.L $115.S4 $34.50 $28.19 10,000 $7,142 $1029 $5,951 $8S7 $4,761 $6.86 20,000 $8,170 $40.85 $6,809 $34.04 $5,447 $2723 1-3 Isee UBC class des nation] 10,000 $0 $7,265 $72.65 $21.33 $0 $6,054 $60.54 $17.78 $0 $4,843 $48.43 $1422 25,000 $10,465 $1729 $8,721 $14.41 $6.976 $11.53 50,000 $14,787 $423 $12,322 $3.52 $91858 $2,82 100,000 $16,901 $16.90 $14,085 $14.08 $11,268 $11.27 13 [see UBC class designation] Tenant lmpmvements 10,000 25,000 $0 $5274 $7,594 $52.74 $15.47 $12.53 $0 $4,395 $6.328 $43.95 $12.89 $10.44 $0 $3,516 $5,063 $35.16 $10.31 $8.35 50,000 $10,727 $3.07 $8,939 $2.58 $7,151 $2.04 100,000 512,260 $12.26 $10218 $1022 $8,173 $8.17 M [see UBC class designation] 2,000 $0 $3,862 $193408 $58.60 $0 $3218 $160.90 $48.83 $0 $2,574 $128.72 $39.07 5,000 $5,039620 $48.38 $4.683 $40.32 $3,746 $3226 10,000 $8, 511.69 $6,699 $9.74 $5.359 $7 .80 20,000 $9,206 546.04 $7,673 $38.37 $6.139 $30.69 Isee UBC class designation] Tenant lmpmvements 2,000 5.000 $0 $2,660 $3,873 $133.01 $40.43 $33.40 $0 $2,217 $3,227 $110.84 $33.69 $27.84 $0 $1,773 $.2,582 $68.67 $26.95 $22.27 10,000 $5.543 $8.07 $4,619 $6.72 $3.695 $5.38 FR-1 20,000 $61360 $31.75 $51292 $26.46 $4.233 $21.17 [see UBC class designation] 5,000 12.500 $0 $9,183 $12,880 $183.66 $49.29 $37.80 $0 $7,653 $10.733 $153.05 $41.07 $31.50 $0 $6.122 $8,586 $122.44 $32.86 $25.20 25,000 $17,605 $9.59 $14,671 $7.99 $11,737 $6.40 50,000 $20,003 $40.01 $16,669 $33.34 $13,3351 $26.67 R-1 R-2.1 [see UBC class des nation] Tenant Impmvements - 5.000 12,500 $0 $4,426 $6,375 E88.52 $25.99 7 EO 53,688 $5,313 E73.77 $21.66 $17.55 $0 $2.951 $4,250 $59.02 $17.33 $14.04 25,000 $9,009 5 L$2O.59 $7,507 $429 $6,006 $3.44 50,000 $10,297 $8,581 $17.16 $605 $13.73 %Plan Check % Inspsctinn 68% 32% 65% 35% 65% 35% k72% 28% 73% 27% 46% 64% 65% 35% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 4 of 18 ` • AX"Us City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: IFR,BFR Corratm on Types: 111•HR,III 1-HR,V 1•HR Construction Types: ON, 10 N, W. VN UBC Class R-3 UBC Occupancy Type Dwel s-Model Flat Unk of Tract Pmleet Sire Threshold - 1,000 21500 Base Cost @Threshold SW n.a. na. n.a. Coat for Each Additional 100 MV n.a. n.a. na. Bess Cost @Threshold SW n.a. n.a. na. COStfOrEsch Additional 100 ME • n.a. na. n.a. Base Coat @Thmhold Size $0 $1,428 $1,823 Cost for Fac Additional 100 ME * $142.77 $26.33 $37.46 5.000 n.a. na, na. na. $2.759 $14.68 10.000 n.a. na, n.a. n.a. $3.493 534.93 R3 Dwellings - Repeats (Addrdoml Un0s of Tract l Subdivision) - 1,000 2,500 5,000 n.a. n.a. na. n.a. n.a. n.a. na. n.a. na. n.a. na. n.a. na. n.a. n.a. n.a. $D $661 $622 $1,025 $56.09 $4.05 $16.12 $5SI 10,000 n.a. n.a. na. n.a. $1,300 $13.00 R-3 Dweangs - Custom - 1,000 na. me. n.a. nA. n.a. na. na. n.a. $0 $1,326 $132.64 $24.64 _ 2,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. na. $1.696 342.53 _ 5,000 n.a. n.a. na. na. $2,759 $14.68 10,000 na. na. n.a. nA. $3A93 $34.93 S•1 g-2 [see UBC class designation) - 51000 12,500 $0 $3,650 $6,135 $73.00 $19.80 $15.30 $0 $3.042 $4,279 $60.83 $16.50 $12.75 $0 $2,433 $3.423 $48.66 $1320 $10.20 _ 25,000 $7,047 $3.86 $5,873 $322 $4,698 $2.68 50,000 $8.013 $16.03 $6,678 $13.36 $5,342 510.68 S•1 S-2 _ [see UBC class designation) Tenant Improvements 5,000 12,500 $0 $2,202 $3,072 $44.04 $11.60 $8.79 $0 $1.835 $2,560 $36.70 $9.67 $7.33 $0 $1,468 $2,048 $29.36 $7.74 $5.86 25,000 $4,171 $225 $3,476 $1.87 $2,781 $1.50 50,000 $4.734 $9A7 $3,945 $7.89 $3,156 $6.31 S3 S4 S-5 [see UBC class designation) - 1,000 2,500 5,000 $0 $2,587 $3.676 $51107 $258.71 $72.56 $57.24 $14.26 $0 $2,156 $3,063 $4,256 $215.59 $60.47 $47.70 $11.88 so $1,725 $2,4601 $3,404 $172.47 $48.38 $38.16 $9.50 10,000 $5,819 $58.19 $4.850 $48.50 $3,880 $38.80 S•3 S4 [see UBC class des nation) Tenant Improvements 1,000 2,500 5,000 $0 $1,577 $2.236 $3,1141 $157.05 $44.35 $35.131 $8.72 $0 $1.309 $1,863 $ZA95 $130.88 $36.96 $29.27 57.27 $0 $1.047 $1,490 $2,076 5104.70 $2956 $23.42 $5.82 _ 10,000 $3.5Wl $2,958 $29MI 2,367 $23.67 %Plan Check % butpection 49% 51% 12% 88% 47% 53% 48% 52% 42% 58% 55% 45% 57% 43% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 5 of 18 NIAX"US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Constrocoon Types: I FP, 0FR Construction Types: I"R. 011-HR,V 1-HR Construction Types: II N. Ill N, IV, VN UBC class U-1 U_2 UBC Occupancy Type Custom Homes Project SW Threshold Soo 1,250 Base Cod ®Thresho sits $0 $562 $806 Cost for Each Additional 10o s•f. • $112.39 $32.58 $26.21 Bese Cost QThreshold size so $468 $672 CostiorEach AddNbnal 100 s.f.' $93.66 $27.15 $21.84 Base Cost Threshold sin $0 $375 $538 Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' $74.93 $21.72 $17.47 2,500 $1,134 $6.44 $945 $5.37 $756 $4.30 6,000 $1,295 $25.90 51,079 $21.58 $863 $17.27 U-1 �2 _ Traci Repeal 600 1,250 $O $228 $317 545.56 $11.83 $8.87 f0 f190 $2641 $37.97 $9.86 $7.39 $O $152 $211 530.38 $7.89 55.92 2,500 $427 $2.29 $356 f1.91 $285 $1,52 5,000 $485 $9.69 $404 38.08 $323 $6.46 AR Shell Buildings f0 4 $7928 $13.97 SO $3.303 $66.07 $11.64 $2.6439 55526..83520 2,0 02 f17.3 $4,177 48 33,41 $11.58 ,00 $9.54 $5,987 57 $4,27f80 8 $9569 $19.14 $7,974 $15.95 $6,379 312.76 Each additional 100 square feel, or potion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. %Plan Check % Inspection 62% 36% 39% 61% 50% 50% Average % I Average % Plan Check I Impaction 40%. 60% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 6 of 18 ! V 1!'l1t°WUS City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department • New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Cie I Occupancy Type I- o„Sp I SF A-1 A-2 A-2 A-2.1 A-3 A-3 B B E-1 E-1 Cumerd Armwl Poterdld CurteM Fae wacphIiudsy Volumed Revenue tl (8) • Acdvlty Curom Fw Eubs Faa Acbul Annul Surplusl Subtotal Cost (Subsidy) Theater Restal - _ Theater ReslauuM Tenant lmpmvememe [see UBC lass desipneOonl [see UBC class desi9na8anl Tenets lmpowanenu _ _ Aud0adum Church Resuurant _ Auditorium Chl Resleuunt Tel lmpnwemenu AII•B- Occupandes (nm-repa08ve) _ [Please compleu a0 rows • AO'B• Occupendes Tell Mpmvenu nts - _ [see UBC dau designatlon] _ _ _ (see uec lass desi9ne0onl Tmem Impmverrums - - 0.0000Theater- 1.0888 0.5983 0.4089 0.2323 0.0000 0,0000 0.7700 0.4334. 0.2B74 0.1W1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0oo0 O.000U 0.0000 O.00DD 0.0000 0.0000 o.009D 0.0000 1.9843 1.0975 0.7461 0A235 0.0000 0.0000 1.550 0.8719 0.5933 0.3368 0.0000 0.0000 1,57gg 0.8967 0.8221 0,3.r/r O.0000 O.000D 1.0530 0.7809 0.6188 0.3819 0.a000 D.0000 1.4178 0.8218 0.5850 0.3347 0.000o o.0000 0.9113 0.6281 10000 S 25000 50000 100000 0 10000 25000 CA000 100000 0 0 10000 25000 5000o 100000 o 0 tOD00 25000 50000 100DOO 0 0 5000 125M 25000 li00W 0$ 0 5000 12500 25000 50000 O 0 5000 12500 25000 4 SpppD 2500 8250 12500 25000 2000 5000 10000 20000 2000 5000 10,688 S S 14,858 S S 20,4M t AM S S 7,700 S 10A34 S 14,871 $ 18,909 5 S $ S i 5 s s 5 S 5 - s s 6 s 9,822 5 13.718 S 18,853 f 21,174 $ f 7,797 $ 10.898 $ 14,833 $ 15.640 S E - S 7,898 5 11,209 S 15,653 S 17.720 O t 0 t - E 2,633 S 4.880 S 8,am S 8.548 0 s 0 s S 2,835 S 4,109 f 6,850 5 8,895 O S o s 5 1,823 S 2,830 - S 9,234 i S E S - S 8,198 f S - $ f S S $ t $ $ - E $ - t S - s $ E 6,755 S S - E E S 1.978 S S E S - S 4,353 S S f E s - $ 910 $ f S s s f S S S S s E S 10,886 S t 5,724 S S 20,4/4 S S 23,228 S S ,700 S 2,B38 S (14,871 S 18,t109) S E f i $ S $ $ S E s S s s S e,BB 5 (13,778 S 18,653 f 21,1]4) S S 5,819 S 1I,893 S E 3.5/5) 5 (71,209 S 15,553) $ (17,720) $ S $ $ 4,880) S elms $ 8.548 s E S 2,835) S 4,109 S 5,850 S 8.895) s S 1 823 S 2,830, S 3 S S S f 3 f S S $ S S $ S - f S f s E S 11 s $ S S 41 5 E S 26 S S S $ 62 $ S is s S S t $ s i $ _ S 27,702 t f $ S $ 24,594 E S 5 S S f 5 s i S f s s S 45,705 5 S 81,098 S S _ S 773,178 $ S $ $ 5 56,420 $ E $ s s i t f S $ 5 e $ S 44,875 s $32,503 f S S S s f s t S 5 i s s $ 108,039 S f = 318,880 - S f $ 205.3M E f S S 163,222 f S S S s t f E E s E S S - 6 17.173 S f f ,908 i S 5 f f $ E E S s S E s s $ 62, 334 - S f f 238.562) f S s (92,788 S f S $ (106,802) f $ t t s S S S $ s $ S $ t 17,171 f ,909 i f S T38,562 f 92,1fi6 t tOfi,802 MA)GMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 7 of 18 NIAMMUS City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department • New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Current BrrIH� I ArmuH pHerMel Actual CumaH Revenue Oeeupanry Type Average Cost SF Stallard UnitIwer,14 Volume H Revenue H ost 3leplua I Subtotal Coss Par SF Coat SHaldy)• , Cxmad Fat (Subsidy) Each Fee E-3 [see UBC Less desityOUMI 0.0000 0 S - $ - S $ S - 14116 2000 S 2.823 S It 2,823 S - 60W E 4,050 S 3,524 S 526 W$10,572 E 12,151 S0.5695 10000 S 5,695 f S 6,695 f S 0.3252 ZOOW S 8,504 S S 8,504 t O.aoW O s S S f S f t s79 E-3 (see UBC dews desigro6on) Teriam Impovemads - O.00W 0 $ - f $ - $ f S E - 1.1282 2000 f 2.268 S - S 2.258 S S - S - E - 0.6480 50DO S 3,240 S 2,605 E (835 $ 3 S 7.815 s 9,720 f 1,W5 0.4556 10000 S 4,556 $ - S (4.556) $ E f E 0.2802 20000 S 5203 s S (5,203 $ 6 S f 0.0000 0 It S S & S M E S t i 1.905 F-1 F-2 [see UBC doss dedgrellon] - - 0.0000 0 S - S . $ - t E S t 0.9315 5W0 $ 4,658 $ 2.237 S 2,421 It $ 13,422 s 27,918 S 14,524 0.5261 125M S 0,563 It t 6583 E S $ S 0.3e10 250W S 9,026 S - $ 9.025 S $ S $ 02M 0.0000M$4.811 50000 $ 10285 $ $ S 10,265 f It E $ $ S f S f f 14,524 F-1 F-2 (see UBC doss designation) Teri brWavemna - - 0.0000- f S - $ E S $ OA151,076 S 1,650 $ 426 E 9 $ 14,850 S 18.681 E 3,831 0.2388$2,985 S E 2,985 s f 0.16844211 $ $ (4211 $ $ f f 0.09624.811 t - S (4.811 S s S S f t Iti fO.00WE SA31H-1 H-3 [sae UBC dass designation] - - " 0.0000- S - E - f S sH.2 4.WSB4,5W f 2.66236,656 s S 5,656 S E f - S 1.9375 50W $ 9,SS8 t i 9,688 $ w $ S E 1.11W 10000 S 11,130 E $ 11.130 S t $ t 0.0000 0 $ $ $ S $ E - $ f H-1 H"2 H6 [see UBC dass dowiputeonl Tenant Improvements - - O.W W 0 $ - $ E - S E $ $ 3.5945 1000 $ 3,595 $ S 3.595) S $ f $ 2.1166 2500 E 5292 $ - S 5.292 E - $ E $ 1.5344 SOW f 7,672 S S ,672 S w t S $ 0.8808 100W $ 8,808 f $ (8.808 $ = E E E - 0.0000 0 $ $ - S t $ - E $ f H-4 H-5 _ [see UBC claw designation) - 0.0000 0 S . $ E - S E - $ $" 22784 1000 $ 2.278 S - S 2278 S $ - $ - ' 1.3366 25W $ 3,341 $ 3,OS3 $ 25B) $ / f 3,083 $ 3,341 $ (258 0.9546 5000 S 4.823 S It 4.323 S $ $ - $ 0.5533 0.0000 10DW 0 $ 5.533 $ $ $ $ 5,533 ii E $ t $ It - t It $ f 258 H-4 H-5 [see UBC clan designation] Tenant Improvements 0.0000 o -$- $ - S a E - $ E - E 2.1173 1000 f 2,117 E - $ (2,117) $ 12151 25W S 3,038 S 1,602 $ 1,636 $ 4 $ 8,003 $ 12,151 S 6,143 0.8543 SOW f 4,271 f f 4271 $ f S S 0.4878 O.000O 10DW 0 $ 41878 $ S w S t (4.878 E S - S - $ f S $ $ $ i 6,143 H6 H-7 _ _ (sea UBC dam dedgratlool - 0.0D00 0 $ - $ s S s - f - $ 2.166) 20W E 4,332 $ - S 4,332 $ $ t $ 1.2161 5W0 $ 0.075 $ f 6.075 $ It $ S 0.8303 10000 $ 8.3W S $ 8,903 $ $ $ f 0.4717 0.0000 20DW E 9.434 0 $ $ $ $ 9,434 S $ S - $ f $ E H6 H-7 [sea UBC doss daignadon] Tenant Mprovarrenls O.W W 0 It $ S f $ $US $ - 1.5095 20W $ 31019 $ $ 3,019 S S - $S 0.8485 6000 $ 4,M f $ 4,232) $ S 0.5782 10000 s 5.782 S S 5,782) s S 0.3284 O.00W 200DO S ON 0 t S S S (6.589 S s S S S t - MAXIMUS, InC. Appendix 1 - Page 8 of 18 Nu &MMU S City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department • New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Surplus I Clan Occupanry To. IAvaag*C atI SF Stan[lard Actwl U-tIC-1 Fey lSubsiMl•I � Iry I Fb I Actualst AnnualIGrtrs inusl SubtoW MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix:1 - Page 9 Of 18 ' • 'a " OW S City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department - New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Avan0s Dort SFSunderd Acted Unit CurtentF Cemnt SuGusl Annul Volunay PolantW Revenue et Actual Annual Carted Revamps Surplus) Subtoul Cbp Occupancy TYPO pan SF Cost (Subsldy)• Activity Cured Fee Cod ISibsldy) Each Fee R3 - Dwemgs - Model (FlmtUdlo7mcl) - - 0.0000 0 S $ IA277 1000 $ 1,428 $ 582 f 746) S S S - 0.7W 25W 6 1,823 $ 1,706 (1S 40 $ 68,240 f 72,903 $4,663 6W 2,759 2.943 $ 184 lI S S $0.5518 0.3493 100W 3,493 4,914 f 1,421 $ S $ S 0.0000 0 S f $ $ $ 4,663 R-3 . Dwellings - Repeals (Additional Untied TmdlSubdrvision) - O.OWO 0 $ f $ $ $ $ S - 0.5609 1000 $ 501 $ 419 f (142 S $ - S - $ - 0.2487 25W S 622 S 1,106 S 484 f Su $ 577,332 $ 324,529 $ 252,803 0.2049 WW $ 1,025 S 1,56 $ 481 $ $ S f 0.13W 10W0 $ 1,300 S 3,309 $ 2,009 9 S S $ O.00W O S S S S S f $ S 252,803 Rd _ • Dwellings - Cullom - - - 0.0000 0 f - S - S - $ $ - S S ' 1.3264 1000 $ 1,326 S '682 $ (644) $ $ - S - f - 0.6784 25W S 1.696 $ 1.706 f 10 $ 10 f 17,060 $ 16,950 $ 100 0,5518 6W0 $ 2.759 $ Z943 S 18/ S 21 t 61.803 S 57,943 f 3.8613, 0.3493 O.OppO 10W0 0 $ 3.493 S $ 4,914 S S 1,421 $ S 1 9 $ 4,914 S $ 3,493 $ $ 1.42/ S S 5,381 S•1 g.2 _ [sea UBC class designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ - $ $ $ S 0.6083 WW $ 3,042 $ f ,042) $ $ $ $ 0.3423 125W $ 4,279 S S 4,279 $ f - S - $ - 02349 250W $ 5.873 S 3,757 S (2,116 $ e $ 22,542 f 35,237 0.1336 0.00W ww= 0 $6.678 S $ S S 6.878 S S S S $ $ S S S i 12,695 S-1 S-2 _ • [see UBC class ded9na6on] Tenad Mprovements - - 0.0000 0 S S S - $ $ S S 0.3670 5000 S 1,835 S S (1,835 S S S S 0.2048 125W S 2.560 2 - S 2,560 - 0.1390 25000 $ 3.476 t 2.110 S (1,366 f 3 f 6.7 $ 10,428 $ H.098 0.0789 50000 f 3,945 S S (3,945 f S S f 0.0000 0 $ $ S $ $ f S - f 4,098 S3 r�4 S-6 Isse UBC dam designation] - - - O.00W O $ w $ f - t $ $ S 2.1659 10W $ 2,156 6 _ $ (2,156) f $ - f - $ ' 1.2252 2500 S 3,083 f 1.873 $ 1.190 S 3 $ 5,610 S 9.189 S 3.570 0.8511 5000 $ 4.256 $ $ 4.258 f $ S S 0.48W 0,0000 100W o $ 4.SW S $ w $ S 4,8W $ f f S S S $ S $ S 3.570 S3 S-4 SS [sea UBC class designation] Tenure imps eels - - 0.0000 0 $ - E - $ - $ S - E - $ - 1.3088 1000 $ 1,309 S $ 1,309) $ $ - $ S _ 0.7452 25W $ 1,863 S 1,215 $ (648 $ 5 6 6.075 $ 9,315 S 3,240 0.5190 SOW S 2,596 $ $ 2,b95 S S $ $ 0.2858 0.0OW 1WW 0 S - 2.958 $ S $ S (2.858) S S $ $ $ S S f $ f 3340 U-1 U-2 Custom Romer - - 0.00W 0 $ - $ $ - $ S $ - S 0.7493 500 f 375 $ 220 E 155) $ 32 E 7,040 $ 11,989 S (4,949) 0.4300 1250 $ 538 f f 538 S $ $ S 0.3024 2500 $ 755 $ $ (7 $ $ f - f 0.1727 0.0000 50W 0 f 8B3 s $ f f (863) S $ f $ f S - $ f S f a9a9 U-1 U-2 Tract Repeal - - AO Shy Bu&V - - 0.0000 0 S _ f _ $ S $ $ f 0.3038 Sic $ 162 $ 149 f 3 $ 562 $ 83,738 $ 65,358 $ 1,620 0.1688 1250 S 211 $ $ 211 $ $ $ $ 0.1140 25M f 285 $ f (285 S - $ $ $ 0.060 0.00000 O.WW 5000 f 323 $ 0 $ f t $ S 323 S $ f S $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ f 1,620 0.5285 02673 60W 12500 $ 2,643 $ 3.341 $ 11 $ 2.643 $ 3,341 f $ 12 $ t $ - f 40.097 $ _ S 40.097) 0.1918 250W S 4,789 S $ 4.789 S S - S $ - 0.1276 0.0p00 50000 f 6,379 c S $ $ $ 6,379 $ $ $ f $ S $ f S f 40,097 Carted Revenue Revenue at Revenue, Surplus) Current Fee Proposed Fee (Subsidy) $ 1380151 1 E 1,799,775 1 E(419,5Z421 MWMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 10 Of 18 - - I "MU MAXIMUS, Inc. City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building and Safety Department Appendix 1 - Page i i Of 18 WAiM `"S City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Budding and Safety Department Actual Curl (posed upon Arrtwd Potentld Cunenl Woulaled Volume Avenge Avege Revemu@ Actual Annual SwpkzI Work Item Unit hourly ram) ($d Units) Carent Fee Cunard Fee cost (Subsidy) Pne Foundation $0 $ $ $ - Cast In place Concrete (Poet 10 ea) up to 10 $215 $k-- $ $ - Additionel Ples (ln«mnsnm d 10) each 10 $73 $ - $ Driven (steel, "sged conosta up to 10 S216 $ $ Additional Res (kiaemmts d 10) sun 10 $73 $ $ Stww up m 400 s.f. so $ $ Additional Stww Ap =Uw each40031 $49 $ $ R Wag (concrete a masonry) $0 $ - $ - Stended(up m5010 up m 5011. Sfos 188 57.68 $ 38,501 $ 27,658 Additional retaining wall each 50I f. $93 $ - $ _ Special Design,3-taN up m 50 If) up to 601.f. $205 156 57.86 $ 31,948 $ 22,922 AddW"l retaining wall each 5011 sm $ - $ - $ $ Special Design, over W Won (up to 60 R) up to 5011. $268 $ $ ' Adrg6onal retaining wall each 5011. $93 $ $ $ Ckvv1ty1CrbWa0,0-lVNqh(upm so* up to 50 Lf. s268 $ $ $ - Additional Gmvily I Crib Waal each 50 LL $93 $ $ $ / Crib Was, ova 10' high (up to 50 W m 5011. s288 $ $ $ Additional Gnevity, / Crib Wall men 5011 $93 $ - $ - $ Remodel - Residential up to 300 91 $0 $IN 34 426.53 $ - $ 14,502 $ - $ 5,637 $ - $ 8,865 Lass than 300s.f. $ $ lawNen UP m300 s.f. $lea $ - Additional remodel each 30D s.f. $117 $ - $ $ Rod Sbucme Replacmnerd up to 100 at $148 $ $ $ - Additional roof stricture replacement each 100 s.f. $34 $ - $ $ Rear MOM -Find Stwy up to 300 s.f. sit $414 85 426.53 $ - $ 36,255 $ - $ 35.230 $ - $ 1,025 Up m300s.t. $ $ $ Additional morn addition each 300 s.f. s283 $ Roan Addition -M U m 300 sf. up m 300 s.f. SD $527 8 515.93 $ $ 4, $ - $ 4,213 $ 85 Addon tial roan addition each 300 al. $341 $ - $ $ ' Sapu •steam inch $186 $ - $ $ Siffing $0 $ $ $ Stare and Brick Veneer (interior «extedo) up m 400 s.f. $98 $ - $ $ AN oma up to 400 s.f. li a $ $ $ Adelman 1 siding each 400 s.f. $98 $ - $ $ s so $ $ $ Bfllboed each $224 $ $ $ - Dbectional each $166 $ $ $ - F wh additional Dha Bonet Sign tech S59 $ $ - $ - Gramd/Roof l ProjectV Signs each We 26 86.84 $ 2,258 $7 4,310 $ 2,053 Subdivision Diractiooal Sign each $0 $ $ $ Wall/Awning Sign. Non -Electric each $132 100.31 $ $ 13,542 $ - $ 17,115 $ - $ 3,573 WallEledtic each $127 SkNem so $ - $ S ln 10 sf assBu each $98 $ - $ $ ' (dseterOwn lOal«aWCMeI mdh $156 r12 95.5 $ - $ 1,146 $ - $ 995 $ - $ 151 SpHotiub(Pro-iabdceted) e« tech $83 $ Stairs. Fast Ffigtd that fight $18D $ - $ $ Fsch additional field por $83 $ $ $ Storage Reds Poet 1DDd s0 $132 11 95.5 $ - $ 1,051 $ $ 1,448 $ 398 ore up to whaddmonal100a each 1009 $ea 24 0 - $ $ 11989 $ 1,989 wash (up to 100 frstlDaa $215 $ $ $ - aW h eddbonal 100 If tech 100 ti $117 $ $ - $ $ godayning Pod l Spa SO $185 1 288.51 $ - $ 289 $ - $ 185 - $ 103 up m 8W s.f.) each each $17e 5 302.21 $ 1.511 $ 878 $ 633 ass Gonke (up MOW s.f.) each $18D 265 290.32 $ 76.935 $ 47,810 $ 29,125 Additional pod we 800 s.f.) each 1003.E $93 $ _ $ - $ Carnnwrdel pool up m 800 each $283 1q4.3 $ 338 $ 283 $ 56 Canmmild pool ova 800 $346 $ $ - $ waldowaSlMpre Gteu Door $0 $Regloo-awdeach ss9 $ $ - $- New Wmdow non sbucturs9 each s59 4 $ 122 $ 234 $ 112 New wlndaw(shtchral shearwarinusoy) each $156 $ $ - $ $ Whdow(sbwAnd) each $166 $ - $ - %Plan. . Check X mspwdon 68% 32% 33% 67% 68% 32% 33% 67% 50% 50% 20% 80% 48% 62% 26% 74% 48% 52% 26% 74% 55% 45% 26% 74% 55% 45% 26% 74% 55% 45% 26% 74% 59% 41% 59% 41% 58% 33% 29% r 76% 81% 72% 86% 59% 41% 50% 50% 50% 60% 50% 60% 65% 35% 59% 41% 42% 58% 59% 41% 74% 26% 38% 62% 50% 50% 63% 38% 29% 71% 81% 19% 59% 41% 74% 26% 59% 41% 68% 32% 42% 58% 26% 74% 28% 72% 14% 86% 26% 74% 34% 66% 35% 65% 42% 58% 42% 58% 63% 38% 59% 41% NV"I US MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 12 of 18 City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building and Safety Department Work gem Uoll Actual Curl (based upon Caludated hourly rate) Armual Volerae (adUNls) Average Carenl Fee Poser" Revenue® Current Fee Actual Annual Cost 1 Curtest Surplus/ (Subsidy) so _ Acoustical Review s0 _r _ Snipe Fan*y Haea/Duplex-New each $ee 66 0 $ - $ 6,436 Slrg*Fam Honiw Alex- Add'NaVASmetion each $49 $ - $ Mull -Fan illy I Commercial each S95 $ $ $D $ $ Geologic Review $0 $ $ Cidegmy A (Berard Zories 11, 13, 21. 31.41) $95 $ - $ F /Dup"Commi Trs) sell $ $ AB Omer $95 $ - $ Uegory B Nuard Zorres 12, 22, 42, 43) $ee $ - $ $ Category C (Hazard Zones 23-27, 32, 54) $in $ - $ $ - Category D (Hazard Zmes 4448, 52, 53) $95 $ - $ $ E (Hamrd Zaba 51 5 55) $95 $ - $ $ $0 $ $ $ Product Review perhour S95 $ $ $ - Disabled Access CpNsnoe hxspection om per hour � 41 0 $ $ 3,998 $ 3,998 Address AssWurterd per hour sm $ $ - $ - so $ $ 8 Supplemental Plan Chem Fee (fm:t l/2 hour) each 395 $ $ $ Each Additional 1/2 hour or portim per 112 hour $49 $ - $ - $ Supplemerdal Inspection Fee (first 112 tour) each 595 $ $ - $ Each Additional 112 has (or porlim thereof) per 112 hour $49 $ - $ - $ - so $ S $ s - . Check - %Nspecdah Average: 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 1 U®1 Revenues" 1$245,3541$317,1251 Select A MAXIMUS. Ina Appendix 1 - Page 13 of 18 ■ • �/aMaf ` US Clfyo/Temeculs - Bulldlna Fee Anatys/s MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annual Awm9e Volume Cumrem Fee sofunns er UnR 311 s 7.50 83 S 12.50 21 s 17.50 415 S 15.00 Potemial Curtem Revenue® Actual Amual Surylus 1 Cmmnt Fee Cost (Subsidy) (By UnOs s s 2.333 S 7.682 $ 5,250 s 1038 s 3,373 1 S (2,335) $ 368 s 1.195 $ 827 s s s s 8225 $ 20236 $ 14611 $ $ $ s s s s 390 s s 60 Ts S 90 s S 180 $ 150 s 163 S 13 $ s $ s s $ s s s Is s s s s s s a $ 180 s 95 $ 82 s s s s s s s s s $ $ s s $ s s s $ s $ Is 1 $ MAMMUS, Inc. Appendix 1- Page 14 of 18 NL2golxbbar ■uS City ofTemeeule - Building I"Anatyais MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annual Average Volume Current Fee q of Unb Per Unt „r r r, ® r rr PoteMlal Cunard Revenue C Actual Annual Surplus l I Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) S Unite 4 S $ $ S $ s s s $ s s $ 210 $ 57 $ 153 $ 540 $ 146 $ 394 s s $ 630 $ $53 S 223 S 4.320 S 2.341 IS 1,979 $ S $ $ $ S 330 S 89 $ 241 $ $ S S S $ S S S $ 4 $ S S S S $ S S s s s s s s s s s $ a $ 235 s 284 $ 59 s s $ 4 s $ $ ISO $ $ 18D 630 $ 512 $ 118 $ 60 $ 49 $ 11 $ 390 $ 211 $ 179 s S $ $ 4 $ $ 1843 $ 1341 $ 502 $ 947 S 626 $ 321 S $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ IS S S i S $ S - s MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendl.l - Page 15 of 18 NLA"US Chy of Temato/a - Sulldlrp Fes Aralya/S MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annuei Average Volume Current Fee p of UNla er UnB Potential Conant Revenue® Actual Annual Surylusl Conent Fee Cost (Subsidy) (By UNIs son son MEN MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 18 of 18 nAWUS City of Tsmseuls - Building Fee Analysis MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annual Awrege Volume Curtem Fee a ofUNs Per Una Services s Services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating each $ 39.01 18 $ 33.50 Services of 6D0 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes In ratio each $ 24.38 4 $ 74.41 Services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes In ratio each $ 48.76 1 $ 90.00 s Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors S Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit Is reuired but for which no fee Is herein set forth s 16.251 42 1 $ 30.00 (This fee Is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, slims, or other equipment.) s S Other Inspections and Fees $ Inpections outside of normal business hours, 0-2 hours (minimum charge)s 195.04 Each additional hour It 97.52 Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305 (h) - per hour s 97.52 Inspections for which no fee is specifically Indicated - per hour minimum chaMe = 1/2 hour 3 07.52 Additional Plan Review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans - per Faun minimum charge - M hour $ 97.52 6 OTHER FEES: s s Other Electrical Inspections r hour s 97.52 Patented Current Revenue Q Actual Annual Surplus l Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) B UnBs S S $P $ 603 $ 702 $ 298 S 98$ $ 90 $ 49$ S S S 1260 S 683 s $ s s $ S S S S S S S $ s $ S S $ $ $ $ $ S s s s $ $ s S S S - S $ S is s $ Total Revenues: $ 23.757 IS 41.742 1 $ 17 885 NUA MAMMUS, ftw. Appendix 1 - Page 17 of 18 "US City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Potential Actual AnnualCurrent Revenue Building Fee Category Revenue at Cost Surplus / Current Fee (Subsidy) New Construction 1 $ 1,380,151 $ 1,799,775 $ 419,624 Misc.Items $ 245,354 $ 317,125 $ 71,771 MP&E's $ 23,757 $ 41,742 $ 17,985 Total Revenues: 1 $ 1,649,262 1 $ 2,158,642 1 $ 509,380 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 18 of 18 NVWUS APPENDIX 2 RAUser Fee Study\reso-user iee 2004.doc City of Temecula • Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) CoosuueUon Types: ConsWetion Types: C.V.nsre0oTypes: nu mu N.VN I FFy a rN ..'M- ..1. • - Bass Cost @ Cosl for Each Base Cost @ Cost for Each Bass Cost Cost for Esch UBC Pm]ectsize Threshold Additional Theshold Additional Threshold Additional 100 f. • % Plan Check % Inspection Clap UBC Occupancy Type Threshold Slu 100 s.f.' Sin 10051, Stu s - $0 $16.15 $0 $13.46 na. n.s. A-1 Theater 101000 $1,615 $4.08 $1.346 $3.40 na. na. A-2 Restaurant 25,000 $2,227 $3.09 $1,866 $2.58 n.a. na. 50,000 $3.000 $129 $2,500 $1.011 n.e. na. - 100,000 $3,648 $3.65 53,040 $3.04 ^•a• n.a. 53% 47% $0 $10.81 $0 $9.01 n.a. na. A-1 Theater 101000 $1,081 $2.91 $901 $2.43 n.e. na. A Restaurant Tenn Improvements 25,000 $1,519 $2.23 $11265 $1.86 n.a. n.a. 50,000 52,076 $0.87 $1,730 $0.73 na. na. 100,000 $2,513 $2.51 $2,094 $2.09 na. n.a. 55% 45% $0 $33.41 $0 $27.84 $0 $22.27 A3 Auditorium 5,000 $1.670 $8.85 $1,392 $7.38 $11114 $5.90 Church 12,500 $2,334 $6.76 $1,945 $5.63 $1.556 $4.50 Restaurant 25,0m $3A79 $2.69 $2,649 $2.25 $2,119 51.80 50,000 $3,852 $7.70 $3.210 $6.42 $2,568 $5.14 47% 53% $0 $24.30 $0 $20.25 $O $1620 A3 AudNorhim 5,000 $1215 $6.02 51,012 $5.02 $810 $4.01 Church 12,500 51,666 $4.54 $1,389 $3.79 $1,111 $3.03 Restaurant 25,000 $2234 $1.94 $1,862 $1.62 $1,490 $1.30 Tenn lmpovements 50,000 $2,720 $5.44 $2.267 $4.53 $1,814 $3.63 45% 55% $0 $30.07 $0 $25.06 $0 $20.05 B A1-B'Occupancies 5.000 $1,503 $8.10 $1,253 $6.75 $1,002 $5.40 rcxwe 55ve] 12,500 $2,111 $620 $1,769 $5.16 $1,407 $4.13 [Please complete e8 rows - 25.000 $2,885 $2.43 $2,404 $2.02 $1.924 $1.62 $4.66 This section also used for scaleg] 50.000 $3.493 $6.99 $2,911 $5.82 $2,328 45% 55% $0 $39A8 $0 $32.90 SO 526.32 B An -B' Occupancies 2,500 $987 $10.52 $823 $8.77 5658 $7.01 - TenaMlmpmvemenis 6,250 $1,382 58.04 $1,151 56.70 $921 55.36 12,500 $1,884 $3.19 $1.570 $2.66 51256 52.12 25,000 $2,282 $9.13 ' SO 375.93 SO 56327 SO S5D.62 E-1 [sae UBC class de n0on] - 2,000 $1,519 21922 $1285 $16.02 51,012 512.82 E-2 5,000 $2,095 $14.56 $1,746 $12.1 3 $1,397 59.71 _ 10,000 52,623 $6.09 52,353 35.07 57,882 54.06 _ _ 20,000 53,432 $17.16 $2,860 $14.30 $2288 511.44 47% 53% MAXIMUS, Inc. I Appendix 2 - Page 1 of 13 1 y ►AXI V ►USA City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (Ali Construction Types) CotlsWellon Types: ConsWction Typos: ConswctlOn tvTypos: nu mu _ve I M urn U ..,e "I. ,.I , • _ _ - Base Cost @ Cost for Each Bass Cost C Cost for Each Base Cost Cost for Each UBC Pro]ea Size Thmhold Addaiunal Thmhold Additional • Thmhold sbm Addrdonal 100 s.6 • % Plan Check % Inspection Class UBC Occupancy Type Thmhold Sim 100 61 • Size 100 e.f. $0 $25.31 E-1 [see UBC class designation s0 $37.96 $0 $633 $31.64 $8.01 $506 $6.41 E-2 Tenant improvements 2,000 $759 $9.61 $6.07 $698 $4.85 5,000 $1.048 $7.28 $873 10,000 $1,412 $3.04 $1.176 $2.54 $941 $2.03 _ - 20,000 51,71E sass $1.430 $7.15 $1.144 $5.72 47% 63% E-3 [see UBC class designation] - SO $50.91 $0 $42.43 $0 $33.94 $7.74 2,000 $1,018 $11.62 $848 $9.68 $679 5,000 $1,367 $8.64 $1.139 $7.20 $911 $5.76 10.000 $1,799 $4.03 $1,499 $3.36 $1,199 $2.69 20,000 $2,202 $11.01 $1.835 $9.18 $1,468 $7.34 35% 65% E-3 [see UBC class designation] SD 537.61 $0 531.34 SO 5501 525.07 35.22 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $752 57.83 5627 $6.53 $658 $3.81 5,000 $987 $5.72 $823 $4.77 10,000 $1,273 $2.95 $1,061 $2.46 $849 $1.97 20.000 $1.568 $7.84 $1.301 $653 51,04E $6.23 76% 24% F-1 see UBC class designation] - $0 $29.16 $0 $24.30 SO $19.44 $4.99 5,000 11,458 57.49 51,215 36.24 3972 F-2 12,500 $2A79 55.68 $1,683 54.74 51,34E $3.79 25,000 $2,730 $2.34 $2.275 51.95 $1,820 $1.56 _ 50,000 $3,316 $6.63 $2,763 $5.53 $2,210 $4.42 49% 51% F-1 IS UBC class designation] - $0 $19.44 $0 51620 $0 $648 $12.96 $3.21 F-2 Tenant Improvements 6,000 $972 $4.82 $810 $4.01 $2.42 12,500 $1,333 $3.64 $11111 $3.03 $889 25,000 $1,788 $1.55 $1,490 $1.30 $1,192 $1.04 - 50,000 $2,176 $4.35 $1,814 $3.63 $1,451 S2.90 55% 45% H-1 [see UBC class desi9mbonl - $0 $170.08 $0 $141.73 $0 Eil3. 39 529.41 $29 1,000 $1,701 $44.11 $1,417 $36.76 $1,134 H_2 _ 2.500 $2,363 $33.55 51,969 $27.96 $1,575 $22.36 H-3 5,000 $3.201 $13.68 $2,668 $11.40 $2,134 $9.12 _ 10,000 $3,885 $38.85 $3,238 $32.38 $2,590 $25.90 50% 50% SO $121.49 $0 $101.24 $0 $80.99 H-1 [see UBC class designation 1,000 1 $1.215 1 $30.76 E1,012 325.E3 5810 S20b1 H-2 Tenant Improvements 2,500 $1,676 $23.30 E7,397 $19.42 31,118 $15.53 H3 5,000 52,259 59.74 $tAe2 58.12 51,50E1 $6.60 10,000 52,74E 527.4E 52,288 $22.88 $1,831 $18.31 47% 53% MAXIMUS. Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 2 of 13 M MUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I FR. 0 FR Construction Types: 01-HR, 011.11R, V 14HR Construction Types: 0 N,10 N, UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type [see UBC class des nation) Bus Project Sias Threshold - 1.000 2.500 5.000 10,000 Cost Cosl Threshold Slu $0 $1.435 $1,944 $2,579 $3,150 for Each Base Add0lonsI 100 s.L • $143.49 $33.93 525.40 511.42 531.50 Cost 0 Cost Threshold sin SO 51,196 $1.620 $2,140 $2,625 for Each Bess Additional s.L • $119.57 $2827 $21.17 $9.51 $2625 Cost 0 Cost Threshold Stu f0 $957 $1296 E1,119 $2,100 for Each Addhlonsl 100 s.f. • f95.66 $22.62 $16.93 $7.61 E21.00 % Plan Check % Ins on H-4 H5 _ _ 61% 39% _ 572.41 516.52 572.29 f5.74 65% 35% H-4 H5 _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 11000 2,600 5.000 10,000 $0 $1,086 $1,458 $1,919 $2,349 $108.62 $24.78 $18.43 $8.61 $23.49 so $905 $1215 $1,599 $1,957 $90.51 $20.65 $15.36 $7.17 119.57 $0 $724 $972 $1,279 51,566 fi5.86 $51.74 $11.40 $8.43 $4.O8 $11.03 89% 31% 2sae H-7 _ UBC class des nation] - 2,000 51000 10,000 20.000 $0 $1,552 $2,065 $2,697 $3,310 $T7.60 $17.11 $12.64 $6.13 $16.55 $0 $1293 $1,721 $2.248 $2.768 $64.67 $14.26 $10.53 $5.11 $13.79 $0 $1,035 $1,377 $1.798 $2,207 _ H-6 H•7 _ [see UBC class desgnation Tenant lmpmvsmerds 2,000 5,000 10,000 $0 $1.106 51,458 $1,.1 $55.31 $11.72 SBS9 54.35 $0 $922 $t215 51,573 146.09 19.77 $7.18 $3.62 $O $737 $972 51256 $38.87 S7b1 55.73 90 $2.74 $7.74 74% 26% 20,000 $2,322 $11.61 $1,935 $9.68 $1.648 M.1 Iaee UBC class desgnstion] - 10,000 25,000 50,000 $0 $1,679 $2,328 $3,151 $16.79 $4.33 $3.29 $1.35 $0 $1,399 51,940 $2,626 $13.99 $3.61 $2.74 E1.12 $0 $1,119 $1.552 E2,100 52.550 $11.19 b1Y 49% 42.89 52.19 50.80 S2.6S t00,000 $3.825 E3.83 53,188 53.19 _ 46 $1.64 $1.54 57.16 60Ye 40% 1-1.1 [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 10,000 25,000 $0 $969 $1,316 59.69 $2.31 $1.73 $O $808 $1,09T E8.08 $1.93 $1.44 46 $646 5877 57,166 51,424 50000 100,000 $1,749 $2,135 $0.77 $2.14 $1.458 $1.779 $0.84 $1.78 50.51 $1.42 _ I-12 _ fees UBC class de nation] 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 SD $1,579 $2211 $3,014 53,652 578.97 521.04 $18.07 $6.37 $18.26 10 f1,316 $1,842 $2,512 $3.043 565.81 517.54 $13.39 $5.31 $15.21 SO 51,053 $1,474 $2,010 $2,434 S52•S4 $14.03 510.72 1425 $12.17 48% 54% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 3 of 13 1 V l!SICIMUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: Conshuetlon Types: Consauctlon Types: u m u N V Y UBC Occupancy Type [see UBC class designation]- Base Project SW Threshold I Fit, II Cost Cosl Threshold Size $0 FR for Each Bess Addidonal 100 s.f.• $54.67 ui-nrt,W»N-, Cost 0 Cost Threshold SW $0 for Each Base Additional 10091• $45.66 - Cost C Cost Threshold Size $0 - for Each Additional 100 sA.' $36.45 % Plan Check 48% % Inspection 52% UBC Class 1-1.2 $14.37 $10.95 $4.40 512,56 $911 $1,270 $1.727 $2,094 $11.97 $9.12 $3.67 $10.47 $729 $1,016 $1.381 $1,675 $9.68 $7.30 $2.94 $8.37 Tenant lmpmemems 2.000 5,000 10.000 20,000 $1,093 $1,524 $2,072 $2,512 _ 54% 57% 46% 43% 1-3 [see UBC class designation] 10,000 25,000 $0 $1,32.4 $1.822 $13.24 $3.32 $2.51 $0 $1,104 $1.519 $11.04 32.77 $2.09 $9 $983 51,215 $8.83 $221 $1.67 $0.71 _ _ 50,000 100,000 $2,450 $2,980 $1.06 $2.98 $2,042 $2.484 50.80 $2.48 51,633 $1,987 $1.99 $5.92 $1.45 $1.09 $0.47 $1.32 _ 1-3 _ [see UBC class d N nation] Tenant lmprovemens 10,000 25,000 50.000 100,000 $0 $888 $1,215 $1,626 $11980 $8.88 $2.18 $1.64 $0.71 $1.98 so $740 $1.012 $1,354 $11660 $7.40 $1.81 $1.37 $0.59 $1.65 SO $592 $810 $1,063 $1.320 _ Id Isse UBC class ration) 2,000 $0 51,102 $55.11 S13.88 $0 $919 54583 511.5T SO 5735 536.74 $9.25 57.00 53% 47% _ 5,0 is $1,519 $2,044 510.60 $4.42 51,285 $1,703 58.75 $3.68 51,012 $1,363 $1,657 $2.94 10,000 20,000 E2,485 $12.43 $2,071 $10.36 $828 $22.83 $5.16 $3.84 $1.79 u'89 _ M [see UBC class des nation] TenaritlmProvemems 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 $0 $679 $911 $1,199 $1,468 $33.94 $7.74 $5.76 $2.69 $7.34 $0 $566 $769 $999 $1,223 $28.29 $6.45 $4.80 $2.24 $6.12 $0 $453 $607 $799 3979 58% 65% 42% 35% R_t R-2.1 [see UBC class des nation] 5,000 12,600 $0 $446 $607 $8.92 $2.15 $1.62 $0 $372 $W6 $7A3 $1.79 $1.35 $0 $297 $406 $540 $658 $5.95 $1.44 $1.08 $0.47 57.32 33.62 $0.61 $0.29 $0.78 $0.78 25,000 $810 $0.71 $675 $0.59 50,000 $988 $1.98 $823 $1.65 _ R_1 R-2.1 [see UBC class desgna6on1 Tenant Improvements 5,000 12,500 25,000 50,000 $0 3272 5364 5480 5587 $5.43 $1.24 $0.92 50.43 51.17 SO $226 5304 5400 $489 $4.53 $1.77 $0.36 $0.36 $0.98 $0 $181 $320 $320 $391 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 4 of 13 1 u M'T ■U City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: Construction Types: ConstructionTypw- V"R ON WN IVVN 1 FR. 0 FR 8141R, N 141R, UBC Class R3 _ UBC 0ceupancy T pe Dwe s - Model Fhst UnOOFTroct) Baca Project titre Threshold 1,000 2.500 5,000 10,000 Coat Cosl ThroshoW Sim n.a. na. n.a. na. na. for Each Baes Add8lonal 100 a.f.' n.e. na. n.a. na. n.a. Coat�Coat Thnuhold SW na. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. for Each Baas Mdltional 100 a.t • na. n.a. na. n.a. na. Cost lid Threshold Btu SO 5405 Sd05 $405 $405 for Each Additional 100 s.f. • 540.50 50.00 50.00 $0.00 $4.05 PWn Check has n 50% 50% R3 DmUings- Repeats AddidonalUnbof Troctl Subdivision) 1,000 215M 51000 10,000 na. n.a. n.a. na. n.a. n.s. n.a. n.0, na. n.a. n.a. na. na. n.a. na. n.a. n.a. n.a. na. n.a. EO $81 $81 $81 Set $8.10 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $flbl 50°h 50% R3 _ DmTngs-Custom 1,000 2.500 6,000 10,000 n.a. n.s. n.a. na. n.a. n.a. n.s. na. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. na. n.a. na. na. n.a. na. $0 $405 $405 $406 $405 $40.50 SO.00 $OAO $0.00 H•05 509' 50% S•1 S-2 see UBC class designation] _ - 5,000 12,500 $0 E760 51,018 E15.21 53.43 $255 SD 3634 5848 512.67 52.88 $2.12 SO 5507 $679 570.14 $229 $1.70 66% 34% 25,000 50,000 51,336 $1,637 51.20 S3.27 31,114 51,384 $1.00 52.73 $891 $1 A92 $0.80 $2.18 _ $0 $280 $372 $466 $596 $5.60 $1.23 $0.91 SO.44 31.19 S-1 S-2 _ lase UBC class designation] Tenant lmpmvemems - 5,000 12.600 25,000 50,000 $0 $420 5568 5729 $895 $8.39 $1.85 $1.37 50.66 $t.T9 SO 5350 5465 5607 $740 S6.99 $154 $1.14 50.55 51.49 69% 31% S3 S-4 S5 _ Ises UBC class designation] 1,000 2,500 5.000 10'000 $0 $717 $972 $1289 $1.575 $71.74 $16.96 $12.70 $5.71 $15.75 $0 E598 $810 $1,074 $1,312 $59.79 $14.14 $10.58 $4.76 $13.12 $0 $476 3648 5660 $1,050 $47.83 $11.31 38.47 53.61 510.50 61% 39% S-3 $A _ Isee UBC cross designatbnl Tenant improvements _ 1,000 2,500 5,000 10,000 SO 5349 5486 $660 5801 534.87 E9.15 $6.97 52.81 58.01 SO E29t $405 5550 5667 529.06 37.62 $5.81 $2.34 $6.67 SO $324 $3 $440 E534 52325 56.70 $1.87 $5.34 48% 52% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 5 of 13 ! V LWM US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Constnstion Types: ConsWctlon Types: ConsaucUon Typea: rvR neo n43vw n4AR. v1AR tlN.NN. v-VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project SW Threshold Base Cost a Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.E • Be" Cost ThmholI Stra Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f. - Bass Cost C Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f. • % Plan Check % Inspection U-1 Custom Homes 59 $60.74 $0 $50.62 59 $40.50 U.2 500 $304 $10.12 $253 $8.44 $202 $6.75 1,250 $380 $7.01 $316 $5.84 $263 $4.67 2,500 $467 $4.67 $389 $3.89 $312 $3.12 6,000 $584 $11.68 $487 $9.73 $389 $7.79 100% 0% U-1 Tract Repeat $0 $24.30 $0 $20.25 $0 $16.20 U-2 500 $121 $6.68 $101 $5.56 $81 $4.45 1,250 5172 $5.12 $143 $4.27 5114 $3.42 2,500 $236 $1.97 We $1.64 $157 $1.31 5,000 $285 $5.70 $237 $4.75 $190 $3,80 43% 57% All Shen Buildings $0 $11.19 SO $9.32 30 $7.46 5.000 $559 52.87 $466 $2.39 $373 51.91 12.600 $774 $2.18 6645 $1.81 $516 $IA5 25.000 $1,046 $0.90 $872 $0.75 $698 $0.60 50.000 $1,271 $2.54 51.059 $2.12 $847 $1.69 51% 49°A Each addrdomi too square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. Average % Average % Plan Check Inspection 56% 44% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 6 of 13 MA"US City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Carom Annual Potential Current Class Occupancy Type Average Cost SF Standard Actual UnIt Current SurpWsl volume of Revenue at Actu b Revenue Subtotal per SF Cost Fee (Subsidy) - ActMty Current Fee Annual Cost Surplus I Each Fes (Subsidy) A-1 Theater 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.1615 10000 S 1.615 $ $ 1,615 $ $ $ $ 0.0891 25000 S 2.227 S 582 S 1,645 S 2 $ 1,164 S 4,455 S (3,291 0.0600 5DWO $ 3,00 $ $ 3,000 $ $ S S - 0.0365 100000 $ 3,648 $ $ (3,648) $ $ $ S 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ i 3,291 A-1 Theater 0.WW 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.1081 iWW $ 1,081 $ $ 1,081) $ $ $ $ 0.0607 250W E 1,519 $ 363 $ (1,156) $ 3 $ 1,089 S 4,556 S(3,487) 0.0415 50DOO $ 2.076 $ $ (2.076) $ $ $ $ 0.0251 1WWO $ 2,513 $ $ (2,513) $ $ S s 0.0W0 O$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,48 A-3 Auditorium 0.0000 0 $ $ $ - S $ $ - $ - 0.2227 5m0 $ 1,114 $ 582 $ (532 S 8 $ 4,656 $ 8,909 1 $ (4,253) 0.1245 125M $ 1,5W $ $ 1,556 $ $ $ Is - 0.0848 2500D $ 2,119 $ $ (2,119 $ $ $ $ 0.0514 500DO $ 2,568 $ $ (2,568)S $ S $ 0ONO 0 $ $ $ S $ $ $ IS 4,253 A-3 Auditorium O.WW 0 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 0.1620 50M $ 810 $ 363 $ (447) $ 26 $ 9.438 $ 21.058 $ (11,620 0.0889 12500 $ 1,111 $ $ 1,111) $ $ $ - $ - 0.6596 25MI S 1.490 $ $ 1,490 $ $ $ $ 0.0363 50000 S 1,814 $ $ 1,814) $ S $ $ O.00W 0 S - $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ 11,620 B All'B' Occupancies 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - 0.2005 SOW -I- s 582 $ 420 $ 20 $ 11,640 $ 20,od5 $ (8,405) 0.1126 12500 $ 1,407 $ $ (1,407) $ $ $ $ 0.0769 25M $ 1,924 $ $ 1,924) $ $ $ S 0.0466 50000 $ 2.328 $ $ (2,328) $ E $ S 0.0000 0 E $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ 8, 005 B All"B- Occupancies Tenant Improvements 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ 0.2632 2500 $ 658 $ 363 $ (295) $ 43 $ 15,609 $ 28,296 $ (12,687) 0.1474 6250 S 921 $ $ (921) $ $ $ $ 0.1W5 12500 $ 1,256 $ $ (1.256) $ $ $ $ 0.06W 25000 $ 1.521 E $ 1,521) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 S S S $ $ - $ S $ 12,687 E-1 [see UBC claw desigmdwl O.D000 0 $ E $ $ - $ $ - $ 0.5082 2000 $ 1.012 $ 582 $ 430 $ $ $ $ - 0.2794 5000 $ 1,397 $ $ (11397) $ $ $ - $ - 0.1882 INN$ 1,882 $ - $ (1,882) $ - $ $ - $ 0.1144 20000 $ 2,288 $ s 2,288) $ $ $ $ o.OooD 0 s $ $ s $ $ s s E-1 (see UBC class designation] 0.0 0 0 $W679$ E Y $ $ - $ - 0.2531 2000 363 $ (143) Y $ $ - $ - 0.1397 5000 $$ (698 $ $ S S 0.0941 10000 $ 941 $ $ $ $ 0.0572 200DO$ (1,144 Y $ $ $ 0.00W 0$ $ $ $ $ $ E-3 [sea UBC class designation] O.W W 0 $ $ $ $ $ 0.3394 2000$ $ 879 $ $ S $ 0.1822 50m 582 $ (329) $ 3 $ 1.746 $2,733 S 7 0.1199 10000 $ 1,199 $ $ 1,199) $ $ $ $ - 0.0734 20ODD $ 1,468 $ $ (1,468 $ $ $ - $ - 0.00W O S $ $ $ S - $ $ $ 987 E-3 [see UBC class designation] 0.0W0 0 $ s $ $ $ $ $ - 0.2507 20DO $ 501 $ $ (5011 $ $ $ - $ 0.1316 5WO $ 658 $ 363 $ 295) $ 3 $ 11089 $ 1,974 $ (885 0.0849 10WO (849) $ $ S $ - 20W0 (1048) $0.0523 $0- O.00m 0 $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ 885 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 7 of 13 _ ' `vA"U City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Annual Potential Average Cost SF Standard Actual Untt Currant Surylua 1 volume of Revenue at Actual Revenue :Subtotal class Occupancy Type Per SF Cost Fee (Subsi _ Cumenl Fes Annual Cost Surplus) Each Fes Activity (Subsidy) F-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ $ - 0.2430 5000 S 1,215 $ 582 $ (633) $ 0.1346 125W $ 1.683 $ $ 1,683) 0.0910 25000 $ 4275 $ $ (2,275) 0.0553 50000 S 2,763 $ $ 2,763 0.0000 0 $ $ S i S $ 1,288 F-1 (see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ 0.1620 5000 $ 810 $ 363 $ (447 $ 7 S 2,541 S 5,669 $ (3,128) 0.0869 125M S 1.111 S $ 1,111 $ $ $ $ 0.0596 25000 S 1,490 $ $ (1,490)1$ - $ $ $ 0.0383 50000 S 1,814 It $ (1,814) S - $ $ $ 0.ODDO O S $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 3.128 H-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ 1.4173 1000 $ 1,417 $ 582 $ (�)$ $ $ $ - 0.7875 2500 $ 1,969 $ S (1,969) $ $ 335 0.5 500D $ 2,668 $ $ (2,668 $ $ S S 0.3238 10000 $ 3.238 $ $ (3,238) $ - S S $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ H4 [see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ - $ $ S -$ 1.0124 1000 $ 1,012 $ 363 $ 649 $ S S - $ 0.5588 2500 $ 1,397 S s (1,39 $ S - $ $ 0.3765 5000 $ 1,882 $ $ 1,882) $ S S $ - 0.2288 10000 $ 2.288 $ $ (2,288) $ S S $ - 0.0000 0$ S $ - $ S S S $ H-4 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 1.1957 10DO $ 1.196 $ $ (1,196) S - $ $ $ - 0.6479 2500 $ 1.620 $ 582 $ 1,038) $ 1 $ 582 $ 1.620 $ (1,038) 0.4298 5000 $ 2,149 S $ (2,149) $ $ $ - $ 02625 10000 $ 2.625 $ $ 2,625) $ $ $ - $ 0.0000 0 $ S $ S $ $ $ $ 1,038 HA [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ - $ $ $ 0.9051 1000 $ 905 S $ (905) $ $ $ - 0.4859 2500 $ 1,215 $ 363 $ (952) $ 2 $ 726 $ 2,4300.3198 5000 $ 1,599 $ S (1,599) $ S S 0.1957 10000 $ 1.957 $ $ (1,957) S S $ k(1.704) 0.0000 0 s $ S S $ i - S 1.704H6 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ - $ $ 0.6467 2000 $ 1,293 $ $ $ $ - 0.3442 5000 $ 1.721 $ 582 S $ $ - 0.2248 10000 $ 2,248 E $ $ $ $ 0.1379 2000D $ 2,755 S V$2,758 $ $ $ $ o.0000 o$ $ $ $sH6 ]see UBC class designation) O.ODDO 0 $ $ $ $ $ - $ 0.4609 200D $ 922 $ $ - $ $ $ 0.2430 500D S 1,215 $ 363 $ $ $ $ 0.1573 10DOO $ 1.573 $ $ (1,573) $ $ $ - S - 0.0968 20000 S 1,935 $ $ 1,935) $ S $ - $ 0.000D 0 S $ $ - $ $ S $ $ 14.1 [see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ - 0.1679 10000 $ 1.679 $ $ (1,679) $ - $ $ - $ 0.0931 25W0 $ 2,328 $ 582 $ 1,746) $ $ $ - $ 0.0630 50000 $ 3,151 $ $ 3,151) $ $ $H 0.0353 100000 $ 3,825 $ $ ,825) $ - $ $ 0.00DD 0 $ $ $ - $ S S1.1.1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 S $ - S $ $ - $0.a969 10D00 $ 969 S $ $ $ $0.0526 25000 S 1,316 $ 363 $ (953 $ $ - $00350 50000 $ 1,749 $ $ (1.749) $ - $ $.4 100000 $ 2.135 $ $ (2,135) It $ $0.00ao o s s $ s s $ MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 8 of 13 City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Current Mnwl Potsntlal Cumnt Avenge Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Current Surplwl Volumeof RevenueI AcWsl Revenus Subtotal Class OccupenryType per SF Coat Fee (Subsidy)- AeUvitY Current Fee Annual Cost Surplual Each Fee (Subsidy) 1-1.2 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ S $ Is $ $ $ - 0.6581 2000 $ 1,316 $ 582 $ (734) $ $ $ $ 0.3684 5000 $ 1,842 $ W $ 1,842 $ $ - $ $ 0.2512 10000 $ 2.512 $ $ 2,512) S - $ S - t 0.1621 200g0 $ 3,043 $ $ 3,043) $ t $ $ 0.0000 O $ S W $ $ $ $ $ f 1.1.2 [see UBC claw designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ - f f M $ - f - $ - 0.4556 2000 $ 911 $ 363 $ 50 $ 1 $ 363 It 911 $ (548) 0.2541 5000 $ 11270 $ $ 1,270 $ $ f S 0.1727 10000 S 1727 S S +,72 S S S f - 0.1047 20000 $ 2,094 S $(2,094 $ 0.0000 O S $ S S f S S $ 548 1-3 [see UBC claw designation] 0.0000 0 5 - $ - $ $ S 9 - S 0.1324 10000 $ 1,324 $ $ 1,324 6 f - $ S 0.0729 25000 $ 1.822 $ 582 S (1,240) $ $ $ - $ 0.0490 50000 $ 2,450 $ $ (2,450) S $ $ S 0.0298 100000 $ 2.980 $ $ (2,980 S $ - $ - t o.0000 o s $ $ $ s $ s f 1.3 [see UBC claw designation) 0.0000 $ - $ $ - $ $ $ - S 0.088 1000 $ 85 $ f 888 $ $ $ $ ft 0.0486 200 $ 1,25 $ 363 S 9 It $- 0..0.325 50000 $ 1,625 $ 0.0198 000000S1.980 $ $ (1,98 $ $ $ - $ 0.0000 - S2 i M [see UBC daw designation] 0 $ $ 6 $ $ $ t 0.3674 2000 S 73 $ $ (735) $ $ It $ - 0.2025 50 1,012 $ 582 $ (430) S 6 $ 3,492 $ 6,074 25 0.1363 1000 f 1,363 $ $ 1,363 6 f $ 2000 $ 1,657 S S (1,857 $ $0.0828 0 $ E S S $0.0000 - $ 2.5821 M [se UBC claw designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.2263 2000 f 453 $ $ (453 $ $ $ $ 01215 000 $ 607 $ 363 (244) $ 29 $ 10,527 $ 17,616 $ (7,089) 10000 $ 799 E 9 $ (79 $ $ S $0.0799 0.0489 20000 $ 979 $ S (979 $ $ - $ SS 0.0000 0 S $ $ S $ S S .089 R-1 [we UBC claw designation) 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.0743 50 f 372 $ $ 37 S $ $ $ 00405 12500 $ 506 $ 582 f 76 $ + S 582 $ 506 $ 76 00270 25000 $ 675 $ 675) S 0.0165 50000 f a23 t $ 823 $ s S S - 0.0000 O S 11 $ S $ f 6 S 78 R-1 [see UBC dew designation) 0.0000 0$ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ 0.0453 5000 $ 226 $ $ (226) S $ $ $ 0.0243 12500 $ 304 S 383 $ 59 S 3 $ 1,089 $ 911 $ 178 0.0160 25M S 400 $ $ LIM $ - $ $ - $ 0.0098 50000 6 489 S $ 489) $ a $ 6 $ 0.0000 0 1 $ $ S $ $ - $ f 178 R.3 Dwellings Model 0.0000 0 $ $ $ - $ - $ f 9 - 0.4050 1000 6 405 $ $ (405 $ $ S $ 0.1620 2500 $ 405 $ $ (405 $ - 40 $ $ 16,198 $ (16,198 0.0810 5000 $ 405 t $ 405) S $ $ - $ 0.0405 1000D $ 405 $ $ (405 S - $ S - $ 0.0000 O S S $ - S $ f $ f 16,198 R-3 Dwellings - Repeats 0.0000 0 S $ 0.0810 1000 $ 81 $ S 61) S S $ $ 0.0324 2500 $ 81 $ $ (81 t 522 $ S 22,277 $ 42,277) 0.0162 5000 $ 81 $ $ (81 $ $ S - t - 0.0081 10000 $ 81 $ $ (81 $ $ $ f 0.0000 0 $ $ 6 - S $ $ f $ 42,277 NL &IWIUS MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 9 of 13 City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Cumnt Annual Potential Cumnt Type Average Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Current Surplw / Volume of Revenue at Actual Cost Revenue Surplusl Subtotal Class OccupancyT per SF Cott Fw (9ubsidy)- Adlvity Current Fee Annual Each Fse (Subaus R-3 Dwellings -Custom 0.0000 0 $ S S - $ $ $ $ 0.4050 1000 $ 405 s S (40s $ $ - $ $ - 0.1620 2500 $ 405 S S (40s $ 10 $ $ 4,050 f 4,050 0.0810 So00 $ 405 S S (405 $ 21 $ $ 8,5D4 $ (8,504) 0.0405 10000 $ 405 S - S (405) $ 1 $ $ 405 $ (405) O.000D 0 $ $ f S s - $ $ $ 12,959 S-1 Ises UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.1267 5000 $ 634 $ $ (634) $ $ S $ 0.0879 12500 $ 848 ) $ $ $ 25DOO $ 1.114 5 $ 8 532 $0.0445 4 $ 2,328 $ 4,455 $$ (2.127) 0.027 S000 $ 1,364 S $1,34) $ $ - $ $ 0.0000 O S S $ - $ $ S 2,127 S-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 0.0699 5000 $ 350 $ $ (350) $ $ - o.0372 125DO $ 65 $ $ $ 00.0243 25 $ 607 $ 363 $ 726 44- 0.0149 500 $ 745 $ $ - 0D 0 $ $ 489 S-3 [ee UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ 0.5979 1000 8 $ $ 598 $ $ - $ $ - 0.32 250D 0 $ 582 $ (228) $ 2 $ 1,164 1.620 0.214 4 $ $ (1,0 $ $ - 0.1312 10000 2 $ $ (1,31 $ $ - 0.00 O$ $ $ $ $ $ $ ` S-3 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 0.2906 1000 $ 291 $ $ (291) $ $ - $ $ - 0.1620 2500 $ 405 $ 363 $ (42) $ 5 $ 11815 S 2,025 $ (210) 0.1100 5000 $ 550 $ $ (550) $ - E $ $ 0.0667 10000 $ 667 $ $ (667) S $ $ - $ 0.0000 0 $ $ S - $ S - $ $ $ 210 U-1 U-2 Custom Homes 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.4050 Soo $ 202 $ $ 202) $ 32 $ - $ 61479 $ (6,479 0.2025 1250 $ 253 $ $ 253) $ $ $ E 0.1246 2500 $ 312 $ $ (312 $ f $ $ 0.0779 5000 $ 389 $ $ (389) $ - E $ $ - 0.p000 0 $ S - S $ $ - $ $ $ 6,479 U-1 U-2 Traci Repeal 0.0000 0 $ - S $ - $ - $ $ - $ - 0.1620 Soo $ 81 E $ (81) $ 562 $ $ 45,517 S 45,517 0.0915 1250 E ilia E $ (114) $ $ 0.0628 2500 $ 157 $ $ (157) $ $ S $ 0.0380 SDDO $ 190 $ - $ 190) $ $ S $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ IS 45,517 - All Shell Buildings 0.0000 0 S S $ $ $ S $ 0.0746 5000 $ 373 $ $ 73 $ $ S $ 0.0413 12500 $ 516 $ 582 $ 66 $ $ $ S - 0.0279 25DDO $ 698 $ $ (698) $ $ - $ $ 0.0169 50000 $ 847 $ $ (847) S $ $ $4 0.0000 ni f S $ - $ $ Current Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Current Fee P poFee ed Surplus / (Subsidy) S 73 530 $262.937 E 189,407 Appendix MAXIMUS, Inc. A ndix 2 - Page 10 of 13 N '6,V/"�"" US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fire Prevention Bureau Work Item Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated hourly rate) Standard Hourly Rate $101 Antenna each $71 Radio, <30 ft each $71 Radio, >30 ft each $71 Dish > 2 ft each $71 Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing each $334 Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building each $202 Awning/Canopy (supported by building) each $405 Balcony addition each $304 Carport each $71 Close Ebsbng Openings Interlorwall each $142 Exterior wall each $142 Commercial Coach (per unit) each unit $304 Covered Porch each $71 Dock (wood) each $101 Demolition (up to 3,000 s.f.) each $202 Additional demolition each 3,000 sf $202 Door New door (non structural) each $71 New door (structural shear wall/masonry) each $71 Duct Detector Inspection 1-2 Detectors 1-2 det. $202 Each Additional Detector each $71 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non -masonry) $101 6 - 10 feet in height 0 I.f. $71 Each additional 100 If 01.f. $71 Over 10 feet in height 0 I.f. $71 Each additional 100 If 100 I.f. Fac $71 Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry) Masonry, Standard (6-8 feet high) 0 I.f. $71 Each additional 100 If 01.f. $71 Masonry, Special Design (6-10' high) Each additional 100 If each 100 I.f. $71 Masonry, Special Design (over 10' high) up to 100 I.f. $71 Each additional 100 If each 100 I.f. $71 %Plan -- - - Cheolk % Inspection 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 61% 39% 50% 50% 50% 50% 67% 33% 100% 0% 71% 29% 71% 29% 33% 67% 100% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 -Page 11 of 13 NU"US,. City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fire Prevention Bureau Work Item Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated hourly rate) Partition - Commerdal. Interior (up to 30 U.) up to 301.f. $304 Additional partition each 3011 $202 Room Addition - First Story Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. $172 Additional room addition each 300 s.f. $10 Room Addition - Multi -story $0 Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. $172 Additional room addition each 300 s.f. $10 Skylight Less than 10 sf each $202 Greater than 10 sf or structural each $202 Stairs - First Flight first flight $121 Each additional flight per flight $121 Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 10010 first 100 If $202 each additional 100 If oath 100 If $71 over 8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If $202 each additional 100 If each 100 If $71 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection per hour $101 Address Assignment per hour $10 Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 112 hour) each $101 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour $51 Supplemental inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) each $101 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour $51 '. %Plan -Check - %Inspection 33% 67% 50% 50% 41% 59% 100% 0% 41% 59% 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 58% 42% 68% 42% 50°h 50% 71% 29% 50% 50% 71% 29% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Average: 71%1 29° MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 12 of 13 - '+r S " -uS City of Temecula Fire Prevention (Building -Related) Fees Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Potential Current Revenue Building Fee Category Revenue at Actual Annual Surplus / Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) Structural Inspection and Plan Checks $ 73,530 $ 262,937 $ 189,407 Misc.Items $ - $ - $ MP&E's " $ - $ - $ Total Revenues: 1 $ 73,530 1 $ 262,937 1 $ 189,407 . No annual activity volumes were available for these items, so a calculation of revenues was not possible. "The Fire Prevention Bureau does not review these items. MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 13 of 13 A"MU5. APPENDIX 3 RAUser Fee Study\reso-user fee 2004.doc CAYp7T...1. USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY ;4eti's'&-u1'cYSw/aY-S:t3i r .:x7aY' iT'F st:<!iTkJ Pl'AtJX GDEPARSMENSZ+-:'6faH� sX,. �ifi�•m'M. 'mNe `..aC�' '-- �:S'+ c= `S%t�RECOYMERDFD'.fE68iv�"... �i&4Sii�R - EIMPXCfS.'1:.°'Cx. . Fee p Fee Servla Name I Desch on Cumnt Fee Recommerbe8 Fee X Recovery (d Nil cost 0.emalnlny PerUM Surplus) SuBq PoteMIM RevenueA Rea. Fee MnuU RevenueA Cumm Fee PoteMiel Mdffl net Revenue Rae C Fee 1 GPA-TXTRSAP NOT LSTO $ 4,168 $ 4.725 I(m S $ 4725 S 4,168 S 557 2 AMDMNT-ZNING SLNDMP S 6.874 f 3770 1W% $ 5 ISM S 3/3>0 S 15481 3 AMDMNT.ZNING OR LOMP S 2,746 $ 2556 100% f S 5111 S 5.492 S (W 4 AMDMNT TO CITY ORD S 2746 $ 4010 1WX $ $ 4,010 S 2746 S 1,2W 5 SPECIFIC PLAWNEW S 21.532 $ SS, m IWS S f M.906 $ 21,532 S 17.374 6 SPEC PLN AMOUNT WR 5 2746 S 1923) 100X S $ 19 f 2.746 S 164M ] SPECPWAMDMNT MNR $ 2,746 S TAM I)D% $ S 74M $ 2.]46 S 1692 8 CUP $ 532 $ 207 100% S $ W-707 S 7.980 $ 28.727 fa CUPw/DEVPLAN f ST2 f 734 30% S 1,713 S 11.012 f 7.980 3 70R 9 LARGE FAM DY CR PRMT $ 436 S 1.296 i(m $ - $ 2.592 S 872 f 1720 12 DEVPU4-NEW-10X.f $ 3,815 f - 6.679 100% S - S 20036 f 11,M5 6 8,591 13 DEV PLN4VEW 10-f001C S 3,815 S 6,049 1W% S $ 84688 S 53,410 S 31 78 14 DEV PIN-NEW<10K st $ 1,483 S {R55 100% S $ 21,282 S 7415 S 13,067 15 MAJOR MODFICAITON $ S SAW 100% S 1 S 18,167 5 S 18167 16 MINOR MOD-APPRVD PRJ S $ 1]86 f00% S $ 35,715 $ - S 35715 17 MINOR MOD -PIN DEP RV $ 176 $ 135 25% $ Q6 $ 1.354 $ 1760 $ 406 18 VARIANCE $ 1476 $ 2.743 tlfl% $ - S 2743 $ 1 776 $ 1,267 19 MINOR EXCEPTION 176 S 422 100% f $ /265 528 5 737 W T.U.P. MINOR $ 176 f 61 lom S S 1537 5 4,4W $ (2,867 21 T.U.P. MAJOR $ 176 $ 675 100% S $ 27W 6 704 S 1,996 22 T.U.P. MAJOR -NON Pi f 176 $ 267 2M $ 1.070 S 267 $ 176 f 91 23 T.U.P. MINOR -NON PFT S 15 $ 59 20% f 275 f 588 $ 150 S 438 24 SIGN PROGRAM S 176 $ 21 W Ilm $ - 6701 S 528 f 5 T73 25 TEMPSIGN PERMIT S 20 21 11X1% f S 2,U58 5 2.OW S 58 26 RSONTLPRDCT RVW S 176 f - 100% S $ 126079 S 2,640 5 123{39 27 SECOND UNIT PERMIT $ S 23D 1W% $ $ 6B9 $ S 609 M VENDORS PERMIT S $ 40 53% S 36 f 40 S S 40 29 TIME EXT W/ -PH S 352 S - 265 100 $ $ 794 $ 1056 S 262 36 TIME EMW/PH S 352 $ 891 - 1tf8L S $ 2672 $ 1,056 $ 1.616 31 APPEAL $ 325 $ US 18% S 1.513 S 1625 $ 1625 S - M ZONING PLNG LETTER S 18 f 20 19% f (MI. S 220 i 1% $ 22 M DEV, AGREEMENT S {DW 5 2B fi68- `. 100% $ $ 57.335 S BOW S 49.J35 34 ANNEXATION AGRMNT $ 40W f 24643 =- 100% S $ 24643 $ 4,000 5 20613 35 SUBSTNL ONFRMNCE S.P 5 1319 S 2M6 :' _1W% $ S 2M6 $ 1319 5 1127 38 LNOSVE CNSTRCTN PLN $ $ 'S21 ::: Im S S 14D77 $ J] CERT.OF HSTRC APPR $ 189 S- `3]5 "M f 14% S 749 5 378 5 W1 38 MASSAGE EST. PERMIT f SW f429 10D% S $ 4,723 f S.SW f ]7T 39 TENT TRCT MP 5-34 LT $ 4.597 $' .SIM - 100% $ 6.132 5 4597 $ 1.05 40 TENT TRCT MP WSLT $ 7W7 i`- - 8508 -. 100% $ S 19.523 S awl S 3.358) tl TNT TRLTM%8-165 S i 339 11 - 74W -- 100R f S 14991 6 26.678 S 11.684 42 TIO-TRCTMP-1fi6 LTS S W.157 S.. 81% _--: lom $ - $ 8,150 S M..157 5 11999 49 RVSD TNT TROT MAP $ 10,756 $ 3,417 : 100% $ $ 171086 $ 56780 S 36694 4e VST TNT TRCT SS{ LT S 6478 6 7735. :. 1 f S 7735 $ 6478 S 1.257 45 VSTTWTRCT3675 $ 9578 S B,W9 - ` 100% $ $ Sm $ %m S 1.569 46 VSTTNTTRCT76.165 S 15.422 S •: 81545 100% $ - S 8,845 S 15422 $ 0.577 47 VSTTNTTRCT>1661-T $ M 98 $' - 9.349 1W% $ f 9.349 5 22.398 S 13.049 48 RVSDVSTTNTTRCTMP $ 10,756 $' :.5126 166% S f lo'm $ 21512 $ II'M 49 PARCEL MAP-RWNTL 5 1573 S 1,726 lom S f 1.726 S 1,573 $ Im W PARCEL MAP-COMM. $ 3260. S, '. 2710 - 11WX $ f 8.348 S 9I80 S 1,432 51 REVISED PARCEL MAP $ 814 S - 70 1W% $ S 793 f 814 $ 21 52 CONDOMAP S 11,369 f 7.437 1W% 5 $ 7.437 $ 11,369 $ 3,932 53 COMM.INTRST DEV CNV S S 3.435 110 S f 3,435 S - f 3,435 54 MNR CHG-APRVD TNT MP $ 470 5-''YW1--. 100%S - S 1W1 S 1]0 S 531 55 TNT RES PRCL MP W@ 5 1.676 $-" 1.45lon f $ 1,457 f 1.676 $ 219 56 TM CON. PCL MP WhW $ 16I6 S 1901-' i`z.100% $ f 1,9M S 1,676 f us 57 PHSNG PLN-TENT MAP f 187 1' - 1W% 6 i 4,W3 $ 748 S 4.055 W MERGER-0NTGUOUS PRCL 5 500 S.: 854 -` 1W% S $ 6,8W S 4.000 $ 28W 59 LOTtJNE ADJUSTMENT $ 230 f .' ..318 100% $ i 4756 6 3,45D S 1,316 60 61 CERT-UJD DN. LOMPW REVERSION TO ACREAGE 5 356 $ 392 $f,-- ?-:_516 '-"10D% S�' "'-456 `0:', 10D% S S $ Z063 S 4% $ 1424 6 SIR $ 639 $ 64 62 TIME EXTSUBVSN ORD S 268 S -" Tw "1W% S $ 7,7W $ 1,340 $ 63fi3 63 ADLT BUS. ORD C.U.P. 5 3.777 S. - `8,648 "1W% f 5 ILN8 f 3.777 $ 4871 " 65 W 67 68 69'NEG TO 71 T2 73 74 75 76 ADLT BUS ORD EMP FIAT ADLT BUS ORD OWNER RECORDS RESEARCH ANNEXATIONIDETACHMNT ENVRMNTLDTRMINATION DEC MITIGATED NEG DECAM APIGATEDNGD DECS LIT1' MNGD ELRWon D.I.F. REDUCTION5-' FNOGOF CONVNCMECSTf VSTNGTENTPARCELMPS'?-c"214W1`.-100%S PLND DEV. DVERIAYf'.. PBLC PRKS cS ACRE - S f Z7 S 710 S S 668 5 IRIS S'..; .- 6410D% $.'.[ - .422 ar:'100% f - 113 1W% S✓ - 13973 .:%'10D% $ - _2217 '--- 10% 5' A694. 1011%S IB63 'r l00% .'- 735: ":- Im Alm : 110- :. 1W% --: 7891$ '- W2:'i-.5i0U% S-.':""'-•'IO'I'.--100%5 $ S f $ S S S S - $ 64 S 122 S 113 $ 13.9W $ 11482 i 11777 i 29179 S 28735 S W B]2 S 110 f ]89 S 2450 S 22672 S w $ $ S 27 f 710 S - $ 28T2 S 4,008IQ S 6 S S f - S S4W 746PC i f 64 5 122 85 $ 13223 S 1/482 $ 1105 wUaMUS.i Appa 3-Pepe3ol4 l • u "US CHyalTemaema USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY e:YYM�2^Y�`s"iOnK'eCditY'k4s;HaS.'F'.r:5.4.'eFF4'fi.'k's5.+tyasitr;:P'IIINNWDDFD TMENT!S;rM1k::,. ::v'K.YC.h"xfxP.1':.w.i' 2xY` r.`x".in.=i::n.p C.&�"v�RECd1MENDEt1F1F9T i's� REMENUEYMPAC?S b.%S % Remalnlny PoleMlal Recovery Per Un" PMeMlel Annual AMWMbnal RecoMneoded (M NII SufPlual RevenuaA Revanuart Revenvo FeeN Fea Servka Name/Desch Ion DVmMFN Fee tort gvbsl Rea Fee CumMFn Rec'M Fr •T/IYII C/:MIf� Feep Areferent¢ r fofeNke Wsaaslon Fee SeMce Name/Decal - orm TheernceseMroe rfen bWWWin to 1AAXIMU55 Cu Fee Tha anent foe cAa eE by Me Coy for esdi servicaH liable R.rnejoe Fee The mtam.e fee, M,dopow by dw sleHeed MA%IMUS %Remy of Ml wsl The mw of Me Re me Fee W Me AC UNICosl br eaW fee R..W Per UrAt SteTkfsl Subs) TIe WMererce beleeen Me RemmmoM Fee aM me Achfal UNI Cost for emJ fee PMenWe Rev al Rea Fee The p otbal revenue if Me Coy chageel to RemmmeeEeW Fee for each service at Me AMwl D Sly br Mwt soNce(UM Cost x Amuel Cuere Amuel RevenueetCwre Fee The p,o el revenue if Me CRY atm eM Me Cwero Fee br each seM aMe Ary Q fity for Nat service(Cu Fee x ArmuN CuaaUty) Pceartal AWWWrW Revenue(®Redd Fee) The WHertnce between Me Pobnbal Rowvn N Rec. Fee erm Me&Mual Rowe, of ClMrerM Fee: Ties fgwe reweasnls Me pobMel er aMWM revmue Me CHym drew wIV bee)br ootl SeMee. H Ma city tlwges Me RemmmimAd Fea MAXpM11S. be ApPeMS S- Page. of MAWUS•. APPENDIX 4 RAUser Fee StudyVeso-user fee 2004.doc City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY , '.5"EOTSiPUBUCi1NORK5 EPMiMENTds"/iAa :... AA ^' ? ...Itr 2` b M-7171-7 17 .. MYENDFd);FEESA s 1 4 ' aR ENUEIMPACibz % Remaining Potential Recovery Per Unit Potential Annual Additional Recommended (of full Surplus I Revenue at Revenue at Revmue Fee S Fee Service Name I DescrIplJon Current Fee Fee cost Subsld Rec. Fm Current Fee Rec'd Fast 7 GRD WSP 1500 CY $ 350 f 382 im%S S 23.909 $ 231m E 809 2 GRD WSP 501-SK CY S 425 $ 435 Im-A 3 $ 17,896 $ 17.425 $ 471 3 GRDINSP5.10KCY $ 500 $ S22 100% $ $ 5,221 S 5000 $ 221 4 GRD INSP 10.5DK CY $ 150 $ ]37 100% $ $ 737 $ 750 t 13 5 GRD WSP m-100K f 1,000 $ 999 1N% $ $ 999 $ I'm f 1 6 GIRD WSP>100K $ 1,300 E 1.279 100% It $ 1.279 $ 13m $ 21 7 GRD WSP>WOK 10K $ 50 $ 49 - t00% S - It 83.659 $ 84,9m $ 1,291 8 CLRNG INSP PER ACRE S - $ 100 100% $ - $ tm $ . $ 100 9 DEVPLN ONSITE INSP $ 315580 S 316.546 100% E $ 316,546 $ 315.580 $ 966 10 OFFSITE IMPVMNT INSP $ 386.551 $- 379.597 100% E - $ 379,597 E 386,551 S 6,854 it PARKWAY DRAIN PERMIT $ 65 $ 47 100Y. $ $ 4930 $ 6.760 S 1830 12 COMM. DRVWAY PRMT $ 1m S 64 IN% S $ 64 $ 100 $_ 36 13 RES.DRVWAYPRMT $ 75 $ 47 1N% S $ 7p8 $ 1125 E 417 14 EXCVIN/STRT XING PMT $ 125 $. 167 100% 8 S i6] S 125 $ 42 15 EXCVTNIPARALLEL PMT $ 125 $ 167 100% $ $ 167 $ 125 $ 42 16 UTLRY CO. PMT/MONTH $ 100 E 103 10% $ $ 103 $ 1N S 3 17 USA SERVICE PMT f $ 140 1N% $ $ 140 $ $ 140 18 STREET CLOSURE PMT $ 25 $ 1N 16% $ 522 S 100 $ 25 $ 75 TO BLOC —PARTY PUT $ 25 $ 22 100% f S 1N $ 1N f 20 20 MOVIE FILMING PERMIT $ 25 E-- 140 - 100%$ $ 140 S 25 $ 115 21 TREE TRIMMING PERMIT $ 25 S 25 Na S 25 S 25 $ 25 $ - 22 UTLTY BLANKET PMTI $ 25 $ .33 100% i E 7.870 f 1.250 $ 420 23 TRANS-OVRSZE ANNUAL $ 60 $ - 60 Na $ 60 E 60 $ 60 $ 24 TRANS-OVRSZEONCE $ 25 $ 25 Na $ 25 f 25 S 25 S - 25 CERT OF CORR DCMNi $ 600 E 558 to% $ $ 1.673 $ IAN E 127 26 SUMMARY VAC. DCMNT $ 920 S . 783 ' tm% $ $ 783 S 920 $ 137 27 MISC LEGAL DOC E 200 $ 294 - 100% S $ 294 $ 200 $ 94 28 FULL GEN VAC. DCMNT $ 4155 $ 2.506 .100% $ - $ 2.506 $ 4155 S 1,649 29 PBLC DEDICTN-NO MAP $ 920 S . `.879 -':100% $ $ 8.794 $ 920D $ 406 30 FNLAMNDNDMAPOCMNT T 200 $-' •268 '-imS E S 288 S 2m $ 88 31 MONUMNET REVIEW E 25D E'- 274. ". 100% E f 274 $ 2m $ 24 32 FINAL MAP 4TH $ SUB $ 1m $ - 173 - " - im% S $ 44306 $ 25 600 $ 18 7N 33 FNL PRCL MAP DCMNT $ 754 f 1,807 - 100% f $ 5.420 $ 2,262 $ 3.158 34 FNL TRCT MP BASE FEE $ 754 $ 1,806 100% $ $ m,707 $ 12818 $ 17,589 35 FNL TRCT MP PER LOT $ 20 $ -- 50 -- 62% $ N $ 47,250 $ 18900 $ 28350 38 FEMA CLOMR DCMNT $ S,m0 $ 4.152 `. 1N% S $ d152 $ 5,000 S 80 37 FEMA LOMR DCMNT $ 1,m0 $ 11328 100% $ - $ 1,328 $ 1,m0 $ 328 38 FEMA LOMA DOCUMENT $ 2,Om $ 1446 1N% E $ 1446 $ 2,000 $ 554 39 HYDROLOGY<150AC E 1,2N $ -1711 10% $ $ 1711 $ 1,2m $ 511 40 HYDROLOGY>150AC $ 2400 $ -2495 i 100X $ $ 2,495 $ 2,40DH 41 CLRNG PC PER AORE $ - 50 41% $ 1 $ N $ . 42 GRDG PC c500 CY S 300 $ '. 387 100% $ $ 10,631 $ 8.7N 43 GROG PC NISK $ 500 $ .' 471-'. `-100% $ S 16,4N S 17.500 44 GROG PC 5001-10K $ 625 $ 645 100% $ $ 5,808 $ 5.6253 45 GROG PC 10m1-50K S 75D $ 765 100% $ $ 765 $ 7N5 46 GROG PC 6OK-100K $ 1,N0 $ 986 100% E - $ 986 $ 1 000 47 GRDGPC>100K 10 $ 50 $ 64 .100% f $ 106,218 $ 827508 48 DEVPLN ONSITE IMP PC $ 297613 $ ' : 3N.345 '..'. 100% $ $ 300,345 $ 297,6132 49 GRADWG PLN RVSN $ 2m $. 206 - 1N% E E 11325 $ 110005 m PC 4TH 8 SUBSQNT $ E.... _ 7B • _ 100% f S 79 S 9 51 SUBDV PGP BASE FEE 4 $- 110 100% $ $ 51188 $ . 5 P PERLOT $ 5 $�..'-: - 25 48% $ 27 $ 16,475 $ 3295 FFSRE PC $ 291,561 $--'294'S57 - 100% $ It 294525 $ 291,525 EE $ 25 E' '' 28- -'45X E 30 $ 25 E 25 U13 OR VTLUA $ 780 $ 2,000:. 94Y $ 131 $ 8,000 $ 3,120 R E $ =- m0 40°b S 765 $ 3,m0 $ L PLN PR/SttT f $. S0. �.- •- 24% $ 162 $ m. $ MAXLNl6, hic Appe ,!-Pape 3d4 M D4 US City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY i*,"�a:3�i,,zir+„t'�3�. " '.t'a 3Mi w:tTU61]6WORK8'DERARTMENTv :Sa£S, zl" � !'Y3a'4✓izr RS S-+ir„+�Ri * 1! ENDED,"ES'i #' Ste' 7tEYENfTE741 ACTfi Fee 8 Fee Service Name I Deacd on Current Fee Recommended Fee % Recovery (of full cost(Subsidy)_.Rec. Remaining Per Unll Surplus) Potential Revenue at Fee Annual Rwenue at Current Fee Potential Additional Rwenue Recd Fee 64 65 IPC 66 100 PC LNDSCP MEDN <10SF LNDS MEDN 10-25SF PC LNDS MEDN >251( SF GPA-TXTIFXHBT NT LST $ $ $ $ $ 26 $ 26 $ u $ 659 100% 1DD% 100% 100% $ $ $ $ $ 26 $ 26 $ 44 $ 659 $ f $ $ $ 26 $ 26 $ 44 $ 659 101 AMDMT ZNG S GPLND MP $ $ 376 100% $ $ 1 880 $ S 1,880 " 102 AMDMTZNGORGPLDMP $ S 268 100% $ S 531 $ S 531 103 AMNDMNTTOCTYORD $ $ 1031 100% $ $ 103 1 $ $ 103 104 SPECIFIC PLNNEW f $ 10A61 100% $ f 10161 $ $ 10,161 105 SPCFC PLN AMND-MJR $ f 4834 100% S S 4,834 $ $ 4,834 106 SPCFC PLN AMND-MNR $ $ 913 100% S $ 913 $ $ 913 107 TIME EXT W OUT PH $ S 499 1 100% S S 1,496 $ $ 1,496 108 TIME EXT. W/ PH $ $ . 998 1= S S 2,995 $ $ 2,995 110 DVPLN NW BLD>IWK $ $ 2,396 100% S $ 1.15( $ $ 7,187 III DVPLN NW SLD 10.100K $ $ 1.843 100% $ $ 25796 $ $ 25,798 112 DVPLN NW BLD i0K SF S $ 1517 10D%S $ 7.653 $ $ 7,553 113 MJR MODIFICATION $ $ 488 100% $ S 2.342 $ $ 2,342 114 MNR MOD-APPRVD PRJCT $ $ 248 t00% S $ 49 $ - $ 4,950 115 VARIANCE $ $ -7 100% S $ 7 $ f 7 116 T.U.P. MINOR $ $ 86 IN%H S 2,159 $ - $ 2159 117 T.U.P. MAJOR $ $ 253 100%$ 1012 $ $ 1.012 118 T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT $ S IS 20%$ 3 45 $ S 45 119 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT $ $ 23 - 20%1 $ 228 $ $ 228 120 2ND UNR PERMIT $ $ 167. 100%$ 501 $ - $ 501 121 CUPv4DEVPLAN $ $ 51 30% $ 765 f $ 765 122 APPEAL $ $ 0% S - $ $ 123 DEV. AGREEMENT $ $ '2,580 100%$ 5160 $ $ 5.160 124 ANNEXATION AGRMENT $ $ 2.501 -100%$ 2.501 $ $ 2,501 125 SBSTNL CNFRMNC S.P. S $ 555 100%$ 555 $ - $ 555 126 TNT TRCT MP 5-34 $ $ 1773 100%$ 1.7]3 E $ 1773 127 TNT TRCT MP 35-75 $ $ 2,159 100%$ 6.476 $ $ 6.476128 TNT TRCT MP 76-165 $ $ 2.606 . 100%$ 5.012 $ $ 5,012129 TNT TRCT MP>166 LTS $ S- 2.855 -. 7D0%$ 2.655 S $ 2,855 130 RVSDTNTTRCTMAP $ $ - 613 1D0%$ 3.064 S $ 3131 VST TRCT MP 5-34 LTS $ $ 2.930 1D0%$ 2,930 S $ 29132 VSTG TNT TRCT 35-75 $ f- 3,480 ''100%$ 3480 S - $ 3.48133 VSTG TNT TRCT 76-165 f S' 4052 - 100%S 1052 E $ 1052 134 VSTGTNTTRCT>I66 $ S: 4,619. 100% $ 5 4619 $ $ 4619 135 RVSD VSTG TNT TRCT M $ S 1.343 - '100% Y $ 2685 $ $ 2695 136 PRCLMAP-RSDNTL E $ 1140 100% S - $ 1,14D $ - $ 1140 737 PARCELMP-COMMRCIAL S $ - - 1074 100-4 E $ 343 $ $ 3,223 138 RVSD PARCEL MAP S $ 643 100% $ $ 643 $ $ 643 139 CONDO MAP $ $ 1,079 - 100% S $ 1.079 $ - $ 1,079 140 CMMN INRST DEV CNVRS $ $ 242 - IN% $ $ 242 $ - $ 242 141 MNR CHNG AFFM TNT M $ $ "It 100% $ S 448 $ $ "a 142 TNT RSDNTL PRCL MP $ 100% E $ 830 $ - 8 830 143 TM CMN PRCL MP W/ W S $- - 830 100% f 1 $ 830 $ - $ 830 144 PHSNG PIN TENT MAP $ $ 621 100% $ S 2482 $ - $ 2,412 145 MRGR OF CONTGS PRCLS $ $ - - : 546 100% S S / 370 $ $ 4,370 lad LOTLINEADJSTMENT S $ 546 100% S $ 8197 $ $ 8.197 147 CERT OF LND DN COMP S Iii.. --.547 - 10DR S 1 $ 2188 S $ 2,188 148 RVRSNTOACERAGE $ $ - "'162 100% $ 1 $ 162 S $ 162 149 EXTOFTMESSVSNORD $ $- 555 '- - 100% $ $ 2774 S f 2774 150 ANNXIWDETACHMENT S S ." 2748 '. 100% S 1 $ 2.748 $ $ 2748 151 MITIGATED NED DEC $ S: -.187 <s= 100% $ $ 1122 $ $ 1.In - 152 APLCNT MNGD EIR E $ 9.267 "1D0% $ $ 9267 f - $ 153 CITY MNGD EIR E S-- . - 4,866 - 100% $ $ 1,866 $ $ 4.8661 154 156 DIF REDUCTDN BLDG SUPPORT $ $ S. - - 822.. $ ". 100% .`'_0% $ S 6966 f 822 $ S S S 622 $ 157 NON FEE ACTNQY S $ ":- ON $ 56 $ $ $ %moraine on"&g vatuation crEND: Totals: $1,960,$48 S 1,656.395 J03.953 Fee#�� A reference number to factliale disassbn Fee m Service dame / ' bon The services and/orfees Included in Me MAXIMUS stud Currerd Fee The anent fee charged by the CRY for each ser0m Ifapplicable Recommended Fee The recanmended lee dweloved bY city staff and MAXIMUS %Reon dfulcast The ratio of the Recommended Fee b the Actual Unit Gael for each fee Remaining Per Unit Surplus /(Subsidy) The difference beteeen Me Recomm0nded Fee and the Actual Unit Cast for each fee Potential Revenue M Rec. Fee The potential mvenue 9 the City charged Me Recommended Fee for each service at Me Annual wamay forthetservice Unft Costa Armual Ouan Annual Revenue at Cunent Fee The potential revenue B the City charged the Cunenl Fee for each servbe at the Annual Quantity for that servW(Cumed Fee z Annual Wanfity) Potential Additional Revenue (@ Reid Few) The dMerence beteoOn the Potential Revenue at Rea Fee and the Annual Revenue at Come. Fee: This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue Ne City could recover (or bee) far each service, tilde city charges tiro Recommended Fee. MAYMAUS. ar_ Appendix 4• Page 4 of 4 MA, UJ, APPENDIX 5 RAUser Fee StudyVeso-user fee 2004.doc City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Fair s Fee Service Name/ Description Current Feewet) 7$".,;9 % covery (of lull Remaining Recovery % Remaining Per Unit Surplus/ (SuOsidy) Potential Revenue at Rea. Fee Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Additional Revenue (0 Ree'd Fee) _ 41 INDIVIDU NOTgPF30GRAM T EES PC PARK <5 ACRES $ 1DD% 100% $ $ B826 $ $ 6.826 42 PCPARK540ACRES $ 100% 100% $ $ 9,898 $ $ 9,89EPCPARK>10ACRES $ 100% 100% $ $ 15,059 $ $ 15,059 44 PCMEDIAN<10KSF $ $ 1,869 100% 100% $ $ 1,SB9 $ $ 1,669 45 PC MEDIAN 10-25K SF $ $ 2,923 100% 100% $ $ 2,923 $ $ 2,923 46 PC MEDIAN >25K SF $ $ 3,970 100% 100% $ $ 3.970 $ $ 3,970 47 PC SLOPES <1501( SF $ $ 2,394 100% 100% $ $ 2,394 $ $ 2,394 48 PC SLOPES 150.250 SF $ $ 4,513 1OD% 100% $ $ 4.513 $ $ 4,513 49 PC SLOPES>250K SF $ $ 6,656 100% 100% $ $ 6,656 $ $ 6,656 50 INSP PRK <5 ACRES $ $ 3,164 100% 100% $ $ 3,184 It $ 3,184 51 INSP PRK 5.10 ACRES $ $ 4.738 100% 100% $ $ 4.738 $ $ 4,738 52 INSP PRK >10 ACRES $ $ 7,806 100% 1Do% $ $ 7,806 $ If 7,808 63 INSP MEDIAN.1 OK SF $ $ 1,428 100% 100% $ $ 1,428 $ $ 1,428 54 INSP MEDIAN 10-25 SF $ $ 2,391 100% 100% $ $ 2,391 $ $ 2,391 55 INSP MEDIAN>25K SF $ $ 3,197 10D% 100% $ $ 3,197 $ $ 3.197 66 INSP SLOPES <150K SF $ $ 1,652 10D% 100% $ $ 1,652 $ $ 1,652 57 INSP SLOPES 150.250K $ $ 2,925 100% 10D% $ $ 2,925 $ $ 2.925 58 INSP SLOPES>250K SF $ $ 4.562 100% l(Xr%,I $ $ 4,562 $ $ 4,562 E 61 DEV PLNLO NEW OK $ $ 452 100% 1fm $ $ 2,256 $ $ 2,256 62 MENT GRM DEVELOPMENT $ $ ],266 100% 100% $ $ 14,266 $ $ 14,9D4 904 63 ANNEXATION ANNEXACNFRM $ $ 100% 1DD% $ $ ],268 $ $ 64 MNCE S.P. CES. TROT $ 2,053 $ 2,522 100% 100% $ $ 2,053 $ 2,253 $ 2,522 fib TNT TROT MP 5-34LT TNT MP $ $ 522 100% 0% $ $ 522 $ $ 67 TNT TROT MP 36-165L $ $ 714 100% 100% $ $ $ 142 $ 2,142 68 TNT TROT Me>1N $ $ 100% 10096 $ 1.453 $ 1,929 $ $ 1,453 69 TNT TROT LT LTS $ $ wit 100% 10D% $ $ 929 $ $ 929 TO RVSDTNT TROT M $ 613 $ 613 100% 100% $ $ 3,18] $ $ 3,18T ]t NTTRO 5- VSTNG TNT TROT 5-34 $ $ 100% 100% $ $ $ $ ]2 VSTNG TNT TROT 5 $ 410 $ 410 100% 100% $ 410 $ 410 $ 410 $ 410 73 6-1 VSTNG TNT TROT]6-165 $ $ 410 100% 100% $ 410 $ $ 410 74 VSTNG TM TROT $ $ 100% 100% $ $ $ $ $ 610 TS TROT RVSD VSTNG TNT TRCT $ 11 $ 100% 10D% $ 306 $ 306 $ $ 308 76 PRCL MPRESIDENTIAL$ IV 100% 100% $ $ 187 $ $ 187 TT PRCL MAP COMMERCIAL $ $ 412 $ 412 100% 1001, If $ 1,235 $ $ 1,235 78 RVSO PRCL MAP $ $ 1,266 100% 100% $ $ 1,288 $ $ 1,26fi 79 CONDO MAP $ $ 604 IO0% 100% $ $ 604 $ $ 604 80 PHSNG PW TROT MAP $ $ 842 100% 100% $ $ 3,366 $ $ %w 81 EXT OF THE SUB. ORD $ $ 556 100% 100% $ $ 2.781 $ S 2,781 82 ANNXTWDETATCHMENT $ $ 12,539 100% 10D% $ $ 12,539 $ $ 12,539 83 VSTNG TENT PRCL MAP $ IS 410 10096 100% $ $ 410 $ $ 410 60 APPLCNT MANAGED EIR $ $ Em 100% 100% $ $ 8,273 $ $ B,273 85 CITY MANAGED EIR $ $ 2,310 100% 1(m $ $ 2,310 $ $ 2.310 86 SPECIFIC PLAN -NEW $ $ 13,768 100% 100% $ $ 13,76B $ $ 13,768 87 SPECIFC PLN MIND MJR $ $ 2,056 100% 100% If $ 2,05B $ $ 2,058 88 SPCFC PLN MIND MNR $ $ Tl5 100% 100%$ $ T5 $ $ TT5 89 DEV PW NEW>100K SF $ $ I'm 100% 10D%$ $ 3,288 $ $ 3,288 90 DEV PW NEW 10-10DK $ $ 604 10D% 100%$ $ 8.456 $ $ 8,456 91 MAJOR MODIFICATION $ $ 718 100% loci% $ I $ 3,590 $ If 3,590 92 TIME EXT. W/PH $ $ 317 100% 1p0% $ $ 950 $ $ 950 93 TIME EXT. W/O PH $ $ 317 100% 1DD%$ $ 960 $ It 950 94 MNR CHG APRVO $ $ 126 100% 100% $ $ 126 $ $ 126 95 TNT RES PRCLMAP W/ $ $ 187 100% 100%$ $ 187 $ $ 187 96 TENT CON. PRCL MP W/ $ $ 187 1(m 100%$ $ 187 $ $ 18] 97 FNL PRCL MP ESE FEE 1 s 141 160% 1W% $ -37 422 $ $ 422 98 FNL TROT MP BASE FEE 1 $ 975 100% 100% $ $ 16.570 $ $ 16,570 99 OFF SITE IMPVMNTS 1 $ In 100%1 1W% $ $ 187 $ $ 18] 100 NON FEE ACTIVITY $ $ ]48,341 10U% 100% $ $ Td8,341 $ $ 148,341 FEE RECOMWNDATIONS LEGEND: Fee If A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Narrie / Description The services ad'or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Current Fee The current fee charged by the Cq for each service, it appikalule Recareended Fee The recommended fee dweloped Dy city slaff and MAXIMUS %Remove of full vest The ratio of the Recommended Fee Ic Ne Actual Unit Cost for each fee Remaining Per Unit Surplus / Subsi The difference between the Recanvrended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue at Am. Fee The potential revenue d the City charged the RecamrtRntletl Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if ale City charged me Current Fee for each service M Me Annual Overtly tot Nat service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Polan ial Additional Revenue (® Food Fee) The deference between the Pmentiaf Revenue at Hw, Fee and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the City could recover (or lose) for each service, if the city chargers me RecomneMed Fee. MAXIMUS, Inc. Appenrkt 5 - Page 1 of 1 05/19f2004 APPENDIX 6 RAUser Fee StudyVeso-usor fee 2004.doc City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY �:'s, - '".Rys... IRE+'RREYENTION'. -, ERINON UIbD1NG E-'SW-&7 El1G AiP,A% Fee 9 Fee Service Name I Descrl tion Current Feecost F$822 Recovery (of full Remaining Per Unit SurplusI Subsid Potential Revenue at Rec.Fee Annual Revenue al Current Fee Potential Additional Revenue Rec'd Fee1 SPRKLR PC NW 1-100 $ 289 100% E $ 8,479 $ 5,780 $ 2,699 2 SPRKLR PC NW 100-300 $ 289 100% $ $ 8,355 $ 4,335 $ 4,020 3 SPRKLR PC NW 300-700 $ 289 100% $ $ 2.763 $ 1.156 $ 1,607 4 SPRKLR PC >700 $ 578 100% $ $ 1,644 $ 1,156 $ 488 5 SPRKLR IN NW 1-100 $ 100 $ 467 100% $ $ 9.346 $ 2,000 $ 7,346 6 SPRKLR IN NW 100-300 $ 100 $ 710 '- 100% $ $ 10,651 $ 1,500 $ 9,151 7 SPRKLR IN NW 300-700 $ 100 $ 952 100% E $ 3,809 $ 400 $ 3,409 8 SPRKLR IN>700 $ 100 $ 1,377 100% $ $ 2,753 $ 200 $ 2,553 9 SPRKLR PC TI 1-10 $ 219 $ 225 100% $ $ 8,983 $ 8,760 $ 223 10 SPRKLR PC TI 11-50 $ 219 $ 291 100% $ $ 1116" $ 8,760 1 $ 2,884 11 SPRKLR PC TI 51-100 $ 219 $ 424 100% $ $ 19.082 $ 9,855 $ 9,227 12 SPRKLR PC TI>100 $ 219 $ 823 100% $ $ 20,569 $ 5,475 $ 15,094 13 SPRKLR INSP TI I-10 $ 144 $ 286 100% $ $ 11.432 $ 5.760 1 $ 5,672 14 SPRKLR INSP T111-50 $ 144 $ 407 100% $ $ 16,276 $ 5.760 $ 10.516 15 SPRKLR INS TI 51-100 $ 144 $ 528 100% $ $ 23.766 $ 6.480 $ 17,296 16 SPRKLRINSPTI>100 $ 144 $' 770 100% $ $ 19,259 $ 3,600 $ 15,659 17 ALRM PC NW 1-10 $ 100 $ - 291 100% $ $ 9,029 $ 3,100 $ 5.929 18 ALRM PC NW 11-50 $ 240 $ 424 100% $ $ 10,601 $ 6,000 $ 4,601 19 ALRM PC NW 51-100 $ 240 $ 757 100% $ $ 3,785 $ 1.200 $ 2,585 20 ALRM PC NW >100 $ 240 $ - 1.158 ' 100% $ $ 1,158 $ 240 $ 918 21 ALRMINSPNW1-10 $ 69 $ - 407 '. 100%E $ 12,612 $ 2,139 $ 10.473 22 ALRM INSP NW 1150 $ 129 $ 589 : 100% $ $ 14,720 $ 3225 $ 11,495 23 ALRM INSP NW 51-100 $ 129 $ " 892- 100% $ $ 4.462 1 $ 645 $ 3,817 24 ALRM INSP NW >100 $ 129 $ 1,864 100% E 1 $ 1,864 $ 129 $ 1,735 25 ALRM PC TI I-10 $ 100 $ = 291 ".::. 100% $ 1 $ 8,735 $ 3,000 $ 5.735 26 ALRM PC TI 11-50 $ 1D0 $ - 424 - 100% $ $ 424D $ 1,000 $ 3,240 27 IALRM PC TI 51-100 $ 100 $ 757 - - 100% $ $ 3.785 $ 500 $ 3,285 28 ALRM PC TI>100 $ 100 $ 1.158 100% $ $ 1,158 $ 100 $ 1,058 29 ALRM INSP TI 1-10 $ 69 $.: 407 : -100% $ $ 12,210 $ 2.070 E 10,140 30 ALRM INSP TI 11-50 $ 69 $ .' : - 588 - ` 100% $ $ 5,883 $ 690 $ 5,193 31 ALRM INSP TI 51-100 $ 69 V 892 - 100% $ $ 4,462 $ 345 $ 4,117 32 ALRM INSP TI>100 $ 69 $-.."' 1.864 :. 'r 100% $ - $ 1.864 $ 69 $ 1,795 33 UNDRGD SPKLR PC $ 149 $i491 100% E $ 9,810 $ 2,980 $ 6,830 34 UNDGRD HYDRNTS PC $ 149 $ - 491 100% $ $ 4,910 $ 1,490 $ 3,420 35 UNDGRD COMBO PC $ 149 $ - 624 : -100% E $ 12,470 E 2,980 E 9.490 36 UNDGRD SPKLR INSP $ 44 $'-.. -467. :-`.i-100% 8 $ 9.346 $ 880 $ 8,466 37 UNDGRD HYDRNTS INSP S 44 $'-" 52& =.-:C100% $ $ 5,279 $ 440 $ 4,839 38 UNDGRD COMBO INSP S 44 E` - .=650 '-100% $ $ 12,990 E 880 $ 12,110 39 RES. SPRKLR PC $ $. �- - .697 100% $ $ 6,974 $ $ 6,974 40 RES. SPRKLR INSP $ $ -. - 310 100% $ $ 3,098 $ $ 3,098 41 HOOD & DUCT SYS PC $ 240 S- ' 332 1-: 100% $ $ 5,313 $ 3,840 $ 1.473 42 HOOD& DUCT SYS INSP $ 129 $ -228 -100%S $ 3,650 $ 2,064 $ 1,586 43 FIRE PUMPS PC $ $. 499 100 % $ $ 499 $ $ 499 44 FIRE PUMPS INSP $ $ - - 781 - :i -, 100% $ $ 781 45 SPRAY BOOTH PC $ 240 $• '-363 -.;:1DD%$ - $ 1.450 $ 960 $ 490 46 SPRAY BOOTH INSP E 129 $ "-446 `' 1000/6 $ S 1,783 $ 516 $ 1,267 47 FOAMILIO SYSTMS PC $ E '=: 367-' _.-100% $ - E 367 $ - $ 367 48 FOAMILIO SYSTMS INSP $ $ 2--363 - 100% $ $ 363 $ $ 363 49 ESFR PC $ 289 $ • ;.822 '100% $ $ 4,933 $ 1,734 $ 3,199 50 ESFR INSP $ 149 $ ' : .588 .100% $ $ 3,530 $ 894 $ 2,636 51 DRY CHEM SYSTMS PC $ 240 $ -233 ' ,--100% $ $ 1.396 $ 1,440 $ 44 52 DRY CHEM SYSTMS INSP $ 129 $ 'i '228 • ' -400% $ $ 1,366 $ 774 $ 592 53 CO2 SYSTMS PC $ 240 $ . ,.7367 --100% $ $ 367 $ 240 $ 127 54 CO2 SYSTEMS INSP $ 129 $:: ` _ 453 - 400% S - $ 453 S 129 S 324 55 INERT GAS SYSTMS PC $ 240 S •: - -' 431 J: 100% $ - $ 431 $ 240 $ 191 56 INERT GAS SYSTM INSP - 129 $ :453 � , IW1 $ - $ 453 S 129 $ 324 57 VAPOR RECOVERY PC $ S 431=.-..100% $ - $ 431 $ - $ 431 58 VAPOR RECOVERY INSP $ $ . -• 394 - ,1100% $ - $ 394 $ - E 394 59 MEDICAL GASES PC $ $' 302 :100% $ $ 603 $ - $ 603 60 MEDICAL GASES INSP $ $- ° '..227 '-`100% $ $ 453 $ - $ 453 61 INDUSTRIAL GASES PC $ E 387 100% $ - 8 367 $ $ 367 62 INDUSTRL GASES INSP $ $ 383 100% $ S 363 E - E 383 63 UST PC $ 140 $-.. . , 49D - '. 100% $ $ 1,959 $ 560 $ 1,399 64 UST INSPECTION $ 77 $ 757 -' 100%. $ - $ 3,027 $ 308 $ 2,719 65 AST PC E 140 $` -490 '100% $ - $ 1,959 $ 560 $ 1,399 66 AST INSPECTION $ 77 S.757 -} 100% $ - 11 $ 3,027 $ 308 $ 2,719 67 TANK/PIPING RMVL PC $ $k, ''233 1 100% 1 $ - Ili 931 $ - $ 931 4 MAXIMUS, Appendb, 6 - Page 4 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY .. -. k" <&.,AN+.:. -. FJELM. REVENTI0NOTHERINON*UII:DINO " NEG4MMEt1RE�i"f, .EER . .... EiIE�.0 ;�1�00" .. .ft Fee III Fee Service Name I Description Current Fee Recommended Fee % Recovery (of full cost(Subsidy) Remaining Per Unit Surplus I Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Additional Revenue Reed Fee 68 TANKIPIPING RMVL INS $ $ 322 100% $ $ 1,287 $ $ 1,287 69 SMOKE CONTROL PC $ $ 556 1D0% $ $ 556 E $ 556 70 SMOKE CONTROL INSP $ $ 1.472 100% $ $ 1,472 $ $ 1,472 71 DUST COLLCTN PC $ $ 432 100% $ $ 864 E $ 864 72 DUST COLLCTN INSP $ $ 260 100% $ S 520 E $ 520 73 INDSTRL OVNS INST PC $ $ 424 100% $ $ 1,695 $ $ 1,695 74 INDSTRL OVN INST INS $ $ 255 100% $ $ 1.019 $ $ 1,019 75 HAZMAT STRG PLN PC $ E 769 100% $ $ 12,298 $ $ 12,298 76 HAZMAT STRG PLN INSP $ $ .445 100% $ $ 7,112 $ $ 7,112 77 HPS PC $ $ 702 100% $ $ 11.230 $ $ 11,230 78 HPS INSPECTION $ $ 354 100% $ $ 5,656 $ $ 5,656 79 REGLTD REFRIGE PC E $ 432 100% $ $ 2,592 $ $ 2,592 80 REGLTD REFRIGE INSP E $ 427 100% $ $ 2,563 $ $ 2,563 81 MS INDST EQP INST PC $ $ 299 100% E $ 2,990 E $ 2,990 82 MS INDST EQP INST IN $ S 1951 100% $ $ 1,952 $ $ 1,952 83 MNR TECHN RPT RVW $ 584 $ 294 100% $ $ 1,471 $ 2,920 $ 1,449 84 MJR TECHNCL RPT RV W $ $ 699 100% $ $ 3,494 $ $ 3,494 85 ADULT CARE FAC. INSP $ 169 $ 234 100% E $ 2,340 $ 1.690 $ 650 86 CHILD CARE FAC. INSP $ 85 E234 - 100% E $ 11.710 $ 4,2501 $ 7.460 87 K-12 PBLC SCHL INSP $ $ 376 - 100% $ $ 6.020 $ $ 6,020 88 K-12 PRVT SCHL INSP $ $ -524 100% E $ 10.486 $ $ 10,486 89 TEM. ONE/POP INSP $ $ - 397 100% $ $ 10,332 E $ 10,332 90 MNR HIGH RSE INSP $ $ 800.. 1D0°% $ $ 800 $ $ 800 91 MJR HGH RSE ANNL INS $ $ 1,561 1DO% $ $ 1,561 $ $ 1,561 92 RACKING PLAN CHECK $ $ 611 :. 100% $ $ 611 $ $ 611 93 RACKING INSPECTION $ $ 272 -- 100% $ $ 272 $ $ 272 94 ONSITE IMPRVMNT PLNS $ $ 67,211 - 100% E $ 67,211 $ $ 67,211 95 OFFSITE IMPVMNT PLNS $ $ 60,357 ".. 100% $ $ 60,357 $ $ 60,357 96 MOVIE FILMING PERMIT $ $' '..606 100% $ $ 606 $ $ 606 97 STRT CLOSURE PERMIT $ $ 0% E 346 $ E E 98 FULL GENRAL VACATION $ $ -307- -100% $ $ 307 E $ 307 99 SUMMARY VACATION $ $ - 307 100% E $ 307 $ $ 307 100 FNL PRCL MAP BASE FE $ $:. --206 - 100% $ $ 618 $ $ 618 101 PW GRDNG <500 CY $ $ -35 . - 100% $ $ 1,005 E $ 1,005 102 PW GRDNG 501-5K CY $ $ - 51 �. 100% $ $ 1,797 $ $ 1,797 103 PWGRDNG 5-10KCY $ $.-- - .68 100% $ $ 611 E $ 611 104 PW GRDNG 10-50K CY $ E - 84 100% $ $ 84 $ $ 84 105 PW GRDNG 50-100K $ $ :' 153 100°% $ $ 153 E $ 153 107 PWGRDNG>100K 10CY $ $ 17 100% E $ 27,490 E $ 27,490 108 FNL TRCT MP BASE FEE $ $ " 205 100% E $ 3,491 E $ 3,491 123 124 125 GPA TXTIEXBT NT LSTD AMNDT ZNG/GPLND MAP AMNDT ZNG OR GPLND $ $ $ $ 795 $ 889- $ . 513 "'....100% - iDD% 100% $ $ $ $ 795 $ 3.447 $ 1,025 $ - $ $ $ 795 $ 3.447 $ 1,025 126 127 128 129 130 131 134 135 AMNDT TO CITY ORD SPECIFIC PLN-NEW SPCFC PLN AMEND-MJR SPCFC PLN AMEND-MNR CUP CUP wl DEV PLAN DVPLN NW BLD>100K DVPLN NW BLD 10-100K $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - "r731 S - --- 6,555 $--: _ -.-1,419. -$ <`484 E;:.>` c290 $ ':" 83 $ =-462 $ .-397 100% -: .' 100% ' ' ` 100% •: 100% ':• - 100% 30% 100% � 100% $ $ $ $ $ $ 147 $ $ $ 731 $ 6,555 $ 1,419 $ 414 $ 3,148 $ 944 $ 1.385 $ 5,556 $ $ E S E $ $ $ $ 731 $ 6,555 $ 1,419 E 484 E 3,148 $ 9" $ 1,385 $ 5,556 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 148 147 148 149 150 151 DVPLN NW BLD<10K SF MAJOR MODIFICATION MINOR MOD-APRVD PRJC VARIANCE LARGE DAY CARE PRMT T.U.P. MINOR T.U.P. MAJOR T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT 2ND UNIT PERMIT EXT OF TIME DEV. CDE APPEAL DEVLPMNT AGRMENT ANNEXATION AGRMNT SUBSTNL CNFRMNCE S.P TNT TRCT MAP 5-34 $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S E E S $ '--33].-.-:;' $ .: 210 E , 143 $ �400 $277 E-..-::-401 $ - 633 $ ' =118 $ 80 $ -- - ':... 225 $ :: 75 $'` - $5,094 $ 1,349. 1 $ '- .'/3 $ ' 141 100% :::.1DD% 100% <: 100% '-_.."1DD% -_-., 1D0% -100% - 20% --. 20% - 100% ---.: 1000.4 :-0% 10D% ;.-" t00% "; -100% $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ 473 $ 321 S $ $ 567 $ E $ 1,656 $ 1.052 $ 2,869 $ 400 $ 553 $ 10,019 $ 2,530 $ 118 S 803 $ 676 $ 226 E $ 10,187 $ 73 E $ E E $ $ E $ $ $ E E E - $ $ 1,656 $ 1,052 $ 2,869 $ 400 $ 553 $ 10,019 $ 2,530 $ 118 S 803 $ 676 $ 226 $ S 10,1B7 $ 73 ml�wus- MAXIMUS, le - Appendix 6 - Page 5 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY ' " 'i 13rP ' ';dx"x'!' ids. FIRE?RREYEN.iIAN OIFIERR#ON.�UII:flING V :+.4a:t"`. %[i'Le J '"R43DM E R�VEtyl�k;l T % Remaining Potential Recovery Per Unit Potential Annual Additional (of full Surplus I Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Fee # Fee Service Name I Description CurrentFeeFee [Re.-Mm"d'd' cost (Subsidy) Rec. Fee Current Fee Rec'd Fee 152 TNT TRCT MAP 3575 $ 310 100% $ $ 931 $ $ 931 153 TNT TRCT MAP 76-165 $ 374 t00M° $ $ 748 $ $ 748 154 TNT TRCT MAP>166 LT E 473 100%[$-V$473 $ $ 473 155 RVSDTNTTRCTMAP E $ 210 100% $ $ 1,052 156 VSTNG TNT TRCT 5-34 S $ 141 100% $ - $ 141 157 VSTNG TNT TRCT 35-75 $ $ 309 100% $ $ 309 158 VSTG TNT TRCT 76-165 $ $ 381 100% $ $ 381 159 VSTNGTNTTRCT>166 $ S 473 100% $ $473 160 RVSDVSTNGTNTTRCT $ $ 209 100% $ $ 418 161 PRCL MAP-RSDNTL $ $ 208 100°/ $ - $ 208 162 PRCL MAP -COMMERCIAL $ $ 277 t00% $ - $ 830 163 RVSD PARCEL MAP $ $ 141 t00%$ $ 141 164 CONDO MAP $ $ 413 100% S - $ $ 413 165 MNR CHG-APRVD TNT MP $ $ - 108 100% $ E $ 108 166 TNT RES PRCL MP W/WV $ $ 141 . 100% $ - $ - $ 141 167 TNT COM PRCL MP W/W $ $ 141 100% $ $ $ 141 168 PHSNG PLN-TENT MAP $ $ 242 100% $ - $ - $ 967 169 MERGER OF CONT PRCLS $ $ 210 100% $ E $ 1,678 170 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ $ 210 100% $ E $ 3,148 171 EXT OF TIME SUB. ORD $ $ 210 - 100% $ $ $ 1,052 172 JADULT BUS. ORD C.U.P $ $ 293 100% $ $ 293 $ - $ 293 173 ANNXTNIDETACHMENT S $ .289 100% $ - $ 289 $ $ 289 174 JAPPLICANT MNGD EIR $ $ 2,408 .. `. 100% $ - $ 2,408 $ $ 2.408 175 CITYMNGDEIR $ $ 1,750 -- 100Y° $ - E E $ 1,750 176 PDO INSPECTION $ $ '1,719 ':- 100% $ - $ 1,1,750 719 E $ 1.719 177 OTHER FEE ACTIVITIES $ $ -' 0 % $ 719,870 $ - $ $ 778 FIRE CHIEF -HOURLY S $ - 140 1007. $ $ 1.403 $ - $ 1.403 179 FIRE MARSHAL -HOURLY $ $ -140 - -100% $ - $ 1,403 $ $ 1,403 180 DEP FIRE MRSHL-HRLY $ $ 109 -. 100% $ - 181 FR SFTY SPCLST-HRLY $ $ 66 100% $ - 182 FR SYSTMS INSP-HRLY $ $ 'r 61 - 100% $ 183 OFF/ON-SITE P/C MIN $ $ . A 2 - 100 % $ 0 0 $ $ -' 100% $ - 0 0 $ $ I- 100% $ $ - $ $ Totals: S 733,004 $ 128,635 1 $ 604,369 The potential unit fees for these items are calculated on a separate worksheeL nnnnuc rcr_cun. Fee # A reference number to facillate discussion Fee or Service Name I Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS sWd Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Recommended Fee The recommended fee developed dy staff and MAXIMUS % Recovery of WII cost The ratio of the Recommended Fee W the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Remaining Per Unit Su us I(Subsidy) The difference between the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee The potential revenue If the City charged the Recommended F"Jor each service at the Annual Quantity for that service Unit Cost x Annual Qua Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue If the City charged the Curren Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Potential Additional Revenue (�Fw)The between the Potential Revenue atRec. Fee and the Annual Revenue atCurrent Fee: This nts the potential annual addNonal revenue the City could recover (or lose) for each service, ges the Recommended Fee. MAXIMUS. arc. Appendix 6 - Page 6 of 6 " ' '" +X "US APPENDIX 7 R1User Fee Study\reso-user fee 2004.doc City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY m1-W. Z*W3 ft�i d%ae ` ' ; M � �E10EP.ARTMENT .:. ��:..... :REGtiMME�t1Eu��E& � . "EitENGE!IMP` ..,. > % Remaining Potential Recovery Per Unit Potential Annual Additional Recommended (of full. Surplus Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Fee 0 Fee Service Name I Description Current Fee Fee cost (Subsidy)Rec. Fee Current Fee Rec'd Fee 1 VEHICLE RELEASE $ 45 E.. 100 $ 4 $ 92,000 $ 41.400 $ 50,600 2 FINGERPRINTS $ 10 $ 12 $ 5 $ 4,032 $ 3,360 $ 672 3 REPORTCOPIES $ 5 $ 15 $ 3 $ 23.760 $ 7,920 $ 15,840 4 ABC PERMITS $ $ 20 $ 67 $ 360 $ $ 360 5 TAXI PERMITS $ 55 $ 50 100% $ E 596 1 $ 660 $ 64 6 SOLICITORS PERMIT $ 5 $ 20 $ 13 $ 1,200 $ 300 $ 900 10 CITATION COPY $ $ 12 100% $ $ 247 $ $ 247 11 MASSAGE PERMIT $ 42 $ 50 t00% E $ 11005 $ 840 $ 165 13 NON FEE ACTNfTY $ $ 0% $ 9,494,855 $ $ $ 14 CUP $ $ 67 t00% $ $ 1.999 E $ 1.999 18 DVPLN NW BLD>100 SF $ $ - 66 100% $ $ 199 $ $ 199 19 T.U.P. MINOR $ $ 50 100% $ $ 1,249 $ $ 1,249 M T.U.P. MAJOR $ $ 67 100% $ $ 268 E $ 268 21 T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT $ $ 14 20% $ 55 $ 14 $ $ 14 22 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT $ $ 10 20% $ 40 $ 99 E $ 99 23 VENDORS PERMIT $ $ 0% $ 30 $ E $ 24 MASSAGE EST. PERMIT $ $ 67 - 100Y° $ $ 736 $ $ 736 25 ADULT BUS ORD C.U.P $ $ 69 100% $ $ 69 E $ 69 26 ADLT BUS EMPLYE PRMT $ S 69 100°/ $ $ 69 $ S 69 27 ADLT BUS ORD. OWNER $ $ 69 100% E $ 69 E S 69 Totals: $ 1127,971111 54,480 $ 73,491 Itl��:7SKr] 5194d1r7►160d6911*3ga7 A Fee # A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS stud Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, 8 applicable Recommended Fee The recommended fee develo by ci staff and MAXIMUS % Recovery of full cost The redo of the Recommended Fee to the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Remaining Per Unit Surplus /(Subsidy) The difference between the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Recommended Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Potential Additional Revenue (@ Redd Fee) The difference between the Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the City could recover (or lose) for each service, 8 the city charges the Recommended Fee. MAXIMUS, lrk Appendix 7 - Page 2 of 2 ' ' `A M30KE14' `US' EXHIBIT "B" FEES NOT INCLUDED IN STUDY Planning Department BACKGROUND: While identifying fee categories for the study, staff overlooked modifications to approved development or annexation agreements. Staff calculated the time it would take to review these fees and found them to be a percentage of the Development Agreement Fee category. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the following fee categories and fee amount: Recommended Recovery: 35% Recommended Fee: $10,034 Agreement Recommended Recovery. 10% of full Development Agreement fee, $28,668 Recommended Fee: $ 2,867 Community Services Department BACKGROUND: While calculating staff's time to process plan check and inspections, staff requested that contractual cost not be included as part of the fee. This would allow for anticipated changes in contractual agreements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that contractual agreements for service be stated as in addition to the recommended fees for plan check and inspection of parks, medians, and slopes in the study. Contractual Services for Plan Check and Inspection of Parks, Medians. and Slopes Recommended Fee: Contract rate in effect at time of service RAUser Fee Study\reso-user fee 2004.doc HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE City of Temecula CITYWIDE USER FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by: MMus HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE' April 30, 2004 Chad Wohiford, Project Manager 4320 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 (916) 485-8102 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Background and Approach..............................................................I Summaryof Results.......................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 Backgroundand Purpose.................................................................3 Scopeof the Study.........................................................................3 Purposeof the Report .....................................................................4 AboutMAXIIVIUS...........................................................................4 ReportOrganization.......................................................................4 USER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY 5 General Fee Principles....................................................................5 PolicyConsiderations.....................................................................6 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 10 GeneralCost Analysis Approach.....................................................10 Structure of the Study.................................................................. 10 Building and Fire Fee Study Methodology (NEXUS)............................11 Methodology for Other Departments and Functions (MAXPEE).............16 Methodologyfor Community Services..............................................16 Alternative Fee Analysis Method - Time Tracking..............................17 April 30, 2004 MAXIMI,IS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENT Continued FINDINGS AND RESULTS 19 GeneralFindings......................................................................... 19 Summary of Results.....................................................................19 KeyStudy Assumptions and Issues .................................................. 20 Building & Safety Fee Results........................................................ 25 Fire Prevention (Building -Related) Fee Results ................................... 26 PlanningFee Results.................................................................... 27 Public Works Fee Results.............................................................. 28 Community Services Fee Results ..................................................... 29 Fire Prevention (Other/Non-Building) Fee Results .............................. 30 PoliceFee Results........................................................................ 31 33 CONCLUSION APPENDICES 1. NEXUS Cost Results for Building & Safety Fees 2. NEXUS Cost Results for the Fire Prevention (Building) Fees 3. Cost Results for Planning Fees 4. Cost Results for Public Works Fees 5. Cost Results for Community Services Fees 6. Cost Results for Fire Prevention (Other/Non-Building) Fees 7. Cost Results for Police Fees April 30, 2004 ii MAXIMUS [EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Background and Approach City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT The City of Temecula engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the City. MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies to calculate the full actual cost of the services, and we used our experience to advise the City regarding the development of reasonable potential fees. City leaders can use this information to make more informed decisions and set fees to meet the fiscal and policy goals and objectives of the City. Through this study, we determined the full cost of services offered by the selected departments for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. This "full cost" includes all legitimate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service, including direct support costs from other departments, program, divisional, and department support, plus Citywide overhead. Summary of Results For each Temecula user fee addressed in this study, MAXIMUS calculated a specific unit cost. In short, we conducted an extraordinarily detailed series of models to "build up" the cost for each fee service. The appendices to this report show the summary results for each fee, but behind these worksheets is tremendous detail to support each and every calculation. By conducting further analysis on the individual fees and their annual volume of activity, we were also able to demonstrate some of the current and potential revenue impacts associated with the fees, including the existing "gaps" between the actual cost of the services and the potential revenues from current fees, which results in a revenue surplus or subsidy. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers as a whole, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit - by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. The results of the MAXIMUS cost analysis demonstrate the full actual cost of providing each of the fee -related services included in the study. By annualizing and combining the results for each fee, we identified the potential revenue impacts of the current fees and all services hypothetically set at the full (100%) cost -recovery levels (full department cost). In addition, we modeled the "recommended" fees to identify the revenue impacts of setting fees at those levels. The following table illustrates these impacts: April 30, 2004 Page 1 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Summary of Actual Cost and Recommended Fee Results Department / Division FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Services (fee and non -fee) CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec'd Fees) Building & Safety $ 2,159,000 $ 1,649,000 $ 2,159,000 $ 510,000 Fire Prevention (Bldg) $ 263,000 $ 74,000 $ 263,000 $ 189,000 Planning $ 3,352,000 $ 474,000 $ 952,000 $ 478,000 Public Works $ 2,089,000 $ 1,656,000 $ 1,960,000 $ 304,000 Community Services $ 6,705,000 $ 528,000 $ 2,409,000 $ 1,881,000 Fire Prevention (Other) $ 1,466,000 $ 129,000 $ 733,000 $ 604,000 Police $ 9,642,000 $ 54,000 $ 128,000 $ 74,000 TOTALS: $ 25,676,000 $ 4,564,000 $ 8,604,000 $ 4,040,000 (Note: For presentation purposes in this report, the figures in both tables are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, in order to avoid the implication of single dollar accuracy, which does not exist due to the necessary use of various estimates and assumptions throughout the project.) The remainder of this report details the approach, methodologies, and results of the MAXIMUS study. April 30, 2004 Page 2 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT 5NTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Background and Purpose The City of Temecula engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the City. In general, "user fee" activities are those services and functions that the City provides to individuals who receive some material benefit from the services. In turn, the City charges specific fees for those services. In the course of this study, MAXIMUS evaluated the actual cost of providing these services, and this report documents our findings. The principal goal of this study was to calculate the full cost of providing the services -- including all direct, indirect, and support costs associated with the programs and individual services. Secondary objectives of the study included: • Structure the fee schedules to accurately reflect the processes and organization of the divisions. • Simplify the fee schedules to make them easier to implement and easier to understand. • Create a NEXUS between the fees and the cost of services provided. • Ensure that the fees are reasonable and fair. • Ensure that the fees are rational and defensible. • Build a fee structure that recovers the full cost of providing services, in order to ensure continued funding at current service levels. • Compare cost with revenues currently received for these services. • Advise the City regarding potential fee policy issues, strategy, implementation, and appropriate fee levels. Scope of the Study The MAXIMUS study employed our rigorous and proven project approach and analytical methodologies to evaluate the City's costs for user fee -related services. Our study excluded impact fees, utility charges, internal service rates, or other costs and charges not related to development services provided to external customers. We based the analysis on existing data, when available, and on other actual figures and estimates provided by the City. The study focused on the actual cost of services, as the City currently provides them. We did not examine or evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, or value of the City's programs, services, or operations. In short, we studied the cost of the City's services as they are, not as they might be. Not every department and division in the City provides fee -related services. Some departments receive so little revenue from fees or their fees are set by outside sources (state April 30, 2004 Page 3 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT law, etc.) that a review would not be cost-effective. Consequently, the City and MAXIMUS restricted the study to the following departments and functions: • Building and Safety • Fire Prevention (Building) • Planning • Public Works Purpose of the Report • Community Services • Fire Prevention (Other) • Police The primary outcome of this study is a voluminous series of worksheets and tables that show the detail of the data inputs, cost calculations, adjustments, time estimates, service volumes, and current fee levels. MAXIMUS provided these worksheets under separate cover to the City of Temecula. This report summarizes the results of the study, presents conceptual information regarding fee establishment, and provides a description of the methodologies used to conduct the analysis. As a summary document, this report is not intended to provide all of the detail related to the study process or outcomes. About MAXIMUS The Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS is part of a nationwide consulting firm specializing in cost analysis and revenue enhancement studies for state and local government. The Western Region Office is headquartered in Sacramento, California, with other offices in Oakland, Irvine, Denver, and Seattle. Our Western Region has provided services to hundreds of cities and counties in the West. In addition to being the industry's volume leader in cost analysis studies, we have pioneered approaches to fee analysis, including our NEXUS approach to building fees that we employed for the City of Temecula's study. Report Organization Following the initial discussion of background information, this report presents the conceptual issues that guide a MAXIMUS fee (cost of service) study and the steps of the MAXIMUS methodologies employed to conduct the study. The summaries of the actual findings follow this discussion, including tables of the actual costs of services and notes relating to some of the specific issues that emerged during the study. April 30, 2004 Page 4 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT SER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOP General Fee Principles Local governments are funded from a variety of sources, with the primary sources being taxes, subventions, fees, special charges, fines, and grants. As the traditional provider of basic services, cities are constantly struggling with securing sufficient funding to pay for the services expected/demanded/sought after by the citizenry. Many local government services are "global" in nature (e.g., police and fire protection, open space, etc.). Other services benefit a particular segment of the population, most often providing a direct monetary benefit to the recipient. It is in this latter group that subsidy and recovery issues are brought to the fore. Given the "sum -sufficient" nature of government financing, un-recovered monies must be offset by a decrease in available funding for other public good activities. User fee services are those services performed by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The assumption underlying most fee recommendations is that costs of services benefiting individuals --and not society as a whole --should be borne by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees, therefore, is equivalent to establishing prices for services, but making a profit is not an objective for local government in providing services to the general public. It is commonly felt that fees should be established at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service, no more, and no less. It is generally accepted that recovery of costs should be in direct proportion to the individual/specific gain for services. This means that if a developer wants to rezone farm land for a housing development, the city may not want to charge that business a fee less than full cost, since to do otherwise would require a subsidy for other services that must be made up by the general citizenry who doesn't share in the particular benefit. Where new development causes an increase in infrastructure requirements, that increase should logically be shared pro rata with the existing area proportionate to the degree that the new development benefits from the infrastructure. Conversely, a recreation program could logically be heavily subsidized from the general tax base in order to promote the overall well being of the general public, or to achieve specific socio-economic objectives. Historically, subsidy issues were not stressed, since there were alternative tax avenues available to fund government services. This has not been the case in recent years, which has caused an increasing emphasis on addressing user fee activity subsidy areas. MAXIMUS recognizes, however, that there are circumstances and programs, which probably justify a subsidy (e.g., youth, senior, and disadvantaged recreation programs, certain classifications of code enforcement, library services, etc.). In our experience, no governmental jurisdiction has advocated full cost recovery for all user fee services, and the overall user fee recovery rates have been increasingly proportionate to the local government fiscal pressures. April 30, 2004 Page 5 of 33 MAXIMUS` City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Policy Considerations In some circumstances, a reasonable policy is setting fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing services. This results in the costs of that service being subsidized, or paid for by the City general fund (most likely) while the user receives benefits for which he or she does not fully pay. The following factors underlie such policies: Elasticity of Demand: The price charged for a service can affect the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, increasing the price of a service results in fewer units of the service being purchased (i.e., the demand for the service is elastic . For some services, raising the price to the user may not decrease the amount of service purchased because of the importance of the service to individual users (i.e., the demand is inelastic . Whether total revenue goes up, goes down, or stays the same can be correlated to the magnitude of the fee change and resulting shift in volume demanded. Economic Incentives: In some cases it may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging or discouraging certain activities. As an example, higher fees for increased water usage may promote better water conservation. Frequently, however, governmental agencies face constitutional or statutory limitations on setting user fees at levels higher than actual cost. Legal Considerations: Overall, the law in California (constitutional and statutory — reference Prop. 4, Prop. 218, and AG Opinion 92-506) prohibits local government from charging more for a service than the actual cost of providing the service. Otherwise, a "user fee" becomes a tax and requires voter approval. Recent legal action in Southern California, which challenges the legitimacy of some fee levels, has brought this issue to the forefront in many local governments. For some program areas, laws or regulations established by external entities further restrict a city's ability to charge certain fees or adjust fee levels. As a result, a city may be limited to pre -established maximum or minimum fees, regardless of the actual cost of the services. In such cases, external factors supercede city flexibility and authority. Subsidy Policy: Subsidies are usually provided for two other purposes, in addition to those arising from economic considerations: ♦ To allow an identified group to participate in services which they might not otherwise be able to afford. For example, providing water bacteria testing for all residential wells promotes public health among April 30, 2004 Page 6 of 33 MAX[MUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT fixed income senior residents. If they had to pay full costs for well testing, they might not obtain this service. ♦ To support services whose benefits extend to the community at large, as well as the individual purchasing the service. Many activities, by their nature, provide societal benefits in addition to those received by the direct recipient. Examples of such activities include architectural/ historical design review and appeal fees. With the potential for intentional subsidies in mind, MAXIMUS has developed a service/benefiting agent matrix to help place the subsidy issue in proper context. The matrix with typical fee issues is shown in conceptual form in the diagram below: April 30, 2004 Page 7 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Subsidy vs. User Fees Decision -making Diagram WHO TYPE OF TAX vs. FEES BENEFITS SERVICE j POLICY MIX ❑1 I Community Public 100% Taxes Primarily the Primarily Taxes 0 I Community with lessH Public / Private and Individual Benefit Some Fees Primarily the Primarily Fees 3❑ Individual with less Private / Public and Community Benefit Some Taxes Individual ® Benefit Private 100% Fees Only H Examples of services that fall under each category: (1) Police Patrol (2) Fire Suppression (3) Community Services (4) Land Use, Subdivisions, Building Permits The decision matrix helps to illustrate the analysis used when determining user benefits and fees versus appropriate taxpayer subsidies. The four rows identify different activities that have varying levels of individual and public benefits. Row one lists the characteristics of an activity that is appropriately funded by taxpayers. Row four lists the characteristics of a user fee for which the individual benefiting from the service should pay. The two middle rows show varying levels of cost and benefit between the two extremes. The matrix does not provide absolute answers - there may be many activities that fall in a "gray" area somewhere between rows one and four. Rather, it is intended for use as a tool in identifying relevant economic and public policy issues when considering increases in user fees. April 30, 2004 Page 8 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT MAXIMUS believes that understanding and application of the matrix is important in generating acceptance of fee for service cost recovery levels by the City Council and community/business groups. Through this visual perspective the rationale for cost recovery becomes clear and defensible. The primary goal of the cost of service study is to create an empirical basis to fairly and equitably allocate costs to the users of specific services. Once this is accomplished, the next step is to determine the rate of recovery/subsidy, which is a decision reserved for the legislative body — in this case the City Council. It is they who have to balance fiscal resources and service delivery. In addition to the equity issues noted above, a cost of service study assures the City that it is in compliance with state law. Legally (state constitution, various statutes, the attorney general), a governmental jurisdiction cannot charge a fee for a service that is greater than the cost to provide that service. Otherwise, the "fee" becomes a tax, which is subject to electoral action that is beyond the authority of the City Council. By determining the full cost of each fee, the City Council can be comfortable in the fact that if it wishes not to subsidize an activity, the full cost fee it sets will be in compliance with the provisions of the law. April 30, 2004 Page 9 of 33 MAX[MUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT ROJECT METHODOLOG General Cost Analysis Approach The purpose of a user fee study is to determine the full cost of services offered by the agency for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. The full cost can usually be compared to current revenues to determine the existing amount of subsidy (or occasionally, overcharge). With this knowledge, a City can make informed decisions concerning appropriate fee adjustments. MAXIMUS is able to assist in understanding fee -related issues and trends. However, in the final analysis, the actual decision to increase or decrease fees (or what to include in a fee) is a local decision. The underlying rationale to charge full cost for user fees is simply this: the City is providing a distinct service or product to a business or individual who is gaining a monetary, emotional, or recreational benefit. Equity says that others who do not participate in that benefit should not subsidize individuals or businesses that benefit directly from City services. For example, why should a long-term resident living in a central part of the City contribute towards a subsidy to a developer opening up a new subdivision on the edge of the City? Our methodology for developing fee -for -service calculations is to create a standard cost model for each current and potential fee. We believe that a service qualifies for the "fee" designation when the activity benefits a specific individual or group, as opposed to the public at large. For example, a development activity clearly fits the definition - whether the beneficiary makes a near -term profit or not - as opposed to police patrol or parkland maintenance, which benefit the community as a whole. The costs we develop are "full cost," since they include all direct and indirect costs, including direct support costs from other departments when a separate fees from these departments do not apply. The indirect costs include program, divisional, and department support, plus citywide overhead (e.g., City manager, finance, attorney, building maintenance, etc.). Our final report includes our determination of the full cost of each service. Structure of the Study MAXIMUS used three different methodologies for this study: NEXUS, MAXFEE, and Cost - Recovery. The methodology we used for each department depended on the area of service or function provided by a department (e.g., building, planning, etc.). We selected a particular methodology for each function based on the following: • The level of detail needed/desired by the department/function • The types of fees charged • Availability and specificity of data to be entered into our models April 30, 2004 Page 10 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT • Our experience relating to the adaptability of a model to the function • The amount of time and effort available from the departments/functions Although we used different methods and models to perform the study, the underlying principles of each model are the same, as are the general processes we used to gather data. No particular model is more accurate than the others, but it may "fit" the situation better. All of our models are rational, objective, and defensible. Building and Fire Fee Study Methodology (NEXUS) General Description The City of Temecula currently uses the method adopted by most municipalities in setting building permit and plan check fees (related to building and fire codes), basing fees on a modified version of rates included in the Uniform Building Code and on construction valuation tables published periodically by the building officials' national organization (ICBO). Consequently, Temecula's Building & Safety and Fire Prevention fee revenue largely correlates with construction valuation. Temecula, like many other jurisdictions, sought an alternate method of calculating building - related fees to establish a link between the fees charged to the community and the actual cost of providing the services. This "NEXUS" is a requirement in California and other states and a desired policy goal in many others. Our NEXUS methodology is designed to establish a strong connection between project cost and fee levels (revenues). Furthermore, we believe the methodology meets the following imperatives of a building fee structure: ➢ Fair to both the applicant and the jurisdiction ➢ Definitive ➢ Practical ➢ Legal The NEXUS is remarkably simple in concept. For building fees we create a list of building occupancy types, identify the standard time to complete the plan check and inspection process for each occupancy, and apply these time requirements to the department's average productive hourly rate. Then we adjust the resultant cost per square foot based on the type of construction. The result is a fee per square foot for each occupancy class and type of construction. We recommend a square footage mechanism for charging building fees, because: 1. This approach establishes a strong NEXUS between the fee charged and the cost of the service. Square footage remains relatively constant over time, thus providing a more April 30, 2004 Page 11 of 33 nnAxinnus City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT stable base. Valuation, on the other hand, is relatively arbitrary and subject to supply and demand effects, which can cause values to double or halve within several years. 2. A square foot based fee schedule is easier to administer than valuation or timecard methods. 3. Square footage based fees withstand scrutiny better than other methods, due to the strong NEXUS to cost. Assuming categories are adequately specific, we believe a properly prepared square footage fee structure satisfies the spirit and intent of governing law. 4. The fee is easy to calculate and builders can accurately budget for permitting costs. It is noted that fluctuations in construction activity may influence the overall cost recovery rate of the Building department. Potential impacts include: Construction Activity Slowdown: If construction activity decreases significantly without a proportional staff reduction, overall cost recovery will decrease, resulting in a subsidy. Construction Activity Upturn: If construction activity increases significantly without a proportional staffing increase, short-term cost recovery will increase because fees are collected before work efforts are expended. However, mid-term cost recovery should remain at full cost levels, assuming the City can add appropriate staff and "work -down" the project inventory. For miscellaneous permits and sub -trade items (MP&E's), we identify the standard inspection and plan check process times and multiply this by the department's average productive hourly rate. The end result is three sets of cost (fee) schedules —one for new construction, one for miscellaneous items, and one for MP&E's. Our presentation of the NEXUS methodology in this report is far more detailed and descriptive than any other methodologies. A more involved description of the NEXUS approach is warranted, because this method is totally new to Temecula, and it is a significant departure from the traditional (since 1927) approach used by building departments throughout the state. We felt it was important to make sure that the City and its citizens (and other readers of this report) clearly understand the new method and its results. NEXUS Steps MAXIMUS applied our NEXUS methodology to both the Building & Safety Department and the Fire Prevention Bureau. The following section summarizes the major tasks of the NEXUS approach and the related steps necessary to complete each task: April 30, 2004 Page 12 of 33 nnaxinnus City, of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY Task 1: Determine the Average Productive Hourly Rate The basis for all costs in the NEXUS model is the average "productive" hourly rate for the department. Within the context of this study, the term "productive" does not imply a subjective or qualitative measure of the performance of employees. Instead, it simply indicates the amount of time the average employee would be "billable" to specific projects during the year. This is a business -oriented analytical procedure. A productive hourly rate seeks to recover the full cost of the actual time staff perform work related to building projects. This cost includes factors to recover: • Direct salaries • Employee benefits • Services and supplies • City, department, and division overhead and indirect costs • Administrative, support, and supervisory staff • Cross -departmental and cross -divisional support • Other program related costs, such as reserve contributions and fixed assets (annualized) The total of all of these costs is the total cost for the departments to operate annually. Because we used the 2002-2003 budget for the departmental costs, and many of the costs listed above come from external divisions and departments, the total cost of the department shown and used in the analysis exceeds the approved budget for each department. The process to calculate the productive hourly rate consists of three general steps, as described below: Step 1: MAXIMUS worked with the department to identify the average number of productive hours available for staff. This figure reflects a full-time equivalent employee, with reductions made for non -productive time, such as vacation, holidays, sick leave, training, meetings, and other non -fee related work. The total number of productive hours for all staff, discounted for administrative and other wholly non -direct -production staff, is factored into the rate. Step 2: MAX1mUS divided the total annual cost of each department by the total number of productive hours to establish the department -wide, fully burdened, productive hourly rate for new construction. Step 3: The initial productive hourly rate includes support costs related exclusively to new construction. Use of this rate for miscellaneous items and NIME's would cause those fees to include costs for services unrelated to the permits issued. Consequently, the NEXUS model excludes these unrelated costs (if April 30, 2004 Page 13 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT applicable) and calculates a new (lower) productive hourly rate for use in the calculation of miscellaneous item and MP&E fees. Task 2: Determine the Actual Costs for New Construction and Tenant Improvements The principal value of the NEXUS model is its ability to calculate the cost of permits for new buildings that include different occupancy types with different sizes and different types of construction —and take into account the differential consumption of effort and economies of scale that exist. The steps for calculating the "New Construction and Tenant Improvement" fees are described below: Step 1: MAXIMUS worked with the departments to establish an applicable list of occupancy categories (building use types) that encompasses all anticipated new construction activity within the City. We initially based this list on the building occupancies established in the UBC, but we modified it to better fit the business practices and desired fee structure of the departments. Step 2: The departments established a standard size for each occupancy that served as the focus of time estimates for process completion. For example, in order to specify the time necessary to inspect a theater, the departments needed to know the size of the theater under consideration. The standard size selected by the departments dictated the range of sizes considered for each occupancy type. Step 3: The departments selected a standard construction type (i.e., fire rating) for each occupancy. As with the standard size requirement, the purpose of the standard construction type is to provide a basis/focus for time estimates. Step 4: The departments provided estimates or actual data, when available, relating to the time necessary to complete the plan check and/or inspection processes for each occupancy type of a standard size and standard construction type. The plan check and inspection "processes" also represent time consumed in direct support of the actual review of plans or on -site inspections. This time includes application and plan intake and processing, handling and distribution, travel to sites, filing, scheduling, re -checks, documentation, and other necessary and related services and activities. Step 5: Based upon data provided by the departments for specified "example" occupancies, MAXIMUS proportionately scaled the time estimates from the standard occupancy sizes and construction types to the other size categories and construction type categories. The scaling sought to replicate the economies of scale present for larger buildings. The scaling also factored the differential workload required for different categories of construction types. April 30, 2004 Page 14 of 33 nnaxiMuS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Step 6: The NEXUS model multiplied the total time required for each size of each occupancy type by the average productive hourly rate (Task 1) to determine the total actual processing cost for that size of occupancy. Step 7: The model then divides the total cost by the total square footage to establish the cost per square foot for each occupancy size range. A subsequent worksheet breaks the ranges into 100 square foot increments to facilitate fee implementation and application. Task 3: Determine the Actual Costs for Miscellaneous Items "Miscellaneous Items" are those building -related projects, components, or activities that require permits or fees, but are not newly constructed buildings or large-scale tenant improvements to existing buildings. Examples of miscellaneous items might include fences, swimming pools and spas, decks, signs, re -roofing, and skylights. The steps for calculating the "Miscellaneous Item" fees are described below: Step 1: MAXIMUS worked with each department to establish a comprehensive list of items requiring review and fees for the City. This list was customized to fit the business practices and desired fee structure of the departments. Step 2: As with the New Construction fees, the departments provided time data (estimates or actual) for plan check and/or inspection related processes for each miscellaneous item. Step 3: The NEXUS model multiplied the total time for each item by the average productive hourly rate for the departments (Task 1) to determine the total actual processing cost for that item. Task 4: Determine the Actual Costs for Miscellaneous Sub -trade Inspections (Mechanical/Plumbing/Gas/Electrical — MP&E's) The City needs to maintain a set of "fixture based" sub -trade fees for those permits which do not lend themselves to a square footage based fee (electrical panel permits, water heater permits, etc.) and/or for projects that involve only selected components. These items are often referred to as "Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical" items, or "MP&E's." The steps for calculating the MP&E fees are described below: Step 1: MAXIMUS worked with the departments to establish a comprehensive list of items requiring review and fees for the City. This list was customized to fit the business practices and desired fee structure of the departments. April 30, 2004 Page 15 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Step 2: As with the New Construction and Miscellaneous Item fees, the departments provided time data (estimates or actual) for plan check and/or inspection related processes for each miscellaneous item. Step 3: The NEXUS model multiplied the total time for each item by the average productive hourly rate for the departments (Task 1) to determine the total actual processing cost for that item. Task S. Cross -Check and Validate Results As part of the analytical process, MAXIMUS compared a representative sample of key time estimates and other data to other known examples (from other communities, etc.). In addition, we compared the calculated results of staffing consumption and revenues with actual current levels to determine the basic reasonableness of the results. We discussed each initial discrepancy with city staff to identify necessary refinements or existing valid explanations. Task 6. Identify Revenue Impacts Once we established the unit cost differences between the current fees and the potential fees identified in the study, MAXIMUS was able to multiply this unit cost difference by the anticipated volume (activity levels) to determine the theoretical revenue changes that could result from fully implementing all of the fees at 100% cost recovery. We consider this revenue "theoretical," simply because we are uncertain as to the level of fees the City will eventually implement. In fact, we would anticipate a less than 100% implementation at the full cost levels. Methodology for Other Departments and Functions (MAXFEE) For the other fee departments included in the study, MAXIMUS used the standard methodology that we have employed for hundreds of similar studies: MAXFEE. This method is a unit cost "build-up" approach that calculates each cost component for individual fees/services—with the assistance of specially designed software. Initially, MAXIMUS worked with City personnel to develop time estimates for each fee -based service. Based upon these estimates, we calculated the direct cost (salaries and benefits) attributed to each fee. With this information we allocated the cost of services and supplies, as well as other related expenses. We also distributed the appropriate amount of Citywide and departmental overhead. As a crosscheck, we ensured that 100% of each employee's time is accounted for in the model. We also identified existing "cross costs," (or support from other departments), and incorporated it into the analysis. The end result of this analysis is a list of full actual costs for individual services. By multiplying the actual cost for each service by the annual volume of the service, we were able April 30, 2004 Page 16 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT to identify potential annual revenue. By multiplying the same volume by the current fees, we were able to calculate comparable revenue under the current fees. The difference between the two annual revenues represents the "gap" or existing surplus/subsidy caused by under or overcharges within individual fees. Methodology for Community Services MAXIMUS employed two different methodologies to evaluate the costs of services provided by Community Services. For traditional Community Services activities and services (i.e., recreation programs, community events, facilities, etc.), we used a "cost recovery" analysis. For plan check and inspections related to construction and development, we used our standard MAXFEE methodology. The dual approach was necessary, due to the differences in the two categories of fees and the available data. The "cost recovery" fee analysis methodology for Community Services activities differed somewhat from the standard unit cost build-up approach we used for the other departments and divisions in this study. Due to limitations on available data and the flexibility of the various fees, the department and MAXIMUS decided to utilize an overall functional cost -recovery basis to determine service costs. We grouped similar services into functions, such as contract classes, sports, and day camp, and determined the overall current cost of these programs, which involved the distribution of staff and related support and overhead costs. By factoring in the annual revenue for those services, we were able to determine average annual recovery for those services and identify potential fee adjustments accordingly. Alternative Fee Analysis Method — Time Tracking Local government fee analysis is an imperfect endeavor, as it normally seeks to standardize charges for services that may have variable inputs, processes, and outputs. Admittedly, the most accurate and comprehensive approach to determine fees is to charge each individual fee payer for the actual time (converted to actual cost), materials, support, and overhead necessary to provide the specific government services to him/her. Under this "time tracking" model, every charge would be unique, since this approach requires the City to track all costs associated with each particular project, including the specific allocation of City staff time shared between projects. The time tracking approach would result in a significant administrative burden for direct and support staff to constantly track and calculate costs and fees to each individual customer. The result would be greater cost (direct and overhead), loss of efficiency, and time delays as staff members are forced to devote additional administrative and direct time (both charged to the customer) to track the time. The complexity of this approach (i.e., variable staff costs, variable time consumption, variable material consumption, variable overhead and indirect charges, etc.) is also contrary to the efficient practices and the approaches used by many business enterprises that provide a high volume of services to a wide variety of customers each year. April 30, 2004 Page 17 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT MAXIMUS generally recommends against the "time tracking" approach for most user fees. First of all, the potential greater accuracy of tracking and charging for individual consumption of government services is likely outweighed by the additional burdens and probable costs borne by the customer. In addition, without standardized fees, MAXIMUS is concerned about the potential for impact to the jurisdiction and its customers from Parkinson's Law of Unintended Consequences. This informal maxim states that "work efforts will expand to fill the time budgeted to complete the task." In periods of low activity, staff may devote more time to individual tasks (because they have the time and need to fill it), and pass the additional costs on to the customers. This situation causes inordinately high fees to be charged to the applicant. In our opinion, standardized fees hold the following advantages: • Applicants/customers can know their expenditures before making applications to the City and plan their business accordingly. • The City will not have to coordinate (or deal with) requests from customers for specific staff members to service them. (e.g., "I want Jim Smith to review my plans, because he is faster and less expensive.") • The City can better predict its revenue stream based upon anticipated volumes, which is a more stable basis than billable work hours. • Fixed fees encourage greater productivity and efficiency, since there is no incentive for staff to extend individual projects to bring more revenue into the City. At the very least, fixed fees eliminate the potential for the community to perceive that such an incentive exists. Despite our general discouragement, in some special cases the time tracking approach might be optimal, such as when the local jurisdiction has a compelling need for accuracy and defensibility due to litigation, outside reporting requirements, or significant gaps in current data collection. In addition, a specific time tracking approach may be the only feasible method in unique or extraordinary land development or building cases that do not reasonably fit within the existing fee structure (e.g., stadium, aquarium, amusement park, etc.). April 30, 2004 Page 18 of 33 MaxInnus INGS AND RESULTS General Findings City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Recognizing the specific benefit of a particular user fee service to an applicant, our generalization to a client is that they set most fee levels to recover the full cost of providing the service. However, this first suggestion is often tempered by the fiscal, political, and economic realities within the local jurisdiction. Following discussions with City staff and an understanding of the City's policy direction, we identified some proposed fee levels that should remain consistent with current fee levels. Overall, actual increased revenue may vary due to extraneous factors, such as elasticity of demand and construction and other service activity. The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision -makers with the basic data needed for setting fees. Pricing levels for City services is an issue the City must address based on social, economic, and other policy considerations. The decision matrix (page 8) is designed to assist in this matter. In considering fee increases, the City should recall the basic definition of a user fee: a service that an individual or group receives for his/her personal, economic, or physical benefit, as opposed to a benefit serving the community as a whole. As a cost of service (fee) study, the project did not seek to determine answers to operations oriented issues faced by the City, nor did it seek to provide recommendations for improvements to City processes or policies. Instead, the purpose was to help the City identify and understand its cost of service —as currently provided. Consequently, our analysis does not result in traditional "findings" regarding the operational effectiveness or efficiency of the department operations. Instead, our findings represent the outcome of the study: various lists of services and their related costs (potential fees). This section of the report presents these results. In reviewing the report and its conclusions, the following points should be noted: 1. Summary numbers are on the full cost basis and include all program, divisional, departmental, and citywide overhead costs. 2. For analytical purposes, current revenue is the product of the current fee multiplied by unit volume (except where specified). Since the study's unit volume was established to represent management's best estimate for the "normal" annual volume, it may be at variance with actual or budgeted revenues. Apri130, 2004 Page 19 of 33 MAXIMUS° City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Summary of Results The results of the MAXIMUS cost analysis demonstrate the full actual cost of providing each of the fee -related services included in the study. By annualizing and combining the results for each fee, we identified the potential revenue impacts of the current fees and fees hypothetically set at the full (100%) cost -recovery levels. The following table illustrates these impacts: Summary of Actual Cost and Recommended Fee Results POTENTIAL FULL COST: CURRENT REVENUE: POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: Annual Revenue REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue at Recommended GROWTH Department / Division (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Fees (@ Rec'd Fees) Building & Safety $ 2,159,000 $ 1,649,000 $ 2,159,000 $ 510,000 Fire Prevention (Bldg) $ 263,000 $ 74,000 $ 263,000 $ 189,000 Planning $ 3,352,000 $ 474,000 $ 952,000 $ 478,000 Public Works $ 2,089,000 $ 1,656,000 $ 1,960,000 $ 304,000 Community Services $ 6,705,000 $ 528,000 $ 2,409,000 $ 1,881,000 Fire Prevention (Other) $ 1,466,000 $ 129,000 $ 733,000 $ 604,000 Police $ 9,642,000 $ 54,000 $ 128,000 $ 74,000 TOTALS: $ 25,676,000 $ 4,564,000 $ 8,604,000 $ 4,040,000 (Note: For presentation purposes in this report, the figures in both tables are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, in order to avoid the implication of single dollar accuracy, which does not exist due to the necessary use of various estimates and assumptions throughout the project.) The detail from which these figures were derived exists in a voluminous series of worksheets and computer models. MAXIMUS provided much of this detail to the City under separate cover. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit -by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. April 30, 2004 Page 20 of 33 n A A v r ^ A I iS. City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Key Study Assumptions and Issues Time "Estimates" As discussed previously in this report, MAXIMUS believes that an actual time -tracking approach is not usually reasonable or cost effective for user fees. Consequently, our fee models employ standardized, averaged, or estimated times for the completion of fee -related tasks. While this approach is imperfect, it can still easily meet a standard of "reasonableness" with regards to the linkage between the fees and the cost of services, particularly over the course of multiple projects and a full fiscal year. In the study for the City of Temecula, the departments were able to identify some existing data or develop statistical information to support the time consumption data used to populate the fee analysis model. In many cases, however, the department did not have existing data and had to rely upon time estimates prepared by knowledgeable staff and managers. This approach is reasonable and appropriate, because the experienced staff and managers of the City of Temecula are the preeminent experts on the subject of work requirements in the City of Temecula, particularly considering the unique level of service and staff capabilities in the City. In short, nobody knows the business of development services in Temecula better than the department staff and managers. There are no other sources of information that are currently qualified to reliably contradict the time estimates provided by the City. The time estimates provided by the City underwent a rigorous internal review process that entailed multiple iterations and modifications until all parties were satisfied that the estimates reflected reality. Department staff spent a great deal of time and effort considering and debating each time estimate, until they were certain that the estimates reflected reality. In addition, the department conducted some "spot checks" of actual data to reaffirm the accuracy of the estimates. At the beginning of the study, MAXIMUS had asked the department to provide estimates that represented standard projects —without skewing for "best -case" and "worst -case" scenarios, and the department utilized this approach. To support the department's final estimations, MAXIMUS also conducted a "reasonableness test" by reviewing the time estimates and making sample comparisons with the results of other NEXUS studies we have completed. Any anomalies were either corrected or satisfactorily justified. Fee Level and Revenue Comparisons As part of this study, the City and MAXIMUS created new fees and restructured many of the existing fees though consolidations, separations, and other requested fee changes. We also converted some from a valuation -based fee approach to the cost -based NEXUS approach; and we changed others from fixed fees to deposit -based hourly rates. Due to the many structural changes to the fees, it became imprecise to compare the calculated costs with current fees to determine exact existing subsidies or surpluses in some fees. For some fees, the fee categories/types are different, the existing activity volume statistics no longer apply, and the April 30, 2004 Page 21 of 33 MAXIMUS" City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT current fee levels are no longer comparable. This limitation affects the individual fee comparisons, as well as the total revenue that results from all fees during the year. As a result of these issues, there are some limitations to the utility of the "potential revenue" figures indicated in our summary worksheets. This information is intended to inform the City of the relative level of change to its revenues that could result from the adoption of the fee levels identified by MAXIMUS. In other words, we do not recommend that the City rely upon the full amount of this revenue for critical operations or purchases, as a variety of factors could result in significant changes. Instead, we recommend a conservative approach regarding the new revenue assumptions. Services Included in New Construction (Building Permits) The calculation of the cost of "New Construction" for each occupancy type and for the departments required a basic assumption regarding the types of services included in the time estimates. In general, the two departments desired to make each New Construction fee comprehensive by including all related services in a single fee (one per department), including the plan check and inspections of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical items. The only exception to this approach was the exclusion of sprinkler systems, alarm systems, and miscellaneous Fire Department regulated systems in the fire plan check and inspection fees. Mixed -Use Occupancies (Building Permits) In some cases, a building may include two or more different occupancy types (e.g., retail store and residential and restaurant) that cross over the fee categories established in the NEXUS model. To implement (charge) fees in these circumstances, the City should simply determine the amount of square footage occupied by each occupancy type and calculate fees separately for each of the occupancy types. Non -Fee Services The "fee" analysis conducted by MAXIMUS included all development related services, except impact fees, that the City provides, as well as a series of other functional fees. Within these functions (departments), we calculated the cost of the services whether the City currently charges a fee or not, so the cost analysis includes services for which the City does not currently charge a fee. Future initiation of fees for these services is at the discretion of the City. Deposit -Fixed Fee Conversions Whenever possible, MAXIMUS attempted to identify potential fixed fees for City services. Given our belief that fixed fees are generally best (as discussed earlier in this report), we worked with City staff to maintain fixed fees. In some cases, this approach was opposed by the City or proved unfeasible, due to radical variations in service levels and/or costs that make April 30, 2004 Page 22 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT fixed fees unrealistic. In those instances, we calculated the full -cost -recovery hourly rate and a representative cost to establish the potential deposit level. "Recommended" Fees Cities have a variety of reasons to conduct fee studies, depending on their community goals, City Council direction, and executive intent. These reasons include: • Increase revenue • Encourage or discourage certain activity in the community (e.g., development) • Ensure compliance with state and local fee limitations • Prepare documentation for litigation • Develop detailed cost and other management information for additional analysis Normally, MAXIMUS recommends that a City increase (or decrease) most fees to the "full cost" level to maximize revenues, since this is the predominant City goal we encounter. However, the City Council is the ultimate decision -maker regarding the level of individual fees, and they will set fees after considering a variety of related factors, including policy decisions and City staff input. During this study, the City indicated to MAXIMUS that the general policy regarding recovery rates or subsidy levels is to set fees at 100% cost recovery wherever feasible. As a result, our recommended fees default to 100% cost recovery, except in a few instances where department management indicated a strong desire or past Council direction to provide a subsidy. In these cases, MAXIMUS provided conceptual guidance and worked with City staff and management to identify the City's desired fee, which may differ significantly from the calculated "full cost." MAXIMUS presented the resultant fees as the "recommended" fees shown in this study (appendices). We anticipate that City staff may further modify the fee levels from our recommendations to accommodate policies or intent unknown to MAXIMUS at the time of our study. Multi -Year Fees (Updates) MAXIMUS developed the fee analysis based upon FY 2002-03 final budget figures provided by the City. Once fee adjustments are implemented, we recommend the City update the fee schedules periodically to account for changes in costs over time. The development and use of an automatic fee increase mechanism normally provides a level of convenience and efficiency, because staff does not have to take the time to recalculate cost recovery percentages each year, yet the fees will increase to recover some of the budget increases. However, the use of a sub- optimal approach can result in cost increases significantly outpacing the fee increases. In order to ensure that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect the actual growth in cost, MAXIMUS has identified a series of alternatives: April 30, 2004 Page 23 of 33 Maxinnus City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Alternative 1: Update the Fee Model Annually The most accurate method to ensure accurate fee increases is to recalculate fees based upon new staffing and expenditure numbers each year. However, this approach would likely be the most time consuming (and expensive) of the alternatives, as it requires significant financial analysis and a repeat of the approval process. Alternative 2: Apply CPI Factors Annually A number of CPI factors are available for use by the City to establish pre -determined fee increases. The City could use regional factors determined by the state of California, industry/commodity-specific CPI factors, or regional factors determined by a variety of local groups (Chamber of Commerce, etc.). The key to this approach is to use the predicted factors, not one-year historical factors. As communities have learned in the past few years with gasoline and electricity costs, economic factors can change quickly and cause historical factors to be obsolete. However, the use of predictive factors can also be problematic for the same reason. Tying City user fee increases to cost factors that may or may not reflect reality in the departments is a potentially inaccurate approach. A better approach would be to link the increases with known factors and factors that most effectively influence departmental costs. Alternative 3: City Labor Costs (Recommended Alternative) Labor costs comprise the bulk of expenses for most City departments. Consequently, changes in labor costs drive the overall change in department costs. To better recover increased costs, the City can insert into the rate schedule a fee increase factor that is based upon known and anticipated labor cost increases, such as programmed cost of living raises, association agreements, salary step increases, benefits increases, and other salary or benefit enhancements. Labor costs are generally easier to predict than most other costs, since the City has greater control over its internal costs. Furthermore, common CPI factors are not specific to the regional economy surrounding Temecula. As a result, MAXIMUS believes that a factor based upon specific labor costs would be the most accurate indicator of overall departmental cost increases. Jurisdictional Comparisons As a tangent to a cost of service or fee study, many Cities are tempted to compare their fees to the fees of other local or similar jurisdictions. The specific purposes of these comparisons vary, but they are generally intended to identify "where we stand." In effect, most jurisdictions do not want to have the highest fees in the area and suffer the resultant notoriety and political ramifications of being at the high end of the spectrum. April 30, 2004 Page 24 of 33 MAXIMUS° City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Within the context of a fee calculation study, however, fee comparisons between jurisdictions have very little practical utility —and could be quite misleading. Admittedly, comparisons can help City leaders understand the market environment to help make market -based or political decisions, but such comparisons do not reveal any objective information or identify the true relationship of the fees to costs to help make cost -based decisions. The results of a fee level comparison reveal what other jurisdictions are charging for certain defined services, but not what those activities cost to provide. As a result, such a comparison usually has no value in a cost of service study, such as the fee study completed by MAXIMUS. Fee comparisons between jurisdictions have little constructive analytical value, because every jurisdiction and its fees are different and may not be based on actual cost. Many specific factors can create differences that affect cost, and examples of these factors include: • Fees are defined differently. The same "fee" with the same name or intent may include or exclude certain activities or sub -services, which compromise any "match - up." • Direct costs for similar services may be very different, due to varying pay scales, benefits, productivity factors, and other cost components. • Indirect costs may vary greatly among jurisdictions, due to supervision levels, support structures, organizational structures, cost allocation methodologies, and frequency of allocation updates. • Different jurisdictions provide varying service levels, both in terms of quantity and quality, which affects the staffing levels, productivity, and other factors that drive the cost. Since every jurisdiction is different, an in-depth investigation and analysis of comparable jurisdiction operations and fees would be necessary to make a valid ("apples to apples") comparison. Otherwise, any comparative data would most likely be cosmetic in nature and possibly misleading. Consequently, without a comprehensive review of fee programs in other jurisdictions, MAXIMUS is hesitant to provide any comparative fee levels, in order to avoid the mistaken impression that the fees are truly comparable. Building & Safety Fee Results Summary Description The Building Division is responsible for plan checking all building plans and inspecting all phases of construction to ensure the life, safety and health of residents, employees and others in the City as well as to ensure compliance with all building, electrical, plumbing, disabled access, energy and other applicable codes. April 30, 2004 Page 25 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT The City of Temecula uses the method adopted by most municipalities in setting building permit and plan check fees, basing fees on the adopted fee schedule and on construction valuation tables published periodically by the building officials' national organization. For this fee study, MAXIMUS worked with the City to utilize the NEXUS fee approach that does not rely upon the valuation tables to establish fee levels. The City adopted this approach. Findings The cost analysis of Building fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $506,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City -provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. The detailed "findings" of a NEXUS study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. Appendix 1 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for the Building division. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: REVENUE: REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue Annual Revenue at GROWTH (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Recommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fees) $ 2,159,000 $ 1,649,000 $ 2,159,000 $ 510,000 For most building and development -related fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. Certain exceptions to this "rule" exist for fees the City wants to administer without discouraging compliance (e.g., water heater permits). The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 1) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Fire Prevention (Building -Related) Fee Results Summary Description The Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for plan checking building plans and inspecting the construction to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and others in the City, as well as to ensure compliance with all fire -related codes. For this fee study, MAXIMUS used the same cost analysis method as we used for Building & Safety: NEXUS. This method represents a change from the current method for setting fees, which also involved the valuation approach. April 30, 2004 Page 26 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temeeula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT The Bureau also conducts plan checks and inspections for fire -related systems, hazardous activities and materials, public facilities, and other services not generally related to the construction of new occupancies and structures in the city. MAXIMUS evaluated these non - building -related services using the MAXFEE model, and the results are presented in a separate section later in this report. Findings The cost analysis of Fire Prevention fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $189,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. As with the Building & Safety study, the detailed "findings" of the Fire NEXUS study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. Appendix 2 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for the Fire Prevention Bureau. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: REVENUE: REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue Annual Revenue at GROWTH (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Recommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fees) $ 263,000 $ 74,000 $ 263,000 $ 189,000 For the Fire Prevention fees related to new construction and miscellaneous structures, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. We did not identify any obvious exceptions to the full cost fee setting approach. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 2) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Planning Fee Results Summary Description The Planning Department is responsible for assisting the community in planning for its future by preparing, compiling, and disseminating information on land use, housing, transportation, and other issues that affect the City; facilitating the public process through which plans and policies are adopted; processing development applications; making recommendations on long- range planning issues and specific development proposals; and conducting environmental review consistent with State Law. April 30, 2004 Page 27 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Findings The cost analysis of Planning fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $475,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City -provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. The detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets and reports that the study produces. MAXIMUS provided the voluminous detail and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the City under separate cover. Appendix 3 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for Planning. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: REVENUE: REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue Annual Revenue at GROWTH (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Recommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fees) $ 3,352,000 $ 474,000 $ 952,000 $ 478,000 For most planning fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. Certain exceptions to this "rule" exist for fees the City wants to administer without discouraging compliance or where external factors (e.g., state statutes for duplication fees) dictate the fees. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 3) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Public Works Fee Results Summary Description The Public Works Department reviews land development proposals, zoning matters and environmental studies to ensure compliance with City and State regulations. It also conducts inspections of construction activity and regulates various activities in the City that impact the local right-of-ways or infrastructure. Findings The cost analysis of Public Works fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $305,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. April 30, 2004 Page 28 of 33 nnaxInnus City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY The detailed "findings" of a MAXFEodstudy u esy are primarily MAXIMUSprovided the detailed in the voluminous detail worksheets and reports that the study p and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the (potential fees) under separate cover. Appendix 4 of this report contains the summarized results Works. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: : FULL:Cost CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL REVENUEAll Annuaof REVENUE: REVENUE: Annual Revenue at GROWTH Ss fee Annual Revenue at Current Fees Recommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fees anee) _ x , Ar% nnn S 1,960,000 $ 304,000 , MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost For most public works engineering fees recovery level. Certain exceptions to this "rule" exist for fees the City wants to administer without discouraging compliance or where external factors (e.g., state statutes for wide load/oversize fees) dictate the the full cost and recommended fee es identified in our summary findings (Appendix 4) present Due to the wide variance of project types and a likely inability to determine a standard fee for off -site and on -site improvement projects, MAXIMUS and the City agreed to determine an adjustment factor for the current fees at their existing bases, rather than new fixed fees. This approach affected Public Works fees #9, 10, 48, and 53. Accordingly, MAXIMUS calculated the is ined recovering the actualf cost. Consequently, no Our changes is necessary for t the ary fotrthese fees. fees are Community Services Fee Results Summary Description Community Services provides a variety of recreation services and community activities, as well as operations and maintenance for parks and other facilities. In addition, Cottununity Services conducts plan checks and inspections related to development activities that impact parks, open space, and some community facilities and infrastructure. Findings The cost analysis of Community Services fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set much lower than actual cost. As a result, the annual full actual cost of all services is approximately $1,881,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City -provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level —and could recover fees for all services. However, this figure is not entirely feasible, since the City is not likely to set fees at this level, due to traditional subsidization of recreation programs. 30, 2004 April Page 29 of 33 MAXIMUS' City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY As with the rest of the fee departments, the detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. Appendix 5 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for the Community Services Department. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: COST:W528,000 POTENTIAL POTENTIAL al Cost ofREVENUE: REVENUE jFULL Services Annual Revenue at GROWTH and non-fee)ecommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fee: 6 6,705,000 2,409,000 $ 1,881,000 The tables in Appendix 5 show two separate fee categories. The first category includes the programs evaluated under the "cost recovery" approach, which consists of fees 140, 59, 59a, 60, and 60a. The full cost presented for these "fees" represents the annual cost for that program. We also presented the existing and potential recovery rates. In order to determine the full cost of the unit fees, the City would need to adjust the individual current and/or historical fees by the percentage indicated. The second part of the fee tables includes fees 41-58 and 61-100. This format is consistent with our standard MAXFEE approach, as it shows the unit cost for each service provided by the department. For almost all Community Services program fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a level less than 100% cost recovery. The types of services provided and the likelihood that citizens will pay the fees at the actual cost level dictate that the City should provide a certain level of subsidy. In collaboration with MAXIMUS, the City determined desired fee levels, and we documented those levels as the "recommended" fees. For all of the development and building related fees, MAXIMUS recommends 100% cost recovery. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 5) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Fire Prevention (Other/Non-Building) Fee Results Summary Description The Fire Prevention Bureau conducts plan checks and inspections for fire -related systems, hazardous activities and materials, public facilities, and other services that are secondary or occupancies and structures in the city. MAXIMUS unrelated to the construction of new evaluated these non -building -related services using the MAXFEE model, as opposed to the NEXUS model used for the construction -related fees. April 30, 2004 Page 30 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Findin s The cost analysis of Fire Prevention (non -Building) fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $604,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City -provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. However, this figure may not be entirely feasible, since the City may not set fees at this level. Some fire fees are set at a level less than 100% cost recovery to encourage participation and compliance with inspection programs. As with the rest of the fee departments, the detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. Appendix 6 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for Fire Prevention. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: REVENUE: REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue Annual Revenue at GROWTH (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Recommended Fees (@ Rec'd Fees) $ 1,466,000 $ 129,000 $ 733,000 $ 604,000 Without a definitive understanding of City policies or intent in this area, MAXIMUS recommends setting Fire Prevention fees at a 100% cost recovery level. The City should evaluate whether fees set at this level would discourage compliance and/or participation in programs that enhance public safety. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 6) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Due to the wide variance of project types and a likely inability to determine a standard fee for off -site and on -site improvement projects, MAXIMUS and the City agreed to use the same basis for the Fire fees as used by Public Works: a percentage of the engineer's cost estimate for the improvements. This approach affected Fire fees #94 and 95. Since Fire does not currently have a fee for these services, MAXIMUS calculated a new fee designed to recover the cost of these services. To maintain consistency, the basis for the new fee levels was the same improvement cost totals identified for Public Works. The resulting fees for Fire Prevention (Other) are shown in the following table: Fee # Fee Name Recommended Fee 94 On -Site Improvement Plans 0.7452% 95 Off -Site Improvement Plans 0.6831 % April 30, 2004 Page 31 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Police Fee Results Summary Description In addition to its patrol and commonly -known public safety functions, the Police Department provides a series of other services, including permit issuance for certain businesses, fingerprinting, alarm response, and review of planning applications for their impacts on public safety resources and infrastructure. Findings The cost analysis of Police Department fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $74,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. As with the rest of the fee departments, the detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. Appendix 7 of this report contains the summarized results (potential fees) for the Police Department. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: CURRENT POTENTIAL POTENTIAL Annual Cost of REVENUE: REVENUE: REVENUE All Services Annual Revenue Annual Revenue at GROWTH (fee and non -fee) at Current Fees Recommended Fees (r@ Rec'd Fees) $ 9,642,000 $ 54,000 $ 128,000 $ 74,000 For most Police Department fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. Several exceptions to this exist for fees the City wants to administer without discouraging compliance or where other factors influence the City's desired fee levels. Examples of these fees include Government Exempt Ponds and Well Destruction. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 7) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. April 30, 2004 Page 32 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT CONCLUSIO The City of Temecula engaged MAXIMUS to determine the full cost of fee -related services provided to its citizens and businesses. MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies to calculate the cost of the services, and we used our experience to help the City develop reasonable potential fees. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers as a whole, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit - by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. With the information gained from this study, City leaders are in a much better position to understand their costs and existing subsidy conditions. The City can use this information to make more informed decisions and set fees to meet the fiscal and policy goals and objectives of the City. April 30, 2004 Page 33 of 33 MAXIMUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I Fit, II FR Construction Types: II 1-HR, III 1-HR, V 1-HR Construction Types: II N. III N. IV, V N UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost @Threshold Size Costfor Each Additional 100 s.L' Base Cost @Threshold Size Costfor Each Additional 100 s.E' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' A-1 Theater $0 $106.66 $0 $88.89 n.a. n.a. A-2 Restaurant 10,000 $10,666 $28.61 $8,889 $23.84 ne. n.a. 25,000 $14,958 $21.94 $12,465 $18.28 ne. n.a. 50,000 $20,444 $5.57 $17,036 $4.64 n.a. n.a. 100,000 $23,228 $23.23 $19.357 $19.36 n.a. n.a. Theater $0 $77.00 $0 $64.16 n.a. n.a. Restaurant 10,000 $7.700 $20.90 $6,416 $17.41 n.a. n.a. Tenant Improvements 25,000 $10,834 $16A5 $9,029 $13.45 n.a. n.a. 50,000 $14,871 $4.08 $12,392 $3.40 n.a. n.a. FA-3 100,000 $16,909 $16.91 $14.091 $14.09 n.a. ne. Auditorium $0 $294.65 $0 $245.54 $0 $196.43 Church 5,000 $14,733 $77.94 $12,277 $64.95 $9,822 $51.96 Restaurant 12,500 $20,578 $59.21 $17,148 $49.34 $13,719 $39.47 - 25,000 $27,979 $15.12 $23,316 $12.60 $18,6531 $10.08 50,000 $31,760 $63.52 $26,4671 $52.93 $21,174 $4 M A-3 Auditwunn $0 $233.90 $0 $194.91 $0 $155.93 Church 5,000 $11,695 $62.04 $9,746 $51.70 $7,797 $41.36 Restaurant 12,500 $16,348 $47.21 $13,623 $39.34 $10,898 $31.47 Tenant Improvements 25,000 $22,249 $12.05 $18,541 $10.04 $14,833 $8.03 50,000 $25.260 $50.52 $21.050 $42.10 $16.840 $33.68 B AII'B' Occupancies $0 $236.94 $0 $197.45 $0 $157.96 (non -repetitive) 5,000 $11,847 $66.22 $9,872 $55.18 $7.898 $44.15 12,500 $16,813 $52.13 $14,011 $43.44 $11,209 $34.75 [Please complete all rows- 25,000 $23,329 $13.00 $19,441 $10.83 $16,553 $8.67 This section also used for scaling) 50,000 $26,579 $53.16 $22,149 $44.30 $17.720 $35.44 B AII'B' Occupancies $0 $157.96 $0 $131.63 $0 $105.30 Tenant improvements 2,500 $3:949 $89.91 $3,291 $74.93 $2,633 $59.94 6,250 $7,321 $46.90 $6.101 $39.08 $4.880 $31.27 12,500 $10,252 $32.56 $8,543 $27.14 $6,835 $21.71 25.000 $14,322 $57.29 $11,935 $47.74 $9,548 $38.19 E-1 [see UBC class designatbn) - $0 $212.63 $0 $0 $141.76 E-2 2,000 $4,253 $63.701$3.544L $2,835 $42.46 5,000 $6,164 $52.22 $4,109 $34.81 10.000 $8,774 $12.68 $5,850 $8.45 $10,042 $50.21 $6.695 833.47 %Plan Check % Inspection 46% 54% 48 % 52 % 43% 57% 43% 57% 55% 45% 36 % 64% J31 69% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 1 of 18 / V t!'+A3pFEPPV US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I FR. II FR Construction Types: 111-HR, III I-HR,V I-HR Constriction Types: II N. IS N, IV, VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.C' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 SA.' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.t' E-1 [see UBC class designation] - $0 $136.69 $0 $113.91 $0 $91.13 E-2 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $2,734 $40.39 $2,278 $33.66 $1,823 $26.93 5,000 $3,946 $32.85 $3,288 $27.38 $2,630 $21.90 10,000 $5,588 $8.02 $4,657 $6.68 $3,725 $5.35 20,000 $6,390 $31.95 $5,325 $26.63 $4,260 $21.30 E-3 [see UBC class designation] $0 $211.73 $0 $176.44 $0 $141.16 - 2,000 $4,235 $61.35 $3,529 $51.13 $2.823 $40.90 5.000 $6,075 $49.35 $5,063 $41.13 $4,050 $32.90 10,000 $8,543 $12.13 $7,1A $10.11 $5,695 $8.09 20,000 $9,756 $48.78 $8,130 $40.65 $6.504 $32.52 E-3 [see UBC class designation] $0 $169.39 $0 $141.16 $0 $112.92 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $3,388 $49.08 $2,823 $40.90 $2,258 $32.72 5,000 $4,860 $39.48 $4,050 $32.90 $3,240 $26.32 10.000 $6,834 $9.71 $5,695 $8.09 $4,556 $6.47 20,000 $7,805 $39.03 $6.504 $32.52 $5,2031 $26.02 F-1 [see UBC class designation] $0 $111.78 $0 593.15 $0 $74.52 F_2 5,000 E5,589 $30.49 $4,658 $25.41 $3,726 $20.32 12,500 $7,876 $23.63 $6,563 $19.69 $6,251 $15.75 25,000 $101830 $5.96 $9,025 $4.96 $7,220 $3.97 50.000 $12,318 $24.64 $10,265 $20.53 $8,212F $16.42 F-1 Isee UBC class designation] $0 $49.82 $0 $41.51 $D E33.21 F-2 Tenant Improvements 5,000 $2,491 $14.55 $2,076 $12.13 $1,661 $9.70 12,500 $3,582 $11.76 $2,985 $9b0 $2,388 $7.84 - 25,000 $5,053 $2.88 $4,211 $2.40 $3,369 $1.92 50,000 $5,774 $11.55 $4,811 $9.62 $3,8 99 $7.70 H-1 [see UBC class designation] s0 $540-70 $0 $450.58 $0 $360w47 H-2 1,000 $5,407 $171.99 $4,506 $143.32 $3,605 $114.66 H-3 2,500 $7.987 $145.53 $6.656 $121.28 $5,325 $97.02 - 5,000 $11,625 $34.61 $9,688 $28.84 $7,750 E23.07 10,000 $13,356 $133.56 $11,130 $111.30 $8,904 $89.04 H-1 [see UBC class designation] - $0 $431.34 $0 $359.45 $0 $287.56 H-2 Tenant Improvements 1.000 $4,313 $135.76 $3,595 E113.13 $2,876 $90.51 H-3 2,500 $6.350 $114.26 $5,292 $95.22 $4,233 $76.17 5.000 $9,206 $27.27 $7,672 $22.72 $6.138 $18.18 10,000 $10,570 $105.70 $8,808 $88.08 $7,047 $70.47 %Plan Check % Inspection 67% 33% 62% 38% 62% 38% 49% 51% 64 % 36% 82% 18% 80% 20% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 2 of 18 M!^IMIW IUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) ConsWction Types: I FR, II FR ConsWcdon Types: 111-11R III11-HR,V I-HR Construction Types: II N, III N, IV, VN UBC Class H-4 H5 UBC Occupancy Type [see UBC class designation] Project Size Threshold 1,000 2,500 Base Cost @Threshold Size $0 $2,734 $4,010 Cost for Each Additlonal 100 s.f.' E273.41 $85.04 $71.13 Base Cost @Threshold Size $0 $2,278 13,341 Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' $227.84 $70.86 $59.27 Base Cost QThreshold Size $0 $1,823 $2,673 Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' $182.28 $56.69 $47.42 5.000 $5,788 $17.04 Y4,823 $14.20 $3,859 $11.36 10,000 $6,640 $66.40 $5,533 $55.33 $4,427 $44.27 H-4 HS [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - 1.000 2,500 $0 $2,541 $3,645 $254.08 $73.62 $59.22 $0 $2,117 $3,038 $211.73 $61.35 $49.35 $0 $1,694 $2.430 $169.39 $49.08 $39.48 5.000 $5,126 $14.56 $4,271 $12.13 $3,417 $9.71 10,000 $5,854 $58.54 $4,878 $48.78 $3,903 Y39.03 H46 H-7 [see UBC class designation] - 2,000 5,000 $0 $5.198 $7,290 $259.92 $69.73 $53.47 $0 $4,332 $6,075 $216.60 $58.11 $44.56 $0 $3,466 $4,860 $46 5. $46.49 $35.65 10.000 $9,964 $13.57 $8,303 $11.31 $6,643 $9.05 20,000 $11,321 $56.61 $9,434 $47.17 $7,547 $37.74 H-6 H-7 [see UBC class designation] Tenant improvements - 2,000 5,000 $0 $3,623 $5,079 $181.14 $48.53 $37.19 $0 $3,019 $4,232 $150.95 $40.45 $30.99 $0 $2,415 $3,386 $120.76 $32.36 $24.79 _ 10,000 $6.938 $9.44 $5,782 $7.87 E4,625 $6.30 20.000 $7,883 $39.41 $6,569 $32.84 $5,255 $26.28 I-1.1 [see UBC class designation] - 10,000 $0 $9,775 $97.75 $28.66 $0 $8,146 $81.46 $23.88 $0 $6,517 $65.17 $19.11 25.000 $14,074 $23.21 $11,729 $19.34 $9,383 $15.47 50,000 $19,877 $5.68 $16,564 $4.73 $13,252 $3.79 _ 100,000 $22,718 $22.72 $18,932 $18.93 $15,145 $15.15 I-1.1 [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 10,000 25,000 $0 $7,312 $10,591 $73.12 $21.86 $17.90 $0 $6,093 $8.826 $60.93 $18.22 $14.92 $0 $4,875 $7,061 $48.75 $14.57 $11.93 50,000 $15,067 $4.35 $12,556 $3.62 $10,044 $2.90 _ 100,000 $17,242 $17.24 $14,368 $14.37 $11,494 $11.49 1-1.2 [see UBC class designation] - 2,000 $0 $5,021 $251.03 $74.76 $0 $4,184 $209.19 $62.30 SO $3.347 $167.35 $49.84 5,000 $7,263 $61.08 $6,053 $50.90 $4,842 $40.72 10,000 $10,317 $14.86 $8,598 $12.39 $6,878 $9.91 20,000 $11,804 $59.02 $9,836 $49.18 $7,869 539.35 %Plan Check % Inspection 78% 22 % 62% 38 % 46% 54% 46% 55% 65 % 35% 69% 31% 68% 32% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 3 of 18 ! V t!'YP'ItI9`Y'tUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Con gm.don Types: I FR, II FR Constmct on Types: 111-HR, III 1-HR,V I-HR Construction Types: It N, III N, N, VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost l�Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' Base Cost Threshold Sae Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' Base Cost (Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' 1-1.2 [see UBC class designation] $0 $173.75 $0 $144.79 $0 $115.84 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $3,475 $51.75 $2,896 $43.12 $2,317 $34.50 - 5,000 $5.027 $42.28 $4,190 $35.24 E3,352 $28.19 10,000 $7,142 $10.29 $5,951 $8.57 $4,761 E6.86 20,000 $8,170 $40.85 $6,809 $34.04 $5,447 $27.23 I-3 [see UBC class designation] - 10,000 $0 $7,265 $72.65 $21.33 $0 $6,054 $60.54 $17.78 $0 $4,843 $48.43 E74.22 25,000 $10,465 $17.29 $8,721 $14.41 $6,976 $11.53 50,000 $14,7871 $4.23 $12,322 $3.52 $9,858 $2.82 100,000 $16,901 $16.90 $14,085 $14.081 $11,2681 $11.27 adon] 10,000 $0 $5,274 $52.74 $15.47 $0 $4,395 $43.95 $12.89 $0 $3,516 $35.16 $10.31 25,000 $7,594 $6,328 E10.44 $5,063 $8.3550,000 $10727 J$$3 $8,939 $2.56 $7,151 $2.04 100,000 $12,260 $10,216 $10.22 $8,173 $8.17 pntlmp'mvse nation] 2,000 $193.08 $58.60 $0 $3,218 $160.90 $48.83 $0 $2,574 $128.72 $39.07 5,000 $48.38 $4,683 $40.32 $3,746 $32.26 10,000 $11.69 $6,699 $9.74 $5,359 $7.80 20,000 P$3,862 $46.04 $7,673 $38.37 $6,139 $30.69 M [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 2,000 $133.01 $40.43 $0 $2,217 $110.84 $33.69 $0 $1,773 $88.67 $26.95 5,000, $33.40 $3,227 $27.84 $2,582 $22.27 10.000 $5.543 $8.07 $4,619 $6.72 $3,695 $5.38 20,000 $6,350 $31.75 $5,292 $26.46 $4,233 $21.17 R-1 R-2.1 [see UBC class designation] 5,000 $0 $9,183 $183.66 $49.29 $0 $7,653 $153.05 $41.07 $0 $6,122 $122.44 $32.86 12,500 $12,880 $37.80 $100733 $31.50 $8,586 $25.20 25.000 $17,605 $9.59 $14,671 $7.99 $11,737 $6.40 50.000 $20,003 $40.01 $16,669 $33.34 $13,335 $26.67 R-1 R-2.1 [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - 5,000 $0 $4,426 $88.52 $25.99 $0 $3,688 $73.77 $21.66 $0 $2,961 $59.02 $17.33 12,500 $6,375 $21.07 $50313 $17.55 $4,250 $14.04 25.000 $9,009 $5.15 $7,507 $4.29 $6,006 $3.44 50,000 $10,297 $20.59 $8,581 $17.16 $6,865 $13.73 %Plan Check % Inspection 68% 32% 65% 35% 65 % 35 % 72% 28% 73% 27% 46% 54% 65% 35% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 4 of 18 ' • `AX"U City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I Fit, II FR Construction Types: 111-HR, III 1-HR,V I-HR Construction Types: BN, III N, IV, VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' ease Cost @Threshold Size Cost for EachFBaseC�tCost Additional 100 s.f.'100 for Each Additional s.f.R-3 Dwellings -Model (First UnB ofTrecl) - 1000 2,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $142.77 $26.33 $37.46 5,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $14.68 10,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $34.93 R-3 Dwellings - Repeats (Additional Units of Tract/Subdivision) 1,000 2,500 5,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $0 $561 $622 $1.025 $56.09 $4.05 $16.12 $5.51 10,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $1.300 $13.00 R-3 Dwellings - Custom - 1,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $0 $1,326 $132.64 $24.64 2,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $1.696 $42.53 5,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $2,759 $14.68 10,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $3,493 $34.93 S-1 S-2 [see UBC class designation] 5,000 12,500 $0 $3,650 $5.135 $73.00 $19.80 $15.30 $0 $3,042 $4,279 $60.83 $16.50 $12.76 $0 $2,433 $3,423 $066 $13.20 $10.20 25,000 $7,047 $3.86 $5,873 $3.22 $4.698 $2.58 50,000 $8,013 $16.03 $6,678 $13.36 $5,342 $10.68 S-1 S-2 _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - 5,000 12,500 $0 $2,202 $3,072 $44.04 $11.60 $8.79 $0 $1,835 $2,560 $36.70 $9.67 $7.33 $0 $1,468 $2,048 $29.36 $7.74 $5.86 25,000 $4,171 $2.25 $3,476 $1.87 $2,781 $1.50 50.000 $4.734 $9.47 $3.945 $7.89 $3,166 $6.31 S-3 By S-5 [see UBC class designation] 1,000 21500 5,000 r$1,571 $258.71 $72.56 $57.24 $14.26 $0 $2,156 $3,063 $4,256 $215.59 $60.47 $47.70 $11.88 $0 $1,725 $2,450 $3,404 $172.47 $48.38 $38.16 $9.50 10,000 $58.19 $4,850 $48.50 $3,880 $38.80 S-3 S4 SS [see UBC class designation) Tenant Improvements - 1,000 2,500 5,000 $2,236 $3,114 $157.05 $44.35 $35.13 $8.72 $0 $1,309 $1,863 $2,595 $130.88 $36.96 $2927 $7.27 $0 $1.047 $1,49C $2,076 $104.70 $29.56 $23.42 10,000 1 $3,5501 $35.50 $2,958 $29.58 $2,367 $23.67 %Plan Check % Inspection 49% 51% 12% 88% 47% 53% 48% 52% 42% 58% 55% 45 % 57% 43% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 5 of 18 AWIM77(JIOd lUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: I FR, II FR Construction Types: 11144R, III 1-HR,V11-HR Construction Types:- 11 N. III It IV, VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Size Threshold Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.L' Base Cost @Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional .f. 100 s' U-1 Custom Homes $0 $112.39 $0 $93.66 $0 $74.93 U_2 500 $562 $32.58 $468 $27.15 $375 $21.72 1,250 $806 $26.21 $672 $21.84 $538 $17.47 2,500 $1,134 $6.44 $945 $5.37 $756 $4.30 5,000 $1,295 $25.90 $1,079 $21.58 $863 $17.27 U-i Tract Repeat $0 $45.56 $0 $37.97 $0 $30.38 U-2 - 500 $228 $11.83 $190 $9.86 $152 $7.89 1,250 $317 $8.87 $264 $7.39 $211 $5.92 _ 2,500 $427 $2.29 $356 $1.91 $285 $1.52 5,000 $485 $9.69 $404 $8.08 $323 $6.46 All Shell Buildings $0 $79.28 $0 $66.07 $0 $52.85 5,000 $3,964 $13.97 $3,303 $11.64 $2,643 $9.32 12,500 $6,012 $17.38 $4,177 $14.48 $3,341 $11.58 25,000 $7,184 $9.54 $5,987 $7.95 $4,789 $6.36 50,000 $9,569 $19.14 $7,974 $15.951 $6,3791 $12.76 Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project stze threshold. %Plan Check % Inspection 62% 38 % 39% 61% so% 50% Average % Average % I Plan Check Inspection 40% 60% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 6 of 18 1 V IAKWUS City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department - New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Average Cost Actual Unil Curren[ SurPlusl AnnuaOf l yActiviry Po I,! Hel at _ Actwl Annual Current Revenue Smp I Subtotal Class Occupancy Typo SF Standartl Cost CaReniF (Subsidy)- Cos[ (Subsidy) per SF Curtenl Fee Each Fee MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 7 of 18 1 V l!lM9"Y US City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department - New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Average Coat Actual Unit lCurrentF Currant Surplus Aonuol Volume of Potential Revenue at AcWCI�Mt noel Current Revenue Surplus l Subtotal Class Occupancy Type per SF SF Stallard Cost (Subsidy)" Acdvitlr Current Fee (Subsidy) Each Fee E-3 _ - [see UBC class designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ E E $ $ - $ $ - 1.4116 2000 $ 2.823 $ $ (2,823) $ $ E $ 0.8100 5000 $ 4,050 S 3,524 S (526) $ 3 $ 10.572 $ 12,151 E SUM 0.5695 10000 T 5,695 $ $ (5,695) $ $ E $ 0.3252 20000 $ 6.504 $ $ (6,504) $ $ E M $ - 0.60-W O S $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 1,579 E-3 - _ [see UBC Gass designation] Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ S S $ $ S $ 1.1292 2000 $ 2,258 $ - $ (2,258) E S - $ - $ ' 0.6480 5000 $ 3,240 S 2.605 $ (835) $ 3 $ 7,815 $ 9,720 $ (1,905) 0.45W 10000 E 4,556 E $ (4.556) E $ - $ $ 0.2602 20000 $ 5203, E S (5,203 E $ $ - $ 0.0000 0 E S $ $ - $ $ - $ - $NII'4.950241) F-1 F.p _ [see UBC class designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ " 0.9315 W00 S 4.658 $ 2,237 $ (2,421) $ 6 E 13,422 E 27,946 $ (14,524) 0,5251 12500 $ 6,563 S $ (6-563) $ - E $ $ - 0.3610 26000 $ 9.025 $ $ (9.025) $ - $ S E - 0.2053 50000 $ 10,265 S $ (10.265) $ S $ $ 0.00W 0$ E $ E S 5 $ F-1 F-2 _ [see UBC Gass designation] Tenant lmprovemems - - 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - E $ - $ 0.4151 5000E 2076. $ 1,6W E (426) $ 9 $ 14,8W E 18,681 $ (3,831) 0.2388 12500E 2,985 E $ (2,985) E w E M $ - E 0.16M 2WW $ 4,211 S $ (4.211) $ $ $ $ 0.0962 50000 E 4,811 E E (4,811) E m $ E $ 0.0000 0 $ E M $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,831 H-1 H-2 H-3 [see UBC Gass desgnation] - - - 0.0000 0 E E $ $ $ $ $ 4,50M 1000 E 4,W6 $ $ (4,W6) $ - E w E $ 2.6623 2500 $ 6,656 S $ (6,656) $ E $ $ - 1.9375 ww $ 9,688 $ S (9.686) $ E - $ $ 1.1130 10000 $ 11.130 S $ (11130) E $ - S S 0.0000 0 s a a $ $ $ $ $ H-1 H-2 H-3 [see UBC class dasigralion) Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ E E E $ - $ $ 3.5945 1000 KO S 3.595 $ $ 3,595) E $ $ $ - 2.11W 2100 E 5.292 S $ (5,292) $ - $ E $ 1.5344 W00 $ 7,672 $ $ (7,672 $ $ S $ 0.8808 10000 $ 8,808 $ $ (8.808) $ S - $ $ 0.0000 $ $ $ $ E - $ $ $ H4 HS _ (see UBC class designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 2.2784 1000 $ 2,278 $ - $ (2.278) $ $ - $ $ - 1.3366 2500 S 3,341 $ 3,083 $ (2 88) $ 1 E 3.083 $ 3,341 $ (258) 0.9fi46 W00 S 4,823 E E (6,823) $ $ $ $ 0.5533 10000 E 5.533 E 5 (5,533) $ - E $ E 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 255 H< HS _ _ [see UBC dass designation] Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ - $ - E $ $ $ $ 2.1173 1000 $ 2,117 $ - $ (2,117) $ $ - $ - $ - 1.2151 2500 $ 3,038 $ 1,502 $ (1.536) $ 4 $ 6,008 $ 12,151 $ (6.143) 0.8543 5000 E 4.271 $ $ (4.271) $ $ S - $ - 0.4878 10000 $ 4.878 E $ (4,878) $ E $ $ 0.60-W O $ S w $ - $ - $ $ $ HS H-7 (eas UBC class designation] - 0.0000 0 E $ - $ $ $ $ $ 2.1660 2000 $ 4.332 $ $ (4.332) S $ $ - $1.2151 SW $ 6.075 $ $ (6.075 S $ $ $ 0.83M 10000 $8303 S S (8.303) $ $ $ $0.4717 P$(6.143) 2000D $ 9,434 E E 9,434) $ S E $ -D.oOoo 0 S S $ $ $ $ $ H-6 H-7 _ _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ - S S E $ $ $ 1.5095 2000E 3.019 $ E (3,019) $ $ $ $ 0.8465 - WW $ 4.232 E $ 4,232) E $ $ $ 0.6782 10000 $ 5,782 $ $ (5.782) S $ - $ - $ - 0.3284 20000 $ 6,5% $ $ (6,569) $ S $ $ 0.6000 0 1 E E E M $ - $ - $ - E MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 8 of 18 NEi 'flr"'4%ll[UV lUJ City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department - New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS I� I Aveper SFostI SF Standard jActusIUnItjCu,,entF�, sS SurplCurrent us yActivity I Curresetnt Fee I ActuCl�Annual I Cu ,Subs Y'nue Subtotal Class OccupanryType MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 9 of 18 M 'MMI City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis . Building and Safety Department- New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Unil Currant Surplus) Annual Potential Actual Annual Current Revenue Type Average Cost SF Standard Actual CumeM Fe Volterra( Revenue a[ Surplus) Subtotal Class Occupancy ParSF Cost (Subsidy)• Activity CumeM Fee Cost (Subsidy) Each Fee R-3 - - - Dwellings - Model (First Unit of Tract) - - 0.0000 0 $ $ E $ $ - $ $ 1.4277 1000 $ 1.428 E 882 $ (746) $ $ - $ - E - 0.7290 2500 S 1,823 $ 1.706 $ (117) $ 40 $ 68,240 $ 72.903 $ (4,663) 0.6618 5000 $ 2.759 $ 2,943 $ 184 $ f - $ $ 0.3493 10000 E 3,493 $ 4.914 $ 1.421 $ $ $ $ - 0.6000 0 $ $ $ - $ - S $ - $ S 4.663 R3 - - - Dwellings - Repeats (Additional Units of Tract l Subdivision) - 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ $ 0.5609 1000 $ 551 $ 419 $ (142) S - $ - $ $ - 0.2487 2500 $ 622 $ 1,106 $ 484 $ 522 E 577,332 $ 324,529 $ 252.803 0.2049 5000 $ 1.025 $ 1,506 $ 481 $ $ - $ $ 0.1300 10000 $ 1,300 $ 3,309 $ 2,009 $ - $ E $ 0.0000 0 5 E E S - $ E $ - S 252,803 R-3 - Dwellings - Custom - - - 0.0000 O $ - $ E E $ $ $ 1.3264 1000 E 1,326 $ -fi82 $ (844) $ - $ S $ 0.6784 2500 E 1,6% $ 1.706 $ 10 $ 10 E 17,060 $ 16,960 $ 100 0.5518 5000 $ 2,769 $ 2,943 $ 184 $ 21 $ 61,803 $ 57.943 $ 318W 0.3493 10000 S 3,493 $ 4,914 $ 1,421 $ 1 S 4,914 $ 31493 $ 11421 0.0000 0 $ E $ $ S - $ $ $ 5,381 S-1 S.2 - - [see UBC Wass designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ E $ $ - $ $ $ 0.6083 5000 $ 3.042 $ $ (3,042) $ $ - $ $ 0.3423 12500 $ 4.279 $ $ (4,279) $ $ $ $ 0.2349 2S000 $ 5,873 $ 3.757 $ (2,116) $ 6 $ 22,542 $ 35,237 $ 12.60 0.1336 50000 $ 6,676 $ $ 16,678) $ - $ $ $ 0.0000 0 E $ $ is E E M E $ 12,695 S7 S2 - - (see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 0.3670 5000 $ 1,835 S $ (1,835) $ E $ $ 0.2048 12500 $ 2.560 E $ (2,580) $ - $ $ $ 0.1390 25000 $ 3,476 $7 2,110 $ (1.366) $ 3 $ 6.330 $ 10,428 $ (4,098) 0.0T89 50000 $ 3,945 Y $ (3.945) t $ $ - $ - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ W $ $ $ $ g098 S-3 S-4 S-5 - [see UBC class designation] - - - 0.0000 0 $ - E E E $ - $ $ 2.1659 1000 $ 2,156 $ - $ (2,156) $ $ - $ - $ 1.2252 25W $ 3,063 $ 1.873 $ 0.190) $ 3 $ 5,619 S 9,189 $ (3,570) 0.8511 5000 S 4.266 $ $ (I.258) $ - $ E $ 0.4850 10000 E 4,850 $ $ (4,850) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ t $ $ - s $ $ s 3,670 S3 SA S.5 [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements - - 0.0000 0 $ - E $ - E $ $ $ 1.3088 1000 $ 1,309 $ - $ (1,309) $ $ - $ - $ 0.7452 2500 $ 1,863 $ 1.215 $ (648) $ 5 $ 6,075 $ 9,315 $ (3,240) 0.5190 5000 $ 2.596 E S (2,595) S E $ $ 0.2958 10000 $ 2,958 t $ (2,958) $ - $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,240 U-1 U-2 - - Custom Hanes - - - 0.0000 0 $ - E - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - 0.7493 500 $ 375 $ 220 $ (155) $ 32 $ 7.040 $ 11,989 $ (4,949) 0.4300 1250 $ SW $ E 538) $ $ - $ $ 0.3024 25W $ 756 E $ (756) $ $ E $ - 0.1727 5000 E 863 E E (883) E $ $ $ 0.6000 0 $ $ E E $ $ $ $ 4,949 U-1 U-2 Tract Repeat - - - 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.3030 500 S 152 $ 149 $ (3) $ 562 $ 83,738 $ 85,358 E 1,620) 0.1688 1250 $ 211 $ E (211) $ - $ $ W $ 0.1140 2500 $ 286 E $ (285) $ m $ - S M $ 0.0646 5000 $ 323 E $ (323) $ $ $ $ 0.0(100 o $ $ $ - E $ $ - $ - $ 1,620 - - All Shell Buildings - - - 0.0000 0 $ S M $ $ W $ $ $ 0.5285 5000 $ 2.643 E $ (2,643) $ $ $ - $ - 0.2873 12500 S 3,311 $ E (3,341) E 12 $ - $ 40,097 $ (40,097) 0.1916 25000 S 4,789 $ w $ (4,789) $ $ - $ $ 0.1276 50000 f 6,379 Y - $ (6.379) $ $ - $ - E 0.0000 0 $ $ $ E $ - $ - $ $ (40,097) Ctment Rwenue Revenue at Revenue Surplus 1 Current Fee Proposed Fe e (Subsidy) $ 1380,151 1 $ 1,799,775 1 $ 419,624 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 10 Of 18 - - "W -US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building and Safety Department lnnual PolenHal 'dome Average Revenue tB Act 650 $ 878 $ (221 $ 1,829 $ 0,82 1,258 $ 23,405 $ 14.1� 109 $ 176 $ 420 $ 1,502 $ 1.082 849 $ 2,765 $ 916 110 $ 39,555 $ (8,44' 080 $ 10,883 $ (21804 ,194 $ 1,555 $ (36: MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 11 of 18 u • u AMU City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building and Safety Department Work hem Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated houdy rate) Annual Volume (# of Units) Average Current Fee Potentlal Revenues Cunenl Fee Actual Annual Cost Current Surylus/ (Subsidy) - %Plan Check % Inspection Pile Foundation $0 $ $ - $ - Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles) up to 10 $215 $ $ $ - 68% 32% Additional Piles (increments of 10) each 10 $73 $ - $ - $ - 33% 67% Driven (steel. pre -stressed concrete) up to 10 $215 $ - $ - $ - 68% 32% Additional Plies (incements of 10) each 10 $73 $ - $ - $ 33% 67% Stucco Applica0°ns up to 400 s.f. $98 $ - $ - $ - 50% 50% Additional Stucco Application each 400 s.f. $49 $ - $ - $ - 20% 80% Retaining Wall (concrete a masonry) $0 $ - $ - $ - Standard (up b 60 m up tc 501.f. $205 188 57.68 $ 10,844 $ 38.501 $(27,658) 48% 52% Additional retaining all each 50 if. $93 $ - $ - $ - 26% 74% Special Design, 3-10'high(up to 501f) up to 50 U. $206 156 57.86 $ 9,026 $ 31,948 $ 22,922) 48% 52% Additional retaining wall each 501J. $93 $ - $ - $ - 26% 74% Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 in up to 501.f. $268 $ - $ - $ 55% 45% Additional retaining wall each 50 Lf. $93 $ - $ - $ - 26% 74% Grav'hy / Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 501n up to 50If. $268 $ - $ $ 55% 45% Additional Gravity / Crib Wall each 50 If. $93 $ - $ $ 26% 74% Gravity I Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 5010 up to 5011 $268 $ - $ - $ - 55% 45% Additional Gravity, / Crib Wall each 50 Lf. S93 $ $ - $ - 26% 74% Remodel - Residential $0 $ $ $ - Less than 30o s.f. up to 300 s.t. $166 34 426.53 $ 14,502 $ 5,637 $ 8.865 59% 41% Kitchen up to 300 s.f. $166 $ - $ - 59% 41% Additional remodel each 300 s.f. $117 $ - $ - 42% 58% Roof Sbucture Replacement up to 100 s.f. $146 $ - $ - 67% 33% Additional roof structure replacement each 100 s.f. $34 $ - $ - 71 % 29% Room Addition -First Stay EO F36,255 $ - $ " Upto300s.t. up to 300 s.f. $414 85 426.53 $ 35,230 $ 1,025 24% 76% Additional roan addition each 300 s.f. S263 $ - $ - 19%81% Room Addition - Multistory $0 $ - $Up to 300 s.f. Additional roam addition up to 300 s.f. each 300 s.f. $527 S341 8 515.93 , $ - $ 4,213 $ - $ 85) $ - 28% 14 % 72% 86% team each E766 $ - $ - $ - 59% 41 and Brick Veneer (interior a exterior) up l0400s.f. $0 $98 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 50% 50% er uPb400s.f. $98 $ - $ $ - 50% 50% j1ding ditional siding each 400 s.f. $98 $ - $ - $ - 50% 50% each $0 $224 $ - $ - $ - $ $ $rd 65% 35% onal each $166 $ - $ - $ - 59% 41% Each additional Directional Sign each $59 $ - $ - $ - 42% 58% Ground/Roof/ Projecting Signs each $166V26 86.84 $ 2.258 $ 4,310 $ (2,053 59% 41% Subdivision Directional Sign each $0 WaIVAwning Sign, Nan-Fleanc each $132 $ - $ - $ - 74% 26% Wall, Electric each $727 135 100.31 $ 13,542 $ 17,115 $ 3,573 36% 62% Skylight $0 $ - $ $ Less man 10 sf each $98 $ $ $ 50% 50% Greater man 10 at asbucluml each $158 $ - $ - $ - 63% 38% Spa or Hot Tub (Pre -fabricated) Stairs - First Flight each first flight $83 $180 12 95.5 $ 1,146 $ $ 995 $ - $ 151 $ - 29% 81% 71% 19% Each additional flight per flight%$176 $ $ $ 59% 41% Storege Racks 04'high (upto100In each additional 100 If first each 100# 11 24 95.5 0 $ - $ 1,051 $ $ $ 1,448 $ 1,969 $ " $ 398 $ 1,989) 74% 26% 59% 41% over 8' high (up to 100 It) each addtional 000 h first 100 h each 100 # $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ 68% 32% 42% 58% Swimming Pod/Spa V1rryi41ned(up to&Do s.f.) Fiberglass Gunge (up to 800 s.f.) Additional pod (over 800 s.f.) Commercial Pod (up to 800 an Commercial pool (over 800 sf) a Sliding Glass Door Replacement Window (non structural) wtndow(sbuctural shear wall/masonry) Wndow(stmctural) each each each each 100 s.f. each each each each each $180 $93 $283 $346 $0 559 E59 $156 $168 1 5 265 1 4 288.61 302.21 290.32 338.43 305 $ - $ 289 $ 1,511 $ 76.935 $ - $ 338 $ - $ - $ - $ 122 $ - $ - $ - $ 185 $ 878 $ 47,810 $ - $ 283 $ - $ $ - $ 234 $ - $ $ " $ 103 $ 633 $ 29,126 $ - $ 56 $ - $ $ - $ 112 $ -63%Bay $ -59% 26% 74% 28% 72% 14% 86% 26% 34 % 35 /JWillow 74% 66% 42%New 42%New M 41' 30120U4" S MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 -Page 12 of 18 City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building and Safety Department -_ Work Item Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated hourly rate) Annual Volume (q of Units) Average Cument Fee Potential Revenue@ Current Fee Actual Annual Cost Current Surplus/ (Subsidy) $0 $ - $ - $ - Acoustical Review $0 $ - $ - $ - Single Family Home/Duplex -New each $98 66 0 $ $ 6,436 $ 6,436 Single Family Home0uplex- AdditiondAlteration each $49 $ - $ - $ - Multi-Familly l Commercial each $98 $ - $ - $ - so $ $ - $ Geologic Review $0 $ $ - $ - Calegory A (Hazard Zones 11, 13, 21, 31, 41) $98 $ - $ $ - Single Family/Duplex/Comml Trs) $98 $ - $ - $ - All Other $98 $ $ $ - Category B (Hazard Zones 12. 22, 42. 43) $98 $ - $ - $ - Category C (Hazard Zones 23.27, 32. 54) $98 $ - $ - $ - Category D (Hazard Zones 4448. 52. 53) S98 $ $ - $ - Category E (Hazard Zones 51 8 55) $98 $ - $ - $ - so $ $ $ Product Review par hour $98 $ $ - $ Disabled Access Compliance Inspection per hour $98 41 0 $ $ 3,998 $ (3,998 Address Assignment per hour $98 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ $ $ Supplemental Plan Check Fee (fist 112 hour) each $98 $ $ - $ - Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereo0 per 112 hour $49 $ - $ $ - SWplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) each $98 $ - $ - $ - Each Additional 12 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour $49 $ - $ - $ - 80 $ $ $ $0 $ $ $ Total Revenues: 245,354 1 $317,125 E (71,771) %Plan Check %Inspection Average: % 46% 100a/o 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Select Average: 54% 46% MAX)MUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 13 of 18 NVA"U City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis MECHANICAL, PLUMBING. AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annual Average Volume Cuaent Fee #of Units Per UnB 311 $ 7.50 83 $ 12.50 27 $ 17.50 475 $ 15.00 3 $ 30.00 2 $ 30.00 3 $ 30.00 6 $ 30.00 5 $ 30.00 6 $ 30.00 Potential Cunenl Revenue @ Actual Annual Surplus i Cummt Fee Cost (Subsidy) (By Units $ $ Is $ 2,333 $ 7.582 $ 5,250 $ 1,038 $ 3373 $ 2,335 $ 368 $ 1,195 $ 827 $ 6,225 $ 20236 $ 14,011 $ S $ s $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ 390 $ 845 $ 455 E $ $ $ $ $ $ 60 $ 65 $ 5 $ 90 $ 24 $ 66 $ 180 $ 122 $ 58 $ 150 $ 163 $ 13 $ $ $ $ E S S S $ $ $ S S S 5 $ 180 $ 98 $ 82 $ $ $ $ S $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ S $ S S S $ $ $ Is $ S Is Is S imii-- Appendix 1 -Page 14 of 18 MAWUS City of Temecula -Building Fee Analysis MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Annual Average Volume Current Fee #of Units PerUnft ONE ME® rrrrr © ®Fvmr. rr ®w Potential Current Revenue @ Actual Annual Surplus/ Cunent Fee Cost (Subsidy) B Units S S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ $ s S s s s s $ 235 $ 284 a 50 $ s s s a $ 180 S $ 630 $ 512$ F$1 60 $ 49$ 390 $ 211$ a S $ $ $ 1,843 S 1.341 $ 502 $ 947 $ 626 $ 321 E $ 5 - E 8 $ $ S $ 8 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E $ S S E S S S MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 15 of 18 NU\WUS City of Temecula - Building Poe Analysis MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Fee Types Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall -mounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; self-contained room console or through -wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing amachines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor -operated (For other types of air conditioners and othe motor -driven Residential appliances and self-contained factory -wired, nonresidenti; appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt -ampere (KVA), in rating, including medical and dental dvices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other (For other types of air conditioners and othe motor -driven Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters. capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heal pumps, a= Note #1: For equipment or appliances having more than one otore, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be Note #2: These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contactors, (An additional fee will be rquipred for (lighting fsxtums, motors, and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-tupe or Marquees supplied from one branch same sign, outline ,ctual Unit Cos based on a pe minute rate of Annual Average Volume Current Fee #of Units Per Unit 6 $ 30.00 Potential Current Revenue @ Actual Annual Surplus Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) (Bv Units $ E $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E S S S $ s $ s s s s $ $ $ S S S It $ $ S $ $ S $ $ 5 $ Is $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Is $ $ I $ $ $ $ s $ $ S $ $ S S S $ E E E E $ S S $ IF S $ 5 E $ $ 180 $ $ 180 E $ S $ S $ MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 16 of 18 N[Ame^T+e"US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Building and Safety Department Poten8.1 Current Annual Average Revenue a Actual Annual Surplus! Volume Cummt Fee Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) #of Units Per Unit B Units ' • r r r r ri MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 17 of 18 MAMUS City of Temecula Building Fee Analysis Building and Safety Department Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Potential Actual Annual Current Revenue Building Fee Category Revenue at Cost Surplus I Current Fee (Subsidy) New Construction $ 1,380,151 1 $ 1,799,775 $ 419,624 Misc.Items $ 245,354 1 $ 317,125 $ 71,771 MP&E's 1 $ 23,757 $ 41,742 $ 17,985 Total Revenues: 1 $ 1,649,262 1 $ 2,158,642 1 $ 509,380 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 18 of 18 N(3"US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) ConstNction Types: I Construction Types: Construction TyPes: n uo v�_ua II N_III N. N.VN rrra am ......................... Base Cost @ Cost for Each Base Cost @ Cost for Each Base Cost @ Cost for Each Project Size Threshold Additional Threshold Additional Threshold Additional % % UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Threshold Size 100 s.t-- size 100 s.f.' Size 100 s.f.' Plan Check Inspection $0 $16.15 $0 $13.46 n.a. n.a. A-1 Theater A-2 Restaurant 10,000 $1,615 $4.08 $1.346 $3.40 ne. n.a. 25,000 $2,227 $3.09 $1,856 $2.58 n.a. n.a. 50,000 $3,000 $1.29 $2,500 $1.08 100,000 $3,648 $3.65 $3,040 $3.04 n.a. ne. 53% 47% $0 $10.81 so $9.01 n.a. n.a. A-1 Theater $1,081 $2.91 $901 $2.43 n.a. n.a. A-2 Restaurant 10,000 Tenant Improvements 25,000 $1,519 $2.23 $1,265 $1.86 n.a. n.a. 50,000 $2,076 $0.87 $1,730 $0.73 n.a. ne. 100,000 $2,513 $2.51 $2,094 $2.09 n.a. n.a. 46% 55% - $0 $33.41 $0 $27.84 $0 $22.27 A-3 Auditorium 5,000 $1,670 $8.85 $1,392 $7.38 $1,114 $5.90 Church Restaurant 12,500 $2,334 $6.76 $1,945 $5.63 $1,556 $4.50 25,000 $3,179 $2.69 $2,649 $2.25 $2,119 $1.80 50,000 $3,852 $7.70 $3,210 $6.42 $2,568 $5.14 q7^/, 53% $0 $24.30 $0 $20.25 $0 E16.20 A-9 Auditorium - 5,000 $1,215 $6.02 $1.012 $5.02 $810 54.01 Church 12,500 $1,666 !1 54 $1,389 $3.79 $1,111 $3.03 Restaurant Tenant Improvements 25,000 $2,234 $1.94 $1,862 $1.62 $1,490 $1.30 50,000 $2,720 $5.44 $2.267 $4.53 $1,814 $3.63 55% 45 - $0 $30.07 so $25.06 $0 $20.05 B All-B-Occupancies - 5,000 $1,503 $8.10 $1,253 $6.75 $1,002 $5.40 (non -repetitive) 12500 $21111 $6.20 $1,759 $5.16 $1.4071 $4.13 (Please complete all rows- 25,000 $2,885 $2.43 $2,404 $2.02 $1,924 $1.62 This section also used for scaling] 50.000 $3,493 $6.99 $2.911 $5.82 $2,328 E4.66 45 / 55 -B'Occupancies $0 $39.48 $0 $32.90 $0 $26.32 B AII 2,500 $987 $10.52 $823 $8.77 $658 $7.01 Tenant Improvements 6,250 $1,382 $8.04 $1,151 $6.70 $921 $5.36 12,500 $1.984 $3.19 $1,570 $2.66 $1,256 $2.12 _ 25,000 $2,282 $9.13 $1,902 $7.61 $1,521 $6.09 46% 54% E-1 [see UBC class designation] - $0 $75.93 $0 $6327 $0 $50.62 2,000 $1,519 519.22 E7,285 $16.02 $1,012 $12.82 E-2 5,000 $2,095 $14.56 $1,746 $12.13 $1,397 $9.71 10,000 E2,823 $6.09 E2,353 $5.07 $1.882 $4.06 _ 20,000 $3.432 $17.16 $2,860 $14.30 $2,288 $11.44 53% 47 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 1 of 13 , y,/-yMMUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: Construction Typea: Construction Types: .....�...-.... u�ue ,IV IIIYN VId 1 FK, 11 YK._.- Base Cost Cost for Each Base Cost Cost for Each Base Cost G Cost for Each Project Size Threshold Additional Threshold Additional Threshold Additional % % UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Threshold Size to0 s.f. • Size 100 s.f.' Size 100 s.f.' Plan Check Inspection E-1 [see UBC class designation] $0 $37.96 $0 $31.64 $0 $25.31 $6.41 E-2 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $759 $9.61 $633 $8.01 $506 $4.85 5,000 $1,048 $7.28 $873 $6.07 $698 10.000 $1,412 $3.04 $1,176 $2.54 $941 $2.03 20,000 $1,776 $8.58 $1,430 $7.15 $1,144 $5.72 53% 47 % E-3 [see UBC class designation] $0 $50.91 $0 $42.43 $0 $33.94 $7.74 2,000 $1,018 $11.62 $849 $9.68 $679 5,000 $1,367 $8.64 $1,139 $7.20 $911 $5.76 10,000 $1,799 $4.03 $1,499 $3.36 $1,199 $2.69 20,000 $2,202 $11.01 $7,835 $9.18 $1,468 $7.34 35% 65% E-3 [see UBC class designation] $0 $37.61 $0 531.34 $0 $25.07 $5.22 Tenant Improvements 2,000 $752 $7.83 $627 $6.53 5501 $3.7 5,000 $987 $5.72 $823 $4.77 $658 10,000 $1,273 $2.95 $7.061 52.46 $849 $1.97 20.000 $1,568 $7.84 $1,307 $6.53 $1,046 $5.23 24% 76% F-1 [see UBC class designation] - $0 $29.16 $0 $24.30 $0 $19.44 $4.99 6,000 $1,458 $7.49 $1,215 $6.24 $972 F-2 12,500 $2,019 $5.68 $1,683 $4.74 $1,346 $3.79 25,000 $2,730 $2.34 $2,275 $1.95 $1,820 $1.56 50,000 $3,316 $6.63 $2,753 $5.53 $2,210 $4.42 49% 51% F-1 [see UBC class desgnationj - $0 $19.44 $0 $16.20 $0 $12.96 $3.21 F-2 Tenant Improvements 5,000 $972 $4.82 $810 $4.01 $648 $2.42 12,500 $i,333 $3.64 $7,711 $3.03 $889 25,000 $1,788 91.55 $1,490 $1.30 $1,192 $1.04 _ 50.000 $2,176 $4.35 $7,814 $3.63 $1,457 $2.90 45% 55% H-1 [see UBC class designatbn] - $0 3170.08 $0 $141.73 $0 $1,134 $113.39 $29.41 1,000 $1,701 $44.11 $7,417 $36.76 H-2 2,500 $2,363 $33.55 $1,969 527.96 $1,575 $22.36 H-3 5,000 $3,201 $13.68 1 668 $11.40 $2.134 $9.12 _ 10,000 $3,885 $38.85 $3,238 $32.38 $2,590 $25.90 50% 50% H-1 [see UBC class designation) - $0 $121.49 $0 $101.24 So $810 $80.99 $20.51 H-2 Tenant Improvements 1,000 $1,215 $30.76 $1.012 $25.63 $19.42 $1,118 $15.53 2,500 $1,676 $23.30 $1,397 H-3 5,000 $2,259 $9.74 $1,882 $8.12 $1,506 $6.50 _ - 10,000 $2,746 $27.46 $2,288 $22.88 $1,831 $18.31 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 2 of 13 MAMYW ►US. City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction I Fit, II Types: FR Construolion 111-HR, 1111-HR,VI-HR Types: Construction II N,IIIN, Types: IV, VN Base UBC Project Size Class UBC Occupancy Type Threshold H-0 [see UBC class designation] - H 5 1,000 21500 5,000 _ 10,000 Cost @ Cost Threshold Size $0 $1,435 $1,944 $2,579 $3,150 for Each Base Additional 100 s.f. • E143.49 $33.93 $25.40 $11.42 $31.50 Cost @ Cost Threshold Size $0 $1.196 $1,620 $2,149 $2,625 for Each Base Additional 100 s.f.' $119.57 $28.27 $21.17 $9.51 $2, Cost @ Cost Threshold Size $0 $957 $1,296 $1,719 $2,100 for Each Additional 100 s.f.' $95.66 $22.62 $16.93 $7.61 $21'00 % Plan Check fit% % Inspection 39% H-4 H-5 _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant improvements - 1,000 2,500 5,000 10,000 $0 $1,086 $1,458 $1,919 $2,349 $108.62 $24.78 $18.43 $8.61 $23.49 $0 $905 $1,215 $1.599 $1,957 $90.51 $20.65 $15.36 $7.17 $19.57 $0 $724 $972 $1,279 $1,566 $72.41 $16.52 $12.29 65% 35% $5.74 $15.66 $11.40 $8.43 $4.08 $11.03 69% 31% H-6 H 7 [see UBC class designation] 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 Y1,552 $2,065 $2,697 $3,310 $17.17 $12.64 $6.13 $16.55 $1 ,293 1"721 $2,248 $2,758 $74.26 $10.53 $5.11 $13.79 51,035 $1,377 $1,798 $2,207 _ _ H6 H-7 nation] [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 2,000 5,000 $0 $1,106 51,458 $55.31 $11.72 $8.59 $0 $922 $1,215 $4 $9.77 $7.18 $0 $737 E972 5.8 $7 .81 E5.73 82.90 $7.74 74% 26% 10,000 $1,887 $4.35 $1,573 53.62 $1,258 $1,548 _ _ 20,000 $2,322 $11.61 51,935 $9.68 $11.19 1-1.1 _ _ [see UBC class designation] - 10,000 25,000 50.000 100,000 f0 $1,679 S2,328 53A51 $3,825 $t6.79 $4.33 $3.29 $1.35 $3.83 $0 $1,399 $1,940 $2,626 $3,188 $13.99 $3.61 $2.74 $1.12 $3.19 $0 $1,119 $1.552 $2,100 $2.550 $2.89 $2.19 $0.90 $2.55 60% 40% 1-1.1 [see UBC class designation] Tenant Impmvements 10,000 25,000 50,000 100.000 $0 $969 $1,316 $1,749 $2,135 E9.69 $2.31 $1.73 $0.77 $2.14 $0 $808 $1,097 $1,458 $1,779 $8.08 $1.93 $1.44 $0.64 $1.78 $0 $646 $877 $1,166 $1,424 $6.46 $1.54 $1.16 $0.51 $1.42 _ 1-1.2 _ _ [zee UBC class designation] - 2,000 51000 t0,000 20,000 $0 $1,579 $2,211 $3,014 $3,652 $78.97 $21.04 $16.U1 $6.37 $18.26 $0 $1,316 51,842 $2,512 $3,043 $65.81 $17.54 $13.39 $5.31 E75.21 $0 $1,063 $1,474 $2.010 E2,434 $52.64 46 % 54% $14.03 $10.72 $4.25 $72.17 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 3 of 13 M!w1' u City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Constnrc0on Types: I FR, II FR COrISilU Zon Types: 111•HR, 1111-HR,V 1•HR Construction Types: II N,111N, IV,VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type [see UBC class designation] Base Project Size Threshold Cost @ Cost Threshold Size $0 for Each Base Additional 100 s.L' $54.67 Cost Q Cost Size $0 for Each Base AddHonal 100 s.f. • $45.56 Cost Cost Threshold Size $0 for Each Additional 100 s.f.' $36.45 % Plan Check % Inspection 1-1.2 $14.37 $10.95 S4.40 $12.56 $911 $1,270 $1,727 $2,094 Ei1.97 $9.12 $3.67 $10.47 E729 $1,016 $1.381 $1,675 E9.58 $7.30 52.94 $8.37 _ Tenant Improvements 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 $'1,093 $1,524 $2.072 $2,512 48% 52% 1-3 [see UBC class designation) - 10.000 $0 $1,324 $13.24 $3.32 $0 $1,104 $11.04 $2.77 $683 $2.21 $1.67 $0.71 $1.99 54% 46% 25,000 50.000 $1,822 $2,450 $2.51 $1.06 $1,519 $2,042 $2.09 $0.88 $1,215 $1,633 100,000 $2,980 $2.98 $2,484 $2.48 $1,987 _ 1-3 _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 25,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 $1,215 215 $1.625 $1,980 $1.6464 $0.71 $1.98 51,012 $1,354 $1.650 $1.37 $0.59 $1.65 $810 $1,083 $1,320 57% 43% $1.09 $0.47 $1.32 M [see UBC class designation] 2.000 $0 $1,102 E1,519 $55.11 $13.88 $10.50 $0 $919 Y1,265 545.93 $11.57 $8.75 $0 E735 $1,012 $1,363 $1.657 $36.74 $9.25 $7.00 _ 5,000 10,000 20.000 $2,044 $2,485 54.42 $12.43 $1,703 $2,071 53.68 $10.36 52.94 $8.28 53% 47% M _ [see UBC class designation] Tenant Improvements 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 $0 $679 $911 $I,199 $1,468 $33.94 $7.74 $5.76 $2.69 $7.34 $L $566 $759 $999 $1,223 $28.29 $6.45 $4.80 $2.24 $6.12 $0 $453 $607 $799 $979 $22.63 $5.16 $3.84 $1.79 $4.89 65% 35% 58% 42% R-1 R- [see UBC class designation] - S,OOD $0 $446 $607 $8.92 $2.15 $1.62 $0 $372 $506 $7.43 $1.79 $1.35 $0 $297 $405 1540 $658 $0 $181 $243 $5.95 51.44 $1.08 _ 12,500 $810 $0.71 S675 $0.59 $0.47 _ 25.000 50,000 $988 $1.98 1823 $1.50 $1.32 $3.62 $0.83 $0.61 RA R-2.1 [see UBC class designa0onl Tenant Improvemems 6.000 12.500 $0 $272 $364 $5.43 $1.24 $0.92 $o $226 $304 $4.53 $1.03 Wit _ 25,000 $480 $0.43 $400 $0.36 S320 $0.29 $0.98 $391 $0.78 65% 35% 50,000 $587 $1.17 $489 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 4 of 13 MAMMU City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction I Fit, II Types: FR ConsWctlon II 1-HR, III i-HR, Types: V t-HR Construction II N, III N. Types: IV, V N Base UBC Project Size Class UBC Occupancy Type Threshold R-3 Dwellings -Model (First Unit of Ted) 1,000 _ 2.500 5,000 _ 10,000 Cost G Cost Threshold Size n.a. n.a. ns. n.a. n.a. for Each Base Additional 100 s.f.' n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Cost Cost Threshold Slze n.a. n.a. n.a. for Each Base AddOional 100 s.f.' n.a. n.a. n.a. Cost 0 Cost Threshold Size $0 $405 $405 5405 $405 for Each Additional 100 $40. $40.50 $0.00 $0.00 u W X Plan Check % inspection 50% 50% 881 $81 $0.00 E0.81 50% SOX R-3 Dwellings - Repeats (Additional Units 1,000 Trect/Subdivision) 2,500 5.000 _ 10,000 ns. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.o. n.s. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. ns. n.a. n.a. n.a. 50% 50% R-3 Dwellings - Custom 1,000 2.500 _ 5,000 10,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. na. n.a. n.a. $405 $405 $405 $0.00 $0.00 $4.05 _ S-1 [see UBC class designation] - S-2 5,000 _ 12,500 25,000 _ 50,000 $0 $760 $1,018 $1,336 $1,637 $15.21 $3.43 S2.55 $1.20 $3.27 $0 $634 $848 $1,114 $1,364 $12.67 $2.86 $2.12 $1.00 $2.73 $0 $507 $679 $691 $1,092 $10.14 $229 66% 30 $1.70 $0.80 32.18 S-1 Isee UBC class designation] - S-2 Tenant Improvements 5,000 12,500 25.000 _ 50,000 $0 $420 $558 $729 $895 $8.39 $1.85 $1.37 $0.66 $1.79 YO $350 $465 $607 $745 $6.99 $1.54 $1.14 $0.55 $1.49 $O $280 $372 $486 $596 60 $1. 57.23 $0.91 $0.44 $1.19 69% 31% 61% 39% S-3 [see UBC class designation] - S-0 _ 1,000 S5 2,500 5,000 _ 10,000 $0 $717 $972 $U89 11.575 $71.74 $16.96 $12.70 $5.71 $15.75 $0 $598 $810 $1,074 $1,312 $59.79 $14.14 $10.58 $4.76 $13.12 EO 5478 $648 $860 $1,050 $47.83 $11.31 47 81 $3..50 10 $10.50 [see UBC class designation] S-3 [s S-4 Tenant Improvements 1,000 S5 2,500 5,000 10.000 $0 $349 S486 E660 $801 $34.87 $9.15 $6.97 $2.81 $8.01 SO $291 $405 $550 $667 $ $7..62 $7 $5.81 $2.34 $6.67 $0 $232 $324 $440 $534 $ 25 48% 52% 6.$ .10 $4,65 $1.87 $5.34 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 5 of 13 1 V tllPXIMUS City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis Consolidated Schedule of New Construction Fire Prevention Fees (All Construction Types) Construction Types: Construction Types: Construction Types: ICR n.R II LXR.1111_HR_V1-XR II N. III N. N.VN UBC Class UBC Occupancy Type Project Sizeitional Threshold for Each s.f. Base Cost @ Threshold Size Cost for Each Addaional 100 s.f.' Base Cost @ Threshold Size Cost for Each Additional 100 s.f.' % Plan Check % Inspection U-1 Custom Homes W$584$11.68 $60.74 $0 $50.62 $0 $40.50 U.2 500$10.12 $253 $8.44 $202 $6.75 1,250$7.01 $316 $5.84 $253 $4.67 - 2,500$4.67 $389 $3.89 $312 $3.12 5,000$11.68 $487 $9.73 $389 $7.79 00 % 0% U-1 TmcI Repeat $0 $24.30 $0 $20.25 $0 $16.20 U-2 500 $121 $6.68 $101 $5.56 $81 $4.45 1,250 $172 $5.12 $143 $4.27 $114 $3.42 2,500 $236 $1.97 $196 $1.64 $157 $1.31 5,000 $285 $5.70 $237 $4.75 $190 $3.80 43% 57% - All Shell Buildings $0 $11.19 $0 $9.32 $0 $7.46 5,000 $559 $2.87 $466 $2.39 $373 $1.91 12,500 $774 $2A8A$1.0 $1.81 $516 $1.45 25.000 $1,046 $0.90 $0.75 $698 $0.60 50.000 $1,271 $2.54 $2.12 $847 $1.69 51% 49% Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project sae threshold. Average % Average % Plan Check Inspection 56% 44% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 6 of 13 " ' "AI YAMUS City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Curtent Curtent Average Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Curtent Surplus I Annual Volume of Potential Revenue at Actual Revenue Subtotal Class Occupancy Type per SF Cost Fee (Subsidy)- Annual Cost Surplus/ Each Fee Activity Current Fee (Subsidy) A-1 Theater 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.1615 10000 $ 1,615 $ $ (1,615) $ $ $ $ 0.0891 25000 $ 2,227 $ 582 $ (1,645) $ 2 $ 1,164 S 4,455 $ (3,291) 0.0600 50000 $ 3.000 $ $ (3,000) $ $ $ $ O.D365 100000 $ 3,648 $ $ (3,648) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,297 A-t Theater 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ E - $ E 0.1081 10000 $ 1,061 $ $ (1,081) $ $ $ $ 0.0607 25000 $ 1,519 E 363 $ (1,156) $ 3 $ 1,089 $ 4,556 $ 0.0415 50000 $ 2,076 $ $ (2,076) $ $ - $ E 0.0251 100000 $ 2,513 $ E (2,513) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ E $ $ $ $ (3,467) A-3 Auditorium 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ E $ 0.2227 5000 $ 1,114 $ 582 $ (532) $ 8 $ 8,909 $ (4,253) 0.1245 12500 $ 1.556 $ $ (1,556) $ S $ 0.0848 25000 $ 2.119 $ $ (2,119) $ F$4,656 $ E0.0514 50000 $ 2,568 $ $ (2,568) $ $ S0.0000 0 S $ $ $ $ E $ (4,253)A-3 Auditorium 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ - $ $0.1620 5000810363 $ (447) $ 26 $ 21,058 $ (11,620) 0.0889 12500 $ 1.111 $ $ (1,111) $ $ $ - $ 0.0596 25000 $ 1,490 $ $ (1,490) $ $ $ E 0.0363 50000 $ 1,814 $ $ (1,814) $ $ Is S 0.000D 0 $ E $ $ $ Is $ $ (11,620 B All'B' Occupancies 0.0000 0 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 0.2005 5000 $ 1,002 $ 582 $ (420) $ 20 $ 11,640 $ 20,045 $ (8,405) 0.1126 12500 $ 1,407 $ $ (1,407) $ $ $ $ 0.0769 25000 $ 1,924 $ $ (1,924) $ E $ $ 0.0466 50000 $ 2,328 $ $ (2,328) $ E $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ E $ $ $ $ $ (8,405 B All 'B" Occupancies Tenant improvements 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.2632 2500 $ 658 $ 363 $ (295) $ 43 $ 15,609 $ 28,296 $ (12,687) 0.1474 6250 $ 921 $ $ (921) $ $ $ E 0.1005T20000$ 1.256 $ $ (1,256) E $ $ $ 0,06091.521 $ $ (1,521) $ $ $ E 0.0000$ $ E $ $ E $ 12,687) E.1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000$ $ $ $ - $ $ 0.50621,012 $ 582 $ (430) $ - $ - $ - $ 0.27941,387 $ E (1,397) $ E $ $ 0.18821,882 $ $ (1,882) $ $ $ $ 0.1144 2,288 $ $ (2,288) 5 $ $ $ 0.0000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E-1 [see UBC class designaton) 0.0000 0 E E $ $ $ $ $ 0.2531 2000 $ 506 $ 363 $ (143) $ $ $ $ 0.1397 5000 $ 698 $ $ (698) $ $ $ $ 0.0941 10000 $ 941 $ $ (941) $ $ $ $ - 0.0572 20000 $ 1,144 $ $ (1,144) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E-3 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ S $ $ $ 0.3394 2000 $ 679 $ - $ (679) $ $ $ - $ - 0.1822 5000 $ 911 $ 582 $ (329) $ 3 $ 1.746 $ 2,733 $ (987) 0.1199 10000 $ 1,199 $ $ (1,199) $ $ $ $ 0.0734 20000 $ 1,468 $ $ (1,468) $ $ E $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9B7 E-3 [sae UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ w $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.2507 2000 $ 501 $ $ (501) $ $ E $ 0.1316 5000 $ 658 $ 363 $ (295) $ 3 $ 1,D89 $ 1,974 $ (885) 0.0849 10000 $ 849 $ - E (849) S $ - $ - $ - 0.0523 20. $ 1,046 $ $ (1,046) $ $ S $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 885) MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 7 of 13 " ' "A/3912FiFht' "^S. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Current Annual Potential Current Class Occupancy Type Average Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Current Surplus/ yolumeof Revenue at Actual Revenue Subtotal per SF Cost Fee (Subsidy) • Activity Current Fee Annual Cost Surplus I Each Fee (Subsidy) F-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.D000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.2430 5000 $ 1,215 $ 582 $ 1633) $ 2 $ 1.164 $ 2,430 $ (1,266) 0.1346 12500 $ 1,683 E $ (1,683) $ $ $ $ 0.0910 25000 $ 2,275 S E (2,275) $ $ $ $ - 0.0553 50000 E 2,763 $ $ (2,763) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (1,266) F-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ $ 0.1620 5000 $ 810 $ 363 $ (447) $ 7 $ 2,541 $ 5,669 $ (3,128) 0.0889 12500 $ 1.111 $ $ (1,111) $ $ $ $ 0.0596 25000 $ 1,490 $ $ (1,490) $ $ $ $ 0.0363 50000 $ 1,814 $ $ (1,814) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,128) H-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - E $ $ - $ $ $ 1.4173 1000 $ 1,417 $ 582 $ (835) E $ $ - $ - 0.7875 2500 $ 1,969 $ $ (1,969) $ $ $ $ 0.5335 5000 $ 2,668 $ $ (2,668) $ $ - $ - S - 0.3238 10000 $ 3,238 $ $ (3,238) $ $ E $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ Y $ $ H-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ $ Y $ 1.0124 1000 $ 1.012 $ 363 $ (649) $ $ $ - $ 0.5588 2500 $ 1.397 $ $ (1,397) $ $ $ E 0.3765 Sim $ 1,882 $ $ (1,882) $ - $ $ E 0.2288 10000 $ 2,288 $ $ (2,288) $ $ $ E 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ Hd [see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ Y 1,1957 1000 $ 1,196 $ $ (1,196) $ $ $ $ - 0.6478 2500 $ 1,620 $ 582 $ (1,038) $ 1 $ 582 E 1,620 $ (1,038) 0.4298 5000 $ 2.149 E $ (2,149) $ $t$2,430 $$ 0.2625 10D00 $ 2.625 $ $ (2,625) $ $E - 0.D000 0 $ $ $ $ $S $ 1,038 HA [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ E $ $ $ $ 0.9051 1000 $ 905 E $ (905) $ $ $ 0.4859 2500 $ 1.215 $ 363 $ (852) $ 2 $ $ (1,704) 0.3198 5000 $ 1,599 $ $ (1,599) $ $$ - 0.1957 10000 $ 1,957 $ $ (1,957) $ $$ - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $E $ 1,704) H-6 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ $$ - 0.6467 2000 $ 1,293 $ - $ (1,293) $ $ $ - 0.3442 5000 $ 1,721 $ 582 $ (1,139) $ $ $ 0.2248 10000 $ 2,248 $ $ (2,248) $ $ $ $ 0.1379 20000 $ 2,758 $ $ (2,758) $ S $ $ 0.0000 0 $ S $ $ $ $ $ f H-6 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 0.4609 200D $ 922 $ - $ (922) $ $ - $ $ - 0.2430 SOOD $ 1,215 $ 363 $ (852) $ $ $ - $ - D.1573 1ODD0 $ 1,573 $ $ (1,573) E $ $ - $ - 0.0968 20000 $ 1,935 $ - $ (1,235) E $ E $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - E I-1.1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 0.1679 10000 $ 1,679 $ - $ (1,678) $ $ S Y 0.0931 25000 $ 2,328 $ 582 $ (1,746) $ E S - $ - 0.063D 50000 $ 3.151 $ $ (3,151) $ - $ $ - $ - 0.0383 100000 $ 3,825 $ $ (3,825) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 D $ Y $ $ $ E $ $ I-1.1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 0.0969 10000 $ 969 S $ (969) $ $ S $ - 0.0526 25000 $ 1,316 $ 363 $ (953) Y $ E S 0.0350 50000 $ 1,749 $ $ (1,749) $ $ $ E 0.0214 100000 $ 2,135 $ 1 (2,135) $ $ $ $ - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 8 of 13 " ' & "US City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Current Annual PolenOaI Current Average Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Current Surplus I volume of Revenue at Actual Revenue Subtotal Class Occupancy Type per SF Cost Fee (Subsidy) - Current Fee Annual Cost Surplus / Each Fee Activity (Subsidy) 1.1.2 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.6581 2000 $ 1,316 $ 582 $ (734) $ $ $ $ 0.3684 5000 $ 1,842 $ $ (1.842) $ $ $ $ - 0.2512 10000 $ 2,512 $ $ (2,512) $ $ $ E 0.1521 20000 $ 3,043 $ $ (3,043) $ $ $ $ - 0.0000 0 $ $ E $ $ $ - $ $ 1-1.2 [sae UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - E $ - $ $ ' 0.4556 2000 $ 911 $ 363 $ (548) $ 1 $ 363 $ 911 $ (548) 0.2541 5000 $ 1,270 $ $ (1,270) $ $ $ $ - 0.1727 10000 $ 1,727 $ $ (1,727) $ $ $ $ 0.1047 20000 $ 2,094 S $ (2,094) $ $ - $ E 0.0000 0 $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ 548) 1-3 [see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ E $ $ $ $ $ 0.1324 10000 $ 1,324 $ $ (1,324) $ - $ - $ S 0,0729 25000 S 1,822 $ 582 $ (1,240) $ $ $ $ - 0.0490 50000 S 2,450 $ $ (2,450) $ $ $ $ 0.0298 100000 $ 2.980 $ $ (2,980) E $ $ $ - 0.0000 0 a $ $ $ $ E $ - $ 13 (see UBC class designation) 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ 0.0888 10000 $ 888 $ $ (888) $ $ $ $ - 0.0486 25000 $ 1.215 $ 363 $ (852) $ $ $ _$_ $ - 0.0325 50000 $ 7,625 $ E (1,625) $ $ $ 0.0198 100000 $ 1,9130 $ $ (1,980) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ M [see UBC class designation]40.1215 0 $ $ E $ $ $ $ 2000 E 735 $ $ (735) $ $ $ $ - 5000 $ 1,012 $ 582 $ (430) $ 6 $ 3,492 $ 6,074 $ (2,582) 10000 $ 1,363 $ $ (1,363) E $ $ $ - 20000 $ 1,657 E S (1,657) $ E $ - $ 0 $ $ $ S $ - S $ - S (2,582)M [see UBC class designation] 0 $ S $ $ $ $ $ 2000 $ 453 $ $ (453) $ $ $ $ 5000 $ 607 $ 363 $ (244) E 29 $ 10,527 $ 17,618 $ (7,089) 0.0799 10000 $ 799 $ $ (799) E $ $ $ 0.0489 20000 $ 979 $ S (879) $ S E $ 0.0000 0 E $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (7,089) R-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 0,0743 5000 $ 372 8 $ (372) $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0405 12500 $ 506 $ 582 $ 76 $ 1 $ 582 $ 506 $ 76 0.0270 25000 $ 675 $ $ (675) $ $ $ - $ 0.0165 50000 $ 823 $ $ (823) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 76 R-1 (see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 E $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ 0.0453 5000 $ 226 $ $ (226) $ $ $ $ 0.0243 12500E 363 $ 59 $ 3 $ 1,089 $ 911 $ 178 0.0160 25000 $ $ $ (400) $ $ $ $ 0.0098 50000E 1489$ $ (489) S E S $0.00000 s $ $ $ $ - $ $ 178 R3 Dwellings - Model 0.0000 0 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.4050 1000 $ 405 $ $ (405) $ $ 0.1820 250D $ 405 $ S (405) $ 40 $ $ 16,198 $ (16.198) 0.0810 5000 $ 405 $ $ (405) $ $ 0.0405 10000 $ 405 $ $ (405) $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ R-3 Dwellings - Repeats 0.0000 0 E $ $ $ - $ "(42,277) 0.0810 1000 $ 81 $ $ (81) $ $ - 0.0324 2500 $ 81 $ $ (111) $ 522 $ 0.0162 5000 $ 81 $ $ (81) $ $ 0.0081 10000 $ 81 $ $ (81) $ - $ $ $ - 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ M I $ $ 42,277 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 9 of 13 - - - ) �US. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Fees (Building -Related) Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Current Annual Curtenl Average Cost SF Standard Actual Unit Current Surplus I volume of Revenue at Actual Revenue Subtotal Class Occupancy Type per SF Cost Fee (Subsidy). Fee Cuurrent Fe Current pnnual Lost Surplus) Each Fee Activity (Subsltly) R-3 Dwellings - Custom 0.0000 0 Y $ $ $ $ Y $ 0.4050 1000 $ 405 Y $ (405) $ $ $ $ 0.1626 2WO $ 405 $ $ (405) $ 10 $ $ 4,050 $ (4,050) 0.0816 50DO $ 405 $ $ (405) $ 21 $ - $ 8,504 $ (8,504) 0,0405 10000 $ 405 $ $ (405) $ 1 $ $ 405 $ (405) 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ (12,959) S-1 two UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 s $ $ - $ $ $ $ 0.1267 5000 $ 634 $ $ (634) $ $ - S $ - 0.0679 12500 $ 848 $ $ (848) $ Y $ - S 0.0445 25000 $ 1,114 $ 582 E (532) $ 4 $ 2,328 $ 4,455 $ (2,127) 0.0273 50000 $ 1,364 $ S (1,364) E $ - $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ Y $ $ $ (2,127) S-1 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.0699 50DO $ 350 $ $ (350) $ $ - $ $ 0.0372 12500 $ 485 $ $ (485) S $ $ - $ 0.0243 25000 $ 607 $ 363 S (244) S 2 $ 726 $ 1,215 $ (489) 0.0149 50000 $ 745 $ $ (745) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ S $ $ s $ - $ (489 S3 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ S $ - $ $ 0.5979 1000 $ 598 $ $ (598 $ E $ - E 0.3240 2500 $ 810 $ 582 $ (228) S T 164 $ 1,620 $ (456) 0.2149 5000 $ 1,074 $ s (1,074) $ s $ 0.1312 10000 $ 1,312 $ S (1,312) $ - r$:1, S $0.0000 0$ $ S E $ $ S 456) S-3 [see UBC class designation] 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.2906 1000 $ 291 $ $ (291) $ - $ - $ $ 0.1620 2500 $ 405 $ 363 $ (42) $ 5 $ 1,815 $ 2,025 $ (210) 0.1100 5000 $ 550 E $ (550) $ E $ $ 0.0667 1D000 $ 667 $ $ (667) $ $ $ $ 0.0006 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 210) U-1 U.2 Custom Homes 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0.4050 500 $ 202 $ $ (202) $ 32 E $ 6,479 $ (6,479) 0.2025 1250 $ 253 $ $ (253) $ $ $ $ 0.1246 2600 $ 312 $ $ (312) $ $ $ $ - 0.0779 5000 $ 389 $ $ (389) $ $ E $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ (6,479 U-1 U-2 Tract Repeat 0.0000 0 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ ' 0.1620 500 $ 81 $ S (61) $ 562 $ $ 45,517 $ (45.517) 0.0915 1250 $ 114 $ $ (114) $ $ S $ 0.0628 2500 $ 157 $ $ (157) $ $ $ $ 0.0380 5000 $ 190 $ $ (190) $ $ $ $ 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 45,517) - All Shell Buildings 0.0000 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ 0.0746 5000 $ 373 $ $ (373) $ $ $ $ 2500 $ 516 $ 582 $ 88 $ E S $ $ 698 $ $ (698) $ - $ $ $ P4DA $ 847 S $ (847) $ $ $ S $ S S E $ Is $ f Current Revenue at Revenue at proposed Revenue Current Fee Fee Surplus) (Subsidy) $ 73,530 1 $262,937 1 $ 189,407 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 -Page 10 of 13 M NW14 US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fire Prevention Bureau Work Item Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated hourly rate) Standard Hourly Rate $101 Antenna each $71 Radio, <30 ft each $71 Radio, >30 ft each $71 Dish > 2 ft each $71 Cellular/Mobile Phone, ch $334 Cellular/Mobile Phone, ch $202 Awning/Canopy (supportech $405 Batcony additionch "each $304 Carportach $71 Close Existing Openings Interior wallach $142 Exterior wallach $142 Commercial Coach (per unit) each unit $304 Covered Porch each $71 Deck(wood) each $101 Demolition (up to 3.000 s.f.) each $202 Additional demolition each 3,000 sf $202 Door New door (non structural) each $71 New door (structural shear wall/masonry) each $71 Duct Detector Inspection 1-2 Detectors 1-2 det. $202 Each Additional Detector each $71 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non -masonry) $101 6 - 10 feet in height up to 100 I.f. $71 Each additional 100 If each 1001.f. $71 Over 10 feet in height up to 1001.f. $71 Each additional 100 If each 100 I.f. $71 Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry) Masonry, Standard (6-8 feet high) up to 100I If $71 Each additional 100 If each 100 I.f. $71 Masonry, Special Design (6-10' high) Each additional 100 If each 1001.f. $71 Masonry, Special Design (over 10' high) up to 100 Lf. $71 Each additional 100 If each 1001.f. $71 -., %Plan Check. % Inspection 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 61% 39% 50% 50% 50% 50% 67% 33% 1000 0% 71 % 29 0 71% 29% 33% 67% 1000 0% 100. 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 -Page 11 of 13 ` 'Uv/2DA4• `US City of Temecula - Building Fee Analysis POTENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fire Prevention Bureau Work Item Unit Actual Cost (based upon calculated houdy rate) Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) up to 30 I.f. $304 Additional partition each 30 I.f. $202 Room Addition - First Story Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. $172 Additional room addition each 300 s.f. $10 Room Addition - Multi -story $0 Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. $172 Additional room addition each 300 s.f. $10 Skylight Less than 10 sf each $202 Greater than 10 sf or structural each $202 Stairs - First Flight first flight $121 Each additional flight per flight $121 Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 10010 first 100 If $202 each additional 100 If each 100 If $71 over 8' high (up to 10010 first 100 If $202 each additional 100 If each 100 If $71 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection per hour $101 Address Assignment perhour $10 Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 112 hour) each $101 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour $51 Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) each $101 Each Additionat 112 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour $51 % Plan Check - %Inspection 33% 67% 50% 50% 41% 59% 100% 0% 41% 59% 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 58"/6 42% 58% 42% 50% 50% 71% 29% 50% 50% 71% 29% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%1 100% 0% 100% Average: 1 71%1 29°0 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 12 of 13 N ' -US City of Temecula Fire Prevention (Building -Related) Fees Analysis FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Potential Current Revenue Building Fee Category Revenue at Actual Annual Surplus/ Current Fee Cost (Subsidy) Structural Inspection and Plan Checks $ 73,530 $ 262,937 $ (189,407 Misc. Items * $ - $ - $ MP&E's ** $ - $ - $ Total Revenues: 1 $ 73,530 1 $ 262,937 1 $ 189,407 * No annual activity volumes were available for these items, so a calculation of revenues was not possible. "The Fire Prevention Bureau does not review these items. MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 2 - Page 13 of 13 N"4' `u5 CIIy of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST s-,,,cv4 T.. --.:iPIANNWGDEPARTYENT6^_.itC':>y&+-.a; ia+ UNIT IN v3i?:bYn�tae+'x-�,11:. ,REVENUEBIPACTS -' Actual Untt Actual Annual Annual Costl Per Unit Annual Cost Revenue Revenue Annual Current Polanual Boman;I /Potential NCumnt Surplus Fa Service Name)Desed on Du Fee Fee SubM Revenue F. 3ubs1 1117 GPA-T ?MAP NOT LSTD 1 $ 4.1 W S 4,725 S 55] $ 4.725 $ 4.160 $ 557 AMDMNT-ZNINGB LNDMP 5 $ 6,8]4 $ 3,778 S 3,096 $ 18,889 $ M.370 $ 15.481 AMDMNTSNING OR LDMP 2 $ 2,746 $ 2,556 $ 191 $ 5,111 S 5.492 E 361 AMDMNT TO CITY ORD 1 6 2746 $ 4,010 E 1,264 $ 4010 $ 2,746 $ 1,264 SPECIFIC PLAN -NEW 1 $21,532 $ 38,906 S 17,374 S 38906 $ 21532 t 17374 SPEC PUN AMDMNT MJR 1 $ 2746 $ 19.230 $ 16,484 S ISM $ 2.746 f 181484 SPEC PLN AMDMNT MNR 1 $ 2,746 $ 7.4M S 4.692 S 7.438 $ 2746 $ 4,692 8 CUP 15 f 532 $ 2,447 $ 1,915 $ W.707 $ 7,9W S 28,72] So CUP wIDEVPIAN 15 t 532 E 2,447 $ 1,915 $ 36,707 $ 7,960 $ In,]21 9 LABGE -FM DY OR PRMT 2 $ 436 E 1296 E (8601 S 2,592 $ 872 $ (1,72 12 DEV PLNNEW >t00K of 3 S 3.815 $ 6.679 "2,8341 S M,M $ 11,95 f WI 13 DEV PW-NEW 10-ICON 14 $ 3,815 $ 6,049 S 2,234 E 04.SN S 53410 $ 31,278 14 DEV PLNNEW QIw M 5 $ 1,483 S 42M f 2,773 $ 21,202 S 7.415 $ 13,867 15 MAJOR MODIFICAITON 5 S 6 3,M $ 3,633 $ 10167 $ f 10.16I 16 MINOR MOO-APPRVD PRJ 20 S - S 17S6 $ 1,786 $ X715 $ - $ ts6Tioj 17 MINOR MOD -PIN DEP RV 10 S 176 S 542 $ 366 $ 5,417 S 1,7W $ 3,657� 18 VARIANCE 1 S 1A76 $ 2743 f 1261 S 2743 $ 1476 t 1.267 19 MINOR EXCEPTION 3 $ 176 f 422 $ 246 $ 1,ZB5 $ 528 $ 737 20 T.U.P. MINOR 25 $ 176 $ 61 $ 116 S 1533 S 4,400 S 2,867 21 T.U.P. MAJOR 4 $ 176 $ 675 $ 499 $ 2.700 $ IN S 1,996 22 T.U.P. MAJOR PFT -NON 1 S II6 S 1337 S 1161 $ 1 337 $ 17B $ 1161 23 T.U.P. MINOR -NON PFf 10 $ 15 $ 2S4 $ 279 $ 2,940 S 1 W $ 2,793 24 SIGN PROGRAM 3 $ 176 $ 2100 t 1.924 $ 6301 $ 528 $ 5773 25 TEMP SIGN PERMIT IN $ 20 $ 21 f 1 S 2.050 $ 2,000 S M 26 RSDNTL PRDCT RAW 15 S 176 S 3405 S 8229 f 126,079 $ 2,64D $ IMAn 27 SECOND UNIT PERMIT 3 f $ 2W $ 2W S 689 $ - S 689 28 VENDORS PERMIT 1 $ - S 76 $ 76 $ 76 $ - S 76 29 TIME EXT WIO PH 3 $ 3W $ 265 $ 87 S 794 S 10W $ 262 W TIMEE W/PH 3 f 352 $ 891 S 09 $ 2,672 $ 1,056 $ 1.616 31 APPEAL 5 $ M5 $ 1,898 $ 1,513 $ 9.191/ S 1,625 S 7,565 NZONINGPLNGLETTER 11 $ 18 $ IN $ 9D $ 1,184 S 198 f 988 M DEV. AGREEMENT 2 $ 4.t S 20.668 24M VIM$ VIMt 8,OW S 49335 36 ANNEXATION AGRMNT 1 $ 4.W0 $ 24.643 f 20,643 $ 24.643 $ 4.0DD $ 20643 M SUBSTNLCNFRMNCES.P 1 S 1,319 $ 2416 f 1127 $ 2p46 $ 1,319 $ 1.1w NDSC W LPE CNSTRCTN PIN ZI S - S 521 S 521 $ 14.077 $ - $ 14,07I 37 CERT. OF HSTRC APPR. 2 $ J89 $ 1874 $ 1,885 $ 3,747 $ 378 $ 3369 W MASSAGE EST. PERMIT 11 $ 5W S 429 $ 71 $ 4723 $ 5500 $ 7T1 39TENTTRCT MP5.311.T 1 $ 4,597 $ 6,102 $ 0.535 $ 6,132 $ 4.597 $ 1,535 40TENTTRCTMP3675LT 3 S 1427 S 6.508 S 1,119 $ 19,523 $ 22,081 $ 3,358 41 TNTTRCTMP76-165 2 $ 13339 S 7,497 $ 5.e42 S 14,891 $ 26.670 S 11.684 42 TNTTRCTMPs166LTS 1 S20157 $ SIN $ 111999 S 8,158 $ 20.15] $ 11.999 43 RVSD TNT TROT MAP 5 $10,756 $ 3.417 $ 7.339 $ /7,036 $ 53,780 $ 36,694 44 VSTTNTTRCT634LT 1 $ 8478 $ 7735 f 1257 $ 77J5 $ 6,478 S 1257 45 1STTNTTRCTS5-75 1 $ 9.5]B S 6009 $ 1 $ BOD9 $ 9.08 S 1,559 48 VSTTNTTRCT76165 1 $15,422 $ 8.845 $ 6,577 $ 8845 E ISan $ 6,517 47 VSTTNTTRCT>166 LT 1 $22,398 S 9N9 S 13049 S 9349 $ 22,398 $ 13,049 48 RVSD VST TNT TRCT MP 2 f10,756 S 5,126 $ 6630 S 10252 $21.512 $ 112W 49 PARCEL MAJIP SWNTL 1 $ 1.573 S 17Z6 $ 163 $ 1.726 $ 1573 f 153 50 PARCEL MAP-COMM. 3 $ 3,2W $ 2783 $ 477 $ 6348 $ 97W $ 1,432 51 REVISED PARCEL MAP 1 S 814 S 793 $ 21 $ 793 $ 814 $ 21 S2 CONDO MAP / aI..6 $ 7437 $ 3.1W $ 7437 $ 11,369 S 3,832 63 COMM. INTRST DEN CNV 1 $ $ 3.435 $ 3435 S 3,435 $ - $ 3,435 64 MNR CHG-APRVOTNTMP 1 $ 470 $ I' M $ 531 S 1.001 $ 470 S 531 W TNT RES PRCL MP WPAV 1 S 1,676 S mu S 219 S 1.49 $ 1.676 S 219 W TNT COM. PCL MP W W 1 $ 1,676 $ 1,901 $ 225 $ 1,9M $ 1,676 f 225 5] PHSNGPLN-TENTMAP 4 $ 187 $ 1,2111 $ 1,014 S 4,803 $ 748 $ 4.055 N MERGER-CNTGUOUS PRCL 8 $ FAD $ 854 $ 354 S 6.W0 $ am S 2.BW 59 LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT 15 $ 2W $ 318 $ 88 6 4,756 $ SAW t 1,316 W CERT-LND DIV. COMPLN 4 $ 356 $ 516 S 160 $ 2,063 $ 1,424 f 639 61 REVERSION TO ACREAGE 1 S 392 $ 4% $ 64 $ 4W S 3W $ 6a 62 TIME EXT4UBVSN ORD 5 $ 268 $ 1,541 $ 1,273 $ 7,703 $ 1,340 $ 63W 63 ADLT BUS. ORD C.U.P. 1 S 3.777 S 8.648 S 4-1 E 8648 S 3777 $ 4,871 64 ADLT BUS ORD EMP PMT 1 $ - $ 6a $ 64 $ 64 S $ 64 W ADLT BUS ORD OWNER 1 f $ 122 $ 122 $ inS - $ I= 66 RECORDS RESEARCH 1 $ 2] t 113 t 88 S 113 t 2] 86 S7 NEXATIONIDETACHMNT AN 1 $ 710 $ 13,933 f 13R23 $ 13,933 $ 710 $ 13723 $ fib ENVRMNTLDTB64INATION 63 $ - $ 217 $ 217 S 11.482 69 NEG DEC 4 $ 668 $ 3,694 E 3,C25 $ 14,777 $ 2,672 f 12,105 70 MITIGATED NEG DEC 6 $ ON $ 4863 $ 410 $ 29179 $ 4,OOB $ 25.171 71 APPLCNT MNGO E.I.R 1 $ 6.202 $ 38.735 $ 32533 $ 38,T35 $ 6,202 $ U.533 72 CITY MNGD E.I.R 1 $ - $ W 871 $ 30872 $ W 872 f f 30.872 73 D.I.F. REDUCTION 1 $ S 110 S 110 $ 110 $ $ 110 74 FNDG OF CONVNCMECST 1 $ - $ 789 $ 789 $ 789 $ - $ fT89 75 V51NG TENT PARCEL MP 1 S 5,IN $ 2,4W S 2.958 $ 24W f 5,408 S 2,958 76 PLND DEV. OVERLAY 1 $ 2746 $ 22,672 $ 19,926 $ 22.672 $ 2746 $ .." T PC PBLC PRHS �5ACRE 1 f S 40 S 40 $ w is f 40 AtAA1MU5. eK AppaMia 3-Paget ef4 v 'Y" US C40Temecuh USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY __ �yW';y :!'.Lp,,.1,g PAANNRIGUWARTMEMF :t9amv:MimAlz tnmrosrs f' REVERUE.iMPACTSR'W-,* Actual Unk Ac 4 Annual Annual Co#1 Per Unit Annual Cost Rwenue Revenue Annual CumeM PWMIM SUMIMi IPOL A rtCm.m Su'lusl Fw%Fw Servka Name lDeurl Dan Gunn Fw Fw SubW&I Revenue F. Sallsl Trials: 1 $ 3.351.M 1 503.W % 2.%T%030 m USIe Apps 3. PMe 201< MA"us Cly&Temecub USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY - PIYUJNWGDEPARTM GLYAdfRIECOMMENDEDPEESSOM MVJMM REVENUEIM PAC TSlASRWW. Fee 0 Fee Service Name I DescIlption Cumnt Fee Recommended Fee % - Recovery (offull -costl Remaln1n9 Perum SurplusI (St;beftl Potential Ravenwat Rec. Fee Annual Revenueal Cullen Fee Potential AddMonal Revenie 10 Reed Fee 1 GPA-T IMAP NOT LSTD $ $ 4,726 �: I O S S 4725 $ 4,168 $ 557 2 AMDMNT-ZNING S LNDMP $ $ 3778 10035 $ S ISM $ 34,370 $ 15,461 3 AMDMNT-ZNING OR UDMP S $ - 2,556 100% S $ 5,111 S 54W $ (381 4 AM9MNTT0 CITY ORD S $ 4,010 Il $ S 4,01D S 2746 S 1,264 5 SPECIFIC PLAWNEW S $ _WMx; IIX $ - S 3S9W $ 21,532 $ 17,374 6 SPECPLNAMOMNTSUR $ S-19,230 100% $ S 18,23p S 27d6 S 18,4N 7 SPEC PUN AMDMNT MNR $ $ TAN fl$3,M 100% E S 7,438 $ 2746 $ 4,692 8 CUP $ S Z*17 100% $ - S 36707 S 7,980 $ 28,727 Ba CUP wIDEV PLAN S S 734 30% S 1,713 $ 11,N2 S 7,980 S 3032 9 .ARGEFAMOYCRPRMT S $ 1.296 100% $ $ 2,592 S 872 $ 1720 12 DEV PL NEW>i(W st $ $ 6679 IM S $ 20036 S 11445 $ 8,591 13 DEV PUN -NEW 10ID0K $ S 6.N9 III^ $ - S N,688 S 410 S 31.216 14 DEV PLN-NEW<10R sf $ $ 4,256 100% S - $ 21282 $ 7,415 $ 13,867 15 MAJORMODIFICAITON $$ _ 3633 i O f S 18,167 1 S $ 18.167 16 MINORMODAPPRVD PRJ S S 1786 100% S S 34715 I S - S X715 17 MINORMOD-PLN OEP RV S 176 $ IN25% $ 406 $ 1,354 $ 1i80 $ 406 10 VARIANCE $ 1.476 S 2;743 d 100% $ $ 2.743 $ 1475 S 1,267 19 MINOR EXCEPTION $ 176 E'- U2 100% S $ 120 $ 528 $ 737 20 T.U.P. MINOR 5 176 $ ' 61 100% S $ I'= $ 4,d0p S 2.B6T 21 T.U.P. MAJOR00Y. $ 176 $ 675 1S - S 2700 S 7N $ 1,896 Z2 T.U.P. MAJOR -NON PFT $ 176 $ 267 20% $ 1."0 $ 267 $ 176 $ 91 23 T.U.P. MINOR -NON PFT $ 15 S 59. 20% $ 235 $ 588 $ 150 $ 'tn 24 SIGN PROGRAM S 176 $ Zim I(m f $ 6,301 $ US $ 5.773 25 TEMP SIGN PERMIT S 20 $ 21 100% S $ 2058 S 2,OW S 58 26 RSDNTL PRDCT RVW $ 176 $ . ' -" 8,405 100 $ $ 126.079 $ Z W $ In,439 27 SECOND UNIT PERMIT S S -- 2W I ll0 S $ 689 $ $ 689 28 VENDORS PERMIT E $ 40. 53% $ (MI 1 $ 40 S 1 S 40 29 THE EXT WIO PH S 352 S 2661 100% $ - S 791 $ 1.056 S 2621 W TIMEEXTWI PH $ 352 $ Wt - 100% $ $ 2,672 $ 1ON S 1.616 31 APPEAL S 32o S U5 18% S 1.513 S ,N5 $ 1625 $ 32 ZONING PLNG LETTER $ 18 $ 20 19% S f88 f 220 $ 198 1 S 22 33 DEV. AGREEMENT $ 4DW S 28666 ': 100% $ S 57.335 5 BOW 1$ 49,335 N ANNEXATION AGRMNT S 4,OW S'."... 24613..,E-... ll0 $ 24,613 S 4,000 S N.N3 35 SUIISTNL CNFRMNCE S.P $ 1,319 5' - 2,446 '� is 100% $ E 2,146 $ 1,319 $ 1,127 36 LNDSCPECNSDECTNPLN $ $ 'S21 '.: 10D% S E 14,077 $ 14,077 37 CERT. OF HSTRC APPR. $ 1W 5-. 375 "'20%S MAN)S 749 $ 378 $ 371 38 MASSAGE EST. PERMIT S SW S 429 100% S $ 4,723 S 5500 $ 777 39 TENT TRCT MP SN LT E 4N7 E' -6.1a .-: 100% S - S 6,132 $ IWV $ 1,535 40 TENT TRCT MP 375LT $ 7627 V 6,NS '.' 10 $ $ 19523 $ 22,881 S 3,358 41 TNT TRCT MP 7&10 S 13339 $` 7497 10C% $ - $ 14,9N $ 286T8 $ 11684 42 TNT TRCT MP>166 LTS $ 2Di57 S. ':• 8,158 :.. ". 100%$ S 81W $ 20,157 S 11,9W 43 RVSD TNT TRCT MAP S 10.756 $ ;'3417 _. IOD% E 5 17,086 $ 53.780 $ 366N as VST TNT TRCT S-NLT S 6.478 S 7735. '. `100% $ $ 7,735 $ 8478 $ 1,257 45 VST TNT TRCT 35-75 $ 998 $ "BOW 100%$ $ 6A09 S 9576 $ 150 46 VSTTNTTRCT 76165 $ 15422 f - "8,845 100% $ - $ 8.N5 S 1 422 $ 6,577 47 VST TNT TRCT>1E6 LT $ ZZ398 S 9,349 10015 S - $ 9.349 $ 22,398 $ 13N8 48 RVSO VST TNT TRCTMP $ 10,756 $ 126 IM S E 10.25Y S 21512 $ 112W 49 PARCEL MAPASDNTL S 1573 $ - : 1726 iDD% S - $ 1,726 S 1,5YJ $ 1W W PARCEL MAP-COMM. S 3,2W $. .. '.. 2783 100% S - S 6.318 $ 9,780 $ 1,4321 51 REVISED PARCEL MAP $ 814 $- - .793 100% S $ 793 $ 814 $ (21 52 CONDO MAP f 11369 $ - 7437 I O S $ 7,437 S 11,369 S 932 53 COMM. INTRST DEN CNV $ 1 $ 3,4W 100% S - $ 3,CIS $ 5 3435 54 MNRCHG-APRVDTNTMP $ 470 S .1,W1. 100% E - S 1 W1 f 470 $ 01 55 TNT RES PRCL MP WMN 5 1,676 $ 1457-"-, tOD% $ $ 1,457 $ 1.676 $ 219 W TNT COM. PCL MP WAVY 5 1 676 S I'm £- 100% $ $ 1.901 $ 1.676 $ 225 57 PHSNG PLN-TENT MAP $ 107 5' 1,201. 1009E E S 4.8W $ 748 $ 4,055 58 MERGER-CNTG0OUS PRCL $ SW S.. - N't " 1017%, E S fi830 5 4,OW S 2,830 59 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S 230 $ 310 1(m S 11 $ 4,766 $ 34W $ 1,316 W CERT{ND DN. COMPLN $ 356 $ `_ _. 516 -.. 100% S 11 S 2,063 $ 1,424 S 639 61 REVERSION TO ACREAGE S 392 f.' '-456 '.']00% S 11 S 45fi 1 5 N2 S 64 62 TIME EXT-SUBVSN 0RD 5 268 S ' Imi '-100% $ - S 1,7W $ 1,34D $ 613W W AOLT BUS. ORD C.U.P. S 3.777 S '°8.648 '100% S $ 8648 3,777 S 4.871 N IADLT BUS ORD EMP PM I S $ 100%5 S Ws - $ N 65 ADLT BUS ORD OWNER $ 5 AM ':. 100% E S 122 S $ 122 66 RECORDS RESEARCH $ 27 $ - 113 1Im $ $ 413 $ 27 S 86 67 ANNE)IATIONBOETACHMNT $ 710 =,... 13,933 _-> 100% $ $ am $ 710 $ 13,223 N ENVRMNl-DTRMINATION S $27 100% 5 - $ 11402 $ $ 11,482 69 NEG DEC 5 668 $ 3,61NI Ilm $ $ 14,777 $ 2672 $ 12105 70 MITIGATED NEG DEC S 668 $ 4863 10015 $ $ 29,179 $ 4,006 $ 25171 71 APPLCNT MNGD E.I.R $ 62W $ %' M.M ' 100% $ S wX15 S 6202 $ 32533 72 CITY MNGD E.1.11 $ $ 30.872 '.100%$ f 30.872 $ - S 34872 T3 D.I.F. REDUCTION $ $ 110 100% $ $ 110 $ $ 110 74 FNDG OF CONVNCMECST E - $ . '- '. 789 ' . I W $ S 709 $ - 5 789 75 VSTNG TENT PARCEL MP $ 54W $ o'24W .ib 100% S - S 2,4W S 5,4W S (2958 76 FUND DEV. OVERLAY $ 2,T46 $ n6T2 '•=.'- III^ S - $ Y2672 $ 2746 E 19,9Z6 >T PC PBLC PRKS cS ACRE $ S ''40 ".'"'tOD% S - S 40 S $ 40 p4� 1- Appe 3-Pe9e3oi4 M_ "'�>�` US CifyaTemacuM USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY y_.PLANNWGDEPARTMENT53P:Aa"..�R3vrp," % Remalnin9 Polenttd Recovery Per UnR Pmardid Annual AllWonal ReoodmenMtl (of hll SuMiusI Ravened Revenue al Revenue Fee hl Fee Somim Name I DescilpUon Currem Fee Fee .cost Sules1 Re Fee Cumem IF Rec'tl Fee Fee Y �V A reference numbleer faddish 6ocuasbn Fee or Service Name I Dead her, The, se Nces ardorfees Yhdutletl in W MAXIMUS Comm Fee The cimaM he Me the C' loreedh service,H licebk Remmmerded Fee The ..ended he tlerBlo b skfl ad MAXIMUS %Remve (a hall mat The rabo of the �mmendeo F. btlhe Actual Unit Cost fur each fee RmalNM Per UNK SWOWI &rbSI The dRerwrce behyeah da Rammma Fee and NU Acbd UM Coal br eedh ke PoterNd Rave. at Re, Fee The pohntid revenue it dhe Clly charged the Rewmmehked Fee for each service W the Annul O rfflly forlhelsendw Urvt Coslx AmM m—ervl Amud Reveal" Cunem Fee The pohntlal rmorxm U me City charged he Cared Fee for each aalloa at the Amoal Duedity for that serdoe(Ch rt Fee x Amhual Duantily) Poradil AE5lbnsl Revmhre(a Reed Fea) ThediRaahcebsh' fle Potential Rwavred Rm FeeadfroAmud RevaendCM Fee: This I the repmsads tie potadd ereeMl addtlonel hevaxre ma City mdtl remva(a bsa)br BedfdaNm, Clcity Nhagas me RemmmeMeO Fee. hmMPAUS, hrc APDandx 3-Page 4 ofd •""""^ us City o/Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY W ORKSDEPMTMENT R'COSTS _ ENUE7MTAGTS.. Annual Actual Unit Actual Cost/ Per Unit Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Current Pubertal Surplus/ /Potential Revenue at Surplus Fee k Fee Service Name l Description Quantity Fee Fee Subsl Revenue Current Fee Subsl dyl 1 GM INSP <500 CY 66 $ 350 $ 362 E 12 $ 23.9D9 $ 23,100 Ili 809 2 GIRD INSP 501-5K CY 41 $ 425 $ 435 E 11 $ 17,896 $ 17,425 $ 471 3 GRDINSP S-10K CY 10 $ 500 $ 522 $ 22 E 5,221 $ 5,000 E jaij 4 GRD INSP IO-SOKCV 1 E 750 E ]3] $ 13 $ 737 E 750 S 13 5 GRD INSP 50-100K 1 S 1.000 $ 999 $ 1 $ 999 S 1,000 $ 1 6 GRDINSP >100K 1 $ 1,30D $ 1,279 $ 21 $ 1,279 $ 1.300 $ 21 7 GRD INSP>100K 9OD10K 1699 $ 50 $ 49 E 1 $ 83659 $ 84,950 $ 1291 8 CLRNGINSPPERACRE 1 $ - $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ - E 1D0 9 DEVPLN ONSME INSP 1 E 315,580 $ 316.546 $ 966 $ 316.546 $ 315.580 E 966 10 OFFSITE IMPVMNT INSP 1 $ 388 551 $ 379,597 $ 6,954 $ 379,597 S 386 551 $ 6,954 11 PARKWAY DRAIN PERMIT 104 $ 65 E 47 $ 18 $ 4,930 $ 6,760 $ 1,830 12 COMM DRVWAY PRMT 1 $ 100 $ 64 $ 36 S 64 $ 100 $ 36 13 RES. DRVWAY PRMT 15 $ 75 $ 47 $ 28 $ 708 $ 1,125 $ 411 14 FXCVINISTRT XING PMT 1 $ 125 $ 167 E 42 $ 167 $ 125 $ 42 15 EXCV N/PARALLEL PMT 1 $ 125 $ 167 E 42 $ 167 $ 125 E 42 to UTILITY CO. PMTA40NTH 1 $ too $ 103 $ 3 $ 103 $ 100 E 3 17 USA SERVICE PAR 1 E $ 140 $ 140 $ 140 E $ 140 18 STREET CLOSURE PAR 1 $ 25 $ 622 $ 597 $ 622 $ 25 E 597 19 BLOCK PARTY PAR 6 E 25 E 22 $ 3 $ 130 $ 150 $ 20 20 MOVIE FILMING PERMIT 1 $ 25 $ 140 $ 115 E 140 $ 25 E 125 21 TREE TRIMMING PERMIT 1 $ 25 $ $ 25 $ - E 25 $ 25 22 UTLTY BLANKET FIAT I 50 $ 25 $ 33 E Is $ 1,670 $ 1,250 E 420 23 TRAN$-0VRSZEANNUAL 1 $ 60 E $ 60 $ $ 60 25 $ $ 6D 25 24 TRANS-0VRSZE ONCE 1 $ 25 $ - $ 25 E - $ 25 CERT OF CORR DCMNT 3 $ 600 $ 558 It 42 $ 1,673 $ 1800 $ 127 26 SUMMARY VAC. DCMNT 1 $ 920 $ 783 S 137 $ 783 E 920 $ 13T 27 MISC LEGAL DOC 1 $ 200 $ 294 $ S4 $ 294 S 200 $ 94 28 FULL GEN VAC. DCMNT 1 $ 4155 $ 2.506 E 1.649 $ 2,W6 $ 4155 $ 1,649 29 PBLC DEDICTN440 MAP 10 $ 920 $ 879 $ 41 $ 8,794 E 9,200 S 406 30 FNL AMNDND MAP DCMNT 1 $ 20D $ 288 $ 88 $ 288 S 200 $ 88 31 MONUMNET RENEW 1 $ 250 $ 274 E 24 $ 274 $ 250 $ 24 32 FINAL MAP 4TH E SUB 256 $ 100 $ 173 $ 73 $ 44,306 $ 25.600 $ 18,708 33 FNL PRCL MAP DCMNT 3 $ 754 $ 1,807 $ 1,053 $ 544 $ 2.262 E 3158 34 FNLTRCT MP BASE FEE 17 $ 754 $ 1,806 S 1.052 $ 30,707 $ 12818 $ 17,889 35 FNL TROT MP PER LOT 945 $ 20 S 80 $ 60 $ 75,874 $ 18,900 S 56 974 36 FEMACLOMR DCMNT 1 $ 5,000 $ 4,152 $ 848 $ 4,152 $ 5000 S 848 37 FEMA LOMR DCMNT 1 $ 1,000 $ 1328 $ 328 $ 1,328 $ 1,D00 5 328 38 FEMALOMA DOCUMENT 1 $ 2.000 $ 1p46 $ 554 $ 1446 $ 2000 $ 564 39 HYDROLOGY a150 AC 1 $ 1,20D $ 1.711 $ 511 $ 1,711 $ 1,200 E 511 40 HYDROLOGY>1W0 1 $ 2,400 $ 2.495 $ 95 $ 2,495 $ 2,400 $ 95 41 CLRNG PC PER ACRE 1 $ $ 121 $ 121 $ 121 $ - E 121 42 GROG PC <500 CY 29 $ 300 $ 367 S 67 $ 10,631 $ 8.700 $ 1,931 43 GRDG PC 501-5K 35 $ 5D0 $ 471 $ 29 $ 16,488 $ 17,500 $ 1,012 44 GROG PC 5D01.1 OK 9 $ 625 It 645 $ 20 $ 5,608 $ 5,625 $ 183 45 GROG PC 1000150K 1 $ 750 $ 765 $ 15 $ 765 $ 75D $ 15 46 GROG PC 50K-100K 1 $ 1.000 $ 986 $ 14 $ 986 $ 1.000 $ 14 47 GRDGPC>100K 10 1655 $ 50 $ 64 $ 14 $ 1D6,218 $ 82.750 E 23468 48 DEVPLN ONSITE IMP PC 1 $ 297,813 $ 300 345 $ 2,732 $ 30D,345 $ 297,613 $ 2,732 49 GRADING PIN RVSN 55 $ 200 $ 206 $ IS $ 11,325 E 11,000 $ 325 50 PC 4TH E SUBSONT 1 $ $ 79 $ 79 E 79 $ $ 79 51 SUBDV PGP BASE FEE 41 $ $ 110 $ 110 $ 5.188 $ - E 5188 52 SUBDV PGP PER LOT 659 $ 5 $ 52 $ 47 $ 34,433 $ 3.295 $ 31.136 53 DEVPLN OFFSTTE PC 1 5291,561 $ 29d,557 E 2,996 $ 294,557 $ 291,561 $ 2,996 54 PERMRFEE 1 $ 25 E 55 E 30 $ 55 $ 25 E 30 55 TA -MAYOR 4 $ 780 $ 2,131 $ 1351 $ 8,524 $ 3120 $ 5,404 55 TIA-MINOR 6 $ $ 1.265 $ 1,255 $ 7,590 S $ 7,590 57 TRF CNTRL PLN PR/SHT 400 $ S 212 $ 212 $ 84,904 $ - $ 84,904 MNUMLLS.Iric Appen6u4-Page1of4 Mrav"M A US Clfyolremewb USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY '- PUBNWORKS'DEPARTMENT NITiCO .. _,. REVENUEiMP.ACT sActual Unit Actual Annual CostI Per Unit Annual Cost Annual Revenuent Potential SurplusI /Potential Ravenueat Surplus/ ee tl Fee Service Name l Descrl tlon TOanuwFee Fee Subsl Revenue Current Fee SubsiPC LNDSCP MEDN <10SF $ 26 E 26 $ 26 $ $ 26 65 PC LNDS MEDN 10-25SF $ 26 $ 26 $ 26 $ $ 26 66 PC LNDS MEDN >2KSF $ 44 $ 44 $ 44 $ $100 GPA-TXT/EXHBT W LST $ 659 $ 659 $ 659 8 f 659 101 AMDMTZNG&GPLNDMP $ 376 8 376 $ 1,880 $ $ 1,880 102 AMOMT ZNG OR GPLD MP 2 $ $ 288 E 266 S 531 $ $ 531 103 AMNDMNT TO CTY ORD 1 $ $ 103 E 103 $ 103 $ E 103 104 SPECIFIC PLN-NEW 1 $ $ 10,161 $ 10,161 $ 10.161 $ E 10161 105 SPCFC PLN AMNU-MIR 1 $ S 4,834 E 4,834 S 4,834 $ $ 4,836 106 SPCFC PLN AMNU-MNR 1 $ $ 913 $ 913 $ 913 $ $ 913 107 TIME EXT WPOIJT PH 3 $ $ 499 $ 499 $ 1,496 $ $ 1,496 108 TIME EYT. W/ PH 3 $ $ 998 E 998 $ 2.995 $ $ 2.995 110 DVPLN NW BLD>100K 3 $ E 2.396 f 2,396 S 7,18T $ E 7,187 111 DVPLN NW BLD 10.100K 14 $ $ 1,843 $ (1,843) $ 25,798 $ Y 25,798 112 DVPLN NW BLO <fOKSF 5 $ - $ 1,511 $ 1,511 $ 7.553 $ - $ 7,553 113 MJRMODIFX:ATION 5 $ $ 468 S 468 $ 2,342 $ S 2.342 114 MNR MOD.APPRVD PRJCT 20 E S 248 $ 248 $ 4,950 $ $ 4,950 115 VARIANCE 1 $ S 7 E ] $ 7 $ $ (7 116 T.U.P. MINOR 25 $ $ 86 $ 86 $ 2159 $ $ 2,159 117 T.U.P. MAJOR 4 $ $ 253 $ 253 $ 1,012 $ $ 1,012 118 T.U.P. M4.IOR NON PFT 1 $ $ 225 E 225 $ 225 $ E 225 119 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT 10 $ $ 114 $ 114 $ 1.141 $ - f 1,141 120 2ND UNIT PERMIT 3 $ $ 167 $ 167 $ 501 $ Y 501 15 E It 170 $ 170 $ 2,549 $ f 2549 121 CUP vvDEV PLAN 122 APPEAL 5 E $ 272 $ 272 $ 1,361 $ S 1,361 123 DEV. AGREEMENT 2 $ - $ 2,580 $ 2,580 $ 5,160 $ - $ 5160 124 ANNEXATION AGRMENT 1 S $ 2.501 E 2,501 $ 2,501 $ $ 2,501 125 SBSTNL CNFRMNC S.P. 1 $ $ 555 $ 555 $ 555 $ - $ 555 126 TINT TRCT MP 5-34 1 $ $ 1 T73 E 1,]]3 $ 1.773 f E (1,773) 127 TNT TRCT MP 35-75 3 $ $ 2,159 E 2,159 $ 6.476 $ E 6,478 128 TNT TRCT MP 70-165 2 $ - $ 2 506 $ 2,506 $ 5 012 $ - f 5 012 129 TNT TRCT MP>166 LTS 1 $ $ 2,855 $ 2,855 S 2,855 $ f 2,855 130 RVSDTNTTRCTMAP 5 $ Y 613 E 613 $ 3,064 $ $ 3,064 131 VST TRCT MP S34 LTS 1 $ S 2.930 E 2,930 $ 2,930 $ 4 2.930 132 VSTG TNT TRCT 35.75 1 $ $ 3,480 $ 3480 $ 3.480 $ It 3480 133 VSTG TNT TRCT 76-1165 1 $ - $ 4,052 $ 4,052 $ 4,052 $ - $ 4,052 13d VSTG TNT TRCT >166 1 $ $ 4,619 E 4,619 $ 4.619 $ S 4,619 135 RVSDVSTGTNTTRCTM 2 $ $ 1343 $ 1,343 $ 2,685 f - E 2,685 Im PRCL MAP-RSDNTL 1 $ S 1,140 $ 1,140 $ 1,140 $ $ 1,140 137 PARCEL MP-COMMRCIAL 3 $ $ 1.074 E 1074 $ 3,223 $ E 3,223 138 RVSD PARCEL MAP 1 $ $ 643 E 643 $ 643 $ $ 643 139 CONDO MAP 1 $ $ 1,079 $ 1,079 $ 1,079 $ $ 1,079 140 CMMN INRST DEV CNVRS 1 $ $ 242 $ 242 $ 242 $ - $ 242 141 MNRCHNGAPRVDTNTM 1 $ $ 448 $ "a $ 448 $ - $ 448 142 TNT RSDNTL PRCL MP 1 $ $ 830 E 830 $ 830 S $ am 143 TNT CMN PRCL MP W/ W 1 S $ am E 830 $ 830 $ $ 830 144 PHSNG PLN TENT MAP 4 $ $ 621 $ 621 $ 2.482 $ $ 2482 145 MRGROFCONTGSPRCLS 8 f $ 546 $ 546 $ 4370 $ $ 6370 146 LOT LINE ADJSTMENT 15 $ $ 546 $ 546 $ 8,197 $ S 8197 147 CERT OF LND DIV COMP 4 E $ 547 4 547 $ 2,188 b S 2,188 148 RVRSN TO ACERAGE 1 $ $ 162 E 162 $ 162 ll $ 162 149 FJ(TOF THE SSVSN ORD 5 $ $ 555 $ 555 $ 2,774 $ E 2,774 150 ANNXTWDETACHMENT 1 $ $ 2.748 E 2 748 $ 2,748 $ E (2,748) 151 MITIGATEDNEGDEC 6 $ E 887 $ 187 $ 1,122 $ f 1,122 152 APLCNT MNGD EIR 1 $ $ 9267 It (9,267 E 9287 $ - f 9287 153 CRYMNGD EIR 1 $ $ 4.866 $ 4,868 $ 4.866 S E 4,866 154 DIF REDUCTION 1 $ E 622 S 622 $ an $ - $ 622 156 BLDG SUPPORT 1 $ $ 6,966 $ 6,968 $ 6.966 $ $ 6,966 167 NON FEE A.CTI'VMr 1 E f 56 $ 56 E Se E f 56 Totals: IS 2.088.721 1 111,656,395 S 432,326 Fee ty...... Arefereice number a facilum, discussion Fee or Service Name / De lion Tha services anti/or teas included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Gi miry The annual number of each service Provided for which a tee can be recovered. as reported by the C' Current Fee The anent fee cha ed by Me City for eac11 service, 8 rmoficable, Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee. The actual cost 0030 service, as demand uY MAXIMII3 Per Unit Surplus /Subsidy) The ri ference beMeen the Actual Unit Cost and Me Current Fee (or each service Actual annual Cast / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the CM charged Me Actual AMR Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for Mat service Unit Cost z annual Ouan' Annual Revenue at Current Fee The Potential revenue B Me City charged me current Fee for each service at Me annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee s annual Quantity) Annual Revenue Surplus/(Subsidy) The difference bebveen Me Taal Annual CosVPoamlat Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost) the City provides to feepayersfoustonars for each service, or the amount of overcharge. MNgMr16 eK Appendix 4-Page 2 of M ^r"I US CNY of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 3 tie'. PUBMCTNORKSOEPARTMENT' .-- -� ECOYMENDEOFE REVENUE IMPACTS -_ % Remaining Potential Recovery Per Unit Potantial Annual Additional Recommended (of full Surplus Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Feed Fee Service Name l Descrttion Current Fee Fee. cost (Subsidy)Rec. Fee Current Fee Rec'd Fee 1 GRID INSP <500 CV $ 350 $ 362 1D0% $ - $ 23,909 $ 23100 $ 809 2 GRID INSP SDI-%CY $ 425 $ 436 100% $ $ 17,896 $ 17.425 $ 411 3 GRD INSP 5.10K CV $ 500 $ 522 100% $ $ 5,221 $ 5,000 $ 221 4 GRID INSP 10LOK CY $ 750 $ T17 100% $ $ 737 $ 750 $ 13 5 GRDINSP 50-IOOK $ i,D00 $ 999 1D0% $ - $ 999 $ 1000 $ 1 6 GRDINSP>1DDK $ 1,300 $: .: 1279 100% $ $ 1279 $ 1,300 $ 21 7 GRDINSP >100K al OK $ 50 $ 49 100% $ - $ 53,559 $ 84,9W $ 1,291 8 CLRNG INSP PER ACRE E - $ 100 100% E $ 100 $ - $ 100 9 DEVPLNONSRE INSP $ 315,580 $ 316.546 100% $ $ 316,546 $ 315,580 $ 966 10 DFFSTTE IMPVMNT INSP $ 386,551 $- 379,597 100% $ - $ 379.597 $ 386.561 $ 6.954 11 PARKWAY DRAIN PERMIT $ 65 $ 47 100% $ $ 4.930 $ 6.760 $ 1830 12 COMM. DRVWAV PRMi $ 100 $. 64 100% $ $ 64 $ 100 $ 35 13 RES. DRVWAY PRMT $ 75 $ 47 100% $ $ TDB $ 1125 E 417 ib EXCVTWSTRT XNG PMT f 125 $ - 167 100% $ - $ 167 $ 125 $ 42 15 EXCVTNIPARALLEL PMT $ 125 $ 167 100% $ $ 167 E 125 E 42 16 UTLRVCO. PMTIMONTH $ 100 $ 103 100% $ $ 103 $ 1D0 $ 3 17 USA SERVICE PMT $ 1d0 100% E - $ IQ E $ 140 18 STREET CLOSURE PMT $ 100 1b% $ 522 $ 100 $ 25 $ 75 19 BLOCKPARTYPMT $ 22 100% $ $ 130 f 150 $ 20 20 MOVIEFO.MING PERMIT $- 140 - - 100% $ $ 140 $ 25 $ 115 21 TREE TRIMMING PERMIT $ '- ' 25 Na 5 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ - 22 UTLTY BLANKET PMT I $ . 33 -100% $ $ 1,670 $ 1250 $ 420 23 TRANS-OVRSZE ANNUAL 8.:: -.60 Na $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 24 TRANS-OVRSZE ONCE $ 25 F Na �. $ 25 E 25 $ 25 $ - 25 CERT OF CORR DCMNT 3- -_558 =.' 100% $ $ 1,673 $ 11800 E 127 26 SUMMARY VAC. DCMRT $ r 783 %100% $ $ 783 $ 920 $ 137 27 MISC LEGAL DOC $ 294 - . 100% $ $ 294 $ 200 $ 94 28 FULL GEN VAC. OCMNT $ . 2,506 .100% $ E 2,506 E 4,155 S 1,669 29 PBLC DEDICTN440 MAP $ '. 879 "/: 100% S $ 8.794 $ 92M $ 40630 FNLAMNDNDMAP DCMNT $ > 288 ' : '100% $ E 2B8 $ 20D $ 88 31 MONUMNET REVIEW E 250 $ 274 `. - 100% $ $ 274 $ 250 $ 24 32 FINALMAP4TH 8 SUS $ 100 $ -'. in "' 100% $ $ 44,306 $ 25,600 $ 18,706 33 FNL PRCL MAP DCMRT $ 754 $ 1.807 100% $ $ 5,420 $ 2,262 E 3158 34 FNLTRCTMPBASEFEE $ 754 S 1.808 tODX f - E 307W E 12,818 $ 17,889 35 FNLTRCT MP PER LOT $ - 20 $ 50 "' 62% $ W $ 47,250 $ 18.900 $ 283W 38 FEMACLOMRDCMNT $ 5.000 S. 4.152 ".100% $ $ 4152 $ 5,000 f 848 37 FEMA LOMR DCMNT $ 1.000 $. .. 1,328 _ - 100% $ - E 1.328 E 71000 E 328 38 FEMALOMADOCUMENT $ 2,000 E 144fi : 100% $ li 1,446 $ 2,WO $ o" 39 HYDROLOGY<1W AO E 1200 $ -1.711 100% $ $ 1,711 $ 1200 $ 511 40 FiYDROLOGY>150 AC $ 2,400 $ 2495 - t. 100% $ 495 $ 2411 $9541 CLRNG PC PER ACRE $ - $. •50 '.41% $ 71 SD $ - $ 50387 t100%S - 831 $ 8T00 f 1,83143 GRDG PC 507-SN S 500 $ '. 471 ', 100% $ 488 $ 17.500 $ 1.0124d GRDG PC 5001-10K $ 625 f> . 645 >.5100% $ 808 $ 5,625 E 18345 GRDG PC 10001LOK $ 750 $ .755 iw% $ 765 $ 750 $ 15 46 GRDG PC 50KAWK $ 1,ODD $ 986 100% $ 986 $ 1,000 $ ib47 GRDG PC>1ODK 10 $ 50 E 64' - 100% $ 218 $ 827W $ 23,468 48 DEVPLN ONSITE IMP PC $ 297,613 E. 300,345- .., 100%$ ,345 M2415$ $ 297,613 $ 2.73249 GRADING PLN RVSN $ 200 $ 206 '. 100% $ 325 $ 11,000 $ 325 50 PC 4TH 8 SUBSONT S $- 79 -100% 5 7 I E 5 79 51 SUBDVPGPBASEFEE $ $' 110 100S ,188 E - E 5,188 52 SUBDV PGP PER LOT E 5 S.. 25 - 48% $ 27 ,475 $ 3295 $ 13,18D 53 DEVPLN OFFSI PC $ .1.1 E 294,55] 100% $ 557 $ 291,561 $ 2,996 54 PERMIT FEE $ 25 $ 25 45% E 30 25 $ 25 $ - 55 TIA-MAJOR $ 780 5-. 2,000 94% S 131 ,D00 $ 3,120 $Tl4-MINOR $ $ S00 -40% E 765,000 $ $ 3,000 TRFCNT0LPW PPJSHi E - $ 50.rer 24%$ 162 ,000 $ $ 20000 MA,/IUS � 6� Appendix 4 - Page 3 of 4 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY '^ PUetdCWORKS:DEPARTAENT 'rr �'' REcaMUMUED'FEES REYENUEYNPACT `. - % Remainlnp Potentlal Lrtewt Recovery Per UnR Potentlal Annual Addtional Recommended (oFtut Surplual Revenue., Revenue al Revenue Fee # Fee Smice Name I Descd on Fee Fee cost Subsl Ree. Fee Curtent Fee AR — Fee % inaeassonlyasmg valuation ITotals: $1,960,30$1,656,395 S 303,951 Fee # A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Descritan The services and/a fees included in the MA%IMUS surd Curtent Fee The curtenl fee oha W by the City for each smite, ffapplicable Recommended Fee The recommended fee develo b staff and l A (NUS %Recov of fullcost The ratio of the Recommended Fee to Me AMM Unt Cost far ead fee Rummino Fer Unit Su lus/Subsitl The difference beMeen the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for aeon Tee Potential Revenue at Rum Fes The potential revenue 0 the City charged the Recommended Fee fa each service at the Annual Quantity for that eamice Unit Cog x Mnual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Curtent Fee The potential revenue tMe Clry charged Me Curtent Fee for each service at Me Annual Quantity for Nat smite (Cunent Fee x Annual Quantity) Potentlal Additional Revenue (@ Reed The difference betvaen Me Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee and the Annual Revenue at Cunent Fee: This Fee) figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the City could recover (a lose) for each service, IN the sty charges the Recommended Fee. NWgMt15, Nc Appendix 4-Page 4 ofd ' • _A 3 4 US Chyo/Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY a�'t3o - (�MMUNIi.YtEERVK:ESIDEPARTMEN .. ' - ' .F;b3ts WMAMMOOMMUNIT-)COSTS SNWWREVENUE' IMPACTS.. Program Amoral Annual Annual Current Cost Current Annual Annual Cost Revenue Revenue Annual Annual Potential Recovery Surplus) 1Potengal at Current Surplus Fee# Fee Semi" Name l DessdptionJOE Quantity Revenue Fee % (Subsidy) Revenue Fee (Subsidy) MECOSTRECOVERY -G - ... `.... 48% $ 65,339 ... ;` $ 125,339 $ 50,000 ,. $ 65.339 1 ADULTSOFTBALL 1 $ 60,000 $ 125,339 2 ADULT BASKETBALL 1 $ 9000 $ 134,040 7% $ 125,040 $ 1M.W $ 9.000 E 125040 3 SPORTS- CATCHALL i $ 9,000 $ 52,770 17%E 43770 $ 52,770 $ 9.000 E 43,770 4 SWIM LESSONS -GROUP 1 S 53.600 $ 116,2W 46% $ 62.630 $ 116.230 $ 53,800 $ 62630 5 PRNATE SWIM LESSONS 1 $ 5D0 $ 21.497 2% $ 20.997 $ 21.497 $ 5DD $ 20,997 6 OPEN SWIM 1 $ - $ 137.251 0%$ 137251 $ 137,251 $ - $ 137251 7 POOL RENTAL 1 $ 10,500 $ 81.598 13% $ 71.098 $ 81,598 S 10,500 8 71,098 8 MAR IN REGISTRATION 1 $ - $ 56,896 0% $ 56,895 $ 56.895 $ - f 56.895 9 AQUATICS -CATCHALL 1 $ 6.500 $ 54,802 12%$ 48,302 $ 54.802 S 8500 $ 48,302 10 CONTRACT CLASSES 1 $116000 $ 195.356 56% E 85,356 $ 195,356 $110,000 $ 85,356 11 SR. CENTER -CATCH ALL 1 $ 3,000 $ 166.818 2% $ 163.818 $ 166,818 $ 3,000 $ 163.818 12 SR. CENTER NUT. PRGM 1 $ $ 18,807 0%S 18.807 $ 18807 S - E 18.807 13 SR CNTRTRANSPORTN 1 $ 600 $ 38,724 2% $ 38,124 $ 38.724 $ 600 $ 38.124 14 TCC-CATCHALL 1 $ 11,000 $ 203,579 5% $ 192579 E 203579 $ 11,000 $ 192579 15 HIGH HOPES 1 S 2,000 $ 4766 4%E 45.246 $ 47,246 $ 2,000 $ 45,246 16 SKATE PARK 1 $ 25,000 $ 222,154 11% $ 197.154 $ 222154 $ 25.000 E 197.154 17 SPECIAL EVENTS 1 $ 11,00D $ 278222 4% $ (265222 $ 276222 $ 11,000 $ 265.222 18 EXCURSIONS 1 $ 5,600 $ 44.623 13% $ 39023 $ 46,623 $ 5,600 $ 39023 19 SMART PROGRAM 1 $ - $ 87,287 0% E 87287 $ 87,287 $ - $ 87.287 20 DAYCAMP 1 $ 70,000 $ 96,452 73% S 254K $ 96,452 $ 70.000 E 26452 21 NGHBRHDPRGRMS 1 $ - $ 25,711 0% $ 25711 $ 25711 $ - $ 25,71l 22 TEEN SERVICES 1 $ 4,000 $ 106014 4%E 102.014 $ 106014 $ 4,000 $ 102,01d 23 CRC CATCHALL 1 $ S 260465 0%$ 280.465 $ 260.465 $ - S 260465 24 TINY TOTS 1 $ 8,00D S 29,577 27% E 21577 $ 29.577 $ 8,000 $ 21577 25 PARENTS ME 1 $ 3.DD0 $ 28.463 11%$ 25,463 $ 28.463 $ 3,000 E 25453 26 SISTERCITIES 1 $ $ 45,932 0% E 45,932 932 $ - E 45,932 27 ASSESMENTADMIN 1 $ - $ 9D,461 0% $ 90.4fi1 ,461 $ - E 90461 28 PICNIC SHELTERS 1 $ 2,000 $ 32,043 6% $ 30,043 .043 E 2,000 $ 30043 29 HISTORYMUSEUM 1 $ 8,400 E 216.591 4% $ 208,191 ,591 $ 84D0 $ 208191 W CHILDRENS MUSEUM 1 $ 13,000 $ 145,725 9% $ 132,725 ,725 $ 13,000 E 132725 31 B-DAY PARTY KIDS MSM 1 $ 4000 $ 24,801 16% E 20.801 801 S 4,0W f 20801 32 GFT SHOP KIDS MSM 1 $ 10,000 $ 59,705 17% E 49705 ,705 $ 10,000 1"90 $ 49705 33 LANDSCAPE SERVICES 1 $ $1,064655 0% E 1,064,655 ,656 $ $ 1,064,655 34 ACTNE FIELD MAINT 1 $ S 684.863 0% $ 684,863 ,863 $ $ (684,863 35 GYM MAINT 1 $ $ 15.3D1 D% $ 16301 301 $ - E 15.301 36 POOL MAINT 1 $ $ 45,505 $ 45,505 ,505 E $ 45,505 37 FACILITY MAINT 1 $ $ 320,341 0% $ 320.341 347 $ $ 320,341 38 CIP 1 $ $ 214,690 0% $ 214,690 ,691 $ $ 214,690 39 CABLE 1 $ $ 34,590 0% $ 34,590 590 $ $ 34,590 40 DEVELOPER ELECTIONS 7 S $ 3.D63 0% $ 3,063 $ 3,063 $ - $ 3,063 59 ROOM RENTALS Offset b 59a 1 $ 60,000 E 104,088 58% E 44,088 $ 104088 f 60000 $ 44,088 60 FIELD RENTALS (Offset by Boa 1 E 28300 f 19,134 148% $ 9,166 S 19134 E 28300 $ 9,788 Pr .Cost Subtotal: f528000 f5749 8 9% S(S.221.408111 $5749 8 5528000 f(52211,4081 59a Combined Fees: #37 E #59 = Room Rental Total Coll 1 $ 60.000 E 257,852 23% $ 797,852 $ 257.852 $ 60,000 $ 197.852 60a amami0= Fain Rental Total Coll 1 $ 28,300 $ 703.997 4% $ 575,697 E 703,997 $ 2830D $ 675.697 IND -NOT GRAM'COSTS#:ES $ $ $ 6,82fi $ 6826 $ E 8826 1 41 PC PARK<5 ACRES $ 9.898 $ 9.898 S $ 9898 42 PCPARKS-10ACRES 63 PCPARK>10ACRES 1 1 E $ S E S 15,059 $ 15.059 $ $ 15059 PC MEDIAN <10K SF 1 $ $ f 1,869 $ 1,869f $ 1,869 PC MEDIAN 10-25KSF 7 $ $ E 2,923 $ 2,923 $ - E 2,923 46 PC MEDAN-25K SF 1 $ $ J15,VW $ 3,970 S 3.970 $ $ 3,970 PCSLOPES<150KSF 1 $ $ S 2,394 $ 2,394 E f 2.39448 PC SLOPES 150.250 SF 1 $ $ $ 4,513 $ 4 513 S $ 4.51349 PC SLOPES>250K SF 1 $ $ $ 6,656 $ 6658 S E 6658So S 318451 INSPPRK<SACRES 1 $ - $ $ 3,184 $ 3.184 $ - INSP PRK 5-10 ACRES 1 E $ S 4,7W f 4,738 E $ 6738521NSPPRK>10ACRES 1 E $ , $ 806 $ 7,806 E E 7,806 531NSP MEDIAN 1 E $ 1,428 $ 1428 $ 1.628 $ $ 1428 54 INSP MEDIAN 10-25 SF 1 E E 2,391 $ 2,397 E 2,391 $ - E 2.391 SS INSP MEDIAN >25K SF 1 $ $ 319] E 3.197 $ 3,197 $ f 3,197 561NSPSLOPES<150KSF 1 $ $ 1,652 $ 1,652 S 1652 $ S 1652 $ 2,925 57 INSP SLOPES 150-250K 1 $ - $ 2,925 $ 2.925 $ 2,925 $ 58 INSP-SLOPES >250K SF i $ $ 4,562 $ 4,582 E 4,582 $ $ 4.562 P nnAXIMUS � Nc Appendix5 -Page 1 of City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY ':CDMMUNITY-SERVICES,DEPARTMENT UNrfCOSTS4%99"' EVENUEIMPACTS program Actual Annual Annual Current cost Current Annual Annual Coat Revenue Revenue Annual Annual Potential Recovery Surplus IPotential at Current Surplus Fee N Fee Service Name l Description Quantity Revenue Fee % (Subsidy) Revenue Fee (Subsidy) P annin9 61 DEV PLN NEW <10KSF 5 S $ 451 $ 451 $ 2,256 $ E 2256 Yeas:. d 62 DEVELOPMENTAGRMNT 2 E $ 7,452 $ 7,452 $ 14900 $ - f 14,904 _ . 63 ANNEXATION AGRMNT 1 $ - S 7,266 $ 7,266 $ 7266 $ $ 7,266 " 64 Si CNFRMNCE S.P. 1 $ S 2053 $ 2,053 $ 2,053 $ S 2,053 66 TNTTRCT MP 5-M LT 1 $ - $ 522 $ 522 $ 522 $ li S22 67 TNT TRCT MP 35.75 LT 3 $ $ 714 $ 714 $ 2142 $ $ 2,142 68 TNT TRCT MP 76165E 2 E $ 727 $ 72] $ 1,453 E 1 ^4 69 TNT TRCT MP 1166 LTS 1 $ $ 929 $ 929 $ 929 $ - 929 $ (929 S 70 RVSD TNT TRCT MP 5 $ S 513 $ 613 $ 3.067 S - E 3,067 71 VSTNG TNT TRCT 5-34 1 $ 5 787 E 187 $ 187 E - E 187 72 VSTNG TNT TRCT 3&75 1 $ $ 410 $ 419 $ 410 $ $ 410 73 VSTNG TNT TRCT76165 1 $ $ 410 $ 410 E 410 $ $ 410 _ 74 VSTNGTNTTRCT>165 1 $ $ 410 It 410 $ 410 $ $ 410 75 RVSD VSTNG TNT TRCT 2 $ $ 153 $ 153 $ 306 $ E 306 76 PRCL MP RESIDENTIAL 1 $ S 187 $ 187 $ 187 E $ 187 77 PRCL MAP COMMERCIAL 3 $ $ 412 $ 412 $ 1,235 $ $ 1235 78 RVSD PRCL MAP 1 $ $ 1,268 $ 1,266 S 12M $ $ 1,266 79 CONDO MAP 1 S $ 604 E I606 $ 804 E $ 804 80 PHSNG PLN TRCT MAP 4 $ $ 842 $ 642 $ 3.365 E $ 3,366 81 EXT OF THE SUB. ORD 5 S - S 556 $ 556 S 2781 $ $ 2,781 82 ANNXTWDETATCHMENT VSTNG TENT PRCL MAP 7 $ - f 12.539 $ 12,539 $ 12,539 S $ 12.538 _ 83 1 $ $ 410 $ 410 $ 410 $ $ 410 g 84 Al NT MANAGED EIR 1 $ $ 8,273 $ 8,273 $ 8273 $ $ 8 273 BSCRY MANAGED EIR $ 2,310 $ 2,310 $ 2,310 S - f 2,310 86 SPECIFIC PLAN -NEW 1 $ $ 13,768 $ 13,766 $ 13.768 $ 8 13.768 87 SPECIFC PLN AMND MIR 1 E $ 2.058 $ 2.058 $ 2,058 S - $ tz.um 88 SPCFC PUN AMND MNR 1 $ $ 775 $ 775 $ 775 $ $ 775 89 DEV PLN NEW>100K SF 3 Ili $ 1,096 $ 1,096 $ 3.288 $ $ 3288 90 DEV PLN NEW 161001< 14 $ - $ 604 E 606 $ 8458 $ $ 8,456 91 MAJOR MODIFICATION 5 $ $ 718 E ilia $ 3.590 S $ 3,590 92 TIME EXT. W/ PH 3 $ S 317 $ 317 $ 950 $ $ 950 93 TIME EXT. W/O PH 3 $ $ 317 $ 317 $ 950 $ - $ 950 9d MNRCHGAPRVD 1 $ $ 126 $ 126 $ 126 $ $ 125 95 TNT RES PRCL MAP W/ 1 $ $ 187 $ 187 $ 187 E $ 18 98 TENT COM. PRCL MP W/ 1 $ $ 187 $ 187 $ 187 E f 1187 $ 422 97 FNL PRCL MP SSE FEE 3 S E 141 $ 141 $ 975 S 422 $ 16570 $ - $ $ 16570 98 FNL TRCT MP BASE FEE 17 $ $ 975 187 $ $ 187 99 OFF SITE IMPvWNTS 1 E $ 187 E 167 $ 341 100 NON FEE ACTNRY 1 $ - $ 748,361 S 748.3H $ 748,341 $ $ 748 Indivitlual osl Subtotal: f 955,132 i f 90.132 DEPARTMENTT TALS: 1$6,704,5401$UB.0001$(6,176Um FVLL 4WIRCYVvcrt ,-cvcn✓. Fee # A reference number to 1adIWN Oiwvssion Fee or Service Name/Dried Bon TheservkasanW" tees inMOW in the MAXIMUS stud Annual Quantity The annual number of each service Provided for v oh a fee can be recovered. as reported b the C' Current fee The current fee oramed by the Ulf for each service. ifa likable Attal Una Cost / Potential Fee The Mal cost of each service. as nkulabd b MAXIMUS Per Unit Su luS/SAW The dmmm;a batmen the AMal Unit C and me Gunent Fee fa each service Actual Annual Cost/ Potential Revenue The potential revenue Nike City Mu,ad the Actual Una Cost for each service at Me Annual Quan forthalservice Unit Cost.Annualcuan Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue Atha City charged the Current Fee for each service at Me Annual QuanMyfor that smvios (Cunent Fee. Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue Surplus/(Subsidy) The difference bateeen Me I oun Annual Cost/Potendal Revenue and Me Annual Rovenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost) the City Provides to e rs/customers for each service. a Me amount of ovemha a. Appantlh 5 -Page 2 014 304 'US Cnyof7eotacula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY COMMUNITY'SERVK:ESDEPARTMEN. q; RECOMMEN0EWFEES 'iMVENUE�7MPACTS ....r 3£AD3USTMENTS$! Fee#Fee Service Name l Description Current Fee - Recommended Fee - % Recovery (of full cost) - Remaining Recovery % Remaining Per Unit Surplus I (Subsidy) Potential Revenue al Rec. Fee Annual Revenue M Current Fee Potential Addtonal Revenue (@Reed Fee) Necessary Change to individual Fen Achieve Rec. Fee Levels _. �- 1 COSTtRECOVERYP.ROGRAM 'WSTS'8 ADULT SOFTBALL . $ 50,000 _. $ 72,000 57% 43% $ M,339 - D0 .. S 60,000 ',' $ 12.000 •ry. ': 20.D% 2 ADULT BASKET BALL $ 9,000 $ 6750. 5% 95% $ 127,290 50 $ 9.OW $ 2 50 -25.0% 3 4 5 7 10 17 12 14 15 16 1] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 38 37 38 39 40 SPORTS -CATCHALL SWIM LESSONS -GROUP PRIVATE SWIM LESSONS OPEN SWIM POOL RENTAL MAIL IN REGISTRATION AQUATICS -CATCHALL CONTRACT CLASSES SR. CENTER -CATCHALL SR. CENTER NUT. PRGM SR. CNTR TRANSPORTN TCC-CATCHALL HIGH HOPES SKATE PARK SPECIAL EVENTS EXCURSIONS$ SMART PROGRAM DAY CAMP NGHBRHD PROWS TEEN SERVICES CRC CATCHALL TINYTOTS PARENT B ME SISTERCRIES ASSESMENTADIAN PICNIC SHELTERS HLSTORYMUSEUM CHILDRENS MUSEUM B-DAYPARTYKIDSMSM GFT SHOP KIDS MSM LANDSCAPE SERVICES ACTIVE FIELD MAIN? GYM MAINT POOL MAINT FACLRYMAINT CIP CABLE DEVELOPERELECTIONS $ %0W $ 53,600 $ 500 $ - $ 10500 $ - $ 5500 $ 170.000 $ 3000 $ - E BOD $ 11,000 $ 2,000 $ 25000 $ 11.WD 5.600 $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ - S B.000 $ 3,000 $ $ - $ 2,000 S 8,400 $ 13000 $ 4000 $ 10,W0LZ $ $ f $ S $ - $ S $ 900017% $ 120,1) $ 500 $ - $ 10,5W S - E 6500 $ 58,]37 $ 3,000 E. -. $ 600 $ 17W0 $ 2W0 $ 25.000 S 11,000 8 5,600 S $ 925W Sr - $ 4000 $ - S 9,216 $ - 5,2W $'. $" - $'. " 3,100 $' 84W $ 13,000 $ 4000 $. S- $ $ - 8 o 103% 2% 0% - 13% 0% 12% W% 2% - 0% 2% 5% 4% -. 11% - 4% 13%_ :O% 96% 0% 4% - 07.. 31% 18% O% 0% 1D% 4%.. 9% 15%:-.- 17% "0% 0%--100%$ - 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0% - 83% -3% 98% 100% 87% 1DD% -. 88% ]0% 98% IN% - 98% 95% 96% $9% 96 87% 100% 4% 1DO% 98% IW% 89% 82% "' IN% 1DD%$ 90% '96% 91% 84% C 83% 100% 100% IN% 100% IW% 100% 100% $ 43,770 $ 3,770 $ 2Q997 E 137.251 S 71098 $ 56.895 $ 48.302 $ 138,618 E 163.818 $ 18,807 $ 38124 $ 192.579 $ 45,24fi $ 197.154 $ 265,222 $ 39.023 $ 87 87 f 3952 $ 25,711 S 102014 $ .0.465 S 20,381 $ 23213 $ 45,932 90 MI E 28,943 S 208191 $ 132,725 $ 20,801 $ (49,705 E 1084,655 681.86335 $ 15W1 f 45.505 $ 320,341 E 214690 $ 34.590 $ 2.263 V72 D 00 OE 00 00 37 00 - W ,W $ 2,000 $ 25.000 $ 11.000 $ 5,6W S - $ 92500 S - S 4,000 $ - E 9,218 $ 5,250 $ $ - $ 3,100 $ 8,40D $ 13.000 $ 4,DW $ 10.000 E $ $ S - $ $ - $ SW $ 9,WD E 53,6W SOD $ - S 10,5W $ 6.500 $ 110.000 $ 3,000 $ WV0.0% S13 $ 11,000 $ 2,W0 $ 25000 $ 11.000 $ 5,600 $ - S 70,W0 $ - E 4,OW $ - $ 8,000 $ 3,000 $ $ - $ 20D0 $ 8400 $ 13,000 $ 4,000 $ 10.000 $ S S S $ $ $ $ - $ 68400123.9% $ -6 S $O.OY.8 $9 $ - $ 51,283 $0.0% $ - S - $ $ $ $ - $ 22,W0 $ $ $ - $ 1,216 $ 2,250 $ $ - $ 1,100 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ f $ $ $ 800 0.0% 0.0% -46.6X 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.1% 0.0% 15.2% ]S.OYe 55.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 59 60 ROOM RENTALS Onset D 59a FIELD RENTALS OBSeib bua $ $ ' 0% 0% 1 W % 100% E 104,088 $ 19,134 $ S 28 00 $ $ 28,300 $ 60,000 f 28,300 P am Cost Subtotal: I S7 5a 02 f 528000 1 $ (35,547) Indudin the 59a 60a combined Fees: 03] $ N59 =Room Rental Total Cost pia ano= Flew Rental Total Cost $ 257.852 $ 703997 100% t00% OX -0% f S 2 fees below. $ 257,852 $ 703.997 E WON$ $ 281300 197852 $ 675,597 INDMDUAla O PROGRAM CO /FEEWRIEWIN E 8,828 E 9,898 f 15.059 $ 1.869 $ 2,923 E 3,970 S 2 394 $ 4513 S 6656 $ 3,184 E 4738 S7.806 $ 2391 $ 3,197 f 1852 S 2825 $ 4.562 E $ S $ $ f S f $ E $ S - $ $ $ S $ $ 6,828 S 9.898 $ 15.059 $ 1869 $ 2923 $ 3.970 $ 2,39a $ 4,513 $ 6,658 $ 3,184 $4)38 S 7,806 1,428 S 2,391 $ 3197 $ 1,652 $ 2.925 S 4,562 41 42 43 44 45 PC PARK<5 ACRES PC PARK 5-10 ACRES PC PARK>10 ACRES PCMEDb1N<10KSF PC MEDIAN IO-25K SF MEDIAN SF SLOPES <150K SF SLOPES 150-250 SF C SLOPES>2WK SF SP PRK <S ACRES SP PRK 5-10 ACRES SPPRK>10ACRES SP MEDIAN»OKSF SP MEDIAN I0.25 SF SP MEDIAN >25K SF SP SLOPES <iWKSF SP SLOPES IW-2WK SP SLOPES>2WK SF w $ $ $ $ E S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S - E - $ $. 6826'-100%'" $ ". 9.898 $ - 15,059 $'.- 1869 $. 2923 S` 3,970 S 2,394 $ 4,513 $ 8656 E Si84 4798 $ 7.Wf6 E" 1,428 $ - 2,391 $ 3197 $ 1,652 $" 2,925 $ 14,562 100%EDD - 100%% `. 100%% 100%0% 100X0% IN%0% 1DD%0% 1W%0% 100%0% -. IN%0% tug%%S 100-A0%$$ •-..100%0% 7 100%0% 100%.0% 700Y. 1W%" 100% % i' 100% 100%$ $ $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ $ S $ - $ $ $ $ MUShrr Appenft S-Page 3of4 MAY US Cftyof Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY mrl~�. - COYYUNITa'-SERVICES.DEP. ENT .'. .... - Fee K Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee RECOMMENDED Recommended Fee . ' %'.. Recovery. (of full cost) F, 0 9 SAWAIIIIII&W Remaining Recovery % Remaining Par Unit Sumlus I (Subsidy) VAMINIEREMUEIMPACTSMAM#ADJUSTYENT53Y Potential Revenue at Rea. Fee Annual I Revenue at Current Fee Potential Additional Revenue (a Reed Fee) Necessary Change to Individual Fees Achieve Rec. Fee Levels Pfanning° 61 'fees. -"• 62 +'= 63 " 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 1Ee. 72 73 74 75 p 76 77 78 _ 79 80 i W1 82 g 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9] 98 99 100 DEVPLNNEWOOKSF DEVELOPMENT AGRMNi ANNEXATION AGRM14T SBSTNL CNFRMNCE S.P. TNT TRCT MP 5-34 LT TNT TRCT MP 35-75 LT TNT TRCT MP 76-165 L TNT TRCT MP>166 LTS RVSD TNT TRCT MP VSTNGTNTTRCT634 VSTNG TNT TRCT 35-75 VSTNG TNT TRCT76-165 VSTNGTNT TRCTr166 RVSD VSTNG TNT TROT PRCL MP RESIDENTIAL PRCL MAP COMMERCIAL RVSD PRCL MAP CONDO MAP PHSNG PLN TRCT MAP EXTOFTMESUB.ORD ANNXTWDETATCHMENT VSTNG TENT PRCL MAP APPLCNT MANAGED EIR CRY MANAGED EIR SPECIFIC PLAN -NEW SPECIFC PLN AMND WR SPCFC PLN MIND MNR DEVPLNNEW>100KSF DEV PLN NEW 10-100K MAJOR MODIFICATION TIME EXT. W/PH TIME EXT. W/O PH MNRCHGAPRVD TNT RES PRCL MAP W/ TENT COM. PRCL MP W/ FNL PRCL MP ME FEE FNLTRCTMPBASEFEE OFF STE IMPVMNTS NON FEE ACTMiTY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Y $ $ $ E E S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ $ E - $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ S $ 451 $ 7,452 $ 7,26 $ 2053 $ 522 $ 714 $ 727 $ 929 E. 613 $ 187 $ -410 $ 410 $ 410 E in $ 187 $ 412 $ . 1,266 $ 604 $ 942 $ 556 $ 12.539 40410, $ 107 $ 441 $ 97T $ 187 $ 748,341 100% 190% 10D% 100% WO% 11)0% 100% 100% 100% - t00% 100% . 100% 100% 100%.'• - 100% 100%- 100% 1D0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°b - t00% '--100% 100% t00%. _'� 10D% 100% - .100% -'.-.1W%"-' - • 100% 100% t0o% ' t00% - 100% 1DD% 100% IW% 100% 100% 0% 100% t00% 100% IW% - 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% t00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10D% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% =, 10D% 100% t00% 100% 100% ` 10D% 100% 100% ': 100% . IWA - 10D% - - 100% 100% $ $ E - S $ $ - $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ - E E - $ - $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.256 $ 14,904 E 7,288 $ 2053 $ 522 $ 2142 S 1,453 $ 929 $ 3.067 $ 187 $ 41D $ 410 $ 4T0 $ 306 $ 187 $ 1235 $ 1 66 E 60d $ 3.366 $ 2781 $ 12539 $ 410 S 8 73 $ 2310 $ 13,768 $ 2,0M $ 775 $ 3,288 $ 8.456 $ 359D $ 950 $ 950 $ 126 $ t8] $ 187 $ 422 $ 16,570 $ 187 $ 7d8.341 $ $ E $ $ $ - S $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ E S $ $ S - $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E $ $ $ $ E 2.256 $ 14,904 $ 7,266 $ 2,053 $ 522 S 2.142 $ 1.453 $ 929 $ 3,067 $ 167 $ 410 $ 410 $ 410 $ 306 $ 187 E 1.MS $ 1,266 $ 604 $ 3.366 $ 2781 $ 12.539 E 410 $ 8,273 $ 2,310 $ 13.765 $ 2.058 $ 775 E 3,288 S 8,455 S 3,50 $ 950 $ 950 $ 126 Y 187 $ 187 $ 422 $ 16.570 S 187 $ 748,341 Individual Cost Subtotal: I$ 955,132 $ $ 955.132 DEPARTMENT TOTAL $2,409.414 1 $ 529,000 979,585 Fee Fee # A reference number to a discussion Fee w Service Name / Descd Bon Me The services and/or Tees indutletl lo Me MAXIMUM Study s included Current Fee The wrrenlfee rAa etl b thnnavtoreacbsernice.9applicable Recommended Fee The recommended fee dwelcoad hv eSv staff and MAXIMUM %Recove of full cost The ratio of the Recommended Fee to the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Remaining Per Unit Surplus / Subsid The difference belxewt the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee The poten8al revenue ame City charged Me Recommended Fee for each service at the Annual Guan' fwthalservice UnitCost.Annual Ouan' Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue N the Cdy charged Me Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for Nat service (Current Fee. Annual Quantity) Potential Addit nal Revenue (@ Redd The difference beha en the Potential Revenue at Rat. Fee and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: Fee) This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the CM/ could recover (or lose) for each Service, 8 the city charges the Recommended Fee. A1AXIh11b ln. Appendix 5-Page 4 of MA US City o/ Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY EIREtP.REY,ENTI0NI OTH E RIN 0 " U I LD I N G)_ Po < -NIT#COSTS '. w WAMWFtEVEWIA4MPW-CTSWA6WJ Fee # Fee Service Name I Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost I Potential Fee(Subsidy) Per Unit Surplus Actual Annual Cost 1Potential Revenue Annual Revenue at Current Fee(Subsidyl Annual Revenue Surplus 1 SPRKLR PC NW 1-100 20 $ 289 $ 424 $ 135 $ 81479 $ 5,780 $ 2,699 2 SPRKLR PC NW 166-300 15 $ 289 $ 557 $ 268 $ 8,355 $ 4,335 $ 4,020 3 SPRKLR PC NW 300-700 4 $ 289 $ 691 $ 402 $ 2,763 $ 1,756 $ 1,607 4SPRKLR PC>700 2 $ 578 $ 822 $ 244 $ 1,644 $ 1,156 $ 488 5 SPRKLR IN NW 1-100 20 $ 100 $ 467 $ 367 $ 9,346 $ 2,000 $ 7,346 6 SPRKLR IN NW 100-300 15 $ 100 $ 710 $ 610 $ 10,651 $ 1,500 $ 9,151 7 SPRKLR IN NW 3DO-700 4 $ 100 $ 952 $ 852 $ 3,809 $ 400 $ 3,409 B SPRKLR IN>700 2 $ 100 $ 1,377 $ 1,277 $ 2,753 $ 200 $ 2,553 9 SPRKLR PC TI 1-10 40 $ 219 $ 225 $ 6 $ 8,983 $ 8.760 $ 223 10 SPRKLR PCTI II-50 40 $ 219 $ 291 $ 72 $ 11,644 $ 8,760 $ 11 SPRKLR PCTI 51-100 45 $ 219 $ 424 $ 205 $ 19,082 $ 9,855 9,227 $ 9,227 12 SPRKLR PC TI>1 DO 25 $ 219 $ 823 $ 604 $ 20,569 $ 5,475 $ 15.094 13 SPRKLR INSP TI I-10 40 $ 1" $ 286 $ 142 $ 11,432 $ 5,760 $ 5,672 14 SPRKLR INSP TI 11-50 40 $ 144 $ 407 $ 263 $ 16,276 $ 5.760 $ 10.516 15 SPRKLR INS TI 51-100 45 $ 144 $ 528 $ 384 $ 23,766 $ 6,480 $ 17,286 16 SPRKLR INSP TI >100 25 $ 144 $ 770 $ 626 $ 19,259 $ 3,600 $ 15,659 17 ALRM PC NW 1-10 31 $ 100 $ 291 $ 191 $ 9,029 $ 3,100 $ 5,929 18 ALRM PC NW 11-50 25 $ 240 $ 424 $ 194 $ 10,601 $ 6,000 $ 4,601 19 ALRM PC NW 51-100 5 $ 240 $ 757 $ 517 $ 3,785 $ 1200, $ 2,585 20 ALRM PC NW >100 1 $ 240 $ 1,158 $ 918 $ 1,158 $ 240 $ 918 21 ALRM INSP NW 1-10 31 $ 69 $ 407 $ 338 $ 12,612 $ 2,139 $ 10,473 22 ALRM INSP NW 11-50 25 $ 129 $ 589 $ 460 $ 14.720 $ 3.225 $ 11,495 23 ALRM INSP NW 51-100 5 $ -129 $ 892 $ 763 $ 4,462 $ 645 $ 3,817 24 ALRM INSP NW >100 1 $ 129 $ 1,864 $ 1.735 $ 1,864 $ 129 $ 1,735 25 ALRM PC TI 1A0 30 $ 100 $ 291 $ 191 $ 8,735 $ 3,000 $ 5,735 26 ALRM PC TI 11-56 10 $ 100 $ 424 $ 324 $ 4,240 $ 11000 $ 3,240 27 ALRM PC T151-166 5 $ 100 $ 757 $ 657 $ 3,785 $ 500 $ 3,285 28 ALRM PC TI>100 1 $ 100 $ 1,158 $ 11058 $ 1,158 $ 100 $ 1,058 29 ALRM INSP TI 1-10 30 $ 69 $ 407 $ 338 $ 12,210 $ 2,070 $ 10,140 30 ALRM INSP TI 11-50 10 $ 69 $ 588 $ 519 $ 5.883 $ 690 $ 5,193 31 ALRM INSP TI 51-100 5 $ 69 $ 892 $ 823 $ 4,462 $ 345 $ 4,117 32 ALRM INSP TI>100 1 $ 69 $ 1,864 $ 1,795 $ 1,864 $ 69 $ 1,795 33 UNDRGD SPKLR PC 20 $ 149 $ 491 $ 342 $ 9,810 $ 2,980 $ 6,830 34 UNDGRD HYDRNTS PC 10 $ 149 $ 491 $ 342 $ 4,910 $ 1,490 $ 3,420 35 UNDGRD COMBO PC 20 $ 149 $ 624 $ 475 $ 12,470 $ 2,980 $ 9,490 36 UNDGRD SPKLR INSP 20 $ 44 $ 467 $ 423 $ 9,346 $ 880 $ 8,466 37 UNDGRD HYDRNTS INSP 10 $ 44 $ 528 $ 484 $ 5,279 $ 440 $ 4,839 38 UNDGRD COMBO INSP 20 $ 44 $ 650 $ 606 $ 12,990 $ 880 $ 12.110 39 RES. SPRKLR PC 10 $ $ 697 $ 697 $ 6,974 $ - $ 6,974 40 RES. SPRKLR INSP 10 $ $ 310 $ 310 $ 3,098 $ - $ 3,098 41 HOOD 6 DUCT SYS PC 16 $ 240 $ 332 $ 92 $ 5,313 $ 3,840 8 1,473 42 HOOD 8 DUCT SYS INSP 16 $ 229 $ 228 $ 99 $ 3,650 $ 2,064 $ 1,586 43 FIRE PUMPS PC 1 E $ 499 E 499 $ 499 8 E 499 44 FIRE PUMPS INSP 1 $ $ 781 $ 781 $ 781 $ $ 781 45 SPRAY BOOTH PC 4 $ 240 $ 363 $ 123 $ 1,450 $ 960 $ 490 46 SPRAY BOOTH INSP 4 $ 129 $ 446 $ 317 $ 1,783 $ 516 $ 1,267 47 FOAMILIQ SYSTMS PC i $ $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ $ 367 48 FOAMILIQ SYSTMS INSP 1 $ E 363 $ 363 $ 363 $ $ 363 49 ESFR PC 6 $ 289 $ 822 $ 533 $ 4,933 $ 1,734 $ 3,199 50 ESFR INSP 6 $ 149 $ 588 $ 439 $ 3,530 $ 894 $ 2,536 51 DRY CHEM SYSTMS PC 6 $ 240 $ 233 $ 7 $ 1,396 $ 1.440 $ 44 52 DRY CHEM SYSTMS INSP 6 $ 129 $ 228 $ 99 $ 1,366 $ T74 $ 592 53 CO2 SYSTMS PC 1 $ 240 E 367 $ 727 $ 387 $ 240 $ 127 54 CO2 SYSTEMS INSP 1 $ 129 $ 453 $ 324 $ 453 $ 129 $ 324 55 INERT GAS SYSTMS PC 1 $ 240 $ 431 $ 191 $ 431 $ 240 $ 191 56 INERT GAS SYSTM INSP 1 $ 129 $ 453 $ 324 $ 453 $ 129 $ 324 57 VAPOR RECOVERY PC 1 $ $ 431 $ 431 $ 431 $ - $ 431 58 VAPOR RECOVERY INSP 1 $ $ 394 $ 394) $ 394 $ $ 394 59 MEDICAL GASES PC 2 $ $ 302 $ 302 $ 603 $ $ 603 60 MEDICAL GASES INSP 2 $ - $ 227 $ 227 $ 453 $ - $ 453 61 62 INDUSTRIAL GASES PC INDUSTRL GASES INSP 1 1 $ 8 $ 367 $ 363 $ 367 $ 363 $ 367 $ 363 $ $ - $ 367 $ 363 63 UST PC 4 $ 140 $ 490 $ 350 $ 1,959 $ 560 $ 1,399 64 65 UST INSPECTION AST PC 4 4 E 77 $ 140 $ 757 $ 490 $ 680 $ 350 $ 3,027 $ 1,959 $ 308 $ 560 $ 2,719 $ 1,399 66 AST INSPECTION 4 $ 77 $ 757 $ 68D $ 3,027 $ 308 $ 2,719 67 TANK/PIPING RMVL PC 4 $ $ 233 $ 233 $ 931 $ $ 931 NVWo A U MAXIMUS, Inc Appendix 6 - Page 1 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY JRE(P,REVENTKIN, OTHERINON-BUILDING a UNIT$CDST$ 910WRiEVENHUt! U.. Actual Unit Actual Annual Annual Cost] Per Unit Annual Cost Revenue Revenue 7Annual Current Potential Surplus IPotential at Current Surplus Fee # Fee Service Name 1 Description Fee Fee Subsitl Revenue Fee Subsid68 TANK/PIPING RMVL INS $ $ 322 $ 322 $ 1,287 $ $ 1,28769 SMOKE CONTROL PC $ $ 556 $ 556 $ 556 $ - $ 55670 SMOKE CONTROL INSP $ $ 1,472 $ 1,472 $ 1,472 $ - $ 1,472 71 DUST COLLCTN PC 2 $ $ 432 $ 432 $ 864 $ $ 864 72 DUST COLLCTN INSP 2 $ $ 260 $ 260 $ 520 $ $ 520 73 INDSTRL OVNS INST PC 4 $ $ 424 E 424 $ 1.695 $ - $ 1,695 74 INDSTRL OVN INST INS 4 $ $ 255 $ 255 $ 1,019 $ $ 1,019 75 HAZMAT STRG PLN PC 16 $ - $ 769 $ 769 $ 12.298 $ - $ 12,298 76 HAZMAT STRG PLN INSP 16 ' $ $ 445 $ 445 $ 7.112 $ $ 7,112 77 HPS PC 16 $ $ 702 $ 702 $ 11,230 $ $ 11,230 78 HPS INSPECTION t6 $ $ 354 $ 354 $ 5,656 $ - $ 5,656 79 REGLTD REFRIGE PC 6 $ $ 432 $ 432 $ 2,592 $ - $ 2,592 80 REGLTD REFRIGE INSP 6 $ $ 427 $ 427 $ 2.563 $ - $ 2,563 81 MS INDST EOP INST PC 10 $ $ 299 $ 299 $ 2,990 $ - $ 2,990 82 MS INDST EOP INST IN 10 $ $ 195 $ 195 $ 1.952 $ $ 1,952 83 MNR TECHN RPT RVW 5 $ 584 $ 294 $ 290 $ 1,471 $ 2,920 $ 1,449 84 MJR TECHNCL RPT RVW 5 $ $ 699 $ 699 $ 3,494 $ $ 3,494 85 ADULT CARE FAC. INSP 10 $ 169 $ 234 $ 65 $ 2,340 $ 1,690 $ 650 86 CHILD CARE FAC. INSP 50 $ 85 $ 234 $ 149 $ 11,710 $ 4.250 $ 7,460 87 K-12 PBLC SCHL INSP 16 $ $ 376 $ 376 $ 6,020 $ $ 6,020 88 K-12 PRVT SCHL INSP 20 E $ 524 $ 524 $ 10,486 $ $ 10,486 89 TEM. ONEIPOP INSP 26 $ $ 397 $ 397 $ 10,332 $ $ 10,332 90 MNR HIGH RSE INSP 1 $ - $ 800 $ 800 $ 8D0 $ $ 800 91 MJR HGH RSE ANNL INS 1 $ $ 1,561 $ 1,561 $ 1,561 $ - $ 1,561 92 RACKING PLAN CHECK 1 $ $ 611 $ 611 $ 611 $ $ 611 93 RACKING INSPECTION 1 $ $ 272 E 272 $ 272 $ $ 272 94 ONSITE IMPRVMNT PLNS 1 $ $ 67.211 $ 67,211 $ 67.211 $ - $ 67,211 95 OFFSITE IMPVMNT PLNS 1 $ $ 60,357 $ 60,357 $ 60,357 E $ 60,357 96 MOVIE FILMING PERMIT 1 $ $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ - $ 608 97 STRT CLOSURE PERMIT 1 $ $ 346 $ 346 $ 348 $ $ 346 98 FULL GENRAL VACATION 1 $ 8 307 $ 307 $ 307 $ - $ 307 99 SUMMARY VACATION 1 $ $ 307 $ 307 $ 307 $ - $ 307 100 FNL PRCL MAP BASE FE 3 $ $ 206 $ 206 $ 818 $ $ 618 101 PW GRDNG <500 CY 29 $ $ 35 $ 35 $ 1,005 E $ 1,005 102 PW GRDNG 501-5K CY 35 $ $ 51 $ 51 $ 1,797 $ $ 1,797 103 PW GRDNG 5-tOK CY 9 $ $ 68 $ 68 $ 611 $ $ 611 104 PW GRDNG 10-50K CY 1 $ - $ 84 $ 84 $ 84 $ - $ 84 705 PW GRDNG 50-100K 1 $ $ 153 $ 153 $ 153 $ $ 153 107 PW GRDNG>100K 10CY 1655 $ $ 17 $ 17 $ 27,490 $ $ 27,490 108 FNL TRCT MP BASE FEE 17 $ $ 205 E 205 $ 3,491 $ - $ 3.491 123 GPA TXT/EXBT NT LSTD 1 $ - $ 795 $ 795 $ 795 $ $ 795 124 AMNDT ZNG/GPLND MAP 5 $ $ 689 $ 689 $ 3,447 $ $ 3,447 125 AMNDT ZNG OR GPLND 2 $ $ 513 $ 513 $ 11025 $ $ 1,025 126 AMNDT TO CITY ORD 1 $ $ 731 $ 731 $ 731 $ $ 731 127 SPECIFIC PLN-NEW 1 $ $ 6,555 E 6.555 $ 6,555 $ $ 6,555 128 SPCFC PLN AMEND-MJR 1 $ $ 1,419 $ 1,419 $ 11419 $ - $ 1,419 129 SPCFC PLN AMEND-MNR 1 $ E 484 $ 484 $ 484 $ - $ 484 130 CUP 15 $ - $ 210 $ 210 $ 39148 $ $ 3,148 131 CUP w/DEV PLAN 15 $ - $ 210 $ 210 $ 3,148 E $ 3,148 134 DVPLN NW BLD>100K 3 $ $ 462 $ 462 $ 1,385 $ $ 1,3 85 135 DVPLN NW BLD 10-100K 14 $ $ 397 $ 397 $ 5,556 E $ 5,556 136 DVPLN NW BLD<10K SF 5 $ $ 331 E 331 $ 1,656 $ $ 1,656 137 MAJOR MODIFICATION 5 $ $ 210 $ 210 $ 1,052 $ $ 1,052 138 MINOR MOD-APRVD PRJC 20 $ $ 143 $ 143 $ 2,869 $ $ 2,869 139 VARIANCE 1 $ $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ $ 400 140 LARGE DAY CARE PRMT 2 $ $ 277 E 277 $ 653 $ - $ 553 141 T.U.P. MINOR 25 $ - $ 401 $ 401 $ 10,019 $ - $ 10,019) 142 T.U.P. MAJOR 4 $ $ 633 $ 633 $ 2,530 $ $ 2,530 143 T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT 1 $ - $ 591 $ 591 $ 591 $ - $ 591 144 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT 10 $ - $ 401 $ 401 $ 4,013 $ - $ 4,013 145 2ND UNIT PERMIT 3 $ - $ 225 $ 225 $ 676 $ - $ 676 146 EXT OF TIME DEV. CDE 3 $ $ 75 $ 75 $ 226 E $ 226 147 APPEAL 5 $ - $ 567 $ 567 $ 2,833 $ $ 2,833 148 DEVLPMNT AGRMENT 2 $ $ 59094 $ 5,094 $ 10,187 $ - $ 10,187 149 ANNEXATION AGRMNT t $ - $ 1,349 $ 1,349 $ 1,349 $ - $ 1,349 150 SUBSTNL CNFRMNCE S.P 1 $ $ 73 1 $ 73 $ 73 $ - $ 73 151 TNT TRCT MAP 5-34 1 $ $ 141 $ 141 $ 141 $ $ 141 MA 4150R90S •Us MAXIMUS, Inc Appendix 6 - Page 2 of 6 city of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY UNIT:COSTs''"'J REVENUEiIMPACT.S'i Actual Annual Annual Actual Unit Cost I Per Unit Annual Cost Revenue Revenue Annual Current Potential Surplus /Potential at Current Surplus Fee if Fee Service Name 1 Descri tlon Quanti Fee Fee (Subsidy)Revenue Fee (Subsidy) 152 TNT TRCT MAP 35-75 3 $ $ 310 $ 310 $ 931 $ - $ 931 153 TNT TRCT MAP 76-165 2 $ $ 374 $ 374 $ 748 $ $ 748 154 TNTTRCTMAP>166LT 1 $ $ 473 $ 473 $ 473 $ $ 473 155 RVSD TNT TRCT MAP 5 $ $ 210 $ 210 $ 1,052 $ $ 1,052 156 VSTNG TNT TRCT 5-34 1 $ $ 141 $ 141 $ 141 $ - $ 141 157 VSTNG TNT TRCT 35-75 1 $ - $ 309 E 309 $ 309 $ $ 309 158 VSTG TNT TRCT 76-165 1 $ - $ 381 $ 381 $ 381 $ $ 381 159 VSTNGTNTTRCT>166 1 E $ 473 $ 473 $ 473 $ $ 473 160 RVSD VSTNG TNT TRCT 2 $ - $ 209 $ 209 $ 418 $ $ 418 161 PRCL MAP-RSDNTL 1 $ $ 208 $ 208 $ 208 $ - $ 208 162 PRCL MAP -COMMERCIAL 3 $ - $ 277 $ 277 $ 830 $ - E 830 163 RVSD PARCEL MAP 1 $ $ 141 $ 141 $ 141 $ $ 141 164 CONDO MAP 1 $ $ 413 $ 413 $ 413 $ $ 413 165 MNR CHG-APRVD TNT MP 1 $ $ 108 $ 108 $ 108 E $ 108 166 TNT RES PRCL MP W/WV 1 $ $ 141 $ 141 $ 14l $ $ 141 167 TNT COW PRCL MP WANV 1 $ $ 141 E 141 $ 141 $ $ 141 168 PHSNG PLN-TENT MAP 4 $ - $ 242 $ 242 $ 967 $ $ 967 169 MERGER OF CONT PRCLS 8 $ $ 210 $ 210 $ 1,678 $ - $ 1,678 170 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 15 $ $ 210 $ 210 $ 31148 $ $ 3,148 171 EXT OF TIME SUB. ORD 5 $ $ 210 $ 210 $ 1,052 $ $ 1,052 172 ADULT BUS. ORD C.U.P 1 $ - $ 293 $ 293 $ 293 $ $ 293 173 ANNXTN/DETACHMENT 1 $ $ 289 $ 289 $ 289 $ $ 289 174 APPLICANT MNGD EIR 1 $ $ 2,408 $ 2,408 $ 2,408 $ $ 2,408 175 CITY MNGD EIR 1 $ - $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ $ 1,750 176 POO INSPECTION 1 $ $ 1.719 $ 1,719 $ 1,719 $ $ 1,719 177 OTHER FEE ACTIVITIES 1 $ $ 719,870 $ 719,870 $ 719,870 $ $ 719,870 178 FIRE CHIEF -HOURLY 10 $ $ 140 $ 140 $ 1.403 $ - $ 1,403 179 FIREMARSHAL-HOURLY 10 $ $ 140 S 140 $ 1,403 $ - $ 1,403 180 MEP FIRE MRSHL-HRLY 10 $ $ 109 $ 109 $ 1.089 $ $ 1.089 181 FR SFTYSPCLST-HRLY 10 $ $ 66 $ 66 $ 662 $ $ 662 182 FIR SYSTMS INSP-HRLY 10 $ $ 61 $ (61 $ 607 $ $ 607 183 OFF/ONSRE P/C MIN 10 $ $ 172 $ 172 $ 1,715 $ $ 1,715 $ $ $ $ $ S E S Totals: $ 11,466,013 $128,635 $ 1,337,378 The potential unit fees for these items are calculated on a separate worksheet PULL GUJ r "=4Wvcrf r r.cvcrv✓: Fee # A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Descri tion The services and/or tees included in the MAXIMUS stud Annual Quantity a annual num r each service provi r a sewn recovere , as repo y the City Current Fee The current fee char ed by the Citv for each service, it applicable Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Per Unit Su lus I Subsid The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Actual Annual Cost l Potential Revenue The potential revenue it the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quat,tity for Nat service Unit Cost x Annual Quaml Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue it the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual CosUPotential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost) the City provides to fee-payerslcustomers for each service, or the amount of overcharge. fdN►,P Wus�. AXIMUS, bhc Appendix6 -Page 3 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY pa-mmawammWWOMFIRBLREVENTIOM, O THERINOMBUIIDING T REGOMNIENDED,F.EES 'REVENUEAMP,ACTS Fee # Fee Service Name I Description Current Fee Recommended Fee - % Recovery (of full cost Per Unit Surplus 1 (Subsidy)Current RemainingC9.346$ t Annual Revenue at Fee Potential Additional Revenue Rec'd Fee 1 SPRKLR PC NW 1-100 $ 289 $ 424 100% $ $ 5,780 $ 2,699 2 SPRKLR PC NW 100-300 $ 289 $ 557 100% S $ 4,335 $ 4,020 3 SPRKLR PC NW 300-700 $ 289 $ 691 100% $ $ 1,156 $ 1,607 4 SPRKLR PC>700 $ 578 $ 822 - 100% $ - $ 1.156 $ 488 5 SPRKLR IN NW 1-100 $ 100 $ 467 ` 100% $ $ 2,000 $ 7,346 6 SPRKLR IN NW 100-300 $ 100 $ 710 --100% $ $ 10,651 $ 1,500 $ 9,151 7 lSPRKLR IN NW 300-700 $ 100 $ 952 ` 100% $ 1 $ 3,809 $ 400 $ 3,409 8 SPRKLR IN>700 $ 100 $ 1,377 100% $ $ 2,753 $ 200 $ 2,553 9 SPRKLR PC TI I-10 $ 219 $ - 225 t00Yo $ $ 8,983 $ 8,760 $ 223 10 SPRKLR PC TI 11-50 $ 219 $ 291 100% $ $ 11,644 $ 8,760 $ 2,864 11 SPRKLR PC TI 51-100 $ 219 $ 424 100% $ - $ 19,082 $ 9,855 $ 9,227 12 SPRKLR PC TI >100 $ 219 $ 823 100%$ $ 20,569 $ 5,475 $ 15,094 13 SPRKLR INSP TI 140 $ 144 $ 286 100% $ $ 11,432 $ 5,760 $ 5,672 14 SPRKLR INSP TI 11-50 $ 144 $ 407 100% $ $ 16,276 $ 5,760 $ 10,516 15 SPRKLR INS TI 51-100 $ 144 $ `528 - 100% $ - $ 23,766 $ 6.480 $ 17.286 16 SPRKLR INSP TI>100 $ 144 $770 100% $ $ 19,259 $ 3,600 $ 15,659 17 ALRM PC NW 1-10 $ 100 $ 291 - 100% $ $ 9,029 $ 3,100 $ 5,929 18 ALRM PCNW 14 $ 240 $ -. .424 100%$ $ 10.601 $ 6,000 $ 4,601 19 ALRM PC NW 51-100 $ 240 100% $ - $ 3,785 $ 1,200 $ 2,585 20 ALRM PC NW>100 $ 240 $ .- 1,158-;' .100% $ $ 1,158 $ 240 $ 918 21 ALRM INSP NW 1-10 $ 69 E 407 -: '. 100% $ $ 12,612 $ 2,139 $ 10,473 22 ALRM INSP NW 11-50 $ 129 $' 589 `: -: 100% $ $ 14,720 $ 3,225 $ 11.495 23 ALRM INSP NW 51-100 $ 129 $' .. 892- - 100% $ $ 4.462 $ 645 $ 3,817 24 ALRM INSP NW>100 E 129 $ 1,864 100% $ $ 1,864 $ 129 $ 1,735 25 ALRM PC TI 1-10 $ 100 $' =_291 °.. =; 100% $ - $ 8,735 $ 3,000 $ 5,735 26 ALRM PC TI 11-50 $ 100 $ 424 -- 100% $ $ 4,240 $ 1.000 $ 3,240 27 ALRM PC TI 51-100 $ 100 $ 757 100% $ $ 3,785 $ 500 $ 3,285 28 ALRM PC TI>100 $ 100 $ - 1,158 10094. $ $ 1'158 $ 100 $ 1,058 29 ALRM INSP TI I-10 $ 69 E- : 407 - . + -100% $ - $ 12,210 $ 2,070 $ 10,140 30 ALRM INSP TI 11-50 $ 69 $ .' '- 598 -, -,` 100% $ - $ 5,883V$2,980 $ 5,193 31 ALRM INSP TI 51-100 $ 69 $- 892 - 100% E $ 4,462 $ 4,117 32 ALRM INSP TI>100 $ 69 $ ..' ,.. 1,864 -. 100% $ $ 1,864 $ 1,795 33 UNDRGDSPKLRPC $ 149 $. 4 491 100% $ - $ 9,810 $ 6.830 34 UNDGRD HYDRNTS PC $ 149 $ - = 491 100% $ - $ 4,910 $ 3.420 35 UNDGRD COMBO PC $ 149 $- ^.,624 '• ': 100% $ $ 12,470 $ 9.490 36 UNDGRD SPKLR INSP $ 44 $ .- 467 •' 100% $ $ 9,346 $ 8,466 37 UNDGRD HYDRNTS INSP $ 44 $ -' 528 '. C100% $ $ 5,279 $ 4,839 38 UNDGRD COMBO INSP $ 44 $ - . 650 100% $ $ 12,990 $ 12,110 39 RES. SPRKLR PC $ S697 - 100% $ $ 6,974$ 6,974 40 RES. SPRKLR INSP $ $ •. -310 100% $ - $ 3,098 $ - $ 3,098 41 HOOD & DUCT SYS PC $ 240 $ - - 332 ":- 100% $ $ 5,313 $ 3,840 $ 1,473 42 HOOD & DUCT SYS INSP $ 129 $ 228 100% $ $ 3,650 $ 2,064 $ 1,586 43 FIRE PUMPS PC $ $ 499 700% $ $ 499 $ - $ 499 44 FIRE PUMPS INSP $ - $ 781 _ - 100% E $ 781 $ - $ 781 45 SPRAY BOOTH PC $ 240 $_ - 363 100% $ $ 1,450 $ 960 $ 490 46 SPRAYBOOTHINSP $ 129 $ -. �- 446 -- 100% $ $ 1.783 $ 516 $ 1,267 47 FOAMILI -SYSTMS PC $ $ 367. 100% $ - $ 367 $ - $ 367 48 FOAMILIO SYSTMS INSP $ $- - 363 100% $ $ 363 $ $ 363 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ESFR PC ESFRINSP DRY CHEM SYSTMS PC DRY CHEM SYSTMS INSP CO2 SYSTMS PC CO2 SYSTEMS INSP INERTGASSYSTMSPC INERT GAS SYSTM INSP VAPOR RECOVERY PC VAPORRECOVERY INSP MEDICAL GASES PC $ 289 $ 149 $ 240 $ 129 $ 240 $ 129 $ 240 $ 129 $ $ $ $ - ' = 822 $ 588., $..; . 233-. $ -: "228 $ 367 $: 453 $ ." 431 $ �. '- 453 $ - , 431 $ 394 $' 302 .. '. 100% 100°k -1 100% 100% "-:'100% ` 100% , 100% 100% ' - 100% "- -100% - 100% $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 4,933 $ 3.530 $ 1,396 $ 1,366 $ 367 $ 453 $ 431 $ 453 $ 431 $ 394 $ 603 $ 1,734 $ 894 $ 1,440 $ 774 S 240 $ 129 $ 240 $ 129 $ - $ $ $ 3,199 $ 2,836 $ 44 $ 592 $ 127 $ 324 $ 191 $ 324 $ 431 $ 394 $ 603 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 MEDICAL GASES INSP INDUSTRIAL GASES PC INDUSTRL GASES INSP UST PC UST INSPECTION AST PC AST INSPECTION TANK/PIPING RMVL PC $ $ $ - $ 140 $ 77 $ 140 $ 77 $ $ 227 $ 367 $ 363 $": 490 $ 757 $� 490 $'..- :'.757 $ - '233 100% - 100% 100% 100Yo .'� 100% - 100% '.-: 100% 100% $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 453 $ 367 $ 363 $ 1,958 $ 3.027 S 1,959 $ 3,027 $ 931 $ $ $ - $ 560 $ 308 $ 560 $ 308 $ $ 453 $ 367 $ 363 $ 1.399 $ 2,719 $ 1,399 $ 2,719 $ 931 (�ildlll�(I :fl Appendix 6 - Page 4 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY F,IRE',P,REVENTIONT OTHERINON'-BUILDING -EGQMMENDEIl."F,EES REV.ENUE;IMP,%1C7S' Fee # Fee Service Name I Description Recommended Fee - %. -Recovery (of full cost Remaining Per Unit Surplus I Subsitl Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Additional Revenue Rec'd Fee68 TANKIPIPING RMVL INS dCurrent $ 322 100% $ $ 1,287 $ $ 1,287 69 SMOKE CONTROL PC $ 556 100% $ $ 556 $ $ 556 70 SMOKE CONTROL INSP $ 1,472 '100% $ $ 1,472 $ $ 1,472 71 DUST COLLCTN PC $ 432 '100% $ E 864 $ - $ 864 72 DUST COLLCTN INSP $ 260 100% $ $ 520 § - $ 520 73 INDSTRL OVNS INST PC $ 424 100% $ $ 1,695 $ $ 1,695 74 INDSTRL OVN INST INS $ $ 255 100% $ $ 1,019 E $ 1,019 75 HAZMAT STRG PLN PC $ $ 769 1DO% $ $ 12,298 $ $ 12,298 76 HAZMAT STRG PLN INSP $ $ 445 100% $ $ 7,112 $ $ 7,112 77 HPS PC $ E '. 702 100% $ $ 11,230 $ $ 11,230 78 HPS INSPECTION $ $ 354 100% $ $ 5,656 $ - $ 5,656 79 REGLTD REFRIGE PC $ $ 432 100% $ $ 2,592 $ - $ 2,592 80 REGLTD REFRIGE INSP $ $ 427 100% $ $ 2,563 $ $ 2,563 81 MS INDST EQP INST PC $ $ 299 ' 1DO% $ $ 2,990 $ $ 2,990 82 MS INDST EQP INST IN $ $ 195 100% $ $ 1,952 $ $ 1,952 83 MNR TECHN RPT RVW $ 584 $ - 294 100% $ - $ 1.471 $ 2,920 $ 1,449 94 MJR TECHNCL RPT RVW $ $ - 699 - 100% $ $ 3,494 $ - $ 3,494 85 ADULT CARE FAC. INSP $ 169 $ 234 `. 100% $ $ 2,340 E 1,690 $ 650 86 CHILD CARE FAC. INSP $ 85 $' 234 . E 100% $ $ 11,710 S 4,250 $ 7,460 87 K-12 PBLC SCHL INSP $ $' `' 376 ' " 1D0% $ $ 6,020 $ $ 6,020 88 K-12 PRVT SCHL INSP $ $ 524 1DG% $ $ 10,486 $ $ 16,486 89 TEM. ONEIPOP INSP $ $ - 397 .: 100% $ $ 10,332 $ $ 10,332 90 MNR HIGH RSE INSP $ $ 800.. � ': 100% $ $ 800 $ $ 800 91 MJR HGH RSE ANNL INS $ $ 1,561 100% $ $ 1,561 $ $ 1,561 92 RACKING PLAN CHECK $ $ 611 "'.. 100% $ $ 611 E - $ 611 93 RACKING INSPECTION $ - $-' = 272 '-" 100% $ - $ 272 $ - $ 272 94 ONSITE IMPRVMNT PLNS $ $ 67,211 100% $ $ 67,211 $ - $ 67.211 95 OFFSITE IMPVMNT PLNS $ $-'. :. 60,357 100% $ $ 60,357 $ - $ 60.357 96 MOVIE FILMING PERMIT $ 6 100% $ $ 606 S $ 606 97 STRT CLOSURE PERMIT $ 0% $ 346 $ - E $ - 98 FULL GENRAL VACATION $ 7'. -100% $ $ 307 § $ 307 99 SUMMARYVACATION $ 7 - 1DO% $ $ 307 $ $ 307 100 FNL PRCL MAP BASE FE $ 6 : - 100% $ $ 618 $ $ 618 101 PW GRDNG <500 CY $ 35 H :- ' 1D0% $ $ 1,005 $ $ 1,005 102 PW GRDNG 5015K CY $ 51 :. .100°% $ $ 1,797 $ $ 1,797103 PWGRDNG 5-10KCY $ 68- 100% $ - $ 611 $ - $ 611 104 PW GRDNG 1050K CY $ 84 100% $ - $ 84 $ - $ 84 105 PWGRDNG 50-100K $ 53 100% $ $ 153 $ $ 153 107 PW GRDNG>100K 10GY $ 17 , 100% E $ 27.490 $ $ 27.490 108 FNL TRCT MP BASE FEE $ $ 205 '. 100% $ $ 3,491 $ $ 3.491 123 GPA TXT/EXBT NT LSTD - - 795 - -100% $ $ 795 $ $ 795 124 125 AMNDT ZNGIGPLND MAP AMNDT ZNG OR GPLND 68900% .513 100% $ $ - $ 3,447 $ 1.025 $ $ - $ 3,447 $ 7,025 126 AMNDTTOCITYORD - : 731- 100% $ $ 731 $ $ 731 127 128 SPECIFIC PLN-NEW SPCFC PLN AMEND-MJR 6,555 -".1.419 ' 100% 1DO%$ S $ 6,555 $ 1,419 $ $ $ 6,555 $ 1,419 129 130 SPCFC PLN AMEND-MNR CUP WH < . , 484 . 210 :'- : 100% 100% $ $ $ 484 $ 3,148 $ $ $ 484 $ 3,148 131 134 CUP wl DEV PLAN DVPLN NW BLD>t00K `- 63 462-.,?.100% 30% $ 147 $ $ 944 $ 1,385 $ - $ - $ 944 $ 1,385 135 136 DVPLN NW BLD 10-100K DVPLN NW BLD<10K SF - :397 331 ' ;' 100% - -..' 100% $ $ $ 5,556 $ 1,656 E $ $ 5,556 $ 1.656 137 138 MAJOR MODIFICATION MINOR MOD-APRVD PRJC $ $ $ 210 $ 143 1D0°k 100% $ $ $ 1,052 $ 2,869 $ $ $ 1,052 $ 2,869 139 IQ VARIANCE LARGE DAY CARE PRMT $ $ $ 400 $2771 _- 100% 100% $ $ $ 400 $ 553 $ $ - $ 400 $ 553 141 142 143 T.U.P.MINOR T.U.P. MAJOR T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT $ $ $ $- 401 5..'. 633 $ ' A 18 1 100% - : 100% 20% $ $ $ 473 $ 10,019 $ 2,530 $ 118 $ E $ $ 10,019 $ 2,530 $ 118 144 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT $ $ 80 20% $ 321 E 803 $ $ 803 145 146 2ND UNIT PERMIT EXT OF TIME DEV. CDE $ $ $ 225 E- : 75 1DO% 100% $ - $ - $ 676 $ 226 $ $ - $ 676 $ 226 147 148 APPEAL DEVLPMNT AGRMENT $ $ $ > -' $' 5,094 0% 100% $ 567 $ $ - $ 10,187 $ $ $ - $ 10,187 149 150 151 ANNEXATION AGRMNT SUBSTNL CNFRMNCES.P TNT TRCT MAP 5-34 $ $ $ $' - 1,349 $ 73 $ 141 :. ' 100% 100% - 100% $ $ $ $ 1,349 $ 73 $ 141 $ - $ $ $ 1,349 $ 73 $ 141 nn 4"US 4F?I/ISz= Appendix 6 - Page 5 of 6 City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY F.IREIPREVENTiON; OTHERMON=BUILDING -w - - ltEGOMAIENGELY%E4_ .REVEtiUE,AMP;ACTS - - %- Remaining Potential Recovery Per Unit Potential Annual Additional Recommended (of full Surplus I Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Fee # Fee Service Name I Descri on Current Fee Fee cost(Subsidy) Rec. Fee Current Fee Rec'd Fee 152 TNT TRCT MAP 35-75 $ $ 310 100% $ - $ 931 $ - $ 931 153 TNT TRCT MAP 76-165 $ - $ 374 - - 1 DO% E $ 748 $ $ 748 154 TNT TRCT MAP>166 LT $ $ 473 100% $ _ $ 473 $ - $ 473 155 RVSD TNT TRCT MAP $ $ 210 100% $ - $ 1,052 $ - $ 1.052 156 VSTNG TNT TRCT 5-34 $ $ 141 100% $ - $ 141 $ $ 141 157 VSTNG TNT TRCT 35-75 E $ 309 1D0%u $ $ 309 $ $ 309 158 VSTG TNT TRCT 76-165 $ $ 381 100% $ $ 381 $ $ 381 159 VSTNG TNT TRCT>166 $ $ 473 100% $ - $ 473 $ $ 473 160 RVSD VSTNG TNT TRCT $ $ 209 100% $ $ 418 E $ 418 161 PRCL MAP-RSDNTL $ - $ 208 100% $ $ 2D8 $ $ 208 162 PRCL MAP -COMMERCIAL $ $ - 277 100% $ $ 830 $ $ 830 163 RVSD PARCEL MAP $ $ 141 100°/u $ $ 141 $ $ 141 164 CONDO MAP $ 100% $ $ 413 $ $ 413 165 MNRCHG-APRVDTNTMP $ - 100% $ - $ 108 $ $ 108 166 TNT RES PRCL MP WIWV $ : 100% $ $ 141 $ $ 141 167 TNT COM PRCL MP WM/V $ 100% $ - $ 141 $ - $ 141 168 PHSNG PLN-TENT MAP $ . Pi ': 100% $ $ 967 $ $ 967 169 MERGER OF CONT PRCLS $ '.` 100% $ $ 1,678 E $ 1,678 170 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ - 100% $ _ $ 3,148 $ $ 3,148 171 EXT OF TIME SUB. ORD $ '100% $ $ 1,052 $ $ 1,052 172 ADULT BUS. ORD C.U.P $ 100% $ - $ 293 $ $ 293 173 ANNXTN/DETACHMENT $ ' -. 100% $ - $ 289 $ $ 289 174 APPLICANT MNGD EIR $ - $ - 2,408 s'. _100% $ - $ 2,408 $ - $ 2,408 175 CITY MNGD EIR $ $ 1,750 `' 100%. $ $ 1,750 $ - $ 1,750 176 PDO INSPECTION $ $ .. 1,719 100% $ - $ 1,719 $ $ 1,779 177 OTHER FEE ACTIVITIES $ - $ - 0°/a $ 719.870 $ - $ $ - 178 FIRE CHIEF -HOURLY $ - $ .140 100% $ $ 1.403 $ $ 1,403 179 FIRE MARSHAL -HOURLY $ -$ ' 140 -. -100% $ - $ 1,403 $ - $ 1,403 180 DEP FIRE MRSHL-HRLY $ $ 109 100% $ - 181 FIRSFTY SPCLST-HRLY $ $ - . 66 ' 100% $ 182 FIR SYSTMS INSP-HRLY $ $ "'61. " - 1p0% $ 183 OFF/ONSITE P/C MIN E $ -. 172 100% $ - p 0 $ $ 1-.100% $ - $ - $ - $ Totals: 1 $ 733,004 $ 128,635 1 $ 604,369 The potential unit fees for these items are calculated on a separate worksheet. rtt erewmmenvw nvrvo «aecn�. Fee # nce number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Descd don ices andlor fees included in the MAXIMUS studCurrent Feeent fee cha ed b the CI for each serveRecommended Fee Fee.rffen, ommended fee develo b ci stffRecove of full cost o of the Recommended Fee to theRemainin PerUnitSu lus / Subsid rence between the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue al Rec. Fee ential revenue if the City charged the Recommended FeeJor each service at the Annual Quantity service Unit Cost x Annual QuanAnnual Revenue at Current Fee ential revenue If the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Potential Addifional Revenue (@ Reed Fee) The difference between the Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the City could recover (or lose) for each service, if the city charges the Recommended Fee. MAXIMUS, lrx. Appendix 6 - Page 6 of 6 MAWUS City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FULL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY POLICEMEPARTMEN. _ NITCOST,SVANWKEVENUCIMPACTSUSM Actual Unit Actual Annual Annual Cost Per Unit Annual Cost Revenue Revenue Annual t Potential Surplus I I Potential at Current Surplus 1 Fee If Fee Service Name I Description Quanti 7Fe, Fee (Subsidy) Revenue Fee (Subsidy) 1 VEHICLE RELEASE 920 5 $ 96 $ 51 4 $ 41,400 $ 46,9842 FINGERPRINTS 336 0 $ 17 $ 7 4 $ 3,360 $ 2,2443 REPORT COPIES 1584 5 $ 18 $ 13 5 $ 7,920 S 20,9254 ABC PERMITS 18 $ - $ 81 $ 81 4 $ - $ 1,4645 TAXI PERMITS 12 $ 55 $ 50 $ 5 6 $ 660 $ 64 6 SOLICITORS PERMIT 60 $ 5 $ 33 $ 28 M88,384 9 $ 300 $ 1,69910 CITATION COPY 20 $ $ 12 $ 12 7 $ - $ 24711 MASSAGE PERMIT 20 $ 42 $ 50 $ 8 5 $ 840 $ 16513 NON FEE ACTIVITY 1 $ $ 9,494,855 $ 9,494.855 5r $ 9,494,855 14 CUP $ 67 $ 67 99$ 1,999 18 DVPLN NW SLD>100 SF $ 66 $ 66 99$ 199 19 T.U.P. MINOR $ 50 $ 50 $ 1,249$ 1,24920 T.U.P. MAJOR $ 67 $ 67 $ 268$ 26821 T.U.P. MAJOR NON PFT U$- $ 69 $ 69 $ 69$ 6922 T.U.P. MINOR NON PFT $ 50 $ 50 $ 497$ 497 23 VENDORS PERMIT $ 30 $ 30 $ 30$ 30 24 MASSAGE EST. PERMIT $ 67 $ 67 $ 736$ 736 25 ADULT BUS ORD C.U.P $ 69 $ 69 $ 69$ 69 26 ADLT BUS EMPLYE PRMT $ 69 $ (69)[IS 69 $ $ 69 27 ADLT BUS ORD. OWNER 1 $ $ 69 $ 69 $ 69 $ - $ 69 Totals: 1 $ 9,641,687 f $ 54.480 (9,587,207) STRECOVERY LEGEND FULL CO Fee # A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS stud Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided for which a fee can be recovered, as reported by the city Current Fee The current fee charged by the Cily for each service, If appiicable Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Per Unit Surplus /(Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue 9 the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The tl'rfference between the Total Annual CosWotential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost) the City provides to fea- a rs/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharge. NtA) LB. r Appendix 7- Page 1 of 2 MAWUS City of Temecula USER FEE STUDY FEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY POLICEIDEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED EE07Rec. EVENUE'fMPACTS ;. Fee # Fee Service Name I Description Current Fee Recommended Fee % Recovery I.full- cost Remaining Per Unit Surplus (Subsidy)Current Annual Revenue at Fee Potential Additional Revenue Rec'd Fee1 2 VEHICLE RELEASE FINGERPRINTS $ 45 $ 10 $.. 100 $ 12 $ 4 E 5 $ 41,400 $ 3,360 $ 50,600 $ 672 3 REPORT COPIES $ 5 $ 15 $ 3 $ 7,820 $ 15,840 4 ABC PERMITS $ $ 20 $ 61 $ 360 $ - $ 360 5 TAXI PERMITS $ 55 $ 50 100% $ $ 596 $ 660 $ 64 6 SOLICITORS PERMIT $ 5 $ 20 - $ 13 $ 1,200 $ 300 $ 900 10 CRATION COPY $ $ 12 - - 10D% $ $ 247 $ - $ 247 11 MASSAGE PERMIT $ 42 $ 50 100% $ $ 11005 $ 840 $ 165 N FEE ACTIVITY $ $- 0°4 $ 9,494,855 $ - $ $ - P $ $ 67 100% $ $ 1,999 $ $ 1,999 PLN NW BLD>100 SF .P. MINOR $ $ $. 68 $ - 50 100% 100% S $ $ 199 $ 1,249 $ $ - $ 199 $ 1,249 .P. MAJOR MAJOR NON PFT $ $ $ 67 $ ` 14 100% 20% $ $ 55 $ 268 $ 14 $ - $ $ 268 $ 14 Is .P. .P. MINOR NON PFT NDORS PERMIT $ $ $ 10 $ - 20% 0% $ 40 $ 30 $ 99 $ - $ $ $ 99 $ SSAGE EST. PERMIT $ $ 67 - 100% $ $ 736 $ $ 736 ULT BUS ORD C.U.P LT BUS EMPLYE PRMT 8 $ $ 69- E 69 100% 100% $ E $ 69 $ 69 $ $ - $ 69 $ 69 LT BUS ORD. OWNER $ $ 69 - 100% $ $ 69 $ $ 69 Totals: 1127,01-11 $ 54,4801 $ 73,491 Fee # A reference number to faciliate discussion Fee or Service Name / Dm7nIttion The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS stud Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, If applicable Recommended Fee The recommended fee developed by city staff and MAXIMUS % Recovery of full cost The redo of the Recommended Fee to the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Remaining Per Unit Surplus /(Subsidy) The difference between the Recommended Fee and the Actual Unit Cost for each fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Recommended Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Potential Additional Revenue (@ ReVd Fee) The difference between the Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee: This figure represents the potential annual additional revenue the City could recover (or lose) for each service, if the city charges the Recommended Fee. MAYJMUS. 1. Appendix 7 - Page 2 of 2 ^e"' l ITEM 17 APPR CITY ATTORNE FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Art In Public Places Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1) Hear and consider comments related to the establishment of an Arts In Public Places Ordinance. 2) Direct staff to incorporate any changes as specified by the City Council and include in the first reading on June 8, 2004. BACKGROUND: In 1998 the City of Temecula developed a Cultural Arts Master Plan. The intent of developing the Cultural Arts Master Plan was to develop a plan that identified key goals to enhance and encourage the development of culture and arts in our community. Through a series of workshops, interviews and focus groups, six (6) goals were identified and established by the community. One of these goals was to enhance the community through arts in public places. This goal encouraged the establishment of a public arts ordinance and fee. Over the years, the City has contributed to Art in Public Places. These investments in Public Art are evidenced by the development of the Veteran's War Memorial and installation of the sculpture "Singing In The Rain", currently installed at the Temecula Duck Pond. In addition, three (3) specific plans, Roripaugh, Wolf Creek and Harveston, have all been conditioned in the Development Agreement to provide a Public Art fee. The proposed Art in Public Places Ordinance is designed to encourage new development to design, develop and install artwork in public spaces for the community to enjoy. It requires new development to install public art, or pay an in -lieu fee for public art if the installation of public art is not feasible. The artwork or in -lieu fee should have a value equal to 10% of 1% of the building value in excess of $100,000. This would apply to residential development, multi -family development and commercial or non-residential development. If artwork installed has a lesser value than the calculated in -lieu fee, the remaining value would have to be paid by fees. An example of the public art fee calculations: Building Value $180,000 Excess of $100,000 80,000 1% 800 10% of 1% 80 Public Art Fee $ 80 R:\ZIGLERG\REPORT1052504 CC public art ordinance.doc Building Value $3,800,000 Excess of $100,000 3,700,000 1 % 37,000 10% of 1 % 3,700 Public Art Fee $ 3,700 The ordinance establishes an Art In Public Places fund, and in -lieu fees would be deposited into this fund. The funds could be used for the design, acquisition, installation, improvement, maintenance and insurance of public artwork or displays on City property. It could also be used to offer performing arts programs on City property for the community. In addition, the funds could be used for art education programs on City property within the community. With regards to the process, the developer would forward an application for donation of public artwork to the City, or installation of artwork on private property, to the Community Services Department. The application would include preliminary sketches, photographs, models and significant design features to clarify and indicate the nature of the proposed artwork. Evidence of the value of the artwork must also be submitted with the application along with a resume from the creator of the proposed artwork. The application would be reviewed initially by the Community Services Department, which would make a recommendation thereon. If the application is for donation, then the Community Services Commission shall review the proposed artwork and act as an advisory body to the City Council who will make the final decision for donation. If the application is for installation on private property, the Community Services Commission shall review the application and be the final decision maker on the installation of the artwork. Public artwork installed on private property shall be maintained by the property owner. The City would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of artwork donated to the City and installed on City property. The intent of the public art ordinance and fee is to encourage development to provide public art in public spaces that our community can enjoy. Through the Cultural Arts Master Plan development process it was apparent that the community felt that public art enhances community aesthetics and cultivates a sense of community pride. FISCAL IMPACT: The Public Art Fund will receive ongoing funding from residential fill-in development and non-residential development. The three major specific plans; Roripaugh, Wolf Creek and Harveston, have established Development Agreements that require a public art fee for each building permit. Some of these specific plans have already committed to providing public art in their development, rather than paying the in -lieu fee. ATTACHMENTS: Public Art Ordinance RAZIGLERG\PEP0RTV52504 CC public art ordinance.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 5.08 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ART IN PUBLIC PLACES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Findings. The City Council finds, determines and declares that: A. Public artwork enhances the quality of life for individuals living in, working in and visiting Temecula. B. As development and re -development of real property within Temecula continues, urbanization of the community results and the opportunity for creation of public artwork is diminished. C. The California Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities can require developers either to include public artwork in their development projects or to pay an in lieu fee. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal. 854 (1996). D. Establishment of the Art in Public Places Program set forth in this Ordinance will promote the general welfare by ensuring that public artwork is generated in conjunction with private development projects that contribute to urbanization of the community. Section 2. Chapter 5.08, Art in Public Places, is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 5.08 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 5.08.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to enhance the quality of life for city residents, workers and visitors by providing for the acquisition and maintenance of public artwork. 5.08.020 Implementation of chapter. A. The procedures prescribed by this chapter for review and approval of public artwork shall be conducted concurrently with any applicable procedures RAZIGLERG XAGREEMMord re_ art in public places.DOC- 1 of 7 - prescribed by Title 17 of this code for review and approval of development permits. B. The community services department shall establish guidelines that specify maintenance requirements for public artwork installed on private property to satisfy the public artwork requirement. 5.08.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: "Appropriately maintained" means maintained in conformance with the city's public artwork guidelines. "Artwork" means an original creation of physical art including without limitation a fountain, mobile, mosaic, mural, painting, sculpture and tapestry. An artwork may be realized through such mediums as bronze, ceramic tile, concrete stained glass, steel or wood. An artwork may be an integral part of a building or public space, whether attached to, interior of or external to the building. "Development project" means construction or modification of a building. "In lieu art fee" means a fee in the amount of one -tenth of one percent of the project cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. "Project cost" means the total value of a development project, excluding the land value, as indicated on the building permit issued by the city for the project. "Public artwork" means an artwork that is either (i) donated to the city for installation on city property; or (ii) installed on private property in a publicly accessible location. "Public artwork requirement" means the requirement, imposed by this chapter, of providing a public artwork or paying the in lieu art fee. "Publicly accessible" means accessible to the public for viewing, in a direct line of sight, for a minimum period of ten hours per day, seven days per week. "Value of a public artwork" means the cost of designing, acquiring, constructing and installing an artwork, as applicable. 5.08.040 Art in Public Places Fund. R:\ZIGLERG\XAGREEMN\ord re_ art in public places.DOC- 2 of 7 - A. There is hereby established in the city a fund known as the "Art in Public Places Fund," which shall be a depository for fees paid pursuant to this chapter and for public art -related monetary donations to the city. B. The Art in Public Places Fund shall be maintained by the finance director and shall be utilized for the following purposes: 1. Administration of this chapter. 2. Design, acquisition, installation, improvement, maintenance and insurance of public artwork displayed on city property. 3. Offering of performing arts programs on city property for the community. 4. Art education programs on city property for the community; provided, however, that not more than five percent of the fund's annual budget shall be used for this purpose. 5.08.050 Applicability of public artwork requirement. A. Except as provided in paragraph B below, the public artwork requirement shall apply to the following development projects: 1. Single-family residential unit on a lot within an approved subdivision and having a project cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). 2. Multi -family residential units having a project cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per unit. 3. Commercial, industrial, office and other non-residential units in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). B. The following development projects shall be exempt from the public artwork requirement: 1. Government agency development projects. 2. Reconstruction of structures that have been damaged by fire, flood, wind, earthquake or other calamity. 5.08.060 Satisfaction of public artwork requirement. A. The public art requirement shall be satisfied by completing one of the following actions in accordance with this chapter: RAZIGLERGU(AGREEMMord re_ art in public places.DOC- 3 of 7 - 1. Donating a public artwork to the city. 2. Installing a public artwork on private property. 3. Paying an in lieu art fee. B. If the value of a public artwork used to satisfy the public artwork requirement is less than the amount of the in lieu art fee that otherwise would be applicable to the development project, then the difference shall be paid to the city and deposited in the Art in Public Places Fund. 5.08.070 Procedure for donation or installation of public artwork. A. An application for donation of a public artwork to the city, or for installation of a public artwork on private property, shall be filed with the community services department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for a development project. The application shall include: 1. Preliminary sketches, photographs, models or other documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity to indicate the nature of the proposed artwork. artwork. 2. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the proposed 3. The resume of the creator of the proposed artwork. 4. If the application is for donation, then the application shall also include the following: a. A city attorney -approved written statement executed by the artwork's creator waiving such person's rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), California Civil Code Section 1542 and equivalent laws. 5. If the application is for installation, then the application shall also include the following: a. Preliminary plans of sufficient descriptive clarity to indicate the compatibility of the proposed public artwork with the development project, adjacent parcels and the surrounding neighborhood. b. A written statement explaining how the proposed artwork will be publicly accessible. R:\ZIGLERG\XAGREEMN\ord re_ art in public places.DOC- 4 Of 7 - 6. Any other information requested by the community services department to enable reasonable evaluation of the application. B. Each application shall be reviewed initially by the community services department, which shall make a recommendation thereon. If the application is for donation, then the community services commission shall be an advisory body and the city council shall be the decisionmaker. The city council's decision on an application for donation shall be final. If the application is for installation, then the community services commission shall be the decisionmaker and its decision shall be final unless appealed to the city council in accordance with Chapter 2.36 of this code. C. Prior to installing a public artwork on private property to satisfy the public artwork requirement, the property owner shall execute and record with the county recorder a city attorney -approved covenant. Such covenant shall require the property owner and successors thereof to do the following: 1. Maintain the public artwork in good condition. 2. Allow city representatives to enter upon the property upon reasonable written notice to perform necessary repairs to the public artwork at the property owner's expense when it is not maintained in good condition. 3. Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the city, its officers, employees and agents from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense attributable to the public artwork. 5.08.080 Procedure for payment of in lieu art fee. Payment of the in lieu art fee shall be made prior to the issuance of grading or building permits unless an alternative deadline is approved by the city council. 5.08.090 Maintenance of public artwork on private property. Public artwork installed on private property to satisfy the public artwork requirement shall be appropriately maintained and insured by the property owner. The insurance shall be in an amount determined by the city manager and shall provide coverage in the event of fire damage to or vandalism of the public work. 5.08.100 Removal or alteration of public artwork on private property. Artwork installed on private property to satisfy the public artwork requirement shall not be removed or altered without the prior approval of the city council. In addition to any other applicable penalty, violation of this section may R:\ZIGLERG\XAGREEMN\ord re_ art in public places.DOC- 5 Of 7 - render the property owner liable for payment of the in lieu art fee that would have been applicable to the development project, and may result in revocation of the occupancy permit issued for the development project. Prior to any imposition of in lieu art fee liability or occupancy permit revocation pursuant to this section, the city shall afford the property owner notice and an opportunity for a hearing." Section 2. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. R:\ZIGLERGU(AGREEMN\ord re_ art in public places.DOC- 6 Of 7 - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2004. Michael S. Naggar Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2004, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney RAZIGLERGV(AGREEWord re_ art in public places.Doc- 7 of 7 - DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF Fit CITY MANAGER/ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building & Safety DATE: May 18, 2004 SUBJECT: Departmental Report April, 2004 PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Secretary TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED...................................................................346 NSFR................................................................................................................100 NCOM................................................................................................................... 7 TOTALVALUATION..................................................................................... $22,688,876 TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED..............................................4,984 05-18-2004 Insppections Statistics Report Page 1 9:01 am TEMECULA, CA - CITY OF Inspector: 006 Count Total Time Totalsinr• 006 519 70:48 Inspector: 065 Count Total Time Totals_for:-065 455 73:45 * Inspector: 068 Tntalc for- 068 Count 439 Total Time 54112 * Inspector: 080 Tntalc for- nAn Count 822 Total Time A1,17 * Inspector: 081 Totals for- 081 Count 789 Total Time 74-47 * Inspector: 082 Tntalc for- n92 Count 424 Total Time 61,59 * Inspector: 083 Count Total Time Totals fnr, 093 Inspector: BH Totals far- RH Count 41 Total Time A-04 * Inspector: ER Count Total Time Totalsior, FIR 169 55:54 * Inspector: HO _ Count Total Time Inspector: JH Count Total Time Tntalc for* JH 614 64,20 ` Inspector: MA Count Total Time Tntalc for, MA 491 88:34 " Inspector: PZ Count Total Time Tntalg_for• P7 355 72,20 ` Inspector: SL _ , , , Count Total Time REPT133 Run Id: 9010 PERMITS ISSUED CITY OF TEMECULA APRIL 2004 05-04-2004 Counts Valuation & Fees Summary Page 1 1:25 pm TNECULA, CA - CITY OF Comp Type: B-BUILD Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid ACOM 13 7363 $194,815.06 $6,331.35 ASFR 38 11336 $$306,357.09 $8,059.05 NCOM 7 97744 $4323174.39 $1 9,170.94 NSFR 4 17977 $767:873.68 $59,518.77 NSFRTR 96 355073 $15,748,369.52 $ 67,544.06 ' Totals for: B-BUILD 158 489493 $21,340,589.74 $$660,624.17 Comp Type: B-COFO Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid COM 1 0 0.00 30.00 * Totals for: B-COFO 1 0 0.00 30.00 ' Comp Type: B-ELEC Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid COM 9 0 0.00 69.30 RES 9 0 0.00 396.45 ' Totals for: B-ELEC 18 0 0.00 865.75 ' Comp Type: B-MECH Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid RES 1 0 0.00 30.00 ' Totals for: B-MECH 1 0 0.00 30.00 ' Comp Type: B-MOBILE Sub T pe Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid ((blank 2 0 gg0.00 240.00 ' Totals for: B-MO ILE 2 0 $0.00 1240.00 ' Comp Type: B-PLUM Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid (blank) 1 0 0.00 30.00 RES 5 0 0.00 $$ 10.00 ' Totals for: B-PLUM 6 0 0.00 $240.00 ' Comp Type: B-POOL Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid RES 56 26869 $669.319.00 $16,504.76 ' Totals for: B-POOL 56 26869 $669,319.00 $16,504.76 ' Comp Type: B-SIGN Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid COM 8 460 $10,842.21 $780.92 IND 1 90 $1,811.70 135.25 ' Totals for: B-SIGN 9 550 $12,653.91 916.17 ' Comp Type: B-STRUC Sub Type Count Sq Feet Valuation Fees Paid COM 9 3288 66,942.00 1,238.60 RES 86 41612 99,371.25 9348.60 Totals for: B-STRUC 95 44900 666,313.25 $ 0:587.20 ' Report Totals: 346 561812 $22,688,875.90 $690,038.05 1 /11�1I REPT155 Run Id: 8970 APPROVAL 742— DIRECTOR OF FINANC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/Ci Council I(f'�J t� FROM: Debbie Ubnos e, Director of Planning DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the month of April, 2004. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 75 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations and 7 applications for public hearings during the month of April. The new public hearing cases are as follows: PARCEL MAP MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Status of Major Projects Recently Approved Projects • Red Lobster Restaurant — A Development Plan to construct a 7,567 square foot, single -story restaurant on 1.1 acres in the Overland Corporate Center complex located at the northeast corner of Overland Drive and Promenade Way. A pre-DRC meeting was held on December 18, 2003. The applicant submitted revised plans on February 2, 2004. Staff commented on the plans and revisions were provided. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 2004. (PA03-0671 — HARRIS) • Panda Express — An Administrative Development Plan to construct a 2,026 square foot restaurant with outdoor dining in an existing building located at 40620 Winchester Road, was approved on April 22, 2004 (PA04-0122 — PAPP) RAMONTHLY.RPT2004\4-2004 Report.doc Temecula Highlands —A Development Plan to construct a 30,514 square foot office building on 1.4 acres located on the south side of County Center Drive, approximately 1,500 feet east of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045). Mc Ardle Associates submitted the application for the Garrett Group of Temecula on August 13, 2003. A DRC meeting was held forthe projecton September 11, 2003. The project was approved at the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing. (PA03-0443 — FISK) Cingular Wireless — A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, establish and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with 3 antennas housed within the bulb portion of the proposed 55-foot artificial mono -palm tree located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of Humboldt Court. The project was deemed incomplete in February 5, 2003. An Environmental Assessment is required per CEOA. Staff requested additional studies in orderto complete the assessment and is completing an Initial Study. Staff has received revised plans that have been determined to be an acceptable design and has completed an initial study. Staff is currently preparing a staff report and conditions of approval. The project was approved atthe April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing. An appeal of the approval was filed by Valesta Ayer on May 5, 2004. (PA02-0717 —FISK) Projects Under Review Commercial Palmilla Plaza Medical Office Building — A Development Plan to construct a single -story speculative medical office building on a .72-acre site, located at 29748 Rancho California Road within the existing Palmilla Plaza. The application was submitted on August 20, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on September 18, 2003. The applicant submitted revised plans on February 10, 2004. A second DRC Meeting was held on March 11, 2004. Revised Plans were submitted on April 5. Staff is reviewing the plans. (PA03-0464 — HARRIS) • Butterfield Square — A Development Plan to redevelop Butterfield Square in Old town, resulting in four two-story buildings totaling 22,048 square feet on 0.56 acres located on the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street. The Applicant submitted plans on March 31, 2004 and Staff is currently reviewing the proposed project. (PA04-0231 — FISK) Meadows Village — A Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and two Conditional Use Permits (drive-thru and alcoholic beverage sales) to construct an 80,677 square foot commercial center consisting of seven buildings on 9.77 acres located on the southeast corner of Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. The applicant submitted plans on March 22, 2004 and staff is currently reviewing the proposed project. (PA04-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202, and PA04-0203 — FISK) • Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints — A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and operate a 24,119 square foot single story church located on the north side of Pauba Road, approximately 170 linear feet west of the centerline of Corte Villoso. The project has been scheduled for the May 19`" PC Hearing. (PA03-027 — HARRIS) • Creekside Plaza Circle K/Unocal —An Administrative Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a service station, full service car wash and retail store within the Creekside Plaza Shopping Center. R:V,AONTHLY.RPT2004\4-2004 Report.doc The subject property is located at the southeast corner of State Hwy 79 S. and Pechanga Parkway. The application was submitted on March 31, 2004. A Pre-DRC meeting will be held on April 27, 2004. Staff is finalizing DRC comments. (PA04-0232 — CLARY) Creekside Plaza Pads 4 & 5 — An Administrative Development Plan to construct, establish and operate two commercial buildings of 5,600 and 9,600 square feet respectively. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of State Hwy 79 S. and Pechanga Parkway. The application was submitted on March 12, 2004. Staff is anticipating scheduling a Pre-DRC meeting on May 25, 2004. Staff is finalizing DRC comments. (PA04-0170 — CLARY) k Ridge Park Office Building —A Development Plan to construct an 18,981 square foot three-story office building on 1.01 acres. The subject property is located on Ridge Park Drive, south of Rancho California Road. The application was submitted on September 18, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on October 16, 2003. Revised plans have been submitted. A DRC meeting took place on January 29, 2004. A letter was sent out January 30, 2004. The applicant submitted revised plans on March 16, 2004. This project is scheduled for Planning Commission on May 19, 2004. (PA03-0534 —LONG) Roripaugh Town Center —A Development Plan to design and construct approximately 171,200 square feet of commercial development, which include four major tenant buildings, six smaller freestanding buildings and inline shops on 20.2 acres. The project is located on the northeast corner of Nicholas Road and Winchester Road. Matthew Fagan Consulting Services submitted the application on July 24, 2003. A DRC meeting was held September 4, 2003. The project was resubmitted on November 12, 2003. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and. at this time, the applicant has not complied with most of staff's initial comments, including: site layout, elevations, and pedestrian circulation. A Planning Commission subcommittee and Staff met with the applicant on March 29, 2004 to discuss the project. Staff sent a letter to the applicant on April 6, 2004, summarizing the issue's raised at the March 29, 2004 meeting. (PA02-0364 — LONG) • CBC Business Center — A Development Plan to construct a 131,890 square foot industrial building on 8.59 acres located on the north side of Remington Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet east of Winchester Road. The applicant submitted plans on March 1, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the proposed project and anticipates a May 20th DRC meeting. (PA04-0134 - KITZEROW) • Margarita Square — a Development Plan to construct an 11,274 square foot commercial building on 1.60 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road. The applicant submitted plans on March 17, 2004 and staff is currently reviewing the proposed project. (PA04 — 0190 FISK) • Roick Drive Business Park —A Development Plan to construct two commercial buildings totaling 25,618 square feet on 3.64 acres, located on the north side of Roick Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Winchester Road. Landan Construction Company submitted the application on October 13, 2003. A DRC meeting with the applicant was held on November 20, 2003 to discuss site design issues. Revised plans were submitted and the project is anticipated to be scheduled for the June 2, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing. (PA03-0582 — FISK) R:W0NTHLY.RPTT200A4-2004 Report.doc • Rainbow Canyon Del Taco — An Administrative Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a 2,260 square foot drive-thru restaurant on .69 acres. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 and Pechanga Parkway. The project was submitted on January 29, 2004. A Pre-DRC Meeting was held on February 24, 2004. Staff has provided DRC comments to the applicant and is awaiting revised plans. (PA04-0057 — HARRIS) Building B at Vail Ranch — A Development Plan to construct a 6,500 square foot single -story office/restaurant building on a 1.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of Highway 79 and Mahlon Vail Road. Planning comments were submitted to applicant on February 11, 2004. Staff met with the applicant on March 1, 2004 to discuss site layout and design issues. The applicant submitted revised plans on March 15, 2004. This project is scheduled for a Director's Hearing on May 27, 2004. (PA03-0709 — LONG) • Lowe's — A Development Plan to construct a new storage staging area located at 40390 Winchester Road. Required Code Enforcement action. Staff is awaiting submittal of additional materials. Staff discussions with Code Enforcement indicate Lowe's will not be pursuing expansion and will remove outdoor storage. Staff will contact Lowe's store manager to discuss status. (PA03-0276 — KITZEROW) Beacon Lounge — An Administrative Development Plan to construct a 550 square foot fenced outdoor smoking/seating area in association with an existing lounge located at 27725 Jefferson Avenue, Suites 101 and 102 north of Via Montezuma. DRC was held on March 4, 2004. The project was resubmitted on March 25, 2004. Staff has landscaping issues that are unresolved. This item is tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 2004. (PA03- 0717 — PAPP) • Schafer Building — A Development Plan to construct an 8,000 square foot office building on .98 acres located on the west side of Margarita Road, approximately 1000 feet north of Overland Drive. The project was submitted on February 24, 2004. A DRC meeting was held April 1, 2004. Staff sent a letter summarizing comments on April 2, 2004. The applicant resubmitted revised plans on April 22, 2004. Staff is reviewing the revised plans. (PA04-0112 — LONG) • Big Horse Feed — A Development Plan to construct an 8,000 square foot shade structure/hay barn located at 33320 Highway 79S. A DRC was held on April 8, 2004. Approval of the project is pending a Fire Department proposed amendment to the fire code to exempt agricultural buildings from the requirement to sprinkler the structure. (PA 04-0090 — PAPP) Temecula Creek Village Sign Program — A comprehensive sign program for the "village" commercial portion of this multi -use project located at 79 S. and Jedediah Smith Road was submitted on March 25, 2004. Staff has. provided comments and is awaiting resubmittal. (PA04-0215 — PAPP) Subdivisions • Gallatin Parcel Map — A request to subdivide 2.89 acres into three lots with a minimum lot size of .92 acres located on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. Gallatin Dental Group submitted the project on February 3, 2004. The project went to DRC on March 11, 2004. Staff is currently waiting for revised plans. No change as of May 10, 2004. (PA04-0074— LONG) RAM0NTHLY.RPT\2004W-2004 Report.doc • Seraphina Tract Map 32346—A request to subdivide 28.6 acres into 67lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet located on the north side of Nicolas Road. The project was submitted on March 16, 2004. The DRC letter was sent on April 20, 2004. Staff is waiting for the applicant's responses to the letter. (PA 04-0178- CLARY) • W inCo Foods — A request for a Conditional Use Permit and findings of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of beer, wine and spirits from an existing building located at 40435 Winchester Road. ( Old Costco building). The application was submitted on April 23, 2004 and staff is currently reviewing the application. (PA04-0299 — FISK) • Via Industria — A request to divide 2.52 acres into 2 parcels located on the southeast corner of Roick Drive and Via Industria. A letter was sent to the applicant on January 27, 2004, explaining the resubmittal requirements. Staff is awaiting resubmittal. (PA03-0737 — PAPP) • Chaparral Map — A Tentative Parcel Map with waiver to consolidate and parcelize lots totaling 2.42 acres to follow existing building, parking lot and street divisions of the existing parcels. This application was submitted on February 23, 2004. A letter was mailed to the applicant on May 5, 2005 explaining resubmittal requirements. Staff is awaiting resubmittal. (PA04-0109 & PA04- 0110-KITZEROW) Industrial Roick/Regency Industrial Building — A Development Plan to construct an industrial building with four suites totaling 12,407 square feet on 1.87 acres on the southwest corner of Roick Drive and Winchester Road. James E. Horeca submitted the application for Regency, Inc, on July 1, 2003. A pre-DRC meeting was held on July 22, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on July 31, 2003 with the applicant. Staff was informed by the applicant on December 29, 2003 that there has been a change in architects. Applicant resubmitted on March 11, 2004, but the submittal package did not include revised landscape plans. Applicant was advised but has not yet submitted landscape plans. (PA03-0359 — PAPP) Temecula Industrial Park — A Development Plan to construct four single -story industrial buildings totaling 57,952 square feet on 4.83 acres located on the west side of Business Park Drive, between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Rancho California Road. Scott Barone (Lot 11 BPD LLC) submitted the application on December 23, 2003. A DRC Meeting with the applicant was held on January 29, 2004. A DRC letter was sent to the applicant on February 2, 2004. The applicant submitted revised site plans on April 28, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA03-0728 — FISK) Merit Moving Systems — A Development Plan to construct a 37,970 square foot storage and warehouse facility on 2.02 acres located on the north side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,838 feet west of Diaz Road. Project was submitted on February 23, 2004. A DRC was held on April 1, 2004. A letter was sent on April 2, 2004 summarizing DRC comments. The applicant resubmitted plans on April 6, 2004. The Riverside County Geologist is currently reviewing the Geotechnical Report, which must be complete prior to scheduling of a Public Hearing. (PA04- 0111 — LONG) RWONTHLY.RPT\2004\4-2004 Report.doc • Temecula Corporate Heights — Applicant is requesting a sign program for a multi -tenant industrial building at 423010 Zevo Drive, just west of Diaz Road. The DRC letter was sent on May 6, 2004. Staff is waiting for applicant's response. ( PA04-0198- CLARY) Beacon Industrial- A Development Plan requesting a 15,308 square foot multi -tenant light - industrial building. The property is located at 42103 Rio Nedo, just west of Diaz Road. A Pre- DRC meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2004. ( PA04-0149- CLARY) Mixed Use Lago Bellagio — A Development Plan and Vesting Parcel Map to construct a 396-unit senior retirement facility building totaling 477,020 square feet, an 110,121 square foot office building and a 19,357 square foot clubhouse on 22.62 acres, located atthe corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda. A DRC meeting was held on May 22, 2003. A DRC letter was mailed out on May 27, 2003. As of July 8, 2003, the applicant had not resubmitted plans for review. Staff sent out a 30-day letter requesting exhibits. The applicant has responded to the 30-day letter and will be resubmitting plans. Staff met with the applicant on February 4, 2004 to discuss changes to the project. As of May 10, 2004, the applicant has not submitted any revisions to the plans. Staff will administratively close the application after 30 day notification due to inactivity. (PA03-0170— LONG) Old Town Queen Anne Victorian —A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct a 11,000 square feet mixed use building to include retail uses (restaurant) on the ground floor and office uses on the second floor on 1.93 acres, located at the northeast corner of Old Town Front Street an Fourth Street. A DRC meeting was held on September 11, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on March 1, 2004. The project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Old Town Local Review Board on April 12, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA03-0447 — FISK) Penfold Plaza — A Development Plan to construct a 23,135 square foot mixed use building on .32 acres to include retail space on the first floor, office space on the second floor and a restaurant on the third floor, located on the south side of Fifth Street and west of Old Town Front Street. A DRC meeting was held on November 6, 2003, and a DRC letter was mailed to the applicant on November 10, 2003. The applicant resubmitted plans on December 26, 2003. A second DRC Meeting was held on February 5, 2004. The project was reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board on April 12, with a recommendation to approve. The plan is now being revised to provide for additional Flood Control District right of way. It is anticipated that this application will be scheduled for the June 16`" Planning Commission meeting. (PA03-0535 — HAZEN) Residential Second Dwelling Unit at Calle De Valardo —Administrative Development Plan for a 665 square foot second dwelling unit at 43961Calle De Valardo (near Jedediah Smith and Calle De Valardo). The applicant, Kecia Stewart, submitted an application for the project on September 15, 2003 for the owners, Allen and Ann Pulsipher. A pre-DRC meeting was held on October 7, 2003 and a DRC meeting was held on October 16, 2003. Staff sent a letter to follow up on the status of revisions and received revised plans on December 2, 2003. RAMONTHLY.RPT\2004\4-2004 Report.doc Staff sent a second comment letter to the applicant, received revised plans, and sent a third comment letter on January 2, 2004. Staff sent a letter to follow up on the status of revisions on March 3, 2004, and the applicant responded that revised plans would be submitted. Staff is awaiting the resubmittal. (PA03-0524 — FISK) Meeker Companies at Roripaugh Ranch — Application for Product Review for 113 detached single-family residences, which will offer four (4) floor plans in three (3) architectural styles. The houses are located in Planning Area 4B along Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The application was submitted on November 4, 2003. Staff held off from providing comments until the subcommittee met to provide staff with direction. On December 11, 2003, staff sent a letter requesting revisions. The applicant has decided to move forward to the Planning Commission without addressing the majority of staff's comments. The project went to Planning Commission on April 21, 2004 and was continued to May 19, 2004 PC Hearing. (PA03-0634 — LONG) Naron Pacific Tentative Tract Map 30434 — A proposal for a zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93 acres and Tentative Tract Map to create 30 residential lots and 4 open space lots in the Chaparral area. The applicant has provided all materials, but is now proposing a PDO for the project. The CAC has made a recommendation on policy for the Chaparral Area allowing'/2- acre lots if it does not increase the "net" density. A PDO was submitted on March 25, 2004. Staff met with applicant in April to discuss grading issues and begin preparation of an Initial Study. Applicant will submit a revised constraint map. (PA02-0204 — PAPP) • Tierra Vista Condominiums — An Administrative Development Plan to construct 23 residential condominiums on 1.5 acres. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Tierra Vista Road and Ynez Road. The application was submitted on September 30, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on November 6, 2003. Plans should be submitted by end of May. (PA03- 0552 — HARRIS) Quiet Meadows —A proposal to subdivide 4.57 acres into 7 residential lots with one open space lot; and a proposal to change the zoning designation from L-1 to L-2. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been completed. Based on the EA, no significant impacts have been identified. On August 12, 2003, the City Council denied the Zone Change application without prejudice and referred the Zone Change policy issue to the General Plan CAC for an advisory recommendation. The CAC has determined that the Zone Change can be supported and the applicant will refile a new application. The processing is on hold pending policy direction on the General Plan from the City Council. • TTM 31898 - A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 14.1 acres into 125 single-family, lots with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet located within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The project was submitted on October 23, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on January 8, 2004. A DRC letter was mailed to the applicant on January 13, 2004. As of May 7, 2004, the applicant has not resubmitted. (PA03-0604 — FISK) Wolf Creek Planning Area 7 — An application for a Home Product Review for125 detached single-family residences within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The application proposes three different architectural styles and four floor plans. The project was submitted on October 23, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on December 11, 2003 and a DRC letter was mailed out to the applicant on January 8, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on March 8, 2004, and staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA03-0603 — FISK) RAMONTHLY.RPTT2004W-2004 Report.doc • Horton Continental — A Product Review for 100 single family residences including four floor plans and four architectural styles. The project is in planning area 1 of Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The applicant submitted plans on Marchl, 2004. The applicant has verbally indicated that they are revising the entire plan. No change in status as of May 10, 2004. (PA04- 0133 — LONG) • Del Val Second Dwelling Unit —An application for a second dwelling was received January 23, 2004 for a 768 square foot mobile unit at 31050 Nicolas Road at Leifer Road. A pre-DRC Meeting was held on March 9, 2004. The applicant will need to resubmit to show paved access. (PA04-0039 — PAPP) Aspen at Wolf Creek — An application for, a Home Product Review for 166 detached single- family residences within Planning Areas 2 and 5 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The application proposes three different architectural styles and four floor plans. The project was submitted on December 16, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on March 8, 2004, and staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA03-0718 — FISK) • Cedar at Wolf Creek — An application for a Home Product Review for 92 detached single-family residences within Planning Area 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The application proposes three different architectural styles and three floor plans. The project was submitted on December 23, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2004. Revised plans were submitted on March 8, 2004, and staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA03-0727 — FISK) • Wolf Creek Planning Area 6 — An application for a Home Product Review for 127 detached single-family residences within Planning Area 6 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The application proposes three different architectural styles and three floor plans. The project was submitted on January 7, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on February 12, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing revised plans. (PAO4-0006 — FISK) Davidson Communities — A Product Review for 100 single family residences including three floor plans and three architectural styles. The project is in Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The applicant submitted plans December 24, 2003. A DRC was held on January 22, 2004. The applicant resubmitted plans on February 19, 2004. The project went before Planning Commission on April 21, 2004 and was continued to May 19, 2004. (PA03-0725 — LONG ) • Seedsowers Montessori Childcare —A Minor Conditional Use Permit application to allow a large family daycare to operate out of a single-family residence located at 39806 Cambridge Place. Pre-DRC was held April 27, 2004. DRC is scheduled for May 13, 2004. (PA04-0223 PAPP) Miscellaneous • Rancho Baptist Co -location — A Conditional Use Permit to co -locate 12 cellular antennas and four equipment panels on an existing mono -pine at the Rancho Baptist Church located at 29775 Santiago Road. This application was filed by Sprint PCS on December 22, 2003. A pre-DRC Meeting was held on February 17, 2004. The project is anticipated to be scheduled for the May 20, 2004 Director's Hearing. (PA04-0031 — FISK) RAMONTHLY.RPT\2004 4-2004 Report.doc • Lamb of Life Church — A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a church facility at 32824 Wolf Store Road, Suite B. The project was submitted on April 12, 2004. Staff is scheduling a DRC for May 20, 2004. (PA04-0255 — LONG) • Faith Bible Church — A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a church facility at 42257 Avenida Alvarado. Project was submitted on April 13, 2004. Staff is scheduling a DRC for May 20, 2004. (PA04-0266 —LONG) • U Stor It — An Administrative Development Plan to establish a self -storage facility within an existing 109,500 square foot commercial building on 6.74 acres located at 28401 Rancho California Road. The applicant submitted plans on March 31, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on April 29, 2004. Staff is currently awaiting the submittal of revised plans. (PA04-0233— FISK) • Cingular Mono -Pine Wireless Antenna — A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 50' high monopine on Grantree Road, approximately 500' east of Via Sierra. Project was submitted on April 19, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the plans. (PA04-0285 — LONG) • AT&T and Verizon Wireless — A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of up to eight ±48' high "Italian Cypress" trees stealth antennas and an 8'x12' equipment area, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir Complex, east of Meadows Parkway. Staff has received phone calls from the surrounding residents expressing concerns about this proposal. The project was scheduled for the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing with a denial recommendation, however, the meeting was canceled and the project will be renoticed for a future Planning Commission Hearing. Staff met with the applicant on March 12, 2004, to discuss design alternatives. No formal resubmittal to date. (PA02-0335 — PAPP) Meadowview Golf Course — Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. The Focused EIR requires modification. The applicant has retained a new environmental consultant to complete the modifications. The Draft EIR was submitted on April 12, 2004. Staff has transmitted document to affected City Departments for 3 week review. Staff is drafting comment letter to be sent out the week of May 10'". (PA01-0375 — HARRIS) • Verizon Mono -Palm Wireless Antenna —The applicant has stated they intend to withdraw the application at the Chaparral High School Bus Maintenance Facility for a 50' light pole similar to the existing 35' light poles within the maintenance facility. (PA02-0715 — PAPP) Verizon Wireless Telecommunication — A Conditional Use Permit for a 60-foot high mono -pine within the Rancho California Water District Headquarters facility. Staff has informed the applicant that the proposed mono -pole is not an acceptable design for the area. The applicant indicated alternative sites would not be feasible; however, on November 10, 2003, they offered to look at alternative sites and designs. The applicant resubmitted on May 10, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the resubmittal. (PA02-0637 — PAPP) Calvary Baptist Church Addition — A Conditional Use Permit to construct the proposed expansion of the existing church facility with a 12,610 square foot addition. This addition involves the expansion of the vestibule & sanctuary, the addition of new classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen, and multi -purpose room. RWONTHLY.RPT200443-2004 Report.doc The site is located at 31087 Nicolas Road at Calle Colibri off of Nicolas Road. A second DRC was held September 18, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on February 12, 2004. A DRC Meeting was held on March 11, 2004. Staff is awaiting revisions. (PA02-0661 — HARRIS) Gosch Towing — A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a police impound yard located at 27495 Diaz Road. The applicant is currently operating under a Temporary Use Permit. Staff is currently working with the applicant to obtain proper public noticing. Staff anticipates scheduling the project for the May 20, 2004 Director's Hearing. (PA04-0013—FISK) Cyberzone —A Minor Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an Internet business to rent computer times for Internet and Microsoft applications within an existing suite of the Promenade Mall. Staff has received conditions of approval from other departments and scheduled the project for the April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing The applicant lost their lease prior to the hearing, so the application has been continued off calendar in anticipation of another lease space becoming available within the mall. (PRJ00-906 — FISK) • Hillcrest Academy — A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct a new 13,777 square foot classroom, administrative offices and multi -purpose room at 29275 Santiago Road. The project was submitted on March 5, 2004. A letter was sent to the applicant on April 9, 2004. The applicant resubmitted plans on April 30, 2004. Staff is currently reviewing the revised plans. (PA04-0152 — LONG) Small Business Assistance • La Tacqueria: Staff is working with the owners of this Old Town business on a revised plan for an exterior fagade improvement that includes new awnings, paint and signs. A proposal from the contractor is to be submitted to the Old Town Local Review Board in the next two to three months. • Temecula Olive Oil Company: The Planning Department is working with this applicant on a newly designed outside patio dining area and signs that are to be submitted for review by the Old Town Local Review Board in two to three months. • Sweet Lumpy's BBQ: Staff worked with this business owner to help bring his signs into compliance with the sign program approved for the previous restaurant tenant, McDonald's. • The Palomar Hotel: Staff had a follow-up meeting with the owners of this Old Town business and provided them with applications that will allow them to make exterior improvements to their property under the City's Fagade Improvement Program. Special Event Permits • Youth Jazz Festival: Sponsored by the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, this music event took place on April 17, 2004 at various locations in Old Town Temecula. • Western Days: This event is scheduled to take place in Old Town on May 22 and 23, 2004. It is sponsored by the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. The application has been transmitted to involved City departments. RMIONTHLY.RPT12004W-2004 RSPOMAOC 10 Special Projects & Long Range Planning Activities The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Comprehensive General Plan Update —The Community Advisory Committee meet to discuss the Draft Circulation Element On April 26r" and May 3rd. Staff of the Planning and Public Works Departments will be meeting to consolidate the final comments on the draft Element. When these final changes are made, the completed draft General Plan will be provided to the Community Advisory Committee for one final review. The City Clerks Office is in the process of setting a date for a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to review the draft General Plan. (HOGAN) Update of the Old Town Specific Plan —The Plan was originally adopted in 1994 and is receiving its first comprehensive update. The update will include many changes requested by the Old Town Local Review to incorporate additional design standards while retaining the Old Town Specific Plan's original direction. A revised Plan with the necessary environmental documents has been prepared. A tentative Planning Commission has been scheduled for June 16`h (HOGAN) • Hillside Development Policy — The policies are being examined for integration into the draft - grading ordinance. Staff is working with GIS to analyze topography, soil types, environmental (habitat), and other constraints. • Procedures to Implement CEQA — Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines and procedure manual for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions. The process will also conform to the new 2003 CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates for standard CEQA forms. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. (PAPP) • Surface Mining Ordinance — The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. • Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance — Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. • Staff is revising the draft ordinance to codify use restrictions and supplemental standards for "Cyber Cafes." Staff is revising and will submit to the City Attorney May 2004. This item has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. (PAPP) .• Updating of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan to split Planning Area 8 into 8A and 8B to resolve commercial zoning issues and minor land use changes. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. (PA97-0443 — PAPP) • South Side Street Improvement Project —The former South Side Specific Plan is being modified to design guidelines and a street improvement program for Old Town Front Street between First Street and Highway 79 South. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. (PAPP) R.WONTHLY.RPT\2004W-2004 Report.doc 11 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment 8.1 and Supplemental EIR — Staff is waiting for the applicant to submit a revised project schedule and the draft of the Specific Plan and Supplemental EIR. (PA03-0402,0403 — PAPP) • City— Project environmental reviews and permitting: o Overland Drive Extension — Staff reviewed 2ne submittal of the draft initial study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. No resubmittal to date. o Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Project — Request from Public Works for Environmental Determination for this project. Previous Negative Declaration has been modified because the project description has changed. The revised N.D. has been routed to Redevelopment, TCSD, and Public Works for comments. The Revised Negative Declaration has not yet been to City Council. (EA-93 — PAPP) o Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail Project —Staff is assisting the Public Works Department by preparing CEGA and NEPA documents for this project. Staff did a site walkover with biologist and CalTrans coordinator in January 2004. Staff will recommend a Class 4 Categorical Exemption. (EA99 — PAPP) o Diaz Road General Plan Level Improvements — Staff has prepared an initial study to determine the impacts of constructing ultimate improvements on Diaz Road. Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be prepared. This item is expected to go to City Council in May or June 2004. (EA107 — PAPP) Update of the Citywide Design Guidelines — The Planning Commission provided input at the September 3, 2003 workshop. The industrial section of the Design Guidelines was submitted and reviewed by staff. Staff had many comments on the first draft and met with the consultantto discuss the issues. A new draft was submitted to staff on December 8, 2003 for our review. This project was on hold for several months due to a staffing shortage. Review of the Design Guidelines commenced during the 2nd week of May. General Plan Amendments PA03-0178 TERC 52, LLC —A General Plan Amendment application (and Zone Change PA03- 0177) to change the land use designation on 52.83 acres from Business Park to High Density Residential at the northwest corner of the Rancho California Business Park, adjacent to the Campus project. Staff is awaiting the submittal of additional information and has advised the applicant that the proposal may not go to hearing until the Comprehensive General Plan Update is complete. (PAPP) RAMONTHLY.RPT\2004\4.2004 Report.doc 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY' DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council 6/-) FROM: Jim Domenoe, Chief of Police' DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Monthly Departmental Report The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during April 2004. The Police Department responded to 39 "priority one" calls for service during the month of April, with an average response time of approximately 5.0 minutes. A total of 4,439 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During April, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 110 customers. Twenty-two sets of fingerprints were taken, 27 people filed police reports and 10 people had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events, neighborhood watch and community -oriented programs during the month. He also coordinated requests for patrol ride-alongs and conducted police station tours. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions. During April, the POP Teams continued their problem oriented policing approach of areas within the community and made numerous arrests, including 11 felony arrests and 28 misdemeanor arrests for various crimes. The function of the POP Teams is to address situations that typically require extended enforcement action or certain expertise in order to solve an on -going problem within a neighborhood. The POP officers continued to work with the homeless population within Temecula, assisting in relocating several homeless individuals and arresting one for felony narcotics violations. The traffic team reported that during the month of April there were 1096 citations issued for hazardous violations, 90 citations were issued for non -hazardous violations and 88 parking citations were issued. During the month there were eight injury traffic collisions, 42 non -injury collisions were reported and 14 drivers were arrested for DUI. In other citation summary information, the Neighborhood Enforcement Team (NET) program resulted in 235 citations being issued. This program addresses traffic concerns in residential neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop Light Abuse Program) resulted in 348 citations being issued during April. Monthly Departmental Report — Police Department During the month of April, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of 85 calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shoplifting investigations. During the month, calls and on -sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on 12 misdemeanor cases. Officers McElvain and Rahn continued to provide training to security staff during the month. The mall officers continued to work to prevent vehicle theft and vehicle burglaries. There were no vehicle thefts and four vehicle burglaries reported during the month of April at the mall. Our five school resource officers have remained active during April. The school resource officers conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 72 investigations/reports were conducted/written by the school resource officers during April. The school resource officers made a felony arrest for attempted grand theft, and misdemeanor arrests for possession of marijuana and juvenile possession of tobacco. The YAT program (Youth Accountability Team) continues to be a success in part through its Youth Court program. Officer Michelle Medeiros conducted the 132nd Youth Court session. The YAT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of juveniles in the program. Officer Medeiros also worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She assisted the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and Probation Department by providing training during home visits with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of April. Officer Medeiros is currently carrying a caseload of about 30 at -risk juveniles. The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP Teams and a location to assist the public with police services. During April, the Old Town Storefront served 174 customers. Twenty-three sets of fingerprints were taken, 25 police reports were written, and three citations were signed off. During the month of April, the Special Enforcement Team (SET Team), consisting of Officers Jon Wade and Gary Lee, made nine felony and 18 misdemeanor arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. The SET Team recovered quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana during the course of these arrests. The SET officers authored and executed one search warrant during April, resulting in the seizure of methamphetamine. Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Jennifer Wagner and assistant coordinator Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 536 hours of service in April. Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and telephone answering duties. Community Action Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have continued their activities, patrolling the city for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs and special events. Other duties these volunteers attend to are business checks and abandoned vehicles and traffic control. The goal of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from occurring. CAP Team members contributed 174 hours of service to the community during the month of April. The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 115 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during April. Monthly Departmental Report — Police Department 2 The Temecula Citizen Corps Program continued to make good progress during the month of April. The executive body, or the TCC Council, began to hold their bi-weekly meetings at Station 84. The council is comprised of representatives from the police and fire departments, the City, local business, the Temecula Valley Unified School District, the American Red Cross, and a local citizen. Almost all of the volunteer leadership positions have now been filled, and the program is progressing well toward meeting the goals provided by members of the city council. Recruitment continues and the organization's administrative and operational policies have been formalized and distributed. Training is ongoing in anticipation of participating in the City's disaster drill on May 26, 2004. A mock drill has been scheduled for May 22, 2004 at the Promenade Mall, which will provide an opportunity for the TCC volunteers to practice some of the skills they have been trained in. The program continues to develop nicely. Monthly Departmental Report— Police Department APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN CITY MANAGER i CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag�r�111 1 �� DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month of April 2004. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Leads & Inauiries In the month of April, the City received a lead from an upscale restaurant. Staff provided the business with demographic information and potential sites for consideration. On April Ph, staff met with Lea DiBemardo to talk about a site for her upscale gourmet deli "Shop Delights" in Temecula. On April 23 d, staff met with a large vacation ownership company based in California to discuss potential hoteVtime-share properties. The Southwest California Economic Alliance and staff assisted on a site search for Concordia University. The University is looking for office/classroom space until they go in the Higher Education Center. Staff met with one of the local hotel operators on April 6'" to discuss expansion plans for their hotel property. On April 13'h, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment for land on the south side of De Portola and west of Margarita to pave the way for a hospital in that area. An urgent care facility and medical offices could be completed within 1 — 2 years and the hospital is approximately 5 years away. On April 131h, the City Council designated $150,000 of AB 2766 funds toward a public access natural gas fueling station planned at the comer of Diaz Road and Rancho Way and authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Downs Fueling and/or the State of California. The Harveston Shuttle will be powered by liquefied natural gas. The escrow for Kia located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue closed on April 14'h. Solid State Stamping is considering moving to Nevada or Arizona to reduce operating costs — especially in the workers' compensation and energy areas. Council, staff, EDC and Chamber .REPT D has met with Solid State Stamping to learn more about that company and to identify possible resources/reasons to stay in Temecula versus moving out of state. Media/Outreach Materials Staff provided information to Renee Beasley Jones, a reporter for the San Diego Business Journal. She is writing a story about San Diego companies that are expanding in Temecula. Staff wrote an article entitled "Temecula Retains Business in Regional Effort" for Western City magazine. The article was published in its May issue (see attached). Staff wrote the City article for the May Chamber of Commerce Newsletter entitled, "City Provides Life-saving Resources for Businesses." The article highlights the Public Access Defibrillation program and provides information on grant funding for qualifying businesses wishing to purchase an AED unit and information was provided on upcoming local AED/CPR/First Aid training courses. Staff worked with a graphic designer on the Fast Track brochure insert. The insert will be published in May. Staff provided an introduction and Council photo for The Beautiful Valley Soars book. The hard -bound book will feature Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore and will cover the history, business climate and quality of life of the communities. Ribbon Cutting/Open House/Groundbreaking Council and staff attended the Ribbon Cutting for the new Veteran's Center on April 161h. The center is located at 28075 Diaz Road in the Western Eagle Foundation Building. Staff attended the ABC Preschool Open House on April 71h. Councilmembers, staff and community members attended the Old Town Community Theater Groundbreaking on April 121h. The construction contract was awarded on February 101h. The tentative opening date is for the summer of 2005. Meetings Staff attended the EDC Board of Directors Meeting on April 15th. Highlights of the meeting included the following: upcoming Quarterly luncheon will be held on May 271h at Temecula Creek Inn. Jeff Stone will be the featured speaker and will be talking on his leadership vision for Southwest Riverside County. There was discussion on changing the name for French Valley Airport to include the designation "Southwest California." It is very complicated and involves changing navigational maps, and other impacts. Staff reported on the CNG/LNG funding approval by the City Council, Community Theater and Children's Museum status, and meeting with the development community regarding changes to Temecula's user fee schedule in early May. On April 51h, staff met with International Rectifier to discuss their Brine Line needs Staff attended the Murrieta Temecula Group on April 2"" at Callaway Winery. Staff attended the Partners in Education Committee Meeting on April 51h. =MGR\WOLNICKG UG=0GDEff.Un.DOC q On April eh, staff attended the Southern California Edison's Energy Efficiency Program Partnership Meeting at the Workforce Development Center. Edison's CTAC (Customer Technology Application Center) offers free energy efficiency seminars to support communities that they serve. The half day seminars provides customer information on existing rebates, programs and services that can benefit the customer. The seminars will now be offered in Temecula. The first seminar, Commercial and Industrial Lighting, is scheduled for July 20'h at the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. Staff met with Dr. Karen Haynes, President of California State University San Marcos, several times and discussed the Temecula Higher Education Facility and provided a site tour. On April eh, staff met with Don Lewis and Dick Kennedy regarding Motor Car Parkway improvements. On April 10, City and Chamber staff met with Lisa Rios of the Inland Empire Minority Business Development Center. CHARO Community Development Corporation has been awarded a 3-year contract by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Administration to operate the Inland Empire Minority Business Development Center (MBDC) —the first of its kind specifically serving the needs of the Ontario/Riverside communities. The CHARO-MBDC will provide business training, business consulting, loan packaging, access to capital and procurement assistance. The Center will provide access to one-on-one "hands on" bilingual staff, providing technical assistance, in the areas of: marketing, financing and accounting, technology (information systems), administration, personnel and general management for the express purpose of enhancing business growth, profitability and access to capital. Funding provides for targeted outreach to minority owned firms in the Inland Empire, including high priority, California State Enterprise Zone target areas, such as Santa Ana in Orange County, Coachella Valley and Calexico in Imperial County; San Diego's Barrio Logan and Otay Mesa and Riverside City/County. On April 291h, staff held a meeting of the college partners in the Higher Education project. The purpose of the meeting was to bring the various parties up to date on the project status, and discuss future steps. Representatives of UCR, CSUSM (including new President Karen Haynes), MSJCC, and Concordia University attended. In addition, Verne Lauritzen, Jeff Greene, and Paul O'Neal attended. The AGK group is proceeding with further design work. The college partners will be developing an operating agreement as well as recommendations for a form of CC&Rs that will be used to govern tenant selection for other tenants of the Higher Ed. Center. The City is exploring a grant through the Economic Development Initiative to survey educational needs in our area. Staff attended the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Business Attraction Committee Meeting on April 271h. Stevie Field provided an overview of the Southwest California's marketing efforts and marketing materials. There was discussion on developing a regional job database on the Alliance website. Companies will be able to submit job posting information into a format that lists position, salary, type, location, contact, home, fax, summary, special information and qualifications necessary. A commuter calculator will also be added to the site which allows job seekers to see how much their commute to work could really cost verses working locally for less pay. The Alliance and San Diego North EDC have discussed partnering on certain marketing activities and advertising. Staff attended the Southwest California Economic Alliance Partners Meeting on April 213'h. Items covered included: The California State Open Golf Tournament in Mumeta - The Alliance is a sponsor and will produce a 30 second commercial for Fox Sports Network and advertising for the tournament. The ad will appear in FORE Magazine and the program. The Alliance Website will offer a regional mob database. Cutting Edge Marketing provided a good proposal to CITYMGR\WOLNICKGNUGUSTOODEPT.REPT.DOC develop this. A focus group of employees will review and design the posting information and procedure as was done with the brokers for the Alliance GIS section. A Commercial Broker Breakfast will be scheduled in June. The EDC/Alliance Move - In an effort to receive more rent at the Workforce Development Center on Enterprise Circle, the County will be moving the offices of the EDC and Alliance. They will move to the French Valley Airport in offices vacated by Supervisor Venable. Although the new location is not as conveniently located, it will result in larger offices for the EDC and Alliance. TOURISM Special Events On April 71h, city departments met to discuss The Good Old Days Car Show event. A post - event debriefing meeting with staff and Central Coast Production is scheduled for May 17'6 to go over the 2004 event. The City typically does this for all major events it sponsors. Staff met several times with the event organizers for the Rubber Ducky Derby which was scheduled for June at Harveston. After meeting with staff & Lennar Homes the applicant decided to withdraw their application due to constraints on the capacity of the Harveston Park facilities. The event organizer will look for a larger venue to hold this event at a later date. Staff provided assistance to the City's Public Work's Department on hosting the Maintenance Superintendents Association Secretaries Luncheon, which was held at Thornton Winery on April 22nd. There were 96 people that attended this year's event. The MSA organization was founded in 1966 and is made up of professionals from the general fields of public works, services, maintenance, and operations. All cities in the Inland Empire/Desert area are members. Hosting such events as this allows Temecula the opportunity to market itself to individuals within our same region. Tourism Trade Show/Conference/FAM Tour Staff participated in the California Travel Market in Anaheim on April 22 — 23. The California Travel Industry Association puts on this educational conference and appointment trade show. The show allowed Temecula an opportunity to meet with international and domestic product managers and sellers of the California travel product. Temecula was provided this opportunity through the Inland Empire Tourism Council. Media/ Outreach Materials The Anaheim/Orange County Visitors Guide has been published. Temecula has placed a full -page color ad in the guide, which is distributed at consumer trade shows, at the Anaheim/Orange County Visitor Center and through travel promotions. The 2004 Spring/Summer Anaheim & Orange County Convention Services Directory has been published. The Winegrowers Assoc. and City produced a co-op ad. This directory is designed and used as the yellow pages for the hospitality and visitor industry. 6,000 are distributed to meeting planners & hotel & convention services departments. (see attached) Staffed worked with a graphic designer on the City of Temecula ads for the Fall/Winter San Diego Convention & Visitors Pocket Guide and Anaheim/Orange County Visitors Guide. City advertised in the Westways May/June issue and continues to get a great response from the ad. Staff provided writer Heidi Knapp Rinella with information and photos for an article on Temecula entitled, "City grows, but retains quaint charm" in their Sunday, April 25h issue of the Las Vegas Review -Journal. (see attached) Meetings Staff attended the Chamber Tourism Council Meeting on April 1" at South Coast Winery. Minutes included in Tourism & Visitors Council (CVB) report — see attached. Staff provided a City update: City ad in the Anaheim/Orange County Visitors Guide, City/Winegrowers co-op ad in the 2004 Spring/Summer Anaheim & Orange County Convention Services Directory. The directory is designed and used as the yellow pages for the hospitality and visitor industry. 6,000 are distributed to meeting planners & hotel & convention services depts. The City of Ontario provided a brief tour of the Inland Empire area to a few travel industry executives from Disney in February. They were not able to visit Temecula, however, they were able to view the Temecula video and were provided tourism information and Temecula souvenirs. Under The Inland Empire Tourism Council, City will participate at the upcoming California Travel Market (CTM) in Anaheim on April 22 & 23. The City and Chamber are working together on scheduling appointments with the travel operators. Temecula Quarterly Calendar of Events was sent out this week to over 700 media. The groundbreaking for the Community Theater in Old Town will be held on April 12th at 4:00 pm. Youth Jazz Festival will be held Saturday, April 171h in Old Town. Staff met with John Occhi with Pilot Michael's Flying Adventures Magazine regarding advertising and editorial on Temecula. This publication reaches the private owners of high performance aircraft — with a readership of nearly a million readers with an average annual income of $387,500. The French Valley Airport currently averages over 7,000 of these visitors every year that contribute $2.5 million to the local economy. The publication will print a 6-page feature destination on the Temecula Valley Wine Country. The Winegrowers Association, individual wineries and the City will advertise in this issue. Staff participated in the Inland Empire Tourism Council Board Member conference call on April Oh. Items discussed included: revising the By-laws, future direction of IETC, and the new IEEP director. Staff attended the Chamber FAM/Trade Show Committee Meeting on April W. The committee developed a mission statement and reviewed trade shows that different local tourism businesses were attending. ATTACHMENTS Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Activities Report Southwest California Economic Alliance Activities Report (not submitted) Advertising/Media Coverage CPI'YMGRIWOL CKGIAUGUSTOODM.R nT 4 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13, 2004 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Shawn, Attached please find the April Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of Temecula. This is the month of April at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of April, 7 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business to Temecula. They received a business packet, which included a copy of the City of Temecula demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, etc. Board of Directors Highlights: Members from both the Temecula and Murrieta Chambers attended the Volunteer Leadership Conference and Legislative Summit in Sacramento. Meetings were held with legislative representatives, Insurance Commissioner and representatives from the Governor's office to discuss the Red Team's Issues. Committee Highlights: The Chamber has been working with LIC Riverside to create a Leadership Program for the region. The goal of the leadership program will be designed to offer instruction in developing the next generation of leaders. Participants may include those considering future participation in the school board, city government and leadership positions in organizations as well as business. The committee is currently securing instructors for the program and will meet again this week for follow-up. Tourism & Visitors Council (TVCVB): Full page advertisement in Inland Empire Magazine for June's Issue. Hired full-time Communications Director for TVCVBITVCC. International MasterCard Promotion on California's Wine Country where 330 million MasterCard holders will receive in their May credit card statement a list of 20 Prize Packages to California's Premier Wine Country. Three of the packages will focus on the Temecula Valley. The packages will also be able to be purchased by non -winners on the MasterCard International official website. The low estimated value of this free promotion is over $400,000 if only 40 million view the marketing piece. Pechanga Resort & Casino, Temecula Creek Inn, South Coast Winery Resort & Spa, The Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association, The Grapeline Wine Country Shuttle, A Grape Escape Hot Air Balloon, and California Dreamin' Hot Air Balloon will be the featured businesses in the promotion. San Diego KGTV Temecula Summer Series Giveaway featured on morning news broadcast and their website. Thomas organized 5 Temecula prize packages ranging from Golf for 4, Harley Motorcycle rentals to Jazz Concert Series tickets. The promotion was set-up to bring more awareness to the Temecula Valley Section on their San Diego website which currently gets on average 20,000 hits a month from a total of 200,000 hits. Consumer leads will also be created from this promotion. Thursday, April 1, 2004 the Tourism Council Meeting was held at South Coast Winery Resort & Spa with 70 tourism based businesses. Wednesday, April 81h, 2004 hosted a FAM Tour with group of 30 from Anaheim, California, including Anaheim Mayor Pringle, Anaheim CVB President, Anaheim CVB Vice President, 26790 Ynez Court • Temecula, CA 92591 Phone: (909) 676-50Q0 • Fax: (909) 694-0201 www.temeculo.org • e-mail: info@temecula.org Mighty Ducks President, Angels MLB President, and other key business partners. On April 81h, 2004 created and met with Chamber members for Speaker Bureau for community awareness on the TVCVB. On April 12th, 2004 the San Diego Visitors Center Networking group meeting took place in Downtown Information Center and the Padres' Petco Park. Meeting consisted of Downtown San Diego Redevelopment, CVB participation with Sports Marketing efforts, and writing grants to receive money for CVBs. Tuesday, April 13, 2004 provided Golf information, Community Calendar, photos and general tourism information to Cathy Risling with OC Golf Magazine for their May Issue. The article on Temecula Valley Golf Courses will be featured in all three of their publications for May. Wednesday, April 14th, 2004 provided My 94.5 with Community Calendar to be presented on -air in upcoming radio programs. Wednesday, April 14th, 2004 provided North County Times with Temecula information, Visitors Guides, brochures, etc. for meeting taking place in New York with Financial Market Leaders to promote the region. Thursday, April 15, 2004 Thomas attended the Temecula Valley Golf Trail Meeting at Cross Creek Golf Course. The meeting consisted of all Temecula Valley Golf Courses that would like to come together in marketing efforts for making golf a strong component of the Temecula Valley destination. Cooperative print advertisements and attending targeted tradeshows were the focus of the meeting. Monday, April 19, 2004 the TVCVB Tradeshow/FAM Tour Subcommittee met to discuss possible tradeshow participation and bring potential FAM Tours to the Temecula Valley. Tuesday, April 20, 2004 provided information to Claudia Harris, writer, for the Temecula Valley Section in the 61h Edition Quick Escapes from Los Angeles Travel Guide. The travel guide will be available in all major bookstores in November 2004. Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Thomas spoke with Scott Roewer the Conference Assistant for the Office of the Secretary of Defense who is having a convention with 500-700 people in attendance in October 2004 at Pechanga Resort & Casino. He requested the TVCVB provide the convention with all marketing appropriate for the Temecula Valley. Thomas sent him off the Chamber Visitors Guide, Chamber Business Directory, City of Temecula Brochure, Old Town Museum Brochures, Pechanga Resort & Casino Brochure, Tour of Temecula Map, The Promenade Mall Brochure, and The Lake Elsinore Outlets Brochure. Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Thomas spoke with Kathy Dickenson who is bringing a group of 300 to the Temecula Valley September 20-27, 2006. She was requesting if the TVCVB would be able to provide the service of booking all activities while in town, information on what events will be going on at that time and cost of the events, and a variety of brochures for all 300 guests. Thursday, April 22, 2004 Thomas spoke with a travel writer from Smart Meetings Magazine for a June Issue article on meeting space in the Inland Empire. Supplied a list of all businesses with the designated meeting space. The magazine has the largest Western meeting planner audience with over 30,000 meeting professionals. The value of the June Issue Article is $4,510. Worked with Baily Gardner PR for Pala Casino Resort & Spa Travel Writer FAM Tour on Friday, April 30th, 2004. Group of 30 different travel writers from all different backgrounds were in attendance. April 23 & 24 provided Temecula Valley marketing materials and assisted the Pala Mesa Resort with a FAM Tour of 25 individuals. The group consisted of medical firms, insurance and other business areas. Tuesday, April 27, 2004 the TVCVB Marketing/Research Subcommittee met to discuss which methods of marketing and research will complement our efforts best. Recommendations for the Board of Directors in choosing a research firm to conduct Tourism research for the region also took place. Wednesday, April 28, 2004 TVCVB staff attended the San Diego North CVB Annual Meeting. Wednesday, April 28, 2004 TVCVB staff dropped off 2 Temecula Valley Media Kits at Pechanga Resort & Casino for Chef Larry with San Diego KGTV and Mr. Balistreri with My 94.5 Radio station. Thursday, April 29, 2004 TVCVB staff attended a "Targeting the Leisure Traveler" Educational Workshop in San Diego. Thursday, April 29, 2004 TVCVB submitted 10 questions to Survey USA (the second largest survey company in the USA) who will be conducting an over the phone survey of the San Diego County population and their tourism trends to the Temecula Valley. The results of the survey will be finalized in two weeks time. Friday, April 30, 2004 TVCVB staff met with Kathy Anderson, Regional Representative for the California Travel and Trade Commission. Friday, April 30, 2004 TVCVB staff assisted in organizing a FAM Tour for the South Bay Women & Travel Group. The group will be in the Temecula Valley, June 11 & 12, 2004. Business Resource Guide & Membership Directory: The new Directory is available to the public at no cost. 10,000 copies were printed this year. Education Committee: 30 Businesses participated in the Youth Job Fair held at The Promenade in Temecula. Over 300 students participated. A recap meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2004. The TVCC will present five $500 scholarships this year. One overall recipient will be announced and also one student from Linfield, TVHS and CHS will receive a scholarship. The Student of the Year luncheon will be held at Sizzler on June 7, 2004. Special Events Committee: The 13`h Annual Chamber Golf Classic will take place Friday, May 7th at Temecula Creek Inn. The event is almost a sell out with 211 golfers. The events main sponsors are Carriage Motor Company, Pechanga Resort & Casino, Countrywide Home Loans and Toyota of Temecula Valley. The Special Events Committee is currently working on the 2004 Economic Outlook Conference featuring Dr. Esmael Adibi with the Director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research and Anderson Professor of Economics at Chapman University. Dr. Adibi will be presenting on the latest economic statistics for the state. The event's Title Sponsors are The S.W. Riverside County Association of Realtors and The Press-Enterprise/Business Press. The event is scheduled for Tuesday, June 29th at Temecula Creek Inn. Local Business Promotions Committee: The Board of Directors approved the proposal that was presented by the Committee for the Spring Shop Temecula First Campaign on April 22nd. The Committee will be promoting a year-round campaign with July and November as rewards months and will be offering Chamber Members an opportunity to participate in a television commercial to promote local business. The Committee has been working with Eric Dudley at Adelphia Media and will be producing a commercial that will air on FX, CNN Headline News and Fox News channels. The Business Resource Subcommittee conducted a survey targeting the chamber membership to determine how many members have viewed the DVD, what their responses were and what topics would be valuable for a future DVD. The results of the survey in which 129 members participated will be a valuable tool. The businesses of the Month for May chosen by the Membership Committee are MIT Lending and Temecula Valley Golf School. A & R Superior Pool Service was awarded the Chamber Spotlight and Brighton Collectibles is the Mystery Shopper winner for the month of May. Government Action Committee: Good Morning Washington has been rescheduled to July 2, 2004. Committee circulated petitions on Workers Compensation and Local Sales tax initiatives. The GAC met with a representative from the Greater Long Beach Chamber of Commerce to discuss their Legislative Action Committee and we will be working on reorganizing our committee to be a stronger legislative advocate. Membership Committee: 41 new members joined the Chamber for the month of April, the staff and ambassadors attended 9 ribbon cuttings. Ambassador Networking Breakfast Business Spotlights: Integris Solutions and Yellow Directory Pages. Over 300 members and guests attended the April mixer hosted by Carriage Motor Company. Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distributors) Activity Report: • 709 Visitor Guide requests were processed from the City of Temecula's Westway's advertising marketing piece. • 420 Visitor Guides were distributed to Mindy in Sales with Pechanga to be given to clients from out of the area. • 30 Visitor Guides, 30 Winery Brochures and 60 Tourism Maps were distributed to Terri Lee Pebley with Golden Real Estate for visitors to the area. • 25 Visitor Guides were distributed to Hazel Beck with the San Diego Jaguar Owners North American Tour for their car rally on May 3rd. • 32 Visitor Guides, 32 Winery Brochures and 32 Tourism Maps were distributed to Margaret Kennedy with LOLOWS for tourism. • 420 Visitor Guides were distributed to Tina in Sales with Pechanga to be given to clients from out of the area. 20 Visitor Guides and 20 Winery Brochures were distributed to Jean Adams for a group staying at Tucalota Springs RV Resort. • 25 Visitor Guides, 25 Winery Brochures and 25 Tourism Maps were distributed to Lynn Williams, Wedding Director with South Coast Winery & Resort for wedding guests. • 300 Visitor Guides, 300 Winery Brochures and 300 Tourism Maps were distributed to Diana Kilmer with The Rose Doctors for the Garden Tour from San Diego National Convention of Roses. • 200 Visitor Guides were distributed to Bill Hanson with I Love Clocks for visitors to the area. 25 Visitor Guides and 25 Tourism Maps were distributed to Danielle Reinhart with Army Community Service Center/RAP for relocation needs. • 100 Visitor Guides were distributed to Norma Arias -Lee with Metropolitan Water District for tourism. Activity Report: • Tourism calls for the month of April — 1,474 • Phone calls for the month of April — 2,733 • Walk-ins for the month of April —1,923 • Web Page User Sessions for the month of April — 5,686 • Website Tourism Survey - " How did you hear about Temecula' - 207 responses were received: • Article — 2% • Friend - 32% • Link - 10% • Magazine - 5% • Other - 34% • Radio — 1 % • Search — 11 % • TV-5% Also, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Government Action, Local Business Promotions, Membership and Marketing and Special Events committee. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090 or e-mail asullivan@temecula.org. Thank you. Sincerely4evano APresident/CE cc: Mayor Mike Naggar Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Comerchero Councilman Jeff Stone Councilman Ron Roberts Councilman Chuck Washington Shawn Nelson, City Manager Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator TVCC Board of Directors Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Monthly Activity Report April 2004 Chamber Vis. Center Year -To -Date PHONE CALLS This Month This Month Total TOURISM Tourism Referrals 226 1,317 Calendar of Events 139 771 Special Events 121 709 General Information 907 4,441 TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,393 7,238 Relocation 154 949 Demographics 124 639 Chamber 723 3,599 Miscellaneous 191 740 TOTAL PHONE CALLS 2,585 13,165 WALK-INS Tourism 186 62 774 Calendar of Events 130 - 626 Special Events 66 - 317 General Information 634 41 2,794 Relocation 162 - 652 Demographics 114 530 Chamber 382 - 1,807 Miscellaneous 180 674 TOTAL WALK-INS 1,854 103 8,174 MAILINGS Tourism 841 2,170 Relocation 80 333 Demographics 72 306 TOTAL MAILINGS 993 2,809 E-MAIL Tourism 110 498 Relocation 95 444 Miscellaneous 333 1,902 TOTAL E-MAIL 538 2,844 WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS 5,686 27,196 GRAND TOTALS This Month Year -To -Date PHONE CALLS 2,585 13,165 WALK-INS 1,854 8,174 MAILINGS 993 2,809 E-MAIL 538 2,844 WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS 5,686 27,196 Annual Volume Comparisons Chamber Chamber Percentage April2003 April2004 PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals 290 226 -22% Calendar of Events 162 139 -14% Special Events 202 121 -40% General Information 1,279 907 -29% TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,933 1,393 -28% Relocation 187 154 -18% Demographics 137 124 -9% Chamber 993 723 -27% Miscellaneous 363 191 -47% TOTAL PHONE CALLS 3,613 2,585 -28% WALK-INS Tourism 198 186 -6% Calendar of Events 150 130 -13% Special Events 75 66 -12% General Information 948 634 -33% Relocation 183 162 -11% Demographics 130 114 -12% Chamber 546 382 -30% Miscellaneous 386 180 -53% Visitor Center Walk -Ins 400 103 -74% TOTAL WALK-INS 3,016 1,957 -35% MAILINGS Tourism 163 841 416% Relocation 112 80 -29% Demographics 108 72 -33% TOTAL MAILINGS 383 993 159% E-MAIL Tourism 104 110 6% Relocation 103 95 -8% Miscellaneous 236 333 41% TOTAL E-MAIL 443 538 21% WEBSITE USER SESSIONS 2,669 5,686 113% * Chamber referrals reflect faxes, walk-ins and phone calls TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Tourism & Visitors Council Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 1', 2004 @ 11:30 a.m. South Coast Winery Resort & Spa * Lunch Hosted By: Dreamakers Custom Catering Chairperson: Cherise Manning (present) Co -Chair: Kelly Daniels (present) Board Liaison: Rusty Manning (present) Bette Endersen (present) Michael Doblado (present) Committee Present: Timmy Daniels, Ellen Watkins, Denise Auvil, Ginny Mulhern Bette Endersen, Dwayne Lewis, Vangie Esteban, Darleen Henderson, Nina Stanley, Greg Johnson, Jimmy Moore, Bill Seltzer, Carol Popejoy-Hime, Kim Kelliher, John Kelliher, Brenda Kemball, Melody Brunsting, Gretchen Harrington, Laurie Dimond, Tara Tankink, Kathy Lindeman, Judi Brady, Clifford Nunn, David Spoon, Noelle Spoon, John Hess, Joseph Nemie, Cheryl Rolph, Kristen Sartore, Krista Chaich, Maggi Allen, Jenifer Wilson, Steve Mallory, Yvette Daddato, Doug Anderson, Jolene Anderson, Donna Craig, Brookes Konig, Mimi Harlen, Kay McCain, Kimberly Henninger, Kevin Fonseca, Michael Paulo, Christina Veale, Michelle Higgins, Patricia Eaggers, Annette Neilsen, Kathy Williamson, Linda Kissam, Ron Owens, Leslie Mercado, Kelly Henderson Staff Present: Carrie Thomas, Cora Saxarra & Laura Turnbow Call to Order/Introductions Manning called the meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. Self Introductions were made around the group. Cherise introduce the South Coast Winery Resort & Spa will be open in April 2004. They have 76 spacious villas, ranging from 575-1150 sq. ft. have been designed for ultimate privacy. Sharing no common walls, its own secluded terrace area adorned by local flowers, blooming shrubs and head trim vineyards, Jacuzzi tubs and villa's fireplace, the villas offer a tranquil retreat for resort guests. The South Coast Winery Resort & Spa is an smoke -free property and environment. Open terraces and garden courtyards welcome conference attendees to South Coast Winery Resort & Spa. Guests will be refreshed after productive meetings while overlooking rows of grapevines with mountain backdrops. They can assist in planning your entire event. The resort offers complete banquet, audio-visual, and business services with an expert, attentive staff. Contact them at (909) 587-WINE or visit them on the web at www.wineresort.com. Meetin4 Minutes Skovron made a motion to approve the March 4'h, 2004 Tourism & Visitors Council meeting minutes as written. Daniels seconded the motion, which carried. Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau • New Monthly Meeting Time Change -The committee voted on changes the June and July Tourism Council Meeting Dates due to the Balloon & Wine Festival in June and the 41h of July Holiday. The new meeting dates will be as followed: June 10th, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. at Rusty Acres Herb Farm and July 8'h, 2004 at Embassy Suites Hotel. • Event Recap- The Official Unveiling of the new TVCVB was a success. Thank you to all of the sponsors of the event: Title Sponsor: Pechanga Resort & Casino, Facility Title Sponsor: Temecula Creek Inn, Wine Sponsor: Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association, Invitation Sponsors: Friendship Transportation and Hi-Tek Dynamics. The event itself raised over $2,000. • WACE Leaders Conference- Carrie Thomas, TVCVB Deputy Director, will be attending the this conference with Alice Sullivan, TVCC President/CEO, and several TVCC Board Members. They will be meeting with key government officials through out their visit to Sacramento. • San Diego Union Tribune Travel Writer spent the weekend in Temecula enjoying Old Town Temecula, Wine Country and casino gaming. She will be writing a full feature article on the Temecula Valley. Her interest in the Temecula Valley was sparked after hearing about the new Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau (TVCVB). Tourism Subcommittee Groups • There has been three new subcommittees created under the Tourism Council. These meeting will assist TVCVB staff in working on specific areas of Tourism. A sign up sheet was passed around for members to sign up for which appropriate committee they would like to participate with. If you have not yet signed up and are interested in one the following Subcommittees, please contact Carrie Thomas at (909) 676-5090. Please your talents to work and show your support for the new TVCVB today. • Speaker Bureau-2nd Thursday of the Month at 10:30 a.m. • FAM/Tradeshows- 3'd Monday of the Month at 10:00 a.m. • Marketing/Research — 41h Tuesday of the Month at 10:00 a.m. City Marketing Report • The Anaheim/Orange County Visitors Guide has been published. Temecula has placed a full -page color ad in the guide, which is distributed at consumer trade shows, at their Visitor Center and through travel promotions. • 2004 Spring/Summer Anaheim & Orange County Convention Services Directory has come out. The Winegrowers Association and the City of Temecula produced a co-op ad. Designed and used as the yellow pages for the hospitality and visitor industry. 6,000 are distributed to meeting planners & hotel & convention services depts. • The City of Ontario provided a brief tour of the Inland Empire area to a few travel industry executives from Disney in February. They were not able to visit Temecula, however, they were able to view the Temecula video and were provided tourism information and Temecula souvenirs. We will be following up with them soon. • Under The Inland Empire Tourism Council, we will participate at the upcoming California Travel Market (CTM) in Anaheim on April 22 & 23. This venue provides California suppliers with the opportunity to meet one on one with top international and domestic tour operators. The City and Chamber are working together on scheduling appointments with the travel operators. • Temecula Quarterly Calendar of Events was sent out this week to over 700 media. • The groundbreaking for the Community Theater in Old Town will be held on April 12th at 4:00 pm. • Youth Jazz Festival will be held Saturday, April 17`h in Old Town -flyers Tourism Destination Reports • Pechanga Resort & Casino —Tony Bennett will be performing on April 4`h, 2004. For more information on any of these events please call (877)711-2WIN or go to www.pechanga.com. • Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association — New personal for the TVWA is Kathy Williamson. She will be the event coordinator and assistant to the director. Vick Knight monthly tasting will include Zinfandel and Sauvignon Blanc. KMIR TV in Palm Springs will be having 2 days of promotions on Temecula Valley Wine Country. Telemundo TV came to wine country to promote the region as a romantic destination for their Spanish viewers. Where & Performance Magazine featured the TV Wine region. WineLovers.com is currently running internet based advertisements and articles on the region. Mario Martinoli Show will be featuring on air interviews. NBC came to our wine country to scout for a new reality television show called "Marry Me or Else." Jon Heibers a wine and travel writer came to 2 wine country to gather information on the this wine region. There was 2 days of lobbying efforts in Sacramento concerning money for abatement of GWSS, no on nickels a drink tax and yes for more money on exotic pest management, yes on workman's comp. reform. There was a joint meeting with the City of Temecula discussing issues of mutual concern. New Release Weekend will be April 24 and 25. Media tickets are available. The Gold Dinner and Auction date has changed to July 17th, 2004. Beautification to the wine region surveying has been completed. There will be signage issues addresses. Activity and planning will be in late summer to early fall. There is a new marketing promotion featuring two for one coupon with new winery featured each month. For the month of April it will be Falkner Winery and Churon Winery. Weekdays in Wine Country will be big discounts at several wineries. Support Your Local Winemaker Campaign begins with "Locals" night on Fridays from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Discounts are available. Old Town Temecula —Youth Jazz Festival will be on Saturday, April 17th, 2004 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Western Days will be May 22 and 23, 2004 with Western Music, exhibits, and old west shoot out. Street Painting Festival will be June 19 & 20, 2004 with hundreds of fine art murals on a canvas blacktop. Old Town Temecula have over 100 gift shops, antique stores, and curios shops. Free parking to the public. For more call (909)694-6412. Arts Council of Temecula Valley — Saturday, April 24, In Home Concert at Bear Creek Estates. Doors open at 7, Concert at 8, Tickets $35/person, Limited seating. A celebration of Celtic Music featuring Scarlett Rivera, violin, Eric Rigler, Irish Pipe and tin whistle, known for his work on the soundtrack for Brave Heart, and theme from Titanic, pianist and vocalist. For ticket information call 909.678.2517 or 909.834.9802 or visit www.musiciansworkshop.org. ARTS IN THE COUNTRY FESTIVAL 2004 starts MAY 1 GOES THROUGH JUNE 26,2004. Saturday, May 1 Temecula Valley Rose Society Show "Viva La Rosa" Community Recreation Center • 10:30 am to 3:30 pm • Admission Free "Viva La Rosa" showcases beautiful, locally grown roses integrated into art displays, table decorations, and other artistic settings. For information call Temecula Valley Rose Society at 909.283.7911 or 909.693.5568 Balloon & Wine Festival —June 4, 5 and 6 as the 21s' Annual Event. Located east of town at Lake Skinner Recreational Area, the Festival kicks off at 5 p.m. Friday night, June 4 with the Evening Balloon Glow and a live concert. The glow is accomplished with tethered hot air balloons. Balloon pilots choreograph the dancing balloons by first inflating the balloons, and then simultaneously igniting the burners. Gates open at 6 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday morning to give spectators an early glimpse of the hot air balloons as pilots assemble them for flight. Balloons will launch by 6:30 a.m. and be down by 9 a.m. as the weather warms and breezes pick up. Enjoy tasting premium wines from over 20 local wineries while enjoying top entertainment Saturday and Sunday on two different stages. Saturday's Main Stage entertainment includes The Motels featuring Martha Davis, Spin Doctors and The Fixx. The Knack headlines the Sunday Festival line up and The Drew Davis Band. All concerts are included in the price of admission. Tickets for the Festival go on sale May 3. Saturday tickets are $18 for adults, $5 for youth 7-12 and children under 7 are free. Sunday adult admission is $15 with Children 6 and under free. Youth ages 7-12 are $5. Arrive between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. for the Balloon Launch on Sunday morning and adults receive a $5 discount. There is a $2.00 discount on advance ticket sales for Saturday and Sunday admission at Vons and Longs Drug Stores. Active Military receive a 50% discount on Sunday for all adults. Military I.D. must be presented at the ticket booths and the discount is only available at the Festival entrance. The Military Discount cannot be combined with early morning admission discount. For more information call (909) 676-6713 or visit the website at www.tvbwf.com Temecula Valley International Film Festival — No Report Temecula Valley Museum & Children Museum — No Report Member Updates • Temecula Jazz Festival on Saturday, May 1' at 5:00 p.m. and Sunday, May 2Id at 3:00 p.m. at Ponte Winery. The event is benefiting the Shriners Hospitals for Children. Musical acts will include: Oleta Adams, Kenny Rankin, Michael Paulo, Bobby Lyle, A. Ray Fuller, Kemaya and Monte Seward, Mark Campbell, Christopher Cross, Doc Powell, Freddie Ravel, Kiki Ebsen, Sherry Williams, and Patrick Yandall. Presale Tickets are $65, One -day tickets at the door are $75. Dinner packages are available for $110. There will be special room rates at South Coast Winery Resort & Spa. For more information visit www.temeculaiazzfestival.com or call (909) 694-8733. Thessalonika Family Services/Rancho Damacitas is presenting the Rubber Ducky Derby Race on June 12, 2004 at Lake Harveston. There will be 10,000 Rubber Ducks racing in the waterway. Sponsorship for the event is now available. All monies from the event will go towards Rancho Jireh Foster Homes, Rancho Damacitas, and the Rancho Campus helping out -of -home care and services for children who have been removed from their natural homes. For more information on this event please call Penny at (909) 302-2317 or go to www.thessalonika. org Raging Waters will be having a FREE VIP DAY for all Chamber members on Friday, June 4th, 2004 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The day will include a formal announcement of the newest attraction, "Dragon's Den", park tours, lunch, entertainment, beach attire fashion show and prizes. For more information please call Greg Johnson at (909) 802-2213. Grapeline Wine Country Shuttle Offers Spring Fling at the Wineries. Wine tasting via luxury shuttle, Caribbean feast at Wilson Creek Winery, Private Tour & Barrel Room tasting at Ponte Winery, Steel Drum band and more! $88 per person. For more information contact The Grapeline at 1-888-8- WINERY or visit www.gograi)e.com The 8th International Welburn Gourd Art Festival will be held on June 26th & 27h, 2004. For more information on this event please call, (760) 728-4271. TVCC Board Update Endersen reported • The Roundtable Discussion will be Friday, April 2nd, 2004 at Pat & Oscar's at 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 P.M. • Membership Workshop is on Tuesday, April 61h from 12 noon to 1:00 p.m. at the Chamber. • Chamber Mixer on Wednesday, April 215t, 2004 from 5:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. at Carriage Motor. • The Ambassador Networking Breakfast will be at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28th 2004 at Embassy Suites Hotel. • Chamber Golf Classic at TCI on Friday, May 71h, 2003 11:30 a.m. If you have not yet reserved your place, call the Chamber and ask for the Special Events department. Tickets are $125. Last day to RSVP for this event is April 26th, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. • Spring "Shop Temecula First" Campaign will be starting in June 2004. Please call the Chamber today to see how you can become part of this wonderful campaign. • Chamber Bylaws Revision -All Chamber members are asked to review the Bylaw Revision and place their vote. At the meeting 12 signatures were collected. The Chamber needs to receive 70 signatures before approving the new Chamber Bylaws Revisions. If you have not yet placed your vote, please come into the Chamber today and cast your vote. Only one vote per company. Next meeting Date: Thursday, May 6th @ 11:30 a.m. Location: American Rider Motorcycle Rental GI EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book Thursday, April 8, 2004 9:30 a.m. Chairperson: Donna Wilder Members Present: Tracy Hunter, Jimmy Moore, Danielle Clark, Aaron Adams, Mark Margolin, Alphonso Allen, Billie Blair, Frank Donahoe Board Liaison: Greg Morrison (Present) Staff Present: Laura Tumbow Approval of Minutes Moore made a motion to approve the March 11, 2004 meeting minutes with the addition that Blair was present. Hunter seconded the motion, which carried. Stand Up For Our Community Turnkey Schools, Inc contributed the remaining $600, which has been forwarded to Los Osos High School. Scholarships Wilder met with representatives for The Promenade In Temecula to discuss the possibility of organizing a fundraising event at the Mall to fund the 2004/2005 scholarships. The suggested event was a fashion show. Mall staff would request that merchants contribute complete outfits that would be offered as drawing prizes. Types outfits would include school approved clothing, interview outfits, prom and summer wear. $2,000 in scholarships will be awarded for the 2003/2004 school year. Committee agreed that (4) $500 scholarships would be awarded. The application will include a 500-word essay titled, "How can my higher education experience benefit a community." Moore requested that students be informed of the many unclaimed scholarships that are available. Youth Job Fair There are currently 32 participating businesses. Student workshops will be held at each high school campus and at the Promenade. School Emnlovee Recognition Gift certificates will be distributed for Day of the Teacher and Classified Employee Week. 600 additional Temecula Valley Smart Cards will also be distributed to TVUSD employees. This program will be evaluated at next month's meeting to determine whether to continue it again next year. Student of the Month April 26, 2004, 12 Noon at Sizzler. Student of the Year Wilder, Margolin, Allen, and Adams will assist in judging the Student of the Year applications. The luncheon is scheduled for Monday, June 7, 2004 at Sizzler. Career Videos Chaparral H.S. has begun video production. There are 22 career pathways that will be covered. Margolin will supply a list of business people who may be interested in participating in this project. Portions of "Succeeding in Temecula" DVD will be used in the videos. School and Colleges Update TVUSD — Clark reported board will meet to discuss the possibility of delaying the opening of two locations due to budget constraints. MSJC — The College is currently in the process of drafting their General Plan for 2005 — 2010. The Board is reviewing the proposed plan. The general plan is a working document to move the school forward and will be reviewed again in two years. UC Riverside Extension - Schedule for Lifelong Learning will be available soon. City Update Library Project — Adams reported the plans for the new library are moving along. Technology issues are currently being discussed. The City of Temecula will hold a joint meeting with TVUSD representatives to discuss future capitol improvement projects. Campus Project — Project is moving along. MSJC, UCR and UC San Marcos will participate in this project. Additional educational partners are needed. Adams will provide an outline of this project for the next meeting. Board Update • Leadership Development Academy — A cooperative effort between the Chamber and UCR Extension. This program will run approximately six weeks and will begin in September. • Volunteer Leadership Conference and Legislative briefing — Members of the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce and Murrieta Chamber will be attending this conference in Sacramento on May P and 4th • Chamber Golf Classic — Friday, May 71h at Temecula Creek Inn. Sponsorships and golf reservations available. Meeting adjourned. Thank You! Next Education Committee Meeting is Thursday, May 13, 2004, 9:30 a.m. in the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book Government Action Committee A Joint Committee of the Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula Chambers of Commerce Meeting Minutes Monday, April 19, 2004 Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Liaisons: Dr. Larry Francis Present: Roger Ziemer (Chairman), Gene Wunderlich (Co -Chair), Charlotte Fox, Jim Cauhape, Marlene Best, Jeff Greene, Ken Nichols, Peg Moore, Kelly Battin, Aaron Adams, Roy Paulson, Verne Luritzen. Paul ONeal, Kimberly Frieze Staff: Rex Oliver, Valerie Preston — Murrieta; Alice Sullivan, Laura Tumbow — Temecula I. Meeting was called to order by Ziemer at 12:05 pm. II. Self Introductions III. Approval of March 22, 2004 Meeting Minutes Minutes were approved IV. Ziemer presented Strategies to Become a Strategic Legislative Force and invited open discussion to achieve objectives and goals. V. State reports A. CA State Senator Hollingsworth - Lauritzen gave an overview on Workman's Comp. Expected 20-22% reduction in percentage of premiums, possibly 30-40%. B. CA State Senator Battin - Battin reviewed SB1803 Dispelling the Arguments Protecting Sexual Molesters. Scholarship luncheon will be held 4-24 at the L.E. Diamond. Over $4,000 will be awarded C. CA State Senator Haynes - Greene reported SB87 Highway Transfer bill should be unopposed. Support of SB744 Affordable Housing. D. CA State Senator Benoit- No report. VI. Legislative Reports A. U.S. Congressional District 43, Calvert - No report. B. U.S. Congressional District 45, Mary Bono - No report. C. U.S. Congressional District 48, Issa - No report. VI. County Reports A. Riverside County Supervisor District 1, Buster - No report. B. Riverside County Supervisor District 3, Venable - No report. VIII. City Reports A. City of Lake Elsinore — Best reported City of Lake Elsinore is sponsoring the Chamber Mixer. EDC luncheon will be May 13. New fire station has opened. B. City of Murrieta — Wunderlich reported General Plan review meets every Monday at 6pm at City Chambers. Filing has been completed to annex 1/3 of Wildomar. C. City of Temecula — Adams reported 3 major companies are contemplating leaving the State. A red team has been formed to retain them. SB744 Affordable housing and AB3006 opposed. SB87 endorsed. IX. Chamber Reports A. Lake Elsinore - No report. B. Temecula - Sullivan reported Legislative Summit to take place on May 3-4 in Sacramento. New Business Resource Directory is now available. Mixer will be held at Carriage Motors. C. Murrieta - Oliver reported Chamber Golf Tournament will be April 23, Business Expo will be on May 6, and Installation Dinner June 19. XIII. Other Business XIV. Meeting adjourned 1:20pm Next meeting is Monday, May 17, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. at the Murrieta Police Department Community Room, 24701 Jefferson Ave., Murrieta. TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LOCAL BUSINESS PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 21, 2004 8:00a.m: 9:OOa.m. Mission Statement: Provide ongoing education to both merchants and the public to develop community awareness as it relates to local business and the economy. Committee Chair: Bert Baluyut Co -Chair: Kurt Peck Board Present: Greg Brown (not present) Members Present: Kirby Bown, Carole Crocker, Lisa Fuess, Bob Hagel, Kathy Forbes, Jennifer Jones, Mike Mamian, Phyllis Risner Staff. Alice Sullivan Lynn Collett Welcome & Introductions Approval of Minutes Bown made a motion to approve the March 17, 2004 meeting minutes as written and Crocker seconded the motion. Shop Temecula First The new campaign promotion will be presented to the Board of Directors on April 22°d. If the Board approves the campaign proposal Crocker will e-mail all campaign information to each committee member. The chamber will also have all forms available for committee members to pick up. Sullivan to review forms before the campaign sign-up. The program will also need to be included on the chamber website. Baluyut suggested sending an e-mail blast to all chamber members promoting the campaign. Peck is preparing artwork for the entry boxes. Crocker and Collett met with KATY Radio who stated they would do PSA's for the program between 8:OOpm and S:OOam. Froggy Radio is also interested in participating. Mystery Shopper Baluyut explained the program and the recognition each winner receives courtesy of The Californian and DHL Business Solutions. The April winner is Hungry Hunter Steakhouse and May is Brighton Collectibles. Business of the Month Baluyut explained the program and announced the Business of the month winners for the program sponsored by KMYT/My 94.5 Radio Station. The Membership Committee will decide the Business of the month winner for May and the Governmental Action Committee will decide for the month of June. The Local Business Promotions Committee decided the April winners who were Money Solutions and Temecula Valley Smart Card. Chamber Spotlight Baluyut described the Chamber Spotlight and the recognition that new member companies receive courtesy of FROGGY. The Chamber Spotlight business for April is USA Lending Group and for May is A & R Superior Pool Service. Business Resource Program The committee reviewed the results of the Zoomerang Survey which was sent to 927 chamber members on April 2nd. The survey was viewed by 192 members of those 12 people (1%) partially completed the survey and 129 (14%) completed the survey. The results will be checked again at the six week point. Jones suggested an e-mail be sent to all chamber members thanking them for completing the survey and reminding them if they have not filled out the survey to please do so. Hagel suggested possibly mailing any future DVD's to all chamber members. Board Update Collett gave an update on the following: • Mixer, Wednesday, April 21, 2004 at Carriage Motor Company • Ambassador Networking Breakfast, Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 7:30am at the Embassy Suites Hotel — Temecula Valley Wine Country • 13'h Annual Golf Classic will be held May 7`s' 11:30am at Temecula Creek Inn. Adjourned NEXT MEETING: May 19, 2004 at 8:00am in the Chamber Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Membership and Marketing Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April14, 2004 8:00 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. Chamber Conference Room Sponsored by Community Little Book Mission Statement: Develop programs to maintain and build a membership commensurate with the growth of the Temecula business community and simultaneous growth of the Chamber. Serve as goodwill representatives and strive to enhance the value of membership encouraging ongoing dialogue between members. Committee Chair: Timmy Daniels Board Liaisons: Stan Harter Co -Chair: Judy Zulfiqar Committee Present: Kirby Bown, Carole Crocker, Don Myers, Bob Bryant, Bob Hagel, John Hess, Dan Brunell, LaVonna Lacy, Alma Gonzales, Jann Gentry, Frank Aston, Mike Constaglio, Bill Seltzer, Ginny Muelhern, Judy Zulfigar and Timmy Daniels Board Liaisons Present: Stan Harter Staff Present: Cora Saxarra, Shirley Eilek Minutes Committee chair Timmy Daniels called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. The minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and motioned for approval by Kirby Bown and seconded by Bob Hagel; which carried. Membership Report The committee reviewed the Membership packet. Currently there are 1,453 members (reflects 41 new members, renewals, 14 drops) Daniels reminded all the ambassadors to attend the Ambassador's quarterly meeting. Ribbon Cutting Agreement: Ribbon cutting schedules will now be available at website (www.rkrmedia.com/calendar/calendar.cqi) as well as all membership committee events. A ribbon cutting agreement will be included at the new member package. Ribbon cutting must be scheduled one month prior to the date selected. Notice of cancellations must be received at least 48 hours prior to the ribbon cutting and may reschedule with in three weeks. Sign in sheet: (Mixer and Ambassador Networking Breakfast) An explanation of assigned task was passed around for the committee to understand what is expected when signing to help on membership events. Roundtable Discussion: Roundtable Discussion: Friday, April 2"d 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pat & Oscar's in Temecula Topic: Customer Generation and Follow Up. Winner of the book of the month is Bill Seltzer/Temecula Valley Golf School. Due to Golf Classic Tournament May 7th Roundtable Discussion were re -scheduled for June 4th. Topic will be: Making the most of your Internet Presence. Mixer: Over 300 members and visitors attended the April 215t Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce mixer hosted by Carriage Motor Company. Co -hosted by Pat & Oscar's, Sammy's Wood fired Pizza, Mexicana, Vallee d'Brume, Valley Printing, 5 and Diner and Valley Events. Ambassador Networking Breakfast Wednesday, April 28 th7:30 — 9:30 a.m. Embassy Suites Hotel Temecula Valley Wine Country. Integris Solutions and Yellow Directory Pages were the two -business spotlight for the month of April. A special Topic Breakfast will take place of the regular Ambassador Networking Breakfast for the month of June, Topic: Identity Theft presented by Pre -paid Legal and Public Access Defibrillation, presented by Captain Greg Adams. 4th of July Extravaganza Daniels suggested to have a booth for the 4ch of July Extravaganza yearly. A sign up sheet went around for anyone interested in participating. Gentry who chaired last year were given the first opportunity to chair it again for this year. Daniels also would like to have a representation from every committee, will have more details on next month committee meeting. Meeting adjourned: Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 8:OOam Chamber Boardroom Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Special Events Committee Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Chairperson: Jennifer Jones Co -Chair: Melodee Leavitt Board Liaisons: Bette Endresen, Joan Tussing Members Present: Jennifer Jones, Melodee Leavitt, Carolyn Tidmus, Laura Bruno, Paul McCaughey, and Solange Sheppy Board Present: Bette Endresen, Joan Tussing Staff Present: Alice Sullivan, Jennifer Malek, Michelle Eilek and Melissa Hayer Approval of Minutes Jones made a motion to approve the March 16th meeting minutes as written. Leavitt seconded the motion, which carried. State of the City Hayer announced the net income for the event was $13,539. We exceeded the budgeted net income by $1,500. The additional participants contributed to the additional income. The facility and food were great! The ballroom at Pechanga works great for the event. Endresen commented that the presentation made by Chemicon was a little too long and the PowerPoint presentation took away from the Mayor's presentation. The committee suggested limiting the time for the sponsors to speak to 3 minutes and not allow a PowerPoint presentation next year. Chamber Golf Classic The event will take place Friday, May 71h at 11:30 a.m. with a shotgun start. Pat & Oscars and California Grill have agreed to be the lunch box sponsor. Budweiser, Long's and Costco are the beverage sponsors. Live Auction prizes are needed. McCaughey offered to donate the LaMasters Limo for an evening as well as $50 gift certificates for the prize packages. Staff has mailed a prize request to Aviara for a round of golf. If received it will be partnered with the limo ride for the live auction. Suggested live auction prizes were a package of golf foursomes to area golf courses or golf lessons. Volunteers are needed; a sign up sheet was passed around. Economic Outlook Conference The event will take place at Temecula Creek Inn on Tuesday, June 29`h. Dr. Esmael Adibi will be the keynote speaker. All sponsorships have been secured. RKR Media Associates have donated the design of the invitation. Legislative Summit The 2004 Legislative Summit Committee has begun planning this year's event. The committee is looking to hold the event in the morning from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The location had not been determined. Based upon the speaker the location will be decided upon at that time. Edresen asked to be notified of any future meetings. Board Update Sullivan announced the 2004 Chamber Membership Directory is now available. 10,000 copies have been printed. The Volunteer Leadership Conference will be held in the first week of May. Several of the Board of Directors will be attending. Committee Update The Tourism Committee/CVB hosted a FAM Tour for the Anaheim Mayor and CVB President. This month's mixer will be at Carriage Motor Company on April 20th. Next Meeting Date Tuesday, May 20th at 11:30 a.m. at the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Boardroom sponsored by Community Little Book. EDqq May 17, 2004 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: EDC Activity Summary — April 2004 Business and Workforce Development Staff responded to the following 11 business and workforce development requests in April 2004: Date Lead Source Request Action Taken 4/2/04 Phone Client requested a list of local Entailed the requested information to client. caterers for a new business. 4/7/04 Phone Client seeking county incentives Provided client with contact information to Stevie Field. to build nursery in Wildomar. 4/9/04 Website Client seeking information on Called client, provided information and added client to general EDC services. email list. 4/12/04 Website Client seeking information on Called client for more information, no reply back. local self storage facilities or land to establish self -storage business. 4/19/04 Website Client seeking information on Called client, provided information and added client to eneral EDC services. email list. 4/22/04 Website Client requested referral for Provided client with contact information. contact at Mt. San Jacinto College 4/23/04 Phone Client seeking contract Emailed client's resume to contacts in EDC database. employment with local engineering / manufacturing firm. 4/27/04 Fax Received notice from City of Contacted store and advised of Workforce Development Temecula on closing of local Center services. Forwarded notice to Mary Williams of bakery depot / 2 local routes sales Employment Development Department. positions affected. 4/27/04 Phone Client seeking referrals to help Emailed client a list of business contacts. develop a business plan. 4/30/04 Website Client seeking information on Called client, provided information and added client to eneral EDC services. email list. 4/30/04 Phone Client with local water district Provided information to client. seeking help with specific requirements to send out public notices to sell surplus property. Jim O'Grady City of Temecula EDC Activity Summary — April 2004 Page 2 of 3 Community Outreach Staff and/or directors attended the following meetings/events to promote or support economic development/community outreach: • TVCC Temecula Partnership in Education Meeting (4/12) • TPE Career Day Subcommittee Meeting (4/13) • Komen Race for the Cure Planning Meeting (4/13) • Southern California Gas Company Murrieta Base Dedication (4/16) • Meeting with Christy Edwards, Wells Fargo Bank (4/16) • Murrieta Noon Rotary (4/19) - Invited client to meet business leaders. Client is opening a business in Southwest California. • EDC Red Team Meeting (4/20) — Red Team members met with Neil Allen and John Fili of Solid State Stamping. • Womens' Leads Networking (4/20) • United Way Campaign Executive Committee Meeting (4/21) • Meeting with Tony Theissen, University of Phoenix (4/22) — Discussion on higher education needs for workforce relative to working adult population. • Meeting with Bill Hodges and Kevin Vierstra of WRCOG (4/23) — Discussion on objectives and goals that resulted from the IRP Technical Working Group. • Workforce Development Center All -Staff Meeting (4/27) — Monthly WDC meeting • EDC Business Attraction Advisory Committee Meeting (4/27) • TVCC Monthly Networking Breakfast (4/28) - Invited client to meet other business leaders. Client is opening a business in Southwest California. • United Way Annual Meeting (4/29) • Meeting with Patti Hoff, City of Hemet Economic Development Manager (4/29) • Inland Empire Economic Briefing (4/30) Guest of the City of Lake Elsinore. Business Retention • Business Relations Committee Meeting (4/1) —Meeting minutes are attached. Administration/OrEanization • EDC Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Meeting (4/8) — Meeting minutes are attached. • EDC Education Committee Meeting (4/9) — Meeting cancelled. • EDC/Manufacturers' Council Merger Meeting (4/12) • EDC Golf Tournament Committee Meetings (4/13 & 4/27) • EDC Red Team Meeting (4/22) — Meeting to strategize legislative visit to Sacramento during Chamber of Commerce Legislative Week. Jim O'Grady City of Temecula EDC Activity Summary — April 2004 Page 3 of 3 EDC Board of Directors Meeting (4/15) - Meeting minutes are attached. Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; managed website updates; continued planning of the EDC 10`h Annual Golf Tournament; coordinated EDC election nomination process; mailed out director election ballots; drafted EDC budget; and distributed the following business development/community announcements: ➢ EDC 10`h Annual Golf Tournament ➢ Temecula Valley Youth Job Fair is ➢ Metalworking Associations Need to Organize in California on State Issues ➢ World Trade Conference May 20`h ➢ San Jacinto Valley Economic Forecast This concludes the activity summary for April 2004. Should you have questions or need further detail, please call me at 600-6064. Respectfully, Diane Sessions Executive Director ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 9:00 a.m. The Garrett Group 43529 Ridge Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Committee Members Present: Stevie Field, Southwest California Economic Alliance Stan Harter, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Harter & Lewin Chris Masino, CDM Group, Inc. Lane McGhee, ARROW STAFF Resources, Inc. Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Diane Sessions, Economic Development Corporation Harry Shank, Southwest Community Bank Gary Youmans, Community National Bank Guests: Suzanne Godin, Employment Training Panel Bob Reynolds, The Garrett Group Kirk Wright, The Garrett Group Liz Yuzer, Economic Development Corporation Call To Order • Chair Stan Harter called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. He introduced Bob Reynolds and Kirk Wright from The Garrett Group and thanked them for hosting the meeting. Overview of The Garrett Group • Kirk Wright provided an overview of the The Garrett Group which was started 10 years ago by Paul Garrett. Mr. Wright reported the company focused on four areas of interest that included planned land acquisition and development, management of income property, construction and joint venture capital. He indicated the company owned the 52-acre site next to the Higher Education Center and would consider developing a Research Technical Center on the site. They also were working to secure 55 acres in French Valley to be used as a regional park. Mr. Wright further reported that two years ago Mr. Garrett set up the Better World Together Foundation. Follow-up Action Reports • Symbolic Embroidery — Harry Shank reported that the follow-up items had been completed. • MET/BET — Rex Oliver reported that Lori Moss continued to follow up on items regarding traffic signals at Date and the police response to alarms. Company Contact Reports • Innovative Respiratory Consultants — Rex Oliver reported on the visit he and Lori Moss made to Innovative Respiratory Consultants in Murrieta. They met with CEO Lori Stone -Rubin who started her business just one year ago and was already serving the number of customers they expected to serve after three years. Innovative Respiratory Consultants provided equipment for persons with respiratory needs such as scooters, wheelchairs, oxygen units and tanks, and other supplies. Mr. Oliver reported that they hoped to develop a sleep center to serve clients with sleep apnea. They owned their present facility, which was 6,000 square feet and would serve their needs for any future expansion. The company employed six persons and would add another five to seven with the addition of the sleep center. Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes — April 1, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The majority of their employees lived in the Temecula/Murrieta area and were recruited through staffing agencies and personal networking. Employees were required to have computer skills and some positions required licensed staff. Improvement of local telecommunications technology would be beneficial when their new lab was operational. The owner was happy doing business in Southwest California and would be willing to be a contact person for companies relocating to the area. • Innovative Compounding Pharmacy — Rex Oliver reported on the visit he and Lori Moss made to Innovative Compounding Pharmacy in Murrieta. They met with Lori Stone -Rubin who reported that Innovative Compounding Pharmacy was owned by her brother, Riverside County Supervisor -Elect Jeff Stone. Mr. Stone was currently selling his business to several of the staff pharmacists. This specialized pharmacy with six employees served hospitals, doctors, veterinarians and pain clinics across the United States. The pharmacy prepared lotions and creams, filled capsules, prepared sterile compounding, and manufactured sterile medications and pumps for the spinal column. They also specialized in flavored tablets for patients that had trouble swallowing pills. • AARD Spring & Stamping — Lane McGhee reported that he, Keith Johnson and Diane Sessions met with General Manager Terry Bilbey of AARD Spring and Stamping in Temecula. AARD manufactured custom springs for many industries including truck parts for 30 years. The company relocated to Southwest California from Mission Viejo 17 years ago because of the quality of life and low cost of doing business. Business advantages of the area included local suppliers, shipping logistics and proximity to markets, but disadvantages were traffic and increased living costs. Business was growing due to the good economy, the high quality of their product and very little competition. Primary customers were auto shops and machine shops. The company's primary market area was regional and they also conducted business both nationally and internationally. The facility was company -owned with 20,000 square -feet of both manufacturing and office space. They also leased a 4,000-square-foot building next door. According to Mr. Bilbey, they needed to expand but were not sure where to locate. He indicated that 30% of their employees lived in the Temecula/Murrieta area, 40% were in Lake Elsinore/Wildomar, and the balance in Hemet/San Jacinto and Perris. They would need to hire additional employees as their business increased. They had difficulty finding experienced operators of specialized coiling machines and they used industry networking as well as employment agencies to recruit employees. They trained their employees on the coiling machines but also needed to provide their staff with computer training, basic math and ESL. Major issues included the cost of Workers' Compensation and medical insurance. They were happy doing business in Southwest California but very unhappy with the State of California. Mr. Bilbey would be willing to be a contact person for companies relocating to this area. Action Item: Provide Terry Bilbey with information about Employee Training Funds, Foreign Trade Zone and electrical costs. Poly Craft Inc. - Lane McGhee reported that he, Keith Johnson and Diane Sessions met with General Manager Jess Anderson of Poly Craft Inc. in Temecula. Polycraft manufactured custom labels and novelty items. Their primary customers included Guidant Corporation and other companies that needed shipping, product or specialty labels. Sixty-five percent of their employees lived in the Lake Elsinore/Wildomar area, 25% were from Hemet/San Jacinto, and the balance lived in other Riverside areas including Perris. The company had recently laid off ten employees to balance costs and revenues because of exorbitant costs of Workers' Compensation and medical insurance. Action Item: Provide Jess Anderson with information about Employee Training Funds, Foreign Trade Zone and electrical costs. Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes — April 1, 2004 Page 3 of 3 i Employment Trainin¢ Panel Funds • Suzanne Godin from the State of California Employment Training Panel provided an overview of the Small Business Pilot Project that provided up to $25,000 in training -cost reimbursement for small businesses with less than 100 full time employees and facing out-of-state competition. She reported that Solid State Stamping and Molding International Engineering were already participating in the program. Goal Progress Report • Diane Sessions announced that visits and phone interviews in the tenth month of the fiscal year were as follows: Target Goal: 60 surveys. YTD VISIT PHONE SURVEYS Goal 60 Actual 19 1 20 Open Discussion • EDC Board Update — Diane Sessions reported that meetings to discuss the merger of the EDC and the Manufacturers' Council continued. • Announcements — City of Temecula: Jim O'Grady reported that the next Mayor's Roundtable would include companies such as Channel Commercial, Chemicon, FFF, Scott's and Steris. Issues to be discussed included Workers Compensation as well as attraction and retention of the entry level workforce. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce: Rex Oliver reported that Pat and Oscars' was hosting a mixer this evening and the Chamber golf tournament was scheduled for April 23 at SCGA. EDC Golf Tournament: Gary Youmans reported that the EDC golf tournament would be held at SCGA on June 11. Most of the major sponsorships had been secured but the committee was still looking for tee hole sponsors and raffle prizes. Southwest California Economic Alliance: Stevie Field reported that the next Taste of Southwest California was scheduled for April 30 to May 2. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DRAFT OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING MINUTES Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 9:00 am. 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA BOARD MEMBERS EDC STAFF I MEMBERS AND GUESTS Marlene Best, City of Lake Elsinore Diane Sessions Ken Carlisle, Guidant Corporation Liz Yuzer Scott Crane, Southwest Healthcare System Maryann Edwards, Temecula Valley Unified School Dist. Stevie Field, Southwest California Economic Alliance John Fili, Solid State Stamping, Inc. Dennis Frank, UC Riverside Extension Kimberly Frieze -Uhler, Rancho Physical Therapy Stan Harter, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Harter & Lewin Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Melanie Neiman, Eastern Municipal Water District Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Joan Sparkman, Temecula Valley Bank Gary Youmans, Community National Bank Roger Ziemer, The Gas Comoanv CALL TO ORDER • Board President Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. He announced that Evelyn Harker, a community volunteer who had also helped to establish the EDC, had passed away. Diane Sessions would forward any memorials from individual board members. APPROVE AGENDA • Motion was made by Joan Sparkman, seconded by Maryann Edwards and carried unanimously to approve the agenda. MINUTES • The Board reviewed the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by John Fili, seconded by Rex Oliver and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting as presented. FINANCIAL REPORT • March 31, 2004 Financial Reports: The Board reviewed the March 31, 2004 Financial Report that showed total monthly revenues of $7,190, total expenses of $9,175 and total cash -in -bank of $82,356. Motion was made by John Fili, seconded by Gary Youmans and carried unanimously to approve the March 31, 2004 Financial Reports as presented. Exhibit 3.0 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting — April 15, 2004 Minutes — Page 2 of 4 • Budget Committee Update: In the absence of Budget Committee Chair Greg Prudhomme, Diane Sessions reported that the Committee would present the draft 2004-2005 Operating Budget at the May 20 board meeting. No major changes from the previous year were anticipated. Ms. Sessions also reported that Directors and Officers Liability Insurance was difficult to find both locally and in California. Rex Oliver offered to provide the company contact information that the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce used for D&O insurance. NEW BUSINESS Approve Slate of Nominees & Election Ballot 2004-2005 Directors -at -Large: Kimberly Frieze -Uhler presented the Nominating Committee's draft ballot for the 2004-2005 Directors -at -Large Elections. The following slate of nominees would appear on the election ballot, which would be sent to the general membership for directors' elections: Frank Casciari, California Bank & Trust; Mike Doblado, The Promenade in Temecula; Dennis Frank, UCR Extension; Scott Hurst, ProjectDesign Consultants, Inc.; Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank; Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce; David Phares, D.L. Phares & Associates; Greg Prudhomme, Kuebler Prudhomme & Co.; Peter Rosen, Rancon Real Estate; and Gary Youmans, Community National Bank. Motion was made by Roger Ziemer, seconded by Maryann Edwards and carried unanimously to approve the slate of nominees and lection ballot as presented. • Appoint Inspectors of Election: Motion was made by Rex Oliver, seconded by Gary Youmans and carried unanimously to appoint Diane Sessions, Liz Yuzer, and Stevie Field as Inspectors of Election to tally the election ballots in accordance to the EDC Bylaws. • Appoint Director -at -Large to Vacant Seat: Diane Sessions reported that Phil Oberhansley had resigned his position as EDC director and Board Secretary. The vacated seat would expire in June 2005. The Board discussed Claude Reinke's interest in serving on the Board. Motion was made by Joan Sparkman, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to appoint Claude Reinke to the vacant seat on the Board of Directors for the remainder of the two-year term, which would expire in June 2005. • May 27, 2004 Quarterly Lunch: Diane Sessions announced that the next Quarterly Luncheon would be held May 27 at Temecula Creek Inn. Supervisor -elect Jeff Stone would be speaking about his leadership vision for Southwest California. Confirmation had not been received from Supervisor Bob Buster's office regarding his participation. Roger Ziemer announced that The Gas Company would be a sponsor. • Southwest Healthcare System Update: Scott Crane provided an update on expansion plans at Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center. He announced that Linda Bradley was now Chief Operating Officer at both hospitals. The National Labor Relations Board had recognized Inland Valley Medical Center as a voting unit. On May 5 and 6, nurses at Inland Valley would be able to choose whether to be represented by a union. An application had been filed to add another 44 beds on the west side of Inland Valley Medical Center and approval was expected by the end of the summer. The application was recently submitted to expand emergency services, imaging services and ICU beds and could take a year before approval was received for this project. Obstetric services at both Rancho Springs and Inland Valley Medical Centers would be merged, and facilities and staff would be expanded to also serve high risk obstetric patients. Administration expected that approval for a new nursing care wing would be received in the fall. Mr. Crane also announced that Southwest Healthcare System and a hospital in Corona were providing rape crisis center services for the entire county without any additional funding. Exhibit 3.1 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting — April 15, 2004 Minutes — Page 3 of 4 He encouraged board members to lobby their county supervisors regarding this issue. Mr. Crane announced that the proposal to locate a new hospital in Temecula had received zoning approval. He would report on that project at a later meeting. • EDC Red Team Update: Dennis Frank reported on the Red Team visit to Solid State Stamping. This company was dealing with issues regarding workers' compensation and utilities costs which may force the company to move out of state. Mr. Frank distributed the minutes of the confidential Red Team meeting. He also handed out a copy of an advertisement that appeared in The Business Press from the State of Nevada. The ad, "You're Out of Business", encouraged California businesses to move to Nevada due to workers' compensation and utility cost. Motion was made by Joan Sparkman, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried to send a letter to The Business Press protesting the printing of such an advertisement in a local business publication. Stevie Field abstained. CONTINUING BUSINESS • Update on the EDC and SWRC Manufacturers' Council Merger: Stan Harter reported that the membership structure for the SWRC Manufacturers' Council members was being discussed. A special membership meeting would be held on May 12, 2004 at 7:30 a.m. for Manufacturers' Council vote on the merger. • Golf Tournament Update: Gary Youmans reported that sponsorships had already exceeded expectations. He announced that one contest rule to the City Showdown was changed to include that each city/county golf foursome must have at least one elected official or senior staff member. The committee continued to solicit additional sponsors and raffle prizes and was also looking for volunteers to help on tournament day. • Utilities Updates: Gas - Roger Ziemer reported on The Gas Company's vision of the proposed liquified natural gas terminals on Baja, California. The estimated $200M investment could result in significant natural gas costs savings for southern California consumers of up to $113. Water — Melanie Nieman reported that May was Water Awareness Month. The meeting between the water districts and affected cities regarding the brine line was scheduled for May 10. Telecommunications — Members were reminded about the change in area code to 951 on July 17. • EDC Committee Updates: Business Relations Committee — Stan Harter reported the Business Relations Committee held their last meeting at the offices of The Garrett Group. They also received an update on the Employee Training Panel. Business Attraction Advisory Committee — Stevie Field reported the Committee is scheduled to meet on April 27. She continued to receive logo requests and other queries about the Southwest California brand. Ms. Field also reported that there was opposition to the proposed name change of the French Valley Airport. It was suggested that the EDC support the modified name change to French Valley Airport — Southwest California Regional Airport. A public meeting on the issue was scheduled for May 26. Education Action Committee — Maryann Edwards reported that job fairs were being held in the schools; Temecula Valley Unified School District would be dealing with $3.5M in budget cuts; and three new schools would open next fall regardless of the cuts. Manufacturing Committee - John Fili reported that members of the Manufacturers' Council would be asked to participate in the EDC Manufacturers' Committee. Exhibit 3.2 Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting — April 15, 2004 Minutes — Page 4 of 4 Transportation & Infrastructure Committee — Roger Ziemer reported that the committee continued to discuss a possible "Remote Worker" project that would provide workspace in Temecula for commuters who travel to San Diego and Orange County companies. A sub -committee would continue to research and understand broadband and other infrastructure issues. OPEN DISCUSSION • EDC Administrative Update: The Board reviewed the March 2004 Activity Summary submitted by Diane Sessions. City Updates: City of Lake Elsinore — No report available. City of Murrieta — Rex Oliver reported that groundbreaking would be held for the new Community National Bank facility and a housing project; discussion continued on the General Plan; the new library should be completed by June of 2005 and the new city hall by December of 2005. The Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament would be held April 23. City of Temecula - Jim O'Grady reported the City Council had approved the development agreement with AG Kading for the Higher Education Center; the City Council approved $150,000 for a compressed natural gas facility; traffic signals would be added at Rancho Way and Diaz Road and at Rancho California Road and Business Park Drive; and the City Council would consider the newest study on user fees on May 25. ADJOURNMENT • At 10:50 a.m., motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to adjourn the board meeting. Respectively submitted by: Elizabeth Yuzer Recording Secretary Phil Oberhansley Board Secretary Exhibit 3.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 8:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA Committee Members Present: Guests: Scott Hurst, ProjectDesign Consultants, Inc. Tim Thorson, City of Temecula David Phares, D. L. Phares & Associates Mike Wishner, Guidant Corporation Roger Ziemer, Southern California Gas Company Liz Yuzer, EDC Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair David Phares at 8:05 a.m. Auurove March 11, 2004 Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Scott Hurst, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to approve the March 11, 2004 meeting minutes as presented. New Business • Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Project — David Phares welcomed Tim Thorson, City of Temecula and Mike Wishner, Guidant Corporation who were invited to provide an overview of the telecommunications infrastructure and needs for the City of Temecula and Guidant Corporation. Mr. Wishner reported that their needs were being provided by Time Warner which has a fiber ring from Wilshire to San Diego coming down I15 and going back up to Wilshire via the 15. Services to the main building on Ynez were sufficient but connections to the location on Zevo Drive continued to be a problem. He said that it was questionable whether Time Warner would put in switching capabilities in Temecula and offer services here. He also indicated that high speed access was not necessarily a reason for businesses to locate in the area and that something more unique or cutting edge should be offered, such as IP Telephony services which would reduce long distance costs. Tim Thorson reported that broadband was available throughout the City of Temecula although some areas were being served by companies other than Adelphia and Verizon. He would like to see fiber optics available in order to connect all five of the city's remote sites. Both Mr. Thorson and Mr. Wishner agreed that other businesses may not need access to multiple locations as do the City and Guidant. Mr. Thorson also recommended that an outreach program to explain what services were available would be helpful in attracting new businesses. Mr. Wishner indicated that with residential needs covered, the focus needed to be on services for businesses. Roger Ziemer reported that he had met with Gary George, External Affairs Officer for Verizon, who said that Verizon was negotiating with the City of Murrieta to provide broadband services. Committee members agreed that they need to continue to reach out to representatives of the City of Murrieta and City of Lake Elsinore to learn about their telecommunications infrastructure and what their needs were. EDC Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes —April 8, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Continuing Business • Foreign Trade Zone Presentation Update - Tabled until May 13 meeting. • Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Project: Subcommittee Formation Update — Tabled until May 13 meeting. Committee Reports • Interregional Partnership (IRP) — Tabled until May 13 meeting. • RCTC & RTA — Tabled until May 13 meeting. • Transportation Logistics — Tabled until May 13 meeting. • French Valley Airport & March Air Cargo Facility — Tabled until May 13 meeting. Review Previous Action Items 1. Bob Larson - Follow up on activities of Distribution Management Association of Southern California —Inland Empire. (Ongoing) 2. Stevie Field — Contact Ron Mittag at San Diego North EDC 3. Diane Sessions — 1) Set up meeting with representative from Qualcomm for Remote Worker Project; 2) Contact the cities of Murrieta and Lake Elsinore to research interest in telecomm project; 3) Invite Keith Carlisle or Mike Wishner at Guidant to next meeting; 4) Organize initial telecomm sub -committee; 5) Diane Sessions to invite Larry Rubio to attend a May 2004 committee meeting and provide an RTA update. 4. Roger Ziemer — 1) Contact Lancaster EDC; 2) Inform the VEDC about the tele- communications infrastructure project. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m. - a rat ;k�)'Yh; A- c�• ui a��'; Y C, tv ::},II•�q=i Cie): u' I:jx.�., '�.1 6 S 1,t fA +e '< .$ "'��`��f� di'. " �� 1n.,�,M,k, ^`•q„ -.+�aY .r<t'' k 'q'e' ! 1 th> �, ,: +,ga ➢.�M ����., 'ir h � a'`kcC§1 } x'� rc � : d. 1 44Tt -44 �iy L E A G U E 0 F C A L I F 0 R N I A C I T I L S ;ommittee and the chamber of commerce to discuss their issues nd concerns and assist them in fulfilling their strategic plans. :iry council members and appropriate department heads meet imonthly at a small and large business. These visits provide ouncil members and business owners the opportunity for infor- tal conversations about issues and concerns, allow the business- s to showcase what they do and let the council members emonstrate that they care about local business. The city also corks closely with commercial real estate brokers to keep abreast f potential business locations. An up-to-date directory of vacan- ies on the city website is easily accessible to any business look- tg to expand to another location. 'he quality of life in San Luis Obispo is a selling point for ttracting businesses. Accordingly, the theme of the city's eco- omic development program is "Success! Naturally," reflecting to areas surrounding natural beauty. In order to maintain the alance demonstrated in this theme, the natural resources and conomic development programs work hand -in -hand, not as ompeting interests. Both programs are located in the Admin- ;tration Department and are often referred to as "the twins." From events like the co -sponsored Green Business Awards to providing insight and direction to each other's projects, the two program managers work to enhance the kind of economic devel- opment that is compatible with the ciry's values. When a business wants to expand, the economic development manager can pull together a quick response team of appropriate staff members to meet with the owner, architect and other con- sultants to discuss the project and any problems that need to be addressed as part of the project submittal. This approach avoids the frustration that often develops when building plans are sent back time and again for corrections or refinements. Senior staff from almost all city departments meet monthly as part of a de- velopment oversight committee to discuss larger development issues, such as annexations and complicated or environmentally sensitive projects. Again, these meetings allow developments to move forward more smoothly and avoid unnecessary, and often costly, delays for developers. Contact: Shelly Stanwyck, economic development manager, City of San Luis Obispo; phone: (805) 781-7174; e-mail.• <Sstanuyc@ slocity.org>. Temecula Retains Businesses in Regional Effort emeculds Business Relations Program, anducted by the Economic Develop- . tent Corporation of Southwest River - de County (EDC-SRC), was created in 994 as a result of the considerable value laced on business retention and expan- on in a growing community. This suc- ssftd program includes two to four site isits to local businesses each month by DC -SRC members, city staff, chamber iembers and volunteers. Businesses are antacted by phone, survey or personal isits. Information is compiled after each isit, which is used in the city's retention ffarts. During the visits, information on that and education needs and available -aining programs, as well as business sues relating to city services, permits nd city programs, are discussed. 'he Temecula City Council feels strongly gout keeping local businesses satisfied ad is committed to hearing their con- -rns. To this end, the mayor regularly i olds business lunch meetings with the 1 usiness community. City officials, city t tanagement, the EDC and chamber t presentatives meet with various busi- ness leaders to discuss important issues as well as developments, explaining the city's Capital Improvement Program and plans for the future. This provides an opportunity for the city to learn more about the workings of a particular busi- ness and developments within that industry. The lunch meetings are an effective way of responding to issues of concern from business leaders and have included employment leaders, auto mall managers, manufacturers, hotels, bank managers and retail leaders. continued Get the 2004 City Hall Directory -Now! This comprehensive California directory provides impor- tant contact information for mayors, council members and city department heads. The directory.also features the League's staff directory, League Partners, affiliate organizations and a wide variety of advertisers, doubling as a great resource for buying products or services for your city. Reserve Your Ad Now for 2005 If you want to promote your product or service to cities, you need to advertise in the 2005 City HaU Directory. Call (800) 262-I801. Order Now The 2004 City Hall Directory costs $30 (city officials) or $65 (non -city officials). Order online at www cadties.org/store or call (916) 658-8257. �.westerndtycom Western City, May 2004 25 G Economies, Efficiencies and Darned Good Ideas (Temecula) continued The EDC-SRC recently created a region- al strategic plan in cooperation with the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance; cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore; Riverside County; and more than 65 business leaders through- out the region representing at least 20 different industries. As a result of the regional strategic plan, the EDC formed five action committees, building partner- ships among public, private and non- profit businesses, and working hands-on with various government agencies to fos- ter greater communication with private business. Each action committee meets monthly and focuses on specific regional transportation and infrastructure issues, such as K-12 and higher education, gov- ernment, city/county permitting and planning, and support of the Economic Alliance's business attraction efforts. continued on page 31 Economies, Efficiencies and Darned Good Ideas, (Temecula) continued from page 26 The committees adopted their respective business actions that maximize the region's Contact Gloria Wolnick, marketing coordi- goals and objectives. They study, commu- economic development assets to the EDC nator, City of Temecula; phone: (909) nicate, respond to and recommend pro- board. The City of Temecula actively par- 694-6418; a-maik <gloria.0 o1nick@city ticipates on many of these committees. ofremecula.orgx ANAHEIM Orange County 5prin*5vmmer 2004 i t• � I ' y �Nfi�' t i i a `l�Arr i jai s d� [� L S -A I tiF T H E V� R E S O R T \ ANAHEIM/ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAU www.anaheimo�.or� T CONVENTION SERVICES DIRECTORY I' E �r�rif�rp Discover Temecula, Southwest California's premier tourist destination. A perfect venue for your next meeting or event. We specialize in successful meetings, banquets si NORTH and special events for corporations and associations.nNA E;M Convention, conference and meeting facilities are ss available through a variety of properties large and small. F�m Temecula offers 19 award -winning wineries open year cuumY ©rt Mecuu round, transportation and tours, spectacular gift shops Take ""y 91 east to I-15 south, and unlimited shopping, tantalizing restaurants, relaxing ore no t. spas, championship golf, ♦�j�f// year-round entertainment, hotels, inns, villa's and B&B's. ' We're ready to make your visit a special one. Come experience Temecula warm hospitality. City of Temecula 1-866-676-5090 909-506-5100 www.cityoftemecula.org TemeculaValley Winegrowers Association 1-800-801-WINE www.temeculawines.org TEMECULA, SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA DRAMATIC NEW A Set inside an I Ith century -style castle, the legend of Medieval Times continues with anew storyline, costumes and equestrian dressage punctuated by a dramatic new musical score. Guests will continue to experience all of the feasting, tournament games and exciting sword fights that have made Medieval Times the most popular dinner attraction in the world! 70,000 Square Foot Facility Group Rates 1122 Theatre -Style Seat Arena Free On -Site Parking Private Themed Rooms Open 365 Days Full Bar Service Gift and Specialty Shops Private Shows Available Close to Major Attractions CONTACT- JIM LENNARTSON Convemiou & Association Sales Manager 714-521-2342 www.medievaltimes.com 7662 Beach Blvd., • Buena Park, CA Buena Park, California • Kissimmee, Florida • Lyndhurst, New Jersey • Schaumburg, Illinois • Dallas, Texas Toronto, Ontario • Myrtle Beach, South Carolina • Hanover, Maryland (Spring 2003) PE a eK • Sunday, April 25, 2000 a { ADVENTURE } Las Vegas Review-fourn; COMING IN MAY CONTACTING 1 Page, Ariz.: Jump off here for adventure CERCA EDITOR AO. Hopki 383.02' TEMECULA City grows, but retains quaint charm Perfect spot for a weekend away from Las Vegas, area features wineries and hot-air balloon rides ' By :Im MWMEl1A REMEMOUM ' nto Temecula Go now. Ga before state Fire laws lcatch up with the rustic wooden bu dings, and the developers in aoclm California finish Co rerting the last vestige of tbi cattle and cowboy city lot Yet another'Old Thwn' an eum,"wrote John Zappe. In late. Zappe's words ran in ePrevs-1eIegnmoflnng Be ch, Calif, in December 191 '. During the ensuing 16 ye s, greater San Diego has re :fined urban sprawl, so 1b ecula now is a wry dil :rem place. II let's give due credit to thi town perched between m( mains and sea, and to the pic eer spirit that remains sat >8 nearly 150 years after its ofounded. Zappe obi rved, "It's not surprising tha Temecula has been dis Noted. What's surprising is at so much remains," and it's till true today. Temecula's em rald mUiug hills, Old 1bl a area(With, yap, lots of rm c wooden buildings) ew-gmwingnumbuof wh Tries, cosy ba and -breakfast spots and act dties including hot-air bal on and biplane rides, ma a it a fine spat for we rend away from Ias Ve 0. ue, there are bat of hat es being built in the shi ow of Mount Palomar. Ga ag across the landscape, its ;cos there's as much new cot traction going on as there is i the Las Vegas Valley. Wa Ties line Rancho. Cal 'arms Road and cm traction of them is so ral 1—them are now 18— tha chamber of commerce ma :have a hard time ket ing up. COURTESY OE ME cm OETEYECRA In a blending of two Temecula -area icons, a hot-air balloon floats over one of the many vineyards that dot the area. . black -and -white Holstein cattle, plus dairy buildings and a trailer that serves as the aiio, or stillother Lies - and you'll through cows med. > It was not and Elisa Ketter to the terrace of the Thornton Wmery, where they stood on a spring afternoon contemplating' slopes of pretty grapevines. The San Diego residents had arrived in one of the many limousines plying these lanes in the ultimate nod to the, designated driver "It's just a great thing to be doing wither bunch of friends;" said Ketter. "It's wonderful, because you get to go to about three wineries and experience a lot of different tastes and sights. It's better When you don't have to drive." The rural surroundings add to the experience. "I like all the trees and the beautiful landscape," Lauenstein said. All of the wineries offer tastings and most offer tours, though the former seem far more popular than the latter. Most offer a choice of tastings, starting at about $5 for basic wines and more for reserve wines, sparkling wines and Ports. Thornton, which specializes in sparkling wines, does a sit-down tasting in a cafe arrangement and serves bread and cheese with the wines. Other wineries offer a few seats of require customers to standaround,a bar. While the. standing'ma become tedious, it ifispinis camaraderie among wine aficionados and conversation with winery employees, who seem ever willing to share knowledge and opinions. "Everyone is very friendly," Lauenstein said. "which.you would expect in a wine environment," Ketter said. "Maybe they've been sipping..." That's what Traci Nissley was doing. A wine server at Stuart Cellars, Nissley was on a busman's holiday at the bar at Falkner Winery, where she . %+ tasted the competition and, shared industry gossip. Nissley lives and works in Los Angeles, but found herself spending so much time m' . Temecula that she took a weekend job there.' Most of the wine district's guests, Nissley said, are residents of Los Angeles or San Diego, or those residents' guests. "When you want to getout of town, you don't have to go all the way up to Napa or Santa Barbara," she said. "And the wines have improved immensely in the last five years." There already are numerous bed -and -breakfasts in the area, plus chain lodgings such as an Embassy Suites on a more commercial stretch of Rancho California Road and a Comfort Inn in Old Town. For a luxurious, full -service resort, drive 11 miles along a, scenic, hilly winding road (or, for the faint of heart, the nearby Interstate 15) to Pala Casino, Resort and Spa. While a stay at this Indian casino may seem anathema to Las Vegans, Pala offers comfort unmatched in the immediate area. It's a soothing place — hotel guests, need notgo through the casino to reach their rooms,' and they experience lgts of rock, water features and verdant landscaping. Tbwels are thick, robes are plush, and room -service amazingly good; So much attention is paid to detail that carpets in the elevators are changed three times aday so that -Pala i wishes its guests, x' ; �C tt Morning," "Good- fternoon"- and "Good Evening." AAA Four Diamond and Mobil Four Star awards have been promised, according to Pala management. The Spa at Pala is separate' from the main hotel, next to the pool, whirlpool and poolside cafe. Among available treatments are massages and packages for singles and couples — some of them structured to last an entire day. Pala also offers two lounges with live . entertainment, special events';: steakhouse, cafe, food court and Italian restaurant. Nissley said her boss always recommends Gourme! Italia, in Temecula's busy shopping district.lbcked into, a large strip center near the Temecula Duck Pond, it's a quaint little place that seems a to be popular with locals. After dining, you can cross the street to the oasislike park and feed your leftover bread to ducks. The "world Famous" Swing Inn Caf€ (even they use the quotation marks), founded in 1927and reportedly the oldest surviving business in the district, calls itself "The Heart and Soul of Old Town Temecula." It's in the Swing Inn Cafe that Zappe's words are posted, without a trace of irony. The Swing Innis always busy; the most expensive item on the menu is the large top sirloin at $12.99 (medium and small also are available); and biscuits and gravy are just $2.25. The town's special events tend to occur in front of Old Town's 19thcentury-style ► SEE TEMECULA PAGE 5K Las 'egas Review -Journal f ADVENTURE} a Sunday April 25 2004•Page SM 9 rca , ► TEMECULA: Toum7s history on touring Inn menu u G EE`. wuensrrefowwr A v nemaker taps a barrel at Callaway Coastal, one of 18 Wit rift in Temecula. 'MMED FROM PAGE 4K museum:'. y There's a zeal mti =in if fall facades. The recent . Oldlbwnaswell—the Gor Old Days Car Show Imagination Workshop t fdle the streets With children'S museum is set to mel mlously restored antique open very soon a and lassie autos. As crowds To wet eyed the barricaded As you stroll, stop for.: ; stn ts,the roar of refreshment at Mad '- mo mycles and melodies of ModaWe's Grill or the, the 4s and'60s replaced OM Temecula Wine and Beer 1bv is usual quiet Garden, both of which have '+ E t Old Town offers plenty open-airporches,Rosas Canes to d even when there's no Odes i Withoutdoor Walk the board sire arks sealing) or The Bank of Maximo Food, Firs[ N ^. Birth of of Front Street, National Bank, dating to dating ro eelks bet, fen the sort -and-wrought-iron arches 1912-1914 tom fug the ends of the Or head bark to the Swing hiss ric district, and browse for, where you can read an sti doz is of shops. The wares of undated history of Temecula s the emeculs Olive Oil on the menu. From "Historic Cor )any, Old Town Root Beer Temecula: A Part of the Old - Cor )my, Temecula Country West"by Harold "Andy" tTe Stu � la Table de Provence Anderson, it recounts the. and ;hapaital Antique Mall Afezplanamry But transformation of the Huge97 are Vail Cattle Retch to Rancho • -e`5[ then also are cozy off-street, California, and smtes.'"1'hey"" ope on'spaces that in ff plan a huge development, new eco musty feel like towns groves farms horse som thing out of New ranches and many Orb ns'Ftench Quarter At recreational areas, so we will w Old bvm Pots and Things,a havethe have the old and new for you �a trai of statuary and objets dand to 63 d'ar moved one visitor to ala;ohyfOtyhalV<mimsuvlMuutim. e tumpany: Sample Gmilajou, r uM bNer, 9 a.m. to 5 ism. Man fjr,10 a m w 4p.m 26p, Tolland Board, 1909),9264239, fieese<""mq- ' tligso4award wim�,jrg6w,,_'edumpm too a 9to 515 h onse(edxmaJastm,nd1groom - rr -5 pm. dady�c aatbl%;m a�1239 2 25x1,¢jtandio • dormaR-04, 909) n^�nel. �''p 4 i alq More rusP.4 J, otherwFo&nK �rkru float its a i a.m. 5'pm. daily -_7mdfree) and 2 pm.(13) At 40620 Calle r LJ1V�wfalkrffMnerymm. tmV"om is open 10am 5pm daily, at, 3415'RarcM Czlifmma ReW, (909) 6766414, s ry:,-ng'otdte nevestwin eriK South Coast was spat presStlme iasmys are f5, 10 a.m.-5pm. kfa lg4843 Rancho Califgnia Road (909) 587-9463, C,.ountry Shuttle: Daily two with pickup at Y(mkeM hour lunch padrages and private tours 1546}a 1808) 8946379 or - ofll(r eatlaon Adventure:Onelnur odes are ermining and include continental breakfast Rates -8247 or httpJhvwvwhotairtma&com a' lagoon and Biplane Rider Biplane rides ors at$118 Fr mot Valley Airport, 3755ZWr[hester 73�Fi,.i59 `hitpJywwnxcalhfanmdrmmhacom: uVadic.Mauln 'Cam ar. Cm(act act ran Mr 26790Ynez CourtTemecula (wirwtemewlaag. ti -- Ekk irrs: 1ety oonu and suites with whirlpools 33233 969) 6949070 or IYIh tom' - atil'o-gg .... �a_Bmte! pool and wmdpou 11154 S �89W)ary/7Wmmm vpalM51flD. m o f Resort Herod pool whidpool, tennis `ZA, 561 Rainbow Carryon Road (9'09) v larreehrm can. Temecula calendar Temecula, Calif., hosts a wide variety of June 446:Temecula Valley Balloon specialeeerts,tiesearejustafew. a Wine Festival, lake 5kinner, Saturday: 2004Am in the Cwnby beginning with Balloon Glow Friday Festival. (909) 695-2787), evening. Saturday and Sundaywine funpJAvww.aminthevalley.org. tasting rids Faire, am and oafs, May 1.2: Temecula Jazz Fe Festival, commercial exhibits and food court. (909)6766713, Form Winery (9u9) 694.8733, htipJA• tubwl.com. http1AwvwpcntewiaeyM,. tune 19-20: Suet Painting May ]:Chamber Golf )6765090 Festival, Old Town Temecula. Artists Temecula Creek Inn, (909)fi765 should register early for best location& or e-mail melissa®tememla.org. (909) 556-1721, May 22 23: Western narks, Old hapJAnvw.tememlacalhomia.can. Town Temecula, includes gunfighter June 26-27: lavender Festival, campettion,(909)556-1721, Rusty Acres Herb Farm.(760) firpA nvuvremeadasalifomla.mm. 731-7349, httpJlwww.rusw&oe&com scn done chalkboard, "Ibis Truer words were never „ is re than a store, it's an art spoken. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of April, 2004. MOACTRPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report April / May 2004 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: May 25, 2004 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. Children's Museum This project will construct a 7,500 square foot children's museum. Building shell improvements is complete. Structural repairs are complete. Sparks Exhibits and Environments is working at completing the installation of the museum exhibits. See TCSD for progress report. 2. Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek This project will widen Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek 35 feet on the south and 15 feet on the north to provide four additional traffic lanes. The goal is to open the bridge in June, with the channel extending into late July. The allowable working days extend into September of 2004. 3. John Warner Road Assessment District Under this project an assessment district was formed. This district includes the construction of street and storm drain improvements in the John Warner Road area. All work on Lolita Rd. was suspended effective 4/1/04 following the discovery of a conflict with an RCWD water main. The redesign of Lolita was given to the design engineer, PDC, on 4/12/04, and the final redesigned roadway plan was received on 5/13/04. Roadway redesign was delivered to the contractor on 5/13/04and construction is anticipated to begin the week of 5/24/04. Most concrete driveway work on the remainder of the project is complete. Once construction of Lolita Rd. is complete, the project will be very close to completion. 4. Rancho California Road Widening & Median Modifications East of Ynez Road The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of the Town Center, while lengthening the leftturn lanes at Ynez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. In addition, a dedicated right turn lane will be added on the eastbound direction on Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Contractor R.J. Noble resumed work on Stage 1 construction (right -turn lane) on 4/5/04, only to find another conflict (existing traffic signal pole in the way of the new curb & gutter). So, after working for one week during the day, and constructing approx. 50% of the new curb & gutter, the job was shut down again. Volume of motorist complaint calls has increased dramatically due to all the periods of apparent idleness. All conflicts were resolved and relocations were completed the week of 5/10/04. Phase 1 construction is due to be completed the week of 5/24/04. Project is now on schedule to be completed by 7/30/04. R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc 5. Old Town Community Theatre This project will construct a 20,000 square foot community theater complex and refurbishes the existing Mercantile Building. The acquisition of 4th Street right of way is complete. All environmental permits have been obtained. Construction started on 3-3-04 and the allowable working days (14 months) extend to 4-13-2005. Work is progressing on the foundation systems and site utilities. 6. Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements — Phase II This project will construct the storm drain triple box culvert and the channel improvements north of Loma Linda. As part of this stage the entire Pechanga Parkway, Phase II project will be environmentally cleared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The construction contract was awarded to Yeager Skanska Inc. Construction began on May 10 and will be complete on December 14. The Infrastructure Funding & Acquisition Agreement for Wolf Valley Creek Channel (Stages 1 and 2) has been signed by the City and was scheduled for acceptance by the County Board of Supervisors at their May 4 meeting. 7. Slurry Seal Project - FY 2003/2004 This project continues the annual slurry seal program for City streets. Construction began on 04128/2004. All streets have been cleaned and crack sealed. Approx. 30 residential and 5 commercial streets have been slurried. Leighton has collected 2 slurry samples for testing. Project is on schedule. 8. Diaz Road Realignment Phase 1, Traffic Signals Under this project, two traffic signals will be installed, one on Diaz Road at Rancho Way and the other one on Rancho California Road at Business Park Drive/Vincent Moraga. Also, a northbound lane will be added on Diaz Road from Rancho Way to Via Montezuma (Low Flow Crossing). A Pre - Construction meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2004. 9. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) -Add Amenities This project will add amenities, including play equipment, to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm. Bids were opened on April 13 and the contract was awarded at the May 11, 2004 City Council meeting to Vido Samarzich Inc. for $327,081. A pre -construction meeting is scheduled for June 7th. 10. Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II This project will rehabilitate Jefferson Avenue from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road. The design includes a complete reconstruction of the road within the project limits. In addition, problematic driveways will be reconstructed. Some of the Right -of -Entry forms have been executed by owners and returned to the City. Bids were opened on May 18th and the contract is schedule to be awarded at the May 25th City Council meeting. 11. Landscaping and Sidewalk On SR 79 South (Old Town Front Street to Pechanga Parkway) The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, irrigation, and landscaping along State Route 79 South between Old Town Front Street and Pechanga Parkway. Bids were opened on 04/29/2004. C.S. Legacy is the low bidder on base bid (—$153k) and the alternate bid R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc (—$242k). Contract award is pending the Landscape Maintenance Agreement between the City and the CA Sunset HOA. Negotiations with CA Sunset continue. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS NONE PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements — Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City is working with Caltrans' Local Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to re-classify the Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project to a Categorical Exclusion with required technical studies (involving Federal action). The Planning Department completed Addendum No. 3 to the Wolf Creek EIR and the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the project. The Addendum and NOD were needed to satisfy all CEQA requirements for the project. Corps of Engineers is requiring that the City process an individual permit in addition to a nationwide permit for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel. This project was divided into two stages. The first stage is to construct the storm drain triple box culvert and the channel improvements north of Loma Linda. The second stage will construct the remaining street improvements and drainage structures. Construction of this stage will start once the first stage is completed. 2. Pechanga Parkway - Muirfield Drive Traffic Signal Under this project, a traffic signal will be installed on Pechanga Parkway at Muirfield Drive. The design kick-off meeting was held on 05/05/04. City staff met with the consultant to discuss the requirements of the project. The consultant will submit a preliminary design in a couple of weeks. 3. Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The City was approved for funding by the State on October 28, 2003. TCSD will coordinate the submittal of plans between the architect and the State. Public Works will take the lead on all utility issues, bidding, and construction management. The various utility issues are being addressed, i.e. services, protection, relocation.. Etc. The project will be advertised for bids once the plans are approved by the State and all issues are resolved. An agreement to design the Pauba Road Waterline Extension (to service the library) was approved and the design is underway. 4. Pauba Road Improvements — Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate R:\MontWyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are under review. Plans were sent to all utilities and utility issues are being addressed. Work is being coordinated with the library project, which resumed since State funds have been secured. A new RCW D waterline is under design to service the library project. It will tie into an existing line that ends just west of Margarita Road. 5. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. Staff prepared an amendment to the original agreement for the PS&E. Council approved the amendment that included a scope of work to complete the PS & E. The kick-off meeting was held and the design has now begun. 6. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way. The City Council approved the Conceptual Master Plan of the project and funding at the January 14, 2003 meeting. Project plans are back to consultant for corrections with 5th submittal scheduled for the last week in May. Coordination efforts with the developer and utility companies continue. 7. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek Project plans and specs are 100% complete and are ready to bid. Caltrans headquarters reviewer requested additional information which was provided on November 3, 2003. The project is waiting for Caltrans construction authorization. 8. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. Standard Pacific Homes is to post a deposit for the redesign of the station to better match their development architecture. Once the deposit is in place STK will commence making design revisions. It should be a 3-4 months process plus time for plan checks. 9. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." We are working with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Riverside County Flood Control to coordinate the trail design with the Murrieta Creek Improvement project. The City received comments from Caltrans on the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) on April 22, 2004 and is working on addressing them. The Natural Environmental Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES (MI)) was submitted to Caltrans on April 7, 2004, no comments have been received to date. The next meeting will be held in June. 10. State Route 79 South Medians Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula R:\MontlilyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc limits. The City Council approved a design agreement with Project Design Consultants (PDC) on May 27, 2003. Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula limits. PDC is making the 1st plan check corrections. 11. Guardrail Installation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road In this project, old guardrails will be replaced and new guardrails will be installed in needed locations on Rainbow Canyon Road within the City of Temecula. The City received and reviewed 50% design plans from the consultant. The revised PES was submitted to Caltrans. 12. Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Under this project, 10,000 square feet remnant parcel west of Front Street, which was created by the realignment of First Street, will be landscaped. Project Plans are back to the consultant for corrections with resubmittal scheduled for mid June. 13. Rancho California Road Widening, Old Town Front Street to 1-15 (Southside) This project will provide a right turn lane for southbound 1-15 motorists and explore the possibility of providing a dual left turn lane from westbound RCR to southbound Front Street. Alternatives study is complete and the City has chosen alternative no.1. (widen the south side of the entire length between Old Town Front and 1-15). An environmental assessment was sent to planning and work is progressing on finalizing a location for the wall and property acquisition. 14. Fire Station - Northeast Site (Roripaugh Ranch) This project will construct a new fire station in the north part of the City. The timing of the station will be impacted by the developer's ability to provide finished street grades, final site utilities, and finish all site grading. The building department has approved the plans; approval is pending from Fire, TCSD, and Planning. The grading plan is being revised for the second plan check submittal. The developer has agreed to provide site specific geotechnical report and perform the mass, rough and final grading of the site. PS&E approval and authorization to be bid is anticipated in June. 15. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. Project kick-off meeting was held on 1/29/04; design is currently underway. Design of bridge and scheduling of construction is contingent on US Army Corps of Engineers Murrieta Creek flood control project's schedule and configuration for Reach 2. Coordination with USACE is ongoing. Renderings of the proposed bridge structure reflecting the 'Old Town' theme have been reviewed by the City and fine-tuned; design consultant Simon Wong Engineering is now proceeding toward the 30% design phase. 16. Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting This project will add lights to the basketball courts at Vail Ranch Middle School. TCSD has selected the engineer for the lighting design. Dream Engineering is preparing lighting plans forfirst submittal. 17. Veteran's Memorial This project will construct a Veteran's Memorial next to the Duck Pond. The artist and the concept have been chosen. Public Since taking over the project from TCSD, a revised design proposal for the structural engineering for the memorial has been received by the City, and the field work for a preliminary soils investigation has been completed. The results from the soils investigation will be R:\MoothlyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc forwarded to design consultant, RBF, the week of 5/17/04; structural engineering work anticipated to be complete the week of 5/31/04, at which time the project should be ready for an informal bidding. Project is on schedule for groundbreaking on 7/6/04. 18. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. Business Park Drive will be a T-intersection at Diaz. The project is on -hold, except for the two traffic signals at Diaz Rd. & Rancho Way and Business Park & Rancho California Road. Right of Way acquisition process is ongoing. 19. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This projectwill widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. Itwill also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise Circle. In-house design and property acquisition process continues. In-house design and property acquisition process continues. City Council adopted the Negative Declaration document at the April 13, 2004 meeting and approved the median layout on Jefferson Avenue at the May 11 meeting. 20. Bus Bench Upgrades Under this project, bus benches and shade structures will be installed and existing ones will be upgraded at various locations. Project research on locations of current bus stops, existing bus bench/shade structures, bus bench/shade structure costs and RTA routes is complete. Bus bench/shade structure design and location options were reviewed and a report with recommendations was prepared. The design and locations were approved. Staff has begun preparing construction bid documents including ADA and permitting requirements. 21. Traffic Signal Installation — Citywide Under this project, traffic signals will be installed on Meadows Parkway at La Serena and at Rancho Vista. Staff met with representatives of Temecula Valley Unified School District on November 20, 2003, to obtain their input on the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and La Serena. Thereafter, a preliminary plan was forwarded to the Traffic Division for approval. Final revisions to the plans and specifications are being completed for bid in June 2004. 22. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2003/ 2004 This project continues the annual pavement rehabilitation program for City streets. The project was defined. It includes rehabilitating the pavement on Diaz Road and on Ynez Road. Limits matching the budget are being identified. Requests for as-builts were sent to all utilities. EnGEN is scheduled to perform geotechnical investigation of Diaz Rd pavement and VERIZON trench. A PO is being processed by Finance. 23. Localized Storm Drain Improvements This project will fix various minor drainage problems in the City. A field review with PW Maintenance Division was conducted on 01-27-2004. Potential sites are: (1) Front Street, concrete cross -gutter; (2) East side of Ynez north of Rancho Cal; (3) East side of Vincent Moraga south of Rancho Cal; and (4) Business Park Drive north of City Hall. We received "as-builts" from all utilities. We are preparing a conceptual design for presentation to MWD. R:\MonthlyActivityReport\C[P\2004\April-May.doc 24. Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road This project will construct an access road to the Long Canyon Detention Basin being maintained. Preliminary research is being performed in order to begin preparing plans. 25. Citywide Concrete Repairs - FY 2003/ 2004 This project continues the annual Citywide concrete repairs program for City streets. Authorization to Bid is going to the May 25, 2004 City Council meeting. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/ SR 79 South interchange -Project Study Report (PSR) This project will modify the 1-15/ SR 79 South Interchange to accommodate projected future traffic. The City will proceed with the modified alternative #5. The Project Study Report has been approved by Caltrans. The next step is to start the process for the Project Report phase. 2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/1-215 split. The consultant continues to work on the Project Report. Currently, the consultant is working on some additional traffic studies that both FHWA and Caltrans required. Also, the consultant is finalizing their comments from the Value Analysis and the Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshops. We are also continuing to pursue the acquisition of a number of properties to protect them from development. 3. City Maintenance Facility and Corporate Yard Under this project, an expansion of the maintenance facility will be built on the property adjacent to City Hall. Planning and programming phase will be complete by the end of May. Once the master plan is approved, the consultant's contract will be amended so the design development and construction drawings can move forward. Construction will be completed in phases with phase one being the parking lot which can be utilized as overflow parking for City Hall. Phase two will expand the present maintenance yard and phase 3 will construct a maintenance building. 4. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. In addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. In order to proceed with the design of Diaz Road Extension for the proposed college, the alignment study will restart with the existing information. R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON -HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane project at the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit -ramp at the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway Interchange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to accommodate the new Interchange. This project is suspended indefinitely. R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\2004\April-May.doc 00 LL O W Q a fI V Cw G w H LL O H U Q 0 N O H w w N N N w I� V O w a Y J 2 H z OC L N H U w n w a N H z w 2 LU Q N u� o M C c(0 O O 0 8 m_ T ym 0 Ul c m O d$ y v a pN m CO g T- C C a -; m o N S N U C J w ny V)O UNC< O>y ,OJ m OD a m a�"w 2 N�WU J a CNm OOND w3wm ( p LO NxCc mO0S ayami 41 nE8 m C E OmV —c d°' QauW�eB J NOO`T C Uucc Dmm —�m am ac o` c w om.�3`EJ8w o.y T tv hwwur 0 o 1VNCm,W o ai a 2w m od> vw oa yQ wm E_ 8Eo o o Dm` U oc>� acLN >M-0Vm� O W � � E = 0 m a m >E 5 15 Om o15 o m E vNa„+ N>>N?Nw8m� 2E2 ci a ~ o mLv N °>> E '3— o m d Ea (�m m o aE 8 _Q0 mmm 0 2 N E yw Qnavc„ E°cco o m- a$� io c E5 Edom a 0 n in m Wm Eam.E— 4mE oc3w 0 Eco3 E 1E cm 0 m x— wm 08mNm Ew .� .0 O OL8E$oOa ' A O.E m ny Ca.oaNw8wonh_ NVOadTmccO>-i C H m >OdC'y m a wm N O O 3- 0 5 O ' CU w O m O w M O o R 6 Ch N = WD Qa Z �oo > c Od ;o am3a .p aa o wn o c m m • cmE O `C N83E E n o3 En> m crn2 w A mM _ Ea.52 o ° ?d `o Wx L wrnt o 3: o 0m w Dm'e am c m m F >< W J O a m ao O 3rn r � mo m a w w op c 2 0 9 D m t w a O N m m O 8 9 >+ 68 1o° C N mC $m o Dw E Um W yC Na C0 0 Nc wmwLrnJ J MM 88Em ¢00 ci' 8m8 UmwE at W 16 v a W m` ri ri m` 3 > z N N m 0 a' Z = > o o > > ` m caa N m a o C 3 zi�n+ > c w a a v E o oo cN m W F V ye c m m r E`° 0o 0 W a ct o aci E coao ym to >>rnE16 m rM m (O Z a > u> N W ❑ c m U W--m L> g 0 m p N vv n O N AU � ry)N c w W w m m e c O.O mc c y J c Z 1p Q J t\ vi M o c 00 w c' a m 3md E 'o v s po is OW $ m mw C m Y E Eo Na� c = Y N } co M yN U O J LLy V I� N c E Jw U K m o m w w K O 1 !� m E m y 3= TC m m ^' �'- w 2 ore .m �- ow'—° EU 1Ud ami Qa m 75 r °c c ° m mbco Nm m8EE E 2 Lc a > mm Ecm U� 222 1 OU3 a>HKV NQ a Z a U O 0 N O M M 4 w V Q 3 O 3 O 3 q a O a a 3N a a a a G 00 LL O N w Q a D C.) W 2 w H LL 0 Q O N Of e- O r W W N N CO) NW LL w a `1 It J S N Z 0 H V w 0 Oc a L) H Z w 2 W 0 w a a C ma� t0a O m > o n c 0 3 O u0J o,Q y� 0 N m CO W d LNry E a Yol yam` ` ❑ y L m L_ C E O' �' C N O O m p d (n C m 7..` m U H (- `� N p N C d U L o aymmCrHa o ` 0�o «3 Orm3 ,nc m0mZ0 p3 5�w m3�c xym iovmmn mmur`J3 dN5myam—HnOo` a,ammmmmm oDm a 1' LD « O'yo Zwo U o 'c$Do aQi' om aNNrm2i602 m L FL c� px a ommMOvc a mcn vam v=U z W m0E o 00 am J - L m o 8 L mN m U a CL L E o m .M O >p myg�uNyEN@ JL TDc F' >Ey C0 O 0 EO mO E aWO 006M cQc NO3o m m r .T9 Q c Uj a Z oH>o 3 c IO N c= omm 0 O Ty _ En maD p2omaN' mNN 0co0, CmpNrnVmo>c OC d cof w, E 5. w 4 m 0.9 c n 0 nc % N am O6 a m m OV w- O m L B m U«QOm6>mc>n` m 0J m « m m m 9E«£ a02 m mm U L d O« �Z E iamm UCD L.«mo8m o«oa p 0 >w m p N�N m O� mvO O o E cdm o2o wu E > m '-ama f«,ow C an m >>x>cno V. acE E N d m a Do O m mE o ny o -p �rn >m$ S-H8� mO a w ETv N2 omi p r y «> Q mmm mmrn o j mo£ � "a$ 9y« ° ma Cc 3 mo o 250 � 09v .gmc U a cc, 3 (J`o. m yq o o cm a 3 E m o am! E o0!x U?80n o �iE aEncD 04 e U W W z m m m > m 0 N x O IO N 0 a z U N m > m > > Q W 0 — L 22 m ¢> t rn Q �Oldc z� c 0.� -2m n F� u ow c NW !C O .7 (n m L rn a m c F �z = �� 3a 0 �t� > WO O U m m >Y mx °'i» x ax m 1p ci dma� E 2',3 o �o [rS a1.IL a m0Lm, m cri > 'ET O rpmo aof 2oniaZ E mN m8 m UaE�NN� E o eo U V 5 a 8 LL,N Zom TU�' -�m - M VO pQ a-t s»p Q.. m. JC aw (z jm a Ow am mwmc me mJ K H RR c m —mE @ E °1 c rn r m 'wg Q m �=lc uc EL m 'mEE ��pp mp m00 (7 lV 0 m m 0 mo 12 m o � alu p a a a a a a s 3 3 a a a a O LL O M W Q IL f� V w z w F LL O 7 O O !V H O H w Iw V/ w w a `3 r J 2 H z O 2 fA F- V w ON w IL w z w 2 w O w a Q F- H �NN m cm £ c c U 9L` Kc oa Um `m o �� E 2 w E oy mt £O o oc c�L°vo ro� > mo.o Eaa Gmi,,°3a,3 a E 0$ c 3 V)nE 'E a.:0-0 3 a a c to m E o U m L m 5 N w L m c D m m �+ 'w .c o 2 a c_ Q- a a t E ;o m g r c U a_ E m rn r$ c t o n u. m i- o in « v E E y E a __ T« u_ m E rn o $ u D y L.. 'O t c O V$ `o 'm m ° o E 12 E E y pE m O O C C m J y c an d ° E m c a N E m N 21 0- to u$i3 g3��oM mY w U o m.�cNc� Ko m L m m2o Ls7.j m __ o m v o; c v'� c m O 3 d o o m m c o m of a_ c W_ m e 3 N . c c a; c O m m C n$ c m m y m a t y m A --� �° �° N Z m D E N O '° `O '� E �c w o m «� N ton m9E L m3 `" O m �- J J y C v a n O 3 c 'm 0 a c 2 n a m 2' ° c N c m U m £ o N N(1 0 Q n v $ S H W J a y ym8m o rnarn c o t« a€ coo �' OJ O m y m `L.o crD pp oc 'm m a fnt JJ $ O N O c Nm�L �� D pp myD t� m C m—C O "Ny C Ud jOE'4= m$ C C pp CCU O NNtpCm Vl a m C y .0 C; .� V— m a m m W 3 ° m C= 6 O m O J- 6 �j yj 8 N O¢ W E.GCW C C 2 C Y 'V! m E LL —O L O "' w° �• m a m m U m 6 F wNa ct 2) m$i$ oo E=3 mmc ¢o2'a>o« rn �Twc c v cm E a" e c c a.IE cU o0 Tw v n ❑ n..� :: �' 'Zo c m c i, m m 'cc m c> mm $ U a @ E '� o inm °'-' E �Jo E v D cm a F 'z e o'S V% b gca 3m ocm O Q o,,, 6 C yoy�R_ C_L�n J mTt H '"' m aV _ O aU dcc m OI 8 °JcNm O m OI N O y o ._ m >.o �'o; L c m m$A N m c 5 J y n C m N Q U _ c EZ3m — ;a m ma C >+ Y c O m C d� m m 0' L ~ E'uoi N n m O 8 O m m y t C' ~ C ,1N--. > m O N 01 J ao 2�v ma C m °J Ev'a 'gym$ a�i `m ri y 9 Y E>cm' L 2 C f oao `" E m oa O L m oT co m O p m y O ° E a c m mcm m °� n o Nmo m L °gym° 3 o E 0 m EJ c J mN D m J '> ro d m N m m c m E Djp m m a '> N u 'y E c o,LLc>EDm c Z, m W s uJi 90 m y a N D� Ti d m o Lmc a m a" v0 o d 10c 2 c 9m� m£°.m E d� :_£ ao �m Z'rnmv E 3 o im E_ m m N c m° m oDr.'_^m m° m 0 y o c $ N@ d c cmD L ;° o m c 3 m U c'w^>_ Q m nH 2W N o n°m 3 .O 5 0 uENyc m= n a x n 0 _o Do E am mo � m E m � m E E ayi - 8 �m Y o n. � m a 0 '«';.,m J m E °. 2'mm > E iL- JR, m N J Ji,r� c m 'O Z L EE'o-- m p E C m U a da..� p y m a f/1 C m U Z` a p N m L m m �x'^>-'� _ m J Qo E N m m J•-.. N L n a m Q m c J �_ " m J m m w m L> m c Z m c c t y._ L` U a,_.- c L E owHaa.. N t « 0 c c f-fn se a3 m to mui aNm°.L omtoD 3 aF-WUZ ODD 0E H 73d m- V F a W A Z n N M r N C U m o M b M W a o m o n o U� E., a U m Zcm �pN d �qN a) r yT A ;N 9 W m N J N J 10 q Q Z > q m ri z m m m q N m N m m S O L9 >� C W C W m 0 C 9 9 3 Oa 00 �� H ¢' 3 0 ° ° � o ° m D C LL N z- o N C F. V ui w c U O $ L? m6 v V E U m o c cO1 D a a a a a a. N v v Gr] di12N c > x E an d y 0 ,Nm, m o� m.m� _ £ pi QO y.-. O c S m na E o Y wY rnamc m �`° JO imo a o c Lo m v.° Z V EZ� > ac c m c aUm 5 Oa m o UOU $ ° ° -ar °,moi L EEms ��-O amo y o d i W Ew o 3 s m CO J m aJm n KE Uo i m 2 o _ o o > > � c U'fcl m m C .E�'m U m Nm O M. O = .Em 2OO O HC L J o v ru f NU Fo o Y co0u��cNc° C- a O Z Q a o a a a a a a a a a a. c co -4 LL NO� W W) O IL R :.i W 2 W F LL O 9 T w W 2 C0 'CO) V/ W w CD w a Y J 2 H z O 2 N F U W 0 lz a N F- z W 2 W O It IL J m O Q IL 6 m m C «L. ntE� $ $E ° oH�c4u° 3my ct m~�n`c_ omoaic E= vg mm C)E0 2'aE EmEc a8m3 v mcn =mqw' m mmmncE a5n omdm8m �_3 Uo- NN3cm m ❑w m y 12 c$ m m, O ❑ " ocWaoum$i mn 'm mmc$ ay E D E cT Mm ym5 o cm a y m' � Eo=w da° a'nE �E ' amaam $oo mm =>m>>'>n m m ClArt ma LD 3Dm ayN m c D vam m cO $T y > L O m 0 am mnd mna Nm EN Ca C =a i N O m OO m E aE9 O 2O C O m 3vrm-D].E C o m ❑L m D m S WC E=DyO O O Cm QE 2 EE 5 aL Bm aW¢ m o E a o>nm E m 0 EaL °� � ow yo Z mm c2 Eam c mo -a«2LDC 2m$ ❑3i'So D0L, m3 UQ a m n oN mE mtc m x o NNnn E oacNm 0° 3mm > n o s 3 - Z o LLL W= n m ENJN=mNm.. NF a j NL m N O w5L E C Oaam a aNN2 D n �❑m� N °O'mNdcm m mL 2 N' > U O N rytm~N m O aC yy C m m D 2aC $ m O m O ?ymZ E wmOE m O m m.S L Eodax y aO'$n wa m °5``c Nz a„ dO m u M c v t o T¢ eU>m'y'c W odruma m ❑ I o mm o ww3 3D a E2 mn❑ a J= m 3 m a a� e e e a a a a a a a o z z z z z z z O a a e o o m O N A q a m 9 D = U' O O N T+N m Q 6 ° L m m C m N FL L C o w - W O O C C Y d agg C% A N m �- oo o UN�a m > a m m m c' = d 0 Z F m m > ° o u O m o a Q y o a c W aq o t F z v E =^.._ a a 62 E ° fl m m m La o Tm is L y qZ a m c mmrp i m KU ��d o, ❑ mmm�oo ap V mad N mE c m L U N N LIJa a m ❑ 9 L U caa m N N wN C a ❑ J N m� J � m 0 K A d m; I C m m � o o E s o o" _N E m o a s m W a - ca - - - - a V LU R 4 o 0 99 4 4 ggym a a a a a 3 3 a a a s a a a a a 0 m o a O LL O O W Q IL .f U w 2 W H LL O H c) G O N Of O H W W y N W {/ a Y 3 J 2 F Z O N H U W O w a Z LU 2 W O a o m o G c o $ v aa Oad m>r«- 3 " ro ncn m Q E E 8 - Am m cm Em dm E n c �oE MS cy0 mE E � w`o Qa 5wo v o w Eo~°ommS.$ m rn n c f U mo m m5o copL m o a °2� oU y._>E co a Ff- nnm $ ikNC7 n5v m om $0 �. .m C �m° o _m o a U T LL' y c 0 �pm N C U L U 0 00 0 o aU "Qj Em im E c$ rn A r -` c m a�L°'?° mnU 03m m dM€mN_m 3 c W m O MO O3 C L O3 aa°O La �Day mLOC 0 m N m m n C 0 m O c 15 ° 0 0 O m mp mL 9 9 ES�o r,l miC E 0 LL _c mS oC c LG 2 y m ��. m £ w '� m e 0 O m 3 a m a€> 5 0 0°€ Q 0 c o$ o Z w C 3 c v Q 3 E d p cp o n$ c O E a 'm' a Q $_ p `m m 0 c 'O T 2 C s E �' a LL C O L 0 0 L_ U r W m => T 0 '-' 3 U E C OI O N O m n a om Oc oQ E°c Em8 mmmmL CL 1f- oc m£ _Nm Som�ra mt Ea�$90 SIN Ef-WR m'�m5m o�o.vm0w U U v �° `';e mumi0 E�0 Uov mJe+ca `m m .ocrvd Nm 2'� E-ac o omiE T d o `o m w'�odmmo y 2 9 y a T 3 o C n v c n E c0t4Eoi. °•$ 5 c o m w o y 3 c$ T;,= 0 c u u _p o LL 3 c m N 'C m m Q C N Q O d C L C m H 'O C b 2 C dYf 9 N W` r0 m W .� m m 0 2 0 E m.h _N m N ` O O� .E £ t a Y '� N n N C N c E rn m u n o E m `= W _� n° C E o co £ Q a a o m u a a a Q F m m 0 0 0 F 8 U> 3 n 10 0 00 O L 0 a 5 a U 3 5 a n O J 0 0 0 W 0 H LL' U n U m o 3 O C F- 0 ¢ o m m K � n 0 z 0 z �V 'z 00 a z 3 z z C Uww p 0 E 1°Qimo 0o a50, w 5 m c n W m N Q y m N N 2 m n m N 0 a o 4 � Z y v t C LL K o O m C F.. o 0 rn d C m a o y u 0 in c = A U O a N c Q m 4 v E c q.. 0 C y LLmsg� m0 my ci oE EZF j4F_L] F[^JJ z2 9m coO- oT WN C '2 N ❑mmC NC LL gymC. a>`a�- 0 U ` y mL m C O LL' 00 T- CD U� rC maZ Um �C NO 0 c W.0 U no 4 K'3- (n tL y p& 4g o 05 (2 > �' J 3 m N N C` 0 IL V 0 J ULL = -U LL �� U m �H DU �► LL f N O a :E Lu m 0 a m 1 c 'p a a 4 a a d 1 E t'q E 4 as av o ac 0 m 0 m o f `o 0 a Go O LL N 0 OI !O � W p a IL tI V w 2 w H LL O H w w fA N N w w a Y J 2 H z cO L H v w O w IL `N r z w 2 w O w a Q Q U m `o o a o m o c c L10 m Q g o C C N U 'fie 'v 2 0 2 _N nL N 3 m n ow m m.Q O W 3 2 m `v E n o o m w N m 2 N a m r m m W u m » m 3 m N a m E m @ m « n ii W n n m y m E2 2? n« m o o a m m c a oa`y.� wm U9 Lu ia mmm 3m m dj m i� m v'o m 2 w a c a E 00 oaaNd um my 'mom F'c mC� mdti dY ° m55 3pn dW < UU EA E °'O m 2 m�vomo 00 y 6 m°N� m>5 rm m U n0 c c 5 ca H o _ a W J a N N O Q m O O o N po H m ry cc m e i� K `y N n E o n E °m UN9'tZ ii m $ .�LLa 3LL°$ mUc 3:=-c m D U 10 N 10 6 O.`� EE 8E3c L H �T3c� 2= m W 8 "oE IG 6 Qf 3> U 2@ Nm 3g3 _N y �33E n° N Z'm d m c c5 m'O c yam °w mU mE �'°N 2�'$y3L« `'i m Em 4 m - o mco co wo mda om �u mo am a c = > m 2 2 °� o�mo c a2m O HE �'a ow > IL IL za z 'z z 'z z 'z 'z 'z 'z 'z 'z 3 z z z (u Y c w o n n n e c U - a: U N � N N q d ryry L F a Z C d C m C 0 C d C m J W m .602`Q --E C O � T a J y w- O C Z:n O c U 2 V mm o m (4 EHd O c 9 c m a a a m m EL 0 m m T N W c N tu m C m C IV u y m Q c f a N w0 E m o m W— (� >K m LL�w q U0.aaCoU' w c e 0 m aZJY(�.I m -y �aDyn.. y c >2mm n Nd NyWCm' . mc2C9 m w « 30' v Nd m E cmN m d0 Z E m m3 Wm m c IT O LO > o oU :°m t c d° W oaE> cv EQ . ME LNd Km$ .cocm Lo piyQal'� E m �2 t v m E m W m 9LLNmm �m cmm C O E m> Eom = W 'S mz3Emc) ; 1 U 25v2 �mLL�m F � Q � z O Q z q CO) > a a a ' W LL O t` w Q a r i V w 2 w H LL O V O O Of O w w y N y w w 0 w IL Y J 2 H z O U) F- V w O w a U) Z w 2 w O IL Q c D N a O m d U Ol N a o 'y N w y �N O 3:6 L 20a N JO_Ev°'w$U m �O C E mw ~ m m N m D N mCO t0L�q ad 0`�c r QmE im3 L° m 3 m > 20 D m :?a3 n m o m `o d $ w E m$ 3 N a 3 m m m n m J a c c d c n m c n c Q ' Q a m a 6 0.9 � o $ v D m o 7 ndmK�Ecc�Umoy 0 « y mU > om oto Q Eoa OaKnmJ Qn0mm M mom O C.) «i.m mo m O. � N N UpC mmm E C d E m O - J� .0Oy° E m o / y n v a O UQm H m- mN oc m no o ni» _> CL mmm 3 o c o JD .�°om 7 0 D pon o.ECJ L: c oZ m - C Q � 0ca H m° 2M o� aE mo m m a ° E � ana�m UU€«'3yDui V°�omO�mmCNEJO m mQm = 3ma m3v m2 M E co daJdCmm_ JpUA o c It W O o J dJN m 0 2€ OO C O OONmLcm¢mO r° L m ' M pm0 IT Z0 C Cmc« OYO 'go l C D n$mJ -0 —w am OO N J E m C 6 j O m U�$wmJTcai Uo o c p nQ °E Sm'c o Ly=1m o � rn v6 u o ovcc� cycamm o L a o w w a�co« c o ° m a mWao wo 0 m > i °Lm i'0 c � m naEc �> nm E yut.��_o om o E E mym > amQ>E m-mnn 0D8'O3mm m x Mx m K o OM L:wK Lm 7?y m a m o cL m ¢ mamL ow c m U3 �i e Q a a a ' a a a a a e z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z pa U `'° a a F. z z W z z z z z z z z W z m O a c O c O Ue a J z o e o o c o o c o 0 0 o m `u m ^ a Z m g 3 m 0 d 3 d .' m 3 m m 3 ,m_ ! m m EE J m 3 ° x C m m C Q f' a m @ m w o W m -0O m L O (A C O c m O m m m '' C C m d N ee m R a C m U.¢ a 0� `0E J m E N T LM 2 E 'a o N Z Oul a LLm m d 3W m ii r� E K K m c m £ wO w$' m E�°°� ° m LL m0 arnW m inn m o f �+ c c m n O E f(Qmt12cJ�' �yULpOmmni W DHC�Dwim cmo z O0Ua[•» a_9_m-Ot Sc Em m w 0 d U `yVyOa4` O m at m X O ma'a M CO aT UC Dmo K2E mNpm Mn w r 0, WD 0M cU sCONc mCECcmc c O 9mLEEmam 9mEwm �cEiom� amT' Cwm maOayitw WmcOc��r, -2 QE O'E L0 °' J7 a E= ? z m12 c o T L Ta _ o� m T 0 ama U E WCL-O m aW mo F 4 O Q M T �,J N O O O O O N O N a 4 is 00 (L i § 2 � LL � u IT cli § § w 0 � IL 0 � � z 0 � k w § a § 2 LU CL Ix k k _ \ _ )�[ ` «i® 0 !c 2! 2 !!f . , !■s /\[ ;r] ° ( laE,�\� Of . \ \.1,\0 �2 0m ° E°{!\!® ei { 0 -W v ))){)2 �E /\t r r 91 0 } J» 8� w k 7 f; a ! E� ($ ) k) M / \ B �k( )/ \ / K § _ k . ; 7 » REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: 7-5 r6- ( Name �/ ", M (aiKL rJ Phone: / J � State/Zip:�/i If you are representing an organization or group, please give The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date For Subject: I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Against Name: lrfi (%G Address:City/State/Zip Phone: � If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The Mayor or presiding officer will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go the public podium and state your name and address for the record. V(�=NTo SPEAK EMECU A f l V After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date Q I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Address: - City/State/Zip: � iY�or qasye7 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: �<� 6 �s ri r��s of S'tllLhttlr�S-t ('CW))-J The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. -Pu b116ce '�X'Vt eA4 Date I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. .l>-V� For Against Subject: Address: City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter%omes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA aAfter completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 1 �nr p �� \ ' \ 0 `r I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Pu is 66 m4wc For Against Name: Ag�'`(Lk —S oto Q') Phone: Address:3 Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 5- �d I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Cob Cd"✓ne,14 For Against Subject: Name: (ta�G(i, J�X Phone: Address: City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You, Date S- as-- 0* 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No For Against Subject: STOP S/DNS — — '( 4YI14 Name: Rob L-i1A1ZA Phone: Address: - City/State/Zip /&tilercazf7 ) GA . 9159/ If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date S / ate/ / I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: ✓7 �i 1 /�.nLli�<Ol9i io.r Name: L7A4 Phone: Address: City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. r 1 Date Z Ma-) Zoat4 I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Jul' �^^ For (( Against ff Subject: V)(t , hw '� Name: lL feA- L •�«av,.���r Phone: State/Zip: 6i o� l If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: CA R- V6Lcc� C'/ The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record.